|
THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Thomas Arnone
Richard Szewczak
Robie Staples
MEMBERS ABSENT: Louis V. Tallarita
Michael Mosschetti
Robert LeMay
David J. Wawer
ALSO PRESENT: Steven Sadlowski, Wetlands Agent
Susan Berube, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 7:01 p.m.
2. Pledge Of Allegiance:
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
3. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Staples, and Szewczak. Also present were Steven Sadlowski, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
4. Hearing(s):
IW#453 – Town of Enfield – Modification of Existing Permit – Proposed stream channel maintenance and restoration involving channel dredging and clearing, excavation and grading within 100 feet of a watercourse. Activity located on properties North of Yale Drive and East of Hillyer Drive and between Yale Drive and Broad Leaf Lanes. Map 19, Lots 153-156, 199-201, and 210-211:
Mr. Jeff Bord, Engineer for the Town of Enfield, represented the applicant.
Mr. Bord explained that he is requesting a modification of the existing permit. The modification is to improve the existing channel from Broadleaf Lane to 46 Yale Drive. There will be a gabion and retaining wall at #46 Yale Drive.
Agent Szewczak requested additional information on the profile.
Mr. Bord explained that that a public informational meeting was held about 1 month ago for the residents affected by this project. The profile has a positive grade from one road to the other, with a ½% minimum slope.
A temporary road will be constructed along the channel to remove debris and bring in rip rap and then the road will be removed and the area loamed and seeded. A wetlands grass seed mix and lawn seed mix will be used as shown on the map.
The channel bottom will range from 9’ to 15’ in width.
In response to a question by Agent Szewczak, Mr. Bord went on to explain that the east portion of Meadowlark will be 9’ wide and it will be 13’ wide from Broadleaf to Yale Drive.
Currently, the elevation is not level and the water meanders through a grass swale. A permanent lined channel is needed.
It will have a 6” stone base with filter fabric over it, then modified rip rap, 18” deep will be place on that, as shown on the plans. The rip rap will be 1 ½’ deep on the channel slopes.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the stream bed would be moved at the 90 degree turn.
Mr. Bord explained that it would be moved only at #49 Yale Drive. The Town has a drainage easement that runs parallel to the property line and the channel runs in a “kitty corner” direction. The stream will be moved to correspond with the easement and will give the owners more useable yard area. The channel is, for the most part, within the easement, except at this location.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if problems will be created further downstream because of this change.
Mr. Bord stated that there will not; the water will follow the channel.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the channel will be armored sufficiently to handle potential erosion.
Mr. Bord replied that it will. There will be a curvature, not an angle. There could be turbulence but the rip rap will have sharp edges to handle it.
Agent Szewczak asked if it would be wiser to extend the armored material further up the slope.
Mr. Bord stated that this yard is more flat. The channel is 13’ wide in this area and the slope will be at ½% and will not have a high velocity. He will, however, look into widening out the rip rap area a few more feet.
Agent Arnone expressed concern with the curve and asked if reinforcement around the corner would be appropriate, such as fencing. He is concerned with preventing problems in the future, perhaps ten years or more down the road. He also asked if the footbridge is still present.
Mr. Bord responded that the foot bridge has been removed.
Agent Staples asked if all abutters have been notified.
Mr. Bord replied that they all received certified letters. The receipts have been submitted for the record.
Agent Staples, referring to the map, asked if the shed will be in the way.
Mr. Bord replied that it is far enough away and that there is an existing stone wall behind the shed. The project will include grading into the yard but not that far.
Mr. Sadlowski asked if the new safety fence should be further from the water line, behind #51 and #62.
Mr. Bord stated that those are existing fence. They will be taken down and put back in the same place after construction. No additional fencing is proposed.
Mr. Sadlowski suggested that it be installed further from the water line.
Mr. Bord stated that it should be out of the flow if it is re-installed where it currently is placed.
Mr. Sadlowski asked if the mature trees by the gabion wall will remain.
Mr. Bord replied that one clump of trees will be removed for construction of the gabion wall. Any other trees that are within 7’ of the channel will also be removed for installation of the rip rap.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if there are any photos of the area available.
Mr. Bord stated that he will bring some to the next meeting.
Agent Arnone noted that a fence is depicted on sheet #2 and asked if any will be installed at the gabion wall.
Mr. Bord responded that the owner of 346 does not want a chain link fence. He would like to have the wall extended up 1’ so that no one can walk off of the lawn.
Agent Arnone replied that it is a steep drop, possibly creating a safety and liability issue.
Mr. Bord stated that he will look into the regulations to see if a fence is required.
Agent Szewczak suggested that perhaps the fence could be more decorative than a chain link fence.
Mr. Bord stated that he doesn’t believe there will be a regulation for the fence. This is not a building being constructed. He will see if the owner would be more agreeable to a picket or short stockade type fence. He added that the owner, Mrs. Prouty, was unable to attend this evening.
Mr. Sadlowski asked if the project will include the use of any coffer damns or pumps.
Mr. Bord stated that pumps will be used as needed. The water will be pumped into a protected outlet area with silt fence and hay bales. Details will be shown on the plans.
Agent Arnone requested that spill protectors such as absorbent pads under the pumps be used.
Mr. Bord agreed to add this also to the plans.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Bord stated that funding is not yet in place for the project, however, it is anticipated that funds will be included in the upcoming 2007/08 fiscal year budget.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked how big of a section will be done at one time.
Mr. Bord stated that it is anticipated that a few hundred feet will be done at a time. He also stated that silt fence, check dams and hay bales will be added downstream.
Agent Arnone asked if the residents affected by this project have been educated on the reason for use of the wetland seed mix and the Agency’s request that the area not be mowed?
Mr. Bord replied that he hasn’t spoken to any individuals regarding this. It was brought up during the first public hearing. This requirement could be added to the easement.
Agent Arnone added that residents will also need to refrain from dumping debris and to be encouraged to have only limited mowing.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall agreed and noted that the residents need to be educated prior to the easement process.
Mr. Sadlowski noted that condition #15 of the original approval stated that mowing is to take place only once per year and educational materials are to be provided to residents as well.
At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the hearing for public comment.
Ms. Margaret Boyer of 62 Broadleaf Lane feels it is unacceptable to be able to mow only once per year. She mows at least 3 times per month.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall explained that the “no mow” area is only a limited area, not the entire back yard.
Mr. Sadlowski added that the now mow area is only a 5’ section from the waters edge – at the edge of the channel.
Agent Szewczak added that the 5’ area will be planted with a wetland seed mix. It is compatible with the fine grass as seen in wetland soil types, as a transition from water to lawn area.
Mr. Boyer, 62 Broadleaf Lane stated that he has maintained his yard for 15 years and never had a problem. Now, since told he could not mow his yard, his dog has ticks.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, referring to a comment made by Agent Szewczak regarding this application going to Planning & Zoning Commission, stated that the project will not be heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission and that installation of a fence would be an issue for the IWWA since it is within a regulated area.
Mr. Boyer explained that he gave the Town permission to enter his property to correct the situation. To date they have removed approximately 20’ of fence.
Agent Arnone stated that Mr. Bord will work with Mr. Boyer to make sure that the fence is properly replaced.
Ms. Patty Vinehaven stated that she loses part of her yard every year because of erosion. She asked if any trees in her yard will be lost because of the construction of the temporary road.
Mr. Bord showed her property on the map; no road will go through there.
Ms. Vinehaven also asked why a culvert is not to be installed. She added that she installs fill every year to reclaim her hard but it falls into the brook.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall explained that this is why the plan is being presented. By using rip rap and armoring the channel and slopes, the flow will be slowed. By eliminating vegetation along the banks, the watercourse will not become clogged.
She added that culverts and piping are not a current remedy. A culvert does not allow infiltration and it carries the problem downstream.
Agent Szewczak added that bare earth being added to the slope will not be able to stay because there are no roots to hold it. The wetlands seed mix to be planted will have a root base to hold the soil. Maintaining the wetland seed mix will help stop erosion. This plan should stabilize the area and eliminate the soil erosion.
Agent Arnone added that if a culvert were installed, the water from the yards would have nowhere to go and yards would be in worse shape. The rip rap being installed will allow the water to disperse.
In response to a question asked by Mr. Boyer, Mr. Sadlowski stated that homeowners are not allowed to create any disturbance that would cause erosion. He provided his business card to Mr. Boyer.
Mr. Bord stated that the channel was plugged prior to the cleaning. It is now cleaned and with a positive slope, the water should not come up as much or cause erosion. It will come up during larger storm events but will go down quickly. The rip rap will come up 7’ from the center line of the channel.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall read into the record a letter from William & Constance Harmon of 51 Yale Drive.
In response, Mr. Bord stated that the cleaning of the channel will lower the water table at the channel. The area has a high water table. The work that was done should help the Harmon’s situation.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall agreed, noting that a letter earlier this year from Mr. David Askew had stated that the water table has been at historic high levels.
Mr. Bord added that the water in the channel flows better now than it has in the past 20 years.
Mr. Bord, in conclusion, stated that he will try to get the Department of Public Works to seal off the fence for the Boyers for now. The fence will be permanently replaced after the completion of the project.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted for the record, the submission of the sign in sheet from the public informational meeting of November 8, 2006.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Staples to continue IW#453 to the meeting of January 16, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 4-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 8:02 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 8:02 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, Staples and Szewczak. Also present were Steven Sadlowski, 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 discussed:
Received for the December 19, 2006 meeting:
· Copy of email from CT Planning Professionals at UConn regarding Wishnafski vs. Columbia, CT IWC;
· Copy of December 7, 2006 Municipal Management Bulletin;
· Storm water Management Plan for the General Permit for the Discharge of Storm water Associated with Commercial Activity- provided by Mr. Sadlowski for Agency members’ review;
· Notice of Workshop: Effective Meetings and Parliamentary Procedure to take place on February 27, 2007;
· November/December issue of Connecticut Wildlife
Discussed correspondence received from previous meetings:
· Letter from Attorney Parakilas requesting release of landscape bond; Mr. Sadlowski stated that he has visited the site and will be returning there soon. This item can be discussed at the Agency’s January, 2007 meeting;
· Information from NEMO
· Information on Storm Sceptors
· Notice of violation at 30 Parker Street. Mr. Sadlowski explained that this is in response to a complaint by the D.E.P. for dumping. He hopes to hear from the owner soon. The site has a steep slope and there are wetlands at the bottom. There is also a tree fort and paint ball area that need to be addressed.
6. Commissioner’s Correspondence:
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall read an email from Mr. Angus, dated November 6, 2006, thanking the Agency members for his nomination for Wetlands Agent of the Year and for his time working with the Agency members.
7. Approval of Minutes –December 5, 2006:
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Szewczak to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 5, 2006 with the following amendments: page 5, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, after “alternatives” add: “submitted for his review”; page 18, 4th paragraph from top, correct “se” to “see”. Vote was 4-0-0.
8. Wetlands Agent Report – October December 5 through December 18:
Mr. Sadlowski reported that he has received a notarized statement from Mr. Mastroberti and an application for a DPN for his farm building.
Mr. Sadlowski reviewed his Agent’s Report. He stated that the owners of 6 Dorothy Street installed timbers and a silt fence between trees to act as a sort of gabion wall. Mr. Askew will work with the owner.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if Mr. Sadlowski has been to the BR-1 site. She noted that Mr. Angus had been there before he left and found that the contractors were working from the wrong set of plans. Mr. Davis of Baystate Environmental is supposed to be monitoring the creation of the wetlands.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that he has been to the site but did not have a set of plans with him. He did instruct them to correct silt fence issues.
Agent Arnone asked if there has been a response from the owner of 22 Douglas Drive. Mr. Sadlowski stated that there has not been.
Agent Arnone asked about the culvert on Broad Brook Road.
Mr. Sadlowski responded that he received an email on this subject. There may be action in the future. A plan needs to be drawn up and it needs to be determined who will pay for the work.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall believes that it needs a permit. It would be best to avoid treating this as an emergency.
Agent Arnone asked if a maintenance schedule has been received from Ashemead Commons yet.
Mr. Sadlowski replied that he met on site with the contractor and Mr. Cabibbo on December 18, 2006. The applicant is working with the Condominium Association. He has started the project and probably will not need to drain the pond dry. He noted that the water level is not dropping quickly, which could be an indication of a high water table.
9. Old Business
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; MAD January 9, 2007:
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reminded members that they must discuss prudent and feasible alternatives and the Agency can approve this application only if no other feasible and prudent alternatives exist.
Agent Szewczak stated that he has reservations and concerns on the way this application was submitted, which he voiced several times during the process.
The building is proposed to be situated for the best exposure from the street, not fro the best configuration for protection of the wetlands.
He added that the IWWA does not look at application from a zoning viewpoint, only from a wetlands viewpoint. The applicant has an aggressive anticipated use of the land but has limitations with large fingers of wetlands.
There were not a lot of alternatives offered on the basic configuration of the site. The applicant could possibly have modified the configuration and/or size of the building.
He also stated that he did not see hard facts to show that the building could not be moved or made a different shape so as not to have a negative effect on the conditions there.
It was suggested by the Agency several times but the applicant did not provide any alternatives.
Agent Arnone agreed. He has not been in favor to of the wetland crossing and there are definitely alternatives to that. He did not see any changes made after the Agency members provided suggestions. Building #2 is big. It is a very tight plan. There is no snow stockpile area and removing snow from the site is not a real answer. There are better alternatives.
Mr. Sadlowski asked Agent Arnone to clarify his concerns with the wetland crossing.
Agent Arnone stated that there needs to be another point source. Perhaps rain gardens or raising the parking lot would be appropriate. There is also a lack of mitigation.
Agent Staples stated that he felt that the applicant was afraid to go to the wetlands on the west side and so concentrated on that instead of giving alternatives. He wondered if the Agency sent the wrong message to the applicant.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall disagreed. She believes that the Agency members, especially Agent Szewczak, sent clear messages. She feels that the project is too big and ambitious for this site and will cause both long term and short term negative impacts on the wetlands and the watercourse to the west.
She stated that she walked the site and the adjacent site on Hazard Avenue. The proposed addition and parking is almost entirely in the upland review area. There is minimal, at best, buffer between the parking and wetlands. The existing vegetation will be removed along with the majority of the north and east wetland boundaries, destroying the natural buffer and filter. When the remaining upland areas are developed, the wetlands become more important rather than less important. The existing development, at 151 and 155 Hazard Avenue already have had a negative impact on this particular wetland and adjacent watercourse.
She added that this proposal is designed without a sufficient buffer between the developed areas and wetlands and the snow stockpiling concerns were not adequately addressed.
She also stated that she believes that the islands are limited in size and number. When the building is fully occupied and the parking lot full, there would just not be enough roof for snow stockpiling and removal of snow from the entire site seems impractical and ripe for abuse.
She noted the following feasible and prudent alternatives:
· The addition or the new building could be eliminated
· The proposed new building be reduced by both eliminating the second floor and reducing the footprint
· Addition could be reduced in size
· Proposed new building be designed with parking underneath to reduce the parking area and impervious surface
· Underground detention basins be considered to reduce disturbance to uplands and proposed wetland crossing
· By reducing building size, parking could be reduced to eliminate filling of wetlands, creating a larger buffer sufficient to protect the wetlands
· Leave the land undeveloped to preserve the wetlands and the area serving to recharge the ground water and collect drainage from surrounding properties
· The proposed mitigation is inadequate.
· A smaller proposal would have allowed the applicant to remove fill from the wetlands and restore the degraded areas.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall also stated that past degradation is not a reason to cause further damage or elimination of wetlands.
She noted Mr. Sadlowski’s comment from his Agent’s Report dated 11/21-12/4/06 which stated that the present proposal actually has 40% more floor space than that proposed in the 1998 application so the impacts are virtually the same because of added parking requirements.
Mr. Sadlowski reviewed the meaning of “prudent and feasible”. He stated that “Prudent” would include the cost not being prohibitive in comparison to the benefits of the project. By making the building smaller, it would actually be less expensive. He added that overall, there is more of a negative impact to this site, than a positive impact.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak to approve IW#473 with the ten standard conditions, in addition to the following numbered 11 through 18:
11. Erosion and sediment controls must be installed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit for the project;
12. The Wetlands Agent will not sign off on the certificate of occupancy for any building until all disturbed areas, including roof drain outlets, are temporarily and/or permanently stabilized for each lot;
13. A note shall be placed on the development plan and deed before the wetland agent shall sign off on the building permit indicating, “This lot contains wetlands and watercourses and are therefore subject to the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations as amended. No removal of vegetation, disposing of leaves, grass clippings, brush, lawn refuse, or rubbish in or near the wetlands and no grading, filling or other modification shall be made to the portion of this lot that contains wetlands or the area within XX feet of wetlands" . Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the owner to inform all tenants or people working on the property of these conditions. All responsibility for adhering to these conditions shall fall on the applicant.
14. The permitee shall submit a best management plan including schedules of parking lot cleaning and periodic removal of any rubbish or other items from the property, maintenance of lawns and buffer plantings in the vicinity of the wetlands including fertilization and insecticide application schedules, and persons in charge of the above to contact should the need arise. This plan must be approved by the Agency and filed with the application before the Mylar’s are signed.
15. Signs marking the location of the wetlands and a warning against disturbance, as approved by the wetland’s agent, shall be installed at 50 foot increments on trees, by a licensed surveyor, at the permitee’s expense. Where no trees are present greater than 6" dbh, easement markers shall be placed on 4"x4" wooden posts to demarcate the wetlands.
16. Common Reed (a.k.a. phragmites) shall be removed from the detention pond. The permittee shall remove the Common Reed only using methods approved / recommended by the Department of Environmental Protection and / or the Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station. The procedure involves cutting the stalks in late August, early September and applying herbicide directly into the open end of the stalk. An individual licensed in such application shall apply the herbicide. In order to successfully eliminate this vegetation the process may need to be repeated in sequential years.
17. All Engineering concerns must be addressed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit.
With the exception of the addition of the items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the plans entitled _________“", dated _________ Sheets 1 through 4; revised through 11/20/06; Prepared by Gary B. LeClaire, LLC. 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).
Agent Szewczak then requested that additional conditions of approval be added. Stockpile signs are to be erected where snow will not be allowed to be piled, especially in the buffer area, and snow is to be removed from the majority of the site.
Some remediated lands to occur in areas less disturbed, such as deep pockets of water and a cleaner type of water associated with detention basins.
A hydro-dynamic separator be installed.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall added that removal of debris by hand in the area of the existing detention basin and the end of the existing road should also be included.
After consideration by the Agency members of the additional conditions, Agent Szewczak amended his motion to include them, seconded by Agent Arnone to approve IW#473 with the standard 10 conditions in addition to the following:
11. Erosion and sediment controls must be installed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit for the project;
12. The Wetlands Agent will not sign off on the certificate of occupancy for any building until all disturbed areas, including roof drain outlets, are temporarily and/or permanently stabilized for each lot;
13. A note shall be placed on the development plan and deed before the wetland agent shall sign off on the building permit indicating, “This lot contains wetlands and watercourses and are therefore subject to the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations as amended. No removal of vegetation, disposing of leaves, grass clippings, brush, lawn refuse, or rubbish in or near the wetlands and no grading, filling or other modification shall be made to the portion of this lot that contains wetlands or the area within XX feet of wetlands" . Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the owner to inform all tenants or people working on the property of these conditions. All responsibility for adhering to these conditions shall fall on the applicant.
14. The permitee shall submit a best management plan including schedules of parking lot cleaning and periodic removal of any rubbish or other items from the property, maintenance of lawns and buffer plantings in the vicinity of the wetlands including fertilization and insecticide application schedules, and persons in charge of the above to contact should the need arise. This plan must be approved by the Agency and filed with the application before the Mylar’s are signed.
15. Signs marking the location of the wetlands and a warning against disturbance, as approved by the wetland’s agent, shall be installed at 50 foot increments on trees, by a licensed surveyor, at the permitee’s expense. Where no trees are present greater than 6" dbh, easement markers shall be placed on 4"x4" wooden posts to demarcate the wetlands.
16. Common Reed (a.k.a. phragmites) shall be removed from the detention pond. The permittee shall remove the Common Reed only using methods approved / recommended by the Department of Environmental Protection and / or the Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station. The procedure involves cutting the stalks in late August, early September and applying herbicide directly into the open end of the stalk. An individual licensed in such application shall apply the herbicide. In order to successfully eliminate this vegetation the process may need to be repeated in sequential years.
17. All Engineering concerns must be addressed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit.
18. With the exception of the addition of the items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the plans entitled _________“", dated _________ Sheets 1 through 4; revised through 11/30/06; Prepared by Gary B. LeClaire, LLC. 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).
19. signs will be posted along wetland boundaries, indicating that snow will not be stockpiled in those areas.
20. hydro-dynamic separator as approved by the engineering department will be installed at the last catch basin before wetlands crossing to the storm water system.
21. Debris on site to be removed by hand before permit is signed. Vote was 1(Staples)- 3-0. Denied. Reason for denial was:
It is the opinion of the Agency that Prudent and Feasible Alternatives to this project are possible which would reduce or eliminate the impacts to the wetlands. The following are examples that were discussed by the Agency on how this could be accomplished:
1) By reducing the building sizes, the parking lot size can be reduced in order to eliminate or minimize the filling of wetlands and to create a larger buffer area sufficient to protect the wetlands. This is possible by:
a. Eliminating either the addition or the new building
b. Making the new building smaller by both eliminating the second floor and reducing the footprint.
c. Making the addition smaller
2) The proposed building could be designed with parking underneath to reduce the parking area and impervious surface or its shape modified to better fit the property.
3) Underground detention basins could be considered to reduce disturbance to both the upland review area and the proposed wetland (pipe) crossing.
4) By reducing building sizes, parking could be reduced to eliminate filling of wetlands and creating a larger buffer sufficient to protect the wetlands.
5) Another alternative is to leave the land in its undeveloped condition, thereby preserving the wetlands which are serving to re-charge the ground water and collecting drainage from the surrounding properties.
6) The proposed mitigation, which included cleaning the existing detention basin, is inadequate. With a smaller proposal, the applicant could have proposed removing the fill from the wetlands and restoring them.
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, MAD January 12, 2006]:
Mr. Gary Greenalch, P.E., from Pacesetter Construction Corp. represented the applicant.
Mr. Greenalch distributed updated copies of the plans to Agency members. He noted that the plans submitted earlier to Mr. Sadlowski had a mistake on the corner.
Mr. Greenalch stated that the owners of the property would like to continue using the loading dock. They reviewed possible alternative locations for the dock but now matter where it might be placed, there would be a low spot.
Mr. Greenalch suggests pumping into a tank and installing a pipe to bring it through to the oil separator and then into the detention basin. The pump would have a baffle system to clean the water prior to the pump.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the system would freeze.
Mr. Greenalch stated that the pump would be underground and would be insulated.
Agent Arnone asked who the pump company contractor would be.
Mr. Greenalch stated that it is unknown at this time. The owner is working through a plumber. All silts should be trapped prior to entering the pump and the system will need maintenance.
A maintenance schedule is being proposed.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the schedule includes maintenance of the detention basin. Is it to be mowed or vegetation cut down? If not included, it needs to be on the plans.
Mr. Greenalch noted the plans on page 8 of 13.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that it is also in the maintenance plan.
Mr. Greenalch stated that he assumes the owner will want to hire a company to take care of the maintenance.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall feels that the information provided is not acceptable and needs to be more detailed.
Agent Arnone agreed, stating that it has to be more than just the check list that has been provided.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall added that detail is needed but it doesn’t have to be elaborate. She gave an example of work recently done at the Johnson Memorial Hospital office building on Hazard Avenue. Work was done using a bulldozer because there was no detailed plan that stated that a bulldozer could not be used.
If this applicant provides a detailed plan, it won’t be necessary for the owner to return to the Agency for a permit for maintenance. She gave another example of the 99 Restaurant, also on Hazard Avenue, which provided a maintenance plan with a great deal of detail.
Mr. Greenalch stated that the basin is very shallow. 1’ of silt buildup would cover the existing pipe. Regular maintenance would eliminate problems. He asked if it can be maintained any way the owner wants. He added that it is almost all wetlands now.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall countered that it is all wetlands now.
Agent Szewczak stated that it is up to the applicant to define how it will be maintained. Will tracked vehicles be used; will there be a roadway to the basin? Will it be just hand tools and wheelbarrow used? How large will the equipment be? Best management practices will need to be used with that equipment.
Agent Arnone added that the maintenance plan needs to include cleaning of the parking lots and catch basins.
Mr. Greenalch stated that the owners are in agreement. He asked how maintenance needs would be checked.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that someone at the plant would need to be informed on how to check areas and how to order the maintenance to be done.
Mr. Greenalch stated that he does not foresee any problems in the basin unless a problem develops in the piping system. Pipes would clog before the basin is filled with 1’ of sediment.
Agent Arnone stated that the Agency is trying to prevent the problem from happening at all.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall expressed concern that maintenance would not happen until it becomes a large issue.
Mr. Sadlowski suggested creating a condition of approval that a Professional Engineer or other professional report back to the Agency on an annual or other regular basis. This could become a condition for other applicants with sensitive areas, as well.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the basin will eventually need to be cleaned. The Agency just wants to make sure that maintenance is done regularly and correctly. She also added that this will be a wet basin.
Agent Arnone agreed, noting that phragmite will be an issue. The Agency will need to look at control of it as an enforcement issue in the future.
Mr. Greenalch noted that a few minor pipe changes were made to meet Town standards. These will be adjusted more if the Town Engineer requires it.
Agent Szewczak asked if a stone berm could be constructed to filter out suspended solids from the parking lot to address his concern over the quality of water discharging to the wetlands.
Mr. Greenalch replied that there are deep sumps, oil hoods and rip rap at the basin entry. Perhaps more rip rap could be added prior to the exit pipe. The basin is very shallow and flat, only about 1 ½’ deep. He is trying to clean the water and slow it down before it heads to the wetlands. He suggested a rip rap wall.
Agent Szewczak agreed stating that it would slow sedimentation.
Mr. Greenalch stated that he would be agreeable to this.
Agent Arnone asked for the location of the snow stockpile area. He wants to be sure that the snow is not piled off of the roadway on the side close to the wetlands.
Mr. Greenalch explained that there will be guide rails.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that the guide rails will not stop snow from being dumped over the sides.
Agent Arnone asked that a condition be added to address a reduction of salt and sand in the parking lot and have a designated snow stockpile area in the front lawn and truck parking area in front and on the lawn area to the west of the new addition. He also requested a condition of approval to have signs stating that snow not be dumped along the roadway and north along the guide rail.
Mr. Sadlowski reviewed the proposed conditions of approval. Upon discussion, proposed conditions #13, 15, and 16 were removed and replaced with additional conditions.
Mr. Cabibbo’s emailed memo dated December 19, 2006 was reviewed by members and addressed as condition number #17.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Staples to approve IW#475 with the 10 standard conditions in addition to the following, as amended during discussion:
- Erosion and sediment controls must be installed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit for the addition;
- The Wetlands Agent will not sign off on the certificate of occupancy for the building until all disturbed areas are temporarily and/or permanently stabilized;
13. Signs marking the location of the wetlands and a warning against disturbance, as approved by the wetland’s agent, shall be installed at 50 foot increments on trees, by a licensed surveyor, at the applicant's expense. Where no trees are present greater than 6" dbh, markers shall be placed on 4"x4" wooden posts to demarcate the wetlands boundary.
14. The permitee shall submit a best management plan including schedules of parking lot cleaning and periodic removal of any rubbish or other items from the property, maintenance of lawns and buffer plantings including fertilization and insecticide application schedules, and person(s) in charge of the above to contact should the need arise. This plan must be approved by the Wetlands Agent and filed with the application before the Certificate of Occupation is issued.
15. The permitee shall consult with a Professional Engineer or other professional, as approved by the Wetlands Agent, annually for the purpose of inspecting the storm water management system, including the basins, and recommending any maintenance. Owner shall follow such recommendations in a timely manor. Any maintenance on the basins, other than minor cleaning or repairs done by hand, shall be approved by the agent before the work is started.
16. Permitee shall utilize alternate means of managing ice on the driveways and minimize the use of sand. All snow shall be stockpiled in locations approved for that use by the Wetlands Agent. Signs prohibiting snow stockpiling behind the guard rails to the rear of the parking lots shall be posted.
17. All Engineering concerns must be addressed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit.
18. With the exception of the addition of the items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the plans entitled “Proposed Addition for U.S. Glass Distributors", dated October 25, 2006 Sheets 1-6; revised through December 10, 2006; Prepared by Pacesetter construction Corporation. 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 applicant has demonstrated that the project will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
IW#453 – Town of Enfield – Modification of Existing Permit – Proposed stream channel maintenance and restoration involving channel dredging and clearing, excavation and grading within 100 feet of a watercourse. Activity located on properties North of Yale Drive and East of Hillyer Drive and between Yale Drive and Broad Leaf Lanes. Map 19, Lots 153-156, 199-201, and 210-211:
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Arnone to table discussion on this application to the meeting of January 17, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 4-0-0.
10. New Business
11. Other Business:
There was no other business brought up for discussion by Agency members.
• Next regular meeting is Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 7:30PM IN THE ENFIELD ROOM.
12. Adjourn:
A motion was made by Agent Staples and seconded by Agent Szewczak to adjourn the meeting at 10:06 p.m. Vote was 4-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________
Thomas Arnone, Secretary
|