|
NOTICE OF ACTION
Meeting of the
ENFIELD INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING, if applicable - 7:30 P.M.
OR
REGULAR MEETING -- 7:30 P.M.
*****ENFIELD ROOM*****
********* ENFIELD TOWN HALL *********
*** 820 ENFIELD STREET,***
** ENFIELD, CT 06082 **
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall at 7:32 p.m.
2. Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
3. Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Poirot, Sarno, Storey, and Szewczak. New Alternate Agency member David Wawer was also present and seated as a voting memberfor this meeting. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent, and Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary.
4. Hearings (continued):
Agency-sponsored Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulation amendment to add the Authorized Agent Approval Process and Procedure to the Existing Regulations on page 31 under Section 12 and renumber sections accordingly [Public hearing opened December 16, 2003. Agency-sponsored change - no time limits on closing or decision]. Agent Wawer stated that he has reviewed all information and correspondence on this matter and is prepared to make an informed decision. Mr. Angus gave a brief overview of the proposed changes. The amendment would allow the Authorized Agent to approve minor activities within the upland review area without the applicant having to go through the entire Agency review process. This does not bypass the approval process, but is another approval process mechanism. Any activities within watercourses or wetlands would not be allowed to be approved by this process. If the activity is deemed not to be a minor activity, it must go through the entire review process. There is also a mechanism in place for appeal by either a member of the public or an Agency member. The process is similar to that of the Determination of Permit Need. In the authorized agent process however, conditions of approval can be placed on the approval. Mr. Angus also noted that the term "buffer zone" as discussed at the last meeting has been changed to read "upland review area" as a more technical term. Also, in regards to concerns by a citizen at the last meeting over the term "clear cutting", the regulations define clear-cutting quite specifically as a regulated activity requiring a permit. Any cutting activity other than clear-cutting (such as selective tree removal) is a permitted activity and does not require a permit. "Minor" clearing is a subjective term that leaves the authorized agent with some discretion as to what constitutes "minor". This will vary from site to site. He added that the same would be true for maximum accessory building size. Agent Wawer asked if all time lines proposed in the amendment are consistent with State Statutes and also asked if the submittal of three paper copies could be replaced with electronic filing. Mr. Angus replied that the date requirements were taken directly from the State Statutes. The Town requires one copy for the Agent, one copy for the Planning Department, and one copy for the applicant's file. The Town does not currently have the capability of electronic filing. In response to another question by Agent Wawer, Mr. Angus stated that both the Journal Inquirer and Hartford Courant meet the Statute's requirements for posting legal notices. At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment. No one from the audience spoke in favor, neutrally, or against this application. A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Szewczak to close this public hearing. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#402 of LeConche Design and Construction, LLC for the construction of a medical office building and associated site improvements in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 170 Hazard Avenue (Map 74 Lot 251) [Submitted October 30, 2003; Received November 5, 2003; PPE November 19, 2003; MPHCD February 24, 2004]. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall excused herself from discussion on this application due to a potential conflict of interest and left the room. Vice Chairman Szewczak acted as Chair for this public hearing. Agent Wawer stated that he has reviewed all information and correspondence on this application and is prepared to make an informed decision. Mr. Angus noted that the legal notice was published as required and that certified mail receipts have been returned, although he has not yet verified that all have been received. Mr. Ray Nelson, Engineer from Messier and Associates represented the applicant, along with Attorney Richard Roznoy and soil scientist John Ianni. Mr. Nelson explained that the site is located at 170 Hazard Avenue and consists of approximately 4.4 acres. The proposed building will be an 8,000 square foot medical building located in the middle of the lot. The total impervious area proposed for the lot is approximately 10% of the total lot area. He went on to say that several areas in the vicinity of the building are being proposed for lawn and conservation seed mix. He added that a sidewalk has been added to the plans because of the Town's Regulations. The applicant will request a waiver for the sidewalks from the Planning and Zoning Commission, since they do not lead anywhere, however, he felt it prudent to add them to the plans at this time so that a modification to the permit would not be needed at a later date. He also stated that the sidewalks will cause the majority of disturbance within the upland review area. Mr. Nelson went on to explain that a portion of the site will remain untouched and currently supports young tree growth. They are proposing a 35' deep landscape buffer as required by the Planning and Zoning Regulations, which will include plantings, the schedule of which is included on the plans. He will request that if approved, Staff visit the site to determine if some of the existing mature trees can remain, instead of having them removed only to plant others in their place. Mr. Nelson went on to explain the three drainage areas on site. The site is quite flat with the wet meadow area on the west side having a slope of only 1/10th of 1%. A drainage easement exists along the property line. All drainage eventually goes to the Scantic River. Disturbance totals are 1/10th acre of wetlands, due to the sidewalk and curbs, and 4/10th acre of upland review area. These disturbances are offset by extension of an existing pipe for drainage, creating a new wet area. A small area will be filled in for the pipe installation. Wetlands are located on the east, west and front of property. Combined drainage flows leaving the property will be slightly less than what exists prior to construction. Calculations were made based on a 50 year storm event. Impervious surface drainage will be held in the detention basin. Existing conditions show existing flows to be 2.66 cfs. After construction, drainage will be 2.47 cfs. Drainage will flow under Middle Road, in pipes that have a 7.0 cfs capacity. A sediment forebay will be constructed as will several depressed areas (up to 1') to allow for a wet bottom and wetlands plantings. The detention basin will have a rip rap overflow area. The site has a good ex-filtration capabilty due to the sandy soils will provide groundwater recharge. One oil/water separator will be provided at the last catch basin, along with a 4' sump. A maintenance plan for the storm water system and detention basin is included on the plans as well. Mr. Nelson addressed feasible and prudent alternatives by stating that the original design of the drainage for the property was done in the 1950's and proposed to utilize the wetlands for water quality treatment and he feels the most prudent and feasible alternative is not increasing the outflow and providing detention outside of the wetland areas. The western wetlands area will not be disturbed at all. Snow stockpile areas have been included (two at the south end of the building). This will be a grassed area, pitched toward the pavement so snowmelt drains to the catch basin for water treatment. There will be curbing on the south end of the parking lot to prevent surface flows from reaching the wetlands untreated. Agent Storey asked how the detention basin would be cleaned after being used as a sediment basin during construction. Mr. Nelson replied that it would be cleaned with small, heavy equipment but the plans should clearly spell this out. Agent Poirot asked that abutting owners be included in the final decisions regarding the aesthetics to the buffer zone trees and plantings. He also asked what impact there would be from the project to the wetlands if the sidewalks were deleted from the plans. Mr. Nelson stated that the project would not disturb the wetlands at all if the sidewalks were not included. Agent Poirot asked if the applicant had considered other alternatives to concrete sidewalks. Mr. Nelson stated that the Town's regulations require concrete sidewalks. He added that the Town regulations are quite specific on sidewalk design details, so he would likely not consider pervious pavers or other alternatives. He went on to say that the wetland areas at the sidewalk are not functional wetlands. They are wetlands only by definition. The pipe would not need to be extended if the sidewalks were not required. Mr. Ianni stated that the wetlands on the property were delineated in January of 1996. He conducted a site walk in December, 2003. He stated that the wetland to the east has no wetland vegetation; it is a wetland based only on soil type, found at 16-18" deep. The isolated wetland in the middle of the property is not very functional and the western wetland is a "wet meadow" the most functional of the three and offers diversity of vegetation. It also has storm water management capabilities, retaining water. Plans for this site include best management practices and he felt this to be a low impact development. The site is extremely flat with a high water table in the spring. A conservation easement on either side of the building is being proposed. Agent Poirot asked what the expected water table is in the spring months. Mr. Ianni answered that it is 2' and drops rapidly. Agent Poirot asked if the water table rises to 16 or 18". Mr. Ianni answered that it rises that high only in the wetlands. The entire site was previously disturbed. Agent Poirot also asked if runoff from the Middle Road abutters goes into the swale on the property. Mr. Nelson replied that the houses along middle road a generally placed on the ridgeline or highpoint of the site and |