|
NOTICE OF ACTION
Meeting of the
ENFIELD INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING, if applicable - 7:00 P.M.
OR
REGULAR MEETING -- 7:00 P.M.
*****COUNCIL CHAMBERS*****
********* ENFIELD TOWN HALL *********
*** 820 ENFIELD STREET,***
** ENFIELD, CT 06082 **
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 7:00 p.m.
2. Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
3. Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Poirot, Sarno, Storey, and Szewczak. Also present was Alternate Agency member David Wawer (7:04 p.m.). Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent, and Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary.
4. Hearings (continued):
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. Attorney Richard Roznoy stated that due to the weather, the Engineer, Mr. Nelson, was delayed. Agent Szewczak, acting Chair for this application brought up a letter that had been sent from Mr. Angus to the applicant regarding need for clarification on some items. Attorney Roznoy stated that one of the issues dealt with soil displacement. He assured the Agency that any soil brought onto the site would be used for the building, not to fill in any of the wetlands. He also noted that the abutters on Middle Road are within the floodplain. The owner of 170 Hazard Avenue can do nothing to help that situation. This project will have no impact on the abutters. Mr. LaConche submitted copies of the lighting plans and briefly reviewed them with the Agency members. At this point, Agent Wawer was seated as a voting member by Agent Szewczak for the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. LaConche went on to explain that the lighting will not reflect off of the building although future landscape lighting may deflect toward the building. He explained, in answer to questions by Agents Storey and Poirot, that the lights are shielded from the rear and some to the sides as well. The lighting plan does not take into account any natural vegetative shielding that will occur. There will be a total of 6 light poles and there will be no impact to the wetlands or to the neighbors from the wash of the lighting. Mr. Angus noted that the applicant prepared revised plans dated January 30, 2004 and submitted February 2, 2004. The revised plans address comments from Mr. Angus after the Agency's last meeting. Mr. Angus noted that some filling of wetlands is proposed for the construction of the sidewalks. As mitigation, the applicant has proposed over-excavation of the inlet of the pipe draining into the road drainage system along Hazard Avenue. Also, the planting schedule submitted shows details for the different types of plants for detention basins, wetlands, and upland areas. The plans now also show that the amount of wetlands disturbance for the construction of the sidewalks will be a total of 4,570 square feet, or, .1 acre. The creation of detention area and mitigation areas proposed will equal 4,800 square feet, or approximately 230 square feet more wetlands than is being disturbed. Mr. Angus stated that he recently visited the site and found phragmites in one wetland, which are possibly spreading to the other wetland areas. There is also autumn olive on site. He suggested that this might be a consideration for condition of approval to have these species removed to enhance the quality of the existing wetlands. Mr. Roznoy asked the Agency if any discussion with the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) had taken place regarding the possibility of exemption of the sidewalk requirement for this application. Mr. Angus explained that it is up to the applicant to discuss this matter with the PZC. If this project is approved by the IWWA with sidewalks and the PZC granted an exemption, the applicant could come back for a modification to the IWWA permit. Because Mr. Nelson had not yet arrived, a motion was made by Agent Storey to temporarily suspend IW#402 and move to IW#403, returning to IW#402 after completing discussion on IW#403. Seconded by Agent Poirot. Vote was 5-0-0.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall returned to the meeting.
IW#403 of Hazardville Water Company for slope stabilization involving excavation and filling in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 22 Kelly Drive (Map 70 Lot 59) [Submitted November 13, 2003; Received November 18, 2003; PPE December 2, 2003; EMPHCD March 25, 2004]. Mr. John Avery, president and Mr. Robert Flagg, Manager of Hazardville Water Company represented the applicant. Mr. Angus reviewed the application with the Agency. The applicant, at the last meeting, had requested a 65 day extension, which was granted. Staff sent a letter dated January 22, 2004 to Clarence Welti regarding HWC's proposed plans for stabilization, asking if their plan, along with pulling back the hydrant and eliminating snow stockpiling, would provide a long term solution to the stability of this area. Mr. Welti's response, dated January 27, 2004 noted that it is not the best possible method, the geowebbing would provide protection while vegetation takes hold and would likely provide an acceptable level of safety. Mr. Angus explained that machine work would take place from the top of the slope for both safety and less disturbance to the slope. Mr. Angus felt that the seed mixture and slumped material still need to be addressed. He also noted that there are no certified mail receipts on file. Mr. Flagg stated that they would be mailed to him immediately. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if their receipt were necessary to close the public hearing. Mr. Angus stated that technically, they should be on file prior to the closing of the public hearing. Agent Storey asked how the Town Engineer feels about the applicant's proposal. Mr. Angus stated that the Office agrees with Mr. Welti's letter. They feel pulling back the cul de sac is the best solution but the applicant's proposal is more cost effective and much quicker. It is important to keep drainage away from the slope. Elimination of snow stockpiling and the pulling back of the water pipes will aid in a long term solution. Mr. Flagg noted that snow is still being stockpiled at the cul de sac. He produced photographs taken February 2, 2004 of the site. Also, because part of the curbing is missing, water ponds at the end of the cul de sac and does not drain toward the catch basin. He is concerned over liability. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked what would be done with the slumped material at the base. Mr. Flagg stated that it is very difficult to get to the bottom of the base without building a road or causing further erosion problems. Mr. Angus stated that the materials have spread over a large area. Some of the material is not suited for re-use. One of his suggested conditions of approval address the re-use of materials. A large portion of topsoil that could be re-used was seen at the bottom of the slope. Some new growth is coming through already. Mr. Flagg restated the need to conduct all work from the top. Mr. Angus noted that he has twice requested that the Highway Department not stock pile snow in the cul de sac. Agent Storey suggested that a sign be erected by the Town, reminding plow operators of this fact. Members held further discussion of the proposed conditions of approval. Work shall not be done during wet periods. In response to a question by Agent Wawer, Mr. Angus stated that work on the project is a weather related issue. The slope is not in the wetlands and a dry period would be needed so that there would be no further erosion. Late spring work would allow for planting of seed and subsequent growth. Agent Poirot asked if Kelly Road is part of the Town's Road 2000 Program. If so, the effectiveness of the drainage system could be addressed at that time. Agent Wawer stated that it is not part of the program. Mr. Angus also noted that when the cul de sac is fully curbed again, water will drain toward the drainage system, not toward the slope. Agent Szewczak asked what, if any, detrimental effect leaving the slump in place would have on the wetlands. Mr. Angus stated that an assessment would need to be made by a soil scientist. There would be substantial disturbance to remove the materials unless it was by hand. It could also compromise the safety of the rest of the slope. Mr. Angus continued that one of the suggested conditions of approval address this issue. There would be impact to the wetlands if the slump materials were to stay in place, however, it would be up to a professional to determine the extent. The most feasible and prudent alternative to pulling back the entire cul de sac is to re-use as much slump material as possible. Pulling back this material would help lessen the impact on the wetlands. Agent Storey agreed that the HWC proposal is not a perfect fix but is adequate. He would like the Town to get involved in stopping the snow stockpiling and replacing the missing curb. Mr. Flagg stated that when the existing hydrant is removed, the curbing will be replaced. The grade would match the existing grade for approximately 3 to 4'. At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment. No one in the audience came forward to speak on this application. A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Storey to continue IW#403 until the Agency's next meeting, February 17, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
At this time, IW#402 was re-opened. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall excused herself from discussion on this application due to a potential conflict of interest.
Agent Szewczak again acted as Chair for this application. Mr. Raymond Nelson, Engineer, reviewed Mr. Angus's concerns that were brought out in his letter. He stated that the peak flow will be identical to that existing now. The drainage from the building site will be directed into the detention basin and eventually into the Middle Road drainage system. The development as proposed will have no effect on wetlands or negatively impact hydrology. He again reviewed the planting plan being proposed and also stated that the mitigation area being created will be lower than the inlet of the pipe, allowing for a wet bottom and wetland plantings. Mr. Nelson also stated that elevations of some of the neighbors' basements were taken. #107 Middle Road was at 133.2, #109 was at 132.8, #111 was at 133.7 and #113 was at 134.3. Standing water will occur on properties with elevations below 134 which is the groundwater table level. Agent Storey asked if more water will be leaving the subject property because of the impervious surface. Mr. Nelson replied that the retention/detention basin and anticipated exfiltration will ensure that no additional drainage leaves the property. The land is very flat and the work being proposed will not allow the water to stay on the property for any more or less time than it currently does. In response to a question by Agent Szewczak, Mr. Nelson stated that wetland soils have been found at elevations 135 and 136. The mitigated area will be lower overall, creating slightly more wetlands than will be disturbed. At this time the hearing was opened for public comment. Mr. Mike Wilczak of 95 Middle Road again expressed his concern over the project. He is not in favor of it and fears more flooding and noise. Mr. Scott Harvey of 109 Middle Road also spoke against the project. He feels there will be a significant indirect impact to the wetlands. He is also concerned that the project will increase flooding in his and his neighbors' yards. Mr. Nelson again stated that the neighbors' basement floors are below the water table and subject to flooding. The detention basin will hold most water that will drain off the property. Building up the building site will not displace existing groundwater. Agent Szewczak asked if the loss of vegetation will make a difference in the runoff. Mr. Nelson stated that the property had been cleared in the past for farming. It is now in a second growth forest and brush. Also, he noted that a conservation easement outside the area of development will remain undisturbed. Also, as a general rule, a vegetated site will produce 15% runoff. An impervious surface site will produce 90% runoff. Replanting of trees and vegetation will take place on the western side and it will eventually look as it does now. Mr. Roznoy added that there is no impact from development to the western side because the volume of drainage will actually decrease by being re-directed to the eastern side. He added that the applicant could meet with Town staff to make site specific recommendations regarding the buffer zone plantings. In response to Mr. Roznoy's question as to whether all Staff's concerns had been addressed, Mr. Angus stated that all of his issues of concern had been addressed. In response to a question by Agent Storey, Mr. Angus stated hypothetically that if the drainage situation did in-fact worsen as a result of this development, it would be a civil matter between the property owners. A motion was then made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Sarno to close the public hearing on IW #402. Vote was 5-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Wawer to close the public hearing portion of the meeting and take a short recess at 8:53 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order: The regular meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 8:59 p.m.
2. Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Poirot, Sarno, Storey, and Szewczak. Also present was Alternate Agency member David Wawer. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent, and Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary. Agent Wawer was appointed a regular voting member for this meeting.
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.
At this time, a motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Szewczak to change the order of the agenda by moving to Item #9 and then return to the regular agenda schedule. Vote was 6-0-0.
9. Old Business
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. Agent Szewczak acted as Chair for this application. Mr. Angus reviewed the suggested conditions of approval. He suggested removing #15 as it is already addressed on the plans and replacing it with a condition to remove invasive plant species. Agent Poirot asked if abutters could be involved in the selection of buffer zone landscaping. Mr. Angus stated that any wetland buffer requirements would be for wetland protection, not aesthetics. Agent Poirot expressed appreciation for the willingness of the applicant to keep as much of the current growth in the buffer zone as is practical. Agent Szewczak asked whose responsibility it is to maintain the swale. Mr. Angus stated that it is still in question and needs to be explored. It will be maintained during construction by the applicant. Also, in response to Agent Szewczak's request, an additional condition of approval would be added that requires the conservation easement be granted to the Town of Enfield in areas specified on the plans to conserve existing vegetation. A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Poirot to approve IW#402 with the 10 standard conditions in addition to the following:
11. The applicant is to compensate for the loss of the westerly and central wetland areas along Hazard Avenue by recreating that portion which is disturbed. All exposed created wetland areas must be immediately covered and planted with native wetland vegetation and a wetland seed mixture to encourage quick regeneration and limit potential for invasive species from invading and dominating the created and existing wetland areas. Plant selection should coincide with expected hydrologic conditions in various wetland/upland locations. Areas surrounding these created wetlands must also be re-established with native upland plantings and a conservation seed mixture. Mitigation plans must be approved by the Agency or Authorized Agent;
12. Wetland construction activities shall take place only during low flow conditions (generally June 1 through September 30) to minimize excessive erosion and sedimentation as a result of excessive runoff and heavily saturated soils;
13. The existing drainage structure and catch basin along the southern boundary of the property are to be maintained and kept free of any obstructions until completion and permanent stabilization of the site is achieved;
14. The application of fertilizers and pesticides is to be eliminated where possible. In areas where it is required, applications rates must not exceed recommended application rates as per the Connecticut Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (5-3-7) to minimize potential for nutrient overloading in adjacent wetland areas.
15. The permittee shall remove Invasive Plant species from the site 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.
16. All proposed site lighting must be properly angled and/or shielded to avoid any unnecessary light pollution into the adjacent wetlands;
17. With the exception of the additional items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the plans entitled "Development Plan for Medical Office Building at 170 Hazard Ave., Enfield, CT, September 2003, sheets 1-6", revised through 1/30/04. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement or reorientation of structure footprints, from the plans and any denial or changes made by any other regulatory agency or commission shall require the permitee to come before the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency for a Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling).
18. Conservation easements as shown on the plans revised through 1/30/04 are to be granted in favor of the Town of Enfield to conserve existing vegetation in place.
Agent Szewczak noted that the applicant has made every effort to recognize the significance of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses and used best management practices to avoid unnecessary impacts. Agent Storey agreed and noted that mitigation exceeds the original conditions. Vote was 5-0-0. Reason for approval was that the project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall returned to the meeting at this time.
IW#403 of Hazardville Water Company for slope stabilization involving excavation and filling in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 22 Kelly Drive (Map 70 Lot 59) [Submitted November 13, 2003; Received November 18, 2003; PPE December 2, 2003; EMPHCD March 25, 2004]. A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Poirot to table discussion on IW#403 until the meeting of February 17, 2004. Vote was 6-0-0.
5. Correspondence: Agent Sarno left the meeting for the evening at 9:27 p.m.
Correspondence was as follows: memorandum from John Kazmarski, Director of Public Works to Scott Shanley regarding a pre-construction meeting for the South Maple Street Bridge Repairs. Mr. Angus added that the project start date has been pushed back to February 9, 2004; Notification of submittal of application to D.E.P. by D.O.T. for a general permit for water resource construction activities along Route 190/Palomba Drive/Middle Road. Mr. Angus stated that he is sending his comments regarding this application to the D.E.P. and will review them with the IWWA at the next meeting. Copy of Land Use Education Partnership Schedule; "refresher" of acceptable wording of motions; Boston Globe newspaper article regarding aerial photos to catch wetlands violators; The Habitat.
Correspondence from the meeting of January 20, 2004: letter to John Daddario regarding proposed new house at 4 Rebecca Drive; Springfield Republican article regarding ditches; letter from CL&P regarding scheduled maintenance activities; Town of Enfield 2004 Meeting Calendar; notice of proposed amendment to Enfield Town Code regarding need for approval of IWWA members by Town Council; copy of email from USDA-NRCS to Mr. Angus regarding soil conservation; Winter, 2004 issue of The Torrent; letter dated 12/17/03 from Mr. Angus to Dean Gustafson of VHB, Inc. regarding IW#404; letter dated 12/29/03 from Mr. Angus to Steven Provost regarding a deck at 117 Parsons Road; Mr. Angus added that no application has been received to date; copy of emails between Mr. Angus and Jennifer Schmitz regarding Biodiversity in CT; summary of bills scored as reported by the CT League of Conservation Voters; contact list of members of IWWA; November, 2003 Planning & Zoning Newsletter;
6. Commissioner's Correspondence: There was no Commissioner's Correspondence brought up for discussion.
7. Approval of Minutes -- January 20, 2004 Meeting: A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Storey to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 20, 2004 with the following corrections: Page 5, 10th paragraph, capitalize "M" in Middle and "R" in Road and change "a" to "are". Also on Page 1, there was no pledge of allegiance to the flag as there was no flag in the room. Vote was 5-0-0.
8. Wetlands Agent Report - December 11, 2003 through January 28, 2004: Mr. Angus briefly reviewed the Agent's Report. He reported that he inspected the Autumn Fields development and requested additional erosion and sediment controls. He attended a pre-construction meeting for Costco. He also met with management from Westfield Shoppingtown to review snow stockpiling.
10. New Business
None.
11. Other Business
Discussion on Proposed Regulation Amendments:
1. Fee Schedule (Section 18) Mr. Angus presented a draft fee schedule with several increases. The higher fees would be based on the amount of work required on an application. Larger projects would be more costly than simple ones. Mr. Angus explained that the State has increased fees from $10 to $20. Planning & Zoning recently updated their fee schedule. Mr. Angus explained that the increased fees would be more representative of the time and costs involved in the application review process. Legal notices can cost up to $90 for each applicant. Members expressed concern that a large fee increase might be looked at as a discouragement to development. Agent Wawer felt that a fee increase should be done by the Town Council. Agent Szewczak disagreed and felt that the Agency should try to show self-sufficiency to the Town Council. Agent Poirot noted that a fee schedule is similar to that of the State's process for permit applications. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall felt that the proposed fees are justified and not unrealistic. After further discussion, it was the consensus that Mr. Angus be directed to move forward with the fee schedule amendments. Agent Storey noted that the extra funds brought in, although to the General Fund, might make it easier to request additional funds in future budgets for outside consultants and other resources. He also felt that the Agency should consider requiring an applicant to cover the cost of hiring an outside consultant when necessary.
2. Map Amendments: Mr. Angus presented a draft copy of a new Wetlands Map. It shows escarpment soils in red and street names. It would replace the Town's existing wetlands advisory map which shows all soil types. Mr. Angus noted that the old map shows numerous wetlands where wetlands no longer exist. Both the new and old maps are advisory only. Agent Storey requested a comparison between the two maps. Mr. Angus will perform a closer comparison.
3. Legislative Updates: Mr. Angus stated that the revised dates for hearing closures and actions will need to be included in the revised regulations.
Freshwater Pond Amendment (IW #384) Mr. Angus reported that the contractor is still taking care of minor erosion problems. He also reported that the Town would like to modify the plans slightly along North Main Street by regrading a small area just off the existing walkway in order to allow access to the pond by a small vehicle to plow the pond in winter for skating. Minor proposed vegetation in that area would be eliminated but would be increased on either side of the road to make up for the loss. Mr. Angus feels this would be a minor amendment and would not require a permit modification. After some discussion of the matter, it was the consensus of the Agency members that a modification of permit application is necessary.
o Next regular meeting will be Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 7:30 PM in the Enfield Room
12. Adjourn: A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Poirot to adjourn the meeting at 11:01 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
Acronym Key for Dates:
Submitted = Day it was Logged in by the Appropriate Town Office.
Rec'ed = Received (Date of First Regular Meeting 24 hours after submission)
PPE = Petition Period Ends (14 Days from Receipt)
MAD = Mandatory Action Date (65 Days from Receipt)
EMAD = Extended Mandatory Action Date (Any combination up to 65 days from original MAD)
MPHCD = Mandatory Public Hearing Closing Date (35 Days from opening of the public hearing)
EMPHCD = Extended Mandatory Public Hearing Closing Date (Any combination up to 65 Days from first MPHCD)
MPHAD = Mandatory Public Hearing Action Date (65 Days after close of the public hearing)
EMPHAD = Extended Mandatory Public Hearing Action Date (Any combination up to 65 Days from first MPHAD)
*Applicant can consent to extend the time frame for any of the steps but the total of all extensions together cannot exceed 65 days
|