|
NOTICE OF ACTION
Meeting of the
ENFIELD INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002
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**
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 7:04 p.m.
2 Roll Call Present were: Chairperson Pfeiffer-Hall and Agents Storey, Olsen, Sarno, Szewczak, Bergamini, and Poirot. Also present were Jay O. Northrup, Wetlands Agent, and Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary.
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
" IW 373, Application of Margaret R. Pappas, for regulated activities associated with a twenty-five (25) lot subdivision to be called River Meadows II, located off Bridge Lane and Riverview Street. [Submitted Mar. 20, Rec'ed Apr.2, PPE Apr.16, MPHCD May 31, SLMPHCD Jul. 15, SLPHAD Aug. 19, 2002]
Please note: There are no meetings in August. A Decision on this application will have to have been made by the July 18 meeting unless the Agency has a special meeting for it Agent Bergamini excused herself from discussion on this matter due to a potential conflict of interest Mr. Tim Coon of J.R. Russo explained the proposed development of 31+/- acres located north of Bridge Lane and West of Riverview Street. It is currently in agricultural use. The property is abutted to the north by the High School athletic fields, to the south and east by residential properties, and to the west by the railroad and Connecticut River. The plan includes extending Meeting House Lane for an additional 24 lots and adding one rear lot off of Riverview Street, for a total of 25 homes. This is 2 fewer than the previous proposal that was withdrawn and will mean a reduction of impact to the wetlands and less impervious surface. The project will utilize public utilities. All drainage from Meeting House Lane will be directed toward 2 detention basins, one of which is existing and will be connected to the additional proposed basin by an equilibrium pipe. The basins will work as one unit with a single storage volume. In addition, there will be a basin constructed behind the Riverview Street lot to take care of overland flow. It will be located and will discharge outside of the 100' buffer zone. The 200' Connecticut River regulated area enters the site, however the only activity within the regulated area will be due to grading of the yards. Mr. Coon stated that any overland flow not collected by the basin will follow the railroad tracks to an existing catch basin on Bridge Lane. Anticipated impact of the project within the regulated area is .92 acre, up from .68 acre due to the Connecticut River regulated area, and within the wetland area is .015 acre. Mr. Michael Gragniolatti, soil scientist for the applicant, reviewed the location of the various areas of wetlands. Some of the wetlands have been filled in on the high school property, affecting the quality of wetlands on the subject site. Approximately 7.6 acres of open space will be dedicated in some form to the Town or in a conservation easement. Most of the wetlands will be located in that area. In response to comments by the Town's engineer, the existing detention basin will have a gravel base access drive with an easement for ease of maintenance by Town staff. In response to a question by Agent Poirot, Mr. Gragniolatti stated that no vernal pool was noted on the site, only ponded areas. Mr. David Frederick, also representing the applicants, presented 3 letters of support for the project. In response to an invitation for audience comments, Mr. John Pirello, who recently purchased a new home on Meeting House Lane, expressed support of the project. Attorney Derrick Otis, representing abutter Helena Hepp spoke regarding Ms. Hepp's riparian rights to the pond. Mr. Otis stated that he realizes that the Agency feels this is a private landowner issue but felt that this creates a trespass and quoted Enfield Regulations 10.3 referring to the right that the Agency has to take into account the effect a project will have on neighbors. Attorney Otis stated, this project will have an effect on Ms. Hepp's riparian rights to the pond, and he felt that the project will have an environmental impact on the pond as well. This would be due to fertilizer and pesticides from the lawns. Mr. Otis requested plans that would not provide for runoff to the pond and suggested that an on site detention basin would be an alternative, although it may require a reduction of building lots. Dr. Charles Dugan, who lives within 500 feet of the project stated that contrary to the applicant's statement, the property has not been in agricultural use for over 20 years, other than for horse pastures. The property was stripped of brush several years ago. He agreed with Mr. Otis that an on site detention basin would be better for the environment. He stated that area homes already have drainage problems. Mr. Brian Levine spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he chose his home for the location and felt others should have the same opportunity. Attorney Thomas Arvantely, representing Mrs. Pappas and Mr. Frederick presented copies of a letter by him referring to a memorandum by him, along with the Town Attorney's opinion dated August 27, 1999 regarding an earlier application. Mr. Coon noted that the pond will not be used for retention (vs. detention). All storm water entering the pond is equal to the peak flow to the pond prior to development. There will be no flooding impact. He also noted that even an on-site detention basin would have to discharge into the pond. As for nutrient concerns brought out by Dr. Dugan and Attorney Otis, Mr. Coon stated that deep sumps and oil/sediment chambers will be installed. He believes that the nutrients will attach to the solids prior to leaving the basin and also feels that development will create less nutrient problems than agricultural use. He also noted that the upcoming Headstart Program construction on the school grounds are expected to reduce peak flow from the school grounds pipe by 70%. The elevations of the detention ponds, and tops of basins were briefly discussed. The bottom of both basins and V-notch wier is at 62.3. The tops of the basins are 64.5 to 65. During a 50 year storm event, water will be at 64, or a depth of 1.7'. A storm in September, 1999 50 year storm event showed an observed elevation of 62.2. Agent Olsen noted that a storm that took place approximately 20 years ago flooded the entire area below the bridge. Agent Storey asked if it was possible that the pond could dry up due in part to the Headstart water being diverted elsewhere. Mr. Coon stated that he was unsure what the effect of the diversion would be. He said it appears that the pond is also fed by an intermittent stream. Agent Storey also noted Dr. Dugan's comment that the property is not currently in agricultural use as stated by the applicant. Mr. Coon replied that the property could revert to agricultural use. Members again discussed the elevations and events that would require the basins to overflow. Mr. Coon stated that the overflow would take a "long time" to get to the pond overland. The calculations take into account the fact that the pipe system would be full. Mr. Coon then attempted to explain how the drainage calculations are determined. Mr. Coon agreed to provide information on the various methods of determining drainage calculations to answer a question from Agent Szewczak regarding the co-efficient of runoff to find the true runoff verses absorption. He also agreed to provide an over-all assessment of the watershed and pond. In answer to another question by Agent Szewczak, Mr. Coon stated that the test pits were performed during Phase I of the subdivision, but was unsure of the exact date. He also stated that the tests were determined through mottling, so time of year should not matter. Agent Szewczak asked about the possibility of creating a pond on site, and perhaps attaching it to the basins. Mr. Coon stated that a second pond would have little impact if any, on the existing pond. He also stated that it would take a significant area of land to create a difference in the existing pond. He insisted that the level of water in the existing pond will not be affected by development. In response to a question by Agent Storey, Mr. Northrup stated that although conditions are sometimes placed on approval of commercial or condominium type applicants regarding fertilizer use, it would be next to impossible to police individual homeowners on the use of fertilizers & pesticides. He did note that some municipalities are requiring "rain gardens" as part of their subdivision regulations. These are areas with plantings designed to take up lawn nutrients. He also noted that this site has numerous swales and wondered if these areas are able to handle the anticipated fertilizers and pesticides, or if additional area may be needed. A study could be costly as could the installation of a "rain garden" or additional swale area. Agent Storey noted that the existing pond is an asset to the neighborhood and the Connecticut River is an asset to the State. Agent Olsen expressed concern that water will be taken from the existing pond, causing a drop in the water level. Mr. Coon reviewed the drainage report. He stated a 2 year storm event would result in a reduction of 3 cfs. A 50 year storm event matches the pre-development level at peak flow. Mr. Northrup felt that there are 2 issues at hand - drainage/flooding and groundwater. He feels the pond is groundwater fed and if development affects the groundwater, the pond will be affected. He asked what the opportunities are for groundwater recharge to the pond and felt that the close proximity of the basins to the pond would assist in recharge to the pond through groundwater. Mr. Coon stated that it would be slow travel and would have to travel through the water table to the pond and would be insignificant to the level of the pond. He also stated that the detention time in the basins is 117 minutes in a 25 year storm event. Agent Szewczak asked why there are yard drains on some of the proposed lots. Mr. Coon replied that they will prevent flooding since some of the lots are very flat. Mr. Northrup read into the record a memo from Mr. Cabibbo regarding engineering comments. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the applicant had been in touch with Julie Victoria at D.E.P. regarding the potential eagle habitat. Mr. Coon replied that he has filed a form and application on the subject and expects an answer from D.E.P. next week. Members also discussed a current Canada Goose problem at the pond, which contributes to the excess nutrients found there. While Mr. Coon hoped that development would deter the goose population, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall disagreed and suggested that appropriate plantings would deter the geese better. In answer to another question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Coon stated that he believed that the drainage, once it leaves the pond, crosses Bridge Lane, travels west and then south, eventually ending up in the Connecticut River. He also stated that the applicant would be willing to provide plantings to deter the geese. At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall again opened the hearing to audience comments. No one came forward to speak. A motion was made by Agent Olsen and seconded by Agent Storey to continue IW 373 until the next meeting of the Agency, May 7, 2002. Vote was 6-0-0.
Agent Bergamini returned to the meeting at this time.
4. Continue or Closing Hearing(s) A motion was made by Agent Olsen, and seconded by Agent Storey to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Vote was 7-0-0.
At this time, Agent Olsen made a motion which was seconded by Agent Storey to recess the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Vote was 7-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
5. Call To Order The meeting was reconvened at 8:45 p.m. by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall.
6. Roll Call Present were: Chairperson Pfeiffer-Hall and Agents Storey, Olsen, Sarno, Szewczak and Poirot. Also present were Jay O. Northrup, Wetlands Agent, and Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary.
7. Executive Session - Matters regarding specific employees, pending litigation, acquisition of real estate and / or matters exempt from disclosure requirements, as need. The specific reason should be stated for each session. There were no items for executive session.
8. Public Participation - Issues of concern not on the agenda. There was no audience participation
9. Correspondence. The following items of correspondence were received: a letter from CL& P regarding upcoming tree cutting/trimming; memo from Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission regarding a Special Meeting to be held on April 25, 2002 to discuss progress on goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development; the memo read into the record regarding IW 373; a letter from the Water Pollution Control Authority regarding comments on IW 373; the Agent's Report - April 2, 2002 to April 15, 2002.
10. Commissioner's Correspondence: In response to a note received by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall from Agent Olsen, members discussed a complaint from a resident regarding the Carrarian property located on the corner of North Street and Taylor Road and possible hazardous waste storage at the site. Mr. Northrup stated that he has been in touch with the Zoning Enforcement Officer regarding the matter. A letter has been sent to the owner, requiring clean up within 10 days. Agent Olsen sent a letter and some photos to the D.E.P. by certified mail regarding the site.
11. Approval of Minutes - April 2, 2002. After brief discussion, a motion was made by Agent Olsen, seconded by Agent Storey to accept the minutes of the meeting of April 2, 2002 with one addition - page 2, 14th paragraph. Add "He [Mr. Northrup] also noted that the Assistant Director of Public Works was having difficulty impressing the architect with the fact that the EIWWA was very serious about this issue.". Vote was 6-0-1(Bergamini).
At this time, a motion was made by Agent Olsen, seconded by Agent Sarno to temporarily amend the agenda and move to New Business. Vote was 7-0-0.
11. New Business
Determination of Permit Need 020328: Request of Sandra L. Philbin for activities associated with construction of an in-ground pool and garage to be located at 34 Edgewood Drive. [Submitted Mar. 28, 2002] Ms. Sandra Philbin and her fiancé would like to add a porch (5'x15') at the rear of the house, as well as a garage and inground pool. Mr. Northrup explained that the property falls within the Town's official wetland lines. When the subdivision was built extensive fill was brought in and placed around each house. The remaining wetlands are actually behind the house at the edge of the property. He also noted that the applicants have been extremely cooperative. The subdivision pre-dates current wetlands regulations. The addition would be existing fill. They would need to erect a silt fence which should curve off to the sides of the hill to capture any runoff. The back of the garage would be 40' from the rear property line. In response to questions by Agent Poirot, Ms. Philbin stated that the pool contractor is aware of the high water table. The pool will only be drained 1 foot for winter storage; water will be siphoned out for that purpose. The pool will be surrounded by a 5' perimeter of concrete. Excess soil from the pool excavation will be used for the foundation of the garage. Additional fill may also be needed for the garage foundation. The house is 15' from the edge of the pool. The fence around the pool will be 25' from the back of the lot. Agent Szewczak felt strongly that the pool contractor and garage contractor should work together to ensure that the excess pool soil will not have to be stockpiled. The applicants assured the Agency members that they are already working together because it will benefit both of them. Silf fence will be installed along the entire rear of the property and around the sides. They also explained that the foundation of the garage will be raised and have a 2 1/2 to 3' drop off in the back. After further discussion, a motion was made by Agent Olsen and seconded by Agent Sarno that no permit is needed on the condition that the contractors and applicant work with Mr. Northrup regarding proper procedures to protect the wetlands, that the contractors work together regarding the immediate use of the fill, and that the Agency reserves the right to require a permit at a later date if necessary. Vote was 7-0-0.
12. Wetlands Agent Report - April 2, 2002 to April 15, 2002. Mr. Northrup reviewed the Agent's Report. He explained a general inspection he conducted at the well site of Hazardville Water Co. on Kimberly Drive. The site has one large and one small area of erosion. Maps show the soils to be escarpment. While repair could fall under exemption for construction related to water company facilities, Mr. Northrup strongly recommended that the Company come to the Agency for at least a Determination for Permit Need. This would allow the Agency to seek assistance from the NRCS regarding a permanent solution to the erosion problems at this site and others along Buckhorn Brook. Mr. Northrup has not heard from the Company official handling the matter. It was the consensus of the members that Mr. Northrup send a letter of support for coming to the Agency for a determination of Permit Need. They also asked Mr. Northrup to work with the Hazardville Water Company representatives to encourage a permanent solution to the problem, or encourage assistance from the NRCS. Members discussed IW 373. Agent Olsen noted that the flagging on the property is difficult to see. Mr. Norhrup will request that the wetlands be re-flagged, using additional flags that are on stakes and easily visible to those operating heavy equipment. New augers smapling may be required to define the wetlands lines. Mr. Northrup noted that some enhancement to the wetlands may be necessary. Agent Olsen reported that he saw numerous large fish in the pond. Mr. Northrup stated that the Agency is allowed to consider the impact of proposed development on other property owners, but that the Agency must also consider prudent and feasible alternatives. He also noted that impacts to wetlands can require mitigation. He also questioned if all nutrients would attach to the solids in the bottom of the basins or if other appropriate vegetation would be necessary for nutrient reduction capabilities. Mr. Northrup updated the members on the project at 274 Abbe Road. The entire slope along the length of Buckhorn Brook needs to have vegetative protection. Mr. Northrup will meet with Mr. Palazzo's landscaper to discuss appropriate plantings, once the project is further along. At 178 North Maple Street, Mr. Slanetz has completed all work with the exception of the fence being installed at the top of the slope. Several possible violiations include the Bosco property on Steele Road. Mr. Bosco was instructed to erect silt fencing between the stream and construction. There is a large amount of debris at 15 Depot Hill Road. Mr. Northrup will notify the owners of the need to clean up the area. Mr. Northrup will notify the owner of property behind Yale Drive that construction of a fort is being done from remnant building materials. The construction is taking place just outside of the wetlands. In other matters, Mr. Northrup explained that complaints were received regarding cutting of trees on the Troiano property on Moody Road. The wetlands were flagged by Mr. Gragnolati. The rear property line was not certain. It and the wetland flags were to be surveyed soon. Mr. Northrup reiterated that no cutting should take place until all property and wetland lines are known. The attorney representing the Estate of Edward Sidor has requested exemption from the requirement of meeting with the Agency because the property is part of an estate and there are no immediate plans to develop the parcel. It was the consensus of the members that an application or determination of permit need is necessary. Members also requested an update on the sewage problem on River Street.
13. Old Business
" IW 374, Application of Paul L. Williams for regulated activities associated with a two (2) lot subdivision with houses, located at 127 Cottage Road. [Submitted Mar. 27, Rec'ed Apr.2, PPE Apr.16, MAD Jun. 6, SLMAD Aug 10, 2002]
Please note: There are no meetings in August. This application will have to be completed by the July 18 meeting unless the Agency has a special meeting for it. In response to a request by the applicant, a motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Bergamini to table discussion on IW 374 until the meeting of May 7, 2002. Vote was 7-0-0.
11. New Business
" Determination of Permit Need 020328: Request of Sandra L. Philbin for activities associated with construction of an in-ground pool and garage to be located at 34 Edgewood Drive. [Submitted Mar. 28, 2002]
(This item was taken out of order earlier in the meeting.)
" IW 375, Application of the Town of Enfield, Engineering Division, for regulated activities associated with stormwater drainage and road improvements to be located on Dusthouse Road [Submitted Apr. 2, Rec'ed Apr. 16, PPE Apr. 30, MAD Jun 20, SLMAD Aug 24, 2002.]
Please note: There are no meetings in August. This application will have to be completed by the July 18 meeting unless the Agency has a special meeting for it. Mr. Northrup reviewed the plan to install drainage along Dusthouse Road. One of the property owners has expressed concern over trees on his property as well as the fact that the area has historic value. Members briefly discussed the proposed plans and the possibility that a public hearing will be needed. A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Sarno to continue IW 375 until the meeting of May 7, 2002. Vote was 7-0-0.
" Next meeting will be May 7, 2002 in the Council Chambers.
12. Adjourn A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Sarno to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Acronym Key for Dates:
Submitted = Day it was Logged in by the Appropriate Town Office.
Rec'ed = Received (First Regular Meeting or 35 Days 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)
SLMAD = Statutory Limit of Mandatory Action Date (130th Day from Receipt of Application)
MPHCD = Mandatory Public Hearing Closing Date (45 Days from opening of the public hearing)
EMPHCD = Extended Mandatory Public Hearing Closing Date (Any combination up to 45 Days from first MPHCD)
MPHAD = Mandatory Public Hearing Action Date (35 Days after close of the public hearing)
EMPHAD = Extended Mandatory Public Hearing Action Date (Any combination up to 35 Days from first MPHAD)
SLMPHCD = Statutory Limit of Mandatory Public Hearing Closing Date (90th Day from Opening of Public Hearing)
SLMPHAD = Statutory Limit of Mandatory Public Hearing Action Date (35 days after SLPHCD)
|
|
Last Modified: 1/21/2005 4:15:44 AM
|
|
|