|
NOTICE OF ACTION
Meeting of the
ENFIELD INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 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 7:01 p.m.
2 Roll Call Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Olsen, Storey, Poirot, Sarno, Bergamini (7:03 p.m.) and Szewczak (7:53 p.m.)
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 application due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Jay Urssary of J.R. Russo and Associates and Mr. Dave Fredericks represented the applicant. Mr. Urssary briefly reviewed a letter received by Ms. Julie Victoria of D.E.P. regarding possible environmental issues at the site. Ms. Victoria noted that the area is frequented by eagles and the river is home to the Virginia River Snail and Sturgeon. Mr. Urssary pointed out that the subdivision site is not located directly on the river and the only trees on the site are located near the pond. He felt that the project would have no impact on any of the species mentioned. Also, in response to concerns brought out by Agency members at the last meeting, Mr. Urssary provided photos of the property and a list of agricultural uses during the past 40-50 years. The land currently is being used to grow rye grass. He also stated that the pond located at the site was originally dug by Mrs. Pappas's father for use as a farm pond. Mr. Urssary also reviewed information provided by Mr. Northrup regarding possible use of "rain gardens" to help recharge the ground water and keep nutrients out of the pond. Mr. Urssary felt this method would not be suitable for this project due to the soil types located there. Mr. Coon, Project Engineer for this site, sent a letter to Mr. Northrup stating his belief that rain gardens would be unsuitable due to the low permeability of the soils at the site. Also, included in the Agency members' packets was a letter dated April 25, 2002 from Mr. Coon, attempting to answer some concerns of Agent Szewczak regarding methods of determining drainage calculations. Mr. Urssary pointed out the calculations comply with the Town's regulations and allow for zero increase of peak runoff during storm events. Agent Storey asked why rain gardens would not work, considering prior statements made by Mr. Gragnolati that the soil was porous. Mr. Gragnolati came forward and stated that there is a shallow sandy layer. Much of the wetlands are classified as such due to the high water table most of the year and has a negative effect on upland plants. Most soils on the site can drain externally but not internally. He also went on to explain how sites are selected for spade and auger testing. He stated that he starts where it is known uplands and known wetlands and then runs transect between. He stated that because this site was so heavily disturbed due to agricultural use, numerous holes (possibly 100) were dug. Once the line is found, topography is used to help determine wetland limits. Determination is site specific. Agent Poirot asked about the piles of material located at the western boundary of the property. Mr. Urssary explained that these are left over piles of fill from Phase I. They will remain stockpiled if not used in Phase II. In answer to another question by Agent Poirot, Mr. Urssary explained that foundations are generally 3' above existing grade to allow for basement windows. 5' of the foundation is typically below grade. Additionally, in answer to a question by Agent Poirot regarding a buffer along the southern boundary, Mr. Urssary stated that the topography plan shows an existing tree line (or vegetation) which is expected to remain in place, although individual homeowners could remove them at some time in the future. There are no proposed plans for additional plantings or berm along the property line. Agent Olsen asked where the water table line is in comparison to the ground surface. Mr. Urssary stated that the ground surface ranges from elevation 62 to 76. The water table is at elevation 60.4. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked what effect the overhead wires and sewer easements on some of the lots would have. Mr. Urssary stated that those areas would be restricted from having any structures. The easements are in favor of the Town. Access can be gained from 3 directions. Research uncovered no easements for the overhead wires. At this time, Mr. Frederick stated that the applicant would not object to a condition of approval which states that vegetation must be kept along the boundary line. Mr. Northrup reminded the Agency members that screening is a Planning & Zoning Commission issue unless it is directly tied to wetlands. The Agency can make a recommendation regarding screening to the Planning & Zoning Commission. In response to another question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Urssary responded that the applicant would like to plant a strip along the pond and allow it to grow freely, with no maintenance, to discourage the Canada Geese that frequent the area. After some discussion, Mr. Northrup stated that he would favor a planting plan and bond to ensure growth in one year. The planting plan would discourage invasive, non-native species. In response to a question by Agent Storey, Mr. Urssary explained the need for a drainage easement for lot 10 between lots 12 & 13. Due to the driveway for lot 10 cutting off overland flow, the drain is necessary. At this time, no one in the audience came forward to speak on this application when Chairperson Pfeiffer-Hall opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Northrup noted that the WPCA has not yet commented on the stockpiles along the boundary line, which may eventually make maintenance of/access to the sewer lines more difficult. Mr. Northrup also noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission may have further comments on a berm and feels they will want some sort of buffer between the site and the railroad. There may also be concerns of erosion of the berm and some flexible condition of approval regarding this item may be necessary. At this time Agent Szewczak arrived and had several comments and questions. Mr. Urssary again explained that the drainage calculations meet the Town's regulations and that the calculations take into account the soil types at the site.
4. Continue or Closing Hearing(s) After further brief discussion regarding possible use of rain gardens, a motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Olsen to continue IW 373 until the Agency's next meeting, scheduled for May 21, 2002. Vote was 6-0-0.
Agent Olsen made a motion to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Seconded by Agent Storey. Vote was 6-0-0.
At this time, a motion was made by Agent Olsen and seconded by Agent Storey to hold a brief recess. Vote was 6-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
5. Call To Order The regular meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeiffer-Hall at 8:32 p.m.
6. Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Olsen, Storey, Poirot, Sarno, Bergamini and Szewczak.
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. No one in the audience came forward to speak.
9. Correspondence. Items of correspondence were as follows: Journal Inquirer article dated 4/5/02 regarding Open Space Grants; a memorandum from the Assistant Town Attorney regarding application approvals; notice of conference to be held by the Soil & Water Conservation Society, May 21, 2002; 2002 training schedule from Institute for Wetland & Environmental Education & Research, Inc.; letter from Connecticut D.E.P. regarding Green Circle Awards program; Spring, 2002 issue of The Torrent; Notices of Action from Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission (4/4/02), Historic District Commission (3/27/02), and Zoning Board of Appeals (4/28/02); memorandum from John Cabibbo regarding IW 373; Agent's Report April 16, 2002 to May 6, 2002.
10. Commissioner's Correspondence: There was no Commissioner's Correspondence brought up for discussion.
11. Approval of Minutes - April 16, 2002. After brief review, a motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Poirot to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 16, 2002 with one amendment - page 9, 11th paragraph. After "Members discussed", add "the comments in the Agent's Report regarding". Vote was 7-0-0.
At this time, Agent Bergamini made a motion which was seconded by Agent Szewczak to amend the order of the agenda and move to Old Business. Vote was 7-0-0.
12. Wetlands Agent Report - April 16, 2002 to May 6, 2002. This item was taken up at the end of the meeting.
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:This application has been withdrawn. Mr. Northrup explained that this application has been withdrawn due to a modification in the plans, making approval by the IWWCA unnecessary. The modified plans show only one house, which will be outside of the flood plain and wetland areas. Agent Olsen noted that it was not typical procedure to keep the item on the agenda after it was withdrawn. Mr. Northrup explained that the Agency was likely to see this application within his report in the near future when he signed off on the building permit. He wanted to give the Agents an opportunity to comment now if they did not agree that it is now appropriate for this activity to proceed without a wetland permit.
" 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. Jeff Bord presented updated plans of the proposed work along Dusthouse Road. The new plans show scaled down drainage from the original proposal. This will have less impact on the historic area and wetlands. Paved "runoffs" will be installed in various locations to better direct drainage to areas it already travels. These will have splash pads with rip rap to stabilize the runoff and prevent erosion. Drainage will travel through the remnants of an existing canal and continue approximately 600' to the Scantic River. Most of the work will take place within the Town's Right Of Way. The road will have curbs, which it currently is without. Mr. Northrup requested that contractors on the job be informed of the requirement to install silt fences and other erosion control measures. Mr. Bord assured the Agency that these items will be included on the plans. After further brief discussion, Agent Storey made a motion which was seconded by Agent Poirot to approve IW 375 with the 10 standard conditions, as well as the following: "11.) Erosion Control will be added at station 73 plus 75." Vote was 7-0-0. Reason for approval was that the project will not have an adverse impact on inland wetlands and watercourses.
11. New Business
" IW 376, Application of Daniel Hinckley, for regulated activities associated with cleaning refuse from property and installation of six (6) inch sewer line to building, located at 176 Shaker Road. [Submitted Apr. 19, Rec'ed May 7, PPE May 21, MAD Jul. 11, SLMAD Sep. 14, 2002] Neither the applicant nor a representative was present to explain the application. Therefore, at the end of the evening, a motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Bergamini to table discussion on IW 376 and that a letter be sent to the applicant asking for his presence, or that of a representative at the Agency's next meeting, May 21, 2002. Vote was 7-0-0.
" Determination of Permit Need 020423, Request of David Brzezowski for installation of an above ground pool and landscaping within a regulated area, to be located at 31 Kimberly Drive. [Submitted Apr. 23,2002] Mr. Brzezowski explained his request to install an above ground pool and undertake some landscaping to prevent further erosion on a steep bank along his property line near the stream. Mr. Northrup explained that the foundation for the house was cut into escarpment soils. There some concern that installation of the pool could cause further erosion into the stream. Mr. Brzezowski stated that a soil sample taken by Mr. Gragnolati showed the back yard soil is of fill material. Mr. Brzezowski assured the Agency of his intention to protect the wetlands and leave them undisturbed, as well as prevent further erosion along the stream, if possible. He explained that the house is at the same elevation as the street. However, from the front to the back yard is a drop of approximately 6'. From the fence to the stream is another drop of approximately 15'. That area is currently not useable due to the steep slope. Mr. Brzezowski went on to explain his concern of erosion on the other side of the stream, as well as that on his side along his property line and that of his neighbors. He noted that drainage pipes stick out the back of each lot, allowing drainage to "free fall" into the stream or down the embankment, creating further erosion. Mr. Northrup agreed that erosion is and will continue to be a problem along the stream if action is not taken. He is especially concerned about the possibility of the pool being constructed on escarpment soil. In answer to a question by Agent Storey, Mr. Gragnolati stated that he went the depth of his auger - approximately 3' for the soil sample at the proposed site of the pool. He found fine sand, not silt, or escarpment soils. He does not feel that the fill located there came from the cut necessary for the foundation of the house, because the soil is too red in color. Agent Szewczak briefly referred to a study done several years ago by Clarence Welti regarding improvements made in areas with escarpment soils. He asked if the pool could be located closer to the house - 30 to 35' from the base of the slope. Mr. Brzezowski stated that this would place the pool on the front lawn. It is currently proposed to be approximately 5' from the base of the slope because there is really no other place to locate it. Mr. Brzezowski noted that the previous owner had a pool in the same area for approximately 5 years. Members then discussed possible landscaping solutions to prevent further erosion of the bank. Mr. Northrup has suggested several varieties of vegetation that would help hold the soils. Members also discussed concern over possible ramifications to the Town if the application is approved and serious erosion later takes place. Mr. Northrup felt that the town's liability would be limited as long as the decision made by the Agency was from information generally available. The Agency could request that a geotechnical study be done. Agent Szewczak suggested that slope stabilization or slope reduction take place prior to installation of a pool or any other type of improvement. Mr. Northrup stated that additional plantings at this time would not harm the slope. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked Mr. Northrup to contact the NRCS to request assistance. A motion was made by Agent Olsen and seconded by Agent Sarno that a Wetlands Permit application will be necessary. Vote was 7-0-0.
" IW 377, Application of DLA Enterprises, LLC for regulated activities associated with construction of a 12,000 square foot manufacturing building and associated site development, to be located approximately 1300 feet east of King Street (Route 5), (abutting and east of number 6) on Mullen Road. [Submitted May 2, Rec'ed May 7, PPE May 21, MAD Jul. 11, SMAD Sep. 14, 2002] Mr. Jay Urssary, Mr. David Aarons, and Mr. Rod Ginnick presented a proposal for a 12,000 square foot building to be located on the south side of Mullen Road, 1,300 feet from Route 5, on the easterly end of the property. The site is currently wooded and abuts agricultural land. The applicant must still receive approval for the subdivision and site plan from the Planning & Zoning Commission. The parcel is 4.12 acres, approximately 900' deep. The total site slopes west to east. There are no wetlands on the property, however, abutting property on the east contains a swale to intercept water coming off the hill and direct it around the crops. The swale has a high point, steering most of the drainage toward Mullen Road and the rest in the opposite direction. Mr. Urssary explained that the proposed building will be 80' x 150', with the driveway and parking area on the west side. Access and docks for trucks will be in the rear of the building. Catch basins will be located on the west side. A detention basin will be located on the south easterly side of the property. The basin will outlet into the swale with a level spreader. There will be no increase in peak flow due to the construction. The building will be served by private well on site and sanitary sewer by way of a pump. Roof drainage will go through roof leaders to the property line to the swale. The drainage system will have a 2' sump and a trap hood on the last structure located before the basin. Part of the parking lot will be bituminous. The dock area will be gravel surface. A buffer will be maintained at the front. Trees will remain on the east and south, as well as most of those on the west, plus additional plantings. The remaining area will be lawn. The Soil Scientist for the applicant, Mr. Gragnolatti, stated that the swale had hydrophilic vegetation and does maintain water beyond a storm event. Agent Szewczak expressed concern regarding erosion of abutting property. Mr. Urssary assured the Agency that drainage from the building will be through 6 separate locations. No drainage calculations are available at this time, but he does not feel there will be a problem; however, if necessary, a splash pad could be installed at each of the 6 locations. In answer to a question by Agent Olsen, Mr. Urssary explained that the proposed building will be 27' from the edge of the property line, with the swales located 48 to 50 feet from there. This would mean that 2/3 of the building will be located within the Upland Review Area. Mr. Urssary disagreed, feeling that the swale is not a true wetland. Mr. Northrup maid his argument to those present that the swale meets the criteria of a wetland, although it is manmade. Mr. Ginnick stated that no chemicals are used in the manufacture process of his business. Wood dust is contained within an enclosed system. No solvents are used and no finishing of the products is done on site. Mr. Northrup agreed with Agent Storey regarding concern of the gravel parking area. Mr. Ginnick stated that gravel is planned in preparation for potential additional development in the future, as well as a cost factor of bituminous verses gravel. Traffic would be minimal. In answer to a question by Agent Szewczak, Mr. Urssary explained that the 4.12 acres is all that is currently available for sale to the applicant. Mr. Northrup noted that the ART still needs to be completed. The Agency will have to determine if the project will have an impact on the swale. Mr. Urssary asked the Agency members to visit the swale, again stating his belief that it is not a true wetland area. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that the swale is not part of the applicant's property, therefore members could not visit it, even if it were the Agency's practice to make site visits. Mr. Urssary will provide photographs of the swale at the Agency's next meeting. The topographic map will be checked to determine where the drainage from the swale travels. It was the consensus of the Agency members that a public hearing is not necessary at this time. Agent Olsen made a motion, which was seconded by Agent Storey to continue IW 377 until May 21, 2002. Vote was 7-0-0.
" Next meeting will be May 21, 2002 in the Council Chambers.
Wetlands Agent Report - April 16, 2002 to May 6, 2002. Mr. Northrup briefly reviewed the Agent's Report. A wetlands permit application may be forthcoming for drainage system outlets at the Enfield Memorial Industrial Park in order to facilitate necessary maintenance. The sign that advertised free firewood has been removed from the vacant lot on Broad Brook Road opposite the Still Meadow subdivision. Two owners on North River Street have been given orders to connect to the sewer system. One owner has complied, the other has not. Mr. Caronna, of the North Central Health District will work with the WPCA to ensure enforcement. Also, an additional house on the street may need to be connected. Mr. Caronna will check on this further once the other home has been connected. The erosion problem on Kimberly Drive has still not been resolved. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reported that Mr. Culver Modissette of the Northern Connecticut Land Trust met with the Conservation Commission recently regarding open space. His group may be interested in maintaining areas of 10 acres or more.
12. Adjourn A motion was made by Agent Poirot, seconded by Agent Bergamini, and unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting at 10:58 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 4:18:41 AM
|
|
|