|
NOTICE OF ACTION
Meeting of the
ENFIELD INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 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 7:00 p.m.
2 Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Olson, Storey, Poirot, Szewczak, and Sarno. 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: This hearing must either be closed or the applicant agree to an extension at this meeting Mr. Tim Coons of J.R. Russo reviewed the concerns brought out by the Agency members at the meeting of May 7, 2002. He reiterated his professional opinion that the majority of soils on the site are not conducive to infiltration. He stated that the drainage report that was submitted to the Town was developed by accepted methodology and was approved by the Town's Engineer. Curve numbers, hydrologic soil types, and cover types and hydrologic conditions based on observation or professional judgement all go into development of the drainage report. This site includes several soil types [SOILS OF SEVERAL Engineering classifications]- B, C, & D. The majority of the development will take place over soil type C, which has low infiltration when thoroughly wetted. Mr. Coon again stated that he does not believe that rain gardens would be a viable option for this development. Mr. Michael Gragnolati, soil scientist for the applicant, presented a brief outline of research he has done regarding rain gardens. He found this site to contain predominately Rainbow and Broadbrook Silt loams. It has a seasonably high water table. His professional opinion is that rain gardens are not suitable for this site; they require much maintenance and it would be difficult to mandate that homeowners maintain the gardens. Agent Szewczak asked if the groundwater depth was really at elevation 59 or 60, with the eastern side being at elevation 72. In his opinion, if the ground were as impermeable as reported, the groundwater should be at a much higher elevation. He also asked what the percolation test results were. Mr. Gragnolati explained the theory of "perched" water tables. This is, in effect, a water table above the true water table. He stated that no "perk" tests were taken, since this development will be serviced by the sanitary sewer system, not septic tanks. Mr. Northrup noted that a drainage study is conducted over a given period of time, during a rain storm. Permeable conditions on published tables are written assuming dryer conditions. He also noted that rain gardens are designed for small (duration of less than 24 hour), while drainage calculations are almost always based on that, or longer events. Mr. Northrup also noted that at a recent conference he attended, rain gardens were a subject of discussion. It was brought out that the gardens are meant to take care of the "first flush", such as drainage off a parking lot, for a brief period of time. They are not meant for replacement of retention systems. The rain gardens are supplemental tools at best, beneficial for groundwater re-charge and water quality. He stated that the gardens are designed to overflow into storm water systems and are most often used in conjunction with other innovative approaches to stormwater management such as open pavers, swales, and dry wells. Agent Storey stated that the "first flush" containment is one of the benefits of the gardens, since that would likely carry the majority of fertilizer from the lawns. Mr. Coon disagreed, stating that lawn fertilizers are now formulated to release slowly and actually need rainwater to dissolve. Agent Szewczak felt this would benefit the pond by collecting some of the nutrients prior to entry into the pond. Mr. Coon, however, felt that the overland flow and settlement in the basins would serve the same purpose. Mr. Gragnolati also reminded members that his research showed that there should be at least 1 foot between the bottom of the garden structure and the true water table, in order for nutrients to be filtered out before reaching the ground water. Mrs. Pappas stated that because of the fish population, the pond does not currently turn green. At this time, Mr. Coon stated that the applicant, in lieu of vegetative plantings, would be willing to install a 3' high chain link fence around the west side of the pond to discourage the geese from frequenting the area. Mr. Northrup and Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that this would not be acceptable. Fences have not proven to be effective for this problem. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the discussion for audience comment. No one came forward to speak for, against, or neutrally on this application. Agency members held further discussion regarding use of rain gardens. Maintenance is an issue. Agent Storey stated that, perhaps at this time, the concept would work best in areas such as condominium projects and industrial properties, or those properties that are owned by an association that would own and maintain the land. Agent Olsen noted that several of the lots are located either in the Review area or wetlands. Mr. Coon stated that 4 parcels are located within the Review area and 2 parcels have some wetlands on them. Also, several parcels are within the Connecticut River Review Area. Open space for this parcel is 7.74 acres. A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Olsen to close the public hearing on IW 373. Vote was 6-0-0.
4. Continue or Closing Hearing(s): A motion was made by Agent Olsen and seconded by Agent Poirot to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 8:01 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was then made by Agent Olsen and seconded by Agent Storey to hold a brief recess 8:01 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
5. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 8:07 p.m.
6. Roll Call Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Olson, Storey, Poirot, Szewczak, Sarno, and Bergamini. 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. No one in the audience came forward.
9. Correspondence.: Items of correspondence were as follows: Calendar of Sustainable Landscape-related meetings and workshops; letter from the Pioneer Valley Yacht Club regarding possible reconstruction of the Enfield Dam; copy of letter to Senator Williams and Representative Stratton from the Connecticut River Watershed Council regarding possible reconstruction of the Enfield Dam; copy of letter from DLA Enterprises, LLC to fire Chief Edward Richards regarding IW 377; literature regarding Branford Rain Gardens; copy of email from David Brzezowski (IW 378) to Mr. Northrup regarding his inability to attend this meeting. Members held some discussion regarding the possible re-construction of the Enfield Dam. Agent Storey spoke in favor of the project, feeling it is a valuable asset and should be maintained or re-built as needed. Agent Poirot questioned the issues of safety and cost. He felt the concept is not a simple matter. He also felt that if the project is approved, the cost should be shared by all those who share the benefits. Agent Olsen noted that the dam was originally constructed to serve the canal, which no longer exists. He also reported that a fishway has opened in the areas of the dam washout, allowing sturgeon and other species to spawn upstream. Agent Sarno felt that the subject needs more research. Agent Szewczak felt that the dam and river will eventually reach an equilibrium by themselves. The dam serves no economic benefit. Agent Bergamini had no comment. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked Mr. Northrup to report to the Town Manager that while the Agency is not completely in agreement, the majority of the members would not be in favor of reconstruction of the dam.
10. Commissioner's Correspondence: There was no Commissioner's Correspondence brought up for discussion.
11. Approval of Minutes - May 7, 2002. After brief review of the minutes, a motion was made by Agent Olsen, and seconded by Agent Storey to accept the minutes of the meeting of May 7, 2002 as presented. Vote was 7-0-0.
12. Wetlands Agent Report - May 7, 2002 to May 20, 2002: Mr. Northrup briefly reviewed the Agent's Report. He met with Public Works Staff and the contractor for work being done at Enfield High School stormwater system. Hay bales and erosion fencing will be installed. Mr. Northrup also met with the Town Engineer and contractor for work being done on Post Office Road to repair or replace a collapsed culvert underneath the roadway. The contractor will install a sediment dike prior to work taking place. In response to a resident's concerns, Mr. Northrup and Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall visited 44 South River Street. Trees had been cleared from the area next to the river, but the work is not recent. Mr. Northrup will prepare a letter to distribute to residents who own property along the river, informing them of permit requirements and best management practices for water front properties. Mr. Northrup also stated that an addition is planned for the Montessori School on Enfield Street. Once mapped wetlands are plotted on the site plan, the applicants may need to come to the Agency for a permit.
13. Old Business
" For Discussion Regarding a Decision:
" 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. Due to a potential conflict of interest, Agent Bergamini excused herself from discussion on this application and left the meeting for the evening. Members discussed the application. Agent Szewczak asked if the Agency should consider riparian rights of abutting owners. Mr. Northrup stated that the Agency can consider the effects the potential development will have on abutting property owners, but the subject of riparian rights is strictly a land owner matter. In answer to another comment by Agent Szewczak, Mr. Northrup also stated that the potential impact to resources can be a factor in granting permits and developing conditions of approval but must be tied to the issue of impact to wetlands and watercourses. Agent Poirot noted that algae bloom can occur in any pond. He expressed appreciation for the 20' buffer along the western shore and asked why it could not be extended the entire perimeter of the pond. Mr. Northrup stated that the Agency only has authority over the area to be developed. He also stated that the Public Works Department has been informed of this development and its' potential impact of flooding on Bridge Lane. Agent Storey noted that the Town Engineers and applicant have done a reasonable job to stabilize runoff on this parcel. Due to the water from Enfield High School no longer entering the pond after drainage projects are finished on the Town property, it will be difficult to determine who, if anyone, has an effect on the pond. Agent Storey then made a motion to approve IW 373 with the 10 standard conditions in addition to the following:
11. The wetlands will be re-flagged so that the boundaries will be visible to someone operating construction equipment on the site. Flags are to be placed on three (3) foot stakes where no vegetation exists upon which to attach them. This must be done before construction re-commences. (Presently, the continuation of Meetinghouse Road had been boxed out as it extends straight out from the present road, around the first corner in the southwest corner, heading north, to approximately the point where it is proposed to bend to the east. No other work has been begun.)
12. Substantial portions of lots 12, 13, 14, 15 and 25 are in the review area. Lots 12, 14 and 25 have wetlands within them. These lots border the proposed open space land. The above mentioned lots shall have "L" shaped corner fences (one length in each direction) at the corners of the lots or if there are wetlands, a minimum of 10 feet from them.
13. A twenty (20) foot wide strip of vegetation shall be planted along the western length of the existing pond. The vegetation shall be of such variety and character that it will discourage the use and attractiveness of the shore for Canadian Geese.
14. Wetlands area offered as mitigation for wetlands impact shall be permanently protected by a legal encumbrance in one of the following ways: It shall be donated to a land trust organization agreeable to the EIWWA, it shall be deeded to the Town of Enfield, conservation easements shall be granted to a land trust organization agreeable to the EIWWA, conservation easements shall be granted to the Town of Enfield. If the wetlands are also part of open space required under the Subdivision Regulation of the Town of Enfield, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine the appropriate method of encumbrance, as allowed by statute. If no land trust organization can be found or the Town Council of the Town of Enfield, decline such offers, deed restrictions shall be placed on the deeds. The deed restrictions shall include notes on the subdivision plans and individual plot plans notifying future owners that: "Use of the portions of this property shown on the plot plan and subdivision plan as "Open Space" is limited to such that no maintenance beyond normal, no placement of structures, removal of vegetation with 2 inch caliper, or greater, and no excavation is allowed."
15. Sediment and erosion control measures on the western boundary along the railroad property, the down slope side of the proposed outlet structure from the new detention area, the full length of the "equalization pipe, and the outlet structure within the existing detention area where the rip rap is to be replaced with a larger size, shall be depicted on the plans. Until such changes are made the Agent shall not issue a permit and the approval shall not be effective.
16. With the exception of the addition of the items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the plans titled "River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Single-Family Open Space Residential Subdivision, Owner / Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Riverview Street, Enfield, Connecticut, [prepared by] J.R. Russo & Associates…1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, Connecticut 06088, (860) 623-0569, Fax: (860) 623-2485"with sheets revised to 4-11-02. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement or reorientation of building 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 Conservation Commission and Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission for a Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling). Agent Storey noted that all feasible and prudent alternatives have been explored. Motion was seconded by Agent Poirot. Vote was 5-0-0. Reason for approval was that the project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
11. IW 376, Application of Daniel Hinkley, 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] Mr. Hinkley explained that during clean up of the property, he created ruts and so has re-seeded. The property was and will remain a farm. Mr. Northrup has concerns that grading has taken place in the wetlands. Wetlands mapping shows the wetland boundaries and a stream to be located 100' from the property lines, however, visual inspection shows wetland vegetation to be much closer. Mr. Northrup also had concerns over some stock piles located on the property, which need to have silt fence installed around them. Mr. Hinkley stated that silt fence would be installed on May 22, 2002. Mr. Northrup was concerned that the material could fall into the wetland area, creating a steep bank and unstable condition. He would like to see a gentler slope, with the pile not so close to the wetlands, in addition to erosion control. Agency members reviewed the site map, upon which Mr. Northrup outlined the Review area. Mr. Hinkley stated that he would like to remove more debris from the property. After discussion, it was agreed that smaller equipment than had previously been used, could finish the work. At this time, Agent Olsen made a motion that IW 376 be approved. He then withdrew his motion when discussion brought out the fact that fuel is being stored on the property. Mr. Hinkley explained that he has a 500 gallon self contained, concrete vault fuel storage tank. It is used to fill a mobile tank for equipment off site. There is currently no cement pad surrounding the vault. Mr. Northrup noted that it is located a few hundred feet from the wetlands. Members discussed potential impact on the wetlands if a fuel spill occurred. Mr. Northrup agreed that it is difficult to determine whether a small spill in this location would affect the wetlands. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked Mr. Hinkley to be mindful of his neighbors, who all have wells for their potable water. At this time, Agent Olsen again made a motion, which was seconded by Agent Sarno, to approve IW 376 with the 10 standard conditions, in addition to the following: 11. The slope at the rear (south) end of the property shall be re-graded so that starting form the existing toe it shall have no grater slope than a 2/1. The slope will then be stabilized with seeding and loaming. 12. Erosion fencing shall be installed at the toe of the slope at the rear (south) end of the property and shall be installed around any stock piles of material established in the rear of the property, which should be forward of the top of slope in its entirety. 13. Removal of the waste material remaining on, or beyond, the slope at the rear (south) of the property shall be done without taking any equipment beyond the toe of the slope. Vote was 6-0-0.
" IW 378, Application of David Brzezowski for regulated activities associated with the installation of an above ground pool and landscaping, to be located at 31 Kimberly Drive. [Submitted Apr. 23, Rec'ed May 6, PPE May 21, MAD Jul.11, SLMAD Sep. 14 ,2002] Since Mr. Brzezowski could not be present nor could the NRCS representative make it out to see the site before this meeting, a motion was made by Agent Poirot, and seconded by Agent Storey to table discussion on IW 378 until the Agency's next regular meeting, scheduled for June 4, 2002. Vote was 6-0-0.
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, SLMAD Sep. 14, 2002] Mr. David Arens and Rodney Dimock represented the applicants, along with Mr. Tim Coons of J.R. Russo and Michael Gragnolati, Soil Scientist. Mr. Arens briefly reviewed some of the changes made to the plans in response to ART input. He noted conditional approval by the Fire Chief, per letter dated May 19, 2002 and signed by the Fire Chief. The discharge of the rain leaders has been changed so that it will now discharge underground and will be carried to the retention basin. The amount of increase will be 1/1100 foot. The parking area has been redesigned so that the gravel area in the rear of the building will be used only for maneuvering semi's and flatbeds. It is agreed by the applicant's engineers and the Town, that the abutting property contains an intermittent stream, according to the DEP definitions, however, the soil scientist and applicant's engineer feel it is a very low quality stream. Mr. Gragnolati explained that the purpose of the swale was to route water around the farm field. It has not been maintained, but the intent was for it to drain partially to the North along Mullen Road and partially to the south to a wetland area in the woods. It is 1 ½ to 2 feet deep in most areas. Mr. Gragnolati provided several photos of the swale, which showed no standing water in several areas, although there had been a recent heavy rain. Areas of the swale are home to poison ivy, multiflora rose, and sensitive fern. The soils on the site are Rainbow. Mr. Gragnolati stated that is his opinion that the swale meets the D.E.P.'s guidelines as a watercourse, but the functional value is low - useable only for nutrient retention and sediment trapping, which was not visually noted. Agent Storey noted that the applicant has the potential of extending his proposed building at some future date. He would not like to see a problem with additional runoff going into the swale and creating a problem. Mr. Arens stated that any future expansion would need to be approved by the IWWCA, but he anticipates that the proposed building will suit his needs for at least several years. In response to a question by Agent Olsen, Mr. Gragnolati stated that approximately 25-30 soil borings were taken throughout the actual site and the area above it, up gradient, and down gradient. 2 or 3 test holes were also dug to the east of the property line. He found moderately well drained, red/Rainbow soils, similar to the Bridge Lane soils. No samples were taken within the watercourse. The proposed building site is deemed unsuitable for septic and will be connected to the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Gragnolati met hard pan at 20-22", which corresponds to the depth of the watercourse. Agent Szewczak expressed concern over the possibility of erosion due to the concentration of flow, even with a zero increase. Mr. Coon explained that the 75' level spreader will help in that regard. No significant velocity is anticipated. Mr. Northrup noted that the applicant's design meets the Town's standards of development, but he expressed concerns over storms that are not in the design parameters, which could result in erosion for the abutters, which would become a landowners' issue. The site will have .8 acre impervious surface, which includes gravel, roof, and paved parking. In response to a concern by Agent Olsen, Mr. Northrup noted that drainage will travel through the vegetated swale before entering wetlands, allowing for some cleansing of pollutants. In response to a question by Agent Szewczak, Mr. Coon stated that the footing drain could not be tied into the roof leader drain, for fear of drainage back up into the footing drain, due to th |