|
Notice of Action
ENFIELD INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING, if applicable - 7:00 P.M.
OR
REGULAR MEETING -- 7:00 P.M:
******** 7:00 - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ********
********* ENFIELD TOWN HALL *********
*** 820 ENFIELD STREET,***
** ENFIELD, CT 06082 **
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call To Order and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: 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 Storey, Poirot, Szewczak, and Sarno (7:02 p.m.) Agents Bergamini and Olsen were absent. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary.
3. Public Hearing(s)
" Continuation of the Public hearing for IW#386, Application of the Town of Enfield, for regulated activities associated with a slope stabilization project. Property located adjacent to JFK School site and Raffia Road. [Submitted 10/31/02, Received 11/6/02, PPE 11/20/02 MPHCD 1/17/03, MPHAD - 35 days after close of public hearing, SLMPHCD 2/3/03] Mr. Scott Young, P.E., of CME Associates, represented the applicant because Mr. Chuck Eaton, also of CME Associates, was not able to attend. Mr. Young briefly recapped the project by stating that the intent is to stabilize and recreate the slopes and replace & repair the drainage system and tie it into the existing system which exits into a tributary of the Scantic River. A plunge pool and rip rap system will be added to dissipate the velocity. Perforated pipe buried in stone and filter fabric will be installed along the slope. Mr. Jeff Bord, Engineer for the Town of Enfield was also present and helped answer several questions posed by the Agency members. At the previous meeting, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall had asked what type of fill would be used on the project. Mr. Young stated that specifications would be created by the Town but that the fill will be clean, with no bituminous matter or road crushings and would meet D.O.T. standards of not more than 10% fines. It is not anticipated that fill material will be stockpiled on site. The fill will be brought in and used almost immediately. The stockpile area will not be accessible by school children and will be used for a small amount of topsoil expected to be taken from the site as well as pipes, catch basins and equipment used by the contractor. The topsoil will be protected by silt fence. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the stockpile site has been approved by the Board of Education. Mr. Bord stated that he has not received confirmation/approval by the Board of Education yet. No alternate site has been determined if the Board denies use of the stockpile area. In answer to questions by Agent Storey, Mr. Bord explained that he does not anticipate having to return to the IWWA for a modification to the permit by way of requesting additional space for limits of disturbance. The combined width of the roadway and pipe trench should be no more than 20'. The curtain drain along the slope will be a separate operation and will use smaller types of equipment. The 3rd question posed by the Agency members was whether the proposed addition to the school will require modification to the drainage plans being presented. Mr. Bord stated that he calculated the needs for drainage with the addition and found that the watershed is approximately 17 acres. After construction of the addition, there would be an increase of .1 to .2 cfs. Since the pipes are already oversized for the existing plans, the small increase would not create a problem. Agency members had asked for an estimate of the timing and length of the project. Mr. Young and Mr. Bord agreed that the answer could not be definite. Mr. Eaton had stated that the project could possibly be completed in one month. While this might be possible, Mr. Young and Mr. Bord felt 4 to 6 months would be more reasonable. Weather, contractor scheduling, and availability of fill would all be factors of the length of time needed. Also, giving the contractor such a short window of time for completion (1 month) would make the project much more costly. Mr. Bord stated that he would like to begin the bid process as soon as possible, although he was not positive that funding for the project is available in the current budget. He also noted that at least one planting season would be needed for starting grass. The applicant and contractor would also have to work within the conditions set by the Board of Education and IWWA. Agent Szewczak had raised concerns at the previous meeting as to whether or not enough erosion control would be provided and had asked how long the slopes would be exposed to erosion and sedimentation. Mr. Bord explained that the contractor is responsible for erosion control measures being maintained during construction. In addition to erosion control fencing, check dams, sediment blankets and hydro-seeding would likely be used. The plunge pool will be among the first portions of the project to be constructed and will help catch sediment during construction. The pool would be cleaned out if necessary due to heavy rains. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that Mr. Eaton had stated that no trees would be planted. She asked why this was so. Mr. Young explained that tree roots could cause problems with the pipes and if they were knocked over by weather conditions could cause more erosion problems. Also, trees, being very heavy, could eventually lead to slope failure. Mr. Young also noted that grass grows poorly under trees and bushes, allowing erosion to begin. The proposed seed mix grows very dense to help keep out invasive species and does not require mowing, although a once per year mowing would assist in keeping out the invasive species. Mr. Bord noted that this method was used with success on Cloud Street. Mr. Young noted that timing of the planting of the grass seed will be instrumental in ensuring that invasive species are not allowed to take over the area. Spring is the preferable season for first planting with several over-seedings recommended. Agent Storey asked if there would be a problem in having the construction period of June 1 through September 30 as a condition of approval. Mr. Bord answered that the contractor would abide by whatever conditions of approval were set upon him. Mr. Young reminded the Agency members of the importance of the spring planting season. Mr. Angus briefly reviewed 2002 CT Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control with the Agency members, as well as information on tackifiers as had been discussed at the last meeting of the Agency. At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened comment to the public. No one in the audience came forward to speak in favor, neutrally, or against the application. Agent Szewczak again expressed concern over adequate erosion control measures. Mr. Young reiterated that it is difficult to state on the plans the exact methods to be used and areas that will need erosion control, but that the contractor will be responsible for making sure adequate measures are taken. Also, Town Staff will regularly check on the progress of the work. It is already stated on the specifications that measures in addition to what is shown on the plans will be added if necessary. Mr. Angus also noted that proposed Condition #11 was modified to address Agent Szewczak's concerns. Mr. Bord also offered to make a general note on the plans regarding the possibility of needing more silt fence and check dams installed during construction. In answer to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Angus stated that although the average monthly rainfall is 3" to 4", spring time has more frequent occurrences than the summer months. Agency members discussed the possibility of keeping the public hearing open until the Board of Education has decided whether or not the stockpile area will be allowed. Mr. Angus noted that the approval of the Board of Education could be made a condition of approval. After further discussion over wording of the conditions, a motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Poirot to close the public hearing on IW #386. Vote was 5-0-0.
4. Continue or Close Public Hearing(s) A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Sarno to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 8:15 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 8:16 p.m.
2. Roll Call: Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Storey, Poirot, Szewczak, and Sarno. Agents Bergamini and Olsen were absent. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary.
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.
5. Correspondence. Correspondence was as follows: excerpts from the Planning & Zoning Newsletter of October, 2002; article from August, 2002 issue of "The Connecticut Law Tribune"; article from the Hartford Courant regarding a proposed subdivision off Bridge Lane; article from Springfield Union News, August 16, 2002 issue regarding the Enfield Dam.
6. Commissioner's Correspondence: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall received a memo from the Town Clerk regarding the Agency's 2003 meeting schedule and list of members. Mr. Angus will follow up on this matter.
7. Approval of Minutes - December 3, 2002: After brief discussion, a motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Sarno to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 3, 2003 with the following amendments: page 2, 8th paragraph, second sentence, add "ideally" after "should"; page 8, item 11, 6th paragraph, correct date of January meeting is 21st. Vote was 5-0-0.
8. Wetlands Agent Report - November 30, 2002 to December 11, 2002: Mr. Angus briefly reviewed the Agent's Report. In response to a question by Agent Storey, Mr. Angus explained that the Enfield High addition will not require additional parking spaces, but the construction will consume a small grass covered area. There will be a minor increase in drainage, but the wetlands are uphill. Mr. Angus also noted that he inspected the area of possible violation at the corner of Washington and Shaker Roads. He inspected all four corners. Apparently, the owners are considering selling the property and preliminary testing found contamination, possibly leakage from an old underground fuel tank. The D.E.P. has been notified and Mr. Angus will continue to follow up.
9. Old Business
" IW#386, Application of the Town of Enfield, for regulated activities associated with a slope stabilization project. Property located adjacent to JFK School site and Raffia Road. [Submitted 10/31/02, Received 11/6/02, PPE 11/20/02 MPHCD 1/17/03, MPHAD - 35 days after close of public hearing, SLMPHCD 2/3/03] Members again discussed the erosion control measures proposed for the project. In answer to a question by Agent Poirot, Mr. Angus stated that the guidelines set by the State of Connecticut are not regulatory, only best management practices, which have been approved by both the D.E.P. and Soil Conservation Service. After further discussion of the possible conditions, a motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Poirot to approve IW#386 with the 10 standard and 6 additional conditions of approval: 11. Limits of disturbance shall be marked in the field prior to ground disturbance and strictly adhered to in order to prevent unnecessary wetland and upland disturbance. Erosion and sedimentation controls must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and a downstream sediment dyke reinforced with appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls shall be installed to minimize downstream sedimentation concerns. Additional erosion and sedimentation controls will be installed throughout the project duration, as required, at the discretion of the Wetlands Agent and/or the Town Engineer; 12. Construction activities shall take place only during low flow conditions (June 1 through September 30) to minimize excessive erosion and sedimentation as a result of excessive runoff and heavily saturated soils; 13. Seeded areas shall be stabilized with the recommended seed mixture listed on the approved plans, in addition to 4000 lb/acre of hay or straw mulch applied with a non-asphaltic tackifier; 14. A construction management plan is to be prepared by the site contractor to the satisfaction of the School Department, Wetlands Agent and the Town Engineer, to ensure construction laydown areas and fill materials are properly located, handled and stabilized on-site - both temporarily and permanently. Placed fill must be tested to ensure it meets State standards of the 2002 Connecticut Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control (DEP Bulletin 34); 15. A long-term maintenance plan must be established, to the satisfaction of the Town of Enfield Planning Department, to monitor and ensure the safety and integrity of the filled areas is not compromised. Such a plan will include application of mulch to the disturbed areas for at least two years in order to deter invasive plant species from flourishing; 16. With the exception of the addition of the items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the plans titled "JFK School, Raffia Road, Enfield, CT Slope Stabilization", dated January 19, 2002, revised through November 22, 2002 (7 sheets). Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement or reorientation of building footprints, from the plans shall require the permitee to come before the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency for a Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling).
10. New Business
Determination of Permit Need 02-12-11 of Kathleen Jorgensen for clear cutting and selective logging within 100' feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 87 Shaker Road. [Submitted 12/11/02, Received 12/17/02, PPE 1/1/03, MAD 2/20/03, EMAD 4/26/02] The owner, Ms. Jorgensen and the logger, Mr. Christian Kruger, explained Ms. Jorgensen's proposal to engage in both selective cutting and clear cutting of trees on her 6 acre parcel. Clear cutting will take place around the dwelling and along the roadway, with selective cutting taking place to the rear of the property. Logs will be removed from the property and limbs will be chipped on site and removed by truck as well. The site will be stumped only in the landing area. The trees are predominately a mix of red maple and white oak and white pine. In response to questions by Agency members as to the reason for locating the landing area adjacent to Jawbuck Brook, Mr. Kruger explained that it is the only feasible location due to the fact that there is a well located both in the front and back of the house, the location of the septic system, and that the east side of the property is a low spot, making it difficult or impossible to bring in heavy equipment on that side. The property drops off by about 3' on that side and is 10 to 15' below Shaker Road grade. The house is approximately 150' from the road. The landing area is 200' long. The west side of the lot is only 3' below road grade, with a gentle slope. Members then held discussion on the difference between an ephemeral stream and an intermittent watercourse. Mr. Angus, who has inspected the site, felt the stream meets the criteria of an intermittent watercourse. Members then discussed selective harvesting practices as permitted on property of 1 acre or more and clear cutting issues. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that this property had been mentioned by a resident as a pristine forested area, with possible vernal pools at a recent Conservation meeting. Agent Szewczak expressed his concern over the possibility of clear cutting so close to the wetlands and upland review area and would prefer to see selective cutting. Mr. Kruger noted that if the soil is not frozen, silt fencing would be installed. Sediment should not enter the brook directly because of the topography. He felt that clear cutting promotes new growth. Agent Szewczak noted that selective cutting could mean taking only the best growth and would allow for an eventual return to forest condition, but clear cutting would mean the area would be converted to permanent lawn. Agent Storey added that he would like to see the landing area relocated. Mr. Kruger felt there would be limited impact to the wetlands. In answer to Agent Storey's question, Mr. Kruger stated that Best Management Practices would be used in re-seeding, with a mix of alfalfa and Conservation Mix. Otherwise, he has not prepared a planting plan. The landing area and clear cutting will be within 20' of the brook. Mr. Kruger intends to remove 50% of the basal area within the selective cut area. Mr. Angus noted that the wetland area extends beyond the property line and Mr. Kruger has indicated that heavy equipment would not be brought into the wetlands. Mr. Angus noted that selective cutting is allowed per Town regulations; his concern is over the location of the clear cutting operation and landing area, which is located in the flood plain. Mr. Kruger again stated that he felt this was the only location for the landing area due to the location of utilities and topography. The landing area is an old farm road. Ms. Jorgensen expressed her concern over timing of the cutting project. She would like to have the project finished before spring when the ground thaws and becomes muddy. She also stated that she felt it unfair that she is not allowed to clear cut to the brook, whereas property owners on the opposite side of the brook have lawns to the brook. Agent Szewczak and Mr. Angus explained that the lawns had been developed prior to current IWWA regulations and would not be allowed if proposed today. Mr. Angus stated that the Town must abide by State mandated regulations. He is awaiting further guidance from the State Forester. In response to a question by Mr. Kruger, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that a permit application would require better mapping, contours, and a survey, if available, as well as a map showing the location of the septic, 2 wells, and utility lines, all in relation to the location of the brook. The applicant would not necessarily have to hire a soil scientist. Mr. Angus would be available to assist the applicant with the maps and application process. In response to a question by Agent Storey, Mr. Kruger stated that the actual cutting operation should hopefully take only about 1 week, but contractors need to be scheduled in advance; the delay of the permitting process could mean that the project would not be done while the ground is frozen. A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Szewczak that an Inland Wetlands & Watercourses permit will be necessary for this application. Vote was 5-0-0.
11. Other Business: Agent Szewczak made a motion which was seconded by Agent Poirot to add "Request for Extension and Modification of IW #336 for Regulated Activities associated with the construction of a hotel and restaurant. Property located on the south side of Hazard Ave and the west side of Phoenix Avenue. [Submitted 11/12/02, received 12/17/02, PPE 1/1/03, MAD 2/20/03, EMAD 4/26/03]. Vote was 4-0-1 (Storey). Agent Storey excused himself from discussion on this application due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Jed Hayes of Enfield Ventures Partnership and Mr. Bill Goebel of Bohler Engineering explained that this is the last undeveloped parcel within the Park. The site was previously approved for another hotel and restaurant tenant. Since then, a new tenant for both has been found but minor modifications to the footprints of the building are required. The restaurant will now be 900 square feet larger with 237 seats instead of 197. The hotel will be 1,000 square feet larger but within the same area as previously approved. Mr. Bohler provided an overlay of the previously approved s |