|
ALL MINUTES ARE PRELIMINARY - APPROVED MINUTES AVAILABLE IN TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE AFTER APPROVAL BY AGENCY
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Thomas Arnone
Robert LeMay
David J. Wawer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Szewczak
Robie Staples
Louis V. Tallarita
Michael Mosschetti
ALSO PRESENT: Steven Sadlowski, Wetlands Agent
Susan Berube, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall at 7:07 p.m.
2. Pledge Of Allegiance:
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
3. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, LeMay and Wawer. Also present were Steven Sadlowski, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary. Agent LeMay was seated as a full voting member for this portion of the meeting.
4. Hearing(s):
Show Cause Hearing:
Kory E. Groszyk. Cease and Restore Order issued for property at 30 Parker Street for dumping solid waste over bank into wetlands behind house. Ordered to Cease from depositing any more material on property and to Restore the banks to a natural and stable state.
Mr. Sadlowski reviewed the sequence of events and correspondence. He stated that on December 8, 2006, he received a note from the D.E.P. regarding an anonymous complaint that debris was being dumped over the bank at 30 Parker Street. Mr. Sadlowski viewed the site from open space nearby. From a neighboring property, he took a photograph of the debris, which is now being presented to the Agency.
Mr. Sadlowski issued a Notice of Violation on December 13, 2006 and met with the owner and Mr. Askew on January 10, 2007.
It was determined that slope is obscured by a large pile of debris and fill, roughly 15’ wide and 10 to 15’ from the top of slope, out. It consists mainly of brush and includes some dimensional lumber, furniture and other miscellaneous materials. It is solid waste type debris, with no “garbage”. No hazardous materials or oils were seen.
The owner did not attend the IWWA meeting on January 16, 2007 as requested.
A Cease and Restore Order was issued on January 22, 2007 with this Show Cause Hearing scheduled for this evening, January 30, 2007.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that there are definitely wetlands and a watercourse on the property.
Mr. Chris Grigitis spoke on behalf of Ms. Groszyk, who was also present.
Mr. Grigitis stated that he began filling the slope, which is approximately a 50’ drop in order to add on to the back yard. He stated that all of the materials are biodegradable and he intended to put soil over the materials and then seed over it.
There are leaves and cuttings and all wood materials. Ms. Groszyk owns the property all the way to the river. He did not realize that the filling was not allowed.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that unfortunately, there are wetlands on the property.
Mr. Grigitis asked why the materials need to be removed. He stated that they are not a threat and non-polluting. He will not add more to the pile. It cannot be seen in the summer and is contained on Ms. Groszyk’s property. It would cost approximately $20,000 to remove all of the debris. Removal would require dump trucks and claws or approximately 3 years of labor by hand. The filling was started approximately 1 to 1 ½ years ago. The property has been in the family for 60 years. He realizes that area is not stable, but he is not “playing football, just extending the property”.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the instability is one reason why the materials need to be removed. There is nothing to hold the materials in place and they could slump into the wetlands, especially over time as the materials begin to decompose.
Mr. Grigitis stated that because of the cost, it will be impossible to remove. He has received quotes in the range of $15,000 to $20,000.
Mr. Sadlowski noted that there is likely over 100 yards of materials to be removed.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if Mr. Grigitis or Ms. Groszyk had seen the letter from the D.E.P. and the memo from Mr. Askew. The memo from Mr. Askew states that the extent of slope damage cannot be assessed until the debris has been removed.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that Mr. Grigitis had previously stated to him that the slope was eroding before he began to add fill.
Mr. Grigitis stated that he had said that only in the hope of getting himself out of trouble for filling the area.
Mr. Sadlowski explained that the State has mandated that local IWW agencies oversee wetlands in their municipalities using state regulations and guidelines. In general, filling of wetlands is not permitted, except for minor crossings or minimal amounts and with restrictions and conditions.
This may seem like a minor issue but it is not. The D.E.P. is now aware of the site and if they were to realize that there is over 100 yards of solid waste, they would consider it a solid waste facility.
Laying dirt over the fill material will actually cause the underlying fill to break down and rot and eventually fall down hill. The only way to fix this is to remove it. The only question is how long it will take.
Agent Arnone, in reviewing the photo, stated that he can see a lot of construction debris, and boards. If these materials were to break loose they would fall into the wetlands. The IWWA is charged to make sure this type of thing doesn’t happen.
He added that he sympathizes with residents when they find out that they in fact cannot do certain things with their own property. This fill is actually worse for the slope because it makes it more unstable.
Agent Arnone also stated that he agrees that it will not be easy to remove and will be costly.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she drove by the property but did not stop because she did not have permission to be on the property.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that it would take hundreds of loads in a typical 4’x8’ trailer to remove all of the materials. The main thing is to get the area cleaned up within a reasonable time.
Mr. Grigitis explained that the house is currently in foreclosure proceedings. He lost his job and Ms. Groszyk has just returned to work after a year of illness. Since he cannot afford to hire someone to remove everything, he will have to take it out himself but it would take at least a year before he could even afford to start, because of the fees at the town’s dump.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall wondered if the Town would consider waiving the fees in this case.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that he did not know, but would approach the Town Manager regarding this.
Agent Arnone stated that it would be in the owner’s best interest to speak with the Town Manager and bring proof of hardship.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the Town allowed residents to bring debris to the dump at no charge immediately following the flooding of October, 2005. She asked if the foreclosure is imminent.
Mr. Grigitis stated that he has 3 weeks to make a payment or the house will be foreclosed upon. He has been in and out of the foreclosure process several times recently.
He added that even if the dump fees were waived, this is a huge undertaking and will take a lot of time. It may be a year from this spring before he could be finished.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall explained that if the house is foreclosed upon, the Agency’s interest needs to be covered.
Mr. Sadlowski explained that if the Agency upholds his Cease & Restore Order, it will be placed on the land records. At that point it would have nothing to do with the owner – the note goes with the property and would be seen by anyone conducting a title search.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall agreed with Agent Arnone’s suggestion that the owner provide details of their financial hardship in writing and request a waiver of the dump fees.
Mr. Sadlowski asked where the materials that were dumped came from.
Mr. Grigitis stated that they came from odd jobs, relatives’ properties.
Mr. Sadlowski suggested that Mr. Grigitis and Ms. Groszyk meet with the Town Manager in person and that he would possibly accompany them.
At 7:40 p.m., a motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent LeMay to uphold the Cease & Restore Order for property at 30 Parker Street.
It was the consensus of the Agency members to work with the owners with regards to adequate time for the removal of the debris and restoration of the banks to a natural and stable state.
In discussion, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the removal would be by hand.
Mr. Grigitis stated that it would.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall wanted to ensure that no heavy equipment will be used and noted that usually a plan is submitted.
Mr. Grigitis stated that he has a 14’ trailer and will use it to haul the materials to the dump.
Agent Arnone expressed concern for the areas next to, and below the pile. Those areas should not be disturbed. He stated that the Agency wants to work with the owners but the owners have to work with the Agency also.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall added that Mr. Sadlowski will need to come out and conduct periodic inspections.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that for the first part of the removal, it will not even be necessary to go over the embankment.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked where the wetlands start.
Mr. Sadlowski replied that it is more or less at the base of the bank.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that this means that the whole back yard is substantially within the 100’ regulated area.
She added that she would like an update at the next regular IWWA meeting, February 13, 2007.
Vote was 4-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent LeMay to close the Public Hearing portion of the meeting.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order:
The regular meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall at 7:41 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Arnone, LeMay and Wawer. Also present were Steven Sadlowski, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
Agent LeMay was seated as a full voting member for this portion of the 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.
5. Correspondence.
The following items of correspondence were received:
· Notice dated January 2007 from Society of Soil Scientists of Southern New England announcing availability of the 2006 edition of Registry of Soil Scientists.
· Letter dated January 5, 2007 from CL&P regarding scheduled maintenance activities on rights-of-way
· Letter from Steven Sadlowski, dated 1/17/07 to Daniel Vindigni, Asst. Town Manager regarding recent consensus of the IWWA being in favor of keeping the Connecticut River Assembly
· Letter from CT Association of Wetland Scientists (CAWS), dated 1/17/07 regarding their annual meeting on February 27, 2007, along with a registration form and membership form.
· January, 2007 issue of Southern New England Chapter Newsletter of Soil and Water Conservation Society
· Jan/Feb 2007 issue of Connecticut Wildlife
· Copy of application by Lycott Environmental, Inc. for application to apply aquatic pesticides to Crescent Lake. Mr. Sadlowski also included information on the chemicals to be used.
Members discussed the Lake Association’s efforts to keep the lake alive.
Agent Arnone noted that many of the town’s ponds and lakes would benefit more from dredging, rather than use of chemicals.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall agreed and noted that Crescent Lake had applied for a grant for dredging but could not find a place for the spoils.
Agent Arnone stated that he would like to see work continue toward having the lakes dredged.
Mr. Sadlowski, in reference to CAWS, stated that as the town’s representative, he will be attending the annual meeting and will try to attend their other meetings as time permits.
6. Commissioner's Correspondence.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted receipt of an invitation for Chairs and Vice-Chairs to meet with the Town Council to discuss concerns of various boards and commissions. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked IWWA members for suggestions or recommendations that she can bring up at the meeting.
7. Approval of Minutes - January 16, 2007:
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 16, 2007 with one amendment: page 14, subsection “d Approve Proposed 2007/2008 fiscal year budget” – remove “d”. Vote was 3-0-1(LeMay).
8. Wetlands Agent Report - January 17-29, 2007
Mr. Sadlowski briefly reviewed the Agent’s Report.
He stated that he wrote a letter to Mr. Giner regarding erosion and drainage issues at the Shaker Heights subdivision. Mr. Askew has recommended that a check dam be installed.
Completion of the roadways will cause the water to go into the catch basins which will alleviate some drainage issues but may cause the detention basin to overflow. He has heard complaints of this happening already but has not had the opportunity to see it firsthand.
Mr. Sadlowski also reported that he has heard from Mr. Mastroberti and he will likely be on the Agency’s next meeting agenda.
Mr. Sadlowski also reported that the owner of 22 Douglas Drive has guaranteed that he will remove debris from the brook on his property. Mr. Sadlowski will continue to follow up on this matter.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that the bridge work at Old Abbe Road is not yet complete.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Sadlowski stated that he was unsure of the status of work being done on Fletcher Road but will look into the matter and have an update at the Agency’s next meeting.
Agent Arnone stated that it was discussed at a recent Town Council meeting as possibly being changed to a dead end road.
9. Old Business
IW 476 - David Turner. Proposed construction of a wetland crossing for a residential driveway (.08 Acre impact) and construction of a home within the upland review area (.7 Acre impact). Property located on Post Office Rd. (Map 47, Lot 44) Zoned I-1. [Submitted 12/22/06; Received 1/16/07, PPE 1/30/07, MAD 3/21/07]
Mr. Dana Steele, P.E., of J. R. Russo, represented the applicant, Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner was also present.
Mr. Steele briefly reviewed the proposed project, stating that the applicant intends to purchase this 5.898 acre parcel. It is currently in agricultural use.
There is a post and wire fence along the road. The grade dips down to the field and there is a pond towards the left.
There are islands of trees in the rear of the property, but the land is predominately cleared.
The watercourses flow south and carry drainage from Post Office Road. The watercourse goes along the rear property line and heads off the property.
Currently the site is a hay field. Most of the property is wetlands, based on soil type but one is not likely to find wetlands vegetation.
There is an island of uplands in the northwest corner of the property and 2 fingers of upland.
The applicant has looked at alternatives in order to have the least impact. Mr. Steele feels that he has proposed the most prudent alternative, with the least amount of impact.
The applicant intends to construct a single family home and continue the agricultural use of the property. He would like a few cows and will construct a barn to house the cows and equipment.
At the last meeting, the Agency members expressed concern over the activities near the wetlands.
As a result, the barn has been reduced in size from 24’x36’ to 20’x30’. The residential use shed has been moved to the side yard, further from wetlands.
The wetlands delineation lines will be filed on the land records and the applicant now proposes fencing along the wetlands boundary along the barn, and up to the driveway, on both sides of the drive.
Members also had concern over cows negatively impacting the pond.
Mr. Steele stated that the function and value of the pond is limited to storm water management, flood control and storm water quality.
He stated that he spoke with Mr. Askew, who felt that the cows should be separated from the pond. The applicant is willing to move the fence to the front side of the pond so the cows cannot access it. This is not shown on the plans since the conversation with Mr. Askew was held after the latest plans were submitted.
Mr. Sadlowski provided a copy of the 1993 D.E.P. Manual of BMPs for Agriculture for the applicant and IWWA members.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she, too, had discussed the cows’ use of the pond with Mr. Askew.
Agent Arnone pointed out that the cows would not be drinking from the pond as it gets stagnant in the summer.
Mr. Turner asked if the pond itself could be fenced in.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that it could, but it would be better to have a riparian buffer. The suggested buffer would be 50’ with natural vegetation to help filter overland flow.
Agent Arnone noted that nitrates from the cow manure will leach into the pond and this should be considered by the applicant.
Mr. Steele stated that the current owner reports that the pond can get to be approximately 5’ deep in the spring time and can dry up in the summer.
Agent Arnone stated that the applicant will want to check to see if this is a vernal pool which would be even more reason to protect it from the cows, by a fence.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she preferred the applicant’s first proposal regarding fencing in front of the pond, instead of around it.
Mr. Steele felt that a distance of 20’ from the pond could be maintained.
Agent Arnone suggested that a swale or silt fence might also be advisable, in consideration of runoff from the pasture into the pond as additional protection from the livestock and manure.
Mr. Steele stated that it is difficult to see how much drains into the pond because the land is flat. A berm may work.
He added that he appreciates the Agency’s input.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall again stressed her desire to have the fence at least 20’ from the pond.
Mr. Sadlowski added that the area will grow quickly which will help as a filter.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked about the temporary staging area noted on the plans.
Mr. Steele explained that Staff has previously requested designated areas for building materials and equipment storage during construction.
In response to questions by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Steele responded that the house will be built first and the staging area can be moved to the other side of the barn.
In regards to the proposed stone wall, Mr. Steele stated that the area behind the fence will be filled. The fence will be constructed from the house side. The wall will be built of stone.
Mr. Turner explained that dirt will not filter out of the wall. There will be mesh behind the wall. The stones will be no more than 3’ around. He has constructed stone walls in the past.
Mr. Steele added that this is a “gravity wall”. Its’ strength is its’ weight. It will be 4’ wide.
He went on to say that the house will be colonial style. The basement will be 6” above existing grade. The proposed footing drain is precautionary in nature.
Agent Arnone asked if process fill would be used.
Mr. Steele stated that it will and he will add detail for the retaining wall to the plans.
Agent Arnone stated his concern that the fence not fall into the wetlands.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the wetlands have been flagged.
Mr. Steele stated that they were and referred to flag numbers on the plans.
Agent Arnone expressed concern that the footing drain going through the fence to outlet will not fail and cause erosion. He requested detail of the outlet of the footing drain. He also asked where the roof leaders will drain.
Mr. Steele stated that the roof leaders will drain onto the lawn.
Members discussed whether or not there would be a need to review the plans again, or allow Staff to give final review.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that he would have the Town’s engineers review the final plans.
Mr. Steele stated that there is not a watershed behind this. It is a small area and the amount of water involved will be small.
Agent Arnone noted that Mr. Steele’s stamp will be on the plans, essentially guaranteeing that it will work.
Members discussed the proposed conditions of approval and added the following based on discussion:
· Relocate livestock fence
· Barn staging area to be moved to the northwest area of the barn
· Details to be provided for the retaining wall and footing drain
· Orange safety fence to be placed at the wetlands boundary
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she appreciated the applicant’s willingness to move the shed and reduce the barn size.
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Wawer to approve IW#476 with the standard 10 conditions, in addition to the following #11 through #18:
11. All required erosion and sediment controls must be in place prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit. In addition, all exposed areas must be permanently and/or temporarily stabilized prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy
12. Roof leader outlets must be permanently stabilized prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy
13. Prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit, a note shall be placed on the deed for the property notifying any future owner of the existence of wetlands on the property. The note shall read "Portions of this lot contain inland wetlands. Any proposed activity (land clearing, excavation, filling, re-grading and/or placement of structures) in or within 100 feet of these wetlands will require authorization from the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency prior to commencement. Failure to obtain the necessary approvals may result in enforcement action in accordance with Section 13 of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, as amended. Disposal of yard wastes (soil, leaves, brush, grass clippings, or any other form of waste) in these wetlands will also constitute a violation of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations".
14. Applicant has agreed to relocate the livestock fence to exclude the pond from the grazing area by running the fence around and to the North of the pond, approximate 20-25 feet away where possible.
15. Barn staging area to be moved to opposite (N/W) side of the barn.
16. Details to be added for the retaining wall, and the details to be approved by the Town Engineering department before a building permit is issued.
17. Orange safety fencing to be installed at the wetland boundary near the retaining wall to protect the wetland from intrusion.
18. With the exception of the additional items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with Site Plan entitled "Plot Plan Prepared for David Turner Lot 44, Post Office Road Enfield, CT"; sheets 1-3; dated 12/21/06, revised through 1/19/07; prepared by JR Russo and Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement or re-orientation 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 Permit Modification or Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling). Reason for approval was that the applicant has demonstrated that the project will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses. Vote was 4-0-0.
IW #477 - Tim Fortune. Proposed new home constructed within 100 feet of a watercourse and within the upland review area (.13 acre impact). Property located on Steele Road (Map 047, Lot 44) Zoned R-33. [Submitted 12/29/06, Received 1/16/07, PPE 1/30/07, MAD 3/21/07]
Mr. Tim Fortune and Mr. John Martucci, engineer, represented the applicant.
Mr. Fortune provided plans updated to January 23, 2007. He stated that he is proposing to extend the row of arborvite to the A11 section on the map. Dogwoods have been added as wildlife habitat and food source. A 25’ conservation easement was added along the rear of the property at the Agency’s request.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the arborvite would survive, being that close to the wetlands.
Mr. Sadlowski stated that the arborvites’ main purpose is to shield the house from the brook. There are other trees there anyway. He would like to see approximately 20 of them removed and add additional dogwood instead, staggered, to look more natural.
After further discussion on this, it was the consensus of the Agency members to have the arborvite located beyond the tree line removed and that the arborvite and dogwood be staggered to provide adequate buffer to the watercourse as well as food and shelter value for wildlife. This is addressed in the amended proposed condition #13.
Mr. Sadlowski suggested adding additional signage reminding owners of the existence of wetlands.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that conservation easement signs cannot be erected if the area is not in a conservation easement. She stated that she would rather see plantings act as a natural stopping point.
Ms. Tina Smith, current owner of the property, stated that she is proposing to install a fence along her property line, along with no-trespassing signs.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that fencing should not go in the wetlands.
Ms. Smith suggested then, eliminating the fence but posting the no-trespassing signs only.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that trespassing is not an IWWA issue. The Agency’s concern is only to keep activity out of the wetlands. She suggested installation of a split rail fence on the new lot to discourage access beyond the tree line and limit of clearing, approximately 50’ from A10.
Mr. Martucci marked this on the map.
Mr. Fortune was agreeable to this.
Mr. Martucci also stated that the plot plan will show the “limit of clearing” and “no structures beyond this point”.
He added that the builder will install a non-continuous, decorative fence.
Mr. Sadlowski penned a new condition to meet this requirement for the Agency.
Agent Arnone asked if the grades between the 2 houses would be adequate to drain.
Mr. Martucci stated that there is a swale between the 2 contours.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the type of house shown on the plans is different from the one actually built, will the applicant need to come before the Agency again.
Mr. Sadlowski responded that as long as it is within approximately 5’ of its’ current proposed location, it will essentially be the same. If it is changed more in some way, the applicant would need to come back.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Arnone to approve IW#477 with the 10 standard conditions, in addition to the following #11 through #17:
11. All required erosion and sediment controls must be in place prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit. In addition, all exposed areas must be permanently and/or temporarily stabilized prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy
12. Roof leader outlets must be permanently stabilized prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the Certificate of Occupancy
13. A selection of plants that will provide food value for the wildlife shall be installed between the arborvitae row and the brook. The specifics of all these plantings (type, quantity, location etc.), are to be approved by the agent with advice from the North Central Conservation District (Dave Askew).
14. Prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit, a note shall be placed on the deed for the property notifying any future owner of the existence of wetlands on the property. The note shall read "Portions of this lot contain inland wetlands. Any proposed activity (land clearing, excavation, filling, re-grading and/or placement of structures) in or within 100 feet of these wetlands will require authorization from the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency prior to commencement. Failure to obtain the necessary approvals may result in enforcement action in accordance with Section 13 of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, as amended. Disposal of yard wastes (soil, leaves, brush, grass clippings, or any other form of waste) in these wetlands will also constitute a violation of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations".
15. Those portions of the total site indicated to be a conservation easement (as amended) shall be first offered to the town as an easement or restrictive covenant. Conservation easement markers shall be installed in accordance with Town requirements, by a licensed surveyor, at the applicant's expense. Easement markers will be provided by the Planning Department. Where no trees are present greater than 6" dbh, easement markers shall be placed on 4"x4" wooden posts to demarcate the easement boundary. Should the Town Council decline the acceptance of the easement or restrictive covenant, a notification shall be placed on the land records that indicates the extent of wetland resources on-site and the regulations governing those resources, including the prohibition of disposal of refuse and/or yard waste on or near the slopes and wetland and watercourse areas.
16. Fence sections (individual spaced segments to mark line) to be installed along a line, 50 feet E of wetland flag A-10, running roughly North and South to permanently mark the wetlands boundary and limits of building or clearing for the benefit of future owners. This must be shown on the final site plan before any permits are issued.
17. With the exception of the additional items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with Site Plan entitled "Resubdivision Plan #42 Steele Road"; sheets 1-3; dated 12/18/06 and revised to 1/23/07; prepared by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC 1379 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement or re-orientation 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 Permit Modification or Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling). Vote was 4-0-0.
Reason for approval was that the applicant has demonstrated that the project will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
10. New Business
• Next regular meeting is Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 7:00PM in the Council Chambers.
10. Adjourn:
A motion was made by Agent Arnone and seconded by Agent Wawer to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m. Vote was 4-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________ Thomas Arnone, Secretary |