Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting

INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

TUESDAY, April 20, 2010

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut.

MEMBERS PRESENT:     Douglas Maxellon, Chairman

        Karen Camidge

        Joseph Albert

        Jo-Marie Nelson

        Brian Peruta

Patrick Szczesiul, Alternate (7:08 p.m.) (seated)

MEMBERS ABSENT:      Maryann Abar, Alternate

Robert Lemay

Robie Staples

ALSO PRESENT:           Katie Bednaz, Wetlands Agent

Susan Berube, Recording Secretary

REGULAR MEETING

1.     Call to Order:  The meeting was called to order by Chairman Douglas Maxellon at 7:00 p.m.

2.     Roll Call:  Present were:  Chairman Maxellon and Agents Albert, Camidge, Nelson, Peruta, Szczesiul (7:08 p.m.)

3.     Pledge of Allegiance:  The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

4.     Executive Session

(Matters regarding specific employees, pending litigation, acquisition of real estate and / or matters exempt from disclosure requirements):  None.

5.     Public Hearing

a.      XIW-10-04 – Town of Enfield Public Works – is requesting a permit to reconstruct and enlarge the South Maple Street Bridge over the Scantic River (Map 84, Lots 7, 12, 14 and 21). Submitted 3/3/10, received 3/16/10, PPE 3/30/10, MAD 5/20/10:  Piya Hawkes, Public Works Director and Jeff Scala, P.E. represented the applicant.

Mr. Scala stated that updated specifications and drainage revisions based on staff and IWWA members’ comments have been provided to Ms. Bednaz.

Minor modifications to the parking lot have been made.  It has been moved east by 25’ and remains in the regulated area.

Mr. Hawkes has provided proof of certified letters sent to abutting owners.

Ms. Bednaz noted that one of the changes to the plans is that the outfall located to the south of the bridge will no longer be reconstructed.

Mr. Scala explained that because it lies on private property, the reconstruction would require an easement to CT Water Company, likely delaying the project significantly.

Ms. Bednaz also noted that draft condition of approval #18 has been modified to reduce the chance of erosion and transport of sediment to the river.

She noted that the draft conditions also includes notice to contractors regarding the construction sequence and staging areas.

Agent Nelson stated that although she was not at the meeting of 04/06/10, she did review the video tape and read the minutes of the meeting.

Agent Peruta asked about the requirement for inspections.  He would like to have someone on site at least twice per month, as will be done for the South Road project.

Chairman Maxellon expressed his concern over erosion and the resulting sand crossing the road.

He noted that a retaining wall is shown on page 6 of the plans but he did not find it in the field.  Is it going to be built?  This would likely solve the problem.

Mr. Scala stated that the survey is 5 years old.  The plans reflect what was in the field at that time.

Chairman Maxellon stated that his concern is that the new catch basin will catch all of the sand and send it into the river.  He wondered if the retaining wall could be rebuilt or perhaps, even have a high curb installed.

Mr. Scala responded that the wall is located on private property.  The long term solution would be to request that the owner fix the wall or for the Town to acquire the property and fix the wall.

Chairman Maxellon was under the impression, based on the small version set of plans that he had, that the property line is located on the other side of the wall, making the wall on Town owned property.

Mr. Scala approached the table and showed members where the property line is located.  The wall is on private property and the new catch basin will be located right on the property line.

Agent Albert left the meeting at 7:12 p.m. and returned at 7:13 p.m.

Chairman Maxellon asked if the Agency has the authority to have this made a part of the project or require that the owner make repairs to the wall.

Ms. Bednaz stated that she feels it would be better not to incorporate this into the project.  The owner should be responsible to correct the issue.

She went on to say that she can visit the owner and see if he or she would be willing to fix the wall on their own.  If the sand is reaching the resource area, then it is a violation.

Mr. Scala noted that the existing catch basin is being replaced with one that includes a 4’ sump, which will help filter out sand.  A temporary silt fence can be installed during construction, which will also help.

Chairman Maxellon wondered if it would be o.k. to approach the property owner for permission to have the Town install an extra high curb, instead of the owner doing it.  He feels that allowing the erosion to continue is defeating the purpose of the project.

Agency members then held discussion regarding the need for a condition of approval to address oversight and inspections.

Chairman Maxellon noted that the proposed inspection contractor, GN Square is a good company but they subcontract some of their work out to others.

Mr. Scala noted that verbiage could be added to the contract specifying the type and frequency of inspections to be done so that it would not cost the Town any additional funds.

Ms. Bednaz wondered how this could be considered an “independent” contractor, since the applicant is paying for it.

Mr. Scala stated that it was his understanding that the Agency is mostly concerned in having a qualified inspector, regardless of who is paying.

Mr. Hawkes stated that he will inform the D.O.T. of the IWWA’s public hearing concerns and that the inspections are a condition of approval.

Chairman Maxellon noted that if Ms. Bednaz’s position is not eliminated, the applicant can return to the IWWA to request removal of this requirement.

He also expressed his disappointment that the outfall will not be replaced, as originally planned.

Mr. Hawkes stated that the land is owned by the CT Water Company and land acquisitions from utility companies normally take a long time.  He will contact them regarding the acquisition.  If it works out and is completed before the project is complete, the work could be done through a change order to the contract.  If the acquisition takes place after project completion, the work will be done at a later date, by the Town.

Agent Szczesiul asked about the animal passage shelf.

Mr. Scala explained that it is shown on page 14 of the plans.  The shelf is approximately 10’ wide and will be placed just above the 2 year storm level, following the natural contours currently existing.

It will be constructed of rip rap with existing stream bed material on top of the rip rap.

Agent Albert left the meeting at 7:24 p.m. and returned at 7:27 p.m.

Ms. Bednaz noted that the rip rap is being extended to meet the edge of the bank at the outfall.  This will mean additional impact of 10’ of stone but is less impact than having more erosion.  This could be added as a condition of approval.

Mr. Hawkes stated that he understands the Agency’s concerns over erosion but does not want to set precedence.  He is being directed to stay within the Town’s right-of-way.  If the Town fixes the erosion problem for the property owner, other residents will want the same privilege.

Chairman Maxellon countered that this is a unique situation.  The sand is traveling across the road into the river.  He is not requesting an elaborate fix.

He added that he feels part of the problem is the traffic going up the hill.  He would like to approach the Town Engineer and perhaps Mr. Coppler, Town Manager regarding this matter.

At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment.

Ms. Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall of 4 Somers Road, Enfield and a member of the Enfield Conservation Commission (ECC) came forward to speak.

She noted that the set of plans provided to the ECC were small and very difficult to read.

She stated that her commission’s concern is over the runoff and where it will go.  She is concerned that the storm water will go into the river, without treatment.  This is an historic, scenic area.

She noted that in the past, Enfield has participated in the annual stream bio-diversity inventory from 2003-2008 with samples taken from this area of the Scantic River.  Collections are taken in October of each year.

This site meets the goals for aquatic life support but needs improvement.  Ms. Pfeifer-Hall stated that the storm water separator and rip rap are a good start but she does not feel that they are enough.

 She feels that a grassy swale filter would be beneficial to filter out salts, oils and fertilizers, as well as cool the water temperatures in the summer.

She suggested collecting discharge from the 4 upper catch basins and filter the water through an additional separator and then through a grassy swale.

She feels that the Town has an obligation to protect this area.

Chairman Maxellon asked Ms. Pfeifer-Hall to provide information on the stream biodiversity inventory.

Mr. Rex Geoffrey of 57 Highland View Drive, Somers, president of the Scantic River Association agreed with Ms. Pfeifer-Hall’s comments.  He wants to see the quality of water remain good and will continue watching as the project proceeds.

No one else in the audience came forward to speak at this time.

Mr. Scala stated that the new catch basins are designed to address sediment and nutrient pollution loading with the 4’ sumps and gross particle separator.

The basins are to be inspected twice yearly and cleaned once each year.

He added that overland nutrient loads will not run into the catch basins any more. 

Also, shade trees will be added along the roadway which will address the water temperature issue.

The catch basin that outfalls onto CT Water Company property will not be touched but one manhole will be added.

Ms. Pfeifer-Hall spoke again.  She stated that the catch basin on the south side outlets to a swale.  She assumes that sediment will accumulate in the swale and need constant maintenance – not an ideal situation. 

Also, when the issue with CT Water Company is resolved, an additional permit will be required. 

She also asked if the regulated area is shown on the map.

Mr. Scala showed the line on the map.  The map is at 40 scale; 95% of the project is within the regulated area.

Ms. Pfeifer-Hall also asked what feasible and prudent alternatives have been offered.  She feels that there is room for her suggestion of swales.  There is room near the parking lot for an additional separator and swale.  Currently there is just a pipe spilling out onto rocks.  She feels that there will still be salts and nutrients entering the river and that the applicant is still not addressing water quality renovation and water temperature accurately.

Mr. Scala explained that the existing pump house is located right at the edge of the embankment.  He is unable to do anything per D.E.P.

He is unsure how much 50’ would benefit the project.  He did look at a water quality basin but with the underground sewer and water company pipes, he feels it is not feasible without spending a great deal more money.

Ms. Pfeifer-Hall noted that the area is all state-owned property.  She is unsure of the value of the brick ruin building and suggested it be removed and the area used for water quality renovation.

She added that she understands that the bridge project has been needed, probably for decades.  She can’t say enough on the importance of this resource and that it is worth the extra effort to improve the water quality.

This is the Scantic River State Park – it’s important.

Mr. Scala countered that this is not D.O.T. controlled – it is D.E.P.  This could delay the project if the applicant were to try to get additional permitting and/or property.

It would be a physical challenge to move water to where Ms. Pfeifer-Hall suggests due to the elevation.

Ms. Bednaz reviewed the elevation of the catch basin, noting it at 75.89 and the grassy area at 81.  Water would need to go up hill by 5’.  There is not enough room for that and a retention area could not be built on a slope.

She wondered if it would be feasible to “daylight” water between the storm manholes on the east side of the road for water quality purposes.

Mr. Scala replied that it would require 2 or 3 contours added to the map and would end up in the flood plain.

Ms. Bednaz suggested trying to “daylight” the water for a portion of the trip to the river.

Chairman Maxellon suggested diverting water to the rear of the pump house.

Mr. Scala stated that the pipes are too far below the surface and would end up on D.E.P. land and the applicant would need their permission.

Ms. Bednaz noted that if the Agency determines that this is not a feasible option, there is no need to investigate further.  If the Agency determines that it is worth pursuing, they would need to know where the basin would end up – likely on D.E.P. land.  It will need to be at least 2’ deep.

Agent Peruta asked if the water quality will be better with the proposed treatment than it is now.

Mr. Scala replied that at this time, it has no water quality provisions, other than one 2’ sump so the proposed project would definitely improve water quality.

Chairman Maxellon noted the difficulty in following the contours on these plans.  He would like to see Ms. Pfeifer-Hall’s suggestion shown on the plans to see if it would be feasible.

Ms. Pfeifer-Hall offered a full size copy of page 6 of the plans, highlighted in areas of concern and suggested alternatives.  She feels it would be feasible to add a gross particle separator and water quality.

She added that the bridge has been there for 50 years.  It is likely that the Agency has one shot at doing this right.  The IWWA is charged with finding the best watercourse protection, not necessarily the cost.

Agent Peruta briefly left the meeting at 8:02 p.m.  He returned at 8:04 p.m.

Ms. Pfeifer-Hall also reported that she has witnessed the Enfield D.P.W. staff shoveling debris from the bridge directly into the river.  They are not likely to clean the catch basins regularly, either.

She believes that the Town should set the standard for private applications.

She added that because of the current economy, bids will likely come in low.  The IWWA’s charge is to get the best design, not the most cost effective.

Chairman Maxellon stated that the applicant’s engineer needs to see a copy of the plan page submitted by Ms. Pfeifer-Hall.

Conditions of approval discussed earlier can be worked out with Mr. Hawkes.

Mr. Scala stated that the gross particle separator is designed to meet the 1” storm, regardless of how many catch basins it covers.  He agreed to look at Ms. Pfeifer-Hall’s and the ECC’s proposal in depth.

Ms. Bednaz requested that the applicant respond to the proposed alternative be done in writing.

At 8:12 p.m., a motion was made by Agent Camidge and seconded b Agent Peruta to continue the public hearing on XIW-10-04 to the meeting of May 4, 2010. 

Agent Szczesiul was seated by Chairman Maxellon. 

Agent Albert asked if this proposal would hold up funding for the project.

Mr. Hawkes replied that the funding is already approved.  The applicant wants to finish the project this year.  He added that the bridge is to be inspected by D.O.T. this Friday.  The weight limits may be reduced again or the bridge shut down.

Agent Nelson stated that she agrees with Mr. Hawkes regarding the possibility of setting precedence.

Vote was 6-0-0.

6.     Call to Order of Regular Meeting:  The regular meeting was called to order by Chairman Maxellon at 8:13 p.m.  Present were:  Chairman Maxellon and Agents Albert, Camidge, Nelson, Peruta, Szczesiul.  Agent Szczesiul was seated for the regular meeting by Chairman Maxellon.

7.     Public Participation - Issues of concern not on the agenda:  Karen LaPlante, Chair of the Enfield Conservation Commission requested that IWWA referrals be provided to her commission regularly.  She noted that she also does not receive referrals from the PZC. 

The ECC meets only once per month so Ms. LaPlante stated that she understands that it would be difficult for her commission to review each application on time.  She also noted the difficulty of making a proper review using only the small sets of plans that they have been able to obtain.

She noted that the ECC did not receive plans or notification for the recent South Road or Town Farm Road projects.

She requested that at least one full size set of plans be provided to the ECC so that members can point out things that the IWWA may not catch, especially after staffing levels are severely reduced in July.

Ms. Bednaz explained that she is unsure how to accomplish this more effectively.  It should be in writing.

Other towns define when a review will be done by the Conservation Commission.  She agreed that the more minds you have reviewing an application, the better the project will be.

She suggested creating written standards to make sure applications get to the ECC.  They are an advisory board only but are charged to review applications.  Perhaps they could set parameters so that certain types of applications go to them.

Ms. LaPlante stated that the ECC does not want to hold up the process but they need to be notified and given the ability to review applications.

Chairman Maxellon wondered if this could be incorporated into the policy reviews that are currently being done.  He agreed that the ECC should be notified.

Agent Albert left the meeting at 8:22 p.m. and returned at 8:23 p.m.

Chairman Maxellon suggested that Ms. LaPlante have parameters put into the policy review.

Ms. Bednaz suggested looking at other towns and how they operate and deal with this issue.

Agent Camidge felt that it has to be spelled out to be fair to the applicants, also.

Agent Peruta suggested adding one more copy of the applicant’s package requirement and pass it along to the ECC.

Ms. LaPlante stated that the ECC meets only once per month so they could not review every application.  They don’t want it to look like they are picking and choosing only certain applicants.  They don’t need a full presentation by the applicant and do not want to slow the process down.

In response to a question by the Agency regarding by-laws, she stated that the bylaws have nothing to do with this.  The ECC does not want to review every pool or addition but there may be times when it would be good to have the developer come before the ECC.  She noted that the town of Vernon has a very active Conservation Commission.

Chairman Maxellon felt that the criteria need to be defined.  There should be guidelines and stressed the importance of staff needing to know when the ECC should be notified.

Ms. Pfeifer-Hall took the opportunity to express the importance of staff, noting specifically Mr. Alsbaugh and Ms. Bednaz.

8.     Correspondence:  The following items of correspondence were received:

a.     “Conserving pool-breeding amphibians in human-dominated landscapes through local implementation of Best Development Practices” paper:  Ms. Bednaz noted that this contains good guidance items for applicants to try to follow.

b.     Giant Hogweed Handout

c.      Norway Maple Handout

d.     Plants Recommended for Wildlife

e.     Agresource Handouts – Two Examples of Rain Gardens in New England

9.     Commissioner’s Correspondence:  Ms. Bednaz stated that she will update the projects list for the next meeting so that the new projects can be assigned to members.

a.     Site Visit Updates:  None.

10.            Approval of Minutes – April 6, 2010:  A motion was made by Agent Camidge and seconded by Agent Albert to approve the minutes of the meeting of 04/06/10 as presented.  Vote was 5-0-1(Nelson).

11.            Wetlands Agent Report:  A brief verbal report was provided by Ms. Bednaz.

She noted that in general, she recommends the use of silt socks, not filter fabric to stop silt from entering catch basins during construction.  Filter fabric is installed under the catch basin top and removal when full is difficult or impossible without allowing the silt to enter the catch basin.

She also reported that the stone has been put in place for the shed and the applicant has started plantings.

She explained that an IWWA member had reported that 52 Booth Road has a pipe coming from behind the house and discharging into the catch basin in the street.  Upon investigation, Ms. Bednaz found that the homeowner is draining the wetland behind the house, to keep the water from entering the basement.

The homeowner is elderly and her daughter is looking into installing a larger basement pump to handle the flows.  She has been given 2 weeks, at which time Ms. Bednaz will follow up.

Ms. Bednaz noted that she suggested that the owner or her daughter contact the CT Water Company, the abutting owner, to see if they can somehow help alleviate the problem.

Chairman Maxellon noted that the problem has been ongoing for years and is a safety issue in the winter because the water freezes on the road.

Ms. Bednaz also noted that she inspected the PetSmart site.  The area needs attention; sediment is evident along the gutter to the catch basin.  Grading can now be done, and grass can be planted which should help stabilize the area.

As required, the trash that was located along the wetlands line has been removed.

Agent Peruta asked if anyone has looked at Play Road recently.

Chairman Maxellon stated that he has not heard that anyone from the Town has been there recently.

Ms. Bednaz will check the site prior to the Agency’s next meeting.

Agent Peruta requested an update on the list of erosion problems listed 2 or 3 years ago.  He hasn’t seen any of the listed problems fixed.  He would like to have Mr. Hawkes meet with the IWWA to discuss the list.

Ms. Bednaz requested that Agent Peruta provide this request via email so that she can forward it to Mr. Hawkes.

12.            Old Business:  None.

13.            New Business:  None.

14.            New Applications to be Received

a.     Applications to be received after Town deadline for Agenda:  None.

15.            Other Business

a.     IWWA Fines Ordinance

b.     IWWA Fee Schedule

c.      IWWA Regulation Revisions:  A motion was made by Agent Albert and seconded by Agent Peruta to table discussion on agenda items 15a, 15b, and 15c.  Vote was 6-0-0. 

Agency members were reminded of the next special meeting, scheduled for Thursday, April 29, 2010.

d.     Next regular meeting is Tuesday, May 4, 2010 at 7:00PM in the Council Chambers.

16.            Adjourn:  A motion was made by Agent Albert and seconded by Agent Camidge to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 p.m.  Vote was 6-0-0. 

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________

Jo-Marie Nelson, Secretary