Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting

INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

TUESDAY, May 4, 2010

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, May 6, 2010 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut.

MEMBERS PRESENT:     Douglas Maxellon, Chairman

Karen Camidge

Maryann Abar, Alternate 

Joseph Albert

Robert Lemay

Jo-Marie Nelson

Brian Peruta

Robie Staples

Patrick Szczesiul, Alternate

MEMBERS ABSENT:      Jennifer Sierra, Alternate

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 Abar, Albert, Camidge, Lemay, Nelson, Peruta, Staples and Szczesiul.   Also present were Katie Bednaz, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.  Chairman Maxellon announced the appointment of Alternate member Jennifer Sierra.

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, MPHCD 5/11/10.   Mr. Piya Hawkes, Public Works Director, and Mr. Jeff Scala, P.E., represented the applicant.

Mr. Hawkes explained that Mr. Scala had reviewed the erosion problem taking place at the south end of the bridge, on private property and discussed at length at the previous meeting and came up with a quick design.

However, at the direction of the Town Manager, this will not be part of the project.  If later directed by the Town Manager, Mr. Hawkes stated that he would approach the property owner.  There are funds in the CIP account to cover the cost of the repair.

Mr. Scala reviewed the plan proposed by the Enfield Conservation Commission regarding placing an outfall behind the pump house and creating a grass lined swale.  It would end up being a very deep system with a deep outfall at a 20% grade.  That would be too steep to support vegetation, requiring additional rip rap, likely very large pieces.  It would also not be economically feasible and would not pick up nutrients, as proposed.  He does not believe this to be a prudent alternative.

Ms. Bednaz briefly reviewed the proposed conditions of approval.  She noted that the 9^th line of condition #21 mentions that the inspector is to be knowledgeable in wetlands.

Agent Nelson asked about the intervals of reports.  The conditions refer to weekly reports but asked if they should be bi-weekly, to coincide with the inspections.

Members then discussed the experience and credentials that should be required of the inspector. 

Agent Nelson asked what the alternative to a CPESC certified inspector would be.

Ms. Bednaz explained that the person would be knowledgeable in erosion and sedimentation control matters.  The Agency could also specify other types of knowledge preferred.

Agent Nelson asked if the vendor list for this project includes a CPESC certified inspector.

Mr. Hawkes stated that the vendor does not have a certification but has 42 years experience working in this field.

Agent Nelson, referring to condition #13, asked what “in the dry” referred to, or if it was a mistake.

Mr. Scala replied that it is a technical term, meaning that work needs to be done in a dry area, not in water.

Agent Camidge asked who the IWWA agent would be, in condition #21.

Ms. Bednaz replied that it would be herself or a representative of the IWWA or the Agency itself.

Agent Staples stated that he recently visited the site and noted that there is a pond behind the proposed block wall and asked if the pond will be destroyed as part of the project.

Mr. Scala replied that it is beyond the scope of the project and will not be touched.

Chairman Maxellon noted that the erosion, as shown in photos within the Agent’s Report, will continue after completion of the project.  It is hard to ignore what is there and he does not feel that it is right; some simple solution could be found.  This is his only open item.

The soil heads to the catch basin located across the road and goes to the Scantic.  If there were no project at this time, the IWWA would be going after the property owner.

After brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Agency that inspections would be made weekly.

Agent Albert asked if the park road is state property.

Mr. Hawkes replied that it is known as Cooper Street and is town-owned.

Mr. Scala reviewed the photos from the Agent’s Report and noted that the erosion seems to be from the footpath located on private property.  A swale will be established in the area which will help stop the soil from moving so far and will definitely help.

Chairman Maxellon felt that there could be a joint effort between the Town and the property owner.  He feels there could be a simple solution, such as a swale with a curb on the property line.

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

Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall of Somers Road, Enfield and member of the ECC spoke.  She expressed her continued concern over the proposed project but assured the Agency that she is not against the bridge replacement.

She stated that she does not feel that the plan is well thought out for the run off and noted that the IWWA chairman feels that there will be sediment going across the road and eventually into the river.

She too has concerns over this and runoff from the road.  She heard from the applicant that there is no time to negotiate with the D.E.P. or Connecticut Water Company so the applicant can’t design the best project possible.

She believes that the project will be approved even though the IWWA knows that there will still be nutrients and sediment going into the river.

She also expressed concern that there will not likely be a Wetlands Agent to oversee the project.

Ms. Pfeifer-Hall also stated that she feels that the best person possible should be hired to inspect the project.  She is not impressed with the fact that the person who will likely be doing the inspections was a D.O.T. employee.  They’ve had issues, too.

She stated that the IWWA should be held to the highest standards possible.

Chairman Maxellon stated that the qualifications are in the proposed conditions of approval, which require a qualified person.

Ms. Pfeifer-Hall replied that perhaps she misunderstood.  She heard that the person worked for the D.O.T. but did not have certification.

Chairman Maxellon agreed that this is true but that the person will be qualified, per the conditions of approval.

No one else in the audience came forward to speak for or against the project.

Chairman Maxellon asked Mr. Hawkes if he would like the public hearing closed.

Mr. Hawkes replied in the affirmative.

A motion was made by Agent Nelson and seconded by Agent Staples to close the public hearing for XIW-10-04 at 7:28 p.m.  Vote was 7-0-0.

6.     Call to Order of Regular Meeting:  The regular meeting was called to order by Chairman Maxellon at 7:29 p.m.  :

Present were:  Chairman Maxellon and Agents Abar, Albert, Camidge, Lemay, Nelson, Peruta, Staples and Szczesiul.   Also present were Katie Bednaz, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.

7.     Public Participation - Issues of concern not on the agenda:  None.

8.     Correspondence:  None.

9.     Commissioner's Correspondence:  Agent Peruta asked about the Weymouth Road project.  He noted that there is a stockpile located on the right side of the road, possibly within the regulated area.

Ms. Bednaz replied that she hasn’t seen the stockpiles yet but will check on them this week. 

Agent Peruta explained that they are smaller piles but probably need more appropriate locations and suggested that perhaps the contractor could utilize the local school parking lot.

Ms. Bednaz noted that if these are very short term stockpiles, they should be fine but if they are for long-term storage, the contractor definitely needs to use best management practices.

Agency members updated the projects inspection list. 

a.     Site Visit Updates:  None.

10.            Approval of Minutes - April 15, 2010 & April 20, 2010:  Because a quorum was not present for the meeting of April 15, 2010, no formal minutes were voted on. 

A motion was made by Agent Nelson and seconded by Agent Camidge to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 20, 2010 with one amendment:  page 7, 3^rd paragraph, change “Peruta” to “Szczesiul”.  Vote was 5-0-2(Lemay, Staples).

11.            Wetlands Agent Report:  Ms. Bednaz briefly reviewed her written report. 

Agent Peruta asked if the rip rap area at the plunge pool at the Play Road project has been cleaned out yet.

Ms. Bednaz replied that this was done at the end of the construction project but she does not believe that the contractor has been back to clean it again.

It is important to maintain erosion controls but there are no funds to do so.  Both plunge pools have significant amounts of sediment in them.

It would require large machinery to clean them and if they are going to be cleaned, it should be done correctly.  It all seems to be a money issue.  Silt fence is not a long term solution to hold back the side slopes.

Agent Camidge noted that if this was a private owner, they would be in violation and she asked how this can be fixed.

Ms. Bednaz, using the example of the recent application from Mr. Butler, noted that like the property owner, the Town doesn’t have the money to fix the problem so it has to be dealt with carefully.

Agent Peruta stated that when the Town came before the IWWA for this application, they were warned that this would happen.  The applicant stated at that time that they would “come up with something”, but obviously, they have not.

Ms. Bednaz stated that the IWWA can go through the violation process but questioned as to whether or not this is actually a violation.  The area has been improved, but was not a total fix.  The main concern is for the houses located on top of the slope.  If this was in an area with no houses, it would not be the same issue as it would be naturally occurring. 

Agent Peruta noted that it was the Town’s pipe that caused the original slumping.  It looks good now, but it is not fixed.

Ms. Bednaz felt that it is debatable as to whether or not it is a violation.  It is natural soils and a natural occurrence but agreed that the pipes are not natural.  This could be pursued as a violation if the IWWA so wishes.

During further discussion, it was noted that the project did not work as planned.  It has proven difficult to get the slopes stabilized for the long term.

Chairman Maxellon asked if all of the work has been done per the plans and conditions of approval.

Ms. Bednaz will check and will include the final conditions of approval in the Agency members’ next packet.  The Agency can then decide whether or not to pursue a violation.  She added that she will put the plans on the FTP site.

Agent Peruta asked if the Army Corps of Engineers was involved in this project.

Ms. Bednaz stated that she believes it was considered a “Category I” which does not require their permit.

Ms. Bednaz briefly reviewed her Agent’s Report.  She noted that the project at 604 Enfield Street is ongoing.  The plans are very confusing; at one point there was to be a fence in the rear of the lower parking lot.  That was changed to plantings and then back to a fence and back to plantings again.  The owner is very concerned about making sure that there is no further erosion and is working with Staff.  Also, the snow stockpile signs are still needed, as is screening for the dumpster.

Ms. Bednaz reported that she met with the contractor for the Post Office Road project today.  The contractor plans to start later this week and will be removing the invasive plants first.  He will be starting at the bridge and working west, first.

The stockpile and staging area will be located at the Transfer Station and possibly on private property, which at this time is a zoning issue.

Chairman Maxellon noted that he recently spoke with the Town Manager regarding the procedure for the Enfield Conservation Commission to be able to review applications.  The Town Manager asked that Ms. LaPlante contact him regarding this.

12.            Old Business :

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, MPHCD 5/11/10.  A motion was made by Agent Camidge and seconded by Agent Albert to approve XIW-10-04.

Agent Peruta stated that the erosion problem needs to be resolved as part of this, whether by the owner or by the Town.  He does not want this to be like the Play Road project.  He would like to let the Town figure it out.

Agent Camidge concurred.  She added that she was glad that the applicant addressed Ms. Pfeifer-Hall’s concerns but doesn’t feel the Agency should let it go with the erosion problems.

Agent Abar agreed.

Chairman Maxellon agreed.  The only other choice is to cite the landowner but he doesn’t feel that is appropriate.  A simple swale with a curb would fix the problem.  He cannot support the project.

Agent Albert stated that this would go by the wayside if it were not for this project.  The Town has known about the problem for a long time but never addressed it.  He questioned the wisdom in stopping the project because of it.  This has been going on as long as he can remember.

Agent Nelson stated that the area is located outside of the scope of the project.  She agrees with Mr. Hawkes that precedent should not be set by the Town fixing it.  She feels that it should not be stipulated to be included in the project – it is private property.

Agent Staples stated that he has been in town for over 50 years and it has always been a problem.  He does not feel that it is a big problem but that the erosion on the other side of the bridge has more of an erosion problem.  The Town could work this out with the owner.

Agent Peruta stated that it sounds reasonable that this is outside the scope of the project but he still wants it fixed and doesn’t care who fixes it.

He does not want to say no to the project because it is too important but he will not vote yes without a solution and would prefer to hold off the vote until there is a solution.

Agent Nelson noted that all Agency members agree that this is outside the scope of the project.  She suggested that the project be approved and then work on the problem and further suggested that Ms. Bednaz could address it with the landowner.

Agent Peruta stated that he was concerned that if the project is passed, the Agency will not have any leverage to get the problem fixed.

Agent Camidge noted that it does not seem like it’s going to be expensive to fix and felt that the applicant should do whatever can be done on Town property.

Ms. Bednaz noted that the public hearing is closed.  No new information can be submitted, including any resolution to fix the erosion problem.  She added that the trail could have water bars installed.  This would be a simple, straight-forward fix, without the need for an engineer.

Agent Albert asked that if this were not a Town owned project, would the IWWA require this fix.

Agent Staples noted that another project located up the street was required to have curbing go down the street.

Chairman Maxellon agreed that the erosion starts on private property but travels and ends up on town property.  The catch basins are not likely to be maintained as they should be. 

At this time, the vote was taken.  Vote was 4-3(Lemay, Camidge and Maxellon)-0.

Ms. Bednaz stated that it is the Town’s responsibility to work with the owner to get this problem fixed.  She will work with Mr. Hawkes to approach the owner.  If the owner is not agreeable to fixing this, then it will be addressed as a violation.

13.            New Business:  None.

14.            New Applications to be Received:  None.

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 Nelson and seconded by Agent Staples to table items 15 a, b, and c to the special IWWA meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.  Vote was 7-0-0.

d.     Next regular meeting is Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 7:00PM in the Council Chambers.

16.            Adjourn:  A motion was made by Agent Nelson and seconded by Agent Camidge to adjourn the meeting at 8:29 p.m.  Vote was 7-0-0.

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________________

Jo-Marie Nelson, Secretary