|
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, June 1, 2004 in the Enfield Room, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Joseph Jedynak
Frank Poirot
Richard Szewczak
Louis V. Tallarita
David J. Wawer, Alternate
ABSENT: Michael Mosschetti
E. Patrick Storey
ALSO PRESENT: Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent
Susan Berube, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 7:03 p.m.
2. Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
3. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Jedynak, Poirot, Szewczak, Tallarita, and Wawer.
Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
Agent Wawer was seated as a full voting member for the public hearing and regular meeting.
4. Hearings:
IW#413 of Mass Mutual Life Insurance Company for a proposed above-ground parking garage, parking lot expansion, heli-pad and associated grading and drainage improvements within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 100 Brightmeadow Blvd. (Map 35 Lot 220); Zoned BR [Submitted May 12, 2004; Received May 18, 2004; PPE June 1, 2004; MPHCD July 6, 2004].
Agent Szewczak excused himself from discussion on this application due to a potential conflict of interest.
Susan Hays of Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, Steve O'Neill of VHB Engineers, and Dean Gustafson, Soil Scientist, represented the applicant.
Ms. Hays presented certified mail receipts for notices to abutters. She also provided 10 copies of plan sheet C-1 which was inadvertently omitted from plans submitted earlier.
She also noted that she received a memo from Mr. Angus today with additional comments and has not had an opportunity to address all the issues noted.
Mr. O'Neill explained that the C-1 document includes the long term maintenance plan. He went on to give a brief review of the proposed project which is located on a 65 acre parcel.
There is currently 430,000 useable square feet of office space plus an additional 6,000 square foot building used for day care.
The existing 1,175 parking spaces allow for 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building. The industry standard is 5 to 6 per 1,000 and the Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission's current standard is 5.
The proposed project will bring the parking up to date for the number of employees expected to eventually work at the site. The plans call for an additional 1,860 parking spaces which will allow for possible future expansion. The surface parking will be expanded by 286 spaces and an additional 72 spaces will be gained by re-striping existing spots so that they are 8 ½'x18' instead of 9'x20' as exists.
There will also be an additional 6 parking spots to service the heli-stop area.
A perimeter fence is also planned. This will be a mixture of chain link and rod-iron.
The garage will be 60' high, six stories.
Mr. Dean Gustafson explained that he inspected the site earlier this year and delineated wetlands into 5 separate systems.
Wetland #1 is the largest, along the north boundary of the site. An intermittent water course drains north along the eastern border. There have been some impacts from the entranceway and development of the adjacent hotel but overall, it has a good diversity and function.
The second wetland is located in the interior of the site, north and east of the existing rear parking lot. This area flows into a closed storm water system and eventually to the north west corner of the property. This wetland has been influenced by development and receives untreated storm water discharge from the parking area. It contains a couple of different habitats, including wet meadow, young forest, and shrub/scrub. It is located in an upland area and has a very small watershed and is showing some signs of hydraulic stress.
Wetland #3 conveys water from the site into Waterworks Brook and the culvert under Route 91. There is also a secondary channel outfall from impervious surfaces. This has little diversity and some portions are armored with rip rap.
The fourth wetland is north/northwest of the daycare building and is associated with a ditch system from previous agricultural activities.
The fifth wetland is located in the south/southwest corner of the site. It is forested and contains a drainage ditch along Route 91. It heads north and discharges into wetland #3.
He went on to state that the proposed development will have no direct impact on the wetlands.
Use of the parking garage minimizes impact to the site.
A portion of the garage and a portion of the expanded surface parking will be located in the upland review area.
A bio-filtration swale is planned for the surface parking discharging to wetland #2. The drainage will run through a pipe into a plunge pool then into the wetlands to the headwall. A water quality unit will enhance storm water for some of the proposed additional parking and that which is existing.
Discharge from the garage will travel to a rip rap plunge pool and bio-filtration system into the closed storm water drainage system.
The security fence will cross the upland review area in various locations and also crosses the intermittent stream of wetland #4. The fence will be positioned high enough so as not to block the ditch. The fence also crosses the drainage ditch in wetland #5.
As mitigation, the applicant proposes upland enhancement plantings along the edge of wetland #2 and the expanded parking area. Trees suitable for nesting and cover for birds are planned.
Also, the applicant proposed to remove phragmites and replace these invasives with appropriate plantings.
Mr. Robert LaCourse, P.E. of VHB stated that the proposed area of surface parking expansion is on the original plans as overflow parking. This area will be regraded and bio-filtration swales will be installed to add water to the upland wetland #2. A portion will be piped underground, as well. No changes to the discharge amounts of the existing parking area is anticipated.
A portion of the parking garage will be tucked into an existing hill. He added that the top 20' of the hill is actually a clay stockpile from the original construction and is fully vegetated.
An increase in runoff is anticipated because of the garage. He is proposing an outlet control structure at the outlet of wetland #2 so that the wetland will act as a detention basin to hold the drainage. The existing cfs is 10.6 and will be increased to 12.2cfs. All catch basins will have hoods.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked what alternative plans were considered.
Mr. O'Neill stated that the plans have been through 4 designs.
Ms. Hays added that the applicant met with Staff prior to an application being submitted.
She offered to provide copies of previous plans for the Agency's permanent record.
Mr. O'Neill stated that one of the previous plans included only surface parking but that included use of more of the regulated area.
Also, a 4 bay garage was considered, instead of the proposed 3 bay.
Another consideration was decking of the existing parking lots. This did not work for Mass Mutual because it would have created a large parking shortage during construction.
Ms. Hays also stated that the applicant successfully requested a text amendment to the Planning & Zoning Regulations to allow for smaller parking spots so that more parking spaces could be made within the existing area.
Agent Poirot asked what the percentage of impervious surface after construction would be.
He also asked if there was moisture in the soils during the wetland delineation.
Mr. Gustafson stated that the delineation was done on March 5 and 10, 2004, during the spring melt-off and there was more than sufficient moisture in the soil.
Ms. Hays stated that 66% impervious surface coverage is permitted and post development of this site will have 34% coverage. She will provide the existing percent of coverage at a later date.
In response to other questions by Agent Poirot, Mr. O'Neill stated that no location for future building expansion has been determined to date. Also, the access road can handle the future 3,000 proposed vehicles. Not all of the parking spaces will be utilized immediately.
Also, the heli-pad will be an 80'x 80' concrete pad, pitched so as to drain into swales along the back in quarters.
Ms. Hays added that since the helicopter will not be stored long-term on site, there is little likelihood of hydraulic fluids escaping.
Mr. LaCourse stated that the existing hill is vegetated and stable and should not be affected by rotor wash.
In response to another question by Agent Poirot, Mr. LaCourse stated that the pitch of the storm drainage ranges from ½% to no steeper than 2%.
In response to Agent Wawer's question on lighting, Mr. O'Neill answered that there will be cut-off lighting on the garage and new surface parking areas. There will also be lighting at the helipad and on the windsock.
Ms. Hays added that the helipad will likely only be lit until 8:00 p.m., unless required otherwise by the FAA.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. O'Neill stated that the applicant had considered placing deck parking where surface parking is already located but that would cut down on available parking during construction and could impact neighbors along Brainard Road.
The parking garage minimizes the impact. Mass Mutual will need 2,200 parking spaces immediately. Ms. Hays added that reducing the proposed parking spaces would mean reducing the number of floors on the parking garage, not the footprint.
In answer to another question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall regarding the location of the heli-pad, Ms. Hays stated that the size was dictated by FAA regulations for the size helicopter to be used and Mr. O'Neill stated that he worked with the pilot for Mass Mutual to determine the most reasonable site for the pad. The pilot had requested an area closer to the escarpment slopes but was told that was not possible.
The pad could not be located closer to the garage because of the angle of take off and landing.
In response to a question by Agent Jedynak regarding snow storage, Mr. O'Neill stated that the locations are noted on C-2. Only the top floor of the garage will need snow removal and that may not be immediately. A snow chute will be utilized to move the snow to a truck and possibly removed from the site. The snow from the heli-pad will be moved to the rear of the pad to run into the drainage ditch.
In response to concerns raised by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall regarding escarpment soils and slopes, Mr. O'Neill stated that he has worked with Mr. Welti in the past and that the garage design utilizes the existing embankment left from the development of the site in the 1980's.
To address fencing concerns, Mr. O'Neill went on to say that there is an informal walking trail along the perimeter of the site, but it is not established or maintained. The existing fence runs along the adjacent parcel. The applicant would like to fence the entire parcel and tie it into the existing fence at the south east corner of the lot. Efforts will be made to stay out of the regulated area and Waterworks Brook area, except for one crossing. There are currently no plans to formalize or maintain the walking trail.
Mr. Carl Szlachetka of Mass Mutual stated that there is currently a control arm at the gate. They are proposing a guard and cameras in the mornings and a telephone system at other times.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if the fence could be moved so as not to cross the intermittent stream and expressed concern of the proximity of the fence and helipad to the escarpment soils.
Mr. Gustafson stated that the intermittent watercourse would not be affected by the fence. It is really a ditch with a steep (3') slope.
After some further discussion, Ms. Hays offered to look into the situation further.
Mr. LaCourse stated that he will have more information regarding the vortechnic unit and velocities for the discharge from the garage at the Agency's next meeting.
Mr. Angus distributed updated plans to the members. He also reviewed his Staff Report on this application with the Agency members.
He outlined several concerns including the snow stockpiling area southeast of the heli-stop does not appear to be draining into the storm system. The location of this stockpiling area also raises issues of escarpment slope stability (increased saturation from snowmelt affecting stability).
Also, some of the heli-stop drainage appears to lead towards the escarpment slope as well; how is stormwater from the heli-pad and parking garage being handled ; the proposed parking expansion in the center island will drain into the existing storm system that discharges to Waterworks Brook near I-91. How is this stormwater being treated to avoid negative impacts to the brook?
The existing baffle system does not appear to be functioning effectively as evident by the amount of sediment that exists in wetland #3 (opportunity for enhancement). As the existing stormwater system is receiving additional runoff from the proposed parking expansion, the functioning of this existing system needs to be evaluated; maintenance plan should include responsible party and specific inspection and clean out schedule for vortechnic units and existing baffle system as regular maintenance is essential to proper functioning of these units.
Mr. Angus went on to raise additional issues such as impacts to wetland #2 using it as a detention facility and that this would be considered a direct impact to wetlands potentially impacting the hydrology and thereby the structure, biological function and diversity of the existing wetland.
Further clarification was requested to assess the current conditions of this system and the potential impacts additional drainage could have on this system.
Mr. Angus also suggested the Agency request more detail and explanation as to how the construction process will avoid or minimize potential impacts to wetlands, watercourses and escarpment slope soils.
Fencing crossing watercourses and proximity to escarpment slopes were also issues of concern that should be further addressed by the applicant.
Also, 33 additional parking spaces and a drive isle are proposed in the upland review area of wetland #2. 10 of these spaces would be lost for snow stockpiling in the winter months. That leaves 22 spaces plus a drive isle that could be eliminated to reduce pavement and potential impacts to wetlands #2. Protection of this additional buffer/upland area could provide additional enhancement opportunities for the upland area surrounding wetland #2;
Page 8 of the project description discussed the use of the upland area long the southern wetland edge being used for stockpiling yard debris - this area should be cleaned up as part of this project, materials properly disposed of and no further dumping should take place; use and application of fertilizers and pesticides should be minimized to avoid nutrient overloading in adjacent wetlands; the plan index sheet is incorrect. Some listed plans are not included (H-1 and A-1 through A-8).
Plans involving regulated activities should be included (foundation details of parking garage) and the project description discusses the treatment of invasive plant species, specifically phragmities. The reports also indicate purple loosestrife, multi-flora rose and buckthorn exist within wetland 2. Treatment of these species would also aid in enhancing existing wetland conditions;
The plans do not call for any stormwater attenuation or detention outside of the existing wetlands (with the exception of the bio-filtration swale and temporary sedimentation basin).
Mr. Angus went on to say that as part of the public hearing, the Agency may consider feasible and prudent alternatives that would lessen the impact of the proposed development on wetlands and watercourses (subsurface detention, created wetlands, additional bio-filtration swales within existing parking lots).
Mr. Angus recognizes the inclusion of two vortechnic units for stormwater treatment, however these units are not an end-solution.
Staff agree with the applicant that further detainment and slow release would also aid in treatment of stormwater prior to leaving the site. The Applicant is proposing this - but within an existing wetland system.
The applicant will work with Mr. Angus on these and all issues.
At this time, the meeting was opened for public comment by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall. No one in the audience came forward to speak.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Jedynak to continue IW#413 to the meeting of June 15, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Wawer to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 8:47 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 8:50 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Jedynak, Poirot, Szewczak, Tallarita, and Wawer. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary.
Agent Wawer was seated as a full voting member for the regular 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:
Items of correspondence were as follows:
" letter dated 12/8/1994 from Laurie Whitten, Asst. Town Planner to Walter Markett, Director of Public Works regarding a violation issue where the Town granted emergency permission to clean up an oil spill but never received D.E.P. permission to encroach a stream channel with a pump house and monitoring wells;
" letter dated 5/12/04 from D.E.P. to Mayor Tallarita regarding notice of enforcement action taken on Jarmoc Farms, LLC.;
" letter dated 5/12/04 from John Ianni to Mr. Angus regarding 204 North Maple Street where Mr. Ianni, a soil scientist, found no evidence of wetlands or watercourse;
" Authorized Agent approval of wetlands permit dated 5/24/04 to William & Linda Zimmer for an above ground pool at 110 Willard Drive;
" Authorized Agent approval of wetlands permit dated 5/24/04 to Brian Wright of 5 Spruceland Road for a 486 square foot addition;
" letter dated 5/25/04 from Mr. Angus to Bob DiGennaro of Somerset Development Corp. regarding final compliance with IW#323 for lots #49, 50, and 51. Mr. Angus noted that drainage and erosion and sediment control bonds are still being held;
" memo from Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Planner to Jose Giner, Planner, dated 5/21/04 regarding joint meeting between IWWA, ZBA, and PZC;
" May/June, 2004 issue of Connecticut Wildlife;
" copy of legal notice for IW #413;
" copy of warning letter dated 5/28/04 to Mr. Paul Oliver of 61 Post Road from Mr. Angus regarding removal of material & cutting within the conservation easement. Mr. Angus noted that several other homeowners in the same subdivision were also in violation. The area will regenerate naturally if nothing else is done to it. He will request a copy of the signed statements regarding the easements that were required by the developer.
6. Commissioner's Correspondence:
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted receipt of an ERT notice. The ERT will be conducting a study of an area off North Maple Street on June 23, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. for a proposed residential development. Three wetland crossings are being proposed.
7. Approval of Minutes -- May 18, 2004 Meeting:
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Jedynak to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 18, 2004 with the following corrections: page 1, last paragraph, remove "Moschetti" and insert "Jedynak", page 6, sixth paragraph, change "contactor" to "contractor". Vote was 6-0-0.
8. Wetlands Agent Report - May 13, 2004 through May 26, 2004:
Most items in the Agent's Report are addressed within the agenda.
Members did briefly discuss a construction project taking place in East Longmeadow, near the town line. Mr. Angus spoke with the Planning & Zoning Department in East Longmeadow regarding this.
There is no requirement for Massachusetts to notify abutting Connecticut towns of construction within 500' of the border as Enfield does to abutting Towns and does as a courtesy to Massachusetts.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted erosion that is caused by ATV riders along the CL&P easement near the state line.
10. Old Business
IW#413 of Mass Mutual Life Insurance Company for a proposed above-ground parking garage, parking lot expansion, heli-pad and associated grading and drainage improvements within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 100 Brightmeadow Blvd. (Map 35 Lot 220); Zoned BR [Submitted May 12, 2004; Received May 18, 2004; PPE June 1, 2004; MPHCD July 6, 2004].
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Tallarita to table discussion on IW #413 to the meeting of June 15, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Vote was 5-0-1 (Szewczak)
IW#414 of Anocoil, Inc. for a proposed mechanical pad involving excavation within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 230 Shaker Road (Map 94 Lot 8); Zoned I-1.[Submitted May 12, 2004; Received May 18, 2004; PPE June 1, 2004; MAD, August 5, 2004].
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall excused herself from discussion on this application due to a potential conflict of interest.
Agent Szewczak acted as chair for this application.
Mr. Dana Steel of J. R. Russo and Mr. Alan Seagrave of All Phase Enterprises represented the applicant.
Mr. Steele reviewed the application with the Agency.
He stated that the proposed equipment will be located on the south side of the building. He reviewed plans submitted on 6/1/2004. The pad will be surrounded by a chain link fence.
The plans now show topography and limits of construction. He stated that a minimal amount of scrub brush will need to be removed.
The site is over 25 acres in size and the proposed storage shed is shown for reference only, on the plans.
Access is through the west side of the property. Only small, heavy equipment will be used and there will be no encroachment beyond the limits of the silt fence.
The existing ductwork, a separate mechanical component, will be removed.
Mr. Steele discussed possible alternate locations of the pad. He stated that it is not economically feasible to move it to the other side of the existing oxidizer.
There are no wetland disturbances proposed.
Mr. Steele submitted, for the record, a letter addressing the mechanical operations of the facility and the proposed thermal oxidizer.
He also provided copies of the D.E.P. permit for the existing oxidizer, including the chemicals in the emissions. The proposed oxidizer removes 95 to 99% of the chemicals.
Mr. Gragnolatti, soil scientist, provided a letter that states his belief that there would be no effect on the wetlands from the additional oxidizer.
Mr. Seagrave explained that the gaseous fumes from the manufacturing process are transformed into water and carbon dioxide through heat, at a temperature of 1350 degrees. The water evaporates as it is exhausted through a 35' pipe. The equipment will be adjustable based on the amount of output. Although there is no timetable, it is possible that the proposed oxidizer will eventually replace the existing oxidizer.
Agent Szewczak asked if the new unit could be moved to the opposite (east) side, perhaps adding a fan to re-direct the emissions.
Mr. Seagrave explained that in order for the oxidizer to work as a complimentary piece, it needs to be placed where proposed. The efficiency of the unit is crucial to the proposed location.
He added that the rear of the pad could be cut a bit, or placed "kitty corner".
Agent Szewczak noted that the southeast corner has groundwater.
Mr. Angus noted that the Agency needs a full understanding as to why the unit cannot be relocated. It may not be economically feasible, however, the Agency is looking to reduce the potential impacts to the wetlands.
Mr. Seagrave stated that the owner has stated that the efficiency of the unit is best at the proposed location. Also, the existing oxidizer cannot be moved to make room for a new one because the first one can't be shut down.
Members briefly discussed the possible need for a public hearing.
Mr. Seagrave stated that both the owner and manufacturer have stated that if the unit is placed in any other location, it would lose efficiency. He believes he could cut approximately 5' off the corner of the pad.
Mr. Angus suggested that the applicant provide additional information in writing from the Applicant's expert as to why alternative locations will not work.
He also noted that the limits of disturbance would remain the same if the pad size were cut down.
Mr. Seagrave stated that the fence could be cut back as long as there remains enough room for servicing the unit.
Agent Poirot stated that the Agency feels the proposed plan is too close to the wetlands and the Agency feels uncomfortable with the proposal. All alternatives need to be explored.
Mr. Steele stated that the proposed activity does not affect the wetlands and most of the proposed area is already disturbed.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Poirot to table IW #414 to the meeting of June 15, 2004. Vote was 4-1(Jedynak)-0.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall returned to the meeting at this time.
11. New Business
None
12. Other Business
None
o Next regular meeting will be Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers.
13. Adjourn:
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Jedynak to adjourn the meeting at 10:32 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
________________________
Frank Poirot, Secretary
Last Updated: Friday, Aug 06, 2004 |