|
|
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 in the Enfield Room, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Richard Szewczak
Frank Poirot
Kathleen Sarno
E. Patrick Storey
David J. Wawer
ABSENT: Roger Olsen
ALSO PRESENT: Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent
Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall at 7:32 p.m.
2. Pledge Allegiance to the Flag (No action - No Flag in Room)
3. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Poirot, Sarno, Storey, and Szewczak.
New Alternate Agency member David Wawer was also present and seated as a voting member for this entire meeting.
Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent, and Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary.
4. Hearings (continued):
Agency-sponsored Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulation amendment to add the Authorized Agent Approval Process and Procedure to the Existing Regulations on page 31 under Section 12 and renumber sections accordingly [Public hearing opened December 16, 2003. Agency-sponsored change - no time limits on closing or decision].
Agent Wawer stated that he has reviewed all information and correspondence on this matter and is prepared to make an informed decision.
Mr. Angus gave a brief overview of the proposed changes. The amendment would allow the Authorized Agent to approve minor activities within the upland review area without the applicant having to go through the entire Agency review process. This does not bypass the approval process, but is another approval process mechanism. Any activities within the watercourses or wetlands would not be allowed to be approved by this process. If the activity is deemed not to be a minor activity, it must go through the entire review process.
There is also a mechanism in place for appeal by either a member of the public or an Agency member. The process is similar to that of the Determination Of Permit Need. In the authorized agent process however, conditions of approval can be placed on the approval.
Mr. Angus also noted that the term "buffer zone" as discussed at the last meeting has been changed to read "upland review area" as a more technical term.
Also, in regards to concerns by a citizen at the last meeting over the term "clear cutting", the regulations define clear-cutting quite specifically as a regulated activity requiring a permit. Any cutting activity other than clear-cutting (such as selective tree removal) is a permitted activity and does not require a permit. "Minor" clearing is a subjective term that leaves the authorized agent with some discretion as to what constitutes "minor". This will vary from site to site.
He added that the same would be true for maximum accessory building size.
Agent Wawer asked if all time lines proposed in the amendment are consistent with State Statutes and also asked if the submittal of three paper copies could be replaced with electronic filing.
Mr. Angus replied that the date requirements were taken directly from the State Statutes. The Town requires one copy for the Agent, one copy for the Planning Department, and one copy for the applicant's file. The Town does not currently have the capability of electronic filing.
In response to another question by Agent Wawer, Mr. Angus stated that both the Journal Inquirer and Hartford Courant meet the Statute's requirements for posting legal notices.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment. No one from the audience spoke in favor, neutrally, or against this application.
A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Szewczak to close this public hearing. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#402 of LeConche Design and Construction, LLC for the construction of a medical office building and associated site improvements in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 170 Hazard Avenue (Map 74 Lot 251) [Submitted October 30, 2003; Received November 5, 2003; PPE November 19, 2003; MPHCD February 24, 2004].
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall excused herself from discussion on this application and left the room due to a potential conflict of interest.
Vice Chairman Szewczak acted as Chair for this public hearing.
Agent Wawer stated that he has reviewed all information and previous correspondence on this application and is prepared to make an informed decision.
Mr. Angus noted that the legal notice was published as required and that certified mail receipts have been returned, although he has not yet verified that all have been received.
Mr. Ray Nelson, Engineer from Messier and Associates represented the applicant, along with Attorney Richard Roznoy and soil scientist John Ianni.
Mr. Nelson explained that the site is located at 170 Hazard Avenue and consists of approximately 4.4 acres. The proposed building will be an 8,000 square foot medical building located in the middle of the lot. The total impervious area proposed for the lot is approximately 10% of the total lot area. He went on to say that several areas in the vicinity of the building are being proposed for lawn and conservation seed mix. He added that a sidewalk has been added to the plans because of the Town's Regulations. The applicant will request a waiver for the sidewalks from the Planning and Zoning Commission, since they do not lead anywhere, however, he felt it prudent to add them to the plans at this time so that a modification to the permit would not be needed at a later date. He also stated that the sidewalks will cause the majority of disturbance within the upland review area.
Mr. Nelson went on to explain that a portion of the site will remain untouched and currently supports young tree growth. They are proposing a 35' deep landscape buffer as required by the Planning and Zoning Regulations, which will include plantings, the schedule of which is included on the plans. He will request that if approved, Staff visit the site to determine if some of the existing mature trees can remain, instead of having them removed only to plant others in their place.
Mr. Nelson went on to explain the three drainage areas on site. The site is quite flat with the wet meadow area on the west side having a slope of only 1/10th of 1%. A drainage easement exists along the property line. All drainage eventually goes to the Scantic River. Disturbance totals are 1/10th acre of wetlands, due to the sidewalk and curbs, and 4/10th acre of upland review area. These disturbances are offset by extension of an existing pipe for drainage, creating a new wet area. A small area will be filled in for the pipe installation. Wetlands are located on the east, west and front of property. Combined drainage flows leaving the property will be slightly less than what exists prior to construction. Calculations were made based on a 50 year storm event. Impervious surface drainage will be held in the detention basin. Existing conditions show existing flows to be 2.66 cfs. After construction, drainage will be 2.47 cfs. Drainage will flow under Middle Road, in pipes that have a 7.0 cfs capacity.
A sediment forebay will be constructed as will several depressed areas (up to 1') to allow for a wet bottom and wetlands plantings. The detention basin will have a rip rap overflow area. The site and proposed basin have good ex-filtration capabilty due to the sandy soils will provide groundwater recharge.
One oil/water separator will be provided at the last catch basin, along with a 4' sump. A maintenance plan for the storm water system and detention basin is included on the plans as well.
Mr. Nelson addressed feasible and prudent alternatives by stating that the original design of the drainage for the property was done in the 1950's and proposed to utilize the wetlands for water quality treatment and he feels the most prudent and feasible alternative is not increasing the outflow and providing detention outside of the wetland areas. The western wetlands area will not be disturbed at all.
Snow stockpile areas have been included (two at the south end of the building). This will be a grassed area, pitched toward the pavement so snowmelt drains to the catch basin for water treatment. There will be curbing on the south end of the parking lot to prevent surface flows from reaching the wetlands untreated.
Agent Storey asked how the detention basin would be cleaned after being used as a sediment basin during construction.
Mr. Nelson replied that it would be cleaned with small, heavy equipment but the plans should clearly spell this out.
Agent Poirot asked that abutting owners be included in the final decisions regarding the aesthetics to the buffer zone trees and plantings. He also asked what impact there would be from the project to the wetlands if the sidewalks were deleted from the plans.
Mr. Nelson stated that the project would not disturb the wetlands at all if the sidewalks were not included.
Agent Poirot asked if the applicant had considered other alternatives to concrete sidewalks.
Mr. Nelson stated that the Town's regulations require concrete sidewalks. He added that the Town regulations are quite specific on sidewalk design details, so he would likely not consider pervious pavers or other alternatives. He went on to say that the wetland areas at the sidewalk are not functional wetlands. They are wetlands only by definition. The pipe would not need to be extended if the sidewalks were not required.
Mr. Ianni stated that the wetlands on the property were delineated in January of 1996. He conducted a site walk in December, 2003. He stated that the wetland to the east has no wetland vegetation; it is a wetland based only on soil type, found at 16-18" deep. The isolated wetland in the middle of the property is not very functional and the western wetland is a "wet meadow" the most functional of the three and offers diversity of vegetation. It also has storm water management capabilities, retaining water. Plans for this site include best management practices and he felt this to be a low impact development. The site is extremely flat with a high water table in the spring. A conservation easement on either side of the building is being proposed.
Agent Poirot asked what the expected water table is in the spring months.
Mr. Ianni answered that it is 2' and drops rapidly.
Agent Poirot asked if the water table rises to 16 or 18".
Mr. Ianni answered that it rises that high only in the wetlands. The entire site was previously disturbed.
Agent Poirot also asked if runoff from the Middle Road abutters goes into the swale on the property.
Mr. Nelson replied that the houses along Middle Road are generally placed on the ridgeline or highpoint of the site and the back half of the properties drains towards the wetlands. Mr. Ianni added that the sandy soils would mean there would be little evidence of surface flow. Mr. Nelson added that test pit data is available on the plans. The water table is at 17 to 24" and 28 to 46" except in the wetlands area. The detention basin will be shallow.
Agent Szewczak asked if the existing outlet structures would be cleaned.
Mr. Nelson stated that the outflows are discharging into the existing drainage system but have never been maintained. The swale area is treed and he is unsure whose responsibility it is to maintain it but assumes it would be the Town.
Agent Storey asked if the proposed Conservation Easement would make it more difficult or impossible to maintain the drainage easement.
Mr. Nelson replied that the Conservation Easement is outside of the drainage easement.
At this time, the hearing was opened to the public for comment. No one spoke in favor or neutrally on the application.
Mr. Mike Wilczak of 95 Middle Road spoke against the project. He expressed concern over the minimal buffer and stated that his deed notes that the trees are to remain. He stated that he maintains his portion of the ditch and that he has water problems in his basement. He noted that as the trees grow larger, his water problems decrease. He distributed photos to the Agency. He also stated that most of the drainage comes on to his property from a spring in the east. He is greatly concerned that the proposed construction will make his water problems worse. He also noted concern over the possible future widening of Route 190 which would require moving the sidewalks and necessitate destroying more wetlands.
Mr. Scott Harvey of 109 Middle Road also spoke against the application. He asked how much fill would be brought in, to which Mr. Nelson answered that he did not know. Mr. Harvey felt that a significant amount of fill would affect the wetlands. He too has a wet basement year round. He noted that water flows in the ditch throughout the year.
Susan Morrison of 107 Middle Road also spoke against the project, citing the same concerns as Mr. Wilczak and Mr. Harvey.
Mr. Nelson stated that the applicant is aware of the situation of the abutters. Nothing in the proposed project will affect the neighbors. It will not make the situation better, nor will it make it worse. He added that the project would probably require 2,000 to 3,000 yards of fill to elevate the building but sees no direct impact to wetlands. Drainage from all impervious surfaces will be collected on site.
Agent Szewczak asked if the ground water table, at approximately 20" below grade is below the neighbors basements.
Mr. Nelson stated that the neighbors elevations are unknown, but the neighbors properties likely have wetland soils.
Mr. Glen LaConche, applicant, stated that this proposal is for a 4,000 square foot "footprint"; the previous application was an 11,000 square foot "footprint".
Mr. Angus noted that the Town's Engineer provided comments on the drainage calculations today, January 20, 2004. He also noted that the existing ditch located at the wet meadow area is proposed to be relocated off the property and asked if there was another alternative such as culverting, that would allow the ditch to remain in place.
Mr. Nelson stated that it will be within the 40' right-of-way as part of the drainage easement and is being relocated due to existing elevation grades. If the sidewalk were shortened, it would not be necessary. The relocation creates a new start point for the ditch.
Mr. Angus asked if the extension of the pipe could potentially dry up the center isolated wetland.
Mr. Nelson replied that the area is not actually a wetland, but it could be filled to grade so as to retain water. He could "over-excavate" the area to enhance what wetland does exist. It is essentially a drainage area. Mr. Ianni added that extending the pipe would not drain the wetlands.
Mr. Angus stated that most comments and issues raised at the December, 2003 meeting appear to have been addressed but he has not been able to complete his review of the plans due to receiving them only last Friday (January 16, 2004) afternoon. He recommended that the public hearing be kept open for additional time to review the plans, especially the sidewalk mitigation.
Agent Szewczak asked for additional investigation on the groundwater table and the effect on the neighbors, and if the project will affect those neighbors.
Mr. Roznoy stated that the wetlands boundaries have already been delineated.
Agent Szewczak noted that he wanted to make sure that the proposed project will not affect the abutters and would be able to show the neighbors that the Agency is making an informed decision. Knowing what the groundwater table is will help the abutters determine if the project would have an impact on them.
Mr. Ianni stated that both sides of the wetlands have been delineated on the eastern portion of the property, however, the wetlands on the west side continue onto the abutters properties. Mr. Nelson has taken care to avoid drainage discharge to the west side.
Agent Szewczak again requested quantification of the water table levels.
Mr. Nelson agreed to determine the elevations of the surrounding properties compared to the site.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Storey to continue this public hearing until the Agency's next meeting, scheduled for February 3, 2004 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Vote was 5-0-0.
At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall returned to the meeting.
IW#403 of Hazardville Water Company for slope stabilization involving excavation and filling in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 22 Kelly Drive (Map 70 Lot 59) [Submitted November 13, 2003; Received November 18, 2003; PPE December 2, 2003; MPHCD January 20, 2004].
Agent Wawer stated that he has reviewed all information and correspondence on this application and is prepared to make an informed decision.
Mr. Thomas Hanson of Tata & Howard, Mr. Donald Juan of New England Services, and Mr. John Avery of Hazardville Water Company represented this application.
Mr. Angus explained that Staff discussed this application with Mr. Clarence Welti and sent a letter to him dated January 6, 2004 containing the Water Company's proposed mitigation and site plan of relocation of the water main, which has been moved 32' to within the pavement of the cul-de-sac. Per Mr. Welti's recommendations, the Town Engineer's office developed a plan in which the existing 2:1 slope would be modified to 2 ½:1. The Town Engineer also proposed moving the cul-de-sac back by 10' to decrease the slope and alleviate the impact on the wetlands.
A letter was submitted to the Town today by Welti which states that the Town's proposal is an acceptable solution. It also suggests deep seeding with a jute overlay.
Mr. Hanson asked if the Town's proposal supercedes the Water Company's plans at this time.
Mr. Angus explained that there would need to be a partnership between the Town and the Water Company regarding responsibility. He asked if the Company is willing to accept these modifications. The Company's proposal is a stabilization method for a possibly temporary solution. The Town would like a permanent solution.
Mr. Angus asked if the Water Company is willing to go forward with this plan in the application.
Mr. Hanson explained that the slope existed because of development in the area. The problem did not start with the Water Company and he would need to check with the owners of the company regarding cost. He would agree to withdraw the company's plans for the Town's plans but was unsure of the extent of responsibility willing to be taken on by the company.
Mr. Angus explained that it is not the purview of the Agency to determine who is responsible for the cost, only what is best for the wetlands.
There was general discussion regarding whether or not the Town should be signing as co-applicant of the application since the Town owns the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Avery asked who would be responsible for creating and bidding the plans and preparing the specifications.
Mr. Angus stated that the Town Council would make the decisions on those matters.
In response to a question by Agent Storey as to whether or not the Water Company's plans were acceptable by Mr. Welti, Mr. Angus stated that he would have to ask Mr. Welti if the plans were defective or just not as complete as the Town's proposal.
In response to questions by Agent Wawer, Mr. Angus stated that the Town owns the road and the Highway Department is responsible for the maintenance. The slope area side is owned by Spencer Cain. The Hazardville Water Company has an easement over this section of the property. Mr. Angus added that if it becomes a joint venture between the Town and the Water Company, more detailed plans would need to be developed. This would require an extension to the public hearing. He recommended that the applicant request the full 65 days allowed for the extension, although not all of it may be necessary. He added that if the Agency feels any new plans submitted during that time are a significant change, they could request a new application and plan be submitted or act on the Hazardville Water Company's original plan and hope that a permanent stabilization plan will be submitted at a later date.
In response to a question by Agent Poirot, Mr. Angus stated that he is unsure if sealing and moving the pipe alone will alleviate the problem.
Mr. Hanson noted that at previous meetings, Mr. Flagg had stated concern that snow stockpiling was exacerbating the problem. He feels that the Geocell treatment being proposed will be a permanent solution. Mr. Welti's proposal of changing the slope to a 2 ½:1 grade is significant and the Water Company may be unwilling to agree. The slope was stable until four or five years ago.
In answer to a question by Agent Storey, Mr. Hanson stated that the slope to the east and west of the failed area is equally as steep.
Agent Poirot expressed concern over any delays caused by having the Town become a partner in the application.
Mr. Avery suggested that the Hazardville Water Company go forward with their original plan and hopefully get approval at the next meeting so they can be ready to go out to bid so work can be completed by late spring.
Mr. Hanson stated that possibly the Company would be willing to co-apply with the Town in the future. The company is willing to cooperate with the Town but not willing to cover the entire cost of moving the slope and cul-de-sac.
Mr. Angus stated that if the Town chooses to apply, it could be considered as a modification to the Company's plan or they could begin their own application process. Mr. Angus will seek clarification from the Town's engineer regarding the company's proposal.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment. No one in the audience came forward to speak.
A letter was submitted by the applicant requesting a 65 day extension for the public hearing.
A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Szewczak to continue IW 403 until the meeting of February 3, 2004 at 7PM in the Council Chambers. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#404 of Sound Enfield Group, LLC for a proposed 117,825 sq.ft. warehouse addition and associated parking, landscaping and drainage improvements within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 1559 King Street (Map 17 Lot 39) [Submitted November 26, 2003; Received December 2, 2003; PPE December 16, 2003; MPHCD January 20, 2004].
Agent Wawer stated that he has reviewed all information and correspondence on this application and is prepared to make an informed decision.
Patrick Doherty of VHB briefly reviewed the proposed project. It is a 16.9 acre parcel with one existing building which will be renovated and in phase I, a warehouse addition of 68,763 square feet will be built.
Phase II, anticipated to take place in 2007, will add an additional 49,062 square feet of warehouse.
The site now has over 700 parking spaces.
Wetlands are located on the south and north east sides of the property. Minor work will take place within the upland review area.
With the proposed expansion, there will be a .67 acre decrease in impervious surface. 1.5 acres of impervious surface will become roof area from parking area creating a cleaner runoff.
Storm drains will be retrofitted.
Revisions in the plans since the Agency's last meeting include snow stockpiling to take place within the internal landscape areas and signage will be placed where snow stockpiles will not be allowed.
The existing basins will be retrofitted with hoods.
The contractor will be responsible for sediment control and basin cleaning.
Notes have been added to the plans regarding trash removal along the perimeter and a revised drainage system has been included in the area of the loading docks because of comments made at the last meeting.
The parking area in the southwest corner of the lot will be used in Phase II. The applicant is planning to leave it as parking area for the time being and simply crack-sealing it. It was determined that the cost to crack seal and seal coat it is $36,000. To remove the pavement, loam and seed the area would cost $50,000. Reconstructing the parking lot in 2007 when needed would be an additional $136,000.
Agent Szewczak asked if the grass swale would be maintained.
Mr. Doherty answered that water tolerant seed mixture within the swale will be added to the plan. Some maintenance will be required, such as cutting of new growth each fall and sediment removal. Most of the invasives on the site are located along the I91 corridor.
Mr. Angus asked about seeding adjacent to the wetland areas.
Mr. Doherty stated that the intention is to have lawn adjacent to the road. The swale and to the south will have a conservation seed mix. Areas leading to the swale will be sodded for erosion control. Curbing will be installed in the southerly parking area and pitched to drain west to east. The area to the south will remain undisturbed.
At this time the hearing was open for public comment. No one came forward to speak on this application.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Sarno to close the public hearing IW#404. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Sarno to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 10:22 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Storey to hold a brief recess. Vote was 6-0-0.
REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order:
The regular meeting was called to order by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall at 10:28 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Poirot, Sarno, Storey, and Szewczak.
New Alternate Agency member David Wawer was also present and seated as a voting member for this meeting.
Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent, and Susan Swiatek, Recording Secretary.
3. Executive Session - Matters regarding specific employees, pending litigation, acquisition of real estate and / or matters exempt from disclosure requirements, as needed. The specific reason should be stated for each session.
There were no items for discussion in executive session.
4. Public Participation - Issues of concern not on the agenda.
No one in the audience came forward to speak.
At this time, a motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Wawer to amend the agenda and move items 5 through 8 to the end of the meeting. Vote was 6-0-0.
9. Old Business
Agency-sponsored Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulation amendment to add the Authorized Agent Approval Process and Procedure to the Existing Regulations on page 31 under Section 12 and renumber sections accordingly [Public hearing opened December 16, 2003. Agency-sponsored change - no time limits on closing or decision].
Agent Poirot expressed approval of the proposed amendment stating that it is an efficient way to conduct business and will benefit the residents.
Agent Szewczak agreed and added that it streamlines and implements the process more quickly.
Agent Wawer asked how the public would be informed of the amendment.
Mr. Angus explained that the information would be made available as applicants come in. The Economic Development Director is already aware of the proposal and will be informed if it is approved by the Agency.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall mentioned that she had done some research regarding the proposed 800 square foot accessory building option and found that the average 2 car garage is 520 square feet.
Mr. Angus added that the size of accessory building that he might consider using this application process for would depend on the scale of activity and location of disturbance proposed.
Agent Sarno added that she is comfortable with Mr. Angus' judgment.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Storey to approve the authorized agent approval process as presented, adding Sections 12 and 13 to the existing regulations, in addition to the accompanying Agent Approval Application form and fee, with an effective date of February 4, 2004. Vote was 6-0-0.
Reason for approval: The amendment will provide the same level of wetland/watercourse protection while providing an additional level of service to the public with more options for reviewing and permitting minor regulated activities in addition to taking advantage of staff resources.
IW#402 of LeConche Design and Construction, LLC for the construction of a medical office building and associated site improvements in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 170 Hazard Avenue (Map 74 Lot 251) [Submitted October 30, 2003; Received November 5, 2003; PPE November 19, 2003; MPHCD February 24, 2004].
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall excused herself from discussion on this application due to a potential conflict of interest.
Agent Szewczak acted as Chair. A motion was made by Agent Sarno and seconded by Agent Storey to table IW#402 until the meeting of February 3, 2004. Vote was 5-0-0.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall returned to the meeting at this time.
IW#403 of Hazardville Water Company for slope stabilization involving excavation and filling in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 22 Kelly Drive (Map 70 Lot 59) [Submitted November 13, 2003; Received November 18, 2003; PPE December 2, 2003; MPHCD January 20, 2004].
A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Poirot to table discussion on this application, IW #403 until the meeting of February 3, 2004. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#404 of Sound Enfield Group, LLC for a proposed 117,825 sq.ft. warehouse addition and associated parking, landscaping and drainage improvements within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located at 1559 King Street (Map 17 Lot 39) [Submitted November 26, 2003; Received December 2, 2003; PPE December 16, 2003; MPHCD January 20, 2004].
Members discussed the conditions of approval proposed by Mr. Angus. Because phase II will take place sooner than previously anticipated, Mr. Angus suggested removing condition number 11 regarding removal of pavement in the southwest portion of the site and replacing the condition with the following: "The area between the south west parking lot curbing and the wetland, which is indicated on the plans to be seeded and loamed, shall remain undisturbed."
Agent Szewczak noted that he enjoyed the professional presentation and feels the proposed plans will not have a negative effect on the wetlands.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Sarno to approve IW#404 with the standard 10 conditions as well as the following #11-14:
11. The area between the south west parking lot curbing and the wetland, which is indicated on the plans to be seeded and loamed, shall remain undisturbed.
12. All landscaping and stabilization for all disturbed areas adjacent to wetlands shall be planted with a conservation seed mixture and/or a mixture of native upland plant species to aid in re-establishing a higher quality vegetative buffer (as opposed to perennial rye grass or sod).
13. No external storage of materials is permitted as part of this permit within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses;
14. With the exception of the addition of the items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the plans entitled "Proposed Redevelopment 1559 King Street, Enfield, CT drawings C1 through C-11, Sv-1 through Sv-4 and SL-1, dated 11/26/03, revised through 1/12/04, prepared by VHB Inc., 54 Tuttle Place, Middletown, CT 06457. Any changes that would potentially cause greater impact to wetlands or watercourses, such as enlargement or reorientation 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 Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling).
Vote was 6-0-0. Reason for approval was that the project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
The Agency feels this is the most prudent and feasible alternative with no negative impact.
10. New Business
DPN#2004-01-02 of PTM Realty, LLC for a proposed 1,800 square foot building/shed involving excavation and re-grading within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located at 5 Peerless Way (Map 94 Lot 68); 10.44 acres; Industrial -1 Zone. [Submitted January 2, 2004].
Mr. Walter Kruzel of Peerless Tool and Machine represented the applicant. He explained the company's proposal to construct an 1,800 square foot metal building on the site.
It will have a concrete floor, be fully enclosed and have one overhead door, on the west side. It will not have floor drains. It will be used for storage of lawn equipment, log splitters and the company van. No maintenance of vehicles or storage of hazardous materials will be in the building.
The floor will pitch slightly toward the door and the entire parking lot slopes toward the catch basin. The parking lot is encapsulated within the curb. A new concrete pad will be poured in front of the door.
The shed will be located 14' away from the existing building.
The applicant is proposing to construct the shed in late spring or summer and should be complete before fall, 2004.
The rear of the shed will be graveled to catch drainage. The front will have roof leaders into the existing drain system.
Excavated materials will be stored on the north side and will be used for re-grading. Any remaining fill will likely be distributed to other areas of the site, away from wetlands.
Agent Storey asked if erosion and sediment control measures are required for building permits.
Mr. Angus responded they are not necessarily required but he has already spoken with the applicant regarding the need for such controls.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Kruzel stated that other areas of the site were considered but this is the highest spot on the lot and most convenient to the existing building, as well as out of the way of any future expansion. The building will be 30'x60'.
At 11:08 p.m. a motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Poirot to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
Mr. Angus continued that the applicant considered other options that would take the building out of the regulated area but he chose to keep the building where planned.
The entire lot has 15.7% coverage and the storm drain system has a capacity for 50% lot coverage.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall expressed concerns over the proximity of the slope and stability as well as the proximity to the rip rap and erosion control measures.
The applicant stated his intention of excavating from the north and stockpiling on the north side.
Mr. Kruzel went on to say that he is willing to install sediment control measures prior to construction so that Mr. Angus can inspect the site.
Mr. Angus noted that the site has already been disturbed.
A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Poirot that based on discussion at this meeting and conditions required on the building permit, no permit for this application is necessary. Vote was 6-0-0.
DPN#2004-01-16 of The Town of Enfield for proposed rivet replacement and associated activities within 100 feet of a watercourse. Property located within the road right of way of South Maple Street (Bridge over the Scantic River) (Map 84). [Submitted January 16, 2004].
Mr. Angus explained that this application is being proposed by the Town's Public Works Department.
In order to maintain the structural integrity and 5-ton weight limit for the bridge leading to the Scantic River, new rivets need to be installed and some lead paint removed. It is a minor activity but since it is taking place over the Scantic River, a DPN is needed.
During removal of the existing rivets, some lead paint chips will also be removed. They will be contained in a tarp suspended from a specialized vehicle.
No hazardous materials will be stored on site. The project is slated to take only a few days. During the project, the bridge will be closed to traffic.
The newly installed rivets will need to be painted.
Mr. Angus will monitor the project and attend the pre-construction meeting. The Public Works Department is also looking into any needed state permits. The D.O.T. has been notified and will likely inspect the project as well.
A motion was made by Agent Sarno and seconded by Agent Storey that no permit for this application is necessary. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made to extend the meeting until 11:40 p.m. by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Sarno. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Storey and seconded by Agent Poirot to amend the agenda to take up item #7 and table Additional agenda items 5. Correspondence, 6. Commissioners Correspondence, 8. Wetland Agent's Report and, 11. Other Business until the Agency's next meeting on February 3, 2004. Vote was 6-0-0.
7. Approval of Minutes -- December 16, 2003 Meeting:
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Sarno to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 16, 2003 with the following corrections: page 6, 10th paragraph, change "approximately" to "partially" and page 10, first paragraph, change "pumps" to "sumps". Vote was 4-0-2 (Storey & Wawer).
Adjournment:
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Sarno to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________________
Frank Poirot, Secretary
Last Updated: Friday, Feb 13, 2004 | |
|
Last Modified: 1/20/2005 10:37:21 AM
|
|
|