Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Meeting
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency was held on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Chairperson
Robert LeMay
Frank Poirot
Richard Szewczak
Louis V. Tallarita
David J. Wawer (7:20 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Mosschetti
Robie Staples
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 Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall at 7:03 p.m.
2. Pledge Allegiance to the Flag:
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
3. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall and Agents Szewczak, Poirot, Lemay, Tallarita, and Wawer. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary. Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall empowered Agent LeMay as a voting member for this meeting.
4. Hearings:
Continuation of IW#447 - Stonegate Associates - Proposed 85-Unit Senior Residential Development involving excavation, filling regrading, stormwater management and placement of structures in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located off of Mayfield Drive, West View Drive, Pine Hill Road and West Shore Drive (Map 79 Lots 11, 12, 13 and Map 96 Lot 11) Zoned R-44 [Submitted September 14, 2005; Received September 20, 2005; PPE October 4, 2005; EMPHCD December 8, 2005; MAD 35 days from the closing date of the hearing.]:
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall reviewed the public hearing procedures for the benefit of those in the audience.
Mr. Wes Wentworth of Wentworth Associates represented the applicant. Mr. Wentworth explained that comments from the Engineering Department were received by him on the Monday following the last IWWA meeting. Revisions were made today to the plans, dated 11/30/05.
Mr. Wentworth handed the newly revised plans to Mr. Angus. Staff had provided the applicant additional comments on the 11/30/05 plans earlier today.
Mr. Wentworth reviewed Mr. Angus’ most recent memo regarding the plans. Several items are technical in nature. Both the landscape plans and mitigation plans have been combined and added to the plans. Additional crossing details were just revised and now include the box culvert drawings, pipe layout and drainage details and sequencing.
Mr. Wentworth provided three crossing “blow ups” to the members for review. The installation of the 36” piping will be done and diversion of water will be through the existing culvert on Westgate during construction of the crossing. The plans meet the 2002 Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines. The same process will be followed on the box culvert construction. All excavation will be within the limits of disturbance as already noted on the plans.
Agent Szewczak asked how much wetlands will be filled in. Mr. Wentworth stated that the filling within the 3 crossings equals approximately 4,400 square feet. Agent Szewczak noted that at station 26+31, 800 square feet of wetlands are being filled in, with no remediation. He added that other areas have remediation or mimic wetlands.
George Logan, soil scientist, stated that the area had been disturbed in the past. There will be 2 detention basins – B1, B2, and C, which will create at least 2 times the wetlands being lost. He feels the disturbance is rather limited and did not feel “stand alone” mitigation was necessary for this site.
Agent Szewczak disagreed, stating that he had suggested using a box culvert at this site, at the first public hearing meeting.
Mr. Logan felt it was not worthy of preserving the connection of wetlands, where the connection does not currently exist.
Agent Szewczak stated that he felt this area needs additional thought.
Mr. Logan noted that the other 2 areas show thought with the mitigative plantings and seed mix to be used. Also, the amphibious habitat is being preserved.
Mr. Wentworth continued, stating that the site plan details show rain gardens for 43 units, which their rain gutters will discharge into. The roof leader discharge points will have crushed stone at the end. Those units without rain gardens have splash blocks at the end of the down spout. They will temporarily be piped to the edge of the area of disturbance until the ground cover takes hold.
Mr. Logan noted that on the original landscape plans, there was a conflict of zones. This has been corrected and he distributed an updated copy to the Agency members.
Mr. Logan went on to discuss the revised Management Plan. Conflicting language regarding pets and the reference to compost stockpiling on site have been deleted.
Mr. Logan also addressed the Agency’s concern regarding monitoring of surface water quality, mainly for sediment and phosphorous. He distributed a handout to Agency members on the water quality monitoring plan. The plan begins with a baseline. The plan outlines what is to be monitored, where and when monitoring is to take place. The same monitoring stations will be used prior to, during, and after construction. During construction, samples will be collected and kept for a few days. The samples will be measured for turbidity with a threshold of 25 NTU’s. Testing will coincide with inspection reports for erosion monitoring, referred to on page 4 of the Management Plan.
The post construction phase monitoring starts at 70% to 80% build out. Phosphorous sampling will take place at the east and west portions of the property in May and September, post construction, during both wet and dry conditions, for 3 years. After the 3rd year, testing will be done once per year.
The homeowner’s association will use low or no phosphorous fertilizer and this should be reflected in the test results. If concentrations have doubled, additional testing will be done and possibly remediation, such as flocculent logs.
Mr. Logan added that he had spoken with Dr. Davis, who was unable to attend the meeting this evening, and who stated that he did not feel these measures were necessary, but is good insurance for the applicant.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Logan stated that the once yearly testing would continue in perpetuity. It will need to be a line item in the Association’s budget for yearly testing.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall also noted on page 5 of the management plan it states that “elevated levels are to be reported to the environmental planner”. The Town of Enfield does not have anyone with such a title.
Mr. Logan stated that he would change the reference to “wetlands agent or appropriate staff”.
In response to another question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Logan responded that the baseline is only for the construction period although there will be some overlap during the build out period of 70% to 80% when there is also ongoing construction.
Agent Tallarita asked if reports could be obtained on a regular basis, instead of only when phosphorous levels reach a high point.
Mr. Logan stated that it would be good to have communication between the Lake Association and Stonegate Homeowner’s Association. Dr. Davis had suggested adding a line item to the homeowner’s association budget for potential remediation.
Mr. Wentworth addressed Engineering comments. He stated that he doesn’t feel the remaining engineering comments are wetlands issues, such as placement of trees further from footing drains.
Agent Szewczak asked if the basement levels of units #82 & #80 were raised.
Mr. Wentworth stated that they were not, but could be if required. After further review of several pages of plans, Agent Szewczak decided this would not be necessary.
Mr. Angus briefly reviewed his comment memo dated 12/13/05. He noted that the basins have been moved 50’ away as recommended by the D.E.P., but the outlets are at the edge of the wetlands. Also, there are no specifications for re-vegetating the area of disturbance adjacent to wetlands, other than seeding. Only seeding is proposed and he asked if that would be enough to re-establish the buffers.
Mr. Angus added that he hasn’t had a chance to review the crossing details that were just submitted. Water diversion area details should have outlet stabilization. Regarding phosphorous, he added that the issue was kept open at the last meeting. Other than monitoring, the issue has not been resolved. Sand berms had been proposed, but have since been removed.
Mr. Angus added that he has not had the opportunity to review the most recent management plan revisions yet as they were just submitted. On Sheet #4, the Walpole soil type is not listed in the legend.
Mr. Wentworth stated that could be changed. He stated that the applicant proposed to install the utilities during low flow periods.
Mr. Logan had reported that that area is dry 4 or more months of the year so no diversion would be necessary. Dewatering would be for ground watering only. Regarding phosphorous, he added that he has done all that is possible to remove phosphorous. The site will not have septic systems and fertilizers will be low or no phosphorous types.
He also reported information on flocculent logs. These are very site specific. There would need to be approximately 12 to 15 logs for each sediment basin drainage area. They are approximately $110 each and last 90 to 180 days and would be used during the construction process only. He has found that the best approach is to eliminate the phosphorous at its’ source, such as fertilizers.
Agent Szewczak repeated his concerns regarding lack of remediation at station 26+31. He had thought the road was to be over the existing pipe, but the plans now show that it is actually going over the original wetland instead of over the existing pipe.
Mr. Wentworth stated that the 36” pipe was installed for a temporary road during construction of the sewer line. Also, the road is very close to the property line and grading needs to be kept on the property. He has minimized disturbance.
Agent Szewczak asked if a concrete headwall could be used, instead of filling.
Mr. Wentworth responded that on the south side, swaling is needed for off-property drainage to maintain the existing drainage pattern. He could possibly cut back 4 or 5’ with a headwall, but it would have the same limits of disturbance.
Agent Szewczak noted that the wetlands would then be able to regenerate themselves, but if the area was filled, they could not. Any effort not to disturb the wetlands, is what our charge is. Sometimes it has to be done the hard way, instead of the most economical way. The applicant needs to recognize limitations near wetlands.
Mr. Logan stepped in and stated that he feels that this wetland, with its’ past disturbances, is not of high value. Use of the headwall would create a loss of buffer between the wetland and the roadway.
Mr. Wentworth stated that he held the road as close as possible to the southerly boundary line with reduced shoulder width, and kept the 36” pipe for storm water capacity issues and feels that the impact is minimized. He added that he felt that he has gone to the greatest extent possible for prudent and feasible alternatives. The applicant has also provided conservation easements for additional protection.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked why the applicant did not propose re-creating what is being filled in as an alternative.
Mr. Logan responded, stating that the area is less than 5,000 square feet. Most jurisdictions don’t require mitigation for small areas. He doesn’t feel it is a considerable impact. It could be done, in 3 or 4 other spots on the parcel. It could be done at this spot, but at the expense of trees in the upland review area. They could be re-planted, of course, but may be more trouble than it’s worth. He suggested areas of mitigation such as the “mile of mud”. He is agreeable to find 1,000 to 1,500 square feet in an area at the edge of the woods, away from ATV trails as a condition of approval, but does not want to do it at the crossing, adding that he did not feel that the Army Corps of Engineers and the D.E.P would be agreeable.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall also asked if the home sites are to be clear cut or would some trees be saved. Mr. Wentworth stated that saving trees would add value to the development but with the clustering, saving individual trees between units may prove difficult, but they will if they can.
At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall opened the hearing for public comment.
Mr. Allan Silva, president of Dartmoor Condo Homeowner’s Association spoke against the application. He felt there is too much water on the site to be able to build homes. He also noted that the site has only narrow road access and that Mayfield Drive is a private road. He has no knowledge of a right of way to the property.
Ms. Leslie Cunningham of 26 Wheeler Drive, Vice President of Shaker Pines Lake Association, also spoke against the application. She reported that she had spoken with Dr. Davis today and he still had concerns with the storm water quality plan and still feels that a sand berm filtration system is feasible.
Mr. Nelson Rodriguez of 38 Wheeler Drive reported that the water reports have not been made available to him from the North Central Health District to date. They are supposed to be available by the end of the week.
Mr. Angus also reported that he requested copies from the D.E.P. and has not had a response from either agency.
Mr. Mike Niewola of 57 West Shore Drive noted that there is a possible spring near the bridge constructed by ATV riders. It has a constant flow, even during the driest months of July and August. He expressed concern over possible affects construction would have on the spring. He also expressed concern over local wells.
Ms. Lisa LaCombe of 143 Cottage Road expressed concern over the timing of the water tests. She noted that the Town samples the lake water for 6 consecutive months, not just once or twice per year. She also expressed concern that senior citizens might not have the resources to cover the true cost of remediation, which would be in the thousands or even millions of dollars, instead of the few hundred recommended as a line item by Mr. Wentworth.
She also noted that construction on the site could wipe out an entire eco system and affect areas further from the site. She suggested that there would be less impact if the development was scaled back to include fewer homes.
Ms. Laurie Parker of 105 Cottage Road expressed concern over long term impact to the wetlands and the lake and wanted to know who would enforce the required testing and who would be responsible for remediation. Once the resources are taken away, they can never come back.
Mr. Bob Rossman of 14 Shaker Hill pointed to the map section showing 4 houses at the rear of West View Drive. He stated that he had visited friends there last week and a pond of water was within 25’ of those houses and there had been no heavy rains recently.
He also expressed concern over phosphorous and testing and that once high loading issues are noted, it will be too late for action. He also was concerned over runoff to wells and groundwater. He stated that the area had been proposed for building in the past but was denied; there had to be a reason.
Mr. Paul Brousseau of 70 West Shore Drive feels that a bond for 10 years should be posted by Stonegate.
Ms. Pat Holden of 67 West Shore Drive asked how phosphorous loading level increases during construction would be addressed.
Mr. Henry Wynszyk of 28 Pine Hill Rd. noted that there are too many uncertainties in the plan, especially since this is the last meeting for the public hearing.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that the decision is to be made after the close of the public hearing, based on information presented to date.
Mr. Wynszyk thanked the Agency members for their work.
A gentleman from 57 Dartmoor asked if this application would still be heard at the upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
Mr. Angus stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission will meet and will open the public hearing but cannot act on this application until the IWWA reaches a decision.
Mr. Wentworth submitted revised plans for the record. In review of comments made by the audience, he noted that he had previously stated and shown where the water will drain.
The applicant has legal access to Mayfield Drive.
The community well is 800+/- feet from the construction and the individual wells will not be negatively affected, based on the grade and locations, and types of soil.
The community well company was notified of the Public Hearing and offered a copy of the plans.
Mr. Wentworth does not know of any previous proposals for development of this property.
Mr. Logan, in response to the question of a possible spring, stated that there is a “breakout” at that location. He pointed it out on the map and added that the water will continue to seep, probably further down.
He also noted that lake use requires different types of testing, such as that for bacteria. May is the month of highest phosphorous levels which is why the applicant will test then.
As for the suggestion of fewer buildings, he noted that the project needs to be economically feasible. The homes planned have been clustered to lessen the impact, both direct and indirect.
Testing for phosphorous and a Management Plan ensure that there will be no additional loading.
Dr. Davis concurred with the phosphorous loading report, in general. Technology cannot accommodate the use of a sand filter.
Mr. Logan continued, stating that he feels the applicant has provided more than enough information to show that the regulations were met and the project will have little impact.
Agent Poirot noted that not only do the buildings have an impact on the wetlands, but people do too.
Mr. Logan replied that the units in the middle of the cluster could be eliminated but it would have no impact. He feels it is a good marriage of protection of the wetland and the right of the owner to use the property.
Agent Poirot stated that even a scientist would have to say that this site is marginal at best.
Mr. Logan disagreed, stating that the applicant has avoided areas of concern.
Agent Poirot added that the only way to protect the wetlands would be to put a chain link fence around the wetlands. The Agency has approved subdivisions in the past 3 years and seen the rules ignored. This has proved very frustrating.
Agent Tallarita stated that the applicant has done an outstanding job in presenting the application but asked whose responsibility it would be if something were to happen, such as damage to wells or the lake.
Mr. Logan stated that the engineer, who is licensed, would be somewhat responsible. There are no guarantees, only probabilities, the best that can be done under this system.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall stated that she feels that density does matter, even in unregulated areas because the basins have to be in the regulated area. She disagrees that density is not a factor. She also shares the concerns over what ability and responsibility Stonegate would have if there ever were a problem.
Mr. Wentworth stated that everything has been done to make sure nothing does happen. After that, it goes to the courts. The developer would remain a member of the Association until the last unit is sold. The Homeowner’s Association is legally responsible. Mr. Wentworth feels this is the best situation for this property.
Mr. Angus noted that the exhibits for this public hearing now number 49.
At this time, Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall again opened the hearing for final public comment. No one in the audience came forward to speak.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall read an excerpt from “What’s Legally Required” for the procedures to review and make a decision on this application.
Agent Tallarita noted that he had missed one meeting, on November 15, 2005, but has read the material and is up to date and comfortable in making a decision on this application.
A motion was made by Agent Szewczak and seconded by Agent Wawer to close the public hearing for IW#447 at 9:18 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#451 - Jeff Filiault - Proposed house and associated site improvements involving a proposed wetland crossing and additional regulated activities in and within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located on Second Avenue (Map 36 Lot 311) Zoned R-33 [Submitted November 22, 2005; Received November 29, 2005; PPE December 13, 2005; MPHCD January 17, 2006; MPHAD 35 days from the closing date of the hearing.]
Mr. David Palmberg and Michael Gragnolati represented the applicant. Mr. Palmberg explained that the proposed site is known as 311 Second Street and consists of 4.5 +/- acres.
It is bounded to the west by Second Ave, just south of Third Street. It is bounded to the south by Fourth (a paper) Street and east by two abutters. It will be one single family home with well water and pubic sewer.
There will be one wetland crossing on the western side of the site. The site will also have an inground pool at the rear of the house.
The site has 2 wetland areas. There is one finger to the north and one finger with an intermittent stream, in the center of the site.
The applicant had sought access from the east through Fourth Street, but was denied an easement by the Town of Enfield. That access would have been through uplands, with no crossing necessary.
Mr. Palmberg also stated that there will be a 3 ½’ high berm with a 12” culvert. Storm drainage calculations have been provided. The well location has been approved by the health department.
Mitigation is proposed south of the wetland crossing and will be 2,500 square feet of wetland plantings, to equal the amount of disturbance.
Michael Gragnolati, soil scientist, reported that the site is a field to secondary growth with predominately red maple and high bush blueberry. Most of the crossing is in idle field. It is currently used as a storage area. His report includes photos of the crossing area.
The wetlands originate off site, to the north, which are seeded lawns. The culvert will be for the drive way, to maintain the existing flow.
The planting schedule shows suggest plantings, native to the area and includes red maple, silky dogwood and holly. They will be planted in clumps of three for wildlife habitat which are predominately small mammals and songbirds.
Mr. Palmberg stated that the applicant met with he and Mr. Angus and incorporated Mr. Angus’ comments into the plans. These included infiltration of roof drainage and an additional buffer between the lawn area and wetlands. Plans will be revised based on the engineer’s comments.
The utilities are currently overhead. If the decision is made to move them underground, it will be within the driveway corridor.
In response from a question by Agent Wawer, Mr. Palmberg explained that the applicant was denied an easement by the Town Council for access to the property from the east because ownership of the paper street is in question. The Town could not grant an easement over a property it does not own.
In answer to a question by Agent Szewczak, Mr. Gragnolati explained that the soils show there were more wetlands in the past, but they are currently not active due to a change in water flow.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked if a 12” culvert is sufficient and does the driveway and associated grading need to be so wide. She asked also if it will retain water behind it and will the proposed mitigation area need to be clear cut.
Mr. Palmberg stated that using aerial photography, he determined that an 8” culvert would be sufficient, but is providing the 12”. The proposed mitigation is adjacent to the wetlands. The trees are mostly ½” to 1” saplings. Mr. Gragnolati added that none of the trees are over 6”.
The mitigation is in response to Staff comments. He added that there is a large stand of phragmites along the road. It may extend into the new wetlands. The existing stand could be cut down but it extends off of the property so they would eventually return.
In lieu of mitigation, a conservation easement located at the mitigation site could be offered.
Mr. Palmberg added that the wetland continues off site but not into any collection system. The proposed mitigation area has lake bed soils, so basically a lake would be created.
Agent Szewczak noted that it would be difficult to establish wetlands at an elevation of 90 when the existing wetlands are at elevation 86.
Mr. Gragnolati stated that the new wetlands would fill from precipitation. He again noted that a conservation easement could be placed there instead.
In response to a question on the intermittent stream by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Gragnolati explained that the drainage comes from properties to the north. This site was probably involved in farming activities in the past.
He added that a conservation easement could be located parallel to the wetland line or at the southwest corner of the property, sized approximately ¼ acre.
Mr. Angus noted that the soil scientist’s report does not completely address parts D & E of part C of the application. He also noted that the letter denying access from Fourth Street was submitted as part of the application.
Mr. Angus distributed copies of the Engineer’s comments.
Mr. Fillialt submitted certified mail proof of notification, except from the water company. Mr. Fillialt explained that he left the information in person and did not receive a receipt.
Mr. Palmberg asked that the public hearing be closed today. He felt that the receipt of notification from the water company could be part of a condition of approval.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall did not feel that this could be done.
Mr. Angus explained that the Statutes state that “certified mail proof shall be required”. He suggested keeping the public hearing open, pending receipt from the water company and also for more detail on parts D & E of part C of the application. These items have been discussed, but are not submitted in writing, unless the Agency is comfortable with the verbal testimony.
Agent Szewczak stated that as long as the public hearing is to remain open, it would be better to have the written report with more detail to assist in making an informed decision.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment.
Mr. Bill Rinaldi of Third Street asked to see the proposed location of the house. Mr. Rinaldi is an abutting owner. He had no comment.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent LeMay to continue the public hearing to the meeting of January 17, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Enfield Room. Vote was 6-0-0.
5. Close Public Hearing portion of meeting:
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Poirot to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent LeMay 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 10:15 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
Present were: Chairperson Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall and Agents LeMay, Poirot, Szewczak, Tallarita and Wawer. Also present were Neil Angus, Wetlands Agent and Susan Berube, Recording Secretary. Agent LeMay was empowered as a full voting member by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall.
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 12/1/05 from Mr. Angus to Randy and Lisa Johnson of 128 Post Office Road regarding clear cutting in and within 100’ of wetlands;
• letter dated 12/1/05 from Mr. Angus to Patrick Palmieri regarding follow up to clear cutting in and within 100’ of wetlands on Middle Road;
• memo from Dan Vindigni regarding a heating oil or diesel spill in Freshwater Brook on 12/04/05.
6. Commissioner’s Correspondence:
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted receipt by her and several other Agency members of a letter from Fuss & O’Neill for attending a workshop on Storm Water Management.
7. Approval of Minutes -- November 29, 2005 Meeting:
After brief review, a motion was made by Agent Tallarita and seconded by Agent Wawer to approve the minutes of the meeting of 11/29/05 with one amendment. Page 1, item 3: add Agent Tallarita as being present. Vote was 6-0-0.
8. Wetlands Agent Report – November 24, 2005 through December 7, 2005:
Mr. Angus noted that most items in the report were covered under correspondence or as part of the agenda.
9. Old Business
IW#447 - Stonegate Associates - Proposed 85-Unit Senior Residential Development involving excavation, filling regrading, stormwater management and placement of structures in and within 100 feet of wetlands and watercourses. Property located off of Mayfield Drive, West View Drive, Pine Hill Road and West Shore Drive (Map 79 Lots 11, 12, 13 and Map 96 Lot 11) Zoned R-44 [Submitted September 14, 2005; Received September 20, 2005; PPE October 4, 2005; EMPHCD December 23, 2005; MPHAD 35 days from the closing date of the hearing.]
Agent Wawer felt that he was ready to make a decision. Agents Poirot, Szewczak, LeMay, Tallarita, and Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall felt they would like more time to review the most recently submitted information and to review the criteria for making a decision.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer to table discussion on IW#447 until the meeting of January 17, 2006 in the Enfield Room, 7:30 p.m. Seconded by Agent LeMay. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#451 - Jeff Filiault - Proposed house and associated site improvements involving a proposed wetland crossing and additional regulated activities in and within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located on Second Avenue (Map 36 Lot 311) Zoned R-33 [Submitted November 22, 2005; Received November 29, 2005; PPE December 13, 2005; MPHCD January 17, 2006; MPHAD 35 days from the closing date of the hearing.]:
A motion was made by Agent Wawer to table discussion on IW#447 until the meeting of January 17, 2006 in the Enfield Room, 7:30 p.m. Seconded by Agent Tallarita. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#452 - Ridgewood Homes of CT, LLC - Proposed 2-lot subdivision of land containing Inland Wetlands and Watercourses. Property located off of Yale Court (Map 18 Lot 281) Zoned R-33 [Submitted November 22, 2005; Received November 29, 2005; PPE December 13, 2005; MAD February 2, 2006.]
Agent Tallarita excused himself from discussion on this application, due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Fredericks represented the applicant. He explained that the plans for the previously approved cul de sac have been changed. Yale Court will now be extended by 30 to 40’. There will be no detention basin and no catch basins. There will be less impervious surface. The hydrant was moved to the upland side of the property and the site will have a conservation easement.
A minimal amount will be cleared, with only 50 to 60’ depth for rear yards.
Agent Wawer asked if the site is near the public works’ project for dredging.
Mr. Fredericks stated that the public works project is to the west of the subject site. Because of the reduction of impervious surface on this 6 acre site, there should be no significant effect on the Yale Drive problems. He referred to the site plans to show the locations.
Mr. Angus added that the proposed area of development is over 1,000’ from the stream and beyond the 100 year flood plain.
Issues raised at the ART Meeting have been addressed but a few remain, such as roof and footing drain details and the need for stabilization.
He reviewed proposed conditions of approval. He suggested adding to #13 to address the footing drain outlet and noted that on condition #16, the plans have been revised through 12/12/05.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent LeMay to approve IW#452 with the standard 10 conditions, in addition to #11 through 16 as amended:
11. Erosion and sediment controls must be installed prior to the Wetlands Agent signing off on the building permit for each lot;
12. The Wetland Scientist's signature must be on all final plans that depict wetlands;
13. The Wetlands Agent will not sign off on the certificate of occupancy for any lots until all disturbed areas, including footing and roof drain outlets, are temporarily and/or permanently stabilized for each lot;
14. Those portions of the total site indicated to be conservation easement (generally from the 100 foot upland review area west) shall be first offered to the town as an easement or restrictive covenant. Conservation easement markers shall be installed in accordance with Town requirements, by a licensed surveyor, at the applicant's expense. Easement markers will be provided by the Planning Department. Where no trees are present greater than 6" dbh, easement markers shall be placed on 4"x4" wooden posts to demarcate the easement boundary. Should the Town Council decline the acceptance of the easement or restrictive covenant, a notification shall be placed on the land records that indicates the extent of wetland resources on-site and the regulations governing those resources.
15. A note shall be placed on the subdivision plan, individual plot plan and deed before the wetland agent shall sign off on the building permit for each lot stating: “Portions of this lot contain wetlands and are therefore subject to the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations as amended. No disposing of leaves, grass clippings, brush or other lawn refuse, grading, filling or other modification shall be made to the portion of this lot that is encumbered with a conservation easement".
16. With the exception of the additional items stated in these conditions, this application is approved in accordance with the site plans entitled "Subdivision Plan" and "Grading and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan" Prepared for Ridgewood Homes of Connecticut, LLC Frederick/Tallarita, Yale Court, Enfield CT Sheets 1 and 2 of 2, dated 11-11-05 and 11-22-05, revised through 12-12-05; Prepared by Gary LeClair, LLC and L.P Consultants, LLC 252 Hazard Avenue, Enfield, CT06082-4613. 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 permittee to come before the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency for a Determination of Permit Need (Jurisdictional Ruling) or request for modification.
Vote was 5-0-0.
Reason for approval was that the applicant has demonstrated that the project will not adversely affect wetlands and watercourses.
*IW#453 - Town of Enfield - Proposed stream channel maintenance and restoration involving channel dredging and clearing, excavation and grading within 100 feet of a watercourse (enforcement file). Activity located between properties between Meadowlark Road, Yale Drive and Broadleaf Lane (Map 11 Lots 99-101 and 111-114; Map 18 Lots 71-75, 131-133, 135, 136) [Submitted November 22, 2005; Received November 29, 2005; PPE December 13, 2005; MPHCD February 21, 2006; MPHAD 35 days from the closing date of the hearing.]
*Public hearing Scheduled for January 17, 2005 at 7:30 in the Enfield Room
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Poirot to table discussion on IW#453 until the meeting of January 17, 2006 in the Enfield Room, 7:30 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0.
10. New Business
IW#454 - Paganelli Construction - Proposed wetland reclamation involving filling, excavation and grading in and within 100 feet of wetlands (enforcement file). Property located at 60 Weymouth Road (Map 49 Lot 4); Zoned R-44 [Submitted December 7, 2005; Received December 13, 2005; PPE December 27, 2005; MAD February 16, 2006.]
Agent Tallarita returned to the meeting at this time.
Mr. Joe Petrenino represented the applicant. He stated that he is not licensed in Connecticut, although he delineates wetlands in Massachusetts. He is overseeing removal of fill done by Paganelli Construction.
18 loads, 18 cubic yards each have been removed. 13 loads had been put in. The area has been stabilized by a silt fence.
Mr. Gragnolati has agreed to delineate the wetlands. Red silty sand and tar have been removed. Underneath was historical fill, including car parts. It has been feathered back and feathered up within 15’ of the original excavation.
Once the snow cover is gone, additional silt fence will be installed at the toe of the slope. The area is not in the flood zone or aquifer area. Remedial seeding and plantings will be made in the spring of 2006. Once the wetland area is delineated , a remedial plan will be created.
The 18 loads of soil removed were taken to Babylon, LLC in Suffield, CT. The subject site used to be a landfill.
Mr. Angus noted that his Agent’s Report shows several items still outstanding. He added that it is currently a farm and there is historical disturbance of wetlands in this area, although that does not typically justify further disturbance.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Tallarita to table discussion on IW#454 until the meeting of January 17, 2006 in the Enfield Room, 7:30 p.m. Seconded by Agent LeMay. Vote was 6-0-0.
At this time, a motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent LeMay to extend the meeting until 11:15 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#455 - Margaret R. Pappas - Proposed drainage improvements involving excavation and replacement of structures within 200 feet of the Connecticut River. Property located within the Parson Road Right of Way, 200 feet south of Bridge Lane (east of Map 10 Lot 9); Zoned R-33 [Submitted December 7, 2005; Received December 13, 2005; PPE December 27, 2005; MAD February 16, 2006.]:
Mr. Tim Coon of J.R. Russo represented the applicant.
He explained that a Determination of Permit Need was granted for a 15 lot subdivision. The application is currently before the Planning and Zoning Commission which is requiring that the drainage system have the capacity to meet a 50 year storm.
The existing 15” corrugated pipe has enough capacity because of the angle, however, the inlet needs to be increased on the road.
The applicant proposes to replace the 1st 6’ section to increase the inlet in the roadway. A sawcut will be made on either side of the manhole to replace the pipe. The limit of excavation will be at the wood post.
It is within 200’ of the regulated area, the Connecticut River and within 50’ of the Suffield Town Line.
There will be no disturbance to the wetlands and can be accomplished in one day during a dry period.
In response to a question by Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall, Mr. Coon noted that water quality improvements are already part of the subdivision proposal.
Agent Wawer asked if the approval of the CT D.E.P. is needed due to the proximity of the river.
Mr. Angus was not sure if it is in the stream encroachment area.
Mr. Coon explained that the D.E.P. will be notified for the storm water management after the approval of the subdivision.
Mr. Angus noted that comments are still needed from the engineering department.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall asked members if a public hearing is necessary.
After a consensus that a public hearing is not needed, a motion was made by Agent Poirot, and seconded by Agent Wawer to table discussion on IW#455, pending the 14 day appeal period until the meeting of January 17, 2006 in the Enfield Room, 7:30 p.m. Seconded by Agent LeMay. Vote was 6-0-0.
DPN 2005-12-12 - George Newman - Proposed 24' x 30' garage and 22'x 10' addition on a frostwall involving excavation within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located at 20 Vernon Road (Map 54 Lot 56); Zoned R-33 [Submitted December 12, 2005; Received December 13, 2005;]
The applicant was not present.
Mr. Angus noted that this application would have qualified for the Authorized Agent Approval process except that it is over the 800 square foot limit.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent LeMay to table discussion on 2005-12-12 until the meeting of January 17, 2006 in the Enfield Room, 7:30 p.m. Seconded by Agent LeMay. Vote was 6-0-0.
IW#424.02 - Charles Mastroberti - Request for modification to previous approval for a single family development in and within 100 feet of wetlands. Property located on the south side of Weymouth Road (Map 16 Lot 40). Zoned R-33 [Submitted December 12, 2005; Received December 13, 2005; PPE December 27, 2005; MAD February 16, 2006.]
Mr. Mastroberti represented the applicant.
He explained that he came across an item not properly addressed by his excavator.
In order to receive a Certificate of Occupancy, pavers should have been installed over the culvert. Because of the frost, this cannot now be done.
Mr. Mastroberti’s engineer, Kiran Majmudar , stated that the runoff co-efficients are similar between pavers and millings.
The applicant is requesting a modification for elimination of 40’ of pavers and for condition #14 to be extended until the spring of 2006.
Mr. Angus referred to his letter dated 12/08/05 regarding outstanding issues. Most have been addressed.
Mr. Mastroberti stated that in order to end the construction mortgage and obtain a conventional mortgage, the C.O. must be issued by January 1, 2006 or the bank will call in the Mortgage.
Agent Poirot asked if millings are an acceptable substitute.
Mr. Angus explained that asphalt is considered clean fill and millings are typically used on new roads and compacted. He was unsure if non-compaction would be an issue.
In response to a question by Agent Szewczak, Mr. Mastroberti stated that he was told that no chemicals would leach out of the pavement millings.
Agent Szewczak suggested that perhaps the application could be approved with the condition that material used would not be detrimental to wetlands.
Chairperson Pfeifer-Hall noted that the millings had been used as fill in the soccer fields on Shaker Road.
Agent Poirot noted that it seems to be an acceptable practice.
Agent Szewczak asked that some research be made available.
Mr. Angus explained that the D.E.P. considers millings to be clean fill because any chemicals have already leached out. He will check with the public works department.
He added that the applicant needs to have Mr. Angus sign off on the C.O., but Mr. Angus cannot, without direction from the Agency.
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Poirot to extend the meeting until 11:30. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Tallarita to authorize Mr. Angus to sign the Certificate of Occupancy for property located at 54 Weymouth Road. Seconded by Agent Tallarita. Vote was 6-0-0.
A motion was made by Agent Poirot and seconded by Agent Wawer to table further discussion on IW#424.02 until the meeting of January 17, 2005 in the Enfield Room at 7:30 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
11. Other Business
Draft Agency Letter to Council re: approved drainage projects
Members briefly reviewed the letter. A motion was made by Agent LeMay and seconded by Agent Poirot to authorize Mr. Angus to send this letter to the Town Council. Vote was 6-0-0.
• Next regular meeting is Tuesday, January 17, 2006 at 7:30PM in the Enfield Room.
12. Adjourn:
A motion was made by Agent Wawer and seconded by Agent Tallarita to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________
Frank Poirot, Secretary
|