ENFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2009
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Conservation Commission was called to order by Chairman LaPlante in the Enfield Room of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Tuesday, November 10, 2009. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL-CALL – Present were Commissioners Michael Dynia, Natalie George, Joanne Kneiss, Karen LaPlante, Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Richard Szewczak and Kathleen Vose. Commissioner McGuire was absent. Also present was Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Planner.
PUBLIC INPUT
There were no public comments.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall, seconded by Commissioner Kneiss to accept the minutes of the October 13, 2009 meeting. The vote was 7-0-0.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from State DEP re: Hazardville Water
Chairman LaPlante explained this letter relates to Hazardville Water’s DEP diversion permit renewal, which has been granted with certain restrictions. The total withdrawal cannot exceed four million gallons per day from all four Avery wells.
Connecticut Rating of Towns – Connecticut Magazine
Chairman LaPlante stated this rating shows Enfield to be 20 out of 24 towns in the 25,000 to 50,000 population range. She noted New London was tied with Enfield, and Naugatuck, East Haven and East Hartford ranked below Enfield. She pointed out Enfield ranked 16 out of 24 regarding education.
Commissioner George noted the primary weakness relates to “culture/leisure”.
Connecticut Preservation News
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall noted the article relating to adaptive re-use of tobacco barns; Mr. Alsbaugh stated this article will be included in the “barn” file relating to barn issues, i.e. inventory of barns, preservation of barns, adaptive re-use of barns, tracking barn numbers, etc.
Chairman LaPlante referred to the deterioration of the barn located on the open space between Elm Street and Shaker Road. She suggested this be given some attention. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested a subcommittee to do a quick prioritization. He pointed out Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall has done some preliminary work surveying Enfield barns and posting them to the Connecticut Trust’s on-line Connecticut barn survey. It was suggested the subcommittee might do a more extensive review to contribute to the on-line survey.
Chairman LaPlante noted there are a number of surveys that should be done, i.e., an open space survey.
Commissioner George pointed out she started an open space survey and started with the beginning of the century and tried to do that off Town records. She noted it became difficult around 1950 when rehab work began in Thompsonville and there was a rearranging of lot lines. She stated from that point on, the attempt to trace and track the land was almost impossible. She went on to note the Town Clerk’s office was only able to copy six deeds per week, and she was already up to over 200 deeds that she needed to compile.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he recently learned that for the last two years the fees-in-lieu-of have been going into the General Fund rather than into the Open Space Fund.
Commissioner George stated when subdivisions are approved and an area of open space is deeded to the Town, Jose Giner prefers waiting to record open space with the Town until all the lots in a subdivision are developed. She noted this is done in case the subdivision isn’t completed and it’s sold to another developer who may decide to reconfigure the remainder of the subdivision and the open space. She pointed out the problem with this is that after three or four years, they are forgotten.
Chairman LaPlante questioned whether it’s possible the land isn’t deeded to the Town, and Commissioner George responded the land is deeded to the Town however the deeds don’t get recorded because no one gets around to doing it. She pointed out Debbie Opperman actually had a list of deeds showing whether or not they were recorded, and that’s when it was discovered that Mr. Giner was holding a lot of them because not all of the adjacent lots were sold.
Chairman LaPlante questioned how the properties get listed on the GIS when something changes hands or a deed gets recorded. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it’s not noted in the GIS, but rather it’s linked to the Assessor records. He noted the parcels are a layer, and the parcel information is hyper-linked through the GIS program to the Assessor data.
Chairman LaPlante raised the question of why more Town property information isn’t available. Mr. Alsbaugh stated GIS is maintained by IT, and it’s linked to Assessor programs, and it’s the Assessor programs lacking information on Town-owned properties.
Chairman LaPlante noted in the past that information was available in the old system, and she questioned why that wasn’t brought over into the new system. Commissioner Kneiss noted perhaps this needs to be brought to their attention.
Source-To-Sea Cleanup
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall stated yesterday’s Journal Inquirer contained a letter of appreciation for volunteerism which supported the Source-To-Sea cleanup.
Northern Connecticut Land Trust
Commissioner Dynia stated today’s Journal Inquirer had an article about the Northern Connecticut Land Trust acquiring some property in Somers. He pointed out Somers is close to attaining their 20% goal of open space. Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall noted the Town of Somers participates in purchasing open space, and they then deed it over to the Land Trust, and the Land Trust is responsible for the land and maintains it. She noted if the Land Trust were to dissolve, the land reverts back to the town for one dollar.
DISCUSSIONS
A motion was made by Commissioner Dynia, seconded by Commissioner George to move the following item up on the agenda. The vote was 7-0-0.
Enfield Plan of Conservation & Development
Present for this discussion was Leonard DeLorge from the Connecticut River Assembly.
Chairman LaPlante questioned whether the Steering Committee had a recent meeting, and Commissioner Dynia noted they had. He noted Mr. Levitz was present at that meeting. He noted a big issue had to do with riverfront development and the setback along the Connecticut and Scantic Rivers that restricts development within 200 feet of the river.
Commissioner George questioned what they want to change that setback to, and Commissioner Dynia stated they want to basically keep things where they are and let Inland/Wetlands deal with it when things come up regarding development.
Chairman LaPlante stated Inland/Wetlands doesn’t have full power to prohibit or regulate to that extent. She noted Suffield, as a town, regulates 100 feet along the whole length of the Connecticut River independent of the Inland/Wetlands Commission.
Mr. Alsbaugh inquired where the 200-foot recommendation originated, and Commissioner Dynia responded it came from him.
Mr. Szewczak stated his belief the Inland/Wetlands regulations specifically say 200 feet.
He noted they want to definitely prevent development in this area because they want to keep it as open space so that there’s a difference between just regulating wetlands and watercourses and regulating development on sensitive lands. He went on to note they don’t want to see significant development in these areas. However, they can’t prevent someone from owning or developing their land in a responsible manner. He noted it’s a matter of what’s responsible and what’s in the best interest of the town.
Mr. Alsbaugh questioned if the Connecticut River Assembly comments on endangered species along the river, and Mr. DeLorge responded they’re very concerned about this.
Mr. Alsbaugh questioned if they made this a point of their review, and Mr. DeLorge stated his belief they did, but he’s not positive. Commissioner George added she hasn’t seen any of their reviews that mention the natural resources. The commission agreed they need to determine what agency has oversight on such issues.
Referring to Page 25 in the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), Chairman LaPlante noted the action says, “Create a conservation zone or no development zone along the Connecticut Rivers that restricts development within 200 feet of the water”. She believes the properties on the west side of the railroad track are less than 200 feet, therefore, those would all be restricted from any further development if there isn’t any development there now.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the recommendations under discussion for the POCD concerning no development or restricted development areas along the river is something that will play out within the public hearing process. He noted the right to develop private property issue is being presented out of context which unfortunately diverts attention from 20 years of POCD intent for acquisition of particular parcels along the Connecticut River for open space and recreation. He noted the second of the two is the issue to focus on. The Commission might conserve its energies by making a recommendation that the Town begin implementing the policy set 20 years ago and use the money it already has for open space acquisition and buy those properties along the river. He pointed out the consistent policy has been for open space and recreation, not the opposite to allow mid-rise residential development on these properties. He reiterated that the question is how the town can implement 20 years of planning policy.
Commissioner George stated it’s also in the Conservation Commission’s state legislation that they are to make efforts to provide for access and views of the rivers and natural resources within the town. She noted this Commission is certainly within its ability to make comment about the use of the borders of the Connecticut and Scantic Rivers.
The members of the Commission then reviewed a letter originally drafted by Commissioner George and revised by Mr. Alsbaugh at the request of the commission. The letter is addressed to the Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission and the Enfield Town Council.
Commissioner Kneiss stated her belief brown fields are definitely a conservation issue. She noted another conservation issue relates to parking near the rivers. She added her belief the Conservation Commission’s charge could also be included.
Mr. Alsbaugh explained this was not an attempt to draft a document that was simply predicated on the current charge of the Conservation Commission, but that there were related issues that the Conservation Commission, as a lead complainant, was bringing forward. He noted he also tried to incorporate the agencies that never received a referral but should have been consulted in this process.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall suggested moving the concerns nearer to the conclusion to provide more emphasis.
Chairman LaPlante questioned if it’s true that the Enfield Revitalization Committee has oversight to Thompsonville, therefore, shouldn’t they be included in the list of agencies having oversight concerns. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they can’t be associated with agencies that were not included in the process because they were. It was agreed to change the heading to read, “Agencies having oversight, but not consulted”.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested the preceding paragraph read, “The Commission wishes to bring the following concerns to your attention”.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the letter appears to go beyond a simple communication on the POCD. He noted this document is not germane to the POCD itself. He noted this is an observation by this Commission that there have been procedural missteps. He stated this agency and hopefully other agencies want to know how and why this happened.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested he could clarify the comment concerning the boat launch in the second paragraph under the heading, “Parking” to read as follows: “…proposed improvements to the redesigned boat launch…”
Discussion followed regarding the paragraph entitled, “Policy Alteration by the Enfield Revitalization Strategy Committee”.
Commissioner Szewczak stated the charge of the Revitalization Committee can only give recommendations. Mr. Alsbaugh noted they’re charged to help implement existing plans, not to change policy and create new plans. He stated that is what their action plan did – it created new policy.
Commissioner George questioned whether the Enfield Revitalization Committee proposed commercial/residential development along the river. Mr. Alsbaugh stated his belief it’s a component within the Thompsonville Transit Center Feasibility Study, which is recommended by the Enfield Revitalization Committee. He referred to the unsolicited development map from Northland proposing mid-rise residential along the river that was included by Community Development the Feasibility Study and subsequently recommended by the ERSC.
Commissioner Dynia questioned if they wish to move bus commuters from Bob’s Store to Thompsonville, and Mr. Alsbaugh responded that is what the Feasibility Study consultants included in their recommendations.
Commissioner George pointed out the traffic going under the little underpass would be crazy.
Discussion followed regarding two different maps concerning the waterfront. One map is from the Thompsonville Plan and involves the open space and recreation access to the Connecticut River. Mr. Alsbaugh noted an unsolicited map from Northland is included within the Thompsonville Transit Center Feasibility Study and it supports mid-rise/terrace buildings along the river. He stated the issue is that Community Development chose to incorporate within the feasibility study a plan that was unsolicited and sent in as a proposal by Northland. He noted it was never vetted as part of a Plan of Conservation and Development or any other policy. He stated when this plan is incorporated into this study as an acceptable proposal, it circumvents the process and completely ignores the fact that there’s 20 years of POCD’s saying this land is supposed to be for open space and recreation. He is concerned how this happened.
Commissioner Kneiss questioned whether they can just ask that plan be removed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it has now gained body and strength as a legitimate recommendation within the recommended feasibility study.
It was noted the concept of development along that part of the river was recommended and supported by the Enfield Revitalization Committee. It was also observed within the resolution formulating their charge they are to implement existing policy - not create new policy.
Mr. Szewczak suggested stating the Conservation Commission finds the inclusion of the development plan by Northland totally inappropriate and not in line with past Plans of Conservation and Development. He suggested making this statement at the end of the letter. Commission George suggesting adding, “…and it’s never been a formal submission to the appropriate planning authorities.”
Chairman LaPlante agreed they should say something specific about the Transit Center Feasibility Study not being properly vetted through the agencies, and that what is included in that plan is not necessarily the vision of other agencies.
Commissioner George pointed out the agencies’ visions have a little more strength than just wishes, but may have actually been put into legal documents.
Commissioner George suggested adding the following statement at the end of the first paragraph under “Conclusions”: “The intense residential/commercial development adjacent to the transit station along the river was never part of the various planning agencies’ and commissions’ plans.”
Mr. Albaugh stated plans of conservation and development are not legal requirements. They are, rather, recommendations. He noted they don’t necessarily represent law, but rather they focus on the fact that they are agreed upon policy - and that policy is not changed in an inappropriate manner.
Chairman LaPlante requested clarification on the map. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is part of the original Thompsonville Revitalization mapping from the 1992 Thompsonville Plan. He noted the plan was referenced in subsequent documents and subsequent charges to the Enfield Revitalization Committee. Therefore, there are ties within future documents that became policy within the Town. He stated specific parts of the Thompsonville Plan were actually incorporated into the zoning ordinances.
Commissioner George stated the new plan takes the parking much closer to the Connecticut River even though the contours show a significant drop in grade to a lower level. She noted the new map shows this grade as being filled fairly close to the Connecticut River. She stated this would be done to accommodate an extensive parking lot, which is triple-decked flat in order to service the facility.
Chairman LaPlante questioned whether this document is on the Town’s website, and Mr. Alsbaugh stated it should be.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the parking that was intended to be useable by the commuter station was also meant to be used for riverfront access under the Thompsonville Plan. He pointed out because they are now proposing residential development adjacent to the river, there are no longer any places for walking paths, overlooks or the other two parking areas that were suppose to supply additional parking for the commuter station and for either event parking on the river or the recreational access parking for people to utilize the open space recreational areas along the river.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated another major aspect of the Thompsonville Transit Center Feasibility Study was supposed to be that there was recognition that a large development of an intermodal center in that location was not appropriate due to the compressed intensity of development and that area was supposed to be open space.
Chairman LaPlante questioned if Amtrak is willing to invest the necessary cost and personnel in place to establish a manned station. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the current political scene seems to favor commuter rail and the development of high-speed rail along the Northeast.
Commissioner Kneiss referred to the last page of the letter and stated her belief they should not talk about the income of people.
Chairman LaPlante stated her belief this letter should be concentrating on the fact this has been pushed through and no one has had the opportunity to comment. She went on to suggest a change in wording in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the letter as follows: “…Extensive and significant changes to policies within the proposed Plan of Conservation and Development…”
Mr. Alsbaugh questioned whether within this letter he should make recommendations relating to the purchase of open space. It was agreed not to include this recommendation.
Tree Inventory
Chairman LaPlante stated her understanding that quite a while ago towns were required to list their assets. She noted the previous treasurer in Somers told her the town had to put a value on all of its assets.
Commissioner George noted if this is a legislative item, perhaps they could ask for clarification from one of their legislators.
Commissioner Kneiss stated she would like to learn who else would work on a tree inventory project, and she would like the state urban forester to attend one of their meetings to learn what they should be doing. She noted the Town Council and Town Manager should know that they wish to do this. She added they also need enough volunteers to undertake this project.
Commissioner Kneiss stated if they go forward with this, they should know the following:
· How do they limit what they want to do?
· How do they phase what they want to do?
· What are some of the things the Town can gain from this?
· How can they keep up the inventory?
She stated the importance of understanding all the issues. She noted they need to talk to the Urban Forester for the state.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall stated her belief this is a worthwhile project, and the Town Council should know that the commission is doing something concrete.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if they can get funding to help with this project that will be contributing to any asset management project. He noted they have to learn what will be required, data-wise, for the asset management. He stated this has to be coordinated.
It was agreed to have the State Urban Forester attend the next meeting.
ECC Sponsorship of Safe Boating Class
Chairman LaPlante stated she has not pursued this any further as yet. She explained they did talk about having DEP putting on a safe boating class. She stated she still believes this to be a great idea.
A motion was made by Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall, seconded by Commissioner George to authorize the Chair to work with DEP to schedule this boating class in 2010. The vote was 7-0-0.
A motion was made by Commissioner George, seconded by Commissioner Kneiss to move the following up on the agenda. The vote was 7-0-0.
Vote on proposed changes of Article VIII.1 from 9/8/09 meeting discussion
Commissioner George referred to the “48 hours notification in writing” and questioned if they’re allowed to use e-mail as an official notification. Chairman LaPlante stated her belief writing includes any form of correspondence.
Mr. Alsbaugh pointed out Commission dates are posted yearly, therefore, there’s never a conflict with a holiday.
Commissioner George made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall to adopt the amendment to Article VIII.1 by deleting the words, “which shall be noticed as a special meeting”. The vote was 7-0-0.
Preliminary discussion of goals for 2010 and beyond
It was agreed to discuss this item at the next meeting. Chairman LaPlante suggested everyone come up with ideas for the next meeting, particularly if they don’t have a speaker.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
There was no Executive Session.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Subdivision/Development Referrals from Planning & Zoning Commission
There were no referrals.
Open Space Acquisition
There was no discussion on this item.
Farmland Preservation
Chairman LaPlante stated the open space and farmland preservation item was approved by the Town Council. She noted they should decide what to do next concerning this item, and they may wish to form a subcommittee for 2010. A brief discussion of the process followed.
Aquifer Protection
Commissioner George pointed out this was covered with the water company.
Archaeological Protection
There was no discussion on this item.
Special Projects
Decision on whether or not to sponsor safe boating class
It was decided to go forward with the sponsorship of a boating class.
Tree Inventory/Surveys/Asset Management
This item is ongoing.
Asian Longhorn Beetle
Commissioner Kneiss noted there was an article in the Courant regarding this beetle, and New Hampshire is concerned about this insect coming over the border from Massachusetts.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall pointed out there are people in Enfield that sell wood. She noted there’s a house at the intersection of Elm Street and Shaker Road that has been selling wood for years, and they’re basically running a business. She questioned whether there’s a way to regulate such a business. She stated people should ask where wood comes from when making such a purchase. Chairman LaPlante suggested asking the Zoning Enforcement Officer about this. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if there’s a zoning issue that would be the only issue. As concerns the potential spreading of Asian Longhorn Beetles, Mr. Alsbaugh noted there is no law or policy regarding this. He went on to state this might be a good way to bring up the point by tying in a question about enforcement and bringing in the aspect of the Asian Longhorn Beetles and the observation that people need to know where they’re buying their wood from. He suggested perhaps the question should go directly to Planning & Zoning so they can consider the matter.
Chairman LaPlante raised the question of writing a press release to remind people to check where purchased wood is coming from.
Commissioner Kneiss suggested this be placed on the Town’s website.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested Commissioner Kneiss could approach Henry Dutcher to do a TV spot on this topic. Commissioner Kneiss agreed this is a very good option and noted she could ask someone from the State to do this.
Chairman LaPlante stated she would like to see someone looking into the wood business being run at the corner of Elm Street and Shaker Road.
Combined Farmers Market and Broad-based Community Activity Facility – Mancuso Recreation Complex
Commissioner George suggested this be combined under the subcommittee dealing with farmland viability and preservation.
Chairman LaPlante suggested perhaps the barn behind Walgreen’s at the corner of Elm Street and Shaker Road might be a good location for a farmers market. Commissioner George pointed out that barn is in poor condition and there’s very little parking. She went on to state she would very much like to see a farmers market combined with some meeting rooms because this would bring more people to that location.
Staff Liaison Report
Mr. Alsbaugh stated six people are attending the Annual Conference of the Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission on November 14, 2009.
Liaison Report – Enfield Plan of Conservation & Development/Steering Committee
This item was previously discussed.
Liaison Report – Northern CT Land Trust
There was no discussion on this item.
Liaison Report – Scantic River Watershed Association
Commissioner Dynia stated they held a meeting last night. He noted there was discussion about the grange, and the Town Manager and Assistant Town Manger have been working on this topic with the Association. He added no final decision has been made as yet.
He stated the Association now has a lot of equipment for clearing trails. He went on to list some activities being considered at the Scantic River, i.e., a rubber duck race, a river festival, hikes, tube race, etc.
Commissioner Vose questioned when they’d be doing DEP water testing, and Commissioner Dynia responded probably November 21st.
Chairman LaPlante questioned if they’ve heard anything yet about the grant from CL&P. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the grant is currently still under consideration.
The next Conservation Commission meeting date is December 8, 2009.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dynia to adjourn the meeting. The vote was 7-0-0, and the meeting stood adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall, Secretary
|