MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
1st Floor Conference
Town Hall, 302 Main Street
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman, Paul Smith, called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present
Paul Smith, Chairman
Janis Esty
Kimberley Gallagher
Judith Preston
Charles Wehrly
Janis Holland
Members Absent
Charles Sohl
William Pollock
Brendan McKeown
Staff Present
Sandy Prisloe, Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Kathleen Noyes, Recording Clerk
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. 12-016 “Tougas” Reg. Activity for Residential Construction
210 Essex Road (Map 58 / Lot 58-53)
Applicant: Phil Tougas; Agent: McDonald, Sharpe & Associates, Inc.
Ferne Trembley, PE, with McDonald, Sharpe & Associates, Inc. represented the applicant. He explained that a new plan was submitted to the Land Use Office (date of revisions 10/23/2012) with a demolition plan dated 10/24/2012 approved by Don Lucas, and a letter dated 10/24/2012 from Soil Scientist, Richard Snarski.
F. Trembley stated that there are 320 sq. ft. of wetlands on the site. Currently a 3 -bedroom home exists on the site, and the wetlands are located to the east. A gravel driveway serves that structure. A new 3-bedroom home is being proposed which will be located 55 ft from the wetland. The home will have a paved driveway. A lawn will be planted as well as a vegetated wetland buffer.
F. Trembley asked to address the issues that were brought up at the last IWWC meeting on 10/18/2012. The demolition issue has been addressed with the submission of the demolition plan. The area to the rear of the property is to be cleared. A dashed line indicates that the rear quarter of the property running parallel to the northeast and southwest property lines will be planted and not maintained. Along the southern boundary, arborvitae will be planted.
The entire property is in a Coastal Area Management Zone. Note 7 has been revised to show this.
The driveway was originally 3 or 4 feet from the eastern boundary. Now it has been moved 5-7 feet further west of the property to create a buffer to the wetland to the east. Also, a landscaped area with assorted shrubs along the property line has been added.
Soil Scientist R. Snarski has addressed the knotweed issue. He explained in his letter that the knotweed is an aggressive and invasive species that is difficult to kill. It should be sprayed twice with the herbicide applications set three weeks apart, and then the roots will be grubbed a few weeks afterwards.
F. Trembley addressed the question as to why the wetland plants are being placed so far apart. R. Snarski stated in his letter that this is being done so that when the trees and shrubs matured, they would fill in the land to produce a high quality wetland buffer.
J. Preston noted that in his letter, R. Snarski should have addressed the IWWC not the Conservation Commission. J. Preston said she is concerned that grubbing the knotweed may spread it around.
C. Wehrly asked what the separation distance is between the bottom of the leaching field and the ground water. F. Trembley answered that in test holes 3 & 4, the distance between the seasonal ground water and the bottom of the leaching field is 3.92 feet, and in the reserved area, the separation distance is 2.2 feet to the groundwater. 18” is the distance required, and the separation distance is a minimum 2.2 feet. The CRAHD has approved this. This is not in the wastewater management district. C. Wehrly commented that he was hoping for a distance of 24”, and he is pleased that this distance has been exceeded.
P. Smith expressed concerns at the last meeting about the location of the stockpile area. The revised plan clarifies that there will be a control around the stockpile area. A considerable area will be planted with a field grass and wildflower mix behind the reserve area. This area will not be maintained.
F. Trembley talked about the note on the plan pertaining to the proposed size of the septic tank. The tank is listed as a 1,250 gallon tank, and the pump chamber is 1,000 gallons. P. Smith pointed out that the septic system design criteria says the tank is 1,000 gallons. There is a conflict between that note, and the proposed tank. F. Trembley said he is not sure about the reason for this discrepancy. P. Smith recommended that this project be approved with a 1,250 gallon septic tank and that the note on the plan be corrected accordingly.
P. Smith said the driveway on the revised plan will provide a greater buffer however, the space between the drive and the property line is a landscaped area with shrubs. He asked for specific details about the number and types of plantings and if they extend to the property line. F. Trembley said the plantings would not extend to the hammerhead area of the driveway. The plantings will be along the eastern property line approx 70’. To the southwest portion of the property, there are 23 arborvitaes proposed. P. Smith was concerned that the landscaping plan showed a graphic proposed not a specific number.
Phil Tougas, property owner, was present. He said he plants proposed were 5-6’ tall arborvitaes. He was told when they mature; they will provide a sound barrier to Route 9. P. Smith said vegetation does not provide a sound barrier. P. Tougas said he had been told arborvitae provide better sound protection than a fence does.
P. Smith asked about the silt fence north and west of the proposed house. It wraps around the area of upland soils and stops at Spring Brook Road. There is no protection for the existing area of the wetlands and the proposed area of landscaping where the grubbing of the existing knotweed will be. There is no silt fence proposed to protect soil from runoff. P. Smith said there needs to be a down gradient silt fence installed. It needs to be connected to the NW corner of the property where it follows the boundary to wetland flags 19, 18 & 17 to the proposed silt fence on the plan. There should be no disturbance to the adjacent wetlands.
P. Smith asked about the existing vegetation in the wetlands adjacent to Essex Road. F. Trembley said in the existing wetland, there would be no removal of existing vegetation. According to P. Tougas, from wetland flag 19 to Essex Road, there is knotweed, and there are wildflowers. F. Trembley does not know for sure what the existing vegetation is in the wetland. K. Gallagher asked if eradicating the knotweed in the adjacent property and in the wetlands would prevent it from returning.
J. Preston said to really eradicate the knotweed, it would take more than 1 season, and it would have to be removed from the whole area.
P. Smith asked J. Preston for her opinion about R. Snarski’s proposal to plant the plants 10 feet apart. She said although there is the risk that the knotweed will return, she is pleased that the applicant is addressing the issue of invasive species. She suggested putting organic material into the soil to help establish the plants.
Commissioners discussed the issue of the applicant removing 3- 36” conifers without a permit. They would like him to plant the arborvitae in an attempt to remediate this error. There were 23 arborvitae represented on the plan, and P. Smith wants to be sure that no less than 20 are planted. He would like to remediate the 108 caliper inches that were removed with a .5 to 1 ratio.
J. Preston suggested moving the higher density of plants in the area where the applicant is trying to eradiate the knotweed. P. Smith said he would like to propose that he landscaping area with the assorted shrubs on the south and east portions of the property should not be limited to an area roughly 100’ long from the 104-112 contour. Rather it extend 200 ft from the property line on the north and east corner of the property to the delineation between the maintained lawn and the non-maintained lawn. The entirety of those 200 feet can be treated as a landscaped area. This area would be 15 feet by 200 feet creating a 200- foot landscape buffer.
P. Tougas proposed that he would plant 5’ foot tall arborvitae from the front NE property corner to the rear of the lawn property area. He will plant 20 arborvitae adjacent to route 9 and 20 arborvitae adjacent to the Sugland property, so there would be 40 arborvitae planted in total.
MOTION to approve application #12-016 “Tougas” Regulated Activity for Residential Construction; 210 Essex Road (M58 /L 58-53), Applicant: Phil Tougas; Agent: McDonald, Sharpe & Associates, Inc. with the following conditions: 1. A total of 20 arborvitae each at 5-6’ in height be planted at: the SWportion of the site adjacent to Route 9; and, the SE portion of the site running easterly of the proposed driveway adjacent to the Sugland property. 2. That the area North and West of the proposed house (in the upland area adjacent to the Wetland along Essex Road) be planted as shown on the drawings rev. dated 10/23/12 to include organic soil materials. 3. That the proposed septic tank be 1,250 gallons in size as shown on the plans. 4. The
silt fence along the West and North portion of the site be extended from Springbrook Road North and Westerly along Wetland flags 17, 18, 19 & 20 to the NW corner of the property. MADE by P. Smith; SECONDED by K. Gallagher; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, J. Holland, C. Wehrly, J. Esty, K. Gallagher, J. Preston; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 6-0-0.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
12-018 “Tractor Supply Company” Regulated Activity for Commercial Construction
401 Middlesex Turnpike (Map 52 / Lot 96)
Applicant: New England Retail Properties; Agent: James Cassidy, PE
Suspend 12-018 to go to APA application 12-001 for the same site.
Reconvene IWWC Application 12-018 review.
J. Cassidy represented the applicant, NERF, for Tractor Supply Company. P. Smith asked that all information presented by the agent for the APA be brought into this application.
James Cassidy, PE with Hallisey, Pearson & Cassidy of Rocky Hill, CT, explained that the applicant is looking to demolish the current facility, New England Overhead Doors, and build a new facility, Tractor Supply Company. Tractor Supply Company is a retail operation that caters to the small “gentleman” farmer who needs products to maintain a small farm such as log splitters, equestrian supplies, apparel, hardware, chainsaws, lawn mowers, PVC piping, etc. There will be no tractors on this site, but they can be ordered from this site.
P. Smith asked J. Cassidy to define “tractor.” J. Cassidy said Tractor Supply Company sells riding lawn mowers and push mowers. They are not selling commercial farming tractors. He has included a prototypical store layout with the plan. Most items are contained within the building. There will be a 15,000 square foot concrete pad of outside storage for items too big too fit into the store such as non pressure treated fencing and horse corrals.
There will be a sidewalk display area in the front of the store where items such as lawn mowers and small landscaping trailers will be stored. The products will stay out at night under a locked security system.
This parcel is located on the Eastern side of Middlesex Turnpike, on the north it is bordered by CWC and property owned by the State of CT as a commuter parking lot. On the south side, there is a vacant lot in the B-4 zone and Cunningham Brother’s Realty and Plumbing Supplies. There is a small wetlands area of 415 square feet in the NW corner of the site. This wetlands area extends to the north. This parcel is at the bottom of the wetlands area. Though there will be activity in the upland review area, there will be no direct impact to the wetlands. P. Smith asked that J. Cassidy label the first drawing as exhibit A1, and the second drawing as exhibit A2, and that both exhibits be left with staff.
J. Cassidy spoke about the on site soil investigation report dated 10/30/2012 prepared by George T. Logan, MS, CPWS, CE, Registered Soil Scientist of REMA Ecological Services. G. Logan reported that the wetland soils are derived from glacial outwash deposits and were classified in part as the Walpole sandy loam while the upland soils are udorthents-pits complex and Hinckley gravelly sandy loam.
J. Cassidy discussed the parking. The applicant is requesting 74 parking spaces. 124 spaces are required, and the applicant is requesting that 50 spaces be deferred because they will not be needed in the foreseeable future, and the developer does not want to add additional impervious coverage.
Commissioners asked about drainage. There will be a low point in the center of the parking lot with drains. Sheet 4 shows the catch basins in the parking area. The water will be carried through the pipe system. There will be a storm water quality basin in the parking lot. It is designed to treat the first inch of runoff, which typically collects pollutants.
Drawing #7 shows the stormwater quality basin. There are 6” of clay to act as a liner for the bottom of the basin. There will be riprap filtration. There was detailed discussion about how water will travel to the level spreader. Sheet 2 shows a cross section through the proposed level spreader. There is a proposal to put the level spreader within 100’ of the upland review area because there would be more control over the water discharge. There is no direct impact to the wetlands and no increase in flow. There is an existing stone culvert. There is no evidence of drainage problems with the current culvert.
The building is serviced by public water. There is an easement to the well owned by the CWC. The site is also serviced by an onsite septic system. J. Cassidy is proposing to move the septic as far from the fill and the well site as possible. There will be a 2,000 gallon septic tank connected to a pump chamber to the galleys in that area. The CRAHD has reviewed this, but has not yet commented.
P. Smith said on drawing 1 of 16, in survey notes, #9, 10, 11 & 13, all indicate easements identified were undefined except for one which is to CL&P. The easements have not all been plotted. P. Smith would like the easements all to be plotted.
P. Smith asked about drawing #2, the site demolition plan. He questioned the note regarding a proposed tank within the existing plan. J. Cassidy said the note would be removed.
P. Smith said the drawing should clearly show that the silt fence goes around the areas of demolition.
On the southern portion of the site along the southern property line, there is debris encroachment. P. Smith asked why the debris is not noted to be removed. J. Cassidy said it would be removed.
On note #8 on drawing 2, the sediment erosion controls need to be shown.
On note #10 on drawing 2, there is no concrete curb on the property. P. Smith said the streets there are wrong. Please delete or fix this note.
No buildings are going to be remaining, so no buildings will be protected. Please delete the note about that.
On drawing #3, the site plan drawing and improvement plan, in the middle of the parking lot, there is an edge of existing gravel. The edge of gravel notation should be removed from the proposed drawings, or noted as “existing”.
On drawing #4, on the northeast side of the building, there is supposed to be a swale created for storm water to be taken to the rear of the property. P. Smith said he does not see a swale. It looks as if the water will run into the side of the building. P. Smith asked if there should be a 52 elevation contour shown in this area. If so, please add if appropriate.
There are 8” PVC drain pipes running parallel to the north side of building. The roof slope is pitched from south to north. The 8”pipes are to take the flow. Pipe inverts need to be clearly shown on the 8” pipes. The 2 -8” pipes form a T, but there is no cleanout shown; and, P. Smith questioned the need for a clean-out.
P. Smith asked what the 5 dark filled circles on the north side of building represent. J. Cassidy will check on this.
P. Smith noted that the proposed storm water quality basin has a 44 elevation contour across the emergency spillway; but, the spillway is listed as being at elevation 42. Elevation 44 should run along the spillway. He suggested removal of the contour.
On drawing #5, there is some of the same drainage information for the southerly system; however, there is no information for the northerly system. Please be consistent and include information about the pipe size, slope and length.
On drawing #6, additional silt fence should be provided on the east side of the building. It should continue southerly to the proposed access drive. The elevations to the east are below the elevation of the slab. Another 50-100” of silt fence would be recommended. Silt fence also should be added northerly, parallel to Route 154, between the parking lot and Route 154. The silt fence should continue south along the tree line until it intersects near the septic system.
On drawing #7, changes to the proposed basin should be made here too.
On note #1 line #2 indicates that the seed needs to be planted in spring. The Applicant should be prepared to explain the construction sequence and staging.
On note #5, please list the correct number of shrubs.
On note #10, take out the word “of” because it is incorrect grammar.
Please check the spelling of zoning on every sheet in the zoning approval block.
On sheet 8, the detail for the effluent lift chamber should be 1,500 gallons. It’s noted as 4,000 gallons. On the same detail, on the second note down, please remove the word “house.”
On the septic system note #1, from the second through the third line, is there an underground storage tank reference? The letters UST should be removed so the word “inch” will move back within the border.
On sheet #12, on the diagram for outlet energy dissapators, what do the number 1 & number 2 stand for? These should be noted on the plans.
P. Smith stated that further comments would be reserved for next month’s review.
MOTION to accept application #12-018 “Tractor Supply Company” Regulated Activity for Commercial Construction; 401 Middlesex Turnpike (M52 /L 96), Applicant: New England Retail Properties; Agent: James Cassidy, PE with comments made by P. Smith corrected and submitted in advance of the meeting. MADE by K. Gallagher; SECONDED by J. Preston; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Wehrly J. Holland, J. Esty, K. Gallagher, J. Preston; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 6-0-0.
MOTION to deem as significant application #12-018 “Tractor Supply Company” Regulated Activity for Commercial Construction; 401 Middlesex Turnpike (M52 /L 96), Applicant: New England Retail Properties; Agent: James Cassidy, PE. MADE by K. Gallagher; SECONDED by J. Preston; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Wehrly J. Holland, J. Esty, K. Gallagher, J. Preston; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 6-0-0.
P. Smith notified the agent that the Public Hearing of the IWWC would be held at the next regular meeting of the IWWC which is scheduled for 7:30 P.M. Thursday, December 20, 2012, Old Saybrook Town Hall, 302 Main Street, 1st Floor Conference Room.
P. Smith stated that a drainage report has not been submitted. Commissioners agreed to request Ordinance 71 fees for engineering consultation and for legal counsel.
MOTION to request Ordinance 71 Fees for engineering consultation and for legal counsel for application #12-018 “Tractor Supply Company” Regulated Activity for Commercial Construction; 401 Middlesex Turnpike (M52 /L 96), Applicant: New England Retail Properties; Agent: James Cassidy, PE. MADE by K. Gallagher; SECONDED by J. Preston; VOTED IN FAVOR: P. Smith, C. Wehrly J. Holland, J. Esty, K. Gallagher, J. Preston; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 6-0-0.
MOTION to amend the agenda to include under “NEW BUSINESS” review of permit extension for IWWC Permit P07-003 for Merritt Lane Holdings submitted by Attorney David Royston.; MADE by K. Gallagher; SECONDED by J. Preston; VOTED IN FAVOR: J. Esty, P. Smith, J. Preston, C. Wehrly, K. Gallagher, J. Holland; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 6-0-0.
S. Prisloe explained that P07-003 issued on 4/19/2007 had been extended to 4/19/2012. The work has not yet been performed pursuant to the permit. The permit was to separate an existing parcel of land to create a second building lot. The applicant is asking for a 2 -year extension which means the permit would expire on 4/19/2014. P. Smith explained that Commissioners could grant the extension or they could deny it and rehear the application all over again.
MOTION to approve the request for a 2 year extension for IWWC Permit P07-003 for Merritt Lane Holdings submitted by Attorney David Royston.; MADE by J. Holland; SECONDED by C. Wehrly; VOTED IN FAVOR: J. Esty, P. Smith, C. Wehrly, J. Holland; OPPOSED: J. Preston and K. Gallagher; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 4-2-0.
A. Minutes – October 18, 2012
MOTION to accept the regular meeting minutes of October 18, 2012 with the following amendments: On p.2, in the forth paragraph, third sentence, C. Wehrly asked about the distance from the bottom of the leaching field to the water table not the bottom of the septic tank to the water table. On p.3, the second motion regarding application #12-016 “Tougas”, in the forth line, the word “insignificant” should be replaced with “not significant”; MADE by J. Preston; SECONDED by C. Wehrly; VOTED IN FAVOR: J. Esty, P. Smith, J. Preston, C. Wehrly, K. Gallagher; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: J. Holland; APPROVED: 5-0-1.
B. Correspondence
S. Prisloe updated Commissioners regarding the 3-year monitoring on 23 Quarry Street by R. Snarski. This is the third year of a 3-year monitoring program.
C. Committee, Representative & Staff Reports
K. Gallagher updated Commissioners on what the Conservation Commission has been working on. On behalf of the CC, she asked if a town wide map of vernal pools would be helpful to the IWWC.
S. Prisloe said vernal pools aren’t currently mapped. P. Smith said it would be helpful, but it would only be a guideline. Vernal pools need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Conservation Commission has done an inventory of vernal pools through photo interpretation. There are also vernal pool maps from the Preserve. P. Smith asked S. Prisloe to pursue this with the Conservation Commission.
MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M. until the next Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission scheduled for, Thursday, December 20, 2012, Town Hall, 302 Main
Street, 1st Floor Conference Room; MADE by K. Gallagher; SECONDED by J. Preston; VOTED IN FAVOR: J. Esty, J. Holland, J. Preston, P. Smith, K. Gallagher, C. Wehrly; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 6-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Noyes
| 
