MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin McCann, Louise Evans, Patrick Kennedy, Tim Wentzell, Suzanne Choate, and Sue Larsen
ALTERNATES PRESENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairman McCann opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Evans read the legal notice as published in the Journal Inquirer.
Appl 03-46P, T’s Auto Service, renewal of a 2-year temporary and conditional permit to display two vehicles for sale at property located at 718 Ellington Road, RC zone
Richard Tarascio, owner and operator of T’s Auto Service, presented to the Commission his proposal to renew the Temporary and Conditional permit to allow the sale of two vehicles at his place of business. The applicant indicated there have been no changes to the site.
Marcia Banach, Director of Planning, reviewed the Planning Report:
Request for renewal of a two-year temporary & conditional permit originally granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in February 1989 and renewed by this Commission every two years, for the display of two automobiles for sale at T’s Auto Service on the corner of Ellington Road and Pleasant Valley Road (across from 7-ll), RC zone. This permit expired July 10, 2003.
The original ZBA approval and the previous P&Z approvals included 3 conditions:
The permit is restricted to 2 automobiles and excludes vans or trucks;
The cars are to be no closer than 12 feet from the corner. No more than 12 cars in a single row with 2 other cars making a second row (as shown in the diagram submitted) are to be parked from the station to Pleasant Valley. This includes the automobiles for sale.
There will be no parking at any time in the front area of the parking lot (triangle and near the dumpster).
The regulations state that temporary & conditional permits may be granted by the Commission for a use which is not specified elsewhere in the regulations, if the public convenience and welfare will be substantially served, and the appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured and traffic and other hazards will not result from such use. Sale of motor vehicles is allowed in the General Commercial zone, therefore this permit is for a use that is specified elsewhere.
We do note that the site perimeter landscaping was recently removed, due to sight line concerns of the owner. The planting strips between the gas station and the roads now include rocks and red mulch, but no plantings. Since gas stations by their nature are not generally attractive sites, the loss of the landscaping reduces the site aesthetics even further. There are numerous evergreen shrubs that are both low in height
and low maintenance that could be planted without causing sight line issues. We recommend that the Commission require re-landscaping if this T&C permit is renewed.
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer, had no Engineering comments.
There was no public participation on the application.
The Commission had the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Wentzell asked if the applicant would agree to planting a lower landscaping? Tarascio responded he would if necessary.
Commissioner Evans suggested there are many low lying shrubs that could be planted that would not require a lot of maintenance.
Chairman McCann indicated he drove by the site and stated there was no plant materials but an attractive mulch bed with decorative rocks. The islands are very narrow and would not be able to support a lot of green.
Joseph Burns, 64 Davewell Road, asked if he would be able to address the Commission regarding the application. Chairman McCann responded yes.
Burns comments were in regard to the landscaping and stated he would like to see that the site free of landscaping. He stated the landscaping obstructed the visibility on the corner and he has seen many accidents in this area. Burns would like the Commissioner to not require the applicant to replace the landscaping. The site is neat and a much safer corner. Burns inquired if the public hearing would remain open to allow him to obtain signatures to petition any landscaping being put in place on this site.
Chairman McCann stated the public hearing would have to close due to scheduling and indicated the Commission would take into consideration the facts presented. The public hearing closed.
Appl 03-49P, DuFresne In-Law Apartment, request for a 5-year permit for an in-law apartment for property located at 35 Vintage Lane, RR zone
Sudhakar Nagardeolekar, Architect with Russell & Dawson Architecture & Engineering, represented the applicant’s proposal for an in-law apartment at 35 vintage Lane, RR Zone. Nagadeolekar stated he was submitting revised plans to the Commission because the plans originally submitted exceeded the maximum lot coverage. Nagadeolekar gave an overview of the proposed house and indicated the applicants’ parents would be living in the in-law apartment. The home is a total square footage of 6,300 square feet.
Banach reviewed the Planning Report:
Request for a permit for an in-law apartment at 35 Vintage Lane, RR zone. The applicant is proposing to incorporate the in-law apartment with the construction of a new house.
The PZC in-law apartment regulation has specific criteria for the unit; and provides for a 5-year permit period. These criteria include:
the in-law apartment cannot be larger than 900 sq ft or 40% of the gfa (whichever is smaller)
the entire structure must maintain the appearance of a single family dwelling;
off street parking for three vehicles must be accommodated;
adequate water and sewage disposal must be provided; and
the owner of the dwelling units must occupy either the in-law apartment or the main dwelling unit
The Commission may waive one or more of the provisions above (except the requirement that an owner live in the apartment or house) after determining:
there will be minimum adverse impact on existing uses in the area;
surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
The proposed in-law apartment is 900 square feet. The applicant has submitted a plot plan showing the proposed lot layout, and a floor plan and elevations for the apartment. It is my understanding that the building footprint exceeds our 10% maximum lot coverage by about 250 feet. If this application is approved, the footprint will need to be reduced.
The Town Sanitarian has indicated that the septic system approval is still pending with him.
If this application is approved, the Commission may grant approval for up to five years. The applicant will be asked via letter to reaffirm ownership of the property every two years. At the end of the permit period, if the family situation has not changed, the applicant may request renewal by staff
Doolittle reviewed the Engineering Report
The driveway entrance to the street is located right next to the catch basin and needs to be moved to the south of the catch basin.
The plans needs to show the drainage swale down the east property line that was on the approved subdivision plan.
There is a disagreement between the site plan and the architectural plan regarding the finish floor elevation and a retaining wall around the pool area and this needs to be corrected on the plans.
There was no public participation on this application.
Nagardeolekar inquired if the Commission would grant a waiver to allow the in-law apartment to increase in square footage to 940.
Chairman McCann stated that would be taken into consideration.
The Commission had the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Evans commented when the in-law apartment is no longer in use the space would need to be converted back into living space. Nagardeolekar responded the kitchen would be removed and it would be converted to playroom or bonus room.
Commissioner Choate inquired if there is a problem with the revisions to the site plan to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction. Nagardeolekar indicated this would not be a problem.
Chairman McCann asked if the revised plans are the plans being reviewed by the Commission tonight? Nagardeolekar indicated they were not and distributed new plans to the Commission, and stated the plans are amended to comply with the regulations. The only change to the application is the request for a waiver of the size of the in-law apartment from 900 sq, ft to a total square footage of 940 (see Exhibit A).
Banach reminded the Commission there is a waiver provision to waive the square footage.
The public hearing closed.
Appl 03-28P, Poag & McEwen-Connecticut, LLC, request for site plan approval for a “Lifestyle Center” with 284,750 +/- sq. ft. of retail shops and 3,870 +/- sq. ft. of office, located on the west side of Buckland Road, north of Smith Street, and south of Deming Street, Buckland Gateway Zone (Continued from July 8, 2003)
Alan Lamson, FLB Architecture and Planning, was present and indicated the applicant would address those questions and comments raised by the Commission at the public hearing of July 8, 2003.
Clay Smook, with Elkus/Manfredi Architects, Ltd., responded to Commission concerns at the previous public hearing and reworked the design of the buildings.
New elevations for the backs of buildings were presented, and the importance of the buildings having a front on Buckland Road and the Plum Gulley Brook side of the project were noted. Smook indicated these issues were addressed by:
Proposing back painted glass, show windows, and a façade on the Plum Gulley Brook side of the project.
Screening the Buckland side of the project where the service, trash, and delivery areas are located with decorative high levels of finish rather than wood screening.
Signage, awnings, and glass that will give the appearance of store frontage.
Smook showed an elevation drawing illustrating the idea of treating the rear of the building as building fronts. The architectural treatment will be carried on both sides of the building.
A concept view of Evergreen Walk from the intersection of Tamarack Street and Buckland Road was presented. Smook noted that there are multiple elevations of the proposed buildings so people are not looking directly at all of the rooftops. There will be various types of screening including architectural trellises, façades, and the various types of landscaping. Smook showed a rendering of landscaping that will consist of a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees. He indicated that what people will see is a Main Street concept of long views looking down Evergreen Way.
Chris Jones, Landscape Architect with Carol R. Johnson & Associates, Inc., presented revisions that resulted from concerns of the Commission expressed at the previous public hearing.
Tree plantings along Evergreen Way
There were two major areas in the project having minimal trees in section 400-401 Evergreen Way. The applicant has added trees in this area and in the main square of the project. The objective is to have balance by adding landscaping but maintaining a safe sight line throughout the project.
Traffic calming
The main intersections on Evergreen Way have been raised as requested, and bollards will be installed where there are flush curb conditions adjacent to vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
Landscaping to the rear of buildings between Evergreen Way and Buckland Road
Additional shrub plantings have been added, as well as more columnar trees, such as maple or oak that would fit into limited spaces to provide greenery and screening.
Site circulation
The applicant studied the pedestrian circulation and has incorporated a 10’ clear walking sidewalk along Evergreen Way in the lifestyle area. The tightest portion on the site in the 400-600 buildings has been reconfigured to allow safe pedestrian circulation and wider sidewalks. Additional sidewalk connections to the edge buildings to the north, center, and restaurant section of the site have been incorporated into the plan. The circulation from a loop standpoint will now allow a pedestrian to walk along the south side of Hemlock up to Buckland and cross at a crosswalk onto the west along Tamarack and back into the development.
Lamson indicated that completes the applicant’s response to the issues that were raised at the previous hearing and stated the team is available for questions regarding the traffic and engineering concerns.
Banach noted to the Commission that Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer, was available to address any concerns the Commissioner may have regarding environmental issues on the site.
Banach commented favorably on the changes to backs of the buildings, but mentioned building 200 and the 500’s may need additional attention. Now that the backs of the buildings have been addressed some attention should be paid to the sides of the buildings where pedestrians will be walking alongside them.
All the large intersections are now raised to the height of the sidewalks, where they were previously textured, allowing the pedestrians to be the masters of those intersections rather than the vehicular traffic.
Doolittle reviewed the revised plan indicating many of the engineering comments have been addressed, but there are comments that do need to be resolved and he would be working with the applicant and their team over the next few weeks to accomplish this.
Chairman McCann stated the Commission would have questions for Folger as the public hearing progressed.
Chairman McCann inquired if Attorney King had any environmental concerns regarding the information that was presented.
Attorney King addressed the Commission indicating the July 8, 2003, hearing was their evidentiary presentation but reserved the right to offer comments regarding additional submissions by the applicant that were submitted on July 10th and July 24th .
King indicated Mr. Durand who was working with Dennis Lowry and Mr. Nyman all with ENSR would like to address the Commission regarding the new information submitted.
King stated a letter was sent to Cumming & Lockwood requesting access to the site in question and that he received a letter denying access. King submitted copies of the correspondence to the Commission (Exhibit B) to become part of the record.
Jamie Durand, ENSR, indicated he is working on the project with Dennis Lowry who was unable to be present at this hearing. On July 8th Lowry presented to the Commission environmental issues regarding revised submissions. A letter dated July 16, 2003, was submitted to the Inland/Wetlands Commission (Exhibit C) and raised the same issues discussed by Lowry at the July 8th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Durand stated he would not go into great detail but did want to highlight some of the issues raised by the revised information:
Permanent impacts that involve wetlands fill regarding the road crossing, grading, and the impacts in crossing wetland #9 and wetland #5. It was questioned if there are alternative schemes to avoid or minimize impacts on wetland #5.
Temporary impacts to both the wetlands and watercourses in the installation of the footings for these bridges. There are very limited details in the project plans regarding the impact this would cause. Durand asked the Commission to request further details from the applicant.
Secondary impacts that will occur from the three bridge crossings for wetland #5 and one for wetland #9. There will be proposed fill and grading impacts and those numbers should fall into the cumulative impacts. Wetland #5 is being crossed multiple times, causing fragmentation, and with work occurring within in the 80 ft upland review area. It was indicated this would significantly reduce the habitat corridor in wetland #5 that is currently available. On the east side of wetland #9 there will be a 15 to 20 foot cut in the upland area that will affect the surface and groundwater contribution to wetland #9.
Durand indicated there are certain options that would reduce wetlands and watercourses impacts. He referred to the revised plan and noted that much of the grading has been pulled to the north and south of wetland #9 and it has been demonstrated there are potentially alternative grading schemes that could be used elsewhere on the site on wetland #12, #5, and #9 to eliminate or reduce wetland impacts and the amount of work proposed in the 80 foot upland review area. There is not much of an undisturbed buffer that will be left adjacent to the existing wetlands.
Durand reviewed and submitted Exhibit D dated July 16, 2003, a response to the report titled, “Riparian Buffer for the Plum Gully Brook” that was submitted the Inland Wetland Agency from Dr. Clausen.
David Nyman, ENSR, stated he made a presentation at the July 8, 2003 meeting and is now submitting a letter (Exhibit E) dated July 10, 2003, that was prepared and presented to the July 16, 2003, Inland Wetland Agency. Nyman indicated this letter is an extension on a few points of the letter previously submitted to the Commission, thus he would not go into great detail.
Nyman indicated he was on vacation for the last week and would like to reserve the right to look at the new maps and materials that were submitted during his absence.
Chairman McCann indicated he would reserve judgement on allowing additional time to review.
Nyman referred to Exhibit E and made the following comments:
Page 3, item B. Management of Peak Rates. The following items have been addressed: B 1, 2, 3, and 4. Comment 5 has only been partially addressed.
Page 4: the two tables there are still outstanding items to be addressed in the spaces where there is a “?”.
Page 5: comments 8 and 12 have been addressed. Comments 6 and 7 need to be addressed.
Page 6: comment 15 was addressed.
Nyman reviewed the major concerns: the water balance and the water supply on the site. He referred to the wetland maps that the intervenor submitted. Nyman discussed the surface runoff and ground water that feeds from wetland #9, 5 and 8.
Nyman showed through illustration the reduction of the wetlands on the site with this proposed development.
He noted that by paving the site the infiltration is cut off at the ground, and the cut that parallels Buckland Road to create this site may cut off groundwater supply that is being fed above Buckland Road. There is some potential to recap from the development with the proposed rain gardens and, depending on the location, they may or may not provide recharge into the ground.
Nyman stated there is no data submitted within the application material regarding whether the provision of the rain gardens and the other handling of surface water is sufficient to maintain the surface and groundwater supply to the wetlands so they may maintain their functions.
Nyman discussed the cross sections throughout the site and even though boring tests have been submitted, feels there needs to be more data presented to detect the effect on the wetlands. It was suggested that one of the functions of the rain gardens is to provide some water supply for infiltration and there is not data to support the hydration of the wetlands.
Nyman referred to page 5, comments #7, indicating it is not clear if some the roof drain systems are designed to handle all design storms up to and including the 100 year event.
Page 6, comment 16 discussed the detention basins draining by infiltration and if they cannot, they should not be included in the calculations of flood control.
Page 8, comment 10, there is a concern that the thermal impacts have not been thoroughly addressed for Plum Gully Brook.
Attorney King stated this concluded the responses to the new information, and he would like to reserve the opportunity for further response to additional applicant submittals. King indicated his team is available for questions.
Chairman McCann indicated it is the Commission’s intention to give the intervenor a full opportunity to respond to every submission that is presented by the applicant regarding the environmental concerns.
The request from Mr. Nyman to be able to provided additional testimony, due to being on vacation, is still under advisement because he is one of three presenters from ENSR.
Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer, reviewed the concerns the Inland Wetlands Agency has on the application based on the status of the wetlands and the site as a whole.
Water quality in relation to the development. The stormwater structures proposed should meet or exceed DEP standards.
Any wetland disturbances should be kept to a minimum, keeping the water connection to the wetlands after development.
The applicant is required to provide a water budget that would estimate pre-development conditions and what water supply will be necessary for post development (secondary impact).
Some of the impacts brought up by the intervenor will be unavoidable based on the nature of the development, specifically wildlife habitat.
A balance should be maintained on the site as a whole with a determination about how to have net benefit to the whole site.
The area of greatest value to the site is adjacent to the Plum Gully Brook corridor on the western side of the development and a distance away from where that proposed development is taking place.
The IWA/CC has asked the applicant to look at how to balance the loss of wildlife in the eastern portion of the site and to make that up on the western side of the site. The goal is to preserve areas where there is the most sensitive ecosystem, which is the Plum Gully Brook.
Quantification of the wetland disturbances.
Quantification of the value of the rain gardens and the contribution to the storm water. The intervenor alluded to the fact that they are unsure to the contribution of the ground water supply to the wetland on the site especially wetlands #9 and #5. The IWA/CC is looking for the rain gardens to decrease the runoff volume to the Plum Gully brook corridor.
Request the boring logs and estimate how efficient the rain gardens will be, especially at the cut slope portion of the site.
Chairman McCann inquired if the applicant would like to respond to intervenor comments regarding the storm water runoff and wetland impact.
Michele Carlson, Professional Engineer with Fuss & O’Neill, addressed the Commission with a response to issues raised by the intervenor.
Carlson indicated she would be responding to 7 letters from ENSR dated:
June 12, 2003 June 18, 2003
July 7, 2003 July 8, 2003
July 9, 2003 July 10, 2003
July 16, 2003
Carlson indicated the letters are duplicative in style with a lot of repetition, and she will respond to the letters as a whole because of the difficulty of responding individually due to the repetitive nature of the correspondence.
Fuss & O’Neill has developed a master plan that incorporates all projects submitted to the town at this date. The master plan was reviewed with the town officials at public meetings. At the request of the Commission, Fuss & O’Neill has provided cumulative calculations for several items such as impervious coverage so the Commission could evaluate a particular application compared to what has already been proposed and approved.
Wetland #9 is proposed to be completely crossed with a bridge and there is no proposed work or disturbance in this wetland area. The crossing in this area is necessary for vehicular circulation between the parking areas, including emergency vehicles.
The filling of the eastern edge of wetland #9 is approximately 602 square feet and is needed to provide proper separation distances between building 200 and on-site utilities. Wetland #9 is a low quality wetland, and the proposed filling on the edge of the wetland will be minimal.
Carlson apologized to the Commission for addressing wetland issues at this hearing but noted that since they are being raised by the intervenor, the applicant has no choice but to address them.
The storm water runoff to wetland #9 will be maintained by directing roof runoff from building s200 and 300 to wetland #9. The grading has been pulled back 60 to 65 feet at the request of Jeff Folger. This will result in a reduction of 116 parking spaces. Currently 1299 parking spaces are required and the applicant is proposing 1603 parking spaces.
Mitigation for the minor filling in Wetland #9 is shown in the mitigation area on the plans; vernal pools will also be constructed.
The proposed mitigation areas are adjacent to high quality wetland corridors. A high quality wetland area will be created to replace a portion of low quality wetland areas that will be disturbed. Temporary impacts due to construction have been included in the wetland disturbance calculations. Detention basin #3 is intended for use by the Shops and other potential development. Wetland hydrology will be maintained by directing roof runoff to the wetland area. Calculations show that the volume discharge to the wetlands would be increased for storm events. Basin #3 discharges to these wetland areas. The calculated water volumes are very conservative because the pond routing calculation did not take into account the infiltration that would occur in the detention basin. Peak runoff
rates as indicated in the drainage report will be decreased at the property line and down stream areas.
The three crossings of wetland #5 are necessary for safe and convenient circulation. The westernmost crossing of wetland number #5 involves no filling of wetlands and this crossing is proposed to be made with an arched culvert. Wetland #5 is a low-quality wetland drainage ditch that has low quality ecological value as testified by Penny Sharp at the July 2, 2003, IWA/CC public hearing and documented in the July 2003 report submitted to IWA/CC. Work in this area will be done in low flow periods, and the contractor will bypass around the work area to minimize the possibility of erosion. Silt fencing, haybales, and erosion control matting will be used to stabilize the area and minimize erosion.
It is the professional opinion of Penney Sharp and Rich Snarski that the watercourse in wetland #5 is an intermittent watercourse and not perennial. The graded areas in the upland review areas will be planted as shown on the revised plans and will not adversely effect the function of the wetlands. All of the wetlands in the immediate area have been evaluated as low to medium in function and values as stated in the July 2003 report from Penny Sharp. The day to day operations of the development will not occur on the wetland or the graded upland review areas. The teams’ professional opinion is that the impacts to wetland #5 are
de minimus. The project was designed to maintain the wetland corridor. The proposed culverts are large enough to maintain wetland hydraulic and other corridor functions.
Richard Snarski, professional soil scientist, testified at the July 2, 2003, IWA/CC meeting that wetland #11 is a low quality federal wetland and not a state defined wetland thus is not shown on the plans. Wetland #11 is in the area noted on the plans behind building #500A as undisturbed area. The letter submitted by John Ianni, soil scientist, to the IWA/CC confirms that wetland #11 does not meet criteria for a state wetland. The intervenor stated that wetland #11 has hydraulic soil and should be considered a Connecticut wetland. The soils in wetland #11 are poorly drained, which meets the federal definition of a wetland but not the state definition.
A portion of wetland #12 is being filled to facilitate the widening of Buckland Road and provide a shoulder of proper width to provide a pedestrian sidewalk. Town staff has reviewed this plan and supports the filling of this wetland. Wetland calculations were performed by the use of AutoCAD to determine the actual disturbed areas. There are twelve large arched culverts that will span most of the wetland crossing area in wetland #5 requiring minimal fill on either side. Impacts are itemized on the revised plans and there is no filling in wetland #9. There will be a bridge at this crossing with the abutments installed outside of the wetland area. The approximate centerline of the intermittent watercourses of wetland #5 and #9 have been added to the revised plans. The will be no direct
impacts to these watercourses. The wetland impact calculations include reasonable areas outside the footing limits for construction. The disturbance in this area outside the footing area will be temporary but has been included in the calculations. All impacts to wetland and watercourses have been evaluated and are being reviewed by the IWA/CC, the Army Corp of Engineers, and the DEP.
Evergreen Walk, LLC, has applied for a category two permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for the entire Evergreen Walk property. The majority of the disturbed upland review area is agricultural field. Areas disturbed to facilitate the development will be seeded or planted as proposed in landscape drawings.
A report dated July 2003 by Kurt Olson, Ph.D., Certified Wetland Scientist, supports his federal wetland delineation on the site and was submitted to the IWA/CC. John Ianni, Professional Soil Scientist, verified the state wetland delineation on the site and the methodsology in the June 18, 2003, letter submitted to the Commission. A Grassland Bird Survey was performed on the Evergreen Walk property in June 2003 by Mary Capkanis, Z&N Ecological Services; no Savannah Sparrows, Grasshopper Sparrows, Kestrels or other state listed species were found on the Evergreen Walk property on any of her visits. A copy of Capkanis’ report has been submitted to this Commission. Repeated visits by Capkanis and Sharp have noted there is no Kestrel breeding activity. In the mitigation area, Kestrel
boxes will be added in the event they choose to nest on the site.
Discharges from the detention basins to the adjacent wetland areas are low, so the potential for erosion is minimal. The peak outflow of detention basin #3 is approximately 1.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the 100 year storm and 3.7 cfs for detention basin #4 for the 100 year storm. Outflows are less than 1 cfs for the two year storm. Even with these low flows, riprap outlet protection and wetland plants have been proposed to further reduce the potential for erosion. Discharges of roof runoff to the wetlands have similar low flow
rates and riprap outlet protection increasing the distance from the discharge points to the wetlands is not necessary.
Prior to the completion of the project construction, the onsite stormwater management systems will include a regular maintenance program including:
Sweeping of all paved surfaces
A series of catch basin with deep sumps and hoods that will catch a significant amount of the suspended solids
Rain gardens to trap sediment, sand and nutrients.
The stormwater will be directed to the stormwater detention basins located to the west of the site. The use of the stormwater structures in combination with the open stormwater detention basins, will effectively mitigate the potential for negative impacts to stormwater quality as a result of the development.
Groundwater recharge will be promoted by the natural stormwater renovation facilities as well as the prefabricated infiltration units proposed on the revised plans. Fuss & O’Neill believes that the combination of water quality and stormwater management controls will result in a low impact development for a project of this scope.
The proposed stormwater system exceeds the requirement of the town regulations and meets or exceeds the government guidelines on stormwater quality. The applicant will apply for a Connecticut General Permit for the discharge of stormwater and de-watering wastewaters associated with the construction activity as required by Connecticut law prior to construction.
The accepted total suspended solids (TSS) removal rates proposed in the stormwater systems were calculated based on the accepted standard practices as follows:
A regular sweeping program is given a removal credit of 10% TSS
Deep cut sump catch basins are given a removal credit of 25% TSS
Total suspended solids removal for storm water treatment structures is over 25%
Vegetative swales is given a removal credit of 25% TSS (conservative number)
Stormwater detention basins are the most effective best management practice features, and the removal rate of the detention basin alone is 90%
The applicant calculated an overall yield of the whole system of 89%TSS.
There is only limited technical data available for thermal impacts on wetlands and watercourses. The majority is general guidance not support by data. The most comprehensive study found was prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments dated 1991, where they analyzed the thermal impacts of developing watersheds and reached the following conclusions:
Ambient air temperatures have the strongest influence on stream water temperatures.
Measurable temperature increases incurred in some watersheds after the total impervious area in the watershed exceeded 10% to 20%. As an example, if the entire Evergreen Walk site was built out to 60% maximum impervious coverage, that would represent less than 5% of the watershed so it would be well below the 10 – 20 %.
All the stormwater treatments tested resulted in some increases in temperature but the impacts were of short duration. The study recommended shaded pools and basin outlets.
The potential thermal impacts of the proposed development on down-gradient watercourses will be minimized by the wetland systems bordering the down-gradient watercourse. The potential impact of tree removal on wetland shading will be limited to the immediate area of additional sun exposure. The impact will not diminish the functional value of the wetland. Mixing with cooler water from the shaded wetland areas will quickly return background conditions. The impact of stormwater runoff is temporary in nature. Shading of swales and the stormwater detention basins is shown on the revised landscaping plans.
The rain gardens are proposed as a stormwater treatment added benefit. Their benefit is not included in the overall stormwater system sizing and water quality in total suspended solids calculations. The proposed detention basins have been sized as if the rain gardens were not present. The rain gardens are not required to achieve water quality onsite. Any benefit obtained by the rain gardens is an added bonus. Approximately 24% of the drainage area for the proposed project flows to the rain gardens.
Boring logs and locations were submitted to the Commission with the last submission. Based on the borings it is not anticipated that groundwater will be encountered in the cut areas. The water table should be 5 feet below the finished floor of building 800A east of wetland #9. The quantity of water that is withdrawn from an unconsolidated aquifer by a drain depends upon the hydraulic properties. If the soil has permeability of 4 feet per day and the drain is 15 feet deep with a rainfall of 1/10 of a foot per day the drain will have an influence for a distance of approximately 60 feet from the area of the cut.
The conclusion that can be drawn is the impact on the groundwater table of excavation and installation of controlled drains is limited. None of the proposed drains on Evergreen Walk will have any impact on the water table down gradient, at wetlands areas, or the upland review area adjacent to the wetlands that are a source of precipitation or percolation.
The percentage impervious area of the watershed of a perennial stream such as of Plum Gully Brook is a useful measure of land development impact on streams and aquatic systems. Hydraulic and biological changes to streams are generally not significant until 10-20% of the watershed is covered by impervious surfaces. Based on the analysis of the watershed the coverage of the Plum Gully Brook watershed is well below the expected impact threshold. The riparian corridor that is proposed, along with other stormwater management practices, will assure long term watershed protection for the existing watercourses.
Carlson discussed the revisions to the most recent drainage report, which was submitted to the Commission.
Carlson discussed the permits that would be required prior to construction of the project.
Concerns have been raised regarding where the detention basin should be placed, before the swale or after the swale. Folger requested that the detention basins be located toward the west-end of the site adjacent to the Plum Gully Brook to act as a buffer to the wetlands. Carlson noted that detention basins 3 and 4 would be utilized as temporary sedimentation basins during construction, and as permanent basins when construction is complete.
Carlson stated Fuss & O’Neill’s and their team’s professional opinion that the appropriate design standards, methods, and controls have been applied to the proposed stormwater management systems design for The Shop at Evergreen Walk.
Chairman McCann asked for a copy of Michele Carlson’s resume (Exhibit F).
Robert Sonnichsen, President and Professional Engineer with Delta Environmental, gave a review of the environmental impacts of the project and indicated the design adheres to the standards for stormwater quality.
Lamson stated the applicant is through with their presentation to the Commission and the team is available to answer any questions or concerns of the Commission.
Chairman McCann asked if there was any public participation regarding the new information presented at the hearing. There was none.
The Commission had the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Wentzell commented on the site plan, drawing CP.1.5 and commented that the sidewalks adjacent to Buckland Road should be wider.
Commissioner Wentzell stressed his concerns regarding the loop road and the pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow throughout the site.
Chairman McCann indicated the hearing would remain open to for a report from the IWA/CC and the Town’s traffic engineer regarding the applications.
Commissioner Choate indicated the majority of her concerns have been addressed and inquired if the applicant would submit the drainage calculation for the entire Evergreen Walk site? Carlson responded the calculations have been reviewed by the Town Engineer. Attorney John Mallin responded it would confuse the record to submit another set of plans but indicated they would comment on any concerns the Commission may have.
Commissioner Choate asked for comments regarding the soil testing that was done on the site.
John Hankins, with Fuss & O’Neill, indicated there was soil testing completed. There was some detection of pesticides on the site; the pesticide levels were within DEP guidelines. There is a plan for managing contaminated soil.
Commissioner Choate suggested a revised General Plan of Development be submitted to the Commission.
Commissioner Evans thanked Jeff Folger for attending the meeting. He was asked if the IWA/CC has any concerns regarding future development on the opposite site of Buckland Road and whether that water will be retained on that side of the roadway. Folger responded that will be the challenge of developing this portion of town.
Commissioner Evans inquired if the State Traffic Commission approvals are in place? Steve Mitchell responded the State Traffic Commission has approval the General Plan of Development.
Commissioner Evans stated she has some of the same concerns as Commissioner Wentzell regarding the road connections.
Chairman McCann expressed the concerns of the Commission that 500’s buildings seem to be disjointed and in the same location as the original plan. The sidewalks have been revised but the buildings have not been relocated or realigned to fit in with the pedestrian continuity of the development.
Josh Poag indicated there is a restaurant in one of the buildings and it cannot be relocated due to the parking requirements.
Chairman McCann addressed the traffic concerns and the lack of traffic calming measures on Hemlock Avenue. Steve Mitchell noted that the purposes of traffic calming techniques are speed control, sharing of roadways, and sensitive design. Mitchell discussed the use of a roundabout at Hemlock and Tamarack and indicated the traffic flow exceeds the 10,000 vehicles per day criteria. Mitchell discussed the traffic calming methods that would be incorporated into the project:
The narrowing of entry roadways
Narrowing lane widths
Extending the medians so that the crosswalks will now cross medians
Islands have been extended
Proposed redesign of the truck entry to the eastern portion of the site
Chairman McCann stated traffic calming is an important feature or the safe movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Chairman McCann was concerned about the sight line from the main ramp Tamarack Drive looking down onto the site so there will not be a full view of the rooftop from vehicles. Chris Jones responded that additional evergreen plantings and deciduous trees were incorporated into the plans to break up the view from the ramp to the shops.
Commissioner Evans read into the record a letter dated July 21, 2003, from Attorney John Kindl, Pullman & Comley, LLC, to the IWA/CC Commission, regarding potential impacts to an adjacent pond owned by J.M. Jacques.
Carlson responded to the letter by showing a diagram of the overall site and the pond. Under existing conditions water flow is in the direction of the Jacques pond. After build-out of the proposed site there will be no drainage from the site to the pond. There will be proper sediment and erosion control measures in place.
The public hearing was scheduled to continue to September 9, 2003, contingent upon action by the IWA/CC.
Attorney King requested a copy of their presentations from Carlson and Sonnichsen. Attorney Mallin stated their presentations were made from their personal notes, not from a submitted document. Chairman McCann denied the request for the documents.
Lamson granted an extension for App. 03-28P, The Shops at Evergreen Walk, to September 10, 2003, and will follow up with a written copy to the Planning Department.
Motion to continue the public hearing for Appl 03-28P, The Shops at Evergreen Walk, to September 9, 2003,
was made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commission Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Continuation of Special Meeting
Motion to continue the special meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. was made by Commissioner Choate, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Discussion/Decision/Action
Appl 03-46P, T’s Auto Service, renewal of a 2-year temporary and conditional permit to display two vehicles for sale at property located at 718 Ellington Road, RC zone
Motion to approve with modifications was made by Commissioner Evans.
1. This permit is for a two (2) year maximum period.
This permit is restricted to two (2) vehicles for sale with a standard automarker and excludes vans or trucks.
The cars are to be no closer than 12ft. from the corner. No more than 12 cars in a single row with two other cars making a second row (as shown in the diagram submitted) are to be parked from the station to Pleasant Valley Rd. This includes the automobiles for sale.
There will be no parking at any time in the front area of the parking lot (triangle and near the dumpster).
The permit will expire in two years July 29, 2005 and will have to be renewed at that time.
Seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Commission Evans stated the landscaping that is currently on the site is sufficient.
Appl 03-49P, DuFresne In-Law Apartment, request for a 5-year permit for an in-law apartment for property located at 35 Vintage Lane, RR zone
Motion to approve Appl 03-49P, DuFresne In-law Apartment with modifications was made by Commissioner Larsen.
This approval is for an in-law apartment for a family member/relative only. When the in-law apartment is no longer occupied by a relative of the family, the apartment cannot be treated as a second dwelling unit. Instead, the kitchen must be removed and the living area must be converted into other living space for the main dwelling.
This permit will expire in five years, on July 29, 2008, and will have to be renewed at that time if the use is to be continued. Owner(s) of the property must reside in the apartment or the main dwelling unit. Reaffirmation of occupancy by owner will be required every two years. This will be done via a letter from the Planning Department requesting the reaffirmation of occupancy.
Any new building, or alterations/additions to existing buildings, require a building permit prior to start of construction.
The building footprint must not exceed 10% of the lot area, in accordance with Section 10.2 of the zoning regulations.
The Town Engineer’s review comments dated July 29, 2003 must be addressed.
Seconded by Commissioner Kennedy.
Commissioner Choate mentioned the request for a waiver of the square footage of the in-law apartment from 900 to 940.
Commissioner Larsen did not include the condition of the 940 square feet.
Commissioner Kennedy amended the motion to allow a waiver to 940 square feet, seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was as follows: 5:1, McCann, Evans, Wentzell, Kennedy, Choate, aye; Larsen nay.
The Commission voted on the original motion. The motion carried as amended and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy.
The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelli Holmes
Recording Secretary
| 
