MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Elizabeth Warren, Audrey Delnicki, Philip Forzley, William Grace, Carol Heffler, Barbara Kelly, Richard Muller, and Jack Phillips
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Donald Gates sitting for Audrey Wasik
STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey H. Folger, Environmental
Planner/Conservation Officer
Debbie Reid, Recording Secretary
Motion to: change the agenda order
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Kelly
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: New Business
Appl. #03-42W – Town of South Windsor – West Road
Jim Loening, an Eagle scout candidate came before the Commission to represent this application. He explained that there will be work performed at the Michael Donnelly property which will consist of the creation of trails and two bridges. The bridges will be 16’ in length with 5’ wide railings. Construction will begin in late July or early August.
Jeff Folger stated that the intent to construct at the proposed time is to keep the impacts low. There is 100 square feet of disturbance proposed. Jeff also explained that the bridges would be anchored to trees to insure that they would not be moved during high water.
Motion to: approve with conditions appl. #03-42W – Town of South Windsor – West Road – Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application to construct two foot-bridges across the Podunk River and a small watercourse as part of a cross-country trail system on the Major Michael Donnelly Land Preserve. RR, Rural Residential zone.
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Kelly
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Conditions:
1. One blueprint copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this Commission. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning & Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this requirement.
2. The application shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use.
3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on June 18, 2008. It is the landowner(s)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration.
4. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site.
5. A contact person shall be identified on the plans.
Waive the requirement of an A-2 survey map
ITEM: Public Hearing
Appl. #03-21P – The Casle Corp.
Commission members discussed in length the remaining issues that would be discussed. It was decided that the Intervenor and applicant would each be heard tonight, but their presentations would be limited to a 1/4 hour each. Commissioner Kelly did suggest that no time limit be given for responses from Commission members questions. The Commissioners agreed with that suggestion.
Attorney King of Updike, Kelly & Spellacy came to speak for the Intervenor. He explained that he would like to have three individuals respond to comments made by the applicant.
Mr. Dennis Lowry, a Wetland Ecologist with ENSR International representing the Intervenor, came before the Commission. Mr. Lowry responded to statements made by the applicant:
The stream cannot be lower than the water table.
Found no support of the applicant’s claim that the construction of Buckland Road could have lowered the water tables in this area. It is felt that the Commission should look further in finding why the water tables have been lowered.
The proposed mitigation strategy does not account for the impacts to the wetlands.
The location of the mitigation area should be relocated.
Monitoring does not add certainty to the success of the created wetlands, especially when there is no ability to control water tables within that wetland mitigation area.
Upland soils should not be used as topsoil within the mitigation area.
The intervenor believes that none of these issues have been addressed by the applicant and feel it is important to do so.
Mr. Dan Titus of HRP Associates came before the Commission. He stated that pesticides have been located all around this site, so it is safe to assume that these pesticides are likely present in the sites soils and groundwater. Mr. Titus summarized that the ground water quality and the area should be checked thoroughly because there is significant risks to the site with respect to the proposed development and the impacts to wetlands and waterways.
Mr. David Nyman, a Professional Engineer with ENSR International came before the Commission. He stated he does not like the way the applicant is handling the drainage area. He also felt the application is incomplete and does not like the presented new size of the swale.
Attorney John King concluded the presentation stating that the applicant feels this is an incomplete application because of the following reasons:
Issues raised on June 4, 2003 in terms of conservation easement, riparian buffer, and the upland of the Plum Gully Brook have not been addressed in a timely manner.
No response to the pesticide analysis has been addressed.
The sequence of planned activities have not been address.
There is a violation of Connecticut General statutes section 8.3G.
The general plan of development has never come before this Commission.
No prudent or feasible alternative has been presented to the Commission.
There are unreasonable pollutants on this site.
The site should be presented with the Evergeen Walk project with wetlands impacts and trunk sewer line impacts being identified, quantified, evaluated and information submitted in order to have a complete and sufficient application for review.
There should be an alternate location for the building and parking areas outside of the wetlands.
Michelle Carlson, a Project Engineer with Fuss & O’Neil came to respond on two letters presented by the Intervenor.
Response to letter dated June 19, 2003 by ENSR:
After reviewing Mr. Snarski’s report, DEP has concurred with the finding that the wetland is a non-functioning wetland.
There is no hydrologic connection between the wetland and the intermittent watercourse.
Based on Mr. Snarski’s experience and professional opinion, he is confident that the correct water levels can be achieved in the proposed mitigation area and will have a successful wetland.
One to one mitigation has been provided for the impacts.
Proposed mitigation area will create a riparian zone adjacent to the Plum Gully wetland system.
Screenings will be done regarding pesticides. All State and Federal requirements will be followed.
Response to letter date June 24, 2003
The master drainage system will have no adverse effect. All drainage conforms to the Town requirements and has been reviewed with Town staff. All ten items on the Town Engineer’s letter will be addressed.
We achieved greater than 80% of total suspended solid removal from the site.
It is felt that the detention basin that has been designed to meet the Town of South Windsor’s requirements. Approximately 1’ of free board has provided, will work with Jeff Doolittle to modify based on comments.
The emergency spillway has been designed correctly and the applicant will relocated as requested.
The grass swale that has been designed using the F-15 method is correct.
Technical changes and drainage calculations are correct.
It is believed that the construction of Buckland Road has affected the water level.
Mr. John Hankins with Fuss & O’Neil came before the Commission. He explained that the pesticide issue has been in Town for years. The concern is with wells, but not with the development of this site. Public water will be used for this site.. He wrote the report that was submitted by the intervenor. In conclusion, Mr. Hankins stated that the soils moved around the ECHN parcel will be managed in a manner consistent with State regulations.
Attorney Jane Warren from Cummings & Lockwood came before the Commission. She stated that the trunk sewer is not part of this application. When meeting with DEP, there was a concern of the building being constructed in the middle of the wetlands. After receiving Mr. Richard Snarski’s report, the DEP did change their mind about this concern and will be submitting a letter to that effect.
Attorney Guliano stated that Attorney Warren’s statement is correct and he would comment on this issue at a later date. Jeff also concurred with Attorney Warren’s comments.
Attorney John Mallin suggested that a conservation easement be established, but would be in conjunction with appl. #03-28P – The Shops at Evergreen Walk. A corridor will be established but the applicant would prefer to do that after this application closes.
Answering questions from the Commission, Jeff stated that any soil used in the mitigation area should be tested. There has been an agreement to meet with the applicant to see if there is a definite corridor that can be established in order to protect the Plum Gully Brook.
No public was present.
Commission members discussed at length if the conservation easement could be established in conjunction with appl. #03-28P. It was decided that the applicant should establish the conservation easement with the application before the Commission, but it can be done through Jeff and later the Commission will look at it to make sure that they agree with the establishment of it.
Attorney King asked if the Intervenor could have an opportunity to address the conservation easement after the public hearing closed? Attorney Guliano asked for an opportunity to look at this issue.
Motion to: close the public hearing for application #03-21P – The Casle Corp. – Buckland Road – Inland wetland/Conservation Commission application to construct a medical office building, parking lots, stormwater structures, and associated improvements on property located westerly of Buckland Road, and southerly of Deming Street. GD, Gateway Development zone.
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Heffler
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Appl. #03-28P – The Shops at Evergreen Walk
Mr. Jay Giles, a Professional Engineer with Fuss & O’Neil came before the Commission. He described the site, the slopes on the site and explained that there wold be a total of 14 buildings constructed for this development. There would be a total of 284,750 square feet of retail and 3,870 square feet of office space. Mr. Giles reviewed the roadway configurations established by working with the existing grades. He also reviewed the water supply system, sanitary sewer system, stormwater management using catch basins with 4’ sumps, going through grass swales and leading to the detention basins. For this site it is proposed to fill 0.12 acres of wetlands and proposing to mitigate 1.2 acres of the filling and create an additional mitigation area of 0.13 acres.
Michelle Carlson of Fuss & O’Neil came before the Commission to review changes on the plans as a result of comments made by the DEP and Mr. Folger:
Moved parking in order to pull grading further away from wetland #9.
Have modified discharge from buildings 300 and 200.
Buildings 400 and 600 will be discharging to wetland #5.
Buildings 200 and 400 will be discharging to wetland #9.
Dr. Jack Clausen came before the Commission to review the rain gardens. He explained that the rain gardens are recommended to be 6” deep, soils are recommended to be loam sandy soils, an optional underdrain could be constructed under the rain garden, they should be mulched heavily and should have plants that get wet once in a while, but not very often. The water in the rain gardens will rise up to 6”, overflow, enter the stormwater system, enter the swale and got to the detention basin.
The rain gardens are designed to hold water for 4 to 6 hours. They are located throughout the site in order to encourage infiltration on the site.
The different functions of the rain gardens are as follows:
They hold back the first ½ inch of runoffr on the site.
They hold back sediments.
They hold back heavy metals.
There will be tree boxes placed along Evergreen Way which will be used as filtrating devices. Micro-topography will be used on the sidewalks in order to direct water to the tree boxes.
Answering questions from the Commission, Dr. Clausen said he would get the calculations of the percentage of total volume addressed in the rain gardens or detained in the rain gardens and will give that to the Commission. The water in the rain gardens pond on the surface, starts to infiltrate, but does not saturate on the bottom. There is an underdrain option, which brings the water to the stormwater system. The plants that are to be planted in the rain gardens are ones that strive in periodic wet conditions. There is mulch used in the rain gardens in order to keep soils damp. Native sandy loam mixed with organic material or topsoil is the type of materials used in the rain garden. A maintenance plan will be established for the rain garden.
Ms. Penny Sharp an Environmental Consultant reviewed the species found in each wetland and what function each wetland will provide.
Answering questions, Ms. Sharp suggested in order to protect the wetlands from any other disturbance, it was suggested to leave the existing buffer and do not direct any sediments toward the wetland.
Mr. Snarski told Commission members that wetland #11, is categorized as a Federal wetland only. This wetland has 95% invasive species and therefore is considered to be a low quality wetland. The detention basin will be wet and planted. Mr. Snarski stated that the wetland area being disturbed is 0.12 acres and the amount of upland review area being disturbed is 10.38 acres.
Jeff stated that the hydraulic connection to wetland #9 needs to be addressed.
The applicant stated they will look at wetland #9 and the water flows.
Mr. John Hankins from Fuss & O’Neil stated that the pesticides mentioned will affect wells but they are not pertinent to this site because it is on public water. The presence of pesticides in groundwater or soils will be addressed in compliance with the regulations.
Ms. Rosemary Aldridge of Insite came before the Commission and reviewed the different landscaping that is proposed for this site.
Answering questions from the Commission, Ms. Aldridge stated she would check to see if watercourses could be shaded to mitigate for temperature impacts. Ms. Aldridge stated that some of the trees along Buckland Road will be saved.
Answering questions from the Commission, Mr. Giles explained that the slopes have to be made steeper because it balances out the site. He also stated that in the retail environment, having different slopes makes parking inconvenient. The stores are all one story in height.
Questions Commission members would like answered at the next meeting:
Commissioner Phillips would like to have the amount of disturbance for the connection of Evergreen Way and the stub coming off of Deming Street.
Jeff stated he would also like to see the foliage boundary on the plans.
Motion to: extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m. in order to finish agenda items.
Was made by Commissioner Forzley
Seconded by Commissioner Phillips
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Percentage of rain that falls in Connecticut?
Percentage of water that will go into the rain gardens?
Would like responses to Town Engineer’s report.
Would like to discuss corridor protection.
No one from the public came before the Commission.
The public hearing was continued to the July 16, 2003 meeting.
ITEM: Other Business
Commission members discussed the possibility of having a special meeting in July. After a short discussion, it was decided to make a decision at the next scheduled meeting.
Jeff stated he would have a memo available at the next meeting for the sub-committee that will be reviewing the Planning & Zoning regulations.
ITEM: Applications Received
Appl. #03-45W – Town of South Windsor – Griffin Road
Jeff explained that there are drainage improvements being proposed on Griffin Road. This would include upgraded pipes, upgraded outfall and the addition of catch basins.
The Commission discussed this matter briefly and decided this application could be looked at as a minimal impact application.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Heffler
Seconded by Commissioner Delnicki
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Respectfully submitted
_________________________________ ___________________
Deborah W. Reid Date Approved
Recording Secretary
| 
