MEMBERS PRESENT: Audrey Delnicki, Philip Forzley, William Grace, Carol Heffler, Barbara Kelly, Richard Muller, Jack Phillips and Audrey Wasik
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Donald Gates sitting for Elizabeth Warren
STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey H. Folger, Environmental
Planner/Conservation Officer
Debbie Reid, Recording Secretary
ITEM: Minutes
The May 21, 2003 and June 4, 2003 minutes were approved by general consensus of the Commission.
ITEM: Conservation Commission
Jeff told the Commission members that landscaping will be done at the Wildlife Sanctuary.
ITEM: Wetland Officers Report
Jeff told the Commission that there are three applications for minimal impacts that the Commission will see at the next meeting.
ITEM: Applications Received
Appl. #03-41W – Environmental Services – Determination of a public hearing
Jeff explained that this project is to locate a hazardous waste transfer station on property located easterly of Brookfield Street. Sealed containers would be brought to this location in order to be transferred to other vehicles. These barrels could be on site for one or two nights. The transfer station is just outside of the 80’ upland review area associated with the Podunk River. Between 1986 and 1990, about 150 feet of the Podunk River was piped without permits.
Answering questions from the Commission, Jeff explained that this could be a written violation, and stated that there is no grandfathering for wetland violations.
The transfer station is on the other side of the river and the culvert area is being crossed in order to access it. Historically, this area has been used to store equipment, fill materials, topsoil, etc.
Jeff explained that the reason they are here is to establish a riparian buffer adjacent to the stream.
The Commission felt that the application must include the culverting of the stream and stormwater management.
Commission Wasik stated that she feels it is necessary that a public hearing be held on this application.
Commission Kelly felt there could be a potential significant impact to the wetlands.
Motion to: change the agenda order
Was made by Commissioner Heffler
Seconded by Commissioner Wasik
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Motion to: hold a public hearing on July 16, 2003 due to potential significant impact to the wetlands and public interest on appl. #03-41W – Environmental Services, LLC – Brookfield street – Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application to construct a waste transfer station and construct a riparian buffer on property located easterly of Brookfield Street, General Commercial, CG zone.
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Wasik
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Public Hearing
Appl. #03-21P – Casle Corp.
Mr. Alan Lamson came before the Commission. He stated that all responses and documentation have been submitted to this agency. There are no further comments at this time.
Commission members discussed information from the intervenor that was received after the deadline. It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to accept the material for this meeting.
Intervenor’s presentation
Attorney John King from Updike, Kelly & Spellacy came before the Commission. He stated that Mr. Dennis Lowry of ENSR would be presenting testimony consistent with the materials that were accepted by the Commission tonight as well as responses and documents that were previously received.
Mr. Dennis Lowry, a Wetland Ecologist with ENSR came before the Commission. Mr. Lowry reviewed the concerns that the intervenor has:
The watercourse area is fed by a culvert under Buckland Road, traveling to the west down along the southern limits of the property. It appears to go through a cart path in this area. There is no information provided whether there is a culvert there, stone box culvert, or whether it overtops.
This project proposes to fill approximately 2.1 acres of wetlands.
The site was mapped on information provided by Mr. John Ianni and the federal wetlands on the site have been defined by Mr. Kurt Olson. There has not been reports submitted by either individuals or the firm in connection with this project.
When the wetlands were flagged, those individuals reviewed site conditions and applied the appropriate criteria for defining wetlands and yet there has never been data provided from those individuals regarding this wetland, the boundary of wetlands or the conditions within the wetlands.
The NRCS mapping shows this as a wetlands that has walpole soil types and shows the wetlands drain through a culvert and feed the watercourse system. There has never been any soil profile test pit data given on the test pits. The only information provided was verbally.
It is also not known if the water tables were allowed to sit for a period of time to reflect the longer-term ground water condition or if the water table readings were taken at a time when ground water conditions can be referred to in defining a wetland.
The test pit data obtained was to reflect ground water conditions during the growing season, which is around April 15th.
What has caused the change in hydrology in the wetlands?
What is the functional relationship between the wetland and watercourse? Is there a culvert there? What is the capacity of the culvert? Is there a certain storm event that would back up and fill out into the wetland to provide hydrological relationship between the wetland and watercourse.
No prudent and feasible alternatives have been presented.
There seems to be inconsistencies in the flood plain elevations.
More data should be provided for the mitigation area.
The location of the wetland mitigation area and future detention basins should be given more consideration.
The detention basins and mitigation areas are being pushed into the riparian zone, which could lead to a potential for erosion and other impacts.
Conservation easements for this site have not been considered.
Mr. David Nyman from ENSR came before the Commission to review the stormwater management report design calculations and related plans. The following are items that need to be addressed:
The intervenor has not received copies of the master drainage plan or a master drainage report with complete calculations to show how at complete buildout this site works relative to stormwater management issues.
There is no reference to how this site fulfills that master plan and relates to it.
When full buildout has occurred there is a necessity to make sure peak rates are in place, the water quality management drills are in place, and protections are in place to provide continuous hydration of the wetland resources.
We would like the applicant to provide documentation of how they would meet the requirements setforth in the Connecticut General permit for stormwater discharge and construction activities.
There is concern regarding the spillway designs that provide emergency overflow.
The swale should be re-designed because it is subject to erosion and is not stable.
Attorney King stated that the intervenor feels this application is incomplete. The project shows other lines leaving from the trunk sewer line. These lines are shown crossing wetlands and watercourses and are intended to serve future development with the gateway development zone, however, are not evaluated in the present application. The report did not provide a complete analysis of environmental impacts for each sewer line alternative. A grassland survey should be conducted for the species. All these concerns are brought up in a letter from the DEP.
Answering questions from the Commission, Mr. Lowry explained that he has not observed water table data that substantiates that this area no longer has wetland hydrology. There is nothing in Connecticut law that states a wetland area that has wetland soils is no longer a wetlands if the hydrology changes.
Applicants presentation
Attorney Mallin of Lockwood & Cummings came before the Commission. Mr. Mallin explained that the letter from DEP that Attorney King is referring to has been addressed to DEP’s satisfaction. Attorney Mallin also stated that the trunk sewer line has nothing to do with this application.
Mrs. Michelle Carlson from Fuss & O’Neil came before the Commission to respond to concerns stated by Mr. Lowry:
Mr. John Ianni wrote a letter to Fuss & O’Neil stating that he has reviewed the mapping and is comfortable with the delineation as shown on the maps for Evergreen Walk.
Would like to disagree with the statement that the applicant is piece mealing the design of this site. The Town Engineer has information on the overall drainage design, actual calculations, full build out calculations, potential locations for basins and mitigation.
There is no increase in runoff from this site.
It was stated that there are glitches in the calculations. There is no exact science for calculating stormwater design. They do drainage designs all of the time and are very confident that what we have done is acceptable and workable.
They are confident that their design will exceed the requirements for total suspended solid removal, which is 80%.
Mr. Richard Snarski explained that the wetland on the site does not have the hydrology of a wetland, but is still considered a wetland because Connecticut defines wetlands by soil type. It is felt that the major contribution of the lowered water tables in this area are due to the road system that was constructed. Restoring this wetland would not be a simple matter. The wetland mitigation area has pipes installed and is being monitored, and the hydrology will be adjusted as necessary. The contours and plant species will be adjusted. It is being proposed to have wet meadow, shallow marsh and deep-water marsh. Monitoring reports will be provided.
Answering questions from the Commission, Mr. Snarski stated he felt confident that after completion, this mitigation should be very successful. There will be post construction monitoring.
Ms. Michelle Carlson explained to the Commission that they tried to make the swale a level consistent slope and are confident that it will be able to be stabilized. Minor modifications were made to the existing drainage area and to the time of concentration. There is an excess of a foot of freeboard now. The stone along side of the discharge pipe is for an emergency spillover.
Jeff told Commission members that the retention basin will have a wet bottom. Ms. Carlson stated that there is an operation and maintenance plan for the basins, and parking areas which will consist of sweeping and checking the basins annually. The plan will include removal of invasive species for the first three years. After the three years, there will be an evaluation on a yearly basis. The owners of the property will submit annual reports.
Mr. Jay Giles read the follow statements from a guide:
Sediment shall be cleaned from the detention basin, once after the site is fully stabilized and shall be inspected for excess sediment annually which shall be removed as necessary.
The detention basin is to be maintained by keeping the side slopes and surrounding areas mowed and free of bush and trees.
All stormwater facilities are to be inspected following heavy rains.
Any erosion to be stabilized as soon as possible and any clog structures are to be unclogged.
The detention basin is to be inspected for the presence of mosquitoes within one week following rainfalls from the month of May through September.
Answering further questions from the Commission, Attorney Mallin explained that the building location was chosen by the buyer because he wanted it there. The nature of the use of the building is for medical purposes. The building is near an entranceway, which makes it easily accessible. When looking at this site, you will see that there is no other feasible and prudent alternative when looking at the definition in the statutes.
Commissioner Kelly stated that she would like more of an explanation in regards to the protection of the riparian corridor. Attorney Mallin stated that in terms of protection, nothing is being proposed along that corridor. There will be an evaluation of the area to see where the buffer would be best located. Attorney Mallin stated that the applicant will meet with staff in the next couple of weeks and discuss this issue and start the process.
Commission members discussed the process with this application and it was the unanimous decision to continue the public hearing and final comments will be heard.
Attorney Mallins stated for the record that the applicant would consent to an extension.
Appl. #03-28P – The Shops at Evergreen Walk
Motion to: allow the Pavilions at Buckland Hills, LLC intervenor status for appl. #03-28P – The Shops at Evergreen Walk.
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Heffler
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: 5 to 4 with Commissioners Forzley, Heffler, Phillips, Delnicki and Muller voting in favor of approval and Commissioners Kelly, Wasik, Grace and Gates voting in favor of denial of approval.
Mr. Josh Poage from Poage & McEwen came before the Commission. Key aspects of the Lifestyle Center are the upscale architecture, the landscaping, the parkscaping and what the tenants do themselves. There are variations in height and depth of the storefronts. Sidewalks are constructed in order to make the area a pedestrian oriented environment. Other key elements are: pavers placed into the streets, increase lighting around sidewalks to make areas safer for pedestrians, decorative lighting, architectural features, courtyard for people to sit and a fountain.
Mr. Alan Lamson, President of FLB Architectural Planning came before the Commission. He explained that the site runs in a northerly direction and described the location of the access roads and parking areas. Mr. Lamson showed a video to the Commission in order to give a sense of what is being proposed.
Mr. Jay Giles of Fuss & O’Neil came before the Commission. Mr. Giles gave the Commission an overview of this project. The site slopes east to west (Buckland Road towards Plum Gully Brook). The current use of this property is agriculture. There is a proposal to construct 14 buildings on this site which will consists of 284,750 square feet of retail space and 3,800-3,900 square feet of office space. There is proposed 1,702 parking spaces and two access points to this site. The overall grading on the site is 1 ½%. A water supply system will loop the entire site with water mains for possible future extensions. Fire service and domestic service are being provided to all of the buildings throughout the site. Sanitary sewer will be provided through the proposed gateway trunk sewer. There is 29 acres of impervious surface, which amounts to 60% for the Lifestyle Center. Four-foot sumps with trap hoods are provided to all of the catch basins. This will remove 20% of total suspended
solids. Rain gardens are proposed throughout the site and will provide some form of stormwater retention. There are stormwater treatment chambers, which will remove floatables that get by the 4’ sumps with trap hoods. From that point, stormwater discharges to several grass swales, which will remove 40% of total suspended solids and then to a detention basin with an 80% removal of total suspended solids.
The wetlands on the site that are proposed to be disturbed are .12 acres. The disturbance to the regulated area is approximately 10 acres. Mitigation will consist of the creation of .13 acres of wetland and will be added to the existing already proposed mitigation.
Proposed erosion and sediment controls are as follows:
Silt fence around all catch basins.
Silt fence at the toe of the slopes.
Silt fencing in blue areas.
Anti tracking aprons at the major access points for construction vehicles to the site.
Temporary diversion berms at the top of all the slopes. All wetlands to be surrounded.
Temporary watering devices.
Erosion control mats on all of the slopes.
Construction sequencing on the erosion control plan.
First stage plan, which is to build 3’ wide diversion berms with silt fence around all wetland areas.
Provide erosion and sediment control notes in a narrative on the plans.
The public hearing was continued until the next meeting.
ITEM: New Business
Appl. #03-31P – Terra Technologies
Mr. Peter DeMallie from Design Professionals came before the Commission to represent this application. He explained that the proposal before the Commission is requesting a 3-lot subdivision. Each lot will be in excess of 1 acre each. There is approximately 1/3 of an acre of wetlands and 1/10 of an acre of disturbance within the regulated area.
Mr. Ed Pollack, a Wetland Scientist with CT. Eco Systems came before the Commission. He stated that he did not observe any surface water with the wetlands. The surface water currently drains to the south towards the 291 corridor. Principle functions provided by this wetland are groundwater recharge, groundwater discharge and pollutant removal. The applicant is proposing a conservation easement, which would be 30’ wide at its narrowest point and 50’ wide at its widest point. This would provide a wooded buffer. In order to enhance the value of the wetlands, it is being proposed that 100 shrubs be planted within the wetland.
Mr. DeMallie mentioned that P & Z would like to see common driveways used in this subdivision, but this is not something the applicant would like to see happen. If common driveways were used, there would be less buffering of I-291 and it would create the necessity of going into the upland review area substantially.
Answering questions from the Commission, Mr. DeMallie explained that the applicant would like landscaping easements on the common property lines in between houses. This would create screening for each property. The applicant is also proposing a conservation easement, which can be discussed with Town Staff in order to be established. We are proposing to place markers around the conservation easement, a notation will be placed on the deeds regarding the conservation easement and prior to construction, orange construction fence will be placed at the limits of clearing.
Motion to: approve with conditions appl. #03-31P – Terra Technologies – Chapel Road – Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application for a three-lot residential subdivision, and associated improvements on property located southerly of Chapel Road, and southerly of Rugby Lane. RR/RR-O, Rural Residential and Rural Residential Overlay zone.
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Wasik
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.
6. The Conservation Easement boundary shall be marked with the required monuments and with disks or similar signs.
Notes shall be placed on the house deeds regarding the conservation easement.
Planting easements shall be placed between lots 1 and 2, lots 2 and 3, and on the easterly side of lot 1.
Town staff approval will be necessary on the wetland enhancements, the planting easement and the conservation easement.
We recommend a bond in the amount of $1,000. Be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure establishment of the markers for the easements and establishment of the plantings in the planting easements.
Motion to: extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m. in order to finish agenda items.
Was made by Commissioner Heffler
Seconded by Commissioner Phillips
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Appl. #03-32W – Wilmar Construction
Mr. Bill Aman from Wilmar Construction came before the Commission. He explained that the parcel consists of 2.3 acres. The project is the construction of a residential dwelling. The proposed disturbances within the upland review area would involve construction of the house including clearing and grading. Trash located in a pond on the property will be removed and within the buffer zone invasive species will be eliminated.
Answer questions from the Commission, Mr. Aman explained that there is no conservation easement proposed, but there will be an established buffer area around the wetlands on the property.
Motion to: approve with conditions appl. #03-32W – Wilmar Construction Inc. – 696 Clark Street – Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application to construct a residential home and associated improvements on property located easterly of Clark Street. RR, Rural Residential zone.
Was made by Commissioner Wasik
Seconded by Commissioner Phillips
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.
6. Debris shall be removed from the wetland area and the buffer area.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m..
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Heffler
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Respectfully submitted
_________________________________
Deborah W. Reid
Recording Secretary
| 
