MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Elizabeth Warren, Audrey Delnicki, Philip Forzley, William Grace, Carol Heffler, Barbara Kelly, Richard Muller, Jack Phillips and Audrey Wasik
STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey H. Folger, Environmental
Planner/Conservation Officer
Debbie Reid, Recording Secretary
ITEM: Minutes
The minutes for July 2, 2003 (with amendments), July 16, 2003, and July 30, 2003 (with amendments) were approved by general consensus of the Commission.
ITEM: Conservation Commission
Wapping Fair relocation
Chairperson Warren stated that she had thought that the Conservation Commission had oversight of the sledding hill, but apparently the Commission has no jurisdiction. Chairperson Warren said she would keep the Commission members informed on any developments that happen in this location regarding the Wapping Fair.
Major Donnelly Bridges
Jim Loening, an Eagle Scout who had came before the Commission in July requesting permission to construct bridges at the Michael Donnelly property has completed all work there. At a later date there will need to be five more areas that will need crossings developed.
Motion to: change the order of the agenda in order to hear Other Business before the Public Hearing.
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Heffler
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Other Business
Statutory timeline changes
Jeff explained the timeline changes that would effect the Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission (Attachment A). These changes will be in effect on October 1, 2003.
ITEM: Public Hearing
Appl. 03-28P – The Shops at Evergreen Walk
Jeff read into the record a memo that he wrote regarding this application, (Attachment B).
Attorney Mallin came before the Commission and explained that the riparian buffer has been revised and will be 330 feet in width. Along Deming Street, it is being proposed to have ornamental landscaping. The area will be established for aesthetics. Chairperson Warren asked the applicant if they would be in agreement if it were stated for use of passive recreation. The applicant agreed with this suggestion.
Jeff stated that he feels the applicant did use a reasonable approximation on the buffer width. This will allow for protection of various species.
After a short discussion, it was agreed upon by the Commission that the applicant would be heard first and given 15 minutes. The intervenor would then speak and would be given 20 minutes. The applicant would then be given 5 more minutes to respond to the intervenor.
Applicants presentation
Ms. Michelle Carlson from Fuss & O’Neil came before the Commission to answer outstanding questions that the Commission had.
A breakdown of impacts to the wetlands have been placed on the plans.
Written responses to ENSR letters have been given to Jeff Folger and the Commission.
Boring logs and locations have been submitted to the Commission. Based on the borings, it is not anticipated to encounter groundwater in the proposed cut areas.
The potential of a thermal impact from the proposed development on down gradient watercourses will be eliminated by the wetland system bordering the downgradient watercourse.
Attorney Mallin addressed the riparian buffer.
There should be no problem with light pollution on inland wetland areas because all fixtures that are proposed are cut off fixtures.
Water budget for wetland #9 is approximately 11% decrease to the wetland.
Vernal pools are not part of the mitigation.
Site plan and landscaping plan have been modified slightly, but will not have any additional impacts to the wetlands.
Mr. John Hankins came before the Commission to discuss pesticides in the soils. All levels meet the required standards and will have no effect on this site.
Mr. John Sonnichsen came before the Commission to discuss his overview of the stormwater management system. He stated that the stormwater system meets all design goals and protects resources in the area. The quality and quantity also meet all requirements and the system meets all state, local and federal requirements. In conclusion, Mr. Sonnichsen stated that there are no significant impacts.
Answering questions from the Commission, Attorney Mallin explained that after reviewing the area where Mr. Jacques pond is located, it was concluded that Mr. Jacques pond and this site are on different watersheds. The damages to the pond that Mr. Jacques has alleged, will be reviewed and the landowner will contact the farmer currently renting the property.
Intervenors presentation
Attorney King stated that he felt the intervenor has not been given adequate time to respond.
Mr. Dan Titus of HRP Associates, Inc. came before the Commission. He voiced his concern regarding pesticides on the site. It is a known fact that pesticides are on this site and he felt the applicant should be asked for a report.
Mr. Jamie Durand of ENSR International came before the Commission. Mr. Durand felt that the Commission is giving up quite a bit of the riparian buffer because calculations begin in the center of the stream. Revised plans should be
submitted to eliminate the vernal pools. The plans look at each wetland impact and Mr. Durant feels that all impacts throughout the whole project should be accounted for in one application.
Mr. David Nyman of ENSR International came before the Commission. Mr. Nyman stated the he felt the following items should be addressed:
A 15 to 20 foot cut on the site could intersect the groundwater table, cutting that source of supply to the wetlands.
No backup to their narrative, do not state methodology used, no calculations are represented. Their analysis is not appropriate.
Not appropriate to use bedrock if using analysis.
The rainfall calculations did not have the right methodology used.
A more valid water budget needs to be provided.
Wetland #9 – analysis area is inappropriate.
There has been no documentation provided showing impacts to the wetlands.
Need a more valid water budget.
No calculations or documentation for the recharge area has been done to show if water can be brought back into the system.
If piping overflows, there could be a big problem.
This site needs to be looked at as part of the whole plan.
Attorney King concluded the intervenors presentation by stating that the intervenor believes this application is incomplete. He also stated that no alternative analysis has been done.
Answering questions from the Commission, Attorney Mallin explained that the amount of rainfall that should go to the rain gardens is 25%. This application has many alternatives and the plan chosen conforms to all design standards.
Jeff stated that this site has received significant impacts by the agricultural use. The water flowing on the property is presently uncontrolled and felt this plan would control the area better.
Motion to: close the public hearing on appl. #03-28P – The Shops at Evergreen Walk – Buckland Road – Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application to construct a multi-building complex, parking lots, stormwater structures, and associated improvements on property located westerly of Buckland Road, and northerly of Smith Street, GD, Gateway Development zone.
Was made by Commissioner Heffler
Seconded by Commissioner Phillips
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Appl. #03-35W – Town of South Windsor – Clark Street
Attorney Guliano told Board members that he would not be representing the Town or Commission for this application. Attorney Alter would be representing the Town and Attorney Fahey would be representing the Commission.
Intervenors presentation
Mr. Jamie Durand from ENSR International came before the Commission. He explained that the following are items the intervenor feel have not been addressed:
Feasible and prudent alternatives
Three alternatives have been shown. The second and third alternatives would result in significant impacts to the wetlands, but the first suggested alternative the intervenor feels is prudent and should be considered.
Riparian Corridor
The crossing of wetland #9 should be looked at closer.
The detention basin near wetland #9 should be realigned.
There should be more consideration in regard to the gravel access road.
There has been no information presented to the intervenor regarding vernal pools, construction impacts or the tunneling of the pipe under the stream.
Construction sequencing
There are a lot of considerations that need to be looked at. The Commission should be aware of when work on the various construction activities for this site should be done.
Other Concerns
If is felt that the location of the ring road cumulative impacts should be addressed in one application.
The 20’ work corridor being suggested, will have permanent impacts that have not been addressed.
The gravel driveway should be included in permanent impact calculations.
If erosion and sediment controls are put in prior to March, should not put silt fencing in, will cause more problems.
The right of way should not be clear-cut, vegetation should be left.
All locations for stockpiles should be identified.
Would like additional workspaces identified.
No details have been given for time frames.
Additional information should be given regarding the crossing of Plum Gully.
Alternatives should be considered for stream bank stabilization.
The side slopes for Plum Gully Brook should be restored.
More details should be given regarding the crossing of wetland #5.
The proposed gravel driveway is not necessary.
There have been no discussion of using temporary swamp mats. Equipment could damage the access drive.
More consideration should be given regarding the dewatering system.
Trench plugs should be used at each wetland boundary.
Additional steps should be taken when invasive species are being evaluated.
The gravel driveway and vernal pools could impact amphibians.
Noted stockpile to the field to the east, there is a concern on how far the stockpile is from wetlands and vernal pools.
Answering questions from the Commission, Mr. Durant explained that if the contractor doesn’t know how to install swamp mats, they can make a mess.
Mr. Wesley Sargent from Close, Jenson and Miller came before the Commission. Mr. Sargent explained that he had reviewed the Weston & Sampson report and believes that there are alternatives available. They may cost more, but they are prudent and would save wetland impacts.
Mr. Dan Titus of HRP Associates stated that there are pesticides present on this site and feels the impacts should be evaluated by this Commission.
Attorney King concluded their presentation by reading a letter from the DEP into the record (Attachment C).
Response by applicant
Ms. Michelle Carlson from Fuss & O’Neil came to respond to concerns voiced by the intervenor:
Would rather have gravity line than pump station because there is less maintenance required with gravity line.
The alternative presented is believed to be the best for the Town.
The long-term impacts would be just as great with a pump station.
The ring road is not part of this application.
The letter from the DEP has been addressed.
All work can be completed within the timeframe allotted. The intervenor does have some information incorrect regarding timeframes.
The construction sequencing has been reviewed.
Whatever trees can be saved, will be.
Prudent and feasible alternatives have been addressed.
Answering questions from the Commission, Ms. Carlson felt that it would be possible to place clay stops at each wetland boundary. The Town likes to have access to the line and therefore creating a gravel road would make access easier. The stream banks will be stabilized.
Mr. John Hankins from Fuss & O’Neil came before the Commission to respond to concerns regarding pesticides. He stated that you would be likely to find pesticides on this site, but all are consistent with DEP guidelines.
Answering questions from the Commission, Mr. Hankins explained that the test samples were taken from test pits that were dug 3 to 6 inches down.
Mr. Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Pollution Control for the Town of South Windsor came before the Commission. He explained that the access drive would be necessary in order to allow access without causing damage or impacts to the wetlands. He also stated that pump stations can fail and that is why it is preferred to have a gravity line. The purpose of the Weston and Sampson report was to enable everyone involved to look at different scenarios, and also to be used as a guideline for future developers.
Attorney King concluded the intervenors presentation by stating he felt the application to be incomplete. The application fails to address cumulative impacts and there should be one application to address the whole site of
Evergreen Walk. There are prudent and feasible alternatives available that are not being used with the plan that is being used, there is more pollution being added to the environment.
Attorney Alter concluded the applicant’s presentation by stating they feel this is a prudent plan and the line will service 600 acres. The long-term effects from alternative plans would be greater than what is being proposed. There has been no evidence presented that this plan poses any threat of pollution and the intervenor did not meet the burden of proof.
Jeff told Commission members that he is pleased with the erosion & sedimentation plan. Jeff also suggested to use the Commission to state as a condition that swamp mats should be used at wetland 1 and 2 during construction.
Motion to: extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m. in order to finish agenda items:
Was made by Commissioner Phillips
Seconded by Commissioner Wasik
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: 8 to 1 with Commissioners Warren, Muller, Kelly, Wasik, Grace, Delnicki, Phillips and Forzley voting in favor of extension and Commissioner Heffler voting against extension.
Motion to: close the public hearing on appl. #03-35W – Town of South Windsor – Clark Street – Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application to construct a cross-country sanitary sewer line from the Clark Street pump station east. GD, Gateway Development zone.
Was made by Commissioner Forzley
Seconded by Commissioner Heffler
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to: adjourn the meeting at 10:34 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 Date Approved
Recording Secretary
| 
