MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Elizabeth Warren, Audrey Delnicki, William Grace, Carol Heffler, Barbara Kelly, Richard Muller and Audrey Wasik
STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey H. Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer
Debbie Reid, Recording Secretary
ITEM: Public Participation
Jeff explained that there are two Eagle Scouts in attendance to give a presentation on their Eagle Scout projects they are requesting to perform at the Major Michael Donnelly property.
Mr. Mike Zepperi came before the Commission to present his project. He explained that he would like to construct a 6’ x 12’ fishing dock with a 4’ x 10’ handicap ramp. The project will consist of approximately 100 square feet of disturbance. The materials necessary have been donated by local businesses. The project is scheduled to begin on Saturday, September 4, 2004 and should take approximately three days to complete.
Jeff explained that the actual impact would only be to put the piers in. Any loose soil will be placed on the slope above the wetland areas or adjacent to the cinder trail leading to the gazebo. All work will be completed by hand.
Motion: jurisdictional ruling: the fishing dock and associated work proposed by Michael Zepperi on the Major Michael Donnelly property is a non-regulated use pursuant to section 4.2A of the IWA/CC regulations.
Was made by Commissioner Wasik
Seconded by Commissioner Grace
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Mr. Alexander Hill came before the Commission to present his project. Mr. Hill explained that he would like to construct a boardwalk consisting of 136’. The total square footage of the boardwalk will be 544’. The project will take two weekends to complete. The first weekend will be on August 15, 2004 consisting of the construction of the bridge. The second weekend will be spent at the Major Michael Donnelly property installing the platforms. Public
Works will be waterproofing the platforms. Where the ground is uneven, the boardwalk will be stabilized by using cement patio blocks. There will be fifteen boy scouts helping with this project.
Jeff explained that this project is an important key to the walking trail because this will allow direct access to the area where the floating bridge will be installed.
Motion: jurisdictional ruling: the boardwalk and associated work proposed by Alexander Hill on the Major Michael Donnelly property is a non-regulated use pursuant to section 4.2A of the IWA/CC regulations.
Was made by Commissioner Wasik
Seconded by Commissioner Kelly
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
ITEM: Correspondence and Reports
The Connecticut River Watershed Council will be holding their Eighth Annual Connecticut River Watershed Clean Up. The event takes place on Saturday, October 2, 2004. Chairperson Warren stated she would gather more information for this event and get back to the Commission.
ITEM: Conservation Commission
Major Michael Donnelly project
There will be an open house held on Sunday, October 24, 2004.
ITEM: Wetland Officers Report
There was flooding on the street near the pump station on Clark Street. Someone had forgotten to put a gasket on a manhole that was supposed to be there.
86 Riverview Drive
A resident used a bobcat to clear poison ivy from a conservation easement behind her house. The debris was cleared and pushed down the embankment. Jeff stated that he had several discussions with the property owner, making her aware that there was a conservation easement, so she could not do anything in
this area. A violation letter has been issued, but Jeff stated he has not had any response. A second violation notice will be issued.
ITEM: Public Hearing
Appl. #04-38P LA Fitness
Frank Hubeny with FLB Architectural and Planning came before the Commission. He explained that the revised site plan has been submitted. Changes to the plan will be presented by Michelle Carlson from Fuss & O’Neill. Penny Sharp, Soil Scientist, will comment briefly about the potential water levels of the wetlands, and erosion issues. Lastly Mr. John Hankins from Fuss & O’Neill will address the issue regarding pesticides.
Ms. Michelle Carlson from Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. came before the Commission to present changes made to the plan. Erosion in the stream will be looked at and then it will be decided what the best method to stabilize each area. There was a meeting with DEP in August to show them what is being proposed. After reviewing, it was decided to eliminate the 650-foot swale. A comprehensive plan will be established after there is a walk through with Jeff Folger, Jeff Doolittle, Penny Sharp, Alan Lamson and Michelle Carlson. Cheryl Chase from DEP has six comments that will be responded to also and then Diane from Army Corp. will sign off on the plan as soon as DEP is done.
Jeff stated that he felt what is being proposed will effectively treat the stormwater and give a long term solution and net benefit to the wetland system to the west.
Answering questions from the Commission, Jeff explained that there would be a walk through around the stream channel to determine if hard or soft armoring will be necessary in order to adequately handle the increase in flows. Michelle Carlson stated that as part of a maintenance plan, after 1 or 2 years, the stream channel should be reviewed to ensure the stability of the channel.
Ms. Penny Sharp came before the Commission and reviewed the erosion on the stream channel. She feels this plan is a far superior solution to the previous plan because the erosion problem in the stream will be corrected. Monitoring will be an important component in regards to this project.
Chairperson Warren stated that a weekly engineering report or a field report should be provided from the contractor.
Mr. John Hankins, Vice President with Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., came before the Commission. He explained that Fuss & O’Neill had gathered several soil samples and analyzed them for pesticides. It was determined that the concentrations found on the site are typical based upon what has been found in the entire section of South Windsor. Arsenic is a naturally occurring compound and the level found on this site was not far out of the typical range.
Mr. Dennis Lowry from ENSR International came before the Commission and voiced his concerns regarding this application (Attachment A).
Answering questions from the Commission, Jeff explained that DEP did not have too many concerns about impacts on the water budget by diverting the water from this site to the main watercourse to the south.
Mr. Lowry stated that he felt the stabilization of the channel is a good idea. Although a detailed survey of the stream should be provided to the Commission. The Commission discussed the possibility of the stream channel being a separate application. Jeff stated that the watercourse is becoming a portion of the stormwater system and approvals on this site should include work to the watercourse.
Attorney King came before the Commission to speak in regards to pesticides. He explained what was submitted and what was determined through a deposition. Attorney Ray came before the Commission and objected saying Attorney King was giving testimony. There is no objection of Mr. Titus speaking about the revisions made to plans or the specific test data that was submitted to the Commission. The deposition was taken in a law suit that has been pending since January 2004 and there is no reason why the deposition could not have been taken earlier. The information Attorney King is speaking of does not relate to this specific application. Attorney Ray stated that Attorney King was trying to prolong these proceedings.
Commissioner Heffler felt that some of what the intervenor raised regarding the deposition is inappropriate. The Commission doesn’t have the complete deposition transcript. After a lengthy discussion it was decided that the deposition and additional information should be submitted for the Commissions review.
Motion to: require the applicant to submit a copy of the deposition regarding the second soil testing results at the next hearing.
Was made by Commissioner Grace
The Commission requested that any information submitted should be in a timely manner in order for responses by each party and enough time for the Commission to review. The Commission also requested the following information to be submitted for the next scheduled meeting:
A mitigation plan.
General stabilization plan for water.
Perimeter plantings along the edge of the swale.
Quantify the amount of how much more water the channel will be receiving.
Seconded by Commissioner Kelly
Answering questions from the Commission, Jeff explained that stream bank stabilization will be reviewed and provided based on what is found in the field. Soft and hard armoring will be determined in the field.
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
The application was continued until the September 15, 2004 meeting.
ITEM: New Business
Appl. #04-51P – Metals Testing Addition – 80 Kimberly Drive
Mr. Richard Boston from Design Professionals came before the Commission to represent this application. The President of the company is in the process of doing a 2-phase expansion on the property. Phase I would consist of a 5,400 square foot addition to the existing 12,500 square foot building. There is no wetlands on the property. Total disturbance of upland review area will be 1.32 acres during construction. Grading will be done for both phases. Mr. Boston reviewed the storm drainage system for this site explaining that everything for the building will be ran through 12 and 15 inch pipes that would drain to the west into Sandra Drive. Silt fences and/or hay bales will be placed around the catch basins during construction. Erosion control fencing will be erected at the lower portion of the
slope to prevent erosion from going into the construction or building pads during construction.
Jeff stated he expects a good functioning perimeter erosion control system and an efficient stormwater system. Given the size of the site, it is not anticipated that there will be any impacts. Two-foot sumps on this site should be adequate.
Mr. Richard Boston informed the Commission that there will be temporary stockpile of dirt on the adjacent property, which is also owned by the same corporation.
Motion to: Approve with conditions Appl. #04-51P – Metals Testing Addition – 80 Kimberly Drive – Conservation Commission application for the construction of an approximately 12,000 sq. ft. building addition, including parking lots, stormwater structures and associated site improvements on property located northerly of Kimberly Drive and easterly of Sandra Drive.
Was made by Commissioner Heffler
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 September 1, 2009. 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.
A contact person shall be identified on the plans.
We recommend a bond in the amount of $5,000 be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control measures.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Was made by Commissioner Kelly
Seconded by Commissioner Muller
The motion: carried
The vote was as follows: unanimous
Respectfully submitted
_________________________________
Deborah W. Reid, Recording Secretary
| 
