MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Elizabeth Warren, Timothy Appleton, Audrey Delnicki, Carol Heffler, John Phillips, and Barbara Kelly
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mario Marrero sat for Richard Muller
STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey H. Folger, Environmental
Planner/Conservation Officer
Nancy Aborn – Recording Secretary
Chairman Warren called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
Conservation Commission
Folger presented Educational habitat signage to be displayed at the Major Michael Donnelly Preserve on appropriate, strategically placed pedestals for schools that visit the site. The signage points out shrub habitat, shallow marsh, etc.
Wetland Officer’s Report
Folger noted that the wetland boundary has not been marked out as requested for 321 Strong Road violation (measured out to the back of the house).
New Business
1. Appl 07-11P, Webster Commons – 1678 and 1700 Ellington Road, IWA/CC application for the construction of a commercial plaza, including parking lot, grading, stormwater management, utilities, and associated improvements for property located on the northerly side of Ellington Road, Restricted Commercial Zone (RC)
Ben Wheeler, Design Professionals, and representing the applicant had the following comments:
o Site contains 2.9 acres and consists of 2 lots.
o The building that houses the day care, music store, and hair salon will remain.
o The Liberty Tax Service Building will be removed.
o 6 buildings will be added – a mixed used development.
o 10,000 sf of office space, 10,000 sf of retail space, 1 building will house medical offices (4,000 sf); four buildings located northerly on the site will house on the second floor 10 units of residential living (minimum of 2 units in one building and 2 building will have 3 units each.
o A new entrance will be constructed and lined up with the property across the street.
o In 2006 the project was presented informally to PZC and was supported.
o 3 variances were secured in 2006, e.g. Building C to have a 25’ front yard, existing building 50’ front yard, 50’ rear buffer.
o 1989 a variance was received for a 10’ rear yard.
o Wetlands were delineated in April 2000 by John Ianni. The site was revisited by Ianni and there is 980 sf of additional wetlands in the northeast corner (submitted plans reflect this).
o The application must be changed to 31,650 sf of disturbance in the URA.
o Wetlands disturbance will be 192 sf to accommodate the energy dissipater.
o Total land designated as wetlands is 0.14 acres or 4.8% of the site.
Karen Isherwood, Engineer at Design Professionals and representing the applicant had the following comments:
o Site gently slopes to the rear towards the wetlands; rest of the site is wooded.
o The access drive will be 24’ wide with appropriate parking provided.
o Public utilities are available to the site from Ellington Road.
o Drainage will entail the use of rain gardens (bio retention areas). Each island will be a rain garden.
o Each curbed area will feature a cut out to allow flow into the rain gardens.
o The rain gardens will feature plant material, e.g. swamp azaleas, shrub dwarf, dogwood, and winterberry holly (to remove pollutants).
o Drainage will enter a series of 18” double infiltrators (galley system) between each CB structure at zero percent slopes.
o If the rain gardens are inundated the water will spill over into the CB’s.
o The infiltrators are flat, interconnected, will fill up from the bottom which is placed above existing ground water.
o A gravity system will take the flow into a detention area located in the rear, providing additional water quality.
o Flow will discharge into a pipe, traveling down to the toe of slope into the wetlands where there is an energy dissipater (rip rapped spillway).
o Flow continues through an existing 2’ wide, 1’ deep drainage channel that meanders; also picks up drainage from property to the east and wetlands to the north.
o Appropriate E & S control measures will be placed, e.g. anti tracking pad, haybales, silt fence, and temporary stockpile.
o Submitted plans do not reflect all of Folger’s comments.
o Detail of construction sequence will be increased, e.g. placement of the stockpile and temporary sediment basin.
o Detail of outlet piping has been submitted along with dewatering pump discharge notes (requested because of the high ground water in this area).
o Detail of CB’s during construction and after is shown.
John Ianni, Soil Scientist and representing the applicant had the following comments:
o Wetlands off site and on site were reviewed along with topographic maps and the watershed that fees into these wetlands.
o The watershed is located in the Town Hall area.
o Flows occur east to west and slightly south to north (compound slope).
o Wetlands receive much runoff from the adjacent parking areas and RSK Plaza.
o Flow occurs from the north and enters a catch basin system then discharges to a head wall where the wetland commences.
o Water course is narrow (3’ maximum), well defined.
o Property to the north is wooded, to the south there is secondary growth, honeysuckle and multi flora rose; the back contains areas of invasive species – Japanese knot weed.
o Leaves have been dumped in this area.
o Soils are lake deposits and silty clays, slowly permeable, they have a high water table down to 3’; soil that has been reworked over the years.
o There is an existing drainage structure, and small depression hole in the middle that fills up temporarily in the spring.
o The wetland system contains sparse wooded areas, e.g. dogwood, invasive species, oaken woods, marsh; water comes from across Clark Street behind the Post Office and drains to the north connecting to the watercourse on the site, swings around and enters the Podunk River; wetlands in this area are valuable.
o Function and value assessment value of the wetlands on the site revealed that groundwater is discharging along boundaries of the wetlands, seeps into the wetlands then continues to flow off because of the clays that lie underneath.
o There is little flood storage in these wetlands.
o Habitat includes many species of birds; the watercourse is too small for fish and shellfish.
o Wetlands do not contain diversity and density of vegetation thus sediment is not being caught.
o Food source for wildlife in not plentiful; production export is not a primary function of the wetlands.
o Stabilization of banks has occurred and the channel is stabilized.
o Wetlands usually provide food sources and cover for wildlife; there is a wildlife corridor that goes to the wetlands in the Podunk system; the wetlands on the site do not provide significant sources of food and cover.
o Wetlands do not present recreational values, e.g. fishing, boating, etc.
o Only impact to the wetlands will be the discharge of storm water, 190’ plunge pool – rest of activity proposed is indirect impact.
o Concern is activity being close to the wetland boundary.
o The buildings close to the wetlands do not have basements per se; elevations are 8’ different from the north back to the south; this is at grade, bringing it down to close proximity of the existing grade. Foundation walls will be constructed at grade at the back; much of the grading and filling will occur away from the wetlands.
o Impervious coverage is at 57% for the total of the 2 parcels combined.
Folger stated that he concurs with Ianni’s report. The way the buildings are laid out and especially towards the north portion of the project, it’s going to be difficult as to how the construction sequence is going to occur to 1) for the basins in the north of the property to be used as temporary sediment basins and also receiving the water and material and constructing the foundations for the buildings along the northern portion at the same time. This looks good on paper but Folger was not quite sure if there is any input from contractors yet and if they agree this can be done, i.e. sequence that can be controlled. There are many questions that need to be answered. Folger’s opinion is that the concept that is being used here, which is a large number of rain gardens actually receiving runoff closer
to the origin as opposed to runoff all the way to one spot, is a good concept and he would like to see it work. The storage area, the infiltrator is something that is up to the Town Engineer to determine whether he thinks its going to be feasible enough. There is a ground water issue on the site. The elevations of the parking lot are much higher than current. Folger wants to know what type of material will be acquired. Material is needed for compaction but free draining is necessary because there will not be vertical infiltration by the infiltrator systems. Anything that moves will move laterally. Construction of the buildings, especially the one on the far northeastern corner where the edge of the building is 10’ from the existing wetland may be problematic in getting a 360º access round the building without intrusion. The site seems to be mostly fill without good quality topsoil on the site. The subsoil is silty.
Dewatering is a concern. Storage of water shall be kept long enough for siltation to settle out. The initial detail did not show how the infiltrators were going to be established. It was tough to figure out if there was a positive flow to the back
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in Italics.
· Curbing. curbing will be cut away, flow will be caught by the rain gardens.
· Roof leaders. All roof leaders, foundation drains will be entering the piped storm water system, not to rain gardens.
· Not counting the wetlands, percentage of uplands coverage.
· Integrity of existing soils. Red clay is at 43”; clay is available to line the basin; test pits to the north did not reveal a high water table for the depths that were reached; much of the disturbance in that area is not due to the location of the buildings (35’ between) greater distance to the wetlands; basin can be eliminated by putting it under ground; more storage could be attained – would reduce the amount of disturbance.
2. Conservation Easement Modification: McDonald – 660 Strong Road – Application to reconfigure an existing conservation easement boundary on property located north of Strong Road, RR zone
Kim McDonald, applicant, stated that a surveyor had mapped the property for her; and that a Soil Scientist to delineated the wetlands. The owner is willing to swap a portion of the conservation area (lawn) for a portion of non conservation area. It involves 1500 sf of area where the pool would be placed in the conservation area, take the 1500 sf swap it out to the side yard which is non-conservation; this would run contiguous into the rest of the conservation area.
Folger stated since this is a one to one swap. There will be no direct impact however to wetlands. A minimal impact permit must be filed. When the house was built the conservation easement was approximately 10’ from the back door thus rendering most of the back yard useless. After the site was flagged it was determined that the construction of the pool could occur in the upland review area and not within the wetlands themselves. The proposed conservation easement natural area will be filled in with trees and allow to grow natural. A narrative document must be reviewed by the Town Attorney and documented in Town records.
Phillips made a motion to approve the modification of a conservation easement as presented. Delnicki seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Appl 06-01P Evergreen Walk Office South - discussion
Folger said that a single office building, 60,000 sf, 3 stories, parking, discharge to a detention basin was approved. Request has been made for 2 smaller buildings on the same footprint, parking and circulation through the site. Decrease in impervious coverage regarding parking and location of the detention basin will change as well. Question is would the Commission entertain this as a modification or to request a new application.
After discussion the Commission indicated that a new application, with a public hearing, should be held because the new detention basin will be moved and there are DEP restrictions
Adjournment
Heffler made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m. Phillips seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
_______________________ respectfully submitted,
Date Approved
Phyllis M. Mann
Recording Secretary
| 
