*NOTE: Please be advised that at this time the following ... · 3/12/2014 · commission and the...

Guilford Inland Wetland Commission

Draft Minutes – March 12, 2014

of 18

Draft Minutes

Guilford Inland Wetlands Commission

Regular Meeting

March 12, 2014 at 7:30 P.M.

Guilford Community Center – Whitfield Room

32 Church Street

*NOTE: Please be advised that at this time the following are strictly

"Draft Minutes" until approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission*

Once approved the minutes will be marked as "Approved Minutes" and will be available in the clerk's

office or upon request.

Members Present: Scott Williams, Richard Meier, Caleb Orcutt,

Walter Corbiere, P. Mei

Members Absent: John Braccio

Alternates Present: David Williams, Kevin Clark, Calvin Page

Alternates Absent:

Staff: Kevin Magee, Environmental Planner

Michelle C. Nazario, Recording Secretary

Chairman Scott Williams opened the meeting at approximately 7:31 P.M.

Appointment by Chair of members sitting for this meeting. All members present

except for Calvin Page were seated.

A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

March 12, 2014

Upon a motion by Commissioner S. Williams and seconded by Commissioner C. Orcutt,

it was unanimously voted to approve the agenda

B. APPLICATIONS:

1. Cyrus, Miller, 279 South Union Street, Map 041, Lot 025-A, Zone R-3. Regulated

activity, replace existing garage structure 760 foot print with smaller one of 576 foot print

within the wetland 100’ jurisdictional review.

Present for applicant: Cyrus Miller

Cyrus Miller provided a map of the septic that the commission has requested from the

March 8, 2014 walk. On the map it was marked where the smaller garage will be

constructed.

K. Magee stated from a previous map from 1972 the garage was built half on wetlands

and half out of wetlands.

K. Magee stated there should be approximately 15 feet from the garage to the septic.



of 18

D. Williams asked what the scale of the map is.

K. Magee stated it is a 40 scale.

Commissioner W. Corbiere has concerns about the pre-existing structure being

constructed inside the Wetlands and the setbacks.

K. Clark asked about the drainage and it looks like it is in a tight spot, could it be moved

closer to the setback lines?

Upon a motion by Commissioner S. Williams and seconded by Commissioner C. Orcutt,

it was unanimously voted to approve the application.

VOTED: That the Guilford Inland Wetlands Commission approves a regulated activity

for 279 South Union Street, Map 041, Lot 025-A, Zone R-3. Replace existing

garage structure 760 foot print with smaller one of 576 foot print within the

wetland 100’ jurisdictional review zone as shown on “Crockett Map” dated 2/5/14

with the following conditions;

1. That prior to any construction soil erosion and sediment control measures shall

be;

a. installed as shown on the approved plan.

b. installation shall be done by hand.

c. The Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer shall be notified of such

installation so that an inspection might be conducted to determine

compliance and authorize commencement of construction.

2. Prior to issuance of a final inspection, the Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer

shall be notified so that an inspection may be conducted to determine that all soil

erosion and sedimentation control measures have been maintained in the manner

in which they were approved on the site plan and are in compliance.

3. Install French drain on the house side of garage to direct run off away from

wetlands

4. That unless an extension is granted,

a. Construction must begin within one year of approval.

b. This permit expires two years from the date of approval.

This regulated activity is approved based upon the finding that there was no

reasonable or prudent alternative in completion of this project.



of 18

INFAVOR: Scott Williams, Richard Meier, Caleb Orcutt, Walter Corbiere, P. Mei, David

Williams and Kevin Clark

OPPOSED: None

ABSTAINED: None

This motion carries 7-0-0

C. PUBLIC HEARING

1. Montana, Dawn & Pasquale,(JJ Sullivan) 2772 Boston Post Rd., Map 083, Lot

025, Zone CD. Regulated activity. Demolish house. Install propane bulk storage facility,

office building, driveway and parking, and storm water infiltration and upgrade septic

system within the 100’ jurisdictional review.

Commissioner S. Williams read the legal notice into the record and explained the

procedure for the Public Hearing.

Present for the applicant: Attorney Jeff Beatty at 25 Boston St., Guilford, CT, Robert E.

Sonnichsen P.E., Waldo & Associates, LLC, 89 State Street, Guilford, CT, and Robert C.

Russo, Soil Scientist, CLA, Engineers, Inc 317 Main Street, Norwich, CT.

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E.,Engineer and Manager of Waldo & Associates handed the

commission and the interveners his resume.

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. also presented further details of the regulated activities by

displaying maps through a projector that included the layout of the proposed development

of propane tanks, existing site conditions, and erosion control details.

The site contains a vacant house on the north side of the land that will be knocked down

and replaced with a retail store.

Two pieces of wetlands are located on property. One is a man-made pond located on the

eastern side of property which is approximately 700 square ft. The other wetland is

located on the southern part of the property which is wooded wetlands.

The part where the proposed building will be a small contributor of water run-off. The

system designed will contain 5 deep catch basins through out the site, oil grit separator

which is located at the southeast corner, underground storage water filtration galleries,

and rain garden located south east of the galleries.



of 18

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. pointed out the vegetation, brush area around the pond and the

pre-existing house is over grown. The house is not in the flood zone.

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. presented the proposed map showing all work within the

upland review area which includes an on site storm water management system, two

30,000 gallon propane tanks, installation of retail building, paving of driveway and

parking lot, and silt fencing around disturbed areas. The site is approximately 2 acres

and the upstream watershed is 96 acres. The storm water management system provides a

water quality protection with 5 deep catch basins, an oil grit separator, underground water

filtration galleys and rain garden located near the southeast of the property. The rain

garden will also double as a temporary sediment trap during construction. EPA

recommends 80% removal of total suspended solids and we are doing 90%.

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. noted that they used a hydrocadd storm water analysis to look

at the treatment of the 2, 5, 10, and 100 year storms and noted that the system was

designed to replicate existing conditions to treat the first inch of rain fall and to provide

storage for 100 year storms. The drainage system was designed according to Connecticut

Storm water Manuel.

A detailed storm water maintenance plan was submitted.

They have received comments and concerns from the South West Conservation District,

which K. Magee had passed along to them for review and to make changes.

Waldo & Associates have met with the fire marshal and reviewed their comments and

recommendations. They included a fire suppression nozzle at a location appropriate to

the tanks which can be operated remotely. The Fire Marshall is currently reviewing this

up dated plan which also includes the Fire Marshalls suggestions.

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. has addressed as much as possible the comments from K.

Magee and Reggie Reid correspondences.

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. also stated that there will be electrical lines running

underground from the building to the tank which is located in the upland review area.

They provided a separate illumination plan due to NFPA requirements.

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. reported on a detailed sheet regarding the foundation for the

cradle that supports the tanks. Excess material will be taken off site. Testing will be

done on soil to determine if they could support the tanks. If it proves to be not natural we

will bring in piles. The worst case scenario was advised to be figured in, which is all

detailed in their proposed plan.

Another request was to have a complete detailed sedimentation erosion plan Waldo and

Associated provided detail erosion and sediment control sheet which provide what kind

of seeding and how temporary or permanent controls will be installed?



of 18

Robert E. Sonnchsen, P.E. discussed alternatives that they reviewed. The first alternative

is relocation of the building to where the vacant house is located. This alternative would

cause traffic flow issues for the trucks, places the building within the 75 foot zoning

setback from the property line and puts the parking area behind the building with the

tank. The current plan provides for the customers to be in front and in the rear area with

the tanks would be secured off.

Another thought was to remove the building out of the upland review area which would

consist of moving the building to the west, but that would cause circulation problems.

The building on the submitted plans provide a visual barrier.

The plans are designed to include other codes and regulations regarding the distance

between the building and tanks.

Robert C. Russo C.S.S. who is a Soil Scientist/Environmental Scientist with CLA

Engineer, Inc handed the commission and the Interveners his resume.

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. asked Robert C. Russo C.S.S. to review and report on the

application for the upland review area and visit the site to recheck the wetland boundary.

Robert C. Russo reviewed the wetlands boundary and noted that there was a previous

approved boundary, which he didn’t have the date for.

Reviewed the existing state of the wetlands and the upland site.

Robert Russo looked at the existing man made pond on the eastern side and the brook to

the east. He noted that a brook feeds the pond with an out flow pipe to the south that

discharges to the wooded wetlands.

There is historic fill on the site. Test pits indicate that the site has been regraded and fill

was brought in consisting of some debris. The soil in this filled area is no longer

considered natural soils.

The upland has tress, but no up keep of the property has been done.

Robert Russo reviewed his January 24, 2014 CLA engineers Report which contained

DEEP Guidelines for Wetlands Review.

Storm water runs off Moose Hill Road and the wetlands receive some storm due to run

off. There are some catch basins on Moose Hill Road. The wetlands do receive some of

the storm water runoff from town road as well.

Land use is considered both residential and commercial. To the east is a commercial use

that has some wetlands that extend to this site and this neighboring site has had some

wetlands impact as well.



of 18

There is heavy vegetation on the banks of the pond and wild life was present.

The excess water will be infiltrated through the storm drainage system.

There will be a vegetated buffer area to protect wildlife habitat and the water courses.

The plan does not call for removal of vegetation in the buffer that function will continue.

Activities causing disturbance are 25 feet from wetlands on flat portion of site. Slopes

near ponds and wetlands will be left alone and protected.

The grading on site is minimal.

There is no proposed work to be done in the wetlands either permanent or temporary.

There will be a silt fence that will be placed around the proposed site for protection of the

wetlands.

A hydrology system will be put into place and during significant rain flow wetlands will

be protected.

The wildlife will not be disturbed. The upland is not habitat for wetlands species and due

to Route 1 the wetlands are not part of a wildlife corridor.

Clearing, paving, excavating will be done with erosion sedimentation control barriers.

Robert Russo believes these barriers provide more than enough control due to the short

distance of flow with little water velocity.

Robert Russo noted that several storm water quality methods utilized are from the CT

DEEP Storm Water Quality Manuel.

Robert Russo completed his presentation and Chairman Williams asked for questions

from the Commission to the applicant.

K. Clark asked about the drainage for wetlands due to the grading and filling.

Robert C. Russo explained that the site had fill brought in and due to the texture it is no

longer classified as a wetland.

K. Clark asked how long it would take for a chroma to change?

Robert C. Russo noted that if filled three to four feet it is no longer considered wetlands.

The chroma will be still present?

C. Orcut asked what effects does the storm water system have on the wetlands.



of 18

Robert Sonnichson – The site area is a total of 2 acres, .62 acres will be impervious

surface, this is a small percentage of total area for the wetlands, what is driving the

wetland is the flow in and out of the pond and the flow to the down gradient wetlands.

Groundwater table will not change; believe there is no change hydroeological response.

S. Williams asked if he could explain storm water drainage in more detail.

First lines of defense/control are the catch basins. Town engineer has made comments

and suggestions and Waldo & Associates has made the upgrades on the plan for storm

water drainage. They have five catch basins with invert of pipe and the sump of the catch

basins, which are 2 ft below. If sand/salt is used during winter season the first line of

defense is the catch basins then go into the oil grit separator that has a three compartment

chamber – 1st sediment control; 2nd traps floatables and the ; 3rd is the polishing

chamber. The stormwater manuel calls for 400 cubic feet of storage per acre, has 0.62

acres of impervious surface, 248 cubic feet required. Provide for 300 cubic feet.

Infiltration chambers are for storage and provide for infiltration. Changed detail sheet on

plan to provide for infiltration rate of 10 to 15 feet per day. On JJ Sullivan current site

they have a similar system that works very well.

Robert Sonnichson spoke about a rain garden – a low impact development design it is

excavated and filled with permeable material with plants for wetlands, 2/3 of rain flow

run off from the rain garden goes to the pond.

S. Williams asked what type of floatables? Styrofoam or oil?

Robert Sonnichson anything that can float on would be collected, generally

ethyleneglycol or oil would be collected.

K. Magee asked Robert Sonnichson to discuss his storm water report and the differences

in flow from the existing condition and the treated conditions for the 2, 5,10,25,50 and

100 year storms.

Robert Sonnichseon explained the differences which are noted in the February 11, 2014

and the March 3, 2014 Stormwater Management Report.

K. Clark asked the area of impervious site. What is the percent and then to subtract for

the wetlands?

S. Williams stated that the plans show 31% for the total site.

K. Clark asked then subtract for the wetlands.

Robert Sonnichsen stated we can have that for you at the next meeting we have the

numbers but need to do the work.



of 18

W. Corbiere asked are these tanks designed for the wetland. and would these tanks be in a

historic wetlands?

Robert C. Russo stated portion of the tanks according the map will be both in and out of

the historic wetlands as mapped by Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS).

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. stated that there is a 1959 ariel photo of the site and it looks

almost identical to current conditions.

W. Corbiere asked if soil can be specific to what type.

Robert C. Russo indicated that it is on one of the maps that was submitted.

Robert C. Russo stated that NRCS didn’t map for less then 2 acres and being that broad

amount, wetland boundaries need to be site mapped at a high level of accuracy than the

conservation service soil maps.

W. Corbiere had asked NFPA standards since the tanks are close to wetlands, what is the

distance from the building?

Robert Sonnichson stated it is 50 ft from building, and that they are working together

with a Fire Safety Expert and a Propane Expert for any other recommendations.

W. Corbiere asked if there is a distance that the tanks need to be from the street.

Robert Sonnichson stated it is not indicated on the map, but it’s approximately 75 feet

from tank to the edge of pavement at Moose Hill Road.

W. Corbiere asked who the owner is and is there an LLC?

Attorney Jeff Beatty stated 2772 Boston Post Road, LLC is the applicant. The owner is

Mr. and Mrs. Montana.

W. Corbiere asked if the bank has the mortgage on the property and who is the bank?

Attorney Jeff Beatty stated that he wasn’t sure at this time.

W. Corbiere asked if there has been any work done on the site since January 4, 2014

Robert C. Russo replied that he and Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. walked the site last week

and found no activity, except for the back door being opened.

W. Corbiere asked about the west side of the property – Moose Hill Road, what will you

be doing at that portion for protection.



of 18

Robert E. Sonnichsen, P.E. explained there will be specific types of trees on the outer

lining of the property with a chain link fence. The north east boundary which is adjacent

to Boston Post Road to the south end will be hedges and trees.

W. Corbiere asked if there are any other concerns for habitat.

Robert C. Russo indicated that he reviewed the Natural Diversity Database and there was

no species of concern on site or off site near by.

S. Williams asked if there are any other concerns from commission before they start with

the Interveners.

Present for the Interveners: Victor Anatra – of 2614 Boston Post Road, Guilford Gate

House West.

He has some questions regarding the presentation from Waldo & Associates; one

regarding the no need for sand and salt because the land is level. Victor Anatra believes

they will need some sand and salt when dealing with sliding propane trucks.

Victor Anatra asked if there is no need for sand and salt due to the flat surface, where are

you using it.

Robert Sonninchson replied that sand and salt will be used for pediatrician area for

deicing. When the salt dissolves there is no negative impact.

Victor Anatra asked what types of plants would be planted around the parameter of the

site.

Victor Anatra read in the Planing & Zoning regulation and healthy safety of the

community. Article 1 – General Provisions – 273-1 Purpose. It is the purpose of these

regulations to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community; to

encourage the most appropriate use of the land; to lessen congestion in the streets; to

avoid undue concentration of the population; to make adequate provision for public

utilities and facilities; to provide adequate light, air and recreation facilities; to secure

safety from fire, panic, food and other dangers; to maintain or improve the quality of the

environment of the community; and to conserve property values in the Town of Guilford.

Victor Antra defined a number of words from the zoning codes.

S. Williams stated that Planning and Zoning is out of the Wetlands Commission

jurisdiction.

Victor Antra submitted into the record a letter dated January 22, 2014 from Guilford

Gatehouse West Management, LLC, notes entitled Public Hearing, Zoning Regulations

page 27304.1, NPGA Frequently Asked Questions and news article Well Installs 30, 000

gallon liquid propane tank and Gastec Tank Chart.



of 18

Victor Anatra stated that there were 9 revisions of the map. Victor Anatra showed his own

plan depicting the wetland boundary, 100 foot wetland review area, and the zoning set

backs. The majority of the land is wetlands and it is only 1.95 acres not the 2 acres that

Waldo and Associates have stated. Of the 1.95 acres, the majority of it is wetlands or

land within the 100 jurisdictional review areas. This lot is not suitable to be built on.

The property should have phases of environmental review to go through. The bank

requirements are a Phase 1, conducted to determine the potential for contamination by

looking at site history and what it was used in the past; Phase 2, to see what type of soil

or ground water contamination is detected; 9 test holes where excavated and found only 2

test pits to have basic virgin material and the rest was detected fill material. Phase 3, what

to do to clean up.

Victor Antra is concerned about contaminated soil since one test hole had garbage and an

oil order. Victor also had a concern regarding underground streams

The water from Moose Hill Road wasn’t addressed as to where it goes.

The existing house was at one point a school. The historical society has no plans on

restoring it. Victor Antra has concerns regarding the age of the house which may have

lead paint and asbestos that would have to be dealt with during the demolition. The

property would not be a good site to disturbed and to leave as is. The size of the lot isn’t

a good fit for all the constructions proposed. There is no mention of sizes of the building,

terminals, containers and parking.

Read article regarding propane tanks at a Wells College.

Anthony Cafiero from 462 Granite Rd. Guilford, CT and I am a retired engineer and a

speaker for the interveners.

March 12 2014 IWC Meeting

1. In the August 6, 2007 IWC decision to approve a regulated activity in the construction of a 30’ x 20’ barn and two fenced turnouts within the 100 foot jurisdictional review area, IWC placed the following condition on petitioner Pasquale Montana:

“ALL INSTALLATION SHALL BE DONE BY HAND” Copy of the certified letter is available for submittal Ref: Waldo Letter 3/5/14 note # 5 – Approximately 120 cubic yards of septic sand will be placed beneath the stormwater galleries. An additional 30 cubic yards of bank run gravel or similar free draining material will be placed underneath the rain garden detail. Existing material will be excavated and replaced. All excavated material will be deposited off site.



of 18

Ref: Waldo Letter 3/11/14 note #2 – Rain Garden to be excavated prior to construction to in order to serve as a Temporary Sediment Trap -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Ref: IWC Application page 6-6 Item 19 – applicant has indicated “probable

effects of changes on both vegetation and wildlife. No data has been introduced detailing the stated changes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Ref: Southwest Conservation District 2/18/14 correspondence received by IWC 2/28/14 reviewing proposed site plan signed Roman Mrozinski Executive Director p 1.

Wilbraham and Menlo soils (USDA soil #6 present on the Northwest side of the parcel) are very deep and either poorly or very poorly drained. Additionally, Wilbraham soils are redoxamorphic indicating that the soil has been staturated even if not observed as such at the time of testing. Ref: Same Southwest Conservation District 2/18/14 correspondence received by IWC 2/28/14 signed Roman Mrozinski Executive Director – pg 2.

USDA soil #40B Ludlow soils are very deep moderately well drained soils….................Ludlow soils have a seasonally high water table at 1.5 to 2.5 feet from late fall to spring. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer and subsoil and is slow to very slow in the substratum. Waste disposal systems such as septic tank absorption fields generally do not function satisfactorily because of seasonal high water table. Careful and costly design and installation are required to insure that septic systems function optimally and are not flooded by the seasonal high water table. Recommendation to relocate septic system to NE corner of parcel.

Ref : CLA Engineering 1/24/14 Soil Report – signed Robert Russo – Soil Engineer – pg 2 Rt1 and Moose Hill Road both contribute to on site wetlands surface water runoff to the on-site wetlands. The surface water from the site enters the wetland as sheet flow along much of the wetland edge The wetland soils mapped by NRCS are of the Wilbraham and Menlo Series. These soils are poorly drained and stony. Ref: Waldo & Associates Watershed map dated 1/3/13 section E “SOILS”

amended 1/15/14 – and part of applicants 1/23/14 “stormwater management report”



of 18

Wilbraham & Menlo Soils noted as soil type 6 on site plan are extremely stony. We can therefore conclude without prejudice that soil types 6 and 40B noted

as being present on the applicants site plan Northern border are poor draining soils

Submit pictures on iPad

Pictures of an un-named rain storm in 2007 on the Northeast side of the subject parcel showing considerable flooding of the NorthEast portion of the site and suggesting considerable water flowing across the above mentioned poorly draining soils on the NorthWest portion of the site and onto the impervious surface proposed by the applicants site plan which is not included in any of the stormwater modeling data. _________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Ref : CLA Engineering 1/24/14 Soil Report – signed Robert Russo – Soil Engineer – p9

“Flood flows that enter the site from the North side of Rt 1 are carried to the on site pond via a channelized stream that enters the pond from the North” “Storm water discharges from proposed impervious surfaces will be primarily infiltrated however flows from storm events greater than one inch may be discharged through the existing vegetated buffers “ The heart of the applicants stormwater management system is that of a catch basins feeding into an engineered grit separator

Why is there no stormwater test pit shown in the site plan?

Should the stormwater maintenance procedures proposed as once yearly by the applicant not be carried out as detailed in the Waldo Assoc Jan 23 2014 Stormwater Management Report, what would be the effect on Wetlands of a failed water treatment system?

Discussion of proposed grit separator design and installation. How does this design prevent non point source water pollution including petroleum products from motor vehicles? (Pg 12 soil report).

HANDOUT OF NAPKIN DRAWING RE: GRIT SEPARATOR Oil separator



of 18

1. The grit separator inlet pipe and outlet pipe was changed from 18” diameter to 12” diameter in latest March 5 2014 site plan.

2. Noting that groundwater is shown in the site plan drawing detail marked AA at approximately 101 feet of elevation under the storm water galleries proposed, the adjacent oil/grit separator tank is likely to have groundwater at or near the same elevation. In fact elevation shown at finish grade above the grit separator tank is 106 feet.

The cross sectional view of the oil/grit separator detail represents outside tank

dimensions at 6’3” plus an unspecified height for manhole frames and covers to

finished grade – again at approximately 106 feet of elevation. Allowing an

extremely conservative 12” height for the manhole frames and covers to the top of

the tank and an unspecified distance from the top of the tank down to the top of

the (now) 12 inch outlet pipe (no dimension given in detail), we can speculate that

the top of the outlet pipe is 24” (12” + 6” tank wall + 6” to top of inlet pipe) under

finished grade or at 104’ elevation. A pipe diameter of 12” will therefore have a

bottom elevation of 103’ as shown in the handout. (An 18” pipe will have a

bottom elevation of 102.5’).

Noting that the gravity fed outlet pipe from the grit separator to the stormwater

galleries (run of approximately 15 feet by scale) feeds galleries at 103.1 feet of

elevation as show in Section AA of the site plan, one has to conclude that static

outlet water will back up and flood the grit separator to this same elevation

rendering it useless. We believe that this is the reason why the applicant changed

the diameter of the grit separator outlet pipe from 18”which would sit 6” lower

than that of the 12” outlet – essentially in an effort to mitigate and minimize this

potential.

Furthermore, seasonal variations in the groundwater table may further negatively

impact the operation and function of this design. We do not know the season in

which the water table elevations were measured.

Note the Stormwater Management Report data for 2, 5,10,25,50 and 100 year

storms and associated elevations embedded in the handout. All noted underground

storage peak elevations are above 104’ – the top elevation of the 12” outlet pipe

suggesting flooding of the grit separator rendering it useless.

Stormwater catch basins are located in grades from 110 to 106 feet of proposed impervious surface. There are no curbs included on the impervious surface to funnel or guide sheet flow water into or toward any particular catch basin suggesting that basin CB5 may become overwhelmed with incoming water and backup thus introducing untreated groundwater into the nearby wetlands. Permanent diversions on the South and East side of the proposed impervious



of 18

surface have been recommended by the executive director of the Southwest Conservation District – Roman Mrozinski received IWC Feb 28th 2014.

3. Additionally, Roof leaders from the proposed new office building have now been added to the storm water treatment input.

4. Note that grit separators cannot remove road salts, ice prevention chemicals used on State Roads, as is Rt 1, or dissolved or emulsified substances from motor vehicles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ref: Waldo Letter 3/11/14 note #5 – Driven wooden piles are noted for the (foundation of) the 30,000 gallon propane tanks if required.

Citing data from the American Timber Council, timber pilings are treated with preservatives including Creosote (tar and bituminous coal), Chromated Copper Arsenate ( CCA – a formulation of copper, chromium and arsenic dissolved in an acidic aqueous solution), Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate ( ACZA – improved formulation of original Ammonia, Copper and Arsenic formulation), and lastly a combination of Pentacholorophenol and Copper Naphthenate.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. As stated in Notice of Intervention dated March 10 2014, we feel that the application has:

Failed to submit an adequate storm water treatment maintenance procedure

Failed to provide a construction plan detailing how heavy equipment activities will avoid impacting nearby wetlands

Failed to submit a detailed demolition plan for the existing structure on the subject property and/or certified if proposed demolition will be carried out by a Connecticut State Licensed demolition contractor

Failed to provide environmental testing plans identify and/or insure any asbestos, lead paint and other toxic materials from the 100+ year old structure located on the subject property are disposed of properly

Failed to submit engineering studies and drawings to determine impact of the construction of, and foundation for the storage tanks in the buffer zone.

Failed to submit an environmental phase 1 and phase 2 study

Failed to provide sufficient test pit data representing the variability of numerous soils referred to on page two of CLA Report and reiterated in the test pit profiles on the site plans.



of 18

Failed to provide a general permit for the discharge of storm water under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as required for Industrial and Commercial Construction Activities.

Applicant has failed to consider the environmental impact on three inland wetlands and watercourses designated as “major” by the IWC – Hoadley Creek, Towner Swamp, and Wolf Swamp (See Appendix A to Guilford Town Code – list of major inland wetlands and watercourses).

Anthony Cafiero referenced the letter from Waldo’s regarding the septic sand that will be

brought in and some excavating. There are concerns of what material will be taking out

and what affect that will have on the site. They would like details of how and when this

would be taken care of. The relocation of the septic system, the areas of fill and

wetlands have not been addressed. Comments have been made about the south side

drainage. Anthony Cafiero has submitted photos of a no name storm with significant

drainage issues. This was also not included in the report. Why hasn’t there been any

storm water test pits. Who is monitoring this system? Anthony discussed the submission

of a map he has done, but not to scale, which refers to the oil and grit separator and

groundwater elevation.

No questions when asked at this time by the commission and the commission would like

to ask their questions when they are done presenting.

S. Williams – asked if there was more interveners to speak

Anthony Cafiero said yes.

K.Magee told the applicant and interveners that whatever is submitted to the commission

becomes part of the permanent record, so make copies for your records as well.

S. Williams made a motion to continue the public hearing for 2772 Boston Post Road

LLC to March 25, 2014. S. Williams made motion and seconded by Cmsr C. Orcutt, all

in favor.

D. EXTENSION AND TRANSFER OF PERMIT:

1. John Horton, Northern Height, Crooked Hill Rd, Map 129, Lot 2, Zone R- 8 –

renewal of existing permit-transfer of ownership.

2. Bob Scott, 40 Edwin Court, Map 93, Lot 49, Zone R-8 – renewal of permit –

transfer of permit

Upon a motion by Commissioner C. Orcutt and seconded by Commissioner S. Williams

it was unanimously voted to transfer the above.



of 18

E. APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED: (Walk April 5, 2014)

(APPLICANTS NEED NOT ATTEND RECEIPTS)

1. Philip S. Walker, 107 Cindy Lane, Map 86, Lot 34A, Zone R-6 – Regulated

activity. Control invasive aquatic plant in Fence Rock Lake with herbicide and possible

algal bloom with algaecide. Request to waive fee.

2. Towering Oaks, 800 Boston Post Rd., Map 047, Lot 022, Zone TS,SC,R –

Modification – constructing a bypass lane along the north side of route US 1 (Boston

Post Rd)

3. Sunset Creek Development, 353 Step Stone Rd., Map 092, Lot 015, Zone R-4&5 –

Boundary Clarification – for future development

Upon a motion by Commissioner S. Williams and seconded by Commissioner P. Mei it

was unanimously voted to receive the applications and set a walk date of April 5, 2014.

F. BILLS

1. Shore Publishing – $50.00 (Public hearing – for 2 notices in paper)

Upon a motion by Commissioner S. Williams and seconded by Commissioner P. Mei, it

was voted to pay the bills.

INFAVOR: Scott Williams, Richard Meier, Caleb Orcutt, Walter Corbiere, P, Mei, D.

Williams and K. Clark,

OPPOSED: R. Meier

ABSTAINED: None


G. CORRESPONDENCE / OTHER BUSINESS

1. DDR site inspection report

2. Benton’s Knoll inspection report

3. Connecticut Federation of Lakes

4. Southern Conservation District

5. Letter – Regional Water Authority

After discussion with item #5, Regional Water Authority, the commission decided to

approve K. Magee to put a letter together regarding a grant letter and for Commissioner

S. Williams to sign.



of 18

H. INVESTIGATION/ ENFORCEMENT ACTION (Muddy Boot Patrol Report

from IWEO ):

1.

I. AUTHORIZED AGENT APPROVALS

1. Russo, Keith, 1 Shoreline Drive, Map 35, Lot 14, Zone I-1, regulated activity –

construction of 10’ x 20” masonry dumpster enclosures and minor fencing.

Inland Wetland Administrator Kevin Magee discussed the above application.

J. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

1. February 12, 2014 regular meeting

Upon a motion by Commission C. Orcutt and seconded by Commissioner R. Meier, it

was voted to approve the regular meeting minutes of February 12, 2014


Williams, K. Clark

OPPOSED: None

ABSTAINED: None


2. March 8, 2014 walk meeting

Upon a motion by Commissioner K. Clark and seconded by Commissioner C. Orcutt, it

was voted to approve the walk minutes of March 8, 2014.


Williams, K. Clark

OPPOSED: None

ABSTAINED: None


Then, with no further business before it, upon a motion by Commissioner. C. Orcutt and

seconded by Commissioner. R. Meier, it was unanimously voted to adjourn the meeting

of the Guilford Inland Wetlands Commission at approximately 10:35 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michelle C. Nazario

Recording Secretary



of 18

*NOTE: Please be advised that at this time the following ... · 3/12/2014 · commission and the...

Documents

Transcript of *NOTE: Please be advised that at this time the following ... · 3/12/2014 · commission and the...