HomeMy WebLinkAboutSite Plan of Development (152) l '06 (f ffO6
ECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTH iy
! C 2 3 2005
�auth VVirldSOr
INLANDERVATION COMM SSIION
INLAND WETLANDt, , COURSES AND CONSERVATION APPLICATI
Application # - P- eceived )�rr
INSTRUCTIONS
I. Fifteen applicati n with map and plans (2 copie hall be submitted
together with the fee et forth in the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and
Conservation Re ations, Town of South Windsor. (See Regulations, Section VII -
2. The So t Windsor In Wetlands, Watercours and Co se ate
should be reviewed with respect to the stand ds and criteria "r� pp11 a '
Evaluation. (See Regulations, Sections VII - X)
3. The applicant understands that this application is to be considered complete only
when all information and documents required by the Ag n y ve been submitted.
The applicant shall also complete the state filing form.
A. Applicant's Name: — Evergreen Walk, LLC /
Address: 1109 Rose Lane, Virginia Beach Vir -a 23491 ,�4v -elf
Phone: (home) (work) (757)422-5566 (fax)
B. Legal owner's name: Evergreen Walk LLC
Address 1109 Rose Lane, Virginia Beach, VA 23451
Phone (home) (work) (757)422-5566 (fax) '
(List additional owners, addresses, and phone numbers on bac o apple on)&`�
C. If the applicant is not the owner of the subject property; a lette�thecowner(ss
authorizing the proposed regulated activity set forth in the app ation must .
accompany this form and will be part of the application. ctx_�t
D. Project Name (if a c o 2700 Tamarack Avenue
1. Contact Person (if furt er *nfor a ion- s ne ed)
Alan F. Lam on (work) (860)568-4030 (fax)(cn)5csq-512q
E. The geographical location of the property which is to be affected by the proposed
�� regulated activities including a description of the land in sufficient detail to allow
(� dentification of the property on the I land Wetland and Watercourse Map.
Assessor's map # 27 Parcel # 15 Zone RRcn
F. Names of all abutting property owners from records in Town Clerk's office. (use
separate sheet if necessary)
On Sheet G1.0.3
G. Have you notified all abutting property owners (from records in Town Clerk's office)
by certified letter that an application is pending before the Agency?
Will notify by December 29, 2005.
Q ** (you are required to supply a copy of the letter with the list of the names of
the abutters).**
H. Purpose and description of all proposed regulated activity(s) including amount of
disturbance in square feet and types of fill and the time element involved:
Road Crossing (Tamarack Avenue - North and West of proposed building) , parkin{_
within upland review area.
I. A class A-2 map of the property drawn to 1" = 40', showing the area to be
developed, extent of the wetlands and watercourses affected, topography, existing
and proposed activities and names and locations of adjacent property owners must
be submitted.
J. Amount of regulated ar a disturbance and typ s of fill .(including wetlands and
regulated buffers). upl nd review area distu ce 1.82 acres, detention basin
disturbanc 2.05 acrY gravel fill (15,000 cy) .
K. Acreage of etlands and watercourses in regulated areas to be altered:
(1,420 OV 0.036 acres
L. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses to be created: 0 acres
M. Lineal feet of proposed stream alteration: 0 feet
N. Total land area of project and percr
tage which is wetlands: 5.129 acre site;
.24 acres of wetland (4.70 of si e
O. Identify all other permits or approvals that have been issued, applied for, or
required with respect to the proposed activity set forth in this application. (These
may include but not be limited to, local Planning & Zoning, Zoning Board of
Appeals, D.E.P., F.E.M.A., D.O.T., The Army Corps of Engineers, and any other
State, Local or Federal Permits.) PZC-General Plan of Development (approved)
PZC-Site Plan (to be applied for)
STC - Certificate of Traffic Safety (issued)
8
BEC-22-05 10 :34 AM FLH. ARCHITECTURE P• 06-A5
P. The applicant (or designated representative) hereby attests that a sign will be
posted at the following location(s) Demme Street & Buckland Road
BY ent _Name Alan F. Lamson
on o before th 110 g dr January 6, 2006
Signature:
Alan Lamson
The s gns must be displayed continuously for at least ten (10) days prior to
hedul d meeting (see Regulations, Section 7.3a)
he. undersigned hereby applies for the regulated activities listed in paragraph H
above, for a Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation permit for the property
desc: ribed herein and confirms that:
. She/lie is familiar with the currently effective Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and
Cons rvation Regulations of the Town of South Windsor.
. She/lie understands that at any time during the review period, the Agency may
requi the applicant to provide more information about the wetlands and/or
wate ourses in question and/or any proposed activity.
. All in ormation submitted in the application for review shall be considered factual,
or in he case of anticipated activity, binding. A knowing failure of the applicant or
any o her/his agents to provide correct information, or performance exceeding the
levels of activity anticipated, shall be sufficient grounds for revocation of any permit
undez these regulations.
By making this application, the applicant gives permission to the Inland Wetlands,
Watei courses and Conservation Commission members and/or its representative to
enter the portions of the premises which are subject of the application for the
purpc se of inspect' n and investigation and otherwise evaluating the merits of the
Oppli ati n oth ore and after a final decision has been issued.
i of of Property
gree lk C Date December 23, 2005
John ng ra, Me r
my Aut orized
igriatur of can —^ —�—�------� �
vergreeI W LLC Date December 23, 2005
y John i erra, er --�—
my Aut orized
9
KLEINFEL ® ER
Employee-owned
WETLAND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AND MITIGATION REPORT
OFFICE SOUTH
BUCKLAND ROAD AND DEMING STREET
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
DECEMBER 2005
epared by: Prepared for:
3CIKleinfelder Evergreen Walk, LLC
Lamberton Road, Suite 201 1109 Rose Lane
indsor, CT 06095 Virginia Beach,VA 23451
60) 683-4200
RECEIVED
GSCIKleinfelder Project No. 0510203 JAN 18 2006
South
INLAND V5_1!.i'••::c.:_r._ a.^v
CONS"�•..,.-iGi;';::)iviviS.ii1i4
KLEINEELDER 99 Lamberton Rd., Ste. 201,Windsor, CT 06095 (800) 929-4472 toll free (860) 683-4200 phone (860) 683-4206 fax
Wetland Impact Assessment
and Mitigation Report
Office South
Buckland Road and Deming Street
South Windsor, Connecticut
I
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Th following personnel prepared and reviewed this report for accuracy, content and quality of
pre entation:
F.
Z`2-v^-c s-
Je e Shamas, CE, SS, CPWS Date
S+o Project Manager
0510203
i
i
it
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE INFORMATION.....................................................................................................................1
2.1 Topography...............................................................................................................................l
2.2 Geology.....................................................................................................................................1
2.3 Existing Site Drainage..............................................................................................................1
3.0 LANDSCAPE..................................................................................................................................2
i
i
4.0 1' ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ...................................................................................................2
4.1 Uplands—Early Successional Field(Previous cultivation) ........................................................3
4.2 Plum Gulley Brook Riverine Wetland(Wetland 1)...................................................................3
4.3 Shrub/Scrub Slope Wetland(Wetland 2)...................................................................................3
4.4 Unnamed Riverine Wetland(Wetland 3)...................................................................................4
5.0 WETLAND/WATERCOURSE FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION....................................................4
5.1 FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION.......................................................................................................4
5.1 Riparian Buffer Functions (Unnamed Watercourse).................................................................7
6.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES..........................................................................8
7.0 PROPOSED REGULATED ACTIVITIES, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION..................................8
7.1 Description of Activities............................................................................................................8
7.2 Potential Impacts .......................................................................................................................9
7.3 Mitigation Measures Proposed..................................................................................................9
7.4 Alternatives................................................................................................................................9
8. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................10
9. LIMITATIONS
10.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................12
I
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Ecological Communities Map
Figure 3 Wetland Mitigation Areas
A PENDICES
j Appendix A Site Photographs
i
i
i
I
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
E GSC leinfelder prepared this Ecological and Wetland Impact Assessment on behalf of Evergreen Walk,
LLC. The project includes a proposed professional building development,known as "Office South"
(here nafter referred to as the project site)located in South Windsor, Connecticut(see Figure 1). The
pure se of this report is to provide a description of on-site ecological communities, an assessment of
pote tial wetland impacts, and evaluate and provide an alternatives analysis and mitigation for
` unav idable and minimized impacts that may occur with the project. This report is based on a design
layo t by FLB Architecture&Planning,Inc.
I
The roject consists of a proposed professional medical office building and associated parking area, an
acce s boulevard from Deming Street, stormwater management measures and wetland mitigation
enha cements. This project includes approximately 1,420 square feet of alterations to a wetland and a
wetl nd/watercourse system as well as alterations to Upland Review Areas primarily consisting of old
field habitat. In order to minimize unavoidable impacts to the wetland/watercourse area, spanning the
wate course and wetland is proposed,via a bottomless box culvert. Mitigation, which includes a
com ination of direct wetland and Upland Review Area enhancements, is being provided to offset the
imp cts to the wetland/watercourse and Upland Review Areas. Stormwater management measures
incl de swirl technology structures, level spreader outlets, a detention basin that will be planted with
native wetland vegetation with micro-habitats and roof drains to be discharged to level spreaders. These
! measures have been incorporated into the project design to renovate surface water runoff prior to
reac ing adjacent wetlands/watercourses and allow for continual hydrological inputs of surface water to
E thes resource areas.
2.0 SITE INFORMATION
2.1 Topography
The project site is located on a gently sloping terrain with a western solar aspect. The project site
mai tains an approximately 35-foot drop in elevation over roughly 660 feet, which is equivalent to a 5.3
per ent slope.
2.2 Geology
Th project site lies within the Portland Arkose bedrock parent material (Rogers, 1985), the most
co on sedimentary rock of the Central Lowlands. Arkose(known as brownstone)is a reddish-brown
sed mentary rock containing quartz, feldspar, and rock fragments, and is frequently quarried for use as
bui ding stone.
Su ficial soils beneath the project site comprise glacial till, fine sandy loams (uplands) and outwash silt
loa s(wetlands) (Stone et. al., 1992). The reddish-brown surflcial soils exhibit the color of the parent
be rock material.
2.31 Existing Site Drainage
Thy project site lies within the Podunk River sub-regional drainage basin(Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection [CTDEP] Geographic Information Systems [GIS] Data, 2003). However,the
project site drains to Plum Gulley Brook within the immediate micro-watershed area. The open field
community, a slope wetland and riverine wetland system drain to Plum Gulley. Plum Gulley receives
drainage from the residentially developed areas to the west of the project site. Plum Gulley Brook flows
in a southwesterly direction from the project site and ultimately merges with the Podunk River.
f
Sol i'-1 i:<:C'Kk ill leIdc1, 20,
,,
�.,C?t?L!l tr,:, !L � ",•i1i1C'C;1 '.1.'rt
3.0 LANDSCAPE
Landscape ecology provides an understanding of the landscape mosaic, existing interrelationships
between the matrix of habitat patches, and other landscape features within a macro and micro-scale
scope. The macro-scale discussion provides information beyond the limits of the project site while the
micro-scale discusses the immediate development site.
3.1 Macro-scale
f
The project site is located within a highly heterogeneous landscape mosaic composed of vast old field
habitats, forested upland and wetland habitats,recent and older residential and commercial
developments, and a matrix of local roads. The landscape is highly fragmented with habitat patches that
likely serve to provide nesting and habitat for generalist or edge wildlife species. The convoluted shape
of the forest patches increases the amount of edge zones and prevents interior forest species from
residing in these habitats, except temporarily during migration. Therefore, it is expected that the
predominant wildlife species present in these forested patches are generalist(e.g., edge) species. The
hedgerow corridors that exist are low quality,predominately dead ends disconnected from habitat
patches of higher quality. Species utilizing these hedgerows likely include small mammal predators that
can travel the corridors and prey on birds or other small mammals, especially within the open field
communities. The hedgerow perches, as well as existing building roof tops, can be used as hunting sites
for birds of prey as they locate small mammals and birds in the upland and wetland open field/meadow
community.
Using the Hydrogeomorphic method(HGM; Brinson 1993) of wetland classification, the area
watersheds include the following wetland types: riverine, depression, slope and lacustrine wetlands.
M These wetlands include a variety of vegetative cover types consisting of emergent meadow(old field),
shrub/scrub, and deciduous forests. The riverine systems (Plum Gulley Brook,Podunk River,Whaples
` Brook) are predominantly perennial, unconsolidated bottoms and do provide some limited finfish
habitat.
i
3.2 Micro-Scale
The northern portion of the project site abuts the boulevard that is part of the ECHN site development.
The existing ecological community where the development is proposed consists primarily of an upland
old field(meadow)habitat. Convoluted wetland habitats occur along and within the forest edges and
include old field(meadow) habitats, shrub/scrub and deciduously forested communities. A riverine
wetland just north of the proposed Medical Office building flows from Buckland Road and continues
down through the slope wetland system on site and discharges to Plum Gulley Brook. This on-site
riverine system receives stormwater drainage from Buckland Road. These wetland communities include
both native and state-listed non-native plant species. A variety of grassland bird species occur within the
upland and wetland meadows including warblers, swallows, grackles, starlings,American robin,
goldfinch, and red-winged blackbirds. Based on the time of year, some songbird species have migrated
to wanner climates,therefore observations were limited. Typical generalist avian species occur within
the shrub/scrub and forested wetlands, including catbirds, chickadees, eastern phoebe,blue jay, cowbird,
American robins, woodpeckers, crow, owl,hawks, sparrows and others. Mammals expected and
observed on the project site include red fox, coyote, turkey,woodchuck,raccoon, opossum, skunk,
squirrel, and white-tail deer.
4.0 ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
The ecological communities of the project site were identified by field observation and aerial
photographs. A total of four ecological communities were identified, of which one is upland and
r
f. ii7we=south (3S''K.lci;tI"k'Id i% n;0 er 2(1C15
Sottl.) i`ll.]ti:+':'. Coiluecu"Cu'll
three are wetlands/watercourses. A list of the communities is presented below, and their
locations are shown on Figure 2.
I
4.1 Uplands—Early Successional Field(Previous cultivation)
This community consists of a highly disturbed open field that has been graded over approximately the
last year to accommodate a detention basin and water quality swales. Predominant vegetation consists
of grasses and herbaceous volunteer species such as goldenrods(Solidago spp.),ragweed(Ambrosia
artemisiifolia), field clover(Trifolium campestre), wild strawberry(Fragaria virginiana) and others.
This community is bordered by the unnamed riverine wetland system north of the proposed office
building and a slope wetland system to the west. The edge habitat along the border of the field and the
wetlands could provide habitat for many wildlife species, as these transitional zones are typically
wildlife sinks and provide food, cover and nest sites. However,the highly disturbed conditions of the
edge zones reduce the ability of the edges to provide a high-quality habitat. Some species observed and
r expected were noted in Section 3.1 and include warblers,bluebird,blue jay,robin, swallows, cardinal,
deer,rabbit, and other small mammals and birds.
4.2 Plum Gulley Brook Riverine Wetland (Wetland 1)
This perennial watercourse flows under Deming Street and discharges onto the project site, flowing in a
southerly direction. The banks of this watercourse exhibited evidence of scour and erosion(i.e.,
undercut banks, observations of exposed roots, and areas of continuous soil movement along the bank).
The substrate of the channel is composed primarily of fines (silt, sand). On-site inputs to the
watercourse include the upland field and Wetland 2. Plum Gulley maintains some vegetated riparian
buffer along its length on the property; however, the buffer in many areas significantly lacks a well-
developed forested buffer zone that could otherwise provide many riparian buffer functions (i.e.,
nutrient renovation, sediment trapping, flood and stormwater modification,wildlife habitat, etc.).
V Vegetation along this watercourse includes scattered trees such as red maple(Ater rubrum) and Eastern
` cottonwood(Populus deltoides). The understory layer is dominated by the non-native invasive species
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)with native silky dogwood(Cornus amomum). This riverine
community provides habitat for similar avian and small mammal species listed in the Upland
community. Streams can provide habitat for some amphibians such as the gray tree frog(Hyla
versicolor), green frogs (Rana clamitans), garter snakes,northern dusky salamander(Desmognathus
Justus) and two-lined salamander(Eurycea bislineata), and a variety of aquatic invertebrates. While
these species were not observed on site they may occur up or downstream of the site.
4.3 Shrub/Scrub Slope Wetland(Wetland 2)
I This community is juxtaposed to Plum Gulley Brook and extends upslope and easterly,then turns to the
south and continues in a south-southwesterly direction, generally paralleling the Brook. Overall, this
wetland slopes gently in a westerly direction toward Plum Gulley Brook with an overall topographical
elevation change of approximately 20 feet from the easterly limit of the wetland to the Brook. The
majority of this habitat is in an early successional stage;however, some larger trees, such as red maple
(Ater rubrum) and cottonwoods (Populus deltoides), are present. Portions of the understory canopy are
relatively dense,while other areas containing purple loosestrife(Lythrum salicaria), goldenrods and
brambles are sparse. Silky dogwood(Cornus amomum), arrowood viburnum(Viburnum recognitum)
and the state-listed invasive species multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), along with loostrife, are the
dominant shrubs throughout the community. The herbaceous layer of this wetland contains species such
as a variety of grasses,tussock sedge(Carex stricta),rush(Juncus effuses) and wood nettles and
saplings of the loostrife,brambles, and dogwood. Wildlife using this habitat is presented in Section 3.1
and 4.2 above.
W
Clii'ic° Si L!ta� GrSC:F;,,(i11CJdcr Z G0
{sviSi�� �'�'I:1L15;,:Y{', �,,C.'•3.11�C17C1l.
4.4 Unnamed Riverine Wetland (Wetland 3)
This unnamed watercourse originates in the northeasterly portion of the project site and receives
stormwater drainage from Buckland Road and lands east of Buckland Road. The bank of the
watercourse is relatively steep in places and highly eroded, and maintains a moderate canopy shading it
from abrupt thermal fluctuations and provides some habitat for local wildlife. This watercourse flows in
a westerly direction and continues to flow into and through Wetland 2. Similar wildlife and vegetative
species occur within this wetland as occurs in the other wetlands on the project site.
5.0 WETLAND/WATERCOURSE FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION
Wetland functions and their perceived value are the basis for the legal protection of wetlands throughout
the country at local, state, and federal levels. Biophysical elements such as a wetland's landscape
!
position, geology,hydrology, substrate, and vegetation determine the wetland functions and to what
capacity they are performed. Due to the differing biophysical characteristics between on-site wetlands,
the functions the wetlands provide and the capacity to perform those functions vary. To better
understand these differences, a functional evaluation was completed for the wetland areas identified at
the project site.
5.1 FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION
The completed evaluation was based on The Rapid Assessment Procedure for Assessing Wetlands'
Functional Capacity; however,reference wetlands were not utilized(Hollens and Magee 1998). This
method assesses the relative importance of the wetlands for performing functions and provides a logical
I' framework for observations, a structure for standardizing results, and a basis for achieving repeatable
results among users. The initial step of the Assessment Procedure is to choose an assessment area.
These areas at the project site are labeled W1 through W3. These areas were chosen based on their
hydrogeomorphic (HGM)class and correspondence with the ecological community type. However,
k other factors, such as proximity and connection to other wetlands and slope, were also considered. Each
Wetland Assessment Area(WAA) and designated functional indicators (hydrologic, landscape, soil, and
vegetation variables) of the Assessment Procedure was characterized for a range of conditions based on
field investigations and reviews of topographic surveys and aerial photographs.
Seven HGM classes were discussed and agreed upon by the numerous wetland researchers that attended
a workshop in 1991 sponsored by the U.S.Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station(WES).
These include depression,riverine, slope,mineral soil flats, organic soil flats, estuarine fringe and
lacustrine fringe. A subsequent workshop was held in 1992, at which the following eight primary
wetland functions were identified and agreed upon by researchers:
➢ Modification of groundwater discharge
➢ Modification of groundwater recharge
➢ Storm and floodwater storage
➢ Modification of stream flow
➢ Modification of water quality
➢ Export of detritus
➢ Contribution to abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation
➢ Contribution to abundance and diversity of wetland fauna
Each on-site wetland was assessed to determine its capacity to provide the following eight functions. A
summary of the assessment for each wetland and function is provided at the end of this section. The
following is a brief description of each function.
Modification of Groundwater Discharge
Modification of groundwater discharge is the capacity of a wetland to influence the amount of water
moving from the ground to the surface. This can affect groundwater and surface water supplies and
05]020,11E)Bi- c!,r'.!'c:_'rI',^;a11�:1:1.C'7�O",l)5 f'age.y.
Ofii_�'sc,:ith 6SC K.Icir ieadcr )c:err3 x;r 2005,
SOLIO'l 1 71.lfiS()T. Cori-_.Csii l !
recreational activities. Typically, a perennial inlet and outlet indicate that a wetland is directly linked
with the regional water table and has a high capacity to perform this function.
Evaluation: Wetland 1 (Plum Gulley Brook)has high capacity to perform this function in that it has a
perennial inlet due to its morphological and hydrodynamic features (unidirectional,horizontal flow).
The slope characteristics of Wetland 2 contribute to this function moderately as slope wetlands slow the
discharge of groundwater to the surface through its low permeability and transmissivity of the soils.
This results in a long, constant groundwater discharge. Wetland 2 is not rated any higher based on its
disturbed conditions which can prevent greater amount of modification of the groundwater. Wetland 3
also contributes,but at a lesser degree than Wetland 1,because it exhibits intermittent flows and is
considerably smaller in length, which reduces its overall performance. Therefore, it is considered to
contribute at a moderate level.
` Modification of Groundwater Recharge
Modification of groundwater recharge is the capacity of a wetland to influence the amount of surface
water moving to groundwater aquifers and thereby affecting public and private groundwater supplies.
The subsoil and location of a particular site plays a significant role in the ability for on-site wetlands to
modify groundwater recharge. With the exception of slope and riverine wetlands in the glaciated
northeast, all wetlands have some capacity to contribute to this function. Poorly developed or no micro-
relief is an indication that the water table is below the substrate of a wetland for most of the growing
season and that groundwater recharge is occurring. Wetlands with perennial outlets are discharge areas
'I and cannot be recharge areas, even seasonally.
f Evaluation: Wetland 1,Wetland 2 and Wetland 3 do not contribute to this function based on their
hydrodynamic flows and morphological features; therefore,these wetlands are rated as low for this
function.
M
Storm and Floodwater Storage
Storm and floodwater storage is the capacity of a wetland to detain or retain stormwater on its surface.
This benefits society by preventing storm damage and the potential loss of life and/or property. All
wetlands, except slope wetlands, have some capacity to contribute to this function. Depression wetlands
' have the highest potential for providing this function.
Evaluation: Three major influences affect the functioning capacity of riverine wetlands(Wetland 1) for
storm and floodwater storage: 1.Frequency for overbank flooding; 2. Roughness of surface(i.e.,micro-
relief and vegetation density); and 3. Gradient(topography) of wetland surface. This wetland likely
overtops its banks frequently; however,portions of the floodplain area do not have a high degree of
surface roughness. Plum Gulley maintains a relatively flat gradient through the project site and
therefore adds to the ability to contribute to this capacity. This wetland contributes at a moderate
capacity for this function,based on its lack of roughness and small length of watercourse on the project
site. Slope wetlands (Wetland 2) do not contribute to this function based on their morphological
characteristics. Slope wetlands may actually be generators of overbank flooding because they are
predominantly saturated and direct precipitation may quickly run off to downstream channels (Plum
Gulley). Therefore,Wetland 2 is considered to contribute at a low capacity. Wetland 3 consists of
eroded steep banks, lacks an effective flood area to slow or store flood flows, and lacks surface
roughness. It is essentially a flow-through system and therefore contributes at a low-moderate capacity.
Modification of Stream Flow
Modification of stream flow is the capacity of a wetland to produce or affect the hydrology of a
downgrade stream. This function may affect societal values related to recreation,public water supply,
flood control, and prevention of storm damage. Wetlands that have a high capacity to store storm and
floodwater and to modify groundwater discharge have a high capacity to modify stream flow. Slope
wetlands that are hydraulically isolated from down slope wetlands (no outlet)have no modification of
stream flow.
i)�1(J2Q;TT?13E:�,-erx�.r-earrr��',�I;tii;LC`�Io�(i� i'a c°
south 4 Unds":!r.
Evaluation: Based on the description above,Wetland 1 contributes moderately to this function. Wetland
2 can contribute at a moderate-high capacity for this function because it is connected to a perennial
watercourse(Plum Gulley) and can provide stream base flow. Wetland 3 contributes at a low capacity
because of its rating at storing storm and floodwaters.
Modification of Water Quality
Modification of water quality is the removal of suspended and dissolved solids from surface water and
dissolved solids from groundwater and conversion into other forms,plant or animal biomass, or gases.
This function may contribute to societal values related to public water supply,recreation, and aesthetics.
The primary mechanisms for the removal of suspended solids are sedimentation and filtration.
Dissolved constituents can be removed or made unavailable for downstream plant use via adsorption
and absorption by soil particles, uptake by vegetation, loss to the atmosphere by microbiological
processes, or a combination of the three. Flow characteristics and residence time are the primary
wetland characteristics affecting the ability of a wetland to perform this function. Generally, depression,
lacustrine fringe and flat wetlands have the highest potential for performing this function because
typically the residence time of water is maximized. Riverine wetlands can modify the rate stage and
volume of stream flow within the river channel. Conversely, slope wetlands have the least potential
because they have the least amount of residence time of water than other HGM types, especially when
their slope gradient increases and therefore the amount of water quality modification is less in slope
wetlands.
Evaluation: Wetland 1 and Wetland 3 is relatively small, contains non-native invasive plants, which
have been documented as reducing water quality renovation, has low residence time of water(flow-
through)and therefore contributes at a low capacity. As noted above, slope wetlands (Wetland 2)
contribute to this function less than other HGM wetland types, especially when their slope gradient
increases. Additionally,Wetland 2 is dominated in many areas with non-native vegetation. Thus,
Wetland 2 contributes at a low capacity for this function.
Export of Detritus
Export of detritus refers to the ability of the wetland to produce and export dissolved and particulate
organic particles to downstream aquatic ecosystems to serve as an energy source,to support their food
chain, or both. Society may value this function as it relates to food web support and ultimately nature
research and education,recreation(e.g. hunting and fishing), and the type and density of fauna
supported by the wetland. The structure and composition of the wetland's vegetation affects the
production of detritus and the degree of the wetland's surface water connection with a stream,river or
lake affects the transport of detritus. Therefore, the more productive the ecological community structure
is within a wetland as well as its relative size, adds to its contribution to this function yielding higher
values. Based on hydrogeomorphic conditions,riverine wetlands have the greatest potential for export
of detritus due to an unrestricted outlet. Depression and flat wetlands have the least potential because of
their greater potential to retain suspended sediments. Slope wetlands can contribute significantly if they
have a perennial outlet.
Evaluation: Wetland 1 and Wetland 3, although a riverine system that should rate highest, contains many
non-native plants, lacks a productive ecological structure and lacks the abundance and diversity of
wetland vegetation. These negative influences decrease the wetlands ability to generate detritus.
Therefore,Wetland 1 and Wetland 3 contribute at a low capacity for this function. Wetland 2 has the
potential to significantly contribute to this function because of its size and because it has an outlet to the
Brook; therefore,Wetland 2 is rated as moderate for this function. If the vegetative community had less
non-native plants with greater structure and abundance of native species, the functioning capacity would
increase.
I
I
05N I020 3l: R I],(Ns vo- l'fs,; 6
off" Sc All (; t. h3aiaielrcr ?_i}{;`
Contribution of Abundance and Diversity of Wetland Vegetation
Contribution to abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation is related to the number and type of
hydrophytic plants that a wetland can produce and support. Society may value this function as it relates
to environmental research and education,recreation, the type and density of fauna supported by the
wetland, and production of harvestable goods. Because wetlands support plant species that occur in
wetter and dryer(upland)habitats and species that grow only in wetland habitats (poorly drained and
very poorly drained soils),most wetlands have a high capacity to contribute to the abundance and
diversity of a landscape's vegetation. The primary variables affecting a wetland's capacity to perform
this function are its plant species diversity, its vegetation density and dominance, its water regime
diversity, and its juxtaposition to other wetlands and presence of non-native invasive species.
Evaluation: Wetland 1,Wetland 2, and Wetland 3 rate poorly or low for this function,based on their lack
of structural diversity and composition of plants. Non-native species dominate many of the wetland
areas on the project site.
Contribution to Abundance and Diversitv of Wetland Fauna
Contribution to abundance and diversity of wetland fauna is the capacity of a wetland to support large
and/or diverse populations of animal species that spend part or all of their life cycle in wetlands; either
an individual wetland or a system or network of wetlands. Society may value this function as it relates
to environmental research and education,recreation, aesthetics, and providing a source of food. A
wetland's water regime is the primary factor affecting this function, as it largely controls the dominant
vegetation type present and influences the animal movement to and within the wetland to food, cover,
and breeding areas. Other factors affecting the capacity of a wetland to contribute to the abundance and
diversity of wetland fauna are the structure and composition of the vegetation community and the
juxtaposition of the wetland to other habitat types (i.e., another wetland,upland forest, farm field,
surface waterbody, etc.) and the presence of non-native invasive species which can reduce habitat
values.
Evaluation: Based on the correlation to the previous function,the wetlands should rate low for this
function. However,Wetland 2 can be considered slightly higher in functional capacity because of its
size and greater diversity of community types (e.g., shrub/scrub and forest) on the project site. Thus,
Wetland 1 and 3 are considered to be low and Wetland 2 is rated as low-moderate.
Summary
Overall,the quality of the wetlands assessed provides a low-moderate capacity to perform the above
eight wetland functions. The mitigation plan, discussed later in this report,proposes to increase these
functional values through enhancement plantings of Wetland 2 and planting a detention basin that is
expected to add some ecological diversity to the local landscape. The detention basin, although a
stormwater feature,will provide additional habitat to the local wildlife.
5.1 Riparian Buffer Functions (Unnamed Watercourse)
Riparian buffers perform functions that protect watercourse systems from potential impacts due to
development, agriculture and other activities within riparian areas. For the purposes of this report, the
discussion of riparian buffers relates to the unnamed watercourse that is proposed to be affected by the
Boulevard accessing Office South. Typical functions of riparian buffers are presented below and are
adapted from the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, 1998.
➢ High filtration capacity—Vegetation in wetland buffers can protect the wetland from
sedimentation and pollution.
r ➢ Regulation of flow velocity—Vegetation and undisturbed soil can slow storm waters and
reduce erosion.
➢ Regulation of microclimate—Buffers can help to regulate temperature and moisture
fluctuations by providing windbreaks and shading. The control of water temperature is
extremely important for fish and other wildlife, and influences water chemistry(i.e., dissolved
t:)I3t::rer 31z��i`(.�1ai(<t.f_C`i j Pif;c°
.`�nd,cWe r 2"005
'crt�t.Ir�,Vi�rir:��r. C'ct7xu�ciict!�,
oxygen). Forested buffers can help to maintain evapotranspiration relationships and the
humidities favored by some wetland species.
➢ Maintenance of wetland hydrology—Trees and understory vegetation in wetland buffers help
to maintain wetland hydrology at near-natural levels through evapotranspiration.
➢ Protection of habitat—Vegetation provides a buffer between human activities and wetlands,
thermal cover, food for wildlife, and valuable edge habitat.
The present condition of the Upland Review Area(buffer)to the unnamed watercourse north of the
proposed medical office building provides a low capacity to perform these functions noted above,based
h on the existing conditions of the old field community. The predominant past land use within the riparian
buffer from the unnamed watercourse was agriculture (i.e. crop cultivation). The activities associated
with that land use are observed presently through the ecological successional stages of the fallow fields
that lack the abundance and diversity of a vegetated community to provide the functions identified
above. One area that will change is the proposed crossing if the boulevard by use of a bottomless box
culvert. This area will maintain a vertical distance opening under the proposed culvert span of 4 feet to
8 feet. It is anticipated that woody vegetation in the areas under the span will not likely return,however
R this area is not densely populated with native woody plantings presently. The proposal provides areas of
the immediate wetland and its buffer to be planted with native woody shrubs to offset this impact. The
majority of the emergent/herbaceous community post-development is expected to provide long-term
habitat to local wildlife in that the vegetation will continue to receive solar exposure.
6.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
An investigation of the project site was conducted by GSCIKleinfelder to determine the presence or
' absence of state or federal species listed as endangered,threatened, or special concern. The
investigation included on-site surveys and remotely sensed data(CTDEP Environmental and Geographic
Information Center Natural Diversity Database(NDDB)Map)reviews. No federally or state-listed
endangered or threatened species were observed on the project site, or reported to exist there according
to the resource map.
7.0 PROPOSED REGULATED ACTIVITIES,IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
! The state's policy of wetland avoidance, minimization of unavoidable impacts, and
mitigation/compensation for the minimized impacts has been incorporated into project designs. Most
project activities have the potential to cause short-and long-term impacts. These impacts can be
observed through soil erosion and sedimentation during construction(short-term) and loss of wetlands,
buffer zones, etc. (long-term). Identifying, analyzing and evaluating these impacts are part of any
comprehensive environmental review. Providing mitigation to offset identified potential impacts (short-
and long-term) is a regulatory requirement that serves to create a justified balance between the need for
the proposed activity and environmental protection/preservation. In the process of environmental
planning and project design, significant considerations are given to wetland and watercourse impact
avoidance,minimization of loss, and compensation. Unavoidable impacts are offset through wetland
compensation(conservation easements,restoration, enhancement or creation of wetlands). Ultimately,
these planning considerations can achieve a balance that satisfies regulatory requirements,while
protecting/preserving the environment.
7.1 Description of Activities
The proposed regulated activities on the project site are presented below:
1. Professional office building, associated parking and infrastructure
2. Spanning, via bottomless box culvert, of an unnamed wetland/watercourse
3. Mitigation to offset wetland and Upland Review Area impacts
4. Stormwater management renovation measures (create detention basin and water quality swale)
5. Recommended wetland and riparian buffer(along unnamed watercourse) enhancement plantings
0 T3at,c.
,. , ,3.. .. , ,
_. PYI::.'-°ri;!iLi"i llJ �. tllljt'.�(C)I uU(:t`ll�l1?Gf 200_'
;irti(il'v`d`ii2(�s^..i'. t, Crila1�C'tr. t
7.2 Potential Impacts
Short-term impacts are limited to the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation and are anticipated to
` be managed and mitigated through the erosion and sediment control plan developed by the project
engineer. The soil and erosion control plan incorporates controls that are anticipated to manage the
movement of soil during storm events in order to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and watercourses
during the construction phase. The plan will be used during this phase and until all disturbed soils are
stabilized. The controls included in the plan involve the use of stormwater quality basins, swales, and
plunge pools, and hay bale and/or silt fence filters at the limits of the project area disturbance. The
! implementation and continued maintenance during construction of these controls is important in order to
ensure the protection of receiving surface waters (i.e. wetland/watercourses). Typically,we recommend
the use of a qualified site monitor to review and report on the conditions of the soil and erosion controls.
The qualified individual should have a comprehensive understanding of soil erosion and sedimentation
control management; its practices, structural and non-structural measures, emergency response and the
ability to concisely and effectively report deficiencies,provide recommendations for improvements, and
act on other unforeseen events.
Long-term impacts to the regulated wetland/watercourse areas on this project are expected to be
minimized through the use of the bottomless box culvert to bridge over the wetland/watercourse area.
Another small highly disturbed wetland area dominated with invasive plants is proposed to be filled in
order to construct the connecting thoroughfare to other on-site developments. The losses of wetland and
upland review locations are proposed to be mitigated through the enhancement of direct wetland areas
currently degraded, and planting a density and diversity of native woody and herbaceous species within
a new detention basin. Stormwater management measures are proposed to renovate stormwater from
! impervious surfaces in order to mitigate known pollutants in non-point stormwater discharge. This
j includes structural and non-structural methods including swirl technology stormwater structures, level
f[ spreader outlets, and a planted detention basin to become naturalized with the landscape. The potential
long-term impacts to flora and fauna are also expected to be offset through mitigation efforts. However,
the project site currently represents low-quality habitat due to its disturbed history, abundance of non-
native invasive plants, and location in a highly fragmented and heterogeneous landscape.
i 7.3 Mitigation Measures Proposed
Long-term impacts are proposed to be mitigated through the recommended implementation of wetland
and riparian buffer(unnamed watercourse) enhancement plantings and the removal of invasive species
in those areas. The current assemblage of flora throughout the project site is dominated by native silky
dogwood and many non-native,invasive species (purple loostrife,multiflora rose). The proposed
mitigation plan will enhance the composition of the wetland edge zones by replacing invasive and old
field volunteer species with indigenous shrub and tree species. These plantings will be focused within
portions of Wetland 3 (shrub/scrub community), and the detention basin and the unnamed watercourse
(Wetland 3).
Additionally, stormwater from impervious surfaces will be renovated through several components of the
proposed stormwater management system. It is strongly recommended that regular maintenance of the
catch basins and stormwater system be conducted to maintain optimum efficiencies.
7.4 Alternatives
The approach to development was chosen based upon the approved General Plan of Development of the
site,the existing approved development, and the disturbed conditions of the site, couple with the
mitigation options'. Based on the amount of space needed to provide the medical office building,
associated parking space, and stormwater renovation features, the proposed activities have limited
alternative potentials. Alternatives such as a no-build or total project reduction or portions thereof have
been evaluated; however,the no-build alternative was not considered a prudent alternative. The
051(�%();1:)13I:�Lr;rc° ;�'t`:=ttl,l:f.Ci�c��U Pw e9
011" GSIC'RIt"Iil6c dcr
S(;'ah V'i,1t St?t". �.'o,]:Ctt.' 1.icuL
alternative of a total project reduction or portions thereof has also been considered, although at this
time, the building design size is a critical component to justify the development of the project area. The
existing site conditions allow for reasonable development with the ability to make improvements to the
flora of the riparian zone and wetland edge zones. The alternative design of spanning the unnamed
I� watercourse(Wetland 3)was considered a feasible and prudent alternative to the more intrusive and less
environmentally sensitive approach of filling and culverting the wetland/watercourse system.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
f GSCIKleinfelder has reviewed and evaluated potential impacts to the regulated wetlands and
watercourses on the project site in South Windsor, Connecticut. This report was completed to provide
an assessment and evaluation of potential impacts to the wetlands and watercourses on site and to
discuss feasible and prudent alternatives and mitigation.
I
i
Overall,the wetlands evaluated in this report exhibit low to moderate functional values. The functional
values exhibited by these wetlands are directly attributable to the existing lack of floral and faunal
diversity,predominance of non-native invasive species, and low-quality riparian buffer to Plum Gulley
Brook.
While the majority of the proposed activities will occur outside of wetland areas,they will be located
within the upland review and riparian buffer zone areas. Based on the low-quality conditions of the
riparian buffer along the unnamed watercourse and wetland edge zones,mitigation is proposed to
enhance these ecologically important areas through removal of invasive plants, and to provide a
diversity of native shrub and tree plantings. The fragmented conditions of the forest patches and
current assemblage of flora and fauna within these patches will not be negatively affected by this project
nor will they be further impacted. This is based on the generalist nature of the species identified and
expected on the project site.
Balancing the proposed development with the need for environmental preservation and protection was
an objective of the Applicant(Evergreen Walk,LLC). The proposed project intends to provide wetland
and Upland Review Area enhancements while renovating stormwater through structural and non-
structural water quality management practices. Swirl technology structures will provide the initial
r measure of stormwater pollution filtration. Water quality basins, swales, and plunge pools will add
additional pollution renovation of stormwater and will be naturalized through plantings. The naturalized
stormwater features will be integrated into the landscape to become additional wildlife habitat areas.
E
I
6
f
tl
,tI'll :"C1 t�r:05 Fa c' l.(i
3?fi,-e :S') .;i; Gsc,"1".16111" ldo.r )cc .rrt(;cr 200-11
-,ct.Wh Vvi_sittior_ t.<,v,oet•lrctti.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for Evergreen Walk, LLC in accordance with the terms and conditions
agreed upon'. Compliance with submitted recommendations, suggestions or any proposed scope of
services in no way assures elimination of hazards, environmental impairment or fulfillment of the
owner's or potential purchaser's obligations as may be required by any local, state or federal laws or
modifications or changes thereto. In many cases local, state or federal regulations and/or statutes
require the prompt reporting to "appropriate" authorities should a "release" occur or be identified. It is
the responsibility of the current owner or operator to notify authorities of any conditions which exist or
that were identified, which are in violation of current laws or codes.
The findings and conclusions contained in this report are based solely on professional interpretation of
observations of conditions, as they presently exist and on information obtained while conducting the
scope-of-services detailed in this report. If the recommendations or findings within this report are not
implemented or acted upon within a reasonable period of time,there can be no assurances that
intervening factors will not arise which will effect the conclusions contained herein. In addition, data
available from further inspections, assessments, subsurface explorations, sampling and testing of the
subject property may modify or indicate the need to modify the conclusions and recommendations of
this report. Should additional information or observations collected at a later date indicate the presence
of an environmental situation not addressed in this report, GSCIKleinfelder will determine the need to
modify the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report, if contacted by the client.
t GSCIKleinfelder assumes no responsibility for damages arising from information or situations that are
identified,but not brought to its attention immediately.
f
i
t
The terms and conditions were attached to the original contract. If,for any reason,these terms and conditions are not accepted,this
report should be returned to the sender immediately.
t}}1 )2{Y I:7}'•F.t er r,rt:°: n1l laIH IC t)v)� (?a{?e 1
Oii i t:. lr :iS ;hl�itxfelc{cr `)c;c rs�e� G'.t)0.`;
10.0 REFERENCES
1. Brinson,M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Tech.Rpt.WRP-DE-4.
Biology Dept. East Carolina Univ. Greenville,NC 27858.
2. Rodgers, J., 1985,Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut.
3. Stone, J.R. et al, 1992,Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut.
r
1
k
r
E
i
E
R
r
FIGURES
r
via
`- id gal
• Ak
mwnt
m4f
r g
1 �
1
r If
111
'- IF mk ,.
R.
00
Fr,
TTT333fffjf. L • JJ
Ij
R 3
Oka� r
dis
7
d of
' m
wigi' , pu ] q, r a -3 d t P `."•; ` `'t l'�aM�
Kv- +.�i.' e *ai ate. ,E.i' `( i i �'[ �f_.>. j }%•�. K��° '_. #��`+ 'YaS•7
� �� ''����+ ��•�����4 ' jy{ "+'�` ,'t�y�ss a•+� �y8',
,�0 T�'�.-'¢i fit'. I, s �� � �y F.f k4 +iF �{.•- ,/� �F 'ii��m, � ��`+
r!/ ►�i` S�q1rra3,}� 1 {mod i }�f ,,. .'` y
a_s��i� �t� ,w i�.. sk°>`.7'.,d•e;i{�it�Ys'�ii�3,'SS Try -,4 ia••2� � �c .s .i ��'
3�
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION
EVERGREEN WALK,LLC
OFFICE SOUTH
E3UCKLAND
ROAD
SOUTH ■ •• CONNECTICUT
•• 1 IV",
■
SOURCE:
USGS 7.5'TOPOGRAPHIC MAP,MANCHESTER,CONNECTICUT
QUADRANGLE
GSCJKLEINFELDER
99 LAMBERTON ROAD,SUITE 201
i i
LEGEND
�— PLUM GULLEY BROOK
WETLAND AREAS
UPLAND-
WETLAND 1-
OLD FIELD
PLUM GULLEY BROOK
WETLAND 2-
SHRUB&FORESTED SWAMP
NOTES
1.ALL BOUNDARIES AND INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THIS FIGURE
ARE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE.
WETLAND 3-
UNNAMED WATERCOURSE
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 2
OFFICE SOUTH SITE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES MAP
EVERGREEN WALK LLC
OFFICE SOUTH
BUCKLAND ROAD
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT
PROJECT:0510203 CHECKED BY:
DRAFTED BY:JS DRAFT DATE:
REVISED BY:CTH REVISION DATE:12-06-05
SOURCE:
USGS TERASERVER AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
GSCJKLEINFELDER
99 LAMBERTON ROAD,SUITE 201
WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06095
4itK L E I N F E L DER (800)929A472 WWW.KLEINFELDER.COM (860)6834206 F
Employee-owned 051WWMFMEM5F2.DM
LEGEND
�--� PLUM GULLEY BROOK
PLUM GULLEY BROOK
NOTES
1.ALL BOUNDARIES AND INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THIS FIGURE
ARE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE.
LOCATION OF
MITIGATION AREA
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 3
OFFICE SOUTH SITE MITIGATION AREAS
EVERGREEN WALK,LLC
OFFICE SOUTH
BUCKLAND ROAD
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT
PROJECT:0510203 CHECKED BY:
PROPOSED DRAFTED BY:JS DRAFT DATE:
DETENTION BASIN REVISED BY:CTH REVISION DATE,12-06-05
SOURCE:
USGS TERASERVER AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
GSCJKLEINFELDER
99 LAMBERTON ROAD,SUITE 201
WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT06095
Iri( K L E I N F E L D E R (800)929-4472 WWW.KLEINFELDER.COM (860)683-4206(FAX
Employee-owned
05lWWMFMECWM.MG
i
APPENDICES
i
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
Evergreen Walk LLC
Office South
J,
Photograph#1: Plum Gulley veiwing northerly
s�
t
Photograph Typiclal Upland Buffer consisting of• • field habitat
�.��••rr iT
s
i
3• t k._
I
T <
4 ti i
Y,
i
N
1 j
� , f
_ r
Y
y EIVED
JAN 13 2006
0th Windsor
i E-FLANDS AGENCY
g • ' ��r'ON COMMISSION
z FLB Architecture& Plannin ,Inc. 19 Silver Lane, East Hartford,cT Obi fItf
860.568.4030 • fax:860.568.5129 • http://home.att.net/—archflb
January 11, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue -
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Property Owner:
Re: 60k Office South, Evergreen Walk, LLC
In accordance with Section 7.3b of the "Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands,
Watercourses, and Conservation Regulations", we are required to notify you that an
application has been filed on the property abutting yours and is subject to a hearing by the
Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission. The application and plans are on file
with the South Windsor Planning Department.
As an abutting property owner you are invited to the hearing to ask questions and/or give
comments, however, you are not required to attend. You may also submit written
comments regarding the application prior to the hearing if you so desire. For further
information regarding the specific date this will be heard please contact Jeff Folger,
Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer, Planning Department, 644-2511, ext. 253.
S' cerel ,
A n F. Lamson, AIA
FLB Architecture& Planning, Inc.
19 Silver Lane
East Hartford, CT 06118
860-568-4030
1
g and Address of Sender Chec type of mail or service: I Affix Stamp Here
If issued as a
����n h/n f �nC. Certified ❑ Recorded Delivery(International) certificate of mailing,
L�h ❑ COD ❑ Kegistered or for additional
[�
_ C ❑ Delivery Confirmation Return Receipt for Merchandise copies of this bill)
0 (�/!p n Express Mail CI Signature Confirmation Postmark and
L Insured— __—_ _.__.— iDate of Recee
1 � --i Handlin Actual Valued Insured Due SenderT DC T SCTSH 7 RD RR
Article Number Addressee Name,Street,and PO Address Postage Fee Charge if Registered Fee Fee Fee Fee Fee
re Value i
T /�LoW`S fv-em� C'e�p{rrS
a�-! ' /l o f.c.y c✓IcY c✓�.�'1. �oC��/T��,C� 1�_— .--I1------I------ -------—�--- --- -- --- — --
i /�'I�STownlb-ief4SSoc. I ;
I
t
I
/< RE
%nc/ Kam pl5soe. r•
� I
�q
_ -- --— - O - — - -- -- —
aL
4ore1"74 Jyrrip ! QO'
_ tu-C_/�G]elm l _
s.�).
ycq
t v�Y een GJo./K
eh o
I Cc�oi� V �He rYo- I I 1
06
--— — The full declaration----�----- --- -----J— -------_.—.._. L----L_�-- — — y-� '
of Pieces Total Numbe—r o f Pieces Postmaster,Per(Name of receive g employee) , tion of value is required on all domestic and international registered mail.The maximum indemnity payable for he
der Received at Post Office (reconstruction of nonnegotiable documents under Express Mail document reconstruction insurance is$500 per piece subjec to G
additional limitations for multiple pieces lost or damages in a single catastrophic occurrence.The maximum indemnity payable
p Ion Express Mail merchandise insurance is$500,but optional Express Mail Service merchandise insurance is available for up to
1$5,000 to some,but not all countries.The maximum indemnity payable is$25,000 for registered mail. See Domestic Mail
;Manual R900,S913,and S921 for limitations of coverage on insured and COD mail.See International Mail Manual for limitations
of covera a on international mail.Special handling charges apply only to Standard Mail A and Standard Mail Bparcels.
i
i -
,August 2000 Complete by Typewriter,Ink,or Ball Point Pen
Name and Address of Sender Check type of mail or service: Affix Stamp Here
(If issued as a
Certified [] Recorded Delivery(International) certificate of mailing,
COD ❑�-�/pegistered or for additional
L Delivery Confirmation LV eturn Receipt for Merchandise copies of this bill)
❑.Express Mail O Signature Confirmation Postmark and
Insured —_ _ a Date-of Recei t
-- g - -
Fee Fee e if COD ee Fe
ate•,e - ------.--
r' -- _ - Handling Actual Valuer Insured Due Sender DC SC SH RD RR
Line' Article Number _ Addressee Name,Street,and PO Address Postage Fee Charge if Registered Value Fe Fee
She 14) v ----- - -- — h
2
.F��l —--
31
S. J.
5 Kc /-21ol)PIF
VTr'N$ �G
✓<A _ l 1A)AC'.1 , �—tJ-�
�,,!, � /�i� S',��•� , sf ��, i I i a � it � '
`t toI l
--
/-srraih� GJj'1r��
t
____ 3i S -�- -I- -�
. S S o �
,-��•— - ---- - ---- -- ,---- -------- -
12
` 13 /1ppGr� % T/PVcrt�/ e S
--- --------- — -------- 1 ---� / ---- -- — -- _
' �r tt C� t rL �A"P s��Y � �✓G`-J�Y- I i I � �_.._...--_
14t
r" 115SfS--J C'4�• ---—I—--— -- --- e
Total Number of Pieces Total Number of Pieces tPostmaster,Per(Name of receiving eriiployee) tTh.efulldeclarationof v lue is required on all domestic and international registered mail.The maximum indemnity payable for eListed by Sender Received at Post Office nstruction of nonnegotiable documents under Express Mail document reconstruction insurance is$500 per piece subject o w
ladditional limitations for multiple pieces lost or damages in a single catastrophic occurrence.The maximum indemnity payab
ion Express Mail merchandise insurance is$500,but optional Express Mail Service merchandise insurance is available for up to
$5,000 to some,but not all countries.The maximum indemnity payable is$25,000 for registered mail. See Domestic Mail
I Manual R900,S913,and S921 for limitations of coverage on insured and COD mail.See International Mail Manual for limitations
lof coverage on international mail.Special handling charges apply only to Standard Mail(A)and Standard Mail(B)parcels.
PS Form 3877,August 2000 Complete by Typewriter,Ink,or Ball Point Pen
Name and Address of Sender Check type of mail or service: I Affix Stamp Here
(If issued as a
Certified ❑ Recorded Delivery(International) 'certificate of mailing,
COD ❑ egistered or for idditionai
[] Delivery Confirmation �Retum Receipt for Merchandise copies of this bill)
Ell Express Mail I_. Postmark and
— Insured g Date of Recut
— _.. T— -- --- r — — --- ---�--
p � Signature Confirmation �
Postage Handling Actual Value Insured Due Sender DC SC SH RD RR
Line( Article Number Addressee Name,Street,and PO Address ge Fee — e — _ —ee
.---.—e L_if ----- -- --- Fee
Charge Registered Value if COD Fee Fee Fee ,Fee
1 i _ ��/ I �.�� I i /•fir
2
31
_.-
I
� rt—
�S
a U co2 a.r��2 zz• i
i o n e l m �7�a M r�� S )/ -
i
e�ro 7��tc ru a
—
9
1
--
Sf�vcrl !fie JA c
141
-- --------- - ---- ----- --- --- o �L� .e� S ��� C —�— ---- ---- — —
15
— ---- --- ---..- -- ---------- - — i� �Ph,, C -
Total Number of Pieces Total Number of Pieces Postmaster,Per(Nam6,bf receiving employee) IThe full declaration of value is required on all domestic and international registered mail.The maximum Indemnity payable for the
Listed by Sender Received at Post Office reconstruction of nonnegotiable documents under Express Mail document reconstruction insurance is$500 per piece subject to
additional limitations for multiple pieces lost or damages in a single catastrophic occurrence.The maximum Indemnity payable
• on Express Mail merchandise insurance is$500,but optional Express Mail Service merchandise insurance is available for up to
$5,000 to some,but not all countries.The maximum indemnity payable is$25,000 for registered mail. See Domestic Mail
Manual R900,S913,and S921 for limitations of coverage on insured and COD mail.See International Mail Manual for limitations
of coverage on international mail.Special handling charges apply only to Standard Mail(A)and Standard Mail(B)parcels.
PS Form 3877,August 2000 Complete by Typewriter,Ink,or Ball Point Pen
Name and Address of Sender Check type of mail or service: Affix Stamp Here
(If issued as a
(Certified ❑ Recorded Delivery(International) certificate of mailing,
❑ COD ❑ Registered or for additional
❑ Delivery Confirmation [Return Receipt for Merchandise copies of this bill)
❑ Express Mail ❑ Signature Confirmation Postmark and
Insured Date of Receipt _
- -- -- ------ -------T—..--- i — - —re -- - -
�— Postage Fee Handling Actual Value —Insured Due Sender DC SC SH RD RR
Line Article Number Addressee Name,Street,and PO Address Charge if Registered Value if COD Fee Fee Fee Fee Fee
Y/a r/L sf T ----� -� �—��C,_ - ----- —
- I
31
i
------
I
-- -
5 '
r
!
71
�S MvW3
10
I !I
12 -- — --
- ---
13
14
15I r — r me of receivin em to ee The full declares
Total Number of Pieces Total Number of Pieces TPostmaster,Pe (Na g p y ) declaration of value is required on all domestic and international registered mail.The maximum indemnity payable for the `
_Lfsted by Sender Received at Post Office (reconstruction of nonnegotiable documents under Express Mail document reconstruction insurance is$500 per piece subject to
additional limitations for multiple pieces lost or damages in a single catastrophic occurrence.The maximum indemnity payable
• on Express Mail merchandise insurance is$500,but optional Express Mail Service merchandise insurance is available for up to
$5,000 to some, but not all countries.The maximum indemnity payable is$25,000 for registered mail.See Domestic Mail
Manual R900,S913,and S921 for limitations of coverage on insured and COD mail.See International Mail Manual for limitations C
lof coverage on international mail.Special handling charges apply only to Standard Mail(A)and Standard Mail(B)parcels. C
h�
Complete by Typewriter,Ink,or Ball Point Pen
,,'PS Form 3877,August 2000 �t�
P:\05281.20\A-DT_SIGN_F.dwg, 3/23/2006 2:22:37 PM, FLB Architecture &Planning by FH
2-0" 4'-0"
z
m I I y
�c <
[ z
� I I
� I
j
JOB NAME OFFICE 50UTH
EVERGREEN WALK
TAMARACK AVE. SOUTH WINDSOR, CT
SKETCH TITLE
FREE5TAND I NG 51 GN
SCALE JOB NO.
,-Fm A5 NOTED 05251.20
DATE BY SKETCH NO.SK-X
FM ArchHecture 8 Plannino,Ina 19311vw Lane East Hwftrd CT 06118
(M)ms-am ra(sso)W"In 0-"h nr®nr.�� web:. .fimmk m 3/22/O6 .RF Z-4
Michele Lipe Regular_In house Review Meetin 1%24/2006 Page 1
From: Fred Shaw
To: Doolittle, Jeff
Date: 1/24/06 9:36AM
Subject: Regular In-house Review Meeting 1/24/2006
1 will be unable to attend the above referenced meeting. I'am providing herewith my comments regarding
the agenda items-Tiger Lily Ventures, and the Medical Office Building , Buckland Road (south of ECHN
building):
Tiger Lily Ventures: W.P.C.A. approval will be required. MDC approval will also be required as well as
the prepayment of any and all MDC connection/outlet charges, and assesssments.
Medical Office Bdg.: W.P.C.A. approval is required. There should be cleanouts provided for the
forcemain at intervals as recommended by the system manufacturer. The engineer should provide pump
calculations to justify the sizing of the pumping station, and infomation concerning the depth of the
forcemain, etc( no profiles provided). Detail information should be provided regarding the connection of
the force main to the existing gravity sewer. The plans show no sewer easements; are any required?
CC: Gantick, Mike; Lipe, Michele
I of EEIVEQ
`ri( K L E 1 N FELDER
Employee-owned FEB 0 12006
South W ndt -or
January 30,2006 INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
CONSERVATION COM„USSION
Mrs.Elizabeth Warren,Chairperson
Inland Wetland and Conservation Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor,CT 06074
RE: Response to Staff Comment
Evergreen Walk Office South
South Windsor,CT
Dear Mrs. Warren:
GSCIKIeinfelder respectfully submits this letter to the South Windsor Inland Wetland and Conservation
Commission("IWCC")pursuant to the January 3,2006 letter prepared by Mr.Jeffrey Folger, South
Windsor Environmental Planner and addressed to Mr.Alan Lamson of FLB Architecture and Planning.
Specifically,comment#11 of Mr.Folger's report,relates to GSCIKleinfelder's focus of the proposed
project. This comment discusses mitigation for wetland and upland review area impacts with respect to
the South Windsor IWCC's policy of"no net loss of wetlands within a sub-watershed area". The site
development drawings have been amended to include an area of proposed wetland creation that will
provide an overall increase in wetlands within the same sub-watershed area. The proposed created
wetland consists of approximately 6,000 square feet,which offsets the proposed 1,420 square feet of loss
associated with the development of Office South. The proposed location of the wetland creation is on the
westerly downgradient side of the proposed detention basin and will extend the existing wetland
boundaries further to the east. This areas will be planted in clumps consisting of approximately 54 total
plants the following species: highbush blueberry(Vaccinium corymbosum),winterberry(Ilex verticillata),
and arrowood(Viburnum recognitum). Disturbed soils within the proposed creation areas will be seeded
with New England Wetmix(source:New England Wetland Plants,Inc.),or similar product. Each plant location
will be prepared by adding 6 inches of clean topsoil or compost to increase survivability of the plants.
The new wetland area is expected to provide similar functional values as the wetland being eliminated.
Based on the disturbed conditions of the wetland proposed to be filled,it is anticipated that in the long-
term the created wetland will be provide a high level of functional valuables.
The proposed wetland creation area discussed herein,combined with the originally submitted wetland and
wetland buffer enhancements provide mitigation in an amount that we believe offsets the minor amount
of wetland and Upland Review Area proposed to be disturbed as part of the Office South permit
application. Please contact me at(860)683-4200 ext. 145 if you have any questions,comments, or
request additional information.
Very truly yours,
GSCIKleinfelder
Date: 2006.01.31
89f 11':57:09-05'00'
Jeffrey R. Shamas, CE, SS,PWS
Environmental Planning Senior Project Manager
0510203DA
` C KLEINFELDER 99 Lamberton Road,Suite 201,Windsor,CT 06095 (800)929-4472 toll free (860)683-4200 phone (860)683-4206 fax
WETLAND CREATION AREA(total sq.tt.--6,000scIft)
-EXCAVATE TO PROPOSED DEPTHS.
-PREPARE EACH PLANT BED AREA WITH A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES
OF CLEAN TOP SOIL
-PLANT AREA IN CLUMPS WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIES AT
SPACING OF 10 FEET ON CENTER:
SPECIES NAME TOTAL
-HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY(VACCINIUM CORYMBOSUM) 20
-SILKY DOGWOOD(CORNUS AMOMUM) 22
-ARROWOOD(VIBURNUM RECOGNITUM) 23
65 PLANTS
NOTE:APPLY NEW ENGLAND WETMIX,OR SIMILAR WITHIN CREATION
AREA
12" MODIFIED RIPRAP
FOR SLOPE PROTECTION
FLARED CULVERT END
INV. 95'00 NOTES
1.ALL BOUNDARIES AND INFORMATION PRESENTED ON THIS FIGURE
ARE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE.
WETLAND
CREATION AREA _
6,000 sq.8.
NOT TO SCALE
s=z.9�c
CDNCRETE HEADINAII,_
INV. 97.00
1 FIGURE 1
WETLAND CREATION AREAS
EVERGREEN WALK,LLC
OFFICE SOUTH
BUCKLAND ROAD
—— SOUTH W IN SOR,CONNECTICUT
PROJECT:0510203 CHECKED BY:
DRAFTED BY:JS DRAFT DATE:
REVISED BY:CTH REVISION DATE:0131-06
SOURCE:
GSCIIKLEINFELDER
98 LAMBERTON ROAD,SUITE 201
WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06095
`s( K L E I N F E L D E R� (800)929-4472 WWW.KLEINFELDER.COM 860 683-4206 FAX
Employee-owned as+azoawF wras.ava
IVED
FUSS &O'NEILL FEB 0 1 2006
South Windsor
f4pDisciplines to Deliver I N L AN D W�-'
January 31, 2006
Mr.Jeffrey Folger
Environmental Planner
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application#06-01P Office South at Evergreen Walk
Response to Jeffrey Folger Comments dated January 3,2006
Dear Mr. Folger:
The following is in response to your comments dated January 3,2006 for the above referenced
projects. Fuss &O'Neill's response below pertains only to the comments for our portion of
the project. The other comments are addressed under separate cover by the appropriate
professionals. Fuss & O'Neill's responses are in italics.
1. The existing tree line and proposed limits of clearing must be shown on the plans.
The existing tree line and proposed limits of clearing have been added to the revised plans January 26,
2006.
2. It is recommended that the topsoil within the detention basins be at least 12" thick
comprised of at least 30%compost by volume. This can substantially increase
survivability and vigor of proposed plantings and provide absorption sites for dissolved
metals.
To be addressed by Rosemary Aldridge,Insite Inc.
146 Hartford Road 3. A soils report should be submitted listing the soil types found on the site. Information
Manchester,CT should also include suitability for infiltration and rain gardens.
06040-5921
t(860)646-2469 To be addressed by Jeff Shamus,Kleinfelder.
(800)286-2469
f(860)533-5143 4. Locations of soil stockpiles should be shown with appropriate erosion controls.
www.FandO.com
The to stockpile area has been added to the revised plans.
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
North Carolina
South Carolina FAP2000\481\S10\Response to Jeff Folger's Comments January 3 2006.doc
Corres.(HQ)
Mr.Jeffrey Folger
January 31,2006
Page 2
5. A swirl type particle separator must be incorporated into the stormwater treatment
train.
A swirl concentrator has been added to the revised plans.
6. Rain gardens could be placed east and south of the building to collect runoff from
paved surfaces in those areas.
Based on available geotechnical information and conversations with Mr.Max Welti, Clarence Welti
Associates, the existing soils are not suitable for the construction of rain gardens. Therefore, we are not
proposing to construct rain gardens on this site.
7. A rip-rap swale is shown in the detail sheet. Where is it proposed to be located on the
site?
The rip rap swale detail was a carryover mistake from the LA Fitness pr ject and has been removed
from the revised plans.
8. The landscape plan must include both slopes and lawn seeding types,rates, and dates.
This information must address temporary and permanent seeding.
To be addressed by Insite Inc.
9. The long-term inspection and maintenance schedule for the stormwater structures
should be completed. Several of the item descriptions have been truncated.
The operation and maintenance notes have been fixed on the revised plans.
10. The construction sequence must state that the detention/water quality basin must be
fully complete,with all grading, and vegetation establishments completed and growing
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Note #5 has been added to the Site Development Sequence.
11. The mitigation plan proposed to establish habitat plantings to enhance existing
wetlands but it does not address the anticipated loss of wetlands as a result of the
application. As you are aware,the compensatory mitigation policy adopted by the
Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission is "no net loss of wetlands within a sub-
watershed area".
F:\P2000\481\S10\Response to Jeff Folger's Comments January 3 2006.doc
Corres.(HQ)
Mr.Jeffrey Folger
January 31,2006
Page 3
To be addressed by Kleinfelder.
12. Perimeter erosion controls along the western edge of development are inadequate to
control sediments generated by the fill and grading operations proposed. Interior
erosion controls must be installed across the slope at intervals to slow and contain
runoff. More substantial erosion measures must be proposed along the western
perimeter.
More substantial erosion and sedimentation controls have been added to the revised plans.
13. The outlets to the detention basin appear to be straight 20"pipes. How will this
design address concerns with excess stormwater volume that will be generated as a
result of the increased impervious surface?
The outlets to the detention basin have been clarified on the revised plans.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 646-2469 ext. 5269 if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Michelle Carlson,P.E.
Associate
c: Alan Lamson, FLB Architecture&Planning, Inc.
F:\P2000\481\S10\Response to Jeff Folger's Comments January 3 2006.doc
Corres.(HQ)
MEMORANDUM
To: South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission.
From: Jeffrey H. Folger— Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer
Date: February 6 2006
Re: Appl. #06-01P Review of the proposed Evergreen Walk - Office South site plan.
Plans dated 12/20/05.
The project is to construct a 60,000-sqft medical office facility, parking lots, and
stormwater structures on a 5.1 acre parcel. A portion of the project (detention/water
quality basin) will also occur on an adjacent 3 acre parcel to the west. This project is a
part of the 230-acre Evergreen Walk development that has been approved by the PZC
for a general plan of development. Regulated activities include the crossing of a
watercourse with a bridge, filling and grading of 0.036 acres (1,420 sqft) of wetland,
and filing and grading within the 80-foot regulated upland review area to accommodate
a detention/water quality basin. Proposed disturbance within the URA is estimated at
approximately 1.82 acres (67,000 sqft), and 0.036 acres (1,420 sqft) of wetland
disturbance.
Site: The site is located in the Plum Gully Brook watershed. The evergreen Walk
project is comprised of 230 acres. The proposed site plan will occupy a 5.1-acre parcel
for the building and parking, and the stormwater swale and basin will occupy an
adjacent 3+-acre parcel to the west. The land slopes down moderately to the west from
Buckland Road. The sites are 90% cleared and have recently been used for agricultural
operations.
The regulated areas consist of a watercourse along the northern property boundary
conveying road runoff to the west, a wetland finger northwest of the building site, and a
shrub/scrub wetland that leads to the west to the Plum Gully Brook stream corridor.
The main stem of Plum Gully Brook borders the site to the west.
The northern watercourse that travels east to west into Plum Gully Brook would be
considered a perennial watercourse. The channel shows evidence of scour and unstable
banks at intervals. Portions of the banks have moderate vegetation on them. The
channel bottom is 12-18" in width and has a sandy substrate, with active soil migration
through the channel. Average water depth is estimated at 1-2 inches. Past agricultural
practices have a resulted in plowed fields within 10-feet of the stream bank. Hydrology
to the watercourse is supplied by surface runoff from east of Buckland Road and some
ground water contribution. Functional values of this wetland would be groundwater
recharge/surcharge, and stormwater conveyance. Wildlife values would be considered
poor in the eastern portion to moderate in the western portion due to the width of the
riparian vegetation associated with the watercourse, and high degree of exposure to
urban runoff(Buckland Road).
The wetland to the west would be considered a shrub/scrub wetland. It is a mosaic of
shrubs and open, saturated herbaceous areas. Groundwater and some surface runoff
supply moisture the wetland. This wetland is larger than the eastern wetland (4+ acres),
and shows much less evidence of disturbance. Shrub species like silky dogwood
dominate this wetland, as well as skunk cabbage and sedges in the open areas.
Overstory trees in the area consist of red maples and cottonwoods. The watercourse
previously described runs through the wetland and empties into Plum Gully Brook
further west. This wetland is definitely an integral part of the Plum Gully wetland
system that is present through the western portion of Evergreen Walk. Functional
values associated with this wetland area would be groundwater recharge/surcharge,
nutrient/sediment retention and removal, flood storage, and wildlife habitat.
The main channel and riparian corridor of Plum Gully Brook is the final regulated area
associated with the site. This occurs west of the proposed detention/biofilter basin and
swale. From this site on down stream to the Podunk this stream corridor is one of the
most valuable and unique habitats in the Town. Just about every wetland type, from
open water to forested wetland can be found along the corridor. The riparian area
adjacent to the stream channel varies from 10 to 100s of feet. The meandering channel
varies from 3 to 6 feet on width and from 6" to 3 feet in depth. The bottom substrate is
sandy with vertical banks and sand bars as common features. Historical impacts to the
corridor include sediment generated from agricultural activities to the east and urban
runoff to the north. Functional values include Finfish habitat, wildlife habitat, flood
storage, sediment and nutrient trapping and assimilation, ecological integrity, esthetics,
groundwater recharge, and stormwater conveyance.
With the anticipated level of development planned for the 230 acres, the Plum Gully
Brook corridor represents the most sensitive area on the site to pollution impacts,
change in hydrology, and loss of wildlife habitat.
Impacts:
The existing tree line has not been shown on the plans, so tree clearing impacts cannot
be commented on.
Short Term: Soils on the site are mapped as Tisbury Silt Loam (TsB) 3 to 8% slopes,
and Enfield Silt Loam (EsB) 3 to 8% slopes. These soils are listed as having medium to
high erosion potential by the Hartford County Soil Survey. Erosion controls proposed
consist of silt fence perimeter controls. The western perimeter controls should be
reinforced with earthen berms to capture and retain construction borne sediment. I have
asked additional interior controls be designed to prevent undue strain on the perimeter
controls during construction.
Erosion blankets are proposed to be applied to all of the slopes adjacent to the building
that exceed 10%.
Long Term: The majority of the area to be developed consists of recently tilled fields in
the eastern portion of the site. The proposed swale and detention basin are to be
located in a field that has been regularly mowed or tilled. Wildlife utilizing the tilled
field during non-growing times will be precluded from doing so. Wildlife using the
western field will be temporary excluded from utilizing this area. After construction,
the area will contain a different habitat. The detention basin and swale will more
closely resemble a shallow marsh and wet meadow habitat. This habitat type will
compliment the stream corridor and provide a more efficient riparian buffer than the
present conditions. Landscape and habitat plantings will provide some diverse food
availability to bird and mammal species: Habitat cover will be enhanced by the
stormwater structures.
Stormwater Impacts: Stormwater quality and quantity impacts are proposed to be
addressed by utilizing several structures. Water collected in catchbasins will be piped
to a detention basin/biofilter. Sediment storage will be accomplished using 4-foot deep
sumps in catch basins w/traphoods, plunge pools at stormwater pipe outlets, and a
forebay in the detention basin. The detention basin will develop into a wet marsh to
utilize the plant community to trap sediments, attenuate dissolved chemicals, and
provide wildlife habitat enhancement to the stream corridor.
A swirl type gross particle separator will be added into the treatment train to provide
additional sediment removal.
The current design of the detention basin outfall does not address concerns on increased
volume generated by increased impervious surface impacting stream channel geometry.
While the basin may reduce peak flows it does not reduce an anticipated overall volume
increase. The suggestion of incorporating raingardens into the design was dismissed.
To date there is nothing in the plans that address this concern.
Wetland Loss Mitigation: The planned loss of 1,420 sqft of wetland is proposed to be
mitigated by the creation of 1,420 sqft of wetlands farther to the southwest adjacent to
the proposed detention basin. By locating the wetland creation in this area several
benefits will occur to the wetland system as a whole. First, the riparian area east of the
stream channel will be significantly increased by a combination of shallow and deep
marshes and a wet meadow this will serve to further increase the distance from .
development in the area and the stream corridor. Second, the habitat associated with
the flanking wetland areas will be diversified and enhanced by the presence a created
wetland of a different type.
LEFOLL &LEFOLL,LLC
ATrOFNEYS AT LAW
2301 SILAS DEANS HWX.
P.O.BOX 727
ROCKY H L.L,CT 06067
RM?Y[.40ND G.LsFoLL ' - 'H j,EPHONH
(Seo)56'-2355
T,MMY L.LaFOLL FAX
(860)257-412
February 15, 2006
Town of south Windsor
Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission
South Windsor Town Hall
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Re: Appl. #06-01P-Evergreen Walk Office South
Dear Coramissioners_
Please be advised that this office represents Jean Marc Jacques who ovens a sizable parcel
of land which abuts Evergreen Walk-
Mr Jacques is concerned about the drainage in the pond and Plum Gully Brook located on
his property. In his opinion the applicants do not have sufficient drainage and erosion
control. Since the development during the past several years the water level in the pond
has risen dramatically and now up to capacity.
Reference is hereby made to previous correspondence from Attorney John Kinddated
July 21, 2003 alerting the Commission,of Mr. Jacque?s concerns regarding waterways,
ponds and drainage on his property-
Please notify this office of any `ons concerning this#application.
v yours,
oll
c outh Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission
zoo► — Wd VS:VT 900zi9Tiz0
MEMORANDUM
To: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner
From: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, P.E., Town Engineer '
Date: 2/15/06
RE: App 06-01 P Office Building South
I have reviewed the proposed development plan for the Office Building South on
Evergreen Walk property along Buckland Road, and I have the following comments:
1. With regard to the storm drainage system, I recommend the slope of the pipes
between CB 3 and CB 4 and between CB 4 and CB 8 be increased. The pipe
calculation report needs to be revised to include a 30" diameter pipe between MH
1 and MH 2 as shown on the plans.
2. What flow is the Vortechs Model 9000 designed for?
3. 1 have lots of questions about the proposed detention basin. What flows and
detention time was this detention basin designed for? The Drainage Report has
different inlet flows in the pipe report, Appendix B and Appendix F. It is also not
clear how the detention basin outlet flows were calculated. What are the
expected water elevations in the detention basin for the different storms? Again
Appendix B and F have different outlet flow and water surface elevation values.
Why are there two separate outlet pipes from the detention basin that go in
different directions? Why is the lower pipe 10" diameter and the higher pipe 6"
diameter. This is different from other detention basins at Evergreen Walk and
around South Windsor. There is usually one outlet structure with different size
orifices at different elevations. The lower one is usually smaller. What is the
expected detention time for a 10 year storm in the detention basin and the
duration of the discharge from the detention basin? This basin needs to be
designed to hold the stormwater long enough to provide stormwater treatment,
reduce the outlet flow and offset the peak discharge so there is no adverse
effects such as erosion or flooding on downstream channels or properties. Over
half of the proposed detention basin is to be constructed in fill. Details for the
construction of this basin need to be included in the plans. Does this proposed
basin need a DEP Dam Safety, Repair and Alteration permit? A rip rap lined
emergency overflow spillway needs to be constructed with the detention basin.
Where is the gravel access drive to access the basin, inlet and outlet for
maintenance?
4. What is the effect of discharging all the roof runoff into the field via a level
spreader?
5. The plans and Drainage Report show a grass swale and calculations. Where is
this located on the plans?
6. The culvert and old farm crossing in the drainage ditch between ECHN and this
site needs to be removed and the channel restored in this area. This culvert
appears to be undersized and may be clogged by debris in the channel, resulting
in flooding of either adjacent site.
7. This plan includes connecting Evergreen Way with Tamarack Drive. However,
Evergreen Way does not seem to be suitable for a connector road from ECHN to
the Shops at Evergreen Walk as it is narrow and there are several sharp turns.
Why not make Evergreen Way wider with a median and turn lanes? Is there a
plan to build Tamarack Drive to connect the north and south ends of this property
in the future?
8. There should be a large visible barrier (such as a guardrail) with reflectorized
signs and curb (with leakoffs) at the south end of Tamarack Drive and at the
sharp comer on Evergreen Way shown on these plans so vehicles do not drive
off these areas if they miss these turns.
9. Check for conflicts between the utilities (esp storm drainage and water) and the
landscaping and lighting. These need to be corrected.
10.Show an anti tracking pad at the entrance to this site from the existing end of
Evergreen Way or Tamarack Drive. Will construction access to this site be from
Evergreen Way or will a temporary access be constructed across the drainage
ditch at the end of Tamarack Drive (until the culvert is constructed)?
11.Provide design calculations for the sanitary sewer pump station and pressure
main. The long sanitary force main should have clean-outs or access ports at
bends and regular intervals for maintenance access. Show these on the plan.
12.The detail for the Roof Drain Pick-up needs to include a metal frame and cap if
this is in pavement or a concrete sidewalk.
13.The pavement slope over the box culvert should be increased to at least 1% so
water flows off the surface of this culvert and does not puddle.
14.On the culvert detail what is the material under and around the sidewalk, in the
median, under the road subbase and on the snow shelf on the south side of the
culvert?
15.This project must be submitted to the WPCA for review and approval.
Please call me if you have any questions.
IF
FLB Architecture &Planning, Inc. 19 Silver Lane East Hartford CT 06118
(860)568-4030 fax: (860)568-5129 e-mail:flb(pflbarch.com web:www.fibamh.com
TO: Inland Wetland and Conservation Commission—
Town of South Windsor rZD
Attn. Mr. Jeffery Folger �
FROM: Frank Hubeny, AICP
DATE: 3/09/2006
�nP,p3:,Vp.(IUi�wreidJtl`3=�iC
RE: Office South, 2700 Tamarack Avenue
Project No. 05261.20
Dear Mr. Folger,
During the hearing of the Inland Wetland Commission on Wednesday, February 15,
2006 the question was raised, if the alignment of the proposed extension of Tamarack
Avenue to the south could be adjusted in order to reduce the direct impact of approximately
1,400 square feet on Wetland#2. We are pleased to submit to this commission a revised
road layout and site design which completely eliminates the direct wetland impact on
Wetland#2. For details please refer to the enclosed `Addendum to Wetland Impact
Assessment and Mitigation Report (12/30/05)' by Jeffery R. Shamas, dated March 9, 2006.
Due to the above mentioned revisions, we would like to submit the following
changes to the original application, dated January 6, 2006:
J. Amount of regulated area disturbance and types of fill(including wetlands
and regulated buffers).
• Upland review area disturbance: 1.45 acres (previously 1.82 acres)
• Detention basin disturbance: 2.05 acres (previously 2.05 acres)
• Gravel fill: 5,650 cy (previously 15,000 cy)
K.Acreage of wetland watercourse to be altered:
• (0 square feet) 0.0 acreage (previously 1,420 square feet)
L. Acreage of wetlands and watercourses to be created.
• 6,000 square feet (previously 0 acres)
(Please see `Response to Staff Comment' by Jeffery Shamas, dated January 30, 2006.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions.
c: file PA05281.20TLB Zone\WA 060309UWCC Memo 030609.Doe
`S( K L E 1 N FELDER
Employee-owned
March 9,2006 5D
Mrs. Elizabeth Warren,Chairperson w� ^
Inland Wetland and Conservation Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor,CT 06074 ""vJ✓r
RE: Addendum to Wetland Impact Assessment and Mitigation Report(12/30/2005)
Evergreen Walk Office South
South Windsor,CT
Dear Mrs. Warren:
GSCIKleinfelder respectfully submits this addendum to the South Windsor Inland Wetland and
Conservation Commission("IWCC")pursuant to the March 10,2006 site plan revisions completed by
Fuss&O'Neill,Inc.
Specifically,the original boulevard(Tamarack Drive)location had proposed a direct impact to the
unnamed watercourse of Wetland 3 and the westerly periphery of the wetland system known as Wetland 2
in the GSClKleinfelder Wetland Impact Assessment and Mitigation Report,dated December 2005 (See
Figure attached). The revised design of this boulevard requires the crossing of Wetland 3 to remain as
originally proposed,however,eliminates the need for the direct impact to Wetland 2. The boulevard has
been relocated further to the east away from the wetland. The character and quality of this wetland has
been degraded from historic land uses and thus the proposed wetland enhancements within the portion of
the wetland westerly of the revised proposed boulevard location will result in a net increase in wetland
functional values. Presently,the portion of Wetland 2 that is closest to the proposed boulevard is
classified as a palustrine(inland freshwater)shrub-scrub wetland that is dominated by non-native invasive
species that includes purple loostrife(Lythrum salicaria), multiflora rose(Rosa multi flora) as well as
native silky dogwood(Corpus amomum). The proximity of the boulevard to the wetland will not cause a
significant adverse or physical impact on Wetland 2 based upon its existing degraded condition and the
fact that the road is proposed within an upland area presently consisting of a field grass community. The
previously noted GSCIKleinfelder wetland impact report provides additional details on this and the other
wetlands on or within the vicinity of the project site.
Please contact me at(860)683-4200 ext. 145 if you have any questions,comments,or request additional
information.
Very truly yours,
GSCIKleinfelder
Date: 2006.03.08
21:58:08-05'00'
Jeffrey R. Shames,CE, SS,PWS
Environmental Planning Senior Project Manager
cc: FLB Architecture and Planning
0510203DA
"C KLEINFELDER 99 Lamberton Road,Suite 201,Windsor,CT 06095 (800)929-4472 toll free (860)683-4200 phone (860)683-4206 fax
Mar 22 2000 10: 56 HP LRSERJET FAX p, 1
M/S Town Line Associates
555 Main Street
Manchester, CT 06040
March 22, 2006
Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Ellington Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Office South, 2700 Tamarack Avenue
Application #06-01 P
Dear Commission Members,
This letter consents to an additional extension of time to conclude the public hearing on the
subject application for a total period of 7 days to allow the hearing to continue on
Wednesday, April 5, 2006.
Very truly yours,
M/S ine Associates
By o inguerra
Its Member, duly authorized
Cc: Alan F. Lamson
Atty. Laurence P. Rubinow
P:05281.20/FLBUr/IWA060322
FUSS &O'NEILL
Disciplines to Deliver
April 3,2006
Jeffrey B. Doolitle,P.E.
Town Engineer
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor,CT 06074
Re: Application#06-01P Office South at Evergreen Walk
Response to Jeffrey Doolittle's Comments dated March 28,2006
Dear Mr.Doolitle:
The following is in response to your comments dated March 28,2006 and our meeting in your office
on Friday,March 31,2006 for the above referenced projects. Fuss&O'Neill's response below pertains
only to the comments for our portion of the project. The other comments are addressed under
separate cover by the appropriate professionals. Fuss&O'Neill's responses are in italics.
1. Are all 4 stop signs necessary at the intersection of Tamarack Ave and Evergreen Way and at
the sharp corner on Evergreen Way? The plans show a stop bar at both ends (N&S) of the
front drive along the west side of the building but no stop signs. Add a stop sign at these two
locations...
The 4 stops signs are necessary far safety reasons until Tamarack Avenue and Evergreen Way are extended in
the future. Stop signs have been added to the revised plans.
2. This plan includes connecting Evergreen Way with Tamarack Drive. However,Evergreen
Way does not seem to be suitable for a connector road from ECHN to the Shops at Evergreen
Walk as it is narrow and there are several sharp turns. Why not make Evergreen Way wider
with a median and turn lanes? Is there a plan to build Tamarack Drive to connect the north
and south ends of this property in the future?
F B Architecture will respond to this comment.
146 Hartford Road
Manchester,CT 3. There should be a large visible barrier(such as a guardrail)with reflectorized signs at the sharp
06040-5992 corner on Evergreen Way shown on these plans so vehicles do not drive off the pavement and
t(860)646-2469 into the drainage ditch if they miss this turn.
(800)286-2469
f(860)533-5143 Guardrail and refiectorked signs have been added to the revised plans.
www.FandO.com
4. Include flow/sizing calculations for the Vortechs Model 9000 sediment chamber.
Connecticut
The calculations for the Vortechs Model 9000 are included in the revised Drainage Report
Massachusetts
-New York
Rhode-Island
North Carolina
G:\P2000\481\S10\Response to Jeff Doolittle's Comments March 28 2006.doc
South Carolina Corres.(HO)
Jeffrey Doolittle,P.E.
April 3,2006
Page 2
5. I still have questions about the Drainage Report and would be gland to talk to the Engineer
about these issues. This report needs to be signed and stamped by a licensed PE in CT. The
pipe report in Appendix A shows three 30"pipes with insufficient capacity,however,the value
used for Mannings n was high. This needs to be checked. What flows and detention time was
the detention basin designed for? The Drainage Report has different inlet flows in the pipe
report,Appendix B and Appendix F. It is also not clear how the detention basin outlet flows
were calculated. What are the expected water elevations in the detention basin for the different
storms? Again Appendix B and F have different outlet flows and water surface elevation
values. What is the expected detention time for a 10 year storm in the detention basin and the
duration of the discharge from the detention basin? This basin needs to be designed to hold
the stormwater long enough to provide stormwater treatment,reduce the outlet flow and
offset the peak discharge so there is not adverse effects such as erosion or flooding on
downstream channels or properties. Over half of the proposed detention basin is to be
constructed in fill. Details for the construction of this basin need to be included in the plans.
Does this proposed basin need a DEP Dam Safety,Repair and Alteration permit? Extend the
gravel drive to the detention basin outlet for maintenance?
The revised Drainage Report is signed and stamped by a licensed PE in CT. The pipe report in A endix A
has been revised to use the correct Mannings n. The pipes all have su fteient capacity. The Drainage.Report
shows the analysis of the total rvaterrhed for a full build in Appendix E. This analysis waf used to determine
the size of the detention basin. A endix B is the analysis of the total watershed for the development of the
Ofce South site only. The expected water surface elevations for the detention basin are shown in revised
A4endix B for the development of the proposed Office South site and th y are shown in Appendix E for the
full build condition. Text has been added to the revised report for clarifi"cation. The detention time for the 10-
year storm is included in Appendix E. Three stone berms have been added to the low flow channel in the
detention basin to assist in stormwater treatment and minimi.Ze the peak discharge. The stone berms are shown
on the revised plans. This detention basin is constructed similar to the other 4 detention basins on site. During
the design of the basins,it was determined that a DEP Dam Safety, Repair andAlterationpermit was not
required. The gravel drive to the detention basin has been modified
6. All the roof runoff enters the level spreader at a velocity of over 5 fps and has to make a sharp
turn to fill the level spreader before flowing out into the field. The configuration of the level
spreader should be checked to be sure this will not cause erosion of the sides of the level
spreader.
A drop manhole was added to the revised plans to slow the stormwater down before it reaches the level spreader.
In addition,more rip rap armoring was added to the discharge in the level spreader so that no erosion occurs.
These changes are shown on the revised plans.
7. The Drainage Report shows a grass swale and calculations. Where is this located on the plans?
The grass Swale and calculations have been removed from the drainage report. There are no grass swales on the
revised plans.
G:\P2000\481\S10\Response to Jeff Doolittle's Comments March 28 2006.doc
Corres.(HQ)
Jeffrey Doolittle,P.E.
April 3,2006
Page 3
8. The culvert and old farm crossing in the drainage ditch between ECHN and this site needs to
be removed and the channel restored in this area. This culvert appears to be undersized and
may be clogged by debris in the channel,resulting in flooding of either adjacent site.
The revised plans call out for the old farm culvert and crossing to be removed and the channel restored.
9. Check for conflicts between the utilities (esp storm drainage and water) and the landscaping
and lighting. These need to be corrected.
Rosemary Aldridge,Insite Inc.,will check herplans against ours to coordinate tree plantings with the proposed
utilities and make any necessary adjustments.
10. Provide design calculations for the sanitary sewer pump station and pressure main. The long
sanitary force main should have clean-outs or access ports at bends and regular intervals for
maintenance access. Show these on the plan.
The calculations and recommendations for the sanitary seiverpump station and pressure main were done by
Water Resource Technologies and are attached.
11. Include a detail for the transition from the sanitary force main to a gravity line upstream of the
existing manhole behind LA Fitness. Consider designing the sanitary sewer main to be gravity
flow for as far as possible upstream of the connection to the existing manhole behind LA
fitness to serve future buildings in this area.
A callout has been added to the revised plans to require that a 6-inch diameter length ofp pe be connected to the
sanitary manhole and the force main will tie into the 6-inch lateral. This is what was done for the ECHN
force main connection to thegravity sewer in Buckland Road.
12. Add items for the regular sweeping of the parking lot,sidewalks and driveways and
inspection/cleaning intervals for the Vortechs unit to the stormwater Operations and
Maintenance plan (on sheet CE.5.10.
The information has been added to the revised plans.
13. What is the Basin Outlet Structure detail for and where is it to be located? (On sheet CE.5.1)
Is this a Temporary Basin Outlet Structure? Show where this is to be installed.
It is a temporary sediment basin outlet structure.
14. Include a detail for the rip rap emergency spillway construction.
The detail has been added to the revised plans.
G:\P2000\481\S10\Response to Jeff Doolittle's Comments March 28 2006.doc
Corres.(HQ)
Jeffrey Doolittle,P.E.
April 3,2006
Page 4
15. Change the concrete sidewalk detail to show a 4 ft minimum sidewalk width.
The concrete sidewalk detail shows a minimum 4'sidewalk on the revisedplans.
16. Extend the trash rack to cover the upper 6"inlet orifice on the detention basin outlet structure
detail.
A trash rack has been added to cover the upper 6"inlet orifice.
17. The detail for the Roof Drain Pick-up needs to include a metal frame and cap if this is in
pavement or a concrete sidewalk.
Metal frame and cap is called out on the revised plans.
18. Will drains be included in the process aggregate fill over the culvert to drain any water that
seeps into this material through the grass surfaces over the culvert.
No. The area isgraded such that any overflow will drain to thegutters.
19. This project must be submitted to the WPCA for review and approval.
This project will be submitted to the W�PCA for review and approval the week ofApril 3,2006.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 646-2469 ext. 5269 if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
�f-
Michelle Carlson,P.E.
Associate
Attachment
c: Marcia Banach,Town Planner,Town of South Windsor
Jeff Folger,Environmental Planner,Town of South Windsor
Alan Lamson,FLB Architecture&Planning,Inc.
G:\P2000\481\S10\Response to Jeff Doolittle's Comments March 28 2006.doc
Cones.(HQ)
e %ar. 01 2006 4: 35PM Water Resource Technologi 860. 872. 6822 P. 1
a■N n
Water
Water ReSource Technologies, LLC
Re` :d U rcCo P.O.Box 156 Vernon, Connecticut 06066
Teo h n Eag ilex Voice 518.817.3198 Fax 860.872.6822
Scrvice 877-WRT-PUMP
calexander@wrtli.c.com
P«tecri»� r3tersh�d
Attention: Michelle M Carlson Company: Fuss & O'Neill Inc.
Subject: Office South Building Date: March 1, 2006
Michelle,
Attached are the hydraulics and preliminary pipe sizing analysis for the office south
building at Evergreen Walk.
I ran the analysis using 1-112" SDR 9 IPS HDPE pipe with a "C"factor of 150. Two
separate reports were calculated to show the friction loss and velocity in situations where
one or both pumps were running. Both head conditions were well within the ideal
operating parameters.
I am assuming you will be using the same pump that we used for the previous building,
which is a quadraplex tank with only 2 cores installed. That will handle your 6,600 gpd
estimate and should work perfectly. I would recommend a flushing connection installed
at the first 90 degree bend for cleanouts.
If you have any other questions please feel free to give me a call.
Regards,
Connor Alexander
Connecticut Sales
Water Resource Technologies, LLC
O'
iV
O
O
O
-P
Cri
(il
iI II! (M }rtr F: . 1
a
'�,h 5 +,F xs;l; �•-�•-�— �41 of c"?, T.Ffh'J 1.rr. �r! a i r / F"S,..�V -r i co ay +�
0.
r � + -z < 'aG?x-
'_' A,�r`.'... ti tfe�'y`+""c•., �u^" fit
L7 yrw,>'.A,.e...t.,,,. z. rs 4 tt.—•�;.,��5£--r*S�'F —,-.,ems"t. E
r
it�Y6.Y3a� i ;, I' w�,. - x ri 7TM"+ I .-2' i'�ti4 c i +'; tt' t,t"--�'~ .x..i•�'Ir sR .rat ro, �1
# x;fir i r 5 t , a eta tix
Ln P l�nr1 r •1,n•�? r 'F t '1�trlR da -,-<-e'�rN.7, d•..•.M.�::rrr-+A Sr - xid',..._ t 'r'-r`. (D
4 +•+. f 7 K• s
Connor Alexander >
fe52
';da� � 3 a"33� rS ^�'�a l LrT to yk e
�. i.w '�'w „'�XyT '1
r : Office South Building at Evergreen
. ... <.. `.
sLA
u"''� j1»�y"-,•>:,'�t�3:.. r*a'^ a� 4 .
ru > 4+ O
tn.� h'cf . •,T�6I^-`n r�'' ISC .,r<u- �1 ��`-�y Nyp� n3i -�.q = l I �t..-S.. .r,4.d7.._�.. .J a
C
O'Neill Fuss& o
i n
C#�Min*
„.•'• .'`asr,"'-s -' 'i"+"gg. ,,� 'a �_,--� 7 `• " r,.�;fi" -..y'c ,
3 '.. "� ^r»eta 'S x1t:w' a Iz. a^•'�a -I
n max^ r.r C r g� rUp
ur. .if• ,�s :a:i +S ^^•ro+ 1 1I7-at_..t x 1..._,.. Ac. .. r .x:.r '-r7i 5•x""-t..a.t't -, hs<4 f
_ ,��nFF='1.i: ._ '^n��.!'w•.,�-.-at ., ...:,at'k3� '�', r�+':.5.....r�4.?�.,a..r"i.�ei::,>�'T"Y�� 3�'-_''' w« . r �I ��r; t'J�{. �':Y . '�" �;1-.v O
'�
' 9 150 SDR 9 PE Pipe(US) e :3
' z o
AF 10111
�•
j O
F.1
R )(.' s1t F•�.p:•i„cp ,v.'-.-rn'(,s 7—• 3 ^y ^5' r P .-..�.�. tr !'��HC? f a �at...��'-a,---•^�re_'^.T�,,�„ *s,'..---t...;:z N.
�,�}„ ..RdfiU'..xes r..nr�,.,.—..-,.,+dln--'�'".v.7w.cn.+1-t�.r ..�.: .,,...�w:.��` •.,.. � i _ +�,. �� � `
A 6600 t 240 Volt 60 Hz
- i o-:r a)
FqM
_ rr a. txa x m t y It �1 O
—dit. s'I"v .a i•-s;"} _x^ r .:[u+ s. tr' :Sic yY!..,r7 �+,M,a-r—vt�t� t u .. �r....s
Nt
-1_ •fir
,�, 1� 41:... '�i.i..F ��'t1FS- •w.�'hMd """�, %tea
O
», O
' N
N
File: Blank Hydraulic Analysis Sheet:Main Menu Page 1 of 3 ry
3/1/2006
PRELIMINARY PRESSURE SEWER—PIPE SIZING AND BRANCH ANALYSIS Blank Hydraulic Analysisfu
Date: Mar-01-06 Office South Building at Evergreen Walk Prepared By: 0.`
Fuss&O'Neill Connor Alexander r
' fV
Zone Number Of Cores Accumulated Maximum Number Maximum Pipe Maximum Length Friction Friction Accumulated Maximum Minimum Statle Total 0
Number Connected Total Of Cores Of Simultaneous Flow In Size Velocity Of Main loss Factor Loss Friction Loss Main Pump Head Dynamic 0
0
This Zone This Zone Operations GPM (Inch) (FPS) This Zone (FT1100 FT) This Zone (Feet) Elevation Elevation (Feet) Head(Ft)
Pipe diameters used for: SDR 8 PE Pipe(US) -.
Power. 240 Volt 60 Hz Constant for inside roughness of'C" = 150
_ - W
One Core Runnin `3
• 3
1.00 1 1 1 13 1.50 2.43 1262 1.70 21.43 21.43 136 l 115 21 42.43
Both Cores RunningE
__. It
2.00 2 2 2 22 1.50 4.11 12621 4.50 56.79 56.79 136 115 21 77.79
m
--- to
- O
C
m
0
T
0
0- --
00
i m
- —
I N
� Ol
i --�— - - -_ IV
__ fV
i
W
Page 2 of 3 Note:This analysis valid only with the use of ElOne positive displacement pumps. LPS 2000—Ver 1.0
3.
PRELIMINARY PRESSURE SEWER—PIPE SIZING AND BRANCH ANALYSIS Blank Hydraulic Analysis
Date: Mar-01-06 Office South Building at Evergreen Walk Prepared By: 0-
Fuss&O'Neill Connor Alexander
_ N
4 Zone Accumulated Existing Gal Per Length Capacity Average Average Average Accumulated 0
Number Total Of Cores Pipe 100 Lineal Of Of Daily Fluid Changes Retention Retention 0
m
This Zone Size Feet Zone Zone Flow Per Day Time(Mr) Time(Hr)
Pipe diameters used for: SDR 9 PE Pipe(US) Gallons/Day/Core = 6600 ..
W
e Core
ron
-D
3
1.00 1 1.50 8.91 1262.00 112.47 6600.00 58.68 0.41 0.41
Both Cot Eo�
r+
2.00 2 1.50 8.91 1262.00 112.47 13200.00 117.36 0.20 0.20
. m
- — O
C
0
M
M
-- 0
s
—L..... �._.—--
I m
o
m
-- I' IU
t� N
'a
-A
Page 3 of 3 Note:This analysis valid only with the use of ElOne positive displacement pumps. LPS 2000—Ver 1.0
.r
11O'NN Sf4
Sou. ?d
S �
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
r�dSOR-CO � TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
April 12, 2006
Certified #70020460000197444613
FLB Architecture & Planning
Attn: Alan Lamson
19 Silver Lane
East Hartford, CT 06118
RE: Appl. #06-01 P— Evergreen Walk Office South
Dear Mr. Lamson:
At the April 5, 2006 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation
Commission approved application #06-01 P— Evergreen Walk Office South —West side
of Buckland Road — Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission application to construct a
medical office building, parking lots, stormwater structures, and associated
improvements on property located approximately 270 feet westerly of Buckland Road,
and approximately 310 feet southerly of Deming Street, on portions of the "sixth" and
"fourth" pieces of land owned by Evergreen Walk LLC. Gateway Development Zone.
This approval is subject to the following 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 April 5, 2011. 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.
Evergreen Walk Office South
April 12, 2006
Page 2
6. A monitoring plan to be drafted in order to monitor the rain gardens for 5 years.
Town staff to review and approve the plan.
7. A bond in the amount of$20,000 to be submitted to the Planning &Zoning
Commission to ensure compliance with the erosion and sedimentation control
measures.
8. A bond in the amount of$50,000 to be submitted to the Planning &Zoning
Commission to ensure establishment of the stormwater structures.
9. The elevation of the low flow channel should be set six inches below the invert of
the outlet pipe.
Very truly yours,
/,Java 01/
&Iabetp A. Warren, Chairperson
INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
EW:dr
cc: Chief Building Official