MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY=
, JANUARY
11, 2007 - 7:00 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION #573
– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
L=
ucia
DiBona
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
G=
len
Duplissie, Acting Secretary
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Tom Murphy
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Charles
Thermer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Denise
Russ
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Martha Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 7:07 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Thermer, in his
absence.
&= nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record as follows:<= o:p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 2
CONSERVATION COMMISSIO=
N/INLAND
WETLANDS AGENCY
GROUND RULES
1.&n=
bsp; =
;
The applica=
nt or
his representative will make his formal presentation to the Commission stat=
ing
the proposed regulated activities, the wetland impacts, and the alternatives
which were considered by the applicant.
2.&n=
bsp; =
;
All comment=
s,
discussions, and observations shall be made through the Chair after proper
recognition by the Chairman. =
This
is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time speaks on any issue, =
thus
making it easier for everyone to understand, and for clearer legal
transcription.
3.&n=
bsp; =
;
All persons
addressing the Commission shall begin by first clearly stating their name a=
nd
address for the record. If
necessary, the person may be asked to spell his or her name for the record.=
4.&n=
bsp; =
;
Following t=
he
presentation of the application, the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands
Agency will ask specific questions of the applicant.
5.&n=
bsp; =
;
After the
Commission has asked its questions of the applicant, I shall then allow mem=
bers
of the public who wishes to speak either in favor of this application or
against it to address the Commission.
6.&n=
bsp; =
;
I shall then
allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of the general
public.
7.&n=
bsp; =
;
I shall then
allow any members of the general public who wish to present any additional
information or clarifying discussion to do so.
8.&n=
bsp; =
;
I shall then
provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these additional rem=
arks
if he or his representative so wishes.
9.&n=
bsp; =
;
The Conserv=
ation
Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency has forty-five (45) days from the date the
Public Hearing commences to complete the Public Hearing. The Commission may ask the applica=
nt for
a forty-five (45) day extension of the Public Hearing period if the Commiss=
ion
requires any additional information or wishes to schedule a site walk to
observe the situation for themselves.
10.&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
The Conserv=
ation
Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency has thirty-five (35) days from the date w=
hen
the Public Hearing is closed to render its decision.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 3
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of the Public Hearing from December 14, 2006 - Application #573 of Heritage
Development Group, Inc. for construction of Heritage Wood 352 housing units=
Age
Restricted Planned Residential Development on Bunker Hill and Middlebury Ro=
ads,
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by January 11, 2007.
Mr. Houlihan: At our last meeting, if you will recall, we were
asked to finalize any outstanding items from Land Tech's December 12, 2006
letter and meet with staff to review each item. We presented a written point by po=
int
response to Land Tech's letter dated December 12th, and we met with Mr. Raf=
ey,
Mr. Berger, and representatives from Land Tech to discuss each item on Janu=
ary
3, 2007. I believe we reached=
consensus
on all items and we included directly on our plan notes Land Tech's
recommendations so as to avoid having any unnecessary conditions of
approval. Land Tech has since
reviewed our plans and they have produced hopefully what would be their fin=
al
letter dated yesterday, January 10, 2007.&=
nbsp;
That letter, and I'm just going to give my rendition of it, I don't =
mean
to speak for Land Tech, but as I understand it that letter basically states
that we have provided acceptable responses to all items with the following
exceptions or additions:
1. =
They
have asked that we provide a tabulation of activities not only in the wetla=
nds
but also in the 50 foot regulated upland review area. This was done and that was given t=
o Mr.
Rafey. By my calculations tha=
t number
went from about 6.5 acres in our original application down to 3.25 acres, w=
hich
is a reduction of almost 50%, so between Land Tech and our engineers I think
they've done a good job.
2. =
They
have asked that the establishment of vegetation along the wetland sewer line
and within the water quality basins be monitored and invasive species manag=
ed
for a minimum of 3 growing seasons.
We have no objection and we will agree to incorporate this as a note=
on
our drawings.
3. =
With
respect to erosion and sediment control, they'd like to ensure that the Town
has the ability to conduct periodic site inspections and provide oversight =
of
inspection measures. Again we=
have
no objection and we will agree to incorporate this in the notes on our
drawings.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 4
4. =
They
requested that the Commission stipulate that an integrated pest management =
plan
be submitted for review prior to the start of construction. There is already a note on the dra=
wing
regarding the requirement for an integrated pest management plan, but we wi=
ll
add an additional note that it shall be submitted for review prior to start=
of
construction, so we have no objection on that.
As far as I know that's
pretty much it. As the Commis=
sion
knows we have a site plan and special permit application pending before
Planning and Zoning and it would be useful, if this Commission is so inclin=
ed,
for us to Close the Public Hearing and vote this evening if they see fit.
Perly Grimes, Attorney, Kramer & Anderson
Atty. Grimes: I just wanted to clar=
ify
that to be sure that you understood that you do have 35 days from the Close=
of
the Public Hearing and I heard it read earlier that it was 65 days, but
according to this Red Book which is the Statutes of the State of Connecticu=
t,
and also your regulations 22a42 says that if the inland/wetlands agency or =
its
agent fails to act on an application within 35 days after the completion of=
a
Public Hearing.
Mr. Rafey: Is that the revised ve=
rsion,
the latest?
Atty. Grimes: <=
/b> Yes, this is the latest.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> What's the date on it?
Atty. Grimes: The date of the revision? This was effective July 03, and yo=
ur own
regulations, Section 11-1 I think . . . .
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Mr. Rafey: =
I think that's changed, now we have=
65
days. Let me see if I have th=
at.
Atty. Grimes: It's not a point, other than just to make sure t= hat we would want you to act in a seasonable fashion and I think it's 35 days.<= o:p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 5
Mr. Duplissie: =
I'm not sure, I'm looking at your w=
etland
and regulated area disturbance, I'm looking at, it says general building pa=
ds,
3,900 square feet on the first page and on the second page it has general b=
uilding
pads, 203,000 square feet and then 2 lines below that it says building pads,
14,000 square feet. You have =
352 buildings,
I'm assuming your pads are more than 14,000 square feet.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Ken Hrica, Professiona=
l Engineer
and Licensed Land Surveyor
Mr. Hrica:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> What you're looking at on the two =
sheets
is a comparison. If you look =
at the
dates between the first sheet and the second sheet, one is revised to most
currently to show that we've actually had a reduction in the total area of
wetland disturbance from the very first submission that we gave to this
Commission until now, and that reduction in the total area of disturbance f=
or
building pads, for water quality basins, is a direct result of the review by
Land Tech and the revisions that we've made along the way up until this lat=
est
submission so what you're looking at . . . .
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Mr. Duplissie: So on the front page which is the one that was
revised on 1/11/07, where it says general building pads, 3,955 square feet,
that is the reduction from the first one?
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Mr. Hrica: =
That is the total amount of upland =
review
area disturbance now associated with the building pads. I can give you the reduction numbe=
rs, I
do have those with me, I just have to beat them out of my file here. In comparison for general building=
pads
we have reduced the amount of impact from the first submission until now by
69,514 square feet or about 1.6 acres.
Mr. Duplissie: In the upland review area.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Mr. Hrica: =
In the upland review area. There are no wetland impacts becau=
se of the
general building pad areas. A=
nd for
the water quality basin, we've reduced the total amount of upland review im=
pact
by 90,924 square feet or by about 2.09 acres.
Mr. Polletta: So the less building pads 14,530 square feet, th=
is
is the less figure that you have for us, am I correct? On the second page?
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Mr. Hrica: = No the second page is actually a co= py of what we submitted on September 25th when we first started this process. The sheet that you have in front o= f you is for comparison reasons, to show you where we were and where we are now. = The total amount of disturbance in = the upland review area for the general building pads is now 3,955 square feet.<= o:p>
Mr. Duplissie: Done did good.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 6
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> At the last meeting we had a big li=
st and
it looks like you went through all of them and the other engineer is
nodding. You're happy with ev=
erything
and do you see anything else that (inaudible)?
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Christopher Allen, Lan=
d Tech
Consultants
Mr. Allen: =
No.
It's pretty much stated in our letter that they did provide acceptab=
le response
to all of the items in that previous letter and they went through the items
that we had mentioned in addition (inaudible) tonight.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Mr. Zawadzki: Mr. Houlihan, did we ask you previously about
conservation easements on the wetlands and setback areas throughout the
development?
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> No, but that was brought to my atte=
ntion
by Mr. Rafey and I guess our initial reaction to that was that in this cont=
ext
we don't think it's necessary.
You've basically got, it's a condominium form of ownership so it's n=
ot
the same type of situation you'd have in a subdivision where you've got fee
simple ownership of lots. The
people who live here basically own from the sheet rock in, so it's really j=
ust
a different situation.
Mr. Duplissie: And the association that you're going to have
running this place is, I'm not sure of the by-laws that you're going to cre=
ate
for this will understand that if they are going to do anything, even if they
put up a doghouse on this site, they have to come before us.
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> That's correct.
Mr. Duplissie: They can't come into the wetlands, the upland re=
view
area, this is done, this base print that we're giving . . . .
Mr. Houlihan: Yea, this is the plan and you can't do anything
other than what's on the plan.
Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, but what about the guys who mow the lawn?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Where are they going to stop
mowing? There should be some =
line
of demarcation.
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> Well we're not opposed to any kind =
of
marking.
Mr. Zawadzki: Some sort of flagging?
Mr. Houlihan: Yea, we'd be glad to do that. We sort of see that as part of the
character of the site. We'd l=
ike to,
whatever sort of postings and markings you would typically do . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Didn't we talk about monuments or
something?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 7
Mr. Duplissie: We talked about monuments with another . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Another application, something more
permanent than just a first (inaudible) strip in the ground with a plaque on
it.
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> What we typically do on clearing li=
mits
is, well I shouldn't say typically, I don't suppose there is a . . . . the
little round sign.
Mr. Rafey: =
We have some placards, Mr. Chairman=
, for
conservation easement areas and we can order one for wetland regulated area=
s,
they can put it on the 50 foot upland review area line.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> But what do you attach them to?
Mr. Rafey: =
If there are any trees, you can att=
ach
them to the trees. If there a=
re no
trees you can put 4 x 4 foot posts in the ground to put the markers on.
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> I&=
nbsp;
live in Southbury, we have (inaudible).
Mr. Rafey: =
That is one reason the Commission w=
ants
on the conservation easement areas on those (inaudible).
Mr. Houlihan: We are not opposed to any kind of demarcation of
that area.
Mr. Duplissie: Typically it's every =
50 feet.
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> Yea, sure.
Mr. Rafey: It depends, 50, 40 mor=
e or
less.
Mr. Houlihan: Well we'll do it however you like.=
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> Areas where you've invaded the upl=
and
review area, when you have these pads and stuff, where you're only 20 feet =
from
an upland review or closer, we prefer that you stay away from that water as=
far
as possible.
Mr. Houlihan: Understood.
Mr. Duplissie: Especially when you know they're going to use
chemicals on this site, they're going to use pesticides and that's why we w=
ant
to keep them away.
Mr. Houlihan: Understood.
Mr. Polletta: On something like this, Moosa will walk with you=
and
he'll tell you what you have to have, or you actually have your engineer ma=
rk
it and . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 8
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> Yea, we'll probably use our surveyo=
r to
go out with us and then mark, and if Moosa wants to walk it with us when we=
're
done, or while we're doing it . . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> That brings up the next point.
Mr. Rafey: =
I asked for a map of the entire
development and show the location of those markers on that map. Is that possible?
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> Well everything is possible.
Mr. Rafey: =
We just got one from another develo=
pment.
Mr. Houlihan: The cost of identifying those points on a site l=
ike
this, that's really pretty high.
Mr. Rafey: =
No, but you already have your 50 fo=
ot
line on the map.
Mr. Duplissie: We would be more than
willing to do this, rather than you have to draw it out, and I know it takes
time to locate all those points, we'd be more than willing to have 1 or 2 of
the members walk the site before you get your final C.O. and we'll just walk
with whoever you want it to be and we'll put a flag and that's where they p=
ut a
monument, or that put a plaque on a tree, or we'll take an afternoon or a
Saturday morning, I don't care it could be 2 or whoever, we need volunteers
here to go with your engineer . . . . .
Mr. Houlihan: We're not opposed to that but you understand to
survey in those points . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: I agree, but if you're willing to go with 2 of t=
he
members, one of your engineers . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: Normally those points are made like so many feet
form the edge of the wetlands, but you put (inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: =
That's a lot of space. The wetlands are flagged.
Mr. Zawadzki: And the 50 foot buffer is already flagged?
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> I don't think the buffer is flagged=
, the
wetland limits are flagged.
Mr. Duplissie: =
And those flags are going to change,
that's where they have the construction and they're going to move. And I understand it's a major expe=
nse to
put them on drawings and mark all of those and put all monuments on them, b=
ut
if you're willing to spend a morning . . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 9
Mr. Polletta: In one morning is not . . . . you're going to do=
all
that?
Mr. Duplissie: Sure, you'll walk that, after they've done the s=
ite
walk you'll see here, here, here, here, here.
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> Plus we're going to be doing it in =
phases
so you can do it by phase, and we're not opposed to . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: =
\Your engineer wants t=
o do
that.
Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> You do?
Mr. Allen: I (inaudible) also agree to have the disturbance
limits surveyed prior to the start of construction so those limits would al=
ready
be in place.
Mr. Houlihan: Yea, we would have to do that anyway to identify=
the
clearing limits. That will be=
one
of the stipulations.
Mr. Zawadzki: That brings us up to=
the
next point of keeping track of all this, we're going to request a third par=
ty
supervisor aside from Moosa that would be able to be on site neutral other =
than
someone on your payroll.
Mr. Houlihan: To do what?
Mr. Zawadzki: To inspect and follow, make sure that the condit=
ions
of approval are maintained. T=
his is
going to be a pretty detailed condition of approval.
Mr. Houlihan: If that's different than, we sort of reached an
agreement, and this is subject to the Board's approval of course, that as i=
t relates
to the inspection of sediment and erosion controls which sort of tie into t=
he
D.E.P. general permit, we wanted to have the design engineer inspect them o=
n a
periodic basis and certify to the Town that it's being done properly. In addition to that, if the Commis=
sion
feels like they needed oversight, I believe we just agreed to that as
well. We don't want it to be,=
I
mean I don't want to pay a guy to do it twice, but in general we'd like to =
have
the first batch of it be done by the design engineer because he's most fami=
liar
with what it is, I mean he designed it, and a lot of towns, actually that's
what they require, and again he's certifying to the Town, he's putting his
stamp on this, so if that's acceptable to you, that would be preferable to
us. We're not opposed at any =
point
in time if any Commission member, I mean you guys have this right anyway as=
far
as I know, if you want to come out and say hey, let's get Chris Allen from =
Land
Tech to come out and check on these guys to see that we're all comfortable =
with
it, on a periodic basis, we're okay with that too, we just don't want it to=
get
crazy.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 10
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Well the thought was t=
hat
this is such a large project and pretty involved that you know Moosa is spr=
ead
pretty thin and he wouldn't be able to keep up with it.
Mr. Houlihan: =
That's understood. Your staff wouldn't be (inaudible)=
.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> You'd be willing to pay Chris to c=
ome
out and inspect? This is goin=
g to
go on for 2 years?
Mr. Houlihan: Every bit of that.
Mr. Duplissie: So I mean and for, we just don't have the resour=
ces
to send Moosa out there twice a week to watch, so I think if Chris went out,
who is very familiar with the project, if he went out even every two weeks =
to
just spend an hour and look at it, whatever it is, whatever he thinks the t=
ime
is, sometimes it's just a drive by to look at it to see that you're working=
in
that area, there's nothing going on today.
Mr. Houlihan: That little period would be excessive in my
view. If I'm paying him to ov=
ersee
the work and certify to you that it's done, no way I'm going to pay somebody
else to oversee him twice a week.
Mr. Duplissie: No, not twice a week, =
maybe
twice a month for an hour or even once a month.
Mr. Houlihan: =
I would think quarterly
would be more (inaudible).
Mr. Rafey: I think quarterly would be reasonable.
Mr. Duplissie: And I'm not saying it's going to be a long time,
he's familiar with the project so if he goes out there and if he spends 2 h=
ours
walking the site with you, that's a lot of time.
Mr. Houlihan: Sure, I agree, we would agree to that.
Mr. Duplissie: If that meets with his, would you be able to take
that on?
Mr. Allen: Sure, I think it's something that Moosa and I can
discuss as to how often the Town would be comfortable with doing that. I think even just reviewing the stu=
ff
that the engineer is going to be submitting reports for erosion and sediment
control.
Mr. Duplissie: There might be 6 months that you don't have to do
anything and then it might be a 3 month period where there's a lot of
excavation where you might have to be there 3 times to watch.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 11
Mr. Houlihan: That's fine with us.=
Mr. Zawadzki: We'll leave that open=
as
far as who we pick. Anything =
else?
Mr. Duplissie: No, I'm happy with w=
hat
they've done on the site. Thi=
s site
could have been really chewed up.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Chuck isn’t here=
tonight
but you reviewed this all with Chuck too, and Chris Allen?
Mr. Rafey: We had a meeting, we
depend on Mr. Allen's review and his office.
Mr. Allen: We've had several
conversations with Mr. Berger too.
Mr. Rafey: All of the engineeri=
ng
issues and the drainage, everything is done?
Mr. Allen: As far as the wetlands
application, yes. There still=
some
conditional engineering review for Planning and Zoning, the roadway design =
and
that sort of thing.
Mr. Zawadzki: Needless to say we d=
idn't
get a chance to digest this latest letter here but I guess you read from th=
is,
right, this is the one dated January 10th?
Mr. Houlihan: Yes.
Mr. Undercuffler: Does Mr. Allen have
anything to comment on other than . . .?
Mr. Allen: No, I don't think so,
nothing additional I can say tonight, what's included in the letter.
Ms. Sturgis: You say that (inaudi=
ble)
acceptable responses, are they (inaudible) everything don't you?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Zawadzki: Is there anyone from=
the
public who wishes to speak?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
JANUARY 11, 2007
PAGE 12
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Polletta,
sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Close the Public Hearing for App. #573 of Heritage Development Group, Inc. for
construction of Heritage Wood 352 housing units Age Restricted Planned
Residential Development on Bunker Hill and Middlebury Roads,
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Closed at 7:30 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
James
Zawadzki, Chairman
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary