MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC H=
EARING
THURSDAY=
, JULY
6, 2006 - 7:00 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION #557
– DONALD CURTISS
PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
G=
len
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
ABSENT: &nb=
sp; =
=
L=
ucia
DiBona
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; None
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Martha Sturgis
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Chuck
Berger, Town Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 8:15 p.m=
.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 2
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, read aloud the Legal Notice for the record as
follows:
The Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Watertown will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 6, 2006= at the Watertown High School Technology Center, 324 French Street, Watertown, = CT to hear and act upon the following application deemed a significant activit= y by the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency pursuant to Section 2.1(dd1-7) of the Watertown Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations.
Application #557 of Donald Curtiss to conduct the following regulated
activities involved in the construction of 13-lot Bassett Hollow Residential
Subdivision and associated roadway off of
At
this Hearing interested persons may be heard and written communications
received. A copy of the appli=
cation
is on file at the Planning and Zoning Office, 51 Depot Street, Suite 52,
Watertown, CT.
Dated at
Dated at
Ron Jones, Secretary
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands
Agency
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 3
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&= nbsp; C. Application #557 of Donald Curtiss for construction of 13-lot proposed Bassett Hollow Residential Subdivision located on Hollow Road, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by Augu=
st 10,
2006, unless applicant grants a time extension.
Ms. Jones: =
This particular subdivision was in =
front
of you under a previous application and due to the timeframe and the amount=
of
(inaudible) we withdrew the application and resubmitted. During the first application proce=
ss we
received comment from both the Town Engineer and Land Tech Consultants that=
we
addressed. We do expect to ha=
ve
further discussions with the Town Engineer through this review process but =
we
feel that a majority of the previously addressed issues, previously raised
issues have been addressed.
What I really want to =
talk
about tonight is the major change to the plans which is the modified road
design of
Although we do not
necessarily value one wetland area over another, it is important in this ca=
se
to lay the overall picture of the wetland own the site and the functions and
values of each. Environmental
Planning Services has prepared a functional wetland evaluation of the area =
for
the proposed project. I submi=
tted
into the record at the last meeting, but I have extra copies which include
pictures of the area. Does an=
yone
need a copy? The report state=
s that
this wetland area was once part of a larger contiguous wetland that is now
bisected by
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 4
In addition it is an a=
rea
that takes the existing overflow from an existing 48 inch culvert to the le=
ft,
when that gets clogged in a large storm and it overtops. Essentially the wetlands was creat=
ed because
of an under sizing of a 48 inch culvert.&n=
bsp;
It's a pretty big watershed that goes to that area and in very large
storms in a 50 or 25 or 100 year storm if a lot of debris comes down that c=
hannel
it will overtop and that's how that area came to be a
wetlands. It is an are=
a that
is limited in size and function due to its proximity to the existing
Mr. Undercuffler: What kind of swales?
Ms. Jones: =
Basically grass lined swales cause =
the
road will not be curbed in that area because it's all at existing grade, and
with the grade restrictions from Planning & Zoning for the beginning of=
a
road, we can't put in catch basins at the very beginning of the road because
there's no where to daylight them so instead we'll use grass lined swales a=
long
the outer side of the road and crown the road and then one side of the road
with a 15 inch culvert to the east and the other side will drain to the 48 =
inch
culvert to the left to the grass lined swales.
The environmental plan=
ning services
report also states that the proposed crossing is not in a location that will
result in impact to anything that is a breeding habitat=
for amphibians or (inaudibl=
e)
wildlife due to the limited size and suitability of the area.
In speaking on the ove=
rall
picture, there are 3 other wetland areas on the property, an additional are=
a on
an adjacent property that is owned by the Curtiss' near
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 5
The applicant has agre=
ed to
do the work necessary to repair these problem areas, through mitigation and
stabilization measures that will satisfy the Town and help restore and prot=
ect
the wetlands. The repairs to =
the
channel on the adjacent parcel we can call it the (inaudible) since it was
taken as that awhile ago
The repairs to the channel on that parcel was not part of the
original application. It was =
not on
this property and therefore we do feel at this time it was the applicant's
responsibility to fix it, especially since it's due to storm drainage from =
the
Town's system. However
it is proposed as part of this application as an additional mitigation of t=
he
wetlands through the necessary disturbance of the wetlands for the road
entrance. Although it'=
s not
in the immediate area of the crossing that we proposed it is the same wetla=
nds
system and will provide a much greater benefit to the site and down gradien=
t properties
and wetlands than other mitigation measures such as the creation of a small
pocket of additional wetlands. We
feel that stabilizing this channel, stopping the erosion of the silt and
sediment that is coming through this pipe is a better benefit to the wetlan=
ds
than if we just dug out a small little 3,000 square foot additional piece of
wetlands.
We looked at several
location of the road to bring the road in to try to get it further from the
Curtiss' house to respect their privacy.&n=
bsp;
There is an existing tree lined buffer that is sort of between the
Curtiss' house and the location of the proposed detention basin originally =
the
road as proposed in that exact location and that tree line would have had to
come down. That tree line can=
now
be saved. In addition we look=
ed at
some areas in between, maybe on the edge of the wetlands but we felt that t=
his
particular location allowed us to stay with some of the bigger and more mat=
ure
trees in that wetlands. There=
are 2
in particular that are shown on the map that we had a surveyor look at and =
took
care to try to save those.
We feel that the slight
impact from this activity is far outweighed by the huge benefits of the ent=
ire
watershed (inaudible) because of this development and because of what the
Curtiss' are willing to take on to repair the existing damage. I will entertain questions from the
commission and the public. Fi=
rst I
would like to introduce Jim Strub, who has a few comments.
Jim Strub, Attorney, Seacor, Casland &
McPartland
Atty. Stub: Emily has summarized =
the
proposal very well so I don't want to get into that. I know there is a question and tha=
nk you
for moving the agenda around. Mrs. Curtiss
would like to address her feelings and why the proposed location of the roa=
d as
a prudent alternative. I know
you've previously seen the feasible alternatives that was in line right near
their home and the social benefits to the Curtiss' of moving the road when
weighed again the impact of that wetland area, as Emily has already discuss=
ed,
we feel is a under the circumstances a proper tradeoff. Obviously it's a decision the comm=
ission
is going to have to make, but before we get to that Mrs. Curtiss would like=
to
express her feelings as to why the current plan is before you.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 6
Ann Curtiss,
Mrs. Curtiss: We have lived at this
address for over 30 years. My
husband would be here tonight but poor health prevents that. Our land is our retirement but we =
plan
on staying in our home after any subdivision would be approved. 2 years ago we started the subdivi=
sion
process. 6 months ago Eric
Strachan, Donald, and I made an agreement for the sale of Bassett Hollow
Estates. At that time Eric sh=
owed
us the location of the then proposed road in relationship to our home. It was 50 feet from our son's (ina=
udible),
10 feet from our septic system. WE
realized then that our privacy was gone if the road was put there. We met with Eric and Civil One
engineering to relocate the road to the west where the farmer's entrance to=
the
west meadow used to be. To our
disappointment we were told that in about 1988 the Town installed a ditch a=
long
Ms. Jones: =
That concludes our presentation and=
I'd
be happy to answer any questions the Commission or the public has.
Mr. Undercuffler: Is there anything in the record on =
what
she just said as far as drainage problems, etc.? Is this a known problem?
Mr. Berger: I'm not aware of anything in the re=
cord,
I can look and see if there's anything in our files that would support the
claim that was just made. Hol=
low
Road is certainly in a low area, subject to flooding. There are existing conditions the
engineer's numbers that I've looked at so far as how that it to flood on a
relatively frequent basis.
Mr. Undercuffler: From what was just said, it didn't =
used
to flood, if I understand it correctly.
Mr. Berger: That's (inaudible), that's a fair
representation, the family can answer it better (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 7
Mr. Duplissie: =
Yea, I think it was done to mitigat=
e some
of the flooding that was going on at the time, but that has created more
wetlands, I think that is what she was trying to say. Cause i=
t's
continuous flooding on that area of the road, I've been on it many times, i=
t's
a very wet area.
Atty. Strub: I think to repeat (inaudible) I thi=
nk the
point was simply that the plans or changes that were made (inaudible) flood=
ing
in this area was once a dry area and more of a flood storage area which mad=
e it
into the wetlands situation currently.&nbs=
p;
I don't think there was the intent to imply that it was excessively
flooding, just (inaudible).
Ms. Jones: =
The funny thing about it is that the
drainage ditch was created to allow whatever overflows here to come through
this 15 inch pipe, but if you’ve got enough water that you're overflo=
wing
a 48 inch culvert, it's not going to (inaudible) a 15 inch pipe anyway. So this has been (inaudible) sligh=
tly, I
think it always probably floods because of the under sizing of this drainage
system. In addition there's a
couple of pipes along Hollow Road that actually go from this side of Hollow
Road onto this property that also adds to this watercourse that comes in, t=
hey
all feed into the same area.
Mr. Duplissie: =
So the wetlands to the west of the =
road,
that large wetland there, you're going to cross the bottom of it now?
Ms. Jones: =
The very bottom of it. This portion was basically is wetl=
ands
due to like an overflow situation.
Mr. Duplissie: =
And you're saying that that water d=
idn't
used to cross the road because there's a 15 inch pipe across the road?
Ms. Jones: =
Right.
Mr. Duplissie: =
So the water that's coming down in =
that wetlands, is it going to go into a pond, you're g=
oing
to change the size of the pipe that crosses the road?
Ms. Jones: =
Well there are 2 watercourses acros=
s the
street that currently take the water and it will continue to go there, and =
it
will go there at less of a rate, the peak flow rates are less under the
proposed conditions due to the sizing of this detention basin, than they are
under existing conditions. It=
's a
wet bottom retention basin that's treating the water and in addition collec=
ting
all of the water from the road and from the up gradient watershed, detainin=
g it
and making sure that this problem isn't any worse because of this subdivisi=
on.
Mr. Duplissie: =
By the work that you're doing, if t=
his
project goes forward as you have described, you're saying it won't make it =
any
worse?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 8
Ms. Jones: =
That's right.
Mr. Duplissie: =
What would make it any better? In your opinio=
n? Are we going I stop some of the fl=
ooding
that goes across
Ms. Jones: =
The area that's in the wetlands
(inaudible) be routed into the detention basin, it's too low, it can't go i=
nto
any catch basins but I would say probably the situation overall will be
slightly better due to the storm drainage and the detention facilities and
everything like that, but I think there will probably be essentially the sa=
me
effect in this area because of the road, we're proposing so significant cut=
s or
fills, we're basically following the existing grade exactly, except now the=
re
will be a crown and one side of the road will drain this way and the other =
side
will drain towards the 15 inch pipe.
I don't think you'll see as much water over here, near the 15 inch p=
ipe,
except for the detention basin outlets but that's less water than under
existing conditions.
Mr. Duplissie: =
So we'll still have the sheet flow =
up
above it to the west, you're not going to change that?
Mr. Undercuffler: You're not changing the drainage un=
der
Ms. Jones: =
No.
Some of the problems with the drainage on Hollow Road is that it's a=
ll
built like right under the road, it doesn't really meet the Town's covered
standards right now so . . . =
like
this 48 inch culvert is probably like 4 inches below the top of the road, it
doesn't have much cover at all, so to increase the size of that would be,
almost a crazy undertaking. I=
n addition
we have talked before about increasing the size of these culverts. We don't feel it's the applicant's
responsibility, especially when all of the other things they're taking on w=
ith
the fixing of the erosion that's going on because of additional (inaudible)=
of
the Town, but also sometimes the sheet flow is better than if you open up t=
hese
channels to allow all that water to go through there. You'd have to carry down that anal=
ysis
all the way down, this is Steele Brooke, so any property below this, if this
was opened up would be subject to that specific point discharge and we didn=
't
feel that was really appropriate.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> The original proposal when you came=
the first
time, you were totally out of the wetlands, am I right?
Ms. Jones: =
The road originally came approximat=
ely
what is now the lot lines.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 9
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Right now the way you're proposing =
it,
you go right in the middle of the wetlands. With all due respect, I understand =
that
the road was too close to the house before, but we weren't disturbing anyth=
ing. Did you try to put the road in the=
same
location you had before back away from the owner's house so you would touch=
a
little bit, but not go right in the middle, because it seems to me, correct
time if I'm wrong, it looks like you're really going into the middle versus=
if
you stay abut 100 feet away from the house, then you have less
disturbance. Am I right or wr=
ong?
Ms. Jones: =
You're right, but we almost exhaust=
ed
every location, 10 foot increments along this section. If you are over here, you're too cl=
ose to
the house. If you go here, yo=
u're
right over the discharge pipe which is a functioning pipe and also the perf=
ect
place of the detention basin. If
you go here, like this shifted over a little bit you're disturbing some very
nice trees, which we wanted to save, and there are 2 large trees, a Maple a=
nd a
Willow in this area that if you brought it in here, then you disturbed thos=
e,
so basically this was kind of an area where we thought the wetlands were st=
ill
at its narrowest, where we didn't have to do any significant cuts or fills =
and
where we could save the buffer along here, there's a buffer along the lot l=
ine
. . . .
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> How far is the buffer from the hous=
e?
Ms. Jones: =
It's exactly at this lot line essen=
tially.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> That's what I'm saying, if you go n=
ext to
the lot line, I think you'd be at the edge, but right now you were in the
middle of the wetlands.
Mr. Duplissie: =
If you change the curvature of the =
road
there, if you come back to that point, and I'm not sure, but if you come in=
on
that side, come up the road and change the curvature of the road I think yo=
u'll
lose a lot.
Ms. Jones:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I'll look at that also. Because the capacity of the detent=
ion
basin we have t have a certain amount of area fo=
r the
detention basin in order to properly treat and detain the storm water. If we were to bring the road strai=
ght
down from this alignment here or even over here, but there wasn't enough ar=
ea
pm this side of the road.
Mr. Polletta: You don't have to (inaudible) if yo=
u come
down the curve on the west side and then you come down next to the property
line.
Ms. Jones:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Well that's where it was before.
Mr. Polletta: No, you were 50 feet away from the=
house
before. I'm saying now go nex=
t to
the property line . . . .something like this?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 10
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> Do you have to have the detention =
basin
here, or do you have to the detention basin directly (inaudible). I'm not sure. And they still maintain their priv=
acy by
just bringing it in.
Ms. Jones:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Originally the road was 50 feet fr=
om the
house (inaudible).
Ma=
ny
people talking at once (inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: Before you right here, now you'll =
be on
the other side of the property. You
say 1 inch equals 100 feet.
Ms. Jones: =
I think I did look at it. I tried . . . . I understand what you're saying.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> You have an option over there, one =
stay
out of the wetlands like before but now we're trying to work with you, so y=
ou
have to look at it and see what you can do at the property line. It is an option, next to the house=
50
feet, move out of the wetlands but I think this Board would look at it if y=
ou
minimize it.
Mr. Duplissie: =
But I think she's saying, Joe, even=
if
she stays there, and I'm not sure if it's . . . whether or not she has enou=
gh
property to put the detention basin.
Ms. Jones: =
I can certainly look at it again and
maybe bring in a sketch, a drawing to show whether it does or doesn't
work. One thing we looked at =
which
I'm not sure is even economically or engineering wise feasible is to bring
separate drainage systems down the road and having 2 smaller basins, one on
either side of the road. We d=
idn't
really get a chance to look into that, we really felt that this amount of
disturbance in the wetland area while we understand that there is another a=
lternative
here, we felt that with everything going on on the property, it was a proper
tradeoff, but I'll look at it.
Atty. Strub: As you can imagine we asked a lot of
questions that you're asking right now and we talked about it a lot. What I would propose is that, of c=
ourse
there's an opportunity for the public to comment, but what we thought about=
was
and continue to look at and try to see if we can make something work along
those lines, and find a place that really works for everybody, for the
commission, for the privacy of the existing homeowner and I think as Emily
said, we can take a look again and try to do some things at a continued hea=
ring
to show you either something that maybe we can discover some unique way of
getting it done in a feasible and prudent fashion, or if we can't at least =
to
show you exactly what our thought process has been and the reasoning behind=
our
decision.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 11
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> We want to work with you so take a =
look.
Mr. Undercuffler: We had Land Tech look at this and o=
ne of
the comments was they say the previously reviewed plans, revised plans of M=
arch
9th which were here originally, no, this one, the original plans have a
significantly less adverse impact on wetlands than on the recently revised
plans and in our opinion the preferred alternative. Land Tech does a lot of our work f=
or environmental
impact and that was their comment.
Ms. Jones: =
We understand that. I mean if this area specifically y=
ou can
see that there is an alternative but I think we can work with everyone and
maybe work with Land Tech. Th=
ey did
mention a linear footage of restoration that we were doing for the channel =
and
I'm not really sure if it included this additional stabilization as part of
this application, the numbers seemed a little low and I didn't get a chance=
to
check it, so I'm just wondering if maybe we're looking at this specific instea=
d
of the whole picture, because it really is all one wetlands.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well you can take another look and =
we can
pick it u next time the. Is t=
here
anyone from the public who wants to comment?
Dianne Fornback,
Ms. Fornback: This is my first mee=
ting,
you said there was an issue on
Ms. Jones: =
Basically what we're proposing is t=
hat we
recognize that there is a big problem, we all sa=
w that
on the site walk, with the erosion that is coming off of the end of
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 11
Mr. Undercuffler: Does that answer your question?
Ms. Fornback: <=
/b> Again I go back to the problem, res=
olving
the problem down the road, that's (inaudible) about, but the problem still
stems from getting State runoff down (inaudible).
Mr. Undercuffler: That's a separate issue. Anybody else?<=
/span>
Mr. Rafey: =
Emily, Mrs. Curtiss mentioned that =
the
previous road was only 10 feet from the existing septic system for
Ms. Jones: =
I'll take a look at it. I think the septic system is down
gradient from the detention basin but I'm not sure.
Mr. Rafey: =
And this is going to be a wet bottom
pond?
Ms. Jones: =
Yes.
Mr. Rafey: =
Okay, so you know the setbacks for a
septic system from an open body of water is 100 feet?
Ms. Jones: =
Yes.
Mr. Rafey: =
Did you submit your application to =
the
Torrington Area Health District for their review?
Ms. Jones: =
Yes.
Mr. Rafey: =
Any comments from Bob?
Ms. Jones: =
Yea, his eternal comment is that he=
's
almost done.
Mr. Rafey: =
Hopefully by the next meeting we wi=
ll get
a report from him?
Ms. Jones: =
Yes.
Mr. Undercuffler: Any other comments.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> What is the total acreage of the
property?
Ms. Jones: =
37.
Mr. Duplissie: =
The open space is how much?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS
JULY 6, 2006
PAGE 13
Ms. Jones: =
The total area of the property 51.5=
, the
open space total is 7.18 acres, which is about 16% of the total, and the up=
land
area in the open space was 4.86 acres, which is 68% of the open space.
Mr. Rafey: =
On your mitigation plan, the other =
erosion
area west of
Ms. Jones: =
That's right.
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. Polletta) to Recess the Public Hearing for App. #557 of Donald Curtiss for construction of 13-lot
proposed Bassett Hollow Residential Subdivision located on
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at 8:52 p.m.
4. =
Adjournment
&nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Jones) to Adjourn the Public Hearing at 8:53 p.m.
&nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Meeting
Adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary