MINUTES
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/
INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
THURSDAY,
SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
APPLICATION #589 – JOSEPH MA=
SI
Members Present: &nbs=
p; Mr. Jim Zawadzki, Chai=
rman
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Donato Orsini, Vice Chairman=
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Tom Murphy, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Glen Dupliese
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Tony DiBona
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Joe Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Ed Undercuffler
=
&nb=
sp; =
Memb=
ers
Absent: =
None
Alternates Present: =
; Ms.
Denise Russ
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Scott Marotta
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp;
Alternates Absent: =
; Mr.
Greg Hawes
Others Present: &n=
bsp; =
; Mr. Moosa Rafey, Assis=
tant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Chuck Berger, Town Engineer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, Called the Public Hearing to Order at about 7:03 p.m. <= o:p>
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, executed the Roll Call.
Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules as follows for the record:<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; “GROUND
RULES FOR CONSERVATION COMMISSION/
IN=
LAND
WETLANDS AGENCY”
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 2
=
&nb=
sp;
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 3
<= o:p>
3. &n=
bsp; Hearing
of Cases
&=
nbsp; A. &n=
bsp; Continuation of the Public Hearing from
August 9, 2007 – Application #589 of Joseph Masi for construction of
French Hill Estates a 16-Lot residential subdivision located on French Stre=
et,
Watertown, CT.
The
Public Hearing must be closed by September 22, 2007.
&n=
bsp; =
;
Mr. Nolty: (Mike not on)
Mr. =
Nolty: Thank you. Again my name for the record is Don =
Nolty.
I’m employed by the Stuart Somers Company and surveyors and engineers
with offices on
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 4
alternate,
which we will present this evening, a box culvert intermittent water course
crossing alternative is favored by the agency, then the revised plans indic=
ate
that a 3,000 sq. foot of upland review area will necessarily have to be alt=
ered
to accommodate the grading and 2.47 of conservation easement has been offer=
ed
over both regulated and non-regulated areas to preserve habitat inside
hydrology above cut slopes. The conservation easements and open space parti=
als
total 3.66 acres or 26% of the entire parcel excluding the detention basin =
area
on open space 1. This protected area comprises 22.7% of the property. At th=
is
point I’d like to just submit a draft grant of conservation restricti=
on
effecting lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 into the record=
and
for review by your staff and or town council. Swales are to be constructed =
by
the developer at the onset of road building phase to better manage run-off.
Maintenance of these swales shall be privately maintained in the future by =
lot
owners as well as a private drain serving lots 5 and 6. Actually one catch
basin is on lot 4 as well. We have in the revised plans shown additional
private drainage easements. Highly detailed phasing soil erosions (inaudibl=
e) control
plan has been provided. Provision for the submission of 20 scale individual
development plans has been made in our plans that will address site specific
house size grading drainage stabilization and inspection concerns. The storm
drainage systems have been decartelized as recommended by use of a private =
rain
garden now serving a combined driveway in lots 1 and 2 within the cul-de-sa=
c area
and roof leader galleries on four of the lots have been sized to handle the=
100
year storm. Notice of requirement for the developer to furnish favorable
geo-technical reports on slopes to build prior to the house framing permits
being issued will be put into the deeds for lots 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as well as
notice for private maintenance responsibilities for maintenance of swales on
private property in addition to private draining easements. I imagine that
drafts of these will be submitted through the planning and zoning process a=
nd
will be reviewed by town council as well. The drainage serving the lots
fronting on
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 5
for
the Town to intercept and collect sediment emanating from the adjoining
subdivision over time. This
mitigation work will be performed after the driveway to
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 6
have
to view multiple rock excavations for a period of possibly years, when our =
plan
specifies in your (inaudible) condition that in the way we hope to phase the
project , the lots would be excavated, built and stabilized in a one-year
period which would have less impact for the reasons I mentioned. Should additional excavation be
necessary to complete the road construction, than the developer would have =
to
approach the Wetland Agency to modify the phasing plan in order to excavate
Lots 5 and 6 only, which, if you recall, have common drainage in the backya=
rds
and have private drainage easement behind them. It is not necessary for the road t=
hat
has been designed but with the elevating of the road with this alternative
crossing that we haven’t done the volume calculations yet. It’s
necessary to know whether cross 5 and 6 materials we needed to come from th=
ere
to complete the road. So we may have to give you more detail plans for Lots=
5
and 6 if we need more fill for the cul-de-sac and go in there excavate it a=
nd
stabilize it at that time. Probably the most significant point of discussion
was the wet land crossing type of wet land crossing to be utilized call we =
had
a 24 foot culvert with a drop manhole draining beneath the road and our last
submission, yeah 24 inch not 24 foot, there is in this revised plan the thr=
ee
sets we are submitting tonight it shows a 30 inch diameter plan as one mean=
s of
addressing the clogging concerns raised at the last meeting. Thirty inch
diameter offers roughly 4 times cross sectional area of the culvert from wh=
ich
the 15 inch culvert from which the drainage water course emanates. The clog=
ging
should not be the concern but both Sean and Chuck have concerns over
ecological, I guess travel ways if we have to drop manhole in this type of
structure. Meghan Raymond are here this evening and I’m sure will off=
er
an opinion on the possible impact of the animals and the vertebrates that m=
ay
be in this vicinity. We also reviewed the concept of installing a 3x4 box
culvert with one foot of stone and gravel throughout a space at the same
elevation at the pipe. This w=
ould
involve cutting back the slope leading into the pipe at about 2 ½ to=
1 gradient,
which is a little steeper than the stream is on average and maybe as steep =
as
that and a few short sections and it would involve 100 square feet of
additional wetland excavation to meet that grade, but Chuck has a concern t=
hat
with the artificial change in the angle of that water course, it may cause a
scouring effect that moves up the channel.=
So the alternative we are submitting tonight, and I’ll get to =
it
later, involves raising the road by up to 4 ½ feet at the pipe cross=
ing,
and the installation of that 3 X 4 box culvert, the grade of the pipe would mimic the grade of =
the
ground. I think we would lowe=
r it a
foot at the inlet side and serve a gradual swale there to better define the
inlet into the structure, and it would raise the road by about 3 feet in fr=
ont
of Lot 11 and maybe a foot in front of Lots 12 and 13 and possibly 14, but =
the
driveway grades would still make it, make your driveway standards and it wo=
uld
actually improve the driveways on Lot 7 and Lot 8 by raising it in close pr=
oximity
to that structure. Finally, Sean raised the issue of the stone
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 7
wall
to provide details of how it’s going to intercept sheet run off from =
the
yards. There is a detail on the detail sheet, we feel that the continue sto=
ne
wall as designed will act as an excellent filter, and will encourage
infiltration from the small yard areas with the installation of the road the
water shed area presently draining through Lots 11 through 15 will be reduc=
ed
from 6.7 acres to about 9 tenths of an acre so there actually should be less
water moving through this portion of the site and these lots are relatively
flat. The one exception is where Lot 15 meets up with the detention basin a=
nd
we have added revisions to the plan that extend the stone wall up along that
property line about 20 feet in the low valley to trap any run off that may =
come
off the lawn and as I discussed with Sean probably the same date he wrote t=
his
memo to you, he agreed with me that the extension of projections of stone w=
all
3 to 5 feet at the property lines perpendicular to the stone wall would help
prevent any concentration runoff moving between properties. Those are only
comments in writing to you I can briefly review Chuck Berger’s Septem=
ber
13th memo to you. Specific drainage questions which beyond my ex=
pertise
can be answered by John Mac, professional engineer from our office. I can
review any plan changes, if they seem relatively minor changes that can be =
made
at a staff level or through conditions of approval response and Public Works
Department continue to review the proposed range improvements in water qual=
ity
improvements in
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 8
be
shown on the plans. The open space summary should be reviewed in detail. I
tried to clarify it on sheet S1 and this correspondence I’ve given you
tonight. It is over 22% in all cases excluding the detention basin pond are=
a.
Details should be provided for curtain drains, curb gabion baskets, riprap
protection, crush stone slopes, rain garden. Any slopes steeper than 2 to 1
should be certified by a geo-technical engineer. We have no problem with th=
at
(inaudible) as condition to both the road phase and we put that into the
narratives for the lot development phases so that after the foundations are
poured and before the houses are framed that we make sure that there is a q=
ualified
geo-technical engineer who represents at the site and stabilize the slopes
behind the houses, between the houses, so you don’t get into the fram=
ing
stage of construction and find a big excavator within a 20 foot area behind=
the
house. Phasing plans have been modified in the sequence of construction, I =
did
find some old notes in the earlier version of the development plan which ha=
ve been
deleted, and they were no longer applicable. There are some other minor
technical revisions I’d be happy to review with town staff. Then item=
6
we get into the box culvert evaluation. In item 7, we did and I faxed to Ch=
uck
litigation structure details and grading plan for this work up at the top of
the site where the intermittent water course comes in and we’ll do th=
at
at a better scale and with plantings through the ecologists office. Driveway
grades should not be steeper within 5% of 35 feet of (inaudible) or 10 feet=
of
the road and we did make that adjustment to the one common driveway. We had=
to
shift things around but it didn’t affect the drainage or catch basins
leading to the rain garden off the common driveway. It affected it by about=
4
inches so that’s a minor adjustment and the revised profiles are in t=
he
plan sets. That takes care of the comments. In the profile you can see, let=
me
pass out copies of the profile. Some are full scale some are half scale .Th=
ere
is grading around the cul-de-sac associated with the box culvert and the
raising of the roof. You can see on this profile I think only 3 copies were=
distributed
to the profile but they’re in the plan sets. The old profile in blue =
and
the revised one for the box culvert is in black. We couldn’t just ele=
vate
over the box culvert and keep the grade low at the cul-de-sac due to the
vertical curve and need for providing site lines at a 30 mile per hour trav=
el
speed. Maybe possible if a 25 mile per hour speed limit could be allowed be=
ing
that it’s the end of a cul-de-sac. Cars aren’t traveling that f=
ast
at that point that the fill could be lowered slightly and because the verti=
cal
curve requirements are less. Shown in red on your drawing is the affected a=
rea
above Echo Lake Brook and near the intermittent water course where the grad=
ing
had to be pushed out to get to (inaudible) grades around the cul-de-sac and=
to
shirt the level spreader closer to the intermittent water course to work wi=
th
the elevated bio-retention area. But the length is actually the box culvert=
is
shown at 60 feet, it’s been shortened up by use of an end wall where =
we
had more filling the lower portion of the road before. So we’ve actua=
lly
gone from 125ft of piping initially and this alternative would be a 60 foot=
box
culvert with essentially a natural bottom
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 9
with
riprap on the discharge side and immediately around the inlet. If you have =
any
questions for Meghan as to environmental impacts associated with the
alterations with this alternative versus the drop man hole structure what k=
ind
of wildlife could be expected to be traveling this corridor, which I’=
ve
seen to be dry this summer, I’m sure she’d be happy to take any
questions.
Mr. Undercuffler: Could you just describe… You talked about=
the
drop structure, I don’t understand.
Mr. Nolty: It’s a man hole that changes the grade fr=
om an
incoming pipe to a discharge pipe and by doing that you reduce the velociti=
es
that reduce the scour potential at the discharge end. So it’s an ener=
gy
brake and it allowed us to get the coverage we needed beneath the top of the
pipe and the road bend.
Mr. Undercuffler: And that’s in that plan right there.
Mr. Nolty: That’s in the original plan. In the box c=
ulvert
alternative there is no structure. There would be no need to have a structu=
re.
Mr. Zawadzki: So the box culvert is essentially level in the
directional flow.
Mr. Nolty: I think the existing ground might be 15% at that
point so no it’s not level but with that type of wide and rough botto=
m I
think the velocities are not are not excessive at the discharge point that
can’t be handled by an intermediate riprap there below 8 cubic feet p=
er
second.
Mr. Berger: Mr. Chairman could I make a comment? I know
it’s a little out of turn. I’d just like to re-enforce and
re-iterate some of the things that Don has said about this subject. I
can’t speak for Sean but as far as myself I missed that drop structur=
e in
the first review. That was not addressed in my review memo nor was it addre=
ssed
in Sean’s review memo and what was originally proposed here for this
intermittent water course was a pretty flat pipe coming to a drop structure=
and
then a 3 foot raise to another pretty flat pipe going out to the upstream e=
nd
of the culvert. So there was a concrete bottom with a 3 foot drop closer to=
the
upstream side. But that depending on the functions and values of that
intermittent water course as far as anything moving up and down that
intermittent water course inside the pipe with a 3 foot drop pretty much
eliminates it. So that’s what led Sean and I to ask them to look at o=
ther
alternatives and we discussed it a little bit at the last meeting but I
don’t know from my perspective anyway I still didn’t see that d=
rop
structure until the day we met with them after the last meeting. So
that’s sort of where we’ve come to. There was a number of
alternatives as Don said looking at keeping the relatively flat grade struc=
ture
carrying the
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 10
intermittent
water course and then going to a 2 ½ slope to 1 slope on the upstream
end and armoring that with riprap which I did not support that alternative =
and
basically what you have before you tonight as an alternative is a 3 side bo=
x on
the grade of the approximate grade of what the existing intermittent water
course is now. But in order to make that work as Don said that have to raise
the road about 4 feet.
Mr. Nolty: Little over, yeah.
Mr. Berger: Little over 4 feet so I don’t know if that helps to put in into perspective as to how we got to where we are tonight.<= o:p>
Mr. Zawadzki: Well when you say 3-sided box, now I read
Sean’s letter as 3 plus 1, you have three sides here. You open the si=
de
up and then lay the cover over the top, is that how it works? So it’s
actually an enclosed box?
Mr. Nolty: It actually is a 3-sided U shaped structure tha=
t they
put a re-enforced 8 inch thick cover on after they fill it with the stone a=
nd
gravel material.
Mr. Berger: If that’s something the commission wants =
to
consider that gives a relatively natural stream bottom at the slope of the
existing intermittent water course but it does have other impacts.
Mr. Dupliese: Right but we have discussed the possibility of =
asking
them for an arch over that intermittent rather than using a box culvert for
pipes and I don’t see that. I didn’t see anything mentioned abo=
ut
in any of the letters from Sean or from you. Well from anybody actually. If=
we
put a 15 foot arch over the intermittent water course then we don’t h=
ave
to touch the actual intermittent. We can expand from one side to the other.=
Mr. Berger: I think one of the things we’re going to =
talk
about and the environmental consultant, what are the functions and values of
that intermittent water course.
Mr. Nolty: Yeah it might be a good time to review those
functions and values that were discussed during the last meeting.
Ms. Raymond: For the record Meghan Raymond and I’m a s= enior Ecologist with William Kenny Associates in Fairfield and we are retained to provide an impact assessment of the proposed project on the 2 wetland syste= ms on the parcel which are the Echo Lake Brook watercourse proper and it’= ;s associated forested fringe and as well this intermittent water course that = runs in a west to east direction and discharges into Echo Lake Brook on the property. As we talked about a little bit at the last meeting the primary <= o:p>
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 11
function
of this intermittent water course is surface water conveyance. Because of t=
hat,
in order to preserve that primary function we looked at a piping situation =
when
we looked at a crossing. That’s because in this particular drainage
corridor we’re not seeing a lot of habitat value in and of itself.
There’s not a lot of structure within the bed of the stream. We
don’t see a lot with the femoral flows, extreme femoral flows;
you’re not having any type of aquatic habitat for invertebrates and
vertebrates. We don’t see turtle habitat in this location along the
intermittent water course nor do we see any type of amphibian habitat along=
the
water course proper. Because of that we wanted to preserve the actual funct=
ion
of the stream which is surface water conveyance and to do that a pipe was
considered a viable solution to address that function. Now what we’ve
come up with and I appreciate the concern with the drop structure if you do
have an amphibian crossing, but we’re not seeing this type of habitat
provided in this corridor which is why we looked at the pipe to begin with.=
The
open bottom box or the 3 sided box does provide some, does mimic the actual
bottom of the bed at its grade. We are seeing a slight protrusion of fill a=
long
the toe of the cul-de-sac on the eastern side but we can plant this area wi=
th
the meadow mix and we can also plant along the toe with a shrub layer. So I
think it’s also quite a small protrusion we’re looking at 3,000=
sq.
feet which is quite small. It could just be blended in into that grading th=
at’s
going to take place anyway. So I think what they’ve come up with in
discussion and through a lot of thought in working at the drafting table and
talking to the towns’ consultants is a solution that I think would
satisfy both the preservation of the surface water flow conduit any potenti=
al
habitat or critter crossing. I would have to say that probably the species =
that
are going to be crossing over here are going to be more likely small mammals
and things that are going to come up and over the road way. We’re not
seeing high traffic in this location and the terminals of the cul-de-sac ju=
st a
few houses, so it’s not as though we’re going to see a lot of
mortality from crossing the street. As well I think that this water course =
is
going to be that much more enhanced through the restoration at the top of t=
he
water course by addressing the issue, the drainage issue with sediment loads
from that adjacent neighborhood. So that’s a little bit of the
background, the thought process that went into evaluating the function pres=
ervation
in order to make the site plan work.
Mr. Polletta: Is the drainage a stream?
Ms. Raymond: It’s an intermittent water course which m=
eans
it runs on storm events. You’ll see flow in it during the spring time
when we have seasonally high ground water. You’ll see some flow throu=
gh
here but it’s not a system that is a perennial system, where we see a=
lot
of flow throughout a calendar year. It’s limited and even though
you’d consider it flashy and you probably saw some water in it with t=
his
rain this past week, during this
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 12
week,
but even the small events less than one inch you’re not even seeing f=
low
in this channel during the summer. So the majority of the time it is dry.
Mr. Polletta: One more question about the culvert. If I under=
stood
correctly you will raise the road about 3 to 4 feet you said?
Ms. Raymond: Right.
Mr. Polletta: Ok by raising the road 3 or 4 feet would there =
be any
concern on the last two lots that maybe the house will be too high and you =
will
have more problems with the drainage on the two lots?
Ms. Raymond: Well you mean these?
Mr. Polletta: Right.
Ms. Raymond: This is not extreme, yes it is steeper than it =
was
before but I think at this driveway we’re still at a 10% grade so
it’s not…
Mr. Polletta: If you raise the road 3 feet?
Ms. Raymond: Yes it’s going to become a 10% grade I be=
lieve
on this last lot, lot 11. Isn’t that correct?
Mr. Nolty: Yes it doesn’t affect the two, Don Nolty =
for
the record, lots 9 and 10 at the end of the cul-de-sac it still blends in v=
ery
nicely with the driveways. It will still work with relatively flat driveways
into those two garages.
Ms. Raymond: This one is going to be increased but it’=
s not
extreme.
Mr. Nolty: Yes it will meet the town standards and it̵=
7;s
not a-typical of homes in this area or other areas.
Mr. Undercuffler: With the pipe, is there any concern about the
clogging, was that an issue?
Ms. Raymond: That did come up at the last meeting and to add=
ress
that we proposed to increase the size of that pipe from 24 to 30 inches.
Mr. Undercuffler: And with that you don’t have to raise the=
road?
Ms. Raymond: No you do not.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 13
Mr. Polletta: Excuse me one more question. The pipe that
you’re proposing to cross that road is what 36 inches?
Ms. Raymond: This pipe? 30 inches, it was increased 6 inches=
from
last…
Mr. Polletta: Can you explain to me how you calculated that a=
nd
what is the minimum pipe size you could use?
Ms. Raymond: I’ll turn it over to…
Mr. Mac: John Mac from Stuart Somers Company. I calculat=
ed the
area in the 50 year flow and at 12 CFS, an 18 inch pipe can handle that. SO=
I
went with a 24 because I knew he might have concerns with clogging and now
it’s up to 30 inches. An 18 inch can handle that flow with a 50 year
storm.
Mr. Polletta: You increased the size pipe because you feel
something would get in there?
Mr. Mac: We just did that because the minimum size pipe =
in a
road is 15 inch. So and that’s to prevent clogging but usually that
doesn’t happen, usually the clogging happens at a catch basin. So wit=
h a
24 inch, it’s a good opening for most trash coming down, if there is
trash coming down. So an 18 inch can handle the flow but I just went with a=
24
inch.
Mr. Polletta: So you’re up to 30 now?
Mr. Mac: Yes we’re up to 30 or the box culvert and=
it
doesn’t come n 3 foot wide so we have to go with a 4 foot wide box
culvert with a 2 foot opening for…
Mr. Polletta: So what are you proposing the pipe or the box
culvert?
Mr. Mac: The alternate is the box culvert. Originally we
proposed a 24 inch and then we went to a 30 inch with a drop but the altern=
ate
is going to be the box culvert with a stone bottom to slow the water down
because the slope of the box culvert is going to follow the existing stream=
.
Mr. Polletta: And you said that the box culvert will not affe=
ct
these lots right?
Mr. Mac: No, it will actually make these ones at the end=
and
the upper ones better, easier to grade for the driveways.
Mr. Zawadzki: What about the possibility of an arch type of
overpass on the intermittent waterway?
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 14
Mr. Mac: With the arch you have footings, you have to pu=
t in
footings and we didn’t want to because by the time you do that
you’re going to be disturbing same as a box culvert.
Mr. Dupliese: Yeah but you’re disturbing, in order to p=
ut in
the pipe you have to disturb it and in order to put in the box culvert you =
have
to excavate it, put the box in and then put the material back in whereas if=
you
put a 15 ft arch in, then you’re not having to excavate the wetland at
all. And you’re not changing the grades.
Mr. Spath: Actually let me speak on that. To explain it si=
mple,
Charles Spath for the record principal of the Stuart Somers Company Enginee=
rs,
I’ll just point out on the map here. What happens is this is the grad=
e of
the ground going down on an angle. What your consultant would like us to do=
and
Chuck Berger, I believe would like this also, is they would like us to leave
the base of the stream at the same elevation it is. I think that’s for
the possible amphibians they were thinking about, our consultant has spoken
regarding that. What happens is that if we were to keep that grade, we
can’t arch it because what happens is you’re not arching a flat
area. If you go with a wide crossing, or wide bridge you add height, you add
the wider you go the higher it has to go but because of this grade differen=
ce
and we’re trying to follow the base of the stream, we have a very gre=
at
difference between one side of the road and the other. So, that won’t
work in this case. A sub division was built on top and most of this flow th=
at
we see out there, the water, is only coming from that sub-division during s=
torm
events. What happens is as you’ve seen in the pictures before, where =
the
debris were on the top and the place we were going to mitigate, there’=
;s a
pipe up there that outlets into this corridor from a sub-division up above.=
But
it doesn’t, it’s not eroding, for the people who have been out
there. There is a lot of sand on the top which we intend to fix and I think
that’s a great value. I think at the crossing here on the road from w=
hat
our consultant said I think we can get away with a pipe, that it’s fi=
ne.
That’s why we originally designed it that way and what that allows is=
on
a grade like this is we would take the inlet of the water when it’s
flowing, it’s not flowing at all times, and we would go with a pipe a=
t a
lesser percent, we would drop at a drop man hole, basically a structure that
can be anywhere from 6 feet high to the height of this room. But what happe=
ns
is we’re able to take that stream up in the corner of the room, put i=
t in
the pipe at a less percent than the stream bed, drop in a man hole, and then
the water would flow out level at a very slight percent. So what we’re
doing is we’re slowing down the velocity when the water is there.
There’s really not much water there at all. But what we proposed toni=
ght,
our design works. Chuck noticed this at the meeting at the last public hear=
ing
and they had concerns about it. So what we proposed tonight is if you’=
;re
looking at it, it also works to keep a box culvert which had to be
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 15
way
oversized but what it will do if they want to follow the base of the stream=
for
any I call it “critter corridor” so they can not drop in the man
hole. We have shown that it does work and we are willing to do it. At the l=
ast
meeting I think the only real concern was we were talking about debris clog=
ging
this. Like we said I talked to John and he told me today he calculated it t=
o be
50 year storm and 18 (inaudible). Our sub division is calculated to be a 100
year storm. The minimum for the town is 50 and you’re supposed to loo=
k at
100 but we just design at 100 all the time. So we’re handling any wat=
er
flows. I think the only issue if you’re looking for a critter corridor
but I think our consultant spoke tonight about how she doesn’t feel in
this case that it does warrant a box culvert but we are willing, if the
commission would like, to put in that culvert. So it’s really the same
exact plan but we had to raise the road to keep that grade like your consul=
tant
wanted, to keep that grade we had to raise the road. We couldn’t go d=
rop
and make the pipe go flatter underneath so we tried to raise it to minimum
amount and we also had to look at the (inaudible) that Don was getting into=
. It
ended up raising 4 to 4 ½ feet and then it blends right back into wh=
ere
it was. Somewhere down in this area here. It does add a little more fill ri=
ght
here but like our consultant said we can plant that with a metal mix. So
we’re just offering the commission if this is a sticking point they h=
ave
an alternative to go with the box.
Mr. Zawadzki: When you say the box is oversized do you mean in
relation to a pipe?
Mr. Spath: In relation to a pipe size or what we’re
looking at here is since we went out there and we saw the water flow in spr=
ing,
Don’s been going out to the site and he hasn’t seen any water f=
low.
I’m sure there is at certain times, he’s not out there all the
time, but we’re talking about it now really being a water issue. We a=
re
more than adequate with our pipe. We did agree since the last meet to even
raise it to a 30 inch pipe. So there was a concern on clogging like Glen sa=
id.
A 30 inch pipe you’ll have something else with no water going into it=
.
Mr. Undercuffler: I’m still a little confused though with t=
he
pipe option do you have to have the drop?
Mr. Spath: The reason we’re doing the drop… No=
we
could put a pipe and raise the road just like we have it. We could still us=
e a
pipe we don’t need the box culvert. We can use a 30 inch pipe, the sa=
me
design as our box culvert. We’d use a 24 inch pipe.
Mr. Undercuffler: You wouldn’t have the drop man hole.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 16
Mr. Spath: No, but I think the reason we’re looking =
at
using the box is that if they want to hold the bottom of the stream at the
elevation like that, if we put it in a pipe the velocity is going to shoot
through the roof. It’s at 15% and then what we do is on the other end=
you
have a wash out like you do up above possibly. It keeps eroding. So what we=
’re
looking at with the box what it allows if we’re looking at keeping it=
the
same percent which I don’t see the value in that but we have nothing
against it, we would fill the bottom with a modified riprap which would
actually would slow the water down. We could fill the bottom of a pipe too
because we’re way oversized, we could do that. It’s a pipe or a=
box
culvert. It’s either or I just want to give the commission an option.=
Mr. Dupliese: You say that they don’t clog, that the pi=
pes
don’t clog, a 30 inch pipe doesn’t clog, but if you go down a
(inaudible) road in Waterbury, it’s Turkey Brook and sometimes there =
is
no water in Turkey Brook and there are two 60 inch pipes there and I’=
ve
seen them clogged many times and it backs up and flows right over the
road.
Mr. Spath: Exactly but we’ve done drainage calculati=
ons
for this whole subdivision we don’t look at our subdivision we look at
whole drainage areas and we’ve done the drainage calculations.
We’ve walked the site and we go by drainage calculations. What it cal=
ls
for like John said it’s an 18 inch pipe. That’s adequate, we ma=
de
it a 24 inch pipe, but we’re willing to make it larger. There’s
always the chance that any pipe can clog, a kid can throw a 5 gallon bucket=
in
an 18 inch pipe and it’s going to clog but I don’t think that an
issue here really. Is there any clarity in the drop man hole that I
could…
Mr. Undercuffler: I’m still hung up on this thing thought. =
From
what I gather from what your saying you don’t like the idea of just t=
he
pipe because the speed in the water. Am I correct in that? Or is that
incorrect?
Mr. Berger: The pipe at the grade at the existing stream?
Mr. Undercuffler: You’re not in favor of that or…?
Mr. Berger: With no natural stream bed material on the bott=
om of
it we’d have very high velocities and we’d have in that point in
time, I’d recommend putting the drop structure in versus the pipe, the
15%, but I guess it comes down to do we just want to convey water under that
road or are we trying to preserve, if there is an environmental benefit to
having that stream bottom there, are we trying to preserve that. I think on=
e of
the big questions is that is it something that’s worth preserving fro=
m a
natural stream? If we go all the way back to the first alternative from an =
engineering
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 17
perspective
water flow, that works fine.
Mr. Undercuffler: Except for the speed issue.
Mr. Berger: Not with the drop structure.
Mr. Undercuffler: Oh that had a drop structure.
Mr. Berger: The first one had a drop structure. The pipe ha=
d a
drop structure. If there is a function and value to that intermittent water
course you’ve lost it.
Mr. Undercuffler: We heard from the environmentalist there that t=
here
really isn’t any function other than bringing the water down.
Mr. Marotta: Yeah to date functions and values change.
They’re not constant every year so you need to take that into
consideration also. Right now its not, but this project here is going to al=
ter
this ecosystem in ways that all of us may not be able to perceive. So to say
that right now its functions and values are very low and in the future its
functions and values are also going to be very low, I think is not accurate=
.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well I don’t agree with that but it’=
;s
alright.
Mr. Spath: So I guess the big decision is that we have eit=
her or
we don’t have a problem with either one really. Like we said it does =
help
us read the upper lots a little bit. This one driveway, there are some
benefits, there are also losses too but it does work. Chuck asked us to tak=
e a
look at it. We did take a look at it we did change the plans Chuck hasnR=
17;t
reviewed them but there’s not really any great change. We moved our
drainage up our drainage structure, our sewers and our storm drainage
structures up to meet the road grades so they weren’t as steep in the
ground. So in this case personally I was saying at the office since day 1 I
thought a drop structure was fine. But we have in this case, I’m not
saying in all cases, I go case by case and I think its fine. If the commiss=
ion
feels that it’s an issue we’ve brought this alternative in.
Mr. Zawadzki: Chuck in your memo that was dropped in front of=
us
Item #7 on the third page, it says there was a discussion about additional
mitigation on the
Mr. Berger: Yes I have and there is a plan proposed which t=
hey
could talk a little more in detail about if you’d wish. It is primari=
ly
cleaning up the area draining from Oak and Innis, cleaning the debris out of
the wetland area
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 18
where
the pipe discharge is. Cleaning the sediment out of what appears to have be=
en a
settling pool previously constructed. We were unable to find the plans to t=
hat
sub-division to know what was supposed to be there, there was an attempt to=
put
some sort of settling sediment control structure there, functions 50%.
It’s pretty full right now with sediment so it proposed and option to
restore a sediment basin plunge pool type facility and clean it up.
Mr. Zawadzki: Is that the area here where it says the sewer w=
ater
and drainage easement the town of
Mr. Berger: It’s in that area but it’s pretty w=
ell
circled on the plans as well, the mitigation activity, and the debris.
It’s in the upper corner of lot 8. I think what they have proposed ba=
sed
on my brief review of it will be fine. I would probably recommend some
additional plantings that we could work out with the landscape person, put =
some
native plantings back in there after we clean it up.
Mr. Zawadzki: Ok my other concern here is in Sean’s rep= ort about the comment about the adverse impact to wetlands and he’s looki= ng for a specific mitigation to re-create the wetlands that are destroyed ther= e, dug up, filled in due to the crossing and Don will you go over that again.<= o:p>
Mr. Nolty: Our plan is in direct response to our meeting a=
nd
site visit and Sean’s agreement that this provides replacement of the
function of that crossing area. It’s a similar area and we’ll
remove years of sediment that will come from other properties and deposit in
this stream. This is the only part of the stream where the sand has been
deposited there is an old stone wall (inaudible) crossing the water course =
up
in that area which has been the barrier to cause the sediment to fall out. =
Mr. Zawadzki: You’re saying it’s up here? In the
circle?
Mr. Nolty: Yes. So this is what he was referring to. Sean =
did
not see these plans but this is what we described to him and proposed at our
meeting.
Mr. Berger: And Sean was with us out in the field when we w=
ent
out and looked at the area following our meeting.
Mr. Rafey: Don did Sean get a chance to look at these plan=
s and
your responses to his comments?
Mr. Nolty: No but we discussed the four items that he rais=
ed
over the telephone on the day eh wrote that so we were in agreement with the
problems and solutions.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 19
Mr. Orsini: In the letter dated on September by Charles Ber=
ger,
look at item #8 it says the driveway grades are not to be steeper than 5%
within the 35 feet centerline of the travel way of the street nor within 10
feet of the street right away line. It appears that the common driveway as =
to
lots 1 and 4 does not meet this standard. If you talk about increasing the
height of the road isn’t that going to make it even worse?
Mr. Spath: Charles Spath for the record. Actually those lo=
ts
that come off of
Mr. Berger: Is it 35 feet of the center line or within 10 f=
eet of
the street right away line. The street right away is wider in this area whi=
ch
is fixed.
Mr. Spath: Yeah we designed it one way and he noticed the =
street
being wider so we just made it to match what he asked for. But that’s=
in
this area right here.
Mr. Berger: And that does result in those driveways becoming
steeper. Those driveways were at 14, that common driveway was at 14.5…=
;
Mr. Nolty: 14.5 and it went to 14.9 maximum.
Mr. Berger: Our maximum is 15% so they’re right aroun=
d the
maximum slope on that one.
Mr. Undercuffler: The other concern I have is Sean’s comment
about doing all the blasting at one time getting it out of the way and
you’re proposing to do that house by house which could happen over a
number of years. I’m just concerned about managing that over a number=
of
years if that’s what’s going to happen.
Mr. Nolty: That’s why the plans clearly address in t=
he
sequence of development and requirements that each developer must follow
submitting the detailed plans, hiring the site monitor, hiring the
geo-technical engineer, and so long it’s enforced it’s a system
that will work. That’s why we also will put notice in the deeds of th=
at
particular requirement which is unusual to have a geo technical engineer
provide report before getting your framing permit. We feel by having that w=
e’ll
make sure we have stable slope s very early on in the construction process =
and
not be waiting for 8 months for someone to go put a straw blanket down,
hydro-seed, put in the soils, curtain drains, or whatever is necessary.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 20
Mr. Dupliese: So for lots 5 and 6 if somebody built a house o=
n lot
5 and then somebody comes in 5 years later and build a house on lot 6,
you’re going to be blasting 30 feet away from the guys (inaudible).
Mr. Nolty: Lots 5 and 6 may be the exception to this. Beca=
use of
that you need characteristic that the (inaudible) grading and drainage and =
Mr.
Masi can speak to that possibility but preparing that site would probably m=
ake
sense or they definitely have to be developed simultaneously.
Joe Masi: Thank you. Joe Masi, 33 Pleasant View Street. I=
work
in the planning and zoning office in the town of
Mr. Undercuffler: So what are you planning for 5 and 6?
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 21
Mr. Masi: For 5 and 6, I think they should be done
together =
&nb=
sp; =
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
because
they’re so integrated in terms of the hog outs. The rest of them, it
depends upon what a person wants to put in there for a house that affects t=
he
plan. You have to remember these plans are generic. It tells you that a hou=
se
can be built on that site in accordance with those plans. Both sub division
wise and wetlands wise. Someone may have a different idea in terms of what =
they
want to put in that square. And it may not need the cut for instance that we
propose. It may need a bigger cut. If it’s in a wetlands area they ha=
ve
to come back to you folks but that’s their responsibility because they
made that choice to not go with what the plan says but to go for something
other than that. They suffer the consequences of getting rejected if they w=
ant
to do that. It’s that basic.
Mr. Undercuffler: I’m still wondering about 5 and 6 are you
proposing then or you would suggest that you go ahead and do the excavation=
for
both those lots?
Mr. Masi: When it comes to 5 and 6 I think they should be=
done
together. The rest of them it’s a matter of a particular owner’s
choice as to what he wants to do with the lot. He can’t do more than
what’s been proposed but he can do less than.
Mr. Spath: Charlie Spath for the record. I think to just m=
ake it
clear we’re in agreement that we can put a caveat in the sequence of
construction here that 5 and 6 is done at the same time. That’s not a
problem we just don’t believe that it should be done at this time
necessarily because of the road and because if the housing market slow and =
the
lot sits there, it’s more of an open eye sore than if you were to fin=
ish
off with the lawn and the structure. We can add that to the sequence
that’s not a problem.
Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions form the commission?
Mr. Marotta: Yeah I have one other question. Would you be wi=
lling
to expand the conservation easement in the back of lots 11 through 15 to in=
clude
both the existing wetlands water course and the 50 foot setback? The reason=
why
I ask that is because the 50 foot setback due to the slope of this property=
has
a really good function and that is to retain any nutrient run off that may =
come
down from those homes. So my major concern, one of them is that where you h=
ave
your conservation easement right now it’s delineated by the stone wal=
l.
Now what I would feel a lot more comfortable with this design is if you
included the rest of the 50 foot setback in that conservation area to ensure
that the area will not be in any way disturbed. The reason why it’s v=
ery
important as you mentioned on a case by case basis, in this case that 50 fo=
ot
setback area is very, very beneficial to the integrity of
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 22
Brook.
I would feel a lot more comfortable with this design if that would be inclu=
ded.
Mr. Spath: You would be asking for people then to encroach=
upon
it. What we have designed there is an adequate backyard; it’s about 2=
5 to
30 feet. No ones ever going to ask you to put a pool in, you can deny it. So
that’s not an issue. We’ve redesigned, from the previous meetin=
g, we’ve
redesigned to have flat backyards walkout so there wouldn’t be any fi=
ll
from the road. If you were to ask for that 50 there, we would be going into=
the
hillside more into the road and there would be a lot more excavation and fi=
ll
in front of these houses. What we have is the best development of this
property. It’s a residential property we’re not asking for
condominiums or anything like that we’re not looking too flatten the
areas out and build more (inaudible) than what we have shown here. What we =
have
is very low impact for that size piece of property and I think to ask for t=
hat
would ruin the property. We do have in our sequence of construction that the
stone wall is to be built before any development. I think that is one of the
best things you can have. Once that stone wall is built, if anyone goes over
that stone wall, they have a real problem.
Mr. Marotta: Well they have a problem even before they get t=
o the
stone wall if they disturb anything because before the stone wall is the 50
foot setback.
Mr. Spath: Well it’s a 50 foot review area, it’=
;s not
a soil setback, and we’re looking at to develop any piece of property=
now
a day there’s most wetlands on every piece of property. We take each =
case
by case and on this piece we were actually going a step further by doing th=
is
wall. That’s a long wall that’s being built there and the purpo=
se
of this, and this is why, is to protect that stream area. It’s not to=
the
lawns would encroach or someone would try encroaching into that stream area=
. So
that little bit of area that we have shown on the 50 there that you do see =
is
minimal compared to what we’re protecting with that stone wall and the
way we developed this piece of property. So we worked with Chuck and Sean
Hayden and tried to address all the comments that we’re brought up as
much as we could and I think what we have proposed is a very nice designed
sub-division.
Mr. Marotta: Well for instance this lot 11, it looks to me f=
rom
these peoples decks the 50 foot setback area would be like 8 feet or 10 fee=
t.
So when we do wetland projects, we need to look long term. We can’t j=
ust
look at short term and I don’t feel comfortable with this project rig=
ht
now. I do believe there are other feasible alternatives although you may not
think it is. I would like to see this 50 foot setback area conserved under a
conservation easement so that there will be no disturbance whatsoever in th=
at
area.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 23
Megh=
an
Raymond: For the record my name=
is
Meghan Raymond and I’m a senior Ecologist with William Kenny Associat=
es
and as it’s been mentioned before about the 50 foot setback, 50 foot
regulated area. What we’re looking for and you have the latitude of j=
urisdiction
within that area and it’s discretionary. And what the discretion is
focused on is maintaining the integrity of the physical characteristics of =
this
wetland. This is primarily now the Echo Lake Brook water course at opposed =
to
intermittent water course that we were speaking to earlier. Because of that=
I
agree with you. Echo Lake Brook is a nice water course in this location.
It’s not as nice in some areas but where we are along the property we
have a nice forested corridor with a forested wetland that abuts Echo Lake =
Brook
proper and then we have a nice forested upland that is adjacent to this
wetland. However as we talked about we’re trying to balance the needs=
of
development with the needs of maintaining and the purpose at our charge of
maintaining the integrity of this wetland system. By doing that the idea is=
to
prevent these long term cumulative impacts to the wetland system. What we h=
ave
in this location is what we’re focusing on because up in the northern
part of the project we’re not seeing any problems here. We have a nice
separation, all open space in this location. But what we’re focusing =
on
are the 5 small lots along the eastern side of the sub-division. In the rea=
rs
of those lots we have done some work to re-design the sub-division, to mini=
mize
any fill in the back of these yards. So we’re going to have all natur=
al
grades behind these homes. Now we could as you said preserve this 50 foot b=
ut
by doing that you’re going to increase disturbance because we’re
going to have steeper cuts and in pulling things back we would then be at t=
he
50 foot but the integrity of the wetland is not going to be protected by any
greater extent because what we’re talking about is 10 feet. Ten feet =
in
the woods to the large primary corridor is diminimous. So what we’ve =
done
to try and balance that by maintaining these natural grades as best we can
providing and impervious barrier by the stone wall, planting if so desired =
and
maintaining a forested (inaudible) corridor in the rear and Echo Lake
Brook’s integrity is going to be maintained with this. I understand a=
nd
appreciate your concern with getting that extra 10 feet and 15 feet in some
cases, but looking at it along the corridor proper, it’ a diminimous
concern because it’s going to create greater site impacts elsewhere. =
So I
do understand where you’re coming from but looking at the situation in
order to balance the needs and maintain the natural grades as best we can, =
this
is a great balance.
Mr. =
Marotta: And part of my concern is because of the slope =
out
there.
Ms. =
Raymond: Right but the slope in this location is not as =
steep.
I think yes this portion of the site is all going to remain as open space.
We’re not even touching anything up there. And that’s where the
real slope problem lies. But I think you probably remember form being out t=
here
the slope in the rear of these houses adjacent to the brook is not as great.
It’s gradual and it’s
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 24
sort of a gently sloping forested corridor.
That’s going to be maintained and will prevent any potential
encroachment. There could be signs posted no dumping. So then we’re g=
oing
to have this potential of not having trees and the next thing to tackle is
letting homeowners know not to dump lawn debris back there, that’s a =
big
thing. We understand that charge but the stone wall really is going to prev=
ent
the cumulative impacts and I think it is going to create a nice balance. By
maintaining these natural grades it is a preferred solution.
Mr. =
Marotta: When you talk about extra cut and fills, the wa=
y that
in my mind is an alternative to keep it exactly the way your plan is right =
now,
the homes laid out exactly the way they are right now, but you extend that
conservation easement to that 50 foot setback due to ensure the future
integrity of Echo Lake Brook. And not redesign any of the home lots or anyt=
hing
like that, exactly the way it is right now but just expand that conservation
easement to ensure…
Ms. =
Raymond: But it’s just not that feasible and again=
that
10 feet isn’t going to make or break it. I mean we’re exceeding=
in
some cases and we’re in sided in others. So again I appreciate you
concern and I understand where we are coming from but I don’t think
it’s feasible to have a conservation easement com right up two houses.
Like Charlie said you’re inviting encroachment in that location at le=
ast
now we have a situation without encroachment being an issue because the sto=
ne
wall is going to be a permanent demarcation preventing encroachment in the
future.
Mr. =
Marotta: Yeah but the concern is that…
Mr.
Dupliese: You’re already
encroaching.
Mr. =
Marotta: You are already encroaching when you get to the=
stone
wall.
Mr.
Dupliese: And it’s not 10=
feet,
some places its 25 feet and you’re saying it’s a gentle slope b=
ut
in 25 feet some of these houses are from the backyards and 25 feet that
you’re encroaching is 6 and in some places an 8 foot drop in 25 feet.=
So
it’s not a gentle slope.
Ms. =
Raymond: By comparison this is a gently sloping area. Th=
is is
our opinion looking at the property and I do again appreciate your concern =
but
this is a balance that works and Echo Lake Brook proper, the physical
characteristics of that water course are going to be maintained with the si=
te
plan as depicted.
Mr. =
Spath: Charles Spath for the record. Glen I don’=
t know
where you’re talking about? Where are you talking about the steep dro=
p?
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 25
Mr.
Dupliese: Lot 11, from the back=
of
Mr. =
Spath: One this house here, this is the house that was
adjusted. This house here was adjusted because of the open bottom culvert,
raising the road. This is so close to the culvert so we did have to raise t=
hat
house slightly. If you go back to our pipe, you have two designs in front of
you, with the drop structure it is even right off the back. There is no
elevation difference.
Mr.
Dupliese: But it’s a 6, a=
lmost
an 8 foot drop on that one elevation right?
Mr. =
Spath: You’re saying the basement floor in this =
plan
here, ok it says 538…
Mr.
Dupliese: Well I’m lookin=
g at
grade lines; I can only look at the grade lines that we have on the drawing.
And the next house is the same thing. Two, four, six, eight… This one=
is
two, four, six from here.
Mr. =
Spath: You’re counting the one you’re star=
ting
from. You go two, four, you don’t count each line because…
Mr.
Dupliese: Yeah but it’s
dropping past the line too. It’s continually going down.
Mr. =
Spath: Glen, so right there its four feet is what I=
217;m
saying it’s not 8 feet.
Mr.
Dupliese: And what’s this=
one?
Mr. =
Spath: This one here is two, four. That’s the ac=
tual
grade that’s there now that we’re trying to preserve. We did ha=
ve a
plan that we did fill the house, but this is a great improvement so I think
you’re looking at it…
Mr.
Dupliese: I agree, I agree, and
it’s like you said no one is going to ask for a pool. If they do we c=
an
deny it. What we’re saying is that we really want to maintain this. T=
his
is a steep elevation the whole project is (inaudible). This is steep too. It
drops down and it continually drops down and it drops even more as you get =
past
that stone wall that you proposed.
Mr. =
Spath: That’s right.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 26
Mr.
Dupliese: Scott’s asking =
for
the conservation easement to follow the 50 foot.
Mr. =
Spath: What we have before you is what we proposed and
worked in great detail on this. We made major changes, grading the houses,
grading the road. I think this is a very well thought out design that the 3=
rd
party review has been involved and Chuck Berger has been involved in. I thi=
nk
just to ask for that 50 you’re asking people to encroach because ther=
e is
not enough area for the house. If I am to move those houses to keep your 50=
in
that one area, what happens is if I move it out to the 50, I push it
there’s not enough room t construct the house.
Mr.
Dupliese: Why?
Mr. =
Spath: You’re going to have a conservation easem=
ent
from this table to there. It’s not feasible.
Mr. =
Marotta: That’s your opinion.
Mr. =
Spath: No I know it’s not feasible because
you’re pushing the house, with a conservation easement 7 feet or 10 f=
eet
outside someone’s back door. You’re asking do with that land is=
to
dig it up first, and what we’ve proposed is instead of going there, we
will put a wall up and all those trees are going to be preserved in the fut=
ure.
We are also adding a conservation easement to the other side of the brook w=
hich
is not there now. There is no conservation easement on the other side of the
brook, so any of those people on the other side.
Mr.
Polletta: Scott, if you remembe=
r from
the beginning when they first cam before us, they didn’t have any sto=
ne
wall and the concern of this board was basically this 50 foot. However, we =
went
all night talking about this stone wall and there was compensation by saying
you build a stone wall and that way we have some backyard so no body distur=
bs
anything on the other side. I think we forgot at the beginning that we
didn’t have any wall here. And the board asked them to do something a=
bout
it and they put this wall up for that reason if you remember.
Mr. =
Spath: At
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 27
gets there as much as we can. Up above as you se=
e all
the sediment that came into the wetlands we’re going to clean it up a=
nd
put some modified riprap there. We’ve worked with Chuck. He mentioned
some plantings now, I’m sure we’ll agree to some plantings in t=
hat
area. So I think we are protecting what’s there now. This is very low
impact for this type of site.
Mr. =
Marotta: I agree with the whole purpose of the 50 foot s=
etback
area. It’s not necessarily a no build or no disturb area. But in this
circumstance with the slope that’s out there, I would feel a lot more
comfortable with preserving that buffer zone. The DEP recommends 100 feet. =
Like
you said before it’s due to different circumstances. In this circumst=
ance
to ensure the integrity of echo lake brook, the more land there is between
those homes and Echo Lake Brook the more potential for nutrient retention a=
nd
less runoff to that brook. I think your stone wall is a decent idea, but I =
do
think that these homeowners may think that the stone wall is the end of the=
ir
property and clear up to that stone wall.
Mr. =
Spath: Well that’s why we have it there so they =
do not
go past it. I think if you ask Moosa what he’s found in the past, usu=
ally
the put markers on trees. A tree is not exactly where it’s supposed to
be, at 50 feet there is not always a tree there, there may not be trees and
usually that’s how you would do it or put a post there. When Moosa go=
es
out there if he ever needs to he doesn’t have to look for markers and
trees. He looks at that stone wall and that’s the property line so
it’s easy for him to police in the future having a structure like that
there. And you have your opinion and I have mine. I do a lot of site to bui=
ld
and I think on this project what we have is really in the end working with =
the
consultant, I think we have a nice design.
Mr. =
Marotta: I have to disagree with you and why I do is if =
Moosa
goes out there and sees these peoples backyard cleared to the stone wall,
they’ve violated the inlands and wetlands conservation.
Mr. =
Spath: Let me correct. Actually what we’re doing=
is if
this plan is approved they have the ability to go right tot hat stone wall.
That’s what we’re doing, that’s the purpose of the stone
walls. Just don’t go any farther; we are going to encroach into that =
50
foot. I’m sorry that was my fault. That’s why the stone wall is
there.
Moos=
a: I think by approving this plan you already allo=
wed
them to go in that area.
Mr. =
Spath: That stone wall. That was the purpose I’m
sorry. That’s clear to everybody now. That’s the purpose of the
stone wall that’s all they go up to and no farther.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 28
Mr.
Zawadzki: This mitigating 500 s=
q.
feet, how does that 500 sq. feet compare to the wetlands that we dug up for=
the
crossing, intermittent water course culvert? How many sq. feet? I’m
talking about the direct wetlands, not the 50 foot setback.
Mr. =
Nolty: It’s about 2000 sq. feet of direct impact=
, vs.
the 500 of the mitigation area plus the additional cleanup which overlaps t=
hat
area that might take it up to 1000 sq. feet of cleanup of debris and sedime=
nt
and installation of the plunge pool structure.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Is there a way you ca=
n get
more than that or is it one for one, if you dig up 2,000 get 2,000 recreate=
d?
Mr. =
Nolty: No there’s not. The only area where the s=
and is
in this 1st reach of this intermittent water course is the area that needs
cleanup. To dig a bigger hole would be unnecessary and create unnecessary
disturbances that really wont function any better than what we’re
building.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Ok, anyone else?
Ms. =
Brook: Attorney Janet Brooks. I wanted to pick up on s=
ome of
the themes that were brought up. I will want to get back to Chucks when he
talked about the pipe vs. the box culvert and he conditioned it appropriate=
ly
with the clause “if there’s environmental benefit”. But I
want to get back to what one of commissioners is talking about. It may seem=
to
you and your duties that feeling comfortable is a valid basis on which to a=
ct
but the courts do not support you for comfort level, for potential impact, =
for
concerns, I’m taking words out of case decisions appellate and supreme
court decision since 2004. Potential concerns, speculation, worries, general
concerns, Sean Hayden reliance by the
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 29
inquiry. Sean Hayden didn’t say there is he
learned from his loss in the Toll Brothers case. He didn’t say I have=
a
general environmental concern about habitat impact with the piping system; =
the
request was that the applicant provides the information. So now you have one
expert only, and that one expert had said it’s not a habitat concern
because it doesn’t supply that function. While it may seem to you
appropriate that in your opinion what might happen in the future may come
within your jurisdiction, the courts aren’t supporting you. It’s
not my opinion it’s the courts opinion. You can ask your attorney to =
look
into these things but that’s what the courts are telling you and where
the decisions are going. You also have case law, one expert and nobody else
disputing it. That’s on the biological impact on the habitat impact
you’re not able to disregard it. So we’re back to chucks “=
;if
there is environmental benefits” although the engineers are trying ve=
ry
hard to accommodate you, trying to give you feedback. Can you put in the box
culvert? It’s feasible which means by engineering principals you can
actually do it in the ground. But the question is there environmental benef=
it,
there is only one environmental report on habitat function here and it says
that this intermittent water course doesn’t provide that so the ultim=
ate
decision would be a court isn’t going to support “but it might
change over time, but I’d feel more comfortable, but I’m worried
about this”. That’=
;s not
how the courts look at this. So given all of that there has been an attempt=
to
accommodate and at least give you remedies and options to do while the box =
culvert
is feasible. That it can be done as a matter of engineering principals
there’s no substantial evidence to support going in that direction.
You’ve heard Chuck say tonight the pipe with the drop breaking the
velocity is feasible form an engineering point of view and is sufficient. S=
o I
would say there is nothing in the record now, shifting gears, to increase
conservation easement. Nothing in the record that supports a 50 foot no bui=
ld
no activity zone. The options that have been presented here lot by lot with=
the
varying conservation easement restriction do accommodate and balance the
reasonable rights of the owners to develop the properties and protect it wi=
thin
the science that exists and within this record. Very briefly I just wanted =
to
point out that the SEEPA intervener you have another obligation to make a
determination about the SEEPA intervener and I would say for many of the sa=
me
reasons regarding substantial evidence and expert evidence, SEEPA intervener
has failed to meet his burden of putting on expert evidence regarding pollu=
tion
form this project. Therefore you would have no choice but to make a finding
that there is unreasonable pollution from this because he’s failed to
meet his burden. At this point I will sit down thank you.
Mr. =
Marotta: I’d like to for the record let you know I=
claim
to be an environmental professional, I am an environmental scientist with o=
ver
9 years experience, just for the record. Thank You.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 30
Mr.
Zawadzki: Ok at this time we wi=
ll
allow questions and comments from the public either for or against this
proposal application #589?
Ms. =
LaFlam: Good Evening, Margaret LaFlam
Mr.
Zawadzki: Anyone else?
Mrs.=
Masi: Donna Masi
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 31
well issues. This project is a less dense projec=
t than
all the other surrounding properties. As you’ve heard, the water runo=
ff
from the upper development runs into our property. We didn’t have that
problem before that was developed and that’s why I think this type of
review is good because it protects everyone. No one was there unfortunately=
to
protect our property. We’ve met all the modifications by staff and by
your experts and we’ve proven that there are no adverse impacts to the
wetlands in this proposal. I ask with that in my concluding statement that =
you
approve this proposal as we have given it to you. Thank you.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Anyone else?
Jose=
ph J.
Masi: Hello my name is Joseph J.
Masi, Penn Place Rocky Hill. I’m speaking on behalf of the applicants=
my
father Joseph Masi and my aunt Margaret Raymond. My family has owned this l=
and
for over 100 years as my aunt said, we pay taxes on it and it’s our r=
ight
to build on this land as long as we meet the standards. Now that we’ve
submitted a plan that has met or exceeded what has been called for by your
technical people. I urge you to approve it at the regular meeting after the
public hearing closes. Thank You.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Anyone else?
Mr. =
Masi: Joe Masi
Mr.
Zawadzki: Anybody else? Any oth=
er
comments form the board?
Mr.
Undercuffler: Yeah how are we l=
eaving
this pipe issue, pipe and box culvert?
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 32
Mr.
Zawadzki: Well that’s up =
to us.
It would be the conditions of approval to either specify based on what we f=
eel
the box culvert, or pipe.
Mr.
Undercuffler: So they’re
willing to do the box culvert?
Mr.
Zawadzki: Right.
Mr.
Undercuffler: Putting the box c=
ulvert
in as I understand will raise that elevation on what is it 11% cause more s=
lope
there.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Anything else?
Mr. =
Orsini: If I understood correctly listening to your
lawyer’s interpretation she’s basically saying, excuse me Janet
that the box culvert is not something that we should consider.
Mr.
Undercuffler: No she didn’=
;t say
that.
Mr.
Zawadzki: No.
Mr. =
Spath: Charles Spath. I think what has been said is our
expert consultants and witness has said that the area does not warrant
necessarily a box culvert. And what Chuck’s comments were that he wan=
ted
someone to look into that. And that’s what we did.
Mr.
Undercuffler: But you’re
willing to put one in.
Mr. =
Spath: Yes.
Mr. =
Orsini: Ok.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Ok if there are no ot=
her
comments I’ll entertain to close the public hearing.
Mr. =
Masi: Excuse me Mr. Chairman…
Mr.
Zawadzki: Step up to the microp=
hone
please.
Mr. =
Masi: Joe Masi. Will you be discussing this issue on a
potential vote tonight at the hearing or will you be going to another meeti=
ng.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Well that’s on =
the
regular meeting agenda and we’ll discuss it at that time. I don’=
;t
know what the feelings are of the other commission members at this point.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 33
Mr. =
Masi: I just thought that you might have a sense beca=
use
obviously in one case we can leave, and the other we have to stay. Either w=
ay
is ok with me. I thought you might have a sense.
Mr.
Zawadzki: No.
Mr.
Undercuffler: Does Chuck
Berger… do you have everything you need, I mean if we close the heari=
ng?
Mr.
Zawadzki: Well we have until th=
e 22nd.
The only way we can do anything different is if we had a special meeting
between now and the 22nd.
Mr.
Undercuffler: If we were to clo=
se it
tonight I was just wondering if there were no open issues that Chuck has, we
can think about closing.
Mr. =
Berger: Maybe I’m overstepping my bounds here but=
I
think you have discussed all of the major open issues tonight and the appli=
cant
and the consultants have provided alternatives for us to consider as you mo=
ve
forward. There are items in my memos dated today that I will be continuing =
to
review and may request some minor drainage changes out on French Street and=
in
other areas, however if they did affect wetlands they’d have to come =
back
here. I don’t anticipate changes that may occur impacting wetlands are
the 50 foot setback area. So there may be some minor modifications with the
hyper-dynamic separator and some of the catch basins out on
Mr. =
Rafey: And Chuck will be involved during the review pr=
ocess
with the planning and zoning commission if there are any technical issues t=
hat
are left from this commission. He has the opportunity to look at that again
with the planning and zoning commission.
Mr.
Zawadzki: We do have an option =
as you
know if we feel that there is lacking information we can decline, or vote
against it and we can reapply as an incomplete application. That’s one
option. Ok any motion to close the public hearing on application 589.
Mr.
Dupliese: So move.
Mr. =
Orsini: Second.
Mr.
Zawadzki: All in favor.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#589-JOSEPH MASI
SEPTEMBE=
R 13,
2007
Page 34
Ever=
yone: I
Mr.
Zawadzki: Opposed? Ok moving ri=
ght
along.
.
Discussion: None.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Public Hearing Clos=
ed at about
9:00p.m. (no time given).
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Murphy, Secretary
Conservation Commission
Inland/Wetland Agency
&=
nbsp; __________________________________
&=
nbsp; Jennifer
Guerrera,
Minutes Secretary