MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR
MEETING
THURSDAY,
OCTOBER 14, 2004 - 7:30 PM
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Bernard
Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Glen
Duplissie
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Martha
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; Susan
Atwood
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Peter
Peluso
OTHERS PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; Chuck
Berger, Town Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Zoning Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:15 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit for Mr. Duplissie, in his abse=
nce.
3. =
Public
Participation
Tracy Covington,
=
; Ms.
Covington: I’ve had this property for a=
bout 2
years now and I called the Town recently in regards to fencing regulations =
and
things like that and they told me as long as it’s within my property,=
was
6 feet less than then there shouldn’t be an issue. I was not aware, because thereR=
17;s
nothing written specifically saying wetlands for my property. I started putting the fencing up.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Moosa Rafey has told me that I gue=
ss my
properties fall within the wetlands division, that they have to supervise it
and that I needed to cease putting up the fence at this time.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 2
I did receive applicat=
ion
that one requires an A2 Survey. I
do have David Hughes hired, he’s supposed to come at the end of Octob=
er,
beginning of November to verify boundaries between Icehouse Road and my
property and then I would like to have a permanent fence along the roadside
with the understanding that the Town would have access to the (inaudible) a=
rea
if needed. My request tonight=
is
that because the fencing is already up and there’s no way to prevent =
it
from being (inaudible) if I take it down because I don’t have a fence=
on
my property that I can leave what is in (inaudible) there now until the A2
Survey and the application has been filed, hopefully by mid to the end of
November.
=
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Now this application w=
ould
be just for the fencing, correct, cause I unders=
tand
you have horses there, and for horses you need more acres than you have.
=
; Ms.
Covington: The property next to me happens to=
be
owned by my sister and brother-in-law and they were interested in leasing it
from me for use of the horses.
I’ve had problems, I don’t know the specific (inaudible)
bamboo that seems to have crossing from Town property to my property has
consumed a good 2/3 of the property and continues to spread. According to the D.E.P., the only =
thing
that kills it, kills everything which we canR=
17;t
use. The one thing I have fou=
nd is
that it’s not spreading on my sister’s property where the anima=
ls
are able to keep it down.
I’ve spent over $3,000 so far just to spray my yard and it sti=
ll
looks awful because I can’t stop this bamboo from progressing. The application would include fenc=
ing
with an application, I guess it’s the zoning I would have to go throu=
gh
to find out if they can lease the land from me so I can try to get some of =
this
bamboo under control with the understanding that the stream is fenced out f=
rom
any animal usage.
=
; Mr.
Rafey: If you look at the map=
that
I gave you, this is Mrs. Covington’s property and the corner of
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 3
=
; Mr.
Polletta: Is this a permanent fence or a tem=
porary
fence?
=
; Ms.
Covington: It’s a pa=
nel
fencing. It’s able to be
moved.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: It’s not in the ground. It’s just to keep the animal=
s off.
=
; Ms.
Covington: Correct, the idea was due to the
increased traffic and things like that along the border of my property alon=
g
=
; Mr.
Polletta: So you use this with your sister, =
use
this piece of property so you basically use this property together with your
sister?
=
; Ms.
Covington: Correct. There is temporary paneling (inaud=
ible).
=
; Mr.
Polletta: I went by there. You did a great job. I’m just trying to figure ou=
t what
you’re coming to do with the manure?
=
; Ms.
Covington: It goes over to my
sister’s.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: so you’re using, just tempor=
ary
store like.
=
; Ms.
Covington It’s just for grazing and =
like I
said it seems that the hoofed animals are able to keep the bamboo under
control.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: You’re not using this garage=
to
keep the animals in?
=
; Ms.
Covington: No in the garage we ha=
ve the
horse trailers. The horses do=
not
stay in that. This area, clos=
est to
=
; Ms.
Sturgis: Your sister is
=
; Ms.
Covington Yes.
There is this area right here, this little building, all it is is a
roof, (inaudible) concrete. T=
he
horses could have access to that in fowl weather, that<=
/span>
kind of thing, and both sides would end up being fenced out in this loft ar=
ea,
with no access to the stream.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: Moosa, because it’s one fami=
ly,
they still got to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals?
=
; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, they need 5 acres=
of
land to keep horses.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 4
=
; Mr.
Zawadzki: I noticed even
=
; Ms.
Covington: They were grand father=
ed in,
(inaudible).
=
; Mr.
Rafey: Existing non-conforming use.
=
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Let me read this lette=
r into
the record and then we can ask additional questions.
“October
7, 2004
Mr.
Moosa Rafey
Assistant
Zoning Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Dear
Mr. Rafey:
I
received your Cease and Desist Letter stating that I must remove the horses=
and
fencing from my property on September 29, 2004. I removed the horses on September =
27,
2004 per your verbal warning. I have
since obtained a Board of Appeals application which states I must have an A2
Survey completed for my property.
Luckily I had already contacted with David Hughes, Surveyor in May,
2004. He is due to survey my
property at the beginning of November.&nbs=
p;
Mr. Hughes suggested this date with hopes that the abundance of bamb=
oo
plants present on my property would be out of season and make the land more
accessible to the survey. At =
this
time I would like to respectfully request the Wetlands Committee’s
permission for portable panel fencing to remain intact on the side yard of =
my
property until the survey is completed and my Board of Appeals application =
is
decided upon. I plan to atten=
d the
Committee meeting on October 14, 2004 and look forward to answering any fur=
ther
questions.
Sincerely,
Tracy
Covington”
=
; Mr.
Rafey: I just want to mention one point t=
hat I
did not issue a Cease and Desist Order, just a Notice of Violation.
=
; Ms.
Covington: I thought it was a Cea=
se
& Desist.
=
; Mr.
Rafey: No, it was a Notice of Violation b=
ut
they did cease the use of the property for horses. There are no horses on the property
(inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 5
=
; Ms.
Covington: The request for leaving the panels=
, yes
it is portable fencing at the moment, but it still requires time and effort=
to
move it. The other thing is
I’ve already had (inaudible) wheelbarrows, and my garage has been
attempted to broken in, the handles were broken off, but this paneling is a=
bout
between $80.00 and $100.00 per panel and if I do take it down, there’=
s no
protection from theft since I am right on the road and it’s a very bu=
sy
road. So that’s why I
requested that it stay in tact until I get the survey so I can finish the a=
pplication. I mean if there is an emergency
situation where they needed access, then we’d move the panels, but . =
. . ..
=
; Mr.
Undercuffler: It would seem to me to=
make
sense to have them go for the P & Z for the variance and then come here,
and in the meantime let the fence remain.
=
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, I feel that way
too. I don’t see any pr=
oblem
with the fence being there right now.
There’s no point in us discussing a permit for the wetlands if=
you
don’t get the variance from P & Z so I think that’s the way=
to
go.
=
; Ms.
Covington: Even if the horses weren’t t=
here,
I’d need to put a fence in the perimeter and then I’d have to c=
ome
back.
=
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea anything where you=
get
into the wetlands or the 50 foot of a watercourse or anything like that req=
uires
a permit from this Commission.
=
; Ms.
Covington: I did not know that. Like I said my permit didn’t=
state
anywhere wetlands so I didn’t know what the, then when I called the T=
own
Hall I went by their guidelines and as I said I did not know it was wetlands
deeded.
=
; Mr.
Rafey: That road wasn’t=
on
your property you don’t need a zoning permit for fences up to 6 feet =
in
size, you can put it on your property anywhere, but because of that road th=
ere
is other wetland regulations that regulates any activity within a 50 foot
buffer area.
=
; Ms.
Covington: I want to see f the A2 survey what=
ever
application is needed to be filled out with that survey being formally
addressed or given to the Town as far as on record and then go from there as
far as fencing and then I guess zoning, but then I would also be coming back
for fencing, even if the horses are not permitted, for the safety of my kid=
s I
want a fence along the road.
=
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Just have a plan where=
that
fence is going to be.
=
; Ms.
Covington: Correct, I have that all mapped ou=
t.
=
; Mr.
Zawadzki: I guess that’s a=
ll we
need to do at this point.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 6
=
; Ms.
Covington: So the fencing can stay and as soo=
n as I
get the application inv . . . . .
=
; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, just contact me
regarding your Z.B.A. application.
=
; Ms.
Covington: Okay, thank you.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, Closed Public Participation at 8:25 p.m.
4. =
Action
on Minutes
&=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of Public Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #415, Cathie Caton &=
nbsp; B. =
Continuation
of Public Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #421, YMCA &nbs=
p; C. Continuation
of Public Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #422, Mary Ann Cathcart &=
nbsp; D. Public
Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #423, Mark Lovely &=
nbsp; E. =
Public
Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #424, Domenic DiNunzio &=
nbsp; F. =
Public
Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #425, New Millennium Development, Inc. &nbs=
p; G. Regular
Meeting, May 10, 2001 &=
nbsp; H. Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 12, 2001, App. #423, Mark Lovely &=
nbsp; I. &=
nbsp; Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 12 2001, App. #424, Domenic DiNunzio &=
nbsp; J. &=
nbsp; Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 12, 2001, App. #425, New Millennium Development, In=
c. &=
nbsp; K. Public Hearing July 12, 2001, App. #428, &n=
bsp; L.<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> =
Regular
Meeting, July 12, 2001 M. Regular
Meeting, August 12, 2004 N. Regular
Meeting, September 9, 2004 &=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Thermer) to Approve Item 4M and Table Items #4A through =
4L
and 4N. &=
nbsp; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5. =
Pending
Applications &=
nbsp; A. Application
#505 of Guernseytown Farms, LLC for construction of 10-lot Phase III
Guernseytown Farms Estates Subdivision, Guernseytown Road, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
Public Hearing is Closed on October 14, 2004, th=
en a
decision is required by December 17, 2004. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2004 PAGE 7 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Since we’re continuing the P=
ublic
Hearing we need a Motion to Table this. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Beauchamp, sec. Mr. Jones) to Table Application #505 of Guernseytown Farms,=
LLC
for construction of 10-lot Phase III Guernseytown Farms Estates Subdivision,
Guernseytown Road, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Discussion: =
; None &=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY B. =
Application #508 of Rainville Properties, LLC for
construction of a single family dwelling on Lot #2, Peck Lane, Watertown, C=
T. If a Public Hearing is=
not
held, then a decision us required by November 12, 2004. Mr. Rainville: When we went to constr=
uct
the single family dwelling on the lot, the plot plan stated that the corner=
of
one foundation would be 5 foot off of the 50 foot buffer zone from a
conservation easement. As we
discussed before, it is virtually impossible to get the machinery around the
corner to dig the holes and pour the foundation and we ended up disturbing
approximately 200 square feet of the 50 foot setback. It was all re-graded, correctly an=
d nice
with the on site material and that’s pretty much it. Mr. Polletta: =
Did you put the materi=
al
back and everything stabilized like before? Did you seed it and everything els=
e? Mr. Rainville: Yes. Mr. Polletta: =
How much room did you =
have
between the house and the wetlands? Mr. Rainville: Well it was the 50 foo=
t buffer, it was approximately 200 square feet. Mr. Zawadzki: =
I guess this is a poin=
t to
remember for all of is m the future when we see a house located at or near =
or
that close to the 50 foot boundary to question it because it’s imposs=
ible
to get a piece of machinery around without going into the buffer area. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2004 PAGE 8 Mr. Polletta: =
In a situation like th=
is
it’s very hard to move a machinery around.=
I mean you need some room to move
around, but my main concern is that everything was put back to the way it w=
as
before. Mr. Rainville: Exactly the same. Mr. Zawadzki: You saw this, right?=
Mr. Rafey: Yes, I did. Mr. Zawadzki: Are you satisfied wi=
th it? Mr. Rafey: Yes, I am. At the last meeting this Commission
determined that this was not a significant activity and you didn’t wa=
nt a
public hearing or a site walk.
It’s an after the fact situation, the house is already built, =
and
that area is stable again, it’s seeded. Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions?=
I think we can make a Motion to ap=
prove
Application #508. MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Thermer) to Approve Application #508 of Rainville
Properties, LLC for construction of a single family dwelling on Lot #2, Peck
Lane, Watertown, CT.
John Rainville,
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; C. Application
#509 of Philson, Inc., for construction of a fence at
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by November 12, 2= 004.
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Zawadzki: This one, if yo= u read this, you noticed that according to the applicant the fence will be placed outside the regulated wetland upland (inaudible) area which does not require local wetland improvement so this application should be withdrawn. We don’t have to act on it.<= /p>
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, but one point over on Page 3, it says the opposite.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 9
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: No what happened a= t the last meeting, if you remember, Philson, Inc. they came to the meeting and a= sked you to add this to the Agenda this application because (inaudible) meeting. And we didn’t = get a chance to look at it and you had it on the Agenda, and a week later they ca= me to the office and brought a map which showed it was outside if the regulated area, and I (inaudible) don’t need a permit from this Commission, put they have to go to the D.E.P. to get a permit for the (inaudible).
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: Well it’s within the channel encroachment line.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: Yea, but not from = this Commission. If the fence was = within the 50 foot buffer zone, they would need a permit from you.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: So it’s inside the channel encroachment line but it’s outside the regulated wetland buffer. So we have nothing to do with it a= t this point.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: Nobody is here so = I will ask them tomorrow to send a letter to withdraw this application, or we can = just deny this application.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Jones) to Deny Applicatio=
n #509
of Philson, Inc., for construction of a fence at 1465 Main Street,
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&= nbsp; D. Application #510 of Guernseytown Farms, LLC to Amend the CCIWA Permit #476 Guernseytown Farms Estates Phase I.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by November 12, 2= 004.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 10
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; James Sakonchick, Engineer, Kratze=
rt
& Jones
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Phase I is the development furthest=
to
the east off of Route 63 which was just paved this week. And Phase I has 3 places where sto=
rm
water leaves the road and goes in the wetlands, just across from (Inaudible)
Road, (inaudible) pipe line in the hill over here and along
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: Mr. Berger had made a comment here= or maybe Moosa made the comment about some of the sections need more stone, bu= t I assume you read that?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Sakonchick: I did, and fo= r the most part those sections are outside of the wetlands buffer.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: If the Commission approves this tonight just put a condition that we need cross section that = Mr. Berger will give it to them.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Berger: I would request that the rip rap c= ross section that’s attached here be installed wherever rip rap line chann= els are installed, whether it’s wetlands, upla= nd review area, or upland (inaudible). Wherever we have rip rap channels replacing the grass line swales, I would request we see a typical rip rap channel (inaudible) which we donR= 17;t have in the ground now.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Zawadzki: And as per the specification now, what is it the U.S. Department of Agriculture?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Berger: This is out of the 2002 Sediment E= rosion Control Handbook. There are m= any spots where you can see down to the fabric, there’s not enough stone = in the channel.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Zawadzki: (Inaudible)?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Berger: Yes.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Zawadzki: So you don̵= 7;t have a problem with that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 11
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Joseph Calabrese, Applicant
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Calabrese: Actually we di= d add more stone. I don’t kno= w at the last site walk you went, did you look at it? They did an inspection Wednesday a= nd did you look at it Chuck?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Berger: We didn’t walk down the midd= le section, we did walk down the section along Killorin and that’s not acceptable. You can still see= white fabric. I want to see the cro= ss section that provided a couple of weeks ago to you. I didn’t walk down the middl= e one or the upper one.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Calabrese: Okay, we’= ;ll review it again. I send the g= uys down to add stone, and I didn’t get a chance to look at it myself, bu= t I will check it again.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible) you ca= n see the fabric (inaudible).
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Berger: As some Commission members may rec= all, this was subject to a lot of discussion during the approval of Phase I, gra= ss line swales versus rip rap line swales and the Commission approved the grass line swales because the engineer demonstrated that they would be adequate to handle the runoff from these sites and they’d have less impact on the wetlands versus stone. The applicant has gone ahead and placed stone in there which certainly creates = a more stable harder surface, but it has greater wetland impact, that’s why Moosa and I suggested they come back to this Commission. Moosa and I don’t have any objections to it as long as it’s constructed properly and that’s really where my comments are coming from.&= nbsp; If we’re going to approve modification to go from grass line swales to rip rap line channel, we want the rip rap line channel to meet typical rip rap line channel detail that we require of any other subdivider= .
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Polletta: How much stone = did you put on top of there?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, it’s attached there Joe, there is a cross section . . . .
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: Look at . . . . .<= /p>
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Polletta: I saw that, but the only thing I&#= 8217;m saying is that do you feel that it is not built (inaudible)?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Berger: The way it is now= ?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Polletta: Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 12
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Berger: No, at least the = one I didn’t, this past Wednesday I didn’t visit the northernmost one= and the middle one. We did walk d= own along Killorin and that one is not satisfactory, the middle one was not satisfactory the last time I was there which was a couple of weeks ago.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: Now when you say there’s more impact on the wetlands I would think that rip rap would have a more positive effect in the sense that it reduces the velocity by quite a bit, doesn̵= 7;t it?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Berger: It does, but duri= ng the approval process the grass line swales it was demonstrated, what was origin= ally approved was a concrete pipe outfall, to a rip rap line plunge pool, into a grass line swale, into a plunge pool at the end of a grass line swale, and = it was demonstrated that that grass line swale was adequate to handle the velocities in that system. Wh= at will slow it down even more now is a rip rap but it is a greater weapon, I believe.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Rafey: It covers a wider area compared to= grass channel.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Berger: And it’s a = rock channel versus a grass channel and the wetland (inaudible).
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: But it’s wor= king (inaudible) working. It’= ;s a stabilized . . . . .
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Calabrese: As you know you walked it, you saw it. We made the rip rap pools, plunge pools, I made them much larger because of= the steepness of the slope. On th= ose two slopes there is a tremendous pitch and I was concerned about the grass swales. I know everyone said = that it would hold, but I felt more comfortable with larger plunge pools and in = fact I even went on further and on Killorin Road I did a whole section with my detail to pick up all the, all the water off of that road comes right down = that bank and that would wash out, I believe, that was my opinion, and it’= s a much better situation. As far= as the first one we did is a grass swale.&nbs= p; That wasn’t as steep so I thought that would suffice and it did. When we got a large rain= storm it took care of it, but on the steep slopes I made those revisions as an improvement which cost me a lot more money. Again I will put more stone, but I= hope I’m not being asked to change the detail completely of that because I can’t rip that one apart and put another one in. I will add more stone, again, I se= nt the guys down there to do it but there’s only two that have that situatio= n.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Zawadzki: I don’t t= hink we’re saying that. I th= ink it’s due to the fact that there was inadequate stone to cover.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 13
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: There may be some areas where there
might be some changes necessary. I
mean I asked originally for a typical detail to be provided to you to show =
what
a rip rap line channel looked like.
And I provided you one last week and that’s what we need to ha=
ve
there. The Town is not going =
to
accept anything less than what we would accept from any other subdivision.<=
/p>
=
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Calabrese: Okay, it depen=
ds on
how much I have to take up, and then I would (inaudible) it, because again I
did a lot of extra work there to make it better. Everybody agrees that it is better=
, and
if I have to rip that up with all it cost me now, I do
have a problem with it. We wi=
ll add
stone, but if I have to pick that up and redo it, I have a problem with tha=
t. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: There may be some areas there that=
is
necessary, I’m not sure yet. =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: Mr. Berger, I
believe the areas you’re talking about would you agree with me in say=
ing
that they are outside of the wetlands and outside of the wetlands buffer, t=
hat
they’re primarily along &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I would be concerned about, yes, a=
long =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: We’re t=
alking
very carefully, in those I think we’ve got plenty of width and section
within the wetlands and the wetlands buffer. It’s just a question (inaudi=
ble)
is the stone enough? Where
you’re questioning the section, wouldn’t that be outside of the
wetlands buffer? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Possibly, but again I mean from the
towns I’m looking forward to the future of the Town accepting these
drainage improvements and from that perspective it doesn’t matter whe=
ther
or not it’s in the wetlands, the wetlands buffer, or in the uplands, =
we
want a drainage channel in there that is going to work. =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Calabrese: Again, there&#=
8217;s
a whole section I believe the part you’re talking about is the one th=
at I
added on my own, if it doesn’t suffice . . . . &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I’m talking, I guess my prim=
ary
concern is from the outlet structure up that tank and I know you’ve a=
dded
more stone where the road runoff was causing some erosion, and we thank you=
for
that, but that channel section in that reach, I’m not sure, I donR=
17;t
believe is adequate. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2004 PAGE 14 =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Calabrese: Which one are =
you
speaking about, I’m not quite sure. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: The outlet structure upstream of <=
st1:Street
w:st=3D"on"> =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Could you g=
o up
and . . . . . &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yea, I’ll point to it. I’ve gone there for the past=
3
weeks now so I’ll continue to do it. =
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Rafey: We go every Wednes=
day. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: And I sent the guys down there.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Berger: Thank you.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Sakonchick: I guess the short answer to your question is yes.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: Where do we stand on this as far as approval?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: You can make a dec= ision tonight. It’s already d= one and (inaudible) with a condition that it should satisfy Mr. Berger’s = . . . . .
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well we would say with the conditi= on that it would satisfy the specifications as attached.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: Make reference to = the page of guidelines, Page 55 (inaudible).
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: A through 12, right?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Berger: Yes. Complete section out of the 2002 m= anual talks about rip rap (inaudible).
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: Is this the latest one, Chuck, 2002? Okay so I need a motion= to approve application #510 with the condition that the changes comply with the Connecticut Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 2002 Edition, Pages 558 through 5512 inclusive.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 15
MOTION: (Mr. Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Approve Application #510 of Guernseyto= wn Farms, LLC to Amend the CCIWA Permit #476 Guernseytown Farms Estates Phase I with the condition that the changes comply with the Connecticut Guidelines = for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 2002 Edition, Pages 558 through 5512 inclusive.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
6. &nb=
sp; New
Applications
A.&n=
bsp; =
;
Application #511 of Allen Thorn=
berg
for dredging a pond at
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by December 17, 2=
004.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Allen Thornberg,
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Thornberg: I’m here= to apply for a permit to excavate and clean the pond out on that property.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well some of the membe=
rs
here went out and looked at your pond last year and we approved what you we=
re
going to do at that time.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Thornberg: I reapplied and detail=
ed it
out a little better.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Concept, right, and gave us a littl=
e more
detail in terms of the sketch and so forth.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Thornberg: Ye=
a, and I got a soil spec=
ialist
involved to draw up the wetland areas.&nbs=
p;
Mr. Berger recently went up to the property.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: What’s different=
from
the other application?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Thornberg: We just didn’t p=
repare
it right.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You didn’t add
anything?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 16
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Thornberg: No, I detailed it out =
pretty
good, the (inaudible) proposal and the alternatives if we don’t do it=
.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: What are you going to do with the =
excess
materials that comes out?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Thornberg: We do have a m=
ap for
that. We’re going to mo=
ve it
at least 50 feet away from the wetlands and use it as fill.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Use it on site?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Thornberg: Yea.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: There is a drawing=
in
the packet that shows the (inaudible) area.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Thornberg: Silt fence and pavemen=
t.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Do you have a c=
omment
Chuck? It has a note here that
you’re going to submit a memo?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I don’t hav=
e a
written memo to submit but I have reviewed the application. Some of the concerns that I had wh=
en it
was previously submitted relative to we needed more detail have been adequa=
tely
addressed and I don’t have any objections at this time. No further comment. He’s addressed the technical
detail issues that I was looking for.
It is a pretty minor pond maintenance project. He needed some additional water co=
ntrol
and disposal details (inaudible).
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: We can’t act on =
this
tonight, but I don’t know whether anyone wanted to take a site walk on
this in case they hadn’t seen it.&nb=
sp;
It’s a fairly small pond.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Jones: I haven’t seen i=
t, but
you folks have?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Yea.
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I saw it.<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Jones: Anybody else here who hasn’t=
seen
it? Anybody who wants to see =
it?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Thornberg: What’s l=
eft of
it.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Jones: It’s also a learning experie=
nce.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 17
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Zawadzki: We don’t = have to schedule a formal site walk; you guys could just go up there and look at= it on your own, contact Moosa.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Thornberg: It’s dow=
n the
bottom of the driveway so it’s easy to spot.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: I guess at this point =
we
need a motion to accept application #511 and Table it until the next meetin=
g.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Do you want to determine if itR=
17;s a
significant activity or not? I
listed the (inaudible) involved in this.&n=
bsp;
It’s a small area (inaudible).
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, we concluded the last time it
wasn’t. It’s a pr=
etty
small area. We concluded the =
last
time it was not a significant activity after seeing it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) that Application #511 of Allen Thornberg for
dredging a pond at
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Accept Application #511 of Allen Thornberg f=
or
dredging a pond at
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; B. =
Application
#512 of Hard Rock Developers, LLC to Amend the CCIWA Permit #490 for
construction of 25 condominium units, Booth Avenue and Buckingham Street,
Oakville, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by December 17, 2=
004.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Franklin
Pilicy, Attorney Representing Applicant
Atty. Pilicy: =
We’ll be asking =
the
Commission not to schedule a Public Hearing on this matter and to consider
voting at the earliest possible date.
The Commission is I believe completely familiar with this site and t=
his
application in view of the fact that the Commission (inaudible) prior public
hearing sessions has approved this site for a 10 lot subdivision.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 18
What is
before you now is a few adjustments or modifications to the existing permit=
n
order to accommodate 25 age restricted units of housing in lieu of the 10 l=
ot
subdivision that’s previously approved. We believe that the modification i=
n fact
will result in less environmental impact and in fact will be a substantial
improvement to the plan that’s already in place. There is a narrative that is conta=
ined
with the application that explains pretty much point by point the differenc=
es
between the two applications but the most substantial difference is that the
application for the age restricted housing is the subject of a special perm=
it
application to Planning and Zoning, and as with all special permit applicat=
ions
the Planning and Zoning Commission has the ability to require something ext=
ra
above and beyond what would typically be seen for this kind of development.=
As a result this applicant has mad=
e a
commitment to the Planning and Zoning Commission that there will be a
substantial beefing up, if you will, of the planting scheme for this project
and environmentally both short term and long term will be a far better
situation. So with that I thi=
nk the
most important speaker is Dirk Sabin, who is the Landscape Architect who has
devised a pretty special plan and he can go through the plan and then if the
Commission has any specific questions on the narrative, both Mr. Spath and =
Mr.
Scoville are here and can answer those, but I think the Commission will be
satisfied that this will be a better application from an environmental impa=
ct,
again both short term and long term due to the beefed up planting scheme th=
at
is part of the special permit application and part of this modification.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on">
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sabin: The project site, as you know is j=
ust
under a 5 acre parcel. It was
previously approved for 10 single family residential lots on what had been =
an
athletic field, relatively open field, near State Route 262. As part of that you may recall the=
re was
a detention basin to be located in woodlands existing woodlands that are do=
wn
next to the designated wetland area that kind of goes off site to the south=
and
then has a very narrow band that goes up along the state highway and the
hedgerow and as part of this work that basin was taken out of that area so =
that
will greatly reduce the impact to woodland buffer to the wetlands and reloc=
ated
into the area primarily as existing open field area behind some of the prop=
osed
units, in this area behind what’s shown as proposed building #3 on yo=
ur
submitted site plans. And so =
as a
result of that the impacts to the woodlands next to the existing wetlands a=
re substantially
reduced, even though disturbance within regulated area buffer area has
increased from about 6,500 sq. ft. to 8,200 sq. ft. that disturbance is an
existing open kind of meadowy disturbed area where it’s currently pla=
nned
as opposed to a woodland area.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 19
Green space and open s=
pace,
what had been proposed for about .83 acres around that original proposed
detention basin next to the wetlands is now increased to a common area
surrounding the entire development including much of the landscaping to 1.7
acres and again there will be a common area association maintenance plan and
maintenance regime rather than individual lot owners which you really
can’t control in terms of potential impacts to surface runoff and the
like.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
landscape plan you see in front of you, most landscape plans for a market
project such as this are in the vicinity, an expenditure of somewhere around
$65,000 to $75,000, not including lawn areas and seeding. That’s for plantings. Mark asked me, the applicant asked=
me to
really do a nice job, wanted a nice project and so we estimate this to be s=
omewhere
in the vicinity of $125,000 worth of landscaping. It’s a substantial landscapi=
ng
project. The central roadway =
is
reduced in width to about 30 feet from the residential roadway to 24 feet a=
nd
it will be flanked by some pin oak shade trees which are shown as the larger
circles here. In addition to =
that
there is some evergreen buffer screening, chiefly off of the intersection of
Buckingham Street and the State Highway behind existing Hedgerows, some Nor=
way
Spruces in the corner, and then intermittently down that State road in addi=
tion
to the Hedgerow we’re also providing a clump across from the driveway
coming out of the school., both to screen the development and also to block
lights. There are also some l=
ittle
Leaf Lindens and as you can see the reddish circles, some Crimson King Norw=
ay
Maples that are proposed for common areas.=
There’s a series of birches that are placed in the foreground =
for
the Spruce grow, there are some native flowering trees like Shadblow and
Flowering Dogwood throughout the development. There are also some Cruiser Dogwoo=
ds,
some flowering shrubs, defining spaces behind each of the units, and then t=
here
are foundation plantings which will be a series of ornamental grasses and
perennials, evergreen groundcovers and such things as Azaleas, so it’=
s a
substantial very nice landscaping plan so that even though there’s an=
increase
in impervious surface over the originally submitted plan, the drainage and
runoff is still handled in similar ways, it will be recharged to the
groundwater off of roof leaders, there’s a detention system for
infiltration and detention of peak grades of runoff, there’s also some
gross particle separators to take the sand out of the development, so all of
the various elements are the same and in effect we’ve taken out what =
was
the chief impact, which was the wooded area impact for the detention basin =
and
move that detention basin out into the existing open areas. So in essence from a wetlands
standpoint, although it’s a different development, it’s not muc=
h different, and in fact less impact.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 20
You might notice in yo=
ur
narrative there’s a discussion of feasible and prudent alternatives s=
uch
as the existing residential subdivision there’s an alternative moving
the, going with this plan but the woodland detention basin is another
alternative as opposed to the one that’s proposed now and a combinati=
on
of the two. From a topographic
standpoint there’s really no ability to move a detention basin on this
project out of regulated area so that doesn’t exist.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: Are you saying =
with
this project you will have less impact on the wetlands versus the 10 houses
before?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sabin: Well first of all
there’s no impact directly in wetlands, there’s impact in regul=
ated
area. There is actually an in=
crease
in disturbance within existing regulated area from 6,500 sq. ft. to 8,200 s=
q.
ft. but that impact is in a distinctly different area. In other words that impact is an a=
rea
that’s already impacted by the previous ball field. What we were originally approved a=
t was
impact in regulated area within what is now wood=
lands,
adjacent to wetlands. We want=
to
take it out of there and move it into this more open area.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: And do a better=
job.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Sabin: Yes.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: The other thing=
, last
time, you were talking about all the catch basins, they would eventually wi=
nd
up in the wetlands, all the drainage, and you had it like a separator? Will that be included this time?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sabin: Yes. The engineer (inaudible) if there =
is any
more detail questions, there is what are called
particle separators. First of=
all
there are roof leaders that will be recharged into the ground out here, the=
re
is also piping picking up most of the suite’s drainage and running it
into particle separators right here similar to what was originally approved
before it discharges into the detention basins which will also in first flu=
sh
situations and low flow events, that will provide some additional infiltrat=
ion
and filtration before being discharged towards the wetlands, so it’s =
a similar
situation.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Who would maintain tho=
se
separators?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sabin: Good question. Before it was going to be the Town
maintaining the road drainage, but this would be a common association for t=
he
homeowners association.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 21
Atty. Pilicy: =
That’s actually =
the
other change; everything would be private with the condominium association
approach as opposed to the Town road.
So that’s another, I guess, advantage from the Town’s
perspective. But if you recal=
l, it
was originally the applicant’s opinion that there was no need for a
particle separators and so forth and he wasn’t proposing them, howeve=
r,
the way I understand it, there was a recommendation from the Town staff that
the applicant was unable to overcome so they’re in.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Can the Town check the
particle separators to make sure that they’re kept in order if the
condominium association has the authority?=
Who keeps track of that?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: Well the Town could inspect th=
em by
virtue of the wetlands agent would have the authority to inspect them.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: The Department of Publ=
ic
Works.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: It would be private property s=
o any
maintenance that was required would be done by the condominium association
hiring private contractors. A=
s far
as inspecting it to make sure that there’s nothing going on that is
impacting adversely on the wetlands or the downstream a=
reas,
would seem to me that would be the job of the wetlands officer.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: We go there and check =
that.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Atty.
Pilicy: If the Wetlands Office=
r saw
something out of sync or something going wrong, the Wetlands Officer has the
ability to enforce this permit and require the condominium association to f=
ix it.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: There must =
be a
similar situation elsewhere. =
There
are other condos in Town.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Atty.
Pilicy: Many other condominium
associations and one other large apartment complex, so I’m sure this =
will
be the fourth, I guess.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: We have one under
construction. And they have
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well yea, I
didn’t mean necessarily that specific equipment, but just the general
principal of checking on wetland impacts.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 22
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: I’ll have to check, but I be=
lieve
as part of the new E.P.A. Phase II Storm Water Program the Town has to
implement, anything even private drainage systems that discharge to the
Town’s systems, we have the obligation to inspect. I’ll check, I’m, not s=
ure of
the exact details on how that is worded, but I think we do have some
responsibility in the Phase II Program to go in there and take a look at it=
to
make sure it is functioning properly.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Atty.
Pilicy: But the Town will always have the =
means
to address any adverse impacts that result from failure to properly maintai=
n.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well I have to =
admit,
when I read this (inaudible) I thought it was a whole new ballgame, and I
don’t really see it as an amendment to an existing application
personally. I think a lot of =
things
have changed here and that we need to take another look at it.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Jones: I haven’t been t=
here
before so I’d like to go.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Yea.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: So that’s=
the
first thing we have to decide, is if this is a significant activity based on
what we see here.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Maybe they =
can
reiterate why they think it’s not a significant change.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Atty.
Pilicy: Well I think Dirk did =
that
best by saying nothing has changed in terms of drainage (inaudible) or how
things are going to work. The=
only
thing that is changing is the location of the detention basin.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Well you’re dist=
urbing
more regulated area and you’re increasing the amount of impervious
surface area. Do you know how=
much
increase that is, Dirk?
Mr. Sabin: 30% is what I understa=
nd.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
That’s significa=
nt.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 23
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sabin: But again, that impact=
is in
an area that’s an existing open field and so from a wetlands standpoi=
nt,
where the wetlands are are down in this woodland, in here, and it’s
running off the site and it’s coming along the State highway. This whole side, other than the He=
dgerow
along here and coming down in this corner is all open things like little
Bluestem Grass and meadows and things like that from the ball field, and
before, similar roadway out up to a cul de sac and the houses all the way
around it, so it was more or less a very similar envelope of disturbance in
terms of grading and sedimentation erosion control. And even though there’s an
increase in impervious area, that’s controlled through the drainage p=
rogram
so we’ve got a similar situation in terms of discharges towards wetla=
nds
and things like that, meaning a current.&n=
bsp;
I would assume there was a zero increase in the peak grade runoffs on
this drainage plan so that’s more or less the same. In fact what was originally the
disturbance for construction of the detention basin in this wooded area that
provides a buffer next to the wetlands, that’s now taken out and put =
in
the existing open area disturbed area, so even though there is an increase =
in
disturbance in technically regulated area, it’s in an area that’=
;s already
disturbed as opposed to an area that isn’t disturbed so I understand =
that
it’s a different project, more impervious area, things like that, but
from a wetlands standpoint, it’s not materially different, in my opin=
ion.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
We also have an obliga=
tion
if we feel that there are two things to consider, one is the impact on
wetlands, and the other is the public interest in the project and the
significant public interest in this project is justification for a public
hearing and that’s the way I’m leaning right now.
Atty. Pilicy: = If I could add just a = couple of things. Id like to go back= to one basic fact and that is there is no wetlands activity whatsoever, zero, = and the addition of a small impervious area is more than offset by the addition= al plantings and it is significant point that Mr. Sabin made in that with this type of condominium project and the fact that it’s going to be the subject of a special permit, the landscape plan is going to be part of the Planning and Zoning approval and cannot be avoided, it has to be maintained, whereas the individual homeowner situation, they don’t have to plant anything so this substantial landscaping plan that you see is going to be p= art of the special permit and part of the condominium documents that are going = to require that it be maintained so that landscaping plan is going to more than mitigate any adverse impact and I think if we go back to the public hearings that were held on this, my recollection is there was no public input at all= , we didn’t have anybody from the public that voiced any concern about this project, so again I would ask the Commission not to have a public hearing.<= o:p>
Mr. Undercuffler: Where does P & Z s=
tand
on this? Weren’t there
hearings?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 24
Atty. Pilicy: =
There’s a special
permit, first of all all of the Zoning issues are resolved in terms of the =
zone
change. That’s done.
Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>For the condominium pr=
oject,
you’ve been 13 months?
Atty. Pilicy: =
For the whole site, bu=
t the
condominium concept of 25 units was first discussed almost a year ago, so
we’ve been in front of either this Agency or the Planning and Zoning
Commission probably 13 months tonight for this Commission.
Mr. Undercuffler: What has the public re=
action
been at those hearings?
Atty. Pilicy: =
Zero. There hasn’t been one person=
at
any public hearing that I can recall . . . . .but the
Planning and Zoning Commission has stated that they unanimously would favor
this approach than 10 single family houses.
Mr. Thermer: <=
/b>Why wasn’t this
approach proposed right off the bat, instead of the 10 family houses first?=
Atty. Pilicy: =
Because this approach =
is,
the way it’s evolved has been subjected to approximately 6 different
applications to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and it was not known if
those would ever be granted because we needed to get a text change into the
regulations, then it became a floating zone, then we had to have a hearing =
to
land the floating zone, then you have to have a special permit application,=
and
when that’s all done, you still have to come back to the final site p=
lan
application.
Mr. Thermer: <=
/b>It seems like you guys=
used
the 10 single family homes as a doorway to get this in.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 25
Atty. Pilicy: =
No, they used the 10 s=
ingle
family hoes because if the other application at any point appeared that it
would not succeed they would in fact build the 10
single family homes. Those
applications were far more straightforward and they were based on existing
regulations. There was no nee=
d to
change any regulations, but it was known all along, at least since last
November, that the applicant would prefer to do this but would proceed with=
the
traditional subdivision if for any reason this did not prove to be
acceptable. There’s a l=
ot of
(Tape #1, Side B ended – may have missed some). All the preliminary zone change
applications (inaudible) and what you see here is the result of (inaudible)=
on
the Commission from day one. =
As I
understand it the Planning and Zoning Commission is reasonably satisfied wi=
th
everything because every time there was something that they expressed as
something they would like to see.
It was added to the plan.
Mr. Thermer: <=
/b>I just scratch my head=
when
this came up with (inaudible) I was here, well this (inaudible) never menti=
oned
nothing. I mean (inaudible) t=
his I
what we’re going to do, we’re going to build these 10 homes.
Mr. Undercuffler: I recall a discussion =
of
possible condominiums and (inaudible) he said that they went for the 10 hom=
es
because they weren’t sure they would get the condos.
Atty. Pilicy: =
We needed about 4 sepa=
rate
applications for Planning and Zoning all of which are somewhat discretionar=
y in
nature as opposed to a traditional subdivision which is more of a
straightforward by the regulation type application, but now we’re
basically in the top of the 9th inning with Planning and Zoning =
but
we’re kind go (inaudible). Is
not a significant change, and I don’t believe it’s a significant
activity at all cause it has nothing to do with the wetlands and I don̵=
7;t
think this landscaping plan is unmatched anywhere in Watertown and it is go=
ing
to be the subject of a special permit it has to (inaudible). I don’t think they’ve =
seen
anything like this in the other projects of this nature that are approved n=
ow.
Mr. Undercuffler: I think from my standp=
oint I
would go along with that thinking that it’s not a really significant
change. It is a change, but
it’s just a modification of what we had.
Mr. Polletta: =
I would like to ask our
engineer if he reviewed this and what he thinks?=
Mr. Berger: I have not completed my
review yet. And I (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 26
Mr. Zawadzki: =
We have to decide if
it’s significant or not.
Mr. Polletta: =
I’m just saying =
if he
reviewed it and then he can give us some input. I speak for myself, I’m not =
an
engineer, I believe what they’re saying put the way it looks by chang=
ing
the worse, we’re not really making it any worse, we’re making it
better so as far as I’m concerned I don’t see a significant
activity. I don’t think
it’s going to be worse than before, but if you didn’t review it=
. .
. .
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: Well we’ll have it for the ne= xt meeting, presumably.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Charles Spath
Mr. Spath: Could I recommend maybe
after Chuck reviews it that for the next meeting if there are any comments =
so
we can address them. I’=
m not
sure what will come up so we’re not brought at the meeting.
Mr. Undercuffler: I think he sends a rep=
ort as
soon as he has it. That’=
;s
standard procedure.
Mr. Berger: In plenty of time
you’ll have that response. I
don’t anticipate any significant comments. I haven’t looked at it yet s=
o I
have to be careful saying that, but given the work they did on the other ap=
plication,
it’s not a new site then, so I don’t believe it’s
(inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Well I think it’=
s a
better use of the site personally and the landscaping certainly looks
attractive.
Mr. Spath: It should be much more
buffer than the 10 lots. With
different owners you have 10 lots and when they first get there not many pe=
ople
spend money on landscaping so this would be done at the time and it would be
part of the Planning and Zoning permit.
Atty. Pilicy: =
One last point relativ=
e to
here (inaudible) is if under a condominium scenario you don’t see
(inaudible) on building structures such as storage sheds and above ground p=
ools
and all these other things that appear in a traditional subdivision. With a condominium you typically
don’t have any of that so you really have additional built in protect=
ions
that landscaping integrity will in fact be maintained.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 27
Mr. Thermer: <=
/b>The landscaping, trees=
and
stuff, how old trees are you going to (inaudible)?
Mr. Sabin: There will be a variet=
y of
sizes, but the standard stuff that is put in when they’re first going
in. The shade trees will be i=
n the
2.5 to 3 inch caliber, not little inch, inch and half, but 2.5 to 3 inch ca=
liber
so (inaudible) 10 foot clumps.
Mr. Thermer: <=
/b>So you’re lookin=
g at a
significant amount of time before they actually mature into something that
looks like that.
Mr. Sabin: Yea, a period of years=
, but
I mean it’s not as though it would be skimpy little saplings from sma=
ll
little plantings. It will com=
e on
pretty quickly.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Well I think the Town =
needs
age restricted housing too. I=
think
it’s a good utilization of the space. We have to decide if it’s
significant or not and if we decide it’s not a significant activity at
this point, compared to the previously approved application, then we just
accept the application at this point and Table it.
Mr. Rafey: You should decide whet=
her
you want to accept those as an application to amend an existing permit or a=
new
application? Do that first.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Do you think this shou=
ld be
a new application or an amendment to the previously approved application?
Mr. Undercuffler: What would be the reas=
on for
a new application?
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Only I guess that the =
scope
has changed significantly enough, in our opinion.
Mr. Undercuffler: With a new number, rig=
ht?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea.
Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>Well he sort of said it
hasn’t changed that significantly, right so why don’t we just l=
eave
it?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 28
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Polletta) that Application #512 of Hard Rock Develop= ers, LLC to Amend the CCIWA Permit #490 for construction of 25 condominium units, Booth Avenue and Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT. Is Not A Significant Activity and we consider it a modification to the existing application.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Table Application #512 of Hard Rock Developers, LLC to Amend the CCIWA Permit #490 for construction of 25 condominium units, Booth Avenue and Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&= nbsp; C. Application #513 of Town of Watertown Public Works Department for Stabilization of a Drainage Structure near Platt Road, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer,
Representing the Department of Public Works
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Berger: On Page 4 of your packet, it’s a memo from Roy Cavanaugh, Director of Public Works, to Moosa with a brief overview of the project and just very quickly there̵= 7;s an existing drainage pipe 15 inch corrugated plastic pipe which extends, pi= cks up drainage on Platt Road and discharges to an unnamed stream and that pipe= is extending out into the stream and representing a minor obstruction o storm flows and it has also resulted in erosion on the opposite side of the bank. The Department of Public Works would like to go in and cut off the plastic pipe, flush the existing = channel bank and place some rip rap on the opposite stream bank where its causing some erosion. That’s the scope of the project. I’m going to g= o back in time in September of 2004 this Commission approved what I’ll call = a general permit for the Department of Public Works to conduct certain minor activiti= es which involve the road maintenance system.= I guess I’m sort of skipping back now to the cover memo for Moosa. The three items there = are what is covered in that general permit.&nb= sp; Mr. Cavanaugh’s memo really requests a determination as to whe= ther or not this work would be covered under that previous general permit to con= duct minor activities or the new permit application should be submitted.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 29
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Undercuffler: What’= s the Engineering Department’s opinion?
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Berger: I think if the Commission wanted to consider it under Item #3 of that general permit, I me= an it may not be, it’s very close to fitting into that category, and Mr. Cavanaugh really wanted the Commission’s concurrence before he procee= ded further.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Undercuffler: It doesn= 217;t sound like it’s a major activity so wouldn’t it be covered unde= r 1 or 2?
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Berger: No, 1 is re= ally for our regular roadside grading, 2 is culvert cleaning, #3 is somewhat of a more general . . . .
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Undercuffler: Oh, this isn’t along the road.
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Berger: No this goes along, it’s a drainage easement through someone’s side yard there, down to the stream.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: The Public Works
Department has a general permit to do this maintenance work without coming =
back
to the Commissioner every time. I
think what they’re proposing for
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Zawadzki: #3.
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Rafey: Yes, it fits withi= n #3.
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Undercuffler: Personally = I wish they would make a recommendation that they feel it is a minor thing or they think that maybe it’s on the surface it sounds like it’s not re= ally a major thing. See (inaudible) would fall under #3.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Berger: When I first began talking to Mr. Cavanaugh about this, I hadn’t seen the general permit. He expressed concern = about whether or not this was covered. When I read the general permit and Item #3, I expressed my opinion t= hat I thought it would be covered under that.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well we’re talking a 15 x 15= area estimated here which is 225 sq. ft. which is pretty small. It’s about the area of these tables here.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Rafey: It’s already eroded that sid= e of the road and they just put rip rap there to stop the erosion.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 30
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Berger: It’s an exi= sting, on-going problem. I couldn= 217;t tell you that it’s threatening structures, but it’s certainly causing erosion and pollution to the waters by the sediment moving downstre= am, so we would like to move forward on this as quickly as possible.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Thermer) that Application #513 of Town of Watertown Public Works Department for Stabilization of a Drainage Structure near Platt Road, Watertown, CT be covered by the General Permit #409, Paragraph #3.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= /p>
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
7. &n=
bsp; Old
Business
A. =
Discussion on Wetland Issues
concerning properties at 603 and 563
Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, I rece=
ived
this letter from Attorney Peter Clark today.
Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman=
read
aloud the following letter:
“From: Atty. Peter M. Clark
October 13, 2004
The Town of
Conservation Inland/In=
land
Wetland Agency
Re: Property of Coty at
Dear Commission Member=
s:
I note from the Agenda=
for
the October 14, 2004 regular meeting that this matter appears as a subject =
for
discussion under old business. As
you follow thorough the copies of correspondence from Civil One Civil Engin=
eers
dated September 21, 2004 and from me dated September 24, 2004, I report as
follows:
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 31
I have engaged a
professional engineer on behalf of the
Sincerely,
Peter M. Clark
Cc: Mark and Susan Cote
Attorneys
Gail McTaggert and James Strub”
Mr. Rafey: Atty. James Strub ca=
lled
me today and asked me to ask the Commission to please Table this issue and =
then
next month they will come (inaudible) to see what they want to do (inaudibl=
e).
Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>They’re hoping t=
hat
the parties come to agreement on this and then the
Many people talking at once (inaudible).<=
/b>
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Even though they’=
;re
getting a lot of legal assistance.
MOTION: =
(Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Table the wetland issues concerning proper=
ties
at 603 and
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
&=
nbsp; B. =
Discussion
on Reflections at
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: We have a follow up in field inspe=
ction
and I thought the guys from Reflections were going to be here tonight. So basically at the last meeting, =
Joe I
know you had some concerns.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 32
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: The concerns I had last time, and I
don’t remember the date, but by the way I want to tell you I think
you’re doing a tremendous job, the place looks really nice, it’s
stabilized. I was concerned l=
ast
time, we had a lot of rainfall, I forgot the date and I was asking the
engineers, after the field trip we went by there and I guess you just paved=
the
area over there and water came right down.=
You probably know what I’m talking about. And I was concerned about it becau=
se
there’s a big detention pond, why was the water not going into the
detention pond? Why was it go=
ing
into the street, crossing the road, and going right into the lake.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Sam
Bleifer, Project Manager, Reflections at
Mr. Bleifer: <=
/b>(Inaudible) explain it=
. I was hoping that our engineer as =
going
to be here tonight but the majority of the water on the site is going into =
the
retention basin. After we pav=
ed,
I’m not sure if the curbing was on at that point, since I’m not
exactly sure what date the curbing went on but there is now asphalt curbing=
on
it which will help the water into the catch basins.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: Well the catch =
basins
they were covered, I just happened to go by there with a friend of mine, as=
a
matter of fact I think I called our Chairman because something could have b=
een
done. The water was going rig=
ht
into the lake and our engineer noticed that there was erosion into the
lake. The bottom line is I th=
ink we
got to watch where we divert the water so if you add a detention pond, it w=
ould
probably be a swale or a pipe or something if you went in there by the time=
it
stayed in there a little bit, it wouldn’t go directly into the lake.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The road was all, I mean your peop=
le
went over there with trucks and they were cleaning the street, but I mean t=
he
stuff already went into the lake.
I was there so as a me=
mber
of the Board I thought it was my job to . . . . I didn’t even know th=
en
you told me that the next time something like that happened to call the pol=
ice
and they will do something.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Bleifer: Probably at that=
point
there was a soap type fabric covering the grates of the catch basins trying=
to
keep major dirt and stuff out.
I’m not sure of the category of that rainstorm and the design
measures were the erosion control measures that were in place at that time.=
Since then what we have done all t=
he
grates on the site are open. =
Where
there is rip rap stone and hay bales damming up any flow coming down to div=
ert
most of the water to go into the catch basins, to go into the retention bas=
in.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: It was just a
concern. If it happens again I
think it’s not a good idea.
Right now the are the catch basins opened=
up or
closed?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 33
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Bleifer: They’re all open at this tim=
e.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I mean the catch =
basins
are all open right now. That&=
#8217;s
sort of a tough spot right now cause they’re getting ready to pave the
next section of road so where were out there yesterday and what I asked Sea=
n to
have done, all the catch basins are open but the areas they were prepping f=
or
paving, all the hay bales and stone check dams have been removed in
anticipation of paving, but it doesn’t look like that’s going t=
o be
done until next week, so I asked that those hay bales and stone check dams =
be
put in place as soon as possible cause if we’re not going to pave unt=
il
some time next week, we don’t want a repeat of what happened, cause t=
he
catch basins are about that high right now. We don’t want water running =
down
that road base.
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Polletta: So you’re saying that the catch basins are higher than the road so the water will nev= er go in?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: So that’s w=
hy
we’re having them construct the hay bales, stone, check dams to check=
the
water, dam it up a little bit to get it flow into the catch basins. They’re probably ¾ of=
the
way done with that, not done yet, we still got some up top that need to be
done.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Bleifer: ¾ of the way do=
ne
with what?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: Getting those hay=
bale
stone check dams around the catch basins.&=
nbsp;
We’re not quite there yet.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Bleifer: Today in the pre=
pped
area the hay bales were all put on the lower end of the catch basins.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I’d like to=
see
those put on all the way up the top of the hill. Wherever we’ve got a storm
drainage system let’s put it to work. Let’s get it down into the
detention basin/sediment basin and not delay.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: The day that al=
l this
muck went into the pond, did it damage the pond? How can you tell?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Bleifer: If you put soap in it.=
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: This went on for
maybe about an hour, hour and a half.
It looked like it was all brown, so did it do any damage?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 34
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: When I walked acr=
oss
the street from where it flowed across the street, across down the hay bale=
s and
down to the pond, you could see a slight discoloration on the pond bottom,
where sediments settled out. =
But it
certainly wasn’t something that you could measure in inches of sedime=
nt
deposit that went into the lake.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Well that day, and honestly I was =
not
alone, there was like 2 or 3 people there, I mean the whole pond was
brown. And then you told me
sometimes it can just be discolored water but this was . . . . .
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I think the pond =
was
brown from a umber of sources.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: No, I’m t=
alking
about it was from the muck that was coming down. Because that went right through th=
ose
little detention pond on the lower side of the road – it looked like =
it
didn’t even exist, it went right over, and I’m just, the questi=
on I
have basically is who is responsible if there is any damage? Is your contractor responsible or =
that?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Bleifer: Well I would say we are, the developer, it’s not necessarily the contractor. The contractor is doing what we= 217;re telling him to do. He’s installed all of the erosion measures for the original plan and in addition= to that we’ve had probably weekly meetings for the last year, so we̵= 7;ve had over 50 some odd meetings I would say on site with Chuck and Moosa and every week any recommendations that are suggested are implemented usually within the first week, if not a couple of days after, but there is a track record of the meeting notes for the last year, any recommendations on a wee= kly basis, I’ll call it a the fine tuning of the site, saying let’s= add 2, 3 check dams here or a couple of hay bales here if there are any weaknes= ses in the system.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: That’s no=
t the
guy building your road, (inaudible) responsible for that?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Bleifer: They are the ones
putting that in place. As far=
as
responsibility of dirt coming down the road, I think on a weekly basis
we’ve basically installed any recommendations that were recommended t=
o us
either by the Town or our own Civil Engineer.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: It was an unusu=
al
days, I mean it came down quick, it was unexpected.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 35
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Bleifer: I’m not well versed in
erosions control measures guidelines.
I did have a discussion with Curtiss Jones this morning and I think =
he
said that the erosion and control measures are typically designed for a 2 y=
ear
storm and that he didn’t know exactly what this storm was categorized=
as,
but he said it was most definitely above a 2 year storm and that’s
probably why there were some breaks in the system that day.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: Which I concur wi=
th
that.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Bleifer: I would say the =
good
news is that we are of the entire site, we are almost completely seeded and
growing, at least 30% of the way through the site will be probably paved by=
the
end of the paving system at least 50%.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You’ve got grass
growing and everything.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Bleifer: Exactly so we’ve kind of=
done
everything we can to avoid any major erosion.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: That was my main
concern or question to future problems.&nb=
sp;
I know none of us have access to a crystal ball but I think it’=
;s
essential that we do everything we can to prevent future instances of mud
flowing across the street and into Echo Lake and that’s a very sensit=
ive
area and people re going to be on our backs with stuff like that. So you feel as though you’ve
covered that in terms of what you’ve done at this point?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Bleifer: We think we’ve done an excel=
lent
job doing the maintenance and installing additional measures every week.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Can you handle =
more
than a 2 year storm at this point?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Bleifer: I can’t an=
swer
that; the civil engineer would have to answer that. I know that as far as the major er=
osion
that has occurred, I guess, that people have seen, on the significantly slo=
ped
area of the site, and they’re almost to the peak of that area. The second phase of the project is=
a
much flatter section so there won’t be the erosion control measures a=
re
not as extreme and in any sort of major rainstorm I don’t think any m=
ajor
erosion is expected like what’s happened on the site, so we’ve =
been
kind of marching up the hill and we’re pretty close to having it I
wouldn’t say 100% stabilized, but more than a significant amount of it
stabilized and I think we’re going to be comfortable (inaudible).
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You have it stabilized almost to t=
he top
of the hill now, right?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 36
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Bleifer: Almost (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Okay. Any other ques=
tions? Any other comm=
ents,
Chuck? Are you guys ha=
ppy
with what you’re seeing so far?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: We meet on a weekly basis and
we’re (inaudible) and Mary would recognize that
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Chuck, again, do you believer ther=
e was
no damage that day?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I do not see a
significant sediment deposit in
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: There have been so=
me
positive changes made to the site that now when the catch basins are open, =
in
case we have another storm, I think they are more
prepared now that most of the water will go into the detention pond. At that time the catch basins were
closed.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: And I believe f=
or
that day, all that water went into the detention pond, I mean it would have=
went
into the lake discolored, but it never would have taken dirt and rocks and
whatever was in the road. But=
now
it’s over and it’s coming in nice and it should be okay.
&=
nbsp; C. Discussion
on Soap Suds in Brook adjacent to
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I went there a few
times, once on September 16th, I didn’t see any foam in the
brook. I went again on Septem=
ber 25th,
and I didn’t see anything.
But on September 29th I received a call from Mr.
O’Sullivan and he told me there as soap suds in the brook so I went t=
here
right away and I did notice some foam and I took a few pictures just to show
you how it was. I took a water
sample at that time and brought it to the office to give to Bob Smith of th=
e Torrington
Area Health District but he wasn’t in the office that day so I kept it
for 24 hours. The next day he=
came
and I gave him the water sample to bring to his office. I think it was kept there for under 24 hours, so he said It’s too old. Now I’m just looking for ano=
ther
chance to go there and get another sample.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Did Mr. O’Sullivan say t=
hat
what he saw as about the same (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 37
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: He just called me =
that
day, I told him to call me when you see something, and he called me on
September 29th, and I went there right away and (inaudible) pict=
ures
to show you. This is a pictur=
e from
(inaudible).
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: So something is going on.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Yea.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well we discussed it t=
oo and
said that we should refer to it as foam, not soap suds. Ron pointed out at the last meetin=
g it
could be, and we’ve all seen foam on streams out in the ocean where
it’s not soap, it’s just foam.=
It’s a naturally occurring thing (inaudible) get a sample.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: I kind of w=
onder
though, why it would come and go in an area like this.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well decaying vegetation is one
thing that comes to mind. Who=
knows
what kind of a pattern that would take.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Something to (inaudible). We are working on this.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: What it sou=
nds
like you ought to do is take the sample and run it right up to the lab with=
in
half an hour.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: No, they said that=
you
can bring it sooner, I mean this was like 4 hour=
s . .
. . .
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Jones: Moosa did they=
say exactly what analytical procedures they were going to use?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: I don’t know,
I talked to Bob Smith to see if their office can do this for us, and he said
yes, the Torrington Area Health District will run those tests.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Jones: The Department of =
Health
Services might be able to have in your basement.
8. =
New
Business
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Zawadzki: I think we̵= 7;re covered. If the sidewalks are proposed for a regulated area we get involved otherwise I think the sidewalk thing is between Planning and Zoning and individual developers.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 38
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I agree.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: This letter is =
asking
if we feel we need our own policy on sidewalks; I don’t think so.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: I don’t even know what the p=
olicy
is.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well just what I said, if the side=
walks
go through wetlands, they have to come with an application, but that’s
already a policy.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: It’s already a law.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: And you can make recommendations t=
o the
Planning and Zoning Commission. For
example on the Reflections Condominium Project, they wanted to put a sidewa=
lk
from Echo Lake Park toward north on Icehouse Road and the Commission determ=
ined
that sidewalk would have more impact on the wetlands. Why we don’t put it from
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: And we analyze it like any other
application.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Our policy is we address them as th=
ey
come up.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: And you look at other alternatives
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Or no sidewalk at all.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: In that case the Planning and Zoning
Commission, if they determine they can collect the money and do it somewhere
else where they need a sidewalk.
They have a list of places (inaudible) around the school area, and
commercial locations and other recreation areas (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Right, that kind of policy makes se=
nse,
cause that kind of sets a priority where they want to focus their attention=
.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I think if you lo=
ok at
the third page of the packet, at the bottom of the page is not really a
Planning and Zoning policy, but it’s something that Planning and Zoni=
ng
wants the Town Council to adopt.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 39
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Are you talking about the sidewalk=
?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: Yes. At the bottom of that third page i=
s the
policy that I guess the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to work
through the Public Works Subcommittee and get the Town Council to adopt tha=
t.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: This is their recommendation to the=
Town
Council.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: And it came up during discussions =
with
Planning and Zoning that maybe Wetlands would like to be part of this as we=
ll
that before the Town Council directs where sidewalks go, that you shall con=
sult
with Planning and Zoning and the wetlands ought to be part of it I think is=
the
question. It’s not
necessarily for you to develop a new policy, it’s for the Town Counci=
l to
come to you and ask for your advise and thoughts,
that’s what Planning and Zoning wants.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: But they have to do that now.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I mean if they’re going to b=
uild a
sidewalk through wetlands or a buffer area. I don’t understand why they =
would
need special permission . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I think it’s more a cour=
tesy.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I think it’=
s more
of a planning review with the hope of better guiding where the sidewalks go=
.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well maybe =
from a
conservation standpoint as opposed to a strictly wetlands.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Sometimes you can =
make
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission that there is no need =
for
a sidewalk. Example at Lynnfi=
eld
Acres, instead of putting a sidewalk on
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, but we didn’t recom=
mend
that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: I mean you can. If you see a development that come=
s to
you and they propose a sidewalk and you see there is no need for it, you can
make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Ms. Sturgis: We can’t do that if it’= s not wetlands and stuff, can we? We can’t just say we don’t want a sidewalk here?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: If they are proposing through a regulated area
you can say no.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 40
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: Maybe as a sugges=
tion,
se how this moves forward, and if it doesn’t go all the way through,
maybe you’d want to do something similar. If it doesn’t go all the way
through, you don’t have to be part of it at this point. You can think about it and take ac=
tion
another time if you want to become part of it.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well I guess th=
is
must pertain to the review of the Plan of Development and Conservation,
(inaudible)?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: There are a number of things that h=
ave
brought it to a head.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Yea, one of=
which
I think was the challenge to using the sidewalk fund for other sidewalks.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Or maintenance of existing sidewal=
ks.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well that’s prohibited in th=
is
proposed policy.
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Rafey: Use this money for new sidewalks.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: So that I under=
stand
it, say that Planning and Zoning puts sidewalks not around your property bu=
t If you don’t put it around the property you deve=
lop,
they can tell you to go put it down the center of
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Well the Town would, not the develo=
per.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, they take money in lieu of .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Well it’s good, so you don=
217;t
have to get involved. As a
developer sometimes if you have to put in let’s say 1,000 feet of
sidewalk and they don’t put it in their subdivision if you don’t
need it, otherwise you put in a sidewalk someplace where they can use it.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well I guess we could say looking =
at
Page 3, Item 2, they have Town Council A, B, and C, going along with that we
could add D, similar thing to directing the Town Administration to pass thr=
ough
the Conservation Commission for comments on sidewalks. That’s the only thing I can =
see
that we can add.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 41
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Yea, do we want to get involved th=
ough in
sidewalk things?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well not really. It seems to be redundant, even if =
we
said that it’s already covered.
If it goes through a regulated area otherwise we’re automatica=
lly
involved.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: That’=
s the
only ones we really want to look at.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: After that It&=
#8217;s
P & Z.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Jones: That’s pretty much in keepin=
g with
what you said, Chuck, right, so sort of see how the program goes with Plann=
ing
and Zoning and the other groups.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Just modify and add it on to this o=
ne, in
the future, or suggest to the Town Council your own separate policy on
sidewalks that you want them to adopt (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Does this Commission really need to=
have
a policy on sidewalks?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Well, do you want to be part of the
future planning for sidewalks? Other than with the regulatory hats on so to speak.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: I don’t have any desire to d=
o it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: No.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: No.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Many people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: One of the Commission members said =
well
what about Wetlands, Conservation do they want to be part of this? And Mary said she would present it=
to
you (inaudible). I don’=
t know
if I explained it correctly or not, but that’s . . . . .
&=
nbsp; B. =
Request
to Transfer Permit #385 Turkey Brook Improvement=
from
Town of
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: I guess this one is pretty
straightforward. Nothing
changes. We need to just tran=
sfer
the permit from the Town of
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 42
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Subject to all the
conditions.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Subject to cond=
itions
as stated.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: The Town st=
ill
oversees it?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Jones) to Approve the Transfer of Permit #385, Turkey Br=
ook
Improvement Project from the Town of
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: They started work out there and
there are a lot of trees being cut.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Where is this project?
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Berger: It starts where T= urkey Brook crosses Falls Avenue right across the street from the Senior Center (inaudible) they’ll start cutting brush from that Falls Avenue crossi= ng down to Sunnyside Avenue, then they’ll work from there down Sunnyside Avenue will be the first (inaudible) it will be cleared, then they’ll= go from Falls Avenue upstream up to Sunny Lane and (inaudible) Drive.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Now is this going to be another one
where they go in and strip everything out and get all sorts of erosions and
then come back and do the work like Reflections?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I certainly hope
not. They=
re
coming to cut all the trees.
I think that will probably be one of the toughest part
of the project from a public, overseeing the project. It’s going to be a significa=
nt
visual impact. They’re =
not
going to stump until they're ready to reconstruct that portion of the
channel. They’re going =
to
reconstruct a couple hundred feet of channel at a time and they’re go=
ing
to bypass pump around it so that they’ll be working in the drive for =
the
most part. We’ve met wi=
th
them, developed a sediment erosion control plan and we will have full time inspector on the =
site.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: They’ll be doing this over th=
e Winter?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 43
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: They requested to work during the <=
span
class=3DGramE>Winter which we are negotiating with them on now.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible) not=
part
of wetlands brook, so going down I remember about a year ago there was a
building that was supposed to be knocked down, is this project part f that?=
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: No. This project will start just upstr=
eam of
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: That was the li=
quor
store right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yes.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: So what happene=
d with
that building?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: That building and=
the
road improvements and the culvert that carries Turkey Brook under Sunnyside
Avenue is a separate project with the D.O.T. where we’re doing both r=
oad
improvements, culvert upgrading and that property now has been taken by the
D.O.T. The D.O.T. now owns th=
at
property. That will come down=
when
the road project goes forward, but that’s probably another year and a
half to two years until that’s an issue.
9. =
Communications
and Bills
A. =
The Habitat,
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: I guess we just recognize that (Ta=
pe #2,
Side A ended – may have missed some).
&=
nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Well there’s a section in th=
ere
talking about the aquifer and somewhere I read maybe it was in there that <=
span
class=3DGramE>that’s ,. . . . .
&nbs=
p; Mr.
(Inaudible): (Inaudible).
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: No, well I guess that’s one =
thing
but they’re looking at monitoring (inaudible) similar to inland/wetla=
nds
and maybe we would do that or maybe it would be a separate agency, I guess =
that
hasn’t been determined yet.
Moosa, are you up on that?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 44
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible) state (inaudible) some
statutes that they will give power to the towns to determine who’s go=
ing to
do it, and then the Town Council will determine.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: And it hasn’t co=
me to
the Town yet?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: No.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, on Page 5 it says the pro=
gram
is similar to the inland/wetlands program.=
The agency must be appointed and will have administrative and
enforcement regulations. Well=
I
would imagine it turned over to inland/wetlands, it would be my guess. I don’t think they’re =
going
to (inaudible). All the more =
reason
to keep out of the sidewalk . . . . .
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Thermer,
sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to accept Communications and Bills, Agenda Items 9A as
presented.
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
10. Repor=
ts
from Officers and Committees
None
11. Repor=
ts
from Staff
Mr. Berger: As Mr. Sakonchick
referenced this evening the road has been paved now. The grass swales are in and the
Mr. Rafey: And we’re going
after this rain to see how everything is working, probably tomorrow sometim=
e.
Mr. Berger: Yesterday they were =
in the
process of getting installation of his not Polytechnics, but his storm water
treatment systems on the pipe so that’s a major milestone for them.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 45
Mr. Undercuffler: I’m thinking bac=
k to
the discussion earlier on the use of stone, will you be writing a memo on
that? Do you expect the outco=
me of
that? Your
recommendations with stone.
Mr. Berger: I certainly can.
Mr. Undercuffler: I mean the way you nor=
mally
do, you write up your recommendation or findings.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
The rip rap?
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea (inaudible) just s=
o we
don’t let that go by the (inaudible). I’m sure he won’t.
Mr. Berger: I wont
let that one (inaudible).
It’s (inaudible) Jim Sakonchick and we started we’ve been
talking about it.
Mr. Undercuffler: No, I just like to be =
kept
informed of where that really is going.
Mr. Rafey: And you approved tha=
t with
a condition that (inaudible) satisfy the Town’s specifications. If it’s not done according t=
o that
plan that Mr. Berger gave to them, I will not issue that modification
permit. We will look at that.=
B. =
Hidden Oaks Subdivision,
Mr. Rafey: I didn’t recei=
ve any
weekly report on this subdivision.
We did go there yesterday to look at it. The road is paved and actually I j=
ust
signed off on two C.O.’s, two houses are completed. There are some E & S issues th=
at we
discussed with them that they should fix.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Do you do that weekly =
also?
Mr. Rafey: No. I’m not happy with the repor=
ting
for that subdivision. I
haven’t received any weekly reports.
Mr. Berger: We haven’t bee=
n receiving
any weekly reports. That
subdivision has been a little bit different because the soils are significa=
ntly
different over there. There h=
as
been erosion on that site, we talked about that =
before
during that real heavy rainstorm there was some sediment. Over there you can measure inches =
of
sediment to get on the other side of the silt fenced. It’s not the same type of so=
ils
that we have at Reflections or Guernseytown. We have reminded them that they ne=
ed to
submit the weekly reports.
It’s required by the State permit as well as by their approval
from Planning and Zoning.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 46
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Do we need to issue th=
em a
notice of something, to their weekly reports?
Mr. Rafey: We talked to them
yesterday and we’re hoping that we have a meeting with them to discuss
all of these issues. If it
doesn’t work we’ll let you know.
Mr. Undercuffler: Tell them the Commissi=
on is
quite concerned.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
In light of the fact t=
hat
it’s required (inaudible).
Mr. Berger: We need to set a good
example because the next phase goes forward that’s a much more diffic=
ult
portion for the site to manage and there is a lot more wetlands that they h=
ave
to be careful of.
Mr. Zawadzki: Plus it’s the =
old
story about somebody sees that, and says they’re not doing theirs, why
are we doing ours? It’s=
not
right.
C. Update
of
Mr. Zawadzki: I guess this is for =
our
review and they had a meeting tonight.&nbs=
p;
Ed said you went over and looked in on it.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well the first half ho=
ur was
all we could stay.
Mr. Zawadzki: The next meeting is
November 17th.
Mr. Rafey: You can go to those
meetings and act as a member of the public. You cannot participate in the discu=
ssion
at that time. There will be a
public hearing for it where you can be part of the discussions. The next workshop is November 17
12. &n=
bsp; Public
Participation
&nbs=
p; None
13. Adjou=
rnment
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Thermer, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 10:15 p.m.
&nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 2004
PAGE 47
&nbs=
p; Regular
Meeting Adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
Inland
Wetlands Agency
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________