MINUTES<= o:p>
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC H=
EARING
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
THURSDAY,
JANUARY 15, 2004 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph
Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
Bernard Beauchamp
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; Peter
Peluso
ALTERNATES ABSENT: &nbs=
p; Susan
Atwood
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Dorothy
McGrath
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Charles Berger, Town
Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 9:15 p.m.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, asked Mr. Undercuffler to be the Acting Secretary.=
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call. Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, asked Mr. Peluso to sit in for Ms. Kuegler, in her
absence. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 2 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Watertown will
hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 15, 2004 at the John
Trumbull School Media Center, 779 Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT to hear a=
nd
act upon the following applications deemed a significant activity by the
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency pursuant to Section 2.1(dd1-7=
) of
the Watertown Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Application
#486 of Guernseytown Farms, LLC to conduct regulated activities in the
construction of Phase II of Guernseytown Farms Estates which consists of
subdivision of 61.8 acre parcel into 26 residential building lots and
construction of approximately 2,230 linear feet of new roadways located on =
the
south side of Bayview Circle and north of Killorin Road, Watertown, CT in an
R-70 Residential Zoning District.
Construction of Phase II of Guernseytown Farms Estates involves the
following regulated activities: ·
Disturbance of approximately 1,600 sq. ft. of
wetland buffer area by installation of a drainage pipe and construction of a
plunge pool located on the North side of Killorin Road adjacent to Lot #44.=
·
Discharge of storm drains into wetlands/watercourse. ·
Installation of erosion and sediment control measures inside the
wetlands and wetland buffer area. At this Hearing interested persons may be hea=
rd and
written communications received. A
copy of the application is on file at the Planning and Zoning Office, 51 De=
pot
Street, Suite 502, Watertown CT. Dated at Watertown, CT=
this
1st day of January, 2004. Dated at Watertown, CT=
this
8th day of January, 2004. Jim Zawadzki, Secretar=
y Conservation Commissio=
n/ Inland Wetlands
Agency” CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 3 3. =
Hearing
of Applications &=
nbsp; C. Application
#486 of Guernseytown Farms Estates, LLC< Phase II for 26 lot residential
subdivision and extension of Bayview Circle, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by February 19, 2004, unless appli=
cant
grants a time extension. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Franklin Pilicy, Attorney Represen=
ting
the Applicant &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Atty.
Pilicy: As a preliminary matte=
r the
applicant is requesting that we combine the Public Hearing for #486 and
#487. It’s almost all t=
he
same information and I think it will save time and be a little more efficie=
nt
if we had a combined Hearing on both. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: To keep the record separate,
it’s not better to keep it separate? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: Well it’s going to be al=
l the
exact same information pretty much I know we’ve done this in the past,
it’s just a matter of saving time.&n=
bsp;
It’s all the same information that you’re going to hear =
from
Mr. Sakonchick; I just don’t want to have to go through it twice. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well my only question is from =
the
legal standpoint of the public notification, is there a problem with that?<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: No, we would read the second n=
otice
and everyone would state that this was a combined hearing and the Public
Hearing record will be the Public Hearing record for both applications;
they’re the same record. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: But we’d have to put these Mi=
nutes
in two different files. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: But they’re the same
Minutes. I mean, I don’t
know, we’ve done it many times in the past, it just seems to make more
sense to me, but if you want to repeat everything twice, we’ll repeat
everything twice. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Can they just duplicate the Mi=
nutes? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: They can but it’s better=
to
keep the issue separate if you have questions, particular to an application=
you
don’t mix it (inaudible). CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 4 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I would leave it separate. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: All right, well we’ll pr=
oceed
separate. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Joseph Calabrese, Applicant &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Calabrese: I think itR=
17;s
better we do them separate. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: It’s better to do it sep=
arate. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: Okay, we’ll withdraw the
request. I do have just one l=
etter
from the Fire District to submit.
Do you want to read that, do you want me to read it, or do you just =
want
to hold it aside for now? &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: You can go ahead and r=
ead
it. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: This is addressed to, it’=
;s
from the Watertown Fire District, dated January 2, 2004, addressed to the
applicant and it states: “This office has
reviewed the plans and accompanying notes for a proposed development,
Guernseytown Farms Estates Phase II to be located in the Town of Watertown
adjacent to Guernseytown Road. We
have previously reviewed and commented upon Phase I development. The proposed development does not =
lie
within the geographic boundaries of the Watertown Fire District. The proposed development does, how=
ever,
lie within the watershed of the public drinking water supply of the District
and are interested in reviewing potential issues of concern with the protec=
tion
of this drinking water supply. The
Watertown Fire District has no objection to the proposed development as sho=
wn
in the plans prepared by Kratzert, Jones & Associates of Milldale, CT.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It is understood that the applican=
t will
comply with all of the details and notes entered on those drawings. Of particular concern to the Distr=
ict is
the strict compliance with the procedures for erosion and sedimentation con=
trol
both during construction and upon completion of the project. It is further understood that ther=
e will
be no underground fuel storage tanks permitted and that all septic systems =
will
be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Connecticut=
. The District further recognizes the
designated open space for Phase I, II and III as shown in the drawings for =
property
adjacent to the District owned land.
A full set of approved plans should be provided to the District. Very truly, Ernest R. Coppick, III=
Superintendent”<=
o:p> CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 5 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I read in the paper today that=
this
application was denied by P & Z.
What was the basis for that? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: I resubmitted it. What happened was we had one Commi=
ssion
meeting for my project. They =
got
inundated with plans because of the proposed moratorium so I told Mary Bart=
on
that it was okay, I wasn’t in a hurry and she could Table my applicat=
ion
at the first meeting. The sec=
ond
meeting, same thing. Then we
requested a staff meeting with Chuck and staff and that was about 10 days
ago. That’s when we got=
an
appointment because they were busy with all these other applications, so we=
met
with them, Chuck reviewed the plans and asked for a number of things which =
we
put them into the plan and we said we would bring them in tomorrow, we̵=
7;ll
bring another set for Planning and Zoning tomorrow. As I understand it I came to the m=
eeting
and oh again, they asked me to postpone it, Mary said until January 22nd.
“Legal Notice
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: So what you’re resubmitt=
ed is
the same as what we’ve got here?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: No, now you’ve got the r=
evised
plan with the recommendations that Chuck made 10 days ago, so we only had 10
days to put this together and they did it.=
I resubmitted the following day, or 2 days later. To this day I don’t understa=
nd
what happened, but I was working with the Commission and the Engineering and
Staff because they were so busy.
And we all agreed, everybody agreed, and then for some reason they
rejected it. (Tape #2, Side B=
ended
– may have missed some.)
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 6
Mr. Rafey: The plan that we recei=
ved
tonight are the same plans that you submitted with your new application to =
the
Planning and Zoning Commission?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: No, we’re submitting that
tomorrow. We had until the 16=
th,
cause we didn’t think we could do it in 15 days, but his office got it
done on time.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Mr. Undercuffler wanted to kno=
w if
this Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission was looking at the s=
ame
plan?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Calabrese: Yes. Now they’re going to work on=
e more
day on it to get a few more details in there, but the basic plan is there a=
nd
you will get that set tomorrow cause they want to work one more day on it to
get the final odds and ends in there, cause we only had 10 days, and then y=
ou
got the weekend and everything else.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: I’m s=
ure
they just ran out of time, 35 days, 65 days, they got the denial.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I believe the Plan=
ning
and Zoning Commission denied that for the reason that it was incomplete.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Yes, I mean I was aske=
d at
the Planning and Zoning Commission whether or not all of the pieces of the
application were there, which I verbally answered that no, they
weren’t. As my memo in =
you
packet states, I had prepared that memo at the time I was asked the questio=
n by
the Planning and Zoning Commission is everything there, and I answered no, =
it
is not. And based on, I belie=
ve my
answers, it’s an incomplete application, they denied it.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Calabrese: We asked for staff ear=
lier,
we couldn’t get it because they were busy so I had to wait, so we just
met 10 days ago to get all this stuff that was required done and it just, it
was not fair what happened to me, and everybody else was shocked also, and I
talked to hundreds of people that were there, it happened in 20 seconds, you
said?
&=
nbsp; =
; Atty.
Pilicy: Maybe 25 seconds.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: Just like that. Didn’t even ever look at the=
plan,
so we again trying to work with the Town cause I’m not in a hurry for=
it,
and it backfired on me. I sho=
uld
have said, no, I was the first one to have my plan in, I could have been be=
fore
all these guys, I was the first one to get it in before the moratorium and I
didn’t care, because I had the other one to work on so I’m not =
in a
hurry, and all of a sudden, like that, (snapped his finger), that’s w=
hat
happened to me.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 7
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; James Sakonchick, Engineer, Kratze=
rt
Jones & Associates
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: Our first
clarification tonight, I did give to Chuck and Moosa a set of revised drain=
age
computations as well as a revised set of plans for Phase II and a revised s=
et
of plans for Phase III. Later=
I
will leave Moosa a third set he can give to Mary to look at, and these plans
are for review of staff. I th=
ink
they are complete and they are worthy of their scrutiny because they do
reflect, in my opinion, their requested additional information as I interpr=
eted
what they asked for, so you actually have the plans today, they’re not
coming tomorrow.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; As
far as the changes between these plans submitted tonight and the plans the
Wetlands Commission has had in their hands since we originally submitted the
application as they relate to wetlands related items, I think it’s the
same concept. Most of the revisions we’ve done are on the uplands
areas. An example might be in=
the
original submission we took some typical lots and we did grading for the lo=
ts
and other details for them, but not on all the lots. Well we got as specific instructio=
ns
they want each and every lot done that way, they’re not going to acce=
pt
atypical, so we added that information.&nb=
sp;
Also Chuck was very insistent that we cover ourselves in explaining =
how
we’re not increasing runoff due to our development, and I might add t=
hat
historically the fields on this property, while they’re currently bei=
ng
used to grow hay, they’re by rotation of crops have often been used to
grow corn and has been stated this evening in other public hearings, the
runoff, when corn exists, is even worse than if you develop it, however,
we’re not even going to try to claim that a credit for corn whereas t=
he
(inaudible) balance would have been there if we used an average of the runo=
ff
from hay and the average of corn, some years hay, some years corn, we’=
;re
going to basically use it assuming that it’s all hay.
Now if I may stay with=
what
I started talking about, the zero increase in runoff cause I know it’s
very important to Chuck and Moosa cause they’re representing you as t=
he
Commission, I want to talk about how we did that. And this is going to be a general
description of something that it is substantiated in a thick drainage report
and a lot of engineering calculations, but the concept is important and I t=
hink
the concept is one that most people can easily appreciate and if you want to
explain further at the end by all means ask.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 8
First of all let me id=
entify
what we’re talking about Phase II.&n=
bsp;
This property in green is the entire 200 acres. And fortunately for my description=
if
you were to vertically split it into 3 pieces, you pretty closely on the ri=
ght
phase I, already approved, in the middle Phase II subject of this public
hearing, and Phase III is on the left, which will be subject to the next pu=
blic
hearing. The concept is if we=
build
a paved road with all these lots, more water will runoff because the water =
is
not absorbed into the ground.
Whereas under a typical storm today, if you had 1 inch of rain, 80% =
of
it will soak into the ground and only 20% would runoff; after development 9=
0%
of the water runs off and only 10% more or less evaporates, transevaporatio=
n,
and you get more water and you can quantify it because of that difference.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Now we’re creating (inaudibl=
e)
because a portion of this road currently drains to the left or to the west =
and
that western area drains to a large reservoir and then eventually across the
road. Chuck wants me to show =
that
there is no increase in runoff over here.&=
nbsp;
Now as part of Phase I, in fact the drainage computations are truly a
combined analysis of Phase I, II, and III, because they truly should be tak=
en
as a whole, proper planning, Phase I had a significant drainage structure to
control runoff, that was sized for Phase I and Phase II because the Phase II
roads go this way, so because a significant portion of the road currently
drains to the west, we’re making that drain to the east by lessening =
the
drainage area, going to the watershed we are reducing the peak runoff
there. Now out of the total
impervious area we’re creating in both Phases II, and III that took c=
are
of 70% of the increase, so we still had 30% of the increase to take, so wha=
t we
did was we figured how many square feet of imperious area we’re creat=
ing,
we figured how much rain we’re going to get in a 100 year storm, and =
we
created basins on the property capable of holding that much water, actually=
we
went more than that much water, so what is new right now is a small little
ponding area where this rear lot is, in the middle of the property, right s=
mack
in the middle, and a small ponding area right over here on the other rear l=
ot,
and later in Phase III we’ll talk about there is another rear lot and
right next to that we created a ponding area. These ponding areas are outside of=
the
wetlands, outside of the wetlands buffer, they are not even close to it, and
that is how we’re creating zero increase in runoff for this entire
development.
They also wanted us to=
be
very clear in the record what were the alternatives we considered in develo=
ping
this project. If you can iden=
tify
the middle of the diagram, that’s your Phase II. And the road network shown through=
the
middle here is identical to the road network that was shown over here. However there was a large piece of=
land
to the west of that road that lent itself in our opinion to development, so=
we
had proposed a long cul de sac right over here with a series of lots off of
that. And this is based on our
preliminary reading of where the wetlands were basically a watercourse over
here with the wetlands around it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 9
After the wetlands were
flagged by the Soil Scientist, we determined that the wetlands line goes ri=
ght
through the middle of the property as designated by this heavy line, and ag=
ain
here’s where that cul de sac was, and that would have required from
wetlands impacts on the edges of the wetlands over here, and a wetlands
crossing there. It would also
require the elimination of these lots or asking this Commission for a
pre-generous permit in order to develop them taking advantage of the uplands
areas that happen to be wetlands buffer.&n=
bsp;
So we felt that this was not a feasible and prudent design so we went
back to the drawing board.
This again your orient=
ation,
the north/south road, the wetlands limit.&=
nbsp;
We then proposed two cul de sacs, one down here shorter and it allow=
ed 5
lots to be developed around it and a second one a little bit to the north o=
ver
here, and again that developed lots around it and afforded an opportunity to
put both houses and systems outside of the wetlands although a couple of the
lots here did require impacts on the wetlands buffers. However we were looking at this la=
rge
contiguous wetlands that flowed into the Watertown Fire District property a=
nd
we said is there a more prudent and feasible alternative to designing that =
and
we said well why not try to make a large portion of this sensitive area rig=
ht
here open space. So that is w=
hy we
eliminated the roads coming off of the north/south road, created a sizable =
open
space over here, that’s about half wetlands, half uplands, and basica=
lly
created a large buffer between the large wetlands and most of our developme=
nt
with only two houses off a long driveway anywhere near the wetlands, but ev=
en
those houses are developed without direct impacts on the wetlands, and also=
the
improvements away from the wetlands buffer, so that is why we felt that thi=
s is
a better idea. It still takes
advantage of a through road, that goes all the way form Killorin Road all t=
he
way to the connection to the Phase I road already approved, it keeps most of
the houses and the road at the crest of the hill or close to the crest of t=
he
hill. And by being on the cre=
st of
the hill, by definition we’re furthest away form the wetlands to the =
east,
as well as the wetlands to the west, so that is the history of our analysis
here and why we feel this is the most feasible and prudent alternative for
developing the second phase.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: The wetland=
s that
you outlined there, that’s the wetlands when we approved Phase I those
are the wetlands that were part of that plan that was presented?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 10
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: That is correct. In order to develop this property =
we
have to have construction sequencing done in a way that would control erosi=
on
and sediment in order to protect the wetlands, and I’d like to point =
out
some of the things we’ve incorporated into the plans to do that. Now the major construction work to=
be
done is the north/south road, and if you study the north arrow which is goi=
ng
to the right hand side of the sheet, you have the north/south road over her=
e,
and we have a northeast stepped sequence of construction over here showing =
how
this road can be constructed in a logical manner in order to control erosion
and sediment control, and this is similar to the type of plan that was crea=
ted
for the road constructed in the first phase. Now keep in mind it’s logica=
l that
the road would be built before each individual house is constructed so wher=
eas
the houses on the overall plans show the erosion controls stockpiled topsoil
and all those little details for the individual house, this is a separate l=
ook
at how to build the road.
In addition to the road
proper, there are two storm drainage outlets from the road to the wetlands =
that
exist east of the road, that same wetlands that the Phase I drainage goes to
and we again developed customized plans showing there’s the proposed
road, here’s the wetlands, and how exactly that would be constructed =
in a
logical manner in order to start where the drainage discharge is, how did y=
ou
get the construction equipment there, how do you get the pipe and other
pertinent construction apparatus there, and how do you build it coming back=
and
again in a way to protect the site from erosion controls so we have both
outfalls to this kind of custom erosion control plan.
Now I talked about, on=
the
two rear lots the development of a small little ponding area. Now remember both of those come of=
f of a
long driveway so consequently what’s between the driveway and the hou=
se
there’s more impervious area created for these rear lots than you mig=
ht
have on a typical lot, plus I’d like to point out that all the lots
adjacent to the road are graded so that the driveway and the house roof lea=
ders
drain towards the road, towards the wetlands to the east. These rear lots, because of the
topography, can’t do that. So
here is one of the houses, here is the driveway coming in, and it’s t=
his
part on the left hand side of the sheet where we’re basically creatin=
g a
small depression, 120 feet long, 20 feet wide, with a berm on the low
side. It’s made so that=
water
drains into it, it can pond up to 2 feet deep before it would hit a pipe th=
at
would act as an emergency spillway should that be needed. After the storm these ponds will d=
rain
because on the bottom of them we have a curtain drain with pervious materia=
ls
going above the surface kind of mounded so that water will seep down through
the pervious soil, into a curtain drain pipe and then discharge down the hi=
ll
in a gradual manner.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 11
These are going to bec=
ome
drainage easements to the Town of Watertown with the provision that the lot
owner must retain and maintain at his cost these ponds in their function, a=
nd
it should be easy to maintain because they would be generally dry and they
could just mow the grass as you normally would, and they are positioned away
from the house so it’s not like it’s in their back yard, and
whether they let the grass grow wild, or even let it grow wooded, because
we’re creating the basin, they should be easy to maintain and
they’re oversized, whereas as I computed, I had to store 9,000 cubic =
feet
of water between the 3 of them, I’m providing 19,000 cubic feet of
storage, so even a little bit of silt over time that might take away a litt=
le
bit of the 2 feet they’re sized that they, of course once the site is
stabilized there’s not going to be a lot of silt, even I took that in=
to
consideration, leaves or stuff like that that I gave plenty of (inaudible)
board in the design of these 3 structures.
Now we expect that this
Public Hearing will be extended at the end because obviously we are submitt=
ing
additional details to the staff and we look forward to hearing from the sta=
ff
if they’re happy with them or what modifications need to be made here=
. With that in mind I do have for
submission a report from Jody Chase who is a Wetlands Ecologist. Moosa suggested we do that and I h=
ave
that report here. It would no=
t be
prudent time-wise to read a 10 page report into the record at this time, so
I’m going to submit it, but at the same time just kind of paraphrase =
some
of her conclusions.
In the report she obvi=
ously
describes the project, she gives a description of the ecological community,=
and
then she describes the ecological community function. She describes the effects of the p=
roposed
activity on these communities and on these wetlands functions. She notes what are the desired way=
s of
doing this, for example the goal of 80% removal of total suspended solids f=
rom
the storm water discharge system, and she notes that through the use of cat=
ch
basins, the storm scepters and the grass swales we are achieving that as pa=
rt
of the Best Management Practices.
She makes note of the =
rip
rap plunge pools where the storm water discharges and she talks about the t=
ypes
of mitigation. The first type of mitigation is
avoidance, and she notes that effectively we have avoided impacts. In fact the only impacts are what =
you
might call water dependent uses. If
you have a storm drainage pipe it has to go downhill to the wetlands because
it’s a water dependent function.&nbs=
p;
Water flows down hill and the wetlands are downhill. And then she gives the references =
but
I’d like to formally submit that.&nb=
sp;
(Tape #3, Side A ended – may have missed some.) We tried to have Ms. Chase come he=
re
tonight, however she had a prior commitment and she could too, so her apolo=
gies
are extended.
That’s my presen=
tation
tonight.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 12
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Could you j=
ust
discuss again what you were talking about on those ponds, those 3 ponds and=
the
water would build up to a point, and then you talked about a pipe, an overf=
low
situation it’s on, and you kind of lost me on that.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: Yes, and I can see why=
. I used the poor word, I used the w=
ord
pond and it’s not my intent to create a pond, but rather a basin that
will temporarily store water, that will temporarily pond water, and a good
analogy would be a large bathtub.
Obviously it’s not a bathtub, but it’s still, it’s=
a
depression, it’s got 4 sides, to hold water about 2 feet deep about he
depth you might have in a bathtub, and it’s positioned to take water =
that
would be flowing the hill and get it to go into this depression and just ki=
nd
of stay there because you allow all the water to come in, but you restrict =
the
rate in which it leaves. Your
design storm of course is a heavy, intense rainfall for a relatively short
duration. We’re using t=
he
rain that would be created in a 24 hour period and so consequently the water
could flow in, but it’s really restricted how it flows out, but it is
made to flow out and it is made to drain and be dry between storms.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: And how does it flow out? In other words it’s not a ma=
tter
of just seeping into the ground, you’re actually somehow piping it ou=
t of
there.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: That is
correct. Downhill of the stru=
cture
there’s going to be a 12 inch diameter pipe, PVC light plastic schedu=
le
40. That is going to go under=
neath
the berm to underneath the center of this pond about 3 feet below the surfa=
ce
and then it’s going to have a vertical pipe, 12 inch PVC that comes, =
so
that pipe, imagine this is a pipe 12 inch diameter and I am standing on the
bottom of the pond, and this pipe is going to be right there so that if the
water comes this high, it will flow into the pipe cause I don’t want =
it
to flow over my berm, (inaudible) but it is not designed to function. This is my spare tire (inaudible).=
The water at the bottom of this po=
nd
will be able to drain into the ground because we are creating trenches, 80 =
feet
long along the bottom of the pond, and we’re going to backfill those
trenches with something like beach sand, something that’s very
porous. If you’re at the
beach when you were a kid and you pour water, it disappears. That will flow down into essential=
ly a
curtain drain, a perforated pipe with filter fabric wrapped around it, so t=
hat
slowly will go through into the pipe, to the 12 inch pipe and discharge
downhill and then eventually go to the wetlands.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: How deep are these
ponds? You said you had 3, a =
total
of 3.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: A total of 3 =
of
these structures, yes. They a=
re 2
feet.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 13
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: And they are
maintained by the property owners?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: That’s
right. These lots are going t=
o have
a restriction. If you’re
buying this lot you’re going to know there’s a burden,
there’s an obligation that comes with this, and that is it’s go=
ing
to be developed with these ponds and you can’t make them go away. That’s the maintenance.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: Let’s say=
I buy
the lot and I don’t maintain that.&n=
bsp;
Who will control me?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: The Town of
Watertown is going to have . . . . .
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: Oh yea, (inaudi=
ble).
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: An easement over this =
area
so the Town of Watertown, just like they enforce a lot of Regulations in the
Town, you know were talking about a storm drainage regulation, but we’=
;re
trying to give them in any way they want it, the ability to enforce this
restriction that’s going to be on the land records.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Is it fenced in?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: No, they would not be fenced i=
n.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: But if it’s on p=
rivate
property the Town doesn’t want to take any responsibility.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: No, the Town won’t take =
the
responsibility, but we want to give the Town the power to enforce the homeo=
wner
to maintain this storm drainage structure, no different from the type of
sedimentation ponds you often approve for commercial structures. You might have a parking lot and y=
ou
might have a sedimentation pond adjacent to that parking lot, and obviously=
the
owner of that CVS can’t just say I’m going to fill that in and =
do
more, I just don’t want it there, and I’m going to eliminate it,
it’s part of a site plan approval, they have to keep it there. I’m trying to use that same =
power
that the Town has to keep CVS from eliminating their detention pond to make
sure that this property owner keeps his, and we’re going to give this
property owner clear convincing warning on the land records that he is
accepting this burden if he buys this lot.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 14
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: But my concern =
was
with safety, and if you said there’s about 2 feet of water in there,
what’s going to stop a neighbor child from drowning in it?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: I suppose what stops them from
drowning in any body of water, natural or . . . .
Mr. Polletta: If you have a swimmi=
ng
pool you put a fence around it.
Over here we don’t have anything.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: The water i=
s only
going to be in there for a short time.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: How long is the water going to=
be in
there?
Mr. Sakonchick: The water would drain =
in
approximately 24 hours. And t=
he
reason we kept it 2 feet deep is exactly that, it’s shallow enough th=
at
most people can stand in it. =
Even a
child.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I think if there&#=
8217;s
2 feet of water, probably the building department may ask you to put a fence
around it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: The rule of thumb I use, I kno=
w for
a retaining wall they start requiring fencing at 30 inches.
Mr. Rafey: But that is on the Tow=
n,
private property I don’t think that the Town will take any responsibi=
lity
to maintain those or enforce anything.&nbs=
p;
It’s hard for us to do that.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: How would t=
he
Town even know there was a problem there?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: That’s something we can
(inaudible).
Mr. Calabrese: The way we discussed i=
t and
we did it this way purposely, this will be flat and part of the lawn area.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There’s going to be a berm a=
round
it. Now the only time it will=
ever
come up that high is a (inaudible) storm.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: These structures were designed=
to
have water drain to them from all storms, and in terms of your typical stor=
m,
if you have 7 inches of rain and a design storm at 24 hours, 100 year storm,
obviously your typical 1 year storm would be some ratio less than that, so =
on
your typical storm you might have 6 inches of water in this basin,
understanding that 90% of all storms, maybe I don’t have the exact fi=
gure
right, but the concept is almost all storms have less than a half inch of r=
ain
associated with them.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 15
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Calabrese: But the way
it’s going to be graded, this will be part of the lawn and the berm is
going to be down and circle it, so when they cut the grass, they’ll c=
ut
the grass in there also so it will be maintained.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Just by property owners, not t=
he
Town.
Mr. Calabrese: Yea, no, no, property =
owner
will maintain it, cause it’s for their benefit for them to do it. Any other questions on that partic=
ular
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: We should look at =
the
details to see what it will look like.&nbs=
p;
Mr. Chairman, can I just clear some of the issues for the applicatio=
n?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: I want to make one more
statement. I want to point ou=
t, and
I’m sure all of you are familiar cause the people who were on the
Commission before are familiar with it, but anybody that wasn’t on the
Commission, Phase I, when we did Phase I we took into calculations all this
drainage, the houses over here we came in back of the houses with the line,=
so
all these houses drain which has already been accepted in Phase I to accept=
all
this drainage, so all these houses here, the driveways and the roofs and the
gutters and the lawns will pitch toward here and go into here and that was =
all
calculated in the first Phase and accepted by wetlands. So the only 3 houses, 1, 2, and 3 =
are
going to be those ponds and those are the only ones that are going to go in=
to
this wetlands from this side, and I just wanted to point that out, so all t=
hese
homes were already approved to go into this structure.
Mr. Rafey: I’m just reading=
from
my memo. According to the plan
dated 2003, the original plan they submitted with the application, Phase II=
of
Guernseytown Farms involves the following regulated activities:
·
Disturbance of approximately 1,600 sq. ft. of wetland buffer area by
installation of a drainage pipe and construction of a plunge pool located on
the north side of Killorin Road adjacent to Lot #44.
·
Discharge of storm water into the wetlands.
·
Installation of erosion and sedimentation control measures inside t=
he
wetlands and wetland buffer area.
There revised plans th=
at you
submitted tonight, are there any additional regulated activities involved w=
ith
these plans or are they the same?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 16
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Well the concept is the same, =
but I
would like you to note that we have extended a swale to the toe of the slop=
e at
both discharge points in the same manner that we did for Phase I, so we did
incorporate additional protections at those outfalls.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Do you know the to=
tal
square footage of those area (inaudible) how much area you’re
disturbing? We have to amend =
the
application to include those regulated activities.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: I can get you that.
Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, also in =
my
memo by looking at the original application with the plans this information=
was
not part of the application. =
I just
want to make sure that Mr. Sakonchick goes through this list and sees if
everything is provide or not, if not then you can submit it in the future.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Feasible and prudent alternatives,=
I
think you showed that, I need that for the record please.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Yes, they are the last 3 sheet=
s on
the plan.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Did you get approv=
al
from the Torrington Area Heath District?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: No, he’s going to have it
because again he was busy (inaudible) he said he will have it maybe in 2 we=
eks.
Mr. Rafey: If we can get that bef=
ore
the next meeting.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: Yea, he told me he’ll ha=
ve
it. (Inaudible).
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I also need a repo=
rt
form the Soil Scientist who delineated the wetlands on this property. You didn’t submit it with the
application for this phase and I need a copy of that please, if you want to
take a note. The drainage
calculation I think we received that tonight. Erosion and sedimentation control =
plan
and grading plan wasn’t submitted.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Those are incorporated in the =
2 x 3
sheets. Yes.
Mr. Rafey: Now we have them with =
the
revised plans?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 17
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: The proposed regul=
ated
activities I think we discussed that, and the complete design plans, we got
that tonight. The description=
of
the ecological communities and functions of the wetlands and watercourse, a=
nd I
think that report was submitted, measure which mitigates the impact of the
proposed activities. That is =
also
in the report?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Yea, Jody describes that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: One other thing I want to point out=
, we
do have 2 storm scepters from here going into this area, one over here and =
one
along the road here, so we do have 2 additional storm scepters.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Anything else? Is that your presentation?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: It is.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Any questions f=
orm
the Commission? Chuck?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Not at this time.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, at this time do I hear
anything from the public? Any=
one
have any questions or comments?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Chuck Sabis, 12 Butternut Lane,
Watertown, CT 06795
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabis: I own property at 107 Killorin Road=
. My family has owned that property =
since
about 1958. I have to question
first of all, I do not recall in Phase I that the drainage plans from Phase=
II
and III were included. I coul=
d be
wrong, but I think the Commission is going to have to check the records for
Phase I, because what that is going to do, this gentleman over here, heR=
17;s
building property on Hollow Road, that’s where the water goes. It’s going to go down the va=
lley
into Hollow Road. When I ment=
ioned
that at a meeting here I was told you couldn’t say it because it was =
two
separate applications, Hollow Road and Guernseytown Estates. Now you got it. The water is going to be going dow=
n,
what happens when it gets to Hollow Road?&=
nbsp;
Cause it goes from Hollow Road, it goes down through the golf course,
down through Taft School and winds up at Steel Brook. I have yet to hear anyone tell me =
that
there is going to be no effect on Judd’s Pond, not in Phase I, not in
Phase II, and I’m going to assume that when they present Phase III, no
one is guaranteeing no effect on Judd’s Pond with runoff.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 18
You can call them pond=
s, if
you want, I call them drywells. I
have one on my property. The
problem up there is there’s too much loam. There’s anywhere between 38 =
and
48, 40, 45 inches of loam on the property, it’s all old farms. I have a drywell on my property.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; There
is a site line Regulation in this Town.&nb=
sp;
It was ignored In Phase I, and it’s going to be affected in Ph=
ase
II by that road. Now if they =
have
to move the houses down, what happens to the drainage calculation? Just a question I’m asking.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I personally believe, as I said in=
Phase
I, and I’ll say it for Phase II, and I’ll say it for Phase III,=
the
lots are too small. The groun=
d will
not take, I don’t care what engineer, what (inaudible) for, I donR=
17;t
care how he engineered the septic system, 10, 15 years from now you’re
going to have problems. No on=
e is
saying that Mr. Calabrese cannot make a profit off his property, God he own=
ed
it long enough, but I think it’s just too many houses. There is again, this is strictly an
Inlands/Wetlands Commission, things will have to be taken up with the Zoning
Board, but the land up there (inaudible) we’re talking about wetlands=
and
I’m not sure if it’s Phase II or III, but that was a dairy
farm. You cannot run a diary =
farm
without water for your cattle. And
what they call wetlands used to be a pond.=
If it’s home grown, I don’t know, I haven’t been on
the property in 20, 25 years, but there is a pond there, a natural pond.
Again I implore the
Commission to think very closely about this, and again I question the amoun=
t,
the drainage calculations from Phase I and Phase II; I do not recall them b=
eing
put together, and again I state Mr. Calabrese is entitled to make a profit =
off
his property, but I think the Town has to watch how it’s done. Thank you.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Are you presenting these points to=
P
& Z?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabis: When they have a meeting, yes I wi=
ll.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Anyone else from the public? Okay, I guess you want to answer t=
hat,
Mr. Calabrese?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 19
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Calabrese: Just so everyone that wasn’t=
on
the Commission before don’t get confused, those calculations were all
included in that structure that we did, retainage, as Chuck could attest, t=
hat
was all included and accepted. All
of those homes are going to be draining into there and that’s the way=
we
presented it, and maybe he wasn’t here when it was presented, but tho=
se
calculations were a part of that, so all those homes, the only ones we̵=
7;re
really dealing with with drainage are 3 homes on the bottom of that page, b=
elow
the hill, 3 homes, that’s it, on that side, for this phase.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Joe, is there any pond other than t=
he
one, those 3 or 4 whatever that were down at the bottom there?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: Yes, let me explain this to you.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: I would like to address the comment=
and
question about whether or not some of the Phase II drainage was considered =
in
Phase I. This is an actual ex=
hibit
used in Phase I. You might be=
able
to see Route 63 on the bottom, Killorin Road on the left, and the road prop=
osed
for Phase I, in fact in this version still had a cul de sac here where
currently it actually formed an intersection with Killorin Road, and this is
the drainage area that we used for our computations. And what’s important for this
application tonight is here is Bayview Circle, and you can see that Bayview=
, as
well as the proposed houses, were designed to go into this area over here, =
so
we did have that intent as part of our Phase I calculations and consequently
incorporate that area into it.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Mr. Undercuffler, I think the pond =
that
you’re talking about is a part of the Phase III and when they submit =
that
application you will see it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 20
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Calabrese: I’m sorry, I had the wrong plans. Here’s the pond.= This is all the wetlands and remem= ber I showed you the woods as we walked around?&= nbsp; There’s a little pond right there, very shallow, maybe a foot,= foot and a half. Here’s the = old farm road which isn’t wetlands. There’s a 12 inch pipe under near. When it rains it settles in here a= nd then it flows out of here slowly and that’s the only pond that’s here. You do have a watercour= se that comes down here, and you have another watercourse that comes down here= . The rest of this is just wetlands.=
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well that&#=
8217;s
Phase III.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: When you present P=
hase
III then you can explain that to us.
I think that’s not a part of Phase II.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Calabrese: This is Phase
II. The pond is in, I’m
sorry, you’re right. You
asked me where the pond is so I . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: So that’s the only other pond=
other
than those that we had seen down at the bottom of the hill there?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: Yes. And it’s very shallow. (Tape #3, Side B ended – may=
have
missed some.)
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Anybody else? Comments? Okay.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Just Table this until next month, =
until
the Staff reviews all these additions.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: What about the completeness or
incompleteness application? S=
hould
we address that?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: If you want, but t=
onight
we received all this additional information.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Thermer) to Table App. #486 of Guernseytown Farms
Estates, LLC< Phase II for 26 lot residential subdivision and extension =
of
Bayview Circle, Watertown, CT.
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 21
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at about 9:15 p.m. (no time given).
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary