MINUTES<= o:p>
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY,
FEBRUARY 19, 2004 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Bernard Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
Charles Thermer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Mary
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: &nbs=
p; Susan
Atwood
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Peter
Peluso
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 about 7:55 p=
.m.
(no time given).
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 Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Thermer, in his
absence. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II FEBRUARY 19, 2004 PAGE 2 3. =
Hearing
of Applications &=
nbsp; B. =
Continuation
of Public Hearing from January 15, 2004 - Application #486 of Guernseytown Farms Estates, LLC, Phase II for 26 lot
residential subdivision and extension of &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by Febr=
uary
19, 2004, unless applicant grants a time extension. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Franklin Pili=
cy,
Attorney Representing the Applicant &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Atty.
Pilicy: =
Jim Sakonchick
and Mr. Calabrese are also present.
There’s a letter that has been delivered since the last public
hearing session from the Watertown Fire District. I understand that everybody has a =
copy
of it, but I’d like to read that into the record, unless the Chairman
would prefer that someone else read it into the record. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: No, go ahead. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: It’s addressed to Guernseytown Farms Estates and Mr. Calabrese dated Fe=
bruary
18, 2004: It’s from the
Watertown Fire District: “This office has
reviewed the plans and accompanying notes for the proposed development,
The Watertown Fire Dis=
trict
has no objection to the proposed development as shown on the plans prepared=
by Kratzert & Jones Associates of Novell, CT. 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 procedures of erosion and sedimentation control =
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
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 3
It is also my understa=
nding
that the combination of detention structures for Phases II and II along with
the roadway locations and general project layout will provide for no impact=
to
Judd Pond and wetlands in Phases II and III. Judd Pond has a spillway for natur=
al
overflow of excess water from the pond downstream to an eventual confluence=
with
the
Very truly,
Ernest Coppick
(Inaudible) Superinten=
dent
of the District” (Tape #1, Side A ended &#=
8211;
may have missed some).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: It is true that you do have th=
is letter?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, we just got it now.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: It’s dated February 18th=
. We received this today.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Jim Sakonchic=
k,
Engineer, Kratzert & Jones
Mr. Sakonchick: I’m a land surveyor and engineer of record=
on
this project. This project wa=
s introduced
to the Commission last month and you’ve got to remember that Phase II=
, if
I can give you few reminders is the middle portion of the project and Phase=
II
has a proposed road associated with it, the road you can see going north and
south in the middle of the plans depicted in front of you. Phase II basically is bordered by =
Phase
I which I hope many members of the Commission is very familiar with having
given us the benefit of many hours of your time describing that and Phase I=
II
is beyond the hill, actually Phase III drains to a different watershed.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 4
I would like to put a =
few
things on the record. The sta=
ff has
asked us to give further detail on the erosion and sediment control plans
required for properly constructing this development and in addition to the =
work
done by the Town Planning and Zoning, Wetlands, and Engineering Department,
Public Works Department. This=
site
is big enough that it also requires a permit registration with the State
Department of Environmental Protection for erosion and sediment control per=
mit
associated with a construction project.&nb=
sp;
This is a registration permit where the contractor has the obligatio=
n to
pay a fee and formally register his work with the State D.E.P. to put them =
on
notice that the work is being done and also to certify to them that a custom
erosion sediment control plan real time during construction has been create=
d and
will be maintained during construction including the requirement that after=
any
rainfall of any significant amount, that a guy with a fore go around and
inspect all the erosion control structures to make sure they are there and
still functioning and any requirement that a notebook be kept on the job si=
te
confirming that in fact those inspections were done on a regular basis and =
one
doesn’t maintain that notebook at significant peril himself because
customary fines would run about $10,000 if caught. I’ve had clients who have ha=
d to
pay.
I’ve given kind =
of a
narrative outline of many of the components that will have to be done as pa=
rt
of this custom erosion and sediment control plan. This is not the final plan because=
this
requires sitting down with the contractor and really getting specific. Okay now my bulldozer is starting =
in
this corner going this way because it’s dry or it’s wet down
there. That type of real time
adjustments are made as part of this plan.
In addition to that I =
have
another submittal which would be an updated letter from Soil Resource
Consultant indicating that the wetlands are real time and he has confirmed =
that
for the sake of the Commission cause this is a new application and I checked
with the (inaudible) of the Subdivision Regulations which was requested tha=
t we
do with appropriate comments for things and it fit perfectly to the check.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Certain things obviously don’=
;t
apply, for example we don’t have sanitary sewers here.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 5
Another point relates =
to the
custom of the Town asking the Torrington Area Health District to review the
plans for suitability for the septic systems. Now our plans as submitted were re=
viewed
from Bob Smith. Bob Smith was=
nice
enough to spend half a day with a member of my staff making recommendations=
to
incorporate in the plans. We =
have
incorporated those changes into the plans.=
We did attempt to meet with Bob Tuesday and Wednesday morning in ord=
er
to give them an opportunity to look at these plans before today’s mee=
ting
because he was just coming back from vacation Tuesday and Wednesday. Unfortunately he did suffer an acc=
ident
and he was recuperating those two days, so we’re submitting the plans
that reflect the changes, and Bob Smith, being a member of the Town’s
staff, can do his formal report after the Close of the Public Hearing.
I would note that this=
is
not a complete set of plans, it’s simply t=
he
sheets that have changed for the sake of making staff’s like easier,
I’d like to highlight some of the changes that are there. The subdivision maps are on there
because there was at least one lot that was revised in a dimension in order=
to
incorporate a pond into one lot.
This was a request of staff.
The grading plan, the G series are also there because they reflect t=
he
request of Bob Smith in order to change a curtain drain, footing drains, we=
ll
locations in order to exceed the minimum requirements of the code and
we’ve done that.
I would like now to ju=
st go
over a recent letter from Charles Berger, Town Engineer, to Moosa Rafey dat=
ed
February 10th. I
don’t think it’s prudent to read the whole letter but perhaps I=
can
highlight the things he was looking for and how we tried to address them on=
the
plans.
<= ![if !supportLists]>6.&n= bsp; = ; Many of the footing and curtain drains do not disch= arge to approved locations and should be relocated or drainage easements provided.
We have done that. I would also like to po= int out that on all the subdivision maps in the upper left hand corner there wa= s a historical note saying that all lots receive water from uphill areas. We have further expanded that lot = to make it very clear to these homeowners that they have to accept that water, even if it was piped from a curtain or footing drain. Water flows downhill and they do h= ave to accept it so that there will not be any debate later. We certainly want to have our futu= re owners fully apprised about the lots they’re getting as well as the requirements that they have to live with.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AG=
ENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO=
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 6
7. =
Easements to flood upstream with detention structure will be shown =
on
an appropriate lot.
We have added an ease= ment line to 2 lots showing flood limits that are well, well above the calculated flood limits of the detention structure that we worked on.
I would also like to p=
oint
out that we have depicted on the maps a 100 foot conservation easement, bey=
ond
your 50 foot buffer. I do not=
e that
on Phase I this Commission has asked for a 200 foot buffer. That did not seem prudent or worka=
ble
for Phase II, especially if we’re going to be trying to retain that t=
ree
line on the ridge which kind of shifts some houses and septic systems a lit=
tle
bit downhill, but still the D.E.P. recommends only a 100 foot buffer from t=
he
wetlands so here we’re exceeding the D.E.P. requirements by 50 feet.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> And that is related to comment #4 =
where
he talks about the ridge should be preserved to the greatest extent possibl=
e.
8. =
Requests some profile for the proposed driveway serving the interior
lots in Phase II.
We do have those profi=
les.
5. = ; He does note that the detention pond for Phase I has to be constructed before Phase II can be considered complete.
&=
nbsp; We
acknowledge that.
6. =
Talks about sediment and erosion control checklists.
The last sheets of that
thick packet stapled together I gave to the staff has that checklist on it.=
<= ![if !supportLists]>7.&n= bsp; = ; He says I would recommend a narrative description b= e provided for the Alternatives on Sheets #A1, A2, and A3.
I would like the Commi=
ssion
to use the minutes of the previous meeting which are written as being the b=
est
description for those alternatives because I was able to incorporate by
reference the graphics on the Board and I thought that would be the most
understandable way of doing that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 7
8. = ; Going down to his second portion where he’s talking about the storm water management report, the positive/negative impacts of Phase II as a stand alo= ne project.
&=
nbsp; Phase
II as a stand alone project with the exception that the construction of the
detention area for Phase I would have to be constructed in conjunction. There is nothing in Phase III that
depends on the construction of Phase II.&n=
bsp;
The reverse of that is not true.&nb=
sp;
Phase III does require the improvements of Phase II in order to meet=
the
zero increase in runoff requirement.
The rest of the items I think we’re goi= ng to try and say that, he’s talking about the construction of a flood plan= , an analysis of Judd Pond and I think that’s more of a situation that we should discuss as part of Phase III. Most certainly the Phase II has truly a decreased impact on Judd Pond because we are (d) draining our road and houses along that road away from J= udd Pond so all of those improvements go elsewhere.
Those are the highlights of the changes we ha= ve done as part of this plan. I believe we have seriously studied the suggestions given by staff and tried = to incorporate them into our plans.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: These plans that you submitted
tonight have all the changes that you mentioned?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Item #1, can you explain to me=
it
says that many of the footing and curtain drains do not discharge to the
approved location? Where are =
they
discharging?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: It has to do with drainage.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 8
Now the plans they ref=
er to
are the “G’ series or the grading plans. Now for orientation this is smack =
dab in
the middle of Phase II. You c=
an see
that part of the sheet is off here and there, we’re in the middle.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: Are you saying =
that
they go into the detention pond?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: The roof drainage of the houses
along the road go into the detention pond. All footing drains do not go to the
detention pond. Most footing =
drains
go to the detention pond.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: The ones that don’t go t=
o the
detention pond, where do they go?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick:&nb=
sp;
They
go downhill to the back of the lot . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: That’s exactly the point=
. Each location, like here we have t=
wo
lots next to each other, and the footing drains are discharging along the
common property line. This is
beyond the septic system downhill, and they’ll discharge here. The reason for the note is, as you=
can
see downhill is (inaudible) contours so it’s going to wind up flowing=
in
this direction. In fact Lot #=
54 a
footing drain and curtain drain from a septic system might flow over a back
corner of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Did you talk to Mr. Fusco, the
Building Inspector, because he is the one who will review the footing and c=
urtain
drains for each individual lots when you get your
building permits?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: I’d like to say that sin=
ce I
started working on this project two years ago, I’ve had a chorus of
things from Moosa, to Mary, to the Building Inspector, to Bob Smith, clearl=
y it
struck the nerve with the staff on other projects and we’re doing our=
darndest not to strike a nerve here.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Let the record show that Jim is
referring to drawing G3 on that dissertation. Anything else?=
Atty. Pilicy: Letter from Mr. Calabrese was given to Moosa earlier. I don’t know i= f the Commission has it, or do you want to read it or do you want me to read it?<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Go ahead.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: Thank you. This is from the applicant address=
ed to
the Commission dated February 19, 2004:
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; “We’d like=
to
request of the Commission that we be allowed to =
obtain
a letter approval of our septic systems for Phases II and III from Bob Smit=
h of
the Torrington Area Health District after tonight’s meeting. On February 17th my eng=
ineer
and I went to meet Bob at his office to review our septic plans with him an=
d we
were informed that Bob had an accident and would not be back for some
time. We would hope that we c=
an
review our plans with Bob as soon as he’s able to meet with us.”=
;
Atty. Pilicy: But as stated, as Engineer Sakonchick, all of the recommendations have been incorporated into the plans so we don’t believe there is any reason to keep the Public Hearing Open over this item as long as the Commission can accept the final report from the Health District after the Hearing Closes.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: I have a
question, primarily to Chuck. Now
you haven’t had a chance to see some of this stuff, I assume, any obv=
ious
comments you have from what was stated here? Any concerns?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: There are a numbe=
r of
items in my review memo dated February 10th that have not been
discussed or addressed that I would like to see addressed. As far as obvious concerns, our ma=
in
concern about the footing drain issue and would comment further on what I s=
aw
on that plan a couple of minutes ago, I would look for the footing drains to
discharge not onto other people’s property without a defined easement=
on
each lot, not just a note in the upper left hand corner.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: This drainage onto oth=
er
people’s property does that mean they could have sitting water, or wi=
ll
it then drain from their property to someplace else, so it’s just sor=
t of
passing through?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 10
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Jim, can you answer th=
at?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: I apologize,
I’m going to have to ask you repeat it. I was debating the previous commen=
ts.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: If they’re draining to
somebody else’s property, could that result in them having sitting wa=
ter
on their property?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick:&nb=
sp;
Not at the grades we have on this property.
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Sturgis: It’s just =
going
to pass right through and keep going?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick:&nb=
sp;
And
I might mention to the Commission that this is a very common occurrence.
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Sturgis: Are there underwater drains that are doing this or is this water
running along the surface I guess is what I’m trying to say? I live on a hill and there are
underwater drains that sort of drain near me, but they’re underground=
.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick:&nb=
sp;
In
order to construct a house properly, we have to take into consideration
rainfall and water in all its forms.
Now during a rain event we all know that water will fall on the grass
and some will soak in and some will run off; fall in a roof, go in a gutter=
, go
in a leader, and drain away. =
And
that water will flow downhill wherever the downhill takes it,
we tried to address that in our note.
Separately for quite a good period of the year we will have the foot=
ing
drain around the house draining water on a continuous basis unless it’s summertime and then it might dry up. The building code requires this.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 11
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: No, but I’m not sure if
underground drains to pull it across this lot?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick:&nb=
sp;
Yes, absolutely.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Yea, so you’re g=
oing
to have drains under there.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick:&nb=
sp;
We’re mandating those drains.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Anybody else?
&=
nbsp; =
; Chu=
ck
Sabis,
Mr. Sabis: I own property at
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: It would change=
it,
but so far we haven’t see any such proposal, so at this time we’=
;re
evaluating the proposal (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sabis: <=
/span>My
question would be this – if you accept this, and then they’re
forced to change the road, then what happens?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: It would have t=
o be
resubmitted.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sabis: <=
/span>Resubmitted? Thank you very much.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: If it has any impact on the we=
tlands
they can come to this Commission for an amendment of their permit, if this =
is
getting approved by this Commission.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Anyone else? Commission?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 12
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Based on what Chuck is
saying it sounds like there is still some information we’re looking f=
or,
probably unless you read all this stuff and are satisfied.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I have not had any opportunity=
yet.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Right,
that’s why I say it sounds like there is probably going to be some mo=
re
information you’re looking for, particularly since you said there is =
some
points here that weren’t answered or weren’t responded to.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Correct.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
I think at this time, =
Mr.
Calabrese, we’d like to ask for a 35 day extension to review the
additional information that has been presented here tonight, we haven’=
;t
had a chance to review that, and also to wait for Mr. Smith’s report =
from
the Torrington Health District.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Calabrese: That’s f=
ine.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Thank you. So the Public Hearing will be cont=
inued
until our next meeting. I nee=
d a
Motion to keep the Public Hearing Open.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Beauchamp, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Keep the Public
Hearing Open for App. #486 of Guernseytown Farm=
s Estates,
LLC, Phase II for 26 lot residential subdivision and extension of
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
Public
Hearing Recessed at about 8:25 p.m. (no time given). (Tape #1, Side B ended – may=
have
missed some.)
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary