MINUTES<= o:p>
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY,
MARCH 11, 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, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Charles Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
Glen Duplissie
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Mary
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; 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, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call. Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Duplissie, in his
absence. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II MARCH 11, 2004 PAGE 2 Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record, as follows:=
“Rules For Conduct of Public Hearing 1. =
The
applicant, or his representative will make his formal presentation to the Commis=
sion
stating the proposed regulated activities, the wetland impacts, and the
alternatives, which were considered by the applicant. 2. =
All
comments, discussions and observations shall be made through the Chair, aft=
er
proper recognition by the Chairman.
This is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time speaks on=
any
issue, thus making it easier for everyone to understand and for clearer, le=
gal
transcription. 3. =
All
persons addressing the Commission shall begin by first clearly stating their
name and address for the record. If
necessary, the person may be asked to spell his name for the record. 4. =
Following
the presentation of the application, the Conservation Commission/Inland
Wetlands Agency will ask specific questions of the applicant. 5. =
After
the Commission has asked its questions of the applicant, I shall then allow=
any
members of the public who wish to speak either in favor of this application=
or
against it, to address the Commission. 6. =
I
shall then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of=
the
general public. 6. =
I shall then allow any members of the general public who wish to
present any additional information or clarifying discussion, to do so. 9. =
I
shall provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these addition=
al
remarks if he or his representative so wishes. 9. =
The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency has 35 days from the date th=
at
the Public Hearing commences to complete the Public Hearing. The Commission may ask the applica=
nt for
a 35 day extension of the Public Hearing period if the Commission requires =
any
additional information or wishes to schedule a Site Walk to observe the
situation for themselves. &=
nbsp; 10. The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency has 65 days from the date when
the Public Hearing is Closed to render its
decision.” CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II MARCH 11, 2004 PAGE 3 3. =
Hearing
of Applications &=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of Public Hearing from February 19, 2004 - Application #486 of Guernseytown
Farms Estates, LLC, Phase II for 26 lot residential sub=
division
and extension of &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by Marc=
h 25,
2004. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Franklin Pilicy, Attorney Represen=
ting
the Applicant &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Atty.
Pilicy: The first item I’=
;d
like to introduce into the record, I will read into the record, I believe t=
he
Commission has, there’s extra copies of a =
letter
from the Torrington Area Health District.&=
nbsp;
It’s addressed to the: “Town of Planning and Zoning
Commission March 9, 2004 Re: Guernseytown Farms Estates Section
II Dear Commission Member=
s: The following correspo=
ndence
concerns itself with a proposed 26 lot subdivision within the Town of
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 4
Finally prior to issua=
nce
any septic permit and individual sanitary design prepared by a professional
engineer must be submitted for review and approval to this department. If you have any questions, please =
do not
hesitate to call this office.
Respectfully submitted=
,
Robert A. Smith
Registered Sanitarian&=
#8221;
Atty. Pilicy: =
I believe you have that
record, and at this point Mr. Sakonchick will address the Commission and go
through the latest comment data from Mr. Berger. Thank you.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, I did receive th=
is
letter from Torrington Area Health District; it is part of the records.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: But we don’t have a copy=
.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: No, I just received it today.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Jim Sakonchick, Engineer, Kratzert=
&
Jones
Mr. Sakonchick: To update you and clar=
ify,
this is for Section II which on the map is the middle section of the propos=
ed
subdivision. If what we have =
done
is to control increase in runoff by having the road and houses from Section=
II
where possible go into the valley where by Phase I approval we’re
installing storm control devices and the only things that will drain to the
wetlands in the rear are 3 houses off a long driveways, so we’ve real=
ly
minimized the impact to that significant wetlands. I’d also like to point out t=
hat we
basically put the road and the houses and most of the development on the to=
p of
the hill which is best if you’re trying to protect wetlands. I have been working with Mr. Charl=
es
Berger, Moosa, and Mary and appreciate the good attention they’ve been
giving this and the detail they’ve gone through. I do have the latest comment lette=
r from
Charles Berger dated March 11, 2004, hot off the press, and he has some
comments and I’d like to address them. Quite a few of these comments are
important but they relate to how things are being done in the uplands. Many of them are directly related =
to the
subdivision requirements for zoning and because the activity they’re =
describing
is well outside of the wetlands and well outside of the 50 foot buffer, and
near the top of the hill, of interest to wetlands but a lot of them donR=
17;t
directly affect wetlands. For
example on the first sheet on the bottom, he talks about the following comm=
ents
provided on:
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 5
Sheet S1 though S4
These sheets should be revised to incorporate the r= evised drainage easements associated with the revised footing drain treatment.
Sheet S-2
Delete the note referencing retaining a drainage ea=
sement
across
Now the S series sheet=
s are
the record subdivisions plans showing where the lots are located, and the
reason we have these revised drainage easements is because we have been
diligently trying to control runoff from each one of these lots and being v=
ery
clear where the water would discharge and where water would be piped from o=
ne
lot across another we’re creating easements, and this is the one on t=
he
inspiration of the Building Department that wants us to do it that way, very
clearly.
The second page starts=
by
talking about the G series. N=
ow the
G series of maps, G2, G3, and G6 that he makes notes about refer to the pla=
ns
that show not only the subdivision lot line locations but the existing prop=
osed
topography where the edge of road would be, where the driveways would be, w=
here
the houses would be, septic systems, curtain drains, footing drains, roof
drains, storm drainage and all that, so these are the detailed bird’s=
eye
view of the construction to be done both above ground and underground.
Sheet G-2
Provide justification for installing the proposed c=
atch
basin at the rear of
Sheet G-3
Provide justification for the proposed catch basins located between Lots #53 and #54, and then provide details of how we’= re connecting the 4 or 5 pipes coming into this structure.
Now the reason for put=
ting
these catch basins in the rear of the lots is really to try and control ero=
sion
long term, to try and pick up water that might be concentrating from overla=
nd
flow and pipe it beyond the proposed construction line driveways and stuff =
and
discharge it further to the rear where it can be through a level spreader,
spread out and then sent to the wetlands.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 6
And we have, in some c=
ases,
relatively long driveways to these rear lots, and historically if that is n=
ot
properly done you can have water concentrating along the edges of these
driveways causing additional erosion, so we’re offering to spend money
here by putting catch basins and pipes which you would normally only see on=
a
public road on the back of these lots in order to better take care of the s=
torm
drainage, so the justification is we’re trying to control erosion and
we’re willing to spend money to do that.
Mr. Rafey: Is this the map that =
shows
these changes?
Mr. Berger: That should be supple=
mented
by revised sheet G1 through G6 and (inaudible) there are revis=
ions
to those sheets which are not in that (inaudible).
Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible)
Mr. Sakonchick: I have a set with me=
if
you want to . . . . .
Ma=
ny
people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Let the record show that Mr.
Sakonchick has passed out a revised set of drawings to the Commission membe=
rs.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: For the record I’ve just=
taken
a second to open maps up in front of the commission and what I’m high=
lighting
on Sheet G1, which is the 100 scale overall, is the fact that on Lot #51 in=
the
back we have a catch basin and a pipe shows shaded. That shaded “L” shaped=
line
in the rear of the lot the shading is the easement and we have a catch basin
between the lot lines of #51 and #52, a catch basin at the end edge of this
long driveway and then a pipe going beyond the end of the driveway discharg=
ing
across the driveway.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: Where’s the catch basin =
here?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: There’s the catch basin
between #51 and #52, there is a catch basin on the driveway going to the re=
ar
lot and then there’s the discharge beyond the driveway. Martha asked where the rear lots w=
ere
and I’m showing her and where the catch basins are. Now typically a rear lot driveway =
is
just sheet runoff and here we’ve gone to the extra effort of putting =
in
catch basins, pipes and discharge points and this way the driveway will go a
few hundred fee and where it will catch a catch basin which would be about =
the
same length you would let a road section before you need a catch basin, and
then another catch basin at the end where it turns left and right and final=
ly a
discharge point beyond that, so it’s the best way to pick up water and
get it beyond these driveways without erosion problems.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 7
In a similar fashion b=
etween
Lots #53 and #54 we extended the pipes to the end of the lot lines, we
won’t have 1 lot owner uncomfortable with the adjacent lot owners water running on his property. We’ve extending the pipe and
we’re discharging it well beyond the rear to where the open space is =
and
again this is just water coming off footing drains, curtain drains.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; In
a similar fashion you might recall on Phase I we had 3 lots that were on the
far left end of Phase I that had a curtain drain even going to Phase 2. We’re picking that up in a s=
et of
pipes to a catch basin and then a catch basin again across this lawn, the
driveway that was going to the rear lot and we’re going around the ho=
use
and then discharging to the open space, going to the other set just like
this. I’d like to say t=
his is
a good thing because it’s the proper way and the best way to be able =
to
control the water coming off these long driveways and discharge it so there
won’t be an erosion problem at the edge of these driveways.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: What is the revisi=
on
date of these plans?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: 3/4/04.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Now that precedes Mr. Berger&#=
8217;s
memo.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: That is correct.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: To clarify my question or my
comment, I concur with Mr. Sakonchick reasoning in the vicinity of the driv=
eway
crossings, but I question the need for the catch basin here and here. I concur with him along the drivew=
ays,
but at that point there, to this point here, and at that point here, I
don’t know if can read that without looking at the other sheet, but t=
hose
3 locations in the middle of the back yards is where I question the need fo=
r a
catch basins.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: We’ll be happy to substi=
tute
anything that the Staff would suggest here. We’re willing to spend the m=
oney
to do it the best way so we’d be happy to leave it at his suggestion,
either now or if he should come up with one before this goes before
subdivisions, we’ll agree to substitute it because we want to do
what’s proper there.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Joseph Calabrese, Applicant
Mr. Calabrese: I have discussion with=
Chuck
on this and we sort of arrived at possibly putting galleys on each lot for =
the
3 houses, and I think he concurred that that would handle the problem. Is that correct, Chuck?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 8
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: That’s a different issue=
that
we’ll get to at the end of my memo.&=
nbsp;
This doesn’t seal with the roof runoff from those 3 houses it
deals with the footing and curtain rains from the houses along the road.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: I’m sorry.
Mr. Sakonchick: Okay, continuing on . =
. . .
.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Chuck, you’re saying you
disagree with having the catch basins there. Are you suggesting something else =
or are
you saying they don’t need anything?
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: They need a structure there to=
bring
the footing and curtain drains together.&n=
bsp;
I would suggest a manhole would be adequate, instead of a catch basin
which would need maintenance down the road.
Mr. Sakonchick: We would be happy to a=
ccept
a manhole at those locations. There
is an attempt to and agreement to the extend pos=
sible
to protect the tree line that goes along the ridge of the hill and we’=
;ve
revised our plans to make that intent very clear. Now the tree line is not continuou=
s,
there’s tree brush, tree brush, well the tall trees will be protected,
where driveways we’ll be crossing there has been talk about arranging=
to
have an arborist the best place to put those driveways so that we don’=
;t
inadvertently destroy roots adjacent to a tree as we cross, and if a tree h=
as
to be removed the arborist can help us decide which one should go, the ones
that might be half dead anyways, so that they have in mind we want to do th=
at.
Sheet G-6:
This sheet has been revised to depict protecting ex= isting tree lines where possible. It should be noted that sheets G1 through G5 depict significant disturbance of this area for driveways, wells, septic systems, and grading.
And in a meeting with =
staff
yesterday they brought up the idea of having an arborist help us decide whe=
re
those locations should be and we’re happy to agree to that suggestion=
.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 9
Calculations should be provided to justify the size= and location of the temporary sediment traps.
Now a temporary sedime=
nt
trap is something that is done to control runoff erosion during the
construction phase and we have some details of temporary sediment traps and=
we
have some suggested locations on where they could be used and installed dur=
ing
the construction phase. IR=
17;d
like to highlight the fact that we will be maintaining erosion control perm=
it
for construction with the D.E.P. during the construction phase which requir=
es
an engineer to help make sure that the erosion controls are properly done as
well as periodic reviews of the construction phase. What I’m saying here is when
you’re building a road, you will wind up modifying the actual
construction techniques while that is being one and you might have one large
temporary sediment basin or you might have a series of smaller ones dependi=
ng
on the realities of construction at that time. Certainly during August when the g=
round
is dry, you would have one arrangement as opposed to if you were doing a
construction technique in March where things are much muddier, wetter, and =
you
might even have some fronts in the ground, so these are custom documents, a=
nd
in terms of justifying the size and location, I would argue that that is be=
st
done as part of the storm water pollution prevention permit that is done du=
ring
the construction phase as well as coordinated with the preconstruction meet=
ings
required by the Town.
Notes 6, 8, and 9 should include some language rega= rding the desire to protect the existing trees.
We were happy to do th=
at and
expand those (inaudible) that I described earlier.
Sheet SD-1:
The standard road subject to be=
revised
to reflect the proposed
We will do that.
The construction (inaudible) detail should incorpor= ate a minimum width of 12 feet and include a narrow and 10 foot radius at road intersections.
We will do that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 10
Sheet SD-3:
The Fire Tank detail should incorporate the roadside swale.
Good.
Does the fire drain for the tank tie into the drain= age structured located between Lots #53 and #54.
Yes, it will, and that
structure will now be a manhole.
Delete or resolve the note in the upper right hand = corner regarding the need for a hole in the roof in the tank.
We would do that.
SD-6:
Provide calculations to support the location and ci= ting of the temporary basin in accordance with 2002 guidelines for erosion and sediment control.
And as submitted earli=
er we
will be doing that.
So as you can see a lo=
t of
these comments are astute comments on the construction details which
we’re happy to agree to.
The bottom the followi=
ng
comments remain from our memorandum from 2/10 attached.
Should an approval be considered, it should be
conditioned on the installation and the acceptance by the Town,
that the detention structure to be upstream of
Yes, we agree to that.=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 11
I would recommend that a narrative description be provided for the alternates presented on Sheets A1, A2, and A3. Many of the proposed lots containe= d in the various alternates do not appear to be feasible.
The narrative descript=
ion, I
think we still should use the Public Hearing written record from the first
public hearing on the alternatives and he makes an interesting comment that
some of the alternatives do not appear to be feasible, and in many ways tha=
t is
true because that is why you do alternative designs. Most certainly we, for example, an=
open
space with 11 acres of wetlands on the west side of Phase II proposed, well
some of those 11 acres could have been used for lot development, but to get
back there would have required the crossing of wetlands and as he correctly
notes, that may not be the most feasible and prudent way to develop a piece=
of
property. These alternatives =
were
detailed studies we did on this property.&=
nbsp;
Some of those alternatives showed more lots possible than we finally
agreed to do and that is the proper purpose of considering alternatives bec=
ause
you try to come up with what is the most practical balance between a reason=
able
development of the land and trying to protect the wetlands from impact (Tape #1, Side A ended – may=
have
missed some).
#3, minor revisions may be required to the footing = drain outlet locations in order to ensure that the dis= charge will not affect adjoining properties.
We will do that and
you’ve seen already how we’ve been trying to be very careful to
avoid adjoining properties.
The storm water management report previously submitted attempted to
address both Phase 2 and Phase 3.
It also included information from Phase 1. My memorandum of February 10, 2004
outlined a number of concerns and issues regarding such a combined report and the
difficulties in addressing the potential runoff increases due to the additi=
on
of impervious areas (roofs, roads, and driveways).
In an effort to simplify and streamline the review of Phase 2, the
following comments are based on separating the drainage analysis for Phase 2
and Phase 3. As previously
identified, it will be necessary to perform detailed flood routing analysis=
for
the Phase 3 watershed that drains to the Judd Pond watershed. With the above assumptions, the im=
pact
of the impervious areas generated from the three interior lots proposed in
Phase 2 (and their driveways) will be offset by the exiting areas (and the
associated development) which are diverted to the control structure upstrea=
m of
Killorin Road. A detailed ana=
lysis
of this diversion was performed and approved during the Phase I process.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 12
Along those lines, the=
re are
3 proposed roofs in Phase II which will be draining to the west pond and
that’s for the rear lot that we just showed and we will be happy to i=
nstall
infiltrators for the roof drains for those lots, as he suggested we should,=
and
that’s fine.
We are, and you will l=
earn
when we get to the Phase III Public Hearing going to ask that the work on P=
hase
III be delayed for reasons we will discuss then, but what’s important=
is
we’re now looking at Phase II as a stand alone application for a zero
increase in runoff and we have been able to show in calculations submitted =
that
Phase II more than stands alone in terms of creating zero increase in
runoff. In fact we’re
diverting a significant portion of the hillside to the Phase I, Phase II po=
nd
area from that alley and that will decrease the runoff going to the wetland=
to
the west which we’re trying to protect and there will be less area and
very little development, only the 3 lots that go that way, so in effect we =
are
creating almost like 1 acre of less impervious going to that middle. In fact we’re even claiming =
that
as part of our Phase II development, we will have the ability to build
approximately 40,000 sq. ft. of impervious area in Phase III and still be
zero. Now that may not take c=
are of
all the requirements of Phase III, but it will lessen the need for special
structures like shallow ponding areas if we decide to go that way in Phase
III. You will note the signif=
icant
change that we’ve done with this Phase II development is we’ve
eliminated the two shallow ponding areas on the two rear lots because we se=
nse
that many members of the Commission and staff didn’t like that idea, =
so
we went to Plan B and we’ve eliminated those. You’ll learn later that
we’re going to be working with staff on a better design for Phase III=
and
in fact, we’ll be withdrawing the Phase III wetlands application at t=
he
next part of their public hearing.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Any comments fr=
om the
Commission members?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: I’d be
curious to hear what Chuck’s comments are?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: I think the only comme=
nt I
would make is that the comments that I’ve outlined in my memo I belie=
ve
are similar to comments in the level of detail review that I perform on all
plans that come before me, and I appreciate all of Jim’s responses th=
at I
concur with, with the exception of waiting for construction to design tempo=
rary
sediment traps and basins. I =
would
want to see at least either one or a series of sediment traps designed, I’d like to see the feasibility of pro=
viding
them on site. Granted things =
will
change during construction review of that, but at least for the approval
process you need to have them shown that it’s feasible to do that, wh=
ich
I think can be done.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 13
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: What about the last
paragraph there, I don’t quite follow exactly all of that, but does t=
hat
resolve the issue in your mind?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: It does for Phase=
II.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: With respect to those temporary
sediment traps we do show them on I believe it’s<=
/span>
Sheet G-6.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Let the record =
show
that Jim is pointing out the sediment traps on Drawing G-6.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: And for the r=
ecord
I just went and showed on the plans in front of the Commission on Sheet G-6=
we
show two such basins and on Sheet SD-6 we show another temporary de-watering
basin where the rear lots are, and so certainly tried to show generously si=
zed
basins and we would be happy to agree to any further sizing requirements and
most certainly as a minimum we will size them to meet the requirements of t=
he 2002
guidelines, so we would have no discomfort in the request of staff for sizi=
ng
those and also remember these are activities that are going to be taking pl=
ace
well outside of the wetlands and wetlands buffer for the purpose of protect=
ing
the wetlands and wetlands buffer.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: This is used during the
construction, like a temporary?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: Yes, and as soon as the
ground is stabilized it goes away.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: That’s for all the lots in t=
his
area, behind
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: Yea, we tried to position them in
certain areas, and also we detailed them so if we have to put another basin=
at
another location, it would be of a similar design.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: You’re going to have calcula=
tions
to support this, or do you have them?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 14
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: The calculati=
ons
are the requirement of the storm water pollution permit required and
simplistically to use a rule of thumb, you take the contributing drainage a=
rea
and size them to hold either a half inch or one inch of runoff from that
contributing area are going to these temporary sediment basins. Statistically about 95% of all rai=
nfall
events are less than like 1 inch of rain, so consequently they’re siz=
ed
to basically hold off that water, let it settle, and let it drain more slow=
ly,
so there is a very simple formula to be used for sizing these and I’d=
like
to incorporate that formula into my reference at the point where we will be
meeting.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Could you recap for the
benefit of all of us and especially for the new members of the Board, how
you’ve dealt with the regulated activities, and I’ll read them =
for
you in case you don’t have them in front of you. #1 was the disturbance of approxim=
ately
16,000 sq. ft. of wetland buffer area by installation of a drainage pipe and
the construction f a plunge pool located on the north side of
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: As you can se=
e the
proposed road for Phase II goes in this direction and it’s also grades
down this way so a raindrop that hits here is moving in this direction, and=
at
the intersection we have catch basins to pick up that water and a drain that
goes all the way down to the wetlands, and we extended that to the base of =
the
hill because we don’t want to hold it toward the hill because we could
have erosion over that lot section, so that proposed activity is the discha=
rge
of that pipe at the wetlands.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Okay. I guess that actually was #2 also,
discharge the storm drains in to the wetland watercourse?
Mr. Sakonchick: Yes, there’s a s=
econd
pipe that comes about the middle of the road, and that also discharges down=
to
the wetlands.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: And the third i=
tem,
of regulated activity was the installation of erosion and sediment control
measures inside the wetlands and wetland buffer areas?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: As associated=
with
both those pipes discharging, we wanted to disturbed the ground to put in t=
he
pipes an we’re going to put erosion control
around that activity to protect the adjacent wetlands. It’s a temporary disturbance=
for
what I consider to be a water dependent use getting the water down to where=
it
belonged. Installation of
protection in forms of erosions control measures there, and then once a
construction is done we would retreat, take it all away and it should be
allowed to re-establish itself.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 15
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Any comment from
Commission members? Chuck, ho=
w do
you feel about that?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Those structures have =
all
been reviewed there and they are appropriately designed.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: How do you access the open spa=
ce
that’s going to be given to the Town? The only thing I see is the cul de=
sac
which is a permanent cul de sac.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Yes, the access to the open sp=
ace
will be through the Breezy Knoll Drive cul de sac right of way which ends r=
ight
there and that access is the uplands portion of the open space and that is
several hundred feet of the wetlands so they get the access it in that wood=
ed
area in the uplands portion of that open space.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: But isn’t it tru=
e you
can’t put any additional paths or anything in there because it’=
s a
permanent cul de sac?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Well talking carefully youR=
17;d
certainly put a foot path, and I think the intent of this open space, that =
if
it was going to be used by humans, to would be that kind of passive recreat=
ion.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Then you come u=
p with
parking?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: The parking would be at the cu=
l de
sac. I know when we did the f=
ield
walk for some of the commissions, the people as well as ourselves were able=
to
park at that cul de sac which is large, and walk in there, so the chances a=
re
that only 2 or 3 people would probably have an interest in going there are =
once
and that cul de sac is large enough to accept those vehicles.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Well of course that=
217;s
speculative, but I don’t know myself what they would use the open spa=
ce
for, but if you had outings for hikers and so forth there you could conceiv=
ably
have a problem there. Now hav=
e you
thought about the possibility of accessing it through Lot #58? You have an access there to lot
#58. What about including Lot=
#58
as part of the open space?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: Including Lot=
#58
or including the right to cross Lot #58 to the open space? One second ple=
ase. I want to ask.
=
E=
veryone
is looking at the maps.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 16
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: Nice comment =
and
Joe Calabrese can see some benefit to that to the owner’s of the
subdivision properties, so he would be willing to give a 30 foot wide walki=
ng
path across Lot #58, it would basically go down the driveway and then follo=
w the
lot line to the property line and then go down to the open space, (inaudibl=
e)
to avoid disturbing he house, but hat house would have a right of way on it=
to
allow resident of this subdivision to walk down this driveway, over the
grass’s to the open space. He
would be happy to agree to that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Can you point to that on the m=
ap?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: I wonder how the people would =
feel
about sharing their driveway.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: Back on the r=
ecord,
I just showed the Commission where that would be located, and
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: The open space, the upland por=
tion
is pretty much all wooded, isn’t it?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: What we proposed previously, this =
was
supposed to be passive open space and there is access at the end of Breezy
Knoll to get in there and that’s why we proposed it there, so they co=
uld
get in through there.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: That’=
s the
cul de sac.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: At the end of the cul de sac b=
ecause
that is all cut. The gentlema=
n that
owns the house there, he cut all the wood, the small brush and everything, =
so
it’s easy to walk in there from the end of Breezy Knoll and I would
prefer that, but if you would rather have the other, then we would propose =
the
other, but it’s supposed to be passive space because of, to protect t=
he
animal life in there.
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Sturgis: How big is this
passive space, how many acres?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 17
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: 22. someth=
ing
acres. Half is upland and hal=
f if
wetlands, but it’s all wooded and it’s close to the Watertown F=
ire
District, that’s why they prefer to have it passive, cause
it’s near the pond.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: On Phase I, you
granted a 200 foot easement on the east side of the valley, as you referred=
to
the wetlands, the valley. Hav=
e you
considered that same thing? I=
know
right now that stands at 100 feet.
Have you considered a 200 feet easement on the west side of the vall=
ey
in conjunction with what Jodie Chase I think recommended in terms of a wide
area there to protect the wetlands and the wildlife?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: We did give that serious
consideration and I actually think Jodie regretted the way she worded that
because it did create that 200 foot easement area which wan’ the orig=
inal
intent. We feel that the 50 f=
oot
regulated area gives adequate protection.&=
nbsp;
The addition of an addition 100 feet gives very good protection that
exceeds the current D.E.P. recommendation of 100 foot buffer from the edge =
of
the wetlands; we’re exceeding that by 50% so we feel that is very
adequate and very realistic because we need to balance that with the
expectations that the owners of these properties will want to have some use=
of
their land, and thus gives them the right to pretty much develop about an a=
cre
easily and very few people want to cut much more lawn than that, so I think
it’s a nice balance and 50% exceeding the recommendations of the
D.E.P. (Tape #1, Side B ended
– may have missed some.)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: The buffer zone will be 150 fe=
et, so
the 50 feet wetland regulated area, upland regulated area, 100 feet of
conservation easement.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: Is there anyo=
ne
from the public who wishes to speak at this point? Let the record show no one respond=
ed
from the public.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: Just to sum up, I think Mr.
Sakonchick has placed into the record a positive response to all of the
comments from staff. Mr. Cala=
brese
is prepared to accept all of those comments, so I don’t believe at th=
is
point there are any outstanding issues, and I would ask the Commission to C=
lose
the Public Hearing, and obviously any vote would be acceptable to contain
compliance with all of the recommendations of Mr. Berger and staff. Thank you.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 18
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well I kind of =
get
the feeling that there are still things that need to be resolved in terms of
Mr. Berger’s memorandum and they should be resolved in writing and to=
be
pinned down for sure. I appla=
ud
your efforts for Mr. Sakonchick’s commentary tonight in trying to cov=
er
everything, but I’m not so sure that this doesn’t leave us open=
to
some dangling inconsistencies. How
do you feel about that Chuck?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: There are a number of changes =
that
will be required in the plans as a result of my memo and Mr. SakonchickR=
17;s
agreement to incorporate my comments.
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Zawadzki: Right, and if we close the Hearing tonight we can’t get in any new data at this point, right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I’ll let Moosa answer th=
at
one.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Mr. Chairman, you =
have
until March 25th. =
If you
want you can have a special meeting before March 25th to Close the Public Hearing to get all of this information
together.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: That’s one option.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: If Mr. Sakonchick =
can
provide all these comments in writing and these revisions on the map, and g=
ive
it to Mr. Berger by next week.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: I mean we’ve got a lot of
stuff here just tonight. Mr.
Berger’s memorandum just came on our desk tonight and these drawings =
just
came on our desk tonight. It =
seems
to me that these things should be pinned down. I’d be open to holding a spe=
cial
meeting if you feel we can rap this stuff up say in 4 or 5 days and have it
back to staff so they can study it.
We have until the 25th of March, which is 2 weeks from
tonight.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: We will do an=
ything
this Commission desires.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: These are more than technical
details, I take it.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I think the major=
ity of
them are technical details. <=
span
class=3DGramE>There’s a lot of changes on the plans that the
Commission didn’t get to see until tonight and there’s more, all
the ones in my memo of today need to be incorporated on the next set of pla=
ns
so there is a significant number of changes need to be made. I don’t see any of them being
insurmountable based on Mr. Sakonchick’s responses tonight but there =
are
a number of changes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 19
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Okay let me ask the Commission=
members, we have a couple of options here as I see it.=
The public hearing technically can=
be
held open until March 25th, which is 2 weeks from tonight. If we ask the applicant to submit =
the
changes that have been recommended and the revisions and the drawings in
writing in sufficient time, not on the evening of the 25th, but =
in
sufficient time for staff to review them, then we can call a special meeting
assuming that the Commission members would be available for a special meeti=
ng
the week of the 25th.
How do you feel about that?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: I’d like =
to ask
Mr. Berger, whatever that we don’t have today, do you think it’s
important to have a special meeting or do you feel comfortable the way it w=
as
presented tonight?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: That’s a difficult quest=
ion to
answer. I want to see all the=
se
things on the plans before I sign off on them.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: Then I feel we =
should
have a special meeting.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Jones: I’d second that.?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Yes, I agre=
e.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Do you want to pick a date so =
the
applicant knows?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: I’m perso=
nally
not available on the 25th, but we could do the 24th.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> That’s a Wednesday.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: That would be better for me to=
o.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Keep the Public Hearing Open for App. #486=
of
Guernseytown Farms Estates, LLC, Phase II for 26 lot residential subdivision
and extension of Bayview Circle, Watertown, CT and have a Special Meeting on
March 23, 2004.
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 20
&= nbsp; A discussion took place regarding the location and date of the Special Meetin= g, and also when Mr. Sakonchick would get the revisions to staff.
Mr.
Beauchamp was the only member who would not be available on March 23, 2004.=
Public
Hearing Recessed at 8:30 p.m. (no time given).
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary