MINUTES<= o:p>
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
TUESDAY,=
MARCH
23, 2004 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
<=
/span> Glen
Dupliese
=
&nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 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: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Bernard
Beauchamp
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 7:31 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Beauchamp, in his
absence.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 2
Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record, as
follows:
“Rules For Condu=
ct of
Public Hearing
1. =
The
applicant, or his representative will make his formal presentation to the
Commission stating the proposed regulated activity, 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 Chair.
This is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time speak on =
any
issue, thus making it easier for everyone to understand for clearer, legal
transcription.
3. =
All
persons addressing the Board shall begin by first clearly stating their nam=
es
and addresses for the record. If
necessary, the person may be asked to spell his name for the record.
4. =
Following
the presentation of the applicant the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlan=
ds
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 wishes to speak either in favor of this applicati=
on
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.
7. =
I
shall then allow members of the general public who wish to present any
additional information or clarifying discussion, to do so.
8. =
I
shall then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of=
the
general public. 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 then provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these
additional remarks if he or his representative so wishes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 3
10. The
Conservation Commission has 45 days from the date that the Public Hearing
commences to complete the Public Hearing.&=
nbsp;
The Commission may ask the applicant for a 45 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; 11. The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency has 35 days from the date when
the Public Hearing is Closed to render its decision.”
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of Public Hearing from March 11, 2004 - Application #486 of Guernseytown Fa=
rms
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 March 25, 2004.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Jim Sakonchick, Engineer, Kratzert=
&
Jones
Mr. Sakonchick: What we have done sinc=
e the
last Public Hearing is to address a series of concerns of the Engineering
staff, Chuck Berger, and we had Chuck look at the maps we submitted at the =
last
Public Hearing. He came back =
with a
series of technical comments and we have modified the maps to take care of =
those
technical comments. Perhaps t=
he
best way to, there are a couple of ways I can give an overall description
narrative of the type of changes we made, and if the Commission wishes I can
also approach where you have the plans and show where the changes were done=
in
the plans and the nature of those changes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: You received a little packet
tonight, I gave it to all the Commission members. Mr. Sakonchick, do you want to go
through this, because everybody has a copy of this, it will be easier to go
item by item?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: You must be referring to that =
Xerox
of mine?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Yes, the fax that you sent to =
Mr.
Berger. I have extra copies i=
f you
want one.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 4
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Okay, what we have here is Mr.
Berger’s memo, and I took a magic marker and kind of summarized the
changes made, and then what I did is I went to a graphic and I took another
copy of Mr. Berger’s memo and cut out each comment and attached to it=
a
graphic of my revised plans and how it was addressed with the areas
outlined. For example, he wan=
ted me
to do something with the manhole and discharge over here and what we did th=
ere
was we removed the manholes and we extended the pipes to the open space and=
we
made sure that those pipes included the drain from the fire tank that is be=
ing
placed near the road, so that was adequately addressed.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; The next thing describes revisions to lots #47, #48, #49, and #60 and this was = his desire to have clear easements from one lot across another whenever a footi= ng or curtain drain or other site drainage crosses. We added easements to the map whic= h can be seen here shaded, and have enlarged versions of the same where we show h= ow pipes can drain and effectively drain across those easements to solve those issues.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Can you show on the
large map so they can see where they are located on the subdivision?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Sure.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Dupliese: Does this set of plans reflect=
those
changes?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: Yes. Basically the concerns were about =
was
the fact that the slope of the land is at a slight angle to the lot line, so
consequently when a footing drain discharges it’s going to want to go
overland at an angle. We did =
not
want to have to extend pipes needlessly through a tree line. We like to stop them close to the =
edge
of a tree line, but that means from that point on it’s just going to =
flow
downhill as a slope (inaudible) so by creating those easements the water wo=
uld
be flowing in an easement where the person buying that lot knows he has this
responsibility to allow the water to drain in that easement area. So that’s what the intent of=
these
graphics are.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Pushing
forward to Lot #50, here he wanted us to extend an easement in the edge of =
the
wetlands buffer and we did that.
Now this wasn’t extending the pipes, again this is just someth=
ing
on paper so that everybody knows where the easement is.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 5
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Going
forward to the next sheet where they start talking about comments #3, Lots =
#45,
#36, #37, and #38. We have th=
e same
theory being done that we had to create easements on the lots, in the rear =
of
the lots within the tree line so that water can flow overland through easem=
ent. As you flip through the next 3 pag=
es
you’ll see different areas shaded and circled with magic marker and t=
hese
are the changes, and again all these are activities outside of the wetlands=
and
outside of the wetlands buffer, simply creating easement on the uplands
portions of the lots.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Why
don’t I stop there. We
flipped through a lot of pages to see if anybody is a little confused on th=
at
point.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: If you look at your packet, a =
copy
of Mr. Berger’s memo is in the packet and his response (inaudible) on
that memo, dated March 18th.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: Is everybody comfortable so
far? Now there’s a thin=
g that
says calculations in support and details of a proposed drainage structure a=
nd
swale on Lot #50 should be provided.
On this packet I’m saying in progress, and the reason is we got
his comments on the 18th, we worked Friday and over the weekend =
and
we wanted to give him a response before noon on Monday, so to the extent we
could take care of all the comments we did. There were two things in progress,
basically the calculations on Lot #50 and some other narrative type
calculations. Those were done=
and
delivered today to Chuck so that they’ve also been taken care of, so =
the
things that say in progress, the file is now complete with those answers.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; He
makes a comment saying that should the approval of section 2 be considered,=
the
structure (inaudible) is approved for Phase 1 would have to be constructed =
in
order to make Phase II complete; we understand that and agree to it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; He
was also looking for the narrative description of the alternates and I poin=
ted
out to him where it was on the left hand edge of Sheet A3 so that has also =
been
taken care of in the file.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; On
Sheet SD6 he pointed to an interpretation of the 2002 Guidelines which requ=
ire
slightly larger temporary sediment ponds and we’re happy to do that,
we’ve made that change and that is now incorporated into the requirem=
ents
of the job.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 6
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; So
what I’d like to summarize is that there were my theories of technical
requirements that required revisions to the plan. We, to our knowledge, made all of =
the
changes he requested and I believe that the plans are substantially and
hopefully within his requirements at this time.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Did you cover this, Item #2,
calculation in support of and details of the proposed swale and drainage
structures located on Lot #50 should be provided and you have in progress.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> When would that be completed?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: That has been completed and be=
en
delivered to Moosa, he has a copy in his hands and it has also been diverte=
d to
Chuck.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: We received this today and I
didn’t make copies for the Commission members because they are all
technical numbers and data but we have them in the file, and Mr. Berger
received a copy today.
Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>Can I ask a question a=
bout
the, I would recommend that a narrative description be provided for the
alternatives presented on Sheet A1, A2, and A3. Many of the proposed lots containe=
d in
the various alternatives do not appear to be feasible. What’s the implication of th=
at
statement? Or is it just a co=
mment?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: My thinking in making, it is j=
ust a
comment, it’s more for the Commission to understand what is shown on
those last 3 sheets of the plan.
There is a lot of information on those 3 sheets and I thought a
narrative description would help sort of sort out, because all 3 phases are
shown on those sheets. ItR=
17;s
even difficult for me to really focus in on what the different alternatives
were trying to show us.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: So in other words the fact that
they’re not feasible means that alternative isn’t feasible
really? Yes, thank you.
Mr. Rafey: Chuck, do you have you
previous set of plans that shows that sheet?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: No, the set of pl=
ans
that you have before you contain just the revised sheets.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Unidentified
Voice: After the 18th
memo.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 7
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: This is the narrative?=
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Do you feel that all of the
questions that you asked the last time and whatever you received today, you=
got
all of your questions answered?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I believe they=
217;ve
been substantially answered. =
If
there has not been a detailed review of what I revised this afternoon, what=
I
received this afternoon, excuse me, a cursor review it looked like it has a=
ddressed
the issues. If there are any
revisions it would be minor technical adjustments, certainly I don’t
believe anything that would affect your decision making tonight, or not
decision making, but Closing the Hearing.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Could you m=
aybe
just summarize these alternatives?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: Yes. Basically there were 3 alternatives
talked about, and since we’re talking about this area for Phase II, t=
he
first thing we noticed is wetlands in that valley on the east side of Phase=
II,
as well as an extensive wetlands in the valley on the west side of Phase II,
and this is our first study layout even before the field surveying was done,
and that makes sense because if you know where you might be putting a road,
rather than survey just the perimeter of the property you also survey where=
the
roads are in order to discover surprises.&=
nbsp;
And the first thing we noticed is we had a road at Bayview Circle, a
road at Wheeler’s Farm Road, and the ability to connect those two by
following the crest of the hill, which is a nice thing because by definition
the road would be furthest away from the wetlands on each side, a good
thing. We noticed a lot of up=
lands
on the maps over here so we proposed a cul de sac, we actually proposed a r=
oad
connecting to Breezy Knoll, but that was rejected after staff, Mary, said t=
hat
wasn’t a good idea. She=
did
not want a connection here cause there is a wetlands strip through here.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 8
So then we really came=
up
with a plan that we thought was both feasible and prudent and that was deve=
lop
two short cul de sacs and positioning those cul de sacs short of the wetlan=
ds
and wetlands buffer and having uplands on each one of the potential lots of=
f of
the cul de sacs, and on a typical application where you’re trying to
maximize lots this is what we would have come in with. It has a lot of criteria that do m=
eet
the customary prudent and feasible alternatives criteria. We’re out of the wetlands, w=
e have
no wetlands crossing, and we can develop these lots substantially without
interfering with the wetlands or even the wetlands buffer. But we tried to go to a higher sta=
ndard
and we said well what are we looking to protect. This is an extensive wetlands that=
actually
connects to the Watertown Fire District public water supply. Wouldn’t it be nice to kind =
of
create some protected area over there in order to benefit those wetlands, a=
nd
that’s why we did a final alternative where this road was abandoned, =
this
road was abandoned, and 22 acres of open space with half wetlands, half
uplands, adjacent to the Watertown Fire District was developed, so thatR=
17;s
where we really came up with a plan that’s even a better alternative =
and
that’s why our current plan only shows the road going along the crest=
of
the hill and just a couple of rear lots in this area and most of this being=
the
open space location. I can al=
so
report that the Watertown Fire District was approached to see if they would
want to take title to the open space and they love it because it makes sense
for them.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Talking about open
space, I received two letters, one from the Watertown Fire District regardi=
ng
open space, if you want to read it into the record, and another record from=
the
Watertown Land Trust.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the following letters:
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; “Watertown
Fire District
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 24
Deforest Street
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Watertown,
CT 06795
March 22, 2004
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Guernseytown
Farms Estates LLC
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 1460
Guernseytown Road
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Watertown,
CT 06795
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; ATTN: Mr. Joseph A. Calabrese
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Dear
Mr. Calabrese:’
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; I
have revised the letter of March 19, 2004 form Attorney Parlato regarding t=
he
designated open space lands for the project “Guernseytown Farms Estat=
es
Subdivision”. It is my
understanding that you desire to donate these lands designated as open spac=
e to
the Watertown Fire District. =
The
open space lands directly abut land currently owned by the District in the =
area
of Judd Pond.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; I
support District acceptance of this land.&=
nbsp;
This letter will serve as notice to you of our acceptance, subject to
formal approval by the District’s Board of Commissioners. I will present this information to =
the
Board, along with my recommendation for approval, at their next regular mee=
ting
scheduled for Monday, April 12.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Very
truly,
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ernest
R. Coppock, III
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Superintendent”
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; “The
Watertown Land Trust, Inc.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; P.O.
Box 382
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Watertown,
CT 06795
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; March
23, 2004
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Conservation
Inland-Inland Wetlands Agency
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 51
Depot Square
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Watertown,
CT 06795
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Dear
Commissioners:
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Although
the Land Trust Executive Committee will not meet until next week to discuss=
the
possibility of our receiving the 22+ acres of open space from the Guernseyt=
own
Farms Subdivision we can say in a general way that we would welcome owning =
this
tract of land.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Very
truly yours,
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Gail
A. Sangree”
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 10
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; (Tape
#1, Side A ended – may have missed some.)
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Any comments from the
Commission? Does anyone from =
the
public wish to make any comments concerning this application? They can do so at this time. Let the record show no one came fo=
rward
from the public. Any other
questions from Commission members?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: I just want to remind the Comm=
ission
members that if you have any questions, this is the time to ask. The applicant is here and Mr. Sako=
nchick
is here to answer your questions.
Once you Close the Public Hearing then they cannot participate in a
discussion with you.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: How do you feel,
Chuck? Any additional comment=
s?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Not at this time. There may be some minor technical
comments based on the detailed review of the information I got today as wel=
l as
possibly some further refinement of the temporary sediment traps, the numbe=
rs of
those and their locations, but again those should be pretty minor in nature=
.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: But once again,=
you
don’t have any new questions because basically what they can respond =
to
are questions that are already on the table.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: They’ve all=
been addressed.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Even after this Hearin=
g is
Closed, but anything new would have to be presented now.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: No, I don’t,
there’s nothing new; all of the items have been addressed.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Thermer) to Close the Public Hearing for 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
Mr. Sakonchick:
Thank you for your time and patience.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #486 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE II
MARCH 23, 2004
PAGE 11
Public
Hearing Closed at 8:00 p.m..
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary