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
#487 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE III
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 about 10:15 =
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 Mr. Peluso to sit in for Ms. Kuegler, in her
absence. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #487 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE III<=
o:p> 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
#487 of Guernseytown Farms, LLC for construction of Phase III of Guernseyto=
wn
Farms Estates consists of 10 residential building lots located on the north
side of Killorin Road and east side of Guernseytown Road Watertown, CT in an
R-70 Residential Zoning District.
Construction of Phase III of Guernseytown Farms Estates involves the
following regulated activities: 1. &n=
bsp;
Installation of footing drains inside the wetland
buffer areas on Lots #62, #67, #69, and #70. 2. Discharge of footing d=
rains
from Lots #62, #67, #69 and #70 inside the 50 foot wetland buffer area. 3. Disturbance of approxi=
mately
4,500 sq. ft. of a watercourse/wetland buffer area by construction of a
driveway on proposed Lot #70. 4. Installation of erosio=
n and
sediment control measures inside wetland and wetlands 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 #487 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE III<=
o:p> JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 3 3. =
Hearing
of Applications &=
nbsp; D. Application
#487 of Guernseytown Farms Estates, LLC, Phase III for 10 lot residential
subdivision, Guernseytown Road, 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; James Sakonchick, Engineer, Kratze=
rt
Jones & Associates &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: Now the third=
phase
is on this, there’s a different plan because it’s rotated. North is on the right hand side of=
the
sheet. Phase I is the dark gr=
een,
Phase II is the road going up the middle, Phase III is the top of the sheet=
. Now the reason I’m using thi=
s plan
for Phase III is because it has a lot of contrast between the colors, so if=
I
can outline Phase III you can see that here’s Killorin Road, Guernsey=
town
Road, but the actual property has a lot of jogs. We have frontage along Killorin Ro=
ad and
then there’s an out parcel, we have a little piece here, a little pie=
ce
here, a little piece here and a little piece here. So along this road frontage itR=
17;s
very fragmented. Also the Pha=
se III
area being all of this, and the wetlands colored very lightly and the wetla=
nds
buffer being the darkest green, you can see that we have this large contigu=
ous
wetlands area over here, and just like in Phase II previously discussed we
eliminated all the roads going to it.
We very briefly entert=
ained
the idea of bringing a road in right through this green area over here, and
quickly abandoned it. Not onl=
y did
nit not make sense from a wetlands perspective, environmental perspective, =
but
it did not make sense economically so it just was a no go. So we certainly identified the fro=
ntage
already constructed and chose to take advantage of that frontage and did by
just developing driveways and houses off of that frontage on lots, many of =
the
lots well over the minimum size required for this zone. In fact if you took the total squa=
re
footage of all this and divided by the number of lots created, some of the
density concerns others have expressed in the past, I don’t believe a=
pply
to this space because we’re doing a low density development here. What we’re doing is we’=
;re
basically creating a series of lots off of the frontage. There would be a house here, a sec=
ond
house there, so two houses on Killorin Road. There would be a house coming off =
of
Guernseytown at this first green area.&nbs=
p;
There is an existing house right over here, the old farmhouse,
it’s technically a subdivision lot included in Phase III because
it’s on the land and we’re limiting what left with that
farmhouse. We’re develo=
ping
two lots on the road in this middle section, as well as a rear lot and then
we’re developing, here’s where Joe Calabrese currently lives.
“Legal Notice
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #487 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE III<= o:p>
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 4
So that is the alterna=
tives
we considered. This explains =
some
of the site constraints we just chose to work around and why we chose to
develop this in a relatively low density manner with minimal impacts and I =
think
the only necessary impacts, you got to have a house (inaudible) if you̵=
7;re
going to do a subdivision lot and you have to have a drive, so we really tr=
ied
to take advantage of the situation in that way.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Now
the impacts are listed for Moosa, makes reference to the fact that we have
installation footing drains inside the wetlands buffer for certain lots and
that’s because there’s not a lot of grade on this side of the
property compared to what we saw in Phase II and I. It is very gently sloping. Again water flows downhill. You got to get to a point where
it’s low enough so water can discharge from a footing drain or a curt=
ain
drain around the septic system.
Basically a water dependent use.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; And
then we’ve got disturbance of about 4,500 sq. ft. of a watercourse
wetlands buffer for Lot #70, and again that is the lot right next to the
reservoir. During the field w=
alk we
walked over there, and yes we are in a wetlands buffer, but the ground is
already high, it is already long, and it’s already graded pretty darn
close to the way we’re going to be bringing out driveway in, so that =
the
effect of that disturbance on the wetlands buffer, I believe is minimal bec=
ause
it’s already mostly in and open way, in fact you can drive your vehic=
le
back and forth there today if you chose to drive over the grass area.
In order to control any
increase in runoff due to all this development we have incorporated a drain=
age
analysis that takes advantage of all three phases in order to properly cont=
rol
runoff so that there’s no increase in any of the discharge points from
this subdivision.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Is this a combined
report for both phases?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: That is a combined rep=
ort
for all three phases. We took=
the
report for Phase I and added additional information that would be pertinent=
to
Phases II and III. In fact on=
the
copy I gave Chuck I even put a little piece of tape on the part I want him =
to
look at first cause that might be the place to start.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: But they are
separate. There’s a sep=
arate
analysis for each of the 3 phase?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sakonchick: No, it is an analysis
combined for all 3 phases because . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #487 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE III<= o:p>
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 5
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: It’s one, all 3 together=
?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sakonchick: Yes. In other words unfortunately Phase=
I and
II discharge into an identical watershed so they have to be considered toge=
ther
and Phase II and III in parts discharge to an identical watershed so they h=
ad
to be considered together, so segmenting each individual area did not seem
logical.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: The questio=
n is
have they answered all 6 of these points that Chuck raised in his memo?
Mr. Sakonchick: I certainly tried.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: So there=
217;s
nothing we can do until you guys review it. I move we Table it until the Staff=
has
had a chance to review it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: We have to ask for public
participation.
Mr. Rafey: The Environmental Impa=
ct
Study, does it also include the wetland impacts on Phase III?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: It does, yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Jim, have you looked at the effect =
on
Judd Pond? It was raised on t=
otal
project, and I know of course we’ve been discussing runoff obviously,=
but
is any of this going to impact on Judd Pond?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: I would say not. I would try to defend that this
way. We used what I consider =
to be
a very conservative way for figuring and verifying that we’re not
increasing runoff. It could be
argued that Judd Pond has such a large surface area and that our small
difference, our small increase in impervious area would have a quantity of
extra flow that might increase the surface of Judd Pond a 16th of an inch a=
nd
show that that really doesn’t affect the discharge rate from Judd Pon=
d,
Judd Pond being a natural and large detention basin, but we didn’t do
that. We said well let’=
s take
a very conservative approach and develop these little holding structures at
areas we can where we can develop them well outside of wetlands and wetland
buffer where we can position them to take quite a bit of the impervious area
developed by a couple of the rear lots in Phase II and where we can pick up=
a
pretty good flat area of drainage in the Phase III area.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #487 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE III<= o:p>
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 6
An advantage of these
depressions is they will hold the water in a large, shallow ponding area th=
at
is vegetated that meets all the type of criteria looked for in a Best
Management Practice. It allow=
s any
particles to settle. It allow=
s the
particles to settle in an area that has a growth, basically grass or trees =
or
whatever they let it grow wild in, that has a lot of biological uptake, so =
that
these ponds in addition to the discussion we talked about them preventing
increase in runoff, they also have a very good filtering effect, so by taki=
ng
these advantages. And also our
driveways are going to be without curbs, they’re just going to sheet =
flow
onto the grass to the side, with the long distance before they get to the
wetlands buffer or to the wetlands themselves, so all these things, we̵=
7;re
basically doing a lot of things that I read that you should do for Best
Management Practices.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Now will those basins be construct=
ed so
that the water will be able to soak in and percolate through into the groun=
d,
right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sakonchick: They will encourage percolatio=
n into
the ground as well as draining through the curtain drain to be built in the
bottom of them, remembering that as has been noted by a neighbor here, these
soils do absorb a lot of water, but they are relatively, they have low
percolation rate. The ability=
for
water to travel through them is relatively slow, enough to take care of a
septic system, but you would probably, if you didn’t have an outflow
structure that would fill up once, and probably just stay there. I mean the reason we have ponds in=
the
wetlands here is because in fact it does absorb so slowly.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Calabrese: One other poin=
t I
want to point out, which is important, all those fields in Phase III and II
they were cornfields, hayfields, for many, many years, and all of that woul=
d go
into Judd Pond. We’re
eliminating that. A lot of ti=
mes
they would use fertilizer or cow manure which is not good for water, but th=
at
same area, which is a large, large area, and you have maybe approximately in
the wetland area, 50 acres, there’s water that small amount, cause we
only have 10 houses on Guernseytown Road and Killorin, that’s all
we’re adding, 10 houses. The
other side we’re adding 3, that’s all for this whole big area so
the density is zip compared to anything else so there is so much land here =
and
good land to drain all this small amount of water that’s coming off t=
he
roofs and driveways that it’s like almost nothing, but in comparison =
to
what was there before, hay and corn and fertilizer and cow manure, it’=
;s
much, much cleaner than even if we didn’t put the ponds, and thatR=
17;s
taking into consideration II and III, so it’s a large area for 10, 13
houses.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #487 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE III<= o:p>
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 7
You have many, many ma=
ny
acres there to dissipate any water, but we’re going to take care of t=
hat,
when we say a pond, now we could reshape this pond, we could make it 1 foot=
and
make it a little larger. We h=
ave
room there, I mean if somebody is concerned about the height, we could adju=
st
those. But he dealt with it d=
oubly
in comparison to what he needs. He
added more, but if Chuck happens to think he needs more, we can make it buf=
fer,
and shallower.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I think Mr. Calabr=
ese,
you should talk to Jody Chase to make a comment on the impact of this
development on Judd Pond, just to get a little . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Calabrese: Okay, I will. I wanted to get her here but we on=
ly had
10 days. I was shocked. I happen to catch her at the right
time. I didn’t think I =
was
going to be able to have this for this meeting because you asked me when we=
met
10 days ago, approximately, and I just caught her on a day that she had
¾ of a day free, so she came down that morning, and 2 days after you
asked me and I was very fortunate to get someone to react that fast. She would be here tonight but she =
had
another appointment already. =
Now I
could have her here next week if you want.=
Next month.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Just ask her to provide something a=
bout
the impact of the development on Judd Pond.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: In the report.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Calabrese: Yes, I will.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Anything else?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Anybody from the public have anyth=
ing
else to say on Phase III, App. #487?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: Just one clarific=
ation,
maybe for Moosa. Where are we=
in
the timeframe for this application and the one prior?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: We can continue this until February=
19th. At that time if the Commission nee=
ds
additional time we can ask for a 35 day extension.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: At the February meeting we can ask =
for
another 35 day extension?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #487 – GUERNSEYTOWN FARMS ESTATES LLC, PHASE III<= o:p>
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 8
Mr. Berger: And then the Commiss=
ion
will have used up all its time?
Mr. Rafey: No, after they Close t=
he
Public Hearing the Commission has 65 days to make a decision.
Mr. Zawadzki: But we can̵= 7;t get any more data submitted from the applicant.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Then we’ll look at the revised
plans and the reports that were submitted tonight and see if they were
satisfactory.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yes, I just wanted to know if we w=
ere in
the timeframe.
Mr. Rafey: Yes, we have time.
Mr. Calabrese: Chuck, I reapplied,
we’re on for February 4th for the Planning and Zoning, so =
the
date we agreed on is still in play, so we have to have it by then.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, if we don’t have a=
ny
more comments from the public or the Commission, I’m looking for a Mo=
tion
to Table Application #487 until February 19th.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table App. #487 of Guernseytown Farms
Estates, LLC< Phase III for 10 lot residential subdivision, Guernseytown
Road, Watertown, CT.
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at 10:45 p.m.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 5 minute Recess at 10:45 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary