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
#488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
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 10:51 p.m.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, asked Mr. Undercuffler to be the Acting Secretary.=
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call. Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, asked Mr. Peluso to sit in for Ms. Kuegler, in her
absence. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO 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
#488 of Patrick Graziano for Phase III of Pond View Estates “Fox
Crossings” consists of subdivision of 41.54 acre parcel into 18
residential building lots, construction of 2,500 linear foot of new roadway=
s,
and construction of a detention pond located on the east side of Middlebury
Road and west side of Kimberly Lane, Watertown, CT in an R-30 Residential
Zoning District. The following
regulated activities are proposed: 1. &n=
bsp;
Filling of approximately 7,160 sq. ft. of an inland
wetland/watercourse for construction of proposed Lovely Drive. 2. Realignment of approxi=
mately
150 linear feet of a watercourse for installation of 88 linear feet of a 12
foot x 5 foot precast box culvert. 3. Filling of approximate=
ly
8,815 sq. ft. of wetland/watercourse buffer area for construction of Lovely
Drive. 4. Disturbance of 980 sq.=
ft.
of wetland buffer area by road grading near Middlebury Road entrance. 5. Disturbance of 1,600 s=
q. ft.
of wetland buffer area by road grading at Station 23+00 Lovely Drive. 6. Disturbance of 14,700 =
sq.
ft. of wetland buffer area for construction of proposed detention pond. 7. Disturbance of approxi=
mately
4,500 sq. ft. of wetland buffer area by construction of a 12 foot x 280 foot
access driveway to proposed detention pond. 8. Discharge of storm run=
off
into wetlands/watercourse. 9. Installation of erosio=
n and
sediment control measures inside wetland/ watercourse and wetland buffer ar=
ea. 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. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 3 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” 3. =
Hearing
of Applications &=
nbsp; E. =
Application
#488 of Patrick Graziano for 18 lot residential subdivision, “Fox
Crossings” Phase III Pond View Estates and extension of Lovely Drive,
Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by February 19, 2004, unless appli=
cant
grants a time extension. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Franklin Pilicy, Attorney Represen=
ting
Applicant &=
nbsp; =
; Atty.
Pilicy: This application =
is a
little bit different than many that you receive because one of the major
wetland activities is the road extended out to Middlebury Road, this Commis=
sion
is obviously familiar with that concept, it’s been before you before a
couple of times so I did prepare a short memorandum in support of the
application that focuses on that component of the application, so I’ll
pass this out and then read as much into the record as you’d like me =
to
read. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; It’s
addressed to the Commission with today’s date, referencing Application
#488. It reads: “The Referenced application
includes a Subdivision Plan to construct a subdivision road (extension of
Lovely Drive) from the end of Phase II to existing Middlebury Road. The Wetlands Statutes =
were
Amended in 1996, and I cite the public act, there were two public acts that
year that provided amendments, but these amendments added key definitions, I
guess, to the wetlands statutes that previously were not contained within t=
he
Statutes. And the definition =
of
“feasible” and “prudent” was added and I cited those
definitions. Feasible means able to=
be
constructed or implemented consistent with sound engineering principals. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 4 Prudent means economic=
ally
and otherwise reasonable in light of the social benefits to be derived from=
the
proposed regulated activity provided cost may be considered in deciding wha=
t is
prudent, and further provided a mere showing of expense will not necessarily
mean an alternative is imprudent. These definitions were=
first
contained in the Connecticut Supreme Court decision in 1993 and prior to th=
at
there was no real definition of the term feasible or the term prudent. So the Legislature adopted basical=
ly
what the Supreme Court devised as an interpretation of those terms. When we take that as a
starting point and look at the Watertown Plan of Development, Watertown ado=
pted
two Plans of Development, the first in 1963, and the present plan was updat=
ed
and adopted in 1992. But the
original plan talked in a general way about connect the roads that would
circulate traffic through Town without necessarily everyone using only the =
main
street. The 92 plan, the curr=
ent
plan is a lot more specific in describing where the east/west corridor
connector roads should go and it specifically discusses on Pages 29, 30, 30=
A,
32 and 33 and those pages from the Plan I’ve attached to this
memorandum. The plan as origi=
nally
adopted described the need for the east/west connector roads generally. The present plan at Page 34, #7, #=
8, and
#9, specifically describe the importance, and I’m quoting now of a new
connection through vacant land from Middlebury Road to Straits Turnpike in =
the
vicinity of McDonald Road which is exactly where we are. I sum this up by stati=
ng
that it is the position of the applicant that the proposed road plan is the
most feasible and prudent design plan for the new subdivision road taking i=
nto
account the statutory definitions.
The obvious social benefits are the fact that this important east/we=
st
connector road has been identified in the Plan of Development for approxima=
tely
40 years. The Plan of Develop=
ment
also provides, when you get into it that the land use agencies shall encour=
age
the subdivider to bear the cost for building these roads because if left to=
the
Town, it would be many, many years before these connector roads would ever =
get
built. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 5 The applicant hereby
incorporates into this Record the previous road plan that was denied by this
Commission because the new road plan is trying to take into account and
mitigate or minimize some of the impacts that were present with the old roa=
d,
but nevertheless it is a connector that still goes out to Middlebury Road
because that’s what the Plan of Development tells us that we have to
do. (Tape #4, Side A ended &#=
8211;
may have missed some.) but it’s also been made very clear to this
applicant through proceedings before the Planning Commission that the Plann=
ing
Commission will require this road to be a connector road again, the obvious
reason is it’s been part of the overall plan of road networking for o=
ver
40 years. And I felt in concludi=
ng the
memorandum that the prior applications for the similar activities can and
should serve as an example of some of the feasible and prudent alternatives
that the statute requires, and there’s a recent court decision from 2=
003
Connecticut Supreme Court that tells us that the Commission appropriately
considered as feasible and prudent alternate design the contents of prior
applications to develop the same property. Now I’m not goin=
g to
read the portions of the Comprehensive Plan except to point out both the
recommendations and on Page 34 #7, #8, and #9, that the specific quote, tha=
t I
cited earlier about the new connection through vacant land from Middlebury =
Road
to Straits Turnpike. So I just
wanted to put this in the record with he definitions and explain that this =
is
really the only place that you can put this road and have the least possible
impact on the wetlands and still get the connector road that the Town tells=
us
that we have to build. With t=
hat I
guess Steve George is going to speak first. &=
nbsp; =
; Ste=
ve
George, BS Associates, Watertown, CT
06795 &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
George: I think everybody is
familiar with the site, and I’ll just give a quick description of the
plan. Basically it’s a =
18 lot
residential subdivision. It&#=
8217;s
on about 41.5 acres of land. =
The
proposal that we have here is an extension of Lovely Drive from Hidden Oaks
Subdivision. It was previously
approved and it connects out to Middlebury Road. We’re also providing open sp=
ace, about
13.7 acres of open space total, which is about 1/3 of the total acreage of =
the
parcel. The required open spa=
ce is
about 4.5 acres. Of the open =
space
that we’re providing 7 acres is wetlands and the remainder 6.5 acres =
is
non-wetlands. I’ll poin=
t out
the open space areas. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 6 Coming off of Middlebu=
ry
Road we have open space on either side of the road. A portion of it is wetlands, some =
is
non-wetlands soils. The space=
on
the south side of the road, the open space goes all the way from Middlebury
Road and wraps around to Lovely Drive and is interconnected with the propos=
ed
detention pond and it comes out to Lovely Drive. There is another section of open s=
pace
that we have that about a 2 acre parcel that connects with 5 acres of open
space that the town now has, and that was from the Pond View Estates
Subdivision. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
wetlands impacts that we have on this proposal, we have 4 locations. The first is within the 50 foot
buffer. Basically it’s =
for
just a small portion of the road is within the 50 foot buffer. It’s basically the radius of=
the
road entering from Middlebury Road that crosses into the 50 foot buffer and
we’re disturbing a little bit of the area in there just for road grad=
ing. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
second area that we have is the largest of our impacts which is the crossing
of, there’s a little stream here that ties into Wattles Brook and
we’re proposing to cross that.
That’s about a 7,600 sq. ft. disturbance to the wetlands. We’re proposing to cross tha=
t with
a box culvert, which is 12 x 5 feet and has a total length of 88 feet. 50 feet is basically a section thr=
ough
here, we’re in the 50 foot right of way and then immediately at the e=
nd
of the right of way we’re coming down at a 2:1 slope. We have about a 7 foot fill in the=
re and
so by the time we tie in that gives us about an 88 foot length of culvert.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Inside the culvert we’re pro=
posing
on our plans we have natural streambed material which that won’t cons=
ist
entirely of natural streambed material in the culvert. To prevent that material from eros=
ion
what we’ll actually do is the existing channel now is about, it varie=
s in
length, it’s roughly 3 to 4 feet wide and it’s maybe 6 or 8 inc=
hes
deep so we’re going to, once the box culvert is built, we’re go=
ing
to place natural material in there, but below that, in the center of the
culvert we’re going to have like a little rip rap lining in there to
prevent erosion. It will basi=
cally,
the existing channel flow now will go through the center of that culvert and
about a 3 or 4 foot wide channel that we’ll create in there, like a
modified rip rap to prevent erosion.
The box culvert is 12 feet wide so beyond that little channel in the
center we’re going to have stone fill in there and what will happen is
we’re going to place some of that natural finer material in there to =
fill
in the voids and that will prevent erosion. Most of the material that’s =
in the
streambed now is fine materials because this is a low area and it’s, a
lot of the fines from uplands has found its way in there so by putting the
stone at the bottom of the culvert the fines will fill this in. We thought that this was a better =
option
than just leaving it straight concrete, having 12 foot wide of concrete.
“Legal Notice
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 7
Getting over to the
detention pond we have over in this area, we’re going to impact the 50
foot buffer in creating this pond.
We won’t be impacting the wetlands itself, but in order to get=
the
berm around the pond we have to go within the 50 foot buffer in certain are=
as.
The fourth impact that=
we
have I’m showing on this plan is this road curve which we’re wi=
thin
the 50 foot buffer with the road grading, but since our field walk, and we
haven’t got this addressed on the plans, but at the next meeting we w=
ill
have a different proposal here that completely pulls this road outside, pul=
ls
not only the right of way but also the grading out of the 50 foot buffer, s=
o we
will eliminate this impact over here.
That will be, so we have this alternative coming to through now and =
our
other alternative will be to take this road down to reduce this impact.
In the past when we ha=
d this
application on prior we did have additional impacts down in this area and a=
fter
several iterations we’ve reduced the impacts by adjusting, grading and
actually getting the actual narrowest point of this crossing over here, so
there were some other alternatives that we had looked at. That’s all I have now. I’m going to turn the mic ov=
er to
the soil scientist and he’ll go over all the wetland areas and the ty=
pes.
&= nbsp; = ; Tom Petras, Soil Scientist, Soil Scientist Environmental Service, Cheshire, CT<= o:p>
Mr. Petras: I performed the origin=
al
wetland delineation on the site in November, December, 2002. More recently Vinnie Caterino the
project engineer asked me to provide some more information about some of the
wetland areas on the site. The
wetland is located in the northern portion of this area, between wetland fl=
ags
#100 through wetlands flags #220.
There are three small wetland areas on the hill side. These areas occurs poorly drained
glacial till soils, they have active seats within the wetlands which tend t=
o be
most active during the wettest times of the years. During a recent site walk I think =
some
of the Commissioners may have seen some soil saturation beyond the wetland
boundary. Because of this on a
sloping hillside, when the soils within the wetlands, these seeps become ve=
ry
active, the extent of soil saturation will extend beyond the wetland bounda=
ries
and at times you’ll have sheet flow also down the hillside. Gradually the saturation diminishe=
s and
any sheet flow will naturally percolate back into the soils. The vegetation in these areas of
non-wetland soils, as I recall this area is predominantly a mix of very den=
se
Barberry, Japanese Barberry, Red Cedar, White Ash and some Red Maples, and =
not
indicative of a wooded swamp area.
The wetlands delineation that I did do in those areas showing the 3
wetlands I believe is an accurate delineation.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 8
Furthermore when this
application was initially reviewed or this subdivision was initially review=
ed
by the Commission they hired an independent Soil Scientist, Ed Pollock, to =
go
out and check the wetland boundaries as well as do an environmental assessm=
ent
for the wetlands, and he concurred with the wetland delineation which our f=
irm
had provided at that time. Ve=
ry
briefly I put that information together in a letter and I’ll submit t=
hat
to the Commission.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Vincent
Caterino, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Caterino: One thing I’d like to add about this wetlands crossing here is that this is the narrowest band of wetlands. If you look on the location map, from Cherry Avenue to Bunker Hill Road, that’s got to b= e at least ¾ of a mile long and we’re crossing at the absolute narrowest band of this wetlands, and this road is also the only road that accesses in an east/west direction over almost 400 acres of property up in = this area. The second thing is I&#= 8217;d like to address a list of comments that we received from the Town Engineer. We are currently wo= rking on all of these comments. Som= e of them are already addressed, but within a week or two we’ll have all of the comments addressed. Some = of the comments, such as slopes, will be put in the soil stabilization material on= all the slopes or we’ll be providing benches for drainage to prevent any erosion. We’ll also be = adding more silt fence in some areas and we’ll be providing additional drain= age information that the Town Engineer is requesting. That’s it for the comments.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; I’d
like to mention also the drainage from the site, all drains in a westerly
direction right now, down into the Wattles Brook area. After development obviously there =
will
be more runoff and to prevent an increase in runoff from leaving the site,
we’ll be building a detention basin in this area and this basin will
provide a zero increase in runoff and prevent any increase of peak flows
downstream going into Wattles Brook.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Haested
Methods did a pretty comprehensive study on any negative impacts to this br=
ook
and downstream on the downstream watershed which goes down about a couple of
miles. It shows that with the
construction of this detention basin and also the other detention basin on
Hidden Oaks, there is no negative impacts downstream on the culverts or any=
of
the watersheds downstream.
Basically that’s our presentation up to this point. If there are any questions that th=
e Commission
Members would like to ask us, we’ll be glad to answer them.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Has there b=
een an
environmental impact study on this project?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: Yes, we did an
environmental impact study 2 years ago on the entire project, both subdivis=
ions
and it should be part of the last subdivision record. I don’t know if we’re =
using
that, Moosa?
Mr. Rafey: No, you should give me
another copy for this application.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: An updated one?=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Yes.
Mr. Caterino: =
We’ll get an upd=
ated
copy for the Commission.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Now did that take into conside=
ration
cutting through the wetlands or did that have a cul de sac at that point?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: The environmental impact study was =
made
when we were going through the wetlands like this, just like we have it now=
and
this whole development, if you look at both subdivisions, is actually a less
impact, cause at the time they did the study there was over 50 lots, and
we’re down to 26 here and 18 here so that’s like 44, so right n=
ow
it’s much less impact than when they did the study, but when we get t=
he
updated study we can give you a copy of that.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Why does the detention pond have to
overlap the upper? Why does i=
t have
to get into the buffer?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Caterino: What happens is= the size of the pond has to be a certain size to handle the increase in flows f= rom the additional water that’s generated from the road and all the houses and driveways, so during our calculations we determine the size of storage,= and this is the size of storage that we need to maintain the zero increase in runoff, so by the time we building the pond and make our shoulders we’= ;re building 3:1 shoulders, that we extend into the 50 foot buffer slightly in = this area.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: What do you mean by slightly?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: We’re not=
going
into the wetlands, but we are going into the 50 foot setbacks.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 10
Mr. Undercuffler: Are you going in 50 =
feet
or are you going in 5 feet?
Mr. Caterino: We’re going in=
some
areas, well we can look at the map right now. It varies from 5 feet to, this is =
the
pond right here. The 50 foot =
buffer
is right where my finger is.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: I think the total disturbance area=
s will
be 14,700 sq. ft of wetland buffer area, by the construction of this detent=
ion
pond.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Caterino: In the worst ca= se it’s about 30 feet into the 50 foot buffer, right in this area. We don’t see this pond as a = big impact to the wetlands at all mainly because it will be a pond itself and t= his will be a natural wetlands, with natural wetland plantings, and our soil scientist can talk to you more about the types of mitigation that we’= ll be doing to make this a wetland planting area, the different types of plants we’ll be planting in this area, and also on both sides of the road co= ming into here, he’ll talk about that in a little while. This is really the only good locat= ion of the pond because of the elevation. All of this water is going down and this is the lowest point. In other words we wouldn’t b= e able to put it over here. The lowe= st point is where it would normally go and that’s where it works. We’re not in the wetlands he= re, just in the 50 foot area.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: When we had the=
field
trip, you commented on when we crossing the water, that brook you’re
going to have a concrete culvert or is it going to be like a bridge?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: (Inaudible).
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Yea, you said something that the
material that goes in there will be, I think material that it’s here =
in
the water.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: Steve George sh=
ould
answer that, about the natural spring bottom is what he’s talking abo=
ut.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Yea, so the bottom of it will be s=
tones
and then inside there’s going to be the same material. Can you explain that?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 11
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. George: The stream now is pretty narrow. It’s only maybe 3 or 4 feet and due to the like hydraulic grade line and everything, hydraulically we’re required, we’re showing a 12 foot wide culv= ert so it’s like 8 feet wider than the stream bed, so rather than have, a= nd this came up from previous applications, you know the Commission wanted previou= sly, wanted to have a natural bottom opposed to having 12 feet wide concrete bas= e so what we were proposing to do is fill the culvert with 1 foot of material, b= ut to prevent erosion, if we just take the full stream bed material and dump i= t in there, there’s a lot of fines in there. We don’t want to . . . .
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: So you (inaudible) material that is
there now.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
George: Yea, what we̵=
7;ll
do is when the excavate this when they build this they’ll actually ta=
ke
the stream, within the streambed they’ll take that material and
they’ll store it off to the side and then there won’t be enough
material if we take all the material out, we don’t want to fill this =
in
with muck, so we’ll take basically just the streambed material, the g=
ood
stuff, we’ll stockpile it off to the side, and we’re going to s=
ee
like a stone base at the bottom. In
the center of the culvert we’ll use a larger stone, like a modified r=
ip
rap, and that will prevent erosions, but on top of that, the modified rip r=
ap
will be like a large, like a 6 inch stone, it will have a lot of. . . . .
Mr. Polletta: You’re talking=
about
inside? Mr. George: Yea, inside the
culvert. It will have a lot of
voids and we’ll take the natural streambed material and place it over
that stone so the streambed material will actually fill the voids of the st=
one,
but the stone will prevent, you know, from everything just washing out. Now this stream here has a very, t=
he
water flowing through here is a slow velocity, it’s slightly less tha=
n 4
feet per second, so we’re not talking even with the 50 year flood com=
ing
through here, we have still a slow velocity so we don’t anticipate th=
at
anything is going to wash out, but to protect the natural stream bed materi=
al
that we’re placing in there, we’re going to put some stone in
there, like a stone base, so the whole culvert will be filled, and over tim=
e as
water flows through there all the voids of the stones will get filled just =
as
the natural stream is now. So
eventually when it’s all done, it will look like a natural stream run=
ning
through a culvert, you won’t see the concrete at the bottom. (Tape #4, Side B ended - may have =
missed
some.) CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 12 Mr. Petras: The mitigation plans=
are
being prepared for the project now, and primarily they include a number of
plantings. Our Biologist, Jen=
nifer
Beno, is working on that. Pla=
ntings
will include native shrubs which provide wildlife habitat, such as the
Winterberry, Strawberry Dogwood, the Blueberries. The areas that will be proposed for
planting are in the old cornfield located on either side of the proposed ac=
cess
drive and primarily around the basin area, on the side slopes, and a wetland
seed mix will also be put into the basin area. Mr. Zawadzki: Have any of you done=
a
proposal that doesn’t cross the wetlands that ends in the cul de sac?=
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Yes, we did. That should be part of your
package. I didn’t take =
a copy
of it tonight, but it’s with your package. We have a cul de sac right here an=
d if
we looked on this big plan, the cul de sac would end right about here, and =
from
a builder’s and developer’s point of view that would be pretty =
good
because you’d save all this roadway, the crossing which is very
expensive, but the problem here is Planning and Zoning. That length of roadway is not allo=
wed
for a subdivision. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: What’s the
problem at that point, too many lots on a cul de sac? Mr.
Caterino: It’s too =
many
lots on a cul de sac and also length of road. This is probably almost 2,000 feet=
of
road. Right now the current
regulations are, I believe, 1,000 feet. Mr. Rafey: 1,000 feet and 10 lo=
ts. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: Yea, so we
don’t come close to meeting that Regulations, and from a safety
standpoint it is good to have another entrance onto Middlebury Road, in case
there’s an accident you never know what can happen. Two access points are always good.=
We did have a cul de sac here and =
it
just doesn’t meet Zoning Regulations and it will never go through Zon=
ing. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: When did you do that, last year on=
Phase
I? &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Well it was always an alternative,=
that
cul de sac was an alternate cause we need to show alternate plans, so that =
was
just one of them that we showed. We
always had it, for the last 2 or 3 years since we’ve been working on =
this
project. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 13 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Can you give me a copy of that, ca=
use I
don’t have it with this application, as an alternative plan to this?<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Caterino: Yes, I’ll=
get
you another copy. This is rea=
lly
the only place we can go. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Is that the open space on the othe=
r side
of the . . . . . &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Right here? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: Yes. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Yea, this is open space. This little piece is open. On both sides of the road is open =
space
and this is all open space in here.
About over 13 acres all together, 13.66. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Is that to be added to the Town? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: Yes. This is all to be deeded to the To=
wn of
Watertown and this is green open space they call it. It will remain undisturbed, natura=
l a
good buffer, it makes a good back yard for everybody there; privacy, it will
preserve all the wetlands, this is a huge wetland area here that it will
preserve and remain undisturbed.
That’s why we have the road hooked up the way we do to keep
everything away from this area as much as we can. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: I had a question on Lot #14. It seems like it’s a pretty
strange lot #1, and is it really necessary to try and put a house in
there? I was thinking if you
eliminated Lot #14 and just slightly increased #16 #17, #18, and #15, and j=
ust
kind of absorbed #14 because the little usable part of that lot is all
wetlands, I mean the only usable part is a very small area compared to the
wetland on there, and it just seem to be one less lot that it has to worry
about. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: You’re right about that, Jim=
. It is tight. We are in the process of moving th=
is
roadway down, 30, 35 feet, that will really open up this, it will really he=
lp
this lot quite a bit, so the way this stands now it is tight, I’ll ag=
ree
with you with that, but I think when you see when this roadway is shifted d=
own
about 30, 35 feet, 35 feet that’s the front setback line on the house=
, so
that would really, that would help tremendously with that lot. I think you’d be a little mo=
re
entertainment to that lot than you are now. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 14 &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: It doesn’t r=
educe
the size of the lots on the south side of the road? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: Yes, it will re=
duce
it, but these lots are large, they’re 36,000 sq. ft. now and we’=
;re
above the 30,000 sq. ft. so these are already larger these lots, as it is n=
ow,
so what we take from the lots we’ll still be able to absorb them and
still be able to maintain the minimum lot size. These are funny shaped lots becaus=
e the
(inaudible) on a curve, so it’s hard to get a good geometry on there =
to
get the right square footage. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: They’re l=
ike
triangles over there. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Yea, they’re like triangles,
right, but they’re big though, these are really big lots, so we could
take some from these two lots here, so whatever we lose from these three lo=
ts
we’ll gain on Lot #14 and it will help us. But even on Lot #14 we’re st=
ill
away from the buffer on the grating for Lot #14. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well the main r=
eason
you changed that curvature there of the road is to avoid the buffer? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: Yes, this area =
right
here. After our site walk we
noticed the area and (inaudible) it is and we said we think it’s a go=
od
idea, and the Town Engineer also asked us to look at that, so we did look a=
t it
and we said we could slide it down and it would get rid of that impact, and=
at
the same time it would make this lot a little more easy to build on so
it’s really a benefit to the whole thing, everything. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Mr. Petras, I have=
a
question for you. That 3 wetl=
ands
area on the north side of Lovely Drive, you said sometimes they are draining
because some of the soil outside of the wetland area is saturated, and I we=
nt
to this lot 3 or 4 times and every time I went there there is some running
water coming down the stream. By
putting this road, we are kind of like blocking that slope, that doesn̵=
7;t
create any problem for the road in the future? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Petras: Well you would ha=
ve to
put in a curtain drain alongside the road to intercept any of that drainage
into the storm drains, so knowing that you’re getting some wet soils =
up
in that area you’d want to make sure that you do have a curtain drain=
on
that side of the road to pick up that drainage. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 15 &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: And that running w=
ater
doesn’t meet the statutory definition of a watercourse? &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Petras: I don’t believe it does. It has to have a permanent defined
channel and I think the water that primarily occurs there is a sheet flow w=
hich
runs overland. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I think it has to =
have
like 1 of 3 or 4 . . . . &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Petras: To start out it h=
as to
have a permanent defined channel and then it has to have two of the followi=
ng,
and it has to show runs beyond storm events, have presence of wetland
vegetation, and have evidence of detritus and staler. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: But there is runni=
ng
water after storms. I mean
it’s not like any time you go there there is some water running from =
that
area. It doesn’t create=
any
problems for the road, it’s not a watercourse. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Petras: Well for the road=
, and
knowing that, again if there is wetness on the hillside you would have to h=
ave
good curtain drains along that road. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Is that in the plan, to put a curt=
ain
drain there? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: (Inaudible). &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Do they need a pipe
under the road, to let the water go the way it is going now? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: I don’t t=
hink
it would call for a culvert, is that what you mean? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Just a pipe, or
anything. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: We had a wet year this year and
everywhere is draining and wet and this, I think, is just a seasonal wet
area. I’ve gone up ther=
e in
the Summer time when it’s bone dry.&=
nbsp;
The Town would definitely require an under drain when they build the
road over here and that will take care of most of the water. If you do get a little runoff it w=
ill
just runoff over the shoulders down and into the catch basins and it’s
not a lot of water, it’s just that it’s wet after a rainfall and
that’s the (inaudible) thaw, but between the under drains along the
shoulder of the road here and whatever surface water is left will drain alo=
ng
he shoulders and into the catch basins. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 216 &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well we (inaudible). &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Chuck will took at=
that. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Yea, we will and I think probably =
the
under drain installation would be adequate to deal with that, which is a
standard note on all the plans that come through; if it’s warranted we
will require that. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: Certain situati=
ons,
if the water situation that we see during construction, if it is wet we can
always put a drain there. If =
it
turns into a problem we could always put a drain there and connect it direc=
tly
to a catch basin, but that area right there is a slight cut up there and I
believe the amount of water that we’ll be able to catch most to fit w=
ith
an under drain. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Anybody from the public care to comment on=
the
proposal? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Curt Moeller, 157 Oak Drive, Water=
town,
CT 0795 &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Moeller: Where the road crossing is going t=
o go
across, is that brook the outlet for Lake Winnemaug? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: The small strea=
m that
we’re crossing is a tributary to Wattles Brook. This is Wattles Brook and that is =
one of
the outflows from Lake Winnemaug; it goes right down this way here. We’re not touching Wattles
Brook. We’re crossing a
really small stream that’s a tributary to the Wattles Brook so
we’re not crossing anything that comes out of Lake Winnemaug, it's a
whole separate watershed, so it’s not Wattles Brook. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Moeller: I also question =
the
area (shown on map). I’=
ve
been up there before and it’s wet quite often and the amount of wetla=
nds
that show here it kind of just happens to make it right on the edge of the =
road
and if it isn’t wetlands, it should be. You said you’re going to cut
that? You’re going to h=
ave to
catch that water somehow cause that always comes down there, no matter what=
you
do. The only other question I=
have
at this point is the amount of non-wetlands, open space that’s used u=
p by
the detention pond and the access way? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: This detention pond is probably,
I’m guessing about 1 acre of area that’s into the open space, b=
ut
we’re really far over with the required amount of open space that
we’re required to give, so one acre is very small compared to what we
need to give, and this will be enhanced with wetland plantings, and as our =
Soil
Scientist told you how we plan on mitigating the area, so it will serve a g=
ood
function also for flood prevention, so as far as open space we’re sti=
ll
over the area, we exceed what we need to be giving to the Town. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 17 &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Coming in I had=
that
question too, but it’s you’ve already answered the (inaudible) =
that
it’s the low point on the property there and you can’t really p=
ut
it uphill, water isn’t going to go uphill, so you almost have to be
there. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: You’ll notice almost every
development, the detention ponds will be in the lowest parts of the projects
because that’s where everything drains. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I think there is a=
memo
from Mr. Berger to you and I think Chuck discussed that issue, I don’t
know if that’s going to be moved up? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: Yea, in my memo I=
asked
for looking at some alternative locations to that, and one of the thoughts I
had was moving it up north closer to the road, and still catch, would still=
be
in the lowest spot of the road and maybe reduce impacts to wetlands and
wetlands buffer. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: We took a quick=
look
at it, and by putting it up in this area, it would be just too big to fit in
that area, and as you can see the wetlands are even closer over here. It wouldn’t be, I think the =
best
place where it is right now, it’s totally in this area right now,
it’s separated, secluded, it’s not right off the road. It fits perfect right where it is.=
The size of the pond is how it is =
shown
and it would be hard to get, if we didn’t move it up over there
we’d still, we can’t over the road anymore up this way, we̵=
7;re
kind of stuck with this little area right here and this starts going up slo=
pe
quite a bit. It would be very
difficult to get it here. I
don’t think we could make it work.&n=
bsp;
One of the reasons we were possibly looking at moving the pond up was
the 100 year flood line, Zone A, this is a 100 year flood line which is an
approximate line of the 100 year flood.&nb=
sp;
It’s just an approximation, cause a thorough analysis was never
done. We’re in the proc=
ess of
doing a thorough analysis in this area right now to get that water elevatio=
n to
the exact elevation. The Town=
has
the Regulation that says 4 feet above the mean water surface elevation so
that’s what we use to calculate the invert of the pond, the outflow of
the pond, so we kept it 4 feet higher than the water surface elevation which
meets Town Regulations, but we’re going to get an exact number on that
within the next week or so, so we’ll know exactly what that water sur=
face
elevation is for the 100 year flood. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 18 The Wattles Brook is
actually, they control the flow of Wattles Brook with the dam at Lake
Winnemaug, and it’s really (inaudible) to a high flow, it’s a
pretty low flow, because when they did the construction on Lake Winnemaug t=
hey
put a damn and (inaudible) the flows and we have the calculations from Haes=
ted
who did the design on Lake Winnemaug so we’ll have the exact numbers =
for
this brook, and once you do some sections along the brook we’ll know
exactly what the water surface elevation will be and we’ll know exact=
ly
where we stand with that flood line. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: I have a question on Lot #8, #10, =
#12,
and #13. there’s an awful lot of cutting and filling that needs to be
done, and I was wondering if there was a better way to deal with those and
maybe combine them or something, or make 2 out of 4? They don’t have the contour =
lines
so if you had another map with the contour lines . . . . &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Vinnie, do you have a grading plan=
for
this? &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Unfortunately do you have a set of
plans? &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, I do. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Looking
at map (inaudible). &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: The nature of the site is it slope=
s from
east to west, in this direction and when you build a road, naturally the ho=
uses
on the lower side will be going down, and the ones on the upper side will b=
e a
little higher and this site does have moderate slopes. Some areas are very steep, but
we’re not building on those areas obviously, but the ones that
we’re able to put a house and build it to acceptance standards
we’re doing, but it will require grading for slopes. Most of the slopes are 4:1 slopes.=
If you look on the contours they&#=
8217;re
all walkout basements on the west side, so we’re sloping down alongsi=
de
the house, but they’re all acceptable slopes. Hardly any are 2:1 right? CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 19 &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
George: There are a few locations toward t=
he
rear of the lots that would be 2:1.
(Inaudible) Lot #10, on the downhill side which would be . . . . wou=
ld
be the west side of the road, you can see that what we’re doing is
we’re actually for the road, for the side slopes, actually for the ro=
ad
embankment we’re showing 4:1 side slopes so we don’t have to get
into using guard rail. We hav=
e Lot
#10, we’re showing a 2:1 slope and in a very rear of the house, but we
could actually make that flatter if somebody cam in and wanted a more flat =
back
yard, they could extend this grading down and still be way outside of the 50
foot wetland setback, but for this application we’re just showing tyi=
ng
in as soon as we can, (inaudible) on that lot there is decent area thatR=
17;s
non wetlands and it is outside of the 50 foot buffer towards the rear of the
lot. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Can you go to sheet GR2? I think they’re a looking at=
this
page. (Tape #5, Side A ended
– may have missed some.) &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
George: Okay you’re probably looking=
at
Lot #9. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: No, Lot #13. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
George: Yea, this is alre=
ady a
pretty steep slope, it’s almost about a 2:1. Just to get the driveway in is jus=
t some
regarding in here. It’s=
not
like a very large cut through here.
It’s basically just some cutting it back a little bit to basic=
ally
maintaining the same slope that’s there. What we will be doing in this area=
is
providing some slope stabilization and we’re also going to look at ei=
ther
that or putting some reverse benches in, but probably in this situation we
would, once this gets cut back, we would put like a permanent geotextile
matting in here that would prevent erosion and then also natural growth wou=
ld
come up through that. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Do they meet the Connecticut 2002
Guidelines for Erosion and Sedimentation Control? &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
George: By adding geotextile it will meet t=
he
2002. With over certain heigh=
ts on
a 2:1 slope the 2002 Guidelines say you usually need some kind of engineered
stabilization which would be a geotextile or you do it with reverse benching
which is you come down a 2:1 slope so many feet and then you have a bench t=
hat
reverses from the slope and then you continue down, so the water comes down=
and
it kind of built up on that bench and it slowly comes down. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 20 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Do you want to do that? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
George: That was one of t=
he
Town Engineer’s comments and we were going to, we’re in the pro=
cess
of addressing those comments but likely that part of the land that isn̵=
7;t
a permanent geotextile matting. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: And the driveway slopes are all les=
s than
15% I think. They meet the Zo=
ning
Requirement, right? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. George: Yea, all driveways we don’t =
show
any 15% is max, 14%. &=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: I think they have a lot of homewor=
k to
do. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: This has city sewer? &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, and water. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Moeller: Where is the pump
house going to be located for the sewer? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
George: There is no pump =
house. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Moeller: Which way is the sewer line going =
to run
then, back up the hill? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. George: It’s going to be, in this se=
ction
of the roadway we come up with a 10%.
We have gravity sewers basically from about this point that run down=
and
make its way down here. This =
is
going to be a forced main.
It’s a type of system that works off of the pumps from the
lots. What happens is these l=
ots
have pumps designed to go into this line and it forces the sewage up into a
manhole and where it runs in gravity. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Did you submit an application to the
Water and Sewer Authority for approval? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yes. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: You didn’t g=
et any
response on that? CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 21 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. George: No, we haven’t had any respo=
nse
but this issue under the previous application, we actually met with the Wat=
er
and Sewer Authority to discuss various options and this was what we determi=
ned
was the best option for this location. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Can you get something in writing b=
efore
the next meeting? &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
George: Sure. We’ll talk to the Water &
Sewer Authority. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: How many lots are going to have pu=
mps? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. George: There will be, I think, I̵=
7;m
not sure, I think there will be 8.
If we look on the set of plans we can say exactly. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: It’s okay, it was just
(inaudible). &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
George: I think there’s about 8 lots=
that
will pump into that. There ar=
e a
couple of lots, for example, like this lot over here where we’re show=
ing
a house, this will have an individual grinder pump that will come up and tie
into this system, but that’s with the main (inaudible) over in this
section will be gravity. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Moeller: So these pumps are inside each
individual house and is maintained by the homeowner? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: He can answer the question, but
that’s not a wetland issue for this Commission. If they can get a report form the =
Water
& Sewer Department by next month then we can see if they approved it or
not. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Moeller: Well with all this being higher tha=
n the
wetlands, if it does turn into a problem in an individual house, anything w=
ould
go downhill, just like where the detention pond is. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, but it’s in pipes.<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Moeller: Just a question. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: I mean if you can get a report fro=
m the
Water & Sewer Authority that can answer Mr. Moeller’s question . =
. .
. . CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 22 &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
George: Yes, for the next meeting we’=
;ll
get that. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: You don’t have a report to s=
ee
what they think about this? O=
kay. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table App. #488 of Patrick Graziano for=
18
lot residential subdivision, “Fox Crossings” Phase III Pond View
Estates and extension of Lovely Drive, Watertown, CT. Discussi=
on: =
; None MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY &nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at 11:54 p.m. Respect=
fully
submitted, Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary Conserv=
ation
Commission/ &nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________ &nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary
Inland Wetland Agency