MINUTES<= o:p>
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
THURSDAY,
FEBRUARY 19, 2004 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; Bernard Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman
ABSENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Charles
Thermer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Mary
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: &nbs=
p; Susan
Atwood
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Peter
Peluso
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Charles Berger, Town
Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at about 8:30 p=
.m.
(no time given).
Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, asked Mr. Undercuffler to be the Acting Secretary.=
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call. Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Thermer, in his
absence. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO FEBRUARY 19, 2004 PAGE 2 3. =
Hearing
of Applications &=
nbsp; D. Continuation
of Public Hearing from January 15, 2004 - Application #488 of Patrick Grazi=
ano
for 18 lot residential subdivision, “Fox Crossings” Phase III P=
ond
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; Vincent Caterino, Professional Eng=
ineer
and Land Surveyor &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: Since our last =
meeting
we made a few changes to our plans.
One of the biggest changes that we made is that we moved this road
further away from the wetlands up in this area, so we are no longer impacti=
ng
the 50 foot buffer zone, in this section right over here. Another change that we added to the
plans is that we added the 200 year flood line in this area. We had accurately located it at the
shoulder of the pond. As
we’re proposing it it’s not located in the 100 year flood
line. That was another commen=
t that
we changed. One of the comments fr=
om the
Town Engineer was to look at possibly moving the pond up to this
location,. We did look at tha=
t, but
it’s a really difficult area to put the pond because of the close
proximity to the road and you’re still very close to the wetlands over
here, plus we’re higher over here and the way the grade slopes up in =
this
direction it would be hard to build a pond, whereas this area where the area
is, the grade works out very well to build a pond in this area right here, =
so
that’s why we kept it right in this location. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: You’ve got a cou=
ple of
Alternates 1 and 2, is that what you’re talking about here? Mr. Caterino: =
No, I didn’t get=
to
the alternates yet, but I could. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Do we have a copy of the revis=
ed
plan then? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, you do. It’s in the packet. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: It’s =
the
original? CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO FEBRUARY 19, 2004 PAGE 3 Mr. Rafey: The one that wasn̵=
7;t
moved from this one (inaudible). &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Original, o=
kay
that’s what we’re dealing with=
now. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: This is the one that they̵=
7;re
talking about now. Mr. Undercuffler: Okay, that’s the
original alternate. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: In the packet you should have gotte=
n an
Alternate Plan A which shows the road coming on and ending at a cul de sac
without crossing to Middlebury Road, and this plan would not meet the Plann=
ing
and Zoning requirements. One =
of the
reasons why we’re not proposing is because it won’t meet Planni=
ng
and Zoning and the other reason is for safety and traffic circulation we ne=
ed
to get to Middlebury Road. Th=
is is
the only access for this whole development, which is about almost 400 acres=
for
this one little crossing right here, so that’s why we’re really=
not
pursuing this alternate here.
That’s really the only alternate that we have. It’s either coming here and =
ending
at a cul de sac or extending it right through, so we’re proposing to
extend it right through. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: There’s a couple=
other
alternates in the pack. IR=
17;m
not too sure, there’s alternate 1, 2 . . . . these two look like
they’re the same. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Caterino: Yea, alternate =
1 and
2, that’s just what I just showed you. This is alternate 2 right here wit=
h the
cul de sac, and then alternate 1 is with the road going right through. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: And then the original. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: Okay the origin=
al is
showing the road where it is right next to the wetlands over here. Mr. Undercuffler: No. Mr. Caterino: But usually we pushe=
d it
down to get it away from the wetlands. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: On the plan original i=
t says
. . . . . &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Probably I made a
mistake and the original one, the one that’s close to the wetlands, o=
kay,
one alternate is the one that they moved the road, and the tougher alternat=
ive
is the one with the cul de sac. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO FEBRUARY 19, 2004 PAGE 4 &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: And there a=
re two
Alternative 1’s that’s a mistake too, right. These I think are the same. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: These two are t=
he
same. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: I made two copies. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: You can see how=
I
moved it over here. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Which one do we follow now? The new one? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Caterino: Yes. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Alternative 1 is the one you hope =
to go
with? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Caterino: Which, cause we=
moved
the road so . . . . . Mr. Rafey: The one that the roa=
d is
close to this wetland, this should be the original plan. And there are two copies of that.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Alternative 2 is the one that they=
moved
the road from the wetlands down.
The one with the cul de sac, that’s Alternative 2. Mr. Caterino: =
This is our current pr=
oposal
right here. This narrow band =
of
wetlands corridor is the narrowest corridor from Cherry Avenue to Bunker Hi=
ll
Road. That’s got to be =
over a
mile, and we’re selecting at the narrowest area which is only 88 feet=
in
width. That’s where
we’re crossing. Again t=
his
crossing will service this whole area, there’s got to be at least 300=
to
400 acres of serviceable area that that one crossing will take are of, and
we’re keeping the area to a minimum that we’re disturbing in the
wetlands this area here. We h=
ave
our biologist here tonight and our soil scientist that can speak about why =
our
proposal is what we feel is the best.
Recently we did a structure study where we compared 3 different
structures for the crossing. =
One
was a box culvert, which is what we’re proposing, a 5 x 12 foot box
culvert that has a flat bottom and a smooth bottom and it allows for a good
flow and it also allows for the corridor for migration of species to go bet=
ween
these two wetlands, such as turtles and tadpoles and frogs, and to connect =
these
two wetlands. That’s our
proposal. It requires less
maintenance than other types of structures and we have a whole study that we
submitted. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO FEBRUARY 19, 2004 PAGE 5 The other structure we
looked at was a corrugated metal large structure that would try to give a
natural bottom. The only prob=
lem
with that is because of the way the stream meanders, it goes left to right,
back and forth, we wouldn’t be able to maintain a natural bottom beca=
use
the stream meanders so much.
It’s not a straight line.&nbs=
p;
If it was a straight line we could easily put an arch and maintain a
natural bottom but because it’s not, it goes left and right quite a b=
it,
so maintaining a natural bottom would be very difficult. We could maintain a rebuilt bottom=
, a
reconfigured bottom, but it would have to be rip rap or something that
wouldn’t erode away, but it wouldn’t be the natural bottom that=
it
is there now, there’s no way to maintain that. We looked at a bridge =
to
keep the impacts low and traverse the entire length of the stream, we’=
;d
need about a 55 foot span and extremely high construction costs and very hi=
gh
maintenance costs if it ever needed to be replaced or repaired. And basically the new =
plans,
we addressed some of the comments from the Town Engineer. Some of the things that we address=
ed
were the slopes that are steeper than 3:1.=
What we’re proposing is to line the slopes with the erosion
control matting to help stabilize the slopes. Another comment was to add more si=
lt
fence which we did, we added more silt fence to all the plans. The biggest one, as I mentioned, w=
as that
we shifted a road out of the wetlands area going around that curve to the
right. We located that 100 ye=
ar
flood line. We put the 100 ye=
ar
flood line in this area to see how it impacts all the roadway and the pond =
and
the drainage. We also changed=
the
location of some of the footing drains up in this area. We added some drainage easements to
accommodate the footing drains to the wetlands. We submitted a drainage report by
Haested Methods that was done 2 years ago that encompassed the entire proje=
ct
to look for any negative impacts downstream, and that report shows that the=
re
are no major impacts, no negative impacts downstream. Also we have for tonight is our
ecologist is here that could speak a little bit about the wetlands on site =
and
the impact and we also have our soil scientist here tonight, that will answ=
er
some questions and give some more information about that. If there are any questions that I =
could
answer at this time, I’d be glad to answer them or if you want to wait
until the very end. Mr. Polletta: Could you explain to=
me
that bridge that you cross the wetlands, you cross the river. Originally I think it was the last
meeting, you said the bottom of the bridge is going to be natural but now
you’re saying that you can’t do that. How do you propose to cross that?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> How will you support that bridge?<=
o:p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 6
Mr. Caterino: Well the bridge,
(inaudible) to cross the crossing, if you had to cross the stream without
touching it at all, it would have to be a 55 foot long span and that’s
extremely high construction costs, and extremely high maintenance and
replacement costs, so we’re not considering to put that in. That would maintain the bottom unt=
ouched
the way it is now, but the next thing would be a corrugated metal arch
structure but we can’t span that far with the corrugated metal arch.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We can only go to maintain a certa=
in
height that we have now, which is about 6 feet, we can get a 16 feet wide
span. That would require spre=
ad
footings, and additional work like that and with a 16 foot wide span,
we’re still not maintaining their natural bottom, we’d still ha=
ve
to relocate that stream, because the stream meanders to the left and right
quite a bit. It’s not a
straight shot. If you look on=
one
of the plans you‘ll see how the stream goes. You have to look at it (inaudible)=
.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: My question is the bottom of the b=
ridge,
do you have any structure or is it just natural, you leave it just the way =
it
is?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: It’s natu=
ral,
just the way it is. That̵=
7;s a
bridge.
Mr. Polletta: You answered my question.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Well this corrugated m=
etal
thing is that actually a bridge or a culvert?
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Caterino: It’s a cu= lvert, it’s not a bridge, it’s some people call it a bridge, but it’s really not a true bridge. It’s an arched culvert that sits on spread footings on the lef= t, on each side there are real footings and the arch sits on the footings and = the bottom stays like a natural bottom, but in this case what we’re sayin= g is that because the stream that verges left and right so much, that we’d have to rip rap that whole bottom, so we’re going to be left with a r= ip rapped bottom. It will be sor= t of more natural than a concrete boxed culvert but they have their plus’ = and minus’.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: But you’re propo=
sing a
box culvert, aren’t you?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 7
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Right, we are proposing a box culv=
ert. That’s what we’re stic=
king
with. We feel that’s th=
e best
situation for, working in the wetlands is very difficult and with a box cul=
vert
makes it easiest out of any structure because all you do is you lay down a =
bed
of stone, and you place the boxes right on top of the stone and then you
backfill it, whereas when you get into structures into wetlands you need to=
dig
the core borings, you need to build footings, and pour footings, and pouring
footings in wetlands are hard, it’s a very difficult procedure and I
don’t think the benefit is there to warrant that type of structure.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: But with the box culvert
you’re also basically are straightening out the stream at that point,=
is
that correct?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Caterino: That’s co= rrect.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: A short distance.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Out of all the types of structures=
, a
box culvert has the smoothest bottom, it allows for the best flow, no
restrictions, nothing gets hung up on the bottom cause it’s a smooth
bottom.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: But you’re
going to put gravel in there, right, I mean a natural bottom?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Yea, we’re proposing to put a
gravel bottom with rock and that type of material on the bottom.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I have a question on the open
space. You’re showing o=
n the
plan here up in the right, a block of open space, 1.96 acres. So that’s part of this
development?
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Caterino: Yes, that’= ;s correct.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: I don’t recall w=
hen we
walked up in that area, maybe we didn’t even walk that far, but what =
does
that area look like? WhatR=
17;s
the topography there?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: It’s very steep in this area=
, very
steep, wooded, rocky, it’s just very, very you probably got a 30% gra=
de,
slopes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 8
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: So it looks=
like
most of the open space then in this development is either wetlands which you
couldn’t build on anyway, or that particular spot which you probably
couldn’t build on anyway because it’s so hilly.
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Caterino: Yea, that’= ;s true.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: So there=
217;s
really nothing, there’s no let’s say uplands, wetlands space in
this property to speak of is there, or am I missing something?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Well this area is uplands. I have a breakdown of all the upla=
nds
and wetlands. Okay the open s=
pace
that we’re required to give is about 4 acres. We’re giving 13.6 acres, and=
then
the 13.6 acres 6.5 acres is upland soils.&=
nbsp;
So we’re just the upland soils alone we’re giving 1150% =
of
just the upland soil and we have another 7 acres of wetlands, so we’re
giving 3 times the amount of open space of what were required to and the
intention of this open space is maintain privacy, maintain for the environm=
ent
and keep all this wetlands, which is a very valuable wetlands untouched and=
not
part of anybody’s property and this open space connects to a huge
wetlands that goes all the way down to Bunker Hill Road, and this open space
connects to this open space up in Pond View Estates, the 5 acre parcel up t=
here
but as far as giving open space that’s usable land, there is really no
big chunk of land that we could give.
The area that’s buildable is where we’re building on.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: So basically
you’re giving away unusable land?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: As far as build=
ing
it’s unbuildable, that’s correct, but I wouldn’t call it
unusable. Wetlands is very va=
luable
land, it depends on your perspective.
But as far as being good land, buildable land, we’re limited to
the amount of land that’s on the property.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: What’= s the total acreage on this property?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: 41, this parcel=
is
41.5 acres. You can see a hug=
e part
of it is wetlands.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: And this is wat=
er and
sewer?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Water and sewer, all c=
ity
water and city sewers. (Tape =
#2,
Side A ended – may have missed some.)
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Was this pl=
an
turned down by P & Z?
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Caterino: We haven’t submitted to P & Z for this portion here. Oh I’m sorry, we did. They denied it because I think the= re was some information missing. I b= elieve that’s what happened, is that there was information that wasn’t submitted and they decided to deny it which what happened was we submitted = it prematurely really, just to get on before they were footing on the moratori= um, so for that portion of it was kind of rushed to get in, but we since then ironed all the (inaudible) and submitted all the information hat was needed, but we’re presently not before Planning and Zoning, we’re not t= here yet. If we could have our Eco= logist up there to get more information.
&=
nbsp; =
; Tho=
mas
Pietras, Professional Soil Scientist, Soil Science Environmental Service,
Cheshire, CT
Mr. Pietras: <=
/b>I originally conducted=
the
wetland delineation on the property and have been involved with some of the
environmental reports. Very b=
riefly
I’d just like to touch on a few areas. I was out there I believe in Decem=
ber to
the site where I looked at the crossing and I was also out there again toda=
y to
re-familiarize myself with other areas of the site as well. The crossing area basically is a w=
ooded
wetland. It’s about whe=
re the
crossing is proposed to go through is the narrowest part of this wetland in
that area. It’s about 5=
0, 55
foot across. It’s relat=
ively
gentle in slope and it sits in a recessed area where land rises pretty quic=
kly
on either side of the wetland. The
soils in this area have a foot to a foot and a half of mucky alluvial sedim=
ents
underlain by gravelly mineral soils.
The upper layer is highly erodable and that’s why the stream
through this area has meandered over the years and it will continue to
meander. Putting in a box cul=
vert
because the crossing will go through you’re going to be doing
disturbance. The box culvert =
is
probably one of the better alternatives because you’re going to be
getting down into the mineral soil, you know you’re on stable ground,=
you
have to disturb this area anyways and you will be able to connect the strea=
m a
short distance where you’re making that disturbance. You’ll put in some modified =
rip
rap to maintain the channel but the rest of the box culvert you could put t=
hat
alluvial material that you mucked out of there initially and the area would
come back to wetland soil.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 10
The detention basin an=
d the
access road from Middlebury Road, we looked at these areas for mitigation
plantings. We think that ther=
e is a
lot of valuable open space that’s going to be included with this subd=
ivision. To enhance that open space we saw =
buffer
plantings as a good way to achieve that form of mitigation, so we prepared a
planting plan showing several hundred shrubs and trees to be planted primar=
ily
along the road as it comes in from Middlebury Road. This is an old cornfield which
doesn’t have much vegetation in it now, it’s mostly ragweed and
goldenrod has come in so far.
Around the detention basin area where you’re going to be doing=
the
disturbance we call for planting of shrubs on the slopes and disturbed soils
around the basin area.
The basin itself will =
be
excavated downward. It’=
s not
meant to retain water, but would be called a dry basin. In reality it will have very moist=
to
saturated soils with very little to no ponding water so it can support
vegetation on the bottom of the basin, we recommended a wetland seed mix, a=
nd
this includes about 60 mixes of various herbaceous plants which tolerate
extremely wet to somewhat wet conditions, depending on there they go in a
basin, the wetter species will take hold versus some of the dryer species, =
and
these are all native plants.
I looked again at the =
open
space area today. There’=
;s a
lot of mix in the proposed open space area. The wetland include the perennial
watercourse, Wattles Brook. It’s a nice quality stream, fairly
sizable. The wetlands themsel=
ves
contain a mix of wooded swamp, there’s wet meadows, there’s mar=
sh,
and as Wattles Brook continues south towards Bunker Hill Road, eventually g=
oes
to a very large march that used to be an old pond right above Bunker Hill R=
oad,
so it’s a nice wetland corridor that contains a diverse mix of
species. Within the open spac=
e area
there’s a isolated knob which used to be an agricultural field and th=
is is
now over the last several years been reverting back to natural vegetation so
this compliments the wetlands as well.&nbs=
p;
And then also within the open space you have wooded buffer around the
existing wetland areas and this is primarily either upland forest or some o=
f the
old agricultural fields which have been reverting back to woody
vegetation. So there is quite=
a bit
of mix and the open space area is from a naturalistic standpoint, ecologica=
l,
has a lot of value.
I think at this point
that’s all I wanted to touch on, and I can answer other questions lat=
er,
but let me introduce Jodie Chase.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Before you go w=
hat is
your opinion of the long term effects of this crossing?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 11
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Pietras: The majority of =
the
impacts are going to be initially when you do the disturbance. Now because it’s a low gradi=
ent
area, you don’t have a lot of watershed which is going to potentially
cause erosion during construction.
It should be manageable. I
don’t see off site erosion problems and as long as you have the proper
sediment control within the work area, the disturbance primarily will occur
right in the work area. If yo=
u do
it during a low flow time of the year it’s even better. The watercourse, I’m not qui=
te
sure if it’s perennial, it appears to be more an intermittent waterco=
urse
that you’re dealing with.
There is a slow flow to it now, during the high rainfall events you =
do
get some moderate flows through there and primarily it stays within the
channel, it’s about a 5 foot wide channel and that recessed into this
mucky alluvial sediments about 1.5 to 2 feet. Once the crossing goes in, because=
it is
a box culvert, you are going to have the passageway underneath so that will
have some benefit. It’s=
a
much better plan than what was previously submitted which was a twin culver=
t,
round culvert.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: How long do you=
think
it will take for the area to recover from the disturbance?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Pietras: Well it will be =
grass
slope so that will come back within a year. The primary benefit of this is you=
do
have the box culvert which will be 12 foot wide, 4 foot high. Actually 5 foot, because 1 foot wi=
ll be
buried, so it will be 4 feet high.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Jodie
Chase, Wetland Ecologist, Essex, CT
Ms. Chase: I was = asked by the applicant to provide a second opinion to determine impact associated with the proposed wetland crossing. I believe you have a copy of my report. It may have bee submitted to you on Monday of this week, it’s dated February 10th. I doubt you’ve had time to r= ead it, and the Attorney has asked that I read it into the record. So if I may do that I’d like= to.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Okay.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 12
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Chase read aloud the following report for the record:
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; “To: Watertown
Conservation Commission and Inland Wetland Agency
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; From: Jodie Chase, Wetland Ecologis=
t
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Re: Fox
Crossings, Lovely Drive, 18 Lot Residential Subdivision
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Date: February 10, 2004
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Introduction
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; At
the request of the applicant, I inspected the site and reviewed site
development plans and an environmental report prepared for the application =
to
determine the potential impacts associated with the proposed stream
crossing. The site inspection
occurred on February 5, 2004. The
environmental assessment prepared by Soil Science & Environmental Servi=
ces,
Inc. (SSES) provides a description and evaluation of all wetlands on the
site. This report confines it=
self
to the western wetland corridor which is the location of the proposed road
crossing.”
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Chase: That’s the only matter I dealt
with.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; “Inventory and Description of
Wetland and Watercourse Ecological Communities
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
western wetland corridor supports a mature, mixed deciduous forest dominate=
d by
red maple. A perennial waterc=
ourse,
Wattles Brook, enters the site at its western boundary and flows southeast
through the site. This waterc=
ourse
varies in width and depth, and is generally 6-10’ wide and 12-24̶=
1;
deep. An intermittent waterco=
urse
flows north-south through the site and joins Wattles Brook. The intermittent watercourse I hea=
vily
laden with silt and sand, generally several feel wide and 12-16” from=
stream
bottom to top of bank. The we=
tland
surrounding the intermittent watercourse consist of a mature, mixed deciduo=
us
forest dominated by red maple and supporting black cherry, viburnum, rose, =
and
barberry. Vegetation density =
is
moderate in both the shrub and tree layer.=
Open fields abut the wetland on the east and west.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 13
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
Wattles Brook wetland corridor provides numerous wetland functions that are
detailed in the SSES report. =
The
most valuable functions are wildlife habitat, water quality renovations and
storm water conveyance. At the
intermittent watercourse the same primary functions occur. The intermittent watercourse recei=
ves
runoff from a small watershed and likely receives runoff from Cherry Road to
the north which is likely the source of sand and silt that covers the stream
bottom. This is a good qualit=
y wetland
system that also offers other wetland functions including nutrient retention
and sediment trapping flood control and passive recreation.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
wetlands provide habitat for birds of forests, fields and edge habitat, a
variety of small mammals, fox, rabbit and deer. The site offers sources of food and
cover, nesting opportunities and a year-round water source.”
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Chase: Primary habitat feature lacking in =
this
wetland system is year round cover in the form of evergreens.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; “Description of Regulated
Activities”
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Chase: You’re well aware of and I
won’t read that paragraph.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; “Effect of the Proposed Acti=
vities
on Wetland Ecological Communities and Functions
\
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
box culvert allows the intermittent watercourse to remain an effective wild=
life
corridor and allows the stream to maintain its existing hydrologic
conditions. The crossing loca=
tion
greatly minimized potential wetland impacts. Elsewhere along this corridor the
wetland is substantially wider and include more sensitive wetland communiti=
es
as is detailed in the SSES report.
This is a low intensity disturbance to wetlands and regulated areas =
to
achieve access to significant areas of developable uplands.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; An
indirect impact associated with the crossing is the opening up the vegetati=
on
community and creating more edge habitat.&=
nbsp;
In fact, the open fields flanking the intermittent watercourse alrea=
dy
create significant edge habitat.
The wildlife species drawn to such areas already frequent the site.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The site is located within a resid=
ential
area that support woodland and abandoned farm fields. The species found in the area re l=
ikely
habituated to a variety of human activities. As with all development, there will
likely be a reduction in the numbers of individuals utilizing the site, but
either will be impact on species diversity; the most critical aspect of
ecological integrity.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 14
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
potential impact on the downstream wetland resources to support fish and
wildlife habitat, control sedimentation control pollution, and support
recreation.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
proposed development plan has incorporated all appropriate erosion and sedi=
ment
controls necessary to protect natural resources. The stream crossing is equipped wi=
th rip
rap splash pads to prevent erosion and scouring at the crossing. The proposed plantings will stabil=
ize
disturbed areas and add diversity to the existing wildlife habitat. The existing functions of the wetl=
and as
it occurs on-site will not be altered by the crossing. Wildlife habitat and access will be
maintained as well as storm water conveyance. The wetlands downstream will not be
altered as a result of the crossing as wetland hydrology will be maintained=
.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mitigation
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mitigation
involves first, avoidance of impacts altogether by not taking a certain act=
ion,
second minimization of impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the
action and its implementation; and finally compensation of remaining impact=
s by
replacing the specific wetland functions and values being impacted or
lost. It is not possible to a=
void
wetland impact given the limited frontage on Middlebury Road and the locati=
on
of the wetland. The impacts
associated with the crossing can be minimized by the locating the crossing =
at
its narrowest point.”
Ms. Chase: Which has been done.<= o:p>
“Compensation has been proposed by SSES= via regulated setback area plantings and the detention pond plantings. It is also recommend that the west= ern property line of lots 1 and 18 be setback with signage identifying the limi= t of open space. If possible, it w= ould be helpful to rebuild stonewalls removed from elsewhere on these lots at the limit of open space.”
Ms. Chase: To provide more physi=
cal
barrier to prevent intrusion by homeowners.
“The proposed
development plan requires a minimum intensity intrusion into the wetland ar=
ea,
no long-term loss of wetland functions, values or integrity, and mitigation
appropriate to the level of disturbance.
Jodie Chase, Wetland
Ecologist
2/13/04:”
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 15
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Chase: Basically I concur with all of the
findings of Soil Science and Environmental Services. Frank would like me to state my
background for the record. I =
am a
Wetland Ecologist with over 25 years of experience in the field as principa=
l of
my own firm. I have a Bachelo=
r of
Science and Natural Resource Conservation from the University of Connecticu=
t, a
Master’s in Wetland Ecology from Connecticut College, and I have prov=
ided
my services to virtually every federal and state regulatory environmental
agency, and I’m on the Deep River Wetland Commission in Connecticut.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Thank you.
&=
nbsp; =
; Fra=
nklin
Pilicy, Attorney Representing Applicant
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Atty.
Pilicy: I’d just like to=
sum
up and conclude our presentation. I
know in a memo you have received there’s some report from the Town Pl=
an
of Development and I’d just like to emphasize that report a little
bit. In the original Plan of
Development from 1965 there’s a general discussion of the need for a
through connector, series of roads in the westerly side of the Town. With respect to the easterly porti=
on of
the Town there’s a very specific detailed connection (inaudible) but =
in
the 1965 Town Report it’s more general in nature, but that was correc=
ted
in the 1992 Plan of Development, and at Page 33 and 34, well the whole sect=
ion
talks of the proposed connector roads to provide for traffic circulation
through Town and the goal of avoiding as much congestion as possible in the
center of Town and this report, I believe you have Paragraph 4 from Page 33=
and
combine paragraphs 7 8 and 9 on Page 34.&n=
bsp;
Without reading the entire paragraphs into the record, I would just
incorporate them into the record, I believe it’s in your memo, but
generally I comment that this Plan of Development calls for an important
connection routing through the western portion of Town. And in Note 4 it talks about picki=
ng up
Old Baird Road at the approximate location of Platt Road and someday that r=
oad
would be improved out to Hamilton and then Old Army Road or Artillery Road
would then be connected at the middle where it’s only a dirt road now=
and
in turn further south on Middlebury Road there would be this connection whi=
ch
would get us from Middlebury Road to Straits Turnpike, and that is #9 in the
Plan of Development. I would
incorporate by reference, and I guess I can leave with you the mapping that
follows the paragraphs, I’m not sure if you have the map in your memo,
but Page 30A of the Plan of Development, do you have that?
&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Zawadzki: Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 16
&=
nbsp; =
; Atty.
Pilicy: Do you have that
mapping? I refer you to #9 wh=
ich is
the very connector road that we’re talking about here which completes
that whole east/west from Platt Road out to Straits Turnpike, so this road =
has
been identified at this approximately location specifically since 1992, and=
in
a more general way since 1965 as an important connector road in Town. With that I don’t know if we=
have
anything else, but everyone is still here if there are any questions.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Any questions by Commi=
ssion
Members?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: What kind of
questions do you still have remaining?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Berger: My review is still continuing. Tonight we handed= out to you a memo dated today, sort of an interim review, that summarizes the status of the things that I have looked at and that are acceptable. And some of the items that I have = some more questions on and note that our review is still continuing on this proj= ect.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: This memo of February 19t=
h,
was this more than one page, cause all I have here is one page?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: It’s two pa=
ges.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: The remainder of M=
r.
Berger’s memo is on the other side.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: Second page has I=
tems
#4 through #7 on it, and there are still things we are reviewing such as the
structure type study that Mr. Caterino was discussing that is under review,
continuing review by myself as well as the Director of Public Works, and the
establishment of the flood line study that was provided, we have not comple=
ted
our review of that.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Is there mo=
re
information you’re going to be looking for?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I can’t answer that at this =
point
until I complete my review. T=
he
report that was previously prepared by Haested which Mr. Caterino reference=
d so
adequately address my previous concern about looking at the big picture of =
both
Hidden Oaks and this subdivision and the detention structures that are
proposed; one has been approved and one that’s proposed with this
subdivision that they work together and they actually result in a decrease =
in peak
flows in downstream, a fairly significant decrease in peak flows downstream=
.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 17
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Does anyone from the public ca=
re to
speak on their behalf on proposal 488?&nbs=
p;
No? Anything else from=
the
Commission?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: I have a question for =
the
applicant. On the map here the
property line, just point where the southern . . . . . now what’s sou=
th
of that?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: The property of Robert and Kathy
Smith. There’s a single
family house, it’s a big piece of land, and there’s a house rig=
ht
where my finger is, it’s just a residential building lot, it's a big
parcel, I’m guessing maybe 20 acres.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Roughly where is Bunke=
r Hill
Road on that?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: If you look on the vic=
inity
map, this is our property right here, and Bunker Hill Road is right there, =
but
I’m guessing it’s probably 3,000 feet to the south. About 200 feet from here towards t=
he
intersection that’s where Bunker Hill Road is.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: I think between this property and =
Bunker
Hill there is some residential development, some single family homes with a
farm, Mr. Mancini I believe owns next to this on the south.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: Well to the nor=
th is
Mancini. They abut here to the
north where my hand is.
That’s like a farm.
I’m not sure how big that parcel is.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: Is this open space going to be under easement or how is that going to be handled? Is that deeded over to the Town?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: It’s going to be deeded to t=
he
Town of Watertown.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: And then how’s t=
hat
property, is that marked as being open space or wetlands?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Yea, we have those placards in the
office that they can use.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: You had said
before to use that if there’s an easement, it can also be used where =
the
Town owns the property.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: It depends. If they want to give it to the Tow=
n of
Watertown, or to Land Trust, it will be marked where it is.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 18
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Normally it’s deeded ent=
itled
to the Town of Watertown and along with that is this letter represents an
easement also that’s deeded to the Town of Watertown which restricts =
any
use within the 50 foot buffer which is the regulated area and you don’=
;t
really need it for the areas of open space, but on the rear of all these lo=
ts
over here, that comes in good because you almost can’t do anything.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: I recommend that all the wetlands =
and 50
foot buffer area should be a conservation easement area and that’s wh=
en
they can use those placards and mark the properties before the homeowners m=
ove
into those lots and they know where the limits are.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Ms. Chase was talking about the st=
one
walls. Is that part of the pl=
an
too?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: We can do that. That’s new to us because we =
just
received that report this week, but rebuilding some of the stone walls in t=
he
area of the wetlands. I think=
we could
fix them up a little bit.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: And where w=
as she
talking about?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: I believe she c=
ould
probably show you.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Didn’t she say they’re=
moved
from someplace else to that spot?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Chase: Thank you. I was talking about the stone wall=
s that
are shown on Lots #18 and #1 which will likely be disturbed during
construction, and I would suggest that those very stones be used to mark the
limit of these property lines or the open space so that those two homeowners
know exactly where their limits are.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: We could do that. We could make note on that, that we
would incorporate that into the plans.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: The road coming out onto Middlebury=
Road,
what’s the distance from the road to the northern edge of the buffer?=
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Caterino: It looks like a=
bout
20 feet, if I understand what you’re asking, to the edge of the right=
of
way to the edge of the red point, which is the edge of the easement?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 19
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Right.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: It’s about 20 feet, I wo=
uld
say.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: So it’s pretty c=
lose
there.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Caterino: Yes, but we’re not doing any=
trading
in that area, they’re natural grades so we’re not feathering ou=
t in
that area long the northerly street line.&=
nbsp;
It’s only on the southerly street line where we’re gradi=
ng
slightly. Because this area i=
s so
flat we’re just kind of matching grade and there’s going to be
grass shoulders so actually this whole area is going to be grass anyways.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: The thought that was going thr=
ough
my mind was it’s a shame to cut that field in half with a road, but I
guess there’s not too much else to be done because you can only move =
it
20 feet to the north, is what you’re saying.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Right, it really wouldn’t ma=
ke,
yea you could only gain maybe, right, 20 feet. The road has to be at this angle g=
oing
across, so we can cross the wetlands at the narrowest point. That’s why we have it skewed=
like
that so we minimize the impacts and we minimize the area that we’re
filling. That’s why we =
flare
out, we go straight, and then we curve it straight across like that and
there’s no doubt that that’s the narrowest part that we’re
crossing. If you did move it =
to the
north you’d see that we would be crossing the wider part over here, s=
o it
really doesn’t, I think we have it right where it needs to be. Cause we did shift it left or righ=
t in
all different areas.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: You’re going to =
think
I’m hung up on drains, but how is that road going to drain? Is it going to drain to the sides =
or . .
. . . . ?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: No there are going to be storm
sewer, catch basins and curb and gutter.&n=
bsp;
What’s going to happen is all the roadway is going to drain, 9=
0%
of the roadway will drain into the detention pond which will act as a sedim=
ent
removal pond also for the road sand during Winter and the salts so all of t=
his
will drain into there before it gets discharged to the wetlands. We’re also proposing a storm
scepter which is another measure of removing sediment from the storm runoff,
and on top of that all the catch basins in this whole development will have=
2
foot sumps which will remove sediment also, so there it s a number of measu=
res
that we’ll do to improve the water quality of the runoff.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 20
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: Vinnie, it seems to me that wi= th just a slight variation in the angle of that road where it connects to Middlebury Road you’d be able to eliminate that flare that goes into = the 50 foot buffer. It’s ju= st barely in there; why wouldn’t that be able to be avoided completely?<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: It probably could. Maybe our design engineers, Steve =
could
you take a look at this?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: It’s so close, and you s=
aid
you have about 40 feet you could go more.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: I think we could, but let me j=
ust
confirm that with Steve. If w=
e move
the road up a little bit, about 10 feet, would be out of this area right
here? Kind of like this? I think we could.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Steve George, Design Engineer
Mr. George; Yes, we could move
that. What we were trying to =
do is
keep the road at 90 degrees which is recommended, but we could put a curve =
on
that and certainly get that out of there, that wouldn’t be a
problem. One of the reasons is
we’re following the Town guidelines and they have such a large radius
required for fire trucks and it’s basically just a curb line thatR=
17;s
sweeping through that.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Right, I know, but
it’s a disturbance nonetheless, and I just wondered since it’s =
so
close why we couldn’t move it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. George: We could kick that over and ge=
t it
out of there.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Anybody else? Anyone from the public? No?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Mr. Berger needs some time. You need an extension.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: We would like to request a 35 day
extension on this because of information that’s still to be reviewed =
and
also hopefully bring some of our new members on the Commission up to speed =
on
this.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: Granted.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
PAGE 21
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Keep the Public Hearing Open for 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 9:35 p.m.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 10 minute Recess at 9:35 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary