MINUTES<= o:p>
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
THURSDAY,
JANUARY 15, 2004 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph
Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&=
nbsp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
Bernard Beauchamp
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Peter
Peluso
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; 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 7:30 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 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 2 Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record, as
follows: “Rules For Condu=
ct of
Public Hearing 1. =
The
applicant, or his representative will make his formal presentation to the
Commission stating the proposed regulated activity, the wetland impacts, and
the alternatives, which were considered by the applicant. 2. =
All
comments, discussions and observations shall be made through the Chair, aft=
er
proper recognition by the Chair.
This is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time speak on =
any
issue, thus making it easier for everyone to understand for clearer, legal
transcription. 3. =
All
persons addressing the Board shall begin by first clearly stating their nam=
es
and addresses for the record. If
necessary, the person may be asked to spell his name for the record. 4. =
Following
the presentation of the applicant the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlan=
ds
Agency will ask specific questions of the applicant. 5. =
After
the Commission has asked its questions of the applicant, I shall then allow=
any
members of the public who wishes to speak either in favor of this applicati=
on
or against it, to address the Commission. 6. =
I
shall then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of=
the
general public. 7. =
I
shall then allow members of the general public who wish to present any
additional information or clarifying discussion, to do so. 8. =
I
shall then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of=
the
general public. I shall then =
allow
any members of the general public who wish to present any additional
information or clarifying discussion to do so. 9. =
I
shall then provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these
additional remarks if he or his representative so wishes. 10. The
Conservation Commission has 45 days from the date that the Public Hearing
commences to complete the Public Hearing.&=
nbsp;
The Commission may ask the applicant for a 45 day extension of the
Public Hearing period if the Commission requires any additional information=
or
wishes to schedule a Site Walk to observe the situation for themselves. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 3 &=
nbsp; 11. The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency has 35 days from the date when
the Public Hearing is Closed to render its decision.” 3. =
Hearing
of Applications &=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of Public Hearing from December 11, 2003 - Application #489 of Lynnfield Ac=
res,
LLC for 17-lot residential subdivision located on Bunker Hill Road and Aunt
Olive Road, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by January 15, 2004, unless applic=
ant
grants a time extension. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Edward Scoville, Licensed Professi=
onal
Engineer and Land Surveyor, Stewart Somers Company, 1211 Main Street South,
Southbury, CT &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Scoville: The plan that we have =
before
us is for a 17 lot subdivision with 300 feet of disturbance for a crossing =
for
a drainage pipe, and in addition from comments received from the Planning
Commission, we’d like to amend our application to also include walking
trails for the recreational use of the wetlands and for enjoyment, and to h=
elp
educate the public on the benefit of a wetlands system. To get to this plan we looked at o=
ther
alternatives, and one of the other alternatives we looked at was a loop road
which we can get 22 to 23 lots off of and into kind of a loop road, we did a
rough estimate that the one crossing that would be required to cross the
wetland system would require about 2,500 sq. ft. of disturbance. In addition you’d have a hig=
her
use of the property, there wouldn’t be as much open space and as much
land being conserved, there would be more impervious area by the constructi=
on
of the road, so we figured that this wasn’t a prudent and feasible
prudent alternative, so what we ended up coming up with was the 17 lot desi=
gn
we have with the one crossing which is about 300 sq. ft. In comments I received=
from
the Town Engineer there was some mention as to why we even need this crossi=
ng
at all, so I looked into the feasibility of taking the drainage run and mov=
ing
it up the road to run down the lot line.&n=
bsp;
This isn’t feasible for the reason is is that by going up the
road, I’m going up about 6 feet at this point, so when you look at it=
add
another 6 feet I’m getting a drainage run that’s going to be 14
plus feet into the ground which wasn’t a feasible alternative to do, =
and
that also had problems with the lots.
The lot layout is configured to meet the health code and septic
requirements so we were required to do that. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 4 The site is currently =
an
open field or farmland and we’re proposing with the increase of water
quality basin to help mitigate any potential impact that may result from the
increase of roads and impervious surfaces.=
I’m here tonight if there’s any wetlands questions we ha=
ve a
biologist and soil scientist, a landscape architect, and Franklin Pilicy
representing the application. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Franklin Pilicy, Attorney Represen=
ting
the Applicant &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: I’d like to report some
proceedings before the Planning Commission. This subdivision was reviewed befo=
re the
Planning Commission, and since the last time I was here I believe the open
space has been further emphasized, and the Planning Commission has requeste=
d a
walking trail through the property, and the additional component of the wal=
king
trail what the Planning Commission suggested we ask this Commission about i=
s a
pedestrian access from Aunt Olive Road which would require a wetlands cross=
ing
at this location here. I gues=
s Dirk
is going to talk about that, but we were asked by the Planning Commission
specifically to amend this application to add this walking trail through the
open space so that there would be some way to encourage individuals to actu=
ally
use the open space. It’=
s also
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the applicant agrees to
this, that the open space would be turned over to the Land Trust as opposed=
to
the Town of Watertown on the basis that the Land Trust already has some wal=
king
trails through some of the property that they own or manage and that this w=
ould
add to the trail system, so to speak, in other parts of the Town that the L=
and
Trust has recently started, so the plan since you’ve seen it last has
been changed to add the walking trail, add the pedestrian access, and the g=
oal
is to have the open space conveyed to the Land Trust as opposed to the Town=
of
Watertown. So that’s re=
ally
where we are. Dirk is going t=
o talk
about the what the trail is and what it isn’t, where it is and the
crossing. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: The path itself has been laid o=
ut to
create more or less a mile loop and to take advantage of the different
conditions in this property. =
As you
know from being out there, there is a lot of different scenic parts of the
property, both upland and wetlands and some steeper slopes and some more
moderate slopes, and in particular there were 3 points in my opinion which =
had
the chief scenic values and educational values on the property. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 5 1. &n=
bsp;
First would be a small isolated wetland in a very
narrow topographic hollow, just beyond Lots #8, #9, and #10. 2. The next point would b=
e a
ridgeline, just above the pocket wetlands where you could look out over the
wetland, and also a tallow’s slope across. 3. The third chief point =
would
be in an area of open clearing, overlooking the large broad wet meadow marsh
wetland along Aunt Olive Road with some very expansive large views over that
wetland. So I want to delete those 3 primary areas wit=
h the
trail and then follow terrain.
Basically it would start (inaudible) would be at two points, the fir=
st
one would be off of the proposed Bellmeadow Drive, follow along the existing
processed stone access way to the proposed detention basin, and then the fi=
rst
part of the trail would loop off, go next to the detention basin, which you
will recall from the last meeting there is a planting plan with native spec=
ies
to be planted around that, it will be an attractive area, then looping down
below Lot #10 through the woods, and then near to that isolated wetland tha=
t I
discussed for a little area where you look directly at the wetlands, very
interesting wetland, a lot of diversity, some shrubs, under story, some tou=
gh
(inaudible) under story, red maple canopy some winterberry, very, very dive=
rse
little system and then that’s backed up on a tallow’s slopes,
classic rocky tallow’s slope coming down into it, intimate scale type
base, and follow along that wetland and then climb up to a saddle and across
the top of the ridge into the woodlands, looking down into the lower wetlan=
d to
the east and some very interesting sloping terrain, some very nice hardwood
florist, having a larger wider overlook and then going down the ridge and t=
hen
switch backing, kind of traversing the terrain back towards Aunt Olive Road,
and then at that point following that larger Aunt Olive Road wetland system=
up
to the third open space viewing area over the marsh, before then looping ba=
ck around
the detention basin and coming back at the access way to Bellmeadow Drive.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, Washington CT
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 6
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
other access way going out towards Aunt Olive Road that section, the large
wetland that follows along Aunt Olive Road it narrows as you’re going
towards the south, towards the property line. There is also a couple of slight
elevations in topography across this wetland as you can see by some of the
vegetation that’s growing on it.&nbs=
p;
At the narrowest point near that far southerly property line we have=
a
breakaway bridge we can get into, and also a combination trail and boardwalk
across that wetland linking up with Aunt Olive Road at that far southeast
corner. There is a detailed h=
ere
which would be submitted.
In terms of boardwalk =
construction
there is a variety of ways that can be handled. The most simple one you’ve a=
ll
seen. It’s timber piers
driven into the substrate and then wood framing to create the boardwalk
itself. Pressure treated you =
can
use, there is some question by some people about the possibility of effects
from pressure treated chemicals in wetland systems. Personally I think the jury is out=
on
that. The other is cedar or C=
yprus
as pier structures. Another m=
ethod
is to take, I’ve seen actually used tires laid as a blanket over the =
top
of the wetland system, bolted together and then that’s supporting a
floating wood structure.
Another method I’=
;ve
seen used is taking precast concrete bumper blocks, laying them again across
the top of the wetland surface, bolting those together leaving some (inaudi=
ble)
rods that come up through them and have the wood structure flat on top of
those. The primary difference
between using a wood pier driven into the wetland and one of these floating
systems is that the floating systems float, they move, and so you will get
situations sometimes where you’ll have little changes in section to
section and a potential for tripping hazards and things like that, but
it’s a nature trail and there are several different options.
Another option for pie=
rs,
and I’ll just submit to the record, are these galvanized steel screw
piers which are also used for foundation under any and different substrate
conditions so there are a lot of different varieties and it can be handled
across a fairly narrow section of the wetland, and frankly it would be a ve=
ry
interesting element of the nature walk and have very minimal impact to that
wetland system. Do you want t=
o go
over the bridge?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 7
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mark Tedesco, 145 Hard Rock Road,
Watertown, CT 06795
Mr. Tedesco. <=
/b>I’m the
applicant. The stretch over o=
n Aunt
Olive Road to the bridge is about 60 feet as far as the length of that. I went up to White Memorial and di=
d some
research up there and also Black Rock on how they use footbridges and I was=
, to
be honest, a little letdown on what’s up there. It’s just basically planks o=
n the
ground, some of them are driven in with posts, some are just laid on the
ground. This will not be like
that. This will be a class
act. Any way, any opinions on=
your
behalf will definitely be taken into consideration. I want this to really work.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: Let me go a little bit to feas=
ible
and prudent alternatives in terms of the layout. As it stands now as has been drawn=
here,
the alignment in some places, it does come within the regulated area setbac=
k,
the buffer zone. There is one
crossing as we discuss here and then there are sections of it along the
wetland, along Aunt Olive Road within a portion of the buffer to this isola=
ted
wetland here, and then just skirting the regulated area to the conservation
easement and wetland system and open space on Lot #17. There are areas where I’m
proposing that it goes into that regulated area, and what we’re talki=
ng
about is a very low impact, 4 foot wide foot path, probably some selective
thinning of some trees and shrubs in certain areas, perhaps some bark mulch=
on
the ground, but again very low impact and we could align this to stay out of
all regulated areas, but in my opinion one of the functions and values of
wetlands, also backed up by Statute, by the D.E.P. is their educational val=
ue
as well as their scenic value, and I think the ability, as long as these tr=
ails
are constructed and implemented in a sensitive manner, to be able to get pe=
ople
down near these wetlands in certain areas so that they can really take a cl=
ose
look at some of the species and some of the conditions, I think has a great
value that outweighs the potential for impact. Also it allows by coming in to som=
e of
these regulated areas it allows for a better flexibility in terms of alignm=
ent
to really maximize the different conditions that are out there so that we g=
et a
very interesting loop through that property so again we could have an
alternative that stays out of those regulated areas, but in my opinion this=
is
a far better alignment for a variety of reasons that I mentioned.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 8
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; In
terms of construction we’ve got an alignment here and the process to =
go
through we would lock this area, flag certain trees, take a look at exact s=
ilt
conditions, take a look at exact slopes, look at where little micro drainage
areas are, might have a few minor missing and revisions to that particular
alignment, and once we’re done with that we would come in and have
whatever selective thinning that might have to happen, and again this is a =
very
low amount, this is a nature trail, it’s not like we need large clear=
ing
and then there would be a process in place with bark mulch on the ground.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I just have a question, on the
trail, can you explain it to me?
How are you going to construct that walkway? Will it be constructed with, whate=
ver
you explain it to me. The oth=
er
thing I heard about the breakaway bridge, whatever, can you explain how that
works?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: Do you want to talk about the
details on the breakaway bridge and then I can go the . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: The whole concept of the break=
away
bridge is that about 60 feet from the road we’re going to be making t=
he
one watercourse crossing and the object is instead of going in there and
building a huge structure that’s really high off the ground, we’=
;re
looking at just basically taking the boards and building a nice plank bridge
going over there that won’t be really high off the ground and
you’re not going to have that much potential things. So in a large storm event, say a 1=
00
year storm comes along, the area is going to flood, and instead of having t=
he
rain come and just take the whole bridge down, but break easy bridges
we’re going to anchor it the bridge to a board, which will be stuck in
the ground, so when the water comes it will be able to lift the bridge up a=
nd
will have it hooked by a chain so it will just spin as opposed to being just
washed down and ending up in some other . . . . . more open for a large sto=
rm
event if it ever filled up over the channel, it wouldn’t impede the f=
low
of any objects on it, or our bridge wouldn’t end up downstream cloggi=
ng
up a culvert. That was the co=
ncept
as far as a breakaway bridge.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: I brought Mr. Berger, the Town Eng=
ineer,
along with Moosa and Roy Cavanaugh, and we all looked at it, and it was
Chuck’s opinion to do this breakaway system, and again like Ed said, =
we
were calculating more as a 50 year flood that it wouldn’t be messing =
up
any kid of culverts downstream. As
far as securing it, the detail is all there, it will be chained in one corn=
er
and it will actually swing and turn if need be. Both ends will be secured in the g=
round,
but the left side of that bridge as you see it will be pretty much real good
and stationary. Also I want t=
he
Board to realize that the brook we’re talking about is about 8 feet w=
ide
and this bridge will be about 14 or 15 feet long. Again I hate using the word bridge;
it’s a foot bridge. The=
re
will be no hand rails for any kind of a debris to catch onto it in case of a
flood and it’s about 2.5 or 3 feet off the ground, from the bottom of=
the
brook bed.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: And the trail is the same widt=
h and
the other thing is the construction of the trail.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: The construction of the boardw=
alk
that would come across, we would start at one side and work our way out,
basically you’d come in, bring the piers, whether they be the screw t=
ype
or pin (inaudible) piers, drive those in the ground, go out about another 8
feet, drive another set of piers in the ground, lay on the beams and lay the
decking on, and once you finish the deck, you go back out and continue alon=
g,
so you’re not using heavy machinery or anything like that, it’s=
all
hand labor with lumber and sawing and nailing and bolting and the like, wor=
king
from one side to the other. I=
t’s
very similar to the detail that’s shown here. Joist and beams and then wood plan=
king
across the top and then roughly about 18 inches off the ground so no railin=
g is
required.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: So where there is no water you=
will
use regular dirt and (inaudible)?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: Yea, for example, in this area=
there
is a little it of a knoll, it goes up to 6, 10.8, almost a couple of feet a=
bove
the rest of the wetland. If w=
e can
get up higher, and it’s nice and high and dry and it stays dry and
it’s safe for walking that would just be an on grade path. If we get into certain areas that =
are
marshy and a lot of emergent growth and something more extensive periods of=
the
year, they’d be wading in muck or mud or water, that would be a board=
walk
similar to this bridge.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 10
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Just a question, and I donR=
17;t
know the answer on this, but who is going to maintain this?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: We expect the Land Trust will =
own,
well I don’t know that anyone has approached the Land Trust, but Plan=
ning
and Zoning has recommended and the applicant has agreed to turn all of this
open space with the walking trails over to the Land Trust as opposed to the
Town of Watertown.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: I received a letter from the Water=
town
Land Trust today and they are interesting in accepting this land as open
space. If you want to read . =
. . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I think probably the question =
will
come up on the cost, future cost of maintaining it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: We were told that the Boy Scou=
ts are
a big part of the Watertown Land Trust.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Yes, I think the Boy Scouts ca=
n help
clear brush and things like that, but I’m thinking more, supposed the=
re
is some major damage to that bridge, suppose after 10 years there is some
rotting and so on and work needs to be done there, the Boy Scouts are not g=
oing
to take care of that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: The bridge, just so you know a=
gain,
the foot bridge the approximate cost of this footbridge might cost us around
$500. We’re not talking
megabucks here or a big bridge, but I respect your question, who is going to
handle it, we’ll have to figure that out. And again as far as Mr. Polletta&#=
8217;s
questions on how much of this planking is going to be needed, I’ve wa=
lked
the whole area, and there are ways of avoiding certain areas and we’re
going to do that, as long as Planning and Zoning doesn’t, like Dirk s=
aid,
give us a surveying points like this is where you want it, and they’ve
been pretty good about it to be honest with you. The only planking I see is that 60=
feet
coming off Aunt Olive Road, the footbridge and then after that it’s a
home run as far as walking.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I have a question for Chuck.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 11
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I’d like to have an
opportunity to study the plan that was represented tonight. I got that this morning. It was my suggestion in the field =
so
I’m in favor of the concept of it, but we’re trying to definite=
ly,
as the applicant has said, focus on low impact stuff here, we don’t w=
ant
a big bridge there, we want something that blends in nicely yet at the same
time we don’t want anything braking loose and blocking culverts
downstream or causing flooding upstream and I think this will be a great
concept.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I have another question on the
access – was there an article in the paper that was talking about par=
king
and the possibility of widening the road or a pull off spot down there for =
some
cars?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Pilicy: That’s a two part
question. I guess if you take=
into
account the comments form the Planning Commission. This access off of Aunt Olive Road=
came
up for a couple of reasons and one important reason the Planning Commission=
is
that by putting this access onto Aunt Olive Road, you’re creating an
opportunity to connect this trail system up to trail system and future open
space dedications when the property to the south comes in for a subdivision=
, so
it was really looking forward to connecting it up and having a much larger
walking trail and that’s where the crossing and the access onto Aunt
Olive Road came in, was for a broader future aspect, and during that discus=
sion
a member of the public that lives on Aunt Olive Road was concerned because =
that
individual was afraid that they’d have great numbers of people parkin=
g on
Aunt Olive Road and then interfering with their quality of life with additi=
onal
cars there. The Planning Comm=
ission
commentary was that they didn’t expect that there would be a lot of
parking because historically in other areas of town where they have these
trails that’s not an issue, but in final discussion with the applican=
t,
the applicant agreed to create a shelf that would be suitable for 3 or 4 or=
5
cars, and that’s how that issue was left, that there is, as part of t=
he
subdivision plan now, an agreement by the applicant to create a shoulder ar=
ea,
nothing special, just a shoulder area to accommodate 2, 3, 4 cars so that i=
f a
small number of people wanted to park, they wouldn’t necessarily have=
to
park in the existing travel portion other road. I think that’s pretty much w=
hat
that discussion was all about.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: So as one other thing . . . . =
(Tape
#1, Side A ended – may have missed some.)
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 12
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Tedesco: As you mentioned=
, read
about in the paper, and sometimes they’re not as fair and balanced as
they should be, but this gentleman here in this corner came out against the
walking trail thinking that people are going to park all in here and walk
across. As most of you have b=
een on
the walk, this is all marshland, there is just no way of getting across
there. The only feasible and
prudent way is right through here.
We also had another neighbor, Ms. Diane John come in, right behind t=
hat
gentleman, and she was entirely in favor of it, which was not reported, but
there is room right now for 3 cars, where the stop sign is, right before it,
there’s enough room for 3 cars, give you about ½ hour to an ho=
ur
with a little (inaudible) it would be perfect.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: My understanding is that there=
is
also talk of having parking on that access road that you’re pulling in
there. Is that correct or not=
?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: Which access road?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: The one going into the trail.<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Tedesco: No parking there. If somebody wants to park on the p=
ublic
road, they have all the right in the world to do that, but I don’t wa=
nt
them on that easement area. T=
hey
can walk through there. We=
217;ll
be planting a gravel base there.
Public Works wants us to use a certain kind of dirt pavers, I think
they’re called, they explained the pros and cons of that, because
that’s going to be coming up.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: This access way that comes alo=
ng the
alignment of the piping going to the detention water quality basin, it̵=
7;s
relatively moderate terrain until the very end, fairly level and what
we’re proposing is simply like what they call a process stone, or a t=
rap
rot, very simple laid back gravel way that people can also walk on, and
(inaudible) suggestions has been to use turf block which is a precast concr=
ete,
almost like an egg crate grid which has openings in it which you can put tu=
rf
in and grass grows up over it and it’s used in certain instances for
erosion control, for heavier traffic, say for an overflow parking lot that =
you
want to have kind of a green look or an infiltration ability, permeability
ability, and in my opinion in terms of being out in the kind of semi rural
landscape, even though this is a subdivision, there’s a large nature =
area
we’re trying to get through, rather than having something that looks =
like
a corporate office building overflow parking lot or a fire emergency way, t=
urf
block things like that, I would personally rather have very simple gravel p=
ath
to come in through here, for my own opinion, for aesthetics, rather than
something as formal as a turf block access way.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 13
There’s also an =
issue
over time in terms of maintenance on turf block. As ground, particularly in expansi=
ve
soils, that you get in some of these hard pans where water collects and exp=
ands
and the like, I have seen in long sections of these turf blocks where the
different sections they come in units, different sections move, and then in=
my
opinion conceivably over time it would become more of a maintenance, I
don’t know if I would use the word headache to a certain extent, they
become more of a maintenance issue as they kind of heave and have to be set=
tled
back in and things like that, I think the gravel driveway would be a lot ea=
sier
and I don’t think it would be any more visually obtrusive than the tu=
rf
block.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: I have one other quick one her=
e and
maybe Jim Cowen, the Soil Scientist involved can help us out a little bit w=
ith
this.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Jim Cowen, Soil Scientist and Cert=
ified
Professional Wetland Scientist, Environmental Planning Services
Mr. Cowen: Our firm delineated the
wetlands and you have a copy of that delineation report and I remember some=
of
you from the site walk, and we looked at the wetland swale which is primari=
ly a
drainage swale and there is the one other wetland activity is a crossing wh=
ich,
a culvert crossing. In additi=
on to
crossing, we looked at the swale and the vegetation there and what we would
like to do is as some of you saw on the site walk, the hedge area is very
narrow, there are some small saplings and some of them are dying out due to=
an
under story of invasive vines and species so what we would like to do is
restore the health of that hedgerow by doing some selective removal of the
invasive species and thinning them out so that the trees have a better chan=
ce
of being health. In addition =
the
invasive species overhang the wetland swale which is essentially a ditch, it
was an agricultural ditch and by overhanging it they shade it so that
it’s largely unvegetated and in my opinion it would be desirable to
remove those invasive species and allow the native grasses and the grasses =
that
are there to revegetate that. It
will improve the quality of the swale in terms of erosion and any of you ha=
ve
seen the erosion that’s potential out there when you have bare soil, =
so
it’s better for that to be vegetated with the native herbs and so for=
th
that want to be there, except they’re being shaded out, so we would l=
ike
the ability to do some restoration and thinning of that hedgerow which I wo=
uld
say that virtually all of the plans we’re looking at aren’t in =
the
wetlands, they’re in the hedgerow right next to the wetlands, so
we’re not talking about getting into the wetland and grubbing it out =
or
anything but removal in the hedgerow in the adjacent upland.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 14
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Joe asked a question earlier, =
which
I don’t think was really answered, which was how do you plan to const=
ruct
the actual path. I think he w=
as
concerned about what types of equipment, or is it going to be basically don=
e by
hand?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: It’s going to be done by=
hand,
no machinery whatsoever. Basi=
cally
I’m going to get my dad and a couple of guys out there with machetes =
and
there’s not a lot of work to be done there. When you’re going through so=
me of
the brush coming in from Aunt Olive Road, you’ve got a good day just
shaping that up, but the rests of it is pretty good, walkable area, and we =
can
delineate it any way that you guys see fit and also Planning and Zoning, if=
we
can get together on that, any kind of delineation. Dirk, I don’t know if you ha=
ve any
input on the trail itself.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: As I mentioned once in awhile =
you
might have to have a shovel and pick and put in a water break log or divert=
a
little bit of flow under it, and put a 4 inch pipe in things like that, but
it’s really low impact and . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: =
Basically you’re=
going
to construct it with the existing materials, whatever is over there?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: Yea, there might be a few bark=
chips
here and there, but that’s it.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: Is that detention pond wet or dry?<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Sabin: It’s a wet basin. There is a shallow bit of water ev=
en
during low flow periods in the bottom of it, and the planting design is
designed accordingly.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: The grass swale fr=
om the
outlet of the pond is located within the 50 foot buffer zone of the wetland,
and it wasn’t in the original plan.&=
nbsp;
I noticed that in the revised plan this is within the regulated area=
. Is it possible to move that outsid=
e of
the regulated area?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 15
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Scoville: The location of=
the
grass swale which we’ve chosen so we can get a long run and include w=
ater
tracks and enhance the filtering of it, we are now up higher out of the
regulated area, we are going to be getting a steeper slope and it would hav=
e to
go through a longer slope until it gets to an actual wetlands marsh which is
fairly level, so we’re trying to outlet it as close as (inaudible) and
currently they are proposing now this is to be a totally grass swale lined =
with
a coconut fiber mat so that the grass and the stuff get established and
I’ve submitted calculations to Chuck showing the stability of the
swale. That’s the reaso=
n for
. . . it wouldn’t be a prudent moving the swale up though because the=
n we
would develop some of the large gulleys that we saw on the site walk. Its’ best to keep it closer =
to the
wetlands and (inaudible) level that area.&=
nbsp;
That’s the reason for going into the regulated area. Since most of the wetlands in this=
area,
this is a flat (inaudible). T=
hat
was my reasoning for putting it there.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: If that is the case th=
en
this is another regulated activity that should be added to the application.=
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: I assume that the reas=
oning
for that is you have a certain, based on the calculations, the size for that
detention pond can it be elongated and still have the same capacity and mak=
e it
just longer and narrower. Wou=
ld
that be a benefit instead of moving it up the slope?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Scoville: Right now with =
the
location of the detention pond here from the profile that was added to it, I
added the profile showing the drainage run from the road all the way down to
the pond. It’s going in=
to the
outlet structure and you know we’re using the location there to drop
it. The detention pond itself=
is
outside of the regulated activity.
To elongate it, an alternative would be to take a whole detention po=
nd
and move that into the regulated area, but that would be more of a signific=
ant
impact so we feel it will be more prudent to take it and just construct a g=
rass
swale, we’d have benefits from putting that in the grass swale as opp=
osed
to rip rap (inaudible) which would be easier probably to put in, was chosen
because it would have more benefits in the long run. They grass would help remove the
pollutants and stuff and be aesthetically better so that’s why I figu=
red
that would be more prudent to have just a grass swale going to that area as
opposed to taking the who detention pond and moving that down.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: If you did pull that grass swa=
le up
out of the regulated area, the discharge point would be raised about 6 to 8
feet higher than the wetlands and so you’d have a discharge point, ev=
en
though you might be able to put a level spreader in and spread the water,
you’d have a discharge point up higher in grade rather than down low,=
so
that it gets down into those lower elevations of wetlands and I think that&=
#8217;s
an important thing to consider.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 16
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: I have anot=
her
question for Chuck. Looking a=
t your
letter, the January 9th letter, you had quite a few points you h=
ad
raised. Have you been satisfi=
ed
with all the responses to all those things? Is there anything outstanding ther=
e that
is still an issue?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: There are several=
minor
issues still outstanding from the plans that we received a couple of days
ago. Just to probably highlig=
ht
some of the bigger issues, I guess, maybe that’s a little bit of an
overstatement, but we had talked, I wasn’t at the last Commission
meeting, but I’ve talked to the applicant about the swales versus the
curb and a closed catch basin system up on top of the hill at the roadway, =
and
I don’t know if you want some feedback on that back from me, I had
mentioned that in my memo. Th=
ey had
responded to my concern about why don’t we put swales in instead of a
curb and gutter system, with a satisfactory answer is that because of the h=
igh
groundwater table they don’t think it would work. We had asked at the Planning and Z=
oning
Commission meeting to look at sort of a hybrid alternative of putting a clo=
sed
system, eliminating the curbs, putting a closed system off the paved sectio=
n of
the road and swales and we’re still waiting for that, but at this poi=
nt
in time with the alternatives presented, I think what they have proposed is=
the
right way to go, based on the high ground water out there, but that has bee=
n an
issue, the drainage easement access way issue from Bellmeadow down to the
detention basin. There is a
difference of opinion there. =
We do
suggest and have requested the grass pavers be put in there versus the grav=
el
access road and that’s a recommendation from the Public Works Departm=
ent
as well as the Town Planner’s Office on that one.
One of the associated =
issues
with that, is within that access way that is going to be a Town drainage
easement down to the detention basin there is supposed to be footing drains
located in that as well as the pipe that connects the septic tank to the le=
ach
fields to the, I’m not sure what the lot number is without looking in
detail at my memo, we do have, and I certainly understand why they’ve
combined it all under one easement area to minimize wetland impact, however=
we
do have concerns about having other pipes within the Town easement area.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 17
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; I
guess the last thing, again it’s probably a pretty minor point still,=
but
I had asked for a narrative summary of some of the issues that I had raised=
in
the drainage analysis. From a
technical standpoint they’ve addressed all the issues, but I thought =
it
would be helpful for the record, for the file, as well as for the Commission
members to provide a little bit more narrative summary of what is proposed
there, cause this is somewhat of a unique site in that it has been a cornfi=
eld
for so long and what they are proposing there would basically turn it into
grass and does, it’s a great benefit for the runoff on that site. It’s a little bit complex an=
d I
wasn’t at the last meeting to know how much detail you got into with
that, but a little bit more explanation cause we are doing some good things=
on
the site that would be beneficial and I’d like to look at the bridge =
in a
little more detail.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Anybody else?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: You didn’t r=
ead
that letter from the Watertown Land Trust for the record.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
S=3DZawadzki: For the record I’=
;d
like to read a letter from the Watertown Land Trust:
“Watertown Land =
Trust,
Inc.
P.O. Box 382
Watertown, CT 06795
Conservation Commission
Inland Wetlands Agency
51 Depot Square
Watertown, CT 0695
January 15, 2004
Dear Board Members:
The Watertown Land Tru=
st
would be happy to accept the open space portion of Lynnfield Acres and than=
ks
the Town for considering us as stewards of this property. We have a strong property maintena=
nce
committee to oversee the care of our land.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 18
Our acceptance would be
subject to a satisfactory environmental site assessment and the understandi=
ng
that public access would be provided for passive recreational use.
Very truly yours,
Gail A. Sangree
Chairman
Watertown Land Trust&#=
8221;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: If no on else on the Commissio=
n has
any questions, I’d like to open the floor to the public. Does anyone have any comments? Nobody? Okay.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Scoville: If you’d =
like I
can address the issues with the grass swales, as a hybrid system on the roa=
d,
if the Commission would like me to go into detail on that.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Sure.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Scoville: It was discusse=
d at
the Planning Meeting, was the alternative of taking the catch basins, inste=
ad
of putting them on the road, putting them on the shoulder (inaudible) about=
6
feet form the road and then putting a swale in there and then having water
runoff into there. Now at the
Planning Meeting there was one Commission member who was adamantly against =
that
and (inaudible) a lot of it came down to aesthetics. The problem with doing that is tha=
t when
you have cold weather like we’re having today, with the freezing and
thawing that’s going on, and today when it thawed out a little bit wh=
en it
got up to 10 degrees with the salt on the road, the water will run on the
pavement and it will go into the catch basin into the drainage system. As soon as it goes into the catch =
basin
and the drainage system it’s basically, it’s going into its int=
ended
spot.
When you have the swal=
es on
the side of the road and soils that we have here, when a little bit of runo=
ff
that’s on the road when it melts the ice, instead of going to the swa=
le
because the rest of the side of the road is still covered with snow, itR=
17;s
going to mitigate into the gravel that’s underneath the road ways and
it’s going to cause the preliminary breakup of the road basing, it st=
arts
by getting alligator cracking on the side of the road, so the longevity of =
the
road would be compromised as far as it goes, so it’s not in my opinio=
n as
prudent as putting in a catch basin system and it comes down to, the big th=
ing
is aesthetics. The catch basin
system doesn’t look as good.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 19
They both do their int=
ended
things and these proposed water quality basin which would do a lot of the
benefits that a grass swale would do, we’re using the water quality b=
asin
to remove the pollutants, and in addition we’re proposing a grass swa=
le,
using the water quality basin.
Again at these locations we’re not going to have any impact to=
the
road, so it’s far more feasible to have it there as opposed to right =
on
the side of the road where in a few years the road is going to start to bre=
ak
apart and then the Town would end up coming in and having to repave it so t=
hat
was the main reason to go to catch basin and closed system as opposed to gr=
ass
swales on the side of the road and the hybrid system.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: And the catch b=
asin
system you use is curbs right?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Scoville: Correct.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: How do you feel=
about
that, Chuck?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I think that̵=
7;s
probably going to be what our recommendation is to go with the curbed and
closed catch basin system primarily because of the high groundwater in this
area. They found the seasonal=
high
groundwater to be in the vicinity of 12 to 18 inches in many spots along the
test bits of the road, so we’ll probably be looking for them to put in
under drains under the road and then go with the traditional curb and catch
basin system.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Tedesco: As a developer
it’s a lot less expensive for me to do a swale system, but again
professional opinion of my engineers is it just won’t work. It might work for awhile, but I=
217;m
going to be responsible with a bond, who knows how long it will be before I
relinquish it to the Town, and also there’s a lot of pride involved h=
ere. I want to make sure 5, 10 years fr=
om now
I can still drive by there and know things are the way they’re suppos=
ed
to be, but it is a lot less money to go with swales.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well I think the analy=
sis we
just heard sounds certainly logical because we can all attest to the fact t=
hat
on a day like today, not much water is flowing, and what is going to flow is
out there in the streets and Ed’s analysis of the cause and effect so=
unds
pretty logical to me.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I have a question on the Land
Trust. How much land will be
donated to the Land Trust?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 20
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: 26.3 acres is going to be dona=
ted to
the Land Trust. In addition t=
o that
there was a conservation easement that were added on a bunch of the parcels
which totals about another 4 acres as far as that goes.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Tedesco: In layman’s term=
s over
30% of my property is going to be given to the Town one way or another, clo=
se
to 33% of the property.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: The conservation easement is to
going to be deeded to the Town of Watertown; that will be part of the build=
ing
lots, but they’re not going to disturb that area (inaudible). I received a letter from the Torri=
ngton
Area Health District regarding the septic system and wells for these lots if
you want to read that into the record.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: This letter is =
from
the Torrington Area Health District:
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; “Torrington
Area Health District
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 350
Main Street, Suite 8
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Torrington,
CT 06790
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Town
of Watertown
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Inland
Wetlands Commission
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Planning
and Zoning Commission
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 51
Depot Street
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Watertown,
CT 06795
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; December
11, 2003
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Date
stamped as received on January 6, 2004
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Dear
Commission Members:
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
following correspondence concerns itself with the 17 lot subdivision within=
the
Town of Watertown and located along the south side of Bunker Hill Road. The parcel consisting of approxima=
tely
75 acres and owned by Lynnfield Acres, LLC shown on a map submitted by David
Bjorkland, Jr. P.E. and dated 10/14/03 and revised on 12/11/03. Deep hole and percolation test dat=
a was
also included and dated 5/5/03 and 5/12/03.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 21
As a result of this ma=
terial
reviewed and field evaluation we are in agreement with Bjorkland’s
assessment that these parcels can satisfactorily accommodate primary and
reserves sub service sewage disposal systems for single family 4 bedroom dw=
ellings
within the areas tested. Wetl=
ands,
ledge, and a seasonal high groundwater table appear to pose no problems for
this parcel.
Finally prior to issua=
nce of
any septic permit, an individual sanitary design prepared by a professional
engineer must be submitted for review and approval from this Department.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Respectfully
submitted,
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Robert
A. Smith
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Registered
Sanitarian”
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; (Tape
#1, Side B ended – May have missed some.)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Any questions? Anyone from the public wish to
speak? Last chance? Does somebody want to speak? I guess not. Okay I think there are enough unan=
swered
questions that we’d like to ask for a 35 day extension on this until =
we
can get all of the questions resolved in writing and that sort of thing.
Atty. Pilicy: =
Well we were hoping to=
Close
the Public Hearing because it was our understanding that any open issues we=
re
relatively minor and we’re prepared to follow whatever the final
recommendation from Mr. Berger is.
If the Commission, I guess has the final say as to whether these iss=
ues
can be left at the discretion of Mr. Berger or whether this Commission want=
us
to come back.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well I think the big problem i= s we can’t accept any new information after the Public Hearing is Closed.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; =
; Atty.
Pilicy: Well you can from=
Mr.
Berger, but you can’t from us.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yes, but not from you.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 22
Atty. Pilicy: =
I guess I’ll lea=
ve it
to the Commission then, to Mr. Berger as to whether or not you feel that th=
ere
is a need to keep the Hearing Open.
We feel that we’ve giving an answer to just about everything t=
hat
we were asked.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Well I think going back over t=
he 54
major issues that I highlighted from my memo, I think the narrative report,
again the technical issues have been satisfied in my mind, and if the
Commission is satisfied with the drainage report and the information that w=
as
presented at the last Public Hearing I think the narrative would help every=
body
understand what was going on, but again from a technical standpoint it̵=
7;s not
really necessary cause I’m comfortable with what they’ve done f=
rom
a drainage perspective. Proba=
bly
the only two issues that are probably going to be somewhat controversial wo=
uld
be the, one of them is pretty minor, is the treatment of the access way,
whether it’s gravel or grass pavers, and the other one is dealing with
the pipes in the Town’s easement areas, that services the 20 lot, tho=
se
two would be my thoughts of things where we’re not n the same page, w=
here
it may affect because they are within the regulated area.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Scoville: To go over the =
item
with the pipe and from the site walk we saw that the drainage swale was abo=
ut 3
feet wide as far as it goes.
We’ll be looking at moving the pipe, the septic pipe over 15 f=
eet
to keep it out of there, which we also wouldn’t have the same amount =
of
disturbance. I mean we’=
d be
willing to just amend that, if I was to do that, because it’s really a
small item we’re talking about moving the septic pipe which is a 4 in=
ch
line so it would be just one quick shot to got through outside that’s
nothing and we’d be more than happy to just amend that and I don̵=
7;t
think it’s really going to make any significant difference as far as
disturbed area.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: Also if I can just mention, do=
es
this Commission on these grass pavers, I mean I don’t want this to be=
a
deal breaker. You’re lo=
oking
at close to $5,000 pavers here. Is
this something, I’m not sure if Planning and Zoning wants it, it
hasn’t been brought in front of them yet, is this something you feel =
this
Commission would want. If it =
is,
I’m willing to do it. I
don’t see the reasoning for it, though.
Mr. Undercuffler: Are we talking pavers =
on
that whole section of road?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: 750 feet of lineal pavers.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: I kind of l=
ike
the gravel idea myself.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 23
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: I don’t have any particu=
lar ax
to grind one way or the other.
Personally I think I know the pavers eventually give you a grass look
because grass grows up inside, they’re through them and it looks like=
a
grass pathway, as opposed to a gravel road. Aesthetically it might be more ple=
asing,
but as you say if the ground heaves and they lift up and they create bumps,=
why
that’s not good either.
Mr. Tedesco: <=
/b>The other thing is wit=
h the
pavers, and I could be wrong here, you do have to fill them up somewhat with
loam for grass to grow, which is more of an erosion problem on top of it, a=
nd I
asked Dirk and I asked the engineers here, as far as, eventually grass is g=
oing
to grow through that gravel road also.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Who suggested these pavers?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Tedesco: This was suggest=
ed by
Mary Barton and Roy Cavanaugh and I don’t know if this is something C=
huck
also wants, but this is definitely something that Roy Cavanaugh wants and h=
is
only reason was aesthetics, cause we do not have a 15% slope here as far as
erosion problems. I can see t=
he use
of them and need of them if you have an erosion problem; we don’t have
that here. To me it’s j=
ust a
waste of money.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Now it wouldn’t have any
affect on the storm water runoff right?
Mr. Tedesco: <=
/b>I can’t answer t=
hat.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: I mean pavers v=
ersus
gravel?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: In some respects we want to lo=
ok at
the minute detail level that when you’re putting in the pavers, there=
is
a surface area that’s the concrete of the type that’s imperviou=
s as
opposed to the gravel which all the water would go through. That would be the biggest differen=
ce as
far as the runoff goes that I could go, that’s relatively you know sm=
all
as far as it goes. I mean the
gravel when the water is going to flow right in cause all of the, it’s
round as opposed to you know with the concrete, it’s just going to go
onto the top of it and have more of a tendency to run off a little bit so
it’s really small and they’re probably almost identical as far =
as
the runoff is considered.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
What would you guess t=
he
open space on the pavers is, 50% of the area?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 24
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: That sounds about right.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: So 50% is imper=
vious
and 50% open, where gravel is 100% porous.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: Yes, somewhat.
Mr. Berger: I don’t think
we’re talking about the same, I think what Mary and what Roy are
envisioning are not what you just described, where you have 50% of the bloc=
k is
concrete and the other 50% is gravel.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well I asked the question, I
don’t know.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I just want to cl=
arify
for everybody here, what I have seen is routinely through Town since I̵=
7;ve
been here is essentially is the, I’ll call them plastic pavers, which=
are
much smaller in shape and very pervious, I mean they’re very small,
they’re used routinely from what I’ve seen in access ways, in
detention basins, in emergency access roads that have been left behind, if =
you
will, in subdivisions. Again a
pretty low impact, it’s not the concrete blocks that I think everybod=
y is
picturing here, is not what Mary and Roy and myself are picturing, we’=
;re
picturing something much more green, if you will, and much more pervious.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: But they do have to be filled =
in
with loam, correct?
Mr. Berger: Yes, they do.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Would those be less likely to =
heave?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: They’re pro=
bably
more flexible, they’ll probably stay with the heaving a little bit mo=
re
than a foot, by a foot concrete paver that you’d see in a stream bank
installation where you’ve really got flowing water you’ve got to
deal with. The primary purpos=
e of
what I’ve seen these being used for is a stabile roadway so we can get
equipment down there to maintain the detention basins and turn green real
quick.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: So you feel that that’s =
what
we should look for?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 25
Mr. Berger: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: And Mr. Tedesco looks like
he’s willing to go for it, am I correct? If our Engineering Department sugg=
ests
you use these, you don’t have an objection, you’re willing to p=
ut
them in?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Tedesco: Like I said, I
don’t want this to become a deal breaker or to extend the Public Hear=
ing
just for pavers. I mean yea, =
if
this Commission wants it and Planning and Zoning wants it, I’ll do it=
, I
think it’s useless though, and I want that on the record. It’s just a waste of money.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I’d rather put that, if you =
want
that $5,000, into some birdfeeders for the wetlands areas for bluebirds.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: The thing is if they feel it&#=
8217;s
necessary I think they have more knowledge than I would have, I speak for m=
yself. But the thing is you don’t h=
ave an
objection to work with that?
Mr. Polletta: =
No, I don’t have=
any
objection.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: If they have their
reasons then they can state them and justify them to Mark and we don’t
have any . . . . .
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: At this point
you’re looking to Close the Public Hearing and . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: Any other questions or anythin=
g else
that Mr. Berger needs, now this narrative I think I might have brought that=
to
you late today, or you never received it?
Mr. Berger: After 4:00 today? I was gone after 4:00 today.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: As far as the narrative here w=
as a
brief narrative that was included with the wetlands application package that
just described the parcel and the things.&=
nbsp;
As far as a narrative going into the detail of the recent calculatio=
ns
that I submitted to Chuck, I gave him basically a letter with it, we’=
re
proposing this, here’s the calculations to back it up. I didn’t write a formal repo=
rt to
go with that, as far as, we were hoping that Chuck would look at it and say=
yes
or no.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: At this point
whatever you presented to him today he still has to review everything, righ=
t?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 26
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: We didn’t give him anyth=
ing
today regarding this particular project, that was yesterday. And again I don’t know if Ch=
uck
got to it, and if he didn’t shame on me for getting it to him late.
Mr. Berger: I looked through the p=
lans
and I am satisfied with the drainage analysis. I was not at the last Commission m=
eeting
and I just want to make sure the Commission understands what they’re
approving because that detention basin is only servicing the runoff from the
road. The rest of the drainage
benefits, if you will, that are gained from this project, which is a good
thing, is because it turned it from a cornfield to lawns, but none of that =
area
is draining to the detention basin.
The detention basin, probably an argument could have been made that
it’s not necessary, or smaller.
There are certainly some benefits there to it, but I just want to ma=
ke
it clear that in a typical subdivision you think if everything drains to the
detention basin, the detention basin holds it, slowly releases it, and
doesn’t cause any impact downstream.=
The big benefit you’re getting here from this proposal is that
they’re turning it from a cornfield into grass lawns and that will
significantly reduce the runoff from the site, and that wasn’t real c=
lear
in reading the application the first time I read it, and that’s why I
requested the narrative report so that everybody understood sort of the
intricacies of how the drainage is working here, and it’s a good thin=
g,
but I just wanted it for everyone’s benefit to understand what was go=
ing
on.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: I think it’s better to g=
et an
extension and resolve all these issues with Mr. Berger and get a report from
Mr. Berger that everything is okay.
If they Close the Public Hearing tonight, then you cannot submit
additional information if Mr. Berger needs it.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Tedesco: All right,
that’s fine.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Yea, I think it’s better=
to
get all the information to Mr. Berger and then get a report from Mr. Berger
into the record.
Mr. Tedesco: <=
/b>So we’re going to
extend this Public Hearing another month?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, I’ll gi=
ve you
a . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well 35 days would be February=
19th.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 27
Mr. Polletta: When is our next meeting?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: February 19th.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: Just to clarify, =
Moosa,
with you, I mean the report is more for the Commission than for me at this
point. I mean I just want, ag=
ain I
am satisfied with the drainage as presented, I just want you to know that.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> If you want to see the report to
understand better what I’ve said . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: It’s better to get a rep=
ort
from you to tell the Commission that all of the issues that they’re
discussing tonight are resolved and there are no outstanding issues.
Mr. Tedesco: <=
/b>Are there that many is=
sues
that this Commission feels we should extend it? I mean if you want to extend it
I’ll do it, I mean I’m asking the Commission members at this po=
int.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I personally believe that we r=
eally
don’t have that many issues not answered. That’s why I asked Mr. Berge=
r to
make sure that he was comfortable with what we have. I don’t see too many unanswe=
red.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: If any all =
should
be answered.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: But what’s not answered =
so
far?
Mr. Undercuffler: You said not too many.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: There are only a couple that, =
well
the thing is, that’s what I feel, myself. I asked Mr. Berger and he feels
comfortable that there’s only a couple of things that are not answere=
d to
you, is that correct.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Usually this Commi=
ssion
wants to receive a report from staff that states all issues are resolved and
there are no outstanding issues.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: I’ll grant a 35 day exte=
nsion.
Mr. Rafey: It’s better to g=
ive an
extension and hopefully by next time all the questions will be answered.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 28
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Peluso: Could we have Moosa c=
ontact
the Land Trust and find out, maybe they can help us with some of the decisi=
ons,
what they want to see going across.
Do they want to see the grass pavers, do they want to see, I mean
they’re going to maintain it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: I think that’s something=
that
Mr. Berger can just resolve that.
They already sent a letter and said they will accept the open space.=
Mr. Peluso: They’re going to
maintain it, I mean . . . . . I don’t want to see Boy Scouts having to
pick up pavers.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I don’t think there̵=
7;s
going to be any pavers on the trail.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: But on the access way from
Bellmeadow down to the detention basin, that’s going to be, if it is
owned by the Land Trust the Town needs to have a drainage easement over it =
in
order to access the detention basin so we will also have maintenance
responsibilities there to makes sure we can get our equipment down there, a=
nd I
would say that if we are requiring grass pavers on there, to get our
maintenance equipment down there, then I can’t speak for the Town, bu=
t I
think that ought to be our responsibility to keep it so we can get our vehi=
cles
down there.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Peluso: As land donated to the Land Tr=
ust,
who insures that liability-wise?
Mr. Rafey: The Town has nothing t=
o do
with this. Once they accept t=
his,
it becomes part of their, they maintain that, yes, they have their own
insurance.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Keep Open the Public Hearing for App. #=
489
of Lynnfield Acres, LLC for 17-lot residential subdivision located on Bunker
Hill Road and Aunt Olive Road, Watertown, CT.
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #489 – LYNNFIELD ACRES, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 29
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at 8:45 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary