MINUTES<= o:p>
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY=
, JUNE
10, 2004 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Bernard Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Glen
Duplissie
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Peter
Peluso
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Martha
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Susan Atwood
OTHERS PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; Chuck
Berger, Town Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Duplissie, in his
absence.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record, as follows:=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 2
“Rules For Conduct of Public Hearing
1. =
The
applicant, or his representative will make his formal presentation to the Commis=
sion
stating the proposed regulated activities, 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 Chairman.
This is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time speaks on=
any
issue, thus making it easier for everyone to understand and for clearer, le=
gal
transcription.
3. =
All
persons addressing the Commission shall begin by first clearly stating their
name and address for the record. If
necessary, the person may be asked to spell his name for the record.
4. =
Following
the presentation of the application, the Conservation Commission/Inland
Wetlands 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 wish to speak either in favor of this application=
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 any members of the general public who wish to pr=
esent
any additional information or clarifying discussion, to do so.
8. =
I
shall provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these addition=
al
remarks if he or his representative so wishes.
9. =
The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency has 35 days from the date th=
at
the Public Hearing commences to complete the Public Hearing. The Commission may ask the applica=
nt for
a 35 day extension of the Public Hearing period if the Commission requires =
any
additional information or wishes to schedule a Site Walk to observe the
situation for themselves.
&=
nbsp; 10. The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency has 65 days from the date when
the Public Hearing is Closed to render its
decision.”
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 3
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of Public Hearing from May 13, 2004, Application #495 of Patrick Graziano,
proposed 4-lot Willowbrook Farm Subdivision,
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by June=
17,
2004, unless applicant grants a time extension.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Andrew
Quirk, Project Engineer, Malone & McBroom
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: I’m here to talk tonight abo=
ut the
application of Patrick Graziano for Willowbrook Farms Subdivision. Again this is a Continuation of the=
Public
Hearing held at the last meeting, so I would like to just very briefly go
through the project and the refinements to have everyone up to speed and to
introduce the project to those that weren’t at the previous Public He=
aring.
I’m part of a fi=
ne
project team, of which I’m a project engineer. I’m here tonight with Anthony
Ciriello who is the Project Manager, Matthew Sanford, the Certified Soil
Scientist, and evaluator of environmental issues, and Edward Hyman is the
team’s legal counsel, and unfortunately he couldn’t make it this
evening for health reasons.
The process of this
application began in November with a preapplication meeting followed by a
second meeting in February with Town Staff. We made the application early March, we were on the Regular Meeting of March 11=
th. We had a field walk on April 3rd, =
to
better understand the proposal. At
the next Regular Meeting of April 15th it was determined that it=
was
a Significant Activity and a Public Hearing was held at the last meeting of=
May
13th.
Existing conditions of=
the
site are the former Willowbrook Farm located along Northfield Road, bordere=
d by
Northfield Road to the east, Willowbrook Farm and residential parcels to the
north, open land and residential parcels along Claxton Avenue to the west a=
nd
residential parcels of Chestnut Grove, Wilson Drive, and the Watertown Land
Trust to the south as shown in this aerial photo outlined in yellow.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 4
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Presently
the site is an inactive dairy farm consisting of a barn and associated
infrastructure with grass meadows and trails toward Steele Brook and Smith =
Pond
Brook. Wetlands exist along e=
ach of
the brooks and there’s a flood plain and flood way delineated for Ste=
ele
Brook as shown by FEMA and shown on the plans before you. The parcel is 39.8 acres, mostly i=
n the
R-30 zone, but also a portion of it in the R-12.5 residential zone.
The proposal is to cre=
ate
low density residential horse farm lots and 2 of the farm lots to the north=
are
in excess of 6 acres, and the 1 farm lot to the south is about 13 acres, and
there is one conventional house lot of about 1 acre. Four homes with associated garages=
and
drives are proposed along
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, here is a copy o=
f that
letter from Robert Smith, Torrington Area Health District.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Lots #1, #2, and #4 are, southerly =
lot 4,
are to be farm lots by zoning regulations, minimum 5 acre lots with gravel =
barn
access drives, a 25 x 50 footprint barn and half acre corral areas. In order to preserve the existing =
rural
streetscape alone
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 5
The storm water manage=
ment
system has been designed using a combination of grass swales and roof drain
underground retention to promote infiltration and the infiltrators have been
designed to attenuate peak flows through the 50 year storm and grass swales=
have
been designed to maintain water quality.&n=
bsp;
In response to the comments received from the Town Engineer, we̵=
7;ve
revised the drainage calculations to attenuate through the 50 year storm.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Watertown
Subdivision Regulations may require that open space be provided. Open space is defined as areas lef=
t in
their natural, undisturbed state, agricultural land for which development
rights have been assigned or otherwise alienated perpetuity, areas for wild=
life
habitat, passive and active recreation, groundwater recharge, scenic
preservation, and the like. T=
here
are several methods of disposition that are outlined in the Zoning Regulati=
ons,
one of which is the private ownership with appropriate taking of development
rights. Typically 10% of the =
land
is given for open space, which for a parcel for this size would be 4
acres. Under this proposal 11=
.6
acres or 3 times the area is being provided for open space, of which 4.75 a=
cres
are uplands, which is also greater than the upland requirement. The open space is intended to main=
tain a
corridor along Steele Brook, extending from the Watertown Land Trust parcel
north along Steele Brook in combination creating a half mile preserved
corridor. As outlined in the
regulations the area is to be left in its natural agricultural state, for t=
he
purpose of preservation of vegetation and wildlife habitat, scenic preserva=
tion,
and passive recreation. The d=
eed
restrictions will not allow for development and will preserve the area in i=
ts
natural agricultural state. <=
span
class=3DGramE>Rights for future utilities, flooding, and the riding of hors=
es
shall be reserved.
We have a draft of what
would be the declaration of restrictions that would be filed in the land
records with each of the parcels.
This is a preliminary draft but it has the outline of the intent of =
what
we’d like to do with the deed restrictions (inaudible). Again each of these parcels, with =
the
filing of the deed, there would be this declaration of restrictions filed w=
ith
each of those deeds which would stay with the deed, so if the property is s=
old,
these restrictions would be transferred to the next owner. The first section in the Declarati=
on of
Restrictions is the Declaration of Purpose and the purpose here is to satis=
fy
the subdivision open space requirements as outlined in the subdivision regu=
lations,
and such land shall be so limited in uses as to
preclude any adverse change from its present rural character. It is specifically intended that s=
uch
land may continue to provide shelter as a wildlife habitat and continue to
provide the benefits of agricultural growth and a place for passive and act=
ive
recreation.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 6
Description of the open
space – the open space would be the area as delineated on the subdivi=
sion
plans to be recorded.
Restrictions on Open S=
pace
– the open space shall be left entirely in its natural state, except =
with
those reservations of rights here and set forth in paragraphs #4 and #5 and
there shall be no construction of any kind, nor passage of any vehicles, nor
the removal of any material or vegetation, nor the dumping of any material =
on
this open space area. Reserva=
tion
of Rights are as follows:
equestrian rights, the open space shall have reserved rights for
horseback riding purposes and to maintain the meadows as they are today, ea=
ch
lot owner shall mow the open space once annually. Reservations of open space also in=
clude
reservations to impound water of Steele Brook for the Town of
These deed restriction=
s are
to be enforced on several levels.
One is the owner, also the adjacent owners. Each with a deed restricted area, =
each
farm lot would have the right to have horse passage on the open space of the
other lot so they would have a mutual agreement also for enforcement, that =
is
the other owners aren’t enforcing or following the deed restrictions =
as
outlined, they have the power to have them enforce the restrictions as outl=
ined. It also outlines that the Town of
Watertown have the power to enforce these deed restrictions, they’re =
not
obligated to but they have the power to if these deed restrictions are not
properly implemented. And as =
I said
previously, these deed restrictions would remain with the deed so that if t=
he
property is sold or transferred the deed restrictions are held in perpetuit=
y.
At the previous meetin=
g we
submitted several materials in response to the Assistant Town Planner’=
;s
comments. We submitted a repo=
rt on
feasible and prudent alternatives, a Best Management Practice for horse farm
management details, and a schedule for the temporary dewatering settling
basins, we minimized the regulated activities from the initial Legal Notice=
of
the Public Hearing, we presented findings from the potential nutrient loadi=
ng
study which showed a significant decrease in potential nutrient loadings fr=
om
historically what has been on the property. I believe the updated plans that a=
re
before you present an environmentally conscious proposal for low density ho=
use
and horse farm lots with minimal inland/wetland regulated activities. At this time the project team is
prepared to take any questions from the public or the Commission. Thank you.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 7
Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, before y=
ou,
just one minute, the plan that you have in front of you was submitted after=
I
sent you the packet. And ther=
e were
some changes, and I gave you a letter tonight that summarized all the chang=
es
that were, made to this plan. And
you have a copy of that letter that I gave you tonight. Just for your information the Plan=
ning
and Zoning Office does not enforce deed restrictions. You did mention in this report tha=
t the
Town of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: All the reports that Mr. Quirk=
mentioned
that were submitted at the Public Hearing last meeting is part of the packet
and I sent a copy of all those reports to you, so you should have them in y=
our
packet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I have a couple of conditions.=
Looking at the plan, I’m loo=
king for
the, is it, let’s see 1, 2, 3, is it
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. quirk:=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: There’s no barn there.
Mr. Quirk: Right.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Th=
ere’s 3 barns. 1, 2, 3.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: This is lot 3, the=
one,
(inaudible) house lot, the 1 acre house lot.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: So there
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Quirk: Th=
ere’s a total of 3 barns.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Could you just refresh=
my
memory on, I was looking through the packet, I
couldn’t find the size of the corral areas?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: Each of the corral=
areas
is approximately half an acre, and that’s based upon the Farm Bureau =
requirements
that were outlined for, everything has been designed for 3 horses. There is a detail sheet that shows=
the
barn, the fencing, and also in the previous package the guidelines that were
used for sizing and a half acre paddock or corral area is what has been
designed for each lot.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 8
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I guess the, is the assumption=
that
the horses will not really be grazing in that area, they’ll be basica=
lly
. . . . .
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: Right, the paddock=
area,
or the corral area is essentially an exercise area and it’s where the
horses are generally kept when they’re not in the barn, and these far=
ms
are intended to be, well feed would be brought in, it wouldn’t be abl=
e to
sustain on pasture alone so feed would be brought in, so the paddocks would
serve as exercise areas, the rest of the lot would be for riding areas, and
then the barn would be for the housing and . . . . .
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: And the hor=
ses
won’t be permitted out into that other area for grazing. The only way they would be out in =
that
other area would be for riding.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Quirk: Riding yes.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: The manure
storage, in your Best Management Practices it talks about should be covered=
or
may be covered. What is the p=
lan
there? It says shall be cover=
ed
when necessary.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Quirk: Yea, there are certain=
times
of the year when where you’d want to cover the manure piles You want to get air into the
piles so that you can have anaerobic process for composting. You wouldn’t want to have th=
em
covered all the time, but in the hot, Summer mon=
ths
you would want them covered. =
You
don’t want them to build up on heat and . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: You’re thinking in terms=
of a
tarp land.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: Right.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Would it be better to =
have a
roof? Then there would be no
question, my concern is what is to ensure that they are covered when necess=
ary?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: The Best Management
Practices that are shown on the detail sheets would be that safeguard. I think the principal layout of the
manure containment piles was to prevent the compost from either running off=
or
getting into the groundwater, but we could look into a permanent covering as
opposed to a tarp. We could l=
ook
into that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Yea, and al=
ong
those same lines, I’m a little concerned with the Best Management
Practices. What’s to en=
sure
that they actually are followed? In
other words some of these say shall be, and others say should be or may
be. It seems like they ought =
to be
a little tighter than that and what’s to ensure that they actually get
implemented?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: Well I think the t=
heory
would be that these would be on the detailed sheet of the recorded plans and
it’s to be how each of the lots is to have the barns constructed, so =
each
of them would have a storage area inside for feed. Each of them would have to constru=
ct a manure
containment area because the approved drawing plans have that shown as the
practice on the detail sheet, so it could be within the Town’s author=
ity
to not allow a C.O. if it’s not constructed to the details as shown on
the plan. The maintenance of =
the,
or the continuing uses of the Best Management Practices, we would make that=
a
further item on the deed restrictions whereby an adjacent farm lot or the T=
own
or the owner if they’re not following the Best Management Practices f=
or
the horse farm management would have the ability to enforce those after
construction.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Jones: I have a question.=
Mr. Quirk, regarding the number of
horses, it appears to me we’ve just read a whole bunch of information
from that last session to the D.E.P. put on last Friday regarding horses an=
d so
on and it seems to me that’s the major problem that we may be facing =
is
the long term impact rather than what it takes to protect the building
stage. We were told that the
average stable, corral, excuse me, the place where the horse stays in the b=
arns
. . . .
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: The stalls.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Jones: Should be at least=
12 x 12.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Quirk: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Jones: How big and that 1/3 of the ba=
rn is
normally given over to the storage of the horses and 2/3 to other activitie=
s,
how big are the barns and do they therefore guarantee that according to Best
Management Practices there will only be the proper number of horses in that
barn and the barn therefore limits the number of horses that can be housed?=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 10
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Sure, that’s a very good
question. On your detail sheet
we’ve shown the barn layout and it’s a 25 x 50 barn with three =
12 x
12 stalls. Then there is a fe=
eding
room and a tack room, which is the second third, that’s the feed and =
use
area, and then the last third is the working out=
. You need to be able to get in in f=
ront
of the horse stalls and be able to get to the feed areas, so you have 1/3 of
each barn dedicated to stalling, working, and the feed and storage area.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Jones: If you look at those n=
umbers
and the barn would be 1,250 sq. ft. and the stall would be 144 sq. ft. so t=
hat
would give you about room for 9 of them if you provided only for the stalls=
, so
you’re saying that in effect we can set it up so that realistically t=
he
owner is limited to 3 horses without coming further to the Commission.
Mr. Quirk: Correct.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Just the pl=
an to,
there was some comment I think at the last meeting, that maybe there
wouldn’t even be horses.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: We’ve outlined these as =
5 acre
farm lots, but there is the potential that a buyer would come in and not wa=
nt a
horse farm but would prefer to have a large lot and they would be able to b=
uy
that lot and just not construct . . . . .
Mr. Undercuffler: And not even have a ba=
rn,
potentially.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: Right. Our intention is that they would b=
e,
because we feel it’s in character with the area. The deed restrictions are set up s=
o that
each owner would have the rights to do so, but potentially someone may not
fully use that lot that way.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 11
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I have a question on what of t=
he
modifications that you have over here.&nbs=
p;
It says a total of 56 underground infiltrators storage units are
proposed with 14 units at each of the 4 proposed homes. Can you explain to me because I
don’t see it clear?
Mr. Quirk: The storm water management plan is
essentially through the 50 year storm what we’re going to do is we=
217;re
going to store underground the increase in runoff that the site will experi=
ence
so that the runoff rate would be the same as it is today, so we’ve
calculated the volume that needs to be stored in the underground infiltrati=
on
units. There would be 14 unit=
s off
of each of the 4 homes, and what this would be would be from the roof leade=
rs
from the house, the roof leaders would come down and they would still have =
the
elbow as an overflow but the piping would go underground into underground
plastic infiltrator units, very similar to a septic system.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: But this would =
apply
only on the house?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Right, correct. And the water would be stored
underground, the overflow would flow through the roof leaders, and there is
also an overflow on the infiltrator units.=
There is stone around them and it infiltrates through the soil, so it
promotes groundwater infiltration rather than overland flow whereby
(inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: =
That reduces the speed=
of
the water? (Inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: The peak runoff would be just =
from
the roof leaders, and that’s the same rate that we experienced today =
from
both the meadow areas, the barn that’s there today, some of the paved
drives that are there today, that same rate would be experienced . . . . . =
.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: My question bas=
ically
is if this applies to the house, why won’t it apply to the barn?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: What we’ve done is the
existing barn is a large area as shown on this plan, so there’s a cer=
tain
rate that runs off of that area now.
When we remove that, in essence we have a deficit cause
we’ve reduced how much would runoff so we’ve taken credit where=
the
3 proposed barns are less than the area of the 1 existing barn, so those wi=
ll
runoff the same way that the barn area runs off today, the same rate.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 12
Mr. Zawadzki: =
I’ve got a question, well it’s not a question really. I have a problem with private ease=
ments
on this wetlands only because people can go in some weekend and do some cle=
ar
cutting and Monday morning they say oops and now what? If it’s owned by the Town, w=
hat if
you give that easement to the Town and then you still meet your acreage req=
uirements
for your lots? (Tape #1, Side=
A ended – may have missed some.)
Mr. Quirk: Item #3 on the deed
restriction says specifically no construction of any kind or passage of any
motor vehicles nor the removal of material or vegetation or dumping is allo=
wed,
so that’s specifically outlined in the deed restrictions, so that
wouldn’t even be allowed by a wetland permit, it wouldn’t be
allowed by the deed restrictions, so in the Town’s (inaudible) if the=
y so
desire would have the ability to enforce that.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: I understand th=
at
it’s not allowed, you know, again it’s easier to get forgiveness
than it is to get permission in a lot of cases, and that’s the kind of
thing that happens. We’=
ve
seen it happen on Ice House Road and they went in and cut down all the tree=
s at
one time instead of going by the construction plan, and okay I guess they g=
ot a
penalty for that, but it was still a big oops.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: I think the penalties would be=
the
same as if it were an easement to the Town as through this deed restriction=
, so
in either case the area has the same level of protection (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: If the Town own=
ed
that as a wetlands, would you still meet your si=
ze
restrictions for your lots?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: If it were not part of the lot=
s it
wouldn’t meet the . . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: =
You wouldn’t be =
able
to get 5 acre lots?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: No. This is 3 times the area than what=
would
be given typically to the Town as fee simple open space.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, I understa=
nd
that, but that’s not the question.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: I understand, but in giving up=
that
amount of area, we wouldn’t be able to have these farm lots, so
we’re able to protect a lot more area through this method than we wou=
ld
through conventional open space.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 13
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Now what’s the
difference on these plans between your total acreage and your qualifying
acreage? I don’t unders=
tand that.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: That’s a zon=
ing
requirement. Zoning requires =
that
each of the farm lots be a minimum 5 acres, and of that=
5 acres only 15% can be wetlands, but you can’t count a large area of
wetland because that’s not usable area, so each of these farm lots has
over 5 acres qualifying areas, meaning of that 5 acres 15% is wetlands.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I noticed one f them was =
5.02,
that’s cutting it pretty close.
Mr. Quirk: Larger open space our
easements would eliminate some farm lots.
Mr. Zawadzki: I guess it’s 5.=
04.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: The open space are=
a also
typically has upland and wetland requirements, typically 15%. There is almost 5 acres that is go=
ing to
be in the deed restricted parcel also so that alone is also more than the 4
acres of which that could have been 2 acres uplands, 2 acres wetlands, and
that’s been protected through the deed restriction parcel.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: I have a question on the barn
locations too. I’d like=
you
to review your reasoning, on this letter you wrote for the feasible
alternatives mentions why you put the barn over there, instead of, say on l=
ot
#1, instead of on this side of the current access across the brook, it still
looks like it could be a viable spot for a barn to me and that would minimi=
ze
the disturbance to the wetlands so why didn’t you put it there?
Mr. Quirk: We looked at a couple =
of
locations on Lot #1 and when we looked at those in the field where we could
take a look at the existing meadows that are out there, there is an existing
bridge here and this is a large open meadow area where we could have a corr=
al
outside of the wetlands area. We
did several soil tests for the sub-service sewage disposal system, the sept=
ic
systems in this area where we tested both in the front, the middle, and the=
rear
of the lot, and we determined that this was the best location with Torringt=
on
Area Health District for the septic system. If we were to have a barn in this =
area,
and the corral, it was felt that this would be a closer infringement on the
wetlands than in this area here.
Although there’s a crossing there’s an existing bridge, =
and
it’s an existing area that was used for farm crossing previously so it
was felt that the nature of the crossing would be the same and the impact f=
rom
the crossing would be the same so this location was determined to be better=
and
have more area for the corral than this location.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 14
We also looked at the =
very
large area to the rear of the parcel and that would require a new wetland
crossing and that wasn’t a prudent alternative so this area provides =
an
existing crossing, utilizing an existing crossing, it provides a large mead=
ow
area whereby we could have a corral and a barn outside of the wetlands, and=
it
would seem that it would provide a better use of the area here rather than
close up against the wetlands here.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: That existing crossing, that&#=
8217;s
the impact on the wetlands, right? You’re going to go in, you sa=
id
you’re not going to move any more dirt, though,
you’re just going to put in gravel?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: We’re going =
to put
down gravel . . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: So what we’re talking ab=
out is
not doing any bulldozing, we’re talking about just going in and putti=
ng
down gravel over an existing access way and that qualifies as an impact on
wetlands of 1,635 sq. ft.
Mr. Quirk: Right. We’ve also tried to mitigate=
the
area with proposed plantings that are shown on the plans so that we can make
sure and define that area where the gravel drive will be and have it lined =
with
plantings and try and get the area to have wetlands regrowth in that area
that’s been disturbed with the placing of the gravel and coming throu=
gh.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Is there a scie=
ntific
reason behind not putting horses over a, say a corral over a leaching
field? I mean I can’t s=
ee how
that would having a horse corral over a leaching=
field
would be an impact, but maybe that’s wrong.
Mr. Quirk: It’s a little bi=
t more
just from a practical standpoint in the sense that the leaching fields are
going to have, I don’t have a section shown here, but generally it wi=
ll
have about 18 inches of material over them and it wouldn’t really be
ideal to constantly have horses in an exercise area.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: So it compact i=
t.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Right.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: You talked about the storm water
management for the houses.
I’m assuming that barns have some drainage as well?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 15
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: Right. There would be runoff from the roo=
fs
which essentially is more or less clean storm water and that’s similar
to, it’s actually less than the area of the existing barn (inaudible)=
.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: Right, but is there going to b=
e some
sort of piping to drain it, or is it just going to go off the roof?
Mr. Quirk: There will be roof lea=
ders
and splash pads so as not to cause erosion, but as far as the quantity and =
the
rate of runoff it would be less than the existing barn so . . . . .
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Sturgis: So you don’=
;t
think you need drains as such?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Right.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
The other impact on the
wetlands is that stone dust trail.
What if we don’t improve that area and just leave it as access
like you're proposing for the access from Wilson Street back and just have
unimproved access?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: That’s a good point and
it’s an option we can look at and we did consider. Our feeling in designing this area=
is
that rather than have potentially open meadow area, rather than having an
undefined open meadow area, we would feel it would be better to have a defi=
ned
stone dust trail so people know that they should walk in this particular ar=
ea,
it would control any erosion from people walking, and again we’re doi=
ng
mitigation plantings in the area to promote growth in the area and define t=
he
trail. We felt that that was a
little bit better than having an open area where you may have people walkin=
g in
different areas without a defined path.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Tell me how you=
're
going to construct that trail?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: In this area the trail would b=
e on
grade so the stone dust would be placed on the existing grade level and the
mitigation plantings around the stone dust trail. There is no proposed fill within t=
he
wetland limits in that area.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Well it’s going =
to be
hand constructed or bulldozed?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Quirk: Essentially hand
construction or, I don’t know if we need small machinery, I think we
could probably bring in a small backhoe just to bring the proper stone into=
the
area. There is no need for la=
rge
construction because it would be on grade.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 16
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: So no grading?
Mr. Quirk: Right.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, anybody else? At this time I’d like to inv=
ite
the public to speak any comments they have concerning what they’ve he=
ard
so far.
&=
nbsp; =
; Jam=
es
LoRusso,
Mr. LoRusso: <=
/b>As I’ve stated b=
efore
at previous meetings, I am directly south east of the development and I am
going to bear all of the brunt of the smells and whatever dust is kicked up=
in
these dust trails if they’re used in any extent. The question is are the house and =
the
barn positions on the lots fixed by the added, or I understand Mr. Graziano=
is
not going to be building, if some builder comes in will he have the option =
of
moving the location of the house from where it’s presently shown?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Anthony Ciriello, Project Manager,
Malone & McBroom
Mr. Ciriello: =
The position of the ba=
rn is
fixed by the site plan approval.
One could purchase a lot, come back to the Planning and Zoning Commi=
ssion,
and in this case Wetlands, and request to move, reorient, or enlarge the ba=
rn,
but that would be up to the buyer or new owner so the location and dimensio=
ns
are fixed per the site plan approval and the proximity of the wetlands is
approved per this Commission. In
terms of the stone dust trail, the word dust is a misnomer. As we’ve pointed out before =
stone
dust is crushed trapped rock. It is
not a dusty material. Stone d=
ust is
a heavy material and it absorbs water and stays put. I do not, I
cannot foresee dust being a problem.
In terms of brunt of the smell, I don’t know what the issues of
odors were on this farm in the past.
I didn’t know this farm until the time of this application. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JUNE 10, 2004 PAGE 17 Mr. LoRusso: <=
/b>The other comment I wa=
nt to
make is they mentioned that there would be no bulldozing of the putting down
the so called trap rock. The =
land
right off &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Gail Sangree, Ms. Sangree: <=
/b>In your presentation y=
ou
used the word agricultural several times.&=
nbsp;
I’m just wondering, the use of this word agricultural, especia=
lly
in regard to the easement property.
What kind of agriculture is going to go on there or is a better term=
for
that formerly agricultural land? Mr. Quirk: We’ve used the t=
erm
agricultural from the zoning definition which would include also the raisin=
g of
livestock, so that’s where we derived the term from the Zoning
Regulations and the use as such so having the horses passing through the de=
ed
restricted area and also the mowing of those areas to maintain the meadow
fields is the background on the use of the term agricultural. It’s not intended that the o=
pen
space area would be farmland in the sense of raising
of crops or planting in that area, but rather for the equestrian use and the
maintenance of the meadows. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO JUNE 10, 2004 PAGE 18 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sangree: But the mowing is only going to
happen once a year and what to mow, won’t =
be
used as hay, is that right? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Potentially once a year that a=
rea
could be used as hay. Primari=
ly
that we put in the deed restrictions that that area be mowed is in working =
with
our Soil Scientist in the evaluation of the wetland properties in the area,=
it
was felt it was prudent to maintain them as wet meadows so mowing them once=
a
year would control the growth in the area so that wet meadows would be
maintained. George Valaitis, &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: First thing, which way is &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: This is a site rendering and
it’s correct, the north there is pointing in the wrong direction. I apologize for that. Mr. Valaitis: =
(Inaudible) wrong, the
construction is wrong too.
Okay? In this same are=
a on
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 19
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: There is a vicinity map on the=
front
page of the set of the plans that you have. Do you want to look at this?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I think it’s very import=
ant
question, however, last time I did ask that question, the water where it was
going to go before, and maybe the engineer should
explain it to us again because it says that the location of the runoff was =
not
going to be changed from last time.
I mean what this gentleman says, is he correct? Can you explain it to us if things=
are
going to be changed before and after?
Mr. Quirk: We’ve submitted =
and
worked with the Town Engineer on the drainage calculations and in the drain=
age
report there is a drainage area map that shows the overall site and it has =
the
full calculations in there for the existing runoff that’s experienced=
on
site and the proposed runoff if there were no attenuation or storage provid=
ed
and then the attenuation that the storage provides what would be the post
development runoff, so we looked at each of the 3 conditions. For the existing runoff we’ve
looked at the existing barn and the drive that exists today and the runoff =
from
those and all of this runoff is leading westerly and then southerly along
Steele Brook so we’ve also looked at the Steele Brook corridor for bo=
th
the peak discharges of Steele Brook and the site, and in a situation like t=
his
where there's nearly 2 miles of Steele Brook upstream from our site, the
concern here is to try and attenuate the peak runoffs but not to the level
where we’re going to coincide peaks with that of Steele Brook. Looking at the runoff from the sit=
e it
will be in the same direction and it will be at the same runoff volume and
that’s what was used in the calculations. As far as the location, it’s=
still
going to be directed westerly towards Steele Brook, the runoff from the site
will still reach Steele Brook with the same peak discharge from the site wh=
ich
was the key criteria. Upon fu=
rther
review with the Town Engineer I’d be more than happy to revise the
calculations.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: So what you were saying, I wan=
t to
make sure I understand this correctly, that what’s existing now before
the construction will exist after the construction?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Correct.
Mr. Polletta: =
Based on your calculat=
ions
and you have it with this Town Engineer?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 20
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Yes, we’ve submitted to =
the
Town Engineer for review.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Just following up on that, is =
that
the amount maybe, but not the direction.&n=
bsp;
The direction I think was the point that was raised, and furthermore
from what you said earlier, the barns, you’re not really controlling =
the
drainage from the barns.
Mr. Quirk: Right, but that rate w=
ould
be less than what we experienced today from the runoff from that watershed.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I understand that, but I think=
the
question then is where will that water go?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: All of the site runoff now lea=
ds
west and southerly to Steele Brook, and that will be maintained, it will st=
ill
go in that direction. What
we’ve looked at is maintaining the same peak discharges for each of t=
he
storms, the 2 year, the 5 year, the 10 year, 25 and 50 and also looked a th=
e volume
of runoff. (Tape #1, Side B e=
nded
– may have missed some.)
Mr. Jones: Mr. Quirk, looking at =
barn
#1, I know without the map scale whatever, but it’s about 2 inches fr=
om
the creek there. I think mayb=
e some
question here is there’s some concern about silt or something running
down there because it’s so much closer to the stream than from the ma=
in
building that’s going to be removed, there’=
s
a big barn that’s going to go, where you have plenty of room for sedi=
ment
as it runs down that hill to the creek. That may be the question here someo=
ne is
thinking about. Maybe you cou=
ld
address that and put us at ease.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Sure. Right now the existing barn that is
there, the runoff from that, it goes over the field and there’s
no erosion problems with that area.=
It would be a similar situation with the barn in that location where=
the
runoff rate and the volume is something that the soils in the area are used=
to
for runoff discharge and so there shouldn’t be an erosion problem or
acute discharge problem because that’s something that the soils in th=
at area
experience for a runoff rate.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Maybe while you’re up th=
ere
you can address this gentleman’s question about the, and I think you
touched on it before, his point is that he
didn’t think a half acre will support 3 horses.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 21
Mr. Quirk: In designing each of t=
he
farm lots, again, we looked at the Farm Bureau criteria and what we’ve
done here is, well let me back track, the barns historically had more lives=
tock
than what we’re proposing.
We’re more a total livestock on the parcel, (inaudible)
information that they had and as many of 30 or more livestock would have be=
en
on the property. That being t=
he case
they were also spread out all over the lot, as was mentioned, so in designi=
ng
this proposal we’re looking at trying to preserve the wetland areas,
rather than having livestock passing through those areas, we’re looki=
ng
at specific uses for a certain area as the Farm Bureau outlines for certain
purposes of the horses, so the half acre corral area, although it’s l=
ess
area than the whole lot, that’s the area that they’re constantly
exercising and using in things in that area so we want to make sure that th=
ose
are in free draining non wetland soils.&nb=
sp;
Having them constantly running over wetland soils would not be ideal=
, so
although it’s a smaller area, that’s an area that’s better
suited for exercise, for the riding of horses, and out in the other area is=
not
used as much, those meadows can sustain those types of activities so
we’ve allocate certain areas based upon the soil conditions, the terr=
ain,
on the ability to sustain horse activities, so that yes, there is a half ac=
re
corral area, but that’s for a specific purpose, so that rather having
animals that would be treading through the watercourses and everything we t=
ried
to outline specific areas that are appropriate for the management and use of
horses.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Plus the horses won’t re=
ly on
that area for feed.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Right (inaudible).
Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>Can they mow more than=
once
that field?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: The way it’s outlined no=
w it
would be once annually cause we think that's
appropriate for maintaining the meadows.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: But they couldn’t mow an=
other
time if they wish?
Mr. Quirk: Outside of the deed
restricted areas they could.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: But they would be restricted t=
o only
once a year in that?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: In the deed restricted area.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 22
Mr. Jones: I’m rather new h=
ere so
I’m going to ask maybe a question that I shouldn't, but I’m
concerned about these deed restrictions.&n=
bsp;
I really don’t know how well they work. I know every time we go to pass a =
budget
we don’t seem to have enough money to provide all the manpower that t=
he
Town needs in order to do everything necessary. I don’t know if Mr. Rafey is
available with great free time in order to catch up with everybody’s
restrictions and so on, have you thought of any way, if our group was conce=
rned
about imposing deed restrictions on the Town, restrictions and you wanted to
convince us that there was a way to avoid putting more burden on our Town
manpower, how you might go about satisfying the Board here, but we
wouldn’t need the deed restrictions.=
Is there any other options that you might
propose?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: In the zoning requirements they
outlined several options and the reason we’ve gone with deed restrict=
ions
is exactly for these reasons in that we did have conversations with the Town
and there is concern with liability, there is concern with enforcement, all
these things that puts a great burden on the Town. With the deed restrictions that we
proposed here, we are able to, in the same manner, preserve open space for 3
times the area without increasing the liability of the Town and still have =
the
ability to enforce it if they so choose, and so we feel that we’re ab=
le
to preserve a grater stretch of land without burdening the Town.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, just to answer t=
he
question, as I mentioned before, normally we do not enforce deed restrictio=
ns
unless it is a property that is owned by the Town of Watertown, then we can=
go there
and enforce everything, but these restrictions are the responsibility of the
developers, not the Town of Watertown normally.
Mr. Jones: Not the Town, you mean=
not
the Zoning Board or any other group that’s run by the Town. Nobody enforces deed restrictions.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: No.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well that’s why I brough=
t it
up. My understanding is that =
the
fellow property owners are the main impetus there because if they see somet=
hing
wrong or not like it presumably and say something to their neighbor but
that’s pretty nebulous in my opinion. That’s why I asked the quest=
ion
earlier about making a Town property versus a private deed restriction, but=
his
answer was that private deed restriction was required in order to meet the =
lot
size requirements and that they plan to, with this proposal they gave us
tonight, to make it fairly stringent.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 23
Mr. Quirk: And it would be record=
ed on
the land records and it would be enforceable by the land records.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, anyone else from the pub=
lic
care to speak? Is there anyon=
e else
who hasn’t spoken yet? =
Okay,
we’ll get back to you.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Bernie Bernetky,
Mr. Bernetzky: I’m concerned ab=
out
the excess and going into this area.
From where are these roads coming from? I missed maybe the beginning of th=
is but
I’d like to know are these roads going to the road, coming from
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, I’ll let the contr=
actor
or the applicant describe the roads, but as far as the additional houses or
something else, the whole purpose of this application process and why
we’re here tonight and last month is to approve this application with
these 4 lots and what’s being presented here, and the question proces=
s is
over what’s being presented.
If they were to change their mind and withdraw this application and =
come
back with a proposal for “x” number of houses in lieu of farm l=
ots,
then they start from scratch and the whole process begins again. Now you can answer the question ab=
out
the roads to the barns.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Ciriello: First off all access to both h=
omes
and barns from this subdivision will be from
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 24
James LoRusso,
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. LoRusso: I have two additional comments=
. How am I going to be assured that =
the
easements won’t allow people to trespass on my land? Presently with the contour of the l=
and,
as I said it drops off from the road, and the fact that there is a barbed w=
ire
fence between my property and the Land Trust property and the old north
Christie farm, I had no problem with people trespassing. That was one question I had. Just let me make another comment a=
nd
maybe they can answer that comment.
(Inaudible) but the runoff from that barn is now going to filter onto
the portion of the, basically behind my lot, but the Land Trust lot. Presently there is no runoff in th=
at
area. All the runoff was up h=
ere,
the existing barn, so that land is probably going to become more or less ma=
rshy
as some of the other wetlands are which is going to create a problem for me,
because now we’re going to deal with (inaudible) and all the other pr=
oblems
so the runoff in that barn has not been taken into consideration as to how =
it
affects the other land.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: The proposed stone dust trail =
in
that area going back to a further comment that was raised, there will be fi=
ll
that’s brought in in that area in order to make the down gradient for=
the
trails down from Northfield Road. I
just wanted to clarify that when we talked about the area where the trail w=
ould
be on grade, that’s towards the west in the wetland area where you wo=
uld
have the trail on grade, but to make the transition from Northfield Road to=
the
west, that transition would be made through the fill in that area.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Is that the part he sa=
id was
real steep?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Correct. The plans before you show a new fe=
nce
along the property line that is delineated along the line separating where =
the
trail is so that people shouldn’t be crossing from the area of the tr=
ail
not private property. We can =
also
look into putting up signage so that it’s better delineating in the f=
ield
as well as the physical fence that’s there, the signs that say crossi=
ng
this delineate first the access easement and then also the limits to say wh=
ere
a private property begins so that that’s clear to those that are walk=
ing
in the area. We’ve also
proposed screen plantings in the area, pine trees along the trail to provide
screening, and so all of this is to maintain that corridor along the trail =
so
that it’s visible and delineated in the field.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 25
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
runoff from the barn, again we have taken that into account for the site ru=
noff
calculations. That area is a =
small area, it’s negligible in terms of runoff when you
calculate the amount of runoff in cubic feet per second that’s genera=
ted
from a barn area like that. T=
here
is also runoff from the field that existed today, so that’s something
that may not be visible to see the amount of runoff, but that has all been
taken into account in the calculations and we’ll continue to work with
the Town Engineer to make any refinements that are needed to the drainage
calculations. Thank you.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: What kind of fence is that?
Mr. Quirk: We’ve proposed a split rail fence.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; George Valaitis,
Mr. Valaitis: =
I have more actually n=
ot to
the applicant, but more a couple of questions to the Commission. Is that correct that this developm=
ent is
in the R-30 zone?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yes.
Mr. Rafey: The 4 lots are located=
in an
R-30 zone. The other side of =
the
property is an R-12.5.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: What do you mean,
this side?
Mr. Rafey: No. This is R-30. Yes the white part on the, I think=
there
is another map that shows both zones.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: What we see over here theyR=
17;re
not R-30?
Mr. Rafey: That’s an R-30 z=
one,
yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: What does that mean? It means the square footage is 30,=
000
square feet?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: You need 30,000 sq. ft. if the=
re is
city sewer and water. For a s=
eptic
system you need minimum 40,000 square feet land.
Mr. Valaitis: = Yea, but R-30, right?<= o:p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 26
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: So actually they could have 30=
,000
but is that written in that it’s going to be R-40 (inaudible)?
Mr. Rafey: No, the regulations sa=
y that
if there is a need for a septic system, you need 40,000 square feet, but th=
ese
lots are all larger than (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: The way I see it in the regula=
tions
for the system, if you don’t have city water and sewer you should be =
able
to put in 200 x 200 feet square in a lot.&=
nbsp;
And I have another question, a second building like a barn on the
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: These are zoning issues, that
doesn’t belong to this Commission, but this application has to go to =
the
Planning and Zoning Commission for site plan approval and whatever they sho=
w on
this map the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the way it is, any cha=
nges
to that site plan they have to go back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. And just for your
information, in order to put 2 houses on the same lot in
Mr. Valaitis: =
No, but actually there=
are a
lot of things to be aired out and that brook is not 2 miles from Steele Bro=
ok
because my understanding Steele Brook starts at Smith Pond. That’s what I was saying tha=
t you
need more to show what is out of the development area further down the line,
because if you look in this area right here (inaudible) Y.M.C.A. is expandi=
ng
and going to be throwing a lot of water the other way, not in the lake but =
in
Steele Brook across
Unidentified Voice: <=
/span>Smith Pond is the othe=
r way.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 27
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; James LoRusso,
Mr. LoRusso: <=
/b>Now that the developer=
's
representatives have indicated that they’re going to put fill into the
easement, this is going to raise that portion of the land that they're using
higher than my land. There=
217;s
going to be a gully between their land and my land. Now what’s going to happen t=
o the
after runoff from that easement?
It’s going to be flowing onto my land and eventually onto the =
land
Trust land. Now how do I make=
, how
do they propose to prevent the water from flowing onto my land?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: It’s a very good comment=
and
it was something that the Town Engineer and I looked at thoroughly. We propose a drainage swale along =
the
top of the property to maintain any runoff from that area. Again it would be stone dust and g=
rassed
areas, but any runoff from that area along a drainage swale in that area wi=
th
stone check dams to protect increase in velocity and dissipate any velocity
increases coming down in that swale and to channelize it and direct the wat=
er
towards the wetlands where it goes now.&nb=
sp;
So we have looked at both from a runoff standpoint, an erosion contr=
ol
standpoint, and we’re also proposing this area as a critical seeding =
area
with an erosion control matting with the seeding to make sure the area is
stabilized and vegetation is established to prevent any erosion problems in=
the
area. The plans, we havenR=
17;t
really discussed it at length, but there is a plan that shows the sedimenta=
tion
and erosion control measures that are to be used during construction, and a=
fter
including a silt fence at the perimeter of construction limits, the stone c=
heck
dams, hay bales, all of these to protect during construction and establish
vegetation to control runoff after construction.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
And of course that swa=
le is
on your side of the fence, right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Yes, it’s on our propert=
y,
correct.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Now you wouldn’t be dire=
cting
water to
Mr. Quirk: No, it would just be a=
ny
runoff that would be generated from the grassed area from there would be
directing the swale (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 28
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: That right of way is 50 feet w=
ide,
is that correct?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Several reasons. The trail construction and the wid=
th
that’s needed, also there’s an overlain for any future connecti=
ons
for the Town for sewer or water through the area. We’ve provided that as well a=
s if
our plan that the Town has for a sewer main construction through the area, =
so
if that were to have a spur from the main along Steele Brook up to
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Yea, well what I was g=
etting
at is that from Mr. LoRusso’s information with the 50 foot right of w=
ay
your path is proposed at what? 3 feet wide, 4 feet wide?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: 4 feet wide.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: In a 50 foot span?
Mr. Quirk: Correct.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: And you propose it to be follo=
wing
the contour to kind of wind around so it’s not going to create any ru=
noff
by itself because it’s going to be a windy path.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: And correct, that it’s a=
lso a
wide area that is dedicated to an easement so that the trail itself is
generally is far north on that easement so the trail itself is generally mo=
re
than 30 feet from the property line.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: And how wide is your swale?
Mr. Quirk: The swale is 2 to 4 fe=
et
wide to collect that discharge.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Okay.
Mr. Quirk: Thank you.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 29
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; James LoRusso,
Mr. LoRusso: <=
/b>I have one more commen=
t and
objection. They mentioned put=
ting
trees along the easement. And
I’m wondering what kind of trees because if they put in tall firs, wh=
at
they’re going to do is effectively block that whole view of that
valley. Right now I’ve =
got a
clear view of the valley from where I live up toward Honey Hill,
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Jones: Just put bushes in there as fa=
r as
they got.
Mr. Quirk: The proposed shown is =
white
pines and they’re more along the area of the barn to try and provide =
some
screening from the barn from the neighbor and they are, they’re space=
d,
to be planted according to the plan, so a deed restriction wouldn't be requ=
ired
as its shown on the design plans.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: Did you say white pines?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: White pines.
Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>They grow very big.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Now the intent was to screen t=
he
barn. If we want to eliminate=
the
white pines closer down to the wetland area we could do that. That would provide a good screening
measure for the barn. But
we’re wiling to work with the neighbor to revise the location and num=
ber
of those as necessary.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: What was a=
the
proposal, to plant them starting at
Mr. Quirk: The proposed plan shows
white pines beginning along the trail, spaced about 30 feet on center, not =
to
have a continuous line but to try and provide a screening of the barn in th=
at
area from the trail and from the neighbor.=
These pines towards the back, if you want to eliminate those to main=
tain
the view, you know, we could work to do that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: What do those other ones mean?=
Up here then?<=
/span> Like SP, what are they? I realize that WP is the white pin=
e, but
what are these other ones?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 30
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Matthew Sanford, Soil Scientist, M=
alone
& McBroom
Mr. Sanford: <=
/b>These represent the
different shrub types that are going to be planted in there. I need to find them on the plan
here. HB would be hybrid
(inaudible). If you look on S=
heet 6
of the plans, under the wetland restoration upland buffer plantings
there’s a key. The
abbreviations are there, HB for hybrid (inaudible) SD for silky dogwood, RC=
for
retro cleary, etc. so that’s essentially what they stand for. Again all of these species are
indicative to
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: Thank you. (Tape #2, Side A
ended – may have missed some.)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: You’ve been kind of quiet
here. Do you have any
comments? You had quite a lis=
t of
comments in your memo. Have t=
hose
things been satisfactorily addressed?
Mr. Berger: Substantially, yes they
have. There are a couple of t=
hings
that I still want to take a better loot at. The information we received earlie=
r this
week obviously we received after my memo is written. I haven’t completed a detail=
ed
review. I do concur with the
engineer’s representation tonight with the drainage issues as well as=
the
stone dust trail and the drainage swales.&=
nbsp;
There are a couple of areas that I’m still a little bit, we may
make some minor changes, may recommend some minor changes to the grading to
make sure that some of the swales stay onto the individual lots and donR=
17;t
move onto other people’s lots within the subdivision. The other item that I’d like=
to
reserve the right to make some, a couple of changes to is roof leaders off =
the
barns, and getting those directed to an improved drainage area, versus just
right at the foot of the roof leaders.&nbs=
p;
Typically we’ll ask that they be located or piped to an improv=
ed
drainage area. It could be
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Peluso: Through an infiltrator?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Probably not in this case. And I haven’t reviewed in de=
tail
what they have presented in their engineering addendum, but I do concur that
the existing barn and roof area is much larger than the proposed barn area =
so
the infiltrators probably not required there and as long as we discharge the
water to a safe area, in combination with the infiltrators on the house lot=
s we
will not cause an increase. I=
n fact
there is a slight decrease in runoff from the site in total.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 31
Mr. Zawadzki: =
I guess one of my key
thoughts is do we have all the information, the key information we’re
going to need to Close the Hearing, or should we keep the Hearing Open?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: From my perspective the only t=
hings
that I want to take a better look at is some minor grading. They're pretty far away from the
regulated areas, they’d be up around the houses and the swales that a=
re
around the house, I want to make sure that they =
stay
on the house lots. And the ro=
of leaders, just have those directed to an approved drain=
age
discharge area. Those are the=
two
comments that I have at this point.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Are those the roof leaders on =
the
map?
Mr. Berger: No.
Unidentified Voice: Pl=
ot
plan.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: No, as we heard tonight
they’re just going to basically discharge I believe at the base, arou=
nd
the footing of the barn. I=
217;d
ask for a little more detail to make sure that we get them away from the ba=
rn
into an approved area.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Can we get that (inaudible)?
Mr. Rafey: I think that this
application is in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission and they
didn’t make a decision. These
issues can be addressed during the review of the P & Z?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Roof leaders?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Yes. Anyway Mr. Berger has to submit re=
ports
to the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as to you. If in case you want to make a deci=
sion
you can condition that these issues should be addressed by the Town Enginee=
r.
Mr. Berger: I guess one other comm=
ent I
would make, just on the wetland restoration and upland buffer plantings,
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 32
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, that’s what I was g=
oing
to suggest, Mr. LoRusso, you might want to go to the Planning and Zoning he=
aring
because there is a map here if you’d like to look at it showing the
location of those white pines. It
is not a wind break type of situation.&nbs=
p;
As Mr. Quirk mentioned you can see 30 feet on center, but of course
white pines do get big so that’s not something we would address here,=
but
Planning and Zoning certainly might and you might appeal for Mr. Quirk
indicated he’s willing to work with you on that as far as a different
species or something. Anybody else?
Bernie? George?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: I have a final comment because=
you
people finished up and to my satisfaction you didn’t ask the proper
questions. I’m going to=
start
from the last one. I have pine
trees in front of my house and along the road, and they’ve been plant=
ed
in 67, so they're pretty good size, they’re 40 to 50 feet high and ma=
ybe
20 inches in diameter. If you=
want
a windbreak at 3 feet they’re too far. They could be planted around 15 fe=
et or
less in order to have a windbreak, or hemlocks is even better than that bec=
ause
you can plant them closer and the branches go down to the ground and
there’s more branches per turn.
Another thing, why do they have leach beds? Will they have wells on it too?
Mr. Zawadzki: =
There is no Town water=
here.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: Pumping station is right on th=
e corner,
there is.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: At
Mr. Rafey: But they proposing sep=
tic
and well on each lot.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: But there is on the street wat=
er and
sewer available on
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I don’t think that we as
Wetlands . . . . .
Mr. Valaitis: =
And my question is the=
n it
fits in R-30 zone, what’s going to happen later on? He hasn’t answered that
question. Why they do not con=
nect
to city water and sewer?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 33
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: That’s not our objective=
here
and if they change it to another application then they start from zero in t=
he
application process.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: Well they should have looked a=
t the
predevelopement conference in Planning and Zoning, that=
should have been brought up, that they do have water and sewer at that poin=
t.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Then bring it up at Pl=
anning
and Zoning.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Valaitis: That they should have presente=
d over
here why they’re not doing it.
Either way you’re going to put some water or take some water o=
ut
of the ground, and it’s going to change, eventually it’s going =
to
change which way that water is running and it’s going to create probl=
ems
in that area. The question is=
in
other words it’s very funny why the people did not pick up and why the
developer said that he’s not using city water and city sewer? For the benefi=
t of a
smaller lot?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Is there city sewer and water =
that
close.
Mr. Ciriello: =
I can address that com=
ment
simply by saying that there is not city water along the frontage of this
lot. The nearest water is by =
the
Fire District and it’s over 600 feet away, and there is not a city se=
wer
along the frontage of this parcel either.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Anyone else from the public ca=
re to
comment? Okay.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I'd like to ask Moosa, do you =
have
any problems with this or any . . . . .
Mr. Rafey: I think I had a few co=
mments
and suggestions in my previous memo that I submitted last month to you. They did respond, yes, they did pr=
ovide
all those reports and I'm satisfied with those issues.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I’d just like to ask Chu=
ck
too, do you have any thoughts one way or another on covering those, the man=
ure
area?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: From a runoff perspective?
Mr. Undercuffler: Well yea.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 34
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I don’t know what the
calculated showed as far as the imperviousness. I know they have concrete bottoms =
in
them. I don’t know if t=
hey
were included in their drainage calculations. From a runoff management standpoin=
t,
certainly the quality of runoff that’s going to come out of those can=
be
a concern and they should be covered.
I guess I defer to the recommendations of the Farm Bureau and whatev=
er
other publications the Applicant has provided on=
that
subject.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: That’s my concern, yea.<= o:p>
Mr. Rafey: And I think you sugges=
ted
that they should put a roof over the manure and the applicant agreed to
that. (In=
audible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, I’d like to see
that. (Inaudible) look at it,=
yea.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: I just want to add that
there’s kind of conflicting information as to whether they should be
covered or not covered. We=
217;ve
shown them uncovered. We’re more than willing to have them stipulated
that they be covered, but from a composting standpoint sometimes there̵=
7;s
advantages that they have anaerobic process and the air gets in there, other
times you don’t want to have water in there, so there’s a curre=
nt
debate as to which is the best way to go.
Mr. Undercuffler: Aren't there really a =
couple
of areas we’re talking about?
Isn’t there the manure itself and then the composting? Wouldn’t that be kind of two
separate areas?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Quirk: Right, so in this case I mean =
you
could cover them, that’s fine.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: But you can have a roof and the
sides can be open. You just p=
ut a
higher roof but the sides can be open for aeration.
Mr. Quirk: Yea, we could do that,
that’s fine.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Any maybe the composting area =
could
be open, I’m not questioning that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Do we need a motion?
Mr. Rafey: If there are any other=
issues,
then you can Close it, yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
JUNE 10, 2004
PAGE 35
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Anybody else have any in put?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Last opportuni=
ty for
the public. Okay, are =
you
satisfied with the information that we have as far as . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Okay I need a Motion to Close =
the
Public Hearing on Application #495.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Close the Public
Hearing for App. #495 of Patrick Graziano, proposed 4-lot Willowbrook Farm
Subdivision,
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at 9:05 p.m.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 10 minute Recess at 9:15 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary