MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC H=
EARING
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
THURSDAY,
NOVEMBER 10, 2005 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Bernard Beauchamp, Act=
ing
Secretary
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
G=
len
Duplissie
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
ABSENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; Peter Peluso
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Martha Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; Denise
Russ
OTHERS PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; Chuck
Berger, Town Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 8:45 p.m.
(no time given).
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Beauchamp, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Zawadzki, =
in
his absence.
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Mr. Peluso to sit in for Mr. Jones, in h=
is
absence.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 2
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Beauchamp, Acting Secretary read aloud the Legal Notice for the record as
follows:
&=
nbsp; The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Watertown will
hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 10, 2005 at the Jo=
hn
Trumbull Primary School Media Center, 779 Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT to
hear and act upon the following application deemed a significant activity by
the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency pursuant to Section
2.(dd1-7) of the Watertown Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations.
&=
nbsp; Application
#536 of Angelo Tedesco Real Estate to conduct the following regulated
activities involved in the construction of Oakwood Acres Phase II consists =
of
subdivision of a 19.14 acre parcel into 21 residential building lots and
construction of approximately 1,300 linear feet of new roadway to connect P=
ine
Ridge Drive to Sunnyside Avenue, Oakville, CT in an R-30 Residential Zoning
District.
&=
nbsp; 3. =
Discharge
of storm runoff from the development into wetlands/watercourse.
&=
nbsp; At
this Hearing interested persons may be heard and written communications
received. A copy of the appli=
cation
is on file at the Planning and Zoning Office, 51 Depot Street, Suite 520,
Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; Dated
in Watertown, CT this 27th day of October, 2005.
&=
nbsp; Dated
in Watertown, CT this 3rd day of November, 2005.
&=
nbsp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
&=
nbsp; Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency"
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&= nbsp; C. Application #536 of Angelo Tedesco Real Estate for construction of Section II of Oakwood Acres Subdivision consists of 21 building lots and extension of Pine Ridge Drive, Oakville, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by December 15, 2005, unless appli=
cant
grants a time extension.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 3
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Mr. Chairman, ther=
e is a
memo from Mr. Berger that I forgot to send with the packet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Paul
Benevich, Engineer, Land Data Engineers
Mr. Benevich: For Section II of Oakwood Acres off of Sunnyside
Avenue, 19.14 acres, 21 lots proposed.&nbs=
p;
The site is as shown on this map, I show both sections, I showed the=
P
& Z Commission last night, we’re extending the existing Pine Ridge
Drive, that’s the road in black at the top of the left of the drawing,
with the green road, and looping it around to the intersection of Shaw Farm
Road and Sunnyside Avenue. Th=
e site,
the left half of it is Shaw Farm, the east half of it was owned by Mr. Nich=
olas
Pacelli. The two sites togeth=
er are
19.14 acres. The site general=
ly
slopes from south to west to the northeast corner where David Lord, our soil
scientist, flagged a small area of wetlands as shown in blue on this map.
First the water quality
issue requires some changes which we’re still in the process of
doing. I apologize, I had a
computer glitch which didn’t help me at all, but anyway going back to
this water quality situation, in the first section back in 2003 the only th=
ing
we did, as the Town required, I believe Mr. Berger had just started his ten=
ure
here, we put in a gross particle separator, a two chamber underground swale
technology system that is supposed to separate up to 80% of the solids and
suspend it in the storm water runoff, as is now required on the 2004 Standa=
rds
and there is a detention pond down there that is also dry, and we did make a
temporary crossing of that wetland down to tie into the utilities on Sunnys=
ide
Avenue.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 4
Since the 2004 Quality
Standards came out, our plan is deficient in a number of areas, so I
don’t think the gross particle separator we’re proposing in Sec=
tion
II is sufficient because there is a calculation for that 1 inch of runoff f=
rom
all the impervious areas on the site and I made some assumptions about size=
of house
and driveways and threw in safety factor for other impervious areas that mi=
ght
be developed on these 21 lots and came up with what’s called the water
quality volume of about 11,700 cubic feet, or roughly 90,000 gallons. It’s not something we can st=
ore
anywhere in any kind of underground chamber, unless it’s the size of =
this
whole room here. So I did wan=
t to
get this Public Hearing started, get the Commission’s comments, and I
also wanted to wait until we had the Field Walk last Saturday, which not
everyone on the Commission was able to attend, but at least the members who
were there got to see this small wetland area in the northeast corner of the
property which those drain into the Cercemaggiore Club off site, where ther=
e is
a swale, drains into a culvert under their driveway to their soccer field,
which is just off the upper right corner of this map as it’s situated=
and
that will take the drainage and as I said, we’ll have a zero increase=
in
runoff for all those storm events which we will keep no matter what our wat=
er
quality design comes up with in the revised plan.
The 200 square feet of
encroachment disturbance in the wetlands and the 4,500 square feet regulated
area disturbance is due to the fact that this whole site comes down to this
corner and the lower I got, or the nearer to that corner I got the detention
pond, the easier it was to get all of the water from the backs of all the l=
ots
and the site into this pond so I can treat it to get that zero increase in
runoff. As the Commission req=
uested
for us to get this away from the wetlands would require this to be moved up=
the
hill, where this pond is situated is a fairly steep slope and if I try to, =
well
a couple of things happen if you try to get it much further away from the
wetlands, that you’re going to be cutting into the slope more to keep=
it
the same level which also helps you collect the water from both the north a=
nd
the east side of the property, the back of these lots to get to the detenti=
on
pond, or you have to raise the whole pond itself which creates a bigger, ta=
ller
berm on the downhill end which doesn’t help you stay away from the
wetlands, cause the further you raise the berm, the more you have to chase =
the
slope down towards the wetlands.
One thing that happene=
d last
night at the first P & Z Commission Hearing, is Mrs. Wick, the Chairman,
asked me at one point if I was putting a fence around this pond and I said =
no,
because at the time we submitted this plan it was going to be a dry pond and
there wasn’t that much of a safety issue with that, we don’t ha=
ve
one with the pond in Section I, but then she said if you make it a 2:1 slope
you’re going to need a fence, so I did this mental double take becaus=
e as
I mentioned to Chuck today the subdivision regs require a 3:1 slope in the =
section
where they mention detention =
ponds,
but she said oh no.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 5
I talked to Mary Barton
about this today and she said it’s kind of an understanding in Town o=
r a
tradition that they do allow, and Chuck mentioned it in one of the earlier
hearings, a 2:1 slope in certain areas, so even on the downhill side of this
pond as we have proposed, if I can go to a 2:1 slope instead of a 3:1 I can=
get
whatever fill we have out of that 200 feet disturbance of the wetlands, and
even part of the regulated area, not totally, but at least it’s somet=
hing
I’d like to consider.
Also since I have to m=
ake
this pond meet some water quality standards, one of the things to do is to =
make
it a wet pond, the water permanently, except in an extreme drought conditio=
n in
the pond they want a minimum of 4 foot depth to maintain certain standards =
of
purification, there’s a whole big chapter in there about how long the
water would stay, and you’d have to try and spread the flow out throu=
gh
the pond, which we do have this elongated pond, just try to fit it into this
area and all these other standards.
We probably propose what would be a two compartment, what they call a
pocket pond because the drainage area is under 25 acres, and it would be li=
ke a
2 compartment sedimentation basin, there’s also a treatment that goes=
on
between the water coming and going out and I’m losing some storage
because of this, obviously because I can’t use the whole depth of the
pond for storage and I’d have to change the geometry of the pond and =
it
would definitely be a help if Mr. Berger would agree to a 2:1 slope at leas=
t on
the downhill embankment on the inside of the pond. I also didn’t want the Commi=
ssion
members to see this area, my soil scientist Mr. Lord couldn’t be here=
, he
had a conflict this evening, but I did, I don’t think, in my opinion,
seeing the wetlands that I have, it’s not a high quality wetland. It is a wetland by soil type, it d=
oes
convey, the runoff at this point gets channelized enough and that’s w=
here
I think this wetland is created by storm water runoff in the past 1,000 yea=
r or
so.
That’s pretty mu=
ch all
I have right now. I’ll =
take
any questions from the Commission members.
Mr. Undercuffler: So you’re saying the upshot of this if you=
go
to the 2:1 slope you’ll be able to get it out of the wetlands and may=
be
even some of the buffer area?
Mr. Benevich: Correct.
Ms. Sturgis: Does the water in this keep moving? I mean it’s not going to jus=
t sit
there, is it?
Mr. Benevich: Well that’s the intent. Like one of these . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 6
Ms. Sturgis: Keep it moving?
Mr. Benevich: Yes.
There is going to be, it was proposed originally to be a dry pond, a=
nd
only fill up during any significant rainfall, but a wet pond, raise the out=
let
at least 4 feet above the level we had before to create a wet condition.
Mr. Rafey: You mean the depth of water will be 4 feet?
Mr. Benevich: <=
/b> They want a minimum of 4 feet water=
. They want between 4 and 8 feet.
Mr. Undercuffler: When you say they, you’re ta=
lking
about the new regulations?
Mr. Benevich: Yea, the 2004 Connecticut Water Qu=
ality
Standards.
Mr. Undercuffler: If it’s a wet pond you’re saying?
Mr. Benevich: Correct.
Mr. Undercuffler: And it has to be a wet pond because . . . . ?
Mr. Benevich: Because of the treatment of the first 1 inch of
runoff from the impervious area on the site, which is one standard they wan=
t,
the Water Quality Volume, WQV they call it, and that on this site comes out=
to
about 11,700 cubic feet, which is very tough to store underground. We don’t like underground, t=
his
manual is like 300 pages and they don’t like underground systems for a
number of reasons, but the ease of maintaining them, and I just outlined in
orange, the area on this pond as it exists, if we fill 4 feet that area wou=
ld
be wet, and it actually, my soil scientist, I wish he was here tonight but =
he
can’t be, said this would actually have a lot of characteristics of a
wetland. We’d be creati=
ng,
and this area is about 7,700 square feet in footprint size, so more than 35
times the area of disturbance that we’re proposing.
Ms. Sturgis: Is there (inaudible) when you flush it through t=
hat,
to leave some silt there so you, now I’m wondering how you maintain y=
our
4 feet if you keep leaving silt there.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 7
Mr. Benevich: Going back to those particle separators, like the
one we submitted in Section I, they are large tanks, I think one was like 6
feet by 5 foot deep, I mean diameter by 5 foot, and the other one was a 5 f=
oot
one. If you combine those two
capacities, it’s about 3,000 gallons. Now a pond like this would have 30=
times
that capacity, so you wouldn’t need to clean it as much cause I know =
this
town, like every other town, has limited resources to go in and do this kin=
d of
thing but probably instead of being annual or semi annual, it would be like
once every 10 years you’d have to go in and dredge the thing out.
Mr. Rafey: Chuck, the 4 to 8 feet of water in the pond, they
won’t need a fence around the pond?
Mr. Berger: I’m not clear on what they intent of the
comments made last night, (inaudible) referring to and I’d like to ha=
ve
the opportunity to further discuss that.&n=
bsp;
There are a couple of different issues at play there, it’s not
only the safety in and around the detention basin but also the ease of
maintenance. Getting back to =
slope
issues, 2:1 slope is not a comfortable slope to be on, for maintenance
purposes, if you were to mow the detention basin embankment, it should be a=
minimum
of 3:1 is what our maintenance guys would tell us and that’s what they
would be recommending and that’s where I believe our requirements came
from.
Mr. Duplissie: The only way to get that, I’m looking at t=
he
way he has it designed is to change the configuration of that detention bas=
in
and to elongate it this way and pull it back up the hill a little, I know
that’s the lowest point, but the only way to do that is to, cause rig=
ht
now you’re limited in that area that you’re in, but if you pull=
it
up the slope a little, back towards the back of Lot #7 and #8, you could ma=
ke
that pond bigger coming this way, and you would have the 2:1 slope and they=
can
go back to the 3:1 slope and easier access.
Mr. Benevich: Yea, that is what is going to happen. I am going to bring it somewhat up=
the
hill, it has to get larger because I’m losing the storage, the wet po=
nd
you can’t consider it storage for detention purposes and also like you
said, even if I could, if the Town, Mr. Berger, even a 2:1 on the down slope
side of the pond, not necessarily inside of it, if it’s 3:1 on the in=
side
it’s easier for dredging and maintenance, if they want to mow the
downhill side of the pond that’s another issue but it’s somethi=
ng
that you know, I was kind of . . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 8
Mr. Polletta: When you say 2:1 on the south side, and you̵=
7;re
saying it’s from right where the Cercemaggiore Club is?
Mr. Benevich: Right, you’d be coming up from where the t=
oe
of the slope ends, up to the top of the berm.
Mr. Polletta: That’s buffer there, no?
Mr. Benevich: Right, that would be in your buffer area. (Tape #2, Side A ended – may=
have
missed some.)
Mr. Berger: If the structure that is (inaudible) mowed at le=
ast
once a year, we don’t (inaudible) it’s part of the berm, yea.
Mr. Undercuffler: I wonder, you made a comment before that your so=
il
scientist said there’s a wet pond there, it would be essentially, I
don’t know your exact words, but (inaudible).
Mr. Benevich: (Inaudible) it would take on the characteristics=
of
a wetland, right.
Mr. Undercuffler: Maybe we ought to think in terms of that wetland
that’s there now, it’s so small, maybe what you are going to bu=
ild
will be even better than what’s there.
Mr. Benevich: That’s what we are hoping to do or proposi=
ng
to do.
Mr. Rafey: This is just an example of mitigation, they are
going to impact 200 square feet of wetlands and they’re creating a la=
rger
wetlands next to that area.
Ms. Sturgis: I don’t understand 4 feet, why it doesn=
217;t
have to be fenced? That escap=
es me.
Mr. Benevich: I’m sorry, Mr. Berger was talking, we will
definitely propose a fence. T=
hat
becomes a hazard for any children in the neighborhood or just someone . . .=
.
Mr. Undercuffler: I don’t think she was saying you can’=
;t
have a fence, she just said maybe you didn’t need it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 9
Mr. Benevich: Whether someone else thought we needed it or not=
, we
would propose a fence under those conditions, if we had a wet pond, absolut=
ely.
Mr. Rafey: This will be wetlands only if there is standing
water in the pond. Sometimes =
we do
create some wet bottom ponds and they don’t dry, and not wet all the
time. Some wetland vegetation=
can
survive (inaudible) they cannot survive with water being there all the
time. If the depth of the wat=
er is
4 feet, I’m sure there will be water all year round.
Mr. Duplissie: If you’re creating wetlands, if we’r=
e accepting
it back as wetlands now, but you have a fence around it, then your animals
can’t get to it anyway. In
nature you have 4 foot ponds all over the place, there are little ponds here
and there, and we don’t have fences around them, so how will the wild=
life
access this nice 8,000 square feet wetlands that we have if we put a 6 foot
fence around it?
Mr. Berger: I’d like to recommend that this Public Hea=
ring
be kept open because there are a number of technical issues here and
that’s one I’d like to review, have the opportunity to
(inaudible). Quite honestly s=
itting
here and it’s the first time I’ve heard a 4 to 8 foot deep pond=
and
I have some questions and I’d like to understand that a little better
before . . . . .
Mr. Benevich: <=
/b> Like I said it’s quite a Manu=
al,
but one of the things I read, the wanted 4 feet minimum water to keep out
certain species of invasive plants that would disturb the treatment of
water. It’s like a coll=
ege
course, when you start reading this.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well could it be that the fence wouldn’t h=
ave
to go completely around, depending on the slope, maybe the part with the st=
eep
slope should be fenced but . . . . .
Mr. Benevich: Yea, the uphill side of it would just be almost =
at
grade.
Mr. Polletta: But the fence would mainly be for if kids go in
there and they drown, so either you do or you don’t.
Mr. Berger: If you leave an opening it sort of defeats the
purpose.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 10
Mr. Duplissie: You don’t have a fence all around Sylvan L=
ake,
or Echo Lake. Right? I mean there are homes around it a=
nd
that’s deeper than 4 feet, so if we’re creating a wetlands, it =
just
doesn’t make any sense to put a fence around it.
Mr. Berger: I’m not going to get too side tracked on t=
his
issue, but my understanding of a fence issue was if an individual or a child
could get into the outlet structure of the detention pond, if there was a b=
ig
opening in the outlet structure, then we would fence the detention pond.
Mr. Duplissie: Which is what you have over at Echo Lake, correc=
t?
Mr. Berger: Right.
Mr. Duplissie: Reflections at Echo Lake, on the t=
op of
Echo Lake the overflow.
Mr. Berger: Stephanie Lane, and all those (inaudible) an out=
let
that you can’t fall into and (inaudible).
Mr. Undercuffler: So that would apply here conceivably.
Mr. Berger: Under ideal conditions (inaudible) evaluate can =
we
do it, (inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: Cause you have one on Davis Street Extension,
there’s a drainage area there with a fence all the way around it, com=
ing
off of 63 coming down Davis Street Extension, that development on the right
hand side, and it’s all overgrown on both sides.
Everyone talking at on=
ce
(inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: It’s an unmaintained area, you’d be
better off without a fence around it.
I think they look better.
Mr. Berger: (Inaudible).&nb=
sp;
What I’ve tried to do.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 11
Mr. Undercuffler: Are there any comments from the public on this?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Any questions? No, I guess not. Well let’s keep this open an=
d you
can go back to the drawing board.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Benevich: Mr. Berger had =
some
other issues in his review letter so we have to get together, I just
haven’t had a chance to do that, (inaudible) looking into the design =
to
do that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: You cannot read th=
at
letter for wetlands alone, 19 acres of land (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: I was trying to say that, by those=
two
lots, I mean I was looking at the setback area on those 2 lots, and I was
looking at the slope, and I know you’re trying to get as many lots as=
you
can out of that, but you can combine those 2 lots and make it 1 lot, cause =
our
setback is way out, and bring your pond up cause you still have plenty of r=
oom,
you’d still be on the lowest part of the property.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Even by moving that property line a
little bit closer, they don’t have to lose a lot, it’s already
grade and (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Benevich: We are going to move the lines a l=
ittle
bit.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well once he gets his computer tur=
ned on
. . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: (Inaudible) in the
office, there is 19 acres of land, there is one little piece of wetlands in=
one
corner and (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Recess the Public Hearing for App. #536, of
Angelo Tedesco Real Estate for construction of Section II of Oakwood Acres
Subdivision consists of 21 building lots and extension of Pine Ridge Drive,
Oakville, CT.
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at about 8:45 p.m. (no time given).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #536 – ANGELO TEDESCO REAL ESTATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 12
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, called a 10 minute Recess at about 9:10 p.m. (=
no
time given).
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Bernard
Beauchamp, Acting Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary