beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

CONTINUA= TION OF PUBLIC HEARING

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRUMBULL PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER

THURSDAY= , MAY 11, 2006 - 7:30 P.M.

&nb= sp;

APPLICAT= ION #547 – WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

&nb= sp;

PRESENT: &nb= sp; = L= ucia DiBona (arrived at 7:20 p.m.)

= ; &n= bsp; = ; = G= len Duplissie

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Joseph Polletta

= &nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; Edwin Undercuffler, Vice Chairman

ABSENT: = ; &n= bsp; = ; = Ron Jones, Secretary

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Charles Thermer

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; James Zawadzki, Chairman

ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs= p; Martha Sturgis

ALTERNATES ABSENT: = ; <= /span>Peter Peluso

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Denise Russ

OTHERS PRESENT: &nb= sp; = Mary Barton, Zoning Enforcement Officer=

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer=

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 7:08 p.m= .

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Duplissie, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call.

Mr. Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Zawadzki, = in his absence.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

Mr. Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record as follows:

&nb= sp;

Ground Rules

1.&n= bsp; = ; The applicant or his representative will make his formal presentation to the Commission stating the proposed regulated activities, the wetland impacts, and the alternative that was proposed by t= he applicant.

2.&n= bsp; = ; All comments, discussions, observations shall be ma= de through the Chair, after proper recognition by the Chairman. This is necessary to ensure that o= nly one person at a time speaks on any issue, thus making it easier for everyon= e to understand and for clearer legal 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 ask= ed to spell his name for the record.

4. = Following the presentation of the application, the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency will ask specific questions of the applica= nt.

5. = After the Commission has asked its questions of the applicant, I sh= all then allow any member of the public who wishes to speak either in favor of = the 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 present any additional information or clarifying discussion to do so.<= /o:p>

8. = I shall then provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these additional remarks if he or his representative so wishes.<= /span>

9. = The Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency has 35 days from = the date of 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 if the Commission requires any additional information or wishes to schedule a site walk to observe the situation for themselves.

10. = The Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency has 65 days from = the date that the public hearing is closed to render its decision.

3. = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; A. Continuation of Public Hearing from April 20, 2006 - Application #547 of Watertown Woods, LLC for construction of 13 lot Wolfe Hill Subdivision located on the southe= rly side of Woodbury Road (Route 6), Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Recess or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by May 25, 2006, unless applicant grants a time extension.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: Where do you stand? Do you have all of your informatio= n now?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

Ron Wolfe, Professional Engin= eer

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> We just received Land Tech Consultant’s third party review on Monday and we haven’t formal= ly responded to that yet, but we would like to make our presentation and go through the project and we will respond to their report before the next meeting.

Mr. Undercuffler: We’ll need an extension to g= et us over there.

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Right. This parcel is located on the sout= h side of Route 6, or Woodbury road, east of the Woodbury town line, adjacent to <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Town Line Road, which is currently an unimproved road.&nbs= p; The parcel has an overall area of 6.8 acres and is located in an R-70 zoning district. There is approximately 13.9 acres of wetlands on the property which were identified = of David Lord of Soil Resources Consultants in December, 2004. The Atwood Brook flows onto their property through a box culvert under Route 6, flows along the northeast property line westerly and then flows back off the = northwest street line through anoth= er box culvert underneath route 6. T= he subdivision for this property had been previously approved in 1990 but the approval has since expired, since the subdivision map was never filed. The previous approval was for 19 l= ots with a total of 11.5 acres of land to be deeded to the Town as open space.<= o:p>

The current proposal c= onsists of a 13 lot residential subdivision with a combined total of 12.07 acres of open space and conservation easement areas. 3.52 acres of the proposed protect= ed area is upland area. The prop= osed open space is in the same general location as was approved in the previous subdivision and adjoins existing protected areas to the east from a previous subdivision. The proposed open space and conservation easement area will protect the entire streetscape al= ong Route 6 as well as the Atwood Brook from development. As indicated in Land Tech’s = third party review, the proposed open space has significant functions and values = that include groundwater recharge, discharge, flood flow alteration, fish habita= t, sediment toxicant pathogen retention, nutrient removal, production export, sediment stabilization, wildlife habitat and visual quality aesthetics.

I’ll just briefly discuss the proposed road layout. It is proposed to enter the parcel through the existing town owned s= trip of land created by the BCD subdivision in 1988. The proposed street runs in a north/south direction and is about 1620 long measured from Route 6. The proposed road is 24 feet wide = with a bituminous concrete lip curb along each gutter, a 5 foot concrete sidewalk = is proposed along the east side of the street. A cul de sac is proposed for the e= nd of the road with a 26 foot circular planted island. There is a water crossing proposed= at station 20+10. the proposed crossing in the location of an existing farm crossing made up of large stones of masonry walls. The crossing consists of 72 linear= feet of 30 inch reinforced concrete pipe with a flared end inlet and outlet; a preformed scour hole with modified rip rap is proposed for the outlet end to dissipate velocities.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

Several alternatives w= ere evaluated for the crossing including an open bottom culvert and a box culve= rt lined with a natural bottom. = Our calculations to date indicate that due to the slope of the existing channel, and the proposed culvert which is about 5.4% use of an open bottom culvert would require that it be armored with rip rap to prevent scoured mitigation= of (inaudible) downstream. As a = rule of thumb, slopes in excess of 5% are not conducive to turf establishment or= a soil bottom due to erosion during major storm events. The circular culvert was also sele= cted due to its simplicity and the minimal impacts during construction. The 30 inch pipe could be easily installed in one day while an open bottom marsh would require cast in place concrete footings, dewatering during construction since the footing elevati= on would be significantly below the water table and would take about 3 to 4 we= eks to construct.

Another design conside= ration in choosing a circular culvert was the need to convey the storm drainage fr= om the upper portion of the roadway over the crossing. The 15 inch concrete pipe conveys = storms water from the catch basin up gradient of the culvert to the proposed deten= tion pond east of Lot #13. The roadway drainage system was de= signed to accommodate a 25 inch storm event. The proposed water quality detention pond was designed for 0 increas= e in runoff at the 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year storm events. The emergency spillway was also de= signed for a 100 year storm event. R= unoff from about 1,150 feet of the proposed road will be collected by catch basins and directed to the detention basin. Drainage from the remaining 450 feet of road will be collected by a closed drainage system and will continue to flow through an existing 18 inch reinforced concrete pipe under Route 6.&nb= sp; The proposed detention basin is completely outside of the wetlands a= nd the only portion within the regulated area is the discharge pipe and the rip rap apron.

The proposed lots will= be served by on site septic systems and wells. All of the proposed septic systems= are outside of the 75 foot setback required by the Torrington Area Health Distr= ict. All of the proposed houses are also outside of the 50 foot wetland setback line. Common driveways are proposed for = Lots #6, #7, and #8 which will reduce the number of crossing required to these l= ots if separate driveways were proposed. There are existing farm crossings at t= he locations of the proposed driveway culverts which consist of 15 inch and 24 inch reinforced concrete pipe culverts.

I’d like to hand= the mike over to Dave Lord, our environmental consultant who can give a descrip= tion of the wetlands and other features of the site.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

David Lord, Soil Scientist, &= amp; Environmental Consultant

Mr. Lord: What I’m going to be present= ing this evening is in verbal form. It’s in response to the Land Tech Consultant’s report wh= ich we just received this week. I’ve not had a chance to actually prepare a formal response, b= ut we have done some activities in response to issues that were raised in that report and those are what I’d like to present this evening and talk a= bout the wetlands that are on the property.

The Land Tech report g= oes into a fairly good description of the existing wetlands on the property describing them in the area of the proposed development activities as groundwater discharge type wetlands with grade and slopes intermingled betw= een wetland soil areas and defined intermittent watercourse channels. The other type of wetland system i= s a riparian groundwater table fed wetlands system which is associated with Atw= ood Brook along Route 6. In the northern portion of the site, the colored portion on this drawing here. There is a circular wetland system= on Lots #2 and #3 which is large in special area. This area is also with groundwater= discharge type wetlands. I was out there again today and looking at the flows in these groundwater through the propo= sed roadway crossing in an existing culvert system under the farm access road at this location and down through a well defined watercourse channel at this location here. A vegetative inventory is described in the Land Tech report so for the sake of brevity I won’t go into that, you'll be able to read in that report the descriptions of that . . . . just to recap in the area of the development, = these areas are groundwater discharge features whereby groundwater is either influenced by the underlying hard pan soil layers or collected surface water that ha infiltrated and moved to their locations are discharged down gradie= nt to a wetland system which is groundwater table fed and also associated with= a riparian wetland watercourse corridor in this portion of the site. A large wetland area in Lots #2 an= d #3 as I described is a groundwater discharge.= It feeds groundwater to surface water flows, passes through an exist= ing culvert system under the farm access road at this location and then down through the defined watercourse system.

For the most part the wetlands would be described as plustrian upland wooded shrub swamp type wet= land systems. The general vegetated inventory as I said is indicated in the Land Tech report and I won’t get into detail on that, but you can read the specific species that are listed there.&nb= sp; Skunk Cabbage is a dominant groundcover vegetation, Red Maple in the tree canopy and dominant shrubs include Spice Bush, Silky Dogwood, High Bus= h, Blueberry, Arrowroot, just to mention a couple.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

Also in #5 he talks ab= out the location of the driveway to Lot #2 w= hich is in this location here. The= one area where the driveway gets relatively close is in this portion along the western side of the property. This area of the driveway to Lot #2 actually utilize an existing woods road which runs through this portion f the property as you may well know this is a pap= er road that runs along this side of the property ‘ere going to be utili= zing a section of that for the driveway access to Lot #2, thereby not disturbing= any of the existing vegetation between the existing roadway and the wetlands sy= stem and what we’re going to be looking at is any expansion of that existi= ng roadway that needs to be done to create a suitable driveway would be done to the west away, moving away from the wetland allowing for the retention of t= his area of very dense trees and shrubs in this area to be reserved from the driveway. Again it’s in this general localized area where you have the closest proximity. The rest o= f the driveway again both utilizes the existing woods road and is spatially dista= nced from the wetland through undisturbed upland review zone areas.

Mr. Polletta: You said part of that driveway is = going to be going into a paper street? Now the paper street is owned by the Town?

Ms. Barton:= It’s still under discussion = so I think that’s what the wetland application is proposing but there was discussion, cause this is in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I’m sorry, I apologize, it’s under discussion at the Planning a= nd Zoning Commission and that was one of the items in the public hearing, so that’s not engraved in stone one way or the other, that’s how t= he wetlands application was submitted.

Mr. Lord: It’s probably better for me = to describe it then as an existing woods road, bare soil, you can drive throug= h it with a pickup truck without four wheel drive as it exists today.=

Mr. Polletta: I don’t think you can utiliz= e a paper street if you don’t own it, so now answer the question if you w= ent before Planning and Zoning they make the decision.

Ms. Barton:= And there is still some discussion= if it’s town line road and that went back and forth, and there was even discussion about relocating, but that hasn’t been resolved yet.<= /o:p>

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Gail McTaggert, Attorn= ey=

Atty. McTaggert: Our law office has done a tremendous amount of research on it. We’ve been involved with some cases that had to do wi= th litigation regarding it and I did supply to Mary the deeds.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

FIRE ALARM SOUNDED; TH= E ROOM WAS EVACUATED AT 7:30 P.M.

Mr. Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, Reconvened the Meeting at 7:35 p.m.

Atty. McTaggert: We’ve had a discussion with = the Planning and Zoning Commission about the status of Town Line Road which we’re pretty much not u= sing as a road, however we did and I did provide for the record for the Planning= and Zoning Commission an 1843 agreement between the towns of Watertown and Wood= bury laying out the road with rods and it also contains a maintenance agreement between the two towns and sets the lines and so forth. It’s an ancient agreement so it’s all done in 82 rods which is 1353 feet and so forth and so I gav= e a copy to Mary Barton to take a look at, and I know she will be taking a look= at it. There have been 2 or 3 ca= ses where the owners on the Woodbury side have litigated their ability to go ac= ross the BCD Subdivision not this subdivision, which is right where I pointed wh= ere our road comes through and the determination was that there was an old pass= way through that piece and the court altered that so that those, at least one of those owners could use the road that was created through the BCD Subdivision that we're going to be improving as part of this development. So when I heard the words paper ro= ad and so forth I thought I ought to just tell you that there are some good record= s, and often when we do these old roads, sometimes they’re just right of ways and the owners on each side own the fee, and at first we thought maybe that was the case, but in this case this road is laid out and so there is a record on it in both towns.

Ms. Sturgis: What will the surface be on these driveways, that long driveway and the shared driveway?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The proposed common driveway to Lo= ts #6, #7, and #8 would be bituminous, it would be paved for the shared portion, f= or maintenance purposes.

Ms. Sturgis: And the one we’re talking ab= out now would be paved as well?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> This one isn’t proposed to be paved because it’s very flat, it’s less than 10% and it’s= not a common driveway so we had proposed that to be gravel. After we reviewed the site and we = walked it, you can actually drive right up through here. Two houses in Woodbury actually us= e this old Town Line highway to access their houses so it just made sense to, inst= ead of bringing the driveway up, one alternative would be to do a common drivew= ay off of Lot #3, but then you’d be up gradient of the wetlands. Thi= s here alternative you basically stay outside of the 50 foot wetland setback, down gradient of it and you connect back down to the Tow road which you can actu= ally drive on, that’s the road we walked up when we had our field walk, and you can see the old path, it actually just cuts right up through where the house is proposed for lot #2, so we tried to utilize that existing old road= or path.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 9

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: Nobody reviewed anything so far fr= om Land Tech, but I just have one question. During the field trip if you remem= ber where the first big crossing was, we were concerned about a culvert versus a pipe, and you want to put a pipe, but most of the time we hear that a culve= rt is less disturbance because you leave the bottom existing and not disturbed, but I happen to be in another Town in West Hartford and I saw they put a culvert in, and actually the bottom was never touched to where the watercou= rse went by and after it was stabilized it was the same stuff, within a week it looked like it was never touched. I was very impressed, but you keep saying that pipe will be less disturbance.= My concern is why they used it wit= h the culvert, why do you want to use a pipe?>

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Open bottom (inaudible) or natural= ly lined culvert is more applicable to where you have a very flat slope. I have a cross section here throug= h the culvert (Tape #1, Side A ended – may have missed some). And what we’re basically pro= posing is to lay our (inaudible) slope at the existing grade at the crossing. You can see the existing road wher= e we walked across curing the field walk, with the two headwalls and right now basically what happens is the flow just filters through that rock culvert crossing. There may be a pipe in there, we’re not sure, we never excavated it to determine.

Mr. Polletta: Do you feel that by you not puttin= g the culvert in and putting the pipe, there is less disturbance?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> We feel there will be less disturb= ance because basically it can be installed in a working day. There is no cast in place concrete= work that would be required, no footings, no excavation below the water table ex= cept well if it was done during a dry, there wouldn’t be any water at that location and you could be done with installation of it in a day, and you’re talking at least 3 or 4 weeks to construct an open bottom.

Mr. Polletta: (inaudible) pipe installed in a da= y, regardless if it’s 12 or 24 inches.&= nbsp; My question is why do they use culverts in all these places?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Well if you have a flat slope on t= he waterway and you don’t have to armor it with rip rap, then a culvert would be a more applicable way to cross that watercourse. I mean we're not talking about a r= iver or a brook or anything, we’re just talking about an intermittent watercourse that probably begins 60 to 70 feet up gradient of the crossing,= so it’s a very small amount of flow.

Mr. Polletta: When we went on that field trip, t= here was quite a bit of water going across the (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 10

&nb= sp;

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> It was just a trickle, I mean ther= e was snow on the ground that may have been melting, but basically a 24 inch culv= ert would have worked hydraulically, but we chose to increase that to a 30 inch just for an added safety factor and we don’t feel comfortable leaving= it lined with the natural stream bottom material which there really isn’t any where the road is now because that's been used as road, but we feel that that would be eroded and end up downstream if it was left natural soil, just due to the slope of the existing ground.&n= bsp; I don’t know if the Commission would think that it would be feasible to do an open bottom structure and then have to line it with rip r= ap, I mean that kind of defeats the purpose, but that’s something that co= uld be done. I don’t want t= o say that can’t be done, but it would have to be lined with rip rap.<= /o:p>

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> It’s sized for a 24 inch pipe. That’s a lot of w= ater.

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yea, well during a 100 year storm.=

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Right now this time of the year, g= oing into June and July it will be dry. And August will be dry. (Inaudible) culvert it will be dry so it’s easy to put it in at that time.

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Well you’d be below the water table, you’d probably have groundwater though. I mean depending, you may have groundwater in the Summer time.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> (Inaudible.)

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The other reason we went with the = pipe is that we had one detention basin proposed for the project and that’= s in back of lot #13 and in order to get the water from the upper part of the subdivision over this crossing, we have this 15 inch pipe that we have to g= et over the crossing, and we need to maintain at least 2 feet of cover over that pi= pe and if we used a large structure here, a box culvert or whatever, then this pipe wouldn't have enough cover on it.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Do you have to build the cover ove= r the pipe, the 15 inch you’re bringing down?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yea, we’re actually crossing= over this 30 inch pipe with a 15 inch pipe so that we can get all our drainage f= rom the roadway down to the detention basin.&n= bsp; If we had an intermediate discharge point up gradient of this water crossing we wouldn’t have been able to detain the water and provide f= or a zero increase in runoff so that’s another reason why we went with the= . . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 11

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> So that’s basically why you’re going to a 30 inch concrete pipe then so that you can have the cover for the 15 inch that you’re bringing down?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That’s one reason yes. We did look at the feasibility of = doing 2 smaller detention basins but if you recall from the field walk, that hill= side on the other side of the crossing is fairly steep and the impacts associated with grading and ponding cutting into that hillside would have been too much disturbance.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> How large is that wetland area, it’s hard to see on this, I think it’s L= ot #2 and #3 you’re talking about.

Mr. Undercuffler: Before we go too far off on that, = do we want to let Mr. Lord finish his presentation? We can come back to those points.<= o:p>

Mr. Lord: Actually that’ part of a seg= way into another point that I was going to be making. There is a on-going review right n= ow for Army Corps of Engineers permits on projects. One of the provisions of that prog= ram is a requirement that roadway crossings need to have what they’re going = to be referring to as a 25% rule, and you’re going to be hearing about t= his once that particular program goes into effect. What that means is that the width = of the crossing in parallel to the wetland or watercourse system that you’re crossing, the size of the pipe needs to be 25% of that length in square footage. For example if you h= ave a 20 foot wide crossing length, you need to have 5 square feet of opening siz= e to through the culvert. ThatR= 17;s an additional design consideration that we’re going to need to look at and incorporate into this crossing and actually into all of the crossings to make sure that we meet that in order to comply with that additional regulat= ory program.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> So there’s a 30 inch pipe?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Almost 5 square feet.

Mr. Lord: So that may require an upsizing bu= t one of the things that we looked at and Ron and I have had discussions, is that= the velocity through the pipe is the main reason why we feel it’s going t= o be difficult to keep natural bed load material in the pipe itself. The velocity within the pipe is ju= st going to blow that material out because of the grade. AT a level relatively flat graded = box culvert types you can put bed material into. What this area will likely do, another component of that 25% rule is that any pipe needs to be embedded be= low grade. In the event that this= area can be established with natural bed material, Mother Nature will fill it in= but it’s proposed to do that with the velocities that we have going throu= gh the pipe right now, in our opinion it’s just going to be like a shotg= un, it’s going to blow the material out.= If Mother Nature finds that it can establish material in the bottom = of the culvert pipe, then that is a process that we certainly allow to occur b= ut it’s not one that engineering velocities tell us should be done.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 12

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Bu the 30 inch pipe would be insta= lled level?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> No, (inaudible).=

Mr. Lord: It has a slope.<= /p>

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> At what slope would it . . . .

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> 5.4%.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> S the actual pipe would be at 5.4%= ?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Right.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> But if you laid the pipe in level = . . . the water would still run through it and it would be the discharge point th= at we would have to worry about, correct?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> You wouldn’t be able to run = it level because then you wouldn't, by the time you got to the outlet end it w= ould be 4 or 5 feet above the existing grade then you’d have to fill a huge area.

Mr. Lord: This wetland is much higher in ele= vation than the watercourse channel below the existing crossing, so you’d ha= ve to (inaudible).

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The elevation at the outlet is 646= , the elevation (inaudible) is 651, so you have a litt4el over 5 feet of a drop (inaudible).

Mr. Polletta: I think we should review the repor= t or we’ll be here all night talking about this.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> But without Land Tech in front of = us (inaudible).

Mr. Polletta: I don’t even know if Chuck B= erger, our Town Engineer, has had a chance to review this?

Mr. Berger:= In your packet you'll find a memo = from me that I had discussed with Mr. Wolfe a number of points in that memo, but have not seen a final response to the points or revised plans that address = all of them from Mr. Wolfe.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Only in response to Mr. Wolfe, but= not in response to Land Tech?

Mr. Berger:= Correct.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 13

&nb= sp;

Ms. Barton:= It might be beneficial if you, we = did receive a report but I did not make copies of the Land Tech report, I just realized I didn’t bring the copies with me. It may be better for Mr. Lord to m= ake his written copies and get it back to us, we’ll send that, Land Tech’s report and Chuck’s comments and then you can get them al= l at once, as soon as possible, and then at the next hearing you’ll have everything well in advance.

Mr. Lord: What I just wanted to do for the Commission's benefit this evening is to touch on some of the points that we= are in the process of working on, some of the concepts that are going to be incorporated into the plan, the rain gardens, the plantings, and others so = that when you do read the Land Tech report, maybe you can remember that we have addressed those, we are going to be addressing those in more formal, so I h= ope I haven’t confused people by referring to that report too much tonigh= t, but that’s pretty much what I have to present this evening. I’ll be happy to try and ans= wer any questions the members may have.

Mr. Undercuffler: I have a question on the driveway = up to Lot #5. You make a point of the common driveway going to those other three houses, why = have a separate parallel driveway going to 5?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The Town’s maximum is 3 hous= es on a common drive. What we’= ;re locking at doing, and this is also in response to one point, instead of hav= ing one long culvert crossing here for the common driveway and the driveway to = Lot #5, if we could relocate this driveway south f the existing (inaudible) hou= se, bring it above gradient of that, then we won’t need the crossing for = Lot #5. That will enable us to sh= orten up that (inaudible) and reduce it. When we revised the plans that’s probably what we’ll do.=

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> In the shaded area down below, on = the south side of the property, (inaudible green and some that's tan, what is t= he differences?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> This is the proposed open space, t= he green. And this is the proposed conservation easement area which is actually (inaudible).

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> But when you show that as open spa= ce, it looks like it’s mostly wetlands.

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> It’s about 2.6 acres of open= space is uplands, which satisfies the Town’s requirement. The area we’re providing wit= h the conservation easement is over and above what is required to meet the Town’s subdivision requirements for open space.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 14

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: 10%.

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> 10%.

Ms. Barton:= It’s above, do you want to go through the calculations? I r= ealize Moosa didn’t put it in his memo, just tell him exactly what it is, ju= st so you know on the open space, the Land Trust review it, they’re not interested. The Town of Woodbury, they th= ought it was a very good idea from Chris Wood to protect that open area. I don’t see Chris’ com= ment in here.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Woodbury wanted us to protect the = open space?

Ms. Barton:= The reason is because Chris was the Chairman of the Open Space Implementation Committee in Woodbury, but this is part of the regional plan of development to protect the Nonnewaug Falls are= a, so it is a regional effort and there is a Nonnewaug Falls Action committee that’s been ongoing for about 5 years or more, but it’s in the Regional Plan of Development since about 1955 to protect this Nonnewaug Fal= ls Area and this is part of it. = But the Land Trust has declined this property, they did not feel it met with th= eir goals, the Watertown Land Trust. Fire District, had reviewed it on Monday at their meeting and did not make a decision, because Atwood Brook does feed into the fire district̵= 7;s well field, so they may be interested in it. Planning and Zoning hasn’= ;t made a determination one way or the other if the Town is going to accept it= , I mean it is important for water quality protection but they do meet the 50% = uplands that’s required under the subdivision regulations.<= /p>

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I can go through the numbers.

Atty. McTaggert: While he’s looking for the n= umbers there is something else here and that is that this conservation restricted = area to the east, over here, provides a huge fragmented area of open space and conservation area and also the State does not, when this BCD Subdivision was done, there was a look at the access off of Route 6 and the preference is n= ot to have a bunch of entrances off of Route 6 because of site lines, traffic, etc., so it made sense instead of trying to access these lots to make a permanent conservation restriction area on that, and we can provide a copy = of the conservation restriction that would be on that to show the Commission w= hat that looked like, but basically it would be preserved in the same way as th= is open space would be preserved.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> How large is that conservation spa= ce on the left?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 15

&nb= sp;

Ms. Barton:= That is the Raycobb Subdivision, actually Northland Custom Homes. I don’t know the exact figures, but I can get them to you but it’s quite a bit. That’s the= one that goes in off Woodbury = Road with the 3 lots, with one common driveway. The houses are set back, it̵= 7;s quite a large area. Actually = when this came in back in the 80’s, this was the Sperry Orchards Subdivisi= on, there was discussion about putting a road where Ron has those common drivew= ays going up as another road to access up along, I don’t know what it was= .

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The subdivision that was approved previously had two temporary cul de sacs.&= nbsp; One would have terminated at the south up here and one would have terminated over here on the east, and that would have created a total of 19 lots.

Mr. Polletta: When was this subdivision approved= ?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> 1990.

Ms. Barton:= In 1990, this was Sperry orchards.= This was Atty. Ryan, I believe, th= ey couldn’t post the bond, they kept trying, and the subdivision was voided. But when the Northland Custom Homes subdivision the up gradient one was developed, it’s only= 3 lots, there was a tremendous amount of wetlands. For the next meeting I’ll ha= ve a map showing the conservation areas but it’s quite a bit, that’s= why they only got 3 lots, it was quite a large parcel.

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> it adjoins directly to this. The numbers on the open space and = the conservation easement, total open space provided is 6.93 acres. Of that 2.58 acres is upland. The total conservation easement ar= ea provided is 5.14 acres, of that .94 acres is upland area, which brings the total of 12.07 acres of protected land in the subdivision, which is 23.4% of the entire parcel.

Mr. Undercuffler: How are you going to handle that o= ther wetland area, that circular one? That will all be, you’re going to placard that, it will be easement up there?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That’s something that we can certainly look into.

Mr. Undercuffler: That’s all wetland.

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That was a comment from Land Tech,= was providing some type of permanent barrier between the home sites and the buf= fer area, so that’s something we’ll look into and respond to.<= /o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 16

&nb= sp;

Mr. Undercuffler: That plus the other finger that go= es up to the left there.

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yea, we have no plans to disturb a= ny of that area, so we’ll certainly look into adding more to the conservati= on.

Mr. Undercuffler: Well it should be protected. Where is the house on that lot?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Well there’s one up here, Lot #5, #6, #7, and then #8, these 3 lots, #6, #7, = and #8 have their frontage on Route 6.

Mr. Undercuffler: M=3DBut that lot to the right ther= e, the wetlands between that finger that come sup, right there, what lot is that o= n?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That’s on lot #9 which is ri= ght here, it’s right off of the cul de sac.

Mr. Undercuffler: I think we’d want to make sure that’s protected. All of that wetlan= d should be posted.

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Okay.

Mr. Undercuffler: Does that pretty much cover what you’ve got?

Mr. Wolfe:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That pretty much sums it up.<= /o:p>

Mr. Undercuffler: Let’s open it up to the publ= ic, or do any of the Commission member have anything to ask?

Ms. Barton:= Can you grant an extension of time= ?

Mr. Undercuffler: Does anybody from the public have = any questions or comments? I gues= s not.

MOTION:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table the Public Hearing for App. #547 of Watertown Woods, LLC for construction of 13 lot Wolfe Hill Subdivision loca= ted on the southerly side of W= oodbury Road (Route 6), Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #547– WATERTOWN WOODS, LLC

MAY 11, 2006

PAGE 17

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;         Public Hearing Recessed at 7:59 p.m.

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Ronald = Jones, Secretary

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetland Agency

  &nbs= p;         _________________= _________________

  &nbs= p;         Lynn M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary