MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC H=
EARING
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
THURSDAY,
APRIL 20, 2006 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#549 – PATRICK GRAZIANO
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
L=
ucia
DiBona
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: &nb=
sp; =
=
G=
len
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; Denise
Russ
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Martha Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
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 7:50 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Russ to sit in for Mr. Thermer, in his absenc=
e.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Duplissie, in his
absence.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 2
Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Legal Notice for the record as follows:<= o:p>
The Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Watertown will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 20, 20= 06 at the Watertown High School Technology Center, 324 French Street, Watertow= n, CT to hear and act upon the following application deemed a significant acti= vity by the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency pursuant to Section 2.1(dd1-7) of the Watertown Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations.
Application #547 of Patrick Graziano to conduct the following regulat= ed activities involved in the construction of Highview Estates, Phase II consi= sts of 32 residential building lots and construction of 2,770 linear feet of roadway off of Kimberly Lane and Pond View Drive, Watertown, CT in an R-30 Residential Zoning District:
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 52,
Watertown, CT.
Dated at Watertown, CT this 6th
day of April, 2006.
Dated at Watertown, CT this 13th
day of April, 2006.
Ron Jones, Secretary
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands
Agency
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 3
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&= nbsp; D. Application #549 of Patrick Graziano for construction of 32-lot Highview Estates Subdivision, Phase II located on Lovley Drive, Kimberly Lane, and Pond View Drive, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by May 25, 2006, unless applicant
grants a time extension.
Mr. Rafey: =
Since the applicant is not here you=
can
recess it and reopen it later.
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> This application for Phase II, High=
view
Estates. Essentially the prop=
erty
is a 99 acre parcel located north of Lovley Drive and Kimberly Lane, to the
west of Pondview Estates. To =
the
north or east of Pond View Drive, north of (inaudible) and the Highgate
Apartments, bordered by the south by Lovley Drive, and (inaudible) Middlebu=
ry
Road. The site is wooded, gra=
ss
fields, and generally sloping east and that’s where most of the wetla=
nds
areas are located, which are shown here and the wooded area is shown in gre=
en,
and the open fields are shown in (inaudible). The area rendered on this pla=
n is
the primary area for development for this application. The remaining property is what the
applicant is to remain undeveloped.
Phase II of this appli=
cation
consists of 32 lots. It will =
be an
extension of Phase I, which was about 11 lots. Phase II with the extension of
(inaudible) road, about 1200 linear feet, back down to Kimberly Lane here.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> A second smaller cul de sac locate=
d off
of that now (inaudible) Road which is about 600 linear feet and a third cul=
de
sac located off of Pond View Drive which is about 1,000 linear feet. After the completion of Phase II t=
here
will be 43 single family residential lots in this development. All the roads are 30 feet wide, de=
signed
to the Town’s standards, maximum grades 10% to less.
Storm water management
throughout the site is collected in a piped catch basin system designed for=
a
25 year storm to the Town’s standards. The system in Phase II conveys wat=
er to
water quality detention basins.
These basins will be designed to meet or reduce the peak runoff for =
the
two (inaudible) storms.
Additionally each basin has been designed to meet the Connecticut D.=
E.P.
Groundwater quality volume (inaudible). And the groundwater recharge volume
provides for enough storage for the groundwater infiltration to (inaudible)
post development, pre development standards.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 4
The storm water system=
has
been designed with a train type system, with ground feed. The storm water runoff from the si=
te is
deflected in the pipes and collected in the catch basins with 2 and 4 foot =
sumps. From that system it will be discha=
rged
into a detention basin with a sediment 4 bay as shown on the plans. The pre area allows creating the r=
ip
rap, the berm allows the sediments and the water itself and slows down the
velocity.
The sedimentation and
erosion control plan consists of geotextile fabric, 4 to 5 hay bales in
critical areas, adjacent to wetlands, stone ant tracking pads located at the
entrance and beginning of all construction activities, generally at the
beginning of each new road throughout the site. Several temporary sort of stock pi=
les
will be provided on this site. Use
of erosion control blankets throughout the site and stone check dams and wa=
ter parts
are located on the road to minimize velocity and runoff. Mr. Zawadzki: So you designed that for a zero ch=
ange
over the present conditions, right? Mr. Crawford that’s correct. Now as part of this application,
I’d like to take care of some housekeeping right now. These required notices are for both
applications. When I original=
ly presented
to the Commission, (inaudible) they asked us to provide alternatives
(inaudible) throughout the site. First I’ll go through the impacts and
then I’ll (inaudible). Phase II of this appli=
cation
consists of 5 regulated activities.
The first is an activity located off of Kimberly Lane, I’ll ca=
ll
that regulated activity #3.
Clearing of existing vegetation is required, associated with Lots #17
and #18 and the construction of the roadway. In this activity we ha=
ve
activity within the 50 foot regulated area, of 29,700 square feet and a dir=
ect
wetlands impact of about 5400 square feet.=
The next regulated act=
ivity
#4, clearing existing vegetation for Lot #19, and this consists of 180 squa=
re
feet approximately and no direct wetlands. Regulated activity #6 =
would
be off of the cul de sac road, extends Pond View Drive and this activity wo=
uld
be clearing existing vegetation for the purpose of homes. We have activities within the 50 f=
oot
regulated area of about 6,800 square feet and about 9,000 linear feet of
watercourse. Regulated Activity #7,
construction of a detention basin and we have about 21,870 square feet of
regulated area. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO APRIL 20, 2006 PAGE 5 Those are the same
activities that I presented at the initial presentation. The plans that we resubmitted to y=
ou
(inaudible) within the 75 foot regulated activity, that was a typo. The area
has been shown and calculated properly and (inaudible). As alternates for this
phase, I’d like to present (inaudible). Mr. Zawadzki: Moosa, do you have those prints? Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> No.
Mr. Crawford: No, these are new tonight. Alternate A, this is a through road
extending from the cul de sac extending up Pond View Drive, extending down =
to
our proposed road, which is now a cul de sac drive, north (inaudible). This alternate consists of about 1=
400
linear feet of new, 30 foot wide town road, designed to Town standards
(inaudible) cul de sac to the other drive. (Tape #1, Side A ended – m=
ay
have missed some.) within the
uplands of the wetlands previously disturbed. That consists of about 24,444 squa=
re
feet of regulated activities.
Mr. Zawadzki: In wetlands or uplands?
Mr. Crawford: Uplands. There are no direct wetland impact=
s for
Alternate A, however it does have a net gain of 22,940 square feet of upland
review area activities.
Mr. Undercuffler: And where is the wetlands in that alternate?
Mr. Crawford: It’s actually not shown
clearly. The wetlands run to =
here
to the north, with the road, 50 foot regulated area, and then there’s=
a
pocket of wetlands that extends to the west of our proposed cul de sac up P=
ond
View Drive and we have activities within that upland review area. Most likely we’ll have to cr=
eate
an additional detention basin for that road as well, generally in the area =
of
the low point in that road.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> The one in green shows the wetlands=
?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> The wetlands is shown on yellow on =
this
map, but they’re not shown I yellow on this map. They’re here, not the propose=
d tree
line.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> They’re not colored?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> No.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 6
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> I think the house right on the corn=
er of
Kimberly Lane, we were concerned because you were disturbing quite a bit of
wetlands, so can you explain to me what you did to avoid the wetlands in th=
at
area?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> As far as alternate A, we created a=
cul
de sac, we did not connect a through road to Kimberly Lane. However, we did require utility
connections to go through, we did that by providing an easement across one =
of
the proposed lots. We’re trying to avoid getting into the wetlands.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> You’re not going into the wet=
lands
at all mow?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> No, there will be about a 400 squar=
e foot
impact to that wetlands associated with the grading of the cul de sac and t=
he
construction of the utilities, water and sewer.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> But the tradeoff is the impact up a=
bove
there, in the upland review area.
Mr. Rafey: =
I think the impact will be less tha=
n the
original? Originally it was 5=
,400
square feet, direct, and this is 400 square feet. And the original plan had 29,000 s=
quare
feet of upland review area impact and this one has. . . .
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> 28,200 square feet, however it̵=
7;s a
net gain because you do have additional impact associated with the through =
road
that was created. Net gain of=
about
22,943 to that area. And an
additional 2 lots as well. We=
lose
a lot of the proposed road however on the west side of the proposed road we=
do
(inaudible) on the upland side.
Mr. Rafey: And there will be more impervious surface because
it’s a longer road.
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> Yes, 1,500 linear feet of new road =
will
be created through this alternate.
Our soil scientist is available for questions.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 7
Mr. Sanford: Just wanted to talk about the
alternatives that are being presented tonight and what was originally propo=
sed,
5400 square feet of wetland impacts.
When I talk about 5400 square feet of wetland impact area, this area
again the proposed area where we’re proposing the Kimberly Lane exten=
sion
or drive is a forested wetland environment, it is a seasonal (inaudible) as=
we
were out there I believe in February or March, we see groundwater dischargi=
ng
from that particular spot towards the larger wetland system to our east wit=
h a
much larger forested wetland environment.&=
nbsp;
This area, when we were out there we also noted as we were cruising
through the wetlands had a good deal of Japanese Barberry (inaudible) speci=
es
in this particular area, actually all along the wetland edge of this wetland
system. In addition to that, =
we saw
that there’s been some clearance from the house, Lot #52 which is alr=
eady
there, directly up against that particular wetland area, so there has been
clearance up to that particular point of the wetlands we are proposing to
cross. And in terms of the im=
pact
to the wetlands, we need to look at it in terms of its value and its functi=
ons
now in its condition and what it’s going to be after post
construction. If you look at =
the
functions and values, as I provided in my soil report in terms of what the
functions and values are of this wetlands, and in particular in this spot, =
just
in the site walk when we were out there, the major function of this particu=
lar
portion of that wetland, that little (inaudible) here, is primarily groundw=
ater
discharge, primarily to promote discharge of groundwater into this larger
wetland system to the east. I=
t does
provide some limited wildlife habitat, however the (inaudible) wetlands her=
e is
primarily where your wildlife is going to be, not really along the edge her=
e,
it will be in the larger portion of the wetlands. So the primary function are ground=
water
discharge and (inaudible) wildlife habitat, so yes we are going to fill 5400
square feet of wetlands, but we need to look at it in terms of small (inaud=
ible
is that going to affect the groundwater discharge to this wetland in the lo=
nger
term? No, 5400 square feet of
wetlands, this particular spot, is not going to (inauidlbe0 hydrology
(inaudible) now and post construction.&nbs=
p;
In addition, the wildlife habitat there is yes, we are impacting
(inaudible) but we are not impacting the primary wildlife habitat within the
wetlands, you’re maintaining that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 8
Looking at the alterna=
tive A
we have a large road coming through or kind of bisecting two wetlands
systems. In this particular c=
ase
what we’re doing here, is actually separating 2 wetland systems. We are not maintaining what we con=
sider
a wildlife corridor in here.
We’re actually, although we don’t have any wetland impac=
ts
per say, (inaudible but essentially we’re (iandubie;0 by putting the =
road
in that particular spot. If w=
e were
to keep the road as we were proposing, the 540 square feet, and not go with
alternate A, we would then have a contiguous corridor in this area, for
wildlife to move back and forth between the wetland systems and we would
maintain that wildlife corridor within that wetland system, that forested
wetland environment that we have now.
So I just wanted to point out to the Commission that yes, there̵=
7;s
no wetland impact with alternate A, but we need to also look at what are we
trying to protect in terms of wetland functions and values and if one of the
functions and values of the wetlands is to provide wildlife habitat, then y=
ou
may to want to disrupt these 2 wetland systems and keep this upland area as=
is,
as a corridor. Cause once you=
put
the road in this area, you’ve now officially put a barrier between th=
ose
2 wetlands. So the tradeoff i=
s to
disturb this small area here, or disturb this large area here, that’s=
the
tradeoff.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Now you say disturbing that 5400 sq=
uare
feet of groundwater discharge area isn’t going to affect anything, we=
ll
what’s going to happen to that water? Are you redirecting it?
Mr. Sanford: Most likely, the water that’s
coning out of the ground will either go underneath the road or (inaudible) =
do
we have a sewer along here? Y=
es. We do have continued utilities thr=
ough
this corridor water and sewer, and so another thing that c9ould happen is t=
hat
groundwater would enter our sewer system and then you would have a subsurfa=
ce
channel down towards Kimberly Lane.
What we’re proposing is that we put clay (inaudible). In this portion of the roadway to
prevent the groundwater from actually getting into the sewer system,
(inaudible) and actually traversing down into Kimberly Lane. Instead (inaudible would direct the
water to cross underneath the road, back into the wetlands.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Recharge the wetlands?
Mr. Sanford: Yes, so again our function is still
being maintained, post construction, that is the groundwater discharges
(inaudible) that particular wetlands system.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> When you say sewer, you’re ta=
lking
about the storm sewer, right?
Mr. Sanford: No, sanitary sewers. Essentially the storm sewer for th=
is
alternate would still direct the water (inaudible) proposed (inaudible)
sanitary sewer system.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 9
Mr. Zawadzki: Well I don’t think it’=
s a
good idea to direct the water into the sewer system if anything.
Mr. Sanford: Yea, we’re talking about the
groundwater, we want to make sure the groundwater gets back into the wetlan=
d,
pretty much the same general area here, and so the way to do that is to
(inaudible) underneath the sewer line, prevent the water from migrating with
the (inaudible) towards Kimberly Lane (inaudible). Eastward back into our wetland sys=
tem.
Mr. Undercuffler: And if you didn’t put the plu=
gs in,
what?
Mr. Sanford: It would follow the sewer line
(inaudible).
Mr. Undercuffler: Not in the sewer line, but undernea=
th.
Mr. Sanford: Exactly.
Ms. Sturgis: But you wouldn’t have that
situation with the original plan here?
Mr. Sanford: No, that’s with the original =
plan,
we’re taking about the 5400 square foot crossing. That also applies to alternate A,
you’d still have a sanitary sewer line crossing within our wetland sy=
stem
(inaudible).
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> We have prepared a second alternate,
Alternate B. It takes place a=
t the
crossing, at the direct impact extending onto Kimberly. In this case we have designed
(inaudible) in that existing right of way, a shift to the west, and then it
actually turns away from the wetlands and continues up the hill, connecting
essentially back into our previously proposed road. This alternate will require some t=
ype of
land swap between the owner of Lot #53 and the applicant. The applicant has talked to this o=
wner,
however nothing has been finalized yet.&nb=
sp;
We’re only showing this as an alternate right now. This alternate allows for the relo=
cation
of the previously proposed detention basin to almost the completely outside=
the
50 foot upland review area.
Essentially this alternate reduces the upland review area by about
14,480 square feet to 15,420 square feet proposed and the direct impacts are
reduced by about 2,400 square feet to about 3,000 square feet. We do have 3,000 square feet of di=
rect
wetland impacts with this alternate.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> And how far is all this to the hous=
e?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 10
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> Well actually the numbers for the s=
wap
are about 105 square feet are taken from the swap and 3,200 are given
back. What happens is the exi=
sting
lot lines extends on a n angle here and it continues on to our property
straightens it out, you basically gain (inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Is this plan totally out of the wet=
lands?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> No, we still have about 3,000 squar=
e feet
of impact into that wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> As opposed to 5,400.
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> That’s correct, and we moved
farther west from the wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> And you can’t get out of
(inaudible).
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> Due to the replacement of that exis=
ting
right of way. WE (inaudible) =
as
much as we could to shift it over however you’re right, we have to wo=
rk
within that right of way.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> So how far is the edge of the road
(inaudible) edge of the house?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> The closest location is about 50 fe=
et.
Mr. Undercuffler: On the drawing on the bottom, can y=
ou
just indicate where that road is (inaudible)?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> It’s essentially in the same
location. It’s shifted =
over
(inaudible) and we provided for a different type of horizontal geometry in =
the
area west of this wetland pocket.
That allows for us to relocate our detention basin and reduce the
impacts within the 50 foot upland review area.
Mr. Undercuffler: Now on that drawing you’re sh=
owing
hazards about the road, right?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> Yes, that’s the same, in this
alternate there will be, this clearing represents lots, there will be homes
there.
Mr. Undercuffler: Aren’t you showing houses on =
the
other side?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> Not in the same location. There will be a home located farth=
er up.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 11
Mr. Undercuffler: On the other drawing down there, it=
looks
like there are lots.
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> Those lots will remain as part of t=
hat
alternate. Essentially what
we’re looking at is south of proposed Lot #18.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Your other detailed map you said
(inaudible)?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> That’s right, this was just t=
o show
you the scale of the impact, what is going on.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> That other area there points to the
detention pond.
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> the detention pond is shown here in=
a lighter
green.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Is that a wet bottom pond?
Mr. Sanford: Yes, all of them. 2 with phase II. We called out for a New England we=
t mix
be placed on the bottom of this particular basin because (inaudible). In addition to the upland areas ar=
ound
the basins and along the sides of the basins are (inaudible) new England
conservation mix which is a little drier (inaudible) material (inaudible).<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Also we wanted to submit the
inland/wetland and watercourse (inaudible).
Mr. Crawford: that report goes over what is being
proposed. (Inaudible) alterna=
tes
(inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> What you proposed tonight, our engi=
neers
looked at, right?
Mr. Crawford: <=
/b> No.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Is that it for your presentation?
Mr. Rafey: =
Just for your information, the appl=
icant
agreed and provided plans for the third party review and I called Land Tech
Consultants to start the review f this application had hopefully by next mo=
nth
we’ll get a report from him.
Mr. Zawadzki: Is there anyone in the audience who’d care=
to
comment on this application?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 12
Mr. Moody:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Where they’re going to exten=
d onto
this Kimberly Lane and Pond View Drive, the roads, where are they going to =
end
up? How close the houses will=
come
to Highgate?
Mr. Kane:
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>T. Schmodell, 88 Pond =
View
Drive, Watertown, CT 06795
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Mr. Schmodell:<=
/b> The 3 alternates that you have, do=
any
of them have an effect on the extension from Pond View or is that going to =
be a
cul de sac? The answer affect=
s my
second question, because the retention pond you’re putting in, I gues=
s on
the, do you have your original? My
question is how as far as the how is the drainage? I mean there’s a lot of issu=
es
with water in basement to those houses going along right there, so if the
drainage is not well, or the detention pond doesn’t drain properly, a=
re
you sure that’s not going to spill over into the properties or into t=
he
lots? And if the water is goi=
ng to
remain, it is stagnant, does it have good potentially flow or will it remain
stagnant?
Ms. Mancini: I have a question for the first pr=
oposed
property sites, that one right there, the original. I live right next to the roadway
that’s leading to the cul de sac, I’m Lot #10 on the first phas=
e of
Pond view, right on there, and I was just wondering, the roadway through to=
the
detention pond is right behind my house and I was just wondering if there c=
ould
be a proposed (inaudible) maybe somewhere else than behind my house, and if
not, what kind of roadway is it, is it grass, gravel, or pavement. And my third question is for my lo=
t I
have a slope, it’s an angle, and then the roadway will be kind of
essentially at my roof line, I was wondering if a car comes off my road is
there going to be blockage there or is it going to grade down the lot to
accommodate like my yard to be level to the road?
Mr. Sanford: The access road to the detention b=
asin
or are you talking about the actual detention basin?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 13
Ms. Mancini: Both, my first question was about =
the
detention pond roadway, behind my lot, I wanted to know about that, if it c=
an
be moved. If not, what kind o=
f road
is it. And my second question=
was
the roadway leading to the cul de sac, is (inaudible) on that uphill and my=
lot
will be it’s still sloping or are you going to level that whole lot o=
ff to
make the roadway.
Ms. Rodriguez:<=
/b> I’ve noticed that the last f=
ew
months I have some trees in my back yard that have been tagged, and I want =
to
know why? I’ve also had=
water
problems since moving in and had to have my builder come back and add drain=
age
pipes underneath in the ground in the back yard so I do have that same conc=
ern
of one of the other people that came up, because I already experienced a wa=
ter
problem in my back yard.
Mr. Zawadzki: Is your lot on that map?
Ms. Rodriguez:<=
/b> I’m #26 on Pond View.
Mr. Sanford: (Inaudible.) Yes, it’s right on there,
it’s on the other side.
Ms. Rodriguez:<=
/b> And I’m done.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well it’s better for them to=
know
which lot it is to answer your question.
Mr. Sanford: It’s the lot right by the
retention pond (inaudible).
Ms. Rodriguez:<=
/b> Mine is right next to the cul de s=
ac.
Mr. Sanford: Yea, right around there, even to t=
he
south of there, I don’t’ know how your map is, north.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Ulla Gibbs, 1220 Main
Street, Watertown, CT 06795
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Ms. Gibbs:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> My property also borders the wetla=
nds
behind me and the driveway comes out onto Belden Street and for yeas I̵=
7;ve
had water problems there and my driveway got totally washed outlast Fall an=
d I
had to have that done and I’m concerned about what this property is g=
oing
to go to the wetlands and how much more water will come down.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 14
Mr. Zawadzki: Can you point to your property?
Mr. Luddy:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I guess my concerns also is if
they’re going to have a road onto Belden Street, where abouts would it
be? Would it be down by
Truheart’s over by Moody’s, or up by us, and then also where the
road comes in what is it going to do to the water runoff because there is a=
lot
of water runoff in that area. Also
traffic, people using it as a cut through road, and I guess it all depends =
on
where the road is, whether or not there’s going to be a safety concer=
n as
people come around the corner. And
also when you come down Belden right now it’s almost impossible to ta=
ke a
left hand turn from Belden onto Main street, so the question is will there =
be a
lot more traffic with people using it as a cut through? Mr. Rainville:<=
/b> My concern is house Lot #16 is min=
e, and
my neighbor and I were wondering how far off it’s going to be from the
cul de sac coming off of Pond View? Mr. Crawford: Could you point out on the map exa=
ctly
which lot you are? Mr. Zawadzki: You can go through those now, plea=
se. Mr. Crawford: I think we can handle a couple of =
these
all at once. We do not have a
proposed road extending onto Belden street with this application. All of the roads, the 3 points
intersection on Pond View, Kimberly and Lovely are in Phase I, currently un=
der
construction. Phase II is what we’re discussing now. Phase I comes off of Lovley Drive.=
Phase II is an extension of Phase =
I, but
it doesn’t to extend off of Belden Street. There will be a through road exten=
ding
from Lovely Drive back down to Kimberly, and then a cul de sac extending of=
f of
Pond View. No proposed road is
proposed off of Belden Street in Phase I or Phase II. Mr. Moody:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The 32 proposed lots . . . . Highg=
ate,
our property lines are proposing approximately 250 feet to our property
line. John Rainville, 184 Pond View
Drive, Watertown, CT 06795
Dennis Moody, 187 Belden Stre=
et,
Watertown, CT 06795
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #549– PATRICK GRAZIANO
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 15
Mr. Crawford: (Inaudible) another 100 feet. So the closest home would be at le=
ast
350 feet away. Gravel road, p=
er
town standards, gravel access way, used only periodically by the Town vehic=
les
to maintain this space. It was
located along this property line (inaudible) feet away from the existing
wetlands to the west and then most likely would be relocated as far as to t=
he
west (inaudible) could possibly be a direct impact to the wetlands. The proposed road extending from Po=
nd
view essentially is at grade. There
is some cutting on the south side and north side, however that is just to
maintain our pr0psoed grades coming into the road for a safe transition
period. (Tape #1, Side B ended
– may have missed some.)
TAPE #2, SIDE A DID NOT
RECORD – MISSED 30 MINUTES OF MEETING.
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Ms. Russ) to Table the Public Hearing for App. #546 of Patri=
ck
Graziano for construction of 11-lot Highview Estates Subdivision, Phase I l=
ocated
on Lovley Drive, Watertown, CT.
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at 9:05 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary