beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

CONTINUA= TION OF PUBLIC HEARING

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN HIGH SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

THURSDAY= , SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 - 7:00 P.M.

&nb= sp;

APPLICAT= ION #557 – DONALD CURTISS

&nb= sp;

PRESENT: &nb= sp; = L= ucia DiBona

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

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

ABSENT: &nb= sp; = = G= len Duplissie

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; 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: &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 about 8:= 00 p.m. (no time given).

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Ms. Sturgis, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call.

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

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

3. = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; B. = Continuation of Public Hearing from August 10, 2006 - Application #557 of Donald Curtiss= for construction of 13-lot proposed Bassett Hollow Residential Subdivision loca= ted on Hollow Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Recess or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by Sept= ember 14, 2006, unless applicant grants a time extension.

&nb= sp;

Emily Jones, Professional Eng= ineer, Civil One

Ms. Jones: = I'm sure you're all familiar with t= his piece of property and our proposal has been in front of this Commission for= quite some time now. Prior to the l= ast meeting if you recall, I was actually unable to attend the last Public Hear= ing on August 10th, so prior to that meeting we had discussed an alternative ro= ad entrance location that was actually located further away from the Curtiss' house and was somewhat in that wetland area along Hollow Road. At the July meeting we talked abou= t some alternatives to that while still being able to maintain some privacy for the Curtiss' but not really impacting the wetlands as much as that alternative = had proposed.

So at the last Public Hearing on August 10th Dan Bouchard, from our office, presented these maps = that show the proposed road alignment which is out of the wetlands, it's moved b= ack towards the Curtiss' house, not quite as much as it was in the original location, but it is out of the wetland area, and it's only just in the very edge of the regulated area for that wetlands. Because we didn't move it over bac= k all the way, really close to the Curtiss' house we didn't have as much room on = the western side of that road so we had discussed that part of the berm and the fill for the detention basin would encroach slightly into just the very fri= nge of that wetland area, which is much less, about 1/3 of the impact of that b= ase rather than having the road go through, again it's no pavement, no drainage= , or anything like that, just a small amount of clean fill for the edge of the detention basin and it's about 1/3 of the activity of the prior proposal.

I'd just like to open = up by saying that when you guys have questions, if there are any questions that y= ou had at the last meeting that didn't get answered adequately or that you'd s= till have, I'd be happy to answer those also.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

If you'll recall we we= re unable to close the Public Hearing at the last meeting because we had just received a comment letter from Mr. Berger so one of the items in particular= we had to go back out to the site for some inspections and we only had a coupl= e of days, and the surveyor was on vacation, so we just couldn't get it done in = that amount of time which is why we granted the extension to tonight. Right after, almost immediately af= ter that meeting we were able to make the final revisions based on Chuck's final comments and we submitted those along with a response letter dated August 1= 4th to this Commission, so I'm just going to go over briefly what we've done, w= hich you have, since the last meeting. They're pretty minor.

Th= e first comment that Chuck had, basically he wanted a detailed analysis of what hap= pens at Hollow Road during the larger storm events. D= uring some of those large storm events there is some water that comes over Hollow Road= under existing conditions. Obviously under the subdivision regulations we are not allowed to increase the flow at all off of this site so the detention basin does control that release and w= e do have a decrease in peak flow rates. Nevertheless, Mr. Berger wanted a detailed analysis of what happens = to each of those culverts across Hollow Road and how that impacts the intersection of = the road and how that impacts our detention basin and our drainage. He was worried about water backing= up into the detention basin and it not functioning properly but that did not happen. We looked at, in a 25= year storm there's about 1.7 inches of water on Hollow Road in the area of this 15 = inch culvert. That does not reach = the elevation of the intersection. The intersection remains dry. Additionally no = water backs up into the detention basin. The plans that were submitted, prior to that revision we do have some catch basins at the beginning of the road and those went through a Vorcentr= y, basically a hydrodynamic oil grid separator, it was on the northern part of= the road, on this property and what we did, which actually works out better, an= d is why we needed the surveyor go back out to the site, we had to service the v= ery beginning of this road with catch basins per the subdivision regulations so= we put a pair of catch basins down there, but they were too low to daylight on= the same side of the road, so we're bringing them across Hollow Road, and becau= se we're doing that we can move that hydrodynamic separator to the other side = of the road, still within the Town right of way and therefore it's not affecte= d at all by any backwater conditions that might happen in the large storm events= , so it will actually function better. That was definitely Chuck's main concern and comment and we went thr= ough it in great detail back and forth and to come up with the right solution for this intersection.

The second comment was= about the proposed under drain that we had at the intersection of the road, that's been removed because we added catch basins there at the low point so we did= n't need the under drain anymore.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

The third comment we increased the culverts under the driveways to Lots #11 and #12. The amount of flow we expected to = see there, when we calculated we could fit through a 12 inch pipe, but the Town= 's standards are a 15 inch pipe minimum, so we also didn't want those pipes to constrict any flow that might overtop these twin 36 inch pipes and run down= the roadside swale, so we changed it so that two 15 inch pipes are going to run under each of those driveways. This basically exceeds the capacity of the existing swale so it alleviates any constriction that a 12 inch pipe might have if water is running through that swale.

The fourth comment - he wanted additional details and calculations for the stabilization of the ero= ded channels from Hollow Road<= /st1:address>. As you probably recall we've talke= d in great detail and we actually went out and saw this channel off of the end o= f Trolane Road and we had proposed a stabilization of that channel as a wetla= nd mitigation. In addition to th= at we have further mitigation from 2 actually even more eroded channels that come= off Hollow Road<= /st1:Street>, from the storm drainage on Hollow Road. It's kind of an interesting drainage pattern, the water comes down h= ere, gets piped under Hollow Road and discharged onto the Curtiss' property and = then it wraps back around and comes down here and goes back off the property to = this 48 inch pipe, so he just wanted some more sizing calculations for these wet= land mitigation areas over here which we provided.

The fifth comment was = minor, vertical scale on one of my profiles was wrong.

There was a detail, the footing under the outlet control for the detention basin, I fixed that.

A note regarding drain= age rights for the Town. The Town= of Watertown will now legally have the right to drain o= nto Lot #13 unlike it does now.

The repair to Trolane drainage swale should extend as necessary to the existing cul de sac. Basically there's a paved offshoot= , if you will, of this cul de sac right now and originally our plans had only sh= own the improvements to the property line.&nbs= p; There is now a note that says that if necessary that paved apron wil= l be removed and replaced with a grass swale to the rip rap channel, so it exten= ds beyond the property line, all the way up to the road.

We also added conserva= tion easements along the 50 foot upland review area.

We submitted a record = map.

Those are basically the reasons why we weren't able to finish this up last month, but we have taken care of those, I met with Chuck, he can attest to this I guess, but he didn= 't have time to get out a memo, but we did discuss it at length and he can talk about whether or not he's comfortable with these changes.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

Mr. Berger: I have no further comments.

Mr. Undercuffler: Are you happy with what they've done?=

Mr. Berger: They've addressed all= the comments I proposed.

Mr. Polletta: The structure that connects, the structure that you have off the two catch basins, will this be just like a separator?

Ms. Jones: = Yes, it's a separator. And it was actually it's always be= en on the plans. Originally it was = at station 50 instead of station 4 and actually it's in the wetland regulated area, across the street, but it was always in the wetlands regulated area, = it's just on this side of the street instead, so it's no more impact, and it will actually function better.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> It separates (inaudible)?

Ms. Jones: = It's an oil and grit separator, yes= , it's basically . . . .

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Maintained by the Town?<= /span>

Ms. Jones: = Yes, it's right next to the road, so it's easy to get to, it's flat. Basically because of the grades on= the northern part of the road, station 100 was the lowest point in the road tha= t we could get into the detention basin, so to treat that first 100 feet of road= , we put it through basically a mechanical oil grit separator rather than a sett= ling basin.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Are the roof drains and footing dra= ins, what are you going to do with that water?

Ms. Jones: = All of the roof drains go to underg= round infiltrators, it's now become sort of a standard practice in this Town, wit= h a high level overflow, and all of the footing and leader drains either tie in= to the storm drainage system in the roadway or go into a wetland. So they are all discharging to approved locations.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> The infiltrator gets filled up and = then what happens, gradually go up?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 6

&nb= sp;

Ms. Jones: = Well the infiltrators right now on = the plans are all the same size, but they all have to be designed when individu= al site plan review comes in, they all have to be sized, because these aren't = the houses that are going to get built, they have to be sized for the actual ro= of area and they're sized too based on the actual percolation rate of the soil= so whatever doesn't infiltrate into the ground, during a 100 year storm, they'= re sized for the 100 year storm has to be held in that infiltrator until it do= es infiltrate into the ground, so it basically has to hold that 24 hour 100 ye= ar storm and infiltrate it, so the high level overflow is just for emergency purposes, so if something does happen it doesn’t back up into the hou= se.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Can you show me, like on Lot #1?

Ms. Jones: = Right here, the infiltrator are these little hats.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> So there is an outlet, and then fro= m the outlet it goes into the storm?

Ms. Jones: = No, it's just, it's a high level ov= erflow that daylights and that's acceptable from the Town's standards, cause it's really just an emergency, just the same way your emergency spillway from yo= ur detention basin has to be sized for your 100 year storm, but we're never go= ing to use it, because your detention basin has been sized correctly.

Mr. Berger: Unless the infiltrators are failing for some rea= son, then they'll overflow and you'll know something is wrong.=

Ms. Jones: = And you'll fix them.

Mr. Berger: That's the reason for the high level overflows.<= o:p>

Mr. Undercuffler: Any other comments? Does anybody in the public have any questions or comments? I guess not. Chuck, I guess you don't= have any further questions on this?

Mr. Berger: You don't have a final memo from me in your pack= et, but Emily's representation of, we've met on this multiple times, there's a couple of previous memos in the packet that have been addressed, I haven't = done an actual complete final review of everything but they have addressed all my comments and I don't anticipate any problems.

Mr. Undercuffler: And you've got a conservation easement on all designated wetlands and 50 foot upland review areas?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

Ms. Jones: = Yes, actually I think one could be = added to Lot #11 and Lot #12 as a condition of approval. I think we only did= it on Lots #1 through #10, so the other lots you could= add that as a condition, that we add that conservation easement, I don't know w= hy it didn't get added. It shoul= d be on all the lots.

Mr. Undercuffler: Would those be placarded, posted?

Ms. Jones: = Yes, with a sta= ndard open space markers, probably from the Town.

Mr. Rafey: They purchase those placards from the Planning a= nd Zoning Office for trees or posts.

Mr. Polletta: You're doing that on every lot, or only the 2 lo= ts?

Ms. Jones: All of them.

Mr. Undercuffler: For every lot that has the c= onservation, has wetlands or upland review areas.

Ms. Jones: = For instance on Lot #5, we have the conservation restriction for this regulated area in the front because it's close activity, we didn't put it on this back portion because it's so far a= way from any of the activity and it's really not accessible, you have to go up a hill and then back down a hill so it's kind of separated, we didn't see a p= oint of that, but we did put it on Lot #7 back here, but again it gets steep in = here anyway.

Mr. Undercuffler: I don't see any harm in putting it on that, even though it's in the back.

Ms. Jones: = Okay, whatever you want.=

Mr. Undercuffler: If we're doing it, those placards are cheap.

Ms. Jones: = The width of the road, we're asking= you to approve is a standard 30 foot wide road. We think Planning and Zoning will approve a 26 foot wide road which is a sidewalk on one side, so that will be for this subdivision and also for the subdivision to the north which we'll discuss next. The second thin= g is the open space. I'll also dis= cuss this probably under the next public hearing because we would like to provide the Town with open space, it's our preference that, and really it's in the overall benefit if you're going to make a recommendation to the Planning an= d Zoning Commission, this is the open space for this proposed subdivision. It connects to the proposed open s= pace to the subdivision to the north.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #557– DONALD CURTISS

SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

It also then connects = to the existing open space on the Wheeler Farm Subdivision, and I haven't updated = my map but this connects right out to Killorin Road and from there there's actually open space connected to Killorin Road from the Guernseytown Farm Estates, so this is kind of in the same circuit and would really provide the Town with a contiguous piece of open space that they own which is what we h= ave proposed to the Planning and Zoning Commission so that is my discussion on = the open space and it's for you to make the recommendation.

Mr. Undercuffler: Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. Rafey: = Does that meet the subdivision requirements?

Ms. Jones: Yes.

Mr. Undercuffler: Well do we want to close the hearing?=

MOTION:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>       (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Close the Public Hearing for= App. #557 of Donald Curtiss for construc= tion of 13-lot proposed Bassett Hollow Residential Subdivision located on Hollow Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

  &nbs= p;         Public Hearing Closed at about 8:20 p.m. (no time given).

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Edwin Undercuffler, Vice Chairman

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetland Agency

  &nbs= p;         _________________= _________________

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