MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY=
, SEPTEMBER
14, 2006 - 7:00 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION #563
– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
L=
ucia
DiBona
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
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
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:=
20
p.m. (no time given).
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Jones, in =
his
absence, and also to act as Secretary.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Ms.
Sturgis, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #563– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 2
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&=
nbsp; C. Application
#563 of Golden Acres, LLC for construction of 11-lot Golden Acres Subdivisi=
on,
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by September 14, 2006, unless
applicant grants a time extension.
Ms. Jones: =
This is the property directly north=
of
the proposed Bassett Hollow Subdivision.&n=
bsp;
We went on the site walk, we had a couple of meetings and originally=
if
you'll remember, I think the major change in these plans is the road locati=
on
and the drainage improvements for the wetland crossing. The original location hugged this
property line and came down in sort of a straight curve through this wider =
area
of wetlands and at the July meeting at our site week it was discussed if we
could move the road to where the existing crossing, which is a little farm
road, and also if we could, instead of the proposed 4 x 5 four sided box
culvert if we could look at the option of doing an open bottom arched bridge
structure, so we did that. Th=
ese
are the same plans as far as the road is concerned and the drainage that you
saw at the August 10th meeting that I was not present at. We did receive a memo which I've n=
ow
dated my letter incorrectly which I'm going to hand out, we actually did not
receive any comments from the Town Engineer on this although we have been in
constant contact with this subdivision as with the prior subdivision. We also received comments from Moo=
sa
Rafey and we addressed those, so these plans actually that you see before y=
ou
are new tonight, but the revisions are pretty minor. There's not that many of them, I'm=
just
going to go through them because we did, I met with Moosa and Chuck yesterd=
ay
and we did go through all of these so these are in response to that. Actually I'm going to hand these
out. As I go through these co=
mments
I'll direct you to which page in your packet, drawings that you can turn to=
to
look at them. The memo is dat=
ed
August 14th, that actually was written today, so that should be dated Septe=
mber
14, 2006. The memo is in resp=
onse
to a meeting that I had with Mr. Berger and Mr. Rafey on September 13th, and
Mr. Rafey's memo dated September 7th.
We have made the following revisions to the subdivision plans for the
Golden Acres Subdivision. Som=
e of
them are very minor, but I'll just run through them:
The guide rail symbol =
in the
plans has been added to the legend.
It was in the plans but not the legend, in the area of the wetland
crossing. It's actually not s=
hown
on the walk maps, they're little maps and they were too small.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #563– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 3
The limits of disturba=
nce
have been clarified on
The distance from the =
last
set of catch basins at station 1735 to the first set of catch basins on Bas=
sett
Hollow at station 1190 on that road have been verified at approximately 155
feet. Basically Chuck just as=
ked to
make sure that it was less than 300 feet between these catch basins down he=
re
and the first ones on Bassett Hollow since it's all one road, proposed
A catch basin has been=
added
at station 16+90 left in order to direct an additional .06 acres of impervi=
ous
surface into the detention basin.
Chuck asked yesterday why we only had a single basin here, we didn't
need that to show decreased flow rates from the property but the detention
basin can handle it at the size its at, so we just added another catch basi=
n to
catch basically this half of this 200 feet of roadway and direct it through=
the
detention basin rather than just down to the outlet. That's on sheet #4 also.
On Sheet #2 originally=
we
had shown infiltration trenches on both sides of the road, between stations=
488
and 700, those have been removed.
They were there because as you can see this is a low point obviously=
where
the road comes down to the wetlands and where this crossing is, and we coul=
dn't
put catch basins over the arched bridge structure, so we eliminated the cur=
bing
in between these last 2 sets of catch basins. It's about 200 feet and what we had
originally, were these little stone lined infiltration trenches on either s=
ide
of the road, but we decided and Chuck pointed this out, that really with our
additional plantings in that area, that we can cause the same protection of=
the
wetlands as those infiltration trenches would have with much less maintenan=
ce,
they'll provide nutrient uptake, velocity control, they'll track sediment so
they basically provide the same function but you don't need to take care of
them and they look nicer.
On the last page of the
large set of plans, but not on your small plans, the construction notes for=
the
installation of the arched bridge have been revised to read: Installation of the bridge should =
be
performed under driest conditions possible. If the installation is going to be
performed during a time period other than the summer months, a temporary
dewatering plan shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for review and appr=
oval
prior to any activity taking place.
Basically we realized in the Summer and in some of the dryer months
there's no water running through there, so that obviously would be the opti=
mal
time to install this structure.
(Tape #2, Side A ended - may have missed some.)
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #563– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 4
There is a proposed 24=
inch
RCP culvert under the driveway to
Mr. Undercuffler: What's your thinking on that, Moosa=
?
Mr. Rafey: =
I think that's (inaudible).
Mr. Undercuffler: Deal able?
Mr. Rafey: Yes.
Right now there is no traction these 2 wetlands are separated by this
driveway. I don't know if the=
re is
a pipe or not, but by putting that this is like a mitigation to the impact =
on
the wetlands, and these wetlands will be connected to each other.
Ms. Jones: Also, the Fire Department has approved the use of
the existing farm pond as the fire suppression cistern. It's about 14 feet and holds proba=
bly
90,000 gallons of water so therefore we've added a proposed pipe to the pla=
ns,
we'll extend from into the pond to the shoulder of the road where a dry hyd=
rant
will be installed. This is ab=
out
450 square feet of disturbance, but it's just temporary disturbance. Once that pipe is in there it does=
n't
get messed with and it doesn't affect the function of the pond unless there=
's a
huge fire.
Mr. Undercuffler: Where is the pond?
Ms. Jones: It's on the northern part of the property in the
open space, within the green hatched area, there's a circle of blue.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> This is the culvert over here, wher=
e this
crosses?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #563– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 5
Ms. Jones: =
Yes.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> This item #5, we're looking at, is =
shown
this is the pipe?
Ms. Jones: =
No.
This is different. He's
talking about the memo from September 7th from Moosa which says relocation =
of
Mr. Rafey: =
And this is a better alternative be=
cause
by relocating the road where there is an existing crossing, they minimized =
the
wetland impact significantly.
Ms. Jones: Yea, additionally it's a narrower swath of wetla=
nds
that we're crossing, it's an open bottom structure, it's wide, it's much wi=
der
than the watercourse itself, and we're also using wing walls to minimize the
fill envelope there.
The next revision was =
the
planting plan has been revised per the recommendation of Environmental Plan=
ning
Services. At the last meeting=
I
believe we submitted, and Moosa has another copy now which was the function=
al
wetland evaluation from Michael Klein, the environmental scientist on this
project.
Mr. Rafey: Give a copy for Commission members.
Ms. Jones: He recommended, he liked the bridge for all of t=
he
obvious reasons, the connectivity between the 2 wetlands and the aquatic
wildlife that wouldn't be impacted by the use of this bridge. He did recommend extending the pla=
ntings
all the way along this section, I think originally it was just on this west=
ern
side, so we have done that in accordance with his recommendation.
The next change is pro=
bably
the biggest change, although it's still pretty small. When we originally did these drain=
age
calculations we didn't take credit for our rain gardens, which are something
that the D.E.P. talks about and that environmental scientists like to use,
which are basically small detention ponds without really an outlet, but you
excavate out the bottom and put in certain types of soils. You put in construction sand and l=
eaf
litter and topsoil so that it infiltrates really well. You don't just rely on the existin=
g soil
there, and it treats the water, and allows it to infiltrate into the ground
instead of continuing to be surface runoff so we always had this one rain
garden here that caught the drainage from the high point of the road coming
down, but what we've done now is added another rain garden to catch the
drainage from the beginning of the roadway, and that's on the northern side=
of
the road. We did that for 2
reasons.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #563– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 6
The first reason was t=
o show
a decrease in the flow rates from the property by taking credit for that in=
filtration
that will occur in those rain gardens and we calculated that using a
conservative percolation rate of inch and 30 most of the soil on this prope=
rty
is inch and 20 and in reality it will probably be inch and 10 because of the
replacement with the good soil on the bottom of those. The second reason is because we we=
re
treating the water from this side for water quality, but weren't treating it
from this side for water quality so now both of those areas will be improve=
d.
Mr. Undercuffler: Do you put plantings in the rain gardens?
Ms. Jones: =
Yes.
They're planted along the berm here and they're seeded with New Engl=
and
Wetland Seed Mix and really once they're constructed, they're very low
maintenance and the grow in and blend in with the surroundings very well,
they're not really a very noticeable thing, but it is an additional about 2=
,000
square feet of disturbance in the upland review area, but it will benefit t=
he
wetlands.
Just as a final note, I
would just like to touch upon the measures that we've taken to mitigate the
impact of the proposed activity on the wetlands. Mitigation has been included in the
following ways. Obviously the
original road alignment and culvert was adequate hydraulically for these
purposes, but this alternate is a much better plan for mitigation and reduc=
ing
the impact, minimizing the impact to the wetlands. The area that we come across the
wetlands is the narrowest portion of the wetlands. The culvert as I stated is more th=
an 1.5
times the width of the watercourse so there will be no impact to aquatic
wildlife passage to flow. It =
can
actually pass the 100 year flow, even though they are only required to be
designed for the 50 year flow, it won't cause flooding because it doesn't
constrict that area we're preventing erosion by several, quite a large plan=
ting
plan along that area, we reduced the filling of the wetlands by using that
structure and also by using the wing walls, just overall it's a much better
solution.
We've also added
conservation easements to all of the lots.=
The 50 foot buffer area and conservation easements and open space ha=
ve
been provided in excess of the amount required by subdivision regulations in
order to protect the wetlands from any future activity from the lot
owners. Finally we do have in=
filtrators
for all of the roof leader drains, and that's a standard practice but it ca=
n't
be overlooked as a mitigation feature because it does take that, what would=
be
surface runoff from those rooftops and puts it into the ground as groundwat=
er
and allows it to recharge and infiltrate and not erode the surface.
Overall we think the
proposed plan meets your requirement, we feel it really has the least amoun=
t of
impact possible to be able to utilize this property but still protect this
wetland area and again we went over this back and forth with Chuck and I do=
n't
think he has a memo but he can speak to what he is thinking.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #563– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 7
Mr. Berger: Emily represented it accurately. I provided verbal comments to her.=
She incorporated those in the plan=
. We met yesterday, had a few additi=
onal
comments on the plans that I marked up that have been addressed at least in=
her
verbal comments tonight as well as what I have in front of me and I imagine=
in
those plans there so I believe they have addressed all of my comments.
Ms. Jones: =
What I'll submit right now is final
copies of the plans and also the calculations supporting the rain garden and
the new addition.
Mr. Undercuffler: Do you have any comments, Moosa?
Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible) they responded to my comments.
Mr. Polletta: I think they responded to all the questions that
Chuck asked and (inaudible).
Mr. Undercuffler: You're going to mark the, placard the areas like=
we
talked about?
Ms. Jones: Yea, and obviously that would be a
condition that that be done.
Mr. Rafey: Emily, that second rain garden, can you give me =
the
square footage of that?
Ms. Jones: 2,000.
It's in the plans, it's an additional 2,00 square feet in the upland
review area.
Mr. Undercuffler: I know you made comments on that prior subdivisi=
on
about the open space, I'm a little unclear, I mean I can see the green area=
.
Ms. Jones: That's wetlands.
Mr. Undercuffler: Where is the open space?
Ms. Jones: On this it's a little easier to see because it's
bigger, so the open space for the Bassett Hollow Subdivision comes along he=
re,
for about an area of about 50 feet in length, it's a pretty narrow swath, b=
ut
it does connect and the deer aren't going to know the difference. So it's a connection so that
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #563– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 8
You can see the whole
connection here, so this is what we talked about before. This is the Golden Acres Subdivisi=
on,
this actually is wider, I don't know why it didn't make it onto this map, b=
ut it's
wider and it flares out here at the end so it connects here, it connects on
this piece, which connects to Wheeler Farm. Additionally this goes all the way=
up to
Mr. Undercuffler: Any other comments from the Commission? Does the public have any comments?=
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Tom Plungis,
Mr. Plungis: Where is the road going to go? On the existing old farm road?
Ms. Jones: The farm road comes in right now, this is the ho=
use,
this is the farm stand, so the little driveway that goes back, actually com=
es
in on this side of the property, but there's not enough room in between the
house and the property line to create a 50 foot right of way, so we had to =
bring
the road in in this area, and for that reason these buildings actually will=
be
removed, the farm stand included, and then it comes up to meet the existing
farm road where it crosses the wetlands.&n=
bsp;
You're over here, right? To
make a point about drainage and things like that, all of this land basically
this property accepts flow from Route 63.&=
nbsp;
It does not drain flow onto Route 63. I have been in contact with the D.=
O.T.
and this is more of a planning issue, but we do need . . . .
Mr. Plungis: What does that mean, more of a planning issue?
Ms. Jones: Well as far as contact with the D.O.T. the
requirement is part of the planning approval because of the curb cut on Rou=
te
63. They have a copy of the
plans . . . . do you want to
continue your comment before I answer, there was a question at the Planning
Commission regarding there is a potential drainage problem along Route 63 in
this area, it can't be fixed through this subdivision because it's below the
subdivision and we don't come out onto Route 63, we can't touch the drainag=
e on
Route 63, it's a State drainage system, the Town can't even touch it, but t=
he
point is is that when I spoke to Mr. LaPan at the D.O.T. I mentioned that t=
here
were concerns from the neighboring properties in this area that's independe=
nt
of this subdivision or this road but that it may be something that he should
take a look it. Basically it'=
s another
aid to you if you were going to contact the D.O.T. yourself.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #563– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 9
Mr. Plungis: You said that you're not going to come out on Ro=
ute
63.
Ms. Jones: The drainage from the property does not come out
onto Route 63 because from Route 63 we're downhill of that.
Mr. Plungis: The question I have is just an idea, why couldn't
this drain system that puddles on Route 63, why can't a pipe be put under R=
oute
63 and hooked into this drainage system that goes down here?
Ms. Jones: If I know, I mean it's not right in front of your
house, right, the drainage problem is?
Mr. Plungis: Yes, it is.
Ms. Jones: I don't think grading wise it works, I think it's
below the road, but it's something that I'm willing to speak to the D.O.T.
about but it's not really a part of this subdivision. We don't have the capacity on this=
road
to take any more of that water.
It's something that has to be dealt with at the State level because =
it
is a state drainage system on a State road. I understand the concern, I drive =
that
road every day myself, and I will speak to him about it, but it's not somet=
hing
that can be incorporated into these plans, because of the topography and the
drainage and the roadway, it doesn't really work.
Mr. Plungis: Has the State engineers come out and looked at t=
his,
they're definitely saying it can't work?
Ms. Jones: No, they haven't said anything. They've preliminarily looked at the plans because we have not made an official application. You do not make an official applic= ation to the D.O.T. for a curb cut until you know there could be a curb cut, until you have approval from Planning and Zoning and until you make an official a= pplication they're not going to look at anything, but I know Jim LaPan and he said certainly he's going to plan to look at it but whatever they decide to do as far as this subdivision is concerned, they'll approve the curb cut. As far as drainage on 63, it's pre= tty much an entirely separate manner but they haven't said one way or another.<= o:p>
Mr. Rafey: =
You shouldn't have a conversation w=
ith
the applicant; you should ask your questions and then sit down and she'll r=
espond.
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, I think we're getting beyond the scope of
wetlands issues anyway.
Mr. Plungis: Well if it's draining water that will be draining
into the wetlands, doesn't that concern wetlands?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #563– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 10
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, but from what I'm hearing is that it's a
drainage on Route 63.
Mr. Plungis: Directly across from this proposed road.
Mr. Rafey: That is an existing drainage problem, this
development doesn't cause that problem I think. If they build this development or =
not,
that problem is there. They a=
ren't
creating that problem.
Mr. Plungis: It doesn't cause the problem but this development
could help this problem by draining the water away from where it puddles and
ices on Route 63.
Mr. Polletta: The question is the size of the pipe maybe will =
hold
the additional load.
Ms. Jones: We analyzed, I mean we analyzed the drainage area
all the way up, my house is in the watershed, so on
Mr. Rafey: If you go to the Planning and Zoning Commission =
. .
. . .
Mr. Plungis: I ask you the question, this water, I've lived t=
here
54 years, this water comes off of the hay lots and it floods Simonen's house
now and washes out their driveway so it doesn't come down here all of it, it
comes directly across where this road is.
Ms. Jones: Whatever comes directly across that road is gett=
ing
into our drainage system and has been accounted for, but we can't do any
improvements to the drainage in 63.
Mr. Undercuffler: It sounds also this is more of a Planning and Zo=
ning
issue than Wetlands at this point.
Mr. Plungis: I was at a Watertown Police Commission meeting l=
ast
night and they're going to be sending a letter to Connecticut State Transpo=
rtation
for their input on this problem. I
have a copy of that on the agenda.
I guess that's all for now.
Mr. Undercuffler: Any other comments or questions?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #563– GOLDEN ACRES, LLC
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 11
Mr. Rafey: When the go to the Planning and Zoning Commission
they may ask for the intersection improvement or something they can discuss
there, but there's nothing we can do here with this Commission.
Ms. Jones: We have talked about it at the Planning and Zoni=
ng
Commission, the comments I've gotten so far is that this is fairly independ=
ent
but we're still going through that process.
Mr. Undercuffler: Chuck, are you satisfied?
Mr. Berger: I am satisfied.=
They've addressed the comments that I've made so far, albeit that
they've been verbal.
Mr. Undercuffler: Do we want to close the hearing at this point?
Mr. Polletta: Chuck, this water, do you feel this is a Planning
and Zoning issue?
Mr. Berger: We will address it during the Planning and Zoning
process. It has been brought =
up
during that process. I now th=
at the
Director of Public Works is aware of the problem out there, I don't know if=
a
solution is planned, but I will make sure that he has a report in to Planni=
ng
and Zoning as we move forward in that process.
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, I don’t see that as a wetlands issue.=
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Polletta,
sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Close the Public Hearing for App. #563 of Golden Acres, LLC for construction of 11-l=
ot
Golden Acres Subdivision,
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at about 9:00 p.m. (no time given).
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary