MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC H=
EARING
THURSDAY=
, OCTOBER
12, 2006 - 7:00 P.M.
APPLICATION #573 – HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
L=
ucia
DiBona
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
G=
len
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Charles
Thermer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; None
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Martha Sturgis
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 7:00 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 2
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, read the Ground Rules for the record as follows:
CONSERVATION COMMISSIO=
N/INLAND
WETLANDS AGENCY
GROUND RULES
1.&n=
bsp; =
;
The applica=
nt or
his representative will make his formal presentation to the Commission stat=
ing
the proposed regulated activities, the wetland impacts, and the alternatives
which were considered by the applicant.
2.&n=
bsp; =
;
All comment=
s,
discussions, and observations shall be made through the Chair after proper
recognition by the Chairman. =
This
is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time speaks on any issue, =
thus
making it easier for everyone to understand, and for clearer legal
transcription.
3.&n=
bsp; =
;
All persons
addressing the Commission shall begin by first clearly stating their name a=
nd
address for the record. If
necessary, the person may be asked to spell his or her name for the record.=
4.&n=
bsp; =
;
Following t=
he
presentation of the application, the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands
Agency will ask specific questions of the applicant.
5.&n=
bsp; =
;
After the
Commission has asked its questions of the applicant, I shall then allow mem=
bers
of the public who wishes to speak either in favor of this application or
against it to address the Commission.
6.&n=
bsp; =
;
I shall then
allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of the general
public.
7.&n=
bsp; =
;
I shall then
allow any members of the general public who wish to present any additional
information or clarifying discussion to do so.
8.&n=
bsp; =
;
I shall then
provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these additional rem=
arks
if he or his representative so wishes.
9.&n=
bsp; =
;
The Conserv=
ation
Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency has forty-five (45) days from the date the
Public Hearing commences to complete the Public Hearing. The Commission may ask the applica=
nt for
a forty-five (45) day extension of the Public Hearing period if the Commiss=
ion
requires any additional information or wishes to schedule a site walk to ob=
serve
the situation for themselves.
10.&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
The Conserv=
ation
Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency has thirty-five (35) days from the date w=
hen
the Public Hearing is closed to render its decision.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 3
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Jones, Secretary, read the Legal Notice for the record as follows:
Legal Notice<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Watertown will
hold a Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 12, 2006 at Waterto=
wn
High School Technology Center, 324 French Street, Watertown, CT to hear and=
act
upon the following applications deemed a significant activity by the
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency pursuant to Section 2.1(dd1-7=
) of
the Watertown Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations.
&=
nbsp; Application
#573 of Heritage Development Group, Inc. to conduct the following regulated
activities associated wit the construction of 352 Age Restricted Housing Un=
its,
a Club House Area, and
&=
nbsp; 1. =
Disturbance
of 1,480 square feet of wetland/watercourse and 13,050 square feet upland
review area for construction of the main access roadway and a 5' high by 14'
wide box culvert to replace an existing structure in Wattles Brook.
&=
nbsp; 2. =
Disturbance
of 1,060 square feet of wetland/watercourse and 3,980 square feet upland re=
view
area by second wetland crossing for construction of main access road and
installation of a 24" culvert.
&=
nbsp; 3. =
Disturbance
of 1,300 square feet of wetland and 5,630 square feet of upland review area=
for
construction of roadway that parallels Bunker Hill Road.
&=
nbsp; 4. =
Disturbance
of approximately 475 square feet of wetland and 8,580 square feet of upland
review area for construction of an emergency access way from
&=
nbsp; 5. =
Disturbance
of 350 square feet of wetland and 1,450 square feet of upland review area by
increasing the width of an existing trail for construction of new roadway n=
ear
the southeast corner of the parcel.
&=
nbsp; 6. =
Disturbance
of approximately 300 square feet of wetland and 340 square feet of upland
review area for installation of sewer main.
&=
nbsp; 7. =
Disturbance
of 33,073 square feet of upland review area for construction of a nature tr=
ail
network.
&=
nbsp; 8. =
Disturbance
of 12 square feet of wetland for the boardwalk crossing.
&=
nbsp; 9. =
Disturbance
of 203,750 square feet (4.68 ac.) upland review area by grading for
construction of water quality basins and building pads.
&=
nbsp; 10. =
Installation
of erosion and sediment control measures within wetlands/ watercourse and
upland review area.
&=
nbsp; 11. =
Discharge
of storm runoff into inland wetland areas.
At
this Hearing interested persons may be heard and written communications rec=
eived. A copy of the application is on fi=
le at
the Planning and Zoning Office,
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 4
Dated at
Dated at
Ron
Jones, Secretary
Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetland Agency
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&= nbsp; A. Application #573 of Heritage Development Group, Inc. for construction of 352 housing un= its Heritage Woods, an Age Restricted Planned Residential Development on Bunker Hill and Middlebury Roads, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by Nove=
mber 16,
2006 unless applicant grants an extension of time.
Mr. Houlihan: This evening we're going to make our presentatio=
n on
a project that we've worked on for quite awhile. We've walked the site with this Bo=
ard
twice and we've gotten some general indications of the type of things that =
the
Board is looking for. Overall=
the
site is 195 acres and we've worked very hard to minimize wetland impacts and
we're proud to say that we've been able to get the impacts below 5,000 squa=
re
feet, direct wetland impacts, which was a pretty challenging thing to do on=
a
site of this magnitude. I bel=
ieve
I've seen single family home applications with more impact than that, so we=
're
proud that we've done that, we think there are some very innovative techniq=
ues
for storm water management involved in this project that our engineer will
explain to you also and we've done a number of things in addition to avoidi=
ng
direct wetland impacts, we've attempted to minimize any impacts in the buff=
er areas
as well. There are no houses =
in the
buffers, there is some minor grading, but we've tried very hard to reduce t=
hat,
we even developed a specific floor plan that would, it's basically shallower
than our typical for a 50 feet plan and that is specifically designed to
accommodate areas of the site where grading would potentially intrude into
buffer areas, so overall the site has a tremendous amount of open space, bo=
th
public and private and we think it's a great application. There's going to be 3 brief presen=
tations
made, actually the first, Ken Hrica, might not be so brief because it is a
large application, he's with Hrica Associates, our civil engineer, the seco=
nd
is Ron Gautreau, our environmental specialist with Evans & Associates a=
nd
last will be Dirk Sabin, who has worked with us closely on specific wetland
plantings and landscaping. I'=
ll
turn it over to Ken Hrica.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 5
Ken Hrica,
Mr. Hrica: First I have some
procedural business with notifications that I'd like to submit to the
Commission. I do have notific=
ations
to neighbors accompanied by a stamped letter that we did send to the neighb=
ors
and a notification to the Middlebury Inland/Wetlands Conservation Commission
and a list of abutters that we did send the notification out to.
The site is 195.8 acre=
s and
it's located on Bunker Hill Road and Middlebury Road and the drawing that
you're looking up on the poster board, Bunker Hill Road is to the north of =
the
site and Middlebury Road is positioned on the west side. We have frontage here along The site is served by =
public
water and sewer. There's a
previously approved Wattles Brook intercept that runs from basically the V.=
F.W.
on The wetlands on the si=
te are
marked in light green and they're also numbered with a pond in the middle a=
nd
those wetlands were delineated by Evans Associates. The activities we have, the main a=
ccess
way crosses the Wattles Brook at the northern portion of our site, and it's
about 400 feet into the site. At
that point there is an existing bridge type structure, 8 feet wide, 3 feet =
tall
and 32 feet from side to side. We
will actually be utilizing the location of that structure, we'll basically
replace it. There's some, some
holes I the concrete, it's really not safe to drive over at this point, so =
we
will be replacing that. At th=
is
point we're proposing a 5 foot tall by 14 foot wide box culvert. It will also be about 32 feet from=
side
to side with retaining wall headwalls.&nbs=
p;
The retaining wall headwalls are placed along the wetlands in order =
for
us to reduce the impacts to the wetlands.&=
nbsp;
We'll have the roadway surface, a small 2 foot shoulder and then a l=
ow
retaining wall that allows us to bring the fill in and any necessary work
within the roadway and not have slopes generated down from our roadways tow=
ards
the wetlands, so we were able to reduce direct impact to the wetlands by
putting in the headwalls. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 6 The 2:1 sides slopes w=
ould obviously
create more fill and fill into the wetlands. As an alternative we're also looki=
ng
into an arch culvert design, that is one of the things, depending upon how =
wide
we can get, we may be better served by doing an arched culvert and not real=
ly
working in the brook itself, we can work on both sides and span the entire
brook and have the footings off and away from the wetlands. At this point I'm working with Chu=
ck
Berger on getting information for design flow so we can determine if that i=
s a
viable option, and I do believe it is, so we will look into that also. About 1,350 feet into =
the
site we cross a small brook in this area, that t=
hen
starts feeding into the Wattles Brook.&nbs=
p;
The Wattles Brook comes into our site to the north, it actually runs
below Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> That's east, isn't it? Mr. Hrica: =
Yes, did I say west? I apologize. That is east. We're proposing to span the wetlan=
ds
with a 24 inch culvert at this point.
There's really not a tremendous amount of flow that goes down through
there, and with the storm water technique that we're using, we're not creat=
ing
a large flow and a 24 inch culvert in this location enables us to keep a fa=
irly
low profile without a roadway and again as an alternative instead of the 2:1
slopes we will be using retaining walls along the wetlands here to reduce t=
he
impacts and really just kind of create a box wide enough for us to pass thr=
ough
the wetlands before we get back onto more open sloping. Associated with this w=
etlands
and as an alternative, the original plan that you may have seen at some of =
our
preliminary meetings with you, there was a second wetland crossing that cam=
e in
and ran towards the south and then crossed at a narrow point here, we have
eliminated that wetlands crossing so that's not necessary so we have elimin=
ated
a crossing here, that's part of this on-going process to get this plan to w=
here
it is today. By eliminating t=
hat
crossing we have also eliminated a direct wetlands impact and more fill into
the wetlands. The third item is a wetlands that crosses the road parallel to CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 7 An alternative that we=
did
look at was accessing the site from a second location on We also have a wetlands
impact at the emergency access way off of Another alternative to=
that
crossing that we did look at is there is an existing farm road that comes f=
rom
Middlebury Road and really starts at the southern end of our property, come=
rs
into the site, turns abruptly to the north, runs along the contour for awhi=
le
and then comes into the wetlands and the wetlands crossing is actually pret=
ty
small there, but the farm road I believe at the time it was built was proba=
bly
filled and created almost a peninsula that's about as wide as we road, mayb=
e a
little narrower, it's probably 12 to 15 feet wide with wetlands on both
sides. And originally we look=
ed at
utilizing that existing roadway but upon further investigation we realized =
that
in order to get the emergency access way to a reasonable width, we would ha=
ve
had to have filled on either side encroached upon the wetlands and really b=
een
kind of balancing on this peninsula between 11, wetlands on both sides of t=
his
and then still have the crossing.
So we've utilized our natural finger of upland soil to get to a very
small crossing and the wetlands are drastically different. The wetlands t=
hrough
here is pretty much a channelized defined brook where we're
crossing. The original crossi=
ng,
the wetlands really is more of a shallow swamp type nature and you can see =
that
basically by the size of it, that it's much wider in here and it's pretty
shallow and flat and it's usually pretty inundated. In my opinion it was a much more p=
rudent
crossing to cross where the channel is defined, and you an
get over it quickly and not have to deal with the swampy areas on both side=
s of
that peninsula. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 8 Another impact that we=
do
have is the Wattles Brook Intercept Connector, that's the sewer line connec=
tor
that we're providing and the impact that we do have for that is a wetlands
crossing that allows us to extend our sewer line up to Middlebury Road to k=
ind
of finalize the overall concept plan for sewerage for the Town as far as our
part is concerned. There are
preliminary maps and I'd like to submit a copy to the Commission that were =
done
for the sewer commission that shows connection eventually to this site,
regardless of this project, to connect the upper portions of the town throu=
gh a
sewer system that eventually heads down towards Davis Street, and that is t=
he
sewer system the Wattles Brook Intercept that we are helping construct. I'd like to make this a part of the
record. The significance of t=
hat is
that those plans in the master plan for the Town do show a
wetlands crossing here, a second connection that would come back down
through here somehow and the plans also show that the sewer line crosses ba=
ck
and forth and really runs close and adjacent to the wattles brook within th=
e wetlands. The original approved Wattles Brook
sewer plan comes into our site from the east and then it comes through some
wetlands and then it actually the last 2 manholes are located directly in t=
he
middle of this large wetlands area adjacent to Wattles Brook. We took a look at elevations and g=
rades
and we managed to connect to the sewer system in our roadway and not need t=
o go
into the wetlands system which was originally planned and I think the origi=
nal
master plan is obviously if the brook can flood, a sanitary sewer can flood=
, so
keeping the sewer system adjacent to a brook is a pretty good idea, similar=
to
running train tracks to a river, not a lot of steep grades to deal with, bu=
t we
were able to construct a sewer line through our site and actually run the s=
ewer
for the most part aside from this one wetland crossing outside of the wetla=
nds
area, so in order to do this sewer main it's going to connect to the upper
portions of the town we don't have to cross into any of wetlands on our sit=
e,
aside from the inevitable crossing of this low area to get up to Middlebury
Road. The crossing is about 9=
7 feet
long, I consider it a temporary crossing because=
we'll
get in there, construct the sewer, cover it back up and not have to really
disturb that area again. We d=
on't
have an access road planned across the wetlands at that point to that sewer
line. We looked at extending=
or
actually joining the emergency access way and the sewer line and running it
within the same roadway then but it turns out that the elevational problems
that we incurred were that the roadway is about 8 feet deeper than where we=
're
crossing here and what that really meant was that it created a low spot, a =
dip
in the sewer line that we could not get elevationally to this side of the s=
ite
so then it would require a big pump house to be installed, not really knowi=
ng
the size or how much this (inaudible) is going to be for the rest of the to=
wn,
we really wanted to achieve the sewer line with gravity flow as simply as
possible. (Tape #1, Side A ended - may have missed some.) CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 9 Another wetlands impac=
t that
we do have is the use of an existing wood road between two wetlands. In the packet from the soil scient=
ist
you have the wetlands delineated by number and as you can briefly see I've =
try
to number them (inaudible) wetlands #3 and #5. Wetlands #3 is really a pond, and
there's an existing wood road that was constructed at some time it he past =
that
runs between these 2 wetlands. I think topographically speaking there was a
saddle between these 2 wetlands and this area is really a divide. Half of the water flows away from =
us on
this side and the other half of our street flows in the other direction so
we've got flows separating here going both northeast and southwest. We will be utilizing that existing=
area,
it's not a wetlands crossing, it's an upland area, but in order to get a
roadway through here we are going to have to widen it a little bit, so what
we're going to do is widen the roadway towards the or away from the pond.
There is also a wood c=
hip
gravel nature trail proposed for the site that meanders through open space
areas. We do have a couple of
crossings associated with that. We
will be crossing the wetlands in this area and right below the pond. We will be crossing with a boardwa=
lk
structure on piers. The piers=
will
be made up of wood or composite material, no pressure treated wood, we're g=
oing
to look for a resistant material and/or the new composites like the trek
stacking and that sort of thing, technology has it now so that you can actu=
ally
posts made out of that material, but we're going to avoid putting anything =
in
the wetlands except for a couple of piers spaced about every 8 ft. to get
across the wetlands. Minor im=
pact
associated with (inaudible) entire project for the piers would be about 12 =
sq.
ft.
As far as regulated ar=
ea,
and upland area, the secretary as he was reading the announcement did menti=
on
that we have 4.68 acres of regulated area being affected by grading for
building pads and water quality basins.&nb=
sp;
I broke that down, and only .34 acres is the grading associated with=
the
building pads so as Bob Houlihan mentioned before, we really tried to minim=
ize
the grading from the building plans, we kept all of the buildings out of the
wetlands, and we've done the best we could to keep the grading away, it's 1=
/3
of an acre. The rest of the
disturbance is the water quality basins and swales that we're installing as=
a
means of handling our storm water and those will all be vegetated. We're going to let those things go=
back
out and so really even though the number seems high for disturbance, it's p=
art
of the water quality plan and we'll actually be creating areas that will be
similar to wetlands in a lot of instances by doing that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 10
I'd like to speak brie=
fly
about the water quality. We u=
sed
the 2004 Storm Water Quality Manual as a basis for design techniques. There's=
a lot of
good things in that book and we've tried to use some of the ones that seemed
very suitable. We're utilizing
sheet flow techniques throughout the entire site, we
don't have a catch basin or curbing system anywhere on this site. The water is going to flow freely o=
ff of
the yards, surrounding buildings, out of the woods and off of the roads.
There will be a few wet
basins and the wet basins are basically located adjacent to the Wattles Bro=
ok
wetland area, and a couple of the other wetland areas. What I mean by wet basins, our typ=
ical
basin depth and our design depth was to be no more than 4 feet deep on these
basins. We didn’t want =
large
dugout pools, we wanted big, wide spread out areas for the water to flow in=
, we
could achieve quite a bit of infiltration, the soils on site are good for
infiltration so the water that is sitting on these basins will have a chanc=
e to
permeate into the soil, and the water that doesn't will then overflow, but =
we
wanted to keep it fairly shallow. The
wet basins in these areas are about 1 foot deeper than the 4 foot basin and=
the
outlet pipe has been set up about a foot higher so that water comes in it's
going to puddle on occasion in some of these basins and stay there for some
extended periods of time.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 11
Those areas are adjace=
nt to
wetlands and they will be over time simulate a w=
etland
area. I hesitate to call it w=
etland
creation because it's really storm water attenuation but in effect in some
instances over time those areas will turn into pretty viable wetland areas,=
but
again they're not going to be deep, we're not creating ponds that are going=
to
hold a lot of water. In most
instances you'll see water in the Spring and the=
Fall,
directly after a rainstorm, but that 1 foot of water is either going to
infiltrate in some cases or evaporate, especially during the Summer.
On Site there are a to=
tal of
47 rain gardens and basins that are scattered all throughout this site to t=
ry
and slow down and handle the storm water, and we've achieved much more than=
a
zero increase in flow, we've actually reduced flows coming off of this
site. We like to call it a
treatment train because there are different processes. A drop of water just doesn't get s=
hort
circuited straight to a wetland and outlet, any drop of water that hits this
site is going to follow a circuitous route through the swales, through the
basins and eventually make it into the wetlands area that it would have
normally gotten to anyway. It=
's
just going to take a little bit of time, the time is actually good for the
cleansing of the storm water and the amount of time that it takes for the w=
ater
to get to these areas relieves the pressure of peak flows. If you can extend storm water over=
a
longer period of time and not bunch it all up together, we can reduce peak
flows and you won't be harming any structures or jeopardizing neighbors or
structures downstream from you, and that's what we have achieved here.
We are providing open =
space
on this project, a total of 84.5 acres of open space which is about 43% of =
the
entire site. 57.5 acres of th=
at
open space is public open space and that's delineated in the light green on
this plan. There is some
connectivity, in fact there's total connectivity so we've targeted some big=
ger
areas to maintain as open space and create an open space corridor that real=
ly
connects most all of the parcels.
We're providing 26.8 acres of privately controll=
ed,
our association will control the other 26.8 acres of open space. There's pretty much (inaudible) we=
've
targeted areas in between houses that have to remain natural, we've targeted
the Wattles Brook Corridor and we've also tried as much as we could, connect
the public and private open space so that we re were able to create and
maintain some decent corridors. For
instance this corridor, this is pretty much the highest pint of the propert=
y at
the southern end and all the water flows down into the pond area and then
meanders down to the Wattles Brook.
We tried to create a wetland and wildlife corridor with this open sp=
ace
by combining the two open spaces here.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 12
Last Spring I met with=
the
Army Corps of Engineers and actually brought this project to them prior to
coming to you and I believe it was in March of the Spring at that point whe=
n we
were at the design phase of this project, we had 1.5 acres of direct wetland
disturbance associated with the various aspects of the project. I sat down for a long afternoon and
looked over the project with the Army Corps, and they asked me to figure out
how to get below 5,000 square feet of wetland disturbance and they gave me =
some
great ideas, and the retaining wall idea actually came<=
/span>
form the Army Corps. They said
they've seen it in many places before and it really does reduce wetland
impacts. They talked about
reconfiguring the layout, so we did quite a bit of reconfiguring of the lay=
out
and the elimination of any crossings that we could so we did eliminate one =
of
the crossings that we had and what we wound up doing was reducing the wetla=
nd
impact from 1.5 acres on this project to .11 acres. Really I think we've done a great =
job
and it's my professional opinion that the plan before you represents no
negative impact to the wetlands systems on site and around the property.
Mr. Houlihan: Thanks, Ken.&nb=
sp;
Before I introduce Ron Gauthreau who is our environmental consultant=
, I
wanted to comment on a couple of things that Ken said. The Zoning Regulations were crafte=
d to
create this project and we were permitted to just under=
400 units, so this has 352, so we've not tried to max out this plan. We've
tried to create a plan that we thinks works, will result in a beautiful
community that is salable and we're willing to take a hit on the (inaudible=
) to
make the project work, particularly as it relates to the reduction of wetla=
nd
impacts.
Also we put up ourselv=
es in
the zoning regulations the requirement to introduce the sort of innovative =
storm
water quality techniques that Ken is talking to you about, and this is per =
the
recent D.E.P. recommendations and to my knowledge this is one of the first =
and
largest versions of this adherence to these principles in the State and we
think it's a great example. Now I'll introduce Ron Gautreau who will talk a=
bout
the (inaudible) wetlands.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Ron Gautreau, Evans
Associates
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Mr. Gautreau: Our responsibility on =
the
project was to delineate (inaudible) on the site. We did that and we characterized t=
he
wetlands on the property and produced a detailed wetland delineation report
that was submtit3d as part of the application, that report was dated June,
2005. Since that time portion=
s of
the property are not included in what we delineated, so that report is slig=
htly
outdated and the acreage of the wetlands.&=
nbsp;
The report has been revised to reflect the current size of the prope=
rty
and that will be submitted to the Town shortly.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 13
The
wetlands on the site were field delineated by myself, Philologist and Certi=
fied
Soil Scientist from our office. We
characterized the wetlands into 5 different areas. Wetland #1 is located in the far w=
estern
portion of the site. This wet=
land
drains to the south and ultimately flows to Hop Brook. (Inaudible) wetland corroder start=
s up
here and drains down to the south.
Wetland #2 is in the northern portion of the property and is associa=
ted
with Wattles Brook which flows to the east. Most of it is a forested wetland
corridor and also includes a small stream which flows to the north which fl=
ows
to Wattles Brook. Wetland #3 =
is
this purple area which is just a shallow pond that is surrounded by a fores=
ted
wetland area, that flows also to Wattles brook (=
inaudible). Wetland #4 is a slope forested wet=
land
that flows to the pond that ultimately also flows to Wattles Brook. Wetland=
#5,
like Wetland #1 flows to the south and ultimately flows to Hop Brook, and
that's a forested (inaudible) of wetlands.=
The characteristics, the soils, plants, hydraulically as well as the
function of all these wetlands are detailed in the report that we prepared.=
Part of the process of evaluating
impacts and assessing potential mitigation for the project is to go through=
a
step by step process on the impacts. The first step is to avoid any wetland
impacts as best you can. Ken
detailed the whole process and we're ultimately down to less than 5,000 squ=
are
feet of impacts, and 5 road crossings 3 of which follow existing roads. (Tape #1, Side A
ended - may have missed some.) Has
been done, the maximum extent that it cane be done, to get it below 5,000
square feet which is pretty good for projects of this size. Crossings were all detailed by Ken=
so
I'll leave it as we discussed.
That's about it. I'm g=
oing
to turn it over to Dirk Sabin, who did the landscaping. <=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Dirk Sabin, Landscape
Architect, Mr. Sabin: I'd like to touch briefly on some map of planning
aspects of the plan, put it on the record, talk a little bit about the storm
water management, and then get into the open space and trail system. I think you've been given a very g=
ood
overview but I just want to get out some basic points and observations. In terms of general la=
yout,
the project itself is buffered from surrounding areas quite nicely, primari=
ly
through working around existing wetland corridors as we described, as the l=
arge
wooded swamp corridor just to the east of Middlebury Road, which is a fores=
ted
wetland corridor, there's the Wattles Brook corridor running just to the so=
uth
of Bunker Hill, there's the central wetland force and corridor drains the p=
ond
area that ultimately ends up with the Wattles Brook area, there's the large
forested swamp wetland to the extreme southeast corner of the property and =
they
also a forested wetland just up gradient from the pond has been described.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> So these are large belts of wetlan=
ds
running through the property which will help screen the development from the
exterior as well as preserve adjacent upland to the wetlands so helping to
buffer those wetland corridors themselves from the development. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 14 In addition to those
corridors there are some areas that will not be graded within the developme=
nt
where we'll be able to achieve and preserve some wooded belts in between un=
its
to again further break up and buffer and shade the area and provide some wi=
ldlife
corridors in among the development.
In terms of landscape presentation along In terms of storm water
management, Ken gave you a very good overview of that and really this system
it's almost like taking technology and turning i=
t on
its ear. There's a lot of different type of high tech storm water devices t=
hat
are out there that have been developed over the years, and this is something
less high tech although far more effective. You basically try and replicate the
natural water cycles, which you'll start with headwater type streams, sheet
flow into head water type streams into larger intermittent streams, into la=
rger
rivers and then ponds and then into the larger water bodies, and this type =
of
approach does that same thing, follows the natural measures. It was described quite well, where
you'll start with sheet flow, small rain gardens near the units then going =
into
these bioswales then going into larger detention basins and then being
discharged into the wetlands, so all through the process particularly at
smaller intensive storms there's an opportunity for drainage to slow down,
infiltrate, get filtered by soil bacteria and plants and settle out sedimen=
ts
all through the system, so you don't have these large point discharges and
peaks of discharges of drainage into wetland systems. It really attenuates, it really sl=
ows it
down. In addition to that the=
y have
a wildlife habitat quality. T=
hey
will be planted with a combination of dry and wet mix type wetland seed mix=
es
and in some of them there will be some woody plantings or things like red o=
ger
dogwood, aulder, and the like, some sugar maples, some shab lows and then in
certain of this flooded area, some of the more ponded areas adjacent to
wetlands we will also (inaudible) such as tunxis edge bluewater iris, so ag=
ain
we'll be creating this kind of diverse, both wet meadow, dry meadow, kind of
intermittent stream corridors and then these emergent type wetland systems
throughout. So they have a ha=
bitat
of components. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 15 There's also an aesthe=
tic
component in terms of preserving the wooded corridors and more of a kind of
organic, more of this type development rather than a regular system of road=
s,
these will be kind of naturalistic meadow systems that wrap through the
development that will be able to kind of evolve over time into a very
naturalistic system. So you g=
et
both a zero increase in the peak rate and back to what Ken said was a natur=
al
reduction the peak rate runoff you get infiltration, filtration, and habitat
and aesthetic. Next thing is the open=
space
system that Ken already went through but I want to kind of key in on the tr=
ail
system and the rationale for that.
There's both public and private open space. The private is the darker green sh=
own on
this map which encompasses some of the woodland belts, not all of them, the=
re
are a couple of other woodland belts through here that are not in open space
that will be in essence open space, but you can see the private open space =
and
then the public open space, the light green corridors, primarily wetland ce=
ntered
and pond centered and swamp centered at the southern end of the property and
they're also connected. It's really not clear from this distance but on this
plan and on your plans that have been submitted there's a kind of scaled
pedestrian network. First of =
all
there's kind of an active pedestrian way which is centered upon the, being =
the
recreation area, and then having a trail to loop kind of around some of tho=
se
wetland gardens and bioswales, connecting so that each part of the property,
they can come out of the unit, hit this pedestrian trail and end up at the
recreation area, or just simply walk and meander from unit to unit staying =
off
the roadway over a substantial part of the development. Then we get into a more passive ty=
pe of
trail, a couple of them are on the public open space and some are within the
private open space, but those are kind of leaking very significant standing
spots. This large kind of mar=
sh
pond area that's shown as wetland area (inaudible) is a very large rock out=
crop
here that this trail will go out and stand on the promontory and look out o=
ver
that wetland system before then going off into the woods. As Ken mentioned there are also 2 =
small
boardwalk crossing which were designed at existing very narrow points in th=
ose
wetland corridors which will be a wood crossing that will link to trails and
then line up to other parts of the units so there will be opportunity in th=
is
pedestrian system for both kind of walking in and amongst units, very public
area, very active areas, very safe, and then there will be equal opportunit=
y to
hit some of these wooded corridors in the development so you'll be able to =
take
a walk in the woods if you're so inclined.=
And there are some really pretty areas where you have steep slopes
coming down into these intermittent streams and rock outcrops and woods and
things like that. In closing I
would just say that I think there' been a very good effort here at buffering
this development from surrounding roadways and minimizing visual impacts,
taking advantage of natural site areas, taking advantage of existing wetland
crossings, and I thin the storm water system as planned is state of the art=
and
quite good and so with that I think there will be very minimal impacts on t=
he
wetland resources with the proper controls, the sedimentation, erosion cont=
rols
and phasing and (inaudible). =
Thank
you. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 16 Mr. Zawadzki: So you're not going to have curtain drains, is t=
hat
right? All of the runoff from=
the
roofs will be above ground? Mr. Hrica: =
We are planning to allow the roofs =
to
drain off and into our system.
There will be some rain gardens, some very small rain gardens associ=
ated
with the roof runoff to capture that water on the surface, let it sit for
awhile and then get it into our overlaying system. When we start putting things into =
the
ground, if the ground can't hold it, then it's concentrated and we have to
place it somewhere and we're rally trying to avoid major concentrations of
piped storm water at all cases. Mr. Duplissie: You mentioned 47 rain gardens and you have natur=
ally
vegetated swales. Do either of these require maintenance? Mr. Hrica: =
There will require maintenance. Some of the swales will require cu=
tting
once or twice a year tops. Yo=
u're
going to let a lot of the grassy type vegetation grow up in them. You don't want to keep these swale=
s cut
short like a golf course because there will be much more potential for eros=
ion
at that point so you let the grasses grow maybe (inaudible) and cut them on=
ce
or twice a year, that keeps the tree from growing in the swales but it keeps
the vegetation pretty much as safe as possible. Mr. Sabin: =
The only thing I would add to that =
is the
species that are specified are all native species and so once they've settl=
ed
in after initial maintenance the stuff can pretty well subsist on its own,
takes to this climate and just like the natural species. Mr. Duplissie: =
So we will have invasive species wi=
thin
the rain gardens? Mr. Sabin: That will be part of maintenance that will have =
to
happen at the outset, in terms of what Ken mentioned, once or twice a year
mowing that will suppress multifloral rose and autumn rose and things such =
as
that, and there will have to be a watch in the initial part after construct=
ion
so that things such as loose (inaudible) but that's one of the main reasons
we're using these wet seed mixes so they get a firm grip and you don't have
large areas of open seed grit. Mr. Duplissie: And water is not moving past them (inaudible) er=
osion
so this is made to keep the water flowing slowly or being absorbed at a max=
imum
(inaudible). Mr. Sabin: =
Correct, you don't have real concen=
trated
flows, you don't have rapid flows.
There will be some need at the outset as the plants come in and begi=
n to
get established, you may have some high intensity storms that come in and c=
ause
a little bit of erosion, but nothing out of the ordinary it will be able to
maintained an stabilized and I would say by the end of the second growing
season these will be very densely vegetated areas. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 17 Mr. Zawadzki: Now this is (inaudible) by the association does =
all
the maintenance of the property on the outside and people do the maintenanc=
e on
the inside? Mr. Houlihan: Yes. Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> So all these areas that we're setti=
ng
aside and protecting as open space will be one person or a group of people =
will
be accountable to make sure that their boundaries are respected? Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> That's correct. The form of ownership is condomini=
um and
we will be creating a board that will manage the property and all its aspec=
ts,
it's an entirely private development, road, everything. Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Out of 352 units I assume you're go=
ing to
have (inaudible) on all the units? Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> Yes. Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> So can you explain to me whatever s=
tudy
you did understand what all this water out of the gutters is going to end u=
p in
either some kind of detention pond or catch basin? We're talking about 352 units. Can you make me understand how you=
're
going to not have erosion when you have all this water going down at the sa=
me
time on a heavy storm. Mr. Hrica: =
There will be multiple outlets on s=
ome of
these roof gutters and there will be very small rain garden adjacent to the
garden. Somewhere the flow is=
coming
down the pipe and its coming fast. Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> So there is no =
catch
basins? Mr. Hrica: =
There is no catch basin, it will wi=
nd up
in an area that's planted and the rain hardens have rocks in them and a lot=
of
different natural things to slow down the velocity of the water from coming
down the pipe. Once it slows =
down
there's all the biofiltration swales, those longer, flatter swales, they're=
all
in and around and behind these units basically throughout the site which wi=
ll
then corral that water and take it to the bigger rain gardens and the circl=
es
and then take it into the detention (inaudible). Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Because it's a new system, I mean I=
've been
around for awhile but maybe it's new, I've never seen this, however, was th=
is
installed at other places before so it worked, or is it the first time? Mr. Hrica: =
This is the first time I've worked =
with
this concept. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 18 Mr. Houlihan: This is not the first time any of these concepts
have been implemented, it's just the first time
they've been implemented in reaction to guidelines issued by the D.E.P. This is not a typical subdivision =
so
this is cluster development, it's got a very sor=
t of
naturalistic sort of organic nature to it.=
There aren't large lawns around these properties so in response to h=
ow
are you going to deal with the water coming out of the gutters, there's lot=
s of
instances all around Connecticut here people have their gutters piped to sp=
lash
blocks, you dissipate that flow and you get it into these treatment trains
quickly. If you take a close =
look
at this plan, you'll see that these buildings are surrounded by swales and
natural areas that will receive the water. Mr. Duplissie: For Joe's clarificati=
on, we
were on vacation in Maine this Summer and all the buildings are now being b=
uilt
on (inaudible) it's a major, like 27 mile long lake, and any new home that =
goes
in on the lake, they can't dissipate the water into the lake anymore everyt=
hing
has to be a rain garden. They=
're
absolutely gorgeous. They look
great as long as they're (inaudible) but when you have them on a hillside, =
my
house is 50 years old and my roof leaders all go to daylight but on the hil=
ltop
and with the rain we got last night my roof leaders caused erosion on the
hillside because there was that much water coming out of it so (inaudible)
dissipated over shallow ground and let the water run out slowly we wouldn't
have had the erosion. Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> And there's clearly going to be ins=
tances
where we may have to deal with those types of things on a symptomatic basis,
but in general the concept is to avoid piping. Mr. Duplissie: I agree, but I have a
problem with your 5 foot by 14 foot by 32 foot box culvert. In the past I know we've dealt wit=
h this
in the past but I think chuck still is aware, you're dealing with it now to=
see
if we can get an arch instead of a box culvert because we went to natural
bottoms rather than the box culvert so if that's at all possible,
engineering-wise, that will be up to Chuck to make that determination, but =
we
much prefer the arches than the box culverts. Mr. Hrica: The box culverts
that is proposed is designed to simulate a natural bottom. What the design concept and constr=
uction
procedure is that you'd actually box out the area that you'd se the culvert=
in
and set it in with the invert (inaudible) the top of the concrete where the
water is going to flow a foot below the natural surroundings and then fill =
it
back in, aero concrete is actually been making these things for projects I'=
ve
worked on where they build now a U-shaped box culvert and put the U in and =
that
allows you with machinery and by hand to fill the culvert back in with natu=
ral
material, and then when you're done filling it in and replacing the material
that you removed, it resembles he original, it's not exactly the original, =
but
it resembles, that you can sit the culvert back on, but I am looking into a
arched culvert and I would certainly take a serious look at doing an arched
culvert rather than boxed. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 19 Mr. Undercuffler: You mentioned public and private, =
in those
light green areas, the open space I'm talking about, the open space is priv=
ate,
will that be maintained by the association also? Mr. Houlihan: Yes, the private open space areas are centrally
restricted for development and to the largest extent possible we're leaving=
everything
along, so if it's a nice natural woodland we're not going to be going in th=
ere
and doing much, but to the extent that there may be a trail system through
there or what have you, yes, it will be maintained privately. Mr. Undercuffler: Well I was talking about or thinking about the
trails, but those would be open to Town residents. Mr. Houlihan: No, the trail system on this project is an ameni=
ty
for the residents. Mr. Undercuffler: Then what is the difference between private and
public? Mr. Houlihan: The difference is that the private open space is
within the development itself and it's
fragmented. The public open s=
pace
is not within the development, and will not be owned by us, and it will have
access to the public. Mr. Undercuffler: So the public being the residents, not just . . =
. .
. Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> Anybody in Mr. Polletta: Anybody in the Town of Mr. Houlihan: On our field trips we pretty much accessed the s=
ite
from the end of New Wood Road which is the best place to access and that fi=
rst
stretch that we walked through that has an existing trail on it is the publ=
ic
open space, it's wonderful conservation land, it's contiguous to conservati=
on
land to the south and that's how we outlined it. Mr. Undercuffler: So that would be all the light green area on your
map. Mr. Houlihan: That is correct. Mr. Rafey: =
And it's going to be d=
eeded
to the Town of Mr. Houlihan: =
No, the disposition of=
the
property has yet to be determined, we're talking to the Watertown Land Trus=
t,
these are the type of entities that would typically own open space like thi=
s,
this is passive open space, it's not intended to be used for anything other
than trails or what it is now. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC. OCTOBER 12, 2006 PAGE 20 Mr. Duplissie: You do not have to go to Corps of Engineers,
according to my map you're counting 4,977 square feet of disturbed wetlands=
? Mr. Houlihan: <=
/b> I didn't know we cut it that close.=
That is correc=
t,
we do not have to go to the Army Corps.&nb=
sp;
It's 4,765. Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions? At this point anyone from the publ=
ic can
comment on this application. =
Come
up, state your name, speak into the microphone and the applicant will make =
note
of your questions and will answer all of your questions after the first rou=
nd
of comment. <=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>David Hoyt,
Mr. Hoyt: I just have 2 questions. You said you weren't going to use =
the
farm road that leads in you were going to go farther north. Can you tell me about how far
north? With the 350 some odd =
units
that will be there, and I understand the ponding area and the rest of it to=
get
rid of the water, in the Winter, what do we do with the sand and salt that =
will
have to be used to get these roads opens, so these 350 some odd people can =
get
in and out of there?
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Carol Viltrakis,
Ms. Viltrakis: I'd like to know what the price of these condos =
are
going to be, and how they're going to impact the people that live there now
that are bordering it. It's
probably going to change the amount they can get for their properties becau=
se
of this (inaudible) home.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Frank Maros,
Mr. Maros: I have a question on the light green areas, I
understand the light green areas are public and I understand the question f=
rom
the Board is that these public areas are open to people from
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Peter Viltrakis,
Mr. Viltrakis: I was wondering how this project will impact the
town services, the Police, Fire Departments and how it will affect the Town=
as
far as a 55 years old, the minimum age, will any kids be allowed to live in
there, like with their grandparents or if they had ids late in life, do they
have to be restricted, how will this impact the town? (Tape #2, Side A
ended - may have missed some.)
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 21
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>John Brophy,
Mr. Brophy: I would like to know the impacts on the wetlands
that are behind my house, this area here, the gentleman said there's a nice
hardwood corridor here so that the wetlands could leach into that, but I own
part of that hardwood corridor, and if the wetlands leach into there I lose
property, if that wetlands gets further up and I have a 50 foot buffer or
whatever it is from the wetlands where I can build, I have over 5 acres her=
e,
so somewhere down the road I may want to build something back there whateve=
r,
but if this wetlands is retained, then my property value is going to change
with that and I want to know with the new swale system, I'm not an engineer,
but to me it doesn't sound like a proven deal. It sounds real nice,
it sounds like a nice way of going but is it proven or is this wetland #1 g=
oing
to grow in size because I don't think, from what I heard tonight, anybody r=
eally
knows how this thing is going to work.&nbs=
p;
It sounds real nice and it's going to catch the water they're saying
less impact than there is now, but I've lived here my whole life and where =
this
empties down before it gets to Hop Brook and goes underneath Middlebury roa=
d,
there's a pipe there, my father's house is right there I grew up there, and=
the
water from this swamp has gone over the road there more than once in my
lifetime, so if it goes over the road again, does the Town of Watertown hav=
e to
put a new pipe in the road down there, right by the Middlebury border. I don't know the impact of that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 22
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Carol Hoyt,
Ms. Hoyt: Coming down
Mr. Houlihan: I hope I took good notes. The first question was how far to =
the
north is the proposed emergency access road from the existing farm road.
As far as the public a=
reas
and the access to them, the main public open space is this area right here, now that has very sort of convenient public acce=
ss off
the end of
As far as the effect o=
n Town
services and how it will impact the Town, the great thing about this projec=
t is
it's great for the Town. The =
net
positive tax revenue more than outweighs any possible incremental increase =
in
costs related to services, by and large.&n=
bsp;
This is a huge, positive tax generator for the Town and all towns ne=
ed
this. Towns have constrained =
budgets
and they look to where they can stop spending money, but unless you increase
the revenue side of the equation you're always going to be in trouble. And that's exactly what this does, the net positive tax revenue to the Town is wond=
erful.
Mr. Zawadzki: You plan on making an analys=
is of
you're going to do an economic analysis for Planning and Zoning?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 23
Mr. Houlihan: Yea, that's already been done, it's already been
presented to the Town once when we did the rezone and it will be presented
again.
Mr. Zawadzki: Did that include any projected increase in police
and fire?
Mr. Houlihan: Yes. I don't have the numbers in front =
of me
but that will all be part of the public record as we go trough the approval
process. Obviously it's not a
wetlands issue but we're glad to address the public's concerns here.
As far as the concern =
about
this being a new system and not proven, that's not true. This is really the age old way thi=
ngs
have been done for centuries until just recently and I'm not going to make =
fun
or pick on the engineering field, but an analogy is when you look at highway
construction and roads. There=
was a
point in time and I think we're getting away from it now where we were dire=
cted
to build wider, flatter roads to make them safer. We now know that that is not true.=
It's the old windy narrow roads, <=
span
class=3DGramE>there's exceptions here, but in general has a traffic
calming effect. In effect we'=
ve
done that here, these roads are not big wide road, they're little narrow.
As far as the emergency
access road off of
Just a brief comment o=
n the
still water and bugs, when you're working with a wetlands board I'm sure
they've probably heard that more than I have, and I'll let the engineers
address that more specifically but I'm quite sure that there's no even meas=
urable
impact in that regard.
As far as the culvert =
on
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 24
I'd like Ken to answer=
the question
on sand and salt and Dirk maybe you can talk about the impact on the wetlan=
ds
behind
Mr. Hrica: =
The sand and salt question is an ea=
sy
question to answer. Because w=
e do
have swales adjacent to the roadways and all of our storm water wherever it=
's
running off is being treated and run through this treatment train that's
exactly what part of this treatment train is for, anything that runs off, s=
ands
or salts that do run off of our roadway system are going to wind up in our
treatment train, be filtered by the grass swales, be filtered within this
bigger rain gardens and then eventually be filtered and (inaudible) in the
larger detention basins. The =
sand
and salt will not be a problem, it's going to wash off the roads and then i=
t's
going to be treated naturally. As
far as the impact to the wetlands on the back side of Middlebury Road, we h=
ave
made sure everywhere water leaves this site, that we have not had any incre=
ase
in flow, and we've achieved that by having to install 47 different basins
around the site in order to control our water, to slow velocities, to slow
timing, to hold that water temporarily until the release of the water is no=
t a
problem, so we do not have an increase, our water will not be affecting our=
neighbor's
property, we will not be increasing the size of that wetlands towards our
neighbors, we will however be somewhat increasing the size of that wetlands
towards ourselves because we will be creating these basins that will simula=
te
wetland areas. And as Bob had
mentioned, we will take a look at that culvert, I believe the culvert is to=
the
north of our entryway and unless there's a problem with it right now, we do=
n't
really need to do anything with it.
If it's flowing into the site and into the wetlands, that's absolute=
ly
fine. During the course of our
drainage calculations we did note that we are gaining some water into this
system and we had to size culverts based upon water crossing Middlebury Roa=
d so
we do know that water is getting across but it's not going to affect our
driveway, it will come adjacent to it and if the water is flowing into the =
wetlands,
that's fine.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> One question about the sand accumul=
ation,
obviously it does accumulate over the years so again that's an association
maintenance thing and so we would expect the association to keep the swales
maintained, correct?
Mr. Hrica: =
All of the swales, rain gardens,
detention basins, will require maintenance. We will provide a maintained sched=
ule
for all of those devices and the association will have to observe and maint=
ain
when necessary. We basically set up an observation schedule which has
maintenance attached to it. W=
e want
them to go out and look. I don't want to send a backhoe or excavator into a=
n area
every year to clean out a basin that doesn't need cleaning, but again someb=
ody
needs to be looking at all of these devices. If the sand does accumulate in a
particular swale, that needs to be addressed on a
yearly basis, as does the roadway maintenance and the cleaning of the roadw=
ays
and the association will be responsible for that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 25
Mr. Zawadzki: Do you anticipate th=
ese
streets being turned over to the Town or will the Association do the plowin=
g?
Mr. Hrica: The Association will=
do
the plowing.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> The Association will also do all the street sweeping just like normal streets, righ=
t?
Mr. Houlihan: These streets will not be turned over to the Tow=
n,
this is a private development, they will be main=
tained
by the Association. When we s=
ay
that some people like environs actual homeowners (inaudible) hire managing
agent, which typically is us. When
we start these condominiums, we typically get them going, we have a very
significant period of control where we do it, and we've done this before.
Mr. Rafey: =
Did you submit a schedule of mainte=
nance
for the record so I can keep it in the file?
Mr. Hrica: Yes.
Mr. Sabin: First off the forest=
ed
wetlands on
Next there was a quest=
ion
about newness. As Bob had sai=
d,
it's really not new, it's actually more, I wouldn't want to use the word
primitive, but it's old fashioned, it's the way things have flowed for years
and it's really trying to get back and out of these high intensity types of
drainage solutions such as piping, such as recharge galleries, which require
more maintenance, they're more expensive, and they just don't work quite as
well. They create graphics, a
higher point discharges, they don't allow as much infiltration, they're put=
ting
water under the ground instead of opening it up to the sunlight and so they=
're
really not new systems.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 26
In terms of applicatio=
n I
think we'll start seeing this with the new storm water management regulatio=
ns
coming on line in the State of
In terms of mosquitoes=
and
standing water, as Ken had mentioned the only two what are called wet basin=
s I
think there were 2, are associated off of the brook down below
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Okay back to the thing=
about
rain gardens and swales, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's fair to say =
that
all developers aren't using these because all developers don't have to tipt=
oe
around wetlands the way you're doing here and so a lot of them can just dump
water right into the storm drain and forget about it. (Tape #2, Side B ended - may have =
missed
some.)
Mr. Houlihan: This is a much more conventional type product, b=
ig
house, big lot, big lawn, and that's just not what we're doing.
Mr. Duplissie: The question was asked, does the wetland
change. We've been up there f=
or
awhile get this on a daily or monthly basis, but can you explain why you ha=
ve
195 acres basically forested, some wetlands, you're putting in 352 units wh=
ich
have roofs and impervious area, roads, and now you're actually going to have
more water into the ground than you had when it was forested?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 27
Mr. Hrica: On site there will be quite a bit of water drain=
ing
to the ground, some of it will get to the wetlands, it shouldn't, but it sh=
ould
be enough of a volume to physically change the size of the wetlands. There is very =
poor
soils in the upland areas of this site, so you get a lot of infiltra=
tion
down into those soils. A lot =
of the
concept of how we reduce the flows coming off (inaudible) has to do with
timing. There is going to be =
more
runoff concentrated on our site, we're putting it in areas where it's going=
to
sit and the timing factor during the rainstorm, we're not letting all of the
water go all at once. A typic=
al
storm drainage system moves water along very fast, the catch basin, curb,
gutter, everything happens within 5 to 10 minutes of a rain drop hitting the
surface, it winds up inside the system and it's whisked to a central area a=
nd
it's either a large point discharge or its an increase in runoff and/or to =
get
away from the increase in runoff to the system like that is to put a large
detention basin at the end and you collect all the water and the water sits=
in
this basin and then you filter it out very slowly. We're doing that same thing but we=
're
not doing it in one specific area, we're doing i=
t around
the site in 47 different areas where we're collecting smaller amounts of wa=
ter,
in smaller basins, holding it back a little bit and releasing it slowly.
Mr. Duplissie: So basically that swale is holding the water, ra=
ther
than it rushing off the surface, it's going to hold it, dissipate some of it
into the ground and then what doesn't within a 10 to 24 hour period will ma=
ke
it down to the wetlands.
Mr. Hrica: Some will evaporate, some will infiltrate, but t=
he largest
percentage of the water that we'll collect is going to work its way back in=
to
brooks and channels and leave the site at a zero increasing peak runoff whi=
ch
means that if you're dumping a cup of water and it's flooding, we're not du=
mping
2 cups of water, we're still adding, it's relative to the amount of flow th=
at
the brook can handle, so that the brook never overflows, so that people's b=
ack
yards don't get flooded form the big rush of water when it comes. The swales themselves aren't going=
to
hold a lot of water, they're just going to slow =
it
down. They're serpentine and
they're running a lot along the grade so the water coming down the hill will
get caught in them and then it will slowly work its way into the basin, so =
it's
a time factor there, we're basically taking the amount of water that could =
be
runoff and forced off of our site and stretching that flow over a very long
period of time so that it does not adversely impact anything off site or on
site for that matter.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 28
Mr. Houlihan: To try and keep it simple, obviously there's no =
more
or less rain as a result of our development, but there is presumably more i=
mpervious
area, so we simply altered the topography and the concept is detention and =
we
just do it different. Most projects have a (inaudible) detention basin righ=
t at
the entranceway usually, and you go in past the entry monument, past the (i=
naudible)
and then the houses are up there inside.&n=
bsp;
We're basically, it's the same concept but we're not doing the bomb
trator, we have lots of little mini basins and not only is
there no net runoff, but I think there's actually a decrease, so we're actu=
ally
doing a better job than the existing topography.
Mr. Zawadzki: Anyone else?&nb=
sp;
Any other questions from the public that haven't
already been answered?
John Brophy,
Mr. Brophy: My only concern after
hearing all this is the maintenance of these swales, I know if you put a le=
ach
field in your house, it's going to work perfect when you put it in but they
fail over time. I don’t=
' know
if you have 48 of these or whatever, in 5 years if this swamp starts to go =
off
and these things start to fail and things start to happen differently when =
all
these buildings are in, Mr. Houlihan is not going to be here to answer
questions, no one is going to really, I mean it's going to be a big problem
then, but it will be my problem.
The point is I don't know if these swales are going to, they don't l=
ast
forever, they're not going to, I know if you put a leach field in your yard=
to
catch the drainage off your house, at a certain point it fails, it has to be
dug out, it has to be repaired. If
they repair 25 of the 40 of these the impact is going to go to the existing
wetlands. I don't know how lo=
ng do
they go, how long before they do fail, I don't know if he knows the answers,
but right now he can give you numbers of the flow coming off this hill and =
it
can be less than it was than it is right now, but will it be less in 5 years
from now when these , I'm going to call them leach fields, are not working =
as
well as they did when they're brand new, as well as they do on paper, when =
they
figure out all their numbers and they say more water is getting caught than
there was. That's true as of =
today
or the day they're built, but I don't know that it's true 5 years down the
road.
Mr. Zawadzki: That's why I asked the
question earlier about who was going to maintain them.
Mr. Brophy: That's very importan=
t, who
maintains them and when.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 29
Mr. Hrica: There's a couple of
different answers to that question and the first is you can't really compar=
e a
leach field which is an underground system to this series that we're using =
for
storm water attenuation here because this is all physical. The biggest problem with leaching =
fields
is not the fact that you're putting water into the leaching field, it's the
fact that there are other things getting unto the leaching fields, mainly s=
olid
waste, and the solid waste over time, even in a perfect leaching field, will
collect and build up and create a barrier, and it basically creates a bath =
tub
because the part5ciles, they get past the septic tank or clog the soil
interface and the water still is going in, but now it's not leaching back o=
ut
of there, creates a bath tub comes up to the surface, you have a septic sys=
tem failure. Here we're completely above ground,
we're not dealing with effluents or septic so you can't really compare. There is a maintenance schedule th=
at
goes along with this and the biggest part of the maintenance schedule is si=
mple
observation. Everything is he=
re so
that it can be seen. If there=
's a
failure, it will be noticed because it's all above ground. So anything that's happening, if t=
here
is a silt buildup anywhere, if there is a failure to a system, an outlet
structure gets over washed, somebody is going to notice it and then the
Association will be responsible, so again really the biggest part of the
maintenance is not the maintenance, it's the observation to have people loo=
king
and just making sure that things are working properly and you're going to h=
ave
352 units worth of people looking. <=
/span>There
will be a lot of eyes on site, and if the owner of #242 notices something w=
rong
out in back of their unit, they're certainly going to say to the Association
because they are paying to have that problem fixed. As part of their association dues =
is to
maintain the property and they're going to expect that this property gets m=
aintained
properly.
Mr. Houlihan: I would just add tha=
t it
is important that Associations be liable and be created properly and I thin=
k we
do that pretty well, we have a track record of
that. As Ken pointed out, you=
're
going to have 352 stewards of this property, they
share the same concerns Mr. Brophy has.&nb=
sp;
They are legitimate concerns and they're going to want to make sure =
this
stuff is getting taken care of just like he does, and they're going to be
paying for it.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Anybody else? Public?=
Okay, that concludes the Public He=
aring
on Application #573.
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Polletta,
sec. Mr. Jones) to Recess the Public Hearing for App. #573 of Heritage Development Group, Inc. for
construction of Heritage Wood 352 housing units Age Restricted Planned
Residential Development on Bunker Hill and Middlebury Roads,
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #573– HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT GRO=
UP,
INC.
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 30
&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