MINU=
TES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC H=
EARING
THURSDAY=
, OCTOBER
12, 2006 - 7:00 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION #578
– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
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 about 9:00 p.m. (=
no
time given)
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 2
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Jones, Secretary, read aloud the Legal Notice for the record as follows:
Legal
Notice
The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of
Application
#578 of Anthony Caruso to conduct the following regulated activities associ=
ated
with the construction of 8-lot Residential Subdivision "Waters of
Winnemaug" and associated roadway located between
&=
nbsp; 1. =
Disturbance
of four wetland areas (2,825 sq. ft.) by deposition of approximately 380 cu=
bic
yards of clean fill for construction of a new roadway.
&=
nbsp; 2. =
Filling
of approximately 47,916 sq. ft. (1.1 acre) of upland review area with
approximately 2,200 cubic yards of fill for construction of the proposed new
roadway.
&=
nbsp; 3. =
Piping
of approximately 70 linear feet of intermittent watercourse for constructio=
n of
the proposed roadway.
&=
nbsp; 4. =
Installation
of erosion and sediment control measures within wetlands/ watercourse and
upland review area.
&=
nbsp; 5. =
Discharge
of storm runoff into inland wetland areas.
At
this Hearing interested persons may be heard and written communications
received. A copy of the appli=
cation
is on file at the Planning and Zoning Office,
Dated
at
Dated
at
Ron
Jones, Secretary
Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetland Agency
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&=
nbsp; B. =
Application
#578 of Anthony Caruso for construction of Waters of Winnemaug 7 lot Reside=
ntial
Subdivision located between
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by November 16, 2006, unless appli=
cant
grants an extension of time.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 3
Mr. Scoville: The proposal we have in front of us is for a 7 l=
ot
subdivision on
With this application =
we looked
at several alternatives as far as road layout. The first alternative was to utili=
ze the
existing road in its present location, that present location, the existing =
road
now cuts through several of the proposed lots and in addition to that cuts
through the existing land that's owned by the Town of
As another alternative=
we
looked at putting the road on the very high side of the property on the
easterly side. With that the =
grades
are, it goes up and it's more of a knoll overlooking the lake, with that th=
at
would again present driveway issues with the driveways coming down to that.=
In addition to these
alternatives there's also some alternatives that have been submitted in the
application package that show the road as it was proposed on previous
submittals back 10 and 20 years ago.
Going back to the road
location that is proposed, we're proposing standard drainage swales, standa=
rd
catch basin and curbing. With=
this
I was asked by the engineering department that we review grass swales and t=
hose
issues. Going through that th=
ere's
a few reasons which I'll explain why we chose to stick with the more standa=
rd
catch basins. The list of rea=
sons,
most of the parcels have moderately steep slope in areas (inaudible) so that
grading and maintenance of proposed road side swales would be difficult.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 4
The lots are in an R-3=
0 zone
and have on site septic systems and wells.=
Adding the roadside swales may limit the areas of septic areas and w=
ell
locations. The up gradient dr=
ainage
area to the proposed road would have a cumulative drainage area and therefo=
re
large storm flows would cause erosion of the swales. The swales are used to catch sand =
and
trash, a gross particle separator is proposed at the beginning of the new
road. This will capture sand =
from
the new road, about 400 feet from the existing road and it will add overland
flow to the site. There is al=
so a
permanent sediment basin proposed for the drainage outlet near the existing
Town open space. We are also
installing a long (inaudible) intercept the sediment (inaudible) located at=
the
proposed cul de sac. How will=
the catch
basin (inaudible) to trapping the sand and trash. The stone lined swales are visually
unsightly and difficult for homeowners to maintain. The Town maintenance cost of these
features would likely exceed that (inaudible). This is our reasoning for going wi=
th a more
standard catch basin approach.
Now to discuss a few o=
f the
changes from the previous application that was withdrawn, on the previous o=
ne
we were looking at putting in all gross particle separators. After discussions with the Enginee=
ring Department
and taking into their consideration and the Public Works consideration, we'=
ve
added a combination of measures and controls for sedimentation leaving the
site. Starting off the first =
thing
would be the gross particle separator, which is proposed to go into the
existing area of pavement, that's part of the cul de sac that's on
As we move down the mi=
ddle
section of the road where we previously had a gross particle separator we're
looking in putting in a small sedimentation basin to control the silt and
collect the (inaudible) that are coming out of there, which will have acces=
s at
the end of the, right past the Town of Watertown existing property, (inaudi=
ble)
accessible to be cleaned in the future.
Going down to the cul =
de sac
where previously the third gross particular separator was proposed, we're
proposing an infiltration swale, a water quality swale leading towards the
lake, there's a small section of road.&nbs=
p;
There's only about 250 feet of road (inaudible) being sent through t=
hese
catch basins. There's a
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 5
Moving on to the open =
space,
currently there's 2.47 acres of open space that's being offered with this
parcel. The 2.47 represents 1=
3.5%
of the area of the existing parcel.
The upland area within open space requires 50% by subdivision regula=
tions,
so 50% of 1.83 acres would be 39,857 square feet or .92 acres. The upland area within the propose=
d open
space provided 32,788 square feet.
The percentage of upland within the required 10% open space is 41.5%=
. The open space is positioned in up=
land
area by 6,770 square feet, (inaudible) very large (inaudible) to give you an
idea of comparison. The exist=
ing
currently landlocked (inaudible) open space that was previously made (inaud=
ible)
would be included in the computations and total accessible open space would=
be
3.46 plus or minus acres and total open space percentage would be 18.9%.
What we're proposing t=
o do
to mitigate the (inaudible) in the open space as an alternative is we're
proposing an improvement to the existing parcel of land at the intersection=
of
Lake Winnemaug Road and Caruso Drive.
The concept was brought to the Parks and Recreation Commission and t=
hey
looked favorable towards the improvement at this point. We're proposing to improve the exi=
sting
launch going down in to the lake, which is more like a gravel path that is
being eroded and causing erosion from the gravel when it rains, and sedimen=
t is
just washing down into the lake. To
prevent that from happening we're looking at paving the access strip going =
down
to the water so on the slope going down into the water the ramp is not goin=
g to
be washed out and people are dropping their canoe or something off the back=
of
their pickup truck and it's going to move and when they take off it won't be
kicking gravel up and putting more silt and sediment into the water. As a benefit we're paving that, we=
're
defining the parking area, proposing to planting trees planted around it in
addition to a small area for picnic tables and stuff. With the improvement to this we fe=
el
that it will clean up this area and make it more of a public benefit to the
Town and to be more of an enjoyment of the lake as a wetlands or as a water
feature for the public in Town.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 6
In addition to the
improvements at the lake, for other mitigation to our wetlands impact we're
proposing the removal of some Japanese Knotweeds that exist on the site.
I'd like to follow up =
and go
through the different areas of wetland impacts so everybody has an idea of =
what
they are and where they're located.
(Tape #3, Side A ended - may have missed some.) As we continue on from
In addition to these i=
mpacts,
it was also, we looked into the future for any possible extensions of
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 7
All of the proposed ho=
uses
are going to be served by on site septic system and proposed wells. They've been reviewed by Bob Smith=
, the
Sanitarian for the Torrington Health District that covers
That sums up my presen=
tation
f the project.
Mr. Polletta: =
On the catch basin sep=
arators
at the end of the cul de sac and at the beginning, are these temporary until
the other road goes in, or are they permanent?
Mr. Scoville: =
The existing, the prop=
osed
gross particle separator at the existing temporary cul de sac at the end of=
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> (Inaudible) that cul de sac, I mean=
it
will be, will you extend that road?
Mr. Scoville: There still will be a section of 200 feet of
drainage that will be flowing towards that area.
Mr. Polletta: The lot on the corner where the boat launch is, =
that
you're going to eliminate and put asphalt, do you think asphalt is better t=
han
concrete in that area, so it doesn't deteriorate, let's say the edge of gra=
vel
parking lot?
Mr. Scoville: I believe that asphalt and concrete would both be
similar, they're both durable so I think it would be a preference, along the
lines of concrete, I've personally worked on ramps in other towns, we've
actually used pavers for it going to the water sum to be less of an impact =
for
kayak and recreational access so I think (inaudible) something that would be
acceptable for it, (inaudible) advantage of asphalt it seems like it would =
be
easy to put down on ramps we've used pavers, it was specifically for kayaks=
and
it was just to present easy access going it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 8
I've also worked on so=
me
ramps where the D.E.P. at one time had the idea of using long concrete bars
that were chained to each other, but what I found when we worked with that,
with the wave action on lakes that comes in, it would actually remove the
stone, the (inaudible) stone that was in between the concrete so it caused =
problems
and with the ice buildup, so the asphalt or more of a concrete interlocking
paver something like that is more of a suitable thing to do it. I mean if it was a reinforced conc=
rete
pad that went all the way down that would be similar to asphalt but then
represents problems with putting concrete into water, to this part of the
water, that (inaudible) choice easy to install and check that it was put do=
wn
correctly.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> The paper I have says 8 lots subdiv=
ision,
now it's come up as a 7 lot subdivision.&n=
bsp;
Is that a typo, or is that 8 lots the one where the cul de sac is?
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> No, it is a 7 lot subdivision. The 8th lot could be considered th=
e remaining
land, but we're labeling this as not a 8th proposed building lot, but it sh=
ould
be considered a 7 lot subdivision.
The previous application there was an 8th lot that was proposed on t=
he
tip, on the point here on the water.
Due to concerns with the Heath Department that lot has since been re=
moved
so the remaining land will be shown as that, as an unimproved building lots=
, so
it will be 7 approved building lots.
Mr. Zawadzki: Now this package we have doesn't include the site
plan for the boat launch?
Mr. Scoville: It should be M1 at the very end.
Mr. Zawadzki: Any other comments?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> If not, any comments from the
public? State your name and s=
peak
into the microphone. Anybody?=
Okay, having none, any other quest=
ions
by the Commission?
Mr. Duplissie: As I understand it, this is not complete?
Mr. Zawadzki: That's correct, we h=
ave to
continue it.
Mr. Undercuffler: This Knotweed control
you're talking about, in the plan here in M1 it mentions over a 5 year peri=
od,
who is going to do that?
Mr. Scoville: The developer would be responsible for maintaini=
ng
that over a 5 year period.
Mr. Zawadzki: And after 5 years, the land owners?
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 9
Mr. Duplissie: So that would be part of a bonding question? The bonds wouldn’t be releas=
ed
until that was satisfied?
Mr. Rafey: =
We can include that in the bond.
Mr. Duplissie: Is the application complete?
Mr. Rafey: No, the only thing we are looking for is the
approval from the Torrington Area Health District, and also we received this
information on October 10th and we haven't had a chance to review it. So we can continue the public hear=
ing
next month and Chuck and I will review this to see if all of the changes we=
re
made.
Mr. Zawadzki: So this is the revised site plan that you were
waiting for, right?
Mr. Rafey: =
Yes.
Mr. Duplissie: So it's complete except for the health and upon
review from the engineer and staff?
Mr. Rafey: Yes, when I send the =
packet
to you, these were unavailable to me for review.
Mr. Duplissie: So now you have it, except for the health and
reviewed by staff, for us there’s nothing to do, we should really mak=
e a
motion to table this until the next meeting, continue it to the next meetin=
g to
give staff a chance to review health and the application.
Mr. Scoville: We've had a few meeti=
ngs
with Chuck and I was just wondering if Chuck would like to comment on some f
the changes that we've discussed?
Mr. Berger: I don't really have an=
ything
to add to what Ed said, I think we are in general agreement with the concep=
ts
as they have revised them. I'=
d like
to have an opportunity to look at them and finalize the review. It's probably minor changes if
anything. I would like to just
possibly suggest the Commission, maybe the applicant would like to talk a
little bit about the conservation restriction areas. I understood at one of our meeting=
s you
will be proposing some different language there, so you might want to hear
about that tonight. It's not =
really
an engineering item, but it's something we talked about before.
Mr. Scoville: I can briefly go over that a littl=
e bit.
Mr. Rafey: And that language is included in this book that =
you
got a copy of tonight.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 10
Mr. Zawadzki: Then just give us a brief rundown.=
Mr. Scoville: We've wrote conservation restriction language for
areas that we picked along the shoreline and along different parts of the l=
ot,
allowing for people to have access to use the existing docks that are there=
and
to utilize the land as waterfront houses.&=
nbsp;
There is proposed conservation restriction reason Lot #5 on the wate=
r,
on Lot #6 on two spots on the water, on Lot #7 on 2 spots on the water, in =
addition
to
Mr. Duplissie: So the conservation restrictions, are they
delineated, is there . . . .
Mr. Scoville: They're delineated on the record subdivision map=
.
Mr. Duplissie: Yea, but that's of what (inaudible) on site, we =
just
ran into this on another property where it was supposed to be conservation =
except
they've taken their lawn all the way down to the water. So what we want now is like a rock=
wall
boundary, postings every 25 feet with 4 x 4 posts, but we kind of lean towa=
rd
the rock wall boundary so that they don't take their lawns, they'd have to =
go
over this rock wall now, and we just ran into it on another (inaudible).
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> We can add (inaudible) putting some=
thing more
substantial than a marker, I'll look into that to see what's . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: =
Is that what we're looking for?
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b>Well (inaudible) feasi=
ble
certainly that would be ideal. Some
of these are (inaudible) where (inaudible) they had a natural placement of a
wall because pretty much of a line, a demarcation, but I don't see that her=
e,
but maybe something can be done.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 11
Mr. Scoville: We'll look into it. With our conservation areas we've =
got
existing constraints with, in certain areas there are already cottages and
houses that are built there so when the lots are developed the cottages are
going to be removed and it's not as simple as a site that's already, that's
completely forested where you go in and put up medallions and put up a stone
wall. Like for example on
Gail McTaggart, Attorney Representing Applicant<= o:p>
Atty. McTaggart: Also we added someth=
ing to
the conservation restriction that's not always there, that native species t=
o be
put in to supplement, because we know there are areas that we're trying to =
preserve
and mark out that as they need more buffering than they have right now so I
think your suggestion is very good.
We can see what we an do. We
might be able to use plantings, some way to get that area better marked
out. The other thing is I kno=
w in a
lot of the towns that I work in and represent, when that first construction
meeting takes place, they require those areas be set out on the ground from=
the
very beginning so they don't get destroyed in that process. The second part is to make sure th=
at our
record subdivision map gets that note on it so when the title insurance and
title deeds are done it gets reflected, not only when somebody buys the
property but their deed actually shows it and their attorney sees it as par=
t of
that deed, so we can work on this.
It's a very valid point, because it doesn't do you any good after it=
's
all done, but in some of these situations we're actually building up some of
these areas, rather than preserving a natural area, we're actually improving
those areas. The areas that P=
enny
Sharp in her report said have these invasive species that really need to co=
me
out, those species need to come out and new species need to come in to brin=
g up
those areas, so this is going to be both a mitigation and then once it's
mitigated, it's protected by this non-disturbance and conservation restrict=
ion
area, so it's a little bit different than the typical situation where you're
just trying to preserve what's there. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
Mr. Zawadzki: Anything else? So we need a Motion to Continue the
Public Hearing on Application #578.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
OCTOBER 12, 2006
PAGE 12
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. Polletta) to Recess the Public Hearing for App. #578 of Anthony Caruso for construction of Waters =
of Winnemaug
7 lot Residential Subdivision located between
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at about 9:25 p.m. (no time given).
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 10 minute recess.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary