MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC H=
EARING
THURSDAY=
, MARCH
15, 2007 - 7:00 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION #582
– HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
L=
ucia
DiBona
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Donato Orsini, Vice Ch=
airman
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; =
G=
len
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Thomas
Murphy, Secretary
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Scott
Marotta
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Greg Hawes
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Chris
Allen, Land Tech Engineers
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Chuck
Berger, Town Engineer
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Moosa
Rafey, Assistant Zoning Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order =
at 7:02 p.m. 2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, executed the Roll Call. Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Mr. Marotta to sit in for Mr. Duplissie, in his
absence. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC MARCH 15, 2007 PAGE 2 &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record as follows:<=
o:p> 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
observe 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 #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC MARCH 15, 2007 PAGE 3 &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Legal Notice for the record as follows:<=
o:p> Legal
Notice The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Application
#582 of Hard Rock Development, LLC to conduct the following regulated
activities associated with the construction of 7 commercial buildings and
associated parking area and 4 detention basins on a 22.1 acre parcel locate=
d on
Echo Lake Road, Watertown, CT in an IR-200 Restricted Industrial Zoning
District. &=
nbsp; 1. =
Filling
of 4,000 square feet of wetlands and 12,800 square feet of upland review ar=
ea
for construction of Building #4. &=
nbsp; 2. =
Filling
of 350 square feet of wetlands and 12,540 square feet of upland review area=
for
construction of Building #2. &=
nbsp; 3. =
Filling
of 400 square feet of wetlands and 12,390 square feet of upland review area=
for
construction of Building #3. &=
nbsp; 4. =
Disturbance
of 3,800 square feet of upland review area for construction of detention ba=
sin
#B1. &=
nbsp; 5. =
Disturbance
of 5,700 square feet of upland review area for construction of detention ba=
sin
#B1A. &=
nbsp; 6. =
Disturbance
of 14,700 square feet of upland review area for construction of detention b=
asin
#B2. &=
nbsp; 7. =
Disturbance
of 7,400 square feet of upland review area for construction of parking area=
. &=
nbsp; 8. =
Disturbance
of 4,300 square feet of upland review area for construction of Building #7.=
&=
nbsp; 9. =
Disturbance
of 7,300 square feet of upland review area for construction of detention ba=
sin
#B3. &=
nbsp; 10. Insta=
llation
of erosion and sediment control measures within upland review area, wetlands
discharges storm water into inland/wetlands area. 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 Tom
Murphy, Secretary Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetland Agency CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC MARCH 15, 2007 PAGE 4 3. =
Hearing
of Applications &=
nbsp; A. Application
#582 of Hard Rock Development, LLC for construction of 7 commercial buildin=
gs
and associated parking areas located on Echo Lake Road, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by Apri=
l 19,
2007, unless applicant grants an extension of time. Mr. Tedesco: We're proposing an industrial proje=
ct on
23 acres of property in our residential zone, industrial park. Basically 10 years ago this site w=
as
already approved by the Wetlands Commission, sorry to be redundant from the
last meeting but I can see there are some new members here. 10 years ago there was approval by=
this
Commission, not the same members, but this Commission regarding 110,000 squ=
are feet
of industrial building. At th=
at
time they were also given a permit for 24,000 square feet of disturbance of
actual filling of wetlands. T=
onight
we are proposing, I think there might have been one number misquoted but we
could talk about that, we're looking at I think 4,750 square feet of distur=
bance. Regarding
the property, this section here, there's 23 acres is the whole piece and we=
're
basically using half of it for the buildings, approximately 10 acres and th=
en
this part here which is a combination of some dry land and probably 80%
wetlands would be given in a conservation easement to the Watertown Land Tr=
ust,
a blanket conservation easement. Regarding,
I'll probably let the paid professionals tell you some more of the ins and =
outs
about the rest of the endeavor here.
One thing I did want to stress, being that, most of you might know I=
am
a commission member on Planning and Zoning so I have to walk a pretty fine =
line
with some of the things I have to say here, but in front of us right now we
have an application for retail development and industrial land, and I'm not
here saying that that is good or bad, I have to keep that opinion to myself,
but if you're one in the thinking that industrial land should be industrial,
this is one way to do it before there would be a potential zone change in t=
he
future and retail would gobble up a piece like this. That's why I'm proposing industria=
l, and
I'm proposing to start it as soon as I could get my approvals and go from
there. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC MARCH 15, 2007 PAGE 5 Charles Spath, Engineer, Stuart Somers Company Mr. Spath: I was not able to att=
end
the wetlands walk, I apologize for that, I had a prior commitment and someo=
ne
was going to the walk from my office and it got forgotten so I just wanted =
to
make that point. The project =
itself,
as Mark explained, half of the property is looking at getting developed, it=
's
less than half, but as you can tell by looking at it here, the actual wetla=
nd
soils that we're talking about that are affected that we're filling is 4,750
square feet and those are made up of 3 wetland bodies. Those wetland bodies, the largest =
is
right here on the front property line, that's the largest area. It's right in here, that's the lar=
gest
and just to the right of that there's another small wetlands pocket here, a=
nd
there's another one, a very small one, I think it's just underneath this gr=
een
right here. This is the large=
st
right here that's made up. Th=
ese
wetlands were not originally found when the subdivision was done,
these were found when we sent our soil scientist out there. The wetlands in the re=
ar
here, basically they're about the same as what was originally delineated ba=
ck
10 years ago. These wetlands =
on the
prior application, there was over half an acre getting filled, I just wante=
d to
point that out, about 24,000 square feet.&=
nbsp;
That was approved by this Commission. About 5 years ago it was no longer
valid, they ran out of time, the permit was only good for 5 years, so about=
10
years ago it was approved, about 5 years ago it was no longer valid, but I =
want
to make a point, we are not filling any of those wetlands. As a matter of fact, we would be f=
illing
no wetlands if these pockets were not found at this tim=
e,
it was re-delineated for this meeting.&nbs=
p;
If we used the original wetlands mapping we wouldn't be here right n=
ow,
so these are newly found wetlands pockets. On this site we propos=
e to
handle the detention with above ground detention basins. Also we have underground storm wat=
er
detention galleys proposed. I=
t was
pipes, but then we later switched them to underground concrete galleys, so =
the
roof drains for these two buildings here will be detained in a galley system
about 230 feet in back of this building, actually it's piped 230 feet and t=
hen
piped 230 feet here. If we use
concrete galleys they're larger and it shrinks up the actual length, we may=
do
that, there's a couple of actions. The above ground deten=
tion
basins that are proposed, there are 4, one here that acts as a sediment bas=
in
prior to going in the other detention basin, there's one here and one
here. These basins, originall=
y what
was proposed was a gross particle separator for the spacing here to pick up=
any
sediment, sand, trash. There =
is
also one proposed for this detention basin here. We were utilizing this detention b=
asin
to clean the sediment out before it would reach the wetlands. We have just recently added another
gross particle separator, so that's 3 gross particle separators on the proj=
ect
and then there's the detention basin to also catch sediment. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC MARCH 15, 2007 PAGE 6 There is an existing, =
for
those of you who have been to the site, you probably parked up at the end of
the Mr. Polletta: You're saying that yo=
u've
got 4,750 square feet of wetlands; are the buildings over the wetlands? Mr. Spath: Yea. Mr. Polletta: Are you going to fill=
in
the wetlands, correct? Mr. Spath: There are 3 pockets of
wetlands that we're filling in. Mr. Polletta: I wasn't at the field=
trip,
but I went there today so I have an idea of what it looks like, but there w=
as
an area right behind the building in the back which I don't know the name of
it, but there's a factory right in the back, and there were some wetlands.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Are you going into those wetlands?=
Mr. Spath: No, I don't think we'=
re
going into the wetlands. Mr. Polletta: I'm talking about the=
se
wetlands over here? Mr. Spath: No, this wetlands her=
e we
are filling, in back of the building to the left as you pull in. Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible) over or n=
ot? Mr. Spath: No, we are. This is the largest area of wetlan=
ds. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC MARCH 15, 2007 PAGE 7 Mr. Polletta: So this would totally=
be
filled in. Mr. Spath: That would be filled
in. There's an isolated pocket
there, there's one right here, and the other one is real small, I know it's right in here somewhere. Here it is. Mr. Polletta: You showed the parkin=
g lot
between the buildings, why are you filling in the (inaudible)? Another parking lot in the back? Mr. Spath: Right here? Actually this area right here, it'=
s a
pocket of wetlands, it's just a traffic flow, this is the back of the build=
ing
that would be accessed with garage doors. Mr. Polletta: So you'll use it as a
driveway. Mr. Spath: Yea. This pocket of wetlands is an isol=
ated
pocket. It's not, you know th=
ere
are 9 acres of wetlands on this property and we're filling 1/5 of an acre, I
think, right? 1/10
of an acre. This is the
area, this larger area down here with all these wetland=
s,
those are not being filled at all. <=
/span>There
are some detention ponds that will be built close proximity that we do have=
a
contractor that we've worked with in the past that it shows we can build ri=
ght
up to the edge, well not right on the edge, but 10 feet away from the wetla=
nds
we can build there and not disturb those wetlands. The square footage we're looking at
filling is this one, this small pocket here and this small pocket here. These small pockets I've found in
baseball fields before and lawns that are mowed, Joe, you had them on your
piece, small pockets of wetlands you don't think are wetlands and they come
out, that's wetlands and then the spot where there is water, that's not
wetlands. Mr. Polletta: Type of soil. Mr. Spath: Yes, it's by soil, so =
these
were found because the newer view these pockets showed up. On the old they were never there.<=
o:p> Mr. Polletta: The lower building t=
hat
you have, now how close is that to the wetlands? Is that right next to it? Mr. Spath: The wetlands edge is=
over
here, it's not right next to the wetlands, no. Mr. Polletta: How about behind? CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC MARCH 15, 2007 PAGE 8 Mr. Spath: This is not wetlands=
at
all behind here. These detent=
ion
basins will become wetlands in the future if they stay wet on the bottom, b=
ut
no, the edge of the wetlands, if you follow my finger here, there's a lot of
green on this map, but this is the edge here, there's a little point that c=
omes
out and then it follows along the back and returns, so it's one pocket, and
then there's a piece that comes up here and goes around like that, and then=
it
the back there's a large wetlands.
And this shows this is a very large wetla=
nds
along Turkey Brook, so this is a large with a small corridor piece up here =
and
this large piece here, and it's the isolated pockets that we're talking abo=
ut,
1, 2, 3. Mr. Polletta: Which
building is within the 50 foot setback? Mr. Spath: There is no building=
in the
50 foot setback of these wetlands.
The building within the 50 foot setback, around this pocket, that wo=
uld
be part of this building, this building, and this building. It's shown by a red line on here.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Those might be hard to see. Do you want me to bring this over =
and
you can take a look at it?
Mark Tedesco, Applicant
Mr. Polletta: No.
Mr. Spath: Ed, do you have the a=
reas
for those wetlands, "C" and "D", the exact areas on
those? 300 and 400 square fee=
t, so
your family room is probably twice the size. This is the larger one. The water that flows pre and post =
flows,
are less so did that because of Turkey Brook. We also have a long distance betwe=
en
these outflows for this water to reach Turkey Brook. That was well thought out. We also can add more detention if =
we had
to for these buildings, for these areas, but our calculations work for what=
we
have now. There is also some =
other
things we can do, we can add clean water possibly from the roofs to these
wetlands areas, we've thought about that and we talked about that with Chris
Allen and Moosa.
Mr. DiBona: What about all the wa=
ter
from the parking lots?
Mr. Spath: All of the parking lo=
t is
curbed and all of that water is going into gross particle separators, it's
going into regular catch basins which will go into the gross particle separ=
ator. I can have a salesman from there c=
ome to
the meeting tonight, but these units cost like $20,000 a piece, these are b=
ig
units cause that's what you need to handle for this parking, and so before =
you
would even go into the detention basin, all the sediment is caught and those
separators, it's a little different than public private being taken care of,
those will be put on a maintenance schedule with a professional company to =
come
and inspect, I don't know if your company does it, we don't, they may, but =
just
yearly inspections to see if they need to be cleaned, so it's monitored.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 9
Mr. Zawadzki: On one of these write=
ups
you have, you're talking about a section of rip rap you're going to put out=
in
the back there. I think that =
was a
result of Chris Allen's recommendation.&nb=
sp;
Where does that go and how does that impact the wetlands?
Mr. Spath: I think that area that
we're talking about, Chris can tell me if this is wrong, I did not see this
area personally, someone from my office went out to look at it, it's right here, there was a scour area. Mark did take some pictures today.=
In your regulations it allows that=
to be
fixed and doesn't need an application.&nbs=
p;
That was found on the site. <=
/span>Chris,
did you find that? Okay, and I had Don Nolte from our office to out and t=
ake a
look at it. (Inaudible) that
happens in a lot of places.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, what's going to =
be
required in the way of equipment and that sort of thing to get that in ther=
e?
Mr. Tedesco: Approximately right h=
ere is
where they're talking about, near wetland flag 14 and on this here on the C=
arby
property, there's an old wagon trail.
If you recall that's the trail we walked down to Turkey Brook. I had permission to use that trail=
, so I
can bring rip rap down to that area and it's a stone's throw from there.
The other thing, befor=
e we
pass this on to David Lord, is that the 3 pockets of wetlands, again here, =
here,
and here, I tried to maneuver these buildings so that I wouldn’t have=
to
be in front of you right now, but economically I just didn't do it. That's the only configuration that=
these
work, and like I said last time, this is not retail and it's not residentia=
l,
which has a much higher profit margin.&nbs=
p;
These are industrial, that's why we have such a stagnant industrial
base, a climate right now, is because there's not a lot of money in it. For me to start taking away buildi=
ngs,
the project is pretty much dead, so that's why again, when we bought the
property I had it for 2 or 3 months and we never even dreamed there were
wetlands up there. We knew fr=
om our
Phase II studies and wetland delineation studies from 10 years ago that we =
had
wetlands in the back, and I never dreamt of even touching any of that, and =
then
low and behold David Lord and Mark Beroz both, I hired 2 soil scientists for
this project, and they both came up with the same thing, that even though t=
hey
are low quality, marginal wetlands, they still wanted them delineated.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 10
Mr. Spath: After looking at the
photograph, and I did talk to Don Nolte, that can easily be done with a
wheelbarrow. I don't know if =
you
remember Hollow Road where we did 200 feet, and it created the use of 50 to=
ns
of rip rap, so that can be done in a day, 1 or 2 guys. Really what you're doing is placing
rocks along the bank and trying to keep it from eroding and the rocks or rip
rap, you can use native stone also, you don't have to use rip rap, but it
depends on what the Commission wants.
If they want rip rap or native stone, both will work. But that's not a problem, we can fix
that, it's an easy repair and that can be done right away.
Mr. Zawadzki: What about that
intermittent watercourse that's over on that eastern border (Tape #1, Side =
A ended - may have missed some).
Mr. Spath: Our detention basins =
are
for the up to a 100 year storm. The
Town requires a 50 year storm to look at a 100 year storm. We'd like to leave it at a 100 year
storm if we can. It's not lik=
e the
detention basin will get cut in half for a 50 year storm, cause then you ha=
ve
to look at a 2 year, 5 year 10, year, but we may be able you get rid of one=
of
these detention basins right here. <=
/span>We
did look at this, I think we are able to get rid of one of these and we'd h=
ave
to put some underground detention in, so we could, if the Commission would =
like
to get rid of this upper one here, we are proposing a gross particle separa=
tor
now that was originally our catch and sediment, so that could go and we can=
get
in some underground detention and it would be 1, 2, 3, th=
at
would be . . . . it would still make 100.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well by your own adm=
ission
here within 10 feet of the wetlands there, and if you can reduce the size of
the catch basins then maybe you won't have to get that close, because perso=
nally
I doubt if guys can get that close and not get into them, but that's another
subject, but that was my thinking there, was to try and find ways, what abo=
ut concrete
pavers to reduce the impermeable area?
Mr. Spath: We don't recommend co=
ncrete
pavers on a commercial site like this, so we'd do asphalt. Is that what you mean?
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, where the grass=
grows
up between?
Mr. Spath: We could add in like =
you
said, this detention that we have back here, we can add more detention for
these buildings, but we're probably still looking at getting rid of one
detention basin, we wouldn't get rid of 2, for a site this size, you could =
have
a detention basin here, another detention basin back here, and get rid of t=
hat
. . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: Well that's awfully =
steep
going down there.
Mr. Spath: Yea, we'd have to put=
it
back as a plateau.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 11
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, a lot of excava=
tion
there.
Mr. Spath: Yea, getting back the=
re is,
have more (inaudible). You
definitely, I looked at it, and we'd like to keep the 100 if we could, we c=
ould
got down to a 50 also to meet the regulations, b=
ut we
know Chuck likes 100.
Mr. Zawadzki: What about the under=
ground
galleys?
Mr. Spath: We could add some in =
there
and get rid of one detention basin.
You're not going to contain the whole site with galleys, we wouldn't=
do
it. You don't want to put
everything underground and just say it's going to work. Above ground detention basins have
worked for a long time, they were over-designed, they never, none of the on=
es
that we have ever fill up and flow, the criteria used to design them, they'=
re
going to work. That can be ta=
ken
down a notch as far as I'm concerned.
We have to design a certain way, and detention basins, on a slope li=
ke
this, what happens is you're looking at, you're trying to get a flat bottom=
to
get as much volume as you can, so this area here and this area here, you can
have a nice flat bottom across here, I mean we may be able to make this one=
a
little larger and shrink this one a little bit, we can make slight adjustme=
nts
to get away from the edge. The
person we have here tonight, the contractor, I know he can easily build the=
se
detention basins right through a stream line and you wouldn't have any prob=
lem
at all. I mean it depends on =
who
you have in there doing it. A=
nd I
know there's no guarantee what contractor goes in there, I know (inaudible)=
.
Mr. Tedesco: Have Scott explain
(inaudible).
Mr. Spath: Yea, I can have him g=
o over
the construction, but trying to explain to the Commission why we could get =
rid
of one of these easy enough, I can add some detention in here and also with
these buildings and at least get rid of one of those easy.
Mr. Zawadzki: We haven't seen any
alternatives. Normally with a
significant activity type project we like to have some alternatives to
consider.
Mr. Spath: Yea, the only alterna=
tive
that we have is in our packet, it's in there, it's one
building, it's basically what was approved before, we kept it at that.
Mr. Zawadzki: One building less?
Mr. Spath: No, it was one buildi=
ng
design that was a previously . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: (Inaudible) yea.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 12
Mr. Spath: There has been no new
scientific data or any changes since that's been approved. I know the Commission may be voting
differently on these but regarding wetlands regulations and such it really
hasn't changed in the last 5 years.
Mr. DiBona: (Inaudible)?
Mr. Spath: The building before is
about the same size as this, it's like 100, it depends on which one you look
at, it's 110 to 130 something thousand square feet, it's filling in this wh=
ole
area back here. I think it's =
in the
application, it was over half an acre, and we stayed out of that, we tried =
to
stay out of it, these detention basins, generally the best place to have a
detention basin is close to the wetlands.&=
nbsp;
Usually it's sort of more low lying, this is a steeper site, but you
know we're trying to make the 100 year storm and I know we make that if we =
take
one of these out and put some more underground in, but I like to have above
ground basins, they always work, you can see them working, they do become
wetlands after awhile. As fast as 5 years there will be trees growing out of those t=
hings.
Mr. Zawadzki: The (inaudible) orig=
inal
was 50 and 60. 50,000
and 60,000 addition (inaudible).
Mr. Spath: It was approved, yea.=
Mr. Zawadzki: 110,000 square feet.=
Mr. Spath: Yea we had to go down=
and
take a look through the files and there were a couple of different maps, but
what was approved was the 24,000 square feet, I believe it was of fill.
Mr. Tedesco: Because I had a feel=
ing
you would have some concerns about working in a detention pond area so clos=
e to
wetlands without a buffer next to it, we did a project in Southbury, it was
called Eagle's View, probably twice the size of this as far as difficulty, =
and
I brought Scott Palmer from the Beardsley Corporation here and he'd like to
just say a few words on, he's the one who would actually be doing the work,=
and
just to try and put your mind at ease on how he does it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 13
Scott Palmer, Beardsley Excavating
Mr. Palmer: This is a site we di=
d in
Southbury, the detention basins. As
we see from that site the slopes and the (inaudible) are much more severe t=
han
what we have on this property.
Looking down that slope, those are wetlands, we
were right through the buffer with some of our drainage so we had to hold a
pretty tight line. According =
to the
construction sequence with the staging that's provided, if you hold a tight
line on your staging, get your silt fence where it needs to go, additional =
hay
bales, another silt fence, take the extreme measures, I know the concern is=
in
this area here with this pond, this fill line here is only about 2 feet top=
of
berm, you're only about a 2 foot fill, 1 foot is going to be a heavy aggreg=
ate
for base on that driveway so I don't have much concern about excavation.
Mr. Zawadzki: That will all be out=
lined
in your plan of construction, correct?
Mr. Palmer: It's pretty much defi=
ned in
the plan already but we usually take it upon ourselves to beef them up, keep
the wood chips on site, they're a great filter, like this slope down here, =
just
came in to push back a little bit, you know put your silt fence up, and pri=
or
to the silt fence add a band of wood chips as a preliminary buffer to start=
catching
stuff. We can outline it as w=
e go
on site meetings, as you guys see fit, add this, what are you going to do.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> That's not a problem. Communication is the key, but it's=
not a
tough site to work. We've bee=
n on
much worse and much larger ponds.
Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, well I know you
wouldn't want to get further back there cause it=
does
get steeper.
Mr. Palmer: No, and you're just
disturbing more and more, getting in and . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: You're just disturbi=
ng,
taking out more trees and everything else.
Mr. Palmer: The last large pond w=
e did
we probably took out 7,000 yards (inaudible) they're over killing it more a=
nd
more. We try and keep it as t=
ight
as you can for access.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 14
Mr. Zawadzki: That was another tin= g, one of the comments in one of these recommendations was to reduce the amount of clear cutting, like 3/4 of an acre and your answer was that you moved that = or revised it so that you didn't need to do as much clear cutting. Where exactly is that on the map?<= o:p>
Mr. Spath: The total land we're =
clear-cutting
is 3/4 of an acre. I don't th=
ink we
reduced it any more from that. You
said we reduced if from that?
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, there was a
Mr. Allen: I think we made that
recommendation, removing that we had soil stockpiled.
Mr. Spath: Yea, there was a soil
stockpile.
Mr. Zawadzki: (Inaudible) clear 3/=
4 of
an acre to put a soil stockpile.
Mr. Spath: Yes, and that's been =
redone,
the sequence of construction, so that's not been, so it's been lessened but=
I'm
not sure if it's still 3/4 or less.
I know that's been changed, I'm not sure if it's 3/4 or less than 3/4
now.
Mr. Undercuffler: Where is it?
Mr. Spath: It's back by those (i=
naudible)
where it was.
Mr. Allen: It kind of (inaudibl=
e).
Mr. Spath: Okay, stockpile here.=
I think what happened when we had
someone review them at the office, when we started going sequence of
construction, I needed an area for topsoil and they just placed it there, a=
nd
it actually got by my engineer's audits and that's what happened, it's kind=
of
an odd place for it, which I agree.
Mr. Undercuffler: You're saying it won=
't be
back there now?
Mr. Spath: No. This will be done in phases. We did a phase plan and we tried t=
o phase
it, there's a cutoff in this area that we're able to move this soil from he=
re
over this area but the detention basins, it's all of our plan, the detention
basins be built first and a temporary sediment control be put up, and then =
in
our phasing we're looking at moving this soil here over here. We talked to Mark and he's talking=
about
doing a couple of buildings at a time, so it’s not like were going to=
go
in there and build all these buildings.
Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible)?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 15
Mr. Spath: 2 buildings at a time=
. I think through the phasing plan .=
. . .
. I think it's kind of detailed.
Mr. Polletta: My question, I went
through Land Tech and you had a lot of questions and I'm wondering if they'=
re
all answered, and I'd like to hear from Land Tech, did you receive all the
answers from the questions you asked?
Mr. Allen: We prepared a letter=
on
March 1st which had a bunch of comments on it. Since that time we met with the
applicant and they submitted 2 sets of revised plans, actually the latest w=
as
dropped off yesterday and I just prepared a second letter today, the March =
15th
letter, and it did address most of the comments, I just had a few additional
comments or ones that I kind of reiterated (inaudible). If you want I could . . . .
Mr. Polletta: As long as they're
answered because at this point if there's something that you know that we d=
on't
know, (inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, why don't you
highlight them, Chris.
Mr. Allen: I'll just go through=
the
March 15th letter because the other items in the March 1st letter have been
addressed. And a lot of this =
stuff
has already been touched on by the applicant. The first comment I had had to do =
with
the wetland buffers which we've already been talking about tonight. I made that comment in the original
letter of March 1st and in response they added a more detailed construction
sequence to the most recently revised plans which will pretty much take car=
e of
a lot of those concerns, but it's always our position that if you can provi=
de
somewhat of a buffer area, you're providing a greater protection to the
wetlands. No matter how good =
your
contractor is or how good your plans are, it's just always that potential t=
hat
if you're right up against the wetlands you're going to have some secondary
impetus on those wetlands . . . . silt fence is =
going
to fall down and then sediment going into the buffer is going to be right d=
irectly
in the wetlands.
Mr. Undercuffler: Has anything been sai=
d here
tonight that allays your concerns on that?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 16
Mr. Allen: I think it's really =
up to
you folks to see what comfort level you have with work close to the edge of=
the
wetlands. I just think I need=
to
inform you that there is that potential, there is always that potential, the
closer you get to the wetlands there's always the potential for some sort of
wetland impacts. Not even con=
struction
phase, once this site is built, you can have clearing right up to the edge =
of
the wetlands, the trees that are in there now are
protected because they have trees up against them that are protecting the
land. If you take all the tre=
es
down next to it, the trees that are in the wetlands have very shallow roots=
and
are very prone to be (inaudible) you've probably seen that yourself, walking
through wetlands, you get a lot of wind throws so if you expose an edge of a
wetland, and you cut a lot of these trees with shallow roots right up there
exposed to the wind, you have (inaudible).=
Whether that's a huge impact, it's just something that you need to be
aware of it.
Mr. Undercuffler: We're talking about o=
ver
there on the right hand side of the drawing, east side.
Mr. Allen: Yea, there's
a few areas where they're pretty close to the edge of the wetlands where
they've got that 1:1 slope, just north of this small building.
Mr. Spath: This right here.
Mr. Allen: Yea, right there.
Mr. Spath: Yea, that will all be=
rip
rapped slope.
Mr. Allen: Detention basin #2, =
near
the outflow (inaudible).
Mr. Spath: You said the outfall, you're saying here, you don't need . . . .
Mr. Allen: (Inaudible.) A little bit of detention, it's pr=
etty
much right on the edge of the wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, that's the one y=
ou
might be able to eliminate.
Mr. Spath: Yea, we've already lo=
oked
into that, we can get rid of this one, it's not a problem. These here I can move, try to move=
them
somewhat farther away and still make the 100 year storm. We did reshape them from the first
little bit, but we can move them a little bit farther away. We've done this a lot when we're c=
lose
to wetlands. I understand he'=
s saying
there's always the chance there's a storm or something happens, there's alw=
ays
going to be that chance, and to tell you the tru=
th,
whether you're 20 feet or 5 feet from the wetlands, it's not going to make =
much
difference. It's communicatio=
n.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 17
On this site we do ins=
truct
these detention ponds, we would like to keep in close contact with Moosa, t=
he Town,
third party, that's if you feel that's warranted, and we'll also be there.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We've done a lot of stuff close to
wetlands in Town and we haven’t had a problem, it has to do a lot wit=
h communications,
it's the truth, and it has to do with the guy doing the job, the
excavator. If you get a good =
excavator
in there, cause he's going to call you and ask what do you want me to do ne=
xt
and everybody is under control, but I've seen it happen before, if you get =
the
wrong guy in there, and everything ends up down the bottom.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, we've seen it t=
oo,
that's why we're cautious.
Mr. Spath: The way you can set t=
his
up, I'd ask them and we'd agree to, third party review and we have a meeting
before any of this major work is done so we all understand where we are.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well this is real se= nsitive, it's sensitive from the Town's standpoint because of Turkey Brook and all of you know, Mark is well aware of it and the rest of us are too, that it's the kind of thing that you don't want to get out of hand, and it easily could.<= o:p>
Mr. Spath: We've done a lot of t=
hese
and that's a lot due to contractor and really being communication that can =
be
put into play right now, I mean we have that now, but you can strengthen th=
at
at this time, that no work is to be done in the basins until this, no work =
is
to be done over here until this is stabilized and agreement, and a third pa=
rty,
for on site monitoring. Chris Allen can be hired to go out =
there
and make sure the silt fence is up, so what he would do is before any storm=
he
would run out there or he'd call us and we'd run out there and we'd take a
look, if he couldn't make it, we'd make sure the hay bales were up and get =
the contractors
in and have the hay bales. Th=
ere
has to be on site hay bales stocked here at all time, wood chips at all tim=
es,
you can't have a site that you have to run and go get hay bales.
Mr. Zawadzki: There were a couple =
of
applications of erosion blankets, where were those going to be utilized?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 18
Mr. Spath: I think the erosion
blankets would be any steep areas, this area here. This is all rip rap. Most of the areas of all the erosi=
on
blankets and even areas that may not be noted on there erosion blankets, if=
the
contractor sees that it should he's going to add it. It's kind of a call. It's not like oh, it doesn't say e=
rosion
blankets so I'm not going to. What
we're trying to do is no erosion.
The best thing is to build it, look at the weather, and see what's g=
oing
to happen, and that day instead of building this it's going to be beefing up
these because you know a storm is coming and maybe the grass hasn't taken
yet. That's where the third p=
arty
review comes in. It's the same
thing, watching the weather, he's going to get a call and we can go tell th=
ese
guys or he's going to go tell these guys, and that's what's happened in the
past 20 years, there's not that much communication, there's no on site stor=
age
for erosion. The silt fence w=
ould
blow through, there would be silt fence in the wetlands, and it would stay =
that
way for 6 months until someone said you have to clean that up to get your b=
ond
back.
Mr. Zawadzki: Chris, did you have =
more
comments?
Mr. Allen: Yea. We've asked for the design calcula=
tions
for the sediment basins, traps, and we'd still like to see those at some po=
int.
Mr. Spath: I think he worked on =
those
today.
Mr. Allen: There's a note on the
erosion sediment control plan that (inaudible) used on slope 2:1 and steeper
and we recommended a slope steeper than 3:1. Just a minor c=
omment.
Mr. Spath: So if it's a 2.5:1 (i=
naudible).
Mr. Allen: They mentioned tonig=
ht
that they added another gross particle separator to detention basin #1
(inaudible) we asked that they provide the documentation on the treatment w=
ater
quality volume and so long as that takes care of that . . . .
Mr. Spath: Yea, that will take c=
are of
that and (inaudible).
Mr. Allen: Yea, my last comment=
was
about whether or not the basin is going to be able to support the emergent
wetland plants that are shown on the landscape plans (inaudible)?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 19
Mr. Spath: Well what we'd like t=
o do,
we'd like to have wet bottom basins if we can. The reason they're pretty far away=
from any
residents, they're not creating breeding pools for mosquitoes right next to
someone's house. People have =
that
worry too, so there's good and bad with everything. But we designed wet bottoms, but h=
ad to
make the dry bottoms so we do propose these to be wet bottoms and these nee=
d to
become wetlands in the future. I've
seen it happen in almost all of the detention basins that are close to a
wetlands, and you put a wet bottom, trees will start growing in it, it just
takes over, you wouldn't believe it.
Detention basins, everyone wants to go down there and clean it, but =
really
after everything is stabilized, if everything is stabilized and everything =
is
growing, we're talking about a year and a half, two years, not the first ye=
ar, but
trees start growing in there and they don't ever get cleaned. I mean that's what I've seen. They fill up little, but they start
growing grass and nobody goes in there with a machine, pretty hard (inaudib=
le). As a matter of fact, a lot of Comm=
issions,
because then it does become a wetlands, I've seen commissions that won't al=
low
them to go get cleaned, so then they're fighting the Highway Department.
I think one of the com=
ments
that he mentioned, we're taking care of the gross particle separator, I can=
get
this detention basin out of here, put some underground detention, that's re=
ally
close to the wetlands like you said.
This one over here I could probably put a little detention, get that=
a
little farther away, and like we said, communications being careful, I don't
think we'll have a problem building that close to the wetlands, and this wi=
ll
lessen that area, this area here, we can keep a little farther away and then
we're really watching that one area here.&=
nbsp;
This is close to the wetlands here, and we could jog the parking aro=
und
here, I don’t think it's necessary we have rip rap slope in front of =
it,
it's just a piece of the wetlands that comes up a finger and I don't think
that's a problem to construct.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well that's due to t=
he contour
anyway, right?
Mr. Spath: Yea. The grade starts, I mean the wetlands starts picking up the water there, but I
don’t think that's a problem building that. If the Commission requires it, we =
could
take some parking spaces out of there.
Mr. Zawadzki: Chris, you mentioned=
you
walked out there on the 16th and it was snow covered. Were you satis=
fied,
that you saw enough or did you go back out after the snow?
Mr. Allen: I didn't have a chanc=
e to
go back out after it snowed, but from what I saw I really didn't have any
questions with the wetlands (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE \20
Mr. Polletta: Chris, because this =
is not
a residential subdivision like on
Mr. Allen: I don't know, the point that you're getting at is water quality?
Mr. Polletta: Right.
Mr. Allen: I think what they've=
been
designed it's going to have a wet bottomed basin (inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Allen: Yea, well I suppose =
you
can have something different, but it is always good to have surface detenti=
on,
if oil spills you're going to see it in there and if there is . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: In a residential
subdivision that has something going into the wetlands, something like this=
, do
you feel comfortable with the way it's designed?
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Mr. Undercuffler: To the right of that =
right
most detention pond, that easternmost, is that all woods in there?
Mr. Spath: That's a path.
Mr. Undercuffler: I was wondering if t= here was any potential of moving that pond to the right?<= o:p>
Mr. Spath: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Zawadzki: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Undercuffler: Well I understand tha=
t, but
you've also come down, you've moved across the property line there so why
couldn't you move across over there?
Mr. Spath: There was actually an
access easement to build this here.
We could contact the neighbor to see if we could move this pond
over. We could check.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 21
Mr. Tedesco: I'm not trying to pl=
ay
hardball with the Commission, but the Carby Corporation is the one who sold=
the
property to Dymax and they sort of have buyer's regret, seller's regret at =
this
point, and I'm not willing to go to the neighbor, bad enough I went on his
property to delineate this drainage swale without his permission, and as an
applicant I'm not willing to get any closer to that line or go into his
property.
David Lord. Profession Wetland Scientist and
Environmental Consultant
Mr. Lord: I believe you have 2
documents in your packet for this application which I prepared. The first is a wetland delineation
characterization report dated January 24th. The wetlands, as you've heard, were
looked at by two soil scientists, they're shown on the site plan and
drawings. I'll refer to, let =
me
back up, there are 2 wetland soil types on the s=
ubject
property. The natural soil wh=
ich is
found generally in the eastern portion, the area is not proposed for
development. Leyster
wetland soils is a gravelly, fine, sandy loom type soil relatively f=
ree
draining. The interior and th=
e wetland
areas that we are proposing to impact are classified taxonomically because
they've been disturbed to the point where they're not a natural soil condit=
ion,
they don't have the natural soil profiles.=
These are described as aquint soils disturbed in character. The fact is that all of the soils =
on the
site originated from the same glacial ecologic process, the interaction with
the groundwater table that's created the wetlands that are identifiable by a
soil scientist to meet your regulations.
Mr. Zawadzki: Do you think that the
small pockets in question were manmade?
Mr. Lord: Definitely "B&qu=
ot;
and "C"; "A" is questionable, it's sort of like in betw=
een,
some of it is disturbed, some of it appears to be natural. What I'm calling wetland area &quo=
t;A"
is about 4,000 square feet in size.
It appears to receive surface water runoff from the adjacent industr=
ial
property to the west, moving in, it's a slight depressed area, it doesn't
appear to have persistent innovation but it does have a slight depression w=
ith
no apparent outlet in there. =
It's
trees and shrubs in that area, it also has a number of what are recognized =
as
evasive species and the multifloral rose, Russian hollows, other invasive
species either in or surrounding it.
Wetland area "B&q=
uot;,
which is approximately 300 square feet, appears to have been a hole that was
just dug by a backhoe bucket, took out a couple of buckets, created a little
puddle, holds water, identified as a wetlands, that's definitely an aquint =
to
the situation. The area is to=
tally
overgrown with multifloral rose.
Without a machine getting in there physically you couldn’t have
found this wetland.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 22
Wetland area "C&q=
uot;
is immediately upslope of an existing stone wall. Stone walls historically have crea=
ted
mini detention areas because of the fine material and soils. When it was an
agricultural use the fine particles of soil moved down, the stone walls act=
ed
as a sediment filter mechanism, the fines settled out and trapped and hold =
back
water. That's more a little p=
ocket
of wetlands, Wetland "C" which is "B" and "C"=
one
is 300 and the other one is 400 square feet, very small areas (Tape #1, Sid=
e B
ended - may have missed some) Wetland area "C" has red maple arou=
nd
it, but it's also (inaudible) extensively by barberry, multifloral rose and
other invasive, again an indication of past agricultural existence. Wetlands "D" and "E=
"
are discharge type wetlands, the upper or western
portion is where the groundwater that's under the site discharges the surfa=
ce
water. You have wetland soil =
areas
at the beginning or discharge point.
Those wetlands narrow the well defined watercourse (inaudible) down =
into
the Turkey Brook direction on the site.
From a functional stan=
dpoint
"A" generally would have some limited nutrient filtering sediment
trapping potential function. =
I say
potential, it's not currently receiving those but it does have, because of =
the
physical characteristics and shape, have that
potential function. Wildlife
habitat they're limited affected by the adjacent land use, the high level of
noise, human activity, very limited from a wetland associated wildlife habi=
tat
function. "B" and
"C", very small, have really no difference in function. They have the adjacent uplands nex=
t to
the wetland areas. "D&qu=
ot;
and "E" definitely have more significance from an environmental
standpoint. They are not
disturbed. They haven't veget=
ation
(inaudible). They are of suff=
icient
size in vegetated diversity to provide some significant wetland associated =
wildlife
habitat. The flatter areas,
although they do have (inaudible) there is the potential for some attenuati=
on
of surface flows, vegetated uptake (inaudible) acts as nutrients and pollut=
ants
(inaudible) affects within wetlands areas "D" and "E".<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> That's found in the January 24th r=
eport.
The second one, which =
is a
later one, is actually a typo, it also says January 24th, it
should be March 9th. That is =
in
response to several comment letters, Mr. Allen's original letter and some b=
y the
Town Engineer to the applicant in response to that. I went out on March 8th and looked=
at
the drainage swale which is offsite to the south,
you've heard some descriptions of that.&nb=
sp;
It is a discharge swale, or (inaudible) area on adjacent industrial
site. It appears that this ar=
ea was
originally designed as a discharge swale, but due to lack of maintenance, it
now has the ability to have standing water sitting in there by small little
deposits of sediment, leaves, and brush.&n=
bsp;
It's holding back and trapping water which has increased the hydrolo=
gy
or wetness of the area. It has
wetland vegetation, marginal vegetation, but wetland vegetation, those are =
the
factors that led me to classify it as an intermittent watercourse. Wasn't intended as one, wasn't
constructed to be one, but due to the lack of maintenance which is a fairly
common condition, this drainage ditch is now classified as an intermittent
watercourse.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 23
The second point which=
is on
page 2 concerns the intermittent watercourse channel and I described it as =
approximately
a 40 foot section of bringing in the wetland flag 69 and just giving you the
flag that's on the opposite side of the intermittent watercourse. You've already heard and seen, the=
re's a
channel section which has a windblown tree that's fallen and as water comes
down it hits the base of that fallen tree, and is deflected to the south, w=
raps
around and it's starting to meander the slope in the channel. The bank, which is the northern si=
de of
the bank which is the bigger slope bank, is about 2 to 3 feet high, (inaudi=
ble)
does need re-stabilization. I=
n my
report I'm recommending that that channel actually just be restored with the
native stone that's in our (inaudible) stone in the watercourse channel, ju=
st
push the stone out, reconstruct the intermittent watercourse channel which =
is
visible below this section of watercourse channel and upstream of the
watercourse channel with the native stone, create that 2 to 3 foot wide cha=
nnel
of rock lined swale, and if necessary, cut back by hand the existing bare s=
oil
which is close to being vertical, stabilize with some grass, vegetation in =
that
section where it's done, very minimal restoration work, certainly can be do=
ne
by hand.
Mr. Zawadzki: That's the section w=
e saw
in the photographs.
Mr. Lord: Yes, and it's also in=
my
report. The last comment that=
I'll
make and then I'll be happy to answer any questions or concerns, the detent=
ion basins
and I guess I'm the one that fermented the concept of some areas within the
detention basins from what was originally constructed, these detention basi=
ns
are an extremely efficient method of improving water quality that comes off=
the
site. You've already heard th=
at we
have a series of catch basins with sumps, we have hydrogen ibex swirl separ=
ator
type structures which are the first, actually the second stage of sediment
removal, and discharge into a multi chamber type detention structure. The first area of the detention ba=
sin is
a sediment 4 bay, another line of sediment protection within the storm water
treatment train, and then a vegetation (inaudibl=
e)
sediment 4 bay before discharge goes and the creation of the sump areas ext=
ends
the amount of detention, residency time for the storm water in the bottom of
the basin. What we're looking=
to do
is trap and collect and hold in that sump area t=
he
first inch of runoff from the contributing drainage area in the bottom of t=
he basin. Now the ideal condition is wet bot=
tom,
stays wet, stays shallow water, we can put in the emergent vegetation that =
does
the best job of treating the storm water.&=
nbsp;
Another type of process in treating the water allows the water to fi=
lter
and infiltrate through the bottom of the basin. Not quite as effective in removing=
all
of the contaminants or potential contaminants in the storm water, but is a
recognized effective method of doing it.&n=
bsp;
The point I'm trying to make is whichever conditions we have in the
bottoms of the basin, we can treat vegetation (inaudible) to make the best =
of
the existing soil conditions.
Either a wet bottom, which I agree these systems will likely develop
into wetlands, (inaudible) with the amount of water they have a tendency to
seal themselves, create wetland conditions or saturate soil conditions in t=
he
bottom of the basins.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 24
Mr. Zawadzki: I know one thing that
creates the wet bottom detention basin is the height of the outlet from the=
m,
but what about that soaking in, in other words even if you get a rainstorm =
and
you say your outlet is 1 foot higher than the inlet, so you have theoretica=
lly
a foot of water in there, but that can soak into the ground eventually too,
can't it?
Mr. Lord: Right, that's the pr=
ocess
or that's the two types of systems that I'm talking about. That 1 foot (inaudible) area is ac=
tually
measured off of the low flow outlet for the control of storm water from the=
storm
water management standpoint. =
The
bottom area in the central section is a foot below that will flow out, that=
's
where we're trapping that first inch of runoff, we're
trying to keep that water in there as much time as possible. If it does seal, and I think it wi=
ll
seal based on my experience with these types of structures, we create a
persistent inundated emergent rush type wetland system on the bottom of the=
basins. In the event that we don't the res=
idency
time within this, the topsoil material that will be placed in there will sl=
ow
down the infiltration, it won't be a rapid infiltration right through the
bottom, we'll get extended retention within the =
bottom
of the basin, even though we're going to get infiltration. It's not quite as effective in tre=
ating storm
water quality, but it is a recognized method in the 2004 Storm Water Qualit=
y Manual,
it is a design practice to allow the infiltration through the bottom of the
basin.
Mr. Zawadzki: Now we're talking ab=
out
eliminating that basin, the little one there, "A", what do you th=
ink
of that?
Mr. Lord: Well when I looked at=
it,
it did not have a hydrogen (inaudible) soil separator as a second stage.
Mr. Zawadzki: One for the other, r=
ight.
Mr. Lord: The last comment I'll=
make
and then I'll try and answer any questions you may have, you talked before =
about
infiltration versus surface detention.&nbs=
p;
The concern from a water quality standpoint that you have to be awar=
e of
is that when you (inaudible) surfaces with vehicle traffic, that type of wa=
ter
you generally don't to just put into the ground through infiltration, becau=
se
that has the potential to have contaminants in it.
Mr. Zawadzki: You mean like pavers=
?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 25
Mr. Lord: Like pavers, where yo=
u're
going to have. Pavers are
appropriate for excess overflow parking, they're used, West Farms Mall is a
good example, there's exception, their Holiday season parking that's not us=
ed
on an every day basis, it's very appropriate for that because you can keep
grass growing in there. What =
you'll
find is when you have those pavers with everyday traffic back and forth, it's very tough to keep grass on the pavers.
Mr. Polletta: My main concern is w=
ith
Wetlands "A". Today=
we
took a field trip with Moosa and it was pretty ripe but that will be fully
covered, am I correct?
Mr. Lord: Yes.
Mr. Polletta: And how many square =
feet
for that piece there?
Mr. Lord: About 4,000 square fe=
et.
Mr. Polletta: That will be under t=
he
building, correct?
Mr. Lord: Correct. One of the things I looked at and =
didn't
comment on before, under an alternative concept, if you moved buildings awa=
y and
you preserve Wetland area "A", "B", and "C" I
don't see any reason to even think about an alternative. Wetland area "A", if you=
had
an alternative that reduced or eliminated this impact you built around it, =
the
thing to keep in mind is that the functioning of this system is basically g=
one,
even in a preservation standpoint with development on this site because it'=
s an
isolated pocket area, it doesn't have connection to other wetlands.
Mr. Polletta: It's by itself.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 26
Mr. Lord: I=
t's
function is basically going to be gone, once you develop, even if you stay =
50
or 100 feet away from it, but put buildings in here. What I looked at (inaudible) in
determining basically the assessment that the loss of this wetland system is
not as significant as say this wetland area of "D" was looked at
under the previous concept, where you're looking at taking a significant am=
ount
of high functioning wetland system and filling that. You basically take in an area that=
any
development (inaudible) to the east of it, it's going to be gone from the
functional standpoint.
Mr. Undercuffler: You mentioned that t=
hat
wetland that you're talking about there, that isolated was maybe created by
drainage or water coming off the neighboring property there. Where will that water go, I wonder=
?
Mr. Lord: It will be picked up =
in the
drainage from the (inaudible) yes.
The area, and like I said, this wetland, some of these soils appear =
to
be natural, it does appear to have some hydrology, it also is certainly
enhanced by what appears to be discharge from the adjacent (inaudible).
Mr. Marotta: Were any of those 3 =
wetlands
that you're talking about filling supporting any activity of breeding habit=
ats
or anything?
Mr. Lord: No. The amount of water or indentation=
or
inundation, this one probably has a maximum of about 6 inches of water, does
not appear to have the increased amount of organic matter content in the so=
il. I think you're leading to is it a
possible virile pool, generally under virile pools that I've seen you have a
very thick organic topsoil layer that acts as a sealer or as a pool area.
Mr. Zawadzki: Chuck, do you have any comments?
Mr. Berger: If you'd like I'll g=
o over
my memo real quick, just the items, highlights, and those items that haven't
been previously talked about tonight.
In your packet you have my memo dated February 25th. As Chris Allen and others have sai=
d you
have the response letter dated March 5th from Stuart Somers Company as well=
as
we met yesterday and received additional information late yesterday and tod=
ay.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 27
Just a couple of highl=
ights
on my memo, things I'd like to point out to you. On Page 1, Sheet S1, Item #3 where=
it
talks about the top width of the detention basins, I just want to point out=
to
you that if these were detention basins that were to be turned over to the =
Town
and Town maintained, we would require a 15 foot top width on the structures=
for
ease of maintenance purposes. These
basins have between an 8 and 10 foot top width which the applicant believes=
is
adequate for maintenance, and certainly for the stability of the dam the la=
rger
top width is really for easier maintenance.
Mr. Zawadzki: But these are going t=
o be
owner maintained?
Mr. Berger: Right, so that is something I wanted to point out to you.&nb= sp; This Commission, in the past, has approved narrower top widths as lo= ng as it's not to be Town maintained. On Page 2, top of the page, it talks about the possible need for a S= tate D.E.P. Dam Safety Permit. I s= till believe they should check with the State D.E.P., a Dam Safety Permit might = be required for any of these detention basins. Some of them are, at least one of them is upwards of 12 feet high an= d in the event it should fail and it was full, just want to make sure the D.E.P. doesn't want to have jurisdiction over the dam safety aspects of it. Should the Commission decide to go forward, it could be conditioned upon them seeking that answer from D.E.P.<= o:p>
About 3/4 of the way d=
own
the page on Sheet D1, Item #3, the second half of that question, we talked =
a lot
about the water quality functions and we talked a lot about that tonight as
well. Maybe I'd like to just =
go
back and briefly summarize my understanding of where the most recent plans =
are
relative to that. The souther=
nmost
detention basin and the middle basin, the water quality treatment aspects of
the areas draining to those detention basins have always been proposed to be
treated using hydro dynamic separators.&nb=
sp;
That's where that first inch of runoff is going to be treated, as pa=
rt
of the original application. =
The
detention basins are designed with 4 bay structures, and that will provide =
some
water quality benefit, but the real water quality benefit originally for th=
ose
2 basins were the hydro dynamic separators up at the top of the parking lot=
. The major function of those 2 dete=
ntion
basins were for detaining the increased flows due to the increased impervio=
us
areas. The northernmost serie=
s, the
2 basins that are in series there on the northernmost part of the property,
originally the first basin was, well originally the water quality aspect of=
the
area drained to those 2 detention basins was divided half in the first basi=
n,
half in the second basin. That
practice was a little bit questionable and the plans, and after discussions=
and
reviewing it they have decided to put a hydro dynamic separator on that sys=
tem
as well before it enters those 2 basins, and that is acceptable to us as lo=
ng
as I would request demonstration, again if this could be a condition of
approval if that's the way the Commission wants to go, that this hydro dyna=
mic
separators are designed to the latest D.O.T. standards so that we do it
correctly so that we do get that water quality treatment that has been the
subject of a lot of discussion here tonight.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 28
Mr. Zawadzki: So how do you feel ab=
out
with the addition of the separator eliminating B1A sediment pond?
Mr. Berger: I think that's a
possibility, but I think, I defer to the consultant because originally that
provided both some water quality treatment and some detention capacity; they
may have to replace that detention capacity with some underground storage is
what I think we heard tonight because there may be some balancing there,
because I believe there is some detention in that smaller basin as well, and
that would probably need to be replaced with some underground storage.
And the last thing I h=
ave
from my memo is on the last page, comments on the detention drainage study,
Item #3 talking about we wanted to be very careful that we don't increase or
change any flood conditions down on Turkey Brook after we have spent
significant funding down there. We
discussed that issue at length, they provided additional details today which
demonstrate not only have they reduced the peak flows, but they also have n=
ot
modified the timing of those peak flows and that's important, they have not
substantially modified the timing of those peak flows, and that's important
because you don't want to change the timing of when the peak flows come off=
of
this site that may coincide with something that's going on downstream and
actually worsen conditions, so they have looked at that and demonstrated th=
at
there will be no impact on Turkey Brook.
I guess the last thing=
I
want to note just on comments made tonight about the detention basin in the
future becoming wetlands areas.
That may very well be true, but we would, and there's a condition in=
the
maintenance plan of the detention basins, that they are mowed on an annual
basis. I would not encourage
allowing trees to grow within the detention basin areas, especially on the
berms. That's all I have.
Mr. Zawadzki: Do you want to respo=
nd?
Mr. Lord: Yes, just to the last=
comment. It was a comment that I made to the
development team that the trees and shrubs that were initially shown on the
detention basin berm were removed because of the dam safety and the integri=
ty
of the fill slopes. The plant=
ings
that are proposed in here originally had a combination of seed mix and 2 of=
the
basins that (inaudible) and 2 of the basins have emergent pipe issues and I
guess what we're getting at is we're going to monitor and see which of the
types of environment we are going to be able to create within the bottom of=
the
basins, and they will either be a no mow seed mix type vegetative cover that
will be established for the plant materials, the emergent shallow marsh, but
no, no mowing, maintenance can include the removal of any trees and shrubs
species that establish within that, that's a very standard condition, you w=
ant
to do that to maintain the integrity of the detention structure.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 29
Mr. Spath: I'd like to make just=
one
comment regarding the double detention basins over here. We have added the gross particle <=
span
class=3DGramE>separator, we can either keep these 2 detention basins=
or
get rid of one. I think it wo=
rks
well having it there, but if you're trying to get just a little farther away
from the detention basin, we can get rid of it but it would also be good to
keep in place, it's another factor in keeping the sediment out of the
wetlands. Chris can probably =
say
something on that but I just wanted to make that point.
Mr. Undercuffler: Are you saying to ke=
ep the
2 even with the gross particle separators?
Mr. Spath: Yes, I talked to the
client, and any, this is a little close to the wetlands right here, we can
watch that one area there, but it would be better to have that in place, I
think, and add the gross particle separator and then there wouldn't be the
issue, we're losing the 100 year storm that's getting tighter than having t=
o put,
this was designed like I said this is the roof drains that are going into t=
hese
detention areas and we don't want to have any contain, any parking lot
underneath the ground because of the oil and such.
Mr. Tedesco: I want the Commissio=
n to
realize that myself and my partner, we have spar=
ed no
expense to make this done the right way.&n=
bsp;
Mr. Allen and Mr. Berger suggested, I don't think they said it was
absolutely necessary, but they suggested another particle separator, we did=
n't bat
an eye, we just did it. Anoth=
er 20,
about another 10, put it in. =
As far
as, again, as I said at the first meeting, it's a time sensitive project an=
d I
know the final decision is up to you guys.=
I'd like to ask Chuck, because he's one of the people you look to,
Chuck, do you see, are you comfortable with everything we're doing at this
point, the way it sits now, other than a couple of minor, non-show stoppers=
?
Mr. Berger: Yea, there's
a couple of minor technical details I'd still like to discuss, but the plan=
s as
presented today appear to substantially address all of my concerns.
Mr. Tedesco: So is this Commission
saying that they would like to get rid of this? Again my engineers are saying it's
better to have both of them plus the particle separator, and I don't have a
problem with that.
Mr. Zawadzki: It only came up beca=
use of
the proximity to the wetlands and trying to minimize the impact obviously s=
o we
just asked what alternatives are there. That's all. We're not saying take it out; we're
saying what alternatives are there, and then Charlie said we got another
separator in here and we might be able to take that out and that's where we
are.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 30
Mr. Tedesco: I'd like to have Dirk=
Sabin
say a few things about the plantings.
Also I have Atty. Bruno here; afterwards if you have any concerns or=
questions
on the conservation easement, he'd be more than happy to address those.
Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect
Mr. Sabin: I provided a landsca=
ping
plan for the proposed development, part of the property as well as planting
plans for the proposed water quality basins. In terms of the development I won'=
t go
into a lot of extent on that for the Wetlands Commission, there is a series=
of
ornamental plantings and shade tree plantings and tree plantings within the
body of the development itself.
What I'd like to key in on is the plantings and the buffer space bet=
ween
the development and the detention basins themselves. First off there will be a very nar=
row maintained
lawn ban around the perimeter of the pavement areas, but that will quickly =
transit
to a native seeded native grass and perennial mix going up to the edge of t=
he
woodland. I've also placed al=
ong
the woodland edge several river birch above these
major wetlands "E". We
have placed some white pines again at that buffer right next to the canopy =
line
between Building #7 and the wooded wetland corridor. And then getting around the basin
perimeters, in areas that are in undisturbed ground or on cut uphill sectio=
ns
of those basins, not within the berm itself, we're proposing the plantings =
of
some shag low which is a native flowering mid story tree as good bird forage
capabilities and an attractive tree as well, but it's also fibrous rooted a=
nd
has a full dense body itself and those are placed adjacent to the basins,
adjacent to the woods to quicken that buffer and replanting of the wooded
edge. I have shown some shrubs
around the basin berms, they are shallow rooted shrubs, (inaudible) dogwood=
, elderberry,
gray dogwood, very fiber shallow rooted shrubs. I don't see them as a problem in c=
ausing
dam clogs, but what we will do is relocate those to make sure they are on
either cut slopes or at the perimeter, again to enrich and speed up that
recovery of the created woodland edge.&nbs=
p;
I think it's a good thing to get some of this mid
level shrubs in at the edge of the clearings.
The basins themselves =
will
be planted with 2 different types of seed mixtures. In the well drained elevated secti=
ons of
the berms it will be an erosion and conservation mix that has a variety of
native both flowers and grasses. In
the lower elevation of these basins where they become more saturated soils,
it's an erosion sedimentation wet type seed mix that will then, below that =
in
the ponded areas, go more into the wetland plugs and so it will be a variet=
y of
herbaceous plants depending on the conditions.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 31
I think looking at the
re-design of these basin bottoms, if you look at the (inaudible) elevations=
of
the proposed basins next to the lateral wetlands you'll see that they've all
been excavated into that ground so as highly likely as has been mentioned, =
that
they will be saturated and will support if not extended and continuous wet
bottoms, quite extensive wet bottoms and therefore will have the emergence,=
and
at the recommendation of Mr. Lord changed a couple of the species on the pl=
ans
from the iris and the junkis, change those to scirrpus and other types of b=
ull
rush, specifically for uptight pollutant binding and filtration. They are very<=
/span>
defined wetland plants that are enhanced filters, so we specified those on =
the
revised plans for within these basins.
One of the things I'd =
like
to reiterate the comment that was made by Mr. Lord and others about basins
versus infiltration and recharge galleries, in particularly a development l=
ike
this, not only do those types of pavers not able to support the grass cover,
the basins themselves as opposed to recharge galleries are far more effecti=
ve
for filtering pollutants and filtering nutrients like nitrogen and phosphor=
ous
and the like than are recharge galleries that don't go through that process=
of
vegetated sediment and uptake and the like, so for this type of
industrial/commercial development some surface basins with these planted co=
nditions
are far more effective than recharge galleries. (Inaudible) another matter but for
parking areas as planned this is far more effective.
I'd also like to just
reiterate the use of wood chips, I was glad to hear the comment (Tape #2, S=
ide
A ended - may have missed some) direct experience with (inaudible) soils in=
a
similar site where you've got a wide area that's being cleared of vegetation
sloping down to (inaudible) wetlands and then go to a stream. Very similar site I'm monitoring o=
ver on
Brookfield right now where about 10%, 15% slopes, cleared vegetation going
right down to the edge of some intermittent watercourse and then to a stream
and wetlands. In this process=
that
came in, wind road wood chips directly up gradient of the silt fence, and t=
his
has been an extended period throughout the Winter, from August through now,=
of
being cleared, unstable, and being monitored on a regular basis and boy, wi=
th
those wood chips, they've collected the bulk of the sediment off of the sit=
e,
where we've seen the silt fence for the need to do that and therefore almost
eliminating any over topping, and there's been virtual no sediment transfer
into the wetlands and it's been clearing right up, actually closer in many
instances to the edge of the wetlands than this situation now, so with that
type of control it's very, very effective, but again monitoring is important
and it has to be monitored. I=
'll
answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Undercuffler: On the clear water co=
ming
off the roof, you had mentioned maybe directing that down into the
wetlands. What is your latest=
thinking
now, or is that something you're still going to look at?
Mr. Sabin: The way it stands ri=
ght
now that goes into the particle separators.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 32
Mr. Spath: These 2 buildings act=
ually
go into the underground detention, these go into the gross particle
separators. There could be so=
me
separate pipes put in to keep more of a wetlands flow. I don’t know how, sometimes =
when
you pipe the water from this into wetlands like this it can cause erosion,
okay. It's just something tha=
t a
small pipe, an overflow pipe could be put off here to keep this wetlands we=
t, I
don’t think it's going to dry up for any reason, but if Chris or Moos=
a or
the Commission would like to do that we could do that. I don’t think it's necessary=
.
Mr. Polletta: Where does it go right
now? Does it go into the . . =
. .
Mr. Spath: It goes into the det=
ention
basins.
Mr. Polletta: No, but it goes to the
existing catch basins, they'll be connected to the . . . .
Mr. Spath: Yes, after this goes=
into
these galleys the high level overflow or an overflow for a heavy storm woul=
d go
into the detention basin. But=
sometimes
Commissions will ask to put clean water; if I was to bisect the various
wetlands or cut off a flow above the wetlands, they may ask for clean water=
to
be added. These outlets are p=
art
way down on the wetlands. We =
could
add . . . .
Mr. Polletta: But you're saying tha=
t it
could create erosion.
Mr. Spath: It could if you add =
too
much. We could add a couple of
pipes . . . .
Mr. Polletta: You could put in some=
rip
rap or something?
Mr. Spath: Yea, we could add a =
couple
of pipes and it wouldn't create erosion, we'd just add a little bit of wate=
r to
the wetlands, if Chris Allen or the Commission wants, just to
. . . .
Mr. Undercuffler: Well if it made sense=
.
Mr. Spath: It could, it could b=
e done
at the time also. During
construction we could take a look at it.
Mr. Polletta: But it would be clean
water.
Mr. Spath: That's right, like t=
here's
a stone wall here, we could add something above the stone wall, we'd have to
take a look at it and deal with it from there. We could do that, it's not a big d=
eal.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 33
Mr. Tedesco: No, it's not a big d=
eal. When I hear the word . . . . I'm th=
e one
with the final responsibility here, it's my bond at stake, and when I hear =
the
word erosion I get a little nervous.
Personally, we spent a lot of time on this I see absolutely no probl=
em
the way it's designed now. I'=
ve had
3 or 4 different engineers look at this, if it's something you really want,
fine, but again, if there's a possibility of erosion, let's just go on the =
side
of caution and do it the way it is now, that's my opinion. Do you have any questions for Mr. =
Bruno regarding
the conservation easement?
Mr. Zawadzki: I don't think so, bec=
ause I
think that's really between you and the Land Trust because it's not an ease=
ment
that's going to go to the Town, as I understand it, so I think it's somethi=
ng
you have to sit down and discuss with the Land Trust.
Mr. Tedesco: I know it's up to the
Commission to Close this Public Hearing and if they wanted to vote on it
tonight, and again it's up to the Commission members. We're pretty much happy the way
everything is, it seems like Chuck Berger is on board, and a couple of small
concerns regarding Mr. Allen which could be addressed as part of the condit=
ion.
Again it's a time sensitive
project. P & Z will now n=
ot
accept, well I shouldn’t say that they will accept applications, but
they're not too happy about it until something is approved by this Commissi=
on
first. Now and again, I'm not=
crying
the blues, but it's an industrial project and it's something this Town needs
direly, and I'm looking at quite a few months of STC State approval on top =
of
this, and they won't do anything until there's an approval so I'll leave it=
in
your hands.
Mr. Undercuffler: Just one final point =
going
back to that conservation easement, you'll follow the standard practice of
marking the edge of the conservation, placarding, that sort of thing?
Mr. Tedesco: I would rather leave=
that
up to the Watertown Land Trust. If
they want to do that or . . . . .
Mr. Undercuffler: Well we normally have=
. . .
.
Mr. Tedesco: You've got quite a b=
it of
area there.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well we normally have=
a
developer mark, had it done elsewhere.
Mr. Tedesco: Oh, the tree plaques=
? Not a problem, and where there's n=
ot a
tree we'll put a post.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 34
Ed Scoville, Licensed Professional Engineer
Mr. Scoville: =
I worked on almost all=
the
drainage swales, etc. It's my
professional opinion that it's find a way to best construct it cause that's=
on
most of the design and the second thing consists more of a, I've got the
mailings that I wanted to give to Moosa.
Mr. Zawadzki: Is there anyone from =
the
public who wishes to comment at this time concerning this project? Hearing none, any other questions =
by the
Commission? Well at this poin=
t my
opinion is that we should keep the Public Hearing Open and ask for a Motion=
to Approve at our next meeting because the complexity of =
this
thing, we need to incorporate a lot of things for conditions of approval, a=
nd
how do you guys feel about it?
Mr. Polletta: Because we don't have=
all
the answers?
Mr. Zawadzki: Right.
Mr. Polletta: We normally don't vot=
e the
same night as the Public Hearing, but we want to keep it Open tonight, or if
nobody is against it we can Close the Public Hea=
ring
and then vote on it the next time, if we don't have all the answers.
Mr. Zawadzki: We can do that.
Mr. Polletta: Why keep the Public H=
earing
Open? How do the rest of the
members feel?
Mr. Zawadzki: Do we have everything=
we
would need to be able to Close this Public Heari=
ng?
Mr. Rafey: The only issue is if =
you Close the Public Hearing, then the applicant cannot su=
bmit
new information into the record. If
you're not going to vote tonight, it doesn't make any difference if the Pub=
lic Hearing
continues.
Mr. Tedesco: If you're not going =
to
vote tonight, I would like to keep it Open.
Mr. Rafey: So they can respond to
questions or comments, everything is complete and then you can Close the Public Hearing.
Mr. Tedesco: Unless you want to vo=
te
tonight.
Mr. Polletta: So we're just going t=
o Table
this.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I need a Motion =
to Approve
from staff.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
MARCH 15, 2007
PAGE 35
Mr. Rafey: I can draft a Motion =
for
you for the next meeting.
Mr. Zawadzki: Cause it will be a co=
uple
of pages long.
Mr. Polletta: I understand, but for
tonight we're just going to Table this?
Mr. Zawadzki: Right.
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Polletta,
sec. Mr. DiBona) to Recess the Public Hearing for App. #582 of Hard Rock Development, LLC for constructio=
n of 7
commercial buildings and associated parking areas located on
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at 8:46 p.m.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 10 minute recess at 8:46 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Thomas =
Murphy,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary