MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY=
, APRIL
12, 2007 - 7:00 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION #582
– HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
L=
ucia
DiBona
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
G=
len
Duplissie
=
; &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: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Thomas
Murphy, Secretary
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Scott
Marotta
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Greg Hawes
OTHERS PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
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. Murphy, in his abse=
nce. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC APRIL 12, 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 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC APRIL 12, 2007 PAGE 3 3. =
Hearing
of Applications &=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of Public Hearing from March 15, 2007, Application #582 of Hard Rock
Development, LLC for construction of 7 commercial buildings 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. Charles Spath, Engineer, Stuart Somers Company Mr. Spath: Nick Perugini, one of=
the
owners, is handing out some small maps for your review. I just want to briefly go over the
site. I notice a few members =
who
weren't at the last meeting so I'm not sure if they're familiar with it. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC APRIL 12, 2007 PAGE 4 Mr. Polletta: On the 4,750 square f=
eet,
that's what you're filling in on the site or the total square feet (inaudib=
le)? Mr. Spath: That's the total squa=
re
feet of the wetlands area, direct wetlands impact. Mr. Marotta: Does that include sec=
ondary
impacts? Mr. Spath: Explain what you mean =
by
secondary impact. Mr. Marotta: (Inaudible) things of=
that
nature. Mr. Spath: There is no other
disturbance within the wetlands area, within direct wetlands area, within t=
he
marked wetlands. There isn't,=
no. We did design some detention ponds=
, I'm
not sure if those detention ponds show on your plan there very accurately.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> These here, this was really close,=
and
we tried adjusting this lot line, (inaudible) adjust the lot line, but these
detention basins, the way we designed them they should be wetlands in the
future and we've added, we have 3 gross particle separators before those
wetlands and there's sediment four bays in the basins themselves.
Mr. Marotta: I guess my question i=
s you
talk about 4,750 square feet, that would be filling thi=
s
entire wetlands, and these other 2 wetlands?
Mr. Spath: That's right.
Mr. Marotta: Now it would seem to =
me
that you also would have to do a little bit of clearing like on this edge h=
ere.
Mr. Spath: Well actually what we=
're
looking at is we're filling the wetlands or disturbing the wetlands in tota=
l,
there would be no wetlands after that.&nbs=
p;
For this size project, this is approximately I think 9 acres of wetl=
ands
on this site and yea, total regulated area of the site is about 9 acres.
Mr. Marotta: So you're not going t=
o be
doing any clearing in any of these wetlands?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 5
Mr. Spath: No, nothing in the we=
tlands,
just the areas for these detention basins, which are out of the wetlands, s=
ome
of it's within a 50 foot regulated area, but it's not in the wetlands. What we're looking to do is actual=
ly
monitor that at the time during construction, meet with the contractor as <=
span
class=3DGramE>it's being done so it's kept under control, that's the=
most
important thing.
Mr. Marotta: It's real close to th=
at
5,000 square foot . . . .
Mr. Spath: Yes, and these wetlan=
ds,
when Mark Tedesco bought this and went and looked at it, I went and looked =
at
it and we pulled the original information from 1996 and none of the pockets
that we're filing were ever shown on the other plan from 1996 so we called a
lot of soil scientists and he found these pockets and we had someone else l=
ook
at it, and he agreed, I'm not sure whether or not on the first plan, I'm su=
re
they (inaudible) too but so . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: The letter dated Marc=
h 15th
from Land Tech Consultants, he was still concerned about the lack of a wetl=
and
buffer along several areas along the east side of the development that might
result in secondary wetland impacts, which is what Scott was referring to.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> What are you doing to prevent that,
other than your contractor being real careful?
Mr. Spath: I'll have Ed go over = that in regards to keeping silt fence and such.= We squeezed this pond up as best we could. What happens is, for volume's sake= it's better to keep it the size it is. We did offer to move the pond down here in a non-regulated area but what would happen is even though it's a non-regulated area down here, well out of the = 50 foot buffer, you'd be clearing a lot more there would be more disturbance, = so really what we have to do is in this area, it needs to be monitored. He did ask to see if we could move= it, we looked at it I can't offer to move it over here. We did look at getting permission = from the neighbor but we had trouble contacting them before and I'm not sure that they would be agreement with that but we'll look at the lot line revision.<= o:p>
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea,, I think we agr=
eed
last time that it wouldn't be practical to take it down into the middle of =
the
area here, but what about the idea of possibly putting some physical barrier
there, because I'm thinking of long term of after the buildings are built a=
nd
the parking lots and these things tend to creep in and we've addressed this=
on
some individual home type of development projects where we're putting up wa=
lls
and fences and that type of thing. <=
/span>What
about that as a possibility?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 6
Mr. Spath: I think that actually =
was
proposed, and we can do that, there are a number of ways to do it. We can build a stone wall and put =
hay
bales and silt fence right against, you can build a fence if you're just
worried about delineating the area, but if you build a stone wall prior to =
construction,
pretty good height, maybe 2.5 or 3 feet, and if you put filter fabric again=
st
the stone wall and hay bales in front of that, that will protect and deline=
ate,
they won't be able to go any farther than that. Even if the silt (inaudible) off o=
f,
that's why I say build it 2.5 and we're not looking at anything like that s=
ilt building
up (inaudible). But you never=
know.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well normally a ston=
e wall
you have infiltration, any groundwater runoff kind of goes through that, ri=
ght?
Mr. Spath: Yea, and that's why a
filter fabric in front of it will allow the water to still filter through a=
nd
the hay bale in front of that the water will still filter through that but =
you
have to put on the ends you'd have to loop ends,, like this would have to be
built up to here into this area down here, you'd have to return the ends.
Mr. Zawadzki: Does anybody else ha=
ve any
comments as far as a permanent barrier there like a fence or a wall? How do you feel about it?
Mr. Duplissie: Well it's a definite=
, we
can always have it, especially when you have such a large wetlands, and
especially when that wetlands is the headwall for Turkey Brook. All of this goes right to Turkey B=
rook,
so anything that goes through that goes right into Turkey Brook, and we kno=
w we
have problems with Turkey Brook to being with.
Mr. Spath: Yea, we did meet our=
, the
storm calculations, we met pre and post, we were equal and underneath so we=
did
make sure of that. We added a=
nother
gross particle separator. We =
had 2
gross particle separators in here before to pick up sediment and sand, we a=
lso
have floor bays which is like a stone wall in the
catch basin to help pick up sediment as it goes into the detention basin and
then the water would filter over.
We did not have one for this basin here because actually it was a
recommendation by David Lord, one of our consultants, to use this as our
sediment basin. This would go=
into
here, the sediment would collect in here and then this would go into this
detention basin. But on Chuck=
's
comments we added another gross particle separator, so we do have 3 gross
particle separators for all outlets for the water now, for all drainage.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 7
Mr. Polletta: Land Tech is not here
tonight, but one of the comments that you made last time that was on the
report, was that he inspected on February 16th, the wetlands, there was abo=
ut 2
or 3 inches of snow and he was going to go back and verify the wetlands.
Mr. Spath: Off hand I can't
remember. I don't know if Moo=
sa
knows.
Mr. Polletta: He put that in the re=
port
and that was one of the questions, there was abo=
ut 2
or 3 inches of snow when he did the inspection, and due to snow covered and
soil conditions, it was not possible to complete verification of the wetlan=
ds
boundary. He said he was goin=
g to
go back and verify.
Mr. Spath: I think he did go bac=
k and
look at, there's a drainage ditch right over here that we picked up, on beh=
alf
of his comments on the other property and I think he went out there, but I'm
not sure if that was after.
Mr. Rafey: David Lord went back =
there
to delineate that watercourse, and Chris Allen mentioned in his report that=
he
did agree with the delineation of the soil scientist, he didn't have any
problems with it.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I'm looking at t=
he
letter here dated March 1st and he does concede that there was snow on the
ground and it was frozen but he doesn't say he was going to go back and che=
ck
it.
Mr. Duplissie: It does say he was no=
t able
to do a complete verification.
Mr. Zawadzki: No, but it does say h=
ere
that the wetland boundaries were . . . .
Mr. Polletta: I thought he said he =
(inaudible).
Mr. Spath: He did. I think he said there was snow on =
the
ground and he was talking about him going out to look at this, I'm not sure=
if
he went back, but I think someone asked him and he did agree that the wetla=
nds
delineation was the same, and actually this has been marked 3 times regardi=
ng
wetland delineation because even though they're all slightly different, the=
re
is the original delineation and then we had this marked with the 3 pockets,=
we
had another soil scientist take a look at it, and then actually Chris Allen=
, so
that's like a 4th.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 8
Mr. Duplissie: But that's where the =
question
comes in, 20 years ago it was flagged for wetlands, so whether they were th=
ere
or not, they might have missed them, they might have been there, they might=
be
new or they could be manmade as you said, but we don't know, we'll never kn=
ow
whether or not they (inaudible) or they were never there, but apparently no=
w 3
different people have flagged them or checked the wetlands and they've all =
come
up slightly different, and that's why when we hired the third party to revi=
ew
this I was hoping that they were going to actually check the soil samples, =
but
they were never able to because the ground was frozen so on the third party
review we were hoping that he was actually going to go out and check the so=
ils
to make sure that it was the size that it is, whether it was smaller or lar=
ger,
that's why we hired him so we would have that and to me we don't have
that. He can check the flags,
they're there, this and that, but he wasn't able to do actual soil samples.=
Mr. Spath: He did go back. That was done. It’s not that he just checke=
d that
the flags were there. He did =
look
at the wetlands and the delineation of the wetlands. He mentioned in his report that th=
ere
was some snow on the ground but he did look at that. I mean we paid him a lot of money =
and
that's what he was looking for and he did agree with the delineation of the=
wetlands.
Mr. Duplissie: So he did confirm th=
at the
delineation is actually where the wetlands stops=
?
Mr. Rafey: Yes, he did that when=
there
was snow on the ground, but he did agree with the location of the flags.
Mr. Spath: Yea, the question was=
did
he go back, I'm really not sure about that, but he did agree with the wetla=
nds
delineation here. He actually=
asked, there were 2 things he asked for. One was this, we picked that up, w=
e had our
soil scientist go out there and he agreed that it's a channel, you can't mi=
ss
it. The other was, he picked =
up, he
walked down here and on his report, right in this area here, there was a sc=
our
right about here, that's about 150 square feet to 200 square feet and we're
looking at repairing it by hand, that's existing now.
Mr. Duplissie: Rip rap (inaudible).=
Mr. Spath: That's right and he p=
icked
that up at the time, so you know he did a good investigation of these
soils. Yes, there was snow on=
the
ground, but when soil scientists mark the soils and they're slightly differ=
ent,
you can't help, because you stick an auger in the ground, here it's one thi=
ng,
there it's another, so they're generally correct. Pockets are what get missed a lot,
wetlands next to streets.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 9
Mark Tedesco,
Mr. Tedesco: I talked to Mr. Alle=
n, and
you can take my word for it or not but I did talk to him afterwards and I w=
as
at his disposal any time to go back up there; he did not feel the need to go
back up there. This is what w=
as
told to me, otherwise I would have done my homew=
ork
and dragged him back up there.
Mr. Polletta: I missed the field t=
rip,
but when you went there, he showed you?
Mr. Duplissie: He was not there.
Ed Scoville, Engineer, Stuart Somers Company
Mr. Scoville: In addition at the la=
st
meeting just to make sure that this is remembered, we said that on the, thi=
s is
the headwater to Turkey Brook, we agreed to on half of the property, and if=
you
want to throw this as a condition of approval, we're in total agreement with
it, we'll give you a conservation easement on the bottom half of the proper=
ty
that abuts that to protect all of this slope here. We think that would be a good idea=
, and
if there are concerns, we can follow the wetlands outlined in that area too=
.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well normally any
conservation easement, why the boundaries are marked. Mark already offered the easements=
to
the Land Trust.
Mr. Spath: This area does back up
against the State forest, it's not on this map, but this is the State forest
here. I'm in agreement,
I'm not concerned about filling these wetlands. If you try to not fill these wetla=
nds,
it has no value. It's better =
off to
protect this area here in development than it is to these individual pockets
and I'm in agreement, this is the most sensitive area here, this detention
pond, but I think adding the stone wall, I think I suggested that also befo=
re,
but do a pretty good high one and I think it will work good.
Mr. Duplissie: How many square feet=
of
building on this?
Mr. Spath: About 122,000, that's
actually what it adds up if you . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: =
And how many square feet of asphalt=
?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 10
Mr. Spath: I have impervious are=
a, so
that's asphalt and everything, I think there's total cut, let me see here,
122,000 square feet, total disturbance is 11,800 that's with tree cutting a=
nd
then resulting in 8 plus or minus acres, I do have it, it's 8 plus or minus
acres, total impervious area that includes the existing driveway, so there =
is
an existing driveway. This
development is nice because we don't have to start construction of the stre=
et, cause there's an existing driveway that goes back to h=
ere,
so the 8 acres includes that. This
is 22, with the asphalt impervious it's 8 acres.
Mr. Duplissie: This is the only dra=
wing
that I've seen. I've not seen=
any
other feasible or prudent alternative to this. Is there any other way we can conf=
igure
these buildings so that we do not have to fill the wetlands?
Mr. Spath: It wouldn't be feasib=
le or
prudent to develop this site considering these small pockets of wetlands on=
an
industrial parcel of 22 acres. We want to protect these wetlands. This was previously approved, if y=
ou
want to call this feasible and prudent this was half an acre of wetlands th=
at
was, the permit ended 5 years ago.
Mr. Duplissie: Was that approved by=
the
Army Corps of Engineers?
Mr. Spath: It was approved by t=
he Wetlands
Commission at that time. That=
was
awhile ago, that was 1996, but wetlands regulations haven't changed much si=
nce
then. So we did submit this a=
s an
alternative, one building. Wi=
th one
building this is 100,000 square feet, it shows all the parking around it, a
large detention basin they were looking at filling and it was approved for
22,000 square feet.
Mr. Duplissie: I just don’t l=
ike
the idea of 4,700 square feet of wetlands.=
I think that there's some way to change the configuration of the
buildings so we don't have to do that.
Mr. Spath: These wetlands, you s=
aw them
on the walk, are not the wetlands that you would want to protect. They're small wetlands, by soil
category. This is the large a=
rea of
wetlands you would want to protect.
Mr. Duplissie: We want to protect t=
hem
all.
Mr. Spath: But I think, I hear people say that all the time, but you have to=
take
a look at quality of wetlands.
Sometimes I see people protect the wrong wetlands. I've seen yards that are wetlands.=
It's already grass, it's growing, =
it's wetlands.
You know you're going to go out there and mow it every Sunday, that's
not the wetlands you want to save, it's the wetl=
ands
that are kept natural or has some value to it. This is purifying the water before =
it
gets to Turkey Brook, that's what this wetlands =
is
doing.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 11
Mr. Duplissie: Yea, and now we're p=
utting
8 acres of impervious building asphalt, whatever you want to call it.
Mr. Spath: It's all detained, be=
fore
it gets to that.
Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible) water.
Mr. Spath: Y=
ea,
and it gets detained and cleaned before it gets there, and using all the St=
ate
guidelines that are available today.
Mr. Duplissie: I'm looking at, erosion control blankets will be used for all grade
slopes steeper than 3:1. I th=
ought
it was steeper than 2:1, anything more than 2:1 has blankets on them.
Mr. Spath: Actually what it is i=
s 2:1
is steeper than 3:1. 1:1 is s=
teeper
than 2:1 so it's just the other way.
Mr. Duplissie: Anything steeper tha=
n 3:1
is going to have a blanket?
Mr. Spath: Yes. If that's 3 feet high there and we=
came
out 9 feet, right about here, that doesn't have an erosion control
blanket. Anything steeper tha=
n that
will have the erosion control blanket.&nbs=
p;
There are different types of erosion control blankets. On the real steep slopes you use l=
ike a
coconut mat with fiber mat which works well. On areas that we're not concerned =
about,
there's no runoff that's going to hit it during constru=
ction,
we use a straw fiber mat that has the nylon in it. Those work well. Any other ques=
tions?
Mr. Zawadzki: Frankly when we went=
out
to the site, that large pocket of wetlands looked like it had been formed by
the drainage from the neighboring factory and over the years they were runn=
ing
a pipe out there and the water was running in there and probably that's why=
we
said it was most likely manmade, it didn't look like it was supporting anyt=
hing,
it was just like a mud pocket, no vegetation really.
Mr. Duplissie: I agree, of the wetla=
nds
it's probably the least that I would have a problem with, but the problem is
downstream of that is a larger one from above. Are there going to be major impacts=
to that wetlands?
Turkey Brook is down below. I don't know if there is any (inaud=
ible)
of how this, how the water that's going to be released from these 4 ponds t=
hat
eventually that go down into the wetlands, which the wetlands are directly
connected to Turkey Brook.
Mr. Spath: We have met like Chu=
ck's
comments, we're only required to meet a 50 year storm and to look at 100, we
meet all storms on this, that's why there are so many detention ponds.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 12
Mr. Duplissie: Do you meet the 100 o=
n this
one?
Mr. Berger: Yea, the peak (inaudi=
ble)
runoff from the site is at or below existing conditions after development a=
nd I
also had them look at the timing of the release of those peak flows because
sometimes, although you may be holding back, but by holding back more water=
you
can cause timing differences and more flooding downstream so they also look=
ed
at that, and essentially there's a very minor change to the timing so there=
will
be at or below existing conditions and the timing is essentially the same so
there should be no impact or flooding on Turkey Brook.
Mr. Spath: The other thing I for=
got to
point out was regarding the water, impervious area, the=
se
roofs. We do have underground
detention for these 2 buildings here, so that water is not going directly.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Roof water is considered clean wat=
er
unless it creates erosion, but that's getting put back into the ground ther=
e so
that's not getting added.
Mr. Duplissie: So those 2 big build=
ings
are infiltrators in the ground?
Mr. Spath: Yes, we have those in
there. We understand Turkey B=
rook,
we've done some projects in the Turkey Brook area with the concerns, concer=
ns
you have.
Mr. Polletta: Last time I asked you
you're covering the wetlands, but you're creating more wetlands. Can you explain to me how much wet=
lands
you're basically creating? You
eliminated 4,700 square feet and you're creating the wetlands with the
detention ponds.
Mr. Spath: Well the areas we're s=
aying
we're creating as wetlands are the areas below the invert notch, so that's
about 13,500 square feet, and these do, with a wet bottom basin, do become
wetlands in a certain amount of years.&nbs=
p;
I've seen Wetlands Commissions not allow the Highway Department to g=
o in
and clean these things because now they're a wetlands. What actually happens is trees sta=
rt
growing. It looks great, it t=
akes 5
years, but I mean, my kids, there was one that is all cattails, they actual=
ly
go snowboarding in it, but these will become wetlands areas.
Mr. Duplissie: So it's (inaudible) I
think you said 1 foot below?
Mr. Spath: No, we use a V notch d=
esign
which is like this, so it times the flow.&=
nbsp;
We like that design. T=
he
area below the bottom of the V which we're looking that will stay wet, it w=
ill
hold water, if not all the time, it will hold water long enough to become a
wetlands, for a substantial amount of time. So that's about 13,500 square feet=
, that
area.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 13
Mr. Duplissie: You don't know what =
the
depth will be?
Mr. Spath: I think our lowest dep=
th is
like a foot. Usually that end=
s up
filling up a little bit with sediment during construction over time, but it
definitely becomes a marshy area.
Do you have the plantings for this?=
There are wetlands plantings proposed.
Mr. Duplissie: That was my next que=
stion,
whether or not you have . . . . so you're going =
to
seed it and then it's a wetlands, and you will have some . . . . .
Mr. Spath: Generally the best thi=
ng to
do is to wait a year, we look at it after a year and then we do the
plantings. For one thing it's
collecting sediment during construction, this explains all the plants, but =
they
are wetland variety plants, and all these bottoms are getting planted here.=
We also do propose some shrubs. There was a comment for us to add =
more
shrubs, but I think Chris Allen said to take the shrubs out. You usually don't want a tree in a=
berm,
it can fall over and take out part of your detention basin, but we will put
shrubs all around here and all wetlands plantings in there, and the same for
these areas here, so all of them will have wetlands plantings.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I think both (inaudible) as a matter of record from the last meeting= , you guys had your architect go through the whole list of plantings, right?<= o:p>
Mr. Spath: Yes, he's not here ton=
ight.
Mr. Rafey: If you make them mon=
itor
it for one year to make sure there is enough hydrology, enough groundwater
standing there to support the wetlands vegetation. If it doesn't work, they have a
different mix of plants they'll use.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Yea, I just wanted to =
let
Glenn know it is in the record what they're actually going to plant.
Mr. Duplissie: And you have to be v=
ery,
very careful during construction because this drops off at the boundary of =
your
construction here, of your asphalt.
It probably starts to drop off, we're doing some fill on one side, b=
ut
it starts to drop off drastically especially where you're putting this catch
basin within the two larger wetlands.
Mr. Spath: Right in here. That 2:1 slope there's a nice area=
which
works out nice for a good (inaudible) there is an existing stone wall that
comes up here and goes like this, so the stone wall will help too, putting a
silt fence up, so the area I'm really concerned about is this here, I
understand we've done a lot closer and we have to be careful in here and th=
at
does show in the soils.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 14
Mr. Duplissie: And the other catch basins in between (inaudible), not the catch bas=
in but
the detention basins, you're sneaking between the 2 wetlands.
Mr. Spath: Yes, and that's not as=
deep
in that area.
Mr. Duplissie: Cause that area is a=
ll
wooded, right?
Mr. Spath: That's right.
Mr. Duplissie: You'll have to drop =
all
the trees and do the excavation?
Mr. Spath: That's right, and this=
is
what is going to be left. Thi=
s is
the tree line here that goes around the outside and comes back.
Mr. Duplissie: And no stump burying=
on
site, no (inaudible)?
Mr. Spath: No, and actually the c=
ut and
fill for this is pretty much even, it's within a few thousand yards. I think it's
37,000 yards of cut and I believe 33,000 of fill, so it's just soil getting=
moved
around.
Mr. Duplissie: And no topsoil being
removed off site?
Mr. Spath: The only thing that wi=
ll
have to be removed is some topsoil because there's nowhere to place it afte=
rwards. We're taking off some topsoil here=
and
that's the only thing that will have to be removed. It's different. Residential you wouldn't be taking=
it
off because you're putting back to the yard. But in this case because it's all =
impervious,
it will be used on the site but there will probably be some excess.
Mr. Duplissie: Is there some way we=
can
limit how much gets removed from the site?=
It's got to be trucked out now, and during construction it will be m=
uddy
and end up on the road.
Mr. Rafey: They have to use a min=
imum
of 5 inches of topsoil over all the disturbed area. Once those areas are covered by top=
soil,
if there is any excess material they need a permit from the Planning and Zo=
ning
Office in order to remove that topsoil from the site, and we will monitor t=
hat.
Mr. Spath: It will be stockpiled.=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 15
Mr. Rafey: At the last meeting =
we did
discuss, we agreed to hire a third party inspector to be present on the site
because it's a very sensitive site and during the construction of the deten=
tion
pond and that area that you're concerned about, there will be an inspector
hired by the Commission and paid for by the applicant and he will monitor a=
nd inspect
the construction of this detention pond and everything else.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Anything else?
Mr. Undercuffler: On the last page of =
that
March 15th letter, he mentioned he requested the applicant provide
documentation demonstrating storm water basins 1 and 1A are capable of
maintaining the calculated water quality.&=
nbsp;
Did we get all that?
Mr. Berger: Yes, we did. They've added another separator to=
the system
whereas previously there were two separators, on 2 of the detention basins
they've added a third to address that comment.
Mr. Spath: That's in this area th=
at I
was explaining where we added these 2.
Mr. Berger: In your packet you h=
ave a
lengthy memo from me dated February 25, 2007. They have essentially addressed al=
l of my
comments. We've been back and=
forth
on the rip rap thickness and I'm pretty sure they've complied with the new
sediment erosion and control guidelines for rip rap thickness, but I want to
make sure that that takes place as well as the hydrodynamic separators, the=
3
of them are designed in accordance with D.O.T. standards. They've=
agreed
to do both of those items.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Any other questions?
Jack Traver,
Mr. Traver: I'm here for a coupl=
e of
reasons. One, I'm a member of=
the
Economic Development Commission, Vice Chairman, and this proposal was prese=
nted
to our Commission and the Economic Development Commission looked favorably =
on
this utilization of industrial zoned land, specifically this application, a=
nd I
was requested as one of the leadership, the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and our
new Economic Development Commissioner who is doing a great job, and wanted =
to
be present at this Hearing for this discussion to express our agreement in =
that
this is a great utilization of the property. So officially that's what I'm doin=
g.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 16
I appreciate the actio=
ns of
this Commission and just to take a moment of your time, up until about 1972
there was no inland/wetland agency in this Town or any other of the 167 tow=
ns,
excluding Old Lyme and
I took advantage of th=
e time
I had to go look at the site, (inaudible) which is what I was trying to
do. From the Economic Develop=
ment
Commission's viewpoint this is great economic development in our industrial=
land. Secondly, on a personal note, it w=
as
good to see your detailed and in depth considerations of all the important
aspects of it. Thirdly, I wen=
t up
and looked at the land which as Chairman of the Commission back in the 70's=
was
something I always did cause seeing is believing, and I think that the
considerations that you've laid out here would be served well by proper
utilization of the land for industrial, what I call incubated facilities wh=
ich
the Town area is in great need of, so I think that hopefully you'll move
forward on this and add something very positive to the community. Any questions?=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 17
Ed Godin,
Mr. Godin: I obviously live in =
Town,
a taxpayer so I pay attention to what's happening here. I'm an industrial broker in the Gr=
eater
Waterbury area and actually will help this group probably market their stuf=
f as
they go forward and there's definitely a lot of demand for this and the plan
for this project. I don't kno=
w how
in depth you looked beyond the little pockets of wetlands here is for a sma=
ll
owner user type spaces which will allow local people to own their own busin=
ess
location here in Town in a condominium basis, 2,000, 5,000 10,000, 20,000 f=
oot
increments and there's virtually nothing like it in this marketplace. You see a lot of it in New Milford=
,
Tom Durso,
Mr. Durso: I served on the Town
Council's Planning Subcommittee. I
don't come here as a land use expert, but I do come to ask you to consider
favorably this application mainly for fiscal reasons.
Mr. Masayda: Industrial developme=
nt in
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #582 - HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
APRIL 12, 2007
PAGE 18
I just have to mention=
to
Jack Traver, back in June of 1973 I had to chuckle when he said that, becau=
se I
was going to mention that, I was staff to the inland/wetlands at that time =
when
we first started and Jack did a heck of a job getting it going and it's bee=
n a
welcome use to the Town of Watertown.
They had some good Commission members and you look favorably on what=
the
wetlands offer to the community, but you also have to look at the (inaudibl=
e)
of the Town, and hopefully we'll be able to go forward with this development
and protect some of the wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: Anybody else? Any other comm=
ents by
the Commission members?
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
DiBona,
sec. Mr. Polletta) to Close the Public Hearing f=
or
App. #582 of Hard Rock Development,=
LLC
for construction of 7 commercial buildings and associated parking areas loc=
ated
on
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Closed at 7:52 p.m.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 10 minute recess at 7:52 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
James
Zawadzki, Chairman
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary