MINU=
TES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC H=
EARING
WATERTOW=
N HIGH
SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
THURSDAY=
, JUNE
14, 2007 - 7:00 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#589 – JOSEPH MASI
FRENCH H=
ILL
ESTATES
PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
L=
ucia
DiBona
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
G=
len
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Thomas
Murphy, Secretary
=
; &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; &nbs=
p; =
None
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Scott
Marotta
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Greg Hawes
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; 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 7:03 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, executed the Roll Call.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 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 #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 3
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Murphy, Secretary read aloud the Legal Notice for the record as follows:
Legal
Notice
The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Watertown will
hold a Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 14, 2007 at Watertown =
High
School Technology Center, 324 French Street, Watertown, CT to hear and act =
upon
the following applications deemed a significant activity by the Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetland Agency pursuant to Section 2-1(dd1-7) of the
Watertown Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations.
Application
#589 of Joseph Masi of 33 Pleasant View, Watertown, CT to conduct the follo=
wing
regulated activities associated with the construction of 16-lot residential
subdivision and associated roadway located on French Street, Watertown, CT =
in
an R-12.5 Residential Zoning District.
&=
nbsp; 1. =
Disturbance
of 1,600 square feet of wetland associated with road construction (22 c.y. =
cut
and 110 c.y. fill).
&=
nbsp; 2. =
Disturbance
of 580 square feet of wetland associated with construction of Lot #8 drivew=
ay
(32 c.y. cut).
&=
nbsp; 3. =
Disturbance
of approximately 16,800 square feet of upland review area associated with r=
oad
construction and Lot #8 driveway construction (720 c.y. cut 180 c.y. fill).=
&=
nbsp; 4. =
Piping
of approximately 120 linear feet of a watercourse associated with road and
driveway construction.
&=
nbsp; 5. =
Disturbance
of approximately 500 square feet of wetland/watercourse by deposition of 40
c.y. of riprap for channel stabilization and at culvert inlet and outlet.
&=
nbsp; 6. =
Disturbance
of 20,000 square feet of upland review area for detention basin construction
and lot development.
&=
nbsp; 7. =
Installation
and maintenance of soil erosion and sediment control structures within the
regulated area.
&=
nbsp; 8. =
Discharge
of storm water into regulated 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, 51 Depot Street, Suite 502,
Watertown, CT.
Dated
at Watertown, CT this 31st day of May, 2007.
Dated
at Watertown, CT this 7th day of June, 2007.
Tom
Murphy, Secretary
Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetland Agency
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 4
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&= nbsp; A. Application #589 of Joseph Masi for construction of French Hill Estates a 16 lot residential subdivision located on French Street, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Public
Hearing must be Closed by July 19, 2007, unless applicant grants an extensi=
on
of time.
Mr. Spath: =
We're here on behalf of the applica=
nt,
Margaret and Joseph Masi. We =
are
still waiting for some third party review.=
At the last meeting it was decided to send it out to a third party
review, we have not received those comments yet. I talked to Chuck today and he is
working on reviewing the plans, but we have not received comments yet so we
can't, we'll have to continue the Public Hearing anyway.
I'd like to briefly go over the, an overview of the subdivisions and try to kee= p it quick and if there are any questions, I'll answer them. Excuse me? If you want, members of the Commis= sion, you'll have a chance to take a look at this, they also have to take a look = at it. I can't be pointing at th= e same thing I don't think, unless you want me to put this on the side. It's up to the Commission. I think both people won't be able = to see it then.<= o:p>
Mr. Zawadzki: Can you try putting i=
t over
there?
Mr. Spath: =
Yea, I could do that, let me see if=
I can
just switch that to the side.
Mr. Zawadzki: I was thinking here in
front of the desk, yea, right about there.
Mr. Spath: =
I'd just like to hand out some small
drawings for the Commission. =
This
is the drawing that you can't see right here, Joe. If you could just pass those down.=
I forgot I had those drawings ther=
e, you
can forget this, I have small drawings . . . . .This land has been in the M=
asi
family for about 100 years. I=
n the
early 1900's it was purchased and has been in his family since that time.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 5
All
our lots are to be served by public water, sanitary sewer and underground
utilities. There are 12 lots =
off
the new proposed street and there are a total of 4 lots off of French Stree=
t so
there is a total of 16 proposed lots. The road is about 900 feet long.
The
regulated activities which were read into the record for the direct impact,
that has not changed. We are =
still
proposing a direct wetlands filling of about 1,600 square feet for the road=
and
in direct, in that same area, not direct area, in that same area to the wes=
t,
there's a proposed driveway for Lot #8, which consists of an additional 580
square feet of filling, so there is a total of I believe 2,180 square feet =
of
direct impact, wetlands impact which means filling of inside the wetlands
flags. There was I believe on=
the
original submittal I heard you read it before, but I believe it was 10% hig=
her
than what we have now. Since =
the
wetlands walk we've reduced the total upland buffer alteration which is a
review area by 10%. We reduce=
d that
to 25,617 square feet approximately which is a little more than half an acr=
e.
The
changes that we made, I'd like to go over.=
Lots #1 through #7 on your plan are the, it might be tough for you to
see, I'll just go over the lots, I'm just going to point to the maps up her=
e so
it will be easier, there was a lot, the first lot in on the right, there wa=
s a
change made to the driveway. =
The
driveway was actually accessed on the other side of the lot and now its
accessed on the opposite so there was a reduction in grading on that lot, t=
hat
was one of the comments made out in the field, so that has changed, there i=
s no
substantial grading on that lot now, it meets the natural grade.
Mr. Zawadzki: Which one is that, #1=
?
Mr. Spath: =
The first lot on the right, it is
actually Lot #16. The next ch=
ange
on that side of the street is Lot #12, that's the 5th lot up on the right.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> That has been before, that was wit=
hin
the 50 foot review area that we had marked on the plans, that has been moved
out of that, so the house itself is out of the 50 foot review area. The other change is the conservati=
on
easement has been added to, it has been increased approximately along the
stream to .8 acres to 1.09 acres which is .29 acres that we're trying to
preserve the area along the brook as much as possible.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 6
The
other major change was the house on Lot #8 which was also within the 50 foot
area that has been moved out of the area now right to the edge. Those are the major changes that h=
ave
been made since the walk. The=
re
have been other changes. Ther=
e's
been a hydrodynamic separator added to the detention pond, gross particle
separator.
Mr. Zawadzki: Is that the one by Fr=
ench
Street there?
Mr. Spath: =
Yes, there's actually one permanent=
pond
is proposed on this site, and that is directly at the entrance. We do not have a planting plan for=
that
pond right now. We'd like to
provide you, if the Commission would like, with a planting plan. I think it's, since we added the h=
ydrodynamic
separator, it would be more for aesthetics along French Street than anythin=
g else. There is also 2 temporary silt bas=
ins
proposed that would only be temporary.&nbs=
p;
They are located underneath the houses here and that's to meet the 2=
000
Connecticut D.O.T. Guidelines and those would be removed after the road
construction is underway and stabilized.&n=
bsp;
There were some catch basins we have added before the detention pond
that has a 4 foot sump in to catch additional sand and all the catch basins
will have a minimum of a 2 foot sump, all the other catch basins but the one
before the pond will also have a 4 foot sump, so that will help catch any
sediment for the pond itself.
One
of the other improvements that is going to be added to the plan, it’s=
not
added to the plans now, it was mentioned at the last meeting, for those of =
you
who were on the wetlands walk, there was an existing, it's approximately 600
foot boulder stone wall, boulder small, some of it is large, some small, it
meanders along where we propose the location of the proposed road. We're looking at taking and moving=
that
stone wall to just in the location of the conservation easement at the edge=
of
that, or close to it, so that whole wall would be moved over there prior to
construction, silt fence would be put in front of that wall and that wall w=
ould
help protect any sediment having the silt fence properly installed before t=
he
wall and the wall backing it up, the wall will take care of wherever then s=
ilt
fence doesn't take care of it. That
will only cover Lots #16, #15, #14, #13, and #12, in that area there. When we run out of stone, the exis=
ting
stone that's there, we do proposed to put a split rail fence along the
conservation easement that remains to demarcate the conservation easements.=
Mr. Zawadzki: Do you plan on puttin=
g that
stone wall at the 50 foot boundary?
Mr. Spath: =
No, it's proposed at the conservati=
on
easement along the silt fence, where the proposed silt fence is.
Mr. Zawadzki: So most of it is insi=
de the
50 foot?
Mr. Spath: =
Some of it is, yes because . . . .<=
/span>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 7
Mr. Zawadzki: That's the darker sha=
de of
green, right?
Mr. Spath: =
That's right, that's the conservati=
on,
that's the area to remain wooded.
Mr. Duplissie: But the red line is t=
he 50
foot setback?
Mr. Spath: =
That's the 50 foot review area, yes=
. That 50 foot setback from the wetl=
ands,
that's right. And there is a
difference in height form this stream to the house sites of about 18 or 20
feet. It's not just a few fee=
t or
10 feet, there's a good difference.
The stream is well defined.
This is not within the 100 year flood zone by the FEMA maps. We've also looked into endangered
species, if anybody has ever noted anything on this property, if there is
anything on file, there isn't. I
just want to make that clear also.
The crossing we're looking to make itself is actually an intermittent
brook that up here, Birch Road, Oak Street, this area here is top of the hi=
ll,
water flows downhill and that's the area that it flows down. There is some drainage that does f=
ed
that was added at a later date that does feed this brook when they made some
improvements to the road up here, the Town did add some drainage and there =
is
an outlet pipe that doesn't outlet on the property but feeds this intermitt=
ent
watercourse. We did go out to=
the
site a couple of days after the large storm, it was on 4/18/07. This is Echo Lake Brook 2 days aft=
er the
storm, well defined, not overflowing.
The intermittent watercourses shown right here, on this picture, sti=
ll
under control, nice intermittent watercourse, so we made sure that we went =
out
there after that storm event to check.&nbs=
p;
There is not much erosion on the channels of the brook, as you can t=
ell
from the photograph here and also from the walk. There is an area that we did show =
the
people on the walk, there is a view of an existing dump site within the
wetlands up on top of the hill which is the same area, the beginning of the
brook. This is the debris, Jo=
e told
me he didn't put it there, but there is some debris right in the middle, and
here's a picture of Echo Brook 2 days after that storm event, 4/18 and the
intermittent watercourse right there where it intersects is on the left, th=
at's
the intermittent watercourse and I'm sure you can tell the junk pile. Part of mitigation obviously is cl=
eaning
that up. At this point since =
we
have not received any review letters, I'd like to wait for those review let=
ters
cause I'm sure things will be changing at a later time, make some revisions=
to
address their comments, and I'm not sure if there are any questions that the
Commission has right now that I can answer, but I'd like to keep it short
because we do not have the review at this time.
Mr. Marotta: What was the total we=
tlands
affect, both permanent and temporary altogether?
Mr. Spath: =
The total of the wetlands permanent,
within the wetlands flag, is 1,600 square feet for the road and 580 square =
feet
for the driveway of Lot #8.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 8
Mr. Marotta: So what is the cumula=
tive
impacts for everything? Tempo=
rary
and permanent, for the whole entire project?
Mr. Spath: =
That is for the whole entire
project. Within the 50 foot r=
eview
area there is 25,670 and that's been reduced from the last walk, but that's=
a
little more than half an acre, .58 acres.
Mr. Marotta: So you don't anticipa=
te
having to go to the Army Corps with this 5,000?
Mr. Spath: =
No, actually for this site we are
underneath that and there is a narrative, this narrative I brought copies f=
or
the Commission that they can look at between now and the next public hearin=
g,
there should be enough here. =
That's
in the narrative. I also have=
a
copy of a chart breaking down, here's a table that breaks down the regulated
area alterations are listed on here.
And these are in the plans and part of the package, these are just a
copy of the map.
Mr. Rafey: Can we please have a =
copy
of everything you give to the Commission for our file?
Mr. Spath: =
Yes, these are on the plans, Moosa,=
these
are just copies, I thought it would make it easier to understand. My client I believe has given a ch=
eck
for the third party review?
Mr. Rafey: Yes. I already talked to Sean Hayden an=
d he's
working on the review and I sent the check to the Finance Department and
(inaudible).
Mr. Spath: = We did the mailings, we did notice = today, yes but we did notice today I think someone has moved since we did the list= , so we'll have to notify them of the next meeting. One green card we didn't get back = and I think someone moved in in February and certified mail doesn't go to the own= er, it only goes to that specific person, so we'll have to remail it for the ne= xt meeting.<= o:p>
Mr. Polletta: During the field trip=
you
remember I saw some of the houses that were proposed over there, they were =
off
the setback and I see you removed it, but can you explain to me how will we
protect the rear of these lots during construction?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 9
Mr. Spath: =
Yea, I think the best way, I did no=
t add
it to the plans but we will do it on the next revised set is by moving that
stone wall, which is probably about 600 feet of stone wall, but moving that
stone wall back of that conservation easement it will serve two purposes, o=
ne
is to delineate the conservation easement in the future, you wouldn't have =
to
worry about the placards on the trees, the people wouldn’t have to lo=
ok
necessarily at that many placards on the back yard and it would also help a=
nd
it would be on the subdivision map, a stone wall, you could put that right =
on
the record map, it would also help because that obviously any runoff from t=
he road,
that would help as a barrier between that and Echo Lake Brook, we'd put silt
fence or hay bales in front of there, I think a silt fence would be fine, we
could add hay bales in certain areas if we think it's required at the time.=
Mr. Duplissie: You said you would do=
that
prior to building . . . the only problem is is I see is that it looks like
you're putting fill into the 50 foot setback first, so you're going to have=
to
put all the fill first and then put the stone wall on top of that.
Mr. Spath: =
No actually where we propose to put=
the
stone wall is at the proposed conservation easement, it's very hard to see.=
Mr. Duplissie: But these are your se=
tbacks
over here (inaudible).
Mr. Spath: =
Right here, this little cap, you se=
e it
real small, that's where we would put the stone wall.
Mr. Duplissie: And there is no fill a=
t that
point?
Mr. Spath: =
Well that would, no the stone wall =
would
be put in place and the actual silt fence was proposed to be a little bit in
front of that, the conservation easement, so we could put the silt fence you
know 10 feet away if we wanted to but I think it would be better if we kept=
it
right at the stone wall and that would demarcate the conservation easement =
and
that would be done prior to any construction, any tree clearing, there would
actually be two guys would go in there with a small machine, work this way =
and
bring the stones over and that would be done before any construction of the
road.
Mr. Duplissie: Thee will be no fill
underneath the stone wall? I'=
m looking
at your cuts in the elevations, and I'm not sure, but when we were on the s=
ite
walk, I was not on your site walk unfortunately I wasn't in town that day, I
ended up going with Mr. Berger and when we looked at your corners all the
corners for the houses and the lot, it looked like you were putting fill in
right up against the houses with the maps that we had, so I just want out m=
ake
sure that where you're putting your stone wall, there will be no fill
underneath them.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 10
Mr. Spath: =
No, there wouldn't be.
Mr. Duplissie: So that would go in a=
nd
then you're going to put your silt fence in?
Mr. Spath: =
That's right. The conservation easement is actua=
lly
beyond our proposed silt fence on these plans but now when I revise the pla=
ns I
will put the silt fence I think up against the conservation which is a few =
feet
farther but it would better protect the brook.
Mr. Duplissie: But when you're in th=
ere
working, and you're moving the stone wall with machinery, (inaudible) you're
going to disturb it. What hap=
pens
is that's pretty steep when you're standing there where the houses are down=
to
the stream, so I think on the stream side of that proposed stone wall, I th=
ink
you should stake hay bales all the way down, because when you're working in
there, you're going to disturb the area so I think you should put hay bales
first or straw bales before you move that stone wall. (Tape #1, Side A ended - may have =
missed
some.)
Mr. Spath: =
Temporary silt fence for the stone =
wall
then move the silt fence to the other side of the stone wall, that can be d=
one,
you know we'd put temporary silt fence up to build the stone wall.
Mr. Rafey: The stone wall should=
be on
the conservation easement area but the silt fence should be installed where=
the
limit of disturbance is, you don't have to put it all the way to the
conservation easement.
Mr. Spath: =
No we don't have to.
Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible) then just=
put
the silt fence there.
Mr. Duplissie: =
I'm just worried about the work, wh=
en
they're moving the stone wall, you're going to be in there with a machine a=
nd
it doesn't take much when you're in there, this is a hillside, so it won't =
take
much, you get one storm when they're in there working and it's all going to=
be
in that stream, so I' thinking there should be staked hay bales below the n=
ew
proposed stone wall before they start the work.
Mr. Rafey: It can be done, we ca=
n look
at that.
Mr. Spath: =
Yea, I would put silt fence, I don't
think it's necessary to put hay bales because the stone wall, we're just mo=
ving
the stone, almost by hand, just the heavy ones that you can't move we'll us=
e a
machine, we're not doing any major excavation. Moosa would be involved in it, it =
would
probably be done in a few weeks, we're not talking about going in there and
putting it back, we're talking about . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 11
Mr. Duplissie: You're taking the tre=
es out
first, right?
Mr. Spath: =
No, I said we would not do that.
Mr. Rafey: During the constructi=
on if
the site requires additional E & S major, we will ask the contractor to=
put
it, even if it's not on the plan.
Sometimes we miss something on the plan and it's require on the cons=
truction,
will ask them to add something. A
row of hay bales or silt fence.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> During construction, are you going =
to
have inspectors on site when they do the stone wall?
Mr. Rafey: Not every day. We always have a preconstruction m=
eeting
with the contractor and the developer and we make sure they put the silt fe=
nce
and hay bales according to the plan before they disturb the soil.
Mr. Spath: =
And if you read the narrative, at e=
very
phase there's an involvement with Moosa and the Wetlands Commission if they
would like to be there.
Mr. Polletta: So the bottom line, i=
t is
protected, you feel that by doing it that way, there won't be any silt going
into this brook or anything?
Mr. Spath: =
What it would do is back up the ero=
sion
control which is filter fabric or the hay bales and then would also stay th=
ere,
delineate the conservation easement, it would be staked by a licensed surve=
yor
so you don't have to worry, actually what should happen is the stone wall
should be put in as built so it's in the correct location, you're aware that
it's not too far back prior to construction. And this stone wall would probably=
be 2
or 2.5 feet high. We're not t=
alking
about an overly tall stone wall, we're just moving the stone wall that's th=
ere
over to delineate the conservation easement.
Mr. Undercuffler: What is the significa=
nce of
the dark blue or the whatever versus the green?
Mr. Spath: =
Depending on how you see blue, this=
blue
here is the actual stream as we locate it out in the field.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 12
Mr. Undercuffler: I'm to talking about =
the
blue, I'm talking about more that dark green.
Mr. Spath: =
That will stay wooded, that's what =
we
have on the plan, this area here would stay wooded. That is about the location of the
proposed silt fence.
Mr. Undercuffler: There's a conservation
easement is farther down the line.
Mr. Spath: =
That's right, our silt fence right =
now
and we can still do this is in front of the conservation easement. We don’t want to get that cl=
ose to
the conservation easement, people start going over a little bit so our silt
fence which generally is put in first and they don't go beyond that, the
excavators, is proposed in front of the conservation easement.
Mr. Undercuffler: Why didn't you make t=
he
conservation easement, why didn't you bring that up to the tree line?
Mr. Spath: =
Because we wanted a buffer between =
our
silt fence and the conservation easement at the time. I was at a couple of meetings where
people went over the area a little bit, the conservation area and generally=
we
try leaving a buffer between the two a little bit.
Mr. Undercuffler: When you say people g=
oing
over, what do you mean?
Mr. Spath: =
If you put a silt fence there right=
at
the conservation easement and say they're dropping the trees for the
construction and it goes over the fence a little bit they end up running ov=
er
the silt fence and then beyond the conservation easement, so generally we t=
ry
to propose a buffer of about 10 feet at least between the stone wall and the
conservation easement, so we could leave the silt fence up where we have the
green line or we could put it in the wooded area. The clearing limit wouldn't change=
, it
would still be at that green line or we could put it closer to the stone
wall. And this kind of mustard
green fluorescent yellow, that's the actual wetlands.
Mr. Undercuffler: I'm a little concerned
about the fact that the 50 foot setback some of these houses it comes right=
up
to it. How are the people the=
re
going to know, or are they going to know that they're not going to be able =
to
put pools or sheds or anything back there without coming here for a permit?=
Mr. Spath: =
I'm hoping that they would go for a
permit they would find out.
Somebody came into the office today and put in a pool without a perm=
it,
the pool, company did it too which was kind of odd, but generally they would
have to come before Moosa.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 13
Mr. Duplissie: Typically we put a
conservation easement at the 50 foot buffer flag especially on the stream
side. I mean we've got a
watercourse here. That's wher=
e the
buffer should be.
Mr. Marotta: And it's steep too, everything is
draining down so that's even more of a reason to do that.
Mr. Duplissie: When we had our
Subcommittee on how we were going to enforce these regulations, we said tha=
t at
a body of water for a watercourse and they wanted to move it to 100 feet an=
d I
was against moving it to 100 feet because of all the lots we had in
Oakville. But we talked about=
when
we did a subdivision that when we put in new subdivisions that we would stay
out of the 50 foot buffer for a body of water or a watercourse and here we =
are
with a watercourse and we've got houses right up against the 50 foot buffer=
and
we're filling within the 50 foot buffer and now these people are going to b=
uy
these houses and 10 years from now they're going to come up and say how com=
e we
can't put a pool in our back yard?
Mr. Spath: =
Actually that's why there is a
conservation easement proposed in an areas where we think is, it's on the t=
op
of the hill, it's not down the side.
Mr. Duplissie: But if they want to p=
ut a
pool in their backyard they can't cause they're within the buffer.
Mr. Spath: =
They can only put a pool if they ge=
t a
permit. They would have to co=
me to
this Commission again.
Mr. Duplissie: I think we should eli=
minate
that right now by keeping you out of the 50 foot buffer. Keep your construction, keep your =
cuts
and fills out of the 50 foot buffer and give them their back yards, move the
road further . . . .
Mr. Spath: =
The section of the road is in an ar=
ea
where it's balancing the cut and the fill.=
This brook is well defined brook.&n=
bsp;
Here's the edges of the brook next to it. I do have, here are some pictures =
of the
houses on the other side of the brook right there on the bottom left, those=
are
lawn areas . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: But that's 50 years a=
go,
it’s not today, we didn't have wetlands 50 years ago, (inaudible)
enforcing our wetlands today.
Mr. Spath: =
It's not 50 years ago, it was just =
a few
years ago to tell you the truth, but that's why we're putting the stone wall
there is what we intend to do is to demarcate that, they can definitely not=
go
beyond the stone wall.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 14
Mr. Duplissie: No, we've done this i=
n the
past with you Charlie and we have put our buffers and our stone wall at the=
50
foot buffer, not at 20 feet or 30 feet, we keep them at the 50 foot buffer =
and
that's where we make the conservation easement, especially along the bodies=
of
water.
Mr. Spath: =
I have brought things to the Commis=
sion
where we delineate the buffer, not always at 50 feet, but in between and we
demarcate that with a stone wall, maybe a fence and that's the way I brough=
t a
couple of the last submittals I brought in and we have a lake and there's a
lawn area already going up to the lake . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: And that's what we are
eliminating.
Mr. Spath: =
But then you wouldn't be able to do
anything, you wouldn't be able to put a dock in where there is a already a =
dock
and I tried to use common sense when we designed the road and good engineer=
ing
practices, if we move this road up farther you're going to have more cuts a=
nd
fill. We don't do this once, =
we do
it several times to look at different options and we have that road right w=
here
it's a good balance for the subdivision.&n=
bsp;
I don’t want to use poor engineering practices and try to move=
a
road over a little farther to get a little more space.
Mr. Duplissie: You had one of your
alternates though that had no houses on the stream side, you had the road c=
ut
in and you had your homes just on the high side of the stream, not on the l=
ow
side.
Mr. Spath: =
I don't believe so, no.
Mr. Duplissie: Yea, it's in your pac=
ket.
Mr. Spath: =
No.
Mr. Duplissie: Do you have your orig=
inal
packet that was submitted?
Unfortunately I didn't grab that one on the way out today, but on the
original packet there was, I think he's got it, right there, you have it?
Mr. Spath: =
I think it's on the opposite.
Mr. Duplissie: Is it?
Mr. Spath: =
Yea, it's on the low side.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 15
Mr. Zawadzki: What concerns me is L=
ot #13
is virtually the second one from the right, virtually no back yard, the 50 =
foot
buffer comes up to within a few feet of the house assuming that you can get=
the
house built there and so forth, then you have absolutely no back yard, they=
'd
be mowing into the 50 foot buffer at the minimum and that's without conside=
ring
any pools or anything. I was =
out
there and that's fairly steep, well it's an incline, put it that way, and it
lopes right down the brook there.
Mr. Spath: =
Yea, that's why we're proposing the=
stone
wall at the conservation easement, just to give a suitable area for a back
yard, we're not proposing any pools at this point. We really aren't as people will
(inaudible) put windmills up in their property, (inaudible) you know somebo=
dy
comes in and they, 50% of the properties or maybe more you can’t have=
a
pool, unless it's an above ground pool.&nb=
sp;
There are health restrictions and there are setback restrictions, you
take up a large area of your yard, but they would have to go through the wh=
ole
process to do a pool. We did =
try
leaving a suitable area for a back yard here up to the stone wall and then =
the
stone wall would delineate that, it does go within the 50 okay it's a woode=
d area,
it's not a low lying wetlands, it's a very well defined stream, so that's h=
ow
it shows right there, and the area where we have the stone wall proposed was
picked out in the field to be a suitable area and edge between the stream a=
nd
the house site, so we did take a look at that. It does come within the 50 but we =
are
trying to delineate that with something solid so there would be no problem =
with
placards put along there.
Mr. Undercuffler: But in that case the =
stone
wall is well down in the trees.
Mr. Spath: =
The stone wall is in the trees, the
actual tree clearing is, the stone wall would be a little in the woods.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well it looks like it=
's
halfway down to the brook.
Mr. Spath: =
Yea, I think you'd have to take a l=
ook
at, if the stone wall could be at the tree line, that's fine with us, that
gives you, we proposed the conservation easement where we proposed it now, =
it
could be moved up to the tree line and the stones could be moved up there, =
but
we are trying to leave a suitable area for the back yard for the residents,=
but
it can be made closer to the houses, looking at this it would probably be a=
bout
15 feet, that can be done and still leave the area at the back yard and the
stone wall would be right at the edge of the lawn there and then the people
wouldn't be, in the future the additional 15 feet because after Moosa and we
leave, that sometimes happen, they make the lawn right up to the beautiful
stone wall and put flowers against it.
Mr. Rafey: I found the map that =
Mr.
Duplissie was talking about (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 16
Mr. Spath: =
This alternative here was actually =
coming
across town land that we didn't own.
Mr. Duplissie: That's alternate #2.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It's the same thing though, whether
you're coming from this end or this end you still had all the houses on the
high side. You had one lot on=
ly on
the low side which kept the house and the yard out of the 50 foot buffer.
Mr. Spath: =
That's right and what this is is th=
at's
not continuing through to this street. When you continue through to this st=
reet
it changes the grade cause you're holding that street elevation now, so this
was coming across town property which we never . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: I understand, but our
regulations are body of water or a watercourse, you stay 50 feet out of the
wetlands, and we're enforcing that 50 foot buffer.
Mr. Spath: =
If you take a look at this, that bu=
ffer
does come into the road there, so there is an encroachment of the road.
Mr. Duplissie: Yea, but you can chan= ge the road. If you're coming from t= his end you can change it, put the road closer, if you have the road over here = now, if you lowered this road down towards where your houses are on this alterna= te that you have in front of us and put your lots on the high side, I'm sure it probably eliminates a couple of lots but it gets you away from our wetlands, and it gets you away from the buffer. We don't have to worry about somebody later extending their yard tow= ards the wetlands, because they won't cross the street to go extend their yard.<= o:p>
Mr. Spath: =
The wetlands is a running stream.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 17
Mr. Duplissie: I understand what you=
're
saying but (inaudible) every month we have these in front of us, that the
people have extended their yards, and we've had discussions about this that=
are
in the minutes, that when the new developments come in front of us that we
would enforce our 50 foot setback especially along a body of water or
watercourse. When you have a =
small
wetlands a little pocket, well you've got a 400 or 500 square foot area of
wetlands that is just a tiny pocket, we're not going to fight too hard on t=
hat,
but here we have a watercourse and it's on a hillside, okay, and the last t=
hing
we need is erosion on this hillside with these homes right up against that
stream. We've had problems in=
the
past with erosion. Look at Ec=
ho
Lake, we had the same problem at Echo Lake with the construction on the hil=
l,
they couldn't stop the water from coming down when they had a storm. That's the history and you said it
yourself, you started your meeting of by saying you have 150 foot of elevat=
ion
change from top to bottom on this site.
Mr. Spath: =
Yes, but this area up here we're not
looking to develop.
Mr. Duplissie: I understand but it's=
top
to bottom, you have 150 foot of elevation and if you're going halfway up,
that's 75 feet of elevation. =
When
it comes down like we had at the last storm, it's going to come down and I
don't want it in this stream and I think we're going to, my personal opinio=
n, I
don't speak for everybody on this Board, but we've talked about it in the p=
ast
and I'm not going to vote to put anything within the 50 foot setback, not
alongside this stream.
Mr. Zawadzki: Where does that stream
go? That goes into Steele Bro=
ok,
right?
Mr. Spath: =
It's a regulated flow and it crosse=
s in I
think it's a 60 inch rcp, it flows down, looks like it branches off into th=
is
pond and then continues down. But
as it stands it's a wooded area, the lawns across the street come well with=
in
the 50. This area here, this =
stream
is all in this property except for this house right here, so when you look =
at
the picture, the person across the street, it's not all their land, it̵=
7;s
some of Mr. Masi's, and what he could do is enforce the conservation easeme=
nt
on that side of the stream which keep those houses from also doing any more=
.
Mr. Duplissie: I have no problem with
that.
Mr. Zawadzki: Look how far they are=
away
though from the stream, they have huge back yards.
Mr. Spath: =
They extended their back yard up to=
a
point cause there is no demarcation
Mr. Duplissie: But they don't have a=
house
right up against the 50 foot setback.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 18
Mr. Marotta: And the topography out there isn't =
as
steep.
Mr. Spath: =
I don't think it's the house that's=
50
foot, I think it's the lawn area.
Mr. Duplissie: I agree, when you hav=
e the
lawn within the 50, the house is right up against the 50 foot setback, they
have no yard, and you know one very, let's go to 15 different subdivisions =
in
the area and every time that they said yes on these type of sites they've
extended the yards right down to the water.
Mr. Spath: =
But you don't think by moving this =
600,
800 feet of stone wall over there that's not going to help?
Mr. Duplissie: I think if you move it
along the 50 foot setback line it will help because we'll enforce the 50 fo=
ot
setback and they won't go over that.
Mr. Marotta: That's my concern also, is that a l=
ot of
times when they extend their yards, they also use fertilizers that have a
tendency to run off into the stream and I don't necessarily know how well a
stone wall is going to retain say nitrogen, phosphorous or potassium from
running in that stream. So th=
at's
my major concern.
Mr. Spath: =
The only thing we've done in the pa=
st is
we've put deed restrictions for fertilizer.
Mr. Duplissie: You can go out there =
at
midnight and put fertilizer.
Mr. Spath: =
That may be what they're doing, but=
we
have done that in the past, put that in the deed restrictions for the
fertilizer. That could be don=
e.
Mr. Rafey: Charlie, could you mo=
ve
that stone wall on the 50 foot setback line?
Mr. Spath: =
Then they're definitely not coming =
in for
a pool (inaudible). I can loo=
k at
how I can tighten it up, but I'd like to keep some of the areas for the hou=
se. It's a nice . . . .
Mr. Rafey: Just see if that is
feasible.
Mr. Spath: =
I can tighten it up, I don't think =
I'm
going to move everything out of the 50 because it's like if you had a lake,=
you
wouldn't be able to get to the lake around it. At Echo Lake there is a trail going
around the whole lake.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 19
Mr. Duplissie: Getting to the lake i=
s one
thing, we can give them a 15 foot passage, an access, but to bring their la=
wn
down to the lake we don't accept that,.&nb=
sp;
We don't grant that.
Mr. Spath: =
I'm not proposing to bring the lawn=
s down
there.
Mr. Duplissie: We have a couple that=
we've
given access to lakes on there, but we've given them a 15 foot access not a
lawn, we allow them to put wood chips down so they can have a path to the l=
ake,
but we don't allow them to put the lawn down to the lake. And there were a couple where we h=
ad to
go back and ask them to post the whole site and then let it go natural again
because they brought lawn right down to the lake. We've enforced it. We've even made people put back the
trees, and we're just going to eliminate that.
Mr. Spath: =
I was here for that meeting, Glenn,=
and
somebody said the surveyor staked it wrong. You know how many times I've heard
that? We staked it wrong, we'=
ll
take the blame, that's why we're proposing the stone wall be put up before =
the
construction. I can look how =
I can
tighten these up.
Mr. Duplissie: You'll make me very h=
appy
if you put it o the 50 foot setback.
Mr. Spath: =
I don't think I can legitimately
(inaudible) rather propose it on some lots and maybe within the 50 but on o=
ther
lots I'll push it tight.
Mr. Polletta: Can you look at it an=
d see if
you can do something a little bit better than what you have?
Mr. Spath: Yea, I'll take a look =
at
it.
Mr. Duplissie: If you put it on a 50=
foot
setback and you took out one lot, it would give them larger side yards so t=
hat
they could put a pool on the side rather than . . . .
Mr. Spath: =
I don't think we'll be proposing any
pools on the side. Usually th=
at's
in the deed restrictions.
Mr. Duplissie: I don't know what the=
y have
for deed restrictions on this site but . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 20
Mr. Masi: <=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-weight:bo=
ld'> The fact of the matter I heard two =
very
important statements tonight. I
heard that the Town Engineer hasn't had a chance to review the plan, I heard
you haven't received the third party comments at this point in time and I've
already heard some hard and fast opinions from the Commission. I don't think that's right. I think you have to be open minded=
and
listen to the data that's coming in before you make those kinds of
decisions. I want an open and
honest and clear hearing. Tha=
nk
you.
Mr. Murphy: On the proposed stone=
wall
it's going obviously go from French Street forward north, now will it go pa=
st
Lot #12? How far into it will=
it
go? You said earlier it would=
be
moved easterly and silt fence and it's going to be the west side, and encom=
pass
Lots #16 through #12. How far=
up on
the map will it go to the best you can tell?
Mr. Spath: =
I believe what it would take care o=
f is 4
and a quarter lots. The remai=
nder
of that we would use split rail or some other stones if we can find them,
that's about how long the existing stone wall is out there.
Mr. Murphy: In regards to the map=
s that
are in front of me now, and I'm not well versed in this that's why I'm aski=
ng
this question, it appears that Lot #12, the proposed house is going to pret=
ty
much intersect the 50 foot wetland line, is that just due to reduction of t=
he
map or where it's coming in?
Mr. Spath: =
Lot #12 had a side driveway before =
and
that was this lot we flipped, that worked well for that lot this lot here we
made it a front garage so we were able to move the house over and do a front
garage and we did adjust the lot lines in that area.
Mr. Murphy: So right now though i=
t is
correct in my reading of this?
Mr. Spath: =
It's on the edge, that's right.
Mr. Murphy: Again it looks like i=
t will
hit down, it looks like on Lot #14 the proposed driveway as well.
Mr. Spath: =
Yes, this red line is the 50.
Mr. Murphy: Okay, so 12, 13, and =
14,
parts of the proposed footprint will be hitting the 50 foot setback?
Mr. Spath: =
Yes, that's true.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 21
Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions f=
or the
applicant? At this time I'll =
ask
for participation from the public?
I'd ask you not to be repetitious if possible but now is your
chance. (Tape #1, side B ende=
d -
may have missed some.)
Mr. Beveridge:<=
/b> I'm the owner of the property and =
I've
lived there for 45 years. I o=
ppose
the application because I believe it endangers the quality of the wetlands =
and
the brook and it's also an additional downstream risk to the flood zone whe=
re
the brook enters at French Street, so I'm asking you to deny the disturbanc=
es
to the wetlands requested in the application.
I have 4 specific conc=
erns I
would like to speak to tonight. The
first concerns my property at 359 French Street. The boundaries of my property are
recorded in a deed to the property.
These boundaries were validated by a resurvey of my property by Comp=
ass
Engineering Group, completed on May 8, 2007. Compass is licensed to perform land
surveys in Connecticut, they are familiar with the pertinent maps in the
neighborhood, previous surveys of the location and data from earlier
subdivisions. The survey reve=
als
that the western boundary of the proposed subdivision encroaches on my prop=
erty
by more than 7 feet in the front and middle, and more than 6 feet in the
back. Compass Engineering not=
ified
the surveyor who posted those boundaries on or about May 8th that there was=
an
error in his map #2482, so I believe the western boundary for that subdivis=
ion
markers need to be corrected and I would suggest that the other boundary
locations of the subdivision be validated before you rule on this
application. Now that being s=
aid,
the maps for the subdivision might not be correct. The places shown on the maps are n=
ot
where they actually are maybe or maybe where they're shown to be or where t=
hey
should be. In fact if you car=
ry the
error to the eastern boundary that 50 foot setback is not 50 feet anymore, =
it's
less than 43 feet. In fact a
portion of some of the proposed homes and driveways may be in the setback.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The setback to the intermittent
watercourse may also not be 50 feet.
So I request the Commission to consider the impact on the wetlands f=
or
this boundary error before ruling on the application.
Second, I'm concerned =
abut
the quality of the wetlands. =
The
construction of a road with two culvert crossings over the intermittent
watercourse for the road and the driveway and the construction of 12 houses=
bordering
the wetlands and the brook to me makes no environmental or conservation
sense. It places the wetlands=
and
brook at risk due to pollution storm water runoff and construction activiti=
es
for perhaps up to 5 years.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 22
I'm not a hydrologist,=
Mr.
Berger, so bear with me, but a review of the application, my review, finds =
that
the analytical methods used to establish the storm water flows for detention
and detention basins and culverts were based on the obsolete technical paper
TP40 which is the rainfall frequency atlas for the United States. This data has long since been upda=
ted
and published by the Northeast Regional Climate Center at Cornell University
that collects and maintains climate information for the 12 northeastern sta=
tes
that includes Connecticut. The
hydrologist and wetland scientist advised that TP40 is no longer accurate a=
nd
its continued application is inappropriate and the rainfall charts and TR55
issued in June of 1986 are in err as they publish the charts of the old TP4=
0 as
their own rainfall charts. Th=
ey
further stated that extreme rainfall quantities increased using the Cornell
atlas of precipitation extremes by as much as 29%, and that TP40 may
underestimate a 100 year flood by as much as 22%. That use of old TP40 charts may re=
sult
in undersized structures or faulty drain analysis and that hydrologists and
engineers should use a Cornell atlas if they're going to mirror real
events. I request the Commiss=
ion to
seriously question the validity of the drainage data presented in the
application before ruling on the application. And again just because of the exte=
nsive
storm water flooding and pollution of Echo Lake and Echo Lake Brook already
experienced by the earlier construction of the subdivision and that continu=
es
to this day. The occupancy of=
12
homes after completion is even a great resource of continuing pollution due=
to
the intentional and unintentional pollution from these homes. There is no end to this kind of
pollution. This is especially=
true
for the 5 homes located closest to the wetlands and the brook which are Lot=
s #12
through #16 and with the drainage from Lots #12 through #15 not going into =
the
detention basins. The EPA has
advised that primary pollutants causing wetland degradation are fertilizer,
road salt from ice and snow removal and pesticides and others includes spray
herbicides, household chemicals, oil spills, gasoline, chemically treated p=
ool water,
animal waste, litter, you name it, all of this pollution is possible from L=
ots
#12 through #16. I'm concerne=
d that
the 50 foot setback is not sufficient and that the wetlands will become a
convenient out of sight out of mind dumping ground for the residents. In fact the Connecticut Storm Water
Quality Manual recommends as a general rule a minimum of 100 foot setbacks =
or
buffer on either side of the watercourse, so I request the Commission to ag=
ain
deny the disturbance of the wetlands requested and to protect the wetlands =
and
brook from these types of pollutions.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 23
Third, I'm concerned a=
bout
the use of explosives. Much o=
f the
excavation will be in areas of ledge and that's probably most prevalent in =
the
upland areas and blasting explosives close to the homes on French Street and
Gilbert Lane is a safety concern of these people. It can also impact the brook and i=
ntermittent
watercourse and the wetlands located east and downhill from this area due to
the destruction of the underground water supply and the pollution from storm
water. A lot of thee people d=
on't
use public utilities and have relied for years on existing wells for their
drinking water and working septic systems for their waste disposal. They are concerned that the distur=
bance
and disruption of the underground water supply will result in a loss of
adequate supply of well water or pollution of their wells like that experie=
nced
by the families over in Union, CT this month or caused their septic systems=
to
fail. There is also a concern=
for
damage due to building foundations, property damage due to increased baseme=
nt
flooding that is already prevalent in this area. This area has been subjected to
extensive blasting in the past.
During the reconstruction French Street and when the utilities went =
up
French Street and Gilbert Lane and people in this area have actually
experienced these problems, so I ask the Commission to consider these conce=
rns
when ruling on the application.
Fourth, I'm concerned =
about
public safety. I believe that
proposing the construction of 4 new driveways on French Street at the crown=
of
this dangerous hill for Lots #1 through #4 is irresponsible and creates a
serious public safety issue for local residents and motorists traveling on
French Street. Two of these a=
re for
houses on French Street which are Lots #2 and #3, the other two are long 12=
foot
wide parallel driveways with only 25 foot separation that would serve the t=
wo
rear lots, (inaudible) Lots #1 and #4.&nbs=
p;
In fact the only frontage on French Street for Lot #4 is its
driveway. The latter two are =
the
highest risk because they are the most essentially blind driveways coming o=
ut
of the woods and are located closest to the dangerous Gilbert Lane
intersection. The public safe=
ty
issue would be eliminated by having access to all the proposed homes by a
common road and access to the 4 French Street lots could be from driveways =
off
a common road or an extension of the common road to these lots. This may be a Planning and Zoning
Commission issue, however I request the conservation Commission to consider=
the
impact on the wetlands and brooks when ruling on the application because no=
new
driveways may be approved on French Street. In fact one of the persons who sig=
ned
the May 7th letter you got actually had a request denied for a new driveway=
on
French Street.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 24
The precedent on French
Street has been to access the subdivisions and apartment buildings is by a
common entrance. In the 45 ye=
ars
I've lived on French Street I can't remember one new driveway being approve=
d or
constructed for a single family home.
This is true for the 7 new homes up along Stephanie Lane where there=
are
no driveways on French Street. It's
also true for the 5 apartment buildings west of the high school, they're all
accessed by a common road, no individual driveways. The Reflections Subdivision on Ice=
house
Road has over 25 multi unit homes, none has a driveway on Icehouse Road, al=
l by
a common road. The Sacco Road
residential subdivision has about 15 single family homes and again none has=
an
individual driveway on Icehouse Road, it's all by a common road.
So finally the job of =
the
Conservation Commission I read is conducting stringent reviews and controll=
ing
and regulating development with the least impact to the town's wetlands and=
watercourses,
and I ask you to do that when ruling on this application. I was impressed with the quality o=
f the
questions you had of the applicant.
I do have a hard copy of my concerns and the survey for the Chairman=
for
the record and a copy of my concerns for any of the Commission members who
would like one. If I could co=
me
forward? Thank you for your t=
ime.
Mr. Zawadzki: Sure.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Stephanie Therian, 443
French Street, Oakville, CT 0=
6779
Ms. Therian: In reference to a poi=
nt
that Mr. Beveridge made, not only were we denied a permit for a new drivewa=
y,
our existing driveway, our home is 107 years old, it's now considered part =
of
Icehouse Estates Subdivision, our existing driveway was taken from us, the
developer was forced to put a new driveway from Icehouse Road to our
house. Our new driveway is on=
a
corner, it's no more convenient. We
were told at the time that we were not allowed to have our existing drivewa=
y on
French Street anymore and we couldn't have a new driveway, so I don't
understand, and this is probably a zoning issue, but I don't understand how
this proposal can include new driveways onto French Street? Water does flow downhill. Take a look at Echo Lake Park from=
the
development on Icehouse Road in recent years. It's unchecked development, it did
impact waterways the woodlands. I
just don't think the Town can afford to do this to another waterway in our
Town. Thank you.
Mr. Zawadzki: The driveway issue is=
a
subject for Planning and Zoning, however we are concerned about the safety =
factor
but that's not our decision to make unfortunately.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 25
Mr. Singletary: I'm here to ask the
Commission not to approve Application #589 for a subdivision on French Stre=
et
for a variety of reasons. Our
concerns include the following:
we've already lost Echo Lake from pollution by subdivision, specific=
ally
on Icehouse and building houses will cause us to lose Echo Lake Brook as
well. I'd like to echo the co=
ncerns
of the first speaker in regard to the blasting, especially in regards to our
own foundation as well as our neighbor's.&=
nbsp;
I'd also like to echo the concerns of the first speaker on the traff=
ic
issue of French Street with the driveways.=
Again I realize that's a Planning and Zoning, but I feel appropriate=
to
mention it here. I'm also con=
cerned
about the detention basin plan for French Street becoming a breeding ground=
for
mosquitoes in the area and who would maintain and control that particular
detention basin. I also am
concerned about a large amount of displaced wildlife and plant life in the =
area
that will affect local residents and roads and diminish the local biodivers=
ity. The proposed subdivision will take=
out a
section of adjacent woodland to Echo Lake Park. We feel this large area of combined
parcels would be better served as open space protected by the Town and
Watertown Land Trust organization.
My final concern is the runoff from the culvert in place between our
property and our neighbors which is defined on this map by a light green
section coming down from Icehouse Road.&nb=
sp;
During heavy rains this runoff is especially fast moving and high in
volume. I understand there wa=
s a
walk through 2 days after the last storm, that's 2 days for the water to go
down from its high point level.
During storms it runs much higher and much faster. The runoff flows directly into the
proposed development area presenting a flooding concern for any residences =
or
roadways put there as the current riparian areas to control and absorb this
flow from the wetlands would be minimized and also disturb any control they
have any flash flooding. I
appreciate the comments of the prior two speakers as well, support their
comments, and at a later date will provide a hard copy of my own concerns to
this Commission. Thank you ve=
ry
much.
Mr. Berube: I'm the owner of the
property and I wish you'd deny this application too. My house was built in the early 50=
's on
a cement slab, with a cinder block foundation and its got cracks like stairs
all over it. I have a well th=
at's
approximately 25 feet from the road, at the edge of French Street and with =
the
blasting I'm just afraid it will redirect my well and do more damage to my
house and like I said I wish you would deny this application. Thank you.
Mr. Zawadzki: Did you notice the
development of those cracks from the previous blasting, when they put utili=
ties
on French Street?
Mr. Berube: No, I didn't.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 26
Mr. Fusco: I filed as an interve=
ner I
think you have the letter that I had, so what I'm going to say is I agree w=
ith
what was said here, and I think as your Commission knows you are protecting=
the
inlands and I like the way you were asking the questions. I did take a walk during the site =
walk
and I took pictures which I'm going to give to the Commission and it shows
quite a bit of wetlands foliage, the ferns, the skunk cabbage or swamp cabb=
age
and someone I guess the engineer said there wasn't much of it growing, but =
this
was done in May and it was just starting to grow and it’s all over.
Mr. Zawadzki: No the third party re=
view
is a standard, not standard but something we have the option of requesting =
on a
very technical site application like this one because none of us are land
surveyors and hydrologists and soil scientists so what we ask for is a neut=
ral
third party which is paid for by the Commission and not by the applicant an=
d so
the third party reports to us and they give their neutral opinion on the im=
pact
to the wetlands which is our major concern, and as far as jumping the gun w=
e've
only requested at this point and the public hearing is independent of that,=
and
we will as Mr. Spath said receive the findings from the third party before =
the
public hearing is closed so . . . .
Mr. Fusco: =
So we'll have another chance to spe=
ak
after we see what the third party is, so this will stay open?
Mr. Zawadzki: Right.
Mr. Fusco: =
If that’s the case, there's o=
nly a
couple of things . . . .
Mr. Rafey: I just want to make a
correction for the records, the third party was hired by the Commission but=
is
paid for by the applicant.
Mr. Fusco: =
That's fine, I just wanted to know =
if we
were going to have another hearing.
The first gentleman that spoke, I was very impressed with him, I hope
you take all that he said to mind.
He seemed to cover everything I was going to say, but he said it more
eloquently.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 27
One
other thing I did was being an intervener I was told I have the right to su=
bmit
an alternate plan so I did bring, well it's just an overview of, these are =
the
pictures that I'll submit to you, and this is the alternate plan and I thin=
k it
covers just about what everybody said.&nbs=
p;
It's not done professionally, it's just a rough sketch. It shows one entrance coming in fr=
om
French Street, it shows just through lots on the upper part, but the lots a=
re
very big, so instead of selling them for a small amount of money, sell them=
for
a lot more and get big lots. =
This
would solve all the problems. This
would be given as open space to the Town, I don’t think anybody would
have a problem with that.
I
have one other thing I want to say and I know you've been versed in this mo=
re
than once, but the definition of a conflict of interest is not if it's a
conflict of interest, but if it appears to be a conflict of interest and I =
have
a friend of mine that's on the Board and I'm going to ask him to review and
think about this, Mr. Polletta who is also a personal friend of Mr. Masi, h=
e's
also his personal, I guess he does electrical work for him, and he's a memb=
er
of the same club and he owns property not too far from there, so please keep
that in mind that it's not a conflict, but if it appears to be a conflict of
interest.=
Mr. Polletta: Mr. Fusco, I'm more r=
elated
to you than to anybody in Tow=
n.
Mr. Fusco:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That’s true.
Mr. Polletta: I will look at this and I will tre=
at it
just like any other application.
I've been in Town for about 35, 40 years, I know a lot of people and=
I
will do whatever I can for the Town of Watertown to the best of my knowledge
but I will treat this just like any other application, I did not abstain on
some of the property that you had and I've got friends all over the place b=
ut I
always do what is best and I decide if I'm in conflict.
Mr. Fusco: =
Okay, I'm just telling you it's not=
if it
is a conflict, it is if it appears to be a conflict. And it appears that there is a
conflict. Thank you.
Mr. Rinaldi: I'm a little appalled at that last
remark. As fair as Joe Pollet=
ta is
concerned I hold the utmost for the gentleman. He served on the Planning and Zoni=
ng, I
served with him on countless evenings and every time that I served with that
gentleman he did the best that he could possibly do for the Town of Waterto=
wn
and I'm amazed at Richie standing up here and making that kind of a comment=
. This gentleman is a good, concerned
citizen dedicated to our Town as I was when I was there. I admire your wonderful situation =
you
people have, too bad you couldn’t see what we had to work with, how we
worked until 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., half the time we didn't even know what each
other was saying, but again Joey was there for us.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 28
Again as far as I'm
concerned, Joey has always made a decision with the best interest of the To=
wn
of Watertown and again like I said, I'm appalled that somebody gets up and
questions this gentleman as far as what he's saying.
As far as the Masi's a=
re
concerned, they're making the presentation, they have a right to do that, I=
was
a little shocked at Glenn for making that assumption that you were going to
vote already before you heard everything, I wish you had at least heard
everything and then you make your decision. I understand there is quite a bit =
of
good information that's come forth here, I've been quite educated myself wi=
th
some of these speakers and again it's nice to be able to hear everybody bef=
ore
you form an opinion, because basically that's what you are there for, you're
not there to have any animosity towards anybody, you're supposed to be able=
to
hear everything. Thank you ve=
ry
much.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>John Demeyer, Gilbert =
Lane,
Watertown, CT 06795
Mr. Demeyer: I just want to go on
record that I agree with everything that Mr. Beveridge said in his speech.<=
/span>
Mr. Zawadzki: Anyone else? If there are no other questions or
comments by the public I'll have the applicant . . . . no, we give the
applicant a chance to respond, then you get a chance.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Ed Scoville, Licensed
Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor, Stuart Somers Company
Mr. Scoville: The first comment was in regards t=
o the
survey that was done on the parcel.
I don't believe I've ever heard from Compass Surveying in regards to
this and our map is not a record map that is on file currently. I know that in there he was talkin=
g in
some reference to a map (inaudible) proposed plan that would not be on file=
in
the Town Clerk's Office but I'm willing to meet with Compass and go over th=
at
or get a copy, if you received a copy of the map, I'll promptly get a copy =
of
that and research it and find out what any discrepancies are in it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 29
The second comment was=
in
regards to rainfall charts and compared to the current design that's done.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Now I would agree with that if you=
look
at the current monitoring of rainfall throughout the Northeast that in isol=
ated
things you will see that yes there is different things. The way that this has been done is
accepted and the rational method is very conservative. I mean if you just look into the g=
eneral
thing of the rational method it doesn't work out as far as the things go so
it's an accepted procedure in most towns, it's in most of the regulations,
accepted by the State and in research papers it's true, you look at differe=
nt
things for isolated areas and you're going to get higher rainfall amounts a=
nd
we're just going by accepted procedures that's common in most towns in the
State and it's not different than anything else, but I will agree that there
are papers out there that say you should be using different methods, you
shouldn't be using old charts, that's true, but the old charts are work, th=
ey
are accurate, they give a good representation and the key thing to remember
when everybody is referring to a 100 year storm. What does a 100 year storm mean?
Mr. Zawadzki: Well what is that abo= ut the Cornell atlas? What is that?<= o:p>
Mr. Scoville: I'm not familiar with=
that
study but from just the little bit that I've got about it it was going into=
the
rational method as far as that on the design flows. I don't believe that had anything =
to do
with my detention size and calculation.&nb=
sp;
When you're doing the overall design, you're doing actually 2 differ=
ent
drainage studies, one for the size of the detention basin and another one f=
or
peak flows to see how much water you can put through the pipes going in to
it. It's two separate things,=
we're
not using (Tape #2, Side A ended- may have missed some.) to determine the p=
eak
flow. It gives you a very
conservative with it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 30
Mr. Zawadzki: For the public's
information, none of us here are civil engineers either so Mr. Berger, our =
Town
Engineer, sits at these meetings and that's been an improvement since Mr.
Berger has been the Town Engineer in Watertown. They didn't used to have this as a
service to this Commission so Chuck is our technical expert and if you can
convince him then pretty much we have to be convinced because we rely on him
for his expertise because we're just layman here.
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> The next comment was in regards to =
explosives
and we'll meet all State and Municipal standards for explosives as far as
blasting is concerned.
Public
safety, we're proposing driveways in conformance with . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: Wait a minute, Mr. Sp=
ath
mentioned ledge and you have ledge showing on the map here and we've all wa=
lked
the property and there is ledge and he said if we run into ledge there woul=
d be
less excavation. That implies=
to me
at least if you run into ledge you're going to back off and work around it =
if
there is going to be less excavation, but in fact if you're going to blast =
it
out away then it won't be any left, it will be as much or maybe more.
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> It will be less, for the normal slo=
pes of
road you're looking at 2:1 (inaudible) to a 1 on 6 rock cut. The excavation will be less becaus=
e my
limits of disturbance will be less, instead of it trying to chase up the hi=
ll,
I'm trying to chase up really quick going up high.
Mr. Murphy: Question regarding the
handout that was the table proposed regulation area alterations on the far
right-hand side you have the column heading is volume within the 50 wetland
buffer alteration area plus or minus the number of cubic yards, at the bott=
om
you have a 25 net fill. If I
calculated it correctly, it looks like it was a 75 net cut, which would be =
100
cubic yard difference so I don't know if I'm looking at this correctly or if
some of the data is not correct.
Mr. Scoville: Which one?
Mr. Murphy: It's on the far righ=
t hand
column, column within the 50 foot wetland alteration area, open space #1, y=
ou
have 60 cubic yard fill, the road crossing you have a 550 cut, 180 fill, so
when you add those numbers all down you have a 25 net fill and I'm coming up
with a 75 net cut which would be 100 cubic yard swing if it's correct.
Mr. Scoville: That could very well
be. I didn't add them up.
Mr. Murphy: Well I just noticed =
it and
I wanted to bring it up at this time.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 31
Mr. Scoville: I'll review these num=
bers
to verify that they're correct. The
next comment was in regards to public safety. We're planning on meeting the driv=
eway
regulations with everything. =
The
second gentleman who spoke again discussed driveways, the third gentleman w=
ho
spoke . . . . different item that he spoke about would be the detention bas=
in
and the proposal is for the detention basin to be taken over by the Town and
the comment was on mosquitoes so depending upon the type of detention basin=
, if
it's a proposed dry bottom basin then it's going to drain out and there won=
't
be standing water.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well which is it? Dry or wet?
Mr. Scoville: Dry. The next comment was on the interm=
ittent
watercourse, with that I believe the intent of our pictures and also since =
we
were out there that time, to verify that it was an intermittent watercourse
seeing as it was 2 days after a very large storm event, I believe that storm
had 5 inches of rain, and at that time afterwards you're seeing that there =
is a
minimal amount of water going through the course so it's showing that it is
intermittent, it is seasonal and again we provided pictures to demonstrate =
that
the significant portion of that is from road drainage on Innes Road up abov=
e it
which would, seeing that it is from road drainage, then it would go into th=
ere,
have a peak discharge and flow down through there and there would be a mini=
mal
amount coming afterwards, so a big portion of that is actually from the road
drainage coming down is what the runoff is.
The next gentleman spo=
ke
about
Mr. Spath: I just wanted to agai=
n say
we have not received anything from Compass Engineering and Surveying. We also did not put any stakes in =
the
field, so I'm not sure who's stakes we are talki=
ng
about. We did not pin any pro=
perty
corners, so I will take a look into that early this week. I will contact Compass Surveying <=
span
class=3DGramE>myself, I have talked with them in the past. I also want to make the point that=
that
intermittent watercourse, what we have proposed for that is only a 24 inch =
rcp
that will handle that flow, it's not a very large pipe, that does the size =
of
that pipe and the calculations will be verified by Mr. Berger, show that the
flow is not large out there. =
The
actual watercourse now, I have someone who bikes to work every morning and =
he
has checked it over the last couple of weeks, he's told me it has been dry,=
so
if anybody from the Commission wants to go take a look at it, it is seasona=
l,
we had been looking at it over the last 6 months but if you want to take
another look at it now to get another idea how it is on the dry season. Thank you.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 32
Atty. Brooks: I have very brief com=
ments
now. I just wanted to state w=
hat
you all probably know, that a number of the topics addressed by the public,
while serious concerns to them, are outside the jurisdiction of the Wetlands
Commission and would be improper for you to rely on incoming to your
decision. And those would inv=
olve
blasting for instance, underground water supplies either as to quality or q=
uantity,
that would be outside the Wetlands and Watercourse jurisdictions, septic
systems as well and foundation damage or basement flooding. Public safety also would be before=
a
different commission and not before you, and those are just things to keep =
in
mind as you base your considerations on those true effects on the wetlands =
and
watercourse. I'll leave it at=
that
now and make further comments at the next meeting. Thank you.
James Beveridge,
Mr. Beveridge: Just 2 comments and 2
questions. (1) I was just, maybe Mr. Berger would maybe be the one to conta=
ct the
Mr. Zawadzki: Anyone else from the
public?
Mr. Spath: =
The drainage on
Mr. Zawadzki: You don't propose all=
owing
them?
Mr. Spath: =
They wouldn't be allowed, no. You would actually, you would have=
an
oil tank in your home or you could have a buried propane tank which is, a l=
ot
of people do propane now because of fuel prices, they go back and forth, so=
it
may be propane, it may be oil, but no buried oil tanks.
Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions f=
rom
the Commission? Okay, if that=
's everything
then . . . . yes?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES
JUNE 14, 2007
PAGE 33
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Joe Masi,
Mr. Masi: <=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-weight:bo=
ld'> There has been
several references to the possibility of a property line that's not valid.<=
/span>
Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, this is not the=
purview
of this Commission. Property =
lines
. . . . .
Mr. Masi: <=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-weight:bo=
ld'> That's why I'm rising to the point
because the other gentleman was not stopped when he made his comments,
therefore I rise to correct it.
That is not the purview of this Commission, that issue we decided in
court.
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Recess the Public Hearing for App. #589 of Joseph Masi for construction of French Hill
Estates a 16 lot residential subdivision located on
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at 8:45 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Thomas
Murphy, Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary