beagenda

MINU= TES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

CONTINUA= TION OF PUBLIC HEARING

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN HIGH SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

THURSDAY= , JULY 19, 2007 - 7:00 P.M.

&nb= sp;

APPLICAT= ION #591 – EVOW, LLC

HIGHVIEW ESTATES

&nb= sp;

PRESENT: = ; &n= bsp; = ; Thomas Murphy, Secretary

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Donato Orsini, Vice Ch= airman

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Joseph Polletta

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; James Zawadzki, Chairman

ABSENT: &nb= sp; = = L= ucia DiBona

= ; &n= bsp; = ; = G= len Duplissie

= &nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; Edwin Undercuffler, Vice Chairman

ALTERNATES PRESENT: = ; Denise Russ

ALTERNATES ABSENT: = ; <= /span>Greg Hawes<= /span>

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Scott Marotta

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 7:40 p.m.

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, executed the Roll Call.

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Russ to sit in for Mr. DiBona, in his absence= .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #591 - EVOW, LLC, HIGHVIEW ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

3.         = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

  &= nbsp;         B.         = Continuation of Public Hearing from June 14, 2007 - Application #591 of EVOW, LLC c/o Patrick Graziano for construction of Phase 3 of Highview Estates 8-lot residential subdivision located on Kimberly Lane and Pond View Drive, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Public Hearing must be Closed by July 19, 2007, unless applicant grants an extensi= on of time.

Ted Crawford, Licensed Profes= sional Engineer, Milone & MacBroom

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Here are the notifications for the record. (Tape #1, Side A ende= d - may have missed some.) Also f= or the Commission I have some recent correspondence, I'm not sure if you received copies so I'll provide it to you, between our office and Land Tech regarding (inaudible).

This application is for Phase 3 Highview Estates. Last Summer Phases 1 and 2 were ap= proved by this Commission with regulated activities. Phase 3 is an 8 lot with a 600 foo= t cul de sac extending off one of the recently approved lots in Phase 2. As we discussed last month there a= re two regulated activities associated with this 8 lot subdivision.

The first is a crossing of an intermittent watercourse, consisting of approxima= tely 2,200 square feet of direct impact and about 10,500 square feet of upland impact. (Inaudible) crossing = that intermittent watercourse with 2 inch culverts designed to pass the 100 year storm event. The second activ= ity is for the construction of a water quality basin located behind Lots #45 and #46. It is just upland activi= ty, no direct impacts there, about 3,350 square feet of impact.<= /p>

At the end of the discussion last month the public and Commission raised conce= rns regarding existing water problems downstream of this application. Since then we've provided two alte= rnates to the Commission based on discussions with the Town Engineer and their recommendation.

The first alternate consists of increasing the water quality basin for a detent= ion basin. The attempt is to redu= ce the amount of water and peak flow event getting down to that Burger King area t= hat we discussed last month. To f= urther reduce the impacts we provided those numbers actually in the comment letter response to Chuck Berger. In = our previous application we had some reduction, this larger detention basin is = an even larger reduction in flows; it does however have a larger impact. Our upland activities are 25,000 s= quare feet and our direct impact is about 150 linear feet of intermittent watercourse. Point out on the presentation board, the intermittent watercourse flows to the north of the = end of the cul de sac, essentially east to west. We are now intercepting . . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #591 - EVOW, LLC, HIGHVIEW ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 3

Mr. Zawadzki: Is that the map you j= ust gave us?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Yes. One of the maps. There= are two maps.

Mr. Zawadzki: I'm looking at the to= p one, the first one.

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Yes. It's entitled alternate detention basin. There is an intermittent watercours= e that flows east to west at the end of our proposed cul de sac. We are intercepting that intermitt= ent watercourse with our detention basin and that's where our direct impacts co= me into and we also have larger impacts to the upland activity associated with this cause the basin was expanded to the east as well. Again this is in an attempt to all= eviate some of the existing drainage problems and the applicant doesn't have a pro= blem if the Commission wishes to make this condition instead of the water quality basin we've previously proposed.

Mr. Zawadzki: How does this differ = from the original in terms of square footage?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> In the impacts?

Mr. Zawadzki: Yes.

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> The original application for the wa= ter quality basin had an upland activity of 3,350 square feet. This lager detention basin has an = upland activity of 25,000 square feet and a direct impact of 150 linear feet of th= at intermittent watercourse. Now= Chris Allen of Land Tech has reviewed both of our alternates and believes that th= ey will not have any significant impact to the wetlands and that's in one of t= he letters I provided to you. It= was received today from him.

The second alternate regarding some existing swales located beyond our developm= ent area. These swales are located significantly north of our development.&nb= sp; As you can see in this plan entitled channel maintenance plan, you d= on't have a plan showing our proposed development, however there is an intermitt= ent watercourse centrally located on the plan.= To the north of that there are a series of channels that flow to the east, down towards Belden and Burger King shopping plaza. On a recent field walk Ted Hart fr= om our office went with Moosa and Chuck and they looked at a couple of these swales and they found that there were some breaches in these swales, so in an atte= mpt to alleviate some of that breaching of the water in the channels we're proposing minor activities in those channels to restore them and hopefully redirect the water to where it should be going and not breaching and coming overflowing the banks and ending up on Belden and these homes on the corner= of Belden Street.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #591 - EVOW, LLC, HIGHVIEW ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 4

Mr. Polletta: Where is that Burger = King parking lot you were talking about located in that plan?<= /p>

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Burger King is located to the south= east of our development. The areas= that we're proposing for the channel work is located at the corner of Belden, Be= lden runs north and then turns to the northeast, that sharp corner.

Mr. Polletta: So that water that go= es in that parking lot, where is it coming from?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> From the whole hillside, potentiall= y it comes down.

Mr. Polletta: How are you going to = reduce that, you're going to minimize the water flow by putting in that detention pond?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> We're increasing the capacity of th= at detention pond, before it was a water quality basin, now the pond has been designed to alleviate peak flow events with an outlet control structure.

Mr. Polletta: So it will be less?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Yes, and then the channels are an a= ttempt to alleviate some of the problems that exist along Belden and these residen= ts on the west side of Belden= Street. And the Commissioner had a question about our alternates. These a= re actually alternates that increase our impacts, however they're in an attemp= t to address the concerns of the Town and the local residents.=

Mr. Zawadzki: Now these notes on the ground say this is channel maintenance, regarding how you have a curb chann= el maintenance location 1 and 2 but you just said berm.

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Well that's the channel, and in some areas if the channel has been eroded the lower berm that conveys the water = so there will be some sediments trapped in there as well, so they'll be cleani= ng out and restoring the channels back to more of a trapezoidal type structure convey that water. The areas = that will be disturbed will be armored with a erosion control matting that will biodegrade over time.

Mr. Zawadzki: You're going to add material in there too, soil and gravel?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> I guess we would attempt to use as = much of the existing material as there is on site to reshape the channel. And again, Chris Allen also looked= at this site plan and didn't believe there would be any significant impacts.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #591 - EVOW, LLC, HIGHVIEW ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 5

Mr. Zawadzki: So essentially what y= ou're saying to hopefully reduce the flow of the water washing down the hill, you= 're going to increase the immediate impact on the wetlands by increasing the disturbed area?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Yes, these will be temporary impact= s for the main . . . . they'll go back . . . . .

Mr. Zawadzki: More of a sediment ba= sin?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Yes, that will be an increase (inau= dible) detention basin. It's only a, direct impact to that intermittent watercourse which flows into our basin is held there over a period of time and released slowly through our control, b= ack into essentially the same wetland that it was going into.=

Mr. Zawadzki: Now is that going to = be a wet bottom?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Yes.

Mr. Polletta: Do you propose one cr= ossing over there?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Yes, that was the same one we showe= d last time that was not changed.

Mr. Polletta: Do you have any mitig= ation for the wetland crossing, the disturbance?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> The wetland crossing for the road i= n this area?

Mr. Polletta: Right.

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Essentially we're bridging the intermittent watercourse, the water still flows in the same direction, we h= ave not interrupted the flow, we're conveying the 100 year storm event, we have= not added any wetlands. The new detention basin, if the Commission chooses to, would be a wet bottom.<= /o:p>

Mr. Zawadzki: Now is that a culvert= or pipes?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> These are two 18 inch pipes. We believe that the pipes would be = much less of an impact. An open bo= ttomed culvert would cause more disturbance up and down the roadway.

Mr. Zawadzki: To install it.

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Right, to install it, due to the steepness of the slope.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #591 - EVOW, LLC, HIGHVIEW ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 6

Mr. Zawadzki: But what about long term? Isn't the culvert bette= r?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> In this case we believe the pipes a= re adequate, there isn't any reason for the fish to travel in that stream, wildlife can actually go up and over the road, in this area, it's not to mu= ch of a hill.

Mr. Polletta: The two 18 inch pipes crossing that wetland, now my concern about these pipes, who cleans them wh= en they get filled up? Is the To= wn responsible for that? Maybe an archway or an open bottom would b easier to maintain, less maintenance.

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Well the Town would be, it's a Town= road.

Mr. Polletta: If these two pipes get plugged up the Town would be responsible to clean them?

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> Yes, just as any structure.

Mr. Polletta: Chuck, do you feel th= at these two pipes are adequate or should they be open bottom to be easier to maintain or . . . .

Mr. Berger: That's a complicated question. From strictly an engineering highw= ay maintenance perspective, two pipes under the road are probably easier to maintain, to clean out. From = an environmental inland/wetland impact position an open bottom channel has less impact long = term on the environment. I think t= his Commission, at least in recent history has been certainly leaning more towards the open bottom tree sized box or an arched culvert or something of that nature. There were also a couple of instan= ces where the Commission has allowed the applicant to oversize the pipe and bur= y it into the ground. That's anoth= er option that could be looked at, just oversize it and let it fill in with natural material.

Mr. Zawadzki: So in effect you'd ha= ve an open bottom.

Mr. Berger: Yea, even though you do have a hard bottom, if you sink it down, make it an additional 12 inches bigger and sin= k it down 12 inches, typically what the D.E.P. or Corps of Engineers might requi= re you to do.

Mr. Zawadzki: Agree about the comme= nt about the impact of installing one over the other, as he's saying, these two pipes installed has less impact than one open bottomed culvert installed? I guess that has to do with excava= tion.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #591 - EVOW, LLC, HIGHVIEW ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 7

Mr. Berger: Yea, you still have to do work, you= still have to put equipment in there, I think that installing either a box culver= t or a pipe can go quicker, easier, an arch or an open bottom structure requires some sort of footing, some sort of foundation underneath it, okay, and what= the applicant is referring to is in the short term a greater impact in having t= o do that, cause you are digging up to construct the foundation whereas the pipe= s or the box . . . . yea, exactly.

Mr. Zawadzki: Are those individual footings or are they more like a foundation?

Mr. Berger: I think they would probably be indi= vidual footings, but they'd have to be designed by a structural engineer but what = I've seen so far is that they've been individual footings.

Mr. Rafey: This map doesn't show= the watercourse located to the north of that proposed cul de sac. That other map shows that there is= a watercourse.

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> The alternate map that we provided = does not show that, however the upland review boundary was shown and we did acco= unt for it when we did calculate the . . . .

Mr. Rafey: Is there any activity within that 50 foot setback area here.

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> No, in the alternate, no, that has = not changed from the previous application.&nbs= p; The only additional activities were the detention basins.=

Mr. Zawadzki: Is that it? Okay, at this point is there anyon= e from the public who would like to comment on this application?=

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Ulla Gibbs, 1220 Main Street, Watertown, CT&nbs= p; 06795

Ms. Gibbs: My property comes out= onto the curb on Belden Street<= /st1:address>. I've been having a lot of water is= sues because it's all filled in, that convention (inaudible) filled in in the back. My big concern is (inau= dible) what type of maintenance will be going on over the period of years.

Mr. Crawford: <= /b> We don't have any long term mainten= ance proposed in the area of the channels. That area is actually intended to be open space for the Town. I would assume that maybe that maintenance would be carried out by the Town, if there was going to be any.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #591 - EVOW, LLC, HIGHVIEW ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 8

Mr. Berger: The channel maintenan= ce that the applicant spoke about I think will go a long way, will address, wi= ll significantly address the issues you've been having with your driveway. There are 2 specific areas that we= found out in the field where the water, I believe what we're looking at are ditch= es that a farmer constructed 30 or 40 years ago, I'm not sure about the timefr= ame. There are some pretty big trees in= the ditches out there and some of those ditches get filled with sediment in are= as and the water overtops and eroded and the water is going in different directions than the farmer originally intended them to go down through your driveway. I think fixing those breaches will significantly improve the situation on your property. I don't believe the Town is going = to have, I can say the Town will not have an ongoing maintenance program in there. It's going to be diffi= cult to get in to fix those breached areas that they are, they are certainly farmers, they know what they're doing a lot of the times, but we're not goi= ng to go in and try to maintain, there's a whole series of ditches on that hillside that are going to move around over time. We'll go in, they've lasted 30, 40 years, we're going to go in and fix them, put them back to the way they were initially intended to do and that's the best, I can't guarantee the Town is going to go in there and maintain that on a regular basis. Certainly if something breaks again= and you bring it to our attention, we'll go out and look at it, assuming down t= he road that all the approvals are in place and this gets constructed as the applicant desires, they are proposing that to be open space, it will be Town owned property, we will be responsible if something from the Town's propert= y is damaging you, but unfortunately to be honest, we're going to have to wait u= ntil something breaks in the future. I don't see us going in there maintaining it on a regular basis.

Ms. Gibbs: = Do you feel that the improvements b= eing made up above will help alleviate some of the problems from down below?

Mr. Berger: There is a major swal= e up above your yard, it is breached, it comes down towards you and then the area that you showed Moosa and I a couple of years ago, it overwhelmed that swale and then continued right on down to your driveway, not only the one at the = edge of your yard there but also one further up in the woods. That one is a big swale that is br= inging a lot of water your way that didn't used to come that way so we've asked th= em to repair that.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Do you have all the questions answe= red?

Mr. Berger: We have a lot of publ= ic input at the last Public Hearing, and we did spend some time out in the fie= ld and my focus has been more on, call it the bigger picture trying to solve s= ome of the flooding issues, some of the drainage issues that are out there, and= we also looked into, let me side track for just a minute.

Ted Crawford, Licensed Profes= sional Engineer, Milone & MacBroom

Inland Wetland Agency