Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SUBDIVISION (42)
�\ TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR , PLANNING AND ZONING CONNECTICUT APPLICATION FCOMMISSION °so�.coe► 0 R M Application No. : Date _ ublic _Hearing b aa.pr e c e i p t I y APPLICANT: Lawrence A. Piano South Windsor ADDRESS: 71 Woodland Street, M in Commissi°° anchester, CT 06040 Plann� OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORD • TELEPHONE: 643-5614 f S. TELEPHONE: Estates Partners ADDRESS: 69 Deepwood Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Westerly side of Clark Street b Deming and Pleasant Valle between y Road NAME, ADDRESS, & TELEPHONE NUM ZONE: RR DIRECTED: NUMBER OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE Lawrence A. Piano, 71 Woodland Street, Manchester, CT 06040. THIS -APPLICATION IS FOR : TELEPHONE: 643-5614 (Check one of the followin —— 1 • Zone Change to 8) X (Public Hearing required) . Z• Subdivision . = 3' Open Space Subdivision p ( ubllc Hearing required) . —. 4• Resubdivision (Public Hearing .�. required) . = 5• Special Exception to Article 6• (Public Hearing Required) . Site Plan of Development. 7• Earth Fillip (Public lling [Section 101 and/or Earth Re Hearing Required) . moval (Section 9) 8. General Plan of Development . p nt . —� 9• Regulation Amendment : Zoning ping Subdivision 10.. Other (explain in detail INSULT PLANNING DEPARTMENT F [GNED BY THE APPLICANT AND OWNER FEE SCHEDULE. • IG THIS APPLICATION MUST BE ATE WITH ALL MAP NER OF THE PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED AND DOCUMENTS IN IRED ON ATT CHECKLIST. QPlicant F • caner gent for Fairway Estates Partners PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION, CONT' D. TIME FRAMES AND -PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS/PLANS 1 . All prospective applicants are urged to confer with Town Planning Department and Engineering Department staff prior to submission of any application to the Commission . 2. Plans are officially received only on the fourth Tuesday of each month at the Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) . 3. Three (3) sets of blueprints are required on the second Tuesday of the month for review by the Town Planning and Engineering Departments . This deadline must be met if you want to ensure that your application is officially received by PZC. These plans must be submitted as complete plans -- which includes application plus all required information contained on checklist. No plans will be accepted at the counter if checklist is incomplete . It is the applicant ' s responsibility to ensure that all information required on the checklist is submitted in one package at the time of- submission -- including landscaping plans, architectural elevations, traffic report , etc . Planning Department staff will not accept checklists with blank spaces , or with "by others" in any space. 4. Town staff will notify the applicant with any changes required to make the plans in complete compliance with our Zoning/Subdivision Regulations . 5 . All changes requested must be made and new, complete blueprints must be submitted . At this time six sets of plans must be submitted . If a Public Hearing is required ( or optional but likely) then seven sets are required . 6 . Planning Department/Engineering Department staff will review plans only once -- if the resubmissions are not complete/correct , the Town Planner ' s report will reflect that revisions were not made as requested . V1 -, ; . HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 2 , PIN OAK ESTATES CLARK STREET SOUTH WINDSOR DEC -1 1988 Existing conditions - South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission Drainage Area, A = 47.4 AC Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.41 Floodplain/Wetland, etc. = 13. 5 AC x 0.6 = 8.1 Undev. (Wood/Meadow Comb. ) = 33.7 x 0.35 = 11.8 Roof/Drive/Imp, etc. = 0.02 AC x 0. 9 = 0.18 19.48 = 0.41 47.4 Time of Concentration, TC = 50 min. 500' - OL @ 4.4% = 20.5 ) 51.75 use 50 1,500' - Stream @ .3% = 31. 25) V = 1.49 .003 x ( 1)2/3 = .8 FPS Rainfall- Intensity, 1 25 = 2.4 Peak F1o�kRate, Q = 46.6 CFS After Development - Drainbage Area, A = 47.4 AC. Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.43 Floodplain/Wetland, etc. = 13.5AC x 0.6 = 8.1 Undev. (Wood/Meadow Comb. ) = 32.9AC x 0.35 = 11.51 Roof/Drive/etc. = 1.0 x 0.9 = 0.9 i 20. 5 = . 43 ' 47.4 Time of Concentration, TC = 50 min. Rainfall Intensity, i 25 = 2.4 Peak Flow Rate, Q = 48.9 CFS Net Increase = 2/3 CFS or 4.9% To Plum Gully Brook and Podunk River - Negligible To: Raymond F. Hallowell, Jr. , Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission This is to advise that I am disqualifying myself from participation in any/all discussion/decision/action regarding Appl. #88-113P, Pin Oak Estates Subdivision. Marshall Montana Commissioner NORTHEASTSOILS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS • INLAND WETLANDS IDENTIFICATION 452 SHARON DRIVE • CHESHIRE, CONNECTICUT 06410 �• TELEPHONE(203)272-1100 Dec . 1 1 , 1996 Job No . 1 1-96-326-S.W T ND LctWrence A. F i ono 13 Middle Trnp 1.:. East F'.0. Dc=': 751 Manchester . CT i>6i)4(-) PROJECT LOCATION: Clark- St . , South Cor-Inecticut . SOIL REPORT In conduct-Lng the field investigation, many soil borings were taken in which the soil scientist notes many important soil properties. They a.e as follows; the seasonal soil moisture condition or the p ese•ncF, -,f Tree water and its depth . For each horizon in the soil prof i le2, thi•r[' ,-,ess, color , and te,14ture are also noted . The areas shown c,,; the sr-,i ] map are called sail map units. Some map units are made Up of one l: i-nd of soil , others are made up of two or more k:i nds of soil , and a f c-,-i have little or ino soil material at all . The in*ormction in t`-iis report is based on examination and iinterpretation of soi. _s to a MEi%XImum depth of about 60 inches. The classificat:t oin of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, USDA, Soil Conservation Ser--;iice and the County Soil Legend were used in this investigation. Inspection Date: Dec . 3, 1(7-), 1 1 , 1996 Map: Property line map Scale: 100 Contour: `2 Size of project: Appro ; 47 Acres Wet 1 and' soils field marked for Sur-vc:v: YE.c,3 Nonwetlend field identified and sketched : YES Soil. cc-nd i t i ons z-,.t the time of =ur,/e.y: WET' E'ropert ,' 11A.nes fii(-74d surveyed at thc, ti(T•ie�of soil ins.-,pec: t3* r.-n: tl/,•1 F'ropert . lines i dc�nt i.f iab le: '�Ec= Vegetation t- pe wetlands---: Hardwc-ods Vegetaticin type nc-nwetlands: Hardwac--ds, open fields-, NORTHEAST SOILS Bruce C. LasE::ey Soil Scientist 2 PROJECT: C1ari� St . - South Windsor . CT. Marking sequence of wetland boundaries Orange flagging 1 thru 19 2(--) thru 42 43 thru 87 88 thrU 95 96 thru 295 500 thru 506 507 thru 512 Soil Type Depth To 1 Depth To 1 Depth To Seasonal % Bedrock Wetland Soils Mottling Bedrock High Water Table : in Soil Unit (P(70 Feat t`•!/A ..6(-)" +12-0" Nov-May none MUc�:: , Shallow 1 (Sb ) Saco i 6-10 .:60 i 0" Nov-April i none (Sc ) Sc c!nt l c i 1 i)—1=1.," 1. 60 it 1. 0-18" Nov-May i i-lcc cie NONWETLAND SOILS ((a# ) ::6 )" ..'72" i nc�'1'lr�• (Ec. ) E l mvvood 1=' 39" :?bi)" 1 18-36 Nov-April 1 ncci if_- (Mn) Melrose : 4i 6t y ,2 none t+e (Te) Terrace 4f) :.72" ncc c (W•`J ) Windsor i 4C) e 6(_)" � .72" i nci•i Ie Comments: None Soil descriptions begin on page 3. 3 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS WETLAND SOILS Feats and Mucks, shallow (Pm) This sail series consists of very poorly drained organic sails in various stages of decomposition. The water table is at or near the surface mast Of the time. The thickness of organic matter ranges from abC-Lit. 12 to 36 inches. Saco silt loam (Sb ) This sail series consists of very poorly drained floc-d plain sails. Typically, the surface layer is very dark: brawn silt lay.{m 8 inches thick: . The substratum is mottled grayish brown silt loam that is very friable. Mottles generally occur within 1(--) inches of the soil surface. The material below 2 feet ranges in te,.-Aure from silt loam to coarse sand and gravel . Scantic silt loam (Sc ) This soil series corisist•s Of poc.rl'y% drained soi i=':• ' that have developed on glaciolacustrine silt and clay. Typically, the surface layer is very dark. grayish brawn silt loam 6 inches thick: . The subsoil is mottled dark: gray silty clay loam 13 inches thick . Matti i r-1g generally Occurs within i.(--) inches of the surface. The Substratum is brown silty clay lc-am that is very firm. • 4 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS NONWETLAND SOILS Agawam fine sandy loam (Af) Thls well drained sail farmed in a loamy mantle aver stratified sand and gravel derived mainly from gneiss and schist . Typically. the surface layer is dark:: brawn fine sandy loam 9 inches thick . The subsoil is yellowish brown fine sandy loam 20 inches thick: . The sub- stratum is light yellowish brov,n and pale alive sand to a depth qFf 60 inches or more. Permeability r--,nges from moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil. and rapid it-, -he sUbstratum. Agawam sails are on clutwash plains and terraces in stream -,Alleys. Elmwood sandy 12.am (En) This: sc.. l seriess, consists of moderately well drained outwash sails. They de._lope-d over glacial lake silt and clay which is at depths of 24 to 42 i,Iches. Typ i ca 1 1 y, the surface layer is dark: grayish brown sandy loam -- inches thick . The subsoil is about 20 inches thick . The upper part a brown sandy loam while the lower part is mottled dark: grayish brown loamy fine sand . Mottles generally occur within 20 inches of the surface. The substratum is olive gray valved silt: and silty clay loam. Melrose sandy loarrn _(Mm) This ; 1 series consists of moderately well drained glaciol.acustrine sail=. Typically, the surface layer is dark: brown sandy loam S inches th i c t . The s►_►bso i l is brown sandy loam 2t? inches thick: . The st..tbstra-ttum i- mottled dark: gray silty clay loam. The material ju=_t above the silty _--d clayey substratum is nearly always mottled . Terrace escarpments, sand and =_ay (Te? This land type of steep slopes on terrace breaks made _ = of sandy and clayey maternal . Windsor loamy firie_ sand (Wv)._l-r.--s soil series consists of e:;cessively drained glacial c-utwash sails. Typically, the surface layer is dark yellowish brawn loamy fine sa-,--c ,3 inches thick:: . The subsoil is strong brawn loamy fine sand 16 iinchF= thick:: . The substratum is grayish brovif) sand . PIPE StOPE I mm C-C�CCCCC� mm ====MEMO mom= mmmmmmm CCCC::�CCC� CCC��C�C�E�C�CC�C CCBE�C�C�E�CCCC�� �i�•�•�� SC�C�CC •C C•�C� •C�CCC�C C�CE�C�C� CCCCCGCC��CCC� mm m mC� CC TABLE 1 C) HOURLY VOLUt4ES SITE CODE : 00000074 RECORDED ON CLARK ST. PAGE: 1 Location : Clark Street, Clio Pole 25215 FILE: clarkst3 Weather : Varied Ooerator : Leo DATE: 11/14/88 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY WEEK BEGIN 14 15 16 17 18 AVERAGE 19 20 AVERAGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12:00 AM 1 t 3 7 7 4 1 1 4 1:00 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2:00 1 1 2 3 0 0 1 1 0 3:00 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 4:00 1 t 3 4 4 2 t t 2 5:00 1 1 3 8 7 5 i t 5 6:00 1 t 61 56 50 55 t t 55 7:00 t 1 128 120 128 124 1 1 124 8:00 1 t 85 75 67 74 t 1 74' 9:00 1 1 31 43 5B 43 1 t 43 10:00 t t 44 29 51 40 1 1 40 11:00 1 1 64 44 11 53 1 1 53 12:00 PM t 1 77 75 1 75 1 t 75 1.-00 t 1 69 56 1 62 1 1 62 2:00 1 1 84 84 t 83 1 1 83 3:00 - 1 81 82 89 t 82 1 1 82 4:00 1 88 136 115 1 112 1 1 112 5:00 1 134 114 115 1 119 t t 119 6:00 t 68 90 85 t 79 1 1 79 7:00 1 49 50 63 t 52 1 1 52 8:00 1 39 35 55 1 42 1 1 42 9:00 t 36 43 30 1 35 1 1 35 10:00 1 18 19 13 t 16 t 1 16 11:00 1 8 7 12 t 8 t t 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS 1 521 1231 1182 387 1165 1 1 1165 % AVG WKDAY 1 44.7 105.7 101.5 33.2 % AVG DAY 1 44.7 105.7 101.5 33.2 t t AM PEAK HR 1 1 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 1 t 7:00 VOLUME t t 128 120 128 124 1 t 124 PM PEAK HR t 17:00 16:00 16:00 t 17:00 t 1 17:00 VOLUME t 134 136 115 1 119 t 1 119 TABLE 2 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION , OF RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON CLARK STREET Single Family Homes -- ITE Land Use Code 210 Time Total Entering Exiting Period* Regression Equation** Trip Ends - Traffic (%) Traffic () 24 hrs. Ln(T)=0. 94Ln (X) +2. 60 225 112 (50) 113 (50) AM Peak Ln(T)=0. 91Ln(X) +0. 20 19 5 (27) 14 (73) PM Peak Ln(T)=0. 94Ln (X) +0. 36 24 15 (63) 9 (37) * All time periods correspond to an average weekday. ** T= Total trip ends (sum of entering and exiting trips) X = Number of Dwelling Units. ` ATtw:k wu sib. .:•. q J NEYEA Sl#OMG KI = S IIO y�� b .p I `a o PA IUC ��ter, 4' G off �C H r• J r� t K IrE y�i 4 V i• SAUD O ` R � All + ep OL EYZ + G , �T f 11 I144r ` Z;L'�!•�\ ,�'� �� •,•;scow - r• ;! t0 w � � vo 1..As, �ELLINGTON Ro. :2 a� .",�o I M .p � +• .. tD t .4 Gfv" ci o c4 z 0 $4W •v t O P O ill 50 c'• so A TE '� ����e,��` �► •* �r� ST m •; tL `"�r .'C^'_�r. �i�4 X' •y� ' t{ w ` ; Kf 0 p7►. 0 0 G� ,0 c� ' psiti ►c' 1 a Artt t COUwirT CIA's �' + �0 � 4S• � .a• ��`�`�� •. •µme~�, 4�� �� a- ` , /�C�'�*P0O ~.A �+�\'r ti..• •.f► _ to 4 �• C'A f� Z '11 '8Va �J •l V'`` . • ~ S1 ' of s n ��i r m SOtjh WIfl�SOT _ ----�� I�aNMFN „afo slow aD o srKtcux Hofttord /�` �`� "t""sT Eost Aft ww out o SNcr Q�SF w o .tot w g ' Pf! ��\ y Al 'af111F STAl1pN •i 0• l `aw Wr + w ' `\ f .- O ,M ST t �... r t.. • tOlot Dll y \ 4Atlt ,CE1, '` /• •rv-j'4fl(f A, ML • s� 1 i z I• • fa �. ! l i/I KPOT ST o.i a.;rJOLI• WKS "'�1•i _ s �� � I {. • IS 4� i h C01I CLUB r p / �� o r �' • Ittlllt rotwAPt� :.1 N al ► I ir• ./ ILACKlTONE s �� � � ..� MNSt•Kff�� i:��� �,?;S � LMAt GO«rtl i_.✓ Mt.,l PO \``` .;, ••� 000�w0 �'•� �.r' a r i 44 � `. O i�t .00• D f yt MDU ±�����./� f,* ,•41Ww -'•'� XicRHLMM�,-1 �r�f0ll `t� N.:Ct C t,� �• ►ARA F 11w Str ill IMID y,-1 i'� .• ` �i'a :u� �•1+`•+ • ♦ 1 '�L��p�'�tMf•� �L��''',''TT' •/�!1 f e .�.o ��C. �,/• 9 w o .-l'� f.•: •0��' �� M C • �'JMy . ,7 a�.7 /�lll�t ` •�!V 0+ R' r~ r tcl o w r w '� 1 tt.� • • w S �! / •Y ��`, tiT t }• t0. wt"t.l `1•t V A1Y11 •„ 1� JI•,. R7 _ _ � Ttw.a , i � :e tlf'D� .1� S6► �, ,tom. � •i•• ►�o« � .ttL.lt w FIGURE I LOCATION MAP RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT 1-W..He4eth &Associates , Inc. 101 Millbrook Common.dloomficid.Q.06002 • Planning Tra. ic Enginccring Hesieth 6,-;) ..1lssociates . hic. TRAFFIC COUNT GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEE' LOCATION: CLARK STREET AT DEMING STREET, SOUTH WI l :SOR DATE Tuesday , November 15 , 1988 TIME : 3 : 00-4 :00 P.M. cn Ln +� O O cn O - w N a O x Ln 00 x Ln rn co 0 � H V �O N M � Demi-: Street 72 106 27 34 7 .10 � To B::cland Street 0 x. 00 0 N •—i �O �+d c O 7 00 G � cU � x N 1�+ O k-A r-I a V 10 0 -1GURE 12 1) H Hesketh Inc.. TRAFFIC COUNTY GRAPHIC SUMMARY 9Er T LOCATION: CLARK STREET AT DEMING STREET, SOUTH • _ =SOR DATE Tuesday , November 15 , 1988 TIME :4 : 00 -5 :00 P.M. cV O O N M N >4 C) 41 i� � O O co 0 O r-I H U Ln N �7 O� Street 177 61 12 Icti _ _ : _-:{land Street 00 (V (V �--� W rl O N > a �r 4-J O G L cv rn � N N .0 cti k-1 � 10 E- 13 P.�4.Hesketh L�; As.�oclate s , In c. TRAFFIC COUNT GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET LOCATION: CLARK STREET AT DEMING STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR DATE : Tuesday , November 15 , 1988 TIME k : 30-5 : 30 P.M. (Peak Hour) „ o O cn v O t� L A: Y4 M r+ cb r--4 O r--I � U .-4 cn �O ON Deming Street 106 213 91 107 16 and Street 1 c0 I To Buckl 0 cn cc v > 0 4j Ln C � � cd t0 $-4 O cb a � U � \ 10 cn H FIGURE 9 �He4eih & Assoriates , In,c. TRAFFIC COUNT GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEE T LOCATION: CLARK STREET AT DEMING STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR DATE Wednesday November 16, 1988 TIME7 :00-8 :00 A.M. (Peak Hour) rn J, CN W C) O y� M N $-i cti N 0 V 0 E-� -41 N Deming Street 142 220 72 78 b ca 6- 0 w I i - To Buckland Street ►n CV r-I fb 7 C cd M O cd cn 0 a En 0 -Y E—� $-. c0 N v FIGURE 10 MI _ P. Hesketh Ce) Asso�i�rtes , In f,- TRAFFIC COUNT GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEE T I.00AT10Nl: CLARK STREET AT DEMING STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR DATE Wednesday November 16 , 1988 TIME8 :00 - 9 :00 A.-"I. o� Ln a a o cn � a N � Ol 7 O c0 I a U O E-� Ln Deming Street m- 61 112 42 51 �v 9 0 x To Buckland Street a Ln o CV r-1 cd 1-� C 7 4-J cd ch O a cn Lr) a ca �4 a +� a x o �• E--� co Ln U 00 FIGURE 11 t�.�.Resketh & .Associates Inc. TRAFFIC COUNT GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET LOCATION: PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD AT CLARK STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR DATE : Wednesday , November 16 , 1988 TIME : 3 :00-4 :00 P.M. NORTH O e „ 00 � cn O ca ^ A U O E-+ %D O Lf1 To Route 30 Pleasant Valley Rd . 13 4:183 161 236 9 MWA i - 359 545 6 154 309 146 i .00000, Pleasant Valley Rd . ` / To Buckland St . cn Ln 0o c' -o v ca O o cx � 00 w ca ca � � U U O Planning E- TraffiC Engineering Design FIGURE 5 _EX Hesketh & .Associates , Inc. TRAFFIC COUNT GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET LOCATION: PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD AT CLARK STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR DATE : Wednesday , November 16 , 1988 TIME :4 :00-5 :00 P.M. NORTH 1.0 a � v 00 C O � A U O E+ Ln 00 [C14 %.0 r-4 To Route 30 N,,2leasant Valley Rd . .MMMMM 011110�-=� 18 183 162 IN244 3 842 501 .18 318 288 598 292 Pleasant Valley Rd . ` To Buckland St . .o N r--4 O IO to L7 a� •v � O 04 � N .Y a � co V O IH Planning FIGURE 6 Traffic Engineering Design r� EX Hesketh & Associates , Inc. TRAFFIC COUNT GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET LOCATION: PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD AT CLARK STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR DATE Wednesday , November 16 , 1988 TIME : 4 : 30-5 : 30 P.M. (Peak Hour) Nowm v � � C r--4 A .--i U O E-� O N '.0 cn r— %\ To Route 30 ��Pleasant ValleyRd . .Wmmmww 16 255 193 173 4 616 996 7 20 423 387 741 334 Pleasant Valley Rd . ` / To Buckland St . �, O c b a c o x +' Ln cn � � x a � cv ca V O TraffiCEngineeringPlanning Design FIGURE 8 EX.Hesketh & ..&sociates Inc. TRAFFIC COUNT GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET LOCATION: PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD AT CLARK STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR DATE : Wednesday , November 16, 1988 TIME5 : 00-6:00 P.M. NORTH 0 00 cn c x E c o a coA V O E- N Ln cV To Route 30 *,.. �Pleasant Valley Rd � r �� . � � 8 177 165 247 4 E500 851 -•22 285 323 297 604 Pleasant Valley Rd . ` / To Buckland St . :)\ CN �O .-�4 O O� 00 M -p W � W O f' i N co c = V U O I Planning FIGURE 7 TrafCEngincering Design SITE CODE FIGURE 2: 00000074 PAGE: 2 Location : Clark Street. CL6P Pole 25215 HOURLY VARIATION FILE: clarkst3 Neither : Varied IN TRAFFIC ON CLARK ST. Doerator : Leo DATE: 11/16/88 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 275 270 ; WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1988 265 260 255 250 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 245 240 235 230 225 220 215 210 205 Ch1 200 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 195 f 190 185 180 175 f 170 165 160 i 155 it 150 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 145 140 135 # 130 f t 125 t t 120 t t 115 t f # 110 t t t 105 t f f 100 ----------------------------#-----------------------------------;---;--------------------------- 95 t # # 90 f t f t 85 t t t t # t 80 75 f t t t t t t # t 70 ; t t t t t t t f t 65 2 t t t t t # t # t 60 t t t t t f t t f f f 55 # f t f f t t t t f t 50 1 ------------------------;---;---;-----------;---;---;---;---;---;---#---#---;------------------- 45 1 f t f t f # t t # f f t ! t 40 t f f f f t f f t f t # t ! 35 30 # f f f t f f f t f f t f f f # 25 20 t t t t f t t t t t # f t t t # f 15 t f f t f t t t t t t # t t f f t 10 5 t 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lose lose feet else lose lose item 1os•189618as lose 1660 Ilse leas lose logo 1eas1@$$10801ess1ass logo 1@$a leas TIME: 12AM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.'.11.11 01celll U A33 UG lal e.S , lilt. TRAFFIC COUNT GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET LOCATION: PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD AT CLARK STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR DATE : Thursday , November 17 , 1988 TIME : 7 : 00-8:00 A.M. (Peak Hour) NORTH .o v � LV 00 cn r. - .SC E f., \O OJ ca cr) N 0 r--1 •--� U Ei \ To Route 30 Pleasant s Valle Rd . ant Valley Rd . 393 364 645 1 553 882 32 160 142 237 63 Pleasant Valley Rd` / To Buckland St . rn .o 0 N Ln cq Ln O cn N cU O .�L r--4 $4 v 00 cb �]. N r--1 ca U U O E-4 FIGURE 3 Planning . . _ Tra IC Engineering Design Heskem & Associates , Inc. TRAFFIC COUNT GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET LOCATION: PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD AT CLARK STREET, SOUTH WINDSOR DATE : Thursday , November 17 1988 TIME :8: 00-9 :00 A.M. NORTH O cn ai 00 a� a +� E A .Y O w 00 O c0 N r—i U 00 To Route 30 1 Pleasant Valley Rd . 17 196 174 349 5too 318 518 . . 16 122 111 169 42 Pleasant Valley Rd . ` / To BucklandSt . r- oo co r--4 1 001 10 N to ca O LY O O w c0 .� N —x U t� cd O Planning Traffic Engineering Design FIGURE 4 t + R A. HESKETH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 101 MILLBROOK COMMON•BLOOMFIELD.CT 06002•(203)242-7755 November 21, 1988 Mr. Robert C. Isner Land Planner Landtech Properties, Inc. 71 Woodland Street, PO Box 751 Manchester, CT 06040 RE: Traffic Engineering Study Residential Subdivision - 523 Clark Street South Windsor, CT Our File: # 88118 Dear Mr. Isner: Pursuant to your request of October 7 , 1988, we have conducted a traffic engineering study in conjunction with the proposed residential development at 523 Clark Street in South Windsor. The development will consist of a maximum of 20 single family homes on the west side of Clark Street between Deming and Pleasant Valley Road. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the location of the site. The purposes of our study were (1) to review existing traffic and roadway conditions in the vicinity of the site; (2) to estimate the amount of traffic that may be generated by the development; (3) determine the impact of site-generated traffic on the adjacent street system; and (4) recommend a driveway location that will permit adequate sight lines. It is anticipated that this letter report will be used in the zoning process in South Windsor. Our study included a field survey of the roadway system which provides access to the site and the land uses which traffic studies traffic engineering traffic planning i ! presently exist in the area. Clark Street is a two-lane South Windsor town roadway extending from Deming Street on the north to Burnham Street on the south. All stop control is in effect at Deming Street. The roadway, which is posted at 30 miles per hour, follows a gently rolling tangent alignment to the south of Deming Street, with a 20-22 foot pavement, but lacking shoulders and curbing, and serving a land use which is low density residential and agricultural. Traffic control along the roadway consists of frequent speed limit signs , advance warning signs for significant curves, and a double yellow painted center line throughout the length of the roadway. The most significant curve along the roadway is at the site proposed for development. Any driveways located in that area should be located near utility pole #25^31 so that traffic exiting any driveways in that area has adequate sight lines to both the north and south along the roadway. A short distance south of the subject site and extending to Plum Gully Brook, the roadway has been constructed to a 26-foot road with curbing on both sides . Further to the south in the vicinity of Stanley Drive , the roadway has been reconstructed to include curbing on the west side of the roadway, but the pavement width remains at 22-24 feet. Near the intersection of Clark Street and Pleasant Valley Road, the Cinnamon Springs condominiums occupy the land area between Pleasant Valley Road and Smith Street. A condominium development known as Sun Field at Burr Meadow occupies land on the west side of Clark Street near Pleasant Valley Road. The Pleasant Valley Road intersection itself is also controlled with four-way stop controls, with older residential homes on the northeast and southwest corners , a garden which is part of the Burr Meadow condominiums on the northwest corner, and the Pleasant Valley apartments on the southeast corner. To the south of Pleasant Valley Road through the intersection of Margaret Drive and an additional residential roadway to the south of Margaret Drive, Clark Street continues as a rural highway serving low density residential and agricultural land uses . All stop control is in effect at the south terminus of Clark Street at its intersection with Burnham Street and Chapel Road. Our survey of existing traffic characteristics included a mechanical traffic count on Clark Street near the site proposed for development, and manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Clark Street at Pleasant Valley Road and at Deming Road. A mechanical traffic counting device was placed on Clark Street for a period of 4 days from Tuesday, November 15 to Friday, November 18 , 1988 . Table 1 displays the hourly volumes recorded by the counter, and Figure 2 provides a graphic display of the typical hourly variations in traffic occurring on this roadway. The average weekday traffic on Clark Street is approximately 1 , 200 vehicles. Traffic volumes on the roadway are much greater during the morning and afternoon commuter hours than during the mid-day or evening hours . The volumes between 7 and 8 a.m. and between 4 and 5 p.m. are about 110 to 130 v hicl s per hour, with volumes between 30 and 80 vehicles during the mid-day hours. Thus it is apparent that Clark Street is used mainly for commuting purposes, with little usage during non-commute periods. Manual turning movement counts were conducted during the A.M. and P.M. peak commuter hours at the intersections of Clark Street with Deming Road and with Pleasant Valley Road. The hourly volumes recorded during each hour are shown in Figures 3 through 13. The counts revealed that the peak hours of traffic in 'this area are from 7:00 to 8 : 00 a.m. and from 4: 30 to 5:30 p.M. , At the intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and Clark Street, traffic operations appeared satisfactory except for the busiest periods of the morning and afternoon commuter peak hours. A comparison of the turning movement volumes recorded during the peak hours with those recorded shortly before and after the peaks indicates a dramatic difference in volumes . During the morning peak hour, nearly 650 vehicles use the westbound approach of Pleasant Valley Road. Although this roadway was originally designed as a collector roadway to serve local residents, it has more recently been used as a through commuter route due to the direct connection it provides between the Manchester/Vernon area and the Bissell Bridge. For about a 15-minute period in the morning, vehicles on the westbound approach of Pleasant Valley Road approaching Clark Street experienced delays of at least 2 to 3 minutes per vehicle. However, other than this 15-minute period, delays to vehicles are minimal even during the commuter hours. During the afternoon peak hour, the major movements are right turns from the northbound approach of Clark Street and through movements eastbound on Pleasant Valley Road. Backups of 8 to 10 vehicles occasionally were observed during the afternoon peak hour on each of these approaches, but delays were not excessive. At the intersection of Deming Street and Clark Street, traffic volumes were low during all time periods, and no operational difficulties were observed. The amount of traffic generated by the residential subdivision on Clark Street has been estimated on both a daily and a peak hour basis . Peak hour traffic generation has been estimated for a weekday morning and a weekday afternoon peak hour. It is expected that the peak hours for the development will coincide with the peak hours of background traffic on the adjacent highway system. Estimating the amount of traffic expected at a new land use generally involves a study to determine the amount of traffic that has been recorded at similar existing land uses. In order to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the single family homes on Clark Street, the reference Trip Generation - 4th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) , has been used. This is a standard reference which provides trip generation data for many common land uses and building types. The information contained in this document was obtained by various organizations through many field studies of traffic generation. The Trip Generation Manual reports the data in terms of average trip rates and through statistically derived regression equations. The equations account for the fact that the rate of trip-making at most land uses decreases as the size of the development increases . The equations yield the total number of trip ends, which is the sum of entering and exiting vehicles. The Report' s empirical directional distribution ratio is then applied to determine the number of entering and exiting trips. The Institute of Transportation Engineers ' study included 320 different studies of single family detached housing, a typical example of which is a home in a modern subdivision. The 320 studies covered almost 100, 000 individual single family detached housing units and found that the average weekday trip ends per dwelling unit was 10.062 . The average vehicle trip rate during the morning peak hour of adjacent street traffic was 0.75. For the p.m. peak hour, the rate per dwelling unit is 1 .0. Morning peak hour traffic was found to consist of 27 percent of the traffic entering the complex and 73 percent exiting. During the afternoon peak hour of adjacent street traffic, 63 percent was found entering and 37 percent exiting. The study also found that the peak hour of the generator generally occurred during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Based upon the regression equations provided in the ITE Trip Generation Report, it is estimated that a single family detached housing subdivision of 20 units proposed at 523 Clark Street would generate average weekday vehicle trips of 225. Morning peak hour traffic is estimated at a total of 19 trip ends made up of 5 entering and 14 ,exiting vehicles . PM peak hour traffic is projected at 24 trip ends of which 15 are entering the complex and 9 are exiting. These projections are summarized in Table 2. The traffic volumes expected to arrive at and depart the development during the peak hours are clearly insignificant. When that traffic is distributed to the roadway system, the impact of that traffic on individual roadway sections becomes even smaller. The roadway configuration in the area is such that the site-generated traffic would be dispersed in several different directions . Slightly more than half of the traffic would be oriented to the south on Clark Street, due to the concentration of employment centers and commercial activities in that direction. Beyond the intersections of Deming Street to the north and Pleasant Valley Road to the south, traffic would be dispersed so that the increase in traffic on individual roadways would be very insigificant, with less than 30 percent of all traffic or less than 8 peak hour trips on any particular roadway segment. The only realistic concern regarding the impact of site-generated traffic would be at the intersection of Clark Street and Pleasant Valley Road, where vehicles presently experience some delays during peak periods . However, the amount of traffic that will be added to the intersection as a result of the new subdivision will be very small compared to the existing F-raLLlc Volunles . Tile ostler concern witn respecc Lo Lnls property relates to the location of driveways on a subdivision roadway to access the site. It is recommended that any new subdivision road intersect Clark Street at the existing curve near utility pole #2531 so that traffic exiting the new road will be able to see and be seen by traffic on Clark Street. Driveways to individual homes should be at least 200 feet away from the curve to insure safe sight lines. With the satisfaction of these recommendations, it is our opinion that the construction of a new subdivision with up to 20 new single family homes will not result in traffic congestion or a diminution in the level of traffic service available in the Clark Street area. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our traffic study of the proposed residential development on Clark Street, and I shall be available as may be required to assist in the presentation of our findings to appropriate authorities in the Town of South Windsor. Very truly yours, F. A. H RETH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Frederick A. Hesketh, P.E. i LANDTECH PROPERTIES, INC. SUBDIVIDERS 8c DEVELOPERS November 30, 1988 D DEC 1 1988 Ms. Marcia Banack South Windsor Director of Planning Planning & Zoning Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Submission of Subdivision Plans Dear Ms. Banack: Attached please find three complete sets of blueprints for the proposed Pin Oak Estates Subdivision located off Clark Street. Also attached is a completed Subdivision Checklist, Hydraulic Analysis, Traffic Report and filing fee of $200.00 (eight lots at $25.00 each) . In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, a copy of this plan is also being submitted to the Town Engineer. In accordance with both town and State Regulations, the necessary Wetlands Permit Application is also being submitted to the town along with the Subdivision Application. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 643-5614. Very truly yours, Robert C. Isner Land Planner RCl/dp Attachments 71 Woodland Street, P.O. Box 751, Manchester, CT 06040 (203) 643-5614 Y S E A Consultants Inc. January 3 1989 Engineers/Architects y Principals Arnold B.Goldstein,P.E. Mr. Michael J. Gantick, P.E. Frederick G.Aufiero,PE. Director of Public Works Robert M.Brandon,A.I.A. Town of South Windsor Stephen H.denote P.E. 1540 Sullivan Avenue David T.Goodemote,P.E. Bruce E.Soule,P.E. South Windsor, CT 06074 Kenneth M.Stewart,P.E. Anthony J.Zuena,P.E. Re: Pin Oak Estates Associates Job No. 88126.47 Steven L.Bernstein,P.E. Task Order No. 47 Paul F.Gabriel,P.E. Mark Gould,P.E. Michael S.Schultz,P.E. Dear Mr. Gantick: Arthur A.Spruch,P.E. Paul C.Ross,RE As requested, S E A Consultants Inc. has reviewed the following for the above referenced project: Sheet No. Title Prepared Date -- Cover Sheet Landtech Associates 11/28/88 1 of 7 Key Map 2 of 7 Plot Plan " 3 of 7 Topographic Map " 4 of 7 Conservation Plan " 5 of 7 Plan/Profile 6 of 7 Notes & Details " 7 of 7 Notes & Details " -- Hydrological 11/88 Calculations -- Traffic Study F.A. Hasketh & Assoc. 11/21/88 This information was reviewed for compliance with the Town of South Windsor Subdivision and Zoning Regulations dated July 24, 1972 and standard engineering practice. We note the following: Section 4.13.2.34 PLOT PLAN b. It is assumed that driveway access will be provided off of 850 Silas Deane Highway Clark Street for Lot #2. Wethersfield,CT 06109-3412 (203)721-7993 485 Massachusetts Avenue . 1 Cambridge,MA 02139-4018 (617)497-7800 J'A Lr Citicorp Park West 100 Foden Road South Portland,ME 04106-2319 (207)775-2281 SEA c Mr. Michael J. Gantick, P.E. S E A Consultants Inc. January 31 1989 Engin rs/Architects Page Two Section 4.13.2.4 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP b. Curb lines should be denoted on the plan. sanitary sewer laterals with flowline elevations for C. Proposed lans. Lots 4, 6 & 7 should be located on the p g• The length and slope of the proposed 15" R.C.P. from C.B. #1 located on Oak Trail should be labeled on the plan. g• Th e flowline elevation for C.B. #1 has been labeled incorrectly. Section 4.13.6 CONSERVATION PLAN 1. Soil classifications should be defined on the plans. 2. A const ruction tracking apron should be provided at the Oak Trail entrance. GENERAL COMMENTS ontain a signature and an embossed seal from the 1. The plans must c designing professional engineer and land surveyor. that a substantial amount of additional culvert 2. It appearsro osed 30 A.C.C.M accumulates upstream of the p P acro ss Lots 3 and 4. Hydraulic calculations for the culvert including this drainage area should be submitted. 3. A hydraulic analysis based on a 25-year storm frequency has been submitt ed. The analysis indicates an increase of 2-3 c.f the Town between pre- and post-development conditions. Ho wever,tween re- and post-development se for the 2, 10, 25, 5 requires a zero net tand 100ayearestorm frequencies. 4. The engine er should evaluate site line distances north A drsouth of the intersection of Oak Trail and Clark distancest• file should be provided to verify required sight should be noted that water service to the W in Oak CompanyEstates s subdivision is dependent 5• It i on the Connectc dent up construc tion of an 8-inch watermain along Clark Street during the summer of 1989. of foundation elevations for proposed house locations 6. The to p should be shown on the Topographic Map. Due to the significant presence of wetlands on the site, it is 7, program be recommended that a subsurface soil standtisoilp gradation implemented. Water table elevations information should be submitted for further review. SEA . SEA C nsultents Inc. Mr. Michael J. Gantick, P•E Engineers/Architects January 39 1989 Page Three $, The northern 1g e of the existing driveway located on entrance Lot #8 appears to be in conflict with the pro Posed Oak Tr and should be eliminated. �� pipe across Clark Street at the Oakhappen ail to 9. The existing 12 P P entrance has been denoted to be bulk?eaded. What will 1 e now drains. the run-off which this p'p flow analysis for Oak Trail, based on a 10-year storm 10. A gutter rovided. Also, the storm drainage frequency, should be P of South Windsor's calculations should be submim5ed on Town standard storm sewer design for on win note should be added to the tempoeSronsibleeforcthe 11. The following The developer shall be responsible all pertinent plans:: right-of-way and shall removal of pavement outside the rig topsoil, fertilizer, seed, and mulch in disturbed areas" . If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely yours, S E A Consult nt In John T. Holland JTH:ap y T-a a-P s ?d&U1Aat o C V 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 ��dsoR co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 January 11, 1989 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning FROM: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works RE: Engineering Review Pin Oak Estates Attached please find the SEA engineering review comments . In addition, the following comments are also noteworthy: 1 . An A-2 Boundary survey is needed for this proposal. 3 . Although Lot 4 fronts Clark Street, access is proposed off a private drive as would Lot 5 (it is assumed) which could present emergency vehicle response problems . 4 . Lot grading, house access, sanitary sewer and footing drain connections are not shown on plan. 5 . A full development plan showing road extensions would be appropriate in order to fully evaluate the proposed road. It appears that an extension of the road would necessitate major drainage and wetland involvement. 6 . The soils for this site have high seasonal ground water from the surface to 20 inches down. The substratum soil conditions are also unsuitable for road construction. Extensive subsurface drainage and extended pavement structures would be needed. Development inyB this area would be pdifficult. r�C,V4k'' € tV.�, J'tt �1 CR. � (AJ( -W.,.-�• '-t'r �`4�C �"f` '�. Due to the number and nature of the engineering concerns noted herein, it is recommended that the Commission not act on these plans until said concerns are addressed and re-reviewed by staff . Should you have any questions please contact me. MJG/jsv cc: Project File t ,p N S f,< �6 AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074� 1540 SULLIVAN AVE o AREA CODE 203/644-2511 SOR•Co January 13, 1989 Lawrence A. Fiano 71 woodland CTreet 06040 Manchester, Re: Application #88-113, Pin Oak Subdivision Dear Mr. Fiano: sneering and Engineering Attached is a copy of comments f rom the planning application. Please Departments regarding the above-re feren revisions to the plans and submit 7 complete make the necessary r artment. sets to the Planning Department. if you have any quest ions regarding the comments or the procedure, please contact me. Very truly yours, Marcia A. Banach Director of Planning cc: Town Engineer PIN OAK ESTATES - PLANNING DEPT. REVIEW COMMENTS 1. All lots must have frontage on a road to be constructed (lot 6) ; cul-de-sac should be on/extend past Lot 6 . 2. While there is precedent for common driveways, the configuration of town street leading to common drive with turnaround leading to common drive without turnaround seems awkward. 3. Common drive for lots 4, 5, 6 leaves a small unuseable portion on Lot 5; location along property boundary seems more appropriate. Also, appears that easement should be for lot 3 also. 4 . Show 90' x 90' buildable squares on tight lots, i.e. , lots 2, 31 51 61 7; note that remaining lots meet 90 x 90 buildable square regulation. (Note: PZC has ruled that 90 x 90 squares cannot include any IWA/CC "regulated areas"- including the 40' wetlands setback area. ) 5 . Building lines: Lot 4, entire south boundary should be side yard; side yard line should be coincident with driveway easement (applies to all lots with easements) ; Lot 5, temporary cul-de-sac easement requires 50' setback as if it was a permanent cul-de-sac (in the event it ends up permanent) . 6 . Note to whom cul-de-sac easement granted (Town) . 7 . Lot 8 should discontinue use of existing driveway and construct a new driveway onto Pin Oak Trail. 8. This is a very difficult site for lot development, compounded by its location between 2 vertical curves plus a sharp horizontal curve. Recommend reduction in number of requested lots. 9 . Sightline for Lot 2 driveway onto Clark St? (Note vertical curve to west) I -A0NN SF sj qd[• T� VENUE SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 9 ` 1540 SULLIVAN A . w AREA CODE 203/644-2511 SOR CC) January 23 , 1989 Lawrence A. Fiano 71 Woodland Street Manchester, CT 06040 re: Appl . #88-113P, Pin Oak Estates Subdivision 8-lot Subdivision _ Gentlemen: that the public hearing in the above matter has Please be advised 1989 at 8:00 P.M. in the been scheduled for Tuesday, e ybjindsorruary 7Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Council Chambers of the south Avenue . ng the hearing must be posted for 10 consecutive days A sign advertisi prior27 ,to the hearing, and must be clearly visible from sign should Please have it posted by Friday, JanuaryStreet. be placed on the westerly side of Clark Signs can be purchased in the Town Hall for $5 .00 each. Very truly yours, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I Raymond F . Hallowell, Jr. Chairman cc: PZC File Applicant Engineer �I. Banach, Dir. of Planning �A o n p ce R Co��� SOUTH WINDSOR POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Services BAN 2� 198°' CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS Sauttl wintlsor #88-113 P Ja � ��� Commission Pr oject Title: Pin Oak Estates Subdivision Date. onsible for the purchase and installation aall Leo" 1. Developer is resp on or intersecti g street and traffic signs. Any si gns Department of State Highway must be cleared through the before a c.o. is issued. Trans- portation. All signs must be i responsible for the purchase of all street lighting le, 2. Developer is P Connect Light and Power. CL&P will install and through C have received payment from lighting once they the Police the locations of the lights has been reviewed a c.o. is Department. All li htin must be in issued. llor8'� byl4mapsof the 3. Developer will submit three (3) g� x of to the Police Department for the purpose be proposed project Completed maps will and locating all signs. identifying er, Town planner and Department. Any Chang the Police distributed to the dev eS°in road design will require new maps. signs must be in place as soon as possible and 4. Temporary street g maintained throughout the project. for the duration of the constructioer- 5, Emergency Phone numbers Department on a company letter- must must be provided to the Police Dep s after e developer occupies or owns the b toithe Police head. If the dedd construction emergency numbers must be provi Department. which highway erty ch abutts a public 6. All buildings located on Pro P shall be visible from must be numbered. Such number/s (address) g shall comply with Town Ordinance the street. All numberin 6-800 thru 6-802. ra es and outbuilding which are located on the same Barns, ga g remises as a numbered structure are excluded. St, P north on .Clark Very poor site line for proposed new street. Looking 7• y p c es t at are turning left int® Pin Oakcles th 1 owar s e new street ve 11 have a difficult It time observing south bound traffic on Clark. Vehicles are Bout oun on C ark St. will have and even hardeof theeshar grade vehicles exiting Pin Oak Rd. onto Clark dSt. new because roposed road, on Clark St. just north of the curve an P ro oB d driveway to Lot#1 be changed to exit onto Pin nn 8, Request that the p P h on _et_as Oak Road, instead of Clark St roximity to the propos more confusion will result; because of it's close p intersection of Clark Street nd � cticut 06074 (203) 6,44-2551 151 Sand Hill Road • South V✓indsor, Conne • -2- CONSTRUCTION SUGGESTIONS Q 1 , Keep all shrubbery low around doors and windows so as to allow an unrestricted view. Q 2 , Locate business name, if applicable, on the building- Q 3 , Backlight business name and address . Q 4 , Provide lights over all doors . 5 . Provide ample lighting of parking areas * rovide the Police 6 , Advise the new owner / purchaser to P Commercial Department with emergency ency numbers . (Business , and Industrial property only) - 71 SIGNATURE Sergeant Thomas C• Hart #103 Traffic $ervices Unit Approved by• Chi f Gar K. Ty r i PLANNING DgPARTXXNMW IN-HOIISLRAL PORK Mel Stead, Fred Shaw, Karl Reichle, Mike nti�ler, Fire Marshall TO. Richard J. Sartor, Gary Lanning, Jim Snow FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning The Planning & Engineering ineering Departments have received plans for the following project:# 0 Acreage Z one• _ gubdivisions_ Site Plan_ Residential No. of Lots/units Commercial Industrial � ' IL � r Location: Project Description. Future Town _owned property involved? Yes X No (a)new stree t x (existing frontage also) X (b)new open space/recreation area active passive (c)new detention area Planning Department comments if you will have Please let me know by with your on this application so that I can follow comments Department P d partment wh n I do a Planning P PLANNING DEPARTI[EM IN-HOUSE REF$RRAL FORM TO: Karl Reichle, Mike Gantick, Mel Stead, Fred Shaw, Richard J. Sartor, Gary Tyler, Fire Mars Lanning, Jim Snow FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following project:# 13 Zone Acreage Subdivision_ Site Plan Residential No. of Lots/units Commercial Industrial Location: ' r Project Description. , t Future Town-owned property involved? Yes X No (a)new streets x (existing frontage also) )( (b)new open space/recreation area active passive (c)new detention area Planning Department comments Please let me know by if you will have comments on this application so that I can follow up with your department when I do a Planning Department report. u � N N S E CT 1'� W sj 9 ` 1540 SULLIVAN AVE NUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 SO CO JANUARY 26 , 1989 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER THURSDAYTHURSDAY� FEBRUARY 2 1989 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION public hearing of the Notice is hereby t there will be a P 7 , 1989 at 8 :00 Planning and Zo ng Commiss'on on Tuesday, February P.M in the 01 ng Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall to consider following: P Lawrence A. Fiano, for an 8-lot subdivision Appl . #88-113 1 . of ro ert n the westerly side of Clark Street northerly P P o y Drive, RR Zone. Copies Of the applications and maps more clearly definingdlor the _ the properties are on file in the office ofouth of twindsor. Town Clerk an Planning Department of the Town At this hearing, rin interested persons may appear and be heard, and _ written recommendations will be received. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Raymond F. Hallowell, Jr. , Chairman Marshall Montana, Secretary 3 '11V r' A A 5 110meng, jr,_ Ra*and 'r. ROX $Slon zonialbowni sogb- L Windsor .1540- Sul-livift sodth windsort'- Ct 06074 RE:, PROPOSED. .PIN OAF, Dear Mr- ljol lowe 1 le family Subdivision is proposed as an eight lot Sing— The Pin oak Subdivision located on the West side of Clark street on , residential d by Fairway Estates. Comments from the so th Wdr property Owne a vision have been receivedthe Planning Staff regarding this subdivision coginents have been reviewed by and Engineering Departments- n discussed with Town Staff- The LandTech Group and have bee have been made visions to the Subdivision plan No substantial re in light of the fact that the Planning and Zoning issuest e their public hearing r garding Wetlands Cof- thenPlanningssio will commenc Zoning Commission Public th inland emen and of the Planning after the commenc ech Group feels that commencement hearing. The LandT ring prior to the Inland We hear public hearing hich will be and Zoning Commission P eventual revisions w ill assist us in the public hearing W satisfy the concerns raised by the Town Staff during necessary to sat their initial review- own staff which The The i h issues which have been raised at tised by the T e Feruary 7 , 1989 planning LandTech Group would like to discuss as follows; and Zoning Commission public hearing are -the proposed development densitY. -the to of the roadway and common driveway- -the curb cut onto Clark Street in addition to the road* -the criteria for the 90' X got buildable square. no all of the items which still need theThe above stated items are n subdivision? however theyare be addressed regarding the Pin oak at the February items The LandTech Group would like to focus on both the 1989 public hearing. The comments and concerns raised by ry 7 , 1989 Commission and the Public at the Februa planning and Zoning COMM'- - 71 Woodland Street, P.O. Box 751.9 Manchester, CT 06040 (205) 648-5614 rq :$� 3<p'pf�ate=" 'i• 1tg,. °n - _ bkV 11 �k=a TIC a '�w i:.!^al i'�?t,'.'fi # ��i15°i+a 4'V, , "'MI-,I _� Mid`��i �,'h�"��.F.S 4� �. ;,t'"•� ' { f �k5 R r,75 E t� � 4.4 i ,��re e^_fir .�!• P'._ - . ' _ d to MJ Designed by DATE Planning & Zoning Commission Cbec!:ed bra► L OF STREET FT Street 110. I ia�wp'aag Q I A-;T-.-vdvD I � I N J�� �O a�SaAy .•1 �, I I I 1 . allots '.+ 1 zdTa so q;3IIyl �V �o e A 'n =42AS UT b ' su5n aT I ITtiT SQ,o-II TIIink0 g I .tio I O17TI I I I I I I uT sog ,� qo��D Sett ram I't' . 0 • en I ad SSW 1 I I I I i I 1 N I II I :ua:9as our. .4 � . I I I I I I I I I I ZA�r inlet Station and Offset 1 � » Time to InSet 1 I i I I I I I°p Nlu I Area in Acres I I�Iv. l+ l Runoff Coefficient r I I I I I I I I I I Ic I Sum of Al I I I ICI I I I— Tecal .t 'I I IoI Im Rainf all Intensity%Z QtoInlet i I I i I I I I I I I I I MINI � I I I Grad` of Gutter 0 , I I I I I I I I I I I I� I IlV I— I C c51iou16ar eE _ Depth Gu Gutter a. 6. F'iEch of Plow IO N.. Al Bypassing INe: _ .. coo Al Entering Catch 0 ONI L 1tl �1 ^4 FIF 1! 1 1 V I I ?=sTsacl d 1 fbp � Sol wWA" SA orj"oouT* � h 1 LAND ESTATES � / LOT 5 o g 204 S.F. 4 TEMPORA Y CUL- E-SAC EASEMENT df 1000, • S y I 1000 41 'V 1 I � � �� I D Gor,►� t� 1 U r�o� I � s�"o I,o`+40 _ fOpp / .10 � • t \ \ +a� \ � LOT S.F. g .F. p o18 509 ` zChi / �' ` 4 110, � � 1 91 1 1 / 9 .sib ' \ �� `.•��or\. _ age ��� Go lei'NO OUTLET' SIGN 0 iA L441ow 0�, - p s 0,0 IL w� -S -4-I-`I pr�vLlC V � S�GX O.lo Z 8 - ------�-. - -------- fl1O� �lMP• = D� de 'A cif 9a = ZD.S ----- - - --- Z.T - - --- ---- �--- ---- 23. - da op ow Ja - --- = Z , i — `, �-- - i ' ------------ ----- ---- - 7.� 3c) - ---------- - _ - r t i 2OFZ � i AZ EC> r _ _ t� _ l r _ __-_ _ _ - hLIDgAuuc CML- tt 1 � 2s.1- A" --PAS ek�ST)QEk CJL)Wegr Tic) IeE `�Aju e SZP � - - - ��?LV - TBIS �°�L It �N at4( CT CO) le, V 074 e H WINDSOR. CONN. 06 S ` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH AREA CODE 203/644-2511 SOR•co March 14, 1989 Lawrence A. Fiano 71 Woodland Street Manchester, CT 06040 RE: Application #88-113P - Pin Oak Estates Dear Mr. Fiano: At the March 13, 198 9 meeting of the South Windsor Inland e Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, the Commission voted to Y Agency/C re-apply at any time taking prejudice, Application #89-113P. You may . into consideration the concerns expressed by the Agency The concerns expressed by the Agency are: g 1 . Total site draina a plan was not presented for the entire ethe parcel and Erosion and Sedimentation measures t protect entire area. 2. Based on abutters comments, a flooding problem exists now and they could be adversly affected. The answers which were presented did not allay their concerns . potential for adverse impact, and cuts across the dWetlandscon the site. 4 . Feasible and prudent alternatives not presented which could have red uced or eliminated impacts on wetlands and related drainage concerns . Very truly yours, ,John M. Moran, Jr. hairman ' Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission JMMJr/pmm cc: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning Michael J. Gantick, Director of Publ c Works John R. Collins, Chief Building official Raymond Hallowell, Chairman, Z Jerry Iazzetta, Town Engineer A. Bowen Davies, Deputy Town Engineer 44��13 P • oON S'r CT o 0 INDSOR. CONN. 06074 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE - SOUTH W AREA CODE 203/644-2511 osc)k•co�' January 11 ► 1989 M E M O R A N D U M of Planning Works Marcia A. Banach, Director TO: is FROM: Michael J. G antick, Director of Publ J Engineering Review RE: pin Oak Estates the SEA engineering review comments . In Attached please f ind b � following comments are also noteworthy: / addition, the fo proposal* Boundary survey is needed for roach on private 1 . An A_2 Boun Y e proposed Pin Oak Trail en ed The p as proposed (cul-de-sac) - ro os Pr( access is assumed) Although Lot 4 fronts Cs W would Street 5 (1 response A off a private drive as emergency vehicle which could present problems . sanitary sewer and footing p house access , plan. Lot grading, drain connections are not shown °road extensions would ment plan showing proposed 5 A full develop evaluat�he the would in order to fully be appropriateextension of road. It appears that an e and wetland involvemen t. or drainage h seasonal ground water necessitate maj The substratum The soils for this site have down. road 6 the surf ace to 2 for from also unsuitable and soil conditions are drainage ExtensiVe subsurface be needed. construction. Structures would extended pavement Development in this area would be difficult . e engineering concerns noted the these e to the number and nature of wed b staff . Du 'ed that the Commission not act herein, it is recommended plans until said concerns are addressed and re-re stions please contact me. Should you haVe any que — --- MJGI jsv cc : Project File o-� 7 . !wfia� s J�h O-N 1 , r r 9 ra,.to �� T 4 �N att y 07P 1r.50UM CONN. 06074 .A ` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUT H WINDSOR. s AREA CODE 203/644-2511 ,��SOR•C�ta 30 March 1989 Mr, Lawrence A. 71 Woodland CT 06040 Manchester, 1 . #88-113P, Pin Oak Estates Subdivision re: APP Clark Street Dear Mr. Fiano: 1989 to and Zoning Commission voted on March 2based on plans The Planning lication, deny the above-referenced subdivision dated 11-28-88 revised prepared by Landtech Associates, through 2-22 89 , sheets #1-7 of 7 . The denial reasons are a follows: Agency on he Inland Wetlands Ag Y 1 , The application was denied by t March 13, 1989 . 2 , The location of the proposed road could result innsevere sight line limitations . Requested profile provided to enable Town Staff to determine that a safe sight line condition would exist. soils have seasonal high groundwater dif conditions, ititn , 3 . The site soi for and substratum soil conditions aresulti g extremely in the need for roadway and house construction, surface and subsurface) extensive drainage provisions ( and the The plans did not address these limitations, evaluate these P Town Staff properly information asenot by conditions w uare shown on Lot 4 The required 90' x 90' buildable violation of Section 5 . 1 . 2 4 . includes a utility easement, snt' 1 of the Zoning Regulations . a full 5 . Due to the severe site constraints noted above, ab determination to development plan was requested to en proposed is regarding whether the road location aspro P be made re g plan was suitable. Such a P not provided. ry 1989 erin concerns detailed in the Janublicll, ua 6 , Other engine g Director of P memorandum from Michael Gantick, - - 2_ 30 March 1989 Mr. Lawr nce A. Fiano _ forwarded to Works, to Marcia Banach, Director °ddressed gn revised you on January 13, 1989, were not a plans . er any questions you might have We would be happy to answ regarding this matter. Very truly yours, pLANNING AND- ZONING COMMISSION R Ym and F. Hallowell, J . Chairman cc: planning file pZC file ,. CT o v NN. 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR• CO 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUEAREA CODE 203/644-2511 SOR•LO�2 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER SATURDAY APR. 0111989 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING AND At its Mar. 28, 1989 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to take the following action: Appl. #89-16P, Steelway, Inc. 1 . Approve, with modifications, for ro erty to be known as for a Site Plan of Develof Burnham Street, I Zone. PesCO, Inc. , nosh- 81de of 2 . Deny Appl• • 8 -113P Lawrence A. Fiano for a Subdivision Oak E�ates on the westerly side of Clark known as P n ming St. and Pleasant Valley Street bei Zone. -103P, 641 Sullivan Avenue Associateg for a 3 . Deny Appl. #88 ro ert at 641 Sullivan Site Plan of Development for p P Y Avenue, GC Zone. • modifications, Appl. #89-05P, RSK-Kacres ofllcO c. 4 . Approve, with mo roximately 16 . 10 for a 7-lot andRes the e amblebra of epcul-de-sac extending- f-wa property beyond the Br northerly to Miller Road easterly to the CL&P right-of and westerly to Oxford Estates, AA-30 Zone. Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this 29th day of March, 1989 . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Raymond F. Hallowell, Jr. , Chairman Secretary Marshall Montana, 74 WaIi ,� •( Ballots fa do WeWW fNSYSRt this iAd In tM"RETU AN TO dtN f aMM M �I to or* �d far adds) gasvkted DsllvWY 1. O show m whan t a t Md ;s add t.gxtrr chest 4 t -P &zx-oQ wq-vJA GXY _ I 0 TYps of ssnri�s: t� Itmirad W p©D( -�Y' ` 0 o�•d a coo Or OW nsT ell, M x lit- qasa'f dnaY� Ae �N e APR x . Will Wr P-625 092 369 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR 1NIERNAT1ONAL MAIL (See Reverse) L9 � Street and No P O.State and ZIP Cod Postage S 0 Cert-lied Fee r(%,,, Special Delivery Fee Restncted Delivery Fee 014 ()q Return Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered Return Rec to whom rn •- Date.a ery T01 tag and Fe � fY 1•., c Po ark or Dae 1,9�, E. U. cT N -- a 1 l DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 424 TRAPELO ROAD WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254-9149 February 12, 1990 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch CENED-OD-R-13-88-2622 R E V E D Mr. Edward B. Wenners FEB 20 1990 ' Landtech Associates, Inc. 71 Woodland St. p.0. Box 751 1. WINDSOR PLANNING DEPTi Manchester, CT 06040 Dear Mr. Wenners: is-i in regard to your application for a Department of o the Armis permit to place fill in 0.45 acres of wetland dential subdivision as of a proposed resi construct a roadway P at Clark Street in South Windsor, Connecticut. April 6 1989, Phill Nimeskern of our staff informedyou On Apr , project that we needed more complete and detailed plansofthe p the along with a wetland delineation done in accordance tech nical criteria set forth in the Federal WManual for This Identif in and Delineating JurbsdFranknal Smigelski of our staff in information was also requested y from your conversation with December. It is our understanding ro'ect may be delayed. Mr. Smigelski on February 6th that this p J elap sed and we have Since such a great amount of time heasroject and it appears not received any more information o P will not receive the information in the near future, we that we prejudice. have closed your file without Should you desire to do this work in the future you may y reapply for a permit by submitting an application and acceptable plans which we will process accordance with our normal procedures. mind that the Clean Water Act i_s a strict liability Keep in min to make sure no statute and it is the developer's responsibility to our discharge of fill or dredged material Mistakes in jurisdiction or that the proper permit . lnalbconsultants will not 7 rofessio delineation or bad advice from p from ordering removal and restoration if we- discover prevent us jurisdiction at a later date that fill had been placed in our 7 witho ut the necessary Corps permit. Civil penalties provisions of the Act also apply. 2 If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact Frank Smigelski at (617) 647-8832 Sincerely, David H. Killoy, P.E. , C.P.G. Chief, Permits Section Regulatory Branch Copy Furnished: Inland Wetlands Commission Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, CT 06074 Frank Buck CT DEP 165 Capitol Ave. , Room 207 Hartford, CT 06106 SUPERIO R COURT NO. CV-89-0370137S FAIRWAY ESTATES • HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD VS. ® SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS 1990 � SEPTEMBER 4 � " AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION • PLAINTIFF' REPLY BRIEF the plaintiff, Fairway Estates, filed its $ On April 3, 1990 P - 'on above against the defendant youth Windsor brief in the acts Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission. After considerable e n ' s brief was filed on June 7 , 1990 - delay, t In its h defenc�.at misstates several facts, includes information brief , the_ defendant not contained in t . .record and takes legal positions contrary to � �� e counter the allegations made by stablished 'caselaw. In order to ' plaint submits its response the defendant in its brief, the p herein. i In its statem ent of facts , the defendant states that the plaintiff pioposed to alte r approximately a half acre of wetlands in the construct ion of phase one of its Pin Oak Estates ' s not true . As clearly set forth in its subdivision- This 1 exhibit Return o f Record,,--:ire inaf ter "RR" , wetlands application ( � ' ff ro os'ed to alte . 05 acr s of wetlands, one- the plaints P P _ . � irneci b the de 'endant in its brief . The tenth the amount claimed Y �;c.G S • defendant also states that at the public hearing, the Chairman, ointed. out to the plaintiff that there was no James Lombardi, P . s that wereIsubmitted to show where the information on the ma P buildings would be located and how they would affect the wetlands _ » _ - - �t• .t fails to mentidi-179"- ...... ;,, �n-what area.�. . " What the d....;.ndar act submit this information 25th public to John McCahill, plaintiff did, in fact, the wetlands Enforc ement Officer. At 'the September hearing, Mr• McCa hill informed Mr. Lombardi that this information had been provided and offered to have copies made for Agency r members (RR exhibit 25, p• 13) • � " [a]gency In its first argument, the defendant states that ' use their own knowledge and observations members were entitled to cision. " The defendant also asserts that in arriving at their de embers may not dispute scientific facts offered ,, although [a]gency m by experts, they can. certainly, from their own knowledge and the x obvious for everyone evidence presented to theca by the plaintiff, laintiff 's expert06 s . " to see, dispute the op�n of the p • Although Agency members may consider information obtained through persona l observation of the site and may .rely on their own concerning non-technical matters, they cannot ignore knowledge conce g W to technically complex issues . The expert testimony pertaining dispute expert defendant's statement that commission members may P "opinion" at- any time is incorrect. Allestimony provided by an t ., �� It is , however, an opinion expert at a hearing is opinion. rendered by a P rofessional in a particular field after Despite conside ration of all pertinent scientific facts . 2 r I� the determination as to whether, and to what defendant's claims, extent, a particular activity will impact the wetlands is not a make such a determination, subjective opinion. In order to must be done, soil samples taken and analyzed, engineering tests . ,,......,_.�,.. r ��3@,.'; n t o r.rs�l,�+•;n n c h i r►� � ,t,�1e s B an eoo�`Ys •�„�, � and analysis factors must be taken into considezation. Such tests � onal training which the plaintiff 's experts have require prof-essi enc enc . Even if the Ag Y had special and the Agency members do not e a member was a professional engineer knowledge or expertise ( g ��give notice of the it must notify the app licant of that fact and g � ' to `its decision. See manner v. material facts critical onse v 'on o issi n, 15 Conn. App• 336 , 341 (1988) . In this C r at mm case no notice was given of special knowledge or expertise held by any particular member. Contrary to assertions made in the defendant' s brief, however, the Agency does hav e its own experts - Town staff - and it must • comp lex rely upon th eir expertise when faced with technically P issues . The defenda nt's statement that "the agency ordinarily does � its own experts, and should not have to" is untrue. not have 4 planners, engineers, Agencies routinely consult with own ds a ents and building inspectors for expert sanitarians, wetlands g �� the approval of a particular project depends advice. Very often PP el u on the town staffs appraisal. In this case, the lack entirely P of town staff comment at the public hearing seems to indicate that proposed activity. Despite they had no problem with plaintif f � s this tacit approval of the plaintiff ' s proposed activities, the 3 Y7VVII f 4 Le i �,Pp 1 [.r defendant denied the application. In its analysis s of the treasons given by the Agency for denying man assertions are made by the defendant` plaintiff 's application, Y --- wh -d-W-inf ormat ion outside of the record or which ar ` rCh cord. For example, although one of the members supported by the re . of the Agency bas ed his decision to deny the plaintiff's _ ated within application on the fact that the cul-de-sac would be loc � foot buffer zone, . he provided no explanation the forty f or, his ms that 'the decision. In its brief,,f however,, the defendant clai � .. oils and a��„��� _ metals, ��G, mem bers s de c is ion was based on' the fact that heavy sf^, tt the buffer and the wetlands . This information d�cc greases will go into speculative. In addition -� purely s �tc art of the record and is pawrl is not p limited the defendant also asserts that "homeowners with a Very C'Tf'�tS �4N tend to use and encroach upon the wetlands non-Wetland area will d that "it is .obvious that �the higher density Of the site, area an impact `�n the :-Tetlands/watercourses will be. " x the higher the imps V, w Neither of these statemenzt-s is supported by the record nor has their validity been established. Pendant As in the public hearing and decision meeting, the de to make assertions in its brief continues contrary to the W For f laintiff .provided by the p uncontroverted expert testimony p "culvert propos ed for the example the defendant states that the, will clearly have a major negative impact stream under the driveway upon the watercourse (stream) as well' as the wetlands" . It will disturb the natu ral flow of the watercourse and indigenous character of the stream (watercourse) corridor. If At the October 4 30 meeting, however, the plaintiff 's professional planner explained that there would be no significant impact upon the wetlands aside i from disturbing the wetlands to install the culvert. Once l�J installed, the culvert will allow the water to flow as before and (�A no incsd pandi Q9 ,ug"1ci�r. Furthermore, el imination of lots 3 & 4 is not a ,feasible and ,. prudent alternative in' that it would be f inarc ially prohibitive. +�^ �}. subdivision lots, this project would S �5 By eliminating 2 of 6 proposed not be economically viable. Moreover, the elimination of the two ss a � lots has nothing to do with "sound engineering principles . ' Such P;k�s principles were utilized in designing the plan as proposed. 5, 6" a If^►� t For the foregoing reasons the defendant's decision to deny the plaintiff's application is illegal arbitrary and capricious. As the uncontroverted expert testimony provided at the hearing made clear, plaintiff 's proposed 'activity will be minimal and have no x negative impact on the wetlands . Therefore, the defendant's i decision should be reversed and the plaintiff's permit issued forthwith. PLAINTIFF FAIRWAY ESTATES . BY •'L , `;Joel' M. Fain ,of Kahan, Kerensky, Capossela, Levine & Breslau, Its Attorneys I 5 •j CERTI T('ATION certify that on September 4 ► 1990, a copy of the eb aid to all counsel of record. I her X postage prep foregoing was mailed, 1 '• Fa of the Superior Court Commissioner s p gwh\fair.bri Q � 1� Y t � L ' Y 6 N0. CV-89-0370137S SUPERIOR COURT Y ESTATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD FAIRWA NEW BRITAIN VS. AT HARTFORD SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS ION NOVEMBER 26-; 1990 AGENCY/CONSERVATION DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF This is in response to plaintiff' s Reply Brief. 1. It is true that the plaintiff proposes to alter .05 acre of wetlands and not . 5 acre of wetlands. The .05 acre of wetlands is the wi dth of the driveway extending from Clark Street northerly between lots 2 and 3. That driveway would cross the .05 acre of wetlands and would neces"Mate filling in that area. The wetlands and regulated areas are shown by ,heavy,dotted, hor izontal blue lines some of which lines have 3 vertical lines, , one g on l and two short, extending into the wetlands/regulated areas. The only lot of lots 2, 3 and 4 that can be serviced with that driveway without crossing the wetlands is lot 2, . and has suggested the elimination of lots 3 and 4 from this defendant g L"oFFCEs proposed subdivision because of,inter alia, the crossing of the RDN FUrfENBM0 wetlands by that driveway. ELLNGTON ROAD Brief, plaintiff questions 2, On page 2 of plaintiff' s Reply WtNDSOR,CT 06074 to dispute the — the ability or right of the members of the Agency P ;203)644.2456 plaintiff' s experts. As stated in defendant' s original !JRiSNO50412 opinion of p Brief, 1 an' f Agency were merely to take the opinion of the plain- g tiff s exper ts in each case, they would never turn down an appli- cation. P The ex ert' s opinion is based upon certain scientific koo facts. Certainly, the members of the Wetlands Agency can take the same facts and come up with a different opinion. As previously stated, it is clear that long-time residents of the Town ,and members of the Agency are able to take into account their own personal knowledge of the area in arriving at their decision. "Knowledge obtained through personal observation e of th locus may properly be considered by the agency in arriving at reasons given for its denial." Kaeser v. Conservation Commiss ion, 20 Conn. App. 309 (1989) , citing Huck v. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency 203 Conn. 525 (1987) . Also, see Huck, o went Corporation v. Conservation Comm- supra, and Manor Devel ., ission 180 Conn. 692, 697 (1980) to the effect that agency members are not required to believe -the experts, particularly as to opinion. In Kaeser v. Conservation Commission, supra, y and Central Bank for Savings v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 13 Conn. App. 448, 454 (1988) , the court stated that "we do not agree. . . that, in technically complex matters, expert testimony is the only acceptable and substantial evidence." In Kaeser v. Conservation Commission, supra, the court cited the Supreme Court' s prior discussion of the legislative intent -in enacting the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act -A" state L"OFfCEs on page 317, "The act gives broad discretion to agencies to AD U.RITTENBMIQ ��IU.FUTTENB preserve, protect and maintain the environment and ecology o �W ,CTM74 the state' s natural resources. Id. , 551; see also Klug v. Inland M$44-2056 Wetlands Commission, 19 Conn. App. 713 , 717-18 (1989) . 'The jURtS O5o°12 discharge of the statutory responsibilities by local wetlands commissions may require commission members to reject 'an otherwis acceptable application' because of its impact on the environment. Obeda v. Board of Selectmen, 180 Conn. 521, 524 (1980) . ' H v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, supra, 552." 3. Plaintiff' s Reply Brief on page 3 makes reference to 0 the Town staff' s appraisal. There isinoaappraisal as -to whether - 3 or not the Town staff believes the application should be 'approved The Town staff reviews the application for compliance with the regulations and points out pertinent information and facts. ' The Town staff does not go as far as giving an opinion as to the validity of the application.. The staff does not make a decision, the Agency hoes and the staff refrains from indicating any opinion. Therefore, to say that the lack of Town staff comment at the public hea- i:ng seems to indicate that they had no problem with plaintiff' s proposed activity is a blatant assump tion which is not true, and to take the Town staff' s silence as to opinion,when it does not render opinions as to the validi- ty of the application, as a "tacit approval" is a quantum leap by the plaintiff to a statement that is untrue and not based upon the procedures or the facts. r 4. On page 4 of plaintiff' s Reply Brief, the plaintiff questions whether the fact that heavy metals ,. oils and greases will go -into -the buffe-r-and--fie LAW OFFCES and states that it is purely speculative. However, the applicant AD M.FUnENBIWD � admitted in its presentation that there will be storm water ELLNGTON ROAD iwINDSOR,CT DW74 discharge into the buffer area at the cul-de-sac area. This is (2Q3)644.2456 the area shown just north of Pin Oak Trail to the right of the IURiSN05a12 marking "49. 65"'. This is far from speculative because it is T common knowledge to laymen as well as experienced members of the Agency that storm water from a road carries heavy metals, oils 3 - and greases with it, and it is clear that this run-off from the road discharging into the buffer area will carry heavy metals , oils and greases. This is also true as to the proposed driveway between lots 2 and 3 extending from' Clark Street northerly to lot #4. ' 5 On page a e 5 of its Reply Brief, plaintiff indicates that the culvert will allow the water to flow as before and no in= creased ponding will occur. However, again, it is common know- r ledge among laymen as well as veteran members of the- Agency that wildlife- do not normally move through a culvert unless- it is specially designed for movement of wildlife; i.e. , a box culvert, and there is no such design in this case. 6. Plaintiff, also on page 5 , makes a statement that elimina- tion of lots 3 and 4 is not a feasible and prudent alternative in that it would be financially prohibitive. However, such evi- dence that it would be financially prohibitive was never offered to the Agency. As for the "sound engineering principles" , de- fendant , in its original Brief, merely maintained that the alternative of eliminating these two lots -would be feasible be- cause, as stated,, the elimination of the two lots--Wu "1 LANDUCEs in conflict with sound engineering principles. It would not ,DV•FUTTENUW As to whether or not ��LL�NGTONROAD affect the other lots engineering-wise. . jWWDWR,cr M74 the alternative would be prudent, plaintiff did not sustain its burden of proof in presenting any evidence that eliminating the (2Q�)644.2456 ,n3)6o2456 two lots would be financially prohibitive and, therefore, elim - nation of those two lots could still be considered prudent. Again, it is not up to the Agency to come up with feasible and prudent alternatives, but the elimination of the two lots which - 4 - ' .F L would take away the hark tG the wetlands area in the area of those two lots would appear to be a feasible and prudent alternative barring any evidence to the contrary, which evidence was not rj forthcoming. DEFENDANT s By • RicharA M. Rittenband Its Attorney CERTIFICATION Service certified to counsel of record thi 26th day of November, 1990. car tten an At orney at Law . a :a r LAN OFFICES AD V RITTENB" ELLINGTON ROAD 1 WINDSOR,CT 06074 a; (203)644.2456 JURiS NO 50412 a l _ 5 _ , /r ;UPr.RIOR COURT q. No. CV £�9 -03701375 Cj �� 1991 JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRWAY ESTATES JAN pcot HARTFORDMEW eRITAIN R p�NN��yG A1 HARTFORD �.�1NpS0 v' 1991 SOtiTH WINDSOR INL?1ND VJET:.ANnS JANUARY 1.4 AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This action is an appea-.. from the -decision of the SQut)):.Vq.indsor Agency/Con Commission, hereinafter Inland �ietLands Agenc Y , apP11eation ;-e(erred to as the Commission , denying the Plaintiff' s it to � llcw e following recliilat�: rd ac: ivitie the t S to _or a perm service a proposed residential subdivision: construction and storm water discharge Within 1, Roadwa ,v a wetland buffer zone. = . and utilit`I lines through a narrow 2 • Common dr-vev,a y wetland ( 30' ) and minor watercourse• 3• I~oot i.nq dra in discharge within wet)_and buffer. s and Watercourses to be altered was - The acreage of Wet].and .05 acre: the parcel in question contains 9.9 acres . ; On jone 20, 1989 , Lawrence A. Finno, as agent for Fair �t�� , l s , submitted*ted an -�oo :. Estates Partner c:ation to the Commission, which was actinn as the duly constituted to �zclency •f.or the Town o f Sou t h Windsor pursuant Section 22a-42 ( c ) of the Conn. General Statiltes . i { r E:L' 2c� , 1989 , On the Plaintiff 's �nh 4 After a nuhlic hearing on Sept-ember October 3�. . the Comm _ssion deniedthy= application on ? , application , 1989 . ice o f its decision on November 1989 , and published not � den the apo?- The Commission icalion was based on the ' s vote to deny t following concerns : u 1. Crossing the, we`?-ands ' Density too high considering 2 Ambitious plan for the site. the amount of wetlands on thi site. .t n<, should not be. p cirt o . -the plaRr . 3. ,�cats r 3 and a. m encroaching into do, buffer. 4 . Pin Oay ,raa.l I on tha sit4• S. potential ial damage impounding or pond,ing 6. pi.:ec t,ion o f road into rear area of site. " Thereafter thQ. Plaint iff appealed from the decision of the Comma.»ion to this court . t appeal the Plaintiff claims that : in its app vision was contrary to the weight of . The Agencs de .r ., a. lir, hearing, - evidence produced at the PU "testimony , on the application. ' s members was, oredisoosed, 4(1 �1,t b. One or more of the: Ag enc�1. • s a result of a previous application +�;� appl ica L io►-,. a . �,,_�- � having come before the ,Commission regarding the pro p� - and having been denied without r)reJudiCe , and said Pre- �- e fair. and joist revievl of this current disposition impeded ..h - applic;at ion� . -2- C. The Agency denied the c3ppl:-cat ion despite the uncontroverted evidence that ,io foasib.le and prudent alternative exists to the Plaintiff' s application. d. The Agency' s action in4denying the Plaintiff ' s application --constitutes a taking of the plaintiff' s property without compensation. e. The Agency' s decision was based upon factors other than those it could legally consider. . It i$ appropriate to analyze the decision of the Commission as that of an administrative agency under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act , Conn., General Statutes Sections 4-166 through 4-189. *Judicial review of administrative process is designed -to assure that administrative agencies act on the evidence which is probative and reliable and act in a manner consistent: with the requirements of fundamental fairness . " Feinson v; Conservation Commission, 180 Conn. 421, 429 ( 1980 ) . .A review of the record shows that at the September- public, hearing, the Plaintiff was represented by Robert Eisner, Land Plahner from Landtech Properties , Inc. , Michael Cline of Environmental:, 1, Planning Services , and Leonard Norton, a professional -engineer r employed,-by Landt0ch, all of whom testified. ' The Plaintiff also submitted a Geotechnical steady prepared by Dr. Clarence lielti, a professional engineer. Mr. Kline and Mr. Eisner reviewed the project in- detail: Mr. Kline' s conclusion was that "the project will have a negligible impart on overall wetland f • " ( RR exhibit #2 5 , Pa�7e 8 ) • Mr• Eisner ls values on the site, �-�t "the impacts which we' re proposing currently conclusion was th reall�J are the minima for this site. ( RR exhibit ?5 . Page 8 ) - Mr. Kline also Mated that "the direct impacts of the project are , very v�rYsimited" . ( PR exhibit ..5 , Page 6 ) • He further testified indirect impacts that "we would anticipate these when referring to - :impacts to be ver,' very minor. ( RR exhibit " . 'S , Page 7 ) . Further i be any sign i`i�:an t :ro �-�- Y of Mr, Kline v►7as that there wou.-d tea,.imon �V _ proposal ( RR exhibit 25,. Page 12 • impa,c t on the wet lands from 4 p p Ole wetland impacts in terms -of ' ' Finally, Mr. Kline statedJia�. wildlife ha bits]. cncroac:h�"e.nt absolutely negligible. " ( RR eyhibit 25 , PaSe ?5 ) • At the O ctober 30 , .L989 Rect�llar Meeting of the Commission, one of the memhe rs s fated a concerns ' "With respect to crossing of +_� lands , initially I thin'c that what may happen, and what -- . _ •- _ ._�.ti,.- .�.e we t is that water will be ponding e��en more in this appears wi?1 happen. . The Plaintiff' s_.Prafe.� *i area " ( RR exhibit 30 ; sixth page.)..... .. a ,. �� � o using o standard . res nded to this by saying ,we' re pr P ` planner P so there should not be an increase in the ,pondin�g culvert crossing, on either side. • . . because the culvert N-ill allow the water_ to . ow through . . . , as it did before. " ( RR exhibit , #30 , sixth page) . • offered no testimony at the september 25 , 1989 The Cor�ml�s ion � of the evidence offered by the Plaintiff' s ,-�a public hearing to rebut I experts ., -4- 1 .�4 i s. a F "':he agency' s decision must be sustained if an examination of the record discloses` evidence that supports any one of, the reasons given. . The evidence, h'owever, ' to support any such reason must be subs tantial•. . . .. This sq-gilled substantial evidence rule is similai. to the ' sufficiency of the evidence ' standard applied in judicial review of Jur. verdicts and evidence is sufficient to sustain an agency finding if it affords ' a substantial basis of ~ fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. It rmist he enough to justif•�, if the trial were to a 1 jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury. " a£ Huck v. Inland Wetland& Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. r„ 5250 539 , 540, 541 ( 1987 ) . , Inasmuch as the Plaintiff offered expert evidence that •the , proposed• regulated activity would have a negligible impact on the Wetlands , and this was the only evidence offered at the: hearing, the Commission necessarily disregarded tho only expert ; evidence available, and relied on its own knowledge and expertise. This court acknowledges that an administrative agency is not required to believe any of the witnesses , including expert witnesses . However, the agency "must not disregard the: only expert evidence available on the issue when the Commission members lack their . own expertise or knowledge. " Seaborne Herbert Tanners Jr. , yet al._ v. Conservation Commission of the City of Norwalk, 15 Conn. App. 336 , 341 ( 1988 ) . The Defendant has argued in its brief that the Commission Cats ; ' . ^};• determine on its own the potential impact on the wetlands . The potential effects of road and driveway construction, building of homes , and related act ities , on a wetland area, is a complex issue. -5- A lay commission acts without substantial evidence, "when it: relies on its own knowledge and experience concerning technically complex issues . . . . " Fluck., supra, Page 542 , quati,n,g from Feinson v. Conservation Commission, supra, Page 428;' 429. is If.-an administrative agency chooses to rely on its owq -, s judgment , "it has a responsibility to reveal publicly its special knoulledge and experience, to give notice of . the material facts thAt are critical to its decision, so that, a pqrsqp ae��ersql;► r affgcted thoreby h4s an oppor.tiipity for rebutt.a?. at,. an cappropr:�ate 1 stage in ,the administrative proceedings: " Feinson, supra, Pages 428, 429. No such revelation: was made: in this case. The only expert evidence that offered by the Plaintiff, and the Commission rejected this evidence. No evidence contesting the Plaintiff ' s application was presented, nor did any member of the Commission, as fat as the record discloses , makes a comprehen"sive presentation relating directly to the application. The few comments in the record by Commission members , which were cited in Deferid-anf, rs � Brief, were nothing more than casual comments, Conjectural and speculative in nature, rather than statements of actual, concrete, demonstrably: facts , which could constitute sufficient , reliable evidence to sustain the action taken by the defendant Commission. The Commission' s vote to dens' the; app?i.cat i on was hased on six concerns listed in its letter of denial: -6- 1. Crossing the Wetlands ' Since the only substantial evidence in the record shows -, ; , that any impact on the wetlands, is negligible, there is no basis for this reason for the denial. 2 . and 3 . Ambitious plan for the site. Density too high con>>_derin the amount of wetlands on this site'. Lots 3 and 4 should not be part .:of ttie _plan. As to whether or not this plan was "ambitious" or the "density there is no in the record to support this concern, too high" , k` nor was there any evidence that the driveway crossing for lots d 4 , would have an adverse impact 2 , 3 and 4 , . with horpes on Lot. 3 an " on the wetland s . The Plaintiff presented evidence that all the _. regulations ( RR exhibit #30, Page 2 ) and that ; lots comply with town re 9 the plan is "relatively low intensity. " ( RR exhibit #25 , Page a_ . and 6. Pin Oak Trail encr�achin into 40' huffer and direct ion of road into rear area of s}t e --- - ---- --- '` location of ,Pin All expert testimony supports the proposed evidence that any other location record shows no Oak Trail and the M would be feasible. k� site. 5. Potential dama a im oundin or e�ndinc� on the was brought up by a member of this Commission This concern .� at the October 30, 1989 meeting. The Plaintiff ' s expert responded: pick would be the least impacting, we "We We tried to p a location that E so there should not be a proposing a standard culvert crossing , � -7- y xp ' � 4 ?.nc=ease in the pondi.ng on either side, because the cu;vert Will allow the water: to flow through as, it did before. ( RR exhibit- #30, Page 6 ) . , u Under Section 22a-4 1 (b ) , "a permit shall not be issued, unless t o ' a .feasible and prudent alternative g,.►e commissioner r�c.r finds that- _ does net exist . " ` If the regulated activity would have only a minimal and negligible impact on :he wetlands , and the only access to lots three and four e is b;,a wetlands crossing, then the only al ternati.ve, elimination � of tho$e two lots would not be prudent . This is especially so because uncontroverted expert testimony was presented that the proposed crossing ::as a.t the point where it. would have the leas t 1x. impact on the wctlandb and than it vas the most feasible and prudent � alternative for the crossing.. ' PR exhibit #30, Page. 8 ) . Concerning the location of the cul-de-sac of: Pin Oak Trail in a wetland buffer zone, the Plaintiff offered uncontroverted expert testimony that, taking the property as a•whole, the: proposed location of Pin Oak -Trail is at the point where it would have the least impact to the eco-system. ( RR exhibit ##30 , page 9 ) , ( RR exhibit #25 , Page two ) . Therefore, it would not- be feasible or prudent to relocate it. This court finds that the only evidence offered requires a finding by the Commissioner that a feasible and prudent alternative does net exist . a -8- Sect ion 4-183 ( ) of - the Conn. General Statutes (tJnifoyrm Administrative Procedure Act ) reads in part as follows: "The court shall affirm }tie r��substantial cision of ttreghtsno,f the unless the court A.rods ,lla _ Baling have been prejudiced Seca»se the person apP inferences , conclusions , or administrative findings , decisions are: . . . . . ( 5 ) clearly erroneous in view � rohati��e , and substantial evidence of the reliable, p or capricious or on the whole record; or ( 6 ) arbitrary characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly un- z Of discretion . . . . . warranted exercise The court finds that: ., owner of the land in question, was 1, The Plaintiff, as aggrica"ed by the administrative action of the defendant . ?. , The opinion Of the experts was unanimous.• that the proposed 3 activity wou id have little or no adverse impact' on the, .wetlands . ,# A, .. + of the experts which was the The Commission ignored she ,estimony only evidence on the issue. The record does not show that the M Commission possess led any special knowledge or experience, �y fore acted on its own knowledge or experience. even and i�t , ther A � . though the issues were technically complex• antial rights of the Plaintiff have been prejudiced 3, dubst ative decision is clearly arbitrary and because the admini str erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. 4 • The appeal is sustained. tNIal h, R• • APPEAL INSTRUCTIONS APPEAL NO. -SC-10 Rev 11-88 1. Prepare on typewriter: serve copies on opposing counsel(Pr. Bk. Sec. 120). Bk, 120, 4012, 4013, 4034 2. Sign jurisdictional statement and certification below. 3. Submit in triplicate to the trial court clerk with sufficient additional copies for each other counsel of record. 4. File a copy of endorsed appeal form together with the papers required by Pr. Bk. sec. 4013 with the Chief Clerk of the Supreme.Court or Appellate Court pursuant to Pr. Bk. sec. 4012. 'I (State full name as appears to judgment tile) : NAME OF CASE: ' F a i r via-,r Estates v s . South Windsor Inland Wetlands__ enc -- TO(X"one) ion,i•' TYPE OF ❑ SUPREME COURT ® APPELLATE COURT TYPE("X"one) _F APPEAL JOINT CROSS AMENDED CONSOLIDATED , X❑ APPEAL ❑ APPEAL ❑ APPEAL ❑ APPEAL ❑ APPEAL THE FOLLOWING PAPERS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PRACTICE BOOK SECTION 4013 SEC. 4013 3. COURT REPORTER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/ DOCUMENTS ❑ 1• STATEMENT OF ISSUES 0 CERTIFICATE RE:TRANSCRIPT FILED R` 2. DESIGNATION OF PARTS OF FILE FOR RECORD ❑X 4. DOCKETING STATEMENT t DOCKET N .O TRIAL COURT CV 89-0370137 S 95 Washington Street, Hartford, CT 06106 CASE TYPE(See Pr Sk.form 103.1) NAME OF TRIAL JUDGE MAJOR A MINOR 66 Richard A. Walsh TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR("X"one) TYPE OF CASE("X"one) CASE TRIED TO("X"one) HISTORY ® PLAINTIFF ❑ DEFENDANT ❑ CRIMINAL ❑ JUV. © ADMIN. ❑ CIVIL ® COURT [J JURY GATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF DECISION DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF ORDER ON ANY DATE TO WHICH TRIAL COURT EXTENDED FILING TIME APPEALED FROM MOTION WHICH WOULD RENDER JUDGMT INEFFECTIVE January 17 , 1991 Not Applicable Not Applicable NAME OF PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS) JURIS NO(S) NAME OF DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY(S) JURIS NO IS) -MIAL COUNSEL Joel M. Fain of 30153 Richard M. Rittenband 50412 All counsel repre- Kahan, K e r e n s k y, senting parties to C a p o s s e 1 a , Levine & for South Windsor Inland Wet- ., action at time of Breslau lands Agency/Conservation Comm appeal.) ► ission (Attach additional Richard F. Webb, Assistant 85022 ,heels if necessary) AttorneyGeneral for Commiss- ioner o Environmental Prote t o In the above-entitled action the ❑ PLAINTIFF Q APPEALS ❑ SUPREME COURT* South Windsor Inland hereby to the . ❑X DEFENDANT Wetlands Agency /Conserva- ❑ ® APPELLATE COURT 0"URISDICTIONAL tion Commission STATEMENT FROM Judgment for plaintiff by Judge Richard A. Walsh dated January 14, 1991; Fy *If an appeal to the Supreme Court, cite specific statutory basis for a eat in the "FROM"line. notice issued 1 17 91.1 BY(Signatu a of attorney or pro se party) TELEPHONE NO. JURIS NO.(N applicable) X 644-2456 50412 TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON SIGNING ABOVE(This is your appearance,see P.B.Sec 4034) Attorney Richard M. Rittenband, 1750 Ellington Rd.,. So: Windsor, CT 06074 NAME OF PERSON RECOGNIZED TO PROSECUTE IN THE AMOUNT 0 300 76P:23-6849 ONE NO Dorene Anne Sullivan ADDRESS OF PERSON ABOVE MCOGNIZANCE 49 Phelps Rd. , East Windsor , Connecticut 06088 SIGNED(Official taking recognizance, "X"proper box) DATE SIGNED ® Comm. Sup. Court ❑ sup. Court Clerk I hereby certify that a copy hereof was served on all counsel and pro se parties of IL DATE CERTIFICATION record in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book Section 120 on (Pr. Bk. Sec. 4012) DATE SIGNED(Individual counsel) To be completed by trial court Clerk EntryFees, Costs, and Security Fee $ ❑ waived by Judge: Record Fee $ Security❑ Furnished: El -Cash ❑ Bond El Recognizance Other Fee $ SIGNED(Clerk of trial court NO FEES REQUIRED .. •mom• . CV 89-0370137 S SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF • HARTFORD/ FAIRWAY ESTATES NEW BRITAIN 1 VS �� HARTFORI?SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1991 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ' ISSUES --- ;; ellant , intends to present the following The Defendant , app _ - .. . • - . , •- - - - issues on appeal . ,,:• - ,f 1. Did the Court err in concluding that the potential' effects g of homes and related of road and driveway construction, buildin activities on a wetland •area is a technically' complex issue beyond t the expertise and knowledge of the defendant Agency members and that , therefore , such members cannot rely on their own knowledge and experience in determining whether a proposed subdivision 3 will have a significant negative impact upon the wetlands? 2 . Did the Court err in concluding that the Agency membersY, di d not sufficiently articulate the reasons for their decision, Pt'` = the facts on which their decision was based and/or their knowledge; and experience a W Ond that , therefore, their decision was not based LAW OFFICES � , FFr.ENBAND upon sufficient and reliable evidence notwithstanding the fact frp �ELUNGTONROAD that the members were all laymen who are not held to as high a , f i"NDWR.CT M74 _ standard of articulation as professionals? ., (203)644•2156 3. ;Did the Court err in concluding that the Agency members � r wsNosa1z plaintiff ' s expert witness s absent 'i�. were required to believe the pai 9 estimon from the Agency' s own expert witnesses; in offec having t y in that the Agency has to either hire i-ts own exp rt concluding a r n •S h ol nesses or believe the plaintiff' s expert witness and approve the application? Z'Wei wCou'rt --eri'Ty-subet�itut�ng is u gment Mfor that of the Agency on the issues of whether the negative impact on the wetlands would be negligible or significant , whether the applica- tion complied with inland Wetlands Regulations and wheth r the maps and plans presented by the plaintiff- showed serious encroach- ment into the buffer area, that the density was too high and that the driveway crossing lots 2 , 3 and 4 wowld, have an adverse . impact• on the wetlands? 5 . Did the Court err in concluding that the burden is not on the plaintiff to show there is no feasible and prudent alternative ; that there was no evidence that any other location would be fear- ' ible and that elimination of lets three and four would not be prudent? ' * 6. Did the Court err in concluding that the subject proposal R would have the least impact on the wetlands and that , therefore , . 1F the impact was negligible? , 7 . Can Agency members, in making their decision, take into a - account their own knowledge that culverts will interrupt the uwOFFICES movement of wildlife/aquatic life and •that -roe s give off o s., . ;ABM RITTENBAND heavy metals , salt and sand that , if allowed to reach the wetlands.; 9 EUMTON ROAD •• will have a significant negative impact upon them? •1 MNNOSOR,CT 06074 APPELLANT (203)644-2456 JURIS NO 5002 Richard M: Rittenband Its Attorney �� r ,r • •ir:a t ai 400 A' CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed this day of February, 1991 to all counsel and pro se parties of record. Richard M. Rittenband Commissioner of the Superior Court LAW OFFICES M M.RITTENB" J ELLNGTON ROAD ri WINDS OR,CT 06374 (203)644.2456 JURIS NO 50412 k i s rA as _ 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE S OUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 July 16 , 1991 Mr. Lawrence A. Fiano EXHIBIT A 71 Woodland Street 7/15/91 P .O. Box 751 Manchester, CT 06040 Dear Mr. Fiano: Re: Application #89-54P - Pin Oaks Estates meeting, the Inland•Wetlands Agency/Conservation At the July 15, 1991 Application #89 54P - IWA/CC Commission approved with conditions App ro ert permit for the construction of a residential subdivision on property located westerly of Clark Street RR zone as1989 on plans July 10, to dated June , by Taand M Heintz This approval is subject to the following 1989 and May 24, conditions : final Tans and 1 . Tw o blue print copies of the entire set ° this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this of Commission • This must be completed within 65da s site. approv construction activity on approval prior to any 2 . Construction activities shall be subject to the approval of the Town Engineer. 3 , The applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability which might result from the proposed operation or use. 4 . The permit is valid for three years and shall expire on July 15, 1994 . uired must be obtained and submitted prior 5 • All approvalsre q to any activity on the site. 6 . A contact pers on shall be identified directly on the final plans . 7 , We recommend a bond in the amount of $S,000on to O ° be ensure submitted to the Planning & and1Sedimentation Control compliance with the Erosion Measures . Mr. Laurence A. Fiano Page Two July 16, 1991 Application #89-54P 8 . Phasing of the project shall be included on the final plans to prevent traversing across the site. 9 . A sequence for construction shall be included on the final plans . 10 . The Geotechnical Study and Recommendations made by Dr. Clarence Welti, P. E. , P.C. (in his letter dated May 30, 1989 ) shall be incorporated into the development of this site. The referenced letter shall be reproduced on the final plans . 11 . This approval is part of a settlement of pending litigation, Fairway Estates vs . South Windsor IWA/CC (docket number CV89-0370137-S Superior Court, AC 9926 Appellate Court, and S.C. 14273 Supreme Court) . This is conditional upon court approval of this settlement, a vacating of the judgment entered by the Superior Court, a withdrawal of the pending Supreme Court case and a withdrawal of the Superior Court case after the vacating of ' the judgement if necessary so that this approval shall remain as the only approval of the subject application. 12 . The Agency requests that the open space (81,351 sq. ft. ) be in favor of the Town of South Windsor. 13 . A means of access to be open space shall be provided on the final plans . 14 . The open space shall be pinned at critical corners and angles or marked as typically required for Town open space. This shall be noted on the final plans . 15 . A restrictive convenant which states that the lots are subject to regulated areas based on the wetlands shall be filed in the Town Clerk's office prior to the conveyance of any lots . Each deed shall refer to said convenant. 16 . The Engineering Department shall review the arch construction, as detailed on sheet 6 or 7, for adequacy. Mr. Laurence A. Fiano Pa a Three Jul 16 1991 Application #89-54P Very truly yours, Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman, IWA/CC EAW/pmm own eer cc: Jerry C. IazzehtaDirectornofnPlanning c in & Zon' sion Richard M. Rittenband, Town Attorney Joel Fain, Esq. FACSIMILE MESSAGE TRANSMITTAL FORM lZDate: 7 �� PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: z NAME: 01 V I— ADDRESS. vlo C,42 L 2: FAX: cx)a q- 7043 MESSAGE FROM: R NAME P S Qnh ADDRESS: `I Vti siv-,_.0 7- A b J 7 MESSAGE NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: (o SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT S .C. 14273 FAIRWAY ESTATES VS. SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPLY BRIEF OF THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT COUNSEL OF RECORD: RICHARD M. RITTENBAND TOWN ATTORNEY 1750 ELLINGTON ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT 06074 TO BE ARGUED BY: RICHARD M. RITTENBAND FRONT PAGE S .C . 14273 FAIRWAY ESTATES VS . SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/ NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD TO BE ARGUED BY: RICHARD M. RITTENBAND TABLE OF CONTENTS P. awe s I, Statement of Issues - Table of Authorities (ii) II. • III. Statement of the Nature of the Pro- ceedings and of the Facts of the Case, t IV. Argument • I. If the lower Court' s ruling that the question of the proposed subdivision' s impact upon the wetlands is a techni- cally complex issue beyond the knowledge of the Defendant Agency members is sus- tained, then the Agency will have to hire its own experts if it is to deny an application • II. The lower Court erred in concluding that the Agency acted without substantial evidence in relying on its own knowledge and experience concerning technically , 3 complex issues • III. Agency members should not have to describe their knowledge and experience at the public hearing nor should they be �� 3 - 4 required to have special" knowledge • Pales IV. There was substantial evidence in the record supporting the concerns and decision 4 - 5 of the Agency. ' . 5 - 6 V. Conclusion ' STATEMENT OF ISSUES A. If the lower Court' s ruling that the question of the proposed subdivision's impact upon the wetlands is a technically complex issue beyond the knowledge of the Defendant Agency members is sustained, will the Agency then have to hire its own experts if it is to deny an application? B. Did the lower Court err in concluding that the Agency acted without substantial evidence in relying on its own knowledge and experience concerning tech- nically complex issues? C. Should Agency members have to describe their knowledge and experience at the public hearing and should they be required to have "special" knowledge? D. Was there substantial evidence in the record supporting the concerns and decision of the Agency? (i) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES THE PAGE(S) WHERE THE CASES ARE CITED IN THE REPLY BRIEF ARE IN PARENTHESES , I . E. , 'f( V 1 (a) CASES : 1. DUBIEL V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF EAST HARTFORD, 147 CONN. 517 (1960) . (4) 2. FEINSON V. CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 180 CONN. 421 (1980) • (3 , 6) 3. HUCK V. INLAND 14ETLANDS & WATERCOURSES Y 203 CONN. 525 (1987) . (3 ,4,6) AGENCY, 4. KAESER V. CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 20 CO NN. APP . 309 , 314 (1989) . (316) 5. TANNER V. CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 15 CONN. APP. 336 (1988) . (316) (ii) STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE Defendant hereby incorporates by reference in this Reply Brief the Statement of the Nature of the Proceedings and of the Facts of the Case set forth on pages 1 - 4 of its original Brief. ARGUMENT I. If the lower Court' s ruling that the question of the proposed subdivision' s impact upon the wetlands is a tech- nically complex issue beyond the knowledge of the Defendant Agency members is sustained, then the Agency will have to hire its own experts if it is to deny an application. The lower Court ruled that the potential effects of the subject application was a technically complex issue. (Memor- andum of Decision, pages 5 - 6 and paragraph 2 on page 9. ) Defendant has submitted substantial argument to the contrary in its original Brief and, therefore, will not repeat it here. Plaintiff, however, in its brief, challenges defendant' s argument that the lower Court' s ruling, if upheld, will re- quire an Inland Wetlands Agency to hire its own experts by stating that the Agency could have obtained testimony from - 1 - the experts on the town staff. However, if the Agency had done that , if the testimony had been contrary to that of the plaintiff' s experts and if the Agency had used such testimony as a basis for its denial , plaintiff would have claimed that such testimony was inade- quate and based upon insufficient expertise. The experts on the Town staff are the Town Engineer who is a civil engineer only and the Deputy Town Engineer who is a land surveyor. The plaintiff produced testimony from a professional land planner, a professional environmentalist and a professional engineer. Plaintiff also produced soil reports , a hydraulic analysis and a geotechnical study from a professional engineer. (This applicant , as well as other applicants , might have also produced testimony from hydrologists and geologists . ) How is the average Agency and average Town staff going to compete with such a plethora and broad range of experts? The Town would have to either maintain such specialists on its staff or hire them as consultants for each application. The applicant will almost always produce such a broad range of experts who will, of course, always testify in favor of the application. Under the lower Court' s ruling, and plaintiff' s arguments made and anticipated, the Town would have to produce comparable experts giving contrary testimony in order to deny such an application. - 2 - II. The lower Court erred in concludin that the A enc acted without substantial evidence in relying on its own knowledge and ex erience concerning technica 1V complex issues. Plaintiff, in its brief, relies upon Feinson v. Conservation Commission, 180 Conn. 421 (1980) and Tanner v. Conservation Com mission, 15 Conn. App. 336 (1988) , as did the lower Court. This reliance is misplaced and is contrary to Kaeser v. Con- servation ion Commission, 20 Conn. App. 309 , 314 (1989) , in which the Appellate Court stated, inter alia, "We do not agree with the plai ntiff' s narrow reading of Feinson that, in technically compl ex matters , expert testimony is the only acceptable substan- tial evidence" . It is also contrary to the findings in Huck v. Inland Wet- lands & Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525 , 541 (1987) . "The plaintiff offered testimony from four experts . . while the Agency offered no expert testimony in rebuttal." The Supreme g y Court , nevertheless , upheld the Agency' s denial. Huck supra, was decided subsequent to the decision in Feinson supra, and Kaeser, supra, was decided subsequent to the decision in Tanner, supra. III. A enc members should not have to describe their knowl- ed e and ex erience at the public hearin.9 nor should the be 3 - required to have "special" knowledge. Plaintiff argues in its brief (page 9) that the Agency could not rely on its own ordinary knowledge and experience, but must have "special" knowledge. Defendant has already shown that members may rely on their own knowledge and exper- ience. Further, there is nothing in the applicable statutes or the legislative history thereof that requires Agency members to be engineers or otherwise qualified as experts on these issues. See Huck, supra. There is no definition of "special" knowledge. Presumably, the members ' experience on the Agency would qualify them as having "special" knowledge. It is unreasonable for the members to have to describe their background, experience and activities at each public hearing as plaintiff suggests. There is no useful purpose in doing so. It would be unnecessary, awkward and burdensome. Additionally, the members , as laymen, are not held to as exacting requirements of use of the language as are experts and professionals . See Dubiel v. Zoning Board of Appeals of East Hartford, 147 Conn. 517 (1960) . IV. There was substantial evidence in the record supporting the concerns and decision of the Agency. Contrary to plaintiff' s assertions in its brief and the lower Court 's decision, there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the Agency' s decision. The evidence was based on more than speculation and is described in Para- - 4 - graph B of the Argument in defendant' s original brief (pgs . 7 and 8 and see Appendix thereto) summarized as follows : 1. Personal observation of the site by members of the Agency. 2 . Consideration of plaintiff' s rp_ior application for the same site. 3. Ev idence submitted by plaintiff through maps , plans , etc. . 4. Active and probing participation by Agency members in questioning the experts of the plaintiff. 5 . Members questions uestions and comments at the public hearing and subsequent meeting affording plaintiff ample oppor- tunity to offer rebuttal. 6. Knowledge a and practical experience acquired by long- time members of the Agency. CONCLUSION Defenda nt respectfully requests the Court to find that evidence for the defendant Agency to deny there was subs tantial the application n and that , therefore, the lower Court erred in sustaining plaintiff' s appeal. P Further, it is respectfully requested that the Court further f ind, inter alia, that : 1. The issue of whether roads , driveways , buildings , etc. well have a significant negative impact on wetlands is not a technically icall complex issue beyond the knowledge and exper- 5 - tise of an Inland/Wetlands Agency. 2. Members do not have to have special knowledge beyond their experience on an Inland/Wetlands Agency and that they may take their own knowledge and experience into consideration in deter- mining whether a proposed subdivision or similar application will have a significant negative impact on wetlands . 3. Members do not have to describe their background, knowl- edge and experience at a public hearing. 4. The burden is upon the applicant to show that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the plaintiff' s propo- sal. Defendant further requests that if Kaeser, supra and Huck, supra, have not already overruled Feinson, supra, and Tanner, supra, the Court now overrule Feinson, supra and Tanner, supra, in whole or in part . Respectfully Submitted, DEFENDANT: SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION By: ,�; "pw�7" ,!; is ar M. Ritten an -----_ Its Attorney 6 - S . C. 14273 FAIRWAY ESTATES VS. SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing reply brief was sent to all counsel and pro se parties of record this 16thday of May, 1991. r RichardrM. Rittenband Commissioner of the Superior Court l �T�'�• 11rt FJi��.. Did the Court err in requiring the IWA to accept the opinion r" »` of the applicant ' s witnesses? 1z ±' Did the Court err in not allowing the IWA members to rely z ,V 2 • in concluding upon their own personal knowledge of theteeevidence? o r t e d b y that their opinion was not supp Did the Court err in concluding that the applicant had sustained its burden of showing there was no feasible an prudent alternative? wil Great Public Importance : If allowed e� ssornbecomelexpertninng ., � a message to IWA - hire your own exp lications «:r: rove all aPP technically complex issues; otherwise , app " or become very articulate - not the intent of IWA Act . experts for each application or accept 5. Will have to hire own application . and thereby approve every members are not Did Court err in concluding that Agency permitted to take into account their own personal knowledge ' that oils come from roads? ��''��` "• t Agency members not take Did the Court err in concluding that g Y into account that maps themselves show encroachment into by , < �'�n • '�': _ " .� fer area? concludingthat Agency members not take 8. Did the Court err in into account their own knowledge that culverts will interrupt �.. the movement of w1ldlife/aquatic life.? •� ICES ITTENBAND a` TON ROAD lrc' SOR,CT 06074 'l44-2456 (la Ll k- / 1 1 4C\ FLOO - Aft A % r "-dame iEl.ST Y ,� •• .r'••{�t,l;j�'�,•;�, f mow„�-'�t,`,Y#� All 1 ••. 'flY'�••;♦r. {iSl"Y•:. ]j r��Y„y ',f•' I•r•S y l 1 .r1= ., 1. �., ' �JI.��I�•��itl`.. - •i.�•,�„�'�� �1,� e�r � � ',act; ti ':i'.. -.. Y a4. •�>;•(r/,, OF f,• q ,t .,. •�,^�fyat• a •' r _ .f • �: ``',rY--^t`�.t '•�,rp ,,fir � - • .. ,� ;• w � J.:,"S Tow. , , . . o y "�ryry INDS COW ' Y ,' � ,.1�` tv •,�dt•►� :?J�:� `���S1= r r •. �ry'... r-'\,l.'F•' . .r�rw, •�` ••' N ECTICU ` ,•,•. Fy'fi x�: - f f,,`tt ` ,rf; '' ; HARTF4RD-� C0Ut11 '�- -,�T` ,•i'}* TE i . ' •.' • ' '":•.• ` �;`i'1 ,�1°''•1�qr;- ,•• , • . . •',�'.y ,•.yµ , 9 .y11''•�`r ,,.• ,I'�''r n,rs�M • �'�' '_''IC S, ���'t' • IAL -��t.•� `• j��.�'': �`., n\y_,r! �• i,,., t�:�+`:-�• :��iy•TiNA�.�r y'��L;,yi'^r• , � i�-.rt�`,r3"�.,_'# •$,a�i.0 't'%�' ��''� r,•� .a"��5�, r1.}f,,•{I'�,.�' �`,�+ �1` •y-•+'..b�- } .. r' . .t '!. "e,�,'Sr�r:i •.t��a a)r' '1y�r/,f 1 .c .._ti.K 1. .I� �1,7':'•�.J•r1•a.:' t',� '� ``rl •�: ip�1 � r.i- •, ,i ...,li}S {;►S: ,v i f>•t 4' #• •v, r l' it ln`J11", •S' `y a a.i• _A, f.yt•:>• `I `' J'�ti��. .�' 'i�,L' •ate�� .s.,�.'1 t•r ` .,.i+f'a1d���•i1}{Y `ram• ,',;rN.,z'yv'� 3,t� ty }� r lr.;'."',�fp'r «:X�.�i4r��.y' r• V � ' •r • 't:•:.i' 'y- +�, Zoo,'' 'a<�.:r,,*„Yr,+..r"W,t�`r .i•� �i:• 11�a. _r I.T. fir• 2y, i ,"y / -r'' .r v\•y" -�,.+l•�,(. `►',/�.'��•\r•y it •,1'It�',{w1 r;h•/•J'•,+i.,•,•i,,-•` •t yx• :"evil. ' * •,t } a r y •Y >I J t•: t•'r•.1.K� ,L •.r �'a.� %• 1.rr 4.., ,y•.' e."a lr+•.�1 ,�r'� Pj�`�' `ry .,• / •" ' .�. f.a•,a ,1.•td.4/ •'k»} �, �.> , - �'+ 'F.,t .II a.' y.. i+{ k.'.,�,[ i,. •�, T~ 'r - .' .. - 'Y'• r• •, ^*'1'ti. try, '� ti• . •i .S '. ,r. :r� ,1 ' 0 4tr, ` ',� tF -•:L. �;j, 1 r.'� �::�f p�°r��tl ty r, •�� �'y'.��� ir'.` S .'S.�.•�"y , •�1'. •�_s.. r1.,/t' ,4(i, ,• �f�r H• h1 W�r(M J:.i.l,� �,� r�wC, •',` �''• h�•,'„�'` y �n*, '��S {I�� '. 'l'r��"-1'. r3r *'�' r�'�0.''ItY 1' � 1•' .• I� •r;,' ' _. - i. . r�%, tJ4�`riR ,�+s.,a. .9Fr,1• , .� J +r r `? • .,�. ,+% •:i'-�'M1• , Yev � " 1,1l,`.L1,� �'+I(1`, r,!' r � � \ ' �•,, �•„y 1•,:Ir.i •( J, ,' �. 'M' i-•1 'il + ' , INSURAN •, 4N. '. . • •R*'t• , fr a •,` ' `1 y' Ii•�C,7"�i'.y�, ►•� t• r •t•'li �', .J,i(..,� Vol .14 41 61. T.•'1 1; 's •'�-�"rJ� �' ''`�" � ��'n j,' ' � i,'y:%l`''r.�r',!'�,\((.,�rc'-ylr:,T..i,, . .•' '-LaS Ri.�It`,. • 1', � _t Y .•., 'r, i ,!r� ' '~ •�' � `•••1 •, ,+t•:4•j'• gal,*" 'l ' fEDER y fE�,? �R 'RA N. V UNI ; r� + F s . � ,Y..����+•1•`�.`-- I,ti' � �� • •.+;. �r�, •+ Table 1. Summary of Discharges Drainage Area Peak Discharges (Cubic Feet per Second) Flooding Source and Location (Square Miles) 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year Connecticut River At Hartford Corporate Limits 10,460.00 120,500 165,500 1850,500 230,500 Above Farmington River 9,852.00 121,000 165,500 185,500 230,500 Podunk River At Corporate Limits 18.94 1,065 2,020 2,580 4,370 Above Burnham Brook 14. 30 670 11295 1,710 2,580 Above Quarry Brook 10.05 490 1,000 1,305 2,125 Above Plum Gully Brook 5.25 230 475 615 1,030 At Sullivan Avenue 2.80 160 340 440 730 400 Feet Upstream of Nevels Road 1.63 130 270 355 585 At Miller Road 1.05 115 240 310 450 CD At Mouth of Farm Brook 1.18 130 265 345 580 Quarry Brook At Confluence with Podunk River 1.64 140 280 355 580 Farm Brook At Confluence with Plum Gully Brook 2.02 230 465 605 990 At Oakland Road 1.22 145 300 395 635 Bancroft Brook At Confluence with Stoughtons Brook 1.76 170 350 450 755 Dry Brook At Confluence with Scantic River 2.33 190 365 470 745 1850 Feet Downstream of Griffin Road 1.67 155 320 400 630 r r U16WVV V1W1'*' A .A 1 Y: ,a 4 �� S •r 'i t' •A FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOW WATER SURFACE ELEVATION SECTION MEAN WITHOUT WITH CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY FLOODWAY FIOODWAY INCREASE (FEET) (SQUARE (FEET PER FEET) SECOND) (FEET NGVD) Plum Gully Brook A 0.062 150 765 1.3 58.0 58.0 59.0 1.0 B 0.467 115 445 2.3 59.5 59.5 60.5 1.0 C 0.570 120 535 1.9 62.8 62.8 62.9 0.1 D 0.767 120 400 2.5 64.0 64.0 64.7 0.7 E 1.010 125 465 2.2 67.4 67.4 68.2 0.8 F 1.289 120 375 2.7 71.3 71.3 72.3 1.0 G 1.358, 120 430 2.3 73.4 73.4 73.5 0.1 # H 1.484 100 340 2.9 74.8 74.8 75.6 0.8 I 1.874 105 340 2.9 83.6 83.6 83.6 0.0 J 2.088 280 580 1.7 85.8 85.8 86.7 0.9 K 2.348 60 80 4.3 90.7 90.7 90.7 0.0 L 2.417 50 130 2.6 98.2 98.2 98.2 0.0 M 2.536 40 150 2.3 105.5 105.5 105.5 0.0 N 2.596 80 255 1.3 110.2 110.2 110.2 0.0 • O 2.690 50 70 4.8 112.5 112.5 112.5 0.0 P 2.963 30 75 4.7 125.3 125.3 125.3 0.0 Q 3.233 75 485 0.7 146.0 146.0 146.0 0.0 R. 3.537 25 55 6.5 156.9 156.9 156.9 0.0 S 3.632 50 315 1.1 168.6 168.6 168.6 0.0 T 3.769 40 60 5.7 173.2 173.2 173.2 0.0 Miles Above Confluence With Podunk River DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FedwW Insuiums AdminbuiSon F L O O D W A Y DATA TOWN Of SOUTH WINDSOR, CT (HARTfORD C0.) PLUM GULLY BROOK �, am ELEVATION DIFFERENCE FLOOD BASE FLOOD FLOODING SOURCE PANEL I BETWEEN 1$ (100-YEAR) FLOOD AND HAZARD ZONE ELEVATION 3 10% 2% 0.2% FACTOR (FEET 11GVD) (10-YEAR) (50-YEAR) (500-YEAR) Connecticut River Reach 1 0006, 0008,0009 -6.6 -1.9 4.8 065 A13 Varies - See Map Podunk River Reach 1 0009 -4.45 -1.67 3.17 045 A9 Varies - See Map Reach 2 0009 -2.84 -1.26 2.84 030 A6 Varies - See Map Reach 3 0007,0009 -5.15 -2.31 1.21 050 A10 Varies - See Map Reach 4 0007 -4.34 -2.14 1.16 045 A9 Varies - See Map Reach 5 0007,0005 -2.29 -0.79 1.73 025 A5 Varies - See Map Reach 6 0004,0005 -1.07 -0.34 0.97 010 A2 Varies - See Map Reach 7 0004 -3.70 -1.65 0.75 035 A7 Varies - See Map Reach 8 0004 -1.13 -0.42 0.71 010 A2 Varies - See Map Reach 9 0004 -1.67 -0.51 1.21 015 A3 Varies - See Map Reach 10 0004 -2.14 -0.65 0.59 020 A4 Varies - See Map Reach 11 0005 -1.44 -0.31 0.71 015 A3 Varies - S e Map Reach 12 0002j0O04 -0.86 -0.23 0.56 010 A2 Varies - See Map Reach 13 0002,0004 -1.61 -0.54 0.91 015 A3 Varies - See Map Reach 14 0002 -1.03 -0.35 0.63 010 A2 Varies - See Map Plum Gully Brook Reach 1 0004,0005 -1.41 -0.38 0.85 015 A3 Varies - See Map Reach 2 0004 -1.02 -0.36 0.71 010 A2 Varies - See Map Reach 3 0004 -2.90 -1.18 1.42 030 A6 Varies - See Map Reach 4 0004 -1.19 -0.43 0.80 010 A2 Varies - See Map Reach 5 0004 -0.43 -0.17 0.40 005 Al Varies - See Map 1Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 2Weighted Average 3Rounded to Nearest Foot DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT s Fed.nl In:unna Aaminirtotion FLOOD INSURANCE ZONE DATA TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, CT (HARTFORD CO.) CONNECTICUT RIVER-PODUNK RIVER-PLUM GULLY BROOK Dam 9\ RM14 \ D 03 U P G Gull RM31 Y Broo Ao�4�k '9 cC q Hk � STR FFT �!G Pam, T 1 � �• • ...Ca =CC.CC = --- ---- - .■� C =_ ....... --------- --- ---�' _■ism ■■■■■■ ■� ■/■■//■■ ----------- ==--- - ■ ■/■ • : i ■■..■■.■.■name■■■■■ ■/...■m ■E■msa0N■ ■■NUNN ■Ee■�N■ ■Ea.s//sN■/�/Eese■NONE an NMI ■ - - L !���������������■■aN■■aamiiiCC■namam.0 ■mm.■a■■C■aii■■■�=Ci ■mm■ ----�iii- - ----- - --------- --- ■■■■ Q CC/ a own ■ ems■ ■■■ e C ` ■_///■ .•1T� �� .■■■■n■■ei-----------=======E 1!L-W ���������aan■■�C■Em ■Room MON. ��■I.snC ■■■■■ i iiiiiiiiiNN SENSi■slCmCm ��■m.m.a■■nsaEN■■ENE■SEENNNa■■n■a■m■�.a■ ■ ■■ ■■■ ■ ■N■So■sN■.■ ■ems 1■■mon■ 1- 1................................. ...C:Cm.. ......n:emmm/■Cn�C:::■........■■..........:: ■.............�I......:C:CC:�C:....C.. k a■■■■/.////■■■.s■ ■N■■■■s■■N■■E■■ ■■■E ■■■.......■ ■■■.■■■■■ ■■■■.■■.■mmnn.a■■■■.■ ■■■■■■■■■■/■■■. ■.■■/■■ ■...■.■ R''f'i.■■.■■.NN■ENNEN■ ■■■■■■E■■■■■an■ ■a■me■■e*■/■■N.N ■mae.N■■■ ■■.■■..■.■n■a■■a.■ ■■■a■■■�■■■■■.■■/■■■■■ A4nno■m■ee■■a■s■mm■ ■■Ns■ ON MENEM■/s■em■ses�■ ■Sso. n..nn■,�ii■.■■■■ ■/enn.n■■moomn■am■■■nowmne■.■ ■■■■■■NE ammumam NONE ■■n■ nomennnomomemose milemossommeno Summons SEEN now ME 0"*Ism some■•■•■■••■■■•■■•■■mmm•■■■inson■�C�CC��C�mmms CCCp��CC�C�CCCC�CCCCCCCCs� we 0sommm■■E■■.men.■■■■■■■eE■■■sm=-■/■mnsmYfr ■/..■s.mm■■n■■■■■■■. was mom RENEE I NEON �.■■EN■■■esoa■ES■ ■a■■Nos■■■■■n.a■■■moo■■■oa;�snmaa■ mmon r- :gym■■s■aa■s■■■■n■ .■■.■■■■ ■■a■■■■S.nN■■s■ �• ■m moom■■o.S■■■■■■s■■■■a■ ■■s■■..■ ■.■■.■.■..■■■s■■■ ■■1: �'•ameaENe.amane/='�CE■■■ m ■�.� ■ama■n■■■■■Na■■■.■■ ■■. SEEN ........■.■■■.■■■■■■■ems so mem■nnanaa.a■iC:::C:: =IIC�■NN■■m.n■E■a■NNN■CCCCCCC::'......■■■.....C:::CCCC �..■■.■■■.........■■me � i•�aNN■S■■SNNNNa■■■■■■■■■■NS■■■■aiiiiiiiiiiii■�Smmmm■■=`■■■Ciiiiiiiiiii■Naa■n■S■■■■■■�iiiiiiiiiii■N■mNNS■■■■�r�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNS■Ema nano■■ ■.....Na■nsaamn■Nnnmam.somme■ ■..onsa■ ■■nse■ sssmmom■■NNE■Eso■■.ae■■.e.iiiiiiimomEnsssmmsN■NNNN.sS■CCBEEN ■■■a.■ ■a■o■me■o■s■.m■■sENNa■ ■onn■■CE ■ona■.Ci'■a.mE■■ ■■Nn■N■■NN■NN■.■EE■■■S■Na■ ■■■■n■■■■■o■.NSnnamm■mmonesmsCNONNI ■rasmm■■■■■ "■■■■■o■a■■■E.■■Na■■■NCi■NN■Nn■Em■mmmmSN■o.�im■■■■ — Emmons aS■now■o■■mmommlm■N■S.E■Nam■■..■ICCCsmmssmmmmm■■iiiiiiiiaEEsssmmmon■■ase■■s.■ sEEsssmm■SNonsii■eaeaiiiiiiEEESssmsNN■ _ iii■■■■NNE■■E■Ns■memoss■meNS■■■ee■■ns■■n■ea■■ EEssmm■mm■■a■■s■■m■I■■CCiMEN■■■■Se.■■..o■Ns■■Ns■ClaiiC�smmaS■No.��ae..aaasaE■iiiiCsmsmn■ ■aEEssn■S■nnN/msmnomae■ ■mom■ ■N■N■ ■■sN■ ■mmnn■ ■■■■■Esn■■■nE■■■■sae■■a■CCCCCCm■■■o■■■a■■m■■ommo.■ EENN■N■N■NNm■m■■■■NCCiiS■Ns■msNN■s■■.N■Smes■ -- mannomen■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■sN.mm■■■■■■■ENNE■■NsmESSNSN■■.a.■mma■■m■ ■■s■■■os■■■■som ■s■■■■a.n■■nlloinN■nmmm■..m■a.■sN■m■ — ■aENN■N■EN■nSE■ENSs ■■Nm■n■mm■NNNmNNlNmm■■ mannaS■■nsomm■siaN■m■mNME.■m■N.msmmsNNNm■■■ ■Esos■osos■s�ll■o■Nsmoss■0 mom ■mo./m.o■ ■Monsomemeng••nssssmen■m■NN■N■=■■■■■■■■S■■■■Sa■■■S■■SSOME■N•■•■■NN■■NNE■■CiiNo smoss■■■Ss■s■■.■sSm■iiiiiESNN■N�Inameeam■emiiEmmoniiiCs ■■ma■■■■■■o.■■Em■■Nmsmoom■ee■aimomommME■Essm• iiinow NEON S■■.■■■■ ON MONROE mom a ■ENE■N■■■■■■E■■■■■■ E■mem■■mme.e.ea.■■■■■■E[1■■■■■ Em■■E■■■■s■.■■■■■■■am ME m■m..■■Nis■iiiiiiiiiiON is■iiiiEEsEmss niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii/ moommoso ■■moanNUN■■m■ amm■o■■...■.aeNo■■o■■■CCCmm iCmsmnanomm■nmaa■.CiiiiiiiiEEsssmNas■N■NNE■■iiEEssssm■■■mm■mo'■N ism n•//■s■ ■ENE■■■nn■■on■■NN■■■Nn■ ■Ns■■■ ■nano■ ■NNE■■■ ■mmm■n■ ■■■■smmmNNN■IN■Ns.■■■.NSNNN■..aaaa.a■■NN■aon 0■■N■■N mE■■ssssmmmm mom NNl■NNN■■N.■aaiiiiiwoommoN Nowsmssommenom ■sNNN.smee...a aENE.■ms■■m■■NN■NEN.N■NNN.■■.■N.N■E■■EN.sN■ MEMENES ■■moon man a a soon NEON anNNE■n■■■o■■sNS Ease■m■S■NSEN■NNN■S■EEMEN■m■s.■.■ ....��rc��•■��■c.--��•�n■rm■mm■mmmamm■mlmN■Nm■N■n■�•� mamm - ■■sae■■■so an■■omsn■Sa■a.oa■oS■Ns■oso■■ �■■�Ir�u.:���.�.' _.■■ `" ■m■mm■sm■■ m■■ ■■■■s■Essm■■■■.Na.■os.■■.■■� iiiiiii:C:i:='v� ■■ma■.■■■■■NNE■NNam■N■a■■n■■■a■n■m■■N■■N■■maN.■■■N■■N.s■■1isINU►7/��■� -� mom rmmon.■■■.■N■ Romano■■n=n■■ems■■■mm■■n■■mn■■En■■■s■■■■■■■En■■■ ��1�1/�'■sill■ • - _ ..�N�3il..a..emmom Romano■N■ ■■■■■NNS■■■■m■■NNN.■■■■■■■■NNE■■■■n.m■■■mNN.■■.■iN.::r■■E■i■N■■■■Nmi■■CNCmsNC■isiii�i:��/ - :■sm■ ■■■•Gi.■■.■■N■■■SEN■ ■■aS■■s■■o■■aS■■■n■a■.s■.amsoa.soas■oanomans■m■amass..■m■■lo■s■m■.■■Emsrmam■■ssaa.ao■.ann■•_.,• . -.■1�s�_.- nano on ■■[INN■Ea■■M■Nano■■■■■■■■■Em■■l��r� �.■, „: !filE■N■■Na■■■■E■■■■■■a■ ■■aa■■■■■■■EN■■■■an.■■Ea■aa■■.■■■E■■■■■aemaNN■■■.NNE �ionmieSi■■■■OMEN■N.a■■amom ■■■■a■ r ■■m■■NN■■■.m.■■■.■■a■oon■NN.■■a.Nm■NNE.■■■■moS■■■■■■i■N.■/1■■■■■NEan■■■■m■■■m0.N.m� .lmmm �.rmmE■on on mono ■Nm■■■■Em.o■■■mEN■■m■■■E.■■N■Eon.■■■■■■■S■EN■.■■■■■■■.■•■•'7■■■■=■n■m■■■■NNNNN�r- ;,,i/„' _..�o%rSraN■■NN■■■!E■N■mN��/ooNo..■Em■■■ x ■■■■am■■■■■■■NE.■■■a■ENNE■■■■■■■■aaaDana■■■■■ ■ �NNm.ONEnn Boom-- .../IMil[N■■.■NNm.■■.E■N■/!%■N.■■o■N.■■ ■■Nmun so■■■■NNE■■■■■N■■E■ENNE■■■N■■■N■■■■■■aENma■ 1■INN■■. -r.■■mar ..�■�R;Gr■■.■■■■m■E.a■■m■ ■/i/.N.m.■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■.a■■n.mal/--_ ..r.■■■. !!sr �i■%CLio■NE■■am on so son ■■■■m■■■■Nana/ i■m■■■■a■■■■■■m■■a■■■ am 0 a No MEMO MEMO mool Ems No mom a a i ■■■■■■■mm■■■■ENE■■■■■n■■m■■■■■omN■■NNE■■■■■mN.mNNEN■■.�'K •■■■Nm■■■■■�s�■■m■m■m■■m■■■■N■■N■■■N■.■so mom �.■■N■■■■■■■Nam■■■■.mmN■■.NmN■■■ MENEMm■NENONNI on ■■■.E■Cosommome ommo■em.m■n am■m■■ason.■■noomsem■E■■■■.�-__- ion■■■aNN■/s:rNNNNNNa■omss■s■■■■■■■a■■�:ENRON was /■■■■■soa■ MI ONE ■ Emus■■nmm■■■■.■■■..._-_-_---ON ...MENEM ■■■■.■So■a./%:/.iiiiiiiiiiiaC■Cil�iiiMEMNOiiiiiiiiiii ■■....r�..---- ---�..■■■m■mm■N■■l��• ,� ... o/i■■■Nmono■■halo■■■■■■■Eo■■■� r ■m.n■■■■ 3,v dooms mom =igammm mail NNE --nommonAtf MEMN■■aaNa�l•atiNanaN■N.■■■ammRoom■�� �OMEN �aamm■om■■■■■■■■■N■■■.a■■mono�IE�IE�Imi�����������mmoom��[s1E■ t r" .wilz � r.�.� -..err.a.EN■N�_��\�A�m�■NEa■N■NEI�Girr.maC/N.■NN■NEo■ mom■o■!- t•����GZirr■■�N.■■■■aaNNNN■■N■■■onomon ■■■■Ire :mans..■■ INN■ENS■ma■soon■oossS■■.a■ma■o■smommo■soososE■ ■mammon•z.■■so■■■■■■s■■■Na■■■NNNssa■os■sriinomoNE■■■N■m■m■.■mnmm■mmmsiC ■■a•a MONO:o■■sa MEMOS■Ns■■■N■N■■■sae■■■s■ENS■■■■Nan■■■S.■■■ doom a somemons, man mommons■Nsm:■■N■■ :fA„■■ma■■am■■n■■m■manna■■mom manna■a■m■■mi�..m■s■No■■■a■o■N■No■aS■■a■■ _ ■m■■■NNN■■Nso MEN emniinommeadiiii■EN ONE N■■■somam■■■NN.■mms■N■N■■NNEamNNmso•mm■N�, �:■■■no Emma ON man MENNEN moon■■NONE■Hann■an■■En mom nmamm■m■NmnNmNN.Nn■nma■ ■Ss■ MWMMWMM PP a mom on ns! MEN old mom on son SOME FAR SEMMES a was-----••■■■■ am ON 0 Soon 0 0 mammon ENSURE no ME sommom INN VIA soloodi ■■.NNEON EN■sashmom es■■■■N■N■N■NNN■ MENNEN N■mNo NONE !00 ENO .maaaaaaaaammam■m mom ■■a►ion■■■■oossa■■ass■.N■Now ■■Sa■oN■a■assso■ ■■Ns■■■■■■■ammmlNNNmmN■.■■NN■■N■Nm■■NN■■ ■■r,■■■■■ammnamm■■■■■■a!m■mm■a■m■■mmmm■NNN■E■■■mm■Na■ ■■am■■N■■mN■■mmm■m■.m■N.Na■■mm.mm■■REiiiiiC t �� • .� lmomm ■r�ssno■aa■so■sossaoa■■■■s■N.o■m.■m.aaaomE■II.Nm■s■s■s■N■sm■■■ ■■ma■namNEmm■■NE■m■E■nmiii■aos■■ . . . _ g /.Haan■■■n■■aa.■■m■■■■■■■aaaan.N■■.mane■.■■■anall■■■m■man■ ■mmON■.■II.NN■■■■N■■.o■■N.momo��� ■■■■Ilan■mom na■■N.a■■■■■NENo■N■N■aNlla■■■■a.a■■mama � %N•aN■■N■NNE■■■■■■■NmN.■■se■N■■NN■■e■■■■N■ ■.. � • . • ■■■■/i►7■a■■■■a■.■■.■■N■■■■■■.a■■aaaa.m■■■■.■/.III a■Naf■.■a■■■■m■MmoN■■.omNll■■.■■NE■■NN■■■■■mCCmmon ■■■■11■■em■Naana■■N■■o■Emma■■■m.N■■lime■■aNN■■NN■■Em.NN■■■■ ■■■aa4%/mm■mmm■■.■■a Ems■■■■■■■■.■■■■aN■■■■■.■\'!%■Nmo■■ ,►7■■■N■m■■mom■■.■m.*OMN■mNN■■N.■■mama■■■NECmom NMI � • — an NONE ■■N■■aa■■■m■ammo■■■aaamon■N■NNINa■Eon SEEM a■■■■■■■a■ • • — an ■■ i 3 i - - � - --- - - -- -,--- - . -- - - - - - - - --- - - - --- -- t , las i I , t i 1 i s -- - --- - - 1 11 I J 111 I i -- 3 KEIIFFEL Z.ES":,ER CO STANDARD _ :J,�C�� MADE IN U F ���,r�`- FL.7E! /_.