Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Site Plan - Conservation (269)
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR -INLAND WETLAND, WATERCOURSES AND )CONSEERV�jATION APPLICATION APPLICATION #. 1S DATE RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS k 1. The application, map and plans must be submitted in triplicate, together with the fee set forth in the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations, Town of South Windsor. (See Regulations, Section VI) . 7$ 2. The South Windsor Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations should be reviewed with respect to the standards and criteria for application evaluation. (See Regulations, Sections VIII - X). 3. The applicant understands that this application is to be considered complete only when all information and documents required by the Agency have been submitted. (See Regulations Section VII). A. APPLICANT'S NAME Lawrence A. Fiano ADDRESS ree , nc ester, CT 06040 1 PHONE: (HOME) 646-4951 (WORK) 643-5614 _ B. LEGAL OWNER'S NAME: Fairway Estates Partners ADDRESS 69 Deepwood Drive, South Windsor, CT 06074 PHONE: (HOME) 646-4951 (Agent4ORK) 643-5614 (Agent) } (List additional owners, addresses, and phone numbers on back of application). C. IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, A LETTER BY THE PROP OWNER(S) AUTHORIZING THE PROPOSED REGULATED ACTIVITY SET FORTH IN THE APPLICAT ACCOMPANY THIS FORM AND WILL BE PART OF THE APPLICATION. D. PROJECT NAME: (if any) Pin Oak Estates subdivision 1. Contact Person ation is needed). E. THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS TO BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOC O REGULATED ACTIVITIES INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL To IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY ON THE INLAND WETLAND AND WATERCOURSES MAP. The site is located in the south central part of South Windsor on the west side c Clark Street, north of Stanley Drive. PAGE 1 6— F. NAMES OF ALL ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS: (USE SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY) Refer to attached list. G. HAVE YOU NOTIFIED ALL ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS BY CERTIFIED LETTER THAT AN APPLICATION IS PENDING BEFORE THE AGENCY?. Yes **(You are required to supply a copy of the letter with the list of the names of the abutters).** H. PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF ALL PROPOSED REGULATED ACTIVITY(S) INCLUDING AMOUNT AND TYPES OF FILL AND THE TIME ELEMENT INVOLVED: Roadway construction and storm water discharge within a wetland buffer zone. Common driveway and utility lines through a narrow wetland (30') and minor watercourse. Footing drain discharge with wetland buffer. All activity is to service a residential ` subdivision. Time element is 12-18 months. I. A CLASS A-2 MAP OF THE PROPERTY DRAWN TO 14i9' , SHOWING THE AREA TO BE DEVELOPED, EXTENT OF THE WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AFFECTED, TOPOGRAPH, EXISTING AND PROPOSED ACTIVITIES AND NAMES AND LOCATIONS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS MUST BE SUBMITTED. J. ACREAGE OF WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES TO BE ALTERED: .05 (20' x 100') K. ACREAGE OF WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES TO BE CREATED: N/A LINEAL FEET OF PROPOSED STREAM ALTERATION 100' M. TOTAL LAND AREA OF PROJECT AND PERCENTAGE WHICH IS WETLANDS: Total Area - 47.4 acres Wetland Area - 13.5 acres or 28% of- total size. r- IDENTIFY ALL OTHER PERMITS OR APPROVALS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED, APPLIED FOR, OR REQUIRED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION. (.These may include but not be limited to, local Planning S Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals, D.E.-P. , F.E.M.-A., .O.T. , The Army Corps of Engineers, and any other State, Local or Federal Permits.) No other applications have been filed at this time. HE APPLICANT (OR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE) HEREBY ATTESTS THAT A SIGN WILL BE POSTED AT '`.THE FOLLOWING LOCATION/S The west side of Clark Street across from CL & P #2517 (proposed Lot #1) by LandTech Properties, Inc. NAME Robert C. Isner ON OR BEFORE THE FOLLOWING DATE: As required per Section 6.3A SIGNATURE: - THESE SIGNS MUST BE DISPLAYED CONTINUOUSLY FOR AT LEAST FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO SCHEDULED MEETING. (See Regulations, Section 6.3a) . PAGE 2 a THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPLIES FOR THE REGULATED ACTIVITIES LISTED IN PARAGRAPH H ABOVE, FOR A INLAND WETLAND, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND CONFIRMS THAT: 1. HE IS FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE INLAND WETLAND, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR. 2. HE/SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT AT ANY TIME DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD, THE AGENCY MAY REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE WETLANDS AND/OR WATERCOURSES IN QUESTION AND/OR ANY PROPOSED ACTIVITY. 3. ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW SHALL BE CONSIDERED FACTUAL, OR IN THE CASE OF ANTICIPATED ACTIVITY. BINDING. A KNOWING FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT OR ANY OF HIS/HER AGENTS TO PROVIDE CORRECT INFORMATION, OR PERFORMANCE EXCEEDING THE LEVELS OF ACTIVITY ANTICIPATED, SHALL BE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF ANY PERMIT UNDER THESE REGULATIONS . 4. BY MAKING THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT GIVES PERMISSION TO THE INLAND WETLAND, WATERCOUR$ES AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEMBERS AND/OR ITS REPRESENtATIVE TO ENTER THE PORTIONS OF THE PREMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT OF THE-APPLICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CTION AND INVESTIGATION AND OTHERWISE EVALUATING THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION BOTH BEF0 AND AFTER A ECISION HAS BEEN ISSUED. iggroat-ure of Applicant Date June Agent for Fairway Estates Partners Received and filed at the office of the Planning Department this dap of 19 SiSfiature of Agent for Fairway Estates Partners Date June 20, 1989 FEE RECEIVED YES NO AMOUNT DATE RECEIVED by HEARING DATE HEARING ADV. (1) (Z) PERMIT GRANTED DATE PERMIT DENIED DATE PAGE 3 TOWN OF SOUTH W NOSOR INLAND WETLANDS AND WATER COURSIN APPUCATION' THIS APPLICATION, ONCE INFORMATION IS COMPLEI INLAND WWTLAWS A404CY ACTION (SEE BACL OF THIS FORM), SHALL BE RECEIVED AT APPf�CATION NO. _.3 REmLARLY St�iEDUL - MEETING OF THE AGENCT AT TOWS! HALL. RECEIVED OAT THIS APPLICATION MUST BE FILED IN TRIPLICATE THE OMCE OF TU TOWN a-ERL OF soammR PUBUC HEARING GATE 13 NOON AT LEAST' 14 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRST (it r,0c06"Iry) REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING .DATE. THREE SETS OF COMPLEM APPUCATION OR PL.1NS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THETOWN E1'tGINE PVRMIT GRANTED OATS AT LEAST 14 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRST REGULAR PERMIT OENIED OATS hlONTRL MY EETING .DATE. PLEASE PRINT OR TTPE. t. APPLICANT Lawrence A. Fiano TE. NC. __-5614 AOOA�� 71 Woodland Street CITY A STATE Manchester, CT 06040 2 OWNER Fairy�ay Estates Partners TEL No. 644-0139 AOORESS 69".Deepwood Drive CITY A STATE South Windsor, CT 06074 3. LOCATION Of PRO . West side of Clark Street (See location map) NAMES Of ADJACENT PRCPEATY OWNEPS Please refer to attached list STATE CUARLY AMC QMOLY S. PURPOSES AND DESCAIPTION Of THS PRGPOSiW ACTIVITY.AND THE TIME EUMENT INVOLVED: Roadway construction within an inland wetland regulated area. Common drive- way construction near and through a wetland area and watercourse. All activity ,is to service a residential subdivision, one year from start. ATTt:NT10Nk THE APPUCANT UNOERSTANOS THAT THIS APPLICATION 13 TO BE CONSIDERED. (=M_ ON Y WMEN ALL iNfQAMATFON b OOCUMSNTS AECUTAED 8Y THE AGe4CY.MAVE BEEN 3UG ITTWj APPROVAL MAY ALSO 8E NECE33AAY FROM THE K-ANNING ANO ZONING COM- MISSION. AN APPLICATION FEE IS REQU=. CONSULT TF�EGIT A71ONS (SECTIONS 6.9, 6.9a 'and 6.9b). A SIGN IS REQUIRED. CONSULT REGULATION SON 6.3a) . s1aNEc Ao 1 ' ioPx�,:si�`�$a'�?' .a: `nSt-`-';y'.m"-'.r x r•_:� vja-�- "3 ` t p�`.�'•�„9`-�'i T,Zxtiza-l`yk SENDER Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services"are desired,'and complete items 3 and 4 f _ a s. m� ''',tN Put your address in the"RETURN TO"Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will card from..being returned to prevent this 9 you. The return receipt fee will Provide you the-name of the person delivered to and the date of delivery. For additional fees the following services are available.Consult postmaster for-fees and checkbox(es)for additional service(s)requested. - 1. ❑ Show to whom delivered,date,and addressee's address. "--2. ❑ Restricted Delivery - t(Extra charge)1 1.(Extra charge)t 3. Article Addressed to: 4. Article Number a P 625: 093 036 _ f Type of Service: MR LAWRENCE FIANO El Registered El Insured R Certified El P.O. BOX 778 ❑ Express Mail PIANCHE CT 06040-0 Always obtain signature.of addressee or agent and DATE DEIIVERED. 5. Sig(lure—Addr ssee 8. Addressee's Address(ONLY if f X requested and fee paid) g6. Sig (9011 X. Da a of Delivery -�� e PS Form 3811, Mar.1987 *U.S.G.P.O.1987-178-268 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT s SENDER:#Compiete items 1 and 2 when additional.W[vlces are desired, and complete items 3 • and 4. "` Put your address in the"RETURN TO" Space on the revs se side. Failure to do this will prevent this card from being returned to you. The return recelat feinlil arovide you the name of the person delivered to and the date of delivery. For additional feesAhle following services are available.Consult postmaster for fees and check boxes)for additional servica(s)requested. - 1. ❑ Show,to whom delivered,date,and addressee's address. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery t(Extra charge)T - = 1(Exria charge)t T. Article Addressed to: _4.-_Article Number P-625092 697 LAWRENCE A "F IANO Type of Service: 71 -:WOODL.AND STREET El Registered ❑ Insured Certrfied .: [] COD "MANCHESTER -CT '; 06040 ❑ Express Mail Always;obtain_sig ressee or agent and D 5. Signature—Addressee 8. Addressee' reL requested n fee X �� k Xi ture—A9en `' 1989 7. Dat of ally -BS . DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT US GPO 1987178268Fo m 3811. Maz:1987P VA NDER ,. C m fete: ems a o o a dltlona �e e so s ecei a the K_. om e e e a o to Ing e_ ces o an ztrat* I ur a e an ress t e reverse o i`is.orm so 5,ee at a an etuurrn" Is�Carc yo • - 1. .d ressee:'s ddress r - • Attach 'form-to the front of the mailpiece, or on the r r_ back 4f space doe b hut.PO it . r §Write "Return Recei t Re nested" on the meif iec ext o 2`=❑Aestnc a De every P 9 _, z . r ttie article number:`mod r _>. Consult postmaster:for fee.- 3.:Article Addressed to _ � ws Article Numbe ,. -- - -094:59.5 404 t� MR LAWRENCE A F1ANO 4b. Service Type 71 WOODLAND STREET ❑ Registered ❑ Insuredy P.O. BOX 751 ` �. �ified ':_ -❑-COD C STER e,CT . 06040 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for ',, Merchandise `. 7. Date Delivery 5. r s e 1 , 8_. Addressee's Address(Only if requested and fee is paid) ignature (Agent) PS Form 3811, October 1990 7rU.S.GPO:1990-27U61 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT •SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items 3 and 4. Put your address in the"RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card from being returned to you. The return receipt fee will Provide you the name of the person delivered to and the date of delivery. For additional fees the following services are available.Consult postmaster for fees and check box(es)for additional services) requested. 1. ❑ Show to whom delivered,date,and addressee's address. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery t(Extra charge)t t(Extra charge)t 3. Article Addressed to: 4. Article Number P-625 092 658 Lawrence A. Fiano Type of Service: 71 Woodland Street ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Manchester, CT 06040 Certified Coo • ❑ Express Mail Always obtain signature of addressee oragentfnd DATE DELIVERED. Si ure— ddresse y 8. Addr e's Address(ONLY if x ")/ V, requested and fee paid) 6. Signature—Agent x r Utd 7. Dat of Deli ry a1�153�t, PS or 3811,1 Mar. 987. ,t U.S.G.P.O.1987-178-268 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT i 1 - .___.`._O_�_r_ � sr _�'g.._•�'�.���_6_e _..:!_�'!_.__.-._.�._✓ur_-- O -�' T�-•� / l7�✓n I I a cress -A) - _ r II _/ - � I I, I HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS August 4, 1989 PIN OAK ESTATES 1ST CONSTRUCTION PHASE CLARK STREET SOUTH WINDSOR EXISTING CONDITIONS: DRAINAGE AREA, A = 9.9 AC - RUNOFF COEFFICIENT, C = 0.44 WETLAND, FLOOD PLAIN, ETC. = 2 . 69 AC X 0. 6 = 1. 61 ROOF, DRIVE, IMPERVIOUS = 0. 02 AC X 0.9 = 0. 18 UNDEV. (WOOD/MEADOW COMB. ) = 7. 19 AC X 0. 35 = 2.52 4. 31/9.9 = 0.44 TIME OF CONCENTRATION, TC = 20 MIN. OL. 2500 @ 4% = 16 MIN. CHANNEL/STREAM = 1.49 (1) 2/3 = 1.49 FPS 400 = 268 SEC. _ . 1 J -- 1.49 4.5 MIN. ) 20 RAINFALL INTENSITY, i2 = 2.2, 110 = 3.4, i25 = 4.1 150 = 4.6, 1100 = 5.0 EAK FLOW RATE, Q2 = 9.6 CFS, Q10 = 14.8 CFS, Q25 = 17.9 CPS, 50 = 20. 0 CFS, Q100 = 21.8 CFS AFTER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: DRAINAGE AREA, A = 9.9 AC RUNOFF COEFFICIENT, C = 0.47 WETLAND, FLOOD PLAIN, ETC. = 2.69 AC X 0.6 = 1.61 ROOF, DRIVE, ETC. = 0.85 AC X 0.9 = .76 REMAIN = 6.61 AC X 0.35 = 2.31 4.68/9.9 = 0.47 TIME OF CONCENTRATION, TC = 20,MIN. RAINFALL INTENSITY, 12 z 2.2, 110 = 3.4, 125 = 4.1, 150 = 4.6, 1100 = 50 P AK FLOW RATE, QA = 10.2 CFS. Q10 15.8 CPS, Q25 19.1 CFS 50 s 21.4 ,CFS, 100 = 23.3 CFS SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) YEAR STORM SST, AFTER DEV, DIFF. 2 9.6 10.2 0.6 10 14.8 15.8 1.0 25 17.9 19. 1 1.2 50 20. 0 21.4 1.4 100 2.1.8 23.3 1.5 AS STATED IN THE ANALYSIS FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, BECAUSE OF THE 100-YEAR FLOW RATE OF PLUM GULLEY BROOK, THIS INCREASE WILL HAVE A MINIMAL EFFECT. (REFERENCE: HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS, PIN OAK ESTATES, REV. 7-7-89) 1 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS PIN OAK ESTATES CLARK STREET-SOUTH WINDSOR Peak Flow Rate, Q2= 24.4 CFS, Q10= 40.8 CFS, Q25= 48.9 CFS, Q50= 55.0 CFS, Q100= 61.1 CFS, SUMMARY - PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) YEAR STORM EXIST. AFTER DEV. DIFF. 2 23. 3 24.4 1.1 10 38.9 40.8 1. 9 25 46.6 48.9 2. 3 50 52.5 55.0 2. 5 100 58.3 61.1 2.8 THE EXISTING 100 YEAR FLOW RATE FOR PLUM GULLEY BROOK IN OUR GENERAL AREAS IS 1,000 C.F.S. (FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY) OUR INCREASE REPRESENTS 0.28% (MINIMAL) . BASED UPON THE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY, NOVEMBER 1979, AND OUR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS, WE FEEL THERE WILL BE NO DELETERIOUS DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS. THE CLARK STREET BRIDGE BACKS UP THE STORM WATER FOR THE LARGER STORMS. WE FEEL OUR STORM WATER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CLEAR THE AREA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE RATHER THAN ADD TO THE DETAINED PEAK FROM SOUTH OF CLARK STREET. BASED UPON THIS DATA, WE FEEL DETENTION OF STORM WATER WILL NOT BE NECESSARY. ATTACHED ARE COPIES OF PORTIONS OF THE REFERENCED FLOOD STUDY. THE SMALL AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH UTILIZED THE EXISTING CULVERT TO BE BULKHEADED AT THE ENTRANCE TO PIN .OAK TRAIL WENT SOUTHEASTERLY THROUGH CULVERT, WESTERLY TO ANOTHER CULVERT, THEN NORTHEASTERLY TO PLUM GULLEY BROOK. THIS WATER WILL NOW BE PICKED UP IN STREET DRAINAGE AND DISCHARGED TOWARD PLUM GULLEY BROOK. IT ENDS UP IN THE SAME PLACE IN A MORE DIRECT ROUTE. Rev. 7-7-89 LANDTECH ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS &z SURVEYORS 71 Woodland Street, P.O. Box 751 Manchester, CT 06040 Telephone (203) 643-5614 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS PIN OAK ESTATES CLARK STREET SOUTH WINDSOR Existing Conditions - _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. ) _ 3.7 4C x 0.35 = 11.8 Roof/Drive/Ip, 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`k = 31. 25) V = 1.49 f.003 x (1)2/3 = .8 FPS 0. Rainfall Intensity, i2 = 1.2, i10 = 2.0, 125 = 2.4, i5o = 2.7, iloo = 3.0 Peak Flow Rate, 92= 23. 3 CFS, Q10= 38. 9 CFS, Q25= 46. 6 CFS, Q50= 52.5 CFS, Q100= 58.3 CFS, AFTER,PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Drainage: Area, A = 47.4 AC-. Runoff Coefficient,, C = 0.43 FloodplaitifWetland, etc. = 13.5 AC x 0.6 = 8.1 Undev. (Wood/Meadow Comb. ) 33.05AC x 0.35 = 11.57 Roof/Drive/etc. _ .85AC :x 0.9 = 0.76 20.43 = .43 47.4 Time of Concentration, Tc = 50 min. Rainfall Intensity, 12 =� 1.2, i10 = 2.0, 125 = 2.4, i50 = 2. 7, i100 = 3.0 I i HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS PIN OAK ESTATES CLARK STREET SOUTH WINDSOR Existing Conditions - 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, i 25 = 2.4 Peak Flow Rate, 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 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 all f HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS PIN OAK ESTATES CLARK STREET-SOUTH WINDSOR Peak Flow Rate, Q2= 24. 4 CFS, Q10= 40. 8 CFS, Q25= 48. 9 CFS, Q50= 55 . 0 CFS, Q100= 61 . 1 CFS, SUMMARY - PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) YEAR STORM EXIST. AFTER DEV. DIFF. 2 23.3 24.4 1.1 10 38.9 40.8 1. 9 25 46.6 48.9 2.3 _ 50 52:5 55.0 2.5 100 58.3 w 61.1 2.8 THE EXISTING 100 YEAR FLOW RATE FOR PLUM GULLEY BROOK IN OUR GENERAL AREAS IS 1,0001C.F.S. (FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY) OUR INCREASE REPRESENTS 0.28% (MINIMAL) . BASED UPON THE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY, NOVEMBER 1979, AND OUR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS, WE FEEL THERE WILL BE NO DELETERIOUS DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS. THE CLARK STREET BRIDGE BACKS UP THE STORM WATER FOR THE LARGER STORMS. WE FEEL OUR STORM WATER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CLEAR THE AREA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE RATHER THAN ADD TO THE DETAINED PEAK FROM SOUTH OF CLARK STREET. BASED UPON THIS DATA, WE FEEL DETENTION OF STORM WATER WILL NOT BE NECESSARY. ATTACHED ARE COPIES OF PORTIONS OF THE REFERENCED FLOOD STUDY. THE SMALL AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH UTILIZED THE EXISTING CULVERT TO BE BULKHEADED AT THE ENTRANCE TO PIN OAK TRAIL WENT SOUTHEASTERLY THROUGH CULVERT, WESTERLY TO ANOTHER CULVERT, THEN NORTHEASTERLY TO PLUM GULLEY` BROOK., THIS ,WATER.;WILL NOT BE PIPKED UP IN STREET DRAINAGE:AND DISCHARGED_-_TQWARD PLUM 'GULLEY BROOK. IT ENDS UP IN THE t SAME= PLACE: IN A:MORE ` IRECT •ROUTE. rt- w Line Segment I I I I ro Time to Inlet I I I I w IM in Pipe A' Accumulated Time 0 Al Entering ce.ch Basin Sun of Alin' 3yatea Intensity Ip c °D Q in System ►s a %o Pipe Size' o ty A O o Lengtb cf pipe 1 0 Ste: IE I� ro Average Velocity 12FILU capacity OD Readvater 17 L I L.1- it QA 1 -7 Fn IAT-17 'o2I 1=FRS b� Ll a Eva � Aq pau9;3aa f • . ro Inlet- Station and Offset Time to Inlet C w Area in Acres CA N Runoff Coefficient AI I°, I Sum of Al Total AI M1CM Rainfall Intensity N ° Q to Inlet O ' n NGrade of Gutter o W Cross Slope of r' Shoulder Depth of Flow N at Gutter I ( Width of Plow 191 a r Q Bypassing inlet � _ I n} N V-.. -.AI. Bypassing Inlet T AI Entering Catch Basin IaDUQ ^q ?a�f�a4� Wcii3 WEE6Zs Z TIN -� nq pzsaTsaQ 16 toa,o:,d / To Tow^ of '!W � LAND ESTATES i 70 i/ /� LOT 5 � 6 204 S.F. TEMPORA Y CUL- E-SAC EASEMENT O � I 600, w, _ /OWN ` i S •� /o0'S• 3 51 ell 00, I' 1 �'4� saw �fb ✓�� 0 4 \ \ 150, 6,S.F. ;1 1 LOT o . 91 �+ 8• r c�\ V NO OUTLET' SKIN oci � \ 11 �T A OQ -� 4p 4 Worksheet 2: Runoff curve number and runoff Project . t,_. ."zile Sr � SE Z By Date Location o-uT,Z/ NU 5 o 2 Checked `Date Circle one: resent 4- I . Runoff curve number (CN) Fhydrologic Cover description 1/ Area Product CN — of (cover type, treatment, and ry CN x area hydrologic condition; cr `i �i mac es percent impervious; mi unconnected/connected impervious 4 (�X A) area ratio) 0 w w sC oe) ,Gb o et 3 21 .70 /90. 9 ' i • (C lam- a S S F.a /L �]9 Z . o a /,sg, o �Av rwT Cc 4AK Sr- Fn 01 7s 2 4 Use -some per liid�' r Totals 3Tas' to a1 roduct 37a. �y� �•l? CN twelshted)`+�' . ...-s.. /. �7 use CN tie tal'"arsa Wft /yAl 2-` .. • yA Storm 01 Storm #2 Storm 03 Frequency .........................«a�A. yr Z ZS Rainfall, P (24ehour) 4906 to �J� Z '�• g S S Runoff, Q ............................rl. in (Use P and CN with table 2-1, tig.`t-1, or eqs. .2-3 +•t� �'.•_�i -'... a.i '-���+c. T�� "'.�` s*'r^.rL�d�. k�� �:�,. �t-OS-� � �Y'/ I �- .. fi' y.- . % •ram 4 _ {4 e;..r_ • �rj t y3• - -. -•i 1�.. s v:. •ifl��l�h��iu:�!'+.1i�ii�li� I������i:� AN �/ �?''„ �. �• Hai a v' do "• *ram ta' � 47t�dp► �. 5�'" ell1 O°A4 fo Aw 41 40 jr It �w —you�.ael�� dD���,.��� M i�' I,ANDTECH ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 71 Woodland Street, P.O. Box 751 Manchester, CT 06040 Telephone (203) 643-5614 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS PIN OAK ESTATES CLARK STREET SOUTH WINDSOR Existing Conditions - 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. ) = 13.7 *q x 0.35 = 11.8 Roof/Drive/Ip, 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 = 1.19 V.003 x (1)2/3 = .8 FPS r Rainfall Intensity, i2 = 1.2, i10 = 2.0, i25 = 2.4, i50 = 2.7, i100 = 3.0 Peak Flow Rate, Q2= 23..3 CFS, Q10= 38.9 CFS, Q25= 46.6 CFS, Q50= 52.5 CFS, Q100= 58.3 CFS, AFTER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Drainage Area, A = 47.4 AC. Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.43 Floodplain/Wetland, etc. = 13.5 AC x 0.6 = 8.1 Undev. (Wood/Meadow Comb. ) = 33.05AC x 0.35 = 11.57 Roof/Drive/etc. _ .85AC x 0.9 = 0.76 20.43 = .43 47.4 Time of Concentration, Tc = 50 min. Rainfall Intensity, 12 =� 1.2, i10 = 2.0, 125 = 2.4, i50 = 2. 7, i100 = 3 .0 11 �► �lI ��I EL::EEEEELLE'3L■■■.: ■Lit/=:■ a ::::: • ■ - SUM H . 1.. .. : .:: .:::.GiGiiiii7iiii-BE.-----EEE �.. � L■ i■� t■iiGi�iir iiiiiiii�i iiG_Qii i iiiii'..IT�i iiiiiiGiiii■'i i1Gii QGiGii ■ ..... EEEenoenonono=■ /E ■E DEL ' inoEM■Nenoamnonono■■noanNnono■■EINteEnolnonoM■■.......... .......... ..\■... ...[.........■//■ ■on■noE ■noeno■■tnonot■Eno\■ ■■■ lon■onontnonoN/■ :: BEE :'L:E 8 EEL::'•::" EEE EE: EL EE : : ■. ......... . . :............. . . wasommus .. fill a ..::= � z .SEE . :ino.■. ...■■..■.� E _ :EE:EE :: R� ■/=�1 ■:■ ino Ne ■■ ■\■■■■■/■■■\■■ ■ /■■■■■■/■■ ,� �=L � � '• :L�E:E ' E EE:::::::::::::: :EL ::nono......:: txy ■ r ±* _ � ■:ton■ ��� ■ �■ ■■ ■■■not■■not■■�■■: ■\:::noinononono■ �+1 _ s ■ ■ ■■/ton ■ ■ ■ ■no■■no■■no■////■/■■■■ ■ ■/■/■■■on■■■■ ::::: :::::: :::::::::: f:f;L ■ :Mont./\Eno■■■■not■■■■noon■o ■/■\•not■■S■/■■ o iff oo o nU aaM mOsm uS "�■■■l■/t■■■■■■■■ onion ■ nononoon■■■/onion■nono■:eon ■■■■■no.:t ■ ■■\no ■no■■■nonono.■■nol■ ■t:inonoll■/■ llrli■MeEEE■■■■antean::■:/■■nono■■■■■ton■/nonono■■t■■on■ti■■■noe/■-;ett:eMee■ ■nono■■\■eMEe:noONe■■:Eee■■■\SNe:e■\\/one■■Seen■""■on■\none■ '■•••one■•••••••••• t••••••••••no:■ ton■ ■no/ti/' :::: :c.'" :: ':::: ::::::::::: ................ ilitnoEtnono�EE:M=:::E■■Lt■■: .......LS::■:MnononoMN/\tE■:nononono�itnono■knot:notnono■■no:e/noMNnoon\noone:Nll\ :::::NME■ titan\::\t:notee■et■ ■ EN....... t■■no:tt■ ■nonono/MSetnot■ ■■ttnononotnoM:e:■ ■■■�■....................■■■enotitno■■MtiEtnononono:i■noil:nonottino:■N■Mnononono/ME■■■■octant.:ion:■■■■noEEno■no■■Eno■tnono ::::::::::: ■■■■■/Et■■■•■t■••■notnono■nonononono■noE:tnono■■no■nonono■tanno■■M■i■■/■=noitont■/■■:nonoEEinoi\noon.nonotno:ononM man noNN■■MeoneeenoonMli:MMEM:teee0e■ LCC■��::::::::::::::::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::: ■::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::lij::e■eee■SMM■ one■■eete/■■/e/■onEN■ ■NteeEeeno■■Nee■■oneeeeenoee■eee■Ulleeon■■M:N:E■:e■\eoneee■one\■■:eeN■■eon■EM■■SM\MM■■MS\:NM\1■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■/no=■lino■■ino:noinotnonot■■■:■onon■■■■■■onnonotnonotnonononooniionnono■■on■■■■■■■■■notion■■MMMMEN■■/■one:ton■NeonnoeoneeeE:eenoe:■■EEMeeewoole■■eMM■■SEEN.■ ■■onenonono■nonotttno■----- t■nono■not■:■\/■nonono■notti■nono.■noenonot■■nonoMt:noE:iM■■:noenoeeee■■eno:EN■■notN:MME■■noeNeeeM■E:M:unileeeeE.1:EEE:■■■ ■nonoonno:noonnoNnotetnotM■one■■eeeeeonet:noeMnoeM■onenee■ ■\■■■■■■noonnot:noeEeeemaE■■■/■tEeon:E■\noes■■■■■■■\eeee■■■:Me:M1■N■■\\\.MUMS.■ ■Eon ■nonononono■11HUnono■noE■NMet■notnono■■t:\:notinotnonono:no:noNinot■■nonono■nono■■Enoonno■■onnotonnoNE■■noNinotno■■EMES:nonono\noMonnoM■■WOMElonEonnonoNnoMNunnM■ ■■noitnonotnoEEe■not■■■■■■nono■■noMM■■Eone■ononeeon■■\■noonno■■one■■notMonno■■notnono■■eno■no:\e■eeee/■■■ee/■Se:E■■■one/e■■■■EM:NeeEIMM::■■MENONEE■ 1 ■one/■■eon■eeno■■EeeonMtenoe■oneonnoeN:eeeonno■■onMonnoM■eee.■eontee■■noeeeeenoe:ee:■■ee:eee■■ononE■Nnoe■noes■■■noe■■EESeE■■SeEE1MMMSMMMENMNMM■ ■■■■■lino■■no■■■■■■tnonono/tinoNnono:onnot■i:nono■eM■notnonotM■■noontEtnononolnononono■■■■M■noE■■■■■enonoMnoE■■eon■a swoons/■■■EMSMeEe■■1MM■■■■eEE:EEE■ AnoL Mee/eeee■■■no■eetnotnonoe■■noe■nonoNMM■\Moon/Mee■NnooneeMeNee■///nono■■■ ■■\..MetmMeeE■eenonoME■■cone■■\■■■■ee:EnoeM:■■eeeelMMMMe■■MEMw!N■ ■tE■■noEtnononotnotnonono■■tEiM■nonono■snot■\■:no■■.nono■■■■■noE■nono■■■ino■■■' _■no:��nononono:MNNnoE■■■/Man/nonono/teM■NEnonoeno■■ton■■nonono:lonMNM:■onA�is. ■no■■■nono■notno■tN■nono■E■Ei■not■not■■no:no■■nonono:nono■■tetiitno:N:ino■■ .rnonoMnoM■ieNno■ r �So:a::::::::::::::::::.�;�;_■Mws.■.- ■: ■Eetnoeeee/eontee:noe■loner/noe■nono.■noetinonoenonono■E■■eno■■lane■■■noe11�1;,-1e�:■z3:■■1-M ino■■\■■M:e:En■eeeeMMM■■FR•rwn••p nono- rN�ee :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ii1t'iiieeM■Ee/e■■■noEnoMe .'G-.EMno ■■■t■E■no■=no■■■t■no■■■N■■nonononono■nonono.■nonononot■■ttinonono■E■M■■■■■no1■■■■nonoME:nono■■nonononono:E■MNnot:tteNM.e/ee:er -.■FR__:.... .Mi:G■eieMe■ ■noe■eteNe ■eeee.■nonoenoenonoe:noise■■enM■■eon■eeeMeeMeee:Me■■eeleee:e■■Me:eMMMM:EMMeMMMMMM\• - nos •�Nii�■■ HH:e■ ■EeM\M:■■ _r■ " rNew%d:■\■■\Eno.\eon ■■/■ino■\/nono■■■■■■■■■■■ttinott■■:noteMno:i:nonoet■■e■Nonottenot:no■/1noE:ononME:E■\nee■ESnoeN:e1A�' .� loom■*zr1EE/Meee■■EEMEEE■ ■i■■eeno:MMnoenonono■■■■■■■■■onnonoitino■noeMe:M:noMnonoenonoemom■onon■■■1 !7i:onno:e:■■e:Eee:e:Ew=:■��' �■�-�UeeE:�E:MM■■eM■/;/Eon on aon ■e/E■nononoenonononot■nonottino/■eno■Mee:noe:■■noeNMeeenoeeno■■inoeNEe■■■ ,enoEeMMMamas■.moan r .■ii�z�ME:e■eeeE:E:eM:M.s�aMM■ ■■/:lino::■::::E ■:E :no ■j:■ ■■no::Mt::on:M man/ nonoI1aGmi■■��inA� �•r■ew' �r■:isUeee■ENoneEeeE1■M:M!AMM■NSO■ ■■no\■■■■eeonN■\/nonoMont■/tone\■noeM:noe■■noM■■notinononot:■/nono■no�■1,�■.��_ .rwMS�O-��� FRMR-GUMe■■eM■■E■\■MEMN ■.i■MEMMMMMS■ ■no■■nonoENinoEms nolnonoon■■\/nono■■noeeMonnoe■■nononoee:enono■■:enoteeeeel �rMonrLr\MMMMtMMMMEMMS■MeMEMi:MMMMMSM:Mt■.iER7reMeee■eno■nonoenoe■SEE■■ewarllE■\ ee�.■EeE■ ___ - ��'r�E�!=i./■Mee■■eM■■■one■■eeeeEee!i\e�:tEeeenoEEeeEe■ ■■/■■eN■■eMe:coon■NnoeeMeeNMeeee■■E■■■■eonnoonenonoenoeN■■eon■■/' -���E■�■jl■■MMr3�M■■M■■■■:t:■■\■■■■eee■■■wow■oneeMEE�EEEEe■■Ee:E:E■ ■■inotnononononoon■■■■■■■//noono■■Mtino:nonoon■■■■onEaenotnolonnoon■■■■■on� I■nono■ononM■■/SieMonnono:nonono:on■■e:no■■e:e:eno■A■MMEMw�reMM\�I11■:::::E■e■NM■ ■Steteee■■Me:eeeeeN:■■MMeM:eeeSnoee■■nonoeeonno■/nonoet■ ■eNE1 :Etee\■■t•7rEee0ME■■■eeE■■■■eeMeee■\/�� onion■■■Eno■no■■■■■■■■no■■■■■■■■■■nono■■lno■nonono\■■Eon retonEe■■e:EES\:::IM:MEMNON ■■■lino■nono■■■onEontnottno■■t■■■no■ 'SOU JIVIlmo■nono\ino■notnonoEon■■■Mttnotnoe/!'.Snono�ino:■:■�ino::onM�p::no::ee■ONSON■ enonoe■■■.FR-_____ onto■•= ■tee■on■\eeeenoon -.rM■■N���Aws-■coon\:■■eM■■eM■■■■M■■M:eM:MM■■!Eon■MMMMM■■MMMe:MN:MMNMIIM:■■/\■MMM■\■■ !. ■U■■■rT=___- nono::■■AFRFRO�-��■■■See■/eee:%.-�__ wrr■UM■\■AF���\MMM■wrwO�O__ ■NeeeeeeeM:EMMOM\■■■■MeM:E.�.■■■M■■MNe■■M:M■■MEN■■/MM11■■MM■■M■■■■MS■ no■/nono■noteon:noeno■■■OOO �d■MtnoM/nononoe:■eEEEN■eeee■■■MM/�rMe■■■■:■:■MCSM■EMEMMEee■■eN11E■one■■SNMENEM■ ■■\ev- ��-DiliEon��■eUACnopeeee■eeMEMEEMM:EM■:!'don:■■eME■eeE■Mee■eMe■■EJe:M:ENNMMet\e:masons■ ��■rrE■■�����j�\�Ai��=��G=ir�Eno�:noe:■ettE■■eeMMeeE■MenovMENEE■eM:■■eon■noMSM:MSMMM■■M\\oMM:MMMMIve■:NM■:SUM■ Gi■Mee/CM■■MM■noeeE■:/■■ME/ .■j■■eEoneE:EMM:■■e:eM:e■■eE0noon0a■EIIMSME■■SM:ENUM■ rri�EE■■�eGG�■■teMw■FRO==�Or■MEnoM■:no�M:onee:e■■■■eon■/eee■■■■e:E■■w- rw+/NeeeM■wrFR.-Sri■■MN:MMEe\en■MeeE■MMeee■■M■■MMEee■■eon■■■onE■■Mw��/,:■M/■■MMa■■isM\■■MM■■■■Ma■■■■ama1ialt:Mnonono11\■M■■:0011a:■ �onnoeM�rS■Mno�nono�eoneonno■one■■■■■■noManti:::/Nnononot■■nononoMeon■■■ono■■onno�7igZ�/■■■eNe■■t■■E\■■:tM■■eon■■eon■■eeM■\�!/eeeonEllMnoMEMMEEeMMEE■ ■■ear■■■■■■eoneeeee■■■■note■■noEnoeoneNE■■eee■\eee:\eee\\E/■■ems!:%i�ii/EMEMMMM\M\MM\SMeMMMMSMM■eon:MMEN■ONMMMMMMMMMIIeMMM■M■MMSMM■■ ■Pieeno■eon■eee:eeeeee■■Noneee■■NNnoe■■■Mee■eeet■eon■Meonee/■■I,Y, .gee■■SMMMMS■■SMMMMMMMNMMMMMMMMMM■■M■■MMM■■M■■MMEIIMSMMNUSSUSSnoo■ asEcoon■notoneeeeeee/■onon■f\■eMnoeI■■■■Mno swoon■eno■■:■■eMeEE■■1i■nono.■■fN1ee■■EM:e:Ee■■E:eEeeESSMSMMMMMEte■ ■:eee■eeenoEee UBC:E■See■EMENSeeeMeeeeSon:ee:e■■eeeMA� eeEnonoet/■nononoonnoon■■nonoeonEonnonono\no■E■notnono-----�■■■te:■/ws■:nononoE■■■ton■cone..■■■M:onmMN■NeonE■■e:eEeon:e:\Mee■S■ ion■eeeee■■SS■E\■■EMMMMSMtM:MM■■MMM:MMNMM■onsoo■ ■/eee.■oninoe■■eMEeeM■■MeeeeM■■■■rAFRFR�O�_ Ar■■■U■�:eee.■■eeNeNoneee■■NM■■NM■■M■M■MeEM:e:SMMMMN■■MMM:MM■ t ■eM■■NAME■■M■rAFRFR-�_-- , ■■eMno: ■■enoonnonoon���j■jj�■jeMt:Deno:■N�:��■■�\�/no:E:e:::�:::::::on:noE■i:■Meone�■�Eee:Eon:e::eenoEE:eeE:Mso■ ■:■/t►,MM:::■M:ino:■:■:■one:::■eon��:::::::::■::::toss■:■:■::■■:::■:■eeE:■■�:: : E�a anEmmons " ■once/EMNonon:onnonoonnoonon■■M■■nono:nonoEonon■■■■ononon■■Ncone:e■■oMenoNtenon■e/on■■eon■S■■:■■■■■one:EonsEE:e:EMMe:eeMEeeone■ ■■■II/■■onon:■■!■onNononnonoonon■■■■Mite■one■\EMonEnoonno■noonEM■nonononono■tonnot■■■■■■■iMMeon■■eMeeeNeeEee:eMe:eMeenoee■■\eon ■II■ENMMtesesnoeno\■cooneno:se::noeeee:::n000n■e■■■■eaM:e:inoan■ino■■cant.sonts■■■moo ses�eNee:s■■■■enoEeesno■\■:es 3 ■I�■/Emm:eeN:Eno■nono\■■■■Sam nonotnoinonoti■Montt■■no■■■onlltino■■■/■ ■EtinonononoononEeee■:noenoeltnononoononon■■N:enoNenonono■■■■no■ ' I /■enotnoNnono■onononon■■■t■■MnotMnot■■■■■■■lonno\■nonono■ ■noll■EtMno■■■:on■■■t■■noEeon■Mnoone■eeMll■■■■eeE■:eee.■■on:M■S:Mon ' Ice/■NNMoneE■■onnoeonnono■■■etlE:■■■.Eon■Minot:etEnonoI1NEno■noe■■noonnoeenoone■■eMME:■■eee:11M■/■■MoneonEnoeononeon■\eeee■ ■t■no:.c�notnotNt■tilt■■nono■■■■■■■■■ti:nono■coon■lane..■1■so note\►\\■■inoMeM/tinononoNno.M.■ioEnonononoNe:Mno■■/eteMe■ �\•/ /� ■:■e�I issm■■eMon■eee■■noitnono■■nono■/font:■■iN■■tt111i■Mon■iN■111"sant■■nonoenoeeononNeon■■1�MoneM■■noenoMnoonE■■enoe■/noe■ ::: : ::::::::':::::LL'L'EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE89E:E:::EEEasLEEBEEEE :::L:LL: ::: ■tl/t■noeannoM■nsoon■:Enonononott:i: ' ' ■MtnonoONENE■ESORMENNE■eeE■ r Line segment III I I I N I Time to Inlet Time in Pipe 1 R r Acm= la ed Time 0 Al Lute cercb • o� Sum of Al in System Intensity 10o m Q in system c w " • q U `o '=pe s=Ze Ci A q o Lenstb of Plpe O r ' 1 r slope I - ( I I � I IL,I N Average Vtlocity Capacity Headvater b� Gl z 3Ztto C Patz2waa S r G ;•Zap=a ) 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 10,460.00 120,500 165,500 185,500 230,500 Above Farmington River 9,852.00 121,QQ0 165,500 185,500 230,500 Podunk River At Corporate Limits 18.94 1,065 2,020 2,580 Above Burnham Brook ,295 1, 7 4,370 14. 30 670 110 2,580 Above Quarry Brook 10.05 490 1,000 1,305 ._; Above Plum Gully Brook 0.05 490 000 615 2,125 At Sullivan Avenue 1,030 2.80 160 340 440 . 730 400 Feet Upstream of Nevels Road 1.63 130 270 355 85 585 At Miller Road 1.05 115 240 310 450 co 1,000 At Mouth of Farm Brook 1.18 130 265 AW 0 345 580 Quarry Brook f At Confluence with Podunk River 1.64 140 280 355 580 Farm Brook At Confluence with Plum Gully Brook 2.02 230 At Oakland Road 465 605 990 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 1850 Feet Downstream of Griffin Road 1.67 365 470 745 155 320 400 630 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE 1 BETWEEN lt (100-YEAR) FLOOD AND FLOOD BASE FLOOD FLOODING SOURCE PANEL 10; 2♦ 0.2t HAZARD ZONE ELEVATION 3 FACTOR (FEET [JGVD) (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 -Q45 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 O15 A3 Varies - See Map Reach 10 6004 -2.14 -0.65 0.59 020 A4 Varies - See Map Reach 11 0005 '-1.44 -0.31 0.71 015 A3 Varies - See Map Reach 12 0002,0004 -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 f 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 -4 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FLOOD INSURANCE ZONE DATA TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, CT w (HARTFORD CO.) CONNECTICUT RIVER-POOUNK RIVER-PLUM GULLY BROOK .a ... .(,lrFMl.:4.'..7.i.l:: .4'M iL.MiR�yr :.• !: .. _-� FAIRWAY EATS lb " PLUM Gy. CULLEY BROOK p ��Q N/F WALDRON i \ s' Z4' '� \ f MA h N/F DONALD T. HOOD + N/F \ + ga KELLEY \RICHARARD D. 8 IRENE M. BURGER N/F R.S.K. KELLCO, INC. N/F MERLE L. 8 AUDREY C. DINSE .ND OVERLAND WATER FLOW KEY MAP ` ,. SCALE 1" = 200' SEWER FLOW INDEX OF DRAWINGS Total area r - Parcel is sc SHEET # DESCRIPTIONdth Zo�,na rci+ COVER SHEET Depth , s,'s Area 1 KEY MAP Front yard a -�- Rear yard Dee ' ^'„�. Side yard se 2 PLOT PLAN Lot coverage °'' '.:�=;;y 76tcaV- nuaitlevc Worksheet 2; Runoff curve number and runoff Project C.-4ti 4e S7- �ifhOSE Z By ,5'Aw Date Location "7;/ (N/NUS o 2 Checked Date _ Circle one: resent eveloped 1 . Runoff curve number (CN) Soil name Cover descriptionJand (II Area Product and CN 1/ hydrologic (cover type, treatment, of group hydrologic condition; `i 'i mac esCN CN x areapercent impervious; `� `4unconnected/connected impe(appendix A) area ratio) w w O X 60 046b De( 3 /9 9 17? 1 Z �58, o c e A'q k S r- 9hl 1 1 101 2z 2 Use oe►lgf souse per lti '' 5 Tot al o i�l roduct •.S k x. tai"arease CN r0.ao7/ 2• Runoff iJ Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #F3 Frequency ...... ,..................�:ij�. `'yrD Zs Rainfall, P (24 -hour) .............. ... in �J� Z �• 8 S; S Runoff, Q ....... .................. in (Use P and CN with table 2-1, or eqe. 2 .3 and 2-!�.) r A ./O „ 44. ` 5 i 1C •'fr5 • S,wu'fit qffl-� ��'��ti 41 •�+�,71 ���► , '"mac ,a � � ... �i• 1 ���� Ik tit `���r� ��' � �� ��s� '����1��.i�a 'I'�'•�L�4 V'�ia.,Q♦:�Y.�a � 6."4�yei✓,f':^�� ;����. 'eIN f'S• � �t$ fit,= x Ar �• � `-..;"' i6.'.4w����P_, t5\yam b�'\ IM 76 oll ` its, Slop Adjacent Property Owners for Pin Oak Estates Subdivision Name Address Burger, Richard D. & Irene 550 Clark Street Fairway Estates 523 Clark Street Kelley, Bruce S. 617 Clark Street Waldron, Sherwood C. 863 Clark Street Coulombe, Richard J. & Maria P. 479 Clark Street Cavar, Joseph A. & Nancy 489 Clark Street Hood, Donald T. 500 Clark Street R. S. K. Kellco, Inc. 1750 Ellington Road Clark Realty, Inc. (497) ? Clark Street Andover Equities, Inc. 22-D Andover Drive, WH Jerome Associates, Inc. Ellington Road Smith, Robert J. & Beverly 115 Sally Drive Cetola, Michael & Sharon 107 Sally Drive Lotn: ,a .. • •.�••. f r •• �"�fµj _- - � _ MAAft'ESTATES 3UBQ1 /ISION SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUTNq Nil, t C.c,. 16 • s6 4.000 , •r . Union • y SufNeld Enfield Thompson Bomors Stafford , Grant omp son - .�• . Mbodsfoek _ East «f{ Granby i sor ENiniton. + Cka 'East Putnam r&afford Simsbury Windsor Windsor ' ;Ashford Tolland � Pomfret Canton South •, ' Klllin i or S •Vernon �. y Bloomfleld We lChap kt Avon West , Coventry Mansfield ' mpt Brooklyn test not Hartford ��eA mortlord Manchester* • iormlltiten = Anlover ..� .. Windham enter there • Columbia Plainfield field Glast • onbury . Mebroa �• �aej Iloek ' �• hill Mar .� ' • �• r•r "ou/h i Lebanon Sprague • .�• • r3mwall .Hand r . voluntow,n i ranklln • ��.�•�•'�• Is Griswold toll � Middletown Hampton ' ColchesterColchester . Bosroh Norwich EASTERN CONNECTICUT iddi Preston field ., test Haddam ' ,Salem North 3"CE CONSERVATION p•rrhem Naddem Montville Moninylon Ledyard i OEVEIOrMENT AR(A Chealor Lyme w&lerfold �• lost N&ningten Itlllb 9- Lyme Groten worth offer flsee■ Old linters wool- O'd Lyme i rzoa. Dw�,Y SECT I O W ~ul I � I 5 O C. O. W. , CoAow, .Y 1 i i i POIUT or O.I oc&-Tiow Li .,Nf1 S N G w •� .ti.• M of 6 CGOW"` v) 44 7oP5d�L SEED Z"blt C cr.T6, C4z,.,,Y, b► ime couceps (ccr (�" PLC)C.�7�iE� ',7Tp1_JE�_TL�toic,►c bdF,E LGOM/dGT�07 �. _ l0 Mlitl. �OGE�lGO h[A�!<L Su86oSE o�/EC PtE1�,CEC 7Ue,&eb,DE �(OMPW—Trxz>)p{ ,gyp�� �x�T ►*+� NOTE TO ssiAT�A�.IT M w0AD1N�AYYs I COIrd1'IRICT1011, �►// j ; I 3 IVoT AL \ - X54 3 ) �. 1 X73 ` I X55 . 1 X54 . 2 I �\ � �Sy• 3 I�ti / % Y X514 5 -� \ 1 \ XSS . ? I -_ X54 IL xs5 ,i T 1 LEV f, 3r \ \ 5; NIP r \ .2 . X55.9 Xs5.9 5.9 X55 .5 X56. 7 � x56. 7 ' / XS6 . I i �- ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■ EMOMMIN■■■ ■ ■■■■ 1■ ■■■■�■■■■■1!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■ ■■■ ONENESS■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■®■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■ IN immom ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■ ■■■■■■!■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■INN■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■" ■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■ ■ ■ ■■■1■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!■■�1ME MEN■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■■■■!■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■®■■■■■■®■■■■■ ■■ ■■■I■■■■i!■H ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■MEN ■■■■ ■■■■■�■■■ ®■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■ �■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■i■■■■■■ ' ■!■■■■■1■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■N■■■■■■■■■■■■■EEO ■ ■ ■ ■■■■ ■�■■■ ■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■�'':■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■umas ■■■■■LV■■ ■■■WEN■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■FROM■■■■■1P11at■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■�i■®■■■■■■■ ®■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■i■■■■■ema ■■■■■!■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ssum"■■■■■■■'i■■�1■■■■„' � ■ ■■ ■■■®®������!■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■��■■■■■■■■■ ■■i-�■ ■■ ■®®■■■■■■■■KMMMMI■■■■■■■■■MEMO■ ■■■®■■■■■■■■■■®■■►�■■■�'! .��®����®.. :_ ®..=MES■■■V■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IN loom Emosommoo■ ■a1■■■#IM■■■MEMO■ ■■limmaiiiis■■■ ■■■ ■■■MEMO■■■ ■■�l11 ■■N ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ®■■■■■■■■■®■'i■ � i 1■■■■■■■■■ MEMO ■maim■■!'■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■IN ■■■■ ■■ ji�1�1■ ■ ■■MOON ■ ■■■■■■■■■'■■■■■■■■■KIM.ROMME ■■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■liar■ ■■■■■ ® ■■■■■■■■■■� ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ an ■■ ■11■.■ ■ ■■■■■ ■ ■■■■ MEMO ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ 1 _ __ l1F�ii!- 3�1.■■ ■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■INN wouniW`��■�®® ffimm■�i ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■ ONE IN Rims 0 ■■ ■ ■ ■® ■■ ■■ ■■ ■1�1 ® ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ t rroTD SONS, ANC. '"AA gtv E : TYPE 31/90 S . s- ;• PRECA$T CONCRETE.PRODUCTS n 9 OPI IF .r't�� �' '!�s• '�f"'k�' �s�~h,:i��-�i' <-,1i��'.�' ' �rry � r' " 1 �� i� ,! �r 'rr ' s• �'> t 1y- r i';-. . ,y. S �iki}.--t:F.4 ��� -'<rv�� + s•'-' r -� 4 r �� '1`'�'`s�` ult. `^"' t� f P.O. BOX 585, AVON, CONNECTICUT 06001 /TEL: (203) 673-3291 41 ALEMEIDA WAY, REHOBOTH, MASSACHUSETTS 02769/TEL: (617) 336-7600 I P.O. BOX 192, TOTOWA, NEW JERSEY 07511 / TEL: (201) 256-1760 S. 1 d 1 6'0.. 1 i 1 10" 11'4" 30'0" PRECAST OR POUR INPLACE �^ FOOTINGS PRECAST ARCH ELEMENT APPROX.WT. — 171/2 TONS WATERWAY DEPTH AREA FT' 1 29.9 2 59.7 PRECAST CONCRETE 3 88.9 ARCH BRIDGE 4 117.6 TYPE 31M S 5 145.2 6 171A 7 195.9 8 218.4 NOTES: 9 238.1 CONCRETE MIN. STRENGTH — 10 254.3 4200 PSI ® 28 DAYS 11 264.9 STEEL REINFORCEMENT 11.3 268.5 ASTM A615, GRADE 60 ASTM A185 CONCRETE COVER TO REINFORCEMENT- INSIDE SURFACE - 1'A" OUTSIDE SURFACE 2" DESIGN LOADING — AASHTO HS 20.44 EARTH COVER — 1' MIN., 15' MAX. RMNOO t SONS 0 2.19e3 Pilo., i 1. i lo., 101, 7 �-.....- 32.1.. r 101, - 13'8' 117' �-29'8" i PRECAST SPANDREL WALL 10" 13'6" 5'8" 8,0„ _80011 1101, 8,0„ 6" PRECAST WING WALL (2 PIECES) A� i i i 120• A -.1 SECTION A•A TYP.PLAN VIEW WING WALLS CAN BE AT 900 AND/OR 1200 • 02/115/1989 10: 36 FROM ENOIRON. PLAN. SUCES TO 16458619 p, 03 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of investigations conducted by Environmental Planning Services at the site of a proposed single family subdivision in South Windsor, CT. It was prepared in support of an application to conduct regulated activities within inland wetlands . EPS was retained to examine the natural resource base and evaluate the functional signficance of the regulated inland wetlands. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The regulated activities proposed are associated with the development of a 7 lot single family residential subdivision . The lots will be served by existing and/or proposed public water and sewers. Some of the lots front on the existing Clark Street, and a new, 250 long cul-de-sac (Pin Oak Trail ) is proposed . SURVEY METHODS AND LIMITATIONS EPS conducted a preliminary site reconnaissance and natural resources inventory of the 47 acre parcel in 1987 . A detailed inventory of the 13 acre Phase 1 area was performed on February 10 , 1989. The weather was clear and cold with little or no snow cover . Most non-persistent herbaceous plants were not identifiable during this winter survey, and many animals had migrated or were inactive. The persistent herbaceous plants and the woody shrubs and trees allowed identification of the structure of the plant communities and probable wildlife useage could be inferred. _2_ 02/15/1989 10: 35 FROM ENUIRON. PLAN. SUCES TO 16458619 P. 02 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SERVICES — s ds i lv �r'u-G° • NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND FUNCTIONAL WETLAND EVALUATION PREPARED FOR: Landtach Properties, Inc. February 14, 1989 02/155�///1989 10137 FROM ENUIRON. PLAN. SUCES TO 16458619 P.05 westerly. There is a small watercourse that rises in the northeast corner of the site near Clark Street, and carrys flow directly to the Podunk above the site. Soils A high- intensity on-site soil survey and wetland boundary delineation has been conducted . The predominate upland soil east of Plum Gulley Brook is Elmwood, a moderately-well drained outwash soil underlain by lake bottom silts and clays at a depth of 24-48" . There is also a small area of Terrace Escarpment, consisting of sands and clays on steep slopes . Vegetation Although relatively small , the 13 acre parcel is rather diverse, with old field, mixed hardwood and pine forest uplands, as well as several wetland types. Each plant . community is described below, and a complete floral speices list is shown in Appendix A. uplands 1 . Old Field-- Most of the Phase 1 area is an agricultural field which has become overgrown with common successional grasses , forbs , and shrubs. Goldenrods, Queen Anne' s Lace, Little Bluestem, brambles, Multi -flora rose, and Red Cedar are common , as well as some moister environment plants such as Meadowsweet , Silky Dogwood, Smooth Alder, and willows. 2 . Mixed Hardwood Forest- This plant - community is found on a slope on the northern edge of the parcel . Red and white oak , shagbark Hickory, Sugar Maple, and Black Cherry are common, with Maple- leaf Viburnum, Ironwood, Silky Dogwood, Witch- hazel , Hawthorn, and Japanese Honeysuckle in the understory. -4- 02/15/1989 10:36 FROM ENUIRON. PLAN. SUCES TO 16458619 P. 04 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is the 13±' acre southeaster portion of a larger 47 acre parcel in the south-central portion of the Town of south Windsor . The site is more or less bisected by Plum Gulley Brook in a north-south direction, and by an overhead power line utility easement in a southwest to northeast direction . The land rises moderately to steeply from the low- lying areas adjacent to Plum Gulley Brook and the Podunk River on the northern limit of the parcel , to level to gently rolling terrain throughout the balance of the site. No bedrock was evident during the site inspections. Published data indicates that the bedrock surface (brownstone) in the project area is generally 100-200' below existing grade and, therefore, will not be a constraint to site development . The surficial geology is more complex. There is a thin layer of till overlying bedrock , but still buried far below the area of. influence of the project. The till is overlain by thick glacial lake bottom deposits of varved ( layered) silt and clay . This material is near the surface in the eastern (Phase .1 ), portion of the site. The fine-grained clays and silts are in turn overlaid by coarser material of glacial and more recent origin. There is a thick terrace deposit of sand, silt and clay in some areas, as well as windblown fine sand. There are also alluvial or floodplain materials of recent origin along Plum Gulley Brook . Existing Drainage The phase 1 area is drained by the perennial Plum Gulley Brook, a major tributary of the Podunk River , as well as a small intermittent tributary of Plum Gulley Brook which flows -3- 02.15/1969 10: 33 FROM ENUIRON. PLAN. SUCES TO 16458619 P. 07 2 . Shrub/scrub swamp-- This wetland type occurs in the Plum Gulley Brook and intermittent watercourse areas . Principal species include Smooth Alder , Silky Dogwood, Elderberry, Jewelweed , Sensitive Fern and Wild Cucumber . 3. wet meadow- This herbaceous community is found primarily in the far eastern corner of the site, but also in the Plum Gulley Brook area, and in a swale southwest of the existing barn. Much of the eastern wet meadow has been used to grow corn. Common wetland vegetation includes sedges, Flat-topped Aster , Sensitive Fern, and scattered willows and alders . The extreme eastern portion of this wetland is very wet and relatively undisturbed. The swale near the barn, is somewhat disturbed, but still dominated by charaeterisitc wetland plants , such as sedges , rushes, sensitive Fern and Cattails. The wet meadow in Plum Gulley Brook is also relatively undisturbed, with Tussock Sedge, Blue Vervain , Sensitive Fern, Grass- leaved Goldenrod, Jewelweed, and Joe-Pye Weed. 4. Marsh/pond- Standing water wetland communities are found in three locations. The central and northern portions of the central intermittent tributary are dominated by marsh emergents , such as Cattails, Wool -Grass and Sluejoint Grass . There is alos a small kettle-hole type wetland dominated by an aquatic shrub, Buttonbush . A small pond extends onto the project site from abutting property in the extreme eastern corner of the site . Functional Evaluation The wetlands associated with Plum Gulley Brook are Cleary the most significant on the property . Their value in terms of flood storage, ecological integrity, water quality renovation , 02/115/1989 10: 38 FROM ENUIR.ON. PLAN. SUCES TO 16458619 P. 06 , 3. Mixed Softwood Forest- This community is just east of the mixed hardwoods on the northern propety line. Young white pine and white spruce may represent an abandoned nursery or Christmas Tree farm. Red maple, wild grape and Princess Pine have also invaded this area, which is good quality wildlife habitat due to the dense cover . WETLANDS Wetland soils through-out the property include Saco and scantic silt foams and shallow Peats and Mucks . The Saco soil is very poorly-drained, and found throughout the floodplain of both major watercourses. The Scantic soil is a poorly-drained lake bottom soil found it several of the swales and intermittent drainageways . The Peats and Mucks are found in 2 small ponding areas ( in the Phase 2 area) that have restricted outlets and may represent small ice-block ponds or "kettle- holes" . -Four wetland habitat types are present in the Phase 1 area. Wooded swamp- This forested wetland dominates the Plum Gulley Brook floodplain. Red maple and pin oak are dominant trees, with Cottonwood and American Elm also common . The shrub layer varies from very dense to open, and consists of Smooth Alder, Silky Dogwood, Elderberry , willows, and Virgin ' s Sower . identifiable herbs included Jewelweed, Cinnamon Fern, sedges , and Sensitive Fern. There is also a narrow strip of red maple swamp along the intermittent stream in the vicinity of Lot 2 and 3. This watercourse appears to be a man-made ditch dug to drain the heavy , clayey soils for agricultural use. The shrub and herb layer are similar to that described above. 02/15/1989 10. 40 FROM ENVIRON. PLAN. SUCES TO 16458619 P. 09 r �� R / ./l/J,�if✓ The diversity of wetland and upland habitats at the site asakes 1-t contrtibutes to its overall habitat value. The edge habitat created at the boundary between fields and forests is favored by deer , foxes and many songbirds . The dense shrubby thickets are good habitat for such birds as Yellow Warblers , Rose-breasted Grosbeaks, Gray Catbirds , Mockingbirds , and Song Sparrows . The wet meadow and marsh areas may be used by Red- winged Blackbirds . open areas provide habitat for hawks -and Turkey vultures . As noted above, the conifer forest provides cover for many species of wildlife. Wildlife actually observed or detected during the recent field investigation included Chickadee, Blue Jay, Crow, House Finch , Red-tailed Hawk , Woodchuck (burrow) and White-tailed Deer . RECOMMENDATIONS The site should be laid out so that future intrusion into the Plum Gulley Brook area and regrading on the steep TE soils is -b4t minimized . Minor encroachment into the disturbed wet meadow wetlands in the old fields , and or crossing of the channelized intermittent watercourse would not have a significant impact on the overall wetland values at the site. Such crossings should occur at narrow points or rear the existing Clark Street, if at all possible. Proper installation and maintenance of erosion controls, and dry season construction in wetlands should be required. These measures will prevent significant adverse impacts . Respectfully submitted, Michael S . Klein Principal _g_ 02/1�5/1989 10: 39 FROM ENUIRON. PLAN. SLICES TO 164586L9 P.08 ' and aesthetics is high. The Plum Gulley Brook wetlands are a mosaic of habitat types , and also includes warm-water fish and aquatic habitat. They are not significant groundwater recharge areas , and the recreational and educational potential along Plum Gulley Brook is limited due to difficult access . The small swales and intermittent tributaries leading to this major wetland are generally not as significant. They function primarily as drainageways , conveying surface runoff and groundwater discharge from the uplands to the streams . The wooded swamp, wet meadow and channelized watercourse in the center of the site have been largely disturbed, and their ecological integrity and habitat value is low. They are in the center of an old field, and thus not a significant aesthetic resource. The small kettlehole wetland has moderate ecological integrity, but its habitat and other values are limited by its small size. The lower (marsh) portion of the nearby watercourse has seasonal to year-round open water , and is large enough to serve a localized habitat function for wetland-dependent and aquatic birds, mammals , and herptiles . WILDLIFE The most valuable wildlife habitat at the site is the Plum Gulley Brook floodplain wetlands . The perennial watercourse, and mosaic of wetland plant communities supports aquatic, wetland dependent, and wetland associated wildlife. Raccoons , oppossums, deer, Ruffed Grouse, Tree Swallows, Green Frgs, Spring Peepers, Wood Turtles, are typical wildlife likely to use this area. -7- 02/15/1989 10: 41 FROM ENVIRON. PLAN. SLICES TO 16458619 P. 11 A APPMIX A (cont`d) Scientific Name Habitat* Phra9mites camnnnis Giant Reed 2 Picea la auca. White Spruce 7 Pi lea Ala clearweed 4 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 6 7 Polv4orxm sagittat_um Arrow-leaved Tearthumb 1 2 3 4 Populus deltoides Cam on cottonwood 4 Prunella vulgaris Self-heal 5 Prunus serotina Black Cherry 5 6 Pvrus arbutifolia Red chokeberry 3 (ZuerWs alba White Oak 6 ercus calustris Pin Oak 4 5 6 ercus rubra Red Oak 6 Rhododendron viscvsum Swamp Azalea 3 Rhus china Staghorn Sumac 3 5 Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose 3 4 5 Rosa palustrs Swamp Rose 4 Rubus spp. brambles 2 5 Rumex sp. dock ? 2 Salix sp. willow 2 3 4 5 Sambucus canadensis owrion Elderberry 3 4 Scirous cy2erinus Wool-grass ? 2 smilax herbacea Carrion-flower 2 Soli graminifolia truss-leaved Goldenrod 2 Solidago sp. goldenrod 2 3 4 5 sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass 5 Sphaomin sp. peat moss 1 Soiraea latifolia Meadowsweet 5 Soiraea tcmentosa Steepiebush 2 3 5 Toxicodendr_on radicans Poison Ivy 5 Toxicodendron vernix_ Poison Sumac ? TvAha 1at�folia OmTwn Cattail Z Ulmus americans American Elm 4 5 Vaccinium Cory bosun Highbush Blueberry 3 4 Viburnum recoMitum Northern Arrow-wood 3 Viburunum acerifoli+.m Maple-leaved Viburnum 6 Vitis sp. wild grapes 3 7 Zea mays Corn 2 *LEGEND ? - Marsh 2 - wet Meadow 3 - Shrub Swm p/Wet Thicket 4 - Wooded Swamp 5 - old Field 6 - Mixed hardwood Forest 7 - Conifer Forest 02/15/1989 10:40 FROM ENUIRON. PLAN. SUCES TO 16458619 P. 10 APf i X A FLORAL SPECIES LIST Pin Oak Estates south windaar, oars mticut Scientific Name., Marmon Name._ Habitat* Acer rubrum Red Maple 3 4 6 7 Acer sacchart.m Sugar Maple 6 Aaropvron sp. auackgrass 5 Alnus serrulata Smooth Alder 2 3 4 5 Andr aerardii Big Bluesetem 5 Andropoaon MRSrius Little Bluestem 5 Ascleaias syriac_a Gammon Milkweed 5 Aster sp. aster 2 3 4 5 Aster t xrbe 11 atus F i at-topped Aster 2 3 4 Betula oopulifolis Gray Birch 3 5 Sidens sp. beggar-ticks 2 CalargLwostis eanadensis Bluejoint grass 1 2 3. Carex spp. sedge 1 2 3 4 Carex stricta Tussock Sedge 1 2 4 Caroinus caroliniana ironwood 6 Catalpa bi aml o i des Common Cats l pa 6 Celastrus sp. bittersweet 3 Ceahalanthus oocidentalis Buttonbush 1 Cinna ar_undnacea Wood Reed 4 Cirsium sp. - thistle 5 Clematis virginiana virgin's Bower 2 3 Cor_ aramm Swamp or Silky Dogwood 2 3 4 5 6 Corpus racemr�sa Red-panicle Dogwood 3 Coryius americWa American Hazelnut 5 6 Crataegus sp. Hawthorn 6 Cuscuta gronovii dodder ' 3 Dactylis alanerata Orchard Grass 5 Daucus carota Queen Anne's Lace 5 Echinocystis 1obata Wild Cucumber or Balsatmappie 3 Elaeamus ansustifolia Russian Olive 5 En i 1 ob i t.m sp. w i l l ow-herb 2 4 Eupatoriun sp. joe-pye weed 2 3 Germ sp. avens 2 Hama,m_Lis vir-giniana Witch-hazel 6 Hype^i cum v i r i n i t:,um Marsh St. John s Wort 1 Emmvatiens caAensi.s Jewelweed 2 4 juniper juniperA virainiana Red Cedar 5 Juncus of€usus Soft Rush 2 Lilian canadense Canada Lily 3 Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle 6 LyoOaus Sp. bugleweed 1 2 3 4 Lyonia 1iqustrina Ma1eberry 3 M imu 1 us r i ngens monkey-f 1 opwer 2 oenothera sp. evening primrose 2 4 5 Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern 2 3 Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary grass 2 3 y CLIENT PROJECT NAME CLARENCE WELTI ASSOC., INC. + P.O. BOX 397 LANDTECH PROPERTIES INC. PINE OAK ESTATES GLASTONBURY, CONN 06033 LOCATION SOUTH WINDSOR, CT DRILLING PROCEDURES: 1.,2.,3.,4-(Select one or more) HOLE NO. p-1 Surface Elevation HOLLOW STEM AUGER Diameter 2 DRIVEN CASING, Diameter GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS START 3. DRILLED CASING, Diameter AT �' FT.AFTER DATEHOURS 5/17/89 4. ROCK CORING, Diameter g type FINISH AT FT.AFTER HOURS DATE E SAMPLE STRATUM DESCRIPTION P REMARKS T NO. BLOWS/6- DEPTH A + DEPTH H ** 0.5' GR/BR-FINE SAND, 1 12-18-20 5.0'-6.5' SOME SILT 8.0' 10 2 11-12-12 t0.0'-11.5' 15 3 7-9-8 t5.0'-16.51 GR.VARVED CLAY,OCCASIONAL FINE SAND LAYER 20 4 9-9-9 21.5' BOTTOM OF BORING 21.51 25 **TOPSOIL 30 35 40 LEGEND: Col A 1401b Wt. x 30" fall on 2" O.D. Sampler Driller:FAULKNER Sample Type Proportions Used Cohesionless Density Cohesive Consistency Helper: D=Dry C=Cored W=Washed trace 0 to 10% 0-10 Loose 04 Soft UP=Undisturbed Piston little 10 to 20% 10-30 Med.Dense 4-8 M/Stiff Inspector: TP=Test Pit A-Auger V=Vane Test some 20 to 35% 30-50 Dense 8-15 Stiff UT=Undisturbed Thinwall and 35 to 5O% 50 + Very Dense 15-30 V-Stitt Sheet 1 of 1 1. Unless otherwise agreed, samples will be held by Weiti Associates a maximum of 60 days after boring completion. 2. Water readings represent driller observations— not interpretations. CX 3 CLIENT PROJECT NAME P.O.O. BOX 97 E WELTI ASSOC., INC. LANDTECH PROPERTIES INC. PINE OAK ESTATES ' GLASTONBURY, CONN 06033 LOCATION SOUTH WINDSOR, CT DRILLING PROCEDURES: 1 ,2.,3..4.,(Select one or more) HOLE NO. g-7 Surface Elevation- 1. HOLLOW STEM AUGER. Diameter 2.DRIVEN CASING, Diameter GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS START 3. DRILLED CASING. Diameter DATE 4 ROCK CORING. Diameter &type FINISH a FT AFTERQ HOURS FINISHS/17/89 AT FT.AFTER HOURS DATE SAMPLE STRATUM DESCRIPTION P A T tVO. BLOWS/6" DEPTH! + DEPTH REMARKS H ** 0.51 GR/BR.FINE SAND, 1 14-26-28 5.01-6.5' SOME SILT 7.01 10 2 10-9-10 10.04-11.51 GR.VARVED CLAY,OCCASIONAL 15 3 8-9-9 15.01-16.51 FINE SAND LAYER 20 4 7-7-T 20.01-21.51 21.51 BOTTOM OF BORING 21.51 25 **TOPSOIL 30 35 40 LEGEND: Col A 1401b Wt. x 30" fall on 2" O.D. Sampler Driller: FAULKNER Sample Type Proportions Used Cohesionless Density Cohesive Consistency Helper: D=Dry C=Cored W=Washed trace 0 to 10% 0.10 Loose 0-4 Soft UP=Undisturbed Piston little 10 to 20% 10-30 Med.Dense 4-8 M/Still Inspector: TP=Test Pit A-Auger V=Vane Test some 20 to 35% 30-50 Dense 8-15 Stiff UT=Undisturbed Thinwall and 35 10 50% 50 + Very Dense 15-30 V-Stiff Sheet 1 of 1 1. Unless otherwise agreed, samples will be held by Welti Associates a maximum of 60 days after boring completion. 2 Water readings represent driller observations — not interpretations. ' 1 CLIENT PROJECT NAME P.O.O. BOX CE WELT) ASSOC., INC. LANDTECH PROPERTIES INC. PINE OAK ESTATES BOX 397 GLASTONBURY, CONN 06033 LOCATION SOUTH WINDSOR, CT DRILLING PROCEDURES 1.,2.,3.,4..(Select one or more) HOLE NO. B-3 Surface Elevation 1 HOLLOW STEM AUGER Diameter 2 DRIVEN CASING. Diameter GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS START 3.DRILLED CASING, Diameter AT]•Sr FT.AFTER 0 HOURS DATE5/17/89 4 ROCK CORING, Diameter 8 type FINISH AT FT.AFTER HOURS DATE E SAMPLE STRATUM DESCRIPTION P q REMARKS H T NO. BLOWS/6' DEPTH + DEPTH ** 0.5' SR.FINE SAND & SILT 3.0' 1 14-21-23 5.0'-6.5' LIGHT/BR.& GR.SILT WITH FINE SAND LAYERS 8.0' 10 2 9-11-11 10.0'-11.5' 15 3 10-9-9 15.0'-16.5' GR.VARVED CLAY 20 4 6-7-7 20.0'-21.5' 21.5' BOTTOM OF BORING 21.5' 25 **TOPSOIL 30 35 40 LEGEND: Col A 1401b Wt. x 30" fall on 2" O.D. Sampler Driller: FAULKNER Sample Type Proportions Used Cohesionless Density Cohesive Consistency Helper: D=Dry C=Cored W=Washed trace 0 to 10% 0-10 Loose 0-4 Soft UP=Undisturbed Piston little 10 to 20% 10-30 Med.Dense 4-8 M/Stiff Inspector: TP=Test Pit A=Auger V=Vane Test some 20 to 35% 30-50 Dense 8-15 Stiff UT =Undisturbed Thinwall and 35 to 50% 50 + Very Dense 15-30 VStiff Sheet 1 of 1 1. Unless otherwise agreed, samples will be held by Welti Associates a maximum of 60 days after boring completion. 2 Water readings represent driller observations — not interpretations. CLARENCE WELTI ASSOC., INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME P.O. BOX 397 LANDTECH PROPERTIES INC. PINE OAK ESTATES Y GLASTONBURY, CONN 06033 LOCATION SOUTH WINDSOR, CT DRILLING PROCEDURES 1.,2., T.4.,(Select one or more) HOLE NO. 8-4 Surface Elevation I HOLLOW STEM AUGER Diameter 2. DRIVEN CASING, Diameter GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS START 3. DRILLED CASING. Diameter DATE AT 5,0� FT.AFTER QHOURS 4 ROCK CORING. Diameter g type AT 5/17/89 AT FT.AFTEfl HOURS DATE D SAMPLE E STRATUM DESCRIPTION P A REMARKS T NO BLOWS/6" DEPTH H + DEPTH ** 0.5' BR.FINE SAND,SOME SILT 3.0' 5 1 10-16-19 5.01-6.5' tc 2 9-11-11 10.01-11.51 GR.VARVED CLAY,TR.FINE SAND LAYERS 15 3 8-8-7 15.0'-16.51 20 4 7-7-7 20.01-21.5' 21.5' BOTTOM OF BORING 21.5' 25 **TOPSOIL s 30 35 40 LEGEND: Col. A 1401b Wt. x 30" fall on 2" O.D. Sampler Driller:FAULKNER Sample Type Proportions Used Cohesionless Density Cohesive Consistency Helper: D=Dry C=Cored W=Washed trace O to 10% 0-10 Loose 0-4 Soft UP=Undisturbed Piston little 10 to 20% 10-30 Med.Dense 4-8 M/Stiff inspector: TP=Test Pit A-Auger V=Vane Test some 20 to 35% 30-50 Dense 8-15 Stiff UT=Undisturbed Thinwall and 35 to 5O% 50 + Very Dense 15-30 V-Stiff Sheet 1 of 1 1 Unless otherwise agreed, samples will be held by Welti Associates a maximum of 60 days after boring completion. 2 Water readings represent driller observations — not interpretations. .rJr.. CE WELTI ASSOC., INC. LANDTECH PROPERTIES INC. PINE OAK ESTATES r P.O.O. BOX 3 CLIENT PROJECT NAME BOX 97 GLASTONBURY, CONN 06033 LOCATION SOUTH WINDSOR, CT DRILLING PROCEDURES: 1.,2.,3.,4.,(Select one or more) HOLE NO. g-5 Surface Elevation i HOLLOW STEM AUGER. Diameter 2 DRIVEN CASING, Diameter GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS START 3. DRILLED CASING. Diameter Ai 5•Or FT AFTER 0 _HOURS DATE5/17/89 4 ROCK CORING. Diameter &type FINISH Al FT AFTER HOURS DATE SAMPLE E STRATUM DESCRIPTION I'll P A REMARKS T NO BLOWS16 DEPTH + DEPTH H ** 0.5' BR.FINE SAND,SOME SILT 4.0' 1 13-16-21 5.01-6.5' 10 2 11-10-12 10.0'-11.5' GR.VARVED CLAY 15 3 10-8-8 15.01-16.5' 20 4 6-7-7 20.01-21.51 BOTTOM OF BORING 21.5' 25 **TOPSOIL 30 35 40 LEGEND: Col A 1401b Wt. x 30" fall on 2" O.D Sampler Driller:FAULKNER Sample Type Proportions Used Cohesionless Density Cohesive Consistency Helper- D=Dry C=Cored W=Washed trace 010 10% 0-10 Loose 0-4 Soft UP Undisturbed Piston little 10 to 20% 10-30 Med.Dense 4-8 M/Stiff Inspector: TP=Test Pit A=Auger V=Vane Test some 20 to 35% 30-50 Dense 8-15 Stiff UT=Undisturbed Thinwall and 35 to 50% 50 + Very Dense 15-30 V-Stitt Sheet 1 of 1 1 Unless otherwise agreed, samples will be held by Welti Associates a maximum of 60 days after boring completion. 2 Water readings represent driller observations — not interpretations. Adjacent Property Owners for Pin Oak Estates Subdivision Name Address Burger, Richard D. & Irene 550 Clark Street Fairway Estates 523 Clark Street Kelley, Bruce S. 617 Clark Street Waldron, Sherwood C. 863 Clark Street Coulombe, Richard J. & Maria P. 479 Clark Street Cavar, Joseph A. & Nancy 489 Clark Street Hoods Donald T. 500 Clark Street R. S. K. Kellco, Inc. 1750 Ellington Road Clark Realty, Inc. 658 Clark Street Andover Equities, Inc. 22-D Andover Drive, WH Jerome Associates, Inc. 69 Gillette Road Hartford, Ct 06105 Smith, Robert J. & Beverly 115 Sally Drive Cetola, Michael & Sharon 107 Sally Drive i ®KIN /1111� , , no INVE' II/ WWIEmu HWUWIN6 H � [ MIME �Imf/!®� wa q/ OWN�®� r MPOR"r UNIH�IAH�III� IFHI i:�IHIIAAgI nw..w..w.w...... 11 /II q ''+nmulunnllmulmlgb�!IH1►!Illt;��'!IIIHIgIII�INHIIIN���ll'N,+��lll 1� H►`,IIUIIUIIIIUII►Jllllllllilllllllllllllllllllgfllgtn»�IIIsIHIIMtiiINIINgHflIIgHIINIU�aI l.11'Ai '11 , ' 'III"'�IIHIIIII/HAII��i111�I'!h: I� IUHUViH�IIIINiIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIiillllll',Illlli, 11�, ■�"_�111uIr,�IINI�IUHIIIHIHNIHHIIIiHIHIHIII►'ll��llolHI�IIIIHIIH�I/I� �''�I'llllt�Al� w NNW IIgIIIWIHIIIIlllllic'.IIIIiIHia•'�IHHIHIHI 'IPHIm � IFFA II/I HMOH/ HIM. 0 Itlq �II�I®�� a�IgIHH�q�:. An INl#Hlf>NIHHHHMR mIfammo Imom11 lusts OWN ®fflummommo I Oman m1mine I/IHH olm was HYHI�Ie®�HIHIHgHuI►IUIINfI H/I�I�1118� mum ' r''iUH � amakl /Nola II��H<NH1H� �� ail B 'MEN � � IRiI: mom I ®{� ��►UIIHi;�`IHIIII' �1fillllill1111111111111PaHINIIIIHIIplIHIIIIHIIIINI I,I NNW aft gWn!IIHIIINHIullillu�/gWH IHHI�I�H/I� Yu+�W SMW' u, ML {lam P�/ qr, -110 Age CRT - tAN r10 am► a. IL Sk i-� �� „'1'�(.� •f + � � ,.fly � �`i��' LeIBM nrS�fnMF# � Cluster Development; South Windsor, I Connecticut:' Review Date : DULY 15, 1986 Report Date' $EPTEMBER. 19861 D11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TEAM PO !OX 198 tROOKLYIy CONNECTICUT 06234 1 A C Site Location .67 FIANO CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT /T 9 , \ _ ,pi, — � i .• :•�tl ilk, :: � __ — _ i f •' y Union Suffield Somers Stafford Thompson Granby Enfield WeodNoek .�. East Granby indsor Ellington Locks f Putnam East . o i astford Windsor �° •Ashford Simsbury Windsor ' Tolland ``4 ' Pomfret Canton South ' Killingiy We or •Vernon . Bloomfield •1 Chapli Avon West �p East , Coventry Mansfield ' Hompt Brooklyn Hartford `o Hartford ManeMster•Boit J Farmington t Andover w•-I there- • Columbiana` Windham enter Plainfield eq field Glastonbury Hebron `• s}'S b� 4% •� Rocky- Mari-i� .I • �• �• thorough Lebanon Sprague ' .�• ►omwell Portland . Voluntown ) ranktin Eest Tel•`•''—• Is Griswold Hampton Colchester o:rah Norwich Middletown ` B Preston &ASTERN CONNECTICUT iddi .010M field East Haddam ,Selam North IS"CE CONSERVATION anthem Haddem Montville Stonington Ledyafd OEVEIOPMf NT AREA Cheater Lyme wSta►ford +�• fast Noningten Killing- Lyme Groton worth Qivor Esaos Old IiMea West- Old Lyme break ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TEAM REPORT 1 ON THE FIANO CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT This report is an outgrowth of a request from the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission to the Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District TS&WCD}. The S&WCD referred this request to the Eastern Connecti- cut Resource Conservation and Development {RC&DI Area Executive Committee for their consideration and approval. The request was approved and the measure reviewed by the Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team {ERT}. The ERT met and field checked the site on Julv 15, 1986, Tuesday. Team members participating on this review included: Doug Cooper - Principal Environmental Analyst - DEP, Water Resources Unit James Parda - Forester - Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Amy Parker, - District Manager - Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District J. Eric Scherer - Resource Conservationist - USDA Soil, Conservation Service Elaine Sych - ERT Coordinator - Eastern Connecticut RC&D Area Bill Warzecha - Geologist - DEP, Natural Resources Center Judy Wilson - Wildlife Biologist - Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Mike Wosniak - Community Development Planner r Capitol Region Council of Governments Prior to the review day, each team member received a summary of the proposed project, a list of the Town's concerns, a location map, a topographic map, a soils map and a preliminary site plan. During the field review the team members were given a revised site plan. The Team met with., and were accompanied by the planning director, the town engineer, the developer and his architect and engineer. Following the review, reports from each team member were submitted to the.. ERT Coordinator for compilation and editing into this final report. This report represents the Team's findings. It is not meant to compete with private consultants by providing site designs or detailed solutions to development problems. The Team does not recommend what final action should be taken on a proposed project--all final decisions and conclusions rest with the Town and landowner. This report identifies the existing resource base and evaluates its significance to the proposed development, and also suggests considerations that should be of concern to the developer and the Town. The results of this Team action are oriented toward the development of better environmental quality and the long-term economics of land use• The.-Eastern Connecticut RC&D Executive Committee hopes you Will find this report of value and assistance in making your decisions on this proposed cluster development. If you require any additional information, please contact: Elaine A. Sych ERT Coordinator Eastern Connecticut RC&D Area P• 0• Box 198 Brooklyn, CT B6234 {2M]- 774-1253 _3— TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I• INTRODUCTION... ......... . .. . ... . .. ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... .. .... .. 4 II. SETTING AND TOPGRAPHY...... .. .. .. ........ .. .. ... ... ..• ... ..... . ... 7 III• GEOLOGY...so-so........ ..... s.. .vs.**...ago **.. 7 IV. GEOLOGIC DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS. ............ ....... ..a....sees...*as 12 V. SOIL CONCERNS........... ............ so*...... ... ... ..........:. ... 12 VI. SOILS........................................... ... ...:..... ... . .. 12 VII• HYDROLOGY.. ... ...... ...... ...... ...... ............ ... ......... ... . 18 VIII. WATER RESOURCES.... ... ... . .... ...... ... ... ... . .. ... ... ... ... ::... 19 IX. VEGETATION. .......... ...-:.-. ... ... .:.. .. ...... ... ... ............. .. . 19 X. FISH RESOURCES. . ... . ........... ... ... ... . .. ...... ... ..... . ... .... . 22 XI. WILDLIFE RESOURCES. . ..• ...... ... ..... .... ........ . ... ... ... .. .... . 22 XII• PLANNING CONCERNS... ... ... ... . ........ ... ..• ... ... ... ... ... ..... . . -24 XIII• SUMMARY.. ...... ..... ....... ... ..... . ............ . ..... ... ...... . .. 27 TABLE OF MAPS AND CHARTS LOCATION MAP.• .sees• ••••.. •.• •. •• •• .•• .. . ... ..• . ... .. ..front piece, 4 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN....... .. ......... ... ...... ...... ..... 5 TOPOGRAPHY... ... :... ... ... .... .. ..... ... ... ... ... .......0. .. 6 BEDROCKGEOLOGY... .. ... .. . ....:..... .. ...... .. a ... ... . ........ .. . . 8 SURFICIALGEOLOGY. ......... ... ...•• sees .•.••• •••.•• ••• *so .....-. ...9,10 SOILS................. ... ... ... ... ...... ........ ....... ... .. . ...... 16 SOILS LIMITATIONS CHART... ......... 14 WATERSHEDBOUNDARY...... ..... ....... ...... ............... ...... ... 17 VEGETATION•. .................. ... ......... ....................:... 21 -4- I• INTRODUCTION The ,South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission requested Environmental Review Teem assistance in reviewing a proposed cluster development in its initial stage. The project consists of building 69 clustered single family and two- family homes on 47 acres fronting on Clark Street. The Town requested ERT assistance because of the environmentally sensitive area involved. It is important to note that assessment of impacts of the proposed development will be limited due to the preliminary nature of the .• plans. The information provided in this -report will assist the project developer and the Town in working with the land and resources available. Once detailed plans are developed further review of environmental impacts will be warranted. The summary of this report highlights the Team's major findings and recommendations. .l 1 .sue iin��,�._1��" �� r •�� ...J�.. / \` \, �•.1' F. y5• fit. f/ ''l CAI � . , ',�� d� MY�A.'a::.J�• �yp�. r.�j � '.r.- �,. 1� !`+{T!Pw;a .•:� \eta nE� �..-eJ� .�i It•: L J III, .. >� ,''�• a' -. ,.fir � .�' .�=` •1 .T• � _ I via INOWN AO r .ar• 141*k;'4 • � i i s _ • t :�t _6_ • • • TOPOGRAPHY • • • • �� Site Boundary s • 1^=6601 emu O -Af,- Ca O , 5 , • I.N .N.I. AP • "�' • _ s II. TOPOGRAPHY AND SETTING The + 47 acre parcel of land to be developed for residential use is located on the west side of Clark Street in the southcentral part of Town. Access to the site will be off of Clark Street. The land is characterized' by mixed hardwood forests, meadows and former �8 clarirultiwal Lands_ Floodplains parallel the Podunk River along the western border, and Plum Gul ok, which bisects the property, 1n a northerly direction• ig tension power lines bisect the central parts of the site. \� The general topographic conditions on the site are flat to gently rolling. The only significant slopes are those which rise quickly from low-lying areas on the site to the elevated parts of the site. These slopes were probably created as a result of down-cutting by the Podunk Diver and Plum Gulley Brook. These slopes should not pose any major problems in terms of the proposed development. Three (31 notable basins, each presently_ filled with swamp vegetation are loaMd within the property. III• GEOLOGY The Fiano Property is located in an area encompassed by the Manchester topographic quadrangle. A bedrock geologic map and surficial geologic map by Roger Colton f19651 have been prepared.for the quadrangle. A bedrock geologic map and surficial geologic map .by Roger Colton 119651- have been prepared for the quadrangle and published by the U. S. Geological Survey. {Map GQ-4331. Bedrock does not break. the ground surface within the site. In fact, the bedrock surface is auitL-.dlep throughout the entire parcel. According to the map enti ed Depth to Bedrock, Manchester Quadrangle Connecticut, by Elinor H. Handman and Roger B• Colton {19731, the bedrock surface is about 200 feet below ground level throughout the eastern parts. It becomes less deep in the western parts ranging between 100-150 feet below ground level. Colton describes the bedrock underlying the site as Portland Arkose. It consists of reddish brown and gray arkosic siltstone, sandstone and conglom- erates. The term arkose and arkosic mentioned above are used to describe the - rock's mineral Composition, primarily feldspar and quartz. Portland Arkose consists of sediments that were deposited mainly by streams but occasionally in lakes during the Mesozoic geologic era. The rocks are approximately 170-180 million years old. Because the bedrock surface lies at such great depths throughout the site, it should pose no major problems in terms of the proposed residential development. -1Q— SURFICIAL GEOLOGY A CROSS SECTION OF THE SITE MIGHT LOOK LIKE THIS • ALLUVIUM SAND DEPOSITS AND EOLION :*a:..* e e000ee °e e.e°•ee'e0000•+oo o. OOep °pee epee a°eeeee0 °oo°ee OO _ - °° oo °° °°o°°°°°°°° TERRACE DEPOSITS 000°boo:: °e.°po eo oeo e 000 ° °o eo°ooe eo oepooe e •••"' RELATIVELY THICK LAKE DEPOSITS - '_�:'_�; —� THIN BLANKET OF TILL �•'�'�'�'•'�'����f'''�'''''�• •f � yo PORTLAND ARKOSE BEDROCK -11- The unconsolidated materials covering the site are of more recent origin compared to the 170-180 million year old bedrock on which it rests. Most of these materials were deposited by glacier ice or meltwater streams. Evidence from other parts of the United States, primarily the mid-west, indicates that glaciers advanced southward from Canada several times during the last million years. Most of the glacial sediments in Connecticut appear to date from the most recent of these advances, which climaxed about 18,000 years ago. Till is the oldest sediment. Till was deposited directly from the surface of, within and beneath the ice, mainly while the ice was continuing to move forward. As a result, the various grain sizes from clay to boulders are mixed together in a complex, irregular fashion. Till is not exposed on the ground surface within the site, but according to subsurface' data it covers a relatively thin blanket over ,the bedrock surface beneath the site. {Map G6-433, Colton} Approximately. 13,D00-14,000 years ago, the ice from the most recent glacial advance had melted back to northern Connecticut. Thinning at the margins resulted in the detachment of large blocks of ice, while continuing flow in the thicker ice to the north, produced more and more rock debris. The debris was carried forward by meltwater streams, which sorted it by grain size. At some time during the period of glacial retreat, ice and sediment formed a blockage or dam in the Connecticut Valley in the vicinity of Rocky Hill. Water backed up from that blockage resulted in a lake of large proportions. The glacial lake has been given the name Glacial Lake Hitchcock. Meltwater entering the lake deposited sediment rapidly, building a series of coalescing deltas along the lake shore. Fine materials {clay, silt, and fine sand} were deposited on the lake bottom, often in a varved {alternating} sequence. Lake- bottom sediments cover some parts of the study site mainly as a thin band between the lowlands area {floodplain} and the elevated parts of the property. According to Colton, the thickness of the lake deposits beneath the site may be as much as 150 feet thick. Overlying the lake deposits on the site is a moderately thick blanket {as much as 20 feet} of water deposited materials called terrace deposits. The terrace deposits on -the site consist of yellowish brown, well laminated sand, silt and clay which may be locally pebbly. They were carried forward over the "lake deposits" by meltwater streams during glacial retreat. The final two f2l types of surficial geologic deposits found on the site are sand d?nes/eol�� ,nd=ploposits and alluvium. Sand dunes/eolion deposits consist of fine-grained particles such as s nd -a slit wh' h forme r ock. The pre ICE! fare soi s {no vegetative cover fo lowing e f Lake Hitchcock, was the source of the sand dunes/eolian deposits on the site. Alluvium, which parallels the Podunk River and Plum Gulley Brook silt., consists of figtgravish-brown silt, sand and giravele Inese are generally poorTy arainea soi s With the water table lying within a few in surface y . -12- IV• GEOLOGIC DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS The alluvial soils present on the site, because of their susceotability to flooding pn-67 eir poor drainage, h0i0 low -potential for development. Accordinq� t e project engineer, t e alluvial soils on the site will a avoi ed except for the proposed road crossing {see Hydrology Section}. The soils which constitute the upland portions of the site should pose no major problems in terms of development especially since public water and sewer lines are available for the parcel. However, the major concern for the installation of sewers, waterlines and electric lines is the possibility of "cutback cave-ins" in the upland soils. The -trenches in these sandy soils should have the pipes and conduits placed and backfilled as soon as possible • after excavation. Proper shoring of sides should be accomplished in trenches over five (51 feet deep. Running sewers across drainage ways is another area of special concern; disturbed areas should receive protection from any running water. It should be pointed out that the project engineer indicated that the sewer line will not cross any of the watercourses in the site. It is not known if the lake deposits, which may contain clay particles, have presented problems in other areas of town, in-terms of supporting the weight of buildings, bridges, etc. However, it might be wise to take soil borings to determine the clay content and its ability to support the weight of foundations and pre-fabricated bridge structures. Because alluvial soils are regulated under Public Act No. 155, any activity which involves the filling or modifying wetland areas requires a permit from the Town. These poorly drained an on the site bg a certi ie soil scientist. Once these boundaries have been determined, they s_ou be superimpose on the subdivision plan. V. SOILS CONCERNS 1•1 Detailed hydr6loaic computations reflecting existing and future drainage conditions on site and within the surrounding watershed will be needed when deVilding final plans. here are extensive valuable wetlands on the site, and it is recommended th within these areas be avoided. It is suggested that a certified soil scientist be retained by the developer to determine accurate wetlands and fl03.1 limits on the site. th soil and slopes at the site will offer .challenges for development. Aion hazard exitsonthetKL.�lones of thec_Q h ?y erodible soils• Caign and implementation of a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control . an will be necessary to ensure protection of on and off-site resources. 4.1 Draft Plans received for this review were generally lacking in enough. detail to determine on and off-site impacts of the pjnoposed development. More soil and topographical informa ion will be needed. Once information and design are developed a second review would be in order. -13- 5.1 Location of proposed stormwater detention basins were shown at the review meeting but not indicated on plans for the field review. It is strongly suggested that all stormwater detention basins be constructed out of the 100 year floodplain and wetlands. 6.1 Phasing of the development will greatly aid in reducing negative impacts to environmentally- sensitive areas. Crossing of Plum Gulley Brook will need to involve detailed planning. The approach described by the developer at the review meeting appears to be a reasonable approach. 7.1 The small depressional wet areas next to the transmission power lines appear to have little value in an overall view of the site, particularly when the area is developed. Removal of these areas by filling coulid be considered. 8.1- Some planning consideration should be given as to how the transmission power lines are to be maintained. Visual screening should be deployed along the access across the transmission power lines and along the boundary lines themselves to screen out the aftermath of vegetation control in this right-of-way. 9.1 If proposed grades for the project will follow those illustrated in the review plan, significant removal of existing vegetation will be required. Careful site planning and layout will be necessary in order to save existing trees. VI• SOILS The soils- at the site are typical of those found throughout the area in the immediate drainage basins of Plum Gulley Brook and the Podunk River. These soils range from very deep, excessively well-drained soils on glaciofluvial land-forms tto eep, very poorly- drained soils on oodolains' formed in recently eT pos ted a1 u i 1 IM The soils map shows the soil dittribution within proposed development site. These soils were mapped at a scale of 1:2000 {1" = 1667'1. Five {51 map units are represented on this map {Sheet number 27 of the Soil Survey of Hartford County, 19621. These map units include: Elmwood very fine sandy loam {EoB1, 3 to 8% slopes; Melrose very fine sandy loam {MnB}, 3 .to 8% slopes; Saco silt loam {SbA}, 0 to 3% slopes; Terrace Escarpments, sand and clay ITO, 25 to 50% slopes; Windsor loamy fine sand {WvB}, 3 to 8% slopes. Due to the scale mapped, some important soil detail cannot be represented on the soil map. A more extensive network of short steep slopes exist at the site, indicating that more of the Te map unit may exist. The Te map unit has many limitations for development, the most improtant one is the potential for slippage on these steep slopes. There are also a number of areas of wetland. soils that were too small in size to be shown at the scale mapped. These wetland areas could be shown by a more intensive soil survey. The major limitating factors of soils at this site are steep to very steep slopes, highly erodible soils and seasonal high water tables. The. Soils Limitations Chart gives a more detailed. listing of soil limitations of the site for development. TABLE SOIL LIMITATIONS CHART MAP UNIT DRAINAGE DEPTH TO DEPTH TO MAJOR L IMITATION S T O D E V E L O P M E N T SYMBOL CLASS SEASONAL BEDROCK EROSION SHALLOW DWELLINGS DWELLINGS LOCAL ROADS OTHER HIGH WATER- POTENTIAL EXCAVATIONS WITHOUT WITH AND STREETS FEATURES TABLE (2) BASEMENTS BASEMENTS ZoB Moderately 1.5-3.0 ft >6.0 ft Moderate Moderate- Severe- Severe- Severe- well drained to high wetness wetness wetness low strength frost action KnB Well drained 2-3.5 ft >6.0 ft Moderate Moderate- Moderate- Moderate- Severe- wetness wetness wetness low strength Sm Poorly 0-0.5 ft >6.0 ft: LOW Severe Severe Severe Severe drained wetness flooding, flooding, flooding, Wetland cut bank cave wetness wetness wetness, soil frost action To Well drained >4.0 ft >6.0 ft High Severe- Severe- Severe- Severe- slope slope slope slope slippage slippage slippage slippage low strength VVB Excessively >4.0 ft >6.0 ft High Slight Slight Slight Slight - drained (1) The first descriptive word is the degree of limitation, the following word(s) indicate the limiting factor, i_e. slope, high water table, flooding, etc. Severe Limitations: indicates that one or more soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or difficult to overcome that a major increase in construction effort, special design, or intensive maintenance is required. Moderate Limitations: indicates that the soil properties and site features are unfavorable for the specified use, but the limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning and design. Slight Limitations: indicates that soil properties are generally favorable for the specified use; any limitation is minor and can easily be overcome. (2) High potential requires careful design of soil erosion and sediment control measures - usually structural measures needed. Moderate potential requires careful design of control measures, involving both vegetative and structual measures. Low potential requires minimum design, usually vegetative control measures. i r -15- EoB - Elmwood very fine sandy loam {3-8% slopes}: This map unit is dominated by deep, moderately well-drained soils formed in a loamy mantle over clayey sediments devised mainly from Triassic rocks. Relief of this map unit is nearly level to moderately steep soils on terraces. The surface layer {A horizon, 0 to 6 inches} is typically very dark grayish brown fine sandy loam. The subsoil {B horizon, 6 to 25 inches} is dark yellowish brown, dark . brown, and yellow brown, mottled, fine sand loam. The subsoil IC horizon, 25 to 60 inches} further below is olive brown, mottled, silty clay. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of the poorly drained Scantic soils, and small areas of short steep slopes. MoB - Melrose very fine sandy loam T3 to 8% slopes}: This map unit is * dominated by very deep, well-drained soils on glaciolacustrine marine or outwash plainsand deltas. This soil is formed in a loamy mantle 18 to 40 inches thick over clayey sediments. Slopes of this unit can range from 0 to 50 percent. The surface layer {A horizon, 0 to 7 inches} is very dark grayish brown, very fine sandy loam. The B horizon, 7 to 23 inches is typically yellowish brown fine sandy loam to sandy loam. The subsoil fC horizon, 23 to 60 inches} is light yellowish brown, olive to olive gray. sandy loam to silty clay- Included with this soil in mapping are small-areas of the moderately well-drained Elmwood soils and the poorly drained Scantic soils. Also included in mapping are small areas of short steep slopes. SbA - Saco silt-loam {0 to 3% slopes}: This map *unit -is dominated by -deep, very poorly drained soils on floodplains• They. are formed in recently deposited alluvial material. This map unit receives frequent flooding for brief periods usually between the months of November to Mays The surface layer {A horizon, 0 to 12 inches} is very dark gray silt loam. The subsoil {C horizon, 12 to 60 inches} is gray silt loam with stratified coarse sand and medium sand at 48 to 60 inches. Te - Terrace Escarpments, sand and clay {25 to'50% slopes}: This map unit is dominated by very deep,. steep to very steep soils on the sideslopes of land- forms. The soils are typically a loamy to sandy mantle over silts and clays. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of soils on gentler slopes and areas of steep moderately well-drained soils. WvB - Windsor loamy fine sand {3 to 8X slopes}: This map unit is dominated by very deep, excessively drained soils on glaciofluvial landforms• They are formed in glacial outwash deposits of sands and loamy sands derived mainly from crystalline rocks. The top surface layer {A horizon, 0 to 2 inches} is very dark grayish brown loamy sand. The subsoil {B horizon, 2: to 24 inchesT is typically strong brown, loamy sand to yellow-brown loamy sand to light yellow-brown sand. The C horizon f24 to 60 inches} is light brownish gray sand. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of moderately well-drained soils and areas with steeper slopes• e t -16- SOIL SURVEY OF HARTFORD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT-SHEET NUMBER 27 SeA WvA C • En8 � BfA .Wv8 dA WoA EnA 4w MSC x axe n SSA Wd '•• +. y .. NnA A. WLB- S A E . a • y,• . .. . • EoB ' Ate ' F EoB' ex e EoA NnA z E axe Sp axe xe + SzA NSA x w * Ec :M B• i fo t jAte ,,, WvA r Mn� ` Bx o�� •AtE A1A o To yt� a At Fi•° a EoB e�Ale TsIM d WvCD B ° Wo 5• ' � � p s wvs, EoA Eo8 F NSA ; ,Te T S 0 Te + W�1 As Es8 EsA Af8 Eos i y AgeSbA F 1V W Z • ° y Wo �'�.. • Mm8 Fpe EsC s �- C sA EnB�•' g ° AiB • ..•t �' E Ab •.•� EsA _ Eo8 Eo8 •SzA EnA K Es ' a NnA Na s B Mr �• .J•En8 b � • � m � 1 ••� nO B o SzA AU NSA Ate W C Mrs A A rA NaC Scale 1:20000 , SAOp Feet MAP SYMBOLS Soil delineations and soil symbols CeA i082 LAKES, FONDS, AND RESERVOIRS 1O°k' ti.! ESCARPMENTS Other than bedrockr�uruuuuuuuwr (points down slope) • Church i Farmstead. house School j Streams, double-line - Perennial Streams. ainSle-line Perennial --�'�—,� Intermittent �_ �- Roads Divided io S. bstation' j WATERSHED BOUNDARY i D1 Approximate Property Boundary _ ,, 163 Plum Gulley Brook Watershed Boundary* 1 �� Point of Outflow to Podunk River 11 ' , Watercourses Showing Direction of Flow ��// •�� Tem ! Direction of Surface Flow Based on eth yRt I_ /3i/ Topographic Conditions - h i r, y ;• '00.0''�'i *Watersehd Boundary shown may not ac- count for possible re-routing through • ,`ter ' r� P TJ i• \ �.i man-made structures such as piping, 0 �u r culverts, etc. ''� 1 L�f j .' •j: ' ' ; , 1 +�+; (\r` ) ram,• 1. h '� � .� .1e5 , � .%. - � •Q• � � � � ��a,�>\•. �• 1 Jn( r IX g � W in a tg • �, NeW i / 77, �L. i. r ,.fie !', brchaTd�itl �`" Cch' ,N o• J t \ 30- E Q. o �l ✓t f t 113 1 • J Ill �..-= S'-- ro. 25. Z2- 10 ,00 0�._�� 40� ` yI ,' o /�' •9 "'((.•••••••• / f� a / �' I t ``��" no P °mac_ D Y/ •',•`�a 1 �: ::\'cam '`� - - ^ - . A ` 1 0 Cot ts IX 1 \ •c •� `14t,° :� tt p /Y.% \ii ,• • I. ..n"!/1! I l�/_�- �•/ •� �l.V, 1 ////r! _L/ ~J••MM -18- VII• HYDROLOGY The proposed development lies within the Podunk River drainage area. Plum Gulley Brook, which is a tributary to the Podunk River collects surface water from the central parts of the site. Surface water in the eastern limits drains to an unnamed tributary to the Podunk River. Because of the sandy nature of the soils, covering most of the site, most rainfall is absorbed quickly into the ground rather than passing overland via streamcourses• It then percolates downward through the soil until it reaches the groundwater table. Once it reaches the groundwater table, it moves slowly by the force of gravity towards discharge points, i.e. , wetlands, Podunk River, Plum Gulley Brook, etc. Development of the site as planned would be expected to cause increases in the amount of runoff generated during periods of precipitations These increases will arise primarily by the removal of vegetation and the covering of pervious soils by impervious surfaces such as- roads, drives, roof tops, etc. Also, the proposed density of units on the site will be quite high. A storm drainage proposal for the development and drainage calculations have not been prepared to date. As a matter of policy, the developer should be required to provide a stormwater management plan, which includes pre- and-post- development runoff calculations. The plan should make provisions for controlling runoff from the site in order to prevent erosion problems, especially in view of the fine, sandy soils on the site. Providing good construction practices are employed and a detailed sediment and erosion control plan is implemented and enforced, the hydrologic and geologic impacts during construction can be kept to a minimum. Based on the site plan distributed to Team members on the review day, about 300 feet of Plum Gulley Brook and its accompanying. floodplain will be crossed by an interior road. Wetland road crossings are feasible, provided that they are properly engineered. Provisions should be made for removing unstable material beneath the roadbed, backfi.11ing with a permeable road base fill material, and installing culverts as necessary. When crossing any wetlands, the roads should be at least 1.5 feet and preferably two ill feet above the surface elevation of wetlands. This will allow for better drainage of the roads. It will also decrease the frost heaving potential of the road. Road construction through wetlands should preferably be done during the dry time of the year and should include provisions for effective erosion and sediment control. The project engineer has suggested the use of pre-cast arch-type culverts. Provided the culverts are sized adequately, these culverts should not cause serious adverse impact on Plum Gulley Brook. Nevertheless, the stream bottom and sides should be riprapped at the culvert ends to prevent erosion. . In order to maintain roads at acceptable -grade, especially at the stream crossing,* it will be necessary to do some cutting and filling. Measures for effective erosion and sediment control will need to be considered in these areas, also. _19- VIII. WATER RESOURCES I The following are findings and recommendations relative to impacts upon inland wetlands and watercourses. 1.1 The roadway crossing over Plum Gulley Brook appears to be in the most suitable location available to the developer. It appears that efforts have been taken to minimize the impact of the roadway crossing. The precast concrete arches will serve to maintain a relatively "open" character to the stream corridor and, if properly designed, will provide an adequate passage for wildlife and fish. 2.1 The small 'isolated wetland pockets located in the western portion of the site provide an opportunity for creation of small aesthetic pond features. However, careful analysis of the groundwater regime in this area is essential to ensure that the ponds can'-maintain an attractive water level year round. Rather than create ponding areas, these outlying wetlands can often be enhanced by selective pruning of brush and planting moisture tolerant wildlife and ornamental species. They may then serve as attractive visual buffer areas on the site while . Maintaining certain desirabhe . wetland functions. 3.1 Creation of a larger pond in wetlands is proposed in the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Clark Street. Again careful analysis of. water tables {or the soil profile} would be necessary to assure that the ponded area will sustain a reasonable amount of water ,during dry seasons. Test pit observa- tions during the summer months or placement of shallow monitoring wells {4" per- forated PVC pipel can be useful for this purpose. Should inadequate persistent watertables be present,, treatment of the perimeter of the wetland as prescribed above may be a desirable,alternative.- 4.1 By implementation of proper erosion and sedimentation controls and storm water management techniques, there should be no lasting negative impact on water quality of adjacent watercourses and waterbodies. The site offers opportunities for storm water recharge and detention which would serve to mitigate runoff increases. Landscape development which- allows for maintenance of buffer areas adjacent to wetlands and stream corridors is advisable. Maintaining minimum lawn areas and careful use of fertilizers and pesticides fwhi.le difficult to legislate) would be prudent and could be over seen by the future homeowners association. IX. VEGETATION Type A: Old Field. 14 acres. This area is reverting to a mixed hardwood forest, but at present is an understocked stand of seedling-sapling maple, apple, black cherry, red. cedar, aspen, white pine, sumac, dogwoods, viburnums, multiflora . rose, blueberry, poison ivy. Type B: Mixed Hardwood. 12 acres. This type is located around the parcel in patches 1 to 6 acres in size. The trees in the type range in size from sapling to sawtimber and represent a variety of age classes as well as sizes. Species include: red, black, scarlet, white oaks, red maple, black cherry, butternut, shagbark, pignut, mpckernut hickories, and white pine. -2Q- Type C, Hardwood swamp. 12 acres. These wetlands are composed of speckled alder, willow, red sedge,grasses, ,ma le e, and cattails. p 9 9 Type, D. Field. 9 acres. The recently abandoned corn and hayfields are presently' occupied by golden rod, thistle, fleabane- jewelweed, poison ivy, multiflora rose, sumac and a wide variety of grasses and wildflowers. See Vegetation map for locations. Limiting Conditions and Potential Hazards Trees are very sensitive to the condition of the soil under their crowns, and within the area of soils which their roots occupy• Development practices near trees such as excavation, filling and grading for construction of roadways and buildings will disturb the balance between soil aeration, soil moisture level, and soil composition. These disturbances can cause a decline in tree health and vigor resulting in tree mortality in 3--5 years. Mechanical injury to trees from machinery can have the same results. Dead trees near homes, powerlines and roads reduce aesthetic quality and become hazardous and expensive to remove. Care should be taken during construction not to disturb trees and soil conditions around tree roots. In general, favor healthy and high vigor trees for protection over unhealthy trees. Healthy trees are generally more resistant to environmental stresses brought:about by -construction. Where possible retain trees in small groups or "islands^• This practice lowers the possibility of soil disturbance and mechanical injury. To retain individual trees, clearly mark the tree to be avoided and the entire area under the crown of larger trees or a radius of at least 25 feet from the base of smaller trees. The cutting and removal of understory vegetation in the "islands" will create a park-like appearance. Many of the trees present in the mixed hardwood stands are low in quality and exhibit poor form. These trees are a potential hazard if not removed prior to development especially if left on the edge of an "island" or near a street or home. Windthrow is a potential hazard near wet soils or when trees grow up together and rely on each other for stability. If openings are created for building the sudden exposure to wind without side protection of other trees can result in blowdown or crown breakage. Trees which have had roots cut or filled over near homes represent a blowdown hazard or breakage hazard from lack of stability or die. back• Trees damaged in construction are also more susceptible to insect and disease infestation. All trees removed by clearing can be utilized as fuelwood. Alterations in wetland areas which permanently raise the watertable by restricting natural drainage and stream flow can have a negative impact on the vegetation in these areas. Raising the watertable can drown roots causing widespread mortality in the trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation present in all vegetative types. The impact to vegetation created by construction of the proposed wetland crossing will be minimal providing that culverts are adequately sized and properly spaced. -21- VEGETATION B B C B� A A D B B A C B CLARK STREET TYPE A : Old field, 14 acres, understocked seedling-sapling mixed hardwoods, shrubs, herbaceous TYPE B : Mixed hardwood, 12 acres, fully-stocked, all size classes TYPE C : Hardwood swamp, 12 acres TYPE D : Field, 9 acres 00 : Water � : Stream Site boundary Type boundary SCALE 1^ = 1000' -22- X. FISH RESOURCES The proposed cluster development involves the Podunk River, Plum Gulley Brook and-Vintons Mill Pond. The Podunk River and Vintons Mill Pond are on the outskirts of the proposed development site. Plum Gulley Brook runs through the property. Plum Gulley Brook has a silt and sand bottom with a very slight gradient. It is 4 to 6 feet wide and has sufficient streamside vegetation providing shade and cover for the fish populations. White sucker, brook trout and blacknose dace presently inhabit the brook. The proposed development plan limits construction to areas higher than the 68 foot elevation. This limitation will provide a sufficient buffer. zone between the watercourses and development, protecting the fish resources. Plum Gulley Brook is the site for the proposed bridge. The bridge should be constructed prior to any activity on the west side of the brook. The stream channel should not be disturbed and, therefore, should flow through one of the 20 foot arches. The other 20 foot arch will accommodate floodwater. The impact of development on the brook can be minimized by implementing proper erosion and sedimentation structures and limiting bridge construction to time of minimum stream flow in the summer or fall. XI. WILDLIFE RESOURCES Wildlife Considerations Wetlands habitat is of concern because of its sensitivity to development. They are also very important to man because they act as water storage and absorption areas as well as helping to prevent flooding. * Development in wetland areas is usually limited due to poorly drained soils. Because of diversity, the area now provides good habitat for many forms of wildlife. The variety of vegetation types provides food and cover for many species such as white-tailed deer, ruffed grouse, woodcock, seasonal songbirds, woodpecker, gray squirrel, raccoon and fox. Wetland habitat provides a rich variety of food, cover, nesting and brood rearing sites for a great number of wildlife'species. They provide breeding and nesting sites for waterfowl, and habitat for more than 50 species of game and non-game species including beaver, fox, mink, muskrat, opossum, white-tailed deer, and snowshoe hare. -23- Wildlife Recommendations Almost all housing developments and the proposed development of this area will have;a negative impact on much of the habitat presently available for wild- life. Some species will be forced to move to new areas where there is adequate food and cover. However, certain wildlife species which are more adaptable such as raccoons, skunks, gray squirrels and mice may be attracted to the area after development. The following recommendations may help to lessen the impact on wildlife: 1•1 Wetland habitat As proposed, the wetland area should remain undeveloped. Also, a buffer area of uncut vegetation should be left in close proximity to the area delineated as wetland habitat. 2•3- Clearing When clearing try to leave as many trees and shrubs as possible. Species especially useful to wildlife- include: white oak {Quercus alba}- -- -quaking aspen {Populus tremuloides} - red oak {Quercus rubra} red-stemmed dogwood {Cornus stoloniferal, black cherry {Prunus serotinal apple {Malus Spp} This will be beneficial to wildlife and also be more aesthetically pleasing for homeowners. Also, try to leave as many snags {standing dead or dying trees} and den trees {.trees with holes} as possible. These trees are used by insect-eating birds and cavity-nesting birds and animals. 3•1 Landscaping When .landscaping this area plant trees and shrubs which are useful to wildlife. These include: Japanese barberry TBergeris bulgaris} American mountain ash TSorbus Americana} flowering dogwood {Cornus floridal .autumn olive TElaegnus umbellatal honeysuckle TLonicera spp•T winterberry {Ilex verticillatal juniper Uuniperus spp•I American cranberry bush {Viburnum trilobuml bayberry {Myrica pensylvanical red maple {Acer rubruml red-osier dogwood {Cornus stoloniferal chokecherry (Prunus virginiana)- maple-leaved birburnum {Biburnum acerifoliuml alternate leaf dogwood {Cornus stoloniferal American holly {Ilex opacal -2y XII. PLANNING CONCERNS Three {3} major concerns related to planning are recognized and discussed below: 1•1 From an environmental standpoint can the site physically sustain the type of development proposed? 2•1 Is the proposed cluster development aesthically appropriate for the site? 3.1 Is the development compatible with surrounding land uses and will it cause any particular conflicts? After walking the site it is the opinion of the Team Planner. that the major environmental concerns would be the project's impact on wetland or stream areas. The intent of the design for the project is to keep disturbances of these environmentally sensitive areas at a minimum. The proposal calls for no major construction to occur below the 68 foot contour with the exception of the bridging over the Plum Gulley Brook at one point to accommodate access to the western portion of the site. An arch system with two T21 20 foot openings, one to accommo- date -the normal course of the stream and the other to handle floodwaters, are proposed. If properly installed the arch system should not cause undue erosion and sedimentation problems, nor will it significantly impede the flow of the Plum Gulley Brook. At the stream crossing the access drive has wisely been designed to .follow the crowns of ridgelines on both sides of Plum_ Gulley Brook thereby not interfering with drainage patterns to the brook. As has been noted by the Project Engineer it will be important to direct storm water runoff off the pavement to avoid having it flow directly to the low point of the bridge at high velocity. Sloping the pavement to one side of the drive and providing swales {as necessary} on the shoulders should allow storm water to adequately be accommodated in the area of the bridge. Another area of environmental concern is the proposed pond in the northeast corner of the site. Creation of a pond has been proposed for a swampy area surrounded by thick brush and wooded areas. During the site visit it was observed that this area was practically dry at the surface with very little water flowing into it--through a culvert beneath Clark Street. Considerable excavation would be required to construct an aesthetically pleasing pond. Also, it would very likely be necessary to periodically pump water into the pond to maintain an adequate water level and to offset water loss through - evaporation. The development of a pond would aesthetically improve the site and would create a healthier environment for residences in that portion of the site. As the design of this project advances the extent of excavation required should be detailed as well as determination of whether or not an adequate water level can be maintained without excessive pumping of water into the pond. The concept of cluster design provides the opportunity of taking greatest advantage of scenic attributes offered by the site. Clustering the homes on the high ground of the site will provide filtered. views through the trees of Plum Gulley Brook and other low lying areas which will be forever left in a natural state. -25- Certainly a major advantage of cluster development is that much less land will have to be cleared of vegetation. Also, the project/s architect .and engineer intend to leave as many trees as possible to envelope the homes and allow them to blend in With their natural setting. The access drive to the site has been laid out in curvilinear fashion with four 141 cul-de-sacs. Because of the rolling topography and varied vegetation, views along the drive. should be interesting. Accommodating 69 units as the proposal suggests may present problems in trying to choose optimal siting locations and leaving a maximum number of trees. In comparing the proposed site plan to the MDC topographic map the Planner's conclusion is that it would not be feasible to fit 69 units without allowing construction to occur below the 68 foot contour. A -modest reduction in the amount of units proposed would ameliorate. this problem. During the site visit, it was recognized that-maintaining adequate screening of the power line right-of-way should be a major concern -in creating an aestheti.- tally pleasing project. As site planning proceeds special care should be taken to maintain ample tree. cover to screen views of the power lines from homes which will be sited along the two 121 cul-de-sacs proposed to parallel the lines. For the most part, the proposed cluster development is compatible- with surrounding land uses. The physical configuration of the site provides a natural separation from the adjacent Open Space subdivison. Also, only filtered views of units located in the Eastern portion of the site will be visible from the large lot residences along Clark Street. No conflicts are evident with lands to the north or west of the site which are either undeveloped or publically controlled open space. Wooded areas will screen.most of the development from surrounding lands minimizing the visual impact on the area. Two T21 potential off-site conflicts which will be briefly mentioned are: storm water runoff and increased automobile traffic. Since the proposed develop- ment sits at the lower end of the watershed of the Plum Gulley Brook, a question arises as to whether storm water should be detained or allowed to exit the water- shed as directly as possible- without causing erosion. Since over most of the site; storm water runoff will not be entering the Plum Gulley Brook directly from impervious surfaces; it would be most logical not to require extensive. storm water detention features. The natural ability of forested areas to slow the velocity of runoff should be capitalized upon. A potential traffic problem exists at the point where the access drive will intersect Clark Street. As the design process proceeds it will be important to assure adequate distance between the intersection and the point where' Clark Street bends sharply. The proposed site plan.appears to allow enough distance at 480 feet, but it will be important to assure that vegetation does not interfere with site lines at the intersection. A suggestion would be to have the developer provide a paved shoulder or access lane on the right side {toward the curve} of the i.ntersecti.on to provide a smoother transition in Clark Street without impeding thru-traffic. -26- Overall, the concept of the design seems to fit the natural character of the site and few functional problems in accommodating the construction seem to be evident• As the design process proceeds with the scrutiny of Town Planning Officialsp the cluster proposal for the site should develop into a fine housing project• TERRACE FLOWPLAIN RIVER CHANNEL FLOODPLAM TERRACE T i /J -27- XIII. SUMMARY NOTE: This is a brief summary of the major points, concerns and recommendations of the Team.. You are strongly urged to read the entire report, and to refer back to the specific sections in order to obtain all the information about a certain topic. {The numbers in parentheses refer to the section of the report where further information may be found.} - It is important to note that the assessments of impacts of the proposed development are limited due to the preliminary nature of the plans. {I, V1 Bedrock should pose no major problems in terms of the proposed development because of its great depth. {II} - The alluvial soils present on the site hold low potential for development. The. soils which constitute the upland portions of the site should not be a problem especially since public water and sewer lines are available. {III} - There is concern for the installation of sewers, water lines and electric lines because of the possibility of "cutback cave-ins" in the upland soils. {IV, VIl - Running sewer lines across drainage ways is another area of concern. {IV} - It may be prudent to take soil borings of the.-lake deposits present to determine their ability to support foundations.and pre-fabricated bridge structures. {IV} - A certified soil scientist should flag in the field the wetland and floodplain boundaries and these should be superimposed on the plans. UV, V} - Any activity in alluvial soils which involves filling or modifying wetland areas requires a permit from the Town. {IV} - Building in wetland areas should be avoided. W - A carefully designed and implemented Soil and Erosion Control Plan is necessary to ensure protection of on and of f-site resources. {V1 It is suggested that all storm-water detention basins be constructed out of the 100 year floodplain and wetlands. {V, XII} - The development should be phased to aid in reducing negative impacts. {V1 - The small depressional wet areas near the transmission power lines could be considered for filling. {V, VIIII - Some planning consideration should be given to access, maintainance and screening of the power transmission lines. {V, XII} -28- - Careful site planning and layout will be necessary in order to save existing trees. {V, XII} - The major limiting factors of soils at this site are steep to very steep slopes,` highly erodible soils and seasonal high water tables. MI - A storm water management plan should be required that provides pre- and post-development runoff calculations. {VII} - The use of pre-cast arch-type culverts should not cause serious adverse impact on Plum Gulley Brook. As a precaution the stream bottom and sides should be riprapped at the culvert ends to prevent erosion. {VII, X, XII} --The roadway crossing of Plum Gulley Brook appears to be in the most suitable location available to the developer. {VIII, XII} - The small isolated. wetland pockets provide an opportunity to create small aesthetic pond features. Careful analysis of the groundwater regime will be necessary to determine if the ponds can maintain an attractive water level year round. Rather than creating ponding areas these wetlands could be enhanced by pruning and planting wildlife and ornamental species. They would then serve r as a visual buffer while maintaining certain desirable wetland functions. (VIII, VI - Careful analysis of the water tables for the soil profile would be necessary to determine if the creation of a large pond adjacent to Clark Street . is feasible. {VIII, XII} - Many of the trees present in the mixed hardwood stands are low in quality and exhibit poor form. These trees are a potential hazard if not removed prior to development. {IX} - The impact to vegetation from the construction of the. wetland crossing will be minimal providing that culverts are- adequately sized and properly spaced. {IX} - A sufficient buffer to protect the fish resources will be maintained between the. watercourse and the development provided that construction is limited to areas higher than the 68 foot elevation. IXI - The bridge across Plum Gulley Brook, should be constructed before any . activity takes place on the west side of the brook. {X, VI - Bridge construction should be limited to time of minimum stream flow in the summer or fall. {XI - The proposed development will have a negative impact on much of the habitat presently available for wildlife. There are several recommendations to lessen this impact concerning wetland habitat, clearing and landscaping. MI -29- - It does not seem feasible to fit 69. units without allowing construction , to occur below the 68 foot contour. A modest reduction in the amount of .units. proposed should suffice. {XII} - For the most part the proposed development is compatible with surrounding land uses. {XII} - It seems most logical not to require extensive storm water detention features, but to allow the natural ability of the forested areas to slow the velocity of runoff. {XII, V} - The access drive will need to be carefully designed to assure adequate. distance between the intersection and the point where Clark- Street bends sharply. {XII} - It is suggested that the developer provide i paved shoulder or access lane on the right side {toward the curve} of the intersection to provide a. smoother transition in Clark Street. {XII} 4 '-+a�1'i,3�� 3*q _�-',� 'fir� -,s s.: -.� ''� � � �'+.s..?�r sxr � -z `�•, `nI• -3,: 5 a F `F t�7c;� x �� '�' � � � � �r s T�'s� � y^�<sz.s r3�t�yd:*, t,za>�`"` }���w �" � �• `�`` s��5r--� '��� .: 1 gall <a � � t t ti Pf _ a� e t� ,sc � �' x,}� .w,.�s-.t t x �x qL �f�t•^ i�rR��x r � R: .��3r�.s r S t� x u a� a rr#°' 'g §' #mtixg y x '. I +" } �• z R t :.5 e t ;- " # r f d Ltr!+^•, 'rs ## � ,t xkk.t � -�diaR, •� '3 I � -�>a- a ,¢i �f`��s � .z -4 � v� �'�. ^n 4y- .fp}�x� �'�,� r. �3' }t. `i ��5e ' Y t l' .-•#` t. ^y' s �{ 1 ? ✓ "66Var: •r,,,•S*.. - ,rx r., x F .T a!i }i " *'sz1 x e a E;� ''yy •rr^1 'h 4 f ,� ;y,t $ x' .��t 'fir ,Z y;: � { s 9 ���f lr r� k,kt.� t < s " a�. •1 .r,�'4 r-� _� �-•. ft T'Sa �'. ^�. -9 ; 'rr r' •Yx �Y .Lr r, t�t `*'y*>� a �' l,.x=.;_r! 4 fi..i' fSe' 1 '4>t • °t A -si z�. '. F ...t.. . ' >' '` ,r'.:, j x secs. za x t•1n '-_' -+ - ;r �t E i,�.'�•j:Sam s _ , .�.'z,�c• y'�3,vt f.e� ht��; .R r'` � %�fx� f� �°� 4 .iSzJ #.'`.py�`, 11 ✓3C' & vy�•-Ysly f` .�`D C r _ ` ..;+r. t'e , t-• �A f�. _- t,,.z z �,�- e � ��, -¢ .itr•.b 1l$�m-S d �e8'�1. .; ea-2.� s�:y�1 F; .7� ,�`s,s �' � Kn�->`i L'�� w t. �t-�•,1`'' �§-:F :zx s ,�•sr' -4f Kv, t a "Al, a r o t '',� k v ? +�y� +�S -�` n �� 5° �1" d j? a0L'{ t t� R ' !d\ 4ts 3f `sc >ii'q A b, ^•$4 }s ;,d� y __-�r't� 4 W ,[n?r `,mot uti r •f'."'4et,Y _ 'e ,�'v(ys��,$' c..? �}/ �r - ter'' % - zTR e r 'r r 1-'i S� .. �`t r' X I ,•�§ 3 x ,y3-�'. �)E F *d; r�1 J.'§ S;' ��• ��f" it`h � � 4 h'� .+ 4:4- }� s..��§.r} 3` t } ,{2: .y uk''. S� '� r5r-:. T�'1� �etc +`S� � - 'ds' k�.�+3#rz"`�4,'�sr��i zx A,'c�3 ..p e t R * a. ? `#• r _-� 4 r i, t: Sri r � { '✓ ° - F} s..,.,,-.� a*�iT� z� � ,�£F c r-y�r,>.@¢f f •��t ; �-*�3 -.�.'yy t � �� s � r _T � �<s,��t�" f X� `. 'd - am � � '% �- � � � '` 1. •, }� a �T-.. t ff y ��yf _.� �� #�, A a � J �� ',f � i�Qxre`,� "� �. 3s ,z3l19i�a.�rj �' <.. gam.._,.r,_,,,s' �r •� fix�i����x..-_F� ;r ^„ :-; *w y :F e # _ c,:4:* ti=, i�s; ys a >r ,z^4 +;,.'s§.sk' {� ``;r ,y'•n � !h t '+'s=;:. •a" "fit,:;' X-gs'froa'�^. iFy : - �+' K - S �'x;, '' ' ,S� j.r's'q• �4� � .� � � �'e 1:.{� � +� � ��� $� ° � � s e I'. �� t �r s _ s,�'c..e�v�,�� , �4'• 4s'§ }��� 5 -. : f r k, H! i 1 � �e `ki r ;i ..���a �� "' ks.. �.:+.t..e'ts` ".._ .I 'm 4 ? .$ �,<. a-. '• e'y�.'# r � 4, ..>f`. ,.. # 3�T €,�,et'� x�.:` ,..-•,. `- ?.. +, -.` �f y t` �r -ir L,z�� ty�� - •-` z �M`r' -fin= � �.*a `g� a; k �-�'�..'+:'d.,i ��r9 a{ �,- a .n. � ,? s'.; .F �-$� c�i,-.r�3 �i" �,�'�yi; � #� ,`e��Sb :a.i � `: s; ,_�.?tr i'$ �,+Ir,� k � r� fi'�' �i!gc�.# fix, .>� §'"� � i yes+-x•` �s-^..'*`.'t .r.-n::�!' "1.€ �«SXf a�� �r ..'r: �Fk=-:�� �r„-_�3-n �r-�`y,; •:=t� :,«,.,�,.rAz..._.�`�tr+'� �4;.=.5-. �k,rK t- '.= .ram rs:� it f `.` .�;mt-_;:Y,t s __`���ar ,>r`t � :.,e i xx;�.�>� .>q '�'� eet f- `-. �'j•try' -� 4 i"'�-, -' � C'a'-'��`�" All Yrt t _ C* nr �'4o}�A.�i.`=�� 's t § - f I. � �I 1 I� •-3"�w'y yrII`�.�<��_ f .t u jg I , i cum 1�1 NOT .�J)i,b� - - A f� l��f���� Ih Al l��j 11 �n�ii l�.in}(J��,������ �f�;����-�V�� Ci•��V�nT��� l�)I h�� ) ! {,�J IY/i r" l� �'�Y u � � o� INTRAODUCT-tON Th i s report documents the r-e s u l is of -n-vest i-gat ions careduot-eqd by Enos i-r awenta 1 P 1 ann i ng Ser v ices- at the s- tv -cif a _pr o- d= residential su-bdi v i s i on in Sout-h *i rvdsor, CT~ -it was pi-epared in support of an app 1 i-cat-i=on to c u_ct r�eW T ate A--ct i-v it f e=s within inland wet 1-and_s. EP-SS was r eta,i ne-d to exams=ine the- nat-ur a l resource base, eva i u ate- t_h-=� funct ton-a T -s!_Qnf i came- -of the regu 1 ated in Land- wet 1 ancds, inventory the f Tora 1 and fauna 1 r eso u r-ce s, and: assess ther impact cif--.tie pro-posed act i-v i t-y on these- natural: resources. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The r e gu l ate-t act-tv it-i=es -gropos d= awe wm^c i e4 yr it-h the development of- a 6 lot s i rg 1 e f 1 y r-,m i =T subAl:vfs-ton. The Tots wi T i - se at -by water and- sewers. Some of t#im hots fret an e x- -s-t-fns C 1 ar-k Stet, and a new-, 25-0± ' -Tons= cu-T-die-sa=c (;P i=n Oak Tr a i 1 i s proposed. SURVEY MTHCOS- AM LtI"7rAT'IIMM EPS conducte-id a prel= mi-mmry site ce as a awl nstural r e.s-o urces i-r-ry antory- of the= rt i re 47 acre- mar c-e-1 in 1-9;8 T A mare deta-i T:-ed T 'i c y of 1- em was- performed on feb:ry 1-0-, 1-8 ?`fie meathear was -cl-ear and cold. with, 1-i-tt l-e or n- snow cover . mos-t ;nv� ^°s-is=t=ent hsrb-aceo=us -plants were nit +derrtif is 1e Au t# is win-ter s e y, a and many an- l-s had m i-gra=t ad sir mere-_ i t i-v=e- The per s-i stept herbaceous p l-ants and -the- woody si apt trees a 1 bowed- --dart if-i cation of the- mature of the p Eamt= c mmmr—i t i-es and- probab 1 e w i 1 d- i-fe us cou-l-d be i of er red. A-d-d i t i o na l field ion v est i gat i on-s were p•er f o=rmed on 5/1a-, 5/2-5, 6/8 and 6/9/89. These stu-dies were i-r-ritiated to -better define the f Loral and faunal- resources at, the site, -based on late spr i ng data. is in-9 a rev i sed- site 4x=1--n, a more 4mec-i ae xmpa-c-t assessment was then pr_epa=r". SITE DESCR l.PT 1-ON The -project site is the S.-9± acre sotutheastern port ian of a larger 47 acre- parcel -in the south-central partite of the Taw of South Windsor. The site- is more: or less bisected P lum Gulley Brook in a north so h 4trec-t i an, arvd- try an ova power line utility easement i-n a s-authwes-t to nm-themst direction. The 1 and r i ses moderatel y to- steep Ty firom the low-T=yi adjacent to P 1 um Gu 1 ley l r f- -znd-- t#1-e Podu-rfk R-i-ver tip northern I imit- -of the -payee-, to T`�eveT to smit=ly r-o1lima terrain th-rotr-ghout the t ml ce of the a-ite. -No bedrvak wmS evident d u r tn8 the site ammpDcti s. P u-b l i s heed d -a -i i-i canes that the bedrock surface (br_*wnstone) in the project --area i-s generally 1-0 0-2-W be 1 ow ex i-st--rig e- -amd-, therir-fw°e-, wki 1-T not be a constra -t to site Awm1 _ The s ur f i c i a l geo 1 og y is more- comp=1 e x. There is a thin Tayer of till oover 1 y ink bedrock, bout st T T bur i" far below the area -of influence of -e pro j-ect the till is over-1 si-n :by th=iia-k- g 1 ac a 1 l-ake bottxxn tt-z of N ( 1 ) _s -lot 1. c 1 ay. T h i s -mat e r iA 1 is near tt-s -s-u:rf-a i n t - =ern ( 1 ) portion of the site. The- fire--gr a-i-n- d- c=1 a=y-s and silts- are in- turn ov er Ta i-d by coarser meter i s l of g-l-axial -ate awe recent or i g i-n- There is a th i-ck t-grace =deposi t of sue, :si It and- clay in some area=s, -as we l 1 .as_ w n db lown (-a l inn) fl--m� sand. There arm -also a l l uv-i-a T Grater l-a iA)- mat-eir i-a l s of recent origin along Plmn GuTley Br-oork _2 Existing Drai-nage The -Phas-e 1 area is drained by the pere i=a-1 R-1 um- Gu 11 ey -Brook, a major t r i-b u t ar y of the P a un k R -ver, as- wa=1 1 as a sma-11- i ntermi-ttent tr i butary of P 1 um Gu-1 ley Brook -which f lows westerly. There is a _small water---surge that ri-sas in the northeast corner of the s-i to near . -ark Street, and carrys flow directly to the Podun-k upstream of- the site. Soils A -h i-gh--i nt-ens i ty on-s i to so i 1 survey and wet 1 ated boundary- delineation has treen conducted by Mortheast Soils (copy atta-ched) . The- predominate up 1 an d soil east of Plum-um lley Brook is Elmwood, a moderately-wa13 drained out sh soi1 u.n-ter l-=a i n by lake bottom -silts and clays at a depth of 24- 4=8-" . There is also a sma 1 1 area of Terrace Essw-pnt, ., cansi=sting of sands and c 1 ays on steep s:1 off. Ve e t i=on A l tho ugrh relatively small , the 13 -scr-e parcel- ice- rather diverse, with- o 1 d f i-e l d, mixed hardwood and p-i:ne forest uplands, as well as several wetland types. Each plant community is described below, and a complete floral species list is shown in Appendix A. Up 1:ands 1 . Old Field- Most of the Phase 1 area i s: an agricultural f field -wh i ch has become over-grown with common su-c_cesa f0-nal gr=as s e-s f orbs and shrubs. Go l cte n r-ods, Queen Anne's L ace-, L i tt fie B 1 u.e-st emy. br amb 1 e s, Mu l t i-f 1 or-a- rose, -an-d 'R a Ceclar are common, as we-1 1 as some mo i ster -env i ronment plants such as- Meatkny_s-weet, S i My Dogwood, Smoo-th- A]Aar, -and Zvi 1 lows . -3- 2. Mixed Hardwood Forest- This plant community is found on a slope- on the northern edge of the parcel . Red and- white oak Sha ark Hickory, Sugar Maple-, a-nd Black Cherry :are -common-, wvith F 1=e-1-eaf Vibu=rnum, Ironwood, Silky Dogwood, Witch- t»zel-, av&tmr-n, an-d= -la=panese °Honeysuckle in the u-n-derstory-. 3-. iw xed Softwood Torest- This community is just east of the- ed hardwoods on the north-ern propety 1 i-ne. Yomftg= white -pivve and- whits spruce may r-epr-esent an abandoned nt-rrsery or Chr i stews Tr-ee farm-. Red maple, wild grape and Pr ix�cess P i ne- -h.av=e also fnv-aded th-i s area-, which i-s good quality w i 1 d-l-ife fimb-i tat- due- to the dense cover. NETLAMM- Wetl-and so=i l:s thfough-out the property include Saco anrd Scza-vttc silt l-o and shallow Peats and Mucks. The Saco soil i-s Very -poorly-drai-ned, a-nd foun-d throughout the fl=do-dpla- n of - botfi Tor- -courses The Scant i s so i 1 i s a poor Y y-dra i-rr" lake bottom- soil found in several- of the swales an=d. t-nterm-i t tent dra i-nagewa_y-s The P e at s and -Mucks are foun-d ir-r 22. s T7 po.nding areas O=n the- Phase 2 area) that haves restri-cted coat l-P_t-s anal y rep-r-es eat sma 1 1 i s e-b l o c k ponds or "ke-_tt l-e- ho-1 ". for more detai l on soi is see attached r rt of Northeast Soils . Pottr wetl a id herb itat types are present in the Pha=s:e 1 area. A sera 1 char acter i z-att ton of the plant communities-; an-d a- tanid u-m t by wet land unit descr i p t i-on of each area i_s g-i v -bel-ow a-r-rd n on th-e attached draw-rng. 1. WD04--"- swamp Th i s f or es," w e=t 1 a-n-d- dom i n ate-s- the :P-1 um l=ley S7-oo k fl-oodp-lain. Red maple and pin o-a-k are dom+na-n t tr� , w-i t-h- Cottonwoo-d and Amer i-c-an- -E 1 m also common. Tfi$. hrui'r layer varies from very d-ense to open, and =n-s i sts of Smooth Alder, Silty Do—swood, Elderberry, willows, and Virgin's Sower. 1 dent i f i b 1e herbs i-nc l=u-ded Jewelweed-, Cinnamon Fern, Fern, se es, and Sens it tva fin. There Is- also a narrow str ice- of red- map 1-e swamp a 1 ong the i=nterm-ittent strew- in -the_ u i-c-i ni-ty of Lot 2 aid- 3 �Wet 1 and Unit D -.. Th-i s -grater a s-e appear-s to be a man-made, ditch du-9 to drain the- heavy,- c1ayey. so -Ls for agricultural- use. The shrub -d h-erb layer are -stmil-ar to that d-escr-i:be-d above. The northern portion of Wetland -Unit- E,, at the east end of Lot 4 -is al se a forested- 1-arid, tinate- by young Real Maples, w i th some yak=i Aspen. -2. Shrub/ - This wetland type occurs in the Plum Gu 1 ley Somk fnt antterrt- watercour-se areas- (_portions of MetlAm& u= its Z,- i=, _and f=) . Princ pa1- species include Smooth A l car-, Silky Dogwood,d,, -SId ber r y, .ere-Tweed, Sensitive Fern W i td C r i:s fr-equent in this community along Rltum Qu 1 l - ` - - {let-Ian A Urrit F.) I. W t. aaAo - Th as-- her b=ac eous c_o an i t y i-s fo u n-d along t h e i-nterm it_tant -w=at ercr rs=e- in the- centres 1 and -eastern portions of sitae- (At4atIand Units B-,. C, arrd -E) , as well as in t h e -P'Irjm Gut 1=ey Brook ar-ea ert land U-nit F) , and in a swa 1 e s-o uttw a st of the existing barn (Wetland Unit G) . 4. Warsrh-/ - St. -i g t-er wet 1 aT=d communities are found in thr- litina ,• -at- t m extreme western end_ of Wetland Unit ary, at the northwestern �. mil_ ,, _:- _ _ -� _ tr-i-M of Unit E, ar d fn -a stria-1 T k-=ett T-eh o I e 'we t}an-d at t h-e vl-est ern ewe of- Lot -5 (et l ar-rd Unit A) . The area in Unit B is des iT t A i i= emerge , much as Catt-a i 1 s, Woo 1-Gr a s s and $1 tuajxxfnt Grp-- -UrTit A t a rm—mo-r--e open water, and is- dominated by an aquatic sh-ru-b, Buttonbush. A smal l pond extends onto the project sits from abutting property in the extreme eastern corner of the- s ite�.- Ou a to the d i ff er-en cis- -In s^pectes- eompo s i t =on between these var i crus wet l and u-n its, they -aT e- s tscussAaad i.nd=i v ice!ual-l y below: Wet 1a.nd A-- Th i s i s a snma 11 kett a type- pond wh i ch i s heav i ]y over_grown w!th the: aquat i-c -shrub B-attanb,.u-sh.- Other species around the -edge include wi-1 lows, -wild grap-e,. -brambles, Virgin's Bower,- Red 14ap l e and Jews - Met l an B/-C- The wet meattow a1crg tars water cour s-e in Units B and C is among- tbe a st an the s i to. Skeet F l ag is dominant, with T ussack S-ems, other -sedge s, Jewel-weed, B f u-e -F 1 ate,. S s-i t i-vim fern aid go i are a J--m present. Vet 1 anA D- Th i s- ice- a ch anro-O i zed, meter cater w it:h. ban# i_de wow vegetat i4n, i ice_ 1 -l-e, B 1:ac-k Cft er-r y, -Elderberry_, Si I y Dogwood,. Vir..S-in s t o .tewe-1weed., Sen-s i-ti v e Fern and Meadac -sweet. Wet Iand =E- Al-1 bunt the l owAsrt- (( -,er-nmost) por t i c rr of the wet in Un t E- has bpeen extensively d=istar'bed by agriculture. Rough-stemmed Goldenrod is the dominant species over most of the area, with_ scattered Sens i_ti_ve Ferns, Soft Rush, a-n d- nth Alders be�i r� the or-T y i nd`i cat_or-s of i t s wet l a-n-d nature. The T owest part x�f ttm mezAow, near Clark St. i-s veFry a d= r i r I vw—I-y und-u-sturbed. Spec i-es i-n this ar-e i n-c 1-ade T uss ok-- a nid o-t - des, J ew-e l-wee-d-, Sweet F 1 ag-, Reed Canary Grass, Sans it i ve f-w n,. and w-i l 1=ow=s. =6 Wetl-and F- The wet meadow along this portion of the Plum Gu 11 y $rook f I ood-p I a_i-n i s dom -nated by gr-ass-es and sedges, i-n;c l udinj Tus-sack- Sedge, w-ft=h Jewel-weed-,, -mens iti-ve-- fern, -Grass-lea- !- Goldenrod anrt Joe-Pye-Vaed a-Tso c =.- Wet t=and_ G- The swaTe in front of t--he- exist tng- barn most 1 y l i=es i n Lot T of the Phase -2 port ion of the su b d-i v i s-i-on. -This area has been s tgn i f i c-ant 1 u_ di st_rbhed, and contains many upland -weeds in addition- to wet l-nd i-ndicators such as Sweet -FT", Blue Flag, seAges, Jewelweed-, Blue Ver-vain, end Sensit-ive Fern. Vegetation - Phase 2 A=1 though-. the surveys -pr i numr i 1y focused on the plaase 1 _z-:one, t h e ju-n e- 19 8 9- surveys sou-4 c k i y- ov=er~v i ewed- ttm Phase--2 area- Th i s ar ea- i s more heav 11 y w dzd- U Pt-rase 1 atom_, co-t-ains both up 1 hard d- itf s. Tt e forested- w etl an-de, -dam-n ate d by Reid imp l-e-, tee=-mot s m a 1 ong -the Plum Gu l` y grzak F 1-oodpl a_i-n, brut a-1 s o roc oi;�r i=n numerous isolated pacRets betvweeTv _upland ridves. Because the phase- 2 _zraea- ice- b- sacted by a pier 1i_ne- rf rt-of-w ., imath- wet and dry thi of .c +run i-t i s ai Tom._ Ttve -ch-y th i- contain Red Cedar ,. �Mu It i fT*ra e, Northern &aybe"y an- hawthorns_, while the wrest th i cRets arm dominated by Smooth Alder , SA My Dogwood anal- tier-n Arrow-rood. There are extenst Sweet-f Tag- and Tus -oc-k-ze4gs- Wit- - i p ar t tcu-'ar y wat port i oT o time, - l i=-r 1 n a4di t i-on,- -thy propert-y ads the ext ai v_-;e 1 rsf V inton's .Mi 11 °Pond on the: west- -7- Functional Evaluation Th-e wetlands associated with Plum Gulley Brook are clearly the most si gay i f i cant on the property. TKe+r value i--n terms- of flood storage, eco-logical in-tegrity, eater quality reno*ati , and aesthet i cs i s- h i g:h. The P lum -1 1 ey =Brook wet 1 an-ds are- -a mosaic- -of habitat -types, -ar:d also includes warm-water fish end aquatic habitat. They are not s i gnif i c-ant groundwater recharge areas, and the recreational and educatio-nal potenti-al along Plum Gulley Brook is limited due to difficult access. The small swa l es and- i-nterittent tributaries leading-" to this_ major wetland are genera 1-1 y not as s i gn i f i-cant. They f unct ton pri-marily as drainageways, conveying surface runoff a-n-d groundwater discharge from the up-1-ands to the streams. The wooded swamp-, wet meadow and charmelized wet-ercourse in the center of the site have been largely disturbed and the:-ir eco logical integrity and hab-i tat v-a_1-ue fs reduced They are- in the center of an old f-iel-d anal thus not a s ign-i f-it aesthetic resource. The small kettTleitoIe -wetland- has moderate eco l og i ca 1 integrity, but its habitat an-4 other values are limited- by its small size. The lower (marsh) portion of the nearby watercourse has searional to year-round open der , and is large enough to serve a lo-ca1 i-zed haiyttat f-urvct for wet 1 and-dependent and aquatic birds, n-vamma ls, and h-erpt i l es. None of these wetlands is an important recharge area. Wet Land Impacts Direct impacts on wet l-ands as a rssu It of the proposed Ptr 1 con=struction will be limited in extent. The propose-!- 6 lot su-b-di-vision and cul-de-sac road will require on Ty on wet.l-ard- c-r os s i ng. The common drive and u t i l it-y access Corr-i=dor for Lots 3 and 4 -wi 11 cross th-e narrow interm-ittent w-aterco-urs-s. -8- A 60' long culvert will be installed to carry the existing flow. This crossing appears to be unavoidable to access this portion of the site, and is located at a very narrow point in the wetland system. As noted! above, this watercourse appears to be a-n o l d • agricultural drain with woody wetland vegetation developed- along its margins. The culvert crossing will interrupt a wetland corridor of limited significance. The primary function of this area is as a draina-geway, and will not be significantly impaired. This area has a minor function as a wildlife movement corridor, and there will be a minor adverse impact on this function. Recommended mitigating measures include constructing the utilities in the drive and reducing the culvert length ( if determined to be feasible by the engineer) . There is no wetland filling required for lots. Potential indirect wetland impacts of this (or any other land use, including agriculture) are associated with sedimentation, stormwater discharges , and upland clearing. Due to t-h-e small size of the project, these impacts should be limited. The earthwork in the vicinty of wetlands is limited to a 4' ± out at the end of the cult-de-sac, and installation -of a single storm sewer outfall and plunge pool . This act tvity .will occur within Elmwood soils , with a low to moderate erosion hazard. Provided work occurs within the soil/subsoil ,--and does not penetrate into the underlying clays, this construction will not have a noticable impact on the nearby wetland. Consideration should be given to installing a temporary sediment basin in area of the plunge pool until the road base and binder course are installed and the area is stabliized. The small volume of stormw_ater generated by the short road should be able to be safely assimilated by the wetland. -9- Water -quai 1 ty renovaat ion is a natural function of wetlands. M-i-nor -aAdittcna1 discharges frames fuo -ng -drains will be s poradi-c,. c 1 esn water- d-i s=ch arms -and° will have -m not 1-e --mpa=ct-. 1t1 DL I FEE The -mos=t va l-ua-b l e w i 1 d l i-fe- tiab- tat a+ the site -i-s ithe FTUM 4u 1 lery Brook f-1 o o-dp l-ai n vast 1 anjiss. The- water course., and a=s-a i c of wetland p l ant cowunit ins supparts aquatic, m-at-1--and dependent,_ and vet-lad` _assoc i-atAxd w-i 1-41+fe, ski as- Rmacrmen s, Op pos:s:ums, deer, R u f fed AMr-ause_, Tree 14SAml lox+rs-,, trees Fr�,. Spr i n.g Peepers-, -aknd Woad -Tort-fig... The d-i v era i ty of wit land and -up1_a -i=hats t contributes to i-ts over l 1 h i*_ r i-it -t value. T m edge haEb itet crud= -at the b__-ou-n y f iEe-1 ds .s is f avor eri deer,- f oxen -r �� ds. The d me= s �y t.h i c ko is -ar-e good hab -tat for- :lunch b i r s° 16sl l-t Rose-brsast". sb e-a ks, Gray _C utb-i r ds-, tamtT-r-- i is rrd Son g Sparr-ows. The wet meadow aind r h areas may be used by Re=d- wi ng-ad B-1-ackb-irds. Open yea- -viA h-ab-itat f or. trav*s- -- Turkey V l tures. As rsat ada-we., ti-A -i fa es=t prov i-dP-s- cover liar marry spectes o-f -w-i 1-dl i-fe-. Sixty-seven wildlife spec i-es- x -e e d or 6-_tecte-d dur i nR t.h-e- r- ecent fi-ell d- i_n-v ti�W i90 %nc l_w rept-ft . (zr-t ern Water Snake), -5- =1ri -, -A , b-ir�d - ftes=. An ad-&-t i orya1 41 spec i-es (pr=i ^-•i 11 b rr-d!s) -zr-e r r requ T-ar T y from s-im-i l-ar hob i tat it Swath Vi sar,- a�et- thus are- h-i--gh 1 y 1 irk-T-y to be pr-eser=t at the s i=te. 4-1 s -it e i ther probab l-y ar pass ib 1 y accur- at the-- site, -beset vn -statev+de -fib- distribution data and the habitat types present at the site. A detailed list b-y spec ie-s a-nd pr--obanb l i ty of occu:rance is attached as an app=e.nd=ix_ No U.S. 1 i stect end Bred: or th=reatermd spaciAes, or CT 1 i-s d species of spec i-a l cancern r=e found at the s-i to-, :or- are-- . likely to occur there. However ,, ther-e= ar-e 11 T-oca-11 y unco on- spec'fes of bi-rds consid-ered to be probable or possible breeders on-site or- in the itrmeFd ate sit- vicinity, as w�-e11 as- one turtle which is d-ecl i-n i.ng- but not endangsr--e-d •i n CT. Due to the pr-o-bable cony-ersfon of -mos-t/al-1 of the- 1-arrd fry abandoned agriculture (with resultant old fi-eld and- brush =ha b i tat de v e t op t) to- s fng 1 e fam i 1'y res i-dent- a 1 (ari th manicured lawns and- clearest edges) , there will likely b-e an overall change in the of numbers and species of wi-t-d1 if=e_. Certain species will b-e p-r om- t e d and: others w+11 d�c l iT-e_. Ov er a l 1 , th er-e w i 11 pr orb 1 y b e a refi t for inn breeding habitat available-. -TAvo b i=r d ape-c ies (=wh i-t-e° eyed v -r-ec mod- brown trasher)- -may b-e e-1 im -nate-d from th-e s i t-e if a_ substantial pert iszn of the brushy -e--dge -hab i ta=t is el iminat-ed. However, they -w-i l l contfnue to br--mil- arn— feted i-n tie_ _area. Three her pt i Tze- sire-ci e-s (E air n 1 Turt- , - Turt Te-, a Eastern Hognose Snake) also have the pertenttia'T to be negatively affected. These species use several habitat types, and need to- rave rack and forth betwean th-em at various ties of the year . Due to cleari-ng and/terhabit-at frtczr-r, t he o 1 d f is IA and br-u—kshy a etge nW rvo- 1=o n be- -pr-e rt +n blocks of s u f f i c efit -size to, s=u sta-t-n br--e-ed-4-ng ;pu-Aga -i _. Preservation of wet 1 ar9 d ed9.e and o l-.d- f+e d/kr �b ham#. = 1A- r e duc a the impacts on th-es-e- and other spec i-es of -w-i l dI if-e_- This can be accomp1-i.shed by plaxmment of Irv-atfon easements on the wet l and=s, and a portion of the mutt i ng 1-1 uplands in certain areas. These are illustrated on th-e attached plan. Planting wildlife. attractive native trees , shr-u_bs and grasses in d i sturbe-d areas and use of nativ-e spe-c-ies in site landscaping can in-crea=se the- attracti-ven ss of the area to wildlife, and promote r-e-popu 1 at i an of the area i n the- post-construction period . CONCLUS I O S The site contains several small w-etla-n-ds t-ributary to Plum- Gulley Brook . These include- wet meadow-, -wooded swamp,, shrub swamp, pond, and marsh, as well as wo-od l and a-nd old field/brush habitat in th-e uplands . Due to- the di--varsity of ha-bitat t-ype-s present, the area supports a wide variety of wetland and upland wildlife. Residential development u-navoidably will result in los-s of old fie-Id and brushy edge. i mpects can be m i-n i m i z ed by pr ese•r v a t-i-on- of -as, and -. d i s=cr et e b 1 o c k s- of w i t-d 1 i f e h ab i tat of o-n--e- a--,-re or mare i-n s-i re. once t-h a lots have pa-s=s ed into h--o�rer co-n t ro-1, a conservation eas-ement is a via-ble method of- contro-1 i img cumu-1 at i ve adverse imp-acts . 1 t shou-d -be noted that wild-life i=mp-a-cts would occur with any chaaa-e in land use at the s1te. Th-e present combination of wet 1-ands arid- poet- ri c:u l trxra l succession has a high value fior many species of birds, smal mamma 1 s and herpt i 1 es . The previous active agr icul tu-ral use was not protective of these wi l-dl ife values. The -most signif icant individual wetland at the site is- t+w Plum Gu 1 1-ey Broo-k corridor. The plans Kws been l a i-d out i-r-r a manner compatible with the entire site, so that future intr us i o-n i-nto this Brook ar-ea dur i-ng- P-h as e s 1 and 2 _ar--t r-egradi-ng on the adjacent , steep TE %o-i-1-s has been effective-ly min i-m i z-a-d-. Th-e only direct i�ract i-s crossing of a -12 chanty-el ized intermittent watercourse with minor functional sign i°fi.cance. This wi l l have a negl i g i b 1 e impact on t-he ov-srall wetlan-d values at the site, based on the assumption. a-f pr -t" i nstal l at i-um- and tea i-nte-nance of erosion controls , and- sn-_ -n cans t-r int ro-n i n -wet 1 ands. R,ez ect_f u_T l y submitted, M chae-l- S. K I=e i=n Pr�i�- pal: attach. _1-3- APP80IX A FLORA_ SPECIES L i ST Pin Oak Estates- wuxbor. com"eticut aMe habitat* aver rubrum Red Maple 3 4 5 6 7 Aces' saccharm Sugar Maple 6 AdaifiYea_ 1 left I ito 1 arr-over 5 Acorus cal-smus sweet Fla 1 2 A on sp. clams 5 A-Inus serrulata Smooth- Alder 2 3 4 5 Awn-gear ii Big Shmtem 5 Air swim -Little aluestlem 5 Anthoxanth= sweet Y rw1- Grass 5 Ap2MMM sp.. Aagbaurie 5 Arct is n-sp- brrd!o * 2- Arisasma. tri 1wi jack-in-—pulpit 4 A00y0jas Damon Mi l kweed. 2 5 AsparawsAof i A 5 asp, aster 2345 Aster- a l-later, F ped Aster 2 3 4 8 u=1 -Peper or late Birch 6 Betul.a =Mliiol-is -tom Bid- 3 5 8as beggar'-ti�- 2 Cal tUs canadensis al-uajo t Grass 1 2 3 Carew s 2 Car ex _ 1 2 3 4 ll r sue- sedge 2 Car-rex Tus=ck Sedge 1 2 4 C - s caro=1 Irood 6 Caryla oftwita Shw&wk H=ackkcsry 4 6 . iea~ -)Catalpa 6 _ 3 l5achalantka ocaiyantai is e�rttont 1 Chimm3hila maculata Striped Wintergreen 6 CiTm arundinagea Wood Reed 4 Cirsium sp. thistle 5 ClIenutis i Vi n -s Bower 2 3 4 a 1i -Nedweesd= 3 Hogmvood 23456 - i�l e.Dogwood 3 Amer i-ra Haze fiat 5 6 -SP-- ern 4 5 6 Cws=uta gronowif der 1 2 3 Dail -9 sly -ardwr-- Grass 5 Daucm- Ate'-s Lace 5 _> er u ia --F 1-a i#ay--scentad� >=�n 6 Dr—ice s� - or shield-f-ax^n 4 6 Ech-i - Wild Cucumber 3 APPBOIX A (cont'd) Scientific Name Omnm Name Habitat* Prunus serotina Black Cherry 4 5 6 P rus arbuti fo l i-a fled Chokeberry 3 Quercus albs White E?ak 6 ercus -pal user i-s Pits flak 4 5 6 ercus rubra Red Oak 6 Rhododendron visoosum Swamp- Azalea 3 Rhus oopallina Vinged Sumac 5 Rhus t i na Staghorn Sumac 3 5 Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose 3 4 5 Rosa oalustris Swamp Rose 2 3 4 Rubus spp. brambles 2 5 Rumex cr i sous czar Ty dock 1 2 5 Sal ix sp, willow 2 34 5 Sassafras albidum sassafras 6 Scirmw cvperin us O mmory Elderberry 3 4 Smilax herbacea Carrion-flower 2 5 So l i:laao yam i n ifo l i a Grass-heaved Goldenrod 2 5 Solidago rugosa Rough-sty Goldenrod 2 5 Solidego spp. goldenrods 2 34 5 SorghastrLm nutans Indian Gass 5 Sphagnum sp. peat moss 1 iraea l at ifo Z i a lowsweet 4 5 iraea tcmentosa Steeplsh 1 2 3 5 Stel1-aria sp. stiteMwort 5 Symolocarmus foetids Skunk 2 4 Thal ictrLm po Tygwmn Ta 1 1Meadow-rue 2 Toxicodendron radicans Poison i:vy 5 T,ox.fcodendron vern i x Po ison Sumac 1 Trifoliun pratense Red Clover 5 Tr ifo T ivaaa repens White. C-lover 5 T a latifol-is man Cattail 1 2 U-11MM a ic:ana Amer is Elan 4 5 tint i ca sp. nettle 2 Vaccinium oorvnbosum Highbush Blueberry 3 4 Veratrun virile False Hell-ebore 4 Viburnum acerifolium Maple-leaved Viburnum 6 Viburnum. reoognitum Northam Arrow-wood 2 3 4 Vitis sp. w-ild grapes 3 5 7 Zea mays corn 2 5 1 - Marsh/Pond 4 - iooded Swamp 2 - Wet Meadow 5 - 01-d Field/Disturbed Upland 3 - Wet Thicket/Shrub Swamp 6 - Mixed Hardwood Forest 7 - Coniferous Forest. Note: Habitat designations ind cate the comity in which a species was found during the field surveys, and may not reflect the typical condition for the species as a whole. APPBVIX A (cont'd) Scier*ltf is Aare Owman-Nerve Habitat* JE- angust i fo l-ia Ross i n 01 ive� 5 W-I-Ob=ium sp. wi l 1 2. 4 -Eau=$etun arse f i M to i-I 5 Euaator iun marulatun. dye Weed- 2 fagus grandife-1 a Aimerfcan Beef 6 Fragaria virginiana -wild strawberry 5 Gal ium aparine bedstraw 5 Ga i ium sp. bedstraw- 2 Geranium macs latum Wild Geranium 2 Qewn sp. avens 2 G1,echom hederacea Gi 1 lover the-G-ound Hamwasl is vim i ni ana itzh-laze-1 6 Hester is mat-ronal i Dame`s fiocket 2 Hi erac um pratense x if Davi-l- 5 Hv v irgin4y%m ash St-. John's Wort 1 1 lex vertici 11ata W hy_ Hally 3 4 t moat i-ens caaens°i=s - 2 3 4 iris viers-i co l or a-lius,nea 2 juncus. effusus Soft F&mh 1 2 5 Junius v f"in iana 5 Kalinia a st l'ol�ia- La sT 3 5 Liza cap itata T"N"NOMMU WA 1 fi-CAVmr- 5 Li-1 im Carladerne Li ly 3 Li=nar ia- vu-laaris bW--MxFEWs5 L ima ben n, -Spinabusir 4 Eon a iwon JaPanSGS HDF1SySUck_lP- 6 �-s -sp. b - 1 2 3: 4 Lyon a l ig- ustrina 1 3 e _ fl 6 Mmuts rites 2 1�u tar vim~.. 7"' ' L-ifiy ? C sp- evening pr it row 2 4 5 Onocl-ea sensitil is Sensitive fern 2 3 4 cis Cinnamon Fern 2 4 Osmunda c l'avton i na interrupted Fern 2 Partkenocissus QLCmajefol i Virgins 4 6 Phal=ar^is arund=iraw tamed 2 3 Phra ices cangeT-w eiar& TASed 2 P i lea- Cl 4 Pinus strobus Eazter-n to Pine ` 4 6 7 I'll-lard tancsol Engl iah Plain 5 Poaceae sp. grass9w 2 3 5 Polyaoncm zaait T 1 -2- 3 4 Popultm de--ft i-ides Omnvm XktborAvood 4- P l-us tr --- ;1 45 Prunel l a VLUIMWIS= Self4leal 5 MAMMALS TERRESTRIAL �Ikommon Snapping Turtle !Northem Ringneck Snake nc�lydm t ssrpenlba Diadwft pwdahu edwardsif �i&*fds vcyb*na Castor�conadensts palnled Turtle O Black Rat Snake PbassA £lapheo.obso►ela'IQ Spotted -Shrew Turtle fCrem"Wra i TUtern-lf4g M Snake Sar+rsr e. o Dwy* lalemdon plalyrh+nos - r—a" . Plaww= t aft )Svood Turtle: X, Snake S Ckmmya 6cscu¢�ra t t"anyerlum p O-Bop Tcdie �waw v=M e clernmys muhlenbrery l Nffodtrs sOedon Northern Diamondback-fe - � Clete# rrapinadienr Srnoeth`Green snake r= ohrclemys L terroPbr -Opheodr�ts o:cemalis t7=CasE3hrew .Wem 0"Turtle i�i them-Brown-crake �, Terropene c carotin Stmvia-d.deW �- lei - O Sthd�pot O-Narlhern-RedbellrInge- p-0r {, SYerrrorhe=od h, Sly o.occOilemaculam t Easte"Oble- OndoftAgethka Ustem fitbbon Snake- Scakpre-aguafto O iemmin Eu O e-iteed Skink 77,amnophrs=s.saar drs l E rnrrecrslasciatus Eastern-Garter Snake O ww" -B-Eastem Wetm Snake Thmmrophts t AM& Carphophis a.amoeaus 33 Nndilem coppertard O Heustlti OM ft%emllack Racer O les e makaarrNOWMsalliff i Little,Brown#- Cahrber-c coAWdor Cmlabrs_horridrer Myol§ a f lNeades�r Moves:t3 =t@tyatle, - t3 SR Ain aevMPw eris noekvaymu AWHMAJ'Lv'Q O 0 ❑Jefferson's Satanrander_- ❑'Nhrdpuppy= O Ambyslamo jeffarsonkmiw-- aau m.-Ma down -EMue-spnited Salamander Ambysloma tolerate Mato e Ambystomwmaadahon er - ERAirbled-Salamander a'ne�conus Q-tjew accoon Arnbyslomaopocum- '"s 3ud` r rs rlsr O Silvery Salamander 0 . O f- - Ambysloma-pWrieum Mortfistrr prtnq eT LePas-amp O Tremblay's Salamander Hyla Cz7' O-European-Raw Ambysloma tremblayi Tseefre -B-Northern Ddsky Salanr -Hyla versicalar - luounk Desmoynalhus f.fuscres 49-Northern Two-tined care36eimm_ Afth*tieoo 6isAinafa _ -meter O Rorthem Sprang Salamander Rana a+ lfl t Sray oirrel Cyrinpphtbcr-P.Pore r ia" Pickud-f S�o�s aG sss MqAft MOM 'Four-toed Salamander Rana pahshis p fled Frei 0 RiverM Nemidactybium sadalunr ttopard Frog Tomias kow hudsonkus MCA Rask- edbSelamand� �.P�P Q Pkthodon cbwm 4 vwt rOj O Slimy Salamander - �071Q��"��- Pielhodon D yhrthaw -G-Eviern-=Spadetaol- .holbrxtayii Nk ���� ►9 t%Cooper's Hawk &MR C Lesser Yellowlegs M Accipyer cooperil 71,*r9a floAms 0 Red-throated Loon MW ❑ Biue-winged Teal BM o Northern Goshawk BMW ❑Solitary Sandpiper M Anas Acdpiler gerrlilts O C•oommmon Loon BMW C Northern Shoveler PBM N.Red-shouldered Hawk IM! ❑���07Q BM Coda 6nmer Anas clypeala Butea lineatus CapgnplM=semgrabnatus ❑ Pled-billed Grebe BMW 0 Gadwail BMW ISL Broad winged Hawk 4M 0 Spotte8 Sandpiper BM Buteo platyplerus Padilgmbuspc'di� Arras strepera ACititmaarGrria Red•talted Hawk BMW 0_HGd�d-samotpa SM ❑ Homed Grebe MW O Eurasian W.tgeon W Peaceps awflus Anas penekpe Jornaicensis BarixarakAWVkwmb Cl Red-necked Grabs MW ❑ American Wigeon MW ❑'Bough=tegged Hawk- 10 ❑-WBimbret= M '9rLsegena Anas americana ffuteo-10 us Nadhern Gannet A ❑-Canvasback t ❑ MW -0-fludsontan-GodwIt M AWassanus Aplhya ualisineria AqzWkchindot 0*09 Cormorant MW Redhead NIW L�An►erl�n-KeMre1 Faloa spanwrius O�GoAwtt M PYm(aa+otrorax cmbo Aythya americans lea O Double-erosted Cormorant BMW 0 Ring-necked Duck MW ❑'Keft�� rius M a-flinw-rw4wone MW v Ptakcrocoma Aythyacollaris Faka Aramrla'rnteMw C American_Bittern BM ❑ Greater Scaup _7 MW 0 Peregrine-Falcon MW _0 Red Knot M salaams bd4*osus, Par Aythya madla Pveg*W fafidfis-c+mutss ❑.Least Bittern B 0.Lesser Scaup IAW- Q Gyrfalcon A ajanderilnB MW�_exib Aythya cffnus tsc�abcs CaBdris ❑-Great-Blue Heron BMW 0 Common Elder A 1��h►g-nsck " sant pBWO wd 1pipr M- Ardalendias Somataiamohssima Phasam -ccus _ _,pW& O-Greg iEgret B II King Elder W 0 western Sandpiper M rasmerodhu albus Som spafaia_ ecfabilis II Boned-Grouse SW Cis marai 0 Snowy B T3 HarlequhrDuck A �y l ❑ -spar M Egntia-durla Htslriankw-hWrionkus ►f l y leagrtrgallepaaa PBW, Cafift Inhulda ❑Egm aBtue�Haroan B C Oldsquaw __MW- Wilorthern Oubwldte �W OWN Clangulrr hyemolis Colirrus rams- C- Epr trk» _PB C Black Scoter `MW O Baitil'tSandpipet_ x Melanitta nigra ❑-Black RaB1 C - B 0 Surf Scoter _61W Lateralhujamai 0 Ivelanitla perspicimid �f netau*1 acked-Heron C Clapper RaH BMWbBrdoridesriatus ❑ W51te=wingedScoteT MW Ralluslar -ftf*Sandpiper rgputris CAwl Melanins fusca Q flack-crowned-Nil"aron-BMW ❑Common Goldeneys 7SM 0 lung Ran Umlegm ❑ MW_ Yellow rewned� Bueephala-clangula 111ninie-fall B _ C dr �rl ra ) lycticorax -IlIght-fferon B O Barrow-'s-Gotdeneye A Ralluslimic* Bucephala islandka ❑ e 0-BuHihead _MW_ ❑-Bola BM p_ -M Pje -faftw6s B PbrzanaAMMIh a- Buc hala�lbeola Tkyrrgges_sHhnft—,W$ ❑ Hooded Merganser BMW- a communes BM° 0 -A. ❑ _�bianus Bi4f A Lophodytes cucullatus me 0 Mute-Swan- BWQWui a Common Merganser W &hen a?na*ana= D 0*MVICIN--cow - ` Merva merganser Lann�us yeses!, - O Red-breasted Merganser P-Bbtil{t Q^ 0=1 +Sbr Vt Gratar�ititlte!routed Goose A Mergus senalor at8 ° Ind scalgxm=- 0 MW ❑Ruddy Duck MW C P d rcaPlnva BI [Sl ltammnn pe- OW (3xyura-jamaicensis =F�gaginap 0.Brant MW Ch=d*r semipalmastrrs 8mala bwnk a 0 Black Vulture A 1214 ingA!love► # A D Canada-Goose BMW Corogypsalsatos dodos IRTurkey Vultum ttliiw a ISL Vhod-Duck BMV Catharta aura u.�ears t D'�""""" P f Lanwahiciya A& 0 Osprey Bit O American Oysteroateher, B 0 IM Sull W ❑Gm*wingedTU PBMW Pan&n haGaeha Hawsalopuspalliams Lace Arwsowca ❑8aldEagie MW O Greater Yellowlegs M ❑Common Black-headed.Gull W •-Amerhan113ek-Duck -BNWK HalOwtus4mocephalus 7hVa kuca Law.. Anas_m& W tRilorthern Harder In" 1%=#aNard BMW £ban cyaneus A==pJaV*c1as Sharp•thinned Hawk dslo $ = 8 W 0-worthern_0e11att #hIW AccipWitriahu -M �M=-ews Amir--aarta - A- = errmria•rxr - • ?e FoA Qj, t f k {I a Conw corax Lanius ludooidanus J21 Black-capped Chickadee BMW pr European Starling BMW O Btaaparte't Gull WPane atncapilhcs Stomas uulgaris O Whip-poor-will B O Boreal Chickadee A 0 White-eyed Vireo PBM Low Abdelphla l7 Ring-holed Gull MW CaPr+nutflus uociferus Pares hudsonicus Vbro griseus Law debruffensis z Chimney Swift SM la Tufted Titmouse BW >g Solitary Vireo AM O Naming Gun • BMW Chadura pelagiea Panes bicolor Vow solitarius jd Rubv-throated Hummingbird PBM O Red-breasted Nuthatch BMW O Yellow-throated Vireo BM O Iceland W Archilochus cohrbris r- Sltta canadensis trveo flauifions ❑ Beited Kingfisher BMW jZ Whit e-bre Larretyimuvides asted Nuthatch fBW fd Warbling Vireo PBM ❑Letser Black-backed Gull W Coyle akym Sills c rro&ensk Iraw gNaus ❑ Red=headed Woodpecker BMW 15 Brown Creeper #MW 0 Phttadelphlaifireo M UWAMS Melanerycs-erythmcephalus Ccrlhia amerkana Vaao phitadelphicus 0 Gla a* W O Reid-beined Woodpecker BW E7 Carolina Wren $W 0 Ited=eyed VimLaushpariew �8M- Md=gpes car Aw Thryofhorm ludouiclanus irbao sllaaeeus L BMW O Yellow-bettie Sapsucker BMW I� 0House Wren ON 0Bfwinge Warbler 8M O Bteeic�egged tOtd�eakt Sphyraplcus uarius Troglodyles aedon Vmwvora pinus Sa avidacryila R(Downy Woodpecker Paw Nt Winter Wren *MW O folders--wlnt Warbler -Bell Pkoides pubemu Tmglodytes hvlodyfes Vermhxrm ckysoptera M pr Hairy Woodpecker pBW ❑ Sed4eWren M QIennessea Wader fif O Roval-TemM Pie da aitlosus Cistofhoncs platensts Ymniaora pemgrbra maxbna Qf Northern Flicker pBMW O Marsh Wren BM O Orange-owned-Warbler It O Aottett=Efi1 $ Cokwa araatus CWblhoncs pahatris Vermiuora celata ��o O Pneeled Woodpacker BW y Catbird BMW ❑Nadwlk Warbler BM : p+ ,Pr71at++s Vmnlem Par capiih: O Nero BM Dumdellarmiolinends NortheO MSkmallizotdo U O�-sided Flycatcher BM 0 Northem.Mockingblyd BMW �'Parulaaraicana ole •M Mbnus polygkow amwfwsterf Brown Thrasher- BMN Yeilow Warbler m f5l Eastem Wood-Petnze IPBM Dendmica-petechia O LeeM'7a 1 B Contopus afrars Toxastoma rufam IR Chestnwtiided Warbler *Dlk O YeAow-belne flycatcher M ❑Northern-Wheatear A Dgndm a peraytuanica O M Empfdwrax tluaiombis Oerranthe oenanthe 1R Magnolia Werbier, #NF O-Acadian Flycatcher B O Eastern-Bluebird SIM Dendmica-magnolia O Blimt-Skimpier BM Empidonax abvscros Sialk slabs O Cape May Warbler tGf i D Alder Flycatcher BM .0 Veery Dendmlca ttgaw Pnpkbw abwnrm Cafhanrs fuscesceas ❑-Black-thtoafedilaWarbler BMI RUUD= 8W Q Willow Flycatcher P B O Gray-cheeke Thrush K Dendrofcacaendeseens cohan ' a Empidonax l wZi Catharus mmimus tg Ullow•romped Warbler 4MYf 91 OW -M t-east Flycatcher p BM tQ Swainson s Thrush Ism Dendroka-coronata Empidonar minhnus Calhancs ustulatus NJ Black-throated Green-Warbla Rr t i M Rf Eastem Phoebe P BM Hermit Thrush t11AW l�rdmice vhvs ❑ Sayon Ir-phcek Catharus guttatus a Blackbtmtian Warbler *M- YADW"Wibnkw OM O-Great Crested flycatcher p 8M is Wood Thrush PBM io fow hfyiarchus crinilus Hylocichhr mustehire O Ydiew-threate illatbler A O �Eastern Kingblyd p BM Rl American Robin BMWAna-daminlea 4MMIUS tyrannut Turdus migmWus O PhIfWastlef �N E U Harped Lark BMW ❑ Varied Thrush A- Derubuka pines 19 6 Ito E nephila a�eslris lxoreus-neeaire flits l warblor $M 0 ❑Purple Martin BM Goldenxro-wad Kinglet V a dkofor Prognesubts Regulus safrepa t �kn_okv pab MI ❑So d W jaydadd BM or 1$Ruby-crowned Kinglet M Deadroicsted nwnrm NOW' O-Northern Mt Regulus calendula ❑ �s�ape M 19 agh-wtnpe3wattow 9M p Blue-grayGnatcatcher 8M` Dt� anea Btackpoli N[arhlar `M -ate ❑�k �� u BM PoNopfila caervlea Ica strata O L01114311101fad va .R*rb4aria O Water Pipit M O n yid B ❑.Cliff Swallow BM Anthus sphwletta De xtruka cerulea ❑ Aso llanvneus Harmda pyn*rnola .0 Cedar waxwing PBMW y�3 Black-and-White Warbler QBM: Barn Swallow BM Bombycilfa cedrorum Mnioad aarla ❑ Northtm Saw-whet Owl BMW Hbvnda rus1ka ❑ Northern Shrike W RI American Redstart Hell Aryls acafims 0 Blue Jay PBMW Lanus=excubitor Setaphaga rufWfla CyanodltaO*tala )ZGAmerican Crow BMW -B= BREEDING Vtr = AMT-ERS O UssidwdWsvidowB Carves brachyrhynchos M = MM -RE =-POSSMLY —not, ❑fith Crow BMW A = ALki— r- erq omeeu�deass- Corous ossifragus- BIRDSNAIAIALS MARINE ❑Prothonotary Warbler Pam O Sharp•talled Sparrow BM O Herber Seal ❑ Set Whale Prolorwaria cum Ammodrarlm caudacutres Harbor Phoca oSeal d SetBal W optera borealis O Worm-eating Warbler BM ❑Seaside Sparrow BM Heh»ithaw oetmhnnct ❑ Harp Seal O Minks Whale if Ovenbird BM Fox Sparrow pa row marittmus Pagaphihd Vvertlandtacs Salaenopterd oadom*ata sets � P p Jla MW ❑ Gray Seal ❑ Blue Whale O Northern Waterthrush BM Ff-Sotfg Sparfllw BMW HoOmirus pypus Baldenoptera musculus 5ehatcs Melhspizd-melodic- ❑ Humpback•Whale Seamus.moi at er b WI B O nCn1n $yarrow M Q Nonmigm Dolphin Megapterd novaeangliae made ❑ Flight Whale •Kentucky Warbler SM It!¢htspara�rteco�it � gh�i Oporomis&MOOS cs �SWWP Sparrow MelospiratZ�gi D Eubalaena glaclalts ❑ConnectHwt Warbler M m,Whitedhroated w !MW O Nesop Beaked Whale $die O Gn Grampus Mesoplodat macs O Mounting Warbler M �Why lcr�ne_ may M kollfs G' O Northern Bottlenose Whale Op&nntts philade4Mia J ropJdys O Pilot Whale Hyperoodon ampullatus Common Yellowthroat BM °la"' J° �1� �ntw O Goose-beaked Whale Ceothlypts dachas Junco-hyeindis ❑Harbor Porpoise rpeise &hius caaeosdas D Hooded Warbler BM ❑Lapland Lona Wr low ph""°p home Q ❑ Sperm Whale HGisollhr tddbta G*arau Irapponicus O Kiiler While Ph O Wilson's Warbler SM ❑Snow Bunting- MW Oxbw are gseter cerm Iffkaniopuslya . �arnJy� O Pygmy Sperm Whale �Cash Warbler IN to bretrkeps Wgwnia canadmsis O Bobolink : Bhf O finharat Whale O Betu a ❑Yellow-breasted Chat am Red-winyx Bl ackbirvaw Balaettapterd d salut p inapkw letrcas �(Red-wlflyed Blackbird � 8MW Idata uaew Agdohn-phomicew 7 ❑ Summer Tanager A O Eastern-Meadowlark BMW Aaatnfaats SOURCES Aran Slumella magna f3URT,W.H.and A.P:GROSS£NHEIDER.197e.A-°eld guide fo the mammals.3rd ed. POMy�Slutrlet Tanager BM SL Blackbird iAw Houghton M1m1n Co.,Boston,MA.2e9pp. Q om° Euphag a"roraaw GOON,A.J.t97Z 14Wdmrnmels of Now England.Johns Hopkins Univ.Press, }a Northam Cardinal SW 0 Yotlaw•head$A Blackbird A sammore.Sum. Cardinalis cardinalis Xanthwephahis santhocephabn c�,G.G.19395.Thernsrmnale-ol Connecticut.Conn.Geological and Natural Rose breasted Grosbeak QBM O BfwEtai A History sunesy,".53-1.221. Phatcfa1fleSt doGrosbe VIETIEL.R.M.SM.T&TOW OMWrlmafs ofConnecticut.Unpublished Report,Univ. [alusmapr atzonn..Storrs,-CT.12pp. O-Slack-htaft Grosbeak A ;6 Gammon Grackle BMW Pheud kus tndanocephahls Wscalits_4u O Blue-.Grosbeak A arasva headed Cowtft ��.S.C..Ed.I9ea.the bkder's llfaust and diary.Lab.of Ornithology,Cornell Cuvaca caerulea Molelhner ales �B1 N Univ..tuhsca,NY.213pp. - ladlge SuffNagd m orchard oriole tomes tAmps Pa3ftriV QMW i km spwft Reprinted fmm-**Est of theAmpftlans and reptues of Connecticut*ft O Bickchsel M prHtnrthaim-oriole am ��oawhcm'mo �:Perm{salon-omnted-byttmauthor,MaOWw. Ru� ro REVIEWERS RWour-xide>t7�lree ja O Pine Grosbeak MW ftllo awkwiliviahw Adcata enrtckator m I American Tm Sparrow MW 1 PWryM rub Am ACOSM SARSTOW,Ph.D.,Volunteer Executive Director,Celacean Society Spti¢l(a-°rbow Infamatlmal,vVe"Mrsasd CT. pf Ehlpplq Sparrow BM i IluStt SM ROBERT DUBM Collections Mgr.,Vertebrate Collections,Conn.Mus.of-Nat. SpLaellapassauta Cmpodap6 morkm us History.Univ.of-Conn.,Storrs,CT. Q Clay-Colored$pa= A Q Red Eroubill MW DANIEL HAFVVS0N, PhZ,fildlifeResearch ��Supervisor,Conn.Dept.of Environmental sprzel polhda terra at Protect a NEAL OVERSTROM,Assistant Curator of Exhibits,Mystic Marinenfe Aquarium, XFleld Sparrow BMW O Wide-winged Cressblli BMW Mystic,CT. Sp X&xwila Lox&kucopkm Birds O VespePboardaspar g row m BM O Common eeUs Am a W MILAN BULL,Director of Field Studies and Ornithology,Conn.Audubon Society, ❑Lark arrow Fairfield CT. Sit A pine Sisklit 1AMW GEORGE CLARK,Jr.,PhD.,Professor,Dept.of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Char desles gramm°cus Cardue&pinus Unw.Of Conn..Stows,CT. ❑Savamtah Sparrow -BMW American G ffmch SM NOBLE PROCTOR.Ph.D,Professor of Biology,Southern Conn.State Univ„New Passetmilis sandwkhensas C des DIt1110 R rfNSC Shia-Coord.,Conn.Breeding Bktl Alias. l7 Aunt sa mt BBt D Jam. > — ❑Hendow's Sparrow �! ;-Hawse SpalYew OW t tCHAEL KLEMENS.Herpetologist.American Museum of Natural Htatory,New Arowdramus hensletvii Passer domestkus York,NY: GT U t.P lnaltAl,t� 3t.L�� 19 } .` ^ ' SOILS � �� NORTHEAST ��� �� � ^�� ~� ��=��°� ENMONMENTAL ASGE8S8K2Nr8 0 INCAOQD Mq3%LA2I»SO08qT1FxCTAA1T!1T0*N 452 0HARON DRIVE * CHI0H0RE, CONNICT14C0T 06480 TELEPHONE(2O3)272-/108 Dec . 11 , 1986 Job No . 11-86-326-S.WIND Lawrence A. Fiano ' 13 Middle Trnpk East P .O. Box 751 Manchester , CT 06040 PROJECT LOCATION: Clark St . , South Windsor , Connecticut . , In conducting the field investigation, many soil borings were ' taken in which the soil scientist notes many important soil properties. They are as follows; the seasonal soil moisture condition or the presence of free water and its depth . Fur each horizon in the soil profile, thickness, color , and texture are also noted. The areas shown on the soil map are called soil map units. Some map units are made up of one kind of soil , others are made up of two or more kinds of soil , and a few have little or no soil material at all . The information in this report is based on examination and interpretation of soils to a maximum depth of about 60 inches. The classification of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, USDA, Soil Conservation Service and the County Soil Legend were used in this investigation. Inspecticm Date: Dec . 3, 10, 11 , 1986 Map: Property line map Scale: 1{«} Cznte*ur: 2 Size of poolsut: Approx 47 Acres Wetland soils field marked for survey: y{�. Nonwetland soils field identified and sketched : YES Soil conditions at the time of survey: WET Property lines field surveyed at the time of soil inspection: N/A Property lines identifiable: YES Vegetation type wetlands---: Hardwood,- Vegetation type ncv+wetlands: Hardwoods, open fields SOILS Bruce C. Laskey Soil Scientist L/ | i . .. '. 2 PROJECT: Clark St . , South Windsor , CT. Marking- sequence of wetland boundaries Orange flagging 1 thru 19 20 thru 42 43 thru 87 88 thru 95 96 thru 295 500 thru 506 507 thru 512 | Depth To | Depth To ! Depth To Seasonal | % Bedrock Wetland Soils | Mottling | ! ! in Soil Unit (Pm) Peat & N/A | >60" | +12-0" Nov-May none Muck, Shallow | } | | <Sb ) Saco | 6-10" | ` >60" | 0" Nov-April | none � (Sc) Scantic | 10-15" | >60" | 0-18" Nov-May | none | | | | | | | | SUCk_S | | | | (Ad') Agawam l >40" | >6011 ( >72" | none (Eo ) Elmwood | 18-39" ( >60" | 18-36" Nov-April | none | | | | ' (Mn) Kelros*e | >40" � >60" | >72° | non«� | | } | (Te) Terrace | >40" | >60" | | | | (Wv )' Wind-sor | >40° | >60" | >72" | none | | \ | None Soil descriptions begin on page 3- . � .. � ' 3 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS WETLAND SOILS his soil series consists of very poorly drained organic soils in various stages of decomposition. The water table is at or near the surface most of the time. The thickness of organic matter ranges from about 18 to 36 inches. Saco silt loam (Sb) This soil series consists of very poorly drained flood plain soils. Typically, the surface layer is very dark brown silt loam 8 inches thick. The substratum is mottled grayish brown silt loam that is very friable. Mottles generally occur within 10 inches of the soil surface. The material below feet ranges in texture from silt loam to coarse sand and gravel . Scantic silt loam (Sc) This soil series consists of poorly drained soils that have developed on glaciolacustrine silt and clay. Typically, the ` surface layer is very dark grayish brown silt loam 6 inches thick . The subsoil is mottled dark gray silty clay loam 13 inches thick . Mottling generally occuis within 10 inches of the surface. The substratum is dark brown silty clay loam that is very firm. | | ' , ~ . 4 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS N[NWE|LHND SOILS ' is well drained soil formed in a loamy mantle over stratified sand and gravel derived mainly from gneiss and schist . Typically, the surface layer is dark brown fine sandy loam 9 inches thick . . The subsoil is yellowish brown fine sandy loam 20 inches thick . The sub- stratum is light yellowish brown and pale olive sand to a depth of 60 inches or more. Permeability ranges from moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and rapid in the substratum. Agawam soils are on outwash plains and terraces in stream valleys. � This soil series consists of moderately well drained outwash soils. They developed over glacial lake silt and clay which is at depths of 24 to 48 inches. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown sandy loam 6 inches thick . The subsoil is about 20 inches thick . The upper part is 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 varved silt . and silty clay loam. ' sandy (M(Ti This soil series consists of moderately well orazneo gLaczo1acustr1ne soils. Typically, the surface layer is dark brown sandy loam 8 inches thick . The subsoil is brown sandy loam 20 inches thick . The substratum is mottled dark gray silty clay loam. The material just above the silty and clayey substratum is nearly always mottled . his land type consist of steep slopes on �errace breaks made up of sandy and clayey material . Windsor lozimy fine sand (Wv) This soil series consists of excessively orazne(l glacial outwash soils. Typically, the surface layer is dark yellowish brown loamy fine sand 8 inches thick . The subsoil is strong brown loamy fine sand 16 inches thick . The substratum is grayish brown sand . -�- _ ,. .. _ .........:...,..:..tip.:.... .,, . STATEWIDE INLAND WETLAND ACTIVITY REPORTING FORM In accordance with the requirements of Section 22a-39(m)-1 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, this form is-to be completed for each action ' Completed. forms for all reportable actions- wring a calendar month shall be mailed to the Commissioner no later than tho-015 day of the month following the month in which the action was taken. See instructions on back. 1. TOWN: South Windsor ****************** ******************* * For State Use only 2 . REPORTING PERIOD: * * 3 . ACTION: (Circle only one action) * OTS CODE: a. Permit issued b. Permit denied c. Enforcement d. Map amendment * e. Jurisdictional ruling * 4. ' LOCATION: (Attach a 8 1/2 by 11 inch photocopy of USES Quad map with the project site outlined * DATE RELIEVED or pinpointed) ************************************** 5. APPLICANT'S (or violator's) NAME: Lawrence A. Fiano 6 . PROJECT NAME (If any) : Pin Oak Estates Subdivision 7 . PROJECT TYPE CODE NUMBER (See list of codes below) : . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . [7,8,91 If Type Code is 12 "other," describe b the type of activity involved in the action 4Ay r i.. 8. PROJECT PURPOSE CODE NUMBER~(See list of codes below) : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. ) 9. EXPIRATION DATE OF -PERMIT OR DATE -VIOLATION WAS CORRECTED: . . . . . . . [ 10. WAS A PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON THIS ACTION? (Circle one) . . . . . . . . . . . . .YES. . .NO 11 . ACREAGE OF WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES ALTERED: A. Soil type( s) ( If Available) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SC [ .05 ACRES] (20' x 1001) B. Only if soil type is not available specify area altered as follows: Swamp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ACRES ] Marsh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACRES] Bog. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ACRES] Openwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ACRES) 12 . ACREAGE OF WETLANDS OR WATERCOURSES CREATED: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ N/A ACRES] 13 . LINEAL FEET OF STREAM ALTERATION: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ 100' FEET) 14 . TOTAL LAND AREA OF PROJECT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ 47.4 ACRES] )� NORTHEAST SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS ~ INLAND WETLANDS IDENTIFICATION /028BARON DRIVE 0 CHESGORE, CONNEC73CUT{64l0 TELEPHONE(z0)z72'/1uuDec ' 11 , 1986 Job Uo ' 11-86-326-S'U]HD L�wrence A' Fzano 13 Middle Trnnk Fast P.O. Box 751 Manchester , CT 06040 _ PROJECT LOCATION: Clark St . , South Windsor , Connecticut ' SOIL REPORT , In conducting the field investigation, many soil borings were taken in which the soil scientist notes many important soil properties' They are as follows; the seasonal soil moisture condition or the presence of free water and its depth . For each horizon in the � soil profile, thickness, color , and texture are also noted. The areas � shown on the soil map are called soil map units. Some map units are made up of one kind of soil , others are made up of two or more kinds of soil , and a few have little or no soil material at all . The information in this report is based on examination and interpretation of soils to a maximum depth of about 60 inches. The classification of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, tJSDA, Soil Conservation Service and the County Soil Legend were used in this investigation. Inspection Date: Dec . 3, 10, 1 1 , 1986 ' Map: Property line map Scale: 100 , Contour: 2 Size of project: Aoprox 47 Acres Wetland soils marked 1ti ld k d f ' e or survey: Y ES Nonwetland soils field identified and sketched: YES Soil conditions at the time of survey: WET Property lines field surveyed at the time ofsoil inspection: N/A. Property lines identifiable: YES Vegetation type wetlands---: Hardwoods Vegetation type nonwetlands: Hardwoods, open fields NORTHEAST SOILS Bruce C. Lasho*y ' ' Soil Scientist ` ' .. ' ^ 2 , PROJECT: Clark St . , South Windsor , CT. Marking sequence of wetland boundaries Orange flagging 1 thru 19 20 thru 42 43 thru 87 88 thru 95 96 thru 295 500 thru 506 507 thru 512 Soil | Depth To | Depth To | Depth To Seasonal | X Bedrock Wetland ! | | | in Soil Unit | ( | | (Pm) Peat & | N/A | >60" | +12-0" Nov-May | none Muck , Shallow | | | | (Sb ) Saco | ` 6-10" | >60" | 0" Nov-April ( none | ( | | (Sc ) Scantic | 10-15" | >60" | 0-18" Nov-May | none | | | \ NONWETLAND SOILS | | ( | (Af) Agawam | >40" | >60" ( >72" 1 none | | | | (Eo ) Elmwood | 18-39" < >60" | 18-36" Nov-April | none / (Mn) Melrose | >40" | >60" 1 >72" | none | | | | (Te) Terrace | >40" | >60" | >72" | none | | | | (Wv ) Windsor | >40" | >60" | >72" | none | | | | | ( | | < | | | | | | | | } | ( | | | | | | < | | | | | Comments: None n 3 - SOIL DESCRIPTIONS WETLAND SOILS This soil series consists of very poorly drained organic soils in various stages of decomposition. The water table is at or near the surface most of the time. The thickness of organic matter ranges from about 18 to 36 inches. his soil series consists of very poorly drained flood plain soils. Typically, the surface layer is very dark brown sift loam 8 inches thick . The substratum is mottled grayish brown silt loam that is very friable. Mottles generally occur within 10 inches of the soil surface. The material below 2 feet ranges in texture from silt loam to coarse sand and gravel . This soil series consists of poorly drained soils that have developed on glaciolacustrine silt and clay. Typically, the surface layer is very dark grayish brown silt loam 6 inches thick . The subsoil is mottled dark gray silty clay loam 18 inches thick . Mottling generally occurs within 10 inches of the surface. The substratum is dark � brown silty clay loam that is very firm. � � t SOIL DESCRIPTIONS NONWETLAND SOILS .�. ... A t w r•�m._:.:f 7 r�c+ . s�s rt "7.c5<:'m ": l f? _l F t is� _W e—1 l drained -s b is T`"-f f C�.t::.rr;r...r_i j.r' over stratified wind and gravel derived mainly from gneiss and schist . Typically , the '_(_tr'f,_tce layer is dark brown fine sandy loam 9 inches thick . .1,t(:.. subsoil is yellowish brown fine sandy loam RO inches thick . __' sub- stratum is light: yellowish brown and pale olive sand to a depth of 60 inches or more. Permeability ranges from moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and rapid in the substratum. Agawam soils are on outwcl.sr} plains and t:F.•.?r'rc:t(::4::s in stream valleys IT144C.C� .1 G;ctndV 1.C.}ctft7 il) ".]''his soil series consists of moderately well. drained (_rt..ttwash `.poi 1.s„ They developed over glacial lake silt r•I n cl clay which is at depths of 24 to 48 inches. Typically,i all, the r•_t_t}-'f'i=lCe layer 1=s dark grayish brown sandy loam 6 inches thick „ The subsoil is about 20 i.nc:r}?;=s thick . The upper part is 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 ..lf_'r=ty varved silt _silty clay loam„ v soil series consists C'!'fi•_j Typically,1. � moderately well.(�t fist 7.r'}E�?::i C: .1.as(.�7.i y.t.ct t_.l.i ci "t:'i"].r'1(-=�' - �.• � .. r c ', the e surface r,__e layer is (-1.-tr-1:: brown sandy loam 8 inches thick . The subsoil is brown Sand' 1.o<-m 20 inches thick . The substratum is mottled dark: gray Silty clay loam„ The material just silty c:{r"t d clayey substratum is nearly always mottled . ter"'r`Lic(::7 e'=>C<<!r _ (T}(•''i"ttC:a %t}"1({ ct'ii C�.ct'4� t1 (} 11Tt7.G land type consist of steep slopes on terrace breaks mad _ up of sandy and clayey material . this Soil c:.si:::r"ies consists o'1' e c(:•.'ssiv(_ly drained glacial out:wa sh soils„ Typically, the surface layer- is dark yellowish brown loamy fine sand S inches thick . The subsoil is strong brown loamy fine sand :16 inches thick . The substratum is grayish brown sand . •9sx <555-1 �j �7 y l `� y`,� 9'SSX t* SSX 6 S I SSX [ 'SSX 6'ssx h r'' SSX \ s,� _ o \ 1 Iss r s ssx 9 nsx i I s t•sx �h nSX \ I2't+sx 1 sSx ` s[x MON ■■o■■■■v■■ NMI■■ No NEON ■I■■■■■�:�■■■■�® NO ®NE ■■■■ NNE■■■E0o■11�■■■N■■►11■®■!�■■■ONE ■ ■■■■■mom■■��■®■■■■��■■■■■■®®■■■ MOM■■SEE ■■■®■■I��rN■■®1®■®® NNO MEN ■■■■ ■ MON■N■■■■■■■■■I■ Mai:ol■■■■■■■ ■■m 52Z m� I■■■■■■■, w ■■■■■m ■■■ 'r nova®■■ONO■III■■�a1�®■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■I■I■■■■■■111■o Not��lo mom N■mom®I■■■I■■■■■olil■mom■►USE . SEEM■■■I■®■■■■®®■■Not loom ®■I�Nf E■■■ 1 iINE��si1ONE ■I■■■■■■I■■II■o■ollto■■■■1!■e ,�;MMM:M ■®■■■■mom■■®■■■■■®■1!Nl11� ��1I■�■i� ■■■■■■■omom llio■■ ■ 1U ■I��ii ■®■■■■I■■■■I■t�l■■■■■■■R!■11® 1 ■0®1�0{■■■ ■■®■■■nommo■ommom■o311111111111110man NMI IN ow ■■ EINE■E®■EI®■■■�i■■N■oll■o1■m oral■■ mom■■■!■■■■■■■�11■■■■ WNW 1■■■■■ I■ ®■■■■■■■■■1�■■■■■■dl■m. 1■■■I ■■■I■■■■I■ONE■■■■■■■■ lam ME■■�IIMO ■ol■■■■■■■■■I■■■■I®■MIS , 1®■®■■ i11■■ !■ ■■■■■■■■■NNE■■■■■■RI®■I 1■■oo■EMOM ■■■■ ■■■® IN NMI IN ■■■I�m■■■■1l�1■■■■MOO I■ ■mom MONO ■■■■I■■®■!�'"�" ®■I®■■®mom■■■■ ■■11■11■■■■■■Elm ■■®■■IM■■■i■■�1■■■■I ■■I'1■o1®■■®■ I�■■oo ■■■■■■■■■■mom NO0 , ■ollO o■■M■INNI'moIN NMI o� IN IN 0 No mom I OMM ROBIon NMI, IN WORN NSON ■■■■■■■®■■■®■■■■■■■�a�■■®o®■■�r■� ■ o■■■■■■■■■■■■OEM III■ IF 211NN■ ■■■■■■o MEN■■■■N■■■■/1�1■.�MEN a ON MOEN Noncom" mom WOMEN IEN ■®■■■■ oo �mi■�J1�i■■■■■■■■mom s!■ ■■I!M■■■ iblig ■1SPIW■■I■ ■■■■■■I■■■ ■■■®■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■I've■MEMO■■■■NONE ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ��■■■E®NEE■■■■®■o ■■o■■■■NONE�/■■■■N�,■oN ONE®MOM ■■■ E■N■■m■N■■I■■■loom/,INN■■0000ME MOEN mom mom SOMME E®mom ■■■ ■■oN■o■mon sommommom ■o■it■■OUNOM1 nommo■Nl■om HEMMER 01 OMEN Emommom ■■■oN■■■■II■I■■R111okkil /■■NNE■■EN■■I■■N■m■ ■ Oo■o MOM Mlomom■■I■■■i®■N■i"I■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■®■ ■NNE ■■■■■■■m■rl�m■�;■■ENNE■■■■■■mm■m■E ■■■■■■■■ MOONS■■■■WOMEN r TYPICAL CO & DW&y SECTION tJ.T. S. CoIDMIAY � 2 15 Z,5+ Z I'aur oc A�ructrbu or dwAvc �J" /O.tOCCyNp 57LNF ON $/'uflOt7� N ` 'caw. TA- 37ir- .tits" ✓ f \\ r 65 LC�K� C�dM�CTiD'1 2'I Z'&IT. C. IGCGTE,G446g h 6)AJMZ GotICSE CCOMAG li" P1COC,EFssEa STouE�71UMCAcx 6ME LGOMIeGTtG) E��Ur. hcov�c !D� M11til. fpcoG6"'6EG &ZA✓EL, �UbbOSE odEC l E13LEp 70661eD,DE LGOMpldGT�cG) NOTE: 3UMCRADE CONOMM TO 4" TOPSO)L E m1�ZW FAY SEED !� � "t` `z 11 4 i p � i ',yam MuMt i+ >p°wj ., #T S �t & � — t c" fib ,. a sy y .^ }i,} 2 6 ,ay £- t - ry I—¢ . * f {S f y' 9k f Y .� } y-fgF4 _S 3 't _,i 1t j :f T f i t js< } +t f 5_; } ;.} ? e '} a ' Y5 i' -� ! 'n seq. i �, a }'_ x rr fi M ?2 a a Ee t x �+. �; s t e r ? r Ef s c a`i r h 2 .SaxkOCP 4gxf5 `# (( yf r ' `. i ,fir' 4 r''-.I ti F r * r f ,�t-04k'f4 h 's`4r3x 4 M; x'b•-'1 t ,3. E t _ t\ . F } ii }- +{ 4 -;'? w q. .k Y g, 1) �C( b�F yI ,i ' �f Y }§p '• � i ,� # h ply Ufa` �fc Gr�}�f,i�� 11r�c� (�Q/{4��p� C�, + F } _g Y x , j.i S :C4 -.F•"i,�3 � J>i b Y..a'�S" 2�4, y, a«fy r { �' °- I r z� i i vFx h j ' A , i� f b "� �O'.Won x X STi p .)r ?xH r �` f 1 0 1 a-r } t ° s ,* IR{Jf 1 tl { tl 1[y 3 t x1rf, )P1ri ({))r{ ((f 1 1a(�1 4`,g ,1 �, { 1 9" .2 f 4 >,. d• t 3`.. _4., r 4 - a a 4 1 s_- 4 y..— i`" .,x «. s „p yyr a�.., .4...T s- _ "`.m.'a Y ,, - -r>.s�` ze•; -a=r,A,; _ r 3 I k t t� "A-'i'(—,i-,,I'ii�oz-:%-o._,�,I":.":A�t`_��l)�i,,:�',,,:,,"�.-�,.,�,I-t',',-,I,�,q'1,0)�1-1�;,�",I.-,-�)�-��,A",�__.-'tg i-.,-,.,,n.,I,j_,--.A4"�",d,�-_�—M,�."�,�i�—T-i,_�t,-_-,�.`.""I",i-m.;-'',"I"--I�i"j,.��_"I!�,I,-'_1'�;,_�,2:�_,"��I.�)�-�'4,,.-,,0,Q��is,i-';:._�-1 I.:�,,,,._1,�""w�,;l�i�n,,:'-�,.�o�C1,-.)����0"'��i"-:.,:�z f'',0,,_:,-_��.-,.,�"��2,,,�,---�,-,,�i_I�-1.")'�''�,"_—A,'n�,.0�",(��'.:,"i,I-,,,I"�t-i1,�--_���" p 5 � t 3 .� t / t d F_ I 1' e xd y r ', t ,� i } „F T A %Sf%4+ 3' t i- 'S f' �yt`') y ''S t _ QJI11M,114 k�.Y)(�A� D)_ 1��`+ Ii��fIl j"1h�[1ID) 1'l'�A 'fI li/$\tf+li(S IA\f,�{I�ta „? 1. 1 J ",` !�t?l>ilii ii Yfj^�'(P ll�))I f} +J P'4i�t'il,Ilt>I, ;ll,�t�n!?i' d' 4 f - x y ' !r�)r) l t''{`r!s'fW01 ; 1@`}�,MP, ..'111,4 hN�1��Y'No f �f'�+��>r�r�Li�kf{(/" h� �l } _ x 'i� > rb z g r i+ r ti )r Ff (�X(l���f�n���IrE�lI fO1�i?'. .I��ie1LrU),hyh)} 1 y,4tj(,t "�oD) ,0( A� Irv{f,lil',flir�/"�t�(Ei)) s - .. - n r i��JllSfll�i{ )Qk4Nklf})i.IIX ,w,) �f{`l�S��4"+(idi�G,'�:1`,Il,(E„lJf1l',) {0)(�it 1,%��E t Fn ri ` y(` t _ 1 t 1r,1 R,(+,1,U',tl�,'IJl 1tvSf;r i j!'(1i111r11t Sl��"��i�l1?) h'_ ti L L .iF: / Y 1 9 !l h i S a - > 9 s AMA t s + -` a �: 7 f f ? � � F Iyy rjE 1 I 4 ly ~ y } + .r{ 7 Z 1 t p,i _ __ — _ _-___ ___— _ _ __. _ _. _ __ FRONT PAGE M AC9926 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 Pages I. Statement of Issues II. Table of Authorities III . Statement of the Nature of the Proceedings and of the Facts of the Case 1-4 IV. Argument 4-13 A. The Court erred in concluding that the potential effects of road and drive- way construction, building of homes and related activities on a wetland area is a technically complex issue beyond the r 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 will have a signif- icant negative impact upon the wetlands . 4-7 B. The Court erred in concluding that the Agency members did not sufficiently articulate the reasons for their decision, the facts on which their decision was based, and their personal knowledge and experience. 7-11 C. The Court erroneously concluded that the subject proposal would have the least impact on the wetlands and that , therefore, the impact was negligible. 11 Pages D. The Court erroneously concluded that the burden is not on the plaintiff to show there is no feasible and prudent alternative. 11-13 E. The Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Agency on whether the negative impact on the wetlands would be significant, whether the maps and plans pre- sented showed serious negative encroachment in the buffer area, whether the density was too high and whether the application complied with Inland/Wetland regulations . 13 V. Conclusion 13-15 w STATEMENT OF ISSUES A. Did the Court err in concluding that the potential effects of road and driveway construction, building of } homes and related activities on a wetland area is a tech- nically complex issue beyond 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 will have a significant negative impact upon the wetlands? (Pages 4 - 7 of the Brief) B. Did the Court err in concluding that the Agency members did not sufficiently articulate the reasons for their decision, the facts on which their decision was based and their personal knowledge and experience? (Pages 7 - 11 of the Brief) C. Did the Court erroneously conclude that the sub- ject proposal would have the least impact on the wet- lands and that, therefore, the impact was negligible? (Page 11 of the Brief) D. Did the Court erroneously conclude that the burden is not on the plaintiff to show there is no feasible and prudent alternative? (Pages 11 - 13 of the Brief) E. Did the Court improperly substitute its judgment for that of the Agency on whether the negative impact on the wetlands would be significant , whether the maps and plans presented showed serious negative encroach- ment in the buffer area, whether the density was too high and whether the application complied with Inland/ Wetlands regulations? (Page 13 of the Brief) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES THE PAGE(S) WHERE THE CASES , STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ARE ry CITED IN THE BRIEF ARE IN PARENTHESES , I .E. , (a) CASES : 1. BRYAN V. BRANFORD, 50 CONN. 246, 248 (1882) . (7,8) 2. CENTRAL BANK FOR SAVINGS V. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF CROMWELL, 13 CONN. APP. 448 , 454, 455 (1988) . (4,5) 3. DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL, INC. V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , 17 CONN. APP. 53 (1988) . (11) 4. DAVIAU V. PLANNING COMMISSION, 174 CONN. 354 (1978) . (14) ^ � 5. DUBIEL V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF EAST HARTFORD, 147 CONN. 517 (1960) . (9) 6. FEINSON V. CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 180 CONN. 421, 427 (1980) . (4,6,8,14) 7 . GAGNON V. INLAND WETLANDS OF THE TOWN OF BRISTOL, 213 CONN. 604, 605 (1990) . (9) 8. GIL V. INLAND WETLANDS & WATERCOURSE AGENCY, 23 CONN. APP. 379 , 385 , 386 (1990) (11,12) 9. HALL V. PLANNING AND ZONING, 153 CONN. 574, 577 (1966) . (13) 10. HUCK V. INLAND WETLANDS & WATERCOURSES AGENCY, 203 CONN. 525 (1987) . (6, 7 ,8 ,10,11, 14) 11. KAESER V. CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 20 CONN. APP. 309, 314 (1989) . (6,7 ,8,9) 12. KYSER V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF WESTPORT, 155 CONN. 236, 251 (1967) . (13, 14) 13. RAYBESTOS V. PLANNING, 442 A.2d 65, 67 (1982) . (13, 14) 14. RED HILL COALITION, INC. V. CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 212 CONN. 710, 723 (1989) . (11) 15 . TANNER V. CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 15 CONN. APP. 336 (1988) . (8) 16. TOFFOLON V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , 155 CONN. 558 , 560 (1967) . (13, 14) 17. TORSIELLO V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , 3 CONN. APP. 47 , 49 (1984) . (13) 18. WESTPORT V. NORWALK, 167 CONN. 151, 161. (9) (L) STATUTES AND REGULATIONS : 1. SECTION 22a-36, CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES (10) 2 . SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS REGULA- TIONS , SECTION 1.4 (10) 3. SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS REGULA- TIONS , SECTION 10.2 (10) STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE „ On or about June 20, 1989, the plaintiff, Fairway Estates, hereinafter "Fairway", submitted an application to the defen- dant, South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Comm- ission, hereinafter "Agency" , to conduct regulated activities in a wetlands/watercourse area as part of phase one of its proposed Pin Oak Estates residential subdivision, hereinafter "Subdivision" . The subject premises which Fairway claimed to own is a 47.4 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Clark Street northerly of Stanley Drive in the Town of South Windsor. The Subdivision abutting Clark Street consisted of six lots on approximately 9. 9 acres of the 47 .4 acre parcel . Fairway claimed that the 9. 9 acres contained 2. 7 acres of wet- lands . Its proposal would alter an existing brook by 100 feet and alter approximately . 05 acre of wetlands . There would be " constructed a subdivision road to be known as Pin Oak Trail with a cul-de-sac both of which would encroach into a 40 foot buffer area of the wetlands boundary. The regulated activities proposed included the construction of the roadway and storm water discharge from the roadway with- in the 40 foot buffer zone through a rip rap and into the actual wetlands area. Further, there would be a crossing of the wetlands by a common driveway from Clark Street to be constructed and utili- ties to be installed to serve lots 2 , 3 and 4. Also, there was provision for footing drains for lots 1, 2, 3 and 5 which would infringe upon the 40 foot buffer area. A public hearing on the application was held on September 25 , 1989 during which Fairway submitted testimony from its experts . (This was the second application by Fairway for the .same property and, therefore, the members of the Agency were already thoroughly familiar with the site. See Appendix, p. 8 of transcript of 9/25/89 public hearing, also ROR25 ; also Y 1 1.1 3/14/89 letter giving reasons for the first denial. ) The Agency did not hire its own experts to evaluate and report on the application. Town staff followed its customary pro- cedure and did not voice an opinion as to the amount of im- pact upon the wetlands or the validity of the application. ` However, members of the Agency expressed concern about the 1 amount of wetlands on particular lots . Commissioner Warren pointed out that Lot 3 carried almost half an acre of wet- lands . They also expressed concern about the Pin Oak Trail cul-de-sac being within 25 feet of the wetlands , within the 40 foot buffer area, and its potential negative impact on the wetlands itself. They additionally expressed concern about the proposed driveway for Lots 2 , 3 and 4 crossing the wet- lands resulting in a negative impact thereon. See Appendix. On October 30, 1989 , after further discussion with Fair- way' s representatives , the Agency voted to deny the applica- tion without prejudice. The reasons cited by Agency members at the meeting included the fact that on Lot 4 the house would be totally surrounded by wetlands, soil samples had not been provided by the applicant, there would be, as Fairway ad- mitted, storm water discharge from Pin Oak Trail in the buffer area and then into the wetlands itself; that the cul-de-sac on Pin Oak Trail was within the 40 foot buffer area and too close to the wetlands ; Commissioner Normen specifically based his vote upon the location of the cul-de-sac which he stated was too close to the wetlands ; there would be a major negative intrusion on the wetlands by the driveway providing access to Lots 2, 3 and 4; there was potential ponding where the crossing of the wetlands would occur; and the members were not convinced that no prudent and feasible alternative to crossing the wet- lands with the aforementioned driveway existed. See Appendix for transcripts excerpts and written reasons. From said decision, Fairway appealed to the Superior Court " which sustained its appeal, Walsh, Richard A. , Judge. (The words on page 1 of the Memorandum of Decision "through a 2 - narrow wetland (30') and minor watercourse" were taken from plaintiff' s application and were not conclusions of the Court. ) The reasons stated by the Court were, inter alia: M 1. The plaintiff offered expert evidence that the proposed _ regulated activity would have a negligible impact on the wet- lands. this was the only evidence offered at the hearing. . the Commission necessarily disregarded the only expert evidence available and relied on its own knowledge and exper- tise . . . The Agency must not disregard the only expert evi- dence available. . . when the Commission members lack their own expertise or knowledge. 2 . The potential effects of road and driveway construction, building of homes , and related activities , on a wetland area, is a complex issue. . . the Commission acts without substan- tial evidence when it relies on its own knowledge and experi- ence concerning technically complex issues . Emphasis added. 3. The Agency did not reveal publicly its special knowl- edge and experience and did not give notice of the material facts critical to its decision to afford an opportunity for rebuttal. 4. No member of the Agency made a comprehensive presenta- tion relating directly to the application. The few comments in the record cited by defendant were casual, conjectural and speculative. 5 . The proposed crossing by the driveway and the proposed location of Pin Oak Trail would have the least impact upon the wetlands . Therefore, it would not be prudent to eliminate Lots 3 and 4 nor feasible or prudent to relocate Pin Oak Trail. 6. "The opinion of the experts was unanimous that the proposed activity would have little or no adverse impact on the wetlands. The Commission ignored the testimony of the experts which was the only evidence on the issue. The record does not show that the Commission possessed any special knowl- edge or experience, and it , therefore, acted on its own knowl- edge or experience, even though the issues were technically 3 - complex." (The Court also stated, on page 7 of the Memorandum, that "the plaintiff presented evidence that all the lots comply with Town regulations". However, that was a statement by plain- tiff unsupported by evidence, and it referred to compliance with zoning, not the Inland Wetlands regulations . ) From that decision, the Agency has appealed to this Court . ARGUMENT A. THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF ROAD AND DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION, BUILDING OF HOMES AND RELATED ACTIVITIES ON A WETLAND AREA IS A TECHNICALLY COMPLEX ISSUE BEYOND THE EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE. DEFENDANT AGENCY MEM- BERS AND THAT, THEREFORE, SUCH MEMBERS CANNOT RELY ON THEIR OWN KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT UPON THE WETLANDS. 1. In Central Bank for Savings v. Planning and Zoning Comm- ission of the Town of Cromwell, 13 Conn. -App . 448, 454, 455 (1988) , the Court permitted the Commission members to rely upon their own knowledge concerning matters readily within the com- petence of lay members of a Commission, such as local traffic congestion, street safety and real estate needs . The Court rejected the trial court's holding that the determination of traffic congestion requires support from an expert and that personal observations of Commission members cannot be competent evidence to determine the future effect of traffic generation. The Court distinguished between members relying on their own knowledge and experience in matters of traffic congestion and street safety and relying on their own knowledge and experience on a subject as technically sophisticated and complex as pollu- tion control citing Feinson v. Conservation Commission, 180 Conn. 421, 427 (1980) in which the issue involved such a technically complex matter as the effect of the sewerage/ septic system on the wetlands . In Feinson, supra, the denial was based upon an extreme possibility of septic failure, cons- - 4 - tituting a public health hazard, with the introduction of septic effluent into surface waters. Therefore, the cases seem to hold that in issues of traffic congestion members may rely on their own personal knowledge and experience and in matters of pollution control, which the courts have held is a technically sophisticated and complex matter, the Comm- issioners may not rely on their own personal knowledge and experience. No case has held, as the lower Court has in the instant case, that the impact on the wetlands of road cons- truction and the existence of the roads , cul-de-sacs, drive- ways, etc. is too technically complex for the members of the Commission or Agency to rely upon their own personal knowledge and experience. The lower Court, in the instant case, seems to be breaking new ground in stating that such an issue is too technically complex for members of the Agency to rely on their own personal knowledge and experience. A traffic engineer generally has to take a four year coll- ege course in order to become a traffic engineer; yet, as in Central Bank, supra, the Court has permitted lay members of the Agency or Commission to make a judgment on such issues as traffic congestion and street safety, without technical expertise on their part , relying on their personal knowledge and experience. The Court held that these matters are readi- ly within their competence despite the fact that traffic en- gineers may disagree with the conclusions of the lay members which are based on their personal knowledge and experience. Therefore, even though in the instant case Fairway produced engineers to testify that the application would have a neg- ligible impact upon the wetlands , the Agency members should be allowed to rely on their own personal knowledge and exper- ience on this issue, just as they are allowed to rely upon their own personal knowledge and experience on issues of traf- fic congestion and traffic safety even though their conclu- sions may be contrary to those of qualified traffic engineers . The issues in the instant. case are no more technically com- plex than those of traffic congestion and street safety. 5 - Accordingly, based upon the above, the lower Court erro- neously concluded that the members of the Agency did not have the technical expertise to determine, from their own personal " knowledge and experience, whether or not the application would have a negligible or significant negative effect upon the wetlands. Further, there is nothing in the statutes or the legisla- tive history of the applicable statutes that requires that the members of an Inland Wetlands Agency be engineers or otherwise qualified as experts on these issues. (See Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525 (1987) for comments on statutes and their legislative history. ) To uphold the lower Court' s finding would be, in effect, to hold that an Inland Wetlands Agency must hire its own experts if they are to deny any application. 2. Assuming the lower Court 's conclusion that the subject issue is technically complex was correct, the Court' s conclu- sion that the Agency acts without substantial evidence when it relies on its own knowledge and experience concerning tech- nically complex issues is contrary to Kaeser v. Conservation Commission, 20 Conn. App. 309, 314 (1989) in which the Appell- ate Court stated, inter alia, "We do not agree with the plain- tiff's narrow reading of Feinson that, in technically complex matters, expert testimony is the only acceptable substantial evidence. This position would have reduced the Agency hear- ings to a nose count of experts : Plaintiffs : 2, Agency: 0. " And on page 315 , "If the position that nonexperts may offer reliable and substantial evidence requires more support, we find it in Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525 , 541 (1987) supra. " In Huck, supra, "the plaintiff offered testimony from four experts . . . while the Agency offered no expert testimony in rebuttal." The Supreme Court, nevertheless , upheld the Agency' s denial. Judge Berdon, in concurring in the decision in Kaeser, supra, in upholding the Agency' s denial, stated in regard to 6 - what constitutes expert evidence, "Such evidence comes from not only environmental scientists , engineers and the like, but also from those who gained their experience from practi- cal experience. Bryan v. Branford, 50 Conn. 246, 248 (1882) ." Emphasis added. B. THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE AGENCY MEMBERS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ARTICULATE THE REASONS FOR THEIR DECIS- ION, THE FACTS ON WHICH THEIR DECISION WAS BASED AND THEIR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE. 1. As stated above, the members did not have to rely upon the testimony of the plaintiff' s, Fairway' s, experts . 2. A search of the record indicates there was a basis for the Agency' s decision. (a) Several members stated that they had been to the subject area and had seen the unusually high amounts of water existing on the proposed subdivision lots (see trans- cripts of Public Hearing of September 25 , 1989 , ROR25 and Meeting of October 30, 1989, SROR dated March 2 , 1990. ) (See transcripts in Appendix also showing that the members had considered plaintiff' s prior application for this site, Page 8 of 9/25/89 public hearing, and were, therefore, thor- oughly familiar with the site. Also see Appendix for 3/14/89 letter giving reasons for the first denial, thereby fore- warning plaintiff of defendant' s concerns prior to this application. ) In Kaeser, supra, on page 316, the Court commented on the importance of this , citing the opinion of the Supreme Court in Huck, supra: "The commission members in the present case viewed the site, a factor the Supreme Court considered important. 'Knowledge obtained through personal observations of the locus may properly be con- sidered by the Agency in arriving at reasons given for its denial. ' Id. " (b) The members had before them the maps presented by the plaintiff and the plaintiff' s own admissions as to what encroachments would be made on the wetlands and the buffer 7 - areas. They questioned plaintiff' s experts both at the pub- lic hearing and at the subsequent meeting (See transcripts ROR 25 , SROR dated March 2 , 1990) , another factor considered important in Kaeser, supra, citing Huck, supra. On page 316 of Kaeser, supra, the Court stated: "The court noted that, as in the present case, the record showed 'active and probing participation by Agency members in questioning these experts . . . ' Id." (See Appendix for transcripts showing the ques- tioning of the experts by the members. ) (c) The members' questions and comments came at the pub- lic hearing and at the subsequent meeting, both of which were attended by plaintiff and its experts who had ample opportunity to offer rebuttal as suggested in Feinson, supra, and in Tanner v. Conservation Commission, 15 Conn. App. 336 (1988) . It should be noted that Tanner, supra, is distinguish- able from the instant case. The decision in Tanner, supra, was based upon the Commission incorrectly interpreting an expert' s testimony as being in opposition .to the application. (d) Many of the members were long-time members of the Agency who had acquired more than a layman' s knowledge of the effects various proposals have on wetlands and water- courses ; and as previously stated in the quotation from Judge Berdon, "Such (expert) evidence comes from not only environmental scientists , engineers and the like, but also from those who gained their experience from practical experience. " citing Bryan v. Branford, supra. Emphasis added. (e) It is clear from Kaeser, supra, and Huck, supra, that the above evidence, personal knowledge, etc. , is sufficient basis for the Agency' s action; and that it was not necessary for the members to articulate. further their experience, etc. ; as stated in. Kaeser, supra, (p. 316, footnote) : "While a numbered list of reasons would have been helpful, our duty, nonetheless, is to search - 8 - the record." Also, see Gagnon v. Inland Wetlands of the Town of Bristol, 213 Conn. 604, 605 (1990) requiring the Court to search the record. It is asking too much to have the members specifically describe their background and knowledge at each meeting, particularly when, as laymen, these members are not held to as exacting requirements of use of the language as are experts and professionals . The Supreme Court has consis- tently held that members of land use agencies are laymen and, as such, should not be held to a limited or strict interpretation of the language they use, but instead gives them latitude in the use of such language. Dubiel v. Zoning Board of Appeals of East Hartford, 147 Conn. 517 (1960) . (The reasons were stated in the letter of denial and should be sufficient , but even if they were inartfully stated, the Court should search the record, and if a review of the record supports the Agency' s action, it should be sustained. Westport v. Norwalk, 167 Conn. 151, 161. Kaeser, supra, and Gagnon, supra. ) Also, see Gagnon, supra, which states, on page 611, a local land use body is com- posed of laymen whose procedural expertise may not always comply with the multitudinous statutory mandates under which they operate." It would be nice if each member stated, for example, "I'm Roy Normen; I've been on this Agency 3 years and pri- or to that I was Chairman of the Avon Inland Wetlands Agency for 8 years . I am aware from my experience that roads and cul-de-sacs give off salts , heavy metals such as lead from gasoline, and give off oils and grease, all of which, in this case, will go into the buffer and the wetlands and this will have a significant negative impact on the wetlands . " He did say that he was concerned about the cul-de-sac being too close to the wetlands, but did not elaborate as just stated. His questions and comments at the hearing and meeting showed his knowledge and exper- 9 - ience and concerns, and although perhaps desirable, it should not be necessary for each member to articulate his experience, etc. , in as much detail as cited in the example. (Perhaps the above is the "common sense" reason given in Huck, supra, even though it might have been articulated better. ) The same is true of veteran member Walter Pekala who believed there would be a major negative intrusion, at least 100 feet, into the wetlands by the driveway giving access to Lots 2 , 3 and 4 (see his statement in the transcript of the October 30, 1989 meeting, next-to-last page : SROR dated March 2, 1990. ) As a veteran member, he was well aware, from the plans, from his visit to the site, and his own experience, as well as from common knowledge, that the same pollutants coming from the cul-de-sac would come from the driveway, that the culvert of the driveway would disturb the natural flow of the watercourse and the indigenous .character of the watercourse corridor, that by interrupting the corridor you interrupt the ability to act in a natural state, that such a culvert will adversely affect aquatic life and wildlife that would otherwise use and traverse the edge of the stream; which is contrary to the Agency regulations Section 1.4 and 10. 2 and the provisions of Sec. 22a-36 of the General Sta- tutes. However, it is unreasonable to expect each member, at each meeting/hearing, to elaborate in such detail on his background, experience and knowledge. Members should be allowed to take into account their knowledge gained from practical experience that culverts will interrupt the move- ment of wildlife/aquatic life and that roads and driveways give off oils, heavy metals , salt and sand that, if allowed to reach the wetlands, will have a significant negative im- pact upon them without having to articulate this knowledge and these concerns in detail. As a matter of fact, this is the type of knowledge common to experienced members that plaintiff' s experts should be able to anticipate. The concerns , as indicated in the record, were adequately 10 - expressed and were not speculation or conjecture as the lower Court concluded. "Reasons given by an Agency, presumably composed of lay persons , to justify its action, need not be in a form to satisfy the meticulous criterion of a legal expert . " Daughters of St. Paul , Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 17 Conn. App. 53 (1988) . "While the Commission's deliberations in the present case might have been clearer and its ultimate decision more artfully stated, we cannot say the Commission failed to act properly in this instance. " Red Hill Coalition, Inc. v. Conservation Commission, 212 Conn. 710, 723 (1989) . C. THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE THE LEAST IMPACT ON THE WETLANDS AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE IMPACT WAS NEGLIGIBLE. Clearly, just because it would have the least impact does not mean the impact would be negligible. One conclu- sion does not follow the other. It is up to the Agency to determine whether the impact will be negligible, and based upon the personal knowledge and experience, the viewing of the site, the plans , etc. , as stated above, the Agency had a right to determine the impact would be negative and significant. The Court should not have substituted its judgment for that of the Agency, which it did. D. THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE BURDEN IS NOT ON THE PLAINTIFF TO SHOW THERE IS NO FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE. The plaintiff has the burden of showing that no prudent and feasible alternative exists. Gil v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourse Agency, 23 Conn. App. 379 , 385 , 386 (1990) citing Huck v. Inland Wetlands , supra. The Court , in the instant case, concluded (p . 8 of its Memorandum) that the regulated activity would have only a negligible impact on the wetlands and, therefore, elimination of Lots 3 and 4 as suggested by Agency members would not be prudent ; that because the proposed crossing would have the least - 11 - impact it was the most feasible and prudent alternative ; that as to Pin Oak Trail, because the proposed location would have the least impact , it would not be feasible or prudent to re- locate it . These conclusions are erroneous . 1. ) Elimination of Lots 3 and 4 would eliminate the need for the driveway. That elimination would have the least impact on the wetlands . The question then is whether elimi- nating these two lots is prudent, economically feasible. There was no testimony that eliminating these two lots would be economically prohibitive; no testimony that it must be a six lot subdivision; and, as stated above, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that such an alternative, elimination of the two lots , is not prudent ; and it did not sustain that burden. No real estate appraiser testified as one did in Gil, supra. 2 . ) The conclusion that the proposal would have the least " impact does not justify a conclusion that, therefore, there was no prudent and feasible alternative. 3 . ) Elimination of the two lots , or a small bridge over the wetlands instead of a culvert, are just two alternatives ; and it is not even up to the Agency to suggest them. It is the burden of the plaintiff to present all alternatives and to convince the Agency that none of them are prudent or feasible; and this the plaintiff failed to do. 4. ) The Court improperly substituted its judgment for the Agency' s in determining from the evidence presented, and lack thereof, that no feasible and prudent alternative exists. 5. ) Pin Oak Trail was located where it was because of the possibility of building Phase II. Phase II may never be built and should not be the sole reason for the road location. There was no evidence furnished by the plaintiff that without Phase II the cul-de-sac could not have been moved out of the present buffer zone; and it was up to the plaintiff to show this alternative was not prudent or - 12 - feasible. E. BASED UPON THE ABOVE , THE COURT IMPROPERLY SUBSTITUTED ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE AGENCY ON WHETHER THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE WETLANDS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT, WHETHER THE MAPS AND PLANS PRESENTED SHOWED SERIOUS NEGATIVE ENCROACH- MENT IN THE BUFFER AREA, WHETHER THE DENSITY WAS TOO HIGH AND WHETHER THE APPLICATION COMPLIED WITH INLAND/WETLANDS REGULATIONS. "In review of claims of error (the appellate court is) . . . mindful that courts do not and should not substitute their judgment for that of the local authority." Ra bes- tos . v. Planning, 442 A. 2d 65 , 67 (1982) ; Hall v. Planning and Zoning, 153 Conn. 574, 577 (1966) ; Torsiello v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 3 Conn. App. 47, 49 (1984) ; Kyser v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Westport, 155 Conn. 236, 251 (1967) ; Toffolon v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 155 Conn. 558 , 560 (1967) . CONCLUSION 1. The lower Court was in error in concluding that the issue of the impact on the wetlands of roads and driveways was so technically complex it was beyond the members of the Agency. To uphold the lower Court on this issue would, in effect , require local Inland/Wetlands Agencies to hire their own geologists, hydrologists, land planners, soil scientists , environmentalists , etc. for each application in order to be able to deny an application in light of the applicant's customarily providing such experts in favor of the application. "Either hire your own experts or approve every application." 2. The reasons for denial were adequately expressed in the letter of denial; but even if they were inartfully stated, the Court was required to search the record. How- ever, there was substantial evidence in the record of sig- - 13 - nificant negative intrustion on the wetlands and the fail- ure to prove no feasible and prudent alternative existed to justify the decision of the Agency. It was based upon the plans submitted, questioning of the plaintiff' s ex- perts, and personal knowledge obtained through personal observations of the site. Comments and concerns were raised by members. of the Agency in time to give plaintiff and its experts an opportunity for rebuttal. The hearing and subsequent meeting were fundamentally fair as in Huck, supra, and as in Huck, supra; "It can hardly be claimed that the Agency, as did the Conservation Commission, in Feinson v. Conservation Commission supra, 428-29 're ly- ing ely- ing on its own knowledge and experience, acted in a manner which placed its data base beyond the (plaintiff' s) scru- tiny. "' (Page 542 of Huck, supra. ) 3. As stated, the Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Agency. 4. "The Agency' s decision must be sustained if an examination of the record discloses evidence that supports any one of the reasons given." Huck, supra, at pages 539- 540 citing, inter alia, Daviau v. Planning Commission, 174 Conn. 354 (1978) . 5. "If an Agency has made a decision honestly and fairly exercised, that decision should be sustained. " Raybestos . v. Planning, 442 A. 2d 65 (1982) ; Kyser v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 236 (1967) ; Toffolon v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 558 (1967) . The Agency decision was honestly and fairly exercised based upon all of the above. Therefore, the defendant Agency respectfully prays that this appeal be sustained. DEFENDANT SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WET- LANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION 14 - RichArd M. Rittenband Its Attorney 15 - YY �: Col i.Ili t+�4t(t?di - .IFl�S\ �I�I A\fEV�Al ''. •ft�Y Ail/A\?��'�I��.�1 � .. AN) tl,f;$ (t t0`,�r,+i;:b, �Y(l,�Vl,�f'�G"!�V� �l Y �>��i6i`tl,ll� „ F.(I.(il✓lt;+� - / lU)117�1,,ifr,l ill, 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa es 1. Letter of denial from defendant to plaintiff dated November 2 , 1989 A-1 2. Sec. 1.4 of the Inland Wetlands Agency reg- ulations A-2 3 . Sec. 10.2 of the Inland Wetlands Agency regulations A-3 4. Sec. 22a-36 of the General Statutes A-4 5. Excerpts from transcript of Public Hearing of September 25 , 1989 A-5 through A-12 6. Excerpts from transcript of Meeting of October 30, 1989 A-13 through A-23 7 . Letter of denial from defendant to plain- tiff dated March 14, 1989 denying prior application A-24 0 Tiovt ap S a 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 it coop AREA CODE 203/644-2511 November 2, 1989 CERTIFIED NAIL Lawrence A. Piano 71 Woodland Street Manchester, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Piano: Re: Application #89-54P, Pin Oaks At the October 30, 1989 meeting of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, the Commission voted to deny without prejudice, Application #89-52P. You may re-apply at any time taking - into consideration the concerns expressed by the Agency. The concerns expressed by the Agency are: 1 . Crossing the wetlands. 2. Ambitious plan for the site. Density too high considering the amount of wetlands on this site. 3 . Lots 3 ad 4 should not be part of the plan. 4 . Pin Oak Trail encroaching into 40' buffer. 5. Potential damage impounding or ponding on the site. 6. Direction of road into rear area of site. Very truly yours, i James A. Lombardi, Chairman Inland Wetlands Agency/ • Conservation Commission A-1 1 .4 The inland wetlands and watercourses of the state of Connecticut are an indispensable and irreplaceable but fragile natural resource with which the citizens of the state have been endowed. The wetlands and watercourses are an ' interrelated web of nature essential .to an adequate supply of surface and -underground -water; to hydrological stability and control of flooding and erosion-; to the recharging and purification of. groundwater; and to the existence of many forms of animal, aquatic and plant life. Many inland wetlands and watercourses have been destroyed or are in danger of destruction because of unregulated use by reason of the deposition, filling or removal of material, the diversion or obstruction of water flow, the erection of structures and other uses, all of which have despoiled, polluted and eliminated wetlands and watercourses. Such unregulated activity has had, and will continue to have, a significant, adverse impact on the environment and ecology of the state of Connecticut and has and will continue to imperil the quality of the environment thus adversely affecting the ecological, scenic, historic and recreational values and benefits of the state for its citizens now and forever more. The preservation and protection of - the wetlands and watercourses from random, unnecessary, undesirable and unregulated uses, disturbance or destruction is in the public interest and is essential to the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of the state. It . is, therefore, the pur-oose of these regulations (see Section 22a-36 of the Connecti^ut General Statutes as amended) to protect the citizens of the town by making provisions for the protection, preservation, maintenance and use of the inland wetlands and watercourses by minimizing their disturbance and pollution; maintaininq and improving water quality in accordance with the highest standards set by federal, state or local authority; preventing damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation;- preventing loss of fish and other beneficial aquatic organisms, wildlife and vegetation and the destruction of the natural habitats thereof; deterring and inhibiting the danger of flood and pollution; protecting the quality of wetlands and watercourses for their conservation, economic, aesthetic, recreational and other public and private uses and values; and protecting the state's potable fresh water supplies from the dangers of drought, overdraft, pollution, misuse and mismanagement by providing an orderly process to balance the need for the economic growth.of the state and the use of .its land with the need to protect its environment and ecology in order to forever guarantee to the people of the state, the safety of such natural resources for their benefit and enjoyment and for the benefit and enjoyment of generations yet unborn. A-2 10 . 2 Pursuant to Section 22a-41 of the General Statutes, all decisions in granting a permit, granting a permit with conditions or limitations, or denying a permit shall take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances including, but not limited tos a. The environmental impact of the proposed action; b. The alternatives to the proposed action; c. The relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long- term productivity; d. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed activity; e. The character and degree of injury to, or interference with, safety, health or the reasonable use of property which is caused or threatened; f. The suitability or unsuitability of such activity to the area for which it is proposed. A-3 § 22a-36• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION s § M46. Inland wetlands and watercourses. Legislative finding The inland wetlands and watercourses of the state of Connecticut are an indispensable and irreplaceable but fragile natural resource with which the citizens of the state have been endowed. The wetlands and watercourses are an interrelated web of nature essen- tial to an adequate supply of surface and underground water; to hydrological stability and control of flooding and erosion; to the recharging and purification of groundwater; and to the existence of many forms of animal, aquatic and plant life. Many inland wet- lands and watercourses have been destroyed or are in danger of destruction because of.unregulated use by reason of the deposition, filling or removal of material, the diversion or obstruction of water flow, the erection of structures and other uses, all of which have des wiled polluted an} p d eliminated wetlands and watercourses. Such unregulated activity has had, and will continue to have, a significant, adverse impact on the environment and ecology of the state of Connecticut and has and will continue to imperil the quality of the environment thus adversely affecting the ecological, scenic, historic and recreational values and benefits of the state for its citizens now and forever more. The preservation and protection of the wetlands and watercourses from random, unnecessary, undesir- able and unregulated uses, disturbance or destruction is in the public interest and is essential to the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of the state. It is, therefore, the purpose of sections 22a 36 to 22a-45, inclusive, to protect the citizens of the state by making provisions for the protection, preservation; maintenance and use of the inland wetlands and watercourses by minimizing their disturbance and pollution; maintaining and improving water quality in accordance with the highest standards set by federal, state or local authority; preventing damage from erosion, turbidity or silta- tion; preventing loss of fish and other beneficial aquatic organisms, wildlife and vegetation and the destruction of the natural habitats thereof; deterring and inhibiting the danger of flood and pollution; protecting the quality of wetlands and watercourses for their conservation, economic; aesthetic, recreational and other public and private uses and values; and protecting the state's potable fresh water supplies from the dangers of drought, overdraft, pollution, misuse and mismanagement by providing an orderly process to balance the need for the economic growth of the state and the use of its land with the need to protect its environment and ecology in order to forever guarantee to the people of the state, the safety of such natural resources for their benefit and enjoyment and for the benefit and enjoyment of generations yet unborn. (1972, P.A. 155, 4 .1, eff. May 19, 1972.) • 70 A-4 Pale 8 promoted, and others will decline as a result of the development of the site, um there are two bird species that may be :.eliminated but they' re not rare. Um, there are a " couple of turtles zrd one snake that also may be negatively affected, because they _:se the mix of open fields and uh, hardwoods but that's not raally a wetland primarily a wetland problem there. Um, we have :Wade a recommendation to try and preserve the ti'._t:::hhy edges, because that 's one of the significant wilAlifs habitats on the site. And uh, we indicate' that could best be accomplished by placing conservation easements on the wetiards, and also :'.ome of the adjacent uplands And there is a conservation easement shown an the larger scale pate, or rather the smaller shale plan, and it does respect that uh recommendation, it's our pinion that due to the fact that tf lire's a relatively low intensity development and only one direct '. impact, whAn. is A crossing of .a ch?annelized ir:termittent ^ water course, thatthe rr -Je t will have a negligible r _:hhpaC . _gin o.e al _ Wetland al ,eS !'- the Site, UM, i'd be Q ppy to arswer any questions. Are there any questions for this gentleman m_an from commissioners? 4Jaltnr'"• r- LM, is it correct that this a substantially the same proposal that you had presented previously with some minor !;}', j M i'•?t the applicant answer that •'{ua:';'i. !% The p.;_.n is substantially the sa;hhr_ as .ha., which the commission had acted on previCusly this year. Um, this time however, we have provided additional information, . which the commission did not feel they had during the last application, that includes the geotechnical engineering study which was performed by Dr . Clarence Welty, um the report which you have before you, prepared by Environmental Planning Services, and we have done some relocation of activities within the 'regulated area, to minimize the impact of this =avalopment. However , the impacts which we're proposing currently um, really are the minimal for this site. A-5 Page 9 Is it correct to understand that uh, the items or the footprints marked 10, 11 :and 12 are not part of this consideration'? 1 That 's correct. 7hase •u liable squares or footprints um, have been provided as the commission •end, staff had requested, a preliminary layout for the rMmai ndar of the lane'. Um, the buildable square or lots or footprints, however you'd like ire' 'ef_rance- them, numbered 7-12, are currently the pr el imi..lary 1 ay,—.sut which we would use, should d we pr-gr as - ,A th this project, into Phase Twin. P UJ - ? in the area '- F • _t It ire the existing "building is, directly behind it, ,d ? ,joining lands, it was lily wi''. se-vati -+:^. duri _ the _ .:st rain fall , that That turned ,J,,Jnto a Wge rivsr, '^r' ._t perhaps the . . . (change tape) that the edge of lot 6 which h would be, I believe the north r side o lot 67 yl rdering an an area that was intensely r i loaded, . :end• again' itc _ cut previous concerns about brats being gown :n that 3reD, its ar unwalkable, unworkable area, that uh, no matter w at you id FLU the :area of lot 67 the crossing joint 7or tha ,_inoaks would still be, have to be peered, since thats a, essentially the some as a flood plain, when it comes to Align ',,rater and water washing through that area. Guess, my pter or,± ch erv3ti -n I don't see where too many of these lots, and including 4 and 5, re really buildable. "hey' rm •a2a ir, iterations of how ys:.� can c:.1t:..p, and be able to put a 90 x 90 square, but not bfe very practical as to being able to put a house up on that and M ? . .v/•ab Tie cordit` on, expecting that you ra going to have flood waters, and high water during any major storb. 1 don' t hear any evidence here tonight that suggests that you' ve planned around that . Uhl the footprints also don' t show as to whether those houses Can be built with '.basements address those items under �i��i:i. Could you ��dre1� I believe that the geotechnical report prepared by Clarence Welty rovers construction or the site. The feasibility and suitability for construction on the site as far as the compatibility of each individual lot, for individual development, we strongly believe that all the lets, as shown are suitabi'_ and feasible for development , Uml they all enceed the minimum z !n:_r?g requirements they comply ' 0-1 zoning subdivision and wetland regulations, um, an far. as A-6 P ag 11 A with Fl,an:lir'a ar.d Z�_�;i^g ° j� Those issues will to handled wi } the Zuni �ii'if35 /b� �n although we have dome '.+Qrk with h i - e ���"'EEE«� Commission +-o lines _��n be that .:soya 1:_� r.'.dequ,ate site_ end ��1 i •gin •�. ,1� provided from Fin Oak: Tr jil '-nto :lark: Street . � �. :,-_ac a �rol.t have ding to lots: Excuse mF' the _that y road cut rJ that c �.t,-t p 4 + F k Street? Yes. additic:-191 road - h �, 4Fre+��' , one for -Pin .t ,_,n Mark ar k yes, there are t.-i�. � ad ::�. � �,p the �;a,-•-• �.�... ;},_� i:: ;nlnl„� driveway, Oak Trail , and second 1 Okay, G::-.�.c cruse the maps thst you provided doesn' t show that, h .t +.-.1 a had gotten prior to the meeting. J; that �� .^1..t�:=1r :i�.r _d��.. �-1,.a+ !� ly�?i I asked. 00, :23n, t how the ond out, Which map are you -afmrring � •.ayp the purpos p! 2 "^ C 2'.1y-ir'C?" its indicated in the block, 7 r tO mcc "!'Pony th title ssrent Um, it does have inventory .i .c.: h as _..?l'r_ roadway, UM7 outlined an it ,Ma JO- f sz-t:•:`< < Tc,r..c, �}:ic, that and the j:'?':J.i id . ... - = •-.i tted along with plan in coqjnnation with thethe1;1 plan c^�uiu.. 1:,•� complete e. _ package. The fc_otf:rint5 that you f?civ- v_Y hL?, 1^_, else, thepoint4;-_ ,1:� dr i veways :and � y, sy,at we F.i?at Waiter had brought - ='.: _... , C'_ Suho':r' Wi'1er-y_? the don' t have any information Psy,� f.,.t the wetlands designation Q would d g� and how the-•y' would of „�.sjgna� :� n - 1_p�.eed at tz?ice tim!a. in the area, where those houses are pr _, �_r g sit! c=i' oc_at ed i _:r , ,w . lose Or how they would b _ t► era an way how far from the watlinds they ,,�'_uldn�tranlla.te ,.t to t`?is of getting that information so We `.__k and we c�i�r:�= _i when c�F� Vic] 1�1_�t a^''� We '� I�Inp`? For our re instead 1 scrutinize -his, Ws' Could have :���I,eth7 ":L: t:. say, saying Well maybe its here tut maybe it;, here4 I don't `now? A-7 Page 12 - information off the 100 stale plant we We couldto add that P un�_bs'_ured for Phase tried t'_ E`er-'P }`.''� p-•rti'�Ltlar tan as �1 __Qiyt could One as p':'�si^le, in order : :,at um, our ec l.�n, We wanted '_=nJs with that particular p , focus on his P , t:,,-} would a,_1_ompany his report, and to dedicate um, a pan 3•. Um the problem, the commission. r highlight those are= ,s - for t_h i r41"iT:cltion onto' any give`` wit}' trying to ;3L!t a=_ mL.� } � ' � f�l"' depard�!'i� on what that -• _a s•_methir._ Y d .ins Lt,ht at plan, 15 v. y.�, , .to Put onto What pL 1 1 rd information y':-'L!" trying r^•1. :all, of the information wh'c" is th.ats t1he reasc:. . }a 1_t ,_ the plan, 1 _n +alp .:.._.j' ..; :ilon plan i'.3 ;h ,. contained - � � �1�.•,,.�• =nv• ronir.el-tat report .which h accompanie•.; - - _.f tye house is, the footprints on May. but +;}ha impactwith these lot sizes will have a. the ;�.:,'..,s.=s :n ,Junction, w �" I,r t,le soils in the area, direct Affect � t--,e we{-1ar�s, e Without that, _rei_ ??f r Y: .ned I,rt heY . th4y 1;11_:+.sld i her y ; thease houses are r J ,� , }._. , an 1 f r,_Y "y' 1wr. :-e f, T --'r t v .,- s t i r g r i t�}h{ on top 1_I 1 _t - :2 tT ,_, I 1 Cl Lv 1 S ? - g'. n!� i i 1-i_' 2 1 1'C 1 ' _�a '''�u5 a .�1�i:-1 to �e: i 1 • } annina �f'rvil_es, we + l M: -� t If'. 1s Ervir�:�nmen aL r-•• and U(� Ri}A!} :.L•..:i C7 a.. i h Plana� = do our review, L VGA- '••tat,' 2 full e=} 'mil i =ll:? ^�i_ih-'�i LJl-t1'^n i. also. `.o that we wf=r`� expected ed th,� commission has a set ` to be located when we ''~ the houses were gong =' a� g :?4Jc?re �'f 4v}lEre the :'i_ :� � } 1-vf }}tP grading did our repQr•t, an? Yalre ,idlytha }Cognizant Z^0 fort ,jars 1 t can,7 1- show_Iw - that ` ,d ,ale o =Cling yu— .jl,!� t:i: y.... Lls}Yat' del information ~1 ati � just t_nd'Ld to be be iiL to be read Witt the full Scale .��.l� •�7 Robert mentioned, :� that information • detail drawings- 'SO, we 'mid }ia`J - um opinion, and in a s c resider e in _ur t f _.f c"i`/alia�l _, and It 4:aa } .�.1r. lily re'='_llel_ . :•ir aft or the engineer, bu�. it' s_ I.r the fact am n_ , g reV1e'Ai�l'� t�;!:Srs dra';rings, that none �_ f �;}le }1i�me'�11]r the nevi �reviewing ...,::dos es lie within either the wetlands adjacent to the wetlands, and that was Part regulated area ad., maE::e I�lur , to come to of the facts upon which ;�e relied to � be a.; significant impact our opinion that there wouldn't y A nds fI-,_m the proposal - but �1 th e wetlands_n t + t have t down irl , ♦...V2 L c ;1 aF•,�',Yl?'�_ate that , 1 f �+ _=sr' �i -._:'2 c"yd we can' t � - i" it' s '•'_t there then we '- ('l+ writing, � address i t . A-8 -C� �1'K r'�..... Page 13 _ r Um, I dobelieve • t' s on t"e plans. A a ti oi+:ayj but ,;:man ;J�'':=: d0 we have physically- ar words, we Have these maps, do we haYe something additional with the footprintz and he same geclgraptical location, so we know where th=y .re in aonjunction to the wetlandF, to :a goes � therms t,:_ the pond in the back: and lwaie that _ '.� tlr�_:.ig�1 -, � � t l e L� w how they fit :_n here? 1 I tllE' depressions, ":: r1__ •... � i Were to _o out right row, with his map out to this area, and try to deli t _ t.ry vc find lucre these hC!U3es, �. the footprints wouldbe, with the asp T have to "are may there' s no y 7 Zan do tynt , l T1C{r The t� h,� . j ,. information that you' re a okin_: for is in the ,IV sub-'di ..._ _ : n sit plan, at °��.' =i�"al% it does indicate y:,�".ir 1, es building squar:_ and yw.i` house. r Fine '•T_hr. Can, � carry t wi `h me? Can we Get copies Of `` at Well , 11 d lika it. 1 can' t spe,_k for anybody else, but like to know i:. he information yKky1�" naveh � tc._. alreadythat ya, s airmadyprovided, 2 can make COPIRS for you. 'lt?va it '_lzo, _a•_ when h a _they O .._1M lamr have an overlay, which they could lay on top of hiz it would Shc-y exactly where it } i at . At least . that ' s my point . YOU know., *at"- W-1.11 take _are of it. t`"�` I have a question 'Id like tr ask. And this is in reference to one of ". r. mcCahiijls comments in his letter of June 29th - And 1 haven' t heard it addressed, or maybe I was sleepingswiething throlat:lh i't , but since it's a G ll_lta uh, phase n.^. _ sub-divi ion with 9.9 acres and um, tha question is :f he. 5. ? s:ras flow much of it is .„retiands? A-9 Page 14 ` There's no cal:_:'ati_-In t 'at would indicate in the E lots, acre pa-, :el the percentage of it, the numerical ^umber of acres is w'_';';. Okay. Of the S. . say:r?s, ,ppro imately •''.7 2 , �?' a I � ,. i ve tl.. ac Ltai figure acres, .-r 27% is 'wetlands. And for the commiss_ gin' s .n . _ ;,e•ation, um, and also_ for your agents in-Format.- or., .:s - -:' t menti--n this to him when 1 left th m can his r, ,!:, 1%.-t'-, we did bring three :'gip:es, thrm-C additi' na.'•. :�d::?� '�; thR' sl:b-division plan, one 00 which Lam, .s a f, lCZ y', �tIs stamped an�J Sig^sad by vhe j?",, i.�' ,�•� 's�al.ne-ar- , ,ter:d si gin,='� �y >> land s;..tirvAy�:�r-. �Coul d J,7u Um, W4-t '' 4-ct 1 o4- Wit, hC,W mug:- 1=f 1 0': � -is w2+ 1a_.r!• :-.,t, _ .L.; 7 �znnt ice? Corc rn-id about, gust say _'t 4, e area, alr,u it sE'2Ts that, lo' ^ - T--:3.y,' i:=-t 4 1•3 a n *3 a,r'a Um, from that 1.8E acres .s _:pl and s•_' 1 :5, t"a uet'and area on that particular lot is 81,009 sq+,a,re feet . rnuest i on tc:= f ai + , I ... ". � Cuesti:-n +:_,:_ Fai:;�:> Lot .J _3 i a 1'I a_ r�-�v'Jhl:}l a.mcst ha I— an acr-a as wEtlands. i underst-and lrC�'n17 y-_i :rin :-�t y;__4r '.>U_ TO i_u 1 1--f 4::':i s, but _<<M, Wc,U r appet:r t';at y_�ur not going to F:ave m, ch ::-f -a yard in s_r,i _r_.'.aas. Useable yard. i inean Lim, I would assume the hc,mcowner would have a right to expect he cold p_,t a picnic table in his yard without it floati,,-g away. And it doesn't appear in some of these lots, that your going Piave useable back: yard, y.:-ur going to have a, I mein i f you say your going to have a 9? x O free cif the wu't1_a.nd, that' s aF,out all you've of lr: some casts. Is it not? Not that ' s not correct. iJi,th lot number 3' S l.iin, the wetlaand area is ;'?, eao square feet, the non-wetland area is 30t223 feet, or . 69 acrzs. Um, which is i:ert.ainly en"DUC11h A-10 CA 0) at 4-N 01 PJ 4-1 0 jr 0 ri, --1 S: (11 El rl S: 4.1 4.1 AN 431 C Iti US I..ry 1rSL- ). A C 43 1311 71: L: Qj k: at ill 4-1 Q 1-1 4.1 U, .,4 4 c 4.1 "U 'u 4-1 ej 4�- -4 4.2 1-' 4> fe C 4-1 5,.. -4 1-- 4.1 -1: c tfl 4-1 I'll Q1 t i k" 4-'- -u 0) (if >s S 3 c v -[1 41 T-1 4' 41 41 ri � ve 4 r1l C! L --I -,I rlj 4-, 11.1 111, 1111 ej L.re 4-1 'u ,- CL U.-I c > I-1 U1 it) bl D Z) N 5- 4-> Ljo 4-1 -1 c C. T> -J -e 6 S. :I to rq 4- !' j., C, EL il Cl 4-1 W ej 1�. 4-1 X: C fr V-! 5' CL W k f7i :t Fi •-4 ;!j : i'l m V1 fri - $- 56. 73 4�1 Lo id W) ill - -I %. C 41 iE 4 _S: 1: - V.* J fri 0 - -u �.l 4:1 T Tj Li U r1l 4:* 4., 07, 7" -P 4- } 3 Ill ,1 41 C, C, -13 4-1 i i -13 P.1 S: to Ul to V Cl 1.4 4- 4- 4.1 (1) rjj n 4-1 Ce L.'. .,j r-I. ri RI 4 S7 k=- fr in 41 C C e i 131 $- 11 _;t ELI fro r-I cl C I: < 4-1 L C. kA 4:- Il al fri ril Rl 4+ (LI Id frj • 4-- T1 L.- ij1 F= -1: us CA04 n 4JO Wu Oi -J -4-1 W rr) "tj 4.1 all A 0 -17: 4- - E 4.1 -4 =5 UI 'Tj 4-1 E 41 r0 S-. 4:: 0 k !l- C, 4-. tj 11 �- -4 41 3� fit C' f1i ri , tSJ -;r C 4!. Iry < Ur c -,4 0 _I - I: D 4-1 4.)- t-1 'U 17.1 41 CI -4 C G: ri 5- >, .-1 0 C IT-0 k 1.1 71 ul 51. C- 'IN 1.9 .,4 1 r--- 61 1fi --4 fj -1, 1: fro S: Ro r I: Q! . c at :J of <E Ill at Ll 0 111 11 0 J I !1 -A 4.1 -4 C 3 > Ci J it fr, -.1 j :X 4-1 rrj rd 1Tj (D J L, :, c >N "i t, C-14 -1 -u C, (ki 4�1 C: 0) 7.j 410 fr.; co 2 S.1 IT ce 111 4-:1 F. L1 4, to c > fir W, ('j N :j cl rr > t1 to ul N cl Ci 'U 1ii 4-1 t U C' trI (LI 3,- n- tq 41 .-a 01 4 (11 -2t C. C 0 N ....I CL (11 -4 .,-1 4�1 4-1 0) F1 to E C Ce C, 4- W1 4:: 0 G. D 'm CL Ul -P Ql Cf J�- -,4 ELI 41 LA tA -4 4-N 3 tv C-11 -4 -,1 CL $-. ).% ill ill (11 .,4 E 4- -.4 cl 03 iq f UI V 61 :1 (u ra -Z c 'a T., rg c -+- ul Ill 111 .1 1E W C, - in 4-1 4.). S 41 1: im 171 QJ 'U u E ru Co (..j E 1-4 :J, CL If, -0 f!; C U, ul Cl %- Iry Co cl to fl to 4) co < < (1 -u T CL lj 73 E1 4:1 U 3t 56- 113 0 4> at Ul W - 73 Lp -cl tn C rd 5.. Fri ri.j (15 111 to C 4-1 In c C, 4- ILI < Ill 4-1 r1i Ti to m rd rL r�, s: ("t 'a ri 4.1 -S7 k- . > W) -u $- W 4> -0 1.1 X. al Il - ..4 rD III re r 'D c sI- ul -T.J 'i %- (11 -r.j (I) r:rl ru- rv, ...I Cl 4y N 4-> 4-1 CL M I's V co QJ 5- ul 4-, 1- u 4�- 14 4- 4.3- 'tJ li 3 at > 41% In 69 Cl T C: L71 v-< 111 (4 fu r I I rre C, C 'a r LU l 3S: -,-I Qj C-1 L71 In ..I 1--f 5- 91 ul 4-3, tfl -L' 41 V^fry 4.1 4-31 Cle 43- 4v rlj -U a r -,4 4.1 43 VI C (1) --1 X Co 0 ro -CI Co 13 4a 4.1 PI 4-1 4.- -L' 4-1 '- EL t" 1.4 41 C. -1 4> $. 56. (y C 1 t*: -1-4 F 0 fit to 4.*;, 111 0 CT, tq Fri Pi .13 1) 13 s- (5 9.1 4> 7.3 RI 4-1 V r- ari at a w > 3 r-- Vj .13 c ru 4., w 13 S_ X Co .13 x -P -4-1 (LI IF > 4N 0 --!-, 0 4-N "i cro kil us (11 aj fit I V C, u C11 ri S: -j c of -4 5- E- S� (.1. �l �7 I N 4-' CL -P 4.)- -4 fri Cr lil .0 M 4-1 s- QI 4-1 11ji Co :1 Ln :3 .,q 4z- .4-1 It•4-1 111 Cr --q 5. E 4�- co 4�1 W In 0 4-1 C 'll W 171 bi 4j, 5- rzl-:4 V fill 4-1 1: rri 'U Irl fro I-- T• 11 In 4-1. In 111 '14- c rl -,4 fO 0) -V M Ill-14 US Uj to 4-1 13 Lit < 4.11 Cf lFj (11 C VJ 4.1 ni at P.1 4-1 4-1 (it 5L. C 4-1 t! (LI tp (d -4 -,4 4 GI ..I c C :J, a) .4 Cl fr� 1: 1�if 0 iLv ri -4 4-1 4:- Cl --- 111 4-1 4.1 -.1 C, 4'- !�' fj >1 ell III 4r U tri rL_Y 0 0 40 4-1 '- C' :i 41 XJ -4 C5 (11 zt F .J 4 L: 1.11 Qj :3 ::i to :j C 4> -14 C" 5- rr, kyll Ll 43 IT) -Y lu Co v h. -To :� 4J a, 4, -e 4' 41 Cj VJ or 1.1 Ul )�; - .1 :J, -!t JE 4- >, -4 Al 4 t- X 41 Cl S,- 4-N III >-. Q -4 Ul -1 4JI fit -,-I 4a fri r.11 41A C, - I.-. Ll 4 4> Vj RI T3 -4 Wl ' r S: 41 -,-1 -LI �11 0.1 Crl 3 Ui Cr c> fit I'll I rri V (D at It -P 4-" Q 4-, c C, cl 1: -47. Qf .,-I C -1 C, 43 (li 4-> fro f-I I R) 5. 4.1 -�Z .0 CL S: -P rIll 4j 1 kq 4-)1 fri X 4-1 '1-! 0) rl Ct cl 43 ri It .4 Li s.. 1-11 4'� 4y UI 5- Ul 4a C, w rl 0, 4.1 r- 4 Q "I W, 1�--a J.- t:l -+.- E- CJ Lt. C, C -L3 Lt. • Ul Cr IJI 4.'- Ill r"i C III -S:' In :-j 'N > 4- (- 4> 3,. 4JI 0 Q -'Y 4:. rt. Uv Q C bli, II- ty, I!, 1,7i -:i rr) 4-N--j Cf r, R' S- E j • -41 ---1 4J, W SI. Cf -1 Ci k-1 3 3 ul r5l 5- 4-1 Us ri rlj 43- > E C: %- nti CL-13 fri Cf LY I: rill x Cr- 4�1 T.1 Ul 4> Of C a! 4JI 5. r�j tro 4-) OL -4 4�' 4!1 rL Ill (11 4-41 C. P) el Cf 4 a) -P to 0 Ct it r: 4> -0 C 4:' U 41'a -u t" Cr Oj > r u, C! ti "U c c to 4.N F= ri 4.:' 0 bl, Z: Ul 4> Ill Ul U Cf 4-v W CI cro Tj 13 -C C! Cl 41 i5 C: 4�- 4 UT LA '3 X 0 c V- U :j Cf ril c co C kill 4- 4 --f 4)- a (11 4-1 e- C 4-� P , 15--.1 to -c 4.31 4--1 96 C Ul 0 bl E 4-, Cl J CL ill Lt. Ill .1 Vi .- 70 0 4-, 1�1 (D Ill UI >, > ... .5: .1:-. -4 43. ':j 2t 51. 4-31 Y (LI F-7 - - !? fli a, �N 0 13 Of Ill ffi 43 -4 C, c ki c 0 (i) Z: c w 4-1 lil (LI S: I& - _!7 r, . iz S. r- -4 (U 17, M VI E7844 4.31 0 A Ul 4 4J, 4- < 0 < •--'t 43 U 1: 11 :.If x 4- Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agiaey/Conservation Commission October 30, 1989 Application 8952P i I assume we have all the information we need from the public �/ ,J hearing. Anybody have any um, (papers shuffling) discussion'?Allright •? / ' Questions? Motion even? None of that. Oka sign . . Has the applicant seen um, Mr. McCahill 's letter dated the 23rd of October, 1989. `ZUa-ZL&"`' Is there a representative of Pin Oaks'? q � Yes. Oh, there you are. Have you seen Mr. McCahill 's letter? rlt4mlo Yes we have, we have no problems . . . (papers shuffling) Okay. Two of the rP no different than in this application as previously stated and reie�-ted. Pack lots, and common driveways., the elevation the high water marks, for Creek, and I believe that, whatever was presented at the public hearing and the uh subsequent p c � q presentations, still does not show this lot as being good, viable, building lots. That changes very little from what the previous application rejection was. move rejection of the application without . . . Do we have a second on this motion and then we can carry on the discussion. Could I without prejudice? Without prejudice. second that. I um, would like to state that the um, that this one particular,. an observation .is that lots 4 and, no 4, the comment I have on that is that it seems to be creating A house on a island surrounded totally by wetlands. And I think we're going to , may be problems with that particular house lot. Plus the crossing of A-13 w M the wetlands down below if I ' um, call this area in here, is also all this is is small detent basin. It's a very good water um, water area, in which I have seen water in . . . Can you take the map off that ?�j speaker please . �GNc Thank you. ' You're welcome. For starters I have great concerns regarding crossing of the wetland, and uh, having houses built on islands, surrounding by wetlands. Adding to Julie' s comment, if I may. I see nothing here that provides either borings or soil samples in those areas where driveways and houses would be built. Uh, ignoring the nature of that . . high water table, there's no way of knowingT without uh, without those test kits, (cough) , other subterranean checks, what the Houses would do if they were built in those locations. (Too much paper shuffling) . Has the Army Corp . . . L104 I'm sorry . . . Sir you have some kind of a . Yes, I'd like to addrels a couple . . . First of all , there's some question you raised as to whether or not the lots are viable lots. All the lots comply with town re h P Y gulations, with regards to minimum standards. As far as the suitability of the soils, there is a geotechnical study which was prepared and submitted by Clarence Welch Associates. Um, included in that report is a map depicting six locations, uh, that Clarence Welch Associates have done soil expiration on site. In those test kit locations general . . . lots, we have that information (Too much paper shuffling) . the information contained in these geotechnical ��►`�� studies, uh, indicating Julie, you have a question. Sr-Use me'? A-14 Is that all . Any particular comments? aware we had a motion on this . . . to deny. Z e1 /1 To deny. (Tape change) . -90 x 90 squares. Right. ✓✓�� (,Q_ti , Yes they are. That 's what these are. And um, I understand the concern about adjacent to wetland and that uh, all I know from the previous plan it ' s been reduced a number of . . . 90 x 94 square that I can see, they're,all within about uh, oh 50 feet of wetlands . I was wandering if somebody saw something that I didn t. In terms of there not being adequate space for uh, . . . �fL�t-r7 That: ' s not _cur concern. r That's what I thought I heard expressed, was there was a concern that uh, there wasn' t adequate But even if they, what I'm saying, even if that concern was expressed, it's not our We have no over. Maybe I'm misunderstanding clarification. You people are �tpbjjU_1j,-1 saying that hey there aren' t enough space here to -build a, adequate space to build a house. 2( 7-1 That's irrelevant to our purposes here. J Well . I presume that's what people are basing there deliberation can. I believe that' s a false assumption also. (� Laughter. Well how can there be a false assumption if (papers shuffling) , A-15 Because the wetlands contour seem to continue on to the adjoining properties. from this. Yes sir. Um, we don't know the actual extent of the wetlands on the adjacent property, um, b�..it we do know that the wetlands do extend ` into that property, u,mp considerably as noted on a plan. There is a pond, uh, located within the wetlands on the adjoining property. And that pond is located on both properties as well . You can tell by the wetlands boundary, uh, that that property is part of a relatively large wetland area. We did not delineate the wetlands beyond our property line. Um, for fairly obvious reasons. It's not something that's normally done. Uh huh. You're point's well taken. I believe our secretary has I run out to get a map. s that where she's gene? So if you just bear with her a moment . AV-WA-C' Would you point oL;t the area? The gentleman behind Jay need assistance locating . Okay.Clark Street' isi running .along the end of the bend. The bend in the road, is t;; appro ximAte lol:ation of the subject property, which would come in in back:. The wetland area um, adjacent to lot 4 is this area right in here. That would be the approximate corner of .-.ur property. So this area is' part of the wetland that is shown on the plan. So there is quite an extensive wetland area. If I was to block: off with my small finger the area that we're uh, proposing development for-, y-:,I could see the area that is not covered on our property. So that wetland is quite extensive ,:iff our siting. (COUgh) 'imp Our aro�7arty ;+foll"d run along Clark Street right in this area . . . 01--ouugh, cough) . I believe this commission would jUstice if turning down an application over a manmade night. And allowing a roadway to be built to a house, or to utilize a small piece of gr and on the other side of a rivene, in the middle of a swampy ea, I think this commission would be uh, not creating a good - atmosphere to developers, approving lot 4. I suggest that if the developer remove that plot, perhaps this might have a far better uh, alternative for the commission to look at. 01 aY, ju yt to clarify that . We cannot tell y.:"u what you can or what you cannot do. The only thing oversighting is what you A-18 present before us. If there is a problem with a specific ,area, that is for you to address, in any manner that you so desire. We cannot tell you to remove or to keep. Just to clarify. I mean you know, we can't get into planning, or telling you what we wall accept, prior to you bringing it before us. . Because if you were to delete, hypothetically, lot 4, another issue may come u . So � R don Pt go under the premise that if this ,is done, that this will go, be rubber stamped, or whatever. Okay. You refer to lot 4, you still have lot 3. What they've done to combine the crossi ; so that there's a single crossing to take _are of both lot 3 and Unless I'm missing something. No you're readings are correct. Yeah you re reading this correct. Lots 3 and 4. '^ The doesn't buy anything to not build on 4, because LC}2btiL� ti� you' re still gonna cross the wetlands to build on 3. Which is the point I just made. Tta� t� exactly what I'm getting at, is that Lis :-Allowing, us and the commission, allowing the :�tiLr crossing of this revene area, to get so called buildable land back here, does no" make any sense, when we just turned one down for a very 5itUation. Okay, just to clarify, to go a little further Walter, on the one we just turned down, there's a viable alternative. On this there may not be and that's the avenue that we' re looking into. There is a difference. I don't know if there's a viable alternative on the other one. Uh huh. I don't know if there's a viable alternative here. But I think • �� y � they have to go out and research those, to come back and prove to us that none of the things that are reviewed are viable . . . Your ps_�ints well taken, I was incorrect. I was wrong. Anoth=r suggestion that we have as a commissioner, is if the applicant wishes to extend, since this is the night that we have to either act --)n :one direction or the other. If the applicant. 7u�✓ wishes to- grant us an extension in time. And do some revision. Or give us additional information. I believe he has that A-19 State Legislature. You have that' We public, hearing. . . . We' Il get you a copy. Fi ne. Looking for corserSU mmission. Would you rather* reque<at � Q the applicant grant an a tension of 65 days, or whatever it takes to act on this, -r _:u know if that's t _he �ase, then I was drawing a motion, uh, if y:::u don' t then we' ll have to move tonight, for the P,not4on that ' s on the floor, or another motion. information, then that would be for the purpose of determining whether or not there was any feasible alternative. For the builda-bility of activity for lots 3 and lot 4 as f/ this application presently is set _gyp. Viable al ternatives. w avid. very uncomfortable when we became directive ill terms of stipUlating, won' t the alternatives AlIright . Which Was clarified earlier, that we cannot Stipulate. So I mean that's gonna, that presents a problem. The application as I see i. t, either has to go on its merit or be denied, on its lack of merit . And then if its not without prejudice, the developer has the opportunity to come back: before this commission. What the vehicle that you're talking about. That's part of the discussion. The developer has shown us 3 lots on :Clark Street that are veryviable. . One being existing house. The lot setoff of pin Oa,t appears to be viable. Our concern is the crossing ,=af that wetlands area, to pick up two extra lots, in 4 the very corner, the very east corner that he has, that thcvie separate. ' (Cough) We' ve already asked the applicant if there are any feasible or A-20 L/ prudent alternatives, and he said no. And he has chosen the best plat. Uh, he has minimized the wetlands impact to get F,_ that back area. He can't come in off (tape change) there. I don' t knew why we want to send him away to answer a question he's answered. Now it 's up to •us to decide if what he said is that there is no better alternative, feasible or prudent, {Ara,'-' than what he offers, ='s already t�:'.d us. We either accept that, or we reject his alternative. But then the recourse would be that . . . Walter, Walter . . . I'm the one that violates it. Next time I J � Go. The alternative hat he has i f he wishes. to reo- =' ` present an alternate plan, would be to tzk:e those portions of the lot which p _ is ,.ot 3 and lot 4, and Ful.* it into par..---el A, which he presently has, he has a large 40 or 50 acre sect-ion, which? lots 3 and 4 could become part of that, Saying that (Cough, cough) certain; intrusicns through and over wetlands. And as far as I'm /.� concerr.ed, that' s a devastating intrusion into wetlands. 7ho_se " . lots. I don' t have any problem with other- 1=_its along the roadway. Where you're pointing you're concerns 1 beli`9ve 'have been made aware to the applicant, everybody here, and there are commissioners that do agree with that premise. David you want to say something? Lt Nope. There's one other concern that Julie brought out, and someone else, about the cul-de-sac. And the logical extension of a road that would eventually go through that cul-de-sao, would probably be very close to the wetlands area. �It doesn' t appear to�it it's neo_essary to• have the -u1-de-sao- that fa��f�i-� Y� Gf eet. If the cul-de-sac was moved away from the wetland out o e wetland buffer zone, and there may be an alternative ��� too ge wing so c cose to the wetland i f �e roe was ever ex ender. W CLPzjAP_ -,q Two minutes from going over. Y� Okay. V A-21 r Clark Street. No. That's just informational . Walter. Are you through Walter . Yeah. Roy. Well I voted for -Ceni a' fc=r sc=me of the, reasons that Walter has s'tataid. "I personally don' t think: there s ano er way =, get l�+ts 3 and , anj think: that is sort of a minimum impact on 3,1 and 4, and I don't object so much to that crossing. I a,� T vote for de � ' �,_ , � u ^ased on the lc=cati=_n of the cul-de-sac in what appears }n b.e__the direction =� the roa-d into the rear area, which I think_ is gn_g—t_c"'-get—r-j•ose ,o some other we ands. Anybody else? No, I was concerned about the taking and issue of the road we dealt - wi th be�_a se � A t _u they g�v_ us ,.he tots =1 Picture of the area we knew that 'wh At ea, gonna 9__� with, Corp. of Engineers w and t}�..at (iy:,��iqh) ayv �o�c is that it. Is there a mot-ion' , - v t:= ad.j=_=c..;r•n': Second. 3tilttJ'. All !_ �F}'�=..i�� in favor. Aiye. All those :=ppo5ej. f.Bood night . Thank: you for your patience. v ' A-23 Town Ole s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINOSOR. CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203/644.2511 i 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, 1989 meeting of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, the Commission voted to deny without prejudice, Application #89-113P. You may re-apply at any time taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Agency. The concerns expressed by the Agency are: N 1 . Total site drainage plan was not presented for the entire parcel and Erosion and Sedimentation measures to protect the 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 . 3 . Extensive disturbance, potential for adverse impact, and, cuts across the wetlands on the site. 4 . Feasible and prudent alternatives not presented which could have reduced or eliminated impacts on wetlands and related drainage concerns . Very truly yours, .John M. Moran, Jr. airman ' Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission JMMJr/pmm cc: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works John R. Collins, Chief Building Official Raymond Hallowell, . Chairman, P&ZCommission Jerry Iazzetta, Town Engineer A. Bowen Davies, Deputy Town Engineer -A-24 i r AC9926 • 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 brief and appendix to brief was sent to all counsel and pro se parties of record this 20th day of March, 1991. Richar M. Rittenband Commissioner of the Superior Court 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: 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 Pages I. Statement of Issues . . (i) II. Table of Authorities . (ii) III. Statement of the Nature of the Pro- ceedings and of the Facts of the Case, 1 IV. Argument . 1 - 5 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 . 1 - 2 II. The lower Court erred in concluding that the Agency acted without substantial evidence in relying on its own knowledge and experience concerning technically complex issues 3 III. Agency members should not have to describe their knowledge and experience at the public hearing nor should they be required to have "special" knowledge 3 - 4 Pages IV. There was substantial evidence in the record supporting the concerns and decision of the Agency. . 4 - 5 V. Conclusion . . 5 - 6 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 . , (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 AGENCY, 203 CONN. 525 (1987) . (3 ,4, 6) 4. KAESER V. CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 20 CONN. APP . 309, 314 (1989) . (3 , 6) 5. TANNER V. CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 15 CONN. APP. 336 (1988) . (3 ,6) (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 concluding that the Agency acted without substantial evidence in relying on its own knowledge and experience concerning technically complex issues. Plaintiff, in its brief, relies upon Feinson v. Conservation Commission, 180 Conn. 421 (1980) and Tanner v. Conservation Commission, 15 Conn. App. 336 (1988) , as did the lower Court. This reliance is misplaced and is contrary to Kaeser v. Con- servation Commission, 20 Conn. App. 309, 314 (1989) , in which the Appellate Court stated, inter alia, "We do not agree with the plaintiff' s narrow reading of Feinson that, in technically complex 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 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. Agency members should not have to describe their knowl- edge and experience at the Public hearing nor should they 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 prior application for the same site. 3. Evidence 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 and comments at the public hearing and subsequent meeting affording plaintiff ample oppor- tunity to offer rebuttal. • 6. Knowledge and practical experience acquired by long- time members of the Agency. CONCLUSION Defendant respectfully requests the Court to find that there was substantial evidence for the defendant Agency to deny the application and that, therefore, the lower Court erred in sustaining plaintiff' s appeal. Further, it is respectfully requested that the Court further find, inter alia, that : 1. The issue of whether roads , driveways , buildings , etc. will have a significant negative impact on wetlands is not a technically 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 4-'_RicXa_rd M. Ritten an Its Attorney - 6 - S . C. 14273 FAIRWAY ESTATES VS. R 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 se pro parties of record p _ this 16th day of May, 1991. �-' Richard M. Rittenband Commissioner of the Superior Court Town attorne sa �`:d�cisioh' t Windham the board of finance before n@WS 110t@S people voted on,the spending. t y . Y P� •< � , Windham Action on money meetings s rips. an s a encies �power . • : for tercentenary due By LISA RICHARDSON ,...r . 'I could hardly.expect,the Supers Town Hail 979 Main St.,'Willi ' Courant Staff Writer „ or Court to overturn its own decision, " The board of selectmen is expect- 456-3593.All meeUggs will be 3n tc Fawrwa �EStateS ed Tuesday to take more action on .:.unless noted.:' SOUTH WINDSOR Town Attor- yy G fiat's`why I asked:.the Supreme . Today:utilities committee 7:; r0 OSeCi t0 tlt 1tS ~Court to hear the case,and we were . spending$27,000 for events to mark planning commission,7:30 ney Richard M.Rittenband said Fri- p p p the town s.300th anniversa p g p•m• deV`el0 fortunate that they accepted," Rit- �� . Tuesday:water pollution con day he is hoping to convince the state ;. pment OIl 47 acres The selectmen,'who meetat 8 p m., Unhand said. in town hall are:scheduled to seta thority, 7:30 p.m„ town hall reno Supreme Court that a February deci inClllding,13.5'acres Of Fairway'Estates proposed to put. -special town meeting.,to,consider. .Committee,i of p.m.; selectmen,8 comm sion by a Superior Court judge would its development on 47 acres,includ- p• p•m. striplocal wetlands agencies .of. land 011.Clark Street. g spending the money. .;wednesday4 water commissii g in 13.5 acres,of land on Clark Officials have said the would use , much of their power: Street.`; . . 3'. cia( meeting, T p.m, water depa Rittenband said he filed his last The wetlands agency:said;that a $17,000.fgr''eshibitions"and $10,000 ,board of finance,7.30 p.m: for a tercentenary:coordinator.The . .` *."Thursday: Administration preliminary arguments in the towns: unpaot on ahe wetlands is negligible, proposed driveway crossing thewet-' , ro sal'would,need a royal from ';nance,7;45 p m;;,, appeal of the Fairway Estates case: there is no.•basis for this reason for.'.lands might cause harm,-.that, the P pP The town's inland wetlands agency the denial;'`the decision said. "The:.`density of construction was toomigh in June 1989 had rejected4•six-unit' plaintiff[Fairway Estates]present.' considering the wetlands on the site °' r development on Clark Street,,a Fair ed evidence'that all.the lots comply and"that a trail on the site plan way.Estates'project known as"Pin' °with town-regulations and that the "encroached on the wetlands Oaks;"..saying it would harm wet-' plan is relatively low-intensity." style and teamwork. _ -Andover �� y lands. Rittenband said Walsb's ruling news not@S. The pupils were led by tt In February, however, Superior was misguided. South:Windsor :Mary Van Der Meid.Seven hi Court Judge Richard A. 'Walsh in "What the lower court's decision nfe@tin pupils;from five towns compe Hartford reversed the rejection. ?,":,,does'is to,gut the authority of the t '" Walsh wrote that the inland wet-:,� local inland wetland pu a enc ;'.Rit- pils'compete g, Y And OV@r. lands agency had presented no evi- tenband said. Town'Han, 1540 Sullivan Ave., 644- in academic contest meetings dence.or testimony to contradict as- "�It is not reasonable for the court to ;2511. All meetings are held in town hall • . ,,•:,. ;;. , , ;, �Q(�j�; sertions made by the developers that �insist'that local'wetlands•commis 'unless otherwise noted A sixth-grade team from Andover no harm would come to the wet;;• signs hire'comparable experts, ; 'Public meetings this week: Elementary.$chool:placed third in Town Office Building,17:SChooi lands. that's 'putting:the burden on the •:Today:Town council,8'p.m,inland "Its division in arecent Odyssey of the 742-7305, All meetings'are held Without its own expert testimony;.•;town and that's just not.Tight,",Rit- i wetlands commission;7:30 p.m r ;� ,M com- ind Competition. g ,unless .oth : . , town office building the agency gave the court no reason tenband said. m scion ues88 p p.m., pollution ncontrol ��`� drew Bergsten, Heather Gasp n.��Toga : to believe the project would endan° ' Rittenband said he believed Walsh authors 7:p. m:c South Windsor a ri- : er,`Tim Gilmdre,Lisa Kendall,Terri y Planning and zoning cc ger the nearby wetlands, the deci misinterpreted cases upon which his : l l p' g sion, 7:30 p.m.; commission on P. Po cultural land preservation advisory com Lacombe and Erik Woodbury partic- .9:30 a.m. sign said. % dec 'on was made, so Rittenband :mittee,7:30 p:m: }ipated• 'the creative problem-soly . T1efdaya Budget referendum, r�. "Since the only substantial evi- ..ask the;state Supreme;Court to . . yednesday.Economic development ing co ' "'tition in Monroe.They re- ;to s:p m elementary school; bo deuce in the record shows that anyr hear.the oven's appeal. commission,8 p.m. ceiveegh;-scores for;creativity, finance,>�p.m.,elementary school LANDTECH ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 71 Woodland Street, P.O. Box 751 Manchester, CT 06040 Telephone (203) 643-5614 August 24, 1988 Department of the Army New England Division 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, MA 02254-9144 Attention: Regulatory Branch Re: Clark Street, South Windsor, CT Dear Sir: The purpose of this letter is to apply for a Nationwide Permit for a 300 foot roadway crossing of a Federal Wetland. The site to be developed is 47. 4 +/- acres located in South Windsor, CT with a watercourse running through the middle of the site. The wetlands were flagged by a soils scientist and 'located by survey. Enclosed are two location maps to allow a site visit. Also enclosed is an official Town of South Windsor wetlands map showing the location of the wetlands. A site plan with site development, boundaries and roadway crossing is attached as enclosure 4. A cross-section of the roadway crossing indicating fill, ordinary high water and wetlands elevation is at enclosure 6. Total fill to normal high water is 550 cu. yards +/- and disturbed acreage is 0. 45 acres +/-. % ` R Department of the Navy August 24 , 1988 Page Two If the above is not sufficient, request written guidance on what we may provide for the permit. Sincerely, Edward B. Wenners, P.E. Project Manager EBW/ncc Enclosures: 1) Location Map 2) Location Map 3 ) Wetlands Map 4) Site Map showing Development 5 ) Site Map showing Property Lines 6) Cross-Section of Roadway Crossing LAWRENCE A. FIANO ATTORNEY AT LAW 71 WOODLAND STREET P. O. BOX 751 MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT 06040 (203) 643-5614 November 30, 1988 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: In accordance with Section 6. 3b of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Watercourses and Conservation Regulations, this letter is to notify you as an abutting property owner that I have made application to the South Windsor Wetlands Agency. The above-referenced application is to allow road and driveway construction within the "regulated area" of inland wetlands or watercourses. For additional information regarding this application, please contact either the town Wetlands Agent or Robert C. Isner at 643-5614. jawren truly yours, ce A. Fiano RCl/dp i I i PF a4 ra :r f r J 4 y4NA, _ i I(Ttti(rA} (t'� 1 L � -WAM { r � �� :1 p rl C - : It , Al WAS tc )c�11CV4 IEYac fc'oIJ�, t ai 11 ' AIR 1L)ntJ °iI1�Yo� �raY tr lE tilYo� J°� JC 4�1 r� 12YL: m _< _ 1 ' �oyiU41 tr�r��fgK <��r;}Ic; 1 }k a iDx r )1r" �tl(I )4°AKe(txol�nr t]L71 lion!':f"�tr{1L�.;Irc,g {' .I (olnuyc>f' t�(�Xo� II Y�it,�l� 'Y14Ko� .�"nf� is lax IIQ���f c li;r off, �`nI i.tr C r�C�9� lrl,� ( , "�l� o>_i} iI C •a�� 01'k�: it ,�kUl r (�X�Ic� I IE il(�XraE �La l ( ".:; 411i� 11 Cof �tr I,�p tot�o �f`Itin�3�-101 (o1ly� a�Ar"Wj I,7L��lIp, #, f 1,•!�q'(e)�r+���f ' ° '�•1��4(r� Iti�il{r,)�nl. (ol1,i��t ti�� ;l�l �i i ICi lfn�Ya) = Irtgla�C�I{r194r'�ti��ll,(�7ir9� 51r�, ���)(VligCc,l- fcC((tllu�i9l�(l' tr(-�� '��,{�): trlr�4�! ,IIan1C���li;IgY �!Ir'�tLSa'ol Ilk `laa ;IS 1r�99�`in1l�.:, 1 Y, IUD 11942� 1 i�� �l�tY41( ;L,,. Si. I I i 30 SO i 1 t kl i'. W. :y r- II1Sy1,r <Iw N 8C4( y 7111w"I'w o-P Sotzil% ?A�2� C U . s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 sOR•co� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 December 6, 1988 TO: John M. Moran, Jr. , Chairman Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer RE: Application #88-113P, Pin Oak Estates, (Lawrence Fiano) IWA/CC permit for an 8-lot residential subdivision located on the westerly side of Clark Street, RR zone. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: Application Form, site plan and drainage calculations, Environmental Review Team Report dated September, 1986 COMMENTS 1 . The A-2 survey is for interior lots only. An A-2 survey for the area to be developed is required per section 7 . 1 .h. 2 . Wetlands were field located. A report should be forwarded as part of the application. 3 . There are extensive valuable wetlands on this site. Impact should be minimized as much as possible. 4 . An Environmental Review Team Report was done on this site in the past at the request of the Town of South Windsor. 5 . Lots 1-8 contain wetlands . Of the 47 acres the estimated wetlands, as stated in the drainage calculations, is approximately 13 .5 acres . 6 . Lot #7 does not contain a contiguous buildable area (90' x 9011 ) per section 5 . 1 .a of the zoning regulations . 7 . Lot #6 is in the 20, non-disturbance area, 8 . Proposed houses on lots 2,3, and 7 encroach on the wetlands buffer. 9 . The common drive to the north encroaches on the 20' non- disturbance area. 10. The common drive to the south encroaches on the 40' buffer. 11 . There are signs of extensive water flowing through lot #7 from the existing watercourse which drains that way. 12. There is a large amount of debris in the rear of lot #8 which has been thrown over the bank. Disposition of this material should be addressed. 13 . The lots have no proposed grades . These should be provided as well as estimates for total cuts and fills relative to the wetlands . Proposed elevations for the homes should also be shown on the plans. 14 . There are several watercourses, to include intermittent streams, which flow through this site. 15 . An erosion and sedimentation plan would have to be established for each lot prior to construction. 16 . There are a couple areas where water is ponded for a good portion of the year. One such place is the wetland circled in lot #6. l� , STATE OF CONNECTICUT 7 c its - �►°��:� DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER 165 Capitol Avenue, Room 553 Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Biology Program 17 January 1989 John Samsel Samsel Properties 152 Denting Street South Windsor , CT 06074 y Dear Mr. Samsel , I have reviewed Natural Diversity Data Base maps and files regarding the area delineated on the map ,you provided: South Windsor - proposed office park in Ellington Rd. /Clark Street area. According to our information there are no known extant populations of Federally Threatened Species and Connecticut "Species of Special Concern" known to occur at or adjacent to the site in question. Natural Diversity Data Base information includes all i information regarding critical biologic resources available to us at the time of ttie request . This information is a compilation of data collected over the years by the Natural Resources Center ' s Geological and Natural History Survey and couper•ating units of DEP, private conservation groups and the scientific conrmu:tity . I'tti5 information is riot necessarily the -result of comprehensive or site-specific field investigations . Consultation with the Data Base Should not be substituted for on-site surveys required for• environmental assessments . Current research projects and rrew colitrit)utors continue to identify additional populations of species and locations of habitats of concern, as well as , entrance existing data. Such new information is incorporated into the Data Base as it becomes available . Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this information ( 566-3540 ) . Thant:-you for consulting the Natural Diversity Data Base . Sincerely, n Nancy M. Murray Biologist/Data M7ager Phone: 165 Capitol Avenue • Hartford, Connecticut 06106 An Equal Opportunity Emplover 'jet )I u F f �40 41 04 Sf,`� _ � , urn a�S1� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 N� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 SOR•Co November 4, 1988 Clark Corners Associates 152 Deming Street South Windsor, CT 06074 Reference: Application #1886-88 Gentlemen: At the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on November 3, 1988, a variance to Section 5.4 of the buffer regulations was granted as follows: 1) Allowed not to adhere to the 50' buffer requirement along entire length of Ellington Road and Clark Street. 2) Allowed not to adhere to the 50' buffer requirement along Deming Street from the intersection of Clark Street to the boundary line of the open space as shown on the plot plan. The variance granted is conditional upon site plan approval from the Planning Department. Also, the "intent of buffer" should be complied with. This action is. effective November 18, 1988, and upon your filing of the en- closed form in the Town Clerk's office at your own expense. Very truly yours, Richard H. Eriksson � Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals RHE:mr Enclosure: MAR 2 1989 Feb . 28 , 1989 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY► Dear Sirs : CONSERVATION COMMISSION I have enclosed pictures of my backyard at 479 Clark St . A :'youu can see there is a "little wet" from the non-existant unimportant wetland. Is it any wonder I don ' t want the land behind my house disturbed? Am I being unreasonable? I invite the ladies and gentlemen of the commission to take a walk behind my house and see the standing water on the:- land that Mr. Fiano says"does not exist .' I was going to take a walk through his land but he has posted "no- trespassing signs" . I can ' t imagine why. Perhaps there is more back there than he wants the commission to know. The last meeting of the commission was poorly attended by my neighbors who were invited, not because they are not interesed but because we all got our ears pinned back by Mr. Sartor et al at a meeting the week before. Our voices are falling on deaf ears . I am sure you saw the commentary in the J. I . regarding that meeting. I was hoping you would address my question at the last meeting. Of what use are wetlands? Why does everyone want to readjust their existance? Will a deer,rabbit , squirrel,bird,or any form of wild life know its boundaries or will they just become extinct . The way Mr. Samuels' botanist explained hereself, it sounded -,Kox the only thing we or the town should be concerned with is the asthetic value that their destruction will contribute. Please ladies and gentlemen please take a hard look at what is happening to our lovely town. Is all this growth really necessary regardless of the price, or do we look-aatback at the mess and regret it when its too late .� I am sure you are fair and far more knowledgable than I and your decisions will be weighed fairly for all concerned/ r 7-0� 0-P So� V&U&ot C � 9 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 �f�dSOR•GO AREA CODE 203/644-2511 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, 1989 meeting of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, the Commission voted to deny without prejudice, Application #89-113P. You may re-apply at any time taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Agency. The concerns expressed by the Agency are: 1 . Total site drainage plan was not presented for the entire parcel and Erosion and Sedimentation measures to protect the 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 . 3 . Extensive disturbance, potential for adverse impact, and cuts across the wetlands on the site. 4 . Feasible and prudent alternatives not presented which could have reduced 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 Public Works John R. Collins, Chief Building Official Raymond Hallowell, . Chairman, P&ZCommission Jerry Iazzetta, Town Engineer A. Bowen Davies, Deputy Town Engineer DR. CLARENCE WELTI, P.E., P.C. GEOTECHNICAI ENGINEERING 227 Williams Street- P. O. Box 397 Glastonbury,CT 06033 May 30, 1989 (203) 633-4623 Landtech Properties Inc. P.O. Box 751 Manchester, Conn. 06040 Att: Mr. Robert Inner, Land Planner Re: Pin Oak Estates, Phase I; Geotechnical Study Dear Mr. Inner: 1.0 Herewith are boring data pertaining to the above. Five borings were drilled to a depth of 2:0 feet. 2 .0 Geologically the site is situated atop an ancient glacial lake. Deposits of soil range from stratified sands to dee varvfeet clay-silt soils . Tire latter material is at least 60 feet thick at the sub-j-act site and, may be as deep as 100 feet. 2 . 1 The soils cross s-action at the subject site consists of 3 to 7 feet of medium- compact Fine Sand,some Silt overlying the va-rved Clay and Silt. The varv—I Clay and Silt remains saturated most of the year amd is highly sensitive to remol-ding. It has -a relativel hear strength and has a law Permeability. There ,is f> to 8" of topsoil on the site. 2`.2 Water table at the time of the boxing process was 4 to 5 feet below gr-ad`e. This could` xse. in wet seasons but is Probably close -to maximum elevation. dater tables in the area Of the site are controlled by the underlying Clay stratum and would probably remain within 6 feet of grade even in dry seasons. 3 . 0 The- propaaed pro act phas. I) i olves construction of houses on s lets with utility -cations and construction of about 2-50 feet of road with -all utility lines. 3 . 1 House C.oxxstructiom sl .Id be -arranged ire possible to permit footin to be Placed &-bovwe theClay-Silt. Allowable ioadingon the- santi-,, if at .least 18" above the Clay could be 2000 psf.. If the footi-n=gs are clog than 18" allowable loading should- be decreased to 20O-0 psf,. If footings are at or into the Clay it would be necessary to page 2 excavate to at least 24 " below footing bottom; place a 4 "layer of concrete and 20" of compacted gravel . Allowable loading on the gravel could be 2000 psf. 3 . 11 All backfill of house foundations would have to be either sand or said gravel with a maximum of 10% passing the No. 200 sieve. There should be at least 12" of sand or sand gravel beneath basement floors,plus 6 " of 1/2 " stone. 3. 12 Regarding drainage there should be exterior footing drains and an interior underdrain system. There should be water stops at the wall/footing interface (could be VOLCLAY Rx type) . Estimated flows are less than 100 gallons per day in wet seasons. 3. 13 Because of proximity of the Clay-Silt to ground surface grading should not include cuts in excess of 2.5 feet in most areas. There should;in any event,be at least 2 feet of sand above the clay in the yards -around the houses to preclude extensive periods of wet yards. In some areas it may be necessary to pace -uaderdra ns in. the yards to avoid such wetness. 3. 14 House Connections particularly Sewers} will require s-pedal bedding to preclude subsidence in the appes. The bedding should include 12 of gravel with 6 " 0 • 1/2 " stone atop the gravel. If other conduits are connected thru the foundation there should be careful water seal to prevent water in the trench from entering the concrete wall. 3. 15 Paved driv-.eways,i.f in the sand would require 6 to 81, of gravel base beneath the bituminous concrete. If the pavement is in proximity to the Clay (within 18") there would be a requirement for IS to L8" of gravel beneath the surface course. I 3. 2 Roadway c ru-tion can have a standard section with 15"of gravel subbase((if the grade in the sand is at least 3 feet above the clay) , I€ the roadway is lower the subbase would have to be increased to about 24" .If the grade is in the Clay it may be necessary to pplace a 4" l yer of concrete beneath. the 24" of gra—}, 3".2'1 Sewer lines in the Silt or Clay should have a layer of concrete and 12-" of gruel plus 6" of 1-/2-" stone beneath the pipes . All baukfill o-f tren lies should be sand or sand gravel with a maximum of 10$ passing the .200 sieve. A11 other u t..il i ti es s uld -he si>m l arty b f 11 led- + r • page 3 Water lines ma require special preparation of the bottom, dependent on the proximity of the line to the top of the Clay. 4.0 General Considerations:. a. Grading of the site should in general avoid cuts in excess of 3 feet. b. Stripping of topsoil should be limited to those eas ar , which are necessary for construction to be undertaken within a 2 week period. c. Clearing in fill areas should include cutting trees flush and avoiding grubbing There latter operation will distub the Silt-Clays . It may be required by the Town in Roadway areas . d_. Filling should be done only with free-draining materials (less than 10% passing the No. 200 Sieve. 5.0 This report has been prepared for specific application I. to the sub-iect project' in accordance with generall accept- ed soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, - pres ed or implied, is made. In the event that any cha7r4es in the nature,design and location of stuctures a-relnned,the c lu-s ons and recommendations co ntained in this$ should not report be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. The enalysee and reco t ans -submitted in this report are based in prt u data obtained from referenced ex- plarat s, Theextent of variation between explorations may not become ev-ident until construction. If variations then appear evidan-t, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the of this report. CI&rence- lti., P.E. ,P.c. sh -ld perf orm a general review of the -final design and spec ifications in order that geo- tec-hnical design recommendations may be properly interpreted and impl-emented as they were intended. Ve-r)- u ly yours,. arenc=e Weld, PhD, P.E. LANDTECH ASSOCIATES, INC. . ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 71 Woodland Street, P.O. Box 751 Manchester, CT 06040 May 31, 1989 Telephone(203) 643-5614 Department of the Army New England Division 424 Trapazo Road Waltham, MA 02254-9144 ATTENTION: Mr. Phil Nimerkern Regulatory Branch RE: CENED-OD-R-10-88-2622 Pin Oak Estates, South Windsor, CT Dear Sir: Reference: (1) LandTech Associates, Inc.- letter dated August 24, 1988, SAB (2) MAD letter dated November 8, 1988, SAB (3) Phone conversation between Ed Wenners and Phil Nimerkern on April 6, 1989. The purpose of this letter is to submit requested additional information for our August 24, 1988 Application for Nationwide Status (under 33 CFR Part 330.5(a)(14) & (26), Federal Register, November 13, 1986) for the above project. The proposed development provides for the construction of a cul-de-sac road across the most narrow part of the federal wetlands spanning each of the two existing brooks with 30' wide precast concrete arch culverts designed to accommodate a 100 year rainfall. We believe this proposed development qualifies for Nationwide Status due to the following characteristics of the proposed development: (1) The total area of wetland impact is 0.51 acres. (2) There will be less than 130 cubic yards of fill placed beneath mean high water. (3) No streambank will be altered due to the 30 width of the arch culverts. (4) Discharge of storm water runoff into wetlands will prevent any potential impacts associated with increased downstream flow. (5) The area and volume of wetland impact will be minimized by the use of 28:1V (maximum) side scopes along the constructed roadway. K Department of the Army May 31, 1989 Page Two (6) In order to meet minimum road frontage, and/or to properly subdivide the land, some portion of five lots fall on the federal wetlands. No construction or other impact will be allowed in or near the wetlands. This will be enforced by a restrictive covenant placed in the deeds. The following attached documents and maps provide detail to support approval of the nationwide permit: (1) 2,000 scale map showing watershed area for culverts at roadway crossing. (Attachment #1) (2.) Project overview map at 100 scale. showing federal wetlands, lot lines and building areas. (Attachment #2) (3) Soils scientist documentation of the field location of wetlands and type of soils encountered. (Northeast Soils letter report) (Attachment #3) (4) Plan view at 40 scale showing final design of the roadway including grading and culvert location within federal wetlands. (Attachment #4) (5) Profile view at 40 scale horizontal and 4 scale vertical showing existing profile and proposed roadway profile with arch culverts. (Attachment #5) (6) Typical roadway cross-section for the portion of the roadway within the federal wetlands. (Attachment #6) (7) Detail of the precast arch elements that will be installed. (Attachment #7) (8) A sample of the restrictive conservation easement to be placed in the deeds of those lots that include any federal wetlands. (Attachment #8) For the reasons stated above, we are requesting a Nationwide Permit Status. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me as soon as possible. Please note that the name of our project has been changed to Pin Oak Estates. Thank you, Edward B. Wenners, P.E. Project Manager EBW/dmp Enclosures: a/s I LANDTECH PROPERTIES, INC. SUBDIVIDERS & DEVELOPERS June 16, 1989 D JUN 20 1989 South Windsor Mr. John McCahill, Inland Wetlands Agent INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ Town of South Windsor CONSERVATION COMMISSION. 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor CT_ 06074 RE: Submission of a Wetlands - Application Dear Mr. McCahill: Attached please find three complete sets of the proposed Pin Oak Estates subdivision located on the west side of Clark Street. Also attached in triplicate is a completed Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Application, a copy of the certified letter sent to the abutting property owners per Section 6. 3b, Application Fee of $100. 00 per Section 6. 9, a Hydraulic Analysis as prepared by Leonard J. Norton, P.E. , a geotechnical study prepared by Dr. Clarence Welti, P.E. , P.C. and a 100 ' scale conceptual layout for the remaining land. Please note that only the plans marked file copy are signed by Leonard J. Norton, P.E. , and Patrick A. Toscano, L.S. Furthermore, attached to the file copy is a signed copy of the Meehan Boundary Survey as referenced in the Pin Oak subdivision plan. In addition, pursuant to Section 6.7, a copy of the plan and the attached information is also being submitted to the South Windsor Engineering Department. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this application or the attached plans, please feel free to call me at 643-5614. Very truly yours, Robert C. Isner Land Planner RCl/dmp cc: Engineering Department Attachments 71 Woodland Street, P.O. Box 751, Manchester, CT 06040 (203) 643-5614 7��o•N N Sf a Q 70-wn aP Sotz& Vzad-Aot 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 �f�oSOR,ca� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 June 29, 1989 TO: John M. Moran, Jr. , Chairman, Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer 5vf RE: Application #89 P, Pin Oaks (Lawrence A. Fiano) , 71 Woodland Street, Manchester, IWA/CC permit for a subdivision located on the westerly side of Clark Street, northerly of Stanley Drive, RR zone DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: Application form; Hydraulic Analysis by Leonard J. Norton, P.E. ; Geotechnical Study by Dr. Clarence Welti, P.E. ,P.C. ; plans titled "Pine Oak Estates" (dated 6/15/89 ) ; and "Preliminary" site plan for remainder of the site. COMMENTS: 1 . The applicant submitted a proposal for this site earlier this year which went to Public Hearing and was denied. A copy of the Commission's denial and concerns is attached. As part of the presentation I -,wwu�� they will identify changes made in reference to the concerns. 2 . Of the total 47 . 4 acres, 13 .5 acres (28%) is wetlands. According to the applicatinn form . 05 acres is to be altered, stream alteration is indicated as 100 lineal feet. 3 . The area included in the six lots is 9 .9 acres. As indicated on the plans, all six lots contain wetlands. A calculation should be provided which indicates how much of the 9 . 9 acres is wetlands . 4 . There is a net increase in the runoff from the site after proposed development. The Hydraulic Analysis states that, "detention of storm water will not be necessary" . This is subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department. The statement is also made that, "there will be no deleterious downstream effects" . This will also need to be evaluated. 5. Inland Wetland boundaries were field located by Northeast Soils, Inc. on December 3, 10, 11, 1986 . A report should be submitted as part of this application. 6 At such time this is scheduled for a Public Hearing documentation should be made available relative to prudent and feaseible alternatives to the proposed layout. This would include other options considered. 7 . They intend to bulkhead the existing 15" pipe under Clark Street. The Hydraulic Analysis states that the water will not be picked up in street drainage. Clarification should be provided as to what happens with the water. 8 . Lot #3 creates a potential for ponding water. A separate runoff calculation has been included to show the resulting flow of water. 9 . A construction entrance should be indicated at the common drive for lots #2, #3 and #4 . In addition it would seem appropriate to phase the project to prevent traversing across the site. A stockpile area should be indicated for the construction of the common drive for lots #2, #3 and #4. 10 A typical erosion and sedimentation plan should be indicated on the plans to be implemented for each individual house. This is briefly mentioned in item #11 of the Erosion and Sedimentaion Control Notes on sheet 7 of 7 . 11 . The narrative indicates the sequence of construction for the site. If phasing is incorporated it should become part of the narrative and phasing lines should be shown on the plans. 12. The "preliminary" plans for the remainder of the parcel indicate six 90, x 90, squares . Are these meant to be buildable squares? A couple appear as though they contain steep slopes. The northwesterly most lot would require a 350, driveway. It does appear as though the drainage calculations accurately represent the full development of the site. 13. Although attempts have been made to reduce the activity within the wetlands, watercourses, and setbacks, an evaluation of the overall development of this site should be provided. 14 . The Geotechnical Study includes criteria which must be part of the development of this site. It is referenced on sheet 6 of 7, but should be referenced on the Plan/Profile (sheet 5 of 7 ) and other areas where it may influence actual construction. 15 . These comments should be addressed prior to final action by the Commission. �l� 11,ho 41, j.t S c � L ..� 4 t� # [-E a+�s�, �,t i hs 3 ryv� �� 7_ ;�r}`.�. +Erq'.rx _��c '� �t t t � i �� � h �5• � i r nkAT a \� 1 hill 1 W 1 r . 5 - , �f hill \ 'z � uv1 j � 1Y r(�� 1 i ; 4p ae + f Pv i, )tn� 7d�1U�I�xpo-f0 n,� , Willi A% x MAE zoom- Qj fit b 9 4 ( �,l I—a f i��1U1,7L,avf WAS � T° '� , '�� [ c 7 i ,� t t � � �_,, a-,�y�` t+• c' v � )+tnt� ,tl'r r''i 7'',� t I>'G(rt, WON tons,TOM 17Jnt?��g in ?lkc. CU?fir„ilCc:� tr,' _ i ArNnl {o)n,(. (obl{��r� 19Ar�SLYnY(cl;_rn{r n 10" , fi. 47. i' i��a'�li A0�,1� it{rtal4r�t(o),�l i�ko)u ��t•) ' :I ),nC 1�'(OY 4fi<',���!L Pit r-� AM, )1�1�r.�ts )4riYc.(C�jl'glt} l��E„) I - l�to) � i(�xrY .I�t4 / J°il°77f�1,�:( Ilr�l,(ci�}nl �P�I(��)< f 7.} - �4�� (.�ilnYo C;;Cc,,lnl( ,�h�Ull (xu, •lclnl( .1 71l�ll0)1�.'�I�o �.iC��C ,,, il,iijiCrl ,n)k 1`lrllr IYn�oi;�, f�To��;inllc'1°1' �4�P�Y.;It,^}17nt(oj •l[t 9f..;li',;;u�la1`�J"J'(t I7 7(, \+/r.,ii;; lo>� C`<�(`in}��'. Zopnl lo)( 7q'{�iJ�'ii u?`i .�' � ' VIP 11 (c (()'o}tr , '9Cln �?'-.irC , (olr 6`(01 ,JJ)U11n1( , 2t°4i, ,09 ';ii,i(,Cw' (cikgl;i'1t iL{p)7i,p Mn Xsx. tLjn rt91C` C)c TN_1( A /n'�:_.r,Xo[ Io)l�x Un�c A��PnI(o�14 1i C_'inllr �r o) I0X�(J0)71 N(<'. J�� z i5i it nl(of 3 3' 'w_ f+f�e ..«v __ --•3 _ .4?a '. `'s .h" ,- ;4 !o)tc( ?Vv, u(o)IUI-31�}v/ ,,i;(our 1C,Igtiil; � ,tLlc,(';c' , OMAN- HOW,Tons, 4P�pl� )99� tiC12t ��InTr'QnoIT. �19$ 1(0[': l'(e) lt�9K'7 C,>?I[ })41 tUtin :[(_.;rr �t19 n ' v4u( �c>ji ,(>}e>nc)S :tlr i no!WOW .:sic( 1400 ilt lynl, 69 1 149;'> Colt iL\I( ��an�;$/ f �:�;,5r'R+�tl(c; C;1r'J. Kysey n R aw - lr )WAR tam.1 (010 It,.il,(g2 n; }it ) ` .IokU15L,I[(o[r llo}, I( t ;:(oltblc itr; r linoj 1' ti,li Sof`r �i4Kc-q)r(o(o�i 7c-4{c,}I,(onr "(o ii } 7[ilt,Sr iiniti'�o)t .v� :1-06 J11W62 r . s - -t r l 4 I� �°a°/�>;oJ,6�Lrk�i,`k,❑ t i,rn ',(Cl),, I �o) � r�-rl[„ !\A�'t r _Iul`:=-Yt );, �P Ilt tO�.,f�P�;�� - ,lid��� �.}- ..��.�,Jlr, I' i ! 5. 1 - E 1 -, 1 i{ 1 t f Y -y _ T ; ��,Gr1 S� t:- r .try+ �i ?t r rp,.q aiL a) ��' f .t t a - i 1 }F 4 -t ) �' T.{ `Rw. t ^, r- z ' j 1 �{3 S z v: I t t -r !1C I'-I t t z' i f, 'fif.* k _ .} 7 �1' rt t 4 t�}i Y tYi I v.r �i z , 4 F r , r t r a < ;iz '#� vI I; ; y # ut"t Irk -��;.4 7`',��aY r t,a >~,_J! "T _.z, '`1„ j,:y„r f ! k btu I t`F r a is y 1 #a -? � 1 �� � c � 3 a�,+tg+�� ��� � � �� .I � � fi 1 6i i X s I, - "-lt � lt,: 'k z4 't t`I - y ''°'�-� =�� h-tjx ..� cl _p t�'3� i filp{ I 3 -y, { ,, _ r'+,-:j #*v ` - t'' 7 'Mrs � -,s �' v, s.Ty q�.! :r *a,-5t"a '�,'?;�,l d' Y. sy `�`E,a z }�" ,p is .Fi P Z_._�a3-s a ,:5 z t t , _.} '1 n.;) t r ,ry a .j r 'S`M Dt>r a rvi rk r 'Ik sr y t - r .. t :' 3- i 1 1.- #f: r 2 r 1 -{ P T 1 R: ! 'T I rhf:��{ 1 1 s z t a § y t 7 9 ,-:.I t 'v - 3 y 7, 5 � / lr } r. k i '� t-1 ti r ; 5r t I f k:`- >♦ql.0 ks t X��(0J741 ��t 5�ez'�LC�42)2,�� �, 4 'T,..F 1 ,1,.1 Y r jc t FrI}, 5 ,v#x 7� r,?� 7.t` s �e T},'tk rr r ! �',Ear„^ErJi. a - > {;. k `s a ) .; 2 to 'xc +"i t E �_- F,. yr� �.. T gi rt-{ "*<v �,kz,I ,-•t t�i t - [ o( o '§� r 1r`.a -fk �.. # i". "i" I a 4 6 S' # :-.a ,f ._ R ft {Yf )�f f��T'',�7�r t°3[ 'ti - c !�; z' ,,, 3 Y+ s t§ '�'�.- er '� s F 1`-.s! s t w } �.. tt 1 w t '1 f 4 C 4�t r Y '3 7- _ g4 1 a r d a f ��t�(��\ tq}j`7a4t7�p}'id .t„ �Y �,}z a°n4 r }`"`_�' q n3 ' FWs .jst L. c 5 r~ 4 s p t�s, ( •d xy4 si }'} f {�t .w YT '� } 31 t x s;aC. .._k'y-,'Ya J ,r .z swTt t Ps ! .:t o ,-i ,-' c t - r {�I 1 `�S:_yJ-x t I �- k, �. s.�t ((t� in dw11.i i �I ,s'r { a*<, -r a y --.� ' 1':, -MT4 �i k } ti . a '. # t F I` } l fi his t , fi� ar > 7 x � e a x jq __ ! s..' f a i s i ._ri 1 '` a �.g��f :3 Y 1 : e.� 5 ,5 .z #iK .# t4 t .r P I-+ J -" 1 t� s. 1 �o s 7i:, F ;{ - #`r �! a( 'f"N -:},�9 tz� t �' tir i� h s-�n�'.Y�,'"-3- t Yiy...'t'x�� �t'�F .�v J �� lay, �� i T,l 1,�� , tD �� e'�4 °� [ Zr�I4 Q�� ' 14� r r ' r _' a jt t TM aka a i t ! 3. 7 z;. 1 'R al—MA.am £fig. Mi - -�z S eI t' _ I;-rF ��g r# ;! § '4'rs(r 1 ;J'xG6 �_. I f' t f 2 dmi! e r #��w,; CUB( �ti (O}'3L =[��yihjj�����C���5�i71�0�2 I I}}4 ��9�s�4 1-_U1- 71 .1 j l ?t°JY.r-IBC IIL{'�i(T �01�[ ! 7 {o } .7 1 ,n,,lr�X 11[,,'-I �, > �t ,(`���U )�)5 to)�c �?�'i�� r i ©� 1u�2Vat � 1 1}r�V ©x �JQ /� )lt<tu� �o nF; .�. rAWL r e=t a 1i- t e* it `' �? ! i(4 ,:i ;t 1 �4-. y ..MISr s !slid zIr t x T �pyC=)r hY 1� Qp�lC=i nta�3 ..; ��t-2 e ( e Kt ) r _ fs r I i> '1 , Y ° '' j1 E} !3 a is TUR v�Mr ,,+ t 'I �I oitY liooT}t1 �)� c ` tl � GT �� o�� f �i1} of o t 1! �'i '1� ur C! y � � �_ _�I�dl2 . 4� c 99 A tit ( Lit �� 4(� n� 2 ,C�c d4 coy ).c, t.a- � �k � Y M ... � � ><r+p q,� - r y�'C_K, 41 ^{ f `r v�'.n:,p mu^iflk wf� 3 _Ix_ n+H^+%-F' r 7C10�� (c�6/ z !u .n � Col\°1 z7�ciC�1 <; IiL /T " C t f 1L p `� t y Sp L.: I iP r zS��� r v tt7 )l s h Y �c uI fef°) }c?iP'�c ' <[ p h it 1 3t iiT1 (° "� I yp 67 f :� I 't� ) Y1 ii r #�t�s C f i����r�i ���p�t }ti�) .} .]��� ;�(L IrC'.:`�i a -. r'T n� A-A I _ I I .2 11 T : <a r T rat.: , _, / p i -1 I _ I} - , Ili l°7 0 �� ( }�Cr_-1 )" 't f l '.i} t f� _1 k _ t�, t1 1'1} 3 z�L A ,.{ E 1 t t ). I), t C le 4 r i( j f.fl r � r a rt t ) i,} �< 1���{��199C t'"—Qq , ic(. o�p 4 A 1. 1} 1( 4( I{�)1c,ic(3tr c dot l,,I �e t&CWU Ael So�y�, f�i r�: 7 �.t i ,' r ; C I e}M Ofl( �('1} }(O !}� O !''t [_ � 3 t ; f ;a 1 *.."..�. ra sf 2 T ;r17 L4 rf 24 �Q 2 f _X I Y _ 1f99� �QRI < 2 t� t' 331. 2 r'P ` -.k t 4 ri-i ' nv '—a ar t.-s• # �. z'Yr t '- r 1>r ... = ,!"� 1ikIS's}.- .ra fin. r". t 1. g7v ter ,�Y �` �`[ *) r-`-r _ t-_` �.�: f .:,f-;�I_ a # e SL�4 j`a(: Sit T {o)` _ l,7X1-1, It , 1, f„_bW()g9Vl c{cC Xot 1r {l�ni t }( l r}( �4919C }4Ylt :(e)))t ;l€�4>� �a )6� }lt�Ulit k 1)E f�>(k /o7Ultr �v 7G)4}. '74 i�t[ s .}) o� i,5 n t "� I t }r _FAMM r �', Io7Trti�t)� L�rC Xo'i �o �f )l�11� }Li tb§git9C�}QV1�j �dE r�lE;Pd4 ���4�uf C �/�U� � ,� rtt j i1 z r _ t) ) � 'P x @ d; s� 'z�y {s 1. r r �, i t#a : t! "i tr, ) I* - 'tti},�I a o) 17C�41(� 2fk,;�tUl s (p).) 7otict� ��( t4a v c A ir,� k.If:j51�o}3E( 1l�(c�a,T 141[i,15 Till _�L'J, �ir?e L l� !`�';+I �'� 4 ' t _I � 1(o�o��cY " bC(-0 5 11 IQW li iI�g9Y_i tn)7i,.':tEt4K V;_�o�Utlo?a�,il{,' �4�:>x i�r iil�6u� C t} iF )4�c)�1��3"c tc� ^ °� ., ;' i ;, ! ,-' � /� '�lyil°XbX<J��2�10j4�� - 13i (�}r�rr�o�t� �IY9` �c�9K '` n ��(o�tr, ot5�l�� ! 2 }QEjaE�� roc ;,at, l[%; kI)i)T��.. k� i` ! 1t,c}` ok ki{i(°)tec'll }I it {c, i, 1, s ')nk oyC i =�oX O�nl.-�}99� 'CI i �o} lE)i)a li'. ie)QA i'v f' t , " iillt ll( )ggG',i 7(r Ie{'`{1(i1i `J tbi(T)c}}aLt ` 1°AbK lic1A11 ?���jal )un pAe°T '�t�°� � :1,/�jt(o)gU{C:;,I ')+f yij t Jf )QX� � fi7� Io)�ft itrt�{r� ll)f, ) f t21, It t _ ) "te {o it Ftt)2a 1(q),,) ,; ))40i'�(6l'I K , -ni t,i C 't{C A`el(C lictu! 1 tit(U6g11,, a �t �Uf Itrl�( Ip! l6,AIr(oXca)I;. q')Qf)ItC p (�Yf l4;)ti(oYtn}.:u+l } f )t:lt; 89Cit gt�Xti� S�i'�oY 'lcJn( , II �L p)9i16g4E1 ti,�((�10 ZalW lt,oC_` 199C �`l� Ert4 °f toD41 )flUlli�v;y. Ii�O)t IE}0)f°i�°� r 'i e `. r S rI ;� :: i _ s v �> , i )lcCi;tt�feq[ �k )��) !l; � "koYtgl �� 4(X II(�g�l 4' ( ! v < " j {o}c, /� tcXo)t41;•,l2,iCl�N<"141iq',tp�41 (`;lnlgtfl2lin( L s c.;ltugof i1LlpXC n'�o), EI ki , c 1i r, .,I I�(olil`, }e74 ' r ;, `r I Ce K>?91}S9C I t t {�*�If)i\y�' 'k 1 7f tiI O it �II�oYu t e a',�n�f t1 �jn � z tin o) .;i1�nl 1? �) ) )�X S `i4a e'ECo�ioA YO� j° ' ' `.,i k1-0 t lc>) lli tli(� ;li_' Y� ,(0)1 `��ty�ev ' _ _ 100 1 _ S ,.� r .': t 1 t i.I . } I f I xi � I ,',_ zs I i{ 1� �< a: fI')oflo}'11C(' ;Ij J�S�p�,a�(p�41 cla9Kon t 0�) y ,Jlv t(I,if�oYtgl T�lit a iQ�l;) g Y J41 c�}(o1A,YS � f t }} �sr ) l,�()) i K4 rl� i)J Yo1,t1 jf a a _ � a -s�.-*t ti--�• }- 3 '�' .'"�t` «u' i*�' *x._ .�. :_ ••. ..�1 j -:t-,�'+�1.� ..2 - °zk,c "i ,;.+L-»ru'u'rr c-t -- 1.,.- '#.-,lµ e+r.. rrt v r,...- a`;���'&4se+- =�... Wit. a ": t I $ 2r3sv iS } _ . 11� -t r,. ill �, 7t�4� ;:�� }t l�(oric o)ic(�JIPX�)t ,ltil� tC) tt)4�x()i[ ir(Xot, r�1F� t } ,i �af7n(�if( i Tr'jnlc )t 1}% 1, ljwnvr lrex r ICI n}pnl(�� II��)_.r) K X' , �,u ,�P�S�t� (o n�) (�tow In( 'i�c,ltu0IV' o�r'i ��A lr(nl�? ))3i2 Im) a 11 I��� �-, - C°)(0;ti .� (°)�Q?>{t ultDic ESeI eln�i�ie°/JJi r Ii4E gCJno_ )oti�C Ali iCFf94�t34v tI; j3/i )o>]Je'r.ml t IrrC { 1 r. t- I r T. 1,, t l l p 1 1, t i' y i ? )"5500� tc;l� )oX 7oUl�t�_ o��llo)I K41 r}2! t1m4K6,; Iny l---. VoX —"4I i�� )t�pXckliiK,>Ko �affnl : ` (o)i (o�(�tu l'�n}t IlL t�i W,�y�,(C�o�ri(1 ;;i}I)nA' 141(f) \O%v,11�,t i�nm(l��l ) c.,1 .i)1(oIf"ll'o), �-•lc � ho) Rll �, i } t �, 3z 6 ,R tYA 4 t n 1_�C C_A_ ( fMMVA l k l C J4 � o49U,k 6'Au� n f 1I ? t C 6 is I l 1 Z 7c o Gitr r v o a o �i € i c c 4 )r�q9C 6 t{� � j 11 I h��+IoXopc{colic( )?kol7c( �tlh}�rf` I�;i?\�t.ltteYc�JiriIRC a�t;t� t 1( i ))�f 7tnynlMit)gJ � d tvi;]iC ,� k ©ic o $51 0� �c;; v if�;Ul i c nCo nl oA,�i ` 0 2 sir It It ' o� o o Yn r `` �` I m2wc : c la `(�f( L c C t�41 ; ,��� t ( t t,�fl )qqC 1 > > k . !:' t i s .�' r s. �. 11 } I. A,(I i��{ )icy,11) iJ4>(�X=(oi 1U L�hv!, 0�[ 6i" �4?)ni)t(ctt i,1 ; )i,� --- L`'3aI �R lA L��. �liu�yF I i� ll)tit �,=':(C l} �QK X, 71;�i it Im�� I oXX )9( o o CoS- V jo) L�. 4�Y }�[ ��Qlic�o(Ul�o�ral j� } i } F r 1 i _�- " -,I., k4• KI 3 }'� , , l I.1 5 {r 1 t_r tl I 'q, x- t F,i 1 j�Ir 1 t a. 1 n z{{x P. a r i ;.� t I ` 3 iv i, .14 ,r t 4>j Id f t .� €' 1 r �R � 1 3 -..�r *, 4J 1= Y cY i- �+. 1 t i rl 3 5z� �� >x 4aa ' , `"e,i t: -^' # -z��,`i V +' ."' 3 al ry.� r �,:,. - �- --r�`^�." i,i.1«.�..�..,, --`Fn r5�r c"' a t t':i j.a-.-c,'-�i- }. ',.Iwt < .i�.;:4r k w� (. g�t.l 1 tdt t}i+ t <t .j; F a,,_t 1 r r ?. n., 3 ':i 1 i r =�i I�.t z t'k•1 a{I 1 , a„J€fr 7 4:j ���4 '( R h-.t; rt t i ! - Yrt 1 1 y , i i�5. t..,d 1 1 t :11 �.. I �- -�, t- 1 lai r s> icYJ1u R)�P� )L4�c� j4)i(al��t 'L t` Ja I i iT' r' a' i M'a e i i y; , ,F n .7 t v a: i 3 , { 1 , , o ) - t 1 1-k 4 t f, (1�4C+rC ` s r 1 � - J. � a i11 l H d ri r l - g c� - i I t7.a 1 1 r d-'U: i i ( ry _ ' , ,Y±, 1 F r '" 1 'tl `7 1 f 1 }? Lx�JF +4 q K't IT ( '� 1 J i � w I. si � 1 t`t i k j 4 1 1 1 f 11 1 7 i - i ! t _ ( 42 ti { t t t 1 .: 1 7 j $ .-I t 7 - e 1 i t': J��i i?r t r 1I. Y' Y,�1 k`:_ (ot1 , I[ i, ��7Cw < tl, ( of ( ' oa ` ( n as1 4` ` J 7t i( ( T n f 17 c Wn r c X 11 �4 C lti� X . �.fi�E Acru� l lc ,Ic 7 '1 , ; .t �ojir5�{>2ir �cltia �cl� )u}Gll�t�� L(c' ' of 4:Y�d?�o� ���1 �u}il(oP( t�• !��(ot il, 4 ZJ� v% 1,1('l( 4 I E �;lEl u l nit )E (c� Ilnt ,lob t �c{ll�� 1j l '{ {1u(> �u)It . ladt c4,6i,rz_:IIw (odic' t')I,'Ii 1 6 0flojL'I(L I )n [`t M a a i f I I I la 1 I 1 1 i� 1 ) - ;�I 1 j1 t r3 'i �! 1 1 ;I 1 7` 1 1 ��r �l 1 i , t, f O}(Igl( ,,Wu 51nKj rL1k�(o1 61sC 1 lcIQK t Ip)l[f.;)) l ,1L);II( IIEUI �o J po 4 1 „r3 r Y,rVF I4 x w r - =alr, .. _-,-, ...-, �..., ir=•.. �, ,3� i ,j I , :! { ,1 ""}RII7;iY Of 1 ( ,Ijr�Jin�(o��� t 1�. C r1j�5�tjr jnGoYo( '.5ii_J�.ii r>Y �� I,lr'!L(�41 (€�,r {J,rtjr�Y t°A/.,}nl(o�Er(,.; �P I rn ', , ,`, ul; r i It 1'` 1 2�7tl ! e f n (�,In(u� Iy agl�7hgq,, , JL� NJ (r)S7,1 ieYo)l{=C r 3 1�"sC��UICo1n1 J�Jf d2 r;,,_i J C $ �}�❑,' }. 11 if IE II 060171 j1 1 let �)' 1 I, 1 1 I I { }1 _ ( { r i �` r r 1 `. ` ,: r 'j' 1 1'f}<) L. 4�cli�lCo�IIIIYci) Il,t��.6I�uY3�il\vlaL�o�C Ir[d' (�Co}-:7tA(o �"at `l�C(ijiiC�Ir1AI {odln� 1cal�_ � �r'�o��/� '3r Q�n ,,"' 1", I lkrt �� -t- iA, +(�C)- - i , t -d 1 i 3 11 - 4 _ _ �iF(4�. 3u �ar� 18�P}\vi('1.I� '{o)x �Jn{ �� Ul,i },I1 y(Si,.C�.k s L7�l;u�3}I?41�L c l(o]ns {c}tl„ aln5( E Ir� i'i,I l;,� s ILj J ii< XoMEdidn �T , ; �tr�LEr ant E(IFll( l intl�(0? )1l i Ili i1`('Yo$ngij� J[)2 u� (o?Inl' I ,, <�i55 1( n(o?,SAC I' ?` '4 c I,C.E J�'�c{'G IC ]off J�,ll( w: (r,(l,'ir �Il .a;>> f n( I tEt iL(�(i11 RInDV010 it . ,C Ii(anUII(_0 Io.0 I f S') 'OJ;w/ (�lln�r ;' i 1 r o)f�,, " �(-z r)I t C (ct lJf yr 1 ev . ',:;J l ���)� ,_}� _ 2 r, �'; �n��lcs�� b4��i,�1 1°C J 994 cEc' _[lI���1'lf,l(c ( IIcal�o�nl Qlc,';-1 )oX Y {Y�e.11 I[,fl{ off vir/I!E[;Im O f`q 19 yAs� l< - q. /- , lytir , \,>fr'Ij5/t tf 7[ l�j(ud7s Ind l�v/( 1J_i) / E°,1�S1( < rEc tl( �nl, foYlr 12 C _O zoCo o�ilp,71toYInIT l,`If L u1 ,9,t;t;j lE(.>;InI ,r 6,0, r(oli yi)l� l` '�c`Jn1II., (i1(, iIfii��)�f� 4n1{ t> lo)lE( 5 4C. S 7r,( x l- ''i'r.% K `' t («` � l;J� 11 I' d4de ( o of ) I�)C�){f�a 11 " } a , .,. II > I- .i 1- I - _ 1 Tc v 'v/Cid7/ L�1117��/ '�jCr��Plir( r a 7 f )]'! ,I . i1 �l, 1v(ri,;,X ,r '. t I17La',,1i ( tl 1 i t I , G( 1;nCa' I II , n1Y i( ,I tt rII�/O) njj'' i 5- 1 - �! 1 `- 1(C,VC, 1LYniJi� lln(u� \shk !E(J 1)I�i{of< i; /hjJ�`S'4t'}S✓/(C(oia ,( ;u\v/7 )il II(o+lnl �Cxud9tlwii 11 1L(.�jinl r yu x v 3 4c J.. 3 .. ' -s' 1 N, { s = Y, ;e@p( 'j�'r '� ` + = -,. sl rig"-- (. a 4t rt r 7 1 Ij ° r._ I „ I ti I i 1 1 r - , 1 f t l { .I ` {i I 13 j �.. 1 i. F ,1 A I , 7 1 z 4 r ({,iL d _ -.f ; , 1.1- i F .1 1 ,I- - I:,, , ;"�- r 1 7 I , t t I 1i1 v4 it, ` I r ° - � 1 " j 1 [ ,r {, 1 1- z I. f 1 I _ I a i„ ,, iy, , I `j i f = ,I a. , ' I i_ 1, j1i t I .1 k 11 :, 1 .10,� (_ f 1_i i i ,: • f STATE OF CONNECTICUT) S. S. COUNTY OF HARTFORD ) SOUTH WINDSOR JANUARY 9 , 1990 I, Dawn M. Sansel, hereby certify that I typed the minutes of the Sept. ' 25 , 1989 Public Hearing for the -Zo l((f /e C -ems re: Application 8952P, Pin Oak 'Estates, Lawrence Fiano • �� and further certify that I have this date put the minutes on file in said office of the Zoning Board of Appeals. STATE OF CONNECTICUT) I r S. S . SOUTH WINDSOR COUNTY OF HARTFORD ) Personally appeared Dawn M. Samsel, signer and sealer of the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be her free act and deed, before me. Marilyn Burger, Notary Public My Commi on Expires 3-31-94 • .'�ii,�k p"cs� t'kt 3D�} s i�'t�l�P••,�,it3 �+. �a � vn tl s`" � s�.`�.` ri.• c t k _ y Page 1 Town of South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing September 25, 19% Application 9952P-• We're now going to hear application 1�'_'9,.i2P Pin Oak es. Pin Oaks Lawrence =iano. - << ; Good evening. My name is Robert Eisner-, planner from Landtech Properties, in Manchester. 11m here on behalf of _ fcaiywca\ Estates'Pa bier owner o L subject pro ,/ .. t , f the �_tb.j__t property. Also present tonight is Michael Kline, project ecologist, and Lenard Norton, project engineer. The site,`sir would you hold that microphone please? ) A, ;� ,... OAK Sure. Thank: you. The si:-lis located on the west side of Clark Street, just north of Stanley Street, and consists of a total parcel size of 47.4 acres. Phase one of this project, which is subject to the application, is 9.9 acres, lots, um, of the 9. 9 acres, 2.7 or 27% is wetlands. The 6 lots range in size, um, from .96 of an acre, to 3.5 acres. The areas exclusive of wetlands are . 9p .69 acres through 1.ram, 1 . Sr acres, with an average of 1. 14 acres. The regulated activities included in this application, - are the infringement of a roadway and storm water discharge within the 401 buffer zone to a wetland common driveway serving lots 2; 3, and 4, and the utilities for those lots through a small drainage ditch and associated buffer zone there too, and footing drains for lots 1, 2y 3, and 5 within the wetland buffer zone. On the plan, which we have highlighted on the board .here, um, the gray shaded area, is the proposed roadway which is approximately 2501 in length, and at its end, is the infringement of the wetland buffer zone. The wetlands themselves are ::shown in the lighter blue, and the 401 buffer .zone are shown in the darker blue. The green on _the plan represents soil and erosion control measures, which include anti-tracking pads for the roadway and common driveway, although not shaded in green, due to the overwelling gray color. The houses are shown in the sf , 4 ti - n`FS'�"r-,�'� t M4hr a' - �•3 'S." z1. R , Page 2 dark: brown, with the driveways in the lighter brown. The Wetlands for the site were delineated by Northieast SOKS2 in December of 1986. There is currently an application submitted to the army for crossing of Engineers 9 of the plum Gulley Br which is located .j�-4=�s t t e west f. the end f the4 the roadway, as shown. On the plan on the board, north is up for orientation. The plan before and just t�:� the right , �' -r �� you is consistent with; the findings of an environmental - in September of review team report which �»L?s �_�_nd�,_t_d pP report reared 1986, .as well as a geotechni�_al engineering r-p- p p_ by Dr . Clarence Welty in May of 1989, and a natural resource inventory and impact assessment report prepared by Environmental Planning Services of June 1989. We have rec.eived stiff copments on this project whiich include a report from 't'he Town Engineer, dated July 20th, 089 and a report from the wetlands agent dated June 29th, 1989- I believe that we have, um, addressed the concerns raised in bath of the reports satisfactorily and there are um, reports which wi_1 i ' be read into the file, after. Fart of coming up with the plan, which is before the commission, was an evaluation of alternatives. Um, as you' re well aware of the Connecticut General Statutes specifically section 22A-41 requires that an applicant explore all prudent feasible alternatives to a plan. In coming up with this plan, whiich we believe is the most prudent feasible plan for the prilperty, we did consider alternative roadway layouts. in looking beyond Phrase One, which is the 9.9 acres, as I indicated, into the remaining land, which totals 47 acres, we Chose to cross the Plum Gulley Brook at the least impacting paint. We consider the Plum Gulley Brook: to be a wetland resource a rea of high value, and during our evaluation, that had to be thie dominating factor, um, in evaluating the wetlands can site, and the roadway is therefore fixed in the location that it would have the least impact to the Plum Gulley Brook:, and its crossing. In addition, there is an existing house on the site, by which we had to locate the roadway ;in a conforming locatir.-n setback wise by zoning. It also explored several different common driveway alternatives for accessing the upland soil :area which is located to the north and northeast of this plan. Um, the common driveway location that we have Vosen here, is the hest location, um, because >,•�, Page 3 for one, its a narrow point in the wetland area, which surrounds the upland soils, um, and secondly, grade wise access the land area for driveway a even i f we were to P purposes, from another p+_+i nt, 'we would still have to Wave an encroachment into the wetlands at this point , for .utility service to lots 3 and 4. As par+t of the evaluation of this property, we Have performed a balancing test. Ulm, between reason of development, a development whiichi is a right of land ownership and that of a plan which is protective and considering the environmental value Of the wetlands. We believe -this satisfies le� that balancing test . At this point I'd like e to ' and over the presentation to Michael Kline, our ecologist , and ask him if he could go through the report that he prepared for the commission, um, and if you }la' s any i..j`S0<;?iy;.ons we'd be able to answer them at that point . r r. r !_Ihi, my n :m is Sil:_t"••.elh'? i .^;�', uh, thef3.rm ofwhl7! hl I'm theTWO owner , is Environmental Planning Services, we have offices In New H.artford, Connecticut. Uh, we were retained to examine the Site, document the significance of the various natural resources on the property, uh, prepare an inventory n -:�.E and assess ;+o th( l�h sie , aiF ��^ ) 3rjima1 �� ': th, impact of the proposed activity on the natural ' s oUces tha _. t thyUm, we' ve prepared a rep+�r . .t. !. � found cif: !� property. 1 that (_::,+be! r'l; mentioned, it's rather lengthy, um, I, in . 1 try and :Summarize, by I dodoe�!=t^'si'..:consideration i+:+n +=lf the h'+F= h1C+u'f, li'1 want to he re;:isQnably complete in terms of uh, explaining to the commission the significance of v%:ari!i+us areas on the property. Um, our involvement in this site, does date back to 1987, when we conducted uh, some preliminary field surveys um, and since that time, we' ve also been on the property uh, during the winter, spring, and summer of 1989, s+_+ a total of about 7 or S different site investigations. The overall parcel , the larger 40 some acre parcel , is bisected by Plum Gul iey Brook, in a more or less of a north/south dire!_tion, . I think Robert can point to where the brook runs through, and as he said, that does uh, start to become a very significant feature when you look at the wetlands on the property its very clear that -Plum Gulley Fir+_ok: and the agsociated flood plain area is the most significant wetland resource on the property? and so thats Page 4 the area where you want to start to concentrate your efforts and impact minimization and impact iTiitigatie+_n� The land does rise up rather sharply on either side, from`F'l"M Gulley Brook, um, the bedrock is very very deep and y,�at not a consideration on that, property, its one to two hundred feet below grade, then there's a thin layer" of hard pan over the bedrock, but again, we' re still very very deep, and away from anything that would be affected by the development. The next deposit that' s present out there, is a uh, glacial lake bottom, the clays that you've heard discussed previously in our comment throughout much of South Windsor . Over that; there are more coursed grain deposits of glacial ori_in .and also more recent origin. So its the critical thing to consider are the slopes and the closeness f the clay dep :es;iis .n areas where you get in ::le.ese to the we band :ir'(e:=s. Um, in terms of drainage 1en the property, obviously theras plum Gulley Brook, which runs through thy center of the site, bordering the Phase nnd area, u1•i,, on ;,`ie western side, wh,i.._h is a major tribute area of the F'>_e��u,�k:- River, thleras also a smallintermittent t '- = ly from a larvae wetland water curse t`•,:�.t flows n :r ,,.�+�:es:•:_r thats in the northeast st corner of the property. And thei'es also another water course that actually drains that wetland in the northeast corner of the property. Um, Robert's mentioned that a high intensity on—site soil survey was performed that eliminates the wetlands that were flagged in the field and located by survey, and that' s what You see in the lighter blue e-e-eTor on those drawings. elm, in terms o the vegetation on t •1P_ property, ism, thin phase one area is rather small only about ten acres, but it also has a reasonable diversity. Their e?s old abandoned agricultural fields, um, mixed hiar-dwood forest, uh :a pine:.' fe_erest, as well as several different wetland types, :and thiere is a uh, appendix attached to the report, that has a complete list of all the plant species identified at the site. Um, in terms of the upland plant communities, um, since they're really not a major concern of the commission, I' ll just very briefly run, through them. The veld field uh, which is the largest uh, part of the Phase One area, the abandoned Agricultural field, and has such things as Golden rods, and �•.•,: l e97 and so forth, pretty typical Queen Ann s Lace, L.+ arnb_L�.�; � n-� -�- T Connecticut post agricultural plant' community, um, central p-"�� mixed hardwood forest, on the, to the northern portion oo the sle._.ipes, there is some mixed hardwoods, uh, again very Page 5 typical red and white oak, hickories, some sugar maple, uh, those kinds of things, and a little bit further east of that, is a area of mired hardwoods, right along the northern property line, and that may, may be an old nursery, there's mostly young white pine, and white spruce, that are all of similar age. Um, in terms Of the wetlands, um Plum Gulley Brook is predominately a wooded swamp, and that just means it's a wetland dominated by trees., um, in portions of the Plum Gulley Brook: and also in the intermittent water course, um, that runs through the Phase One area, um, there are areas that are dominated by scrub shrub vegetation, small seplings and small shrubs, uh. - There are wet meadow areas. in the northwestern and central portions of the wetland that runs along the intermittent water course and theres actually a small area that you- could call a pond or maybe a shallow marsh, in the rear portion of, I believe it's lot 4. Uh, there's that area, and there's also just a little bit further to the north of that, there's another area where water does pond, and thast' mostly filled in with vegetation, so it might be debatable whether that -might be called a marsh or a pond. We did look: veryquickly q - ly at the Phase Two area, it is more heavily wooded, there are both mired hardwood forests 'in the uplands, and wooded swamp in the wetlands. There is also some extensive shrub growth in the Phase Two area because the power right-of-way that runs through it. That right-of-way runs through bath uplands and wetlands so there are bath uh, shrubby wetlands and shrubby uplands in that area. In terms of the evaluation of the significance of the wetlands, as I mentioned its very clear after just an initial look at the property that the Plum Gulley Brook brook area is the most significant wetland on the property. Um, these wetlands are high quality wetlands for flood storage, uh, ecological integrity, wildlife habitat, water quality renovation, and aesthetics. Um, they're not a significant ground water recharge area, because you do have the clay deposit underlying everything in the site, um, their recreational and educational values are limited because there's no public access, and there's also difficult access through the shrubs and poorly, very poorly drained sails. Um, on the other hand -the small swales and little tributaries and little fingers cuff of the Plum Gulley Brook, uh, extreme quarter are not generally as Vim ww, i •i_ 4 ..J•@R�X` `ta'u. •x,�;l`.'t 4.:. i»I:.Y�' 7:y "',k"""- !�' s ^tri't'+1' .�!i },.,+t},-a�"�f n�`. _ Page 6 significant um, they function primarily to convey water, Um, both surface water and ground water discharge from the upland area down to the Plum Gulley Brook:. Um, there is a uh, complex in the center of the Phase_ One area that starts off as an intermittent water course neAr Clark Street, its basically a drainage ditch, then about r1ght in the _enter of the site, Um, it widens out into a wet meadow then it narrows back down again a little bit, and at the lower portion there is a uh, this marsh or pond area that I spoke of, and that has 4.m, its been largely disturbed, uh, its very obviousagricultural activities in much of it, very obvious drainage ditch that forms most of that .L wet l and. Um, �l hen you toward the rear i n that mars}h pond area, there is some habitat value in that area. Um, there' s also a smell isolated }settle hole pond wetland, Ltm that has slime miner Habitat significance, but that's mostly out of the uh, the Phase One area. In berms of uh, impacts, the direst impacts of the project are very very limited. Um, its a six lot sub-division with a cUi-de-sac read, um, and the only wetland crossing involved, is the common drive that accesses lot 3, 4, and v. Um, as Robert mentioned, it has been sited at a narrow portion of the nsti:andz. it's basically over a drainage ditch, its its +u t speculation n my part, bot I think what that ditch was done, was to try and .arAfn the wetland that's way up in the eastern corner of the property, try and drain it back: toward Plum Gulley Brook:, the ditch was dug at one time, um, and its uh, its very very narrow, has a little bit of ?rush on both sides, um, and the driveway and utility access corner- does cross that area, um, in lookingat the plan`a that are just +-:}fin generation older that this set, it did appear to me that there was a Possibility of reducing the impact areas slightly by locating the utilities in the driveway rather- than in the outside the driveway. Um, the engineers looked at that, and he' ll explain that he did that to the extent he could. The indirect impacts, so that's really the only direct impact can wetlands on the project. There.: is a Corm water discharge from the cul-de-sac, which empties but near the wetland, edge of the wetlands, we've scaled it off, .just part of the meeting, its about 3501 from the brook:, there's a very substantial distance of wetland flow, overland flow, t 1 e Page 7 the water arse, wetland: have a very before getting t-,_, t high capacity tohigh, wetland oils generally have a very _ i, to water qu%ality, and especially When thley'rge'F,�,hierey Yen-va which disbursed flow pattern, w,l-,_h is exactly wh t Y- thc?t gt=tYt t=tf water w'='1-tlLi .jUSt meander around rather that get. directly •t,=: a water ,_�ll.srse, �rtd witF�in ��t7 , weexpect e substantially Yent=tvated, MY that water quality to b... v:_Yy ,,ok of prior t,_, get' i1i'� in the brook, once,,, in the by v. y V.^a course it :n'i:�?i w 'F�-s move, and thlerel S Y�:c?th very l_ e: ft.irthe! 1 en V?:,T:i ,, there' � r,i1,,.1�- 011, ttit t f the indirect i;T;0tS, L �?i �.n ?�r in.._ .l 1 4 further •rwn,_tv,� i�yn. , �: are sedimentation, really all You' re '1,=it=sr•'.in?a ti potentially ve already disc-ussed at=t].vitl�-SF t^t- v�- " um, and t.j:. l and clearing a,_au se storm water 'Jischl3r:_+e. �.�A, b_-cl-iSe this i`� s to be r anticipate�?te these impat=ts lot sabdlvi'.5' ,=n t,'e would an p v ,=,f erosion i on and sediment _�, min,,r, �.;�- in terms C �-e very v- i � F � '1•:.., ,=t f•1 the terrace r r a =,-tntrt=tl , the �:i,_ issu_ +_gym, is t=' '- d ,� limit getting lnt�. -- esc rtmjents as mt_;_-� ,as possible, and t - , y which re fine grained and are easily er:lU , th the i"' t=lt{yS, wtil s•_ ,:1 -+- those areas. Um, „G + does respect and um, this uh7 p; -.jet- i } ;a thry��,eFc. just, about tom:5 Wt�i';' <: is really lim. • d, t ht � .ai^t:��lt�i'F ,_,f .. l" �•.t t=,i;tlr?Y t,l;?n ,13•, a t the end f � , - de �-a,= and t cl '�• ice._,: right ear gr�9de, or a grade, � it`� basically being �! cut (- •F}l i:� ,=1.11"C t. Sa-, .. lt theactivity that •-u a UM. And to Moderatethetel fll�i,=„d soils, which only ,tl y have - '-,-, a about =i d at i O i v- erosion hazard. !..fm; i did make a Y=-ommen • consideration, i . !? 1`( at the F...i b . 1 y installing + _m;or% ry - ^t�nbasin, in he ,eaof the storm wate r di. .., har��o t.�d the engineer ':an efi-'lain that in �. little c-i•t• 'y ' . more detail . lie _ id tr�tr.,C- a little le more detailed l.t=,twl: at wildlife t i + -t:a 1 + + � � „ Of this habitat , than we might normally on �a small pr�_:je,=t Lim, obvi oust the Plum 1:�u ley Brook wetlands are . siMP� y t Support a diverse important wildlife habitat and they SupP- community of aquatic wet 1 and dependent and wetland associated wildlifey um, we did detailed wildlife surveys,won't Um, species list again, is attached '�to the t};anrtt=t indicate go through it in any grew, detail , _,r t}l1eatened that um there are no U.S. listed endangered st t listed species a special concern, <�pGti,=ley i;' i�[:,nili:�i: .J,,,=(..„ 115.,_. p 1 ,_,-,Yds either found at the site or known from historicalre-- um, we would obviously expect some overall change in the numbers and species of wildlife certain species would be Page 8 promoted, and others will decline as a result of the development of the site, um there are two bird species thiat may be eliminated but they' re not rare. Um, there are a couple of Turtles and one snake that also may be negativel)i affected, because they ose the mix of open fields and uh, hiL?r•dwoods but that' s not really a wetland primarily a wetland problem there. Um, we have made a recommendation to try and preserve the brushy edges, because that 's one of the significant wililife habitats on the site. And uh, we indicated that could hest be accomplished by placing conservation tase:Ti*si"`.ts on the wetlands, and also some of the adjacent uplands, And there is a conservation easement shown Qn the larger scale plan, or rather the 'smaller scale A plan, and it does respect that uh recommhendaiticon. !' 's oi..l;r opinion that rue to the fact that there' s a ���(CCNNN relatively low intensity development and only one direct (. HOW , whilh:. is A crossing of a channeli=ed intermittent water course, that the project will have a negligible :mpact on overall wetland values ..i the site. Um, i Ga be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for this gentleman from commissioners? Walter'- Uh, is it correct that this a substantially the S+me proposal that you had presented previously with thi some minor alterations iNV �Jh I' ll � .j� .L!_ai. .she _'`•}?pll�-ant answer thi�wt� �.j�_lc::=1+:i._�% . ' The plan is substantially the sameas that whs; Z. the ' ommission head actedon previously this year. '..!m, t'r.'.s time however, we have provided additional Information, . which the commission did not feel they had during the last application, that includes the geotechnical engineering study which was performed by Dr . Clarence Welty, um the report which you Have before you, prepared by Environmental Planning Services, and we have done some relocation of activities within the regulated area, to minimize the impact of this da'T'elopment. However , the imp:aAs which we' re proposing currently um, really are the minimal for this site. Page 9 Is it correct t4 understand that uh, the items or the t footprints marked 10i 11 and 12 are not part of this consideration? fiat ' s correct .of t . Those buildable squares or footprints swim, have been provided as the commission anq staff had requested, a preliminary layout for the rkillwl'.ndar of the land. Um, the buildable square or lots or footprints, however you'd like .sri. .re f;_,r:ance them, numbered 7-12, are currently the pre1im'..`ary 1atyf,ut which we wqui use, should we progress Oth this project, into Phase Two. P Us , in the area of th e where ah � tuiidJ.n7 is, di iectly behind it, and e joining lands, it was my :?:'Yse-vati on duri± « .f_:• e -;st rain fall , that that turned into a huge river, Vat perhaps the . (change tape) that the edge of lot 6 which would be,r _ 1 tel i eve the north side ��t 6, ; ; !ordering n an area that was lntensuly r` e f loads d, . and• again' !:_orD out previous concerns about boats being down in that area, its in I_tnwal ka`l e, unworkable area, that uh, no matter what you Aid o the area of lot 6, the crossing point For t a pino.• ks ::would still be, have to be peered, since thats a, essentially the same as a flood plain, when it comes to high 'water and water washing . through 'i,flc'it area. Guess,_ , lily personal observation j don't see where too many ofi y_,eiiese lots, and including `i' and 5, re fir?'oily buildabl .:. 7hey' ra again, iterations of how you can f-..s'`%..ipq and be able to f.F(..lt a 90 x 90square, but not be very practical as to being able to put _. house p on that t, ! • and ._=? a livable condition, expecting that you' re going t:t .. have flood waters, and high water during any major. storm. 1 d+Mfrs; hear any evidence here tonight that suggests that you" v'e planned around that . Uh, the footprints also don' t show as to whether those houses can be built with `-3asement's under them. _iu_ i d y :u address those items'? i believe that the geotechnical report prepared by Clarence Welty covers construction on the site. The feasibility and suitability for construction on the site as far as the compatibility of each individual lot, for individual development, we strongly believe that all the lots, as shown are suitabla and feasible for development. Um, they all e seed the minimum zoning requirements they comply 4:it!h zoning subdivision and aaa'.land regulations, um, as far as Page 10 the roadway crossingof the plum Gulley Brook, thatis et that .we will l have to gift approval through thie? S,»�tFl•._..,11n(� th?a� "�!•_ wis Corp _g who conduct o altar thlr=r�rl.:Ohl I-2V=eW Army _ :»:f Ci-�� .i.�?,_._ _ w ?_ Y . aapplications, so �:�,?i::rt of getting into more i»i l"t all L there e r t^ T detail r• the Arm ' Corp ,w;`. that , p;andi!-�g application, .L ' r_ cant r really comment too 'i,•_.nh? Further on ,tL at lc.•�. • _ I believe its lots 4 and ._i7 ^' _ correct'., i`�' new developing i:'� lots,e p -i''7 r ],� that youThat ' re <31`3i= ct'.-i.;'i�1:;� _i�i'cl?��jl [�Y�Vtwaya, is correct . not cwould' no be serviced by the _.°-!fi?�:'C.:..: -' r.., ' t M g the e I'll a!' is, I 'ae Lot ..7 `-�:... yr'r ,1; r'rri; ,� at j•- �p think Len is i Sl b able to pi::int i t out , rather than try-ing to describe where it I do �0-<:an d Led, i t is served by a _»,mr?rW d i .,Way. Um, when I was going to r»ammon driveway, T was looking more towards the common driVeway.y servicirg lots 21 ^_-., :and 4. thatr because i_f the single cut into 1_i._1rk Now i� •:h?�1 u primarily `=•�:�_,=t'.i.� , street, _ l e c!It being rather ;!i �",h i a^'_ ;�-s..�: ::�j.-s i'. i! Side d:? i r f c-1 Single j i�-i - .r. r-c't�;L'.[?Y .t,•i:n m:itipis drivewaysbeing l't St= ar:3te - cuts into the street'? on f the.t concerns M r the i,�moron driveway Yes, that Nii^'.�a ... �.a r .'?is - - - Y _ OWN - ni :� .;-�=,.�her »i�incern wa:� !ilini�i=::_=i:g serving i i»ii.:� .�, 1 p and •, hh, impact to wetlands reaching y the are=, the upland n c:°`ia d t P_ uplanuplandaareaareath? areas, on li»Ilotsw •cry There 1� a l�c'3'.`Q 1 tell t±.?:? lat ;_,'t:_ '_' V surrounded by r?.:� a!,»u can ' e by Plan, i- ? .., wetlands. hi7 thereby I3 :1ng it necessary to cross the wetlands in order to access this area. And that's !r ha we're proposing to do. Planning Zoning activities, i.:��i: wish : J discuss a, i1ii1_ a because they' re the ones that really dictate whether common driveways will be allowed. I, nor ,d,_ 4 !t)c?nt to r'eallY address the location of whie'ree Pin Oak Drive, comes out on - .to Clark street, but however , this commission should consider that as part of its overall consideration. That Pin Oak is at a 'dangerous point :in Clark: Street. And i h?ear nothiing that says that there are going to be any changes to Clark Street in that area. To either iMPrOve the site lines, or to make sure that there are no head on s o i. fi.:?t;ir�;:i�y coming i_it of �:i!-1 Oak: collision ,.� f_r ._ ton i�, .•`�•y. r y, .i50.�° L y L a \,. l . : 7 b sii a ��' ,-•'ya^�'p:^,?'r;;. - . .. Pag 11 plan ip:_a and 71�t-ti„g Those issues Les will bebe }.�:Lr:d'_ed with t}Zip ' }+ }Z We }Z•;i`�1? lai_:i 1r '.�1i.. h�: with ts line" commission alt .- _a c+ tL 1i{Za:.7 can be xndy le that safe and adequate site provided c, Oa ail I�~:� 1- t.lt�rk: Stree provi from tin , ' to lot{_ - _. ,`_Y:.! ". � that you }Z.av1l going nQ n � i�t.lSe m�'Y the '+iP.t1?In �:d�`. } � _1 1. S•traat•-, ::_"t ra ,.� "j- -:is-'_ r1:a i cut Into L: a yp `p Y' Yes. It ^• a • l,t s onto Clark - Si r e,mo tp tn e for -Fin Ye there are two F- the YiV: ` y Oak Trail , and the second that you provided ovi d'r d doesn' t show that, Oka �:_ei_ause the ^1_i7 � 4}l::e + 3tqRs we had �1L r ior to the meeting. jtln�-- t}Zat r:E' /: Y ,.J T w t. alb ,Doesn' t �}Z::,y,J t.h:'' c}:_. :1{Z l.: i.Lt y that's why I en Pr a._c.'_ are you s'�_+fa ln�_ to - /}W�9 t indicated in the Dkay, the purpose f (LAC7`� Hlt�c block, c. � '� d:_I"? }Zt?.4any the f8sourcl-i N" inventory "i.�' i?t?"•{a�4 assessment. Um, T�4tLt:Y�r; -,�Li}Z ::-•� s•y�_a roadway, umy outlined on i't Major site :` . such :_ t}z�.': r.i tt 90 y_ •�:_: 5(:{t_Lci.':•?'� 1!:ir ! ;i-�t:; t;`)t= i':'Z�:J:.�: (� _ ... ,... i .>�+;ad along , t1 Wit �1 ttZ .t.! the .m ; 1:.in �:iL_Lt.:•+ti : �a- _n- +, �r.L i� t:j:i(Z� ;�'1'='t�i i;'Z 4r'?. IZ ai p i- t h C3 application, make e! complete } 1yam_ have .n y_ur map _p :n p' p which The f- _* pr1 " t� that tZ: point Z:43 : ?? : : liil {f . JnY-yS andeverything else' buildable ��hta,ire, we Walter ..:!?r had brought theso ._r.-, i t w show }Zf' don't have any In formation on these ,;:aPs, tc t h Z n ,a !Z L t,,,Itiuld affect the wetlands t ,� would g1_I and how they j this i?. d-.::.�1c�nG�. I -n - i Zi-: time' } those houses are proposed a In t}l� arC?:3p where E .t how close of Or how they would be situated Or lii:=at,e. :I tl"'W how far from the wetlands they Wi�s.Lld be. Is there any way that information o We Can translate it to this t�,f getting _ _ look and we For our ret_�_r �.s =�'� when we o Out Land we f an-, i�1�� _ scrutinize thi�sy 'nt_'�:could }Z..4t-' 'Si�tT,2+ }ll"' g to, say, p sayingwn11 maybe i-ts here t;_Lt maybe its c,�<rnp 1 don't know? Page 12 ! • � We could add that .nformation off tile 100 s+gale pian, we tried to keep that particular Plan an as unob`cured for Pha SDE One > �ssible, in order that (-m, our ecologist t , We wanted focus on h points with that Part'"iar p 4•ln, -t that would Lq,_romPany his r _p_r•= , � $,�, dedicate {_iiTiy a plan ` U the Problem _.-p t'Y f+_ 't hl e commission.(T1 t?1 J.�s i.,=n, . rn, p highlight those a n ' _ _,1 •��, tJ.+_n _ant+ : any Qlvnn t too much information_rma what with trying 't:_i Put t+_ - _ WI ... i that y'-_. l _'�''e something. Any depending '+i"2 -: plan, information yi:.i re tr•.; g to� r h is • �� -�• f q..J --.a- :3A�. ,i f t hl e 1 n'f+�r m c3hat P?"1 1;! which 1+�P thlat� tt{:._ (r . .... *ii p ally contained '_n the ,_._:�._. '.;=i •ion plan i-5 :in r rt , ., environmental report . - But which accompanies -the I::R4J. - - ' a t the impact f the house is, the f,�il�t�Jrints �+f1 `''' _ with these of .sizes will have a li �t...i-.=ti+�it'i wi t�l „heae I �n -+ f +h,a. c,_ils in the area, direct Affect 1=:,+, the wetlands' or Without that' I.Ji�utid bT ,�i=a�.1,�sitioned i�tn here. ail t 1,�{lae� are these hi �. ..• _w. self, T =ar,� 1. ��Iz wher•= any '=°1 t for My own �l f _ d 5 sitting ritg_h�t -'n '=p "f goingWhere •G i!.L .jt+ i..{5e =�+�+:4 i1" �+ iJe Environmental Planning Services, and we n do our review, '.' ar' a full r._ 1-,; �.l• - were !:_t Set ai<-• w:l, that we I e::r*a'-'ted the i:=+'ii :,i{sue?+:+n E'were cl � G •+ ••.•J a located�+-c"itf�+� when ,'}te t WP �` R *�hl� ;1+ 1_{`1C.'�, were r�„].n »+ .� aware of where the � t •.F the grading id _ ,� ~ e ILti Iy g y 1 r -:..{Y report, ac'�.,.. .l utility ,,,,, e- lrr! t,�; .c,_.::•.t+.ry _!ll dians that are shown, the ow all that ... . ..t ,dscale -�'- _w ng ;`ou justcan' t ,1, �! y It just intended ti_ ,be illustrative, information Robert,t mentioned, 't is be read:�.ilt.t ��. 1•.=b1 i ., that information �: _� sj 1 d h i�Iv:- -I - Mail drawings. , opinion, and in availabia, and itwas +01_1_s] dered in :�'_{r u'iliy , � ;,. rel_,^�1ie,-.;•i;_r•; ftTr fa I am not the engineer, but it •: y .,,,.�,� IC.=t .. � 1�1 the hl�!mc=: T Or vela ('.11 g those drawings, that none f reviewing_ ii�_ ,_r the b:,.{iii�.i.'1C:;4s <' -�;...;ares lie withlil-� either the wetlands Part +-r, the wet 1 Winds, and that was at regulated area adjacent t_ t l t,,, r.,r_me to of the farts upon which we relied t_+ make our , our Opinion that there wouldn' t be any significant impact on the wetlands f}'+_Im the prr_posal . t tt• t but i f we di jn, t have i down its - Call appr e+_'ate lat , can' t T there then we can' >-, Li.tld '.�r ,t4rit _ry y .i. _t,s -I.It t t r address i t . _• ...t4,.-�.�,. -;Yeih X y: ?a� titiS-4 _. _. \t r., S"„` .�lP'. f ,_4�}Ssi �i si'+.-`T=�• ..; _ -A C .t +\~ ON Page 13 lt it' s...:- _ll the m, I dig believe -he plans. i j_thar Okay,_1 but 1 mean what do tt•e :?•�`:%.'? p:h y::s:.�::�a_a y'. _ n word we a these i..e i � 4ti rz; a 1 i . �p have .h i._..._ maps, u".. °.i... a+C !llhi_tf.l nq ���� t.L =!lal with the footprints .. eo cal location, 5o v r :i� and .'ht� smite geographical }. we know where th yt ar a in conjunction to the wetlandF:, t'_ wwal e that Coen through there, to the pond in the back, :antes,, the depressions, we '-.:now how they fit on here? If I were to go out i -,h} . 1 with t,;1 this . ' s map Out a this area, al•1!_ wry to designate, _. try t1:` find where these houses, the footprints krc!'..d i._t^ap with the ':t•::t7 I ih::av?? ui?--tre t^,e} there' s no `:J•:y ... Cal do that , - J The uh, t hn information that you' re looking for is in the sub—division i to plan,i, at AO scale. it does indicate your building ::7quar._... and 1'%::....r hwlGi.e. Fine •Tr1+'hr. -.**a!i` cdnrryItwith Can we get copies of t ih a t Well 1 � . 1 can' t_r' " _ f i- y t I y lid like � Ir _1::2.3�C :r anybody else, �L{t n ` :3?:'`. information ha i"_ h:'a toi . e.ai._3r , t,�--:' `e� asking hi rsomething that t.-e's already provided. iJ�2 M(i for can make . you. But H 11< ' s tar _'v=d,=d to you vo:hi:, ..Its _oi%iTS.:=0 _.:_. .1..__ ld have it also,, so when they look at h_z, Cr have an overlay, which they could lay on top of this it w=1u__ sI?I_w where ' t least . that's my point. You exactly .,� .: r 1::�� it' s.:� ��L- , ,�� 1 :� Y i- ! n1_Iw:. } Wc-111 take care of it. I have a question lid like to ask. And this is in * reference to one of Mr. `cCahi?l 's comments in his letter f June r"wtFh. And I haven't heard it addressed, or maybe I was sleeping or something ti?t`'i_•I„ligh it, but since it's a 6 lot t_i,h, Phase One sub-division with 9.9 acres and um, t!'h=, question is of 1.:I'he 9. 3 _.=.'es Flow much 1_"f It is wetlands? } Page 14 There's no calculation that would indicate in the 6 lots, 10 acre �r cel niYhi?t •�'{'he percent ge f 1 t � i p r ' t, .fie num�rit_a number of ac r es is wet _..._.... Okay. of the 9. 9acr=s, ;aprox,imately 2., T believe tha actual figure is NEE acres, or 27% is w tlands. And just for the commission' s information, um, and also for your agents information, as _ ...UM mention this to him when i left trhC:'fT on his dank, but, we did bring three copies, w•lhp-e:' additional copies of the sub-division plan, one of which Lit^, is a file ccpy, it 's stamped and signed by the engineer . And signed .I'.,`y :he land surveyor. Could you Lim, MY respect to lot I, much t_f lot 4 is 4d s..: a a'� Concerned !"S wit_ 7 V�{r _ r:S"_ _;i s�iC'� about ,� gust saw ... .':'t 4, you've go buildable area, and it seems that, lot .�• -'s ?:ii=r to ba c:i.;.._st tHa_ly engulfed. - Okay; is=Ft 4 i"S a 3- r_,9 acre lot. Ulm, from that i . OE acres is upland so!!,, So the wet"_• and area on that particular lot is 81, 009 square e feet . Munstion too faint) 3. 59. (Question tit_ faint) 1(J Which almost half an acre as 'wetlands. 'i understand that you got your ':j•• So out of this, but .iihh, it WoL:.i.d appear that your not going to :have much of a yard in 5+:`ih cases. Useable yard. I mean i Lim, I would assume the homeowner would have a right to expect the could put a picnic table in his yard without it floating away. And it doesn't appear in some of these lots, that your goiSg have useable back yard, your . going to have a, I mean if you say your going to have a 90 x 90 free of the wetland, that' s about all you' ve foot in some cases. Is it not? No, that 's not correct. With lot number 3' s Lim, the wetland area is :% aoi, t r feet, the l.i •_ square t non-wetland area is 30, 223 feet, or .69 acres. Um, which is certainly enough Page 15 area f� _�A •' .\ �'''+ flc?v� cl �lti:(�:3s� litu1 iT?�l.n}�ifi 2 )/a"u� �� � ..r '.r:F-i4+• ^.=fir amenities a particular person would want . Ump these re all reasonable and workable :size lots. Lhn, conforming to the town requirements. ItkLdW Conforming In what way? Square Hat, s,.,^,:., _i All dimensional ru,:##_iir _..._:. _»:: # _.k ;.;!._r concerned'+ •n , with the dimensions �i dimension, okay. wasn't +:.._(i__Y !::.d ,vi ' tl + exceptin relationto the amount of watianu within that dimension. UM, ourconcern Lsn' _ the measurements of the lot it 's the condition of thn let, at least my concern -is. _ t f ... :.... _. _ _ _'' Are tF1e:�w any f:...?-.•. -,#_liS�';. �i= ��lt �'�.i>' _;ti'itT:i c=�� ==f iei_ OPT `��, •I had •a lionstion. You had indicated that the •1 brook, t- a the p1 -,t,a which w'�uld .r3ate � '::r+irx�1nQ =''f ��le ur,�tt+•: � ',a_i.::� ?. .rt: i.:__. w.t .t.L_. minimum impact 1•-.r t t y o I d= ..'f t describe to us h+=w YOU came to that conclusion and why ycu' ra confident that the core would :i?a y._._ allow you to tr: +:+'._s at that location' Well after ii,. '"'#,a;r': ilt� width :w;+ i:� ':�1`:_,. ._1e.ds, along F'lum 1_�_i_1ey �rr,t.:k, ^im`, the width -f the '-,•r-ok itself, the .�1 � ' .eras adjacent ,tit t brook :aims wetlands yt�,~at,�• �,f outlying areas, =-•ja-'_'e"is _ (''iE` r.. .. associated with it, from the professional input that °'1'� - had, it was determined that all '_,i _tor 's considered, that .}_1. t. , r• t h�,:•• least. : �'•+'i.^ 'i '•' _:i t 'fir : ..i c h to i ...:�.: point �r�5:!:� L'c.l:, ..:. ..._. .` Its ....._ .. '�i �."•_ cross P l'._E i�'t 2ulley Brook, ::Tit lue to the amount Of disturbance, an impact Um, which we wc;_;ld havec.n. the PIUMi the Army 1��L 11'�•'y Brook.„ As _+:?' c!_ i, Corp ;=r l - =ci t i c-t.+tgoes, um, as i said We will !1i^'!ve to wait V 3 it we - - : into further review with that agency, ba f or^ m, we' ll know whether or not they will agree with our application. M, did you have to submit a proposed crossing design, with your application? And any other further construction type detail Yes. My is_me is Leonard Nort'wn. 11m a professional engineer. I work for Lante h Associates, l _ _an<_tom'd in the State Of Page 16 OSd Connecticut. ' tUh, the design that we Sent tothe corp of proposes to put two concrete arch structures across the brook area for minimumimpact on that wetland and flood plain area. it entails putting a ton+_rete footing down into the soil , there' s some peat that's ettled, that has to be s_ r betting into a great deal of detail . !ht .r',_�1_tings will be placed, and then these concrste arch structures willbe set on top of these footings, :7i,d what r-'-iat "'ti-i�a�.. t t _p r. 9 .. does, i'L" serves .J+_+ purposes. One there's a minimal disturbance for the wetland area down _ below, ,. ) so impeding little of :.F?e flood way that [as;•tes down through there.e. That's the system. W( l ve bo—asted therm to get;' across t.`er 2, We' re basically a+_+%ng to pa-n that flood plain area with arched structures. They happen ' d_s-• be _.lh .. . a t 1 Are those prt calt- feet wide • ~- ii T,.?pyf .-.-, pY.r'!^-,r,,u - --ri ri��•a .r�:rLi+_'t_Lti`f'c„ They are at the base, and 7. 3 feet tall . And it comes in sections. J. :li• IR Iy sure Ma'_ ._ the sections are probably `I' or 5 feet " wide, and they just et one down right r:._.:+ to the Cher. As: you along the footing, as you make that crossing. And we've sent them you know, water shad maps, drainage areas, 1L Y Possible culvert locations, and structured depths, and here _ b•_ .r• ._. .;:a rl'_sn[3 C+LI.. t?L�re +a WFlws�? a�".t+=+. ¢�i;d _. i the pertinentinformation* was _�nt to ,t• d .�.� P - :� t, {r:�etn 4�n� re t ..ur"rently reviewing the project ,' 1 be11eva it 's ,ai-tive with them at this t L•i:,lap s • just takes awF?.1. 1C to get anything thr%=ugh the system tt there. , But •t:. j h,7 _.rl 4:t._it N' But 4:•a.-1�t'' Ye.._ got " t ��f' ._.7c kLa.. ^ WNW �Package and as vF?e'y aSi•:: for lisi-loi" additional Cjatc?f what.-•Lrer it might be, we of course bond with them, and send 1r up. it's a beingactively looked at by them, as far as we know. Did anyone answer respond to Wal t'S issueaboutt, lot 6 and the amount ICIf water that accumulated on l -t S. I didn't Fear an answer t�i that? What v lot . . Lot � v 9 _..•h t. _ m not, sure exactly what area the Gentleman was talking about . But there is a wetland area in this corner of lot 6 and a .lope t-t' s d there's slope c.:.....�n t_� i. ::� and r a a wetland MOM OR Page. 17 area at this end, well let me move this . . In lot S. t L pasically, lot E has a g+»'od deal of upland area here, as I say them.'' :a also a down in his area, there' s a 100 year flood` line elevation of approximately 50 that comes d' wn here that meanders {down through the project down through the brook area here. _h, if that ' s the area that you ..spotted the water, hen there down there' s wetlands there, theres a theres a slope down to the Wetlands, and there's �x-t_+_ t 1 1 y 00 year flood line ;;;ow there also. in that .a�i : el 1 �r . .� _ _•�: � � .ten corner of the lat : But, its, the existing . + uses there, all we p _p:.se to :.'o .with !that house, with this particular of is the existing 4ause will remain as it is, there's a driveway that t _ y driveway that comes off of Clark Stree�-ytthat �1�.�..�di .13 ..- r-what wt_t•_7ld be the south side of thehouse, :,7e' :'e simply going to eliminate that driveway since i:ur proposed roae times K h^re, and just bring Z driveway off of our proposed :Mul-de_sact uh, to the back of the hoOk. Tha'tt". ' s t:he only development that's proposed on that parcel of. land. just 'tiobring a driveway in to service - thal house. if y o_ don' t have ;` a 40 scale drawing, it might i e difficult to see that .. i realize i doit.+ You've made reference during he presentation regarding +=Q:t_ervation e_'3::3emeits. Um-, l+=t I Where would where r •tdoul tt 1'cu Basemen f when the majority of tha right hand portion of that propjer4y is { e,t„+- d" Plus the setback. M, 1 have some concern that vei"! though i you t have ci buildable square, when } __ place upon it a conservation easement , pl i' our regulated et!''ack, there may not be enough useable yard L l! d for recreation. And 1 see that !_olds true in a number of these sites. With taking in our, taking into consideration our regulations, would you clarify those. G There is a considerable portion of lot 4 um, which would be j �-- incorporated into a conservation easement . Um, recreation, does not always have to be active racreation, it could also be passive recreation. Um, wetlands have a known function as providing recreation. Um, there are all Is6r is of buyers <'::-.r - c .:t d all sorts s o f homes. ear Um, not for cool sorts .. : markets, 1n:� aii a..rt � ! :1=171• a. everyone desires a 'house which has a large lot, one which requires a routine maintan=:.athca. I myself um, own a house A.y`l .a'�Z, t iSt• 'ui`h Y�.t,{x •1,�����M1�j�'�•".a'' t{�'"��'�-� -�-'rr'�`r-"7 4x._".•C .yx... -.>iiw•.`Hi-M-.o••.•1- d,. -_ Page 18 that has a vast ma.j+_rity 75*4 +_If the yL�rd a5 wetlands. it's -� Connecticut Fiver. And-L (' part +_f the flood glair. +�+f thin T' m jr where I (� _..c the reason m5 whey L enjoy that. Um, _one • . t: • + +_un5ervatil_n far as the useability +�f land after am. 5 t=+ easement, um, one Of the functions +f fL�e easement is protect the land as a res:_�!I,e, and I d_+n t s_ +� e+- + r�,�r from recreational value. takes.� away +�•••.+• ';� l:+vei 'ect here. It is 11:0.! at the Scuse me. T want - •J for � a .lt 'rot to extend the meeting r c� , w_ I:i_ P.ci tiii e i t t . i + �'.L d _ r� � �: �1 l+++w '(`,e''1:� public enough { another '*;;Mutes,. But caLS_ al . • least an+, It was time to p ?'t'-`__1;ate in �here action for thus. time Meld _ a 1 . _. �` S_ c_+',/ei11nR �h''ai thiC� lt�at el We suggested t'ea e r l : :i.. � ,� 1pl e to -' ! '` that people did not have- zwIp: - � a ubl iC hearing, that p � 1 to entertain a j.:_: _ r_. T i.•touLd Like •;s i,. - '-'- ,_'Cl minutes after L L f w d �-..... e ,t;.ng until menu e ^1+�+.� _.n �rl ;s:; '_n_. this fe._ _ � the - _ � t by t e p and have e �-• Far _I•=' t hl r =+14:_i i 1 v � h l n hooet::> > y we +_ All , those In favor signify public participaticn as we by saying Ai ye. in Favor . All those opposed- 4.4 �j d like to turn this over to my1;..1c^i1'�. again. okay, just, I think one of the q_u==:lons was This is , _ t 4 i where •1 he .,ynservat�; _n easement line went , and on lot v _+ tr•r•3 �.+i t rl�i.�el��;e ,,:1e marr�:l 1. ond area, lies plum and a + Brack, - t a well as the larger wetland in near �`lt_!m �_-.uLi_y E�r� •., T •� Of rend off this northeast' corner of this property_ n eems tape) . btu' s and enjoy property as an expert, thiat' s YOU r inion about that as a layperson, but 'r•:n+_:w, I heave my own _c u i5es, again what I just in terms of impart assessment p p" said before the all the grading for the home and th1ettare driveway on lot 4 as wall as the entire buildable square only outside the wetlands, but als+_+ outside are located not +.. y So of the regulated area adjacent to thie-wetl4nd5. S based + and based �_n this grades +_n thus' area, which +n that fact sign fi+_ant are very very Gentle, T wouldn' t cIntl+_lpate any sig gradingver a�.�__ia•._d with the lot I don' t believe there will ssoc i e meat _f the be any impact On the wetlands from the develop TIT" 9 Page 19 non-wetland portion of the lot . 47" Any other questions by the commissioners? r l0�I had a slight problem with trying to clarify the' drainage, '' and I thought maybe Mr. Norton could run through that briefly, especially the idea of what wah, going to happen with the water across the street from the Pin Qcr stub that is proposed, I'm not really sure what ' s happening with the pipe that's underneath the road. There's was a bulk: heading concept in that got clarified, but I can't remember what the final resolution that's on the plain. ; ' . `•. ��q.._ k:ly go through the whole thing. Papers sh uff_ling,. i',m going to tTy to use c. combination of the plans here. I realize you people have _._. =thing like this s in front of you, and I 'm deali7g with a Wit)' scale drawin_, Mere. Uh, basically Where are a few culverts crossing Clark: Street in =ui"- area hoer 'Cr a is in the area down here in the I guess It L_ 'be the Wasvern most corner :, lob 4. _h, there's one that ^o..Ts across th':e street, approximately at the- at the pF per ty line of lets S and 4, uh, one that's going; to bulk: at the Pin Oak: Tail , .znd there' s another culvert on =i Kyr land down here, which on your map is the wetlands f irgor that 1•,eads up towards Clark. Street to th7e south? of _ _t S. There's another cul'•r'{ert there. The general drainage pattern of the site 1S iti1;3 from southerly to northerly. 1 Ti72 culvert .,.r thisarea, comes ..iiidC'Y ClarkStreet, any t' art -.: t turf that as e b the L turfy, it' s tay., _ 72 study u,7•au w done �..y tip. ,?Lid l.`.h7 study, and that actually backs up some water Mere to our benefit, anti., keeps it from coming through here. Th7ees" s a 1itti 1� ' place L L down the .}. detention 'r��r.inG his?�=e t,7�?YB, trlhlltl,7 �1,�tw':� t.t�.?t..n :-7e Waver . coming across Linder this Way. The culvert that 's t,.t'7der _:h, Clark Street, existing flows from the north to the south it is proposed to bulk: head that culvert, or block: it, in ;an acceptable manner, so that the water, and currently what the water will do, it will flow from the north to the south and it .,lust tomes around, if you .will it's right here, it flows from about where the entrance of the street is, flews from north to south, follows around the south, comes back: through the towards the north in this culvert, and ends up dawn in the Plum Gulley Brook. Uh, for this ;:^.ortlon bf water that :Mould normally go into that t1 t ' t' :7 be picked up in the street drainage, and discharged at the end Page 20 of the temporary cul-de-sac . UFh, ending up in exactly the same place that it would have, .just taking a more direct r=!+tt%y instead of going around to the south of Clark Street. There's a culvert that comes across Clark ;.street, as mentioned on the !at line between lots 3 and 4, comes across to a catch 'gas n type structure, ,and then it's piped, this is existing, i _ existing piped vt' , a-L 1 = - a' t!_ the e West, s t - I'd say approximately 15 feet, give or take a few feet,. and then It 's discharged, it dumps into what is this, appears t,i be the, dug si c h, down through to the wetland area that was to drain this area. Disi7arges here, continues through th-s wetland area. And we proposed no change to this, we' re going to culvert th2 ditch. There's a final culvert thatin in this area, down here right at our easterly most corner of our property, flows from tile."'• south to the north, thewater comes cnto our property, flows in a pattern similar to t4is, and there's a if you will 72 contour Fflati' s !=+mpl°-tely around here. And this s like a r littil M:":::"mot:7 Area OV3r here i guess. What happens 25y the water will come through here, it' ll pond in this marsh area. . '::'ien as the water Builds up, depending on what your '7t.� t; t storm, tow"•.�, ._� , .= �'y ?j-iPt there's el maximummaximum .^-.._i?Vati _!n this water can reach, and what it will do, it' ll flow natur all . to the r 4 ,1- s L f !ems 7 ,•li -! 't :l!,! f; 7 �?•-:t_ �F:�� �!�!ltt•hy F7a1 i f _t :, _ ' head t d :.� north,h pick the existing drainage ,J7.1: F7�a� _w�1f::!_s s:h_ n::r ;.r.,, � up . ; i channel , as it always has, and meander on towards in a generally northerly dire ti_n. The _t1er half will head towards thesouth, as it does currently, and come down to the !_...lvarty as it currently does, and go down through the ditch. it intersects about where that culvert :s. We - propose no changes � n that drainage pattern. it will have no affect on the lot that we have hare. The building square is up above that elevation by 2 feet . The house is up above that elevation by probably 6 feet. to the grade at the edge of the house, so the drainage pattern to there, south to north, it' ll fill up an area Merey then it reaches and goes north and south. Uh, the next culvert down comes across to the north, heads westerly, comes across the ditch, the only change to trhat, is we're going to pipe !across our t__immon drive. The existing culvert that >::urr*ntly flows north to south, will be bulk, headed, the drainage will be y:rougFht to the north, It will dump in the same area that it would e'•.`si: ualiy get to, and the culvert to the far south c^d of our project, on t_iark. Street, will K r� yy y ,Y �� @, '� 7'a.- T a:L� {~� �..,$t ,, '•',a w.. �` }u ,��"y lT'1 y K ,. 4 &:-:.\ �+..i..:---• Page 21 remain as i 'a, we have n�= ch'i ange t+i that, we have? we imply that tt ar • a. i T thin':: tI?i s is the one you proposed used no work: in i L 4oO were most concerned with as to what happened therey and there was a t� in the report at first, that made it sound typo report r �- �- put, as Far a� like it was doing something different . know, the Town Engineer has reviewed these drainage PF', calculations, and has accepted them. sure -t n'-t��ibFer, where y u said where the Qfy TyF-n not the lot y .�-, the footprintPWjjNA drainage goes th„r side of the fr-F:Dtprint, /� was it 31 above flood level' �J No, riot . wel And, (This this) \. HowIre You th?L•'` h?�=Lis:5_',v: h?�_ L {. .:l'- C' + getting the °"e`- E' up• ,t�. f t I (.F-Ion," t know, tvis square, -r•: � when I say this 4 , _,F,'�"�Y i n r You t FLl J located at'ed at an elevation, as y' this '�I^�! '?(�:' sv:,ulYy.', ..s _r 7J mere a-t•, :. '^ ° � 'F' � ,�.j�=v�t i F�1 r'i �F , about y -: see, he squares d here that would breach in r h •g' ground L'�Y less, the area o high that direct F-:i: ar'.:u nd 72-1/'2, 73, i i ':J, i 5 - 'that the neighborhood. So wsIve got 21 or , water will head towar is the north and the south before it would even, L-P 1"� "T r_ it won' t get thl�z�' high, It can't •r,_:, ha elevation of 5, ! g There! :a grading ak' ng place wh?iCh? 15 where u..- square 1S. l of the requirements, ::r stipulations . the 4 i n here, '_'n':- requirements, � L ,.1.,. plan own Engin=°=:' y and I t;: sorry y' � F�nse to front >=�f yi_uy but each one of the?.�e }?,_uses, in response h?i s request, Fequest, 5h ow y s a sewer l at er ai y a wat of lateral , footing drain, with a gravity discharge, finished floors, for the garage and houses, and a5.3_ -iated gradinga house. It 's .all on this plan which? you have several submitted. And I That' s how I know that were s•�bmit -' �' ' can + ;a�v an elevation of that the elevation _ f the square here i T about 75 howevery when grading the house fpr the driveway, y, the sewer connection, footing drain, taking every into eiffect, into accounty the grade, at this end of the h'ruse, is at an elevation of 79, which is you know, 6, a s or minus, above the what this water could highest pond at. Before it went in . L? , To level.- { Does that mean you re , i.i l i ng ea^' - Page 22 No, that means we' re filling this lot to that level . It �,L �-L a .just depends on what's Happening to the lot, this lot shows '' no fill , this lot shows lets see . . . 2' of fill about where the house is, that shows a foot of fill where the house is, 21 , we're not doing anything there; 2' , the actual filling there the contour that goes through here, is a 76, that goes through. the House, or wev r e proposing a 79, so it 's a 3' fill for that house. You generally put a little fill around every house, so that the water sheds away anyhow. Two f oot' s an average on a flat lot. Which is generally what we have here. Thank: you. Any other: questions for this applicant? Is there any public participation in favor of this applicant? John.. R Is there any public participation that is not in favor of this applicant? Please, you've got your time. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentleman of the Commission. The more I heard, the more questions 1 had. I have a problem 4 4)01� understanding the way they measure off what is a wetland and what is not. And Mr. Eisner spoke of a crossing, crossing the Plum Gulley at the least impact point. It's still an impact paint. I don't know why they g=_ from least_ to most, or most, I'm very very naive to this. Everybody speaks, the whole meeting tonight geared around the vegetation of a wetland site. Do they see any wildlife. What .about the bird sanctuary in the back: of my house on ::lark: Street, which is 479. And it's very pathetic to hear anyone in this day and age speak: so thoughtlessly about eliminating any specie, I don't care what kind. of specie it is, if it crawls or walks, it's still a specie, and they speak so lightly about elimination. I guess it's a case of who will exhaust first. My coming to these meetings, or them :standing before this commission with chicken scratch to their posted when the meeting is taking affect, I don't know how that affects my house, um, if that's a sub-division a, it might be b or c that affects my House, Page 23 and if this is ever approved, I want to know how many other realtors are going to present themselves before this commission, because according to the adjacent property owner list , we not only have Fairway Estates,_ we have Bruce Kelley, who's part •_f Kel 1 o, we have Clark: Realty, Andover Equities, and verome Associates. I assi:ime they are all realtors who are eventually going to appear before you, and ask: for variances of wetlands, and eventually we are not going to have any. 3o, would somebody, and I think: I've asked �i s i many times,e h tell me what wetlands are ��f d this s a_ T...'ly t� 'ilc_a, i_l�i, ;what use are these wetlands, why are we coming mere when we've received these registered letters, telling us that there' s going to be thlis meeting. What is a wetland? Why is it so important, why are we holding meetings if these r'copie, and I don't :wean to indicate them as individuals, but anybody who ;appears before you for looking for vari arces, of one sort of another, why are, what rights hiave they grit tom: task: for variances when the unspeakable people, the wildlife, that I was under the impression these wetlands protected, are not being protected. I mean I stood before you twice before asked these sam'=s questions, and still very vary confused about the answers. Mr. Rose Kp the street from me, on 469 Clark Street, had a garage, he raised it, to rebuild, and was told he can't rebuild it anymore his i am has .been claimed to wetland. Because 3 & . v Estates pitched two houses right into his property. Therefore, dumping all this water, and not giving him any room, or any leeway, to rebuild his garage. My back yard, has not been dry, but for about 10 days this season, whi:_h means the Plum Gulley Brook:, which is showing little signs of oil floating in it, is raising into my back: yard. My back yard is wetlands, and that' s okay, I mean I got a third of my property can a wetland, that's all right, but why are they going to pitch two feet here, and two feet . there, and put houses up E' , to drain into the gulley, to end up in my back yard, or somebody elses, because I understand there some other property owners Here. I'm having a terrible problem understanding this. Uh, Mr. Walter, uh, spoke very eliquently as to chocolate and vanilla, I guess I'm vanilla with him. Because I've got a problem with shifting of parcels. Clark Street has become very popular. And I guess it's gonna be there long after I'm gone, and sb will this commission, or another commission like it . But I really appreciate the fact that a"L�d: � N l 5 R - Page 24 you are dealing with future consequences. They' re talking with the here and now. They're looking for what are we gonna do with this parcel we've invested in. You' re looking at what's gonna happen rafter, and I thank you for . it, because they are not, and you're speaking for me. Is there any other public- participation? Want me to sign that again? I'm Sherwood Waldron again, and I'm not really against this application, cause I understand they gotta build homes, but I want the commission to know that I do own property adjacent to this piece of land, of some 28 acres, and I hope that none this water that is t_'Q.,..z flow ` =m Gulley Brook will flood i=f1 over to my land, a'j _ther thing is that I'm land lot there now, as it is. I can get in by a -helicopter and that's about the only way. Li.''ut 1 hops that they give some �- consideration in zr future date, I have no plans for that land,- I'd like to see it stay as it is, be it wildlife or something. Put, I hope they' ll give some consideration to having some lot left :so that we might want to get in there some day. Thank: you. Is there anyone from the public to speak on this application? We will close the hearing on this application. Thank: you very much gentlemen. Do yo have a question. (Faint) . Before you do that perhaps we should extend, are you going to be lengthy or how much time do you think: you're going to need. I' ll be brief. Okay. Extend the meeting 5 minutes. All those in favor, all those opposed. Who seconded it. Michael Mine, Environmental Planning Services., I' ll be very brief. There was concern raised in the public_ comment raised about wildlife impacts. Um, first of all , I guess the first thing I'd like to emphasize is that predominate wildlife impact to this project, is a result of the development of the uplands. Um, the non--disturbance, or virtual non-disturbance of both the wetlands:, and the Page 25 wetland buffers means that the wetland impacts in terms of wildlife habitat, enroachment are absolutely negligible. Um, there are always going to be some lass of upland wildlife habitat, cold field and brushy edge, we've made some recommendations to minimize the impact by preserving some of those edges, and in putting conservation easement: on the property. We certainly don't take the loss of any species lightly, the point that was trying to make, and I guess I didn' t make it clearly, is that, on this particular site, there may ba one or two species that are- eliminated on this site, they': .- not rare, or endangered, they are present all over South Windsor, and all over this portion of South Windsor, it is as a biologist, I'd like to not see any of them impacted in any way, but It 's an unavoidable consequence of residential development. However, I would like to emphasize that these wildlife impacts would occur from any change in land use from this site. In ether �- worAs, right now it's an abandoned agricultural area, abandcnned agricultural area's are generally fairly 'rich in wildlife. However, they're certainly a lot less impact from-residential development on the site than there would be if the lard reverted back to its old agricultural Use. Um, so that uhi, these wildlife impacts are all on a relative scale, any development of the property in any Way would have some of these minor impacts, and certainly the residential use would have less impact on wildlife than the previous agricultural use. That's a �- Just in closing I would like to reiterate some of the information presented earlier , and that' s that this site has bejen before the commission quite a few time'=, 'There's been a .:series of professional reports prepared for the siting, including an environmental review team report in 1986, which had conclusions that with minor modifications to a much higher density, residential plan the site was suitable for development. Since then we' ve had a geotechnical engineering report done because there were some questions as to whether or not the upland soils were suitable for development. The conclusions in that report are that with proper engineering they are. There's no problem with the Man as its proposed. These comments have been in- -rp_rat c d into the sub-division n plan end are specifically referenced. Um, we've had a complete wildlife inventory and impact assessment report, prepared by Michael ► ;; � = 7 TINT r . Page 26 Kline, and you' ve heard his testimony tonight. The Site in Phase One, as 1 indicated before is 9. 9 acres, only 27% of that is wetlands, the entire site is 47. 4 acres, with approximately 12-1!2 acres of wetlands, that's only 8%. Under the current zoning, meeting current town regulations, this plan is consistent with the? governing bylaws and regulations of the town. Um, it 's a feasible and prudent plan. There is no alternative without confiscating all reasonable rights of the land, uh, other than the plan here. And we nJ.. .;l re;qw3st thathe commission consider the information that is in the file, including the reports which I' ve raferar2ed, and make a prudent decision. Thank: you. - { Thank 1 you much.� (_Ir.� that closes i�f-� .fit application.lc.nr: y_u Very �TiL:_. ��, �;c.v _..,_s this arpli -ati '%n. i 1 NO. CV-89-03701375 SUPERIOR COURT FAI-RWAY ESTT'A`PE'SAi; HARTFORD/NEW BRiTAIN , VS. AT HARTFORD SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS .AGENCY/CONSERVATION COM,MISS,,ION SEPTEMBER 4 , 1990 �+ PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF _ On April 3, 1990 the plaintiff, Fairway Estates, filed its v brief in the action above against the defendant South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Cons ervation Commission. After considerable delay, the defendant's brief was filed on June 7 , 1990. In its brief, the defendant misstates several facts, includes information not contained in the record and takes legal positions contrary to W established caselaw. In order to counter the allegations made by the defendant in its brief, the plaintiff submits its response } herein. r__.. In its statement, of facts, the defendant states that the plaintiff proposed to alter approximately a half acre' of wetlands in the construction of phase one. of its Pin Oak Estates subdivision_. This is, not true. As clearly set forth in its wetlands application Return of Record, hereinafter "RR" , exhibit 1) , the plaintiff proposed to alter .05 acres of wetlands, one- tenth the amount claimed by the defendant in its brief . The II' i I . i defendant also states that at the public hearing, the Chairman, James Lombardi, "pointed out to the plaintiff that there was no information on the maps that . were submitted to show where the buildings would be located. and how they would affect the wetlands in that area. . .-" What the defendant fails to mention is- that' the plaintiff did, in fact, submit this information to John McCahill, the Wetlands Enforcement Officer. At the September 25th. public m i hearing, Mr. McCahill informed Mr. Lombardi that this information m had been provided and offered to have copies made for Agency members (RR exhibit 25, p. 13 ) . g In its first argument, the defendant states that " [a]gency members were entitled to use their own knowledge and observations in arriving at their decision. " The defendant also asserts that although " [a]gency members may not dispute scientific facts offered by experts, they can certainly, from their own knowledge and the ev,,idence presented to them by the plaintiff, obvious f everyone w Z to see, dispute the opinion of the plaintiff 's experts . Although Agency members may consider information obtained i a through personal observation of the site and may rely on their own Wknowledge concerning non-technical matters, they cannot ignore x W expert testimony pertaining to. technically complex issues. The defendant 's statement that commission members may dispute expert "opinion" at any time is incorrect. All testimony provided by an expert at a hearing is ,opiniion .. " It is, however, an opinion I i� rendered by a professional in a particular field after consideration of ali pertinent scientific facts . Despite 1 2 defendant's claims, the determination as to whether, and to what extent, a particular activity will impact the wetlands is not.,_a subjective opinion. In order to make such a determination, engineering tests must be done, soil samples taken and analyzed, eCDW.,sYZZaMs-,5t4W.ed ;A4d,,-t�e� ' of..these and other factors must be taken into consideration. Such. tests and analysis require professional training which the plaintiff 's experts have and the Agency members do not. Even if the Agency had - special knowledge or exPertise :(eg: a member was: a professional engineer . it must notify the applicant r of that fact and. give notice_ of the. material facts critical l,.to its decision. See Tanneg v, Conservation Commission, 15 Conn. App. 336, 341 , ( 1988).. In this case no notice was given of special ,knowledge or expertise head by any particular member. Contrary to assertions made in the defendant's brief, however, the Agency does have its own experts - Town staff and it must rely upon their expertise when faced with technically complex issues. :The defendant's statement that "the agency ordinarily does not have its own experts, and should not .have to" is untrue. Agencies routinely consult ;with town planners, ; engineers, sanitarians, wetlands agents, and building inspectors for expert advice. Very often the approval of a particular project depends entirely upon ,the town staff s appraisal . In this case, the lack of town staff comment at the public hearing seems to indicate that they had no problem with plaintiff 's proposed activity. Despite this -tacit approval of the plaintiff's proposed activities, the 3 . defendant denied the application.. In its analysis of the reasons given by the Agency for denying plaintiff's application, many assertions are made by the defendant:_: which include- information outside of the record or which are not supported by the record. For example, although one of the members of the. Agency based his decision to deny the plaintiff's T application on the fact that the cul-de-sac would be .located within the forty foot. buffer zone, he provided no explanation for his decision. In .its brief, however, the defendant claims that the member's decision was based 6n the fact that heavy metals, oils and greases will go into the buffer and the wetlands . This information is not part of the record and is purely . speculative. In addition the defendant also asserts that "homeowners with a very limited non-wetland area ,will tend to use and encroach upon the wetlands area" and that "it is. obvious that the higher density of the site, the higher the impact on the wetlands/watercourses will Vie. Neither of these statements is supported by the record nor 'has their validity been established. As in the public hearing and deci,.sion meeting, the defendant in its brief continues to make assertions contrary to the. ' uncontroverted expert testimony provided by the plaintiff . For example, the defendant states that the "culvert proposed for the - stream under the driveway will clearly'have a major negative impact upon the watercourse (stream) as well as the wetlands " It will disturb the natural flow of the watercourse. and indigenous character of- the stream (watercourse) corridor. " At the October 4 34 meeting, however, the plaintiff's professional planner explained that there would be no significant impact upon the wetlands aside` from disturbing the wetlands to install the culvert. Once installed, the culvert will allow the water to flow as before and no Inc-rea4ed poxidIngaw.LU •arras - Furthermore, elimination of lots & 4 is not a 'feasible and prudent alternative -in that it would be financially prohibitive. By eliminating 2 of 6-proposed subdivision lots, this project would not be economically viable Moreover, the elimination of the' two a lots has noth4ng to do with "'sound engineering principles . " Such # principles were utilized in designing the plan as proposed. a For the foregoing reasons the defendant's decision to deny the a plaintiff's application is illegal arbitrary and capricious. As JJ the uncontroverted expert testimony provided at the hearing made clear, 'p.laintiff's proposed activity will be minimal and have no a � ` X negative impact on the wetlands . Therefore, the defendant's u decision should be reversed aad the plaintiff 's permit issued a forthwith. z PLAINTIFF s FAIRWAY ESTATES BY \7oe-1 M. Fain ,of Kahan, Kerensky, Calossela, Levine & Breslau, Its Attorneys 5 CERTIFICATION - -. -I -hereby certify that on September 4 1990, a copy of"tK foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel of record; 1n oil NE. Fa Commissioner of the Superior Court gwh\fair.bri 3 a LA 0. Z 7 4 3 j J '1 J t Q ,Cg Z, Q D - 6 NO. CV-89-0370137S SUPERIOR COURT FAIRWAY ESTATES : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD NEW BRITAIN VS: : AT HARTFORD SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION : NOVEMBER 26, 1990 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 width of the driveway extending from Clark Street northerly between lots 2 and 3. That driveway would cross the .05 acre of wetlands and would necessitate filling in that area. The wetlands and regulated areas are shown by heavy, dotted, horizontal, blue lines some of which lines have 3 vertical lines, one long 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 defendant has suggested the elimination of lots 3 and 4 from this LAW OFFICES proposed subdivision because-of,inter alia, the crossing of the - .wetlands by that driveway. - M -- EUINGTON ROAD WINDSOR,CT 06074 2. On page 2 of plaintiff' s Reply Brief; plaintiff questions the ability or right of the members of the Agency to dispute the ,M)644.2456 PAISNO50412 opinion of plaintiff' s .experts. As stated in defendant' s original Brief, if an Agency were'merely to take the opinion of the plain- tiff' s experts in each case, they would never turn down an appli- cation. The expert' s opinion .is .based _upon certain scientific - 1 - 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 of the 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; supra, and Manor Development Corporation V. Conservation Comm- 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, 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 techn ;.ally 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 and stated— LAW OFFICES ADM.RITTENBAND on page 317, "The act gives broad discretion to agencies to r DFUIIGTONROAD preserve, protect and- maintain the environment and ecology of -I WINQSOR,CT 06074 the state,-s natural resources. Id. ,. 551; see also Klug v. Inland (43)644-2450 Wetlands Commission, 19 Conn. App. 713, 717-18 (1989) . 'The JuHisNo5o4,z discharge of the statutory responsibilities by local wetlands commissions may require commission members to reject 'an otherwise acceptable application' because of its impact on the environment. Obeda v. Board of Selectmen, 180 Conn. 521, 524 (1980) : 1 , Huck t I. 2 - , v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses' Agency, supra, 552." 3. Plaintiff' s Reply Brief on page 3 makes reference` to. the Town staff's appraisal. There isino s2ppraisal `as 'to-whether 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 floes and the staff refrains from indicating any opinion. Therefore, to say that the lack of Town staff comment at the public hearing 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. 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 buffer and the wetlands:-i:s. part=:..of__the__r LAM OFFICES • • ADM,RITTENBAND and states that it is- purely speculative. However, thd applicant �ELLINGTON ROAD admitted in its presentation that there will be storm water AWNDSOR•CT 06074 discharge into the buffer area at the cul-de-sac area. This is M)644-2456 the area shown just north of Pin Oak Trail to the right of the J sisnlo50a12 marking ."49. 65"'. This is far from speculative because it is common knowledge to laymen as well as experienced members of the Agency that storm water from a road carries heavy metals, oils ti a a - 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 nort.herly .to lot #4. 5. On page 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- 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 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 A alternative of eliminating these two lots "would be feasible be- cause, as stated, the elimination of the two lots would not �be - - 1AaOFficfs in conflict with sound engineering principles. It would not ,FAD M.RITTENBAND S�UINGTONROAD affect the other lots engineering=wise. . As to whether or not 4 j01{NDSOA,CT 06774 the alternative would be prudent, plaintiff did not sustain its .� W,6a4:2456 burden of proof in presenting any evidence that eliminating the J AISNO50412 two lots would be financially prohibitive and, therefore, elimi- 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 y _ 4 would take away the harm to 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 forthcoming DEFENDANT x By - Richard tten an Its Attorney CERTIFICATION Service certified tc� counsel of record thi 26th day of November, 1990. ` car . Ritten an '` Attorney at Law LAW OFFICES AD M.RITTENBAND ELLINGTON ROAD i WINDSOR,CT 06074 (203)644-2456 JURiS NO 50412 Fa - 5 - , 1 V �9 20 Minds NoUN�NNIDS �gsiON gPq�O CITATION To Any. Proper Officer: BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to summon the SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLAND AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION to appear .before the Superior Court within and for the Judicial District' gm tl g of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford on December 26 , 1989 , said appearance a � z to be made by each defendant or their attorney by filing a written kstatement of appearance on or before the second day following the return a date hereof with the Clerk of the Court, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, g � W Connecticut, then and there to answer unto the foregoing appeal of as � zFairway Estates , c/o Steven Eckhouse, 20 Oxford Drive, South Windsor, g Connecticut, by leaving a true and attested copy of the appeal and of � Y ' a g this citation with Marilyn W. Burger, Town Clerk of the Town of South u NWindsor, and with the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation o Commission, c/o John McCahill, its agent, and James Lombardi, Chairman Y F a I of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission at Q v x least twelve days before the return date. V Pursuant to C.G.S. §22a-43 you are further hereby ordered to Y Y serve notice upon Leslie Carothers, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, by leaving a true and attested copy of the appeal, bond and citation with Leslie Carothers, Commissioner of the Department of Envirnomental Protection at 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Y Connecticut, at least twelve days before the return date. Hereof fail not, but of this writ, with your doings thereon, make proper service and return according to law. m Dated at Vernon, Connecticut, this 17th day of November, 1989 . g oel Fain a � � g a m � W� V J Y N X } N Z W 0 Y I- i a _ _ a � Y � tn ATAWqW �AKOg��i BOND You, Fairway Estates, of 20 Oxford Drive, South Windsor, Connecticut, acting by Steven Eckhouse, a partner, as principal, and Holly Fawell, of 695 Talcottville Road, Vernon, Connecticut, as surety, acknowledge yourselves jointly and severally bound unto the South Windsor m 5 Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission in a recognizance of a � W g $250 .00 that the plaintiff shall prosecute the action which it has now Z N kcommenced against the defendant, returnable to the Superior Court for the a gJudicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford on December 26, G 1989, to full effect, and that the plaintiff shall pay any costs for which judgment may be rendered against it thereon. gTaken and acknowledged before me at Vernon, Connecticut, this 17th Ln Y Q8 g day of November, 1989 . --- > Z Suza a E. Caron Y Q Q v Y � rc �klBilcogTEl� RETURN DATE: DECEMBER 26 , 1989 : SUPERIOR COURT FAIRWAY ESTATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/ VS. : NEW BRITAIN AT ,HARTFORD SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS NOVEMBER 17 , 1989 AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION COMPLAINT m° a a 1 . The plaintiff, FAIRWAY ESTATES is a general partnership which a owns a parcel of property approximately 47 .4 acres in size located on the twest side of Clark Street, north of Stanley Drive in South Windsor, m C Connecticut. 8 5; g 2 . Approximately 13 .5 acres out of said 47 .4 acres are regulated Y wetlands within the jurisdiction of the defendant. x 3 . The defendant SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ y z CONSERVATION COMMISSION ( "Agency" ) is the duly constituted inland Y wetlands agency for the Town of South Windsor within the meaning of a Section 22a-42 (c) of the Connecticut General Statutes. Y � 4 . On or about July 30 , 1989 , the defendant received from the plaintiff an application for a permit to conduct activities which would potentially affect approximately 2 .7 acres of said wetlands. 5 . On or about September 25, 1989, the defendant conducted a public hearing on the plaintiff' s application. 6 . On or about October 30, 1989, the defendant denied said application and notice thereof was published in the Journal Inquirer on November 7 , 1989 . 7. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the defendant Agency in. that it owns the parcel of property which was the subject of the defendant' s decision, it was the applicant for the permit, and the a � W g denial of its .application will prevent it from developing the property as proposed, all to its economic loss and damage. a 8. The action of the defendant was illegal, arbitrary and g G capricious in one or more of the following respects: U a. The Agency' s decision was contrary to the weight � of testimony and evidence produced at the public g hearing on the application. � Y g g b. ; One or more of the Agency' s members was < U predisposed against the application as a result Y of a previous application regarding the property having come before the Commission and having been o denied without prejudice, and said,predisposition Y impeded the fair and just review of this current application. a � Y w C. The Agency denied the application despite the uncontroverted evidence that no feasible and prudent alternative exists to the plaintiff ' s application. d. The Agency' s action in denying 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. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims relief in accordance with the attached claim for relief. PLAINT FF-FAIRWAY ESTATES n B Joe Faikli m 3 � g a � z z� z a i g G z LU LA d ' ooY aa m U a Y a PE1ER K�KDEP(!1'Y . r - i RETURN DATE: DECEMBER 26 , 1989 : SUPERIOR COURT FAIRWAY ESTATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/ VS. NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS NOVEMBER 17, 1989 AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION CLAIM FOR RELIEF 3 aThe plaintiff in the above-entitled matter hereby claims: g 1. That the action of the Agency be set aside or modified pursuant to C.G.S. §229-43a[a] . 2 . That the action of the Agency be reversed. 3 . That the Agency be directed to approve the plaintiff ' s application. gY 4 . Such other legal or equitable relief as the court may deem Ln S necessary or appropriate. } PLAINTIFF - FAIRWAY ESTATES a = B a oel Fa#1 f Y For the plaintiff, please enter K n, Kere s y, Capossela, the appearance of: Levine & Breslau - Its Attorneys Kahan, Kerensky, Capossela, Levine & Breslau 45 Hartford Tpke. , Box K Vernon, CT 06066 (203 ) 646-1974 Juri No. 30153 A710 \\ , RKf7e� o e 1 M Fa'n . WRTfaire001.cmp f 51, Did the Court err in requiring the IWA to accept the opinion of the applicant' s witnesses? 2 . Did the Court err in not allowing the TWA members to rely u on own their P. personal knowledge of the area; in concluding that their opinion was not supported, by the evidence? 3. Did the Court err - in concluding that the applicant had sustained its burden of showing there was no feasible and prudent alternative? ti 4. Great Public Importance : If allowed to stand, will be sending 4 'r a message to IWA - hire your own experts .or become expert in technically complex issues ; otherwise ap prove all applications or become very articulate - - not the intent of IWA Act . � - 5-. Will have to hire own experts for each application or accept and thereby approve every application . ? 5 6 . Did Court err in concluding that Agency members are not r permitted to take into account their own personal knowledge . } that oils come from roads? , {r� 7. Did the Court err in concluding that Agency members not take I into account that maps themselves show encroachment into buf- fer area? 8. Did the Court err in concluding that Agency members not take into account their own knowledge that culverts will interrupt ' the movement of wildlife/aquatic life? r ICES wl � ITTENBANb { d4t�S7ON ROAD s - S #SDI R,CT 06074 .2456 . 50412 5c , t t a 3 � • - - - STATE OF CONNECTICUT} } ss. SOUTH WINDSOR COUNTY OF HARTFORD } February 6, 1990 I, Dawn Samsel, hereby certify that I typed an accurate transcript of the October 30, 1989 Regular Meeting for the Inland Wetlands/Conservation Commission re: Application #89-52P Pin Oaks Estates, that a true copy of said transcript is attached hereto, and it is accurate to the best of my knowledge, ability and belief and further certify that I have this date filed said transcript in the office of the Inland Wetlands/Conservat' Commission. Dawn Samsel STATE OF CONNECTICUT) } ss SOUTH WINDSOR COUNTY OF HARTFORD } Personally appeared�,c;k- -' .n. signer and sealer of the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be her free act and deed, before me. 'Gretchen E./Bickford, NoPary Public My Commission Expires 3-j31-91 Y Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission October 30, 198'-; +`OFF 1 i c at i on 8952P I assume we have all the information we need from the public hearing. Anybody have any um, (papers shuffling) discussion'? Quest ions? Motion even? None of that. Okay. Al l r i cht. Has the applicant seen um, !`fir- . M+_i;:ahi l l 's letter dated the 23rd of October, 1989. Is there a representative of Pin Oaks'? Yes. Oh, frhere you are. � y Have you seen Mr. M+_Cahill ' s 1e•ttGY'i' Yes we have, we have no problems . . (papers shuffling) Okay. Two of the lots are no different than in this application as previously stated and rejected. Back lots, ,.and common driveways., the elevation the high water marks, for I-:reek:, and I believe that, whatever was presented at the public hearing and the uh, subsequent presentations, still does no ow this lot As being good, viable, building lots. That changes very little from what the previous application rejection was. . . move rejection of the application without Do we have a second on this motion and then we can carry on the discussion. y Could I without prejudice? Without prejudice. I ' ll second that. I 1.1m, would like to state that the um that this o ;!,hat i n observation Is a' lots 9 { one particular, that lota 4 and, n+_+ 4, the comment I have on thhat is that it seems to be creating a house on a island surrounded totally by wetlands. And I think: we're going to , may be problems with that particular house lot. Plus thy.a crossing of V the wetlands down below if I !_!m, call this area in here, is also all this is is small decent basin. It' s a very good water um, water area, in which I have seen water in . . . Can YOU take the map off that speaker please'; Thank you. You' re welcome. J For starters I have great concerns _ .erns regarding crossing of the wetland, and uh, having houses built on islands, surrounding by wetlands. Adding to Julie' s Provides either b,;,�comment, if I may. I see nothing here that / borings or :soil samples in those areas where driveways and houses would be built. UFI, ignoring the he nature ofthat . . . high water table, there's no wayof knowing r' without ' uh, with+,+ut those to wing checks, wheat !. test kits, (cough) ,� other subterranean the h+.+!_!ti�es would do if they were built in those locations. (Too much paper shuffling) . Has the Army Corp . . . I 'm sorry . . . Sir You have some kind o1' a . . Yes, I 'd like to address a there' s ;a,�; couple • -First of all , me question y+�u raised as to whether or not the lots are viable lots. All the limits comply with t+_+ �P y town regulations, with regards to minimum standards. As far as the +?+_i suitability t':>+�ti l s, there 15 a of theg -te+_hnical study which was prepared and submitted by Clarence Welch Associates. Um, included in that report is a map depicting six locations, uh, that Clarence Welch Associates have done soil expiration on site. In those locations general l test kit lots, we have that information (Too much paper shuffling) . studies, uh, the information contained in these geote+_hnical indicating Julie, you have a question. Sc use me':' V No.. Walter you have any other questions? I Uhl, I don't see anything in our information that was presented to us, as to definition of test kits. Samples, eta-. , I don't see it on the. Galan. Also, an item was previously brought up, . in the public_ hearing, that this not of our . . . however, I believe we should again, bring it to the attention of the planning and zoning, is the site line of the proposed Pin Oak: Trail .juncture with uh, Clark Street. Site lines. That' s correct. That' s something that we do have we can make specific recommendations to P & Z and You' re concerns noted and y are so �� will be done. Jul A, go ah h-ad Marcia. Planning and Zoning is extremely well aware of that site line, that ' s town s sat f's concern also. Okay. But that We concern Jerry, any concern? Yes. Okay. Would you like an opportunity. ty„ I' m agreeing with the comments that have been made so far . Why-, Starting with Shirley. Okay, and also Mr . Mc \ e's, there's an awful lot of wetland here and we're crossing it sort of half hizardly, although I 'm looking for ether ways to get to it I can' t see an I e � s y„ g�,{....�.� i f they' re going use these lots, they're going #o have to cross the wetland. But uh, there isn' t even though they may meet the minimum town standards, it sure doesn' t look: like they' re uh, we have minimum standards, but they don' t look: very useful . P� Is that all . Any particular comments? aware we had a motion on this . . . to deny. To deny. (Tape change) . 0 x 90 squares. Right. Yes they area That ' s what these are. And um, I . understand the concern about adjacent to wetland and that uh, all I know from the previous plan it ' s been reduced a number of . . . 90 x 90 square that I can see, they' re all within about uh, oh 50 feet of wetlands I was wondering if somebody saw something that I didn't. In terms of there not being adequate space for uh, That ' s not our concern. That' s s what I thought I heard expressed, was there was a concern that nth, there wasn' t adequate . . . i But even if they, what I ' m saying, even if that cony_ern_ was expressed, it' s not our We have no over . . Maybe I'm misunderstanding clarification. You people are saying that hey there aren' t enough space here to build a, adequate space to build a house. That's irrelevant to our purposes here. Well . I presume that 's what people are basing there deliberation on. J. believe 'that ' s al false assumption also. Laughter. Well how can there be a false assumption if (papers shuffling) , that 's what we' re talking about building houses on wetlands? Walter ' s saying that 's . . . . One at a time please. Insofar as What ' s concerned was there wasn't enough for a buildable square. There's more than enough adequate for a buildable square. That doesn' t concern us. That 's a P & Z concern. We' re concerned about the wetlands issues here. And the crossing of the wetlands, the impact on the wetlands. Insofar as that concern being brought up, it never should have because we don' t discuss that . And unfortunately it was. And agreed with. CLaughter ? . I'm sorry that ' s taken out of cont,e t, all I was trying to do was use that as a ju????. concerns about there not being adequate space for . . . .��_!st totally disregard it. But I can understand the confusion insofar as Kathy' s confusion, that that was one of the things being considered. If we can stick: to the issue's at hand that we have preview over, it would hel" the situation ,along. Strictly technical wetlands aspect here.., t:: _ much noise. Go right ahead. Ab+::+i_t four regulated activities that we' re dealing with. There' s was one crossing here, and um, what was the other one. No. There' s rotary construction, stormwater discharge within a wetland buffer zone, that was c:,_ough) , ;.end then the one crossing the wetland. And the water, minor water case of the minor , yeah, footing drain discharge to wetland buffer . Beyond that , I if you want to deal with specifically the wetlands regulated activity, there are only two or three. Are you through Yeah. I think my concern on this one is the Same as on the Clark: Corners thing. is that there' s reasonable and proven alternative to crossing a wetlands, and so forth, uh I don' t know. It seems more impact op the site than necessary. What I'm toward is pure lots, perhaps, on the site. But then again, You know Fie roan only have three 1,'_,t� ie really can't tnstead of six.,ell the applicant that Yeah, right . I'm not suggesting that. Right. . Except where he's crossin ' making crossings g a wetlands area. He,gs acre.. definitely :tea . . and reg ulated ated areas. Okay. We can take into consideration C other side _n til�wista areas as t�=i What ' ..._ amide or can built i"i � `-`_' the different matt... bju i e. -n the other side, i s a totally On Okay. With respect i_ think: that what may happen, crossing of the wetlands, initially I water will be ��� �� ' , even more What appears will happen, is that p -ndi n here, but I think re in this area. , � , 7:i.r)... that a. t Will b '' it's P='nding . ;ar•fr'c`:1. by crossing g it �i e increasing the amount in .r -ry.�..�,.rt�- .,�_� I think: F that it 'd be impacting water. Would you like to :answer- that? r tough.Anytime you want to answer if Y`=`L+ .Jl.ist catch my eye which is Okay. -there' s a couple issues a The first issue white I d 1 :iis t , t-�- -� � )hP g`,� back and again, s sorry -h) W a y raised b commission I ,r .�,...,, ry I don't Y 'the ,_.-, s�7e�� E�:n�aw, c: i�=`n reference , : Mr.• M`Cull_ugh?) but there specific•Fig= rem , a� -ei I believe ev:? _i}� �_� ' care which refr?rC-�n%Ci? t:1F? r �_-,• l i pages Lhr ee through seven, uh, �'��Jsi:ll�7tat�{3y find i }��ateotecrnical study prepared by Clarence Welc'P) I believe, at which time the w as submitted the night of July VotF•; the commission.appl i ca'ti`win was formal There was no di_scussi��`n !th o formally accepted by ai:}.r.:rlic nt ;ads _ , n the- l.Ft�,, re Sion�_�f � � part of the t:i.._ commission. formal copies of that report (..JFI, but there ,�er�, information r submitted at that time. �, waas part of the re�_�,rc(. �, that alternative as crossing� Um. As far as the soils _ssing the wetland channel access the upland and 'there really ' Soil at d th e i s no alternative try crossing Point access the upland sails. }sing the wetland Pick a location that w�� in we tried t�� proposing a standard lve be the least impacting, � 'ulve�t �__ p 't7.ng, um, We're f increase in the „ crossing, so there should not be a culvert will all ip ndinq can either side. Uh, because the `.-`, withwthheewater to flow through um, as it did F.7e'Fc�re. r_. the ble'tlar�r; area, to option of the mints um• disruption of associated t" physically install ' materials for the once culvert, and reestablished ' tht= crossing, um, `=`nce that's there r will be nsignificant the t;;1't;-�c�cy 1 I") We're i. Fl regard g., We re notimpact with Qld to b1�,=tt_k Off proposing a straight fill the flaw, �=inverted and that would a':a 1t does currently.a.. the. water would -ur-re.•_n .,l y. pass through, Is that all? l Yes. Walter. Yes, as a rebuttal to that by tKe professional . What four can not be accessed unless you cross that area of uh, wetlands. That application before us today, disturbing a known wetlands, you' d be altering that particular- wetlands. .I see it no different than application was before previously considered here. Crossing the channel of wetlands that it has to cross. Okay, then what you' re talking about . 1c..l Is there'wa .� is there a viable Alternative to getting to ti1i::i, or is there not That ' s not for uq to determine, but uh, Well , I 'm Asking. _ regulations specifically say that we gotta determine that there have been n�i . . . We don7t have to say that uh, 'what that might bed. But, I think when I wasreading over this stuff that we gotta decide that, they have looked at viable alternatives, and they're aren' t' any. M 'el this lot sF1�_uld not s y feeling n t.� i =, be part of this plan. '•Why. We' re not here to . . . Also, Pin Oak: Trail I think the radius of Pin Oak: trail does come within 25 feet of the wetlands designated area. 35 feet. can you respond to that? Yes. First I'd like to address the issue :if ,whether or not there' s iia feasible proven alternative to Accessing the area containing four, um, it seems fair to me that without crossing at some point uh, there is no access to that area. Therefore, we can' t imagine that 'where is ca feasible proven alternative, and that clause, which was added in, into the statutes amendments, is troublesome. UF1, for any commission. Because, the statutes l.!h, after as ,_, osed toy, amendment rig_+r •Gt-, `RP- prior t+,+ the 87 p R 87 i t was a biased an commi ssi o alternative meansns inin �, G ns Ia1+_�re 1'alternative options for impacting wetlands. After these umy amended mandated commissions. cTo,many Papers shuffling) . And as to many seminars many symposiums, that cover this iss!_!e, what is feasible and what is Prudent? And the best that I can break: down, and I share um, t commission � the burden that this -mmis�i+_on has as a wetlands commAsion in other town p in Connecticut. And the way _ always try to break it down as feasible is, if its engineering Possible. Can it technically ci+�,n e'-' LI}7 r�!d�� t- b e , prudent is kind of, is it economically light +�+f 'G h e social benefits. y Possible i n _ial bf1e its. t_;h that's s the only .way that ! Iva ever been able to break down the feasible and prudent, uh mandate what GFIt? tlry :='G:�'Gl!'Gi?<� have employed. G' And I ,just can' t find any other more feasible e or prudent alternative to the ,_ that we, re proposing. r!_ ii'1,•y. There are other r•,-+�sing -Ghc�r points of access which we '='Mold choose to enter this upland soil which contains lot 4 but .it would be more impacting. I a p � �7+ �f_ FlL?\/� chosen the s'7P+:.t which has the least point of impact and therefore we conclude that its the ill+_i'.:._.G f7.b1e .� .. eai3 and prudent . Uhl thei issue o a �•- p f the - buffer zone - at Pin Oah:s, yes, there is a minor encroaching into the buffer zone +_+'f the !_!m, roadway ay for Pin JaE: Trail , as well as the discharge point for the stormwater. buffer zone ;_ .. That intrusion is into the n_ and not the wetlands itself, we've tried itac k our activity - t+�+ l!hl hold ;�s much �-?=� possible. p It seems to me that, ;;;as Walter hl;_ar � stated, '!.;'}lat L-hlk? Pin tla6:: Trail is within 25 facet, is is 25 feet away from a regulated area. When You extend this Pin Oak's Trail y+,_+u are going to be, if I if I am reading this orr•ectl„ v p within 5 'feet Of crossing, maybe '!t) feet. And then as you go in, and to as a whole Picture, think we have to look at thisPicture, and not neces::sari1 look a Picture here and if , •d9 ;»1'G „Fee wholeth this,.�, I m sorry Wal teY and as an alternative'i:+»+ 'G hl e l,_,i:c't'f:i,,_in , this f this roadway, even th,.-,�,g L this is .�p 4_+l �:+'ii�:n i� not, uh'!, p that wouldn' t do p t be a Planning and Zoning issue, that -i f this roadway be moved between these two wetlands, r would consider lder that an alternative t the development. Down the road, and for future development, and also for present development now. That had consideration. _n�id_rati+gym. Yes, we had e plor'ed >_!m, alternative locations�c _a'Gi+,+ns for the roadway, and in the rising, !_!hl what we � p w found the best location to crossP='_um Gulley Brook, !_!m, we had ��Fl top weigh most r i thebr+�o+�+k: , Flannel as the feature there. The Plum Gul lFey Brook it l fp l pan ecological and b7 _tg' i ;al standpoint, is a more valuable from t +_+-- ys=,rem, um, than the upl i ng wetland areas, especially 'Ght:=s4 smlal+li trying areas of the:. wetlands. Uh, so we placed our priority in to locate that crossing Um, so that we would minimize our impact to the brook, uh, more so than minimizing the impact to the _outlying wetland areas to the brook. We may have been able to relocate the roadway so that the impact to the wetland may have been a little less, but we would have ended up with a greater impact to the Plum GulleyBrook. I,(o e T � .Z-` .�. said, we tried to locate that crossing in an area that would have the least amount of impact, um, to the Plum Gulley Bro�;+(:;, C-co-system. s Thank you. Walter . Lim, Can t1he w uh'i discussion of to � p � '�•q there appears t��� e poSg=:LC:i1i:a alternative to developing that portion to ground, which is being signified as uh, a potential building lot. And that' s the adjoining ground to which the applicant does not have ownership. F'owever, it is, or appears to be at this time, a viable alternative. So, if the question comes up, is there a viable alternative, to developing lot 4? I believe the answer would be Yes._ Iw Lih, You know we don't `.:see the whole picture hire Walter, but I don' t h:.il�_w as y�_u wk_uld not l�W 7 9 p t. y�;�_! w���u.�d be able to get from that site or get to that Site without crossing a wetland. No, there is the ad-Joining land dues not have a wetland ;:.'.one. O h, r(7q •_ .;. T wetland goes along Clark lart Street, I don' t There isn' t a picture . you' ll note it by the signification of the property next store. No. No. No. You' re talking about 4 aren' t o_ ' That ' s over here. Isn' t 4 here'-' The adjacent property is uh . . . Well you've got wetlands here and you've r_,ot wetlands But see, there' s adjoining property here which is the viable alternative. This this this tops right back In . . . What I'm al![:►gec:st i ng to you�u is !_!h'i I would F f p _ls1C( v.`ntl:lrL-"' to say that you r_��uldn t get to that with property ut crossing wetland. I' 1 ! �!t Out a wetlands- map p;.. Because the wetlands contour seem to continue ,_t properties. -n to the adjoining this. Yes sir. Um, we don't know the actual extent of the wetlands on the adjacent property, um, but we do know that the wetlands do extend Intl::, that property, � I� � -y, um, considerablyas noted is a pond, uh located, _tc..ci 'ran �.� plan. There p- , r a,.ed within the wetlands on the adjoining Property. And that pond is IFwFF_ated on both *properties as well . You can tell by the wetlands boundary, !_!h, that that property is part Of a relatively large 'w'etland area. We did not delineate the wetlands beyond Our Property 1ni_ ��1Fn: ObviousObviousreasons.;;,rareasons. j,'h p c.; i p for fairly not something that 's normally ,done. Uh huh. You' re p,,in•t ? s well taken. a run out Li 1 Ft' !N v _ I believe ev'c I-�t_!r secretary ha`..'.1 get a map. is that where she' s gone? Sol if you just bear with her a moment . .. Would You point out the a;"._:,:! . , he gentleman behind . Jay nee!: assistance locating a'ting . . . Ok:ay .Clark Street' is running along the end ,-i -' f the bend. The bend in the rF::F,;:d, is the approximate location Of the subject ; :. ] e c t property, Y,which would come in in back . The wetland area um, adjacent tyj4is this area right in here. That would be the approximate e_orner of our property. ^o this area is part of the wetland that is shown on the plan. So •�L- _ " • 6 � there is quite an extensive wetland area. If I was to block off with my small finger u,ie Q t area that we' re ltFlp proposing i development fF��Y' F:;! F�F�,could area that is not covered ed -� 9 Y-•- L i .. see the ;a our property. 90 that wetland is quite extensive off our siting. CCough) , F m, our property would i"!_!r i along Clark Street right in this area I believe this commission would justice..7- i'=�- if turning downan application over a manmade roadway to be built toni night . r;l;d allowing a c? house, or to utilize a 'small piece ofgr -'!!nd on the tither side o f a r i vene, i n the middle tit f a s ea, I think: this t�,:�t swampy commission would be uh, not treating a good c?tmO sphere to developers, approving lot 4. I suggest }, r if the developer remove that plot, perhaps this might have afar better uh, alternative for the ,commission to l,,F,,,k at. okay, just to clarify that . We aI"1nt l'tWhat You cannot tell ,-u what yt-,i c r '..'. The only thing oversighting is What You present before us. If there is a problem with a specific area, that is for You to address, in any manner that you so desire. We cannot 'tell to You remove or to keep. Just to clarify. I mean you know, we can' t get into planning, or telling you what we will accept, prior to you bringing it before us. , Ber:::'aidse if you were to delete, hypothetically, lot 4, another issue may come up. So don' t go under the premise that if this ,is done, that this will go be rubber stamped, or whatever. Okay. You refer to jot =j, You still have lot 3. What they' ve e d_. combine the crossing so that there's - ' 'th a: a.riert_ s a single crossing to a::i i i i. take .are of both lot 3ss ii!_.( something. 1 'i. Unless I' m missing !.. � No you' re readings are correct . Yeah you' re readimg this correct. Loth 3 and 4. The d_.. n buy anything to not build on 4 because you' re t ij! gonna cross the wetlands to build on 3. r r 1i ch is the point I just made. That 's exactly what I 'm getting at, is that us allowing, us and the commission, allowing the crossing Of this r evene area, to get so called buildable land '':'"'i; here, does not make any sense, when we • ust turnery o ne down for a very similar situation. 'sitcation. Okay, .ju;:s:!; to clarify, to go a little further Walter, on the One we .just turned down, there's a viable alternative. On t� i. .�.�. there . 1 may not be and that 's the avenue that we' re looking into. There is a difference. I don' t knr..:rw if 'there' s a viable alternative on the other one. Uh hUh. I don't know if there' s a viable alternative here. But I think they have to go out and research those, to come back: and prove to pis that none of the things that are reviewed are viable Your points well taken, I was incorrect.r ter_' _nth -rr�.- t. I was wrong. Anr..'a'ti'1';:;r suggestion that we have as as commissioner, is if the applicant wishes to extend, since this is the night that we have to either act on one direction or the other. If the applicant wishes to grant us an extension in time. And do a _mt_racy � revision. Or give us additional information. I believe he has that • V alternative. I I' m not aware of that. Is anybody aware of that'? Grant you an extension . .. . October ist . . 1'!_u have the ability to request a extension. raadings of the public hearing has been i?:widY we're required to make .a decision with a certain t ' r � _ • r _ r'u,» 1 n time ire I._�:_i %;td. So we did have the public hearing. . Right . . . Or re(: i_te �- Or request . . . You! o l.1 get ,t- , y ,;+'of.i flrwl;d have the ability to get extensions, Is long as they're no greater that the original time frames with which we' re dealing. Okay,, But u:ten ar; npt we start talking about a . evis=d pl 1; rc Uh huh. That' s right . ht. . And we have to have a public hearing . revised lmin. You also have the ability to accept this . . . s long :as 'there was concerns bi'!:tught, up at public_ !Tearing. They have to have . it has i t_; be revised in concerns part of the public Hearing. 1'ou most certainly have that .ability to accept the revised plan as 'long as it was a result of input at the public hearing. And that ' s of the October . . . No, that ' s always been. Okay. ...b.':.I" one, that you' re saying, that ' s dated for �r information . . . State Legislature. You have that-? We public hearing. - We' ll get you a copy. Fine. Looking ng for consensus_.. u'.� commission. �r•1rather talk:_ aapplicant '...}i ant u_ ' e:. :1 .�L;(.�n y ,f '_I...+ +d 1 �t7�. ?`a� this, tever it takes to act on or you know if that 's ,.he case, then I was drawing a motion, uh, if y;::;u don' t then we' ll have to move tonight , for the ;ration tha ys on the floor, or another�" , motion. information, then that would be for the purpose of determining whether- or not there was any feasible alternative. For the f:uildability of activity for lots ^ and lot 4 as this application presently is met up.1 l Viable alternatives. avid. very Uncomfortable when we become directive in 'terms of stipulating, t-}onyt the ,afternatives . gr Allri ht . • Which ch was clarified earlier, that we cannot stipulate. So I. mean that'':.- gonna, that presents a problem. The application as I aek= it, either has to go on itsmerit or be denied, on its lack: of merit. And then if its not without prejudice, the developer has the opportunity to come back before this commission. What 1.. t the vehicle that you're talking about. That ' s part of the discussion. The developer has shown us 3 lots on Clark Street that are very viable. One being existing house. :he lot set off of Pin Oak, appears ti1 be viable. Our concern is he crossing t•;;1f that wetlands area, to pick: UO two extra lots, in the very corner P the very ea corner that it he has, tle. those separate. We' ve :all'":::.'ady a_•''•ed t h • applicantF there,1; '"i {... r'e5 c"tPiy fF?c1C:Lble or prudent alternatives, and he said no. And he has chosen the best plot. Uh?, he has minimized the wetlands impact to ,het to that back area. He can' t come in off (tape change) there. I don' t know why We want to send him away to answer :a question he's answered. Now it ' s up towo 'us t.o_o decide if what he said is that there is no better alternative, feasible or prudent, than what he offers, he' s already told us. We either ,:rowcept that, or we reject ject his alternative. o- But then the recourse would be that u t . . . t. Walter, Walter . . . I'm the one that violates it . Next time 1 Go. The alternative that he has if he wi:sh es. 'G o present an alternate plan, would be to take those portions of the lot wh?io_h is lot 3 and lot 4, and put it into par=_: -.. iel A, wh?i+wh he presently has, he has a large 40 or 50 acre ;_:seow't:iowon, which lots 3 and 4 could become pert of that. . . . Saying that (cough, cough) certain intrusions thr!:ugh and over wetlands. And as far as i'm concerned, that ' s a devastating intrusion into wetlands. Those lots. I don' t have any pr+w+blum with other lots along the roadway. Where you' re f p+wol.n'uint� you' re concerns T believe have been +Tutu:-' aware to the applicant, e?c-.+everybody here,+ t_, and them? are commissioners that do agree with that premise. David you want o s o'o f� h 9 pro t1 'f'� say _m_thinu' ' Nope. Qy/ There's one other concern that Julie brought out, and someoneelse, about the cul-de-sac. And the logical extension of a road that would eventually go through that cul-de-sac would probably be very close to the wetlands area. It doesn't appear to me that it 's necessary to have the cul—de—sac that fah- owo f f Clark Street If the cul-de-sac was moved away from the wetland, it would be J 3 out of the wetland buffer zone, and there may be an alternative to getting so close to the wetland if the road was ever extended. -' . Two minutes from going over. Okay. V/ You make a motion to extend'? Someone will . We make a motion to extend, till the completion of this applicant . Completion and no more, the rest�t o F these applications. That 's it . 1 would 1 would think we should finish continue 1:'1 n with t r y 'u Imi 1 n i 1:C� !M{!� 1�1'7':'.5 '-1'H .1. other ' !- `�•-1!•". - ��;.ir^-. other bu inF'ata.sea that have been pending. Number of things 1a 1�havebeen held up, or we' re going to end u{ with more next imonth.Tuntil 0 : 00Z R Mo4i'_Jn to 90 t1_1 .i 1 : 00 here this application, other . . Yes. Is there a sacond to that . rig Iril_ht David. I think in light _ . . especial meeting to begin with. We' ve covered the business that we have to. h F . Lim, finish this one up and Well , where do we go from here? (Everybody talking at once) I agree how much can we accomplish after we finish this up, I mean what's the sense of having a 10:30 . . . Because of the consensus. (Does .not pertain to the subject at hand. ) Kathy, how about you, what ' s your point. I'm uncomfortable with this, 1 believe there' s a motion on the table. i r• But Kathy has not had an opportunity to speak this evening_ . She is . _ ::ah1e is a viable member of the commission. That' s not wheat I asked. I asked if we have a motion on the table, Mr. Chair. The motion is to deny. Right . Right . That ' s wheat I asked. i there a motion . . Yeas there is ' <- , I m �orY',`,--' .t Wti:ai7' t here w}lt?n 1't took place. Okay. Is there any other information required. Any other rr comments. Roy. Then you sir . Roy. I somewhat reluctant to make this comment, but I gotta tell whiere where wheat concerns me in, when you these aren't easy decisions to make. We f also are.," confronted with t}iF3 same le:.aL!e' about taking it. If we feel very Taking what. Be more specific . Taking. If yo+u recall the court decision in regard to taking, would deny a per•so�n' ss rights, Property rights, and l_!h' We're not . . . I don' t think we' re . . . I don' t know maybe I'm incorrect, but I don't mean to interrupt you, I told you I'm the only one the problem }sere, I don't think: we' re taking his righits, I think: thiat the commission members have come !_!p with viable concerns about a specific area of the plan, thiat is not to :may thiat the entire appl. ication, thie entire plan is in question, but being its all part of it, it 's all being voted on that part „ And I think: specifically those concerns have been pointed out. That's my opinion, now I may be out in left field. I agree with the chair . I move discussion be close. G Julie, do you second that? Yes I did. There's a motion in second on the floor. All those in favor,, Just as a court of order. Just so we're clear that, this is c'a motion to deny. Without prejudice,, Okay Jerry. Were the reasons for denial specified? That would be done afterwards . . . Fr an F:. > Can 1 continue the discussion. _ Yes. I want to be clear ear wily I'm voting. ' !oting. After we talked about this, I brought i_!p areas that I was not concerned about areas that 1 am concerned about , _. like to know whi,:aisLiG:r or not if I vote in favor of a denial of the application, if I 'm voting for the same reasons that the motion was made. Well , unless the unless your concerns are incorporated into the motion it would be based ��n the motion and concerns expressed by that motion. Unless you expressed specifically. Okay. Allrii_ht . Thank: you. +A point of information was that if the motion does not carry to deny are we understanding that the application is approved? I'm not comfortable with that, but basically you gotta understand. If it doesn' t t deny its approved. I mean either i.t o denied or i.t x approved. You lost me on that one. in other words would F vote you y t if its voted, if the motion to 'deny does not carry, is it ourunderstanding_ that}7a•t the application is approved. No. Odell I think that . . . As long as people know ahead of time when they' re voting. Because technically that' s what we' ve been through before. If the motion to deny does not carry it 'does not automatically approve the Pin ria!::s. Right . I don' t want ;.any problems as long as we everyone understands that . Does everyone understand that . Okay. Any other 'further questions. Okay, there' s a motion second on the floor . Could you read it , I wasn' t here and I . . . I'm sorry. So right ahead. - You mean I can' t know what ' s going on. i No, that ' s the motion, :ai __ ._l_,ssi _n. Currently on the table. There's a motion to cease discussion on this application, and a xecondp all those in favor signified, by saying aiye. A•tiye. All those opposed. �_�1 original motion agreed by you w,lttiter.. and do ;':,u �+i•::•lyp would the _ _ _ �.• _ _ .7 .r' ... ..r: p - 1 have that written down Shirley. N! . You don' t. Would you read it. Motion (group discussion) Discussion' s closed. I cannot give you the bpportunity. Thed1-:act_t:discussions closed. I sit corrected. Motion to deny without ,r a Ili ce. seconded by Warren. Okay, does everybody understand this motion . . . M All those in, let me see. All those in favor of denial . All those in favor ' f the 'notion. All those in favor of t n please signify by saying Aiye. Aiye. All those. +-=pp+,+sed. ( 1) Aiye. Okay. What 's the 1. J tr ed. It is. ri(_It nr =w y=:i_t }j: '1¢` the-re ri-?a =:;+i la fc=r den3 cll . WaIt er do You y_•�. an-' lead off. Yes, the commission �-n has valid =e wetlands concerns `=+n the CY urea, f=-=r' access into pY=_= +-+'- � s�alnfa of 1'hl==� n �1esa�ru+:=tion or ma. = p-=ed lots and �#. c_� _r damage to that wet' !=Us�flt' ;?i i mpondi ng or p=�+ndi ng O f water v e's i and''_^ area. p tent i al Th7e a�apllGation ilia+_= shl�:=Ws � dhleYt? Chlat crossing would =,+t='=�tr . as uh7! en=_riiachlinQ 1=i'C=�i a jF� =-+0*h::burail Circle, as in+=ur"r'7.nt� sly{ Did I go too fast You're saying Fin Oaks Circle. Fin Oaks Circle. Uht huh Fin Oak: Trail . Fin Oak: Trail, the cul-de-sac Of Fin Oak: Trail . Okay so the cul-de-sac. Encrc,iaches ! and poji h Llps the commission c t-ha'f the 1 ots u and 4 become r Parcel m�-; a re=�=�=mmenc�at r; Part Of A. yl:"+4.d I re L:;=fi the ror7i„!xi The other item is notify the Planning Our concerns =�+f 'Ch'ias g tL�nii Zoning Commission site lines, of where n �-`f Fin f.J<�h:: Trail meets Clark: Strut. No. That 's .just informational . Walter . Are you through Walter . Yeah. Roy. Well I voted for ,i`t__�?tl —al for come- o f the reasons Walter ��'�'ifr_r,�, ..I personally rs'' 1 h_� ' � j that adaJ. 4er has.� think there s t'-atii i•. lar t M y a i't lots 3 and 4, and 1 Lihink that is s+_' and �• , ,., sort.4 '='f -:� minimum impact +�tn u , and I don' t object h t that.) st_i m{.{+=t i t,!� crossing. i atTi, I d�_'vote for denial a^-., '-U ,.a in Wilc7t c'appears to b the direction on the a o ... - - •---------- ��f the r�gar s area -- _ into the rear W Fl 1+ l i t f,ink i s g t_t I n a-'F'-i j---�e t—i=�'t t r..e .r � 'mo t-+ some other we e ands. Anybody el se'7' No, tt I was concerned-nt:erned about tre taking and issue of the road We dealt with, baca4Se they gave u s the tt_t �- -tal Picture t_�f the area we k:iieW ti'ha'�.: �tr1i'h:'�t gonna P a-nna go with, Corp. of Engineers is that it . is there a motion to Second. Betty. All those in favor. Ayx . A.t. .L those opposed.,:.�t:y ri v Good 4 pp'•- - ..d night, Thank you for Your patience. `a. *Cl �' %'lam`;q { �s. .-�. '. K �V*Mll 19 wv gm MOP- i M :? a ` Fs s � ��1 �� fl, 1.- /v'J,✓ 'J 6- 3 .�,a '. 4t ROM— jilij%'l r y ,may d IRA rY,. lim / IMMVj R� �J' ,•-say.. „ II s ca^ U<^ ' -Tw a JCC -T-A N :(AiMtE�tc F'�anp - Su�I�a�n 1 c� FAIRWAY ESTATES VS IWA/CC (Pin Oak Estates, Application #89-54P) RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT I hereby move that the pending litigation, known as Fairway Estates vs IWA/CC, be settled by approval of the application in accordance with the letter of approval attached hereto as "exhibit All . The Town Attorney is hereby authorized and instructed to enter into a stipulation to accomplish the said settlement. - aw'� /C C T- 4 EXHIBIT A 7/15/91 July 16 , 1991 Mr. Lawrence A. Fiano 71 Woodland Street P.O. Box 151 Manchester, CT 06040 Dear Mr. Fiano: Re: Application #89-54P - Pin Oaks Estates At the July 15, 1991 meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved with conditions Application #89-54P - IWA/CC permit for the construction of a residential subdivision on property located westerly of Clark Street RR zone as shown on plans prepared by Tarbell, Heintz & Assoc. , dated June 15, 1989, revised July 10, 1989 and May 24, 1991 . This approval is subject to the following conditions : 1 . Two blueprint copies of the entire set of final plans and this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this Commission . This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. 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 . 5 . All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 6 . A contact person shall be identified directly on the final plans . 7 . We recommend a bond in the amount of $5, 000 . 00 to be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control 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 and after the vacating of the judgement if necessary so that this approval shall remain as the only approval of the subject application. Very truly yours, Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman, IWA/CC EAW/pmm cc: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer Marcia A.Banach, Director of Planning Planning & Zoning Commission Richard M. Rittenband, Town Attorney Joel Fain, Esq. r Tawn O-P SotdA V�� C 7 a 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 'IosoR-CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511 July 18, 1989 Lawrence A. Fiano 71 Woodland Street Manchester, CT 06040 Dear Mr. Fiano: 5 qvI Re:Application #89-_J:k2Y - Pin Oak Estates Due to the upcoming August recess, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission is asking all the applicants subject to a public hearing to request a sixty-five (65) day extension to allow for the scheduling of said hearings . A standard form has been enclosed for your convenience. The public hearing for the application referenced above has been scheduled for September 25, 1989, 7 :00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor. Please send us this request by August 22, 1989 . We appreciate your cooperation. Q truly yours, G ALL ���. ��dUc<<a-►� , hn M. Moran, Jr. , Chairman Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission JMMJr/pmm 44 a s 70wn O-P S-0-a& ?&U� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE . SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 �dSOR-CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511 July 20, 1989 M E M O R A N D U M TO: John McCahill, Wetlands/Zoning Enforcement Officer FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer RE: Pin Oaks - #89-52W We have reviewed the drawings dated 7-10-89 for the proposed Pin Oaks subdivision and have the following comments as related to wetlands concerns: 1 . Drawings do not have live signature or seals . 2 . Drainage calculations also needed for pre and post development of the phase being developed. 3 . The storm drainage is outletted directly into the wetlands area. Impacts, if any, have not been addressed. 4 . The Engineer indicates that the existing 15" storm pipe and Clark Street is to be bulkheaded and the water will be picked up in street drainage. The drawings do not show how this will be done. Also no impact upon the existing system has been addressed nor the adequacy of the existing system to handle the added flow. JCl/jsv cc: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works i y LANDTECH ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 71 Woodland Street, P.O. Box 751 Manchester, CT 06040 Telephone(203) 643-5614 August 4, 1989 AUG 7 M9 St)uth Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCYI Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer CONSERVATION COMMISSION Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Pin Oak Estates - Clark Street South Windsor i Jerry: } . ---In-Response to your memo to John McCahill dated July 20, 1989, I have the following comments: 1. One set of signed and sealed plans were submitted to the Wetlands Agent. 2. Pre and post hydraulic calculations for the first construction phase are enclosed. 3 . The impact of the storm drainage outlet will be addressed by our environmental specialist. 4. As we discussed this date, the drainage that would have entered the culvert will enter our street drainage system. Attached i is a copy of the topographic map with additional notes addressing } this item. j Please call if you have any questions or comments regarding these items. f Thank you. Y ruly y rs,d Norton, P.E. Principal Engineer j � � S9,4 4o NncMbe�S - g,re 9M AUG 9 - 1989 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ August 7, 1989 CONSERVATION COMMISSION John M. Moran, Jr. , Chairman Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Application # 89-11fS`fl� Dear Chairman Moran: The applicant, Lawrence A. Fiano, Agent for Fairway Estates, hereby requests a sixty-five (65) day extension of the date to schedule a Public Hearing with respect to the above referenced application. X yours, . Fiano Fairway Estates LAF/dmp 1, � - t - r ,, it d.,- , 442� t. , :1' ' - f 4t_ ;.�'`r^ - f."-t`^'if `�.-, "-r f `x .f T a{ i A�.,\ I�J��r..-I 1 �tE�l 1111 F)1�[1? lUl CI��( 1U-\�r �l \tc�! )� �, jif,//n i�,\, ��,1( �L�((iiL)L„Jl 11�\���},L ,E , [ � ,1 rfltf/�� ) , .�����V�(C;� r a N 7 E`?fl' )I[��11(1[))1 F1i1 n ��. �< i F-)1 /iv 1-,L�CI�I }!;}�oS;. - �i ,; Y/, �. .- I I. , I I, I -�,��5,- "::.,�.,, 4. ��, �:�.� - ,,,', , -. ,��� " : " - �y � ! �1 q - ll)'l�ljt t a�A�rif i3� )lf~� , _ _ )i�A, ' 10),(()}�)nl TNk',�iyniar]rIC n flo))nl}�InKr� LtinYof t'il�1�����}9Y.��f i. ��1�1t4fY[�'.l`�rAr,lf1'✓V'�o. ti(l Ir°Culljj- �aJ�u >� — �rnli�, (Q)�a�JC� 7 !� 11- �1w`Vtlto}�rc��hYdl`I( 1C `I 7P,(Y%hnl' (oTii' f(oil l;fi lnl \",6N, 1i'g)Sr 7�15)L1 D} 12 ), i S ts)% I.IQI 1.'`�%C'141L1 ?, ( o UI; inl +ht5 oh-- o)r CNi, D o D` �� n_�� C/,-�- t .a'. C f OCSC}1/- 1,,= P'> 11 0 `lll< 41't` co�0�1171 c l 0 1 °` o ' r, ��J a,Zo (0 ","tL t I. c ,( _.(�ry �) if FII - I., T )t)x;�al,ic i�1C �4�n1, t �. g. ,.. �fi /", -1i c, M-81 loorl!��I,�, �I> 2Yo� 1 Co) aL��;�.i �l a ��,i1Lt���4 cit<<�' .l(�,1��4a� l�i��t � �lf�C o h ?r �4��.f�-- IL �, ' �)/A�'.n: i1()} )�O3t, c;I7o8� IL°&1c, / ;`,jj:. }�r6)j[O) �'1(_ol(of,trC (X�I :;1�(0� 'L[7 /."�1L�19�11` ��'I.o)� I <, Co) I ii 6f,'tLivl( >5i ; tr Co>�ool 'Q laoX� ��;��(r-(4 & kJ(oxc',)l,(1(4(v-,, to;Co� ltr(o i l,m{J '�i:)nl�� ,161"ivl' (OkliTl, t,S l 1,1�("",- lo>tr(oY1} C tc; (off,it (C'l�lr :te i L�;iS'C C t(, 11 o6d91 t-� O-O.R 2K�j }�/CQ IYI it,Q)(=' t.IoXo �l(` .� ,���5( Jn X-,M ri,lnirl=,(o))rwo ');(1;`il,(c�I��. ;IL�v1 1;�`� )15, 4)l41 , '1�[0, fo71,!t- '), oo? (6KCO '\q/(��i x,);((,,I.Ko>"Q) OL,?� �() "l o>�gxe`t (ol// Jl[0 9,)(i ( 10,1j�tLynY)`.\"�� Z,(c;l�> �u-(o_(l l '11 gl(o�II.0 71C( (off '(�'ln� 1[}g111 ,liq o� �rt�(.'(c l� ltJ off. /�(q iQ yv� l tr1',.(,;f" � ( �o>Ir)1-0,pX)ti, �),,i1� ' :7[-,OO -631,) ��Wyp--)��.i,[ 1 Pnl( . U, ', iv1(oj. �gl l(oI Ic yo 1(,t 9'toC col ''�i Ihli I', 1i 1v1;1�;(o)+rliola:tt,11.(otiglt<, ' x, 1iI I ,i% �"/(bw ,jnk)N, '; ,c �M '(2A�'())l� [,(p "(;�; (01L, f �. Xl c10161 i t�.tr.01i lJl ,Sl�oit�(o)J�41' Ilt 'tl,(u)Igl. u( `(o)( ilrtolit;ig(' 1�,a { in(c' !.Com jg,t-,-;;, 1°)1ff--Y' �(._ .<cC1A)l; ffiw- r;l« (o)f!�} )(ollt/:,<, �V/ 1L1v1 l�,l,{�Il���i 1%Co �41f.r {1) 11 - (()) L/)t /f} �t /l =n� -l. ic`C' - ,. ` lV(cjlo�)-iL`, :(C' 1t;C,,j (,tL - L (q(cl I >Ilso}�o >>L' Y f f �}` ,'. ; . y -:., - I,'ji, it _- r5I ?Z4.i(Mail l' fOt.;i{� kli i� �'�>�€j!, ,"{C).. ,I. lit h�41, it i,R)r 1(,,-i;(,1` \(�Y I�. 76AJ)i)rli ll)(rj,�.�)1I (}i(" 9��! j/,"(� > oli��[ II �� (I.- it(� 1. - >- i 'v4, '�)> , t t" ,) '�,� ,lof,(A r.,0�,f.r t oviN 6f, co O H 7111::)W'n V/ �� �• 7 w(d 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE . SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 rlosoR•co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 October 10, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: James Lombardi, Acting Chairperson, Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer RE: Pin Oak Estates - Application LandTech Properties,. Inc. , has submitted the letter and attachments which were sent to the Army Corps of Engineers regarding Pin Oak Estates . This information was requested at the September 25, 1989 Public Hearing and has been included in the file for review by the Commission. a R F OD 70- Sot,& ?A 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 �r�dsoe•coN� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 October 23, 1989 TO: James A. Lombardi, Chairman, Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer RE: Application #89-52P, Pin Oaks Please accept this as a follow-up to my letter dated June 29, 1989 . Consideration has been given to documents, correspondence, and plans submitted up to this date. IF APPROVAL IS CONSIDERED, SUGGESTED APPROVAL CONDITIONS INCLUDE: 1. Phasing of the project shall be established to prevent traversing across the site. 2. The sequence of construction shall be identified on the plans . 3. The Geotechnical Study and recommendations by Dr. Clarence Welti, P.E. , P.C. , shall be incorporated into the development of this site. This includes two feet of fill over clay for yards,which, is to be dressed with four inches of topsoil. SowN aE, 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR. CONK. 06074 r��sol•co�'� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 November 2, 1989 CERTIFIED MAIL Lawrence A. Fiano 71 Woodland Street Manchester, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Fiano: i Res Application #89-54P, Pin Oaks At the October 30, 1989 meeting of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, the Commission voted to deny without prejudice, Application #89-52P. You. may re-apply at any time taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Agency. The concerns expressed by the Agency are 1 . Crossing the wetlands. 2. Ambitious plan for the site. Density too high considering the amount of wetlands on this site. 3 . Lots 3 ad 4 should not be part of the plan. 4. Pin Oak Trail encroaching into 40, buffer. 5 . Potential damage impounding or ponding on the site. 6 . Direction of road into rear area of site. Very truly yours, James A. Lombardi, Chairman Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission 4 i RICHARD M. RITTENBAND ATTORNEY AT LAW JAN 1750 ELLINGTON ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074 A ouSOT WE \VNpa AG`('Clt (203)644 2456 INL T10N COMM� CONsr'6B January 18, 1991 Mr . James Lombardi Chairman Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re : Fairway Associates v. South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency Dear Jim: Enclosed is a copy of the Memorandum of Decision in the above matter . As you will note, Judge Walsh ruled in favor of the plaintiff sustaining the appeal , Kindly set this down for an executive session at the next meeting so that you can decide whether or not you want to take an appeal to the Appellate Court . Thank you.. Very truly our Richard M. Rittenband RMR: das Enclosure cc: Marcia Banach No. CV 49-03701 375 SI Eo�RI R COURT FAIRWAY ESTATES c,0 �PC�RJ� �L DISTRICT OF �2TFORD/NEW BRITAIN; - vs AT HARTFORD SOUTH 14INDSOR T_NLANn WETLANDS JANUARY 141 1991 AG--ENCY/C.C2UaERVATTON COMMISSION MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This action is an a6pea-1 f•xcim the decision of the: South Windsor Inland -Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commiss,ion, .hereinafter roferied to as the Commission , deny'Lng the Plaintiff' s aopli_cation for a nermi.t -to allow the L��lio�� .::o recaulated activities to service a proposed r'esid�ntial subdivision: 1. Roadway. construction and storm water discharge within a wetland buffer zone . 2 . Common driveway and utility lines throu:gl a narrow wetland ( 30 ' ) and minor watercourse. 3 . Footing drain discharge within wetland buffer. The acreage of Wetlands and Watercourses to be altered was acre. the parcel in quest-ion contains 9 . 9 nacres , On Ji,me 20 , 1989 , Lawrence A. Fiano, as agent for Fairway Estates. Partners , submitted an application to the Commission , which was actina as the duly constituted inland vietland, agency for the Town of. South Windsor pursuant to Section 22a-42 (c ) of. ' the Conn. General Statutes . V71 After 'a public hearing on Seotemher 25, 1989 , on the Plaintiff' s application , the Commission denied the application on October 30 ,.._ 1989 , and published notice of. .its decision on November 7 , 1989 . The Commission ' s vote to deny the application was based on the following concerns. "?. Crossing the wetlands . 2 . Ambitious plan for the site . Density too high considering the amount of wetlands on this. ,site. . its. 3 :and 4, should not b Mart of the plan, 4 . Pin Oak Trail encroaching into W buffer. 5,. Potential_ damage; impounding or ponding on the site,, 6. Direction of road, into rear area of site. " Thereafter the- Plaintiff appealed, from ..she decision o`: th.e Commission to ,this court . - In its appeal. the Plaintiff claims that : a. The Agencl-' s decision was contrary to the toeiaht of "testimony and evidence produced at ,the public hearing on, the application. b. One or more of the Agency' s me,mbe rs , was 'predisposed .a vainst the application as a result of a previous application regarding. the property having come before the Commission and having been denied without prejudice, and said pre- disposition impeded the £air and just review of thin current , appli cat i_on . 3 -2- s C. The Agency denied. the application despite the uncon�roverted evidence that no feasible and prudent alternative exists __.. to the Plaintiff' s application . d. _The Agency' s a y • ' action in denying,den i the Plaintiff' s application � _ _ constitutes_ a taking -of the plaintiff ' s property without compensation e. ` The AIgencyI s decision was based upon factors, o.the,r than those it, could legally con,:i47Qr. rr 1. appropriate to analyze the :4�ecis ,on .cif *he Comm, �.Qn 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 fu'nclame,ital fairnes . " Feinson v Conservation Commission,- 180 Conn. 421, 429 (-1980 ) . A review of the record shows that .at the September 25, 1989 V public hearing, the Plaintiff was represented by Robert Eisner, Land Planner from Landtech Properties , Inc. , Michael Kline :of PEnvironmental Planning,.Services , and Leonard Norton, a professional engineer employed by Landtec_h, .all of whom testified. The Plaintiff also submitted a Geotechnical study prepared by Dr. Clarence ffelti, a professional engineer. Mr. Kline and Mr. Eisner reviewed the project in- detail: Mr. Kline' s conclusion was wetland that "the project will have a negligible impact on overall values on the .site; " ( RR exhibit ,y25 , Page 8 ) . Mr. Eisner' s conclusion was that " the impacts which we ' re proposing currently�� • really are the minimal .for this Site. " ( RR erhlbit 25 , Page 8 ) Mr. Kline also stated that " the direct impacts of the project are very very limited ( RR exhibit 25 , Page 6 ) . He further testified when referring to indirect impacts that "we would anticipate these impac is to be ver1T very minor_ . ( RR exhibit .25 , Page 7 ) . ti Further testimony of Mr_ . Kline was that: " t�►ere wotzldi ' t be any sign ific.ant impact on the wetlands from the proposal ( RR exhibit 25 ,` Page . 12 ) . Finally, Mr. Kline stated that "the wetland impacts in terms of wildlife habitat encroachment are absolutely negligible." ( RR exhibit 25 , Pane 25 ) . At' the October. 30 , 1989 Regular- Meeting of the Commission, one of .the memhers stated a concern- "With respect to crossing of the wetlands , initially T .think that what may happen , and what appears will happen, is that water will be ponding even more in this area" ( RR, exhibit 30 , sixth pane ) . The Plaintiff' s professional planner responded to this by saying "we' re proposing a -standard culvert crossing , so there should not be an increase in the ponding on either side. . . . because the culvert will allow the water_ to r..I.nw ' through as it did before. ( RR exhibit , #30 , . s.ixth page ) . The Commission offered no testimony at the September 25 ,- 3.989 public hearing to rebut any of the evidence.offered by the Plaintiff' s ' experts. q -4 - ... - ""ham agency' s decision must be-. sustained if an, exam nat�ot► of the record discloses'.evidence that supports any one of- the reasons given. The evidence , however, to support any such reason . must be substantial;. . . .. This . scl called substantial evidence rule is s .milai 'to the ' sufficiency of the evidence' standard applied- in judicial review of jury= verdicts and evidence is sufficient to sustain an agency finding if it affords ' a substantial basis of fact from which the fart in issue can be reasonably inferred. It must be enough to justifyi` if the trial were to a jury, a -refusal to. direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn Tr_om it is one of fact for the jury. Huck v. Inland_ Wetland& 'Xatercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525 539 , 540, 541 ( 19,87 ) : ' Ina:murh a:s the plaintiff offered expert evidence that the proposed regulated activity ,would have a negligible impact 'z on the Wetlands , .and th is was the only evidence offered at the hearing, the Commission nocessarily disregarded the 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 tha Commission members lack- their own expertise or knowledge . " Seaborne Herbert Tanner, J-- . , et al. v. Conservation Commission of the City of Nors-7a;.k, 15 Conn. App. 336 , 341 ( 1988 ) . The Defendant has argued in its brief that the Commission can. determine on its o=.gin the potential impact on the Wetlands. Y. The potential effects of road and driveway construction, building of homes , . and related activities , on a wetland area, is a complex issue. -5 A lay commission acts without substantial evidence i.t relies on its own knowledge and experience concerning technically complex issues . . . . Huck,, supra, Page 542 , quoting from Feinson v. Conservation Commission, supra, Page 428, 429 . If an administrative, agency chooses to rely on its own, judgment , "it has a ;responsibility to reveal publicly its special knowledge and experience, to give notice of the material farts that are critical to its de<:ision, . so that a pprsop adverslj• affected ;hereby has an opportunity for :-ebutta?, at. an, a rooriate s � pp stage in the administrative proceedings. " . Feinson,. supra, Pages 428, 429. No such revelation was made in this case. The only expert evidence was that offered by the Plaintiff, and the Commission rejected this evidence. No evidence c:ontysti.ng the Plaint;.f.f' s application was presented, nor dial any member of the Commission, as far as the rcrord discloses , make a comprehensive presentation relating directly, to the application. The few comments f kh in the record by Commission members, which were cited in Defendant' s Brief, were nothing more than casual comments, conjectural and M, speculative in nature, rather than statements of actual, concrete, demonstrable facts , which could constitute suffie:ient , reliable evidence to sustain the action taken by the de4endant Commissi.nn. The ;Commission ' s vote to deny the appli.cation was based on six concerns listed in its letter of denial: -6- 1. Crossing the Wetlands S:ince. 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 considering the amount of wetlands on this site. Lots 3 and. 4 should not be part.:of the plan. . As to whether or not this plan was "ambitious" or the, "density ~ too hiq " , there is nothing in the record to support this concern, ` nor was there any evidence that the driveway crossings for lots 2 , _3 and 4 , with horpes on Lots 3 and 4 , would have an adverse impact on the wetlands . The Plaintiff presented evidence that all the lots comply with gown regulations (RR exhibit #30, Page 2 ) and that the plan is "relatively low intensity. ( RR exhibit #25 , Page 8 ) . 4 . and 6'. Pin Oak Trail encroaching into 40' buffer and direction of road into rear area of site. All expert testimony supports the _proposed location of Pin Oak Trail and the record shows no evidence that any other location would be feasible. 5. Potential damage -i..mpounding or ponding on the site. This concern was brought up by a member of this Commission y at the October 30 , 1989 meeting. The Plaintiff' s expert responded: "We tried to pick a location that would be the least impacting, we ' re: proposing a standard culvert crossing, so there should not be a s u a.ricrease in the pondinn on either side; because the culvert Will allow the water to flow through as , it did before. ( RR exh.i.bi t #30, Page 6 ) . Under Section 22a-41 (b ) , "a permit shall not be issued unless. the commissioner r finds that a feasible and prudent. alternative does not nxi st ; � If the regulated activity would have on!-,, a minimal and negligible impact on the wetlands , and the only access to lots three and four is by ,a wetlands crossing, then tt)e only alternative, elimination of tlzase two Jots would not be .prudent. ' This -is -especially, .so because uncontroverted expert testimony was .presented that the Proposed crossing was .at the point where it would_ have the least impact on the -:rret.lands and that it was the most feasible and prudent alternative for the crossing. ( RR exhibit #30 , Pago Concerning the .location of the cul-de-sac of Pin Oak Trail in a wetland buffer „one, the Plaintiff offered uncontroverted' expert testimony that , taking- the property as a whole, the proposed location o_ � x of Pin Oak Frail is a the point where it would have the least .: impact to the ecosystem. ( RR exhibit #30 , page 9 ) , ( RR exhibit; 4145, Page two ) . Therefore, it would not be feasible or prudent ' to re,lopate it 4 This court finds that the, only evidence offered ,recuires a finding by the Commissioner that a feasiblQ and prudent alternative r }� doer, not exist . ' -8- ; Section 4-183 ( j ) of the Conn. General Statutes ( Uniform Admdni.strat ive Procedure Act ) reads in part as follovjr, "The court shall affirm the decision of the 'agenc unless: the court finds, that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because ' the administrative findings , inferences , conclusions , or decisions are: dearly erroneous in view of''the reliable, probative , and substantial_ evidence on the whole record; or ( 6 ) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly un- warranted exercise of discretion. " The court finds that : . .The P.lainti.ff, as owner of the- land in question, Baas aggrieved by the adm nistrative' action of the defendant. 2. The opinion of the experts, was unanimous that the proposed activity would have little or no adverse impact on the wetlands . The Commission ignored the testimony of the experts which was the ev only evidence on the issue: The record does not show that the Commission possessed any special knowledge or experience, and it , therefore, acted on its own knowledge or experience, even though the issues were technically complex. 3. .Ioubstantial rights of the Plaintiff have been prejudiced because the administrative decision :is clearly .arbitrary 'and ` erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial.' evidence on the whole record. 4 . The appeal is sustained. w1aI�R. '. s LAWRENCE A. FIANO P. O. BOX 751 MANCHESTER, CT 06040-0751 D :� i' 646-4951 April 12, 1991 AM 12 Vol South Windsor SIAM WETLANDS AGENCY) John McCahill /lTbDi!CDMYtt SOW Town of South Windsor South Windsor Town Hall, South Windsor, CT Re: Pin Oak Estates, Proposed modifications to wetlands plan Dear John, I have been advised by the attorney representing Fairway Estates partnership in regard to the appeal by the Town, that it is OK for me to provide you with a plan showing changes that Fairway Estates would agree to make to the plan in consideration for the settlement of the appeal/application. The partnership will not authorize me to secure the proper engineering, etc. services to redraft the plan unless the concept is agreed to in advance by the Commission. I have enclosed a colored copy of the plan which was used at a Pre-trial conference yesterday attended by attorneys for both sides. The plan contains the following changes: 1. Shortening the length of the road so that the paved area is outside of the buffer zone. 2 . The use of level spreaders at the outfall of the road drainage to minimize erosion. The actual area involved may vary from what I arbitrarily depicted on the plan, but suitable area and design will be used. 3 . Deletion of a significant amount of wetland and buffer area from Lot Nos. 2, 4, and 5. This area would be excluded from the application, or dedicated to Open Space, etc. The size of the pipe under the common driveway is already substantially larger than the 30" pipe that feeds it and no change to the 71" x 47" arch structure is proposed. Also, the footing drain for Lot No. 5 would still discharge into the wetland buffer area as shown. Please notify me what the next step is in this process. If additional copies are required, I can provide them, but you will be dealing with m graphics. Thanks. S ' ce ely, i awrence A. Fi o F/lom Enclosure:' Pin Oak Estates Map Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: We understand and agree that any comments made by any members, alternates, or Town Staff on behalf of the Town of South Windsor during the presentation of application �9-5y,O shall not be used at any time in pending court proceedings for application q7- y 1 . Thank you. Very truly yours, le 6Z B4a : Dd C � CID U 9 Tawn O-P Sotz& ?Vz� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR•c� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 June 19 , 1991 Lawrence A. Fiano P.O. Box 751 Manchester, CT 06040-0751 Dear Mr. Fiano: Re: Application #89-54P, Pin Oak Estates At the June 10, 1991 regular meeting of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission meeting, the Commission approved a motion to schedule Application #89-54P, Pin Oak Estates for a public hearing. The hearing will be held on July 15, 1991 at 7 : 30 in the Sprenkel Room. You should be prepared to make a presentation before the Commission and specifically address any concerns that were identified in the denial, to include- changes which will be incorporated into the final plans if approved. If you have any questions on this, please feel free to call me at 644-2511 . Very truly yours; ,M C JAn E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer JEM/pmm cc: IWA/CC Richard M. Rittenband, Town Attorney Marcia .A. Banach, Director of Planning Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works 1 SOWN Sfq< 5 71au� ate 4.5;c� : . w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE . SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 f��soR-CO � AREA CODE 203/644-2511 June 28, 1991 TO: Current Abutter FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer RE: Public hearing of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Pursuant to section 9 . 5 of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Regulations, as an abutting property owner, you are hereby notified of the Public Hearings to be held on July 15, 1991 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Sprenkel Room of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor. Please see the enclosed public notice, the application is identified as #89-54P, Pin Oak Estates . Thank you for your attention. Pmm Enclosure LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL � o.. ••,<R . p r G D PLANNING DEPARTMENT i TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR 1540 SULLIVAN AVE. Sos.cor`'� SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 (203) 644-2511 Date -4 91 - TO: .�. ._ WE ARE SENDING YOU: LM P&Z initial plans Q Drainage comps 0 P&Z final plans = Bond estimate requests O Inland Wetlands plans = Bond reduction requests [O Final plans for filin = Change order form ® Other c�4r.voa -des O Correspondence Copies App. No. Project # I-.s Lve THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ® For review and comment 0 For your file O For your use 0 Returned with revisions ® As requested 0 Other PLEASE RETURN/COMMENT BY: -f /Z J ( �� !'►'toC��- CtiiS c,pe oeee01ec . COMMENTS: //__�earT r7 �s y+2ders �cC•^n ��� O vr' Copy to: VV.41cC A'1e From: c P _ �14/1% xx/xx/xx Mr. Law nce A. Fiano / 71 Wo dland Street P.O. Box 751 Manchester, CT 06040 i Dear Mr. Piano: Re: Application #89-54P - Pin Oaks Estates At the J-V�y lS5 17V meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved with conditions Application #89-54P - IWA/CC permit for the construction of a residential subdivision on property located westerly of Clark Street RR zone as shown on plans prepared by Tarbell, Heintz & Assoc . , dated June 15, 1989, revised July 10, 1989 and May 24, 1991 . This approval is subject to the following conditions : 1 . Two blueprint copies of the entire set of final plans and this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this Commission . This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. 2 . Construction activities shall be subject .to the approval of the Town Engineer. 3 . The applica 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 xx/xx/xx. 5 . All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 6 . A contact person shall be identified directly on the final plans . 7 . We recommend a bond in the amount of $x,xxx to be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures . Mr. Laurence A. Fiano Page Two Application #89-54P 2 b� 8 . Phasing of the project shall be included on t e 2nal plan 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 1 tter shall be reproduced on the final plans 11 . Fairway Estates vsSeSoutheWindsopenWA/CCl(docketonumber c✓T7-0 3�o13?-� xxxxxxxxxxxx Superior Court, xx xxxxxxxxx Appellate Court, xxxxxxxxx Supreme Court) . This is conditional upon court approval of ttlement, a vacating of the judgement entered by the superior court, a withdrawal of AIM 20e l . �. �Gam_ ery tru y y urs, I-'67�zc � -� Elizabeth A. Warren airman, i r IWA/CC EAW/pmm cc: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer Marcia A.Banach, Director of Planning Planning & Zoning Commission Richard M. Rittenband, Town Attorney o ' STATE OF CONNECTICUT} } ss . SOUTH WINDSOR COUNTY OF HARTFORD } August 8, 1991 I, Phyllis M. Mann hereby certify that the attached resolution was adopted by unanimous vote July 15, 1991 at the regular meeting of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission and authorizes Richard M. Rittenband to enter into stipulation as adopted. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the letter of approval addressed to Mr. Lawrence A. Fiano and dated July 16, 1991 . i Phyl is M. Mann Recording Secretary STATE- OF CONNECTICUT} COUNTY OF HARTFORD } Personally appeared P KI WS signer and sealer of the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be her free act and deed, before mew Notary Public My Commission Expires fa h 1 hy 16 in ASSISTANT TO'"C" K INLAND WETLAND AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR Instant Minutes Page 1 July 15, 1991 IWA/CC REGULAR MEETING South Windsor Town Hall MEIKBERS PRESENT: Chairman Elizabeth A. Warren, Jeremiah O'Sullivan, Walter Pekala, Jeffrey Holcombe, James Griffin, Kathy Brady, Julie Raymond ALTERNATES PRESENT: James Kerrigan, Jr. sitting for the vacant seat. STAFF PRLS_E- John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer REGULAR MEETING: THE FLWETI�DSRAGENCY/CONSERVATION DURING COMMISSIONt� MEETING OF THE INLAND ITEM: ADDITION TO AGENDA Motion to add as Item #4 under Old Business, Application #89-54P, Pin Oak Estates, to approve settlement of pending litigation namely Fairway Estates vs IWA/CC Was made by Commissioner Pekala Seconded by Commissioner Hot= The motion carried The vote was as follows : unanimous • f . INLAND WETLAND AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR Instant Minutes Page 3 July 15, 1991 Application #91 18W, Buckland Hills Development Partnership - amendment to the Town of S W. Inlands Wetlands and Watercourses Map (dated 1984 ) for property located easterly of Buckland Road, northerlyof the Manchester-South Windsor town line AA 30 zone Motion to approve with conditions the map amendment for application #91-18W Was made by Commissioner Pekala Seconded by Commissioner Griffin The motion carried The vote was as follows: unanimous ITEM: EXTENSION OF TIME Motion to extend the time of the meeting no more than. thirty minutes to - Was made by Commissioner Pekala Seconded by Commissioner Holcombe The motion carried The vote was as follows: 6-1 with O'Sullivan, Pekala, Holcombe, Griffin, Brady, and Raymond voting for the motion Kerrigan voted against the motion ITEM: OLD BUSINESS Application 89 54W, Pin Oak Estates, IWA/CC permit for the construction of a residential subdivision on property located westerly of Clark Street, RR zone Motion to move that the pending litigation, known as Fairway Estates vs IWA/CC, be settled by approval of the application in accordance with the letter of approval attached hereto as "exhibit A" , as amended Was made by Commissioner Kerrigan Seconded by Commissioner Holcombe The motion carried The vote was as follows: unanimous r �4011" st4, s 71a� o-P saa& �. 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WFNDSOR. CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203 644-2511 R-CO�� / 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 At the July 15, 1991 meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved with conditions Application #89-54P - IWA/CC permit for the construction of a residential subdivision on property located westerly of Clark Street RR zone as shown on plans prepared by Tarbell, Heintz & Assoc. , dated June 15, 1989, revised July 10, 1989 and May 24 , 1991 . This approval is subject to the following conditions : 1 . Two blueprint copies of the entire set of final plans and this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this Commission . This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. 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 . ' 5 . All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 6 . A contact person shall be identified directly on the final plans . 7 . We recommend a bond in the amount of $5,000 .00 to be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures . w Mr Lawrence 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. v Mr Lawrence A Fiano Page Three July 16 , 1991 Application #89-54P Very truly yours, E]� beth A. Warren, Chairman, IWA/CC EAW/pmm cc. Jerry Engineer C. Iazzetta, Town 'rector of Planning Marcia A.Banach, Di 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Richard M. Rittenband, Town Attorney Joel Fain, Esq. . r. MEMORANDUM TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement officer DATE: August 26, 1991 RE: Application #91-32P, Pin Oak Estates \ Based on the IWA/CC approval letter (dated July 16, 1991) I have the following comments with regard to the plans recently submitted: 1 . The phasing of the project should prevent traversing across the site. The phasing shown does not accomplish this . 2 . The footing drain for lot #5 discharges directly into the open space. The footing drain should be shortened. 3 . The IWA/CC requested that the open space be in the favor of the Town of South Windsor. This should be discussed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5 . If possible, access to the open space shall be provided on the final plans . 4 . IWA/CC approval conditions #14 states, "the open space shall be pinned at critical corners or angles or marked as typically required for Town open space. " The plans show that iron pins are to be set. Are iron pins acceptable? JEM/pmm cc: Town Engineer MEMORANDUM TO: Richard M. Rittenband, Town Attorney FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer DATE: September 10, 1991 RE: Status Report on Pending Litigations Our records indicate that the following violation(s) or application(s) were forwarded to you as legal matters in the past. Please provide me with a brief statement regarding each so that I may inform the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission as to the status . 1 . . 432 Buckland Road, (Attorney Frank E. Ahearn, -Trustee) 2 . Services Development Corporation, Application #89-79P 3 . -?: n Oak Estates, Application #89-54P 4 . Clark Corners, Application #89-50P Thank you for your attention to this matter. RICHARD M. RITTENBAND ATTORNEY AT LAW F-B 10 1992 1750 ELLINGTON ROAD Sguft Vt'i 'dsor :SOUTH WINDSOR.CONNECTICUT 06074 Wfiyffi0Wj0UANDS AGENCY!' (203)644.2458 �{ t C,pMM1SSION' February Z, 1992 Mr. Francis J. Drumm, Jr. Chief Clerk Supreme Court Drawer Z , Station A Hartford, CT 06106 Re : Fairway Estates vs. South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission, et al. ; SC 14273 Dear Frank: The above matter has been settled. Today Judge Walsh vacated the original Judgment in Superior Court and approved the new settlement . Accordingly, please find enclosed herewith withdrawal of the above appeal. Thank you for your patience and consideration. �V 1 t r u l y y ors-; --- Richard M. Rittenband RMR: £d Encls . cc: Inland/Wetlands Agency t E L 1 3 : 3 1 L A W R E H C E F I A N o P . 0 1 - 0 2 LAWRENCE A. PIANO .. '" P. O. BOX 778 MANCHESTER, CT 06040-0778 646-4951 February 12, 1992 John McCahill, Wetlands Agent Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Ave. FEB i 1992 South Windsor, CT 06074 FAX 644-3781 South Windsor Re: PIN OAK ESTATES; Clark Street Planning & Zoning Commission Dear John, I have enclosed a copy of the subdivision plan which shows areas within the buffer zone which may be affected by construction equipment in the normal course of house construction. Excavation of every cellar hole would involve a large backhoe using an area of approximately 30' around the foundation, and concrete mixers will also require ramps around the sides of the houses to make their deliveries. For these reasons at a migimum, I may be making an application on behalf of A. B. Realty Corp. , the current owner, to conduct these activities within the buffer zone. No encroachment would exceed 20t , so that there would always be 20' of undisturbed area before reaching the wetland, boundaries. The current owner is now making plans to build out the project and these impacts are seen as likely. It is intended that these affected areas would be stabilized as soon as practicable after the exterior of the house is completed. of course, the usual sedimentation and erosion control methods would be in place during construction to prevent damage to wetland areas. Please call me after you have reviewed the enclosed sketch and let me know what you think. Thanks. S�ncerely, YLawrence A.' Fiano LAF/lom Enclosure: Sketch of Pin Oak Estates 2/J3192: Ck&j I /tA A931A)e . 5(90kc wfiA _ 7 , $1,10.1114 j4mrw �J C/lek coolers) WED 1 3 1 L A R E H 9{E F I A H O if 110 l Grp10, N 1 — 1 p s71 At 11 4 : • r�•� S{ ~lI• / rs ��p / •� Yr a`y• _ �J r' yr "{ je le, loo ol vi Or JOL iplip I lit • r ' ILI.�� �t fa.l �8� � let of I �t it =', �SpWN Sf•'`� o F o-w;n O-P s-our � r V 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 ��psoR.00 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 January 9 , 1992 CERTIFIED MAIL Lawrence A. Fiano P.O. Box 778 Manchester, CT 06040-0778 Dear Mr. Fiano: Re: Appl. #91-32P, Pin Oak Estates We are pleased to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted at its January 7 , 1992 meeting to conditionally approve, with modifications, the above-referenced application. This approval is based on plans prepared by Tarbell, Heintz & Assoc. , Inc. Job No. 190-91, dated June 15, 1989 and revised through November 7, 1991 . This approval is subject to the following: 1 . This approval is for 5 lots, numbered 1-5. 2 . Concrete sidewalks, built to Town specifications, shall be installed on both sides of all new streets . 3 . Drainage for this subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer. 4 . All lots shall be serviced by the Town of South Windsor sanitary sewer system and are subject to the approval of the Water Pollution Control Authority. 5 . Water shall be supplied to this subdivision by Connecticut Water Company. 6 . Street lighting shall be installed on streets, at intersections, and on cul-de-sacs in accordance with the policy established by the Town Manager. Street lighting is to be coordinated with the Chief of Police. 7 . Street names and locations of fire hydrants are subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal of the Town of South Windsor. Street names and supporting posts shall be installed by the developer in conformance with the standards of the Town of South Windsor, at no expense to the Town. 8 . A liability insurance policy shall be submitted to this Commission naming the Town of South Windsor as an insured, with a combined single limit for bodily injury and/or property damage in the amount of $1,000,000. r Lawrence A. Fiano Page Two January 9 , 1992 Application #91-32P 9 . This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $5,000 . 00 . 10 . Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff . 11 . All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor. 12 . All easements for conservation purposes, drainage or , utilities, that may be required in connection with the approval of this subdivision, must be submitted on standard Town easement form where appropriate, to this Commission prior to filing the mylars and issuance of building permits . All deeds for open space, public improvements and roadways must be submitted prior to request for Town acceptance; all deeds must be in accordance with the policy for accepting deeds and must be approved by the Engineering Department and Town Attorney. 13 . Footing drains are required for each house. Prior to the building of any structure on the lot, a topographic map, drawn to a scale of 1" = 401 , shall be submitted for each lot in the subdivision, showing proposed contours, elevations and the location of the footing drains . No building permits will be issued until the proposed contours, floor elevations and location of footing drains have been approved by the Town Engineer. 14 . If, for any reason, finished grading and other individual lot site work is not completed, the Town Engineer shall determine the amount of a cash bond to ensure final grading and site work. This cash bond must be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 15 . Quantity estimates must be submitted to the Town Engineer (on the enclosed form) for the purpose of determining subdivision bonding, and all bonds shall be posted prior to filing the plans . If the developer chooses to submit a Letter 'of Credit for a one year term, in lieu of a surety bond, said Letter of Credit must be renewed on a yearly basis until completion of the development. If a new Letter of Credit has not been received within 30 days before the expiration date, the Commission may, at its option, call the Letter of Credit it is holding. t Lawrence A. Fiano Page Three January 9 , 1992 Application #91-32P 16 . A drainage assessment fee in the amount of $250 . 00 shall be submitted to this Commission. 17 . No building permits will be issued until all modifications have been complied with, and the final plans have been filed in the Town Clerk's Office. 18 . Required sight lines must be met prior to issuance of a building permit for any lot, due to the very poor nature of the existing sight lines and the need to minimize potential hazards to construction vehicles and the public during construction. Sight distances must be tested as soon as practical during construction; if, required sight distances are not met, remedial measures must be taken to meet sight ` requirements . 19 . Engineering Department recommended modifications, per memorandum dated December 10, 1991, must be incorporated into plans. 20. Open space will be deeded to a Homeowners Association to be created of abutting lot owners, and to remain as open space in accordance with zoning/subdivision regulations . Black and white transparent mylars of Sheet #4 with the above modifications, together with three blueprint copies of the entire set of plans, must be submitted to this Commission within 30 days to be stamped and signed. The letters of approval of this Commission as well as the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, must be reproduced on the mylars . After the mylars have been signed by the Commission, they will be returned to you for filing in the Office of the Town Clerk within 90 days of the date of approval. After filing these plans, a copy of the receipt must be submitted to the Planning Department. Very truly yours, Frank Castro / Vice Chairman FC/pmm Enclosures Lawrence A. Fiano Page Four January 9, 1992 Application #91-32P cc: Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Director of Planning Chief Building Official Town Engineer Supt. of Pollution Control Assessor Fire Marshal Registrar of Voters �A J Y STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT APPELLATE COURT WITHDRAWAL. JD•AC•8 Rev.4.88 COURT DOCK NO. DATE XY SUPREME ❑ APPELLATE TSC 14273 February NAME OF CASE(First named Plaintiff and Defendant) FAIRWAY ESTATES VS- SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLAND AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION This appeal/owEs-zppeal is withdrawn as to: ® all parties without costs. ❑ the below-named plaintiff(s) only, without costs. ❑ the below-named defendant(s) only, without costs. By: s/Richard M. Rittenband IN Richard i t t e n and , Attorney Appellant ❑ Cross-appellant This appeal/cross-appeal is withdrawn as a result of: rX7 the settlement conference program (Pr. Bk. §4013). �xl some activity BEFORE the case was assigned to the settlement program. CXl some activity AFTER the settlement program, not related to the settlement program. For Office Use Only Docket No. . S C, 14 2 7,3, , , , ,, ,, , Return Date . ... . .. .. . . .... .... . •FAIRW.AY..ESTATES. .. . . .. .. . . . . . ... .. . . ... . . . SUPREME COURT (First Named Plaintiff) . . (Covert). . . . . .. . . .. . . . ..... . vs. SOUTH W I N D S O R INLAND (District or G. A.) . . .WEXLAMA.S. .f1•G.E,NCY/,CONSERVAT,ION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7? 1992 (First Named Defendant) (Date) . WITHDRAWAL $] This case is withdrawn as to all defendants without costs to any party. ❑ This case is withdrawn as to the defendant . . . .. .. . .... . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . only, without costs. The ❑ Complaint ❑ Counterclaim ❑ Cross Complaint ❑ (Insert Other Pleading Being Withdrawn) in the above entitled action is hereby withdrawn. Plaintiff • „ Fairway Estates .... .. .. . . .. .. .. ... .. . : By .s./j.oe1 Fain Joel Fain o.. . . .. . . .. ... . .. .. . . .. ..K , w. ;"Caposnsela . . .. .. .. .. . .. : By Levine & Breslau . Attorney . .. .. ... . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. I .. .. .. . .. . ; By ... .... . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .... . . . . . Attorney Defendant .Sp.u1:.11. Wi1xdS.Qx..��,� nd„Wetlands ; By s./.R.ichar.d.M. $;-.ttenband Richard M. Rittenband " " " ' • . Attorney .A.�Gt�.GY.�GRnservation_ •Commission ; By . ..... .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .... .... .. . .... . .. . . Attorney . . . . . . ... ... . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . ... : By . .. . ... .... .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .... . . ... . Attorney JD(COLP)-6o13 Docket No..CV 89-0370137-S ReturnDate................................... FAIRWAY ESTATES SUPERIOR COURT ................................................................... ......................................(Court)... (First Named Plaintiff (court) ....................................... VS. HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD ....................................................................................... SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY (District or G.A.) CONSERVATION COMMISSION .................................................................. JANUARY 29, 1992 (First Named Defendant) .............................................................. (Date) WITHDRAWAL ❑ This case is withdrawn as to all defendants without costs to any party. L This case is withdrawn as to the defendant Commissioner of Environmental Protection........................................................................ only, without costs. The ❑ Complaint ❑ Counterclaim ❑ Cross Complaint ................................................................................. (Insert Other Pleading Being Withdrawn) in the above entitled action is hereby withdrawn. Plaintiff ........................... ....................................................: By............ ............................................... ......... Attorney ................................................. ..........; By........................ ................................................ Attorney .........................................................................:...:..: By.................. .... Attorney ................ Defendant Commissioner of Environmental Protection ..................................................................... By ..Ric6rd...V:"We66;..AQ ........................................ Attorney ................................................................................: by................... ................ Attorney .................................... .. ......................................: By............................................................................ CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed to all counsel and pro se parties of record on: .................. .................................................. ..... ............................... (Signature of Counsel or.Pro.se party) JD-CV-d7 Rpm R_Af2 rni,� in_sai2,