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 (333)
TOWN Of SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AND WAT>I COURSES APPLICATION INLANC WETLANM AGENCY ACTION THIS APPLICATION, ONCE INFORMATION IS COM';LE"TE, (SEE BACK OF THIS FORM), SHALL BE RECEIVED AT APPLICATION NO. Jr (D REGULARLY SCHEDULED FETING OF THE AGENCY AT Tf TOWN HALL. RECEIVED 0AT1_ `I "g? THIS APPLICATION MUST BE FILED IN TRIPLICATE A' PUBLIC HEARING OATL THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK OF SOUTH WINDSOR (Itneconart) 12 NOON AT LEAST 14 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRST COMPLETED APPLICATION REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING DATE. THREE SETS OF M. OR PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN ENGZNEE: PERMIT GRANTED OATS AT LEAST 14 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRST REGULAR PERMIT OENIED DATE MONTHLY MEETING DATE. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE. 15irk)bre ar 6sja;ko t. APPLICANT Sowin Associ a G TIC.. NO. F�_31 AOOAES3 62 Oak Grove CITY a STATE Manncaefer CT 06040 2. OWNER Sowin AsGnci At-o� TEL. NO. same AOOAESSsame CITY & STATE -- _CZama 3. LOCATION OF PIROPWRTY g/-,; of Foster st-,-APt ,PtT,00„ 1 ; „nton Rd and Bee.l.zebub Road NAMES OF ADJACENT PRCPSRTY OWNERS_ Cote, Claire B. Grant, Horace V. —� Werle, Michael J. Hornat, Joanne F . Muzikevik, Emily S. — Stelmat, Richard E. & Gladys A. Ranney, Christine L. Gordon, Joel N. & Sharna M. Klenke, Ranney A. & Barbara C. 3TAT8 CLEARLY AMC BRlMy S. PURPOSES AND OESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY,ANO THE TIME ELEMENT INVOLVED: Conservation Man az)prnval on 1 v for 1 i i nt- subdivision and rPl atar� 1miJroyemantc _ 'qi to rnn+—A j n, no inland wetlands ATTRITION: THE APPLICANT UNOERSTAN03 THAT THIS APPLJCATION 1$ TO BE CONSIDERED COMPIL O.NLY WOMEN ALL INFOAMA_T104 L 0_GCUMENTS REQUIRED 13Y THE A_GEN�CY.HAVQ BERI SUBMITTED. )= Z z 05 APPROVAL MAY ALSO BE NECESSARY FRCM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM- L W N MISSION. M c o AN APPLICATION FEE IS REQUIRED. CONSULT TML4EGULATIONS 1 z (SECTIONS 6.9, 6.9a 'and 6.9b) . o o > A SIGN IS RE QIIIRID. CONSULT THE REGULATIONS SECTION 6.3a) . Ln cn a Z z SIGNED: 1.� (Applicant) APPLICUC HAS HAD WS AND PL AS CEMIFIED BY Sou. CGNSERVAT I ON SERVICE TO VERIFY CCbiP Lr:E COMPLIANCE wITH CONNEC TI= GUIDELINES FOR SUIL = CSICH AND SEDIMENT CUNTKOL. ( AS PER HARDSC(iK, .Ah� ;umy"XDEDED, ADM PUBLIC ACC 83.3 88, AS A 10DED. DATE OF CEMIFICATICS 7, APPLIC�TIM IRFORMATIOU COMPLIES WIT�: .�iGEDiCY'S REGULATIONS ( SECTIONS 7.1, a throuc* 8 REQUTRED FEE HAS BM Pt4ID. DATE RECEIVED 9. APPLIG4MT ( OR DESIGWI ED REPkFSE LTA2IVE)HEREBY AT'iES'T.S TLAT A SIGR WILL BE PUSTED AT THE FOLLOWnLG LC)Cs�TIO9i(S) Foster Street frontage BY Design Professionals, Inc. ( HAbIE ) ON OR BEFORE ThE F WIRG DATE as directed by Town staff &L11' ' THIS APPLICTICK IS FOUND TO BE CCNPLETE ARID NOW QUALIFIES FOR PLACEMENT ON THE AGENCY'S AGENDA: DATE SIGNATURE Town Engineer Agency Sec'y Agency Chairman THE W BECAUSE OF H FOLLOWING THIS APPLICATION IS IAI COMPLETE BED 7,DI bmBERED ITEMS (_ FROM ABOVE ) . A5 ChECM BELOW: _l -2 --- —0 4 -- 5 —7 8 9 L-�-`-Cofisttuct 10n Intpection tiepon { Project Dote y/ - Time weclhas Insp/ � O dL-?LCi/f�51 Developer Conlroctor Work in Progress Problem Areas y� Special Inslruction9 /Ord'vre 3c L)< S �v i�, w `p ter►��S �� 1e,.I v�, m6r-,L s�C- L, C-C-A- /- 3 - �'/ ----------- --�___.__y� � y 3_- _.S'8�.�__ ------- --- ---- _ �_ -- _____, --_-___- -_----- -- - � _- �_C�._ D --- -- �. . _ - . �__ _---- -------_-__----�v�i_�_ �w .___--..�_-- -____ r_ ____._�_----- - -- �. ,� . . x ----- -'-------�------' .. --- �_�.�---------_.�_.._�- —�.�_-_�.__...-�_ n j ( ♦f t t jt 1S r + t f ! t ! • f t . 4 t I r S t + T t t i T . , } f ! 1 t f t ! 7 1 e t } , • t f _ 1 1 i t t t t.. t t `..1 I { t 1 1 1 t S t f t f t , ' f f f t t , t ! f t T � • fi t S , � � � ! ! 1 t t t t 1 ! * t + 1 : , , , .. , • t t t ! t , . , , , r ' 1 � � ! ( � � � f S 1 t t ♦ � t } � 1 + ' f t ! 1 * � t . t , � R �-4 . , • 4•r�' , � y,/'�'�•4' , �•'�;-�;v�r✓f��I ; �' ; �''ld ram; : �-�: � `r ' ' , ' • ' -� r . • • . '. y.�+O; y� f t, y A•�• ,!/'�.�fT, �����/y�..�y y '� ! ' r . f r ,,t , ..i �/`w t , ' • f ,t /�l�j/GC ( ,,,, (r 7'yTy�(•�y��{f � �j/� . y "••-P�,/�t �i e4y�.i,/�'�.�1�•/`/� � �''/��>�^"�• f t f , l ,t'{ :;l t '} t : .�i✓�_;-r t ,ff/ f e �, : T •4t+► Gr`C.+•I ,7r�(r✓ 1 . 6I[1� , .� . • t I f i t ! ' • 1 ! t , } ! 1 f t r r , . , , , f t t . . • . . . . . , t t , . + : l t r : rL.3 : i� . . , • ! j t / . , •di�'.O .��•%•`�./�•- ' , WL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . p. , r • t • �11 VLF.l / •0 �i,�� _ i ' ..-. . r' y� !� r f • . , . . . .?. , . .. ..[,. . .r.o t . . . . . t . . . . . . , .�S �K , 4� r�� • f� �m✓i f it . • ;/, ,�• '.�.. ..�/(O/,.4 . • .Yi T►, '� ;v r , . . , 1 • , t • . . it • t t . . , f ! I ! • • . _ . . . . . f t 1 f • •4 i*.•(14,31,�'ey. '_ • , 1 :.t .! i' ` �.,'�" '' (''l'C'f7GJr', ;�i .'r 4? ��.'�,,1`�'iiX ..,L ;er►Ct'!�. ir , i : . : . , � :. : ' �'`f i''• �"/.�'�'1'�� r %• �i �-�r'�.O I�'Y! !_T'PG� : 9!•fG'�`.�'/��' ; �'•I'•/!�'!J: : : : : • + : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' f , •�Ct�N/Z9-f-4 ®1 3�dt:,®•�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . P�»,t�F� :'�. :��•�'� .isj�� �v�; wo�� roa7,�� ��J :J.S,�:'js': : ;=. > ;1.�.��`1'S . . . . . { •f f7d:',`r ,CJ -` .`/ T r i ?< :Q,• : S "!�7.'- : ^' G'. :�f'�'C�:�-'-: : j7`r : : : : ' . �' '�! � � _-�: •:�.�. , tea'. . �..�: . . t , , , f r • ; f . ',C7`.a�'f '�Gs'r3Y6! C•S' Srr? .$' +'. �'� fyfv'�?` ,(r�!d,�'�clf��3'►n!QC? ; ; ' . . . . . . . . . . •tow v .+„►y,i ' IAMOO '8IW7 WON 4H9 SU l �aosp � ttwtMr,. ♦ u.ffu.o . .».y{,» 161 ev NV 1 " t ' �,L•' 1 4 i i i i t + ` d } ,�� � p#�61 i F 41 ..:. ,'�.,t 1.t tt. ..�.. ..i...Y- - '.�, .4.. 1 .,.. .i. .`• +- 4—''—i• _t. i r tt 141,�Ug t `�, Sdi�i$4� �Il1t'J: f >I• �� ! t + 1 i t t i } ` 1 .1 . � � � r e 1 � � i � + Y E i � � I . �. d i 1 �: •� i f � , f f i S � f {s a f • liif � ; t 1 ! f[d f � t l � � }`{ � � f •f j � , jS1fii � il , J� � t t , i ' ' • ' I " I i ` � }{ { ' i � I ' �' ' f i ! t i + t ! d �� ? # }_i( .1 ; � F � ! i I i I • i I i , t t 1 � 1 � � t � , i t t . 1 ; 1 ' : f 7 i S � 1 1 t .�.� �.•! t�. •�•i: i•- t aaaaLLLLiiJJffCC:�-. ..f-� � �.1. ± t 1 , Jllf� ' i � � 4 j I i i , ' t i ' - 1 Y 1 -. t f , ' ' � t 1 f i � � � � i t ' �'}• �t- fr.,[� t � l�l{k ��/T � � . • ' � :�� /1• 1 •St-����' �/���i���'i .= �'��tk— A 1 , i � ! } � is , 1 y , ;. : 1 ' ' r ' ' !J iQ�.ti1� A 4. S -� -� ;-� � "-t.� I !. .i.. I .�_i_�...' + t ".�••t .�_S� .�..;._, t.. .i WF— C rAL6 Es 7HE" I kD- _i CAAeb:LW, ON'S I 'utoo b E7y j + 'oF 'D,:0; UUgSldT i NS E tq C ¢ it 16+'3 W 0'i b0't n•i!! I , { i i j j i i ' ( f j i Vie. d.P': a; -! o o!�' ! i � j i � ! � ! iJ , ij �. 1 � � ' , I }.,/• �! '/'��. `i !V��� �1 �4 '��9 ! + j 1 { I I 1 I I j 1 i i i �. � ; - + i I � Q I i IQrifo. l�el i0� i [ O '/ 0 0-131 i i I ' � i i j � I j t `-� ' i 6 i 7 ' ' I ' ! i + i j t ! ( ! ! j:: At—i j i i f ! ; ! ' , j 1 1 ! ; i i 1 ! ' } '•! � � 4 I ! i .i ! ! I ' � �;,b(o do !� a.'� - a•'49, , ; � ; s � i � s l ; � t � t � ; 1 . � � � �:}_ �. � � { i 1 _ I i Q•id0 I 1 ! �•'� Atr 0?;6.1t . ` "0!.4� �4� �' 0• !3+- o.��t�3; ! ; . : I � j i � ' � ' -; � � i { � � �. 11 � ( y ; ; ! ©� 4 Rc'@ :d.; * O.• tCi d,4;0:` : , i ` I ` : f�4► a . m �4Ac. i � ; • ' i 'a•�r3� 'A��, b! o�.;�� � Ej ( i � ' � . { i � I ' � ` ! � � + t-' !� ! ! ji ! I 1 `-� 3 , ! �r• i I f ; { I I 1 1 i { .:1. :-�._. _ ' j_i j I {; : O. j,YAO es . jljj! t j f. �" +�; #an!' .•�i I I i � � _ I- i � 1 +. ..I. i_ I .t ' I � 1 1,!- i�. i I i , 1 1 1116 + t. .Il.. ,....i. ..{.. # _. .,. � AWL; - : o, o✓ Ar. �, nlq i i i � � i I � � r ! 4�c•i W���ca ! � I j i ! � ! 1 1 ! .; '-� 1 � � I I I I i ( I i I i ' ' ! i ! , I I I � ! 1 ,-• ± ' ( - � t �. ; 1 � i I ' ' .A �b C , I 1 ; I -i.f.; _'. ,.- '_.�',-t-..�-_. _i.t-1�.i._:. .: i �-•-!- .1..' .-i-. _ T l- ' '..i �4 I 6.321 kc-4o: : A'REI� � ! ,:�� ArJ� :'• I , ;• , ! ! i � ( , � j ; ! ; I ( i i ; I , j i i I,i � I i ; - � ; � ' i + ' i ' C111 Arr I0 ,4 .It3 ii I j ! II ji ! ; ► i , .I �.. I , ; ' ! i I l�w}Z. �G @ �'�i � Q. Z Z � I { j ! I I ' I j 1 I I ! � � •" � � 1 i , � I � I I 1. •, , { •I �� , �t i , 1 i I' i. I i i �. 1 - t j I o� ��:►J4 4a Tb T?ETti 4io0.ZA$I ? ' , itiC�A�- !@ `•0 3 �` 4+ 2,10 i y � ! � ` ; � I i ' ( j { ! ..L:L ' f_ � � -� � ' j � ! ! I T�N TIQN , 8` SIN: `T ; j. } _l. i .' j. f F �..1.. —t•a t..1_ 1. IF ►rfSrllc. Q , d`1)'',6;T � !• 'L'ji L '•n • l i I I I I � 1 ' I I " � i i 1 I ! I ! � I ! I I ' 1� - � 1 • jF+Ii J - ! I I i ' 1 I I ( I , I •N i ! I ; F 1 , 1 !.. t f.. .{t I .-{ 1 "�- i .J �{ aR ij.�, iA i � � i i 1 1 , i .:i :f ! i i �'y- r,�-'..4.. ,�. ,��yr'_� f. ,� �•• u�.-y'.., 2 I 1. �- ` �►(ZG-�>321� ESTATES WEIC'sHTEYJ„��, VALUES CAPAG-1'cy A�tJ4lr�S1S D� �C EX 1 ST11.!C-•1 5T�2/v1 seNE� 1546TGM ALUE5 �'c" v T)VMT = ox) C-�QASS = 0.3 ts�ODDS= U.2 I I CPj*:I iA(s-K►sT,) AReA= o. ►2 AC_, C. 0(-o 0- o.c) = C),45 C2� I �EX 15T.) 0.OLD @ 0 .3 = d .CflO AREA = I . i a AC✓ �* g CEXIST.� O. 28 @ O.9 = p.zl A�2� = q . (0-7 AL.. o. °)0 @ 0.3 = o,z3 Coz @ = O. 12 O.O @ 0.2 = o•o0 2.72 C, 0, 3 = D. 11 O -4+ 0. _ O 05 34 Z 1 Gv 0.c) = 0. 04 Cgs 9(Ex tST� E. )I- @ 0 .3 = o. 5 AREA = D.58 .LAC_ o. 2g o. IZ ca- 0.C> = D. I _c6 3 (•EX 1ST. C7 .4Co @ O. 3 b �q dREA = O. 94 AC @ 0.c) = '0. 1-7 n- 35@ v. 3b c 6 (EX IST.) AgE o = 0. z 3 AC. 0- 11 @ O.c)- = 0. 43 o . Iz (e-? 0 .5 = 0. 16 'C6445(EXIST.) 0 : 5c) AP-EA 0.05 0— 0.12) = 0.4,5 civil engineers • �'Inrs °. coo (203) ii44-4795 ?esIgn ofessionals, inc. 491 buckland road, south windsur. ct 06074 JC.S r , rn;t, ���• r.Yttx��t �. Figure 9-2 - Values of Runoff Coefficient Piz, for Rational Formula Land use C x , . Business: Land awnsUSe Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 Sandy soil, flat, 2% 0.05+OilO 'Y 1 Neighborhood areas 0.50-0.70 Sandy soil,average, 2ii>t,t Sandy soil, steep, 7%,;;-t4fw4-0i 5�012d� i) Residential: Heavy soil, flat, 2% Oi13�0,'111 Single-family areas 0.30-0.50 Heavy soil, average, 2.7% .0.18H0.29 +' Multi units, detached 0.40-0.60 Heavy soil, steep, 7 X y, j'05xOs`3$ Multi units, attached 0.60-0.75 }�, + •� ,, `{ ` Suburban 0.25-0.40 Agricultural land: '' Industrial: 'Bare packed°Soil " Smooth'-: 0.$d 0:6' Light areas 0.50-0.80 Rough Heavy areas 0.60-0.90 Cultivated rows =t Heavy,soil no the 0.30y060 Parks, cemeteries 0.10-0.25 Heavy toil with'trop 0.20.0:SO: { ` Sand soil no crop ,k{ Playgrounds Y p 0.20-b.40 ,•,F, '_ Y9 0.20-0.35 Sandy_soil wi tit crop 0.10 04251 f • Pasture Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 Heavy soil sy 015 0:45 t Sandy soil 0,05 0,25 N Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Woodlands :05z0.25. Streets: Asphaltic 0.70-0.95✓ xy a Concrete 0.80-0.95 Brick 0.70-0.85 Drives and walks 0.75-0.85 - ' Roofs 0.75-0.95 Note: The designer must use judgement to select the appropriate C value within the range. Generally. larger areas with permeable soils, flat slopes and dense vegetation should have lowest (C) values. Smaller areas with dense soils, !. moderate to steep slopes, and sparce vegetation should be assigned highest + (C) values. yy • jN j+ t � . t • K. 7 kA Source: Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, 1980. Virginla'.1 and Water Conservation Commission. 1 4. r 7'trxy yy.} t 4''tt I t�j t I �J1r'tiL.t.1r_: Of- 1 1JI �( i"� -CtEF't~lv1E NT ( ,-,e in to,-) l.et.toral Formula • J -� � F7.iC L � n .H,{�S�4 T, a or Ura i+ rce r �fi,r f Ft he?fri Restderitt�l: 1-41gh Donstly H or more! Facnilie*lAeft 0.80t,f ttii't'!0 ' Mndiurn Dertsity to ® Familtoq/Acre 0. ++ V' Mad.-Low D3nsity -- 1 to 2 F"st-ntiios/Acro 0011 ,"�1�,�q ` �sf ��,_�`►r it Low Darwily•- 1 or lase Familiot/Ac1vt { ; 0.is'"71 Apartrnent D m1ling Ar*6s E O.Q4'T` s • t•'K ?1�5� d-. 17 + sl At, .J ♦/yam/ �!w /��r�� Df3'swntown E3uoirms.o A/''A s Naighbor-ty)od,Susineau Am" i ys+ �• Y i ��-tr �` �r LUQ It It-dugtry Areab . }-Iaa.ey Inlduiktty Areas '.�t ; •`.t� +j Y 3',.•v •..s:!ter < , t Paved or Othforwirit Imr"ii-vtous A.r�+te i .a �i`f` , :GG: itit rat, Untrstproved Areas GrfXh `W1f±�v . 44 ` p r itxj C%vt»etarioe ` W ad Ar ,As VL Y LP4K,a1 S 7 S_'rr E i) .,4• } - .r�l�.� ,� � a j'i-:;fir }•� rl < t aspect. Urban growth is ac..cnr pFantad h.y iibn tmeeoe to rh6 ptMR�ia arr`� nme in-4Nervinuc+ t►�, r-c,tfas mtraets iu'1d pavod iirre&.4i'`dlrrtl�M�t'�'r 0)(11 !r►rr'eaed pemrrraga of :t drtsinlas •btt91tt tKewvod by ! r'� f r, • 4• , f,tt,• 4 ' Su t of urt�anization. T11� effect of ?tor-m drabs is to tnb#4*" t 0bp I'd ttyJwl ►^�►r�(-.)rf travels dove �stt-atrn.r BeAn tt,n 1:roaw:t+amw in. irr"r•wiouk% !tom , � 4TIJ I; rapid dowinstrerarrs fir••w-seI oP stem, "JtiattAir increase,thib pookit Gi att'iifl rtrCh (41c4 .'stre-•st-n patnt i�i ttw, ba iir•: &-arr t"j given rainstorm.' Thai:'O liuli; �� is th-.7t tNu- stream chamr*1 .ill t-ave n•w:sre oocurr*rt-*a of high'f ow".1' rt1� (rtrQ 1 r►t:lt iat which t.r"Amrcl etows will Owl , of'%. eXClod �4 3 P1'r :,city l ts_%_r�aSO 'Mom vuvulil)Eye rnore t�rverty�f� �'lb f a flrc,•;s , r +►.ttt c! tx+�k► sntxnf t :s-► 4srtfye-$.1bry cart the amount of lrr>�i+Vt l.vSIi •..r` i !��• r�!�� a aui r-v{act ? :tj c.:ryn 4r►'►RMr re. (fT. DOT TkA,,40,6E MANUAL � r Ib JUPRY 1983 xa�l The Coefficient of imperviousness may be esti mated..fromAh�jfd 4 i� ii9 (i§ f ing table: Paved Areas 0;gik �+ !, , ♦S Steep Grassed Slopes (2 4:1) 0:4 ";f Moderate Grassed Slopes (> 6:1,<4 t 1) 0.3t` ' Flat Grassed Slopes (< 6:1) 0.2 ' 1 ;, t . Rock 0.8: ; $ ♦ ' 1/4 Acre Residential 0 45 1/2 Acre Residential 0.35 The peak discharge from an area, computed by this method ls�th'Tl L product of the number of acres, times the rate of rainfall in inches, Oe �} hour, times the coefficient of imperviousness. The product is expressedf' ;> in cubic feet per second. r a # The procedure may be used for determination of the runoff'.exptY } a" from highway surface and immediately adjacent overlying land areas -T 4 +F y ! y 41 It r ; J i e }tJ f ly a Y ' \ f @ 4 125 A-11 K ♦ - y-i J ■ esign rofessionals, inc. NED .QY: civil engineers • planners ,qL Cu L�-'T7 v iU,S �Hf��Ea Br x "` .45 in 44 � � Q W � Sj W � o ►: v t fi QQ e q Q Q S I . 27 Q— 6— 27 q 2.e13 I 2 5 .Z7 . 9 Z �. SOZ .710E 13.—7 2,819 I /Z EZOZ,[v 15.-7Z.y3� S.� � z� z.� I ( i I i 491 buckland road, south windsor, ct 06074 (203) 644-4795 / - 5INCH.DAT - , JOB: BIRCHBRIAR Page i Time Q in Q out Vol . in Vol . out Storage Elev. min. cfs. cfs. cf. cf., cf. ft . 178. .0 ' .4 9201 . 8875. 326. 270.59 180. .0 .3 9201 . 8917. 284. 270.52 182. .0 .3 9201 . 8954. 247. 270.45 184. .0 .2 9201 . 8986. 216. 270,39 186. .0 .2 1201 . 9012. 189. 270. 34 188. .0 .2 9201 . 9034. 167. 270.30 190. .0 . 1 9201 " 9052. 149. 270.27 192. .0 ' . 1 9201 . 9067. 134. 270.24 194. .0 . 1 9201 . 9080. 121 . 270,22 196. .0 / . 1 9201 . 9091 . 110. 270.20 198, .0 ' . 1 9201 . 9100. 101 . 270. 18 200. ' .0 / . 1 9201 . 9108. 93. 270. 17 202. ,0 . 1 9201 . 9115. 86. 270. 16 204 . .0 ' .0 9201 . 9121 . 81 . 270. 15 206. .0 .0 9201 . 9126. 75. 270. 14 208. .0 .0 9201 . 9130. 71 . 270. 13 � 210. .0 � .0 9201 . 9135. 67. 270. 12 212. .0 .0 9201 . 9138, 63. 270. 11 214. .0 .0 9201 . 9142. 60. 270. 11 216. .0 .0 9201 . 9145. 57. 270, 10 218. .0 .0 9201 . 9147. 54. 270. 10 9201 . 9150. 51 . 270.09 222. 0 9201 . 9152. 49. 270.09 224. .0 .0 9201 . 9154. 47. 270.09 226. .0 .0 9201 . 9156. 45. 270.08 228. .0 .0 9201 . 91581, 43. 270.08 230. .0 .0 9201 . 9159. 42. 27O,08 ***** SUMMARY OF BASIN OPERATION ***** . Maximum inflow = 5. 16 cfs. Maximum outflow = ' 1 .03 cfs . at 52. min. ' Maximum water elevation = 272.55 at 52. min. ,l IA \ tI \• ��E•Z�7 /!• \ ' •_ice, 1 - } ��• 1 i\.\\'`, , ! / \ \�.\ \ - _ '/i _ 1 1 1 ` !t i i Xz- lveN it AZP ji � 1 � // /' �' I i - \ '\` } ! I'' `, I ..\ j i i j ' �` I, Ol i (lt i" � i�i `\ `\ ��^ •I i ■ �I1EE7 Ole esign rofessionals, inc. ■ ern l .�I"r.IDSoe CT civil engineers • planners IC) STa,e,/Vt �'NfL'�CELI AY: ZK W W � �' � �► Q � a Y V � enp Q .54 0,31 3.4 ! .00 3.4 /0(0 /S" 04' 0.5 3.0 14,& 013 20.3 '71 �5,f7l �-� Co•'� 07 5,5 - 3q /5„ 25/" 0.,5 E. �.(o 22,E & .30 ,zg 3.3 ,//5' - 3,45 15" Z-'10' .S ,4 /Z 3z/ .52 ./8 414 1 . 78 /,33 .3 3 4.39 /S„ 3B /.0 /,/ 13 3, ,/ TOTAL -ro Z2, _1{,89 1 .311" /.&10 3.3 - - _T 491 buckiand road, south windsor, ct 06074 (203) 644-4795 - i ■ - �'HEET O� esign - rofessionals, inc. .0Ea!CC"Mw Ay' Gov cDIA.rawe ,C7 civil engineers + planners /D `-fre .437D4iYl. S_HEtKE�Ay' ' Vi Q ,05 .Sa '015 o3r& Z.5- a.7 D•I *Z D117 ;?-E(r-T.Am 30 /,q5 0,58+1.03 A51, 3$ 491 bucktand road, south windsor. ct 06074 (203) 644-4795 ■ �'/i'EET o. ' esign AWO-7 g�- rofessionals, inc. - '&n,�J `�1`� _ Br: 500774 IJiAI O , C-7- - civil engineers • planners SflE�'KEG Br: Ik z '. \. Q a � v � WKAt fi ° i,4 5 .Z7 •9 4/3 Z /.50 .013 # -OWN 5" •07 -9 ,Zy3 !o.2 /.50 /Z p — 2 .Z7 6,Z i,50 ZZ. .15/9 3, 7 A 9z z z . 74,Z 3.7 2.SZ 12 5-/ 06 t,10,W7 33 1 7,b 52 /0.7 J,z0 Z- � Z .30 A95 a.se*�,03 15. # _ N 5z 15- iB.9" 491 buckland road, south windsor, ct 06074 (203) 644-4795 i t /1fE7• ole esign P,eos : rofessionals, inc. 'ged A?YA.,O C7- civil engineers • planners Z WOx W � � � ` t �. `- � � Q W Z � Q ♦ Q � .44 .385 3,r7 I /.yZ P7 4 94 ,4// .3857 3,f7 /,NZ /S 7_40 z 1,93 /s ,23 6.Z 925 S •10 (0O ,DIP 510 013 31 Al, 06''` it ./2 , (o .07Z All 5 Z it#7 / I ,l .07L 4,57 3 Z /S 25 A0 AOP Z 5.87+1.03 D .2 , CP>' �xrsl ZZ ,fo'7 ,37 /,'73 3.3 5.r7 I —MN O Z Z 44o7 . S7 /,'13 3,3 ZD JJ15 7.0 99 491 bucktand road, south windsor, ct 06074 (203) 644-4795 rofesssionals inc. .--�=� .ey: yr ZJWO ae civil engineers • planners S'f�fL'KEG BY.' ah VW � N 13 Z 5.5 5Z 4ss+ l.o3 �a ISO t lP.q /0.5 63 10,5 /S Z50 1 t U.9 /0-51 ram. IZ, 31 ZA .3 .73 IZ,6,7 5 - # Z s. �2 /,95 )(. (5 zy J t 7.6 Z3 5.7Z 5H . 15 Zq O 3 491 buckland road, south windsor, ct 06074 (203) 644-4795 ' JOB: BIRCHBRIAR � Page 1 ' . Date: 1 /18/88 ** ** ** DETENTION BASIN ANALYSIS ** ** design professionals, inc . ** W* ** ******************************** Storm frequency: 0010 years. Outlet type: 5.0 inch Circular Orifice, Cd = .590 - Runoff computed with Modified Rational Method - Area = 4.9 ac . C = ^320 Storm Intensity = 5.30 in. /hr . Maximum runoff = 5.2 cfs. Time of conc . wshed = 22. min. , time of conc . storm = 22. min. � *** ELEVATION AND VOLUME DATA *** Elev. (ft ) Area (sf) Volume (cf ) 270.00 0. 0' 271.00 1650. 5501, 272.00 4670. 3582. 274.00 6080. 14301 . 275.00 7350. 21006. . 275.50 7400. 24693. � 276.00 8000. 28542. � ' *** HEAD AND OUTFLOW DATA *** Head (ft ) Qout (cfs ) � | ! - 5INCH.DAT - ' JOB: BIRCHBRIAR Page 2 Time Q in Q out Vol , in Vol . out Storage Elev. min. cfs. cfs. cf. cf. cf. M 2. .5 .0 27. 0. 27. 270,05 4. .9 . 1 112. 41, 108. 270.20 6. 1 .4 .2 253. 22. 231 . 270.42 8. 1 .9 .5 450. 65., 385. 270.70 10. 2.3 .6 703. 136. 567. 271 .01 12" 2.8 .7 1013. 215. 798. 271 .08 14. 3.3 .7 1379. 297. 1083. 271 . 18 16. 3.8 .7 1802. 382. 1419. 271 .29 18. 4.2 .8 2281 . 472. 1809. 271 .42 20. 4.7 .8 2816. 566. 2250. 271 .56 22. 5.2 .8 3407. 665. 2742. 271 .72 24. 4.9 .9 4010. 769. 3242. 271 .89 26. 4.6 .9 4580. 877. 3703. 272'02 28. 4.3 .9 5117. 988. 4129. 272. 10 30. 4. 1 1 .0 5621 . 1101 . 4520. 272. 17 32. 3.8 1 .0 6091 . 1216 . 4875. 272.24 34. 3.5 1 .0 6529. 1333. 5196. 272.30 36. 3.2 ' 1 .0 6933. 5 � 1451 . 5482. 2?2.3 38. 3.0 1 .0 7304. 1570. 5734. 272.40 40. 2.7 1 .0 7642. 1690. 5952. 272.44 42, 2.4 1 .0 7947. 1812. 6135. 272.48 44. 2. 1 1 .0 8219. 1934. 6285. 272.50 46. 1 .9 1 .0 8457. 2057. 6401 . 27R.53 48. 1 .6 1 .0 8663. 2180. 6483. 272.54 50. 1 .3 1 .0 8835. 2304. 6532. 272'55 52. 1 .0 1 .0 8974. 2427. 6547. 272.55 54. .7 1 .0 9080. 2551 . 6529. 272.55 56, .5 1 .0 9153. 2674. 6479. 272.54 58. .2 1 .0 9193. 2798. 6395. 272.52 60. .0 1 .0 9201 . 2921 . 6281 . 272.5 ) � 62. .0 1 .0 9201 . 3043. 6158. 272.48 � 64. .0 1 .0 9201 . 3164. 6037. 272.46 66. .0 1 ^0 9201 . 3286. 5916. 272' 41! 68. .0 1 .0 9201 . 3406. 5795. 272.41 70. .0 1 .0 9201 . 3526. 5675. 272.09 72. .0 1 .0 9201 . 3646. 5555. 272.37 74. .0 1 .0 9201 . 3765. 5437. 272.35 76. .0 1 .0 9201 . 3883. 5318. 272.32 78. .0 1 .0 9201 . 4001 . 5200. 272.3f) 80. .0 1 .0 9201 . 4118. 5083. 272.28 82. .0 1 .0 9201 . 4235. 4967. 272,26 84. .0 1 .0 9201 . 4351 . 4850. 272.24 86. .{) 1 .0 9201 . 4466. 4735. 272.22 88. .0 1 .0 9201 . 4581 . 4620. 272. 19 � - continued - ' ' . - 5INCH.DAT - ~ / JOB: BIRCHBRIAR Paqe 3 Time Q in Q out Vol . in Vol . out Storage min. cfs. cfs. cf. cf. cf. ft . 90. .0 1 .0 9201 . 4696. 4505. 272�17 92. .0 .9 9201 . 4810. 4392. 272, 15 94. .0 .9 9201 . 4923. 4278. 272. 13 96. .0 .9 9201 . 5036. 4166. 272. 11 98. .0 .9 9201 . 5148. 4053. 272,09 100. .0 .9 9201 . 5259. 3942. 272.07 102. .0 . .9 9201 . 5370. 3831 . 272.05 104. .0 .9 9201 . 5481 . 3720. 272'03 106. .0 | .9 9201 . 5591 . 3610. 272.01 108. .0 . .9 9201 . 5700. 3501 . 271 .97 110. .0 ! .9 9201 . 58O9. 3393. 271 .94 112. .0 .9 9201 . 5916. 3285. P71 , 90 114 . ..0 ' .9 9201 . 6022. 3179. 271 .87 116. .0 / .9 9201 . 6128. 3074. 271 .83 118. .0 .9 9201 . 6232. 2969. 271 .80 120. .0 .9 9201 . 6335. 2866. 271 .76 122. .0 .8 9201 . 6438. 2763. 271 .73 124. .0 .8 9201 . 6539. 2662. 271 . 70 126. .0 .8 9201 . 6640. 2562. 2?1 .66 128. .0 .8 9201 . 6739. 2462. 271 .K3 � 130. .0 .8 9201 . 6837. 2364. 271 .60 132, .0 .8 9201 . 6935. 2266. 271 .57 134. .0 .8 9201 . 7031 . 2170. 271 .53 136. .0 .8 9201 . 7127. 2074. 271 .5:) 138. .0 .8 9201 . 7221 . 1980. 271 . 47 140. .0 .8 9201 . 7315., 1886. 271 .44 142. .0 .8 9201 . 7407. 1794. 271 .41 144. .0 .8 9201 . 7499. 1702. 271 .38 146. .0 .8 9201 . 7589., 1612. 271 .35 148. .0 .7 9201 . 7679,, 1522. 271 . 32 .0 | .7 9201 . 7767., 1434. 271 .29 152. .0 .7 9201 . 7855, 1346. 271 .26 154. .0 .7 9201 . 7941 . 1260. 271 .23 156. .0 .7 9201 . 8027. 1174. 271 .21 158. .0 .7 9201 . 8112. 1089. 271 . 19 160. .0 .7 9201 . 8195. 1006. 271 . 15 162. .0 .7 9201 . 8278. 923. 271 . 12 164. .0 7 9201 . 8359. 842 . 271 . 10 166. .0 .7 9201 . 8440. 761 . 271 .07 168. .0 .7 9201 . 8520., 691 . 271 .04 170. .0 .7 9201 . 8598. 603. 271 .02 172. .0 .6 9201 . 8676. 525. 270.95 174. .0 .6 9201 . 8749. 452. 270.82 176. .0 .5 9201 . 8817. 384. 270.70 - continued - U u (Nit r•f•nt. ro q"arch pro jp('I on(I nf•w "on t.ribuLors P"" , i "up 10 •t,•rl1 i f c• aul(f i I. i or In I I)(!t(II I ,It. i or o f' spn(' i Fps an(i I,o(•tt t i 011�. (If' h.11( 11 (II ,;z of, ( "II I I V I I 1 lti t•;(, I f :Ic , enI)(I►I(`o e.`ti " 1. ► 11J9 (In La . ShwII II"(d i 1! f',(rmn 1. i (In is n(:(Irl► )raI ( (1 i Tit (> 1 11e Da t.,t Pase as i t, h6l "MC,S :Ic :li lnhlc� . ' T h(!lw I hove tlnsw( r( :l } (,IIr• (IiiosI i (Ins s n I i sfact0r•i I Y '111,111k -c(Iu fur• (•crtrta(•1• i rid t hF, Ilr( t rr ftrtsf, , i f wf� (-an he of f'111•ther :Issi kitwo fo(- I f'ref- 1.(( (•(rnItwt !Is rtt 566-3510 , Sincerely We .. iE.(-(,I L r— `I00aNO o 1 1. i us Molagic T)ata Assistant. Y.5 ( `1i:✓Q e(Ti/�.E'�/ R ��")11t.lyt �/CC�9�tle� i��C rl�1►'►'j 1n►li�"W1G'.fl�.i. HOW CAN INFORMATION BE REQUESTED? CONFIDENTIALITY Federal,state and town agencies,land planners The Connecticut Natural Diversity Data Bane is a cooperative project of the Connecticut Department %) and managers,developersP Information a made available for the purpose of of Environmental Protection Natural Resource and private environmental protecting our Slate's threatened natural resources, Center,The Nature Conservancy. consultants are urged to contact the Data Base Many rare and endangered >c 1,14a Program a. development species are threatened Audubon Society. �'• and the National P Proposals or plum are with collection because of their beauty, uniqueness, conceived and designed.Such requests can normal! f N i +'�f' y��i' be processed within cone-to-two week time y Purported medical or economic values. Unfor_ d. Often, a response can be given within a few�da tunatelY well-intentioned observers and ! ` ''� C � Ik ~ Y� y� Y rapbers have been known to Pam- v lion once its location has been a site papule_ ONNECTICUT m.d.public.For this � To Request Information: reason, information has been provided to the Data !' Base by researchers with the understanding that the WC specific locational information will not bereleased � e .for public distribution.This a upheld to respect agreement right is d prriivacyy. NATURAL . ' Request information for a particular location Pact the tandowneri rights and vac , in writing. Please include name; title, affiliation, the researcher providing the information, and the / address and telephone number. species itself `' It DIVER • Mnke your request site-specific. A copy of a SIT r• USGS topographic map with the area in question R CLEARLY marked must accompany the request. = t Include a brief statement the the r ! DATA B nature of the proposed project and how the requested information will be used. f G,..a sip,.H.....A.dt.M m,. ASE JC You must agree not to 1\ publish, print, or For additional information: 4::, otherwise divulge information provided by the Data ' Base for any purpose other than that clearly stated (' /, in the request. .r.a<,,..S-L .41.A.by. —NO Connecticut Natural Diversity Data Base } Connecticut Geologicalry y Natural Ceand Natural History Survey r Resources irenter Department of Environmental Protection f r HOW CAN INFORMATION BE CONTRIBUTED 165 Capitol Avenue, Room 553 `v TO THE DATA BASE? Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Because of the comprehensive nature of this •� ,, 1 inventory, DEP is interested in obtaining new and ti•r� \. updated information on critical natural resources. Publications on rare and endangered species are J Please submit field notes, Photographs, and/or available for purchase from:. I detailed locations of rare and endangered species and N (U 777j critical habitats. Natural Resources Center Map Sale and Publications (203) 566-7719 I. PLEASE NOTE: The removal of even one - individual from a population can affect its survival. q' Therefore, the collecting of specimens is strongly illustrations by Megan G. Rollins ! S"s wh.n.a r.s..,..(..r,,. .. „ discouraged. \ Photo by Leslie J. Mehrhott i:: ✓ "We have a duty to identify. 1)re.erve and WHAT IS NATURAL DIVERSITY? FEATURES OF THE DATA BASE HOW DOES THE INFORMATION GET INTO protect our natural resources We cannot continue to TILE DATA BASE? alter our environment without of eciing its stability All components of our hwlogic and physical 11 Site-Specific Information - The Data Base and ultimately.the quality of our live. The Depart- world constitute"natural diversity": plants•animals organizes a wealth of information, including The Connecticut Geological and Natural History ment of Environmental Protection's,Natural Diver- and their habitats, geologic frirmations. and hydro- locations of rare and endangered species,information Survey has been conducting biologic g g Y g inventories of airy Data Rase tiTealh assists us in our preservation logic features. Together they make up complex and on population size, source of the information, the state's species and habitats for over eighty years, efforts." interrelated ecosystems. Connecticut`s natural diver- ownership, management needs, and threats facing with a concentrated effort during the last decade. sity ranges from salt marshes to trap rock ridges, the population. All of the information is comput- Much of this historical information bas been incorpo- William A (*Neill rockv summits to fioodplain lhresls. ravine, and erized, as well as stored in manual files. This rated into the Data Base. Today, cooperation from G-vernor waterfalls. cross-referenced system in maps and files allows in- universities,biologists,naturalists,and conservation formation to be added, updated, and deleted. groups aid in accumulating extensive new informa— tion.I Lion. Ongoing research continues to update historic 21 Comprehensive Maps - U.S. Geological records and reveal new data. Survey topographic traps have been used to record locations of rare and endangered species and critical habitats. These traps are the nucleus of the Data Base, and provide site-specific information valuable for early planning of any land or water development proposal. Upon request they are consulted by a member of the staff who prepares an evaluation of J4 their findings. M. -- 31 Centralized Location-Because this informs- tion is stored in one location,it is readily accessible %r for consultation. 0..1.na dt. AJA i J vv WHAT IS THE CONNE0Fl('lIT NATURAL � � � - WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF USING THE s , - DATA BASE? DIVERSITY DATA BASE? O � ` WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE DATA BASE? Fortunately. Connecticut is well aware of it. / ' e. (� At a time of continued population increase and dependence upon a healthy and vaned natural en•i• The Data Base is designed to help improve the 1 / , economic growth,sound environmental planning and ronment It has shown this commitment to pre. quality of all of the State's land and water decisions, t 6' �-.i r•_ •� - management is needed to protect our irreplaceable serving it by establishing a computerized information principally by making available information about �J/• � - — and rapidly declining biologic resources. By 1 , •vslent de,igued to organize. .tore, and make rare and endangered species and critical habitats, t, , 4/�'' incorporating this information in the early stages of avalablt natural resource mlormation collected Some species are on the decline,others are becoming •o environmental review, development needs may be during the past eighty vearb This centralized raven• extinct at an ever-increasing rate Over-collection ^• �^t t satisfied while avoidingdamage to the resources in tory, known as the Connecticut Natural Diversity and pollution have hastened the pace of this natural 1 foil ` �'f� 'e i ' greatest need of protection. Thus, significant areas Data Base,is continually being updatiA Information progression. Furthermore. habitat destruction re- _ ✓/�q6 1' can be identified,sound environmental planning can is received from universities. museums. naturalist!- mains one of the most significant factors contributing be encouraged• and protection efforts by public and and libraries. and new informauun is gathered from I,,the increasing pace which species are bring lost. F■.#W 0 p.p s....,.p private conservation organizations can be assisted. on-going field research . ' JOB: BIRCHBRIAR Page 1 , Date: 1 /18/B8 ** ** ** DETENTION BASIN ANALYSIS ** ** design professionals, inc . ** ** ** ******************************** Storm frequency: 0100 years. Outlet type: 5.0 inch Circular Orifice, Cd = .590 - Runoff computed with Modified Rational Method - Area = 4.9 ac . C = .320 Storm Intensity = 4' 77 in. /hr . Maximum runoff = 7.5 cfs. Time of conc . wshed = 22. min. , time of conc . storm = 22. min. *** ELEVATION AND VOLUME DATA *** Elev. (ft ) Area ( sf) Volume (cf) 270.00 0. 0. 271 .00 1650. 550. ! 272.00 4670. 3582. � 274.00 6080. 14301 . 275.00 7350. 21006. ' 275.50 7400. 24693. . 276.00 8000. 28542. *** HEAD AND OUTFLOW DATA *** � Head (ft ) Pout (cfs ) J � BOUTMAT jUB: BIRCHBRIAF-,' Page P Time 0 in 0 out Vol . in Vol . out Storaqe Elev, m i n. (As. cfs. cf . cf. cf. M, C) o. :301. P70.07 40. 4. 1 .4 . 1. 16P. 7.1 155, E70-HR, 1.(::) .4 366. 37. 3P9. P70.6(-) [-3. R.7 .6.) 651 . 102. 550. P7 1 .0(" 10. 3.4 .7 10191. lot . 838. 271 . 1f) IP. 4. 1 .7 146A 263. IPO4. HUM,? 14. 4.8 .8 1992. 351 . 1647. PMW, 16. 5.4 .8 2610. 16 6 . P71 W:) to. 6. 1 .8 3302. 542. 2761 . R 7 1 .7*.'i..,' 20. 6.8 .9 4078. 647. 343P . RAM-5 22. 7.5 .9 4935. 757. 4178. EWA *( 24. 7. 1 1 .0 5809. 871 . 4938 . 27H.M.'i 26. 6.7 1 .0 6634. 9R9. 5645. P72.31.-'' 28. 6.3 1 .0 741P. 1110. 6302. 27R.M. 30. 5.9 1 .0 8141 . 1233. 6908. 272.6;--,'-� we. 3.5 1 . 1 8823. 1360. 7463. P72.0.*? 34. 5. 1 1 . 1 9456. 1489. 7968. 36. 4.7 1 . 1 10042. 16PO. 842P. 272.9C) 38. 4.2 1 . 1 10579. 1752. SSP7. 27P.W.1 40. 3.9 1 . 1 11069. 1886. 9102. EMS). 42. 3.5 1 . 1 11511 . POPE. 9488. 273. 1f, 44. 3. 1 1 . 1 11904. 2159. 9745. 273M..i 46. 2.7 1 .2 12250. P297. 9953. P73. F., 48. 2.3 1 .2 12547. 2433. 1011P. R7302 50. 1 .9 1 .2 12797. 2574. 1022P. p7A.0''+ 52. 1 .5 1 .2 18998. E714. IOP84. p7B.S.'' 54. 1 . 1 1 .2 1315R. 2854. 10p9s. P73-B.''. 36. .7 .1 .2 13258. 2993. 10264. 273.2,-*-- 58. .3 IN 13315. 3133. 10183. P&M 6 1 .2 1.3327. 3271 . 10056. P73,21 .0 1 .2 133P7. 3410. 9917. 2?9. 1 Fi 64. .0 1 . 1 13327. 3548. 9779. 273. 16 66. .0 1 . 1 13327., 3685. 964R. 273. 1`3 6,)0, ''0 1 . 1 133M. MEE. 9505. P79. 11 70. .0 1 . 1 13327. 3958. 9369 . P73.013 72. .0 1 . 1 13327. 4094. 92M. P 7 9. 74. .0 1 . 1 13327., 4229. 9090. 273.0�3 76. .0 1 . 1 13327. 4263. 0964. P73.00 7R. .0 1 . 1 13327. 4497. 8830. PMW3 11C). .0 1 . 1 13327. 4631 . 8696. P 7 2.W'5I sp. .0 1 . 1 13327. 4762. 9564. 272.9.�� 0 1.1." 110 1 . 1 13327. 4896. 84M 272.9f, F36). .0 1 . 1 13327. 5027. 8300, P7200. C) 1111. 13327w 5159. 8160. P72 86 continued JOB: BIRCHBRIAR Page 3 Time in 0 out Vol . in Vol . out Storage Elev. cf. ft . 8038. 212.83 7908. 272.81 7778. 272.78 7649. 272.76 7521 . 202. 71:1 7393. 272.71 7266. 272.69 7139. 272.66 7013. 272.64 6888, 272.62 6763. 272.59 6638. 272.57 6514. 272.55 6391 . 272.5P 6268, 272.50 6146. 272,48 6024. 2�2.46 5903. 27P.43 5783. 272.41 5663. 272.39 5543. 272.37 5425. 272.34 5306. 272.32 5189. 272.30 5071 . 272.28 4955 . 2?2.26 4839. 272.23 4723. 272.21 4608. 272. 19 4494 . 272, 17 4380. 272. 15 4267. 272. 13 4154 . 272. 11 4042. 272.0� 3931 . 272.V7 3820. 272.04 3709. 272.02 3599, 272.00 3490. 271 .97 3382 . 271 .93 3275. 271 .90 3168. 271 .8� 3063. 271 .83 2959. 271 ,79 I NtJt..f f .D fl • pp t pp I A r Time 0 in 0 out: Vol . in Vol . o!_t t: S t;o'r c?ago !:c 1.V`,J. min. t:-1"s. cfs. Cf. Cf .. Cf. 'f•1: . 1.f::3t::?. .0 .8 133e7. 10574. e753. E 7:I. :. ' x 186. .0 .8 1.:3327„ 10875. ..yl.. 52 1.98. .t? .8 133R7. 10973„ 2:354„ 271. ? 190. .0 .8 133W. 11070. 2257. P71 .56 19e. .0 .8 1.33c"7„ 11167. E160. ;::?':'.I. •.;i:::3 194. .0 .8 13327. 1126E. 2065. ..J,.r r..... 176. r"a #=3 133e7. :(. 1. :3`i':?., 1970. e':% !. .i.i;t .8 133e7. 11450. 1877. r=?':?!. .r..i.t. H 13327. 11540, 1795. 271 .41. '7 1 . 4 . r _ - , .0 .8 1v327 . 1163l . Ia3r i ; I . 'Y:_t•?/..}.„ „t,;? .7 13327. 1 1.7%st.!•:, 1603. P71 .35 206. .t::? .7 13327. 1 1.f::31.4, 1513. e:'.7 1 .._3r° r.:.:..:,::. . .t.: . 7 1.3327. 1. 1 ,t_)H., 1425. 271 .0..1 133e7. 11990. 1337. 21.2. .0 7 13327. :1E:76. 1.251. .. P 1 -c.:_. 214. .0 .7 13327. 12162. 1166. 271 .2() r'1.s. .t_? .7 1.:3327. 12329., 998. 271. . :I.5 is?20„ .0 .7 13327. 1241e 9t5' W1 . 12 r_.r.::.2. .0 .7 1.,.?,_3r... : . W494. 834. P71 .09 c:.c_,:a. .0 .7 13327. 1.i:_Fa;.:t4,. 673. %:7 1. .04i. 230„ .0 .tea :.. ,..;,..y,..F' 1,::3,�.c._ , . 12809. 518. %?'.'t:i t7 a:!. c:.3e. .0 .6 13327. 1.2^_f::3r.:_,. .i.,..l....:. E70.01 23A . 0 .5 133e7 12949. 37B. 270 , ,..s ):3{ 13 :1.33i:'.. . 1.3046. 281 . H70.51 ._05 .#..a#. .,E. SUMMARY OF BASIN OPERATION .if..�.. .�.)t. Maximum inflow - 7.48 c::f'+::s,. Maximum outflow ::- 1 . 16 r_f s. <:a't; 54. min. !°1:ia;iimum water elevation •_•. 273W5 at r.::�/ ,., i . min. `nro storage at: 238. min. ' 1 -SOIL SCIENCE SERVICES 968 Coleman Road, Cheshire, Connecticut 06410--- SOIL REPORT TO: William Bellock SSSJob.No 82-9779-rT_gWT-6 ' 62 oak Grove CClientJobNo. DP 087-1647 Manchester, CT 06040 Site Inspection Date 5-7-1 8 7 PROJECT TITLE AND LOCATION William Be 1_1 nrk Su hd i vi c;i nn , elt Road R Paster street, south Winricnr_rT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Inland wetland identification and classification of soils METHOD FOR IDENTIFICATION OF MAP UNITS Wetlands NO WETLAND SOILS ❑ Field marking(flagging) for survey. ❑ Field plotting on , scale: contour: ❑ Field plotting on aerial photography. Non Wetland Soils E] High intensity field identification by Soil Scientist. ❑ Medium intensity identification from USDA, Soil Conservation Service Soil Maps. METHOD OF SOIL IDENTIFICATION SOIL MOISUTRE CONDITION ® Spade and Auger ❑ Dry ❑ Frozen ❑ Deep test pits(backhoe) ® Moist ❑ Snow ❑ Other ❑ Wet The classification system of the National Cooperative Soil Survey,USDA,Soi ervation Service and the J County Identification Legend were used in this investigation. The invest! conducted by the undersigned Certified Soil Scientist. Respectively submitted by I9BT SOIL SCIENCE SERVICES Apprgped by . Soil Scientist Kenneth C. Stevens, Principal Soil Scientist See attached page(s) SOIL REP ORT continued � PROJECTTITLE: William llock ubdivision Felt Road & Foster , t set South Windsor, CT MAPS/PLANS TRANSMITTED TO CLIENT j [ITXSketch location of Wetlands and other Soil Types, ❑ None NUMBERING SEQUENCE OF WETLAND BOUNDARY LINE MARKERS ' No Flagginq SUMMARY SOIL DESCRIPTIONS T . r WETLAND SOILS NO 41ETLAND SOILS WERE IDENTIFIED ON THE PROPERTY i NONVIETLAND SOILS Hartford fine sandy loam (Hd) This is a somewhat excessively drained, moderatel ;oarse textured (sandy loam) over coarse textured, reddish colored, very friable over loose glacial fluvial (outwash) soil. For further information about the soils, refer to Soil Survey, / Hartford County, Connecticut. s � F E L T R 0 A D (Not Built) N/F C. A COTE J 0 N A T FI A N DF.7ENTION AREA I N/F N.V. GRANT r8 C) 10011 1 N/F ILL ►GALE x U NET JOANNX F. BORNAT , a I I R C H H I SUDDRLMON OF LAND OF B L L E S T A T E S � DfBERARDINO AND kc NAMARA SCALE: I." 1.00' ° \ \ O 20' _. \ \ SLOPE .RIGHTS IN FAVOR OF THt-\TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR \�90 -77 ^{ S -F F 3�-4c I b i FL=394.76 4 \` -.'Soo \� SMH 5 �. T 'SM 4 TF=ill T -74.0 J 1 FL 302.20 * 18 8.,PVr dC IF -295\C, d o _ -- 1 1; R TF=198. 0 Io 3 294.64 FL SLOPE RI�HTS IN FA OR 0 rHE MOWN I 1 _ ramFL ia94.76 Tr rC 302.20 FLc2°S,U, I 18 F"PVC 4( % NIP cisZia FL 294.64 ' SLOPE RIGHTS IN FA OR 0 HE TOWN OF SOUTF Hd �I i i i 1 NOTES i i . ni,i i I �1 H i l i 1 � , / 1 NOTES f � . III' I :� 1'!� I�!' i I'�I.I'. i- i I:��,I,I,' UJA'I'I •'In?M P�`;;'I'!',P 1)1', I I PI I) A I' l it 1'I''1 "1 1 111 A'JU i. , I'lll� '1:��•'1^qi'p� I ., r,I�p ail'' I11<fl�'.tJ'1'I( i'J 1{�1�- I•J I �� I.;� J,I, i''.I't A.`; I'AP A.'I'I'. ';711"cJ '','I I PA'.l II)I',WAkv I ,n"1'1IIN I'I'I'("1'I III „I" P„AI)WAY Atli) AM ll'I'l 1,1'1'11< .;iIATJ f, ::'I',VJ1 ,'\i'!,': A 1 j I ';I'I'!'ll' ll'A,1,I 1:; ail.' L11 1''7WN ,J, SI>IJ' i�f'I'AP'I'MI'.N'1 I 1.:Id,',1 11i:1P I N(', . / �O/3p/`p' <fa.i,,' /�/' �'7.;�.�.,,.�n✓*'S ! ///9/g8 ,!'EVisED � S:sIFF C"�o.nn,E7v7� bo�uI F'V I'.f l fI- .)TAPE ('r n4 n.tEN rg 3 1//12/d7 .PxD,000 so//- rr�E f<h�� I t ..�.�� 20 -- 7,r.�l T t`5� 19'••r, ��T_ 20�.._0' y' \ THC'\TOWI`I OF SOUTH WINDSOR H — F.F=277 00 \ I � ' 70P SOIL \ _ STOCK FIL E Fr 2P5I + \ FF ..0 \� 1 \ JpFt R Z y TF=273.70 N F A\NOSO. 4' FL=265.76 g1 t 50 tN �' F=273. FL=270.4 SI OO�IN,O S B 2 a 1 4 FL=294.76 _ \ 7 � SMH 3 q 3 5% 15 E S TAIL) I RE �, =283.6 F 283.3 70.00 IS 3 275-8 .VC 7.2° 1 \ F =279.52 F 275 24p" ) ' 1 5 190 15 C m8.4 ' 'All k �_ •Ff I I 1w�(LNiY� 1 1 I TF L99. i) 20' TF�28 .62 FL 2114.64 � � k � '� �+_ FL=278 68N _. F — \ r / I I � �� _ y N FpJNaspR s4 20 FF 27�65 3.70,7F " R�Ot%lO ZN F=273. .� S�pPWN OF 5 �� FL=270.4 W3 �ZO 27�3.96 41. Fyn, - / w PAC - � n _ 1e 7 g 3i ' 15 E e i. MH 3 �- y u L STRUC'f RE I� \ ' 183 3 IS a (S ETAIL) F7 ..,?;., - 2Y5-8� VC 7.2° 1 F -�i9.G7 F�L75 24F1.�_.� �.j/ ,.i a ) 70.00 90 15„ C--a 8.4° C8 .6 r�)lAII� �a- \ I F jFt 2U' TF=,2R 2 Fi 6 A iqr�4 ii 1 FL7278 E8N ii F = tlGHi$ IN FW uR (,P THE,X,OWN OF 4OIITH 1WIf10SUR \ "- r �FF �'...00 1 I 27(a \4 F I Hd X 266.70. 6349 X 26539 • x 2 26ss7 � I X 263m� 12 TOP SOIL � 3TOCKFILE / r { X eM72 .� X BM93 � I � M?/-TRWIMIA APRON I J Lo CV"r'7 l - X 267 4 I 1 _ 17 1N� I ' SMH 2 266d3 M64TF_^ ry C•A�2"CFD.O.T.ST�iV 3 FL .c T3 7p ` 3 _65.T6 F=273. _ Ce I FL=270.4 " •�� EXIST,12 220'-8" P 3S8/0� o -- ,W^ITER AIN =273.96 2� r b.36 2 4-1 !3- R � r-kCbaQS I ,^t.. �. .5 % s`t a to + ANC. 5f LTF 267.J It >!66d9 XISL ' 1:. 15 + I INV..-29+S. N' SEWER / E L STR (S TAIL), RE FL=262.6 1 :4gs" @650 j 70.00_ - _ , yC /o ,w 3 ,rllgl, P( 0.5% X B 93 ANT/-TVAeA 6 APROAI (JBE C/11 r-7 J - X 867 4 I 20' SJWH �t 3 70 r �^ 6 OF2"C7 D.O.7.'s7, �663 F 77 3.E 3 L-265.7F _ FL-270.4 /r , 220 _ C8 8 / EXI 7 New " P _ 273.98 . wa � 220' Ps05. _ ONC. sr y la"� aLK_ TF 267.J P66ts / E xlsr. sa n , 1NV. - 3 'Ew (S L E AIRUC? RE - �F 7KeiS905�i.7 ;J ER 1 2_7 0 - Lc262.6 45'-8"P11 VCCa 6 5% '-15" RCP(.)R t rwAt49e9 kiP- ` �265 78 y XIS7- 1 ' 2 r� -F._265 R INAG♦_ OH �-262.4q 261UJ J .�..._;� XP6642 X 266.m � r i ' r 4 1 Q NONWETLAND SOILS Hd LEGEND HARTFORD FINE SANDY 'LOAM �— WETLAND SOILS =»_�"" EXISTING CATCH BASIN AND PIPE -- PRCPCSED CATCH BASIN AND PIPE CIS T;NG SANITARY IMANHCLE AND PIPE ao c5 FiEGO [iEP/F/ED By``50/L .5cie,�ce SEPV/CES� C.YES/RE, oT (s/i�/g�) ---�--- PRC..P.C.,S EC SANITARY MANHCL...0 AND PIPE ----- EXISTING WATER MAIN PRCPCSED WATER MAIN x 77.2 EXISTING SPOT GRACE +;77. PRCPCSED SPOT GRACE o, cow" --ao-- EXISTING CCNTCUR ANC ELEVATION PRCPCSED CCNTCUR AND ELEVATION SYNTHETIC FILTER FABRIC FENCE �* c " • ----• HAY BALES i Nn llgf,? r PROJECT TITLE DRAWING TITLE SHE', SEDIMENTATION AND 6 ;9 ll ns��l �� t: � EROSION CONTROL S.Of;_. I ' ' IT 1 Hd NONWETLAND SOILS HdHARTFORD FINE WETLAND SOILS NONE { NOTE:THIS PLAN IS FOR SEDIMENTATION 5oics Fi�Gp vEpiFiEp iI AND EROSION CONTROL PURPOSES SO/L SCiENGE 3EpV/CES' ONLY. SEE SHEETS 3,4 a 5 FOR ALL OTHER INFORMATION. GRAPHIC SCALE I o ,0 I � ( IN FEET 1 inch — 40 {L NOTE:THIS PLAN IS INVALID UNLESS IT BEARS THE IMPRESSION SEAL AND ORIGINAL SIGNATURE OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. I PROJECT 1�'. ll Tl_E esign A rof�s�i�n ��, � \ kH1H�`++ '_, •/ ���� I. i --fir I r'� � /� 1y-J �� �� jilt , BIRCHBRIAR ESTATES if 1�'S/tc I� •�'<•r cs.•�_� 5 :�5• I i� - -r. O, �� ll� ''�I' ��, I OI' 1 r l A "We have a duty to identify, .preserve and WHAT IS NATURAL DIVERSITY_ ? FEATURES OF THE DATA BASE HOW DOES THE INFORMATION GET INTO protect our natural resources. We cannot continue to THE DATA BASE? alter our environment without affecting its stability All components of our biologic and physical 1) Site-Specific Information - The Data Base and ultimately, the quality of our lives. The Depart- world constitute "natural diversity": plants, animals organizes a wealth of information, including The Connecticut Geological and Natural History ment of Environmental Protection's Natural Diver- and their habitats, geologic formations, and hydro locations of rare and endangered species, information Survey has been conducting biologic inventories of sity Data Base greatly assists us in our preservation logic features. Together they make up complex and on population size, source of the information, the state's species and habitats for over eighty years, efforts." interrelated ecosystems. Connecticut's natural diver- ownership, management needs, and threats facing with a concentrated effort during the last decade. ty ranges from salt marshes to trap rock ridges, the population. All of the information is comput- Much of this historical information has been incorpo- William A. O'Neill rocky summits to floodplain forests, ravines and erized; as well as stored in manual files. This rated into the Data Base. Today, cooperation from Governor waterfalls. cross-referenced system in maps and files allows in- universities, biologists, naturalists, and conservation formation to be added, updated, and deleted. groups aid in accumulating extensive new informa- tion. Ongoing research continues to update historic 2)' Comprehensive Maps - U.S. Geological records and reveal new data. .g Survey topographic maps have been used to record locations of rare and endangered species and critical habitats. These maps are the nucleus of the Data Base, and provide site-specific information valuable for early planning of any land or water development 4 proposal. Upon request they are consulted by a member of the staff who prepares an evaluation ofa ` their findings. v - 3) Centralized Location - Because this informa- tion is stored in one location, it is readily accessible for consultation. Barn Owl, Tyto albs Chimon Island, Norwalk 0 0 WHAT IS THE CONNECTICUT NATURAL t� WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF USING THE DIVERSITY DATA BASE? 00 4 , DATA BASE? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE DATA BASE? o Fortunately, Connecticut is well aware of its o D = At a time of continued population increase and dependence upon a healthy and varied natural envi- The Data Base is designed to help improve the i economic growth, sound environmental planning and ronment. It has shown this commitment to pre- quality of all of the State's land and water decisions �, 646 ' = management is needed to protect our irreplaceable servingit b establishing a computerized information principally b making available information about / �j and rapidly declining biologic resources. B Y g P P P Y Y g � j ( � _.,.� '� P Y g � Y system designed to organize, store, and make rare and endangered species and critical habitats. , �% �y j- t� incorporating this information in the early stages of available natural resource information collected Some species are on the decline; others are becoming � � jl � o o environmental review, development needs may be during the past eighty years. This centralized inven- extinct at an ever-increasing rate. Over-collection � h�� satisfied while avoiding damage to the resources in tory, known as the Connecticut Natural Diversity and pollution have hastened the pace of this natural \, ,�,h greatest need of protection. Thus, significant areas Data Base, is continually being updated. Information progression. Furthermore, habitat destruction re- 350 \�� r can be identified, sound environmental planning can is received from universities, museums, naturalists mains one of the most significant factors contributing be encouraged, and protection efforts by public and and libraries, and new information is gathered from to the increasing pace which species are being lost. Example of Data Base map private conservation organizations can be assisted. on-going field research. HOW CAN INFORMATION BE REQUESTED? CONFIDENTIALITY Federal, state and town agencies, land planners The Connecticut Natural Diversity Data Base is �, and managers, developers and private environmental a cooperative project of the Connecticut Department �k Information is made available for the purpose of of Environmental Protection Natural Resources protecting our State's threatened natural resources. \\ consultants are urged to contact the Data Base Center The xNature Conservancy, and the National program as development proposals or Tans are Many rare and endangered species are threatened �- ��• Audubon Society. P with collection because of their beauty, uniqueness, conceived and designed. Such requests can normally u be processed within aone-to-two week time period. purported medical or economic values. Unfor- � = I P tunately, well-intentioned observers and photog- it j Often, a response can be given within a few days. raphers have been known to damage a site or o ula- kt- 0 tion once its location has been made public. For this 4 C NNE CTI CUT reason, information has been provided to the Data F ``� To Request Information: Base by researchers with the understandingthat the �!� } specific locational information will not be released °` for public distribution. This agreement is stringently ' r �� * Request information for a particular location upheld to respect the landowner's rights and privacy, x - �' NATURAL �s in writing. Please include name, title, affiliation the researcher providing the information,on, and the �`. : a r� address and telephone number. s�� ' c species itself. �� * Make your request site-specific. A copy of a 1 USGS topographic map with the area in question DIVERSITY.7 - CLEARLY marked must accompany the request. _ a 3 Include a brief statement describing the - nature of the proposed project and how the requested . information will be used. Great Blue Heron.Ardea herodias DATA BASE l * You must agree not to publish, print or 6 - otherwise divulge information provided by the Data For additional information: \ ' Base for any purpose other than that clearly stated in the request. Jefferson Salamander, Am Connecticut Natural Diversity Data Base bystoma jeffersonianum I Connecticut Geological and Natural Hi ',. ;s story Survey w i Natural Resources Center w 1 i { -W� 65 Department ment of Environmental Protection `~ Capitol Avenue, Room 553 ? HOW CAN INFORMATION BE CONTRIBUTED Hartford, Connecticut 06106 TO THE DATA BASE? . (203) 566-3540 Because of the comprehensive nature of this \ inventory, DEP is interested in obtaining new and Publications on rare and endangered updated information on critical natural resources. species are p j Please submit field notes, photographs, and/or available for purchase from: %" a detailed locations of rare and endangered species and critical habitats. Natural Resources Center { Map Sales and Publications (203) 566-7719 r^ �1 PLEASE NOTE: The removal of even one individual from a population can affect its survival. a ' 7 Therefore, the collecting Small Whorled Pogonia, Isotria medeoloides of specimens is strongly illustrations by Megan G. Rollins discouraged. photo b � y Leslie J. Mehrhoff. ` 'Adjacent property owners Cote, Claire B. Grant, Horace V. Werle, Michael J. Hornat, Joanne F. Muzikevik, Emily S. Stelmat, Richard E. & Gladys A. Ranney, Christine L. Gordon, Joel N. & Sharna M. i Kl.enke, Ranney A. & Barbara C. • Vegetative Inventory The following is a list of the vegetative species identified on the site. Also shown is a frequency indicator that has been assigned to the species by the National Wetlands Inventory. The frequency indicator defines the estimated probability of a species occurring in wetlands. This species list is not all inclusive. Freauencv Indicator Trees• Acer rubrum Red maple FAC Betula papyrifera Paper birch FACU Betula populifolia Gray birch FAC Castanea dentata American chestnut Pinus strobus White pine FACU Populus spp. Poplars Populus tremuliodes Quaking aspen FACU Prunus serotina Black cherry FACU Quercus spp. Oaks Quercus alba White oak FACU Quercus rubra Red oak FACU- Shrubs: Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry FACU Kalmia latifolia Mountain laurel FACU Rhus spp. Sumacs Rhus radicans Poison ivy FAC Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Ru us spp. Raspberry & Blackberry Vaccinium corvmbosum Highbush blueberry FACW- Viburnum spp. Viburnums Viburnum acerifolium Maple-leaved viburnum UPL Viburnum recognitum Northern arrowwood FACW- Herbs: Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla FACU Cypripedium acaule Pink Lady's Slipper FACU Dennstaedtia punctilobula Hayscented fern Fragaria spp. Strawberry LVcopodium Ground pine Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower FAC- Mitchella repens Partridgeberry FACU Monarda spp. Bergamot Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern FACW Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas fern FACU- Rhus radicans Poison ivy FAC Smilacina racemosa False solomon's seal FACU- Solidago spp. Goldenrod e1v� q p 0 m d 0 � � i d 0 a 1 t• O _��-j•L.�_[•- � � �s�__y - 1 `• � -`O \ !/� �\ a\\• J� . vim ___.r. �" � ; // I \/i�) -! .1\_'///\j"—;T f�.^.r R .�tx'�t ' O � ��ti�. I�s.f'' , /, R ,�i'_�'1• r— - lit "\ �'� •� a. r� ��• '/- a,(• �% ���- �.ry� �� •� C J✓ ;\ Ay•, ' / 67 . n. .nY . A......... n.n - .KEY MAP , f�,t,.: til.r•.t-^ 7J2t Elilrq[on we•e r••r••• RONr•t J. L B•rfr lr E. L 1 r.nl 1••n!•• St•••t _..• 4e nar•Nn•r, Ponnlf Nave• , nn,l r•.wt r• St•rrt r . ,.] 27.n� Elingtm. uo•a J•••rr n•t, Raul P. L •rtwtt••• R• „ ..n fnhtr• Sv e•t + 7-ll] Ellr••p ln•• Re•r1 tl+•0. GI Ib••t J. l LOrftt• n. 1 .•111^lt•• $l�••t ., • .•.7 Tr] EI Igtnn nuwn 'noper s. Jw.e• V. ♦3}70 2 l w ri1 rnwt.r 5tr r•1 ^ 23]] Elltnpton RoaO N•ee•t. u.Ilreo E. Jr. L El tawbH^ GV •.1 P^.I reu,ro rlo•n 42 1J N••1 r^nrrY r w.r 27�f1 (Illnp ton Pa•0 la.rnlr, Inara• R. •rl U•rl:en,dr Irrwn I . 14 '[p•.r r♦, Cenr•n R, L na♦puf♦/lf ..•r 4] R••IrnbYb N••/e n flln•7tn•• Hnao r•I•♦, Cr•Ip L F1lNn :r• In•[••' •tr•• It• _Lllrn�t nr•Rnwn R• $,,.. ••ll ,,,. r^�5•. Eiln•pton Neon r+�.rr. rylr r. L nYr[a•ae ,.o .•sal t..-.1^. $tr.nl 1 . 1 Re+e Praull+u. n•♦.nail w•.0 1•I.r•r Ser•rt IU g}wi Elltr•n.nn 1•Il•rM. rn.ltle r n.w rnwl-+• •ilre•[ ` , FlllnYr nn J+A ••t _ •• r 1r,1 inllfr Gtr••t C+r•, N•Iwen G•Of p• •t. al. ]� fn.t•r il••rt a.w•.•nr'w nao 'le 1'r- �'[,1 fort•. ti[•••t , w••r f0•.t•• ^•t•••f :rrcn. JO•INnlr•• A. , ')2n r^wr•• ilr••t ... r.n I+t onuer t. E^tn 1. L n•rpu•t U. ;., '•�o rpwr•♦ •Ft•••t w•t eJ• ron V• Str••t n•1+Ir.C. Ir. L Nn•• P. n n^.1 r•n•.e nn+n e,, n7r re+l•• $t.••t $�•an• R, L Ca.MI P. �,? Nrran _ A1� tn•trr it•rrt f .trYYe. ,CI♦ d1 N Ilrnl l•rw•n ..y o rYa•r $t•••t Rttn+ro tR••fl•r, 11, A. 0 n•rrl F: Sw, P4 I�r NGrI/•bn n In.•a _ nrCanw, Lt.. L U'wll, laM• n• ,.a 12 h^.1 f•n•.n •rn.+n . 1 w'I 1•wl^^r Nr Ir• rttll•p, Gabnr 1, L na♦IIf• 1. , • N•••1 I•h•.b '•n .r ab trn Rlcr••rn n. L Uo♦t•^ N.' �.r ,v Nr•n1 r•n•rn Nn.n ... . • 14'r 1'wi�•r Ur lr• 1•,'t r•w 1,..•r U•t n•.••••r.•Crr♦1•trn• L. 1•• 1•^.n•••^t•f 11.r r 11'• II••1•rinr! Irr 1.• NApal, V 11•Y• V. !11 r•••il•r•r Nn arl ..... ,,, n.tlr•.. 1•• .• n••... ♦ C. L Cnrt+t l•••.1. r .. 11r Iw i,-.^.'...,,^ n.r. .. ..., ,r. 1••r.•. 1.•1. na.,nw ral wr...K• 1. L Clw r,•a .. .. - n .. ... .. . ' ..rr Irr nrN•••1 n, L Mt r f r is A .'a f""c.`J ' j4ii �;'+ ,a,"•�il;rl�. j�J f \. }•tip"?C ;bl �MC�s 0/ f • 4 CAie " W Ajb�l -}. •a s?wb ( �r�VU�y� "Jp i�w/H! � �) � � ' !'�U ��y" �. ��(�>' r { rr l 9 ' .L/ TYJ7S �/Ja�� •Vn /rW�b� E,fC � I• Z9 � 0��" is ���i1/ • M ! . r �� `f ��F J r �r �l„� ay.vyc� � J�.f.�c� • ,.:, . . 1 i 89 ; . !r� • ar� �G `�''!� h •�S •% ?�tvJc,� f�b�s>, tS i�..�� �lL Zf •Af� • l y' 71�' T /�r J r`j� .S G L t' l/ •/1Jd /�V ���\ ' 04.1 1 \ ` X5 f i �\o,£ I Oy2/ 0 �N O!Z O&Z � �9Z9Z 0qz 9'89Z O Q °® ig� s ss•o - 6'09Z 2/•b�1Soy 0� 99Z a 09/25/90 14:40 V 203 566 6521 REPORTERS OFFICE 01 September 25, 1990 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page_59 23 Conn. App. 370 371 Sowin Associates v. Planning&Zoning Commission nated residential zone had been denied because of traffic congestion and safety concerns in the area of the proposed development and the increase in congestion expected from it.The trial court sustained the appeal reasoning that the record did not support the named defend- ant's decision and that the proposed site conformed to all the town's subdivision regulations.On the appeal by the defendants the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.Because the plaintiff's land was located in a zone where the proposed use was permitted,the named defend- ant,in acting on the application,could not weigh offsite traffic con- cerns,municipal services required by the development,property values or the general harmony of the district.Moreover,this court's search of the record failed to disclose any failure by the plaintiff to comply with any substantive provision of the town's subdivision regulations. Argued June 11—decision released September 26, 1990 Appeal from a decision by the named defendant, denying the plaintiffs application for a subdivision approval,brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tired to the court,Klamak, J.; judgment sustaining the appeal, from which, on the granting of certification, the defendants appealed to this court. Affirmed. Richard M. Rittenband, town attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Ralph J. Alexander, for the appel- lants (defendants). Thomas F. Parker, for the appellee (plaintiff). For, J. The defendants' appeal from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff s challenge to the denial of an application for the approval of a sub- division. The plaintiff applied to the defendant planning and zoning commission(commission)for the approval of a proposed eleven lot subdivision. The land to be devel- oped is a ten acre parcel that is located in an AA-30 I The named defendants in this action are the South Windsor planning and zoning commission,the South Windsor town clerk,and the town of t South Windsor. , r ----------------------------------------- - ------- - - -- 09i25i90 14:41 $ 203 566 6521 REPORTERS OFFICE (1 02 ` • Page 68 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL September 25, 1990 370 23 Conn. App. 370 Sowin Associates v. Planning&Zoning Commission also Ritcher v. Childers, 2 Conn. App. 315, 318, 478 A.2d 613(1984)(it is the duty of counsel to supply the court with foreign law). In those circumstances where a court takes judicial notice of a matter on its own ini- tiative, the preferred practice is to give the parties an opportunity to be heard.Karp v. Urban Redevelopment Commission, 162 Conn. 525, 527-28, 294 A.2d 663 (1972);State v.Marshall, 11 Conn.App. 632, 634,528 A.2d 1163 (1987). In this case,the court, sua sponte, took judicial notice of a housing authority regulation. The plaintiff had no opportunity to refute, deny or even review the court's usage of and reliance upon those regulations used by the court in its determination that it lacked subject mat- ter jurisdiction. Furthermore,the court summarily con- cluded that the grievance procedure was relevant. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. In this opinion the other judges concurred. SOWIN ASSOCIATES V. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIS- SION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR ET AL. (8279) DuroNT, C.J.,NORcorr and FoTi, Js. Designation of a particular use of property as a permitted use establishes a conclusive presumption that the use does not adversely affect the dis- trict and precludes further inquiry into its effect on traffic,municipal services,property values or the general harmony of the district.In act- ing on an application for a subdivision in a zone that permits the pro- posed use,the commission to which the application was made may not look beyond the question whether the plan satisfies the town's subdi- vision regulations. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court challenging the denial by the named defendant,the planning and zoning commission of south Windsor,of the plaintiff s application for approval of a proposed subdivision.The application to develop a subdivision of single family.homes in a desig- `✓ ' ------------------------------------------- a ;9EP 25 190 11:09 JOURNAL INQUIRER—MPrICHESTER P•4 • September 25, 1990 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL page 67 23 Conn, App. 379 379 Gil v. Inland Wetlands&Watercourses Agency The plaintiff appealed the commission's denial of its application to the Superior Court. The trial court sus- tained the plaintiffs appeal, finding that there was no basis on the record for the commission's denial. The trial court further ordered that the permit should be approved because the application complied with all of the commission's regulations. The defendants sought and were granted certifica- tion by this court to review the trial court's decision. It is not necessary, however,for us to reach the merits of this appeal. In light of our decision in S&win I affirm- ing the trial court's judgment determining that the planning and zoning commission should have approved the plaintiff s subdivision application,we now reverse the decision of the trial court in this case and order that it be remanded for further consideration in accord with Sowin 1. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to remand the case to the defendant conservation and inland wetlands com- mission for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. In this opinion the other judges concurred. ' PATRICK & GIL V. INLAND WETLANDS AND WATER- coumS AGENCY OF THE TQWN OF GREENWICH ET AL. (8418) FOTI, L.AVERY and CRETeLLA,is. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from a decision by the defendant inland wetlands and watercourses agency of the town of Greenwich denying his application for a permit to construct a residence on cer• tain of his real property.The trial court sustained the plaintiffs appeal finding that the denial constituted an unlawful taking without just com- pensation. On the defendant's appeal to this court,bald: 1. The defendant could not prevail on its claim that the trial court should have given preclusive effect to court rulings regarding three earlier applications by the plaintiff,which rulings concerned the taking issue; ---------------------- ------------------ - - --------------- - --------------------- - 09i25i90 14:48 1& 203 566 6521 REPORTERS OFFICE d Page 66 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL September 25, 1990 378 23 Conn. App. 377 Sowin Associates v. Conservation&Inland Wetlands Commission Richard M. Rittenband, town attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Ralph J. Alexander, for the appel- lants (defendants). Thomas F. Parker, for the appellee (plaintiff). Fon, J. The defendants' appeal from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff's challenge to the defendant conservation and inland wetlands com- mission's denial of the plaintiff's application for approval of a conservation plan submitted in connec- tion with the plaintiffs subdivision application. The facts relating to the plaintiffs underlying appli- cation for the approval of an eleven lot subdivision can be found in Sowin Associates v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 23 Conn. App. 370, A.2d (1990) (Sowin I). In Sowin I, we upheld the trial court's rever- sal of the planning and zoning commmission's denial of the plaintiff's subdivision application. The genesis of the present case is the denial, with- out prejudice, of the plaintiff's permit application by the conservation and inland wetlands commission of the town of South Windsor.The commission denied the permit for two reasons. It first stated that it is the com- mission's policy not to act on applications that have already been refused by the planning and zoning com- mission.a The commission's second stated reason for denial was its concern with questions of well contami- nation and the possible presence of rare flora on the proposed subdivision site that were raised by abutting neighbors at the planning and zoning commission's pub- lic hearing. 1 The defendants in this action are the South Windsor conservation and inland wetlands commission and the town of South Windsor. A We need not decide whether this is a proper reason for the commis- sion's refusal to review the permit application because our decision in Sowin I rules out the commission's use of this reason. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a 09/25/90 14:47 V 203 566 6521 REPORTERS OFFICE 08 September 25, 1990 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 66 23 Conn. App. 377 377 Sowin Associates v. Conservation dt Inland Wetlands Commission Our further search of the record in this cases fails to disclose any failure by the plaintiff to comply with any substantive provision of the town's subdivision regulations. The judgment is affirmed. In this opinion the other judges concurred. SOWIN ASSOCIATES V. CONSERVATION AND INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR ET AL. (8192) DupoNT, C.J., Noitcorr and Fort, Js. On the appeal to this court by the defendants,the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff's appeal from the named defendant's denial of its application for approval of a conservation plan submitted in con- nection with an unsuccessful application for subdivision approval was `�•/ reversed and ordered to be remanded by the trial court to the named defendant for further consideration in light of the plaintiff a success- ful challenge to the South Windsor planning and zoning commission's denial of its subdivision application. Argued June 11—decision released September 26, 1990 Appeal from a decision by the named defendant, denying the plaintiff's application for approval of a con- servation plan submitted in connection with a plan to subdivide certain of the plaintiffs, real property, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the court,Macxak,J.;judgment sustaining the appeal, from which, on the granting of certification, the defendants appealed to this court. Reversed;further proceedings. The defendants rely solely on offsite traffic considerations to support their claim.Because we have already established that offeite traffic is not a valid concern when the proposed use is allowed within the designated zone,we have taken the initiative to search the record for further support of the defendants'claim.See Kamer v.Cmwnv4*n.Gmmiatian,20 Conn `� App.$09, 811, 667 A2d 888(1989). 09/25/90 14:46 e 203 566 6521 REPORTERS OFFICE 07 • Page 64 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL September 25, 1M 376 23 Conn. App. 370 Sowin Associates v. Planning&Zoning Commission supra, 433. Thus, we can uphold the commission's denial of the plaintiff's application only if,as the defend- ants claim in the second issue raised,the record before us indicates that the subdivision plan submitted by the plaintiff does not satisfy the town subdivision regula- tions. The defendants direct us to three sections of the town subdivision regulations to support the commission's denial of the plaintiff s application.They argue that the plaintiffs plan does not conform to the town or the state health and public safety regulations as required in SS 2.1 and 2.2 of the town subdivision regulations. The defendants further assert that the proposed plan will not be in harmony with existing or proposed arterial streets as required by§ 2.5 of the regulations. Subdivision regulations cannot be too general in their terms and must contain known and fixed standards that J apply to all similar cases. Sonn v. Planning Commis- \ sion, 172 Conn. 156, 159-60, 374 A.2d 159 (1976). A commission's regulations must be reasonably precise in subject matter and reasonably adequate and suffi- cient to give both the commission and those affected by its decision notice of their rights and obligations. American Power&Light Co. v.Securities&Exchange Commission, 329 U.S.90, 105,67 S.Ct. 133,91 L. Ed. 103(1946);see Sonn v.Planning Commission, supra, 159. General policy statements gleaned from subdivision regulations regarding compliance with public health and safety regulations do not provide a sufficient basis for rejection of a subdivision permit. TLC Development, Inc. v.Planning&Zoning Commission, supra, 530 n.2. Furthermore, the conclusive presumption set forth in TLC Development,Inc., precludes a commission's reli- ance on a proposed subdivision's failure to coincide with the general harmony of the district. Id., 533. -------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------- 09/25/90 14:45 V 203 566 6521 REPORTERS OFFICE 11 06 September 26, 1990 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 68 23 Conn. App. 370 375 `—� Sowin Associates v. Planning&Zoning Commission lots that average nearly one acre each. Applying the conclusive presumption set forth in TLC Development, Inc. v.Planning&Zoning Commission, supra, we must conclude that because the plaintiff s land is located in a residential zone and its plan was to use the property for residential purposes, the commission could not weigh offsite traffic concerns, municipal services required by the development, property values, or the general harmony of the district when deciding whether to approve the plaintiffs subdivision application. We distinguish this case from our recent decisions in Dram Associates v.Planning&Zoning Commission, 21 Conn. App. 538, 574 A.2d 1317, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 817, 576 A.2d 544(1990), and Central Bank for Savings v. Planning&Zoning Commission, 13 Conn. App. 448, 537 A.2d 510 (1988), and the line of cases relied upon by the defendants,where offsite traffic con- siderations were permitted. Those cases deal with a change of zone rather than the approval or denial of a subdivision permit. When a local zoning authority UL enacts a zone change,it is acting in a legislative capac- ity. Wisniemski v. Zoning Board, 6 Conn. App. 666, 667, 506 A.2d 1092 (1986). When acting in its legisla- tive capacity, a commission has broad discretion and is entitled to take into consideration facts learned through personal knowledge or observation in order to develop responsible planning for the present and future development of the community. Central Bank For Savings v.Planning&Zoning Commission, supra, 463-54. As noted above, in a case such as this,where a com- mission is weighing the approval or disapproval of a subdivision plan, in a zone that permits the proposed use,the commission may not look beyond the question of whether the plan satisfies the town subdivision regu lations. See Reed v. Planning&Zoning Commission, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09i25i90 14:44 10 203 566 6521 REPORTERS OFFICE a 05 Page 62 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL September 25, 1990 374 23 Conn. App. 370 Sowin Associates v. Planning&Zoning Commission The defendants first claim that the trial court improp- erly concluded that the record does not support the commission's denial of the plaintiff s application. The defendants specifically assert that the personal knowl- edge of the commission members,the testimony of area residents and three specific sections of the town sub- division regulations prove that offsite traffic concerns provide a sufficient basis for the denial of the plaintiff's application. When a municipal planning commission considers the approval or disapproval of a subdivision plan, it is act- ing in an administrative capacity rather than in a legis- lative capacity.Reed v.Planning&Zoning Commission, 208 Conn. 431, 433, 544 A.2d 1213(1988). "The plan- ning commission,acting in its administrative capacity herein,has no discretion or choice but to approve a sub- division if it conforms to the regulations adopted for its guidance." Id. " `The designation of a particular use of property as a permitted use establishes a conclusive presumption that such use does not adversely affect the district and precludes further inquiry into its effect on traffic, municipal services,property values, or the general har- mony of the district.' "(Emphasis added.)TLCDevelop- ment, Inc, v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 215 Conn. 527, 532-33, A.2d (1990). The land in question in the present case was zoned AA-30,and thus designated for residential use.The sub- division plan that was submitted to the commission was for eleven single-family dwellings to be placed on eleven claim for two reasons.First,it is difficult to imagine why the defendants would appeal an issue that they state the court correctly determined.Sec- ond, in light of our conclusion that offsite traffic may not be considered when weighing the approval of a proposed subdivision in an area that has already been zoned for that use,the commission's use of personal knowl- edge of the traffic in the area is not relevant. ---- -- a ------- --- ------- ------ 09/25/90 14:43 e 203 566 6521 REPORTERS OFFICE Cj 04 September 25, 1990 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 61 23 Conn. App. 370 373 Sowin Associates v. Planning&Zoning Commission engineer's approval of the subdivision;the possible loss of a specific tree; offsite traffic; and the possibility of having the plaintiff add a street stub out of the subdi- vision that could eventually connect with Felt Road if and when that street is developed. The commission then rejected one member's motion to approve the plaintiffs application conditionally. After this motion was rejected, the commission mem- bers again discussed the effects of offsite traffic, access to Felt Road and drainage problems on Foster Street. A motion to deny the application was then presented, seconded and voted on. The commission members denied the plaintiff s application three votes to one vote. The commission notified the plaintiff that its appli- cation had been denied because of traffic congestion and safety concerns on Foster Street in the area of the proposed subdivision, and the increase in congestion expected from the proposed subdivision." The plaintiff appealed the commission's denial of its application to the Superior Court. The trial court sus- tained the plaintiff's appeal, finding that the applica- tion should have been approved because the record did not support the commission's decision and because the proposed site conforms to all of the town subdivision regulations. The defendants petitioned for certification to this court claiming that the trial court improperly concluded (1) that the record did not support the reasons cited by the commission for its denial, and(2)that the pro- posed subdivision met all of the applicable regulations.2 We granted certification and now affirm the judgment of the trial court. 9 The defendants claim,as an additional issue,that the court"correctly concluded that the Commission may use its own knowledge of the[traffic congestion in the]area in making its decision." We will not review this ----- ------------- ----------------------------------- --------- 09i25i90 14:42 V 203 566 6521 REPORTERS OFFICE 03 Page 60 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL September 26, 19H 372 23 Conn. App. 370 Sowin Associates v. Planning&Zoning Commission .,J residential zone. The plaintiffs application proposed a one road subdivision that would end in a cul-de-sac and contain eleven single-family dwellings. The commission held a public hearing on the plain- tiff s application. The plaintiff presented a traffic engi- neer at the hearing who testified and submitted a written report. The engineer stated that the location of the proposed street conforms with state department of transportation standards, and that the proposed street would empty onto Foster Street approximately 350 feet from the intersection of Foster Street and Ellington Road to the west and 330 feet from another intersection that is controlled by a three way stop sign to the east. The engineer also stated that the traffic unerapdJaxelema home.-axCluld-bt Mlvi4L.Ha Dix? of sight distances to the closest intersections,it would be necessary to remove existing arborvitae shrubs on either side of the entrance to the proposed street. He did not believo, huwt:vur, Thal, it would be necessary to remove two large oak trees at the same 'location. Members of the public also testified at the hearing. Those opposed to the subdivision plan voiced concern nvl'r tmffie..rnngegtinn nn the surrounding streotg At peak hours and speeding cars on Foster Street.A peti- tion was presented to the commission bearing thirty- four signatures in opposition to the plaintiffs appli- cation. After all testimony was heard, the members of the commission discussed the plaintiffs application. The record shows that the commission's discussion focused on the following:the preservation of trees on the site; the status of an undeveloped strip of land abutting the plaintiff's property to the west that is to be developed into Felt Road at some indefinite future date;the town WHY IS PROTECTION NECESSARY? soil auger. Tunneling should be offset to one side of the truck to protect major Proper tree maintenance including watering, Once the decision has been made to save cer- roots.Excavations should be filled imme- soil aeration, pruning or thinning of the tain trees on the construction site they must diately, leaving no air pockets. crown to compensate for root injury, wound be protected from one or more of the follow- _- ing: • • ti, , ,,�s treatment and fertilization will help trees survive grade changes. * Construction equipment and machin- ery: impact injuries from heavy equip- Original ads - ment like trucks, bulldozers, etc; cutting - wj! "'"-'-- of roots, soil compaction over roots, N� wounds to trunk, roots, and low-hanging branches. ,. ,;,, � - all are hazards that can be avoided. Ar- eas of vegetation,single trees,or groups �����. 2 of trees should be fenced with barri- 4 is t. cades. These should be: Original - large enough to include everything in- UFY IsR mixture m Pat rams f side the spread of the branches or or kafmoid as soil � Hr" ; 1 1 dripline of the tree. 3Tunnel beneath root systems. Draw- °I - constructed of sturdy scrap wood( 4 X Ings at left show trenching that 4 or 2 X 4 stock is ideal). would probably kill the tree. A retaining wall protects a Mee from Drawings at right show how tun- a lowered grade. f' neling under the tree will preserve many of the important, feeder , roots. To prevent splitting wood and stripping bark on large limbs, make the first cut part way through from below (1.) Cutoff the limb from above (2.) Remove stub with a smooth cut(3.) * Grade Changes: there are two types of More severe grade changes will require you to grade changes that can be detrimental to supply air to the roots of the tree. This is tree health. One is raising the grade; the usually done by installing drainage tiles and •;Plastic meshy other is lowering it. Tree roots need air, fence water, and minerals to survive. When the • • constructing a drywell under the spread of the tree before gravel and porous fill is grade level is changed by removing soil from the top of roots or by adding soil or added.The tiles are laid on the original grade; * Transplanting existing plant materials: filling over the top of roots, the tree has they form a wagon wheel shape with the with modern tree moving equipment, it * Chemical poisoning:run off from wash- difficulty obtaining its normal amount of spokes of the wheel opening into a dry well may be possible to move especially desir- air, water, or minerals. Cutting built around the tree trunk. The dry well able native trees and shrubs from con- ucts, lime and mortar, misuse (including smothering of tree roots affects their wa- desir- ing down equipment, petroleum prod- g away or acts as the hub of the tile system and holds struction sites to other locations in the overuse)of fertilizers,insecticides, herbi- ter and oxygen supply, often with fatal fill away from the tree trunk. landscape.when selecting native trees for cides or soil sterilands; residue of chemi- results. A light fill up to 4 inches of transplanting, choose those that are porous gravelly material or good topsoil It may also be necessary to place a series of healthy, young, vigorous specimens of Gals like calcium chloride used to keep high.in organic matter and,loamy in tex- bell tiles vertically over the roots and con- species that move successfully. It is im- down dust on dirt-roads==all can harm or ture usually does little harm to healthy nected to the wagon wheel system to allow portant to get professional advice on all kill trees. Such dangers can be avoided by trees. for additional air and water circulation. aspects of tree protection during con- keeping the area within the dripline of trees free of building materials and run For shallow fills, the fill material may be struction! off; by seeing that chemicals are used on- gently sloped down to the level of tree roots, * Adding new trees to the construction ly by trained personnel and strictly ac- leaving the tree in a depression larger than site:after all site changes have been com- cording to directions, and by having . the spread of its crown. p pleted the final stage of the construction closely controlled disposal of excess _ .� � v chemical materials. Preferably off the B plan may be to add new trees and shrubs Y A Deep grade lowering around a tree or group of to the landscape. Proper plant selection site. trees means building a retaining wall at a suf- for particular sites is of utmost ilnpor- * Exca.vations: trenching for utility lines, �r«` / ` -^ ficient distance from the trunk to save most tance. Select plant materials that will be etc., can remove vital tree roots, change of the roots -- out at the dripline should be assets as they mature instead of liabili- drainage patterns. Where possible, adequate. ties. Carefully consider the growing con- trenches should be routed away from A file system protects a free ham a raised grade. A,The the is laid out on ditions,diversity of plant materials in the the original grade,loading from a dry well around the tree trunk. 9, For shallow grade lowering, the soil may be trees and outside the dripline. If this is The filo system is covered with small stones to allow air to circulaN • • slo d gently from the tree roots down area,insect and disease resistance of plant impossible, the next best approach is tun- O1er the met a1ea -sloped g Y Y materials and maintenance requirements. neling under roots, using a power driven to the level desired, leaving the tree on a sort Be sure new trees and shrubs are properly of island a bit larger than the dripline. planted and watered when necessary. PRCn7EC i] G SHADE TREES ES DURING HOME CONSTRUCTION I'!iI,blJ,�ddd,�Idd,�J,61,iLLh�ddd,d,,I,�ddhld'' Should trees be removed from residential Saving established, healthy, well developed Q _ _ • ! property before home construction or should trees on construction sites will also increase they be saved? consumer demand for the property, lower _ = energy consumption for heating and cooling Shade trees can add thousands of dollars to costs, create quieter and more private living Z = - =1= the value of residential Pe ro rtY—Y et devel conditions, and improve the environmental P _ opers and home building contractors often re- quality of the area following construction. move them before starting construction.It's a +_ _ known fact that saving trees can increase a Q _ developer's profit margin. Site preparation,a •L HE TREE WORTH SAVING? landscaping and maintenance costs can be IS lower, and by saving existing trees one will increase the value--and price—of the Some trees may be worth less than realized Y = - property. Sound environmental planning is by the average homeowner and may not war- good for a developer's public image as well. rant the time,effort,and expense of attempt- ing to protect them. One must evaluate each w tree carefully by considering its location, type of tree or species,age,and condition.One M v must also consider what type of protection 0 cc o - will be necessary to save the tree, how much $ o work it will involve and how much it will cost. °° 0 , w a wW N w N y �� o 0 0 � Whatever the size and scope of the develop- 0� o i,* — d vs °. ° W 4J Co $4 N o A o ment, to make the most of what you have it c m � r > a ~ 0 a N E W N �' a pays to brie in a professional, qualified ar- Many trees can be saved with little effort or borist urban foreter, environmental plan- w ; w N a ° N � w .a a� Co m m C expense;many are valuable enough to justify a S W O " W 01 •,1 u W t+� o a o a ner, or landscape architect who knows and �_ F. fN a, 0 Co > Q x x<n > N ^ti I � W • considerable effort and expense in protecting Pe N O w u W n O Co C W P. ,-, C u ° n m ee Pe P g r oc V1 w W C 0 V]N ! C w 0 P. H w n W 0 a t „ understands trees. This professional should y f- v ° W v �, O N� ° 14 O •, � H >.. � > .° o r .- them. Besides, saving trees can mean savings a Q W, •.a tv E w W O N 4J0 w w v L H W w 14 � 1 �Z� on be able to determine: W 4 JZ tJ CO n >>N O W 0 10 41 O O F vn IX A U v) tow "a _ ttl a-0 W 0 7 H C W w.-+ U R Ra W O •� P. > L O w 41 i-. p Cj Cu L O � Q Z H u w C. l+ r� H C u ••a.-, U E ►, C w iJ ^cn J 3 C O W C .O .-+ Vl W W C M U O M s. O W O ++ •O O 0 n x M Ci ° E 10 H '. " E O M ( H ° w E PL W " - Tree removal costs: escalating costs of - which trees are desirable, healthy, which C� u u 7 •.a M C 7 11 •11 x v 0 GQ L O M O� X s"i N N fd N U O W W Cn W N .G C 1.1 N U w O o y W •.. W N 4 u •• - o Q Co •a r- u •• v Co ro W •• fuel, labor and machinery make site need pruning or removal. C Of ►., 'Q > O W ,� O O £ C. > M W .-+ 41 .0 O. W n 14 ,� c� °D g• S. N ° M O ° W " w W •.4 o ° W o ,. �. W W economy a necessity; leaving - which will survive anticipated changes in OW < PQ Z 0 — W E. C1UA [] .••� Z11 U k. 00 W.•-� xF � preparation a solid areas of native vegetation,with only grade, drainage, etc. and how to accom- a minimal clearing, is especially economi- plish these changes. cal. - which trees should be removed from near Landscaping costs: leaving trees can re- buildings, weak root systems make trees duce expensive grading,planting,and fol- prone to wind throw,invasive roots cause low u waterin and maintenance. problems with sewer lines, shallow roots �� ``�`f,� ►- �' �,�` - Maintenance of unsold areas:remember, may upheave driveways, sidewalks, etc. landscaping and lawns require constant which trees are relatively pest and disease L r k,� resistant, and those that cause major care. . ► �• •'-`z ! ' - Installation costs of drainage systems: problems in this respect. O - � r utilizing natural drainage patterns, leav- - which areas of the site, from the stand- ` int of econom , ecology and beaut ,. �.. ,,, I ► ing • natural vegetation in place along Po Y gY Y F-•� ` ` �� , . + �, 0., i '; streams, ponds and swampy areas can would best be left natural or minimally eliminate expensive site work to handle cleared. runoff and retention requirements. - how to protect single trees, groups of Where allowable and feasible, sheet trees, or natural areas of vegetation be- E"♦ -- using wide right-of-way in a fore, during and after construction. drainage natural state to absorb runoff from - where and what trees should be planted, • . ! { j streets,etc. --is cheaper, more attractive, or transplanted, and how to do it. " �; �;:. • • and requires less maintenance than curb - whether you can market trees that must and Rutter installation. be removed for timber, firewood, etc. i I RcP QETENT1orJ 6A5�N OVT1-�T Tod � 1 I i fr•r ern 7N n•/�in/ I 1 a i I I i;7" ,e /;7 OL'TE.✓T.on/ �.4 J/.✓ I ,'f � ZI FG67.a NOTE c� This tree is to be preserved. Surround tree trunk with 41 bit Drive high snow fence during construction. Excavate around the tree by hand to prevent damage to main tree roots and trunk. Paint any damaged tree roots. I 268 I I I ..v o k ' TF..;?.6b,:q0. 26P,75 4' CONC. SIDEWALK V, 9.�a• f ee�,as' 4• N�.. wATEk' A1A#V - C, h I SONATHAM 1,ANE sau.Mu ► Lk (4 +1 N T.F,=2iv7.10 ti8"p {zee.00 Bi`` Fl_.=2S7.6to (� I P 22O'N15"RCPP2.5% �•so J I li �I Cno/c. S/DELVALk i Q uP 268 FL-2a2,t,0 ° 12 6 1 10 9VAIG DR4INASE MN W V)j ?II ? V-� fit, GA5 MAIN00 DETAIL OF INTERSECTION PLAN SCALE I 20' 4��N �4 o a v s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 son-co��,� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 September 28 , 1987 Mr . Kevin F. Rennie, Chairman South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor , CT 06074 RE: Birchbriar Estates Application Review Dear Kevin : The plans indicate no wetlands . The Hartford County Soils Survey show the Cheshire and Enfield Series predominantly through the area over a Glacial Till . Their proposal includes discharging into an existing Town storm system. Technically, there is no wetlands and/or watercourse involvement . Section 4. 13 . 6 of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations covers the basic requirements required on a conservation plan which encompasses the "guide-lines" . The plan as submitted , drawn August 1987 , still needs additional information for an appropriate review, such as ; a narrative , temporary E & S for winter construction , typicals , person responsible, location of trees at and along entrance , etc. It is premature to be heard at this time . Very truly yours , L A . Bowen Davies Deputy Town Engineer ABD/jsv CC: Design Professionals Michael J : Gantick , Director of Public Works . Marcia A . Banach , Director of Planning IWA/CC e � a � Tott'ji, 0-le 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINOSOR. CONN. 06074 ��~OsoR•coN� AREA COOE 203/644-2511 November 23 , 1987 Denise Conklin Hartford County Soil & Water Conservation District 1101 Kennedy Rd. Windsor, Ct 06095 Dear Denise: Re: Application #516 - Birchbriar Estates Subdivision At the November 16 , 1987 meeting of the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, a request was made to forward the above noted plans to your office for review and input. The commission would like input on the following: (1) confirmation of the soil scientist report supplied by the applicant; (2) a report on the flora and fauna on this parcel; (3) the impact this development would have on abutters in regards to flooding and the affects on their wells; (4) confirmation of the type of plants growing on this parcel and if- in fact they are endangered species . If you should have any questions, please don' t hesitate to contact Mr. Bo Davies , Deputy Town Engineer, at 644-2511 Ext. 240 . Very truly yours , Deborah L. Bellizzi ly Secretary - IWA/CC United States Soil Department of Conservation 1101 Kennedy Rd., Rm 105B Agriculture Service Windsor CT 06095 Phone 688-7725 - January 4, 1988 TO: Denise Conkling, District Manager Htfd County Soil & Water Conservation District FOR: South Windsor IWA/CC FRCM: J. Eric Scherer, District Conservationist USDA-Soil Conservation Service RE: Site Plan Review for "516 Birchbriar Estates Subdivision" Felt Rd. & Foster St, South Windsor CT On January 4, 1988 a site plan review was made of the above proposal. Sheets 1 thru 7 of 7, dated August 1987, were reviewed. The following ccmnents are offered for consideration: — Due to time and staff limitation this office is not able to conduct the flora and fauna inventory requested. It is recommended that if the IW /CC requires this information, the developer be requested to hire a professional biologist with experience in this area. Our office will be available to review and comment on any such report-produced by this biologist and send our comments to the Town. — It is also recommended that the Town require the developer to submit a request to the Cr Natural Diversity Data Base at the Natural Resource Center of DEP, 165 Capitol Ave., Rm 553, Hartford CT 06106 (203-566-3580) to request information on threatened and endangered species for the site. If new information is known about threatened and endangered species and it is believed that this information is not on the Data Base Inventory, then the Natural Resource Center should be contacted. — Our office concurs with the report from Soil Science Services, dated 5-14-87, that no inland wetland.soils exist on the site, at the scale mapped. However, it does appear that several watercourses exist on the parcel and these are regulated areas, as defined under State Inland Wetland and Watercourses Statutes. A complete hydrology review of the site was not done due to the lack of information supplied. It is assumed that the proposed storm system has been designed to handle the 25 year future storm. Larger stormd' (storms of lower frequence) will therefore not be handled by the store tystih- nor the stormwater detention basin. Because of the type of_toil,-.. The Soil Conservation Service 0 is an agency of the v Department of Agriculture (.0 South Windsor IWCC Page 2 January 4, 1988 steepness of land and present vs. future land use, it is not expected that the overall impact relative to runoff will be significant. This should be verified by supporting documentation by the developer's engineer. The site engineer should submit a hydrology study that includes the hydraulics of existing pipes receiving storm flows to ensure capacities. No adverse impacts on abutter's wells is perceived by this proposal except for the detention basin. The area proposed for the detention basins in a soil- type with groundwater recharge. Potential pollutants tN �P� entering the storm system could enter the groundwater at the detention basin. It is recommended that the basin be designed with an impervious liner to prevent groundwater recharge. The detention basin, as designed, will not effectively trap sediment. If �o part of its function is o retain sediment then it should be designed i n�ensf:E according to specifications in the CT "Guidelines on Soil Erosion and Sediment Control." — Remove hay bales from outlet and inlet of detention basin. Use a silt Lp fence screen in place of the hay bale at the inlet only. — It is recommended that sediment barriers be placed on the contour every 150 to 175 feet along the roadway to intercept runoff until the road is �..- stabilized. These barriers could be placed at property lines of proposed lots and extended into lots to pick up any sediment from lot excavation. Recommend changing catch basin protection to an "envelope" of filter fabric placed over and under the grate. Flay bale detail should show 4" and n 4' pth of excavated trench. -- Seeding specifications should be more detailed on fertilizer, lime and site preparation requirements. Site protection should be addressed for those periods of time when either .- permanent or temporary seeding is not possible. Mulching should be used on .all temporary and permanent seedings and f . included in narrative. Recommend sodding or anchored mulch in detention basin to aid in ./� establishment. This office is available for any future reviews of reports or data for this proposal. rr s c euto a r- tsswo A `c ft*Auct nr►R P4r Qas•ww, C tfa rl't pOM. /1&0 l..a'pr OO,yt� #6 STATE OF CONNECTICUT: ss: South Windsor, Connecticut COUNTY OF HARTFORD I , Leslie Tinti , a transcriber, do hereby certify that I have transcribed the foregoing public hearing, verbatim, from the recorded tapes of the Town of South Windsor. I further certify that I am not related to the parties hereto, or their counsel , and that I am not in any way interested in the event of said cause. Date at South Windsor, Connecticut, this j day of S7— 198 . Ls ieTnti Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of i 198 F, in South Windsor, Connecticut. � t( Notary Public V 31L �a�"'-�wc� Tvr P,ke.. My Commission Expires: � Vertio C.T_ 06066 L YS".K•`n ,.xp�EAaLLtM' tt3iSa1.7iC:'=.� S'w::%.a.�',CB�Gr - _ _ � ___ _ � WORK SESSION FOR BIRCHBRIAR ESTATES FEBRUARY 8, 1988 Regarding application #516. Did the Planning & Zoning Commission reject that application? I believe last Tuesday they rejected it but the paper report I haven' t seen. It was because of potential traffic impact. Was it indicated that they. were going to withdraw the application. We haven' t heard that. We have Attorney Peter Alter here who represents Mr. Bellock and Sullivan Associates . . No, we have not withdrawn our application. With respect to the Planning & Zoning Commission' s action last week, there is some substantial question about that activity and what we would request (rustling papers) We have submitted this to SCS and we have all of their reports. All of these recommendations and requests of the SCS reports (rustling papers) . The SCS had some confusion about whether or not there was in fact water on the property. Their original memo of 1-4-88 seems to indicate that there are water sources. Subsequently they actually went out to the site and determined what they had perceived as water sources from aerial photographs were actually stone walls and there is in fact no water on the site. The application from the developer is for certification with respect to the soil erosion and sedimentation (cough) . That is really what is before the commission. We would ask that you review that and act on that so that we can continue to deal with the town Planning & Zoning Commission so we don' t have to go round and round. We don' t like to clutter up your agenda but we believe it is a matter to be determined whether there are wetlands on this site since all the SCS reports did not indicate wetlands. Just an observation. Our previous experience has been that acting on something that has already been turned down by one of the other agencies means almost always that there will be a changed or modified application and in order to meet concerns of the other agency or agencies and for us to act on the present plan knowing that there are likely to be major changes, it' s just kind of a waste of our time. That ' s a personal feeling based on past applications. If we try to address the specifics as they exist when they've already been turned down by one of the other agencies, we' ll wind up doing the same thing again once it comes back modified. Any comments on this, Walt? Yes, in light of what was presented and the plan very closely resembles another area in town we as a commission looked at and said it' s not in the best interests and use of that particular piece of property especially where a cul de sac is being punched right up into the wooded area and where there are lot of unknowns even though they are not in our jurisdiction such as the water tables and potential watering streak, I would move that we refine (?define) this application or deny without prejudice. 2. It doesn' t hold the applicant up at all because he still_ would have to go back to the process. Whatever modifications there are, we could act upon that with all the information we already have on the site. I would so move that. Second. Mr. Chairman, I don' t mean to interrupt you but I want to make sure that I understand for the record so that I can explain to my client. The only matter before this commission is the question of certification of the sedimentation and soil erosion control plan and as I understand, Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 446H, that is the authority under which you act, so if you are going to deny this, it seems to me that you must make a finding that we have not complied with the proper soil and sedimentation control plans. I don' t think it has anything to do with anything else. But we are a combined agency and we have to consider the entire impact and we can' t realistically do that and know all the kinds of concerns that came before us by the abutters, the report from SCS that we would have to deliberate and discuss, weigh and then approve with various conditions, all of which would in effect be spinning our wheels because you' ll come back with changes and modifications and we would have to come back because it would be a different application. Really it would be to no avail for you or against you and it wouldn' t be beneficial to us or the Town. What I meant was that the only application before you is a request for certification. The conservation element is part of our purview and I believe we can' t address it if we know it' s going to change. As to the water flow and the rest of the conservation, erosion, sedimentation controls etc, I see no problem with the move to deny without prejudice and you could come back as soon as tomorrow to resolve the problems, even if the application were similar or modified to an appreciable degree or minor degree, at least we'd know exactly what we were dealing with without exploring further the ramifications on the site. Any further discussion? Yes, I disagree. I think if the applicant is asking to have an opinion or vote on it tonight, and if we're denying simply because it was denied by Planning & Zoning, I think we' re complicating it. It' s his choice to reapply, if in fact it changes. They may know that Planning & Zoning is going to change their minds. We don' t know what Planning & Zoning will do with it and I think we ought to vote on the application as presented to us and its application to the rules that we have to abide by. We've gotten into this problem before with Planning & Zoning - I think it' s Planning & Zoning' s problem. If the applicant has no problem 3 . with coming back if necessary, fine. Why tell him 'we' re going to turn you down now just on general principle' , I think we have to firm down a specific reason other than it may change. I think the reason is in effect it' s an inactive application because it has to be approval by all agencies. But on that same note, the Planning & Zoning at times has said we'll go to Inland Wetlands first which they' re doing now. They seek our approval and usually they would wait for our approval since they didn' t see it even having that merit - they rejected it already not even waiting. I mean, they. didn' t even wait for our approval and go by our recommendation so they may not have thought it was viable. I understand that. We would just go round and round and examine this. I have many things that I have to go over and go through and so on before taking action so I think as it stands, we have a motion and either it will carry or it won' t. We can go after that if there is no further discussion. Would you read the motion please? Move to decline because of cul de sac coming up in the middle of the woods, not knowing what is there and we deny without prejudice. We want to find out what' s between the end and in those woods. Actually the Town allowed that they will never develop Felt Road, correct? Didn' t that come up in the hearings? (can' t hear) Well, not very likely is what emerged so I don' t think the adjacent possibility of Felt Road is a concern of ours anyway. Any other comments? Is the motion clear? All in favor of the motion as read? Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye. Any opposed? Opposed. I 'm abstaining. The motion is carried. ENC I p t IWA/CC - HEARING ON BIRCHBRIAR ESTATES November 16, 1987 The first application for new business is #516, Birchbriar Estates. My name is Sharon Hurtle and I am from Alter & Hurtle and we represent the application for this subdivision. With me here tonight are the engineers who are site design professionals and they are also available to answer any questions that you might have. We are here tonight for approval of the sedimentation and erosion control plan. There are no wetlands on the site which has been confirmed by our own soil scientists and there is a report regarding that. The site is approximately ten acres located off Foster Street. The proposal is for an 11 lot subdivision in a AA-30 residential zone. It is a very conventional standard subdivision. It is really a low impact development proposed for this site. It is a gently sloping site on what should be a very quiet street. The lots meet all requirements of the zone as they apply to this particular application. The average lot size is approximately 3/4 of an acre with some lots exceeding an acre in size. There is public water and sewers available to the site. There was a public hearing held before the Town Planning and Zoning Commission last week and at that meeting the commission did not express any particular concerns for the site. There were some legal questions that were referred to the Town Attorney with regard to the actual subdivision itself and the regulations and zone and there did not appear to be any problems. The only issue in terms of conservation is the conservation plan itself and we meet all requirements of your regulations with regard to that plan, in terms of hay bales and the erosion control requirements. As I understand it, Mr. Davies has a letter to the commission dated September 28th which has raised a number of issues. Those issues have all been addressed with the town staff and as far as we know and have been told by the staff, there are no further concerns with this particular application. Do you want Peter to go over the conservation plan? Basically we're showing the anti-tracking pad at the entrance, the detention basin to be used as a sedimentation basin during construction, hay bales along the inlets and outlets, a silt fence along the downhill slopes of the roadway and stockpile for topsoil. Basically it is a straightforward site and all the soils are Hartford Fine Sandy Loam. The detention basin won' t remain? It will - it' s permanent. It ' s a dry pond. In other words, it will only have water during an actual storm event. There aren' t storm sewers on Foster Street there? Yes, there are. . We 're connecting to the existing system on s Z. Foster which would be to the east down through Beelzebub and then discharges into the brook and then to the dam. The huge dam that' s there? That should be adequate. It' s a very small watershed between the two detention basins. Our calculations show that for a 100 year storm, we're talking less than 1.8 feet of depth and basically the overall detention basin is approximately four feet deep in itself. There will be less than what comes off the site now. Right, for both ten year and hundred year storms. It ' s the incremental increases - it' s nothing actually - it' s a decrease. So we have achieved zero increase in run-off. That' s actually part of Lot #11? Yes. Originally it was a separate piece which was to be deeded to the Town. We heard from the Town Zoning and Planning Commission' s request that it actually be made part of Lot #11 which it is as shown now with an easement over it to the Town for maintenance purposes only. But as actual ownership goes, it will be part of Lot #11 with a deed restriction so it can' t be changed. This right of way where the road is going to be - this is . It' s a 50 foot strip. We've maintained the developmental roadway within the 50 foot strip. There is a row of pine trees on either side which are on the land of this development which will have to be removed for installation of the roadway but basically we are within the confines of the 50 foot existing right of way. Any questions? (unintelligible.) all that' s a part of your plan here? Yes, the trees we have shown here, the narrative - we assume that to mean the sedimentation earth control notes and the construction which do appear on sheet 707. If there' s anything else that' s outstanding, I 'm sure we can work it out. These are revised plans? They still say August 7th. There have been several revisions to the plans since August and there are revision notes on the back. Yes, these were revised 11-10. There have been two to three different revisions. Have you seen these and agree that these are your conditions? I have differences but they have been revised to show most of the concerns. Y 3 . Which ones have they missed? Basically, what we're trying to do now on all of the subdivisions and all of the subdivisions coming through - they have to include the grading around the houses. You can' t have a situation where this lot dumps into the next lot and snowballs down the hill. These have been revised to show our pickup at lot to lot drainage system. Originally all they had were little boxes where the houses were going and that particular drainage was not shown or taken care of. The only addition to the narrative that might have been spelled out is what the young lady said - first off, it' s ten acres located so and so. Basically the changes have been made. It' s not within our purview to design subdivisions, but Felt Rd - the not built section - is selling as a bordering street to the back of the lots. We don' t build streets. I realize that but with this vacant ground in the area, it looks like there will be another street backed up to these lots and from what I could see in there, there would have to be an awful lot of trees taken down to make that cul de sac. It just seems a waste that the continuation of Felt Road would make much more sense than taking all those trees out of those lots. If I may interject at this point, that was a discussion that was raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission and there was a length discussion concerning that. Number one it is our attorney' s opinion and our client' opinion that Felt Road through there is not really a roadway. The maps we see show it to be 492 feet wide only and plenty of zoning hazard to it to be reasonably referred to the Town Attorney to determine the status of Felt Road. I wanted to mention it because it basically in our purview to want conservation and especially the saving of trees in an area like this where you're cutting up into smaller lots. Actually, these exceed the zoning lot size. It ' s the AA-30 zone so . Yes, by zone it is but by actual lots in that area adjoining it, they are far bigger than that. The lots to the south on Palmer Drive are that size with 150 feet of frontage but the lots along Foster Street and along Beelzebub are the nonconforming lots in the RR zone which a lot of them have 100 feet of frontage. If you look for example at the cover sheet here, you look at these lots on Foster Street and Beelzebub Road, these are 100 feet frontage where these lots will have 150 and are a minimum of 3/4 of an acre. As 4 . you get down into Palmer Drive, just immediately south of this, they aren' t a full 3/4 acre lot but if you go west of Felt Road along Palmer, they are 100 feet of frontage, nonconforming. My name is Pat Hatala and I live directly across from this access. My lot is only 100 feet but it' s 278 feet deep, so acreagewise, our lot is comparable to what they are speaking about. So they are not really smaller lots. Walter' s point is well taken - to take the trees down to make another. road but I think the potential of another road through there unless Planning & Zoning adopts a rear lot provision in town which is certainly outside our purview, I doubt if that area would be developed at this time. The rear lot that you're talking about it what? A five or six acre parcel. Minimum double lot size, a couple of driveways going to the back which is pretty common in many towns in the state. You mean sandwich two between this subdivision and Foster? It would be this area right here. There' s one house in there. The two pieces are separated by that strip of town line. It seems to be clear, at least as far as the research goes, the town does have claim to that strip. However, it has never been accepted as a roadway and it is only 492 feet wide which does not conform to the 50 foot right of way for a town road. The one house that is back here has a driveway off Palmer over the 492 feet in width of Felt Road that is there by virtue of a variance. And as I understand it, the Town has no - plans to improve Felt Road ..under: any immediate circumstances so the chances of it becoming developed is remote at this point. There are two large trees on Foster Street. Will they have to come out? No. There are a couple of oak trees - we had a site line study by the engineer and he showed that even with the oak trees staying, you still had adequate site distance, better than adequate. But there are two arborvitae trees which are within the 50 foot right of way which will come down. Right. However, we're not proposing any drastic changes in grade because we only have the 50 foot right of way to work with so we have 5 . to stay pretty much at the existing grade which fortunately is very flat through there. With the utilities, it has been done before. In fact, I had it done at my own house years ago where I had a sanitary store put in very close to some very large oaks and if you' re very careful in crimping and cutting the main feeder roots, it can be accomplished. I had those trees there and they were there nine years later when I sold the house. . Alive? Yes, very much. The smaller white pines that someone must have planted right along the 50 foot strip, those are all going? Yes. Again, without trampling on P & Z ' s purview, has there been anything discussed relative to now another intersection onto Beelzebub since this now dumps another street on you? This was discussed and there were a lot of questions and discussions as far as traffic goes, additional traffic, etc and site lines. Our traffic engineer did address that and obviously when you're talking eleven lots, you're not talking about any major increases in volume. But that was discussed at the P & Z level - they did take that into consideration. They haven' t acted on it yet. We just had a public hearing last Tuesday so no action has been taken at this point. I have one question. I live on Foster St and there is a fire station on the corner. I would like someone to maybe talk to the fire station there. I lived there for 16 years. Every time there is a major storm of any kind, the fire station runs their sump pump for several hours and sometimes all during the night. I'm not saying two days of rain but with any major storms. I would like that checked into to see why that is running all the time. I don' t have a sump pump and I don' t have any water as of now. I would like to know where all the water from this hillside is going to go. The storm drain is right in front of my house. I want to make sure that none of this water - if that doesn' t • take it, is just going to end up on my front lawn. We traced the drainage all the way down and the drainage is catch basins and storm manholes all the way down. The reason we traced it is because it looks a little strange. It ' s going against the grade but as you come down to the intersection here and we looked at the manholes there, it' s very deep - like 14 feet in the ground and it does go all the way down in the other direction. There are about six houses down from me going down Beelzebub Road. Those people have severe water problems because that r` 6 . drainage comes down somehow and goes through one of their yards. So there are water problems as you are going down Beelzebub because there is a steep hillside when you' re coming up Beelzebub. The excess water in that direction might be checked to see if the drainage in that storm drain is sufficient to take a heavy rain. I know I get water on my front lawn when it rains but because I have sandy soil, it does drain. But you' re talking about disturbing an awful -lot of land back there. I know it' s only ten acres but it ' s still a lot when you're living downhill from it. That was the reason for the detention basin. As I mentioned, we are in essence going to be reducing the amount of flow for both the ten and hundred year storm with the introduction of the detention basin. The detention basin is there but the water still has to go someplace from that detention basin. Into a pipe. That' s what I 'm saying. It still has to be dumped somewhere and they are building Avery Brook to alleviate people down from me from having water problems. Now we' re introducing again more water into this system so I' d like that to be checked into by the wetlands to see where all this water is going and if Avery Brook is going to take all of this. Or are we going to be building another brook a few years down the line. What that brook is going into is a huge detention basin. It' s a dam the State built and the brook is going into that. That' s because we were having water problems 20 years ago and now they are building something to alleviate that. I want to make sure five years from now we're not introducing an awful lot more water and having to build another dam somewhere. As I stated, we're not increasing the flow at all. As a matter of fact, we're decreasing the flow getting into that system on Foster. So there really is no concern as far as increasing the amount of flow through there - we're actually decreasing it. Do you know in the soil scientists report and analysis if there was any findings of springs? I know the upper area has springs all along there and part of the run-off could be caused by the springs as well as the water coming from snow, rainstorms, etc. Even in dry spells, all of the yards on the top of the hill on down and even beyond and down, whether 100 foot frontage or 150, they have experienced water problems because of springs. The groundwater bubbles up and I don' t know that this is anything that has been addressed. 7. The soil scientist has not indicated that he found any springs. He did walk the entire piece. He did not indicate any unusual springs or anything of that nature. On the report he provided, there is nothing indicated one way or another? No. Usually we don' t deal with those people. If they do find them, they will indicate them. I don' t know if he did find them or not because he did not indicate it on the report. He said the site was dry? Yes, that' s what he told us when he walked it and before he issued the report. He basically called us up and said it was a fairly dry piece. Also, isn' t the road a capture? Yes, the way the road is laid out, right now the drain runs across a slope down towards where the paper Felt Road is. The way we have it designed, obviously just with the introduction of the roadway you're going to be picking up the storm drains and routing it through the pipes. It should alleviate some of those people down there on Ellington Road near Bridlewood. If you recall, there is a problem down there with drainage and hopefully this will at least have some alleviation for them. Plus all the houses are going to have drains which is something that is usually not missed in the building permit phase of water problems. On the issue of drainage that has been brought up, is that something that the Town staff also verifies? There was a study done about ten years ago by Purcell Associates for the storm water system in town and we also look into that. That was the reason we traced it because our intuition, just by looking at the piece you would think the drainage has to go down toward Ellington, then looking at the Purcell study it showed the pipes coming all the way down and it seemed a little bit suspect. So we went out and actually popped all the covers and took flow lines and sure enough, it does go in that direction. The catch basin in the Prior house parking lot drains easterly towards (cough) Street. I 'd like to make a point on this. When this application went before the Planning & Zoning - I 'm Bill Hebert, 2355 Ellington Road - it was brought out by an attorney representing Mr. Sheridan a 8 . who owns 122 acres behind or on the other side of the paper road, Felt Road, which is described in a memorandum dated October 25, 1976 to Alan Young, Director of Public Works and the accompanying map shows the subject of the right-of-way: "The Town Hall' s clear title to the first 200 foot, plus or minus, by the virtue of a subdivision approved and subsequently accepted of the roads and stubs by -the Town. Council. The remainder of the right- of-way has appeared on many old town maps but no concrete town ownership has been found to date. " Now you can take a look at this and pass this around. Now, we're getting into this thing where Sheridan stood up and said, hey, I 've got 122 acres, I don' t .want to get locked up - and Mrs. Klinky behind them. Well, if you look at the topographical maps of this area, Plum Gully and Avery Brook are both affected by this area. The land that these gentlemen are representing this evening is Avery Brook watershed. Vola' s got a very valid point. The catch basin in the parking lot of the firehouse is Avery Brook. If you go out there on a rainy day, I would say probably the first quarter of the parking lot facing in an easterly direction is Plum Gully. Felt Road is about the division. Now, these maps and people are right in what they are saying. But what happens if the Town all of a sudden wants to include 122 acres which is Plum Gully watershed. Do they incorporate the same drainage pipes? I think a very serious consideration down the line ought to be taking along this because all of a sudden you can start throwing Plum Gully into Avery Brook which is very very well protected. But they're right, they are Avery. The rest of it is Plum Gully and I would like that to stand on the record. They' re doing something down on Avery Brook now. Are we allowed to put Plum Gully water into that? Because that' s going to be coming up very soon because Planning & Zoning is looking at how to protect the other people in the area by utilizing the possibility of piping storm water going the wrong way now. As far as the trees and fauna in the area, there is an incredible area back there. Everyone claims is not a wetland area and to a point I can agree with this. But there is an area back there that is covered with lady slippers that only grow in a wet environment. I don' t know if anyone on this commission has ever seen a lady slipper in the wild. It' s of American origin. If you want to see a thousand of them, and I am not lying about this, go on in there. Plus lily of the valley. Wild blueberries. Wild azaleas. Princess pine - the creeping pine. The whole area in the southeast corner of that lot is completely covered with ground cover which is endangered, extinct, not propagationable, you can' t transplant it and it' s living there. Now you just wish someone would go up there and take a walk. The only sad part is you don' t see ladyslippers until Memorial Day weekend. If you go up there Memorial Day weekend, you' ll see a thousand of them. And for myself and my family, my son was born on Memorial Day weekend, we have a party practically every year. There isn' t a person who hasn' t come over that goes, let' s go see the ladyslippers. You can' t transplant them, you can' t move them. It' s a part of nature that has been established in this area and the town is going to lose it. There' s a few bucks laying around the town now and hey - just think about it. 9 . I 'm Mrs. Richard Stelmat, 661 Foster Street. Lots #1 and #11, I 've walked up them, saw you markings and the flags and everything. It ' s definitely sandy and in that there ' s no problem. The further up the slope you go , the wetter it gets. Now the high point of this is Lot #7 right on the corner. The engineers tell me they have to go around it on this. What do you mean, the soils around . . . Around the proposal. Just the site. Off the property? Off the property. No, that' s private property - we have no right to go on it. All right. Now, we're talking about Lot #7. You see the little triangle here? When you go up, the higher this land gets. Now, I live on Foster Street which is on the north end. Then the land changes. It gets up high because I know from our property it gets steep. Going this way and then there' s flat piece of land, that wayand our sump pump runs March and April. It doesn' t shut off. If it shuts off, the house will float away. That 's how much water we get. So I think when you're talking wetlands, this acreage is a small part of that whole land that ends up in a sandy spot. I agree. But when you get trees coming down during storms and you can walk through any part or even on this land and you will see more roots. I don' t know why trees are shallow-rooted. Is it because it' s wet or is it because it ' s ledge? It can be many different things. It could be the type of tree. The soil scientists walked the entire piece. When I say the entire piece, I don' t mean just down here. You walk through the entire piece and they go and actually dig auger holes throughout the entire piece and that' s how they determine the type of soil. That' s probably the driest piece on the whole property. You can come on my land and test it if you want, you're welcome. But it bothers me because the trees are down. You go up there and you'll see the trees down and when you see these trees, they are shallow-rooted. They are huge trees and they' re shallow- rooted. A soil engineer will have to tell me, explain it to me. I don' t understand it. But I thought it was a point to bring up. I did want to tell you that although the high point of this property showing all the soil going toward the fire station is running down into this drain, it isn' t the whole picture. That flow is not the whole picture of the land surrounding it and if it flows that way, then Lots #6 and #7 are in big trouble from the backyard. Trust me. Any piece of property that has slope - my lot has slope as well, you're going to get some run-off down the hill. What we are saying is that there are no wetlands on the site. 10. Well, not many people think about that when they buy a house in the summer. Bear with me now, I'm trying to - . The last thing is that absolutely no part of that oak tree is in the right-of-way. No, that specific oak tree may be on several properties. It may be on the property just to the west and also on Town property. Is there a possibility that that tree has to go? No, I didn' t say. The arborvitae but not the oak tree. I did talk to the police about that. I talked to Mr. Murphy down at the police station. He assured me that if there is a traffic accident coming out of there - you have to go up into the area to see where you're entering Foster Street - he said Ellington Road is only about 300 feet from this driveway. He said people coming around the bend - it' s really a blind bend. That tree is definitely going to be a problem. I don' t care what traffic engineers tell me it isn' t. It' s almost 18 feet in diameter. What the traffic engineers said according to state code or whatever, you're ten feet back across the roadway and you can see the traffic. There are bushes along private houses there and then you should be able to make it into that road. Now, I know I can' t do it but if I stop ten feet back from a road, by the time I got up onto that road, I would be in the passenger side of the car. Ten feet back to me is quite a ways. Especially when there is some obstruction. Not ten feet back to the front of the car, you misunderstand. Ten feet from the driver' s eye to the edge of the pavement. And as you're coming down, you're ten feet back so you can supposedly see around this oak tree but there are also bushes all along, high bushes all along that part. So you have this little hole, you see this traffic coming and then you're out on the road. No, you don' t have a little hole. Let me clarify that. I was with him when he did it because I wanted to see for myself because there' s nothing worse than getting up and trying to explain what someone else saw. If you stand there ten feet back or actually squat down at 32 feet which is eye level in a car which is what the standard is, you can see very easily in both directions. The only thing that has to come out are the two arborvitae trees, that' s it. Otherwise you can see clear as a bell in either direction. Okay, I went there and tried to visualize what he was saying. To me, it didn' t seem plausible but you have his report. Now, when they consider wetlands, do they consider the abutting problems and what problems it may cause. Well, we consider run-off because under the Town regulations there is the zero run-off which means they can' t increase the flow of water onto the abutting property owners. So there isn' t a chance that building foundations in this area as you' re going down, that instead of it going into the road and into the drain, that you're forcing water in other directions. Not as it ' s been drawn on here. Conservation. Does that include wildlife? Yes. Then ladyslippers were mentioned. I happened to look up in a 1957 Book of Knowledge which we bought for our eight year old daughter and in 1957, ladyslippers were considered endangered. That' s 30 years ago. Also, there ' s mountain laurel up there. There ' s the princess pine. These things have to be considered and as I mentioned to Planning and Zoning, I know people have a lot of invested. There are six gentlemen I 've worked with in the Sullivan Associates and they have about $350,000 or whatever. But we as property owners - this will be six years tonight that we have as much or more invested and that' s why we're concerned. Not to stop building but to be sure that not only our property is protected but everybody elses and also that the land is protected. That' s really the point that I wanted to bring out. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond to some of the lady' s questions. We did contact a biologist at the DEP. They advised us there is no official endangered specie list in Connecticut. They also advised us that many things which people think are princess pine and ladyslippers are not, or various species which are not endangered. And the mountain laurel? I didn' t ask them about the mountain laurel. I 'm sure it 's the same. There are no official endangered species list in Connecticut. May I ask a question? I 'm Jo Zocco of 647 Foster Street. Who did you speak to in the Department of Environment Protection? Because when I called they told me there was no one there who could answer that question, only someone at the University of Connecticut and I was unable to reach him today but I will certainly keep trying. I called Megan Rollins who is a biologist at the National Diversity Data Base. That' s in DEP? Actually, I guess the information people at DEP referred us to Megan Rollins who is a biologist at the National Diversity 12. Data Base. Okay, because I spoke to someone in the DEP today and they referred me to someone at the University of Connecticut. I 'm sure we will check that out. But I also live on Foster Street in an area that since I don' t really know the true definition of wetlands, I guess I don' t live in them. I happen to live in an area that has a lot of wet land. I assume the gentleman who walked that particular area must have walked it in August because the only time our backyards are dry are in August. It is a very wet area. I think I 'm just a bit down by house #7 and I do have concerns about the water flow in that area and I also have concerns about the detention area. I know that in my backyard we cannot sit outside during the summer. Once the sun goes down, the mosquitos are there. I 'm just wondering what this detention area is going to do to it. I assume it' s going to increase it; I don' t see how it can decrease it. Well, it' s a dry basin. If it ' s not raining out, what you' re going to see is the grass area - just like a lawn, that' s all it is. The only time it has water in it of any kind is during a storm as the water from the site discharges and builds up slightly to less than two feet for a hundred year storm. It slowly outlets out of the basin and when it gets done, it ' s dry. In essence what you' re saying is that we have water there now which is maybe sort of a strange situation but there is no water any place else. I don' t know what you're getting at. Our backyard comes down on that slope all wet. The date of that report was May 14. I wish he had walked down the hill because you' d probably still be looking for him. It ' s very wet down there and I 'm not trying to be facetious. I can' t cut my grass for several months - it' s just terrible. There is a slope. Again, when you do your survey, you're sloping your land. You're looking at the slope there. You' re not looking at what happens once that property line ends and our begins and it' s quite a hill. No, that' s not true. We take the entire watershed into consideration for the calculations. We don' t draw an imaginary line here as far as determining the amount of water coming off the site. We actually have to take the entire watershed - everything that drains to this point - it ' s all taken into consideration. 13. So you took all that into consideration. Yes. The entire drainage area. The topographic line came from the MDC sheet as far as the overall watershed and these were field-verified by a surveyor. I 'm Dick Stelmat, 661 Foster Street. I heard you comment that there would be less water now. There is a real concern that I have. I have a lot of water now. I have a natural retention pit or whatever you call it in my backyard but you're saying there will be less water. Now, we rely on water because we only have wells. Now how does this affect the natural water table? When I say there is less water, what we do is analyze it for ten year frequency storms, according to what happened every ten years and also for hundred year frequency storms which obviously would be a very large storm and we found that for the ten year storm because we looked at both scenarios in trying to design the outlet structure for the detention basin to make sure we're not increasing or bettering the situation for a large storm but sacrificing what is a normal small storm type of occurrence and vice versa. We found that for the ten year storm, it' s pretty much equal. There is no change at all. There is a very very slight decrease. With a hundred year storm, there is a again a very slight decrease. The numbers as far as the ten year storm you're talking 3 CFS versus 2.98 CFS, so you're talking virtually nothing. What we' re doing is not improving the situation and we're also not creating a worse situation. I just thought of a different point. (Mrs. Stelmat) If these trees are shallow-rooted because there is a ledge up there which means blasting, you had said you don' t know but you don' t think you' re going to have to blast. We don' t know, we haven' t dug any deep tests. Could this possibly change a lot of the water table, water problem, maybe our wells? You know, divert the water? The watershed is really not that large in this area. Basically it doesn' t affect rainwater. I realize that, but now we' re talking blasting and maybe diverting some underground water. You're really not talking very large watershed. Everything that is draining to the roadway, there' s a high point right up here on Palmer and everything drops away. As far as roadway drainage . . It doesn' t drop all one way. I 'm talking about what comes to our site. The topography shows here that this drops off towards Foster away from our site at this point from Palmer and also drops toward the site. As far 14. as what gets to our roadway, basically what we' re talking about is an area that looks something like this - and that' s it. Everything else bypasses the site. Everything on this side drops down from Foster through here so basically, the area that you're talking about draining to the site, as far as the roadway drainage itself is concerned (missing when tape changed) I wonder if the blasting would have anything to do with the water table and the wetlands. We're not sure - we really don' t know. We know when the sewer was installed in Foster and in Beelzebub and that area, they did encounter some ledge in those areas. And they did blast. Exactly what happened in through here we're really not sure and how deep it goes into ledge rock we're not sure. But we' re trying to keep the utilities etc as shallow as possible so that we don' t disturb any more than we have to. I don' t think we have anything that' s greater than 7-8 feet and that' s the deepest utility. And your foundations? The foundations would be normal foundations. In fact, on the west side they would be built up so that water running down around from this side does not inundate any of the foundations so we're actually building them up slightly. So those would be very shallow foundations on the east side. On the west side they would be a normal foundation for a basement to be eight feet in the ground. Do you have any plans to put money in escrow for any problems with the abutting properties you might run into? Only what the P & Z would require as far as bonding goes. Just bonding? Whatever P & Z requires, yes. Whatever the recommendations of this commission are. That' s the real reason for our concern because once the buildings have gone up and all the construction is finished and you' re long gone and all the money is gone, we're still here and if we don' t have water, now we go to the Town and the Town is going to bring us water? That' s the reason for the . . . And that' s why we want all the problems worked out before and we need all these things considered. We don' t have public water on Foster Street. We are at the mercy of the wells and I was 15. going to say that just to be sure you do understand. It isn' t a just a case that we happen to like well water which is great water. We do not have the option of hooking up to city water and we do not have the option of hooking up to gas. I know all these things will be in the development that we do not have access to but we're not complaining about that. We live there and we're used to it. But we would like to still have water and be guaranteed that. That' s fair. I have two concerns. One that I don' t think I have a clear definition of. The paper street of 492 feet - something was mentioned here awhile ago about a 200 foot right of way down Felt Road into that area? The Town Attorney is looking into that. Your 492 is a three rod road. It ' s a paper street from way back. I ' ll let the Town Attorney handle that. What you're saying here is that the applicant will not obtain any width change to that with property that they presently own bordering the paper Felt Road. If I owned it, I wouldn' t. That' s what I 'm hearing right now. If I may interject, it wouldn't make any difference because some of that roadway that is 492 feet is not under our control nor do we border it. Sure, we could grant one-half foot and make a 50 foot strip through there but you'd necking it back down into another 492 foot road which is under someone else' s control. The other point I have is what has been mentioned tonight. about the wells. Do we have a definition as to how many properties along Foster are supplied by wells? That hasn' t been brought up tonight. We could probably find out pretty easily. Connecticut Water services Beelzebub and a portion of Foster. Everybody else is wells. I believe we have four representatives here from Foster Street that do have wells? There could be 16-18 that are on wells. We are on Ellington Road and I don' t believe the Connecticut Water Company runs from the point of Foster south (paper rustling) . . . comes up the other way because all of my neighbors are a11 on wells. 16. You' re probably talking twenty houses. Is it fair to say that the people on the east side of Foster Street are also on wells? Yes. We haven' t made that terrible choice that a lot of people have made in town to go to Connecticut Water Company water. The stuff coming out of the ground is great and there is no sense in paying more and getting a foul odor to our water. I will also say when they did blast for sewers, we ran out of well water. Based on that, I believe that the applicant should furnish to us a list of all the bordering properties that are on wells at the present time rather than us researching us. May I ask why? What would be the point. If their blasting does something to somebody' s well, knowing whose well it was . . . We 're not talking about blasting, we're talking about changing the aquifer type arrangement in that area. We don' t know that there is an aquifer there, do we? There is no evidence anything will be changed. The only thing we're here before you tonight is for approval of a sedimentation and erosion control plan. There are no other issues before the Conservation Commission. And I will go on record as stating that the introduction of this roadway with eleven lots would not affect (cough) wells. I mean, you' re not talking a very large watershed or aquifer, if there is one. We' re really talking normal construction practices for the most part and a very small subdivision with a very limited watershed rim to it. And will you also go on record that you're the guy I can contact if I run out of water? It' s in the tape. The thing that a lot of people don' t realize, the land at one time was owned by the Croskey family in town and was shared by another farmer who lived across from the entrance of Foster Street. The only reason that this land stood undeveloped for all these years was that the Croskey' s and the farmer across the other way, I can' t think of his name now, they shared it as a worklot because they couldn' t farm it - it was too wet. It was the highest piece of property in the area but it was the wettest piece of property that he owned. Like you said, eleven acres but it could be a wet eleven acres. It' s like driving through New Hampshire or Vermont. Water seeps out of LL 17. )j the sides of mountains at times because the pressure that has been created just pushes it out through a void. If you crack the strata, you'll have water. It's a very valid thought. It could happen. Even though it ' s high, the land down below may be pushing the water up to us. When this site was whagged, this was one of the wettest springs we've had in quite some time, there were ponds that were occurring on some sites in this area that haven' t occurred for years due to surface drainage. There ' s just so much water out there. I think the soil scientist went out there and even despite that, came up with this determination. Yes, we're much lower than this property but we have a lot of water and it' s coming from this hill. Just to make one other point too and not to give you the impression that we're just coming out tonight and saying we have water. Feel free to check the card that is right in Town Hall on my property. I have it on record that there is a water problem in that house and if I were to sell, I would be very sure the people would know about it. Because if someone were to buy my house and not have a sump pump, they would have a very large boat. It is a serious problem. Did you say there was just loam and sand up in your lot? No, I said what the soil scientist found was a classification of soil called a Hartford sandy loam. That' s the soil classification. There certainly is an awful lot of rock up there. In fact, it looks like (rustle) in the back of my house. It comes down from that hill. Well, soil types can change very very quickly. That' s why they walk the entire piece and that' s what he found. He found that throughout the entire piece it was a Hartford sandy loam, based on his auger determination. He tripped over the stone wall that was made out of sandy loam? Sandy loam does not mean that there are no stones. There could be boulders the size of this table in sandy loam. What we're talking about is the general soil. Does this lie in clay? Did you get a report on that? We have no determinations that there is any clay. Was that one of his objectives — to determine whether this land has clay? His objective was to determine the soil type and to determine whether or not it was a wetlands or nonwetlands soil specifically. 18. As far as what a soil scientist does, he has a hand auger that he puts down into the ground, sometimes 24 to 30 inches, as much as he has to do to determine whether it is a wetlands soil or not. That' s his charge. What we have not done is to test pits to determine whether or not there may be a clay layer down deeper. . So you don' t know beyond this 30 inches what there is. No, we don' t know if there is ledge at 10 feet, 20 feet - whether there is a clay layer, whether there is a glacial till there, we`re really not sure. All we know is that the soil scientist indicated that there is no wetlands on this site. It ' s a Hartford sandy loam soil. Can you tell me why we have shallow rooted trees. Does anybody here . . . As I mentioned, some trees are shallow-rooted. I 'm talking these trees. Are oak trees shallow rooted? Yes. Is the soil scientist licensed by the State? Yes. One question. The Town map indicates a wetlands on Ellington Road near where Foster St comes up Ellington Road. Could you indicate on your key map where that is and how far it is from the site? This is our site right in here. How far is that wetland from the site? About 800 feet, 400 feet, 350 feet. About 350-400 feet. And there is a wetland soil down there - a depression down there. That's one of the spots that we thought originally that the drainage may go to but in our initial investigation we found that it went in the other direction altogether. That map is the Town Wetlands map. Correct. Why don' t you show these people again where this parcel lies. The parcel right here. This is the little access strip right there. There are too many drainages going down into that wetlands which is Ellington Road. Only the part of the property which is on the other side of 19. the roadway behind - well actually in the area of Felt Road. How fast does it slope on the other side. No, the degree of slope. It varies. It is much steeper back there but that is off our property. It ' s beyond our property. Will the back end of your property affect that degree of slope down into Ellington Road which I see is built on wetlands. No, we're not changing the slopes through that area at all. We' re not even going to be doing any changes in grade down in that area - there ' s none needed. That' s strictly going to be backyards to the houses. Do you know if the Connecticut Water Company has any plans to connect Foster Street. I don' t know if they have any plans. Hasn' t there been a petition to run down that street? They've had petitions because of pollutants in the water system but I don' t think Foster was included in that or was subject to that problem. There are three or four spots in town but Foster was not one of them. May I ask a question. In your construction, are there any stops along the construction to eliminate migration of water off the hill . . . You mean any stops in the trenches? No, we haven' t designed any to be in the system. Normally if we anticipate we' re going to have problems during construction of that nature, then normally we'll include them at that point. You might consider it because apparently when the previous construction was done the shallow wells lost their water. It' s not that we have shallow wells and we didn' t lose our water right away but that summer we ran out. I don' t know whether the blasting diverted the vein or whatever but we got our water back. How long were you without water? About a day and then it came back. Although we lowered the pipes. Do you know how deep your well is? About 95 feet. END 1 ° l 1United States Soil Depaftfnent Of Conservation 1101 Kennedy Rd.,, Rm 105B Agriculture Service Windsor CT 06095 Phone 688-7725 January 20, 1988 TO: Denise Conkling, District Manager Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District FOR: South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Comission FROM: J. Eric Scherer, District Conservationist USDA-Soil Conservation Service RE: Site Investigation for "#516 - BERCBBRIAR ESMWsv�ozvzamoe�' FELT ROAD rE FW 'BR 31'RM, 9QR'B Wes: C� On January 7, 1988 a site visit was made to the above parcel to determine the existance of watercourses on the parcel. Site plans indicate a depressional area with a rise in relief that runs parallel to the northwestern property boundary. This area also appears on aerial photos. An on-site visit shows this area to be comprised of a stone wall with some rise in ground elevation. A watercourse, as defined by State Statutes, does not exist on the site. cc: Bo Davies Design Professionals O The Soil Conservation Service `.Jie an agency of the Department of Agriculture STATE OF CONNECTICUT I 7 �! DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ?�,.`'� CONNECTICUT GEOLOGICAL & NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY Rm" 553 , 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06105 Biology Program January 20 , 1988 L William J. Bellock Emijon, Inc. P.O. Box 205 Manchester, CT 06040 �tN Dear Mr. Bellock, I have reviewed Data Base maps and files regarding the proposed subdivision known as Birchbriar Estates in South Windsor as indicated on the site plaris you provided . According to Data Base maps and files , there are no known extant records of Federally Endangered or Threatened species or Connecticut Species of Special Concern at the proposed project area. I hope the Following information wil.1 clear up your questions concerning threat:eried arid endartger•ed species lists in Connecticut . Connecticut does not have a legally defined list of endangered or threatened species at. this tirtie . The Biology Program of the Conriect.ic,ut. Geological and History Survey has compiled lists of Species of Special Concern (both plant and animals ) which incLude species considered to bey infrequent in the state for a variety of reasons . Additionally, several species of animals and one plant which are on the Federal List of Endangered or Threatened species occur in Connecticut . Regarding the l.ady ' s slipper mentioned as present on the site; there are 2 species of Lady ' s slipper orchids which are on our Species of Special Concern list . A positive identification would be required before determining whether the species mentioned is- on the SSC .list.. . Natural Diversity Da La Bases i ri f'o rma t i on includes all information regarding c r i 1. i ea l h i o 1 og i r,,sou rcos ava l labl e to us at the time of a requersl. . This itif'urinal- ion is a compilation of data collected over the years by the Natural Resout•r_es Center' s Geological and Natural History Stir very and cooperating units of DEP, private conser•v;ttic>n grutills tin(J Lhe scientific community . This information is not nee rrs ;,tri 1 rest,tlt. of comprehernsiVe or s'iLe-speci £i(:' field irr t!st. i9;tt .ions . ('()tts-ultation with the Data Base shuuLd not, besuhst.it.utc�d fcrr ort-situ sur��eys required for environmental rtssfrssutcnt.s . 1 Phone: t6S Capitol Avcnue • If art ford, Ctinnceticut 06106 An Equal nlp orturu.-v G,rrldrrPer .tali" .e, tTo� 0-ye 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINOSOR, CONN. 06074 t'co� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 February 4, 1988 Mr. William J. Bellock 62 Oak Grove Manchester, CT 06040 re: Appl. #1298 - Birchbriar Estates Subdivision Dear Mr. Bellock; Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on February 2, 1988 to deny the above-referenced application for an eleven-lot subdivision. The reason for denial is traffic congestion and safety concerns on roster Street in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision, and the increase in congestion expected from the proposed subdivision. Very truly yours, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Ra and F. Hallowell, Jr. Chairman :rt cc: T. D'Auria, Building Official Engineering Dept. M. Gantick, Director of Public Works F. Shaw, Ass't. Dir. of Public Works E. Belleville, Assessor W. Lanning, Fire Marshal M. Banach, Director' of Planning IM/CC PZC File .. a 1•.•♦ N1.: • .. 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 soR•c AREA CODE 203/644.2511 February 10 ,1988 Sowin Associates Mr . William Bellock 62 Oak Street Manchester , CT 06040 CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Mr. Bellock: RE: Application r516 - Birchbriar Estates At the February 8, 1988 meeting , the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission denied Application #516 without prejudice . Consensus of the Commission members centered on concerns over the potential environmental impact (detailed in SCS report of January 4, 1988) , the many concerns of the abutters voiced during the presentation of the plans on November 16 , 1987 , including runoff and possible flooding , preservation of rare flora on the site and possible adverse effects upon their wells. (See minutes of November 16, 1987 , pp . 2-5) . Furthermore, the viability of the proposed road and thereby the entire subdivision layout as presented was in question following the denial of this application by the Planning and Zoning Commission. You may re-apply at any time . Check with the Engineering Department about particulars if you any questions. - Very truly yours, John M. Moran, Jr . Chairman Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission Town of South Windsor JMM,Jr. /pmm cc :. A.B . Davies, Deputy Town Engineer Marcia A . Banach, Director of Planning Michael Gentick, Director of Public Works Thomas D'Auria, Building Official Raymond Hallowell , Chairman , PZC Attorney Peter Alter Design Professionals ,Inc . ' SOIL SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 104 Elm Street • Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 • 203-272-7837 KENNETHC.ST R LSOILSCIENTIST THO S, SCIENTIST CMay:1:8, 19 8 9 JPN �� aSpC No�� Mr. William Bellock �N�'N �oN�R A1 G 99 East Center Street Manchester, CT 06040 Re: Proposed Birch Briar Subdivision, Manchester, CT SS & ES Job # 89/87-272-CT-SWI-6A Dear Bill: The above mentioned site was inspected on May 17, 1989 by Hope D. Malcom. The purpose of the inspection was to identify the species of Lady's Slipper that grows on the site, and to gather data for recommendations about site development. Existing Conditions The 10.12 acre site is surrounded on all sides by single family residences. A right of way permits access to the site from Foster Street. The property is forested by a mature mixed hardwood forest. The understory and overstory are approximately equal in density. There are no wetlands on the parcel. The northern portion of the parcel is vegetated with grasses, roses and sumacs. This area appears to have been disturbed at some time in the past. The species present are common in areas that have been disturbed. Assorted items have been deposited on the site. These items range from automobile parts to brush. Lady's Slipper The species of Lady's Slipper found on the site is Cypripedium acaule, Pink Lady's Slipper or Moccasin Flower. This particular species is not on the State List of Species of Special Concern. It is a relatively common wildflower. I observed several communities on the site, as well as several individuals dispersed on the site. The site offers habitat to this particularly attractive species of wildflower. Development on the site should be designed with this fact in mind. The preservation of as much of the forest as possible as well as the few areas with communities of Lady's INLAND WETLANDS IDENTIFICATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING PHYSICAL SOIL TESTING TOXIC WASTE INSPECTIONS t Slipper is desirable. A plan of development designed in the recommended way would preserve the habitat of the wildflower, as well as many individuals as possible. Conclusion The 6.12 acre site contains a mature mixed hardwood forest. Respectfully submitted, SOIL SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Hope D. Malcom Biologist Vegetative Inventory The following is a list of the vegetative species identified on the site. Also shown is a frequency indicator that has been assigned to the species by the National Wetlands Inventory. The frequency indicator defines the estimated probability of a species occurring in wetlands. This species list is not all inclusive. Freauency Indicator Trees: Acer ru rum Red maple FAC Betula papyrifera Paper birch FACU Betula popuiifolia Gray birch FAC Castanea dentata American chestnut Pinus strobus White pine FACU Poaulus spp. Poplars Poaulus tremuliodes Quaking aspen FACU Prunus serotina Black cherry FACU Quercus spp. Oaks Quercus alba White oak FACU Quercus rubra Red oak FACU- Shrubs: Berberis thunberaii Japanese barberry FACU Kalmia latifolia Mountain laurel FACU Rhus spp. Sumacs Rhus radicans Poison ivy FAC Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Ru us spp. Raspberry & Blackberry Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush blueberry FACW- Viburnum spp. Viburnums Viburnum acerifolium Maple-leaved viburnum UPL Viburnum recoanitum Northern arrowwood FACW- Herbs: Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla FACU Cypripedium acaule Pink Lady's Slipper FACU Dennstaedtia punctilobula Hayscented fern Fragaria spp. Strawberry LVcopodium Ground pine Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower FAC- Mitchella repens Partridgeberry FACU Monard_a spp. Bergamot onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern FACW Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas fern FACU- Rhus radicans Poison ivy FAC Smilacina racemosa False solomon's seal FACU- Solidago spp. Goldenrod . `} • l C, SOIL SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 104 Elm Street • Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 • 203-272-7837 KENNETH C.STEVENS,JR.,PAINCIP_AJ.VIL SCIENTIST THOMAS W.PIETRAS,SEN ENTIST September 11 , 1989 � 1991 2 t LPN `raso�N��� Sov�EN coM'0�s�`O� Mr. William Bel lock ��vP��pN P.U. Box 205 vo�N Manchester, CT 06040 Re: SS & ES .;ob # 89;87 72-CT-SWT-6A Dear Mr. Bellock . The site of the proposed Birch Briar subdivision in Manchester . CT was inspected on May 17 1989 by Hope D. Malcom, Biologist, of Soil Science and Environmental Services , In.c. The purpose of the inspection was to identify the species of Lady ' s Slipper growing on the site. The species of Lady' s Slipper identified by Ms. Malcom on the site is Cypripedium acaule, Pink Lady's Slipper or Moccasin Flower. This particular species is not on the State List of Species of Special Concern. It is a relatively common wild - flower. Another species of Lady 's Slipper, Cvoripedium arietinum, Ra,,,' s Head Lady' s Slippor, was mentioned in a September 3 article in the Hartford Courant. The Ram' s Head Lady' s Slipper was last seen in Connecticut in 1895 , in Salisbury. Thus, there would be scientific interest in locating existing populations of this rare wildflower. However, the Ram's Head Lady' s Slipper was not identified on the site. Respectfully submitted , SOIL SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Edward M. Pawlak Biologist INLAND WETLANDS IDENTIFICATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING PHYSICAL SOIL TESTING TOXIC WASTE INSPECTIONS :iert• 11, 1n.' Tnlcan6' 'etlan0s Conservation oc.�1 of South `'indsor "'e the unc.ercimeI are as'._in- y-Jur commission to keen us irif'ornc,' c:C a-);- and all public inf or;:iat_c_' available re�ardin�; the AT)-olication '51" "irchbriar states . `_'his should include all Public hearings or mec-tini -s at which this a'�T_?1_Catii�:1 will be discussed . ''e are aski nc that Laid notification be Sc: � to us at least 5 days prior to a meetin or hearin!- . Flease be adliviscd that !e are abuting property o``•mers or neizhbcrs of this application. = are greatly concerned about precervinC, the ouaility of life it our i:ci�hT)orhood . enclosed you will find our names . ac.dresses arc' phone nu:.:'�ers . 7-hank you for your help in this matter. Robert and Patricia 'r'atala So0 Foster St . /, ;So. ':indsor, Ct. 06074 �j�72 Pho_ie: 6L=4-0705 � I Gil and Claire Cote .725 Foster St . So. ''indsor, Ct . 06074 phone: 644-0794 . _.. CCO 647 _ oSte^ at . So. .'indsor, Ct. o6o74 .'done: 64c.�-n23" 1 September 18,1989 TO: Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission FROM: Julie A. Raymond, Member/Secretary SUBJECT: Application # 516, Birchbriar Estates Because of public concern stated at the September 11,1989, Regular Meeting of this Commission, and in consideration of the content of the recent published nespaper articles, it has become apparent that the developer of the above captioned application has submitted a modification to his original plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Since this information has been made public, it would most certainly be a show of good faith by this developer to apprise this Commission and the public of the modified plan, and for all parties concerned to negotiate an amiable settlement,in an open forum. I believe this approach would be in the best interest of all and would afford the public there right to due process, to inspect and review this modification. It has been the past policy of this Commission not to pre-judge an application or a modification of any application. Any action contrary to this established policy at this time or in the future would set a dangerous precedent, and be detrimental to the credibility of this Commission. In conclusion, I respectfully request this Commission to invite the developer and/or his representative to address and submit this modified proposal. This modified application could then be considered at the next regular meeting of this commission. 4"NN left o Z 716_� e r� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINOSOR. CONN..06074 AREA COOE 203/644.2511 October 19, 1989 lKgX0RABDUX TO: Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals, Inc. FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer PM RE: Application #516, Birchbriar Estates At the request of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission I reviewed plans for Birchbriar Estates dated August, 1987 (revision date 10/30/87) . Generally speaking the Conservation Plan appears adequate for the activity proposed on this site. In order to make certain that the plan -is addressing all the concerns and ensure =• - adequate measures are implemented, I would make the following , recommendations and suggest that they might be incorporated: '4• 1 In order to protect any disruption of natural subsurface drainage, install clay stops (approximately every one hundred feet) in . conjunction with the installation of the proposed sanitary structures. - Stumps should be chipped on-site when feasible, remaining stumps should be removed from the site. as indicated -ou -plans, that the 4" clay barrier is _ incorporated into the proposed detention basin and roof drains are tied into the storm drainage system or stormwater drywells, as detailed. This is to prevent potential stormwater contaminants from entering groundwater. - Lower construction entrance elevations to prevent sediments from washing onto Foster Street. _ - Provide for temporary diversions or dikes across the proposed roadway during construction to prevent any potential for erosion Or sedimentation problems. These should be placed at approximately 150- 175' intervals. ' Establish limits of cleari�n_g- -the_ ield, prior to any cutting of ., trees, to prevent encroa �-oato...surrounding properties, and save .Y - . �,•�:..�,x•.,, specimen trees where .possible. Reestablish natural buffers or '. screening for abutting properties, as deemed appropriate. - In accordance with section 4.13.6 of the Zoning Regulations, a bond +' should be established to ensure compliance with the Conservation plan. A $10,000.00 bond is recommended. cc: Attorney Ralph Alexander x 14 ;7 %Y203, 291 L„; OfQF CE o V1 A i AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INLAND WETLANDS AGENC'X/CONSFI RATION Ct'3MMISSION OF THE TOWN OF DSDR-AND SOW11N, a. SqC:Ia;'FS RFC.�RDIN�C TfiE_idE50LLITION OF APPEAL This Agrecrncni is made this `LU day of October, 1989 by and between THE INLAND WETLANDS AGEN'-"Y/CONSERVATION COWdISSION FOR THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR (hCreinafter referred to as 0I4tr'A/CC") and SOWIN ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as "Sowin"). The consideration for this Agreement for each of the parties respectively is the various Covenants and agreements of the other party contained herein. To that end the parties state as follows: WHEREAS, in the fall of 1937 Sowin appli d to the IWA/CC for conservation plan approval for a certain l;roposed eleven lo: subdi� i ion known as I3irchbriar Estate; and WHEREAS, the IWA/CC subsequently denied that application; and WHEREAS, Sowin thereafter appc ticci the IWA/CC's denial to the Superior Court for the Judicial DisTrict of Tolland at Rockville, said tsc bciag known under the Docket No. of' CV-M 0039738; and `I EREAS, the -Superior Court found the cas- for Sowin and overturned the IWA/CC's denial of said application; anti WHEREAS, the IWA/CC subsequently appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court to thy. Appcilate Court which ;,ppcal ljas futen givers the Docket No. of AC8192; and NHERhAS, that gppeal is present'_ pcjzding before th:. :41,1>c!l ttc Court; and H£REAS, tl1t: jJaTtfCJ wish *ruw to resolve the issue: of said appeal by agreement Providing them is a resolution of a companion appeal of the same projcct before the Town's Planning and Zoning Commission ()jereinafter "I'TC"; and further providing that said resolution of 1= th spl-,4.zls arc approved by the Superior Court and/or Appellate Court. Said appeal by said tltc PZC being designated by ):locket No. AC8279; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows- ?, The approval of Sowin's co;tsc.v3t:o.n, plan shall be modified in accordance witl, the nieti orartdum t�,f thc 'Iown's Zoning/Wetlands I-nforcerncnt Officer, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit A and made a part hereof, and said Agreement shall be promptly submitted to the Court for approval. 4. Upon the cntcring of the order of the Court approving this settlement, the IWA/CC shall with its appcal with prejudice and without cost to either party. 3. The parti:.s obligations under this Agrcemcnt are spccifically conditioned upon the consummation of a similar agreement between Sowin and the PZC regarding the I3irchbriar Estates J L.1,; JFF[CE d �J ,a subdivision appeal byrthe PZC and Sowin. 4. The parties obligations under this Agreement are further conditioned upon the approval of this Agreement and the said similar agreement bclween Sowin and the PZC by the Appellate Court., and/or Superior Court. 5. The parties further agree to execute any and ali docurnentation necessary to efflectuate the purpose aiid intent of this Agreement, and to cooperate in a timely manner to that end. In Witness Wh-Creof, the pnrnes have hereunto set tlicir hands and seals on the date stilted at the beginning of this Agreement. INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR By Its Chairperson SOWIN ASSOCIATES William 136lock, Partner �S- This agreement is null and void unless the IWA/CC approves the terms of this agreement at its meeting of October 23, 1989. SOWIN ASSOCIATES By: William Bellock, Partner 10/23/89 . 2 . a ld--:3 291 9262 L.y'r+ OFFICE 13 Ir A tEi4 CC GU 89 14 : ?0 FROM TOWN OF SOUTH, W I '-ID 0r< TO AL EXANDER PAGE . 002 4� 1540 SUL4IVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINOSOR CONN. 06074 �P AREA CODE 203/644.2511 October 19, 1989 X R X O R A A D 0 X T0; peter DeXall.ie, Desigzt Professionals, Inc. : . FRC?Ms John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer pelM RE: Application #31.6; airchbri.ar Estates At the req'ueat of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission i reviewed plans for A.irchbriar Estates dated August, 1987 (revision date 10/30/87) . Generally 9yeak..ing the COnServatiOn Plan appears adocluate for the act.vity proposed on this site. In order to make certain that the plan is addrossing all the concerns and ensure . ad&uate moasures axe implemented, 2 would make the following . ;•:�: reCOmslendations and -suggest that they might be incorporated-. In order to protect any disruption of natuxal subourfaco drainage, install clay stops (approximately every one hundred feet) in conjunction with the installation of the proposed sanitary structures. - Stumps should be chipped on-site when feasible, remaining sttanps should be removed from the site. j - - slnsure, as indicated' plans, that the 4" clay barrier i.s incorporated into the Proposed detention basin and roof drains are -tied into the storm drainage system or stormwater drywells, as detailed. This is to prevent potential sto= water contaminants from t.•-..`f entering groundwater. Lower construction entrance elevations to prevent sediments from washing onto Foster. Stroet. Provide for tempoxaxy diversions or dikes across the proposed roadway, during construction to prevent any potential for erosion or sedimentation problems. These should be placed at approximately 150- 175, intervals. sattablish limits of cl.e rin -�n--tha.��e2d, prior to any cutting of trees, to prevent encroac�on-to' surrounding properties, and 'save •= apecimen trees where possible. Reestablish natural buffers or screening for abutting properties, as deemed appropriate. In accordance with section 4.13.6 of-the Zoning Regulations, a bond should be established to ensure compliance with the Conservation plan. A $10,000 .00 bond is recommendod. cc: Attorney Ralph Alexander MARK K . BRANSE Q ATTO R N EY AT LAW I��J,-I V r 124 HEBRON AVENUE GLASTONBURY, CONNECTICUT 06033 NOV 13 1989 t203) 659-3735 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION November 10, 1989 James Lombardi, Chairman South Windsor Conservation/ Inland Wetlands Carmnission TW-11 Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, ar 06074 Re: Birchbriar Estates Litigation Dear Chairman Lombardi: This office represents Robert and Patricia Hatala, residents of South Windsor and owners of property abutting the above-referenced proposed subdivision. On behalf of my clients, I would like to submit the following ccmmlents regarding the proposed settlement offer which was presented to you at your October 23, 1989 meeting. I had hoped to present these comTents orally at the October 30, 1989 meeting, but Town Attorney Ralph Alexander was not present and the matter was tabled. 1. Inability of public to comnent. First of all, I want to conmlend the Commission for allowing the public an opportunity to comment on this very sensitive issue at the October 23rdd meeting. After all, many of these people will be directly affected by the Proposed subdivision. You are obviously trying to make the right choice between continuing the Tom's appeal and accepting the proposed settlement for a modified plan. The issue comes down to weighing the chance of winning at the Appellate Court level versus acceptance of the modified plan, which the public knows does, in fact, exist in some form. It is impossible for the public to intelligently comment on this issue, however, without having seen the modified plan. In fact, your Commission apparently has not seen the plan either. Purporting to agree to a modified Conservation plan for the original subdivision plan is simply game-playing and makes no sense, given the fact the public knows the original plan is being modified. If the Commission is seriously interested in receiving public input; the Commission should make the modified plan available for review. t t i James Lombardi, Chairman South Windsor Conservation/ Inland Wetlands Commission November 10, 1989 Page Two 2. Sia iM the settlement agreement will deprive the commission of any further input concerning the plan, regardless of any future site design changes. If your Commission signs the settlement agreement, the Commission is basically signing a "blank" check. The planning and Zoning Commission will then be able to approve any plan it wants, and regardless of the environmental impacts, your commission will have no further input. Simply because the new plan apparently contains one less lot, does not necessarily mean there will be less environmental impacts. For example, road and lot design could be changed to cause additional adverse environ- mental impacts. There have been rumors concerning a road stub. This is a very significant issue since it opens up adjacent properties to develop- ment, as well as the possibility of turning such stub into a through street, with consequent destruction of wetlands in the area. 3. It appears significant emaronmental issues have not been addressed. I don't have the advantage of having been at the original hearing, however, I have reviewed some of the documents in the record. Based on such review and comments by Commissioner Julie Raymond at the October 23rd meeting, it appears there are significant environmental issues concerning the subdivision development that were raised before and still have not been addressed. Such issues include the following: * No hydrology study has been done on the site. * No soil tests have been done. * No study was done on the amount of blasting required and the subsequent impacts on water quality of wells in the area. 4. An intermittent watercourse may exist on the property. The possibility that an intermittent watercourse exists on the property should be investigated by the commission before signing the Settlement Agreement. Two commissioners have stated they have seen such a watercourse. If this is so, the developer must obtain a wetlands permit before any construction activity can take place. Even more important the adverse environmental impacts, such as flooding on adjacent properties, must be considered. James Lombardi, Chairman South Windsor Conservation/ Inland Wetlands Commission November 10, 1989 Page Three In speaking with Denise Conklin from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, she indicated there appears to be a lame intermittent watercourse on adjacent property, but within the 80' buffer of your Regulations. An intermittent watercourse indicates groundwater is seeping up in the area. If water continues to flow 24 to 48 hours after a rain storm, it is considered an intermittent watercourse. Ms. Conklin also said that even though wetland flagging was done on the property before, it is difficult if the inspector does not have a precise location to focus on. Thus, the intermittent watercourse on the property might have been missed, even though an inspection was performed for the application. 5. The Commission has time to investigate the above-mentioned unresolved issues. I strongly urine your Ccmuission to investigate this issue and the other environmental concerns before agreeing to the proposed settlement. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service would be happy to perform another site visit if requested by your Cm mission. While there are certainly time constraints for making a decision, I believe they were exaggerated by Attorney Alexander at the October 23rd meeting. In speaking with a clerk fran the Appellate Court, I discovered the deadline for filing briefs in the above-referenced litigation is not until December 10, 1989. In conclusion, I think you owe it to yourselves and to the public to give the new modified plan - wherever it is and whatever it looks like - the same careful review that you gave the first plan. If the cmMission does decide to agree to the modified plan, I strongly urge the Coamnission to consider utilizing Section 15.3 of its Regulations to require the applicant to obtain public liability insurance in order to protect the wells of nearby property owners. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, William C. Schaefer WCS/kgn cc: Ralph Alexander, Esq. Town Attorney �4 0,00 8g44 0 Tov� O-P 6 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 SOR C0 MEMORANDUM December~ 61 1989 TO; Marcia Banach , Director of Planning FROM: Karl Reichle, Superintendent of parks and Grounds/ Tree Warden on December 4, 1989, I received a phone call from Marshall Montana. She wanted to know if I could put together some figures for tree maintenance to see if Planning and Zoning could set up some sort of tree bond , on trees in development sites. Marshall wanted to know if I would look at an Oak on Sullivan Avenue west of Great Oak: Landscaping, 601 Sullivan Avenue and use that tree as a model for estimating cost. The tree in question is a magnificent Black: Oak approximately 43 inches in diameter. The tree looks very sound structurally and with some pruning and a little care could be around for years to come. I am pleased to see the Planning and Zoning Commission doing everything within their power to help preserve trees in South Windsor, r commenda.t i on s are as follows- J. . No earth work within 17 feet of the tree- 2. Pruning estimated cost $750. 00. 3. Deep root feeding at end of construction project , estimated cost '200.00. rf I can be of assistance in any area; saving established trees, planting new trees, or making South Windsor environment more livable through trees, r.:,].F.:ase let me k:riow. KER/ds c C% Marshall Montana, Planning and Zoning Commissioner Michael Gantir.k: , Director of Public Works MEMORANDUM April 11, 1990 TO: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning FROM : Karl Reichle, Tree Warden RE: Oak Tree - Sullivan Avenue The following are the recommendations to insure the survival of the large Oak Tree on Sullivan Avenue. 1 . Before any construction, the tree to be drop crotched pruned by a licensed Connecticut Arborist removing all dead wood and any undesirable branches. 2. After pruning a wooden snow fence be erected around the tree according to the diagram. Fence to be a minimum of 4 feet high in a continuous ring around the tree. Fence will be staked every 8 feet with poles to be driven in at least 18 inches into the ground. 3. No earth work or grading to be done within the confines of fenced area. 4 . Upon completion of building, fence to be removed and all competing plant growth to be removed. 5. A deep root feeding of the tree should take place before a lawn is established with a fertilizer for trees applied by a licensed arborist. I sincerely hope that the Developer and Builder view this tree as a focal point of the project, instead of an obstruction they have to work around. KER/ds Enclosure J. NO. AC 8192 APPELLATE COURT SOWIN ASSOCIATES VS. STATE OF CONNECTICUT INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, OCTOBER 12 , 1990 & TOWN CLERK OF SOUTH WINDSOR STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REARGUMENT Defendants , in accordance with Sec. 4041 of the Practice Book, oppose plaintiff' s motion for reconsideration and/or reargument for the following reasons : 1. None of the arguments presented in the plaintiff' s motion are any different from those advanced before the trial court and/ or the Appellate Court . 2. No new legal or factual arguments have been presented in the plaintiff' s motion. 3. - The entire record of the proceedings of the defendant Conservation Commission was before the Appellate. Court which reviewed same before rendering its decision. LAW OFFICES RiCHARD OFFICENBAND 4. There was a full hearing on the merits of the appeal before 1750ELLINGTONROA0 the Appellate Court, everything was properly addressed at that SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 time,and subsequently by the Court, and there is nothing further (203)644.2456 to address. JURISNO50412 5. The Appellate Court correctly found that the defendant Conservation Commis.sion (hereinafter "Commission") had denied plaintiff' s application -without-prejudice for a procedural reason, - 1 - Y . it is the commission' s policy not to act on applications that have already been refused by the planning and zoning comm- ission. " Page 377 of Appellate decision, and then found that this reason was no longer relevant in view of the Appellate Court' s decision in Sowin v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 23 Conn. App. 370. In reviewing the record of the proceedings be- fore the Commission, the Appellate Court believed that because of the aforementioned procedural reason, the Commission had not given a full hearing or full consideration to the substantive issues ; i. e. : the adequacy of the applicant ' s Conservation Plan, including provisions for soil erosion and sediment control, and decided to remand the case back to the Commission to consider fully the substantive issues . It is clear that is what the Appell- ate Court intended. If, as plaintiff seems to claim, the Court had wanted the application approved without further consideration,. it would simply have affirmed the lower court' s decision as it did in Sowin v. Planning and Zoning Commission, supra. (If it had believed the Commission' s action complete and correct, it would have simply reversed without a remand.) There was evidence before the Commission of potential problems LAW OFFICES of well contamination and potential harm to endangered species of RICHARD M.RITTENBAND flora, some of which evidence came from neighborsl and some from 1750 ELLINGTON ROAD Soil Conservation Service reports and a report from the State SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 Department of Environmental Protection. More importantly, on (203)644.2456 substantive issues, the Soil Conservation Service report of Janu- JURISNO50412 ary 4, 1988 advised, inter alia, that " . . . . the detention basin, as designed, will not effectively trap sediment." This latter statement was certainly a basis, as well as the other potential 1Contrary to plaintiff' s claim, the neighbors ' concerns were expressed at the November 16, 1987 public hearing before this Commission,' not the Planning and Zoning Commission. ji 2 - problems , for the Commission to find that the conservation plan of the applicant was not adequate and did not comply with Public Act 83-388. This January 4, 1988 SCS report was cited in the Commission' s letter of denial, and it was obvious from that and the record that the Commission felt that the plan: did not comply with the statutes or regulations. Plaintiff overlooks, in its motion, the substantive reason involving inadequate soil sedimen- tation control; a substantive reason properly before the •Commissior- as were the other problems. However, the SCS reports and the DEP letter came after the public hearing and, perhaps, the Appellate Court felt that the applicant did not have sufficient opportunity to respond to them. For that reason and because of the emphasis the Commission placed on the procedural issue (the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission had already rejected the subdivision) it is clear that the Appellate Court wanted the Commission to give a full hearing and full consideration to these substantive issues and remanded the case for that purpose, to give the applicant an adequate opportunity to address the substantive issues . This is clear from. the Appellate Court' s decision. If it had believed that the application should have been approved originally, the Court would LAW OFFICES RICHARD M.RITTENBAND simply have affirmed the lower court' s decision, which it clearly 1750 ELLINGTON ROAD did not. SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 _ There is no need for reconsideration or reargument. The (203)644.2456 Appellate Court' s decision should stand. JURIS NO 50412 3 - 01 i DEFENDANTS BY: ichard M: Rittenband Their Attorney CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of this Statement in Opposi- tion to Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reargument has been served on all counsel of record in accordance with the provisions of Section 120 of the Practice Book by mailing same to said counsel, postage prepaid, to Thomas F. Parker, Sorokin, Sorokin, P.C . , One Corporate Center, Hartford, Gross , Hyde and Williams, Connecticut 06103 this 12th day of October, 1990. A Richar M. Ritten an F Attorney at Law LAW OFFICES `tICHARD M.RITTENBAND 1750 ELLINGTON ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 (203)644.2456 JURIS NO 50412 - 4 - RICHARD M. RITTENBAND D11 ATTORNEY AT LAW 1750 ELLINGTON ROAD OCT 3 1990 SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074 c(^� (203)644-2456 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ MNSERVAT,J IV COMM18S" October 2 , 1990 Mr. James Lombardi Chairman, Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Sowin Associates v. Conservation Commission Dear Jim: Enclosed is copy of decision in the above matter by the Appellate Court which was published in the Connecticut Law Journal on September 25th. You and I have discussed this matter. We have until October 15th to take an appeal to the Supreme Court , i.e. , petition for permission from the Supreme Court to take an appeal. The time frame is 20 days after publication of the decision. It will be my recommendation that we not take an appeal because although the decision seems to be somewhat unclear, the bottom line is that the Court reversed the decision of the lower Court which had overturned the Commission' s denial, and it seems to me that if the Appellate Court had wanted a result under which the Sowin 'application was to be approved it would have affirmed the decision of the lower court as it did in the case of the Planning and Zoning case_. The best interpretation that I can put on the decision is that since the ruling in the Planning and Zoning case was to approve the Planning and Zoning application,the reason given by the Conservation Commission as to not considering the appli- cation because P & Z had rejected the subdivision is no longer valid in view of the Appellate Court ' s decision on the Planning and Zoning matter. The Appellate Court, in the Conservation Commission case, then goes on to say that it will not decide the other basis on which the Conservation Commission denied approval and has remanded the case to the Superior Court with instructions page 2 - October 2 , 1990 to remand the case to the Conservation Commission for action in accordance with its opinion. It would appear to me that the Court felt that once you decided not to hear the applica- tion because of the P & Z rejection, you didn' t really get into issues of sedimentation, etc . , although it would appear to me that you did. Therefore, it appears to me that the Court is saying that the Superior Court should order the Conservation Commission to hold another hearing and decide (even though it may be something you've already decided) on the substantive issues before the Conservation Commission meaning those issues which are beyond the issue of not hearing it because P & Z had rejected it . In sum, it would appear to me that we should receive an order from the Superior Court to rehear the application as to its substantive provisions ; namely, well contamination, endangered species , soil sedimen- tation, whether or not the soil sedimentation and erosion control proposal is satisfactory. Since the Appellate "reversed" the lower court decision , it means that it set aside the lower court ' s decision over- turning your denial. It would also appear that the Appellate Court wants you to rehear the substantive issues . If anyone should appeal this decision, it seems to me it should be the plaintiff and not the Conservation Commission . I explain all of this but suggest to you that , perhaps , you might want to hold a special meeting in Executive Session to discuss this pending litigation and to do so long before October 15th since that would be the deadline for taking an appeal. Please advise whether you want to schedule such a special meeting. Thank you. - Very truly - -_ -- ------__ ichard Rittenband RMR: das Enclosure cc: 60 Woodland Drive Page 65 ? •-t. September 25, 1990 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL ' S _ 23 Conn. App. 377 377 r r Sowin Associates v. Conservation&Inland Wetlands Commission Our further search of the record in this cases.fails to disclose any failure by the plaintiff to comply withr �` iti � K any substantive rovision of the town's subdivision ""' ;; �, s regulations. 4l tiF• '7i�. � �t�r'Y�1' � :k The judgment is affirmed. _ �..: •,h: .�� y,',pia In this opinion the other judges concurred. 5 x s ; y SOWIN ASSOCIATES V. CONSERVATION AND INLAND WETLANDS rL�I+,MISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WIND90R ET AL. (8192) � . Durorrr,C.J.,NORcorr and Fail,Js. On the appeal to this court by the defendants,the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff's appeal from the named defendant's denial of its application for approval of a conservation plan submitted in con- nection with an unsuccessful application for subdivision approval was• �.�.� reversed and ordered to be remanded by the trial court to the named defendant for further consideration in light of the plaintiffs success- , ful challenge to the South Windsor planning and zoning commission's denial of its subdivision application. s Argued June 11—decision released September 25, 1990 Appeal from a decision by the named defendant, denying the plaintiff s application for approval of a con- a servation plan submitted in connection With a plan to ;> subdivide certain of the plaintiff's real property, - brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the court,X1wzak,J.;judgment is sustaining the appeal, from which, on the.granting of certification, the defendants appealed to this'court. '* Reversed,further proceedings. s The defendants rely solely on of site t_2ffic considerations to support r their claim.Because we have already estabiisl'ed that offsite traffic is not a valid concern when the proposed use is allowed within the designated 1 is zone,we have taken the initiative to search the record for further support ' of the defendants'claim.See Kaewr v.Cowemtion Cammimiw4 20 Conn. 1. APP,309, 311, 567 A.2d 383(1989). "f �k Page 66 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL September 26, 1990 t q 'a } 378 23 Conn. App. 37? F ',`r� - � �'` "�Jh�y,i�' t�'U4@3{fit° y •y.air.`-T,t';. Fri,- ... Sowin Associates'v. Conservation&Inland Wetlands Commission .. Richard M.Rittenband,town attorney, with whom, on the brief was Ralph J. Alexander, for the a l- lants (defendants). ' `* Thomas F. Parker, for the appellee (plaintiff). Ty#'1.' FoTi, J. The defendants'appeal from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff s challenge to the defendant conservation and inland wetlands com- mission's denial of the plaintiff's application for •, approval of a conservation plan submitted in connee- tion with the plaintiff's subdivision applicai�or,. The facts relating to the plaintiff's underlying appli- cation for the approval of an eleven lot subdivision can be found in Sowin Associates-v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 23 Conn. App..370, A.2d (1990) (Sounn 1).In Sa"n I, we upheld the trial court's rever- sal of the planning and zoning commmission's denial t of the plaintiff's subdivision application. The genesis of the present case is the denial, with- out prejudice, of the plaintiff's lJB'i13it application by the conservation and inland wetla as commission of the town of South Windsor..The commission deri.ed the permit for two reasons.It first stated that it is the com- mission's policy not to act on applications that have already been refused by the planning and zoning com- mission.z The commission's second stated reason for denial was its concern with questions of well contami- nation and the possible presence of rare flora on the proposed subdivision site that were raised by abutting neighbors at the planning and zoning commission's pub- r lic hearing. ` 1 The defendants in this action are the South Windsor conservation and inland wetlands commission and the town of South Windsor. T 'We need not decide whether this is a proper reason for the commis- sion's refusal to review the permit application because our decision in Sown. I rules out the commission's use of this reason. 'i X, 4eptember 25, 1990 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL t �t .. Page 67 23 Conn. App. 379 379 ? i A Gil v. Inland Wetlands&Watercourses Agency `.�',,����r� �3�•;��r ,� f fir : •' # F-ay. The plaintiff appealed the commission's denial of its ` application to the Superior Court. The trial court sus- tained the plaintiff's appeal,finding that there was no ;,• ' ::` '' k basis on the record for the commission's denial.'The trial court further ordered that the permit should be approved because the application complied with all ofIT the commission's regulations. x The defendants sought and were granted certifica,- *A tion by this court to review the.trial court's decision. It is not necessary,however,for us to reach the merits b ` • of this appeal.I n light of our decision in Sowin I affirm- ing the trial court's judgment determining that the planning and zoning commission should have-approved the plaintiff's subdivision application,We now reverse the decision of the trial court in this case and order that it be remanded for further consideration in accord with Sowin I. s The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded 1 Y. to the trial court with direction to remand the case to the defendant conservation and inland wetlands com- mission for further proceedings in accordance with this ; opinion. In this opinion the other judges concurred. PATRICK R. GIL .v. INLAND WETLANDS AND WATER- ' COURSES AGENCY OF THE TOWN OF GREENWICH ET AL. ,4 (84I8) l Fon, LAVERY and CRETELLA,Js. ` ;, •' The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from a decision by the defendant inland wetlands and watercourses agency of the town of Greenwich denying his application for construct a residence on cer- tain pp permit to tain of his rea!property.The trial court sut3tained the plaintiffs appeal s finding that the denial constituted an u.-!lawiuul taidng without just com- pensation. On the defendant's appeal to thL-court,U-1d. 1. The defendant could not Prevail on its claim that the trial court should - ` have given preclusive r.dect to court rulings regarding three earlier l applications by the plaintiff,which rulings concerned the taking issue; f.• ?, . ".'::..ate.,i;•: SOWIN ASSOC. VS. - INLAND WETLANDS CV-88-0039738-S !. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED a ' ? CASE IS HEREBY REMANDED TO THE DEFENDANT INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEPTEMBER 259 1990 OPINION OF THE APPELLATE COURT. ` KLACZAK, J. 11-06-90 NOTICE SENT TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD 11-09-90 RICHARD M RITTENBAND SUPERIOR COURT .1750 ELLINGTON ROAD 69 BROOKLYN STREET .N ROCKVILLE, CONNECTICUT 06066 SOUTH WINDSOIt CT 06074 DATED 140V 099 1990 TTD RICHARD M. RITTEN13AND ATTORNEY AT LAW 1750 ELLINGTON ROAD NOV 1$ 1990 SOUTH WINDSOR.CONNECTICUT 06074 . ',uaOY (203)8"-2456 INLplvp AGENCY► CpNSERVATION COMMISSION November 14, 1990 Mr. James Lombardi Chairman Inland Wetlands/Conservation Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Sowin Associates v. Conservation Commission Dear Jim: As you will note by the enclosed notice from the Court, Judge Klaczak, the above case has been returned to the Conservation Commission for further proceedings . This means that the Court has directed the Conservation Commission to rehear the Sowin application particularly as to the substantive issues. Based upon the Court' s decision, the issue of whether or not Planning and Zoning had previously turned down the application before it from Sowin is no longer relevant. You should consider the substantive issues before the Conser- vation Commission. Therefore, I believe you should schedule a °public hearing on this application and then follow through as you would do in any regular application. Please make sure that long prior to the public hearing you provide the applicant with all per- tinent information including any reports or letters from The Soil Conservation Service so that the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to the contents of all of the Soil Conservation Service reports . In your letter to the applicant, you should indicate that the applicant should expect to be asked to respond to these various reports . If you have any question on this , please don' t hesitate to contact me. Thank you. your , Rich R1 eiiband Town Attorney RMR:das Enc. November 26, 1990 � 7 James Lombardi, Chairman So. Windsor,Inland Wetlands / Conservation Commission Town Hall 1 1540 Sullivan Ave. So. Windeor, Ct, 06074 Dear Mr. Lombardi I am writing in connection with the recent articles in the Courant : and the Journal Inquirer regarding "Birchbr :ar Estates" . Having lived at 725 Foster St. for almost 28 yrs. , this does concern my property.` I would like to invite each one of the members; of the commission to come out and walk the site. There' s an oak tree that measures 19 ft. in diameter,_ also there are at least 25 trees ( spruce' pine and cedar) that we planted many years ago. I spoke to the tree warden of our town last year and he told me any development along this path would kill all of these trees. There are also as many trees along my neighbors property. Also who' s responsibility is it, going to be to have these trees taked down? Will the builder need an easement from me seeing my house .,3s just 20 ft . from the property? When we built this house we were told by the town to move the house over to this: side because of the then pending road on the other side of our pproperty. I remember at one of the meetings I attended in 5989 there was a big discussion concerning trees on the Collins property on Strong Rd. There is also a natural spring on the property on the hill because the property next door had a lot of water in back of the trees in the back of their house,' at the .time Mr. Hornat dug a trench in back of the spruce trees for the run off. I hope all of the commission members will walk this property before making any decisions. Sincerely, NOV 27 1990 South Windsor INLAND WETLANDS AUNCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION tOVIN $E7 G 7 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE 4l��SOV&U&ot R•coNa�G SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 January 7, 1991 TO: Current Abutter FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer RE: Public hearing of the I Commission Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Pursuant to section 9 .5 of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Regulations, as an abutting property owner, ou are notified of the Public Hearings to be held on January�28, 1991 atreby 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 to identify the site to w ' You are an abutter. If you have any question regarding this hich application, feel free to call the South Windsor Planning De at 644-2511 . g Department meat Thank you for your attention. PRIM Enclosure - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------- �JI?ih Tf//A/ Sc+tl� Qo�4 o T t 4/0 9/��w•. 70 sf Cofe/ C 8 • 9/ � �• 7/3 Fos-�� 5�. Csretnt � lfo�^ct V• �",r. 3 / 1/� ��i • 3 667 5J4-tr S4_ Sul lava S--tvevN '?. t Q ane IF. 1 P~ Pit6g 3 Fas�cr •S�_ �a-�-1c. s Toaw►e N��,�q�- 7 � ` '���o k� P''`1. ,� l : /`/1 /�•���c.� Dr, �ar►nc�, c�.'s�;n t L Ao%n4, Or kt uvedy , arcs P. t mArl M . q � ,�,. 65�,• ( l R Fos s S� . k I th r,,Ce +R A • � r �o ow Assoc,&a ei laivn RJCow-. L7-0 0*,k S4-rz TD i' ii �T WILLI MY. BELLOC D P.O. Box 205 30 22 1991 Manchester, Connecticut 06040 Sou W odsor (203) 645-1193 INLAND WE ONCOMMi ON CpNSERVATI January 21, 1991 Mr. John E. McCahill Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Re: Birchbriar Subdivision Dear Mr. McCahill: Pursuant to a request by Mr. J. Eric Scherer of the USDA Soil Conservation Service (Memo 1/4/1988) and in anticipation of a settlement of our lawsuit in the summer of 1989, I retained Soil Science and Environmental Services, Inc. to conduct a flora and fauna inventory on the site. In particular I wished to identify the species of Lady's Slipper cited in the original rejection of our conservation plan. Enclosed you will find Hope D. Malcom's report of 5/18/90 as well as a follow-up letter from Mr. Edward M. Pawlak, both biologists employed by Soil Science and Environmental Services, Inc. Also, I posted the Public Notice sign on the property this morning, 1/21/91. If yo:4 have further questions, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, /12, . William J. Bellock Enclosures 100 U/b MEMORANDUM: TO: James A. Lombardi, Chair- IWA/CC FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer DATE: January 25, 1991 RE: January 28, 1991 Agenda: Appl. #516, Birchbriar Estates In my absence please accept this letter as my recommendation regarding this application: I have reviewed the "redlined" plans; report from Hope D. Malcom, Biologist (dated May 18, 1989) ; report from Edward M. Pawlak, Biologist (dated Sept. 11, 1989) ; Drainage Summary by Design Professionals, Inc. (dated Jan. 10, 1988) ; and other correspondence associated with the application. It would appear that they have adequately addressed the concerns of the Soil Conservation Service report of Jan. 4, 1988 and my memorandum dated Oct. 19, 1989 . IF APPROVAL IS CONSIDERED SUGGESTED APPROVAL CONDITIONS INCLUDE: 1 • The large oak tree westerlyof the remain. Best management practices, Proposed roadway shall roots g (i.e. saw cut the paint, etc. ) , shall be used to ensure that the tree survives . 2• A bond in the amount of $10,000 . 00 is required before any disturbance of the site. 3 . All changes presented on the "redlined" plan shall be incorporated on the final plans. Pmm cc: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning v ` Edward A. Richardson V � 693 Chestnut Hill Road J_02 _q/ Glastonbury, CT 06033 1 203-633-7764 To Whom It May Concern The Connecticut Notable Tree Survey, is an ongoing project of the Connecticut Botanical Society.; Begun in 1984,' its first edition was published in 1989, and the second edition in 1990. Data are compiled on the historic trees of the state, and also on the Jargest specimens of every species known to grow in Connec'Acut . } I am a, me;nber of the Society, and have participated in the survey .since 1987. During that time I have measured and compiled data on hundreds of big trees in many towns. Although I am pot a professional botanist , I have written much of, the recently published Bushnell Park Tree Walks, and have inven- toried'-and mapped more than Z000 trees in Elizabeth Park, Hartford. On January 26, 1991 , at the request of Julie Raymond, a member of the South Windsor Conservation Commission, I visited and took data on a large white oak (Quercus alba) located on the east property line of Gilbert and Claire Cote, 715 Foster Street, South Windsor. As I understand it, this tree is directly adjacent .to a proposed developer ' s road, which would serve a project which is now under review by' the Conservation Commission. DATA The tree is 69 feet high, has a trunk circumference of 13 feet, 2 inches at a point 42 feet from the ground, and has an average canopy spread of 83 feet. It has a point value of 248 on the American Forestry Association Big Tree Scale. According to the latest available Connecticut Big Tree listing (7/7/90) it is within the top 50 large white oaks reported in the state. COMMENT I have measured many white `oaks, including the two largest in the state. While the subject tree is not as large as. those, it is nevertheless a very fine specimen. From all appearances it is in. excellent health. The quality of the pruning indicates that its owners have cared for it well . Although several large branches have been removed, the cuts have healed over completely. There are two or three tiny areas of damage at grade, but this is not unusual for an old tree. In my experience it is rare to find such a large tree with so few apparent problems .' y �r -2- People always ask the age of a tree. It is not possible to ascertain this from the trunk measurement, because growing conditions from one tree to another differ so greatly. We do know that white oaks grow slowly. The two 135 year old white oaks in Bushnell Park, which are documented scions of the Charter Oak, are three feet smaller in circumference than the subject tree. It seems likely that the Foster Street tree is 175 - 200 years old. The most important feeder roots of trees tend to be in the top two feet of soil. They also tend to extend well past the . canopy. If a road 'is placed near this tree, roots will have to be removed, the amount depending on 'the proximity of the road. A competent arborist should give an opinion as to the effects of this particular proposal. Almost certainly, root loss will have some detrimental effect, and old.. trees, like old people, are particularly sensitive to changes in circumstances. In my opinion, . serious efforts should be made to preserve this fine specimen, which is a splendid example of Connecti- cut ' s State Tree, the white oak. Edward A. Richardson January 26, 1991 BIG TREE REPORT No. r a" CONNECTICOT BOTANICAL SOCIETY Sd. G✓1 N 0 S 09 town m Ul t� e�wG $ ai L06. l /rf TT do4,. < Uua species common name DIMENSIONS Method of height measurement: C��iJOM Tt 1'Q Height in feet: Circumference feet inches- Circumfarancs in inches: {measured at 4.5' or above ground} Spread: ft.+ - _ divide by 4 - widest perp. average Data measured: •�-� �/ _ AFA RATING __ PHOTOGRAPHS: Date {specify slides, prints, b&w, color) Owner: name (5jAJ3E)eT-+CL41JeF- COTE. Phone d YY-0 79'14 street T aS. F0 57T tR S'T town of l 1v A s o le CT" 0(0 7 4 REMARKS: LL!„wr ",qbi r'ieiJ, , T CN 'how, �eTy <1� of pna oS�fd of C.I:L CiO/Y St.x✓��/B N c�Nr'+►I S 5/O/+l. /�j OA d W„0 di•A i 4,WdAY A45U.i 7 C4^j r,0 t4tl MAP OF LOCATION N 4tsa2Eo�� /to Reported by jc,#, Xb 5 ON Date //,U&71- Measured by l?) Date Verified by Data T�'7 SEND TO: Mr. Glenn D. Dreyer, Box 1625, Gonnecticut College, New London CT 06320 f t EVALUATION OF TH • BICENTENNIAL OR$ T A BA (WHITE OAK) The following is an evaluation of a bicentennial Corbus Alba (White Oak ) with a diameter breast height of fifty ( 50 ) inches . I have established the value of this tree, using the International Society of Arboriculture Valuation of Landscape, Trees and Shrubs and Amenity in other Plants , which takes into consideration the plants size, conditions and location. Based on the above formula the Corbus Alba (White Oak ) located in the front of your property on the left side has a value of $18, 617 . 00 . EVERGREENS Located on the left side of your property you have approximately 20 evergreens , consisting of White Spruce and Eastern White Pine , The average diameter breast height of the White Spruce is six ( 6 ) inch. The cost of replacing these trees, in todays dollars, would be between $1300 . 00 and $1500 . 00 per tree . This includes digging the hole and a guarantee on the tree for a period of one year, COST OF R .M KIN; THE CORB 7 ALBA (WHTTF OAK) The cost of removing the Corbus Alba (White Oak) flush to ground level is $3, 250 . 00 . This includes removing all debris, wood, removing the stump below ground level, filling the hole with top soil and overseeding, One Corporate Center One Financial Plaza 760 HoJp�ad'o Stre Hartford Hartford Simsb ry Connecticut06103-3291 Connecticut06103-2659 Conn ticut06070-220� i 203525-6645 203278-1420 2036 1-9348 SOROKIN SOROKIN GROSS HYDE&WILLIAMS PC FAX 203522.1781 FAX 203 278-0011 FAX 651-5044 ATTORNEYS AT LAW t �[$ ra Reply to: Simsbury �SouthWWddsor February 5 , 1991 1nNLOWD+XQfI N96SAAGF," Y1 C40WGRjjP0jjWC N Mr . James Lombardi , Chairman South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency Conservation Commission Town of South Windsor South Windsor Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Drive South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Re: Application Number 516 - Conservation Plan Approva Dear Mr . Lombardi : I am writing on behalf of the Applicant in the above referenced Application for Conservation Plan approval to respectfully request that I be notified of the date that this Application will be placed on the Commission's agenda for decision. Very truly yours, Amelia M. Rugland AMR:f ms cc: Mr . William Bellock �0*1 3 4 07 C r 7awtl V/ si a V e � a s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 �osoR•c0 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 February 14, 1991 William J. Bellock P.O. Box 205 Manchester, CT 06040 I Dear Mr. Bellock: Re: Application #516, Birchbriar Estates At the February 11, 1991 meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved with conditions Application #516 - Birchbriar Estates, IWA/CC approval for the construction of a residential subdivision on property located southerly and westerly of Foster Street and easterly of Ellington Road, AA-30 zone as shown on plans prepared by Design Professionals, Job No. 87-164 and dated August, 1987, revised October 30, 1987 . 1. Two blueprint copies of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon, must be submitted to this Commission. This must be completed within 65 days of approval and prior to any construction activity on the site. 2 . Construction activities shall be subject to the approval of the Town Engineer. 3 . The application shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability which might result from the proposed operation or use. A . The permit is valid for one year and shall expire on February 11, 1992. 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 plans . 7 . We recommend a bond in the amount of $10,000.00 to be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures . Mr. William F. Bellock Page 2 February 14, 1991 Application #516 8 . The large oak tree westerly of the proposed roadway shall remain. Best management practices, (i.e. , saw cut the roots, paint, etc. ) , shall be used to ensure that the tree survives. Tree protection shall be detailed on the final plans . 9 . All changes presented on the "redlined" plan shall be incorporated on the final plans. Very truly yours, Eza beth A. Warren, Chairperson EAW/pmm cc: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning Planning & Zoning Commission 5 • w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 4f��SOR•CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511 March 12, 1991 - Mr. William J. Bellock CERTIFIED MAIL Post Office Box 205 Manchester, CT 06040 Dear Mr. Bellock: Re: Application #87-78P, Birchbriar Estates Subdivision Please be advised that the above-referenced subdivision is approved as directed by the Court. This approval is based on plans prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. , dated August 1987, revised through 1/25/88, and is subject to the following modifications: 1 . This approval is for 11 lots, numbered 1 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. Mr. William J. Bellock March 12, 1991 Page Two 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. 9 . This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $10,000. 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 a 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 . i rid 1a - Mr. William J. Bellock March 12, 1991 Page Three _ 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. 16 . A drainage assessment fee in the Amount of $550 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 . Evergreen trees must be planted around the south and west sides of the detention basin (access for maintenance vehicles must be maintained) . The basin shall be planted in a low-maintenance seed/wildflower mix (per SCS guidelines) . Black and white transparent mylars of Sheet 3 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, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Loui a C. Evans Chairman cc: Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission . M. Banach, Planning Director J. Collins, Chief Building Official J. Iazzetta, Town Engineer F. Shaw, Supt. Of Pollution Control, E'. Belleville, Assessor W. Lanning, Fire Marshal •.•. t '"-�%�fq"�e�.Y"v�'1'+�a�r.�'-tom. �'i.. ...+-�.�au e'?� :rf'•"�`�,W_,a-3 .:5_"1'K ��r -r,�R^�%dy r1e 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDS09. CONN. 06074 }��� +�� ��hasoe•co��� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 Project Name/Location ��cc�.�s c„ (=5fc,� e� Appl.# 9�-7-7�• (' Phone # 61-15- t l`)3 Contact Person/Owner 6 Address P-c- 41Qx Z� 5 rvl�.n-�i,. .. You are hereby notified that problems may exist on the above site concerning erosion and sedimentation control measures. Although this is a notification based on a routine site visit, you are ultimately responsible for inspecting and maintaining the site. You were contacted on and notified of site problem(s). This is a confirmation of that call. You should correct the problems) immediately (within 48 hours) and notify me that the situation has been corrected. _ Erosion and control measures are not properly installed and/or maintained according to approved plans. Refer to approved plans and correct site as needed. Erosion and control measures are needed beyond those shown on the plans, contact me regarding the additional measures. _ Silt fence(s) and/or haybale(s) are not in place or not properly maintained. X Stockpiles are not protected and/or seeded. Construction entrance not in according to plan or not functioning adequately. Need to establish vegetation per plan, either temporary or permanent. Site lacks protection against possible wind erosion. Limits of construction have not been established on site, or have been exceeded. There is an excessive area of disturbance which should be stabilized, limits to area of disturbance may need re-establishment. X Other concern �,I�r��; r,-(� ExCF�t ��li ,., ,. i-c -.c_.� �j�-4,_.,C,;,. l��s G;c•:� s S tzc J ` ' ay J 1 f-L C �c�. Swr,l1 Ce'o - S�zcIC ;J, t nc This will be filed with your approval/permit for the site. it is your responsibility to maintain the site and repeated violations/problems will be forwarded to appropriate Commissions. If you have any question regarding this, contact me at 644-2511. Very truly yours, {V1�• UV6 s Evz.ne-I,c.s Jo E. McCahill L,w,,h ecre Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer gel t JEM/pMM ■ 11 DEC 4 199)_ ?rofessiondls,i inc. civil engineers • planners • surveyors South Windsor ■ Planning & Zoning Commission Nov. 30, 1991 Mr. William Bellock c/o Sowin Associates Manchester, Ct. Re: Birchbriar Subdivision - South Windsor, Ct. Dear Bill: A field investigation was done on 11/27/91 to determine the status of construction at the Birchbriar Subdivision site. Based on my field visit, I offer the following status report: 1. All utilities are installed and functioning. 2. Roadway paving..and curbing are complete. 3. Sidewalks are complete. 4. The stormwater detention basin is complete. 5. Some earthen material stockpiles are still in place and properly protected by silt barrier. All existing silt barriers should remain in place until vegetative cover is sufficient to prevent. erosion. Overall, the site is being constructed in conformance with the approved plans. Sincerely, Ro rt sena , P.E. Pr'nc p 441C Governors Highway, South Windsor, CT 06074 • (203) 291-8755 • FAX: (203) 291-8757 WILLIAt7. BELLOCK + P.O. Box 205 Manchester, Connecticut 06040 4 (203) 645-1193 South Windsor QI�4. 4k&Zoning commizi6o December 4, 1991 Mr. John E. McCahill Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Re: Birchbriar Estates IW/CC Permit Extension App. # 516 Dear John: I am requesting an extension on the above referenced IW/CC Permit. As required, please find: 1. An engineer's report. 2. A check in the amount of $25.00. Once again, thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, William J. Bellock Managing Partner Sowin Associates Enclosures a t e ce U 9 O-P slot� 6W 70-wn 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 �r�osoe•co�'�w AREA CODE 203/644-2511 December 17, 1991 William F. Bellock Sowin Associates P. O. Box 205 Manchester, CT 06040 Dear Mr. Bellock: Re: Application #516 - Birchbriar At the December 16, 1991 meeting, the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved a three year extension of Application #516 with all original and standard conditions. Application #516 expires on February 11, 199 Very truly yours, / Elizabth A. Warren, Chairman Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission EAW/pmm cc: Director of Planning Planning & Zoning Commission Town Engineer t �r April 2, 1992 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer; RE: Birchbriar Estates We have recently received a request for a bond reduction to maintenance level at Birchbriar Estates . As we have indicated, a inspection of this cannot be undertaken until the "growing season" is underway. At the present time, the infrastructure work would be difficult to evaluate as mud and debris are all over the improvements. Several complaints about the deplorable condition at this subdivision have been made. However, the problems seem to be generated by the home builder - U & R Construction - rather than the Subdivision developer. I believe that we should place on hold any future Certificate of Occupancy and Building Permit requests (as well as bond reduction requests) until we resolve this issue. A meeting between the developer, the home builder, Planning Department and Engineering would seem appropriate. JCl/jsv cc: Michael J. Gantick, Director of`,Public Works 4. I Lem, 0 fro1YZ TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR li TOWN HALL SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN:06074 ,w TO J�r DATE c k �ubu& C�i 'T L J - SUBJECT: FOLD ,4vSf3 s �s .si v4 4,, az red IAJ AZ40 uPT is IA.) P� �. - A��vFP GAF 7ups w IUoT �r j s 'v4' AC7aoN A&W- 6 A Sow G � U w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 lN�SOR•CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511 March 4, 1993 William F. Bellock Sowin Associates P 0 Box 205 Manchester, CT 06040 Dear Mr. Bellock: Re: Application #516 - Birchbriar Enclosed is a copy of an approval letter dated December 17, 1991 which states that your permit with the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission expires February 11, 1995 . A three year permit for extension was granted at the December 16, 1991 meeting. Application #516 therefore expires on February 11, 1994. 'Very truly yours, 0 Eliza th�AWarren Chairman EAW/pmm Enclosure 8f4 p r C. ate siot� ?40&U&Ot 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 oIs CO�� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 July 29, 1993 Mr. William J. Bellock P.O. Box 205 Manchester, CT 06040 Re: Birchbriar Estates Dear Mr. Bellock: We have received several complaints from residents at Birchbriar Estates indicating that the detention basin has standing water. We have investigated and found that there is standing water in the basin. Design Professionals was contacted to determine from the "as-built" information in their files, what is the cause of this problem. They informed us that the inverts of both the inflow and outflow pipes was the same, however, they did not obtain "as-built" grades for the basin. This basin was designed as a "dry" basin and should function as same. It appears that some regrading will be necessary to accomplish this . Please advise as to a tentative schedule for this work. If you have any questions please call me at 644-2511, Ext. 245 . Very truly yours, Je y Iazz * , P.E. To ng-neer JCl/jsv cc: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works JMelvin C. Stead, Jr. , Supt. of Street Services John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer Lester A. Braddock, Sr. Engineering Inspector 4 OWN at %U� OP SOU� ?&U1461at 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 S C - AREA CODE 203/644-2511 October 4, 1993 Sowin Associates P 0 Box 205 Manchester, CT 06040 Dear Madam/Sir: Re: EXPIRATION OF PERMIT #516 - Birchbriar Estates This is a reminder that the permit with the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, Application #516, Birchbriar Estates will expire on February 11, 1994. If you plan to extend your project beyond the above expiration date,you must apply for an extension at least sixty-five (65) days prior to the expiration date. There will be a thirty-five dollar ($35.00) fee required for an extension of the permit. This includes a ten dollar ($10.00) surcharge assessed by the State, to fund the State Environmental Review Team. An application for am extension shall be made in accordance with the following subsection of the IWA/CC Regulations: a. . The duration of any amendment or extension shall be for three years unless otherwise specified in the permit. b. The application may incorporate by reference the documentation and record of the original application. c. The application shall state the reason why the authorized activities were not initiated or completed within the time specified in the permit. d. The application shall describe any changes in facts or circumstances involved with or affecting wetlands or watercourses or the property for which the permit was issued. e. In unusual situations the Agency may accept an untimely application to extend the expiration date of a permit if the authorized activity is ongoing and. allow the continuation of work beyond the expiration date if in its judgement, the permit is likely to be extended and the public interest or environment will be best served by not interrupting the activity; the application shall describe the extent of work completed a�-the time of filing and the schedule for completing the activii:iies authorized in the permit. f. The Agency shall evaluate the application pursuant to these regulations and grant the application as filed, grant it with any i November 16 , 1993 Planning & Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Madam/Sir: Re: Bonds At the November 15, 1993 meeting of the Inland Wetlands Agency/ Conservation Commission, it was voted to release the following bonds : Application #516 , Birchbriar Estates - release of bond in the amount of $10 , 000 Application #93-17W, Michael Bell - release of bond in the amount of $2, 000 Very truly yours, Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairperson IWA/CC EAW/pmm cc: Town Engineer �towN af,`� e � U w� esio�- V&UlAot 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR•co� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 January 12, 1994 William Bellock Sowin Associates P 0 Box 205 Manchester, CT 06040 Dear Mr. Bellock: Re: Application #516, Birchbriar Estates This is to advise you that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted on January 11, 1994 to release the $5, 000 IWA/CC bond. Advance arrangements should be made to pick up the bond to ensure that the necessary contact person(s) will be available. If you have any further questions contact the Planning Department at 644-2511, Ext. 253 . Thank you. 'Very truly yours, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Thomas A. Murrin, Chairman TAM/pmm cc: Town Engineer