HomeMy WebLinkAboutVerbatim Minutes 96-44P Wyngate Commons Pt. 2 r
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
ss . SOUTH WINDSOR
COUNTY OF HARTFORD
Date:
hereby certify that I typed an
accurate transcript of the C f 0 �, 9 9 meeting of
the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission re : Application
that a true copy of said
transcript is attached hereto, and it is accurate to the best of my
knowledge, ability and belief and further certify that I have this date
filed said transcript in the office of the Inland Wetlands
Agency/Conservation Commission.
1 LL9
Date
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
ss. SOUTH WINDSOR
COUNTY OF HARTFORD
Personally appeared 124fal e'l , f • signer and sealer of
the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be her free act
and deed, before me.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires ��
INLAND/WETLANDS AGENCY
PAUL UCCELLO-WYNGATE COMMONS
APPLICATION#9644P
October 2, 1996
Okay we're going to resume the public hearing on Application 9644P,Paul Uccello. And I'd like to
read into the record a memo that we received from Jerry Iazzetta regarding the revised plans for
Application 9644P,dated October 1, 1996.
The culvert endwall wing at the discharge end, should be revised such that the 15"pipe from
detention tanks should have a splash pad to prevent erosion.
Okay?
Thank you.
Once again for the record,Attorney Peter Alter from Glastonbury representing the application,which
is the Ireland Family Partnership. Also here tonight are Peter DeMallie and Bob Arsenault,Design
Cy i Professionals. Along with Paul Uccello. This is a continuation of the public hearing that started a
couple weeks ago. There were several issues that commissioners who were staff raised,which is
really the purpose of being here tonight. We understand Mr.Folger is on vacation. In fact,George
Logan, our counterpart to him is not available tonight. But he does a written report that I'll be
submitting. We have acted in response to Mr. Folger's earlier memo,and what we would hope is that
the commission would once again take in all this information,and then,perhaps,by your next
meeting be in a position to ask us final questions, or raise other issues. Perhaps close the public
hearing at the next meeting.
One of the questions that Mr.Folger had, and several commissioners raised was,to ask us to give you
a better explanation of how this piece that we are proposing to develop as Wyngate Commons,came
to be given the Ireland development in the area. And so we went back to the land records and to the
Ireland family archives to come up with an explanation. And these maps that I've posted on the
board,are really an explanation of how we arrive at the point we find ourselves at today. Which is
looking at Parcel B, which on this map is shown is shown as 13.75 acres as a separate parcel.
Mr. Ireland acquired a parcel,which would be all of one single piece of land,all of parcel B,all of
the CUP area. All of Parcel A,with a 50' access out to Ellington Road. Just by the intersection
here, as shown on this plan. And filed an application for a zone change,uh that was part of the
recitation of the history the parcel that Peter DeMallie provided at our last meeting. We showed you
at the last meeting,a proposed subdivision which contemplated access through Parcel B,coming
across the CUP area,developing this parcel,and exiting out onto Ellington or further to the north,
here. That application was,as some people will recall I think the chairperson remembered that
application,as denied. Subsequently,what was clear was that there would be no access to the north.
It required a crossing of a large band of wetlands, and then a large band of flood zone an area
identified as within the 100 year flood area. And so there could be no access to the north. This had
2
been deemed unacceptable for many of the same reasons plus it location with all of the intersections
there. So Mr. Ireland then acquired 4.386 acres,which is this parcel,it's at a different scale
obviously,than this map. Ellington Road is shown at the south part of this parcel,and is the steam,
Ruralty Steam parcel,which is this piece,here. So that line matches this line. That parcel was
appended to Parcel A. And Bridlewood Road,then came out through what had been the Steam piece.
That would be this line,which matches with this. And that's how Bridlewood gained it's exit out to
Ellington Road,through the acquisition of an additional piece of property.
As I said, 1964,Mr. Ireland bought the property from Patsy Breglia as this piece, in its entirety.
When he purchased it it was subject to a 150' right-of-way in favor of Connecticut Light and Power,
which ran through the center of this area shown as CL&P. About 12 months later,in July of 1965,
Mr. Ireland conveyed to the Connecticut Light and Power Company a parcel that is about 6.3 acres.
So that by virtue of the conveyance of this parcel,Parcel A was forever separated from Parcel B.
Leaving only a 50' right-of-way in favor of Ireland which matches up with the end of Bridlewood
Road. That's,we had a discussion at the last meeting as to why it would be a much greater
environment impact and wetlands impact,to cross and access the proposed development from the
east along this 50' right-of-way,this is the document that reserves a right-of-way. It's specifically
identifies it's location and it's uses,to service the property to the west,but it's location is fixed by
this document.
So that I have for you tonight,copies of all of the supporting deeds which match up with these
conveyances. This was a prelot subdivision done on Ellington Road of these three parcels in 1977.
So if you follow the pattern, 1964 Mr. Ireland buys this piece out to Ellington Road from Mr. Breglia.
It came around the Zimmer property out along Ellington Road back in and then back out. 1965 he
sells off to CL&P as part of their acquisition of this entire main transmission 300' right-of-way and
fee ownership piece,dividing Parcel A and B,reserving a 50' right-of-way. 1977,he does a three-lot
subdivision. 1985 he does a double A 30,I'm sorry,a single A-30, open space subdivision known as
Bridlewood. Again Parcel B,the parcel we're discussing now is left a side on the westerly side of the
CL&P easement.
So that since 1965, 30 years now,Parcel B has been a separate and distinct piece of Parcel A by
virtue of this CL&P ownership of that 300' strip that passes through basically,north to south across
this property and obviously many others,in both directions.
So that for your understanding of how this piece came into being, is a pretty complete explanation of
the title background,and what Mr. Ireland went through to develop Parcel A, and how this parcel
came into being this 50' right-of-way crossing.
But, excuse me,but the acreage for this parcel that's being development, still has not been divided
from the other Parcel,the rest,from the whole piece?
This this parcel has been divided by virtue of the 1965 deeding of this 300' piece. This is owned,this
is not a right-of-way to CL&P,it's owned by CL&P. Ireland owns this,Ireland did own that,now it
doesn't. It's developed it, and sold off lots, still have . . . And um, does not own this.
3
�2kw So we have a complete separate piece of ownership in the middle there.
t� Yes,that's correct. This piece is owned by CL&P and they're shown on our notice list,they've got
l•� noticing this as a separate owner.
We had the opportunity to review, do you have any questions about that. I'll be happy to . .
I do.
The p . . is it okay if I stand on this side,since the only people here are polite people.
"t4LI- As long as Peter and uh Bob don't mind,I think it's okay(Laughter)
The right-of-way that way conveyed or the that land that went um the CL&P easement.
CCLt`Ph Right.
6-�LA�� Is that an easement is that or is it just. . .
No. It's a warrantied deed.
Conveyed to them.
From Ireland to CL&P.
All right. Now,that little connector there between the two parcels,what is that?
ateThat's a reservation,which you'll see in the deed,which I'll submit for the record,which states that
Philip Ireland has the right to install a road,in this 50' strip. Coming from the end of Bridlewood.
Okay.
Across for purposes of ingress and egress to get to his other parcel. He reserved that in it's in the
conveyance to CL&P. Of course when he did it in 1965 there were no wetland regulations. There
was no,nobody fought about whether this location would work from a development standpoint. It
seemed like a natural thing to do. This road fell here,take it off the end of the road, and continues
straight across. CL&P insisted it go pretty much perpendicular to it's property. So,it passes under
it's transmission lines on a perpendicular. And it really did not address the issue of whether or not
that could ever be built and what Mr. Arsenault testified to at our last hearing is that the implication
to the wetlands of accessing this parcel,there's that 50' access way. Would be significantly greater
than the environmental impact that we are proposing by crossing Plum Gully Brook. The other
aspect of that,which we really didn't touch on last time is,that to access this parcel through
Bridlewood if it cross that,would violate the requirements of distance access that the zoning
regulations hold with respect to development like this and have a significant problem since we
couldn't comply with the regulation. Um,if we didn't have another way in to the property at all,or
4
we had a way that had more environment impact it might be appropriate to try to convince the Zoning
Board of Appeals that we had a hardship. But the fact of the matter is based on Bob's analysis, we
would do far more wetlands disturbance coming this way than the way we proposed to come. Thank
YOU.
For clarification,the property north of Parcel B,was never owned?
CQ No.
All right.
This is the original Breglia ownership line. Property to the north was never owned by Ireland or
anybody in that family. That's correct.
How was this five and a half acre plot that's the subject of this application created. When was that
4"f4-) created.
It hasn't yet been created. Um,that would be a matter for the Planning and Zoning Commission in
our application. We have to have 200' of frontage along a public right-of-way. That's really how
GAVU Design Professionals arrived at the configuration that you see. Again,utilizing the uplands areas that
are available on the site. So that in some respects, it is an this line, is an arbitrary line drawn by us.
That does not represent a present subdivision of the property. Part of this application, if it goes
forward in this configuration,would be to request that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve
the division of the property. If I can't convince them that it's a free cut,based on the fact that this
piece has never been divided
Any other questions?
o�� Jeffs Okay,with respect to George Logan's review and response to analysis of our original plan,
l� (counting)I'll give you um,the one's I can surrender. We can certainly provide more copies.
kay,you can do whatever you want with those. I'll keep this one.
What George did was he took Jeff's comments and met with Mr. Uccello and Design Professionals
and made a series of suggestions in response to what Jeff was talking about. And what I'm going to
ask Bob to do is to briefly explain the areas that we've been able to find to respond to George and
Jeff's suggestions.
Yeah,Bob basically what a key area is (can't hear too many papers shuffling)time to digest a
report,I'm sure. There are two areas,one was a Swale as you remember on the north side of these
buildings here there's a swale,a grass Swale. One of the things that Jeff Folger was talking to us
C"4civa about,with George and I was perhaps doing something through the planting of certain plant species
and materials through there. To help with the water quality of the water from this part of the site.
Which would be from,you know,the rears of these buildings and so forth as it runs down to the rear.
So George has detailed in the report you have there before you,certain types of plant species that he's
5
proposing to plant through here,which would help to mitigate some of the concerns that Jeff had as
a far as various pollutants and so forth, that would be coming through there. That was one area. The
other area,which actually it's something that would kill two birds with one stone,just to back up a
little bit. You did receive the revised memo,or an additional memo from the Town Engineer. I did
meet with Jerry lazzetta last week. Went through all the drainage with him concerning his first
memo. Gave him additional information. We sat and we talked about how things work and he
basically was satisfied with the concerns he raised in those memos and the only additional comment
he wanted to make was concerning the discharge at our discharge point,which comes out of the
detention tanks that we talked about last time. He was requesting that there be something in the area
at the discharge that could velocity Jeff was talking about. Jeff Folger was talking about possibly
doing something there for water quality. So,basically in meeting with George Logan and also
discussing with Jeff lazzetta how we would do,and also Jeff Folger how we would do it,we came up
with a solution which something that we haven't had to draw the plans where we will have them
before the next meeting. Is this headwall,which is at the outlet end of the proposed box culvert, 2 x
6 box culvert. The proposal was from the last discharge sediment or detention tank,the pipe would
come out of the tank and go into that headwall. It's about 20' away. One of the things we decided to
do was to extend that headwall and butt it right up against the tank, so that at the tank there will be
the headwall,the culvert,with the discharge hole at the bottom of it for the stormwater. Then in that
area which is 20' long and about 15 wide,what George was talking about was creating a plunge pool.
And that would satisfy Jerry as far as his erosion in terms for a plunge pool at that location. But also
rather than planting it or just placing rip rap, like a normal plunge pool is, in George's report which
you see,he get's into some detail as to how you can plant. You can take some of the wetlands soils,
which we excavated into crossing,and transplant them or transpose over to that area. And then line it
with wetlands plants or soils,plant cattails,that kind of thing. So that actually what you'd have is a
small pool at the outlet. So that the discharge would then pass through that pool. The vegetation and
so forth would filter out some of the pollutants before the water eventually enters into the brook. So
basically like I said,we're trying to kill two birds with one stone as far as velocities for discharge
with Jerry and what Jeff was talking about for pollutants. So that's basically the game plan at this
time. Any questions?
Given that the fact of the size of that planted area's going to pretty small,you still going to be able to
JW+1 handle like a first flush type storm,hydraulically.
Yes,we looked at what we could do with a tank,and in George Logan's original report,I think he
adiscusses the first flush through there. There's a pretty good volume of in these tanks alone for
sedimentation control. It's like having another 12 catch basins.
I mean from a water standpoint,and at the outlet. After you go over that stone burnam into the
planted area. That's the area I'm referring to.
Oh okay. Um,as far as George,and unfortunately he's not here,but he assured us that the 20 x 15'
was what was really necessary in a waterfront first flush.
Uh,I think they have a(said quietly)
6
Um,I just wanted to make sure I understood the as far as your discussions with Mr. Iazzetta,this was
aib� his last comment and everything else. You're satisfied with the modifications made to the plans.
Yes, correct.
CLA,tV-, So we need,okay we would expect a memo from him.
A � Yeah,that was my understanding. In his original memo he was looking for certain information. We
C/ '� met,I gave him the information. We discussed it.
The original.
Yes,we've got the original.
t �The original but not anything updated.
But not the subsequent. . .
Pardon?
Nothing from after that except the . . .
This one here.
Yeah.
Yeah I think we do have one.
We had at the first meeting,which raised several issues.
Right.
Ch, Those have now been addressed and they raised an additional issue on this one.
Had a memo on
Does everybody have the September 11, 1996 memo?
Yes.
Okay.
Jeff and Jerry?
„��,, It was on the back from Jeff's . . .
7
That's the one we're talking about.
Yeah,it's on the back of this letter.
So that's the latest?
That's the latest?
No. Today we submitted this which is simply a handwritten note by him indicating this an issue of
the . To our understanding all his other issues are resolved. But we'll get a memo.
That was my understanding.
Does everybody have the memo from Jeff dated September 26, 1996?
With regard to that swale and that,now that we're putting plantings back there and I think some
berms,that just brings to the obvious question,what's to prevent people from going back there with a
lawnmower or weedwacker and just cutting everything down. Is that property, is the common owned,
going to be owned by an association,or. .
Yes. This will be all of the land will be owned in common,by an association. This will not be a
situation where people own parcels and around their units. And my understanding of the swale,
particularly reading George's report,you've haven't had the advantage of doing that,is that it's a
grassy swale,that is customarily mowed a couple of times a year,with a mulching mower. And that
the plantings that would act as buffering, are on the tops of the swale,where the water is not run. So
that the central area and sure the grasses are wet at this a trap. And then it would be sort of buffered
out by using a like hybrish bloom(?)and that type of thing. CP,caP��
Okay.
To basically keep people from it. And you know,because I'm sure they're going to have a contract
to do some of the mowing and so forth around the buildings,to keep that person out of there it's
going to be buffered out by some plantings,and so forth. So it's not going to be it's not going to look
like
I know what you mean,okay.
I think that the commission is going to be looking forward to Jeff's comments regarding the meeting,
uh subsequent meeting and discussions that took place in response to Jerry's memo.
Okay.
8
And also we would like him obviously to respond to and react to George's recommendations or I
don't I certainly would say we're guessing because it's a result of discussions that they had before
Lhu Jeff went on vacation. That George made these recommendations which you will incorporate into
the plan for the next meeting. But we wanted the commission to be aware of it or which we're
making progress in those areas that Jeff has suggested we do that.
I can't hear you.
I don't have a copy of what they passed out tonight.
No,you don't have it,I have it. This is the original.
Oh.
Owl U- I have the original.
G The new report.
No,you don't have a copy. What I'll do is I'll make a copy,and send you all a copy,okay? All right.
I guess one other thing I'd like to point out and from Jeffs memo,the September 25th memo,I guess
there's still concern about whether or not perimeter plantings and I assume he means south of those
units. 11, 12 or 13 in that area,and maybe south of those road is not being adequate because of the
stream is already g takin out a lot of nutrients. And I was wondering if you were able to address that
or . . .
i And maybe George's report does,I don't know,but.
G� I know that George and Jeff discussed this. This is the area you're talking about?
Yes.
And um,my recollection is although I can't say it because we haven't revised the plan that far,is that
they've talked about some species that species of plants that Jeff was looking for to go in that buffer
area. Obviously we don't want to go cut something down to plant something. But in the area around
units that to be developed room(tape change)for additional plantings. And I know that
George has already indicated to Jeff that as soon as they can get a digest of what those plants would
be,they'll be added to the plan. We don't have a problem with that.
Okay. Short of that,and I'm just going throw this out,it seems to me that that area is being
developed very intensely. There's a lot of activity in the buffer and um you might want to sort of
look down the road and wonder if somebody's going to ask you to reduce the number of units over in
that area maybe by a unit. Just to by doing that you'd move take a lot of activity out of the buffer,I
think. And moving activity up towards the road,and that's,you know,I haven't read George's
report. I don't know what he and Jeff have discussed but,that thought doesn't,you know,I'm having
9
a hard time justifying the intensity of the development in that area,short of whatever else might be
proposed.
This one.
I2ight.
Q tMj We can certainly look at that.
Okay.
QI J Urn,I've never had a wetlands commission to reduce the intensity of the development before.
Well,that's why I wasn't going to it,and then I'm not asking you to. I'm just saying that I feel like
An& it's going to come out.
CI understand.
O' It's going to be all lawn right up to the edge of the wetlands and uh just. .
We can certainly first of all find out what Jeff and George came up with and see how that's going.
And then we can certainly look at this area in terms of the impacts. And ask George to take a special
look at that and then communicate with Jeff about it.
Okay.
Yeah,to go along with Phil's comment there, it does concern me. All three of those of units, for all
aA�� practical purposes, are entirely within the buffer zone. It's not that they're going to impact the buffer
zone,they're in it.
I certainly am aware of how commissions do buffer zones. And I think the issue of (?
WKhV ?)is whether the activity in the buffer zone is impactful on the wetlands area. That's the
purpose of the buffer is to protect the wetlands. So the question is whether or not what's going on
there will have an adverse impact on the wetland adjacent to it. I would leave that to George and Jeff
to talk about and to decide whether what we'd propose is mitigation and additional plantings and
buffering is adequate. Or whether or not we may have to revisit that triangle and see if there's a
different design configuration that would work better, Um,the site,by regulation,can accept up to
20 units. We've,Mr. Uccello, doesn't want to built 20 units. We could fit 20 units,some would be
smaller than the ones you see. But what he wants to build is a rather high end development with
larger units and fewer units. There is a point where fewer units is too few units . .
I understand.
. . .and economically impossible. But we will you can certainly what I'm saying. And we will
certainly have that area addressed.
10
wakfili-I Could you explain a little further what you mean by can fit 20 units by regulation.
The SRD regulation restricts an SRD development to up to 20 units based on a certain calculations
and densities. But the piece we have actually,based on the density calculation would let 24 units fit
here.
That's based on the 5-1/2 acres or based on buildable land.
Nope. Based on this piece of 5-1/2 acres we're showing. And um Peter has those calculations in his
report,I think. So that the 23 or 24 units can only be 20 by zoning regulation, the SRD permits no
more than 20 in one of these developments. But in fact,and in fact we did a layout just to see if it
could be done,where you eliminate garages and reduce the size of each unit,you could create a
development of 20 units. Basically the same footprints. Slightly more than you see here. But,again
at a density and a development that Mr. Uccello didn't like from a marketing standpoint and also
from an aesthetic standpoint,he just didn't think it was what he wanted to be involved in. In Peter
DeMallie's report,that we submitted at the last meeting,relative to conforming with zoning SRD
density formula,allows up to 20 units on the subject 5.47 acres, With 2,98 acres of wetlands,the
site is 2.49 net buildable acres,which would translate into 24.9 units. Ten units to the acre. But the
maximum of 20 would control. Urn,we are about half the permitted density with out proposed 13
units. Peter has done that calculation at my request. And(mumbling).
But we're saying, or we're assuming best case scenario that would apply to upland area,no wetland
area.
No. That's based on calculating only uplands.
Right.
To developability and based on the 2-1/2 acres we have of non-wetland in this 5.4 acre parcel,we
could develop 25 units. And we could fit 25 units. They would be 750 square feet or 800 square feet
A, each. Wouldn't have a garage and um basically you can see that it would work, simply by taking all
these 1,400 square foot units and out of these one,two,three, four,you could probably get seven
small units. If that's what you chose to build,or propose. That's not what the kind of housing that
Mr. Uccello company builds,nor is it what it wants to market here. Doesn't fit with the
neighborhood. It's not what we think is the target market that we want to achieve. And it would be
too dense. It would be too dense. We acknowledge that. It's not anything that he's really seriously
considered beyond looking at what it would look like on a map.
I guess it's certainly clear,but I it more confused me. The area that you're talking about,and I
forget the two point what?
(I)- 2.49,two and a half acres.
2.49. So you're saying by regulation 24 units could be built in 2.49.
II
Ten units to the acre.
All right. And that's including the buffer.
CtttU), It's the way the zoning regulation works,it's either wetland or non-wetland.
i(tk4j4,tL Right. So that's what I'm saying,best case scenario it doesn't take any other requirement.
(ILtuu That's the way the zoning regulation was written.
l),L Okay. That's what I wasn't. .
It's a density calculation.
Uh,I presume that you're going to leave the public hearing open until the next meeting? Um, in
order to get Mr. Folger's comments. W. lazzetta's memo and any response that we might have to
that.
v What's the commission think?
Yes. Yes.
Considering Jeff isn't here tonight.
Right.
And then again,as I indicated at the last meeting,obviously we would hope that you don't close the
public hearing unit all those comments are made part of the record,so that we have the opportunity to
respond during the public hearing.
Yes.
The only other issue I have,and the only other question I have,I noticed that this matter's also listed
in for discussion and general meeting. I presume there will be a discussion. So that we could go
home.
QUA Does make a difference. It's just there just in case.
Right. So then I'm just confirming it won't be discussed.
No.
So that we can leave.
12
Yes.
Again,it would reiterate if you have questions after you review these materials if you'd pass them on
to Jeff or through the chair,I will be happy to try to find the answers for the next meeting rather than
drag the proceeding out. Mr. Logan will be here at the next meeting,as will all of us. And we will
submit all of these plus copies of the deeds for the record tonight.
Yep.
Thank you.
And that concludes our presentation,unless there are more questions.
Now,Mr. Arsenault I only have this that you're submitting tonight?
That. Mr. Iazzetta's report.
I have that.
These are all the deeds I referred to
Okay.
And you have a copy of this one?
No.
Phyllis,I don't think that's the original.
I have the original.
That's not the original.
Right. But she's saying she has the original.
I have it.
Oh,the original of that.
Yeah.
Yes, see Audrey.
�c, Thought you meant the original report.
13
Okay,the public hearing is continued.
e