Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Subdivision - Conservation (5)
D.E C 1qR 1 TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR tA%t(.do INLAND WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES APPLICATION INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY ACTION THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE RECEIVED BY THE INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY AT THE REGULAR- LY SCHEDULED MEETING ON THE SECOND MON- APPLICATION NO. DAY OF THE MONTH AT THE TOWN HALL. RECEIVED DATE_I THIS APPLICATION MUST BE FILED IN TRIPLICATE AT THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK. TOWN OF b PUBLIC HEARING DATE SOUTH WINDSOR, AT LEAST TEN DAYS PRIOR TO (if necessary) COMPLETED APPLICATION THE REGULAR MEETING DATE. PERMIT GRANTED DATE 1 1 i�� A SET OF PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE u-- TOWN ENGINEER AT LEAST TEN DAYS PRIOR TO PERMIT DENIED DATE THE REGULAR MEETING DATE. a PLEASE PRINT. + 1. APPLICANT 3� � f��$:�ilflsa '` '',+l rr TEL. NO. C' �/ P5> ADDRESS ����r'�-�v / .�� XYCITY & STATE ✓� Gam,?�r��y.� �/����i � 2. OWNER TEL. NO. ADDRESS CITY & STATE 3. LOCATION OF PROPERTY MA-IW P1ZEC--�f' NAMES OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS L It�tv�iGn�t� F-. AD.sbihlC-W tq LI LIcT"1-I 14 ZI-SL-IF`f, L I N W O O Z3 F, N&b(r.LC�To t-{ mbidro4 �iktM�L1't/a+- +'7o AK cdl;�ItL�G _ Sul aa�.( A. Bt�I�ICC2�a�T, (� huciz I4dSIl_I t47 rD A. P® L.P. STATE CLEARLY AND BRIEFLY 5. PURPOSES AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY,AND THE TIME ELEMENT INVOLVED: iZ W'r's — nczeEf ATTENTION: THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS APPLICATION IS TO BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE ONLY WHEN ALL INFORMATION & DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY THE AGENCY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. APPROVAL MAY ALSO BE NECESSARY FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM- MISSION. { I A FIFTEEN DOLLAR ($15) APPLICATION FEE IS REQUIRED, AND IT MUST—BE SUB- +� MITTED TO THE AGENCY AT ITS REGULAR MEETING. SIGNED: (Applicant) (Owner) Revised 3/78 STATUTORY FORM WARRANTY DEED ANDRE L. CHARBONNEAU, of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, and FRANCIS V. ROSSI, of the Town of Bloom- field, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut for consideration paid in the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (225,000) DOLLARS grants to JOSEPH M. BOUFFARD, INCORPORATED, of 1474 Main Street, South Windsor, CT 06074 with WARRANTY COVENANTS Those certain pieces or parcels of land situated in the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, more particularly shown and described as LOTS 3 through 14 inclusive on a map or plan entitled "PLOT PLAN ROSSI & CHARBONNEAU MAIN STREET SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT .date: 12-23-81 scale: 1"=40 ' drawn by: J.D. checked by: M.S . job no. 762 sheet no 1 STRAUSS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. AVON, CONNECTICUT ENGINEERS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS - SURVEYORS REV. 6-13-8311 , which map or plan is on file in the Office of the South Windsor Town Clerk, to which reference may be had. Said premises are subject to the following: Drainage Right of Way across Lot 14 in favor of the Town of South Windsor, as shown on said map, dated 11-2-83, and not yet recorded. Conservation Easement over Lot 14 in favor of the Town of South Windsor, as shown on said map, dated 9-6-83, and not yet recorded. Fifteen (15) foot storm sewer easement and right to drain over Lot 10 , as shown on said map, in favor of the Town of South Windsor, dated ll-.8-83 and not yet recorded. Twenty (20). foot Utility Easement over Lot 7, as shown on said map, in favor of the Town of South Windsor, dated 11-2-83, and not yet recorded. Ten (10) foot Utility Easement over Lot 8, as shown on said map, in favor of the Town of South Windsor, dated 11-2-83, and not yet recorded. Temporary cul de sac over Lots 6 and 7, as shown on said map, in favor of the Town of South Windsor, which land is to revert to Lot 6 and 7, partly to each, when this cul de sac is removed. Agreement with Linwood and Elizabeth Addington dated 6-30-83 for con- struction of clay barrier and recorded 7-12-84 in Vol 378 Pg 89 of the South Windsor Land Records. Agreement dated 12-10-75 and recorded 10-3-78 in Vol 250 Pg 327 of the South Windsor Land Records regarding sewer and water lines on these premises and adjoining land. Sewer Caveat in favor of the Town of South Windsor dated 1-13-76 and recorded in Vol 203 Pg 340 of the South Windsor Land Records. Certificate of Notice of Installment Payment of Assessment of Benefits in favor of the South Windsor Tax Collector with a .principal balance due of $2,730.00 recorded 5-5-82 in Vol 314 Pg 242 of the South Windsor Land Records. Subject to conditions contained in a Declaration of Slope Rights dated 11-28-83 and not yet recorded. Building, building line, regulations and approvals of the Planning & Zoning, Inland Wetlands, Conservation and Historic District Commis- sions of the Town of South Windsor. Taxes on the List of 10-1-84, which the Grantee herein assumes and agrees to pay. Together with the right to pass and repass, over those parcels of land shown on the above referenced map as "OXBOW LANE" and "OLD PARISH DRIVE" , specifically including that northerly portion of Old Parish Drive shown on said map as "RESERVED FOR FUTURE ROAD" , and to enter upon said parcels for purposes of road construction according to Town specifications. Together with rights as contained in an easement from Linwood and Elizabeth Addington dated 6-30-83 and recorded in Vol 373 Pg 71 of the South Windsor Land Records. Together with Slope Rights by virtue of a Declaration of Slope Rights dated 11-28-83 and not yet recorded. Being the same premises conveyed to the Grantors herein by Warranty Deed dated and recorded 12-10-75 in Vol 202 Pg 153 excepting there- from those portions shown on the above-referenced map and designated as "OXBOW LANE" and "OLD PARISH DRIVE" , specifically including in this exception that northerly portion of Old Parish Drive shown on said map as "RESERVED FOR FUTURE ROAD" . Signed this 30'th day of November, 1984. Witnessed by: ,7 / w William E. Grac ' A DRE L. CHARBONNEAU _Lee i Nance Kriscenski Casti to �.. F OSSI William E. Grace Nance Kriscenski Casti to STATE OF CONNECTICUT ) *. ss. Hartford November 30 , 1984 COUNTY OF HARTFORD ) Personally appeared, ANDRE L. CHARBONNEAU and FRANCIS V. ROSSI, Signers of the foregoing Instrument and acknowledged the same to be their free act and deed before me. WILLIAM E. GRACE Commissioner of the Superior Court A P P E A L TO THE SUPERIOR COURT, FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN, to be held at Hartford, on the FOURTH TUESDAY OF FEBRUARY, 1982, come LINWOOD ADDINGTON, ELIZABETH ADDINGTON and NANCY CAFFYN, all of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut; appealing from a decision of the INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY, TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, and FRANK ROSSI of the Town of Bloomfield, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, and ANDRE CHARBONNEAU of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, and complain and say: 1. The Defendants, ANDRE CHARBONNEAU and FRANK ROSSI applied to the Defendant, INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY of the Town of South Windsor on or about January 11, 1982 to conduct an Inland-Wetlands regulated activity on property located on Main Street, in the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut. On December 31, 1981, a copy. of said application was filed with the Town Clerk pursuant to regulations of the Defendant, INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY. A copy of said application is hereby attached and designated Exhibit A of this Appeal as if fully set forth herein. 2. The Defendants proposed a subdivision of twelve (12) lots on said property which was the subject matter of said application. ROBERTO & FARR ATTORNEYS AT LAW 547 BURNSIDE AVE. EAST HARTFORD.CT.06108 (203) 568-8910 - - 3. On January 11, 1982 at a meeting held by the Defendant INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY of the Town of South Windsor, the Defendants, ANDRE CHARBONNEAU and FRANK ROSSI, at a public hearing, presented their application. 4. At said January 11, 1982 public hearing concerning the Defendants, ANDRE CHARBONNEAU and FRANK ROSSI's application, no testimony in opposition to said application was presented nor were there any items of correspondence entered into the record in objection thereto. 5. After concluding the public hearing on said application, the Defendant, INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY of the Town of South Windsor, approved said application subject to certain conditions being fulfilled by the Defendants, ANDRE CHARBONNEAU and FRANK ROSSI. 6. Subsequent to said January 11, 1982 public hearing, legal notice of said approval was published in the Journal Enquirer on Monday, January 18, 1982. A copy of said notice is hereby attached and designated Exhibit B of this Appeal as if fully set forth herein. 7. The INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY of the Town of South Windsor in contradiction to its published regulations, in particular, Section 9.3, which . states, "All public hearings shall commence not sooner than thirty (30) nor later than sixty-five (65) days after the receipt of a complete application," and Section 9.4 which states, "Notice of the hearing shall be published at least twice at intervals of not less than two days, the first not more than fifteen days and not fewer than ten days, and the last not less than two days before the date set for the hearing in a newspaper having a general ROBERTO & FARR ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2 E47 SURNSIDE AVE. EAST HARTFORD,CT-06108 - (203) U68-8910 circulation in each town where the affected wetlands or water courses are located," failed to properly notice members of the general public including all of the Defendants. 8. The Defendants, ANDRE CHARBONNEAU and FRANK ROSSI, furthermore failed to properly comply with Section 6.3a of the INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY of the Town of South Windsor Regulations, which states, "The applicant shall be responsible for displaying a sign on the property that states that an application is pending before the Agency. The sign shall be visible from a Town street and shall be displayed for at least five (5) continuous days before the scheduled meeting. The applicant may obtain the sign at the Town Engineering Department," in that: a. Said Defendants failed to display said sign in such a manner that it was visible from a Town street for five (5) continuous days and that said sign was merely thrown upon the snow lying on the ground facing the sky and was not open and visible. b. The Plaintiffs, because of the failure of the Defendant, INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY of the Town of South Windsor, and the actions of the Defendants, ANDRE CHARBONNEAU and FRANK ROSSI, were improperly deprived of their constitutional right to appear at said public hearing and to object to said application and to present witnesses of their own in opposition thereto and to conduct a cross-examination of the applicants and their witnesses and to conduct a cross-examination of any advisor ROBERTO & FARR ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3 847 BURNSIDE AVE. EAST HARTFORD.CT.06108 (203) 588-8910 of said Agency as to his findings and recommendations relative to this application. 9. In approving said application, said Agency acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretionary powers: a. In determining that the activity involved was not a "significant activity" within the meaning of the regulations; b. In not finding a substantial environmental impact of the proposed activity; c. In that said approval constituted the equivalent of a taking of the Plaintiff's property without due compensation in violation of their constitutional rights; d. In that it did not properly balance any impact on the environment against the deprivation and loss of use of the Plaintiff's property rights; e. In that it did not find that the impact on the environment, if any, was minimal and temporary; f. In that it did not properly consider the criteria required by its regulations, particularly Section 10.2 a-f; g. In that said approval will cause injustice, loss of income, and unusual hardship to the Plaintiffs; h. In that the application was approved without a rational basis; i. In that the reasons assigned by the Defendant, ROBERTO & FARR ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4 1147 BURNSIDE AVE. - EAST HARTFORD,CT.06108 (ZO3) 568-8910 - INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY of the Town of South Windsor, for its action were not supported by the evidence; j. In that the Plaintiffs, LINWOOD ADDINGTON and ELIZABETH ADDINGTON, will suffer irreparable harm to their property, to wit, a pond used for swimming as a direct result of the approval of said application; k. In that the Plaintiff, NANCY CAFFYN, will suffer irreparable harm to her property in that a swamp will be created on the rear portion thereof; 1. In that a retention basin will create an attractive nuisance thereby endangering children in the immediate area of the property which is the subject matter of said application. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs appeal to this Court from said action of E the Defendant, INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY of the Town of South Windsor, in approving said application, and claim, by way of relief: 1. A reversal and/or modification of said decision, and an order that said application be denied. 2 Such other relief as may be equitable or appropriate. PLAINTIFFS ,j By 161 tA>jLin1V t .?)i_3 William A. Roberto for Roberto, Farr and Heffernan Their Attorneys 3 ROBERTO & FARR r C '• f t' ATTORNEYS AT LAW Y" 047 BURNSIDE AVE. EAST HARTFORD.CT.06108 (203) 568.8910 �' , R E C O G N I Z A N C E You, LINWOOD ADDINGTON as Principal and ANTHONY A. ROBERTO as Surety, acknowledge yourselves jointly and severally bound to the INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, in a recognizance of Two Hundred Fifty ($250) Dollars, that the said plaintiffs shall prosecute the action which they have commenced against the INLAND-WETLANDS AGENCY OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain to be held at Hartford, on the Fourth Tuesday of February, 1982, to full effect and will comply with the orders and decrees of the Court, and that it shall pay any costs for which judgment may be rendered against them thereon. Taken and acknowledged at East Hartford, Connecticut, this 28th day of January, 1982, before me. Principal Tn Surety Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of January, 1982. William A. Roberto i Commissioner of the Superior Courts -- z ROBERTO & FARR ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6 547 BURNSIDE AVE. - EAST HARTFORD,CT.05108 - (203) 548-8810 IMPORTANT TO ALL MAIN STREET RESIDENTS ON NOVEMBER 9 , 1982, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WILL HEAR A REQUEST FOR A 12-LOT DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF MAIN STREET - NORTH OF IDA POLA'S HOUSE (1576 MAIN) . AS MAIN STREET RESIDENTS KNOW, THIS AREA IS A NATURAL WATER- SHED AND IS PART OF THE WETLAND AREA. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TOO WET TO BUILD ON AND HAD BEEN LEFT IN AN UNDEVELOPED STATUS THROUGHOUT THESE YEARS . THE WATERSHED HAS SUPPLIED WATER TO MAIN ST. HOMES NEARBY. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, TWO HOMES WERE BUILT ON A PORTION OF THIS LAND AND AN APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF THE REST OF THE PROPERTY. A LAW SUIT INITIATED BY LIN ADDITINGTON WAS SUCCESSFUL IN FINDING INADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTICE HAD BEEN GIVEN PRIOR TO RECEIVING APPROVAL FROM INLAND-WETLANDS AND THE APPROVAL WAS VOIDED. THIS PAST WINTER, ANOTHER APPLICATION WAS MADE TO INLAND WETLANDS WHICH WAS APPROVED, AND ANOTHER LAWSUIT WAS INITIATED BY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS -AS AGAIN : THERE WAS INADEQUATE POSTING OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC WAS NOT AWARE OF THE UPCOMING HEARING. NOW THE DEVELOPERS HAVE INITIATED A THIRD APPLICATION - THIS TIME DIRECTLY TO THE PLANNING $ ZONING COMM. REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A .12-LOT DEVELOPMENT OFF OF MAIN ST. USING THE FRONT "MAIN ST." LOT AS A RETENTION POND. (SEE ATTACHED SKETCH.) THE PLAN IS TO DIG OUT A LARGE RETENTION POND (6 0' x 12C' LONG AND 7 ' DEEP) TO ACT AS A HOLDING POND FOR WATER DISPLACED BY THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. A 12" PIPE WILL BE INSTALLED AT THE BOTTOM AND WILL RUN INTO A 15" PIPE UNDER THE ROAD WITH THE WATER FLOWING ONTO THE PROPERTY OF DR. LINDQUIST'S (FORMERLY ELLEN MC GRATH) ; CROSSING HIS PROPERTY ; FLOWING ALONG THE MASON HALL'S LAND, AND CROSSING THE CAFFYNS ' BACK LAND EVENTUALLY -LOCATING IN THE PASTURE AND FARM LAND WHICH HAS ALREADY. BEEN EFFECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE .FIRST :TWO - . • HOMES AND HAS CAUSED PONDING AND SWAMPY CONDITIONS . . RESIDENTS LOCATED NEAR THE AREA HAVE BANDED TOGETHER BY AIRING AN ATTORNEY TO FIGHT THIS POSED PROJECT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 1 . THE RETENTION POND (OR CRATER) WILL ACT AS A SFIZ1OUS IIAZAIZII TO THE WELL BEING OF YOUNG CHILDREN LIVING NEARBY . NO FENCE IS REQUIRED EVEN THOUGH IT WILL BE 7 ' DEEP. 2 . THE "POND" WILL BE AN UNATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND WILL HAVE NO ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS UPKEEP AND MAINTENACE. THERE IS NO MONEY BUDGETED BY THE TOWN TO TAKE CARE OF THIS TYPE OF POND AND TO PREVENT WATER FROM STAGNATING WHICH COULD CAUSE SMELLS AND MOSQUITO INFESTATION. WHEN THE BUILDER IS THROUGH, HE WALKS AWAY. WHO IS BURDENED BY THE WORRY AND THE EYESORE OF A LARGE OVERGROWN- HOLE IN THE GROUND - SOMETIMES FILLED WITH WATER. 3 . THE SCHEME INCLUDES THE WATER FLOWING ONTO THE PROPERTIES OF DR. LINDQUIST AND THE CAFFYNS . WE DO NOT FEEL PROPERTY OWNERS ' SHOULD HAVE THEIR PROPERTY DEPRECIATED AND DAMAGED JUST, TO ALLOW BUILDERS TO MAKE A BUCK. DISPLACING WATER FROM ONE AREA TO ANOTHER WITHOUT PERMISSION OR RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. 4 . THE OPENING UP OF THIS WATERSHED WITH THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM REQUIRED TO BUILD WILL MUMTICALLY LOWER. THE WATER LEVEL AND CAUSE HARDSHIP TO HOMES DEPENDENT ON THIS WATER SOURCE FOR WATER. 5 . THE LOCATIONS OF THESE PROPOSED HOUSES IS IN THE HISTORICAL AREA. THE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT WILL CAUSE BACKYARDS TO BE SEEN FROM THE MAIN STREET AND FROM -EXISTING HOMES THEREBY DIMINISHING THE EFFECT OF OUR STREET. THE HISTORICAL AREA WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT THE AREA AND RETAIN ITS ORIGINAL FLAVOR. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CAUSE AN UNATTRACTIVE CHANGE. THE "CRATER" WILL FURTHER DIMINISH ANYTHING "HISTORICAL" . WE CANNOT DO IT ALONE. WE ASK YOU TO COME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AT 8 O'CLOCK ON TUESDAY EVENING ON NOVEMBER 9 , 1982 AT THE TOWN HALL. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF BACKLAND TO BE DEVELOPED ON MAIN STREET. WE SHOULD INSIST THAT ANY SUCH DEVELOPMENT BE DONE WITHOUT DAMAGING OR DEPRECIATING ANYONE 'S PROPERTY OR BY BUILDING A MASSIVE "EYESORE" ON THE STREET. WE NEED YOUR HELP: : : NOVEMBER 9tI-, 1982 8 O' CLOCK TUESDAY EVENING TOWN HALL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 0 w P hJ►N1�111LNIdG COKr'15SI THIS ♦APPL1'PLICJITI0N SHALL iE ACC£!Z� RY RECEICJiD DA • � NC AND ZONING COMMISSION AT tLCFIS►s<D LATi: �' _ �'� Y SCHEDULED MrXnNC ON THE AT l RO tEA2. Du1TX: _ _ :. -t - - T1FSDAY OF 2lT MOIttN. IT SH&U RE.TEt7ED dl SUBMITTED TO THE PIAMI NC AND uCEITZ * OW ZORINC C0M MISSI0N OFFICE ONE I � ) YFEK tRIOR TO THE FOURTH T4ES"Y, i APPLI CANT.. ANDRE CHARBO EAU nd RANK ROSSI i ADDRESS; 311 Felt Rd. , S. Windsor, CT TELEPHOTO: 0 528-7551 uns ury Rd. , Bloomfield,--CT 233_278-206NER OF RECORD ONS.W.. LAND RECORDS Charbonneau and Frank Rossi ADDRESS: Same as above i i COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF 14CATION OF PROPERTY Main Street, See attached - Land i adjoining Addington, Risley , 'Shimelman and Vinick, etc on the i easterly side of Main St. , South Windsor. r TWINE. ADDRESS i TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO WHOM CORRESPONDENCE AND INQUIRIES SHOULD HE DIRECTED; William E. Grace, Esquire, 25 Oakland Road, South Windsor, CT 0607• FZELIWABETH OLD F ADDINGTON 8 N/F LINWOLD F 8 ELIZABEiH R ADDINGTON ANN RISLEY t—� I O O O �� PREVIpU Y > Uj Cr I ARPR D w I 0 S cn Uj Y�— oXe�W - �' W Y _ - 14 13 i 2 a �=- �2 2 0 l > 0 O N/F IDA POLA cW 0 U. li Z I�etENT�4!�N 8h5�lrv� 10 z To i dT G O �widC x a 0 0 A04V F N/F AL-ICE HOSKINS N/ F JUDSON BANCROVT TIOTA ACREAGE IN SUBDiVISION2 k6 63 TOT� IL NUMBER OF LOTS r12 SCALE 1'�= 200' �DYJN SC, o = r let - c 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 }�SOR•CO� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 January 14, 1982 :ndre Charbonneau and ?ran.. ossi c/o 311 elt ' oad Guth -indsor, ;cnnecticut 0607 year Sirs: At the January 11, -1982 rneetin:;, the South :� indsor Inland- ':etiands Agency granted a permit i i th conditions for 'sour .p:�lication INC . 200 for a 12-_:ot residential subdivision on pro- Party located on _."a.in Street, ^ouch '::yndsor, Connecticut. lie :permit is based on the set o plans entitled "-ossi and Cha,oonnea,l, din Street, South ':'inns Ct. , " dra1:=n by Strauss n;i naerin-, Associates, .inc . , dated 12/23/81. `'he f oll o dn7 conditions must be a-'here' to for this permit to be 1•alid: 1. A Conser,ration 'Man and er,,::; on .nd sedimentation control plan shall be submitted to the -,;onse-rvation Commission for its approval. It shall include a poLmting plan_ for the entire detention basin t,,at is aesthetically pleasing, cor:1 ;lete v-dth sequence and ti metable. 2. The _proposal is subject to the a;.)protal of the Tov,in Engineer. J. The a_opli cant shall inderrm f;- and hold har::nless the Tov"n of South `dndsor a=ginst any liability which rf_i=,ht result from the proposed operation or use. 4. The per.pit is valid for one ire-= and shall e x-o re if not exercised within that pert. .ery truly yours, Constance rikrson, Chairman Inlanrz etlnn ds A.;ency T0: ? SOUTH •iI?fir �` _; CC : _ _ 2. ' SUINAMONIS CIVIL (en-ept family actions) ( w J13-441-1 REV. 12-77 GEN.STAT.52-89,PR.BK.28 - INSTRUCTIONS 1. Prepare on typewriter: sign original summons (top sheet)and conform copies of the summons(sheets 4 and 5). 2. If there is more than one defendant, prepare or photocopy conformed summons for each additional defendant f 3. Attach the original summons, with computer sheets attached(pages 2 and 3). to the original complaint, and attach a copy of the summons to each copy of the complaint. Also,if there are more than 2 plaintiffs or 4 defendants prepare form JD-CV-2 and attach it to the original and all copies of the complaint. 1 4. After service has been made by officer, file original papers and officer's return with the clerk of the court. 5. The party recognized to pay costs must appear personally before the authority taking the recognizance. 6. Do not use this form for actions in which an attachment, garnishment or replevy is being sought. TO: Any proper officer BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service of this Summons and t attached Complaint. COUNTY.DISTRICT,OR G.A. RETURN DATE(m.,day,yr.) SUPERIOR COURT ❑ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS iIA11I` F UR,DJs s's as2i���3 Fr°�:S Ir A �� I 3' ADDRESS OF COURT(no,Street.City) - CASE TYPE(From Judicial Dept.code list) i*:.Jii.L_ ,ice 61: J .. � ••-� i Major A Minor PARTIES NOTE:Individual's Names: Form JD-CV-2 ' Last,First,Middle Initial NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PARTY U attached FIRST NAMED 1 9-t4 3 Main Stre ?v PLAINTIFF .r >� i ll{}> � Linwood Soli-t j Windsor, Conn. Additional 1,343 1bai i Street Plaintiff South w's'ICz:ort Conn. FIRST NAMED LTU%ND--v VT.7 tJDS AGENCY Sullivan A`lG3f;ue DEFENDANT m r;.i . Cr+ji± ..r T 3#rci., W1.i t otIt1-i Fi7'j--trsova' r. v 2 Lk3`} to Add tionai i # 1. t'_ r..,;s. n�, r 34 GA11 .y defendant �.r iAJ^ ;:tt r AS A ,r .1f �- yr o>os`• n r }�, 7 Additional " .s+r . : I- 4; a., LitJ'i d 1 defendant _— �-M i,�i.y...iffETI ALt- 3 i, t• :1 Y _- -��.i2.h__.tl I ..:� nn -_' - - .- .idr-fir--y,..-=1 additional S-.'.=?"a 3t1�'y Road defendant D _--- ROSSI. FrXnk NOTICE to each DEFENDANT I` 1. You are being sued. 6. The"Ap pearance" form may be obtained at the above Court 2. This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit. address. _3. The Complaint attached to these papers states the claims that each Plaintiff is making against you in this lawsuit. 7. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim 4. To respond to this summons, or to be informed of further that is being made against you in this lawsuit, you should proceedings, you or-your attorney must file a form called an immediately take the Summons and Complaint to your in- "Appearance"with the Clerk of the above named Court at the surance representative. above Court address on or before the second day after the above Return Date. 8. If you have questions about the Summons and Complaint; you If you or your attorney do not file a written "Appearance" form should consult an attorney promptly. The Clerk of Court is on time. a judgment may be entered against you by default. not permitted to give advice on legal questions. DATE- a1Q _ rs-gn x'.proper box) TYPE IN NAME OF PERSON SIGNING AT LEFT YY =z �j�. ..�"r r� s7+ener of Superior Court _L!c�xa:.a+t.,.-," :?� -'ti' %1�.!��c.L -✓ tsi(a'nC C l e r:c NAM.OF ATTORNEY OR LAW FIRM n/ama et f OR TF`:_ F'Lr`11NTtf'F(S� ( p�a�nnit d;;:o se/ TELEPHONE NO. JURIS NO.pt attornay or raw trrm/ Ik Please en:r:r the appearance of :* 3'TTiO} Parr and e-fre'iiu> _5'u-713 3 5047 5 — f '•A ERS Ri AND.;tODRrT-SS OF PON —_OG tIZED TO PROSECUTE IN THE AMOUNT OF S250 SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF IF PR-- - O SE R Y 711 a ?•^":4L''1-i,��T] �YPso p-r t ra� �.sr-'4 2 rt._�TZrj-,��e n,•--��,� _ J.Dc. D70.GrvTS SI: / irua.r a.og x ,y q r _ i Commissioner of Superior Court For Court Usa — �w �` Assistant Clerk REC_IP-r.NO. ---- Na iF THIS SUMMONS IS SIGNED by a CLERK: FILE DATE ¢Fee ��/ f } a. The signing has been done so that the Plain-- � advice in connection with any lawsuit 41') ,Iffi s)will not be denied access to the courts. r d. The Clerk signing this Summons at the re- b. it Is the responsibility of the Plaintiff(s) to quest of the Plaintiff(s) is not responsible /. see that service is made in the mariner pro- in any way for any errors or omissions,in, vided by law. the Summons, any allegations container rn c. The,Clerk is not: permitted to give any legal the Complaint, or the service thereof. � v i hereby certify i Have read 'N °' ---- --i D,TE SIGNED DOCKET NO. yt;1Q_ and nde!stand the abo, COPY 1.75 CIVIL SUMMONS CONTINUATION OF PARTIES „.. JD-CV-2 NEW 9-76 ;AS't;>.♦sNTiFf lJsl f - f ADDIdGTON, Linwood s.Dv YwE:aF'END�Y• J,. f..r• �.cc�. � p INLAND-WETLANDS AGE14CY OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR ,,n*F r.-d—door s names Los- "irst.Middle initial Additional PLAINTIFFS — ,Nonie crud address of each, CAFFYN , Nancy 1533 Main Street , South Windsor , Conn. I- c f - d:i UFFFNDt.NI", or CHARBONNEAU, ANDRE 311 Felt Road South Windsor, Conn. CIVIL SUMMONS, Continuation February 26, 1982 I , Corinne H. Murray, do hereby certify that the following is a true and accurate verbatum transcript of the application presentation and review at the regular meeting which was .held by the Inland Wetlands Agency, Town of South Windsor, Monday, January 11, 1982, in connection with Application NO. 200 by Andre Charbonneau and Frank Rossi for a 12 Lot residential subdivision with detention basin for property bounded on the north by the Linwood and Elizabeth Addington property, on the east by the Morton Shimelman and Joseph Vinick industrial zone property, on the south by the Ida Pola, Alice Hoskins and Judson Bancroft properties and on the west by Main Street, South Windsor, Connecticut. Members at the meeting and voting in favor of the application were the following: Chairman,Constance Eriksson, Vice-Chairman, Calvin Lane, Secretary, Benjamin Jurewicz, Mark Futtner, John Moran and Jeremiah O 'Sullivan. r Corinne H. Murray, Recording Secretary for the Inland Wetlands Agency Town of South Windsor _ l _ (Application introduction not recorded Tape activated at this. point) Attorney Grace . . . .Mr. Rossi. Same parcel of land was approved by this commission, I would say, 1976, appeal, approved by the Planning and Zoning, appeal by the people in the neighborhood, etc. . Tactics have changed. There is no problem before, we be- lieve there is totally less of a problem now. The house-lot here has been eliminated. The house has been eliminated to make a de- tention basin. So that the water going across -- - There is a brook here ---- I 'm sure perhaps you know where we are. That's the greater percentage of any drainage. Big lots, A-40 Zone. Right here is the Industrial Zone. Some of this will go this way - - Bancroft Brook. I believe you know what ---- Mr. Strauss will give you a little more detail on the engineering, but I don't do engin- eering, I had a chance. B. Jurewicz What ---- What ---- What was the problem before? Just refresh us as to what the problem was before and what you've done to rectify that situation. Attorney_grace The problem before was to go across and through the former Mayor's property and a couple of other people who gave ease- ments --- who withdrew easements. Chairman Eriksson They never were able to obtain at least one, or if not ---- easements. Attorney Grace They believe they have. I was not involved. In fact I was on the. Planning and Zoning Commission that approved it at the time. The easements went all the way, but the easements when it came down to it, did not. - 2 - A. B. Davies Was ---- Evergreen Lodge sound like it? Attorney Grace Yes. Chairman Eriksson Yeah - Evergreen Lodge, Caffyn ---- Attorney Grace Yes, but they (unintelligible, noise and voices in background) . .if I remember right they signed, it was just Caffyn. Attorney Grace Jess, Bo was there and they did the test pits and everything last week. Go through the engineering and ,if you have questions, Mr. Charbonneau is here, and Clarence Weltie is also here, who I assume you know. M. Strauss I guess we're looking at the same thing for probably the third time around, as Mr. Grace said. Uh, to answer your question, before and still now, we drain .a small amount of water this way to Bancroft' s Brook and the problem area in this outlet in here. We got approval from Evergreen Lodge, and then it had to go across Caffyn's land here. There is an existing culvert here, and what we're proposing to do is to use a small amount-.-of the capacity of that existing culvert by removing one Lot and storing water on site in this retention basin. That basically is what we're doing now. C. Lane We were talking just a few moments ago, before you came in with your plans, about retention basins. This is in quite a swampy area. Uh ---- What ---- It's pretty wet in there. It is most of the time. M. Strauss Right Right in this area here, it 's wetter than say, it may be back in here. Bo can --- C. Lane Yeah -- There's cattails there now. 3 M. Strauss Yes, up front here there are. There is no question about it. Incidently, this is not shown on your Inland Wetlands Map, for whatever that may show. I mean, it is whatever it is. Uh ---- Right now there is an existing 15-inch corrugated metal pipe that goes back in here and drains this area right at the present moment.. -So what we'll be proposing to do is to actually uh ----throttle down the area by putting a 12-inch corrugated metal pipe out of the retention basin, then we will go to a --- a uh ---- 18-inch pipe. The only reason we'll be going to an 18-inchpipe is to quiet the velocity of the water coming out of the 12-inch corrugated metal pipe. In other words, there is no more increase in water. It's the 12-inch corrugated metal pipe will take care of that, it throttles it down. Of course, I 'm sure you're all familiar with retention basins. What they do is take the peak of the storm and they even it out, so to speak. They meter the water out over a somewhat period of time. B. Jurewicz What is it again with the 12-inch and the 18? It just confused me, just a bit. M. Strauss The 12-inch is the critical pipe. B. Jurewicz The limiting. M, Strauss Yeah, the 12-inch determines the amount of water coming out. B. Jurewicz Right. 1JV .._Stra_u3Q When you come out of the basin in here ---- B. Jurewicz Yeah ---- M. Strauss You come out with the water at a, Uh -- A,uh, certain velocity. B. Jurewicz Umm, humm. M. Strauss We don't want .that velocity to appear down there. B. Jurewicz Umm, humm. M. Strauss So we let the water expand into a larger pipe, so that the velocity of the water is quieted down so it comes down to soemthing like five or six feet per second, which is' easil.y handled, can be handled easily in that kind of a; structure. B. Jurewicz Coming out of a 12-inch pipe, say it were filled ---- ok ----. M. Strauss Right. B. Jurewicz Wouldn't it just go as fast, but not fill the big- ger pipe? 14. Strauss No, it's going to spread out. It's going t o have a bigger cross section area, so the velocity buildup --- B. Jurewicz It doesn't have to fill the pipe, does it! Wouldn'.t it just keep the same area, but not fill the pipe and go as fast? M. Strauss Velocity is based upon the area and the quantity, so the area is larger. It's Q equals AB ---- B. Jurewicz Yeah, I understand .that, but the pipe _might not fill. What if you only fill 80% of the pipe? Ia. Strauss All we have to do is drop the velocity down a little. We're not talking about dropping the velocity down to one or two feet per second, besides, we wouldn't want that 'cause we want the pipe to be self cleaning. We were talking (unintelligible, Mr. Jurewicz talking at the same time. ) B. Jurewicz Yeah, I understand, but what I 'm saying is that by _ 5 _ going from a small pipe to a big pipe dowsn't necessarily mean it will slow it down. It may go as fast through the big pipe, butnot fill it all the way up. M. Strauss I agree, but the point is we don't want the -- We don't want the impact of the water down here to be felt as much, and that's one way of handling it ----but it's a standard, it's a standard retention basin design which takes the peak flow ---- B, Jurewicz See what I 'm saying is the other way around you'll slow it down ,---- A. B. Davies You may still only have a 12-inch opening, or a 8-inch opening out of the detention area into the pipe. Ok ---- The water runs up and down quicker, or more often type of thing, if in effect it has to run over the to into the larger pipe, , it'1l. r take it. B. Jurewicz OK. The only point I think I was making was that by going from a smaller pipe to a bigger pipe cross section doesn't mean you're going to slow it down. M. Strauss Not necessarily, but one thing, velocity is only highest at a certain point, as your basin drops down, as the height of the water in the basin drops down, the velocity ---- you know the water going out of your pipe gets less and less (unintelligible, someone else talking in background) until it probably (unintelligible, someone talking) . It only occurrs for a very short period during the peak. J. 'Sullivan The 12-inch pipe replaces a 15-inch pipe? 6 - M. Strauss A 12-inch pipe replaces an existing 15-inch cor- rugated metal pipe. Now let me say just one thing, there =is a 24-inch across here. J. O 'Sullivan But all the water from the detention basin goes through the 12-inch pipe. M. Strauss But all the water from the ---- -Yes that's correct and that 's where it's going now. J. O'Sullivan Does all the water from the upstream area coming from the detention basin---- except the small portion that goes South? M. Strauss Everything that is going towards the retention basin now, will go into the retention basin, that means that there are some small, very small quantities of water for example, that are flowing on this street (unintelligible) on this side that will go this way. They're going there now. J. O'Sullivan What I 'm driving at is --- Does ---- Uh ----- With the change from the 15-inch to the 12-inch pipe, do you reduce the amount of waterthat goes across the street at a given time? M. Strauss Correct.' That's correct. Yes. J. O'Sullivan Because some will be retained in the detention basin for a time. B. Jurewicz You've got a 12-inch pipe first of all, then it opens up to a 15-inch pipe. M. Strauss The only ---- A. B. Davies It opens up to an 18-inch pipe. _ 7 _ M.- Strauss Eighteen, eighteen there is now -- The confusing Part is, is that we're taking out a 12-inch pipe and throttling it down to a 12-inch -_ A. B. Davies (Unintelligible, more than one person talking at once. ) B. Jurewicz You're taking out a 15-inch and making it --- J. O'Sullivan And making it twelve. M. Strauss Forget what size this is going out. The hydraulics operate that this now is' only going to be a 12-inch pipe. B. Jurewicz OK That's the thing you're doing. J. O 'Sullivan Right. Fifteen to a 12-inch (unintelligible) . B. Jurewicz You don't need the fifteen over here. M. Strauss No. B. Jurewicz You just don't want to replace it, it's cheaper. A. B. Davies You'll keep control within the parcel. B. Jurewicz You're really constricting it by the 12-inch. M. Strauss That's correct. B. Jurewicz That's your focus. M._SSttruass That' s the whole purpose of retention. B. Jurewicz OK. M. Strauss To even out the peaks. B. Jurewicz Now I understand. I understand you now. Philip Braender (Public) How old is the pipe that goes under Main Street? M. Strauss Under Main Street? P. Braender There' s a pipe, the 15-inch goes underneath Main Street, doesn't it? - 8 _ M. Strauss I can't answer your question. Uh, we've examined the two or three or four sections that we can see in there. They all appear to be in good condition. Uh ---- I mean I say examine ---- You know we actually (unintelligible, coughing) got down there and at least in one instance on this side we crawled up the pipe a little way. The pipe is in_pretty good condition. C. Lane This is pretty wet all the way up to this Lot. Uh ---- How do you propose ---- Could you just show me how your culverts and so forth, your drainage ---- How's your drainge handled here? Lil. trauss The drainage? Here' s the drainage. In the roadway they're a pair of basins here, actually this is a double basin here. Then there is a very slight high point right there. Then it comes down,and then picking water up,and all this water comes down this way,and then it drops into the basin that way. C. Lane Where ---- On the map ---- Where is the hill with the pines on top of it? M. Strauss Right here. C_ . Lane Right here. Are you going to leave that alone, or -- .M. Strauss Uh, all the stuff that's on this side here, is being left alone. In order to make the Lot, we propose to grade like that, just as you see. C. Lane Just grade it ---- Grade the hill off some? M. Strauss Grade the hill this way. In other words we are leaving about roughly half of it. Just by eye, I would say right there. In other words, all those pines on this side --- They're all ---- They'll remain the same. You wouldn't ---- In other words, if you were standing on this side, you wouldn't 9 know that anything had been done on that side. B. Jurewicz What' s the capacity of the retention basin in terms of water it will hold? Duration of a storm? What's it designed for? M. Strauss It's a fifty year, designed for fifty years. Actually the storm sewer design is a 25 year, which is a Town standard. Chairman Eriksson Yeah, road design is twenty-five. M. trauss Road design is twenty-five. B,_Jurewicz I was going to say what happens in say a 100 year storm? How much . . . .? M. Strauss There still is extra capacity in there. Um ---- If a 100 year storm of extreme life and duration, number one we better all get our arks out (unintelligible, people talking at once) there would be a very, very flat stream of water that would come across right in this area in here. You'll have what is called weir flow. B Jurewicz I see (unintelligible) seven, four, five(unintelligible) _OK. M. Strauss Yeah. C. Lane At the rear of the property, there is quite a dropoff to the South. Where does this occur on the map? M. auss Roughly,right about here (Unintelligible) . C. Lane And what about water that may be coming this way then? M. Strauss It 's only very limited, it' s about where my hands are. In other words, what's coming into the system, what comes directly into the storm sewer system is something ---- Oh, about like this, let 's say right about like that, just that little tiny area there. - 10 A._B. Davies Two hundred feet of road and three Lots. M. Strauss That 's correct, well, not even the whole Lots, Because a lot of the Lots are overland flow, they never get into the storm sewer system, so that in essence, they're flowing the same way they are now. C. Laee These Lots, are you going to build up these Lots, or what? M. Strauss Just the one that 's under your hand. C�Lane Why (unintelligible) build that up? M. Strauss Well ---- First floor is 63 here ground grade is about 60, 58 ---- about four or five feet. That will be a walk out (unintelligible) that house there. B.r__Jurgw` icz Where is the wetland on this defined on the map? M. Strauss The only defined wetland is this little tiny area right here. If you walk back there (unintelligible, more than one person talking) you don't see anything in looking for it. C�Lane_ I judge that this was wetland up in here, but it ,looked (unintelligible) . M. Strauss You know, it's not the traditional, intense plant growth and that sort of thing. C. Lane No. B. Jurewicz Any water on that portion? Did you witness stand- ing water? C. Lane I couldn't tell very well. It looked ---- It looked to be , uh, it looked to be some evedence of water, but I have to be honest, I I _____ I couldn't tell and that 's why I wanted to ask about it. - 11 B. Jurewicz Was there ponding? C. Lane No. A. B. Davies This is a natural watercourse that runs down through that area (Unintelligible, people talking at once) . M. Strauss If you look at the contours ---- Look at the contours, see? The contours are going right that way. C_ Lane The high point is right up in here, isn't? M. Strauss Uh ---- yeah, in other words, the high point, the high ridge and all that stuff in there. A. B. Davies But the watercourse is basically just a runoff, surface runoff. M. Strauss Very spread out basin, very spread out. Chairman Eriksson You going to be bringing fill into that area of the wetland then for the construction fo the houses? M. Strauss There would be for these houses, yeah. Chairman Eriksson Is it the whole Lot, or are you just (unintelligible) buttressing the foundation? M___Strauss Regrade the Lots. A. B. Davies There might be something that you'd like to con- sider, as opposed to regrading the whole Lot, vonsider just the grading around the house itself, so that you maintain as much natural ---- M_Strauss Well, notice this, if you notice the solid contour Bo ,vs. the dash contours, about half the lot is regraded, the rest of the lot is left alone. Chairman Eriksson OK, so you really are not doing the whole Lot then? 1 _ 12 M. Strauss No, we're not doing the whole Lot. ghairmanirik__sson You doing the front half, primarily? M. Strauss Um ---- Yup. Chairman Friksson Alright. That wetland, is that an isolated area, or is that a continuation of another? M. Strauss Single, isolated area. Chairman Eriksson OK, it doesn't connect with anything else? M. Strauss No (Unintelligible) . C. Lane It looked to me that it ran down most of this, most of the property though, that is by the contour of the land. M.- Strauss I tried to recall, Ive walked this thing so many times, this last time we were out there a few days ago, I didn't walk back here again.I 've walked this, you know, in the summertime. L ---- Well ---- The soils themselves basically ---- It's_ a very localized area and it's underlain by a ---- fine soils, so it 's just the ---- um ---- organic materials accumulated and very, very shallow and limited area. Chairman Eriksson Do you have any comment on this? A. B. Davies No. Chairman Eriksson OK. A. B. Davies The wetlands are basically as he says. The drainage goes as he says. The system will work. Uh ---- We dug some test .holes. It was wet in spots. Chairman Eriksson Alright. By proposing eliminating a Lot and having the detention area, etc. , that's eliminated all the quote "Problems" that were in your first, second and third applications? 13 Attorney Grace Problems with people. M. Strauss Quote "I hope so" end quote. Chairman Eriksson I mean, that's where the problems were? M. Strauss Yes, no question about it. Attorney Grace You know it's been many years and the intents still remain that these are very expensive homes. The area lends itself to that. They're awfully big Lots, they're all over 40, 000. It's gonna built ---- It's not going to be built in a year, it'll perhaps be longer than that. It's the economy and everything else. P. Braender (Public) Who ownes the detention basin? Attorney Grace Eventually the Town will, after it' s done,and everything is sold, and the roads are approved and everything else; but that will be a long way down, down the pike. C. Lane Will the houses be priced the same range as these houses? Attorney race They'd have to be, at present best be higher(UN- intelligible) . A. Charbonneau You can't duplicate those houses today for the pricethat those were sold. C._Lane What do you expect? A. Charbonneau Well, between $175,000 and $250,000, B. Jurewicz That's my kind of house. Attorney Grace That ' s, that' s the game. A. Charbonneau Signing people up now, if you'd like to (Unintel- ligible, coughing and several people talking at once) . - 14 - Chairman Eriksson I 'll have a couple, I don't know which two, yet, Attorney Grace We're not going to Planning and Zoning right -now, probbably we can't make it this month, so it will be .next 'month, but we'd like to get something ready so if things change a little bit in the spring, we can get going. Awful long---- Chairman Eriksson That basin is going to be what, just seeded? What are you going to do with it? M. Strauss We'll have grass, we'll have grass all around here and there' s also a proposal for doing some planting here and here . Here,to get a little visual screen in here; here to do something aesthetically. chairman Eriksson Ok. Is that shown on any of the maps? Not at this point' M. Strauss No, it's shown right here and it calls for some spe- cifics. Chairman Eriksson OK. M. Strauss (Beginning of sentence not recorded, Strauss continued speaking while tape was turned over. ) . . . sometimes you put these things in the rear, out of site, out of mind. Chairman Eriksson In that case, that one's not. A. B. Davies It 's right along side of the driveway coming in. M. Strauss That' s right. A. Charbonneau I think a good example of that would be what ---- Uh ----- they did on Sand Hill .Road (Unintelligible, coughing and back- ground noise) . .don't make the rules (Unintelligible, noise) . A. B. Davies (Unintelligible, coughing and foreground noise) . .you - 15 gentlemen can (Unintelligible) . A. Charbonneau ( Unintelligible) . . . shrubery, plantings, things of that nature. A. B. Davies I don't care really if the tree gets buried five feet worth of water, some place along the way, as long as the water runs out; that the tree will look like it belonged there. It doesn't always have to be a willow, or something else, but uh--- It should be in keeping with the neighborhood, and. uh ---- I 'm ask- ing Mery to be innovative. Attorney Grace Do you require a Conservation Plan with that? M. Strauss There is a Conservation Plan. Attorney Grace I mean (Unintelligible) A_ Davies (Unintelligible) M. Strauss The Conservation Plan is you know basically erosion and sedimentation measures. Chairman Eriksson In this case he wants you to expand it more into--- Attorney Grace (Unintelligible, several people speaking at once) A. . B. Davies We're picking minds. Chairman Eriksson Yeah. P. Braender (Public) Bill, how do you buffer this from the in- dustrial area to the East? Attorney Grace How do you buffer it? What do you want? P. Braender (Public) Uh .---- You got a Conservation Plan, what 's it show? M. Strauss Well, bear in mind a Conservation Plan may be a misnomer, - 16 - it's an erosion and sedimentation control plan. Uh ----. Part of the buffering of course is just simple space between yourself and this line in here. B. Jurewicz Are there trees in here? M. Strauss No -- Well --There are --- There are some. There are some. Attorney Grace You to put something in there? B. Jurewicz (Unintelligible) . . .selling. A. Charbonneau There 's something existing in there, if my memory serves me right. M. Strauss There is some, you go back to where the old barn was back in there, a lot of growth there now, some of it is (Unintelligible, people talking at once) . C. Lane It's mostly oak back in there, isn't it? M. Strauss Some of it is, some is not. C. Lane You know where that old barn is, the tumbled down tobacco shed. M. Strauss Yes. C. Lane That's on Shimilman's. Chairman Eriksson Those Lots are backing right up to it, aren't they? Yeah, I thought so, I 'm not worried, it' s no way is he going to sell those Lots if you can see the industrial (Unintelligible, voices in background) . B. Jurewicz That ' s what Im saying. Chairman Eriksson Well, obviously, if the industrial area is too evident from those Lots, you're never going to sell them, so you'll - 17 - put up somthing to block it, or you won't sell them ----- Right? Attorney Grace Absolutely. Chairmgn EK iksson I wouldn't pay $250,`000 to look at industry in my backyard. Attorney Grace Nor anybody else. C. Lane Do you want to explain this temporary sediment pools statement, To be dredged periodically to maintain design storage 0 flow; M. Strauss Each of these ---- The way one handles it, you put hay-bale dikes here this side of these basins, and you let the water set, collect right here. In other words, anything that comes off of these sites will be taken to these areas and by taking and putting a ditch or trench along side of the road and it goes into this area and settles, and it settles out and the mud or the silt will be there. In order to be sure that it doesn't overflow, periodically you go in there and you take backhoe, very gently because it 's only a small area, and you scoopthem out, and you repeatedly do that over a period of time. C. Lane All this is while you're building, right? M. Strauss That is while you're building. You see, there is positive control of this kind of material, because what happens is it goes to an area that is protected. This goes to an area ---- In other words, each area is selected, and the order of building is such, that you do such things as, you lay down a construction mat here, so when the trucks go in and out, they drop all material on the mat rather than dripping, you know, it on the road. Then -- 18 you do a series of things. You install your storm sewer from the downstream end, and you dike that so that you cut off your sediment, and you do that progressively upstream. Then through your project you maintain the whole thing, and then after your project is built, do the reverse thing. You move from uphill and down, and there is a sequence of things to do (unintelligible) one through eleven, giving them a precise step of what they shall follow, what the criteria is, what the source is, and that sort Of thing. That way you don't leave it to their imagination. A._B. Davies (Unintelligible, noise in background) Strauss (Inaudible) A. B. Davies Dozer operators never read those things. Li. StraRss Yeah, but you can sure as heck yell at 'em, based on that. Chairman Eriksson If you got enough Town Staff and Personnel to be there watching them, that' s the problem, we don't. A.B. Davies (Unintelligible) M. Strauss There' s no question about it. They nearer can say they didn't know. Chairman Eriksson But after it' s gone, dependiqg upon what the damage has been done, sometimes it's irreparable. M. Strauss No question about it. Chairman Eriksson OK gentlemen, are there any more questions? Ok, thank you very much. M. Strauss Thank you. - 19 - Attorney_ Grace Thank you very much. Chairman Eriksson That' s a duplicate, or what? M. Strauss Do you need another set? Attorney Grace Do you want another one? Chairman Eriksson Just give me ---- M.Strauss I have a another whole beautiful set, no marks or nothing. Chairman Eriksson OK. M. Strauss Thank you very much. Chai__rman Eriksson Thank you. Good night gentlemen. C. Lane It 's not a question, but I think here, the place where they want to put the detention. basin is damn wet, right now, and that 's a swampy area. A. B. Davies It 's within four .feet of water. Ca_ Lane Pardon? A.I. B. Davies It 's within four feet of water. J. O 'Sullivan Will there be standing water in it? A. B. Davies (Unintelligible) B. Jurewic.z At this point though, and since it's so far out front, aesthetically it has to be done well, just because it has an impact on the saleability of the rest of the Lots. Chairman Eriksson It will have_ to be built first. B. Jurewicz So it' s to his best interest to do it well. A. B. Davies I think that' s the biggest criteria right there, it's right up front. C. Lane The big question of all the people in that area, and _ 20 - granted one or two of the statements may have been a little (unintelligible) still, even for the prople further up the line, the main problem is one of drainage. It really is. Uh - - Not just ---- Not concerning the current appearance of the people be- fore us, but years ago other families even further up the road were very much concerned about how the drainage would be handled, so I think we have to watch that. Chairman Eriksson I 'm surprised there was no one here. The public used to go 'round and 'round about (Unintelligible) draing the pond, etc. , etc. J. O'Sullivan The only real objection we had last time was that the people across the street wouldn't sign easements because the velocity of water down the brook was going to increase when this was built. If they had easements, we were OK. Chairman Eriksson OK, it would have been long gone, yes. They had one, they had Evergreen Lodge and I think Caffyn's they never received. And that is really what did them in, so they had to go back to square one and start again. (Unintelligible, voices in background) J. O 'Sullivan So now it is the velocity of water in the brook is reduced. B. Jurewicz It 's confined by the 12-inch pipe. Chairman Eriksson Yes, they've given up a Lot to make on site detention. J. O 'Sullivan It is fifteen now. 21 B. Jurewicz Yeah, they're going to take it out so that'll confine (unintelligible) • and make it 'twelve, J�O_ 'Sullivan That'll reduce it. The subdivision itself is contained ,The drainage down Old Main Street, or Main (Unintelligible} Street .itself, will go the same way, not changing pipes, or soin : is g anything else. That drainage across that site .being contained by that detention basin. So in effect, they may be lowering the water at the street, but they are improving the drainage e across -the street. J. O 'Sul�an Lowering the water table at the stree t, what do you mean? A. B. Davies OK, by making a good free draining (Unintelligible) . J. O 'Sullivan Ok, by making a hole, a detention pond that will - permit water from the surrounding 1 a area to drain into the pond. �• L_ane (Unintelligible) across the road to cut the --- Davies Right. B9JJur— ew ez Would ---- Do they have --- - Are they to donate this to the Town, or is it a requirement that retention basin? Maybedon 't � that retention y you just don t want it. A. B. Davies It ' s standard operating Procedure. B;Jur�_ewicz It 's, oh,it is? A. B_. Dav_ies Would you want, if you were one of twelve Lots, would YOU want to maintain that? B_J_u_ rewicz Well, that 's one more maybe (Unintelligible) if have to have the Town doing it. If it were governed ) we and owned by that �® - 22 - Chairman Eriksson It's a lot easier when you have a condominium, when you have an association of sorts, you have some control. What do you do with twelve houses? J. O 'Sullivan I think if you live next door to it, you kind of pick up the bottles, . anyway. Chairman Eriksson Yeah. B. Jurewicz (Unintelligible) the guy next door doesn't pick up. A. B. Da_vies Sometimes what you need is a good neighbor, really. Chairnan .Eriksson In this case youhave it, becuase the house abuts it, usually it' s stuck on the back and it' s too far away for anybody. They care, but they don't care enough. ®IBINHWO, FAWR ANM H1M1F MM ATTORNEYS AT LAW 547 BURNSIDE AVENUE P. O. BOX 206 WILLIAM A. ROBERTO (203) 528-7183 ROSERT FARR 99 PRATT STREET JOHN CONNERY HEFFERNAN HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103 CARMEN V. ROBERTO (203) 525-4200 SARA BERN STEIN March 18, 1982 Mrs. Constance Erikkson, Chairman South Windsor Inland-Wetlands Agency Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Re: Linwood/Elizabeth Addington Nancy Caffyn Dear Mrs. Eriksson: This letter is to advise you that the undersigned hereby objects _ to the Board's acceptance of the application of Frank Rossi and Andre Charbonneau for subdivision approval while an appeal is pending of the Inland-Wetlands decision in Superior Court because if the appeal is - upheld, the applicant will have to obtain new Inland-Wetlands approval. In the event you elect to accept this, we will request a public hearing be held, although it is not required for subdivision applications, due to the environmental impact upon my clients property which will result in substantial harm to water courses and ponds ultimately affecting the value and use of my clients property. Very truly yours, 7 William A. Roberto WAR/cam cc: Mr. and Mrs. Linwood Addington Mrs. Nancy Caffyn a . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 1982 REGULAR MEETING SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Montana, Evans, Hallowell, Conde, Norman, Sorosiak & Sorenson ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mainelli, Morrison MINUTES Mr. Norman moved approval of the Minutes of February loth and 23rd, and March 2, 1982. Mr. Conde seconded the motion. It was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. NEW BUSINESS 1. Applications to be officially received: a. . Andre Charbonneau and Frank Rossi, 12 lot subdivision, east side of Main Street Attorney William Roberto of 547 Burnside Avenue, East Hartford., appeared on behalf of behalf of his clients (Addington, Caffyn and Lindquist) and stated that Inland Wetlands had approved this application and his clients were in the process of appealing that approval in Court. Mr. Roberto said that if this Commission receives this application and schedules a public hearing, he may secure an Injunction preventing the public hearing from being held. Mrs. Montana informed Mr. Roberto that the Town Attorney had been contacted and the Commission was told it could receive this application if it is in order. She referred to a memorandum from Town Engineer Page which stated this application is ready to be received and go to public hearing. Mr. DeMallie, Planning Director, stated that the application is in order and can be received. Mr. Robert Craven of 1712 Main Street, started to go into the history of previous applications for this site, and how the area would be drained. Mr. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer stated that this is a completely new application, and drainage will not be as in the previous applications. Mr. Sorenson then moved that this application be officially received. Mr. Norman seconded the motion. It was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. Mr. Roberto asked that he be notified of the date of the public hearing. r Planning and Zoning Commission -2- 3/23/82 + b. John Russo, Trustee, Temporary & Conditional Permit Renewal Mr. Conde moved that this application be officially received. Mr. Norman seconded the motion. It was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. c. Admiral Moving & Storage Company, Site Plan, N/S side of Ellington Road Mr. Norman moved that this application be officially received. Mrs. Sorosiak seconded the motion. It was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. 2. Approval of location of driveway, Lot #9, North side of Griffin Road The Commissioners reviewed the plot plan for this lot, and noted that the original subdivision approval for East Farms stated that the location of the driveways for Lots 9 and 10 must be approved by the Commission. Mr. Hallowell made a motion to approve the location of the driveway as shown on a plot plan prepared by William R. Palmberg, dated March 1, 1982. Mr. Norman seconded the motion. It was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. 3. Approval of location of driveway, and house, Lot #43 N/S Pleasant Valley Road (App. #740 - RSK Construction Co. ) The original approval letter dated June 11, 1980 of a two lot subdivision of property on the north side of Pleasant Valley Road, known as Lots #3 and #4, required approval of a plot plan for Lot #4 showing the exact location of the house and driveway. The Commissioners reviewed the plot plan dated March 3, 1982, prepared by Emil W. Lucek Associates. Mrs. Evans made a motion to approve the plot plan, and Mrs. Sorosiak seconded the motion. It was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. 4. Wood Pond Subdivision, Phase II Attorney William Grace appeared on behalf of the applicant, and referred to the Commission's approval letter of Phase II dated March 1, 1982. He said the applicant needed some relief from the conditions of approval - particular the bonding requirements, the completion of the cul-de-sac, and lack of 4 lots. Mr. Grace said the Town Engineer had worked out an arrangement whereby the cul-de-sac could be moved back to where the road intersects with Meadowbrook. They would be willing to place a restriction on Lots #33 to 40 stating that they can't be used, if the Commission would approve #9 through 12. They will also extend Wood Pond Road through to Abbe Road by way of grading it. He noted the road work could be substantially completed before the plans are filed, -thereby making it possible for them to come in later for a bond reduction. -_ pW N 3 f4( s� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 �frypSOR•Co --- September 13, 1982 I hereby certify the following documents are true and accurate copies South Windso of documents in the So r Inland Wetlands Agency filed in ion No. 200 made by Andre Charbonneau and connection with the Applicat Frank Rossi. No. __- 1. Inland Wetlalds and Wetlandsourses AgencyAtol Andre oCharbonOneau and Frank 2. Letter from Inland --_ Rossi. 3. South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency agenda for meeting of January - I1, 1982. 4. Six maps submitted by applicants of the development. - 5. Minutes of January 11, 1982, meeting of the South Windsor Inland - Wetlands Agency. - 6. Transcript of that portion of the January 11, 1982, meeting of the -= South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency in connection with Application — -- No. 200. - -= 7. Letter dated January 14, 1982, from South Windsor Inland Wetlands -=--_ Agency to Andre Charbonneau and Frank Rossi. --= 8. Copy of notice posted in Town Clerk's Office on January 13, 1982. 9. Copy of notice posted in Town Clerk's Office on January 14, 1982. 10. Copy of legal notice published in Journal Inquirer on Monday, January 18, 1982. 11. Copy of Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands and Water Courses --- regulations. ----------- . Corrinn H. M y - Recording Secretary Inland Wetlands Agency --_— Sworn and subscribed to before - me this AW day of September, 1982. �Y�-- Notary Public �_ - My Commission Expires- ,� �� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9 , 1982 ANNUAL ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN HALL PUBLIC HEARING MEMBERS PRESENT: Montana, Evans, Hallowell, Norman, Sorenson, Conde, Sorosiak ALTERNATES PRESENT: Gilligan; Morrison ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING Mr .. Hallowell called for nominations from the floor for the posit n o Chairperson. Mr. -Norman nominated Marshall Montana , seconde by Mr. Sorenson. Mrs. Evans moved the nominations be closed, se nded by Mr . rman. The secretary was instructed to cast one ballo for Mrs . M tuna as Chairperson. Mrs. Monta called for nominations for the . position Vice-Chair- person . Mr. orenson nominated Louise C. Evans , se nded by Mrs . Sorosiak. Mr . Conde moved the nominations b closed, seconded by Mr . Hallowell . The secretary was instructed o cast one ballot for Mrs . Evans as ice-Chairperson. Mrs. Montana called fo nominations for t position of Secretary. Mr . Norman nominated Ray nd F. Hallowe Jr. , seconded by Mr. Conde. Mr . Sorenson moved nominat ns be clo ed, seconded by Mrs . Evans . The secretary was instructed o cas one ballot for Mr . Hallowell as Secretary of the Commission. d- BY-LAWS The Commissioners briefly iscussed th by-laws and noted that they had been amended last y� r. Mr. Hallowe said it is important that the Alternates t / the Commission be a re of the fact that according to the by aws they should attend \subdivision, Commission' s meetL COMMITTEES f Mrs . /Montasaid she would review the Commdiscu in more detail at a later date. Mrs . aid she has been watching the Caa it is progressing according to the plans FeUBLIC HEARING 1 . Application of Andre Charbonneau and Frank Rossi, for a resubdivision of 16 . 63 acres into 12 lots on the east side of Main Street between Nos. 1576 and 1612 Main Street-, approxi- mately 1500 feet north of Strong Road, more or less, in an A-40 zone. The secretary read the legal notice . as it appeared in the Journal Inquirer on October 28, 1982 and November 4, 1982 . Planning & Zoning Commission -2- 11/9/82 Attorney William Grace was present on behalf of the applicants. Attorney William Roberto of East Hartford was present on behalf of various parties , including Nancy Caffyn, Linwood Addington and R. Lindquist . He stated that he objected to the Commission hearing this application in view of the fact the Inland Wetlands Agency approval was being appealed. He said that he spoke with the Town Attorney, Wayne Gerlt , yesterday and even he was not sure the Commission could go ahead. He asked Mrs . Montana to rule on whether the Commission would proceed. Mrs. Montana said she also spoke with the Town Attorney and he stated that the Commission does not have to have an approval of the Inland Wetlands before it is permitted to hear a matter . Therefore, this public hearing would proceed. Attorney Grace said this application was originally filed in November of 1976 and the Commission approved 15 lots on November 30, 1976 . There was an appeal and a subsequent application was filed .. There is an appeal pending on the Inland Wetlands approval . He added that in his opinion there is no question that this Commission can hear this application. Mr. Grace went on to say this application is not much different than the original application. There are two houses that have been built and they would like approval for the remaining 12 lots. This is an A-40 zone requiring 40,000 sq . ft . lots . with 150 ' frontage . The required depth is 200 ' , and maximum lot coverage is 10%. A 50 ' front yard is required , 50 ' rear line and 20 ' on the sides . This is the most restrictive zone in Town . Colonial style homes must have 1700 sq . ft . and a split level or ranch must have 1400 sq . ft . The road will be built to Town specifications and there will be sewers and public water . Mr . Grace then introduced Mervyn Strauss of Strauss Engineering Associates, Inc . , who outlined his credentials and background. He produced a map of the site and pointed out the location of the lots and surrounding land . He said Oxbow Lane will come from Main Street and there will be six lots fronting on it. Old Parish Drive is at the end of Oxbow Lane and will have a small cul-de-sac . There is an I-ndus.trial -Park zone -tothe east . To the north is property owned by Linwood Addington and Elizabeth Risley. To the south is property owned by Bancroft and Hoskins and Pola. There are two other abutting property owners which came after this application was originally filed and they are the owners of Lots 1 and 2 previously approved by this Commission . There will be sanitary sewers, water and a storm sewer system. The sanitary sewer will connect to an existing line in Main Street and through Oxbow and Old Parish Drive and to the property line on the east . They have an agreement with the property owner to the east that in return for continuing the sewer line to the property line, they in turn will supply water from their property to this applicant . Mr. Strauss said the storm sewer system is broken up into two patterns and have been reviewed by the Town ' s staff and meet with their approval . One storm sewer pattern is carried off to the south and there is a very small watershed . The other pattern takes care of the property and Planning & Zoning Commission -3- 11/9/82 comes to the west on Oxbow and outlets into a retention basin which is to the west of Lot #14 and adjacent to Main Street . This retention basin then outlets into an existing pipe which comes into the property currently and that pipe carries out into an existing storm sewer system which runs underneath Main Street . The retention basin and storm sewage system is designed to meet all the criteria of the Town of South Windsor and is designed to be landscaped. The planting schedule was prepared by Alan Viets of Avon, -so that there will be a shallow basin for the temporary retention of the water with screening for the adjacent Lot #14, and it is intended to be a no-maintenance type landscaping. There will be trees planted along the south side adjacent to the Ida Pola property, as well as general planting throughout . The.; plan has been reviewed by Town Staff . Mr . Strauss went on to say the lot sizes ranged from 40 ,000 sq . ft . to 56, 352 sq . ft . The Conservation Commission has approved this plan as presented. Attorney Grace then introduced Clarence Welti, who stated he has a B. S. and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, and has been practising engineering since 1949 , in the field of soils and foundations which include geohydrology which he will be discussing this evening . Mr . Welti said that in 1978 when the first two houses were constructed there was some question as to the underdrainage on those two houses and how z it affected property to the north. He wrote a report at that time, and copies were submitted to the Commission. He concluded that neither the effect of the two houses which had underdrains , nor the underdrain in Oxbow Lane, had measurable effect on property to the north insofar as ground water is concerned . That analysis was based on normal geohydrological principals and test borings were taken, which indicate 6 to 8 feet of sand overlying the clay . The principal of water movement is dependent on the depth of the stratum, the slope of the groundwater table and the permeability . These three items determine just how much water can flow in a given direction. With the clay as high as it is , and with a limited aquifer of sand and limited slope , if the water can only move as fast as precipitation infiltrating, there is no effect on ground water. That is approximately what is happening in this matter . The distance of the underdrain in. Oxbow Lane , as well as in the houses, is sufficiently far away from the property to the north so that the draw-down effect is insignificant . Mr . Grace then introduced Thomas R. Currin, a traffic engineer from Manchester , who stated he has a Bachelor '.s , Master ' s and is completing a Ph.D in transportation engineering. He submitted a traffic report which concluded the level of service on Main Street is Level A, in which there is little or no restriction on speed or maneuverability. The report concluded "The traffic volumes generated by the 12 unit subdivision on the subject site should not increase the traffic beyond the roadway design capacity. It may be expected that while Planning & Zoning Commission -4- 11/9/82 creating a new curb cut on Main Street the very low volumes generated by this subdivision and the lack of sight distance restrictions at the proposed intersection of the new roadway and Main Street , that the proposed development will not cause a significantly detrimental effect upon the safety or capacity -of the roadway network. Mr . Grace summarized that the applicant is asking for a conventional subdivision, in a zone approved by the Commission that this area was set aside for . It borders an Industrial zone and it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan . The area can be serviced by public utilities , and traffic is not a problem since there are only 12 lots. Drainage, as explained by Mr . Strauss , will work, and Mr. Grace said that he can ' t believe property values will be affected since these will be large homes- on large lots . He said the applicant would be willing to post a bond to ensure that this subdivision is properly built . Mrs . Montana read into the record the approval letter of the Inland Wetlands Agency dated January 14 , 1982 , which is attached hereto and made part hereof, marked "Exhibit A" . Planning Director Peter DeMallie reported that this subdivision was orginally entitled Old Main Street subdivision and was originally filed in August , 1976 . A hearing was held in October , 1976 , and approval was granted November 23 , 1976 . However, the final plans were never filed . The application was reapproved October 25, 1977 , and the Commission was sued and the Court ultimately ruled that a new Public Hearing would have to be held. The final plans for this approval were never filed . A new application was received in April of 1980 , and a public hearing held in June of 1980. This application was withdrawn in October, 1980 . Another application was filed in March of 1982 , and a public hearing was scheduled. The applicant withdrew that application before the public hearing. The current application was formally received on September 14, 1982 and this is the public hearing on that application. Mr . DeMallie went on to say that Wetlands approval was secured , however, it was appealed to the Courts . This subdivision of 12 lots is in the South Windsor Historic District and consequently the applicant would have to approach the Historic District Commission if this application is approved . Based on a review of the plot plan, topographic and landscape plan, Mr . DeMallie . reported that all zoning and subdivision requirements appear to have been met . The road stub to the north of the cul-de-sac should be clarified as to the owner of it , in the event of future development. It most likely should go to the Town. The proposed lots are almost twice the size of most new subdivisions in Town, such as Pleasant Valley Homes or Country View Estates which is in keeping with Main Street, particularly the Historic District . The proposed road location appears satisfactory as to safety and the traffic volumes on this street are extremely low. To summarize, Mr. DeMallie said they have met all the requirements . Planning & Zoning Commission -5- 11/9/82 Town Engineer Page reported that he reviewed the plans for the subdivision and they have been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations and standards of professional engineering practice in Connecticut and they have been prepared with good engineering practices. The Engineering Department approves the plans as they relate to engineering and Public Works . No one in the audience wished to speak in favor of the application. Attorney Roberto said that he would let anyone other than his clients speak first in opposition to this application. No one else wished to speak, so Mr . Roberto proceeded. He said he represents various residents in this area, most notably Mr . & Mrs . Linwood . Addington, whose property abuts this subdivision; Dr. Lindquist, whose property is located across the street ; Nancy Caffyn, whose property is across the street ; Walter Willoughby, whose property is located .in the immediate vicinity, and a host of other individuals who signed petitions . Attorney Roberto said he wished to question various people who had spoken, and Mrs . Montana said he should ask his questions through the Chair . Mr. Roberto said that if he was not going to be allowed to cross-examine he wanted the record to show this since it would deny his clients due process . Attorney Grace said that he had no objections to Mr . Roberto questioning directly . Mrs. Montana told Mr . Roberto to go ahead, but to remember that this is not a court room. Mr. Roberto then questioned Mr . Strauss and determined from Mr . Strauss that as an engineer he did not feel the plans were substantially changed from the original plans due to the fact that there is now a detention basin. Mr . Strauss stated, upon questioning, that there were no plans to fence in the detention basin.He .said that question was reviewed with the Town staff, and - it is not the Town ' s policy to fence in retention basins . He added that the applicant would be willing to put a fence there if the Town wishes. Mr. Roberto then asked if the agreements that were made for storm sewers and water supply have been executed or just in the stages of being negotiated. Attorney Grace said he believed that the agreements , which are with Society for Savings, have been finalized. Attorney Roberto questioned Mr. Welti and determined that the hydrology study was done in February of 1978 . He said that after the two houses were built , in 1978 , 1979 . and 1980, their wells, based on a below normal rainfall , did drop down. He said he still maintains that the Addington property is not significantly or measurably affected by the two houses being built in this location. He said he did not believe the proposed plans would affect the Addington property or other abutting property. Mr . Roberto noted that there were no current tests to rely on. Mr . Welti said that current tests are not needed, and Mr . Roberto replied he was entitled to his opinion. Mr. Welti noted that after 33 years of experience, that is his opinion. Planning & Zoning Commission -6- 11/9/82 Attorney Roberto then called his client , Linwood Addington, and questioned him and Mr . Addington made the following comments: Heresides at 1648 and 1638 Main Street , and has lived there about 32 years . He said this area was very low and they built it up so that they could put in a septic system. Both properties have shallow wells, and they have a pond which they dug about 20 years ago . It is about 200 ' long by 60 ' wide and has been used for swimming and skating in the winter . Since the two houses were built ,Mr . Addington stated that the water table dropped and they were unable to use it for swimming . There never were any problems with a low level prior to the two houses being built . He said they can no longer keep the pond clean in the summer and it 's become a real eyesore . Alford Associates have been keeping an eye on this situation and have conducted tests since 1978 on an ongoing manner , and the last test was made about a month ago . The water level decreased, according to Alford Associates, due to the drainage system that was put in around the foundations of the two houses which were built . The foundations were pumped out before the houses could be built because they filled up with water. Mr . Roberto then presented the Commission with a copy of a Decision of an appeal to the Superior Court of the original approval of this subdivision which he stated said that Mr . Addington ' s appeal should be upheld because his property was faced with severe exposure to irreparable harm and damage that might occur if the proposed subdivision was allowed to be completed . Mr . Addington then submitted a petition which was signed by 58 persons residing at 39 addresses on Main Street , as well as 6 persons residing on Ellington Road, Pleasant Valley Road, John Fitch Boulevard, Sullivan Avenue and Ferry Lane . The petition stated that the undersigned oppose this subdivision application because it will change the character of the historical district , the proposed retention pond will be unsightly and pose a health and safety hazard, the proposed drainage ditch will present a health and safety hazard, the water table levels will be affected, and the location of the proposed homes will result in backyard views from the street . Mr . Addington then presented a number of photographs of the pond, surrounding area, location of the proposed retention basin and houses in the area, which he described in detail . He noted the pond used to reach a level of 11 feet and then go down to about 9 feet , which was maintained until the winter when the rain came and it would then go back up to 11 feet . Since the houses were built , Mr . Addington said the pond now goes down to about 4 ' , and algae builds up , and it cannot be used for swimming anymore . Mr. Addington said that Mr . Alford said if the other houses are built they will lose the pond as well as the shallow wells . Planning & Zoning Commission -7- 11/9/82 Mr. Roberto asked Mr. Addington if the value of his property would be severely affected if the pond suffers further damage , and if it was his fear and belief that his well would be affected and that the potential resale value and utilitarian value of his property would be rendered almost useless and non-existent , and Mr . Addington replied yes . Mr . Addington said he thought he ' d have to go to an artesian well since there are no plans for the Town to bring in city water . He added that having the rear yards of these properties facing his property would further depreciate the value of his property . Wilson Alford of Alford Associates in Windsor stated that he is registered as a Land Surveyor and Professional Engineer in the State of Connecticut and has been practising with this firm since 1970 . Upon questioning by Attorney Roberto he stated that during the last five years, at the request of the Addingtons, he conducted a series of studies concerning the affects Mr . Addington believed were the result of the subdivision adjacent to his property. In 1978 he met with Mr . Addington for the first time, and was given copies of letters from the surrounding landowners who all felt that something happened to lower the level of the pond. Mr_ . Alford submitted conies of the letters to the Chairperson. Mr . Alford said that the U. S . Geological Service has a well at 652 Main Street , and during 1974 through 1977 the fluctuations of the level of water in the well never exceeded about 3/4 ' . F. He pointed out on a map the two houses that were completed in 1976 or 1977, and where the proposed street will go , and then pointed out Mr . Addington' s property and the location of his wells and pond . He said the water table is fairly level throughout the area and the pond relies on groundwater for its water, and there is no stream going into the pond. On December 31 , 1977 he dug holes. between the pond and the house that was constructed. There is an underdrain near the foundation of this house, and Mr . Alford said that he feels this underdrain has an effect on the water table as it exists. He pointed to a chart which showed the elevation of the pond as 67 . The road is several feet below the existing ground and there should be an underdrain under the street although the plans do not show this . There is a clay level that runs 6 -8 ' below the existing ground surface and the bottom of the pond and sewers would be in the clay . The storm sewers would vary. He said that nobody can tell what the elevation of the water would be, but that the water would be pulled more so out of the ground into the storm drainage and into the underdrain. The water will follow along the stone that is the base of the storm drainage and will lower the water table . The sanitary sewer is tight but there is stone around it and the water will follow along the stone and try to find a way to get out . Basically the hydrolic gradient will be increased down tothe south to the storm drainage line . If the proposed houses have footing drains around them, they will act to drop the ground water table and all of these things will greatly increase the amount of water going to the south. Planning & Zoning Commission -8- 11/9/82 Mr . Alford said he tried to approach the problem intuitively because it is very difficult to quantify how much water is going through the ground, how much is going into the pipes and where it is coming from because you 're dealing with a watershed . He said there is a very good chance the water in the wells will drop down, and there is a valid concern. Upon questioning by Mr . Roberto , Mr . Alford said that it is probable that the wells of Mr . Addington, Mr . Willoughby and Mr . Mellon may be affected. He said that based on what he has done in the field and based on the testimony of the people who have written the letters and said the water level has dropped down, he would describe the effect on the Addington pond as dramatic . He added that nothing has happened in the past few years to account for the change that took place in the pond except for the building of the two homes . Mr . Alford went on to say that erosion could occur across the street from water in the detention basin in areas that are not stable . Mr . Roberto asked him if there was significant erosion in that area at the present time and Mr : Alford said that there is no sizeable erosion taking place but there appear to be areas that are not stable . Attorney Roberto then questioned his client Walter Willoughby . Mr . Willoughby stated he lives_at 1612 Main Street , and has lived there for_ 312 years . This is part of the subdivision that was constructed in 1978 . He said the area tends to be very wet , and he was not acquainted with the pond before he moved in but from discussing it with the neighbors - and observing the pond he does not believe this area is suitable for building. He said he gets sinkholes on his property due to the drainage system. He said he feels if these .homes are built it will adversely affect his property as well as the surrounding neighbors . Attorney Roberto questioned his client Richard Lindquist . Dr. Lindquist said he lived at 1695 Main Street and that he objects to this project because of the detention basin. He has small children and is concerned with safety, and noted his home is very close to the street and the distance between the detention basin and his home is just the width of the street . He noted from an aesthetic point of view the detention basin will not compliment Main Street . He said he plans to move the Pomeroy House from Suffield onto the lot adjacent to his home, and he feels the run-off from this project will prevent him for using the dirt road on his property . At this point, Chairperson Montana asked the Town Engineer to explain to the audience what a retention or detention basin is , since there appears to be confusion about its function. Mr . Page said that since about 1972 South Windsor adopted in most cases of new subdivisions and development of industrial sites a policy of what is called zero increase in surface storm water run-off , which means that historically there is a certain amount of run-off from a site which is based on the topography, soil types, etc . Engineers can Planning & Zoning Commission -9- 11/9/82 have a way of being able to calculate this . In an attempt to not force any more water downstream than is currently going there from an undeveloped site, shallow basins are designed. In this case it is 4 or 5 feet deep , and about an acre in size . The slopes are about three to one. During a storm the water that runs off streets is collected into catch basins and pipes and instead of being directed downstream it is directed into the basin which forms a storage area where the water is held for a period of time . If a storm lasts an hour and a half the water in the basin would be stored for about 10 hours and it ' s let out theoretically at the same rate it would have run off before . At the end of this 10 . hours the basin is empty and back to normal . Some of the basins have wet bottoms , and this one probably will have a wet bottom, but the water will never be very deep for a long period of time . In South Windsor , we do not provide fencing for detention basins and we have quite a few of them in Town . Some of them are very large and we have had no problem with maintenance . Some of them probably aren ' t too pleasing aesthetically, and we 've worked with the developers to improve them. The Town does take them over and is responsible to maintain them. We check the ones we 've had for years and the maintenance has almost been minimal . We consider detention basins to be a logical extension of the pipes, catch basins , that we have put in the streets . They do control the run-off and in his opinion, Mr . Page said they work very well . He added that the Planning & Zoning Commission has no power to accept detention basins or streets, and once the subdivision is approved and inspected to be sure it is constructed in accordance with the plans , Engineering Department recommends to the Town Manager that all the subdivision improvements - sewers , streets, catch basins , detention basins - be accepted. The Town Manager then refers it to the Town Council, for it ' s acceptance. Chris Caffyn of 1530 Main Street spoke in opposition to the application. He said they live across the street from the proposed development and he noted that the land they have been farming has decreased by about an acre . Every year it seems to drain slower and slower and cannot be used. He said he didn ' t feel the level in the pond lowered because of a dry season, because if it was a dry season they would have experienced it also . Atty. Roberto asked him if he thought the value of their land would decrease and Mr. Caffyn said yes. Robert L. Craven of 1712 Main Street submitted a letter in opposition to the application which states that they put a new shallow well in when they bought their property four years ago and can' t afford an artesian well . He feels if the subdivision is built it will cause water to drain away from his well, and he would be forced to put in an artesian well . He asks that if it is approved. the Commission make it a condition of approval that a bond of several million dollars be posted . Planning & Zoning Commission -10- 11/9/82 Attorney Roberto then read a letter from Constantine Zariphes adamently opposing the proposed subdivision because he "feels it abuses my neighbors rights to a proper water table for their wells . . . increases traffic and noise and air pollution as well as creating a health hazard in the proposed retention pond . . . .will set a precedent for other developments of this nature in the area. . . oppose the plan on aesthetic grounds . " Attorney Roberto concluded with a statement concerning the fact that his clients feel their land will be depreciated if this development occurs . Also speaking in oppositon were Bernie Bordua of 1417 Main Street who stated there is a ditch near his property and the level of water appears to be getting higher ; Frank Brown of 1675 Main Street , who is president of the cemetery association and is concerned about whether the water will disturb the graves ; and Elsie Willow of 1185 Main Street who is also concerned with the cemetery. The Commissioners then proceeded to ask questions . Mr . Gilligan asked Mr . Addington if the pond was natural and was told no, that it was excavated and water filled it up . He then asked if the pond is fenced in, and was told no. Mr . Gilligan then asked Mr . Alford if the erosion would be so—severe as to make the land useless , and Mr . Alford said it depends onthe slopes of banks , types of materials , etc . Mrs . Evans made a motion that the Commission continue the public hearing after 10 : 30 P. M. Mr. Norman seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered . Mr. Norman asked how long the water remains in the detention basin and Mr . Strauss said this was designed so that water will remain for 2 to 3 times the time of concentration. Mr . Norman asked Mr. Addington to clarify the depth of the pond, and Addington said it used to go from 11 ' to 9 ' and now drops from 11 ' to 4 ' . He said the well is about 100 ' from the pond, and the other well is further away. The depth of the wells are 30 ' and 32 ' . Mrs . Evans asked Mr . Alford the size of the watershed and he went into a lengthy explanation and finally said it could be about 40 acres . Mr . Strauss said they estimated the size of the watershed going into the detention basin is 23 . 6 acres . Mrs . Evans told Mr . Alford that she doesn ' t understand his caluculations and he once again went over the charts he had prepared. Mrs . Montana asked Mr. Welti if he could explain why the level of the pond has decreased, and Mr . Welti said he could not . Mr . Conde asked if the 12 additional houses are built would the level drop even more, and Mr. Welti said no . He said that even if everything Planning and Zoning Commission -7- 11/23/82 18 . Prior tothe building of any structure on a lot , a topographic map , drawn to a scale of 1" = 40 ' shall be submitted for each lot in the subdivision, showing proposed contours and elevations. No building permits shall be issued until the proposed contours and floor elevations have been approved by the Town Engineer. 19 . If , for any reason, finished grading and other 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 the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 20 . Black and white transparent mylars for Sheets 1, 2 and 3, shall be submitted to this Commission prior to February 21 , 1983, to be stamped and signed. The letter of approval of this Commission as well as the Inland Wetlands Agency must be reproduced on the mylars . 21 . No building permits will be issued until the final plans have been filed in the Town Clerk' s Office. Mrs. Evans seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. 3. App . #889 - William Krawski, Zone Change from AA-30 to GC Commissioners Mainelli stated that it doesn' t appear that the Commission can approve this application, and Mrs . Evans agreed that it couldn' t be approved under the circumstances since no restrictions can be placed on a zone change . Mrs . Montana stated she is sympathetic with the applicant but the Commissioners have a responsibility as elected officials and they couldn ' t permit this without restrictions and they are not allowed to place restrictions . Mr . Conde noted that if what the applicant proposes doesn ' t work, he could always fall back on the general commercial zone and do something more profitable. Mr . Gilligan said he questions the viability of such a project . He noted that a place like Sturbridge Village doesn ' t rely on surviving economically by selling , but on grants and donations. Mr, Sorenson then made a motion to deny the application of William Krawski for a zone change from AA-30 to GC on 7 .8 acres located on the east side of Buckland Road . Mrs . Sorosiak seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. 4 . Peter Churilo - 59 and 79 John Fitch Boulevard Mrs . Montana referred to a letter from Attorney Edwin Lassman dated November 22 , 1982 concerning the use of 79 John Fitch Boulevard as a health and fitness center . It was previously an unfinished furniture Planning and Zoning Commission -8- 11/23182 store . The Commissioners reviewed the letter wand agreed the proposal would make the site more att.ractIv'e' . Mr . Gilligan made a motion to approve the change of., -u s•e on this site and waive the requirement for a new,s3e-_plan in accordance with the letter from Mr . Lassman. Mr . Conde seconded the motion andit was u animou ly__-v'o'ted in favor and so ordered. R 0R'iS� + ~ Town Engineer - Charbonneau/Rossi Subdivision Mr. Page said there appears to be conflicting reports concerning the underground water at this site, and he suggested the Commission retain its own expert to evaluate the reports that were submitted by Mr . Welti and Mr . Alford. After a brief discussion, the Commissioners agreed that Mr . Page should obtain an estimate from SEA Consultants regarding the cost of such a report and, if necessary, perhaps another public hearing could be held to relay the information in this report to all parties . Mr . Page said he would check into this further and report back to the Commission. Saving Bros . , Inc . , $5, 000 bond Mrs. Montana suggested one of the Commissioners go .ca n to the P�T1 tre area and inspect the site along Edge�'©od Drive, where the berm and report__on its condition b 'fe the Commission takes further action arding the landscapi and it is holding. Mr. Mainelli was app ed to ins t the area and will meet with the Town Engineer on the s report back to the Commission. There being no furth}_e 'business Mr. Conde ma otion to adjourn the meeting at l0f5 P . M. Mr . Mainelli seconded the mo o , d7 — it was unanimr6usly voted in favor and so ordered . Respectfully submitted, Virgins S . Gra ey, Recording 2Vcretary APPROVED: PATTERSON, CASEY, HALPERN, COCO & GRACE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 25 OAKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074 (203)644-1528 RICHARD G.PATTERSON 185 SILAS DEANE HIGHWAY JOHN M.CASEY WETHERSFIELD,CT OB102 KENNETH S.HALPERN (2031 563-2634 NATALENO A.COCO WILLIAM E.GRACE JOHN W. DOMBROWSKI,JR. NANCE KRISCENSKI CASTILLO December 20, 1982 Inland Wetlands Agency Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Charbonneau & Rossi Main Street Property Dear Sirs: We are hereby requesting a one-year extension of the permit which was granted re the above matter. As you know, the matter is still pending in the Hartford County Superior Court. Thank you for your continued courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, William E. Grace WEG: srg Copy to: Messrs. Charbonneau & Rossi 10 N Sf4 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE - SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 l4°soa•co`c AREA CODE 203/644-2511 January 3 . 1933 ayne C. Gerlt, Es:uire Town nttol^ney-Town of South :indsor 4-35 BucklanC Road South ; indsor, Connecticut 06074 E: �_ F'T IC .TIO C. 200 Cj-�:L 0 :�<<� _U G .S T. 1Dear 'r a1'ne Enclosed is a coyly or a e --uest for ''Itensionf dated Decet ]Der20, 19 :?, -, or the above application? and "ela ea materials . -:.s this matter is still pending in =art Ord Siui7erior Court, Please advise us as to what action should be tale n red a c-inc tills ! e will be meeting, I'londay, January 10, 1923 . ver'j truly yours , Constance E_iksson, C jai j�n TO ;N, OF SO i z 750 C13:ch« iCLOSU (3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 1983 SPECIAL MEETING SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Evans, Montana, Hallowell, Conde, Sorenson, Norman ALTERNATES PRESENT: Gilligan (sitting for Sorosiak) ; Mainelli, Morrison MINUTES M Sorenson moved approval of the Minutes of De ember 7th and 14t Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. It was nanimously voted in fa or and so ordered. NEW BUSI1 SS 1. Chapel Hi Condominiums Mr. Conde reported that he had ins ected this property about a week ago. Mr. Page said that wo is progressing, and in his opinion the bond can be'° educe . Mrs . Evans made a motion t educe the $110,000 to $20,000, which will cover all improveme s in uding the remaining landscaping and buffering, paving, rainage d will ensure performance of the recreational areas . r . Norman sec ded the motion and it was unanimously vo d in favor and so rdered. t - 2. Andre Charb nneau, Site Plan, 51 Edwin oad Mr . Page re ooted that there is no erosion and he landscaping is comple ed. He recommended release of the bon Mr., H lowell made a motion to release the $1 ,000 bo being held by � a Commission. Mr . Conde seconded the motion and was animously voted in favor and so ordered. 3. Charbonneau/Rossi Subdivision, Main Street Mrs . Montana reviewed the letter from SEA Consultants dated December loth, which outlined the services they would perform in connection with evaluating reports which had been submitted by Messrs . Alford and Welti in connection with the above application. Mr . Page said he recommends the Commission accept this proposal . A question was raised as to whether it would be necessary to present this evaluation at a public hearing , and Mrs. Montana said the Town Attorney had recommended a limited public hearing be held. There was discussion as to whether this was necessary and it was agreed that Mrs. Montana would check further with Town Attorney Gerlt . Planning & Zoning Commission -2- 1/4/83 Mr. Hallowell moved that the Commission enter into an agreement with SEA Consultantsto perform the following services: 1 . Review and evaluate the report of Clarence Welti Associates, Inc. , entitled "Oxbow Lane Development , Main Street, South Windsor , Connecticut, Geohydrology - Impact on Pond to no-th of development. " 2 . Review and evaluate the report by Alford Associates of Windsor , Connecticut, prepared in behalf of Linwood Addington and neighbors, entitled "Review of Oxbow Lane Development on Groundwater. " 3 . Provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with professional evaluation of the relative positions of the two reports . 4 . Provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with an understandable description of the behaviour of groundwater tables relative to the soil conditions that exist in the area and the construction that has and may take place . 5. Provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with explanations -as to courses of action that could be taken to control groundwater tables and to present reduction in groundwater tables in the area. 6 . Evaluate any downstream erosion problems on the west side of Main Street for a distance of approximately two hundred fifty (250) feet . A written report of the foregoing evaluation will be sub- mitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission on or before ,January 25, 1983 . A sum not to exceed Seven Hundred Dollars ($700. 00) shall be paid to SEA Consultants, Inc . upon submission of the aforesaid report and an invoice. Mr. Conde seconded the motion, and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. Mr. Norman made a motion to accept the 65 day extension in which to act in this matter. The extension is from January 1°3th to March 19, 1983 . Mr . Sorenson seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. The Commissioners noted that SEA Consultants would require an additional $450 fee in the event they had to attend a public hearing to present their evaluation. SOW N Sfq4 C w F �w � C� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR-0) AREA CODE 203/644-2511 Please reply to: P.O. Box 559, South Windsor, CT 06074 January 14, 1983 Mrs. Constance Eriksson Chairperson Inland-Wetlands Agency 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Application No. 200 - Andre Charbonneau and Frank Rossi, Permit Extension Dear Constance: You have asked whether or not the appeal of the granting of the permit stays the expiration of the one year permit. Section 22a-43 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires that the applicant request an exten- sion of this permit because the Court did not grant a stay. If you have any further questions on this matte, don' hesitate to contact me. Very r y y s, ayne Chr' topper Gerlt WCG:lm t0'MM 8F, c r 71awn 07 Sau& ?V a 9 w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 e•co�� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 January 18, 1983 Messrs. Andre Charbonneau and Frank Rossi c/o William E. Grace, Esquire 25 Oakland Road South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Sirs: At the January 17, 1983 meeting, the South 17indsor Inland- Wetlands Agency approved a one-year extension of the existing permit for your Application NO. 200 for property on Main Street, South Windsor, Connecticut. This extension is effective January 11, 1983 through January 11, 1984. Very truly yours, nstance Erik on, Chairman INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CE:chm CC: A.. Bowen Davies, Deputy Town Engineer Marshall Montana, Chairperson, PZC Thomas D'Auria, Building Inspector Charles Enes, Town Clerk Peter De Mallie, Director of Planning 11ayne C. Gerlt, Town Attorney 1 February 7, 1983 S E A Consultants Inc. Engineers/Planners 54 Canal Street Boston.MA 02114 617 742.1133 Mr. Jules E. Page 415 Congress Street Town Engineer Portland,ME 04101 Town Hall 207 775.2281 1540 Sullivan Avenue 2Connecticut:-0 South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Rhode Island: 401274•8730 Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Princmis. Oxbow Lane Development Arnold B.Goldstein.P.E. Paul C.Ross,P.E. Ref. No. 288-8211 Frederick G.Autiero.P.E. Associates: Dear Mr. Page: Benjamin J.Fehan.P.E. Stephen H.Geribo.P.E. Kenneth M.Stewart.P.E. We have completed our analysis of the available data relative to the Consultant: proposed Oxbow Lane Development, and Lester Gaynor.P.E. P , present our evaluation herewith. After reviewing the engineering reports of Clarence Welti Associates, Inc. and Alford Associates, we can only conclude that there is insufficient data with respect to aquifer permeability and flow volumes through the existing underdrain systems on Lots 1 and 2, Main Street, to specifically predict groundwater alteration on a finite level. There is also an apparent conflict in the data with respect to the impervious clay layer underlying the area, and its position relative to the underdrains on Lot 1. The _. specific depth to clay at various locations on Lot 1 is left to some question as the soil profile graphic shows the clay layer below the underdrain system, yet the Alford data refers to clay deposits at or above underdrain grade. Despite the conflicting claims of Clarence Welti Associates, Inc. and Alford Associates, the information on hand provides a sufficiently clear picture of what is occurring in and around the pond. We do not believe that a more detailed groundwater analysis is required at this time. It is likely that the underdrain systems on Lots 1 and 2 are responsible for water loss in the pond to an extent somewhere in between the Welti prediction of 6-inches and the Alford report of 4 to 5 feet. Moreover, the potentially significant impact of drought conditions in the period 1978 through 1980 is not addressed by either party since the data predates 1978. However, the impact of Lots 1 and 2 on the local groundwater table is not the real issue. Rather, the Planning and Zoning Commission is concerned with the potential impact of a more extensive foundation and storm drain system on Oxbow Lane. We realize that this is a sensitive issue, therefore, we would caution the Commission against drawing simple analogies between what has transpired in the past and what may happen as a result of further construction. After reviewing all of the information provided to us, we believe that reasonable steps can be taken by the contractor during construction to minimize adverse impacts on the local groundwater table in general, and on the Addington' groundwater pond in particular. Before outlining these steps, we should first describe the EXHIBIT A Planning & Zoning Commission -7- 2/15/83 path to the existing berm behind Mrs. Bartula's house. The berm was made from dirt that was plowed back. It is not dirty or unsightly, but if you were looking at it from a homeowners point of view it is not as attractive as it should be. Plantings were called for as shown on the site plan and this has not been done. Mr. Mainelli said that for the $5,000 bond minimum plantings could be put in, but he feels a long term plan would be better. He suggested the Commission talk to Mr. Kaye and work out an arrangement whereby some plantings would be installed now, and then again next year more would be planted, etc. He noted that Buck Page had suggested something in the area of $3,000 a year over a several year period. The Commissioners discussed their various alternatives and finally concurred that it would be desirable to meet with Mr. Kaye to discuss this matter. The Secretary noted that Mr. Kaye would be at next week's meeting on the filling permit for the Balf Company, and the Commissioners instructed her to place this item on the agenda also, and advise Mr. Kaye. MINUTES Mrs. Sorosiak moved approval of the Minutes of January 4, 11 and 25, 1983, with corrections. Mrs. Evans seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. OTHER BUSINESS Mrs. Evans said it would be advisable to inform the Board of Education regarding the number of units being constructed in Town, and Mr. DeMallie said he had recently met with Supt. Goldman and had given him the most recent figures. He said he would check with the Building Department to be sure the Board of Education is on their mailing list to receive this information. Mr. Hallowell suggested to Mr. DeMallie that he keep apprised of pending legislation that may affect Planning & Zoning Commissions, and provide the Commission with copies of the proposed bills in the event they may wish to comment on it. Mr. DeMallie said that he would. There being no further business Mr. Hallowell moved the meeting be adjourned at 10:00 P. M. Mrs. Evans seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. Respec fully submitted r Virgini S. Graney Recording Secrete APPROVED: • - Se Mr. Jules E. Page February 7, 1983 S'E A Consultants Inc. Page 2 current behavior of the local groundwater table based on the information we now have. Under existing conditions, the water table north of proposed Oxbow Lane is probably fairly flat despite moderate surface irregularities, and the natural groundwater flow is toward the south and west. It is apparent that this groundwater flow and surface runoff serve to recharge the Addington' pond. Thus, any further inducement for groundwater to flow away from the pond could result in lower pond levels. Two factors related to the proposed subdivision which could further induce flow away from the pond are the installation of foundation underdrains and the proposed storm drainage system on Oxbow Lane. The developer's plans do not indicate the construction of foundation underdrains around the houses on Oxbow Lane, but their installation is quite possible since groundwater is shallow at 3 to 4 feet. We note that the developer has proposed the installation of a clay barrier along the northern boundary of the subdivision. Provided that they are designed and installed properly, clay barriers act as impervious vertical screen. In this case, groundwater flowing south would be intercepted by the barrier and diverted toward the west in the general direction of Main Street. An additional measure to consider is to extend the clay barrier from its proposed western limit at the back of Lot 1 to the pavement at Main Street. A full depth barrier of clay would greatly reduce or eliminate groundwater flow from the area of the pond to the underdrain system on Lot 1. In order to carry out such a plan, the cooperation of the developer and either the Addingtons or the owners of Lot 1 is required. There are several measures that can be taken to reduce the depletion of groundwater via the proposed storm drainage system. One is to use modern tight jointed pipes throughout. The tight joints are accomplished through the use of rubber gaskets, which greatly reduce infiltration. In order to reduce or curt off enhanced groundwater movement along the porous pipe bedding, the contractor can eliminate the porous bedding once the drain line penetrates the clay layer. Alternatively, the Con- tractor could utilize clay bedding and backfill over the pipe in limited sections along the drain line. We are confident that either method would effectively create a drainage system that is tight below grade, receiving only surface runoff, and thus prevent abnormal groundwater movements that typically accompany drain construction. In line with the suggestions above, we .would also recommend the use of precast manholes, with gasketed joints. In the event that the clay barrier were not constructed at all, the proposed storm water retention basin could have an impact on ground- water levels north of Oxbow Lane. Since the clay barrier is in fact proposed, we believe the impact of the retention basin outside of the immediate Oxbow Lane area would be minimal. This should be the case EXHIBIT A 8 380000 ' Mr. Jules E. Page S E A Consultants Inc. February 7, 1983 Page 3 even if the clay barrier is only constructed to the back of Lot 1. In that event, the underdrains on Lot 1 would continue to carry groundwater away from the vicinity of the Addington' pond. One additional possibility that should be considered is to disallow the construction of foundation drains on all proposed lots north of Oxbow Lane. The foundations can be constructed so as to be waterproof, in much the same way as dry wells in sewage pumping station. Although this technique is more expensive than normal foundation construction and may be unnecessary in light of the proposed clay barrier, we believe it should be brought to ,your attention. Such techniques appear to be unnecessary for the lots on the south side of Oxbow Lane. Surface topography in that area would indicate that groundwater flows in a north-northwest direction. Relative to downstream erosion on the west side of Main Street, for a distance of about 250 feet, we do not anticipate major change. If the Oxbow Lane Development becomes a reality, surface runoff from the developed area can be expected to increase only nominally. The drainage ditch on the west side of Main Street is substantially overgrown and the vegetation can be expected to retard significant tendencies toward erosion of a level of concern. That drainage ditch appears to have — possibly undergone earlier erosion, stabilized, and is'now overgrown with vegetation that, by its nature, is protective. We would anticipate little - or no increase to the velocity of flow, though perhaps more runoff over a larger period, thereby producing little or no effect on ditch erosion. We trust that this report will clear up some of the issues and opposing views relative to the subdivision plan, and assist the Commission in arriving at a final decision. Should you require further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are prepared to attend meetings of the Commission, or public hearings, in accordance with our letter of December 10, 1982. Very truly yours, S E A CONSULTANTS INC. A of B. Goldstein AB :mme EXHIBIT A Planning and Zoning Commission -2- 2/15/83 former level. Mr. Goldstein said he believed it would prevent future problems to the pond. Mr. Gilligan asked if the clay barrier went all the way to the street so that the underdrains that are already on Lot #1 are not draining from the pond, would that have an effect on the pond. Mr. Goldstein said it shop:-d affect the pond by cancelling or negating whatever effect the underdrains now have and he believes the underdrains on Lot #1 do have an effect on Addington's pond, but not to the extent of 4 or 5 feet of water depth. He noted that neither side presented any data to verify the 6 inches or 4 to 5 feet they claimed the pond was affected. He said that if the clay barrier is extended through to the back of Main Street, the effect of the underdrain on Lot #1 would be negated. Mr. Gilligan said that if the caay barrier were extended just to the _back of Lot #1, that would negate the impact of future development on the pond; and, if it were extended beyond Lot #1 to the street, it would negate the impact of all the development that has occurred in that area. Mr. Goldstein said that was correct. Mrs. Montana asked if the clay barrier were to curve around and go further north, would that make any difference? Mr. Goldstein said he would not be inclined to build a clay barrier with curves because you are creating containers and it is difficult to predict what would happen and you could prevent the water from escaping. Commissioner Conde asked how much good a clay barr-er would do as opposed to a real tight drainage system, and W. Goldstein said the effect would not be terrible different. Mr. Goldstein said that as far as the new development is concerned if the drains are tight and utilities are installed tight, there should be no new effect. By "tight" he said he means installed in trenches where the trenches themselves do not become conduits. He said there wouldn't be any new effect on the water table if this is done. . Commissioner Hallowell said that the Addington pond itself is an excava- tion that was for the purpose of gaining fill for another area when the septic system was installed, and it was not designed with a downstream clay core. He noted that with everything that is going on in the subdivision, if Mr. Addington truly wanted to have a pond, wouldn't the true correction to tie problem be to put a clay core on the dcwnstream side with some controls so that he could control the level of water? Mr. Goldstein said the pond is basically a hole that was dug in the ground with no inlet or outlet, and that he agrees with Mr. Hallowell's statement. He noted that one of the complaints Mr. Addington had was the algae and that isn't necessarily caused by the level of the water and because the pond isn't drained and flushed it picks up organic materials which causes algae. He said the water in the pond is no longer healthy unless there is flushing and draining. Mr. Hallowell said that if the water table level is high because of things that are done off-site such as installing a clay barrier, it can never be changed, whereas if the level of the pond is higher because of things that are done to the pond, it is something that could be changed years from now if necessary. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 1983 SPECIAL MEETING SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Sorosiak, Evans, Montana, Hallowell, Norman, Conde and Sorenson ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mainelli, Gilligan and Morrison NEW BUSINESS 1. Charbonneau/Rossi Subdivision, Main Street Attorney Roberto of East Hartford, who represents homeowners opposing this application, stated that since he wouldn't be allowed to make much comment, as stated in the letter he received, he still wanted to object to this proceeding as far as the consultant's report is concerned since he won't be permitted to cross-examine the expert. He said his clients are being denied the right of due process and that Town Attorney Gerlt has failed to furnish any substantial legal citations as to whether or not the Commission has the authority to request such a report. He said he believes this Commission is acting without proper statutory authority or case law to back it up. Seeking such an extraordinary avenue in obtaining this report shows a predisposition toward the application especially since it involves the Town's probate judge, and Mr. Roberto said it gives that appearance to the general public, including his clients. He concluded by reiterating that he objects to the proceedings and the fact that he would not be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Mr.' Roberto then left the meeting and Chairperson Montana asked Mr. Goldstein of SEA Consultants to proceed with his report. Mr. Goldstein said that preparing this report was within his firm's experience and capability and they did not conduct any independent examination but analyzed the reports that had been submitted at the public hearing by Clarence Welti Associates, Inc. and Alford Associates. Mr. Goldstein then read the report dated February 7, 1983, which is attached to and made part of these Minutes, and marked "Exhibit A". Mrs. Montana asked if the pond on the Addington property would be affected if the drainage clay barrier was installed, and Mr. Goldstein replied that the clay barrier is the key item with regard to the future subdivision and a tight drainage system is a good idea also. He said that if the drainage material is of coarse material, such as rock or stone, it becomes a drain and will drain water away. He noted that the intent of a drainage system is to pick up surface run-off and carry it away to an area where it will not cause a problem. Mrs. Montana asked if the drain was put in up to Lot #1 and did not go from Lot #1 to the street, would it create a problem on Lot #1, and also if the barrier is on Lot #1 could it create a drainage problem on the street. Mr. Goldstein said he didn't think it would create a problem because the movement is not rapid and the grading is relatively flat. Mr. Goldstein said that he didn't think Lot #1 would be adversely affected by the construction of the barrier. Commissioner Gilligan said that one report at the public hearing said the development reduced the level of the Addington's pond by 6" and the other report said by 4-5' , and he asked what effect the clay barrier would have on the pond, and whether it would return the pond to its Planning and Zoning Commission -4 2/15/83 2. Informal Discussion with William Krawski regarding proposed subdivision Mr. Hallowell said that if there is a formal application pending in this matter the Commission should not be meeting with the applicant prior to the public hearing. Mr. DeMallie said an application has been received in the Town Hall, and Mr. Krawski said that the three proposed plans he had here this evening were drawn up at the request of the Town staff, and he wanted the Commission to review them. Mrs. Montana said that informal discussions are sometimes held if a formal application has not been submitted. Mr. Hallowell said the applicant has chosen which alternative he wishes to go with and has submitted an application, and the matter cannot be discussed until the public hearing. Mrs. Evans agreed, and Mrs. Montana told Mr. Krawski that the Commission would schedule the public hearing as soon as possible. Mrs. Montana explained to Mr. Krawski that the-Commission could approve both the concept of the open space subdivision, as well as Phase I. It also has the option of modifying the proposed plan, by changing street layouts, etc. The Commission agreed to schedule a public hearing as soon as possible. 3. App. #884, Case Hill Subdivision, 12 lots, NIS Pleasant Valley Road N Mrp. Montana referred to a letter from Town Attorney Gerlt stating that the"Agreements to execute easements signed by the Cheskys and M 'ers were in or .er. There will be a 10' drainage easement on both the eskys and Ma rs properties rather than a 20' easement just on a Maders property s originally planned. Mr. Hallowell said he inks Pleasant Valle y Roa hould be brought up to Town standards, t a width of 261 . The swale to constructed on the easterly and no!A boundary should be shown on the ps, and Mr. Hallowell said 'h;e,,zninks th4nks the work should be bonded s arately along with the wo on the 20' drainage easement on the Mader and Cheskys propert . Mrs. Evans noted that perh this is a time for the Commission to allow the developer to have sidewa on ' st one side of the street, and have him install a sidewalk an leasant Valley Road. A review of the plans indicated that only one of a is Pleasant Valley Road and it would not be logical to hav the side in this small area. d The Commissioners agree the barns or struc es on two of the lots must be removed before t 6 plans are filed. After further discussion Mr. Hallowell made a motion approve the above application,f'or a resubdivision of 12 lots located on th orth side of Pleasant,Villey Road, subject to the following modification L" This approval is for 12 lots numbered 1 through and i luding 12 , as shown on plans prepared by Lucek Engineering Ass . , Inc. , dated-8/13/82 , Ref . 80-33, Project 82-19 , which shall be modified as follows : Planning and Zoning Commission -3- 2/15/83 Mr. Goldstein said that the idea of clay barriers is a possibility, but it does toy with the natural conditions. If a subdivision is built accord- ing to good standards and has a utility system that is constructed with. concern for not creating new sub-surface drains, on a permanent basis you would probably have a better condition. Mr. Gilligan asked if either the clay barrier or the tight system were more likely to be properly installed and function as designed. He said that in his business sometimes things are planned that look good on paper but in reality would be difficult to implement properly. Mr. Goldstein said that in his personal opinion as an Engineer, if he were building this subdivision h&_wculd be inclined to, put in a _utility system that is tight as opposed to a Fclay barrier. He said he'd le the w ear 'where -1 a t7is, nd he�believes the Addin ton's ond_ related to Lo s an 2 ra er than to the Proposed lots. He said the other 1 is shoulrno'E be constructed with underdraains; He said he would prefer no o p ay with nature by putting in the barrier, and he would be'"" inc ine oPut in a- �iy=systems where the trenches are back-filled wi_t`h the natural .material-thatJ, ahead there- anc not bri in the Ln M�. kind of material which would induce the flow of water. Mrs. Montana said that means the water would still drain out through Lots 1 and 2, and Mr. Goldstein said that's true. He said there are really two separate questions. Lots 1 and 2 do have an effect_ on A ching ton's pond because of the underdrain. ere are two possible solutions anff one is to remove the underdrains, but Mr- Goldstein said he would suspect the basements weren't constructed to be water tight and that might cause problems. Mr. Goldstein said putting in a short clay barrier cguld shield Addin tons and from the two exst�n douses bud i'or »_. the proposed rsulashvision`. eQuld be. inclined _ o go-_nth the y ti ht system. g _ _. . Mrs. Montana asked if there would be any effect on the wells in the area, and Mr. Goldstein said he didn't think there would be. Commississioner Conde noted that with the permeability of the soil, wouldn't the slow moving water eventually just go around any barrier that was installed, and Mr. Goldstein said that with a short barrier it probably would. He said a short barrier is of questionable value and the water table would have a tendancy to restore itself, and a short barrier may accomplish nothing. Mr. Conde said that the only solution then would be to put a barrier completely around Lots 1 and 2 and completely encircle the underdrains. Mr. Goldstein agreed, but said you could accomplish almost the same thin by putting in a semi-circle following the natura s ope of the land. Mrs. Evans asked how ddee� a clay barmier would have to be to work, and Mr. Goldstein sai ic'C� t would have to be below the grade of the pond and the u�aderdrains on the housess W. ,Hallowell said that there is clay at around 'or 10 feet, and Mr. Goldstein said you wouldn't have to go any lower than when you strike clay. Mr. Hallowell asked if there would be any effect on ground water if the subdivision is built, and Mr. Goldstein said he didn't believe there would be any effect. Mr. Gilligan asked if the detention basin would give some of the water back, and Mr. Goldstein said it tends to hold the water and reduce any immediate impact from letting it run off in a hurry. Planning & Zoning Commission -3- 2/22/83 8 . The Inventory and Evaluation of Balf Gravel and Sand Area on Nevers Road prepared by the U. S . D. A. Soil Conservation Service shall be complied with . 9 . Only one entrance shall be used on Nevers Road. This entrance shall remain fenced with a gate which shall be locked when the pit is not in use. There shall be no entrance onto Abbe Road. Mr ., Norman seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in f vor and so ordered. 4 . John Russo , Temporary and Conditional permit for sand and gravel removal , Nevers Road Mr . John Russo was present and informed the Commission that nothing has been done on this site in the past couple of years , however , they would like to renew the permit . The site is partially graded , and has been cleaned up . Mr . Hallowell noted that the permit should also state that it is for filling, as well as removal , and he suggested the plan be refiled . Mr . Russo said he could have the plan updated to show the grades at different spots so the Commission could see how close to final grade they are . He noted the back portion of this site has been graded off . Eventually they hope for a subdivision with single family homes . Mrs . Evans made a motion to table this matter until next month ' s regular meeting, at which time the applicant will return with an updated plan . Mr . Sorenson seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted and so ordered. 5 . Edward Golas , Site Plan, 684 Sullivan Avenue Mr . Emil Lucek was present with the applicant and stated the applicant wishes to operate a one-man machine and tool shop at this site in a general commercial zone . He has two machines - a vertical turret lathe and a horizontal lathe . The owner makes most of the pick ups and deliveries in his own car . Mrs . Montana noted that the Commission doesn ' t want to drive by the site one day and see a second driveway , and Mr . Lucek assured her that if the applicant ever expands they would come back to the Commission with an amended site plan . He said Mr . Golas will live in the house . Mr . Conde made a motion to approve the application of Edward Golas for a site plan of development for property at 694 Sullivan Avenue, in a GC zone , subject to the following modifications : 1 . A 200 scale key map shall be added to the plot plan. 2 . No outside storage is permitted . 3 . Not more than one person shall work in the business conducted on this site . Planning & Zoning Commission -4- 2/22/83 4 . �A-_ black and transparent Ian / P p printed on polyester film shall be u -i4itted to this Commission to be signed.--a76d stamped , so that it can be fi -d- no later than May 23 , 1983 . The approval letter of this Commiss must be reproduced on the mylar before filing . Mrs . Sorosiak seconded motio and/ it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. 6 . Faith Tabernacled,REff_rch , Site P Special Exception Mr . Hallowell e� a motion to grant the above a licant a 90 day extension time in which to file the final plans. The extension is fro arch 8 to June 6, 1983 . Mr . Norman seconded e motion ian t was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered. 7 . App . #883 , Charbonneau/Rossi , Main Street Mrs . Montana asked the Commissioners if , generally speaking , after hearing the report of SEA Consultants last week, they felt that clay barrier would work. Mr . Hallowell said no ; Mr . Conde said he felt the tight installation system on the new houses would be better ; and Mrs . Evans said she didn ' t think a clay barrier would be a permanent solution. Mrs . Montana said that if the Commission requires water-tight basements it will not alleviate the problems that exist now with pond, and Mr . Hallowell noted that nothing will alleviate that problem, since the Commission does not have the right to go on private property which is not the subject of this application to implement anything that would work. Mr . Sorenson noted that it ' s impossible to tell what is happening underground if a clay barrier is installed . Mrs . Evans noted . that the Commission has two problems : Can it alleviate what already is wrong and secondly , can something be done in the future to prevent problems? Both solutions would have to be attached to the current development . She added that clay barriers do not appear to prevent future problems , and perhaps the Commission should require water right pipes in all developments where there might be problems . Mr . Hallowell said the Commission might in effect be denying the application by insisting upon this expensive type of construction. Mr . Sorenson said he didn ' t think it was too much of a problem to ask the developer to compact the material around the pipes . Mr . Gilligan noted that the rule about conditions the applicant can ' t fulfill really doesn ' t apply to economics , but to matters beyond his control . Mrs . Montana asked if the Commissioners meant they didn' t feel a clay barrier should go in at all , and Mr . Conde said not necessarily , but it would be necessary to know exactly where the clay starts and exactly which way the water flows before putting in a clay barrier . Mrs . Evans noted that a condition of approval that a clay barrier Planning & Zoning Commission -6- 2/22/83 at the public hearing this area appears to be getting wetter and wetter . Mr. Gilligan noted that Mr . Goldstein said the consequences of the two houses on that area appears to be very minor . Mrs . Evans noted that with the Town ' s zero run-off policy there will be less water if the subdivision is built than there is now. Mr. Robert Craven of 1712 Main Street, who was in the audien ce , spok e e and stated that this land is swampy and if the houses are built they will displace water and it will go on the Caffyns ' property. Commissioner Norman said that he is not ready to make a decision this evening, and he wants to go over the material again .and absorb it . Mrs . Nancy Caffyn spoke and said she has been doing some phone-calling today and there seem to be a lot of gray areas . She suggested the Commission consider an advisory review team report , at no cost , which would review exactly what the Commission is talking about tonight . She said they would consider this historic district , and she didn ' t want to see any more mistakes made in this area as in the past . Mrs . Montana noted that the concerns the Commission has in this development appear to be engineering concerns , and the Commission has already received three reports . She noted the Town Engineer is on vacation at the moment , and the Commission would like to discuss this with him.. Mr . - Davies noted that he earlier told Mrs . Montana he would feel more comfortable if Mr . Page were here. Commissioner Hallowell said he thinks it should be noted that any mistakes made with the construction of the two existing homes had nothing to do with the Planning & Zoning Commission and it ' s approval was not necessary when the homes were built . Mrs . Caffyn said the Town and it ' s Engineering Department was responsible . Mr . Gilligan said he would like to have an opinion from Town Attorney Wayne Gerlt regarding the existing development , which really has nothing to do with the subdivision application. He said he would like some input as to what the Commission can do . Can it deny an application because of something that it not part of the applica- tion? Mrs. Montana said she would like to know whether the Commission ,can require improvements on other people ' s property off the site . Commissioner Conde said that if the Commission looks at this application just as it was presented, and without regard to what happened in the past , he has no problem with it . He noted that he thinks this subdivision can be built without changing the conditions as they exist . The Commissioners concurred that this matter would be discussed again at the March 15th meeting, and in the meantime an opinion would be sought from the Town Attorney . It was noted that this matter must be decided no later than March 19 , 1983 , and no further extensions are allowed by State statute . 00 Planning & Zoning Commission -5- 2/22/83 be installed on someone else ' s land is something the Commission might not be able to do . Mrs . Montana said she thought from Mr . Goldstein ' s report it might be advisable to go with clay barriers on the two lots that already have been built upon, and then _go with the tight pipe system elsewhere. Mr . Conde said that would mean a clay barrier to the north of Lot 1 and encircling both Lots 1 and 2. Mrs . Montana raised a question about the possibility of moving the detention basin from its planned location on Main Street , back to where the proposed Lot #14 would be . She said she has received phone calls concerning this and people on Main Street are opposed to the basin being located on Main Street . Mrs . Evans asked if the detention basin were moved, would it be deeper , and Deputy Town Engineer Davies said that the size could be altered, if necessary . A lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether it would be desirable or practical to relocate the detention basin. Mr . Gilligan felt that the water might be as deep as 8 ' if the basin was on Lot #14 and the slopes would be steeper . Mr . Davies said he thought the depth would be 4 or 6 feet . Mrs . Montana said there is a lot of objection to a detention basin in a historic district . Mrs . Evans noted that the plan calls for extensive landscaping, and the basin would be empty most of the time . She also stated that this subdivision application would have to go to the Historic District Commission for its approval and recommendations . Mr . Hallowell said that since maintenance of detention basins is such a problem, perhaps it could be designed as part of someone ' s lot . There was further discussion and Mrs . Montana asked if all the Commissioners agree the basin should .stay where it is , and Mr . Norman said it would be too deep if it were elsewhere ; Mrs. Evans said she believes it is preferable to leave it where it is . Mr . Mainelli asked how long it would take to drain the basin after a storm, and Mr . Davies said a 50 year storm would drain within 24 hours . He noted the pipe would be 18" at one end, and the outlet would be 9 " to let the water out slowly . Mrs . Montana noted that the Commission hasn ' t addressed the problem downstream. Mr . Goldstein said there do not appear to be any problems, however at the public hearing people said there has been a problem. She went on to say that she felt a problem may have been created when the two houses were built, and there is a drainage ditch that runs parallel with Main Street . Mrs . Evans noted that it was stated at the public hearing that the drains were cleaned out . Mr . Hallowell noted that before the drainage ditches were installed there was no farming in that area , and the ditches were put in back in the 30 ' s . Mrs . Montana said that according to what people said SOWN Se U Ta W,n 0s0 t d/7, 7A a . w 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 f�dSOR•CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511 Please reply to: Gerlt & Smith P. 0. Box 559, 435 Buckland Road South Windsor, CT 06074 March 29, 1983 Constance Eriksson Chairperson Inland-Wetlands Agency 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Charbonneau/Rossi Application - Main Street Dear Chairperson Eriksson: In response to your inquiry dated March 23, 1983, please be advised that the Commission can still act upon the above application although it has a decision regarding the same property under appeal. Under Connecticut General Statutes 22A-43, an appeal does not stay the proceedings on any regulation, order, decision:, or action of the Commission. There is presently no stay pending in the appeal of the Charbonneau/Rossi Application. Therefore, your agency may consider an amended application. If I can be of further assistance to you in this matter, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Wayne Christopher Gerlt WCG:mrl "OWN SF� r Tawn- o-PSptd/2 a w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 Soa•CO�� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 September 20, 1983 Andre Charbonneau/Frank Rossi c/o William E. Grace, Esquire 25 Oakland Road South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 RE: APPLICATION 200 LANDSCAPING PLAN/CONSERVATION PLAN Dear Attorney Grace: The Conservation Commission is generally in agreement regarding the Landscaping Plan presented at the meeting, Monday, September 19 th. However, we will need a time table for your plantings, and erosion and sedimentation control plan. As soon as this information has been submitted, it will be placed on the next available agenda for review. Very truly yours, Calvin Lane, Act- i g Chairman CONSERVATION COMMISSION TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CL:chm cc: A. B. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer Mervyn Strauss, Strauss Engineering Associates, Inc. 1TRAUII EnGIf1EWnG RUOCIATU. Inc engineers■ landscape architects■surveyors October 10, 1983 Mr. A. Bowen Davies Town Engineering Department 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut RE: Rossi & Charbonneau Old Main Street South Windsor, Conn. Dear Mr. Davies: In response to the Conservation Commission' s inquiry concerning the developer's time table for the proposed construction, we recommend the following: 1 . The design conservation plans show a step by step technique for performing the required work. The timing: of the work is based on the measures outlined. The construction shall follow the plan. The conservation measures begin when the construction starts. Z. The work will be started during a normal construction season using the controls stated above. 3. The planting plan and the material shall be installed according to that plan after the detention basin is constructed. The planting shall take place during the recommended growing season for this area of New England. 4. All work shall be in conformity with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook of the USDA - SCS. 1 trust that this answers the Commission's request. If you require further information, please contact me. Very truly yours, ,,.STRA S ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, Inc. f C Mervyn,/ Strauss, P.E. MFS:akl cc: Mr. Francis Rossi 1\ p.o. box 962 ■ avon park north■avon,connecticut 06001 ■ (2031 677-0114 �O*N St4 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 soR.co� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 October 18, 1983 Andre Charbonneau/Francis Rossi c/o William E. Grace, Esquire 25 Oakland Road South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 RE: APPLICATION NO. 200 - MAIN STREET Dear Sirs: • At the October 17, 1983 meeting of the Conservation Commission, your Conservation Plan/Landscape Plan for Application NO. 200 was approved. Very truly yours, Calvin La e, Ac-ti6F Chairman Conservation Commission Town of South Windsor cc: Mervyn Strauss, Strauss Engineering Associates, Inc. A. B. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer Marshall Montana, Chairperson, PZC PATTERSON, CASEY, HALPERN, COCO & GRACE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 25 OAKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074 (203]644-152B RICHARD G.RATTERSON 165 SILAS DEANE HIGHWAY JOHN M.CASEY WETHERSFIELD,CT 06109 KENNETH S.HALPERN [203]563-2634 NATALENO A.COCO WILLIAM E.GRACE JOHN W. DOMBROWSKI,JR. NANCE KRISCENSKI CASTILLO November 9 , 1983 Ms. Constance Eriksson Inland Wetlands Agency Town of South Windsor South Windsor Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Charbonneau/Rossi Main Street Subdivision App. #200 Dear Ms. Eriksson: Enclosed please find signed Application, together with our check for $50 , re the above-captioned matter. As you know, it was impossible to complete sufficient improvements because of the Appeal. We ask that the extension be put on the Agenda as soon as possible. All of the necessary plans and information are in the Engineering office, although if there' s anything else needed please let me know. Very truly yours a& William E. Grace WEG: srg Enclosure Copy to: Andre L. Charbonneau Francis V. Rossi PATTERSON, CASEY, HALRERN, COCO & GRACE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 25 OAKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074 [203)644-1526 RICHARD G.PATTERSON 165 SILAS DEANE HIGHWAY JOHN M.CASEY WETHERSFIELD,CT OB109 KENNETH S.HALPERN [203]563-2B34 NATALENO A.COCO WILLIAM E.GRACE JOHN W.DOMBROWSKI,JR. November 15 NANCE KRISCENSKI CASTILLO , 1983 Ms. Constance Eriksson Inland Wetlands Agency Town of South Windsor South Windsor Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor CT 06074 RE: Charbonneau/Rossi. Main Street Subdivision Dear Ms. Eriksson: Enclosed please find our check in the amount of $15. 00 to cover the filing of the extension of permit with respect to the above- referenced property. If you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, /.4 William E. Grace WEG:mgs Enclosure (check) `OwN SE, y r ` own, a,-le SotdA � o � a 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 �f�dsOR-CO� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 November 22, 1983 Messrs. Andre Charbonneau & Francis Rossi c/o William E. Grace, Esquire 25 Oakland Road t South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Sirs: At the November 21, 1983 meeting, the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency approved a one-year extension of the existing permit for your Application NO. 200 for property on Main Street, South Windsor, Connecticut. This extension becomes effective January 11, 1984 through January 11, 1985. Very truly yours, onstance Eriksson, Chairman INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CE:chm cc: A. B. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer Robert Gilligan, Chairman, PZC Thomas D'Auria, Building Official Charles Enes, Town Clerk Peter De Mallie, Director of Planning Mervyn Strauss , Strauss Engineering Associates, Inc. PEASE, MAIN & BERGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW MALL WAY P.O.BOX 544 WILLIAM PEASE SIMSBURY,CONNECTICUT 06070 THOMAS S.WHITMAN PHILIP D. MAIN OF COUNSEL MARSHALL K. BERGER, JR. (203)658-4483 June 11, 1984 Inland Wetlands Agency Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Re : Charbonneau/Rossi Application No. 200 Dear Commissioners : Please be advised that I represent Joseph M. Bouffard , Incorporated. This corporation is contemplating the purchase of twelve building lots located on the easterly side of Main Street, South Windsor, CT. On January 14, 1982 you granted a permit with conditions. This permit has been renewed several times . The latest time being November 21, 1983 when you extended the permit to January 11 , 1985 . There is some legal doubt as to whether such a permit runs with the land or is personal to the applicants . To remove this doubt, it would be greatly appreciated if you would reissue this permit to Joseph M. Bouffard, Incorporated. The corporation ' s president and principal stockholder is Joseph M. Bouffard who lives at 1474 Main Street, South Windsor, Connecticut. Mr. Bouffard is very familiar with this permit and the conditions concerning the issuance of the same . He is perfectly willing to abide by the terms of the permit and has already discussed the matter with A. B. Davies , Deputy Town Engineer. The Connecticut General Statutes do not require a new hearing as the subsequent purchaser is willing to abide by the existing permit and its conditions . I am, therefore, requesting a letter stating that this permit is transferred to Joseph M. Bouffard, Incorporated. If there are any questions, either myself or Mr. Bouffard would gladly appear before the agency at its next meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very? truly yours, William Pease WP:pay Az-tee..411Y/S-14 PEASE, MAIN & BERGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW MALL WAY P.O.BOX 544 WILLIAM PEASE SIMSBURY,CONNECTICUT 06070 THOMAS S.WHITMAN PHILIP D. MAIN OF COUNSEL MARSHALL K. BERGER, JR. (203)658-4483 June 13, 1984 Conservation Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Application No. 200 - Main Street Dear Sirs : Please be advised that I represent Joseph M. Bouffard, Incorporated. This corporation is contemplating the purchase of twelve building lots located on the easterly side of Main Street, South Windsor, CT. On October 17, 1983 your commission approved the Conservation Plan/Landscape Plan for this subdivision. There is some legal doubt as to whether such approval runs with the land or is personal to the applicants . To remove this doubt, it would be greatly appreciated if you would reissue this permit to Joseph M. Bouffard, Incorporated. The corporation' s president and prinncipal stockholder is Joseph M. Bouffard who lives at 1474 Main Street, South Windsor, Connecticut. Mr. Bouffard is very familiar with this permit and the conditions concerning the issuance of the same . He is perfectly willing to abide by the terms of the permit and has already discussed the matter with A. B . Davies , Deputy Town Engineer. The Connecticut General Statutes do not require a new hearing as the subsequent purchaser is willing to abide by the existing permit and its conditions . I am, therefore, requesting a letter stating that this permit is transferred to Joseph M. Bouffard, Incorporated. If there are any questions, either myself or Mr. Bouffard would gladly appear before the agency at its next meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, r � William Pease �� WP:pay �OwN Sf4 /ram �] �^ 1/ C w a � U 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 sox•co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 June 21 , 1984 William Pease, Esquire Pease, Main & Berger Attorneys At Law Mall Way P. 0. Box 544 Simsbury, Ct. 06070 RE: APPLICATION) NO. 200 CHARBONNEAU/ROSSI Dear Attorney Pease : MAIN STREET The Conservation Commission and Inland Wetlands Agency have received your requests regarding the above referenced application. Your proposal for the reissuance of approvals under the name of Joseph M. Bouffard, Inc. will be placed on the agenda of the Commission and Agency meetings to be held Monday, July 9, 1984. If it is necessary for your attendance at these meetings, you will be notified what time to appear, once the agenda have been prepared. Very truly yours, Corinne H. Murray, CI rk CONSERVATION COMMISSION and INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY cc: A. B. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer o c u a 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 lYOSOR,Cot AREA CODE 203/644-2511 July 11 , 1984 William Pease, Esquire Pease, Main & Berger Attorneys At Law Mall Way P. 0. Box 544 Simsbury, Connecticut 06070 RE: APPLICATION NO. 200 CHARBONNEAU/ROSSI-MAIN ST. , SOUTH WINDSOR, CT. Dear Attorney Pease: At the July 9, 1984 meeting, the South Windsor Inland- Wetlands Agency decided that Joseph M. Bouffard, Inc. will be included as an additional permittee for the permit dated January 14, 1982 and extended through January 11 , 1985 for the above referenced application. This will become effective as soon as Mr. Bouffard gains title to the property and pro- duces such documentation to the Inland Wetlands Agency. Ve truly your V 7 ` stance Erikson, Chairman INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CE:chm cc: William E. Grace, Esquire A. B. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer Joseph M. Bouffard Robert F. Gilligan, Chairman, PZC Thomas D'Auria, Building Official e � a OVIN T-Own, O-P S-ItW&A wQ 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 soe•co� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 November 16, 1984 Messrs. Andre Charbonneau & Francis Rossi c/o William E. Grace, Esquire 25 Oaklnad Road South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Dear Sirs: This is a reminder that your extension for Application No. 200 for property on Main Street, South Windsor, Connecticut, will expire as of January 11, 1985. If the acts of ther permit are not completed as specified at the end of the one-year extension, a new application is re- quired. Please act on this matter accordingly. The Inland Wetlands Agency's December, 1984 meeting is scheduled for Monday, December loth. If you have any questions please call the agency office or Mr. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer. Very truly yours, Susan M. Earle, Clerk Inland Wetlands Agency cc: A.B. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer PEASE, MAIN & BERGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW MALL WAY P.O.BOX 544 WILLIAM PEASE SIMSBURY,CONNECTICUT 06070 THOMAS S.WHITMAN PHILIP D. MAIN OF COUNSEL MARSHALL K. BERGER, JR. (203)658-4483 December 4, 1984 Constance Eriksson, Chairman Conservation Commission Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms . Eriksson: Re : Application No. 200-Charbonneau/Rossi Main Street, South Windsor Conservation Plan/Landscape Plan Pursuant to your letter of July 11 , 1984, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Warranty Deed from Andre L. Charbonneau and Francis V. Rossi to Joseph M. Bouffard, Incorporated. This deed was recorded in the South Windsor Land Records on November 30, 1984. At the present time, road work has been commenced in connection with this application, but it would appear that it will not be completed by January 11, 1985. On behalf of my client, Joseph M. Bouffard, Incorporated, I request that the permit be extended for an additional year. May I hear from you in connection with this matter. Very truly yours, William Pease WP:pay Enc. cc: Mr. Joseph M. Bouffard �OgIN Sf� v a � , S UIA ?dl�ldgot 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR co�� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 December 18, 1984 r Yesers. Andre Charbonneau, Francis Rossi.. & Joseph Bouffard c% William E. Grace Esquire 25 Oakland Road South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Certified Mail Dear Sirs: At the December 17, 1984 meeting, the South Windsor Inland Werlands Agency approved a one-year extension of the existing permit for your Application No. 200 for property on Yjain Street, South Windsor, Connecticut. This extension becomes effective January 11, 1985 through January 11, 1986. - Very truly yours, Cazsstance ErikMon, Chairman INLAND WMELANDS AGENCY. TOWN OF SoLTH W jXDSOR CE/se cc: A.B. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer Robert Gilligan, Chairman FZC Thomas D'Auria, Building Off is ial C flies, Town Clerk Peter DeMa,llie, Director of Planning John Shemo, EDC Mervyn Strauss, Strauss Engineering Associates, Inc.