HomeMy WebLinkAboutStonefield Trail r
70� ap S-0� V&U&ot
e �
w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH-WINDSOR, CONK. 06074
��osoR-CO � AREA CODE 203/644-2511
August 19 , 1988
Mr . Garvin G. Boudle
130 Stonefield Trail
South Windsor, CT 060764
Dear Mr . Boudle :
This letter will confirm receipt of your letter of August
4, 1988 regarding a depression in Stonefield Trail around a sewer
manhole . The depression has been repaired.
It is regretable and unexcusable that your concern was not
addressed expeditiously; however, I can assure you that response
to citizen' s concerns regarding road conditions has and will
continue to be of the highest priority.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
Mi hael J. GoIntick
Director of Public Works
MJG:bmr
cc: Jean Zurbrigen, Ass ' t. to Town Manager
Y -
13C StC, fieIt Tra;
South W i ndsor, C'. 0;6CJ 4
August 4. '9u
-he Honcrable E c'�rard f . „c�° nc
Mayor 0f tre Cwn OT Cy tt` IMincsor
C/C :�per-1a1 Ci ; and ' -smb':nC
yS , Sull . van Avenue
South Windsor, Ct. 06u174
wear Sir:
On the ,qeek of June 30th, ? notified the town road de;artment, via a phone
call , that a very large depression had formed around a manhole cover at the
iunetion of Stonefield irai1 and Wi1dwood Circle. A well mannered lady said
she would see that it was repaired. One month later, we still have the depression,
only now it is even larger.
it not only punishes vehicles which must traverse this sect4op Of t~e road,
but also reoresents a disc nct hazard- to _h4 laren, and trier_ are a few in this
a~ea, why ,:just dodge those vehi C I es treat are tryi ng avoi d thi s obstructi or:.
'y i + '� r o. c de rttment r;aQ n i Ui,e V- pri ctr i—1 OC era'
i s quite4e obvious what our town r ac :�..�'a. ,,:,,_: � .. : -
, esoonci:-gig to cit' Zer comp `aints of na.zardous send' Ons which exist on ou" rDacs,
even if those conditions cou i d endaroer our cn- crer:.
Maybe as Mr. Wenr suggest+ you can en i grater; us or t�cse nigher
gGals -"or ore, would really enjoy a lect_jr_ or why 14D serviC_ is supzrior
to real service. Maybe, setter yet, llke those of us wno erartice a ritual Called
r: rig .ad-; r,e" - tnrVwi rig out those teTs we -'^c nc F c_°" serve our neecs -
vou souls C-_ncJct your own Sod- r•g _ .ear: nc`; . Wr- e - s vie_ _ past spring
e"Ver too l ate, tna, i s ;:n ,eS_ VIC", w'c - uri. . c ew we=K; Dr-or tC -,jr next
-\'r�`'On Snake our .,arid an- K'.s= ou naD"ez _ =ad- ass:.-e you tnat wit I not
�e a Sub t tute, in Our minds_ f c r ao�niz yr,ur
rarVlrG BouC"
L ' 6 4
Mr. nn
M� c e
�(
t�lr.. ��' chard Sartor /
C ' ` � `�' _� /317 !r�
r i
MEMORANDUM December 31 , 1987
TO: Michael Gantick , Director of Public Works
RE:
I walked around the conservation easement behind lots 57 and 58, Sally
Drive and Lot 13, Stanley Drive.
This was done because Mrs. Raymond of 133 Stanley Drive (Lot 13) indicated
that during a recent storm that occurred around December 1 , water filled
the area and debris may be causing a back up.
The subject area is a wetland with a low area, holding shallow water ,
several native trees and is covered with low brush. It is a natural area
with a manmade outlet near the northwest corner of Lot 57.
Boards and pieces of insulation , apparently left by the builder and a
small 4 ' diameter plastic wading pool is at the bottom of the slope near
the property line between Lot 57 and 58. This material does not cause any
restriction of the flow. A small pile of brush on top of the bank on Lot
58, which is not within the easement , also does not cause any problems.
I think we should get more information on the intent of conservation
easements and what are our maintenance responsibilities, if any.
The way this particular easement is worded , I am concerned that Public
Works is being put in the position of removing materials from private
property. I also wonder how and who is the enforcement agency, if for
example, a homeowner elects to use this area as a dumping ground. There
is no vehicle access to this areav the only way in is at the discharge end
of the easement where it comes out to Sally Drive, west of Lot 57, the
grade is too steep and abrupt to get a vehicle in.
� There is also an empty lot on Stanley Drive, Lot 11 . No building permit
has been issued , but I understand that JMJ is still trying to get one. I
also understand that the Conservation Commission wants this lot to be part
of the conservation easement. The lot is in terrible shape, it was
apparently used as a staging area and should be cleaned up , loamed and
seeded , prior to acceptance of the roads in this area.
Melvin C. Stead , Jr.
Superintendent of Street Services
MCS/ds
cc: Karl Reichle
N
m