beagenda

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 5

7. &n= bsp; New Applications

A. Application #546 of Patrick Graziano for 11-lot residential subdivision located on Love= ly Drive, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

= <= b>Ted Hardt, Professional Engineer, Milone & MacBroom

&= nbsp; Mr. Hardt: I’m here on behalf of Pat Gr= aziano to basically give you a [presentation on the first phase of the subdivision= but before I do that I wanted to talk a little bit about what’s planned h= ere because what we’ve done is we’ve submitted an application for t= he first 11 lots for a number of reasons.&nbs= p; First Mr. Graziano wanted to try to get this approved because the se= cond phase required a wetland crossing and he wanted to get this approved without having to go to the Army Corps and things like that, but he has been pushed= by the seller who is represented by an attorney to proceed with the rest of the subdivision so we have followed up with another application for phase II.

&nbs= p;

&= nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, we have a suggestion that we wanted to see what you thought of an (inaudible) to with= draw these applications and resubmit, provided we’ll waive the fee, or at least that’s my recommendation and resubmit the two under one applica= tion for next month and that way we only have one public hearing as well, and you’ll save yourself a $350 public hearing fee.

&nbs= p;

&= nbsp; Mr. Hardt: I understand what you’re asking and it makes sense.&nb= sp; But I don’t know if I’m going to be allowed to withdraw = this application at this pint because Mr. Graziano is under contract to purchase this, there are stipulations within his contract that he must do things by a certain time and if we pull this application at this point, I think there m= ay be legal ramifications with his purchasing (Tape #3, Side A ended – m= ay have missed some). I agree it= makes sense, we would like to combine these but I don’t’ know if I can withdraw this application at this time.&nb= sp; If we had an attorney here that was representing Mr. Graziano he may have a different opinion, but I don’t want to do that without his permission.

&nbs= p;

&= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: Is this an extension behind Carvel= over there?

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp; Mr. Hardt: This is Pond View Drive right here= , this is Kimberly Lane and this is Lovely Drive right here.

&nbs= p;

&= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: this is the subdivision that’s up on . . . .

&nbs= p;

&= nbsp; Mr. Hardt: To the west of Carvel. This right in here is= the lots that front on Main Street.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 6

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: Does this subdivision exit out on = Bunker Hill Road?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: Middlebury Road. Right here.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: Is that Middlebury Road at the bot= tom?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: No, this is Lovely Drive. This is I think the (inaudible) condominiums in here. This is= their basketball court I believe. I believe it’s Highgate.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: So this is just an extension off o= f all those subdivision up there?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: Yes. Just so you get an idea of what th= is entire property is, it’s 102 acres, it includes an existing subdivisi= on lot off of Fox Crossing Subdivision again and the remainder of this parcel = is to remain just land of the applicant, he has no intention of doing anything with this property at this time. This property has frontage on Belden Street over here.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: You said at this time, I mean does= that mean next year?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: I don’t thin= k he has any plans for the future to do anything with this. I think he just wants to hold onto= it for now because after looking at it in detail there’s a lot of difficulties with doing anything with that property, so what he’s proposing is 43 lots on the R-30 portion of the site. This is the zone line between R-30= to the south and R-12.5 to the north. Is it the commission’s desire to have me go forward and have me give a presentation or would you like to have a site walk?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Since you’re here you can gi= ve us an abbreviated version, particularly interested in the impacts on wetlands, etc. and we obviously have to schedule a site walk and we can’t make = any decisions tonight anyway.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: This is the existing conditions pl= an.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Which are the wetlands?<= /span>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 7

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: The light yellow color is the wetl= ands, there’s some little intermittent watercourse shown in blue. Phase I that we had shown includes= this lot here and this portion of the property right through here. There are some very small pieces of wetlands that come onto our site and then they continue off site in the Fox Crossings Subdivision. Phase I there are basically two locations where we have some upland review area disturbance. Lot #1 the backs= ide of this house there will be some grading associated with the house and I think there’s 550 square feet of clearing in the upland review area right at the back of the house and then as the road comes in there’s going to = be about a 220 square foot disturbance in the upland review area right here, there’s no direct wetland impacts.&n= bsp; Just to get an idea of what the site does, there is moderate to some steep slopes on this site. The steep slopes are located in the western portion of the property. The high point is up there near Highgate. There is a saddle h= ere so basically there is a ridge line and then it comes back up to the high point= to the south, so the high point basically runs north/south, everything to the = west drains towards the west.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: What’s that light area where= your hand was?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: This is just open area. It’s open meadow going back = to some shrub.

&= nbsp;

            Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, so the da= rker green is wooded?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: Is a wooded area, yes. We show a few stone walls that are= built up on the property. Just to j= ump ahead a little bit, there is another entrance. This is the entrance that was left= for this property off of Pond View and the problem with it is that basically th= ere is a finger of wetlands that sticks out right here, so as you come across t= he property line you run right into this wetlands, and we have about a little = over 500 square foot disturbance for bringing in the road.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Do you want to talk to us only abo= ut the first application and don’t combine them at this moment?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: Okay. We do have two applications in fro= nt of the Commission.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, you’re on the Agenda tw= ice too.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: I haven’t seen that.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: I made an addendum.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 8

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: Okay, so anyway for the first application, the 11 lot, we only have the two disturbances, 550 square feet= and 220 square feet, we have a drainage system that drains to a long linear detention basin to be planted with some wetland seed mix, we’ve got t= wo without filter berms going across this detention basin so all the water is being piped into it and it comes down and it discharges out to a level spreader. We provided zero in= crease in runoff to the 2 to the 100 year storm so basically we have very little wetland impacts and we’re controlling the storm water runoff from the site, so I guess other than the two applications I guess I’ll conclud= e my remarks on Phase I.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: This is all water and sewer?<= /o:p>

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: Yes, no on site septic.=

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Any open space proposed for this P= hase?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: Yes, there’s 5 acres of open space, here, here, there’s another piece of open space for the additi= onal phases. There’s 5 acres= for this phase, the total, we had 27 acres, there’s 5.3 acres of open spa= ce for this phase, 21 for the next phase, and 27 total, so any other questions about phase I, or should I move on to Phase II.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: No, just Phase I, see what the Commission, how they decide here.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Berger: The access road in through that exi= sting lot on Fox Crossings entails 25 to 30 foot rock cut coming up through that = lot.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: Yes.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: And what’s the length of tha= t?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: Let me get my scal= e.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: Do you have to blast too?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: I assume so.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Berger: I’ve seen it preliminary and I just wanted to point that out as a significant feature, I’m not sure wetlands and watercourse-wise it has much impact, but it’s certainly something we’ll be looking at.<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: It’s approximately 300 feet.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 9

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: And the total length of the cul de sac?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: 1,000 feet. That’s the other reason why = we broke this up, the maximum length was 1,000 feet.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: And now you have a new regulation = that says you can go up to what, 2,000, as of yesterday? Is that what they voted on?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Berger: They (inaudible) what they voted on. With the majority vote of= the Commission, it can go up to 2,000 feet.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: 2,000 feet with 20 lots, I think i= s what they said.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: When I talk to you about Phase II, it’s our design to make a loop road out of this and loop back.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: So that’s not a permanent cu= l de sac?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Hardt: No. It’s a temporary cul de sac.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Accept Application #546 of Patrick Graziano for 11-lot residential subdivision located on Lovley Drive, Watertown, CT.<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Discussion:       None<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Jones) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Application #546 of Patrick Graziano for 11-lot residential subdivision located on Lovl= ey Drive, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Discussion:       None<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 10

&nbs= p;

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>B.      =            Application #547 of Watertown woods, LLC for 13-lot Wolf Hill residential subdivision located on Woodbury Road, Watertown, CT.=

If a Public Hearing is= not held then a decision is required by April 14, 2006.

&nbs= p;

=             <= b>Ronald Wolfe, Professional Engineer

=

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: I’m here representing the applicant, Watertown Woods of Woodbury.&nb= sp; This application was for a 15 lot residential subdivision located al= ong Woodbury Road and Route 6, just east of the Woodbury town line. The parcel is located, you have an overall area of 51.6 acres and it’s located in the R-70 zone district= . There is about 13.9 acres of wetla= nds on the property which were identified by Dave Lord in December, 2004. This application was also presente= d to this Commission for preliminary discussion in July, 2005 just to review sev= eral alternatives that we were investigating at that time. The subdivision for this property = was also previously approved in 1990 but the approval has since expired because= the subdivision map was never filed by the property owners. The previous approval was for 19 l= ots for a total of 11.47 acres of land that was to be preserved as open space.<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   The current layout that we have is for 13 lots. I’ll show you on the existing conditions map. This is the existing conditions map for the property.&= nbsp; There are two very large wetland areas that total 13.9 acres. There’s an existing farm acc= ess road that was used to access the property and there is also an existing wet= land crossing that is basically composed of stone rubble that fill was placed (inaudible) with some stone masonry headwalls which is located right in this area here. The access road al= so continues (inaudible) several of the fields and there are two additional existing crossings at these locations right here which can still be seen. The Atwood Brook actually blows on= to the property along the northern boundary line adjacent to Route 6.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible.)<= /o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: I have a bigger scale drawing. The brook kind of parallels Route = 6, and it flows to the west and then it flows back under Route 6 in a 6 x 6 concre= te box culvert. Would you like t= o see a larger scale?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: No, this is (inaud= ible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 11

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: This is the overall layout of the proposed subdivision. Again there are 13 lots. The proposed road is 1,620 feet long. We have one wetland crossing which is located at the existing farm r= oad crossing, at (inaudible) 20. = The proposed crossing consists of 72 linear feet of 30 inch reinforced concrete pipe with (inaudible) inlet and cutlet and a preformed scour hole with modi= fied rip rap at the outlet end. Th= ere is no real direct wetland impacts to any of the lots, except for construction = of the common drives to Lots #6, #7, and #8, which you can see here and this is something we discussed with this Commission back in July, 2005. We felt this was the best lot layo= ut and provided the best access to these lots, because we’re basically utili= zing the existing crossings that were in place from when the property was used a= s a farm, and we’re updating the existing pipe culverts which have since deteriorated and replacing them with heavy duty polyethylene pipe, like the black ADS type pipe. So we ha= ve Lot #5 which will actually have its own driveway, and Lots #6, #7, and #8 would have a common driveway and there is a total of 3 crossings to access those 4 lots. The wetland area is all depicted in green. We are also proposing a water quality and detention pond which is completely outside of= the regulated area, and the wetlands with the exception of the discharge of the outlet pipe and construction (inaudible).

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible?)

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: The green is the wetland areas. I’ll get you a larger map.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: How many acres is this subdivision= ?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: 51.6.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: And how many a= cres of wetlands?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: 13.9.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: From here it looks like the whole = map is green.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Well part of the green that you se= e, the heavy line represents the 50 foot regulated area which is also a dashed gre= en line. For orientation purpose= s, Route 6 is on the bottom. There’s actually an existing access road here that was constru= cted as part of the BCD subdivision back in 1990 I believe it was approved. It was never completed or accepted= as a Town road, so we’re proposing to reconstruct the first 350 feet of we= t road, bring it up to as close to town standards as we can and continue on from the property line to the end of the proposed road. We left off with the detention pond which is located in this area, it’s completely out of the wetland area and the only activity in the regulated area is associated with the construc= tion of the discharge pipe and there’s a little rip rap filter berm propos= ed at the end of the splash pad.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 12

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Where is the crossing?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: This is the existi= ng and proposed crossing so we’d be proposing to upgrade that.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: You said there = was 71 linear feet of pipe?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: 72.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Now that goes across there?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Yes, the intermittent watercourse just starts just a little bit to the west of t= he proposed crossing location.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: So that pipe channels the watercou= rse.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Correct.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: And what size is that?<= /span>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: It’s a 30 inch. Currently the water kind of just trickles through the (inaudible).

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Is that going t= o have a bottom in it, or like a natural bottom?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: No, it’s a 30 inch circular = pipe, it’s proposed to have just a . . . . .

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: So you’re going to buy it pa= rtly?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: It’s not sized to be filled.=

&nbs= p;

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: There’s no (inaudible) in it?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: No. It’s 30 inch circular pipe.<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: So you’re going to drain that upper wetlands through that 70 feet of pipe? (Inaudible) 30 inch pipe?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Correct. It currently drains through this crossing.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible) over the crossing, it’s not detained at one point?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 13

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: It’s just filtering through = the stone rubble that’s there.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: So now we’re going to pinpoi= nt location?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Right.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: See the other part up there where = it crosses. That looks like the = common driveway to Lots #6, #7, and #8, and crosses the wetlands.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: We have 2 crossings that are shown= on this part of the map and the other one is on the other drawing.<= /span>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta” You’= ;re coming through the cul de sac? Where is the cul de sac?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Around the cul de = sac those common driveways (inaudible).

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: So the cul de = sac is in this box?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: The cul de sac is = right over in this area. You come o= ff the cul de sac and you come into the common driveway, there’s one crossin= g in this location and this would be the second crossing and then the third crossing. And there are exist= ing crossings at these proposed locations now.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: And you’re servicing how man= y lots off of one driveway?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: 3. We’ve also discussed this preliminary with the Planning Commission. Lots #6, 37, and = #8.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: How long is that common driveway?<= o:p>

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: It’s proposed to be 16 feet.=

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Paved?<= /span>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Unpaved.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: The cul de sac= is how long?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: The proposed road is 1620 feet lon= g.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 14

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: And the propos= ed common area of that driveway is how long?&= nbsp; They just approved the 2,000 foot, it was 1,000.
&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Originally we were= going to request, we were going to show plans with a temporary cul de sac that co= uld be extended. Since we haven&#= 8217;t filed the Planning and Zoning application yet we may request that it be a permanent cul de sac.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: The 2,000 foot now, why wouldnR= 17;t you just bring the cul de sac all the way up to the end?<= /p>
&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: It goes right now to the southern property line in this location here. One of the other alternatives we looked at was running the cul de sac through this wetland area over that wetland area where we have our driveway= we could have obtained more lots but it would be a lot longer road length, wid= er, and more impact to the wetlands, and it wasn’t advantageous for the additional lots that were to be gained.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: And do you have access to the land up above?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Yes.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: Is that open s= pace?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: That comes out on Artillery Road, it’s undeveloped currently.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: So those two red lines that you ha= ve going up . . . .

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Yea, it would be like a continuati= on of a road if it were every continued.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Can I make a suggestion? Instead of having= this long driveway around the wetlands for that Lot #2, can you have a common driveway for these two lots just (inaudible) to that house.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: That’s something that we loo= ked at but it would again it would be within the 50 foot regulated area.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible) all ar= ound the wetlands, that is just on one side.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Right, and we have= the septic system for Lot #3 there, so we can’t really have too much excavation activity especially cutting within 50 feet of the septic system = for Lot #3, which is outside of the regulated area currently which is 75 feet f= or septics by the Torrington Area Health.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 15

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: He wants to build a 800 foot drive= way.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Well what about combining Lots #2 = and #3?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolf: Yea, so then the on= ly way to get from Lot #3 to Lot #2 you’d have to branch off in this area.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: No, make it one lot as an alternat= ive.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Part of the design= of the drainage system here, we completely eliminated a lot so that we could situate the pond completely out of the regulated area. We originally had another lot here, there was 14 lots, we eliminated that and placed the pond there, so that it would be completely out of the wetland area and it would be pretty readily accessible to Town crews, there’s a relatively flat driveway and acce= ss road proposed to it. We did t= he soil testing on this lot, you could see for a septic system and it would ha= ve supported the septic system but that was part of our design with the draina= ge system to get good water quality. We actually, carrying the flow of the whole road over the proposed culvert crossing so that all the runoff from the road gets treated in the w= ater quality pond, so that was our train of thought on the layout of the property. The soils are good = on both Lots #2 and #3 and both the houses and the septic systems are all outs= ide of the regulated areas.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: We should go and s= ee this.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yes, that’s fine. Any other questions?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: 23% of the propert= y is proposed to be open space and conservation easement areas.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Is that all or part, I mean itR= 17;s going to be owner, by the lot owners and just have conservation easements, = or is some of it going to be deeded to the Town?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: The conservation easement area wou= ld be with the homeowners, and the open space area would be proposed to be deeded= to the Town.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: Where is the o= pen space?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 16

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: I’ll show yo= u on a smaller map. The open space w= as also discussed with the Planning and Zoning Commission in July of 2005. It’s in this location here a= nd it’s similar to what was proposed with the original subdivision, with= the idea that it preserves the existing streetscape along Route 6, there wouldn’t be any development along this area here. There is a lot of wetland area the= re. The outlet brook flows through tha= t area of the property. There wouldn’t be any, that was another reason for using this common drivew= ay, was to access these back lots. There wouldn’t be any curb cuts off of route 6, everything wou= ld be coming off of the existing roadway curb cut.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Jones: Is there any reason why you make t= he boundary line at the top as south instead of the other way? Usually you don’t see maps t= hat way.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: We played with that a little bit.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Kind of took a poll on it, and when you’re actually out on the field and you’re looking at the map upside down with the road, everybody always used to turn the map the other = way, so all the writing would be upside down, so we decided to present it with t= he road on the bottom of the drawing which is typically what’s done in s= ome cases. But this way as you dr= ive or walk onto the property you look at the map as you’re entering it, whi= ch is easier to read.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Anything else? Thank you.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: One request we had from the applic= ant was would it possible to schedule a public hearing at this time for possibly March?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: I don’t sugg= est that because we have 3 public hearings already that night.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Okay, but they wan= ted me to ask.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I don̵= 7;t think so, it wouldn’t be practical at this point.
&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Do you want to have a third party = review for this application?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I think so.=

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: We didn’t re= ceive any environmental impact study or anything and it’s better to ask Land Tech Consultants to do a study on this.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible)?

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Yes.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 17

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible) another one.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: No, I think I (inaudible) and they= will hire Land Tech Consultants to do a study for us. (Inaudible.)

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I think we should.=

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: We were planning on having our soil scientist present for the Public Hearing, David Lord.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: You can submit his soil report but= an environmental impact study is different.&n= bsp; The Commission hires their own consultant to do that study and the applicant will pay for that.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   (Tape #3, Side B ended – may have missed some.)

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Jones) to Table, Schedule a Site Walk, and Hire a Third Party Review for Application #547 of Watertown Woods, LLC for 13-lot Wolf H= ill residential subdivision located on Woodbury Road, Watertown, CT.=

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Discussion:       None<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nbs= p;

C.        Application #548 of St. Mary Magdalene Church Corp. for an addition to St. Mary Magdalen School, 140 Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by April 14, 2006= .

&nbs= p;

C.&n= bsp;            = ;    Jim Petroccia, Agent
&= nbsp;

Mr. Petroccia:<= /b> I’m a volunteer, no fees involved. I’m doing this because I like the church and the school and I worked on it before. Now I don’t have these fancy= color maps like these guys had. I u= sed to work for the Town of Watertown, but that was 20 years ago. I appreciate the fact that I’= ;m a rookie, I’m a professional engineer but I stopped practicing a long t= ime ago.

A little history about= the school, it was built in 1958 as a Kindergarten and then later on it was tur= ned into a junior high school. My= kids graduated from there, and a member of the Commission here, his two daughters graduated from there. Later o= n, after the 30 years of junior high school it was turned into a full grammar school in 1994.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 18

Now there’s an additional thing being planned, they want to put on a gym, cafeteria, and additional office space. Our = site plan shows the activity within the buffer, upland, whatever you call it, an= d so the driveway that we’re proposing is within that 50 foot buffer area. Therefore we have to co= me before this Commission to have you look at that and see if there is a significant impact, which I don’t think there is. We are planning, we hope we can get through Zoning and all the boards we have to, so maybe by May we can get an application and get out to bid to start the construction of this project. Gentlemen (inaudible) for your consideration.

Mr. Polletta: Where is the wetland?

Mr. Zawadzki: The wetland boundary is off the pr= operty but the 50 foot buffer is not. You’ve got to measure 50 feet out from that wetlands.

Mr. Petroccia:<= /b> (Inaudible.)

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> There is no direct impact on the wetlands. The driveway is wit= hin the 50 foot setback area which is already existing, that area is all filled= and the only concern that we have on this property is the area of impervious surface that they create by putting the addition, the driveway, parking. Over 30,000 square feet of impervi= ous surface.

Mr. Zawadzki: There’s a steep drop-off rig= ht here?

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> So what do they intend to do with = the water? Because you’re g= oing to pick up all that water from the roof drains and from the asphalt?

Mr. Fey: I was suggesting they look at the possibility of putting a gravel parking in the back, because they are not u= sing it on an every day basis, it’s only if there is an event.<= /span>

Mr. Petroccia:<= /b> Yes, you mentioned that. I hope an idea would be that we co= uld use this largess on the northern side of the property and prove by (inaudib= le) which I haven’t submitted yet, but I will submit to Mr. Berger and tr= y to get all the runoff down there. We’re getting permission from the condo people to use that as a right to drain. So that’= ;s the idea. Now if we cant work it = that way then we’ll have to look at a different setup.

Mr. Zawadzki: That would be going into the north= ?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 19

Mr. Petroccia:<= /b> Yes.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> There is a map in your packet that= shows two pipes, one from here and one from here that goes into the wetlands area. I was suggesting if the= y need detention for this impervious area that they’re building, they should look at the possibility of using this wetland as a detention pond. You can go and see this if you wan= t.

Mr. Polletta: This parking area, will it be grav= el or asphalt?

Mr. Petroccia:<= /b> We were thinking of asphalt, but w= e may end up putting gravel (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Very poor condition, yes, it’= ;s surrounded by, this piece of wetland on the property that, it’s surrounded by lawn and there is a driveway, a walkway going through there, = and it’s a very poor condition. They can use that for detention, instead of cutting the bank on the other side, it’s a very steep slope on the there side.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Even if they just took the roof le= aders off the main building and (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> It’s up to Mr. Petroccia to = see if that’s feasible for them to do that.

Mr. Petroccia:<= /b> The roof leaders?

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> No, the wetland on the property.

Mr. Petroccia:<= /b> The idea I had was to go into that= large swale, now if we can’t do that, then we’ll have to go through .= . . .

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> As an alternative, just to see whi= ch way you want to go.

Mr. Petroccia:<= /b> Yes, I will submit my calculations= to the Town Engineer and then I think I can prove that location, but if it can’t be done, then I’ll have to go the way you’re mentioning.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> You should look at both of them, it sounded like you have a pretty ambitious schedule that you’d like to entertain so in order to do that you should look at both of them and then go from there.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 20

Mr. Zawadzki: Do you want to take a look at this= ?

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Well I remember this site, I’= ;ve been to the fairs that they have, and I remember sometimes unfortunately it rains and it gets wet back here, but I remember seeing the wetlands back here. I think this is a 5 min= ute one, if we want to go there.

Mr. Rafey I can put this first. Chuck, do you have any comments?

Mr. Berger:= I looked at this through the Plann= ing and Zoning process. The Churc= h has been granted a special permit for use and the site plan application has been withdrawn pending the resolution of the drainage issues which Mr. Petroccia= is working on and we’re awaiting that solution. Unfortunately it’s an expans= ion project but it consists of about 7/10 of an acre of additional impervious a= rea, which generates a lot of increase in runoff that’s going to have to be dealt with. It’s a real= easy, a very significant amount for the site.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> So if they change the back parking= lot to a gravel based parking, which now will help the situation and if they put their drainage through the existing wetland area, and maybe improve the qua= lity of that wetlands, I think that would greatly improve the situation.

Mr. Berger:= The new roof is almost 12,000 squa= re foot of impervious roof, so that’s a lot of water. But there are a number of options = that can be looked at there.

Mr. Polletta: The calculations will determine wh= ich way he has to go.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Is there any way you can avoid cut= ting that bank on the north side? It’s very steep. If they use the wetlands for detention can they drain this way?

Mr. Berger:= I don’t believe so. My recollection on my visit out th= ere, it all drains towards that wetland area, I don’t have the map in fron= t of me, but I think the other wetland on site is uphill, so you’re fighti= ng grade at that point if you do that.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Is it possible to locate the gym o= n the back side of the school instead of on the front?

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, is there a reason why it̵= 7;s being put there?

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Because it seems like it’s a pretty flat area on the back of the school and I’m not sure where, the discussions were hwy they placed it there and I’m sure they had their reasons.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 21

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> But then it would be in the way whe= n they have these things in the summer time.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> But you still have the open area t= o the north of the existing school going down hill.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> (Inaudible).

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> There is an existing access drive alongside, and they have a little pavilion in the back, but if they had the= gym in the back of the building instead, then you’d have your parking over here on the side without cutting into that embankment and it would solve the drainage issue because it would be downhill to the roof leaders from the . = . . .

Mr. Polletta: Yea, but then you would be close t= o the wetlands in the back.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> You can definitely avoid them in t= he back, it’s a small area.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> But there’s a large tree, 30= x 60 pavilion in the back.

Mr. Petroccia:<= /b> We just built that last year.=

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Yea, I remember, it’s a nice pavilion. Well let’s go= see it.

Mr. Zawadzki: I’d like to read a letter fr= om Mr. Petroccia to this Commission dated January 31, 2006. Re: St. Mary Magdalen School Application. Dear Commission Members: As Agent for the St. Mary Magdalen application I hereby respectfully ask the Commission to waive all permit fees. The school operates as a non-profit institution, therefore it may be eligible for the exemption. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, V. = James, Petroccia, Agent” Any discussion there? The fee wou= ld be $180.00.

Mr. Polletta: Actually this church is really struggling, so I would not have a problem waiving it.

Mr. Jones:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Neither would I, but is there a qu= estion of precedent?

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> It’s a non-profit organization. I think in the = past there was an application from the YMCA that this Commission waived the application fee for.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 22

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Beauchamp, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Waive the Application Fee for Application #548 of St. Mary Magdalene Church Corp. for an addition to St. Mary Magdalen School, 140 Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Discussion:       None<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Duplissie, sec. Mr. Jones) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Application #548 of S= t. Mary Magdalene Church Corp. for an addition to St. Mary Magdalen School, 140 Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Discussion:       None<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nbs= p;

D.        Application #549 of Patrick Graziano for construction of 32-lot Highview Estates Subdivision, Phase II located on Lovely Drive, Kimberly Lane, and Pond View Drive, Watertown, CT.

If a Public Hearing is= not held, then a decision is required by April 14, 2006.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Ted Hardt, Professional Engineer, Milone & MacBroom

Mr. Hardt: What I have in front of you is the total project, Phase I. The cul de sac came = up to this intersection here, that will be abandoned. There will be a 600 foot cul de sac going off towards the northwest. The overall road length that will continue and loop back onto Kimber= ly is 2,300 linear feet, and then there is another cul de sac that is 1,000 fe= et off of Pond View. So the total number of homes is 43 for this application, for Phase I and Phase II. Phase I was 11 lots, Phase II is 32 lots.

Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, but you chose to have two se= parate applications here to keep them separate.

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Okay. Again it’s all going to be p= ublic water and sewer, there are no on site septic systems. I just want to show you where the = open space was on this plan. Our s= ite, there’s existing open space for the Town that they have right now, ri= ght here, the open space for Phase II will continue on, it’s this piece h= ere and all of this, it wraps all the way around, that’s 27 acres. There is also a piece of open spac= e in between Phase I and II right here that also connects to open space with the Town and there is also another open space piece right here.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 23

Mr. Zawadzki: Is all that proposed to be deeded = to the Town?

Mr. Hardt: = Yes. We’re providing zero increase in runoff and two new detention basins, here and here. WeR= 17;ve also provided water quality and recharge volume as specified in the new D.E= .P. guidelines for storm water management and we provide a sediment erosion con= trol plan in our set of plans that we’ve submitted as part of this application. With that I̵= 7;ll just keep it brief, cause it’s late.= Just let me go over again, the wetland is in the yellow. There is a finger of wetland right= here that we couldn’t avoid cause the access that was left for this proper= ty was in this location, a 50 foot piece of land that was left for the future extension of the road and so when we come into the site, we come in about 30 feet and bang right into that wetland and it’s about5,400 square feet= of disturbance.

Mr. Zawadzki: In the wetlands itself?=

Mr. Hardt: = In the wetland itself, yes.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> You need D.E.P. approval if itR= 17;s over 5,000 square feet.

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Well we have to go to the Army Cor= ps of Engineers. That’s separ= ate from this Commission.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> If we look at these separate applications, like this doesn’t show that cul de sac for Phase I and = when you look at the Phase I plan it shows a cul de sac and (inaudible). Instead if Mr. Hardt can talk to h= is clients and see if they will agree to combine these two into one applicatio= n, you can do it next week . . . .

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I absolutely will. I’ll try to do that tomorrow= . If I had known before I would have= tried to, I thought we could combine them as one application, I didn’t thin= k we would have to withdraw. IR= 17;m afraid of withdrawing this application and Mr. Graziano losing his rights on this property. There’s = a lot of history between the seller and the buyer.

Mr. Rafey: But if you can explain to him that the Commission prefers to have one application, it’s easier for staff to review and = for the Commissions to look at the entire parcel.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> He can get an answer tomorrow.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 24

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I can get an answer tomorrow. I know he does want to combine the= se, I’m concerned about withdrawing the application, not having an application in front of the Town.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The same day you withdraw you can = submit a new application. I’ll= give it a new number and it’s on file.

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That’s what we plan on doing= , just for the record, but I don’t want to withdraw it tonight without anoth= er application in your hands.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> So then tonight we can accept this, table it, whatever and schedule a site walk.

Mr. Rafey: And we can see both of them at the same time.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> How much wetlands do you have betwe= en Phase I and II?

Mr. Hardt: = Wetland disturbance? The only wetland disturbance we ha= ve is right here, 5,000 direct wetland impacts.&= nbsp; I will have at the next time we meet I will have the upland review a= rea disturbances, I didn’t have that calculated out, or my engineers didn’t give that to me, but I will have that for you. We are looking at what we can do a= t the direct wetland impact, but there’s not much we can do without getting some kind of agreement to use this right of way, which is not an easy task.=

Mr. Rafey: = Mr. Chairman, do you want the appli= cant to do an environmental impact study or do you want to hire someone to do it= ?

Mr. Zawadzki: Well I think always should get an impact study.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I mean they’re pretty involv= ed and they’re pretty good size. Do you guys agree?

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> We did on all the other ones.<= /o:p>

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I will also discuss that with our = soil scientist and wetland biologist that we have on staff that mapped the wetla= nds and generally he puts together an impact statement, so he will probably do = that anyway.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Does this drain into Wattles Brook= ?

Mr. Berger:= The detention basin for Phase I do= es, I don’t know where the two additional detention basins go to.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 25

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> All of these detention basins go t= his way. And this is the divide h= ere, right now you can see these watercourses come down here, this watercourse a= nd wetland comes down, off site there’s a little swale or brook it gets picked up in a headwall right here and goes across the road here.

Mr. Berger:= I believe they all end up in Wattl= es Brook.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> There are some wetlands on the Fox Crossing property and I don’t know what the impact would be on discha= rging all that water from the detention pond into those small wetlands. Did they do some calculations for = the additional drainage?

Mr. Berger:= I have not looked at the applicati= on yet. In the preapplication me= eting we discussed the need to follow that drainage all the way down to a dischar= ge point, and I believe that’s going to tie into the detention basin in = Fox Crossing.

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Okay, we will take a look at that.=

Mr. Berger:= I stand corrected on that. I don’t think that detention= basin ties in with some of the culverts in the new roadway (inaudible). There are some catch basins in the= new roadway that tie in . . . .

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> There are two catch basins here th= at tie into the existing . . . .

Mr. Berger:= That will have to be traced all th= e way down to the detention basin I believe . . . .

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The detention pond is large enough= to handle this additional drainage?

Mr. Berger:= I’ll review that and confirm that. I believe that drains d= own to the unnamed tributary that the arch culvert is being constructed over now as part of the Fox Crossings project.

Mr. Hardt: We can take a look at that.

Mr. Rafey: Do you want me to contact Land Tech too?

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Yes.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 26

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table, Schedule a Site Walk, and Hire a Th= ird Party Review for Application #549 of Patrick Graziano for construction of 32-lot Highview Estates Subdivision, Phase II located on Lovely Drive, Kimb= erly Lane, and Pond View Drive, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Discussion:       None<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nbs= p;

Mr. Jones: One item you might loo= k at is how to spell Lovely Drive.

&nbs= p;

Mr. Hardt: Yes, we found that our surveyors had spelled it incorrectly and it followed through on a couple of maps. The property spelling is Lovley.

&nbs= p;

8.         = Old Business

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   A.        Request to modify the CCIWA Permit #531 to permit additional regulated activities involved in the construction of Windy Ridge Subdivision, Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Emily Jones, Engineer, Civil One

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: I’m representing the applicant, Walnut Grove Farm. I will try to review these revisio= ns quickly and answer any questions you guys have. The application before you is to a= mend the current approval that you had granted a few months ago. Through the Planning and Zoning pr= ocess and meetings with the Town Engineer, etc., the comment came up regarding the drainage ditch along Bunker Hill Road, and it’s a pretty significant swale in there, we did take a site walk there last Summer and originally wh= en the soil scientist had flagged the wetlands flagged ended here, they have t= his strip of wetlands here which was kind of just the grassy area before you got into the cornfield and then this wetland started over here with the farm po= nd that the Lindt’s had built and this existing culvert under Bunker Hill Road. It was questioned wheth= er the drainage ditch connecting these two qualify as some sort of wetland or inte= rmittent watercourse, so unfortunately this didn’t come up until after this approval so we did send the soil scientist back out and he changed his mind= , I guess, and he did say that he was being conservative, which he did, that th= is could qualify as an intermittent watercourse that basically connected this little area of wetlands and basically it’s a manmade ditch that was a= long Bunker Hill Road that over years of neglect and filling in in certain points has ponded water and turned itself into a wetlands.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 27

It’s kind of funny because this wetlands came from manmade features, this wetland came from manmade features, but anyhow we now have this intermittent watercourse here and because of that anything within 50 feet of that is now regulated activity so we did submit an application and I’m just going= to read, cause I was pretty thorough in the revisions that were made in that application so you can see here that this is a 50 foot line right there, so basically the road hasn’t changed, we haven’t done anything to = the grading of the road, or anything, except that now part of it is in the 50 f= oot buffer area because of the designation of this as a drainage ditch. Also we added some storm drainage = in the swale, this was even before it was classified as a watercourse per the requ= est of the Town Engineer. This is= a type CL catch basin that will basically catch water from here and from this roadside swale and tie it into the storm drainage system so that it gets treated in the sedimentation basin and essentially ends up in the same place that it does now, it just goes through a more controlled and it gets better treatment before it discharges into the existing culvert here and into the pond. That was the first thin= g that we did and that was really before this was even a watercourse, we had to do this.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Now the second thing is that we originally had, this is just a sedimentation ba= sin, it’s not holding water, we’ve gone through this many times, and= we originally thought that because it was so small that we’d have a 10 f= oot berm around to access the outlet of the pipe and originally that was kind of going to be okay, but through discussions with Public Works and everything, they’re sticking to their guns with the 15 foot berm around the entire sedimentation basin, so we’ve got this small little hole here with a = huge berm around it and so that increased the area in the regulated area, we sti= ll don’t go into the wetlands here, but originally our sedimentation bas= in was just in here and so this all this area now is additional earthwork with= in the upland review area that we have to do for access and maintenance and (T= ape #4, Side A ended – may have missed some). Is that this catch basin here is j= ust about 6 to 8 feet off the edge of the roadway and there’s some grading that has to be done around it. Through the Planning and Zoning process and thinking about roadside safety issues, it was determined that we needed to put a 16 foot clear zone which is 16 feet off the edge of Bunker Hill Road in which there are no ste= ep slopes that people can run their cars into, there’s no flared ends. Originally this pipe came just acr= oss, it was just a cross culvert and I had a flared end here but the Commission = was worried that someone would drive their car off the road and hit this concre= te flared end and it would be a roadside hazard, and this was also a steeper b= ank over here so what we had to do for the roadside safety is we had to tie this basin into the storm drainage system and we had to shrink this, level this grading out to an area of 4:1 instead of 2:1 that we usually do within 18 f= eet of the road, so that encroached a little bit on the upland review area in there.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 28

So basically what we’re looking for is the additional in the regulated a= rea for the sediment basin we have about 12,500 square feet which is about 8,100 square feet larger than it was originally approved because of the berm requirement for Public Works and then there was about 5,200 square feet in = the regulated area from this intermittent watercourse which really doesn’t function as a intermittent watercourse except for to just convey the road drainage like it should, and the corresponding 50 feet from that, so the ma= jor plan change was the increase in the size of the sediment basin which was required by Planning and Zoning.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible) same location ?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: Yes, it was always there, and this access was always here. This access is grass pavers so that’s in the regulated area but it would have been lawn anyway cause= the whole thing . . . .

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: H= ow much more are you increasing in the to wetlands by what you’re doing = now versus before?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: Before we had, in just the sediment basin area we’re increasin= g it by 8,100 square feet and then there’s 5,200 square feet for the road.=

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: We didn’t have that before??

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: Right, we had only about 4,000 square feet for this because this wasn’t classified as an intermittent watercourse.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Actually on the original application there was only 2,610 square feet of upland review area.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: Right, but what was approved I thin= k was bigger than that because we had to increase the size of the basin per some comments during the wetland review process, so it ended up being about 4,000 something by the time it was approved.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: This is what they put on your permi= t.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: Well, it’s a good thing I cam= e back then.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: But now this has more impact, significantly more than what was appro= ved with the original application. If we knew there was watercourse we wouldn’t let you put the road there.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 29

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: There’s no other place to put= the road. This is the area where it’s the flattest, it’s the only area where we can get adequate site lines, and we do have adequate site lines, but moving up this hill you can’t see it, and it’s like this, and you couldn’t see th= ese cars worth anything coming over the hill, and then any further closer here = and you would actually be closer to the wetlands, so the road is really in the = only location it could go anyway.

      &= nbsp;           = ;      Mr. Polletta: Wh= at are the rules on the site lines on each side?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: 445 feet is the minimum based on we= did traffic studies and . . . in both directions. We have just over the minimum this= way and greater than that this way, I think we have over 500 in this direction.=

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Berger: But there are significant site line easements in that second direction in order to get that, it would be an area that would have to be maintained.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: = Who is going to maintain it?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Berger: The Town will maintain that.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: We made it so that everything in that easement , there’s very little maintenance. Like we don’t have anything (inaudible) plantings in that easement so that re= ally it would just be grass, they’d just go in and mow it.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: I want to hear from you that if you’re going to correct that flooding problem on Bunker Hill Road?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: Yes. That was another = thing.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Rafey: I= was there 2 weeks go, there was ice on that (inaudible).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: Yea, and part of that . . . .

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: Quite honestly, I mean= those questions that were asked as this application was originally wrapping up was what caused me to go out there multiple times to take another look at it, a= nd every time I went out I saw some water flow in the channels which is why I asked the question to have their soil scientist go take another look at it. They are going to propose= to improve that channel to get positive drainage down to the cross culvert (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 30

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: Yea, there’s an area in here where the grading is really not g= ood, it’s ponding in here before it can ever even get to the culvert plus = the culvert is blocked so in the plans you approved we had proposed to clean out that culvert and improve that and then we were talking about if field conditions warrant we’d do some re-grading, well now that we’re back here we’re just going to say that we’ll do the re-grading = to improve that. It’s just= minor re-grading to get a positive slope all the way to the culvert.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: = Didn’t we have the sediment pond in there originally?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: Yes, but it was smaller.

      &= nbsp;           = ;      Mr. Zawadzki: Ca= use I see you’ve got a disturbance here of 12,504 square feet for sediment pond. That’s a lot.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Compared to the original (inaudible= ).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: And that’s just the increase?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: No, that’s not the increase.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> That’s the total.=

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: Because of the 15 foot berm?

      &= nbsp;           = ;      Ms. Jones: Yes.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: So what was it before? <= /span>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Ms. Jones: About 4,100. 8,124.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible) disturbance of 413 square feet of intermittent watercour= se and 2,243 square feet of upland review area for grading along north side of Bunker Hill Road to improve drainage on Bunker Hill, 35 cubic yards of cut. That is one thing. Disturbance of 12,504 square feet = of upland review area for construction of a sediment pond. 559 cubic yards of cut 178 cubic y= ards of fill. Disturbance of about= 3,900 square feet of upland review area for construction of an access way to the sediment pond, the access way will be stabilized by grass pavers. And then (inaudible) of about 65 l= inear feet of an intermittent watercourse for construction of Windy Ridge Lane. These are the regulated activities involved with this modification.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Duplissie: M= ost of it is upland review area except for the . . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 31

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Rafey: Y= es, the piping of the watercourse and grading of the watercourse.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: It’s almost half an acre.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Duplissie: But it’s upland review area. She’s not going into the wetlands, and this is an intermittent watercourse that was created as a drainage ditch. But I think that if we address the situation with water crossing Bunker Hill (inaudible). I appreciate the Conservation Commission, we’re here to take care of the inland/wetlands, but also = at the same time I’ve seen cars skid off of that ice at the bottom of the hill, and I think if we can control that, I think it more than takes care of what we’re doing to the upland review area here.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: = Yea, public safety is (inaudible)

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: There is no doubt that this is going to improve that situation over there, that’s the benefit we get from this.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Jones: It will also improve the quality of= the water that now runs through that drainage ditch, because it will now run through that water quality basin and then filter through this rip rap filter berm and outlet like clean water like the rest of the water that goes throu= gh there.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Once this site becomes graded and you have grass that’s growing and established on this site instead of a rock corn field, that you get a little frost on the ground everything runs right across it. Right now there is nothing to cont= rol it, so I think once we get grass growing on it and if we stabilize it, and = then you take care of this water problem by cleaning out the pipe, I think we’ve got a much improved situation over here, regardless of the lots= and the houses going in, just by taking care of that problem on the road.<= /o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: Do you want to go back and look at it? A site walk?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: = We were already there, we know exactly what we have, I don’t think we ne= ed to go back.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: I think she’s addressing our questions. I mean that was a major question f= or me, was the water going across the road and I think if we’re addressing i= t then I think Chuck has become aware of it at this point and does this satisfy yo= ur concerns? Do you think this w= ill take care of it now?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 32

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Berger: Yes.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Duplissie: Then I’m happy.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: Significant activity? = Public Hearing?

= ;            &n= bsp;          Mr. Duplissie: It’s upland review area, there’s no wetlands. I don’t consider it significant, but I’m open to somebody else’s concern.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: I agree, I don’t think it= 217;s really significant.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Can we approve this tonight?<= /o:p>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: Chuck, are you waiting for anythin= g?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: No.

= ;            &n= bsp;          Mr. Rafey: Then you an approve this tonight w= ith the standard conditions. The = same conditions that applied to the original permit.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTON:         = (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to approve the modification of CCIWA Permit = #531 to permit additional regulated activities involved in the construction of W= indy Ridge Subdivision, Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT with the standard conditions.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Discussion:       None<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

      &= nbsp;     B.         = Review of the Inland Wetland and Watercourse Regulations of the Town of Watertown.=

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTON:         = (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Table the Inland Wetland and Watercourse R= egulations of the Town of Watertown.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Discussion:       None<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 33

9.         = New Business

&nb= sp;

A.=         Review of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency By-Laws

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTON:         = (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Jones) to Table the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetl= and Agency By-Laws.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Discussion:       None<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

      &= nbsp;     B.         = Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency Proposed Citation Ordinance

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTON:         = (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Accept and Table the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency Proposed Citation Ordinance.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Discussion:       None<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

10.       Commu= nications and Bills

&nb= sp;

      &= nbsp;     A.        Letter from Northeast Utilities System dated January 5, 2006 regarding the schedul= ed maintenance by the CL&P of selected electric right-of-way in Watertown.=

&= nbsp;          = ;           Mr. Duplissie: It’s standard cookie cutter, = I mean they’re going to maintenance on their power lines, sump control, and = sump spray.

&= nbsp;                  &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: And if there is any we= tland impact, they’ll get their permit from the D.E.P. this is just for your information.= And it’s already done anyway= .

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to accept and file Item 9A as presented.=

            =             D= iscussion:       None<= o:p>

            =             M= OTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 34

11.       Repor= ts from Officers and Committees

&nb= sp;

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: The subcommittee f= or the regulations had a meeting on Monday night and reviewed the regulations and = the suggestions from Atty. Policy, and we put everything into the regulations a= nd next month you’ll get a chance to (inaudible). They’re all incorporated int= o the regulations.

12.       Repor= ts from Staff

&nb= sp;

      = ;      None

13.     &n= bsp; Public Participation

None=

14.       Adjou= rnment

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 11:41 p.m.=

  &nbs= p;         Discussion:       None<= o:p>

  &nbs= p;         MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

  &nbs= p;         Regular Meeting Adjourned at 11:41 p.m.

&n= bsp;

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Ronald = Jones, Secretary

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetlands Agency

  &nbs= p;         _________________= _________________

      &nb= sp;     Lynn M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary

= M= OTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY*

= <= b>Ted Hardt, Professional Engineer, Milone & MacBroom

Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, so the da= rker green is wooded?

= <= b>Ronald Wolfe, Professional Engineer

= <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: There’s no (inaudible) in it?

A.= Review of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency By-Laws

&= nbsp; A. Letter from Northeast Utilities System dated January 5, 2006 regarding the schedul= ed maintenance by the CL&P of selected electric right-of-way in Watertown.=

&nb= sp; Lynn M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary