MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION COMMISSION/INLAND
WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL
MEETING
PLANNING=
AND
ZONING OFFICE - CONFERENCE ROOM
TUESDAY,
FEBRUARY 15, 2005 - 7:00 PM
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Bernard
Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Glenn
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta (arrived at 7:35 p.m.)
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
None
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Peter
Peluso
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Martha
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; Susan
Atwood
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Zoning Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Polletta, in his
absence.
3. &nb=
sp; Review
of the Inland Wetland and Watercourse Regulations of the Town of Watertown =
by
the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency to Update the Regulations=
=
; Mr.
Zawadzki: The
reason we’re here tonight is to review the Inland/Wetland Watercourse
Regulations for Watertown and make updates. I guess basically Moosa has some
proposed changes and then we can go from there.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 2
Mr. Rafey: =
This was short =
notice,
I didn’t have that much time to really research and work on this. I prepared something for you yeste=
rday
and I dropped it off at everyone’s home. I gave you a packet, an agenda, an=
d also
I made some proposed changes to the regulations, like amendments that you c=
an
look at them, and if you agree we can change the Regulations according to t=
he
those changes, and I also gave you a copy of the Inland/Wetlands and
Watercourse Model Regulations. This
was submitted by the D.E.P. to all of the municipalities and they asked us =
to
look at these. They left some=
blank
areas for each town to put in their own information. I went through this and put some o=
f the
information in, and I gave it to you for review.
Some of the changes th=
at I
made on this page, if you look at the Regulations, do you have your book wi=
th
you? If you need, I can give =
you
copies.
Mr. Peluso: These will go into affect, if we we=
re to
agree upon any of the changes, for this year?
Mr. Undercuffler: There has to be a hearing before th=
is
goes, right?
Mr. Rafey: =
Yes.
First you make all the changes that you want and then I’ll giv=
e it
to the Town Attorney for his review, and then if everything is okay,
we’ll have a public hearing.
Mr. Peluso: And it wouldn’t apply to any
current applications?
Mr. Rafey: =
No, this will be, after you approve=
it,
after that it will be affective, it doesn’t affect pending
applications. If you look at =
the
book that I gave you . . . . . page 1 Historical Notes, I just changed the =
name
of the Commission members, I put the new Commission member’s names.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Is there a precedent for that Moosa=
, is
that what other towns are going to, the 75?
Mr. Rafey: =
Yes, (inaudible) I got some informa=
tion
from other towns and I gave you one.
Mr. Beauchamp: = So was that 50 before, is that it?<= o:p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 3
Mr. Rafey: =
We have 50 feet setback.
Mr. Beauchamp: =
I mean now tomorrow it’s 75, =
is
that it?
Mr. Undercuffler: That is what he’s recommendin=
g.
Mr. Rafey: =
I’m recommending . . . . we h=
ave to
change for septic system from 50 to 75, but these other activities, if you =
want
you can change it from 50 to whatever you want.
Mr. Rafey: =
If you look at Bethlehem, for edge =
of
water they have 150 feet, and for the wetlands they have 100 feet. Our regulations require 100 feet f=
rom
open body of water and 50 feet from wetlands, and I changed it to 75. But these other towns if you look,=
like
Cornwall is 75 feet, 75 feet; Goshen 100 feet, 75 feet, these others,
there’s only one other town, Salisbury, 150 feet from open water and =
75
feet from the edge of wetlands.
Mr. Duplissie: =
Where do you see the 100 feet for
Watertown for open water? Is that what you’re calling top of bank?
Mr. Rafey: =
Yes, If you look at the regulations=
, you
have 100 feet.
Mr. Duplissie: =
You’re saying the top of bank=
of
any watercourse is open water?
Mr. Rafey: =
Yes.
If it’s pond or a
brook or a lake.
Mr. Duplissie: =
Okay, so the edge of the top of wat=
er.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Now you put 75 here, but you
haven’t made it 75 yet.
Mr. Rafey: =
We (inaudible) enforce that, your
regulation doesn’t show 75 feet, we have to change this to 75 feet.
Mr. Jones: =
What would happen if we didn’=
t make
that change?
Mr. Rafey: Anyway the Torrington Area Health District
doesn’t approve a septic system less than 75 feet from the edge of wa=
ter.
Mr. Duplissie: =
Then the builder then, or the guy
who’s bringing in a subdivision, when he brings the septic system in,=
he
has to bring it in at 75 feet. He
can’t show it on his drawings and say look you show 50, it doesn̵=
7;t
make any difference, he knows that it requires 75, so he might as well do i=
t at
75. Right? CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2005 PAGE 4 Mr. Rafey: =
Yes.
When they go to the Torrington Area Health District to show their
subdivision plans, they have to show a minimum of 75 feet distance from the
edge of the wetlands. Mr. Duplissie: So pretty much it’s a no brainer. Mr. Rafey: =
Yes. Mr. Thermer: So we’re just going to put in
writing what we’re going to actually do. Mr. Rafey: =
And it is good when you discuss thi=
s at a
public meeting, it’s good to have some reasons why you want to change
this from 50 to 75 feet, that is the reason, because the Torrington Area He=
alth
District requires a minimum of 75 feet, and we have to adjust our regulatio=
ns
according to their health code.
Section 21y, just ignore that for now, I’ll come back to that.=
The next page, New Definitions, we=
have
it. (Inaudible) one is (inaud=
ible)
the other one is management practices and (inaudible). Our regulations doesn’t
(inaudible) but the new model regulations from D.E.P. they suggest we add t=
hese
to our regulations. Item 3, S=
ection
6, Regulated Activity to be Licensed.
This is another suggestion from the D.E.P. to add this to our
regulations. I already did, i=
f you
get a chance to read this, I already changed the information according to o=
ur
regulations. I filled out the
blanks, that Watertown requires these things. Section 6, just a minor change. Mr. Thermer: Where is it going to go, here or he=
re? Mr. Rafey: Here. It
was a 53, I just (inaudible). It
says no person shall conduct or maintain, yea, 6.1. Mr. Duplissie: =
You’re just changing it from
inland/wetland agency to conservation commission inland/wetland agency of t=
he
Town of Watertown. Mr. Rafey: Yes.
Section 6.2, if you look at the regulations, I changed that 50 to 75
feet. Mr. Undercuffler: Shouldn’t it also, it says we=
tland
or watercourse, shouldn’t it also include the setback area also? 6.2? Mr. Thermer: Well that’s what the 50 feet =
is. Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The first one is the existing that=
you
have. And then I add at the e=
nd
from 75 feet of a wetland.
Mr. Zawadzki: Se= e it says within the wetland or within the boundary. So that covers both.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 5
Mr. Duplissie: S= o you regulate anything within the 50 feet, but this septic system is within 75.
Mr. Rafey: It ha= s to be minimum 75 feet.
Mr. Duplissie: S= o you can leave certain things within 50 feet, like the setback area (inaudible).=
Mr. Rafey: If yo= u look at the list here, it shows other activities listed there.
Mr. Duplissie: D= isturbing, filling, location of structure.
Mr. Rafey: 150 f= eet, yes.
Mr. Duplissie: O= nly the septic system will change it.
Mr. Rafey: Only = the septic system will be 75 feet. Section 11, 11.8. Our regulations say that the permit we issue is good for 3 years. D.E.P. has regulations for 5 years= . We have to follow their regulation= s, and we have to change this from 3 to 5 years.&= nbsp; Actually when I issue the permits I put 5 years and follow the D.E.P. guidelines. I just want your attention a little bit on Section 11.2.&nb= sp; I didn’t have this in my memo. There are some requirements for pu= blic hearing that the time, before you had 45 days to close the public hearing, = now it is changed to 35 days. We = have to change these numbers. And = after you close the public hearing you have 65 days to make a decision, and it wa= s 35 days before.
Mr. Undercuffler: So the 35 becomes 65.
Ms. Sturgis: Is = that State law?
Mr. Rafey: Yes, that’s the D.E.P.
Ms. Sturgis: So = if you have a public hearing at 65 and if you don’t have a public hearing it’s 65. Is that right?=
Mr. Rafey: When = you accept an application, you have 65 days from the night you accept the application to hold a public hearing or make a decision on the application. You can ask for = an extension for another 65 days. Once you open the public hearing, you have 35 days to close it, or you can ask f= or a 35 day extension to keep the public hearing open. After you close the public hearing= , then you have 65 days to make a decision. That is why sometimes we suggest to the Commission that if there is = an incomplete application, just don’t take it, because as soon as you ac= cept it, the clock starts, and then we end up at the end to get all the informat= ion, the last night of the public hearing, and then the staff and the commission doesn’t have time to review all that information, and sometimes we ru= sh to review that information.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 6
I want you to pay a little attention to the last two lines on Page 38. Your regulations say that= an application deemed incomplete by the Commission must either be withdrawn by= the applicant or denied by the Commission.&nbs= p; In your regulations the applicants know that. As a staff member I cannot refuse = to take an incomplete application. If somebody comes to my office and pays the fee and gives me the application, = just a name and address and what he wants to do, I have to take it. I have to put it on the agenda for= the next meeting. When it comes t= o you and you see that it’s incomplete, there’s no plans or reports, = you can ask the applicant to withdraw the application, or you can just deny it. Then whenever they are re= ady they should submit it again, but once you accept the application, then the clock is going. In some cases= the applicant brings the information within a week or two after they submit the application, but sometimes they don’t, and at the last minute, itR= 17;s happened many times when you receive huge reports of new site plans at the = last night of the public hearing, and there is no time for staff and commission = to review the details of those plans.
Mr. Duplissie: S= o in lieu of going through this third phase with Joe Calabrese for Guernseytown Estates, and he didn’t have all the information, and Chuck hadn’= ;t had a chance to review that information, he wanted us to vote, we could have just denied it?
Mr. Rafey: Yes.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ask him to withdraw the applicatio= n and resubmit it when it’s complete.
Mr. Zawadzki: We= ll that’s why when we asked him for an extension he gave it, he didnR= 17;t want to, cause he said that didn’t help him any, and I said well it d= oes help him cause the alternative was for us to deny it, and then he had to st= art over again, so then he shut up.
Mr. Jones: Moosa= , if you deny the application does that mean when they come back with a repeat t= hey have to pay the fee again?
Mr. Rafey: Yes, unless they ask the Commission to waive the fee. If you don’t waive the fee, = they have to pay. Everything start= s from zero. And most of the time ou= r Town cannot afford to waive the application fees cause there are a lot of costs involved, the staff time that we spent on the application, the legal notices that are published in the newspaper cost money, especially if it’s the applicant’s fault that they have to withdraw or you have to deny it, = why should the Town pay for those costs if it’s not the Town’s faul= t?
Mr. Duplissie: I= s there any penalty for somebody who conducts an activity in that regulated area without a permit?
Mr. Rafey: Yes, = there are some penalties in your regulations and also in the State Statutes, whic= h is really not easy to enforce. It’s not like if somebody does something, the next day I send a bill for $2,000 that I have to pay a fine.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 7
Mr. Duplissie: W= ell we just had that happen, and I was wondering, he had somebody that went within that 50 foot buffer or within that 75 feet of the wetlands, and conducted an activity, and got caught, and typically I think you said the permit fee was $130 and he was more than willing to pay it, well he should have paid it be= fore he started, but there should have been, and then he comes to us now with his hat in his hand. Before we is= sue that permit, isn’t that where we hold the hammer over his head and say this is where you pay the fine. Especially with that type of individual, there’s no way to hold that hammer.
Mr. Rafey: But y= ou don’t have to grant him the application, you can deny it.
Mr. Zawadzki: Ye= a we don’t have to allow it, but we don’t have any authority to levy= a fine.
Mr. Rafey: I did= talk to the Town Attorney about this issue, and I think he did submit something to = Ms. Barton. I will bring that to = the next meeting, but the Commission doesn’t have to approve.
Mr. Undercuffler: But he’s already done it..
Mr. Duplissie: B= ut then he wants to go back in and do more, and I think at our last meeting th= is came up, and that’s why I was questioning whether or not we should al= low him to go back in, cause you know if he goes back in with another machine he’s going to dig some more, and he got a little irate when I said we= ll you excavated 2 feet, and he says oh no, I didn’t excavate 2 feet, bu= t it shows right on the pictures that he excavated 2 feet. I didn’t want to push too ha= rd, but at the same time I wanted him to put it back, so that’s the only = time we can say anything is with a fine or impose those regulations.
Mr. Rafey: Or yo= u can just deny him and tell him to go put everything back the way it was. Fill that area, put some plants, p= lant some trees . . . . .
Mr. Undercuffler: In the case of (inaudible) come in with a permit after the fact, it ought to be doubled or tripled or something like that.
Mr. Thermer: I a= sked that question at the first meeting I ever attended and it was over here at = Echo Lake, where they came in and cleared all the trees, then said oops, for Reflections.
Mr. Zawadzki: Th= ey didn’t follow their building plan.
Mr. Rafey: They didn’t follow their sequence of construction. They were supposed to clear a smal= l area but they did the entire (inaudible).
Mr. Thermer: So = my question was is there any way to fine them or do something, and basically t= he answer was no, there’s not a thing we can do.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 8
Mr. Peluso: Espe= cially them, they already had a permit.
Mr. Duplissie: I= f they know that in advance, then what’s to stop them? They’ll just have to pay the regular application fee and then deal with it after.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well in the final analysis the Town wouldn’t have t give them a building permit or a certificate of occupancy or things like that.
Mr. Thermer: But= the chance of that happening really are slim to none. We really don’t have any kin= d of a hammer that we can . . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: No= , we don’t.
Mr. Rafey: We ha= ve a response form the Town Attorney, I will provide you with that at the next meeting to see what we can do exactly.
Mr. Duplissie: E= ven a fine, granted if it’s a $130 fine and you say we double it, what̵= 7;s an extra $130 to a developer who’s putting in . . . . .
Mr. Thermer: To = a guy who’s building a house and he’s doing something he doesn’t know, that’s a lot of money, but to a developer . . . . .
Mr. Rafey: For example, the Building Department has a $50.00 fine if someone builds withou= t a building permit, but almost every builder starts the building and then comes with the $50.00. I always joke with Mr. Fusco that if he raised that to $5,000 maybe next time the builder would th= ink before they did it. But $50.0= 0 is nothing in today’s economy.
Mr. Duplissie: B= ut actually I think the regulation is $50.00 per day.
Mr. Rafey: They = just charge $50.00. Most of the ti= me (inaudible) we know these developers, they always come here, they’re = nice people, it’s not like a criminal, but they do . . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: Th= ey take advantage of the system.
Mr. Duplissie: I= mean they’ve already come with the site plan that was approved, the house = is going in, and they’ve been through the process, but that’s tota= lly different from what we’re doing here, because when somebody comes in = and they’ve already caused damage in the wetlands, how do we put it back? It’s not like the= ir putting in a foundation, and they were going to put it in anyway, but when = they go with a rubber tire machine and excavated 2 feet in the wetlands area and you’ve done it for a 75 foot path, and you’ve caught them, and you’ve got all the dirt that’s sitting out and there’s 3 = or 4 rainstorms that washed through it and it’s damaged, how do you put it back?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 9
Mr. Rafey: Land = use issues, each one is unique, it’s not like one size fits all. Each violation is different, each = piece of property is different, each wetland impact is different. In that case, in his defense, he d= id remove some of the junk and garbage that has accumulated there for hundreds= of years. If you just balance th= ese things, he removed some of the junk, but he did disturb some of the regulat= ed area.
Mr. Zawadzki: We= ll I think the big picture in that case is it’s going to be an improvement, getting the junk out of there.
Ms. Sturgis: And= the Y knew about it, at least he said they did.
Mr. Rafey: Yes, = they said it’s fine, just go ahead and remove everything from there.
Mr. Duplissie: I=
just
wonder whether or not stuff that was there 100 years should be disturbed.
Mr. Zawadzki: Artifacts.
Mr. Rafey: I don’t know, but let me get that information from the Town Attorney and bring it to you next month to see what we can do if somebody . . . . .
Mr. Thermer: We = need some kind of leverage.
Mr. Rafey: But o= ne thing that you can do, you don’t have to approve it. You can deny him and tell him to g= o back and fix everything the way it was.
Mr. Thermer: How= many times have we ever actually denied somebody’s application and tell th= em to go back and fix it right from the beginning? The only time we had one denial th= at I was on, we waived the fee. Th= at was back last year some time, up around Bunker Hill Road, and we waived the fee, and that was it. But how many= times have we actually gone and done that? I mean that is some kind of leverage, but do we actually go ahead an= d do that? I mean in the time I= 217;ve been on this we haven’t.
Mr. Zawadzki: Ye= a, and with the problem waiving the fee is that you set a precedent.
Mr. Thermer: Exactly. And we waive = it because it was a combination of (inaudible) I think. It wasn’t all his fault or t= he Town’s fault, it was a combination.&= nbsp; How many times have you guys actually denied something, Moosa?
Mr. Rafey: We ha= ve denied some applications.
Mr. Thermer: It = almost seems as if regardless of what the people are coming across with, we’= ll say okay.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 10
Mr. Duplissie: D= enying it is one thing, outright denying it, but I think the Commission is doing a= lot of good with where they send them and how they design their . . . . I think that makes a big difference. I mean we donR= 17;t really want to deny them a development, that’s not what we’re h= ere for. That’s not what we= want to do is when they’re doing a development is we want to protect the wetlands.
Mr. Thermer: That’s like that guy on Echo Lake Road cutting down all the tr= ees, yea we knew he was going to do it eventually, but he was supposed to do it = in piece mail, but it’s cheaper just to come in on a weekend when nobody= is around, cut everything down, and then say he’s sorry.
Mr. Rafey: Before these applications come to you and especially the larger one for the subdivision, the larger developments, we have pre-applications meetings with them. I also tell them they c= an avoid going to the Wetlands Commission by not going into the wetlands. If they show me their plans and th= ey aren’t going into the regulated area, the wetlands or the 50 foot buf= fer zone, they don’t have to come here.&= nbsp; But sometimes the applicant wants to have more lots, more activities, more houses, and they want to use the wetlands, then they come in front of = you, but they have a choice to just avoid you, they don’t have to come to = you, but they want to use the wetlands. That’s why I always ask the Commission that they should submit other feasible and prudent alternative plans. The first plan you get from a deve= loper is the plan they designed by an engineer that was hired by the developer for his benefit, and they are trying to put every, as many lots as possible, but you don’t have to agree to all of them. On one of the current applications= I think it was lot #5, that his driveway crossing is across the wetland, and = then I think the house layout itself are either in the wetlands or the buffer.
Mr. Thermer: They’re in the buffer.
Mr. Duplissie: W= ell he wants to maximize and get his 18 lots out of it, will he get the 18? (Tape #1, Side A ended – may= have missed some.) and he has to pay the engineer and everybody else, but someti= mes I think they throw that in there on purpose, look at that lot, don’t = look at anything else, see, I’m going to give up that lot for you.
Mr. Zawadzki: An= y time you’re negotiating you start out at a higher level and (inaudible) ri= ght?
Mr. Duplissie: Of course.
Mr. Rafey: And y= ou never hear from a developer that comes to you, this is a beautiful pristine piece of wetland that I want to fill. They always say it’s a piece of garbage anyway, most of the ti= me it is dry anyway and I don’t know if it’s a wetland or not, I w= alk there all the time . . . . .you never hear them say it’s a beautiful piece = of wetlands that I want to fill. It is manmade, there was no water there, but somebody put a road around it and th= en it . . . . . come on. It takes millions of years to create wetlands because it’s by soil profiling, it’s not something that changes today and tomorrow it’s wetlands And you don’t = have to believe these things, that’s your job to protect the wetlands.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 11
Ms. Sturgis: You= know how they were going to use that wetland there for a retaining pool . . . . = .
Mr. Rafey: What = about if we leave that issue when the application comes up.
M=
r.
Polletta arrived at the meeting at this time – 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Rafey: Secti= on 13, Enforcement. I just want to r= ead a little small change on section 13.2, as a condition of a permit this agency= or (inaudible) I just want to remove that other condition permit, it should be= the agency or the designated agent may make regular inspections at reasonable h= ours of all regulated activities for which permits have been issued under these regulations. Sometimes maybe = even put this other condition of approval, but the staff or commission members should have the right to go to the property and look at the regulated activities.
Mr. Duplissie: W= hat are the actual words that you changed?
Mr. Rafey: I jus= t want to remove the first section, as a condition of a permit, erase that and (in= audible) something strong, the agency.
Mr. Duplissie: So it’s no longer the (inaudible)?
Mr. Rafey: No.
Mr. Duplissie: J= ust a permit?
Mr. Zawadzki: So you’re saying you don’t put that in, that’s not necessari= ly one of the standard conditions?
Mr. Rafey: No, it’s just should be like a part of the regulations. I mean the Commission should have = the right to go on the property to see the wetlands.
Ms. Sturgis: For= which permits have been issued. Isn’t that what it says?
Mr. Undercuffler: There’s a lot of stuff in here as a condition of a permit.
Mr. Zawadzki: Wh= en they say standard conditions, this is one of the things that could be in th= ere as a condition, but what Moosa is saying that phrase as a condition of a pe= rmit . . .
Mr. Rafey: If you agree. What if you don’= t put a condition on there? Most of= the time you go to the property before you issue a permit, before you put the conditions, you should have the right to go and see the property.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 12
Ms. Sturgis: But= this says you can only do it for which permits have been issued. You’re saying we could do it= with or without a permit, right?
Mr. Rafey: Yes.<= /p>
Mr. Duplissie: O= r before we issue a permit . . . . .
Mr. Rafey: I thi= nk just by removing this it will be fixed.
Mr. Polletta: So= we have the right to go over there, even if there is no permit?
Mr. Rafey: Yes.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I mean if somebody called me tomor= row and said somebody was doing something in the wetlands, even if the person doesn’t have an application, as a staff member I should be able to go there and see what is going on. Even the Commission should be able to go there.
Ms. Sturgis: Don’t we have to take that out then, for which permits have be= en issued?
Mr. Undercuffler: I agree.
Mr. Duplissie: Y= ea, cause you’re locking yourself out.&n= bsp; If there’s no permit you have no right to go onto the property. This says you can o= nly do it if a permit has been issued.
Mr. Zawadzki: Ye= a, I agree.
Mr. Rafey: Work = on this and then see whatever language you want to put.
Mr. Undercuffler: Just put a period after activities.
Mr. Duplissie: J= ust start it with the agency, or the designated agent may make regular inspecti= ons at reasonable hours of all regulated activities.
Mr. Zawadzki: We= ll because for example Mr. Stack’s property on Smith Pond Road, you went= in there and inspected it but he did not have a permit, so technically accordi= ng to this you couldn’t go there because you hadn’t issued a permit. You should be able to= go there whether there’s a permit or not.
Mr. Rafey: Secti= on 14.6, I just changed one word. Instead of watercourses should be delineated, I put shall.
Mr. Zawadzki: Why don’t we just put must?
Mr. Rafey: Which= one is stronger, much or shall?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 13
Mr. Zawadzki: Mu= st.
Mr. Rafey: Okay.=
Mr. Undercuffler: That should be watercourses and wetlands, right?
Mr. Rafey: Yes.<= /p>
Mr. Duplissie: T= he soil scientist doesn’t delineate our buffer, he just delineates the watercourse and the wetlands, and we add in the buffer?
Mr. Rafey: No.
Mr. Undercuffler: Before we go too far, do we want to go back and we’ve been tal= king so much about enforcement, do we want to just review 13.3?
Mr. Rafey: I wan= ted to make another suggestion before we do that.= I wanted the Commission to approve we have a subcommittee, 2 or 3 members to work on this and maybe with help of staff, go through it all pag= e by page, instead of having the entire Commission do that.
Mr. Zawadzki: Any volunteers?
Mr. Jones: What = kind of staff help would the subcommittee get?
Mr. Rafey: We ca= n provide you with typing and give you the regulations, if you need information about surrounding towns, I can collect the information for you.
Mr. Jones: Can y= ou sit in on the meetings?
Mr. Rafey: Yes.<= /p>
Mr. Jones: In th= at case I’m willing to volunteer and be Secretary.
Mr. Undercuffler: I’ll volunteer.
Mr. Duplissie: I’ll review with them, but I don’t have a lot of time for meetings.
Mr. Zawadzki: Is= that a yes?
Mr. Duplissie: Y= es, I’ll help.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 14
Mr. Zawadzki: We= ll that’s a subcommittee o= f 3.
Mr. Rafey: 3 mem= bers is enough. After you finish everything, then you can make a motion.&nb= sp; These are 2 other definitions that the D.E.P. wants us to add to our= regulations. Wetlands or watercourses. If you want to read it. Just the underlined stuff. This came up after the Avalon case= . They changed the definition of watercourse and wetlands, and it also tells you that a commission cannot de= ny an application just because of the impact of the regulated activity on anim= als or plants that live within that area. It has to be related to the changing of the characteristics of the wetlands. You cannot just den= y an application because the activity will impact the habitat for an animal that lives there. It has to be som= ething with wetlands and watercourse.
Mr. Duplissie: So it’s not just for that particular little salamander?
Mr. Rafey: No, y= ou cannot deny that because if you approve this application it’s going to impact the habitat for salamander. Only if this is going to destroy the wetlands and then the salamande= rs become a part of the wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: It’s kind of hard to distinguish between the two.
Mr. Thermer: You= can kill him, but we just can’t change his house.
Mr. Rafey: Actua= lly by providing his house you’re actually protect him, but you cannot make = your decision based on just protecting the salamander outside of the regulated activity.
Mr. Undercuffler: What they tried to do at Avalon was they denied it because they said it was goin= g to affect the salamanders that were in the upland area, and there was no evide= nce that there was any impact on the wetlands.
Mr. Rafey: (Inau= dible) two salamanders. They said th= is is a habitat for these animals, and if you bring this up they will die.
Mr. Duplissie: S= o the deer that was a mile away that visits the wetlands to go drink every once in awhile, they should be revised right?
Mr. Rafey: Then = you can protect that, because if somebody wants to drain the wetland, they want= to stop the water from there, then you can protect the wetland.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well even if it’s not the (inaudible) we protect the wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: It doesn’t have to be the only . . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
PAGE 15
Mr. Rafey: If you protect the wetlands, you indirectly protected the deer, but you cannot den= y an application because a deer may come and drink water from there. I also made a copy of Chapter 440 = of the Connecticut General Statutes that gives you the power to regulate wetlands. This doesn’t = have the new definitions, but it’s still current. At this moment I don’t have anything else to say.
Ms. Sturgis: What happened to that one you wanted us to skip, 2.1y?
Mr. Rafey: We co= vered that on the other page.
Mr. Thermer: Tha= t 14.5 you talked about, you want to change it to watercourses . . . . is that (inaudible)?
Mr. Zawadzki: We= ll again we agreed that the subcommittee will take it from here and review it = and work with the staff and come back to us.
Mr. Undercuffler: This that you passed out, this will be once it’s corrected, the replacemen= t?
Mr. Rafey: Yes, = but the title will be Town of Watertown.
Mr. Undercuffler: And
there are several places in here where it doesn’t mention Watertown.<=
/p>
Mr. Rafey: You c=
an add
those. Mr. Zawadzki: We=
ll
that’s a generic model. Mr. Undercuffler: Well
no, Watertown is in here quite a bit. Mr. Rafey: I apo=
logize,
I did as much as I could in a very short time. Mr. Zawadzki: He
started with a model. Mr. Undercuffler: I
understand, I found a few others. Ms. Sturgis: Is =
the
subcommittee going to review all of the regulations in the Town, or just th=
e ones
suggested here? Mr. Zawadzki: On=
ly the
ones that pertain to enforcement. Mr. Rafey: They’ll go through the entire
regulations, it is a small book, to see if there are any other changes that
should be made. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2005 PAGE 16 Mr. Zawadzki: But
it’s only inland/wetlands regulations. Mr. Rafey: Yes.<=
/p>
Mr. Jones: Moosa,
what’s the planning time?
When should we be getting this all through and passed? Mr. Rafey: 1 or =
2 months,
as long as you want. If we
don’t change our regulations now, until we change our regulations, th=
is
will be in effect. You cannot
enforce D.E.P. regulations with these regulations, but those new definitions
that they gave us. Mr. Zawadzki: Th=
is one
has been in effect since July 20, 1990, so basically we’ve got a 15 y=
ear
anniversary coming up. Were n=
ot
mandated to have it done by a certain time. Mr. Undercuffler:
While we’re at it, we might as well get it done. Mr. Zawadzki: I’ll entertain a motion to
establish a subcommittee consisting of Mr. Jones, Mr. Undercuffler, and Mr.
Duplissie to review the inland/wetlands commission regulations and report b=
ack
to the Commission at a later date. Mr. Undercuffler: No,
it was only the enforcement section I thought. That’s what we were discussi=
ng. Mr. Rafey: To re=
view
and revise the wetland regulations. Mr. Duplissie: B=
ut we
were talking about the enforcement at the time. We’ll review the enforcement
first, cause I think that’s the part we’re having the problem
with. I think you’ll ag=
ree we
have a problem. Let’s a=
ttack
that one first and then maybe go onto something else. Mr. Zawadzki: We=
ll the
motion is to look at all of them, and change any of them. Mr. Rafey: Under
enforcement, I’m supposed to get some information from the Town Attor=
ney
for you. Mr. Duplissie: A=
nd
we’ll review that and see if there is something that we can do with t=
he
enforcement, so why don’t we attack that one first? Mr. Zawadzki: The
(inaudible) for the subcommittee is just to make it look cumbersome, so you
guys can look at it and get back to us. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2005 PAGE 17 Mr. Undercuffler: Well
maybe we ought to ask the question here then, does anybody have any suggest=
ions
other than what we talked about here that we should definitely consider. Mr. Polletta: We
should all read everything and then once the subcommittee meets, if we have=
any
questions we can enter this. Mr. Rafey: Or if=
there
are other members who are not a part of this subcommittee, if you have any
suggestions, you can tell me, and I’ll collect all of the information=
and
when I meet with the subcommittee I can present here. Mr. Thermer: If =
you
need another member, I’ll volunteer too. If you need an alternate or whatev=
er. MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to establish a subcommittee to review the
inland/wetlands regulations consisting of Mr. Jones, Mr. Undercuffler, Mr.
Duplissie, and Mr. Thermer. Discussion: &n=
bsp; None MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 4. =
Adjournment &=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Thermer, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Adjourn the Special Meeting at 7:55 p.m. &nbs=
p; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY &nbs=
p; Special
Meeting Adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respect=
fully
submitted, Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary Conserv=
ation
Commission/ Inland
Wetlands Agency &nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nb=
sp; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary