beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN HIGH SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2006 - 7:30 PM

PRESENT: = ; &n= bsp; = ; Bernard Beauchamp

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Lucia DiBona

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Glenn Duplissie

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Ron Jones, Secretary

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Joseph Polletta

= ; &n= bsp; = &nb= sp; Edwin Undercuffler, Vice Chairman

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; James Zawadzki, Chairman

ABSENT: = ; &n= bsp; = ; = Charles Thermer

ALTERNATES PRESENT: = ; Martha Sturgis

ALTERNATES ABSENT: = ; <= /span>Peter Peluso

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Denise Russ

OTHERS PRESENT: &n= bsp; = ; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer=

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Moosa Rafey, Assistant Zoning Enforcement Officer

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:40 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. Thermer, in his absence.

3. = Public Participation

None=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 2

4.         = Action on Minutes

&nb= sp;

= A.      =            Regular Meeting. December 15, 2005

= B.      =            Continuation of Public Hearing, January 12, 2006, App. #540, Arthur Howland

= C.      =            Continuation of Public Hearing, January 12, 2006, App. #542, William Davidson

= D.      =            Regular Meeting, January 12, 2006

= E.      =             Continuation of Public Hearing, February 9, 2006, App. #540, Arthur Howland

= F.      =             Continuation of Public Hearing, February 9, 2006, App. #542, William Davidson

= G.      =            Public Hearing, February 9, 2006, App. #544, Donald Curtiss

= H.      =            Public Hearing, February 9, 2006, App. #545, Big Sky Enterprises

= I.      =             &nb= sp; Regular Meeting, February 9, 2006

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Item 4A and Table Items 4B thr= ough 4I as presented.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

=             M= OTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nb= sp;

5.         = Pending Applications

&nb= sp;

A.        Application #540 of Ar= thur Howland of 11-lot residential subdivision, Old Baird Road and Woodbury Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

If the Public Hearing = is Closed on March 9,2006, then a decision is required by May 12, 2006 unless applicant grants a time extension.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: I just need a Motion = to Table this.

MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Accept the Withdrawal Letter for Application #540 of Arthur Howland of 11-lot residential subdivision, Old Baird Road and Woodbury Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on:       None<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 3

= B.      =            Application #542 of William Davidson for construction of 18-lot residential subdivision and associated roadway, Morris Town Line Highway, W= atertown, CT.

A decision is required= by April 14, 2006 unless applicant grants a time extension.<= /p>

Mr. Zawadzki: At the last meeting we asked staff to draft a motions of acceptance or denial on this one and I guess at this point we ne= ed to decide how everybody feels, so it’s open for discussion.

Mr. Undercuffler: What’s the open space situat= ion?

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I think on this application the Pl= anning and Zoning Commission want a fee in lieu of open space. (Inaudible) on all the wetlands, a= nd 50 foot setback area.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Did we get to ask what the amount = of that fee in lieu of is?

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> It’s 10% of the fair market = value of the property before it’s developed.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Not after?

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

Mr. Zawadzki: Take a few minutes to review these drafts.

The Commission read the draft motions to themselves.

Mr. Undercuffler: How much concern is there about the septic in that area (inaudible)?

Mr. Zawadzki: The Torrington Area Health District approves that.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The separation distance is 75 feet= from the edge of wetlands to a septic system.&n= bsp; From an open body of water, like a watercourse or pond isn’t 1= 00 feet. And al of these locatio= ns were approved by the Torrington Area Health District.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> That Torrington Area Health Distri= ct, that’s not the same as (inaudible)?

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The Health Department handle many = towns in the Litchfield county area. They enforce the state regulations.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 4

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> In Newtown (inaudible) septic system within 55 feet of a wetlands. (Inaudible.)

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> The wetland regulations then that = health department for that are will enforce the wetland setback for that town. Our regulations is 50 feet and 100= feet.

Mr. Undercuffler: I realize that the 75 feet (inaudi= ble) but you still get the U shape going straight down right over a period of time. Why did the City of Waterbury raise t= hat concern?

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> They didn’t want any kind of development in that watershed area, that would be in a perfect worlds, they didn’t want anything to happen there.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> (Inaudible.) So if we put 600 houses out there = we have 600 cows that are doing their business so to speak, I mean what would = you prefer? 600 cows on this prop= erty or would you prefer going into a septic at 75 feet form a watercourse, in my world I’d prefer to have it taken care of properly than just have it flowing downhill. Does that m= ake sense?

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> A residential use of this property= will be have less impact on the wetlands than a farm use of the property. If you look at this plan, all of t= he shaded areas are conservation easement areas, that includes all the wetlands plus the 50 foot setback area.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> And these are all posted, every 50= feet you have a 4 x 4 post with a placard so there is no mistake like we had ove= r at Stoneybrook where they just went past it and said I didn’t know.=

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> We said that’s a condition of approval if this commission decides to approve this, after they complete the construction of the road they have to put all of the conservation easement areas before the lots will be developed.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Another condition that we have in = here was for a condition of approval on (inaudible) to be placed on final plans indicating that no topsoil or loam may be removed from the project site unt= il all regulated areas (inaudible) storm drainage system is completed. This means that we’re not go= ing to have trucks going in and out of there traipsing the topsoil off this property. All of the roads wi= ll be completed before they can start (inaudible) because before they just start hauling off the site.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 5

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> As soon as they want to start the = lots they usually set the topsoil and keep it in one location, we want to make s= ure that they have a minimum of 5 inches of topsoil, for cover and if there is = an excess aniytb if topsoil then they can remove it with a permit from the Tow= n, the Town Engineer and the Zoning Enforcement Officer will look at that.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> They need a permit in order to tak= e the topsoil off the site, and that permit will allow for “x” amount= of yards, it’s not issue a permit and then they start hauling it off the site, it’s for a specific amount?

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

Mr. Berger:= After the demonstration they have = to (inaudible) remain on site to meet the 5 inches.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> If they don’t need it, there’s no need for the excess amount of topsoil, then they can remove it.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Only then?

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

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Now that they strip it off, then t= hey have to go buy it from another site and truck it all back in?

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

Mr. Zawadzki: That’s why you have the stor= age locations, right?

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

Mr. Zawadzki: I recall about your concern, I don’t have it here in the field, but Waterbury Water Company said tha= t in an ideal world there would be no development whatsoever, but they also said they’d be satisfied if Watertown enforced their own regulations, etc. Basically the applicant = has complied with everything LandTech recommended and then dome.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> I think they’ve done a good = job.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 6

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I did send a copy of LandTech̵= 7;s report to the City of Waterbur= y and I spoke to the man on the phone and I explained that the Commission wan= ts to enforce all of the conditions that LandTech suggested in that report.

Mr. Zawadzki: And those conditions are all draft= ed?

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes. Some of them are incorporated into= the plans and some of them that weren’t I put in the conditions. In addition to all of these shaded areas, there is an area on Lots #9 and #10, LandTech proposes to put a conservation easement there and for some reason they forgot to put it and t= hey talked to the Engineer today and they are willing to do that. There is a potential intermittent watercourse on that property that runs to Lot #3.

Many people talking at= once (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: = Yes, between Lots #9 and #10, and t= hat was also recommended by LandTech Consultants. And they said the tree line on Lot= s #1, #2, and #3, was recommended as a conservation easement area.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> That brings up another question regarding the trees on the lot. Are they coming in and clearing all of them at once or are they doing it in sections?

Mr. Rafey: = There is a sequence of construction= on the plans that they have to flow.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> I understand that but (inaudible) = clear cut and they’re done?

Mr. Rafey: = Usually they clear the road, after = that they go into the lots.

Mr. Zawadzki: You guys looking at sheet B1, which shows the final version of the conservation easement in the gray shaded are= as.

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> That’s what Moosa was just s= aying, on Lots #9 and #10.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> AT this point Chuck you’re sa= tisfied with the conditions and all the calculations of storm water?

Mr. Berger:= Yes. However I note that on one of the conditions #15, I want to make sure that they address any outstanding issues that I have as well as another note on here that any minor technical issues will be addressed and if this gets approved the application (inaudible) any outstanding a couple of minor details on the detail sheet that I want revis= ed slightly (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 7

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Lot #7 driveway, the new driveway,= is that the one that was moved?

Mr. Rafey: = You can ask staff about that.<= /o:p>

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> I’m sorry. That is the moved driveway, it was originally, it was moved (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: = I think (inaudible) site walk we to= ld them to move it to (inaudible).

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

Mr. Rafey: = Okay, that is the new one.

Mr. Rafey: = You can add to the draft motion or = remove items as well.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> By you reviewing this, do you see anything that was missed, or are you satisfied with what you’ve recei= ved?

Mr. Berger:= Yes, they’ve addressed all t= he issues that I’ve raised. There are some minor technical ones that I haven’t had the opportunity to finalize with the engineer but it’s not directly relat= ed to wetland impacts so (inaudible) move forward with it subject to my final review and approval would be acceptable.

Mr. Jones: = Item #15 I think is what Mr. Berger= is speaking about. All technical issues as outlined in the Town Engineer’s memorandum dated March 2nd shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and the Directo= r of Public works.

Mr. Rafey: = If you agree with this Motion, you = should read it into the record. This= is your motion and it’s in addition to the standard conditions.

MOTION:       (Mr. = Jones, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Application #542 of William Davidson for construction of 18-lot residential subdivision and associated roadway, Morr= is Town Line Highway, Watertown, CT with the standard conditions and as follow= s:

            =             W= hereas, the Watertown Conservation Commission/inland Wetland Agency has received an application from William Davidson for construction of 18 lot residential subdivision and about 3300 lineal feet of new roadway which involve the following regulated activities:

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 8

1.&n= bsp;     Disturbance of 4,300 square feet o f the wetland setback area on proposed lot #3 by construction of detention basin B.

2.&n= bsp;     Disturbance of 500 square feet of inland wetland and watercourse and 2,600 square feet of the wetland setback area on proposed <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Lot #7 by construction of a driveway.

3.&n= bsp;     Disturbance of 350 square feet of inland, wetland a= nd watercourse and 4,500 square feet of wetland setback area on proposed Lot #8 by construction of a driveway and proposed detention basin C.

4.&n= bsp;     Disturbance of approximately 1,200 square feet of inland wetlands and 700 square feet of wetland setback area on proposed Lot #14 by construction of detention pond A.

5.&n= bsp;     Piping disturbance of approximately 60 linear feet = of an intermittent watercourse by construction of proposed Davidson Road in front of Lot #8 and #9.

6.&n= bsp;     Disturbance of 9,900 square feet of wetland setback area by construction of proposed Davidson Road.

7.&n= bsp;     Installation of erosion and sediment control systems within wetland watercourse and 50 foot wetland setback area.

8.&n= bsp;     Disturbance of storm runoff, or discharge of storm runoff from the development into wetlands and watercourse.

&nb= sp;

Whereas, the Agency ha= s held duly public hearings a meetings on October 13, 2005, November 10, 2005, December 15, 2005, January 12, 2006, February 9, 2006 and March 9, 2006.

Whereas, the Agency has carefully considered all of the evidence and testimony retrieved at the duly called public hearings and meetings;

Whereas, the Agency recognizes that Inland, Wetland, and Watercourse in the state of Connecticut and the Town of <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Watertown are indispensable, irreplacea= ble and fragile natural resources;

Whereas the Agency recognizes pursuant to Section 1.1 of the inland, wetland and watercourse regulations the preservation and protection of the wetland and watercourses from random, unnecessary, undesirable, and unregulated uses, disturbances or destruction is in the public interest and is essential to the health, wealt= h, and safety of the citizens of the State.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 9

The purpose of the Inl= and wetland Regulations is to protect the citizens of the State by making provi= sions for the protection of inland, wetlands, and watercourses by:

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>1.      =             Minimizing the disturbance and pollution.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>2.      =             Maintaining and improving water quality in accordance with the high= est standards set forth by Federal, State, and Local authority.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>3.      =             Preventing damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation.<= /span>

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>4.      =             Prevent loss of fish and other beneficial aquatic organisms.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>5.      =             Prevent loss of wildlife and vegetation and the destruction of natu= ral habitat.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>6.      =             To deter and inhibit the danger of flooding and pollution.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>7.      =             To protect the quality of wetlands and watercourses for their conservation, economics, aesthetic, recreational, and other public and priv= ate uses.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>8.      =             To protect the State potable water supply and to provide an orderly process to balance the needs of the economic growth of the town and State, = use of its land with a need to protect the environment and ecology in order to guarantee to the people of the town and the state the safety of such natural resources for the benefit and enjoyment of generations yet unformed.

Whereas, the Agency recognizes the proposed development is located within the designated waters= hed area of the City of Waterbury<= /st1:place> which is in the environmentally sensitive area.

Now therefore be it re= solved that the Watertown Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency finds tha= t a prudent and feasible alternative does not exist and pursuant to Section 11.= 1 of the Watertown Inland, Wetland, and Watercourse Regulations the Agency may g= rant the application as filed, granted upon such terms, conditions, limitations = or modifications necessary to carry out the purpose of the inland wetlands act= or deny it.

The agency approves Application #542 submitted by William Davidson for the construction of an 18 lot residential subdivision located on Morris Town Line Road and Litchfield Road. = Watertown Connecticut as shown on site map entitled Davidson Farm on Litchfield/Morris Town Line Road and Connecticut Route 63 Watertown, CT, latest revision February 28, 2006 with = the following conditions and modifications:

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 10

1.      Creation of a conserva= tion restriction easement on all wetlands and 5 foot wetland buffer areas locate= d on this parcel for the following reasons:

= a.      = Pursuant to 10.2 a, b,= c, d, e, f, and g creation of conservation restricted easement will mitigate the environmental impact of residential home development and associated storm w= ater systems and discharge will enhance the environmental quality of inland, wet= land and watercourses and wildlife habitat and still achieve the basic objective= of the application which is residential development and minimize the impact to= the wetlands and watercourse.

= b.      Pursuant to Section 10= .2 f of the Inland Wetland Watercourse Regulations, the Agency recognizes the su= itability of this residentially zoned property for the development of residential building lots while still balancing the need for economic growth to the Town and State and the need to protect the environment and ecology of the town a= nd state for the future benefit of generations unborn.

= c.      = Conservation Restricti= on easement areas will provide a dedicated area to be protected and will ensure the agency that this important and vital resource will be forever protected from activity pursuant to Section 10.2g of the Inland, Wetland, and Waterco= urse Regulations. The conservation easement area will provide an additional biofiltration area to enhance water quality and support the Inland Wetlands capacity to prevent flooding, prote= ct surface and groundwater and control sedimentation and pollution.=

2.      A wetland performance = bond shall be posted for Davidson Farm of Litchfield. The bond estimate for all site work shall be provided by the applicant to the Department of Public Works which shall include the following:

·        Soil erosion and sediment control drainage pipes, stabilization including regarding and planting of disturbed area on site and off.

·        The applicant shall furnish to the Town a bond with proper surety i= n a form satisfactory to the inland wetlands enforcement officer, town engineer, director of public works and town attorney before any activity is initiated= on site.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 11

3.   (Inaudible) a preconstruction meetkng shall be held with agencies past prior to any site activity. A 24 hour name, address and teleph= one number must be provided by the site construction manager and a written notification is required 3 business days prior to any on site activities.

4.      While construction activities on site are occurring attendance at weekly job meetings with town staff on the site is mandatory. At this weekly job meeting the site manager shall provided a written report of= the on-going work.

5.      No later than August 1= of each year while the site is under construction the site manager shall provi= de to the Inland Enforcement Officer a narrative of how this site shall be man= aged during the Winter months in relation to soil erosion and sediment control measures to reduce sedimentation and detrimental impact to inland wetlands,= and watercourse.

6.      All conservation restr= icted easement areas shall be field rotated and staked. When the roads are located in the = field by the applicant’s surveyor engineer. Once the road construction is comp= leted, these conservation restriction easement areas shall be placards on site. When (inaudible) trees is not poss= ible then the placards shall be posted on 4 x 4 inch posts in the ground. Placards are available for purchas= e in the Planning and Zoning Office.

7.      A note shall be placed= in the final plans indicating no topsoil or loam shall be removed from the pro= ject site until all regulated activities associated with road construction and s= torm drainage system is completed unless after a written request from an applica= nt and a written request is granted jointly by the Director of Public Works, wetland Enforcement Officer, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and the Torrington Area Health District. Topsoil= shall be evenly distributed on all disturbed areas at a minimum 5 inches.

8.      There shall be no othe= r on site disturbance except what is proposed by the final plans within the limi= ts of clearing and regulated activities.

9.      The following note sha= ll be placed on the final plans and a written notice on the land records of the T= own of Watertown are the following are conditions of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetl= and Agency approval:

A.     There shall be no buri= al of stumps on the grounds on site.

B.     There shall be no floor drains permitted in any home or garage.

C.     There shall be no underground fuel tanks permitted within the subdivision.<= /p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 12

D.     Homeowner’s with= in the subdivision must be encouraged to create environmentally sensitive lawn maintenance plans with wildflowers and other species that would great diver= sity and ground cover and enhance biofiltration onsite as well as create an aesthetic value to the community. Agency staff will provide literature to potential homeowners within = the subdivision.

10. Final plans must be re= viewed and approved by the Agency staff, i.e., Director of Public Works, Town Engineer, Wetlands Enforcement Officer to ensure that the plans include all conditions of approval.

11. The following note mus= t be placed in the site development plan?

A.     The Director of Public works, Town engineer, and Wetland Enforcement Officer may required addition= al work or modifications to this plan as field conditions warrant. The field enforcement officer must report to the commission any additional work or modifications to this plan.=

B.     Prior to any on site activity all soil erosion and sediment control measures shall e in place and inspected by the wetlands Enforcement Officer. The Wetlands Enforcement Off= icer may require additional soil erosion and sediment control measures as field conditions warrant.

C.     Prior to the acceptanc= e of submittal activities and release of bonds, all disturbed areas shall have f= irst vigorously established and mowed at least once.

D.     No activity on site disturbance of soil or vegetation such as trees, bushes, etc. shall occur u= ntil a preconstruction meeting is held with Town Staff.

12. The applicant shall pr= ovide written notice to the Inland Wetland Enforcement Officer of the date when s= ite disturbance is to begin, at least 3 business days before said date.

13. The applicant must min= imize the amount of soil disturbance on site at any one time and a narrative phas= e in plan must be submitted for review and approved by the Inland Wetland Enforcement Officer and town Engineer.

14. Temporary sediment tra= ps must be constructed up gradient of the wetlands prior to any land disturban= ces and prior to the construction of the detention pond to protect the wetlands= and watercourses located on site and off. Location and number of sediment traps to determine as site conditions warrant.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 13

15. All technical issues as outlined in the Town Engineer’s memorandum dated March 2, 206 shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the town Engineer and the Director of Publ= ic Works.

16. The record subdivision= and development plan must be signed and dated by the Soil Scientist and Surveyo= r.

17. Construction Manager, Contract shall implement all notes and details included in the final plan. It’s the permittee’s responsibility to provide the final site p= lan and conditions of approval to the site contractor.

18. The driveway to Lots #= 7 and #8 must be constructed over a blanket of crushed stone, wrapped in tooler fabric to maintain the subsurface hydrology of the wetland.

19. A conservation easement shall be placed on the existing tree line around the watercourse on Lots #9= and #10 to prevent future wetland buffer disturbance.

20. A storm water manageme= nt plan must be provided that describes routine and non-routine maintenance th= at are necessary to maintain treatment practices and each section maintenance schedule and assignment of responsibility.

Discussi= on:       Mr. Rafey: They mentioned a the beginning that this is in addition to the standard conditions.

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nb= sp;

      &= nbsp;     C.        Application #544 of Donald Curtiss for construction of 13-lot Bassett Hollow Subdivision located on the north side of Hollow Road, Watertown, CT.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     If the Public Hearing is closed on March 9, 2006, then a decision is required = by May 12, 2006 unless applicant grants a time extension.

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table Application #544 of Donald Curtiss for construction of 13-lot Bassett Hollow Subdivision located on the north side of Hollow Road, Watertown, CT.=

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 14

        &= nbsp;   D.        Application #547 of Watertown Woods, LLC for 13-lot Wolf Hill residential subdivision location activities in the construction of a drainage swale as part of Butternut Views Subdivision located on Butternut Lane and Linkfield Road, Watertown, CT.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     If the Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by April 14, 20= 06.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ron Wolfe, Professional Engineer

      &= nbsp;           = ;      Mr. Wolfe: We= had our field walk on Saturday and at this point I’d like to see if there= are any comments or suggestions that we could look into before the public heari= ng is schedule.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Some commission members on the site= walk made a few suggestions. Do yo= u want to repeat that now so we have it on the record?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: Yea.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: Are you talking about the culvert?<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Any suggestions you made on the site walk.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible) any questions for you?<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: I realize that you wanted us to investigate the use of some type of large culvert, so we’ll be looking into that and we have a soil scientist that’s going to prepare a mitigation plan for the public hearing and he’ll have (inaudible). We’re in the process of looking into it. One of our concerns is with the velocity of flow coming through there. Whatever type of structure that we= put there, we’re still looking into different alternatives, but thereR= 17;s a possibility of the flow coming through will not allow us to have a natural bottom but would have to be armored with rip rap so we’re looking into different alternatives for that.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: What other choice do you have if you don’t have an open bottom?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: One option is a pipe, a single side culvert, 24 inches the minimum required, we decided to increase it by 1 pipe size diameter to a 30 inch just for an extra safety factor. Other than that if you could do an= open bottom culvert, but I don’t know how much benefit it would bring to p= ut an on bottom culvert then line it with rip rap material just so it doesn’t erode over time. It’s not a major (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 15

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: The reason I suggested it and I lik= e the comment was made by having an open bottom, there is less disturbance and you leave it natural. It’s = easy for, it won’t block that easy and it’s easy for animals to go b= ack and forth. That was the reaso= n why I liked the idea of an open bottom, but you looked into that and you said y= ou cannot make it work.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: No, at this point we’re still= going to look into it, but the velocity that we have is almost 16 feet per second that we have to somehow dissipate as the water is coming through the pipe, = so whether it’s a pipe or a 3 sided box culvert with that type of veloci= ty a natural bottom I not going to stay in place in the culvert and it’s g= oing to end up washing downstream so if we propose that we want to make sure it works and that it won’t just wash away and end up downstream somewher= e.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: That’s a natural crossing, it’s already there, so you went across (inaudible). You could span this over a 10 foot= span instead of just a small box culvert, that would work better, wouldn’t= it?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Well the problem is it’s almo= st on a 6% grade so we’re still looking into that and if we go to a larger structure obviously we’ll need headwalls and we’ll have a lot m= ore disturbance actually to the wetlands than just if you had installed a small culvert here. But I did meet = with our environmental soil scientist and we’re looking at different optio= ns. He will be present at the public hearing, he’s going to prepare a mitigation plan and at that point we will have determined whether or not we= can get an open bottom type structure to work.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: That requires a lot more excavation= .

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: It does, cause you need footings an= d you need (inaudible) typically. T= hen we also have the drainage pipe that’s carrying the drainage along the proposed road into the detention pond so we also need to maintain at least 2 feet of cover above that and also have a cushion below that where it crosses the arch or whatever type of structure we put there and that’s where we’re looking into right now to make sure that we can provide for all that, without raising the profile of that location. If we raise the profile we extend = the limits of the flow and you have even more impact to the wetlands.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Yea, but you could do 2 ponds, 2 discharge points into the wetlands.= You do one above the crossing and one below.&n= bsp; You can have the pond below and you can have a small pond up above t= oo.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 16

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: This (inaudible) side here, we look= ed at that also, actually we had a field walk with Chuck last year and this is on such a steep grade her that we actually looked at doing an intermediate discharge point before the crossing but what happened was we weren’t’ able to detain enough water for the remainder of the roadway so that we would not have a zero increase in flow, so we decided to route everything down through the detention pond so that we wouldn’t = have an increase in flow off site and it actually creates more drainage but we situated the pond so that it’s completely out of the wetland setback = and the only activity that’s within the regulated area for construction of the pond is just the outlet rip rap apron and we basically, we looked at do= ing the pond on this hillside but it’s about a 15% grade so by the time y= ou cut your slope in and then you’d have a tremendous show slope on the downhill side. Then you need = the access berm and you’d end up just chewing up a lot of land and it wou= ld be questionable how stable the embankments would ever be if they were ever saturated.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: How about the crossing over here th= at we walked on the (inaudible).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: The driveway?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: Yes. One was pretty deep, you had a lot of water going down.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Yea, those are both sized for high density (inaudible) 24 inch which is too small, like a culvert almost like = for a watercourse like a full time watercourse.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: when you say too small, there’= ;s very little water going through, so why is it creating so much erosion going down? One area over there is = about 4 feet deep.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Just over a year’s water there’s obviously no splash pad or scour hole there presently to dissipate any velocity that used tot ravel through the existing pipe.<= /o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: That was done years ago, not now.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Not recently, no, that’s just= over the years. That actually cont= inues all the way down so we have adequately sized scour holes with modified rip = rap so that whatever water comes through the pipe will enter that scour hole and then the energy will be dissipated. The soil enters the watercourse again.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 17

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: I can understand you make the first crossing with your road coming in off your main street and we’re talking about a box culvert on the first one, we’re discussing a box culvert instead of a pipe, but I’m not r= eal crazy about having those driveway crossings at the cul de sac and you’= ;ve got the private driveway that goes and crosses the wetland. The first one you say is supposedl= y from a well but it looks like it probably a spring that they capped at some point and that’s probably why you have that watercourse, but then trapped in the other two watercourse, I just don’t se the need for it. I know you’ve got 3 or 4 lot= s in there but I don’t really care if they have that wetland sites again w= ith those private driveways.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: the majority of the property the us= able land is up on top of the hill. The developer has to be able to access it somehow, and it’s no different = than any other crossing on a typical subdivision, it’s just a very small intermittent watercourse actually, it’s not even a permanent watercou= rse, it dries up in the summertime.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: that’s all wetlands up above.=

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: this is where the watercourse comes= down through but there’s no activity in the regulated area even for the houses, driveways, or septic systems for those lots, so even if you were no= t to have a common driveway here and extended the road dup through there would b= e a lot more wetland impacts if that were done. We chose doing it this way since t= here was an existing access road at that location. It’s just the bulk of the property, usable, is up in that corner and those lots are actually very lar= ge, 266,000 square feet on Lot #6, and 216,000 on Lot #5. Even these lots are way oversized.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: I agree they are oversized, it’s just that we are here to protect the wetlands and I’m just saying that there is a way to, you’re say= ing that there is no water in the Summertime and yet you have all this wetland = up above and there’s no other way that’s going to go downhill, and I’m not an engineer, and maybe Chuck you can help me with this, there’s no water running over there now? Who is going to do the study on this? Who will determine if t= his is a watercourse all year long or not? If there is water, you get a lot of water, it has to discharge down = the hill, no?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Berger: Your soil scientist has delineated = this as an intermittent (inaudible) watercourse, as a regulated area that is sub= ject to jurisdiction. To sizing of= the openings are sized based on probably a 25 year, I haven’t reviewed the application yet, but (inaudible) 25 year design storm minimum which is a significant rainfall (inaudible) past those flows.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 18

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Undercuffler: Well we’re going to have land= tech look at this.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Yes, the soil scientist that Mr. Wo= lfe hired, they already delineated that area as a wetland, that is a wetland crossing that is a watercourse crossing and at the same time we are asking = Land Tech to look at this again and make some recommendations.=

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: If they have any comments or sugges= tions we’ll certainly look into the, but I just hope you understand that the bulk of the property is up there.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: I understand, I’m saying like sitting on this side is to protect the wetlands and I see all these watercourses over there (inaudible) all the lo= ts sometimes I would like to see their response and see what they come up with= .

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Also you’re saying that the b= ulk of the land is up there, but that’s 4 lots up there, and I’m looki= ng at 9. By giving you the major crossing which is your open box culvert or your pipe, you can get 9lots in without having to make those lots two crossings for those 3 lots. Those last 3 lots. You can have one driveway off the end of the cul de sac to go to that upper lot, I think it’s lot #5, and we wouldn’t have to extend the driveway for th= ose last 3 lots, and we wouldn’t have to make those last 3 crossings.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: What do you do with all that land t= hen?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie Open. We’re giving youth crossing = to cross that major watercourse.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: That crossing is already there, we’re just (inaudible).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie It’s already there as a farm crossing. It’s not a permitted crossing, if you’re going to develop this, it’s not a permitted crossing at this point, so I’m just seeing it as a trade-of= f, you’d get 9lots out of this and give up those last (inaudible). You could get that top one, Lot #5= would work, yes, and maybe even there’s a possible other lot there, dependi= ng on how you break up Lot #5, you could actually make it a high Lot #5 and a = low Lot #5, so you could actually get 2 lots there and give up the other 2 crossings for those 3 lots. D= o you follow what I’m saying?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: I follow it, I just don’t . . . .

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: You’re trying to get the most out of this but (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 19

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Not even the most because if we wer= e to, if we brought the cul de sac up here we could get another lot on top of that and then we’d have impacts from the road there. I mean we have another lot down he= re, we eliminated the lot, put the pond there so there wouldn’t be any effec= ts from the pond or any regulated activity from construction of the pond withi= n the regulated area, the developer, I explained everything to him, told him we couldn’t get a pond on that,2 smaller ponds on eon the up side one on= the down side and I told him his options were to situate a pond in the lower (inaudible) of the property where we could collect all the runoff from the road, slowly discharge it off site, and detain it properly so we had a zero increase in flow, and he was willing to eliminate this lot, which I can show you plans for it, and we just lost a lot and put the pond there.=

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie You have how many acres?=

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Almost 52.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie And lot #7, I think it’s #6, = #7 and #8, how many square feet?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: 256,758 square feet, #7 is 177,652,= and #8 is 159,085.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: So that’s roughly 20 acres, those 3 lots. You’ve got all th= at wetland down below, how many acres?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: There’s a total of 13.9 acres= on the property total.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie 13, so that leaves us 39 acres, and= of those 39 acres if you got 10 lots in there, I think that’s a nice subdivision. (Inaudible) that= major crossing is a major crossing of a major wetland. You’re going within the 50 f= oot setback area and almost touching that interior Lot #2 with that long driveway around the wetlands. Is that Lot= #2?

      &= nbsp;             &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe: Correct.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: So if you took those first 10 lots = . . . . that’s a major crossing, a significant crossing, and I don’t = know how many square feet you have of disturbance there in order to be able to p= ut a road across.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: That’s the way the road is so, there’s a break in the wetlands, and really you’re talking abou= t a watercourse (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 20

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: There’s a break in the wetlan= ds right now because there’s a pipe over the top of it.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Correct.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Old Farms road you have an 11 foot = pipe there and filled over the top of it, that would be . . . .

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Yea, that is situated a way, I think that would minimize, you know we also took that into account also. I mean itR= 17;s not like we’re just inaudible) there’s already disturbance ther= e, the whole road out, the whole road base don that face, we didn’t move= it left or right or whatever, we utilized that and we utilized the existing ac= cess road for the common driveway just so the developer could, the nicest part of the property is up on the hill here. WE should be able to access it somehow.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: You’ve got a lot of land but there’s a lot of wetlands.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Correct. There’s still a good chunk of upland are left though.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: Yea, but to get to it, that’s= the problem.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: The problem is getting to it and (inaudible) is minimize the impact and just because the wetlands is there, I agree you have some nice upland property there, but at that part of our cre= ed here is to protect the land, it’s not just protecting the wetlands, it’s also conservation and every time we get a crossing that’s = more access to more inaccessible land, that used to be inaccessible, so we’= ;re trying to deter some of that, so in order to give you the first 10 lots, gi= be us the last 3.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: That’s not my decision, IR= 17;m sorry. I can’t make that decision.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: I know that’s not your decision, but I’m proposing that. I only speak for myself, not the r= est of the Commission.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Every single house and septic syste= m are completely out of the regulated area. I’m 75 feet off the wetlands, 100 feet from the watercourse. I mean a lot of planning went into= this to obtain that and to minimize what we see here just to get those lots. It’s not like we just laid this thing out.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: What zone is this?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 21

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: R-70. We have open space, we went over t= hat with the Planning and Zoning Commission back in July. WE have a conservation easement th= at links up to an existing conservation easement that was approved for a previ= ous subdivision. This open space along without the conservation has been satisf= ied for the 50% upland in the open space. But the previous subdivision excludes the 1988 with (inaudible) of 19 lots, (inaudible) had 2 temporary cul de sacs, one up here and one over here and we just totally (inaudible).

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

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Yea we do agree with that, but now = we have 19 lots.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: Sometimes you can have a lot of lots (inaudible) in R12.5 and they have to (inaudible). This is the same situation, there’s no difference. = We have to protect the wetlands and stay away from it. We can make it a different way and= make it work (inaudible) other lots before you (inaudible).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: We’ll definitely look into it= . We’ll definitely seek commen= ts from the Town and Land Tech also to see if they have any suggestions at this point. I’ll go over it with the developer.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Also the future extension of this c= ul de sac up to the upper land up above and maybe when that road goes in that there’s possible access (inaudible) to those other 3 lots without hav= ing to cross that wetlands.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: No it’s not, it’s not t= he scope of this application tough, we can’t say that for the future. Once you sell a lot off, it’= s as far as this developer is concerned, if you only put one lot up in this whole 20 acres, then as far s he’s concerned it’s wetlands. He can’t access it every aga= in.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: Well unless you kept an easement.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: Even so he doesn’t have any frontage on the road and this road is going to be extended out this way, it wouldn’t necessarily have any access tot hat 20 acre piece, it’s just impossible to determine what is going to happen.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: is this a resubdivison?<= /span>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe:   It’s a subdivision.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 22

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible) took the first cut, doe= s this apply to this?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: It still can be taken but . . . it’s not warranted here because the frontage would be on Town Line ro= ad which is an unimproved road. = There is no road up here now. You&#= 8217;d have a (inaudible driveway.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Can you show us where the property = is, to the south of the (inaudible)? Is there a development up there?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: No. It’s open farm land.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: For future access? You can take it as (inaudible) landlocked, there’s somebody else who might want it at a later date (inaudible).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: We’re getting too off course.= This application doesn’t inv= olve that. We’re not looking into the future here. There’s a our subdivision ov= er here, this one here is owned by the McFee’s and this future road extension is going to come out over on Artillery Road near the intersectio= n of McFee Road = and we submitted (Tape #2, Side A ended – may have missed some). To the east, then there was another subdivision that was previously approved I don’= ;t recall the name of it but (inaudible) but we’re providing a continuous lie from the previous conservation easement to our conversation easement to open space and then finally to Route 6.

Mr. Zawadzki: = What wou= ld be the status of that open space, as far as who owns it?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Wolfe: It would be deeded to the Town and that’s where that brook flows and (inaudible) so that’s a good resource to protect. Like I s= aid for the public hearing we will have a presentation by the soil scientist, he’s going to prepare a mitigation plan and we’re going to look= at alternatives for the crossing.

Mr. Zawadzki: = Moosa, we’ve already accepted (inaudible)

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Yes, we talked to them. You need an extension from the app= licant to keep the hearing open. The= re was another question on the site walk the percent of uplands in the wetland are= a.

Mr. Wolfe: The total of the property is 51.6 a= cres, the minimum required for subdivision regs would be 10% of that. We need to provide a minimum of 50% upland area, or 2.5 acres of that in the open space. We have a total of 6.92 acres of o= pen space provided with 2.58 acres of upland area in the open space. In addition to that we have 5.41 a= cres in the conservation easement which brings me to a total of 12.07 acres of protected with this subdivision at this time which is 21% of the total parc= el.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 23

Mr. Zawadzki: = Do you a= gree to an extension?

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

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Ms. Sturgis, sec. Mr. Polletta) to schedule a Public Hearing for Application #5= 47 of Watertown Woods, LLC for 13-lot Wolf Hill residential subdivision locati= on activities in the construction of a drainage swale as part of Butternut Vie= ws Subdivision located on But= ternut Lane and Linkfield Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) that Application #547 of Watertown Woods,= LLC for 13-lot Wolf Hill residential subdivision location activities in the construction of a drainage swale as part of Butternut Views Subdivision loc= ated on Butternut Lane and Linkfield Road, Watertown, CT is a Significant Activi= ty.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Table Application #547 of Watertown Woods,= LLC for 13-lot Wolf Hill residential subdivision location activities in the construction of a drainage swale as part of Butternut Views Subdivision loc= ated on Butternut Lane and Linkfield Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 24

&nb= sp;

E.         = 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;

Mr. Rafey: There ar= e some outstanding engineering and technical issues for this application. I receiv= ed an extension from the applicant to table this application until next month. I don’t know if = Chuck wants to shed some light on this issue.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Berger: Well it’s an issue of (inaudi= ble) impervious area with the school and the applicant is still investigating alternatives (inaudible).

Mr. Zawadzki: = Are they investigating a gravel parking area as opposed to asphalt?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: (inaudible) as an alternative.=

  &= nbsp;                 &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Table Application #548 of St. Mary Magdale= ne Church Corp. for an addition to St. Mary Magdalen School, 140 Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

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

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

Mr. Zawadzki: = You ment= ioned something Moosa about combining these?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: I don’t know if you know, but the foreman told me that you will withdraw thee applications and resubmit one or both?

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

Mr. Crawford: = We did.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I’m not aware of that but we= have been working on combining the plans.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Is that something that you want to = do?

Mr. Crawford: = did he m= ention that that is what the applicant wanted to do?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 25

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: He didn’t talk to me, but Ms. Barton told me she talked to him and they’re going to withdraw these applications and submit one of them or both.

=

Mr. Crawford: = Well at = this time . . . . he did mention t= hat he wanted to keep the application process continuing because we actually submi= tted a letter, I’m not sure = if you have a copy of it.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Is that the letter that they want b= oth applications to be together?

Mr. Crawford: = Yes.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: They are separate applications that= were submitted.

Mr. Duplissie:= This is = the only that has the problem with the access, right?

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

Mr. Duplissie:= Subdivis= ion, 32 lot one, and (inaudible)?

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

Mr. Crawford: = I unders= tand at this time that the Commission is most likely will set a public hearing s= o if you have any questions I’d try to answer them at this time.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Is this for Phase II?

Mr. Crawford: = Phase I = and II, yea. The one you’re speaking of is for the Phase II project.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: I know, but on the Agenda (inaudible) Phase I.

Mr. Crawford: = Phase I,= okay, (inaudible) off of Lovley = Drive and then cul de sac here. We = have two regulated activities associated with that project.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible) show me the first 11 lo= ts.

Mr. Crawford: = Right he= re.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Not going up the other way? What’s that going up (inaudi= ble)?

Mr. Crawford: = This is associated with Phase II and Phase III.&nb= sp; The other one (inaudible) temporary cul de sac in this approximate a= rea serving 11 lots here.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 26

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: That’s coming off of Lovley Drive?

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s correct. That’s current= ly under construction. It’= s 11, these 2 up here will come off.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Because that drive was coming off t= he cul de sac, the road will eventually go up and in between them.

Mr. Crawford: = that was= the intent so where these are (inaudible).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Do you have this map, because it= 217;s kind of confusing looking at this map because that has both phases. Just use the one that only shows t= he 11 lots. That is Phase I.

Mr. Crawford: = This application right now, 546. W= hat we’re doing now is we’re in the process of combining the two applications, the two phases into one plan set for easier review by Land Te= ch and the local boards and Town staff and this is essentially what it’s going to look like, and we’re going to use Phase lines to determine t= he two phases.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: It will look like the on up on top?=

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s correct.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: And you still want to get out the o= ther way, right?

Mr. Crawford: = No, that= would be Phase II. Phase I would en= d in a cul de sac at the top of the hill.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: I have a hard time understanding these phases. (inaudible.)

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s for Phase II.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: It’s hard to digest but (inau= dible) you cannot get out because of the wetlands, you’re going to be stuck (inaudible).

Mr. Crawford: = Well essentially we’re going to be working on that for the public hearing.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 27

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: I think you should use that map that says only 11 lots for Phase II. Because if you have two applicatio= ns, what happens if they are still (inaudible) combine lots and it is very difficult for us to (inaudible) this one and this one. There are two separate application= now, this is their application #546. Just explain to the Commission what you’re proposing on this application, make them understand, and then bring the other one (inaudible)= .

Mr. Crawford: = This is = for a single subdivision, 1,000 foot standard Town road extending from Lovley Drive, we’re creating 11 lots off the road, standard R-30subdivision as far = as the lots go. We have a detent= ion basin located in this area, to the east of the property, discharging to lev= el spreader to on site wetlands. WE do have public water and public sewer available to us at Lovley Drive and we’ll extend= that to the middle of our cul de sac. The lower lots in this area most likely will have pump systems on si= te.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: they’re below the level of th= e cul de sac?

Mr. Crawford: = thatR= 17;s correct, and (inaudible) over excavating because there’s a big potent= ial for rock in this area, especially in the drive, so we’ll use pump systems, obviously reviewed and accepted by Town Staff.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible.)

Mr. Crawford: = The sewa= ge for the individual homes in the area most likely

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Each lot will have a ., . . . .

Mr. Crawford: = Not each= lot, just the lots that are potentially not serviced.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: All the lines that have to have the sew3er pumped to bring it up to the road (inaudible)?

Mr. Crawford: = thatR= 17;s correct.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Undercuffler: Where is the open space on this?

Mr. Crawford: = We have = 4 open spaces, I believe, or 2 open spaces (inaudible). We have open space here (inaudible) detention basin. It does include some wetlands and the detention basin here. Open spaces are located= on the west and east side of the entrance drive that extends into the lot.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 28

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: How many of those (inaudible)?=

Mr. Crawford: = 21.78 ac= res I believe. Just over 21 acres.<= /span>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: And your open space, you’ve g= ot (inaudible).

Mr. Crawford: = Yes, correct. We have two regulated activities associated with this phase, one on Lot #1, approximately 560 square feet associated with clearing of the lots and construction of the home and an additional 200 square feet associated with = the construction of the roadway.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: That white triangle poking in there= , the map I’m looking at here says that’s Lot<= /st1:place> #14 from Fox Crossings, so is there already a house there?

Mr. Crawford: = No, not = as of right now, I’m not sure what the intent is. I would assume they will put a hou= se there, but it’s not part of this application.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Undercuffler: And how wide is the road here?=

Mr. Crawford: = It’= ;s standard width.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: Are you going to request (inaudible= )?

Mr. Crawford: = No.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: No, we’re not.

Mr. Crawford: = Actually= on a previous application on another project we attempted to do that and Planning did not allow it, and there’s really no need I guess in this area, we have a (inaudible) sidewalk as well.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: The rest of the (inaudubiel) 30 fee= t?

Mr. Crawford: = I believ= e so.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: How wide is Fox Crossings, Lovley Drive?

Mr. Crawford: = Again I don’t have the construction plans with me, but we can confirm all of = this and present it at the public hearing.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 29

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: (Inaudible) impact areas?

Mr. Crawford: = There= 217;s 2, one associated with lot 1, the clearing for the lot and the construction= of the house, and it’s 560 square feet approximately and then a second impact, a second (inaudible) construction of the road on the western side, about 200 square feet.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: So you’re into the 50 foot bu= ffer there?

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s correct, we have no direct wetland impacts.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: So Lot #1 is just in the buffer?

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s correct.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: About how many square feet?

Mr. Crawford: = 550 squa= re feet in the upland review area.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: The heavy green is the wetlands?

Mr. Crawford: = Actually= the yellow represents wetlands, the heavy green represents the remaining wooded area and the lighter green represents future lawn. The gold will represent new imperv= ious surface which is the roads and driveways and the (inaudible).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Sturgis: (Inaudible), is that correct?<= /o:p>

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s correct. There are more impac= ts associated with Phase II.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: We have until the 14^th t= o make a decision the next meeting is on the 20^th.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Duplissie) that Application #546 of Patrick Graziano= for 11-lot residential subdivision located on Lovley Drive, Watertown, CT is a Significant Activity.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 30

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Undercuffler, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Schedule a Public Hearing and Table Application #546 of Patrick Graziano for 11-lot residential subdivision loc= ated on Lovley Drive, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nbs= p;

G.        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.

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

Mr. Crawford: = Essentia= lly this project is Phase II of the previous application. 32 homes with a road extending fro= m the temporary cul de sac located off of Lovely Drive down into Kimberly Lane. There again would be a secondary c= ul de sac extending off of that new road and then a third new cul de sac extendin= g up to Pond View, approximately 1,000 linear feet, this one is about 660 linear feet. Associated with this application, the construction of 32 additional homes located with frontage = on all the roads. These homes wi= ll be sewered and public water is available for both of these projects. This yellow represents the wetland= s, the green represents the remaining wooded area, and the lighter green would represent the existing lawn and proposed lawn associated with the new homes= .

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Sturgis: Show us the wetlands?

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: I have more det= ailed plans. Basically it’s t= he same plan we were just looking at, however we removed some of the green are= as to kind of (inaudible) the wetlands. The wetlands are shown here in yellow. The regulated activities are shown= in the green associated throughout the site.&= nbsp; This phase of the project has 5 regulated activities associated with it. The first one I believe i= s the one everybody knows about from the field walk is associated with the direct impact and the activity within the regulated area. That was for the extension of the = road for Kimberly Lane. The upland area of disturbance is = about 29,700 square feet and the wetland area is about 5,400 square feet. We have a middle impact in that sa= me area auspicated with the construction and clearing of Lot #19 and that is about 850 square feet within the upland review area.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 31

Now associated w= ith the cul de sac off of Pond= View Drive, we have 3 regulated activities. The first is associated with the construction of the detention basin, that is about 21,870 square feet within the upland review area, mo direct wetland impacts in that area. The second is associated with an i= ntermittent watercourse, which is, I’m not sure if you saw it on the field walk, it’s more of a channel that was dug over the years by the farmer. It was flagged by our soil scienti= st as an intermittent watercourse that actually starts in this area just beyond t= he regulated area boundary here. So it’s associated, it does end up hitting it with out driveway, our proposed road and some of the construction (inaudible). That was about 16,800 square feet = in the upland review area and about 95 linear feet of disturbance to that intermit= tent watercourse.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: How many square feet?

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: It’s flag= ged as a linear course, it doesn’t have a width to it, it’s an intermittent watercourse, it’s an impact along the land, it’s a linear impact.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Do you pipe this?=

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: We actually we = took, we installed a small plunge pool area at the base where that intermittent watercourse enters, intercepts the water our development, we will pick that= up in a storm drainage and actually pipe it down to our detention basin here.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We’ll collect it into our sy= stem and model it in our hydrology.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: In which direction is it draining n= ow?

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: The natural con= tour is draining this way, so what happens, this intermittent watercourse natura= lly just kind of flattens out, deteriorates (inaudible) area on the site, doesn’t continue down, an d then I’m assuming that the water probably sheet flows down this way, so we’re discharging it in this s= ame general direction, we’re not taking it to another watershed or another direction. I believe we have a third regulated activity associated with the construction of Lot #35, clear= ing again for the home, where it’s about 2,100 square feet of activity wi= thin the upland review area, but there are no direct wetlands impacts associated with that.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Clearing within the upland review a= rea?

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: That’s ri= ght.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: So the house will be located how far from wetlands? If you’re clearing within th= at regulated area of 50 feet you’ll have an extended (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 32

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: True. It’s about 60 feet, the hous= e is outside the upland review area, the grading is only associated around to the rear of the house.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: What’s that lot number?

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: #35.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Sturgis: that road (inaudible) not like you = can just (inaudible).

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: We are taking a= ccess through an existing right of way off of this road. I understand this is associated wi= th the development of this previous subdivision.&= nbsp; We would be just taking it where we would have it potentially. We are currently looking at other options. I know there was discussion about modifying this lot; I’m not sure if that’s feasible for us but we are trying to look at shifting the road as much as possible to avoid that impact and that’ what we will present at the public hearing. We also reali= ze the commission is also interested in possible future connections around so we’ll be presenting that as well as an alternate to you. We’ve been asked to present = thee plans to Land Tech for their review.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: I don’t think there was anybody at that site walk who was happy about t= hat access.

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: I understand. It’s off of Kimberly, yes.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Just because somebody left a 50 foot access way over there doesn’t mean th= at it’s a good access point, and I understand that’s your only acc= ess point now to the inside, but for us it’s not really an access point.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We’re looking at it as you h= ave your access point off of Lovley Which is where you’re coming in to yo= ur 11 lot subdivision and we’re looking at it as well, P & Z just increased your cul de sac lengths to 1500 linear feet so you could actually= make that a 1500 linear foot and I= think it moves up to a 20 lot subdivision, so you could actually eliminate that access, your Kimberly Lane access and just come in from Lovley and have a 1= 500 linear foot run with a 20 lot subdivision and get rid of that access off th= at 50 foot right of way, cause that 50 foot right of way goes right through our wetlands, and wetlands, it’s setback area, that lot has already, that corner lot, I don’t know who owns the corner lot, but when we walked = that site, eh was supposed to stay 50 feet away from the wetlands, he’s extended his property all the way down to the wetlands, and it’s grad= ed right to the wetlands, so now you’re asking to go through this proper= ty and your road is going to go right through our wetlands, but when you build= the road you’re going to be in the wetlands, there’s no way to help= it.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 33

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: Also our gradin= g is associate d. . . . .

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: I know there was a lot of grumbling about that when we were on the site. So if you change that top a 1500 l= inear foot from the other side and you make it a 20 lot subdivision, there’= s no grumbling.

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: That’s wh= at I alluded to earlier; we’re going to look at other alternates and given them both to you at the public hearing as far as an extension of the road through here, possibly shifting the road in this area, to avoid or minimize= the impacts associated with this, and we’ll do what we can, understanding that that’s the Commission’s’ feelings but however we are limited cause that was more or less the right of way was left to us as to develop this lot (inaudible).

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Unfortunately it’s not our problem, that’s how they left it.

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: It’s our problem to do it, that’s right.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: The other thing when we were on that site that was discussed, your access off of Pond View. And just down the = hill of Pond View, I don’t have an arrow here so I can’t tell you . = . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: We already talk= ed about revising the outlet of this basin to minimize the discharge to attempt to n= ot impact those lots.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: It’s sheeting through their back yard and it’s just going from one yard to= the next to the next, going downhill. It starts right about where you’re proposing coming in off of = Pond View, it starts there and then works its way downhill.

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: True.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: And I think that is where you propo= se a detention pond.

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: We have a deten= tion pond here, located here and then a level spreader to minimize the impact for the discharge.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Do you think that this will add to = the problem of these existing properties? (Inaudible).

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: I’m sure = the water runoff is it more associated with the lawn area or is coming out of t= he woods because .c. . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 34

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Both, it’s coming from the lawns and the woods.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: There are some wetlands on the back= of these properties.

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: Yea, that’= ;s where this area (inaudible).

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: And then if you pu= t a detention pond there and concentrated water goes there all the time . . . .= .

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: then it’s going to leak out into the hillside again. Is there anyway you could connect = that pond, your detention pond to the one that’s down right by the roadsid= e, instead of having it sheet flow?

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: We could look i= nto that. We’re not sure, we’ll be discharging to another system that probably functions independently from ours, so we’ll have to look at that. There’s maybe a possibility = of providing a berm along this property line to prevent the water from running down, but again that would increase our impacts in the regulated area for t= hat area, so . . . .

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Obviously we have to, there’s already complaints for that area, so we can’= ;t come in give you access and then compound that problem.

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: Right, thatR= 17;s why we thought about relocating our discharge point further away from these properties to I guess to promote sheet flow farther away, cause basically i= f we can discharge our water far away from this property it appears that the gra= des will take the water not towards the property, but just down the hill.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: = How about a stone wall or a physical barrier?

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: That’s wh= y I was talking about a possible berm, but again that would increase our regula= ted area impact. WE wouldn’= t want to put a berm within the wetlands, but if that’s something the Commis= sion s looking to do, we can look towards that as well.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Is that the only location that you = can put the detention pond?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 35

=             <= b>Mr. Crawford: It (inaudible),= the road slopes down to Pond View, so it’s essentially the lowest point in our design, so it allows to collect as much water off that impervious surfa= ce on the road to help manage our storm water runoff and the water quality as = well cause our basins are oversized we do provide for water quality volume and t= he groundwater recharge volume.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Undercuffler: Are we going to have Land Tech look at this?

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: Yes.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: = We need an extension on this one too and determine if it’s a significant activity.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) that Application #549 of Patrick Graziano for construction of 32-lot Highview Estates Subdivision, Phase II located on Lo= vely Drive, Kimberly Lane, and Pond View Drive, Watertown, CT is a Significant Activity.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Schedule a Public Hearing for Applicat= ion #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<= /st1:City>, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to deem this a Significant Activity and T= able 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<= /st1:City>, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 36

&nbs= p;

6.         = New Applications

&nb= sp;

      &= nbsp;     A.        Application #550 of Dorothy and Willis Fairchild for construction of a single-family dwelling on Lot 6B, Winthrop Street, Oakville, CT.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by May 12, 2006.<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Dorothy Fairchild, 135 Elise Drive, Waterbury<= /st1:City>, CT&nbs= p; 06708

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Fairchild: I own a lot on Winthrop Stre= et, Lot 6B.= I’m asking to construct a house and driveway within the 50 foot wetland boundary. The alterna= tive would have brought the house closer to the neighbor and leave an unbalanced appearance to the neighborhood. I have a statement written up that I’d like to hand out to everybody so= you can read along with me.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     I am shocked to find out that an old map shows that a section of my approved building lot on Winthrop S= treet is described as wetlands. Hom= e sin this neighborhood are in the 12.5 acre zone of Oakville and this area has b= een developed for years. I don= 217;t know how the old map reads but I do know that there are not wetland vegetat= ion, no wetland wildlife and no drainage ditch.= I have never seen it puddle up regardless of season. The lot was always used as a lawn = and baseball field by my grandchildren. In 2001 our surveyor pointed out to us that there was a paper street called Amherst on the southern line of the property and we would have to abide with the 35 foot frontage of Amherst as well as the 35 foot frontage of Winthrop. The hou= se would have any balanced placement in the neighborhood according to those setbacks. We decided to apply= to abandon Amherst Street in order to place the house in the middle of the lot. With all abutting neighbors in agreement, we gained approved from the Town to eliminate Amherst. As a result our frontage has been increased to 125 feet on Winthrop. As a petitioner my daughter and I incurred all of the related expenses for the surveying of the paper street = and for the Town road to prepare deeds for all of the above (inaudible) property owners. This benefits everyon= e in the Town because more taxes are being paid. Now as this juncture as we are rea= dy to build we are faced with a new problem called wetlands and wetlands statutes require a 50 foot buffer zone. WE are back to where we were in 2001. I will not be happy if I have to place my house 10 feet from my last northern property line. As I stated be= fore, the house would have an unbalanced appearance on the lot. Please, I implore you to take a si= te walk on my building lot to determine the best placement so I can proceed wi= th the building of my house. Tha= nk you very much., And besides that I’d like to add w4e had the sewer and water extended down into Winthr= op, that was another expense I had, but we were successful in doing that so it’s been a long haul and now I’m ready to build. I’ve sold my house in Waterbury and in = one month I’ll be homeless. So I appreciate anything you can do to help me out with this.<= /p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 37

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: I don’t think it can be built in one month.

=             <= b>Ms. Fairchild: No, I’m = going to be living with my daughter. She lives on 6 Bergam Street.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: = So Winthrop is the paper street, in the front?

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Are the dots t= he wetlands?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: No, (inaudible).<= /p>

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: That’s t= he wetlands, this side her?

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

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: 25 feet from t= he property line but . . . .

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: 25 feet from the edge of the wetlan= ds.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: And how many s= quare feet is that wetlands?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: 70 square feet.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Do we get to v= ote whether or not this is a significant activity?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: You cannot make a decision tonight = on this.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: We have to hav= e a public hearing?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: No. For 2 days for anybody who wants to submit a petition for a public hearing.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: How did the= y come up with the fact this is wetlands?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: It was just by soil type.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: But was it recently tested?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Yes, there is a soil report in your packet. The soil scientist we= nt to the lot and determined that that area was wetlands.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 38

=             <= b>Ms. Sturgis: (inaudible.)

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, we can’t make a decision tonight anyway.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Are you serious? 70 square feet in an= area that’s (inaudible) what’s the property on the other side? Conlon and Mary Allen Farese?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Fairchild: yes.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: This lot was created recently.=

=             <= b>Ms. Fairchild: About 5 years = ago.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: If this lot was created before zoning years ago, then there should be no discussion, so this was created recently?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: No, this is a new lot.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: 6A and 6B were= one lot.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Fairchild: Correct.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Is the wetlands between 6A and 6B, or 6B and 4G?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Between 6B and the road.=

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Amherst became part of 6B?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Yes, 50% of that, (inaudible) of the road.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: So whatever th= at lot 6 is, about half of Amherst?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: I think that was 50 feet wide, I think they got 25 feet and the neighbor got = 25 feet.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: What is inside = this, (inaudible) 1960 and this will not apply to that, correct?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 39

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: In any case if there’s wetlan= ds, they have to come to this Board.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: I understand but let’s say the town collected money on this since 1960, how can we deny somebody the right to do it, but because this was crated lately, it’s= a different situation.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: (inaudible) the commission denies t= his, they have to come to the Commission to get a permit to do any regulated activities.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: But the wetlan= ds weren’t actually in the middle of the Amherst Paper Street.

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

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Were actually = in the middle, and they split lot, I want to say lot 6 but it’s not lot 6, it’s 6A and 6B was one lot, it was split after they took over half of Amherst to make it a lot?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: No, it was split before, and then recently they abandoned the road. When was that?

=             <= b>Ms. Fairchild: About 2 years = ago.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Well let= 217;s go take a look at it.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Fairchild: It’s a beautiful flat lot, dr= y, long, well let them describe it.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Now this is go= ing to be a quick site visit.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Zawadzki: I think we’re obliged to, and we can’t make any decisions tonight anyway.

=             <= b>Ms. Fairchild: I have pictures (inaudible).

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Application #550 of Dorothy and W= illis Fairchild for construction of a single-family dwelling on Lot 6B, Winthrop Street, Oakville, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 40

      &= nbsp;     B.         = Application #551 of Long Horizon Development, LLC for construction of a single-family dwelling at 44 Beach Avenu= e, Watertown, CT.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by May 12, 2006.<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     George Touponse, Long Horizon Development, LLC

      &= nbsp;           = ;      Mr. Touponse: I currently have an option to purchase this piece of property. The soil scientist has walked the property and the wetlands have been delineated. I also have a letter from Mary Bar= ton indicating that this property encompassing 1.7 acres is entitled to a first split. My intention is to loc= ate the new dwelling within the 50 foot wetland setback area located adjacent to this stream channel that collects the drainage off = Beach Avenue and discharges to the wetlands in the rear. There is currently, this is all grassed area and there is an existing accessory buil= ding for the house that exists. Th= e alternate option would be to create an interior lot and locate the driveway over in t= his area, crossing the wetlands and putting a structure in the rear, but obviou= sly it wouldn’t be feasible, we have some wetland disturbance and some filling associated with that activity, that’s why we proposed the dwe= lling in the front, and I do have a couple of pictures which show the stream chan= nel collecting the drainage off of Beach Avenue and then we drew some grass area where we’re proposing to put the house.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Undercuffler: How much are you encroaching into, = is it the wetlands or just the buffer?

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: It’s just= the buffer zone and as you can see on the map the soil scientist stopped delineating the wetlands right at the channel in this location because it becomes very well defined where the drainage collects off Beach Avenue as y= ou can also see in the photos, so we stopped delineating the wetland in this location and I guess the regulated area is within 50 feet of that channel w= hich is really well defined and probably only 2 or 3 feet wide in that location.=

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Polletta: (Inauidlb0 existing (iaudibke0?

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: Yes, that exist= ing building is supposed to remain. It’s a garage, there’s no driveway running to it but they have a lawn tractor and it’s quite a sizable accessory building.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Sturgis: (inaudible.)

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 41

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: I’m propo= sing to build a new house and we have to disturb the buffer area.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Sturgis: (Inaudible.)

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: Yes, it will ha= ve to be in the buffer area.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Sturgis: How much will be in the buffer area= ?

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: About 600 square feet.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Sturgis: (Inaudible.)

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: No more than half. As you can see in the picture, thi= s area is all grassed area it’s been mowed and maintained as lawn area for m= any years, and there’s probably 5 or 6 foot drop where the channel is loc= ated but currently all the surface runoff is in a northerly direction, so many of the activities that we proposed in this area wouldn’t have any impact= on that drainage channel.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: Has this lot been subdivided alread= y?

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: No, it has not.=

Mr. Polletta:= You’re not looking for a subdivision, this is one piece of property with (inaudible) in the back, ri= ght?

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: That’s co= rrect.

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

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: No, it’s currently 1.7 acres and we’re enticed to a free split, we’re ju= st proposing to put one new dwelling.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ms. Sturgis: (inaudible.) going to have another = lot, right?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: There is an existing house on that = lot, they want to create this lot to put a new house.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 42

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: It’s kind= of odd because the accessory building is located way over in this area, and wh= en we divide the lot, that accessory building will be on the other lot. The other option was to divide the= lot here so the accessory building stayed with the existing lot, but then we wo= uld be creating an interior lot and we’d have to impact the wetlands cros= s so and put a structure back here, but that’s not really feasible.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible.)

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: I believe it= 217;s over here on the Buckley property. That was a small pond.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: What I don’t understand is this is not an existing lot, you’re going= for a subdivision or a one time split of this lot, you’re coming to us wi= th a house that you’re going to put half in the wetlands, which means you’re going to have to excavate almost right up to the existing chan= nel, I don’t see why you’re coming to us with a subdivision f0r a ho= use that, I mean I could see if you put the driveway on the side and maybe put = the house where the existing garage is and stay out of the buffer, but the way you’ve subdivided this lot you have to put it over here and you’= ;re basically disturbing (inaudible.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: What’s the s= quare feet of that upland review area?

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: n1500 square feet, but is that total for construction?

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: For the house.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: That means that they have no yard cause they have to stay off the year cause we don’t want them, the house is going to be how many feet from the . . = . .

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: This area is an R-= 30 zone, the house has to be 20 feet from the side property line minimum, and = the way it is now it’s 21 feet.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Duplissie: So if they turn the house and put the house the other way, one way or the other way . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: that is an alterna= te.

Mr. Duplissie= : So that it brings you closer to the accessory building in the back, but to bring it to us this way, I just don’t understand it.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Did you look at other possibilities= ?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 43

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: Obviously that = can be done, it’s kind of an odd configuration having the house turned sideways. The reason that I b= rought the pictures is you can clearly see that the drainage problems currently go= ing from south to north in this direction.&nbs= p; The grass area that already exists, the construction of the house in this location I do not believe is going to pose any negative impact to the existing channel and subsequent wetland which I believe is the purpose of t= he buffer area initially, so keeping that in mind, the construction activity h= ere is not going to pose any negative impact on the wetlands.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: Do you want to go and look at this?=

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Yes, only beca= use you’ve got a major drainage swale right along side of it.

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: It’s intermittent only because it collects the drainage off of Beach Avenue.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: The house even= tually is going to be located 25 feet from the center of that watercourse or that swale, which mean that when you do construction you have to run a machine around there, which you need 20 or 25 feet in order to excavate and build concrete (inaudible ) around there, that’s where the disturbance comes in.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: (inaudible). If you go before the Zoning Board = of Appeals you’d probably get a variance for that.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: You wouldnR= 17;t even have to Joe, you’d just . . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: I do the review fo= r the Zoning Board of Appeals, I usually don’t get comments for a new house= to be non-conforming structure because the Zoning Regulations encourage people= to get rid of the non-conformities. You don’t want to create a new non-conforming building there.<= /h2>

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: On Beach Avenue there are a couple of houses that are turned the other way, inside of lengthwise = on the road.

=             <= b>Mr. Touponse: I know, on this= side there’s some ranches and stuff . . . .the stone wall as you can see in the photos and you can also see there’s a fence that currently exists= so any construction would be to the north of that fence and there would be lit= tle or no impact on the wetlands.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey You should go there= and see this. I’ll keep the= se pictures in the file.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 44

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Application #551 of Long Horizon Development, LLC for construction of a single-family dwelling at 44 Beach Avenue, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

      &= nbsp;     C.        Application #552 of Anthony Caruso for construction of 8-lot Lakeside Estates Subdivisi= on, Phase II located on Caruso Drive, Watertown, CT.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by May 12, 2006.<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Ed Scoville, Licensed Engineer and Land Surveyor=

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: I’ll give= a brief narrative description of the parcel.= The parcel is located on Lake Winnemaug, on the e= ast side of it, between Caruso= Drive and Flint Rock. It’s ab= out 18 acres. There are 15 existing dwellings on the parcel now. It’s an existing non-conforming lot. Originally if you go back in time,= down Caruso Drive there was a similar situation there were a lot of cottages that were converted into houses and that section as subdivided into lots, and we’re looking at extending Caruso Drive 1500 feet and breaking off 8 = lots in it and there still is a portion of it going down further of this parcel = that has existing cottages on it. = Of the 15 cottages I would say that 13 of them are the lake, 11 of those cottages = are within the 50 foot buffer of the lake, if not right on top of the lake and then th= ere are 2 cottages on the parcel that aren’t in the lake.

There’s 5 = new proposed houses with 4 of the houses that actually aren’t on the lake side which we’re proposing new and then 1 new house on the lake side = of the road which will be a combination of that. In the section we’re working= on here which is the 1500 for the road addition, there’s 2800 square fee= t of wetland disturbance. Primary wetlands out here are acquaint soils, looks like from the site visits we’ve had that the parcel in addition to having cottages built on it = was also mined at something so it looks like where these wetland pockets are go= ing down the road, that (inaudible) next to the road appear to be made because = the gravel was stripped off almost down o the ledge and the water is sitting on= top of the ledge which can be seen. As depicted on the map the possibility of one possible solution with the road extending through the front lot to make the best use of the zoning regulati= ons but there are some zooming issues with this parcel, as far as it goes which= is another subject for another board and we’ve asked the Town Attorney to look into some complicated issues that we have on it.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 45

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: How long is th= is road going to be?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: We’re pro= posing an addition of 1500 feet which come sup to the wetlands that bisects the parcel. Between that section = that towards Flint Lock and the section towards Caruso Drive. Years ago there was some kind of c= ourt order or deal with the Town as far as a small one acre area in the middle of this parcel was given as open space, which I’m not sure is a legal . = . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: My question is because (Tape #2, Side B ended – may have missed some).

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: If both things = are completed, we’re proposing about 2200 feet of existing road to be add= ed onto Caruso Drive which is about 1000 feet long, so about a total of 3200 f= eet a little over a half a mile to get to Flint Rock.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible.)

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: There is 3 on t= he first area and then there’s issues with zoning that we need to take c= are of for Lot #7 and #8 that we’re tr= ying to work out now as far as (inaudible) so we’ll be able to . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Does this have= sewer and water?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: No, at this time there is no sewer and water. We’re looking into the possibility. We had meetings with, at a prelimi= nary meeting we met with the Water & Sewer Authority and they’re actua= lly looking at doing a well study to bring the sewer line up down more where the main road is, down on this end, so we looked at that possible, putting in a pump station and extending sewer up to Old Arm which is ¾ of a mile = away to get to it, but there’s some talk with the Town depending on the how the well study goes . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: (inaudible) sep= tic system or water and sewer?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: No, right now we’re proposing septic system, but that could change depending on what Water & Sewer says. Cause= the intent of the Town is on the other side of the road, to bring water and sew= er there, so we might look at . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: Does this road connect to Artillery Hill?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: Flint Rock, yes. So our proposal would be eventuall= y for a 30 foot.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 46

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: That’s a = cul de sac over there?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: That would be t= he cul de sac on Flint Rock, if you went out that way to . . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: You donR= 17;t think you ought to resolve some of these issues before you approach us, a l= ot of stuff up in here?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: A lot of stuff = is legal issues as far as that goes. We’ve got depending on the stance that the town takes on it, b= ut to get the ball rolling we needed to commit to a commission. Right now it’s a very odd situation from a surveying point of view, I haven’t seen anything like this before. I’ve got 15 dwellings that they’re paying taxes on individually. Now normally if I had a house, I&#= 8217;d have a tax bill and I would get one tax bill with one structure. Now there’s 15 different tax= bills which is very odd from the Town’s perspective because usually the 1 p= erson who owns the property would be getting the tax bill.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Right now, the= 15 existing houses are on one lot?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: Correct.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: And there is s= ome existing pass way that services these. . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: There’s an existing dirt road that goes . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Now you’= re going to improve that dirt road, however that may be, and on top of those 15 lots, we’re going to add 8 more.

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: We’re goi= ng to be getting rid of a bunch of those, there will be a compromise between the two. There’s about 39 a= t the end that we can’t touch because of lease agreements right now.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: What do you me= an get rid of them?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: Tear them down.= There are structures there, they a= re in various conditions, from run down, there’s one house that’s sea= sonal, a lot of the other ones are cottages that have been converted and, depending upon who looks at them, somebody could say they’re nice, but on a bun= ch of them, for example in this area here, they’re on the water and to m= ost people just to be on the water in any kind of house would b e. . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 47

=             <= b>Ms. Sturgis: is that a private road? It’s not a town r= oad, right?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: No, this is a p= rivate road.

=             <= b>Ms. Sturgis: (inaudible) priv= ate road.

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: Eventually it w= ould town road because it’s in the Town’s Plan of Development to ext= end through to Flint Lock to have a road, going (inaudible) east side of the la= ke.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: a=3DThere w= as something in there about access to land that’s presently landlocked t= own (inaudible) beach front? Where’s that?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: yes, that would= be right here in the center of the parcel.&nb= sp; That’s the Town of Watertown’s.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: That would be g= iven to the Town on the first phase of this project, correct? I’ve served on a lot of boar= ds and I remember that the Town, (inaudible) good piece of land, is that the one?<= /h2>

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: (inaudible) that’s correct.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: I think Phase I of= Caruso Drive was the same situation, they had old cottages and they got some lots ad put nice ho= uses there now. And they want to d= o the same thing here.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: I think this is definitely an improvement if they get in all those new houses like they did before, but I would like to take a field trip to look at this.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: well I’m concerned about the = septic system and whether or not it’s going to be septic, sewer . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: Right now they’ve got burrows in the ground, so anything that they (inaudible) = all those cottages they use all the time, that’s what happened before and that’s the reason why they got rid of all the little cottages and (inaudible).

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: 65 gallon drum= with (inaudible).

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: Those new houses (inaudible).

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: I think it̵= 7;s less than 275 gallon drums.

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions? We’ll schedu= le a walk.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 48

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: (Inaudible.= )

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: No, I think that’s what they’re proposing.

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, that’= ;s part of the issues.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: So you̵= 7;re not really making a formal (inaudible)?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: We’re mak= ing a formal presentation, we’re looking at giving something that we can dr= aw a line across.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: We don̵= 7;t have house locations.

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: We’ve got= the house locations for the . . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Has the sanitarian . . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: There’s b= een septic testing done on it.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: So if you’ve got no sewers, it still could go through.

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: From a house standpoint, the biggest issue is when we head over towards Flint Rock.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: but you wouldn’t have to do that.

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: Yea, with the cottages over there so . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Your plan a= t this point is just to go to that far.

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: Yes.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: But Caruso was already 1300 feet you said.

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: 1100 feet.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Now you want t= o add another 1300?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: Correct.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Which P & = Z only allows you 1500 on a dead end.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 49

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: in preliminary meetings with P & Z they also would like to have the right of way all t= he way through.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: but they put that temporary cul de sac and it will be connected to Flint Rock in the future.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> IF you (inaudible) then they allow= you more lots than . . . . it has to be feasible.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Yea but itR= 17;s feasible to the wetlands.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible) approv= al, yes.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Let’s go= look at it.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: What you= 217;re showing here, doesn’t show the (inaudible) does it?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: Yes. On Plan and Profile Sheets and on = the site development plan I’ve shown the grading to go all the way to Fli= nt Rock. The wetland disturbance numbers are only for the beginning section here, they do not include the section right here. I tried to follow some old plans that I saw on record of a road alignment that went through here. When we went ou= t to locate the wetlands, our soil scientist marked them far larger than was mar= ked before in the past and just along the lake you can see in people’s ya= rds where (inaudible) decided to mark as wetlands. In talking with him on that he sai= d it was difficult because the high water table is controlled by water, that the water actually from seeping into the soil changed the conditions in the people’ back yards.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: There’s = no wetland vegetation cause it’s a lawn, but it was soil?

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: This is wetlands.<= /h2>

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: He went by I th= ink it was the (inaudible) color in the soil and it’s just a color that the water makes, it’s all (inaudible) and stuff leaching out of it. But since the water table is so hi= gh, it’s dam controlled basically it changes the color.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Can you com= e up with a plan maybe color coded to show us maybe where the wetlands are and w= here what you’re proposing through the wetlands going out to Flint Rock?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: Yes, I can deve= lop that in greater detail.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 50

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: So we don&#= 8217;t get into this Phase I and II thing, and (inaudible).

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: For the site wa= lk we’ll also stake that out with that . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: Can you make th= e (inaudible) more like water so we can see it? The piece of property that the town owns, there's no cottages on that right?

=             <= b>Mr. Scoville: No, there’= ;s no cottages on that one piece. A= nd the applicant has, I discussed with the applicant, I guess it was mentioned at = one of the preliminary meetings, there was in the town’s interest down at= the end of Caruso drive to build a boat launch and if there was something that wanted to be traded in lieu of open space, the requirements or trade of lan= d, he’s willing to make some kind of trade with that, even if the Town w= as interesting getting rid of this piece that’s in the middle there to b= uild a ramp or something.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Application #552 of Anthony Carus= o for construction of 8-lot Lakeside Estates Subdivision, Phase II located on Caruso Drive, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

      &= nbsp;     C.        Application #553 of Town of Watertown Department of Public Works for installation of a drainage pipe within regulated area on Cherry Avenue, Watertown, CT.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by May 12, 2006.<= o:p>

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Chuck Berger, Town Engineer

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: This is a brief overview, I do not have a large plan to show you but I do believe Moosa has handed out as part of the addendum a small scale plan for you to take a look at. I’m here tonight on behalf of Roy Cavanaugh, Director of Public Works. I’m here tonight about a pro= ject on Cherry Avenue here in town consisting f 2 catch basins to be proposed to= be constructed in Cherry Avenue, connected by a cross culvert and that culvert will discharge down a private driveway to a retaining wall to an unnamed tr= ibutary to Steel Brook. The purpose o= f the project is to resolve a road drainage issue and a flooding issue of overland flow to the private residence as well as to reduce ponding of water on the roadway. The majority of the = work occurs in the roadway and the paved driveway area. There is some impact to the upland review area, about 435 square feet just because it does discharge right to = the brook, but again them majority of that upland review area is paved driveway that we’ll be excavating and putting in a new system pipe.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 51

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: Is this a continuation of the culvert that we did over there?

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: It’s not necessarily a continuation, it’s just downhill from that though.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: The same waterc= ourse though?

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: Yes, it’s a tributary, it will drain into that same brook where the bridge failed a cou= ple of years ago. As you come down Cherry avenue towards the Fire House and cross over the new bridge and there’s a residence that sits on the right hand side low in the roadw= ay and there’s a problem with that, pomading out on the road as well as slowing down through that house, I’ve been told literally through the house at times so this will go a long way towards fixing that problem as we= ll as improving it.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: (inaudible.)

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: No, it’s a private residence, first one on the right after you cross the bridge and st= art down the hill.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: Chuck, do you want= to mention what you provide for water quality?

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: We’re going= to put 4 foot sumps in the catch basin I believe to improve water quality. Right now it sheet flows down over= the road through the yard and right down across the paved driveways. There’s a lot of pavement, a substantial portion of heir back yard is pavement.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: What size pipe= is this?

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: The application s= ays 15, we’re at a 20 inch pipe, I’m not sure that they’ve actually sized it yet.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: This is a prop= osed 20 foot drainage easement. Di= d the people give you permission to go through their yard?

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: Yes. They want to get rid of the water.= It helps them with the roadway and= their problem as well, from road drainage.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: That drainage ease= ment is on their driveway.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 52

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: (inaudible).

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: Yes.

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: Where does it g= o from the plunge pool?

=             <= b>Mr. Berger The unnamed tribut= ary to Steele Brook, it comes down to possibly I’m not sure what Mr. Pollett= a is referring to, the upholstery shop, but it’s tributary to that new crossing on 63 that the State did over a weekend a year and a half or so ag= o, that’s the brook that it all tributary too, which I don’t belie= ve has a name.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: It is next to Watertown commons.=

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: It discharges down along Neil’s, it’s on the left hand side of the driveway to Neil’s.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: I think this wi= ll definitely improve that area once it’s done. I don’t think we have a choi= ce.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Do we have to = wait 14 days?

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: Yes, we have to= table it for now.

=             <= b>Mr. Berger there is a very in= teresting stream channel in the back there, there's a lot of history back there, I’m not sure exactly what it was, but it’s very much a rock lin= e, a manmade channel.

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: Where the rip r= ap is?

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: Yea, and there= 217;s wall and evidence of old factories and probably some mill structures at some point.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: That’s t= he old dam, when they made the new crossing, there was a dam up above that they op= ened up the underside, to allow that water to go through, there must have been a= mill up there that they opened the water for.

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: There’s all= kinds of foundations down, as you come down towards Main Street.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Up above that = too.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 53

=             <= b>Mr. Berger: Yes.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: There’s a= lot of water going through there.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: It’s not a s= mall job, it’s a small project, but very tough to do. It will be on the Agenda for next = month.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Application #553 of Town of Watertown Department of Public Works for installation of a drainage pipe within regul= ated area on Cherry Avenue Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

            Mr. Berger left the meeting at this point, 11:05 p.m.

7.         = Old Business

&nb= sp;

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

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: Did everybody get a change to look at the regulations and the suggestions from Atty. Pilicy? I incorporated these into the regu= lations. The subcommittee reviewed this and agreed with it.

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: What about Item= #5, it says that his recommendation that the commission considering having some language to clarify the requirements for a transfer.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: They decided to ju= st leave it the way it is and the reason why is because it gibes them an opportunity to look at it to see what is going on. Sometimes you give a permit to som= ebody, then they sell the property to somebody else, and we want to make sure that they follow all the conditions that we put on the original approval. And by coming to you for that perm= it, it makes sure we let them know what the regulations and conditions are . I didn’t want to put anythin= g into the regulations. The subcommi= ttee members agreed with that.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 54

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: \It eliminates= the possibility of the guy coming back to us and saying he didn’t know. It gives them a chance to come in = and for us to say this is what you have to do before he goes and does it, depen= ding on what it is. At least we ha= ve a chance to put our eyes on it first and head off a problem.

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: If you agree with = the changes, then you can approve it.

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: I=3DI had a que= stion on Page 25, the fees. I’m wondering if, well here’s what hit me, is that residential use is a single lot $125.00, proposed subdivision $250, and we’ve got subdivis= ion here that have 30, 35 lots and they’re paying only $125.00 where they’d have their $50 per lot but still it seems out of proportion.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: We question= ed that and the answer was that the whole fee structure for all . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: They’re work= ing on it, the Town will change all these fees, including the Wetlands fees.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: I can understa= nd when you have Mr. Homeowner who wants to subdivide one lot, you don’t kill them, but when somebody brings you an 11 lot and a 30 lot subdivision,= and we tie up our engineer and staff, I wanted $1600 just for them to bring in = the subdivision and I wanted $500 per lot.

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, if for not= hing else, an open space fund.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Look at this.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> You’ve got 42 lots this guy = brings us tonight. That is $1500 for= the subdivision application, and then $500 per lot, you’ve got yourself $20,000 to wo= rk with. He just has to pay some salaries, he’s going to sell these lots, he’s going to sell them for $100,000 apiece, he’s got $4,000,000 . . . .$1500 a lot is nothin= g to these developers today. It= 217;s not the homeowner that she’s buying her little lot, you don’t k= ill that one.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: We all agre= e, we just took so long to get this.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Well the probl= em is that since we’ve talked about this, we’ve had 10 subdivisions in front of us, and those 10 subdivision would have brought in $100,000 extra = in fees.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Pretty soon= there won’t be anymore.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: That’s r= ight.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 55

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: And that would = have made a nice open space fund.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Yes, or at lea= st pay the salary so that you don’t have somebody coming to us and say we don’t want to pass the budget, take some of this money from these developers.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Are the (in= audible) earmarked new?

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: they are working on these things and this will be changed.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Are they re= ally working on it? Did somebody (= inaudible)?

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: This is what they = heard.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: but who do we = bring this to to change this now? W= hen we get, we have a meeting next week . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey: This was discussed= at a Town Council meeting and I don’t know what happened, but the Town is looking into all the land use fees.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: Has each commis= sion responsible for determining the fees?

=             <= b>Mr. Rafey No, but you make re= commendations. It has to go through the fee ordin= ance approval through the Town Council. YOU propose something, it goes to them and then they review it.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Let’s pr= opose it to them because I’d like to change this now, this is a lot of money that is going through the cracks to these developers who are making million= s of dollars and there’s no way they can complain to us and say we’re costing them too much money. That’s what we’ve been talking about for 6 months.

=             <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: yea, we wer= e told that that was beyond the scope.

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: That was one o= f the tings we couldn’t change.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: We can figure o= ut roughly, sometimes we come here until 11:00 or 12:00, they tie up the secretary, the engineer, Moosa, hw much does it cost every night and then w= e should put a number to that.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 56

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie   It’= s not even that, Joe. It’s how muc= h time does it take Moosa, half a good week is spent at least on this, and then Chuck’s time, ¾ if his time is on these subdivision.

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: I understand, b= ut is that (inaudible) salaries on the fees?

=             <= b>Mr. Duplissie: No, it’s= not, but it should be, and there’s no reason why it can’t be. Why sh= ould the town be paying for the developers to get rich?

=             <= b>Mr. Polletta: We can make a r= ecommendation but . . . .

=             <= b>Mr. Zawadzki: The subcommitte= e can make a recommendation but (inaudible).

=             M= any people talking at once (inaudible).

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Jones) to Approve the Inland/Wetland and Watercourse Regulations of the Town of Wat= ertown.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

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

Mr. Jones: I don’t know if it matters, but on Article 4, about 2 inches from the bottom, “the conservation commission/inland wetland agency will reque= st that the Watertown Town Council seek resignation from any commission member= who fails to attend (inaudible) regular meetings. We have had this . . . . it says w= ill, I’m wondering would it be better if we said “shall considerR= 17; or something that was less vague. This is sort of a mandate and it hasn’t been done, and I was wondering does anyone feel that it’s important.

Mr. Rafey: <= /span>If you want you can have a vote, if the Commission votes to write a letter to = the Town Council and ask their permission for any member who doesn’t come= to the meeting.

Mr. Duplissie: We’ve got two members like that, Charles Thermer and Peter Pel= uso.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 57

Many people talking at once (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: Denise Russ called today and said she wouldn’t be here.

Mr. Zawadzki: But did she give a reason?

Mr. Rafey: No, Carol answered the phone, I don’t know.<= /p>

Mr. Duplissie: Next month we have 2 members who won’t be here.

Mr. Polletta: it is embarrassing when people are here and we don’t have a qu= orum.

Mr. Jones: the reason why I put this here is it sounds like will sounds like a requirement and you might just change it or consider it, something like tha= t.

Mr. Zawadzki: = There was a word left out on Article V, Section 2, it says “the Chairperson= presides”, and it should be “shall preside”.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Undercuffler, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Approve the Conservation Commission/Inla= nd Wetland Agency By-Laws with a modification adding the word shall after Chairperson in Article 5, Section 2.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

        &= nbsp;   C.        Discussion on the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency Proposed Citation Enforcement Ordinance

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Mr. Pilicy couldn't be here tonight= so he said that if we have any questions he'd be present at the next meeting, if = we want. The only thing I thought about this is that it's not tough enough.&= nbsp; Again the fines aren't, but maybe that's the State maximum $1,000. Again if developers are selling th= ese lots for $250,000 apiece, they think nothing of paying $1,000 fine.

  = ;            &n= bsp;         Mr. Rafey: But only if somebody violates, mos= t of these developers they don't do that. They come and submit their application, they get permits, etc.<= /o:p>

  = ;            &n= bsp;         Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, like Reflections they come in= and clear cut. They didn't follow= the plan. That's one of the tings= that started this whole process.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 58

  = ;            &n= bsp;         Mr. Duplissie: Yea, but a fine of $1,000 is nothing be= cause (inaudible) they knew exactly what they were doing. Supreme Forest says I'll come in and clear the whole lot for $45,000, but they can't do it= for $45,000 cause they have to do it in sections, 3 phases. Then they'll charge $30,000 every = time they come in because they hav= e to move the equipment in. Well t= hen just do the whole thing at once. So he saved himself $45,000, and he'll pay the $1000 fine. There should be a bigger hammer to= drop.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: Do you want this o= n the agenda for next month and speak to Mr. Pilicy?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yes. And also to clarify what is involv= ed here in a designated hearing officer, cause it says the Town Council must f= ully adopt a citation hearing procedure pursuant to CGS 7-15-152C by which proce= dure such fine shall be imposed.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: Isn't that outline here in the . . . .

  = ;            &n= bsp;         Mr. Rafey: Once you approve this we'll send i= t to the Town Council and recommend they approve it, and if they do then they ha= ve to have a hearing officer. An= y time I issue a citation, if somebody disagrees with that and is not willing to p= ay, he can ask for a hearing.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: But isn't t= hat procedure covered here?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Yes.

  = ;            &n= bsp;         Mr. Zawadzki: Well there's a procedure here, but who = is that hearing officer?

  = ;            &n= bsp;         Mr. Rafey: The Town Council will appoint somebody.

  = ;            &n= bsp;         Mr. Zawadzki: And how will they do that, because it s= ays you can't be a town employee.

  = ;            &n= bsp;         Mr. Undercuffler: Well that's up = to them to figure out.

  = ;            &n= bsp;         Mr. Duplissie: It could be anybody they appoint.<= /o:p>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yea cause un= der Section 9 it says neither the Wetlands Agent nor any employee of the Town m= ay be appointed as a Hearing Officer.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: Because we are the= ones who issue the citation, so that would be a conflict of interest.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 59

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Duplissie: But you'd want someone who knows all the wetland enforcement laws, a retired engineer or something.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: There's not many people like that, unless it's a lawyer.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Duplissie: WE did the exc= avation for an addition and 6 months later our addition stops ere, over where that stand is over there (inaudible) sure enough by the time (inaudible) sinkhole that his foot went in, that was this big, it's now this big and deep. It was because they put stumps in = the back yard. You can't do that = kind of nonsense. We hired this en= gineer who was retired. He came in, = took a couple of pictures, sent it to the developer, which was Tedesco, but because Tedesco received this nice letter from this retired engineer that said hey, you're not supposed to bury stumps in the back yard, he came over, we didn't have to hire an attorney, he got his excavator over there and they hauled o= ut all the stumps and excavated the entire back yard.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency Proposed Citation Enforcement Ordinance.
&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

8.         = New Business

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   A.        Permit Application for the Use of Pesticides in State Waters – Echo Lake, Watertown, CT.

        &= nbsp;   B.         = Permit Application for the Use of Pesticides in State Waters – Sylvan Lake, Oakville, CT.

        &= nbsp;   C.        Permit Application for the Use of Pesticides in State Waters – Lake Winnemaug, Watertown, CT.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     Mr. Rafey: DEP uses pesticide= s in the watercourses in Connectic= ut, this is just for your information regarding what's going on in our town.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTON:         = (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Approve all 3 permit applications for the = use of pesticides in State waters for Echo Lake, Sylvan Lake and = Lake Winnemaug, as presented.

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

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

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 60

9.         = Communications and Bills

&nb= sp;

      &= nbsp;     A.        Northeast Conservation District Lower Impact Development Workshop for Town Commission= s, Staff and Developers

&= nbsp;          B.         = State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Notice of Tentative Determination In= tent to Renew a State Permit for Timken U.S. Corporation located on Park Road, Watertown, CT

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Does anybody want to go to the Wor= kshop?

&= nbsp;           &nbs= p;          Mr. Rafey: Just let me know.<= o:p>

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

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

            =             M= OTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

10.       Repor= ts from Officers and Committees

&nb= sp;

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;   None

11.       Repor= ts from Staff

&nb= sp;

      = ;      None

12.     &n= bsp; Public Participation

None=

13.       Adjou= rnment

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 11:30 p.m.

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

  &nbs= p;         MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 9, 2006

PAGE 61

  &nbs= p;         Regular Meeting Adjourned at 11:30 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

Mr. Zawadzki: = Moosa, we’ve already accepted (inaudible)

Mr. Zawadzki: = Do you a= gree to an extension?

Mr. Rafey: There ar= e some outstanding engineering and technical issues for this application. I receiv= ed an extension from the applicant to table this application until next month. I don’t know if = Chuck wants to shed some light on this issue.

Mr. Zawadzki: = You ment= ioned something Moosa about combining these?

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

Mr. Crawford: = We did.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I’m not aware of that but we= have been working on combining the plans.

Mr. Crawford: = did he m= ention that that is what the applicant wanted to do?

Mr. Crawford: = Well at = this time . . . . he did mention t= hat he wanted to keep the application process continuing because we actually submi= tted a letter, I’m not sure = if you have a copy of it.

Mr. Duplissie:= This is = the only that has the problem with the access, right?

Mr. Duplissie:= Subdivis= ion, 32 lot one, and (inaudible)?

Mr. Crawford: = Phase I = and II, yea. The one you’re speaking of is for the Phase II project.

Mr. Crawford: = Phase I,= okay, (inaudible) off of Lovley = Drive and then cul de sac here. We = have two regulated activities associated with that project. &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible) show me the first 11 lo= ts.

Mr. Crawford: = Right he= re. &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Duplissie: Not going up the other way? What’s that going up (inaudi= ble)?

Mr. Crawford: = This is associated with Phase II and Phase III.&nb= sp; The other one (inaudible) temporary cul de sac in this approximate a= rea serving 11 lots here.

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s correct. That’s current= ly under construction. It’= s 11, these 2 up here will come off.

Mr. Crawford: = that was= the intent so where these are (inaudible).

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s correct.

Mr. Crawford: = No, that= would be Phase II. Phase I would en= d in a cul de sac at the top of the hill.

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s for Phase II.

Mr. Crawford: = thatR= 17;s correct, and (inaudible) over excavating because there’s a big potent= ial for rock in this area, especially in the drive, so we’ll use pump systems, obviously reviewed and accepted by Town Staff. &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible.)

Mr. Crawford: = The sewa= ge for the individual homes in the area most likely

Mr. Crawford: = Not each= lot, just the lots that are potentially not serviced.

Mr. Crawford: = thatR= 17;s correct.

Mr. Crawford: = Yes, correct. We have two regulated activities associated with this phase, one on Lot #1, approximately 560 square feet associated with clearing of the lots and construction of the home and an additional 200 square feet associated with = the construction of the roadway.

Mr. Crawford: = No, not = as of right now, I’m not sure what the intent is. I would assume they will put a hou= se there, but it’s not part of this application. &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: And how wide is the road here?=

Mr. Crawford: = It’= ;s standard width.

Mr. Crawford: = Actually= on a previous application on another project we attempted to do that and Planning did not allow it, and there’s really no need I guess in this area, we have a (inaudible) sidewalk as well.

Mr. Crawford: = I believ= e so. &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Rafey: How wide is Fox Crossings, Lovley Drive?

Mr. Crawford: = Again I don’t have the construction plans with me, but we can confirm all of = this and present it at the public hearing.

Mr. Crawford: = There= 217;s 2, one associated with lot 1, the clearing for the lot and the construction= of the house, and it’s 560 square feet approximately and then a second impact, a second (inaudible) construction of the road on the western side, about 200 square feet.

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s correct, we have no direct wetland impacts.

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s correct.

Mr. Crawford: = 550 squa= re feet in the upland review area.

Mr. Crawford: = ThatR= 17;s correct. There are more impac= ts associated with Phase II.

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

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: It’s flag= ged as a linear course, it doesn’t have a width to it, it’s an intermittent watercourse, it’s an impact along the land, it’s a linear impact.

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: That’s ri= ght.

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: True. It’s about 60 feet, the hous= e is outside the upland review area, the grading is only associated around to the rear of the house.

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: #35.

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: Also our gradin= g is associate d. . . . .

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: It’s our problem to do it, that’s right.

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: We already talk= ed about revising the outlet of this basin to minimize the discharge to attempt to n= ot impact those lots.

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: True.

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: We have a deten= tion pond here, located here and then a level spreader to minimize the impact for the discharge.

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: I’m sure = the water runoff is it more associated with the lawn area or is coming out of t= he woods because .c. . . .

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: Yea, that’= ;s where this area (inaudible).

= <= b>Mr. Rafey: And then if you pu= t a detention pond there and concentrated water goes there all the time . . . .= .

= <= b>Mr. Crawford: That’s wh= y I was talking about a possible berm, but again that would increase our regula= ted area impact. WE wouldn’= t want to put a berm within the wetlands, but if that’s something the Commis= sion s looking to do, we can look towards that as well.

= <= b>Mr. Rafey: Yes.

= <= b>Ms. Fairchild: No, I’m = going to be living with my daughter. She lives on 6 Bergam Street.

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Are the dots t= he wetlands?

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: That’s t= he wetlands, this side her?

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: 25 feet from t= he property line but . . . .

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: And how many s= quare feet is that wetlands?

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Do we get to v= ote whether or not this is a significant activity?

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: We have to hav= e a public hearing?

= <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: How did the= y come up with the fact this is wetlands?

= <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: But was it recently tested?

= <= b>Ms. Sturgis: (inaudible.)

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Are you serious? 70 square feet in an= area that’s (inaudible) what’s the property on the other side? Conlon and Mary Allen Farese?

= <= b>Ms. Fairchild: About 5 years = ago.

= <= b>Mr. Polletta: If this lot was created before zoning years ago, then there should be no discussion, so this was created recently?

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: 6A and 6B were= one lot.

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Is the wetlands between 6A and 6B, or 6B and 4G?

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Amherst became part of 6B?

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: So whatever th= at lot 6 is, about half of Amherst?

= <= b>Mr. Polletta: What is inside = this, (inaudible) 1960 and this will not apply to that, correct?

= <= b>Mr. Polletta: I understand but let’s say the town collected money on this since 1960, how can we deny somebody the right to do it, but because this was crated lately, it’s= a different situation.

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: But the wetlan= ds weren’t actually in the middle of the Amherst Paper Street.

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Were actually = in the middle, and they split lot, I want to say lot 6 but it’s not lot 6, it’s 6A and 6B was one lot, it was split after they took over half of Amherst to make it a lot?

= <= b>Ms. Fairchild: About 2 years = ago.

= <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Well let= 217;s go take a look at it.

= <= b>Mr. Duplissie: Now this is go= ing to be a quick site visit.

= <= b>Ms. Fairchild: I have pictures (inaudible).

= <= b>Mr. Touponse: Yes, that exist= ing building is supposed to remain. It’s a garage, there’s no driveway running to it but they have a lawn tractor and it’s quite a sizable accessory building.

= <= b>Mr. Touponse: I’m propo= sing to build a new house and we have to disturb the buffer area.

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

Mr. Crawford: = Phase I,= okay, (inaudible) off of Lovley = Drive and then cul de sac here. We = have two regulated activities associated with that project.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible) show me the first 11 lo= ts.

Mr. Crawford: = Right he= re.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Duplissie: Not going up the other way? What’s that going up (inaudi= ble)?

Mr. Crawford: = thatR= 17;s correct, and (inaudible) over excavating because there’s a big potent= ial for rock in this area, especially in the drive, so we’ll use pump systems, obviously reviewed and accepted by Town Staff.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible.)

Mr. Crawford: = No, not = as of right now, I’m not sure what the intent is. I would assume they will put a hou= se there, but it’s not part of this application.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: And how wide is the road here?=

Mr. Crawford: = I believ= e so.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Rafey: How wide is Fox Crossings, Lovley Drive?

Mr. Crawford: = There= 217;s 2, one associated with lot 1, the clearing for the lot and the construction= of the house, and it’s 560 square feet approximately and then a second impact, a second (inaudible) construction of the road on the western side, about 200 square feet.

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

= <= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Well let= 217;s go take a look at it.