MINUTES<= o:p>
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR
MEETING
THURSDAY,
MARCH 11, 2004 - 7:30 PM
PRESENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Bernard
Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Glen
Duplissie
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Martha
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; Susan
Atwood
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Peter
Peluso
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 9:29 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. Duplissie, in his
absence.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 2
3. =
Public
Participation
Mark Tedesco,
Mr. Tedesco: I feel a little odd u=
p here
talking about it, but I’m usually the first one to file the complaint=
or
sound off about something not being right, and I’m not looking for any
brownie points whatsoever, cause all my stuff is pretty much approved. I want to commend this Commission =
by
doing what you’re supposed to be doing, not like 6, 7 months ago, thi=
ngs
just weren’t right 6, 7 months ago on this Board, and it seems like y=
ou
have a good group of people here now, doing what you’re supposed to be
doing, conservation of wetlands and protection of wetlands, not just
anti-development. That’s
about it. I just want to give=
some
credit where it’s due; take it for what it’s worth. Thank you.
Mr. Zawadzki: Thank you, Mark, appr=
eciate
it. It’s funny, cause Paul Jessell just told me the other day when he =
was on
the Town Council no one ever came to the meeting to tell him what a great j=
ob
he was doing. So we got one u=
p on
him.
4. =
Action
on Minutes
&=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of Public Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #415, Cathie Caton &=
nbsp; B. =
Continuation
of Public Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #421, YMCA &nbs=
p; C. Continuation
of Public Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #422, Mary Ann Cathcart &=
nbsp; D. Public
Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #423, Mark Lovely &=
nbsp; E. =
Public
Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #424, Domenic DiNunzio &=
nbsp; F. =
Public
Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #425, New Millennium Development, Inc. &nbs=
p; G. Regular
Meeting, May 10, 2001 &=
nbsp; H. Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 12, 2001, App. #423, Mark Lovely &=
nbsp; I. &=
nbsp; Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 12 2001, App. #424, Domenic DiNunzio &=
nbsp; J. &=
nbsp; Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 12, 2001, App. #425, New Millennium Development, In=
c. K.&n=
bsp; =
;
Public Hearing July 12, 2001, App. #428, Echo L.&n=
bsp; =
;
Regular Meeting, July 12, 2001 M.&n=
bsp; =
;
Continuation of Public Hearing, February 19, 2004, =
App.
#489, Lynnfield Acres, LLC N.&n=
bsp; =
;
Continuation of Public Hearing,
February 19, 2004, App. #486, Guernseytown Farms, LLC. O.&n=
bsp; =
;
Continuation of Public Hearing,
February 19, 2004, App. #487, Guernseytown Farms, LLC. P.&n=
bsp; =
;
Continuation of Public Hearing
February 19, 2004 App. #488, Patrick Graziano. Q.&n=
bsp; =
;
Regular Meeting February 19, 2004. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 2004 PAGE 3 &=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Beauchamp, sec. Mr. Undercuffler to Approve Items #4M through 4Q and Table =
4A
through 4L. &=
nbsp; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5. =
Pending
Applications &=
nbsp; A. Application
#486 of Guernseytown Farms Estates LLC, Phase II for 26-lot residential
subdivision and extension of &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
Public Hearing is Closed on March 11, 2004, then=
a
decision is required by March 14, 2004. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr. =
Undercuffler,
sec. Mr. Thermer) to Table Application #486 of Guernseytown Farms Estates L=
LC,
Phase II for 26-lot residential subdivision and extension of Bayview Circle,
Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY B.&n=
bsp; =
;
Application #487 of Guernseytown
Farms, Estates, LLC Phase III for 10-lot residential subdivision, If Public Hearing is <=
span
class=3DGramE>Closed on March 11, 2004, then a decision is required =
by
March 14, 2004. Mr. Zawadzki read alou=
d the
following letter for the record: “March 11, 2004<=
o:p> App. #487, Guernseytown
Farms Estates, Section III is withdrawn without prejudice to immediately re=
file
without need for a new application fee.&nb=
sp;
Public hearing fee not waived; application fee waived. Guernseytown Farms Est=
ates Franklin Pilicy”=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 2004 PAGE 4 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Beauchamp, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Accept the =
Letter
Withdrawing Application #487 Guernseytown Farms, Estates, LLC Phase III for
10-lot residential subdivision, &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY C.&n=
bsp; =
;
Application #488 of Patrick Graziano for 18-lot
residential subdivision, “Fox Crossings” Phase II, Pond View
Estates and extension of Lovely Drive, Watertown. If Public Hearing is <=
span
class=3DGramE>Closed on March 11, 2004, then a decision is required =
by
March 14, 2004.
&nb=
sp; =
MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Application #488 of Patrick Grazi=
ano
for 18-lot residential subdivision, “Fox Crossings” Phase II, P=
ond
View Estates and extension of Lovely Drive, Watertown.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
D. Application
#493 of Gary Quadrato of
If Public Hearing is n=
ot
held, then a decision is required by April 23, 2004.
Mr. Zawadzki: We did a site walk th=
is
past Saturday and some of us weren’t able to attend, but we’d l=
ike
to hear any additional comments form the applicant.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 5
Mr. Caterino: Basically I received =
a list
of comments from the Town Engineer and I will be addressing them shortly and
providing some modifications to the plans.=
One of the biggest modifications was to add a plunge pool at the
outlet. As you recall going i=
nto
the stream, I’m going to design a small plunge pool, to let the water=
go
into that plunge pool and then flow over into the brook which will provide =
some
sediment removal and basically that’s the biggest change I’ll be
making to the plans. I’=
ll
also be providing some hydraulic calculations for the catch basins that
we’re proposing on the roadway, and I’ll be getting that within
like a week or so.
Mr. Undercuffler: We haven’t deci=
ded
that this is not a significant activity.
Mr. Zawadzki: We do that tonight.
Mr. Rafey: Mr. Caterino, do you =
want
to talk about that mitigation that you were talking about at the site walk,
that you cleaned the garbage from that site and fixed that tree that was
falling down?
Mr. Caterino: =
Yes, some of the plans=
that
we’ll include in our mitigation, as we talked about at the site walk,=
is
we’ll be repairing a portion of the bank that has been eroding away by
placing some large boulders in there, tucking it along the bank so it
doesn’t further cause erosion.
We’ll be cleaning up the whole area of debris, as you saw all =
the
junk and garbage, we’ll be picking all of that up and cleaning that up
and we’ll be just fixing up and cleaning that whole area up. That will be our mitigation plan
basically.
Mr. Zawadzki: Chuck, I noticed you
comment about you didn’t recommend disturbing the streambed there.
Mr. Berger: I think I’d li=
ke to
take another look at that before I . . . . . I think I recall the area that=
you’re
talking about. I’m just=
very
concerned that that is a very steep channel that is moving, I mean it is sl=
owly
eroding and I’m afraid if we try to mess with it, if we try to stabil=
ize
one side of it, we may cause erosion somewhere else as it winds its way down
that steep channel.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 6
Mr. Zawadzki: Well it’s kind =
of a
bend there, a little bit of a corner where the water comes rushing down, I
assume it only probably does that after a heavy rainstorm because (inaudibl=
e)
it certainly wasn’t obvious, the but result was obvious, and the resu=
lt
was a severe undercutting of the bank there, and there was a pretty good si=
zed
tree there, I’d say 15, 16 inch diameter tree which could be endanger=
ed
and would probably fall towards the proposed house.
Mr. Berger: My concern is just by
filling that area with stone, where water flows during a high flow event, t=
he
water is going to want to flow somewhere else, so in
the design of that mitigation effort, we just have to be very careful
we’re not going to cause erosion further downstream by doing that.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I agree that we =
have
to be careful.
Mr. Rafey: I don’t think th=
at
they have to disturb the streambed.
There is one large rock in the middle of the brook that diverts the
water towards that tree. All =
we
have to do is just move that rock and put it there and then the water goes =
to
the side. They don’t ha=
ve to
dig the stream or anything.
Mr. Caterino: Yea, we weren’t
planning on touching the streambed.
It appears that somebody dumped those big boulders on the edge of th=
at
brook and that caused the water to go towards the base of that tree and cau=
sing
that erosion. Now what we were
going to propose is to take those boulders and push them way over on the ed=
ge
so water could go down the center, but I think it’s definitely worth
another visit. I can meet Chu=
ck out
there and we can go over it and come to an agreement on how to handle that =
situation.
Mr. Rafey: Probably 1 or 2 boulde=
rs
should be moved to that side that’s all. They don’t have to dig anyth=
ing.
Mr. Zawadzki: No. So basically the regulated activit=
ies
include disturbance of about 1,000 sq. ft., which is roughly a 20 x 50 foot
area of the watercourse buffer area, and then the drainage pipe that is
outlined on the attached drawing is going to discharge into the watercourse=
, so
the next thing we need to decide is if this is a significant activity or no=
t,
which would determine whether or not we have a public hearing. My personal feeling is it’s =
not,
but now is your chance to speak up.
Mr. Undercuffler: I don’t think it=
is.
Mr. Zawadzki: You didn’t see=
it,
right Joe?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 7
Mr. Polletta: I went on my own, bu=
t I
was looking for different things, I hope I was at the right place. I will go with Chuck when he goes =
again,
but I don’t see a lot of disturbance, I don’t think it’s
major at this time.
Ms. Sturgis: I went myself and he
explained it to me, it seems to make sense.
Mr. Polletta: I don’t think
it’s a significant thing.
Mr. Jones: I don’t either=
, but
I’m sort of still new at this particular, first time I faced this
question, but it looks minimal to me.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well of course a
significant activity is somewhat defined by the, obviously the impact of wh=
at
they’re going to be doing, but it also can be just, we can also hold a
public hearing if we feel there is enough public interest, in other words i=
f a
lot of people are impacted or affected, and again that doesn’t seem t=
o be
the case here.
Ms. Sturgis: Do we send out notic=
es to
the adjoining homeowners about this?
Mr. Rafey: Only if there is a pub=
lic
hearing.
Mr. Undercuffler: Moosa, which is the s=
ection
that talks about the significant activity?
Mr. Rafey: On Page 9, Section DD=
.
Mr. Zawadzki: Since there are so ma=
ny new
members of the Commission, I’ll read this definition of a significant=
activity
and the regulations for Inlands/Wetlands:
“Significant act=
ivity
means any activity including but not limited to the following activities wh=
ich
may have a major affect or significant impact on the area for which an
application has been filed, or on another part of the inland/wetlands or
watercourse system.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 8
1. = ; Any activity involving a deposition or removal of material which will or may ha= ve a major affect or significant impact on the regulated area or another part of= the wetland or watercourse system, or any activity which substantially changes = the natural channel or may inhibit the natural dynamics of a watercourse system= , or any activity which substantially diminishes the natural capacity of an inla= nd, wetland or watercourse to support desirable fisheries wildlife or other biological life, or prevent flooding, supply water, assimilate wastes, facilitate drainage, provide recreation or open space or other functions, or any activity which causes substantial turbidity, siltation, or sedimentatio= n in a wetland or watercourse, or any activity which causes a substantial diminu= tion flow of a natural watercourse or groundwater levels of the regulated area, = or any activity which causes or has the potential to cause pollution of a wetl= and or watercourse, or any activity which destroys unique wetland or watercourse areas having demonstrable scientific or educational value.”
(Tape #3,=
Side A ended – may have missed some.)
Mr. Zawadzki:&n=
bsp;
Okay,
based on that, does anyone feel it’s a significant activity?
Mr. Beauchamp: I don’t feel
it’s a significant activity, but this just seems that we probably sho=
uld somewhere,
that the adjacent homeowners should be made aware of this.
Mr. Polletta: If we do that then w=
e have
to have a public hearing.
Mr. Beauchamp: If I lived that close =
to them
I would like to have (inaudible) for my own protection.
Mr. Rafey: If there is a signifi=
cant
activity you have to have a public hearing or if you think that it’s =
in
the best interest of the public you can have a public hearing. If you did determine that this is =
not a
significant activity, or if you get a petition from 25 neighbors with their
signatures that they want the Commission to hold a public hearing, you shou=
ld
hold a public hearing. We did=
not
receive a petition from any neighbors.
Mr. Beauchamp: Well according to what=
you
read, I don’t see a significant activity otherwise.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well we won’t m=
ake a
decision on this tonight anyway.
Mr. Rafey: You have time.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 9
Mr. Undercuffler: Can we send out lett=
ers
even though we don’t have a public hearing, just to advise them or wo=
uld
that set a precedent?
Mr. Rafey: Just to notify them =
on
this application?
Mr. Undercuffler: Yes.
Mr. Rafey: Our Agenda is on the=
web
site. Most people look at the
Agenda and if they have an interest they come to the meetings. But if the Commission wants, we ca=
n just
notify those neighbors and let them know that there is an application in fr=
ont
of the Commission.
Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, why don’=
t we
do that.
Mr. Rafey: Mr. Caterino, do you=
have
to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for this?
Mr. Caterino: Because it’s a=
paper
street, it’s already, we just have to get Planning and Zoning to appr=
ove
the paper street improvements, so we do have to go to Planning and Zoning f=
or
that, but it’s a considered a free split so it’s not a subdivis=
ion,
it’s just they have to look at the plan and they sign it. So basically what Planning and Zon=
ing is
looking at is the improvements to the paper street, it’s an existing
paper street.
Mr. Rafey: They don’t hold
public hearings on that.
Mr. Berger: There’s really=
only
one that I’ve been involved with.
Mr. Rafey: I mean if the Commiss=
ion
wants we can just send a notice to the neighbors.
Mr. Undercuffler: There’s really=
only
one house that this is going to affect.&nb=
sp;
The others are up the hill.
The other house is the owner.
Mr. Beauchamp: I really don’t h=
ave
strong feelings about this, it just seems that a=
s an
adjacent homeowners, when things like that happen, you want to know. You don’t necessarily read t=
he web
page, or whatever, but whatever the Commission would like to do. I think this whole project will be=
an
improvement to the area.
Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, so we’ve =
concurred
that it is not a significant activity.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 10
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Polletta) that Application #493 of Gary Quadrato of =
67
Edgewood Road, Oakville for split of an existing lot into two building lots=
and
improvement of Rockland Avenue, Oakville, CT is Not a Significant Activity.=
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: I think it would be nice to se=
nd a
letter to the neighbor, just to say that there is an application.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Table Application #493 of Gary Quadrato of=
67
Edgewood Road, Oakville for split of an existing lot into two building lots=
and
improvement of Rockland Avenue, Oakville, CT.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
E. =
Application
#494 of Raymond Gaddis of
If Public Hearing is n=
ot
held, then a decision is required by April 23, 2004.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
I guess just rehash wh=
at you
plan to do.
Mr. Gaddis: We supplied you with a
layout of the proposed repair of my existing septic system which is inadequ=
ate
for a 3 or 4 bedroom house. W=
e had the
engineer out at the site, we took a look of some options and there were very
few because of the location of the house relative to the property line, the
waterway behind the house, and the front road. The recommendation was placing the
septic system to the right side of the house, between the house and the gar=
age.
I believe that’s pretty=
well
defined on the layout. WeR=
17;ve
gone as far away form the stream as possible and it is no closer than the
existing septic system which is in the back of the house right now. If anything it moves further away =
from
the stream. We had looked at a
number of locations and this was really the only one that would fit this
particular layout of the property.
Mr. Smith was down there when the testing was done and when the layo=
ut
was being done also. And I ha=
ve to
talk to him about the Torrington Area Health application which he suggested=
to
me that there should be no problem with that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 11
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Anyone have any
questions? Chuck?
Mr. Berger: I have no questions.=
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Thank you. I guess I need a motion to approve=
or
not approve.
Mr. Undercuffler: I guess we need to
determine whether this is a significant activity or not.
Mr. Rafey: I think you did that l=
ast month, that it’s not a significant activity and =
then
you waited for the 14 days statutory requirement in case somebody submitted=
a
petition.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Approve Application #494 of Raymond Gaddis= of 457 Platt Road, Watertown, CT for repair of an existing septic system at 457 Platt Road, Watertown, CT, subject to the standard conditions.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
6. &nb=
sp; New
Applications
A. Application #495 of Patrick Graziano, proposed 5-lot Willowbrook Farm Subdivision, Northfield Road, Watertown in an R-30 Residential Zoning District.
If a Public Hearing is=
not
held, then a decision is required by May 14, 2004.
Mr. Quirk: I’m here with
associate Tony Ciriello. I=
217;d
like to go through the application if I could with both the existing propos=
ed
conditions and the activities that are proposed. This is an aerial photo of the
area. The site is located on =
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 12
The proposal is to cre=
ate a
roadway for the residential houses and horse lots, is the goal of the
proposal. Under Zoning Regula=
tions
we are applying under farm lots.
That’s the closest type lot that we have to these horse pasture
lots with homes on them. The
proposal is for 4 lots and then other lands of the applicant that
wouldn’t be a building lot at this time. The first lot is 6.5 acres, the se=
cond
lot is 6.6 acres, the third lot is not a farm lot, it’s the only one =
that
is not a farm lot, and that is .9 acres, and the=
n the
last lot is 12.7 acres. Again=
in an
R-30, and an R-12.5 zone we’re well over t=
he
minimum requirements even for the private well and septic requirements. Each lot is to be served under pri=
vate
well and septic system. Each =
system
is located behind the lot, it’s behind the=
house,
while the wells are close to
Again the intent of the
entire application is to maintain a slow density residential rural
character. Right now the stre=
etscape
along
Activities – all=
of
the activities that are proposed are associated either with the farm
activities, the construction of barns, the gravel access drives, or the sto=
ne
dust trail. Now typically und=
er
your regulations, farm activities are non-regulated activities and thatR=
17;s
as a right, and the stone dust trail as a recreational activity would be
non-regulated. This is a regu=
lation
subdivision so we’ve applied under regulated activities, but typically
those would be viewed in right of non-regulated as a right.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 13
Mr. Zawadzki: Where is the stone d=
ust
trail again?
Mr. Quirk: Along the south prop=
erty
line, the tan trail that meanders from
Mr. Polletta: Right, that wetland =
over
there belongs to the Town of
Mr. Quirk: This is a landlocked
Watertown Land Trust parcel so the activities that we’re presenting f=
or
the permit would be a disturbance of 0.08 acres of wetlands, and that’=
;s
associated with the placement of gravel to access the bridge in this area.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> For purposes of controlling
sedimentation and erosion there are trails here now that are just dirt,
we’re just driving over meadows.&nbs=
p;
We’d like to place gravel so that it’s a stable surface =
and
that any access to the barn wouldn’t cause erosion, so there is
disturbance here and then the creation of a trail through this wetland are =
here. Both of those activities are essen=
tially
on grade, we’re not filling, we’re placing the stone dust and t=
he
gravel for the access points, but they’re on grade.
The other activities a=
re .2
acres of upland disturbance and that’s associated with again, these a=
reas
here with the upland review area for placement of gravel for the access
drives. S=
ame for
lot #2. This area here=
and
then the final lot here, placement of fill associated with the access
drive. Again, minimal activit=
ies,
but all associated with the trial or the farm lots.
I went through the Reg=
ulations
to take a look at significant activities and the requirements for those, and
going through the checklist and as I had seen it, there was no significant
filling activity. We’re=
not
going to be changing any watercourses or any natural channels. I don’t see any substantial
diminishment in habitat or in the function of the wetlands, no increasing t=
he
sedimentation or change in flow or pollution or destruction of the (inaudib=
le)
habitat.
For storm water manage=
ment
the existing berm would be removed, so that’s an impervious area
that’s removed and then obviously there would be the creation for the=
4
homes and the 3 barns. WeR=
17;re
proposing underground infiltrators to create groundwater infiltration to ma=
nage
the runoff from those impervious areas.&nb=
sp;
And then during construction on the plans, there is a separate
sedimentation and erosion control plan showing silt fence, diversion berms,
erosion control matting, and hay bales that will be used to protect the
wetlands during construction. At
this time I’ll take any questions.
Mr. Polletta: Right in the middle,
that’s not part of the subdivision?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 14
Mr. Quirk: Right, this is an ex=
isting
house that was carved out as a precut.&nbs=
p;
Actually it’s a lot line revision outside of this application.=
Mr. Polletta: Where the wetlands a=
re,
how close are you really going to be doing any work?
Mr. Quirk: The light line in gr=
een is
the wetlands and the purple line is the 50 foot buffer.
Mr. Polletta: So you’re behi=
nd the
50 foot.
Mr. Quirk: Right. All of the sub systems are 75 feet=
or
more from the wetlands and then those activities that I highlighted, both h=
ere
and the access drives and the trail are within the preliminary review area.=
Mr. Undercuffler: The barns, I’m=
particularly
thinking that top, that right most barn, is that=
up on
a hill probably?
Mr. Quirk: There is a little bi=
t of a
crest here.
Mr. Undercuffler: What about pollution=
from,
I assume there’s going to be horses in these barns?
Mr. Quirk: The intent would be =
to put
a horse pasture . . . . .
Mr. Undercuffler: How are you going to
manage the manure?
Mr. Quirk: Typical farm
measures. I don’t know =
where they
would stockpile the manure but it would be in an upland area, away form the=
wetlands. On each of the barns we’re
proposing a fenced in area to keep the activity outside of the wetlands.
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, I’m think=
ing
during, if you have that manure out there and with the rain and so on, leac=
hing
down, that’s Steel Brook up there.
Mr. Quirk: Yea, this is Steel B=
rook.
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, that’s be=
en a
real problem area, Steel Brook, so we don’t want to do anything
that’s going to disturb that.
Mr. Quirk: Also the function of=
the wetland
to purify the water before it gets to Steel Brook itself, there would be a
large overland distance between the barn activity and then before it actual=
ly
(inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 15
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, I guess it depe=
nds
how many horses you’re going to have. If you have 25=
horses
. . . . .
Mr. Quirk: No, the intent was f=
or
someone if they want to buy a farm lot where they could have 1 or 2 horses =
as
an amenity to the house.
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, and there may n=
ot be
any because the person could buy the lot just because he looks the ambience=
and
he may not have horses at all, so it’s kind of a . . . . might have pigs, goats.
Ms. Sturgis: To the right of that=
barn,
are the wetlands to the right of that, or is the next door neighbor?
Mr. Quirk: There’s a (ina=
udible)
of wetlands here.
Ms. Sturgis: (Inaudible) the barn=
where
the horses would be.
Mr. Quirk: There is a wetland f=
inger
here along Smith Pond Brook.
Ms. Sturgis: No, the other side o=
f it,
what’s over there?
Mr. Quirk: This is just a little
finger, and then just adjacent up here there is a drive (Tape #3, Side B en=
ded
– may have missed some). Just
along this property line is a common drive that serves 3 homes. And that crosses Smith Pond Brook.=
Ms. Sturgis: Is that wetlands to =
the
right of that? All that white=
space?
Mr. Quirk: No, this is, there&#=
8217;s
a driveway here, the Smith Pond Brook crosses, there’s a little bit of
wetlands associated with that, but this is all uplands here and here. And then there’s a little fi=
nger
up here.
Ms. Sturgis: So you’re sayi=
ng
it’s draining that way?
Mr. Quirk: Right, all of this is
draining to this direction, towards the south. The other thing I wanted to discus=
s is
the conservation deed restrictions on each of the parcels. We’re proposing that 12 acres
would be a deed restricted area, shown with this dark green dash line here,=
but
the rear of each of those parcels along Steel Brook would be a deed restric=
ted
area and the intent there is that this is area that we can preserve the nat=
ural
resources, develop a corridor along Steel Brook, cause this would adjoin th=
e Watertown
Land Trust and developed a corridor or preservation along Steel Brook and t=
hat
calculation for 40 acres, typically 4 acres would be provided, and we’=
;ve
done 12 acres through a conservation deed restriction, so we’re able =
to
provide more restricted area for development, for anything that would endan=
ger the
natural resources, so each of those parcels would have that restriction on =
it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 16
Mr. Zawadzki: So each of the 4 lots
would own part of that deed restriction?
Mr. Quirk: 3=
. This lot here is not a farm=
lot,
but each of the 3 farm lots would have, the west portion of the property wo=
uld
have a deed restriction placed upon it, so they wouldn’t be able to t=
ree
cut or do anything that would take away form the natural habitat and resour=
ces
with Steel Brook.
Mr. Undercuffler: So you’re not
proposing to deed any open space to the Town?
Mr. Quirk: One of the options i=
n the
open space requirement is a conservation deed restriction and we’ve g=
one
that route so that we can both provide the farm lots, which is a low density
development and still have 3 times the open space that would be required, s=
o it
sort of works both in both directions.
Mr. Undercuffler: Have you approached
Planning and Zoning?
Mr. Quirk: We’ve had the =
preapplication
meeting and we’re scheduled for the next Planning and Zoning meeting.=
Mr. Undercuffler: They’ve agreed=
with
. . . .
Mr. Quirk: We haven’t met=
with the
Commission yet, but in the preapplication meeting it was something that was
discussed.
Mr. Undercuffler: Those gravel drives,=
will
they be maintained that way or will the owners be able to pave those?
Mr. Quirk: They will be maintai=
ned as
gravel drives. If they were t=
o be
paved there would be impervious area that they would have to account for as=
far
as runoff.
Mr. Undercuffler: So where there be so=
me
restriction that would require them not to pave?
Mr. Quirk: Well as part of the
subdivision approval and the drainage calculation, they would only be appro=
ved
for that amount of impervious area, that’s the way the approval proce=
ss
would restrict them.
Mr. Rafey: I think that Mr. Und=
ercuffler
wants to know that if you put a deed restriction then they cannot pave those
driveways. Or are you leaving=
it
open?
Mr. Undercuffler: I’m just wonde=
ring
how that would be worked out.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 17
Mr. Quirk: Okay, I guess how it=
would
work from a typical approval standpoint, and the=
n if
they’re only approved for a gravel drive . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: =
Abide by those conditi=
ons.
Mr. Quirk: Abide by those condi=
tions,
under the approval of the lot.
Mr. Polletta: =
It would be part of the
approval.
Mr. Undercuffler: How does that get pa=
ssed
on to the next owner?
Mr. Rafey: There should be a de=
ed
restriction on there so they know . . . . .
Mr. Quirk: We can look into tha=
t.
Mr. Polletta: What is considered a=
farm
Mr. Quirk: The farm lot regulat=
ion
requires that on a single lot, irregardless of the zoning, there’s 5
acres minimum and that’s for, there’s a definition which I
don’t know off hand, but as far as what’s allowed within the fa=
rm
lots, it’s livestock, things of that nature that are allowed when you
have a minimum of 5 acres for a lot.
Mr. Polletta: They allow so many
animals? Who is going to cont=
rol
that? That’s why the qu=
estion
was asked before, let’s say you have 20 horses, I mean, who regulates
that?
Mr. Rafey: In the Town of
Mr. Polletta: No, who determines t=
he (inaudible)?
Mr. Rafey: We don’t regul=
ate
the number of animals they can have.
As long as they have 5 acres of land you can . . . .
Mr. Polletta: So you can have 20 h=
orses
if you want?
Mr. Rafey: Yes.
Mr. Quirk: There would be (inau=
dible)
in the regulations that it wouldn’t be allowed as a commercial
kennel. You wouldn’t be=
able
to have this farm as . . . . . this would have to be a self serving farm.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 18
Mr. Undercuffler: It couldn’t be=
a
stud farm?
Mr. Quirk: Right. It would be a farm lot, but not a =
commercial, it would have to be for personal use.
Mr. Undercuffler: But it doesn’t=
have
to be farmed?
Mr. Quirk: It doesn’t hav=
e to
be farmed.
Mr. Zawadzki: But basically farmin=
g is a unregulated activity.
Mr. Rafey: No, I don’t ag=
ree
with that because there is no difference for this application if that’=
;s a
farm lot or it’s not a farm lot.&nbs=
p;
The only difference is that they have 5 acres of land they can keep
animals on their property. Th=
ese
are not farmed. The principle=
uses
of these lots will be residential and there’s a single family home wi=
th 5
acres of land.
Mr. Polletta: They’ll be tax=
ed
accordingly.
Mr. Rafey: Yes, they will be si=
ngle
family homes, not a farm. And=
that
crossing, they do not have the right to do that, they cannot get that by ri=
ght,
it has to be approved by this Commission, it’s a regulated activity
Mr. Undercuffler: Say that again.
Mr. Rafey: The crossing of wetl=
ands,
if this was a farming activity, if this was an existing farm and the farmer
wanted to cross the land and cross the wetlands, they have the right to do =
that,
but in this case, this is a single family home and any activity within the
regulated area has to be approved by this Commission.
Mr. Undercuffler: Even the only activi=
ty
apparently here is putting gravel down.
Mr. Rafey: If the crossing is existing, if there is a bridge already there, yes, =
the
construction of the driveway that is a (inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: How are you going to=
cross
that water?
Mr. Quirk: There is an existing
bridge that we would utilize. In
fact, I apologize the scale is a little bit smaller on this aerial photo, b=
ut
you can see the trials. All o=
f this
wetlands area is this mowed field area and there is lim=
ited
trees along the watercourse, but this is all mowed.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 19
Mr. Polletta: The bridge
is in good condition? It
doesn’t have to be touched?
Mr. Quirk: Right.
Mr. Thermer: Can we do a site wal=
k?
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Well that’s the =
next
step. After we’re all t=
hough
with our questions here and the presentation, we need a motion to make a si=
te
walk on this property. So if =
no one
has any further questions at this time, then we need a Motion.
MOTION: =
(Mr.
Thermer, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Schedule a Site Walk for Application #49=
5 of
Patrick Graziano, proposed 5-lot Willowbrook Farm Subdivision,
Discussions: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
MOTION: = (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table Application #495 of Patrick Grazi= ano, proposed 5-lot Willowbrook Farm Subdivision, Northfield Road, Watertown in = an R-30 Residential Zoning District.
Discussions: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
7. =
Old
Business
A.&n= bsp; = ; None
8. &n=
bsp; New
Business
A = None
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 20
9. =
Communications
and Bills
A. After the Storm a Citizen Guide to Understanding Storm water.
B. =
State
of
Mr.
Rafey: I encourage all new members to att=
end
this.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Everybody check it out and give Ca=
rol a
call tomorrow.
C. A
letter from Brian Baker, Civil 1 regarding
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr.
Polletta sec., Mr. Undercuffler) to accept Communications and Bills, Agenda
Items 9A through 9C as presented.
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
10. Repor=
ts
from Officers and Committees
None
11. Repor=
ts
from Staff
A. Reflection
at
Mr. Berger: You have before you, I
believe tonight, a March 3, 2004 report from Civil 1, which s the new name =
for
Curtis Jones Associates. You =
may remember
them from being here on several occasions as the project got approved. This is from a week ago now. The contractor and the Town just
received this report yesterday, so most of the recommendations that are
included in this report have not been implemented on site yet. I did go out there yesterday and w=
e are
continuing our weekly job site meetings with the engineer, the contractor a=
nd
the developer. We reviewed th=
is
report and came up with some additional items that also have to be included=
and
they’ve indicated there would not be a week delay this time,
we would get the report by tomorrow.
I’ve also asked for a revised plan.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 21
If you remember last F=
all
when they got off to a difficult start with us, we had them develop a detai=
led
sediment and erosion control plan, which worked well over the Winter, but n=
ow
as construction continues and seasons change, there have been a number of
changes made in narrative form, but I’ve asked all those things be pu=
t in
a plan so we can all look at it and make sure we’re all on the same p=
age.
Things are, at this po=
int,
stable out there. If you driv=
e by
it does look probably to many people unstable. The detention basin slope on the f=
ar
side of the road, significant water coming into the detention/sediment basin
and some of the slope areas have failed there, but it’s not, because =
of
the detention basin has been designed on a temporary measure to serve, the
sediment trap it is working, so although we have those sloped failures you =
see
driving by, it’s not getting out of the detention basin into Echo Lak=
e,
the water is still clear, it’s going in there. We’re continuing to keep a v=
ery
watchful eye on this, again we haven’t had=
much
rain, so we’re watching it very closely. Any questions?=
Mr. Polletta: =
I know that they remov=
ed a
lot of stuff out of there, but it seems to me that if you go from there to =
Mr. Berger: It’s possible.=
I think on the edges they have don=
e some
damage with their heavy trucks.
Mr. Polletta: =
I drive over there a l=
ot and
maybe they should alternate, to the right and to the left. I’m not an engineer, but I&#=
8217;m
thinking because the whole area is pretty wet over there, and probably the
(inaudible) of the road it’s not heavy enough to support these
trucks. You look for yourself=
, but
I just saw myself, and it doesn’t have anything to do with wetlands, =
but
I’m just saying the weight of the trucks, when you go over there it l=
ooks
like the road is doing this. =
Can it
be settling like that because of heavy trucks?
Mr. Berger: It could be. The developer took a number of bef=
ore
pictures of the road anticipating problems down the road.
Mr. Polletta: =
That road was flat.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well I know at this =
time
of the year you get a lot of frost heaves and they’re still coming ou=
t of
the ground. I know out where =
I live
it’s like a roller coaster, but that usually settles down in later
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 22
Mr. Polletta: =
But I don’t thin=
k that
road was ever designed to have heavy trucks like that. I mean you get them all day long.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I mean they keep the road now pret=
ty
clean because they have a sweeper over there, but some of the stuff goes fr=
om
Mr. Berger: I believe any damage t=
hat
they cause, I mean we’ll have to deal with=
that
during the final acceptance part of it.
Mr. Polletta: This is just for
information.
Mr. Berger: And again we took a =
lot of
before pictures because the road had a lot of cracking in it before the pro=
ject
started.
Mr. Polletta: I’m not talking
about the cracking, I’m talking about settling.
Mr. Berger: The road base, there=
was
something unstable about the road base to begin with, because the road was
deteriorating even before the project started.
Mr. Polletta: It was flat though.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> If you look from the edge when the=
y come
out, all the way to the end, around the bend, you could see it’s like
this.
Mr. Berger: I’ll take a be=
tter
look next week and report at the next meeting.
B.&n= bsp; = ; Hidden Oaks Subdivision
Mr. Berger: We have not been req=
uiring
weekly activity reports from them at this point in time. They have submitted some reports to=
me
that are in the file, but they’re not at the level of detail as
Reflection, which got off to a bad start.&=
nbsp;
There was some enforcement action pending against them, that’s=
why
we got more detailed information on Reflections. On Hidden Oaks things are going ve=
ry
smoothly out there so we haven’t required the same level of oversight=
of
Hidden Oaks that is required at Reflections right now. That project is moving forward. The road base is being placed and =
in
some spots it’s up almost to sub grade now. We’ll be meeting with them
tomorrow to talk about some compaction testing on the road fill, cause there are some pretty big fills in there, and th=
ey
have agreed to do some compaction testing to make sure that’s appropr=
iate. They have begun the sewer line
installation from
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 2004
PAGE 23
Mr. Zawadzki: That’s why the=
y have
the tracking pads, right?
Mr. Berger: Yes. But again as the frost coming out =
of the
ground, it was a tough time of year when we first put the pad down and there
was some mud that got away, but we got on top of it right away and they got=
it
cleaned up.
12. &n=
bsp;
Public Participation
13. Adjou=
rnment
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Beauchamp, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 10:29 p.m.
&nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Regular
Meeting Adjourned at 10:29 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
Inland
Wetlands Agency
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________