beagenda

&nb= sp;

MINUTES<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

JOHN TRUMBULL SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2004 - 7:30 PM

&nb= sp;

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

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Glen Dupliesse

= &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

ABSENT: = ; &n= bsp; = ; = James Zawadzki, Chairman

ALTERNATES PRESENT: = ; Peter Peluso

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Martha Sturgis

ALTERNATES ABSENT: = ; Susan Atwood

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

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

1.         = Call Meeting To Order

            Mr. Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:35 p.= m.

2.     &nb= sp;   Roll Call

            Mr. Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.

            Mr. Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Zawadzki, = in his absence.

3.         = Public Participation

&nb= sp;

None=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 2

4.         = Action on Minutes

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   A.        Continuation of Public Hearing, May 10, 2001, App. #415, Cathie Caton<= /p>
        &= 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<= /p>
        &= 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.        Public Hearing July 12, 2001, App. #428, Echo Lake Watertown LLC

L.         = Regular Meeting, July 12, 2001

M.        Continuation of Public Hearing, March 23, 2004, App. #486, Guernseytown Farms, LLC

N.        Continuation of Public Hearing, March 23, 2004, App. #488, Patrick Graziano

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Jones) to Approve Items #4M and 4N.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   In Favor:      &= nbsp;   Mr. Dupliesse, Mr. Jones, Mr. Polletta, Mr. Thermer, Mr. Undercuffler

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   Opposed:         = None

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   Abstained:        Mr. Beauchamp

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1)

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp to Table 4A through 4L.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

5.         = Pending Applications

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   A.        Application #486 of Guernseytown Farms Estates LLC, Phase II for 26-lot residential subdivision and extension of Bayview Circle, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   A decision is required by May 26, 2004.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: Has everybody gotten the Minutes, particularly the new members, did you have a chance to review the Minutes?<= o:p>

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Jones: Were these given to us tonight?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Rafey: You should have all of the Minutes= for this application, except for March 11^th; they’re not ready yet.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Undercuffler: Any discussion on this item?<= /o:p>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, I ga= ve you a memo tonight from Mr. Berger if you want to look at that.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Undercuffler: April 15^th?<= /span>

&nb= sp;

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

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: We’re talking about App. #48= 6?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: Yes, from Mr. Berger to me.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Undercuffler: Does everything seem to be in orde= r, Chuck?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: The information t= hat has been submitted over the past public hearings and the time you’ve = been considering it have satisfactorily addressed the whole comment.<= /span>

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: I see a completed set of plans incorporate all of the above revisions has not b= een received.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Berger: What I mean by that is I have a co= mplete stapled set that has been revised twice, and when I have the revised sheets that we reviewed some of which we received just prior to the last public hearing, two of those sheets were received at the public hearing. All of those haven’t been assembled into one complete package yet, that’s why I went to great detail to outline the plans above that I believe are the most recent, that I based my comments on.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 4

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: So basically you received all of t= he information that was necessary that you requested?

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: I would imagine the new members wa= nt to wait for the Minutes of March 11^th and a chance to review all of these.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Jones: I for one am new and I haven’= ;t been up to the area before, wasn’t involved in Phase I or II, and I w= ould prefer that we postpone this for another month. I don’t want to hold things = back, but I would like a chance to catch up and do my responsible functions here,= so I suggest we postpone this until the next meeting.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Undercuffler: Is that a Motion?

&nb= sp;

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

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Undercuffler: Second?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: Do you feel that you want to get familiar with the area, before we make any . . . .

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Undercuffler: Why donR= 17;t you second the Motion and then we can discuss it.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: I’ll second it.

&nb= sp;

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. = Jones, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Application #486 of Guernseytown Farms Estates = LLC, Phase II for 26-lot residential subdivision and extension of Bayview Circle, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Discussion: = ;      Mr. Jones: Yes, I should like= to know exactly where we stand, otherwise I wouldn’t vote tonight if we = vote to accept. This is new for me= and I’m just sort of feeling my way.&nbs= p; I have spoken with Moosa and he said he will take me and show me the area, and acquaint me with any of the other earlier phases that had to do before I was a member of this Committee.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Undercuffler: This can be voted on at the next meeting.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Mr. Polletta: We have time?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Undercuffler: Yes, May 26^th.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; = ;           Mr. Rafey: Mr. Beauchamp aske= d if he can go to the site and see that I told him that other Commission members they had a site walk and they saw the site, so I will be glad to go with Mr. Beauchamp sometime next week.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Undercuffler: Could you read the Motion back?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Ms. Allen: I don’t have it, it’s = on the tape.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Rafey: It’s a Motion to Table until= next month.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nb= sp;

B.&n= bsp;            = ;    Application #488 of Patrick Gra= ziano for 18-lot residential subdivision, “Fox Crossings” Phase II, P= ond View Estates and Extension of Lovely Drive, Watertown.

A decision is required= by May 26, 2004.

Mr. Rafey: The same thing, you don’t have the Minutes of March 11^th for this application. You received all= of the other minutes for meetings and the public hearings.

&nb= sp;            =           MOTION:       (Mr. = Jones, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Application #488 of Patrick Graziano for 18-lot residential subdivision, “Fox Crossings” Phase II, Pond View Estates and extension of Lovely Drive, Watertown.

&nb= sp;

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         Discussion:       Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, you received a memo = from Mr. Berger tonight regarding this.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Undercuffler: So we have the hydraulic analysis = and a note about the retaining walls. That seems to be the items that were open before.<= /p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 6

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Berger: Those were the last two items that= I had at the close of the public hearing, which I received information from them yesterday that a note would be added to the plans in accordance with my rev= iew memo and I also received the hydraulic calculations for the arch which I ha= ve not yet reviewed, but will be doing so as part of my final review process.<= o:p>

  &nbs= p;                 &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: At the last meeting there was talk= about these retaining walls and possibly having fences (inaudible) retaining wall= ?

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

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Dupliesse: What’s going on with that?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Berger: There’s been no further deta= il on that. If they’re over 4= feet high I believe the Building Inspector will require a fence be in place.

&nb= sp;

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;        Mr. Dupliesse: It just says here that it will be designed by an engineer; it doesn’t say anything about the fences.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; = ;           Mr. Berger: That will be a bu= ilding inspector requirement as part of their building permit.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Rafey: When they go to get their building permits for the individual homes then the Building Inspector may require th= em to put a fence there if there is a wall up.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Berger: And it may not be 4 feet, I’= m not, I may have misspoke when I said 4 feet.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; = ;           Mr. Rafey: If it is higher th= an 4 feet.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Berger: If it’s higher than 4 feet it needs to be designed by an engineer. I’m not sure to be honest with you what the requirement is that triggers the need for a fence. Again that’s a building code requirement that the Building Inspector will pick up on during the permit process.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; = ;           Mr. Undercuffler: It’s = not really an inland/wetland issue anyway.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Polletta: Mr. Berger, so you received almost everything?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;       Mr. Berger: I have everything that I requested= .

&nb= sp;

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

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Undercuffler: Just one po= int on 5A and 5B. I’m wonderin= g if we want to draft for the next meetings, motions to accept or reject?

      = ;      Mr. Rafey: You want staff to draft the motions= ?

      = ;      Mr. Undercuffler: Yes.

&nb= sp;

C.        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.

If a Public Hearing is= not held, then a decision is required by April 23, 2004.

Mr. Undercuffler: We voted at the last meeting that this was not a significant activity so we wouldn’t hold a public hearing unless there was a, of course if it turned out that there wa= s a petition, then there would be a public hearing, but the way it stands now t= here is no public hearing planned, so that being the case we’re going to n= eed a decision probably tonight, or before the 23^rd, unless we have a special meeting.

Mr. Rafey: For your information= at the last meeting it was recommended to staff to send notices to the abutting property owners and we usually don’t send those if there is no public hearings, but in this case we did.

Vincent Caterino, Engineer and Land Surveyor

Mr. Caterino: Since our last meeti= ng we made some minor modifications to the plans and if you want to go over what = we did, changes that we made. The biggest change we made was we added a scour hole right at the outlet of our= 15 inch RCP before it enters the existing stream, but that’s going to ac= t as a . . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 8

Mr. Rafey: Just one second, I&#= 8217;m sorry Mr. Caterino, if you look at your packet y= ou have two drawings for this application.

Mr. Caterino: As I was saying we a= dded a scour hole right at the outlet of the drainage pipe right before it enters = that stream, and that scour hole will act as an energy dissipater and it will se= rve as a sediment trap also during construction. After the water goes through the s= cour hole it’s going to sheet flow over a bed or rip rap and go directly i= nto that stream, and with no erosion or any negative impact.<= /p>

The other things we did was we made notes on the pl= an to provide mitigation in the area of that stream for the Commission members th= at went there we call that, the area of the stream is pretty, there is junk th= rown all over the place and it looked terrible, so one of the mitigation measures we’re proposing is to clean up that whole area, including the shed, remove the shed, clean up the whole area and move all the debris off site.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The other mitigation measure we= 217;re proposing is to stabilize the north side of that stream. As you recall the north side of the stream had severe erosion along the bank, so what we’re proposing on doing is relocating some of the larger boulders that are in the stream into that area to help secure that area and stabilize it. Then we provided more details to t= he Town Engineer at his request, such as calculations for the infiltrators for= the storm water from the roof drains and we provided a more detailed grading pl= an and some other miscellaneous comments that the Town Engineer had, we did provide them with that. Here = is the location of the scour hole. O= ur drainage is coming from the road, down a 15 inch RCP into the scour hole, t= hen it will sheet flow right directly into the stream over here. On this plan we have proposed anot= her alternate method of detaining storm water from roof drains is to use drywel= ls, which I showed on this plan. = I also provided the Town with an alternate method which is to use infiltrators, wh= ich is what the Town prefers, so that’s what we will propose, are the infiltrators. In the area of mitigation is this area the northerly side of the stream where there is ero= sion undermining a tree that’s there, so we proposed moving these boulders= in that area to secure that area. And we’ll be removing the sh= ed that’s located here and all the junk and debris that’s in this area. Also on the plan I have= a profile of how this scour hole will function. The water will come into a, from t= he 15 inch RCP, onto a rip rap pad, and flow into the pond where you’ll get some sediment removal, and then as the elevation gets higher, it will overf= low the berm and then sheet flow down a rip rap channel into that stream. Basically that’s it for what= we did.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 9

Mr. Undercuffler: Where is the propert= y line on the back there, along the stream? Is it the other side of the stream?

Mr. Caterino: No, if you look on y= our map right there there’s a monument and then there’s two lines t= hat look like a “V”, that’s the property line right there, so we’re right on our property line.

Mr. Undercuffler: So that tree that you’re going to support is actually on the other side of the property= .

Mr. Caterino: That’s correct, that’s on the Town of Wa= tertown’s open space.

Mr. Undercuffler: Well that is Town of= Watertown, okay.<= o:p>

Mr. Caterino: Yes, this corner rig= ht here is all open space. There= is a couple of lots on Laur= el Ridge, Lo= t #5 is over here and #34 is over here.

Ms. Sturgis: I thought there was = some question about changing the route of that stream by moving the boulders aro= und and so forth. Is it all agree= d that moving those boulders is okay?

Mr. Cateri= no: Yes, we had the Town Engineer, we concurred as to how we’re going to tackle that problem. In fact I have a note on the plans= to do that work getting in the presence of the Town, they’ll have one of th= eir representatives out there, whether it’s the Town Engineer or the Wetl= ands Enforcement Officer, so we’ll be doing that under a couple of people’s supervision to make sure it goes as planned.

Mr. Polletta: Eventually this wate= r will end up where?

Mr. Caterino: All of this water go= es into this brook, which is an unnamed brook, and that eventually gets down i= nto Turkey Brook.

Mr. Rafey: Now based on your st= udy and calculations, are you going to add additional water? I mean after this is built, whatev= er comes out of this, are you reducing the velocity of the water or are you ad= ding more? Are we going to have a problem with this?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 10

Mr. Cateri= no: We had Lenard Engineering who did = the Turkey Brook main hydraulic study for the Town of Watertown, we had them analyze this whole project and they concluded that it’s such an insignificant impact that it’s, because of the timing of the peak flo= ws for Turkey Brook is, just as an example, I think it’s about 24 hours, whereas ours is probably a 10 minute, so our peak discharge would be 10 minutes, whereas Turkey Brook would be hours and hours away so the peaks wi= ll not overlap each other.

Mr. Polletta: Eventually it will e= nd up over there. The reason I̵= 7;m asking this question is because we have so many problems with Turkey Brook,= and I mean you’re the engineer, but according to your study you’re = not going to add more water into Turkey Brook by doing this?<= /p>

Mr. Caterino: Right, we’re n= ot going to add any additional water that will cause any negative impact to the Turkey Brook system, that’s why we hired the original engineers that = did the study. They had all the d= ata, all he computer models and they were the most appropriate people to do that study and they concurred with us.

Mr. Polletta: And our engineer has= all that information?

Mr., Cater= ino: That’s correct, yes.

Mr. Dupliesse: How deep is that lit= tle pond that you’re building?

Mr. Caterino: It’s about 2.5= to 3 feet deep. It’s very sh= allow, it’s not really too deep at all.&nbs= p; The bottom is 491 and the top is 494.5 so that’s actually 3.5 feet.

Mr. Dupliesse: Well at any time I m= ean this could fill up, you could have 3.5 feet of w= ater there?

Mr. Caterino: During just a more, = major storm it will quickly dissipate though.&nb= sp; The water won’t be there more than, it will infiltrate through= the stone so it will probably be in there for maybe 20 minutes to a half hour during a major storm.

Mr. Dupliesse: Is that how you see = it?

Mr. Berger: Yes, this is not in = my mind designed to be any sort of detention type structure. It’s more of a water quality treatment structure before discharging directly to the brook. Instead of having the pipe empty t= he storm water right into the brook, it will be filtered through this small po= nd, it will be rip rapped lined, there is rip rap overflow to help, #1 slow down the water as well as to help filter out anything that might come down throu= gh the pipe. (Tape #1, Side A ended – may have missed some). It’s more of a water quality treatment than a water quantity treatment.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 11

Mr. Polletta: Who will maintain th= at, on the second lot, #11A, so that will be maintained by whoever owns that land?=

Mr. Caterino: That’s correct, yes. The Town will have an ea= sement on the area over the pipe obviously and the outlet structure.

Mr. Polletta: Do the owner of that= lot is going to maintain that little detention area?

Mr. Cateri= no: That will have to be put on the la= nd records, as any drainage easement, it always goe= s with the land records.

Mr. Polletta: The reason why IR= 17;m saying, after so many years maybe if it gets filled up with debris, the peo= ple that own the land will maintain that, not the Town Department.

Mr. Caterino: Yes.

Mr. Dupliesse: But this is just the drainage from the street, this 160 feet of stree= t, correct?

Mr. Caterino: Yes.

Mr. Dupliesse: This is just water f= rom 160 feet of street going thought his pipe ending up in this little drainage slow down pond and that’s it. We’re not draining 6 or 8 city streets there, we’re just= one little, okay, than you.

Mr. Caterino: = No, we’re not re= ally draining a lot of area.

Mr. Berger: There is a small dra= inage area that drains to the street for a couple of acres?

Mr. Caterino: Right, the total dra= inage area is about 2 acres, but the cue is very low and the actual flow is about= 2.5 feet at best, cubic feet of water per second to this pond, it’s not a= low of flow.

Mr. Rafey: What is the total impervious surface that drains into that.

Mr. Cateri= no: Yea everything, the road is draini= ng into the area, the two houses are not, they’re draining into, we̵= 7;re proposing infiltrators, in ground infiltrators, so no roof water from the houses will be going into the scour hole, just the area from the road and t= hen there’s a small area above Shelter Hill Avenue that’s coming do= wn this way that goes into this drainage system also.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 12

Mr. Berger: It has a total drain= age area of 1.4 acres.

Mr. Rafey: Of impervious?<= /o:p>

Mr. Berger: No, total drainage a= rea.

Mr. Rafey: Some of that is vegetated. What is the ground= cover on that portion?

Mr. Caterino: This area is grass, it’s actually mostly a grass area. You have a small area of Shelter H= ill Avenue that is pavement, then above Shelter Hill you have a couple of houses with a lot of lawn and it’s mostly lawn and a small portion of the asphalt drains down, comes across this way overland and flows this way and = goes down along the shoulder and will be caught by these two catch basins over h= ere.

Mr. Undercuffler: So if they’re = on Shelter Hill that doesn’t drain into a street drain over there?<= /o:p>

Mr. Caterino: No, it doesn’t= . It all drains right off the side o= f the road, there’s no curbing or anything, so it drains to the side of the road and down the hill.

Mr. Undercuffler: Can you discuss those infiltrators a little bit   They’re underground, I assume?=

Mr. Caterino: Yes, they’re underground, but they’re plastic units, about 16 inches high and they’re shaped like an arch, and about 7 feet long each, just like a little arch, and you dig a hole about 2 feet deep and you put those in the ground. Were proposing 10 infiltrators to be placed 2 side by side, and you put them in the ground and fill them with stone around the sides and the top and that acts as a reserv= oir for the water to be held in. = So what’s happening is you’re getting water that’s at the storage capacity that you’re getting and also you’re getting infiltration into the ground. We did a permeability test on the soil to see what the capacity of this type of soil would have, how much water you could put in the ground, and that’= ;s how we sizes them, to sell how many lineal feet we need of infiltrators and= how much storage you need.

Mr. Undercuffler: Well how do those di= fferent from the drywells that you were originally talking about?=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 13

Mr. Caterino: That’s a good question. The drywells are de= eper, you can go down as much as 8 feet deep with these, you get a lot of capacity with them, but I guess with the Town’s experience they prefer to have something shallow such as the infiltrators which are 2 or 3 feet deep, you’re closer to the surface and you have a better chance of being ou= t of the groundwater table whereas with the deeper structures like the concrete drywells you’ll be deep in the ground, as much as 7 or 8 feet deep, so we’re going with the shallower system, but I’ve used concrete drywells in the past and you do really have to keep an eye on the soil conditions before you use them, so that’s why to be on the safe side we’re going with the infiltrators.

Mr. Dupliesse: You have the roof dr= ains being shed into these?

Mr. Caterino: Right.

Mr. Dupliesse: What about the footi= ng drains? Are they going into these also, or= are they going to daylight?

Mr. Caterino: These two houses are= going to be built on a slab, we’re proposing no footing drains, they’re going to be raised ranches with no footi= ng drains on total flat construction. If we do go with the footing drains, if they do change the plan and = we could go either to the street or to the back yard, the footing drains is groundwater, so it’s not water that we’re trying to detain or infiltrate into the soil we just want to get rid of that water which either= go out to daylight, to prevent water in the basement, so if they did go with footing drains we’d have to take a look to that to see where we would= go with them.

Mr. Dupliesse: But you’re pro= posing slab on grade right now?

Mr. Caterino: That’s right, = and I doubt very much that we’ll change that, cause the type of houses they’re proposing on building are raised ranches a= nd the grading that we’ll have, we’re proposing no full basements = for either one of the houses.

Mr. Undercuffler: Any other questions?= Is there anyone from the public wh= o has questions?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 14

Thomas Genovese, 81 Edgewood Road, Watertown= , CT&nbs= p; 06795

=

Mr. Genove= se: I’m going to speak for my daughter, Alison Genovese. My= one question is the entrance to this property, which is going to be right up. See we’ve never seen the pla= ns and the first we heard about it is this letter so we know nothing about it. Can you show me how you’re g= oing to get to those two homes?

Mr. Caterino: Right here is Rockland Avenue, it’s a paper street. Th= is is Edgewood over here, the asphalt. We’re going to come in with = a 24 foot wide road right over here, right by, on the upper side of the driveway, the entrance, that’s about right where the Town road is, and coming r= ight over here, and if you look on the maps you’ll see the driveway here that’s penciled in and the garage, that’s over here.=

Mr. Genovese: So you’re comi= ng up high?

Mr. Caterino: Yes, we’re com= ing way high, on the upper side.

Mr. Genovese: Right on the base of= that bank?

Mr. Caterino: That’s correct= .

Mr. Genove= se: Now you say you’re going to = lean the rif raff up and mess, where that shed is, how about that upper bank?

Mr. Caterino: We’ll clean al= l the garbage.

Mr. Undercuffler: Can we have the ques= tions come through the Chair?

Mr. Genovese: I’m sorry. My question is on this upper bank,= there is much debris there as there is on the property because it keeps rolling d= own onto the property, there’s taping buckets, tires, everything. Is that going to be cleaned?<= /o:p>

Mr. Caterino: Absolutely. This who= le bank is going to be graded and all the junk is going to be cleaned up. That whole place, yea definitely, = all these trees are going to be cut and cleaned up.

Mr. Genove= se: Another question I have is I know,= and I’m just going to point to the area, right here, on that particular s= ide of her house, it’s always wet there, retainage water and it’s always foggy, and it’s nice lawn there. Now my understanding is that he sa= id he tested the soil and it has a certain degree of water it will hold, but if that’s soggy it would be the same thing on that property. Is that going to do anything to her property with that detention pond, it’s not a retention pond but I’m just calling it that. You say it will dissipate in 20 minutes. I’ve been there where it hasn’t dissipated on her lawn in two days.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 15

Mr. Caterino: Right, we’re u= sing mostly storage, we’re not depending on too much of infiltration, but it’s mostly storage just for the roof drains. The road drainage is going into the stream, so all of these are just 2 roof drains that are going into the grou= nd.

Mr. Genovese: Okay, so that ponding where you’re going to let it go into the stream,<= /span> is upstream from her house?

Mr. Cateri= no: No, it’s downstream from her house. Her house is over here= , but this water is going this way, everything is going in this direction, so no water is going towards this house right over here. All of this water is going in this direction and directly into the stream, and the same thing with this road, = all of the drainage is being caught by the curbing and the catch basins that ar= e being caught over here and directed away and down into the dirt, and totally arou= nd the house.

Mr. Genovese: Okay, my last questi= on is there a possibility we can get a copy of these drawings?<= /p>

Mr. Rafey: Yes, they are in the Planning and Zoning Office. Y= ou are welcome to come there and I’ll make a copy for you.=

Mr. Undercuffler: Where is your daughter’s house?

Mr. Genovese: It’s the last = one in right at the bottom of the hill when you come over that crest of the hill a= nd go straight down.

Zhanna Yusbova, 67 Laurel<= /st1:City> Ridge, Watertown, <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">CT <= st1:PostalCode w:st=3D"on">06795
=

Ms. Yusbova: I’ve never see= n the drawings, I’m just wondering how it will affect my property and where= is this and (inaudible)?

Mr. Undercuffler: Can you show us wher= e your property is?

Ms. Yusbova: (Inaudible).

Mr. Cateri= no: This is you right here. Here is your property line over here. Do you know that you ow= n on the other side of that stream a little bit?

Ms. Yusbova: Yes.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 16

Mr. Caterino: This is where you are right over here, see the little “V”.=

Mr. Rafey: If you have a questi= on, ask your question and then wait until Mr. Caterino answers you.<= /span>

Mr. Caterino: So we’re not d= oing anything to your property, all it is just a stream we’re draining into and it’s downstream from where your portion of the stream is, but the= re is a bunch of junk in this area that we’re going to clean up. Basically there is no affect to yo= ur house or anything like that.

Ms. Yusbova: Could you show me wh= ere you’re going to build?

Mr. Caterino: There is a house ove= r here and here, so it’s pretty far away from where you live.

Mr. Rafey:= Mr. Chairman, there is a vicinity = map in your packet so you can see where Laurel Ridge is (inaudible= ) to this property.

Mr. Undercuffler: Any other comments or questions?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Approve 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, subject to conditions.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

D.        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.

Andrew Quirk, Malone & McBroom

Mr. Quick: I’d like to do j= ust a brief presentation this evening first to go over existing conditions and th= en we’ll have testimony from Matt Sanford the Soil Scientist from Malone= and McBroom and then I’ll review the activities and try and answer some of the question that came up on the site walk.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 17

Mr. Undercuffler: Was everybody at the= site walk?

Ms. Sturgis: Yes, I was there.

Mr. Quirk: Again this is the pa= rcel located on Northfield Road,= it’s an inactive dairy farm, 40 acre parcel. The site is divided by Steele Brook running through the center of the parcel, Smith Pond Brook and Willow Brook, which all converge in the center of the brook, and I think at this point I’ll turn it over to Matt Sanford to describe site conditions and the wetland soils.

Matthew Sanford, Malone & McBroom, Certified Soil Scientist

=

Mr. Sanford: I was one of two soil scientists that delineated the wetlands on this property. I’m going to briefly describ= e the wetland soils and systems on this property. I’d like to refer you to a detailed report that was included in the November 17, 2003 engineering repo= rt that was submitted as part of this application titled Inland, Wetlands, and Watercourse Delineation, Willowbrook Farms Northfield Road, Watertown, CT.<= o:p>

For ease of explaining= the wetlands on site, I think we’ll move in a clockwise fashion, west, move north and then east and southward. North being in this direction here= and I’d like to start off west here with Steele Brook, that’s the m= ain system on the property is Steel Brook entering from the west portion of our property, flowing southward where it eventually discharges off our southern property limit. As you move t= o the northwest portion of the property, which is this location here, we have two wetland systems, both of them, which I will refer to plush and wet meadow s= ystems. They are composed primarily of sed= ges, Russian (inaudible). TheyR= 17;re currently being mowed, but when we were actually flagging out there, the fa= rmer was out there actually mowing. They’re mostly composed of (inaudible) soils. These are considered poorly drained soils, and again they flow to the northern part of the property, southward = into Steele Brook, or actually into Smith Pond tributary.

Mr. Underc= uffler: Excuse me, I was wondering if mayb= e we first ought to decide if we’re going to have a public hearing on this thing because if we do, you’re going to have to go through this again, and rather than go through it twice, maybe it would be better to discuss ha= ving a public hearing right here and now. What’s the Commission’s feeling on it?

Mr. Quirk: If there are any que= stions that we can answer that would help in making that decision, we’d be m= ore than happy to answer them.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 18

Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, if you= look at the memo I sent in the packet dated April 8^th, there is a lis= t of regulated activities that are proposed for this subdivision. I think first of all you should ma= ke a determination of whether these regulated activities are a significant activ= ity or not. If this is a signific= ant activity then you have to hold a public hearing.

Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, there is a lot = of disturbance here.

Mr. Quirk: Maybe I can point out where they are on the map. We visited them on the site walk also.

Mr. Underc= uffler: Let’s resolve whether itR= 17;s going to be a . . . . is anybody going to make a motion?

Mr. Polletta: Mr. Chairman, I̵= 7;m going to take a trip and look at this, I couldn’t make the site walk. If the Commission went = there and saw significant disturbance, and you feel you need a public hearing, th= en the Commission decides because I wasn’t there that day.

Mr. Undercuffler: Well not only is the= re a lot of disturbance, but it’s a sensitive area, it= ’s right next to Steele Brook. We’re talking probably horses up there, so there’s pollu= tion impact and so on, and I think there’s going to be a lot of public interest in this, so probably from both standpoints a public hearing would = make sense.

Mr. Polletta: Did Everybody on the Board look at this?

Mr. Undercuffler: I think you were the= only one who missed it.

Mr. Dupliesse: So this was a dairy = farm?

Mr. Undercuffler: It had been a dairy = farm, yes.

Mr. Dupliesse: Up until when?<= /o:p>

Mr. Undercuffler: 10 years ago, 20 yea= rs ago probably.

Mr. Dupliesse: And now they want to= put on . . . .

Mr. Undercuffler: They want to split i= t into 4 lots.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 19

Mr. Dupliesse: And put 3 little bar= ns on there to put little half acre stalls for riding areas for the horses.<= /o:p>

Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, I guess.

Mr. Dupliesse: Is there a limit on = how many horses are going to be allowed on this property? Is that a stated limit at this poi= nt?

Mr. Rafey: No, in Watertown if you have 5 acres of land y= ou can have farm animals. We donR= 17;t regulate the number of horses you can have.

Mr. Quirk:= It’s permitted under a farm = lot within the Zoning Regulations, which is zoned for personal farm usage, so t= hese are not commercial farms, it wouldn’t be allowed to have commercial kennels, or anything of that sort, but it’s defined as a personal far= m, if you will.

Mr. Undercuffler: There is no limit on= the number of houses.

Mr. Dupliesse: There’s no lim= it, so if we approve this, then these 20 x 40 foot barns could literally have 40 horses in them.

Ms. Sturgis: Could you explain wh= at you said about the conservation land, where it doesn’t seem like they can= do anything, but how many horses they could even graze on that land.

Mr. Quirk: I think the point be= ing here is that we’re applying under a residential application and we haven’t gone in directly as a farm use, and with that there’s a conservation easement which is delineated on this map by the dark green lin= e, and it’s a corridor along Steele Brook and it’s 12 acres that w= ould be deed restricted land over the 3 farm lots for a total of 12 acres.<= /o:p>

Ms. Sturgi= s: But we don’t know for certain whether horses will graze there? We don’t know exactly what can be done there and what can’t be don= e?

Mr. Quirk: We’re applying= under the Zoning Regulations which allow for passive recreational use, nature preservation, maintenance of natural and agricultural land uses, and so we’re applying to satisfy the Zoning Regulations to maintain those ar= eas as with either equestrian rights, natural or agricultural areas that are th= ere, but no buildings, no post fences, because those would be permitted activiti= es that we’d be applying for.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 20

Ms. Sturgis: Well if you can̵= 7;t put a fence, it would be hard to let them graze, isn’t it, if you can’t fence them?

Mr. Quirk: Well the only propos= ed fenced areas are the half acres around the barns, so those areas outside of there wouldn’t be for grazing, but for riding the horses.<= /span>

Mr. Undercuffler: But what you’re proposing is fenced area, and there’s a fair amount of that that is actually on in the wetland buffers, and in some cases I think in the wetlan= ds too, and I think we’d have a problem with that, so I think there are a number of things that make it significant.

Mr. Quirk:= Could I go through the list of reg= ulated activities that you have and just point those out to clarify.

Mr. Rafey: Do you want to use my memo?

Mr. Quirk: Either way, I have t= he same format. Lot #1 is the far northerly lot, and on your sheet it’s delineated that the area there = is the farm access drive and fenced corral, and again the farm access drive is= the area over the existing barn, the area that’s shown there in the place= ment of gravel, there would be a driveway on grade, on the existing grade the wa= y it is today, but disturbance for placing gravel within the buffer and the wetl= and up to the existing bridge, and then the same on the other side. The barn would be outside of the regulated area and then the fenced corral is within the 50 foot buffer.

Mr. Undercuffler: Within the buffer?

Mr. Quirk: Within the buffer. Lot #2 there is a portion of the fence that’s within the buffer, and then ag= ain regulated activities associated with the barn access drive.

For Lot #3 there is a narrow drainage swale, weR= 17;re using graded swales for water quality to direct water from the homes, so th= ere is some grading associated with that drainage soil for Lot #3, and then for= the far southerly lot there is grading and fill associated with the barn access drive, and then grading associated with the walking trail to the Watertown = Land Trust and again that area within the wetlands would be just placing the sto= ne dusts to from the trail within the wetlands.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 21

Mr. Undercuffler: But the fence around= that barn . . . .

Mr. Quirk: I’m sorry, and= the fence around that barn. IR= 17;m not sure on the faxed one, I had faxed that has each activity broken out.

Mr. Rafey: Yes, I gave them the square footage and the linear feet on the plans. (Tape #1, Side B ended – may= have missed some).

Mr. Quirk: So those are the (inaudible) activities associated with the trails and the barns and the fen= cing and the grading of the swales.

Mr. Undercuffler: Have you looked at alternatives here to try and get, particularly Lot #4, why couldn’t that baton be moved so you don’t have the fenc= ing in the wetlands?

Mr. Quirk: Lot #4, we have the septic system in this area, upland from the barn, and the h= ouse is situated here and then beyond that is all wetlands. We did look at different areas and= the quality of the wetlands and this upper finger here is that area that’s really more of the mowed field, wetlands, as opposed to the wetland and the wetland soils associated with Steele Brook, so we did look at both of those areas.

Mr. Undercuffler: I guess I’m mi= ssing your . . . .

Mr. Quirk: The point being that= the area where the corral is situated is in, as opposed to be in the wetland so= ils associated with Steele Brook, it’s in a lower quality if you will, being that it’s an open mowed field.<= /o:p>

Mr. Undercuffler: I don’t think = we recognize lower quality; wetlands is wetlands.

Mr. Quirk: And it’s a per= mitted activity (inaudible). That= 217;s why we’re applying for the permit, it̵= 7;s an activity within the wetlands.

Ms. Sturgis: Moosa, how many acre= s did you say you had to have for horses?

Mr. Rafey: 5 acres.<= /span>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 22

Ms. Sturgis: If half of the acrea= ge is conservation, which they, I actually think it sounds rather pretty, donR= 17;t misunderstand me, but if half of what they’re using is for conservati= on then they can’t fence, by definition they don’t have that much acreage for horses do they, I mean at least not for multiple numbers of hor= ses?

Mr. Quirk: The zoning requireme= nt is for the overall acreage of the parcel, and we have 6 acres on this lot, 6 a= cres on the second farm lot, and actually 12 acres on the far (inaudible).<= /o:p>

Ms. Sturgis: That 6 acre one, how= much of that is conservation easement, so it’s not really a variable to th= ose horses to graze?

Mr. Quirk: I’d have to chec= k, but approximately I think we have about 2, 3 and then the remaining of the 12 on the far southerly lot.

Ms. Sturgis: So they actually hav= e 2 to 3 acres for grazing at the most.

Mr. Quirk: Yea, but within the = 5 acre lot, in the zoning requirement its outlined that you have a house the area associated with the house, a septic system, it’s a bulk requirement, = you want to have certain setbacks, it’s not intended that all 5 acres are dedicated to a farm, because these are farm lots with the principal use bei= ng a residence. You need to have 5= acres in order to have . . . .

Ms. Sturgis: I guess what I’= ;m trying to say is you don’t really have 5 acres of use for anything, you’ve got to conserve 2 acres of whatever it is, so couldn’t y= ou somehow set a limit on how many horses, so they can’t have 40 horses. I mean is there any w= ay that can be done? Only becaus= e then you get into they’re grazing and stuff on wetlands which has some obv= ious consequences.

Mr. Underc= uffler: Well that’s only if we would permit fencing in the wetlands. We don’t have to permit that.

Ms. Sturgis: Yes.

Mr. Dupliesse: When this was a dairy farm, there must have been 50, 100 cows on this property?=

Mr. Underc= uffler: Well it was a farm, and a farm, by right, can do that. There is = no restriction on farmers.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 23

Mr. Dupliesse: So the farmers’= ; cows can go into the stream and they can do whatever they want in the stream, or= in the wetlands, and so now if we out barns, or consider these genuine farms, = the horses can go graze in the stream also?

Mr. Undercuffler: No, now it becomes wetlands and it’s still wetlands but they can’t disturb the wetlands. Farms can. The State Regulations, and I t= hink it’s in our regulations too, that by right agriculture can use wetlan= ds.

Mr. Dupliesse: Residential cannot.<= o:p>

Nr, Undercuffler: Cannot.

Mr. Dupliesse: And this becomes residential now when we subdivide this lot?

Mr. Undercuffler: Right.

Mr. Rafey: These are regulated activities, that’s why they are in front of you, and they’re asking your permission to do that.

Mr. Quirk: Moosa, correct me if I’m wrong, but the reason we’re coming into the application is because now we’re applying as a residential subdivision. If this lot existed with a house, = and someone were to come into a farm, those are farming activities, that would = be a different application, but given that we’re applying for both the hou= ses and the farms, we’re applying altogether as not as a right activities, but permitted activities that require a permit. They’re still farming activi= ties.

Mr. Rafey:= The current use of this property i= s a farm and you’ve been there and you saw that most of those wetlands are hayed and the farmers can use them. As soon as they subdivide this into residential building lots, and t= he principal use of these lots will be single family home residential, and then any activity within the regulated area that they propose, they have to come= to this Commission and get a permit.

Mr. Dupliesse: So right now.

Mr. Rafey: Right now it’s= a farm.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 24

Mr. Dupliesse: Whoever owns this ri= ght now owns this as a farm, and without asking us they could put 100 cows back= on this property, or they can put 100 horses back on this property and we can = do nothing about it, but if we subdivide this, do we have the right to limit h= ow many animals they put on the property?’

Mr. Rafey: You can regulate the regulated area, you can regulate your wetlands a= nd the 50 foot buffer zone. You can = tell them not to put the barn close to the wetlands, move it to this side or that side, or you can let them do it.

Mr. Duplie= sse: But we don’t have the right = to limit how many animals they put on the property?

Mr. Rafey: I’m sure they = should have farm management for those lots of how many horses they can have, but f= or zoning regulations you cannot regulate it, because the zoning regulations s= ay that once you have 5 acres of land you can raise farm animals; it doesnR= 17;t say how many.

Mr. Quirk: The intention of the application is that someone would have a house and be able to have an auxil= iary barn whereby they could have 1 or 2 horses. That’s the intention, and that’s how we’re applying under the zoning regulations. I only pointed out that your regul= ations don’t stipulate within the farm lots that are limited, but the intent= ion of the application is for a residential subdivision with the ability to have farm lots with 1 or 2 horses to be in the barns. That’s the intention.

Mr. Dupliesse: That’s the intention, but the problem becomes if we approve that, then he’s got = 12 acres, and if he wants to bring in 60 horses, how do we control it?

Mr. Quirk:= Well you would also be approving th= e size of the barn and the size of the corral, and in order to, I mean to physical= ly house 60 horses is not reasonable in the size permitted barn and activity t= hat you’re approving. That wouldn’t be physically possible.

Mr. Dupliesse: I agree, but there’s 3 barns now, and three 20 x 40 foot barns could hold a considerable amount of horses.

Mr. Rafey: But the application = is in front of you for these regulated activities. I mean I want to focus on the regu= lated activates that they’re asking for.&n= bsp; They’re good questions.

Mr. Polletta: If we’re going= to have a public hearing on this, I think like you said before, I think we can spend time and answer some of these questions at that time.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 25

Mr. Undercuffler: There will probably = be another 100 questions that will come up at that time too.=

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Thermer) that Application #495 of Patrick Graziano, prop= osed 5-lot Willowbrook Farm Subdivision, Northfield Road, Watertown in an R-30 Residential Zoning District.

&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. Jones) to Table and Schedule a Public hearing for Application #495 of Patrick Graziano, proposed 5-lot Willowbrook Farm Subdivision, Northfield Ro= ad, Watertown in an R-30 Reside= ntial Zoning District.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

6.     &nb= sp;   New Applications

&nb= sp;

A.      =            None

7.         = Old Business

&nb= sp;

A.      =            Application #496 of Town of Wat= ertown Department of Public Works for transfer of the Conservation Commission/Inla= nd Wetland Agency Permit #441 from Department of Public Works to Cocchiola Pav= ing, Inc. for safety improvement of Middlebury Road.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   A decision is required by June 18, 2004.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Berger: We have requested that this previo= usly issued inland/wetland permit be transferred to the contractor from this job. This was part of the con= tract documents that were developed under the previous Director of Public Works, = so I can’t speak for the reasoning behind it, but I do support the transfe= r in that it will heighten the awareness of our contractor as to the sensitivity= of the project and the requirements of the inland/wetlands agency and the perm= it that it was issued. The Town = as the property owner would still be fully responsible for the activities out ther= e, but by transferring this wetland permit to the contractor that we are ready= to issue that contract to, it will heighten their awareness and make sure that they pay attention to the wetlands issues that exist out there.<= /span>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 26

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Undercuffler: Any discussion?<= /p>

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: In other words, originally, if I understand this correctly, the Town is supposed to do this and take a permit out. Now the builder is saying I’m taking the permit out?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Berger: Let me say it a different way. It was never the intention for the= Town forces, the Town crews to do the work, but in order to bring the project forward, for which we’re getting 80% State and Federal funding for, we have to convince the State that all the necessary approvals are in place, including the Inland Wetland permit. We had land rights to purchase, permits to get, the Town acquired the land rights and the Town acquired the wetland permit and I don’t know= if it was represented to this Commission at that time, but I think the intent always was for the Town to acquire the permit and then transfer it to the contractor at the time when it’s put out to bid and we’re ready= to award the contract. It was ne= ver intended that we would physically do the work. We will oversee it and pay for a p= ortion of it.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Polletta: So the intent w= as to transfer it to the builder?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: Yes, we will stil= l be, it’s certainly not our intent nor our expectation that there will be = any problems, but certainly as the property owner the Town is fully responsible= for the project and the contractors on the job.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Undercuffler: Now this wo= uld be transferred with all the conditions that were on the original permit, identical, other than the number?

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. = Jones, sec. Mr. Polletta) to approve Application #496 of Town of Watertown Departm= ent of Public Works for transfer of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency Permit #441 from Department of Public Works to Cocchiola Paving, Inc. for safety improvement of = Middlebury Road with the standard conditions.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 27

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   B.         = Application #497 of Guernseytown Farms Estates, LLC for modification of Permit # Phase I Guernseytown Farms, Litchf= ield Road, Watertown, CT.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   A decision is required by June 18, 2004.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Joseph Calabrese, Guernseytown Far= ms Estates

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Calabrese: I just want to recap how this came about. We had gotten approval= for Phase I on Killorin Road, with all these roads and the way it was approved was that this end here, we stay back with the paving and put 2 posts with a chance and brick pavers fo= r an emergency exit. So during discussions it was asked about improvements on Killorin Road, which we’re not responsible to do. We talked = to staff, Chuck, Roy, Mary, and Moosa and what I suggested was the way this was approved by Zoning was all these lots were in, and when we went for wetland= s, they took 5 lots out. There&#= 8217;s a big cost to doing this and right now they’re saying it’s a da= nger because of site vision, and I’m going to turn around later, and so du= ring discussions they asked Chuck and Roy if there was anybody to fix that road = so this road could come out, and they said for 10 years there’s not mone= y to fix that road and it’s a dangerous situation as it stands now, not because of this project, because we wouldn’t be coming out here, so w= hat we did was my engineer did a sketch and reviewed it with Chuck, Roy, and Ma= ry to show what would have to be done to correct the situation for line of sig= ht and make it a safer situation, so this could fix the existing contours and = this is the new contour and each one of these spaces is 100 feet. There is about 500 feet that has t= o be ripped up and I mean to the State’s spec and it has to be widened to = 24 feet. So during the discussio= n when we mentioned that, I made the suggestion that I would be willing to do this myself, which is a big expense, and for that I would ask to get the 5 lots = back that we were taken away to get money to pay for this, and that’s why we’re doing a modification to ask if it’s possible, and what we= did here was to make these lights viable, what was asked for a preservation area through here on the original permit, and up to here is the same as it was, = but to get our septic systems in here we did, they asked for 200 feet plus the = 50 feet wetland setback, so actually that’s 250 feet to the wetlands, th= is is 190, so it’s 10 feet less, and then from here up we had to cut it = back a little more to get our septic systems in the 5 lots so we still had 175 through the wetlands, 150 to the wetlands, 150 to the wetlands, and the up = here we went 75 and 25 plus the 50 foot setback, so there’s plenty of space for preservation and still allow me to get these lots. So that’s how this came abou= t, and we’re hoping that the Commission will consider it and it will be good= for the Town because it could make this road safe. Any questions?=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 28

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Ms. Sturgis: You’re saying your septics a= re set that far back. Does that incl= ude your fields for the septics as well?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Calabrese: Yea, that’s what I’m t= alking about. That’s the reason we’ve got to come back, just for the fields, the houses will be up he= re.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Undercuffler: Well we went through a lot of agony to get to this point; I’d hate to see us go ba= ck frankly.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Thermer: I wasn’t involved in the app= roval of Phase I. I’d like to= have the Minutes of those meetings so I can review them at this point in time, a= nd I think a lot of my fellow commissioners weren’t involved in Phase I so= we need to get those Minutes and take a look at them and see what was going on back then before we can make any decision here.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Undercuffler: You’ll find many hours of ha= ppy reading there. There was a lo= t of public comment from neighbors and elsewhere on the thing, storms of protest (inaudible)so I think it’s good that you go through them.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: I guess what is= that Killorin Road, the work has to be done because there is poor site line?

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Calabrese: The Town is saying it’s a dangerous situation.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Polletta: And what is the cost of that road construction?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Calabrese: It’s upwards of $275,000.

  &nbs= p;         Me. Polletta: And the other thing you said is th= at Planning and Zoning, I didn’t get that because I was not part of . . = . . .

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Calabrese: The original a= pprovals, as it stands right now is that these 5 lots are in, in Planning and Zoning. Wetlands we had discussions, they wanted more setback, which we have it here, it’s all the way up to here, we still have the original setbacks, we just need a lit= tle relief over here so we can utilize these lots, and that’s it. We had discussions on it and I just offered it as a suggestion and if they could be done, that’s fine, if they can’t, we’ll just proceed with the way we’re going.<= o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 29

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Polletta: I wasn’t a part of that but I would like to review some of those Minutes and ask some questions to the pe= ople that were on the Board at that time and then maybe next month we can come up with something but the idea is to review what was done in the past, and I’m not going to comment on anything right now because I was not pres= ent at that time.

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Ms. Sturgis: If you go back to the way you were, you’re saying that the entrance to that main road would be dangerous,= but would be left as is, and this is an attempt to correct that?

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Calabrese: Yes, but we’re not coming ou= t of here. The way this was approv= ed is we cut the road off about 25 to 30 feet back, and we put grass pavers for an emergency exit and then we put two posts with a chance across so people can’t go through and that’s how it was approved. So it was suggested, they wanted to correct this situation here and I brought up that I would be willing to do = it if I could get more money for the lots so I could do it, and everyone agree= d in staff and the engineers thought it was a good idea because it would correct= a situation that’s a danger to the Town which there is a lot of liabili= ty for, and if someone gets in an accident there it’s stated in the reco= rd that it’s a dangerous situation, and if it’s corrected it would help the Town with their liability.

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Polletta: You’re saying rebuilding the= whole road or just take that corner out?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Calabrese: No, right here, the hill. There’s 500 feet, the rest is okay. It’s just this, i= s the existing grade, we have to set the road down 4 to 5 feet at this point, this section and come all the way down to here, so we’ve got a 500 foot st= retch so that we lower the road and get a better site view for traffic cause peop= le are speeding through there as it stands now, and I suggested that I would be willing to do it if I could get money from these lots.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Franklin Pilicy, Attorney for Appl= icant

=

  &nbs= p;         Atty. Pilicy: I would urge the Commission to foc= us on the wetlands issues related to these 5 lots as part of making a decision on this application. It’s = the position of Mr. Calabrese that the Commission was not acting completely wit= hin its authority in combining these lots in the first place, and it was their intention at some point to come back with a separate application in the fut= ure to regain these lots. That pl= an has been advanced by virtue of the discussions about the Town staff seeking to = have Mr. Calabrese pay for the needed improvements on Killorin Road, so we came = in a little bit sooner than we were otherwise planning on coming in, but I’= ;ll let Jim in a minute talk about the wetlands issues, but I’d like to j= ust talk briefly about a couple of points.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 30

&nbs= p;

Since the last approva= l on Section I there has been a Connecticut Supreme Court decision that has ruled that Wetlands Agencies do not have jurisdiction to make decisions on lands = of preservation or wildlife protection and that was the primary stated reason = for combining these lots, because there are no wetlands activities on any of th= ese lots and the buffer area, although required by your regulations at 50 feet = is almost 4 times that, so there is no wetlands related grounds in the applicant’s opinion to justify a requirement to combine these lots to begin with. We didn’t h= ave as much ammunition at the time of the application decision as we do now because now we have the Supreme Court decision, but we also have a closer look at t= he Wetland Statutes, which in 1996 amendments further restricted Wetland Commission jurisdiction with respect to buffer areas and provide that you cannot regulate buffer areas unless and except (1) to the extent that the regulation of buffer areas is contained in your regulations. Now your Regulations do contain the ability to regulate buffer area of 50 feet.

The second criteria as= a commission must find that the proposed activity within a buffer area is lik= ely to adversely impact the wetland. In this case we’re nowhere near your 50 foot buffer to begin with and although the Commission sought to have an additional 150 feet in some cases= , in some cases more than that, the applicant has agreed to that, to the fullest extent possible without impinging on the ability to locate septic systems on these lots, so it has always been the position of the applicant that there = were not sufficient grounds to require combining these lots to begin with, there= was a position of the applicant that we were going to come back at a later date= and seek a new permit to use these 5 lots as originally intended, however, we n= eed to look at the existing conditions of a portion of Killorin Road as resulte= d in some discussions between Town Staff and the Applicant and this was viewed by the Applicant, and I believe Town Staff as well has an opportunity for a win/win. The lots could be re= stored as originally proposed and originally approved by Planning and Zoning witho= ut any impact whatsoever on Wetlands, and at the sa= me time the Town will be guaranteed that the needed improvements to Killorin Road will be provided as p= art of the construction of Section II. Now I’d ask at this point for Jim Sakonchick to talk specifically about a= ny wetland impacts from the lots that are being proposed to be restored. (Tape #2, Side A ended – may have missed some.)

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 31

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   James Sakonchick, Engineer, Kratze= rt & Jones

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Sakonchick: The first lots I’d like to t= alk about would be the lots closest to Killorin Road and the approval had asked for Lots #19, = #20, #21 to be combined into one lot of approximately 6 acres. Now I’d like to point out th= at there are no regulated wetlands at any portion of these lots. These lots are 100% uplands. So we’re in a situation where we’re asking for a lot of 73,000 sq. ft., Lot #19 not to be built on, it’s 100% wetlands for positioning a house on the top of the lot, whi= ch is about 400 feet away from the wetlands, a septic system behind the house,= the septic system would be about 300 feet away from the wetlands and we would be willing to give a 200 foot conservation easement in addition to the 50 foot buffer for that lot so you know I would argue that a new application from g= o for that lot would have a lot of attributes that it should be approved.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Lot #20 was the lot that was retained (inaudible) system and Lot #21 we’re asking to come back and again this is a lot of over 80,000 sq. ft., and aga= in a lot that has 0 sq. ft. of wetlands contained within in and the house would again be probably 500 feet away form the wetlands and the septic system abo= ut 400 feet from the wetlands, so compared to other applications you get in fr= ont of this Commission, where they’re looking to put the septic system ri= ght on the edge of the 50 foot buffer, there are huge buffers being maintained = here and we are maintaining by this proposal the 250 foot conservation easement = to the wetlands, so there are a lot of valuable things here.=

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   The next two lots I’d like to discuss are Lots #22 and #23. Now this shaded line over here is = the end of that lot and then it goes to here, this shaded line being an approved storm pipe discharging to the wetlands that we have permission to build, th= at is the only activity that gets close to the wetlands in this area, the water dependent use draining the pipes, but again we have Lot #22 and #23 which l= ots have no wetlands contained within their perimeter. I’m repeating myself, weR= 17;re going to have a house hundreds of feet away from the wetlands, a septic sys= tem hundreds of feet away from the wetlands, and we’re going to maintain a buffer that kind of tapers from holding 200 feet on the southern end (inaudible) this side and about 110 feet on the northern end in addition to= the 50 foot buffer you normally have. Again these lots have a lot of attributes which are generally consid= ered buildable.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 32

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Next I’d like to discuss Lots #24 and #25. Lot #24 is supposed to be 73,000 s= q. ft., and Lot #25 is 71,000 sq. ft. This commission had asked us to co= mbine those lots into a 140,000 sq. ft. lot.&nbs= p; Okay I would like to point out that these lots have no wetlands cont= ained within their perimeter and again the houses would be in the front, the sept= ic systems would be in the back, and realize that we’ll have to do a lit= tle bit of grading around the septic system, we are proposing to hold a buffer = of at least 100 feet in addition to the 50 foot buffer of the Town, so you have 150 feet effective conservation no touch easement to the wetlands and again we’re going to have, we propose houses and septic systems on lots that are totally uplands and again I think on a stand alone basis they’re approvable lots.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Next I’d like to talk about Lots #26 and #27 which were combined. These are the first lots that have= any physical wetlands within the lot areas themselves and that consists of an intermittent watercourse that goes through the back of the lots, and as par= t of the approval we have in hand we’re going to be taking that intermitte= nt watercourse and fixing this. It’s a gully right now, every time it rains you get more erosi= on, you could see the rocks. We are going to fix it into a nice= grass swale, stabilized with all the good methods we worked out with the Engineer= ing Department and the Wetlands Agent. We would be maintaining on Lot #26 a 75 foot buffer in addition to t= he setback on the south side and that would taper to about a 30 foot buffer in addition to the customary buffer on the north side and we would position the house and septic system on the uplands part of the lots, not affecting any wetlands, and maintain super buffers, instead of the 50 feet per your regulations, another 75 and another 25.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Lot #27, as you can see this kind of cuts across th= rough the lot, and effectively we’re just asking to maintain customary buff= ers there, we’re not really creating a super buffer there, but again we w= ill position the house, the well, and the septic system outside of your customa= ry regulated buffer and ask for that lot to be built.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   So I’m asking the Commission to keep in mind that when we come back in t= he future, looking to resubdivide these lots which the geometry has already be= en approved by the Town, what kind of decision you might make in the future and compare that to your opportunity to here to get a win/win situation where, I believe in my opinion, a similar decision would be made in the future that could be made now, and the Town can win the benefit of an improvement to Killorin Road and the developer would win and also benefit from those improvements, but that would only be if he was able to find income from the= se lots to do it at this time.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 33

  &nbs= p;         Atty. Pilicy: Again I would ask the Commission to focus on the wetland aspects of this request, because as stated there really are no wetlands impacts from restoring these lots to the original developme= nt plan as approved by Planning and Zoning.&n= bsp; There are buffers far greater than what is authorized under your Regulations and those will be maintained as stated by Mr. Sakonchick.<= /o:p>

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Undercuffler: I think there are a couple of poin= ts here. (1) I find it personall= y kind of offensive that you’re admitting now that you got approval, you agr= eed to this thing, there was no dispute about it, there was approval, and now y= ou indicate that all along you had the intention after you snuck this thing in= , I shouldn’t say snuck it in, but after you got this approval, now you’re admitting that all along your intention was to come back in and try and change it.

  &nbs= p;         Atty. Pilicy: There’s a Connecticut Supreme Court case that has come out that directly impacts upon what occurred here = and taking that case into account with the requirement of combining 5 lots when there is no wetlands related reasons to support that, I believe constitutes solid foundation to allow this applicant to come back before this Commissio= n, whether we come in now or a few months from now, I don’t think really makes a lot of difference. We= came back now as a result of discussion with Town Staff that there is an opportu= nity to do something good for everybody.

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Undercuffler: What was the date of the Avalon ca= se?

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Atty. Pilicy: I don’t have it with me, but= I know that it’s been provided to the Staff and I thought this Commissi= on got copies of it.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Undercuffler: Well I think we have a copy, but t= he question is when that came down?

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Rafey: I don’t have a copy of that.=

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Atty. Pilicy: I’ll make sure you have it tomorrow.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Undercuffler: Now our decision was what? Last June? No.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Rafey: September 11, 2003.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Undercuffler: I think the question is when that = Avalon case even came down, I think we ought to find th= at out.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 34

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Polletta: Was this approved in 2002?

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Rafey: 2003.

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Undercuffler: Last September. Well this could open up a new hear= ing and so on and so forth.

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Polletta: I speak of the new members includi= ng myself, I would like to review it and then we can discuss it before we do anything at this time.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Rafey: I gave you a copy of the final mot= ion for approval when the Commission approved this Subdivision. This was the Motion and you have a= copy of this, you can review that tonight. You can read it before the next meeting if you want.

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Polletta: Yea.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: You also received a copy of App. #= 497 tonight.

  &nbs= p;         Atty. Pilicy: We would ask that the Commission f= ocus on the wetlands related issues to the use of these lots for residential building lots and we’re prepared to discuss further the fact that it’s our opinion that there are no wetlands impacts whatsoever on the= se lots.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Undercuffler: Any discussion on that?=

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Thermer) to Table Application #497 of Guernseytown Farms Estates, LLC for modification of Permit # Phase I Guernseytown Farms, Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

A.&n= bsp;            = ;    Discussion: &n= bsp;     None

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 36

&nb= sp;

Now initially this are= a was studied back in the 80’s they did a hydraulic model to see how they c= ould alleviate the flooding here and they ran through many different alternatives. Two of those are shown here, French Street<= /st1:address> being here and the sewage treatment plan over here. The solution recommended was a ser= ies of dikes and flood walls to basically cordon off the plaza and the Knight Street industrial area. Shown below = is just a modification of that with just Knight Street being cordoned off.= It’s a standard structural l= evy type system that when analyzed would alleviate the flooding.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: More channeling.=

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: More channeling essentially which = could have downstream impacts which were thoroughly investigated at that time. Now we went to D.E.P and said ther= e are other options here, non-structural methods that should be looked into that might actually, that would satisfy the goal of keeping these areas out of 1= 00 year flood and at the same time could possibly enhance the riparian corridor and the quality of the stream. Now initially there was an alternative to channelize the stream further by wide= ning it out and creating trapezoidal stream, a natural stream, not a concrete channel, but a wider stream base, but we felt that by doing that you were basically dispersing on a base flow about 8 inches of water which is curren= tly in a 20 foot channel over 40 feet. So you’re essentially limiting the depth over the entire chann= el which could have negative fishery impacts.

&nb= sp;

So as sort of a sub alternative to that, we said well let’s try and keep the stream base = flow in the existing channel. Cross section B, well there’s 4 different cross sections here, but I’= ll just go with a typical one. T= he existing channel shown here, okay, and what we propose is on one side of the channel only, in this particular instance, keeping the base flow within the channel but cutting into the existing bank and creating a cobble shelf to provide additional flood storage and then grading up with a vegetated flood plain shelf. What this essent= ially does is it creates this additional storage area and at the same time keeps = the base flow within the existing stream.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Where would that be, behind the pl= aza?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: This is about 3,000 feet, it would be behind the plaza and further upstream towards French Street. I believe this is the old SNET bui= lding that old white building I think that’s this area here. That’s where it starts and i= t ends down here. Now we are not doing much work near the soccer fields, because if you’ve ever been down there, they put up a fence and the fence is lik= e 5 feet away from the power lines, which are 5 feet away from the stream, so there’s really no room to expand in there. So we’re proposing more stre= am expansion upstream.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 37

&nb= sp;

The principal, this ha= s been studied, and the principal reason why we have flooding in this area is this= is a very flat profile stream at this point, it’s much steeper up near H= eminway Pond and in that area, and it’s also steeper once you get to Steel Br= ook Commons, so this is the flat area and this is where the water fans out. Also the existing sewage treatment= plant (audible) doesn’t have enough opening to prevent backwater flooding t= he Knight Street area so that bridge would also have to be replaced. Chuck suggested well why don’= ;t we get rid of the bridge and we investigated that and we talked to the Fire District and they had a sewage treatment plant building that they are curre= ntly leasing out to an engineering company and they had some plans to do some development there so they want to keep that access there, so you know it’s a good idea, and in essence I think ultimately it’s still something that could be pursued if things change in the future.<= /span>

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; One other thing, and Chuck has suggested that with these improvements in place = it might be a good opportunity to provide a trail system with some sort of educational kiosk that maybe shows the history of flooding in Watertown, th= at gives some ecological information, talks about flood plain species and things like that, and that would be linked directly with the soccer fields, so we feel = that this offers good opportunity to master plan this whole property.=

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Is there enough space area behind = the plaza for this shelf?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: Behind the plaza i= tself there is an existing, it’s hard to tell, it’s all overgrown, but there’s a wall there. We’re going to go on the other side of the stream and modify t= he other side. Up here we’= re going to modify both sides because we have the room and down here we’= re not going to modify at all cause we’re staying away from the soccer field, but the idea is to gain enough storage within the system itself to c= urb the flooding and this shows what would happen to the 100 year flood line wi= th this alternative, you see there is flooding here, but the plaza is out and (Tape #2, Side B ended – may have missed some).

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: You’re not talking about may= be a dam, a retention dam to hold back water at all, cause there is a dam down below with filth in there.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: Yea, there is a dam, that really doesn’t have any effect on what= we do here.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: That one, no, I understand that, b= ut you’re not talking maybe even putting a dam across or even a retention type structure?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 38

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Lecco: No, what’s happening now is = the bridge, because it’s such a low bridge and there’s not much ope= ning there, as it is, that’s sort of acting as a dam during very high flows and that’s a backwater condition that causes flooding here. See even with these improvements t= hat we’re recommending within the riparian area, if you didn’t repl= ace this bridge, then you’d still get flooding at Knight Street. It’s sort of easy for you gu= ys today cause you don’t have to make a decision. It’s not a pe= rmit application right now. We are preparing an environmental impact evaluation which is required if a project= is significant and has State funding associated with it, then the environmental impact evaluation has to be conducted and we are 3/4 through writing the document itself and that will be published and there will be a public heari= ng in Town to discuss that. In t= hat document in addition to the natural resource and wetlands issues that you f= olks have purview over, we talk about any other impacts, construction, air, nois= e, light, any type of impact that might be associated with the project. So Moosa suggested that I come bef= ore you and present it so that when it finally comes to design, hopefully you’ll all be here you’ll have some understanding of the history and the needs of the project and it’s been needed for many decades and it’s finally moving towards the design stage, and slowly but surely a= nd we feel we have, that this is a good project, we’ve had the Corps of Engineers on site, Fish and Wildlife Service, D.E.P. Fisheries, and they all are in general agreement with the concept as represented, but they want to = be involved in the design so that they can tweak things here and there and thi= ngs such as that that need to be ironed out.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: If you’re going to widen the stream, you’re going to increase the flow downstream, and you said you don’t know what the impact is going to be downstream?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: You may have misunderstood me. When I was talking about increasing flows downstream, that’s a legitimate point and that’s one of t= he things we’re going to look at in this environmental report. I was talking about the original proposal which was the dikes and floodwall system which creates more channelization and potentially increases flows and could cause downstream impacts. What we’re pro= posing is more like detention of water because right now this water is being channelized and flows at a fast rate down here. By putting in these flood storage = areas, what we’re essentially doing is needling out that water at a slower r= ate so we don’t feel at this point that there is going to be any negative= downstream impacts. Now I’ll quali= fy that by saying that we weren’t hired to do the entire hydraulic model= of this alternative, during the design stage that will be looked at. We will look at the Steel Brook Commons area where = the stream wraps around, and then there is a residential area just downstream t= here where the stream flattens out a little bit and that’s another area th= at will have to be looked at when the hydraulic model is rerun during our desi= gn stage.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 39

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: Who pays for this and when you go through the cost evaluation, does it make sense to taking that bridge out that’s causing the dam and maybe making a biggest bridge or making it wider?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: Well that is inclu= ded as part of the cost, is replacing the bridge right here. As a comparison, oh the costs are = on here, these are I believe 1997 costs.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: You can throw those away.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Let me update the costs. We’ll go with 1997 costs so I don’t have to do the factoring in my head. For a diking system, the range is = $2.7 million to $4 million. This proposal is more in the range of $1.8 million 1997, the one we are proposin= g, with the stream modification and the replacement of the bridge. The replacement of the bridge was estimated to be about $800,000.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: Where actually is that bridge now?= Is that at the old sewage plant?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Lecco: It’s just upstream of it, ne= ar Economy Tire, there is a road that winds in down there. It’s a single lane, it’s about 14 feet wide. Obviously if we could get rid of t= his, if there was (inaudible) for this bridge, then that would cut the cost to be about $800,000, in today’s cost, about $1,000,000.<= /p>

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: What do they use that bridge for?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Well the Fire District owns a lot = of this property over here including the sewage treatment plant building, whic= h is no longer a treatment plan, but they’re currently leasing it to an engineering company and they also have other lands where the clarifiers use= d to be and another structure that have been told that they have plans to possib= ly develop some of that area.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Polletta: So the bridge i= s so they can go across?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Yes, and also it’s access to= the soccer field as well. In an i= deal world, they actually is a paper street right here that cold potentially be = used as an actual swale to get into the soccer field area, but it’s very tight, we haven’t really investigated fully whether anything could fit into here, but there probably is a way you could extend Edward Avenue or co= me in through this paper street to provide access to this soccer field, that c= ould be engineered, but it’s fairly steep here so . . .<= /p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 40

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Polletta: I heard you say before because the soccer field and there is an old fence, I guess you cannot do the work that= you want to do?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Not without impacting the soccer f= ield into that area.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: The fence is old, (inaudible) new fence. I’m a member of = the Unico and we put the fence up and we created a soccer field there, however,= we are in the process now to remove that fence and put a new fence in so we’re trying to get some money from different business people, but wh= at was your concern about that fence? Is it too close to the brook?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Well it’s not the fence itse= lf, it’s the fact that the soccer field is so close to the brook as it is= and the soccer field is substandard in terms of playing, I mean they’re n= ot wide enough, they’re basically . . . .

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: Well (inaudible) they had no place= to put it.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Right, I mean there’s not a l= ot of flat land in Watertown, flood plains, flat land.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: We looked for land. We got a bunch of Italians togethe= r and . . . . .

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: I come from a soccer town so IR= 17;m definitely partial to soccer.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: I see that the gray area, is that = the whole length of the project that you’re talking about widening the stream?

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

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: From the bridge down below all the= way up to French Street?

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

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: So we’re not just talking be= hind the plaza or behind the Kn= ight Street area.&= nbsp; We’re doing the whole length?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 41

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Lecco: Yea, it needs to be done in order = to create enough storage of water during high flows to keep these two areas hi= gh and dry. We overcompensated a little bit for the storage that’s needed, = just to be conservative, but once the final design is in, this could actually get smaller. We feel that some of= these areas could actually get smaller, maybe we don’t have to go all the w= ay up there, maybe we could cut that off over here.=

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: Going back to that fence, because = we have to change it, is there anything that maybe we should do before we put a new one up? We’re only changing the structure of the fence; we’re not moving anything. But if we have to move away from t= he river, it would be something that I could bring to that board next time. Or you need both soccer fields?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: As we designed it right now, we= 217;re not going to be touching the fence.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: We can but it in the s= ame place, though, we’re just going to fix it.=

&nb= sp;

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

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: But all of this is to save the flo= oding for the plaza and the Knig= ht Street area?

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

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: I’ve been to that area when = it flooded so there is no residential area, it’s just the Knight Street industrial building that’s the name of the fire truck and Matty’s Paving and the plaza.

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

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: And this project now we’re s= aying is somewhere between $3,700,000 to $4,000,000?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: No, $1,800,000 for 1997.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Dupliesse: We’re ta= lking closer to $4,000,000 for 2004.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: No, not that much, more like around $2,400,000 if you just use= the standard inflation rate.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 42

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Dupliesse: And that’s today?=

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Right.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: But we’re not saying we̵= 7;re going to do that today, or the next 2 years or 3 years?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: Right, our schedule at this point we’ll be producing the environmental impact document within a month of two, then once that’s approved by the State, then there will be a design that would need to be do= ne and the money for that design I don’t know where that is coming from,= it could be the D.E.P., town or some joint effort on the design, and the design schedule would probably, my guess is probably 8 months to a year design, so= in the best world it would be like 2 years out, or something like that. It’s very hard to speculate = at this point.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Dupliesse: And that’s to save those buildings, that’s all it is. It’s basically the plaza and the Knight Street area that floods.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: Right. Now we will be conducting a cross benefit analysis to look at the cost of this versus the actual benefit in t= erms of dollars to this area.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Dupliesse: Well that’s what I’m t= rying to get at, is what’s the value of the plaza and t= he Knight Street buildings?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Well that’s what they’= re going to be studying.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: That’s part of our study is = to look at that. And we have the= 1994 flood to use as a guide and so we’ll be using those numbers and modif= ying them and updating them.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: In 1994 how did that fall in a 100= year storm? Was that a 35 year sto= rm, was it a 50 year?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Lecco: That’s a good question.=

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: That was a pretty bad storm, I mean there was (inaudible) flooding there.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Lecco: I’d have to look into that.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The entire = Watertown Plaza buildings were under water, so it was greater than a 35 year storm. I don’t know if it was a 100= year storm, I don’t believe it was.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 43

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: Matty’s was 2 feet under wat= er, you couldn’t get into them.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Lecco: Correct. Yea, we actually have some old pho= tos of that.

Mr. Dupliesse: That’s what I’m wondering, how much is it worth to save the properties?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Lecco: When you’re looking at flood= frequency, like a 100 year flood, it’s sort of a misnomer because it’s more like a statistical tool. Let’s just take a 30 year or a 25 year flood. In a 30 year storm the chances of having a 25 year flood or greater is 71%. That’s what’s used in residential mortgages. It giv= es you a sense of the frequency of flooding. It’s not a every 100 year flood tha= t this occurs.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: But that area has been under water= a couple of times now in the past 15 years.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Yes, that would be your 10 year, 1= 5 year events.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Well I think at this point youR= 17;re just looking for comment and, I mean we’re not talking costs so much here. That’s a separate= issue which will come out in public hearing, etc.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Right. We’re looking for your input= at this early stage cause we don’t want to ad= vance this project knowing that down the road it’s not going to be permitab= le at any level, and like I said the Corps of Engineers and the Fish & Wildlife Service and D.E.P.’s own regulatory division has given their conceptual blessings to this project. They think that it offers improvements to the riparian corridor of t= he stream because right now it’s very limited. The stream quality and the fisheri= es habitat is fair to moderate and we don’t propose to actually do anyth= ing that’s going to negatively affect those things, but we’re going= to improve the wildlife habitat along the stream margins and this will also improve water quality downstream.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Who actually has jurisdiction? Is it the State on something like = this or is it this Commission?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: You guys would have jurisdiction.<= o:p>

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Rafey: For wetland activities you have jurisdiction.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 44

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: The State would have jurisdiction = for a 401 water quality certificate and a flood management certification.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: This wouldn’t be like a high= way project where the State can pretty much do what it wants.=

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Lecco: No, this is not State proper= ty, this is not State right of way.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Rafey: If you deny this they cannot do it= .

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: So we have lots of say.=

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: That invasive species, do you plan = to clear that out as part of the project?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: On the sides that we propose to do= work, we’re going to be clearing out the invasive species and replanting wi= th native subplant species and we would just put some representative species s= uch as elms, black willows, dogwoods, alders, which are preferred cause they ro= ot quickly and they’re good for stream stabilization. Anything would be a native species= with high wildlife value.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Or you could run a walking trial a= long there.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: Yea, we’ve actually shown, that’s another exciting part of the project is that t= here is actually an opportunity to do that.&nbs= p; We’ve shown the wetlands on this plan and we could run a stone dust trail, something very simple along the flood plain margin and then aro= und this fresh water wetland and eventually there could be a connection on the other side of French Street if somebody were to take that on. We haven’t really looked at = that crossing, the feasibility of that at this point, but at least for this area, this could be a contributory element to the overall master plan for the flo= od plains. That’s where we= stand now. We welcome any comments = you may have tonight or at any other time.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: What is the round structure here o= n the left, second one down?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: That’s a manhole. That’s a storm scepter. There will be some utility relocat= ion involved with this project, and that’s one of the impacts that we’re really taking a hard look at now.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 45

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: You have power lines in there?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Yea, the power lines run parallel = on the western side of the street.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Ms. Sturgis: If you put this walking trail, what’s the access to it?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Lecco: Well there are a couple of areas.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The bridge, this is the parking ar= ea for the soccer field, so on the side of the soccer field you could use that area. Also this is a paper st= reet and it’s maintained sort of overgrown now, but you can see that it’s a clearing of some sort, off Edward Avenue and that could be use= d as access for local residents in this area and the high school is over here so= it makes sense to do that.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Berger: It’s good to point out that = the high school is fairly close here. There is a steep grade between here and the high school but there is= the potential to connect the high school with this area as well, with this walk= ing trail and maybe a vehicle access at some point in the future or as part of = this project.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: Once this thing is totally complet= ed, what’s the width of the river or the water way?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: The river proper, the river where the base flow is stays the same. The shelving, about 50 feet of additional work on either side. Of course that is, we’re meeting grade in an area that is currently lawn= and would be vegetated.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: So do you normally take the middle= of the river now and you go?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: No we take one side.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: Which is going to be on the other = side of the plaza?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Right, except in a few areas behin= d the SNET building we’re going to do widening on both sides because itR= 17;s just an open lawn there and it’s an area where we have an opportunity= to create flood storage on both sides, and that’s very important because that’s upstream of the area to be flooded, cause that’s subject= to flooding, so we tried to maximize that.&nb= sp; And this will be all refined as we get into a more formal design. I know it looks like a formal desi= gn, that’s the beauty and the curse of AutoCAD.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 46

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Dupliesse: So basically you’re just making a big long holding area for the water?<= /span>

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Yes., b= ut it is part of the stream system, it’s not separate, and it’s not goin= g to look like a detention pond in that there won’t be rip rap on the side= s.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: I’m looking at this properly, you’re showing it this way but then the other line widens to put this way, so when we’re doing that are you lowering the level of water?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: No. This is the current level of the w= ater, this stays the same. Now when= you get like a Spring flood or a 2 year storm event,= it will eventually spill over, almost like a spillway onto this new shelf area= , it acts as a spillway.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: The shelf area is going to be dry = much of the year.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Yes, except like on a day like thi= s, or the past few days, that area would be an active area.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Berger: These additional shelf and storage= areas will lower the 100 year flood, that is the goal of providing that additional storage area, so during the big storm events you drop the flood level so th= at it doesn’t get into the building, but on a day on a flood, even like today the depth of the stream would be as it is today. When you get that major flood it w= ill drop a couple of feet?

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

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Rafey: But the entire are= a will be out of the 100 year flood zone?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Correct. The buildings will be.<= /span>

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Berger: They’ll still have parking l= ot flooding I think is what they’re showing.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: Right there is still some parking = lot flooding on this side of the Watertown Plaza and once we g= et into final design, we may find out that this line actually moves in a little bit, but that’s the way it’s currently planned. Generally parking areas being floo= ded during a 100 year storm event is, just people can’t shop that day I guess.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 47

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: I don’t think that’s accurate, now all that parking space, because about a year ago it was redon= e.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: That’s possible, this is a 97 survey.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: There is some parking area because= we put some poles up.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Rafey: There’s more landscaping now.=

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: Would it be worth it for the plaza= owner to make some sort of a dike or levy on that side, so that he doesn’t flood.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: That was proposed as part of one of these other alternatives was a flood wall right behind the plaza with a dike upstream. But there is a lot = of land impact associated with that.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: All this (inaudible).

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: That’s all landscaped, okay.= Well in that case it would just be= the landscaping that would be flooded.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Polletta: It’s gras= s.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Rafey: Do you think that this is the way = that this project should go? Do yo= u have any suggestions or alternatives?

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: I don’t know. It seems to me that like they̵= 7;ve done enough jobs, different alternatives here. I can’t think of anything.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Dupliesse: Well they’re still doing the study.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: Right, so you̵= 7;ll have another opportunity before you actually see a permit application.=

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: So you think that will be in a cou= ple of months?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: Probably, yea.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: This has to be approved by what, t= he general?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 48

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Lecco: The Office of Poli= cy and Management actually approves.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Polletta: The question is it’s not goi= ng to go before the public, or will there be a public hearing and they’re going to vote on it?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Lecco: The public hearing is for this environmental impact exaltation is sort of informational. There’s no voice, per say. The Office of Policy and Managemen= t has the ultimate authority to judge whether we’ve evaluated the impacts of the project adequately. Wheth= er they agree or not has no bearing whatsoever. They don’t render a decision= on whether they think it’s a good project. You could propose something outrag= eous and they could approve the document, but you still have to go get your perm= its to do it, and that’s the ultimate test is when we come before this Commission, the Corps of Engineers, and the DE.P. Water Qualities Division.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Rafey: We had a field trip, a site walk a= nd I suggested they come to the Commission for a preliminary discussion to see if you had any recommendations or suggestions before they bring an actual application.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Lecco: If you have any comments whatsoeve= r, my guess is you could funnel it through Moosa and I’ll be in contact with him and I’ll leave copies of 11 x 17 copies of what you see here so t= hat you have a chance to leisurely reading in your spare time. (Tape #3, Side A ended – may have missed some.)

&nb= sp;

9. = Communications and Bills

&nb= sp;

A. = State = of Connecticut DEP Guidelines Upland Review Area Regulations Connecticut’s Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Act

B. = An Inland Wetland Commissioner’s Guide to Site Plan Review

C. Stream Crossing Guidelines

D. = ; 2004 Municipal Inland Wetland Commissioners Training Program An Introduction to Principles and Practices Presented by The Attorney General’s Office

E. = Large Woody Debris A Vital Part of Forest and = Stream Health by George Robison

Mr. Rafey:= These are some of the materials fr= om the Training Program for New Commissioners.&nb= sp; I made copies for everyone; they are very useful.

MOTION:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. Thermer, sec. Mr. Jones) to accept Communications and Bills, Agenda Items 9A through 9E as presented.

Discussion: None<= o:p>

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU= SLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2004

PAGE 49

10. Repor= ts from Officers and Committees

&nb= sp;

None

11. Repor= ts from Staff

&nb= sp;

A. Reflection at Echo <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">Lake Condominium Development, Ice House Road

Mr. Berger: Tonight you were given= an updated weekly construction activity report (inaudible) dated yesterday, Ap= ril 14^th. As I’m= sure you’re all aware we had some significant rainfall on Tuesday evening = and again last night as well and Moosa and I spent a significant amount of time Wednesday at Reflections reviewing the items that are outlined here. Items #1 through #8 are items we identified as needing improvement, needing to be addressed. There was some fine sediment that = was not trapped, but again with a rainfall event of somewhere between 2 and 4 inches of rain, the site did pretty well, considering that much rainfall. We have been working with them and outlined these measures the tighten the place ba= ck up. Item #8 on the schedule h= ere, we’ve asked them for a 30 day schedule of where they plan to be. For those of you who have been at = the site, there is a significant stockpile is still right out near the road and= in part of the detention basin and we’re going to be pushing very hard f= or them to get that out of there, either relocate it to the upper part of the = site where it will be used for road base material, or get it off site to complete the detention basin, get that area seeded, stabilized and so that not only = does it function well but it also looks nicer.&= nbsp; It is functioning pretty well right now, even though it looks terrible. It is functioning v= ery well really.