MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR
MEETING
WATERTOW=
N HIGH
SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
THURSDAY,
APRIL 20, 2006 - 7:30 PM
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Lucia
DiBona
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
; &n=
bsp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Glenn
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; Denise
Russ
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Martha
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Chuck
Berger, Town Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Zoning Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:26 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Thermer, in his
absence.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Russ to sit in for Mr. Duplissie, in his abse=
nce.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 2
3. =
Public
Participation
Mr. Crawford: I’m here on behalf of the
applicant to ask the commission to add to the Agenda an application for a
single lot division off of Litchfield Road. The property is located at 451
Litchfield Road.
Mr. Zawadzki: Is there an application number on =
that?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Application #555.
MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Ms. Russ) to Add Agenda Item 6B, Application #555.
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
Mr. Berger:=
I am staff liaison to both this
commission as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission and I’ve been
asked to relay some information to you from the Planning and Zoning
Commission. As you’re a=
ware
the Heritage Development Group is going to be coming before the Town in the
near future for a 55 and Older development off of Bunker Hill Road, and beh=
ind
Straits Turnpike and out Middlebury Road.&=
nbsp;
Mr. Houlihan, the applicant’s representative has come before b=
oth
this Commission and most recently before the Planning and Zoning Commission=
on
March 15th sort of in a preliminary discussion mode to talk about
some things that he wants to get the Commissions’ feedback prior to
making a formal application, and one of the items she was looking for some
input from the Planning and Zoning Commission on was the emergency access r=
oad
that has been discussed going out to Middlebury Road, and at the March 15, =
2006
Planning and zoning Commission meeting, they passed a motion encouraging th=
at
the, and I’ll hand the meeting minutes in for the record, the motion =
was
made and seconded that the Planning and zoning commission encourages that t=
he
emergency access road be paved.
They wanted me to communicate that to this Commission for your
information and I will probably be doing that again when you the application
does come in, but for the purposes of tonight I’ll add this section of
the meeting minutes into the record just for your information.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 3
4. =
Action
on Minutes
=
A. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, January 12, 2006, App. #540, Arthur
Howland
=
B. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, January 12, 2006, App. #542, William
Davidson
=
C. =
Regular Meeting, January 12, 2006
=
D. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, February 9, 2006, App. #540, Arthur
Howland
=
E. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, February 9, 2006, App. #542, William
Davidson
=
F. =
Public Hearing, February 9, 2006, App. #544, Donald Curtiss
=
G. =
Public Hearing, February 9, 2006, App. #545, Big Sky Enterprises
=
H. =
Regular Meeting, February 9, 2006
=
I. =
&nb=
sp;
Continuation of Public Hearing, March 9, 2006, App. #540, Arthur
Howland
=
J. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, March 9, 2006, App. #544, William
Davidson
=
K. =
Regular Meeting, March 9, 2006
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Items 4A through 4G and Table I=
tems
4H through 4K as presented.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
5. =
Pending
Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Application
#544 of Donald Curtiss for construction of 13-lot Bassett Hollow Subdivision
located on the north side of Hollow Road, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
the Public Hearing is closed on April 20, 2006, then a decision is required=
by
June 23, 2006 unless applicant grants a time extension. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki:
This was withdrawn. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey:
Do you want to discuss the applicant’s request to waive the
application fee for the new application? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki:
How do you feel about that waiving the fees? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey:
The staff spent a lot of time reviewing those plans and applications=
and
actually I received 4 or 5 different versions from them during the review
process. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
(Inaudible) enough as it is. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2006 PAGE 4 &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: W=
ell in
the past I think when we have done that, it was when something was extenuat=
ing
or it was due to the process or due to the Commission and beyond the
applicant’s control, but if it’s within the applicant’s
control I don’t feel it’s a good idea. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: I agree. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta:
I agree. We spent a lo=
t of
time. I think we should not w=
aive
the fee. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Ms. Russ) to Not Waive the Application Fees for Application =
#544 of Donald Curtiss for construction of
13-lot Bassett Hollow Subdivision located on the north side of Hollow Road,
Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Ms. Russ) to Accept the Withdrawal Letter for Application #5=
44 of Donald Curtiss for construction of
13-lot Bassett Hollow Subdivision located on the north side of Hollow Road,
Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY &=
nbsp; B. =
Application
#547 of Watertown Woods, LLC for 13-lot Wolf Hill residential subdivision
located on Woodbury Road, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
the Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by April 14, 20=
06. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: We just need a Motion to Table sinc=
e the
applicant didn’t show up. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Ms. Russ) to Table Application #547 of Watertown Woods, LLC =
for
13-lot Wolf Hill residential subdivision located on Woodbury Road, Watertow=
n,
CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2006 PAGE 5 C. Application
#548 of St. Mary Magdalene Church Corp. for an addition to St. Mary Magdalen
School, 140 Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT. &=
nbsp; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by May 29, 2006.<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: The applicant call=
ed
today and they are working on some drainage calculations and how to provide
detention for this development, and the plans and data are not ready yet, so
they asked that the Commission Table this Application until next month. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Ms. =
Russ,
sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table Application #548 of St. Mary Magdalene Church Co=
rp.
for an addition to St. Mary Magdalen School, 140 Buckingham Street, Oakvill=
e,
CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY D. Application
#546 of Patrick Graziano for 11-lot residential subdivision located on Love=
ly
Drive, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; If
the Public Hearing is Closed on April 20, 2006, then a decision is required=
by
June 23, 2006. &=
nbsp; MOTION: (Ms. =
Russ,
sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Application #546 of Patrick Graziano for 11-lot
residential subdivision located on Lovley Drive, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2006 PAGE 6 E. =
Application
#549 of Patrick Graziano for construction of 32-lot Highview Estates
Subdivision, Phase II located on Lovely Drive, Kimberly Lane, and Pond View
Drive, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; If
the Public Hearing is Closed on April 20, 2006, then a decision is required=
by
June 23, 2006. &=
nbsp; MOTION: (Ms. =
Russ,
sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Application #549 of Patrick Graziano for
construction of 32-lot Highview Estates Subdivision, Phase II located on Lo=
vely
Drive, Kimberly Lane, and Pond View Drive, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY F. =
Application
#550 of Dorothy and Willis Fairchild for construction of a single family
dwelling on Lot 6B Winthrop Street, Oakville, CT. &=
nbsp; If
the Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by May 12, 2006=
. &=
nbsp; Dorothy
Fairchild, 6 Burnham Street, Oakville, CT&=
nbsp;
06779 &=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: The reason I&#=
8217;m
here is I’m requesting permission to construct a driveway and home wi=
thin
the 50 foot wetland boundary. The
alternative would have brought the house close to the neighbor and northern
boundary and left an unbalanced appearance to the neighborhood. Before I begin I want to thank all=
the
members that walked the site Saturday morning as I requested that you do so
with my statement last meeting.
I’m going to read my same statement that I read last meeting so
the public can hear it and I’d like to pass it out. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; “I
am shocked to find out that an old map shows that a section of my approved =
building
lot on Winthrop Street is described as wetlands. Homes in this neighborhood are in =
the
12.5 acre zone of Oakville and this area has been developed for years. I don’t know how the old map=
reads
but I do know that there are no wetland vegetation, no wetland wildlife and=
no
drainage ditch. I have never =
seen
it puddle up regardless of season.
The lot was always used as a lawn and baseball field by my
grandchildren. In 2001 our su=
rveyor
pointed out to us that there was a paper street called Amherst on the south=
ern
line of the property and we would have to abide with the 35 foot frontage of
Amherst as well as the 35 foot frontage of Winthrop. The house would have an balanced
placement in the neighborhood according to those setbacks. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2006 PAGE 7 We
decided to apply to abandon Amherst Street in order to place the house in t=
he
middle of the lot. With the
majority of the abutting neighbors in agreement, we gained approved from th=
e Town
to eliminate Amherst. As a re=
sult
our frontage has been increased to 125 feet on Winthrop Street. As a petitioner my daughter and I
incurred all of the related expenses for the surveying of the paper street =
and
for the Town lawyer to prepare deeds for all of the abutting property
owners. This benefits everyon=
e in
the Town because more taxes are being paid. And it also increases the value of=
all
these neighbor’s properties at my expense. Now at this juncture as we are rea=
dy to
build we are faced with a new problem called wetlands, and wetlands statutes
require a 50 foot buffer zone. We
are back to where we were in 2001.
I will not be happy if I have to place my house on the northern boun=
dary
of daughter’s property line.
As I stated before, the house would have an unbalanced appearance on=
the
lot. Thank you.” &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Then neighbor who =
lives
on the southerly side of this property, if you look at the tax map that was=
in
the packet, he lives on lot #6, Carmine, he drew up this letter and asked m=
e to
give it to the Commission to read into the record tonight. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the following letter for the record: The following is writt=
en
notification of my objection to the request by Lot 6B Winthrop Street Oakvi=
lle
CT to get a variance on the distance they may build form the wetlands. My property on 77 Winthrop Street =
is
adjacent to the future new development.&nb=
sp;
I have been told by town officials that the house would have to be b=
uilt
50 feet away from the wetland area.
I am concerned because of the hole that was located on the marked
wetland area as though as an area next to my property that must be filled in
with loan every other year. I=
have
brought the two holes to the attention to the Wetlands Committee when they
walked they property this past weekend.&nb=
sp;
I am concerned that more of my property will be affected if this
variance is allowed by the Town for the building of this house. I do not find my request unreasona=
ble in
that the house can still be built but yet maintain the 50 foot distance
regulated because of the wetland issue.&nb=
sp;
My contention is that if I have to be concerned about the wetland is=
sue
and its affect on my property why cant this Watertown regulation stand in t=
he
construction of this house? T=
hese
regulations were put in place to aide and protecting existing structures.
&=
nbsp; “April
20, 2006
Sincerely,
Carmine
Farrassi
77 Winth=
rop
Street
Oakville,
CT 06779”
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 8
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: For those commissi=
on
members who were present at the site walk, this is the gentleman that walked
with us and talked to the commissioners and showed us the problem he has wi=
th
this lot.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I was on of the=
guys
who walked it, by you (inaudible) this roadway you gain 25 feet, is that
correct?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Yes, we both
gain. Both sides.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I understand.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: You mean if I =
move
it north?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Yes. If you moved the house a little cl=
oser
to your daughter, meet the regulations, would you still be able to build the
house?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Yes, but like =
we
said we think that it would be an unbalanced appearance to the neighborhood=
.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: No, what I̵=
7;m
saying the total lot before you start dividing, is 200 feet?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Yes.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You are in an R=
-12.5
so it’s 12,500 square feet, so if you move the house closer to your
daughter, and the setback if I remember correctly is 10 feet from your
daughter’s house, you still have room in between. I don’t understand what the
problem is. I do not understa=
nd why
you cannot put the house and meet the regulations and keep the neighbor
happy. I mean if it’s
wetlands, it’s wetlands. If
he complained, if he believes we saw a hole in his yard too.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: The neighbor w=
ished
to abandon the street prior to us abandoning the street and he wished to put
his house closer. He was not
concerned with wetlands at that time.
I have letters, it’s all in the Town record, I wish you would =
just
read these thoroughly before you make a decision. He is unhappy with the communicati=
on he
has and he’s mentioning names of staff people and Mary Barton, and
it’s all in the record, I have a letter of his, he never went through=
the
application process, so he is a very upset person and he is taking it out o=
n us
because he’s upset with the Town.&nb=
sp;
Now all of a sudden he’s concerned with the wetlands. He was never concerned with wetlan=
ds
before.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: The question is=
is it
wetlands or not? If it’s
wetlands, if it’s a poor or a pristine wetlands, it’s wetlands,=
and
I thought if you could not move the house over and build your house.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Can we make a
compromise so that it looks better?
I’ll have such a big yard between my house and his house, I co=
uld
put a baseball diamond, I could have all my picnics there, I could have a l=
ot
of nuisance things to bother him.
If I put my house in the middle, I have two short yards on each side,
I’d have like 30 feet on either side, that would be more beneficial to
me.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: If there were no
wetlands, but because there are wetlands flags, we try to keep everybody
happy. (Inaudible) more in the
paper street than in your daughter’s property when I looked at it.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Yes.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: So there were
wetlands on the paper street and . . . .
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Why did I aban=
don
the paper street? My son-in-l=
aw who
is deceased now, put on the application to the Town of Watertown the reason=
he
wants to abandon the street and we got cooperation from a majority of the
neighbors and I have it right here, on his application to abandon the paper
street he put “I have divided my property at 6 Burnham Street to allow
for an additional building lot for a family member to build on. With the abandonment of the paper =
road,
Amherst Street, the builder can locate the foundation of the new house on t=
he
center of the property and the setback would not be involved any longer from
the paper street.” He w=
ent
through this whole thing of applying.
When the neighbor walked away with the application he should have re=
ad
that he needed a majority of owners whose property abuts this street to be
abandoned, and he could have gotten that.&=
nbsp;
Instead he writes letters blaming everybody in town, letter is here,=
I
don’t know if I want to read it.&nbs=
p;
We went through this for 3 years thinking . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta We have to talk =
about
wetlands. Right now, what I&#=
8217;m
trying to say, when did you divide this lot, about a year ago?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: 2000.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 10
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Okay. The zoning regulations changed bef=
ore
2000. If you had to do it tod=
ay,
without that paper street, what I’m trying to say, you couldn’t
even divide this lot, you would not have a lot, because it’s only 200=
x
100, so by gaining the paper street, you should be happy to get a lot. And my point is we have wetlands a=
nd a
regulation to follow and your neighbor is upset about it because he’s=
got
wetlands on his side.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: May I tell you=
the
size of the wetland? It’=
;s 7 x
10 feet, as big as a banquet table.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I was there.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: I’ve been
paying taxes on it. We put a =
sewer
in.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: On the full pie=
ce.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: No, we put a s=
ewer
in.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: The lot is 200 x
100. Today if you divide it w=
ithout
that paper street you would not have 2 lots. Am I right or wrong?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: But this was 6=
years
ago. We’ve been working=
on
this for 6 years.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: I think the lot is=
sue is
not for the Commission, it’s existing, the subdivision already happen=
ed,
this in the wetlands, your question, it’s a good question, they can m=
ove,
can this house be moved a little bit fro the wetlands to the other side?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Can we move it
closer to the wetland and not have (inaudible)?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: No, closer to your
daughter’s house.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: It can be buil=
t that
way. But then I’m going=
to
have a whole lot of land on that side.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: If you look at the=
map
that I’ve given you, there is a dotted line, that is the buildable ar=
ea,
that means it is 35 feet from the front setback, 30 feet from the rear, and=
10
feet from each side. Anywhere
within that dotted area this house can be built. Right now the way it is proposed i=
t is
27 feet from the edge of the wetlands.&nbs=
p;
If they can move it north, it can be outside of the regulated area.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Is that something you can do?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 11
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Well I donR=
17;t
understand how many feet you’re saying I should be from the northern
line?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: The house can be 1=
0 feet
from the northern line.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Can it be 20 f=
eet
from the northern line? 30 fe=
et?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: It’s up to t=
he
Commission.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: That’s w=
hat
I’m going for.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: (Inaudible) out =
of the
wetlands, isn’t it?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Right, if at all
possible.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: If it’s alre=
ady
outside of the wetlands, but this is within the 50 foot upland review area.=
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I’m tryin=
g to
keep everybody happy.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: So if we moved =
it 26
feet north . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Right now the hous=
e is
35 feet from the northern property line, and they need only 10 feet, so that
means they can move up to 25 feet closer to the northern property line.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: And right now
it’s 26 feet into the regulated area, right?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, by moving thi=
s I
twill be outside of the regulated area.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well it would be
right at.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Maybe this require=
s a
little grading within the 50 foot setback during the construction.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: But that’=
s no
problem.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, the impact wi=
ll be
much smaller than what is proposed now. But this is a very small as you saw=
on
the site walk, it’s a very small area of the wetland.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: It is (inaudibl=
e) but
this guy is concerned about it and I’m trying to keep everybody happy=
.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 12
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Well sir I wis=
h you
would look back into the records and see he wasn’t concerned years ag=
o,
just complaining that we got to do it and he didn’t get to do it beca=
use
I have the records right off the computer.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well our missio=
n here
is to be concerned about the wetlands, and what happened I the past with his
property really isn’t relevant at this time.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: I agree, IR=
17;m
just bringing it up.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: His letter is s=
aying
that why can’t you follow the rules and regulations of the wetlands a=
nd
you’re saying well bend, and he couldn’t do it, and now he̵=
7;s
got a letter in front of us, so we try to make sure that everybody is happy=
and
not take sides.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Wetlands
weren’t an issue with his house, were they?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: No.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: So
that’s completely besid=
es the
point.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: You’re s=
aying
the wetlands weren’t an issue for my house?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: No, the
Farrassi’s house.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: They werenR=
17;t
at that time but now he says there’s a depression which I could see on
his side, and he keeps filing it in, he was filing in the road right to the
center for years and years, and there were pine trees going down the center=
of
the road so the Town couldn’t even go down that road if they had to.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This is a 50 foot wide paper stree=
t,
previously, now it’s gone.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: So when he =
built
his house, that was a paper street, he couldn’t build any closer.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Right, he had =
to go
35 feet.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Now what=
217;s
happened, is he’s got that land the hole has been developing, he sees=
a
wetland on your property he’s concerned if you build your house
it’s going to upset that and make his hole worse. That’s perfectly logical.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: I understand t=
hat if
I did not eliminate the paper street, I would not have wetlands on my land.=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 13
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Right.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: But I’d =
still
have to go in 35 feet from the edge of the street so that would put me right
back 10 feet from my daughter’s line. She’d be here to talk but
she’s upset knowing I was going to read what her husband had asked for
when we applied 5 years ago (Tape #2, Side B ended – may have missed
some).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Wetlands
weren’t checked at that point.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well another th=
ing is
there’d be another situation if by moving the house you wouldn’=
t be
able to build it at all, but if you moved it over you could still build the
house, in other words you’d still be able to use your land.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: we were able to
build when we had 100 foot frontage, we were still able to build the house =
but
eliminating the paper street seemed like the logical thing to do to approve=
the
whole area, for all the people abutting that street, and gaining more value=
to
our property and their property.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Do you know how=
far
your daughter’s house is from the property line?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Well her deck =
does
extend out because it’s her back yard. She’d be looking down, v=
ery
close to the side of my house if it were just 10 feet from the property lin=
e.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: it should be a min=
imum
of 30 feet if that is the property line of their house. The setback requirement for that z=
one is
30 feet from the rear property line.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Do you mean fo=
r the
deck?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, for their hou=
se,
your daughter’s house. =
If
they have 30 feet and then you keep 10 feet, the distance between the two
houses will be 40 feet.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Right, but she=
wants
to put a shed in which we were getting a permit for, but that’s anoth=
er
thing.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, well . . .=
.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Where does =
it
end? In other words in order =
to
meet the regulations, we have to move it over 13 feet, is that right?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: No, 23 feet. It will be 12 feet from the proper=
ty
line, not 10 feet.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 14
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: What if we =
split
the difference?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: There is some
disturbance during construction.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I agree, but if=
we
split the difference I think it’s better going the full 50 feet
(inaudible) go 40 feet. It=
217;s
another 13 feet over, and then it will still give you another 10 feet, so
instead of being almost 30 feet, it will be about 40 feet. Another 10 feet you stay away from=
the
wetlands so he can say that you got right on top of it. I mean we try to keep everybody
happy. There are wetlands the=
re. When I saw it at first I didn̵=
7;t
think it was wetlands either.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: I never saw . =
. . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: It’s base=
d on
soil type.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: It’s =
not
because it was water.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Do you have a =
map of
the neighbor’s wetlands? Or
are you just taking his word for it?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: No, but . . . .=
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I’m only
looking at the wetlands in your lot.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Yea, but he=
217;s
claiming he has wetlands, I would like to have .c. . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: That
doesn’t even enter into the thing.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: No.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: But you want t=
o keep
him happy because you’re saying he’s worried about his wetlands=
.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well, we would =
only
have to worry about his if he had an application in front of us.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: But he may be =
making
a statement, he’s not sure it’s a wetlands. It didn’t matter years ago; =
all of
a sudden it matters.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: That’s
right. Regulations have chang=
ed and
years ago you could build almost anywhere.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 15
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I’m willi=
ng to
go another 13 feet and stay 40 feet instead of 50 feet and split the
difference.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: I would agr=
ee
with that.
&= nbsp; Ms. Sturgis: I think so too.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; Willis
Fairchild, 6 Burnham Street, Oakville CT&n=
bsp;
06779
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Fairchild: Now, you people walked the lot. I don’t know you, the one do=
ing
all the talking, right?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Yea, that’=
;s
because . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Fairchild: It rained the =
night
before, you went over there, I went over there before you got there, my sho=
es
didn’t even get wet for crying out loud. I know about wetlands, you take a =
soil
test and it’s a little different or something, these are scientists t=
hat
are predicting the end of the world, there’s spots on the moon, and a=
ll
this stuff, and how can you predict a wetland. I checked around the neighborhood =
. . .
.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Can I say
something? (inaudible) it was
flagged by an expert, not by me, Joe Polletta, it was flagged by somebody t=
hat
has experience in wetlands type soils, so that’s how I looked at it.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> When I looked at it I didn’t=
think
it was wetlands, I mean I have pieces next to my house that I didn’t
think was wetlands, but it is cause of the type of soil.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Fairchild: I understand,
because of the type of soil. =
All
these years I’ve been going to my daughters to picnics and everything,
sir, there’s never been any water in there, never.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: There
doesn’t have to be.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Fairchild: No, what this =
guy
who’s against it, all of a sudden, he never came to meetings before. =
He
accused me of not coming to any meetings.&=
nbsp;
Of course I (inaudible). My
late son-in-law who is dead now came to all these meetings. His name is Greg Hjenig. He came to these meetings faithful=
ly
with my wife and maybe somebody else, he accused me he said I never saw you
there and I said no you didn’t other people came. I understand what the big issue is,
wetlands.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: We try to compr=
omise.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 16
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Your neighbor&#=
8217;s
letter is not relevant, it’s in the record, it’s official, but
we’re basing our discussion on the current (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Fairchild: What the compr=
omise
was?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well the drawing
that’s in front of us and the 50 foot setback line, that sort of thin=
g,
it has nothing to do with Mr. Farrassi.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Fairchild: What is the
compromise?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well we suggest=
ed 40
feet, (inaudible) 50 and that would give you 20 feet from your property line
and to minimize the intrusion into the . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Fairchild: Well we get
something to of it then, right?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Right.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Now that we ha=
ve 125
feet in the south boundary has the wetlands, just where is that wetland and=
if
we start calculating from that, you know what I mean, we had 100 feet befor=
e,
now we have 125 feet. If the
wetlands was in, it’s on the paper street, is that right?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: There is no paper =
street
anymore.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: No, but itR=
17;s
in that area.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: It’s =
on the
drawing. It’s 40 feet f=
rom
that.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: so I just see a
wetlands, then I start counting 40 feet, I go out to my lot, and then the s=
ides
of my house I still might have 30 feet from my daughter’s house, I st=
ill
might have 30 feet from the northern boundary. Is that okay?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yes.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: How far from the n=
orth?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: 40 feet from th=
e edge
of the wetlands.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Right now it is 27
feet. 13 more feet would be c=
lose
to the northern side, towards your daughter’s house.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 17
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: So I’m
gaining, from the northern boundary of my daughter, I’m gaining . . .=
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: it will be 22 feet=
from
the property line instead of 10 feet.
Is that good?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Yea, I guess i=
f I
walk it though and I find out it’s not working out I’m going to
come back.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You’ve go=
t to
flag the wetlands, from the edge of the wetlands you go 40 feet.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Was there flags=
there?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: But I don̵=
7;t
think anybody did that, there was a big argument out there, everybody invol=
ved.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible) do =
it
because you’re building the house.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Then I can act=
ually
build close, you know . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: No you have to =
flag
the wetlands, the edge of the wetlands . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: After I will issue=
a
permit and it will explain in the permit how close this house can be to the
northern side property line.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: So you think i=
t would
be at least 23 feet?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Fairchild: If it helps,
we’ve got the builder here.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: He does a good =
job.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Domenic, do yo=
u now
where the wetlands are?
&= nbsp; Mr. Rafey: It is on the map.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Do we agree, th=
en, 40
feet?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Fairchild: Thank you. I’d like 30 feet, but . . . =
.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 18
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Approve Application #550 of Dorothy and
Willis Fairchild for construction of a single family dwelling on Lot 6B
Winthrop Street, Oakville, CT with the stipulation that the house not be cl=
oser
than 40 feet from the wetlands boundary and the standard conditions.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; G. Application
#551 of Long Horizon Development, LLC for construction of a single-family
dwelling at 44 Beach Avenue, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by May 12, 2006.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: I received a letter from the
applicant, if you want to read it into the record.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the following letter for the record:
&=
nbsp; “April
20, 2006
&=
nbsp; Moosa
Rafey
&=
nbsp; Assistant
Inland/Wetland Enforcement Officer
&=
nbsp; Town
of Watertown
&=
nbsp; Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency
&=
nbsp;
&=
nbsp; Re: Appli=
cation
#551, 44 Beach Avenue
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Construction
of a Single Family Dwelling
&=
nbsp; I
would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the Inland/Wetland Age=
ncy
for your valuable time in consideration of this request. I’m sorry I cannot attend th=
is
evening’s meeting. Plea=
se
present this memo to the commission in my absence. Based upon discussions at the prev=
ious
meting and at the site visit, it is my understanding that the Commission ha=
s concerns
about the proposed location of the dwelling. At this time it does not appear to=
be
feasible based on appearance to rotate the dwelling 90 degrees and place al=
ong
the northern property line as discussed.&n=
bsp;
Understanding that other options appear to be limited, I respectfully
request that the Commission consider a proposal as submitted. I fully expect
the Commission will act in an appropriate manner and am prepared to accept =
the
outcome either way. Your consideration and service are greatly appreciated.=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 19
&=
nbsp; Very
truly yours,
&=
nbsp; George
(Inaudible)
&=
nbsp; P.O.
Box 16
&=
nbsp; Thomaston,
CT 06787”
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Do you want to talk
about this?
&=
nbsp; Jack
Sobia, 44 Beach Avenue, Watertown, CT
06795
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: I’m the owne=
r of
the property right now. I thank you all for showing up the other day. Your proposal to turn the house 90
degrees, it would just be so out of character with the neighborhood, I beli=
eve
in talking with Mr. Toupance (inaudible) feasible to do that. All the drainage right now as he
indicated at the site visit, all the drainage does flow away from the
watercourse and it does not impact anything that he’s going to do.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Basically you m=
oved
it out of the wetlands area?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: The proposed house is not in the
wetlands area. The wetlands a=
rea
does not start (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible) buf=
fer?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: The buffer for the
watercourse. We’re with=
in the
5 feet, I believe it was 25 feet, if we move that buffer area over a little
bit, it narrows that bottleneck down to 10 feet, in other words less than t=
he
20 feet that is proposed right now.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well right now the house shows
it’s half in the buffer area, and the buffer area comes right down
through the middle of the house, is that right?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Yes, that’s
correct.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Yes, we saw that Saturday, so it
wasn’t changed, right?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: No.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: What’s this about 10 feet on=
the
bottleneck?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 20
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: If we move the pro=
perty
line closer to the existing house, that narrows down that bottleneck, and
we’ll adjust that diagonal line going in the back of the workshop the=
re.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: So does tha=
t say
the house would move 10 feet?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: That would be up to
(inaudible) another permit.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: This lot was creat=
ed
recently and I suggested they go to the Planning and Zoning Commission and =
ask
for a lot line revision to move that property line 10 feet into the abutting
property and provide more land to this lot, and then we can over the house =
11
or 12 feet away from the watercourse.
Or they can relocate the house, instead of putting it this way, they=
can
turn it 90 degrees and put it the other way.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: A gable end and a =
front
door facing the other house on the empty lot and the garage facing (inaudib=
le).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well I’d say as a minimum, t=
o move
the house over I mean if we can get 10 or 12 feet, I think that’s wha=
t we
ought to do at the very east.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: How far into the
buffer is it now? It looks li=
ke
it’s about 20 or 25 feet.
&= nbsp; Mr. Rafey: When they drew the= 50 foot setback line from the setback of the brook, I usually do the measureme= nt from the top of the bank of the brook.&nbs= p; If you measure form there it is much closer than it shows on there.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I suggested on
Saturday, the lot revision I think is a good idea, but I’m just saying
that in this zone, you have to be 20 feet away from the side property line,=
and
I would suggest that because its a lot of work, if he goes before the Zoning
Board of Appeals they will mot do that.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: I don’t reco=
mmend
going for a variance because we don’t want to create new houses
non-conforming to the zoning regulations.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: So the lot revision, then maybe you
could move this line over about 20 feet, no?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: I don’t know=
how
far is the existing house.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Right now I believe it was 50 feet=
from
the existing house to the property line.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 21
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: And what is the requirement?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: 20 feet for the existing house.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: And you have 50, so if you take th=
at and
divide it in half, you could go 25 and 25, and if you do that, if you have =
this
slight revision, you’re almost out of the buffer area totally. You only need the lot revision and=
I
don’t think that will be a problem.&=
nbsp;
I think Moosa’s idea is a good idea.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: It’ makes sense to me.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: And the existing h=
ouse
could go up as proposed (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible.)
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: And then it stays oriented the way you want it.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: The land size R-30 would stay the =
same,
that diagonal line would obviously change.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: So you do have =
enough
land on the existing house if you move over, if you split that in half and =
took
20, 25 feet, right?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: How big is the lot=
for
the existing house?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Proposed would be =
30,031
square feet.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: No, the existing h=
ouse,
how much land is there?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: It’s 30,031 =
feet
as the map is drawn.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: If they move the
property line then that lot becomes non-conforming.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: So it’s no good then.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: No.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: The existing lo=
t is
30,000 square feet?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: No, the proposed l=
ot
would be 46,572 feet.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 22
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: And the existing lot, so you canno=
t have
a lot revision otherwise the existing house that you have now would not
conform?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: if that line is mo=
ved
over.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: If they move the lot then that is
non-conforming, I don’t recommend that.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Can you shift the house over the o=
ther
way?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: The only other alternative is if w=
e do
this. If we take this diagona=
l line
and bring it over the 10 feet, obviously it comes over 10 feet and angle it
further in the back.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: (Inaudible) and=
then
give it to him in the back and then it will still remain 30,000 square
feet. That makes sense. Cause we seem to build unusual sha=
ped
lots (inaudible) is that wouldn’t be . . . . keep the square footage.=
It would be a funny shape, so I gu=
ess
it’s already a funny shape.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: The Planning and Z=
oning
Commission meets on May 3rd and this commission meets on May 11<=
sup>th. If you can go in front of the P &a=
mp; Z
before the next meetings, if they can approve the lot line revision then you
come back and then this commission can make a decision.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: I’m in a bit=
of a
time constraint, could we get approval pending this change? Remove the 10 feet and then the Pl=
anning
and Zoning Commission approves a new map and then it can be a done deal wit=
hout
having to come back,.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You mean get an approval now subje=
ct to?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Yes.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: The difference would only be 8 day=
s,
from May 3rd to May 11th.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: But the commitment=
s are
lining up and it’s going to really throw it out of whack. We’re purchasing another pie=
ce of
property. If we can close on =
this
otherwise I may lose the other piece of property.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well can we do conditional? I mean we do conditions all the ti=
me.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: What happens if they go to P &=
Z and
they don’t approve it?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Then it falls through.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 23
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: If we move it o=
ver
then we’ll be out of the buffer area, if you can move that lot line o=
ver?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: I think it was 25 feet right now, =
so
we’d make it 35 feet.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: So it wouldn’t be out
completely. You might pick up=
10
feet.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Then I will talk to Mary Barton to=
see
if in the future if somebody goes in front of the Planning and Zoning
Commission for a subdivision of their properties, and if there are wetlands=
on
the lot, they should come to this commission before they get the lot line
revisions or subdivision of these lots, because if they approve these, and =
they
come to you we’re stuck with an existing lot and there’s nothin=
g we
can do.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: This is a perfe=
ct
example, they created a lot and they put it in front of us and now we’=
;ll
be the (inaudible) they should come before us before they went to them.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: This commission sh=
ould
suggest to the Planning and Zoning Commission that in the future that this
comes before the wetlands commission.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: I can do that.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: The drawing shows 21 feet to the
property line. Is that the mi=
nimum?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: 20 feet is minimum=
. They can move 1 foot.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: So we’re going to pick up th=
e 10
feet he’s proposing. Is=
10
feet as far as they can go?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: We have 50 feet, so what we’=
re
doing is moving it over.
(Inaudible) we’ve got 30 o the existing house, 20 on the other
house.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: You have 30 feet f=
or the
other house?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: The new house.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Then you can move =
only
10 feet because you need 20 feet.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: So we have 50 feet
separating it right now. 20 o=
n the
proposed property and 30 on the existing property, so if we take 10 from the
existing, make them both 20, we would push them right to the limit.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 24
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well one would =
be 20
and one would b e30.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: No, because the ho=
use
would shift as well.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: But still you could keep 30,000 sq=
uare
feet fro the existing house . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: We’d have to adjust that dia=
gonal
line.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: So how much (inaudible) are we goi=
ng to
have to the wetlands, 35 feet?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Yes.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Did you say that the measured from=
the
center of the stream and they should have measured from the edge?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: It will still be w=
ithin
the 50 foot setback area, but during the construction even the impact will =
be
more.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: As far as affectin=
g the
drainage, it will still drain as it is right now.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: If you want to approve it the way =
it is
with a condition that they don’t go to that side of the house during
construction and just dig from one side.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Not even to put=
the
foundation all the way around this thing and not go into the buffer, I mean=
I
do construction every day (inaudible) you don’t dig with a spoon.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: And by moving 10 f=
eet we
can probably save that tree that some commission members suggested if we can
keep it.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I think P &=
Z
should never have approve a lot that does not conform.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: We’ll have
conformance (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: They should come before us and the=
n go
to them. They created a lot a=
nd
then what are we going to do with it.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, it conform=
s in
square footage but not in terms of build ability.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 25
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You can’t=
put a
square here because . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: I think probably =
what
happened with Planning and Zoning, this was the first split of that propert=
y,
it was the first free split, and when those happen I mean it’s almost=
as
of right as there is no feasibility plan when there is a first split, as lo=
ng
as it meets the dimensional requirements.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Even though the=
whole
place is wet, you create a lot that you can’t build on it. To me it just doesn’t make s=
ense.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Can you make the (inaudible) not s=
o much
on the house, make it deeper and (inaudible) facing to the front, not that
I’m trying to design something.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: That would be
(inaudible) property.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: (Inaudible.)
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: The building he is proposing is a =
48
foot colonial, is what he said the other day.
&= nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: So what is your position in this?<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: I own the property right now.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well he didn’t even come to =
us, so
it’s hard to really, I mean that’s a good point, I like that id=
ea.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Part of the proble=
m is
that the meeting was supposed to be Good Friday so it got postponed, and he=
had
made other plans prior to knowing that this meeting was changed.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well this w=
as
scheduled from the beginning of the year.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: We made that assum=
ption,
the third Thursday, second Tuesday.
Shame on us we didn’t catch it.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well that’=
;s the
other option, to change the shape of the house. I mean regardless of how it faces,=
if
it’s oriented in the other direction, and it still faces the street, =
that
would solve the problem too.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Well can you fi=
t it
the other way if you move the lot line over?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 26
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: It’s the character of the
neighborhood.
&=
nbsp; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well I thin=
k what
Martha is saying, move it over 10 feet and maybe make it 10 feet narrower,
you’d pick up 20 feet. =
Deeper
and not as wide.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You could do that.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well right now
it’s 25 x 48.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: We could pick u=
p 10
more feet if you move the lot line, and if you make the house a little bit
shorter and a little bit deeper, you could still build it, and you’d =
be
out of the 50 feet, right? I =
would
go for something like that. I=
have
a hard time not being consistent.
If somebody else comes tomorrow, you would do the same thing, and be=
fore
you know it, if you allow all these things to happen, why even have this Bo=
ard?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: What I don’t understand is t=
he
watercourse is not flagged as wetlands, the wetlands re well outside of the=
50
foot buffer. Is it because the
watercourse is there?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, that’s =
also
wetlands.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, and so you go 50 feet on eith=
er
side.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I’m willing to, if we could =
move
the lot line and move the house the other way and make it deeper instead of
longer, I think if we get very close to that (inaudible) into the buffer ar=
ea a
little bit, I’m willing to go for that.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, but we’d have to see
(inaudible) or drawing.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Well I’m =
saying
subject to Planning and zoning giving that lot line.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Well (inaudible) build a narrower =
house.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Face him on the street, but make it
deeper instead of longer.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: I can’t make=
that
call for Mr. Toupance.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: He has to do it, when he buys the =
lot he
has to understand that’s what he has to do, and then we can make a mo=
tion
to approve, subject to. I mea=
n he
cannot go inside the 50 feet because of somebody comes tomorrow, we’ll
have to do the same thing.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 27
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Well it just happened with the per=
son
before.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Exactly, so we =
bent
the rules, but I’m saying, exactly if we did it before then they can =
say
if you did it for them why can’t you do it for me.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Well I just went 10
feet, (inaudible) adjust on that, so that puts you35 feet.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I agree with you, if we did it for=
the,
why can’t we do it for you?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: That’s why
I’m at the meeting; I wouldn’t be here if (Tape #3, Side A ended
– may have missed some).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Do it without the lot in place.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: We said do it subject to.
&=
nbsp; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: If the Commission doesn’t do=
it,
then there is no (inaudible). If
you want, we can table it until next month, because P & Z meets on the =
3rd
and we meet on the 11th, so they can make a decision and approve=
it.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Just realign the m=
ap.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You’ll go for a lot line rev=
ision.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Then the Commission can just table=
this
until next month.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: You can’t make a decision pe=
nding
the approval so I can move ahead?
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: He’s still going to probably=
have
to explain to the his gentleman that he probably can’t fit in his 48 =
foot
wide house, (inaudible) narrow it down, am I correct?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, well he sa=
ys at
this time it does not appear to be feasible based on appearance to rotate t=
he
building 90 degrees, cause this about the same thing as rotating it, changi=
ng
the shape.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Yes.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: I understand there’s a 24 fo=
ot
garage going on there so (inaudible) you’re talking 24 foot garage, 24
foot frontage, so the house now 9ianduble).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 28
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible) so how close are you g=
oing
to be, you’re going to be 10 feet into the buffer?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Right now what did we say Moosa,
we’re going to move it over 25 feet and then move the property line o=
ver
35 feet.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: If you can move 10 more feet it wi=
ll be
35 feet.
&=
nbsp; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia:
There’s no more to get there, so that’s as much as we can move =
it
that way.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: So how much of the house will be i=
nto
the 50 feet?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: 14 or 15 feet.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Can I make a suggestion. If you want to approve this the wa=
y it
is, you can say they should provide some mitigation, they should clean this
watercourse, (inaudible) stuff on both sides of the watercourse. Let it go like the way it is, caus=
e you
gain only 10 feet, that this area will be disturbed again by machines going
around this house, you’re not going to gain that much.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Yea, but the mo=
re you
go into the 50 feet, the worse it is.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Then we can put a condition that t=
hey
can’t go to that side of the house with a machine, if you can dig from
this side, is that possible?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Can you explain that again? How can you dig the foundation
(inaudible)./
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: They can dig their=
hole
from this side and push it this way, instead of going around this area.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well didn’t we have the hous=
e on
Winthrop street that . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: We had one on Middlebury Road.
&=
nbsp; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 29
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: He’s agreed to get a lot line
revision, and then we will have like only 15 feet, but if you leave it the =
way
it is, you'll have like 50% of the house into the 50 foot buffer. You don’t have any problem g=
ong
before P & Z for a lot line.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: No.
I was just hoping to leave here today with an approval pending P &am=
p;
Z.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I would like to=
see
you as much out of the 50 foot buffer, and if you could get the lot line
revision, and you got 10, 15 feet in there, now 50 % of the house is in the=
re.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: And you want the
Commission to make a decision tonight?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Sobia: Subject to (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Moosa, what about those mitigating
factors (inaudible) that’s not such a bad idea.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: No, we’ll still do that. You’re still going to be in =
the
setback, he won’t be completely out of the setback.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Approve Application #551 of Long Horizon Development, LLC for construction of a single-family
dwelling at 44 Beach Avenue, Watertown, CT subject to Planning and Zoning l=
ot
line revision so that the house will be no more than 50 feet into the buffe=
r,
and the northern side of the property line should be moved 10 feet into the
abutting property and the house will be moved 11 feet away from watercourse
toward the northerly side and the usual conditions and cleaning up the
watercourse.
&=
nbsp; Discussion: Mr. R=
afey: Because I’m not sure about t=
he exact
location of that watercourse on this map, it’s better to just regulate
this side of the house, and the house will be moved 11 feet away from the
watercourse.
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 30
&=
nbsp; H. Application
#552 of Anthony Caruso for construction of 8-lot Lakeside Estates Subdivisi=
on,
Phase II located on Caruso Drive, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by May 12, 2006.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville:
On Saturday we met for a site walk and the Commission observed there=
are
numerous existing cottages on the piece that are in various shapes of
condition. There’s an
existing dirt road which extends from the end of the paved section of Caruso
Road, which cuts across a piece of property that is owned by the Town of
Watertown, which is in the first section of Caruso. The Planning and Zoning
Commission decided that one of the conditions was to take a nice piece of
waterfront property which is right in the middle, so the dirt road is going
through there, so our proposal is to extend it about 1300 feet and end it i=
n a
cul de sac with 7 new lots and the existing cottages and trailers will be r=
emoved. At the site walk it was discussed =
about
possibly since there are some acquaint&nbs=
p;
soils wetland that the road is going to go through, (inaudible) there
wee areas on the hillside that were excavated and acquaint soils or wetland=
s is
basically where somebody came in with a machine, dug it out, and now the
groundwater is up near the surface, so actually it’s not really for a=
ny
water retention, it’s basically created a sizable (inaudible) for our
manmade wetlands by somebody coming in and digging out on it. Those are the majority of the wetl=
ands
that we were actually disturbing going through the property. Because there was some disturbance
there, it was discussed about there was a nice area of wetlands next to the
lake there, to extend the Town’s property there, as a condition of
approval. The Commission want=
ed to
vote on it tonight, that would be more than acceptable to extend the proper=
ty
line 100 feet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: During the field trip, where you ar=
e on
the road now, how much wetlands did we lose by putting that road where you
proposes, and if we could gain some other place, and chances are right next=
to
the land that the Town already owns, if possible, how much land, by you
building that road through the wetlands, how much wetlands would we lose? <=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> How much wetlands would be disturbe=
d?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: The total disturbance of wetlands w=
as
around 4,000 square feet. Moo=
sa
could correct me if I’m wrong on the numbers, but (inaudible) gain th=
at
area a more pristine area. On=
e of
the things with the new proposed road is it’s actually moving us off =
of
the Town property towards the enjoyment and recreational use of this wetlan=
ds,
which is one of the prime features, the existing road could actually be use=
d as
a parking area. I mean it see=
med
like it was fairly decent gravel, so by moving it down 100 feet it would
actually give us a little bit better access to it and we’d almost hav=
e a
parking lot that was created.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 31
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: That 5,000 square feet you said that
we’d lose (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: We were going to gain on the lake
side. By removing all of the
cottages, we’ve had Penny Sharp evaluate the site, and she’s
written a report on it, that we’d have a public hearing. I’d (inaudible) report with =
me
that we did discuss it in detail, it just goes through the habitat and
stuff. The main wetlands that
we’re disturbing with this phase, there’s not a large potential
value for it. IN her report s=
he
really didn’t go into any great detail on the lake which I’m su=
re
that there’s a lot of wetland or fish habitat there which I believe is
underneath the purview of the commission, we’re not proposing any
disturbances in the lake. The=
only
disturbance is that a couple of the cottages that are proposed to being
disturbed, they’re very close to the water’s edge so when
they’re removed, you know you’ have the associated disturbance =
with
them being taken out and by them being removed there would be substantial
improvements t the site. I th=
ink
most commission members at the site walk.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: How much open space have you given?=
Have you given any opens pace?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: The majority of the open space
that’s proposed is actually wetlands on the site. There is a small portion of open s=
pace
actually where the cul de sac was, and one of the reasons why I chose this
location was it was more or less if the Town ever expanded or wanted to put
sewers going down on this side of the lake, it seemed like it would be the
ideal point, because it’s near the, it would be the low point, s if
anything was done towards Flint Lock, it would be able to drain to this poi=
nt
out to here, then it needed a pump station, it seemed like it would be to t=
he
best interest to the Town to actually get the area here where the existing,=
the
large more pristine wetlands is here, which is actually would be in Phase I=
I,
which in Phase II we have zoning issues which we need to deal with before we
can look at doing that. And t=
he
main reason we’d do that, just so you’re aware, is regally with=
all
the cottages, some of them were broken down into leases on various things a=
nd
the leases on the first section had been purchased out and now when we get =
back
to where we have Phase II, not all of the leases have been purchased,
there’s a few 99 year leases remaining, there’s another lease f=
or
somebody who has a lifetime use of the parcel, so that was the reason why we
stopped at this point. I̵=
7;ve
shown Lot #8 there, because of some title issues I saw with that area, just
figuring that hopefully cause that was one of the areas that somebody had t=
he
lifetime use of the property and the neighboring one bought the person out.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Say this shows it says an applicati=
on for
an 8 lot residential subdivision, but I only see 7 up there.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 32
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: 7
are the existing new houses. =
The 8th
lot there’s a couple of cottages on it. One of the cottage owners who has a
lease or actually he purchased out the other person’s lease but gave =
him
the right to live there for life, so in a sense he was trying to build a bl=
ock
of leases, he appeared to build a block of leases to have like a building l=
ot
to do something on it, but I figured I’d try to get the areas that he=
was
obtained interest in all to one so and then if he wanted to do anything as =
far
as a building since he has the leases or most likely he would end up purcha=
sing
that lot, he would have to come back to the commission if he wanted to build
there, but I’m not sure how we would do that, since somebody has that
lifetime.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: So why was it written as an 8 lot
subdivision?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: Because I separated that as a lot s=
ince
he was acquiring a group of things, (inaudible) but there are 7 new
houses. The attorney is looki=
ng
into that and he felt that was
question fro the Planning and Zoning, that he would attend those
hearings to address.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Can you show where the existing roa=
d is?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: It starts here, following near wher=
e we
walked the center line of the road, then the existing toad starts to cut do=
wn
towards the lake. The propose=
d road
is actually going up onto the steep hillside we saw, my finger is following=
the
existing road. Now as you not=
ice
where my finger is, there’s still from what would be the northerly ed=
ge
or the edge of the road that was away from the lake, there is approximately=
60
feet more that the Town owned going up that hillside at the southerly side.=
The dirt road follows it kind of a=
fter
you travel to the end of the Town owned piece, the Town owned piece is sort=
of
right in the middle of the dirt road, cause the dirt road intersects with t=
he
new proposed road, and the new proposed road kind of follows the dirt road
until it gets to the cul de sac, kind of meandering a little bit on both si=
des,
so for this section and the middle of the Town pieces, the road being propo=
sed
to move up as to where it starts to, right there it starts to dip away from=
the
hillside.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: And is the green the wetlands?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: The green right here, the darker gr=
een is
the proposed area of disturbance, the light green right here is the wetland
soils and there’s a small section of like green right here on the roa=
d,
right here, and then this was a small section of light green that was reall=
y,
it was the section that was in those big boulders that I said there was wet=
land
flags where we were proposing the end of a pipe, was one of the questions
(inaudible) stake was.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 33
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: So basically you’re saying th=
en
that leaving the road (inaudible) looks like about 50 or 60 feet that we co=
uld
use for parking or recreation?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: Yea.
The existing road, since we’re moving the road up this hill fr=
om
the existing one, you still have that nice flat gravel area of the road, th=
at
could be utilized in the future for parking by the addition of 100 feet on =
the
northerly end of that since the road is coming back right in back (inaudibl=
e)
makes sense to put in an access way here then for the most part you’ve
already got a parking area that was created which was the old road bed for =
the
. v. . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: If you see where the Town of Watert=
own
owns that property, that cannot be moved . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: That’s what I’m saying,=
you
make it a condition of approval if you want it to go (inaudible) feet, yes,
give you another 100 feet of frontage and that 100 feet of frontage would
encompass this portion of wetlands on the lake and would protect that, where
one of the areas that (inaudible) saw where the wetlands were coming up into
the lot.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible.)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: You could vote on it tonight with
conditions.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: No, even though the impact is not as
great as a lot of proposals, why the public interest is predominant in this
case, there’s a lot of public interest in what happens around the lake
and that sort of thing.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: We’re down gradient of all of=
the
houses northerly of this site and Maple Tree Estates are basically above us=
in
elevation, so we’re not going to have any runoff going onto their sit=
e,
so their runoff is heading onto us and eventually to the lake.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: And every one of them called and I =
told
them there would be a public hearing which they would be notified about.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: We couldn’t vote on it tonight
anyway, could we?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Chuck and I haven’t reviewed =
this.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: As a matter of fact we wanted to as=
k for
an extension because we want to have the public hearing next month because =
w4e
already have about 5 public hearings scheduled.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 34
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: That would be fine.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table Application #552 of Anthony Caruso for construction of 8-lot Lakeside Estates
Subdivision, Phase II located on Caruso Drive, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; I. &=
nbsp; Application
#553 of Town of Watertown Department of Public Works for installation of a
drainage pipe within regulated area on Cherry Avenue, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by May 12, 2006.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger:
I’m here representing the Department of Public Works to apply =
for
a wetland permit to install two new catch basins and associated drainage pi=
pe
on Cherry avenue. The impacts
associated with this project in Moosa’s memo he mentioned 1,000 square
feet of upland review area impact, that assumes that when we do the
construction we disturbed the entire 20 foot drainage easement area that we
purchased. It will e less than
1,000 square feet of impact. =
That
area is an existing paved driveway, filled area, paved driveway to a vertic=
al
wall on the brook so it is upland review area, but it is an existing drivew=
ay,
paved, it will be going down through the drainage piped discharging to the
brook with a 6 x 6 plunge pool made
out of modified rip rap. If t=
here
area any questions I’d be happy to answer them.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: That 6 x 6 area for the plunge pool=
is
enough?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: It’s adequate, yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Is this related to the bridge colla=
pse?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: It is not related to it, it is just=
down
the hill from that. As you=
217;re
coming down he hill towards the center of town, it’s the first house =
on
the right after you cross the bridge, and there’s been an existing
draining problem there for many years, that actually comes down through the
house. These catch basins and=
the
curbing that will be associated with that will reduce that flooding to that
house and get the water back into the brook where it belongs.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 35
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Is that after the carwash, where the
water comes up?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: This is, let’s go back up to =
the
top of the hill where the bridge was just replaced, when you were heading d=
own
the hill, it’s the first house on the right, after the Y there, and y=
ou
start down Cherry Avenue, it’s the first house, it sort of sits down
lower than the road and these catch basins will pick up the water that is n=
ow
on our road and drains down into their front porch area. It will pick it up, take it down to
their driveway and discharge it to the brook.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: We have to do this, right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: And since the area is already paved=
, it
kind of takes the challenge out of it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Actually this will e an improvement
because right now there is some drainage problems on the road and it washes=
out
all the way to Main Street.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Application #553 of Town of Watertown Department of Pu=
blic
Works for installation of a drainage pipe within regulated area on Cherry
Avenue, Watertown, CT subject to standard conditions.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
6. =
New
Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Application
#554 of Samuel Carnaroli for reconstruction of a driveway at 203 Smith Pond
Road, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by June 23, 2005.=
=
<=
/span>Vincent Caterino, Engineer and Land Surveyor
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Caterino: I represent eh applicant. Basically this lot was created in
1969. It’s a 1.35 acre =
parcel
and we’re proposing to build a house on there, adding some gravel to =
the
existing driveway that’s there, and construction of a septic system on
the property.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 36
Basically right now we’re about 50 feet away from the wetlands =
on
the front of the property. The
wetlands are the shaded area. This
is one wetlands in the front.
There’s a good sized brook that goes right through the property
this way and there’s wetlands on both sides of the brook, and the sep=
tic
system will be located about 70 feet from the brook in this area, we have v=
ery
good soils in this area for the septic.&nb=
sp;
The house would be located in the back in this area and the other
wetlands that are in the back of the property is this shaded area right the=
re,
and there’s also a small intermittent watercourse that is located in =
this
area, so within grading, we’re 50 feet with any grading on the
house. This is the 50 foot li=
ne
right here for the wetlands over here, and the 50 foot line for this
intermittent watercourse is about over here so we’re not within 50 fe=
et
with those 2 but I just found out today that we have to be 100 feet from a =
watercourse.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, for a septic system.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Caterino: Just for the septic system?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Caterino: Well for the septic system we̵=
7;re
probably 80 feet and I guess we have to apply for approval from your commis=
sion
to put the septic in this area because this is a very good location for the
septic, the soils are very well rained and I know the Torrington Area health
has a regulation of I think 50 feet for the septic systems. They allowed it in 1969 at 50 feet=
, and
now I guess it’s 75 feet is what Bob Smith told me, but the wetlands
Commission is 100 feet, right?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Caterino: So we started working on this, we =
tried
to get 75 feet, and we came to about 70 feet, but Bob Smith said he would h=
onor
50 feet because it was in a subdivision that was done in 1969, that’s
when they approved it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: That the primary system is 70 feet=
, what
about the reserve area?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: The reserve area is
closer. We could always find
another place for the reserve area if we have to. I wasn’t aware of the 100 fe=
et,
and the soils on this side are so good that I don’t think they’=
ll
ever need a reserve area, it’s all pure sand and gravel, there are ve=
ry
good soils over there.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Why is it so far from the house?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 37
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yea, this is my tank r=
ight
here, and then right below that are fields, like one long row of fields
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: So could the whole thi=
ng be
shifted closer to the house? =
How
far does the gravelly, well I Notice the perc pipe there is closer to the h=
ouse
than your field.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: We could slide the sep=
tic
fields up, maybe 10 feet. But=
we
need 25 feet off the house. Right now we’re in this corner, we’=
re
about 40, in this area, so we could come up the hill a little bit. I was just trying to utilize, give=
the
guy a bugger front yard and slide it down this way but I cold slide the sep=
tic
up.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well once you do the s=
eptic,
you’ll still have the same yard in.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: That’s true. We could slide it up 10 feet
easily. The contours are pret=
ty
level in this area and I could always adjust, if I slide this septic system=
up,
I'll have to adjust the system just slightly, curve it a little bit, try to
keep it straight if I could, we could do that, cause at the time I wasnR=
17;t
aware of your 100 foot setback. I
heard of 75 and 50, so I could slide that up and pick up another 10 feet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Could you come to 100 =
at
this point? I guess you’=
;d
have to go back and sketch out and see where you could put it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: We’d have to
drastically change the size of this house.=
We could probably met 100 feet, but that 100 feet would be right whe=
re
my finger goes, here’s the 100 foot setback right here, I’d hav=
e to
put the septic way up here on top like this, which means you’d have a
real small house back here. T=
he way
this house is proposed, it’s a very big house, it’s about 4,000
square feet and about 80 feet x 40 feet so he wouldn’t be able to bui=
ld
this house eon this lot and he’s been really been wanting you build t=
his
house, it’s a real nice house, in a real nice neighborhood and he kin=
d of
wants this house. If I had to=
meet
the 100 foot setback with the septic it would drastically change this. He’d have to build a little =
raised
ranch or something.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
Could the house be moved back?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: We have a setback in t=
he
back also. There’s a 50=
foot
setback to the wetlands in the back, see the red line right here? And here’s the grading.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: The grade was at a
(inauidlbe0?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 38
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yes. What I was proposing was a berm in=
this
area for any drainage that comes this way, to keep the drainage, go around,
away from his back yard and proposed swimming pool and all that, to keep th=
at
away so we do have a little, as show, we have a small area, about 200 square
feet in the wetlands buffer area for construction of that berm and if we sl=
ide
the house back we’d be going into this 50 foot setback here and not o=
nly
that but this area is the best part of the lot. When you start getting back here
it’s very rocky and wet and we’re trying to stay away from that
area obviously.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well the 50 foot setba=
ck is
way back there where the berm is and the house is quite a ways from that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yea, you need to grade
around the house. You canR=
17;t
just, I mean the house is one thing, the grading is another thing. You have to grade at least 20 or 3=
0 feet
to make your yard, your lawn. The
house, you could slide it back, but now you’d have a 20 or 30 foot ba=
ck
yard with lawn and the swimming pool and all that, your deck and patio,
you’re going to disturb a certain amount of area, so . . . like I said, I could try sliding t=
he
septic system up the hill.
I’ll talk to him about trying to maybe build a smaller house a=
nd
possibly present those to you at the next meeting.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: I think you should do a
combination of everything, to reduce the size of the house a little bit and
then move the house back. I&#=
8217;d
prefer to see the house within the 50 foot setback area, than having the se=
ptic
system within that setback area for that major watercourse. I mean if you can move it, even if=
the
house is closer to the wetland on the other side, I think compared to havin=
g a
septic system . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: You can accomplish qui=
te a
bit by curving the fields there, make it kind of semi circular because at t=
he
one end there it’s quite a bit beyond 50 feet from the watercourse, b=
ut
at the other end it’s not very far, it’s 50 plus about 15 or
16. That’s your backup =
area
there, right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yea, this is our backu=
p area
for the driveway. Also we hav=
e our
building setback line right here, our rear back yard which is 50 feet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: That’s 50 feet b=
ecause
of the size of the lot for zoning?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yea.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: It’s R-70 zoning=
. The setback is 50 feet from the re=
ar
property line.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yea, R-70 going to a 5=
0 foot
rear yard.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 39
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Do you want to go and =
see
this?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yes. The Saturday before the next meeti=
ng on
the 11th. May 5
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
It sounds okay to me.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: I’d like to add =
that
this septic system is a non-engineered septic system. The soils are so good there that we
don’t need any septic gravel or anything. It’s an in ground system.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: That must be the only =
one in
Watertown.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Just about. This is one of the best I’ve=
ever
seen.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
And where would the reserve area be?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Presently the reserve =
is 15
feet down gradient. It’=
s hard
to see. We could always try t=
o find
another area somewhere on the property if we could to put the reserve. Whether they’ll need that or=
not,
I doubt very much.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Any questions?
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Ms. =
Russ,
sec. Mr. DiBona) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Application #554 of Samuel Carnaroli for reconstruction of a driveway=
at
203 Smith Pond Road, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 40
=
B.&n=
bsp; =
;
Application #555
Mr. Crawford: Appreciate you adding this to the A=
genda
thus evening. This is a 10.1 =
acre
parcel located off of Route 63, Litchfield Road. The property is on the west side of
Route 63, it’s bound by the Watertown Golf Course to the north and the
west and the residential homes to the south. This property was the former locat=
ion of
a chicken farm years ago. We =
are
proposing a simple division, basically a first cut of this property. We’re essentially splitting =
the
property in two. About 5.9 ac=
res
remain with the existing home to remain untouched at this time and then a
proposed single lot about 4.2 acres proposed to the north. This is essentially right where the
power lines cross on Route 63, this is in the R-70 zone. The property will be serviced by a=
n on
site septic system and a private well.&nbs=
p;
We have proposed a about a 400 foot driveway extending from Route 63
down working with the grades as much as possible to a 4 bedroom home. As part of this application we had=
to
work with D.O.T. to relocate an existing storm drainage system that dischar=
ges
onto the property. I believe
it’s pretty common (inaudible) headwalls located throughout the
(inaudible) that discharge the series of catch basins. In this case what we’re prop=
osing
is a double catch basin at the edge of pavement with a 4 foot sump to help =
improve
water quality discharging to a rip rap energy dissipater before it goes into
the wetlands. Hopefully both =
those
improvements will help the discharge from Route 63. We do have about 1,600 square feet=
of
activity within the 50 foot upland review area, that is al the grading
associated with the driveway and the relocated storm drainage. The septic system is located to the
northeast of the property.
That’s where the most favorable soils were for the property.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
Is the green there wetlands?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: Yes. The yellow actually represents
wetlands. And that’s wh=
y you
can essentially see why it’s only becoming 2 lots. We do have significant wetlands on=
the
site. It does meet the zoning
regulations for a building lot, however we have not proposed it to Planning=
and
Zoning, we wanted to come before you first. The lighter brown represents kinds=
of
the existing overgrown like a rose bush throughout the site and then there =
are
small trees, low lying trees. There are some wooded areas along the road wh=
ich
will be some limited clearing to ensure proper site lines.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Why can’t you ro=
ute
the driveway away from the setback area.&n=
bsp;
It looks like you’ve got room there.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 41
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: The reason this drivew=
ay is
located here is basically because of where the favorable soils were for the
septic system. We had to draw=
the
lot and we found that this was basically the only area where we could put t=
he
septic. So what we attempted =
to do
is locate the driveway in a location where it wouldn’t impact the
potential septic area as well as attempting to stay away from the
wetlands. One aspect f the dr=
iveway
that’s difficult to see from where you are, is we cross fished the
driveway back towards the slope creating&n=
bsp;
small channel or grass line swale along the inside of the driveway.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> That water would then run behind t=
he
house to a filter berm located to the east of the property behind the house=
and
then emptying into a proposed rain garden.=
WE feel that this will help minimize the impacts from the storm water
runoff of the proposed development.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well you can’t t=
ell
from that, but you couldn’t’ come straight in off of 63?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: No, due to the steepne=
ss of
the lot, we had to use (inaudible) from the driveway. We had to gain length to the drive=
way
especially to keep the grade safe.
We didn’t go over 10% and as you can see here’s the prop=
osed
profile of the driveway that are 4 and 40 scale side map. We increased the length of the dri=
veway
for that reason.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: So if you went straigh=
t in
there to the left, it would be real steep?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: It could be potentiall=
y too
steep, yea. And there’s=
the
existing power line easement actually cuts part of the property off, so we
didn’t want to locate the driveway within the easement.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
So how close to the wetland is the driveway? I mean it doesn’t look that =
close.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Crawford: The driveway is actual= ly completely outside of the 50 foot regulated area. The only activity we have is some = of the grading associated with the driveway to maintain the maximum 10% grade comi= ng down. So essentially once it’s stabilized it will turn back into the natural field grass area.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: About 1,500 square fee=
t?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: Yes, and that includes=
the
construction of a pretty large rip rapped energy dissipater. We wanted to make sure that the st=
orm
water coming off the road wouldn’t impact or cause erosion down gradi=
ent.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 42
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Is that 10% or 15%?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: It’s 10%. We thought 15% might be too steep =
in
this area, coming down off of 63.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: The regulations allow =
up to
15% slope for a driveway.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: That’s correct.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It’s actually only 10% for a=
short
period and then it turns and flattens out, so it allows us to control the w=
ater
a little bit better off the driveway.
We’ve proposed a guide rail timber along the downside of the
driveway basically at the top of the slope.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Do we want a field tri=
p?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I would think.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Might as well.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for
Application #555.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
7. =
Old
Business
&=
nbsp; None
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 43
8. &n=
bsp; New
Business
&=
nbsp; A. Preliminary
discussion on a proposed subdivision DeLuca Property, Town Line Highway and
Hinman Road, Watertown.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Dennis O’Sullivan, Professional Engineer
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan: I’d like to distribute a loca=
tion
map for the project. I’m
representing the DeLuca’s.
They own a piece of property that is shown on this layout, I think I
gave you the size of their property, it’s about 19.2 acres. The property is located entirely on
Hinman Road and what they had done in the past is they had made some lot
separations and now the property line that I’m talking about on this
property now is the yellow line and that goes where I show you. This house is not on the property,
however this house is owned by Mr. DeLuca’s son. Mr. DeLuca currently lives in a
farmhouse here, he’s got a greenhouse and you may have known it as Re=
gina
Farm, you may have purchased corn there.&n=
bsp;
He’s getting to the point where he is no longer able to do the
farming and what he is proposing to do is to subdivide his property. In looking at that, what he is pro=
posing
here, let me first show you the wetland area of the property. The blue is the wetland marks. They have been identified by a wet=
land
scientist and they’ve been surveyed by a licensed land surveyor. And all of the property to the eas=
t of
that line is wetlands. If you
notice there are two ponds, those were dug by Mr. DeLuca and they were used=
for
his farming which was fairly extensive at one point. The problem he runs into is a prob=
lem
with reference to the lot that is shown in purple and the zoning regulation=
s, I
have not been to zoning, I’m coming here first, because the zoning
regulations state that you may not put a driveway across a wetland area.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
My first thought was to use that driveway for both lots. That’s an awful big driveway=
, and
that’s a lot of wetlands you’re crossing.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 44
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Do you have any idea w=
hat
the life and disturbance would be?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
Quite extensive.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: It’s not a good =
idea.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: It doesn’t look
feasible.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
The regulations and the way he did not, when he originally bought the
property I think that was in the late 60’s, early 70’s, he in f=
act
owned a lot over here, and originally his parents, who have since died, they
wee given his piece of property which was quite nice and now his son lives
there. So I don’t think=
there
was great planning overall for the way he developed the lot.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
And you don’t have enough clearance to bring the driveway in o=
ff
of Hinman farther down?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
The regulations require you to be a certain distance away.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: It’s 1,000 feet =
on the
same side of the road.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
Now we looked at other property and there are no other 1,00 feet, but
the time you go from here you’re into the wetlands area, and to even =
try
and sneak in here, it’s just a little bit less of an impact but still=
in
order to qualify as an interior lot you have to have certain sizing and
you have to have access to th=
e main
right of way and you have to have that with a separation distance and what =
we
tried to do, I tried to take the regulations and develop those on this prop=
erty
and what we, I don’t know of any other way to do it. In speaking with the owner I told =
him it
was very unlikely but I thought a first stop, instead of going to Planning =
and
Zoning, the first stop should be here and getting your input and then with =
that
then I would go to the Planning and Zoning.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well suppose you went =
in
there and got approval to access that off a common driveway, aren’t y=
ou
still trying to build a house right in the middle of the wetlands?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: No, the blue line is t=
he
wetlands.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
The wetlands are over here.
Yea, he would probably be going over here with his home and again th=
at
may turn into something he may graze some animals out there, that kind of
thing.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 45
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Where you have a squar=
e I
assume that to be . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
That’s that square they require you to show for the Planning a=
nd
Zoning, it’s not intended to be anything other than that. You have to have a 150 foot square=
and
you have to have a certain amount of footage and that square has to be on y=
our
frontage, on your road frontage, so that’s what that is showing.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
You made a comment in the beginning that he thought maybe somebody w=
ould
do some farming, where? On wh=
ich of
these?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
On the lots that would be flagged at 7 acres and the lots with the 6=
.78
acres, the larger sized lots.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
But the 5.7 acres is all wetlands.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
Well, but you can do farming on wetlands. I’m not talking about (inaud=
ible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
It’s not that wet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
I think it’s seasonal.
Like if you put a few animals out there, people like to have that ki=
nd
of thing and maybe we’re going to get a lot more of it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: He’s obviously d=
one
it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
Yes, he has. The prima=
ry
area he has worked in is this area here and over here. But there have been plantings, he =
has
been planting all over and he has had some animals, that has not been the
thrust of his operation.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
Sounds like the driveway idea is a good way to go, the common drivew=
ay.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible.)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
Well he can’t, he doesn’t have room to come in there wit=
h a
driveway though.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
See the dilemma is, the way the regulations are for Planning and Zon=
ing,
they say if you have an interior lot it has to be larger in zoning than if =
it
was a lot on the road, and if it’s an interior lot, you have to have
access to the road, and that access has to be more than 1,000 feet away.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 46
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
From what?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
From each other. I gue=
ss
what they want to prevent doing is I think they call them flagged driveway,
where you have a little driveway and a little flag, so you might have 9
driveways and it’s very unsightly.&n=
bsp;
But as you can see the way the lot is, the way the wetlands are, and=
the
way the previous development has been, this is a layout, this is preliminar=
y,
we’re not absolute on this, but this looks like it would be fairly ni=
ce
lots.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
So this hasn’t been divided yet?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
No, it has not.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
If worse came to worse you could have two driveways, or maybe not.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
No, that’s the dilemma.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: You can go to the Zoni=
ng
Board of Appeals and apply for a variance for that, that’s a zoning
regulation.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
Yes, I haven’t reached that point, I don’t’ know w=
here
to go next, but I thought as a first step, and I want to take it out of the
possibly. I don’t want =
to go
there, set everything up, then come to you and then you tell me no because =
my
sense is you’re going to tell me no because it does not lend itself, =
even
though it lays out appropriately, it does not lend itself to a proper way t=
o do
things. And then whether I ha=
ve to
go to Planning and Zoning or the Zoning Board of Appeals, I’ll take t=
hat
step.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Is there any other wet=
land
activities for other lots other than putting the driveway for this lot?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
No, there would not be. I
would be locating, my next step after seeing you all would be top go out an=
d do
some deep holes and perc holes and I’ve done that before. If developed
this house site over here a number of years ago, and this lot is kind of
pristine, I don’t anticipate any problems. These may be a problem with
(inaudible) so I anticipate that you’re going to need the larger sized
lot.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
But that 5.7 acres lot, you can’t build anything on that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
Yea, it would be, the 5.7 acre lot would be a lot that (inaudible) h=
ere.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 47
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
Oh, I’m sorry, that’s part of that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
It’s kind of shaped like this and then this lot in purple is t=
he
lot, see now the reason why I didn’t focus on this, is this has access
from here, we’d be putting the house here, and it would allow somebod=
y to
do some soft farming on the remainder of it. The dilemma is with this lot here =
that
there is no way in. This meet=
s the
standards, I have the width, I have the separation distance, it meets the
standards, the dilemma is that most of this is through a wetland, so
that’s why I would like to get that resolved first so there’s a
gazillion extrapolations that you can do.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: You have to get an app=
eal
for the dual driveway.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
Right. It would be hel=
pful
and this would be my request to you, if you on the basis of what you see he=
re,
if you feel that you would not be so inclined to approve a driveway through
that wetland, if that’s a determination that you would make, I would
appreciate it if you would be able to make that determination (Tape #4, Sid=
e A
ended – may have missed some).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Information more than,=
this,
actually a plot plan (inaudible) that would not be feasible to build a driv=
eway
over that (inaudible) wetlands.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
I thought what you wanted to do was you wanted to simplify the
presentation to you, so that’s why I (inaudible). It would be obvious to me if I were
sitting in your seat, I would say this is not the right way to go, I would =
say
no, but I’m working for somebody and I’ve got to go through the
steps.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well sure, anything
(inaudible) you’re doing right now would be an ample application of t=
he
whole process, so does anybody have any other comments?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I think that’s t=
he
right approach, having a dual driveway, having less impact on the
wetlands. We want to minimize
that. Are you going to P &=
; Z
next?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
My next step would be to do the testing and flush out all of the work
that has to be done to be prepared to go to P & Z with a way out that w=
orks,
but what I am requesting is that somehow either maybe in the minutes of the
meeting, or somehow you would advise me that it, if you’re so incline=
d,
that you would be reluctant to approve the driveway through that amount of
wetlands.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
I think we could say that if an application came through, apply for a
driveway here, we’d probably turn it down.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 48
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: You notice that the pr=
esence
of the Board that e don’t allow from the wetlands, it’s in the
minutes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
He just wants something kind of official.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: You cannot make a moti=
on on
this because it was a preliminary discussion, but the answer is no. If somebody submitted an applicati=
on
like this and proposed a driveway through an entire wetland to get to a hou=
se,
they Commission is not going to approve it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: No, I would say that w=
ould
be . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: But we can’t mak=
e a
motion.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler:
But this will be in the minutes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: I would say that the l=
ogical
conclusion would be that we would not favor such a proposal to go that dist=
ance
through a wetlands, through a driveway.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. O’Sullivan:
Thank you.
<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: Are you guys in= favor of starting our meetings at 7:00, or do you want to keep them at 7:30?
<= o:p>
<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Ms. Sturgis: 7:00 is fine.
<= o:p>
<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Everyone thought that was a good idea.
<= o:p>
<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; Mr. Rafey: I can raise that question during my staff report, because you have to follow the agenda.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 49
9. =
Communications
and Bills
B. =
Low
Impact Development Practices for Storm Water Management
C. =
; State
D.E.P. Notice of Tentative Determination and Notice of Federal Coastal
Consistency Review
= D= iscussion: None<= o:p>
=
M=
OTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
10. Repor=
ts
from Officers and Committees
11. Repor=
ts
from Staff
&=
nbsp; A. Update
on the status of the Inland/Wetland and Watercourse Regulations of the Town=
of
Watertown
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: I
sent a copy of the updated regulations to the D.E.P. on March 23rd
and I think Chuck talked to someone there and they don’t review these
regulations anymore, but somebody promised they would send the Town
information, so I’m just waiting for that. I would suggest you hold a Public
Hearing for the regulations in June.
You don’t have to make a motion now. See what happens with other public
hearing that we have during the month of May, if we close some of those, and
have less in June, I’ll suggest we do it then.
=
B.&n=
bsp; =
;
Notice of violation issues to David and P=
aula
Leo, 1110 Middlebury Road, Watertown.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: I =
issued
two notices of violations. On=
e was
for that property on the corner of Bunker Hill Road and Middlebury Road, we
went there once . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: The guy filled in the wetlands.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 50
Mr. Rafey:
=
= Mr. Polletta: He was doing th= at when we first met him, he had a tough attitude.
=
Mr. Rafey:
Mr. Polletta:= They still live there?
Mr. Rafey:
C. Notice
of Violation issued to Antonio Batista, 26 Gregory Drive, Watertown.
Mr. Rafey:
= Mr. Polletta: Moosa, on Iceho= use Road where they have the horses over there, and the guy came before us beca= use he was filling in some material (inaudible), they haven’t removed anything?
= Mr. Rafey: No, he didn’= t.
= Mr. Polletta: I know we told = him he had to put it back.
= Mr. Rafey: I contacted him (inaudible). As soon as the Citation Ordinance gets approved . .
= Mr. Undercuffler: Where does = that stand?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
PAGE 51
=
Mr.
Rafey: The Town Council
approved the Citation Ordinance, and there is an effective date of June 1
= Mr. Undercuffler: Presented w= ith a dollar amount?
=
= Mr. Rafey: Yes. Now the Chairman raised the questi= on whether you wanted to start your meetings at 7:00 instead of 7:30.
Eve= ryone agreed.
= Mr. Zawadzki: That doesn̵= 7;t mean we can do more talking, it means we can get out earlier.
12. &n=
bsp; Public
Participation
None
13. Adjou=
rnment
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 11:40 p.m.
&nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Regular
Meeting Adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
Inland
Wetlands Agency
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________