MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR
MEETING
THURSDAY=
, MAY
11, 2006 - 7:30 PM
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Lucia
DiBona
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Glenn
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
; &n=
bsp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
ABSENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Martha
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Denise
Russ
OTHERS PRESENT: &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mary Barton, Zoning
Enforcement Officer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Chuck
Berger, Town Engineer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, called the Regular Meeting to order at 8:12 p.=
m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Duplissie, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Zawadzki, =
in
his absence.
3. =
Public
Participation
Mr. Nordby:=
My request is simple, I missed the
deadline to get on the meeting agenda by merely a couple of days. I have a very small project I was =
hoping
to get underway as quickly as possible.&nb=
sp;
Could you guys put me on the agenda for 2 or 3 minutes tonight, and I
would be grateful for that?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 2
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> In 2 sentences, tell us what your
project is?
Mr. Nordby:=
I just need to put a little bit of=
fill
within the 50 foot setback of a wetland.
Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> How much is a little bit of fill?<= o:p>
Mr. Nordby:=
It’s a matter of raising it =
about
2 or 3 feet and it would be maybe 1,000 square yards total, and put some
topsoil?
Mr. Undercuffler: Do you have a chart or a map?
Mr. Nordby:=
Yes, I do have a map and a sketch =
and I
did have a soil scientist come out and flag the area that is considered a
wetland.
Ms. Sturgis: Is there an application?
Ms. Barton:=
I haven’t received it, he wa=
nts to
submit tonight. The Commissio=
n can
accept it on the agenda by 2/3 vote of the members present, because by stat=
ute
you can’t make a decision for 14 days anyway, so you can accept it and
then wait until the full application comes in, or ask Mr. Nordby to submit =
it
in time for the June 15th meeting.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> So he won’t get an answer fo=
r 14
days at a minimum or to the next meeting.
Ms. Barton:=
Correct, you can accept it and sch=
edule
a field trip.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> If we accept it then at least he&#=
8217;s
on the running, I don’t know what he needs to put the fill for.
Ms. Barton:=
To start your clock running.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> What’s the fill going in for=
?
Mr. Nordby:=
I would like to plant a nice level=
flat
lawn.
MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Accept Application #562.
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 3
MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Add Agenda Item 6G, Application #562.
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
Mr. Undercuffler, Vice
Chairman, Closed Public Participation at 8:17 p.m.
4. =
Action
on Minutes
=
A. =
Regular Meeting, February 9, 2006
=
B. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, March 9, 2006, App. #540, Arthur
Howland
=
C. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, March 9, 2006, App. #544, William
Davidson
=
D. =
Regular Meeting, March 9, 2006
=
E. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, April 20, 2006, App. #544, Donald
Curtiss
=
F. =
Public Hearing, April 20, 2006, App. #547,
=
G. =
Public Hearing, April 20, 2006, App. #546, Patrick Graziano
=
H. =
Public Hearing, April 20, 2006, App. #549, Patrick Graziano
=
I. =
&nb=
sp;
Regular Meeting, April 20, 2006
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Approve Items 4A through 4C and Table Item=
s 4D
through 4I as presented.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
5. =
Pending
Applications
&= nbsp; A. 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 Closed on May 11, 2006, then a decision is required by
July 14, 2006.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: They granted us an extension.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table Application #547 of Watertown Woods, = LLC for 13-lot Wolf Hill residential subdivision located on Woodbury Road, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 4
B. =
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 19, 2006.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: This is the one t=
hat
you discussed previously, but they’re still waiting for information,
they’ve requested an extension of time.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Application #548 of St. Mary Magdale= ne Church Corp. for an addition to St. Mary Magdalen School, 140 Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
C. Application
#546 of Patrick Graziano for 11-lot residential subdivision located on
&=
nbsp; If
the Public Hearing is Closed on May 11, 2006, then a decision is required by
July 14, 2006.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. DiBona) to Table Application #546 of Patrick Graziano for 11-lot
residential subdivision located on
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
D. 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 May 11, 2006, then a decision is required by
July 14, 2006.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Table Application #549 of Patrick Graziano f=
or
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
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 5
&=
nbsp; E. =
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; The
Commission has until June 16, 2006 t hold a public hearing or render its
decision on the application.
Ms. Barton:
You need to schedule a public hearing for this. I would suggest you make a motion =
to
table and schedule a public hearing at the Chairman’s discretion, bec=
ause
you might have like 5 public hearings for the 15th so you may wa=
nt
to do another night.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: We’ll
wait until the end of the meeting to see what we have.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table and Schedule a Public Hearing at the =
Chairman's
discretion for Application #552 of
Anthony Caruso for construction of 8-lot Lakeside Estates Subdivision, Phas=
e II
located on
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; F. =
Application
#554 of Samuel Carnaroli for reconstruction of a driveway at
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by June 23, 2006,
unless applicant grants an extension of time.
=
<=
/span>Vincent Caterino, Engineer and Land Surveyor
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Caterino: We had the site walk this past Sat=
urday
as you recall and since then I had revised the plans. I moved the septic system uphill t=
o be
100 feet away from the watercourse which as you recall I was about 85 feet =
from
the watercourse and the requirement is 100 feet so I moved the septic up so=
now
I meet that regulation. I also
moved the house back a little bit so we have room for the septic system.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: When you say you’=
re 100
feet now from the watercourse, are you 100 feet from the watercourse as it =
is
now or from the high water . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 6
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: We’re 100 feet fr=
om the
high water mark, cause when I originally measured it, I measured during the=
Winter
time there was a lot of snow and ice, it was really not the water, but I
wasn’t too concerned with the exact water cause I didn’t know t=
hat
there was 100 foot setback, so I measured it accurately, actually Saturday =
is
when I went there, you could see the high point, where the water can’=
t go
any higher than that, so I took the tape from there, measured the 100 feet,=
and
we’re a little over 100 feet from the . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: The driveway is going to
remain gravel?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yes, we’re just a=
dding
a little gravel to the driveway to make it a little better, that’s al=
l.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: When you’re excav=
ating
for the septic system, you’re going to go within the 100 feet, but th=
e septic
system is actually, I mean you’re going to disturb soils when
you’re excavating but the actual septic system is outside of the 100
feet?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yes, that’s corre=
ct,
exactly.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: So you’re saying the only imp=
act is
the driveway?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yes.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: And that's already been disturbed.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I noticed there was gra=
ss
there, we parked on that right hand side coming down the driveway, so
you’re not going to excavate there, you’re just going to put
¾ whatever inch and ¼ stone right over the top of it?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: No, I’m sure the =
guy
will take the sod off before he takes the, before he puts the gravel down
he’ll take the sod off, there’s not that much dirt, there’=
;s a
little bit of grass, so I’m sure he’ll scuff that up a little b=
it
and then he’ll put the gravel right down over that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: So if he’s going =
to excavate
there, is he going to put a silt fence in to make sure, because like tomorr=
ow,
if he’s excavating today, tomorrow they’re announcing 2 inches =
of
rain, I know it’s not a lot but that driveway pitches in from both si=
des,
so either a silt fence or protect it with hay bales on the down gradient si=
de.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: I would say silt fence =
would
do the job.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 7
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I don’t see it on=
the
drawing but I . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: We could definitely add=
it to
the drawings. I didn’t =
think
we were really going to need it because like I said it’s a real
(inaudible) job, the gravel . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Well if you’re go=
ing to
excavate it all, if you’re going to disturb it, I’d like it the=
re
because you’ve got 75 feet off the road, and you’ve got all the
driveway coming down, which brings up the second thing, it was mentioned at=
the
site walk, because that’s a large watercourse that goes through there=
, I
think it’s a 5 foot diameter pipe?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: I’m not sure, but
it’s a good sized pipe, I can’t get down in there to see it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I think if anything on =
this
site, the highest impact would be if they ever paved this, because you have
200, 300 feet of driveway, by 40 or 50 feet wide if you add the two drivewa=
ys
together, and it’s all going right down to that watercourse, so I wou=
ld
prefer if we put it in here, that we made it as part of our documents, that
they do not pave this, that this remain a gravel driveway. If they want to put a 20 or 30 or =
40
foot shelf at the house of asphalt, I can understand that so that they̵=
7;re
parking on asphalt but I’d like the rest of the driveway to remain
gravel. I don’t know, r=
un it
by Chuck, but I think you’ve got 70, 80, 90, 100 feet of driveway
that’s running down in the heavy rain, you’re washing everything
right down to that stream, I think it’s better off on the gravel than=
on
the asphalt.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: (Inaudible) anything ov=
er 7% really
should be paved because that’s typically what the Town’s standa=
rd
is. I mean what you're coming
across, cause this is similar to what happened on Joshua Town and they ended
up, I don’t know, there’s pros and cons to it, I don’t kn=
ow
if you want to weigh in but anything over . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I’d like to see t=
he
site before I, there are pros and cons, I agree with what Mary said, if
it’s a real steep driveway, getting a gravel driveway to become stabl=
e at
a steep slope can be tough, especially if it’s a large area that̵=
7;s
collecting runoff.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: It looks stable now, it=
looks
real good, and we had 5 inches of rain last month, it looks nice and solid.=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 8
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: You're looking at 14% a=
nd
then you’re going to be going in and out with construction equipment,
heavy, I mean if you want to, I don’t know if I’d put the condi=
tion
on that it remain gravel, maybe if they want to pave it that they come back=
and
talk to the Commission because there may be issues, cause we’ve had in
the past, like if it’s over 7% paving, cause what happens is when the
gravel gets chewed up and it comes out to the public right of way, besides =
the
wetland impact, it is a public traffic problem if it’s anything over =
7%
we’ve had that problem. If
you go on Guernseytown Road, you know that long driveway right across from =
West
Road, that’s paved up to the crown of the driveway because of a simil=
ar
circumstance, it’s like15% that driveway, we had a problem where it c=
ame
back on the road, so we didn’t make him pave the whole thing, we made=
him
pave up to the crown of it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Well this one doesnR=
17;t
come back out to the road, though, it dips back to the stream, it comes down
off the road, and then from the house down to the stream, so it’s
pitching to the stream, never back out to the road.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Cause the one next door=
is
paved right now, that Mr. Carnaroli owns also, the mirror image of this lot,
that one is paved, right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: No, it’s all grav=
el.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: And it’s nicely
stabilized, don’t get me wrong, I think they did a good job.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: They both want it to be
gravel though.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: How about if we put the
condition that if they want to pave it then they have to come back.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: That’s a good ide=
a,
that way you cover all the bases and see if there are any issues.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I mean you’ve mov=
ed the
septic system, you’ve tightened up the embankment, I think that’=
;s
my main concern.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yea, I did, it worked o=
ut
pretty good actually. I thoug=
ht it
would be tight, but it worked out pretty good, and get rid of the pool, cau=
se
they don’t want the pool in the back yard so we picked up plenty of
square footage.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: They still have room fo=
r a
pool if they ever want to put it in, if it’s above ground or whatever=
, so
it’s not . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yea, they have . . . . =
yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: It looks like they have
plenty of distance between the 2 houses too.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Did you move the house =
over
to the . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: I just basically moved =
it
straight back. I moved it back
about 15 feet and still have plenty for the setbacks, it’s a 50 foot =
rear
yard setback line.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Approve Application
#554 of Samuel Carnaroli for reconstruction of a driveway at 203 Smith Pond
Road, Watertown, CT subject to normal conditions plus the paving, plus silt
fence or hay bales on the down gradient side and then if the driveway is to=
be
paid, they have to come in for a modification.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
=
G.&n=
bsp; =
;
Application #555 of Linda Bertolette for
division of a residential building lot and construction of a single-family
dwelling,
If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by June 23, 2006
unless applicant grants a time extension.
Mr. Crawford: We did a walk on Saturday. I could briefly go over the entire =
piece,
or we can just move into the changes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Give us the changes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I still don’t have
Bob’s approval letter from the Torrington Area Health District.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: It’s still under
review.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I’d go through yo=
ur
changes, but I think the Commission should Table action until you get his
approval letter, you shouldn't base your approval on somebody else’s
approval.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Actually we don’t=
know
where the septic is going to go at this point, so we might have to make all
these changes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 10
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, maybe you’re better off =
just (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: I do show the septic, b=
ut I
yea, (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: If you have to remove t=
he
septic, then all of that is for naught.&nb=
sp;
Do we need an extension in order to Table it?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: No, you can do it at yo=
ur
June 15th meeting, so you can just Table it and then come, do yo=
u think
Bob will get it before the 15th?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: We had talked to him
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: What was the problem?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: No, it's a system desig=
ned
for (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: He’s just busy,
he’s got a big backlog.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Caterino: I’d like to take a
couple of minutes to talk about the changes. One aspect is the conservation eas=
ement
that we talked about during the field walk. The applicant is concerned that the
conservation easement might restrict a lot to a point where I guess someone
coming to purchase a lot would be, wouldn’t see it as a favorable asp=
ect
of the lot. Now they’re=
not
concerned about having the conservation easement, it’s more is there a
way to work with the commission as far as how to develop that conservation
easement.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: The conservation easeme=
nt is
there for that reason. In the=
past
when we’ve approved these, where it was just wetlands or it was a buf=
fer,
we’d get a phone call 6 months or a year or a year and a half later t=
hat
they have taken and gone into the upland review area, and gone all the way =
down
to the wetlands, they’ve graded it, they’ve put lawn in,
they’ve put fertilizers in, and so we’ve taken the stance now t=
hat
when it’s in the upland review area, that 50 foot area is marked
conservation easement, and there’s a reason for that, we don’t =
want
that lot being sold and the next person coming in and saying oh it’s a
surprise to me, I didn’t know I couldn’t do that, so we have it
marked every 50 feet for that reason.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Was the conservation easement only =
the 50
feet or was there additional land here?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: All of the wetlands are=
a plus
the driveway, the upland review area is right alongside the driveway so we
wanted it plainly marked cause we don’t want them planting down below=
.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: What was the owner's problem?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 11
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: Their concern is that c=
urrently
now the property is overgrown with invasive species, multifloral rose, autu=
mn
olive, and their concern is would it be possible, as part of the conservati=
on easement,
that the future homeowner have the option of removing the invasive species =
and
planting a more favorable upland planting, not using it as a lawn, and not
fertilizing it as a usable lawn, but maybe working with a soil scientist to
plant a more favorable upland species.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I think if we approve t=
his,
it will be with a placard and then at some point we will leave it open that,
that’s not something that we say no to, but if at some point they wan=
t to
come in, they have to come to us first.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: That’s why I̵=
7;d
like maybe a motion of approval, something like that could be worked into i=
t.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: We could put in the mot=
ion to
approve they can remove the invasive species, also in the language of the
conservation easement that if they are going to do it they have to come bac=
k to
the Commission with a plan from the soil scientist, a wetland scientist, th=
at
would get rid of the invasive species which is better but you need a plan to
make sure they’re not going to go in and destroy the whole area and n=
ot
replant it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: Yea, they’re not =
going
to go in and put lawn there, it would be more like an upland (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: It would be more market=
able
to the seller.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: Well that and it would =
just
be more, the rose bushes are and also an invasive species to be surrounding=
the
home.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: And just to protect it.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: And they agree with tha=
t.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: If we mark it and then =
we
give them the option to come in and present us a program that they want to =
come
in and cut and replant, if it passes our approval then we’ll give them
that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: Okay, that’s real=
ly
what we’re looking for.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: You just surveyed that =
lot
the way it is now?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: Yea the soil scientist =
was on
his hands and knees, he crawled around underneath the rose bushes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 12
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: Can the conservation ea=
sement
be worded in such a way that there is agreement that invasive species could=
be
removed? You want something t=
hat
the owner can say is a definite.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: Yea, we’re not in=
opposition
of the conversation easement, we’re more just making it more flexible=
to
make the future homeowner to allow him to go in and do something like that.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I’d like that not=
that
they can just go in and cut it, that they have to bring in plans for
replanting.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: But we can stipulate th=
at if
they come before us and want to remove invasive plants that it could be don=
e.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: Correct, I guess itR=
17;s
more or less leaving the option open.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Well staff could come u=
p with
some language for you to review, and we’ve done it in the past, when
they’ve reviewed invasive species and for prior to doing any activity
they have to have a wetland scientist to do the plan, that wetland scientist
has to approve and supervise and come back with an as built after planting =
is
done and that worked very well.
Dave Lord did one for the Town and it worked out very well.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Before they release the=
bond.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Correct. We hold the bond, we make sure
it’s done, because just saying that and then what happens is they
don’t follow through and I’m not a wetlands scientist so we had
them actually do the plantings and it worked out extremely well, so we can =
come
up with some language and give it to (inaudible) prior.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I have no problem with =
that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: Cause there could be t=
he
option that someone could not want to do anything, and just have the
conversation easement, so we thought it might be a nice (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: =
I
think definitely we want to encourage removing that invasive stuff.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Anything else?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 13
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Crawford: No, that was the only o=
ption,
I made the other changes that we had talked about but I’ll present th=
at
at the next meeting.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table Application #555, of Linda Bertolette for division of a residential building lot and
construction of a single-family dwelling, Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
6. =
New
Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Application
#556 of Town of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by July 14, 2006.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: This project was origin=
ally
designed in 1989 and has been modified a few times since then. The project is designed to improve=
sewer
service in
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
proposed interceptor starts along the Pin Shop Pond behind the Library and
comes out by the VFW, crosses Davis Street, follows through the driveway to
Swift School, Colonial Street, up Elm Street, at Everett Lane it crosses ov=
er
Davis Street, and continues under Straits Turnpike and Bunker Hill Road to =
the,
it’s going to be the Heritage Development. There is also going to be an exten=
sion,
and this is the one that picks up, diverts the sewage flow from the Straits
Turnpike area, there will be a 12 inch line that goes essentially from
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 14
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
wetlands that are affected, there are 4 brook crossings, one behind the VFW,
the second one at Swift School, the third one is on the north side of Davis
Street, but just east of Everett Lane and the 4th one is the sou=
th
side of Davis Street opposite Everett Lane, and that would be the
D’Agostino property. Th=
ose
are the only brook crossings. They
will be done with a concrete encasement on the pipe. The entire sewer is ductile iron w=
hich
is much better than the tile pipes that are un there now.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Is it all 12 inch?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: No. Most of it is 16 inch and when we =
get up
above Straits Turnpike it becomes 18 inch.=
The 12 inch line is on Straights Turnpike.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: So you’re only pu=
tting
in 12 inch on Straits Turnpike?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: But the rest of it is 1=
6 and
18 inch and it’s replacing existing clay pipe?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: The existing tile is I =
think
8 and 10 inch that comes, and that extends from Hazel or
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Is that going to be lar=
ge enough? They're proposing 350, 400 units f=
or
Heritage and then all of the streets that this is going to foot, plus the
existing, it sounds like 16 and 18 inches are large enough at that point.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: This was designed for
saturated development of the entire sewer shed area. It’s going to serve a much b=
igger
area than that. This has the
potential to be extended for the (inaudible)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: It just doesn’t s=
ound
like it’s large enough.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: It’s a pretty big=
pipe.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: It is designed by an en=
gineer
so it better work.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I’m just trying to
think back of what is on Colonial.
What goes down Colonial; isn’t that a 16 inch that’s goi=
ng
down Colonial?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: No. Because it’s only a 10 inch =
by Swift
School, so I think it’s an 8 that comes down there and it’s pro=
bably
another 8 that comes in from Elm Street.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 15
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I know that it comes do=
wn
Colonial and there is a bypass that goes down
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: We had some problems ri=
ght in
that
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: It’s kind of hard to visualiz=
e, do
we want to maybe take a site walk?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Yes, just this one, not=
hing
else, don’t schedule anything else cause it’s a 4 or 5 mile wal=
k.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: Yea, the sewer is 7700 =
feet
or so long.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Well you said there's 4 crossings or
there’s more impacts than that I guess, more than the crossings.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: There’s more where
we’re within the wetlands area and within the setback because we are =
following
the brook, so a lot of it is within the setback. We gave Mr. Rafey a list, a breakd=
own of
the square footage of all the different impacts.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I didn’t see that=
.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Don, did you give that =
to him
before last week?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: Yes, I faxed it to him I
think last Friday.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: He’s out.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: I have Attachment A, Af=
fected
Wetlands and Watercourses, is that what you’re talking about?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: No, this is a tabulatio=
n of
square footage by planning and drawing sheet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Well you’re going=
to
have a public hearing anyway, so I’ll send that out tomorrow.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Could we have our site =
walk
before the public hearing?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: That’s a good ide=
a, you
can schedule it at the end of the meeting.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 16
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: =
Yea,
let's do that at the end.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Do you mind if we table=
it
and schedule a site walk?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: They re anxious to get =
going
on it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I agree, but we have to
schedule the public hearing and we do have to do a site walk on it.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Smith: Yes, I would think so.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: =
We
can’t vote on it tonight anyway.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: We can just accept the
application and schedule a public hearing.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: And take a walk.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Well the reason for the
urgency is they’d like to get the sewer line in while Swift is under
construction.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I agree.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Why don’t you wait
until the end of the meeting and figure out, you have about 5 public hearin=
gs
or more.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I understand, but we can
schedule the public hearing any time we want. So we can schedule a site visit on=
this
one and a special public hearing, for the next month or couple of months to=
get
some of these off our plate cause there’s a lot of them.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk and Public
Hearing for Application #556 of T=
own of
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 17
&=
nbsp; B. =
Application
#557 of Donald Curtiss, for 13-Lot Bassett Hollow Residential Subdivision, =
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by July 14, 2006.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: No one is here, I belie=
ve
they just want you to accept it and schedule a hearing. This is the application where they
relocated the entranceway.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Table, Accept, and Schedule a Public Heari=
ng
for Application #557 of Donald Cu=
rtiss,
for 13-Lot Bassett Hollow Residential Subdivision,
&=
nbsp; Discussion: Ms.
Sturgis: Why does it requ=
ire a
public hearing?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: Because there is
significant activity and they’ve relocated the road access, so
they’re impacting more wetlands, and I know at the first two public
hearings there was a lot of neighbor issues so I think it would be benefici=
al.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: That road floo=
ds all
the time.
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; C. Application
#558 of Gregorio Pools and Spa for installation of an in ground pool at
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by July 14, 2006.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Jonathan DeMichael, Gregorio Pools=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. DeMichael: I have this information=
which
I’m supposed to give to you.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Is that the survey draw=
ings?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. DeMichael: And I also have letters=
from
Cynthia Rabinowicz.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Just so the Commission
understands, this is an application where the zoning permit was submitted a=
nd
somehow I’m not sure if it was an employee of the pool company told, =
the
pool company go ahead and start construction and Moosa went up and looked at
the zoning permit and the in ground pool was already put in. So I think you really have to, lis=
ten to
Mr. DeMichael and you need a site walk, but I don’t know if you need a
public hearing. It was an err=
or and
they want to (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 18
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. DeMichael: I can explain what
happened. Basically what happ=
ened,
the gentleman who was in charge of pulling permits, he misunderstood the To=
wn
Hall. He pulled the Torringto=
n Area
Health permit.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Who is the gentleman who
misunderstood the Town Hall, the owner?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. DeMichael: No, I’m the owner=
. It was an employee of the company.=
So he pulled the Torrington Health
Permit, he submitted it all to zoning when he went to zoning he was told
you’re all set, he assumed all set meant permits issued, which he
didn’t quite understand what they were saying to him, so when he came
back, he told us, he told the construction department, the permit is all se=
t,
it got to the point where we were ready to dig the pool, we checked with him
again just to verify, yes, you're all set, ready to go, this is standard in
house procedure we follow, it wasn’t until we were backfilling then
pools, which was basically the third or fourth day of construction where my
foreman actually called me from the site, and said are you sure there’=
;s
not wetlands down here. I sai=
d well
as far as I know the permit has been issued so I don’t believe there =
was,
otherwise they would have said something, so again I went back to him he sa=
id
no, I was told the permit is all set, I said okay, so that Monday morning, =
we
backfilled the pool on a Friday, that Monday morning he came in again, my
foreman, and he was generally concerned that there could have been wetlands=
and
the reason he felt this way is he saw the type of soil, so the type of grow=
th,
so I called the Town Hall right away, I have an employee of mine who used to
work for the Town, she knew some of the people at Town Hall, she called dow=
n,
she got Moosa to meet me at the site on Thursday, now mind you we have alre=
ady
submitted all our paperwork but it just hasn’t been approved at this
point, so it wasn’t like we were trying to do something deceitful, or
trying to get away without a permit, we generally just did not know, so I t=
old
Moosa, when are you going to be there, I want to be there with you, Moosa m=
et
me on the site, he confirmed that it looked to him that it very well could =
be
wetlands and that this area doesn’t have maps at the Town Hall and
that’s why he does site visits.
So I said what do you want me to do right now. He said you have to secure the
site. We hay baled the entire=
site,
we put silt fence up all on the lower side, this is not the way we do things
normally, we always follow the book, and this was very disturbing to us and=
we
wanted to make sure we did the right thing.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 19
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; We
then got Cynthia Rabinowicz down there, she did a walk and flagged all the
wetlands, in her opinion (Tape #2, Side A ended – may have missed som=
e)
it does not affect the wetlands, the wetlands that is (inaudible what she
assumes would be something that would be affected by the pool is further do=
wn
into the wood line. Where the=
pool
was going it was all grass, these homeowners had no idea that there was
wetlands on their property. T=
hey
had planted lawn. In fact the=
re was
plays capes in the wetlands, there was a shed in the wetlands that was
existing, I mean really the only thing that brought it to our attention was=
the
fact that the foreman who has been doing this for 22 years said something j=
ust
doesn't seem right so she came up with the idea of what we should do, and s=
he
made some recommendations in her letter, we should regrade the back of the
property, we should replant the growth that we had disturbed, an d she felt
that should suffice as far as the wetlands go, we should not cause any furt=
her
disturbance. I want it known =
that I
am willing to do and pay for whatever I have to do to correct this
problem. I feel terrible abou=
t it,
it was a complete misunderstanding and a mistake, but that’s basicall=
y what
occurred.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I think Gregorio has be=
en
around a long time, and this is very unusual. They’ve done permits in the =
Town
before so I think it was just unfortunate that this employee didn’t
understand.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Let’s take a site=
visit.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton Yes, and figure out what
you’re doing and they’ve been around for a long time, never done
this before, it’s just an unusual circumstance. I think you need to Table this and
schedule a field trip.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Is that the permit in y=
our
hand?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Gregorio: Well that’s what =
I told
Moosa, he said gee, you didn’t have the permit. I said the funny thing is we do wor=
k all
over Connecticut, now granted in Watertown you guys got your game on,
you’d be amazed at what you see out there.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible) you did not=
have
a building permit.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Gregorio: Everything had been fil=
ed,
the permit had not been issued yet.
According to the fellow who pulled the permit, he thought when they =
told
him it was all set meant they would mail you the permit, you’re good =
to
go. Like I told Moosa, you wo=
rk in
various towns around the State, sometimes they mail us the permit. I get comments like the secretary is
busy, you’ll see it in 4 weeks, but go ahead and start. Every Town is so different; itR=
17;s
impossible to follow. I mean =
it's unfortunate,
but it is what happened.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 20
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: This is a large piece of
property, this is all wetlands behind it, right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: It is, and I think what=
you
should do is take a look at it.
It’s an existing house, it’s been there for awhile, go l=
ook
at it and the figure out what you want to do from that. It was an unfortunate circumstance=
.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: He brought up a good, h=
e said
when they were doing it, the playscapes are in the wetlands, the kid’s
stuff is in the wetlands, and that reinforces what we talked about awhile
ago. If you put the placards =
up,
this is a fairly new house if I remember correctly
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: This has been a long ti=
me, I
think this was a piece owned by a prior Chairman of the Planning and Zoning
Commission a long time ago.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: If we have placards (in=
audible). In the future when we put these up,
especially where you’ve got a 10 acre site and the wetlands are only =
60
or 80 feet from the house, we definitely have the placards. The one that came up previously is=
that
you put those placards there so that 15 yeas down the road, you see that
pressure treated post with the placard on it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I think this house has =
been
here, cause the wetlands act came into affect in 73, I think this house was
there a lot longer than that, so until they made their application, I think
they didn’t realize it, and I agree with what you’re saying, bu=
t I
think you should look at it, placard it, and you may want to ask for
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: The bottom line is it&#=
8217;s
an honest mistake and next time make sure you have your building permit in =
your
hand.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Gregorio: Absolutely, I will tell=
you
that this is now an ex-employee so it kind of tells you my feelings on the
whole thing.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Applicati=
on
#558 of Gregorio Pools and Spa for
installation of an in ground pool at
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 21
&=
nbsp; D. Application
#559 of Watertown Public Works Department for improvement of site line and =
road
safety near the intersection of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by July 14, 2006.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer, Town =
of
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: I’m here tonight =
on
behalf of Roy Cavanaugh, Director of Public Works. This is for site line improvements=
at
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: And there is a lake just beyond, a =
pond
just beyond Morehouse on the left, isn’t there?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yes, and the wetlands t=
hat
we’re going to be impacting are actually on the right hand side of the
road, right in this bright pink area here, we’re going to be cutting =
the
road down through here, filling it in a little bit here, the red is the
existing road, the green is the footprint area of disturbance, and you can =
see
it’s that area right there that will be causing the direct wetland im=
pact
on. It is a site line safety
improvement project is the purpose.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Have there been accidents there, ha=
s this
been a problem?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I’m not exactly
familiar with the accident history there.&=
nbsp;
It is one of the projects that’s been on our list of 20 some o=
dd
bond projects that we’ve been working on and I can check into that and
get back to you at the next meeting.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: There’s been an o=
utcry,
I can’t remember the resident’s name on
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Is this where they̵=
7;re
building the new subdivision on the right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: There’s a couple of houses, no
subdivision.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Carl McVeigh is up in h=
ere.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I think it’s wher=
e Gabe
Rosa and his cousin built their houses.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 22
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Just before the entranc=
e to
the dump.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: No, it’s beyond that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: Can you tell me exactly=
what
you mean by direct impact?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Actual inland/wetlands =
soils.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: It’s not going to=
do
huge damage, we’re talking about people lives.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: We are going to be fill=
ing
about 1,000 square feet of wetlands that will be impacted significantly.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Is that really a wetlan=
ds or
is it trench? Is that part of=
a
trench on the side of the road?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: No, it’s part of =
the
roadside drainage system but it is part of a larger wetlands system that do=
es
go back in this direction as well as continuing down.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: That’s all swamp =
there.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yea, I mean it is on the
edge, but it is . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: But you’re not cu=
tting
it off, you’re right on the edge of it and you’re going to dist=
urb
1,000 square feet of something that is 10 or 12 acres.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Right, and it’s l=
inear
disturbance, it’s not very wide, we’re not going across it,
we’re right on the edge and it’s just minimum necessary to get a
safer site line and a consistent width of road through there.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: And it says here the
Commission should just accept the application and table action on it until =
the
next meeting, right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Do we want to look at this or do we=
have
enough information?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: If it were going throug=
h the
heart of the wetlands I would walk through it but it’s just the edge =
of
the road, of a 15 acre parcel of wetlands, it’s a minimal impact, even
though it’s 1,000 square feet, it’s less than 1% of the wetland=
s in
that area.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I feel that there’=
;s a
safety issue and it has to be done, so there’s nothing we can do about
it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 23
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: We’ve done our be=
st to
minimize the impacts and it is necessary for safety. If you take a ride along that stre=
tch of
road before the next meeting you’ll see what we’re talking abou=
t as
far as the site line issues.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Moosa said to table it =
until
the next meeting.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Cause statute doesnR=
17;t
permit you to make a decision for 15 days.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Table Application #559 of Watertown Public Works Department for improvement of site line a=
nd
road safety near the intersection of Morehouse Road and Hamilton Avenues,
Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: You don’t think we need a pub=
lic
hearing on this?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I mean it would have to=
be
significant in order to have a public hearing.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: No, you can have a publ=
ic
hearing if it’s in the public interest, if you get 25 or more signatu=
res,
if you think it’s significant.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Well it’s going to be notifie=
d in
the press that this thing is approved, so the people who are interested in =
it
will find out.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I think they’ve a=
lready
had an informational public hearing, at the creation of the project I belie=
ve
Mr. Cavanaugh had a number of . . . . I can get you what the informational
public hearings were.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yea, as part of the bond
referendum, we‘ve had a number of public information meetings, and he
just conducted another one because it’s been a little while since as
we’ve been working on these, we’ve had some very good attendance
and some good input and everyone is generally in support of the projects th=
at
we’re working on.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: We have public particip=
ation
at the start of every meetings, so anybody who wants to talk can if they ha=
ve a
problem with it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 24
&=
nbsp; E. =
Application
#560 of Watertown Public Works Department for improvement of road safety ne=
ar
the intersection of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by July 14, 2006.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer, Town =
of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I’m here on behal=
f of
Roy Cavanaugh, Director of Public Works.&n=
bsp;
This application is very similar to the one that we previously
described. This is a site lin=
e improvement
projects. It does incorporate=
some
drainage improvements as well. At
the intersection of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: What’s the impact on this?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: In this area, the brigh=
t pink
hatched area, this area right here, is about a little over 1,500 square fee=
t of
direct impact and about 10,800 square feet of upland review area impact.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: And that’s that other red are=
a that
you’ve got outlined to the left?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: This just gives you a little bit better perspective of=
, this
is part of that wetland system that’s moving in this direction.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: You’re not going in that?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: No, just again trying to
demonstrate or illustrate a little bit how we’re just on the edge of =
the wetlands. It’s not like we’re go=
ing through
it, it’s not like we’re impacting it significantly, it’s =
just
the very edge alongside the road.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Is that Linkfield the o=
ne
that’s in progress now?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 25
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yes. There is actually this is Lot #16 =
of Linkfield
Acres that has a house on it now, Lot #15 I believe does not have a house on
it, and the rest of them actually come off of the main road.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Once this is through th=
ere
will be a better site view? W=
hen
you get in over there, I almost got killed 2 or 3 times over there. Will this make it better?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: It will make it better =
at
this intersection, it will not improve what goes on up at Bell Meadow. Not to sidetrack too long, but we =
did
have them do some road improvements as part of that project and those
improvements met the minimum standards.&nb=
sp;
What happens there, as you're heading west, taking a left into the s=
ubdivisions,
but if you don’t go where you’re supposed to, if you cut that a
little bit shy, I’ll admit it’s dangerous. If you go to where you’re su=
pposed
to go to, it does meet the minimum standards. Make sure you pull right up to the=
imaginary
stop line there, don’t try to cut it short.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Do you want to treat this like the
previous one?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I think so. I mean the work up above it, it=
217;s
just a minor how many square feet was that?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: About 1,500 square feet=
of
impact.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I think we should accep=
t it
and table it.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table Application #560 of Watertown Public Works Department for improvement of road safety
near the intersection of Barnes Road and Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; F. =
Application
#561 of Watertown Public Works Department for relocation of roadway drainage
system Hard Rock Road, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by July 14, 2006.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer, Town =
of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: I’m here on behal=
f of
Roy Cavanaugh, Director of Public Works.&n=
bsp;
This is for a relocation of some existing storm drainage on
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 26
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Where is Thomaston on this now, to =
the
right or to the left?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer, Town =
of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Thomaston is to the
right. There’s a cul de=
sac
that comes into there. This i=
s the
end of the cul de sac as it was approved.&=
nbsp;
This drainage, this outfall is coming out over here in a area where =
the
Town does not have the right to discharge to. It’s been brought to our
attention, we were unsuccessful in negotiating the right to drain where it =
is
now, so the proposal before you is to install, remove the drainage where
it’s not supposed to be and install it where it was originally approv=
ed
to be back in 1989.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: You were unsuccessful, =
that
means the property owner doesn’t want to give you the right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer, Town =
of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: We were unsuccessful in
reaching agreement on negotiations.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: You have to understand =
when
this happened. Lot #6 was lar=
ger,
then there was a resubdivision, the developer was Watertown Land Mark, he w=
ent
belly up and when they resubdivided it, we didn’t get a drainage ease=
ment
on the new Lot #6, which we should have, but somehow it just got lost and
that’s why it actually was on the right lot, but then when they
subdivided it they didn’t get the easements onto Lot #6 so now
that’s why it’s going onto Lot #6A. In this case the bond was covered,=
it
was called Pope to finish building this road. It was O & G who did the work,=
but
it was just unfortunate that it was originally on the right lot but then wh=
en
they resubdivided they didn’t get the other easement.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer, Town =
of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: There are not direct we=
tland
impacts associated with this and about 870 square feet of upland review area
impact.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table Application #561 of Watertown Public Works Department for relocation of roadway
drainage system, Hard Rock Road, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 27
&=
nbsp; G. Application
#562 of Ronald Nordby.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by July 14, 2006.=
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Ms. Barton: Just accept and table.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Accept and Table Application #562 of Ronald Nordby.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
7. &n=
bsp; Old
Business
&=
nbsp; A. Application
for modification of Permit #533 issued to Concetta Guerrera for constructio=
n of
a new single-family dwelling on Lot #3 Stoneybrook Lane, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
commission has until July 14, 2006 to hold a public hearing or rend its
decision on the application.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; George Mowad, Attorney
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: As you’re aware, we had start=
ed
this project in July 2004. We=
were before
this board once before, where permit #533 was granted. I’m not sure if you recall, =
one of
the issues was the placement of the septic system. The engineer was here, we had talked
about the best place for the septic system, this Board chose to keep the se=
ptic
system where the property was originally approved. We started blasting, we attempted =
to
pour the footings, we were informed by the Torrington Area Health District,
because as the lot was originally approved, it’s unsuitable pursuant =
to
the Connecticut Public Health Code.
Not through any fault of my client’s, what ultimately happened,
unbeknownst to everyone, was the lot had changed from the time it was
originally approved to some time prior to my clients purchasing the property
and Mr. Bob Smith is here from the Torrington Area Health District and I th=
ink
he can better explain what seems to be the problem.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: How can a lot change, I don’t
understand?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: It appears that some of the dirt th=
at was
originally there when the lot was approved prior to the street being built,=
was
removed, about 50 inches of direct.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 28
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: By whom?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: We have absolutely no idea. Like I said it must have been done=
some
time prior to my client, prior to the previous owner buying the property.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Previous owner meaning =
the
developer?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: I
don’t know who the previous owner was. The man from the Torrington Area H=
ealth
District can better explain, but from what I understand, when it was origin=
ally
approved, there was somewhere between 70 and 80 inches of soil. When these maps were originally dra=
wn and
our engineer went out, prior to us coming before the board, there appears m=
ow
to be between 36 or then when he drew the original plans that we presented =
to
this Board, there was only between 30 and 36 inches of soil.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Are you talking about t=
opsoil
or just dirt?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: I’m talking about just dirt t=
hat
was there when it was originally there, and wasn’t there some time pr=
ior
to us coming to this Board.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: What area are we talking
about?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: Where you wanted the original septi=
c,
where the septic system was originally proposed, when this lot was original=
ly approved,
some time when the developer had set this lot into motion.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I’m confused, cau=
se I
can’t remember . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: This was the one where . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I
remember the fill.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: I
believe you guys all have maps that were presented to Moosa about 2 weeks a=
go.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I can’t remember =
now
where the original septic approve was.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: We had originally proposed that it =
be
behind where we were filling in the wetlands, and the engineer said it was =
the
best place to put this, the Board chose us to allow us to fill in a portion=
of
the wetlands, but wanted us to keep the septic system where it was original=
ly
approved.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 29
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Has anything been filled in?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: No.
A portion of the wetlands that you approved have been filled in.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Bob Smith, Torrington Area Health
District
Mr. Smith: I’m not sure which, which rev=
ision
or which map are you looking at?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: That one, then there’s one he=
re
10/13/05.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: That’s the one that was appro=
ved by
me, this one, when you look down you’ll see revision 6, dated
11/15/05. This is the one tha=
t I
approved and that’s the one that shows the septic system primary stan=
ding
in the street looking at the house, in the front right of the lot. So septic primary was approved in =
the front
right hand corner of the lot and the septic reserve area was approved by me=
in
the area beyond what your commission approved where the brook was piped and
then subsequently filled. Thi=
s pipe
was extended, septic reserve area back here.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: And where was the fill done?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: After the pipe was put in place, th=
is
used to dip down in 2 directions and then it was filled in.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: How about the opening at the bottom=
to
create more wetlands. Weren&#=
8217;t
they going to do something at the other end?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: We haven’t gotten to that sta=
ge
yet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: Then what happened is there was some
blasting done for the construction of the house, and they blasted for the
tank. I went out to look at t=
he
site and something just didn’t set well and I was told by the
applicant’s husband that this Commission said absolutely not, that the
septic primary and reserve was to be where it was originally approved with =
the subdivision. I went back to looking at the test=
pit
data and it won’t fit there.
I went out there with my chief and Matt Pawlak who is the State of
Connecticut Department of Public Health Engineer, he’s the septic guru
from the State of
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 30
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Now
when you look at your maps, you’ll see DT’s test pit 100, 101, =
102,
and 103, 104, etc. all in that front right corner. When you look in the upper left ha=
nd
side down where it says deep test pits, you'll see corresponding numbers and
you’ll see various elevation to ledge rock, solid ledge was determine=
d by
the engineer and verified by me to be found at 36, 52, 36, 32, by todayR=
17;s
standards, this lot is unsuitable to be built and should have never been ap=
proved
by the standards that were in place at the time the lot was approved, this =
lot
should never have been approved.
Now if anyone knows
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: And what did you have for elevations
there?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: The original test test pit 7-1 was =
at 86
inches, test pit 7-2 went down to 80 inches, test 7-3 went down to 70 inche=
s.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: And those correspond to what, that'=
s 100
. . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: They are approximately the same loc=
ation
as this septic primary, so when we do the math, when we had originally 86, =
and
there's currently 36, there's 50 inches of dirt that's missing. Now Mary reminded me of the story =
of all
of the problems that the contractor had in the construction of this road an=
d so
much so that I think that maybe his bond was pulled and they had to hire a
second company to fix this because it was an atrocity, so what I asked the
engineer to do for me was to provide me with 2 options, and unfortunately t=
hey were
just delivered tome about half an hour ago.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: They were previously delivered, 6 s=
ets
were delivered to Moosa about 2 weeks ago, I assumed you had them.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: All I have are the pones that are i=
n the
file; I never saw anything else.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 31
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: The request was to . . . . . (Tape =
#2,
Side B ended - may have missed some) all undisturbed soil up in the vicinit=
y,
behind the house, on the other side of the piped brook, and that's why I
approved the lot with primary and front reserve on back, and you all wanted
primary and reserve in the front, it's not going to fit and it's not going =
to
work, it's unsuitable, so what I told the engineer to do was give me 2 more
options, option A being both primary and reserve on the slope on the backsi=
de
of the house, on the opposite side of the filled pipe if necessary show an =
extension
further of this piping because the public health code require4s 50 feet fro=
m septic
to open water. Your regulatio=
ns say
100. The thought is that once=
the
brook is in a pipe, it's n longer open water, and therefore we cannot only
reduce this separation distance to satisfy your requirements, but it still
satisfies the public health requirements of 50 feet so I've got one here, I
haven't reviewed it, I got it jut tonight.=
The other option was show me the primary back here, if you can't make
both of them fit, then show me the primary in the back yard on the opposite
side of that pipe and the reserve in the front yard.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: The part of the wetlands that they =
were
going to develop, and they were going to do some piping there, are you talk=
ing
about adding piping now or altering what they plan to do there, or can they=
do
what they were going to do there and still do what you're talking about?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: This has been done, this pipe has b=
een
extended, and the proposal shows an extension of the pipe.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: So you're adding to that?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: How much more, 55 feet? We already did 55 and we're doing
another 55?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: You all approved 59 linear feet and=
the
proposal is to add an additional 55.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: How much of the additional wetlands=
were
disturbed?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: In this area here, see how you have=
the
septic system here so that you'll be away from it, couldn't we put the sept=
ic
system this way?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: No, at that point it would be contr=
ary to
contour, the septic system has to run parallel to existing grade.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 32
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: So then could we put two of them si=
de by
side, here and here, cause we went through a lot of heartache to give them =
the
59 feet originally, and to go another 55 feet is not really what we'd like =
to
do, so is there some way that we could run it parallel here?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: In order to satisfy, there's a
requirement on here and it's referred to as MLSS, we found that when we ins=
tall
septics, what we don't want to do is hydraulically stack them. I haven't looked at this new, whet=
her o
not it satisfies the MLSS requirements.&nb=
sp;
What it stands for is minimum leasing system spread, it takes into
account 4 numbers, and it says that in addition to square3 footage the syst=
em
has to be a minimum length. W=
hen
you take sewage, stretch it out over 100 feet, we evenly disperse sewage ov=
er
across that 100 feet, when we disperse it over 425 foot roads, a hydraulic
window, our area of saturation is getting overloaded, so what we would be d=
oing
is putting the second trench, if we propose to put 2, we're then encroachin=
g,
getting closer into that filled in area.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: How
far away does the septic system have to be from the house?
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Smith: That's an "it depends" question. Generally 25 feet.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: So could we do that then? Could we do a 50 here and a 50 her=
e and
tie them across this way?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: We haven't tested this area.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: You're putting fill there now? I mean that's the area of fill tha=
t we
just granted. I want to give =
him a
septic system that works for his house, he's got a lot, he's working on it,=
but
I would like to give him a septic system without having to give another 55 =
feet
of fill, so if there is some way we could put a 50 foot on one side and 50 =
foot
on the other, on the area that we just filled, I mean now it's a filled area
anyway, even if we dug a channel to put in a good material to put in there =
. .
. .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: It
depends on what type of material we filled.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: I
think what they used was the material that came out of the foundation hole,=
(inaudible)
rock won't work.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: So it won't be suitable for septic.,
cause you have to use septic fill, so you may end up causing more disturban=
ce
by taking that material out and putting in septic fill. They never soil tested in that are=
a at
all, did they?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 33
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: No, but I could do the review based=
on
the installation of the septic primary in the area that it's proposed across
the filled area without extending the pipe and if it satisfies my 50 foot
requirement then it would be up to you folks whether or not you want to let=
him
go 50 feet on your regulation.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: We gave 59 feet already.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: No, I'm talking about distance from
wetlands, from open water.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: So if you did that, and then the on=
ly
other thing you'd have to do is I think that trench is in a conservation
easement area, so we'd have to do something in relation to that, to (inaudi=
ble)
that conservation easement area.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I
think the best thing to do is just bring yours to a minimum, see if yours
meets, without having to do the fill.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: =
Are
you talking about the reserve?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: Right now our focus really should be
getting the primary in this area on the other side of the pipe that you all
allowed and turning this area if need be out in front into just a paper
exercise for a reserve, cause my concerns are these, in that because we
blasted, and actually when you look at the ones you have in front of you, to
put in for the tank what happens is when you blast rock you create fissures,
cracks, and when you put leaching system over crack soil, instead of being
filtered through the good soil it's going to take the straight shot, and I =
have,
as a public health official, two concerns.=
Primary concern is the neighbors well, standing in the street lookin=
g at
the house, the neighbor to the left, his well is in his front yard, the
topography of the front yard is very contrary, it falls off in 3 different
directions, and also, if this rock is as crack as it could be, then the sew=
age
is going to take the straight line to the pond, so I truly believe that at
least the primary in this back yard up on the hill in the undisturbed natur=
al
soil is by far the best choice, and if we can get the reserve up there so be
it, and if we can do it without extending the pipe . . . . if we can do it =
and
satisfy my requirements, then it would be up to you all to say . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: It's a matter of whether or not, if=
it
meets his requirements for leaching, we have to make a decision as to wheth=
er or
not we want to accept it that it's not, it's inside our 50 foot, or if we
prefer to have it filled, so now we have to see which course we would prefe=
r.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Well
let him do his analysis and then we can talk about it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 34
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I
think that's the best we can do.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>That
question about using the fill for the reserve, you're saying the fill that'=
s in
there now might not work because it's blasted but couldn't you bring the pr=
oper
fill in?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: You could do more disturbance by
excavating out, it might cause more . . . . it may not work.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>It's
pretty disturbed already.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: The problem is this, is that once, =
and
that was also one of my reasons for not going with the area that, when they
blasted the rock, and some of the material was placed on top of the approved
septic area, when you take soil and put mass on top of it, it compacts, whe=
n it
compacts, it no longer percolates, so in this back yard we've taken, and I'm
guessing at one point it was maybe a 15 or 20 foot gulley and pretty much
filled it in . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: And you don't think that fill is go=
od
enough?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: No.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Ms. Sturgis: And we can't bring in better fill?<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Well you've disturbed the area, you=
've
disturbed the natural there already and we had a similar situation on Wheel=
er
Farm, they stripped the topsoil, went over it with a machine, moved it arou=
nd,
and then ended up combining lots because they couldn't get it, because they
disturbed it, and even if you put soil back it wasn't going to work because
once you, muck around with the natural soil, you've made a worse mess, and =
it
may be more of a problem. You=
're
better off for the health of the pond, to really put it in the undisturbed =
soil
where the septic system will have the soil water interface, it will cleanse
before it gets to the pond, because otherwise I think you're looking at a r=
eal
problem hydraulically.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: Even for the reserve you think it's=
a
risk?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I
think it's a risk, I really do, I think we'll have a problem, especially wi=
th
the pond and the way the situation is.&nbs=
p;
I doubt there will ever be public water up here, so the concern about
the wetland impact to the pond, I think the course of action and let Bob do=
his
analysis is probably to put it in a more appropriate location that the sept=
ic
system actually works and the sewage stays underground, cause If you pop it=
out
you'll have worse problems.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 35
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Do we have to go the full 50 feet or
maybe we can extend this a little bit more if the primary is on this side?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Now the reserve, by extending this=
a
little bit more, can we put the reserve in this area over here?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: That's what I have to look at. When you look at their, one of the
proposals that they submitted to me tonight, is that this primary and reser=
ve
is greater than 50 feet from the open water, so it satisfies the requiremen=
ts
of the Connecticut Public Health Code, but we've got some wiggle room. My law says septic system 10 feet =
from
property line, and there is much more than 10 feet between the septic prima=
ry
and what would be the easterly property line so we could in fact slide the
primary up the hill, follow it with the res4erve,and if we can get 62 feet,
then we're 62 feet from the open water, still satisfy my requirements, and =
this
is, if we can do this without extending the pipe. If this commission is adamant about
maintaining 100 feet from open water, then the extension of the pipe such t=
hat
it matches the overall length of the leaching system, the extension of the =
pipe
would negate your requirement of 100 feet from open water.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: So
the best thing is let you come up with the best plan.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Are
you going to do new percs if you move it closer? Do they have to do new percs if yo=
u're
going like to within 10 feet, I mean right now it looks like you're 60 feet=
from
the property line. Your scale=
there
is probably 60 feet the way you're showing on yours.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: It's actually currently showing the=
top
of the system is at closest point 30 feet from the property line, and I can=
be
as close as 10.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: From the back property line?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: Yes, any property line.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: So now if you go 10 feet, you're mo=
ving
20 feet away.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: 20 feet further, and if we can do t=
his .
. . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Give us your analysis, I don't know=
if
you need to do a new perc there cause you're 20 more feet, but he's got the
machine on the site, I'm assuming, right, so they can do another test bit f=
or
you, and give us your results, I'd just as soon they get going with their
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: I'll look at it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Now do you want it to come back to =
the
Commission before they go ahead?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 36
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Yes.
We may be having another meeting intermediate, so if we do have anot=
h4er
meeting between now and our next meeting, if we schedule another one in
between, then if we could get Bob's analysis, then we could have that in fr=
ont
of us if we schedule one between now and our . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: You
need 2 to 3 weeks for 2 notices, we can talk about that and see.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: We
can maybe get that approved right away, we're trying to schedule another
meeting between now and our June meeting because we have so much on our pla=
te.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: We'd like to get this done as soon =
as
possible because it's holding up (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Obviously so that's what we're goin=
g to
talk about, is whether or not we'll get Bob's analysis and if we schedule
another meeting for maybe 2 weeks from now or whatever meets the guidelines,
then if we have all the numbers in front of us we can take a look at that a=
nd
maybe get something approved in 2 weeks.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: <=
/b>I
think what may not be coming across is the way it's proposed on the map that
was given to Moosa that we hoped you were going to have, it meets the
Torrington Health District's requirements of being more than 50 feet away f=
rom
open water; it does not meet the Watertown Inland/Wetlands Commission of 100
feet, so if you were to approve, and I think what they're asking is, if we =
can
get, to comply with the State and the Torrington Health District, you would
need to compromise your distances. <=
/span>The
only reason we're looking to fill it in is to satisfy this Commissions'
distances. The other thing I =
think
this Commission needs to remember, and I think this might, through no one's
fault especially not through my client's fault and I don't believe anybody =
else
here, this lot should have never been approved.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: We
all agree on that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: The problem is . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: It's
a lot now so we're trying to get him
septic system that works and we have to decide wh4ether or not we wa=
nt
you 100 feet away and to fill another 55 feet or compromise on 100 feet and
drop it down and not have you fill another 55 feet, so I think let's wait to
see what he gets for soil and what Bob comes up with for a number and we'll
make a decision hopefully at our next meeting, we'll try to schedule another
meeting in between our regular scheduled meeting in June, so hopefully we'll
have an answer for you within 2 weeks and then Bob will have to give us an
answer and we'll go from there.
Does that makes sense?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 37
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: This is the applicant's parent's ho=
use
back here and their well is in the front yard now. Typically we do not allow for the =
well
radius to cross a property line, just for this reason.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: So you're going to keep tat as a
consideration?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: Absolutely,
we would have to get the engineer to locate the parent's well and draw the =
75
foot radius, much the same as he has done here, so that we know where we ca=
n't
go, and once we know where we can't go, then . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: The well is up here on the parent's=
lot
so his septic system would be on the downhill gradient, correct?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: That is true, 75 is regardless of position vertical.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: As long as the septic system is on =
the down
gradient, it's preferred, rather than being uphill of it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: Preferred yes, you are correct.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: It still has to be 75 feet, and typ=
ically
that 75 feet is not when we approve that typically, his would not be here, =
and
the 75 foot radius would not be going to another lot, so I'm assuming it's
there, but I can't make that assumption now because this shouldn't have been
approved to begin with so let's get it done and . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Well
that's neither here nor there, we have an approved lot, you have to determi=
ne
whether to compromise and so move it along and Bob has to do his analysis a=
nd let
you know what's going o happen.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: If we have a special meeting (inaud=
ible)
that could be put on the agenda again and (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Does your client have a machine on
site? They did some filling a=
lready,
is the machine up there?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty. Mowad: It's been removed.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: But
I think it's more your paperwork, correct?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: I
have to look at see what we've got here for soil, and we may have some soil
testing.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 38
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: You'll have to make that decision a=
s to
whether or not you need another test pit, and that's not a big thing to do
anoth4er test pit right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Smith: Not (inaudible) gets the lot approv=
ed.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Well it was approved, but we just w=
ant to
approve a septic system for him that will meet his requirements and ours.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table Application for modification of Permit #533 issued to Concetta Guerrera for
construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot #3 Stoneybrook Lane,
Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty.
Mowad: Can we start pouri=
ng the
footings even though we don't know the location, I mean we're going to have=
to
have a septic system, it will have to be somewhere that complies with the
State's requirements, so it's up to this commission as to whether or not th=
ey
want to compromise their 100 foot. <=
/span>The
problem is this project was started in July of 04.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Barton: Technically the Z=
oning
Regulations do not permit a foundation permit to be issued if there is not =
an
approved septic plan.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: But he had an
approved septic plan.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Barton: He had an approved
septic plan, but I think we'll have to give an exception to it, and all we'=
re
going to let him do is the footings, but nothing else.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible) putting a foundation.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Barton: Well I did this o=
nce
and it was a big mistake, I had a real problem with it, so why don't we talk
about this tomorrow. It just =
scares
me to . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 39
=
; &n=
bsp; Mr.
Smith: If the Commission sees fit, you ha=
ve in
your file Revision 6 which is the one that I approved. The reserve area in the back has t=
o meet
the same requirements as the primary area.=
So for the sake of discussion we could in fact say we're going to put
the primary in the back, put the reserve in the front and if this Commission
sees that as an okay choice, based on the approval for revision #6, then he=
can
go ahead and do his footings.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: So you're doin=
g a
foot block?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Smith: Absolutely.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Sturgis: I think you ough=
t to
wait until you give us the stuff, maybe he can do his footings anyway but I
don't think we should . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Barton: There is already =
an
approved plan in place, I guess the thing is I need a level of comfort, I d=
id
this before and I regretted it, I need a letter from you stating all you're
going to do is the foundation and nothing more.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: No framing, no=
other
excavation, I understand when you've got a hole dug, and we're getting a lo=
t of
rain coming, to have that open for 3 weeks is no good.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Barton: I agree, so I thi=
nk
what you need to do is put something in writing to me, and signed by your (=
inaudible)
cause I did this once and I regretted it, give me a letter stating you're o=
nly
going to put the foundation in, our client signs it, or whoever the property
owner is, we agree upon it, it sits in the file, so in case they die, go aw=
ay,
sell the property, they run away to Vegas, there's something there saying t=
hey
can't go any farther than the foundation without, that's it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: Until we have a
signed agreement for the septic system between the sanitarian and the
Commission.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty.
Mowad: We'll do that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: No further tha=
n that
foundation, not a piece of stick on the (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Unidentified
Man: (Inaudible) footings
already built, the ceiling and everything has been sitting like that for 2 =
or 3
weeks (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: The longer it =
takes,
the worse the grounds gets.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 40
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: This is bey=
ond
the scope of this Commission.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Barton: Talk to me tomorr=
ow.
&=
nbsp; B. =
Application
for modification of Permit #531 issued to Nelson Lynn for 12-Lot Windy Ridge
Residential Subdivision,
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
commission has until July 14, 2006 to hold a public hearing or rend its
decision on the application.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Emily Jones, Professional Engineer, Civil One
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Jones: The reason, do you guys all have
maps? 11 x 17, that's it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: The map shows the swale that was in=
the
packet and the length of the swale.
The reason this is back in front of you, when the Planning and Zonin=
g Commission
approved it they were concerned about the swale along the front of it for
traffic safety so what the proposing to do, and I do believe it's a minor
modification is just a disturbance about 1,900 square feet of upland review
area, and this came about as a result of traffic safety and as you know Bun=
ker
Hill Road, we just talked about previously so that's why they have not filed
the subdivision map, I mean it is for traffic safety, so I would consider i=
t a minor
amendment to the plan.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Jones: Yea, basically we went through the
approval process with this Commission and with the Planning and Zoning Comm=
ission
and it wasn't actually until after the approval when the Planning and Zoning
was setting their conditions of approval that we heard about the requirement
that they were going to place upon the applicant to make the swales along
Bunker Hill Road traversable for a storm vehicle. We had never planned on doing anyt=
hing
in that area because we weren't doing any lots, any access off of Bunker Hi=
ll
Road for any lots, and we didn't see any reason for any activity in an area=
where
we weren't disturbing, but understandably for reasons of public safety and =
it
came up a little bit last minu7te, but that's okay, that's why we're here, =
we
had to go back and forth with the Town Engineer to determine first what the
Planning and Zoning Commission maybe meant by this requirement and then what
would satisfy Public Works and the condition of approval. So what we're back here for is a m=
inor
modification. Most of the
improvements along
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 41
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I
assume you've reviewed this, Chuck?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yes, we've been looking at a number=
of
different alternatives and this was determined to be the best alternative a=
nd
supported by our office.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Can you show me on this map the
change? It doesn't show me the
change.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Jones: See
we have this, there's a catch basin here that ties into the storm drainage
system and that was previously reviewed by this commission, but that was it,
that was all we had, was just this catch basin here, so now we have to grade
this area, all along here, and from here to here is in the upland review ar=
ea.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: You have to gr=
ade
that because (inaudible)?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Barton: Traversable by a =
motor
vehicle, that was the (inaudible) of the Planning and Zoning Commission bec=
ause
that Commission is responsible for what is it traffic congestion and safety=
in
the public streets and they determined that was needed. The condition was imposed by Mr.
Masayda, who is a traffic engineer for D.O.T.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Jones: The original catch basin was here, =
it's
right here, so this is the proposed road right here, and this was always he=
re,
but we weren't proposing anything along this area because there was already
somewhat of a swale, we weren't doing anything in his area, and then as par=
t of
the conditions of approval, because in a new Town road your drainage swales=
on
the side of the road have to meet certain standards.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: It has to be a deeper swale?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Jones: It has to be basically less deep.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Jones: Right, but this is
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: You seemed to indicate it was on th=
is
side, I'm sorry, I was thinking this was so the road, so that's the swale r=
ight
there?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 42
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Jones: Yes.
Actually we went through a couple of alternatives and this one seeme=
d to
be the least invasive. We had=
one
with a deeper swale, and it would require the removal of that stone wall and
the disturbance of that conservation restriction, so instead we're making a
shallower swale and adding these catch basins so that we don't over grade t=
he
area.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Does anybody have a problem wit tha=
t?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: If you in with a small car, you're =
not
going to bottom out, Chuck? I=
mean
when you're trying to get out, the back of the car is not going to hit, or =
the
front in the swale?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Well our typical swale cross section
calls for a 4:1 slope off the edge.
We generally have a wide3r area before we go to the 4:1 slope, but t=
his
is making a bad situation much better.&nbs=
p;
You're not going to just drop into the swale. There's the opportunity, I'm not g=
oing
to say you're going to be able to easily drive out of it, but there is an
opportunity to either recover or gently slow down.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: It will be better than before?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yes.
It's an immediate drop off to where now it will be a 4:1 slope, a fo=
ot
deep.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Jones: It's an amendment, you don't have t=
o wait
14 days, you can approve it right now if you want.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Ms.
Sturgis, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Approve Application for modification of Permit #531 issued to Nelson Lynn for 12-Lot Windy
Ridge Residential Subdivision,
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; (Tape
#3, Side A ended - may have missed some.)
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 43
8. =
New
Business
&=
nbsp; A. Referral
from the Town of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: You did get the application. Unfortunately I gave the plans to =
Moosa
and I couldn't find them o his desk and this shows, there actually is parki=
ng
and activity within Wat4ertown that will potentially impact wetlands. The Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewed this to the May meeting and I sent a letter to the Middlebury Plan=
ning
and Zoning Commission and to the applicant stating that they have to make an
application to the Watertown Planning and Zoning Commission and I believe w=
e should
also send a similar letter from the Wetlands Commission telling the applica=
nt
and the Town Of Middlebury these people need to make an application to
Watertown because there is activity.
Middlebury can't approve activity in wetlands in
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: That's the problem, they're paperwo=
rk
doesn't really show what's going on.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: No, and I apologize, I don't have t=
he
site plan, cause if you didn't get the site plan and you look at this appli=
cation,
you would think there was no impact, but when you look at the site plan the=
re
is definitely impact to the wetlands, so I'd like you to make a motion that
staff send a letter to the applicant and to Middlebury stating they need to
make an application to the Watertown Wetlands Commission. A piece of this is in
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Where they're filling in is in
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Yea, there is some activity in
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 44
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Send a Letter to the Town of
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; B. =
Watertown
Land Trust request for the Commission support of their attempt to purchase =
the
Osuch farmland located in
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I
guess you've read the letter on that.
Any discussion?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I
think it's a good idea.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: I'm all for it personally, but is i=
t appropriate
for a Commission to do that?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Yes, actually when you make an
application in the State of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: So this is the one where they're go=
ing to
purchase the land and he's still going to be able to farm it until (inaudib=
le)
and then when he dies, it comes over the land Trust?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: No, the Land Trust is buying it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Yea, but he gets the right to farm =
it
until he dies.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: He has life use.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: No, he'll have to rent it. He would lease the land.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: The Land Trust is buying the land a=
nd he doesn't
have life use, he has to rent it back?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 45
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Duplissie: And there is already an agreement?<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Actually it's not the owner, it's a
relative, it's a son-in-law or grandson.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: And they're going t lease the eland=
back
for use for how long?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: That's (inaudible) determined and it
could be leased to other people.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: But it will not be developed.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: No, it will not be a subdivision, i=
t will
continue the agricultural use as long as someone wants to use it for agricu=
lture.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: There will be an easement on it, the
farmland trust or whatever it is will actually hold the easement.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Send a Letter to the Land Trust that this
Commission is in support of their attempt to purchase the Osuch Farmland
located in
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
9. =
Communications
and Bills
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: This kind of pertains to that swimm=
ing
pool.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: It does and if you read it, look at=
#11,
that's the notice that was subject of the application by Gregorio Pools.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I
agree, but it wasn't the landowner that did this.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton Well they're not making the applica=
tion,
it's the pool company, cause they made the mistake.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 46
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Let's take a look at it first. Let's reserve the right to do that=
, but
see how much space is available, and how far into it they are, not that that
matters, but it lo9oks like the pool goes right through the center of the w=
etlands.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I
think they need to provide some additional grading and show the wetlands
doesn't just end here, so I'm going to review it and make some comments
back. They should show the en=
tire,
and actually show some of th4e grade sin here.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: It's not like the homeowner is out =
of it
because the pool company is insured for this. If they have to move it, they move=
it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Correct. I'll have them provide additional
information and have them stake out the location of the pool and the wetlan=
ds
so you can review it at that time.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: But this item is general interest, =
it's
more than just the pool thing. Have
you read it? It's pretty
interesting, that case in
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Typically you go to court on a wetl=
ands
enforcement action, judges are very good about giving Wetlands Commission c=
ourt
fees.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: This past summer, last year, when w=
e had
the one over on Smith Pond Road here with 1,000 feet of wetlands, that shou=
ld
have never been approved, we should have kicked that back out but be that a=
s it
may, it's done, but in the future I think we have anoth4er one, there's a
notice of violation.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: That's the one that Moosa just gave=
you
on the staff report, that's the same thing, because we noticed the pool com=
pany
and the property owner, so he's just letting you know it's the same one.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Moosa just went out to look at anot=
her
piece of property on
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Yes, and Mr. SantaMaria called back=
I
think it was yesterday, I haven't gotten back on all the calls, Moosa has b=
een
gone since Tuesday, his brother-in-law passed away in Holland, so I have to
follow up and see exactly what is happening there. There was some excavation, Mr.
SantaMaria did acknowledge there was some excavation, I believe it was with=
in
50 feet of the wetlands, so I have to go over there and see what's going on=
.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I
took a walk over there, you can see it from the back side of the golf cours=
e,
there's a stream that runs right down alongside the golf course, they took =
down
the trees, they excavated on one point, filled on anoth4er.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 47
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I
don't know why they would have done that, they're well aware of that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: If you're looking at the building f=
rom
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I
don't know why they did that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: If you get an individual like this =
guy,
he apologized, he was sorry, he didn't know, but a guy like Mr. SantaMaria =
that
has been in business for so many years, they know the rules and regulations.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: They came and got a wetland permit =
when
they put the sewer line connection to that building so I don't understand, =
but
I will follow up. If they did=
do
that extent, then I'll tell him he's got to do remediation right away.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: When they cut down the trees they b=
lew
some wood chips on the (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: =
I
think we have a lot of these examples in the past, they keep saying they ma=
de a
mistake, I think we should start setting an example and letting people
know. If a person really does=
n't know,
but this guy has been in business for many years so there's no excuse for t=
hat.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I'll take a look at it, talk to him,
issue a cease and desist and have a show cause hearing.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: And
this isn't just an upland review area, it's not questionable as to whether =
this
is wetlands, he's right next to a stream.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I'll see what Moosa did, I will iss=
ue a
cease and desist and schedule a show cause public hearing because you have =
to
do one anyway and Mr. SantaMaria can tell you exactly what happened.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Do you want to schedule the site wa=
lks
and the public hearings?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: I
think you have 5 hearings,
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 48
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I
especially like this one here tonight with the septic system he wants to ge=
t going
on.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>But
he has to get back to us first, and he didn't sound like he was going to ge=
t it
within a week.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: I
think Bob is going to get right back to us with that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: You could possibly do something, I =
can't
get it in the paper in time for May 25th.&=
nbsp;
We could do it June 1st or 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Sturgis: It's easier to keep them on
Thursdays. I think the 1st.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Everyone
felt June 1st was the best. A
discussion ensued about how many public hearings would be held that evening=
.
= D= iscussion: None<= o:p>
=
M=
OTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
10. Repor=
ts
from Officers and Committees
11. Repor=
ts
from Staff
A. Notice
of violation issued to Karen Tesch,
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: We already talked about this; Chuc=
k is
there anything else?
12. &n=
bsp; Public
Participation
Mr. Duplissie: I just want to go ba=
ck to
this Guerrera one, it's my opinion it doesn't necessarily stand for anythin=
g. If we're going to do anything over
there, I think if we can get Bob to move the system over, the choice comes =
down
to us having to fill another 55 feet so that we meet our 100 foot setback or
leave it the way it is now, and only filling 59 feet the way we've already
approve it, and him being6y8 feet from the open water, I would prefer not
filling another 55 feet above that trench, cause I think that's worse than
being only 68 feet away from the water.
Ms. Barton: I agree, if that's y=
our
consensus, I have no problem.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 49
Ms. Sturgis: But I'd like proof t=
hat they
do what they said they were going to do at the end of that pipe is all those
little plantings. They haven'=
t done
it yet.
Ms. Barton: I think as part of t=
he
approval they have to provide an as built and they should do something about
the conservation easement and file a Mylar of the completed site on the land
records I the P & Z office so there's no questions.
Mr. Duplissie: An A2 of the complet=
ed
site, not just the (inaudible).
Ms. Barton: An as built.
Mr. Duplissie: But typically as bui=
lts
don't include plants.
Ms. Sturgis: Part of the deal was=
they
were going to increase the wetlands down th4ere.
Ms. Barton: We can make that a c=
ondition,
to show everything on there. =
Do you
want a bond?
Mr. Duplissie: We gave them permiss=
ion to
do 59 feet of fill. I think t=
he as
built should show that they did 57.5 feet or that they've gone 68.5 feet, a=
nd I
think we should definitely have that, cause it's very easy to go that extra=
10
or 15 feet.
Mr. Polletta: We also told him he =
was
going to have some plantings too.
Ms. Barton: I think we should ha=
ve
that, and in the motion to revise it you put in an as built, have a wetland
scientist do the plantings, certify that they're in place, that's what we d=
id
with The Siemon Company.
Mr. Polletta: But how can he do it
without it, if we approve it that way he has to have it in th4ere.
Ms. Barton: I don't know what
happened, but I think everything has to be done before he moves (inaudible)=
.
Mr. Polletta: But Chuck, at that t=
ime,
didn't he show us all the plantings and everything?
Ms, Sturgis: Yes, he did.
Mr. Polletta: So he's got to do it=
, he
can't get away with it.
Ms. Barton: Did you require that
somebody had to certify that he put the right plantings in?
Mr. Duplissie: I don't think so.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 2006
PAGE 50
Ms. Barton: You can do it on the
revision. It forces the perso=
n who
designed the wetland plantings to go out and supervise it and make sure it'=
s in
place.
13. Adjou=
rnment
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 10:20 p.m.
&nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Regular
Meeting Adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
Inland
Wetlands Agency
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________