MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR
MEETING
THURSDAY=
, MAY
12, 2005 - 7:30 PM
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Glenn
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
; &n=
bsp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Berna=
rd
Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; Peter Peluso
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Denise
Russ
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Martha
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: &nb=
sp; =
None
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Chuck
Berger, Town Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Zoning Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting to order at 10:00 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Thermer, in his
absence.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Russ to sit in for Mr. Beauchamp, in his abse=
nce.
3. =
Public
Participation
Mr. Todd:
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 2
Mr. Tedesco: I’m here tonight to eat a li=
ttle
crow. WE have a little proble=
m,
myself and the Town Council, regarding a nomination to the Planning and Zon=
ing,
and the same thing I was getting on their case about I ended up doing
myself. I made a few disparag=
ing
remarks about not just this commission, but wetland commissions in
general. It was a heated mome=
nt and
I would just like to apologize to the Commission, and again it wasn’t
directed at anybody in particular.
Like I said it was a heated moment and I sort of just clumped everyb=
ody
together. Basically what I sa=
id,
and it’s on the record, that wetland commissions sometimes have an ag=
enda
and basically, you guys are just loving this, Town Council sort of put
developers in the light of being unethical in their take, and I basically s=
aid
there's a lot of commissions that have, like the school board has teachers,=
and
Z.B.A. there’s a developer on there that’s done a good job, and=
I
know Mr. Polletta is on wetlands and he’s a developer and he was on P
& Z for 12 years without a problem, and I said sometimes wetlands have
their nature fakers and tree huggers, I said, and again it wasn’t
directed at this commission, and if anybody took offense to it please accep=
t my
apology. Thank you.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Apology accepted.
4. =
Action
on Minutes
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Add Agenda Item 4G, Special Meeting, Febru=
ary
15, 2005.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; A. Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 12, 2001, App. #423, Mark Lovely &=
nbsp; B. =
Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 12 2001, App. #424, Domenic DiNunzio &=
nbsp; C. Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 12, 2001, App. #425, New Millennium Development, In=
c. &=
nbsp; D. Public Hearing July 12, 2001, App. #428, &n=
bsp; E.<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> =
Regular
Meeting, July 12, 2001
F. =
Public Hearing, April 14, 2005, App. #521, Joseph Polletta
G. =
Regular Meeting, April 14, 2005
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Approve Items 4A through 4E and Table
Items 4F and 4G.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 3
5. =
Pending
Applications
A. Application #520 of Joseph Schienda for construc=
tion
of 4-lot residential subdivision on
If a Public Hearing is=
not
held, then a decision is required by June 21, 2005.
Mr. Caterino: At our last meeting we talked abou=
t, we
were waiting for the final hydrology report from Lenard Engineering to
determine the impact on Turkey Brook, what impacts the subdivision would ha=
ve
on Turkey Brook, and the confusion basically we have here is starting to
indicate that we should have a detention pond on our subdivision which we h=
ave
provided. The construction of=
this
detention pond will reduce the flows slightly down onto Turkey Brook so
that’s why we’re proposing it as such. This would involve about 1,350 squ=
are
feet of disturbance to the 50 foot setback to the wetlands. So the pond will be constructed ri=
ght
here at the end of the road, and this small area here is required for gradi=
ng
and we’re going to pipe about 45 feet of pipe that will drain directly
into the existing brook that’s over here and that was the biggest cha=
nge
to these plans since we met last month.&nb=
sp;
So it’s basically the disturbance that we’re left with is
this area, the 1,500 square feet.
Basically what’s going to happen is the water from the roadway
will be caught by 4 catch basins, they’ll all have 3 foot sumps in th=
em
to help remove sediment, then they drain into a storm scepter which will fu=
rther
reduce the amount of sediment in the storm water. Then it will go to the detention p=
ond
which will provide a zero decrease in peak discharges and (inaudible) water
quality treatment in the detention pond, then it will outlet through an out=
let
structure and down directly to a rip rap pad into the brook.
We have received some
comments from the Town Engineer and I addressed most of them. Some things such as we added a top=
soil
stockpile area with silt fence, we added a vicinity map to the subdivision.=
We provided additional drainage
calculations that were needed for the storm sewer system and we added a few
notes such as the type of trees that we’re proposing over here. We’re proposing 5 Hemlocks t=
o be
planted right on the 50 foot setback line right next to this house so they
won’t interfere with this area here and we also added a 35 foot
conservation easement shown right here in the backs of these properties whi=
ch
abut Jent Street which is a paper street, which probably will never be
developed because there’s no land that can be developed on the north
side, so this conservation will be added to this space over here which will=
be
a good buffer in trees and pretty heavily wooded in this area. Basically that's it for what we ha=
ve
done in changes since our last meeting.&nb=
sp;
If there are any questions, I’d be glad to answer them.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 4
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> So the only disturbance is in the
discharge from the pond?
Mr. Caterino : Yes.
Mr. Rafey: And a portion of the=
pond
is in the 50 foot buffer zone.
Mr. Caterino: Yes. The grading for the pond in this a=
rea,
cause we’re going with 3:1 slopes which will be all grass, the grading
for the pond and that pipe which goes down into the, we’re not going =
into
the wetlands, but we’re going right next to that area, this will be a,
the pipe will be a temporary disturbance to the 50 foot buffer and this por=
tion
of the pond will be a permanent in there but it will be grass and we
don’t see any real negative impacts to the surrounding wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: Does that have a gra=
te on
it, the outlet?
Mr. Caterino: Yes, the outlet contr=
ol
structure will have a flat top catch basin cover on it and it will also hav=
e 2
different size inlets, the lower inlet will be a 8 inch (inaudible) and the
higher one which will be 2 feet higher will be a 10 inch (inaudible) and th=
at
will provide a zero increase in runoff.&nb=
sp;
Actually it will be a decrease in runoff to the downstream watershed
according to Lenard’s hydrology report. That’s about it, the main as=
pects
of the project.
Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible)?
Mr. Caterino: Yes, that’s fr=
om the
top of the berm, which you’ve got a foot of freeboard, which actually=
the
highest the water could ever get is 3 feet high, cause they give you a 1 fo=
ot
freeboard so the pond is actually 3 feet deep. It’s really not a real big p=
ond.
Mr. Duplissie: Does that require a =
fence
around it?
Ms. Barton: No. (Inaudible). It doesn’t look that nice an=
d also
it’s a mainenance issue for the town. The one that we have fences around=
we
don’t have the funds to maintain them, so the (inaudible) climb out
(inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: It’s a 3:1 slo=
pe?
Ms. Barton: Yes. (Inaudible) about 1 years ago to
(inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: Is this a wet bottom=
?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 5
Mr. Caterino: No, it’s dry.
Mr. Polletta: You say we have a neg=
ative
impact in Turkey Brook. Is th=
at
because you have a holding, the bottom, the water on the bottom, that’=
;s
the reason why it’s negative?
Mr. Caterino: Yes. What’s happening is we’=
;re
letting the water into the pond and we’re letting it out of the pond =
at a
slower rate than what the flows are presently undeveloped so the water buil=
ds
up gradually in the pond and that causes the effect downstream to be slight=
ly
less. We had the engineers for
Turkey Brook do that work for us cause we knew they had all the information=
on
Turkey Brook.
Mr. Duplissie: That’s because
you’re picking up the road extension, the driveways, and the leaders =
from
the roof, are all going into the detention?
Mr. Caterino: Yes.
Mr. Duplissie: That’s why you=
have
the decrease in runoff from the actual site?
Mr. Caterino: Yes.
Mr. Rafey: If you look at the n=
ew
plans, there is a 35 foot wide conservation easement area provided behind a=
ll
of these lots for open space. We
suggested to put it there because Jent Street is a paper street in that sec=
tion
of the road and there is another piece of property on the other side of Jent
Street that the Town owns and the open space would be all connected to each
other, and the 35 feet conservation easement on these lots (inaudible) prop=
erty
owners into that area and to be all wooded and (inaudible) on the property.=
Mr. Zawadzki: Does that just extend
across these 4 lots?
Mr. Rafey: Yes. The requirement for open space is =
6,000
feet 120 square feet and the subdivision provides 11,620 square feet of
(inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: And naturally the
(inaudible) back property line?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 6
Mr. Rafey: Yes.
Mr. Zawadzki: Chuck, you had some
discussions with Vinnie on this. Are
you satisfied at this point?
Mr. Berger: Things have been happ=
ening
very quickly here. The draina=
ge
report was received April 26th.=
I provided comments on the drainage report and the plans dated May 5=
th
and Vinnie returned revised plans to me dated May 10th and brief=
ly
discussed them with me. I hav=
e not
had an opportunity to do a thorough review. I believe all of my comments are
addressed (inaudible) had an opportunity to complete my review.
Mr. Zawadzki: So you’d like t=
o do
that?
Mr. Berger: Yes, I would.
Mr. Zawadzki: Any other comments or
questions?
Mr. Duplissie: So the only affected=
area
is that 1,300 roughly square feet in the setback area for the detention bas=
in?
Mr. Caterino: That's correct.
Mr. Zawadzki: Chuck said he would =
like a
chance to review the drainage calculations. I guess if no one has any other
comments, then we need a Motion that this is Not a Significant Activity.
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) that Application #520 of Joseph Schienda for construction of 4-lot residential subdivi=
sion
on
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Application #520 of Joseph Schienda for construction of 4-lot
residential subdivision on
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 7
B. =
Application
#521 of Giuseppe Polletta for construction of 19-lot residential subdivision
Echo Lake and IceHouse Road, Watertown, CT.
If a Public Hearing is
Closed on May 12, 2005, then a decision is required by July 15, 2005.
MR.
POLLETTA RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THIS VOTE
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Ms. =
Russ,
sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table Application #521 of Giuseppe Polletta for
construction of 19-lot residential subdivision Echo Lake and IceHouse Road,
Watertown, CT.
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; C. Application
#524 of Town of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by June 17, 2005.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger: I’m representing Roy Cavanaug=
h this
evening. He was here at the l=
ast
meeting and made a presentation on the
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: Have they met all of your needs?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger: Mr. Rafey had a couple of questions=
that
were outstanding and Mr. Cavanaugh has provided answers for those regarding=
the
sequence of construction, the construction details and better estimates of =
the
disturbed area.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey:: When I reviewed t=
he
application there was some missing information and (inaudible). There are no other alternatives (i=
naudible).
They have to repair it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: This is the one that&#=
8217;s
in the back yards.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 8
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, on
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: There’s =
really
no other choice?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey Right.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger:: These are long
standing flooding and draining nuisance problems.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Barton: Longstanding problem w=
ith
the people on
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: It’s really=
just
a replacement of pipe in approximately the same location through a series of
back yards.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta At the last meeting we had some peo=
ple
that own houses over there, and they were concerned about where they were g=
oing
to run the pipe. The pipe was=
going
to be in their back yard, but of course it was going to be covered, so
(inaudible) I saw like 3 or 4 families that they were concerned about where
they were going to run the pipe.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: The back yards are
pretty much developed with sheds and pools and other accessory structures to
the houses, and I believe we’ve done our best to avoid those existing
structures, but there are some things I believe that will have to be
temporarily moved so the new pipe can be put in. I believe it’s just an above
ground swimming pool that has to be temporarily moved out of the way, but it
will be put back, and I believe we avoided the remainder of the structures.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Who pays for that?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: It will be part of the project, th=
e Town
will pay for it.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Duplissie: The Town will =
pay
for taking down their pool and putting it back up?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I believe so.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, I see a swing set there too b=
ut
that obviously will be pretty easy.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: That will be part of what goes out=
to
bid, to relocate that. I
haven’t been party to the negotiations with the individual property
owners but I would assume (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: (Inaudible).
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: Does this pipe =
that
picks up the water, I live at the end of Eddy Street, and when it rains the
water comes right over behind a couple of people’s houses and goes in=
to
that catch basin, it won’t hold the water. Will we still have the same problem
behind the lady’s house?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Mrs. (inaudible)?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I don’t know what her name i=
s.
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms
Barton: We just had a mee=
ting
about that. Mr. Perugini; 4 l=
ot
subdivision off the end of . . . . Eddy, he’s going to (inaudible) 15
inch pipe, 18 inch pipe, pick up that water and the Town is going to do this
drainage system upgrade to eliminate the drainage problem.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: (Inaudible) property is
right here and that is (inaudible) the new drainage pipe will come right do=
wn
long the side of her garage, Mr. Perugini will construct tied into the catch
basin, and then our project will start from this catch basin, the cross cul=
vert,
cross the road, this is Mrs. (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Are you going to go by the Water &a=
mp;
Sewer building, or behind it?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: We're going to stop just short of t=
he
Water & Sewer building, the individual at the downstream end wants the =
open
channel to remain so we’re not going to, it’s existing open now,
he’d like it to remain that way.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: So once that pipe is installed by M=
r.
Perugini, put the catch base, from the catch base behind the Water & Se=
wer,
we shouldn’t see no more water over there, right?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: The flow will tra=
vel in
the pipe just upstream of Water & Sewer, here. This section will be open channel
still. It is today and the pr=
operty
owner wants it kept that way, and we’ll keep it open, then it goes in=
to a
pipe under the Water & Sewer building and further downstream.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: That will do a lot of good for that=
area
because right now everybody is having problems with that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 10
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: At the last meeting we voted not t=
o take
a site walk because again this is another application where there is really=
is
little alternative and it’s something that needs to be down to prevent
flooding problems in people’s back yards, so I guess at this point we
could have a Motion to approve Application #524 as presented.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Approve Application #524 of Town of Watert= own, Department of Public Works for replacing an existing culvert and drainage p= ipe near Eddy Street, Oakville, CT subject to standard conditions.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
=
D. =
Application #525 of Town of
If Public
Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by June 17, 2005.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger: I’m representing Roy
Cavanaugh. Mr. Cavanaugh made=
a
presentation at last month's meeting and there were a couple of items again=
that
were missing from the application and were part of the package tonight. I’d be happy to review the p=
roject
and answer any questions.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Here’s a
summary of what’s going to be done and where the impact was.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger:
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 11
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Where is that with respect to
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: No, it’s ma=
ybe a
third of the way up going up
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: There’s a reference here to
regulated area, is that in the wetland or in the buffer?
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: That is within the
regulated area, that would be the rip rap placed in the stream channel for
(inaudible) protection.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: Is that a stream or ju=
st drainage?
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: It is a water cou=
rse.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: An unnamed watercourse=
?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Barton: I don’t think there’s a=
name.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: I stand corrected=
. I think what we’re looking a=
t, the
80 cubic yards of fill would be placed in this area here, the existing culv=
ert
ends right in this location. =
The
culvert will be extended to pick up the additional storm drainage that̵=
7;s
in the road and the outlet pipe extended, there's a fill, the 80 yards of f=
ill
in this area, 40 yards of rip rap will be placed in the stream channel.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: The 80 yards is just b=
ecause
you’re extending the pipe?
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: And you’re cover=
ing
it?
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Yes, making the r=
oad
wider as it was originally intended to be.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: So the 80 yards of rip=
rap
fill, the cover, for the extension of the pipe?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger: 40 yards the rip rap i=
n the
channel. That would be Item #=
4 on
Moosa’s memo.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: No Moosa, you h=
ad
noted that you’re looking for an erosion and sediment control plan and
the report from the soil scientist on wetlands delineation and the wetland
setback line and the impacts on . . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 12
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey The wetlands line and impacts are
provided here but (inaudible) minor area.&=
nbsp;
(Inaudible) flagged the wetlands, but they didn’t submit a rep=
ort,
but (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Mr. Rabinowitz di=
d flag
the wetlands for us in the area and it is shown here, it’s basically a
pretty well defined fairly steep sided stream channel right now. It’s really just the width o=
f the
stream channel that’s what's flagged as a regulated area.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: So basically (inaudible)?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: It’s flagged and there’=
;s
(inaudible) by the sol scientist.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Erosion and sediment control plan.=
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: (Inaudible).
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Construction sequence.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: And they (inaudible).
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: Yes (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: The construction
sequence, that’s the erosion sediment control plan.
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Barton: (Inaudible) contr=
ol it
on the downstream end (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible) hay bales and silt
fence. I will got here to che=
ck it.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: We installed the =
scour
hole shortly and very soon in the construction process so there is no erosi=
on
and to serve also (inaudible) area in doing our (inaudible) pipe in the
roadway.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Duplissie: So basically we
don’t have a choice in order to replace the pipe you have to (inaudib=
le)?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Correct.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions? So I need a Motion to approve
Application #525.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 13
MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Ms. Russ) to Approve Application #525 of Town of Watertown, Department of Public Works for replacing an existing culvert and drainage p= ipe under Beach Avenue, Watertown, CT with standard conditions.
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
If a Public Hearing is=
not
held, then a decision is required by June 17, 2005.
Mr. Meyers: I believe my son, who is with me he=
re
this evening, made a presentation to you at the last meeting. We had a site walk last Saturday a=
nd I
just want to reiterate a couple of things.=
(1) Winthrop Street Extension is a paper street. The area has been a paper street s=
ince
the 1930’s, and maybe prior to that, but the extension of that street,
this was always a 50 foot right of way into the property and it is in the
original subdivision regulations that were approved for all of these lots a=
long
Ripley and Winthrop Streets. =
The
area that we’re proposing to extend is really only 50 feet. This paper street was always here.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We don’t have any activities
whatsoever within the wetland area, so we’re not disturbing any regul=
ated
area. We gave you a memo on A=
pril 6th
you never received, and I’m going to go through that memo cause there=
are
several inaccuracies in that memo.
But the only real acti=
vity
we have is discharging the storm water detention pond. All of the proposed construction, =
the
proposed houses, the proposed driveways are all outside of the 50 foot
regulated area, your upland buffer area.&n=
bsp;
The only activity that is within the buffer area is a portion of the
proposed detention pond.
That’s the only activity that’s within the buffer area, =
the
discharge from that pond. The=
water
from this entire property flows this way currently and if you notice the or=
ange
line that’s located here is wetlands soils. And everything to the west of that=
is
wetlands soils. There’s=
no
intention to disturb any of that wetland soil whatsoever, I think we talked
about that on the field walk. The
only activity we really have is the discharge from the detention pond. The reason for the detention pond =
is to
control storm water so we don’t increase the flow downstream. The water from this area flows, it=
goes
down through this pond and then out towards
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 14
Moosa wrote a memo, I =
guess
April 6th, and Item #5, detention pond proposed constructed with=
in
the 50 foot wetlands setback area, disturbed 3,900 square feet of regulated
area. Well it’s not wet=
land
area, are related areas. Upla=
nd
buffer areas are upland buffer areas and I will state that we, the disturbed
area is an upland buffer area. We
have always, in the past say 10 or 15 years, kept detention ponds out of
wetland areas, which are the areas that would be considered disturbed so we
have no wetland activities to speak of with the exception of the discharge =
from
the detention pond. Under his=
memo
he also states measures which mitigate the impact of those activities. We’re not impacting the wetl=
ands
because we’re controlling the release of water, the same amount of wa=
ter
that’s flowing in this direction will be flowing to this area and we
propose structural mitigation to eliminate any soil erosion in that area, a=
nd I
think when your Commission walked the site on Saturday we had the detention
pond staked out, and that would be the most appropriate area for it. The reason for that is the road co=
mes
down slightly from the existing Ripley and Winthrop Streets to a low spot w=
hich
is where these catch basins are proposed, and then back up, and this is a
natural low area right here now, so it’s a very appropriate place to =
put
the detention pond. When I say
natural area it's kind of a dip in the contours versus trying to put it say
someplace back here on the slope where it makes a lot more sense to put it =
here
in the natural low area. We a=
lso
added some additional galleys here that would be proposed to (inaudible) ro=
of
drainage from this proposed house which will also provide additional
infiltration on the ground water.
Item #1 of his, (inaud=
ible)
the application does not contain the following information. And it says Item #1 measures which
mitigate the impact of the proposed activity. Well we’re leaving I believe
17,452 square feet of wetland within this area totally in tact, that’=
s by
your numbers, so from a mitigation standpoint I don’t know why we wou=
ld
be mitigating anything when we’re not disturbing it and I would submit
that it’s an insignificant activity in that respect because we are not
disturbing any wetland area.
Subject measures included but are not limited to plans or actions wh=
ich
avoid destruction or diminished of wetlands or watercourses function
recreational use and natural habitat and obstruction of drainage which
otherwise safeguard wet resources such as
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 15
Item #2, he’s as=
king
for a narrative describing alternatives, but the reason we chose this plan =
was
because it had no impacts. If=
you
have no impacts, you really don’t need alternatives. We were proposing to put a big hol=
e, and
adding more impervious area, we chose to (inaudible) somewhat like we did w=
ith
the subdivision, we did with Perugini on
With respect to Item #=
3,
open space, we could create a conservation easement for this entire area, c=
ause
we’re not proposing to disturb it anyways, and that would give you mo=
re
than 10%, probably more like 20% open space or conservation easement as par=
t of
this application, cause we're not going to build on it, we don’t want=
it
disturbed, and therefore we could put your posts and placards on it and keep
people away from that area and that would keep that whole area to the other
side of the Town already disturbed the sanitary sewer easement which does g=
o on
to the watercourse that would keep that whole area in tact as open space, a=
nd
if you remember the vegetation was really heavy down there, so you’re
going to be (inaudible) cause with the leaves just coming out in the last w=
eek or
so, you really couldn't see the base, the other side of this, so I think
that’s an appropriate place, and if the Commission so desires we coul=
d create
a conservation easement right across this area and that would be in tact
forever.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well of course the wetlands automat=
ically
(inaudible).
Mr. Meyers: Well it is, but I’d like to s=
ee it
physically put on a map and that way, sort of like we’ve done with ot=
her
applications that we’ve done in the past.
Mr. Zawadzki: We would too.
Mr. Meyers: I would suggest that for open space
adding probably 25 or 30,000 square feet of conservation easement would be
appropriate on an 83,000 square foot subdivision. I think that was his third comment=
. Chuck, I don’t know if
you’ve got any drainage review yet, but I know we submitted, the 2, 1=
0,
25, 50, 100 year storm calculations for the detention pond. If you have any additional questio=
ns or
comments, I’d be happy to answer them if I can.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 16
Mr. Rafey: =
I (inaudible) you said that the mem=
o is
not accurate?
Mr. Meyers: We had nothing to do with
Mr. Rafey: =
That was my fault, it should be Tur=
key
Brook. 5,100 square foot of t=
he 50
foot buffer zone, the regulated area.
Mr. Meyers: The regulated upland area is differ=
ent
than a wetland area, and if you read the State Statutes on (Tape #2, Side B
ended – may have missed some).
They ask you what activity you have in the upland buffer area,
it’s not in the physically regulated buffer area.
Mr. Rafey: =
I did not put wetland regulated are=
a. If you (inaudible). If you read the application, it say=
s 3,900
square feet regulated area.
Mr. Meyers: Well it’s in the buffer area.=
Mr. Rafey: =
But
Mr. Meyers: But the State Statutes differ from =
what
your regulations say., just be aware of that. There’s new legislation out.=
Mr. Rafey: =
50 foot buffer zone in
Mr. Meyers: Right. What I’m trying to tell you =
is
there is new legislation that has just been instituted that talks about the
difference between regulated area being wetland area and upland buffer area
being buffer area, so even though you have an upland or a buffer setback ar=
ea,
when it’s considered upland area, it’s regulated, yes, but
activities are allowed in it, and the purpose of putting a detention pond h=
ere
is because it’s the most appropriate place on the property so, and I
think from the field walk you could tell that.
Mr. Rafey: =
I do not agree with you, if those
activities are allowed, then why are you here? Why did you submit an application?=
Mr. Meyers: Cause you have the right to establi=
sh an
upland area where you an see what activities are being done and see if they
have a direct impact on the wetlands.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 17
Mr. Rafey: =
The 50 foot area is regulated by th=
is
Commission, (inaudible) goes by this Commission, and it does not allow by a=
ny Statutes. The Town of
Mr. Meyers: I understand that, but the State St=
atutes
just changed.
Mr. Rafey: =
(Inaudible) if you have in your
regulations you can regulate that, and this Commission has in their regulat=
ions
50 foot setback.
Mr. Meyers: I’m not going to argue with y=
ou
Moosa, all I’m saying is we’re outside of the wetland area.
Mr. Rafey: =
I agree with that. But you are within the regulated
area. This Commission has
jurisdiction over (inaudible).
Mr. Meyers: In an upland buffer area.
Mr. Rafey: =
And I copied the words exactly from=
your
application.
Mr. Meyers: I understand that.
Mr. Rafey: =
It’s not, it’s accurate=
.
Mr. Meyers: I think you’re inaccurate tal=
king
about
Mr. Rafey: =
Yes, that is a typo.
Mr. Meyers: Do you have any, we’re not
degrading water quality, we're providing a detention pond. That’s the best means of lim=
iting
the degradation of water quality not only where you go for the detention po=
nd, if
you're going through a control release structure, that then goes into a very
large wetland area, that’s still turning anything additional that goes
out of it, so I don’t see, we’ve used these detention ponds for=
the
last 35 years to mitigate the degradation of water quality downstream and I
think either Chuck or Mary could tell you, we probably have 20 or 25 of them
here in the Town of Watertown that have been working very satisfactorily, 1=
or
2 of them being right outside here down below the school. The reason we didn’t provide
additional alternatives is because this seemed to be the most feasible and
prudent alternative to develop this property. It’s an existing paper stree=
t, we
extended it 60 feet to create the lots and we kept all the building constru=
ction
outside the setbacks.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 18
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well one possible alternative would=
be to
have a 2 lot subdivision as opposed to a 3 lot and move the pond out of the
buffer completely.
Mr. Meyers: The problem with that is it
wouldn’t be viable to build 260 feet of road for a hammerhead for 2 s=
mall
homes.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well you could basically a common
driveway, no?
Ms. Barton: You would need a variance from the =
zoning
regulations in order to do that.
There are two different regulations. The issue under Zoning, in order t=
o get
frontage on building lots, the zoning regulations require frontage on (inau=
dible)
road and you’d have to actually build the road to get the frontage.
Mr. Meyers: Interior lots aren’t allowed =
in
this zone.
Ms. Barton: No, they’re permitted in R-12=
.5 or
R-30, but you do have the right to ask the question, but that would require=
a variance. I think on smaller lots, I donR=
17;t
think it’s beneficial to have common driveways. On larger lots it works well, R-70=
, R-90,
that works very well.
Mr. Meyers: We did that on a private drive up o=
n the
church property.
Ms. Barton: Well that’s what I was, but
there’s a really nice one on
Mr. Berger: Yea, we did one for Zappone too wit=
h a
common drive.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> The reason why we can probably put =
2 separate
driveways is because you're not permitted to use driveways on a paper stree=
t,
correct?
Ms. Barton: Correct. You can’t use then because y=
ou have
to build it.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Right, you have to build across the=
paper
street regulations.
Ms. Barton: And you need frontage on an approve=
d Town
road, per the zoning regulations, but you have the right to ask that from a
wetland perspective (inaudible) again the paper street (inaudible) say 28
width, but there's potential that we could look at even maybe a 24 foot wid=
th
and that would narrow the road, as long as we could get in and out and we h=
ave
the hammerhead, then that’s a possibility that we can talk about, cau=
se
you haven’t finished reviewing the drainage, have you?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 19
Mr. Berger: I have not, no.
Ms. Barton: Because
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Even if you move the detention pond=
where
the other house is, what are we gaining as far as wetlands by moving that o=
ne
over? Where would you move it,
where the other house is?
Mr. Meyers: Unless you put a pump in here and p=
ump up
to the . . . .
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> So we won’t get anything, cau=
se the
elevation of that house is a lot higher where the pond is.
Mr. Meyers: This is higher than where the pond =
is.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Exactly, so we don’t have no
choice, it’s got to be there.
Mr. Meyers: Yea, everything was going to the po=
nd so
we could control the storm water.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> The bottom line is the detention po=
nd has
to be right where it shows now.
Mr. Meyers: Well this is the low spot on the ro=
ad,
based on the existing grades. We
walked down from
Mr. Duplissie: =
The detention pond the way it’=
;s shown,
dry bottom?
Mr. Meyers: It’s proposed as a dry bottom=
. I suppose if you wanted to we coul=
d put
a foot, but this is not wetlands soil, this is Charlton soil which is a
relatively gravelly soil, so by putting in a foot down below, unless we put
some more vehement soil and planted it, you probably will get more water
soaking into the water ground here with Charlton type soil, which is a sand=
ier
soil.
Mr. Duplissie: =
But you’re digging in order t=
oo
make this pond.
Mr. Meyers: Right.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 20
Mr. Duplissie: =
Now the new elevation, the bottom o=
f the
pond, I can’t read it on my map here, but it’s kind of blurred,=
is
it the same elevation as the wetland that it’s basically touching on
either corner?
Mr. Meyers: We’re actually about 4 or 5 f=
eet
higher.
Mr. Duplissie: =
Higher than the existing pond or . =
. . .
.
Mr. Meyers: This is 502 which is the wetland al=
ong
here and we’re at 506 with the bottom of the pond.
Mr. Duplissie: = So you’re going to be above.<= o:p>
Mr. Meyers: Your berm is 510.
Mr. Duplissie: =
But the bottom of the pond is 4 feet
higher than the existing wetlands.
Mr. Meyers: Well; the berm is actually, the gra=
de
going, the berm is 510 over here, but it’s actually going up to where=
the
elevation, and I think this is 520 (inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well it shows 510 going all the way
around.
Mr. Meyers: We’re about 522 in the road.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The pond is relatively small too b=
y the
way, cause that was taking it 200 feet of road as well as basically 3 houses
and 3 driveways, actually 2 houses and 3 driveways, cause this house is goi=
ng
into a galley system.
Mr. Duplissie: =
The configuration that you have for=
that
drainage pond right now, I can’t figure out, it’s a north/south=
direction. If you change that to an east and =
west .
. . .
Mr. Meyers: We’ll be bucking contours.
Mr. Duplissie: =
I understand, but I’m asking =
if you
change that . . . .
Mr. Meyers: You mean put it lower?
Mr. Duplissie: =
Correct, and you brought it closer =
to the
bottom of the pond to the same elevation as the wetlands, basically you're =
creating
wetlands now.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 21
Mr. Meyers: Yes, you’re right, but I thin=
k you
probably would be into the water table if you got down to this elevation.
Mr. Duplissie: =
If you made the bottom of the deten=
tion
pond the same elevation as the wetlands that it’s touching?
Mr. Meyers: That’s correct.
Mr. Duplissie: =
So that your base would be the same=
as
the wetlands, the only time your water flow would be higher is if you got a
storm, you’d have 4 feet of water in it.
Mr. Meyers: You’d have to really put it r=
ight
in this, either that or in between where you’d have wetlands on the
sides.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> That would be a greater disturbance=
than
you have now.
Mr. Scott Meyers: (Inaudible).
Mr. Meyers: Well you would, but that’s mi= nor putting a couple of drop manholes, or at least one drop manhole into here.<= o:p>
Mr. Duplissie: =
I’m looking at the amount of
disturbance that you had within the 50 foot setback right now, the way that=
it
is, we're not creating any wetlands.
If we changed it and went east/west, we’d just turn it 90 degr=
ees
if we were to create, or we just had the same amount of disturbance, but yet
we’d be creating another 5,000 or 8,000 square feet of wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well not necessarily. If you turn it 90 degrees like
you’re suggesting, the entire (inaudible) would be in the buffer area
which would be more than 3,900 square feet.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> And it would be more disturbance.
Mr. Meyers: Basically is what you’re tell=
ing me
. . . .
Mr. Duplissie: =
I’m only asking. I’m not saying that we have =
to do
it. I’m just looking at=
it as
an alternative. If you're goi=
ng to
disturb area, which is, (inaudible) setback . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 22
Mr. Meyers: You’d be considerably closer =
to
disturbing actual wetland vegetation and some of the vegetation within this=
upland
area because it’s so flat is wetlands, you know, hebephrenic
vegetation. You know I think =
just
the soils don’t classify as wetlands and that’s why Mr. Lord put
all these flags out every 20 or so feet because it just doesn’t class=
ify
as wetlands, it’s more of a little higher area. It’s not a lot higher though=
. I’ll tell you at looking at =
the
spot elevations, cause all those elevations are shots that we physically to=
ok
in the field.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> But even if you got down to the lev=
el of
the wetlands which is I think 500 . . . .
Mr. Meyers: Well then you’d have a berm a=
round
it with probably 4 feet high and so now you’re going to go up 4 feet,
probably 6 or 7 feet on top of the berm, well up 8 feet, cause you know if =
you
go 4 feet at 2:1, you go across 8 feet, another 6 feet, and down another 8
feet, or 3:1, so now you’d be 12,6, you’d have 20 something fee=
t on
either side.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> So it would be more disturbance to =
go the
other way that you have a design?
Mr. Meyers: It would.
Mr. Duplissie: =
But it wouldn’t benefit by cr=
eating
wetlands? The man that was ju=
st in
here, the one that was talking about all the plantings, (inaudible).
Mr. Meyers: Well when we did right outside here=
we
created a wetland area. If yo=
u go
out an look at the bottom of both of the ponds at the school here, we creat=
ed
an educational area up above, although I don't know how much education they=
're
getting, they fenced it off. =
We
worked hard to get that to work properly.
Ms. Barton: Maybe we should evaluate it and sho=
w the Commission
(inaudible). Maybe if it
doesn’t work we can look at it and see if it’s feasible. It may create more impact than it
provides with a wet bottom (inaudible).
Mr. Meyers: Even though we’re up a little=
bit
here maybe he can give me a planting plan and we could import some organic
material to put in the bottom of it and we could always make it a foot deep=
er
below the structure. I think =
we had
quite a bit of freeboard there anyway.
Ms. Barton: Do you want Mr. Meyers’ to ev=
aluate
that just as an alternative? =
It may
be more disturbance, but at least you'll have an alternative to look at.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 23
Mr. Duplissie: =
I don’t now how much work wou=
ld be
involved.
Mr. Meyers: Well I mean I’ll get our soil scientist an=
d environmental
planner to look at it. He fla=
gged
the wetlands, he knows the exact soils that are here, he walked the entire =
site,
and he is the one that put out each one of these flags. Maybe I can get him here for your =
next
meeting.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> But to go to the same level of the
wetlands doesn’t guarantee a wet bottom, correct?
Mrs. Barton: I think Mr. Lord would be the one t=
o tell
you that.
Mr. Meyers: He can tell you that but it’s
probably . . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Cause you have to get down to the w=
ater
table to . . . . .
Mr. Meyers: Right.
Mr. Rafey: =
With that stream of the wetlands, t=
he
wetland will drain in the other direction, it doesn’t drain this way,
unless there’s going to be more than the wetlands (inaudible).
Mr. Meyers: We’ve created wetland areas in
areas like this where we have physically removed soils at the same elevation
and replaced it with organic material and hydrophilic vegetation, plants.
Mr. Duplissie: =
And it worked.
Mr. Meyers: Yes.
It worked great, except they fenced it off on us.
Mr. Duplissie: =
Cause they didn’t want the ki=
ds
going into a 4 foot pool.
Mr. Meyers: Well the vegetation seems to be gro=
wing
pretty good. We’ll take=
a
look at that. Is there anythi=
ng
else you’d like us to take a look at?
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Any other questions?
Mr. Rafey: =
They provide us a narrative on how =
there
is no alternative. The reason=
I put
that in my memo is because this situation does warrant . . . . .
Mr. Meyers: I’ll add that to our applicat=
ion
and I’ll submit it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 24
Mr. Rafey: =
Just give a narrative on how there =
is no
other alternative and that this is the best one.
Mr. Meyers: Well we thought this was the best
alternative (inaudible).
Mr. Rafey: =
(Inaudible) write down on the appli=
cation.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> We have to determine whether this i=
s a significant
activity or not.
Ms. Sturgis: It isn’t if it doesn’t =
impact
the wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well (inaudible) 100 square feet of
buffer area.
Mr. Duplissie: =
In the buffer area, not in the
wetlands. I don’t know,
there’s construction that has to be involved.
Ms. Barton: Yea, you can have a public hearing =
if
it’s significant, or if you feel it’s in the public’s
interest.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> I think there was enough public int=
erest
even if it’s not, but I think we should officially rule it’s no=
t a
significant activity, then move on to the question of a public hearing. If we agree it’s not a signi=
ficant
activity then I need a motion to that effect.
MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) that Application #526 of P & A Enterprise= s, LLC for construction of 3-lot residential subdivision on Ripley Street and Winthrop Street Extension, Oakville, CT is Not A Significant Activity.
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
Mr. Zawadzki: Based on the interest=
we
saw with the neighbors, how do you feel about having a public hearing?
Mr. Duplissie: I don't think we can =
go
without having a public hearing. There
were too many neighbors that were there for us to do anything without havin=
g a
public hearing.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
I agree.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 25
MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Schedule a Public Hearing for Application #=
526
of P & A Enterprises, LLC for construction of 3-lot residential subdivi=
sion
on
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
If a Public Hearing is=
not
held, then a decision is required by June 17, 2005.
Mr. Rafey: =
Do you want them to give a
presentation? The application=
that
you received has 47 signatures that they want a public hearing. If you have a public hearing next =
month
. . . .
Mr. Peluso: Why duplicate?
Ms. Barton: Due to the lateness =
of the
hour.
Mr. Rafey: This was presented l=
ast
week.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Ted Crawford, Milone a=
nd
MacBroom
Mr. Crawford: We have not made
changes. We're currently work=
ing
with the public health, taking into some of the considerations that were
brought up on the field walk, and incorporating those into our plans.
Ms. Barton: To speak with Mr. Ciri=
ello,
Milone & MacBroom, and he indicated they may call a meeting with the
neighbors to talk about it, which I think is a beneficial thing. I offered that staff could be ther=
e if
they wanted, it's up to them. They
are aware of the petition and the neighbor's concerns.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 26
Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman=
read aloud
the following letter:
“May 9, 2005
The following Watertown
residents respectfully request that a public hearing take place before the
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency regarding the subdivision ap=
plication
proposed by Frank Graziano on land on Northfield Road, Litchfield Road, Cla=
xton
Avenue, and Chestnut Court and Chestnut Grove Road. The petition is signed by some 47
signatures.”
MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to \Schedule a Public Hearing for Application #527 of Patrick Graziano for construction of 11-lot residential subdivision= and associated roadways, Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Grove Court, Watertown, CT= .
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
6. &n=
bsp; New
Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Application
#528 of Big Sky Enterprises, LLC for construction of 4-lot residential
subdivision located south of
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by July 15, 2005.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Emily Jones, Engineer, Civil One
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Jones: The
subject parcel is located at the intersection of
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 27
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; There
area a few cross culverts. I =
was
speaking to Moosa today, that come across the street from
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; There
is a memo from Mr. Rafey dated May 6th that summarizes the
project. It also talks about =
the
potential for the construction of a walking trail on
Ms. Barton: <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It’s not general speculation,= it was required as part of the overall greenway plan that was fully stated to = the engineer who was at the meeting cause we have a greenway that’s under construction on the Northfield Road parcel, there’s a commitment to g= o to the remaining parcel and this greenway would go through and connect to the = Town open space and to potentially the Land Trust property so it’s not a fiction, it’s a reality.
Ms. Jones: Okay. In speaking with Curt Jones today = he asked me to ask you that that not be considered as part of this application. We do have deede= d open space and if there is a requirement in Planning and Zoning for a walking tr= ail, we will have to come back to this Commission if it requires regulated activity. But if the only rea= son, we request that the Commission not Table the application tonight based sole= ly on future walking trails that may have to come back to the Commission if th= ey are proposed after going through Planning and Zoning. If there are any further questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
Mr. Rafey: The Commission cannot make a
decision tonight anyway. You =
submitted
a set of plans to Robert Smith, the Torrington Area Health District. On those plans you showed a blue l=
ine
almost on the property line between Lots #2 and #3 that looks like a
watercourse coming from
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 28
Ms. Jones: I believe we got that from, it=
was a
flare up I believe from the soil maps.&nbs=
p;
We used the soil maps of
Mr. Zawadzki: It is not a watercourse?
Ms. Jones: It is not a watercourse.
Mr. Zawadzki:= Not even an intermittent watercour= se?
Ms. Jones: Not even an intermittent watercourse. It’s just a drainage ditch or a swale, but it did not qualify as any sort of regulated waterway.
Mr. Rafey: You can’t make a decision tonight anyway, so do you want to go and look at this before the next meeti= ng, especially for the (inaudible) in the future they come here (inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: Well we can do it then.
Mr. Undercuffler:= I have a question for Mary. This potential trail, would it be = involved with this open space?
Ms. Barton:
Mr. Undercuffler:= So then that plan comes up the= n we can review it at that point.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 29
Ms. Barton: We’re doing a quarter pl= an in relation to some site assessment, and it will come back to you once I have = it.
Mr. Undercuffler:= That’s why I said that, there’s nothing we can do right now until there’s a plan.
Ms. Barton: Well there is a conceptual pla= n and it will be on a map and probably about the next week or two (inaudible) but= the Plan of Development calls for these, and when something comes by the develo= per they are told up front what the requirements are, they are aware that this = was an issue that has to be addressed.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well I think we ought to addre= ss it at that time.
Mr. Rafey: This is a Zoning question, not= . . . . . the only thing these lots need (inaudible) correct?
Ms. Jones: Yes, definitely because I̵= 7;m not sure, it’s probably not there, those (inaudible) are small but th= is round square is the minimum square.
Mr. Rafey: It’s supposed to touch t= he front setback.
Ms. Barton: 50 foot setback and they don’t.
Ms. Jones: Yes, this one is missing it ri= ght here, that one is back too far.
Ms. Barton: They don’t meet your requirements.
Ms. Jones: This one would be an interior = lot.
Ms. Barton: Well the interior lot, we veri= fied there’s not another interior lot within 1,000 feet on the same side of the road?
Ms. Jones: I don’t believe so.
Ms. Barton: You have to verify that and th= en I don’t think it really qualifies as an interior lot (inaudible).
Ms. Jones: Yes, in an R-70, I think it= 217;s 1 and ½ times the size.
Ms. Barton: But if it’s an interior = lot, then your house has to be set back 50% greater than the setback so that wou= ld be . . . . I don’t thin= k that really qualifies for an interior lot.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 30
Mr. Rafey: That’s a Zoning issue, y= ou can figure that out later.
Mr. Zawadzki: We don’t need to discuss= that here.
Mr. Undercuffler:= (Inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: Not now.
Mr. Undercuffler:= Maybe this should be Tabled.
Mr. Rafey: That was my question. If they are outside of the regulat= ed area and there’s no impact on the wetlands and watercourse, then why = did you submit this application? I asked you this question before.
Ms. Jones: Yes, you did, and the reason we
submitted it is that in a lot of towns we work in it’s required, that=
no
matter if there is activity or not, if there’s a subdivision and
there’s wetlands on site, that we have to submit to the wetlands Comm=
ission
and I guess we assumed that
Mr. Rafey: But this is a combined Commissi= on, it’s a Conservation Commission Inland/Wetlands Agency. I mean they can look at conservati= on (inaudible). There is no wetl= and activity, we can just Table it until next month.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Polletta, sec. Ms. Russ) to Table Application #528 of Big Sky Enterprises, LLC for construction of 4-lot residential subdivision located south of Linkfield Road and north of Butternut Lane in = an R-70 Residential Zoning District.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
7. &n=
bsp; Old
Business
A. =
Discussion on Wetland Issues concerning properties =
at
603 and 563
Mr. Rafey: I received a letter fr=
om one
of the property owners and they want it read into the record. I think now they’ve agreed t=
hat
one neighbor will provide the design for the project and they’re hopi=
ng
that the other neighbor will pay for the labor and material.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 31
Mr. Zawadzki read alou=
d the
following letter for the record:
“Wetland Commiss=
ion
May 11, 2005
In regard to the pond =
on our
property on
Sincerely yours,
Ken and Claire Nybel&#=
8221;
Mr. Rafey: These pictures were at=
tached
to the letter.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Let the record show th=
at
there’s a couple of pictures attached to the letter that I just read.=
Mr. Polletta: =
Mr. Chairman, I rememb=
er
when we walked this, but I thought that this Board decided that the neighbor
would stabilize the ground, but it looks like nothing was ever done.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
The neighbors have agr=
eed to
agree on how to resolve the problem and they promised to let us know what t=
heir
plan was and what their (inaudible) would be and that’s been several
months now.
Mr. Rafey: Then they submitted an
application to this Board.
Mr. Polletta: =
I remember that, but I
thought the doctor was going to pay for the design and the neighbor was goi=
ng
to repair.
Mr. Rafey: They’re working =
on it,
they both have attorneys and they’re talking to each other.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 32
MOTION: =
(Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Table the Discussion of wetland issues
concerning properties at 603 and
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
B. =
Watertown
Public Works Department Request to Modify the Existing CCIWA Permit #468
concerning Installation of a Storm Drainage Pipe, Guernseytown Road, Watert=
own.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: I’m represe=
nting
the Department of Public Works.
What I’m passing out to you is an additional inland/wetland pe=
rmit
that was issued for the
&=
nbsp; The
next board that I’m going to put up is the revised route of the
pipe. This section from
Guernseytown Road to here would be almost identical to the same location, b=
ut
instead of taking this turn and coming down through this area, to Taft camp=
us
and in back of these wetlands, we’re going to come a straight shot do=
wn
this way and come back to the stream channel here, which is what is shown on
this plan here. The previous =
plan
that we just had up came down and went down this way, this one comes straig=
ht
down around and down to the brook channel here, the previous outlet was down
here. The impacts of Items #3=
, #4,
and #5 of Permit #468 have been eliminated, those are those little pocket
wetlands that we hit coming down this way.=
The only impact that we will have is a temporary impact to the 50 fo=
ot
buffer are up in here, the maximum amount that’s for the installation=
of
the storm drainage pipe and then backfilling. This is all developed
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 33
&=
nbsp; Briefly
summarizing there is a significant increase in wetland impacts due to the
revised route storm drainage pipe.
That was done for a number of reasons, including reducing the wetland
impacts so it was more for constructability and other issues coming through=
the
previous route coming through the middle of
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: A good example of feasible and pru=
dent
alternatives.
Mr. Undercuffler: I’m trying to
visualize where that stream is down there.=
Can you . . . . .
Mr. Berger: This is an unnamed tri=
butary
to Steele Brook. There’=
s a cemetery
sitting right down there. Thi=
s is
the
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Basically what youR=
17;re
saying is this handout you just had from October, 2002, Items #1 and #2 rem=
ain
unchanged, is that it? You=
217;re
eliminating #3, #4, and #5?
Mr. Berger: Items #1 and #2 remain
unchanged, and those are happening down by the intersection of Guernseytown=
and
Route 6, where we are proposing to upgrade that storm system down there.
Mr. Undercuffler: That’s #3, #4, a=
nd #5
on the original 468 Permit.
Mr. Berger: Correct. Those total 1,360 feet of I believe
direct wetland impact which will be . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: =
Where is this water,
you’re picking it up, and where does thus water go now?
Mr. Berger: Right now it goes down
Guernseytown Road, crosses just in a couple different locations, comes into
those, some of it comes into the ponds within the Taft School property
(inaudible) and then a bunch more of it goes down to the intersection of
Guernseytown and Route 6 and crosses.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 34
Mr. Polletta: =
Was any study done, be=
cause
we’re picking up all this water, via this pipe, will this end up in
Turkey Brook?
Mr. Berger: Steele Brook.
Mr. Polletta: =
Will there by any prob=
lem
downstream with Steele Brook?
Mr. Berger: Many, many studies of =
this
area. This is a very controve=
rsial
project prior to my time here, but it was a very controversial project and =
at
one point there was a detention pond proposed down in this area that the D.=
E.P.
asked the Town and Taft to take a look at because of their concerns. It’s actually better in this
location to collect the storm water, get down in here and get it through St=
eele
Brook before the rest of the peak comes through. Although there is no detention on t=
his
line, because it’s getting there after through Steel Brook before the
rest of the watershed starts to contribute, there will be a reduction in the
flows down there.
Mr. Polletta: =
So this is a better wa=
y to
do it.
Mr. Verger: Yes.
Mr. Zawadzki <=
/b>What prompted your cha=
nge?
Mr. Berger: Constructability was t=
he
main thing that got us looking in any other direction. Coming through the middle of the T=
aft
School property and that slopes down from Guernseytown down to the brook
there’s a number of fields, electric lines, water lines, some very de=
ep
cuts which probably would have to have been shored up for sheet piling which
significantly increased the cost. The
State D.O.T. is funding the majority of this project and they really asked =
us
to look very closely at alternative routes, and about a year ago we started
walking the site and taking a better look at it and came up with that as an
alternative route only cause it’s going to be easier to construct, le=
ss
wetland impacts and we’re not going through the middle of their athle=
tic
fields at this point. It̵=
7;s
going to be tight up in here, but once we get past this point and start com=
ing
straight downhill, we’re really out of site so to speak and certainly
well maintained campus and Taft was very concerned about the possibility of
D.O.T. coming right through the middle of it with a 48 inch pipe. So this is a much better solution.=
And it’s less wetlands impact
(inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Any other questions?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 35
Mr. Undercuffler: Can we approve this tonight?
Mr. Rafey: You can, this is a red=
uction
to the regulated activities. =
If
they were asking for more than what was approved, you wouldn’t be abl=
e to
make a decision tonight.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Approve the Watertown Public Works
Department Modification of Permit #468, concerning Installation of a Storm =
Drainage
Pipe,
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
8. &n=
bsp; New
Business
A =
Preliminary
discussion on the Paparazzo/Sperry property located off
Atty. Pilicy: We ask to come before you tonight =
and
just have a brief preliminary presentation just to let you know that this
project is in its very early stages which means work on the respective plans
and so forth is an environmental team involved in the preliminary design fr=
om a
wetlands perspective and we’re not looking for anything really but to
tell you that the project is going to be coming before you in several months
and just give you a preliminary brief description of what’s involved.=
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Bob Houlihan, Vice Pre=
sident
of Heritage Development Group
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Mr. Houlihan: We’re here to introduce this
project to you. In terms of t=
he
sequence of approvals we’re initially going to be looking for a zone
change on a portion of this property, then we’re going to need to dra=
ft a
regulation to implement some of these innovative site plan design technique=
s,
and then we’ll be getting into site plan, so it is somewhat premature,
but we felt it was appropriate because we intend to develop this property i=
n an
ecologically responsible way, and we want you to know that and see this as
early as anyone else and let you know that we see this as a beginning of a
process. This particular plan=
is
about a fifth generation of a drawing that I’ve seen since I’ve
been with Heritage, which has been over the last 3 years, and I suspect that
it’s really only the beginning as far as it relates to the developmen=
t of
a good, responsible plan.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 36
Heritage Development G=
roup,
as you may know, is a local development group with a national reputation.
As far as myself, I ha=
ve a
degree in Environmental Design.
I’ve been in real estate development for over 25 years. My focus is the implementation of
environmentally responsibly land use patterns, balancing them with the
economics of development.
That’s what we’re trying to do here. This is not a traditional land use=
plan. There are no regulations currently=
in
place that allow people to do this type of work. It involves the creative design of=
roads,
minimization of impervious areas. There’s
cluster development techniques that we’ve employed here, and we’=
;re
also looking to have this serve as a model for some of the more recent D.E.=
P.
recommendations as it relates to innovative landscape solutions to stormwat=
er
runoff and treatment.
There is 193 acres on =
this
site. I think 44.7 of them ar=
e wet,
so there has been a lot of attention paid to the establishment of the wetla=
nd
boundaries. We’ve gotten
(inaudible) fly over, we’ve gotten digital topography that’s
extremely accurate, we’ve identified all of the natural resources on =
the
site in terms of soils, rock outcroppings, stone walls, etc., and Beth has
flagged every inch of wetlands, and all of that information is now digitally
available and was used in the design of this initial concept plan which is
still really more of a cartoon at this point than it is ultimately that will
get built. Any questions I=
217;ll
be glad to answer them.
Mr. Zawadzki: How many units are involved here?<= o:p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 37
Mr. Houlihan: The overall density that we propos=
e is
somewhere between 2 and 3 per gross acre.&=
nbsp;
That’s 193 acres.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> So you’re talking 400 units.=
Mr. Houlihan: 400 units.
Mr. Zawadzki: 4 to 6.
Mr. Houlihan: 4 to 6.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> Where do we have open space?
Mr. Houlihan: One of the important aspects of th=
is
plan because it’s all at the (inaudible), we’re completely at t=
he
mercy of Zoning; if the Town wants it it will happen, if the Town doesnR=
17;t
want it it won’t happen, so we did everything we can to make it
attractive. We believe strong=
ly
that the large contiguous portions of open space should be dedicated to the
local Land Trust and available for public use, and we see that occurring in
this area here. We haven̵=
7;t
delineated specifically or put an acreage number on it; it is significant.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We're suggesting that these two pa=
rcels
which were part of the original industrial zone that was approved years ago=
but
was never viable at the end of New Wood Road here would be donated to the T=
own
potentially as a site for a Town Garage, which I understand is something th=
at
they’ve been looking to do.
Our thought was that the parking area for that could be here, parkin=
g is
service as trail head for public use and access to Land Trust properties.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> I’m assuming
Mr. Houlihan: Yea, this is
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> And this one on the side is . . . =
. .
Mr. Houlihan: This is
Ms. Barton:=
Right across the street is (inaudi=
ble),
the old Panilaitis Farm.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 38
Mr. Houlihan: Right. A portion of it was zoned industri=
al, it
was approved for over a million square feet in industrial warehouse space.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This is a much more responsible us=
e of
that type of land which has a lot of interesting characteristics. There’s some great conservat=
ion
land here, there’s some great existing trails and we'd like to have a=
lot
of connectivity for pedestrian access throughout, and we suspect that
pedestrian corridor throughout the development would vary from being a stre=
et
side type to wandering off into the open spaces and then back again and hav=
ing
a lot of character to it.
Mr. Undercuffler: But you indicated that it would be=
a
private development, so would it be accessible to accept the people that li=
ve
there?
Mr. Houlihan: Yes, we’re suggesting 2 comp=
onents. 1 is the development proper is pri=
vate,
it’s a condominium, and we also suggest that there be also a large
contiguous piece of land that would be dedicated to Land Trust for public u=
se,
so the public can access the public land, and this group can access their l=
and
and the public land.
Mr. Undercuffler: Are these Town roads?
Mr. Houlihan: These are private roads.
Mr. Zawadzki: Is part of this in Middlebury?
Mr. Houlihan: There is a little slice of this la=
nd
that is in Middlebury, not the development, but Middlebury (inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: That’s the Sperry part.
Mr. Houlihan: No, actually this is the Sperry
part. We have contract rights=
on
that as well. I guess he owns=
all
this, too, in Middlebury, right, (inaudible) pond is so there’s a lar=
ge,
but nature conservancy land?
Ms. Barton:=
That’s the Middlebury Land T=
rust.
Mr. Polletta: What is the zoning right now?
Mr. Houlihan: It's a mixture of IR-80, a little =
bit of
R-30 and some R-70.
Mr. Polletta: What are you looking to change?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 39
Mr. Houlihan: We want to change the IR-80 to R-3=
0,
then we’re looking to come in and propose a text amendment to the Zon=
ing
Regulations that allows what we’re going to call age restricted plann=
ed
residential development. The =
age
restricted components is obviously, well first of all that’s what we =
do,
that’s what we specialize in, that’s where there’s a good
market, but also it’s a tax positive development for the Town. It’s private roads, it’=
;s age
restricted, it’s a very strong revenue generator year in and year out=
.
Mr. Polletta: And the R-30 in our Regulations
condominiums are allowed.
Ms. Barton:=
Right now the regulations allow
(inaudible) district. What
they’re proposing to do is rewrite an entire regulation for a planned
development restricted 55 and older, I guess that’s what you're really
talking about.
Mr. Houlihan: Yes. So there’s revenue generating
aspects, there’s Land Trust aspects, and then there’s the quali=
ty
of design that we tend to follow as it relates to, I hope, personally, that=
is
a model of environmental designs.
The most recent project I did for Heritage Development is
Mr. Undercuffler: Did you say that goes down into
Middlebury?
Mr. Houlihan: There’s a piece of Middlebury
here. There’s a little =
line
right about here, a very small portion of this property lies in Middlebury.=
This here is the end of
Mr. Undercuffler: I didn’t realize Middlebury =
went
out that far.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> I’m just looking at 400 to 6=
00
units, water and sewer, we have capacity in that corner to handle that?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 40
Mr. Houlihan: Yes. One of the other advantages is tha=
t it
is intended to be public water and sewer and the Wattles Brook sewer
interceptor is something that the Town has paid for the design, paid for the
easements, the Water & Sewer Authority has promoted the construction of
that interceptor recently and through special benefit assessments this will
assist in funding something that’s needed whether we develop this
property or not. One of the r=
easons
you need the Wattles Brook interceptor is that, I think there’s 3,800
lineal feet of (inaudible) pipe, that’s old, that’s potentially
leaking, there’s a choke point, there's a siphon section that overflo=
ws
into Wattles Brook and causes pollution and also allows you to extend you up
into Lake Winnemaug where I understand there’s all kinds of water qua=
lity
issues that you need to remediate so this helps facilitate that.
Mr. Polletta: So the sewer line that goes from t=
he
center of
Atty. Pilicy: No.
Well part of it is in, but the part that’s in is inadequate.
Mr. Houlihan: And the 15 year old clay pipe
that’s inadequately sized for future expansion.
Mr. Polletta: But I thought they did it when the=
Stop
& Shop was done?
Ms. Barton:=
No, they didn’t do that.
Mr. Houlihan: No, they come to New Wood and also
there’s a pumping station here which would be eliminated when we deve=
lop
(inaudible).
Ms. Barton:=
That’s Wattles Brook interce=
ptor
(inaudible).
Mr. Houlihan: Just recently the Town bought an
easement on our property that brings the Wattles Brook interceptor right ov=
er
the property.
Ms. Barton:=
I think the Wattles Brook intercep=
tor is
going to be talked about and (inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: This will help the
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 41
Atty. Pilicy: This will also get the sewer up th=
is
far.
Mr. Polletta: The question is, I mean are you he=
re for
some input? Because you don&#=
8217;t
have a zone change, you don’t have anything, right?
Atty. Pilicy: No.
The project is coming along, but we didn’t want you to hear ab=
out
this project being in front of other boards and commissions for discussion =
and
so forth when we haven’t some here first to let you know; we’ll=
be
back in a few months.
Mr. Houlihan: We would expect that in a number of
months that we would have a site walk with this Board and (inaudible) input=
in
trying to work together with you to do a great job.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> There’s a ton of wetlands on=
this
property.
Mr. Houlihan: There’s 44.7 acres of wetlan=
ds.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> There’s a significant pond a=
t the
bottom and there’s a lot of garbage in it.
Ms. Barton:=
It’s not too bad actually.
Mr. Houlihan: This pond actually has good water
quality. This is another bog =
that
has good (inaudible). This is=
a
very interesting bog with like 30 feet of organic (inaudible) underneath
it. It’s actually a man=
made
pond that Panilaitis gendered up over here. Of course there’s a wetland =
conflux
here (inaudible). So the wetl=
ands,
it’s kind of interesting because they serve as sort of permanent, thi=
s is
all wet here, this is wet through here, this is a corridor connecting here.=
Ms. Barton:=
It’s a pretty piece of prope=
rty.
Mr. Houlihan: These pictures were taken just this
Fall. It’s a nice piece=
of
property.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> I’ve walked this property,
it’s a nice piece of property.
Mr. Houlihan: As you know we offered, we gave th=
e Town
about a 2 or 3 year option to try to open this as open space, that got turn=
ed
down at referendum, and now you kind of go to what I like to think of as a =
more
economical way to get open space which is through conservation
development. Instead of payin=
g for
100, you get 50 for free.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 42
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> I think we had an option to buy th=
is for
$1,500,000?
Ms. Barton:=
I think it was $2,000,000.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> And I’m looking at this and =
this
is telling us that if you build this that we’re going to get $1,500,0=
00 a
year in taxes? Well it’=
s a
good thing we rejected it.
Mr. Houlihan: I don’t disagree with that at
all. I really believe that wh=
en
(inaudible).
Ms. Barton:=
No, we just reject all land purcha=
ses.
Mr. Houlihan: You get away from traditional land
development which is prescribed by Zoning (Tape #4, Side A ended – may
have missed some) for free and age restriction helps you get those tax
positive, I mean if this was traditional housing you’d still have the
same tax revenue but your expenses would increase.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> We’d also have 250 more kids=
in
the schools, plus.
Mr. Polletta: When you say age restricted, that =
means
55 and you can’t have no kids?
Mr. Houlihan: 55 and older, no kids.
Mr. Polletta: Let’s say a guy like me, can=
I
live there? I’m 58. Can I live there?
Mr. Houlihan: You’re in.
Mr. Polletta: I’ve got a young kid. He can go to school then. There are people who have kids when
they’re older. So he
can’t live with me?
Mr. Houlihan: He cannot. You cannot have a resident (inaudi=
ble).
Mr. Polletta: So I cannot buy some unless I have=
a
kid?
Mr. Houlihan: There are some exceptions, there&#=
8217;s
like an 80/20 rule, but you can never have a permanent resident under the a=
ge
of 21.
Ms. Barton:=
You can do the 80/20 rule,
(inaudible). You have to allo=
w at
least 20% of the development to be occupied by people other than 55 and
older. But if the Town adopts=
a regulation
that prohibits that, then it’s all 55 and older, and that’s
probably what we would do.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 43
Atty. Pilicy: Some towns have a cutoff, no perma=
nent
resident under 18 or 21. I th=
ink
Middlebury is 21.
Mr. Houlihan:
Mr. Polletta: Are you part f
Mr. Houlihan: We developed
Ms. Barton:=
Mr. Paparazzo owns this property s=
ince
about 1968.
Mr. Polletta: I think this was zoned industrial =
before
it was residential.
Mr. Houlihan: Well actually a portion of it was
industrial and then we had a somewhat larger piece zoned industrial and that
was 20 years ago and that was not viable.&=
nbsp;
First of all if you ever looked at the topography of the site, I
don’t know what they were thinking, cause industrial grounds needs big
flat footprints, parking areas, and this is not conducive to that at all, f=
or
one thing, and for another thing there is no market.
Mr. Polletta: There was a market then though.
Mr. Houlihan: There might have been, but it
didn’t happen. We don&#=
8217;t
think industrial is a good use for that particular land. It would be hard to conserve. You need little footprints to fit =
in
that type of topography. Ther=
e are
roads that follow the topography.
We’re looking at using vegetated swales and sheet flow to prot=
ect
these primarily and try to get away from the old basin and pipe design (ina=
udible)
that that’s feasible and our engineer will determine what works the b=
est and
what doesn’t work in that topography.
Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible).
Mr. Houlihan: That’s why we’re here,=
we just
wanted you to know that. We i=
nvited
you to walk the site in a couple of months.
Mr. Zawadzki: Thank you very much, we appreciate=
it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 44
9. =
Communications
and Bills
A. = Section 68 of Watertown Zoning Regulations concerni= ng Aquifer Protection Zone
B. =
C. The Habitat
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Jones,
sec. Mr. Polletta) to accept and file the Communications and Bills as
presented.
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
10. Repor=
ts
from Officers and Committees
&n= bsp; A. Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency Regulations Review Subcommittee
&n= bsp; &= nbsp; Mr. Jones: Meeting of Subcomm= ittee Review of our Regulations. On May 2,= 2005 the subcommittee met at 7:45 at the P & Z Conference Room. Attending were Mr. Undercuffler, M= r. Duplissie, Mr. Jones, Mr. Rafey, and Ms. Barton. We covered Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7= . The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. unless we schedule tonight. Meeting will be at the P & Z O= ffice, scheduled for review of Sections 8, 9, 10, and 11.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Duplissie: Can we make it= at 8:00?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Jones: It’s okay by= me.
11. Repor=
ts
from Staff
A. Status of the Approved On-Going Subdivisions
Mr. Berger: We’re moving
along. Fox Crossing has begun
construction with tree clearing. We
have not been out there since, I don’t know if Moosa has, but we did =
walk
the site prior to tree clearing, walked the (inaudible). I imagine that is underway.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> We will go to the site before
(inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2005
PAGE 45
Ms. Barton:=
(Inaudible).
Mr. Berger:=
He started off again, he’s d=
oing
sidewalks now.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>
Ms. Barton:=
55 and older (inaudible).
12. &n=
bsp; Public
Participation
&nbs=
p; None
13. Adjou=
rnment
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Ms. Russ) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 11:55 p.m.
&nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Regular
Meeting Adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
Inland
Wetlands Agency
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________