MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR
MEETING
THURSDAY=
, JUNE
9, 2005 - 7:30 PM
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Bernard
Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Glenn
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
None
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Martha
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Denise
Russ
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Mary Barton, Zoning
Enforcement Officer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &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 11:05 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
3. =
Public
Participation
None
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 2
4. =
Action
on Minutes
A. Public
Hearing, April 14, 2005, App. #521, Joseph Polletta
B. =
Regular
Meeting, April 14, 2005
C. Continuation
of Public Hearing, May 12, 2005, App. #521, Joseph Polletta
D. Regular
Meeting, May 12, 2005
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Beauchamp,
sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Approve Items 4A and 4B and Table Items 4C and 4D.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
5. =
Pending
Applications
A. Application #520 of Joseph Schienda for construc=
tion
of 4-lot residential subdivision on
A decision is required=
by
June 21, 2005.
Mr. Caterino: We received some comments from the= Town Engineer pertaining to the application and if you want I'll go over what they were.<= o:p>
=
§One of the comments was to have a footing underneath the outlet con=
trol
structure, a different type of footing, which we can easily do.
=
§The other comment was to have grass pavers or gravel driveway for t=
he
access way to the pond, which we will also do on the plans.
=
§The other comment was to have a 15 foot wide access berm, I have ri=
ght
now presently a 5 foot wide, we could easily mak=
e it
15 feet wide.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Is that going to make it encroach m=
ore in
towards the wetlands, or can you move it back, do you need to adjust the
positioning of it?
Mr. Caterino: Yes, I can adjust the
elevation of the pond a little bit and adjust the position of it a little b=
it
so we don't encroach the wetland buffer any more than what it is now. If I could do a combination of the
three, lower the pond, shift it a little bit, and maybe add 100 square feet
more to the buffer area, that would probably be the easiest and the best, b=
ut
if you don't want me to do anymore to the buffer, I'll do it . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 3
Mr. Zawadzki: Well we would prefer=
not.
Mr. Caterino: Okay, then I'll stic=
k with
what we have and I can readjust the pond by elevation and reposition it a
little bit, cause we have a lot of area on this =
side.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, just make it a
different shape.
Mr. Caterino: Yea, just change the =
shape
a little bit.
Mr. Duplissie: We're just talking ab=
out
the top width, the flat top of the detention pond? Making it 15 feet wide instead of 5
feet?
Mr. Caterino: Yes. The only reason why I did 5 is bec=
ause
we've done them in the past on small ponds but it just makes it a little mo=
re
difficult to get around to maintain the pond for=
the
Town, so I mean 15 feet wide is definitely better for maintenance and mowing
and cleaning out the pond, etc. So
taking care of those comments, we can definitely do,
no problem. Other than that t=
hat's
really the only additional information that I have for you tonight.
Mr. Zawadzki: I think that's the o=
nly
real issue there was. Chuck, =
do you
have any comments?
Mr. Berger: I guess there are two
other, one minor, and one issue we just should put on the record. The other one is, I suggested the
applicant contact D.E.P. just to make sure that a State Dam Safety Permit i=
sn't
required for this detention berm, and that will somewhat depend on how it g=
ets
reconfigured. There are some
relatively high areas in the berm as currently configured and, you know, ju=
st
touch base with D.E.P. to make sure a State Permit is not required.
The other item I raise=
d in
my memo is the need for the proposed storm scepter here. This is a short section of road, a
relatively narrow section of road with only 4 catch basins. There is a detention pond proposed=
, with
a 4 bay, a settling area, and I guess we are in the process of re-evaluatin=
g,
just requiring these storm scepter or Vortechnic type units everywhere and =
this
may be a case where by adding additional deep sumps to the catch basins pro=
posed
along with the detention basin configuration it would be acceptable to
eliminate the storm scepter. =
And if
that's something the Commission is in favor of I can continue to work with =
the
applicant to evaluate that to see if deep sumps are a feasible
alternative. That may also gi=
ve us
some more room to move the detention basin back up the hill a little bit.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 4
Mr. Duplissie: The storm scepters a=
re
maintenance, there's a lot of maintenance to them and if you don't take car=
e of
them they're not worth anything.
Ms. Barton: They will have to ma=
intain
them storm water management (inaudible) 5 years we have to have it done in
place (inaudible) we're mandated by the Federal Government.
Mr. Duplissie: But if you don't need =
them .
. . . .
Ms. Barton: No, you're right. If you don't n=
eed
them, but . . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: Don’t put them in
where we don't need them.
Ms. Barton: Correct, we will be
maintaining and where we need them we should put them in, and I think Chuck=
is
absolutely right, in this spot, I think it's probably not . . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: For 4 little lots.
Mr. Berger: For 4 little lots, you=
know,
it is a tributary to Turkey Brook, but it's not a real sensitive area, and I
don’t mean that as a negative for the particular area that they're in,
but I think this is a case where . . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: This is like the oth=
er 3
lot subdivision that we were just talking about that was just in front of u=
s. I mean there's no sense of putting=
a
storm scepter on that little, we don't want these
storm scepters all over Town on every little 2 or 3 lot subdivision.
Mr. Berger: I haven't seen the
previous one, and I do need to get out there and look at that, but I was
sitting here thinking the same thing myself, that that may be another case
where one is not necessary. W=
e'll
look at that and I'll make a recommendation for next month's meeting on that
one, but I did discuss it with Mr. Cavanaugh and we're both in agreement th=
at in
this particular situation adding some deep sumps to the catch basins would =
be
an acceptable alternative.
Mr. Polletta: And totally eliminate
that.
Mr. Berger: Yes.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Any other questions or
comments?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 5
Mr. Duplissie: So basically we're j=
ust, I
think we're done, I think it's just basically between C=
huck
and . . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, we can make a de=
cision
here.
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. Polletta) to Approve Application #520
of Joseph Schienda for construction of 4-lot residential subdivision on Sla=
de
Street, Oakville, CT subject to the standard conditions and Mr. Berger
verifying that the storm scepter is not necessary, or whatever Mr. Berger's
decision is on this, and if the State D.E.P. permit is required.
Discussi=
on: Mr. Caterino: Absolutely. We'll work with Mr. Be=
rger
on whatever way we have to go.
We're providing plenty of water quality treatment, as Mr. Berger sai=
d,
with the sumps and the sediment, there's definitely a major water treatment
condition. The storm scepter =
is
probably a little overkill for this.
We'll do the investigation on the State D.E.P. Permit and keep Mr.
Berger informed.
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
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 June 8, 2005, then a decision is required by=
August
12, 2005.
MR.
POLLETTA RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THIS VOTE
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Duplissie,
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
MR.
POLLETTA RETURNED TO THE MEETING
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 6
&=
nbsp; C. Application
#526 of P & A Enterprises, LLC for construction of 3-lot residential
subdivision on Ripley Street and Winthrop Street Extension, Oakville, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is Closed on June 9, 2005, then=
a
decision is required by August 12, 2005.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. = Duplissie, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Table Application #526 of P & A Enterprises, LLC= for construction of 3-lot residential subdivision on Ripley Street and Winthrop Street Extension, Oakville, CT.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: Do you think you might want to have
someone else take a look at that, or no, just because you have the petition=
submitted? It's just a thought, you know, to =
have
an independent review of it, or have someone else look at the wetland flags=
?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Good point, because actually I mad=
e that
note myself and then I forgot.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: You have the opportunity to do it =
with
the timeframe you're still on and it might be worthwhile . . . . .
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: In light of the magnitude of the
objections there, I think that's a good suggestion and I actually had made =
that
note.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: In light of the fact that we're ta=
lking
about this now, and since we're still in open session and we can discuss th=
is,
I was listening to Mr. Meyers and he has moved that one house away from the=
50
foot buffer and I'm looking at the wetlands impact now. It doesn't look like there's reall=
y much
of a wetland impacts, but there's a lot of people who are concerned that th=
ey
are building 3 houses in this section, and I don't think they really want t=
he
houses, but if there's no wetlands impact, except for the fact that they're=
putting
in (inaudible) 50 foot buffer . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Well we don’t know that yet.=
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Duplissie: I understand, but if he moves it b= ack and they come in and there's no impact, if you get an independent . . . . <= o:p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 7
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I asked him to do =
an environmental
impact study to see . . . . .
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Duplissie: But we can't s=
ay no
if they show that there's no impact.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: No, but the applicant needs to pro=
vide
us with an impact statement and we have the right to get a third party of o=
ur own,
which is what Mary brought up and I concur with and that would just be a se=
cond
opinion.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: It might be beneficial because the=
re
might be the potential for litigation.&nbs=
p;
I'm not sure if there is any impact. It might be beneficial, typically =
when
you have that type of . . . . .
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: Mentality?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: No, not mentality, involvement by
abutting property owners.
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, they're obviously concerned.<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: Yes, I don’t have a problem =
with
them being concerned, I like that.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: I think what you want to do is
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: And that independent review, I hav=
e no
clue . . . .
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: Is paid for by the applicant.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: How much does that cost?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: It's paid for by the applicant.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: It should have been di=
scussed
at the public hearing that the applicant agrees to pay for that.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: No, it doesn't have to be. It's up to the Commission to decid=
e at
any point, and they don't have to agree, you tell them to do it, it's in the
fee structure, they don't have to agree to do it, they don't have to, you c=
an
say you'd like them to do it, and they would have to, by the fee ordinance,=
the
Commission decides they want an independent review, then they pay it, they
don't have to agree to do it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 8
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: If they don’t agree to do it=
them
we . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Then we cannot approve it.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: Yea, cause it's required in the fee
structure. If you think it's a necessary thing to do, then they should do
it. It doesn't have to be agr=
eed
upon by the applicant.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: It's much better to have had this
discussion at the public hearing, when they were (inaudible).
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well we do have that option, since=
the
public hearing is still open to bring it up at the next meeting and then ask
for an extension.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Ask for an extension and then at t=
hat
time we can . . . . .
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Ms.
Barton: Or you can add to the Agenda that =
you
want to have a third party review, a motion, an =
item
for that, and then just tell the applicant the Commission talked about it in
session and they would like to have an independent review, so you keep movi=
ng
it along, instead of delaying it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: Cause they're going to be here next
month.
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Barton: Yea, you can make=
a
Motion to Add C1, and then put a Motion on the Table to have an independent
review, make a Motion to put it on the Agenda, and then take action on the =
Motion. You amend the Agenda, then
take action on the Motion, and then you just tell the applicant that's what=
the
Commission wanted.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Add Agenda Item 5C1,
Consider Request for a Third Party Review.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANINOUSLY
&=
nbsp; C1. Consider Re=
quest
for a Third Party Review
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Jones) to Require a Third Party Review of Application #=
526,
P & A Enterprises.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANINOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Do we still need to notify them?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms. Barton: We'll let them know.
= D. = Application #527 of Patrick Graziano for constructi= on of an 11-lot residential subdivision and associated roadways, Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Grove Court, Watertown, CT.
If Public Hearing is <=
span
class=3DGramE>Closed on June 9, 2005, then a decision is required by=
August
12, 2005.
MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Table Application #527 of Patrick Graziano for construction of an 11-lot residential subdivision and associated roadwa= ys, Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Grove Court, Watertown, CT.
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
(Tape #4=
, Side
A ended - may have missed some.)
If a Public Hearing is=
not
held, then a decision is required by July 15, 2005.
Ms. Jones: =
We came last month and showed that =
there
were no wetlands regulated activities.&nbs=
p;
Since then Mr. Rafey has reviewed the plans and =
had
one question regarding some of the cross culverts that come across
Mr. Rafey: =
No, that's fine, everybody has a co=
py
already.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 10
Ms. Jones: =
Stating the criteria for an intermi=
ttent
watercourse and that that particular location, as with all of the locations=
of
the cross culverts not meet those requirements, therefore the only wetlands=
on
site is still over here on the eastern portion of Lot #4, and there are sti=
ll
no wetlands regulated activity. The
soil on the property is good so those cross culverts pretty much infiltrate
into the soil before they really reach the property. And that was really the only outst=
anding
issue, besides as we go through the process of Planning, there might be some
planning of trails in the open space area and along Butternut Lane and if t=
he
applicant is required to come back at any time for any reason, that would c=
ome
back under a separate item.
Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, so
Ms. Jones: Correct.
Ms. Barton: The only thing on the trail, and that's why Mr.
Smith stopped reviewing, because if the trail is proposed along Butternut L=
ane,
it's going to impact where your septic systems are and the grading, so that=
's
going to have to be an issue that needs to be resolved, and then the
application submitted to Planning and Zoning, but you're going to have to
resolve that because that's going to impact on Lot #3, the grading issue.
Ms. Jones: =
On
Ms. Barton: It may be an easement right on the property. I haven't started my review with
Planning and Zoning, but the concept is to have the trail come along from w=
here
the Hopson piece is and come along here and there's open space that the Town
owns on Honey Hill and maybe you can go further along on Butternut to get o=
ut
to
Ms. Jones: =
So the issue would be if we were li=
ke
within 50 feet?
Ms. Barton: I think it's going to impact on the grade.
Mr. Duplissie: Which lot are we talking about?
Ms. Barton:
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 11
Mr. Duplissie: And where's the trail?
Ms. Barton: The trail is going to go somewhere along the roa=
d (inaudible)
to the septic.
Mr. Duplissie: And this is the septic for which house?
Ms. Barton: For this lot.
Mr. Duplissie: For this house the septic system is way down her=
e?
Ms. Barton: Yes, so there's grading.
Ms. Sturgis: Do we have jurisdiction over that, as Wetlands?<= o:p>
Ms. Barton: Well you know your issue for the trail is more o=
f a
Conservation Commission, you have a recommendati=
on by
the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Duplissie: So this house has its septic system way down her=
e?
Ms. Barton: Correct.
It soil tested the best down there, he lo=
oked
closer and (inaudible).
Ms. Jones: =
I'm not sure if it was looked at
closer. I didn't personally t=
est
it, but I don't see any other test bits on the lot, so this side here, and =
that
was obviously acceptable further, so I mean the soil, it's all Type B soil =
so
it probably could be pushed up the hill a little bit.
Ms. Barton:
Mr. Duplissie: I don't see where your scale is on that. So from the house on
Ms. Jones: =
400 feet probably.
Mr. Duplissie: And it's downhill correct? The house?
Ma=
ny
people talking at once (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 12
Mr. Duplissie: Wouldn't you be better off just creating, I mean=
I
know we've done septic systems on properties where the septic system, they =
just
dig out the earth and they bring in the soil and they put in the galleys and
you can put a septic system anywhere.
I mean you could pull that all the way up to the house or 75, 80 fee=
t from
the house.
Ms. Jones: =
Yea, certainly if when we determine=
where
the trail is going to be it looks like it's going to encroach on that septic
system, we'll have to either retest, or if we can shift it up, I'm not sure
exactly how far it will be, but you can shift it up a little bit and still =
be
within the range for your existing test bits, and if not you'd have to rete=
st
somewhere up here, maybe up here.
I'm sure we can find a suitable area on this site. I wasn't involved in the actual so=
il
testing so I don't know what the reasoning was for putting it down here.
Mr. Rafey: =
I think that's something for Bob Sm=
ith to
look at; if it doesn't meet the Health Code he won't approve it.
Ms. Barton: Well the reason Bob stopped the review was becau=
se
of the potential impact of the trail and the septic system, so we need to
resolve that, because when you go to Planning and Zoning, you need his
approval, so you have to resolve that.
Ms. Jones: =
Right.
Mr. Zawadzki: But the septic system is underground and the tra=
il
is up on top; how would that impact?
Ms. Barton: (Inaudible) grading impact. The grading and ratio where the se=
ptic
system is typically you go 15 feet beyond the edge of the system with fill,=
so
then you're starting to get in topography and it may not work.
Mr. Duplissie: But I've seen septic systems designed to go on r=
ock,
on ledge.
Ms. Barton: You have to have 2 feet of naturally occurring s=
oil
in which to put a septic system, you can't just remove everything and throw=
in
(inaudible) they used to do that.
Ms. Jones: =
And then to do that you have to pre=
p the
area and wait awhile . . . . .
Mr. Duplissie:
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 13
Ms. Barton: Correct, but you have to have 2 fee=
t of
naturally occurring soil. Has=
that
changed?
Ms. Jones: =
No, that's true.
Mr. Duplissie: But this site is, this is not ledge or rock, thi=
s is
farmland, if I remember correctly.
Ms. Jones: =
I haven't been out to the site, I'l=
l be
honest.
Mr. Duplissie: This is old farmland,=
there
are stone walls out there.
Ms. Jones: =
Yea, it's all good soil too.
Mr. Duplissie: They'll have 2 feet of naturally occurring soil =
all
over that site.
Ms. Barton: This is Dr. Martin's property,
he owned it for years before Mrs. Smiley bought it.
Mr. Duplissie: I know they've done some test bits out there,
they've done some digging with a back hoe, but it's something for him to lo=
ok
at.
Mr. Rafey: =
This is their problem.
Mr. Zawadzki: Still at this point it's not applicable to us, s=
o I
guess as it stands right now we can move to approve this.
Ms. Barton: Just for the recommendation of the =
trail in
your conservation mode, which you don’t do that much.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well if something comes up later th=
at
will impact on it then I guess they'd apply for a change in the permit.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well there really isn't anything to approve at t=
his
point, is there?
Mr. Duplissie: =
There's nothing to approve; what do=
we
have to do with it?
Ms. Barton: I think what you're going to say, y=
ou've
determined that there's no permit required, and as a Conservation Commission
that you recognize that the trail is in compliance with the Plan of
Conservation and Development and you recommend the Planning and Zoning Comm=
ission
require it. How's that?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 14
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well except the trail isn't indicat=
ed
here yet.
Ms. Barton: But it will be.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> So we're talking about something th=
at's
not even on the plot plan.
Ms. Barton: But the concept is. I think as a Conservation Commissi=
on,
falls right in that goal. It =
will
follow along with the Hopson property.
MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to determine that there's no Wetland Perm=
it
required and that there are no regulated activities,
and a recommendation as a Conservation Commission that the trail be located
somewhere along
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
6. &n=
bsp; New
Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Application
#529 of Mark Lyskowski for construction of an above ground pool within upla=
nd
review area at
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by August 12, 200=
5.
Mr. Duplissie:
Mr. Zawadzki: Should we schedule a Site Walk= ? We have a sketch showing what it l= ooks like, and as Moosa pointed out, it's a perfect example of how we back ourse= lves into corners by allowing houses right up to the edge of the buffer area, and then somebody wants to put a pool and they're in the buffer.
Mr. Duplissie: We= ll they can put it on the other side of the house.
Ms. Barton: You d= on't have to give them the pool.
Mr. Zawadzki: Wel= l it was suggested to the applicant to put it next to his in-law apartment, but = then he can't keep an eye on the kids in the pool.
Ms. Barton: You d= on't need a pool.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 15
Mr. Rafey: This i= s a good example for the Commission members to look at it. I mean you're (inaudible) the subdivision plan . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: Bu= t we can't say no to somebody that they can't build their house because in the future they won't be able to build a pool.
Mr. Zawadzki: Wel= l that was Mr. Pilicy's point.
Mr. Rafey: You ca= n ask them to show us a grading plan around the house, just for the limits of dis= turbance.
Ms. Barton: This = is an older subdivision.
Mr. Duplissie: I =
agree,
and we have houses in
Mr. Rafey: No, my= point is that when you're reviewing these new subdivisions an= d when the applicant shows the house next to a 50 foot buffer line, ask the= m to show the grading plan, the limits of disturbance.
Mr. Duplissie: Ye= s, as we did with Terry tonight.
Ms. Barton: Moosa= is absolutely correct, because it's unrealistic to assume that someone is not going to want an accessory structure in the future. They're going to want a pool, a de= ck, or a shed.
Mr. Rafey: Everyb= ody wants a deck, a shed. This is= a good example to just look at it.
Ms. Barton: You're right, but you don't need a pool.
Mr. Zawadzki: I n= eed a Motion to Table Item 6A and Schedule a Site Walk on this property.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Application #529 of Mark Lyskowski for construction o=
f an
above ground pool within upland review area at
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 16
7. &n=
bsp; Old
Business
A. =
Discussion on Wetland Issues
concerning properties at 603 and 563
Mr. Zawadzki: =
There's nothing new to
report.
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. =
Frank
Stack Application to amend the existing CCIWA Permit #529 Concerning an
Existing Access Way/Driveway at 300 Smith Pond Road, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: This is the (inaud=
ible)
that I want the Commission to go and see.
Mr. Duplissie: Well before we can go =
see
it, I've been looking at this and I'm looking at the old application, and t=
he
way this reads here is that we gave him permission to do the road. We didn’t give him any permi=
ssion
to do the road, we only gave him permission to put the road back the way it=
was
after he put the (inaudible) cause he excavated and there was an old trail =
that
was over there, it looked like a partially old trail, but he excavated 2.5 =
to 3
feet deep when I visited that site with you. Now he's saying that he wants to c=
onnect
this road, or he's already connected the road?
Mr. Rafey: It's already done, tha=
t's
why I want you to go there and see what's going on.
Mr. Duplissie: And this is exactly wh=
at we
talked about when we were at the meeting that he was going to put this road=
in
and put in a new connection, so now he's put a road in there.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
But there are extenuat=
ing
circumstances which Mary can explain as to why he had to do that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 17
Ms. Barton: He wanted to clean out=
the
garbage, which is fine, but I think what you have to do is, in this case you
have to make him take out what he did, put it back and grass it, and that's
it. And then the other thing =
he did
is there is sand sitting there on the beach and Moosa and I went and walked=
up
there and looked at it, there's grass underneath it. He submitted something saying that=
it
was already there.
Mr. Rafey: We asked him about that
question and he provided this.
Ms. Barton: He has the ability to =
have
the beach that was there, he has no ability to put additional sand there and
enlarge the beach, so my suggestion is to go look at it, and then tell him =
to
take the stone out of the driveway, put some topsoil, seed it, grass it, and
then get rid of the beach sand that he put on the grass there.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Wait a minute, I under=
stood
that he . . . . .
Mr. Rafey: In his application he =
wrote
. . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Has a Planning and Zon=
ing
application to build a house there, or make a house out of that and it's
supposed to be connected to the existing structure?
Ms. Barton: No.
Mr. Rafey: What is the status of =
that,
because he put it in his application?
Ms. Barton:=
I haven't submitted it. I haven't approved it because I ha=
ve to
go up and look at it, so nothing has been approved yet. He's got some application to do so=
me
kind of . . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Well he wants to make =
living
quarters out of this barn here.
Ms. Barton: But he hasn't gotten
approval for that yet.
Mr. Zawadzki: And in order to do t=
hat
you said he has to attach it to the other existing structure, which would b=
lock
off the existing driveway.
Mr. Duplissie: That's what he's say=
ing or
. . . .
Mr. Rafey: Yes, that is what he=
said
in his application.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 18
Ms. Barton: He can do something =
else.
Mr. Duplissie: So what he's done he=
re is
he's actually gone and done what we all thought he was going to do, cause h=
e's
put in a road so that he can get a road into the 4 or 5 shacks out in the b=
ack,
cabins, whatever you want to call them, and he's expanded the beach, he tru=
cked
in sand, and he did all of this without our permission, and he got caught t=
he
first time excavating, we slapped his hand basically over here, and that's =
all
we did, and he went in and did the same thing and kept excavating and put a=
new
road in.
Mr. Polletta: I think when we went=
on
the field trip, you said to him put it back with=
the
slope . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: That's exactly what =
I said,
yes.
Mr. Polletta: Cause he had it flat=
, and
it was agreed that he was going to put it back with a slope, whatever he
removed, because he said it was transmissions, motors, and stuff like that,=
and
my understanding was that he was supposed to put it back in the same condit=
ion,
not drivable, not flat, it was like this, it was sloped.
Mr. Duplissie: No, well we could go=
back
and review the Minutes, no, we didn't want him to put it back because we
figured he was going to do more damage by trying to putting it back, we wan=
ted
him to just leave it alone, maybe throw some wood chips on it and leave it
after he finished taking out his garbage, but we did not give him permissio=
n,
and it was never agreed to give him the right to build a road, and the way =
this
reads is that we had already given him a right to build the road and he just
extended it.
Mr. Rafey: I think the best thi=
ng to
do is go and see the property, at the next month's meeting I will give you =
the
Minutes of that meeting that this was discussed and you approved this.
Ma=
ny
people talking at once (inaudible).
Ms. Barton: Your decision, indep=
endent
of the Zoning Permit application which has not been submitted, so don't worry about it, that's his problem, that's not y=
our
problem. I think Moosa is rig=
ht to
get the Minutes. My suggestio=
n is
to take out the driveway, he gets a real plan, so he's obviously going to
topsoil it, seed it, get rid of the sand, and give him a timeframe cause th=
ere
is really no reason to do it. I
think he's right, that's exactly what he did.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 19
Mr. Duplissie: I know that's what he
did. That's why I said that a=
t the
last meeting.
Mr. Thermer: This also goes back =
to
what we talked about, we need leverage.&nb=
sp;
When people do things after we say this is what we want you to do, a=
nd
they go and do something else, we need some kind of leverage that we can ma=
ke
an example, and say you can't get away with this.
Ms. Barton: I talked to Atty. Je=
ssell
about doing the citation ordinance again, and his concern is, and I told him
again that we're looking at doing for the Zoning Regulations is that we hav=
e to
(inaudible) set up this whole hearing officer process and he's concerned th=
at
we won't be able to get a hearing officer, and I said can you just please p=
ut
something together and do it. It
may not be something we use all the time, but it's a tool for enforcement,
because there are fines associated with it. But his concer=
n about setting
up the whole bureaucracy with the hearing officer, but other communities ha=
ve
done it and I think you just have to go ahead and put it forward. I just talked to him about this la=
st
month, but I will talk to him again about it, cause
this is a prime example.
Mr. Duplissie: He's right on the ed=
ge of
the wetlands there. He's goin=
g into
the wetlands, some of it is in the wetlands, forget the buffer, he's touchi=
ng
some of the wetlands.
Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible) at that =
time
was that he was removing the garbage out of the wetlands, but nobody saw the
garbage.
Ms. Sturgis: And the Y was please=
d.
Nr. Duplissie: This has been brought to our attention because somebody called you
again and said he put a road in.
Mr. Zawadzki: There was still some
wrecked cars or something there when we . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: But now just recentl=
y because
of this road that he just put in, the neighbor called.
Mr. Rafey: Yes, that's why I'm
bringing him back in front of you.
Mr. Duplissie: He was here.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 20
Ms. Barton: He left.
Mr. Rafey: Yes, he submitted his =
application
and paid me the $130.00 application fee.&n=
bsp;
That's all I can do. H=
e's in
front of you now. You have to=
go
see the property and come back next month and discuss all of these issues w=
ith
him here. At the same time I'=
ll
give you the Minutes of the meeting of what you approved the last time.
Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, so I need a Mo=
tion
to Table and Schedule a Site Walk.
Mr. Beauchamp: Those cottages have =
been
there for a long time, as we saw here.&nbs=
p;
Now there must have been some way for people to get in. They didn’t walk in from
Mr. Duplissie: They used to go up t=
he
driveway where the barn is right now.
Ms. Barton: Correct. They had the access way, and a par= t of the Planning and Zoning Subdivision approval is the life use is still retai= ned by the Traver's for the very far one. If he cut it off, that's his responsibility, it's not your concern.<= o:p>
Mr. Duplissie: That's right.
Ms. Barton: If he's got to put in
another driveway somewhere else (inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: This was our concern=
when
he went in to do this excavation, and the first thing that we said in our
meeting was that he was going to try and put in a road so that he would have
access to those 4 cottages, and then he was going to rent the cottages and =
that
was going to be his access way to rent them, and now he's gone and put sand=
in
on the beach, which is exactly what he's doing and he's on our wetlands.
Mr. Thermer: I have a question, i=
f we
go and tell him to put everything back to the way it was, and he doesn't, w=
hat
can we do?
Ms. Barton: If he complies, we're
fine. If he doesn't comply th=
en
issue an order and have a public hearing for show cause and take him to cou=
rt
if he doesn't comply.
Mr. Rafey: You forgot what you
approved the last time. What =
he did
last time you approved, you said okay, just leave it the way it is, but don=
't
connect it to the road. Now h=
e did
connect it to the road. He's =
in
front of you for this section that I highlighted for you. I don't know if you can reverse yo=
ur previous
. . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 21
Ms. Barton: If you make him go bac=
k and
put it back, have a plan to mitigate it, to get rid of the sand, put back t=
he
driveway, I'd have him post a bond to ensure he completes it and stabilizes=
it,
seeds it, grasses it, and he's not able to use it, and he posts some money =
for
the amount of the work because otherwise he's not going to want to do it.
Mr. Duplissie: And if he's in viola=
tion
with us, will Planning & Zoning give him that access way or grant him a
permit to do what he wants to with his barn, cause he's in violation with u=
s?
Ms. Barton: No, that's me, no.
Mr. Polletta: Yea, but he can use =
the
existing situation from before.
Ms. Barton: He can use it, he just can't enclose it because he doesn't have t=
he
ability to get back to the cottages, because he's got to provide access to =
the
Traver's to get back to the cottages. He wanted to enclose it, Moosa is a=
bsolutely
right, that's why he built this little access way, so he gets the barn and =
the
house and all under one structure.
You don't get what you want.
Mr. Duplissie: He does.
Ms. Barton: Well in this case he
won't, so get rid of the access way and he's got to live with what he's got=
in
order to change his plans. Pa=
rt of
the approval is, in his agreement with the Traver's is he has to provide li=
fe
use and access for them. Your=
issue
is the wetlands. Planning and=
Zoning
issues, you tell him to do what he's got to do to straighten it out and . .=
. .
.
Mr. Zawadzki: He can put a 4 lane
highway with a toll booth over here, we don't care, it's over here that we =
. .
. . .
Mr. Duplissie: Over on the side, aw=
ay
from wetlands.
Ms. Barton: Right, get away from=
the
pond, but you need to get a plan from him and you need to get money from hi=
m.
Mr. Rafey: If you go there you =
will
see it better and can discuss it better next time.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 22
Mr. Duplissie: I wasn't there when
everybody else walked it, and there was a lot of snow on the ground, but wh=
en
you and I walked it we saw the recent excavation cause it had melted so you
could see the dock, the ground near the dock, so if he's put fresh sand the=
re
you'll see it.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Polletta,
sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Frank Stack
Application to amend the existing CCIWA Permit #529 Concerning an Existing
Access Way/Driveway at
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
8. &n=
bsp; New
Business
None
9. =
Communications
and Bills
None
10. Repor=
ts
from Officers and Committees
&n= bsp; A. Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency Regulations Review Subcommittee
&n= bsp; &= nbsp; Mr. Jones: We finished the in= itial review of all Regulations. Th= ere was a meeting on May 16th. Mo= osa will incorporate the changes into a new set of regulations for our final review, a revised set of regs. The Subcommittee will determine at this meeting tonight the date for the final subcommittee meeting to review those regs. So from there on it sort of falls to Moosa as to how it gets to us to finally accept them.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Duplissie: If you're havi= ng a special meeting on June 23rd?
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Rafey: That is just for o= ne application.
&n= bsp; = ; Mr. Duplissie: I understand, but we're all going = to be here, so why doesn't the subcommittee stay after for that meeting?
&n= bsp; = ; Mr. Rafey: Okay, June 23rd, after the Special Public Hearing.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 23
11. Repor=
ts
from Staff
A. Status of the Approved On-Going Subdivisions
Mr. Berger: Guernseytown Phase I=
I has
started. =
Phase
I - they are continuing to work on Phase I, but the new information would be
that Phase II has started.
Fox Crossings has star=
ted. Moosa and I are slowly gearing up =
to a
regular inspection program, we're not quite there
yet. We do have a Public Work=
s Inspector
who is viewing the improvements on a regular basis now, so no reported prob=
lems
or complaints.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> We have a schedule for tomorrow to=
go
and see Phase I.
Mr. Berger: We did note a couple=
of
issues that we did want to talk to the applicant, developer, and the engine=
er
on Phase I tomorrow afternoon on Guernseytown.
Mr. Duplissie: The sidewalks are go=
ing
in?
Mr. Rafey: They are in.
Mr. Duplissie: All of them?
Mr. Rafey: Almost.
Mr. Duplissie: He's doing a lot of =
them
on Phase I the last time I was up there.
Ms. Barton: He's actually quite =
happy
with them.
Mr. Duplissie: You cannot tell me t=
hat
Mr. Calabrese is happy.
Ms. Barton: He actually is happy, he thinks they're a good idea now, even though =
he was
opposed. He thinks they will =
be
used, so that's a big turnaround.
Mr. Rafey: Some sections of the=
swale
don't look good, so we'll see how we can fix that.
Ms. Barton: He thinks they're bene=
ficial
so he's happy about it.
Mr. Berger: We learned some less=
ons in
Phase I that we'll make sure that we don't repeat in Phase II. It's the first time that we know o=
f that
we used swales and sidewalks anywhere in the area, not only in Town.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 24
Mr. Thermer: <=
/b>They have a lot of tho=
se in
Ms. Barton: Reflections has 4 mo=
re
units to go and then they're finished.&nbs=
p;
I just talked to them today.
It's looking really nice.
The other thing is you=
'll be
getting it in the mail, it's going out tomorrow, there<=
/span>
is a workshop on the Update of Plan of Conservation and Development. You're all invited. It's June 15th at 7:00 p.m. here i=
n the Cafeteria. It will be an interactive workshop,
where the consultant will be doing a PowerPoint presentation and then we'll=
break
up into interactive groups and talk about it. The chapters are available on the =
web
site to look at, but I will be mailing them out to land use commission memb=
ers. There will be a news release in the
paper as well. And it's on the
Town's Web Site. I hope you c=
an attend, it will be worthwhile I think.
Mr. Duplissie: I can't think of the
development on top of Buckingham and 262?
Ms. Barton: 55 and older, Watert=
own
Crossings?
Mr. Duplissie: Yes. That looks like it's moving along.=
Ms. Barton: It's got 2 or 3 more
buildings left. They have 2 o=
r 3 foundations
in, 1 or 2 are framed. He's m=
oving forward. I think it will turn out to be a v=
ery
nice project, with the screening and the landscaping.
The other one on
Mr. Duplissie: Fox Crossings, I drove=
down
into, I'm not sure, I wasn't part of the Commission when that was approved,=
I
drove in Kimberly Lane and then all the way up and over and then down; is t=
hat
the one that breaks off to the right that they're just starting to dig?
Ms. Barton: Correct.
Mr. Duplissie: So right now (Tape #=
4,
Side B ended - may6 have missed some).
Ms. Barton: Large parcel, there's
Walnut Grove Farm Association, but someone either dropped an application of=
f,
or they were asking questions, I can't remember what it was, Carol and I we=
re
talking today and I forgot and I heard someone, so I think it was Curt Jone=
s,
cause he's doing the work, actually no, they're coming in for pre-app so I'm
not sure if it's the large piece or the piece across the street, so that wi=
ll
be coming shortly.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 25
Mr. Thermer: Across the street.
Ms. Barton: Yea, they're moving
forward I know because they need some income so that will be happening.
Mr. Duplissie: I saw this in the
newspaper, and I'm not sure how to take it. It was for Planning and Zoning, no=
t for
us, but something about it has to be at least 10 acres for 55 and older.
Ms. Barton: There is a text amend=
ment
that's on, right now the way the 55 and older regulations read is all age
restricted is that you have minimal parcel size is 4 acres, maximum parcel =
size
is 10 acres, and the Commission limited it to an R-12.5 in an R-30 zone whi=
ch
is a 1/4 acre in a 3/4 acre zone, cause they wanted to see how these things
would work first, doing it in piece mail, but what someone submitted is, it=
's
really related, if you're familiar with Sunnyside Avenue on the
Waterbury/Oakville side, there's a parcel there that abuts Route 8 that
actually you can get access from Berkshire Drive in Waterbury across from t=
he
Fairmount Housing Projects. I=
t's a
20 acre parcel. Bob Santa Mar=
ia
owns it. He'd like to put 60 =
units
of 55 and older on that site, so he's proposing to amend the zoning regulat=
ions
for that. That site does have
wetlands and it will be coming in here if the zone change gets approved, so=
I'm
not sure what's going to happen.
Mr. Duplissie: So that doesn't affec=
t this
guy, Heritage something or other.
Mr. Zawadzki: The Paparazzo propert=
y,
that's a whole different . . . . .
Ms. Barton: They had a public hear=
ing
last night and they requested a change in the zone from IR-80 to R-30, and =
what
happened as a result of the public hearing last night, they decided to with=
draw
the zone change application and come in with a floating zone text amendment=
and
propose that. That would be m=
uch
more guaranteed what would happen and that will be, I think the Planning and
Zoning Commission (inaudible) that would be a better way to go about it,
because with a floating zone you could have criteria in there and you know =
that
they couldn't change it to, once you change it to an R-30, there's always t=
he
potential that you could go to a single family residential subdivision and
that's one thing the Planning and Zoning Commission, I think the Town really
doesn't want (inaudible) schoolchildren, it's terrible, but if they give the
floating zone, then it's required to be 55 and older, you could put paramet=
ers,
criteria in it.
Mr. Undercuffler: Why do they call it a
floating zone?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 9, 2005
PAGE 26
Ms. Barton: You have to lay it d=
own,
you have it, it doesn’t actually become an existence until you lay it
down, and then it has to meet all the criteria. I don't know what they're going to
do. It's going to be IR-80, a
floating zone for 55, age restricted housing, 55 and older. But that will be coming back, that=
's
going to be a very big project with wetland impacts, so that will probably,
once they get their zoning changes, that's going to be something that will =
take
a lot of your time.
Mr. Polletta: How many units in tot=
al?
Ms. Barton: 400 to 600 units. Last night they said 400 was more =
realistic. There's=
2.5
units per acre.
Mr. Duplissie: I don’t have a
problem with that because it's age restricted an=
d it's
12. &n=
bsp; Public
Participation
&nbs=
p; None
13. Adjou=
rnment
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. Jones) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 11:58 p.m.
&nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Regular
Meeting Adjourned at 11:58 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
Inland
Wetlands Agency
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________