MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Location: file:///C:/A3895EAD/0714rm.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRUMBULL PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER

THURSDAY= , JULY 14, 2005 - 7:30 PM

 

 

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

 

ALTERNATES PRESENT:  &nbs= p;           Peter Peluso

            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;          Denise Russ

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

 

ALTERNATES ABSENT:   = ;             <= /span>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 8:40 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. Beauchamp, in his absence.

 

3.         = Public Participation

&nb= sp;

None=

 

MOTION: &= nbsp;     (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Add Agenda Item 4G, Public Hearing, Ap= p. #527, June 9, 2005, Patrick Graziano.

 

Discussion =        None

 

MOTION PASSED UANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 2

 

 

4.         = Action on Minutes

&nb= sp;

A.        Continuation of Public Hearing, May 12, 2005, App. #521, Joseph Polletta

B.      =            Regular Meeting, May 12, 2005

C.      =            Continuation of Public Hearing, June 9, 2005, App. #521, Joseph Polletta

D.      =            Public Hearing, June 9, 2005, App. #526, P & A Enterprises, LLC=

E.      =             Regular Meeting June 9, 2005

F.      =             Special Meeting (Public Hearing) June 23, 2005, App. #521, Joseph Polletta

G.      =            Public Hearing, June 9, 2005, App. #527, Patrick Graziano

 

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Items 4A through 4G as present= ed

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   In Favor:      &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie, Mr. Jones, Ms. Sturgis, Mr. Thermer, Mr. Undercuffler, Mr. Zawad= zki

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   Opposed:         = None

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   Abstained:        Mr. Polletta (On Item A, C, and F)

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nb= sp;

5.         = Pending Applications

&nb= sp;

            MR. POLLETTA RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THIS APPLICATION

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawad= zki, Chairman, asked Mr. Peluso to sit in for Mr. Polletta for this Application.=

 

A.        Application #521 of Joseph Polletta for subdivis= ion of a 28.3 acre parcel into 19 residential building lots and construction of associated roadways Echo L= ake Road and Icehouse Road, Watertown, CT.

 

A decision is required= by August 26, 2005.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  We Closed the Hearing, we can no l= onger accept information so at this point we have discussion, we have until Augus= t 26th to vote actually but that depends on the discussion.  Does anyone have any comments on t= his application?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 3

 

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  I have several items I marked down here that as = far as I’m concerned we may have gone as far as we can.  They removed one house which was I thought was a big step.  The s= tone walls were added.  There had b= een some in the beginning, but then there were additional ones added.  Some houses were moved away from the buffer and regraded, and I think the arch bridge, I’m not excited abo= ut going through that wetland, but it seems like the only alternative and the = arch bridge seems like a good way to handle it.=   I’m basically satisfied.

 

Ms. Sturgis:  I was impressed with= the landscape architect when he was using red maples and shag (inaudible) non-i= nvasive plants.  Sugar maples, I have = them as pretty nice.

 

Ms. Russ:  I was here for all t= he meetings and I think Joe will do a great job and keep it up.  His property around Town shows tha= t he takes pride in what he does and I don’t think he’ll do anything that will harm or hinder anything.

 

Mr. Jones:  I originally thought= it would be a good idea to remove #5, but as time passed and more and more engineering corrections occurred, it seems like this was well done and I’m satisfied to vote yes.

 

Mr. Thermer:  I’m completely satisfied with the changes, the work that has been put into this.  I move that we vote on it tonight.=

 

Mr. Duplissie:  He’s doing this development, a couple of things that caught my eye.  #1 there are stone walls that are being installed that we asked for.  #2 he’s coming up with this = sewer line extension.  He’s go= ing to take two of the existing properties that are in the development, the existi= ng, what was formerly known as Dwyer House and the farmhouse, and take them off= the septic systems that don’t work and are draining into the lake and are going to be tied into the sewer system.&nb= sp; I think 4 houses across the street that are on septic systems right = now that are failing will now have an opportunity to tie into the sewer line wh= ich will stop that from going into our lake also, so I like all those things, a= nd I know it costs him some money to get what we wanted done, and I’m satisfied.  I think he’s= done a good job.  I move that we vo= te on it tonight and we accept it.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  The only comment was I didn’t like Lot #5 right from the beginnin= g but even though they’ve done quite a bit there, it’s still a direct impact on the wetlands.  The o= ther question I have is the easements don’t incorporate the 50 foot buffer areas, and I just wondered what you guys thought about that.  On Lot #12 I think the buffer area= is included, but on the other Lots, #4, #5, #6, #10, #11, #13, #14, there is 50 foot buffer areas that are on those lots that aren’t part of the easements and we could make that a condition of approval for incorporating = the 50 foot buffer into the conservation easement for those lots.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 4

 

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  Which ones were those = again?

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Well by my (inaudibl= e) it’s #4, #5, #6, #10, #11, #13, and #14.

 

Mr. Rafey:  Do you want to look = at the plan I have?

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  Yes.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  Some of them are alrea= dy contained, right?  Some are al= ready easements?

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  = Yea, the easement is on those lots, for example #4, the easement is in the wetland area but the buf= fer is not.  All of those lots alr= eady have conservation easements, but only for the wetland portion.

 

Mr. Rafey:  These are the lots over here.  At the last meeting Mr. Polletta agreed to put a conservation easement areas on those lots that you suggested here.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  On all of those, #4, #= 5, #6, #10, #11, #13, #14, if I remember correctly we talked about that and they w= ere going to add those to the prints.

 

Mr. Rafey:  They agreed, and whe= n they submit the final plan it will show.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  (Inaudible) part of the agreement (inaudible).

 

Mr. Rafey:  The Chairman wants t= o make it a condition of approval, that when they submit the final plans that shows the entire conservation easement on those lots, including the wetlands on t= he 50 foot buffer zone, and I think Mr. Spath will show that on the final map.=

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Anything else for condition of approval?  Of cou= rse we already put all the things with the culvert crossing and the pipe and all t= hat in there.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  Are we going to have= the same thing here in terms of finishing off the detention ponds before . . . = . .

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Yes, that’s the normal . . . . .

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  = Any other questions or comments?

 

Mr. Berger:  That’s a norma= l item we look at.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 5

 

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  It might even already= been on here but don’t know . . . .

 

Mr. Berger:=   I’m sure it is, and if it= 217;s not we’ll work with them.  There is a sequence of construction in there, it calls probably for = the construction of the detention basins first as well as the potential for temporary sediment traps, or the depressions or holes that Moosa was talking about before that may be necessary.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  = Anything else?

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  Now the trail is goi= ng to be a separate application.

 

Mr. Rafey:  I think so, yes, they = will submit another application because it wasn’t finalized what to do.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  = Plus it impacts on the wetlands.

 

Mr. Rafey:  You can’t talk= , but the trail will be a separate application?

 

Charles Spath, Engineer

 

Mr. Spath:  It can be, yes, I thou= ght all impacts were in there, but it can be a separate issue.

 

Mr. Rafey:  Let me check it.  (Inaudible.)  It’s not listed on that tabl= e of impacts.

 

Mr. Spath:  I thought it was.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  I thought the trail w= as kind of up in the air.

 

Mr. Rafey:  We were not sure exact= ly where the trail is going and the open space issue.  The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the open space and then . . . . . that is something when they go to the Planning and Zoning Commission, this Commission will make a recommendat= ion about the open space that will agree with this footprint.  If they change the location and it requires more impact, then they can come back here to modify this permit, n= ot a separate . . . .

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Yea, cause this one says linear feet anyway, not square feet.  And the footbridges would be on here.  Any= thing else?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 6

 

 

Mr. Berger:  Do you want to just quickly go back to the sequence of construction, as shown on (inaudible)?  It’s sort of in the upper le= ft hand corner, it’s actually the middle left, you’ll see that the sequence of construction for the road, you’ll see that items #1, #2, = and #3 are sort of administrative type things, item #4 is install the anti-tracking pad, and right after that is the storm water detention basins, stabilize and convert for sediment basin.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  That’s the key = word – stabilize.

 

Mr. Berger:  That’s what yo= u were looking . . . . . . yes.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  If it’s stabiliz= ed it’s not bad, if you just throwing seed and hay down that’s not stabilizing it.

 

Mr. Rafey:  That’s part of t= hat sequence of construction.  If = you want to add this to the application that now if in the future when they do = the trail if there are any changes then they can come back for modification as = long as they stay within this footprint, that’s okay, but if they make any changes by a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation then they can co= me back (inaudible).  This is par= t of this.  If I add this 40 square feet to (inaudible) they are less than 5,000 square feet.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  = But that’s linea= r.

 

Mr. Berger:  4 or 5 feet.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  Is it a misprint, shou= ld it be square feet instead of linear feet?

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  I would be a pretty sm= all bridge, 2 of them.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  2 of them, 20 feet ea= ch.

 

Mr. Rafey:  I think I can ask this question – is the 40 feet linear feet?

 

Mr. Spath:  The bridge spans the wetlands, it’s just (inaudible) 5 square feet.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  So it’s like a rainbow.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  So it’s not 20 f= eet (inaudible).

 

Ma= ny people talking at once (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 7

 

 

Mr. Rafey:  You can put that as a condition, that if the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendatio= n to change this, they will come back for a modification of this permit.  It’s not a big deal.

 

MOTION:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>       (Mr. Thermer, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Approve Application #521 of Joseph Polletta for subdivision of a 28.3 = acre parcel into 19 residential building lots and construction of associated roadways Echo Lake Road and Icehouse Road, Watertown, CT with the standard conditions, plus the conditions of incorporating the buffer area into the conservation easements on those Lots  - #4, #5, #6, #10, #11, #13, and #1= 4 and to come back before the Commission if there is any change in the basic footprint of the proposed trail.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on:       None<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nb= sp;

Mr. Undercuffler:  Do you have those reasons that we s= ited?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey:  Yes, I will look at the Minutes, and then I’ll issue the permit.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   B.         = Application #526 of P & A Enterprises, LLC for construction of 3-lot residential subdivision on Ripley Street and Winthrop Street Extension, Oakville, CT.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   If a Public Hearing is Closed on July 14, 2005, the= n a decision is required by September 16, 2005.

=  

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. Thermer, sec. Mr. Duplissie) 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.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 8

 

&nb= sp;

= C.      =            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.

&nb= sp;

If Public Hearing is <= span class=3DGramE>Closed on July 14, 2005, then a decision is required by September 16, 2005.

&nb= sp;

MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Thermer) to Table Application #527 of Patrick Graziano = for construction of an 11-lot residential subdivision and associated roadways, Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Grove Court, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on:       None<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nb= sp;

D.      =            Application #529 of Mark Lyskowski for construction of an above gro= und pool within upland review area at 95 Regency Hill Road, Watertown, CT.

 

If a Public Hearing is= not held, then a decision is required by August 12, 2005.

 

Mark Lyskowski, 95 Regency Hill Road Watert= own, CT 06795

 

Mr. Lyskowski:  I’d like to put a pool in my back yard, wh= ich is rather narrow, as you saw.  It’s right on the 50 foot setback area.  I don’t have any room other = than that to put a pool in.  As I explained to you, the only other area that Bob Smith recommended would be on the side of my house which is not visible from basically my house.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Yea, so you wouldn’t be able to keep track= of people that are swimming?

 

Mr. Lyskowski:  Well for safety reasons, I have an 8 year old. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I would rather be able to see it, o= r for that matter anyone in the pool, and that’s why I would like to put it where I staked it out for the people that were there to see, I felt was the safest place to put it.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Okay and because this is an above ground pool th= ere would be no excavation per say, right?&nbs= p; You don’t have any plans to do any digging?<= /p>

 

Mr. Lyskowski:  No, other than whatever it takes to put a pool i= n.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 9

 

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Underneath it you put down sand?

 

Mr. Lyskowski:  I don’t know what it takes to put in an ab= ove ground pool, but I imagine there would have to be something.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Yea, to keep from punching holes through with ro= cks.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  Do you have a pool company in mind that you̵= 7;re going to?  This is all prelimi= nary?

 

Mr. Lyskowski:  It’s pretty much preliminary.  I’ve gone to a few places but= I didn’t commit or do anything, cause I didn’t know what my answer would be from the Town.  I didn’t want to pursue anyth= ing too detailed.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  If we do approve this application, that typically when you put in an above ground pool, there is some excavation involved, th= ey do have to remove the topsoil and they do have to come in with a vehicle and deliver sand or something to put underneath this, so because he’s rig= ht on the edge of the 50 foot buffer, and he’s within the 50 foot buffer= , I think on this one, on the hillside where his woods start, I don’t thi= nk it would be wrong of us to ask him to maybe put that 60 or 70 feet of silt fence there just in case when they do this excavation, cause I’ve see= n it happen, they start and then all of a sudden you get a downpour and then everything is running across the yard, so I know it’s a little added expense, but because you’re right on that buffer line, to put in that= 50 or 60 feet of silt fence, just on the lower side of that hill where he̵= 7;s going to put his pool.

 

Mr. Rafey:  It depends how much excavation takes place, beca= use sometimes putting the silt fence is also an impact.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  Even if they put 50 feet of hay bales, not a silt fence, I’d be happy with that.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Let the record show that Mr. Polletta returned to the Commission at 9:09 p.m. I think hay bales would be better and serve the purpose.

 

Mr. Rafey:  This drawing we received tonight, it shows a lit= tle corner of that proposed activity is within that 25 foot wide conservation easement area, and I don’t suggest any activity within that 25 feet.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  The other part of the swimming poo= l and the deck is okay within the 50 foot buffer.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  He’s got a little piece of the corner of t= he deck, if he takes it out of the conservation . . . . th= ey can angle it.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 10

 

 

Mr. Rafey:  Or make it a little shorter on that side.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  But we had talked to him about putting the deck = on the high side, and I think that’s what he’s trying to show, that he’s keeping the deck on the high side, he= just drew it a little into the corner.  I don’t think he’ll have a problem pulling that out of there.

 

Mr. Rafey:  How wide is this deck around the pool?

 

Mr. Lyskowski:  You said to keep it around 4 or 5 feet.

 

Mr. Rafey:  Is this 5 feet wide?

 

Mr. Lyskowski:  Yes, I tried to draw it to scale as far as the p= rint goes.  ¼ inch to a foot= .

 

Mr. Rafey: =  On one corner if you can make it a = little shorter to stay outside of that 25 foot conservation easement area, we don’t allow any structures within that 25 foot conservation easement area.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  We mentioned drainage, if you have occasion to e= mpty the pool, we wouldn’t want to have pipes running back to the wetlands= , or just let the water run out over the grass and that gives the chlorine a cha= nce to break down by the sun and also percolates into the ground and you don’t have a direct flow right into your wetlands, and we have seen people pipe water away from pools and that’s not really a good thing = to do, from the standpoint of wetlands.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  We’re not going to be able to make you do anything.  When you drain this= pool in the Winter, usually you lower it by 1 or 1.5 = feet, you usually take a little pump or a siphon to lower the water level.  Instead of lowering the water leve= l and putting that siphon right on the low side towards the conservation easement= , if you drained it on the high side towards the house and let it run down across the yard, the further the water runs across your lawn, the better it is for= the water.  It will get percolated= into the ground and through the grass and filtered before it gets into the wetla= nds.

 

Mr. Lyskowski:  I understand.&n= bsp; You recommended that Saturday.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  We’re saying it again because now it becom= es part of the record.  Anything else?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 11

 

&nb= sp;

MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Application #529 of Mark Lysko= wski for construction of an above ground pool within upland review area at 95 Re= gency Hill Road, Watertown, CT with the conditions we’ve just outlined plus standard conditions.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on:       None<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nb= sp;

6.  &n= bsp;      New Applications

 

        &= nbsp;   A.        Application #530 of Richard and Jill Frey for construction of a shed within regulated a= rea at 53 Lilac Avenue, Oakville, CT.

 

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by September 17, 2005, unless applicant grants a time extension.

 

Jill Frey, 95 Regency Hill Road, Watertown, CT  06795=

 =

Ms. Frey:  My husband and I are replacing= an existing shed, to the back of the shed is an area where it’s, it almo= st looks like a brook, but it’s not, it’s a drainage (inaudible) b= ut it’s dry except for when we get a heavy rain.  I spoke with Moosa and he came out= and looked at it, and he did confirm that it was a drainage= (inaudible).  When we went for= the zoning permit, we had to draw a map up, (inaudible) I didn’t really k= now what to put there so I put like there was water or almost like a brook, and because we had written that on the map showing that there was water coming through, they said we needed to apply for a wetland permit, so (inaudible) wetland permit and here I am to ask you guys permission to put the shed there.  You’re more than welcome to come out and look at it.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  In looking this over I noticed= that . . . .

 

Ms. Frey:  I broug= ht pictures for you guys if you’d like to see them.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Just because of our procedure we can’t approve this tonight and so we may = come out and take a look at it, so we’ll decide that tonight.  The sketch shows the shed is 16 x 12, but the description there says 8 x 10.

 

Ms. Frey:  The old= shed was 8 x 10, we’ve got a larger shed and we= had it brought it by Tyler Farms and had it put exactly where our other shed wa= s, (inaudible) corner and here I am.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 12

 

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Wel= l is the new one 8 x 10 or is it 12 x 16?

 

Ms. Frey:  12 x 16= .

 

Mr. Duplissie: Is this shed on piers, blocks, foundation?

 

Ms. Frey:  We have that gravel ground mat= ter on the ground.

 

Richard Frey, = 95 Regency Hill Road, Watertown, CT  06795=

 

Mr. Frey:  I broug= ht in 9 tons of ¾ inch process compacted as (inaudible) ¾ stone on = top of that.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  Ca= n I see the pictures, please?  Is = that a watercourse?

 

Mr. Frey:  No.

 

Mr. Rafey:  It kin= d of like a borderline, you can call it an intermittent wate= rcourse, to me it’s more like a drainage swale that only when a storm event th= ere is a running water, otherwise it’s dry.  I was there last week and there wa= s no water running.  I followed it = and there is a brook there, and at one end it goes into a pipe and then it goes into a catch basin on Lila= c Avenue, and on the top it goes to the other road.&= nbsp; There’s a drainage pipe that comes from the other street, I don’t know the name of that street, goes through this property and in= to a catch basin.  It can be an intermittent watercourse, but not really a permanent watercourse.

 

Ms. Sturgis:  Does= that mean, are you saying it’s not impacting, cause you said (inaudible) suggested that the Commission accepts the application, and that the action (inaudible) Tabled (inaudible)?

 

Mr. Rafey:  The im= pact is already there.  Thus whole = area where they put the shed is a grassed lawn, they had a smaller shed, 8 x 10, which was removed and was replaced with a larger shed, but the ground is already impacted.

 

Ms. Sturgis: =  This won’t add to the impact = then, it’s already done?

 =

Mr. Rafey: Th= e shed is there.

 

Mr. Polletta:  It’s not that much bigger tha= n the existing one either.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  So= in this letter you say that the Commission accepts the application and action = on the application be Tabled until the next schedule meeting.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 13

 

 

Mr. Rafey:  Yes, y= ou cannot make a decision tonight.  If you want to issue a permit for this you have to wait until next month in ca= se somebody submits an application for a public hearing.  By statute you cannot make a decis= ion before 14 days after the (inaudible) application.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  So = do we want to go and take a site walk?

 

Mr. Duplissie:  Fr= om what Moosa describes it doesn’t look like it’s a watercourse or= a wetlands, it’s intermittent at best, so Moosa probably knows it better than we do, so I don’t think it requires 12 people to walk out there.

 

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Application #530 of Richard and Jill Frey for construction of a shed within regulated a= rea at 53 Lilac Avenue, Oakville, CT.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   B.         = Application #531 of Lynn Nelson for construction of 13-lot subdivision and new roadway = on Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT.

 

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by September 17, 2005, unless applicant grants a time extension.

 

Emily Jones, E= ngineer Civil One

 =

Ms. Jones:  I’m here on behalf of the applicant, Walnut Grove Farms.  The project site is on the north side of Bunker Hill Road, between Barn Road and Sperry Road.  It’s not too far from (inaud= ible).  The property is about 34.75 acres = and it’s located in an R-70 Zone.  Our proposal is to construct a 13 lot residential subdivision with t= he associated roadways and drainage system.&n= bsp; There’s about 1,000 linear feet of new road ending in a cul de sac.  The current use of the property is unused cornfields and there are some areas, there’s a bar= bed wire fence here with some brush and on this side of the fence there’s some cornfield in this area, and there’s a lot of grassy field here a= nd some wetlands, including a farm pond down in this area that outlets current= ly to an existing swale and then a 32 inch culvert under Bunker Hill Road.  All of the lots will be served by p= rivate wells and septic systems.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 14

 

We analyzed the hydr= ology of the site under both existing and proposed conditions.  We looked at 3 areas where the sto= rm water leaves the property.  The first area is along this line because right in here is a ridge, so this por= tion of the property drains off to this side of the property.  The rest of the property drains ov= er here some of it going out to this little watercourse or wetlands off this s= ide of the property and a majority of it actually draining to this farm pond he= re and under Bunker Hill Road= .  When we looked at the existing and proposed conditions, given that right now it’s mostly unvegetated cornfield and that it will be improved to be, besides the impervious area obviously for the houses, driveways, and the road, will be a lawn and we actually without any detention in the calculations got a significant decrea= se in the peak flow rates in all the storms up to the 100 year storm.  And so what we then looked at, wha= t we decided we needed to design the storm drainage system for was water quality.  Right now especially= it being a cornfield, the water quality if you go out and look at this pond, it’s really not good.  T= here’s a lot of things that runoff of a cornfield and so on this (inaudible) replanting (inaudible) that increases the quality of the water.  We also have a storm drainage syst= em in the roadway that outlets to a proposed sediment = basin in the regulated area.  ItR= 17;s about 0.06 acres of disturbance in the 50 foot regulated area.  There’s no activity proposed within the wetlands and in fact all activity actually is outside of even th= e 35 foot Torrington Area Health District setback for septic systems.  Since we had a decrease in peak fl= ow rate, we (inaudible) design a large detention pond for the site and so we looked at providing a sedimentation basin that has a 1 foot sump below the = pipe inverts, it has a, the outlet is protected with a rip rap outlet pad and al= so a rip rap filter berm to allow trapping of silt and sediment and it will be planted with native species in order to allow nutrient uptake and improve t= he water quality as well.

 

There is in addition= to .06 acres of regulated activity of the sedimentation basin, there is also about= 175 square feet of temporary regulated activity in this area over here for the installation of a footing drain for the house on Lot= #13.  In addition to the sedimentation basin we also (inaudible) runoff from the rooftop areas and directed them into infiltrators on each lot to further (inaudible) the runo= ff from the impervious area.  And= per there regulations the storm drainage system in the roadway is designed for = a 25 year storm.

 

Another thing that w= e were looking at is because it’s only 13 lots and some of the lots have frontage also on Bunker Hi= ll Road, we were looking at the possibility of reducing the road width.  In the Planning Regulations the st= andard road width is 30 feet and we felt, we had a preapplication meeting with the= Town and thought that perhaps we could reduce that to 24 feet, and so we have provided and submitted an alternate that incorporates a 24 foot wide road.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  So when you do that, we were able = to grade for a sidewalk on one side of the road, which is a requirement of the Planning Commission and we were also able, with the reduction in road width, remove the curb in some of the area along the uphill side of the road and utilize infiltration swales instead of the curb and gutter system.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 15

 

 

The main limiting fa= ctor of this site was the soil, so we tested almost every square foot of this site = for septic systems, and basically designed the roadway and the lots around the suitable septic systems so that’s why with the 30 foot wide road we w= ould have to go with a curb and gutter system because there are some septics tha= t, if there was a swale there, it would be within 50 feet down gradient of the septic system and the Health Department wouldn’t allow that.

 

Basically that’= ;s it and I’d be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have.  Of course you’ll be analyzin= g the benefits of the road width and make a request and we’ll make a reques= t in the Planning that that also be adopted.

 

Mr. Thermer:  Can you show me where the pond= is?

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Is = that on Lot #12?

 

Ms. Jones:  It’s on Lot #11 and there wou= ld be a drainage easement over Lot #11 to access the pipe and the sediment basin = and that pond so basically right at the property line where that little bulge of wetlands is right here.

 

Mr. Thermer:  Is t= hat the pond where Bunker Hill= Road dips down and goes back up again?

 

Ms. Jones:  Yes.  And the Lynn’s Farm is right over here.

 

Mr. Thermer:  How about the site line, are y= ou going to be able to do anything to, I travel that road daily and it’s= a nightmare.  Are you going to b= e able to do anything in that area to fix that?

 

Ms. Jones:  Well we’re not going to regrade Bunker Hill Road, but we went out and looked at the site lines, and= Lot #2 for instance, we did have the driveway coming up from here, and the site lines were just really not good, so what we propose to do was curb an access off the new proposed road and have the driveway come in there.

 

Mr. Thermer:  How about the site line fro the road?

 

Ms. Jones:  It’s greater than 360 fe= et in this direction and 450 feet in that direction, which is about for a 45 mph speed limit.  I think the speed limit on that road is 35?  25?=

 

Mr. Thermer:  What about the site line for t= he driveway on Lot #12?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 16

 

 

Ms. Jones:  The driveway for Lot #12 is actually better than the road.  It can be designed for a 50 mph speed limit.  It’s greater than 550 feet i= n one direction and 450 feet uphill and then the driveway for Lot #13 is again about 360 feet looking, actually this will start going back up= hill there.

 

Mr. Thermer:  It will start going downhill t= here.

 

Ms. Jones:  Yes, downhill.  Right here is the high point, so basically all of the intersections are about 45 mph.

 

Mr. Thermer:  I’m just concerned about= on Bunker Hill Road, your numbers sound good, but I really need to take a look at that because t= hat could be a safety . . . .

 

Ms. Jones:  I understand, it’s a matter of public safety.

 

Mr. Thermer:  (Inaudible).

 

Mr. Rafey:  The Planning and Zoning Commis= sion will look at that issue.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:=   Along the top and continuing a= round the side, it says conservation restriction.  What’s that all about?

 

Ms. Jones:  When we had our preapplication= meeting with the Town, Mary Barton expressed that she would like some conservation restrictions in order to protect the existing stone walls that are there, so really I think this (inaudible) wide along this top area and there’s = also one on the bottom here, if you look near Bunker Hill Road, and so all of the stone walls on site will be protected, with the exception of part of this s= tone wall will have to be relocated at the intersection of the new road because = that really was the only place we could bring the road in for site line purposes= .

 

Mr. Undercuffler:=   And also can you talk about th= e open space?

 

Ms. Jones:  The open space that we provide= d is in this corner and the regulations state that there must be a minimum of 10%, and 50% of that area must be upland area as a non-wetlands area.  This does = meet that requirement.  We will be = talking to the Planning Commission to see if they might be interested in a fee in l= ieu of open space, but we’re not sure about that at this point.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  How big is that?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 17

 

 

Ms. Jones:  It’s 10% of the property= , so it’s about 3.5 acres.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  And is that wooded (inaudible)= or is that open field?

 

Ms. Jones:  It’s not wooded, really = none of the site is wooded, it’s gruffy over in that area, kind of field a= nd there’s wetlands, but basically there’s a line, almost right do= wn the middle of the property here, there’s a barbed wire fence and a br= ush line, and on this side of that property it’s more open meadow.  With the excep= tion down here of the small cornfield.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:=   Well the upland area is kind of unusable it looks like.  It= 217;s bisected by some (inaudible).

 

Ms. Jones:  It’s pretty much regulat= ed and yes.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:=   That’s going to be open = space no matter what.

 

Ms. Jones:  Right, yea.

 

Mr. Rafey:  If you put swales, can you sti= ll put septic systems on those lots?

 

Ms. Jones:  Yes.  If we reduce the width of the road= , then we graded out the swales and found that we were 53 feet below the septics systems, so yea.  It’s r= eally only in this area here (inaudible) about 700 to 900 and the again 450 to 60= 0 on the uphill side.  And those wo= uld be infiltration swales too, with stone on the bottom.

 

Mr. Polletta:  You said that the catch basin,= all the drainage off the road ends up where?

 

Ms. Jones:  All of the drainage from the r= oad, the road is entirely uphill so all of it ends up here on the bottom set of catch basins and out down here through a set of pipes into the proposed sedimentation basin which then outlets actually into this existing farm pond which we’re hoping will really clear up the quality of the water in t= hat pond.  Right now it’s re= ally filthy.

 

Mr. Polletta:  So there’s a pond there?=

 

Ms. Jones:  There’s an existing pond= there and basically we’re not really using it for detention.  We’re just outletting to the wetlands as we normally would, but it happens to be a little body of water.=  You can tell it’s just a pond= that they basically dug out for their cows or something.  Uphill of this there’s about= 4 feet of topsoil directly upgrade (inaudible) so you can tell they just scoo= ped it out and made a pond there.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 18

 

 

Ms. Sturgis:  So did you lose that pond over time?  Because they’ve d= ug it out enough and it’s going to . . . . .

 

Ms. Jones:  Yea, I think you do have a wet= lands that comes down and feeds into that pond and this whole area will still dra= in into the pond, but the quality of the water would be a lot better and there would be a decrease in the amount of water there, but really that water only increased because the farm was cleared and not vegetated and returned to its natural state (inaudible).

 

Ms. Sturgis:  I guess what I don’t understand, if they dug out that pond doesn’t it periodically have to be cleaned out?

 

Mr. Duplissie:  Farmers (inaudible) they just = went in and . . . . .

 

Ms. Sturgis:  I understand, but if he dug it= out, I mean don’t you have to kind of keep digging them out to keep (inaudible)?

 

Mr. Thermer:  That pond has been there forev= er.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:=   If you don’t have silt g= oing down in there, it won’t fill up.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Any other questions?

 

Mr. Rafey:  If you want to go and see this, then we’ll have a Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:   We can’t do anything tonight anyway.

 

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Thermer) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Application #531 of Lynn Nelson for construction of 13-lot subdivision and new roadway on Bunker Hill Road, Watertown= , CT.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 19

 

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   C.        Application #532 of Mark and Susan Cote for construction of a plunge pool and installat= ion of rip rap in a watercourse at 563 Linkfield Road, Watertown, = CT.

 

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by September 17, 2005, unless applicant grants a time extension.

 

Peter Clark, A= ttorney Representing Mark and Susan Cote

 =

Atty. Clark:  This matter I think you’= ll remember as very old business even though it’s a new application tonight.  If you remember, tho= se of you who were on the Commission and if you’ve gone through the application, you’ll see that we’re really coming back to address some issues with respect to a watercourse where a pipe had been put in to m= ake life a little easier for the owners, and based on some past activity and the way that the flow works, there has also been a concern over sedimentation a= nd the pond that the watercourse goes to right next door on the property of the Neibel’s, so we’ve been working on something with the Neibel’s and their attorneys, and engineers have come up with a propo= sal to install this plunge pool and define the channel better and rip rap it so that it will take the flow, attenuate the flow, and also give a better chan= nel to pick up the sediment so we we’re looking to improve the situation = for the Neibel’s pond and it will also define the channel down to the pon= d so that we won’t have a situation that exists now with severe storm even= ts with the flow running out of the pipe, down the channel and flooding the la= wn with the sediment and ultimately into the neighbor’s pond.  We’re looking at a very small project here, a 1 or 2 day construction that would be proposed to be done s= oon so that obviously the work can be done in a minimum or no flow period and a= void any further problems with wetlands disturbance and sedimentation and erosion.  I can answer any que= stions that you might have and you probably have more technical issues that Emily = is more qualified to go through.

 =

Emily Jones, E= ngineer Civil One

 =

Ms. Jones:  Basically we were working to determine 5 (inaudible) that would be either in order to mitigate the runoff from the existing channel that now goes to what is an existing 24 inch plas= tic pipe on the Cote’s property.  And there is a problem with siltat= ion in the Neibel’s pond that is a result of the diminishing quality of the existing channel there, so basically we took the drainage area that runs to= the pond and we determined the runoff from that and the velocity of the water f= rom that and sized the channel from there.&nbs= p; Does anybody not have a copy of the (inaudible)?

 

Mr. Rafey:  They have that.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 20

 

Ms. Jones:  Just to point on one of the things, the proposed 10 x 10 plunge pool that you see that’s on the Neibel’s property, this was previously approved by the Wetlands Commission but it has not been installed yet.  We’re looking to really defi= ne the channel and what the water has done now, basically it’s defined it’s own channel over the lawn and (inaudible) the topsoil from the l= awn, when the water comes it runs into that little channel, it’s now just a little (inaudible) channel so you get a lot of silt from that, so we want to put in a modified rip rap channel to slow the water down as it does speed up through the plastic pipe and also to increase the quality of the water.  Of course in very large storm cond= itions every watercourse has its degree of silt and that will still be the case, b= ut we’re hoping on a day to day basis that the overall quality of the Neibel’s pond will be improved by this project.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  I was really happy to see that this had finally been resolved.  After = some time I was out there last year on the site walk along with several others h= ere, but there was a comment made at that time that some of that siltation was d= ue to the upstream activity, they were talking about people riding RV’s = and ATV’s and of course this won’t help that.  I guess as long as everybody reali= zes that that’s still another problem.

 

Ms. Joes:  Really = the issue that we’re addressing is the drainage that comes through the pi= pe and picks up silt that runs along the lawn of Cote’s property.

 

Atty. Clark:  We h= ope to help the problem but if you look on the plans, the upland watershed that th= is watercourse takes and drains into the pond is quite substantial, almost 35 acres, and there has been activity above the pipe and beyond the Cote’= ;s property over the years and some concern by another engineer who looked at = it for us that you’ve got some activity way upstream that we have no con= trol over, and there’s really little we can do about that, but to the exte= nt there is activity that brings more sediment into the watercourse at least we’re coming up with some mechanisms to help mitigate that.

 

Gail McTaggert, Attorney Representing Neibel’s

 =

Atty. McTaggert:<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  We have worked through Civil O= ne Engineering, both neighbors, trying to resolve this problem and we’re really happy that we finally have a solution that’s acceptable to both the Neibel’s and the Cote’s to g= et this installed.  We’re h= oping to get it done during this time of the year, it’s the right time of the year to get this installed.  In terms of the ATV’s, I wil= l say as far as the Cote’s were concerned, there was a problem and they have not been back up on the ATV’s in that area since we notified them of = our concerns regarding the impact of the wetlands there, so this is really a big step for two neighbors to get together and resolve the problem, and we know it’s probably not a 100% solution but we think it’s the best solution for these 2 pieces of property, and everything we can control we’re trying to fix, so I’m just putting on the record that thi= s is acceptable to 6the Neibel’s.  (Tape #2, Side B ended – may have missed some.)

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 21

 

 

Mr. Undercuffler:=   What does that mean, modified?=

 

Ms. Jones:  Modified rip rap is the size o= f the rip rap and it’s the smallest size rip rap that we use and I’m = not sure of the exact range of the diameter of the rap rap, maybe Chuck knows t= hat off the top of his head, but we sized the rip rap based on the velocity thr= ough the channel and there’s modified, then intermediate, and then standard rip rap, based on how much we have to slow the water down.

 

Mr. Berger:  I don’t have that off th= e top of my head.  It is the smalles= t size though.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  That’s 6 inch, isn’= ;t it?

 

Mr. Berger:  Between 4 and 6.

 

Mr. Polletta:  I went to the last field trip = but I didn’t hear you say anything about that over sized (inaudible) right = in the middle?  Will that be removed?  Before the pipe and = after the pipe there’s no stone.  It looked like erosion went right through that pond.  Will anything be done from that li= ttle channel through the pipe and into the (inaudible)?

 

Ms. Jones:  What we looked at doing, becau= se we had discussed this with the Town and the general feeling was that we didn't want to rip up that pipe, so we were trying to improve the channel downstre= am of that pipe recognizing that the pipe is still there, it still speeds up t= he water a little bit and carries some silt from the existing channels above, = but we thought, and through discussions with the Town, we thought we would leave that in place.  Our calculatio= ns actually do show that the existing culvert is a little undersized according= to the calculations and the drainage area there.

 

Mr. Polletta:  Are you talking about the exis= ting storm (inaudible)?

 

Ms. Jones:  No, the existing plastic pipe,= yes, on the Cote property.

 

Mr. Polletta:  I’m talking about before= the pipe, (inaudible) so when the water came down, it just took the silt right = into that pond.  So you’re not proposing to do anything before that?

 

Ms. Jones:  No, we're proposing to leave t= he existing channel as it is in its natural state.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Anybody else?  Okay you understand that by statut= e we can’t act on this tonight, so hopefully we’ll take an action on= it at the next meeting.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 22

 

 

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. Thermer, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Table Application #532 of Mark and Susan Cote for construction of a plunge pool and installat= ion of rip rap in a watercourse at 563 Linkfield Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   D.        Application #486 of Guernseytown Farms, LLC to Amend the CCIWA Permit #486 Guernseytown Farms Estates Phase II to substitute rip-rap for a lined grass swale near <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Killorin Road, Watertown, CT.

 

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     A decision is required by September 17, 2005.

 

James Sakonchi= ck, Engineer

 =

Mr. Sakonchick:  You might recall approving this subdivision and at the outfall of the 2 pipes we had proposed a lined chann= el.  My client, Mr. Calabrese, is much = more comfortable dealing with stoned rip rap.&n= bsp; He made that substitution in the first Phase.  We’re asking for the same su= bstitution in this Phase, as a product substitution.&= nbsp; We believe that it's something that the technical staff can certainly review and make sure is done properly and we're here tonight to inform this commission of our intent to make this substitution, if approved by staff.

 =

Mr. Zawadzki:  So it wouldn’t change the imp= act in any way?

 =

Mr. Sakonchick:  No, it would not.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  I also understand that rip rap= is a better solution to the problem.

 

Mr. Sakonchick:  I believe it is.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  And we’re just changing it once, = right?

 

Mr. Sakonchick:  T= wo lots.

 

Mr. Duplissie:  44= and 40.

 

Mr. Rafey:  There’s an (inaudible) l= ocated behind those two lots.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Yea.  Anybody have any questions/comments?  Again by statute we can't act on this tonight so we’ll Table it until our next meeting.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 23

 

 

Mr. Rafey:  Mr. Chairman, this one you can= do because it’s an amendment to an existing permit.

 

MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Approve Application #486 of Guernseytown Farms, LLC to Amend the CCIWA Permit #4= 86 Guernseytown Farms Estates Phase II to substitute rip-rap for a lined grass swale near Killorin Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

7.  &n= bsp;      Old Business

 

A.      =            Frank Stack Application to Amend the Existing CCIWA Permit #529 concerning an existing access way/driveway at 300 Smith Pond Road, Watert= own, CT.

 

Mr. Rafey:  Some Commission members asked me to give them the Minutes of the meeting of Febr= uary 10, 2005 when you approved the original application.  I have those minutes ready, so do = you want to take a few minutes to read them?

 

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman= , read aloud the following letter for the record:

 

“July 14, 2005

 

Inland Wetlands Chairm= an

Town of Watertown, Connecticut

 

I respectfully ask tha= t the Commission Member Glen Duplissie recuse himself from any proceedings regard= ing me or my property in question.  I own the commercial establishment next to developer Ken Davino in Waterbury and Comm= ission Member Duplissie had many altercations with employees of mine and while he was in the employment of Mr. Davino.  I understand that only the Commiss= ion member can make that decision to recuse himself.  I hope that Commission Member Dupl= issie makes the right decision.

 

Frank Stack=

Watertown”

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  Glenn, any comment?<= o:p>

 

Mr. Duplissie:  I’m not going to recuse myself.  I don’t = have a problem, I can say what I have to say.  That was something that was when I = was employed with Davino, it has nothing to do with the Inland/Wetlands Commiss= ion.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 24

 

 

Frank Stack, Applicant

 

Mr. Stack:  I was at the field walk and I was under the impression that I was not doing anything wrong and everything was fine, but obviously there was complaints by whoever.  I have done nothing but improve the quality of the wetlands and the quality of Smith Pond.  I removed 5 outhouses out there wh= ich have copper pipes running underneath into where people go to the bathroom a= nd they run directly into the pond.  I removed, this is in the conservation easement, which I didn’t have to= do, and that’s so the quality of the pond where people go to the bathroom= and it goes right into the pond and there are some pipes that are still there, = and I’ll welcome Mr. Rafey to come out there when you want to rip up the pipes or whatever to take a look at that.&= nbsp; I was also told that there was not a beach there, but I got a letter from the previous owners that said the beach has been there since they owne= d the property since 1929 and I raked the beach with a York rake on a tractor and I also raked= the Y's beach on occasion.

 

On the road side of it, there is an existing road there, it was a road.  It does get soft in the Spring time, it does get in the rainy season and in th= e Fall time.  The only thing that was= done there was put some stone on top so you could drive on it and you wouldn't h= ave to impair, because of the softness, any of the topsoil or whatever thatR= 17;s on there.  Now I don’t k= now, I removed probably 15 loads of garbage between pickup trucks and dump trucks = and have had 3 vehicles towed off the property in this area in question.  When everybody was out there I cou= ld walk over onto the Y side and pick up glass and garbage and stuff that̵= 7;s still embedded in the wetlands, in soils, that I’m assuming is wetlan= ds on the Y side, and the Y is giving me permission to go over there and keep cleaning as much as I want to clean out over there, so when the growth gets down, the skunk cabbage and all the other vegetation dies down in the Fall = my intention is to go in there and still continue to pull up and clean that pa= rt of the property.  It’s a health hazard.  There’s = glass, you name it, it’s been there, it’s been a dumping ground for th= at farm for that particular piece of property since 1929, since the TraverR= 17;s owned it, and that’s where they used to dump their garbage.  I don’t know the previous owners, that’s all I can attest to.  Alls I’ve done is improve that.  <= /span>The canopy of trees, you can see that there was very little vegetation that was taken out, other than vines or whatever, because of the canopy of tress over there and they’re 30 or 40 feet in the air.  I don’t know what else to te= ll you.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 25

 

 

I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong or was doing anything wrong.  Any time there was a complaint I w= ent down and addressed the issue with Moosa and I need an amended application a= nd that’s where I’m at.  I also applied for a building permit to connect some barns up on the top prop= erty which would now, I would (inaudible) road that p= eople use to come in, to abandon that road, so this was the most logical place on= the existing road that was there to use.  So there’s health and safety issues there.  If somebody gets hurt = down in the pond, I’ve got cottages that are rented seasonally out there, weekly, some monthly, some yearly, and there’s got to be a way to acc= ess them for safety issues.

 

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well I guess the issue is really no= t that so much as the fact that when we gave you the permit previously one of the conditions of approval was no further disturbance and that was written righ= t in there and now you’ve added in this section of driveway connecting the= old existing road to Smith Pond Road, and the whole idea of the original permit= was to let you go in and clean out all the junk, and garbage, and engine blocks, and all the things you’ve been saying which was perfectly fine and we were happy that you did that, and you definitely improved the property by d= oing so.  However you went beyond t= he limitations of the permit by connecting the old road to Smith Pond Road and that’s why we’re here tonight basically, and because the permit said no further disturbance.  And now when I s= ay disturbance, this is in the regulated area.

 

Mr. Stack:  On the regulated area, in the back part, I would agree and I would assume that it’s wetlands.  I would assume on the front part o= f the property I believe I’m well out of the 50 foot buffer zone on the sec= tion of road that was created, we’ll say, if its 50, 60, 75 feet, I really= . . . . .

 

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> According to this map you’re = within the 50 foot, but you're not actually in the wetlands, if I’m reading = this map correctly, but the extension to the road is within the 50 foot buffer w= hich is our regulated area, and that’s where the issue comes in.  As far as your application to conn= ect your buildings, that’s a different matter, not for us, but it would s= eem to me that the right thing would have been to wait until you got that appro= ved, then you have to find some other way into the rear of your property and then come back to us and modify your application rather than do it up front with= out being part of the permit.  I g= uess that’s really our issue.

 

Mr. Stack:  I understand that and on the part of the zoning approval, I meet every zoning requirement and I wasn’t even sure that= I had to even go through . . . . .

 

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> We’re not questioning that.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 26

 

 

Mr. Stack:  On the other part, but it seems like everything = that I do on this piece of property cause it’s on Smith Pond and everybody would like to see it go untouched and left in conditions of, so the Y can’t eventually end up with it which might have, I talked to them on= a weekly basis, I went for a subdivision which I could have gotten 4 lots out= of, I’ve only taken a 1 lot split, and it should have been an agricultural cut, but as things delay and 18 months almost to 24 months to get this subdivision approved and there are no wetlands on this property.=

 

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well that would be another permit.<= o:p>

 

Mr. Stack:  I’m just trying to tell you, I would like = the Y to end up with it just as much as they would like to end up with it, and we’ve got to come to terms on it.&nb= sp; We talk on a weekly basis, but this Summer it’s been more like a daily basis because they need more space, even though supposedly they have less kids.&nbs= p; I do let them use the property.&nbs= p; I told them they had to start mowing it and whatever on it.  I do lease a piece to them.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  Maybe part of the answer would be, = since we claim that he’s in the wetlands and he’s saying he’s n= ot, maybe he needs to get a soil scientist down there and map where the wetlands are.  Has that been done?=

 

Mr. Rafey:  I think when Mr. Stack went in front of the Plan= ning and Zoning Commission for the subdivision he did submit a soil report from a soil scientist saying there are no wetlands on 300 Smith Pond.  I was looking for that wetland application, I couldn’t find it, so I told= him to bring me a copy.

 

Mr. Stack: =  I have looked all over and I can= 217;t find half of that stuff.

 

Mr. Rafey:  Can you ask your soil scientist to just type it again?

 

Mr. Stack: =  I will.  I don’t even know which one = it was.

 

Mr. Raf= ey:  When they went in front of P & Z, Mr. Stack = gave it to Mrs. Barton.  I did look= , but I couldn’t find it.  The= soil report said there are no wetlands on 300 Smith Pond pro= perty, but the Y property has some wetlands.  According to that, this activity is within the 50 foot buffer area.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  That is why I (inaudible) he has t= o come to this Commission for a permit.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 27

 

 

Mr. Stack:  Where the back propert= y is in question and I’m assuming, I’m not a soil scientist, but I k= now there are wetlands cause you can see the line right on the pond.  It’s been, I guess in 1954 the Traver’s sued the Y for use of the lake because it was an on-going battle.  They = won the suit, it’s on title, that Smith Pond, the people, the residents o= r if it’s every subdivided or whatever they can use and have rights to the pond.  They wanted me to take = that certain section out of the deed.  I said no, I wouldn’t do that, so even though we don’t physically= own the pond, the property line actually touches the water, and actually where = the dots are the Y owns pieces of the (inaudible).

 

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> I saw that on the map.  I was wondering is that really the= way it is?

 

Mr. Stack:  Yea, it’s all le= gal on the deed and it was I believe 1954, and if you pulled a title search anybody can go down there and read on it, so basically I get along fine with them up there.

 

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> So technically you don’t own = your dock?

 

Mr. Stack:  Technically I don̵= 7;t own my dock, but it’s landlocked through my piece of property, and th= e Y actually has where they can walk around the property at any one given time,= or actually walk all the way around Smith Pond.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  I don’t see where that has an= ything to do with what we’re talking about though.  What bothers me is assuming this i= s in the buffer and we approved and Mr. Stack made the comment that there was not going to be continuous access on this so called road or path, it was there,= he was using it just to help clean out the area, so he wasn’t going to h= ave continuous usage.  Now all of the sudden that has changed.  That’s what bothers me.=

 

Mr. Polletta:  Today I stopped over to Moosa, and I got a couple of calls from people in the neighborhood.  They were saying to me that I went= on the field trip and I didn’t know that there was never a road there.  So I asked Moosa if there was ever= a road there, but nobody knows.  Now how do we know if there was ever a road there and it’s a legal road?<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  Mr. Stack says there is a road; th= ese people say there isn’t a road.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  Well there wasn’t an official= Watertown road.

 

Mr. Polletta:  No, I’m talking = about the road we're in dispute right now.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 28

 

 

Mr. Rafey: =  In the driveway.<= /p>

 

Mr. Polletta:  Right.  It's not a road because there’s enough rocks where it looks like a road.=   My concern is this, when we (inaud= ible) application and I agree with you, there is wetlands under this roadway, we don’t know.  It looks to= me like the wetlands is 5 feet away, and the other thing Mr. Duplissie at that time said he wanted it put back exactly the same way it was before, and to = the best of my knowledge this was never an access way, but I (inaudible) if the= re is like aerial photos or something, can we really find out if this was a roadway (inaudible)?

 

Mr. Berger:  We can go back and look through aer= ial photos, probably at the State level.  They have them every 4 or 5 or 10 year increments, going back quite a ways.

 

Mr. Polletta:  I’m just suggest= ing that and I’m wondering if we’re doing the right thing or not.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Stack, there was a path there, because there’s no= trees.  Obviously that was used for someth= ing.

 

Mr. Pol= letta:  How do we know if there was a path there?

 

Mr. Duplissie: =  You can tell by the canopy, Joe.  Trees go off this way and there was nothing in between (inaudible).

 

Mr. Polletta:  If there is grass over= there where it was before and now we have an access way 5 feet from the wetlands,= I mean this is what this caller told me today.  So I don’t know how true it is.  I asked Moosa today and I= would like Mr. Berger, if you can find something.

 

Ms. Sturgis:  You put new stone when you connecte= d to Smith Pond, but you know the other part of the road that we walked in the snow, w= as there stone under there or did you add stone there as well?

 

Mr. Stack:  Which part?  Where the garbage was?<= /span>

 

Ms. Sturgis:  Yea, when we walked last Winter, was there stone there or have you added stone = there since we had that walk?

 

Mr. Stack:  There is field stone, = there is crushed stone, there is stuff, like I said when I rake with the York rak= e, you pull up stones and you take it out, so yea, to add it disturbed, yea, t= here was some stone that was added.  The well was there, you could see the barbed wire (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 29

 

 

Ms. Sturgis:  You physically brought in stone for= that road since we walked in the snow?

 

Mr. Stack:  Yes, absolutely, yes I= did.

 

Ms. Sturgis:  The new part, the whole thing, you = added stone.

 

Mr. Stack:  Because of the base so= you don’t sink back and forth when your coming and there’s still plenty, if we spent a day there, we can go on the Y’s side, I’ll get their permission, I guarantee we can pull up another 3 pickup truck loa= ds of glass, broken bottles, and that was the major reason why that was there.  Now it’s not lik= e this place is used in a highway traffic thing.&= nbsp; Most of the residents or whoever, it’s strange people that com= e up through there, and that's why the pickup truck is parked there, that’s why there would be a gate there, there would be whatever there to protect t= he pond.  I’m not trying to= abuse the pond.  If I wanted to abus= e it or capitalize on it I would have went for all the lots in here and fought t= ooth and nail.  I’ve done 2 <= span class=3DGramE>subdivision in this Town.  This one I’ve already given = 10% of the property in a conservation easement to most (Tape #3, Side A ended – may have missed some).  Town wanted fees in lieu of (inaudi= ble) or a specific commissioner wanted the land, so I gave the land.  On the other subdivision that I di= d, I had 20 acres, I chopped it into 4 lots, I gave i= t a 9 acre conservation easement.  I didn’t have to do that.  It’s not like I’m out to rape anything, because I’m not.  I am a conservationist a= nd I’ll be that until I die.  I respect the animals, I respect the woods, and I respect it for future development, and that’s why I would love to see it go to the Y, and that’s the extent of it, no more, no less.  They also asked me, to figure out = how close, it’s like 15 feet from the edge of the road to my property lin= e so where that little bank goes down, there’s probably another 4 to 6 fee= t at the closest point I guess you would say to where it was wetlands.  If anything was in there, you were= all out there, you all saw there’s no silt tha= t ever went in there.  There’s (inaudible) of wood chips (inaudible) to protect it and that’s it.  I can’t tell you anything different.

 

Mr. Jones: =  It seems to me that on your drawing clearly you have the connector to Smith Pond.  That’s what we’re real= ly concerned with.  (Inaudible) b= ut we’re not quite sure where that fits in terms of where the 50 foot bu= ffer is and so on.  I don’t s= ee how anybody can do anything here until we find out if that’s in the 50 fo= ot buffer or isn’t it.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 30

 

 

Mr. Stack:  Let’s assume it = is, let’s assume worst case scenario on it.  I’m not trying to hide it or dispute it.  That’s why I applied for an application when Mary Humiston said that I was polluting the pond.  She lives across the po= nd, and all the activity was done below the damn, so the silt is not going to r= un uphill.  So I said I will come= down, I will do what I have to do, and if I had wetlands on there I would have applied for an application at the time and went through the proper protocol, but unfortunately I did not have wetlands and I don’t think thereR= 17;s any requirement that I (inaudible) properties next to mine to find out if t= here is wetlands.  I’m not tr= ying to hide anything or skate an issue, I’m here to resolve a problem.

 

Mr. Undercuffler:  But you just said in response to his point, let's assume that that is, then based on that, I don’t think I would be willing to approve making this a permanent roadway which is what you’re asking for.

 

Mr. Stack:  Well there is an acces= s road there, whatever.  Would you li= ke me to do, let’s say for the sake of wetlands and everything, I have a 400 foot site line to my left, I have a 400 foot site line to my right if I ste= p 10 feet back from the front of Smith Pond Road.  If I go up I go into a cut stone w= all that was built there probably in the 1800’s and that’s where th= ere was supposed to be a 50 foot conservation easement, but unfortunately they = put it on the top, and well whatever, that’s where it’s at.  If I do that it would have worse c= uts and have worse for any impact on the wetlands totally (worse because the gr= ade of the hill is, I don’t know what the grade is, but it’s sure a= lot steeper than where it is, than was existing.  And when he asked was the road the= re before, they obviously dumped cars and drove garbage and I’m assuming= it had to be in the Summer when things were dry, because I’m telling you with a 4 wheel drive backhoe you couldn’t do that in the Spring or the Fall, it just sinks.

 

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Now that you said that you’ve= been in the building business, you knew that by putting that road there, you had= to get approval.  I mean before y= ou put in all these rocks and did all this construction, you’re not somebody new, so you knew you needed approval.  The bottom line is this, let’s say = this lady called me today and said there was no road there and construction was done, and let’s say you did something you weren’t supposed to do.  Let’s say the next = guy comes and did exactly what you did, what should this Board do?  Just let it go?<= /p>

 

Mr. Stack:  No, I don’t thin= k this specific property . . . . .

 

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Put yourself in Joe Polletta’s shoes and if somebody else comes over, what would you say?  If we accept what you did, then we= have to accept what somebody else does.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 31

 

 

Mr. Stack:  I don’t feel that there is 2 ponds or lakes or whatever you want t= o call them . . . . .

 

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Under that road you never tested to= see if it was wetlands or not because people do subdivisions and (inaudible) the procedures but if you were (inaudible) I could see that, but you’re a smart guy, and what you did in that road, by cleaning it up (inaudible) I h= ave a hard time understanding that somebody on that road says there was no road there, and all this gravel was put in there.  If somebody else comes in on anoth= er subdivision, I have to say no.

 

Mr. Stack:  Mr. Polletta, all I ca= n say, I understand totally.  Absolutely.  With all due respect, I have never had more problems, I’m doing 15 units on the condos from here to there, and I have all kinds, but I have never had so many calls on a piece of property in my life, with neighbors coming over and accusing me and my family, everything under the sun, I don't want to get in= to it, okay?  I have personally b= een arrested up there, not up there, for burning garbage when my tenant burns garbage up there and I can’t tell him to stop or whatever, and the Po= lice come up there and they well we got to arrest the property owner.  There’s a little bit more shenanigans going on here than meets the eye, and that’s all I can re= ally say and without getting into it, on the road specifically yes, there is a protocol.  Yes, I did go throu= gh a subdivision, yes, I did get a wetland soil scientist, y= es, they told me there are no wetlands on this property.  I’ve done everything I could possibly do to improve the quality of the wetlands and Smith Pond and IR= 17;m going to reiterate that I would love to see the Y end up with it and it be = used for recreational purposes for children, okay?  And that’s why I'm not subdi= viding it.  I do have this Master Pla= n.

 

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Can you give us something like a pl= an of wetlands if there is wetlands in the area that y= ou disturbed?  We need something = to go by.  I don’t have anythi= ng, I’ll speak for myself.  = If you have something, you can give it to Moosa and we can look at this.  I mean we’re willing to help= , but it looks like what you did, you did something wrong, I’m not going to= go around the bush.  (Inaudible.)  I said I don’t know, but my = point is I got these people who are saying there was no road there, but what you = did, it’s totally illegal, so if somebody else comes and says will you do = the same thing for me?  I said I don’t know, we’ll talk about it toni= ght.  You’re smart, so you’ve= got to give this Board some kind of paperwork, some wetlands (inaudible) so we = can make a smart decision.  To app= rove of what you did, what do we have this Board for?  If anybody can= do whatever they want, then (inaudible).

 

Mr. Stack:  Mr. Polletta, I didn&#= 8217;t do anything that I wanted.  If= anything I went through 18 months for a 1 lot subdivision.

 

Ma= ny people talking at once (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 32

 

 

Mr. Rafey: =  I think if you bring me a soil scie= ntist report that will answer our questions.

 

Mr. Stack:  If that’s what he needs (inaudible).  I should h= ave a copy of it.

 

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> I think that’s where we are r= ight now, the consensus seems to be that we need to know where the boundary is a= nd of course naturally it would be beautiful if we could find the old one, but= we can Table this until our next meeting and that will give you 30 days to try= and find it.  P &Z might have = it in their files, you might have it, the soil scientist might have a copy, so hopefully we’ll be able to find that without having to go through it again, but I think we need to know the boundary of the wetlands buffer area= so we know where we stand, and then we just go from there, so that’s what I’d like to propose, is that you take the next 30 days to find that a= nd bring it back to us at our next meeting.

 

Mr. Stack:  What I’ll do, pl= us I will look for this also, but I would like to, if need be, I’ll get a = soil scientist out there again, which I really don’t want to do because I’ve already been through this, and I’m not trying to propose d= oing this subdivision, building a house, doing anything whatsoever, I want to cl= ean it up while the weather is good, and that puts me into maybe September it starts raining and getting ugly again and you lose the whole Summer on it.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>  It’s not fair at that partic= ular time to the Wetlands or myself.  I did do a Master Plan, if I ever = sold it to anybody else they had to go along with the Master Plan that was appro= ved, and they were binding a commission over there and Judy Wick said that I’ll ask for more property at this time as open space, but it’s like they’re asking me to bind myself but then don’t bind them,= and the expense of doing the Master Plan was, it’s not required but I did= it and it’s like . . . . . I understand what you’re saying.

 

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> I hope you don’t have to go t= hrough the expense too, but on the other hand that’s where we are, so I̵= 7;d like to propose that you try to locate that and we’ll Table this until our next meeting and hopefully resolve it then, then you’re still only into early August.

 

Mr. Rafey:  Mr. Stack will bring m= e a copy of the soil scientist report.

 

MOTION:  =      (Mr. Polletta, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table Frank Stack Application to Amend the Existing CCIWA Permit #529 concerning an existing access way/driveway at 300 Smith Pond Road, Watertown, CT.

 

Discussion:       None<= o:p>

 

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU= SLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 33

 

 

B.         = Review of the Inland/Wetland and Watercourse Regulations of the Town of Watertown

 

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey:  You can just Table= this to give everyone time to review it, and if you have any questions or commen= ts we can discuss those at next month’s meeting.  Please look for the bold, italiciz= ed sections, they are added to the Regulations.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Duplissie:  We still have = to change the fee schedule, right?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey:  That is something = that Mrs. Barton will do for all land use commissions to get through an ordinanc= e.

 

  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Jr. Polletta) to Table Review of the Inland/Wetland and Watercourse Regulations of the Town of Watertown.

 

      &nb= sp;            =      Discussion:       None<= /h4>

 

      &nb= sp;            =      MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

8.  &n= bsp;      New Business

&nb= sp;

A.        Request for release of the remaining 10% Wetland Maintenance Bond for two lots on <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Hollow Road, Watertown.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie:  You’ve b= een here all night just for this?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mark Tedesco, 145 Hard Rock Roa= d, Watertown, CT  06795=

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Tedesco:  I’ve been waiting for my money.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey:  We released 90% of= the bond.  We usually keep 10% for= 1 year to make sure everything is working and doesn’t need any maintenance.  A week ago Mr. B= erger and I did a final inspection and we didn’t notice any erosion or any problems there.  Everything is stabilized and working the way it’s supposed to.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Berger:  That’s corr= ect.

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie:  For future, when we have something= like this on the Agenda that we know is only going to take a minute or two, is it fair, couldn’t we just move these to the front rather than have people sit here all night?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey:  Yes, that’s = up to the Chairman, but it can be done.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 34

 

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Thermer) to release the remaining 10% Wetland Maintenance Bond for two lots on Hollow Road, Watertown.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANINOUSLY

&nbs= p;

B.         = Preliminary Discussion on Watertown Woods Subdivision located on Woodbury Road near Watertown – Woodbury Town Line.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Gail McTaggert, Attorney Representing Applicant

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Atty. McTaggert:  You approved this before in 1989 so= we're going to show you what it looked like in 1989.  What happened is there’s a 5= 1.6 acre piece of property that was approved in 1989 for 19 lots.  At that time it was R-60.  It had a branched road with a coup= le of cul de sacs, with 11.4 acres of open space, and in that open space there we= re 119, 230 sq. ft. of uplands.  = What happened is after it was approved the subdivision map was never filed.  You know there’s 90 days aft= er the subdivision approval to file the appropriate maps and other documents, and = it was never filed and therefore it expired for lack of filing.  Since then what’s happened is it’s been rezoned to R-70, so lots have to be a little bit larger.  And actually Ron can show you that= the plan we put together reduces the lots from 19 to 13 lots that we’re g= oing to propose.  Because of that there’s a shorter road system, we’ve taken one of the branches = off of the road, so there will be a single road.  We met with the Planning Commissio= n on a preapp situation a couple of weeks ago and looked at a couple of ideas for = this piece of property and they wanted us to use a temporary cul de sac so I’ll have Ron go through that and show you what we’re talking a= bout on this piece of property, at least on a preliminary basis and see if you h= ave any comments and show you where the wetlands are.

 

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Thermer:  Is there anything that we can have = in our hands now that we can look at besides just trying to figure out what you gu= ys have over there?  We can’= ;t see that.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey:  I Just got a email from Mr. Wolfe to put this item on the Agenda.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Thermer:  It would be nice to see something, because we can’t see that.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Atty. McTaggert:  I think our proposed plans will be = more visible to you, they’re colored.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 35

 

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Ronald Wolfe, Engineer

&nbs= p;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Wolfe:  The property is located just adjac= ent to the Woodbury town line, off of Woodbury Road.  The town line would be this area right over here to the west.  It’s all in Watertown.  This is Route 6.  Actually <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Town Line Highway would be over her= e, it’s kind of an abandoned road.  The green Watertown sign is located right about here, as you’re heading into Woodbury, ag= ain on your left hand side.  So th= is property is located on the south side of Route 6.  It was commonly known as the Sperry Orchard, before it used to be an apple orchard, there’s quite a few a= pple trees left up in there.  The proposal is for 13 lots as Gail mentioned.=   The previous subdivision that was approved in 1989 had 19 lots, 2 temporary cul de sacs, one was located at the southernmost portion of the property which is right here adjacent to wetland area, and then the other temporary cul de sac was located over here to the east side of the property= .  If you want I can show you the pre= vious map, I have it here.  We’= ;ve reduced the number of lots and the total amount of road, which was previously approved about 2,850 feet total, with 2 tem= porary cul de sacs.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Forget 89, that’s ancient his= tory.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  What we have now is about 1,757 fe= et of road from Route 6, 350 feet of that is in subdivision that was known as a B= CD subdivision, so we actually have about 1,700 feet of road on our project.  There is one wetland crossing, we’ve utilized an existing crossing that’s already there, there’s already a culvert there that was used for the farming of the property, and that would be located in this area right here.  The other crossings would just be<= span class=3DGramE>, we have 3 common driveways that would have to cross = over 3 intermittent watercourses, which also have existing farm roads over them, so we’d like to utilize those existing farm crossings for our driveway crossing points.

&nbs= p;

I can go over the brea= kdown of the open space and the conservation easements that we have.  The open space is kind of a combin= ation of open space and conservation easement area.  We’ve discussed with the Pla= nning Commission preserving this area adjacent to the Atwood Brook which flows do= wn along Route 6 and it also would make a contiguous open space and conservati= on easement lake with existing conservation easement area to the east that was deeded with a previous subdivision by Mark Zappone 6 or 8 years ago, so that would link up with this conservation easement area.  This Atwood Brook is also a tribut= ary that flows to the Fire District’s wells, so that was another benefit = of preserving that area.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Is that wetland= area there?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 36

 

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  A good portion of = it is wetlands area.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  How did you sel= ect that as the conservation easement?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Well we selected it primarily for the fact that it’s going to maintain a streetscape along Route 6 and curb cuts and driveways there.=   Also it’s beneficial to preserve the area to the Atwood Brook.=

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Is that part of= the apple orchard?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  No.  The apple orchard never extended d= own that far.  We tried to delinea= te the open space, to use existing stone walls, they= 217;re a good natural feature so we’d like to use the existing stone walls to delineate the open space from the properties.  Going through the breakdown, the percentages, the total area of the property is 51.6 acres.  10% of that is the minimum require= d for open space which is 5.16 acres, 50% of that has to be upland area, so that comes to 2.58 acres.  We have provided in this plan a total of 6.95 acres of open space which is 13.46% a= nd another 4.51 acres of conservation easement which brings the total of prote= cted land to 11.46 acres, or 22.2% of the area of the property.  60.4% of that is up= land area, which exceeds them minimum 50% that’s required.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Undercuffler:  How much of= the open space is upland?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  60.4% of the open = space.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Undercuffler:  That doesn’t include the easement?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  No, actually I don’t know if I have that breakdown, I don’t have it, but I can compute that.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie:  You said you h= ave 6.95 acres of open space.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Yes.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie:  But you don= 217;t know how much of that is actually uplands?<= /o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  I have the numbers, I just don’t have them with me.  I would have them for another meeting.  Actually I do have i= t, it’s 2.3 acres of that is upland area.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie:  So does that m= eet the requirements?  That’= s not 50%.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 37

 

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  The combined prote= cted area, 2.3 acres you need a minimum of 2.58 acres.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie:  But I thought = the open space (inaudible).

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey:  If you look at 50%= of 10% of the entire property, probably that meets it.  (Inaudible) mo= re than 10% open space.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  It can be in the f= orm of a conservation easement as well as open space.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Atty. McTaggert:  If I might, 50= % is 50% of the required amount of open space, and that’s met, and then on= top of that we provided more open space, and we don’t have to be 50% of t= he excess.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  We thought it was a desirable place for the open space.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Atty. McTaggert:  If I might, there’s also another reason, the question about the connection of the open space, there’s another reason for the conservation easement area here, in order to make these lots work, it provides a completely unfragment= ed area of protection and that does include wetland protection in that area, so when that’s combined with the area that’s next door, to have ju= st this area of open space, when we added the conservation area to it, even th= ough it’s in addition to the requirement, it provides a nice unfragmented wildlife corridor and streetscape protection so it makes a good plan.  We talked to the Planning Commissi= on about not utilizing this area for any sort of access off of Route 6.  There’s problems with it bec= ause it’s Route 6, having that many curb cuts, etc. in allowing us to come= in off of this Route using driveways so that we can protect it and make a conservation area, and obviously it’s a preapplicaiton situation but = the response was very positive for doing that.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Undercuffler:  Are there wetlands other than what’s up in there?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  There is.  There is a band of wetlands that f= lows from the south, from the southern end of the property that eventually feeds into the (inaudible) brook wetland area.&n= bsp; That’s located here, and there’s also a band in this area here.  There is also a large s= wamp area over here, that’s part of Lot= #2, and that flows across the existing culvert into an intermittent water course which eventually leads into the Atwood Brook.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  And that part o= f Lot #2 is part of an easement?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 38

 

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Actually this part isn’t right now the way it’s situated.  It’s just a large wetlands a= rea in the middle of Lot #2.<= /p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  It might be a g= ood idea to make it an easement.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Okay, I’ll t= ake that into consideration.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Undercuffler:  Well presum= ably there’s other wetland that you mentioned that they’re part of l= ots too.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Yes, there is also other wetlands on the property.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Yea, just since you’re here, and we’re commenting on it, here’s a thought.  Normally we like to = see the wetlands and the 50 foot buffer as easement if possible if that can be = done and still have your lot size requirement, and so forth, but something to try and plug into your equation.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Okay, I'll take th= at into consideration.  I think w= e can work on that.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey:  Do you want to loo= k at this before you comment?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Sure.  We’re not ready to make a si= te walk or anything.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey:  You can if you wan= t to, look at the property before they submit their formal application, or you can wait.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  I’d rather wait.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta:  The wetlands sh= ould be flagged so we know when we’re walking.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  It’s already= done.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey:  If you can provide= us with some maps?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Yes, at this point we’d like to get our formal application in so we can finalize all the= lot lines and then we can do a field walk.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Yea, and before= we do a site walk we should know the areas of disturbance and al that sort of stu= ff.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  We’ll know o= ur limits of fill and road grades (inaudible) at that point.=


CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 39

 

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie:  The other thin= g is is that by the time this gets to us, it might be September/October before w= e do our site visit, and we'll be able to see a lot more once the leaves fall th= an we will today.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Right, I don= 217;t think there’s any point in doing it now, personally.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey:  When do you think = the application will be ready?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Probably in a few months, we’ve already done our soil testing with the Health Department and that went fairly well, and the wetlands have all been flagged and surve= yed, and probably within 6 weeks or so.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Atty. McTaggert:  We’ve ha= d 2 preapplicaiton meetings with staff; Chuck Berger attended one of those, so we’ve been sort of working at this to try and get it right before we = get it into you, and that was very productive, so we wouldn’t have an objection to it, but we would probably, it could be in a month or two we sh= ould have the application before you, and I think you’re right, it would b= e a good time around September to walk it.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Dave Lord located = the wetlands on the property and he was here earlier this evening.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Yea, we see him= a lot.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Is there any other comments or suggestions we can take back with us?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Atty. McTaggert:  What we’= re hoping for is anything stuck out, your comment about conservation, putting conservation easements or restrictions on the property is a good one, so if there is anything else that stuck out that you’d like us to think abo= ut while putting this together, it’s all non-binding we understand, but it’s helpful.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  You said this w= as septics?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Yes, septics and w= ells.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Well just in ge= neral and I’m sure you already do this, obviously minimize any disturbance,= and ideally we wouldn’t ever see you again if you can do it without any disturbance, that would be perfect, but this is not a perfect world so (Tape #3, Side B ended – may have missed some) 24 and we’d certainly = like to see that as 24.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 40

 

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Yes.  (Inaudible).  Making it 16 f= eet wide for most of its length (inaudible).

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  And then that w= ould be privately maintained.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Yes.  This would reduce the length of the culverts and the width of the fill.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey:  Do you have any alternative plans?

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Yes.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Atty. McTaggert:  We had another alternative and one of the important parts of this plan in reducing the road from, well there used to be a road in the original approval by this Commiss= ion that came all the way out over here, so now getting that down to 16 foot wi= de driveways with pull off is going to make a big difference in disturbance.  There’s<= /span> a couple of intermittent watercourses that are along there, that makes a lot = less disturbance.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  This was the other option that we went over with Planning and Zoning that basically we termina= ted the cul de sac and just short of the 50 foot setback line, the same number = of lots, actually the road was a little bit longer but we utilized the existing farm road crossing to exit the (inaudible) of the property.  And then we utilized the common dr= iveway and we, for the most part, dedicated the same (inaudible) open space and conservation easement areas.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Atty. McTaggert:  The reason tha= t the Planning Commission was so interested in this plan was that they want to in= the future think about linking this with other property to reduce traffic coming out into the center of Town.  = There are no plans for doing something south of this.  Having a temporary cul de sac perm= its that to happen, so they were very clear about it.  They have much more preference for= the first plan.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Undercuffler:  You’re going to have an environmental impact study done on this?=

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  Yes, Dave Lord will prepare that for us.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Berger:  There are some to= ugh grades on this site, and they’ve done some rearranging of the road already to try and minimize the grades on the road and I’m sure we’ll be talking more about that.&nb= sp; It’s hard to tell from this viewpoint, but there are some tough grades that we will be working with.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 41

 

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Yea, well P &am= p; Z has minimums and maximums for grades for streets and driveways, right?=

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Berger:  Yes.  We already made some good adjustme= nts so we’ll be talking more I’m sure.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  Anything else?<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Wolfe:  No, thank you very= much.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki:  We'll schedule = a site walk once you have the areas of disturbance defined.

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   Atty. McTaggert:  Thank you very much.  We very much appreciate= your time and input.

&nbs= p;

9.         = Communications and Bills

&nb= sp;

A.        The Habitat, Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions, Inc. Vol. XVII= No. 2 Spring 2005.

 

           &n= bsp;    B.         The Turkey Brook Drainage Improvement Project Completion Ceremony.

&nb= sp;

C.           = ;      St= ate D.E.P. for D.O.T. General Permit for Utilities and Drainage

 

MOTION:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to accept and file Items 9A through 9C as pre= sented.

 

Discussion:       None<= o:p>

 

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU= SLY

&nb= sp;

10.       Repor= ts from Officers and Committees

&nb= sp;

  &n= bsp;         A.        Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency Regulations Review Subcommittee

 

  &n= bsp;                 &= nbsp;   Mr. Jones:  At our last subcom= mittee meeting we reviewed the remainder of the regulations and agreed to have Moo= sa print them in form that would then be distributed to us at the full Commiss= ion.

 

  &n= bsp;            = ;         Mr. Zawadzki:  And we have tha= t in our packet.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 42

 

 

11.       Repor= ts from Staff

&nb= sp;

A.        Status of the Approved On-Going Subdivisions

&n= bsp;

Mr. Berger:  Everything has been = going smoothly.  It’s been qui= et, there’s been no complaints.  I will tell you maybe just as a si= de piece of information, as you may be aware we have a construction inspector = who worked with the Department of Public Works who goes out, almost on a daily basis, to inspect on-going subdivisions, and we've made some staff changes = and we’re doing something a little bit different than we’ve done in= the past, which I think in the long run will provide for better developments and more consistency throughout our development, and that is we rotate inspecto= rs on a monthly basis.  So it may be= a little bit rough as we get started, but once everybody is on the same page = it will be very clear to not only our staff of what the expectations are, but = also the developer’s expectations, so we’re in the process of doing that, we’re in our second month of doing that, and if you hear any feedback from developers we’re welcome to hear about it.

 

There really has been no complaints or activity.  I have personally not been out to = any of the subdivisions of late.  The= last time Moosa and I went to a couple of them, everything looked fine, no probl= ems.

 

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>  We went to Fox Crossings and (inaudible).  They put silt fe= nce around the entire disturbed area and then completed the detention pond.

 

Mr. Zawadzki:  = They’re also doi= ng the connection road.

 

Mr. Rafey:  We told them not to = do it at this time because (inaudible).  When the road is completed (inaudible).

 

Mr. Berger:  Yea, in order to cross= that brook they needed to get their D.E.P. and Corps Permits, and last I knew th= ey hadn’t received that yet.  They weren't supposed to be doing any work down in that brook until = they got that permit.

 

Mr. Rafey:  They still don’t= have their permit.  I just issued 3 permits for foundations for 3 houses.

 

Mr. Polletta:  Is this the one on <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Bunker Hill?

 

Mr. Rafey:  From Kimberly Lane to Middlebury Road.<= /p>

 

Mr. Polletta:  = Yea, this is the one G= raziano is doing, right?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

REGULAR MEETING

JULY 14, 2005

PAGE 43

 

 

Mr. Berger:  The detention basin = is in and they’re beginning to install drainage pipe tomorrow.

 

Mr. Rafey:  And Guernseytown Far= ms, they’re under construction (inaudible) in the road.  Phase I= , I issued a permit (inaudible).

 

12.     &n= bsp; Public Participation

 

            Mr. Polletta:  It’s been= 6 months and it’s been a little bit uncomfortable, to step aside, back = and forth, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every on= e of you for the time and effort that you made, so thank you very much.

 

13.       Adjou= rnment

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 10:55 p.m.<= o:p>

 

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

 

  &nbs= p;         MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

  &nbs= p;         Regular Meeting Adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

&n= bsp;

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Ronald = Jones, Secretary

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetlands Agency

 

  &nbs= p;         _________________= _________________

      &nb= sp;     Lynn M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary