beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN HIGH SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

THURSDAY= , AUGUST 10, 2006 - 7:30 PM

PRESENT: = ; &n= bsp; = ; Lucia DiBona

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Ron Jones, Secretary

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Joseph Polletta

= ; &n= bsp; = &nb= sp; Edwin Undercuffler, Vice Chairman

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; James Zawadzki, Chairman

ABSENT: &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Glenn Duplissie

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Charles Thermer

ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs= p; None

ALTERNATES ABSENT: = ; <= /span>Peter Peluso

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: &n= bsp; = ; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Moosa Rafey, Assistant Zoning Enforcement Officer

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting to order at 10:08 p.m.<= /o:p>

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.

3. = Public Participation

David Minnich, Chairma= n, Planning and Zoning Commission

Mr. Minnich: I'm here to state that at our last Planning and Zoning Commission, on our Plan of Development, which seems like we've been working on forever, but we do see the end of the tunnel, we had some commen= ts that at some point in the near future, perhaps in September when we meet ag= ain on this, you may want to have some input on this. In our Plan of Development we are, probably, and it's up to the actual, it's just been discussed at this point, we're probably going to put in the Plan of Development a recommendation and encouragement to this Commission to adopt the D.E.P. Model for Inland/Wetla= nd Agencies.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 2

Specifically it expand= s the jurisdiction of your Commission by about double, from 50 to 100 feet and ot= her things that that model does for any activities that are near wetlands and w= e, in our discussions, believe, and in terms of our planning hat, that that wo= uld be in the best interests of the Town to adopt that and we encourage you to consider that. I know you've = worked on that in the past and it's our intent unless you have some discussions fo= r us to include that statement in our Plan of Development of our encouragement f= or the Inland/Wetlands Commission to adopt the D.E.P. Model for Inland/Wetland Agencies. Thank you.

Mr. Zawadzki: We did have a subcommittee, Ed you were on that subcommittee, to discuss the expansion of 50 to 100feet for our regulations which I guess is our prerogative, and we decided against it on a limited basis. Do you recall what tha= t was.

Mr. Undercuffler: Well it was a question of enforcement I think is= one of the biggest things. Our fe= eling was it's better to have something you can enforce and enforce it rather than just expanding for the sake of expanding, but basically we did follow the S= tate Model Regulations very closely, tracked that.

Mr. Rafey: But Mr. Chairman, I think there is a new revisio= n of that model that I don't have yet. I'm waiting for D.E.P. to send it to us and then I will see what the differences are between what we did and what the new model is proposing and probably we'll have the same subcommittee to review that, and if they're recommending 100 feet minimum setback for all wetlands around the State, th= en we have to adopt to that, but I'm waiting for D.E.P. to send that to us and I'll look at that.

Mr. Zawadzki: So we'll review that and then get together.=

Mr. Minnich: Thank you very much.

4.         = Action on Minutes

&nb= sp;

= A.      =            Continuation of Public Hearing, April 20, 2006, App. #544, Donald Curtis

= B.      =            Public Hearing, April 20, 2006, App. #547, <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Watertown Woods, LLC<= /p>
= C.      =            Public Hearing, April 20, 2006, App. #546, Patrick Graziano

= D.      =            Public Hearing, April 20, 2006, App. #549, Patrick Graziano

= E.      =             Regular Meeting, April 20, 2006

= F.      =             Continuation of Public Hearing, May 11, 2006, App. #547, Watertown Woods, L= LC

= G.      =            Continuation of Public Hearing, May 11, 2006, App. #546, Patrick Graziano

= H.      =            Continuation of Public Hearing, May 11, 2006, App. #549, Patrick Graziano

I.          Regular Meeting May 11,2006

J.        &= nbsp; Continuation of Public Hearing, June 15, 2006, App. #547, Watertown Woods, LLC<= /p>
K.        Continuation of Public Hearing, June 15, 2006, App. #546, Patrick Graziano

L.         Continuation of = Public Hearing, June 15, 2006, App. #549, Patrick Graziano

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 3

M.        Regular Meeting June 1= 5, 2006

N.        Special Meeting Public Hearing, July 6, 2006, App. #552, Anthony Caruso

O.        Special Meeting Public Hearing, July 6, 2006, App. #556, Water and Sewer Authority<= o:p>

P.         = Special Meeting Public Hearing, July 6, 2006, App. #557, Donald Curtiss<= /span>

Q.        Continuation of Public Hearing, July 20, 2006, App. #549, Patrick Graziano

R.         = Regular Meeting, July 20, 2006

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = DiBona, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Items 4A through 4R.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

=             M= OTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nb= sp;

5.         = Pending Applications

&nb= sp;

A.        Application #549 of Patrick Graziano for construction of 32-lot Highview Estates Subdivision, Phase II located on Lovely Drive, Kimberly Lane, and Pond View Drive, Watertown, CT.

        &= nbsp;   A decision is required by September 22, 2006.

Mr. Zawadzki: Chuck, any comments?

Mr. Berger: As the Commission members may remember at the la= st month's meeting the applicant, during the Public Hearing process of last month's meeting, submitted a significant amount of information. The Public Hearing was closed and = the opportunity was given for me to review that information which I have not completed a detailed review of it. I do want to say that I worked very clos= ely with the applicant's engineer throughout the process. We had multiple meetings on the dr= ainage issues out there. They compli= ed I believe with all of the requests that I made and went to great extents to combine some of the detention as you may remember, they're going to end up enlarging that pond down on Pond View Drive which is a real good solution to some of the increased runoff out there.&nb= sp; I have not completed my detailed review but I am very confident that= the drainage issues, the majority of the, if not all of them have been adequate= ly addressed. If there are any outstanding drainage issues during the detailed review, through the Plannin= g and Zoning process I can certainly pick up anything that I might have missed du= ring this review and certainly if there is anything, which I don't expect there = to be anything that would impact wetlands, they would have to come back here if t= here were any changes. I don't exp= ect that to happen. If the Commis= sion wanted to move forward with it this evening, that's your prerogative. I don't see any major obstacles at= this point from my perspective.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 4

Mr. Zawadzki: Is this the one they= took or got a little negotiated de= al and got a little land from an adjoining property owner?

Mr. Polletta: As long as you got m= ost of the stuff completed, I mean are you happy with everything? There is nothing pending at this t= ime, right?

Mr. Berger: No, not from a drainage standpoint.<= /span>

Mr. Polletta: So basically if we m= ake a motion subject to the standard conditions it would be covered, right?<= /o:p>

Mr. Berger: From my perspective th= at is correct. I don't know if you = want to bring up the wetlands issues.

Mr. Rafey: If you remember Land= Tech Consultants has reviewed this application and they responded to all those comments they made . In the l= ast report they had there were like 2 items.&n= bsp; I did talk to the engineer for the applicant, he agreed with all tho= se recommendations from Land Tech. If you want t= o make a motion tonight to approve this, please make sure that it's subject to tho= se recommendations from Land Tech. If there are any issues left, that they should address those issues as recomme= nded by Land Tech Consultants.

Mr. Undercuffler: Was one of those the matter of the stone walls?

Mr. Rafey: The stone walls was = for Phase I. That's a good point.= They should also do the stone wall= s that we discussed at the last meeting on their final plan and then we will review and approve it.

Mr. Polletta: You don't have the f= inal plans now?

Mr. Rafey: After your review, d= id you suggest any changes to the plan? On Phase II?

Mr. Berger: No, I had all the suggested changes that I made have been analyzed, we analyzed them together, not together but we had multiple meetings throughout the process and they'v= e incorporated all the changes that I've asked for and it works. They've agreed to it.

Mr. Rafey: On your standard con= dition list there is one condition that the staff will review the final plans and = make sure that everything is according to the approval of this Commission. We will have an opportunity to loo= k at those plan again and make sure everything is done according to . . . . .

Mr. Zawadzki: Standard conditions = plus Land Tech recommendations.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 5

Mr. Rafey: And any suggestions = from Mr. Berger if there is anything that was not addressed before.

Mr. Polletta: Yea, but standard conditions normally covers everything, right?

Mr. Rafey: Not everything.=

Mr. Polletta: Well make it everyth= ing.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Application #549 of Patrick Graziano for construction of 32-lot Highview Estates Subdivision, Phase II located on Lo= vely Drive, Kimberly Lane, and Pond View Drive, Watertown, CT subject to standar= d conditions and recommendations of Land Tech and review of the Town Engineer.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   B.         = Application #552 of Anthony Caruso for construction of 8-lot Lakeside Estates Subdivisi= on, Phase II located on Caruso= Drive, Watertown, CT.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;     If the Public Hearing is Closed on August 10, 2006, then a decision is require= d by October 14, 2006.

Mr. Zawadzki: The Public Hearing w= as extended.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table Application #552 of Anthony Caruso for construction of 8-lot Lakeside Estates Subdivision, Phase II located on Caruso Drive, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

        &= nbsp;   C.        Application #556 of Town of Watertown, Water and Sewer Authority for installation of Wattles Brook Interceptor Sanitary Sewer located in Oakville, CT.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   If the Public Hearing is Closed on August 10, 2006, then a decision is require= d by October 14, 2006.

Mr. Zawadzki: The Public Hearing w= as Closed so this can be voted on. Any further discussion?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 6

Mr. Polletta: I think they explain= ed everything.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Application #556 of Town of Watertown, Water and Sewer Authority for installation of Wattles Brook Interceptor Sanitary Sewer located in Oakville, CT subject to= standard conditions and the Town Engineer's recommendation to submit original information to the Wetland Enforcement Officer and Town Engineer for review= and approval.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

        &= nbsp;   D.        Application #557 of Donald Curtiss, for 13-Lot Bassett Hollow Residential Subdivision, = Hollow Road, Watertown, CT.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   If the Public Hearing is Closed on August 10, 2006, then a decision is require= d by October 14, 2006.

Mr. Zawadzki: The Public Hearing w= as extended.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table Application #557 of Donald Curtiss, for 13-Lot Bassett Hollow Residential Subdivisio= n, Hollow Road, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

E.      = ;   Application #563 Golden Acres, LLC for construction of 11 lot Golden Acres Subdivision,= Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   If the Public Hearing is Closed on August 10, 2006, then a decision is require= d by October 14, 2006 unless applicant grants an extension of time.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table Application #563 Golden Acres, LLC for construction of 11 lot Golden Acres Subdivis= ion, Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 7

F.      = ;   Application #567 of Zohra and Moosa Rafey for construction of a common driveway to Lot = 16 and Lot 20, Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   If the Public Hearing is Closed on August 10, 2006, then a decision is require= d by October 14, 2006 unless applicant grants an extension of time.

Mr. Zawadzki: The Public Hearing w= as Closed. Any further discussio= n?

Mr. Undercuffler: I haven't heard any = reason to turn this down. We've hear= d a lot of zoning issues, we've heard a lot of other issues, but I haven't heard any inland/wetland issues.

Mr. Polletta: What was before us w= as answered and I agree with you, a lot were zoning issues and the idea that t= his was a right of way that was really not part of this Commission anyhow.=

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Application #567 of Zohra and Moosa Rafey for construction of a common driveway to = Lot 16 and Lot 20, Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

            Discussion:       None<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

G.      = ; Application #568 of Watertown Golf Club for installation of a new irrigation system for= the entire golf course at 246 Guernseytown Road, Watertown, CT.

      &= nbsp;     If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by September 22, 2006.

Mr. Zawadzki: We deemed this not t= o be a significant activity at the last meeting, so no Public Hearing was required= , so we can make a motion on this one.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Application #568 of Watertown Golf Club for installation of a new irrigation system= for the entire golf course at 246 Guernseytown Road, Watertown, CT subject to standard conditions.

&nbs= p;

            Discussion:       None<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Polletta: I think the standard conditions sh= ould be part of all motions.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 8

H.      = ; Application #569 of Rachel Saucier for construction of a deck at 333 Falls Avenue, Oakville, CT.

      &= nbsp;     If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by September 22, 2006.

Mr. Polletta: This is the one that= they had the back yard, it was an existing situation.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. Jones) to Approve Application #569 of Rachel Saucier for construction of a deck at 333 Falls Avenue, Oakville, CT subject to standard conditions.

&nbs= p;

            Discussion:       None<= o:p>

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

6.  &n= bsp;      New Applications

A.      = ; Application #570 of St. Mary Magdalen Church Corp. for an addition to St. Mary Magdalen School at 140 Buckingham S= treet, Oakville, CT.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by October 14, 20= 06.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Jim Petroccia, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Petroccia: I'm here in the capacity as a volunteer site engineer.&nbs= p; Also here is Joseph Wrenn, he's a professional engineer also and he's here as a volunteer.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   If you recall a couple of meetings ago we deferred this application because we didn't have all the information that was necessary.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, (inaudible) plan, correct?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Petroccia: Yes, now I thi= nk we have the stuff that we didn't have before and we want to proceed to give th= at to you. Here's what we are do= ing. This is the existing building here= . The green outline is the existing building we're proposing and along with that we're adding some pavement area for parking and as a result of that we have to have some drainage outlet, a= nd this blue line here is the outline of the wetlands. Now we're within the 75 feet, with= in the area you considered it some impact so we have to address that. I was asked to figure out what is = the area that we're disturbing within the 50 foot range here, and we are distur= bing 800 square feet because we're putting this driveway edge here, go along her= e, and it does cut across this 50 foot line and so therefore that is part of t= he disturbance. I think Joe Wrenn who has done all= of the drainage calculations can give you that part of it.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 9

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Joseph Wrenn, Professional Engineer, Indigo Land Design

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Wrenn: I'd like to pass o= ut these new sketch plans that we did. I attended and graduated from St. Mary's in 1984 and also attended <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Watertown High School un 1988, so I'm very familiar with the area, the site. The overall impervious area added to this site results in about a ha= lf acre impervious. We did a wat= ershed study of the 8.8 acres that drain to a, and on your sheet it shows that roa= d as Falls Terrace, it probably should be labeled, the blank road there is Falls Terrace that goes down through Greenbriar Apartments. Where the north area is that's a f= lat plateau, that's the school property and then it drops off steep to the wetl= and area that you're familiar with and then all the drainage accumulates there = and exits out underneath Falls Terrace via a 24 inch RCP.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Undercuffler: Falls Terra= ce is the curved in the upper left here?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Wrenn: Yes, the roadway t= hat's shown. So basically what we w= ere charged with is the increase in storm water of runoff from the school prope= rty over the half acre of impervious is to at that point before it gets into th= at 24 RCP is to attenuate the flow increase of that where at, either at existi= ng or less than existing conditions. So what we're proposing here is the least amount of impact, and future mainten= ance responsibilities for the school. They have not physically retained the right to do this yet, but they are working with the attorneys of Greenbriar Apartments to get a drainage easement over that Greenbriar property, that's where we show the construction of this ber= m, construct the berm and then only during storm water flows, during rain even= ts, it would temporarily store flood waters within that wetland area and then m= eter it out so that the flow that leaves there is back to the existing condition. Basically like a detention basin but it's not an excavated detention basin, it's just constructing a berm and temporarily back flooding the wetland area. It's very minimal impact to the wetlands, we measured the impact area, and there's only 415 square feet of direct wetland impact, you can see that on the sketch plan I handed out. It shows the wetlands limits. That's equivalent to .01 acres of wetland activity. In the 50 f= oot buffer area around the wetlands, there's 1,312 square feet of activity whic= h is .03 acres. The temporary floo= ding, we had a meeting last week and Moosa actually recommended that we delineate= an area of the temporary flooding during the 100 year storm when it's at berm level and also at the 424 contour which you can see on that sketch plan. At the top of the berm elevation 4= 26, temporary wetland impact would be 0.14 acres so relatively minor and at the= 424 contour, which is your normal 2 or 10 year storm events, it results in .06 acres of temporary impact.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 10

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   I just have some quick details for some of the elements of the proposed berm = and detention basin. We have an o= utlet structure, we have a typical D.O.T. rip rap plunge pool which is shown at t= he outlet of the pipe that comes through the storm water berm, and then we also have a standard detail that was provided to us originally by Clarence Welty, the Geotechnical Engineer. It= 's a really good solid berm with a finer core material with standard gravel on t= he outside, covered with topsoil. The interior of the basin, all the disturbed areas on the interior of the basin= and the disturbed slopes on the outside will all be seeded with like a wetland = seed mixture, erosion control seed mixture, that's proposed on that plan also. The outlet control structure would= have a small rectangular opening for lower level flows and then a larger opening above for the higher level flows, and then also on the top a standard D.O.T. seed, they call it a CG grate, sits up on top and that is for when the wate= r surface reaches a certain level, before it wants to go over the berm, which is a situation that you wouldn't want to have happen, it would have the ability = to spill into that grade and there's 2 curb openings, just like a Type C catch basin on a roadway with curb, curb opening on both sides, not just one side= , so the water would have the ability to enter into there, if it did, the pond is designed that the maximum water surface on a 100 year storm would be at that level, but if something were blocked and it was going above that level or i= f it was higher than a 100 year storm, it would start to spill into there before= it went over the berm.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Normally it goe= s through the grate, right?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Wrenn: It would never go through the grate unless something was blocked or you had a storm even larg= er than 100 years, it's like an emergency spillway, just in case.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Undercuffler: How high is= the berm?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Wrenn: The total height o= f the berm is about 4 feet over the existing ground. Very low berm, very short, the ske= tch plan that I did really quickly, you can see the berm is really short and it= 's only about 4 feet high. We ha= ve all the drainage computations and we did give a set to Chuck Berger and Moosa to review and I believe they're still in the process of that review right now. The one thing that Chuck= had recommended is to the top of the berm the 100 year water level be 1 foot and that's standard for normal large detention basins. Right now we have 0.5 feet or 6 inc= hes of difference in the 100 year water surface, in the maximum top of berm elevat= ion 6, inches rather than 1 foot, but we also have this emergency spillway also= , so we'd be able to build up 6 inches on this before it went over the berm.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 11

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Water quality coming off the new paved area, basically there would be 3 elements. One is 4 foot sumps= in the catch basins before they drain towards the wetland area. The second thing would be a plastic snout or a water separator over the last catch basin before it enters into = the buffer area, and the third and final thing for final storm water polishing would be plunge pools at all the outlets t catch any floatables to make it = to that point. (Tape #4, Side B = ended - may have missed some.)

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: You said you ha= d an oil separator right in the catch basins?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Wrenn: There are 2 propos= ed catch basins I believe right along the curb, paved area.<= /p>

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: That's the last= one, you said?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Wrenn: Physically you wou= ld put that if there were 2 outlets, you would put one on each. If a system drains to one you would generally drain it to the last one, it doesn't make a lot of sense to put i= t on every one, put it on the last one the water comes in from the top and from = the sides and the oil always float on the water, and the floatables always on t= he water so those stay high and the water is able to escape out through the pipe. There's obviously a lev= el of maintenance just like any storm water quality structure, a swale, a detenti= on basin, a deep sump, it has to be maintained.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Chuck, have you= had a chance to look at this?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Berger: We met recently i= n the past week or so. All of the i= ssues, the only issues that remain are the cross section of berm, that's what I'm working on now with them. We'= ll get that resolved probably by the next meeting.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: During the field trip, remember all the debris at the bottom near where that little brook was. Do you propose to clean = all that?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Petroccia: Yes, we said we would do all that.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Wrenn: We did look at a c= ouple of other alternatives as far as on site detention, building a detention pon= d on site, they do have an annual carnival, there are children playing, this sch= ool is K-8 now, when I went there it was only 6-8, and there are small children= out there and we have concerns with not only insect control, but drowning, fenc= ing, and keeping kids away from that. Another alternative would be underground storage but it would just b= e so much disturbance to the ground and so much underground piping that would be necessary where this is this is much more an easy fix and Greenbriar seems = to very willing to give the easement for the construction and maintenance of t= hat.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 12

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Do you have a s= ummary figure of how much wetlands are impacted here, in square footage?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Wrenn: I stated that earl= y on, but I can repeat that. The di= rect wetlands impact from the berm construction is 415 square feet, which is .01 acres. And the 50 foot regula= ted area activity is 0.03 acres, 1,312 square feet. And we had also figured out the tem= porary impacts with the flooding if you want those numbers again, I can give you those. To elevation 426 . . .=

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Is that written= on here?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Wrenn: The contour elevat= ion 426 you can see on that sheet I handed out, that area around to the berm is 0.14 acres and that would obviously temporary, only during a 100 year storm event. And around 424 contour= which you can also see on that sketch plan, is 0.06 acres. That's just extra information. The overall water (inaudible) is a= bout 8.8 acres that drain to that site across the school there. There's a half acre increase in impervious, the storm water flows are not generally increased by very much,= but the Town wanted to see a 0 increase in that 24 inch pipe.=

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Right, well we = always try to shoot for a 0 increase if we can, or actually make it less, dependin= g on which way the water is going, and we don't want to dry up any wetlands eith= er.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Wrenn: Absolutely, I thin= k for the lower flows, 0 and 10 years, I think the flows are almost identical, the outflow, for proposed and existing conditions. The higher flows it's a little bit= under for proposed conditions. That= just helps situations further down (inaudible) approach Steel Brook and the lower watersheds.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Cause by adding= the impermeable surface you're actually putting more water into that area at a faster rate, and that's why you need to clean it up.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Wrenn: The volume general= ly (inaudible) but what we show in the drainage calculations is the peak flow is actually = less at that point.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: Do we have enou= gh information on this?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: We have to table this. We already decided this wasn't a significant activity when they were in here before.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: You don't have = all of the information required?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 13

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: No, the ball is i= n my court so to speak. They provi= ded me with information, I need to respond with some guidance on the cross section= of the . . . .

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: So we can just = table it.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table Application #570 of St. Mary Magdalen Church Corp. for an addition to St. Mary Magd= alen School at 140 Buckingham S= treet, Oakville, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Petroccia: Is it possible= that at the next meeting you could approve this?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: I would say, as= long as Chuck is satisfied. He has= to review the information and get back to you, so hopefully it will be wrapped= up by the next meeting on September 14th.

B.      = ;   Application #571 of Town of Watertown, Public Works Department for replacement of a drainage culvert under Ice= House Road, Watertown, CT.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by October 14, 20= 06.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Chuck Berger, Town Engineer, Representing the Public Works Department<= o:p>

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: I don't have a ni= ce large presentation board for you tonight, but if you turn to the last page = of the memo that you received from Moosa, goes a generalized sketch of where t= his culvert is. This is an existi= ng 24 inch corrugated metal pipe underneath Ice House Road that is in the process of failing.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The bottom of it has rusted away a= nd the top of it is now starting to cave in. If you've driven past that road lately there is a cone on it in the = area where it's starting to fail on the top.&nb= sp; It's becoming a public safety issue and it needs to be replaced. Our proposal is to replace it with= a 24 inch reinforced concrete pipe with a 6 x 10 foot rip rap plunge pool at its outlet. For the purposes of estimating impacts, we assume that the entire pipe area, and 2 feet on each side of it, although it's all roadway, but those are the numbers I used, th= at represents about 144 square feet of wetland impacts, the 6 x 10 foot plunge pool is another 60 square feet, for a total of about 204 square feet of whi= ch 144 is added under the road now in a pipe, so it's a pretty minimal impact. On a day like today, = or at least earlier today before the rain storm, there was no water in that pipe. It only flows during ra= instorms. The work will be done in the dry, = hay bale barrier will be placed starting at the downstream end of where the proposed plunge pool is, plunge pool constructed and the pipe replaced under the roadway, probably half the roadway at a time, total time of doing this = is probably less than a couple of days.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 14

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: I'm trying to p= icture where this is. Is Echo lake R= oad here?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Echo Lake would be on the right side of the road.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: If you see where = the culvert is going to be replaced, and you look up the plan sheet here you'll= see a stream crossing, that is the crossing that goes to the sediment ponds that feed into Echo Lake, if that helps with getting your bearings.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: To the right is= Echo Lake but what about Echo Lake R= oad?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Berger: Echo Lake Road would be on top. French Street would be quite a ways= down at the bottom. This particula= r area here, that's the tail of the upper end of Echo Lake.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: Echo Lake is on the right here, you said?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: No, (inaudible) lo= ok at it this way.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, it's confusing. Any questions? So basically it's there, it's rott= ing, the existing one is metal and rotted away so you're just replacing the exis= ting culvert?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Berger: Yes, sir.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Any questions?<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We can't decide on this tonight so= we need a motion to table this application.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table Application #571 of Town of Watertown, Public Works Department for replacement of a drainage culvert under Ice House Road, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

C.      = ; Application #572 of Town of Watertown, Water and Sewer Authority for construction of a pump station near Main Street, Watertown, CT.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by October 14, 20= 06.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Well it's my understanding, water companies are permitted by right and really it's not really anything we would not approve, so we can approve this one tonight.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 15

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Approve Application #572 of Town of Watertown, Water and Sewer Authority for construction of a pump station near Main Street, Watertown, CT subject to standard conditions.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

D.      = ; Application #573 of Heritage Development Group, Inc. for construction of Age Restricted Planned Residential Development on Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   If a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by October 14, 20= 06.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Robert Houlihan

  = ;            &n= bsp;         Mr. Houlihan: My understanding is that this eveni= ng we'll be scheduling a Public Hearing. We've submitted our application, I was told not to make a big presentation this evening, but I'm here to answer any questions that you mi= ght have at this point.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Well no, we're = not obliged to schedule a Public Hearing tonight. I think we wanted to do a site walk first and get a measure of the impacts and then schedule a Public Hearing presumably at our next meeting.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: That's fine. Is it possible to schedule a Public Hearing tonight and do the site walk in the mean time?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: Well we have to= do the site walk first and then . . . .

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: It's possible b= ut we prefer not to.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: You've already = walked this site.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Well but we've = hand changes I understand, there's been some changes in the proposal.=

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Undercuffler: Some of the= roads you didn't know exactly where they were going to go, there were a couple of alternatives.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Houlihan: Yea, I mean at = the time that you walked this site, we were working with a conceptual plan, we'= ve gone through Planning and Zoning on the rezone and then we subsequently done all of our engineering for the job, but we would like to move things along = if that's possible.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 16

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: Did you move th= e road construction the way you explained it to us?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Houlihan: No, the road co= nstruction hasn't moved. The only thing = we've done since the last time we saw you was reduce impacts. We've eliminated a crossing. If you recall when we got up by th= at pond, we came down the bottom side of the pond, there was a crossing on a conceptual plan that we eliminated and now all of the other crossings are exactly where they were before. Originally we had 3/4 of an acre of estimated impact on the wetlands, now we're under 5,000 feet, so on the application I believe it's 4,400 square feet.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: It was an emerg= ency road that we walked?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Houlihan: Yes.=

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: Did you keep it= in the same place or did you move it?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Houlihan: No, it's in the= same place. That we presented to you.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: It was like a farmer's crossing?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Houlihan: Yea, Ken Hrica = made a presentation to you prior to us doing that and presented a couple of alternatives and we went forward with the one you recommended which has the least impact. You're certainly welcome to walk the site, of course, I'm just trying to move things along c= ause I have to go to P & Z.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Well you can do= that concurrently but . . . .

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: I'd love to hav= e a Public Hearing scheduled if that's at all possible and by all means we can walk the site again.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: This is a large development and at this time our office is very short staffed and I want to recommend that you hire somebody to review this, like Land Tech Consultants, like a third party review. An= d the paperwork involved with that process is very lengthy. I have to send the application to = Land Tech, they review it and give me an estimate, then I have to give it to the= applicant, and if they agree with the fee, then I have to send it to the Town Council = for their approval, and it takes awhile, and if you schedule the Public Hearing= now for next month, I'm not going to (inaudible), you don't want to have the Pu= blic Hearing open but have no information for your to look at or any report from Land Tech, so I really suggest to just do the site walk and then next month= you can schedule the Public Hearing if you want. But at the same time tonight, if y= ou want to make a motion to hire Land Tech or anybody else. We usually use Land Tec Consultant= s for a third party review.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: I understand th= at's standard operating procedure for this Board.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 17

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: And it's also o= ne of this magnitude certainly./

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: No, there's no = doubt that that's recommended and required and we'll be glad to review the fee.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: And plus the appli= cation that I received is really, I was expecting like a big application with all = the reports and environmental impact studies and soil report, but there as noth= ing with the application, this is the whole thing that I got, just an applicati= on with these drawings in the back (inaudible). I may ask Land Tech to do the stud= ies for environmental impact study, the soil, they should flag the wetlands and provide a soil report.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: That's all been= done.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: It wasn't part of = the application.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: I'll have to ta= lk to Ken Hrica about that, we can get you that information.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: Whatever you have,= if the Commission decides to hire Land Tech, I want to have everything in a pa= cket and then send it to them for their review.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: Why don't Ken a= nd I meet with you to go over the application and make sure you have everything you n= eed and we'll also go forward with the proposal from Land Tech and schedule a s= ite walk. Why don’t we do t= hat? Cause there's a ton of work that's already been done with soils and wetland flaggings.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: For some reason th= ey didn't give me the report.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: I was not aware= of that, so I'll make sure you have everything you need.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: We had also discu= ssed back when Mary Barton was here as well as Mr. Houlihan, about hiring an independent engineering firm to do the drainage analysis. I know Mary did some leg work on t= hat, I don't know if she ever got to you with some estimated fees.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: I thought Land = Tech was doing that.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: They only do wetlands, don't they?

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: They do everything= .

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: You'd be all right with that?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 18

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: Yes, we're fine= with Land Tech.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: It's a larger sco= pe than normal, just cause if there's a lot of drainage involved and it is a private development it I think the commissions are still looking for the sa= me level of review that we would do if it was a subdivision and in the interes= t of work loads and timing and keeping things moving, if the applicant, which I think he was agreeable to several months ago including the engineering as w= ell.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Well cause you understand this is a highly visible project and everybody in Town will be looking at it.

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Houlihan: We understand t= hat, it took us several months just to put it together and a lot of money so by = all means, if that's something that you require, we'll include that in the scop= e of work with Land Tech. Thank yo= u.

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Schedule a Site Walk for Application #573 of Heritage Development Group, Inc. = for construction of Age Restricted Planned Residential Development on Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Have a Third Party Review for Applicati= on #573 of Heritage Development Grou= p, Inc. for construction of Age Restricted Planned Residential Development on = Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table Application #573 of Heritage Development Group, Inc. for construction of Age Restri= cted Planned Residential Development on Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT.

&nbs= p;

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

&nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 19

7.         = Old Business

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   A.        Referral from Middlebury Conservation Commission concerning County Line Nissan wetla= nd application for an addition to an existing building located on Straits Turnpike, Watertown and Middlebury, CT.<= /st1:place>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: None of their people are even here,= they realize it's a dead issue.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: You received a petition at the last meeting sighed by 25 or 26 people asking for a Public Hearing. This property is located in Middle= bury and also partially within the Town of Watertown. All of the regulated activities th= at they are proposing are in Middlebury and according to the site plan they submitted, I checked to make sure there are no regulated activities within Watertown, and there are none according to that site plan there are no acti= vities in Watertown, not only in the wetlands, but not even in the 50 foot setback area. Mr. Berger also looked = at it and we didn't notice anything that would require an application to come in front of you. At the same tim= e, because we received an application and I wasn't sure legally if this Commis= sion really had to hold a Public Hearing or not, I wrote a memo to Atty. Pilicy = for his review and opinion and if you can look at this report from Atty. Pilicy, the last page he says we don't have to hold a Public Hearing on this issue. But for the record, in= case somebody wants to know what happened with this application, there was a petition, there are some activities within Watertown where they are putting some parking spaces, and that is subject to a site plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If they go in front of the P & Z Commission then these people can ask for = a Public Hearing from Planning and Zoning, not here.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: So the addition is going to be all = in Middlebury?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: The addition to the building is in Middlebury. All of the wetlan= d impacts, if there are any are in Middlebury, nothing in our town, and generally you = know that area, the land flows kind of towards Middlebury, so if there are any drainage or anything that goes into the wetlands, it ends in Middlebury, not Watertown. I didn't notice any direct impact within the wetlands or upland review area.<= /p>
&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: There is paving proposed in Watertown, but as = Moosa said it's outside f the 50 foot setback area and appears to all drain to Middlebury.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: So we don't need to do anything wit= h at.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: Since there was a petition, does th= ere have to be any response to those people?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 20

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: They can get a copy of the minutes = to now what happened here. I kind of already talked to someone from them, and I told them I don't see any activi= ty in Watertown. That is probably why they aren't h= ere tonight. Again, if you want, = I can call the attorney who submitted the petitions and let him know what happene= d at the meeting, and we can give him e a copy of tonight's minutes.<= /span>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: Might not be a bad idea.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, just to finish it off. I was concerned about that after t= he last meeting, how can we have a Public Hearing, we don't even have an applicatio= n so it seemed like a strange situation.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: And at that time I didn't have the = chance to look at the site plan. Aft= er I saw that, there's nothing for us to worry about.

&nb= sp;

8.         = New Business

&nb= sp;

            Mr. Jones: D= enis O'Sullivan called me about 2 weeks ago and our little creek got dirty again. The only thing that's = happened, I'll write a little report to put in the minutes, but the current flow is a bunch of brown, it turned brown some time in the morning around 9:30.<= /o:p>

            Mr. Zawadzki: Brown foam?

            Mr. Jones: N= o, just brown mud, and I didn't get down there until 4:00, I was called around 3:30, and I assumed it occurred then, but I'll be in touch with Ed Senger a= nd I'll get a bottle sample and if it occurs again I'll run down and grab anot= her sample, but otherwise at least Denis knows that somebody is doing something, but he wasn't very happy.

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Did you send it= for testing?

            Mr. Jones: Well I'll get a bottle, and if there s another occurrence, I don't have any samples. I went down to see w= hat it looked like, it looked fine at 4:00 p.m. and I called the Town Engineer and they said they weren't cleaning any sewers or demanding anything so it wasn= 't something that we caused, but Denis was upset because he called the Town Co= mmission here, you folks, at 9:30 in the morning and I didn't get called until 3:30 = p.m. so there was about a 6 hour lapse. He said we should have immediate response.

            Mr. Rafey: I didn't receive a call.

            Mr. Undercuffler: W= ell he knows you're the guy to call.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 21

            Mr. Jones: N= o, he called (inaudible).

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: He (inaudible).

(Tape #5, Side A ended - may have missed some.)

9.         = Communications and Bills

&nb= sp;

      &= nbsp;     None

10.       Repor= ts from Officers and Committees

&nb= sp;

            None

11.       Repor= ts from Staff

None

12.     &n= bsp; Public Participation

&nb= sp;

None=

13.       Adjou= rnment

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. = Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 11:03 p.m.<= /span>

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

  &nbs= p;         MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

  &nbs= p;         Regular Meeting Adjourned at 11:03 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