MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR
MEETING
THURSDAY=
, AUGUST
11, 2005 - 7:30 PM
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Glenn
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
; &n=
bsp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Bernard
Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: =
; Martha
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Denise
Russ
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 9:28 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
Franklin Pilicy, Attorney Representing
Atty. Pilicy: There's an item on t=
he
Agenda later this evening, at my request, that is specifically for Heritage
Development Group for an informal discussion. They will mot be coming tonight du=
e to
the unavailability of one of the principles, so that when you get to that i=
tem,
there will not be anyone here for that item.
Mr. Zawadzki: We'll just Table it.=
Atty. Pilicy: Thank you very much.=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 2
4. =
Action
on Minutes
A. Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 14, 2005, App. #526, P & A Enterprises, LLC
B. =
Continuation
of Public Hearing, July 14, 2005, App. #527, Patrick Graziano
C. Regular
Meeting, July 14, 2005
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table Items 4A through 4C as presented
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
5. =
Pending
Applications
A. Application #526 of P & A Enterprises, LLC f=
or
construction of 3-lot residential subdivision on Ripley Street and Winthrop
Street Extension, Oakville CT.
If the Public Hearing =
is Closed on August 11, 2005, then a decision is required=
by
October 14, 2005.
Mr. Zawadzki: We Closed the Hearing. We can Table it or discuss it and =
vote
on it. Any
comments?
Mr. Undercuffler: Is there any reason to hold off on this? It seems like everything was answe=
red?
Mr. Duplissie: I think we can vote on=
it
tonight, can't we?
Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>Yes.
Mr. Duplissie: Is there any reason no=
t to?
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Not that I'm aware of.=
Mr. Rafey: Chuck, any comments?
Mr. Berger: I think in your Motio=
n for approval
you may want to consider some special construction measures at the house on=
Lot
#3, and the driveway wall on
Mr. Duplissie: If we do approve it, i=
t would
be subject to those construction details that would have to be followed,
correct?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 3
Mr. Rafey: Yes. What about the detention pond, sho=
uld it
be approved the way it is presented and then see if the Planning and Zoning
Commission wants to make it wider or come back?
Mr. Zawadzki: We have to approve i=
t the
way it is presented in my opinion and then if they have to change it, they =
come
back to us.
Mr. Duplissie: The new drawing that he
presented to us with the little line, shows the =
top of
the wall at 10 or 15 feet.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
We're talking about th=
e pond
now.
Mr. Duplissie: Yes, the pond.
Mr. Rafey: And then the 3:1 slope=
.
Mr. Duplissie: That was showing it go=
ing
into the wetlands, so we're not approving that, we're showing it back to th=
e way
it was, 10 foot with a 2:1 slope.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Chuck only brought it =
up because
of P & Z subdivision rules, and while that's important, Mr. Meyers said=
he
was willing to fight that a battle and if he has to change it he will come =
back
and ask for an amendment.
Mr. Duplissie: The drawing that he ha=
nded
us tonight, the way that he showed these details, we're not going to consid=
er
that, it won't be part of our consideration, correct?
Mr. Zawadzki: Correct.
Mr. Rafey: The access way to the
detention pond will be located where it is shown on this map, that is a cha=
nge,
but it's not within the regulated area.
Mr. Duplissie: Correct, the access wa=
y is
part of our consideration, but not the grading and the top of the wall for =
the
detention wall for the detention pond.
Mr. Polletta: =
So those are basically=
the
conditions of approval.
Mr. Duplissie: That would be the cond=
ition,
yes.
Mr. Zawadzki: Because from our standpoint we'd prefer the 10 f=
oot
berm and the 2:1 slope.
Mr. Duplissie: Right, but for no other
reason than it keeps it out of the wetlands. And then if P & Z doesn't acce=
pt
that, and they want 15 foot and 3:1, he'll have to come back to us for an a=
mendment.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 4
Mr. Polletta: We should list the
conditions with the Motion.
Mr. Berger: Can I just make a
suggestion? On the detention =
pond I
don't have the wording for it, but possibly any combination of grading and =
top
width as long as it stays out of the, no direct wetland impacts, allow
revisions that Moosa and I would look at for the access way and top width a=
nd
slope as long as we don't get into the direct wetland impact.
Mr. Duplissie: Correct, cause
if P & Z says we'll take a 12 foot top width and a 2.5:1 slope and it k=
eeps
them out of our wetlands, we don't care, correct?
Mr. Berger: It's within the buffer=
area,
but it's in the buffer area where it's proposed anyway and assuming you're
willing to accept that as an impact . . . .
Mr. Polletta: =
Well I don't think we =
should
list every little item.
Mr. Duplissie: We've already talked s=
o we
don't have to . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: Right, so we don't h=
ave to
list everything, it's subject to conditions and then it will be gone over
between you and Moosa.
Mr. Duplissie: Subject to the terms =
that
were discussed in the open meeting.
Mr. Berger: Well with the understa=
nding,
I think for the house construction on Lot #3 and the retaining wall on the
driveway on Lot #3, we ought to have a specific sequence of construction
outlined on the plans like what you discussed, or as near as what you discu=
ssed
tonight.
Mr. Duplissie: Can we just say subjec=
t to
construction details provided at a later date by Chuck? You can list them to him and have =
him
put that on his drawing.
Mr. Berger: To be worked out bet=
ween
the Zoning Enforcement Officer, the Town Engineer, and the applicant. That's fine. I think we ought to have it writte=
n down
on the plans that finally get approved.
Mr. Duplissie: I agree, so that when
they're doing the on site, he knows he has to follow those steps.
Mr. Berger: It would be all those things that we discussed tonight.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Yea, I don't think tha=
t's a
problem cause basically Mr. Meyers agreed to tha=
t.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 5
Mr. Polletta: =
I want to make sure th=
at
it's spelled out so there's no misunderstanding between you and him, so when
you make the Motion, make sure you pout these conditions into the Motion.
Mr. Duplissie: Yea, it will be subjec=
t to
what we just said, retaining wall or the frost wall constructed in such a
manner that it would be done from the inside rather than the outside, (inau=
dible)
incorporate the silt fence and the extra roll of hay bale which he agreed t=
o, especially
in that corner, he doesn't have to do it for the whole section.
Mr. Zawadzki: In front of the buffe=
r.
Mr. Duplissie: Correct, and for that =
one
particular house, cause he's only 13 feet away from the buffer,
and it's a slope so the hay bales will help, and then the same thing for the
retaining wall for the driveway, so when we make a Motion we should incorpo=
rate
all of those.
Mr. Berger: As well as there are o=
ther
minor technical issues still in my memo, that Te=
rry indicated
tonight wouldn't be a problem to address.
Mr. Zawadzki: Correct, and we close=
d the
Public Hearing on that understanding that things that have already been bro=
ught
out on the table have to be resolved to your satisfaction.
Mr. Duplissie: Terry I think allude=
d to
the fact that he was okay with all of those, and he would correct all of th=
ose.
Mr. Berger: And my understanding=
is
that the correction of those would not have any impact on the wetlands or t=
he
buffer.
Mr. Duplissie: As long as there is =
no
impact.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 6
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr.
Thermer, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Approve Application #526 of P & A Enterprises, LLC for constructio=
n of
3-lot residential subdivision on Ripley Street and Winthrop Street Extensio=
n,
Oakville, CT subject to the construction terms as discussed in our Open Mee=
ting:
&n=
bsp; =
; 1. =
Creation
of a frost wall, the back wall of the house on
&n=
bsp; =
; 2. =
Retaining
wall for the driveway will have to be done from the inside of the lot rather
than on the lower end of the slope, it will be done from the high end and s=
lope
from the high end.
&n=
bsp; =
; 3. =
Detention
pond will be constructed as is on our drawings at existing 10 foot top of s=
lope
and a 2:1 grading or acceptable to P & Z as long as it does not enter i=
nto
the wetlands. If it does ente=
r into
the wetlands, if they change the construction details, that they would move=
the
toe of the slope into the wetlands, that they would have to come back to us=
.
&n=
bsp; =
; As well as subject to standard conditions.
Discussi=
on: Mr. Undercuffler: Then there was the thing about cer=
tain
information on the construction sequence.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: I think you discussed those issues=
and
it will be in the permit. I w=
ill
review the Minutes of this meeting and I will list all of the issues that w=
ere
discussed.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: And when (inaudible) notes mention=
ed by
Chuck as far as all the terms that we talked in Open Meeting with Mr. Meyers
and agreed to, as long as they don't affect or add any more to the wetlands=
.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: All of which to be incorporated on=
the
final drawings.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Plus the standard conditions.
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 7
B. Application #527= of Patrick Graziano for construction of an 11-lot residential subdivision and associated roadways, Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Grove Court, Watertown, CT= .
If Public Hearing is <=
span
class=3DGramE>Closed on August 11, 2005, then a decision is required=
by October
14, 2005.
Mr. Zawadzki: Same thing here. We need to discuss and either Tabl=
e it
or vote on it.
Mr. Undercuffler: Is there any reason =
not to
vote on this? Is there anythi=
ng
really up in the air that needs resolution?
Mr. Berger: The only thing that I
would suggest is that if you make a Motion to approve, that it contains a
condition that I have the ability to review the report that was handed out
tonight and make any final comments.
I expect those to be just minor technical comments.
Ms. Sturgis: The trail as defined=
is
just a bunch of signs.
Mr. Zawadzki: Right. I don't have any other comments, a=
nd I
don’t know of any reason why we can't vote on it.
Mr. Duplissie: No, I realize there w=
as
this alternative that was handed out to us tonight, but it really doesn't
pertain to what we're doing tonight.
We have a set of plans that were presented to us and that's what we'=
re
reviewing. We're not going to=
an
alternative that's in the sky at this point, some pipe dream. What we have in front of us and I =
think
that's the best set of plans that we've come up with so far, they've agreed=
to
our terms and I think that's what we should vote on tonight.
MOTION: (Mr. = Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Approve Application #527 of Patrick Graziano for construction of an 11-lot residential subdivision and associated roadways, Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Grove Court, Watertown, CT subject to the conditions that we have discussed, the review of the document that was prov= ided as long as it meets with Mr. Berger's satisfaction and that there is no increased impact by the trail, and subject to regular conditions.
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 8
If a Public Hearing is=
not
held, then a decision is required by September 17, 2005 unless applicant gr=
ants
a time extension.
Mr. Zawadzki: We went out there, w=
e saw
the site. Any
questions? I think we'=
re
pretty well set.
MOTION: (Mr. = Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Approve Application #530 of Richard and Jill Frey for construction of a shed within regulat= ed area at 53 Lilac Avenue, Oakville, CT with the standard conditions.<= /p>
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; D. Application
#531 of Lynn Nelson for construction of 13-lot subdivision and new roadway =
on
&=
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.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki; We just need a =
very
brief overview on this because we're going to take a site walk and schedule=
a Public
Hearing, sorry, I still have to take a site walk, so that's the next step, =
so
just give us a quick overview.
Emily Jones, E=
ngineer
Civil One
Ms. Jones: Just as a brief overview, the
subject in question is located on
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 9
The question was whe=
ther
this was going to have any negative effect on the wetlands in any way. And in thinking about it, and I in=
cluded
our drainage area map here tonight.
We have basically 3 drainage areas on site. There's a small area over here that
follows the woods line that drains off to the west. There's a large area to the northe=
ast
that drains to the wetlands above this property (inaudible) over here and t=
hen
a large area also in the middle that includes most of the development, the
roadway and such that eventually drains into a sedimentation basin into the=
(inaudible)
pond, and in thinking about this issue, normally when we see a big decrease=
in
runoff it's because we've redirected a lot of the storm water from what was
originally going, it was collected in the road to a different location. And in this case we really have a =
minor
change, almost no change at all in the final resting place I guess, of the
storm water from existing proposed conditions. So basically what that's telling u=
s is
that even at the peak of rate, as this overland flow comes into this farm p=
ond
here, that's the amount of flow is pretty much the same. This means that
because we're changing it from cornfield and almost all of the flow is over=
land
into the ponds. We're adding =
lawn
area, so that means that a lot of that will infiltrate into the ground and =
will
travel to the pond because that's where it goes now about (inaudible) exist=
ing
grade leaves the subsurface flow it will travel much more slowly to the pon=
d as
subsurface flow and so it will not be negatively impacting this wetlands or=
the
pond. In fact during dry times
where a big rush of water, say you get a big storm like (inaudible) lately =
that
really don't help the situation of the pond, this is a little different.
Mr. Polletta: When we were on the site walk,= we looked at the pond and where it crosses the road, you said that you would c= heck that out and see if it was big enough?
Ms. Jones: I didn't do any calculations. I can do calculations. Our reason was if it's sufficient =
now
and there's less water rushing through it at a lesser rate, then it would b=
e sufficient
tin the future. I guess we we=
re
just using a practical . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: (I= naudible.).
Ms. Jones: It's a=
32
inch pipe which is fairly large. It
discharges across CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2005 PAGE 10 Mr. Duplissie:
Ms. Jones: When I looked at the pipe it's= kind of blocked under existing conditions so it will have to be cleaned out, but I'll look at, maybe with the (inaudible) by putting the flow that we're anticipating to a 32 inch pipe and also look at the cover on the pipe under existing and proposed conditions.
Mr. Duplissie:
Ms. Jones: Yea, I wasn't aware of that.
Mr. Duplissie:
Ms. Jones: There are areas on the propert= y that are not cornfield, but are grassy meadows, and (inaudible) some areas are brushy and I've taken all of those groundcovers into consideration, but yet= the majority we used cornfields.
Mr. Duplissie:
Mr. Berger: It's a tough call. You do get into a gray area. We have allowed that practice of u= sing existing, cause that's what it is, an existing cornfield, I've allowed peop= le to use that in their drainage calculations.
Mr. Duplissie:
Mr. Berger: In fact we've had that happen = and one other developer tried to make that claim, it was corn in the past so I = can use this rationale, but I said no, it's not corn now, i= t's grass, you've been haying it for years, that's what the numbers are and tha= t's what you have to use.
Mr. Duplissie:
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 11
Mr. Zawadzki: Which is worse?
Mr. Berger: Cornfield.
Mr. Zawadzki: So it seems to be that you don= 't have a problem with that, it makes for a worse case scenario.
Mr. Berger: Not necessarily, because if yo=
u let
it go for a year and it turns to hayfields, and then you come in to put hou=
ses
and road in there, your numbers are going to be different, you may have to
provide detention. What I
Ms. Jones: There's still a difference curb number of lawn and pavement also. Hay meadow does have a higher curb number, runoff number than lawns = for the lower ones than cornfield.
Mr. Duplissie:
Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions from the s= ite walk?
Mr. Rafey: If you want to hold a Public H= earing then you can discuss those issues at the Public Hearing.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) that Application #531 of Lynn Nelson for construction of 13-lot subdivision and new roadway on Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT is a Significant Activity.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Schedule a Public Hearing for Application #531 of Lynn Nelson for construction of 13-lot subdivision
and new roadway on
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 12
&=
nbsp; E. =
Application
#532 of Mark and Susan Cote for construction of a plunge pool and installat=
ion
of rip rap in a watercourse at
&=
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.
Mr. Zawadzki: We were pretty satisfied but couldn't make a decision at our last meeting due to our regulations.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. = Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Approve App= lication #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 subject to standard conditions and construction details as presented by the applicant.=
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
6. &n=
bsp; New
Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Application
#533 of Concetta Guerrera for piping a watercourse and filling wetlands to
provide rear yard for a new single family dwelling on Lot 3 Stony Brook Lan=
e, Watertown,
CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by October 14, 2005=
.
Pat Salvadore,
Attorney Representing Applicant
Atty. Salvadore:<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This application is to fill approximately 1,400 square feet of an existing drainage swale to provide fo= r a suitable rear yard for a 4 bedroom dwelling on 2.07 acres. The area directly upstream from the drainage swale of this proposed activity was previously filled and piped fo= r an access driveway. Essentially = what we're attempting to do here is just extend that activity to allow for a larger re= ar yard. The existing wetland is about 150 upstream of a pond and as you can see, the proposed area of wetland disturb= ance would be right here. The area directly above where we propose to fill line has been piped because there's= a subdivision above this, and essentially what we're attempting to do here is fill in this area of wetland to extend that.
Mr. Polletta: When you say fill activity, do you = mean extend the pipe or the pipe is already in?
Mr. Salvadore= : No, extend the pipe as well as fil= l in about 1,400 square feet of wetlands.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 13
Mr. Zawadzki: So basically you're laying dow= n pipe and burying it, covering it?
Mr. Salvadore: Th= at is correct.
Mr. Duplissie: Mr. Salvadore: Th=
at is
correct. Mr. Duplissie: Ho=
w old
is this subdivision? Mr. Rafey: I think it's a (inaudible) Mr. Salvadore: Mr. Zawadzki: Well to keep it brief, we're
definitely going to have to go out there and take a look at it ourselves, so
that would be the next thing for us to do.=
If he's got any relevant comments he can make now, that's okay, brie=
fly. Brian Lesteriak, Professional Engineer, D'Amico Associates Mr. Lesteriak: Ju=
st to
clarify this was part of the Hidden Pond Estates that was done back in 1996=
, I
think. Th=
e driveway
to access this rear lot that was part of this subdivision that was approved
through the Wetlands Commission to fill in that area and pipe it. Mr. Zawadzki: Wer=
e you
involved in that development in 1996? Mr. Lesteriak: I =
was
not. Mr. Zawadzki: Was=
your
firm? Mr. Lesteriak: Ye=
s,
D'Amico Associates did do the drawing for it, yes. Mr. Duplissie: Wo=
uld it
be possible to get a copy of those drawings so we can see them, cause right=
now
all we have is this little site plan and we have (inaudible) it would be ni=
ce
to see the overview of where that's coming from and where it's going. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2005 PAGE 14 Mr. Rafey: Yes, t=
here
is a subdivision map in the office that I can make a copy for you next mont=
h. Mr. Duplissie: Th=
en
we'll have it for the site walk and the regular meeting. Mr. Lesteriak: We=
still
have the originals of all the maps if you need them. Mr. Zawadzki: Any=
other
questions? Mr. Rafey: A soil
scientist report was submitted with the application that was originally
provided for the entire subdivision and that was not for this lot. Can you contact your soil scientis=
t to
just check this lot and submit a report of where the watercourse is and whe=
re
the edge of the wetlands are on the property? Mr. Lesteriak: Yo=
u'd
like a (inaudible)? Mr. Rafey: Yes, b=
efore
we go to the site walk. Mr. Zawadzki: Or =
if it
was done and we just don't have a copy of it, then just provide us with a c=
opy. Mr. Lesteriak: Th=
e soil
report included the entire subdivision which included this lot at the time.=
Mr. Rafey: It doe=
s not
even mention that there is a watercourse there, it doesn't talk about
individual lots, it talks about the entire
subdivision. Mr. Lesteriak: Ri=
ght, which included this.&=
nbsp;
We can try to get more information. Mr. Rafey: Can we=
have
some specific about this piece of property and how the water goes through i=
t? Mr. Lesteriak: Ye=
s. Mr. Zawadzki: It =
would
be nice to have the flag locations for the site walk. Mr. Lesteriak: We=
'll
certainly try to get the soil scientist out there for that. Will you determine the date of the=
site
walk tonight? Mr. Zawadzki: Yes=
. Mr. Lesteriak: It=
's a
20 foot ditch, 20 feet deep, so you'll know exactly where it is, but I'll t=
alk
to the soil scientist. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2005 PAGE 15 Mr. Duplissie: So
there's no specific house planned for this specific site yet so you don't h=
ave
a house ready to go? Mr. Lesteriak: No=
. Mr. Zawadzki: We =
would
probably want to see where the watercourse is, but that doesn't determine w=
here
the actual wetlands are. It w=
ill be
September 10th. Mr. Lesteriak: I'=
ll
talk to the soil scientist and get him out there, I'm sure it won't be a pr=
oblem. Mr. Rafey: It wou=
ld be
helpful if he were present at the site walk. MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table and Schedule a Site Walk for Application #533 of Concetta Guerrera for =
piping
a watercourse and filling wetlands to provide rear yard for a new single fa=
mily
dwelling on Lot 3 Stony Brook Lane, Watertown, CT. &=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY &=
nbsp; MOTION: Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Add Agenda Item 6B, Application #535.<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY &=
nbsp; B. =
Application
#535 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: You can just Table this. At the next month's meeting you can
review this and the applicant can explain it. It's basically an addition to an
existing house, the address is &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: ( &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Discussion: None<=
o:p> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2005 PAGE 16 7. &n=
bsp; Old
Business A. =
Frank Stack Application to Amend the Existing CCIWA
Permit #529 concerning an existing access way/driveway at Mr. Zawadzki: I guess you found th=
e soil
scientist's report, right? Mr. Stack: I believe the first one who did it was Cynthia
Rabinowitz out of
Frank Stack, Applicant
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Is that a fence or a gate?
Mr. Stack: Just a chain across so people couldn’t dri=
ve
down and around at night. Tha=
t's
been pretty much since the last meeting.&n=
bsp;
As far as the soil, this is where that line is, there is a piece of
barbed wire that goes through the trees, there's also 6 flags that mark the
wetlands, and I didn't touch any of it.&nb=
sp;
Where it says UA soils there, the grassy part, pretty much everything
has been disturbed there at one time or another. That part of the farm was a dump, =
so in
the front part to the tree line was always hayed, and it's up very, very hi=
gh
and you said not to touch that area until this is all resolved and that's w=
hat
it's doing.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Basically concerned with from
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 17
Mr. Duplissie: There was some excavation and some disturbance t=
hat
had been approved, but at this point (inaudible) roadway all the way in
basically to where the (inaudible) and that was not approved. The only thing we approved was tha=
t he
had gone in and disturbed some area, but we didn't approve a road. We asked him to put some wood chip=
s on
it, and within minutes he said he would seed it and hay it, and that's what=
we
agreed to. We did not agree t=
o him
putting down rip rap and gravel, never mind what he had done previously now=
all
the way back to Smith Pond Road.
Mr. Stack: The part that's on Smith Pond Road is out of your
jurisdiction because I am out of the 50 foot buffer to a point probably 50 =
feet
into the property and then where this little piece arcs in there, that's al=
so
been disturbed, and I have not touched it because all the trees and growth =
are
still there from, the wetland scientist went in there and did his thing.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> How far is the wetland from the edg=
e of
the road to where you removed all the debris? How far is the stone that you put =
in to
the edge of the water? It's n=
ot
wetlands in that area?
Mr. Stack: No.
Mr. Rafey: If you look on this map, this gray area is wetla=
nds
on Mr. Stack's property. Ther=
e is a lot of wetlands on the Y property behind this lin=
e.
Mr. Polletta: No, but from where he built that road, which was=
in
question because as you remember, a couple of people questioned me about th=
at
road, did we do any study on that to see if that was a road before?
Mr. Berger: I haven't had an opportunity to look at aerial
photos, I apologize.
Mr. Polletta: So in other words along the road, over here, thi=
s is
not wetlands?
Mr. Sta=
ck: That's not wetlands.
Mr.
Duplissie: Along this excavated a=
rea
here where he put gravel, it's not showing any wetlands here on the Y prope=
rty
but the road is right on the property line, and the Y property as it drops =
off
that 2 feet where he stepped off to pick up the glass and stuff, that's all
wetlands, and we don't see that here, even though it's not his property
it’s not flagged as wetlands, although that is definitely within 50 f=
eet
of wetlands where he put the gravel.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 18
Mr. Stack: =
Yes it is, yes it most certainly is=
within
50 feet of the wetlands.
Mr. Raf=
ey: The area that Mr. Polletta is questioning, that =
NA?
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> No, I'm asking along the road.
Mr. Raf=
ey: Yes, it's an NA, and that is a soil type. The scientist said that was a fill=
ed
area, and I called him today to see when this happened, in the past or just=
because
Mr. Stack put this driveway. =
He
said it's very hard because some of those materials are old.
Mr. Stack: =
When he went down with an auger, he=
would
pull up little pieces of glass, he would pull up wood, all stuff, and I
didn’t put that there. =
It's
from years and years . . . . . .
Mr. Raf=
ey: This is the only wetland area on Mr. Stack's
property, this gray area. Thi=
s area
on the Y property is wetlands. The
driveway is within the 50 foot buffer zone, there's no doubt.
Mr. Sta=
ck: And that's why I'm here, the original complaint =
that
I was silting up Smith Pond, and Mr. Polletta, I wish these people that cal=
led
you would come here and talk about the problem.
Mr.
Polletta: I went to look at a jo=
b and
they are your neighbors, and somebody questioned if this was a road before,
that's why I asked, so we still don't know today if that was a pass way that
they used all the time or if it was a road?
Mr. Stack: =
It was an existing pass way farm ro=
ad for
years but also it was grown up and over since I bought the property. The canopy of trees is there.
Mr.
Polletta: I just want to make su=
re, if
somebody raises a question, you have to answer it, so that's why I asked the
question. It probably was a
passageway, grass, but not gravel, but you put the gravel in.
Mr. Duplissie: I guess the point of all of this is, regardless =
if
there was a road, a driveway, a farm road, if it was there, it's there. Unless it was a main highway, it's
within 50 feet of the wetlands and in order to do anything it has to come t=
o us
for approval. You can't excav=
ate,
it requires a permit. You can=
't go
in and fill, it requires a permit.
You can't put gravel on it, it requires a permit. This Commission has to approve any=
thing,
you don't do it first and then come to us for approval. Is that correct?
Mr. Raf=
ey: Yes, and this is what happened.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 19
Ms. Sturgis: You said that you put the gravel in=
and
did it out of sequence. (Inaudible?)
Mr. Sta=
ck: There should have been a permit if I was within =
the
50 foot buffer and if I was required to flag the wetlands of the Y, I would
have done that. I wasn't requ=
ired
to do that. I (inaudible) fla=
gged
it after I went through every step I was supposed to, so now the front part=
of
the road which is out of the 5 foot buffer of the wetlands is there, that's=
in
question, I think it clearly shows, you can measure it yourself, aside for =
applying
for a zoning permit to connect a barn to a house that has an access road th=
at
was already there, and the most logical place on that property to get back =
for
safety issues to clean up, which is originally what I was doing there, one =
thing
flowed into the other, they said I needed a permit because somebody said I =
was
polluting the lake. I was wor=
king
down from the lake on the other side of the dam so when I was told it looks
like wetlands to me, we assumed I was within the 50 foot area, so I pulled a
permit and did what I had to do. This
has been going on since November, I believe it's at the end of the Summer, I'd like to complete it and pick up the
garbage. That's all I want to=
do,
no more, no less.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well I think the permit you had that we approved
before allows you to do that. I
think the issue here in my mind, and you keep bringing up this thing about a
safety issue, I think the whole thing is you're trying to replace the exist=
ing
access road back to the cottages with this other road, so that doesn't sound
like a safety thing to me.
Mr.
Stack: I have people who rent=
the
places, they've been rented ever since, we'll go back to 1929, and some peo=
ple
still come back form the previous owners, and without an access road up the=
re, you
would put on on the top, one where one is existing to be less of an impact,=
but
I guess because there are wetlands on the Y and on this little piece of
property on the lower part now, but I did not touch any of the wetlands par=
t,
even on the wetlands side it said it was disturbed previously . Now the zig zag wall, I did talk t=
o the
Traver's sometime between now and last November, I'm 99% sure they said they
used to keep pigs down there, so maybe the pigs disturbed (Tape #2, Side B
ended - may have missed some).
(MOST OF TAPE #3, SIDE A, DID NOT RECORD.)
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Either that or put it back the way =
it
was.
Mr. Dup=
lissie: I think it should be put back the way it was, th=
at
the gravel should be removed and the area that was disturbed should be put
back, seeded and hayed, if he wants to drive over it we can't do anything a=
bout
that, but I think that it should be filled the way it is right now.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 20
Mr. Polletta: If we remove all of the existing stuff, will it =
make
it worse than it is?
Mr. Zaw=
adzki: Of course it would.
Mr. Duplissie: I think that if it's done properly, put hay bale=
s on
the lower side of it, go in and take a backhoe and remove the gravel, put t=
he
loam back down and seed it (inaudible) go back to the field the way it was.=
Mr.
Stack: Should I bring in 5 6 =
loads
of trucks of garbage and 4 or 5 junk cars and whatever was there?
Mr. Duplissie: We had already given you permission, we agreed, =
we
said it was nice (inaudible).
Mr. Sta=
ck: I'm still not (inaudible) as far as picking up t=
he debris
and the glass and everything there and there's still probably 4 or 5 pickup
trucks worth of stuff in there.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> I would like to think about this a =
little
longer and it seems like we're just going back and forth, give our engineer=
a
chance to look at it before we jump to conclusions. We don't want to make it any worse=
than
it is, but if it was a place where people went before, maybe we can think a
little bit different.
Mr. Dup=
lissie: Regardless of whether it was someplace that peop=
le
went before, if you have an existing road, if you want to widen it,
construction in that road, put a 4 inch pipe to cross that road, you have to
come to us for approval first. And
if that was done then there would be construction practices that would be f=
ollowed,
silt fence, hay bales, etc., and then it would be seeded properly and Chuck=
would
have reviewed that to make sure it was done. Right now that's not done. Right now to stop any problems the=
re
should be hay bales put on the lower side all the way down before we decide
whether or not to even (inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Maybe it's something we can think a=
bout
before we do it, so we don't make it any worse than it is, maybe slope it a
different way, so I don't think we should vote on it tonight.
Mr. Dup=
lissie: We don't have to vote on it tonight as long as
there's an extension if we need one, so that there is no erosion through the
gravel into the wetlands, I think that lower side of that whole road should=
be
hay baled so that nothing filters down into there.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 21
Mr. Stack: =
Before we do that it's already
established, where there's little ferns, little trees, everything already
growing up through there and there has been no impact on the wetlands and
there's no silt down there and I made very sure of it. I have 6, 8 inches of wood chips g=
oing
down through there, and to do anything, hay bales would disturb the wetland=
s,
not improve them right now. I=
wish
you would have recused yourself from this because I really feel that you're
attacking me personally.
Mr. Dup=
lissie: That has nothing to do with that.
Mr. Stack: =
I personally feel it.
Mr.
Jones: Mr. Chairman, if he ha=
d come
to us at the time that he should have, in order to do this according to wha=
t he
did, and we had suggested to whom certain requirements like the hay bales,
maybe we would have come up with a bunch of requirements that he could have=
met
and so even though he is sort of a little bit late and he's done what he's
done, but if he went back and met the requirements that we would have requi=
red
had he been here a year ago, perhaps that would satisfy everybody. It's too late now, but at the same=
time
it's a matter of fence saving, isn't it?&n=
bsp;
How can we resolve this problem?
Mr. Stack: =
I want a conclusion to this, not an
extension on anything here. I=
have
800 feet of frontage, it would have been so much easier to go on the top pa=
rt
and build, but it seemed like the right thing to do was pick up the garbage,
get rid of everything and make it look nice. And that's exactly what I've done =
to
this piece of property.
Mr. Dup=
lissie: But two wrongs don't make a right.
Mr.
Stack: Absolutely not and at =
this
point, I don't feel looking back I probably would have done the same thing =
and
we'd have the same mess, but looking back on it right now, and if I could t=
urn
back the hands of time, I would have come here and said okay fine, even tho=
ugh
I don't have, I'm assuming that, one thing in life, I really don't make ass=
umptions. I did not do anything wrong. I want to be part of the conclusio=
n to
this, not part of the tortuous part on your part or my part.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> I'd like to look at this and maybe =
put
some protections not to go into the wetlands of the Y, or maybe a small fen=
ce,
I would like to look at it further before we vote on it tonight.
Mr.
Stack: I would also like to s=
ay the
rest of the garbage I will be picking up is in the wetlands on the Y side.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> They've given me permission to go =
in and
pick up the garbage. I'm sure=
the
wetlands came from the garbage of this spot because there is no way that th=
e Y
is going to bring this stuff over there (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 22
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Up that road with a car, goes into =
the
wetlands, right now there is no protection at all and that road doesn’=
;t
belong there, so if we can look at it and study it a little more maybe we c=
an
come up with a (inaudible) solution.
Mr. Zaw=
adzki: Well my concern is that we go in there and take
something out, it will just make it worse than what we have now, and then w=
e'd
have to put silt fence and hay bales.
Mr. Polletta: I'm not talking about removing stuff, maybe do something to the side of the Y that we=
will
not have somebody drive off the road.
Mr. Zawadzki: W=
ell my
suggestion is to just leave it the way it is and not put anymore gravel.
Mr. Duplissie:
Hay bales on the low side and just bring =
in a
couple loads of loam, out it over the gravel, seed it, and let it stabilize,
and there's nothing washing to the ground.
Ms. Sturgis: L=
et's
supposed he (inaudible) permit. Even the fact =
that
that whole area had obviously (inaudible) would we have allowed him to do t=
hat
gravel? It's unfortuna=
te
that we're doing this backwards, but maybe we're better off just leaving it=
the
way it is.
Mr. Zawadzki: I=
t's
hard to say. Probably
so with conditions and hay bales and no more excavation or intrusion.
Mr. Rafey: W=
hat is
there is there, the impact is there.
Mr. Duplissie:
I'd like to stop the use of the road though. If we're going to allow it to stay=
where
we're not going to do any more excavation, I'd like the whole road blocked =
off
at the road so that no trucks are going in and out of there, cause if you're
going to have traffic on there, cause you have gravel now, you're going to =
have
traffic going in and out. One=
car
is going to pass another, the wheels are going to go off the gravel into the
mud, you'll create more erosion so if we're going to allow it to let it
stabilize (inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: Let's just look at t=
his a
little closer and then next month we can decide and come up with some ideas=
, that's my opinion.
Mr. Rafey: It's up to you, but
there's nothing else to do.
Mr. Polletta: I saw in
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 23
Mr. Zawadzki: But if we stipulate =
no
more construction, no more filling, grading, that sort of thing, then there=
's
nothing else to . . . .
Mr. Polletta: Close the road like Mr. Duplissie said or otherwise protect the
wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well it's not a road=
, it's
a driveway.
Mr. Duplissie: Well it's a driveway t=
hat's
being used to access the back lots.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, but I wouldn't =
say there
would be passing traffic, for example.
Mr. Duplissie: Yea, but if one car is
coming in and the other is coming out, you're going to be, it's not wide en=
ough
to have two cars in there, so you'll be driving in the mud and the grass ov=
er
there.
Mr. Undercuffler: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Duplissie: Correct. So that's exactly what's going to =
happen.
So either=
we put
it back to the way it was or close off the road and just let it sit there a=
nd
it will eventually grow grass right through the gravel he brought in.
Mr. Stack: It's getting a little
ridiculous on what you want me to do.
I would like to say a lot of things that I think we should do in your
house but I just, this is
Mr. Jones: Mr. Stack, what was =
in
your view as to the possibility, I know you want the road to stay open, how=
ever
it works out you want the road to be functional, if you were to agree to le=
ave
all the trash where it is and just give up that old project, just leave it =
there,
it's been there for years anyhow, put in the hay bales and anything else th=
is
Commission requires to protect any other disturbance, and in exchange when =
that
is done, agree that you won't do any more without a permit, and at the same
time we agree that you have a right of way and you can use that road for yo=
ur
cottages? I'm looking for a w=
ay
that everybody can be happy cause right now nobo=
dy is
happy.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 24
Mr. Stack: Right, no one is happy=
so
there should be some solution to it.
I think the hay bales are a waste of time but if that's what you wan=
t,
(inaudible) and established and it makes no sense, but I'll do that if that=
's
what is required. I personall=
y feel
that all I've done is improve the quality of the wetlands. I've taken the outhouses out which=
have
water running from the road into there, right directly into the pond. I didn't have to do that,
I did because it was stinky. =
If
anything I've improved the quality of Smith Pond and improved the quality of
the wetlands and the garbage that was down there, and it was severe garbage=
.
Mr. Zawadzki: I think that's a good
suggestion. Ron, if we just
stipulate that, leave well enough alone, and whatever is still in there, ju=
st
leave it in there and let it deteriorate by its own natural means instead of
going in and digging it out with equipment, because that just disrupts thin=
gs
that much more and disturbs the ecosystem.
Mr. Stack: My concern was for my
children cause they like to play and pick up critters and that's why I want=
ed
the glass and stuff out of there, and removed and all that mess, that's all=
it
was, no more, no less.
Mr. Zawadzki: At this point the qu=
estion
is to Amend Application #529 and that's what we need to vote on, make a
decision, or Table it, or to Approve it, or Not Approve it.
Mr. Polletta: I would like to Tabl=
e it
so we can talk about this and maybe look at it one more time.
Mr. Rafey: If you want to talk =
about
it, you have to talk at the meeting.
Mr. Undercuffler: And you're going to =
need
an extension too.
Mr. Rafey: Yes. What are you looking for exactly?<= o:p>
Mr. Polletta: #1 if that was a roa=
d,
then I would like engineering to look at it and #2, I'd like a protection a=
long
the wetlands that we don't have.
And I know that the road is in, the more we touch it the worse it is,
but is there another way that we can protect the wetlands?
Mr. Undercuffler: There ought to be so=
me
signs indicating that is wetlands and to keep out to protect them.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 25
Mr. Stack: I think that would b=
e a
good idea. There is also a we=
ll up
there, which was another part of it, level with the ground, it's probably n=
ot very
deep, but enough for a kids to drown or get hurt=
. It's covered up with a piece of pl=
ywood,
I tried to secure it down, but kids play in it and they do things cause the=
y're
kids. And it happens at night=
time,
and I'm sure if we go out there now there is sti=
ll some
kids out there fishing on the pond.
It's not a bad thing for them and I try not to, I don't really kick
them, off, (inaudible) kicks them off sometimes, there'=
s
a lot worse things they can do than fishing. I guarantee if we go up there now =
they'd
be there and every now and then there are beer cans around and they do what
kids do, and so be it.
Mr., Undercuffler: Maybe the well shoul=
d be
filled in with rocks or something.
Mr. Stack: The well is (inaudib=
le).
Mr. Undercuffler: Is it used at all?
Mr. Stack: No, we used it for
drinking water and that's for the cottages, 5 cottages, but that went to th=
e top
cottage and there was an outhouse down there that I removed also.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well if you're concer=
ned
about the safety, maybe that should be filled in=
.
Mr. Stack: Yea, I wanted to bui=
ld
something like a stone peak over it to make it look architecturally nice, p=
ut a
little spicket out to the water would just kind of free flow like they used=
to
have down by Black Rock, but if that's what has to be done, the water is on=
ly
going to come, whatever, I'm just kind of frustrated at the whole thing rig=
ht
now (inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, we have until =
the
18th, which is only a week from tonight to make a decision or else we need =
to
get an extension from the applicant or make a vote tonight.
Ms. Sturgis: Well do the engineer=
s have
any suggestions? I don't know=
, I
don't think hay bales will do anything either (inaudible).
Mr. Berger: I haven't seen the s=
ite.
Mr. Undercuffler: I don't think hay ba=
les, I
mean it's pretty flat, the road is flat.
Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible.)
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 26
Mr. Stack: Everything is already
seeded and started (inaudible) trees, probably 2,000 or 3,000 little trees =
this
big all along, going in through, so you can see that nothing has been going=
up through
there on the sides.
Mr. Undercuffler: My reaction is just =
to
leave everything the way it is but I'm . . . .
Mr. Rafey: Don't touch it again=
.
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, but my concern =
is
that all of a sudden we've got a thoroughfare going through there.
Mr. Duplissie: That's exactly right=
. It's one thing to say that's it, l=
eave
it, don't touch it, cause that's probably the prudent thing to do at this
point, if that is what was going to happen, but it's not going to be that, =
it's
going to be a traveled thoroughfare, and that's the point, it's going to be
used continuously now which will continue to damage the wetlands, cause the=
re
will be erosion the cars are going to travel over it, the gravel is going to
move down, you're going to have siltation cause it's going to be disturbed
continuously, so if we're going to leave it, it should be left and not be u=
sed
(inaudible).
Mr. Stack: Mr. Duplissie, my ne=
xt
thing is, we can abandon that road and that road can stay. Now the next solution to it is mov=
e it
30, 40 feet up where there's a more severe cut where we don't have to deal =
with
the wetlands, myself, or if the Y wanted to do it, and there's certain thin=
gs
that I can't disclose to you now, and that would impact the wetlands 30 tim=
es
more than it would right now, cause we're on the steep part of the grade, t=
here
are trees that come down . . . . . .
Mr. Duplissie: But if it impacted t=
he wetlands
30 times more we wouldn't approve it.
Mr. Stack: But you wouldn't hav= e the opportunity to approve because I'm outside of your 50 foot regulated area.<= o:p>
Mr. Duplissie: Yea, but if you're o=
utside
of the 50 foot regulated area, it doesn't matter, if you're doing construct=
ion
that will impact the wetlands, that still impacts the wetlands . . .
Mr. Stack: Absolutely.
Mr. Duplissie: So you still have (i=
naudible).
Mr. Stack: Within your 50 feet.=
Am I missing something? If I'm outside=
of the
wetlands I still . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 27
Mr. Undercuffler: No, it can be outsid=
e of
the wetlands and still impact the wetlands, in which case we could still
disapprove it.
Mr. stack: <=
/span>I
have 800 feet of frontage to do it and the most logical place is to put it
there (inaudible) it's not like it's (inaudible).
Many people talking at=
once,
(inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: I think abandonment is the best part so that you're not traveling =
it
and not doing any more damage. If
we're going to say don't do anything to it anymore, not put any more dirt or
loam over the top of it, then leave it, but abandon it, close it off so that
it's not used. That's my
suggestion.
Ms. Sturgis: I wouldn't be comfor=
table
doing that unless a lawyer told me I had a right to tell somebody to close =
off
their road.
Mr. Polletta: And even if you clos=
e it,
you can't police it. Somebody=
is
going to use it.
Ms. Sturgis: I don’t think =
we can
do that.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well the only way we=
could
do that is to just not approve it.
Mr. Duplissie: Is to not approve it a=
nd
then have him remove it.
Mr. Stack: But it was there bef=
ore
also.
Mr. Duplissie: The gravel wasn't th=
ere and
(inaudible).
Mr. Stack: Even if I do and I g=
o down
there and when I told you when I originally came here I got stuck in a back=
hoe
coming through there cause it's a heavier machine than a tractor, I can tak=
e a
4 wheel drive and drive up and down there all day long, and I don't get
stuck. I got stuck with a bac=
khoe,
I pulled myself out, and that was it, and that's when Moosa came up there, I
think, we talked, he said I needed a permit (inaudible) wetlands, and that's
why I'm here.
Mr. Polletta: Can you give us an
extension so we can think about this a little longer?
Mr. Stack: Absolutely.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 28
Mr. Polletta: Because it looks lik=
e we
have different ideas. That's =
what I
believe we should do, and do it next month, cause it
looks like we're going around and around so we should think about it a litt=
le
bit and come up with some fresh ideas for next month and make a decision.
Mr. Undercuffler: Sounds good to me.
Ms. Sturgis: Yes.
Mr. Zawadzki: Are you willing to g=
ive us
a 35 day extension?
Mr. Stack: Absolutely.
Mr. Berger: Not seeing the site,=
just
a possible suggestion, should we request a map that shows the wetlands not =
only
on Mr. Stack's property but also on the adjoining Y property and a site plan
that shows exactly where the 50 foot buffer is on the driveway as it exists
today so we're scaling and talking, but in order to gather more information=
, we
can look at aerial photos.
Mr. Polletta: But I thought the ae=
rial photos was going to give you some kind of information?=
Mr., Duplissie: But the aerial photos
won't give us the wetlands.
Mr. Polletta: No, I'm talking abou=
t the
roadway.
Mr. Berger: Maybe those two piec=
es, or
I don't know how many pieces of information are available, but we can certa=
inly
do an aerial photo search, but I think having the wetlands mapped on the Y's
property and a 50 foot buffer shown on an engineered possibly something tha=
t we
can scale from, that is drawn to scale that shows existing conditions up th=
ere,
that would give you the whole picture, I would think, to make a decision.
Mr. Rafey: I don't know if you =
need
permission from the Y to go on their property to do any investigation.
Mr. Duplissie: He has permission to=
go in
and remove the garbage. He wo=
n't
have to go far to flag the wetlands.
Mr. Stack: Are you requesting t=
hat I
spend some more money, cause I'm getting (inaudi=
ble)
it's hard enough to get a soil scientist up there the last time. We know what it is. You can go out and measure. Chuck, you can go out, measure fro=
m the
wetlands.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 29
Mr. Berger: But I don't know whe=
re the
wetlands are on the Y property and I haven't been out there and it's not cl=
ear
until a soil scientist puts it on a map.
Mr. Polletta: You said you never w=
ent
there, so if we get an extension maybe that will give you a chance to look =
at
it.
Mr. Duplissie: But I agree with you=
. A nice flag, right now we have a h=
and
drawing of the driveway, we don't know if that's actually where the driveway
is, or if the driveway actually crosses the buffer (inaudible).
Mr. Stack: I think you have a
driveway across the street and a telephone pole and anybody with common sen=
se
can go out there with a tape measure and go out there and see that it's pre=
tty
much right where it's at.
Mr. Polletta: If you could put it =
on a
print so people could look at it.
Mr. Stack: I understand, but li=
ke I
said, I've already went through it one time, I went through a master plan on
here. It's always just one mo=
re
thing. If that's what you wan=
t,
I'll go there and I'll map it out with Chuck if you want.
Ma=
ny
people talking at once (inaudible).
Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, could =
I ask
you, since I'm not sure of the answer here, if Mr. Stack had come to us a y=
ear
ago before he got started on this and said he wanted to put in a driveway s=
o he
could get to his cabin, would we have required the map that Chuck has just
suggested?
Mr. Zawadzki: Sure.
Mr. Jones: And if that's the ca=
se,
then it is not an unfair expense to you to pay for it now, even though it's
maybe a little bit late, but I think you would like in the long run to get =
this
as an open road that you an use, and we would all like to come to a conclus=
ion
that protects the environment, and maybe that map would help us do that, an=
d I
suggested the map that you provided us this month, at the last meeting, but=
it
seems to me that's the way to go, and if there is an expense, and I underst=
and
how much (Tape #3, Side A ended - may have missed some).
Mr. Stack: I would have been ou=
t of
here and it would have been sold, okay?&nb=
sp;
18 months to get a 1 lot subdivision approved (inaudible) sell it to=
the
Y. I don't want to name peopl=
e or
I've done nothing but go along with everybody and I'm getting tired of going
along and getting nothing in return.
The bottom line is (inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: Well that's besides the point, but Ron's point is a good one. If you had submitted an application
prior to doing the work it would have required a map.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 30
Mr. Stack: Yea, but if I thought
there was wetlands on the property and I thought that I had to come in
(inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: Well if you did know=
and
you came to us, you would have had to come with a map.
Mr. Rafey: I think if you call =
Gary
Giordano who provided this map, he's a surveyor, the wetlands are already
flagged, he should just go there and show on this map where the wetlands are
located and where is the 50 foot line from the edge of the wetlands on your
property.
Mr. Duplissie: And show us the exact
location of this hand drawn driveway so we know (inaudible) in relation to =
it
so we're not guessing where it is.
Mr. Stack: The point is we alre=
ady
know we're working in a regulated area, we know that, so what is the point =
of (inaudible)?
Mr. Polletta: It will be on file
(inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, these developer=
s that
you heard tonight show work in the area too and they draw it on the map that
it's in the 50 foot buffer and that's why they're here. Same with this, you
draw it on the map, it's in the 50 foot buffer, and therefore you require a
permit to do the work.
Mr. Underc8ff;ler: But he is raising a good point here, he's
stipulating that it's in the regulated area so there's no argument about th=
at.
Mr. Stack: You can go there and=
see where
the wetlands are, where the flags are, it's documented.
Mr. Undercuffler: (Inaudible) inclined=
to agree
with him, that's something that he's already said that is wetlands.
Mr. Duplissie: I think the point is=
is
that depending on where it is and how far and whether or not the road is
actually in wetlands, because we don't know this far in whether that drivew=
ay
and the gravel he put in might actually be in wetlands, even though it's (i=
naudible).
Ma=
ny
people talking at once (inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: So we only have this
little area that's done but this driveway is hand drawn on to this map, but
that driveway could be further this way into the wetlands, so I think that's
(inaudible). We're making a
decision on this, we should have a drawing, flagging wetlands and flagging =
the existing
extent of disturbance as it is right now.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 31
Mr. Stack: Mr. Duplissie, I have =
to say
that you're about the long windedest person I've ever met in my life, and I
respect you for your position on this Commission and everything and I would=
do
that for you, and God Bless You, and I will say a
prayer for you.
Mr. Duplissie: So at this point we'=
re
going to get . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: We have an extension=
.
Mr. Duplissie: We have an extension=
and
we're going to get flagged drawings of the wetlands and the existing access=
way
as it is disturbed now, for the next meeting, is that correct?
Mr. Zawadzki: Mr. Stack, are you w=
illing
to contact this engineer that did this drawing and see if you can get a dra=
wing
for us?
Mr. Stack: I hope he can get do=
wn
there and get it done before the next meeting. I diligently tried to get in touch=
with
him to get the other soil scientist so I could get the report over here that
mysteriously got lost from the file in the Town okay?
Mr. Zawadzki: I apologize for the
inconvenience.
Mr. Stack: You don't owe me any =
apologies. Everybody take care and have a good
night.
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
Mr. Rafey: Can I make a
suggestion? Move the next ite=
m to
the end of the Agenda as there are people still waiting.
MOTION:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Move Agenda Item 7B, to 8G on this Agenda.<= o:p>
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 32
B. =
Review
of the Inland/Wetland and Watercourse Regulations of the Town of
&=
nbsp; This
Item was moved to 8G and will be discussed later.
8. &n=
bsp; New
Business
A. Heritage
Development Group request for preliminary discussion on Heritage Woods Acti=
ve
Adult Retirement Community development.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: We need a Motio=
n to Table
because these applicants are not here this evening.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Table the Preliminary Discussion on Herita=
ge
Woods Active Adult Retirement Community development.
&= nbsp; Discussion; None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANINOUSLY
B. =
Request
to transfer the previously issued CCIWA Permit #430 for Lee Levesque to Lisa
Kaye for construction of a single family dwelling on Lot #6 Carola Drive,
Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: I think the only stipulation is tha=
t we
transfer as is, without any changes, modifications, or . . . . .
&nbs=
p; Stewart
Kaye, Applicant's Husband
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Kaye: It is my understanding after speaki=
ng to
Robert Green, our surveyor, that we won't actually have to build this retai=
ning
wall that you asked Lee to build 4 years ago because of the grade of the la=
nd,
it's actually changed slightly from the way he originally had it graded.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 33
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: As long as you keep the distan=
ce
from the wetlands as it was approved for the original application, we don't
have a problem if you change the location of the house a little bit. The distance cannot be any closer =
to the
wetlands.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Kaye: I'm not any closer, it was 37 feet =
in
2001, it's 37 feet in 2005. But on your original letter you had
asked for a retaining wall.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Polletta: Where is this lot?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Kaye:=
It's right off of
&=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: Is it a cul de sac?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Kaye: Yes.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: Are you elimin=
ating
the retaining wall?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: I would like to eli=
minate
the retaining wall. If you te=
ll me
I have to put it there I will.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well that w=
as a
regulated activity so if it's not needed that's less regulated activity.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: I'm just wonde=
ring
what the slope is going to be. If he gets rid of it then . . . . . &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: What's that=
going
to do? &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: Correct. Does that increase the runoff beca=
use
he's got a steeper slope? I d=
on't
know. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: That kind of mu=
ddies
the water. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: It does. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: I have the plans. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You're going aw=
ay
from the wetlands and you're not getting any closer? CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2005 PAGE 34 &=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: We're not going to =
get
any closer, no way. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: So you're going=
to
swale so the water goes the other way? &=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: Exactly, so it goes=
away
and out to the back of the lot. The
wetlands on this property is kind of interesting=
. If you look at it, it's this tiny =
little
point on the map, and then it goes off on an angle, and it's just kind of a
straight angle, it's not a spread out type of wetlands like you would norma=
lly
see. It's just this little po=
int
that I'm 37 feet away from and then it goes back. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: It's like in the
middle of the street? That st=
reet
is pretty steep. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: It is pretty steep.=
It's actually right next to the &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: That big brick =
house
you mean? &=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: That's their house.=
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: He's a Ponte? &=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: No Ponti is actuall=
y in
that huge Ranch. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Luigi? &=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: Yes, Luigi. We're actually sandwiched right in
between Luigi and Mr. So. We'=
re the
last house to go in hopefully, with your approval of course. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: I'm just wonde=
ring
though whether or not that will increase the runoff. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Jones: Is this worth a si=
te
visit? &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: The reason for th=
e wall
was to accommodate the grading and to avoid direct impact to the wetlands, =
by
having a 4 foot wall there, and I guess I'd like Moosa and/or I to have the
opportunity to review that revised grading plan. As long as that wall is not needed =
and he
can still meet our minimum grading requirements, it's fine, but . . . . . &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Do you have a g=
rading
plan? &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: There's an exi=
sting
one and there's a new one, right?
Cause you're changing . . . . . CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 2005 PAGE 35 &=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: I have the new plot=
plan. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: The one that y=
ou
submitted, this one here . . . . &=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: That's the new plot=
plan. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: So you don't h=
ave
the old one that was actually approved? &=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: No. &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: You should have
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: I think we hav=
e the
old one.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, the old one, =
that's
the original one.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: If you have a
regrading plan and the engineer will look at it and he will (inaudible) eff=
ect.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: Bob Green did the f=
irst
plan, and he said they'd probably need the retaining wall. He redid the whole thing for me.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: No, we just wan=
t to
make sure you do it right so you don't have any problems.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: We're trying to aff=
ord
this house, basically.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Maybe this =
can be
reviewed. We wouldn't be able=
to
approve it tonight anyway.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: I think Chuck and =
I can
review this and see if there is no need for that retaining wall, and if so,=
he
can eliminate it. If it's req=
uired,
he can keep it.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: (Inaudible) approva=
l?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: It's just a
(inaudible). That is in front=
of
you, but we can review that.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: If it's a question =
of
slowing this (inaudible) building process cause I have to get this up and i=
n by
the Winter cause we're going through our whole l=
oan
process now.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 36
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: But the enginee=
r has
to review what you're doing.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: If this is going to=
slow
down us not being able to not start building by me asking if I can remove t=
his,
I'll put it in. And then late=
r on I
can maybe come back to you and ask for something else, maybe not put it in =
or
to review it or something.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: How long will i=
t take
to review this?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well we wouldn'=
t be
able to approve it before the next meeting which would be September 15th.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: That puts us out to=
o far
into getting the house . . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: But the problem=
is
we're prepared to allow the transfer of the permit without modification or
change, but now we're modifying or changing it, and the retaining wall was a
condition of approval and we're taking the retaining wall out.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Kaye: That puts me 2 more
months out to start the building, I'll never get=
this
house up before Winter.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Was that
retaining wall a condition, or was it just . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Mr. Chairman, if y=
ou
just approve the transfer of this permit from the original name to (inaudib=
le)
and then when he submits his application for a zoning permit I will review =
with
Chuck and see if there are any changes that require any additional impact on
the wetlands, he'll have to come back to you. But if he's within those permitted
activities, with a little change, I think we can look at that.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Less impact then =
you don't need the wall, then Moosa and I can approve that=
.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Just approve the
transfer of that permit from that name to his name, that's all. I received a letter from the origi=
nal
permit holder, that he is in agreement with this=
.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the following letter for the record:
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 37
&=
nbsp; "August
4, 2005
&=
nbsp; Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetland Agency
&=
nbsp;
&=
nbsp;
&=
nbsp; Re: Trans=
fer of
Wetland Permit from Lee Levesque to Lisa and Stewart Kaye
&=
nbsp; Dear
Conservation Commission:
&=
nbsp; I,
Lee Levesque, have sold
&=
nbsp; Sincerely,
&=
nbsp; Lee
Levesque"
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to transfer the previously issued CCIWA Permit #430 =
for
Lee Levesque to Lisa Kaye for construction of a single family dwelling on L=
ot
#6 Carola Drive, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&=
nbsp; Mr. Kaye: Does this mean I'm okay to start g=
oing
through the next process?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: You can submit your application fo=
r a zoning
permit and then we will review that.
Make sure you stay 37 feet from the wetlands.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 38
C. Town
of
&=
nbsp; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer, Repre=
senting
the Director of Public Works
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: On November 20, 2000 a permit =
was
issued to the previous Director of Public Works for the replacement of the =
&=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: So you're not asking for anything =
but a
date change?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: Correct.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: How much time do you want?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: We can give another 5 years.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: We're in the process of going out =
to bid
right now.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to grant the request of the Town of
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 39
D. Town
of
&=
nbsp; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer, Repre=
senting
the Director of Public Works
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: In your packet you have a July=
26,
2005 letter from Mr. Cavanaugh to Ms. Barton, Zoning Enforcement Officer, <=
span
class=3DGramE>requesting permission to lower
&=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: How long does it take to lower it =
that
far?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: I think it took=
,
it depends a lot on rainfall. If it
was conditions right now, we could pull a couple of boards out and we have =
to
sort of balance, we don't want to be increasing, causing any flooding
downstream by, it's basically a weird board structure where we could lower =
it
about 4 inches at a time, for each board we pull out. I think last year it took us about=
a
month last time to get it down, but we had quite a bit of rain as well.
&= nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: And this is just for maintenance?<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger: This one is primarily for weed con=
trol,
the thought being if you expose the shoreline, the shallow areas where the
weeds are growing and let them freeze solid, that it will deter weed growth=
the
following year.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Polletta: So it stays low all Winter long?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: Yes, let the exposed pond bottom th=
at
does get enclosed freeze solid and bring it back up in the Spring.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to grant the request of the Town of
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 40
E. =
Request
for modification of previously issued CCIWA Permit #523 to Primax Properties
LLC for construction of a commercial building (Advanced Auto Parts) at 1333
Main Street, Watertown.
&= nbsp; Steve DeCorsi, Boeler Engineering<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; Mr. DeCorsi: We prepared the civil engineer=
ing
documents for the proposed Advanced Auto Parts building proposed at
&=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: Any questions?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: Just looking at it briefly, it loo=
ks
like they've reduced the impact to the buffer.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, by 300 square feet.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: And they've decreased =
the
impervious area.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 41
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: They only changed the directio=
n of
the flow from the outlet of the pipe.
It was going into Steele Brook and now it's going to that other
watercourse.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: The one on the side,
that crosses the road?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: Yes.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: I have no objections; I think it's=
a
good idea and makes sense.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Jones,
sec. Mr. Polletta) to accept the modification of CCIWA Permit #523 to Primax
Properties LLC for construction of a commercial building (Advanced Auto Par=
ts)
at
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
F. =
Discussion
on Deposition of Beach Sand on existing Beaches in
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: A question was raised regarding Mr.
Stack's property. He brought =
fresh
sand to his beach and we have a few beaches around Smith Pond and around
&=
nbsp; Mr. Polletta: Yea, but there was already a beach
there.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: There was a beach there,
he brought a letter from the previous owners to that effect. He brought in additional, fresh sa=
nd.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: He's a builder, he should know bet=
ter. People complain because they saw a=
lot
of activity over there.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: The question is do you want to iss=
ue
permits from now on if somebody wants to bring in sand?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: Is it good or bad for the lake?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: It's not good. It might go into the lakes and pon=
ds, so
there will be some impacts. I=
gave
you some literature on that.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Has this issue come up? Have people come in for permits?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: No.
(Inaudible)
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 42
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Do they put sand on them?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: Of course they do.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: So the question is why . . . . .
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: The YMCA always brings in sand and=
they
never came for a permit.
&nbs=
p; Ms.
Sturgis: Well what good is a permit if you'=
re not
going to say no to the people. I don't want to say no to the Y.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: Well it's not just putting the san=
d down, it's where you put it. If you have a lake right here and =
you
put most of it high above the water line and you just give them an area tha=
t's
soft sand to sit in that's one thing, but if you rake it all the way down to
the water line, cause the water line fluctuates, and that's where you get i=
nto
a problem, so by them coming to us for a permit maybe we could . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Point them in the right direction.=
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: We can look at that and put condit=
ions
of how to bring in sand.
&=
nbsp; Ms. Sturgis: I'm asking if we're really prepare=
d to
tell the Y that they can't add sand to their beaches at camp?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: If they don't do it, I mean this l=
etter
points out some guidelines that need to be followed, so there's no reason, I
mean the Y came to us for expansion of their whole operation there.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: If you put it a few feet away from=
the
water it's okay. If
you're like 3 feet away, (inaudible).
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: Yea, but that's also different tha=
n, if
you have your water line here and you come in with a tractor and dump 20 ya=
rds to
it on the water line and then it spreads down and into the water, so that as
you walk into the water you have soft sand, that's very different than havi=
ng
the sand up on the top to lay there.
Depending on how you handle it . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: It depends on how you are going to
control that site in that location.
What you put there in between.
&=
nbsp; Ms. Sturgis: (Inaudible) we don't say that you =
can't
put it next to it, we just say to keep the grade
gentle so it doesn't all wash in.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: And they say to use washed sand, a=
nd
don't spread it in the Spring. She has a number of good points he=
re.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 43
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: I put it on the Agenda because we =
can't enforce
this on one person and not another.
If you want to enforce this we should enforce it on anyone who wants=
to
put sand on their beaches.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: What are we going to say to Mr. St=
ack
now that he already did it? (=
Tape #3,
Side B ended - may have missed some.)
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: Plus it's not just who's sand, the=
y can
bring in other types of materials like mason sand or something that has bee=
n crushed
and ground.
&nbs=
p; Ms.
Sturgis: We have to have guidelines.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: I should find out how many beaches=
we
have in Town and send them a letter telling them bringing in sand will now
require a permit from this Commission.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Polletta: But right now it is allowed.
&=
nbsp; Many people talking at once (inaudible).
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: But within a body of w=
ater
we say what is it, 100 feet, any activity within that main body of water, t=
he
lakes are 100 feet . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: That's only for septic systems.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: All right but any activity within =
50
feet, so why would beach sand not be regulated?
&=
nbsp; Ms. Sturgis: Don't we have to have regulations =
before
we say come before us?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: So the way I see it you shouldn't =
be
able to put sand on the beach right now, because it's a regulated area.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: It's still within a wetlands,
watercourse, or within 50 feet of a wetlands or watercourse. I mean it's (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: What it boils down to is it's neve=
r been
done.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: But I think it (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible) never done before.
&= nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: And all Mr. Rafey is saying is if = we're going to require Mr. Stack to get a permit, then we have to require the Town and the YMCA and everybody else who dumps sand into lakes to get a permit.<= o:p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 44
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie; As Mr. Rafey said, anyon=
e with
a beach has to be sent a letter to be notified.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: The Town brings in san=
d to
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: If it's not good for t=
he water,
then we should make it a law for everybody.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Jones: Doesn't that mean that we just hav=
e to
modify the regulations that we're supposed to review next, that we've been
working on in subcommittee, to just make a new sentence in there that talks about beach sand?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: No, it says activities within a 50=
foot
buffer area, this is actually in the watercourse=
.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: It is and you can get more specifi=
c and
say "including beach sand".
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well actually we extended the area
around those lakes to 100 feet.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: So probably somewhere =
in
there we can include the words "beach sand". Ms. Sturgis had a good point, we need some guidelines, which this letter is a=
good
start.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Yea, but we don't have guidelines =
for a
lot of other stuff.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: When somebody submits an applicati=
on for
this, then we can tell them what to do.&nb=
sp;
We look at each application differently because each application is
different, based on the steepness of slope, the location of the sand.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: According to what we're talking ab=
out
right now and what hasn't been done in the past is that there were no
regulations, so somebody who has a house on the lake and ordered Joe Schmo =
to
come down and dump 20 yards of beach sand at the water line, and he spreads=
it,
and we don't need a permit, and that's the way it's been done in the past.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Anybody could do that because they
always did it like that. But =
we're
saying that body of water has to be protected within 100 feet and beach san=
d is
definitely not allowed, but if we're going to allow it to be added in the
existing areas, then we should have a say in how it's put down.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: And these are good guidelines, so =
when
they come in for the permit you can give them a copy of this.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 45
&=
nbsp; Ms. Sturgis: Would we go far as to suggest =
that
they put grass instead of sand?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: That's #7 here, maintain native
shoreline vegetation.
&=
nbsp; Ms. Sturgis: I know,=
is that
going to be our position, maybe we should reconsider even having sand there
period.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: We have to look at every applicati=
on, so
a beach is no different than a 30 lot subdivision.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: And we should also look at the dif=
ferent
materials that are allowed, there are different substrates that are used, a=
nd
not all beach sand is created equal.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: We can get more information about =
this
issue.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: Maybe one material is less hazardo=
us to
the lake than another.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: It's just something that's it's (inaudible) it's already covered as a (inaudible)=
. I don't know if we have a choice r=
eally
to be honest with you.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: The existing beaches, Moosa is goi=
ng to
send out a letter stating they have to come to us first, and maybe we shoul=
d be
prepared to say well you have to use this type of sand rather than that
sand. I know there are differ=
ent
qualities.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Let them justify what they're goin=
g to
do. I mean that's normally wh=
at we
do on all these other applications.
We question it after they present it to us. Let them prove to us that it's not,
rather than saying here's what you have to use.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: First we have to do an inventory o=
f the
beaches in Town.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well every shoreline property at
Winnemaug, so everybody who has a dock or a beach right now would be includ=
ed.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: So you want me to send a letter to=
only
those properties that already have a beach, or to everybody who has frontag=
e?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: Frontage.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: Put a notice in the newspaper.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: Hit on big ones, associations, Park
& Rec Department . . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 46
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: That plus a notice in the
newspaper. There are a lot of
properties around the lakes.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger: The Public Works Department started
hitting the street opening permits.
It's been there for awhile, it sort of fell by the wayside, we're
requiring street opening permits whenever you dig in a Town right of way.
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Undercuffler,
sec. Mr. Polletta) that the depositing of beach sand should be enforced as a
regulated activity.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
G. Review
of the Inland/Wetland and Watercourse Regulations of the Town of
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey: Any other suggestions?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie:
Well we have a new one, beach sand.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: That is a regulated activity, nobo=
dy can
dispute that.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: It's just that nobody regulated it=
in
the past.
&nbs=
p; Ms.
Sturgis: I appreciate the work everybody di=
d on
this.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Undercuffler: Page 7 is where we itemized the sp=
ecific
lakes here that we said would be 100 foot setback.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: You had it in last month's packet.=
If you agree with this, I'll send =
it to
the Town Attorney for his review and then we'll send it to the D.E.P. for t=
heir
review.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: We still are not chang=
ing
the application fees or any of the fee structures?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: That has to go through (inaudible)=
. We do that for all land use commis=
sions.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: The other one that sti=
ll
needs something done is imposing fines.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 47
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: I already talked to the Town Attor=
ney
regarding the citation ordinance and I called the Council of Governments and
they'll collect some information from other towns.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: So we're working on ad=
opting
some type of amendment in order to do that?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: No, that goes through the Town Cou=
ncil.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: So that won't be part =
of the
regulations?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: No.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: But that will be part of what we'l=
l use?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: You need a separate
ordinance.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger: I have a couple of questions back =
at the
office on my copy so I'll talk to you about that later.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Table the Review of the Inland/Wetland=
and
Watercourse Regulations of the Town of
9. =
Communications
and Bills
A. Waterbury Republican News Article June 11, 2005 "Survey to decide if pool violat= es wetlands rules".
&n=
bsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki We discussed this=
with
the Town Attorney and he was going to call the Town of
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 48
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: I'm not sure what
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: A large developer is n=
ot a
problem.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: It's subjective. They can just fine you for 10, ins=
tead
of the actual 50 days, and they can halt your construction too. We should see how they got their f=
ines
approved, etc.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: It has to go through the Town Coun=
cil's
Ordinance Subcommittee, and then they will appoint a Hearing Officer. Let me collect some information fr=
om
other towns to see what they have and give that to the Town Attorney.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: But I think the suggestion we shou=
ld
make, and I don't how that process goes, is that if we do adopt this type o=
f a
fine, that it should be a major fine, not $50 a day. That $1,000 is a day is enough to =
stop
anybody, even a major developer.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: It would certainly stop
individuals.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: Well it would have stopped what was
going on today. He wouldn't be
complaining that now he has to hire an engineer and a surveyor, if he thoug=
ht
he was being fined $1,000 a day for the past 60 days.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: And even the people who
clear cut Reflections.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: Correct.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: That kind of stuff is =
just a
big oops.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: Yea, but as they walk away they ki=
nd of
smile. They get yelled at me =
for a
couple of minutes, and then they go right back to work.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: I received a call from a neighbor =
on
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 49
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. Polletta) to accept and file Item 9A as presented.
Discussion: None<= o:p>
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOU=
SLY
10. Repor=
ts
from Officers and Committees
&n= bsp; None
11. Repor=
ts
from Staff
A. Status of the Approved On-Going Subdivisions
Mr. Berger: All is progressing w=
ell
with no complaints.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> There was a complaint from
12. &n=
bsp; Public
Participation
Mr. Jones:
Mr. Rafey: I got the bottles from the wat=
er lab
and probably for months and nobody called.
Mr. Undercuffler: If it's still an issue, I think Mr.
O'Sullivan would have been back here.
Mr. Duplissie: There was a fuss made about it, so
whoever was responsible probably ceased.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2005
PAGE 50
13. Adjou=
rnment
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr. =
Duplissie,
sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 11:55 p.m.
&nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Regular
Meeting Adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
Inland
Wetlands Agency
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________