beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/

INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

WATERTOWN, <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">CT

PUBLIC HEARING

&nb= sp;

THURSDAY= , OCTOBER 11, 2007

WATERTOWN HIGHSCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

&nb= sp;

APPLICATION #616 - BAILIE COMAPNY<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

Members Present:  &nbs= p;           Mr. Donato Orsini, Vice Chairman (Chairman)

            =             &nb= sp;            =         Mr. Ed Undercuffler (Secretary)

            =             &nb= sp;            =         Mr. Joe Polletta

            =             &nb= sp;            =

Memb= ers Absent:            =    Mr. Jim Zawadzki, Chai= rman

            =             &nb= sp;            =         Mr. Glen Dupliese

            =             &nb= sp;            =         Mr. Tom Murphy, Secretary

            =             &nb= sp;            =         Mr. Tony DiBona

Alternates Present:      = ;       Ms. Denise Russ – Sitting in for Mr. Glen Dupliese

            =             &nb= sp;            =         Mr. Scott Marotta – Sitting in for Mr. Jim Zawadzki

      = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;

Alternates Absent:      = ;        Mr. Greg Hawes

Others Present:   &n= bsp;            = ;   Mr. Moosa Rafey, Assis= tant Wetlands Enforcement Officer

            =             &nb= sp;            =         Mr. Chuck Berger, Town Engineer

            =             &nb= sp;            =         Mr. Chris Allan from Land Tech Consultants, Inc.

&nb= sp;

1.         = Call Meeting To Order

            Mr. Orsini, Vice Chairman, Called the Public Hearing to Order at about 8:25 p.m= .

2.     &nb= sp;   Roll Call

            Mr. Undercuffler, Commission Member, executed the Roll Call.<= /p>

3.  &n= bsp;      Hearing of Cases=

= E.      Application #616 of the Bailie Company to conduct regulated activities associated with the restoration of a disturbed site located at 0 Frost Bridge = Road, Watertown, CT

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 2

            The Public Hearing must be closed by November 15, 2007 unless applicant grants = an extension of time.

Mr. Undercuffler re= ad the Legal Notice as follows:

“T= OWN OF WATERTOWN

Legal Notice

Application #616 of the Bailie Company to conduc= t the following regulated activities associated with the restoration of disturbed regulated areas located on the Bailie Company’s property at ) Frost Bridge Road, Watertown, CT:

1.&n= bsp;            = ;     Disturbance= of approximately 25,000 Sq. Ft of upland review area for removing concrete rub= ble to be replaced with clean native material.

2.&n= bsp;            = ;     Installatio= n of erosion and sediment control measures within regulated areas.

Dated at Watertown, CT this 28^th day= of September 2007

Dated at Watertown, CT this 4^th day = of October 2007

Tom Murphy, Secretary

Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency&#= 8221;

Discussion:<= /p>

Mr. Rafey: This letter that I’m giving you is one fr= om Fuss and O’Neil. The town of Watertown hired this firm to review this application as a third party.

Mr. Undercuffler reading the letter as follows:<= o:p>

“October 10, 2007

Mr. Moosa Rafey

Town of Watertown Land Use Office

51 Depot Square Suite 502

Watertown CT 067= 95

Regarding the Bailie property former drive in th= eater site on route 8, Watertown, CT.<= /st1:place>

Dear Mr. Rafey:

We have reviewed a submittal made by the Civil O= ne civil Engineers dated October 3, 2007 entitled soil testing report Civil One civil engineers, Bailie Company property 0 Frost Bridge Road Watertown, CT and we observed the excavation of test pits on the property which was conducted on October 2, 2= 007.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 3

Th= e test results indicate that material placed in the excavation included mixed concrete fill, re-enf= orced steel (rebar) and wire and woody fill. The Bailie Company representatives i= ndicated that they plan to process the concrete to remove non-clean fill such as met= al, so it can be used as clean fill. The portions of concrete fill that contain rebar and wire do not qualify as clean fill as defined by the Connecticut D= EP solid waste regulations.

To= pography and boundary surveys have not been prepared. These surveys are necessary for the evaluation of:

-&nb= sp;            =         The horizon= tal extent of the excavation and filling.

-&nb= sp;            =         The depth o= f the fill material relative to the elevation of Naugatuck River.

-&nb= sp;            =         The proximi= ty of the Stream Channel Encroachment Line to filled areas.

-&nb= sp;            =         The potenti= al for erosion and sedimentation into the Naugatuck River.

-&nb= sp;            =         The stabili= ty of undisturbed solids that form the embankment of the <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Naugatuck River.

Calculations of the volume of excavated solid impor= ted materials have not been submitted. Trucking slips have not been provided.

It appears the ground water table has been encountered/exposed in several areas of the excavation. A report from a certified soil scientist should be submitted which i= ndicated whether these areas meet Connecticut’s defin= ition of inland wetlands.

The limit of inland wetlands associated with the= Naugatuck River has not been delineated. A delineation should be made by a certified soil scientist, and wetland flags or markers should be located by field survey and depicted on topographic mapping. The Town’s regulated area that is associated with the inland wetland limit should also be depicted on the mapping.

A stabilization plan has not been submitted. The= plan should include long-term stabilization as well as an interim plan for the inland wetland limit should also be depicted on the mapping.

A list of local, state and federal regulatory pe= rmits that are required has not been submitted.

The quality of the fill material and its potenti= al impact on site soils, ground water and wetlands has not been evaluated. At = this time, we have not received a sampling plan from Catalyst Environmental that details a proposed investigation plan.

It is our professional opinion that submittals m= ade in response to requests made by the Inland Wetland Agency and the Planning and Zoning Commission are incomplete. If either agency commences with a public hearing before this information is submitted and evaluated, the hearing sho= uld be continued.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 4

Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. must be notified = of planned field investigations at least 48 hours in advance, in order for us = to schedule the appropriate field Personnel.

If you have any questions feel free to contact u= s.

Sincerely,

Philip E. Forzley, P.E.

Associate

&

Robert Danielson, P.E. LEP

Associate”

=

Discussion:

Anthony Yorio, Attorney

Mr. Yorio: I’m here on behalf of the Bailie Company. I’m here to address the restoration process to preserve Frost Bridge Road. I have with me to my right Kurt Jones form Civil One engineering and Mark Gotliev. As a preliminary matter there were some concerns by the commission that were addressed to my client expecting the amount that the requirements were extended for addressing the issues at this site. The Bailie Company was given 30 days from the last hearing of this commission to provide a $10,000 re-imbursement to the town. I’d like the record to reflect that I do = have that check in hand and certified forms and will be passing it to attorney Pilicy as this hearing commences. So the Bailie Company is in compliance wi= th the primary request that this commission and of the planning and zoning commission. I will allow both Mr. Jones and Mr. Gotliev to address the issu= es presented in Fuss and O’Neil’s letter this evening, however I w= ould also like the record to reflect that we were just provided with a copy of F= uss and O’Neil’s opinion, just at the commencement of this hearing.= So I would ask the commission members to have patience with each of our representatives this evening. We will attempt to address each of those issu= es in turn with the appropriate person response to those questions.=

Mr. Rafey: Just for the record I received this letter toda= y by email around 4 PM. That’s why they don’t have a copy of this.

Kurt Jones, Civil One

Mr. Jones: We do have a set of plans where most of the information has just been mentioned in the Fuss and O’Neil’s letter. We do have an A-2 survey prepared by Reardon Surveying. We do have a topographic map detailing the different areas of the property. We also have= a proposed remediation plan in detail on how this material is going to be handled. So I’d like to pass out some sets of these drawings and then discuss

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 5

it in detail. The first sheet is the topographic= map, the current site conditions map. We’ve tried to label these in a clear comprehensive ma= nner so they can be adequately catalogued. We can run through all of these as a number area and tried to labe<= /st1:place>l them according to the constitute material. The concrete pile 1 is the bigge= r of the concrete piles. It kind of extends above the ground surface and then be= low that concrete 2 it’s flushed with the ground and dug a number of test pits to determine the depth on concrete, test pits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 and basically on the left hand si= de test pits 3, 6, 11, the concrete was very shallow. The 4 and 5 were deeper = with the result of about 6 feet to 8 feet or so of concrete in that area. I would note that during the testing that was performed on October 2^nd we did have the gentleman from Fuss and O’Neil with us as well as Mr. Du= ane George from the Planning and Zoning Commission. As a matter of fact most of these holes were dug at the direction of Mr. George as well as Fuss and O’Neil so I think we have a very representative sample of what went o= n at that site. I’m here to tell you we didn’t hit any surprises and wherever they wanted to dig a hole we dug a hole. So we feel this is an accurate representation of what’s above the ground as well as below t= he ground on the site. So the table to the left center summarizes the 3 main columns and on right the right side grade numbers. We labeled the area, gave a brief descript= ion, calculated the quantities associated with that, and summed it up on the rig= ht hand side. In summary there’s about 15,000 cubic yards of concrete ru= bble on the site. This is the amount of material that we would expect to process= . If you go to sheet 2, we can discuss that site conditions map in more detail if anybody cares to but on sheet two we get into the site restoration stand.

Mr. Orsini: if I understand this, you’re showing that= the deepest point is test pit 9 at 13 feet?

Mr. Jones: That’s correct, it’s mounded up. It= is about 7 feet about the level area. So that means its 6 feet below so that’s consistent in our tolls 4, 5 and 7. These numbers are consistent with t= he preliminary testing we’ve done about a month or so ago, first recorded back t= o you.

Mr. Orsini: I see in some of the other test pits there is no number associated to the side. Like in test pit, what are we saying the dep= th of that test pit is? Are we assuming 72 inches?

Mr. Jones: Test pit 1 was native material. The soil test r= esults are in the upper left corner of the plan. So if you look at test pit 1 you’ll see 0-24 inches sandy gravely fill.

Mr. Orsini: So you went down 72 inches at the max depth?

Mr. Jones: That’s correct, it’s all native san= dy material that’s far enough in that hole. We just dug as deep as Fuss = and O’Neil wanted or Mr. George wanted.

Mr. Marotta: Deep test pi= t #9 says 13 feet. So you went down 13 feet and to that 13 foot level there was mixed concrete fill rebar wire, that’s correct?

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 6

Mr. Jones: Right.

Mr. Marotta: But that doesn’t take into consideration what’s above grade. If you go out there, there is a significant pile.=

Mr. Jones: Well that is above grade. That’s from the= top of the pile measuring down.

Mr. Marotta: Ok.

Mr. Jones: So we dug that test hole sitting on top of the = pile and then from the edge right on top we measured down. So the point I was tr= ying to make was that 9 and 7, although 9 is 13 feet and 7 is 6 feet, they pretty much have the same bottom elevation because 9 is up on top of the hill. So = it was a level excavation that occurred through there and the bottom of the concrete seems to be a fairly uniform elevation through there which also ma= kes sense. Sheet 2 is a site restoration plan and the basic concept here is, wi= th working with Mr. Mark Gotliev from Catalyst environmental consulting, that = the concrete rubble will go underneath the slab of the future building. In fact= the slab of the building is part in parcel of the final solution here. So the p= roject isn’t really considered complete until it’s actually capped by = that concrete slab and that seems to be protocol in these situations. Not just burying the concrete, but actually capping it off with something.

Mr. Polletta: Are you removing all this concrete? This materi= al and steel from the wetlands area.

Mr. Jones: Yes and the regulated area.

Mr. Polletta: Ok and you’re going to clean it before yo= u put it under the buildings?

Mr. Jones: Yes.

Mr. Polletta: Where are you going to store this to clean it, = on site?

Mr. Jones: Yes, we have 2 different processing areas depen= ding on the stage of the work

Mr. Polletta: So if I understand correctly you are going to r= emove all the material on the site and then you’ll bring material close to = the river, existing native material. Am I right?

Mr. Jones: Let me run through the sequence in order. =

Mr. Polletta: The question is that the material that is close= in the river, within the 50 feet, will be removed, cleaned, and fresh material will be put in its place, the way it was before?

Mr. Jones: What we’re proposing is any of that concr= ete that’s within the 50 foot regulated area, or within that stream encroachment line has to come out. We’re going to <= /p>
WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 7

put it under the building. The material and clean gravel under the building will be used in the wetland area, so it’s t= he native material to fill it back in, in the regulated area I meant... So it’s just coming from the clean areas under the building. We have a s= pec in here that it has to come up in 1 foot lifts. It has to be compacted to 95% dens= ity because we had heard a concern about the strength of the berm, so bring it = back up to full density in that area. There is some material on the site that we feel just has to be removed from the site and it’s not meant to be processed. We’ve seen the asphalt piles out there. There is some woody piles, there are some stumps on the site there are wood chips. So what we’re proposing as a first step is lets get the site cleaned up. Let’s get a clean worksite before we get down to the processing of it= . So that’s step #1 to remove all the material to get a clean site. Let me back up, first thing we’re going to put in the hay bails and silt fence, and any erosion control measure that are specified on the plan. Then we’re going to take the excess materi= al off the site, anything not being processed or re-used on the site shall be removed off the site and disposed of properly. This includes asphalt, wood piles, stumps, any loose brush or steel, there are a few tires there. All t= hat stuff needs to be taken off the site. Then before we start processing the concrete we’re calling for a dumpster to be brought on the site so th= at any of the rebar that comes out of that concrete we have a place to put it. We’re going to process the concrete outside of the regulated area. We’ll use that storage for any unsuitable material. These measures wi= ll result in the removal of asphalt pile 1, wood pile 1 stump pile 1 and 2, and all the small piles of woodchips, tires, metal, etc., to clean up the site.= Suitable material= s from dirt piles 1 – 4 and gravel piles 1-2 shall be used to back fill pits= 1 and 2. Those are some of the open pits on the site. To us, that’s par= t of the site clean up. Let’s get the site cleaned up, get the holes filled in. Also a portion of pit 3, which is outside what we’re calling the concrete deposition area which is outside the building, it has ion the east= erly corner pit 3 and that should be filled in and also a portion of pit 4. Then= the processing area #1 is towards the easterly portion of the site, should be established. The basic concept here is that we want to start on one end of = the site and work our way out. Clean it up down here and in this area if you lo= ok at the test holes 12 and 13 you’ll see some woody fill and some dark organic fill and also some sand bags that were encountered in this area. Th= ere has been some historic fill placed in this area. Mark is going to talk about it, we think we have a good timeline on it back into the 60’s. So bel= ow I think it was about 4 feet. There is some unsuitable material down there tha= t we feel has to come off this site. So the top part of it will get processed, we’ll have a stock pile area. We’ll begin excavating beyond the easterly portion of the building removing the gravel and making room for the processed concrete. The basic idea is to take care of this area and work our way towards the west and work our way out of the site. So once this area is taken are of then processing area #2 will be set up. This is it in summary, it’s basically just a progression and we’ve identified 4 work a= reas so that they’re not just opening up this whole building all at once. = We’ve very interested in hearing the response form Fuss and O’Neil on this proposal and as well as your own response and if you have any questions I’d be glad to help you with them.

Mr. Polletta: I just want to make sure, is the shaded area wh= ere the proposed building is going to be built?

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 8

Mr. Jones: Yes sir.

Mr. Polletta: There was some concern form the board members a= nd myself that the excavated area over here was high enough that it would be considered wetlands underneath the building. Do you remember that?

Mr. Jones: I do and I just heard it again in the Fuss and O’Neil letter so we need to have someone take a look at that.

Mr. Polletta: Ok because from what I understood after you rem= ove all the material for the site where the building is going to go in, it shou= ld go to virgin ground and then start putting the stuff back in. So my concern= is that I want to make sure the wetlands is number one and it will be clean, b= ut if the bottom of the building where they throw this material now is conside= red wetlands, that should be addressed.

Mr. Jones: Yes sir and that brings up an important point w= hich is the vertical separation between the bottom of that pass is concrete and = down to the groundwater. So we’re calling from 1.5 to 2 feet of separation= .

Mr. Polletta: Where are you going to get the material to put = on the bottom of this building before you put pieces of concrete on it?=

Mr. Jones: It’s there, just from the building area t= here is enough material here. As we dig this out to make room for the concrete we’re going to have the material to do that. So the idea is to keep 1= .5 to 2 feet above the ground water, you have room for about 4 feet of concret= e, and then another 2 foot of gravel on top of that. Between the concrete and = the gravel on top, there will be a geo-tech style fabric so it won’t go d= own.

Mr. Polletta: Who is going to test the concrete?

Mr. Jones: Mark is going to tell you all about that.<= /o:p>

Mr. Marotta: Could you have the wetlands delineated on the site before you begi= n any of this?

Mr. Jones: We can and I think the area of concern is that = those pits constitute wetlands. The wetlands have been flagged that were previously approved = right along the river and then there is another piece way to the north over here.=

Mr. Marotta: Who flagged those wetlands?

Mr. Jones: That was your approved maps that were on file f= orm Fuss and O’Neil.

Mr. Marotta: Ok well I would definitely recommend having a certified wetland delineator. This way you have your base line and make sure that there is hydrophilic

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 9

vegetations since that was done whenever it was = done and our maps are not 100%. We really recommend having a wetland delineation perf= ormed for this site.

Mr. Rafey: On the original application they had a soil sci= entist who flagged the wetland on the property, it was about 2 years ago. But they have to go = back to the site to re-flag it because it is hard now to understand where the boundary of the wetlands is.

Mr. Jones: What I’d like to do is get up on the site= and confirm the boundaries and if it’s not flagged…

Mr. Rafey: That’s Fuss and O’Neil because they= have no idea where the age of the properties is at.

Mr. Marotta: The only addition to that would be that you wou= ld have to evaluate the whole groundwater situation, how far you went down and whether that’s going to be classified as a wetlands… That’= ;s something that has change since that wetland delineation.

Mr. Orsini: Ok, I see concrete 4, you’re extending be= yond the property lines.

Mr. Jones: I noticed that also. I think it should be clean= ed up and removed.

Mr. Marotta: Who owns the property?

Mr. Jones: The state.

Mr. Orsini: Yeah, notify the state.

Mr. Jones: It used to be part of the drive in property.

Mr. Marotta: So the only 2 other recommendations I have real quick, understanding you haven’t had a chance to look at what Fuss and O’Neil’s comments were. To Joes point, to breed characterization which he’ll touch on so we know what’s in the material when you’re moving it around and I know you hope it’s clean but we n= eed to see laboratory analytical showing that it’s clean. Then also a mitigation planting plan for when you restore the area along the Naugatuck River. We’d like to see some native plants put back in there and things of t= hat nature so something to just keep in mind.

Mr. Jones: So if there is nothing else at this time then I’d like to have Mark Gotliev from Catalyst Environmental talk about this.

Mark Gotliev, Catalyst Environm= ental

Mr. Gotliev: Good Evening, I’m a Connecticut licensed Environmental Professional and have been working with Kurt on cert= ain portions of the remedial plan. We’ve been a little =

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 10

out of sync due to rushing to put this together = and one of the first things I wanted to discuss was the timing of the emplaceme= nt of the fill on the property. We’ve done a fairly extensive aerial pho= to review of the site and both of the material is related to the recent fillin= g of the property. The woody material and organic material that was encountered lower down in test pits 12 and 13 looks to us to have been in place prior to 1970. I’ll pass out the aerial photos and take you through that and w= hy we believe that and why that particular area should be excluded from the remediation plan at this point in time. These are from the state of Connecticut arch= ives showing the history of the site. The 1934 photo shows it undeveloped. The 1= 951 photo shows the large sandbars there and the vegetation indicates that this is a low lying area along the river bank. We move on to the 1965 photo and we can see the drive= in theatre has been installed and that the site has been significantly re-arra= nged from its native appearance in 1951. I don’t know what year the drive = in went in but by 1965 there were extensive fillings along the area of test pi= ts 12 and 13 where we have that different type of fill material. If we look at= the 1970 photo we can see that there has been further filling with extending of the drive in theatre further to the east and the point of comparison would be the exit road. You can see it in the 1965 photo, this is where you would park your car, If we look at the 1970 photo we can see that= the area has been extended and brought up to grade and now part of the theatre.= So it appears form the investigation we’ve done that not all the materia= ls on site were in place by The Bailie Company. All the organic woodier layer relates to a separate incident that was significantly in the past from the = time that the concrete rubble was put in. As such at this point we propose exclu= ding it from the remediation plan. As far as the remediation plan goes we’= ve developed a testing protocol and has not been shared with Fuss and O’= Neil at this point in time and it will be getting to them shortly. Basic process= in looking at the material would be to excavate this material, remove the debr= is, crush it down to a suitable size to use for fill and then test it at that particular point in time. The contaminates of concern that we’re looking at it, they’re looki= ng through the materials (inaudible) obviously potential for lead painted materials in there though a building properly demoed that material is taken care of first. There was no evidence of petroleum in there but presence of = petroleum can be an indication of other types of contamination. Asbestos with the question of building is obviously a concern. The documentation for the remediation of the building looks to be adequate but obviously additional sampling for asbestos would be appropriate for this material. The last on t= he list is bottled organic contaminants such as gasoline and solvents. It̵= 7;s not really associated with the usage of the building that got there but a streaming level analysis followed by laboratory analysis if streaming indicated there is a potential for D.O.C.’s to be there. Then in the result the= re are different usage options for this material. If the material is asbestos containing, it can’t be used on site. It has to go offsite and go to asbestos land fill. Although we don’t think that’s the case, if testing shows otherwise we’ll have to deal with it that way. If the tested material reached the remediation standards it could be re-used on si= te. The bulk of the re-used that’s proposed to be under the building, if = it does meet the definition of clean fill, its use on the site becomes unrestricted subject to various local regulations about how that material c= ould be used. If the soil does have high levels of volatiles, it’s unlikel= y, but that material would not be suitable under building use and would have to be treated

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 11

further or receive and outside disposal. So that’s sort of the plan for sorting the soils and with the two generations of fill material on the site.

Mr. Marotta: Are you an LEP in Connecticut?

Mr. Gotliev: Yes I am.

Mr. Marotta: Can you just repeat what you said about exempti= on of material that wouldn’t be included?

Mr. Gotliev: The materials that are underneath the building = or other permanent structure are exempt from the remediation standard regulati= ons subject to that they don’t contain PCB’s, that they don’t contain volatile compounds, gasoline’s or solvents above a certain threshold level, and that there is a use restriction n the building acknowledging that these materials are underneath the building and the demolition of the building is prohibited.

Mr. Marotta: How about in terms of when you were comparing a= erial photos you said some of the material appeared to be there and that would no= t be included as part of this?

Mr. Gotliev: At this point I would like to say that this isn’t something that the Bailie Company put in there. The difference = is between the 191 photograph and the 1965 and 1970 photographs.

Mr. Marotta: When did the Bailie Company purchase the proper= ty?

Mr. Yorio: I believe it was 2005 but I can’t say for certain. It was certainly after 2000.

Mr. Marotta: Ok because when I look at this here in the 1990 aerial and the 1995 it appears in 1990 there was a significant amount of pi= les of debris and things and in 1= 995 it looks like it was pretty much remediated. So it leads me to believe that in 2005 it probably wasn’t that much left in terms of piles.<= /span>

Mr. Gotliev: The 1990 material we don’t know what it i= s. We have heard that possibly due to a hurricane there was material stored on the site briefly. One point to note is that this property has been cut substantially from the original shape to the piece that is owned by Bailie.= I think the line runs to the north of the building in the center of the photo. But to the south of that I believe it belongs to the state. The material fo= rm 1951 and before is underneath the grade.

Mr. Marotta: Underneath the grade.

Mr. Gotliev: If you look at the 1951 photo the whole northea= st portion of the site is vegetated and down low like a sandbar. If you go out= to the site now it’s been filled extensively to change the shape of the = site by 1965. It’s a huge re-arrangement and a lot of fill has been brough= t in to achieve that re-arrangement.

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 12

Mr. Polletta: How can you tell by these photos what was under= neath there?

Mr. Gotliev: We don’t. We know that there has been a l= ot of material filled in that area. We also know that there were significant fill= ing events between 1951 and 1965 and between 1965 and 1970.

Mr. Polletta: I know the area very well and my point is this = 1995 and 1996 the only thing that was there were wood chips but no other material there. Whatever you have there today was brought in. I don’t know if = it was brought in by someone else, but since you purchased the property…=

Mr. Gotliev: The bulk of materials yes. What we’re say= ing is the material that pre-dates Baillie’s use of the property is only the dark organic woody materials that were encountered in pits 12 and 13.<= /o:p>

Mr. Yorio: What we’re talking about is material buri= ed on the site below the level of soil. In other words the concrete rubble is the= re, they dug through a test pit, went through a band of soil, and then hit this organic material that looks to have been there for decades. What Mr. Gotlie= v is trying to say is that the aerial photos suggest that whenever demolition activity was going on in the site, when the site was expanded eastward into= the river, it is likely that the organic material was put there at that time because there was extensive filling during those periods as demonstrated. We’re not talking about surface level debris.

Mr. Polletta: What are you talking about, trees and stuff like that? That’s what I’m trying to say is that there was never anything t= hat I have ever seen on this site and anything buried there as far as I remember.= Now you’re saying that there was stuff buried?

Mr. Gotliev: Underneath the rubble in a small portion of the= site and that material went in before 1970.

Mr. Marotta: And it’s highly bio-degraded the material= .

Mr. Gotliev: Yes it was very organic and very woody. There w= ere sandbags, mulch chips, and that sort of stuff.

Mr. Orsini: Which test pits are you talking about?

Mr. Gotliev: Test pits 12 and 13 that were encountered in the lower portions of both of those test pits.

Mr. Undercuffler: You’re suggesting just leaving it?

Mr. Marotta: Leave the sand bags and everything?<= /span>

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 13

Mr. Gotliev: Leave that material in there, he didn’t p= ut it in there, it was done a long time ago probably before regulation regarding = such things.

Mr. Marotta: It seems to me to its kind of a small area and = by these aerial photos you can’t really determine whether you put it the= re or not. Any polyethylene, things that aren’t biodegradable necessaril= y?

Mr. Gotliev: Well the sandbags, one tire, and metal pieces.<= o:p>

Mr. Polletta: Is this a spot that was not disturbed or it was already disturbed?

Mr. Gotliev: This is the stuff under that you dig up through= the rubble that he’s got, and in one spot you have 2 feet of sand, and th= en into this organic material.

Mr. Marotta: So you’re saying you want to leave that t= here?

Mr. Gotliev: That’s correct.

Mr. Undercuffler: Is that in the wetland area?<= /p>

Mr. Gotliev: It’s in the wetland area and the encroach= ment area.

Mr. Rafey: Can you remove that as a mitigation for the activities you’re proposing for the site? You don’t have any mitigation plan for all the regulated activities that you are asking permits for.

Mr. Gotliev: It can be removed, it’s just a question o= f what to do with it. It certainly can’t be re-used anywhere on the site. Th= ere is nothing we can do with the process to make it into a clean fill, it̵= 7;s going to have to be an offsite landfill disposal if it gets dug up.

Mr. Marotta: How much of this material are we talking?<= /o:p>

Mr. Jones: It’s denoted on our plans as mixed area B= and C and one has 682 cubic yards and the other has 655 cubic yards, so around 13= 30 total.

Mr. Rafey: Especially being that close to the river, that = makes sense to remove those materials and put some native material.

Mr. Jones: I think in the spirit of moving forward togethe= r that we would also consider that to be a mitigation measure and we would incorpo= rate that into the plans.

Mr. Rafey: I just want to remind the commission members th= at we have two items on the agenda. This item is just the application for the restoration of the wetlands and then the violation issue on another part of= the agenda. Mr. Jones did you send a notice to the abutting property owners for this application? Do you have those cards?

WATERTOWN CONSERVATION COMMISION INLAND/WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC H= EARING

APPLICAT= ION #616 – BAILIE COMPANY

OCTOBER = 11, 2007

Page 14

Mr. Jones: I don’t have the return receipts, I’= ;m sorry. I know they’ve been coming into our office.<= /p>

Mr. Rafey: Please bring them to me for the file, thank you= . Mr. Chairman you can continue the public hearing.

Mr. Orsini: Any public participation at this point?

Mr. Polletta: I’ll move that we continue the public hea= ring of application #616 of the Bailie Company.

Ms. Russ: Second.

Mr. Orsini: All in favor?

Everyone: I

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Orsini: Opposed?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        NONE

            MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY – NO FURTHER DISCUSSION

MOTION:  &nbs= p;   (Mr. Polletta, sec. Ms. Russ) to continu= e the public hearing for Application #616 of the Bailie Company to conduct regula= ted activities associated with the restoration of a disturbed site located at <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">0 Frost Bridge Road, Watertown, CT

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

Public Hearing Clos= ed at about 9:30P.M. (No time given).

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Zawadzki, Chairman=

Conservation Commission

Inland/Wetland Agency

        &= nbsp;   __________________________________

        &= nbsp;   Jennifer Guerrera, Minutes Secretary

.