MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR
MEETING
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
THURSDAY,
NOVEMBER 10, 2005 - 7:30 PM
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Bernard
Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Glenn
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Joseph
Polletta
=
; &n=
bsp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; Peter Peluso
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Martha
Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; 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.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:20 p.=
m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Beauchamp, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Zawadzki, =
in
his absence.
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Mr. Peluso to sit in for Mr. Jones, in h=
is
absence.
3. =
Public
Participation
None
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 2
4. =
Action
on Minutes
A. Continuation of Public
Hearing, August 11, 2005, App. #526, P & A Enterprises, LLC
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>B. =
Continuation of Public Hearing, August 11, 2005, App. #527, Patrick
Graziano
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>C. =
Regular Meeting, August 11, 2005
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>D. =
Public Hearing, September 15, 2005, App. #531, Nelson Lynn
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>E. =
Regular Meeting, September 15, 2005
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>F. =
Continuation of Public Hearing October 13, 2005, App. #531, Nelson =
Lynn
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>G. =
Public Hearing October13, 2005, App. #533, Concetta Guerrera
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>H. =
Regular Meeting, October 13, 2005
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Approve Items 4A through 4C and Table Item=
s 4D
through 4H as presented.
&= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
5. =
Pending
Applications
A. Application #531 of Nelson Lynn for construction=
of
13-lot Windy Ridge Estates Subdivision and new roadway on Bunker Hill Road,
Watertown, CT.
If the Public Hearing =
is
Closed on November 10, 2005, then a decision is required by January 13, 200=
6,
unless applicant grants a time extension.
Mr. Undercuffler: This I guess we can . . . . .
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> You Closed the Public Hearing, unl=
ess
you can make a decision tonight or (inaudible) to make a decision.
Mr. Undercuffler: I think there were questions on it=
.
Mr. Polletta: Do you have unanswered questions?<= o:p>
Mr. Berger:=
Not really. We met on Monday, discussed all the
issues, the majority of the issues were presented to me in plans on
Monday. Tonight the
applicant’s engineer addressed the remaining minor technical issues a=
nd I
believe those are on the plans.
I’d be comfortable saying that there are only minor technical
issues remaining, they can be addressed following your action.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 3
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Approve Application #531 of Nelson Lynn for construction of 13-lot Windy=
Ridge
Estates Subdivision and new roadway on Bunker Hill Road, Watertown, CT subj=
ect
to the standard conditions and whatever still has to be gone over with the
Engineer in the Planning and Zoning Office.
Discussi=
on: Mr.
Rafey: There were a few i=
ssues
that we discussed during the Public Hearing, one was the consideration ease=
ment
on the 50 foot buffer area in the wetlands.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: And the placards.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: And once they put =
that,
we asked them to put placards on the trees, and if there are no trees, they
have to put those 4 x 4 posts on the ground. And with your standard conditions
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible.)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: When we issue the
permit, I give them a list of the standard conditions. If there is anything else you want=
to
add, Mr. Berger, any suggestions?
Do you want to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission the o=
pen
space the way it’s presented and then the Planning and Zoning Commiss=
ion
make a decision on it, if they want to have a fee in lieu of open space, or=
do
you want to leave it to the . . . . usually this Commission makes a
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: Well 95% of the open space is wetl=
ands
anyway. (Inaudible) make it p=
art of
a lot and leave it as wetlands and that way you might as well take the fee
instead, right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: And as far as t=
he
width of the road, we recommend it to be 24.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: It is 24 feet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: It was approved=
yet?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Combination of gra=
ss
swale and . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 4
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: But Planning and
Zoning didn’t approve it yet so if we make a recommendation for less
impact.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: The one that is proposed in front =
of you
is 24 feet wide road. You app=
roved
that plan.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: I mean they never give us a plan t=
hat
shows like instead of the wetlands as the open space, like instead giving us
like Lots #5, #6, and #7 as open space.&nb=
sp;
I mean they wouldn’t do that, right?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger: I just want to cl=
arify
on the drain issues, the grass swales now (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: On this new plan? (Inaudible.)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger: The grass swales were deleted beca=
use of
the, in order to put those in you have to grade it gradually from the edge =
of
the roadway and there’s not enough room to put them in, so we’re
back to the curb and catch basin system throughout the proposed road.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: That memo that I sent to you, that=
was
based on the plan that I received last month. There was a combination of grass s=
wales
and . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger: Yes, that was one of the alternati=
ves,
but it’s not the proposal alternative any more.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Okay, the point that Moosa brought=
up
about the open space, do we want to make a recommendation one way or the ot=
her?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: You can recommend =
a fee
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: We don’t want this.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: That’s what I’m saying,
it’s already wetlands. =
Why
don’t they make it part of a lot and recommend the fee instead.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 5
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Beauchamp: I agree.
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
B. 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 Lane, Watertown, CT.
If the Public Hearing =
is
Closed on November 10, 2005, then a decision is required by January 13, 200=
6 unless
applicant grants a time extension.
Mr. Undercuffler: We’ve Closed the
Hearing on this. Do we want t=
o vote
tonight, do we want to wrap this up, do we want to think about it?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I think the applicant has provided=
all
of the information that we requested.
Even if you wait there is nothing (inaudible) come out and you alrea=
dy
closed the Public Hearing so they cannot participate.
Ms. Sturgis: I don’t think the fact that =
the
(inaudible).
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Do you want to make a Motion and t=
hen have
a discussion?
MOTION: (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Approve Application #533 of Concetta Guerr= era for piping a watercourse and filling wetlands to provide rear yard for a new single family dwelling on Lot #3 Stony Brook Lane, Watertown, CT.
Discussi=
on: Mr.
Undercuffler: But there&#=
8217;s
more to that application than just piping the watercourse.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: That’s th=
e main
concern, but you’re talking about for the septic system?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Yes.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: That was a reco=
mmendation,
but to the best of my knowledge their main concern is the back yard.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 6
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well that’s what they said, =
but I
mean any application that’s written . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: Okay, then I’ll include it to
relocate the septic system to back where it was.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: On the original subdivision approv=
al.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: No, but they wa=
nted
to move it (inaudible) on the other side, it was recommended by
(inaudible). Am I correct?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: No, the Torrington Area Health Dis=
trict.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: So basically that’s the Moti=
on.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: What’=
s the
Motion?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: To accept Application #533 of Conc=
etta
Guerrera for piping a watercourse and filling wetland to provide rear yard =
for
a new single family dwelling on Lot 3 Stony Brook Lane.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Sturgis: And what about the septic? Keep it where it was or put it on =
the
other side?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: I will say as recommended by the
Torrington Area Health District.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: But we don’t know what he
recommended. We don’t h=
ave
that yet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible) app=
roved
on the original approval (inaudible).
I don’t know exactly what it was called at the beginning but
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: In your pac=
ket is
the original layout.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 7
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: So we can (inau=
dible)
original layout (inaudible). =
It was
approved before, so (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: So the only thing under your Motion
would be filling the area behind over that intermittent watercourse and pip=
ing
it, 60 feet is what he said.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: Right.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: To a depth of . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Okay that was a Mo=
tion,
now you can have a discussion on it.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Ms.
Sturgis: Well if we do as=
k for
other suggestions that does not put the onus on us to okay them, that’=
;s
just asking for suggestion in the conversation as you’re walking arou=
nd
and so forth. On the other ha=
nd,
the fact that they’re not filling to the level of that driveway, whic=
h I
thought was rather appalling, and the way they’re doing it, although
they’re disturbing the wetlands, I’m more inclined to think abo=
ut
it. I guess I’m interes=
ted in
what people have to say. I me=
an
whereas before I would have said I don’t want that filled, I actually=
am
willing to reconsider that. N=
ot
because we said gee would you come up with another idea, I think that’=
;s
irrelevant to our decision because I appreciate the fact they did, but the =
way
they’re describing it with the gradual sloping, although it fills some
wetlands, I’m not sure it does the same kind of damage that I might h=
ave
thought originally. That̵=
7;s my
own opinion at the moment.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: I think the issue =
in
front of you is to just, do you let them (inaudible) pipe that 60 feet
(inaudible) watercourse. Once=
they
pipe it it doesn’t matter if there is 8 feet of fill on top or 10 fee=
t on
top. I think the applicant sa=
id
that they can live with the original location of the septic system, where it
was proposed and approved with the subdivision. The only thing they’re askin=
g is
for piping that 60 feet of watercourse and filling the back yard. I don’t think 8 or 9 feet of=
fill
makes any difference once you put the pipe there. In terms of the slope on top of the
pipe, it makes a difference, because the higher you bring the fill there, t=
he
steeper the slope will be there, but the only question in front of you now =
is
do you allow them to pipe that section of watercourse or not.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 8
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: Originally when=
they
came before us there was a lot more than 60 feet.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: It was 110 feet.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible) the=
house
in the original position and (inaudible) try to have some back yard so I fe=
el
they did as present, as recommended by this Board, and as long as it’s
not pristine wetlands and as long as we lose some wetlands and we gain some
other place, I think that what Mr. Duplissie said before, this lot should n=
ever
have been created and I think the houses in the neighborhood they speak for
themselves, they are beautiful homes, and if anybody in the neighborhood see
something like they said, it’s like a 2:1 slope and if it was at least
10, 20 feet back yard, when you open the door it’s right there, 6 feet
you go down. I personally wou=
ld not
build a house 4,000 square foot house with a yard like that, you can’t
even sit outside. I feel that=
the
wetlands, that they tried to fill, they’re not pristine and for that
reason I think I will go along with it as it’s presented.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: But then part of their plan was to=
put
some trees down there, take out the old pipe.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Polletta: Create more wetlands, I said that =
from
the beginning.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: But the (inaudible=
) that
they submitted last month there is a planting plan where they propose some
trees and shrubs along that area, if you look in your packet. But the main question is the pipin=
g of
that 60 feet of (inaudible) of the watercourse.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Well I think
getting that septic system back to where it was in the beginning I think wo=
uld
satisfy me.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: If this isn’t
filled in the future they can come back and (inaudible) application for a
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Do you have=
any
comments, Bernie?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Beauchamp: When we get (inaudible) that septi=
c tank
it will probably be a (inaudible) recommendation for it as to location and
reasons for it being located in this newer area if that’s what the
recommendation finally is.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Recommendation fro=
m . .
. . . ?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Beauchamp: Torrington.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: If you compare loc=
ation
A to location B I think that the proposed area that the applicant wants to =
put
the septic system on the other side, Bob Smith said that there is a better =
soil
there.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Beauchamp: That’s right.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: But that is closer=
to
the watercourse, this is 100 feet and I think that the applicant doesn̵=
7;t
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Beauchamp: There may be
extenuating reasons, there may be more than we have so far.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: They are satisfied=
with
the septic system I think, they are asking you for the piping of the
watercourse for a back yard, that’s the only issue that they’re
asking for at this moment.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: That was their original objective.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: The septic system =
can go
to the original place that was approved with the subdivision.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: And that=
217;s
what the Motion is. Any comme=
nts,
Peter?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Peluso: No.
In Favor=
: &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta, Ms. Sturgis, Mr. Undercuffler
Opposed:=
=
Mr.
Duplissie
Abstaine=
d: Mr.
Beauchamp, Mr. Peluso
MOTION C=
ARRIED
(4-1-2)
Mr. Undercuffler: This is with the standard condition=
s and
meeting their submitted plan.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 10
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>C. =
Application #536 of Angelo Tedesco Real Estate for construction of
Section II of Oakwood Acres Subdivision consists of 21 building lots, Pine
Ridge Drive, Oakville, CT.
If a Public Hearing is
Closed on November 10, 2005, then a decision is required by January 13, 2006
unless applicant grants an extension of time.
Mr. Undercuffler: I think we need a Motion to Table.
MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Table Application #536 of Angelo Tedesco Re= al Estate for construction of Section II of Oakwood Acres Subdivision consists= of 21 building lots, Pine Ridge Drive, Oakville, CT.
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>D. =
Application #539 of Lulzim Kica for construction of a stone wall wi=
thin
wetland setback area at 305 Straits Turnpike, Watertown, CT.
If a Public Hearing is=
not
held, then a decision is required by December 16, 2005 unless applicant gra=
nts
an extension of time.
Mr. Kica: I didn’t know I needed a permit for the st=
one
wall, and my English is not very good.&nbs=
p;
I (inaudible) the plans for the stone wall and (inaudible). Moosa, I showed him the plans and =
he
said it looked like (inaudible).
Mr. Rafey: If you look at the packet, I gave you a copy of =
the
plot plan for Mr. Kica and you can see it shows a (inaudible) was proposed
during the construction of the house.
Mr. Kica told me that his son and his grandchildren were on vacation=
and
he wanted to surprise them and build a stone wall for them before they came
back from vacation, and he didn’t know there were wetlands on the
property and that a permit was required.&n=
bsp;
He looked at the plan and he thought the hay bales were the approved
location for a stone wall.
It’s not exact location, I think (inaudible). (Tape #2, Side B ended – may=
have
missed some) for the stone wall between the wetlands and the upland area and
they just built it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 11
Mr. Polletta: Was the stone wall (inaudible)?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> No, it wasn’t, but this enti=
re
area was a lawn. If you go now
you’ll see it’s much better than it was. It’s like a buffer between t=
he
wetlands and the upland area.
Mr. Undercuffler: That’s really what we’= ve been talking about in other cases, to have a wall to protect the wetlands.<= o:p>
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> Yea, except that this one was put =
in and
then there was fill brought up to it, but it’s done now, I mean
it’s done, it was a nice thing you did for your son.
Mr. Kica:
Mr. Undercuffler: Where does the wetlands go (inaudi=
ble)?
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> There are a lot of wetlands on tha=
t lot.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> This lot is 3.735 acres and
there’s a small area in this corner that (inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> If you’re looking at the hou=
se
from the road, all of the woods on that right hand side basically belong to
that property and it’s all wetlands, and the wetlands come just about=
up
to the house.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well they come up about where the wall is.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> Correct, it’s close.
Mr. Undercuffler: The wall is not really that bad.
Mr. Rafey: =
Where they put the wall was already
disturbed. It’s in the =
50
foot buffer zone. There was a=
lawn
but they built a wall and then filled the back of the wall. Now it is more stabilized than it =
was.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> It’s the edge of, it’s
questionable as to whether or not it’s wetlands or not wetlands, but
it’s also the 50 foot buffer, so there was fill that was brought into=
the
50 foot buffer but at this point it’s separated and there’s not=
hing
to do about it except say goodbye.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 12
MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Approve Application #539 of Lulzim Kica for construction of a stone wall within wetland setback area at 305 Straits Turnpike, Watertown, CT subject to the standard conditions.
Discussi=
on: Mr.
Rafey: No more disturbanc=
e.
Mr. Kica:
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I think you can finish the drivewa=
y,
yes, I saw there was a little area that is not connected. It’s better actually to fini=
sh
that part because that will stop the silt from going from the driveway into=
the
wetlands. So finish that sect=
ion,
but no more wall in the wetlands or around this area.
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&= nbsp; E. = Application #540 of Arthur Howland for 11-lot residential subdivision, Old Baird Road a= nd Woodbury Road, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by December 16, 200=
5,
unless applicant grants an extension of time.
Mr. Undercuffler: I think we ought to schedule a Publ=
ic
Hearing and Table this. There=
is
not really too much point to . . . . . I mean there’s the whole quest=
ion
about the road, the access.
Mr. Duplissie: =
She’s been sitting patiently,=
how
about if we just hear her out for a couple of minutes and see what she has =
to
say.
Atty. McTaggert: I actually represent Gary Hardisty the owner and
Arthur Howland is the Engineer on this project. I assume that you should schedule =
it for
Public Hearing, that’s fine.
I just have a very quick report.&nb=
sp;
There has been a site visit and some suggestions were made at that t=
ime,
and the engineer is working on those.
They had to do with moving back some recharge areas and moving a
driveway and so he is working on some revisions that will come in at the Pu=
blic
Hearing to discuss that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 13
The only other thing i=
s that
this Commission may know that this subdivision was previously approved on t=
he
site and you need to take a look at the new plans because there is
substantially more open space.
It’s still 11 lots, but it’s I think a lot better plan.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> So we had an approved plan before,=
we didn’t
just go with that plan, we expanded the open space and made it a better pla=
n so
there’s now almost 30% open space on the property. So that was it. I had some mini plans to give out =
to
people on the Commission which I think are helpful and actually I think
we’ll try to make these a little bit bigger cause the print is small =
but
I think they’re helpful and I was just going to provide those.
Mr. Undercuffler: Is that different from what we already had?
Atty. McTagge= rt: It’s the same print, just . .= . . .
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: When you say t= his was already approved, this was an approved 11 lot subdivision?
Atty. McTagge= rt: It was a Wetlands approval for= an 11 lot subdivision on this site.
Mr. Rafey: I had this one size, is this differ= ent?
Atty. McTagge= rt: (Inaudible) colors.
Mr. Rafey: It’s harder to read this.
Atty. McTagge= rt: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Polletta:= And when was this approved?
Atty. McTagge= rt: 1994. And it was not built.
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Since it was 11 years ago does that hold true? I thought (inaudible) expired?
<= b>Atty. McTaggert: No, it’s expired, so we’re back in here with a slightly different site subdivi= sion plan. The applicant had an ap= proval from the Wetlands Commission on the subdivision there was discussion about = roads and some other things and disagreements with the Planning and Zoning Commission. We hope to be muc= h more agreeable so we think we’ll be able to work out those issues which are not wetland issues. So the pl= an before you is the same number of lots but expanded areas of open space, and= no direct wetland impacts. There= is one intrusion into the regulated area for a driveway on Lot #8.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 14
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: The driveway crossing, correct?
<=
b>
<= b>Atty. McTaggert: Right.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: And your en= gineer is going to . . . . .
<=
b>
<= b>Atty. McTaggert: It’s not= a crossing, it’s actually just within the 50 foot regulate area.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Buffer.
<=
b>
<= b>Atty. McTaggert: Exactly.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: There’s = two sections of wetlands and then he goes right in between them.
<=
b>
<= b>Atty. McTaggert: He’s goi= ng to work on it after the site visit to see if there is anything he can do to ma= ke it as good as he can make it.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: And there&#= 8217;s an access back to the open space?
<=
b>
<= b>Atty. McTaggert: Yes, there is.=
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: I guess it’s where that heavy dark line is.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Yes. Between, coming up 3 lots from Woo= dbury Lot, between the 3rd and 4th lot coming up the road.<= /p>
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: How wide of= an access is that?
<=
b>
<= b>Atty. McTaggert: It’s 10 = ft.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: So it’= ;s just enough to walk.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: And it doesn&#= 8217;t cross wetlands so that you’re not . . . .
<= o:p>
<= b>Atty. McTaggert: No.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: That’s w= hat we were talking about on the site.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 15
<=
b>
<= b>Atty. McTaggert: There is a lit= tle wetlands to the right of it, but it doesn’t cross it (inaudible) just below that area.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: But at least we don’t have to walk through the wetlands to access it.
<=
b>
<= b>Atty. McTaggert: That’s correct.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: But there̵= 7;s really nothing for us to do on this yet until . . . . .
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: Schedule a Public Hearing and then you can discuss it then.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: So the Publ= ic Hearing would be the next meeting?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: Yes.
<= o:p>
MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Table and Schedule a Public Hearing for Application #540 of Arthur Howland for 11-lot residential subdivision, Old = Baird Road and Woodbury Road, Watertown, CT.
Discussi= on: None<= o:p>
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&n= bsp; F. = Application #541 of Ronald Delaney, Jr. for construction of a new single family dwellin= g on Lot 1B Hinman Road, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by December 16, 200=
5,
unless applicant grants an extension of time.
<=
b>Emily
Jones, Engineer, Civil One
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: You probably remem= ber this lot from last month that we spoke about. Since then there was a Wetlands wa= lk, a field trip, I wasn’t present but Brian Baker from our office was, and= on that field trip we took some suggestions and from the last meeting, we put = some suggestion from the Commission and one of the concerns was how far back the house was into the lot and how it was located somewhat on that slope that started to go down toward the water, so we moved the house as far forward toward the road and as far away from the wetlands as possible.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 16
<= o:p>
T= his detached, you probably remember, we were trying to utilize that existing shelter, we thought we had to do that, for the Health Department, this requirement, but it turns out that as long as that remains for now that it’s still the same repair in the eyes of the Torrington Area Health District so we were able to take the house and move it as far towards the f= ront setback and as far away from the wetlands as possible. It still is a walkout basement whi= ch minimizes the grading, it’s further from the wetlands which anyone who was on the site walk could see that you could walk right into the wetlands = and not even know it, it’s really a lawn type of area and really difficul= t to tell that it’s even is wetlands that was created by the drainage in t= he road. So essentially this is = a new plan that we came up with. We= still kept the septic system in the same area which is within the 100 feet from t= he open water course. The soil o= n the rest of the site isn’t suitable for the percolation rates, and as you move it up the hill you cant meet the MLSS and you get unto a steep slope so you require more fill, it almost goes down (inaudible) almost extends down = to the same portion anyway, so we put it in that spot, kept it in that spot th= at has, was requested by Bob Smith that has the best perc rates and it’s flatter in that area also. So= there is no activity within the wetlands any more. There might be some temporary acti= vity where machines have to move around there but really it’s minimal grading. The grading was actu= ally reduced from what it originally was and there is about 3,100 square feet of disturbance in the 100 foot setback area for the septic system but as you c= an see I think this is a much better plan now that we can abandon the idea tha= t we have to incorporate that shelter into the house.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: What was the argument before? Why it was t= he thinking that it had to be?
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: Because the plan, = the original use for that house, or that shelter was for a residence, it was li= ke a bomb shelter, it was considered a residence, so in the eyes of Bob Smith and the Health Department it was only a repair because that was a residence and= so we were going to build on and essentially utilize that residence, but it tu= rns out, I guess, that doesn’t have to stay that way, it doesn’t ha= ve to connect to the building, therefore we’re not increasing any non-conformance with Planning and Zoning cause that little shelter is over = the setback line and it allows much more flexibility with the house really.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Are the rul= es difference if it’s a repair? That’s kind of what I’m hearing.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 17
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: Yes. The rules are different. The reason is because it was in th= e 75 foot setback for the Health District and he’s allowing that because it’s a repair.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: If they build a new house on a lot that separation difference from the septic system, from the wetland is 75 feet, but if it’s an existing situation that you want to repair something, it can be less than whatever is there.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Is it 75 feet = or 100 feet?
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: No, for the Torrin= gton Area Health District it is 75 feet from the edge of wetlands. But the new regulations, from the = edge of wetlands it’s 50 feet, and from a watercourse it is 100 feet.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: And this is a wetland, not a watercourse?
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: This is a wetland.= (Inaudible) from the Nonnewaug Riv= er?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Can you mov= e that map up closer?
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: Is that the only c= opy you have?
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: No.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Beauchamp: How far does t= he septic system have to be from the watercourse?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: 100 feet.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: You’re a= bout 80 feet from the river, right?
<=
b>
<=
b>Ms.
Jones: Yes, and that̵=
7;s part
of this application, because that’s really the only area of the site =
that
perced out acceptably for a septic system, that’s part of this
application to keep this outside of the 50 foot wetland setback but it is
within the 100 foot watercourse regulated area and that is part of this
application that we’re asking you to approve and the fact of the matt=
er
is, I mean we perced everything up here, in the past the applicant has trie=
d to
in an area for the septic system but through discussions with the Health De=
partment
and everything like that, this really is the area. And if you notice, the shaded in
(inaudible) are really the primary and where the dash lines are the reserve
area so we’re hoping never even to have to build those out so it̵=
7;s
(inaudible) up to the 50 foot line, it’s closer to the 75 foot line.<=
/p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 18
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Did you perc t= he area south of this proposed house?
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: We didn’t pe= rc it, but in the past it has been tested, and it’s slow.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Because that is wetlands, (inaudible).
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: Right.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: And that perce= d out worse than where you are now?
<=
b>
<=
b>Ron
Delaney, 170 Westbury Park Road, Watertown, CT 06795
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Delaney: That’s been perced out by Chesprecott back in around 1990, 1991 if my memory serves me right. Then a couple of years= later we tried percing in a couple of other areas there, we never got acceptable = perc rates there at all.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Well that k= ind of stands to reason, doesn’t it, it’s wetlands.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Well it’s showing wetlands, but when we walked that it didn’t look at all like wetlands, it didn’t look anything like wetlands, that’s why I w= as asking if that had a better perc rate than within the 75 feet of the Nonnew= aug River, I would have preferred it up there, but if it’s not an accepta= ble perc rate, then there’s not much choice.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: And this, w= hat you’re proposing here, has been approved by Bob Smith?
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: Do we have a letter? I mean it hasn’= t been approved in writing.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: No. The reason he didn’t, is bec= ause it’s in front of you for this 100 foot setback, that if the Commission approves it, I think the location will be (inaudible).
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: Right, then heR= 17;ll approve it within the 75 foot setback as a repair.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: And you’= re saying that pulling the septic system closer to the proposed location of the house, that’s not help you at all because you have to bring in the so= ils and you have to create larger galleys?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 19
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: Well not necessari= ly larger galleys but you have to chase it a little further before you hit existing grade and it’s a little bit more compact up here, the steeper slope is a little bit, I mean even if you get up to like in this area up he= re, the percs are not as good as down here.&nb= sp; I mean we went over this kind of back and forth trying to figure out what we could do and I mean this is just the same plan that we presented at= the last meeting as essentially our only option. I guess really what I wanted to im= press upon everyone tonight and what seems to be a big issue from the last meeting was the location of the house and that did move back, I mean it used to come back in here and it was in the wetlands here which, and then we also have a (inaudible) the house is less deep, the footprint is less deep, now it̵= 7;s slowly wider because before he had this little square footage to work with,= but it’s a simpler house design and it’s much further, it’s almost as far as you can get up to before the (inaudible) fit our well in h= ere without the (inaudible) too far over Hinman Road. And we also shifted the septic tan= k up slightly so we didn’t have such a long run, but it’s still outs= ide of the regulated area.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: So just to clarify in my mind, what’s the, it’s the 75 foot that we’= re too close to the river? Is th= at it?
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: This sort of strai= ght dash line over here is the 100 foot setback from the river, so this applica= tion consists of the septic system and earthwork within that area which is about 3,100 square feet and we’re filling about 200 cubic yards, and then t= he activity within the 50 foot setback of just wetlands which (inaudible) and that’s about another 3,000 square feet, and we have 34 yards of cut a= nd 14 yards of fill, very minimal grading that has to be done in that area.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: So as far as he’s concerned, 75 feet is the limit to a watercourse, is that right?=
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: 75 feet from the wetlands but because of the repair, he was allowing us to build a septic sy= stem within that 75 feet, but it’s not within the 50 feet.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: But where̵= 7;s the existing septic system on that?
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: There was an exist= ing something, I think it was really . . . . .
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: It was a 50 ga= llon drum is what it was, right?
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: Right we’re = really repairing it.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Well we’= re saying “repair”, but . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 20
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: It’s a new s= ystem because the old system was gross.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: And this is an approved building lot, right? So at this point there’s really no other spot is what they’re telling= us to put this septic system on this approved building lot.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: I was hoping we co= uld bring everything closer to the road including the house and the septic syst= em, but as Emily explained, I think it will be the same even if they bring it c= loser, if they have to pull it back . . . . .
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: I think that t= he grade lines just east of the galleys get tighter, so you’re talking there’s more slope, so the steeper the slope the longer it takes. I think from the site walk we had = the other day, I think this is a much better plan.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, at lea= st it gets the house away from the wetlands.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: I don’t = think it’s going to make any difference because they’re still going to mow that wetlands, right?
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Yes.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: (Inaudible)= with the slope back here down to the river?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Correct, yes, = but I think once they put the septic system in, if they stay out of that setback area, correct, they don’t have to mow that now, right?
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: I think in the are= a that you’re proposing the septic system goes down and then goes back up, there’s like a little bend there, between the river and the septic sy= stem area?
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: Well not much, but= this is the flattest area. So it k= ind of goes down and flattens out a little bit before it comes down into this chan= nel, it goes down into the river.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Delaney: This slope comes= down here, and flattens out at the bottom, then it rises up, cause there’s= a long line of ledge all the way (inaudible).
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: There was an area = that was kind of higher (inaudible).
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: And goes back = up towards the right hand side of the property.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 21
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: Towards move here.= But this direction to as much, I m= ean not, but over here yea, this is the 710, so it’s coming down from here and down from here.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: I guess what I’m trying to get at is in my head, if you put the septic system in, = can we ask them to stay out of that septic area after that, not mow that area, it’s 100 feet, or is it better to mow it?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Delaney: I have no intere= st in going down and mowing it.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: I understand, = but I’m trying to figure out what’s the best.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: In the area that t= hey put the leaching field they have to mow that area to keep it clear. You don’t want any trees gro= wing there.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Polletta: It looks to me = that the Torrington Area Health District (inaudible). This is a better place that he recommended before the other place here he would have shown to us, so I gue= ss we don’t have a choice. Now what he said about existing, because you didn’t have one before, you considered this like an existing, non-conforming, is that right? Because it doesn’t conform w= ith today’s regulations but this is the only place he can perc really.
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: Right, because it = was an existing lot so at some point it was approved for a septic system, I mean t= here was some sort of . . . . .
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Polletta: I’m sayin= g you don’t have another place to put it.
<=
b>
<= b>Ms. Jones: No, we don’t= .
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Well I think a= s long as it meets the Health District in that it’s acceptable to keep it at= the disturbance that they’ve got . . . . .
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: They will be the o= nes to make the decision to leave the septic system there or not, because this is within your regulated area.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Right, but I j= ust want to make sure that Bob doesn’t say well that slope is too much and that could leach back into the river, but if he’s saying it’s an acceptable distance and it’s proper perc, then I think they’ve = done their due diligence at this point to pull the house away and to put it in t= he best spot possible.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 22
<=
b>
<=
b>Mr.
Rafey: You can approve it
subject to conditional approval from the Torrington Area Health District.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Delaney: I think eventual= ly we might end up knocking it down, it’s not going to be of any value, but= in the mean time it’s used as storage basically.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: You can use it as a shed, but you cannot use it as living space because then you will end up wi= th two houses on the same lot and the Zoning Regulations doesn’t allow f= or 2 houses on a lot less than 6 acres.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Polletta: That’s Zo= ning, right, not us?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: Yes, but then I wi= ll be dealing with them. After you = build the house you get rid of the shelter.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Delaney: I was going to k= ind of leave it there.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: And use it as a sh= ed, not living space.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Delaney: No, I don’= t plan to live there.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Are we done?
MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Peluso) to Approve Application #541 of Ronald Delaney, = Jr. for construction of a new single family dwelling on Lot 1B Hinman Road, Watertown, CT with the normal conditions and regulations.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&n= bsp; G. Application #542 of William Davidson, for construction of 18-lot residential subdivision and associated roadway, Morris Town Line Highway, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by December 16, 200=
5,
unless applicant grants an extension of time.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 23
<=
b>Ron
George, Engineer, CCA
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. George: I represent the applicant. (Tape #3, Side A e= nded – may have missed some.) I had a site walk a few weeks ago, we took a walk down this road and at this point here our discussion was about shifting this (inaudible) 20 feet. I submitted some plans the other day. Hopefully you’ve g= otten them. We’ve (inaudible)= to bring this road up further (inaudible) and out of the wetlands. It’s right up against it but it’s out of it so we don’t have any wetlands disturbance there = and we’re able to move the road up and put a little (inaudible). The other comments that were gener= ated was the driveway crossing. I = added some (inaudible) to release the disturbance which knocked it down almost in half, the headwalls right at the edge of the driveways on both sides, and (inaudible) the driveway on the north for Lot #7, north of those rocks.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: The outcroppin= g?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. George: The outcropping.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> So it’s up here now. I think the wetlands disturbance t= he last time was like almost 4,000 square feet and now my disturbance is 850 square feet and it’s basically these 2 driveways.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Total?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. George: Total.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: From 4,000 to = 850?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. George: Right. And we took the regulated area that we’re disturbing from 1 acre to just a little over a half acre, like 28,000 square feet. I’ve given Moosa a copy of that.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: I’m sorr= y, buffer?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. George: Yes. You’re 50 foot regulated are= a, the disturbance in that area. Als= o at this crossing here we looked into this wetland that it was open, so I added some wetland plantings, the soil scientist gave me some plant types to thro= w in there to close up, the opening that was in the wetlands.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: But you’= re not actually touching the wetlands in that spot, right?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. George: (Inaudible.) The plantings would be in the wetl= ands.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 24
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: But your road would be (inaudible), just in the buffer.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. George: Right. The road is not in here or in ther= e.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Is there op= en space?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. George: No. We’re going to provide a fee= to the Planning Commission.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: What’s t= he north?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. George: (Inaudible.) This is within the Waterbury Water= Shed and we submitted a plan to them a while ago and we haven’t heard anything. I think that’= s all the comments you had on the site walk.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Well I thin= k we want to schedule a Public Hearing.
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: You should make a = Motion as to whether this is a significant activity or not.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Do we have a Motion that it’s significant?
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Is it?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Well . . . = . . how many acres is it?
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. George: 74.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: And we’r= e down to 850 square feet of wetland disturbance and there’s how many acres = of wetlands on this property?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Well if we don’t say it’s a significant activity . . . . . normally someth= ing this big we had a Public Hearing.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: I’m not questioning a Public Hearing, . . . . .
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: You’r= e just questioning whether it’s a significant activity.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Right. If you have a lot that’s 10,= 000 square feet and you disturb 900 square feet of wetlands, I consider that significant, but when you’ve got 70 acres and you’ve got 12 acr= es of wetlands and you disturb 850 square feet, I think that’s . . . . .=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 25
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Well itR= 17;s more than disturbing though, you’ve got a bunch of houses here and ro= ads and you’re adding impervious surfaces. It’s not a (inaudible).
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible.) I think that the public wants a Pu= blic Hearing, you can have one.
<= b>Mr. Peluso: Needless to say t= here could be public inquiry into this so we should have a Public Hearing.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Undercuffler: Do we want = to say that it’s not a significant activity?
<=
b>
<= b>Mr. Duplissie: Well from what= I just understood I guess it is a significant activity because we’re develop= ing 70 acres. Yea, but if there w= ere no wetlands on the property you were developing would it be a significant activity?
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. George: I wouldn’t = be here.
<= o:p>
<= b>Mr. Rafey: From a conservation point of view, yes, because it is an open space and you’re developing= the entire parcel with roads, driveways and houses. You have an impact on the environm= ent.
<=
b>
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) that Application #542 of William Davidson, for construction of 18-lot residential subdivision and associated roadway, Morr= is Town Line Highway, 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. Peluso) to Table and Schedule a Public Hearing for Application #542 of William Davidson, for construction of 18-lot residential subdivision and associated roadway, Morris Town Line Highway, Watertown, CT= is a Significant Activity.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 26
6. &n=
bsp; New
Applications
&=
nbsp; A. Application
#543 of Kevin Lacilla to conduct regulated activities within a conservation
easement area and watercourse setback area at 119 Stony Brook Lane, Waterto=
wn,
CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; If
a Public Hearing is not held, then a decision is required by January 14, 20=
06.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: T=
his is
the one that the yard went back.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: To
the edge of the pond. This is=
the
lot next to the one that was approved (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: (Inaudible) look a=
t this
one.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: Again?
= M= r. Rafey: You didn’t l= ook at this one. You should see wher= e the conservation easement area is and then we can make suggestions as to what to do. You have a site walk on November 19th.
= ; &n= bsp; Mr. Polletta: In that area?
Mr. Rafey:
Mr. Polletta:= Why do we need a site walk, just t= o see (inaudible).
Mr. Rafey:
Mr. Polletta:= If we tell him to put it back, didn’t we, or he didn’t do anything?
Mr. Rafey:
Mr. Polletta: All right, let’s go take= a look.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 27
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Peluso) to Accept, Table, and Schedule a Site Walk for Application #543 of Kevin Lacilla= to conduct regulated activities within a conservation easement area and watercourse setback area at 119 Stony Brook Lane, Watertown, CT.
&= nbsp; &= nbsp; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
7. &n=
bsp; Old
Business
None
8. =
New
Business
Mr. Undercuffler: I guess there’s no impact, d=
o you
want to take a look at it?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I went there and it’s already
under construction. They sent=
this
application to the Northwest Conservation District, Tom Hayden from the
District, he looked at this application and he wrote a memo to Thomaston and
there’s a copy in the packet.
Mr. Polletta: Why are we being notified, if it&#=
8217;s
because it’s so close to Watertown?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Any time there is a, more than 500=
feet
from . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: So what are we doing with somethin=
g like
this?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> If you have any concerns you can j=
ust
let them know. I already went to the site, they’re under construction=
and
they have 2 huge detention ponds, the entire site drains into the ponds and
then goes into a brook, Branch Brook.
If you’re on Route 6 when you get to Thomaston, this is the fi=
rst
right (inaudible) end of the road (inaudible).
Mr. Undercuffler: So maybe if we just have a Motion =
that
we accept it.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That you have no objections to this
project.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 28
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Beauchamp, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Accept the Referral from Town of Thomaston Wetland Commission.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
9. =
Communications
and Bills
10. Repor=
ts
from Officers and Committees
&n= bsp; None
11. Repor=
ts
from Staff
=
; Mr.
Berger: With
the heavy rainfall there were some problems. Mr. Rafey and I visited most of the
subdivisions immediately afterward, we didn’t see any major wetland
impacts. There were some wash=
outs,
we expected that with that kind of rain, but we didn’t see any major
impacts to wetlands or watercourse and really got very few if any complaint=
s.
=
; Mr.
Undercuffler: Reflections? No problems there?
=
; Mr.
Duplissie: No,
cause that’s . . . . .
=
; Mr.
Rafey: 90=
% of
the site is stabilized.
=
; Mr.
Undercuffler: I =
see
Mr. Calabrese is building a few more houses up there?
=
; Mr.
Berger: If
he didn’t, he’s going to be putting the base course down on Pha=
se
II, momentarily and putting the topcoat on Phase I. He’s probably going to be lo=
oking
for acceptance of the road, Phase I.
Same thing with Fox Crossings.
They’ll be looking to put the base course down in the very near
future. They did get their pe=
rmit
from the Corps of Engineers for the crossing over that tributary to Wattles
Brook and we’ll probably be doing a site meeting wit the Corps of
Engineers and the Contractor in the near future.
=
; Mr.
Duplissie: So=
Phase
I, the road hasn’t been accepted yet, the road for Calabrese?
=
; Mr.
Berger: No.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 29
=
; Mr.
Duplissie: But
yet there are people living there?
=
; Mr.
Berger: Yes.
=
; Mr.
Duplissie: How
can they be living there?
=
; Mr.
Rafey: It
happens all the time.
=
; Ms.
Sturgis:
It’s called a road until it’s accepted?
=
; Mr.
Rafey: We
don’t provide any services, we don’t plow the road.
=
; Mr.
Berger: A=
nd if
we do plow it we charge for it. The
subdivider has the option while it’s under construction as to whether=
or
not they want us to plow it or they will plow it.
=
; Mr.
Duplissie: H=
ave
they opened access yet to the road?
No, I don’t think so.
=
; Mr.
Rafey: T=
oday I
think they were removing the blocks on Route 6.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger:
I think they put the topcoat on today.
=
; Mr.
Undercuffler: I=
was
just going to ask about the Winter, last year we were talking like getting
ready for Winter. That’s
probably not that much of an issue this year in most cases.
=
; Mr.
Berger: R=
ight
now we’re scurrying around trying to get the pavement down before the
plants close and my, we have been spending some time on that. One of the questions that came up =
with
Fox Crossings, they didn’t want to put the curb down. I said as soon as you put pavement=
down you’ve
got to get the curb for erosion control before the Winter, so we will work =
on
that. We probably haven’=
;t
been as aggressive as we have in the past because things have been relative=
ly
under control. We haven’=
;t had
a lot of complaints and things have been going pretty smooth.
=
; Mr.
Undercuffler: B=
ut
like he said before, it’s a little late now for planting any grass se=
ed.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger:
Yea, but at least if they’re paving, they have to put the curb
down, if they put the curb down then they have to backfill the curb because=
if
they don’t backfill, if they don’t put material behind it, the
first plow that comes by rips it right out. So even if they put the curb, they=
have
to pave, curb, and then backfill.
That will at least stop the erosion from the whole road washing out
rather than just a little dirt behind them. I think they’ll be a lot bet=
ter
off with the curbs in there and the loose fill behind it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 30
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger:
We’ll do some other stabilization measures, temporary sediment
traps in the low spots.
=
; Mr.
Rafey: A=
nd the
curb controls the water to the catch basins instead of going all over the
place.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible)
Planning and Zoning issue than Wetlands, but what is the reason for having =
the
swale versus drainage? Why di=
d they
put this drain? I mean the gu=
y fell
in it. I mean it was funny, I=
was
over there, the guy fell right in.
Why did they do that?
Because it’s less water going in?
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger:
Primarily it is water quality, it helps to infiltrate the water and
cleanse the water before it gets to a drainage structure.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: S=
o you
don’t have like a direct . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger:
Swales we have in Town lead to a drainage structure, it doesn’t
infiltrate all the water. The=
more
natural, the more (inaudible) you can make is really where the State and
Federal Government is going, they’re going away from the curb and cat=
ch
basin.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: W=
ho is
going to maintain it? The
homeowners?
=
; Mr.
Berger: N=
o, the
Town for the most part. They =
are in
the Town right of way.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: T=
hey
have beautiful homes over there.
But then all of a sudden you see (inaudible).
=
; Mr.
Berger: Th=
ere
are some good examples and there are some bad examples.
=
; Mr.
Polletta:
(Inaudible) feet deep?
=
; Mr.
Rafey:
(Inaudible) are you talking about?
=
; Mr.
Polletta:
Litchfield Road.
=
; Mr.
Rafey:
Calabrese?
=
; Mr.
Polletta: Y=
es.
=
; Mr.
Rafey:
It’s not that bad.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 31
&=
nbsp; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
=
; Mr.
Polletta: I=
think
they’re ugly.
=
; Mr.
Rafey: I=
n a
few areas (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger:
Calabrese is probably one of the middle of the road ones. I think if you went out to Joshua =
Town
Road, I think that’s a real good example. Another one is up (inaudible) Cala=
brese,
Breezy Knoll I think looks good and it works and the homeowners maintain it
which is another (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr. Polletta:
(Inaudible.)
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey:
In the case of Calabrese we don’t know because on the site walk
between the (inaudible) and the (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger:
And that’s the first, I mean we learned how to do that, to be
honest with you.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie:
But I think the homeowners are going to maintain that area anyway
because otherwise it will look like garbage.
=
; Mr.
Berger: S=
ome of
the areas where I’m not happy how they’re coming out would be t=
he
Sunnyview Subdivision on Guernseytown Road, across from where Mr. Calabrese
lives, to put it in perspective. I
don’t think those swales came out well. I don’t think they look like=
what
we want to do in the future.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey:
And Town Line Highway South doesn’t look good. We are not happy with that.
=
; Mr.
Berger: T=
hat
ended up having to be rock lined.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: T=
here
are a lot of them that you’re not happy with so why do you keep doing
them? Don’t recommend t=
hem,
they’re ugly.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger:
It’s the wave of the future.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible.)
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie:
Yea, but I think it actually works better than putting all pipe.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 32
=
; Mr.
Rafey: S=
ince
the (inaudible) compare catch basin and pipe.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger:
Do some redesign of our swale cross section, our swales really are
primarily to convey the water to a drainage structure. I’d like to incorporate the
inflation into our standard swale detail so we don’t just pick it up =
in a
grass line swale and shoot it to a pipe or a catch basin, that we slow it d=
own
in the infiltrator.
=
; Mr.
Undercuffler:
(Inaudible.)
=
; Mr.
Berger:
Basically put a small curtain drain in the bottom of our swales, cov=
er
it with fabric, soil, so it could still be grassed and mowed and look okay.=
=
; Mr.
Duplissie: C=
an you
put some sort of ¾ inch stones and put the fabric over the top? Just like you do on a golf course.=
&=
nbsp; Mr. Polletta:
Then you probably wouldn’t need a detention pond.
=
; Mr.
Berger: Well
you can minimize it.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Polletta:
That’s a good idea.
=
; Mr.
Berger: T=
he
Planning and Zoning Commission, as you are aware, is going through the Plan=
of
Development. I mean if this
Commission or individual members have specific concerns, now is a good time=
to
speak up and bring it to their attention.&=
nbsp;
There is a meeting on Tuesday night to present their almost final dr=
aft
of that report, and once that gets adopted it will come time to start chang=
ing
the Planning and Zoning Regulations.
You folks know a lot about what’s going on and what works and =
what
doesn’t work, what you like and don’t like, so become involved =
in
that process.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: (=
Inaudible)
if it improves the quality of the water and they are maintained properly, t=
hey
probably would look okay. I l=
ooked
at it as a point (inaudible). It
looks like nothing, just a driveway culvert, we parked the van, the guy bac=
ked
up, we fell right in.
&=
nbsp; Mr. Berger:
Tuesday night (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr. Rafey:
I gave everyone a copy of that Agenda.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 33
&=
nbsp; Mr. Duplissie:
This one that we approved tonight, the one with the filling in this
ravine, I was not for this and I just want to say it again, and the only re=
ason
is that this was approved before us, this was done at P & Z and it was =
an
approved lot, but to me to bring in 4,000 or 5,000 cubic yards of material =
and
fill in somebody’s back yard so that they can have a better back yard,
why are we here if we’re just allowing somebody to fill in the
wetlands? I mean we gave the =
guy a
hard time, he’s got a 17 acre or 19 acre and we don’t want him =
to
go into the wetlands, and here we are we have a wetlands, and it’s a
wetlands that’s been minimized already by the two driveway crossings =
that
were put in originally for this subdivision okay, so when they gave this
subdivision they took that into consideration originally and now we’re
giving them more, and I think we’re kind of wasting our breath here if
we’re here to do that kind of thing to allow somebody to just fill in
that much wetlands or setback area.
We have a lot, this lot was only . . . .10, 12, 15% of coverage now =
we’re
allowing him to fill.
=
; Mr.
Rafey: M=
r.
Duplissie, I think this is a very interesting issue and they (inaudible) ha=
ve a
discussion on this on Monday night I think, that’s the appropriate pl=
ace
to do that.
=
; Mr.
Duplissie:
Don’t get me wrong, I have feelings for this guy, that he want=
s to
have a back yard, and I agree with that, but it should have never been a lo=
t to
begin with and nobody should have paid $150,000 or $200,000 to begin with, =
but
when you hate to spend that kind of money, I can see them coming here and t=
hey
want a yard, well let me fill this in cause I’ll have a nice back
yard. But that’s not wh=
at
we’re supposed to be doing here.
=
; Mr.
Polletta: I=
agree
with you, but (inaudible) filling in the middle of the road, you saw some, =
and
then what are you going to do? I
mean you try to do the best you can and try to accommodate everybody. I believe that when we look at a
subdivision we have to look at it very closely because maybe we understand =
the
issue, (inaudible) construction but a lot of the people out there do not, so
when people buy a lot (inaudible) why do you think (inaudible). He told us to do it. He probably doesn’t speak En=
glish
as it is. My point to you is =
that
we (inaudible) however a lot of people do that. (Inaudible) so we try to accommoda=
te
(inaudible).
=
; Mr.
Duplissie: I
agree.
=
; Mr.
Rafey: W=
e can
continue this discussion . . . .
&=
nbsp; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
=
; Mr.
Duplissie: W=
e have
to take more consideration in our subdivisions when we’re approving
(inaudible) pay more attention to where the wetlands are and take into
consideration the future of where somebody’s yard is going to be and =
how
much they’re going to use it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 34
=
; Mr.
Rafey: I=
agree
100%, but we have a (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Many
people talking at once (inaudible).
=
; Mr.
Rafey: I=
did
talk to Atty. Jessell regarding having a subcommittee meeting to review the
regulations, he’s available on Thursday November 17th.
&=
nbsp; Everyone
said November 17th was okay.
=
; Mr.
Rafey:
We’ll meet in the 17th in the Planning and Zoning
Office. The time will be chos=
en
later. The meeting will be to
review the regulations that you want to adopt and the attorney has some com=
ments.
12. &n=
bsp; Public
Participation
&nbs=
p; None
13. Adjou=
rnment
&=
nbsp; MOTION: (Mr.
Beauchamp, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 10:40 p.m.
&nbs= p; Discussion: None<= o:p>
&nbs=
p; MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Regular
Meeting Adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
Inland
Wetlands Agency
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________