beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRU= MBULL PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2005 - 7:00 PM

PRESENT: = ; &n= bsp; = ; Ron Jones, Secretary

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

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

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

ABSENT: &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Berna= rd Beauchamp

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Glenn Duplissie

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

ALTERNATES PRESENT: = ; Martha Sturgis

ALTERNATES ABSENT: &nbs= p; Peter Peluso

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

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

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Moosa Rafey, Assistant Zoning Enforcement Officer

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.

Mr. Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Zawadzki, = in his absence.

3. &nb= sp; Discussion on the Consideration for Decision on Applications for Regulated Activities, Which Impact Wetlands/Watercourse

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> We just wanted to have a meeting w= ith the Commission members to discuss some of the procedures we are following a= nd we want to hear from you also about the way we handle applications that are presented to you, along with the packet that I send to you every month. In case you have any comments or suggestions, are you satisfied with the way we do things, do you want us to= do anything different?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 2

Mr. Zawadzki: The only thing that comes to my mind is that I t= hink we should have more lead time in terms of when you’re sent stuff. I mean it’s not your fault, = people are coming in the day of our meeting and they give you this stuff and then = we got it there and we don’t have a chance to look at it or anything. I mean there should be more lead t= ime there from the time we can accept it prior to a scheduled meeting, to put i= t on the Agenda.

Mr. Rafey: = The time I follow the statutory requirements, 24 hours within the meeting I have to take it and bring it to you. You can accept the appli= cation but that doesn’t mean you have to follow through on it. If it’s an incomplete applic= ation the night that you accept the application and if you can ask them they tell= you what is provided with the application and if it’s incomplete or if you don’t want to take it, you can deny it.

Mr. Zawadzki: Well that’s the next point, we get a lot of these that seem to be incomplete. And why we would accept them, why would you take them?

Mr. Rafey: = I cannot refuse any application, ev= en if it’s just an application form. As long as they pay the fee and submit an application with their signature on it I have to take it, but the Commission doesn’t have to. You can just look at the application, if everything is not there you can just deny it as an incomple= te application.

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, we’re pretty lenient on that and I th= ink . . . .

Mr. Undercuffler: It wouldn’t be a matter of re= fusing to accept, it’s already been accepted, right?

Mr. Rafey: If I take the application it should be on the Ag= enda for you. You can just see it = as an item on the agenda. Usually I= give you a little memo with the application.&nb= sp; The first I give you like what is submitted, the complete applicatio= n, if something is missing I give you a list of the things that are missing, j= ust look at my memo to see if it’s an incomplete application, just deny i= t, but as I am not a member I cannot refuse to take an application, even if it’s incomplete.

Mr. Zawadzki: I mean technically we probably should deny it, b= ut on the other hand they give us a big sob story of having to pay the applica= tion fee again, and then there’s big tears and everything and then we sympathize and we don’t deny it.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 3

Mr. Rafey: = I think we had this discussion befo= re and I suggested that if it our fault, if there is something that Chuck didnR= 17;t get a chance to review the application or I didn’t get a chance to provide you with the information you are looking for and they give it to us= , we forgot to give it to you or something happened from our side, and the 65 da= ys expired, and the applicant has to withdraw that application or you have to = deny it and they have to resubmit it, in that case you can waive the application fees, it is fair, but if it’s the applicant’s fault that the application is incomplete, they didn’t give you all the reports they = need or good plans for Chuck to review or engineering report with drainage calculations or a soil scientist report, those are missing, they you can de= ny it and tell them it’s not our fault and why should we waste our time typing all of these things and put it on the Agenda and do it again. Every time we take the application= , I look at the application (inaudible) memo what the regulated activities are, what is in the application, that is my time I spend there.

Mr. Jones: = Moosa, if you sent out our package = maybe 3 or 4 weekdays sooner than you do now, cause you usually get them to us ma= ybe Monday or Tuesday of the week we have the meeting . . . . .

Mr. Zawadzki: No, Saturday.

Mr. Rafey: = I sent it out on Friday.=

Mr. Jones: Well I get the worst mail in Watertown, but that’s not everybody’s problem.

Mr. Rafey: = I think most of the information is received on Saturday.

Mr. Jones: But now I’ll give you a case in point. I was absolutely convinced that I = was going to suggest to you not to have 5 and 18 in your laws. I come here all prepared having re= ad everything and all studied and saw it, and I’m still the newest guy on the group= and it appears all of a sudden while I’m already gone, and I say now what= am I going to do, I had it all figured what I was going to do it and 18 is gone. Now I’m going to = argue about 5. And if our package h= ad come sooner that may have possibly maybe it wouldn’t have resolved th= at problem and saw it, but I think in the long run it makes us feel that when = we do our homework properly we are caught up to date, and it just seems at the last minute we get hung up. E= very time you turn around there’s something new that comes along, new draw= ings come in, we got the package, we read it over, and then it starts all over again. I could see trying to = do something about that.

Mr. Rafey: = What (inaudible) I try to put it in= the packet. If something comes af= ter I sent out the packet to you then there is no way I can mail it again to you, that’s why I bring it to the meeting. (Inaudible) they bring it with the= m, that’s why we ask you to take some time and you don’t have to m= ake a decision that night.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 4

Mr. Polletta: Sometimes I see that Chuck, I really look at him because a lot of times we don’t go with the builders and see how they’re going to propose things, so I ask the question, you got this,= you got that, but I see a lot of times we try to design the subdivision for somebody, why don’t you do this or that, I think they should do their homework themselves. Now if t= here is a question the week, the month before, and he looks at the Minutes and I don’t know if they’re available to him or maybe communication w= ith you, I don’t think that they should bring to Chuck like the day before the meeting, unless it is a problem that he’s too busy and he doesn’t, I mean nothing (inaudible) but I told my engineers that they should make sure, #1, because I serve and I wanted to look good, and I shou= ld set an example, but make sure you have everything, and I think they went ou= t of their way, and make sure that Moosa and Chuck had all the answers before the meeting, and correct me if I’m wrong Chuck, I mean I don’t know= if they worked with you or not, but I think as a developer with this piece of land, I was pushing my engineer, but I see in a lot of cases, like the time with Terry Meyers with those 3 lots over there, we went on and on, we would bring the guy to what he had to do to meet the regulations. I think the engineer should be sma= rt enough to lay it out so when they come before us, you know, we tell them ho= w to do it.

Mr. Rafey: = And in a situation like that, that’s a good example, you can see lot A1 and 2 are fine, I’m n= ot going to approve lot #3 as it’s presented. Go make some changes and bring it = back and I’ll give you a permit for 1 and 2 and deny 3.<= /p>

Mr. Polletta: I’m not saying that way to deny it, but he looks at me why didn’t the engineer think of this themselves, when we tell them to do something, and we led him to, and we designed the subdivision. Am I right or wr= ong?

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Yea, but it also boils down to a lo= t of these guys, I think they all do a pretty good job, all of the engineering groups that bring the stuff to it, but they push the envelope and they alwa= ys try and wheedle something that’s a little easier for them, and it may= not cost as much or whatever but they know darn well before they step in the do= or at our meeting that we’re looking on the impact on wetlands and the encroachment into the 50 foot buffer, so they know that up front so any time they encroach into the 50 and into to wetlands, they’re just pushing = the envelope to see what we’re going to allow so then back from what you said, if we tell them now you have to move here and here, it comes down to designing it but . . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 5

Mr. Polletta: By the first meeting you’ve got to have a = good sense of what the Board would like to see.= I mean just (inaudible) and think.&= nbsp; Cause I saw that (inaudible) look I think I’m paying you money every day and it looks at this meeting over here and it looks like it’= ;s not going to fly so why don’t we just make one big lot and forget abo= ut it, but why come back the second the third the fourth time, it’s crazy. I’m saying that I think we, and I served on other boards before, and they do a little bit like that too, like Planning and Zoning, I mean they meet every week, my wife wi= ll divorce me if that happens to me but they keep postponing and postponing, I mean I would deny it, if I told you that that’s what I’d like to see and our engineers should review this thing and given them enough time to review that. I mean after the meeting there is another month before the next meeting, you have to tell yo= ur engineers to get on the ball and get everything ready and give it to him so= he could review it.

Mr. Berger: Before I answer what Mr. Polletta w= as talking about there, I think as we talk tonight we definitely should not ta= lk about any pending applications that are before you now, and I would encoura= ge us to keep the conversations more general than comparing even past applications. I guess we can = do that, but I think we’d be better off talking in generalities and we definitely shouldn’t talk about projects that are before us right now= .

Mr. Rafey: Especially the pending ones. The ones in the past, I mean if you mention it that’s okay, but it’s better not to.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Well how are we going to come up wi= th an example? We’re not talk= ing about something that’s not already approved, this is already going.

Mr. Berger: I just want to be careful in our discussions tha= t we don’t necessarily criticize a decision, we don’t want to be sec= ond guessing decisions that this Commission has made here tonight, we just want= to have an open discussion and we definitely don’t want to talk about anything that’s pending. As far as the timing, I would like to work, one of my personal goals is to rem= ove a whole bunch of the technical issues out of the pubic hearing process. I need to work more on getting tho= se technical issues resolved before that first night of public hearing, I thin= k I ought to work on that. Many t= imes the applicant comes to the meeting with information because Moosa and I have generated memos the Friday before. I mean we all fall into that trap of we don’t do things until = the deadline because life, work takes over, job takes over and it’s Friday afternoon, we know it’s packet day, we get a memo out, then the developers, engineer is scurrying Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday putting togeth= er responses to our stuff for the public hearing, and we’ve got to break that cycle. I’ve tried = to do that and I’ll work better at doing that in the future. But that being said though, I don’t want to be, I think many of the questions the Commission asks a= re good and legitimate questions cause we need to work on getting the applican= t to really do a good alternative analysis.&nbs= p; I mean there are times I think when you guys ask great questions and= get a better project than what the applicant initially proposed to us, and that= ’s really I think what I see as more of your job is really drawing out what are the alternatives here, did you think about this or that. There are times when you do a real= good job of that. I’d like t= o talk about how Moosa and I can help you do that better.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 6

Mr. Rafey: = A good plan from your point of view= is totally different than a good plan for the developer, because when a develo= per has a piece of land, he hires an engineer and asks how many lots can we put= into this with the (inaudible) distance of the road to bring the cost down and g= et the maximum use of the property. It’s a common sense thing.&nb= sp; He really wants to make the maximum profit from their land, but you don’t have to agree with everything as proposed on the first night th= at it’s received. You alwa= ys should ask for alternative plans and believe me, there is always a better alternative for any plan that’s submitted with an application. Your job is to protect the wetland= s as much as possible. There are situations that there is no way you can avoid something, and then we can lo= ok at the other alternatives to see how you can minimize something, but the fi= rst plan that you receive, that is the best plan for the developer, it is not f= rom your perspective the best plan. You should look to see, you should ask them to provide that, an alternative plan that is best for the wetlands.

Mr. Berger: I mean we can do some of that, but I really thin= k we need the guidance and support of what you as a Commission want, as far as alternatives what do you want looked at, and then we can use that informati= on to work with the applicant and engineer to help guide them to help flush th= ose out for the next meeting.

Mr. Zawadzki: Well it’s a real simple thing, I mean it’s not simple, but it’s simply stated and that’s minima= l or non-existent impact on wetlands and buffer and it’s as simple as that. Of course if they didn’t have any enforcement they wouldn’t be there in the first place, so our objective, or at least as far as I know everything we try to = do is to get them out of there, whether it’s the sediment pond or a hous= e or whatever and just don’t even do that and ideally to me of course it’s not going to be ideal to all the developers that hey you got wetlands over there, don’t even mess with that, leave it alone, but they’re always pushing the envelope, to go back to what I said earlie= r, and I suppose if I were them I’d probably do the same thing and they’re going to see what we’re going to let them get away with= , so to speak.

Mr. Berger: Which is really, maybe this is a go= od time to jump in there, I mean that’s part of your job as commission members. I mean certainly the= focus is to avoid and minimize wetland impacts and if you read (inaudible) sectio= n that I made copies of and it may get a little bit confusing to you but this is y= our proposed new regs, but the title and authority is the same in your existing regs and the same in the State Statutes and that Section 1.1 is really the = big picture of what the commission’s job is. If you read most of that it’s protect and preserve wetlands at all cost or else the world isn’t goi= ng to exist anymore, but then you get down to the bottom here and it talks abo= ut by providing an orderly process to balance the need for economic growth and= use of its land with the safety of such natural resources, blah, blah, blah and then it gives you one more zinger, for generations yet unborn. But I mean you guys have to go through a balancing act of looking at what is being proposed here and is it good for = the Town of Watertown and it’s environment and that makes you job in my m= ind really hard, cause that’s not clear cut, that’s not a black and white issue, that’s something that each one of you do a different balancing act, Moosa and I do a different balancing act in our minds.<= /o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 7

Mr. Rafey: = And every application is different.= You cannot use one as an example to match everything else or (inaudible).

Mr. Zawadzki: That’s one of my major concerns, sometimes (inaudible) setting precedents, cause it’s really important in the wo= rld of law and we say, as simple as waiving a fee, or allowing above ground swimming pool that’s in the 50 foot buffer, as far as I know no one h= as ever come back to us and beat us over the head with that, like oh you let h= im do it, I don’t recall any like that, do you?

Mr. Rafey: = No, because they don’t know a= ll the applications.

Mr. Zawadzki: No, but if a guy wanted to do his homework . . .= . .

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I have a problem when we allow one = person to do it and then don’t allow another person, even though it’s a different application. If thi= s guy filled into the wetlands, and the other guy doesn’t now why did we te= ll one it was okay and not okay for someone else? I served on different boards and commissions for many years and I know one thing, and I don’t know bef= ore there was a lot of tough people on top of me, he said no, you’ve got = to be consistent, you can’t do it for one and not another. I mean where is our litigation? I have a hard time sometimes, I me= an this wetlands and then we have the buffer.= Now sometimes we allow it and sometime we don’t, so why do we = do that?

Mr. Rafey: That is why we’re having this meeting toni= ght, to discuss these issues.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> (Inaudible) even though they don= 217;t know, my conscience bothers me that if we do it for one we should do it for others.

Ms. Sturgis: I dont agree.&n= bsp; I think that we listen pretty carefully trying to consider things. I don’t see that (inaudible) consist Joe actually. I think within the Board some of us are more rigid than others, but I think somehow= we come to a consensus that seems to be a pretty good result. I haven’t seen anything flag= rantly bad.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> No, no, I’m just saying IR= 17;m confused sometimes we allow some people to do something, but others we don’t.

Ms. Sturgis: Well it’s that pristine stuff.<= /span>

Mr. Berger: We’ve got a whole bunch of is= sues on the table now.

Mr. Polletta: How do we feel (inaudible) this is one of the th= ings that bother me.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 8

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well it brings us back to the other= thing about it’s the old thing that we’ve been hit with more than once the after the fact applications and the guy already filled in the wetlands. Now what do you do?= Whereas the guy down the street is asking for permission to fill in the wetlands, and so if you tell the guy t= hat just filled in the wetlands, well leave it alone cause it’s worse to = come in and redo it all, and then you tell the guy down the street well you haven’t touched it yet so don’t. I’m torn with that too. I have a problem with that.

Mr. Polletta: According to Moosa if you remove it you make it worse, which I agree with.

Mr. Rafey: There are some situations where if you send in a machine and then go back to remove it, (inaudible).

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> The only thing that scares me with = stuff like that is if the word goes around and says this guy did it and they did nothing, then the next thing you know someone else will do it too.

Mr. Rafey: = Well I think you (inaudible) had a = little talk on one of the site walks that I mentioned that you should ask for poli= cy to try to avoid wetland impacts as much as possible, and if there are was t= hat you can’t do that, then they should minimize it as much as possible.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> And in the end, if there is no oth= er way that they cannot even minimize, if they impact any wetlands then they should mitigate. If you allow them to destroy this part of the wetlands or 50 foot buffer zone, how can they miti= gate that activity by creating wetlands or by removing some of the debris or gar= bage from the existing wetlands or plant some trees around a watercourse to avoid some buffer for the existing wetlands, but from day one, when you see an application, there is always some filling within the 50 foot buffer zone, within the wetlands, piping a watercourse, don’t go by the first plan= , just look to see how we can avoid those things.= We should ask them, can you avoid this crossing? A good example we went to that fie= ld trip on (inaudible) we mentioned that, can you change this, and it was changed. I didn’t menti= on any names, but it was changed, but there are always alternatives to the proposed activity that they want to have.

Mr. Berger: We have a whole bunch of things on the table here. Let me get back to Joe’s concern about consistency.&nbs= p; And I think for the most part the Commission is very consistent in i= ts deliberations and certainly very attentive and sometimes it’s okay to allow one person to do work in the buffer or in the wetlands and not the ot= her person, as long as you go through a process to come to that conclusion. I think that’s maybe what Mo= osa and I are suggesting here in our mind, it seems like we should try to help define a process to go through that we all go through in our heads mentally= for every application that leads us to a decision. We don’t want to be telling = you what decision to make, but we want to make sure you go through a process so that each decision is made based on the same process. You can come to different conclusi= ons because each side is different and each consideration is different.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 9

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> That’s the problem I’m having, why is it different? I’m saying if they’re saying you could build in the buff= er area, why would I tell this guy yes, and the other guy no?

Mr. Undercuffler: I don’t think we’re tal= king about building a house right in the middle of a wetlands.=

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> My question is why allow, if weR= 17;re not going to be consistent, how can you allow one and not the other, based = on what? What do we have to use?= If we deny the other guy and he co= mes back and asks us why we allowed someone else, what is the answer?

Mr. Berger: I don’t know if this is a good example or not, but let’s say we’re putting in a septic system. No, let’s not u= se a septic system cause that complicates it.

Mr. Rafey: = I think the situations are different. It is not like the= y are exactly the same situation that you allowed one person to do it and another= one not to do it.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> But a buffer is a buffer, that̵= 7;s the way I see it.

Mr. Rafey: = But there is one lot that has 5 acr= es of land and there is a little piece of wetlands in one corner and he wants to = put the house next to that, he can move that house, and if this different situa= tion there is only like a half acre of land and there is a piece of wetland in t= he middle of the property, anywhere you put that house there will be some acti= vity within the buffer, you’re going to allow this one but not this one, because he can move it. But i= n a situation where there is no alternative, I mean the guy only has a half acr= e of land and he wants to put a single family home, by law he has a right to bui= ld a house there and we have a job to protect the wetlands as much as possible.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We can ask him to move it or reduc= e the size of the footprint of the house, can you shorten the driveway, I mean you always ask these questions. B= ut if there is no way he can avoid that, then there is no alternative.=

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> So you’re saying if he’= s got this lot and it’s an existing lot so that means you have to work with= him because there is no alternative.

Mr. Rafey: = If there are no alternatives. If there are no alternatives he ca= n move the house, he move the driveway, he can move the septic system outside of t= he regulated area he should do that.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I’m just a lot of times we get people who want a swimming pool or a septic system and it’s a lot that’s existing for many years, and this guy paid taxes on it, so wha= t do you say to the guy, I mean in a situation like this we should bend, is that what you’re saying?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 10

Mr. Rafey: = (Inaudible) existing situation, subdivisions are different, everything is on paper, nothing is existing. He can change those lots. When a developer comes he wants to= have 5 lots next to each other but he can put 3 lots next to each other.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> But can we deny, a guy could build a house on a lot that he had for maybe 30 years because there’s some we= tlands on it?

Mr. Rafey: = You can’t deny an application= for a single family home on an existing lot that’s he’s paying taxes = that is an approved lot. No, he ha= s to build a house there, but we can see how we can fit that house with the least impact on the wetlands.

Ms. Sturgis: So we can’t deny it.

Mr. Rafey: = You cannot deny it.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> So you’ve got to work with hi= m, move things around . . . .

Mr. Undercuffler: Even if that lot is all wetlands?

Mr. Rafey: = If it was part of a subdivision tha= t was approved, no you have to . . . . there was one on (inaudible) Road and it w= as a part of a subdivision, the entire lot was wetlands, the guy put a house the= re.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Cause it’s an existing . . . = .

Mr. Rafey: = He paid taxes for 50 years on that = lot.

Mr. Jones: = He doesn’t have to give us equivalent wetlands?

Mr. Undercuffler: That lot should never have been app= roved.

Mr. Rafey: = Right, that’s why I’m s= aying, when you’re reviewing the subdivision, think of all the future proble= ms that may arise from that lot you’re approving. We have a situation that we approv= ed the house next to the 50 foot buffer zone, and we say it doesn’t got into= he 50 foot buffer zone, but during construction they come back and say oh I’m sorry, I can’t do this, can you allow me now to go50 feet within the buffer zone. That = was a lot that you approved last year or 2 years ago, now they come back to you a= nd say they can’t do it, cause we didn’t pay attention at that time and we approved those lots. We should realistically look at really what they show on the map is that possi= ble to build that without going into that area or not.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I feel this way, if it was an appro= ved lot, they should try and possibly not to disturb it.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 11

Mr. Rafey: = Yes, as much as possible.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I mean you’ve got to work wit= h what you have. Just like Glenn tol= d the guy on that subdivision over there to put the machine in the back so the stuff doesn’t go down the hill where you have that big cliff. I don’t know if you can use a machine and be so careful. It= is hard, but I’m just thinking that a lot of times it’s so hard, it’s not, I feel that we’re not consistent with everything.

Mr. Rafey: = If you want I can take you on one of these field trips, a house that’s under construction when they dig the fill for the foundation to see how much area gets disturbed by digging for a foundation. I think it’= s a good thing, and just use it as an example and then next time when somebody comes to y= ou and shows the house next to the 50 foot buffer zone, and say they’re outs= ide of the regulated area, but during the construction he won’t be able to stay out of the regulated area. There is no way you can drop that house on the land and put it there= .

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> You need room to work.

Mr. Rafey <= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yea, be realistic.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I’m in the construction busin= ess every day so I see it, but the thing is if there are people in the construction business that really are very neat, and there are people who are very slopp= y.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Like in everything else.=

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> A couple of times, and not because = we talked about this, I had somebody after the meeting who said how come you guys don’t ask the questions, why either you ask the question, I think that the question is good if you tell the Chairman, to ask that question. It may be that I feel a problem ma= ybe, well he says who’s asking the questions.&= nbsp; So let’s say for example maybe you have a question, maybe you = want the Chairman to ask that question.

Mr. Rafey: = Sometimes we do ask questions. I mean I ask questions and so does Chuck.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> No, but I’m saying that I don’t know if you got the Board to ask the questions and if I have a problem I will go to the engineer and say do you see any problem, and he sa= ys well you should look at this and that, but maybe I’m wrong about this= but I got a couple of people asking me questions . . . .

Mr. Berger: No, I think you’re very much = on track with what you’re saying.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> In other words like if you ask a qu= estion or Moosa asks a question directed to the builder and he says well what do y= ou have the members for, am I right?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 12

Mr. Berger: That gets back to how Moosa started= the meeting, how can we better do our jobs to guide you in those questions. I’m not sure what we can do differently.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> We should put it down when we get t= he agenda some of the concerns.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well he does that now.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> No, no, no.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well when we get the packet.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> We’ll there could be question= s but they don’t have to see it. Let’s say you have a question or maybe the Chairman or one of = the board members asked that question. I was asked that so that’s why I bring it up. The question was asked how come so= me of the questions you guys on the Board don’t think about asking these questions, why does the zoning person or the engineer ask that question.

Mr. Undercuffler: What does it matter who asks the question?

Mr. Rafey <= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> But that’s okay. I can . . . .

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Tonight we’re (inaudible).

Mr. Undercuffler: I mean if we were up there not aski= ng any questions or not doing anything I could see, but I mean usually Moosa and C= huck don’t volunteer stuff unless they’re asked and normally we̵= 7;ll ask Chuck, what do you think, is everything complete?

Mr. Polletta I got approached on 1 or 2 occasions where I was asked (inaudible).

Ms. Sturgis: Joe, why do we ask the questions in= the public, I mean we need to encourage people more to ask questions but they n= ever (inaudible). Tape #1, Side A = ended – may have missed some.)

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> You’re not prepared to answer= the questions, you’ve got to have somebody else to ask these questions so I’m saying it is a question to be asked, it’s a good question, maybe the Chairman . . . . .

Mr. Rafey: = Once in awhile I kind of mention to= the Chairman that. . . . . if you don’t pay it in time.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 13

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> But like what’s his name, you don’t know what’s going on that’s the reason why (inaudib= le).

Mr. Rafey <= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> But there is a point here that I wa= nt to mention to you that Chuck and I we are not supposed to run your meetings. We are supposed to sit here in case there is a technical question for us about timing, legal issues, in terms of Chuck if there is any engineering questions or technical questions that you don’t know, but we shouldn’t run the meeting or make your decis= ion (inaudible) to vote on an application.&nbs= p; We’re just here for support in case you need our help. We should just sit here until you = ask us a question. Sometime I kind of notice that once in a while some commission members they want to make a mistake, kind of like I jump in and say no, you shouldn’t say that or= you can’t do this, but other than that we are sitting here to answer your technical and legal questions, not to (inaudible).

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Moosa, if I have a questions I̵= 7;ll ask you or Chuck.

Mr. Rafey: = Yes.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> What I was asked, why you’re = not prepared to act on this and you have to have the zoning personnel to ask the questions from this Chair and not from you guys on the board. That was the question. Now we can avoid it, we can think = about it, I mean I don’t know.

Mr. Rafey: = Sometimes I look at, I don’t = know maybe some of the commission members don’t have time to read the pack= et, and ask questions that maybe the answer is already in the packet, in my memo that I gave them about what the regulated activities are, or what Is missin= g or what open space is provided, how big is the parcel, how many lots they want= to build, what is the length of the road, is there a catch basin or curb or sw= ale or detention pond, general things that are always involved in an applicatio= n or subdivision, I always have them in my memo. Sometimes commission members ask questions that are already there and I (inaudible) did they get a chance to review the packet or not. Does everybody get a chance to read the packet before the meeting?

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I don’t read everything. I don’t lie and I don’t steal, but what I’m saying I ask a stupid question and then instead of you saying it was in the packet, now you make everybody know that I never r= ead the packet, instead of saying yea, give it again, don’t say it was in= the packet because then you make me look like a fool.

Many people talking at= once (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 14

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I’m not perfect, I make mista= kes every day, but if I ask a stupid question I think we all should stick together. You know what I mean? Like in the past whenev= er I sat on boards and there used to be another Chairman, and our board would st= art yelling at the Chairman, I would jump right on him and say you don’t belong here. We as a group, w= e have to do the best for Watertown but we also got to stick together. If one of us makes a mistake, we h= ave to cover each other, I think that’s beautiful to work like that. There were times when people get s= notty, I’m the first, as short as I am, I jump right in and make sure that n= one of my friends get hurt, cause verbally a lot of people just don’t care. If someone asks a stupid question, I think we should stick together.

Mr. Rafey: = (Inaudible) especially when you are asking for drains, I tell you to look in the packet cause they’re in there. Sometimes Commission m= embers miss things.

Mr. Undercuffler: Sometimes there are a lot of drawin= gs.

Mr. Rafey: Sometimes I go over to the member a= nd find it for them, but I apologize for that.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Moosa, we’re together to get = this stuff (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: = Yes, that’s why we are here tonight.

Ms. Sturgis: I actually don’t think itR= 17;s bad at all when this stuff comes up over and over again because the public (inaudible), the public should (inaudible) heard this stuff or read this st= uff anyways so who cares if they (inaudible) again. Moosa (inaudible).

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well as far as questions, or why didn’t you ask that question, why did he ask that question, I mean everybody thinks differently. Everyone looks at a proposal, I mean no 2 of us can think alike (inaudible) based on your world of experience you might think of a question that I would never even think of because of my world of experience or vice versa.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> No, but if we ask a question, the question is stupid, then one of us (inaudible) as far as why I said that, because I got approached a couple of times and they said what’s the matter, you don’t read the agenda, you don’t ask questions, why= do you have to have a Zoning Enforcement Officer.

Mr. Rafey: = To me no question is a stupid question. The simplest thing = that (inaudible). Don’t thin= k that because it is a simple question it is a stupid question.<= /p>

Mr. Zawadzki: What else do you have there Chuck?=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 15

Mr. Berger: The other thing I handed out, getti= ng back to the consistency issue, and again I apologize, I’m handing out= what your draft regulations are going go look like. The reason I did that is because t= he criteria for decision making changed slightly in 1997. Your regulations are old, these mi= rror the State Statutes, I won’t say in plain language, but in plainer lan= guage than contained in here. It= 217;s the same basic thing, but it’s written clearer here, so that’s = why I handed it out to you here. = But these are the things that we’re supposed to be, this gets back to that step by step for every application so that we get to a decision that we’re, it doesn’t necessarily have to be consistent, but I mean= you will get the consistent decision if you follow this criteria, I believe.

Mr. Undercuffler: Maybe it would make sense in a meet= ing if we’re going through this to actually have this out and refer to it and talk about it, maybe not every item but the specific items that apply.=

Mr. Berger = Use it as cheat sheets for asking y= our questions, and maybe we can rewrite our memos to put some of this stuff in there.

Mr. Rafey: = We can make a checklist and then at= tach it to the memo.

Mr. Berger = Once we adopt these, we’ll ch= ange the inland/wetland application so we’re going to prompt the applicant= on each one of these points, so they’ve got to give us an answer, and th= en we can look at it and say yes, we agree, or wait a minute, this is a questi= on.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> If we do these points and thereR= 17;s a blank after it, then we know we’re lacking something.

Ms. Sturgis: Can you explain what they mean by (inaudible) the character and degree of injury to interference with safety health or reasonable use of property which is caused by, cause that comes u= p a lot.

Mr. Berger = That is really the big balancing act. Letter E is (inaudible) = big balancing act that you have to do. Once you’ve gone though the feasible and prudent alternatives = and whether or not this is a temporary or permanent loss, then you get to E, is= it reasonable to allow this to happen, given the piece of property that we got= and what the applicant’s purpose and goal is.

Mr. Zawadzki:: = Are we talking about injury to prop= erty?

Mr. Rafey: = Safety and health of the citizens.<= o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 16

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Of the public?

Mr. Rafey <= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> (Inaudible) but if there is a piece= of property that wants to build a road and there is an intersection location because you want to protect the wetlands, but that is a very dangerous situation, I think in that situation it’s better to have some impact = on the wetlands than create a dangerous situation that could make many acciden= ts.

Mr. Berger: Just to keep it moving forward, we = can do more or less of these, but the other thing I wanted to highlight here is 10= .3, and again this isn’t to be critical of what we’ve been doing bu= t I just want to make sure, I mean we should be doing that on the record, when = we approve an application, when we approve a permit, we should make a statement that a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist.

Mr. Rafey <= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I put it in the permit, it says tha= t the commission looked at section so and so and no other feasible and prudent alternative exists. But to be honest, most of the time it does exist.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Let me say something about that. I mean that’s something that’s bothered me a long time and that’s ideally especially in these development, feasible and prudent alternative, cut the number of lots= in half. But how can we tell them that? Instead of 30 lots make= it 15, then you won’t come near the wetlands so to us that could be feas= ible and prudent, but not to a developer, so then you’re in court.

Ms. Sturgis: You’re back into that economi= c . . . .

Mr. Rafey: = They cannot take you to court just because you didn’t allow 30 lots, if you have reasons to protect the wetlands, if you try to avoid impact on the wetlands. If they take you to court theyR= 17;ll lose.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well yea. But ideally, I mean in our world i= deal would be to not impact at all.

Mr. Rafey: = Yes, that is the goal, but it is ha= rd to (inaudible).

Mr. Berger: That’s what makes your job so= tough because you guys are in a balancing act.&n= bsp; It’s not an easy commission by any means.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> I’ve had trouble with this pr= udent and feasible thing right along because yea, prudent and feasible, instead o= f 20 lots do 15, or instead of 15 do 10.

Mr. Undercuffler: Wouldn’t that be a pretty maj= or encroachment? I mean wouldn&#= 8217;t that be really obvious to everybody that it’s feasible to go from 30 = to 15? (Inaudible) wetland and they’re putting a lot of houses on . . . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 17

Mr. Rafey: = You don’t get them to decreas= e the number of lots if there are no wetlands activity, so put 200 lots if you can without going into the wetlands, only if there are wetland crossings in fro= nt of you, okay I don’t want you to do this lot, but do the rest of it.<= o:p>

Mr. Undercuffler: I think we’ve pretty much done that.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well not really.<= /p>

Mr. Rafey: = I think what Chuck was trying to sa= y is to have consistency with all the applications. If we go through this procedure, t= o the end, then we’ll get to the same conclusion at the end.

Mr. Undercuffler: I don’t think we said you can’t have a crossing, but we fought to minimize the crossings and ma= ke them as small as possible.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Yet wouldn’t that be feasible= and prudent to say okay don’t use that as a lot, cause you have to cross = the wetlands, so don’t have a crossing and that won’t be a lot.

Mr. Undercuffler: Now what if the Town Planning Devel= opment says there ought to be a through road to improve circulation and . . . . .<= o:p>

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well that’s a whole different matter.

Mr. Undercuffler: That was one situation . . . . .

Mr. Berger: So that’s the balancing act, = you came up with an impact, that you confirm it, you minimized it by I think requiring lee wall versus still, an arch, you went through a process to get that done (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: = But then the long term use of that = facility by the public that (inaudible) another mitigation. You (inaudible) to cross that wetl= and but that public road will improve your traffic circulation in Town and those are the things that you can use.

Mr. Berger: I’ve got one other thing I wa= nt to point out to you while we’re on feasible and prudent, if you go back = to my first handout Title and Authority, we’ve used the words feasible a= nd prudent for many years, but the 1997 amendment to the wetland statutes actu= ally put definition to these words feasible and prudent, which you’re goin= g to see in your new regulations. = This is what the State Statutes has now and this is what you’re going to a= dopt some time in the future. I gu= ess I just want to point that out to you, cause we have applicants who get up and throw these terms around, like they’re not really using them appropriately, so that’s why I wanted to bring it to your attention because prudent doesn’t necessarily mean just based on expenses, there are a bunch of other issues that go into it. I just wanted to point that out.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 18

Mr. Undercuffler: The mere showing of expense will not necessarily mean an alternative isn’t prudent.

Mr. Berger: And it’s not necessarily the attorneys, it’s more the engineers, I’ll blame the engineers, w= ho get up and throw those terms around like there is no feasible and prudent alternative cause it costs more and I think we just, as a commission we just have to say wait a minute, it may cost more, but how much more, and what are the other benefits that can be derived from it.

Mr. Polletta: Chuck, when they meet with you, you go over with them, I mean they look at the whole thing before they come to you but then = you try to help them out to design to the best so they don’t impact.=

Mr. Berger: Some of them don’t come to us= in preapplication, sometimes we just get an application and we have to deal wi= th what we’ve got. Certain= ly in any preapplication we ask those kinds of questions, we tell them they have = to provide alternatives.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I thought it was a law to come befo= re you?

Mr. Berger:= No.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Even in preapplication meetings we don’t tell them to do it this or that way, we just give them suggesti= ons, or that we don’t think that the Wetland Commission ill go for this, I don’t think so based on my experience with the Commission, I don̵= 7;t think they’ll approve this and then they change it.=

Mr. Berger: These are the kinds of questions the wetlands commission is going to ask (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: = The types of reports you would be l= ooking for, we never tell them exactly change this to that, we always tell them to present something to us, we’ll review it and tell them whether itR= 17;s good or bad.

Mr. Undercuffler: This matter of alternative plans, my reaction is a lot of these people just give that lip service. There will be one sentence on ther= e, well there’s no alternatives, or even if there is an alternative, wel= l we tried this or we thought of that.

Mr. Rafey: = This is the best plan.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 19

Mr. Undercuffler: But should we force them to actually present an alternative plan?

Mr. Rafey:   Yes, a drawing and a explanation. That’s how they look at other alternatives, and why the alternatives were rejected in benefit of the plan they submitted as an application.

Mr. Undercuffler: I think maybe something along those= lines might . . . .

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> So in other words when we ask the p= eople for alternatives, they don’t come with it?

Mr. Rafey: = They say this is the best plan, the= best alternative.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> But did they show it to you that th= ere is no alternative?

Mr. Jones: = How about a poor alternative?<= /o:p>

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> At least they should show it to you= .

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Yea, we’ve had a few that sai= d they considered this but for this reason this reason, blah, blah, blah, it wasn’t good or feasible. But mostly a lot go them just say well we did this, or one thing was different = and that’s what they consider, you’re right it’s kind of a lip service thing.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> It really confuses me and I’m really, like I said we talked about tonight other things, think of it with = all these numbers, 175% of this, minus 10% of that, all this baloney, you’= ;ve got to be kidding. I mean how= do we know that those calculations are . . . . that’s why a lot of times I = look at him cause I figure he knows more than me. Maybe it’s not a lot of balo= ney, but the thing is for a board member to understand what they’re talking about, you know what I mean? I don’t.

Mr. Undercuffler: Well I think there are certain numb= ers like the amount of water flow, there are certain things that Chuck goes ove= r.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> But for me, as a board member, if h= e, let’s say Chuck is not around, and I cannot look at him and get a response, I’m lost. I don’t know about you but I don’t . . . . .

Mr. Rafey: = Our engineer will look at this and = table it until next month.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 20

Mr. Berger: I think in the ideal world I’= d like to come to the public hearing and say that the storm water management syste= m was adequately designed for a 25 year storm event and meets all of our other regulations period. Now if yo= u guys have questions beyond that, certainly ask me, but do we need to be talking = in the public hearing, well is there an 15 or 18 inch pipe, and what’s t= he slope and what’s the erosion protection, those are the kinds of techn= ical numbers that I don’t really think belong in a public hearing. Maybe I’m wrong, but I just = think sometimes we get caught up in details that are really my job that I need to= work out with the engineer. I̵= 7;d be happy to share those with you, but I just don’t know that that’= s . . . . your time I think would be better spent asking tough questions about feasible and prudent alternatives and things of that nature.

Mr. Undercuffler: I agree, but how are you going to, = going back to our opening comments there, is it feasible and prudent for you to be able to get all that done before the Hearing?

Mr. Berger: I don’t know if’ itR= 17;s feasible, but I’m sure it’s prudent. That’s one of my goals.=

Mr. Undercuffler: You’d have a month basically = is what you’re saying because the Hearing isn’t until the next mon= th.

Mr. Berger: Well let’s take this, well we= had Friday off so since last Thursday’s meeting today I spent not doing wetlands stuff. I mean maybe = the way to do it is right after the meeting for me to block out time to do wetl= and reviews, based on what we heard and what we received last Thursday night I should do reviews right now, not wait until a week before December 9^th= to do my memo, and that’s the trap that we’ve gotten into in Wetlands and Planning and Zoning and somehow we’ve got to break out of that.

Ms. Sturgis: I mean if you okay an 8 inch pipe, = will work, we shouldn’t be saying maybe a 24 inch should be there.

Mr. Undercuffler: Do we ask you that kind of question= s?

Mr. Berger: No.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> If the size, why the water was pili= ng up in the middle of one of the subdivisions, (inaudible) valley, road, and the answer was, I was concerned about the size of the pipe, but the reason why = it was, 90% was blocked, but if I knew that before I wouldn’t have asked that question.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 21

Mr. Berger: I don’t want to discourage yo= u from asking those questions because . . . . that’s not a routine question = and I’m not going to say that Moosa, and certainly I don’t catch everything. I try to do my be= st, but (inaudible), I haven’t been here that long to know that that road ices in that location, so that was a good thing to bring to my attention so= I can make sure we do get that resolved.&nbs= p; Don’t hesitate, especially with an oddball thing like that.

Mr. Polletta No, if I have a question I’ll= ask it but I mean I asked that question because (inaudible) but then when she said= we went over it with Chuck and the pipe is 90% blocked, and then I looked at y= ou and you said it’s okay so (inaudible).

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> But back to this thing about the pu= blic hearing again, we get a little way into the trap in the sense that you issue your m= emos and then that comes out a couple of days before the meetings and then these guys like you said they scurry Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday to respond to your memo, and rightly so, but they’re coming to the meeting maybe for the first time, so to get it into the record we read it or we go through and th= at way it goes into the public record. Now it’s true a lot of that is detailed stuff that a lot of pe= ople aren’t interested in, but on the other hand some of the public might = be interested to know that well it’s going to be an 18 inch pipe instead= of a 12, just because it’s a bigger excavation and maybe because their l= ots is the one down the road that floods all the time, and that’s how we = get into that, because we go item by item responding to memos but what is the alternative. We have to get t= hat into the record.

Mr. Berger: There were a couple of times that I’ve tried to break that pattern to do my reviews right after the mee= ting, then the applicant’s engineer has dragged his feet and gave me stuff = the Friday before the meeting so I came to the meeting saying . . . . .

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> We shouldn’t accept it or som= ething . . . .

Mr. Berger: Well but I don’t know what= 217;s . . . . .

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I didn’t have a chance to rev= iew it, you’ve said it many times.

Mr. Berger: I don’t know if we’re e= ver going to be able to fix that problem, but I’ll work on it.=

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> It’s a human nature problem.<= o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 22

Mr. Rafey: = What I do with the timing, when I r= eceive an application, especially for subdivisions or larger developments, the fir= st month I usually if you pay attention I ask you to schedule your field trip = the first night that you accept it, then after you (inaudible) for the next mon= th you schedule your public hearing. Then we have 65 days to hold a public hearing or make a decision. Once you start the public hearing = then you have another 35 days to close the public hearing and you can ask for an extension of 35 days a total of 70 days to close the public hearing. I think if you follow this (inaudi= ble) the first month site walk, the second month you want to hold a public heari= ng, then we have enough time.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> It’s just that issues donR= 17;t start to come up until . . . .

Mr. Rafey: = The problem is that sometimes when = they submit an application sometimes it is not a complete application, that is w= here the problem is.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> And see you accept it and say we= 217;re going to schedule a site walk, a month goes by, but no issues or details or solutions to problems or feasible alternatives have come up in that 30 days it’s just a month that’s gone.

Mr. Rafey: = And in those situations, I mean if = you just pay attention to my memo, I will list you what is missing with this application, then you determine if this is an incomplete application then j= ust deny it.

Mr. Berger: I mean if you want memos from me, a= nd I’ve done it sometimes in the past and sometimes they’ve been accepted and sometimes they haven’t, I mean if we’re missing big pieces of the application like a drainage report, deny it without prejudice= .

Mr. Jones: = Now what does that mean? Without prejudice? Does than mean they can resubmit w= ithout paying the fee again?

Mr. Berger: No, it doesn’t mean without t= he fee, but I would say if the Town hasn’t spent much time on it, I̵= 7;m okay with waiving the fee, maybe I shouldn’t have said that, but if we’ve spent time on it and it comes down to they have to withdraw, and we’ve devoted a whole lot of time to it, then that’s a different story, but if it’s something that we take a quick look at and there’s not a drainage report and we deny it, without prejudice, I me= an . . . .

Mr. Rafey: = I think if it is our fault, waive t= he fee. If it is their fault tea= ch them a lesson, they should pay another fee.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I know that you’re busy, you’ve got a lot of stuff going on between Planning and Zoning and Wetlands, but can we set up like after the Hearing, to bring you the questi= ons that you ask, and (inaudible) by a certain day but not give it to you 2 or 3 days before the Hearing. If t= hey don’t do it, I won’t put it on the agenda.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 23

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> I think it has to be on the Agenda.=

Mr. Rafey: = I have to put it on the Agenda.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> If you put it on the Agenda and the= y know they didn’t do their job, they’re going to say okay, let’= s go next month. They should give = it to you in enough time for you to review it and recommend to us whatever is missing, but if you don’t even have a chance to review why bring it (inaudible)?

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well that’s why we get so many extensions, which normally they grant.

Mr. Rafey: = Usually when you get an application= , I make a copy for Chuck (inaudible) set of plans and a drainage report, soil scientist report, a copy of the application, if there is any environmental = impact study that they submit a report, I make sure I give a copy to Chuck, but in case that they only give me the application with a piece of (inaudible), th= at is what I get and that is what Chuck gets.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> But this is what I’m trying t= o say. If it’s not completed a= nd it’s not on time, can you give them, okay by this day I have to have = it so I can review it and give it to the Board so they can act on it?

Mr. Berger: We do that, but . . . . .

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> If they don’t bring it by tha= t (inaudible) I don’t have a chance to review it so (inaudible).<= /p>

Mr. Berger: And then I come to the meeting and = say listen, we met on Monday and I said I had to have it be Wednesday in order = to get something in front of you by Thursday, and they didn’t meet their deadline, we’re not prepared, that gets you into extensions, I think, unless you want to take a hard line. I don’t know if you could deny that based on that.<= /span>

Mr. Rafey: = I think (inaudible) to deny it the = night that you receive the application if there are 3 or 4 things missing, that is the best time to just say (inaudible).

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> By this day you got to have it or y= ou don’t?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 24

Mr. Berger: Sometimes we do. I mean last week we left with a bu= nch of open hearings I believe and there are no timeframes set up right now. I mean I guess I’ve got enou= gh of a working relationship with the applicant’s engineer so we’re talking but maybe I’ll say this, any kind of deadlines, you can be tougher on the applicant as well as on me to say listen, we’ve had en= ough of this, we want all of these issues resolved by the next meeting. When can you get our engineer the = information so that our engineer can get it done? Don’t hesitate on keeping my feet to the fire as long as you k= eep theirs to the fire too.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well we tried it a couple of months= ago, I said I told a guy that they had to have their information to you by the Friday before so we had a chance to look at it before our meeting, cause th= is business of bringing it to the meeting just doesn’t fly, none of us (inaudible).

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> So basically my question was either= you do or you don’t have a request by them to have an application in by a certain? You do or you don= 217;t?

Mr. Berger: Not in a normal course of business,= there are not deadlines set up.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> How hard is it for you to say look,= I need your application, any questions you have about this by a certain day, = completed, so that way I can review it before the meeting. If they say no, then we just either table it or give us an extension, we’re not going to spend any time on it.

Mr. Jones: = Excuse me, has anybody seen this pencil? This is what’s bothered me. I’m sittin= g here thinking, it seems to me every time we turn around at the last minute there’s a whole bunch of new changes that come and everything gets confused and the next day my pencil is broken. I’m only suggesting that may= be it’s possible if you sent that package a little bit earlier, and if it were understood by everybody that changes that come in after that package c= omes to us is not going to be treated friendly, we might be a little more effici= ent and maybe people would respect us more.&nb= sp; They get away with murder.

Mr. Rafey: = The problem is if I send you the pa= cket earlier, it will be an incomplete packet and then you will not receive prob= ably Monday might . . . .

Mr. Jones: = That’s not our problem, it= 217;s theirs.

Mr. Rafey: = But once they drop it off at my off= ice it becomes my problem, then I have to send another packet, and another packet.=

Mr. Jones: = I could see not wanting to put a bu= rden on you.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 25

Ms. Sturgis: (Inaudible) application in the first place, maybe that’s a setup.

Mr. Berger: Yea, hold my feet to the fire, hold= their feet to their fire, set up some timeframes, get annoyed if you’re get= ting a bunch of information at the last minute.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> That timeframe should be set by you= and we’ll support you.

Mr. Berger:= I mean we can talk about it at the meeting. Chuck, when do you n= eed this stuff by and if I say give it to me a week from today, then I’ll have a week to review it and . . . .

Mr. Jones: = Or should that be in our regulations? We just rewrote = them, they’re not accepted yet.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> The problem is if they bring it in = and they he doesn’t have a chance to review it because (inaudible) and th= en he looks bad so I think they should give it to us and if you fall behind becau= se you have too many things (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: = To be honest once in awhile that ha= ppens, the applicant does submit things on time and we don't have the time to, lik= e in my case, I’m dealing with this commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals, the same thing, we have to review the application and send out a packet (inaudible) Planning and Zoning issues every day live in that office, customers, phones, all the deadlines, legal notices, agendas, sometimes applicants bring us things that we don’t have time to review before t= he meeting so you have to table it until the next meeting.

Mr. Undercuffler: It also depends on how many (inaudi= ble) plans you have.

Mr. Rafey: = Yes, we might have 10 or 12 applica= tions in the same month.

Mr. Berger: And are they easy or complicated ones? I mean some take a half= an hour and some take a day and a half.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> We’ve been doing pretty good = with the time, getting out at 10:00 or 11:00.&n= bsp; These other boards meet every week, so I think we’re doing pre= tty good.

Mr. Berger: And I think, Moosa and I talked this afternoon, we don’t want you to think that you’re doing things wrong. We just want to see if= there are things we can do better to make sure we’re being consistent.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 26

Mr. Rafey: = Or if there is anything that we do = not in a right way, you can guide us in the way you want us to do things. If you are satisfied then we’= ;re happy.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well I know of a couple of instances where we talked about our pre-meeting (Tape #1, Side B ended – may ha= ve missed some.) You and I have discussed things ahead of time and say okay this is not a complete applicat= ion and we should deny it, and then we get to the meeting and we look around and say well, we just have to accept it and we have a site walk a month from now and a hearing 2 months from now, now we’ve just accepted it and we’ve had that happen several times, and by right we should have said this is an incomplete application, get it out of here, instead we’ve vacillated and said well we’ve got a month, just to have a site walk,= and then another month for a hearing, and so we take it, and I’m saying f= rom all this discussion we shouldn’t do that. We should say this is incomplete a= nd if we make up a new form or application and has this criteria on it and there’s a check list and there are things that aren’t checked o= ff, hey it’s an incomplete application.&= nbsp; I think a checklist is a good idea.= To have these things incorporated in the application I think that’s great cause we all need that.= You’re supposed to give us this and this and this and it’= ;s not there.

Ms. Sturgis: I think that criteria (inaudible).<= o:p>

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> That’s what I’m referri= ng to, yea which I guess is. . . .

Mr. Berger: Just to really quickly go over the = things I wanted to talk to tonight, this is what your job is. The title and authority is how com= plex and how comprehensive your job really is and you’ve got that balancing ac= t, feasible and prudent, what your authorities are, then the definitions of feasible and prudent because people are throwing those terms around and misusing them all the time, and then the criteria for decision making, those are the things that I really wanted to highlight to you, and even though they’re part of your draft regulations, they’re in your existing regulations, just a little bit different wording. Sort of a mental refresher just a checklist of things that we all need to be looking at and questions you nee= d to be asking of us or the applicant.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Maybe after we’ve had this discussion now we should go back and review these things and maybe we could= do this again a month from now.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I think we should do it (inaudible)= .

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well yea of course we have to bring everyone else up to date now, but we could get the other guys these handout= s, Bernie and Glenn and Denise.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 27

Mr. Rafey: = The definition of wetlands, by State Statute any poorly drained soil or very poorly drained soil or alluvial soi= l or flat plain soil, they are wetlands. It doesn’t say how good or bad they should be. Your regulations say that wetlands= and the 50 foot buffer zone of the regulated area. There are situations where there a= re good and bad wetlands, and I think Mr. Polletta mentioned this a few times,= as an example, this is a past application . . . .

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I use the word pristine because a l= ot of engineers (inaudible) very good stuff, don’t touch it, of course ther= e is other stuff you don’t even know is wetlands.

Mr. Rafey: = But the problem is you never ever h= ear from an applicant come in front of you and say this is a beautiful piece of pristine wetlands that I want to fill.&nbs= p; They all say it’s not functioning . . . .

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Like the situation like this guy th= at little house over there, I mean I walked it, it was a field, I would never know th= ere was wetlands over there, versus someplace where it’s a marsh, that’s a , so as a board member I see the difference between the two = and when I make a decision to me it’s important.

Mr. Rafey: = That is good in a situation. I’ll give you an example. If you remember when you reviewed = the application for Swift, when we went on the Site Walk, they were proposing everythng close to Wattles Brook, the parking lot and everything. After the site walk when we saw the wetland on the north part, near that drainage ditch that was created and (inaudible) we want to protect Wattles Brook compared to that, in that case Wattles Brook is your pristine wetland, that is your valuable resource, I don’t mind if they want to move everything toward the north toward th= at other wetland, compared to that, but it depends on the situation. You have a choice. Do you want to impact Wattles Broo= k or did you want to impact that other? I think I’d prefer the north.= But in situations where that is the only type of wetlands on the property, it doesn’t matter if it’s good or bad, by definition that’s a wetland. But j= ust for your information, you never ever hear an applicant say this is a beauti= ful piece of wetland and I want to fill it.&nb= sp; They always say it’s a piece of garbage, just fill it, it̵= 7;s manmade, since this drainage pipe on this property it created this wetlands= . I think wetlands take a long time = to be created and you have to have all this criteria, the soil profile, the hard = pan and the water stays there and it becomes a saturated situation for a long t= ime to create that situation. I m= ean you hear that all the time from an applicant that Mr. Zawadzki, this is not= a good piece of wetlands and it’s not functioning. You don’t go by that, you just go by your definition of wetlands. A poorly drained soil is a wetland= . It is wetlands and it is regulated= .

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> But I think the only way they can m= ake it, you’re going to go look at this and see what they want to do and = then you say to us to go do a field trip, you suggest it, that’s why IR= 17;m saying, you said to us I suggest the Board go take a field trip, so then we really see if the guy is full of beans or not. I’m just saying it’s important field trips, wetlands are very important, and when you suggest it= we always go, and I will always be there.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 28

Ms. Sturgis: And I won’t be there this wee= k.

Mr. Berger: While we’re on that subject, = the value of different kinds of wetlands, another way to look at that, maybe I’m really overstepping my bounds here, but look at a degraded wetlan= ds as a wetland with an opportunity for improvement. I mean we’re looking at, whe= n we talk about mitigation, I should like a real jerk right now, but when we talk about mitigation you will see that the applicant’s typically jump rig= ht to we’re going to create wetlands for you, we’re going to offset that by creating that. Well i= f you look at the statutes there is a specific order, and your regulations are go= ing to say that, when you look at a wetland you want to restore a wetland, you = want to enhance a wetland by getting the garbage out of it, the shopping carts, = the invasive species, you want to enhance it by bringing more water to it, doing something like that, and create. You want to do it in that order, restore, enhance, create. You can’t just jump to the b= ack and say well we’re going to create, you’ve got to go through th= at step process to get to that decision so that you’re consistent with y= our decision making.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Yea, I’ve never been a big fa= n of the mitigating type of thing, neither manmade or creating a wetlands.<= /o:p>

Mr. Rafey: = And they’re never the same. Manmade wetlands are not the same = like the natural wetlands that were created by thousands of years of (inaudible)= .

Mr. Zawadzki; <= /b> And years from now they’re go= ing to come back and say well this is no good because we made it in the first place. We’ll just take = it away cause we’re going to build a house there, so yea, you can get slapped up the side of the head with that.

Mr. Rafey: = If you review the (inaudible) order= that we presented tonight that #1 avoid, minimize, mitigate, and then mitigation= . . . . .

Mr. Berger: Restore, enhance, created, all in t= hat order.

Mr. Rafey: = We go through the steps, believe me= , all the conclusion is the end of (inaudible) sill be almost similar to the other one and we won’t have any problems.&= nbsp; No one can take you to court if you go to court and say this is the steps that I took and this is the conclusion that I came up with, and you g= ive a reason why you denied it, I don’t see any problem that you will fac= e if you follow those steps, and we should do that. Do you want me to kind of mention = in my memo for each packet?

Ms. Sturgis: Yea.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 29

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> And any questions that you have tha= t you put in our packet, a lot of times you don’t come up with, like especially= a new application, I don't know nothing about it, so if you can give us input (inaudible). More, as many as possible, we can ask questions and it makes us look good too.

Mr. Berger: Maybe we can try to follow the fact= ors for decision making in our memos to try and help . . . .<= /p>

Mr. Rafey: = To try and incorporate this into the memo. But just don’t fo= rget, just for the record, we are not here to tell you how to vote on an applicat= ion, that is totally your business, that is none of our business and we are here= to sit here and help you in any way possible to make you educated on an application so you can make a good decision and you are the one to make that application, that’s not our job.

Mr. Berger: One more thing I’ll hand out,= a sample motion sheet which was handed out by part of an attorney generalR= 17;s office training. I don’= t know if you want to spend any time looking at this. It’s a few years’ old = now, I guess we’ll just put it out there for your consideration as those of = you who are making motions (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: = Any of you, when you open your pack= et and you review it, if you see any questions, please feel free to pick up the ph= one and call me and ask me whatever you want.&= nbsp; If it’s a technical issue call Chuck, and tell us you didnR= 17;t understand something.

Mr. Jones: = Not wait until the meeting to do it= ?

Mr. Rafey: = Yea, during your packet review, if = you have a question, just call me, I’ll help you, and if I can’t, w= e’ll call Chuck.

Mr. Berger: But also don’t hesitate to pu= t me on the spot at the meeting, if you’ve got something you’re not comfortable with or you’ve got a question of whether it’s icing= or pipe size, just ask me. The m= ore questions we all ask, with our differing backgrounds and balancing, the bet= ter product we get for the Town.

Mr. Undercuffler: When I first started on this commis= sion you didn’t come to meetings then.&nb= sp; I mean that’s been kind of recent, maybe the last year and hal= f.

Mr. Berger: Well the previous Director of Public Works did not. As soon as Phil Deleppo = got the position split with Roy and myself being hired, I’ve missed a cou= ple but not very many in the past couple of years.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 30

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> No, and I think that’s a good improvement.

Mr. Berger: I’m glad to hear that.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Do you feel the way we make the mot= ions by approving an application such and such, subject to conditions, that̵= 7;s not enough? Maybe our motions= are too short.

Mr. Berger: Yes, I think right now they’r= e a little on the short side, not that you’ve been doing anything wrong, = but just for the sake of consistency, it’s not going to be an exact rigid thing each time, but I think we’ve got to get a little bit more, well= the state law in your regulations require you to do more than what we’ve = been doing, I guess that’s why I’m handing this out.

Mr. Undercuffler: Give a little background explanatio= n.

Mr. Berger: As to why this motion for approval = is being presented. And restate = some of the things that you were just talking about basically.=

Mr. Rafey: = When you vote, for example if you w= ant to vote yes on an application, just give a reason why.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> When I served on other boards we us= ed to give a reason.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Individually, you mean each person?=

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Yes. Planning and Zoning used to do it.

Mr. Berger: If you vote no you have to give a reason. I don't know if you h= ave to but they do.

Ms. Sturgis: We give our reason for (inaudible) discussion before we vote.

Mr. Rafey: = Yes, when you approve it I look at = all the (inaudible) and the applicant tried all the things and this is a better alternative and I believe that no other alternative exists and I feel (inaudible) to vote yes on this.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> So the Chairman is going to go thro= ugh everyone?

Mr. Rafey: = Yes, you can do that. Especially when you vote no, then = you have to give a reason.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 31

Mr. Berger: (Inaudible) as an alternative. If it appears based on discussion = that everybody is on the same page, that this is going to get approved and the a= pplicant has done a good job of looking at alternatives and minimizing and it’s not a big impact, I mean would it be unreasonable to make a motion to appro= ve based on our discussion here that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives and just a few (inaudible) words . . . .

Mr. Rafey: = (Inaudible) motion that says yes be= cause that becomes everybody’s motion.&nbs= p; But if it’s, I make a motion to approve this and then I want to hear a little bit from the commission members as to why we’re approvi= ng this because we went through this process and the applicant made the changes and provided a lot of information and we’re satisfied with the application the way it is.

Mr. Polletta: Even if you say you’re satis= fied with the way it was presented.

Mr. Berger: We say that they’ve looked at alternatives, they minimized, and there is not a feasible and prudent alternative to what they’ve proposed.

Mr. Rafey: = The person who makes the motion mak= es everybody else’s life easier by saying this thing. If one person (inaudible).

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> When we’re ready to approve, = we used to have a motion.

Mr. Rafey: = You can ask.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Like you would give us, we used to = read off whatever was given to us and everything was in there.=

Mr. Rafey: = You can ask for a draft motion for approval. And then I will dra= ft it for the next meeting.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> You have done that in the past, but= not recently.

Mr. Rafey: = No.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> So why can’t you draft a moti= on and (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: = Because when I come to the meeting I don’t know what the vote will be, whether you are going to deny or approve, but if you mention in the record that you ask staff to draw up a d= raft motion to approve and a motio= n to deny, whatever the vote is, I mean . . . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 32

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> We kind of got out of that habit, c= ause when I first started you were doing that.

Mr. Rafey: = Especially for the other subdivisio= n that this was controversial and (inaudible).&nb= sp; You don’t need that for all the applications.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> No, a lot of them, particularly a s= ingle home operations like a swimming pool or something like that certainly doesn’t need it.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> If you make a motion as presented, = and there is no question on it . . . .

Mr. Berger: You mean if Moosa prepares one ahea= d of time?

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> If he does or let’s say we ha= ve a small case, I mean a big subdivision is different, like on a big one we sho= uld have a draft motion.

Ms. Sturgis: Why don’t they (inaudible) do= ing any motions before he’s even gotten to the meeting because then it so= unds like he’s leading us.

Mr. Rafey: = Because I already made the (inaudib= le).

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Well he did approve and deny.<= /o:p>

Mr. Rafey: = But the Commission should ask for t= hat at the meeting, and then at the next meeting I’ll have it.

Ms. Sturgis: A few of them, but not all.

Mr. Undercuffler: That’s going to be the except= ion.

Ms. Sturgis: I think so.

Mr. Rafey: = I mean so far you have done good. We are trying to improve it and ma= ke it better. Anything we can do to= make it easier for you, feel free to let us know.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I believe that you, Moosa, do a gre= at job, and so do you, Chuck, but the only thing I think is the developer doesn’t give you guys enough time to review it so when it comes befor= e us we can’t make a smart decision that night. Am I right or wrong?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 33

Mr. Berger: I feel that I share in that because again, standard operating, more times than not I generate a memo the day the packet is going out and I should do better than that. It’s not fair to the applica= nt to do that. I mean the applicant= knows the memo is coming but it’s still not . . . ..

Mr. Rafey: = Chuck, from now on we can take this (inaudible) and tell the applicant not to take anything the meeting, unless it’s something minor that we . . . .

Mr. Berger: (Inaudible) generate a memo well be= fore the packet. I’ve got to= break that habit of I should be working on wetlands memos today and tomorrow (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: = And by packet day we should have everything from the applicant, all the responses to your memo.

Mr. Berger: And only I’ll call it the big= gest issues that we can’t resolve at staff level. So the more policy type questions = that you guys have to answer should really be all that’s presented in my m= ind at the public hearing.

Mr. Jones: = What if you, Chuck and Moosa, nobod= y accepted anything new as of the Saturday before we meet on Thursday, or even Monday,= so there’s nothing that comes in Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday that requires you to respond and you don’t have time to do it, we just spin our wheels anyhow and it does confuse things, especially if they come in wi= th something that has a big impact. If you come in at the last minute and I’ve just changed things major, th= en we’ve studied what they did last month and the whole package, and now here we have a whole new set of forms you haven’t seen and nobody had= a chance to review it and we’re all sitting there wondering. I mean I don’t respond fast = enough to it.

Mr. Rafey: = If you have time, you just table it= . If you need an extension, ask them= for it.

Mr. Berger: And maybe as a procedural suggestio= n just ask the applicant for a very brief overview of what they’re going to = give to us tonight and then cut the discussion off and say Chuck, when do you th= ink you can have this reviewed by, I mean keep everybody’s feet to the fi= re so that it gets done.

Mr. Zawadzki: Just review the stuff that’s changed. Cause otherwise these hearings go on and on.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I’m just trying to find a way= for you to get the material ahead of the meeting and (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 34

Mr. Berger: One way is I’ve got to ask fo= r it sooner. That’s where I = can help. (Inaudible) of what my concerns and issues are sooner.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> They’ve got to prepare for you before the meeting.

Mr. Rafey: = Before the packet.

Mr. Berger: I’ve got to ask my questions = well ahead of the packet.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> So you feel you’re asking too= close to the meeting and then (inaudible) to prepare?

Mr. Berger: Well they prepare and they bring it= to the meeting. So you all have = to listen to them responding to my memo which . . . .

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Doesn’t give us a chance to t= hink about it.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> With the amount of work you have, d= o you think you could do that?

Mr. Berger: I’d like to try and improve t= he process.

Ms. Rafey: = If we can rearrange things and see = when the P & Z meeting is and when the Z.B.A. and wetlands and everything el= se.

Mr. Berger: Well P & Z’s workload is = such that I mean right now what they’re doing, and it’s not my probl= em or yours, there has been a Wednesday meeting ahead of yours for the past 3 = or 4 months in a row, so I’m scurrying to try and, I’ve got a Planni= ng and Zoning meeting on Wednesday night that I’ve got to do a packet for and be prepared for, and then a Wetlands meeting that same week. It’s hard. It’s just the way it is, it’s my problem, not yours.

Mr. Rafey: = We can’t change those things,= I mean like this week we had 4 meetings in a row. Fortunately they cancelled the one tomorrow night.

Mr. Berger: I’m willing to try and make t= hings work better and anything we can do to make your meetings as productive as y= ou want them to be.

Mr. Rafey: = From now on present to us the infor= mation as soon as possible to be able to submit it in the packet to you.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY

SPECIAL MEETING

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

PAGE 35

Mr. Undercuffler: Let’s give it a shot and (inaudible).

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Let’s digest this and get the review of the Minutes and so forth and come back and after we’ve all = had a chance to think about, cause I don’t know about you guys, but I came into this thing kind of cold, I wasn’t sure what we were going to, I = mean I read through this but I didn’t (inaudible) so why don’t we do that, just kind of digest it and then come back and reconvene maybe in Janu= ary.

Mr. Berger: Let’s do a couple of more mee= tings and if we think about the things we talked about maybe it will help us all = jog our memories.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> I hope we have all the commissioner= s.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Yea, it’s too bad that everyb= ody else has to come up to speed, but that’s the way it goes.<= /span>

Mr. Undercuffler: Thursday we have the meeting on the regulations.

Mr. Rafey: = I talked to Paul Jessell, yes, at 7= :00 p.m. here. I will do an Agenda tomorrow and send it to you.

4.         = Adjournment

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Jones) to Adjourn the Special Meeting at about 8:20 p.m.= (no time given).

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

  &nbs= p;         MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

  &nbs= p;         Special Meeting Adjourned at about 8:20 p.m. (no time given).

&n= bsp;

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Ronald = Jones, Secretary

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetlands Agency

  &nbs= p;         _________________= _________________

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