beagenda

MINU= TES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

CONTINUA= TION OF PUBLIC HEARING

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN HIGH SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

THURSDAY= , DECEMBER 14, 2006 - 7:00 P.M.

&nb= sp;

APPLICAT= ION #578 – WATERS OF WINNEMAUG

&nb= sp;

PRESENT: &nb= sp; = G= len Duplissie

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

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Joseph Polletta

= &nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; Edwin Undercuffler, Vice Chairman

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

ABSENT: &nb= sp; = = L= ucia DiBona

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

ALTERNATES PRESENT: = ; Denise Russ

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Martha Sturgis

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

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

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

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at about 8:35 p.m. (= no time given)

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Thermer, in his absence.

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Russ to sit in for Mr. DiBona, in his absence= .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG

DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

3. = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; B. = Continuation of the Public Hearing from November 16, 2006 - Application #578 of Anthony Caruso for construction of Waters of Wonnemaug 7 lot Residential Subdivision located between Caruso Dri= ve and Flint Lock Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Recess or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by December 21, 2006.

&nb= sp;

Ed Scoville, Licensed Profess= ional Engineer, Stuart Somers Company

Mr. Scoville: I can go through a brief overview of the project= , or just skip to the remaining items.

Mr. Zawadzki: = Just go over the issue= s.

Mr. Scoville: = At the last public hea= ring we were presented the easement in regards to the conservation that was prep= ared by the Town Attorney. We've h= ad a chance to review that and the only changes that we've made to the easement = is what we referred to our maps, which I've got copies of that. Everything else is the same in the easement and I'll pass that out. In review of that I'd like to point to Item #5, in bold, which is the one I've changed, and I'm just referring directly to the areas that we provided on o= ur map, from what was provided on the last document to us, so that's the only change, we've come to agreement with all of the other conditions that were provided by the town. Item #5 depicts that area. I just dir= ectly refer to our record subdivision map as the areas that we show on the map for our access area to the lake. = That was the item that was changed o the map.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> That's why you have it in bold face= ?

Mr. Scoville: Yes to highlight that for the Commission. There have been no changes on our = maps in relationship to these, the previous things they are still depicted as the same.

In addition to this we= have an outstanding issue was the approval from the Health Department. At the last meeting there was some concerns with the Health Department on one of the lots, so upon further rev= iew with the State Department of Health I found some newer systems that we just= approved for tighter areas. With that = I did 2 design plans for 2 f the lots showing that we could show feasibility to t= his, they were submitted to the local area department of health. Bob Smith asked his superior to re= view this. These 2 new systems wer= e just approved by the state of Connecticut, they've ask the State to review the n= ew systems to see if they approve feasibility, plan that I have provided for t= hem are design plans for the construction of the lots, just to show we can go a= bove and beyond what's required to show that for us, the local area department of health.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

The local department, = Bob's superior at the Torrington Area Department of Health has scheduled a meeting for tomorrow morning with the State to review these systems to see if they = are in compliance with the new standards that recently have been approved by the State of Connecticut, but have not been published yet, but will be published on January 1wst. Moosa correct me if I'm wrong, but= my understanding is that this Board can approve the subdivision pending approval by the local health department as a condition of approval. I found nothing in the regulations stating you could not. Is tha= t correct?

Mr. Rafey: If the Commission wants.

Mr. Scoville: I believe those were the 2 outstanding issues. There were some minor technical is= sues that I discussed with the Town Engineer today, we agreed to change a couple= of issues. One of the issues was= our sediment pond, we had shown a (inaudible) to drain the pond, which we need = to remove so we can retain 100% of the water quality volume for a 1 inch storm= , which isn't a big deal, we're just removing the orifice and we're in agreement wi= th that, we'll do that. A few of= the other minor details we will also provide for them as far as specification.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Which lot numbers did you say you n= eeded a special system?

Mr. Scoville: <= /b> Lot #7, which is the lakefront lot. Initially what happened is I proposed a standard gallery system and = Mr. Rafey was there, I came into a catch 22.&n= bsp; The system would be approved by the local area health department, th= ere is a small section of wetlands under the road that (inaudible) soils that we were proposing to fill in. The local area health department would not approve the system because of the 75 foot setback until after you approve the subdivision because they were under the impression that if this commission didn't approve it, then they couldn't approve the septic system, because of the 75 foot setback.

Mr. Rafey We had a meeting with Mr. Smith today and as the plan was presented to him,. Right now he can approve only 5 lots because th= ere are some wetland that are proposed to be filled by construction of the road. He cannot approve that = septic system because they don't meet the 75 fo9ot requirement.<= /p>

Mr. Scoville: So it ends up being a Catch 22 that we're in, th= at's why I found some newer stuff that was approved by the State and proposed th= at, which the Torrington Area Health is looking for the expertise of the State = to approve it, and that meeting is scheduled for tomorrow.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Is the wetland in question when you= say it's underneath the road, is that where we walked that day?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Charles Spath, Stuart = Somers

Mr. Spath: = Page H1 of the plans. On the lower lot what we proposed,= the original septic system we proposed, we proposed in regards that there's a s= mall pocket of wetlands in the center of the road, and that wetland is getting filled by the road. This is t= he wetlands right here.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Is that the one where we said, done= when they did the construction?

Mr. Spath: = That's right, it's a small pocket i= n the center of the road, and our septic is just south of that. We did not consider that in the or= iginal design. You see this green ar= ea right here, and here's our proposed septic, that's a revised septic. This is small pocket of wetlands a= nd this is the septic system. Originally when we, the reason this was brought up rather lately . .= . .

Mr. Duplissie: = Is this the old road right here?

Mr. Spath: = Yes. It's actually closer, it' right through here. So we had to adjust the septic very slightly to make this 75 feet, so we looked to the State to see if there is anything else available, and we picked a new system that was just recently approved and we submitted that to Bob which created a problem because of th= e local area health department's didn't hear about that. We ran up there today and we submi= tted a conventional design. The trut= h of the matter is, as soon as this road is put in, we can go back to our old design. Usually this would no= t come about, and I'm not sure how this even came about because if this was another town and there's no wetlands there, there's not going to be any septic with= out the road or without the approval. There is a very mall pocket of wetlands, it doesn't have any concern= ed, usually if you're trying to stay 75 feet away from the wetlands here's a re= ason why, it's a large area of wetlands, this wetlands is uphill from our septic, it's not even downhill.

Mr. Duplissie: = You can see a little pocket, the excavated earth (inaudible).

Mr. Spath: = Yes, and this lot is kind of like, = to go to the state tomorrow and we're just under a time constraint with the wetla= nds and that's why we're asking to approve it based upon this septic approval f= rom the local health department. = On the hill, the other septic . . . .

Mr. Scoville: As soon as I found out that a newer type of syst= em was approved on the hill I was proposing a 3 bedroom system, I said well, I= can get a 4 bedroom system in, which is better for the house, so let me do a pl= an on that too. That's lot #7. I'm sorry, = Lot #2. So I revised the pans and submitted both of them to the local area health department.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie: That's Lot #7, that's where the wetlands is. And then Lot #2 is on the hill?

Mr. Scoville: <= /b> Correct.

Ms. Sturgis: You could use your original septic= plan on Lot #2 if God forbid something happen= ed (inaudible)?

Mr. Scoville: Yes, I could use that= on Lot #2.

Mr. Polletta: I don't understand, the septic syst= em is no good on these lots?

Mr. Scoville: No, the septic system= s are fine on these lots. Lot #7 ends up being a, with the fact that, because= of this, within 75 feet.

Mr. Undercuffler: What's different about= this other septic system? You don'= t have the 75 foot requirement?

Mr. Scoville: No, you have the 75 foot requireme= nt, this newer type of septic system requires less of a leaching field area. It creates more of a biomat allowi= ng more of the water to infiltrate the filter in a smaller area.

Mr. Undercuffler: So it's easier to keep it outside of the 75 foot= .

Mr. Scoville: Yes, because it requires less spac= e.

Mr. Undercuffler: But then the comment was made that after this th= ing was presumably approved was that you were going to go back to what you prop= osed anyway.

Mr. Scoville: The reason that we go back to what was originall= y approved is because 75 feet is a regulation by the Town of Watertown. In this instance it's a small area= of wetlands, a pocket that is uphill from our septic that a road is going over= , so we would go back to our conventional design because it's proven, and I think the reason now is where it's standing us up is because what we did is we we= nt to the Stated and said oh this is approve now, and it just hasn't followed through to the local area health department, that's what kind of stuck us.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> If it was March we'd be all set an= d Bob probably would have gone to a seminar already and approved this the way tit is. The 75 feet is not every = town, it's your town and the wetlands is uphill, it's a small pocket and the road= is going over it. It's not a lar= ge area of wetlands so this just came up and we're asking . . . .

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: Why do you consider wetlands where the road goes over it?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 6

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: = We don't consider that. Somehow that came up, Moosa can pr= obably explain how, all of a sudden that became an issue where it wasn't an issue a couple of months ago, and somebody probably noticed hey it's wetlands, even though it's getting filled over, and it's a pocket, and we did not expect t= hat.

Mr. Jones: = You're considering this as manmade wetlands as one of the unmade manmade wetlands after you built the road, and therefore they won't be there anymore?

Mr. Spath: = Correct.

Mr. Jones: = Therefore you can build your septic system.

Mr. Spath: = As originally designed. The only difference is now, when w= e put I our new submittal a couple of weeks ago, we used the newest technology wh= ich hasn't caught up with the health department but you're correct, we would go back to the conventional design because the 75 feet would not be an issue t= hen and it would not . . . .

Mr. Duplissie: Your original design, I don’t want specific numbers, is your original design closer to the lake or further to the lake = than the one that you're proposing now?

Mr. Spath: It's almost the exact same area. It is right where it's shown there= , and so is the new design. We are talking maybe 5 feet.

Mr. Duplissie: Cause if it makes a difference, I prefer that you keep this system further away from the lake as possible because that's the wetlands that I'm concerned about, I'm not concerned about this little corn= er here, I'm concerned about the lake.

Mr. Spath: Exactly and that's originally how we designed it, it's sort of a technical issue with this poc= ket here that's how close we are, and we were fine with it and then all of a su= dden it was an issue, we knew it was within 75 feet but we knew it was going to = be gone so it didn't make a difference. It's not a health concern with the State, it's just something the To= wn of Watertown has. So once the road is in w= e go back to our convention, it's right there, it's in this area, no matter what= is proposed right there, but yes, it would be 5 feet closer.=

Mr. Polletta: So basically the two lots in question are lot #2= and #7?

Mr. Spath <= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes,. That's far away and we're just making it smaller so it gets approved now and it's not that much is getting added on, it's just the 75 feet.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: I just wanted to make sure that out of this is j= ust for the lake because (inaudible)?

Mr. Spath: = This is better than before, because before you had a piece of land in there that you really had no access to. No legal access. So this brings a public road that touches, and that's what was asked for in the deed, that if this road was t= o be put n it would touch this property. It does touch the property now, we added the piece next to it, there= 's no grading shown on here you can access the lake, I know it shows wetlands around the lake, it's a lake, it's all wetlands, but you can access the lak= e, the reason that parcel was put in was to access the lake easier and we did = add across the way here, I'm not sure if anybody comes down over that, there is= an existing open space over here and we made the area bigger along this much, there is an access that goes down, you can walk down the road and access the lot.

Unidentified Voice: Widen that area (inaudible)?

Mr. Spath: = That's right, we went over that with Chuck, comments probably 5 months go.

Mr. Zawadzki: Is that parcel 8?

Mr. Spath: Yes. There is access over parcel and this is a larger open space right th= ere.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> What about access to these other lo= ts, #3 and #4, do they have access to the lake?

Mr. Spath: They have the same public access as everybody el= se in Town, they also have, we kept a special area for them right next to the = town parcel, this area here, with the existing docks, those are for these parcel= s.

Mr. Duplissie: = Private access?

Mr. Spath: Yes, and those are for the parcels that don't ab= ut the lake directly.

Mr. Polletta: Those will probably be back in here?<= /span>

Mr. Spath: That's correct.=

Mr. Duplissie: This parcel that is being given to the Town of <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Watertown, this w= alks down and you can walk right there.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: = Yes you can walk down there, it sho= ws the wetlands there, it's right next to the lake, the lake is wetlands, and then= the edge of the lakes, depending on where you are, if it's a sharp drop-off it's not usually wetlands, but if it's flat, there is a wetlands area.

Mr. Duplissie; But when we walked this, there is no existing ac= cess to the lake (inaudible)?

Mr. Spath: No, in that case we proposed that in the corner, you have existing access now, we are proposing= to improve that whole area which is part of the application by putting picnic tables, covered areas, paved access going into the lake, there is an existi= ng gravel parking area that I snow oversized.

Mr. Duplissie: That corner lot.<= /o:p>

Mr. Spath:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yea, we're bringing that in, we're= going to be taking topsoil when we build the road, and bringing that area in so it will be much smaller of a parking area, but much improved.

Mr. Duplissie: So who will mow that area?

Mr. Spath: = That will be the Town's, yes we met= with the Parks Commission, that will be the Town's responsibility. They were very happy with the idea= . They had a State grant, but if you= take that grant, then everybody can come there, so the Parks and Rec Commission = was never happy with the idea cause this was exactly what they were looking for= . They understood the Town would hav= e to take care of it, but basically you're getting a present and you take it as = it is and take care of it. (Tape= #2, Side A ended - may have missed some.)

Mr. Duplissie: That will be part of the condition of agreement, that they take care of the public access area, that they're going to do the pavement and the grass way and the access to the water?

Mr. Rafey: Which one are they t= alking about, the corner of (inaudible)?

Mr. Spath: Yea, we're talking abo= ut the corner piece, improving the area.

Mr. Duplissie: The existing boat launch.

Mr. Spath: Yea, the existing boat launch, as you pull in the road to the left, there's a big large gravel area.

Ms. Sturgis: The Town is going to take care of that.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 9

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: After it's done, that's exactly what I propose, = because it's not our land, it's the Town's land as it is now, we're just going to improve that area.

Mr. Polletta: So anybody can access that from the Town?

Mr. Spath: Yea, anybody from the Town.

Mr. Duplissie: Anybody from anywhere, you can't stop them.=

Mr. Spath: Well it's a Town are= a, you can stop them. You can do town permits, park permits, you can't stop them if it's in Town. That's why the Parks and Rec Commi= ssion before did not take a State grant, because if you do, anybody can come in, = not that they would find that area, but anybody could come in.

Mr. Polletta: Anybody from Watertown could g= o there.

Mr. Spath: Yes, s it is now, it= would just be improved.

Mr. Zawadzki: Tell me again why you didn't lay this out using the existing road?

Mr. Spath: We did try to lay it= out using the existing road. In t= he beginning the road there was comments that the existing road in the beginni= ng is closer to the lake than where we propose the road. The other information we used to d= esign this road was a prior approval. When the Town acquired this piece of property from Mr. Caruso, it st= ated legally, and the attorney from Mr. LaFlamme stated this also, and it was pa= rt of our design, that the road would touch that property and that's what we w= ere led, so u pt this point we were led to put the road where it was. The existing road is shown right h= ere, comes closer to the property here, and then comes away. So the road in the beginning the proposed road now is right over that. as you get into the property the road is farther away from the lake.=

Mr. Duplissie: That also allows you = to have a lot there.

Mr. Spath: Yes, if curse, I'm n= ot saying that, but we would have to put the road, the Town property is where = it is, right here, and we cannot go over the Town property unless it's approve= d by the Selectmen, that's not for road purposes that lot there, so we came up against that, I mean you can design it whichever way you want coming through here, but from here to here there are so many ways to equalize it and end u= p on this side of the property. We= do try to design things so that there are lots down there, but we are not over designing this, there are only 7 lots on this whole parcel and there are mo= re structures out there now. We'= re taking out a lot of structures and putting larger structures but more spread out and I think it will turn out just as nice as the first half.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 10

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie: With a proper septic system.

Mr. Spath: That's right and I t= hink it will turn out just as nice a the first half, it's beautiful

Mr. Polletta: Where was the old sep= tic system that right now (inaudible)?

Mr. Spath: Su0pposedly there ar= e no septic systems there now. The= re's not supposed to be any, but you know they're not running to the local bathroom. There are septic sy= stems that are there that are put in like anybody else would, but those will be removed, filled with sand, if they're septic tanks, the houses will be remo= ved.

Mr. Polletta: They will not be dist= urbed, they'll just be filled up with sand?

Mr. Spath: Generally they are, = they may be removed.

Mr. Du0plisie: Whatever it is the exi= sting, a 35 gallon drum, a 275 gallon drum with holes in it, they pump it, they te= st the (inaudible) and fill it with sand, or if it's in the way of a foundatio= n, they'll remove it.

Mr. Spath: Yea it depends what = it is. If it's a tank, generally= you can crush it, you can fill it with sand, it depends what it is, and I think you're going to find some of these things as you're excavating, you're not going to know what they are, there's no record of them, but we're asking the Commission to approve it based on the conditions, the corner piece, and on health approval. We have not changed the access to the lake at all, it's been since Day 1, we're trotting new lines, the existing access as it's used now, it's cut down from what it= is right now.

Mr. Zawadzki: Well by virtue of few= er people there will be fewer dwellings?

Mr. Spath: Yea, actually there = are only going to be 3 people on the bottom, I believe 3 or 4, they're actually accessing it one area, one dock, and then the other 3 are accessing it right from their property, there's docks there now and there's grassed areas that will be utilized, but it's cut down. Right now there are no easements over anything so we're definitely (inaudible) easements around the lake.

Mr. Duplissie: I think the concern on= the lakeside one, at some points right now the wetlands are actually somebody's yard.

Mr. Spath: Yes.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 11

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie: And they've got, they'= re mowing right down through the wetlands and I'm not sure how we want to limit the access to the lake for these people for points of access and typically = if this is not, what they're proposing here is, we would ask for conservation = easements along the whole setback area. I don't know how we handle it with these 3 lakeside or lakefront lots.

Mr. Spath: Yea, this is kind of= a different issue. I mean what = you're asking for is you're trying to keep 50 feet away from a lake, but it's a wetlands body, but it's a lake and people like to access lakes. In this area here the wetlands clo= se to the lake doesn't have a value that is such as you would find in the middle = of a woods as a lowland, wetlands, it's a lake, it's being utilized now. We did shrink that access area, an= d the reason for that is to keep the actual trees and shrubbery that's there now,= and that's what we are trying to do, so somebody would not clear the lake and m= ake a lawn that goes straight.

Mr. Duplissie: The problem is that if= you go through the first phase of the development is you have these beautiful h= omes, and they have their lawns right down to the water and when they call a pesticide company, they take care of the lawn all the way to the lake, and = so the first rainstorm after it all washes straight down into the lake.

Mr. Spath: And you just brought= up another condition of approval - we were going to make that part of the condition of approval.

Mr. Duplissie: Conservation easement.=

Mr. Spath: It's in there now?

Mr. Duplissie: Yes.=

Mr. Spath: It' in the conservat= ion easement now, but Gail McTaggert wasn't able to come tonight, she's sick, b= ut we did mention that before because the most important thing around the lake= is like a pesticide and we can put that in the deed. Now someone can always sneak out t= here and do what they want, okay but at least they'll be in the deed that they c= an't use the pesticides. There's n= ot much more you can do about any of that. The areas that we show with conservation easements, we did not change that from the beginning, we defin= itely have conservation easements along the whole lake and kept the areas that we utilize now, and eve Chuck knows, so we can take that into consideration.

Mr. Polletta: How are the other hou= ses around the lake?

Mr. Spath: They're all over.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 12

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: I'm talking about the= new ones. Do they have lawns all = the way to the lake?

Mr. Spath: The new ones there, = I did not personally see the first few on the left.

Mr. Duplissie: The first few on the= left is a cape (inaudible).

Mr. Polletta: The new ones on the = other side, the road is not developed over there?

Mr. Spath: On Flint Lock?

Mr. Polletta: Yea. I think (inaudible).

Mr. Undercuffler: Are you going to lab= el the conservation easements?

Mr. Spath: They are labeled fro= m day 1, oh you mean marked in the field? Yes, they'll be marked and I would suggest, I know we can mark them = by markers, but maybe we can work something out where we can mark them by a st= one wall, a low lying stone wall which will be easier for most to look at and m= ore pleasing.

Mr. Duplissie: Limit their access t= o the lake. Show it on ours.

Mr. Spath: We did limit that ar= ea, it's the same map. We've been= through this last time. These are all= the conservation easements here. = This is the dock now. This is the = Town of Watertown, this is the existing decks, = we're leaving that, conservation easement, this area here, you see the house, and= the structure, this is all lawn, conservation easement, Town of Watertown, beyond that that is future a= nd we're not doing anything there. I w= ent through this the last time. M= ost of the area does not have a conservation easement, just because the Town of Watertown. And so is this here, but this is o= n the lot, on the lot, on the lot, open area, there's a house there, an open lawn area, we've left that, the conservation easement, Town of Watertown, beyond that we're not doing anything.

Ms. Sturgis: You're asking, the T= own is asking pesticides on both sides of the road as far as the (inaudible).=

Mr. Spath: Yea, we can do both sides. Actually we would blan= ket the whole. We are improving, = this is Chuck's idea, give Chuck the credit, but we are improving the drainage g= oing down to the lake by putting a gross particle separator in. Right now the drainage goes down h= ere directly into sediment and that goes into the lake and we're going to pick = that up with a gross particle separator that's off site. We redid our drainage to design off site.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 13

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: I have a question about the conserv= ation easement document, page 3 Item 2. I think it say (inaudible) enforce, you can't enforce that. (Inaudible.)

Mr. Spath: It say the grantor reserves to himself, his heirs and his (inaudible) the following rights in = the protected property: To cut de= ad trees, brush, and underbrush.

Mr. Rafey: Who will determine w= hat is brush? One day I will go ther= e and everything is cleared, they thought it was brush or underbrush.<= /span>

Mr. Spath: We can work on that.= This is actually from Pilicy.=

Mr. Duplissie: I would just as soon= that they would not have any access, just like I would have access (inaudible).<= o:p>

Mr. Rafey: I had suggested at t= he beginning if we can have a normal conservation restriction.

Mr. Spath: I think it should sa= y just to clear . . . . .

Mr. Rafey: All the wetlands and= 50 foot setback area should be conservation restricted area. For each lot there should be like = 15 or 20 feet wide access way to the lake, in that area they can clear cut, put a walkway there, they can build their dog, and then the remaining area where = you have wetlands and 50 foot setback area, that should be a regular conservati= on restriction area. This will b= ecome my headache.

Mr. Spath: I think this is arou= nd the lake, the water body is the wetlands and we're trying to preserve and we're= trying to preserve the trees.

Mr. Rafey: Including the wetlan= ds outside of the pond (inaudible) Lake Winnemaug.

Mr. Spath: Okay, but I think th= e only thing I would change in here is really to cut dead trees that may fall. The only issues that we ever came = across that were a problem is if a tree were to fall in a yard, or was about to fa= ll, but we can work with you on that.

Mr. Rafey: It's impossible to e= nforce anybody.

Mr. Spath: The areas that we ha= ve shown, that's what we propose, and I think they're fair. Most of the areas are the Town.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 14

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie: I agree but I would = like to have your stone walls around these areas only because if you don't put t= hem up, they're going to go right around it.

Robert LaFlamme=

Mr. LaFlamme: Hopefully one of the= se houses is mine, that's why I'm here, and my son and daughter, that's what t= he other 2 on the lake are for. = First of all to ease any concerns you have with regards t pesticides, I am totally opposed to pesticides myself. I have the worst lawn probably on my property because I have 3 collies and I don't believe in putting any type of pesticides down cause they can go into their paws and get them sick and whatever else, so I'm against anything like that, so I have no concern with that as far as any type of pesticides. My believe with the wall and it co= ncerns me, is I want a natural look if I'm sitting looking out at the lake, and I = want to enjoy the lake, and I don't think placing a wall there which would give = it something that's unnatural and that's manmade created would give you a visu= al break when I'm 70 years old, I don't want to look at the wall, I just ant to look at the lake and the natural trees, etc. As far as cutting down any other t= rees most of them are gone anyway, they've cut them down, and I think the easiest solution, and Moosa has a good idea, I noticed a lot of towns do it, that if someone wants to cut a tree down that they consider dead, they indicate or = mark that tree as dead and then get prior approval from the Town, and that would eliminate anyone from cutting trees down.&= nbsp; I read in another town someone cut all the trees and paid the neighb= or off, so it's a big battle, but here most of the trees are gone.<= /span>

Mr. Duplissie: We had some of these approvals next to lakes and ponds, and if we give them an approval and we don’t build a stone wall, the next thing we go there and they have, e= ven if they're just 3 stone . . . .

Mr. LaFlamme: I know what you're s= aying, and I'll tell you the first problem. My wife thinks that there are snakes everywhere and if there is a wa= ll, then there are snakes in that place and I'll never even get her to come to = the water. She won't go in the canoe because = she thinks there are snakes in the water, but if there's a low lying wall they = all lay there in the sun, so when I told her this she said we'll just not going= to move out there because of the snakes. Fortunately they really don't come unless there are rocks or whateve= r because we go out there and I really don't see them, but I know if there's a wall o= r something and it's a warm,, day, they will be on there, and the goal would be much mo= re natural looking and provide a nice break, but it just brings your mind into= the fact that there's something manmade because it's a wall, and if you put a little concrete to hold the stone, or keep it natural without it, does it h= ave a cap on the top or not, is it fieldstone or is it that nice flat cut stone= ?

Mr. Duplissie: Field stone.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 15

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: Something could be w= ritten into the approval . . . .

Mr. Rafey: Can I make a suggest= ion, is it possible if you have kike a 15 or 2 foot wide access area for each lo= t to the lake, and the remaining wetlands stays part of the conservation restric= tion area? If there is a dead tree= just call me and I'll let you know if you can cut it. Then you can use the markers.=

Mr. Spath: We have to come to an agreement here, the markers won't work because you'll be looking at little markers standing so high on the trees and it's not going to look pretty. I think I understand your point, b= ut maybe we can come to an agreement where we can put piles of stones.

Mr. Duplissie: It doesn't have to be stone, it could be a 1 foot high berm, something so they can't continue the= ir la2wn into that area.

Mr. Spath: Maybe a 4 x 4 with a little sign on it from the wetlands department. It's just so Moosa can say no, he'= s not encroaching.

Mr. Duplissie: We go out all the it= em and catch this type of thing all the time.&nbs= p; If we don't have some sort of marker, they all do it.

Mr. Spath: We need something.

Mr. LaFlamme: We need something th= at doesn't look unnatural.

Ms. Sturgis: How about a little f= ence with a brass marker on it.

Mr. Rafey: You should discuss w= here you want this.

Many people talking at= once (inaudible).

Mr. LaFlamme: Something like flags= tone or flat that was natural, laying flush with the ground that outlaid that ar= ea, so you'd know that was it.

Mr. Rafey: How wide is that acc= ess?

Mr. Spath: It's exactly what's = shown on the map, Moosa?

Mr. Rafey: It's like 70 feet wi= de, do we really need this?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 16

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: Most of the areas ar= e Town areas, we show conservation area was on each lot with the trees that are exiting now and t take the whole lake and make a 15 foot wide area doesn’t make any sense, as soon as you get to that 15 foot wide area, you're going left and you're going right, so we have the areas that are bei= ng utilized out there, we looked at those areas and we do have conservation easements around the existing foliage so I think we have it shown well. Moosa, we're talking about a lake.= There is wetlands around the area.= You have the area that is the Town= of Watertown that has wetlands all around the lake. You're trying to tell me if the Town didn't want to access, they couldn't access that?

Mr. Rafey: That's natural, that= will stay natural forever.

Mr. Spath: We are trying, we to= ok the natural areas and that's what we have the conservation easements.

Mr. Rafey: I consider those enforcement of the conditions that you put. Unless you people volunteer to go = there and check it. . . .

Mr. Spath: I think we could tak= e a look at it. What we proposed = is better than what is there now and what will ever be.

Mr. LaFlamme: You took the words o= ut of my mouth. I was going to say = we should be the most concerned after we do the sidewalk of what's out there n= ow and the possibility of what can happen when we have 50 gallon live drums (inaudible) sitting heating things and all of these elements that can reall= y do some irreparable damage. If w= e can go in and correct, and I don’t believe there is any better policeman = than the owner of the property to take care of the issues that might be done. I think the tree issue is a great = issue and as long as the tree is marked and indicated it's a tree that I hazardou= s to the public, than that should be requested, but I don’t think there are any trees there that will be impacted.

Mr. Spath: I think the main con= cern is if the Commission went out there, Moosa has to delineate the conservation area, I think it can be done with slate, a berm, with a low lying stone wal= l, with markers if there are enough trees, but there aren't that many trees, i= t can be done in a number of way.

Mr. Rafey: It can be done with = a 4 x 4 post.

Mr. Spath: It can be done with = little concrete monuments. If that&#= 8217;s a condition of approval, I don’t think it's a problem and we can come= to an agreement.

Mr. LaFlamme: I think granite mark= ers are nice too.

Mr. Zawadzki: The kind they use fo= r surveying.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 17

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: That's right. We can leave them up a little so p= eople can find them and put them on the map and 60 feet away there will be another one.

Mr. Zawadzki: You probably wouldn'= t even notice them.

Mr. Rafey: Can you explain item= #4?

Mr. Spath: We do not have any proposed septics in the conservation easement. If there is a health issue, on Pag= e 2, Item 8, this is from Atty. Pilicy and this is common.

Mr. Rafey: This is just a draft= , this is for discussion, we can change . . . . .

Mr. Spath: This was here last ti= me and we went through it and we kept everything that Franklin did and we just inserted for the conservation easement the description would be the map, wh= at we show in there (Tape #2, Side B ended - may have missed some).=

Mr. Undercuffler: (Inaudible) any of t= he reserve systems?

Mr. Spath: No.=

Mr. Undercuffler: Are they located in = the systems?

Mr. Spath: No.=

Mr. Undercuffler: Then we don't even n= eed (inaudible).

Mr. Spath: That's fine. This is by <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Franklin and we just kept it.

Mr. Undercuffler: Get rid of 4.

Mr. Rafey: 4 and 2.<= /span>

Mr. Scoville: 2 should be to cut de= ad trees that are fallen or dead trees, be able to remove them.

Many people talking at= once (inaudible).

Mr. Duplissie: Prior approval by the inland/wetlands commission.

Mr. Spath: That's fine.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 18

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie: With prior approval = by the Wetlands Enforcement Officer. They can't cut any trees unless they have your approval first.=

Mr. Rafey: I'm concerned about = those brush and underbrush . . . . just remove that item. If there is a dead tree they can c= all me and I'll tell them to go ahead. We don’t need that, remove that item.

Mr. Duplissie: I want a nice clear s= ite so I'm going to take all the dead brush out.

Mr. Rafey: Then that conservati= on (inaudible) doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Zawadzki: So eliminate #2.=

Mr. Spath: Correct.

Mr. Zawadzki: And #4?

Mr. Rafey: Yea. And that bold area is added there,= if you read it and see . . . .

Mr. Polletta: I understand around t= he lake, not the old houses, the new ones (inaudible), these houses, there's l= ike about 80 houses around the lake, do they have any protections?

Mr. Rafey: On Flint Lock they h= ave conservation easement areas. = On Caruso Drive I don't think they do, some of them go right to the edge of the water.

Mr. Polletta: My concern is this, i= f you have all these houses that don't have any fence, what is 2 or 3 houses goin= g to add to it?

Mr. Duplissie: That's why we're her= e.

Mr. Zawadzki: Another thing to cons= ider is get Land Tech to look at this about the impact what recommendation they would have to protect the lake.

Mr. Spath: We're out of time and= I believe Chuck has done a very thorough review for the Town of Watertown and he does an excellent job.=

Mr. Berger: I did not do a thoro= ugh review on the environmental side of things like Land Tech does, (inaudible) look at the engineering aspect and sediment erosion control.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 19

&nb= sp;

Mr. Du0lissie: When we look at this,= okay, when we way whether or not there was an impact on the wetlands, I think wha= t we have to do is look at what's existing on that site. And what we have existing on that = site is not good. Would we have ev= er asked for that to be there? N= o we would not. What we have desig= ned right now is what we would ask for. I can't say that there is anything that they got on there, at this p= oint they've moved stuff away, they've got some conservation easements on the wa= ter, they've put 350 400 feet of conservation easements on the water which are n= ot in place now, there's 800 feet of waterfront, 375 feet of it now has conservation easements on it that I'd like delineated I'd like it marked, w= e've got 3 lots on the water compared to 30 houses on the water right now with no septic systems and God knows what they're putting in there. If they had put city sewer and I d= on't know if they can even get city sewer out there or not, what's the zone on t= his?

Mr. Rafey: R-30.

Mr. LaFlamme: I don't know if that previous application is coming here, but I heard in the future they were bringing it down the road. My= goal is not to have a lot, just the 3 sitting there (inaudible).

Mr. Duplissie: At this point I have= no problems with this development the way it is. That's my opinion, I don't speak f= or the whole commission, but compared to what we have now, please get rid of what = they have now and put this development in, that's how I feel.<= /p>

Mr. Undercuffler: Cleaning up of that b= oat launch area and some additional . . . . .

Mr. Duplissie: That's (inaudible) b= ut that doesn't really affect our water quality right now, not a big plus cause it's not new to the lot, but this definitely affects the water quality of t= he lake, and if we can get rid of the 15 septic systems that are overflowing directly into the lake, let's get rid of them and put something decent in.<= o:p>

Mr. Spath: We're also improving = the existing drainage there, we are improving the lake quality by putting the g= ross particle separator in as Chuck has recommended, that's off site and we're putting that in to pick up any sediment that's (inaudible).

Mr. Duplissie: Don't get me wrong, = just so you understand (inaudible) if there were no houses on there I'd probably= be a lot tougher on you, but right now I know what's existing, we've been ther= e, and I might ask you to remove 1 or 2 lots along the waterfront, but what yo= u're doing is you're cleaning up the existing waterfront, so that's my opinion,<= o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 20

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: And I don't think we'= re overdeveloping it in any way.

Mr. Zawadzki: You don't think it w= ould be beneficial to have Land Tech look at it for environmental impact?

Mr. Duplissie: I've seen what we have existing there.   From wh= at we're getting rid of, to what they're proposing to put in, definitely this = is 100 times better than what is existing.&nb= sp; Do I need Land Tech to tell me, yes, they're putting in a road, but they're also putting in gross particle separators, 3 proper septic systems = on the waterfront. In my estimat= ion this is much better than what we have.

Mr. Polletta: I agree. We walked this twice and we went b= ack and forth so many times and I think they've been before this commission, how long have you been on this, since March?&n= bsp; So I think after we walked it a couple of times, I think we should h= ave (inaudible) and I agree with Glenn, it's so far away, it's such a dumpy pla= ce, it will be a plus to the lake anyhow. It's a year later, (inaudible).

Mr. Duplissie: Even if it wasn't a y= ear, even if it's just 3 months, you look at the first phase of development and you've got beautiful homes that are well maintained that don't have drums a= nd chemicals at the water. I jus= t as soon continue that development, I wish it would continue all the way throug= h at this point, but unfortunately we can't take the rest of them out. At this point I say we put the 7 l= ots in (inaudible).

Mr. Zawadzki: Chuck, do we have any other information pending that would, they still owe us for technical review for tonight?

Mr. Berger: As referenced earlier= there are a couple of minor technical details that I've discussed with them which= I can summarize quickly for you if you like.= Demonstration that the 2 above ground sediment basins are going to be designed to meet the new D.E.P. water quality standards so there are 2 above ground systems like that and there's the one hydrodynamic separator at the = end of the existing Caruso Dri= ve. They will need documentation that = the 2 above ground systems are in compliance with the D.E.P. standards. They owe me documentation that the= existing 21 inch pipe from the existing end of Caruso Drive that discharges into the lake, that the new storm drainage system will be tying into, documentation = that we have the right to add that drainage to that system, (inaudible) Town sys= tem and we've got the right to do that. I had requested and they may have already provided it, but I couldn't find it my files, a narrative justification as to why swales are not practi= cal here. They have stated that o= n the record a couple of times but I wanted written documentation in the fields.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The last thing is regarding detention. There is a written document as well that has been provided to me that is based on a 25 year st= orm event. I asked them to analyze a 100 year storm event to demonstrate that detention is not needed. I th= ink none of those should result in significant changes to the project.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 21

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: I was getting at tha= t we need to extend this beyond tonight.

Mr. LaFlamme: I'd be glad to, if we= can make the approval as possible, subject tot them giving all the necessary approvals of paperwork or information and . . . .

Mr. Duplissie: If we do something l= ike that if we give our approval subject to your agreement with Mr. Berger, is = that you're at his beck and call at this point.= If he doesn't like it and doesn't want it, you have to satisfy him, = you no longer have to satisfy us, and sometimes I think he's a little tougher t= han we are.

Mr. Spath: That's true but I had= the 2 engineers go and talk with Chuck today so I think they realize what we have= to do, what Chuck is asking for, and take care of that, we just did not have t= ime to take care of it for tonight, and that's not a problem, what Chuck is ask= ing for. What he's asking for is = not out of reason, he's just trying to dot the I's and cross the t's, and we're just looking for, we're out of time really, if the attorney was here tonigh= t, the history was we submitted = in March, we ran out of time, we came right back in, it was going to get continued, the next meeting, that didn’t happen, but we are where we = are today, and it's been almost a year and it's nobody's fault, but we're out of time. I think what everybody = has talked about, there's not a problem with protecting the lake, we understand that, I think everybody is on the same page.

Mr. Zawadzki: Is there anyone from= the public who wishes to speak? A= ny other questions by the Commission? We need to see something in writing about the demarcations, whatever that is going to be.

Mr. Duplissie: We gave them 3 option= s at this point. Flagstone, a wall= or a (inaudible) or a combination thereof, or little monuments. 4 or 5 different choices.

Mr. Spath: It's on the record, w= e don't have a problem with that.

MOTION:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>       (Mr. = Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Close the Public Hearing for App. #578 of Anthony Caruso for construction of Waters = of Winnemaug 7 lot Residential Subdivision located between Caruso Drive and Flint Lock Road, Watertown<= /st1:City>, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #578– WATERS OF WINNEMAUG
DECEMBER 14, 2006

PAGE 22

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;         Public Hearing Recessed at about 9:25 p.m. (no time given).

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Ronald = Jones, Secretary

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetland Agency

  &nbs= p;         _________________= _________________

  &nbs= p;         Lynn M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary