beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

CONTINUA= TION OF PUBLIC HEARING

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRU= MBULL PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2006 - 7:30 P.M.

&nb= sp;

APPLICAT= ION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

&nb= sp;

PRESENT: &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Bernard Beauchamp=

= ; &n= bsp; = ; = G= len Duplissie

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

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

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

ABSENT: = ; &n= bsp; = ; = Charles Thermer

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

ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs= p; None

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

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

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

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 7:45 p.m.

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

3. = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; B. = Continuation of Public Hearing from January 12, 2006, Application #542 of William Davids= on for construction of 18 lot residential subdivision located on the south sid= e of Morris Town Line Highway and east side of Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Recess or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by February 23, 2006.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: This is Mr. Berger’s letter and the letter from the Waterbury Water Bureau. We don’t have anything that = we need to read into the record at this point, do we?

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Rafey: You can read the l= etter into the record from Waterbury at this time. Mr. George, did you receive a copy= of Mr. Berger’s memo?

Ron George, Professional Engi= neer

Mr. George: I had a draft, it’s supposed to be the sam= e.

Mr. Zawadzki: Okay I’ll read in reference = to Application #542, a Letter from the City of Waterbury, Bureau of Water, directed to Moosa Rafey, Town of Watertown from Don Carver, Environmental Resource & Water Quality Manager, dated today, February 9, 2006, Re: (Inaudible) Davidson Farm Subdivis= ion Public Hearing:

“Thank you for forwarding the report from Land Tech Consultants, Inc. regarding the propos= ed 18 lot residential development, Davidson Farm, located on Morris Town Line = Road and Litchfield Road. Our main concern with any type of development in a watershed area is the potential f= or negative impacts associated with runoff as well as a disruption to natural wetland features and functions. While the report makes a number of recommendations regarding storm w= ater runoff and erosion and sedimentation control, these recommendations do not change the fact that natural wetlands will be impacted, minimized or not, a= nd therefore we are not in favor of any type of development within watershed areas. Once again the City of Waterbury, Bureau of Water, is not a regulatory agency concerning private p= roperty and we truly appreciate the opportunity to address our concerns. In the event that the permit appro= val process moves forward, we trust that the Town of Watertown will take the necessary actions to protect the sensitive watershed areas and make it a co= ntingent that Item 1-5 on Page 9 from the Land Tech Consultants, Inc. report propose= d 18 lot residential development, Davidson Farm of Morris Town Line Road and Litchfield Road be included along with other storm water/runoff recommendat= ions in the permit approval process.”

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

Mr. George: I’m representing William Davi= dson, the applicant, and as you know it is a continuation of the public haring. In lieu of Land Tech’s repor= t, we provided plans basically that just (inaudible). I took out a full set of plans jus= t to (inaudible). From the last ti= me Chuck Berger had presented us with some comments, a couple of pages worth, = and we had addressed those back on December 28^th. First what was addressed I believe= was never provided to Land Tech so there was some information he wasn’t a= ware of that he asked questions on that were previously addressed. Chuck’s comments, I don̵= 7;t know if you had a chance to look at how we addressed things, but to highlig= ht things, (inaudible) things to the application was showing some limits of disturbance, we added that to the plans in the form of a Construction Limit Line that comes off (inaudible) we provided some additional silt fence that= he requested. He asked that the detention basins be configured to meet the subdivision regulations which require a 15 foot berm. We we= re hoping we could get away with an 8 foot berm to minimize impacts, but the Planning Commission is pretty tough with their 15 foot rule, so we stuck wi= th that. There is a sanitary lin= e that runs through Lot #13, over here, I lined this to 8 feet to be more realistic (inaudible) still doesn’t impact the wetlands but it’s right against it. We added (inaudib= le) protection for detention basin C, we didn’t have rip rap (inaudible) = that was an oversight, we’ve added that and I think Land Tech had picked u= p on that as well, that was one of the ones that was already picked up, covered, previously.

Chuck had asked us to = look at the culverts for Lot #7 and #8, the driveway culverts. As you know one of the changes we = did was provide headwalls to reduce the fill amount and impact to the wetlands. We looked at Lot #7= , the flow is very minimal, and as you remember it was very narrow there and not = much there, and I’m going to leave that with a 15 inch culvert. Where Lot #8 is it gets a little b= it bigger, and we’re going to provide an arch culvert there so we have no disturbance on that brook at all. One of his other comments was to provide a storm water analysis and we had done a storm water pollution (inaudible) analysis and that was also something Land Tech asked for and that’s already been provided.

If I can go through La= nd Tech’s comments, what we did, basically what you have in front of you= as far as this goes, there’s my comments and the rest of it, there’= ;s drainage calculations that pertain to some of his comments. One of his comments was to (inaudi= ble) just south of the wetlands here, we had a catch basin system picking up jus= t go over here, and I had it running in through the detention basin. He wanted me to separate it so tha= t this flow would just continue through and keep coming through here. I have no problem doing that. (Inaudible) is going to go to this= pipe, it’s just going to be natural, there’s no impervious area that’s going there, so we’re still collecting anything thatR= 17;s impervious, grass goes through these catch basins, (inaudible) through a detention basis. I had to adj= ust my outlet structure as well.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

We still haven’t increased any runoff anywhere, we still maintained a zero increase in runof= f in this area. Chris Allen from L= and Tech has asked me for contiguous space and get out of the wooded area. (Inaudible) berms really do make it tough. I pushed it out of the= woods as much as I can, except for this little (inaudible).

Mr. Zawadzki: Well he was concerned about the tree line.<= /o:p>

Mr. George: The tree line is probably more brush on the tree line (inaudible).

Mr. Zawadzki: I think we ought to preserve the trees where we could.

Mr. George: (Inaudible) detention basin so there’s some change there, you can see it on the plans.= You also asked for a conservation easement protecting the wetlands.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There’s not a wetland in this northeast corner. If you look= on the plans it’s shaded. It’s outlined here pretty much following the regulated area. You also asked for some protection behind Lots #1, #2, #3. IR= 17;ve taken the tree line, which is almost regulated area, and provided a conservation easement all the way across here and it will cover the (inaudi= ble) from the west side of the wetlands all the way to the back of the lot, and = this lot line is over so this wetland has full protection now, conservation easement. We added (inaudible) detention basin (inaudible) to the plans, over here, I readjusted it (inaudible) out of the wetlands. (Inaudible) previously for some reason (inaudible) water quality bas= ed on (inaudible) site lines, sediment removal. We talked about providing primary treatment with a wet pond or infiltration basin. The reason for the wet 4 bay and a= dry detention basin, some are manual, allows you to do a wet 4 bay for addition= al storage (inaudible) sufficient enough to provide the water quality that they were looking for and it answers any questions for people who have concerns = over West Nile. That 4 bay is just basically a first basin water basin, sediment allowed to filter out and then the water goes over a small channel and into a detention basin for storage = and then released slowly to (inaudible) circulation. He had some questions on the sedim= ent 4 bay design calcs, those were previously provided in our comments to Chuck (inaudible) designed the size based on a storm water quality manual. (Inaudible) look at doing somethin= g with this detention basin over here, trying to reduce this slope. Because the berm is 15 feet wide, = and it’s parallel along the slope, no matter if you (inaudible) or not th= at slope is still going to be there. This is the best I can do, and it’s as narrow as I really want= to make it. I don’t want t= o make it any narrower than that, so (inaudible) rip rap outlet here and the toe of our slopes so that should be sufficient.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

Then he made comments = about maintenance schedules and stuff like that.= If this project gets approved the developer will have to apply for a Connecticut Storm Water (Inaudible) Permit, and at that time with the construction details, schedules, any kind of sediment control, it’s pretty involved. We don’= ;t have to do it right now because it’s very costly to the applicant, but once it’s approved he’s going to have to have it, it’s go= ing to be required, so that would be done, so looking through here (inaudible).=

Mr. Zawadzki: Who requires that, the State?<= /p>

Mr. George: The State, P & Z. I also put a long term maintenance schedule on the detail sheet as well, for the detention basin. That’s pretty much, trying t= o keep it quick, summarizing Land Tech’s report. Chuck’s comments that I got = today, some of those comments are addressed here, some of them I told Chuck weR= 17;d work on. I have no problem ag= reeing to whatever we need to do as far as what Chuck is asking for, the type of c= atch basins, I have (inaudible) Planning Commission is a little skeptical about using the traffic contingency so I might look for a (inaudible) or somethin= g.

Mr. Zawadzki: Give us a little background on why your client is objecting to a common driveway there on . . . . .

Mr. George: We’ve gone through this before, if you remember at the very beginning. We really want to keep it separate, for maintenance reasons and eliminate the argument on who is required to plow it.&nb= sp; The other one is the most compelling one for him is marketing end, people like to have their own driveways.&n= bsp; Combining these, I’ve looked at the driveway crossings, itR= 17;s 24 feet; if you do a common driveway you’re looking at 18 feet, and it’s only 6 feet, and minimizing as much as we can, I don’t thi= nk combining them is really going to save that much space. Let me add one more point, the cro= ssings we’ve added a storm blanket detail on the plan as well. Chris I think had mentioned that i= n his letter.

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, would you explain that a little bit for the public?

Mr. George: (Inaudible) stone, they got the (inaudible) in t= he wetlands. Put the filter fabr= ic down, some 3 inch stone, put another layer of filter fiber, put some (inaudible) on top of that, and then you put your driveway on top of that.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There will be a culvert still going through there, but any water that might come up on the banks, which is high= ly unlikely because it is more of a deep swale condition would be allowed to filtrate through there and not prohibit any flow from going from one side to the other.

Mr. Zawadzki: So you have a culvert and a stone blanket?<= /o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 6

&nb= sp;

Mr. George:= And a stone blanket.<= o:p>

Mr. Zawadzki: How large is the culvert?

Mr. George:= Lot #7 is already going 15 inch pi= pe, the one for Lot #8 is a 21 x 16 inch pipe wide culvert.

Mr. Zawadzki: Is that the arch?

Mr. George:= That’s the arch, it will spa= n the whole brook, natural bed (inaudible). I’ve also revised some of my calcs, we had rip rap there, we don’t need it, there are some typos, I misread the velocities, the velocities are acceptable so that we don’t need rip rap (inaudible) so we’re trying to maintain the natural stream bed as much as possible.<= o:p>

Mr. Polletta: I have a question about the two driveways right = next to each other. What is the difference in disturbance square feet-wise, how much will you disturb it if= you combine them together or separate?

Mr. George: I only have the numbers for separate, which is 8= 50 square feet. For both it̵= 7;s 500 and 350, so keep them separate is 850, if you probably added another 6 = feet times (inaudible) another 120 square feet maybe.

Mr. Polletta: Land Tech and whatever questions they had, you .= . . . .

Mr. George: That’s how I answered it.

Mr. Polletta: Our engineer concerns, did you answer his questi= ons, I mean are there any problems with you, Chuck?

Mr. Berger: My memo was geared towards, it was dependent on what was presented here tonight, what was proposed by the applicant in response to Land Tech’s comments, so my comments are somewhat general in nature. I= think they certainly did a good job in addressing my first round of comments and = then depending on how the plan revised from Land Tech as well as from tonight’s discussion my comments are geared towards all the follow up information follows form whatever is agreed upon, if anything tonight. Like the drainage report was just = handed it and that’s a modification to incorporate one of the review comment= s.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> You still have to review these?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

Mr. Berger: Yes. (Tape #1, Side A ended – may have missed some.)

Mr. George: Over here. I was just going to reinforce it with (inaudible), we’re going= to rip rap both sides here on this slope (inaudible). So that’s one of the comment= s I was already addressing. The additional technical information, that goes on as far as construction plans= and what not. Like I said the (inaudible) type catch basin comment, it’s only going to be a switch, we’re not sure what. I’ve actually already made the driveway crossings 15 inch; we = had them 12, we were going back and forth with the Planning Commission on who is required to maintain them, so we just decided that the Town was going to maintain them so we’ll make them 15 inch and work from there. So that was my only fluctuating elevation, there is going to be culverts there, they’re going to be 15 inch, they’ll have a minimum of 1 foot cover, and the rest of his comments were, like he said, general, and we’ll be able to work with those.

Mr. Polletta: And this detention basin you show over here, thi= s is going to be maintained by the Town?

Mr. George: The detention basins I believe are going to be m= aintained by the Town.

Mr. Polletta: The Town owns them?

Mr. Berger: Yes.

Mr. George: Correct. (Inaudible) for them as well on the plans.

Mr. Rafey: And who will provide the maintenance schedule?

Mr. Berger:= It will have to be added . . . as = part of the approval process . . . .

Mr. George: I’ve added that to the plans.

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, he said he’d put that on. Well I guess the big question is i= f we need, based on your review of these comments, if we’re going to need = any more input information, we’d have to keep the Hearing Open.

Mr. Berger: Well again it sort of depends on where the Commission goes on this. If y= ou accept, I think probably the two biggest items are the whether or not you’re going to allow two separate driveways or request a combined driveway. If you allow them to remain separate, the analysis submitted tonight probably addresses that. If they have to be combined, then = we need additional information, that’s why I requested a revised drainage report be submitted regardless of what it shows in here tonight.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, that’s already been requested, so we’re okay on that.

Mr. George: If we combine the driveways we also need to get approval from the Planning Commission; it’s not rally allowed.

Mr. Zawadzki: How do you guys feel about that? I don’t really have a big (inaudible) for double driveways. It’s a minor impact, plus they’re putting the rocks underneath it so they’re going to maintain the flow there.=

Mr. Duplissie: They already changed the position of those two driveways.

Mr. George: Yes, we did a field change, remember when we were out in the field and we moved them down to get away from the rock? That was changed awhile ago.<= /o:p>

Mr. Duplissie: I think it made a lot more sense the way we moved it.

Mr. George: Yes, I think we picked the two good areas that if you had to cross, this is where we should cross.

Mr. Duplissie: With the least amount of impact.

Mr. George: Yes.

Mr. Zawadzki: Any other comments?

Mr. Rafey: There are two issues that I want to mention for = the record. This Commission has a policy that as a standard condition of approval, that if this goes through, they want a conservation easement area on all wetlands in the 50 foot setba= ck area, or upland review area. = Is that going to create any problems for you?= They are regulated anyway but we want an extra layer of protection.<= o:p>

Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> The reason being in the past we= 217;ve gone to sites that were wetlands or setback or upland review areas, and we = want to make sure they stay that way.

Mr. Rafey: Other than these regulated activities that you proposed, and the Commission may approve the, no other activities are allow= ed within those areas anyway.

Mr. George: We’re outside the regulated area (inaudibl= e) anyway. This side we won̵= 7;t have a problem with, we have the crossing so we have to cut it off somewher= e.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 9

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: The reason for that I explained to you, because = we have those placards we can use so the homeowners know where their limits are and they don’t go into the wetlands or the setback area. It will be the same.

Mr. George: Yes, we can do that.

Mr. Rafey: The other question is the wet bottom pond. On Page 9, Land Tech’s repor= t says that the (inaudible) recommends that at least 1 primary measure be included= if you don’t have a wet bottomed detention pond so you can provide one of the primary . . . .

Mr. George: That’s what I was saying, the wet 4 bay in= our opinion is . . . .

Mr. Rafey: Does that qualify?

Mr. George: It’s kind of vague in the manual. Yes and no. I mean they don’t specifical= ly say 4 bay, but they say wet pond. The dry detention basin section does mention you can use a sediment 4 bay as additional storage. We’= ve used that with (inaudible) calcs, came up with a number to meet the D.E.P. guidelines, so in our sense that’s a primary treatment. The manual is just a guide, itR= 17;s nothing to be followed specifically like they have it laid out, it’s = just a guide. I’ve encounter= ed in other towns, some towns require swale concentrators, commissions don’t see that as a primary treatment. We see that as a primary treatment because I think it does a better job than a detention basin would. They&#= 8217;re very expensive, of course that’s not considered in the manual as a primary treatment. They just = give wet pond infiltration basins and those types of structure. The other thing that the manual go= es by is the D.E.P.’s criteria of 80% full suspended solids to be removed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We could do that in other ways tha= n what that manual says. We’re= going to do it with the sediment 4 bay, deep catch basins, our vegetated swales w= ill help and the rip rap that we have. We believe that what comes out of those structure will be pretty cle= an water.

Mr. Rafey: Do you have 4 bays on all 3 detention ponds?

Mr. George Yes, and are designed based on storm water quali= ty manual guidelines. Actually they’re not at the minimum, they’re actually accepted storage.<= o:p>

Mr. Zawadzki: Can you describe a 4 bay (inaudible) is that 4 separate zones?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 10

&nb= sp;

Mr. George: Basically it’s coming out of the catch bas= in it’s going to go into this little about an 18 inch peel so to speak, = it will be separated by a check dam, once it gets up to 18 inches it will over= flow into the detention basin volume area and that will go through the outlet control structure which will release it at a slower rate so that it matches= the predevelopment conditions and actually in some areas as I told you before, we’re less than predevelopment conditions.

Mr. Rafey: How big is the 4 bays?

Mr. George: 3 of them are not all the same size, obviously because of the drainage areas.

Mr. Rafey: Chuck, can they make those larger, like half the pond?

Mr. George: They’re designed in accordance with the St= orm Water Quality Manual. We̵= 7;ve also provided deep 4 foot sumps, standard catch basins are 2 feet, so you’re going to have extra storage, so when the maintenance crews don’t get out there for who knows when, they have some time. Detention Basin A, the 4 bay minim= um size requirement is 240 cubic feet; I’m providing 400 cubic feet, alm= ost twice. Basically the water qu= ality volume that it’s sized by is runoff generated by an inch of rainfall = on the site, the 4 bay side has to contain 10% of that water quality volume. A detention basin provides the ful= l 100% of the water quality volume and the 4 bay has at least 10% of the water qua= lity volume. Like I said for Deten= tion Basin A, the drainage areas for that site is about 1.5 acres, not very big. My water volume, quality volume is 2,400 cubic feet, so I only need 240 cubic feet of storage; IR= 17;m providing 400. Basin A is the= one by the entrance. B, this is t= he one for the other side, a bigger area, and that’s going to require 637 cu= bic feet of 4 bay storage; and I’m providing 850 cubic feet, which is abo= ve and beyond the minimum. Deten= tion Basin C is another small one, that’s only going to require 7 cubic fe= et, I’m providing 288, so I’m way above the minimum for that one, a= nd I think our 4 bay sizes are sized accordingly and we’re not at the mini= mum requirements, we’re exceeding them.

Mr. Berger: I’m not at this point in time in full agreement with what Mr. George has presented not to say that it’s not correct, but they have used some information both from D.E.P. Storm Water Quality Manual, as well as other reputable sources, it’s not that it’s a bad source, it’s just one that I’m not familiar wi= th, and he’s combined a couple different techniques, which is what I’m = in the process of reviewing and why I’ve continued to carry that water quality aspect forward in my memo as we continue to look at that and make s= ure it meets the D.E.P.’s Storm Water Quality Manual cause that is what we’ve been relying on, so we want to make sure that the other source,= we actually went through and calculated the sediment loading is acceptable.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 11

&nb= sp;

Mr. George: If I could add this, if we do, if Chuck is still= not sure on this, the calculations, and we have to create a wet pond, so to spe= ak, it will only entail probably digging out 12 inches below where the detention basin is, not making it any bigger, just basically digging it out so I̵= 7;ve got a water level established there, so the size won’t change, it will just be about a foot deeper.

Mr. Rafey: I recommend if possible, make it all wet bottom. Land Tech Consultants= also recommended that, and we received a letter from the City of Waterbury that = they have some concerns about their watershed area, and they recommend that this Commission enforce all the conditions that Land Tech Consultants suggested.=

Mr. George: If the Commission would like, I can make that change. It’s not going = to do anything to impact anything, it will just make it a little deeper to hold t= he water. That way the vegetatio= n has a chance to remove the nutrients.

Mr. Duplissie: How deep do you want the wet bottom?<= /span>

Mr. George: The manual has recommendations, it’s usual= ly about 12 or 18 inches, you don’t want too much water.

Mr. Zawadzki: I think we’d like to make them wet bottom.=

Mr. George: That is done.

Mr. Rafey: Other than the issue of the driveway I just sugg= est that they follow all the recommendations from Land Tech Consultants to meet those requirements, and you decide if you want the driveways combined or separate?

Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions from the Commission?

Mr. Duplissie: How many fire tanks do we have on the site?=

Mr. George: 2 fire tanks.&n= bsp; The locations are where the Fire Department had requested. One is over by this detention basi= n and one is over near Lot #12.

Mr. Duplissie They’re a good distance away from those in= terior lots, the ones with the long driveways.

Mr. George: Yes. These are the locations they asked for. They want to adjust them, I have no problem with that. They’= ;re both 10,000 gallons each, they had to meet their specs.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARNG

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

FEBRUARY 9, 2006

PAGE 12

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: Are those above ground?

Mr. George: No, below ground.

Mr. Zawadzki: Anything else?&= nbsp; Is there anyone in the public who wishes to comment on this applicat= ion?

Mr. Rafey: Chuck knows what he’s looking for and do y= ou want to keep the driveways separate?

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, well we did have to go over that. Do you guys have anymore comments = about the two versus common driveway? It may not be accepted by Planning and Zoning anyway.

Mr. Polletta: I like 2 separate driveways for maintenance purposes.

Mr. Zawadzki: I don’t have a problem with it either.

Mr. Rafey: Other than the driveway issue, then all other recommendations from Land Tech Consultants should be enforced.

Mr. George: Yea, (inaudible) make a wet bottom = basin (inaudible).

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Close the Public Hearing for App. #542 of William Davidson for construction of 18 lot residential subdivision located= on the south side of Morris Town Line Highway and east side of Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

  &nbs= p;         Public Hearing Recessed at 8:20 p.m.

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Ronald = Jones, Secretary

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetland Agency

  &nbs= p;         _________________= _________________

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