beagenda

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

Mr. Sakonchick: Are you saying you’re going to have a pit that’s 134 cubic years?

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. George: Yes.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Sakonchick:&nb= sp; That’s a huge hole.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. George: Not too bad really. It’s about, dep= ending on the grades, it’s generally 4 to 5 feet and it&= #8217;s part of the new 2002 soil and erosion control guidelines. It’s a common measure used on construction sites. Originall= y we had just the detention pond, which is designed to collect all the sediment = for the site, but at the request of the Town, the Town Engineer would like to s= ee these temporary sediment traps and we had them in on the previous set of pl= ans that we submitted, however the Town requested that we provide computations which we did. So basically I = just went through the locations of these. We have one over here, one just a couple hundred feet up the hill.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Jones: Did you say 134 cubic = yards per acres, or 134 cubic yards just total for the (inaudible)?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. George: For every 1 acre = of drainage area that contributes to the temporary sediment trap, you need 134 cubic yards of (inaudible).

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Jones: Are you implying then that we = have 1 acre we’re talking about, the size will be 134 cubic yards?

&nb= sp;

Mr. George: Well some of these tra= ps, the smallest one has a contributing area of 1 acre; the largest one has a contributing area of 3 acres. There’s 5 altogether. These are per the new soil and erosions control guidelines. One of the reasons we’re usi= ng temporary sediment traps, the duration, construction time is going to be le= ss than a year. Each one of thes= e will be probably just for a couple of months.&n= bsp; The contributing drainage area for each one is les than 5 acres. If we went into a more of a perman= ent basin, you’re going to end up with something even larger, so this can actually work better because something the contractor builds as he’s doing, coming down one section of the road, basically digs this area out, shapes it how he’s supposed to, directs the water into it, it lasts f= or a couple of months. For example= they have one now on the second phase of Hidden Oak Estates which they have up t= here now, and basically it’s dry right now, there’s no water, but it’s there in case the water comes.&= nbsp; It’s a pretty common sediment measure.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

One of the other thing= s that we did, that the Commission was concerned about, was on Lots #9, #12, #13 t= here was always concern with the grades of the cut and fill slopes. What we did, for example on Lot #9, which is a fill area, we put a retaining wa= ll in behind the house. It’s a landscape retaining wall, 4 feet high.&nbs= p; We reduced the 2:1 slopes, we flattened the fill slope to 3:1 as muc= h as we could, and then the last couple of feet we go down 2:1. We’re kind of limited with t= he 50 foot buffer over here, however, what we did was created a flatter back yard= , we reduced any permanent erosion control matting that would be required on the slope, so basically we’ve flattened this whole area out more and we&#= 8217;re still outside of the 50 foot buffer.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Ms. Sturgis: What’s the retaining wall mad= e of?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. George: Yes, this is just like= a landscape retaining wall. Con= crete blocks that are like, people are doing a lot of = these in their yards now. They have= like a textured face to them.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Undercuffler: And they interlock, right?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. George: Yea, they’re interlocking stone wall. You = see them. Landscapers use them al= l the time. Then also on Lot #12, we did the same thing. This is a cut slope and we put a r= etaining wall behind the house, created a flat back yard area, put the retaining wal= l, reduced the amount of cut so we actually pulled this impact area down, we’re not disturbing as much area.&n= bsp; We do have, we are still calling for a little bit of permanent erosi= on control matting up in here because our cut slope does exceed in elevation o= f 15 feet, and the soil and erosion control guidelines state that either you hav= e to provide any time you have a cut or filled slope with an elevation differenc= e of greater than 15 feet, then you need either a reverse bench or some kind of mechanical stabilization in which the, that’s why we’re proposi= ng a permanent type erosions control mat, which actually you put that, once everything is graded off you put the mat down and then the grass grows thro= ugh it and then the mat stays in there and then always protects the soil from eroding out. However, I would= like to add that we’re almost at the high point of the hill so there’s really not a lo= t of runoff over here. The high point is jus= t about 100 feet up the hill so we’re not going to have high flows coming off this hillside.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

As= is the case for Lot #13. We have this driveway coming up he= re, and along the driveway and even on the side of the house we have a retaining wall. We reduced the cut limi= ts on this lot and just to be safe on this 2:1 slope we also added the permanent erosions control matting. (Ta= pe #2, Side A ended – may have missed some).=

One of the things I= 217;d like to address now is we just received a letter from the Town today with a= few additional comments, and one of the concerns was the drainage on this drive= way and it’s probably hard to see on this plan, but we have a shell ferry= in here which what we’ll do is we’ll actually, we’re going to show, it’s going to be graded, it’s going to be like a little d= itch there and what we’ll do is we’ll direct the water down here and= tie it into the storm drainage system. The Town was concerned about that.&= nbsp; So we’re going to take care of that and address that issue, as with this driveway down here. The Town was also concerned because it’s steep, so what we’ll do is we’ll provide a swale along the driveway and just direct the water through the back of the lot towards the wetlands just so there won’t = be any problems with water on those lots.&nbs= p; That’s all I have. I’ll turn the mike over to Vinnie = and he’ll explain a few other things that we did.

Vincent Caterino, Engineer and Land Surveyo= r

Mr. Caterino: Basically the only issue that I was going to address right now is the location of the existing detention pond t= hat we’re proposing. We were asked to evaluate any other possible locations of this detention pond which we’re proposing in this area right here. The only other two possible locati= ons would be this area right here, coming in right off Middlebury Road and an a= rea right above in this area, and one of the biggest factors in determining the location of a detention pond is an area to be able to outlet the water at o= ne of the lowest points in the watershed.&nbs= p; As you can see in this location here, we’re outletting at elevation 618 which is the lowest point that we could discharge. That allows all of the water from = the roadway to get into the pond and store it and release it at a given rate. If we were to move this pond up to= this elevation over here, that would do, because of the contours, they’re sloping up in this direction you would have to have a real long detention p= ond like this and it would have substantial cuts on the upper side and substant= ial fills on the lowers side and we wouldn’t be able to use much of the roadway into the pond. We sti= ll would have a significant part of the roadway into the pond, but not as much= as we can by it being located here. And also by having it here, that would, that may force us to move the road further this way to the north and we probably lose 3 or 4 lots in tota= l if we had to try to fit the pond over here.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 6

&nb= sp;

The other location wou= ld be on this side; this side is very difficult to get the pond because if you lo= ok at the size of the pond like this and you try to put that over here, weR= 17;d still be encroaching into the 50 foot buffer area and that would force the = road over in this direction into this 50 foot buffer area on this side and that’s one of the reasons. The other reason is getting there by gravity would be very difficult. We’d have to= go underneath the road over here and the outlet would have to be much higher a= nd it just definitely wouldn’t work as well as it is over here as far as that location is. That was the biggest issue that I was going to talk about.

We received some comme= nts back from the Town Engineer recently and they’re recommending an arch culvert for this crossing over here. Presently we’re proposing a box culvert. We have everything c= alculated for a box culvert and the Town is recommending an arch. We agree to do that, to go to an a= rch, no problem. We can redraw thi= s as an arch, and we’ll resubmit any calculations that we need to do, to go with an arch, and we agree to that, no problem.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: But the arch is basica= lly, stronger, isn’t it? What’s the advantage? I realize it’s stronger structurally.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Caterino: The advantage of an arch, I think it’s, I really can’= ;t answer that.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: Is the opening wid= er?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Caterino:&= nbsp; Yea, the bottom of the arch would be wider, about 16 feet, compared = to a box culvert. We’re at 1= 2 feet right now, but we could get box culverts that are wide too, so I’m not sure exactly what the reasons are why the Town has recommended that. I haven’t spoken to the Town Engineer or the Director of Public Works about that at this present time. I don’t know exactly what th= eir reason is. I don’t know= if it looks better or if, hydraulically we can make any structure work, whether it’s a box culvert or a corrugated metal arch, I’m not sure what the reasoning is at this time.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Berger: I reviewed this with t= he Director of Public Works. We = looked at their preliminary structures type study that Vinnie= had provided and we are recommending the arch because it does provide a lar= ger hydraulic opening. The openin= g is larger than the box culvert, it provides a natural stream bottom, we were concerned regarding the box culvert which was going to be basically lower, below the natural stream channel and then filled with stream bottom material and rip rap and our thoughts were, from a maintenance standpoint, let’= ;s let the stream do what the stream does and just leave it as a natural botto= m.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: So the arch jus= t sits on top of the stream bed basically and bridges it?

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Berger: Bridges it with spread footings ru= nning parallel to the arch, but the bottom in the center would be natural, and aesthetically it looks better.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: So in other wor= ds you would have footings on both sides and then you rest the arch on top of the footings?

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Berger: Yes.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: So the bottom i= s not like before, that we were concerned about what kind of material is going to= be on it, it will be natural, right in the middle?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Berger: In the middle, yes.

Mr. Polletta&n= bsp; Is this arch is the open= space located or is that part of the open space, am I correct?<= /p>

Mr. Caterino: Yes, that’s all open space i= n this area. It would be in the same location as the box culvert.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: But it is open space area?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Caterino:&= nbsp; Yes.

Mr. Undercuffler: Well itR= 17;s the watercourse, it’s the wetlands.

   &= nbsp;        = ;           Mr. Caterino:&= nbsp; Yes, that’s all open space sir. It’s not a lot. It’s all open space. The bottom here will all be distur= bed if we dig for an arch, we’ll disturb that whole area to put the footings= in so we will disturb it and we’ll have to put it back again, and when y= ou put it back again we’ll have to rip rap it because it will be all disturbed material, so it’s not going to remain, this area is what we= all dug up, it’s not going to be natural. It depends on what your definition= of natural is. It’s not go= ing to remain undisturbed by any sense of the (inaudible) because depending on how deep these footings go, now that’s one of the reasons why we were proposing a box is because it sits on a bed of stone and we don’t hav= e to dig for footings. We don̵= 7;t know how deep we’re going to go with the footings, depending on the t= ype of material you have if you have really (inaudible) material, not good mate= rial your footings could be 6 or 7 feet wide on the bottom, so it’s going = to need substantial excavation to put the arch on footings, so that’s wh= y we were leaning towards the box.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

When you construct a box = all you do is excavate the top 18 inches of material and replace it with a bed of s= tone and place the box right on the stone. It’s simpler construction and one thing we could suggest is if= we could go with a wider box, to supply the same width as an arch, we didnR= 17;t present that to the Town because we didn’t really talk that much about it, but we could easily go with a wider box to give you the same square foo= tage as an arch and if we have to we could sink the box culvert deeper into the ground and go with maybe 2 feet of material in the box. But we could still talk to the Town about that, it’s not like we have to decide right this instant, but t= hey both have their advantages and disadvantages, but that area will definitely= be all disturbed even with the arch, but it will be, when we’re done it = will be a natural ground, it will be just disturbed, that’s all. That’s something we could finalize, Steve is there anything you want to add?

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. George: No.<= /p>
&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: I have a question for Mr. Berger.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Do you have any issues that this B= oard should be concerned about at this time?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: They were pretty much outlined= in my memo. I would note that the T= own has not sent he revised plans that are up on the board = yet, those have not been submitted for staff to review. For the culvert, the grading chang= es and any if the changes that were discussed here tonight shown on those plans up on the board we have not seen those plans, they’ve not been submitted for review.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Vinnie, Moosa brought this drawing and said you had submitted this for our inspection. Could you elabora= te on this please?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Caterino: Sure.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Rafey: The plan says Alternate Plan B.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Caterino:&= nbsp; Yes, cause . . . . . basically what I did here was one of the commen= ts from the Town Engineer was that our original Alternate Plan A, we showed th= e cul de sac going all the way down to right about over= here and that did not meet the Planning and Zoning Regulations, and it also encroached into the 50 foot buffer over here, so I said let me draw a plan = that meets the Planning and Zoning regulations as far as the maximum length of a= cul de sac which is 1,000 feet, and right here itR= 17;s about 1,000 feet. I showed th= is as Alternate Plan B and right there it just shows that it meets the Planning a= nd Zoning Regulations and just another alternate plan. It’s basically just a follow= -up from one of the Town Engineer’s comments and there you could see that= we end up with 8 lots. This whol= e Lot #5 is unusable, well it’s usable, but we get one house on this lot an= d we have one Lot #8 on Middlebury Road and all the other l= ots would be in this area here.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 9

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: But then you would not have a conn= ection to Middlebury Road?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Caterino: Right, = and this is no connection to Middle= bury Road.

&nb= sp;

   &= nbsp;        = ;           Mr. Polletta: And you said that’s what Planning and Zoning wants?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Caterino: No. This meets the regulations though.= Planning and Zoning needs this connection for traffic circulation and we talked all about that, but this m= eets regulation though, whereas the one that I showed previously did not, cause = you can’t go over 1,000 feet for a road.= But basically that’s the only reason for the middle is for that reason.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Well that looks good to me.

&nb= sp;

   &= nbsp;        = ;           Mr. Caterino:&= nbsp; This is a huge piece, it’s like 30%= of the land. It’s all good= land right here. It would be a nice building lot, that’s for sure.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: How many acres = is that?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Caterino: I’m guessing that this is 40 so this is, about 10 or 11 acres approximately.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: That’s a goo= d open space.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Caterino:&= nbsp; Yea, I know. Basically= that is it. We could conceptually = get a plan to the arch pretty quickly to the Town.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: When we have th= at Special Meeting, if he can get all this information to our Engineer, maybe = we could have both on the same night.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Yes, it’s a possibility.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Undercuffler: It might be better to ask for an extension and let them have time to review it.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Well it would have to = be a reapplication because this one is already on an extension. It expires on the 25^th = of March so we either deal with it on a special session or reapply.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 10

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Fra= nklin Pilicy, Attorney Representing Applicant=

&nb= sp;

   &= nbsp;        = ;           Atty. Pilicy: = We’ll have to deal with it at the Special Meeting that’s coming up, but bef= ore we suspend tonight I would ask the Commission’s input on the preferen= ce for the arch or the box culvert because the applicant will then concentrate= on getting Mr. Berger what he’s seeking. I think Mr. Berger has made a spec= ific recommendation, and I think the applicant is leaning the other way, but obviously this Commission has the final say.

Mr. Zawadzki: = Your recommendation fo= r an arch was versus a 12 foot box. How do you feel about a 16 foot box versus an arch?

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: I can’t spe= ak for the Director of Public Works, but knowing and taking part in the first discussion where we made the recommendation, I think our recommendation wou= ld remain the same for an arch. = We like that alternative better.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: And the fact th= at they have to dig for footings, was that discussed?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: Not in detail. I guess the caveat would be if it = is an extremely boggy area and there are significant foundation problems, that certainly something that is not presented in the structure study, and if th= at is the case, then we would certainly be willing to revisit our recommendati= on.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Would the footi= ngs normally be more than your 40 inches, or would they have to be 5 or 6 feet since it’s a road? Obvi= ously that depends on the soil, but . . . .

Mr. Berger: I don’t think the engineer has provided that level of detail yet, as to what would be needed.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: I think they should get together a= nd come up with the best idea and then we can decide at the special meeting. I think it should be reviewed and = put on the plans so we have a full set of drawings and the Engineer can receive it= and turn we can make a final decision at the next meeting, the special meeting.=

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: I think the question was, thou= gh, do we want to go along with the arch suggestion, which I’m inclined to agree, I mean if that’s the recommendation, unless there’s something that turns up later, which I guess could be checked before they really get into it.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 11

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Jones: Mr. Berger, I think you said that t= he two reasons for the arch was (1) it would be greater flow through it, obstructi= on or whatever because the dimension, and if you were to take that 12 foot bas= in or whatever you call it and make it 16 that takes away that question, doesn’t it? I’m a little bit confused. Do you s= olve the problem by making that unit 16 feet instead of 12? That particula= r aspect of the problem?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: You certainly could provide equivalent waterway area with a box culvert.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Jones: Then the problem beco= mes just the creek bed.

Mr. Berger: Yes.=

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Jones: So really what we̵= 7;re talking about is which serves the creek bed better, is that correct?

   &= nbsp;        = ;           Mr. Berger: Yes. And aesthetics was the last reason= that we discussed that we thought an arch looked better than a concrete box culv= ert.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Ms. Sturgis: I think if it= 217;s more aesthetically pleasing I’d like that. Unless it̵= 7;s impossible and it’s boggy.&nb= sp; You couldn’t get footings (inaudible) huge.<= /p>
&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, my inclination wo= uld be to support the staff on that as far as they feel an arch is better. I kind of like the idea of a natur= al bottom, even thought the excavation is going to disrupt things temporarily, it’s a long term versus short term consequence.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: Will the impact be= the same, Chuck?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: We’d have t= o look at the plans of the arch.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: Because you have limited time = to keep the Public Hearing Open, I just in my memo I just mentioned to you that you should be clear that the applicant knows what they should bring to the = next meeting and the staff needs to kind of guide him. From all of the alternative plans = that they submitted, which plan do you want them to concentrate on and provide information to Mr. Berger. (Tape #2, Side B ended – may= have missed some.)

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: How does the Commission feel about that based on the data we have here for the original = plan and the alternatives? How do = we feel about including this one that’s on the board right now?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 12

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: In the packet ther= e are 3 different plans. There is P= lan #1, the original plan and Plan #2, alternate as one, and Plan #3 alternate = as two, and this one is Alternative G, Alternative 3. You should direct Mr. Caterino as to which one he should provide informatio= n to Mr. Berger. If this is the on= e that you want to look at for approval, then the only issue that is outstanding is that arch or the box culvert, plus those minor technical things that Mr. Be= rger is looking for.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Polletta: What is the difference between Plan #1 and #2?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: Plan #1 the road i= s next to this wetlands. And Plan #2 they moved the road down and they avoided that impact th= ere on the wetlands. Plan #3 is different, with a cul de sac.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: I like Plan #2.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: That is the one that requires = the box culvert or the arch, it depends on which one= you want to have.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Undercuffler: I would go along with = Plan #2, which still involves crossing the wetlands.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Jones: Well it appears that the issue is = the arch then, if we all agree on the arch and . . . .

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Well the first issue is crossing the wetlands. I think it’s a question of do we want to go across the wetlands or do we want= to stop short of that. You’= ;ve got Plan 3 and Plan B which is up on the Board which avoids the wetlands completely.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Rafey: The Planning and Zoning Commission, they want this connection to Middlebury Road and also the Plan of Development recommends it.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Keep in mind that the Planning and Zoning Commission has their own agenda and we have ours and we’re charged with protecting wetlands wherever we can and to look for feasible and prudent alternatives, and also the Plan of Development is not = a be all and end all for connecting roads. In fact, I have here the memorandum from Meredith Robson, the Town Manager, states that the Plan of Conservation and Development is not (a) the final word on the community’s future or the end all/be all panacea fo= r a community’s problems and challenges.= And that is to say that while P & Z may love to have a connecting road out to Middlebury Road, that doesn’t mean that we need to want t= hat and so I’m just asking everybody to consider that as a possibility, a= nd you do have a couple of alternatives on the table that avoid crossing the wetlands.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 13

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Ms. Sturgis: Did they want th= at for fire trucks to get in and out? Why do they wan it to open to = Middlebury Road?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Well they say p= ublic safety, but public safety is an all encompassing thing where you can say we= ll, but on the other hand public safety, maybe kids can skateboard and go right= out onto Middlebury Road, and if there’s a cul de sac there they wouldn’t be able to do that, so how do you look at pub= lic safety? I don’t know. But the fact remains that fire eng= ines, police cars can turn around in a cul de sac, wh= ich is why they specify the size of the cul de sac. And there are other areas in the T= own that do not have multiple outlets. There are two outlets for this development onto Route 63. Only one now, but . . . . .

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: I personally believe that if w= e have arch way type of bridge that they’re going to have and we will have minimum disturbance just for the footings on both sides, the bottom of the bridge will be natural and they’re just going to be disturbed. I personally don’t see a big problem with that.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Beauchamp: I go along with Joe.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: I’d be willing to cross = the wetlands in order to have the access on Middlebury Road. Emergency safety is a concern; as = you say though, cul de sacs do serve their purpose,= but we’re used to having two doors in every room for exits.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Ms. Sturgis: You know the oth= er option is parents love cul de sacs for kids on = their bikes, so I mean I don’t have an opinion (inaudible).

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: My reaction is the crossing is fair= ly minimal percentage-wise.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: It’s a short term impact= on the wetlands, but a long term benefit to the community for traffic circulat= ion.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: We need a motion to decide on = which plan . . . . .

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Rafey: You don’t need a motion, just guide the applicant to provide the information that you are looking for for the next meeting. I don’t want everybody to come to the next meeting and then discuss all of these issues again, and there is no time to keep the Public Hearing Open.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki Well it looks like the consensus is Plan #2, which is the deviation of Lovely Drive away from the = 50 foot buffer, Lots #14 and #13, and connecting to Middlebury Road. And using the arch culvert as oppo= sed to a box culvert.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #488 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MARCH 11, 2004

PAGE 14

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Undercuffler: With the assumption that the ground would not present a problem.
&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Atty. Pilicy: = The time period? Do we have to is= sue by the 17^th? And a te= ntative meeting date of March 23, 2004. Thank you very much.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTION:       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Keep the Public Hearing Open for App. #488 of Patrick Graziano for 18 lot residential subdivision, “Fox Crossings” Phase III Pond View Estates and extension of Lovely Drive<= /st1:Street>, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

  &nbs= p;         Public Hearing Recessed at 9:16 p.m.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 10 minute Recess at 9:16 p.m.

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=