MINUTES<= o:p>
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
THURSDAY,
JANUARY 15, 2004 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph
Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
Bernard Beauchamp
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; Peter
Peluso
ALTERNATES ABSENT: &nbs=
p; Susan
Atwood
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Dorothy
McGrath
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Charles Berger, Town
Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 8:45 p.m.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, asked Mr. Undercuffler to be the Acting Secretary.=
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call. Mr.
Zawadzki, Vice Chairman, asked Mr. Peluso to sit in for Ms. Kuegler, in her
absence. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 2 3. =
Hearing
of Applications &=
nbsp; B. =
Continuation
of Public Hearing from December 11, 2003 - Application #490 of Hard Rock
Development, LLC for 10 lot residential subdivision located on Buckingham
Street, State Route 262, and Booth Avenue, Oakville, CT. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by January 15, 2004, unless applic=
ant
grants a time extension. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Edward Scoville, Licensed Professi=
onal
Engineer and Land Surveyor, Stewart Somers Company, 1211 Main Street South,
Southbury, CT &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Scoville: What we’re propo=
sing
is a 10 lot subdivision off of Buckingham Street and also abuts Connecticut
State Route 262 and the new proposed road will be off of Booth Avenue. To summarize it it’s a 10 lo=
t subdivision
on a small parcel of land, approximately 4.7 acres. The wetlands impacts that we have =
in
relation to it is we’re filling a detention basin which has some acti=
vity
in the regulated area and the outlet for the detention basin is in the
regulated area. From the last=
time
I was here, from comments I received, I’ve taken the detention basin =
and
I’ve put it up hill out of the regulated area, a little bit,
approximately 20 feet to lessen the impact which was similar to what was
discussed on the site walk. In
addition to that we’re proposing by hand to go into the wetlands area,
and the regulated area, and clean up the stuff which was another item that =
was
mentioned on the site walk which would be different from last time. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: The letter here refers that Mo=
osa
wrote, we had .64 acres of open space and in your narrative it says .57. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: The open space was expanded. Originally the lots were configure=
d a
little differently, we tried to maximize the open space. In addition to the open space
there’s a conservation easement over near the intersection with State
Route 262 and Buckingham Street so where it will be undeveloped. In addition to that we submitted a
planting plan showing that. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: But the open space is .64 acre=
s. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: The open space itself which wo=
uld be
deeded over is 0.64 acres. No=
t to
confuse anybody, there is a proposed water quality basin/detention pond in =
that
open space. Your net surface =
area
of the basin itself is about 9,000 sq. ft. going around it. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 3 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Did you answer all the questio=
ns
that Mr. Berger requested? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: From my perspective there are =
no
major outstanding issues here. I
think the big concern initially was the impact on, this is within the Turkey
Brook watershed, and we had them take a look at that and confirm in additio=
n to
their analysis that there is no impact in the Turkey Brook watershed. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: So the memo that you gave us f=
or
January 9th that’s in our packet, most of these you’=
re
satisfied with it? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Most of those are satisfied, t=
he
remaining ones, based on a quick review of the plans I received, there are =
some
minor issues that I can address just cleaning up the plans would be
(inaudible). &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: I asked before little thing, a=
nd the
thing is that there are some issues that haven’t been clarified? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Berger: Yea, I can’t say that 10=
0% of
the issues in my January 9th memo have been satisfactorily
addressed. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Scoville: To go over a co=
uple
of items that I can think of off the top of my head, I know on the new set =
of
plans and the comments I gave to Chuck that we’re proposing a gravel
access drive, and the same issue as far as, cause we’re, I was pictur=
ing
concrete pavers that I’ve used in designs for boat ramps that weigh 55
pounds each, that is what the Public Works was looking for, and in my mind =
it
was more prudent to put in a gravel drive than 55 pound concrete blocks goi=
ng
over down to the detention pond I figured that was overkill and for aesthet=
ics
it wasn’t needed. That =
would
be one item that I know. Anot=
her
small item that was mentioned as far as at the intersection of Buckingham
Street, I had mentioned that was looking for a handicapped ramp detail on t=
hat
which I did not provide on the detail sheet as far as that goes. That would be an example of some o=
f the
issues. Another one might hav=
e been
was in regards to street lighting proposed on the road, there was a comment
that that should be brought up for discussion. Those were the, I believe the natu=
re of
the items that were talking about.
A lot of them are dealing with Planning. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I think Chuck had also asked f=
or
information on Section 75D and G of the Inland/Wetlands Regulations which h=
ad
to do with . . . . . CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 4 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Basically the impact of this
development on the wetlands and ecological community, if there was any. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: The area inside this open spac=
e at
the end of Booth Avenue that this water quality basin is going in is what I
would call second growth or third growth woodland hedgerow type of an
environment. It’s relat=
ively
narrow and isolated on 2 to 3 sides of it, along State Road 262 and along t=
his
open field of this development to the west, towards Buckingham. The areas going towards the Town of
Watertown are wooded and so this is on the very edge of that. The characteristics of the habitat=
there
is what I would term hedgerow, more or less. As a result of that there are a lo=
t of
invasive species in there, like bittersweet vine, multiflora rose, and thin=
gs
like that. It does provide so=
me
little bit of end of corridor habitat and some buffering to the a quaint
wetland that runs off of the highway, but it’s relatively limited
functions and values to a certain extent until you get a lot deeper in the
wetlands system on the Town of Watertown property. The water quality basi=
n,
what that’s going to do is take all the runoff from the roadway
associated with the development and rip sediments within the basin. The planting in the bottom of that=
will
take up pollutants and bind pollutants, take up nutrients. There is also some additional nati=
ve
plantings which will diversify this area, replace things like the multiflora
rose and the bittersweet vine that are non-natives with natives like
Winterberry and Clothra, some Shadblow, some Red Oger Dogwood so we’d
actually be creating wetland like conditions, even though it’s
construction and digging it would be creating wetland like conditions and m=
ore
or less going in an area that’s just jammed packed with invasives and
cleaning that out and with maintenance it will create, in my opinion, a bet=
ter
quality of planting in that area, but the basic thing is that any runoff fr=
om
this site, well and getting into the wetland system untreated, it will be
treated. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: And this detention pon=
d will
be a wet bottom detention pond? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: Yes. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Could you please submit a plan=
ting
plan for these two ponds for this development on the previous one, a wetland
planting plan? CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 5 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: They’ve been submitted w=
ith
the documents, I’m pretty sure. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: With the application? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: Yes. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Are you sure? Mr. Sabin: I’m pretty sure,=
we
could check on that. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Okay, just check. If it’s not part of the
application you need to submit it. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Sabin: (Inaudible) &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mark Tedesco, 145 Hard Rock Road,
Watertown, CT 06795 &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Tedesco: Mr. Polletta had a question almost=
2
months in a row regarding impact on Turkey Brook, and after more review I t=
hink
my engineer would like to address that question because it wasn’t rea=
lly
too clear of an answer last time. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Scoville: With the propos=
ed
detention basin we’re not going to see any downstream impact to the
Turkey Brook Watershed, to put it simple. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: My question las=
t time
basically was it’s supposed to be like zero runoff, and I said with t=
he
calculations, everybody, with the calculations comes out with the numbers a=
nd
then we also had more water.
Basically what I’m going to say is Chuck, did you review this =
and
you feel comfortable with this again? &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: Yes. In addition to looking at their sm=
all
site and the detention basin proposed in the bigger Turkey Brook watershed,=
we
also had them look at the Turkey Brook engineering model that was used by t=
he
consultant that designed the Turkey Brook Flood Control Project, so in addi=
tion
to their site specific analysis we also had them look at the bigger picture=
, if
you will, and how this, there is always that potential that changing the ti=
ming
of when the runoff is released can cause impacts further downstream, so I g=
uess
we went the extra step here to take a look at how this small drainage area =
and
what they’re proposing here fits into the bigger Turkey Brook Watersh=
ed
model, and again confirmed that there would be no impacts, so I think we’ve checked and doub=
le
checked. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 6 &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: (Inaudible) no impact =
on
Turkey Brook? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: No impact. (Tape #2, Side A ended – may=
have
missed some.) &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: In my professional opinion
we’re not going to see any impact on the Turkey Brook watershed with =
the
proposed road and the proposed detention pond. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: Have there been=
any
other alternative layouts to this area as far as, in terms of feasible and
prudent alternatives to this, for example, to this number of lots,
configuration, that type of thing? &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Scoville: As far as feasi=
ble
and prudent alternatives we actually laid out a 12 lot subdivision which se=
ems
to be more feasible to me, but it was decided that it wasn’t as prude=
nt
and it was a larger impact and it works out that if you get the 12 lot subd=
ivision
to work by the lot areas, the squares on the lot, the frontage, it comes do=
wn
to, it’s not, it’s prudent or narrow type lots, they’re s=
till
have more impervious area because I’m having more houses, so that was=
one
of the reasons why we didn’t look at that, as far as that goes. It appears to me that this was the=
more
prudent and feasible, this subdivision coming in here. Other alternatives tha=
t were
looked at was accessing out on Buckingham Street and there were concerns wi=
th
the road, with Planning, and that wasn’t feasible or prudent to access
the parcel, so that was another reason why this layout was chosen for the
subdivision. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: But you didn’t s=
ubmit
those other plans with your application.&n=
bsp;
This was the only plan that I saw. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Tedesco: If you’d l=
ike to
see the 12 lot subdivision, again this is the best way to maximize the open
space, protect the wetland buffers.
I mean if you want to see a worse, I don’t know how to say it.=
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: A feasible and prudent
alternative doesn’t mean that the worst case scenarios that you
submit. How can you reduce the
impact on the natural resources including wetlands and watercourses? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: There is no other alternative =
we can
do here, in building single family homes.&=
nbsp;
Again I could have gotten 11 to 12 lots, but there is such a thing as
pro-development, anti-development, and in this case I feel it’s proper
development, just keeping it at 10 lots. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 7 &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: These lots meet al=
l the
Zoning Requirements, the lot size, the frontage, and the setbacks. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Any other questions fr=
om the
Commission? Anyone from the p=
ublic
have any comments or questions? I
guess not. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: You also proposed =
an oil
water separator, can you give the Commission a little information to have
something in the record for water treatment. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Scoville: Sorry about tha=
t,
that was actually the last thing, we added an oil/water separator right bef=
ore
catch basin one to remove the oil from going into the detention basin, which
was in addition to the plantings that we’re proposing in the basin, w=
hich
a lot of the plantings you have qualities to remove that, and if you’d
like, Dirk can go into the benefits of the plantings. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Sabin: What that is doing=
is
actually doubling up. The oil
separators will capture oil in the storm drainage system. One of the things that I do see ha=
ppen
sometimes with those devices is that if they’re not properly cleaned =
out
on a timely basis, the oils can build up, and if you get a short duration h=
igh
peak storm event goes vigorously through the basin, sometimes you’ll
actually get a discharge of the oil you’ve been collecting inside the
basin. One of the benefits of
having one of these planted basins is the fact that they are very low upkee=
p,
anything that comes out of that storm drainage system gets trapped in this
basin and the plants themselves will work on such things as heavy metals, a=
nd
oils and pollutants and nutrients and the like, so it’s actually a do=
uble
system in that respect, and again they’re also facultative wetland
species so in essence you’re creating a wetland type system next to t=
he
existing wetlands. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Tedesco: After doing some
research on these oil separators, and I contacted the State on the oil
separator situation here, they recommended that on a road, especially a road
that has 6 catch basins, are we talking 6 catch basins there? 7 catch basin with sumps, that as =
long
as Public Works yearly cleans out the sumps, that on a road such as this it=
is
not necessary. The only reaso=
n why
I brought it up and put it on the plan was because Mary Barton suggested th=
at
this Commission wants it on all roads.&nbs=
p;
I asked my engineers, they said it’s not necessary. I called the State, they said it&#=
8217;s
not necessary. Now if you hav=
e a
parking lot, there it would be necessary, but on a road such as this, at 300
feet, 30 feet wide, it’s again possibly just a big waste of money and
also a maintenance problem for the Town, but if you want it, I’ve alr=
eady
put it in the plans, I’ll be more than happy to take it out. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC JANUARY 15, 2004 PAGE 8 &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: I think the staff =
will
support this treatment because of the location of the watercourse to the
detention pond. This provides=
an
extra layer of treatment of storm water, but it depends on the maintenance
program that the Public Works Department has. I don’t know how often they =
can
maintain these. &=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Tedesco: Again I was told=
that
as long as the sumps are cleaned out, again 7 sumps on a 300 foot road. &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: You’re only usin=
g one
oil separator at the end? The=
re
will be only one? Just before=
it,
this the wetlands, am I correct? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: Correct. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Scoville: That’s correct. It’s one way (inaudible) pav=
ement
on the gravel access way. &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Charles Spath, Professional Land
Surveyor, Stewart Somers Company, 1211 Main Street South, Southbury, CT &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Spath: I’d just like to=
point
out the reason that oil separators are used, not necessarily on short roads
like this, is because there’s not that many cars that actually park on
the roads. They’re usua=
lly
used in situations where you have parking lots, because people park their c=
ars,
if you notice in front of gas stations, convenience, and there’s a lo=
t of
oil leakage, they leave the car running, and there is a lot of oil
leakage. So the catch basins =
in the
road should not collect as much oil as you would in a parking lot, so
that’s why the State does not necessarily go with putting these type =
of
units, whichever unit it may be, there’s different manufacturers on s=
ites
like this. The detention pond=
we
have there now was designed to collect the pollutants. This is overkill, it really is, an=
d I
just want to point that out.
We’re trying to keep the Commission happy, but most of the
detention ponds that are designed this way go into a natural state after a =
few
years and never even have to be maintained or cleaned. They just progress by themselves.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> As a matter of fact a lot of towns
I’ve seen won’t even let the contractors go back in or let the =
Town
go back in to cut any trees down because it becomes a wetlands habitat; aft=
er
maybe 7 or 10 years they can.
Dirk Sabin, Landscape Architect, Washington CT
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: Do you really think it’s
necessary?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: Yes, it’s no=
t only
the 300 feet of road, there is also 8 driveways that drains into this road =
and
part of Booth Avenue is also draining into this. It’s just because the detent=
ion
pond is too close to the watercourse, it’s like an extra layer of
protection if it is getting maintenance.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: I guess that’s the quest=
ion.
Mr. Rafey: I don’t know if =
Mr.
Berger wants to make any comments.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: We’ve been =
doing
a much, this past year we’ve been doing a much better job of getting
around and clearing out the sumps and the catch basins and we will continue=
to
do that and we will have to do that as part of the storm water Phase II pro=
gram
that is upon us now.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: But if the sumps are doing the=
job .
. . . .
Mr. Rafey: I think the sumps are =
for
solid only, it’s not for oil.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: I believe this de=
vice
will trap sediments as well.
It’s conservative, based on the current guidance from D.O.T. a=
nd
D.E.P., it would suggest that it may not be needed in this case, but from w=
hat
I’ve seen the Town has pretty much routinely required them for these
types of applications.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Undercuffler: So it’s not an inland/we=
tlands
thing so much.
Mr. Tedesco: <=
/b>I was told by Ms. Bart=
on
that it was an inland/wetlands issue, but this Commission specifically want=
ed
it.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: This is a storm wa=
ter
treatment device and the water that you’re discharging into the wetla=
nds,
we want to treat it before it reaches the wetlands.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: But we are treating it, weR=
17;re
just double treating it, again wasting money. Let me put it toward something els=
e that
you want, some type of charity or something, but I just feel I’m thro=
wing
it away a bit, these units are $5,000 to $10,000, again it’s
overkill. Thank you.
Mr. Polletta: =
Have we used these bef=
ore?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 10
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Yes, we have in a lot of diffe=
rent
development, Icehouse Road is one that comes to mind. In fact almost everything that was
discussed recently had separators.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: No, but I’=
;m
talking about on a small road.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: If you compare this to previous
application, here is more impervious surface that they’re building for
the other, but because there is a larger retention pond and larger wetland
system that can treat runoff before it gets into the watercourse, we didn&#=
8217;t
require it, but this one is too close to the watercourse, it’s like
direct discharge into the watercourse.
Mr. Tedesco: <=
/b>It seems that we’=
;re
throwing in a lot of professional opinions here. As an applicant I would like to as=
k the
Town Engineer his professional opinion. My engineers have stated, again the=
se
are gentleman with degrees, which I don’t have, and I respect their
opinion, also yours, you’re a soil scientist yourself, I’d like=
to
ask Mr. Berger, in his opinion, if this is needed. If he says it’s needed IR=
17;ll
be ore than happy to do it.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: My opinion is tha=
t as I
said, it’s a conservative design.&nb=
sp;
Based on the current draft guidance from D.O.T. and D.E.P. it would =
not
be required. It is conservati=
ve.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: Thank you. As the applicant again I’ll =
do
this if you wish me to, I just don’t want to hear well this is what
we’ve always done in the past.
As long as it’s feasible and it’s not overkill I’m
willing to do it. As you can =
see I
come in here with 2 or 3 engineers, the landscape architects, I’m not
looking to save a buck here, but if it’s overkill it’s not need=
ed.
Mr. Rafey: The reason we recommen=
d to
treat the water before it discharges into the watercourse, but if it’s
not necessary Mr. Berger, and there is no need, it is up to the Commission.=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Do you feel that we don’=
t need
it?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: Before I make that
final recommendation I’d talk it over with Mr. Cavanaugh and see what=
his
thoughts are on it as well.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 11
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Tedesco: Mr. Cavanaugh has already expl=
ained
to me that he does want it. He
feels it’s easier to clean out this mechanism than it would to be once
very 10 years to go clean out a detention pond. I disagree with that, but again
that’s his opinion, so just to save us some time, Mr. Cavanaugh is in
favor of the oil separator.
Mr. Berger: I would defer to him a=
t this
point; he’s the department head.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: You mentioned fee in lieu of .=
. . .
. one of the things we wanted to discuss was the possibility of a fee in li=
eu
of the open space since the open space is really (inaudible) wetlands, betw=
een
the wetlands and the detention pond is basically the whole thing and it rea=
lly
seems like a better alternative for the Town.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Tedesco: In all due respe=
ct, I
will be addressing that to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I’ll take that into
consideration. Why we do have=
the
open space down in that right hand corner is that the Town already owns open
space adjacent to that. And a=
lso we
added in the conservation easement for a, Dirk Sabin did a nice planting
program in that corner where the conservation area is. But I will take that recommendatio=
n in
mind.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: This Commission can just make a
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and they’ll make=
the
final decision.
Mr. Tedesco: <=
/b>I appreciate that, tha=
nk
you. Again just so that we can
finalize things, so we can Close this Public Hearing, or if there is even a
possibility of a vote on this oil separator, again I don’t want to ma=
ke it
a deal breaker, but if you feel it’s necessary, then I’ll do it,
but here I have professional people telling me it’s not necessary, but
you have the final say, you’re the Commission.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Take a vote on it?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Rafey: (Inaudible) check =
with
Mr. Berger to see if he’s waiting for any additional information.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: The only reason we’d hav=
e for
asking for an extension is if we still need any data to be submitted by the
applicant, otherwise why if we’re all set . . . . .
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #490 – HARD ROCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JANUARY 15, 2004
PAGE 12
Mr. Berger: There’s the minor
cleanup of the plans as Mr. Scoville described before. Fro example things like I commented
about the road widths, the road width was added but there is still a note,
it’s cleanup stuff. I
wouldn’t call it new information.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Rafey: Any comments on that gravel dr=
iveway
for this one?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: The same comment =
that
we want the grass pavers.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: Any comments from the public?<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I guess there is none. Any more comments from the
Commission? I don’t thi=
nk we
need an Extension.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Close the Public Hearing for App. #490 =
of
Hard Rock Development, LLC for 10 lot residential subdivision located on
Buckingham Street, State Route 262, and Booth Avenue, Oakville, CT.
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Closed at 9:15 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Edwin
Undercuffler, Acting Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary