beagenda

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 6

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Now I’d like to describe the project.&nb= sp; The proposal is to create a low density, residential and horse farm lots. This is the vision of o= ur client. Although the parcel is located in an R-12.5 and R-30 zones, two farm lots in excess of 6 acres, and one farm lot in excess of 12 acres along with one traditional house lot of approximately 1 acre are proposed. The remaining approximately 13 acres to the west will remain (inaudi= ble) of the applicant but not a building lot at this time. 4 homes with associated garages, d= rives are proposed along Northfi= eld Road. Each home is to be served by priva= te well and septic systems in accordance to the Connecticut Public Health Code and = as reviewed by the Torrington Area Health District. Lots #1 #2 and #4, #1 being farthe= st to the right, then #2 to the left and then #4 the most southerly lot farthest = to the left are to be farm lots, with gravel berm access drives, 25 by 50 foot print barns and ½ acre corral areas. I will go into further detail with= the barn operations later on in my presentation.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; In order to preserve the rural landscape along Northfield Road we’re proposi= ng a stone dust trail along the southerly property line, on the left on this pla= n, to meander from Northfield= Road to the existing Watertown Land Trust. This is important as the Watertown Land Trust property does not have easy public access, so this would provide public access to that Watertown L= and Trust area.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; The storm water management system has been designed using a combination of grass swales and a roof drain underground retention. We’ve incorporated comments = that we’ve orally received so far from the Town Engineer. We’re using infiltrator unit= s as opposed to previously designed drywells and they’re located properly along the two southerly homes and for each of the barn areas. This will provide zero increase in runoff to a 25 year storm for all of the impervious areas, and then grass swales are proposed in order to maintain water quality.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Watertown’s= Subdivision Regulations may require that open space be provided. Open space is defined in the Regul= ations as areas left in their natural, undisturbed state, agricultural land for wh= ich development rights have been assigned, or otherwise alienated in perpetuity= , areas and facilities for non-commercial, non-profit recreation and similar areas = for wildlife habitat, passive and active recreation, groundwater recharge, scen= ic preservation and the like. Th= ere are several methods of disposition of open space. We’re utilizing 7,120 which = is the utilization of conservation restrictions with or without public access and private ownership with appropriate taking of development rights. Typically 10% of the land is given= for open space, or 4 acres for a parcel of this size. Under this proposal 12.1 acres, or= 3 times the area is being provided for open space, with a method of dispositi= on of conservation deed restrictions on the 3 lots. Further in our presentation Atty. = Edward Hyman will discuss the details of the deed restrictions and their reservati= ons.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; The open space is intended to maintain a corridor along Steele Brook. This parcel, again with Watertown L= and Trust to the south aligning along Steele Brook and then our conservation de= ed restricted area which is outlined here, the dash green line, and everything from there to the west would be the conservation deed restricted area, crea= tes approximately a ½ mile corridor along Steele Brook that is preserved. The deed buffer ar= ea will provide open space for the entire parcel. Rights for fut= ure utilities, flooding, and riding of horses shall be reserved. It should be noted in the Watertown Zoning Regulations, horse paths are permitted in flood plane areas so long = as it does not affect the natural pattern of any watercourse.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; At this time I’d like to go through the regulated activities and to resu= bmit the letter that was submitted on Friday with the revised plans so that ever= yone has a copy.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: That’s your lett= er of May 10, 2004?

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: I think I gave a copy of that = letter to all of the Commission members.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Quirk: I’d like to go through t= hese activities if I could because there are significant changes in them, and I think it would be helpful for the public to understand the regulated activi= ties proposed.

&nb= sp;

As shown in the Legal = Notice, going through each Activity, #1 through #9, and I’d like to go through and describe on the plan where the activities = are and the changes that are being made.

Regulated Activity #1 – which is on the far northerly lot and the bar and associated corral area, as identified in the Legal Notice for the Public Hearing it should be noted that the disturbance proposed is associated with the barn access drive which is the placement of gravel on grade and the use of the existing bridge crossing, and we’re placing gravel in this area for stabilization and= to afford access to this area. No additional earth worm is proposed in this area. So the area there is for the place= ment of gravel and that area has remained the same as the legal notice.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

Regulated Activity #2 – the extent of disturbance has been reduced by placing the fencing f= or the corral 25 feet from the inland/wetlands. Previously the corralled area for = Lot #1, the far northerly lot, was much closer to t= he wetlands and for the regulated activity square footage we were including any area enclosed within the corral fenced area within either wetlands or the regulated setback. We’ve reduced this area, by 3,300 sq. ft. as shown on the tables, and this was do= ne by placing the fenced corral area a minimum of 20 feet from the wetlands, s= o we are still within the setback area but a minimum of 20 feet from the wetland= s.

Regulated Activities #= 3 and #4 – regarding the proposed barn access and fenced corral for Lot #2 have been eliminated. Previously we had fenced corral ar= ea within the setback and there was some grading for the access drive within t= he setback. That has been elimin= ated, so activities #3 and #4 no longer exist.

Regulated Activity #5 – which was associated with the grading for a swale on Lot #3, that’s been reduced by half by modifying the grading in the area, and again this area was to provide an outlet for the footing drains from the ho= use and to grade it properly towards the direction of the wetlands, and we̵= 7;ve reduced that area by half.

Regulated Activity #6 – which was the fencing for the third farm lot, the most southerly lo= t, previously there was a fenced area within wetlands as well as within the regulated setback area. That fencing has been completely removed from the wetlands, while still providin= g an 18,000 sq. ft. corral. This eliminates the 12,200 sq. ft. of wetland disturbance described in Activity #8. I just want to point out = that the total disturbance was 15,000, so this eliminates almost all of the 15,0= 00 sq. ft. within the wetlands. = 13,000 sq. ft. of fenced corrals are still within the buffer.

Regulated Activity #7 - wetland plantings are proposed to mitigate the disturbed area with the construction of the stone dust trail that provides access to the Watertown = Land Trust. Also wetland plantings= are proposed near the existing bridge on Lot #1. With this revised plan th= e only activities within the wetlands are the utilization of the existing bridge on the north lot, and the trail on the south lot, so we felt it necessary to mitigate those activities through providing plantings. On the detail sheet we have planti= ng details for construction to show the shrub and tree plantings, a mix of shr= ub and tree plantings in those areas, and they’re shown on the plan with= a symbol that coordinates to the detail sheet.

In summary the regulat= ed activities for the inland/wetlands have been reduced from 15,385 sq. ft. to 3,185 sq. ft. and those within the buffer have been reduced from 41,000 sq. ft., to 33,000 sq. ft. and all of the proposed corral fencing has been redesigned outside of the inland/wetland limits.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 9

&nb= sp;

For each of the farm l= ots on the (inaudible) containment area has been proposed, and I’ll go into detail lists as I go through the farm operations, but they’re shown on the plan adjacent to each barn, at the specified location as per plan, where manure would be stored. And t= here is a detail and a detail sheet showing the concrete slab and containment for containing that manure within that area.

I hope that these revi= sions have addressed the previous comments. At this time I’d like to go through farm operations.

The design of farms re= quires proper site layout and design of environmental protection. In order to properly design these = lots research of (inaudible) and Best Management Practices was undertaken from t= he Connecticut Farm Bureau Association, the American Horse (inaudible) Guideli= nes for keeping horses in residential areas, and Land Stewardship Project for On Farm (inaudible). According to these guidelines a horse typically requires a 12 x 12 stall and a barn for housing. A barn is typically divided by thirds, 1/3 for animal shelter, 1/3 for roughage and bedding, and 1/3 for the alleyway access and for feeding grain. A horse also needs an area to regu= larly exercise, which is the corral area. Horses vary, but generally from 1,000 sq. ft. to= a ¼ acre per horse is provided for a corral paddock area depend= ing on the breed, age, and nature of the horse. And also an additional area should= be provided for riding and/or pasture, and those numbers vary greatly dependin= g on the particular use. We took a= look at these guidelines in designing the horse lots. Also taking into account site constraints of wetlands, watercourses, lot layout, area for house, septic systems, wells, local setback guidelines, it was determined that a conceptu= al plan for 3 horses per lot would provide a conservative layout, according to= those research guidelines. The prop= osal demonstrates a 25 x 50 foot footprint barn with 3 typical, 3 stalls for a typical layout of the barn. A= gain on the detail sheet we’ve shown a typical layout for the barn with 3 stalls, an area for the feeding room, tack room, and a working alley, and t= his is again per the research guidelines. Approximately ½ corrals provide an average of 7,000 sq. ft. p= er horse which is in line with those same regulations for exercise area that should be required. Manure containment piles have also been designed for 3 horses. Guidelines suggest that an 8 x 8 a= rea with 5 foot high containment walls be provided for a typical horse for an annual manure containment pile area. We designed it again in accordance with what would be required for 3 horses.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 10

&nb= sp;

The Commission may, as= a condition of approval, permit 3 horses per farm lot, and if in the future a homeowner desires additional livestock as allowed by Zoning, they’d h= ave to come for a new or modified permit. Potentially these lots could sustain more than 3 horses. Each farm lot continues in excess = of 5 acres zoning qualifying area as per your zoning requirements. Utilizing adjoining town regulation= s for comparison, these lots could support more horses. Watertown’s Regulations again do not specifically permit a number per farm lot. According to the Town of Litchfield’s Regulations, for horses for personal use, “there should be 2 acres as= the minimum lot size for the first horse being kept, and an additional ½ acre for each additional horse." Using the 5 acres qualifying zoning acres per lot, this would allow = for 7 horses per lot. Similarly f= or Morris the minimum land acre required for the keeping of horses should be as follows: "1.5 acres for = one horse, 1.5 acres plus ¾ of an acre for each additional horse, up to 10”. This would allow f= or 6 acres per lot using Morris’ Regulations. Middlebury’s Regulations sta= te that “horses or ponies may be kept in a lot less than 5 acres, provid= ing the lot contains an area not less than 40,000 sq. ft. or approximately 1 ac= re for each horse or pony”. Thus this would provide for 5 horses so using the adjoining town regulations, you’re looking at 5, 6, or 7, we feel that= 3 is a conservative estimate for permitting at this time.

Best Management Practi= ces – at this time I’d like to take the opportunity to address the comments that we received from Mr. Rafey this afternoon. I don’t know if everyone has= a copy of that letter.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: That’s a copy of my memo= to the Commission that Mr. Quirk is . . . . yes.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Quirk: The first item I’d like = to address is the issue of a temporary sediment basin for de-watering. In the letter it was requested tha= t the applicant explain how de-watering of wastewater would be implemented to avo= id destruction or diminution of wetland or watercourse functions. The final record plans shall inclu= de both the detail that I’ve handed out as well as the schedule here for temporary de-watering sediment basins.&nbs= p; Temporary de-watering sediment basins are used when excavation, like= in the case if the building foundation encounters groundwater, and where that groundwater would need to be pumped and it should be dewatered through this basin, which I’ll describe in order to protect from sedimentation accumulating in the adjoining wetlands.&nb= sp; So excavation from building foundations may encounter groundwater th= at would be pumped into these de-watering basins.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 11

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   A 4 bay, which is towards the left top of the detail sheet, protected by rip = rap would dissipate the energy of the pump and allow water to settle in the basin. The basin would be siz= ed upon the excavated area and anticipated volume of water. The water will settle in the basin = and infiltrate through the ground and then the basin is lined as shown there wi= th hay bales and silt fence to trap fine particles and sediments. As the sediment drops out towards = the bottom, clean water at the top would pass over the stone weir which is towa= rds the bottom of the sediment basin. These basins would be located close to the buildings and outside the= wetland setback areas, and all of this is per the 2002 soil recommendation.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   It was also requested that we submit Best Management Practices concerning horse farm management. In addition = to the guidelines that I’ve outlined from the Connecticut Farm Bureau that we incorporated into the design plan, we also like to submit a list of Best Ma= nagement Practices that would be on the record plan that the contractor and homeowne= rs would have to follow. We̵= 7;ve outlined 11 Best Management Practices that would be on the record plan in o= rder to ensure, in addition to the Connecticut Farm Bureau Guidelines, that these farms operate properly. Manur= e and spent bedding shall be stockpiled in a containment structure, covered and outside the 50 foot upland review area.&nb= sp; We’ve shown that on the plans, the location, the size, and whe= re they should be, and those have to be utilized for the stockpiling of manure. Manure stockpiling sh= ould be covered when necessary to control water intrusion and minimize runoff. Typically it’s required that= from May to October during the warm months they’re covered in order to eliminate odors and the attraction of fleas and insects. Land owners should consider effect= ive composting methods in upland areas, which encourage an aerobic process in o= rder to minimize odors, flies, and parasites which generate a desirable end product. Composting is a terr= ific process. It cuts the volume of manure in half if it’s properly composted and then it also becomes a useful product where it can be spread either on site or sold off site. To the extent possible manure containment structures and horse corrals should be located on a more gradual sloping portion of the site and down gradient of the wells, again as shown = on the plans. Wood shavings or h= ay beddings shall be provided in stalls and replaced regularly. Feed and hay shall be stored withi= n the barn or contained otherwise. = We wouldn’t want to have outside storage. Fences and barns shall be maintain= ed in good and working condition, horse corrals over septic leaching fields shoul= d be avoided. Again our plans do n= ot show that. New watercourse crossings shall be approved by the Watertown Conservation Commission Inland= /Wetland Agency. Modifications to the approved plan will be subject to Watertown Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency's approval. Ex= isting vegetation shall be maintained in areas down gradient of horse corrals. Again this would be on the record = plan.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 12

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

Lastly to address the = issue of alternatives, I’d like to submit another handout. (Tape #1, Side A ended – may have missed some.) Just to reiterate again, the applicant’s desire is to create a= low density residential horse farm development in harmony with the surrounding area. (Inaudible) engineering determines that houses should be placed upland along Northfield Road to minimize disturb= ance and creation of impervious area by shorter drives, while providing views of= the Steele Brook Valley. Soil testing dictated the most reasonable locations for septic systems which in turn dictate where the dwellings should be located, up gradient.&= nbsp; Farm locations with manure pile containment and fenced corral areas = and naturally drained soils and topography are best located down gradient of the proposed wells, houses, and septic systems. The corral paddocks should be loca= ted on plateaus so as not to have site runoff pass over the fenced areas, and the corral should be a contiguous area located near the barn outside of the wetlands, and appropriately sized. So these were the guidelines that were used in determining our alternatives was to try and satisfy this criteria as w= ell as local regulations.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Before I get into specific alternatives for this arrangement of a low density residential development, according to Zoning Regulations for the R-30 zone = and the Connecticut Public Health Code, as many as 8 individual homes on private well and septic systems could have been developed based upon the lot fronta= ge, a minimum 100 foot square and 1 acre lot size. Additional building lots could hav= e been developed through an extension of utilities and the use of minimum lot size, dropping down to 30,000 sq. ft. instead of the 1 acre minimum. This alternative would diminish the existing farm character, would have more impervious area, and did not meet = the goals of our client. In order= to achieve the goals of the project, alternative barn locations were pursued.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> For Lot #1, which this is a plan s= howing the entire parcel, Lot #1 again being th= e far top lot, the far northerly lot. An alternative would have been to place the barn on the east side of Smith Pond. This alternative would = have placed the barn close to the proposed septic system locations and the required cor= ral area would have encroached with horses on the septic system reserve area as well as the inland/wetland setback area.&n= bsp; The preferred alternative utilizes an existing crossing to an upland area suitable for barn and corral being away from the septic system and res= erve area.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Alternative #3 would be a barn location in the large upland area farther west of the property. This would require = a new permanent crossing of the wetlands and a lazy barn access drive. The preferred alternative location= for the barn utilizes again the existing bridge, has a shorter access drive, an= d is still in an open meadow area.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 13

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   For Lot #2, similar to Lot #1, the barn coul= d have been located closer to the house. Again this is an area close to wetlands, the wetlands setback, the septic system, the horses would have encroached upon the septic system rese= rve area and all of these activities would have been within the regulated buffer. For Lot #2 we’ve worked to keep all of the activities outside of the buffer.<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Alternative #5 again would be to utilize that large upland area further west. This would require a new crossing = over Smith Pond Brook. This is an = area where there’s a wider flood plane, there’s wider wetlands, there would have been greater impact, and was not seen as a prudent alternative.<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   For Lot #4, the far southerly lot, alternati= ves across Steele Brook were also considered.&= nbsp; (Inaudible) wetlands crossing as being not feasi= ble. Also, this lar= ge open area to the west are steep slopes so this does not accommodate a bar= n or corral area. The more gradual= slope immediately beyond the existing bridge where it’s a little bit flatte= r, this area is wet at times and would not be a desirable location for barns a= nd corrals. The preferred altern= ative, as shown in the redesign plans, locates the barn corral outside the limits = of the inlands/wetlands. The pre= vious submitted plans may also serve as an alternative layout before we made these revisions, but (inaudible) layout, although we achieved the goals of the client, we had 15,000 sq. ft. of wetlands impact, and 41,000 sq. ft. of upp= er review impact. The current re= vised plans gain have 3,000 sq. ft. of wetlands impact= and 33,000 sq. ft. of setback area.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   At this time I’d like to have our Soil Scientist, Matthew Sanford, go through the description of existing conditions, potential nutrient loadings, and describe in more detail the mitigation plantings. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Matthew Sanford, Soil Scientist, M= alone & McBroom

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Sanford: I’d like to refer you to= a soil report that was submitted as part of the original application in March. It’s entitled In= lands, Wetlands, and Watercourse Delineation, Willowbrook Farms, Northfield Road. I believe it might be dated Novemb= er 17, 2003. The report goes into de= tail of exactly which soil types, including wetlands and uplands soils on the property. It goes over the permeability of the soils, the characteristics of the soils which can be fo= und in terms of vegetation, but I’d like to briefly go over what exactly = we found on the site. We delinea= ted these soils of September of 2003. It was myself and another individual with= our office and I’d like to briefly go over these soils. I’d like to start in a clock= wise fashion, moving from the west of the property and then eventually moving clockwise and ending in the same location.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 14

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Essentially I’m going to start with Steele Brook, which enters from the left, flo= ws left and then moves in a southern pattern, flows down through some resident= ial areas into Heminway Pond, I believe, or Heminway Park. It essentially is a Class A waterc= ourse, it’s got a riffle pool and morphology stream, morphology it’s g= ot a sand and gravel bottom with some boulders mixed in. The soils that border this particu= lar watercourse are considered a Pootatuck soils, wetland soil, it’ a moderately well drained soil. As we move well in a northeast pattern, we have the Smith Pond Brook, which comes from Smith Pond, located to the north, flows in a north/south direction, and eventually is a tributary to Steel Brook.&= nbsp; Again this is another watercourse that is a riff= le pool stream morphology. It ha= s a sand and gravel bottom with some intermixed boulders. And again the soils here are much = the same as Steele Brook, the Pootatuck soils.= As we move eastward we have (inaudible) Brook which is a tributary t= o Smith Pond Brook, and again it has a small band of Pootatuck soils associated wit= h it, and (inaudible) fairly dense (inaudible) associate= d with it, a mixture of diffident shrubs and then some trees. As we continue southward along the property we begin a large band of wetlands that kind of start in the central portion of the property and turns southward towards Steele Brook. This is a <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Walpole's of soils,= it’s a poorly drained soil. Again the wetland type here as some of you might have noticed on the field visit was a wet meadow, it’s a maint= ained wet meadow, meaning that it’s mowed annually. As we transition around towards wh= ere, (inaudible) property line where Steele Brook actually leaves our property again, it’s the Pootatuck soils again, and as we move up our slope he= re we have some of the Walpole soils again which are seeps coming down off of = this particular hill, and again as we wind up back to Steele Brook, in this gene= ral location it’s the Pootatuck soils in here. Some of the upland soils that are on site, are the Merrimac soil, the Charleton Soil as well as the Gloster Soil= s, and those are intermixed in these field areas. Again important to note is that the wetlands on the site are basically two primary wetland soils, we have a wet meadow and forested wetlands. Forested wetland areas are primarily along the stream corridor, along Steele Brook, along Willowbrook, along Smith Pond Brook. All of the wetlands on site are considered wet meadow, meaning they have various sedges, rushes and grasses, and again it’s important to note that these have been maintained, they have been mowed on a yearly basis. It’s important that these wetlands are maintained on a yearly = basis, otherwise they revert to shrub wetlands or fore= sted wetlands. I’m not famil= iar with what the overall makeup of Watertown = is in terms of diversity of its wetlands systems, but wet meadow systems are disappearing in Connecticut as the forested wetlands take over, as land is abandoned, or as farms are a= bandoned, these particular types of wetlands are less to go back into forest. So maybe this Commission might fee= l that the wet meadow wetlands are important and as part of that may, in their determination under the conditions, may want these meadows to be continued = to be mowed on an annual basis to keep that particular type for wetland within Town.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 15

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   I’d also like to talk about what was brought up at the last meeting, about nutr= ient loading associated with manure generated by these horses and the horse farms. I’d like to subm= it a letter that is dated May 13, 2004, and Andy, if you have that letter, you c= ould hand out a copy to all the Commissioners.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   I’d like to briefly go over parts of the letter that I think are of interest here. Starting off, we really= need to take a step back and look at what was this land used for originally. In 1950 a dairy farm was construct= ed on this particular site, and before that it was probably another farm. In general there was anywhere betw= een 14 horses and 60 cows. The farme= r, past records say there was even additional animals in different years, so we need to look at exactly what the manure production that was occurring on the site since the 50’s and what we’re proposing now with 9 horses.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Again, manure is obviously a byproduct, there is (inaudible) of in its combination= of actual manure, urine, and essentially has 3 primary nutrients: Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium. Potassium is not m= uch of a concern, it’s usually absorbed by the so= ils and by the plants. Phosphorou= s, in terms of phosphorous it’s usually a Phosphate that’s released f= rom manure and it usually clings to soil particles. It doesn’t usually leach int= o the ground water, it doesn’t usually move very far once it’s deposi= ted, so the actual, whatever vegetation is surrounding it usually absorbs it and= the soil particles (inaudible) so it’s not usually a concern in terms of leaching into ground water and leaching into surface water or leaching into Steele Brook.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   On the other hand Nitrates often are a concern because they can lead to what’s called eutrification, that is the aging of the lake, usually by man, and it’s algae blooms, it’s low dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water that can affect fishery resour= ces, etc. And it’s important= to realize how the process of the nitrogen moving from an upland area to a wet= land and how it’s affected the water quality. Nitrates are readily leached into = ground water, meaning they can go into ground water and eventually end up in surfa= ce water. However, of interest i= s the uplands are actually a poor sink for nitrates, so if they usually go into u= plands they are leached into ground water easily and then eventually into the surf= ace water. However, wetland soils= on the other hand are a perfect sink for nitrates. They actually perform a function c= alled denitrification and the process is that nitrogen in manure form is often ca= lled ammoniacal nitrogen, and as the ammoniacal nitrogen is leached from the man= ure, it flows into the wetland system, and in the wetland system there are certa= in anaerobic bacteria, some are referred to as nitro Sumas. These anaerobic bacteria take that= Amoco nitrogen and convert it into an inert gas, either N2O or NO meaning it̵= 7;s converted to a gas and is leached into the air and it’s of no concern= to the water quality.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 16

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   In addition to these anaerobic bacteria, we have wetland plants. Wetland plants can handle a high a= mount of nitrates if it was to occur. They need these nitrates for their growth and act as an attenuation = of the nitrates, so in retrospect let’s kind of go over some of the historical eroding that have occurred on this site since the 1950’s versus what may occur on this site with the current proposal.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Again 14 horses and 60 cows were historically on the site on a yearly basis since= the 1950’s. In the last sev= eral years they haven’t been on here, it’s mostly been used as a hay operation, but in general let’s take a look - a 1,000 lb. horse, usua= lly generates about 50 lbs. of manure a day.&n= bsp; If you multiply that by a year, you’re looking at somewhere between 18,200 lbs. of manure per year.&nb= sp; If you look at a dairy cow, for example, they can produce anywhere between 80 and 195 lbs. of manure per day.= Now why there’s such a large range, basically that’s primarily based on what the feed content is of these animals, what nitrogen= was used in the fertilizer for the feed, and that generates how much production= of manure these animals will actually incur.&= nbsp; So if we take the lower number, 80 lbs. per day, we’re (inaudi= ble) somewhere of 29,200 lbs. per year. Now if we take the 14 horses and we take the 60 cows, add them all together, we were producing on an annual basis somewhere up near 2,000,000 = lbs. of manure per year on the site. Now if we take a step forward and we look at nitrates, the nitrates that were produce by the 14 horses and the 60 cows, the breakdown would have been somewhere up to 3,300 lbs. of nitrates per year, which is a fairly significant amount of nit= rates being put into the system. No= w if we take a look at what we’re proposing, 9 horses, and we take a look = at what was originally occurring on the site, and again we have 3,300 lbs. of nitrates per year on the site in the 1950’s, and we look at what currently will be produced, it comes out to be around 270 lbs. of nitrates = per year, it’s almost 91% decrease in the amount of nitrates that these wetlands have been subjected to and have adapted to since the 1950’s.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Important to note is that the systems that these corrals have been positioned in is t= hat on Lot #1 in particular we have the lowest, the actual corral is 20 feet fr= om the wetland edge, and we have a maintained meadow, we have a very thick vegetation of uplands. Then w= e have the wetlands which is a very thick forested wetlands, so these nitrates, if they are potentially released, would be absorbed by the upland area, but we= may consider a buffer, and then eventually by the wetland area. Again if we go to Lot #2, we are 50 feet from the wetland delineation edges, again we have 50 fee= t of upland area, an additional, somewhere of up to a= lmost 50 feet of upland area for these nitrates to be absorbed by both vegetation= and by the wetland soils themselves. As we move to Lot #4, we have a wet meadow community with a very thick vegetation, a thick grasses, rushes, again we have a lot of area to attenuate these nitrates, to absorb these nitrates, and to use these nitrates.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 17

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Again I think that kind of gives a good perspective of what the eroding would be = on our particular proposal versus what has occurred on the site. Again another thing that we have a= lso brought is that we haven’t actually centralized any of the loading on= one particular wetland system. Ou= r corrals are located in various areas and wouldn’t overload any particular wetlands on the site. So we’ve left upland area, we’ve left wetland area to help absorb these nitrates if they do run off. Again from our Best Management Practices, there shouldn’t be l= oads of manure in these corrals. T= he manure should be loaded into these storage bins as has been detailed alread= y in the presentation.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Again, just to go over the storage bins, the storage bins have been located in upl= and areas. A little bit of the de= sign, why they’re all concrete, why they have a concrete slab. It’s very important to keep = the manure away from the ground water table, so before the concrete slab, we ha= ve a concrete wall to prevent runoff water from getting into the manure and (ina= udible) fluctuating ground water tables from actually intercepting the manure in th= ese bins, so that’s why they’re designed the way they are. I think that’s going to end = our discussion on the nitrates.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   I’d like to move towards the, what we’ve done some restoration plantings, buffer plantings, we’ve tried to mitigate some of the activities that we’re proposing in terms of the trail, the trail that’s located= on the southern part of the property, and also the access drive located to the north. We have used all indig= enous native species, in particular the shrubs are silky dogwood, common winterbe= rry, also referred to as winterberry holly, we’ve used red Tewksbury, and we’ve also used hybush, blueberry, all of them providing wildlife habitat, wildlife food, also aesthetic value. In addition to those shrubs weR= 17;ve also used some trees, we’ve had some pine oaks and some red maple add= ed to the plan to create a buffer area that, and also in this area if you̵= 7;re on the field walk, there was very little diversity in grasses, very little diversity in the rushes as compared to the area in here, and so enhancing t= his area with some shrubs I think would make overall the wetland quality for th= at area better. We’ve also proposed some white pines in the upland areas here, near the barn, again th= ose aren’t really for restoration purposes, those are more for aesthetic purposes for that particular barn. Let me think if there are any other points I’d like to go over.

Again, I would reitera= te that these meadows have been mowed in the past. The Commission may want to consider continuing to mow them only because of the diversity of these particular wetland systems, and I think that’s all I’m going to say now. I’ll feel free to answer any= of your questions and concerns, but I’d like to turn it back over to And= y, over to Ed for his presentation.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 18

&nb= sp;

Edward Hyman, Attorney, 699 Bloomfield Avenue, Bloo= mfield, CT<= /b>

Atty. Hyman: <= /b>I had the opportunity yesterday to walk the tract and I was very impressed. This is a beautiful piece of land = and I do believe that a sincere and concerted effort has been made to adapt the l= and with designs that will meet the owner’s use preferences and will also address the concerns that this Commission justifiably may have. You heard the definition under the Zoning Regulations of a farm use. I would ask you to also consider that under your Regulations, that is under the Watertown Wetland Conservation Commission Regulations, the definition section for farming it is defined as follows: “Farming means use of land f= or the growing of crops, raising of livestock, or other agricultural use.” So this proposed use is consistent= with that definition. We’ve = also heard a discussion here about the impact, and specifically about a comparis= on of the impact of 9 horses with previous uses to which this property was put. I think you ought to bea= r in mind 9 is a maximum limit that we are proposing and that would mean that ea= ch of the 3 lots would have the maximum 3 horses. That may very well not be the case= , but we have presented figures here on that assumption so that you can look at t= he most invasive scenario possible. There’s no doubt that every developer who comes before you wan= ts to make his project work. Tha= t is, the bottom line, he wants to make a profit. On the other hand, he has to recog= nize that the Town has considerations that it must address and that he must sati= sfy, and this design is an honest attempt to satisfy both of those concerns. It’s an attractive project a= nd it’s one that does meet your basic needs. I will point out a couple of thing= s that have been mentioned that are I think are items that deserve some further emphasis.

The stone dust trail provides access to the Watertown Land Trust land that otherwise had very limited access. This is, I= 217;ll grant you, this is not a big deal, but it is a benefit to the entire Town.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The conservation easement, area wh= ich I will get into in a little more detail soon, will also include, and I’m not sure that this was mentioned, if it was I’ll repeat it, the grant= of an easement to the Town for purposes of constructing flood control improvem= ents with a view to ameliorating or at least helping in some fashion the downstr= eam flooding that has been a persistent problem. That’s a benefit to the Town= . The concern that has been talked a= bout by each of the previous speakers has to do with the farm use, the fact that there will probably be horses in this area. It’s important because Steele Brook is located here, and also the developer must, while he’s concer= ned with the open space requirements that are found in the Subdivision Regulati= ons, he has to likewise be concerned with your inland/wetland protection. We have tried to address both of t= hose problems under the Subdivision Regulations and I’m referring to 7.: R= 20;the purposes for open space include” and again I’m quoting: “areas left in their natural, undisturbed state, passive and active recreation, scenic preservation, and = the like.”

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 19

&nb= sp;

We have attempted to s= atisfy those interests which are included in the expressions of purpose for open space. That’s a Subdivi= sion requirement. It’s not a= matter of inland/wetlands, but it must be kept in mind when an applicant comes bef= ore you, so we have shown where this open space will be. And it does surround Steele Brook.= The purpose that we have proposed = here, for the open space, and the method of ensuring the preservation of the integrity of the wetlands, is by way of a declaration of conservation easem= ent and restrictions which will be recorded on the land records and which will = be referred to in each deed of these three lots so that the grantee, the owner= of the lot, will be subject to those restrictions. Mr. Quirk informed you that those restrictions will essentially keep the land in its natural condition, except for 2 uses:

1.         The easement that will be granted to the Town for flood control measures.
2.         For horseback riding.

The terms of the restr= icted covenant will incorporate those restrictions, but I would like to, I’= ve jotted down what I think will at least for starters come to grips with the = problem of the manure and the use by horseback riders. And this is the language that I ca= me up with. "The declarant, th= at would be the owner, Mr. Graziano, further agrees that any bond for stabling horses shall not, without the approval of the Inland/Wetlands Conservation Commission, be of greater size or located in a different area from those sh= own on the map. No lot shall stab= le more than 3 horses without prior approval from the Inland/Wetlands Conserva= tion Commission, and all lot owners shall comply with all restrictions and requirements as may be imposed in the approval by the Inland/Wetlands Commission of the subdivision plan and any subsequent approvals." (Tape #1, Side B ended – may= have missed some.) "This agre= ement may be enforced by injunction," and I think we all know the meaning of injunctive release granted by a court, "that prevents the action"= . "By injunction or otherwise, = I the declarant, that would be the owner, and/or any of the lot owners and/or the Town of Watertown, and the Town shall not have an obligation to enforce it,= but it shall have the right to enforce it."

I think that it’= s not necessary for me to reiterate the measures that have been taken to meet tho= se questions that were raised in the public notice, the 9 matters. They have substantially been reduc= ed and in some instances eliminated. I also think that it’s incumbent upon me, as an attorney representing an owner here, to point out the definition of farm use contained in your Regul= ations, and Section 4.1a which indicates that farming is a permitted use as a right. Furthermore horseback = riding under 4.2 is a permitted non-regulated use.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 20

&nb= sp;

I also don’t thi= nk it’s necessary for me to repeat what Mr. Sanford said about the nitrate and effe= ct that this particular soil, or this particular vegetation has on that, but I would like to just state his conclusion, and = this is from his letter which is part of the record. It’s on the first page at the bottom “in fact, the wetlands bordering Steele Brook have very high vegetation stem densities and act as a buffer to the brook. The wetlands systems include wet m= eadows and forested wetland communities. Having such high nutrient absorbing vegetation prevents excess nutri= ents such as nitrate and phosphorous from reaching Steele Brook.”

And in conclusion I wo= uld just go through the criteria which the Commission uses, according to the Re= gulations, as standards, and this is under 10.2. In going through them one at a time:

A.   = ;     Environmental impact of the proposed action. As I’ve said, we have substantially reduced any wet environmental impact= .

&nbs= p;

B.         = Alternatives – Mr. Quirk went through the possible alternatives at length and they just don’t work. They m= ake for worse problems, they increase the density, and they don’t keep the rural character of this area which is of prime concern, not only to the developer, but I believe to the Town.

&nbs= p;

C.        Relationship Between Short Term Uses and the Environment and = the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productive – I don’t k= now frankly how to address that one. I can say that long term, at least the flooding is= sue may be addressed. Short term, I’m sure that the protective controls that have been designed will prevent any kind of real impact.

&nbs= p;

D.        Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources - and this one I would at least suggest that because the restrictive covenants will require anyone who want= s to change to increase the number of horses or to change the location of a barn= or the corral, will by the restrictive covenants have to come to this Commissi= on, so it isn’t irreversible.

&nbs= p;

E.         = Character and Degree of Injury or Interference with Safety, Health, or the Reasonable= Use of Property Including Abutting or Downstream Property – we have minim= ized any kind of injury to the property. We are trying to help downstream property with the flood control measures.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 21

&nb= sp;

&nbs= p;

Finally, and this one deserves quoting because I think it’s important especially in connection wi= th this application.

F.   = ;      The Suitability of the Activity to the Area for Which it is Proposed – and that it seems to me that this is eminently suitable, that is to have a limi= ted number of horses in this rural section.&nb= sp; Further it goes on to state, this requires a balancing of the need f= or the economic growth of the State and the need to protect its environment and ecology for the people of the State and the benefit of generations yet unborn. I believe that weR= 17;ve made a real attempt to satisfy your regulations and especially this last element concerning suitability and balancing of needs.

&nbs= p;

Thank you= .

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Ciriello: I need just about one minute to wr= ap this up. I appreciate you giv= ing us a full hour to present. A lot= of thought and time went into putting this plan together, and you’ve ask= ed a lot of good questions, you’ve had a lot of good concerns. Had we rushed this presentation I don’t feel we would have done the design justice. Real quickly this farm is located = in an R-30 zone, in general there are smaller lots to = the south, and generally larger lots to the north. We feel with the proposed lots bei= ng between 1 acre and 12 acres, you have a very nice transition between those zones and I think it’s a very responsible use of the land. Too often a property owner comes t= o us and says look, I have “x” number of acres, how many lots can I carve out? That has not happe= ned in this case. We’ll repeat= that this is a low density subdivision and it has unique aesthetic qualities. Mr. Graziano has repeatedly insist= ed from the beginning that in putting this plan together it’s important = that we retain the farming and equestrian based character of the Christie Farm.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I do believe that nestled in this beautiful corridor, the barn and fence layouts as proposed will provide a t= ruly pleasant view from above. I n= eed to quote Mr. Graziano before I wrap up, and if I’ve heard it one time I’ve heard it 1,000 times. He has insisted that we create a Norman Rockwell setting, a view from up above, which he calls second to none. I can’t add more than that. As an aside, I just want to formally request that all of the materials that we= re handed out tonight be formally added to our application for the record. They are in response to your comme= nts throughout the permitting process. I probably should have brought some boxes so you could take that stu= ff home. With that, I’m go= ing to turn it back over to the Commission. Thank you.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 22

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Thank you. The Commission members can now ask= any questions they may have.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Ms. Sturgis: I have a quick question. On the phosphate, because you said that that will stay with the soil, and not leach out. I don’t dis= agree with you, I’m just trying to clarify ̵= 1; what happens when it stays with the soil?

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Sanford: The phosphates tend to= bind to the soil particles and stay there. They have a certain adherence, cohesion to the soil particles and are not leached into the ground water and so they are absorbed to the particles= of the soil and remain there in place.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Ms. Sturgis: So what happens to tha= t soil where (inaudible)?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Sanford: Some of the phosphorous is actually used by plants, cause pl= ants do need phosphorous as well, so it is used. There isn’t any overloading = in the soil. It’s an infinite = amount that can be loaded in the soil, and there’s really not an impact to t= he water quality. Essentially that’s how the phosphates work, unlike the nitrates which can leach.<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: If that’s true, why are phosphates a problem in bodies of water and so on?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Sanford: Well when it get= in an aquatic environment, again it’s the plant production, plants needs the phosphorous. What usually hap= pens is if there is phosphorous that gets into the wetland system, it gets into = the stream somehow, say somehow you had some type of phosphorous production rig= ht at the stream edge, got into the surface water, ended up in the right pond,= that phosphorous moves down to the bottom of the lake, say it’s only 5 or 6 feet deep, you end up having lily pads and other heavy (inaudible) aquatic plants taking up that phosphorous. That’s normally what happens.= It’s not so much the nutrient loading from systems that are further up in the water shed. It’s usually systems that if he has certain organisms maybe in some cases dogs or anything that are actually producing feces in the water itself is where that phosphorous is being generated.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Undercuffler: Or sewage (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 23

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Sanford: Another one is also wo= uld be sewage plants, correct, or if there is someone illegally dumping other products, fertilizer is another big one.&n= bsp; Fertilizer is, actual amount of fertilizer that the soil can absorb = and that if it’s applied too heavily, if it gets in the storm water and g= ets into the streams and rivers, right now that’s the primary area where we’re seeing phosphorous generated and that’s why most of our s= torm water outfalls go directly into watercourses, those watercourses go directly into water bodies, and that’s really one of the concerns by D.E.P., by the Federal Government in terms of phosphorous production and where it̵= 7;s coming from.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Jones: Regarding the barn= , you say that there is a certain size needed for a corral for a horse, and you s= ize the barn, are these barns sized to maintain the maximum number of horses, or what would that maximum number of horses be for = the size of the barn that we’re currently talking about?

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Quirk: These barns have been = sized by typical requirements, not minimum, not maximum. Stalls generally range from 10 x 1= 0 to 14 x 14. A 12 x 12 stall is y= our standard size stall, and again the barn needs to be composed of a third of = the area for animal shelter, a third for storage, and a third for working area. So it’s sized by typical guidelines. ThereR= 17;s not a maximum, not a minimum, as are the 3 horses for the lot. As you saw from adjoining town regulations, as many as 7 horses may be able to be accommodated by these lo= ts, we feel 3 is a standard mid range that we can design for on the site.<= /o:p>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Jones: Would it then follow that if I= owned that property and I owned that barn, and I decided to use less of that space for storage, that I could find myself space for a second, or a fourth or a fifth corral?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Quirk: That’s where= the plans we have that are going to be on record, they show the 3 styles, they = show all of that information, they show the footprint of the perimeter area, and it’s really at the Commission’s discretion to take that one step further, although Zoning doesn’t require it, although some of these o= ther agencies don’t require it to specifically say the plans show 3 stalls= , it shall be for 3 horses. If an = owner wants to come and modify that up to 7, that maybe could be allowed or whatever el= se, they would have to come and show that there’s proper area for corral, barns, and area on the lot.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 24

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: Can you please show me= where the right of way to the Watertown Land Trust is and you said something abou= t a stone dust. What is the width= of this right of way? Do you sho= w it on the map?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Quirk: We show a 50 foot = area, 50 foot wide area, this would be an easement in favor of the Town for public access to the Watertown Land Trust. The stone dust trail itself would be a 3 foot wide stone dust trail.= And again the use of the stone dust= is again to try and control erosion to define the trails. That is one of the things we wante= d to do is define where people should be walking to go down the Watertown Land Trust, so it will be defined by the trail path with plantings.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Polletta: The 50 feet rig= ht of way will be deeded to the Town?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Quirk: An easement in fav= or of the Town.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Polletta: The other thing= that I didn’t understand before, I know you had a lot of numbers and I don’t understand numbers. You said something next to the barn, next to the houses, you have some holding tanks. Now what are these hol= ding tanks, explain it to me because I didn’t understand what you were say= ing.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Quirk: Let me start first= with the detail. This is 14 x 14 concrete containment area for the manure piles.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It would have a 6 inch concrete sl= ab poured on grade and 5 foot high concrete or block walls that surround it on= 3 sides. Each of these areas ha= s been shown on the plans, adjacent to the barns, we want to make this an area tha= t is feasible for them to muck out the barns, remove the manure, also up to almo= st half of the removals from the barn are also shavings, beddings, and things = of that nature, it’s not 100% manure, but to contain that within these manure containment piles when the barns are cleared. So on Lot #4 it’s located up in from the barn.= We wanted to have these in an area that would be safe and secure from washing out further down. Aga= in on Lot #2 it’s located upstream from the barn, adjacent to the barn, and= on Lot #4 again on the plateau it’s a 14 x 14 (i= naudible).

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Polletta: Did you say som= ething you have it next to the houses too? Or just next to the barn?

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Quirk: No, just next to the barn. The barn is going to be= used for the manure containment (inaudible) but it’s something I can certa= inly do. And the use of the barns = would have the underground galleries for storm water management storage, from the roof leaders.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 25

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: Each barn has that?=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Quirk: Yes. And those have been sized based on= the size of the barn, the impervious area of the barn, to contain that runoff a= nd to try and promote groundwater infiltration, rather than an increase in run= off from the barns.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Ms. Sturgis: Is Mr. Graziano going = to build these houses and barns and then sell them? I’m just curious, or is he g= oing to sell the land with it developed this way?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Ciriello: = We don’t have a = clear plan. He may choose to build = one to get the ball rolling and to develop the intent. He may attempt to sell the lots. There isn’t an established p= lan at this time.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Ms. Sturgis: Well then I gues= s, I just for my own information, if he attempts to sell them they have to go al= ong with whatever is agreed to here and with Zoning.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Ciriello: Again, I just want to clarify = that, and I think that Atty. Hyman touched on this, we’re calling these hor= se lots and originally Mr. Graziano had an idea and he said boy, if these were horse lots these could be really sharp, and we knew that we needed 5 acres = of an upland area for a horse lot, so it wasn’t safe to go ahead and subdivide 5 plus acre lots and assume we could sell them and assume that a buyer could get horses permitted on that lot at a future date, so we decide= d to permit these lots for horses. You might decide to buy a lot here because you like to have a big lot and you e= njoy the buffer and a large field. There may never be a horse on any of these lots.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Undercuffler: We keep talking horses, presumably there could be sheep or other anima= ls.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Quirk: By your Zoning Regulations it’s a farm lot for livestock. Again what we’ve shown here = is for 3 horses to present a concept. It’s hard when it’s that vague.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Ciriello: We don’t have a definiti= on for a horse lot, it just doesn’t exist, so the= farm lot being the closest thing, Mr. Rafey directed us to that definition.=

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: In order to keep farm animals in Watertown on your residential property you need 5 acres of land, and it doesn’t= say how many animals you can have, by the Zoning Regulations.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 26

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: You referred to horseback riding, are you proposing trails or are these 4 individual lots h= ere, the people may not want to share their property with other riders. What’s the concept there?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Quirk: The concept is that it would b= e on each individual farm lot, that each owner would have the opportunity to horseback ride on their own individual lot. We can’t ensure that neighbo= rs are going to allow cross easements and things of that nature to horseback ride = on the abutting lot, so that’s the concept.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = You also made a refere= nce to mitigating I think Atty. Hyman mentioned that this would mitigate downstream flooding which of course is of interest to the Town. How exactly is it going to mitigate downstream flooding to Steel Brooke?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Quirk: In laying out the conservation= deed restriction area we researched areas along Steele Brook. There are a number of plans for different things along Steele Brook, some of which, quite frankly, Malone &= amp; McBroom was involved with previously and D.E.P. studies. There was a previous plan to creat= e a damn through this property that would impound a large number of acre feet, = and so by creating this deed restricted area, we don’t want to prevent the opportunity to impound water and prevent downstream flooding. Now those plans are not active at = this time and there’s no definitive proposal that that would happen, but in light of that we wouldn’t want to stand in the way of the opportunity= to relieve downstream flooding. Likewise there are utility plans on record for potentially someday extending sewer mains through this area, so there would be a reservation of rights that if that were to happen that that could happen within the deed restricted area.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, but the a= ctual creation of these 4 lots is not going to mitigate downstream flooding of St= eele Brook?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Quirk: No. We developed a storm water managem= ent plan to handle and mitigate this development, reserving the right in the fu= ture for plans that would mitigate downstream flooding.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = Anybody else? Okay at this point we invite comme= nts, questions from the public. Co= me forward and state your name and direct questions to the applicant.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 27

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   John Mencio, 116 Claxton Avenue, Waterto= wn, CT&nbs= p; 06795

Mr. Mencio: On the surface this lo= oks fine to me. I obviously overl= ook part of the property, but my only concern really is this deed restriction of this conservation area. Who&#= 8217;s really going to enforce that? Who’s going to watch over that to make sure it doesn’t happen? And generally when something does happen it’s already too late, they’ve already cut down the tree, they’ve already trampled through the area, so how do y= ou stop those types of things from happening, instead of trying to fix it after the damage has already been done? I mean a perfect example - a friend of mine lives on Golf View; he has a buff= er area behind his property that is owned by the Town or restricted by the Town because of wetlands, I’m not positive of the restriction. He came home from work one day and= the new neighbor behind him cleared everything down, gone. And the neighbor told him this is = my land, I can do that. Well he wasn’t really sure about it so he said well I can’t stop you no= w, you’ve already done the damage. Well it turns out it wasn’t.&= nbsp; Now it will be 10, 15 years before that land will be back the way it should be, so my question is how do we enforce that? I think itR= 17;s incumbent upon the Commission and the Town to really find a way to make sure that those restrictions are held at bay. That’s my only concern. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Atty. Hyman: I don’t know whether this adds a heck of a lot to the presentation, but I did say, and it’s customary in declarations of restrictions and conservation easem= ents to have a provision for enforcement, and what I stated here is what is intended, and that is that it would be enforceable by the present owner, by= any lot owner, any of the 3 lot owners, and by the Town, or any agency of the T= own as far as that goes, so that if it gets to be a serious problem, then obvio= usly the Town would be concerned. = Also the issue of coming in after the damage is done,= the restriction enforcement provision would also include not only injunctive po= wer but other damages so that damages could be assessed in a court action.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Quirk: I would just like to add that I realize that this is an issue even with the open space requirements, and I = see several areas of what we’ve done to try and mitigate this problem. One is that instead of providing 4= acres that are protected, we are providing 12 acres, so we’re starting with= a larger amount of area that we’re hoping to protect. The Regulations call for deed restrictions, so that’s the second area of which protection could be provided, and then beyond the regulations as Atty. Hyman had commented, we’re providing an ability for the Town, which is not required in the Regulations, but that the Town could enforce the conditions of the deed restrictions.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 28

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey If they put a conservati= on easement on that area, then we can enforce that. If it’s only a deed restrict= ion we do not enforce deed restrictions.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: And this propos= al is for easement, correct?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: Yea.

&nb= sp;

Atty. Hyman: <= /b>Yes, they would be a conservation easement and declaration of restrictions. It would be one document including= a conservation easement, and the statutes do provide for Town enforcement of those easements and . . . .

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: Yes, we can enforce that, but = if it’s only a deed restriction, we do not enforce deed restrictions.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Atty. Hyman: It would be both.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The deed would refer to the declar= ation so there would be the added control, it seems to= me, of a possibility of enforcement by others.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: What was your thinking in not deeding this over to the Town for conservation or open space as opposed to = the way you handled it?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Ciriello: = The vision of the proj= ect and the 5 acre minimum for horse lots being the intent of this proposal, we note that these lots get from 6, 6.5 and 12 plus acres. The amount of upland area required= to size the lots appropriately would not be attainable had we deeded that strip over as open space, and so recognizing that there were other alternatives to providing open space, we knew that the deed restriction/conservation easeme= nt centered along Steele Brook might even provide more, other opportunities, i= .e., potential flood control improvement area in the future and also provide you with future utilities, as well as a 12 acre versus what we would have given away as a 4 acre open space.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Atty. Hyman: Maybe I can add to= that just one thought, and that is if these were going to continue to be horse l= ots, we couldn’t deed it to the Town because the Town definitely would not assume any kind of liability in connection with a use by others of that land and we do want that use as part of the project.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Ciriello: Its= been requested that we turn the maps for the public?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = Sure. Any other comm= ents from the public?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 29

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   James LoRusso, 117 Northfield Road, Watert= own, CT&nbs= p; 06795

Mr. LoRusso: <= /b>I own the land directly abutting the southern line of the Graziano property. I’ve had problems in the pas= t with the Town when they widened and raised Northfield Road and I’m afraid I’m in for ano= ther problem. Not being able to se= e the maps, I can't make very much comment on what was said, however I do hear two things, manure and a dust trail. The winds primarily from the north to the south = in that valley means that I get the brunt of all the smells and the dust that’s going to be generated. I don’t know what they’re going to do with the manure th= at they muck out from these storage tanks.&nb= sp; Are they going to spray it on the lawn? That’s what Christie used to= do and I understood that because it was a farm. The extra hay that’s used for spreading, what’s going to happen to that? They’re going to have to tru= ck it out or strew it over the land? (Tape #2, Side A ended – may have m= issed some.)

Before any considerati= on is given to allowing a horse farm, the other thing I want to take exception to= is they mentioned 9 horses and I forget the number of cows. I’ve lived there since July = 4, 1956. I’ve never seen m= ore than 5 horses, and that included the whole tract, from where I live up Northfield Road beyond the barn on Christie’s property, cutting across the back prope= rty up to Claxton Avenue. Now they used to run 30 (inaudible= ) cows because I used to count them. And they were beautiful cows, but however they used that whole tract of land. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Those cows didn’t sit in one particular area. They’d= be for a week in one area, move up perhaps in another week to another area, th= ere were 5 or 6 different locations including the land owned by Christie’s across the street, where he presently has or (inaudible) and Jim have their= homes now, so this loading that we’re talking about is not as bad as they m= ake it out to have been. So 9 horses is going to give more loading to that particular = area of the land. I think t= hat should be addressed.

As far as the phosphor= ous, I’m not a scientist but I know there’s a lot of problems with phosphorous and that’s why (inaudible) to get rid of the phosphorous = in the soap because it was leaching into the land. I think the Commission has a big j= ob ahead of it before they decide to approve this project. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Do you care to respond?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Ciriello: I point out that the 3 barns, = more so the 2 northerly barns, are located quite a bi= t down gradient from Northfield R= oad. I’m not so sure that odor is= going to be the issue there. I real= ly, when we say a stone dust path, stone dust is the result of a trap rock crus= hing process, it’s not like a dirt road. Stone dust is trap rock; when it g= ets wet it tends to pack itself. I don’t now that that 3 foot trail is going to be a dusty feature.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 30

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   In terms of the number of animals, clearly I wasn’t around in 1956, I did not personally count the horses and cows a= t this site. The information we̵= 7;ve used was provided to us by the owner, who I understand had discussions with operators of the farm. Now cl= early it was pointed out even 9 horses would produce a loading far less than that= of 30 cows.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Sanford: <= /b>An interesting note is= that it was pointed out to us by the gentleman who spoke prior to Tony, is that these animals are actually allowed to graze and defecate in the wetlands, a= nd also the farmer spread the manure directly in the wetlands. It would be an interesting note th= at that has occurred since 1956 and we are, all of our current proposals, keep= ing everything away from the wetlands, out of the wetlands, and since 1956 everything has been occurring within the wetlands, so that’s what I w= ould point out.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Quirk: I would just like to reiterate= on the plan, the Best Management Practices that will be stipulated on the plan, specifically the manure containment piles, containment area, these will be concrete slabs on the ground, so we’re not going to have manure infiltrating through the soil, and surrounded on 3 sides by a 5 foot wall.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This is to prevent manure from lea= ching out over the field, so we’ve specifically shown location and details = for how that construction will be and how the manure piles will be contained. Also we’re providing wetlands mitigation plantings as well as shielding plantings, white pines, along the trail to further screen and buffer that area, so we’ve made several a= ttempts to mitigate these activities.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Periodically th= ose containment areas are going to have to be cleaned out. Now what’s the thought there= ?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Quirk: The intent is that the barns w= ould be cleaned out regularly, typically weekly or less, and manure be stored in these containment piles. Those containment pile areas are intended to be temporary so either the manure would be removed off site, or= as suggested in our plan they would be composted, so thereby we could reduce t= he amount of manure by half and make it a worthwhile composition that can be u= sed for either sold for fertilizing lawns and things of that nature or gardens,= or used as a composting material on site.&nbs= p; Different than manure just being spread around site, the intent woul= d be to compost. The guidelines re= ally suggest that composting is the best alternative for holding manure, and in a situation like this also removing it and selling it to someone who would compost it is also an alternative, so those temporary areas would be there = for both of those alternative means for dealing with compost.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 31

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = But you’re not proposing any location for a compost pile?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Quirk: We haven’t s= hown a specific location, but on the Best Management Practices it outlines that the composting areas be outside of the 50 foot setback areas from the wetlands = and that’s in the list of the Best Management Practices.

&nb= sp;

William Brig, 176 Claxton Avenue, Waterto= wn, CT&nbs= p; 06795=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Brig: I’ve been hearing all ni= ght about horses. I assume weR= 17;re going to build 4 dwellings all of whom your buyers will all be horse lovers. The question I have i= s all of these people may not be horse lovers.&n= bsp; There may not be any horses at all.= The question I have is will the dimensions of these lots be the same= no matter whether or not there are horses?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Quirk: Yes, the lots will= be the same size. Irregardless of changes that may occur to these plans, what’s approved is what’s shown on the plan, so if there are changes from what’s shown on the p= lan, it would be either a new application, the only thing that would be allowed = is something less than what’s shown there. So if there is an owner who wants = this lot without the horses, they’re committed to buying the parcel as sho= wn.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Anybody else?

&nb= sp;

Louis Gallo, 151 Claxton Avenue, Waterto= wn, CT&nbs= p; 06795=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Gallo: It is a nice proposal. The only question I had, and that’s with the stone dust trail leading into the Land Trust property= , parking for people to access that trail on Northfield Road. There really is no parking, and I don’t know if that’s b= een proposed in the plan for a parking area.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   And also when we walked the property on that Saturday, I noticed that there was= heavy brush along where they proposed the trail to get into the Land Trust, so it would look like you would have to trample down a lot of that existing brush= to get into the property or you would have to get into the brook, down the bro= ok stream and then get in. I don’t really know how feasible it is to have a stone dust trial and it’s a nice thought, but I think there’s a lot of other consequences that you’re faced with along the way with t= hat that really don’t make it usable.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 32

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   The other thing with flood control, which always seems to be an issue, again it looks like every time a project is developed we always increase the amount = of flooding downstream for people who have been living there for years, and it always gets put on the back of the Town which basically means we, the taxpayers, are the ones that are paying for the cost of controlling this flooding later on, when the developers are reaping the profits and walking away. So that’s just an= other concern about flood control and that. I think as the projects move along, we really need to look at what d= oes that impact and how do we prevent it from increasing any more flooding downstream. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Ciriello: I would just li= ke to address those few points. We = are not proposing parking for the stone dust trail. While it would be a good idea, I j= ust don’t know where we could accommodate that. You don’t have sidewalks on = Northfield Road. I don’t know that you want sidewalks on Northfield Ro= ad. I think that the stone dust trail immediately at the conclusion of the construction of this project it really serves the Northfield Road= neighborhood as a place to walk. I have a ½ acre, hardly a tree on the property, it could be an attractive location for walking.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Now there is brush on approach to that Land Trust property. Mr. Graziano has stated that if th= ere was an interest in doing a little clearing, with the Town’s right of entry and the necessary permits, he would entertain performing some kind of limited entry to that property to kind of ease that entrance.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   In terms of flood control, and Andy’s the expert, I’ll point out t= hat the barn on Northfield Road will have to be removed obviously to get these,= to have these building lots, just for order of magnitude, the 4 houses that we’ve proposed, and we’ve proposed generous sized houses, 4 bedroom, I want to say 60 x 30 or somewhere along those lines, you may wind= up with a 2 bedroom house, I don’t know the answer to that, but the real= ity is 4 of those houses could just about fit inside the existing barn. We have not done very much to incr= ease the impervious area on the project, and where we might have gone over we’ve over compensated with the galleries that we would install for r= oof drains and/or footing drains on the houses and the barns.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Any other comments?=

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: The Watertown Land Tru= st submitted this letter to the Planning and Zoning Office today, if you want = to read it into the record.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 33

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the following letter:

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   "Dear Conservation Commission Members:

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Regarding the Willowbrook Project at the old Christie Farm, on May 12, 2004 the Land Trust Board discussed the developer’s proposal to create a trail down= to the 5 acre parcel that we currently own along Steele Brook. We would be glad to have such a tr= ail to our land, but we wish it could be part of a larger tract along the brook wh= ere people might walk. Currently = the developer has no plans to donate land for open space as is required by the Town’s Subdivision Regulations. Instead he proposes to create privately owned conservation easements along the back of 3 lots abutting the stream. In the past several generations of children have played near this brook. The Land Trust would like that tradition to continue by public acces= s to a strip of land along the brook preserved either by the Town or the Land Tr= ust.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Very truly yours,

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Gail Sangree

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Chairman

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Watertown Land Trust”

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Any other comme= nts from the Commission?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: Should we be looking for a thi= rd party review on this at all, some of these technical issues?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = Well it’s a significant activity and we could do that.= I don’t think there’s that much of an impact, personally, but that’s a question we could discuss. How do you feel about that?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Polletta: I think we should check with o= ur Engineering Department, review some of the questions that were brought tonight and then just probably get together amongst ourselves and make sure, I mean I person= ally I would like to digest a little bit some of these numbers and questions that were asked, and then probably make a good decision, make sure we can speak = to our engineer and he was comfortable with what was presented.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Any comment, Ch= uck, as far as a third party?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 34

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Berger: My review will focus primarily= on the drainage, storm water, flooding type issues, sediment erosion control measures, things of that nature.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = Yea, which are basical= ly our concerns.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: Some of the loadi= ng issues, I don’t know that I have the expertise to really comment on w= hat was presented tonight. I̵= 7;ll certainly review it, but I don’t have a lot of expertise in that area= .

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: I just want to mention that my memorandum that you received with the packet was based on my review of the original plan that was submitted with the application. And these plans that you received tonight, these are the revised plans and they reduced some of the regulated activity which is some of the most significant reductions. And they answered most of the ques= tions that I raised in my memorandum.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: = But I mean these plans tonight, they’re new?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: These are revised plans, yes.<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Polletta: My point is tha= t the Engineering Department did not have a chance to review these, so I think we have to rel= y on people with a little more expertise than us.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I think based on that we = ought to keep the Public Hearing Open and that way we can digest this information= and look at it, and if any other questions are raised we can ask the applicant = to submit additional information.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Jones: May I ask Moosa a question? When I look at this= from an enforcement concern, if I were one of those horse property owners I take= it I would buy the property with these various restrictions limiting me, or requiring me to meet them all, and if I didn't meet them, I think it would = fall to Moosa to enforce them. I w= as wondering (1) is that a concern? Do you= have a record of having to be able to do that, is there a precedent for any other horse farms in Town so that we know what we’re getting into if we hav= e an enforcement problem? ThatR= 17;s a big problem for us and for expenses and your time.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #495 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

MAY 13, 2004

PAGE 35

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: To be honest we are short staf= fed in the Planning and Zoning Office but we try our best to enforce our regulatio= ns and restrictions that we put on these applications. If nobody else= wants to talk you can just make a Motion to Keep the Public Hearing Open until ne= xt month.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTION:       (Mr. Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Keep Open the Public Hearing for App. = #495 of Patrick Graziano, proposed 4-lot Willowbrook Farm Subdivision, Northfield Road, Watertown in an R-30 Residential Zoning District.
&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

  &nbs= p;         Public Hearing Recessed at about 9:40 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

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

“Legal Notice

Inland Wetland Agency