beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WET= LAND AGENCY

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRUMBULL PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER

THURSDAY= , JUNE 23, 2005 - 7:30 P.M.

&nb= sp;

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

&nb= sp;

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

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

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

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Joseph Polletta (Recus= ed Himself)

= = ; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Edwin Undercuffler, Vice Chairman

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

ABSENT: &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; = Charles Thermer

ALTERNATES PRESENT: = ; Denise Russ

= ; &n= bsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Martha Sturgis

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

OTHERS PRESENT:= = M= ary Barton, Zoning Enforcement Officer

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer

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

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 p.m.

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Polletta, in his absence (he recused himself).

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Russ to sit in for Mr. Thermer, in his absenc= e.

MR. POLLETTA RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THIS PUBLIC HEA= RING

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules= for the record, as follows:

“Rules For Conduct of Public Hearing

1. = The applicant, or his representative will make his formal presentation to the Commis= sion stating the proposed regulated activities, the wetland impacts, and the alternatives, which were considered by the applicant.

&nbs= p;

2. = All comments, discussions and observations shall be made through the Chair, aft= er proper recognition by the Chairman. This is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time speaks on= any issue, thus making it easier for everyone to understand and for clearer, le= gal transcription.

3. = All persons addressing the Commission shall begin by first clearly stating their name and address for the record. If necessary, the person may be asked to spell his name for the record.

&nbs= p;

4. = Following the presentation of the application, the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency will ask specific questions of the applicant.

&nbs= p;

5. = ; After the Commission has asked its questions of the applicant, I shall then allow= any members of the public who wish to speak either in favor of this application= or against it, to address the Commission.

&nbs= p;

6. = I shall then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of= the general public.

&nbs= p;

7. = I shall then allow any members of the general public who wish to present any additional information or clarifying discussion, to do so.=

&nbs= p;

9. = I shall provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these addition= al remarks if he or his representative so wishes.

&nbs= p;

9. = The Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency has 35 days from the date th= at the Public Hearing commences to complete the Public Hearing. The Commission may ask the applica= nt for a 35 day extension of the Public Hearing period if the Commission requires = any additional information or wishes to schedule a Site Walk to observe the situation for themselves.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; 10. The Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency has 65 days from the date when the Public Hearing is Closed to render its decision.”

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

3. = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; A. Continuation of Public Hearing from June 9, 2005 - Application #521 of Giuseppe Polletta= for subdivision of a 28.3 acre parcel into 19 residential building lots and construction of associated roadways Echo Lake Road and Ice House Road, Watertown.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Recess or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by June= 23, 2005.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Zawadzki: I'd like to ask you to limit your discussion to items that have changed since our meeting 2 weeks ago.

&nb= sp;

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Charles Spath, Engineer, Stewart Somers Company, Southbury, CT=

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Spath: The map that's being handed ou= t is just a slightly smaller version than what's up here, in case you can't see = this map. What we've done since th= e last Public Hearing, we've been asked, by comments from the Commission last time= and from Mr. Berger and Mr. Rafey, to adjust some things on our plans.

&nb= sp;

= §One of them was the flat area behind the back yards of Lots #12 and= #13, that has been added.

= §There is also a plunge pool, stilling basin that we talked about at= the last meeting. That has been a= dded to Lot #11, it has been kept out of the wetlands area so there's no wetlands disturbance.

= §There is also a site line plan and profile that showed the, if we w= ere to put the road where the existing driveway is, it limits it to 350 feet, s= o we actually did a plan and submitted it to Mr. Berger. I have a plan tonight to just subm= it to Mr. Rafey.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible).

Mr. Spath: Okay, sorry. But it shows the site line is grea= tly limited by putting it in the existing driveway.

= §Another issue was extending the pipe down in this area here, we were talking about in back of the existing house either extending the pipe or putting the pipe on the outside of the wetlands, we just extended the pipe = and added a headwall, so that's been clarified.

I believe we've addres= sed, there were some more issues, we actually met with Mr. Berger, my office, Mr. Polletta wasn't there, but my office met with Mr. Berger and Mr. Rafey regarding any other issues and I believe they've all been addressed. You can ask them personally. We do have a letter from Chris All= en stating that his concern with this crossing up here in the stilling basin h= as been addressed and he has no other questions regarding this subdivision or = no problems with the plans.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

= §Footing drain on Lot #15 was ano= ther issue - that's been removed from the buffer area.

That's it. I mean basically from last time we= 've slightly improved the plans, we've improved the plans, made slight changes, we've also added, the big difference between now and last time, Mr. Rafey wanted to bring up for discussion, adding conservation easement over additi= onal lots. So we've added conserva= tion easement over I believe an additional 5 lots, Lot #4, #6, #10, #11, and #14 have a conservation easement over the wetlands, and the purpose of that is = to actually put the posted markers there, so if there is any violation or if anybody complains about a violation Mr. Rafey can easily determine where the wetlands are.

Mr. Zawadzki: = Which lots are those a= gain?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: We've added it to Lots #4, #6, #10,= #11, and #14.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = Why not #13?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: Lot #13 has no wetlands.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Well there's . . . . .

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Well right there, = yea, I mean I can't, this was by the comments I received from Mr. Rafey. I think the reason he had these lo= ts is these were directly downhill from the development, L= ot #13 is not directly downhill and there's a greater distance.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, it's just contigu= ous, that's all.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: We can add that ar= ea right on the wetlands. It wou= ld be one more post on that lot, I believe. It's not a problem.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, one of the questions was that at least it would make it easier for enforcement cause there would be a uniform boundary there.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Spath: And once Mr. Rafey exp= lained that to me I don't have a problem with that, so the post would be set along this boundary line here, the wetlands on these lots, #13 can be added, that= 's not a problem. There was alre= ady one on #15. So this large sha= ded area here is conservation easement, #13 would just have to be added, that's= not a problem. That's the major difference between now and then is adding that conservation easement. The stilling basin here on Lot #11= which is kept outside the wetlands, which before we were talking about putting it= in the wetlands, it works better this way, and also the other thing was extend= ing the pipe on Lot #18. I believ= e we met all the conditions of Mr. Rafey and Mr. Berger.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: And one other thing was also a= dded to the regulated activities, the disturbance that is involved with the replacement of that pipe.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Yes, that's been a= dded.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: That was also adde= d to the table on the map.

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Yes, and also we've added the trail, if it is to be, you know, after it goes to Planning, if it= 's to stay where we have it proposed now, we've added disturbances for 2 foot = bridges. The foot bridges are 18.5 feet lon= g, as not to have any disturbance. They're bridging two areas of the wetlands. The rest of the trail, the trail i= s all existing now, you'd be walking through the wetlands, i= n this area here there's a trail, right now you just walk right through the wetlan= ds, so we'd like to add a footbridge there and the other area is right there. And those have always been proposed, we added the length of the trail so you can = see any area that was within the buffer area, and the disturbance limit, if any= for that will be maybe 10 square feet. <= /span>We're going to bridge the wetlands. It should be a plus instead of a minus.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Did you consider a boa= rdwalk at that point, a short boardwalk?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: It's a footbridge with a board= walk, yes, and it's in the plans. I= t's actually planks that would span the wetlands. In this area here it's about 18.5 = to 20 feet wide, so we're going from edge to edge. Right now people are walking throu= gh the wetlands, so all we would do is add a footbridge and walk over the wetlands. It's just so, if the trail doesn't get used in the future, not to slip on any wet rocks or stumps crossing those areas, so there's an existing crossing there now, we're not making a new one, we're just improving on it.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Now you've adde= d that disturbance into the total square footage?

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Spath: Well we've listed the = trail length because all of that is within the buffer area, so we have a trail le= ngth and it's existing now, and for these areas we plan to span the wetlands, we= did not add that to it with the footbridge.&nb= sp; If we were to do anything different we would come back, if there is a change in the trail after Planning's review we would come back to you if we= had to. Right now we'd like to see about getting this included in the approval.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie: How far apart are those planks for the wetlands boundary, or the conservation easement?<= /span>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: Usually we ask for every 50 feet or= 60 feet to put one.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Duplissie: So you're only asking for one more for Lot #13?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 6

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: 1 or 2, I don't know.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We will look at that to see what is required.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: It's a point, prob= ably depending on the trees and what's there, maybe 1 or 2.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Ms. Sturgis: So it would be s= ort of "U" shaped around the wetlands on Lot #13?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: The small portion that goes over the lot. I actually didn't see it= .

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Ms. Sturgis: Yea that little bit (inaudible= ).

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Yea, so it's just = adding that in. The way Lot #13 is constructed is the flow is going this way here, so that’s why = we really didn't, you know it was farther away, we = didn't include it.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Have you made provisions for o= pen space that's not part of the wetlands and wetlands buffer?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: What we have now is we= have conceptual conservation easement, when talking with Ms. Barton either this = area here would go in fee, or it would be an easement over the property owners f= or the trail. We are not sure after walking with Parks if they want to take, to have the ability to take care of this trail, because this is going to be a connection that goes around, so it may be taken in easement, I think it will probably be taken in fee, but I'm= not positive yet. That will come = up when we go to Planning, but in the area around the lake, that's why we show conceptual. It will at least = be an easement or a portion of this would be in fee from the trail. We do show, in limits of public ac= cess easement on the map that you have right along here, and on top of that there would b= e a conservation easement over the remainder of that.

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, your Commission can make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the open space, but the P & Z Commission will make the final decision about where the open space should be. They usually ask for 50% upland ar= ea, 50% wetland. I think that area meets that requirement, the area that they showed.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie: It does meet the requi= rement?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: Yes, you can see there= is a lot of upland area there, the white.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Also for the last wetlands disturbance, I'd like to ask the Commission if they could recommen= d to Planning a reduced roadway.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: How wide is this now?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: The road here is what,= 26, John? It's 26. The normal road width is 30. They allow lessening of the road w= ith up to 26 that we done in the past, and the reason for that is just less distur= bance in this area up here and that's what we have proposed to you now is 26, and it's to less the disturbance.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: And it's less impervious surfa= ce.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Well yea, on bo= th counts, and since it's a cul de sac, I know the Fire Department likes to be able to turn around, but they have a requirement for the cul de sac dimensi= on, right?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: Yes, there's a require= ment here for the center.

Mr. Duplissie: But your (inaudible) h= as an island inside the cul de sac?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: Yes, that's what they like to = see.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Duplissie: Who likes to see?=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: The Fire Department doesn't necessarily like to see that, but it's actually in the Subdivision Regulati= ons and Planning likes to see that.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: The Planning and Z= oning Commission likes the islands in the middle of the cul de sacs.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Duplissie: Yea, but they don't fix them.<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: I think Mr. Pollet= ta can talk to the Planning and Zoning Commission about the issue.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Did you say the= re is a conservation easement on Lot #15? It's shown on my map.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Yea, on Lot #15 there's a conservation easement behind the = direct development.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Behind this sto= ne wall, right?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: That's right.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Cause the map I have doesn't have it labeled, I didn't know whether that was just= on my copy or . . . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: I'm sorry, it's la= beled on this one here, it's dashed, directly behind t= he house. We moved the house. We were asked to either add a conservation easement or move the house further away from the wetlands. We did both. We moved the house and we also add= ed a conservation easement and added a stone wall, so that will be protected by a stone wall on Lot #15, #5, and #12.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Duplissie: So that means that from the house o= n Lot #15, if I'm looking at this correctly, we've got a scale of 1 and 80, we've= got about 40 feet then from the house to the (inaudible)?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Yes, approximately= , yes, to a stone wall, and then a conservation easement starting at the stone wal= l.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Duplissie: But our first rendering we had that at about 6 feet?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: We had the house and t= he grading out of the 50 foot buffer so we moved the house forward to the west= and also added a stone wall, and a conservation behi= nd the stone wall. The stone wall delineates the conservation easement in that area. What we're hoping to do is in this= area here, if there are no trees, is that on this individual plan or on the reco= rd plan, this will be labeled as a conservation easement, stone wall to be installed, and if there are no trees back there, not have to put a post there. The stone wall will ac= t as the delineation.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Any other quest= ions from the Commission?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: I just want to mak= e a correction on the map, that the total impact area and the way you calculate= d it is 4,931 square feet. I think= the number you put is wrong, but still you are under= 5,000 square feet.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Yes, we might have= been a little higher than that. It= was less than 5,000.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: On Page A1 it shows 4,= 251 square feet. I added it, it c= ame out to 4,931 square feet, so you are still under 5,000, cause you added the impact for the pipe there.&n= bsp; Altogether it is 4,931 square feet.= The final plan.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Does that inclu= de the disturbance for the pipe for that (inaudible)?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 9

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Yea, John is adding numbers up right there, 4,931, yes, we agree with that. The pipe itself, what happens is t= he wetlands, it's in the drainage so it's the pipe itself, so I think we went 2 feet wide for the pipe width and the pipe is 1.5 feet wide towards the lineal length = so we included that in this area, because connecting these two wetlands, there= 's a pipe there underneath the ground, so we included that in the wetlands disturbance. We're just repla= cing the pipe, though, so everything should be included. We tried to include everything.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, do y= ou want to read the letter that we received from Chris Allen into the record?<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I actually talked to him on the ph= one today and I asked him if he had any comments and he is satisfied with the responses he received from John Mack and he wrote this memo that he is satisfied with all of their answers and responses.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the following letter from Land Tech Consulta= nts, the Third Party Consultant:

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   "June 23, 2005

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Moosa Rafey

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Assistant Inland/Wetlands Enforcement Officer

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Town of Watertown

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   51 Depot Square Business Center, Suite 502

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Watertown, CT 06795=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Re:       Propo= sed 19 Lot Residential Development

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; Lakeview Estates

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; Echo Lake Road and Icehouse Road

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   We have reviewed revised application material including the following:

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   1.         = A revised set of site development plans prepared by Stewart Somers Company, LLC dated January 25, 2005 and revised to Jun= e 15, 2005.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   2.         = A letter from Stewart Somers Company, LLC to Town of Watertown dated June 9, 2005.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   3.         = A letter from Stewart Somers Company, LLC to Town of Watertown dated June 16, 2005.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 10

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   The review comments in our letters of May 6 and June 7, 2005 have been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant and we have no additional comments. Should you have any= questions in these regards or wish us to address other issues please contact us.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Sincerely yours,

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Land Tech Consultants

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Christopher P. Allen

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Professional Wetlands Scientist

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Certified Soil Scientist"

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Are there any o= ther questions from the Commission? Mr. Berger?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: My comments have = been substantially addressed. The = only thing I'd like Mr. Spath to briefly address is the construction methods for the proposed arched culvert as it crosses that wetland area, if you could just address that to my previous concern about wetland impacts associated with construction and how that box will be constructed.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, it's an ar= ch, right?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Yea, I think the c= oncern was that we would possibly be creating more disturbance than what we have listed for disturbance. And w= e've done these in the past and on this area here, what we're able to do is acce= ss both sides of the bridge, so we do not have to cross the wetlands in betwee= n so we're able to actually dig out the footings, the footings probably will be = 1.5 to 2 feet wide, so we're able to dig out the footings and actually do no mo= re disturbance because you're able to access it from both sides, and I believe that was explained to Mr. Berger this afternoon and I believe he wants to g= et that on record, so we are discounting any area below the arch, because we're carefully going to set this arch, and the reason we have the arch is not for water flow, it's really to lessen the disturbance. There is some water flow going und= erneath it of course, but it's not going to accommodate an 18.5 wide by 4.5 high ar= ch so that is just to lessen the disturbance, so it will carefully be done from both sides and the footings will be installed and kept to a minimum.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Duplissie: So this is not= a pipe at all, you're putting a footing here, a footing here, and you're goin= g to put an arch that's actually going to span from the footing to the footing, there's no bottom to this?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: No, there's no bot= tom.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 11

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Duplissie: So you're just= going to footing, footing, and an arch?

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Like a rainbow.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Yea, and what happ= ens, probably what Mr. Berger is worried about, sometimes with the soil conditio= ns where they are you have to dig deeper, but it will be done in, what we can = do is cause this wetlands is disturbed this way and it's included in the calculation, and it's disturbed that way, what we're going to do is that ed= ge where we're not going to disturb it will be kept clean and we'll just allow enough for the footing. We ca= n dig back this way cause we're already going to distu= rb it and we can dig that way. If w= e need to we can add another probably 1 to 1.5 feet to the bridge width, but I don= 't think that's needed. It will = be done at the time, but it just has to be done carefully.
&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Just out of cur= iosity, what's the expected life for that arch?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: I don't know. There is a lot of them around. Do you know t= he expected life span of the arch? It's aluminum, it shouldn't corrode. There's not much water hitting it.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Well road salt = is tough on aluminum.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: Yea but it's underneat= h, so I don't think any road salts will really hit it, I mean, I don't know. They say a life of a house is 50 y= ears and if you did that, nobody would buy a house, your mortgage is 30. Life span, I don't have that off t= he top of my head, but it's just as long as another type of bridge. You an = go with concrete, but things can happen to concrete also.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Duplissie: But even if the aluminum arch were to corrode, all you'd have to do is pick the arch off, t= he piers would still be fine, just set a new (inaudible).

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: Yea, I don't think= any of us will have to worry about that. I think the reason you're probably asking that is just for the maint= enance for the Town. And the Town, I believe, is using these arches, a lot of towns are using the aluminum arche= s, they're standard procedure these days, and probably in 10 or 15 years it wi= ll change to some other type of material.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: I don't have the = life span either, but the Department of Public Works has supported their use in other applications.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 12

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath Yea, the State uses them. You can go with concrete or aluminum. Aluminum works pret= ty well cause you can span it, and you put a notch in the footing and it comes= in pieces. The aluminum, you bol= t it together and those sit in the notch, it's a pretty simple procedure, that's= why we opted for the aluminum.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Mr. Berger, one= of the things you brought up in your memo was the Mallory connection. Are you, would you clarify where we stand on that with the Town and what the future for that is, and I think there's some confusion in our minds on that point?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: In discussions am= ongst people within the Department of Public Works, Mr. Cavanaugh, myself, and others, as well as Ms. Barton, during the Planning and Zoning process our comments will be somewhat to the effect of either Mallory Road should be connected now, built now and connected, or that future extensions should be removed from the plans. I thi= nk the Department of Public Works would prefer to see it connected now for our maintenance and operation perspective.&nbs= p; All of the drainage and potential wetland impacts of that road construction have been include in the analysis so far in case that does hap= pen, so it should not affect any approval that would come out of this Commission= .

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: So at this poin= t it's just something that's going to be recommended?

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki:   But we st= ill don't know if it's going to happen?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: We don't know if = it's going to happen and it's been accounted for in the design should it happen.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: But it's not in= the budget? T= he Town budget?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: It won't be a rec= ommendation for the Town to construct it, it will be a recom= mendation for the developer to construct it.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = Any other questions? At this point then I'll invite the public to speak on this proposal if they're so inclined. Anyone?=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 13

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Joe Perugini, 162 Tarbell Aven= ue, Oakville, CT 06779=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Perugini: I was here the = last time. I hear all these plans = and how it's done and this and that, but I don't hear anything about protecting= the lake. Now I came here in 1949= and we swam in that lake. There w= as a lot of fishing and even 5 or 6 years ago there were kids swimming in that l= ake, kids who's parents couldn't afford a swimming po= ol in back of their house. Last wee= k I took a walk around the lake and it’s a mud hole. Why is it a mud hole? I'm going to explain it to you. Starting when they started the sch= ool, the plans looked good, but the lake got worse. Then they started developing the e= ast side of the lake, the lake got worse. Today there's signs there, no swimming. The Town built a playground for the kids, there's nobody there. I= found one gentleman who was fishing and I asked him if he had any luck. He said he didn’t speak Engl= ish, he was Albanian. He didn't kn= ow that the lake was so polluted, even if you catch a fish you might get sick = by eating it. So the problem is = that nobody tries to protect the lake.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   At the last meeting Mr. Masi said that the plans looked good. This plan looked good, the school = plan looked good, the Masi plan on the east side looked good, they all looked go= od, but the lake is getting worse. Now can anybody explain to me why all these maps look so good, and the lake gets worse and worse? Now the lake= was there before these people bought the land or it was handed over to them by their parents. The lake was t= here, and water runs downhill, it doesn't run uphill. If somebody can tell me that water= runs uphill, I'm willing to listen, but until today I know that water runs downh= ill, and once they put all these houses, and start putting all kinds of fertiliz= er and weed killer, that's going to work into the lake, and once they do devel= op the west side, cause now Joe Masi owns the other half, that's why he says t= he plan looks good, Nick Perugini is a builder - the map looks good for him ca= use he builds houses, so this is the problem in this Town, that everything looks good but nobody looks for the taxpayer.&nb= sp; Today the kids are out of school, like I said, some of the kid's par= ents don't have money to buy a swimming pool, so they can go swim in the lake, b= ut they can't, so that's why I say if the west side of the lake gets developed, goodbye Echo Lake. The only g= ood (Tape #1, side A ended - may have missed some). So as I said, you think it over, a= nd either Echo Lake survives, but if the west side gets developed, forget about Echo Lake. You might as well drain it out and let it go. There won't be no more lake, and I think the taxpayers have the right to protect their property. As I said, the lake= was there before these people bought the land.= If the lake was made after they bought the land, then I would say ye= s, they could have an argument there, but the lake was there before the land w= as bought. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Anybody else fr= om the public? Are you going to answ= er his comments?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 14

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Atty. Pilicy: I am, but I can w= ait in case anyone else wants to speak. I just want to, we could spend all night talking about the history of the lak= e, but there's never been a project in the history of this Town that has taken more precautions and modifications and so forth to protect a lake. But if we go back to the history o= f Echo Lake, as all of us have heard from many individuals that have grown up in Town and that swam in Echo Lake on a regular basis, the problems with Echo Lake did not begin with development around Echo Lake. The problems with Echo Lake began when the State of Connecticut reconstructed <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Buckingham Street and the Town of <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Watertown made improvements to Echo Lake = Road from Buckingham Street. All of the storm drainage in Echo Lake from approximately the break point near the big water tower and coming down= Echo Lake Road began, in the late 60's, to discharge directly into Echo Lake, and if you go back to those years the Town used to keep records of the depth of = Echo Lake.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   The best evidence of all of that is some minutes of meetings and public hearings before this Commission where the individuals, Mr. and Mrs. Doboss that have since passed away, lived at the corner of Icehouse Road and Echo Lake, and = they came to many, many meetings of all Town agencies, Town Council, Planning and Zoning, and Wetlands, and they campaigned for improvements to Echo Lake and they campaigned for improvements to the drainage stream that is on their property from Echo Lake Road, and they stated many times that they had been= in their home for decades and they did not see a marked deterioration in Echo = Lake from development, but they did trace a marked deterioration in Echo Lake fr= om the contribution of all of the road sand from Buckingham Street and Echo La= ke Road that discharges directly into Echo Lake. Any everyone in Town, the Town Cou= ncil, many volunteers and concerned residents, all believe that the best remedy t= o Echo Lake was a combination of things, but one was to drain the lake and dredge it, a= nd that did not happen because of a funding issue. There was an effort about 10 years= ago where a volunteer group was put together and assembled that was prepared to donate equipment and manpower to dredge Echo Lake, however there was no funding available, nor was there time to obtain the necessary permits in order to conduct the dredging. That was at the same time when the= lake was already dredged in order to repair the dam.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Following that situation the second part of a plan to further protect the lake was a series of sediment basins that ultimately did get constructed with funding provided by the developer of the Mount Fair Farms Subdivision, so part of t= he rehabilitation/protection of Echo Lake was implemented with funds donated b= y a developer, but the real answer is to drain Echo Lake and dredge it of all t= he road sand, and that's what you'll find in there, you'll find road sand. You're not going to find topsoil f= rom these subdivisions. You may f= ind a little bit, but everyone, and most importantly the neighbors that live ther= e, complained for years and years that the real problem with Echo Lake is the = fact that much of the road system in that area collects its road drainage and directs it, including all the road sand and so forth, it discharges directly into the lake.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 15

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Those sediment basins now provide some protection and they've only been there for probably 8 years, but what really needs to happen to fix that lake is to further make certain that the road sand and storm drainage is not getting in there, but to get it drained and properly dredged once so that it can be restored to the condition it was in 60 years ago. But projects such as this, with al= l of the protections that are required by commissions such as yours and the good planning practices by individuals such as Mr. Spath and Mr. Mack this proje= ct, if built as constructed, is designed and should not have any adverse impact= whatsoever on Echo Lake. Thank you.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Jos= eph Perugini, 162 Tarbell Aven= ue, Oakville, CT 06779=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Perugini: Whatever the gentleman said, some of that is probably true, but not all of it, because w= hen this school was built, 5 years ago kids were swimming in Echo Lake; today they are not swimming in it. Since they built that school and the two other projects that are goi= ng in there, the lake got worse, and nobody can tell me that these projects or these maps that look good doesn't affect the lake. That's nonsense. Common sense tells you that water = runs downhill and if you build a house, you have a lawn, and you put chemicals on it, eventually it's going to go into the lake. I don't care what anybody says. Until somebody can tell me that wa= ter runs uphill, then I say okay, but as long as water runs downhill, there's no way that all these projects go around the lake are not going to affect the lake. That's not true. If you= play with fire you're going to get burned, and that's the same thing with this project. If you go around the= lake, then something is going to happen to the lake, and the taxpayers have a rig= ht to protect their property. Li= ke I said the lake was there before these people bought this property, not after. If the lake was after,= that would be a different story. T= hank you.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Atty. Pilicy: One last comment = about the lake. There was some effo= rt fairly recently to restore public swimming in Echo <= span class=3DGramE>Lake, and it d= id begin again for a short period of time until a swimmer was bitten by a snake. That's a true story. That's what stopped the swimming i= n Echo Lake. Echo Lake was restored and deemed = safe for swimming and there was public swimming restored in Echo Lake fairly recently until a snake problem surfaced and it's because of the snakes that people don't swim in Echo Lake, not because of anything that happened with = this development. Echo Lake was actually substantially cleaned up through a combined effort of many, ma= ny volunteers in Town and the Public Works Department about 10 years ago, and = that was again while the lake was drained in connection with the dam repair. There was an enormous effort, there= had to be 60, 70, 80 Townspeople out there for 10 hours on a Sunday and that ar= ea was completely cleaned up and the dredging part did not go forward because there wasn't time or money to get the proper permits, but when the lake was refilled there was swimming again for awhile, and that stopped rather abrup= tly after a swimmer was bitten by a snake, so the lake was restored to a condit= ion where it was suitable for public swimming, but the snake problem prevailed.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 16

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Zawadzki: Mr. Spath, I wa= s going to ask you to review quickly the sediment collection, the leaching effect of the wetlands and that type of thing.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Spath: I just wanted to p= oint out, I talked with Mr. Perugini after the last meeting= and in detail about what we propose here. I just want to explain to the Commission, if you look at this site h= ere the majority of this site closest to the lake is not being developed. Every precaution has been taken to keep the road sediment and sand out of the lake. These houses will be se= wered, they won't be septic. We have= two gross particle separators before our sediment basins, which you can see the= relationship of the sediment basin here, in relationship to the lake down here. Very far. The other sediment basin here, the= re's a gross particle separator before it, that will also go into the wetlands bef= ore it gets into the lake here. T= he area around the lake should look, from across the lake undeveloped the majo= rity part of the year. During the = Winter I'm not sure, you might be able to see one house like here #14 across the l= ake.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   But the design of this, Mr. Polletta has a right to develop his property, he's owned the property for a long time. Everybody has a right to develop th= eir property. You bought your pro= perty at one time, you developed your property.&= nbsp; All the houses that are here in Watertown are here because people developed their property. We are trying to take every precau= tion necessary as not to pollute the lake. The lake is more like a pond. It does need to be dredged. It's very shallow. And that's not because of Mr. Polletta's property. It's because of development, like you said, in the past. A= nd what happens with development, you do get sediment runoff from roads in developments, but what we propose, and it's usually all from the road, it's= not from your lawns, because once you plant your lawn, and you have the grass, there's no erosion. What it's mostly from is from the road sand and our proposal here, which is not in any previous proposals or in the old proposals, is to have these sediment basin= s, and on top of it have these gross particle separators, so that's the difference. We're actually us= ing state of the art particle separators that are being used now to keep all ro= ad sediment and sand. These hous= es here where there will be lawns, people will have lawns, they'll be small, <= span class=3DGramE>people may put fertilizer on the lawns. Fertilizer has been used for years= . Farms use fertilizer, everybody us= es fertilizer. But the distance between these properties and the lake is far. We're not looking to develop right= on the lake front. We're looking= to leave that land for the Town for the Town's use. That's what it's going to be used for. So we're not looking to = put a lake front cottage on the lake, like Mr. Polletta would like to do, so that= 's been taken into account. I did spend some time after the last meeting to try and explain this to Mr. Perug= ini, and that's all I have to say.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Duplissie: How close is the nearest dwell= ing to the existing lake? The propos= ed dwelling, it looks like Lot #9 is probab= ly the closest.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 17

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Spath: Lot #8 is the closest, John (inaudible) 320 feet to that house. And that's in a straight line; dow= nhill is farther.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Duplissie: What's the closest you can hav= e a leaching field to the lake?

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: In this Town it's 100 feet.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Duplissie: So we have no leaching= fields, this is all sewer?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: All sewer.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Duplissie: And we're 300 and how much?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: 320 is the closest house, and that= 's in a straight line, downhill is (inaudible) 379.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: I have a couple of comments. One is about the easements, and we= 've resolved that. The other one = I have is going back to Lt #5. Back = on February 10th, your first presentation on this development, before we took = our site walk, I pointed out that Lot #5 was kind of ugly, in my opinion, and c= onsequently we still have it, but I'd still like you to consider combining it, absorbin= g it with Lot #4 and #6 and making that whole area a conservation easement. But that's just a suggestion.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   The only other thing I had was the conservation easement on the other lots, Lot #10, #11, #13, and #14 which you have already t= aken care of. My only other comment concerns the trail, but you also addressed that, and I guess if we make any other changes there, you'll come back for an additional application, I mean= if it impacts on the wetlands. A= nd Land Tech is satisfied based on the letter I just read, so that's all I hav= e.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: I'd just like to address Lot #5. Lot #5, there is a large area of dry land between two wetland pockets on Lot #5. It's actually a very nice area for a house.&nbs= p; What's making it ugly is we keep pushing it in trying to do less disturbance within that area, but for Lot #5 we haven't moved the house at all cause we belie= ve that's the best location. We'= ve also, in front of Lots #4 and #5 proposed, I believe it's 4,000, it's in the plan, Mr. Mack will look at that, we proposed a great deal of plantings in = an area where the wetlands was disturbed.&nbs= p; So that has also been done with Lot #5, but Lot #5 has never been commented by Chris Allen as him having any problem with Lot #5, and I agree. There is not= a problem with Lot #5. It sits on a nice high knoll, it's a nice area for a house.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 18

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Well he did say that the wetlands = that were nice, good wetlands, what did he call them = here, I had a note by him, on the function value here, his description is it serv= es as groundwater recharge and discharge, nutrient removal, and wildlife habitat. So he did comment on= it.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: Yes, he did, and one of those reas= ons what he was stating for is recharge and cleansing the water for the lake, w= as because of the subdivision up here there is no drainage, and these areas do cleanse anything but what we're also doing, we have no disturbance on Lot #= 5, in the wetlands, except for the very beginning of the driveway which is alr= eady disturbed, I believe everybody saw up there, regarding the public utility l= ine, water line, but there's a drainage, drainage is being brought up. Mr. Polletta is bringing drainage = right up to Oak Street, and that water from Oak St= reet is now going to be treated in Mr. Polletta's system. Our system has been sized and enla= rged to treat that drainage. Lot #5 is not a bad lot. I like Lot<= /st1:place> #5. That will be placed nice.= What happens with Lot #5, why it's looking ugly is because we're trying to accommodate and put barriers here and we're trying to close up, but where the house location is we're not in the wetlands at all, just within the buffer area. Lot #5 is the truth, in my professional opinion, is a nice lot. There's not a problem with it. We're trying to work all around the wetlands here with what we have, and I think you can see that. Here's the wet= lands, and our house is not in the wetlands.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I appreciate that= .

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: We're trying to work with what we = have and I think it's a very nice design.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Jones: Two weeks ago when I came to the m= eeting, I had written out a nice question regarding Lots #18 and #5, and all of a sudden found that when I arrived that one of them had been removed. I was wondering well maybe if I do= n't say anything at this point maybe the other one will go away too. So I was concerned about the fact = that you're actually building in the buffer, that a good portion of the house itself is actually in the buffer, so my question, which I had written before I came tonight, but I thought maybe wouldn't come up, would be could you comment on why 2 weeks ago you removed Lot #18, but you didn't remove Lot #5, and I thought the reason would be the same for both, so I'm just wondering why did Lot #5 stay and #18 go? Cause I was surprised when I arrived and all of a sudd= en #18 is off the map.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 19

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: Well I was asked by Mr. Polletta i= f I was to look at both lots, which one I would remove, and it would be Lot #18. The reason for that right now is because of the area around the lake. I believe #5 is a nice lot to develop. #18, there's a lot o= f dry land. This area up here is al= l dry land. You can see all the hou= ses in here and here, there is an area for a house here. It is within the buffer, work woul= d have to be done, but what we had proposed in that lot was a stone wall. Lot #18, there was a choice between the two of them, Mr. Polletta asked for one= of them to be removed at this time, so that's what we removed, but no, we're n= ot looking to remove Lot #5. I d= on't think there is any reason to remove Lot #5. If I was looking at Lots = #18 and #5, #18 was my suggestion which one to remove.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Jones: But nonetheless they had one thing= in common, and that was there was a considerable portion of the house actually built within the buffer.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Spath: Yes, the regulated area, and what happens on Lot #5, the reason it's a tough area is because you have two are= as of wetlands surrounding on either side of Lot #5. This wetlands area here i= s a lot different than this wetlands area down in here. This is a sloping wetlands, okay, = and the reason this was important, that any water that came off these lots it filtered, it still would act that way, okay, but also a lot of the road sand and sediment is going to be picked up from this drainage here now.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Perugini, do yo= u have new information?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Joseph Perugini, 162 Tarbell Avenue, Oakvill= e, CT&nbs= p; 06779

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Perugini: Yes, I wanted to answer his qu= estion when he said that Mr. Polletta has the right to develop his land. Of course he has the right to deve= lop his land, but you can't pollute somebody else's land because somebody else = has the right to defend his land, and now what guarantee do they give that that= won't affect the lake? Do they have= any guarantee? Or just by looking= at the map and the drainage and pipes and stuff that goes under the ground? Does this solve the problem? Is that a guarantee? I don't know if that's a guarantee= or not.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: I think we all have two guaran= tees - death and taxes. That's it. That's all I've ever heard of.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 20

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Duplissie: Not to make light of i= t, but the thing is that we all have to live by certain rules and regulations, and right now the rules and regulations have set forth that Mr. Polletta, if he wants to develop this land, has to follow and meet certain rules and guidelines. And if he meets t= hose rules and guidelines, then the law says that he's allowed to do that. He can't just come in here and bul= ldoze this property, clear all the trees, and build 60 houses. The law doesn't allow him to do that. The law says that if he= meets certain regulations, less than 5,000 square feet of disturbance, proper con= trol of the water, then we have no right to stop him = from doing that.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Perugini: I understand that. But all these other properties tha= t were developed did affect the lake, cause now these a= re the facts, that nobody swims in that lake.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Duplissie: But that’s not Mr. Polletta's problem. Mr. Polletta is deal= ing with this situation, and that's the situation we're dealing with now. He does not deal with this school,= it's not his problem that this school was built and they did something wrong, or that they put the highway in and they did something wrong, or that some silt came down from Mount Fair Farm. That's not his problem. He has to fix this problem right here, and that's what he's addressing. But no more, he can't address ever= ybody else's. He'll address this on= e, and if he meets our concerns then we have every right to give him that permissi= on to build.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Perugini: Right, I agree with you, but w= hat I'm saying when these projects were approved before it was the same thing as this, they required whatever they required, but still the lake got worse. They approved it because they said= we're going to build the school because they have everything required to build the school, or the other section they built, everything required, sure, they got the requirement, but it tells you that the lake gets worse and worse all th= e time. This is common sense. It tells you that the lake is not getting better, it's getting worse, and once they develop the west side forget about the lake. Right now I think the lake can be = saved with some work, it can be saved, but if they develop the west side, Echo Lake is no more Echo Lake. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Ms. Russ: I've been here from the beginning o= f this project, I missed maybe one meeting. I don't see anything wrong with this project. I've known Joe a long time and all= the projects he's done in Town always seem to come out beautiful. I think he's going to follow all t= he recommendations for Inland/Wetlands, Planning and Zoning, and the problem w= ith Echo lake Road I think needs to go one step furt= her, Mr. Perugini. I think you nee= d to get in touch with your State Representative and see if the State would come down and help us restore E= cho Lake Road. We've tried in the past and it didn't work. That's your only alternative cause= the Town will never have the funds to fix that lake the way it should be. We need help from higher up.<= /o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 21

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Perugini: As I explained before, why was= Echo Lake clean before? Why did people = swim in it before? Common sense te= lls you it was clean before, and it's not clean anymore. So something went wrong some place= . Now everybody comes down and says = the State did Buckingham Stree= t, did this, did that, of course everything adds on. Like I said, water runs downhill, = it doesn’t run uphill, so no matter what you do, it does affect the lake. I don't care what proje= ct you look at. You can put all the = pipes in the ground that you want, it still affects the lake. 50 years ago when I came here, if = you went there at night, at this hour, it was full with fishermen. There was good fishing. We were swimming. I was a teenager when I came from = Italy in 49. I was a teenager, we used= to go swimming every day and fish at night, and I saw swimming all the time. Now I walked the other day around = the lake, it's a mud hole. Why? Because all of these projects say = they go by the law, and the law says if you put this pipe in or this drainage in it's okay, but common sense tells you that the lake is deteriorating every = day, every day. Every project that= goes up, the lake gets worse. So h= ow can you tell me that that's okay? I don't know.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: I need a Motion to Close the P= ublic Hearing.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Ms. Sturgis) to Close the Public Hearing for App. #521 of Giuseppe Polletta for subdivision of a 28.3 acre parcel into 19 residential building lots and construction of associated roadways Echo Lake Road and Icehouse Road, Watertown.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;         Public Hearing Closed at 8:32 p.m.

  &nbs= p;         Ms. Russ: Can we vote on this tonight if all= the questions are answered?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: No.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Duplissie: Why?

            Mr. Rafey: At the last meeting you scheduled = a Public Hearing for tonight to just Close the Public Hea= ring. We don't have a Regular Meeting. At the Regular Meeting on July 14t= h then you can vote on this application.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: And the public participation is cl= osed at this point?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Yes. The Commission members can have a discussion, then vote.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #521 – GIUSEPPE POLLETTA

JUNE 23, 2005

PAGE 22

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Adjourn the Public Hearing at 8:33 p.m.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   Discussion:       None<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   Public Hearing Adjourned at 8:33 p.m.

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Ronald = Jones, Secretary

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetland Agency

  &nbs= p;         _________________= _________________

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