MINUTES
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WET=
LAND
AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
G=
len
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
=
;
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
Bernard Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; Martha Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Denise
Russ
OTHERS PRESENT: =
; &n=
bsp; Chuck
Berger, Town Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Beauchamp, in his
absence.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 2
Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules= for the record, as follows:
“Rules For Condu=
ct of
Public Hearing
1. =
The
applicant, or his representative will make his formal presentation to the
Commission stating the proposed regulated activities, the wetland impacts, =
and
the alternatives, which were considered by the applicant.
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.
4. =
Following
the presentation of the application, the Conservation Commission/Inland
Wetlands Agency will ask specific questions of the applicant.
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.
6. =
I
shall then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of=
the
general public.
7. =
I shall then allow any members of the general public who wish to
present any additional information or clarifying discussion, to do so.
9. =
I
shall provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these addition=
al
remarks if he or his representative so wishes.
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.
&=
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 #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 3
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&= nbsp; A. Continuation of Public Hearing from July 14, 2005, Application #526 of P & A Enterprises, LLC for construction of 3-lot residential subdivision Ripley Street and Winthrop Street, Oakville, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Zawadzki: On this we've got to just discuss =
the
things that are different or have changed since the last meeting. We asked for an extension because =
there
were outstanding questions that hadn't been supplied or answered in writing=
to
our satisfaction so that's why we're here tonight, so the applicant has the
floor.
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Franklin
Pilicy, Attorney Representing Applicant
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Atty.
Pilicy: My understanding is that the basic =
formal
application is already contained in the Commission's record. There are, as you know, some outst=
anding
issues based on the recent review and report from the Town Engineer. The response from the engineer, Te=
rry
Meyers, will be given to the Commission tonight. We are aware that the Public Heari=
ng has
to Close tonight so we would agree that any action taken on this application
can be subject to final plans that will be submitted to the Town Engineer, =
but
nevertheless Mr. Meyers is prepared to go through all of the outstanding is=
sues
and demonstrate that this application, as revised, will meet all of the
concerns of the Town Engineer. And
just to remind the Commission again that the earlier report form the soil
scientist and Mr. Meyers indicates there are no direct wetland impacts invo=
lved;
it's pretty much the location of the detention basin and how the storm water
will function (inaudible).
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Terry
Meyers, Professional Engineer & Land Surveyor
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Meyers: Basically I received the comme=
nts
from Mr. Berger at the end of last week and started looking at them. I'd like to go through them and di=
scuss
how we're going to, I presented you folks with some additional sketches.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 4
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
first item under his comments, he basically says in his initial comments th=
at
the detention basin is designed to reduce site storm water for all storm ev=
ents
up to and including a 100 year storm.
A 15 foot wide access way under Item 1, and a grade of 15% should be
part of the detention basin. =
I can
get that access way by bringing it down through here without disturbing any=
of
the wetland areas so that access way is feasible. The one thing we suggested is that=
we
make the top of the detention basin 15 feet wide, with maximum side slopes =
of 3
horizontal to 1 vertical. The=
existing
grades along the edge of the road currently are 2:1 off the edge of the roa=
d in
that location for the detention basin, and that's the reason we put it ther=
e, cause
it was kind of a hole already, I think we saw that in the field when we were
out there, and it made a lot of sense to put it in that location. His suggestion was, and we talked =
about
it when we talked earlier, was if we could probably get a 10 foot berm along
the top, and if we had to go to 3:1 slopes, there's a small section of area=
in
here, about 10 feet wide, maybe not even quite that, maybe 6 feet wide, whe=
re
we'd be into the wetland with grading by about maybe a foot of elevation.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Is it the wetland or t=
he
buffer?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Originally it was proposed to be w=
ithin
the 50 foot buffer area, but if they have to make a 3:1 slope, it will go i=
nto
the wetlands.
Mr. Duplissie:<= /b> Isn't this the buffer right here?<= o:p>
Mr. Meyers: Right now the problem is within the buffer area,=
as
we discussed at previous meeting.
If we have to grade the downstream side, the 10 foot berm on here, we
end up with a small section of wetland about this big where we would
impact. It would be 6 feet by=
about
10 feet that we would have an impact on to go to 3:1 slopes. I wanted to bring that to your
attention, and I guess it's either up to your Commission and Mr. Berger to =
make
that decision. So that's the =
second
one, Item #1.
Item #2 isn't a proble=
m, I
can provide those calculations, but I want to make sure of what we're doing
here. In the process I looked=
at if
we lowered the road grades on the road and made the road a little deeper co=
ming
into the property what effect that would have, but it didn't really work be=
cause
then you lose your stopping site distance that you're required to have by P
& Z and also you end up basically creating issues for the adjoining
property owner, and we're trying not to do that, that's why the road grades
were the way they were, so I did look at that as well.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 5
Item #3 isn't an issue=
. We can provide that easily.
Item #4, he's suggesti=
ng water
quality improvements through deeper sumps in the catch basins or sediment 4
bay. We don't have a problem =
with
deeper sumps in the catch basins, that's not an issue. We can do that, but that is approp=
riate.
Item #5, he's suggesti=
ng we
do cross sections through the site, which we did, and I provided copies to
you. Those things we're willi=
ng to
do. (Inaudible) show two diff=
erent
sets of cross sections. One i=
s a
cross section through, Cross Section A, which was something we discussed at=
the
Hearing, at least with the section you can see it a little better as to what
the existing grades are and where the house is and if you'll notice, this w=
ould
be, this is where the walkout would be, and basically the proposed deck was
sitting here, the 50 foot buffer was here, and this would be where the
foundation wall is and I think that when we talked there would be a frost w=
all
in here that would go down about 4 feet into existing grade, and we said we
could excavate in order to build that frost wall from the inside where the
existing, this is existing ground here now, where this line crosses is
existing, so basically we would take this material, the material was excava=
ted
there and use it in the front of the house along the road to fill this sect=
ion
out to the road. I think that=
's
what we talked about at the last meeting.
Mr. Duplissie:<=
/b> On the cross section, how far is t=
he
edge of that deck from the 50 foot buffer?
Mr. Meyers: We showed a 10 foot d=
eck
and we're basically a couple of feet off the 50 foot buffer line so you'd be
putting a couple of piers in here, basically adjacent to the 50 foot buffer=
and
this is the way the grades actually look on a 1:1 scale. That’s what we did, was show=
how
it actually looks in the field.
Mr. Duplissie: So what kind of erosion control do you have ther=
e at
the 50 foot buffer?
Mr. Meyers:=
We have silt fences all around it,=
we
can add additional hay bales too at the 50 foot buffer line. You have to remember we already sta=
ked
the line, so we could put the silt fences right at the 50 foot line and put
additional hay bales in front of it.
Mr. Duplissie: So you'd put the silt fence up and put the hay b=
ales
in front of them?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Meyers: Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 6
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: Especially if you're g=
oing
to be that close to the buffer.
Mr. Meyers: I'll make a note of th=
at.
Mr. Duplissie: You're not going to br=
ing a
machine in the back of the building?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Meyers: No. We will do it from the inside. One of the other things I did look=
at
was because there was a concern form Mr. Berger about the height of the
retaining wall here along the driveway and I believe he said 11 feet, but
actually when we do the section it's about 9, by grading the driveway down =
I'm
able to get that down to about 5 feet, so I did look at that and I was able=
to
get the wall down to about 5 feet through here, so in this case it's only 4,
here I believe it's 5, it's 5 along here, so what we would do is drop the
garage down so you'd have less excavation in this area as well.
Mr. Duplissie: Yea, with the retainin=
g wall
you're going to deal with the Building Department as far as the height of t=
hat
wall and any measures.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Meyers: Right, and that w=
as his
comment #6. And as far as, yo=
u say
4 foot leveler, but that's actually from the deck, when you look at the act=
ual
cross section, you have a little bit more, about 6 or 7 feet where it start=
s to
drop off. Turnaround areas in=
the
driveway should be considered in each of the lots. I don't think, well we have a turn=
around
area here, we'd have a slight turnaround in here, but on this one I think o=
ur
intent was we may be able to put something in here because we're going to be
grading it down now, so we should be able to get something for a turnaround=
in
this area, but again there's only 3 houses on the end of the street, it's a
dead end.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Item
#8, we agree with, we don't have a problem.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Item
#9, we agree with, we don't have a problem.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; I
think the only question mark was really about the 3:1 slopes coming off the
berm in the detention pond. T=
hat's
the only issue I couldn't physically answer without getting into the wetland
area.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: How do you feel=
about
that, Chuck, as far as how critical is the 3:1 versus 2:1?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Berger: The 15 foot top w=
idth
and 3:1 side slopes are a requirement in the subdivision regulations so tha=
t's
why I brought them. Because i=
t's so
close to the upland review area and so close to wetlands that's why I broug=
ht
it up now, cause they're going to come up against that as a Planning and Zo=
ning
issue.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 7
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Meyers: With all due respect t=
here's
been several ponds built in the past that were 2:1 and I don't know, those
ponds seems to be holding up okay, as far as I know.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: But when I look at this map an=
d the
way you have this drawn here, I'm a little confused on it because it looks =
like
this is the 50 foot setback area and not wetlands, and it looks like you're
going into the setback and not into the wetlands.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Meyers: Well we're partially in the se=
tback
but there are wetlands areas right here, that little section. You would be into that little sect=
ion
which is right on the fringe. I
mean the watercourse is way over here, and actually this wetland curls right
around and goes back this way before it goes up the hill.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: You said that t=
he
area that you're disturbing that you're talking about . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Meyers: Well it's about 6 x about 28 f=
eet
long but most of it would not, but you're changing the grade about a foot, =
you
don't really change the character of the wetland soil.
Mr. Duplissie: You're filling?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Meyers: We're filling the
(inaudible), but you don’t really change the character of the wetland
soil by doing that, and Chuck can probably answer that as good as anybody, =
but
usually you have to change, you have to put at least 2 feet of fill over the
top of a wetland to make any change to the wetlands characteristics.
Mr. Polletta: =
Behind the back of Hou=
se #3
you're saying that the edge, like about 2 feet and then you've got the slop=
e .
. . . .
Mr. Meyers: We're about 2 feet off=
the
50 foot buffer. That's why we=
drew
this at large scale, so you could see what the existing grades are, what the
proposed grade is along the side of the house as well as where the finished=
and
basement floor would be, and how the footings would be put in over in this
location. It would actually b=
e 12
feet off the buffer lines with the footings.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Polletta: My question was=
look
at the slope you have, 510, maybe 515 . . . .
Mr. Meyers: Well it's actually 518=
right
there, which is about the elevation of the finished basement floor.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 8
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Polletta: Behind the deck to where the
(inaudible) drop about 15 feet?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Meyers: Right here? Well it drops all the way down to =
the
wetland area, 50 feet away.
Mr. Polletta: =
And that's already the
existing slope.
Mr. Meyers: That's the existing s=
lope
that we didn't want to disturb. At
the last meeting Dave Lord talked about that slope and how it was stable
currently, there's no signs of erosion.&nb=
sp;
He wrote a report on that as well.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: And you're showing that the ex=
isting
elevation just at that cut line, if you move that cut line south, the exist=
ing
grade would be steeper, correct? If
you moved the cut line to the edge of the house (inaudible)?
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Meyers: Yea, the grade does ge=
t a
little steeper behind the house, we're not going to disturb that.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr. Duplissie: You're going to stay away from=
that?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Meyers: That's correct.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: And from the c=
orner,
that actual corner of the house, that southwest corner of the house, you are
how far from the buffer line?
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Meyers: Roughly it looks =
like
about 13 or 14 feet off the 50 foot buffer. That's the worst case scenario.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: At least if he
follows the construction guidelines that he's talking about (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Meyers: We could include =
that
in the plans.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: The two major iss=
ues
that we ought to talk about tonight, we've been talking about one of them, =
is
this cross section. (Inaudibl=
e) the
Commission was concerned about being so close to the top of the slope and t=
he
50 foot setback area, and I think I requested the cross section because tha=
t at
least helps me show relative distances and the constructability of this wit=
hout
impacting the 50 foot setback area.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 9
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; The
other issue, in my opinion for tonight, would be that retaining wall in the
driveway which we really hadn't talked about in the past, cause that whethe=
r it
is 9 or 5 feet high is right on the edge of the 50 foot setback area so I t=
hink
we ought to talk about the constructability and feasibility of that wall be=
ing,
do we need any special construction techniques, what is he talking about wi=
th
the house that would be necessary for that wall to make sure there is no
disturbance in the 50 foot setback area?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Meyers: We're about 6 fee=
t off
of that 50 foot buffer, based on the location I see here, but if we drop the
grade on those, it would be hard for somebody to build either a masonry wal=
l or
a versa lock type wall because it's a fill situation so you can build your =
base
and then put your tieback in to create a driveway so whether you're going 4=
or
6 feet any geotechnical (inaudible) that you would use for the wall to hold=
it
back on a geo map would go to the east side rather than towards the little
buffer area or wetland, cause what they do is, even with the versa lock one=
s,
every 2 feet they put in a geogrid which would then work its way into the
driveway and then fill on top of it for the driveway, so you wouldn't be
working towards the buffer, you would be working away from it.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: Well that's ni=
ce if
it's what you're saying, that it's 5 feet.=
If it's 11 feet, that's a heck of a fill.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Berger: Well it wasn't
necessarily the height, I was more concerned about it being right on the ed=
ge
of the 50 foot buffer. And any work to construct it would have to be done on
the inside of the wall, if you will, correct, rather than bringing a machine
in.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: So if he does =
what
he's talking about which is if he has a silt fence and the hay bales and he=
has
them 6 feet away, which is what he's saying, and he has the equipment on th=
e inside,
and he builds up a 2 foot wall and then does his compaction and fills, and =
then
up another 2 feet, compaction and fill, and then he's staying away and leav=
es
the hay bales undisturbed . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Meyers: We can put that r=
ight
on the plans and the construction notes too, do a separate legend or a
separator for compaction of the house on
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: I think that's
basically the same way that he's doing the foundation.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 10
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Berger: I just want to br=
ing
that to the Commission's attention to let you know that every where there's=
a
sensitive area that we've paid particular attention to.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Duplissie: I don't think =
that
any of us didn't notice that retaining wall.
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Zawadzki: Well I'm not th=
at
familiar with building retaining walls, but taller is relevant in the sense
that don't you have to go deeper with your footings to stabilize it?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Meyers: Not with the vers=
a lock
type no, cause they only go down basically . . . . . it's not poured concre=
te. Poured concrete would be a lot diff=
erent
cause those walls would have to have large footings.
&=
nbsp; =
; Ms.
Sturgis: What is the wall=
going
to be constructed of?
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Meyers: We were talking a=
bout
using some type of versa lock material, which there's several different
kinds. If you look across the
street from
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Zawadzki: They're interlo=
cking.
&=
nbsp; =
; Mr.
Meyers: Yes, and they are
considerably cheaper than a concrete wall, probably 75% of a concrete wall,=
and
it looks a lot nicer.
Mr. Duplissie: Well you're not going =
to see
this one, it's going to be on the downgrade side.
Mr. Meyers: Yes.
Mr. Duplissie: You'll never see it.
Mr. Meyers: And we put 3 grading
material behind it too.
Mr. Polletta: =
How high is this wall?=
Mr. Meyers: About 5 feet at the hi=
ghest
point.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Where did the 11 foot =
number
come from?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 11
Mr. Meyers: That's what we had ori=
ginally. We were trying to keep the driveway
level with the existing street, but by grading it back towards the house, I=
can
pick up about, we actually had it 9 feet, but I can pick up about 4 feet in
elevation by doing that, by trading it back this way. That would be revised, that's why I
didn't get a chance to have those done before we came to the meeting tonigh=
t,
but when Chuck brought up that situation I wanted to see what the section
looked like first and see what I could do with the grades on the driveway t=
o minimize,
so basically what we'll do is drop the elevation of the garage and we'll ha=
ve
some stairs on the side instead of a flat walk.
Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible) slope on t=
he
driveway now?
Mr. Meyers: This would be about el=
evated
8% through here, and then a flat area at the bottom, so it would be flat
through here, come up about 1/2 a foot to the garage, and this is about a f=
oot
in here, so probably about 5% or 6% in through here.
Mr. Duplissie: I'm just concerned abo= ut the 15 feet on the top of the flat wall on top of the pond. With a 3:1 slope, it brings him in= to the wetlands, and since we can't change the zoning regulations, I mean that's a= (inaudible) detail, I don’t think that's up to us to change, but I think that if you're talking about putting 1 foot of fill per 120 feet 6 x 20, that's not= a major concern, I don't think, but for us, we're only having to vote on the wetlands issues, we're not going to change the Planning and Zoning issues.<= o:p>
Mr. Berger: A suggestion might be,=
I'm not
sure we can resolve this tonight because the standards that are brought out=
in
my memo are part of the subdivision review, the suggestion might be to, if
you're considering moving forward with approval of this, to approve it with=
out
any additional wetland impact, and then if Planning and Zoning does somethi=
ng
different with the design of the detention pond berm, they would have to co=
me
back here.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Yea, that's the way I =
see it
too. If you approve it at 2:1=
or
agree at this point . . . . .
Mr. Berger: Basically keep them ou=
t of
the wetlands.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Right, and then let Te=
rry
fight that battle down the road.
Mr. Meyers: I don’t have an =
issue
with that, if that's what you want to do.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 12
Mr. Duplissie: I mean it looks like, =
if you
even went to 2-1/2 it might keep them out of the wetlands, rather than the =
3.
Mr. Meyers: Yes, it probably would=
.
Mr. Berger: We also haven't added =
in the
additional 5 foot top limit so.
Mr. Duplissie: Oh, that's with the 10=
foot
top width.
Mr. Berger: Minimize it and I unde=
rstand
what you're trying to do, but let's see what Planning and Zoning does with =
it.
Ms. Sturgis: <=
/b>Didn't you say the
regulations say it has to be 3:1, so they'd have to say it was (inaudible).=
Mr. Meyers: Well they're allowed t=
o waive
certain regulations too. I me=
an for
example if it's in the interest of wetlands and topography, and whereas thi=
s is
such a small pond, I mean we're only talking about 200 feet of road, we're =
not
doing a 50 lot subdivision. I=
t's
very small area.
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Any other comments fro=
m the Commission
members? At this time I'd lik=
e the
public, if anyone has any comments on this particular application they could
state their case now.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Larry Murphy,
Mr. Murphy: I'm up in the back.
Mr. Meyers: Yes, we didn't want to
revise that again, so I thought I'd wait until we got through with the (ina=
udible)
review before we made all the changes, so yea our intent is to move that . =
. .
.
Mr. Murphy: (Inaudible).
Mr. Meyers: Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 13
Patty LeClerc,
Ms. LeClerc: <=
/b>The property that P &a=
mp; A
wants to develop as
On the walk through th=
e P
& A subdivision as question and asked, who enforced the wetland restric=
tions? The response was that it was hoped=
that
the neighborhood would police each other and report the damage that we find,
but who will protect the wetlands if all of the new neighbors are in agreem=
ent
and they don’t want to change?
If the pond's neighbors choose to drain and the new subdivision
neighbors next door have no problem with that, then who will look out for t=
he
mallards who just lost their long time home? Who's left to care if there aren't=
any
fish there anymore, and there used to be plenty? Is there anyone left to care that =
the
dragon flies on my back yard now are searching for water? There is no more bullfrogs, not on=
e (inaudible)
has come to that pond. We hav=
en't
seen the woodchuck family that lived alongside the pond all Summer. I'd love to say it would be me, bu=
t it
won't be possible for it to be me.
If P & A is allowed to build this subdivision and the houses the=
mselves
would block my view, any view that I may have of this wetland area. I'd be trespassing if I tried to g=
et a
glimpse of their back yards. =
How
then will I, or any other
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 14
No, the recommended me=
thod
of neighbors keeping watchful eyes won't work, and it shouldn't be counted =
on
to do this important job. Onl=
y this
Committee can protect those wetlands.
It is up to you. It is=
painfully
clear that if the new homeowners should, hopefully who were fully informed
about their responsibilities as wetland owners, can't be counted on to do t=
he
right thing that leaves this Committee no choice, it can only be you and on=
ly
be protected by you. You must
choose to stand your ground, make very hard decisions and tell developers l=
ike
P & A no, they can't build everywhere. I am respectfully asking you, the m=
embers
of this Committee, to do the hard thing, tell them no when it needs to be s=
aid.
Mr. Meyers: This property was sold=
, but
if these people drained the pond, Moosa, you should be up there.
Mr. Rafey: Yes, I went there, and=
the
person who bought that property, they removed the pipe there and actually t=
hey
drained the small ponding area, the pond does not exist anymore. We're talking 95% of the pond is f=
illed
now with silt and there is grass growing.&=
nbsp;
I respectfully ask the Commission members to go look at this area.
Mr. Meyers: We had nothing to do w=
ith
this.
Mr. Rafey: That has nothing to do=
with
this application. That's a to=
tally
separate issue. The lady call=
ed me,
I went there the next day and talked to the homeowner, we fixed that problem
and put it back the way it was, and the ponding area is pond and there is no
draining and the water is there, the pond is there and I walked with your
husband the day after he called me, and I think he was satisfied. That has nothing to do with this a=
pplication. If the Commission wants to take a =
field
trip to see it, they should.
Ms. LeClerc: <=
/b>But (inaudible) I won'=
t be
able to see that anymore.
Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible), yes. For this issue that you called me,=
I
went there the next day and I think I solved the problem. The homeowners apologized and they=
fixed
the problem and everything is the way it was before, but that has nothing t=
o do
with this applicant.
Ms. LeClerc: <=
/b>It has to do in regard=
to
the policing of it and how you're going to hope the neighbors can police
this. If I didn't want the po=
nd and
I lived next door, I would never have called you, and if all the neighbors =
on
the same street decide they don't want the pond, then they can destroy the
wetlands, because nobody is going to police each other. That's the point I'm making.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 15
Mr. Rafey: People can do anything=
they
want.
Ms. LeClerc: <=
/b>Well no, you've placed
restrictions on this wetland, so they can't do anything they want. They have to leave it, they have to
maintain it as wetlands, if they are inside the, well we want this or somet=
hing
else happens, I don’t know what, but if they decide they don't want t=
he
wetlands and all the neighbors are in agreement, then there isn't anything =
I can
do to help save the wetlands, and that is why the restrictions have to be
enforced.
Mr. Meyers: We offered to put
conservation easements on this wetland area, we said we would do that. We don't have an issue with placin=
g restrictions
on it.
Ms. LeClerc: <=
/b>I guess my biggest con=
cern
is, I know the property here that had the pond next to my property, if they=
're
brand new homeowners, they surely must be informed that they couldn't do th=
at,
but within 6 months they just blew that out of the water, so I realize that
people are free willed, but I don't know how informed the new homeowners we=
re
of what was expected of them as homeowners of wetland property, and that's =
what
I really want to instill, you have to make the new owners, don't they have =
to
be, urgently and strongly recommended to keep these wetlands and what it
entails, not doing this and that and making sure they're maintained, don't
build anything, don't put anything in the buffer. I mean how do you inform a new hom=
eowner
of what's required?
Mr. Meyers: #1 there's a deed
restriction that is placed on the land record with the map as well as when =
the
property is sold that deed restriction is in the records and they're inform=
ed
of it by their attorney at the closing.&nb=
sp;
We've been doing this for 25 years.
Ms. LeClerc: <=
/b>Does this Committee po=
p over
a paper that says these are our regulations as well as these are the restri=
ctions
on your property?
Mr. Rafey: We don't get involved =
with
that. When they purchase the
property it will be in their deed, and on the map.
Ms. LcClerc: <=
/b>Does it clearly list w=
hat
the restrictions are?
Mr. Meyers: Yes.
Mr. Rafey: We give them (inaudibl=
e) and
they have to follow those restrictions when they develop it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 16
Ms. LcClerc: <=
/b>But the Agates' have
attested to, they're not allowed to build, now I realize the builder is doi=
ng
this, but if this house is sold 3 or 4 times, it's not be rebuilt . . . . .=
Mr. Meyers: But it's a deed restri=
ction
(inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: They have to take out a
permit for anything they want to do.
They will be told about the wetlands, but if they choose to go and b=
uild
something without coming to us, there is nothing we can do about it except
respond if a neighbor calls, and then we take appropriate action. Other than that there's not much w=
e can
do. We can't put a guard out =
there.
Ms. LeClerc: <=
/b>I realize that. (Inaudible.)
Mr. Zawadzki: =
Unfortunately this is =
a civilized
society and we rely on the public.
Just like posting speed limits, everybody doesn't comply, but if the=
y're
caught they have to pay a fine. We
have regulations that we enforce, and Moosa and Chuck oversee construction =
and
that's what we do, and if somebody chooses to go though the wetlands with a
bulldozer, all we can do is do something about it later. But we can't stop them at the time=
.
Mr. Meyers: But they do have the p=
ower
to enforce and make them restore that wetland area.
Ms. LeClerc: <=
/b>When I first moved in =
17
yeas ago, it took me forever to get used to sleeping with bullfrogs all nig=
ht
long and now that they're gone, I can't sleep.
Brian LeClerc,
Mr. LeClerc: <=
/b>On the plot plan over =
here,
I have a question. I see a
hammerhead turnaround in the previous property. Is that something that you guys are
going to put in?
Mr. =
Meyers: (Inaudible.)
Mr. =
LeClerc: Cause that doesn't exist right now=
so I
was wondering if you're not going to put it in, why is it shown . . . . .
Mr. =
Meyers: We did the original map of propert=
y to
split the two parcels. I beli=
eve
Mary asked us to show where we could put 4 parking spaces if we needed to f=
rom
the existing 3 family house.
We’re not proposing to do anything there with that.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 17
Mr. =
LeClerc: If you’re not then it should=
be
removed because that’s not the way it is and . . . . .
Mr. =
Meyers: This isn’t part of the
subdivision.
Mr. =
LeClerc: Right, and it’s previously p=
art of
what you subdivided before.
Mr. =
Meyers: (Inaudible.)
Mr. =
LeClerc: Cause right now that right of way =
is
blocked 100% of the time with the people that park there, the same as my
concern was back last year when I went to Planning and Zoning talking about=
why
the road was continually blocked and just before it was approved, magically=
the
car moved just long enough to get approved, and then magically the cars are=
all
back so now I can’t get through so it’s kind of interesting how
things happen and they go right as long as you’re going through
approvals, and then as soon as the approvals are done things go back to the=
old
way. That should have been
installed so that tenants could park off the right of way and leave access
around the property for myself and the other neighbors who own adjacent
property.
Mr. =
Polletta: Is this part of this subdivision?
Mr. =
Meyers: No.
Mr. =
LeClerc: Originally this was all one parcel=
.
Mr. =
Polletta: Before us tonight is this. What you’re talking about is
something that separated before?
Mr. =
Meyers: Yes. (Inaudible.)
Mr. =
LeClerc: It was subdivided and it got appro=
ved
and everything was (inaudible). I
talked about the cars being there, and they got the cars moved, but as soon=
as
it got approved the cars all returned so I’m just kind of pointing out
that they seem to do what they need to do to get approvals and then they pu=
t it
right back.
Mr. =
Polletta: I believe that it’s not part of this so ma=
ybe
we should talk (inaudible).
Mr. =
LeClerc: They don’t own it anymore, (=
inaudible)
Planning and Zoning.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 18
Mr. =
Polletta: Well call Planning and Zoning about parking the
cars, but before us is what is before us and what you’re talking abou=
t I
don’t think has anything to do with what we’re talking about
tonight.
Mr. =
LeClerc: I understand what you’re say=
ing,
I’m just trying to point out the fact that when you do (inaudible)
approval and then everything reverts right back.
Mr. =
Zawadzki: Anything further from the Commission? One comment I have to the Commissi=
on
members, we brought up originally that we thought there ought to be a third
party review on this and the applicant has hired David Lord and he was at t=
he
last meeting and gave his presentation and we discussed this at some length=
at
the last meeting, and I guess the question now is should we insist on havin=
g a
third party review or do you feel satisfied with what Mr. Lord presented la=
st
month so that may not be necessary?
Mr. =
Polletta: I would like to comment – I believe that t=
he
amount of wetlands that are disturbed are (inaudible) I don’t believe=
we
need the third party review. =
If it
was a big subdivision I would be concerned about it, but actually the other=
two
lots (inaudible) there’s not that much (inaudible). (Tape #1, Side A ended – may=
have
missed some.)
Mr. =
Rafey: Was here last month and he explain=
ed all
of the impacts that (inaudible).
Mr. =
Duplissie: I agree.
I understand the public when they come in, this is a piece of land, =
3 or
4 acres of land . . . .
Mr. =
Meyers: (Inaudible.)
Mr. =
LeClerc: 1.2 acres.
Mr. =
Duplissie: 1.2 acres of land and it’s treed and
it’s been there for a long time, but it’s not our place to say =
you
can’t build on it.
We’re here to mitigate the impact on wetlands, not whether or =
not
you can build on your lot or whether or not you leave the trees. And right now we’ve imposed =
as
much restrictions as we can on this, without telling him he can’t bui=
ld
there, and I don’t think we have the right at this point to tell him =
no,
he can’t build. We̵=
7;ve
done as much as we can to resolve any problems or impact to the wetlands, a=
nd I
think at this point he’s done what he had to do to meet our requireme=
nts.
Mr. =
Undercuffler: I would agree.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 19
Ms. =
Sturgis: He’s going to talk to Planning and Zoning
about his 3:1 and 2:1, and we’re restricting it to 2:1 at this point,
right?
Mr. =
Zawadzki: Yes, that’s the proposal.
Mr. =
Duplissie: Well he’s restricted right now, he’s=
at
a 2:1 and he’s at a 10 foot berm.&nb=
sp;
And whether or not that will fly with P & Z is for you to handle=
at
this point, that’s to keep them out of the wetlands at this point.
Mr. =
Jones: Jim, if it follows that we can app=
rove
this, with restrictions that require that he meets all the requirements tha=
t P
& Z will put on him and so on, does anybody else have any reason why we
should oppose at this point?
Mr. =
Zawadzki: No, well \it wouldn’t be a situation where=
if
P & Z approves it or requires it, because if he has to impact into the
wetlands more than we approve now they have to come back, so if P & Z
insists in other words that they want the 15 foot berm and the 3:1 slopes, =
then
he’s going to be into the wetland area, that’s a new applicatio=
n.
Mr. =
Jones: It appears to me then that he̵=
7;s
affecting the environment adequately if we approve at this point.
Mr. =
Zawadzki: Yea, and Terry is willing to fight that battle a=
nd
that’s up to him. Chuck=
, do
you have any further comments?
Mr. =
Berger: I’m all set.
Mr. =
Zawadzki: Anyone else from the public wish to
speak?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Close the Public Hearing for App. #526=
of
P & A Enterprises, LLC for constrict of 3-lot residential subdivision <=
st1:Street
w:st=3D"on">
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #526 – P & A ENTERPRISES, LLC
PAGE 20
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Closed at 8:40 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary