beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

CONTINUA= TION OF PUBLIC HEARING

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRUMBULL PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER

THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, = 2005 - 7:30 P.M.

&nb= sp;

APPLICAT= ION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

&nb= sp;

PRESENT: &nb= sp; = G= len Duplissie

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

= ; &n= bsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Joseph Polletta

= &nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; Edwin Undercuffler, Vice Chairman

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

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

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Charles Thermer

ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs= p; Martha Sturgis

ALTERNATES ABSENT: &nbs= p; 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 8:40 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. Beauchamp, in his absence.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

3. = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; B. = Continuation of Public Hearing from July 14, 2005, Application #527 of Patrick Graziano = for construction of an 11-lot residential subdivision and associated roadways Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Grove Court, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Recess or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by August 18, 2005= .

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; = ; Mr. Zawadzki: Once again we&#= 8217;d like to confine the discussion tonight to the things that were still outstanding. You granted us a= 35 day extension of the Public Hearing in order that you would be able to resp= ond to Mr. Berger’s changes and that’s he’s agreed to these a= nd that’s why we’re here tonight, to discuss these changes and anything else that may have come up in the mean time.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Ted Hardt, Professional Engineer, Milone & MacBroom

Mr. Hardt: And we have received Chuck’s comments and = we met with Chuck and Moosa yesterday to go over our revisions and I have, the= re were a couple of little minor things that we’ve added to the plan tod= ay so as a result of our meeting with Chuck, so I’d like to give those to Chuck and the Commission at this point.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Rafey: I distributed a me= mo in regards to this application that was submitted by the applicant in response to Chuck’s comments.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: Let the record = show that the Commission members were provided with a copy of a letter from Milo= ne and MacBroom dated August 10, 2005 addressing the issues raised by Mr. Berg= er which will now be discussed.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Hardt: I also have one ot= her letter dated today to follow up on one of Chuck’s comments at the meeting. Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t planning on going through all of these comments that Chuck made. We went through them yesterday and answered all of them with Chuck. I would like to go through the las= t 3 comments quickly, under General Comments.&= nbsp; The letter that I handed out dated August 11^th addressed = #1, additional modifications should be investigated to the proposed detention facilities to eliminate minor increases calculated for a 2 and 10 year storm event. Actually that’s = the hydrology (inaudible). We have modified our detention basins and they do meet the zero increase in runoff = for a 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year events. They also meet the water quality calculations that are presented in = the 2004 Storm Water Guidelines the D.E.P. has put out, so I believe we’ve met all of the requirements. = And we’ve provided a checklist for the erosion control, the standard eros= ion control checklists and we’ve also provided those calculations for the soil water quality aspects of the project.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; There was one other comment that Chuck made in his review and that was could we p= ick up the existing drainage at the cul de sac on Claxton Avenue. We looked at that. It would redirect the water from a fairly sizable area of Cla= xton Avenue to bring it down to our northerly deten= tion basin, between Lots #5 and #6. If the basin is not large enough to accept additional storm water runoff witho= ut increasing its size, then that means going into the wetlands, so we feel that letting = the storm water go where its discharging now and not causi= ng any increases is adequate. We will provide a 4 foot deep sump on the catch basins that we put in where we repl= aced the cul de sac with a straight 3 way, we’ll put a catch basin there to pick up the storm water in that and put a 4 foot deep catch basin for, I be= lieve it’s 4 catch basin in that area.&nbs= p; Actually there’s 3 catch basins.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Undercuffler: It seemed l= ike there was a problem with (inaudible) at the end of (inaudible).<= /span>

&nb= sp;

Mr. Hardt: I don’t believe it’s at Claxton, I think it was at the end of Chestnut Grove.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: And what you were just talking abou= t was not that (inaudible)?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Hardt: Right. You’re talking about this cu= l de sac right here? Over here at the end of Chestnut Grove what we're planning = on doing is shifting this section of roadway to the west, providing a small basically gutter in the paved area at the edge of the leeway that we’= re creating, and pick up all the drainage in our system, so in this area there will be gutter flow that comes down Chestnut Grove and on to our site.=

&nb= sp;

Also at the end of the= last meeting there was a discussion about the proposed trail= , that we show in a dark black line. We show it in two locations, there’s a black = line through here and a dark black line through there. What we’re showing is an ext= ension of the trail system that was approved, part of the original subdivision on Northfield Road, where we’re going to extend the trail up to our prop= osed roadway system and then this trail is going to extend in the future at some= point when there is future projects in place but we've only shown it on our site = for now.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Do those trails go thr= ough the wetlands?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Hardt: The trail that is running north/south does go into the wetlands. Right now that's an open mowed fie= ld, what we propose for the trail there is to put markers up basically to mark = the trail but we're not going to be paving it or disturbing it any way. And the amount of trail in the wet= land area that we show there is about 250 linear feet and in the upland review a= rea there’s a portion next to that small southerly wetland where the trail comes up to the end of Chestnut Grove, and then there’s also some on = the other area where it runs more south. The upland review area linear foota= ge is 320, so we have about 320 in the upland review area and 250 linear feet in = the wetlands. I think that conclu= des my comments, unless there are additional comments or Chuck has any comments on= our responses.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: As Mr. Hardt said= , we met yesterday. We received and reviewed during our meeting, the August 10^th letter that Moosa handed out at the beginning of the meeting today, and it satisfactorily add= ressed the majority of the comments in my review memo. The letter that we received today = dated August 11^th, my thought and possibly redirected some of the drai= nage into their system and it clearly shows that it's not feasible so that’= ;s an acceptable answer as well. Yesterday we discussed (inaudible) the report would be that you rece= ived tonight. I have not had an opportunity to review that but we did discuss what I believe (inaudible) detention basins or the outlet structures to show zero increase. I’m satisfied at this point pending final review of that report.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, well all of those issues have been raised, they can still be resolved after the Hearing is Cl= osed as long as it’s been brought up and your comments or someone elseR= 17;s so if you’re satisfied with that until you get a chance to read this,= if they didn’t answer a question that was already raised, why they still would be obliged to do that cause we could make that a condition of approva= l. Do you think the trail would be a = future application even though they’re not going to dig anything?=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Rafey: This application said there is= no wetland impact, there are only some impacts within the 50 foot buffer zone,= but if the Commission wants to approve that trail as part of this application y= ou can do that if you want.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Polletta: I have a questi= on about the detention ponds, are both of these detention ponds within the 50 = foot buffer or built into the buffer?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Hardt: They are within the upland review area. The deten= tion basin embankments are within the upland review area, the 50 foot upland rev= iew area.

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Polletta: So they aren= 217;t away from the 50 feet or in the 50 feet?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

Mr. Hardt: They’re in it. We don’t have any direct wet= land impacts, we just have some disturbance within the 50 f= oot upland review area. Keep in m= ind the area is generally all open field right now, = the wetlands are open field wetlands.

Mr. Polletta: Did you look at putting it some place else to be away from the 50 foot buffer or no?

Mr. Hardt: We did look at different locations. I think at the last Hearing we were= asked to look at just putting in one basin and that was going to result in additi= onal direct wetland impact and (inaudible).&nbs= p; We didn’t feel that that was a better alternative.<= /span>

Mr. Duplissie: I just ant to be clear, we are addressing the (i= naudible)?

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes.

Mr. Duplissie: There are 3 houses that you’re connecting = or coming back onto Chestnut Grove for that connection (inaudible)?=

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes.

Mr. Duplissie: They’re regrading that road so it’s = away from the houses (inaudible)?

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes. That is our intention.<= /span>

Mr. Duplissie: (Inaudible?)

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> No.

Mr. Duplissie: There’s no room (inaudible)?

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> And as far as I know there isnR= 17;t a problem at that point. I thin= k that on Chestnut Grove there is a problem because the water comes down Mr. Todd’s driveway, then down into someone’s back yard, down a hil= l, so we plan on picking that up basically in the road gutters and bringing it onto our site and (inaudible) detention basin.

Mr. Duplissie: I’m just wondering how effective they are.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 6

&nb= sp;

Mr. Hardt: It’s like any road drainage system. Basically there’s a curb at = the edge. The water would run right along. And at Mr. Todd’s driveway we’re moving the road away and then have a little bit of a lip basica= lly so the water won’t go shooting down his driveway like it does now.<= /o:p>

Mr. Duplissie: Right now it’s pitched down the driveway so you’re going to the berm . . . . .

Mr. Hardt: His driveway comes right up to the road and so t= he water that’s coning down the gutter goes right down his driveway so we’re going to move the road over and put a little bit of a . . . . .=

Mr. Duplissie: Any idea what the difference in the elevation?

Mr. Hardt:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Probably about 3 to 4. That will control the water. Any other ques= tions?

Mr. Rafey: At the meeting we talked about the proposed regulated activities that was listed in my memo.= You said some of these numbers have changed?

Mr. Hardt: The letter that you referred to in the regulated activities, do you have that letter, we responded in a July 7^th = letter with the updated impacts. I b= elieve it’s 8,000 and 6,800, that was in July, an= d that was for the 15 foot wide top width and the 3:1 slopes on either side of the detention basin. It increased= our upland review area impacts. A= nd we faxed that over to you today I believe.

Mr. Rafey: I didn’t receive it.

Mr. Zawadzki: So the detention pond has a 16 foot berm on the = 3:1?

Mr. Hardt: Right.

Mr. Zawadzki: So if you reduced it to 10 and 2:1= it would cut down the disturbance?

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

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie: Another case of P &= ; Z.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Hardt: While you’re talking about that, I want to bring up 2 other items. We went to Planning and Zoning for= our first Public Hearing and two issues came up that would require, if they dem= and them, it would require us to come back to the wetlands, I believe. Right now we’re proposing a = 25 foot wide road because the existing roads in the area are 24 feet wide and = it also helps to reduce the amount of impervious area and the impacts of storm water runoff. They’re a= sking us to look at putting in a 28 foot wide road and bridging Steele Brook so we don’t have access to the existing roads here, to Claxton and Chestnut Grove, and it’s not something we're looking to do. In looking at this site we never anticipated bridging Steele Brook, so we’re looking for some guidance= or support from the Wetlands Commission. I don’t know if you would do that or not, but we’re just asking.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = What’s the reaso= n for that again?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Hardt: The biggest reason= is these people are concerned about traffic in their neighborhood, so they ask= ed us to look at accessing this site from Litchfield Road and crossing Steele= Brook to get there. So we’ve = looked at it, it’s very expensive for one thing and there would be a signifi= cant amount of wetland impacts, we would have to span the floodway which is abou= t 50 feet wide in this area, so it would be a large bridge with abutments and fi= ll for the approaches.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Ms. Sturgis: All of the traff= ic is going to come out on (inaudible).

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Hardt: That’s where= it basically comes out now, it comes out Claxton an= d down Judson.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Polletta: Why they’re aski= ng that is because the existing roads are too narrow and when we went on the f= ield trip, those roads, off Lit= chfield Road (inaudible) maybe that’s the reason= why they were asking that. You ca= n take the traffic and put it on = Litchfield Road, so there's no= t too many cars going down those small streets.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Hardt: That is what the concern is. Mostly from the Chestnut Grove sid= e and I think it’s Clearview, I can’t remember which street, but there are some very narrow streets in that neighborhood.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Duplissie: I agree that the streets are n= arrow, but we’re putting in a 75 lot subdivision, 11 lots, you’re putt= ing 22 cars, 2 cars per house, and they’re not all leaving at the same ti= me.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Polletta: I don’t t= hink it’s, I mean this is a P & Z issue.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Duplissie: I just can’t see you cha= nging this and trying to cross that brook (inaudible). We've got the minor impact that we= have here in our buffer but to cross Steele Brook now is a major problem, that would = be more of a wetland impact than any of this that they’re doing now.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: But right now this is = the plan in front of you.

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Hardt: I just brought it = up because we are in front of P & Z right now.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Duplissie: I prefer this one.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = Yes.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Rob= ert Hall, Attorney Representing the Applicant<= /p>
&nb= sp;

Atty. Hall: I have a couple of com= ments also on these 2 issues that were raised by Ted. On the question of the wetlands an= d where the wetlands is crossed by this trail, it’s a connection of course an= d it is going into wetlands, but my understanding of the physical condition, and= I walked a lot of this area, is this is basically a meadow, and there is no c= ut and fill proposed to this trail, it’s only proposed to put some directional signs in the ground so you know where it is. I did a little research in the reg= ulations and in the statutes, and there’s a provision in both your regulations= and your statutes which seems to make this a non-regulated activity, and I̵= 7;m going to refer to 4.2 in your regulations.= It says “the following operations and uses shall be permitted a non-regulated uses in wetlands and watercourses”, and then it has a proviso, and this is the important part, “provided they do not disturb the natural and indigenous character of the wetlands or watercourse by remo= val or deposition of material, alteration or obstruction of water flow, or pollution of the wetland or watercourse.” So if you visualize this as simply= a walking path, with no construction on it, then it would seem that it would = fit that definition and it goes on to specify what uses are that are fitted wit= hin this non-regulated activity and so paragraph B says “outdoor recreati= on including hiking”. So I= think that covers the situation exactly and what I read you just now is exactly a= lso in the statues which is section 22a-40, Permitted Operations and Uses. And by the way, your regulations s= ay something that’s even more appropriate than the statute, but I think it’s a typo. Your regul= ations say that field trails are permitted. Now that is a field trail if I ever saw one, so it’s exactly, = but the statute says field trials, which I think is some sort of bird hunting t= ype thing so I point out the distinction, but either way it’s hiking.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 9

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I think that, the second = one is a typo, but we’re only concerned where there’s cutting and fill= ing, if you have to put in steps, like railroad ties, logs, whatever, foot bridg= es, that type of thing. This is j= ust a plain old walking trail with makers, so I don’t see any conflict ther= e.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Atty. Hall: So I think thatR= 17;s how we would stand on it right now, that’s how we would approach it.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> And then during the Planning and Z= oning Hearing a couple of weeks ago, the neighbors universally raised the questio= n, I think, about why don’t we reach this property that’s being subdivided via a road from Litchfield Road instead of extending Claxton Ave= nue and Chestnut Grove Court, and looking at it, that’s just beyond possibility, it doesn’t seem conceivable that anyone would seriously believe that that’s the right way to serve this property, but a coupl= e of the commissioners disagreed with me, or at least said why not, and I think = the why not is the incredible impact on the wetlands compared to what we’= re proposing to do. And one of t= he commissioners, who I think was really trying to help understand the situati= on better, asked for the analysis that Ted Hardt just indicated he’s mad= e as to what it would actually take to cross Steele Brook, so since that concept= has arisen in the Planning and Zoning Hearing I’m going to ask you to tak= e a look at something that I drafted and if you see fit, if you could put this = in a resolution if you do decide to approve this application, this would be extremely helpful in terms of dealing with that issue at the Planning and Z= oning Commission. What I’m as= king you to do is when you act on it, assuming you approve it, you also add a pr= ovision that says access to the parcel proposed for development from Litchfield Roa= d is not a feasible and prudent alternative to access from Claxton Avenue or Che= stnut Grove Court or both, which I think is entirely within your purview to say that. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: = At this point are ther= e any questions from the Commission?

Mr. Rafey: The trail that’s= shown on the map is fine, it can be part of this application, but in the future if they have to continue that and cross Steele Brook or something, they would = have to modify this permit to include that future application. But the way it’s shown on th= e map now is part of this application. &nbs= p; You can (inaudible).

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: Is there anyone from the publi= c who wishes to speak on this application?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 10

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;         Jim Mencio, 116 Claxton Avenue= , Watertown, CT 06795= =

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Mencio: I attended the Planning and Zo= ning meeting that the gentleman referred to last week and my concerns regarding = this application were expressed at that meeting by myself and a number of people. I’m going to re= ad some notes. I understand that= this Commission and the P & Z Commission ideally look at development applications with different objectives in mind. However, there were concerns expressed about this particular applica= tion by many of the residents who were there that should be made aware to you as they can impact, be impacted by your recommendations to Planning and Zoning= .

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   The first concern expressed in my mind, and certainly the most important, was t= he public safety of both the = Claxton Avenue neighborhood and the adjacent Chestnut Court neighborhood. As this proposa= l is presented you can see that it is designed to open up the dead ends of both = Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Court. The Claxton Avenue neighborhood consist= s of about 32 homes and the Che= stnut Court neighborhood is about 40. Allowing this connection will in e= ssence create one neighborhood of over 80 homes, including the new proposed 11 hom= es, so when you say that 11 homes are not going to impact the neighborhood, it’s not 11 homes, you’re in essence connecting two neighborhoo= ds and creating one neighborhood of 80 homes on streets that clearly were not = made to handle 80 homes, so keep that in mind, please. I know it’s a P & Z issu= e, but your decision can certainly impact that.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   This is where the familiarity of these particular 2 neighborhoods would really h= elp why opening up these dead ends is simply inappropriate. Thee two existing neighborhoods ha= ve been there for almost 60 years, and it is important that that be understood= . While there may have been designs w= ith the possibility for future expansion of these roads, remember that was almo= st 60 years ago. These roads wer= e not designed for the traffic that we simply have today. Some of the roads in these neighbo= rhoods are as little as 14 feet wide with no room for expansion and widening, certainly not without a major impact to the people in some of these neighborhoods. The families h= ave more cars than before, they have more drivers per household than before, they make more trips than before. It’s a matter of fact. The outcry from the public at the P & Z meeting last week was simply to ask the applicant and the P & Z= Commission to find another alternative to access this property without opening up thes= e 2 dead ends.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 11

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Please realize that (inaudible) the development of the land, but it’s not the development that was an objection, it was the opening up of these dead ends= and the traffic and the safety issues that would be created which is what stron= gly concerns us all. The develope= r owns the property that abuts this property, the land has frontage on Litchfield = Road from south of West Road all the way up to the CL&P power lines, I guess it’s about 1,000 feet of frontage.&n= bsp; With that in mind, we asked the P & Z Commission, who then ultimately asked this applicant, to explore the option of coming in from Litchfield Road and ultimately creating a new neighborhood, separate from the Claxton Avenue neighborhood or Chestnut Court neighborhood. This is the onl= y way to alleviate the safety concerns that we brought up to P & Z, and apparently they must have agreed cause they aske= d the applicant to look into it.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   I fully understand that coming in from this direction would involve having to cross Steele Brook, and I’m very familiar with the property and I’ve lived there for 14 years. I also understand that the main purpose of this Commission is to do = what it can to help preserve wetland areas, but this is an issue of public safety concerning the (inaudible) falls under the guidance of Planning and Zoning clearly overlaps with your decision and certainly impacted by it. As I said, giving access from Litchfield Road independently from Claxton= Avenue or Chestnut Court would address these concerns. Crossing Steele Brook needs to be allowed by this Commission to help alleviate these safety issues. This is a viab= le and feasible option. We’re = not talking about crossing the Hudson; it’s Steele Brook, especially when= you consider that Steele Brook is crossed no fewer than 5 times on Watertown Go= lf Course alone, West Road, and Litchfield Road just to name a few. (Inaudible) to do an access for th= is development cannot impact the environment any (inaudible) than it does in t= hese area. I respectfully urge thi= s Commission to allow this alternative access for the safety of the residents of Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Court neighborhoods as well as the families that will b= e dwelling in these new homes that will be part of that neighborhood should they end up being connected. And with tha= t I just respectfully request that you consider that as an option. Thank you very much.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Undercuffler: Maybe one approach would be not to connect Chestnut Grove with this on the dead end there.

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;        Mr. Mencio: I certainly understand that. One of the problems is that they don’t create a dead end of 22 homes and P & Z simply is not going= to fly to that, they’ve expressed that to us as well. Knee jerk reaction that looks grea= t, but 22 homes is just a little too much, especially w= hen the road’s widest point is 22 feet.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 12

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Lou= is Gallo, 151 Claxton Avenue<= /st1:Street>, Watertown, CT 06795=

Mr. Gallo: I'd just like to expa= nd a little more about what Mr. Mencio spoke about. I also live in that neighborhood, I= see the impacts. Before this Comm= ission is proposed an 11 lot subdivision that also is before the P & Z board.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I want to express the concerns of = how this project would have an impact on two 60 year old neighborhoods. These concerns also have been expr= essed to the P & Z board which is why I’m here before you tonight.=

First I’d like to disclose an aspect of this proposal from an historical = point, this development is again before this neighborhood now for the third time.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Back in October of 2003 it was put= before the members of the Fire District where it was soundly rejected by over 275 = Watertown residen= ts due to the impact it presented. A= gain in April of this year a plan similar to the one presented was soundly rejec= ted by the majority. These two ro= ads represented not just the property owners from the immediate neighborhood, but the major= ity being residents of other neighborhoods not directly affected by this projec= t. Those people recognized how similar projects affected their neighborhoods or the Town as a whole and voiced the= ir opinion by saying no. LetR= 17;s make it clear that these votes were not a rejection of development, but a v= oice saying we don’t make the impact in which it represents, find an alternative that works best for the community.

Secondly our concerns,= which are many, revolve around the developer using two existing road systems to a= llow access to this new neighborhood. This new plan is in intrusion to a 60 year old plus neighborhood wit= h an opening of a street. It’= ;s about the attorney implying to the boards that the opening of Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Grove Court would reduce the burden of traffic to either neighborhood. It’s about a traffic study presented to the P & Z board that disproves = his point and states “due to the (inaudible) with Chestnut Grove Court and Clearview Avenue it is unlikely that any site traffic would use these roadways.” That comes from the traffic impact= evaluation, Page 3, prepared by Federal Clark Associations, derived 2005. They recognized that Chestnut Court and Clearview Avenue cannot handle the traffic and most likely that the people in the new development would use Claxton. It was about a traff= ic study that indicates an hourly increase in traffic far greater than the Claxton Avenue residents currently experience. It’s about the character of these neighborhoods that would be forever changed wi= th the impact of a new neighborhood. It’s about the reduction in value of our homes and the benefit to the development with these changes. It’s about no longer being able to (inaudible) terms as a desirable cul de sac.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It’s about a neighborhood th= at was designed around an environment 60 plus years ago to the standards of today.= This should not be looked at as a remodeling upgrade. It’s about the premise that we had when we bought into this community, and in selecting a neighborhood in which we intended to raise our family. It’s about people, their val= ued assets, their lives, and their safety.&nbs= p; It’s not just in a road, it’s= an array of issues.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 13

&nb= sp;

Third, I’ll ask = you to drive through these neighborhoods, walk the streets, see the lay of the lan= d, get a visual of it all, check the line of site existing from Judson, Wilder, Clearview, Chestnut Grove onto Litchfield Road, especially during rush hour. You will see that it’s not a= n easy task to enter into Litchfi= eld Road, Route 63, especially heading south to the center of Town where most of us travel daily. You will find t= hat a blind spot to approaching traffic from the north exists at all 3 streets. In the last few years there have b= een a series of accidents from Claxton alone, and only 2 weeks past one at Wilder= and Litchfield Road, where a traffic light is supposed to make exiting safe. The risks go up with an increase in traffic, it’s a reality, it’s just n= ot a theoretical study.

These issues have been expressed to the P & Z board along with a recommendation. The solution, this developer owns = the adjacent parcel which borders Litchfield Road. He has carved out a section of this parcel for part of the new development. Look at the bigg= er picture and let them explore having this new neighborhood exit directly onto Litchfield Road where access to this development can be obtained from a loc= ation north on Litchfield Road where the line of site is improved and the impact = to two neighborhoods is limited. The P & Z board has listened and have requested the developers to look at our request. <= /span>The request does present the issue of crossing a brook, but from our perspectiv= e on the site map, a relatively small area is all that needs to be encroached upon. I don’t believe t= here is any precedence that has ever been set that has not allowed the disturban= ce of any wetlands. The project = is now before you. Please consider t= he safety impact that this would have and help preserve an existing neighborho= od along with providing better access to this new development by allowing the developer to seek alternatives and cross Steele Brook. I don’t think it’s thi= s Board’s decision about feasibility, I think that’s something a developer real= ly has to address, whether it’s feasible or not for him to do it on his development. Thank you for yo= ur time and consideration.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Zawadzki: While I empathi= ze with your points, again your also stated that= 217;s really not our issue here. Wh= at we try to do is minimize the impact on the wetlands with the proposal that we = have in front of us, and that’s our task at this point, and as far as the access to the property, until we’re presented with another alternativ= e we can’t make a decision on that point, or evaluate it, I should say.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 14

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Gallo: I clearly understa= nd that that proposal is not in front of you.= We just want to be prepared to explain our position and that this is sometimes not just a hard cut rule out of a textbook. There are other abiding situations= here that need to really be looked at. One of them is safety. The other one is the impact. Mr. = Mencio makes a very clear point, the traffic study makes a very clear point that t= hat neighborhood most likely will not be using Clearview or Chestnut Grove Cour= t, and in traveling through those neighborhoods you realize the people in those neighborhoods have expressed that they would most likely use this new development and pass through Claxton Avenue to go down to Litchfield Road because there is a lesser chance of an incident. So it’s clearly just not a theoretical study that makes a clear devise of which way traffic may go, it’s an actuality here, so we’re just asking you to take it int= o consideration that you may be asked, you may not be asked, but you may be asked to look at the disturbance of some wetlands to create a different course of action, so= we want you to just keep that in mind. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Bernard Bernetski, 28 Wilder Stree= t, Watertown, CT 06795=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Bernetski: I sit and watch, I’m retired,= and I see traffic on Wilder Street, cause we have a red light there, but I swear = that people not only on Claxton, but on Judson come around the block, come down = our hill to catch that red light, cause it’s probably about the safest pl= ace to get out onto Litchfield Road. But there was an accident there.&nb= sp; When I drive down that street I still have to stop and look both way= s, even though I have a green light. What I’m wondering about is our streets are in bad condition n= ow, there’s requirement going up there that they plan on building over on that site, of heavy equipment, trucks, and everything else coming up Wilder Street, our streets are falling apart now, and I don’t think this neighborhood could stand having this equipment going up and down, bulldozer= s, backhoes, trucks, and whatever else, and I’m sure they won’t go over Chestnut Grove, they’ll go up Wilder Street or Judson over to Claxton. While our (Tape #1, = Side B ended – may have missed some). I'd like to see them try and (inaudible) neighborhood to get their money. So I thank you and I h= ope you people will understand the neighbors are against this. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Zawadzki: Anybody else? Now the applic= ant.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 15

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Atty. Hall: I think the issue is really pretty self evident. F= rom the neighbor's point of view they would prefer not to have any more traffic= on their streets. They feel they= are already in some danger and they're afraid that by having more traffic they would be in more danger. That= is a Planning and Zoning issue. An= d the reason I passed out my handout is because if the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't get any sense that it's really not feasible to do it, we can say it until we're blue in the face but they could say well you've got to come and you've got to ask the Conservation Commission permission to do that, and I think that would be being forced to do what I would call useless acts, beca= use if I was in your shoes I sure as heck would never approve it, and I can't imagine that anybody here would from a Wetlands point of view. This property is in effect a penin= sula surrounded by wetlands. Steele Brook starts to the south of the property line, it goes to the north, it go= es to the east, it goes back to the south and the area is completely surrounde= d by Steele Brook and its associated wetlands, so it is a dry land peninsula in a sea of wetlands, if you will, and the only way to get to it is either Claxt= on Avenue or Chestnut Grove Court, or both of them, so I really would hope that you w= ould give some guidance to the Planning and Zoning Commission in terms of its consideration of our application from a wetlands point of view. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Polletta: Did you look at= from the edge of the road, how much wetlands you would be crossing, roughly at t= he closest point? We have some wetlands over here and we're talking about bridges. What is the distance from the wetl= ands on the other side? How much <= span class=3DGramE>wetlands are we talking about crossing?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Hardt: This is probably t= he narrowest point right here, and it's 100 feet. The floodway in this area which we= would have to span is about 50 feet wide, so we would have a large bridge, a structure of 50 foot span is a large structure.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Undercuffler: I think thi= s is all very general and theoretically. I think until we have some specific proposal, we can't really do anything. All we can do is de= al with what we have, and if that's not acceptable, come up with another propo= sal and we'll look at that.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Duplissie: If P & Z k= icks it back to us, that would be an alternative, then we have to look at that, = but at this point we're working with this set of plans.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Mr. Undercuffler: That's righ= t.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 16

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &= nbsp;   Mr. Rafey: Just to be fair to= the applicant and to the public, this is what is in front of you, and you make a decision based on the information that was presented to you and the testimo= ny and the facts in front of you. I mean that is another alternative, if somebody wants to submit an applicatio= n in the future, this Commission will look at that as an issue, but right now it= 's not part of this application, this wasn't submitted as an alternative to th= is application. The Commission w= ill make a decision based on what is in front of them now.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, we'll have to reserve judgment on any cross= ing of the wetlands until such time as presented to us.

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Ms. Sturgis: I can't do it wi= thout seeing it anyway.

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

Mr. Jones: My feeling would be regarding this request, is that until we have studied this and walked it and it's given to us with all the data that comes normally then we can't act on= it or shouldn't.

Mr. Zawadzki: = On the issue in front = of us, any additional comments?

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;   = ;           Mr. Berger: I'm all set.=

&nb= sp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   MOTION:       (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Undercuffler) to Close the P= ublic Hearing for App. #527 of Patrick Graziano for construction of an 11-lot residential subdivision and associated roadways Claxton Avenue and Chestnut Grove Court, Water= town, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Hall: It is on the Agenda,= and we spoke last month about you possibly acting on it tonight.

Mr. Zawadzki: Well that's part of = the Regular Meeting. The Public H= earing is Closed now.

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;         Public Hearing Closed at 9:20 p.m.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #527 – PATRICK GRAZIANO

AUGUST 11, 2005

PAGE 17

&nb= sp;

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called a Recess at 9:20 p.m.

&n= bsp;

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