MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC H=
EARING
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
THURSDAY,
OCTOBER 13, 2005 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Bernard Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ABSENT: &nb=
sp; =
=
G=
len
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nb=
sp; Peter Peluso
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Martha Sturgis
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; 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 7:50 p.m.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Mr. Peluso to sit in for Mr. Duplissie, in his
absence.
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Thermer, in his
absence.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 2
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, read aloud the Legal Notice for the record:
The
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Watertown will
hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 .m. on Thursday, October 13, 2005 at Watertown
High School Library, 324 French Street, Watertown, CT to hear and act upon =
the
following application deemed a significant activity by the Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetland Agency pursuant to Section 2.1(dd1-7) of the
Watertown Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Regulations.
Application
#533 of Concetta Guerrera to conduct the following regulated activities
involved in the piping of a watercourse and filling wetlands to provide a
larger rear yard for a new dwelling on Lot #3 Stony Brook Lane, Watertown, =
CT
in an R-70 Residential Zoning District.
&= nbsp; 1. = Piping of approximately 110 linear feet of a watercourse and installation of a rip= rap apron at the pip outlet.
At this Hearing intere= sted persons may be heard and written communications received. A copy of the application is on fi= le at the Planning and Zoning Office, 51 Depot Street, Suite 502, Watertown, CT.<= o:p>
Dated at Watertown, CT=
this
29th day of September, 2005.
Dated at Watertown, CT=
this
6th day of October, 2005.
Ron Jones, Secretary
Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency”
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 3
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&= nbsp; B. = Application #533 of Concetta Guerrera for piping a watercourse and filling wetlands to provide rear yard for a new single family dwelling on Lot #3 Stony Brook La= ne, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by November 17, 2005, unless appli=
cant
grants a time extension.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; George
Mowad, Attorney
Atty. Mowad: Standing to my left is Thomas Petris, Soil Scien=
tist
involved in this project since the beginning. I noticed that almost each one of =
you
has been handed a new map moments ago.&nbs=
p;
This new map addresses revisions that were set forth in a memo from =
the
Town Engineer to Moosa dated October 11th, that’s why
you’re receiving it now. It
was hand delivered, I believe it was yesterday.
Mr. Rafey: =
Today.
Atty. Mowad: I’m sorry, it was hand delive=
red
today. This map is revision d=
ated
yesterday, and you’ll notice that on the bottom, and those revisions =
were
per the Town Engineer’s comments.&nb=
sp;
As you might remember, last time we were here on September 15th=
the Commission had made several recommendations to the original plans that =
were
submitted. Those revisions we=
re
made on September 22, 2005 and also are encompassed on this map. I’m not sure how many of you=
were
present the last time we were here, but one of the big concerns was the amo=
unt
of wetlands that was being filled in, and one of the recommendations was to
move the proposed dwelling further left on the property, left meaning left =
from
street view, and thereby minimizing the amount of wetlands that was going t=
o be
filled in. As you notice on t=
his
map the proposed dwelling has been moved further left from the original map
that was handed in on September 15, 2005, the last meeting we were at. This limits the impact on the
wetlands. It limits it by 855
square feet from the original proposal.&nb=
sp;
The original proposal was going to impact the wetlands by 1,485 squa=
re
feet. This proposal is only g=
oing
to impact the wetland by 630 square feet.&=
nbsp;
Additionally we will create new wetlands in the amount of 1,141 squa=
re
feet which is 511 square feet more than there is right now. Additionally the reason that the h=
ouse
was moved was to limit the 110 square feet that was originally requested wh=
ich
I noticed was in the note. Th=
is
only calls for 60 feet of wetlands to be filled in. And those were all revisions based=
on
the request from the Commission the last time we were here. Additionally, I don’t know if
you’ve seen the memo from the Engineer to Moosa, have you all had an
opportunity to see that?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 4
Mr. Rafey: =
I have copies for everybody.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> No.
Atty. Mowad: There were some technical issues ra=
ised
by the Engineer based on his review of the September 22nd revisi=
ons
and again the September 22nd revisions only dealt with those
revisions per the request of the Commission last time we were here. Now I’d like to address each=
one
of those technical comments individuals.
The first request was =
the
calculations for sizing the rip rap outlet.
Mr. Rafey: =
Can you please read the comments an=
d then
answer them.
Atty. Mowad: The first one is Item #1, the
calculation for sizing the rip rap outlet should include the source of the =
18
csf design flow, and that is addressed in the second page of the document t=
hat
was submitted to Moosa today. Does
everybody have a copy of that?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> No, I just got it today, I didn=
217;t
make copies.
Atty. Mowad: Well this, the top portion addresse=
s the
questions that were raised in this first comment and I’m guessing it =
just
deals with the height diameter, the length of the level spreader and the wi=
dth
of the level spreader.
Mr. Rafey: =
These are some technical calculatio=
ns
that Mr. Berger has a copy of, I didn’t bring a copy for you because
(inaudible).
Mr. Petris: D’Amico Associates, the engin=
eers
for the project, they received this letter from the Town Engineer and they =
did
address all those issues. Som=
e of
them were on the plan, and some of them were actually calculations that they
provide in this report, the cover letter and the calculations dealing with =
the
pipe size and the size of the level spreader and some details.
Mr. Berger: My comments are pretty much minor
technical in nature, and based on my brief review of what the engineers
provided, they have adequately addressed them. I want to take a little bit better=
look
at the size of the stone that they’ve calculated, but the footprint o=
f it
should stay the same. We can =
go
through each comment individually if you like, but I believe that my techni=
cal
issues have been addressed.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 5
Mr. Zawadzki: Well I want to get it in the record just because=
we
got it so late and at least we can get it into the record (Tape #1, Side A ended, may have m=
issed
some.).
Atty. Mowad: Separate technical comments and poi=
nt out
on the map and . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: Well you stated you were going to start on this
letter and go through, item by item?
Atty. Mowad: If you want me to, I’ll do th=
at.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yes, we just received it, so it would be a good =
idea
to do that.
Mr. Rafey: =
Or you can make a reference to a
memorandum from Chuck Berger, dated October 11, 2005 and then we can have t=
hat
information and we can keep it in the record.
Atty. Mowad: That’s fine. We can submit the entire, I mean
it’s a Town document, I don’t have a problem with the entire
document being submitted as a piece of evidence for this Hearing. And based on the statements of the=
Town
Engineer, each one of these has been addressed and our addressing the docum=
ents
is not in the map that you’re looking at, then in the documents that =
have
been provided to Moosa and the Town Engineer.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well why don’t you continue going through =
this
and read them in.
Atty. Mowad: Certainly. #2, the length and width of the ri=
p rap
protection determined by the above calculations is not consistent with what=
is
shown on the plot plan. A det=
ail of
the rip rap protection should be provided in accordance with the 2002 E &am=
p; S
Guidelines. I believe t=
hat is
also addressed on the single sheet on the bottom of the D’Amico letter
addressed the rip rap, the sizing, the calculations, and then on the map as
well there is details of the riprap apron on the right side of the site.
#3, additional detail =
should
be provided regarding the removal of the metal culvert and the hand placeme=
nt
of rip rap. Justification in =
the
detail of the rip rap should be provided in the limits review. The soil scientist report recommen=
ded
replacement between the culvert and the pond and the plot appears to limit =
it
to the area of the metal pipe. Are
these activities in the calculation of impact. That is addressed on the map itsel=
f, on
the bottom center portion where it talks about the hand placed stone, rip r=
ap
and stream channel, you see that on the map?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 6
Mr. Petris: That’s where the stone, right through ther=
e,
that’s where it’s most steeply sloping, there’s some minor
erosion going on in there, and that’s where some hand placed stone wo=
uld
be of benefit.
Atty. Mowad: It’s also addressed a little =
bit in
the wetlands excavation portion or the box on the right hand side of the
map. I believe that specific
portion was addressed by the Town Engineer, that he wanted to review the si=
ze
of the stone. Is that what
you’re referring to?
#4, Is the existing pi=
pe
invert should be shown as well as the proposed outlet invert. The proposed outlet invert is addr=
essed
in the center of the rip rap apron.
Mr. Petris: There is a pipe size.
Atty. Mowad: The pipe size is there. Yea, there’s a note on the m=
ap
that points right to the apron where the pipe outlets, where it gives an
elevation, of the pipe invert.
#5, due to the proximi=
ty of
the proposed activity to the pond, and the proposed 2:1 slope of 12 feet hi=
gh,
additional erosion control measures should be considered on the slope, and =
that
is addressed also in and around the rip rap apron where you can see the silt
fence being placed along with the hay bales around the bottom of that apron
area.
Mr. Petris: There are 2 rows of silt fence that are shown on=
the
site plan, one silt fence will go at the base of the slope to be put in beh=
ind
the house as well as hay bales down slope of the apron and then a second ro=
w of
silt fence will be put further down the slope in the area where the pipe
culvert will be removed just above the pond and additional hay bales will be
placed in the channel as well.
Atty. Mowad: As I stated, I believe this map and=
this
document that has been submitted addressed each one of the Engineer’s
questions, and as the Engineer stated himself, he’s had his questions
answered satisfactorily with the exception of the size of the stone. And again these changes in the map
you’re looking at were a direct result of the recommendation made last
time by you yourself, the Commission members.
Mr. Polletta: Mr. Berger, are you satisfied with all the quest=
ions
you had? I know you got it la=
te,
but do you have any problems with it?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 7
Mr. Berger: No.
The only question, one of the assumptions in the sizing of the stone
protection at the rip rap outlet, that’s a minor technical detail tha=
t I
can look further into. I just=
got
this at the last minute so I didn’t have a chance to double-check tha=
t or
discuss it with the engineer. The
only other question that might not be answered is #3, are these activities
included in the calculation of the impacts? I don’t know if we got an an=
swer
to that. The removal of the m=
etal
culvert needed work in that area.
Mr. Polletta: Was that something you should have had and you
don’t?
Mr. Petris: That was a recommendation that I put
forth in my letter from August, that that metal culvert really was serving =
no
purpose and I thought it would benefit the stream channel and the pond to
remove that culvert altogether, cause if it ever got blocked . . . .
Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Petris: Just above the pond, that pipe ever=
got
blocked off, you would get an eroding channel passing through there and
you’d get sediment being dumped right into the pond, so removing that
culvert would eliminate that chance and you can restore some stream channel=
at
the same time, and then what D’Amico has done in this plan, they̵=
7;ve
over excavated on either side of the pipe that’s going to be removed =
and
that will revert back to the wetland area and that’s where the additi=
onal
wetland tree is coming in.
Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible) existing disturbance is about 600 sq=
uare
feet of wetlands and you’re creating over 1,200 square feet?
Atty. Mowad: No, our proposal is to impact the
wetlands on 630 square feet.
Additionally we’ll be creating an additional 1,141 square feet
with regards to the other work that’s being done, so not only are we
filling in 630, but we’re creating 1,141 new area.
Mr. Polletta: You’re creating wetlands.
Mr. Petris: That is going to be an area, the pi=
pe is
going to be removed just above the pond, that small steel culvert there.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 8
Ms. Sturgis: I understand what you’re doing (inaudible)=
off
that pipe, you’re saying it’s not wetlands around that pipe now=
, or
somehow you’re going to create it by (inaudible)?
Mr. Petris: No, the wetlands ends right at the =
pipe,
just to the north of the pipe.
Ms. Sturgis: Okay, that’s (inaudible) us going to create
more wetlands.
Mr. Petris: Right, and then where the pipe outl=
ets,
there’s an intermittent watercourse channel going down to the pond.
Mr. Rafey: This whole section is a part of that watercourse,
they want to remove that pipe and create some manmade wetlands around that
area. But by removing the pip=
e you
have the watercourse, that is wetlands, they want to increase that area of =
the
pipe.
Ms. Sturgis: I guess I don’t know if
that’s a good spot for what they want to do?
Mr. Rafey: It’s going to be a manmade wetlands.
Ms. Sturgis: (Inaudible) fill in. They’re going to fill 630 an=
d create
1,141.
Atty. Mowad: It was also a request of the Commission the last
time we were here anything that we would fill in that we would create that =
much
in new wetlands. That was dis=
cussed
the last time. Again our posi=
tion
is not only creating 630 new square feet, to make up for the 230 square feet
we’re taking, but we’re creating an additional 511 square feet =
ore
than is there now.
Mr. Petris: One other thing I’d like to p=
oint
out, too, the plan really is in many ways more superior from a wetlands per=
spective
in comparison to the first plan.
The original house on the first plan was quite a bit further to the
south. It was almost in the m=
iddle
of the lot, and now they pushed the house much further to the north in the =
area
that they’re proposing to fill is immediately behind it, so that real=
ly
makes this area much more of an open space area, because the house is furth=
er
away from it, and it makes it a more usable back yard area, (inaudible) rig=
ht
behind the house that 60 feet of stream way that’s going to be piped,=
and
it also allows them a little more side yard that he didn’t have before
too, so the combination of that gives him much more usable yard area and in=
the
future there’s less likely impact for him to go into the wetlands.
Ms. Sturgis: Where is the septic?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 9
Mr. Petris: The septic will continue to be acro=
ss on
the other side of the stream.
Mr. Rafey: If you look at the memo I sent to you dated Octo=
ber
5, 2005 the second page, on top, I listed all of the regulated activities
involved with the original plan, and for 110 linear feet of watercourse to =
be
piped and filling about 1,485 square feet of wetlands and filling about 15,=
750
square feet of the wetland watercourse setback area, the removal of 30 line=
al
feet of an existing drainage pipe, planting trees and shrubs within the wet=
land
setback area, and installation of erosion and sediment control system within
the 50 wetland setback area. =
Then
they submitted a revised plan dated September 22, 2005 and they reduced som=
e of
those activities, and I gave you a list of those reductions, piping of the
watercourse is reduced from 110 feet to 60 feet, these are all according to=
the
map dated September 22, 2005. The
impact on the wetland is reduced from 1,485 to 630 square feet. Impact on the wetland setback area=
is
reduced, the house is moved about 45 feet closer to the north side yard
property line, limits of disturbance line is moved closer to the house to
reduce land disturbance around the house.&=
nbsp;
The applicant is proposing to remove an existing drainage pipe from =
the
watercourse and create 1,141 of wetlands where the existing pipe is
located. The landscaping plan=
is
revised and 2 more trees are added to the plan. These are all the reductions in the
regulated activities. The pla=
n that
was submitted tonight is that different than this one?
Atty. Mowad: No, it’s not. The only difference in the plan th=
at was
submitted tonight is that it addressed the issues that were raised by the
Engineer. It complies with al=
l that
was in your memo, all the statements that you just made that’s this
map. The only difference is t=
here
was some addition in the way of either some boxes on the side or some verbi=
age
on the map to address the issues that were raised by the engineer.
Mr. RAfey: Chuck, does that answer your question (inaudible=
)?
Mr. Berger: It’s still not clear.
Mr. Zawadzki: You haven’t addressed the fact that
you’re filing in about 13,750 square feet of the wetland setback area,
and Item #3 on the proposed changed for 09/22/05 stated the impact on the
wetland setback area is reduced, but we don’t know by how much, and
13,750 square feet of wetland setback area is over a quarter of an acre, wh=
ich
is a lot.
Mr. Rafey: =
It was reduced significantly, I
didn’t have the numbers, I don’t know if he can come up with
(inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 10
Atty. Mowad: I personally cannot calculate those numbers for =
you.
Mr. Zawadzki: I understand that, and also you haven’t
addressed the fact that our regulations require 100 foot setback for septic
systems from the top bank of any watercourse, and this proposed drawing here
doesn’t allow for that, it’s more like 50 feet.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Does the (inaudible) change from the
original proposal? The septic
systems, did you change it from whatever it was approved before?
Mr. Rafey: Yes, this has changed. The original house when it was app=
roved
of the subdivision was all on this side of the property, on the road side, =
and
you have (inaudible) does not in your packet. Originally everything was close to=
the
road, but now they’re proposing to put the (inaudible) system on the
other side of the brook.
Ms. Sturgis: Wasn’t that (inaudible)
couldn’t get (inaudible).
Mr. Rafey: I think they had a better soil side here than th=
ere.
Atty. Mowad: That was (inaudible) moved because =
the
Health Department said it was better soil.
Mr. Rafey: I think the question was that when they approved=
the
subdivision where was it located.
Atty. Mowad: The original approval?
Mr. Rafey: Yes.
Atty. Mowad: I believe it’s been moved, bu=
t at
the request of the Health Department.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well the memo says Robert Smith is reviewing the=
on
site sewage disposal system plan and will submit his report to his Commissi=
on
before the Public Hearing, which is now.
Mr. Rafey: I don’t have a report from him yet. Mr. Smith did say that there are be=
tter
soils here but still this area can have the septic systems. But this was the location original=
ly
approved. This meets the 100 =
foot
setback from the watercourse.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 11
Atty. Mowad: We’ll put it wherever you wan=
t us
to put it. The only reason we=
moved
it was at the request of the Health Department. If you want it somewhere else,
let’s do that.
Mr. Rafey: Mr. Smith told me today that they can investigate
this area, they can move the house down here and see if they can put the se=
ptic
system here. These are all
possibilities.
Atty. Mowad: Yea, but that defeats the purpose I
believe that the speaker addressed which is further impact on the
wetlands. The whole reason for
filling in the wetlands was to provide back yard space and I believe it was
raised by Mr. Polletta last time, with children and people in the back yard=
, if
the house is moved down and the flat area that’s filled in is not beh=
ind
the house, you’re going to have kids playing behind the house and
they’re going to be impacting the wetlands. The whole purpose of moving the ho=
use
over again, was at the request of the Commission and also to provide that t=
he
back yard would be more directly behind the home.
Ms. Sturgis: I thought it was moved because (inaudible) that =
you
couldn’t get a septic down here.&nbs=
p;
It didn’t have anything you do with the Commission moving the
house.
Mr. Polletta: Well we moved the house over because, no we move=
d it
over so (inaudible). If the s=
eptic
system was approved before, and now you’re saying the Health Departme=
nt
is telling you there’s better soils on this side?
Mr. Petris: I remember on site walk, Brian from D’Amico
said that the soil o the east side of the lot were much better and thatR=
17;s
why they moved the septic over there.
But again, we’ll put the septic system wherever you want, that=
’s
not an issue.
Mr. Polletta: We should put it wherever it works the best.
Atty. Mowad: I need to clear that 100 foot setback.
Mr. Polletta: Yea, but I’m saying before it was approved=
, I
would leave it alone.
Atty. Mowad: This was not a decision that was ma=
de by
my client, the only reason it was moved was at the request of the Health
Department. If you want us to=
move
it back, and disregard that request, that’s not a problem.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well where is that request? According to the information I hav=
e he
hasn’t submitted his report yet.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 12
Mr. Petris: My understanding was it was a
request. I do recall Brian sa=
ying
that they did test it and found much better soils on the other side of the
brook. I thought he said the =
Health
people were out there when they did the testing.
Mr. Rafey: And Mr. Smith told me that the soil on this side=
is
better.
Mr. Zawadzki: You can go over there and (inaudible).
Mr. Rafey: This location meets the health department setbac=
k,
which is 50 feet from the edge of watercourse, but your Regulations require=
100
feet from the edge of watercourse for a septic system. The original location meets the 10=
0 foot
setback, if they move it to this side, it’s only 50 feet. You have to make the decision.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> So you don’t have any problem
putting it back?
Mr. Petris: We don’t have a
problem putting it wherever you guys want it.
Mr. Berger: I think the problem is the proposed=
house
is now where the original approved septic system was.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> The house now is where it was origi=
nally
proposed?
Atty. Mowad: It may not be exactly where it was originally
proposed but it’s in that area.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> If it’s over here and youR=
17;re
50 feet away from the 100 feet, we don’t care. If you can put the septic system h=
ere,
you don’t have a problem of where it was before.
Atty. Mowad: Like I said, we don’t have a
problem, as long as it fits your requirements.
Mr. Polletta: If you put it where it was before, then you
don’t have to worry about it.
Atty. Mowad: Again, that’s up to the
Commission. What is better fo=
r the
area, the soil or . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: The soil might be better, but you’re in the
regulated area.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 13
Atty. Mowad: I understand, but my only comment w=
ould
be if your concern is more meeting the 100 foot setback than it is the bett=
er
soil, then we’ll move it.
We’re open to whatever the Commission wants.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well again, I don’t have Mr. Smith’s
report, but it’s apparently a relative thing because the original
approved subdivision plan was also approved by him so that means the soils =
in
that area where the septic was proposed was obviously (inaudible) for the
application so whether or not the soils back here on the east side of the l=
ot
is really irrelevant. If the =
first
location met his approval then that’s . . . .
Mr. Polletta: Let’s leave it where it was before.
Atty. Mowad: Whatever is more important to the
Commission; well put it wherever you want.=
The only reason we moved was because the Health Department felt it w=
as a
better place to put it.
Ms. Sturgis: I’d like to see something in writing.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Yea, we don’t have any record=
of
that.
Atty. Mowad: He informed Moosa of the same thing=
.
Mr. Rafey: Yes, he said the soil on this side is better, but
the question in front of you will you allow the septic to be within 50 feet=
of
the watercourse, because your regulations require 100 feet.
Mr. Petris: If there is no apparent reason to put it over th=
ere
on the right side to disturb the wetlands, why not just keep it where it was.
Mr. Zawadzki: That’s my point.
Atty. Mowad: It doesn’t make a difference =
to us
at all.
Mr. Rafey: You should also investigate the northwest corner=
of
the property, and then move the house down here and the septic down. That’s another thing Mr. Smi=
th
said they could try.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 14
Atty. Mowad: The problem with doing that is it g=
oes
against the previous recommendation that was made by this Commission and ag=
ain
the point that was made by the soil scientist, the whole reason the house w=
as
moved was to fill in the portion behind the house, so the people that live =
in
the house have a place to go. If
you move the house down and fill in that portion, wall then that could lead=
to
even bigger issues of disturbing the wetlands. Because now by having the house wh=
ere it
currently sits on this map and filling in the wetlands of 630 square feet, =
now
it’s removed and as the soil scientist stated, it further protects the
wetlands from any future disturbance.
(Tape #1, Side B ended – may have missed some.).
Mr. Zawadzki: Would be buried, and all you’d have, the
wetlands in that area would be buried.
Mr. Petris: By providing the people with the usable back yar=
d,
even though it’s small, and you’d have a well defined hedge to =
it
cause you’ve got all these woody plantings along that embankment, pin=
es
and the oaks, you’re much less likely to have future illegal activiti=
es
into the wetlands, cause they have an area they can use, they know where it=
is,
people who don’t have a back yard a lot of times they’ll try and
make one.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> It’s interesting you mention =
that
because on our site walk we notice that area is currently under a conservat=
ion
easement on 25 feet on either side of the watercourse and the trees and stu=
ff
had already been cut from there, and that’s of course is a violation =
of
regulations in the sense that any conservation easement is just that and
it’s already been cleared.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> We have a lot of stuff like this wh=
ere
people fill in wetlands and so they make a mistake . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Yea, but you don’t have to
perpetuate it.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> My point is the bottom line is what=
we
have right now, what is best for this lot right now and I would be in agree=
ment
that if the septic system would be where it was shown originally and approv=
ed
originally and I said that before too, when you have a house and a lot that
looks like a V, I think there is less impact if this is filled in, 600 squa=
re
feet eliminated and double the amount of wetlands in different place I thin=
k is
a plus, I strongly believe a lot like this should never have been approved =
that
way.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well it was approved without any
encroachment into the regulated area.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 15
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> But what we have today I think that
it’s better to lose a little bit, gain more, but at least we know in =
the
future there will be no more erosion because if you get 2 or 3 kids there, =
and
I said it before, in this house, they’re going to play behind the hou=
se
and go right into this wetland.
When I walked into this place I couldn’t believe it was a lot,=
and
this lady probably should have known better when she bought it, but probably
she got something that I would have never bought this lot, cause my kids are
going to play right in the back of the house and you can’t stop
that. Like the soil scientist=
said
by putting some level area over here and plantings over here will probably
eliminate a lot of that, but I agree with you about the septic system, if it
was designed here we should leave it there, unless otherwise (inaudible) be=
tter
than come back up again, but I would leave it right where it was approved t=
he
first time.
Mr. Zawadzki: That still leaves us with the question of fillin=
g in
the wetlands and the regulated area because they’re still talking abo=
ut
filling in over a quarter acre of regulated area, which s a lot, to create a
back yard which was never intended in the first place because the approved
subdivision plan didn’t call for that and all the activity in the
subdivision plan was outside of the regulated area, so that’s really =
our
issue here.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> My point is again, I would never bo=
ught
this lot. I mean in all the y=
ears .
. . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> You’ve already said that Joe,=
you
wouldn’t buy the lot, but that’s not our question.
Mr. Polletta: I understand, but my point is that I think that
there is more damage if we leave it the way it is, than if we fill this are=
a,
that’s my opinion and I strongly believe that and I hope the Board fe=
els
that way too, cause this area there will never be disturbed, at least the k=
ids
will have some place to go.
Ms. Sturgis: Is there any way that this can be
positioned so they get something of a back yard without filling in any
wetlands?
Atty. Mowad: I don’t believe so. And I believe that was addressed t=
o the
Engineer the last time we were here, and that’s how we ended up with =
the
recommendation of the Commission, they move the house over, fill in less.
Ms. Sturgis: How big is the house? (Inaudible) square footage showing
there?
Atty. Mowad: No, I don’t, I’m sorry.=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 16
Mr. Rafey: =
To answer your questions, the zoning
setback for this zone is 50 feet from the front property line. They cannot go any closer to the r=
oad,
unless the go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask for a variance. They have to keep the house a mini=
mum of
50 feet from the front property line into the lot.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> This is an area where all the houses
there probably 60, 70 feet back in this area, because of the topography of =
the
land, they have some beautiful homes over here so I doubt if the Zoning Boa=
rd
of Appeals will allow that to be built 25 feet from the road, so I think
it’s the best place to put the house.
Mr. Jones: =
In filling in the wetlands, if this=
is
done in a dry season and there isn’t any water flowing anyhow in the
channel, is there a way of doing that without impacting the environment in a
negative way so that it could be done with minimum disturbance?
Mr. Zawadzki: Well sure. Obviously the drier the season the=
less
impact at that time, but we’re talking about long range and it is an
intermittent watercourse that feeds that hidden pond and of course the pipe
will transport the water from Point A to Point B, but it’s still not
quite the same and they are filling in over a quarter of an acre of what is=
now
conservation easement and I guess bottom line is the proposal as presented =
is
not required to build a house or the septic system, #1, and filling in over=
a
quarter acre of conservation easement and regulated area which would be wip=
ed
out, and it’s not really that good an alternative to what was origina=
lly
approved by the original subdivision which didn’t encroach into the
regulated areas at all, so those are really the things we have to come to g=
rips
with.
Atty. Mowad: It may not restrict the building of the home, bu=
t it
definitely restricts the usability of the home.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Yes, that’s correct, but again
that’s not our issue here, but that’s the personal judgment of =
the
person that buys the lot, if they want to buy a lot that’s configured=
this
way and they accept it as is when they buy it.
Atty. Mowad: I understand that. Another side to go along with the
usability and the safety, as Commissioner Polletta stated, you’re goi=
ng
to have children in this home and putting children in an area that’s =
not
conducive to playing could lead to definite harm to those children.
Ms. Sturgis: (Inaudible.)
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 17
Atty. Mowad: It certainly is, I agree with you 100%, but also
those same children, if our proposal is not granted, could also create
additional damage to the wetlands, so I guess an additional consideration I
would like the Wetlands Commission to at least consider when deciding on th=
is
is what I would consider the minimal negative impact of filling in 630 squa=
re
feet of wetlands compared to creating an additional 1,100 square feet when
taking into consideration the minimization of any additional encroachment i=
nto
the wetlands as we go on in the future.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well we have no guarantee of that.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It sounds reasonable but there is =
no way
that any of us can control that.
Atty. Mowad: I understand, but as set up it̵=
7;s
obviously better than by not filling it in.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> What kind of wetlands, I went on the
field trip and I didn’t see any water over there, it looks like the o=
nly
time I see water over there is when it rains. Am I correct?
Mr. Petris: We call that an intermittent waterc=
ourse
meaning there is flow after a heavy rain or during the wetter months of the
year.
Mr. Polletta: I mean is it a pristine wetlands? Is this a very good wetlands (inau=
dible)
or no?
Mr. Petris: Basically the main function of that
wetland is to conduct drainage to the pond, that’s what it mainly doe=
s,
cause it’s so narrow and so intermittent. You’ve got wetlands upslope =
and
they’re feeding water, they go under the pipes below those two drivew=
ays,
to this narrow drainage way into this pond.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Do you feel this is a real pristine
wetlands?
Mr. Petris: No, it’s not a pristine wetla=
nds
because you’ve got the double driveway just upslope of it, right adja=
cent
to it. The better wetland res=
ource
is the pond in the area all around the pond hat’s a much higher resou=
rce
area.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Now those 2 driveways I see next to=
each
other, they’ve got a pipe underneath?
Mr. Petris: Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 18
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> And at one time it was just like th=
is?
Mr. Petris:=
At one time it was a narrow valley=
, yes.
Mr. Polletta: So they just put a pipe in there .=
. . .
.
Mr. Petris:=
With the stream running through. .=
. . .
Mr. Zawadzki: But again that was approved in the subdivision p= lan because obviously to access those rear lots you had to have a (inaudible).<= o:p>
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b>I asked that question
because I mean if this is good wetlands, or it’s just used to bring t=
he
water from Point A to Point B, but because they cross under the driveways, =
and
it looks like they filled in on both sides of the driveways too, like about=
100
feet when we took that walk, so my point is if they filled that in, they sh=
ould
do not either.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well except that was approved.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> I understand but if it’s a pr=
istine
wetlands that’s one thing, but this just looks like it moves the water
from the above wetland up on top to this area, I think that’s what it=
is,
am I right?
Mr. Petris:=
That’s its main purpose, yes=
. It’s a drainage way.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> My main concern is what’s goi=
ng to
happen when this house is built, and you get a bunch of kids that want to p=
lay
over there. Are we making it =
better
than it is than if it’s filled in, to create wetlands in some other a=
rea,
or go in the back yard and keeps dragging all this stuff into the wetlands.=
Ms. Sturgis: This is really the devil’s
advocate, but can you do this house in such a way that the back yard is your
side yard over here?
Mr. Petris: Not realistically because of where =
the
road is. Most people do look =
for
some privacy which (inaudible) get right (inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> I was thinking about the same thing=
but
the house wouldn’t be facing the street, it would be facing the other
way.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 19
Mr. Jones: =
Gentlemen, you’re giving us m=
ore
wetlands than you take, but did you give us more wetlands than what
you’re giving us now in exchange for taking the buffer area which you
haven’t made up for? Is=
there
a way of doing that, that you could expand the wetlands there in sort of a =
new
give and take (inaudible) and everybody comes out ahead?
Mr. Petris:=
That septic field area if you elim=
inate
that that right now is supporting a bunch of oak trees, so if you stay out =
of
there that’s effectively buffer area too. And a portion of that is right adj=
acent
to this other portion of the proposed septic field is right adjacent to the
stream line.
Mr. Jones: =
Well how much effort would that mak=
e on
your part to expand those arbitrary wetland area that you’re giving us
that aren’t (inaudible) now?
Is that at all feasible in order to make everybody happy here?
Mr. Petris: What this plan would do is you woul=
d have
a plateau, you’d have the house site, the rear yard area where
you’re doing the 60 feet of stream way and then you have the side yard
right adjacent to the road, that’s all going to be high ground. The remaining land is either going=
to be
steeply sloping or it’s going to be in the valley, and that’s g=
oing
to be in a separate area and part of that will be bordering on the pond.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> You mentioned oak trees here in thi=
s area
where the proposed galleys are?
Mr. Petris: Yes.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> So if you put this over here that w=
ould
remain undisturbed?
Mr. Petris: You’ve got some nice oak trees and they se=
rve
a nice buffer between this house here and the house in the rear, and most
homeowners would want to keep that wooded edge cause it gives them privacy,
otherwise the people in the back can see directly to the people in the fron=
t.
Mr. Zawadzki: Right, but if you put those galleries there you
can’t keep the trees.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 20
Mr. Petris: I don’t know how many trees
you’d have to take down but you’d obviously you don’t want
trees right next to the septic field.
Mr. Polletta: The existing trees that were cut o=
ut
(inaudible) can you replant those some place here?
Mr. Petris:=
There are a lot of saplings that h=
ave
already sprouted and then we’re showing additional plantings, we̵=
7;ve
got the pine trees on the slope and then I’ve got 4 oak trees planted=
on
either side of the stream way.
Mr. Polletta: To compensate for whatever was cut=
out?
Mr. Petris:=
To help compensate, and then we ha=
ve
additional plantings and the wetland creation are mainly shrubs.
Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions?
Ms. Sturgis: I guess I still don’t unders=
tand
why you couldn’t bring your garage in over here and give these people=
the
use of the side land and maybe a little bit here. By having a garage here it makes t=
hem
very difficult to use this land.
It’s just a thought, I’m trying to make the best use of =
the
land.
Atty. Mowad: I understand your concern, but I’m not too
sure, especially in that neighborhood there if you want to have the side of=
the
house facing the street, versus the front of the house facing the street.
Ms. Sturgis: No, I was thinking of just shiftin=
g the
garage over here so at least the house itself had land available to it, so =
if
you had to do a (inaudible) could go out to this kind of land a little
better. Even the garage there=
you
cannot ever go over, and this is part of their flat land here, but thatR=
17;s
a design issue. I’m just
trying to figure out if you did that, if you could then perhaps fill a litt=
le
less of the wetlands, but maybe you’ve minimized that, I don’t
know.
Mr. Petris: But again, the reduction in the fil=
ling
in of the wetlands was specifically as a result of our last meeting here and
the request of the Commission. As
you can see we cut it down by more than half. And again I think an important thi=
ng, at
least from where I’m coming from, the wetlands, that we’re taki=
ng
away, we’re giving back almost double.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 21
Mr. Polletta: Now these trees that you said, whatever was cut =
out,
they’re going to be put back in this area move here on the south side,
wherever it was cut out they’re going to replace them?
Mr. Petris: No, the areas that we’re talk=
ing
about . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible) I mean I would like to see these tre=
es maybe
planted some place, whatever you cut out, make this part of this land.
Mr. Petris:=
Yes.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Where do you purpose to put these, =
in
this area over here?
Mr. Petris: Yes. Where they are shown on the pl=
anting
plan, oak trees on either side of the stream.
Mr. Jones: My question is more for the Board, but it occurs=
to
me that our concern is not with filling in the wetlands, it primarily filli=
ng
in the buffer, and if we fill in the buffer, is there a way that we can
compensate for that in some way?
Mr. Zawadzki: It’s all regulated area.
Mr. Jones: =
Yes, it’s all regulated area.=
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> It’s a watercourse and on ea=
ch
side there is a 25 foot conservation easement area.
Mr. Jones:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> How does that fit in?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> If you look at the packet, I gave =
you a
copy of the notes from the map that originally . . . . .
Mr. Zawadzki: Look on your subdivision map that =
was
part of your packet.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> If you look at this page, there ar=
e some
notes here on the nap, this is the original map that was submitted by the
applicant when the Planning and Zoning Commission and get Wetland Commission
approved this subdivision they put these conditions here, and one of the
conditions was you cannot disturb the 25 foot conservation easement area on=
both
sides of it. But you can chan=
ge
that, that is why they are in front of you.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 22
Mr. Zawadzki: Specifically note #4 and #9.
Mr. Jones: (Inaudible) suggests then that there is no tit f=
or
tat type arrangement, basically they’re looking at #4 and #9 as being
written as they are and that’s our job now to accept those.
Mr. Zawadzki: <=
/b> Well that’s our dilemma, the
question of whether or not we want to change that. In other words the way you see it =
in
front of you there is the way it was approved in 1992. Those were the conditions like we =
state
conditions now when we approve subdivisions, why there are similar notes on=
the
drawings that go out of here that you signed, and they stipulate things like
easements and setbacks and all that.
So the question is do we want to deviate from that?
Mr. Jones: =
Would you folks be at all intereste=
d in
another month to consider alternatives?
Atty. Mowad: For us to consider alternatives?
Mr. Jones: =
Yes.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> This is a Public Hearing, we’=
re not
going to do anything.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well the Public Hearing can remain open, and
we’ll have to decide that next, but we haven’t finished the Pub=
lic
Hearing here. If there are any
other questions, we can see if anyone from the public has any comments. All right, at this time I’ll=
ask
anyone from the public sector that wants to comment on this application now=
is
the time to do it. Okay, it
doesn’t appear that anyone from the public is coming forward, so are
there any other questions from the Commission? Comments from the applicant?
Atty. Mowad: No, sir.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Jones) to Table the Public Hearing for App. #533 of Conc=
etta
Guerrera for piping a watercourse and filling wetlands to provide rear yard=
for
a new single family dwelling on Lot #3 Stony Brook Lane, Watertown, CT.
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
OCTOBER 13, 2005
PAGE 23
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at 8:50 p.m.
&nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 10 minute recess at 8:50 p.m.
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary