MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY,
NOVEMBER 10, 2005 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Bernard Beauchamp, Act=
ing
Secretary
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
G=
len
Duplissie
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
ABSENT: =
; &n=
bsp; =
; =
Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; 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.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 8:05 p.m=
.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Beauchamp, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Zawadzki, =
in
his absence.
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Mr. Peluso to sit in for Mr. Jones, in h=
is
absence.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 2
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&= nbsp; B. = Continuation of the Public Hearing from October 13, 2005 - 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 Lane, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by Nove=
mber
17, 2005, unless applicant grants a time extension.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; George
Mowad, Attorney, Yamin & Grant
Atty. Mowad: Last time we were here there were two new issues
that were raised by the Commission, and present tonight is Brian Nesteriak,
with D’Amico Associates, to address those additional issues that were
raised at the last Commission meeting.
Mr. Nesteriak: My understanding the first issue was the actual
impact to not only the wetlands but the upland review area that we’re
proposing on this plan. We al=
l know
that we dropped it down from 110 feet of fill in a watercourse to 60 feet.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We are proposing to fill in 630 sq=
uare
feet of wetlands, that’s down from around 1,000. 12,800 square feet of upland revie=
w area
will be affected as part of the proposal.&=
nbsp;
The other issues was the septic system an=
d I
believe there was some talk (inaudible) originally approved as part of the
subdivision a few years back. The
reason it was moved to the other side of the watercourse is because that not
only is the optimal place soil-wise for the septic system on the site, but
it’s also just the optimal condition period. There is no ledge, there’s no
water, there’s no restrictive there, it is optimal conditions for any
septic system to go over there, and that’s why we’re proposing =
to
put it over there.
Atty. Mowad: In addition to that there were comments made last
time we were here in regards to the comments made by Bob Smith of the
Torrington Area Health District to Moosa that moving the septic system from=
the
original subdivision plan to where it’s proposed now is a better fit =
for
the septic system itself. I h=
ad an
opportunity on Monday the 7th, this Monday, to speak with Bob Sm=
ith
who was going to attempt to get a letter to Moosa, and it’s my
understanding in speaking with Moosa, that Moosa spoke with him and his
position had not changed, it’s a better position for the septic syste=
m is
where we propose to put it, on the back of the lot. It can go in the other area, but
that’s not the best place to put it, the best place to put it would be
from the back of the lot.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 3
Mr. Rafey: Mr. Chairman, we didn’t receive any written
report from Robert Smith, but he did talk to me today. I did mention at the last meeting =
also
that Bob Smith said that the soil on the other side where they proposed the
primary septic system is most suitable than the original location that was
approved with the subdivision, but he said that still, if the Commission do=
esn’t
approve that location, then they can put the septic system on the original
location that was approved with the subdivision.
Atty. Mowad: Yes, we can put it there, but again, and the iss=
ue I
believe this Commission is confronted with, is it more important to have the
best possible place for that septic system, which would be on the back of t=
he
lot. I believe everybody, not=
only
D’Amico Associates, but I believe the Torrington Health District are =
all
on the same page with that, if this Commission was to grant our request, th=
at
would be the best place for the septic system.
Mr. Rafey: =
And he also suggested that if you c=
an
look at the area north of the proposed house location, where that north are=
a is
on that map, if you can test, I don’t know if you get a chance to loo=
k at
that area of the site.
Mr. Nesteriak: We talked to Bob about that and we can do
confirmation testing but we already know from previous testing that there is
all ledge there.
We know that because we dug there (inaudible) that because thereR=
17;s
outcroppings coming right out of the ground, so there is no official testing
that has been done through the Health Department, but we’re all very
aware that there is not going to be a suitable area in that area.
Mr. Polletta: I understand, but where you were originally
supposed, it was approved, originally approved it was on this side right?
Mr. Nesteriak: =
Yea, on the southeast portion of th=
e site
where it was originally approved, Bob had mentioned maybe we should look at=
the
northeast (inaudible) there is no official correspondence of testing done b=
ut
we all know that, the engineers at least know, that that area will not prov=
ide
a septic.
Mr. Polletta: If the house moved where it wouldn’t
(inaudible)? The
house right now.
Mr. Nesteriak:<=
/b> The house is approximately where i=
t was
originally n that general area, where, back where the subdivision is.
Atty. Mowad: We moved it from the original submission of this=
application, we moved it to get, to basically here, st=
ill
less of the watercourse.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 4
Mr. Duplissie: So this drawing reflects the revision, moving the
house back to the original position, or closer to the original position and
only showing 60 feet of piping rather than 110 feet of piping?
Mr. Nesteriak: Correct.
Mr. Duplissie: And you feel that putting the septic system to t=
he
north is a better placement for the septic than to the east?
Mr. Nesteriak: To the west.&nb=
sp;
The best area for the septic system is on the western side of the si=
te.
Mr. Duplissie: Why is it the best?
Mr. Nesteriak: Because there is no restrictive layer. The southeast section of the site =
where
it was originally approved with ledge at best, 46 inches from the current
finished grade, and on the other side we have no ledge, no water, no modeli=
ng,
we have none of the constraints that a septic system would require.
Mr. Duplissie: But on the proposed area to the backside of the
property, the east side of the property, you’d have a disturbance of =
how
many square feet of setback area?
Mr. Nesteriak: On this plan we have a total of 12,800 square fe=
et
of impact to the upland review area.
Mr. Duplissie: That’s for the filling of a watercourse, b=
ut
just for the septic system?
Mr. Nesteriak: Within 100 feet?
Mr. Duplissie: Yea.
Mr. Nesteriak: 21,900.
Mr. Duplissie: For the septic system?
Mr. Nesteriak: Including the septic system, disturbance yea.
Mr. Duplissie: For the whole lot though, not just for the septic
system?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 5
Mr. Nesteriak: Right.
Mr. Duplissie: You’re disturbing an area for the septic
system. In order to put a gal=
ley
in, forget piping the watercourse right now, just putting in the septic sys=
tem,
you’re disturbing 21,000 square feet?
Mr. Nesteriak: No, that’s going all the way around. You just want to know just the are=
a that
we’re disturbing beyond the 50 feet?
Mr. Duplissie: Correct, just for the septic system.
Mr. Rafey: =
The regulated area for a septic sys=
tem is
100 feet from the edge of water.
Mr. Nesteriak: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Rafey: =
I think the question that Mr. Dupli=
ssie
is asking is how much area are you going to dist=
urb if
you put only the septic system, not piping the watercourse within that 100 =
feet
of regulated area. The locait=
on of
that original septic system is 100 feet from the edge of the watercourse, b=
ut the
proposed location is 50 feet.
Mr. Duplissie: Yes, the proposed is 50 feet, so it’s with=
in
50 feet of the wetlands, so it’s within the 100 foot buffer for septi=
c so
there’s “x” amount of square feet of disturbance for the
septic system, not counting the filled area that we were talking about.
Mr. Nesteriak: I’m not going to include any of the area l=
ike
he said (inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: Approximately.
Mr. Nesteriak: 2,500 square feet.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> What as the 630 square feet of fill
disturbance that you said before?
Mr. Nesteriak: The 630 square feet is the actual area that
we’re proposing to fill in it’s the actual wetland area, between
the wetland flag.
Mr. Polletta: Yea, but during our discussion last month, it sa=
ys
whatever you create, if we lose 630 square feet, you were going to create t=
hat
wetlands some other place. Wh=
ere
are you proposing to create that?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 6
Mr. Nesteriak: On the south side of the site, if you were at the
site walk, there was a metal culvert, years and years ago, and we’re
taking that out and reducing it, we’re putting in plantings, seeding =
mix,
in order to mitigate that wetlands. We are proposing 1,141 square feet=
of
mitigated area, at least, of mitigation to the 630 feet that we are . . .
Mr. Polletta: So we’re losing 630 but we’re gaining
1100?
Mr. Nesteriak: Yes.
Mr. Rafey: =
It’s not new wetlands, itR=
17;s
already there.
Mr. Polletta: The bottom line is whatever we lose with this lo=
t,
we’re gaining.
Mr. Undercuffler: Not really.
Mr. Duplissie: The pipe is already there and it’s an
undisturbed area. Leave the p=
ipe
there and it can just continue to stay there, correct?
Mr. Nesteriak: It wouldn’t be wetlands,
we’re mitigating it and creating wetlands.
Mr. Polletta: The question that I asked last time is if we move
whatever the amount is 600 square feet on this side, are we getting somewhe=
re
and they’re saying that we are, but you’re saying we are not?
Mr. Rafey: I mean originally it was a w=
atercourse,
somebody put a pipe, so if you remove that pipe the watercourse is there.
Mr. Berger: (Inaudible) wasn’t there at the time of the
original approval. There was wetlands in that area before it was piped. If you look at the original approv=
ed
subdivision map, that pipe was not there.
Mr. Nesteriak: If the subdivision map didn’t show the pipe
there, it was an error. That =
pipe
has been there since the previous owner owned it, we
talked to her, which was sin the 70’s. That pipe has been there for at le=
ast 30
years.
Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible.)
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 7
Mr. Berger: (Inaudible) original subdivision, that area show=
s as a wetlands, so I think what Moosa and what I’=
ve
tried to say in my memo, you have to be careful that you’re not count=
ing
mitigation in something that existed previously.
Atty. Mowad: The original map may say this, but that pipe has
been there.
Mr. Nesteriak: The original map doesn’t show that area as
wetlands.
Mr. Rafey: The original subdivision map doesn’t show
that, it shows that there is a continuous watercourse and wetlands in that
area.
Mr. Nesteriak: No, it doesn’t show it as a
wetlands, it shows the wetlands just stop.=
The map that I have . . . . .
Mr. Rafey: =
If you look at the subdivision map,=
it
doesn’t show a pipe there.
Mr. Nesteriak: It doesn’t show a pipe.
Mr. Rafey: No, it shows a continuous watercourse with wetla=
nds
around it. See this
wetlands continues here and the pipe is somewhere here, no? See these wetlands flag numbers?
Mr. Nesteriak: 34, 35, 36, 37, that goes this way. There’s =
no
wetlands in between here.
Mr. Rafey: But if you see these contours, it doesn’t =
show
that there is a pipe there. My
point is that originally there was a watercourse here, somebody put a pipe,=
and
now you are removing the pipe and giving it back to what it was before.
Mr. Nesteriak: Correct.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well the only area in question would be the widt=
h of
the pipe times the length of the pipe, I would think. The areas on both sides of the pip=
e were
wetlands, and if you take the pipe out they are still wetlands.
Mr. Rafey: =
Yea, somewhere in the past, wheneve=
r it
was, they put a pipe there and probably they were driving there and maybe t=
hey
wanted . . . . .
Mr. Nesteriak: It looks like a farm crossing, (inaudible) farm
land.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 8
Mr. Rafey: =
If you remove that pipe the waterco=
urse
will be connected.
Mr. Undercuffler: But there is still wetlands<=
/span>
on both sides, I mean even if you don’t count that small area where t=
he
pipe is.
Mr. Rafey: =
The soil is still the same.
Mr. Nesteriak: The wetlands end at that pipe right now, there is no wetlands on either side of it. We’re not only taking it out=
and
creating a watercourse, but we’re also expanding it, and the reason
we’re doing that, the wetland scientist found that right above the pi=
pe
the wetlands start to diversify, they start opening up, there’s more
growth, there’s more trees, there’s more wetland plantings and
it’s also a very flat area, so it’s perfect for an area to spre=
ad
out, allow more wide wetland area to be mitigated, so it’s not going =
to
be just a watercourse, it’s going to be basically a pool area, the wa=
ter
can spread out and encourage wetland growth.
Ms. Sturgis: Did you ever determine who was cutting trees in =
the
wetlands there or what was going on?
Mr. Rafey: Not in the wetlands, but on both sides of that
watercourse there were some trees that were recently cut.
Mr. Undercuffler: You’re going to do filling, the proposal i=
s to
fill back there or not?
Mr. Nesteriak: We’re trying to fill the narrow portion of=
the
watercourse at the northern end of the site.
Mr. Undercuffler: And how deep will that fill be?
Mr. Nesteriak: At the high point about 8 feet.
Mr. Undercuffler: And what length will that be?
Mr. Nesteriak: 60 feet.
Mr. Undercuffler: That’s a lot of fill. Going back to the septic system, w=
hy was
it approved in this spot in the first place?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 9
Mr. Nesteriak: Because a septic system can be put there, weR=
17;re
not disputing that. When we w=
ent
back we originally had a plan to put the septic system there, but Bob Smith
said I want it retested, I’m not comfortable with it being there, so =
we
retested and one of the areas we retested was the area that we’re pro=
posing
now, and we found that that area was an optimal place and we decided to put=
it
over there, upon the recommendation of the Health Department.
Ms. Sturgis: The fill is to get a back yard, not really to get
the septic, am I correct?
Atty. Mowad: Correct.
The fill is required for the back yard. The reason for the septic system i=
s we
can’t have a septic system where there is no plan called for it, but =
we can
have the best possible system back where we are proposing it now.
Mr. Nesteriak: The pollutant renovation of the septic system ar=
ea
that we’re proposing right now is better than where we were proposing
(inaudible). It’s just =
going
to work a lot better. It will=
have
very little constraints to it, (inaudible) proposed (inaudible) 38 inches o=
f constraints.
Mr. Polletta: The bottom line, this was not your choice, this =
was
recommended to you by Bob Smith?
Mr. Nesteriak: Absolutely.
Mr. Polletta: To you it doesn’t make any difference.
Mr. Nesteriak: Well I’d like to see the septic system over
there, as an engineer I would, but if we can’t, then it can go over
there, but it’s a marginal system.
Mr. Undercuffler: It just seems like there is so much disturbance =
of
what you’re proposing, the original plan is all set, you wouldn’=
;t
have to do anything, you wouldn’t even need an application, you’=
;ve
got approval to build a house there and put a septic system in, so I don’t know why we’re even talking abo=
ut it.
Mr. Nesteriak: We can certainly do that. We thought we could use this as an
opportunity to encourage (inaudible) the wetlands downstream, take out that
pipe, restore the area and encourage more wetland growth, and in the process
filling an area that isn’t really a diverse wetlands.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 10
Mr. Undercuffler: Well it still could be taken out anyways,
the pipe could be taken out anyway.
Mr. Nesteriak: =
It could be, but there would be no,=
it
wouldn’t have to be taken out, it could be left in.
Mr. Duplissie: I just feel that this lot should have not been
approved originally, it should have been left ou=
t of
the subdivision originally. W=
ith
the small lot for this subdivision, the usable space the way that they had =
it,
probably should not have been approved, in my opinion. Now to come in and disturb this mu=
ch
area by filling that area, I don’t like to fill anything 9 x 60 feet,=
and
then put in a septic system that’s going to be within our 100 feet,
whereas we all know that there are areas that, I’d just as soon as ke=
ep
them out, that’s just my opinion.
Mr. Undercuffler: I agree.
Mr. Duplissie: I’m not going to influence anybody else,
I’d much prefer that if we’re going to build this out, that we
build the house where it is now and I would prefer the septic system back in
the original spot if it works with Bob and he says it works there, goes the=
re,
and you stay 100 feet away from our wetlands, then I prefer that, that̵=
7;s
my preference, but (inaudible) has a mind of its own, and that’s fine=
.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> I agree and I said from the beginni=
ng
that this lot should never have been approved, however most of the time whe=
n we
have a technical question I will look at our engineer and say what is the b=
est
thing to do there, and I feel that he has more experience than me, but if B=
ob
Smith suggested that the land is better on the other side and we could get a
better system, I think we should listen to somebody that probably has a lot
more experience than us.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well it would be nice if we had a report that sa=
id
that it’s twice as good on the other side,=
or
10% better.
Mr. Duplissie: Just because it’s better on the other side=
, we
have the option. We have two
options. If one option gave u=
s said
that we had a report from Bob that said that this system is questionable on
this one, but boy on the other side it works beautifully and I know we̵=
7;re
within your 100 foot, that’s definitely the best place to put it beca=
use
this one really is questionable, but if Bob said no, it will work here, well
(inaudible) it will work on that side, I just as soon stay out.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 11
Mr. Rafey: =
When they approved this subdivision=
they
looked at these issues.
Mr. Polletta: No, I understand, but sometimes they perc on Mon=
day
and they don’t perc on Tuesday, but the thing is what’s today, =
why
would he say put it on the other side because it’s better, (inaudible)
sometimes like I say, we’re sitting here and we have quite a bit of
knowledge, but if it’s a technical question that I don’t know, I
look at him and say do you have everything, are you happy with what we see,
because I feel he has more experience that us, but they don’t really
care, but I’m just saying we don’t have a report from him that =
says
the other side is better, but I don’t think they’re lying.
Mr. Rafey: You have enough information,=
it’s up to you to make a decision.&n=
bsp;
I did talk to Mr. Smith twice today regarding this, and he said that=
the
soil on the other side of the brook is more suitable than the other locatio=
n,
but what is involved with that?
That system is going to be 50 feet from the edge of the watercourse, the original location is 100 feet. To put that system you have to cut=
so
many trees there and disturb the soil there, so much of the regulated area =
you
have to fill to put that system. It’s
totally up to the Commission, if you want to all=
ow
this you can just approve it and give it to them.
Ms. Sturgis: He said it could be built where it was originally
specified.
Mr. Duplissie: Our buffer is 100 or 75?
Mr. Rafey: =
100 for a septic system.
Mr. Undercuffler: Let’s see if there are any comments from t=
he
public before we go any further.
Does anybody want to comment on this? Any questions?=
I guess not.
Mr. Rafey: That’s why they are in front of you. They =
want
to put the system on the other side, it requires some regulated activities =
and
this Commission has the jurisdiction to make a decision on it.
Atty. Mowad: Actually for the record the reason we’re in
front of you is to fill in the 50 feet, to create the back yard. The septic system came into play a=
fter
our original request to fill in the wetlands and you met with Bob Smith.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 12
Mr. Polletta: The (inaudible) problem if you put=
it in
the original location?
Mr. Nesteriak: =
We would prefer to put it where the
Torrington Area Health District says it’s the best (inaudible) our
engineers say it’s the best place to put it, but if this Commission f=
eels
putting the septic system in what other people think the best position is is
not in the best interest of this Commission, then we’re going to be f=
ine
with whatever decision the Commission makes. The main reason we’re here, =
just
so everybody is aware, is to fill in the 60 feet of the wetlands to create =
the
back yard. The septic system,
again, is secondary, and the only reason it is secondary and the only reason
it’s an issue is because it was at the request of the Torrington Heath
District.
Mr. Undercuffler: Bernie, do you have any comments?<= o:p>
Mr. Beauchamp:<=
/b> No, I don’t.
Mr. Undercuffler: Martha, do you have anything?
Ms. Sturgis: I don’t like all the filling=
.
Mr. Undercuffler: Do you have any comments?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Unidentified
Voice: Yea.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: You heard mine=
.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> You have until November 17th<=
/sup>
to close the Public Hearing unless the applicant grants an extension. I don’t see any reason why to
continue it.
Mr. Undercuffler: The other way is to just deny it an=
d let
them build it the way it was originally approved. I mean we don’t seem to like=
the
filling, we don’t like putting the septic all the way over there,
they’ve got an approved plot here, they can
build the house.
Mr. Polletta: They came before us because they w=
ant to
fill in 60 feet, so do you honestly believe that by moving that cliff
(inaudible) that house is the best for this
wetlands? I personally believ=
e that
if I walk out of the back and I have a cliff, I think with the kids playing,
and if we try to protect the wetlands, like he said before, I don’t t=
hink
this lot should ever have been approved before, so for us to protect it and
only get 60 feet of filling and try to create other wetlands like I suggest=
ed
last time, I think that’s the better plan. Septic system can stay right where=
it
is, I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem leaving
that hole behind the house.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 13
Mr. Duplissie: =
I don’t. My house, I have 2.5 acres of land=
. . .
. and my only usable space is my 40 feet behind =
my
house. I have a cliff that dr=
ops
off 20 feet. (Tape #1, Side B=
ended
– may have missed some.)
Mr. Polletta: My point is (inaudible) review it,=
put
the house where it belongs and give them some back yard. They built and I think that they w=
ent
out of their way to try and please this Board. Right now it looks like we’re
saying well we don’t (inaudible).
Atty. Mowad: To refresh everyone’s recolle=
ction,
when we originally came here we were asking for substantially more and at t=
he
request of this Board and at the recommendation of this Board we cut it down
substantially to where we are at now, to have some portion of a back yard, =
and
added the wetlands, and this is all at the request of this Commission. My personal opinion would be to re=
fuse
this application now after we’ve complied with the recommendations and
the request of this Commission would be completely unfair and unjust. I understand what the purpose of t=
his
Commission is and I understand the obligation this Commission has to the
community and to the wetlands, but to make recommendations to an applicant,=
and
then tell them well even though we made the recommendations, we don’t
like it anyways, and we don’t like the fill from the beginning and th=
en
deny the application is unfair and unjust.
Mr. Undercuffler: It’s not like you can’=
t use
the property. I mean if we we=
re
denying it and you couldn’t do anything . . . . .
Atty. Mowad: It creates a very dangerous
condition. You’ve all w=
alked
the property, you’ve all seen the property as it sits, and if you wer=
e to
build a home according to the original subdivision plan it creates a very
dangerous condition for the people that live on that property.
Mr. Undercuffler: How far from the house to the slop=
e?
Mr. Nesteriak: =
To the slope or to the watercourse?=
Mr. Undercuffler: To the slope.
Mr. Nesteriak: =
The slope is going to be right out =
the
back door.
Atty. Mowad: You’d need a parachute to ge=
t out
your back door.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 14
Ms. Sturgis: But if you shift the house this way
that’s not the case, is it?
Mr. Nesteriak: =
It will alleviate it just a little =
bit,
but not much. Pretty
much (inaudible) entire length of the property.
Mr. Polletta: Are we voting on this now or just
closing the Public Hearing?
Mr. Undercuffler: We have to make a decision by
(inaudible).
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> If you close the Public Hearing to=
night
you have (inaudible) days. Th=
ere is
no reason to wait 65 days to make a decision (inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: No, but we have it on the Agenda to
discuss this after?
Mr. Undercuffler: Yes.
Mr. Polletta: All right, so right now we’r=
e just
closing the Public Hearing.
Mr. Rafey: =
But if you have any questions for t=
he
applicant, this is the time to ask them, because=
once
you close the Public Hearing then they cannot participate.
Mr. Berger: I’d just like to say one thin=
g,
just to highlight what is in my memo, (inaudible) approve 2:1 slope origina=
lly
in the back yard we just recently (inaudible) require a minimum level area,=
a
walk out level area, there are many examples on . . . . .
Ms. Sturgis: It’s 2:1
now, is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Berger: (Inaudible) minimum. Just to remind the Commission that=
the
steepest slope that we permit in Town is a 2:1 slope and we routinely appro=
ve
slopes at that level coming right out, where you require a 10 to 15 foot le=
vel
area and then right to the slope.
Ms. Sturgis: But we don’t know what the s=
lope
is.
Mr. Duplissie: =
Wait, you routinely require that or=
you
approve them that way?
Mr. Berger:=
This Commission routinely approves=
them
that way, (inaudible) feet back yard.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 15
Mr. Duplissie: =
So what you’re saying is that=
that
is acceptable, that’s how this was accepted by Planning and Zoning wi=
th
that, those on that site because it was acceptable. It met with their requirements;
that’s how it met a lot.
Mr. Berger:=
We do it almost every meeting.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> So the back of the house, there is =
no
requirement on how much room you’ve got to leave?
Mr. Berger:=
I’ve been asking for 10 to 1=
5 feet
cause it doesn’t make sense to me to come =
out
your walk out and immediately do a 2:1 slope. I’ve been inquiring and appl=
icants
have been complying with a 10 to 15 foot wide level area to walk out your w=
alk
out, but there isn’t a regulation that says that they have to do
that. They can go right to a =
2:1.
Mr. Duplissie: =
And we just had that one in front o=
f us,
with Terry Meyers, I can’t remember that little 3 lot subdivision
(inaudible) the back of the house was the edge of the cliff, and that was a
nasty drop off, that was a 40 foot drop over there. They wanted to have a lot there an=
d it
met our requirements so it wasn’t up to us to say yes
or no, so they met our requirements.
Mr. Undercuffler: So what did you come up with here,=
what
is the distance?
Mr. Duplissie: Well I was just looking at the side yard, the de=
sign
of this house, it’s kind of long and it’s broken up the way that
they show it on this drawing, and you can get the same square footage house=
by
moving it closer to the setback property line and I’m looking at how =
many
more feet you would gain to the slope.&nbs=
p;
Depending on how you set that up, you could still end up with 15, 20
feet of level area before you got the slope. I don’t mean, again, Mr. Mow=
ad,
I’m not trying to give anybody a hard time and I don’t want to
redesign the wheel for you.
Atty. Mowad: I just don’t understand what
you’re proposing.
&nbs= p; &= nbsp; Mr. Duplissie: If you look at= this drawing that you have here, you’ve got the house is kind of long, elongated on this drawing, but if you make it more of a box and you move it more towards, I don’t see the north arrow on here, north, if you bring it closer to the north setback line, correct? Cause right now the house, you measured it, it’s about 30 feet from the set= back line?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 16
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Nesteriak: Right. I don’t know how that helps =
you
since the slope goes across the entire property,=
it
keeps going almost to the setback line.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: But these grade
lines are 2 foot grade lines, correct?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Nesteriak: 2 foot, yea.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: So if that’s 30 feet over he=
re,
regardless, it’s 2, 4, 6 feet, you’r=
e only
talking 6 feet and 15 feet and that’s less than a 2:1 slope, which is=
not
really a steep slope, correct?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Nesteriak: I don’t =
now.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Duplissie: From here to h=
ere,
what’s that distance?
&=
nbsp; &=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: Is this the only h=
ouse
that you can put on this lot? Can
you change the footprint of this house to make it narrower or something?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Nesteriak: The constraint=
s lie
in the lot itself. Whatever h=
ouse
you have there you’re going to have a ditch in the back yard, so I
don’t know what changing the house is really going to do when you sti=
ll
have a ravine running through your back yard, and that’s what we̵=
7;re
trying to . . . . .
= ; Mr. Duplissie: But that’= ;s what we’re saying, is that it is an approved building lot with the ra= vine there.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Nesteriak: Absolutely, I
understand that, that’s why we try to take it as an opportunity to ta=
ke
this watercourse, that really isn’t a very functioning wetland per the
wetland scientist, and create a new set of wetlands, or expand on the more
functioning area more downstream and open it up so we can mitigate even fur=
ther
and in a better way.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: I thought the l=
ast
time, after we spoke about this, because it was not a
pristine wetlands, we suggested to move the house over, go over, and then f=
ill
in just enough in the back to have a back yard. That was our suggestion to them, if=
you
remember correctly. But they =
did,
and now we’re saying you did all the work, and we’re not going =
to
look at it. I don’t thi=
nk
that’s fair. I mean if =
this
was a watercourse all the time, this only works when you get a lot of water,
that’s the only time you’re really getting, you know sometimes =
when
it doesn’t rain, you don’t even see =
any
water.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 17
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Rafey: This is an intermi=
ttent
watercourse.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Polletta: Right, so my point is that after w=
e went
on the field trip we suggested that because it was not a pristine wetlands,
maybe you can move the house over and we’ll give you just enough to h=
ave
a back yard, maybe 50, 60 feet, and (inaudible) they came before us, as far=
as
the septic system, I don’t care if it’s here or there, the reas=
on
why I was saying put it back over here, because it was recommended by an en=
gineer
with more experience to put it there, but I think that I personally donR=
17;t
have any problem in this area to fill in about 60 feet. I think it would be worse to leave=
it
the way it is.
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: What is the slope now? Is it 2:1?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Nesteriak: It’s about 2.5:1
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: What’=
s the
minimum fill in that you could get away with, lengthwise?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Nesteriak: We’re ju=
st
about there. If you look at t=
he
plan, it shows the new outlet and the new slope that we’re proposing,
it’s going to be about halfway through the house, so they are really =
only
getting a yard (inaudible) of the back yard. I don’t think we can really =
pull
it back much further.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: And that back yard is going to be =
level
then? It’s still going =
to
have a slope isn’t it?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Nesteriak: Well it will s=
lope
(inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: Are you filling it up to that
driveway? It is going to be p=
retty
level.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Nesteriak: It’s going to be, it’s=
going
to (inaudible), it’s going to be a gradual slope and then eventually =
drop
off to (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: You’re not going up to where=
those
driveways are?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Nesteriak: No, you’=
d have
to drain of course, so we’re not proposing (inaudible). It will be about 6 to 8 feet lower=
than
those driveways, slowly and then continually going down. Just to add a point, this is the s=
ame
activity that was approved for two other driveways.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #533 – CONCETTA GUERRERA
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
PAGE 18
&=
nbsp; Ms.
Sturgis: So how far will it flatten before =
it
starts to slope down? I mean
it’s going to start out level with those driveways right, as you come=
out
like this and then you’re going to . . . . .
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Nesteriak: No, cause the
slope continues up past the property line, so 10, 15 feet from the property
line it will start getting filled, and gradually go down 4, 6 feet and then=
it
will eventually go to a 2:1 or 3:1 slope down to the (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: You talk about those driveways, wh=
ich
driveways (inaudible)?
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Nesteriak: The existing <=
span
class=3DGramE>pipe that we’re connecting into at the northern end of =
the
site are pipes that were used to cross this same watercourse for the=
two
lots above it.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: So you̵=
7;re
saying it’s not going to be that high.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Nesteriak: It’s not really =
that
high, it’s going to be 6 or 8 feet lower than that, and continuing co=
ming
down.
&=
nbsp; Mr.
Undercuffler: Do we have enough information to c=
lose
the Hearing?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Beauchamp) to Close the Public Hearing for App. #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 Lane, Watertown,=
CT.
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Closed at about 8:45 p.m. (no time given).
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Bernard
Beauchamp, Acting Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary