MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
PUBLIC H=
EARING
JOHN TRU=
MBULL
PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER
THURSDAY,
DECEMBER 15, 2005 - 7:30 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION
#540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
PRESENT: &nb=
sp; =
G=
len
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
ABSENT: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
Bernard Beauchamp
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nb=
sp; None
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Martha Sturgis
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant=
Wetlands
Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at about 7:50 p.m. (=
no
time given).
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 2
3. =
Hearing
of Applications
&= nbsp; B. = Application #540 of Arthur Howland for construction of 11 lot Cider Hill subdivision located on the west side of Old Baird Road and south side of Woodbury Road, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by January 19, 2006, unless applic=
ant
grants a time extension.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Jones, Secretary, read aloud the Legal Notice for the record:
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; The Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency of the Town of Watertown will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 15, 2005 at John Trumbull Primary School Media Center, 779 Buckingham Street, Oakville, CT to hear and act upon the following application deemed a significant activity by the Conservation Commission/inland Wetlands Agency pursuant to Section 2.1(dd1-7) of the Watertown Inland, Wetlands, and Watercourse Regulations.<= o:p>
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Application
#540 of Arthur Howland to conduct the following regulated activities involv=
ed
in the subdivision of a 34.2 acre parcel of land into 11 residential buildi=
ng
lots located on the west side of Old Baird Road and south side of Woodbury =
Road
(State Route 6), Watertown, CT in an R-70 Residential Zoning District:
=
1. Disturbance of approxi=
mately
13,700 square feet of the wetland setback area by construction of a drivewa=
y on
proposed Lot #8 and installation of underground detention systems on Lots #=
7,
#9, and #11.
=
2. Installation of erosio=
n and
sediment control systems within wetland/ watercourse and the 50 feet wetland
setback area.
=
3. Discharge of storm run=
off
from the development into wetlands/watercourse.
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
Dated at
Ron Jones, Secretary
Conservation
Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency"
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 3
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Jim
Strub, Attorney, Siecor, Cassidy & McPartland
Atty. Strub: I’m here on behalf of the owner, Mr. Hardi=
sty,
Cider Hill Application. The f=
irst
thing I have are the mail receipts.
We also have, I know there was a site visit to focus on the on site
improvements that are within the regulated area. We have some additional plans with=
some
revisions based on the visit to the site.&=
nbsp;
I’ll let the engineer, Arthur Howland, go over the changes.
(Tape #1, Side A ended
– may have missed some.)
Mr. Howland: I’m pinch hitting for Paul (inaudible) on =
the
project who couldn’t make it and I believe he was on the walk through
with you.
The plans that were gi=
ven
out to you this evening reflect changes as a result of the walk and the
comments of the Commission on the walk. I can start from here and you can t=
ell me
(inaudible) over to the map. =
As it
is presently there are no direct wetland impacts, and the changes on
Mr. Rafey: You can show them that map (inaudible).
Mr. Howland:
Mr. Zawadzki: So that eliminates some disturbance of a setback=
?
Mr. Howland: That’s correct. The Mark Lane it’s a similar
situation it was moved further away.
That’s actually now it’s outside, it’s out of the
regulated area, (inaudible) and here it recharges. The wetlands are right here. We looked at
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 4
Now what we did do on =
that
is that you know it’s a little piece of wetlands up here and then
there’s a larger wetlands here, and according to the soil scientist
there’s no connection, however we did face the pipe and cased it right
over the wetlands flow, under the driveway, we also are calling for a rock =
base
under the driveway (inaudible) so the water could pass through any water th=
at
should have came (inaudible) was able to get through and (inaudible) is wha=
t it
would be doing. And on the la=
st
sheet of plans is a typical section on the construction.
Mr. Zawadzki: Why wouldn’t you just put a culvert?
Mr. Howland: There is one there, but rather than encourage po=
int
flow we put the rock base under there so water could shoot through.
Mr. Zawadzki: Will that clog up with sediment, leaves, sticks?=
Mr. Howland: If it ever does the pipe is there. On Lot #7 (inaudible) moved out of=
the
regulated area, so it’s no longer in it. (Inaudible.) There are 10 plus acres of open sp=
ace,
much of it covering wetlands. Do
you have any questions?
Mr. Zawadzki: Have you considered conservation easements on Lo=
ts
#4, #5, and #6, and even #7? =
They
are deep lots and they have a lot of wetlands on each of those plus it woul=
d be
contiguous to what’s already proposed as open space?
Mr. Howland: I agree it would be contiguous. We could look into that.
Mr. Zawadzki: I assume those lots are adequately sized for the
70,000 foot?
Mr. Howland: All lots meet the zoning regulations in size.
Mr. Zawadzki: But this is R-70, right?
Mr. Howland: R-70.
Mr. Zawadzki: You show an access here to open space from Route=
6,
what’s the thinking there, that this is where the public would be abl=
e to
go in and have access with foot trails and that type of thing?
Mr. Howland: That was the suggestion of some of the meetings = we had with other commissions, and we originally had set up just an access off= of 6, and it was suggested instead of (inaudible) so people can walk through.<= o:p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 5
Mr. Zawadzki: But the one off of Route 6 is not that great in
terms of where you would park or that type of thing, and I just wondered if
there was an alternative access?
Mr. Howland: Well that’s what’s provided on the
(inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: Well where would you park there?
Mr. Howland: That (inaudible) park somewhere down the road I
would think. That’s pro=
bably
a planning issue (inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: Right, but the wetlands and open space is our is=
sue
and I was just curious as to what your thoughts were accessing it.
Mr. Undercuffler: What is the uplands acreage of open space? I’m thinking primarily behin=
d #8
and #9 because that other area is pretty (inaudible) unusable.
Mr. Howland: Yea, this area here as you can see by the contou=
rs
(inaudible) #8 and #9 (inaudible).
Also in back of Lots #1, #2, #3, and #4, there is considerable amoun=
t of
wetlands with elevation.
Mr. Undercuffler: That’s pretty much a steep hill, isn’=
;t
it.
Mr. Howland: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Undercuffler: No, well the contour is pretty close
there.
Mr. Howland: That’s 100 scale.
Mr. Undercuffler: Okay, but it’s separate from the other. . =
. .
. . .
Mr. Duplissie: Yea, there’s no access, you have to go thr=
ough
the wetlands from Route 6 or from the road.
Mr. Undercuffler: Right.
Mr. Duplissie: What’s the width between the two wetlands =
on
Lot #8?
Mr. Howland: (Inaudible) 60 feet.
Mr. Duplissie: That’s one little piece of wetlands, corre=
ct?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 6
Mr. Howland: Yes.
It’s a small piece that (inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: But yet you indicated there is drainage there
between that piece and the larger piece that would pass under the driveway?=
Mr. Howland: (Inaudible) according to soil scientist (inaudib=
le).
Mr. Zawadzki: There was no watercourse there, no intermittent?=
Mr. Howland: No, he checked it and he said there isn’t.=
Mr. Polletta: The water that was running on the paper street
(inaudible), what are you going to do with the drainage ditch there?
Mr. Howland: I can’t answer that question because there=
are
no plans for that road to be built at this time.
Mr. Polletta: Well how are you going to get to these lots?
Mr. Howland: That’s being negotiated with the Town now =
as
to how the road is going to be built.
Mr. Polletta: I know but on the wetlands, at least for us, so =
you
should have had some kind of, you see water right in the middle of that pap=
er
street when we walked. Somebo=
dy has
to address that; what are you going to do with that water?
Mr. Howland: That will be a separate application from this
application.
Mr. Duplissie: How does that work then? How do we approve a subdivision wh=
en the
access is going to be running over water?&=
nbsp;
The only way access is to go over this road which is running water, I
mean there literally are springs running down this road. How do you handle that?
Atty. Strub: Regarding the issue with the road, unlike a
subdivision that builds the road in the middle of the subdivision as part of
its improvement, this site is adjacent to a Town road. Now before these lots could be acc=
essed,
it would have to be improved to a certain standard, but at this time the
application that is before you is for the subdivision site itself.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 7
There has been some
communication between the applicant and the Town and the Town has expressed
some interest in having it improved.
As Mr. Howland said it’s unresolved at this time how that will
move forward, but before that separate application that would have to come
before the Commission, before the improvements off site on essentially a
different side of that road before that could be made.
Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible.)&nb=
sp;
Is it a Town road?
Atty. Strub: Correct.
Mr. Polletta: So that means if we approve this you can build t=
he
house and use that dirt road? It
looks like you don’t have the answer. I’m looking at this and I=
217;m
wondering how we can approve this when we don’t know who is going to
build this and what you’re going to use it for. When we went on the field trip I t=
hought
the applicant was going to construct this road according to the paper street
regulations, but maybe I misunderstood that, and if that’s the case, =
for
us to vote on this and not knowing what we’re going to go do with this
water, where we’re going to go, I think you should get that clear fir=
st.
Atty. Strub: We received Mr. Berger’s letter today I
don’t know if you’ve seen it, and based on past conversations w=
ith
the Town, obviously there is going to have to be resolution of this issue.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I think it’s more of a plann=
ing
issue, a Town issue as to how this gets approved. The applicant might or might not p=
lay a
part of that. It’s our
feeling that the applicant has no obligation at this time to improve the ro=
ad
but there’s obviously (inaudible).
Mr. Polletta: You’re saying that Planning and Zoning is
going to decide who will build this road?
Atty. Strub: I don’t know that they’re going to
decide, but the Town is going to be involved in that discussion.
Mr. Polletta: I think you should come before us after those questions are answered so we don’t have to look through both things.<= o:p>
Atty. Strub: There are two separate, there are two separate
applications.
Mr. Duplissie: The situation is that if we vote on this thing, =
it
would be subject to conditions, and one of the conditions would be that this
road has to be improved and that has to be taken care of and it has to come
before us before any construction can go on on this 11 lot subdivision. You would want to have that taken =
care of
before we would allow any construction (inaudible).
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 8
Atty. Strub: I understand your concern and I hope that by the
next meeting we can respond to Mr. Berger’s letter and also respond to
the Commission in a way that is satisfactory to you. We don’t have all those answ=
ers this
evening, again exactly how to respond formally to this letter we haven̵=
7;t
concluded yet given (inaudible).
Mr. Zawadzki: Since it has come up here in conversation, let me
read the letter in question into the record:
"
Moosa Rafey
Assistant Wetland
Enforcement Officer
From: Charles E. Berger, Jr., Town Engin=
eer
December 15, 2005
Re: Conservation Inland/Inland
Wetlands Agency
Application
#540, Cider Hill Subdivision
I have received the
application for the above referenced project consisting of a storm water
management report dated October 12, 2005 and plans dated August 30, 2005
prepared by Arthur Holland, PC and an environmental review prepared by Jodi=
e T.
Chase, dated December, 1991 with a supplemental memorandum dated May 4, 1992
and a soil report prepared by Henry T. Moeller, dated September 7, 1990 with
supplemental report dated January 4, 1992 and May 12, 1992. The plans consist of sheet 1 of 6 =
record
subdivision map sheet 2, 3, 4, 5 of 6 proposed site development plan, gradi=
ng
plan, and erosion and sedimentation control plan and sheet 6 of 6 soil and
erosion and sedimentation control plan.&nb=
sp;
Based on a preliminary review of the information submitted, the
application does not address access to the proposed subdivision. Improvements will be necessary to =
Cc: Arthur H. Howland, PC”
Mr. Zawadzki: Any comments on that letter?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 9
Atty. Strub: Just the comments I had earlier and essentially =
just
to summarize, before we formally respond in kind to the letter, it’s =
our
feeling that the subdivision site is a separate application from that which
will be done on to Old Baird Road in the future and at this time certainly =
the
anticipated water treatment can’t be reviewed on what we submitted but
that wasn’t our intent, our intent was to review the on site
proposal. We’ll respond=
as I
said to the letter specifically at the next meeting.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Zawadzki: Do you really t=
hink
that the environmental review prepared by Jodie Chase prepared in 1991 would
still be applicable?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Atty.
Strub: I think it probably
would be.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: Mr. Chairman, I just
reviewed the addendum, because if you put the plan in front of you and read
that report, there is no way we can match up what the report says with this
plan. That has to be reviewed=
by
Jodie Chase and (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Howland: We could have her do an
updated . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: That was written for a
totally different subdivision. I
was reading the report and looking at the plan, and there’s no way to
match it up. The lot numbers =
are
different, the locations are different. . . . . .
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Howland: I’ll see if I can have her p=
repare
something (inaudible) report (inaudible).
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: And write it accor=
ding
to this plan.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Howland: Yes, of course.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Undercuffler: Moosa, you =
made
some points here in your memo, will that be covered by the revised Jodie Ch=
ase
report, you mentioned the description of the ecological communities and
function?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: (Inaudible) if he needs a copy of =
my
memorandum.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Howland: (Inaudible) has =
it
been sent out?
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Mr.
Rafey: We mailed it to you with an Agenda=
.
Mr. Howland: I have not read that concern. I’m really here at the last
minute. Our office is closed
(inaudible) so we’ll review it.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 10
Mr. Rafey: There were a few other issues concerning the wet=
land
impacts. I’ll make a co=
py for
you tomorrow and send it to you.
Mr. Howland: Was that emailed or faxed to us?
Mr. Rafey: No, we mailed it with the Agenda.
Mr. Howland: Okay.
Whispering, can’=
t hear
at all.
(Tape #1, Side B ended
– may have missed some.)
Mr. Zawadzki: Any other comments from the Commission?
Mr. Howland: If we could get (inaudible) address these before=
the
next meeting I’d certainly appreciate it.
Mr. Zawadzki: Well I think we’ve already hit a couple of=
the
key ones. The environmental i=
mpact
study certainly must be updated, and requesting the practicality, the access
off of Route 6, and well just the whole practical mature of the proposal
(inaudible) anything proposed for Baird Road so since this is the public
hearing, at this point we’d like to ask the public if anyone has any
comments, now would be the time to present them.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Dorothy Dorso, (Inaudi=
ble)
Ms. Dorso: Just wanted to know what is (inaudible) people t=
hat
are downstream from this proposed development?
Mr.
Zawadzki: Well that’s what
we’re here to find out and that’s why the environmental impact
study which we just questioned, that was done in 1990, that needs to be red=
one
and brought up to date for this specific proposal because in 1990 lot sizes
were different, I don’t even know whether it was R-70 at the time, but
that’s besides the point, right now it is R-70 and the environmental
impact has to be redone based on the locations of these houses, these curta=
in
drains, these septics systems, and these wells, and obviously the wetland
boundaries have not changed since 1990 but everything else has to, to answer
your question, we just requested that from the applicant.
Ms. Dorso: (Inaudible) not only the particular lot itself b=
ut
the surrounding areas.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 11
Mr.
Zawadzki: Well there are two asp=
ects
of this and one is the impact to the wetlands, which is our purpose here as=
the
Conservation Commission, the other is the Torrington Health District and th=
ey’re
the ones that are finally responsible for the location of septic systems and
wells. They have rules. If you look at this map you’=
ll see
a circle back on each of these lots where the well would be located. There are septic systems also draw=
n in
and those things have to meet the approval of the Torrington Health District
lot by lot. If they don’=
;t
approve the, why they don’t get done, and that’s not our busine=
ss
here, but the Torrington Health District has to pass on this proposal so th=
at
would be how the septic systems might impact your downstream residence.
Ms. Dorso: I’m worried about my own well and my own
septic and house.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Absolutely, sure, and =
unfortunately
that’s not our responsibility here, but the Torrington Area Health Di=
strict
addresses that.
Ms. Dorso: Will there be a separate Hearing for that?
Mr.
Zawadzki: No.
Ms. Dorso: Will that be addressed the next time?
Mr.
Zawadzki: They pass on these
developments, have they already done that?=
Has the Torrington Health District reviewed this proposal?
Mr. Howland: (Inaudible) for sure, I thought they had, I know
they did the previous application, I’ll have to check on that.
Mr.
Zawadzki: They will and if there=
is
anything that doesn’t meet their standards it will be changed.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well at the continuation of this Hearing we woul=
d be
discussing that.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Yea, this Hearing will
continue into next month and maybe beyond.
Ms. Dorso: Do you have a regularly scheduled meeting night?=
Mr. Zaw= adzki: Yes, the second Thursday of every month.<= o:p>
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 12
Mr. Rafey: If the Commission approves their meeting dates
tonight, the next meeting will be January 12th. We will send you a notice, the app=
licant
will notify all of the abutting property owners.
Ms. =
Dorso: I received a notice for today, that’s why
I’m here, so I just wanted to make sure that I’m aware of the n=
ext
meeting.
Mr. Rafey: They will send you another notice for that
meeting. Mr. Chairman, there =
was an
old application for this site, I think a wetlands permit was issued for this
and then the time expired and they didn’t do any work. We have Atty. Pilicy present here,=
do
you want to hear something about the history of this site?
Franklin Pilicy, Town Attorney
Atty. Pilicy: <=
/b> This site was the subject of an
application before this agency in 1992.&nb=
sp;
And it was application #240.
The application was denied by this Commission on February 11, 1993, I
believe, and the reason the application was denied was because the applicant
did not provide any application documentation for information concerning the
wetlands impacts that would occur if the road was constructed and any poten=
tial
wetland impacts on the subdivision property that could be occasioned by
construction of the road regardless of who constructed the road. An appeal to Superior Court was fi=
led
and the Superior Court requested or remanded the case to the Town with the
understanding that the applicant would submit all of the information with
respect to wetlands impacts and drainage treatment to the Town Engineer for
review if the road were to be constructed, and the agreement or understandi=
ng
of the Court was that if all of that information was submitted to the
satisfaction of the Town Engineer, then the Commission would approve the
application, and during January of 1995 there was a report maybe dated earl=
ier
date than that, but nevertheless the applicant did provide all of the requi=
red
information concerning potential drainage impacts and wetlands impacts woul=
d be
occasioned by construction of the road regardless of who constructed the ro=
ad,
and upon receipt of that information the Town Engineer approved the
information, and after the Town Engineer approved the information, the Wetl=
ands
Commission entered into a stipulated judgment to approve the application.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 13
Mr.
Zawadzki: Well I think it’=
s a
fair stipulation that regardless of who builds the road, and that’s t=
he
issue to be resolved, but not here, obviously it’s going to be an imp=
act,
so I think that your environmental impact study is going to have to reflect
that.
Mr. Rafey: Do you want Atty. Policy to give you a legal opi=
nion
about this?
Mr.
Undercuffler: The way it stands now?=
Mr. Rafey: Yes, what the legal issues are . . . . .
Mr.
Zawadzki: Well yea, cause I thin=
k Mr.
Polletta raised the issue that why are we looking at this if we don’t
have access to these lots, so I guess it would be a good time to get a legal
opinion.
Mr. Duplissie: Well the other thing is if you look down at this
proposed subdivision, and you look at the road, and the road cuts right thr=
ough
that one piece of wetlands, right after Lot #8, so obviously there is going=
to
be some impact. How do you wi=
den
that road and make it properly accessible for the rest of the lots without
eliminating that wetland? The=
re’s
definitely a situation where the road impacts the (inaudible) wetland issue=
and
the lots impact the wetland issue, how do you approve one but not the
other? It’s hard to sep=
arate
the two.
Mr. Zaw=
adzki:
That’s why I said, regardless=
of
who builds the road, there is going to be an impact.
Mr. Duplissie: I think the only way to approve anything on these
lots would be only subject to condition that nothing gets done until the is=
sue
of the road is settled cause we can’t (inaudible) approval
(inaudible). Subject to that
condition.
Mr.
Undercuffler: If the road gets built=
and
it doesn’t have any adverse impact on what we already approved, I mea=
n we
might approve it with certain assumptions and they come along and build the
road (inaudible).
Mr. Duplissie: Well they wouldn’t be able to build the ro=
ad
without coming to us, cause there’s wetlands right in the road, so the
road construction would have to be approved, but it might change approvals =
for
the subdivision.
Mr.
Rafey: That will probably cha=
nge
the entire subdivision because right now there is no detention systems prov=
ided
for the road drainage, it doesn’t matter who builds the road, there
should be some drainage system for the road and how they’re going to =
take
care of the water runoff from the road.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 14
Mr.
Zawadzki: Mr. Pilicy, do you hav=
e any
clarification at this time?
Atty. Pilicy: I have the issues. I will look at those and provide
something before your next meeting or at the next meeting.
Mr.
Rafey: Just separate the issu=
es,
Atty. Pilicy will look at the legal issues and the Commission will review a=
ll
the wetland impacts and issues and then the applicant should provide the
additional information by next month.
I sent a copy of my memorandum (inaudible) wetland issues in my memo
that they can respond to that. One
of them, Mr. Howland, Jodie Chase mentioned in her report that there is a
watercourse on the side of Route 6, there are 2 driveways for those two lot=
s,
and if there is a watercourse those 2 driveways crossing that watercourse a=
nd
that’s an impact on the wetlands and that’s not part of this
application. Your soil scient=
ist
should look at that area to see if there is a watercourse or wetland, and
that’s another regulated activity.&n=
bsp;
For open space, I can suggest, make a suggestion that it’s up =
to
the Commission and Planning and Zoning to access from Route 6, any kind of
access way that is to be built there is required a wetland crossing, so
that’s another impact which is part of this subdivision. I suggested that you use Lot #1 as =
open
space and put an access way from there, it doesn’t require any regula=
ted
activity there, as a feasible and prudent alternative you can combine Lot #1
with the open space. ThatR=
17;s
just a suggestion. It’s=
in my
memorandum.
Mr. Howland: It’s in your memo?
Mr. Rafey: =
Yes.
Mr.
Zawadzki: Yes, that’s anot=
her
requirement to consider, feasible and prudent alternatives, besides the one=
you
present, and at least explain to us what other ones you’ve considered=
and
ruled out and why.
Mr. Rafey: The septic system on Lot #7, I suggested you cha=
nge
the location of the septic it changes with that underground infiltration
system, put that where the septic system is cause that’s too close to=
the
wetlands, and bring the septic system closer to the house. It doesn’t have to be that f=
ar,
they can put it right here.
Mr. Zaw=
adzki:
Okay anything else from the Commiss=
ion? Okay another comments from the
public? Any other comments fr=
om the
applicant?
Atty. S=
trub: No, thank you, we will obviously ta=
ke all
of your comments under advisement and hopefully get all the responses that
you’re looking for. Tha=
nk you
very much.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #540 – ARTHUR HOWLAND
DECEMBER 15, 2005
PAGE 15
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; MOTION: (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. Duplissie) to Table the Public Hearing for App. #540, of
Arthur Howland for construction of 11 lot Cider Hill subdivision located on=
the
west side of Old Baird Road and south side of Woodbury Road, Watertown, CT.=
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
&nbs=
p; Public
Hearing Recessed at about 8:15 p.m. (no time given).
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Ronald =
Jones,
Secretary
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary