beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

PUBLIC H= EARING

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRUMBULL PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2005 - 7:30 P.M.

&nb= sp;

APPLICAT= ION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

&nb= sp;

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

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

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Joseph Polletta

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

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

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Denise Russ

= ; &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 8:15 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 #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

3. = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; C. Application #542 of William Davidson for construction of 18 lot residential subdivision located on the south side of Morris Town Line Highway and east side of Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Recess or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by January 19, 2006, unless applic= ant grants a time extension.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki: We received a letter from the City= of Waterbury, Bureau = of Water, I’d like to read it into the record:

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; “Town of Watertown

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Inland/Wetland Commission

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; 51 Depot Street

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Watertown, CT 06795=

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Re: Propo= sed Subdivision Development

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Morris Town Line Road (Davidson Farms)

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Dear Members of the Inland/Wetland Commission:

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; The City of Waterbury Bureau of Water (W.B.W.) would like to make the following comments to the above mentioned proposal as follows:

&nb= sp;

= 1. The W.B.W. in general = does not favor any type of development within the designated watershed areas.

= 2. The proposed subdivisi= on development does indeed fall within a designated watershed for the City of Waterbury, Bureau of Water.<= /span>

= 3. Our main concern with = this proposal relates to any potential negative impacts associated with runoff, including but not limited to, oils, detergents, salts, herbicides, pesticid= es, silt, and sediment from both impervious and non-impervious (disturbed and undisturbed) surfaces.

= 4. We are also concerned = with the installation of any type of subsurface septic system. Again, our main concern is runoff = that could potentially occur from a failed septic system into the watershed.

= 5. While the W.B.W. is no= t a regulatory authority concerning private property per say, we trust the Town of Watertown will ta= ke the necessary actions on our behalf, as well as nature’s, to protect the watershed area.

Very truly yours,=

Donald J. Carver<= /o:p>

Environmental Resource= & Water Quality Manager”

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Jones, Secretary, read aloud the Legal Notice for the record:

&nb= sp;

Legal Notice

&nb= sp;

&= 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 applications 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.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Application #542 of William Davidson to conduct the following regulated activities invo= lved in the subdivision of a 74.59 acre parcel of land into 18 residential build= ing lots and construction of approximately 3,300 linear feet of new roadway and= associated drainage system located on Morris Town Line Highway, Watertown, CT in an R-90 Residential Zoning Dis= trict:

&nb= sp;

= 1. Disturbance of 4,300 s= quare feet of the wetland setback area on proposed Lot 3 by construction of detention basin “B”.

= 2. Disturbance of 500 squ= are feet of inland wetland/watercourse and 2,600 square feet of the wetland set= back area on proposed Lot 7 by construction o= f a driveway.

= 3. Disturbance of 350 squ= are feet of inland wetland/watercourse and 4,500 square feet of wetland setback area on proposed Lot 8 by construction o= f a driveway and proposed detention basin “C”.

= 4. Disturbance of approxi= mately 1,200 square feet of inland wetland and 7,000 square feet of wetland setback area on proposed Lot 14 by construction = of detention basin “A”.

= 5. Piping disturbance of approximately 60 linear feet of an intermittent watercourse by construction= of proposed Davidson Road in front of Lots 3 and 9.

= 6. Disturbance of 9,900 s= quare feet of wetland setback area by construction of proposed Davidson Road.

= 7. Installation of erosio= n and sediment control systems within wetland/ watercourse and the 50 feet wetland setback area.

= 8. 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.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

Dated at Watertown, CT this 1^stday of December 2005.

Dated at Watertown, CT this 8^th day of December 2005.

Ron Jones, Secretary

Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Ron George, Professional Engineer, C.C.A.

Mr. George: The applicant is William Davidson. The property is zoned residential R-90. It’s located at t= he intersection of Route 63 and Morris Town Line Road on the east side. It’s about 74.50 acres. A lot of this stuff is things we’ve gone through before but I'll say it again in case there’s= someone new in the public. We are approximately 1,000 feet south of the Morris Town Line Road. The front portion of the site is o= pen fields and they’re predominantly wooded. There’s some various buildin= gs on site, a lot of them are falling down, there is an old farmhouse, (inaudible) post being removed from the site. As I said there’s 18 single family homes proposed there, 3 of = them will front off of Morris T= own Line Road; the other 15 will access a proposed new = road that we’re proposing. T= he length of that road is about 4,900 feet long. We talked to the Planning and Zoni= ng Commission on an informal basis and requested a road width of 44 feet reduc= tion from 30 feet. They have agree= d to that as well, and they will not require sidewalks (inaudible) decreases the amount of impervious area that we’ll have on the site. They also requested that we do open space, but a fee in lieu of, and the applicant has agreed to do that as wel= l.

The wetland impacts &#= 8211; the two driveways for Lot 7 and 8 are cr= ossing a small band of wetlands, those are the only two direct wetland impacts we = have involved with this site. They= would cross a 15 inch culvert with headwalls to reduce the (inaudible) area within the wetlands, and like I just computed, Lot 7 will have 500 square feet of = disturbance and Lot 8 will have 350 feet square feet= of disturbance. The regulated activities on the site have been mentioned, they were Lot 2, 7, 8, 9 and 14. Lot 3 is the detention basin. Lot 7 and 8 are the driveway cross= ings, Lot 9 is a footing drain outlet and Lot 14 i= s also a detention basin, so those are the regulated activities.=

We’ve provided 3= detention basins on the site to provide zero increase in runoff, one is at each entra= nce and the other one is at the far eastern end of the road. Basically the way the land contours= and runs off, we had to split if off into 2 separate areas to try and match the existing runoff (inaudible). = All of the stuff that’s been shown on the plan have been designed for 4 bedr= ooms, and they will be at least 75 feet from the wetlands and they are also going= to be 100 feet from any watercourse. The Health Department requires 75 feet from the wetlands, and we have that in there, and the Health Department is now reviewing the subdivision (= inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

We are not located in = the flood hazard zone but as you know we are within that = Waterbury watershed and we did send not= ification obviously, because you got notice back.&nb= sp; The sediment fence that we have shown is the limit of construction a= nd where we haven’t shown it it’s represented by the symbol CLL. We tried to keep it as tight as possible. We contacted the Fi= re Department and spoke to the Fire Chief and he requested that we provide two 10,000 gal= lon tanks and the location that is shown is where they would like to see them.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> One is over by Lot 3, by the deten= tion basin and the other one is near Lot 12.

As far as the drainage= goes, the road is going to have no curbs, but it will have swales, and has all be= en designed in accordance with the Watertown Subdivision Regulations. The catch basins will have 4 foot = sumps to help with the sediment removal. The detention basins will also include some sediment 4 bays to help = as well. We should get some water quality out of the swales and also out of those detention basins. The basins were all sized for the = 2 to 100 year storm frequency, filling the 2004 Connecticut Storm Water Quality = Manual and the 2002 Connecticut Guidelines. These were all deemed a necessity (Tape #2, Side A ended – may have missed some.) taking all three detention basins into consideration, we= had a total net runoff for predevelopment of 44.9 csfs, and the post development conditions for all 3 basins was 38.3 cfs, a net decrease of approximately 6= .6 cfs. It includes roof drainag= e that we didn’t include in the detention basin for Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 that also takes into that as well, so we have a net decrease for the whole = site itself, a net decrease for each detention basin and we’re not increas= ing any runoff off this property at all.

I think that about cov= ers what I want to say right now. We received staff comments the other day and we’re working on making tho= se revising plans and addressing those comments, obviously we didn’t have time to get them to you today, but by the next meeting you’ll have them. Are there any questions= ?

Mr. Zawadzki: You mentioned that there is no net increase in runoff, but are there, did you check the impact of less runoff into the wetlands? I mean there’s always the danger that if you interrupt the flow of intermittent watercours= e or that type of thing, you could block flow or water, natural water into the wetlands.

Mr. George: I think our decrease is not significant enough to affect that. Anything the det= ention basin "A" we have 18.9 for predevelopment, the total out of there= is almost 17.5 cfs so that’s a decrease of 4.5 cfs. Detention Basin "A" is at the entrance of lot 14. There’s a big swampy area there. So I don’t see t= hat as a problem. Detention Basin “B” is the one on the other side of the road, over by lot 3. Predevelopment we have 42.4 and ta= king the post development of the road and the lot as well, we come up with 17.8,= so that’s a decrease of 4.5 cfs, and once again I don’t think that will create a problem. Detent= ion basin "C" we have an decrease of 1.7 cfs, so again I think that’s minor. Our soil scientist will check the impacts of water qualities and the wetlands; I ass= ume you’re going to (inaudible)?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 6

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: Yes.

Mr. Undercuffler: Who’s is going to do that?

Mr. George: Ned Paul from Connecticut Resource Systems, he delineated the wetlands out there, he was with us on the site walk as well.=

Mr. Rafey: We just received the letter from the City of Waterbury so I th= ink that’s really (inaudible) issue with them. Do you want to have a third party = review on this application?

Mr. Undercuffler: I think that would be good, yea. I’m concerned about the Wate= rbury Watershed.

Mr. Rafey: Cause we have no resources to do that in the Tow= n.

Mr. Polletta: How far is the Waterbury Watershed from your pro= perty?

Mr. Rafey This (inaudible).

Mr. Duplissie: Well what do they expect? I don’t understand it, it= 217;s in part of the watershed, but they don’t want you to develop it so shouldn’t they just buy the property then? If they don’t want to develo= p it and want it to stay natural, they can’t expect people to, I mean the = guy could put horses on this property, it’s a farm right now, and if you = put 1,000 sheep and 500 head of cattle on this, that water quality would be horrible.

Mr. Zawadzki: Well the basic answer there is in a perfect world they’d rather see it not developed, but obviously since they do not o= wn it, that’s not an option. They said in this letter that I just read that they’re countin= g on the Town of Watertown to take the necessary action on their behalf as well = as nature’s so basically that kinds of sums it up.

Mr. Duplissie: Well isn't that what we’re here for anyway= ?

Mr. Zawadzki: Whether it’s the watershed or not, I don’t think that comes into play here. I think we have to do our due dili= gence to protect the wetlands.

Mr. Undercuffler: I think the point Moosa is raising is let’s have somebody evaluate the drainage for this development and what is the li= kely impact on the reservoir, on the water supply?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: You look at all the applications, some areas are worse than others (inaudible). In case something happens, then they could come to the Town and ask us why we = don't look at this issue, and we relayed this question but you didn’t do anything about it. I suggest = we have somebody outside of the Town look at this application and review the impact and then we can give them the third party review’s opinion and= (inaudible).

Mr. Polletta: All of the septic systems have been approved?

Mr. George: Not yet, they’re being reviewed now.<= /o:p>

Mr. Jones: Moosa, is there a precedent to this that we know= of, that is Waterbury asking us to not or to reconsider the possibility of considering their . . = .

Mr. Rafey: Any developer or someone can come here and tell = you that it’s not a good idea to develop this piece of property, but in t= he past this Commission did hire a third party review to review the application (inaudible). We did one on Hollow Road, Lakeview Estates, Mr. Polletta’s application, we hired someone to rev= iew it and there are other applications we suggested to do that too. It’s not the first time we= 217;re doing this.

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, I think it’s a good idea.<= /span>

Mr. Rafey: And they’re totally neutral, they just loo= k at all the impacts and if there are any questions they will raise them and then the applicant can answer.

Mr. Polletta: I agree we should do it.

Mr. Rafey: Mr. George, do you agree with that?. The applicant is the one who pays f= or the third party review.

Mr. George: Pay twice.

Mr. Rafey: = There are a few things that are mis= sing in the application. Usually we don’t have to do that, if we hire somebody to look at it, anyway they will do it.

Mr. George:= So I can have my guy not do it, an= d your guy can do it?

Mr. Rafey: Yes.

Mr. Polletta: It will be a neutral guy and I think it would be good for everybody.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: Usually we hire Land Tech Consultants, they do reviews for this Commission.

Mr. George: Okay, that will be easier that way. As long as I have the opportunity = to talk to them (inaudible).

Mr. Rafey: Of course, any communication that happens you wi= ll get a copy of and if there are any issues you can talk to them. I need a complete set of all the i= nformation that you submitted with the application.

Mr. George: Another set of plans?

Mr. Rafey Yes, another set of plans, the application, and = all the reports that you submitted. Bring them to me as soon as you can and then I can send it to them.

Mr. George: I’ll bring you a set tomorrow.<= /span>

Mr. Zawadzki: Are there any other comments from the Commission members? Is there anyone from= the public who wishes to comment on this application?

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Paul Woodward, 174 Morris Town Line Road,= Watertown, CT 06795= =

Mr. Woodward: I border on the north side of that pond, my neig= hbor below me, David Smith, has a pond, and we're wondering on the impact on the wetlands? The pollution and so forth on Lots 8 and 5. And be= low me towards Lot 3, I believe, 2 brooks run to the City of Waterbury watershed out of my pond, Dave’s pond and below me. What do you people do to protect our ponds other than the silt fence= ?

Mr. Zawadzki: Well that’s what we just asked the applica= nt to approve, just before you stood up, is the authorization of an environmen= tal impact of water quality study by a neutral third party, professional engineer, and they will look at the runoff calculation, the proposed lots, the locations = of everything, and then do an analysis and then come back with a report that w= ill become public information.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>John Palumbo, Watertown, CT 06795= =

Mr. Palumbo: I own the land that borders this property to the east. It’s about a 21 a= cre piece and I’m really here to support this application because I think there’s a consideration having to do with my piece of property and th= e watershed that the board might want to think about. The access to my property historica= lly has been from the lower road, down from Gilbert Road, I don’t know if= the Commission is familiar, Ba= ssett Road goes down, there’s a left on Gilbert and that Pig Lane starts at the end of Gilbert, the abandoned road and it ends up here on 63.=

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 9

&nb= sp;

Now the access to my p= iece has historically been from down off of Gilbert Road, because of the topogr= aphy and that’s the way my piece has always been accessed. It’s very much closer to the reservoir down in that area, and going through that there is a lot of wetla= nd impact going through that lower end, there are water crossings, it’s = wet, it’s really the only practical access that I’ve got to that pie= ce but I’m going to be doing something I hope with that land eventually,= but to access it from the lower end would really have quite a bit more impact, = even if I just use if for my purposes of getting in and out, thinning the woods = or doing whatever I want to do there, so I think that this application has the promise, although it’s not set up this way, I think it has the promis= e of allowing access to my piece in a way that would have much less of an impact= on the wetlands, so the access is not something that I have worked out. I have spoken with Mr. Davidson ab= out it just preliminary, it’s not something that I’ve worked out. I'm hopeful that we can work somet= hing out either through this process or most likely later on, but by putting thi= s subdivision in it certainly would have the promise of getting me better access and of having less impact on the wetlands overall.

Mr. Polletta: Access to your piece off of this road that they’re putting in?

Mr. Palumbo: The way that this is designed, there is no acces= s, and I just started talking to Mr. Davidson recently about it, and frankly I’m really not asking them to start over from scratch on my behalf. I think there might be ways we can= work together on this to ensure that somehow I’d be able to . . . .

Mr. Polletta: You’re looking for an access off of this r= oad?

Mr. Palumbo: Yes.

Mr. Rafey: That parcel is landlocked land the way it is.

Mr. Polletta: Yea, but normally P & Z would (inaudible). Planning and Zoning would normally= never leave you . . . .

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Terry Meyers, Professi= onal Engineer=

Mr. Meyers: John of course is a friend of mine, I surveyed t= hat property for him many years ago. We understand Mr. Davidson’s position because I spoke with his father wh= en he was alive about this property and we’ve talked about access to John’s property at that time. Pig Lane, for some reason in 1897 they discontinued it and there is significant wetlands coming from Route 63, and John’s piece is further in, or closer to the Waterbury reservoir than this part, and needless to say coming the other way is probably, I've walked it many times, probably 3,000 feet, so he would have to build somewhere in the neighborhood of a 3,000 fo= ot driveway to get to access his property.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 10

&nb= sp;

I mean there is an old= road there, the problem is that over many years some of it has washed out, there= are several watercourses across there, they come from significant wetlands off = of Bassett Road and come through here and I did some subdivisions on Bassett R= oad so I know pretty much where those watersheds are going, and they all end up really into the reservoirs, so they’re all part of that reservoir area. And the reason we’= ;re here tonight and the reason I came with John is to let the Commission know = that we’d like to try and work something out somewhere probably in the neighborhood of Lot 8 with them because I think it would have no impact on = the wetlands and basically provide him with access, and we realize it’s n= ot a wetland function, but we want to make the Commission aware that from an environmental sensitivity standpoint, it’s probably the most practical place to be. I examined their= plans and what they have and (inaudible) 15 acre parcel so I mean there’s m= ore than adequate area through there. That’s the only reason we’re here. We’re not opposed to this development, we would like for it to be approved because again there is a p= ossibility of gaining access to the property where he’s never really had it befo= re.

Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, so noted, and we appreciate your concern a= nd of course if anything like that happens, why that will be an application in itself.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Mike Gilbert, Watertown, CT 06795=

Mr. Gilbert: I border the property to the north. I just had a question, I came down= to the Town and got a copy of the map and on one of the maps it shows Lot 5 as= Lot 7, it’s probably a nitpicking thing, but I was wondering if anybody caught that and if it was changed or not?

Mr. George: Yes, it was brought to our attention. It will be addressed in the next s= et of plans that we had. It was tha= t Lot 5 is on the overall plan but then it got transp= osed onto the four scale sheets.

Mr. Gilbert: Because of that I would like to see the City of = Waterbury I hope we get that changed, that they coul= d have Lot 5 to the article they had talked about for the wetlands, because Lot 5 wasn’t mentioned and it is actually in the center of the wetlands, ve= rsus Lot 7.&= nbsp; The City of Waterbury would like to= see that, when they got their paper and if they were looking at the print that I saw, where Lot 7 was Lot 5, that they know that Lot 5 is here, not Lot 7, so they could add that to, so they know that it’s in the wetlands too. Lot 5 wasn’t mentioned, only Lot 7.

Mr. Zawadzki: I thought it did.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 11

&nb= sp;

Mr. Gilbert No, it didn’t. They are considerably closer to the wetlands than Lot 7.

Mr. Zawadzki: I can’t speak for the Waterbury Water Bure= au but their letter did refer specifically to any lot numbers, at least the on= e I just read, unless there's another letter somewhere that I’m not aware= of, but they were just discussing the development in general.=

&nb= sp;

Mr. Gilbert: Well just so that the Committee knows that, that= is too (inaudible) that’s actually closer to both wetlands than Lot 7 and that the wetlands do run down as they stated into a river which is probably= not even a quarter mile that runs into the City of Waterbury.=

Mr. Rafey: Just for your information that looks close to the wetlands.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Gilbert: No, I know that = (inaudible).

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Rafey: Setback for the wetlan= d is 50 feet, as long as they’re outside of the 50 foot regulated area, th= is Commission doesn't have any jurisdiction over them.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Gilbert: No . . . .<= /span>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Rafey: Unless it shows that t= here is an impact on the wetlands.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Gilbert: Yea, right, that’s the wetla= nds, the only reason why I asked is because it was never mentioned, cause Lot 7 on that paper, 5 is actually 7 so that everyb= ody knows that that is corrected. Thank you.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: Any other comments from the public? Any other comments from the Commis= sion? The applicant?

Mr. Rafey: You need two motions, = one for the third party review and a motion to table the public hearing.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. Jones) to Approve the Hiring of a Third Party Review to = do the environmental impact study for App. #542 of William Davidson for construction of 18 lot residential subdivision located on the south side of Morris Town Line Highway and east side of Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ; None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #542 – WILLIAM DAVIDSON

DECEMBER 15, 2005

PAGE 12

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; MOTION: (Mr. Duplissie, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Table the Public Hearing for App. #542 of William Davidson for construction of 18 lot residential subdivision located= on the south side of Morris Town Line Highway and east side of Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ; None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

&nbs= p; Public Hearing Recessed at about 9:00 p.m. (no time given).

&nbs= p; Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 10 minute recess at about 9:00 p.m. (no time given).

&n= bsp;

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

Ronald = Jones, Secretary

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetland Agency

&nbs= p; _________________= _________________

&nbs= p; Lynn M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary