beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

CONTINUA= TION OF PUBLIC HEARING

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN HIGH SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

THURSDAY= , AUGUST 10, 2006 - 7:00 P.M.

&nb= sp;

APPLICAT= ION #552 – ANTHONY CARUSO

&nb= sp;

PRESENT: &n= bsp; = L= ucia DiBona

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs= p; None=

ALTERNATES ABSENT: = ; <= /span>Peter Peluso

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

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Martha Sturgis

OTHERS PRESENT: &n= bsp; = ; Chuck Berger, Town Engineer=

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Moosa Rafey, Assistant Wetlands Enforcement Officer

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 7:04 p.m.

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record as follows:<= o:p>

GROUND RULES

1.&n= bsp; = ; The applica= nt or his representative will make his formal presentation to the Commission stat= ing the proposed regulated activities, the wetland impacts, and the alternatives which were considered by the applicant.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

2.&n= bsp; = ; All comment= s, discussions, and observations shall be made through the Chair after proper recognition by the Chairman. = This is necessary to ensure that only one person at a time speaks on any issue, = thus making it easier for everyone to understand, and for clearer legal transcription.

3.&n= bsp; = ; All persons addressing the Commission shall begin by first clearly stating their name a= nd address for the record. If necessary, the person may be asked to spell his or her name for the record.=

4.&n= bsp; = ; Following t= he presentation of the application, the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency will ask specific questions of the applicant.

5.&n= bsp; = ; After the Commission has asked its questions of the applicant, I shall then allow mem= bers of the public who wishes to speak either in favor of this application or against it to address the Commission.

6.&n= bsp; = ; I shall then allow the applicant to respond to the comments of the members of the general public.

7.&n= bsp; = ; I shall then allow any members of the general public who wish to present any additional information or clarifying discussion to do so.

8.&n= bsp; = ; I shall then provide an opportunity for the applicant to respond to these additional rem= arks if he or his representative so wishes.

9.&n= bsp; = ; The Conserv= ation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency has forty-five (45) days from the date the Public Hearing commences to complete the Public Hearing. The Commission may ask the applica= nt for a forty-five (45) day extension of the Public Hearing period if the Commiss= ion requires any additional information or wishes to schedule a site walk to observe the situation for themselves.=

10.&= nbsp; &nbs= p; The Conserv= ation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency has thirty-five (35) days from the date w= hen the Public Hearing is closed to render its decision.

3. = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; A. Continuation of Public Hearing from July 6, 2006 - Application #552 of Anthony Caruso for construction of 8-lot proposed Lakeside Estates Subdivision, Phase II locat= ed on Caruso Drive, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Recess or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by Augu= st 10, 2006, unless applicant grants a time extension.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

Ed Scoville, Licensed Professional Engineer, Stewart Somers Company=

Mr. Scoville: <= /b> At the last meeting there was some discussion as far as moving the road down what impacts would be with that, = and I've done some grading on the proposed road in the present location. I've laid out the new road, meetin= g the Town of Watertown<= /st1:City>'s standards for the zone, a 30 foot wide road with the graded shoulders and I= 've just done the road grading and superimposed it on the existing lot layout w= ith the houses to demonstrate the impact.

The first lot is substantially the same. On lo= t #2, the uphill lot, there is still a large amount of grading done. The existing driveway which was en= tering at this point, about 20 feet in elevation higher than the proposed driveway would now need to be a few hundred feet longer, about 150 feet longer to ga= in the elevation and to do so the most logical point would be to follow the existing wood road that's cut out going through here and in doing so it wou= ld impact the two wetland pockets that were under discussion at the last meeti= ng as far as doing that. The lot across the street, on Lot #6, keeping the road in the present location, the= lot would not be feasible, the house would be forced to be too close to Lake Winnemaug and there would be issues with meeting the current zoning criteria. Going down to the rear portion, th= ere's pretty much no changes because the lot layout is similar to that, the only difference would be at the very end which is not part of this application, there's zoning issues with that no matter what is being done.

To summarize that, the= other big thing is keeping the road in its present location we still have the zon= ing issue which we're proposing a road on property that our client does not own, it's owned by the Town of Wate= rtown. In reviewing the title of that pro= perty it was noted that when that was deeded to the Town of Watertown, it was based on, it specific= ally mentions in the deed that a proposed future road would be on this edge of t= he property, not going through the property, and that was signed off by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So it would seem that their intent at that time was to go by the other, the pl= ans that we put in as an alternative to do that and then we manipulated the roa= d a little bit so we could meet zoning criteria since zoning has changed over t= ime.

Mr. Zawadzki: Now the current proposal, is that = the red or the black line?

Mr. Scoville: <= /b> The current proposal is the blue line. This would be the curre= nt proposal. Went all through th= e site to take some pictures of it to show the Commission what it looks like in its current condition going around the site with all different vantage points a= nd different cottages in various forms, that would be actually renovated and improved which just to summarize going through, Cottage #5 which is right h= ere, this would be the first one in on the left, #10 which is the trailer, this = long trailer here with the outside oil tank, #1 which is another trailer, right here, #15 which is another small cottage on the water, #6 which is right he= re, another small cottage, and with that there's also some carports and other things that are on the site. = #4 there is a cottage and a carport and a lot of this stuff would be improved.<= /o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

At the last public hea= ring I had commented from one of my previous meetings about improving the boat lau= nch that's on Lake Winnemaug down at the end of the road and there was one gentleman here who said there was one, and I've taken some pictures of that= to show you to demonstrate the amount of garbage and stuff that's being left t= here and everything from that. Tha= t was one of the items that I had commented from a previous preliminary meeting w= it the Commission that we were interested in improving that in lieu of giving = any open space and I believe that these pictures here demonstrate from the prel= iminary meeting that I had with the former Planner in Town of where that was coming from, was because of the amount of garbage and stuff, and that's one of the reasons why we want lots on this side of the road because it's in our opini= on that the lots would be better maintained and we'd have less refuse and stuff encroaching on the wetlands and entering into the lake.

Mr. Polletta: Is this the lot on the left as you go in?

Mr. Scoville: Correct, that's the first lot.

Mr. Polletta: Okay, but what are you saying, what are you goin= g to do with this?

Mr. Scoville: At the first public hearing I had commented from a preliminary talk with the Planner, with Mary Barton, that = it was suggested by her that in lieu of us giving any open space, we come in h= ere and improve the boat launch, put up signs and everything, because in her opinion the existing piece of property that the Town owns was useless and it was far better for the public to have this improved and cleaned up, and tha= t's why I made that comment, and at the last meting, it seemed like a lot of the commission members and public were in shock that I made that comment so I j= ust wanted to . . . .

Mr. Polletta: Okay, after you clean it up and you make it bett= er, are you saying that the Town will still maintain that?

Mr. Scoville: <= /b> Correct. At the last meeting there were some questions about the functional values of the wetlands. I have Penny Sharp here to discuss= that.

Penny Sharp, Wetlands Scientist

&nb= sp;

Ms. Sharp: = I have an office in Northford, CT. I'm a certified wetland scientist = and I've been in practice for over 20 years in Connectic= ut and I used to work for the Town of Wilton as the Wetlands person there, and I'm a graduate of the Yale School of Fore= stry and Environmental Studies.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

I looked at these 3 we= tland pockets which are going to be sacrificed by the road, construction of the r= oad, and they are, I don't know if you've all had an opportunity to read my repo= rt, but they are an artifact, I mean they were created when this site was mined= for gravel and material was taken out and the water table was intersected leavi= ng these wet pockets with aquatic soils which are not really native wetland so= ils, but manmade, or really not soil at all, but it does have a water table and = it is considered wetlands and it's regulated by your Commission. But in terms of the function, we h= ave, well I have them in my report, I'm just going to kind of follow this, road station 1850 on the map, it's kind of hard to see where the wetland actually is. There is a small wetland = that's delineated by wetland flags 80 through 87, so it's maybe 6 feet wide and 12 feet long, it's not a large area. There are a lot of boulders in this wetland. At the end of it there's this litt= le clump of speckled alder, there's a couple of red maple saplings and yellow birch, I noticed 1 silky dogwood, some steeple bush and those are all plants that one does find growing in wetlands under natural conditions but there's also mountain laurel which is upland species so it's kind of a mix.

The second wetland is = at station 1950 and it's very similar to this first one. It has a slightly different specie= s mix, a couple of red maple saplings, I saw 1 or 2 pussy willow shrubs and the dominant ground cover is little blue stemmed grass which you usually find on old fields and upland situations, so again you have a mix of both upland and wetland plants.

The third wetland is r= eally more of a ditch than a wetland. It's along the side of the road, it's very narrow, it really didn't = have any herbaceous vegetation, that's at station 2200. There was a read maple at the very= end of it and I noticed a spice bush growing at the very edge, but basically at least when I visited the site, it didn't have any herbaceous vegetation in = the bottom. Well there were a cou= ple of golden rods and an aster or two but mainly it was a ditch filled with sedim= ent.

One of the reasons we protect wetlands is because of their function. They do a lot of really good thing= s, they can take up pollutants, they can store floodwater, they're wildlife ha= bitat, there are a lot of good reasons for protecting wetlands, but these wetlands= are very small and in my opinion they're isolated and their functional value is very low. I'm not saying they= have no function, because every wetland has a function, but compared to this wet= land here on the site, which is the wonderful forested swamp, full of all kind of interesting species and would be a great wildlife habitat, plus Lake Winnem= aug which is technically a watercourse but it has fringes of wetlands around it, those are the wetlands I think are really worth protecting on this site. These are really low in function, = they were manmade, and in my opinion as a Wetlands Biologist I don't think we're losing a great deal by filling them. We could go out and dig a hole and create something similar and plan= t it with nursery stock, I personally don't really feel that would accomplish mu= ch but it could be done, but if you're a Commission of such a mind to do such a thing, but I don't really think it would prove anything or increase the hab= itat value. I think the best thing= that can be done is to protect this wetland and these shoreline wetlands.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 6

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: You're saying they were made, they were not exis= ting wetlands, but how much wetland will we lose by putting the road where they'= re proposing? And can you create= the same amount of wetland that we lose over here some other place?<= /span>

&nb= sp;

Mr. Scoville: <= /b> There's a total of 3,240 square fee= t of wetland alteration which is the filling form the different crossings and that also includes the first crossing as well at the existing culvert as soon as you enter the site, with the road being expanded for a total wetland alteration= is 3,240 square feet.

Mr. Polletta: Even though it's manmade, can you create that wetlands some other place?

&nb= sp;

Ms. Sharp: = You could, I mean we haven't looked= at that because I found those wetlands so low in function that I didn't really fill that it was necessary to dig another hole and let water come in, but y= es, it could be done.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> If the road gets put in where you're proposing and we lose a little bit over here, can we gain that somewhere el= se?

&nb= sp;

Ms. Sharp: = Yes, we haven't done it, and haven't looked to see where it might be appropriate, but because those wetlands app= ear to follow the gravel activity the water table there, if you dig down low en= ough so there would be an opportunity to do that, but as I stated, I don't really know that you'd gain much by doing that, but that's your decision obviously= .

Mr. Jones: For the benefit of the public, you're saying basically that if you dig a mini quarry in order to take dirt or gravel out, you make a wetlands, and that wetlands is not as good a wetlands as natural wetlands, and if we were to ask you to fill in those wetlands which you wan= t to do and give us other wetlands comparable, they wouldn't be very good wetland either because the ones that are manmade here aren't very good to begin with. Is that basically your comment?

&nb= sp;

Ms. Sharp: = Essentially yes. We would obviously, if the Commiss= ion wanted to create wetlands, we'd have to look around the site to see where it would be appropriate and see where we would intersect the groundwater table, you wouldn't want to put it on the top of a knoll where you'd have to go do= wn 20 feet before you hit water because then you're going to have a bigger mes= s on your hands.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: If you get rid of the wetlands where they are, <= span class=3DGramE>cause they're no good, can you make a lot a little bit smaller and maybe opening up so we gain a little more wetlands?<= /span>

Ms. Sharp: Yes, but we haven't really looked at the site wi= th that in mind but I believe yes, we could.&= nbsp; This area here comes to mind, but that's the Town's.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

Mr. Scoville: That was actually one of the things that was discussed on the first site walk, and in reference to that that was done by this whole area of wetlands was added to the open space parcel.<= /span>

Mr. Undercuffler: Is that existing?

Ms. Sharpe: Yes, but we could create new wetlands to answer = your question and to address your issue, I would recommend if we did that, that = we plant them and try to get a slightly better quality wetland than is out the= re now, rather than just let what might come in come in, because in this wetla= nd here for instance you have a lot of invasive plants that have come in which= are not desirable and that's always a risk, so we want to make sure that the wetland is slightly better than the ones that exist there today.=

&nb= sp;

Mr. Jones: I wanted to walk off this room and determine how many square feet this room represents, we're tal= king about 2,825 square feet that are in the holes that are dug by man in order = to excavate material that you want to build your road over. I'm guessing that this 2,825 feet is about the same amount of this room. I think that puts things in perspe= ctive, how much space were looking at in terms of the wetlands that you're taking = from us in order to build the road. It's somewhere in the vicinity of the size of this room.

&nb= sp;

Charles Spath, Enginee= r

Mr. Spath: Those wetlands is not one total wetlands, it's small portions, and most of it is created by backhoe. If you go to this ar= ea, people dug all over the place. They put in oil tanks, septic fields, etc. There are some pockets that were created on the hillside, where some= body came and dug on a hillside, made an impression on the hill, which water collected, leaves eventually fall into this depression and it will hold wat= er and create a wetlands over an amount of time. It's on a hillside where it's not a low-lying wetlands, I think Penny was talking this wetlands over here, I wa= lked the property, it's a nice wetlands, but I believe there are at least 3 diff= erent pockets, more on a hillside or a ditch that somebody dug under the law she = has to consider wetlands, but it's a manmade wetlands, so I think if the Commis= sion would like, we can mitigate and add wetlands to equal that square footage, = but I think what we proposed here with the lots, there's actually 7 houses, the= re's an additional piece of land down there that the existing house is because t= he leases would stay on, but there are 7 houses that would be replacing the trailers and such so this would be actually, I mean if you drove down here, Caruso Drive, it's improved greatly from what's been there before and this would actually like section to a continuation of that, but we can replace t= hose wetlands, they are manmade, and most of them are on a hill where somebody d= ug out rocks or gravel. They're = not in a large low lying area where it is an area that you'd want to protect. And when you add up the areas, the= y're small areas, not one large area that we're filling.

Mr. Undercuffler: Could you refresh my memory on where the open sp= ace is you're proposing?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

Mr. Scoville: The open space parcels that are be= ing proposed are this parcel here, it's got two little triangles here which are very small, the existing wetlands here, and a parcel here is going to be de= eded to the Town.

Mr. Zawadzki: And where is the boat launch?<= /p>
&nb= sp;

Mr. Scoville: <= /b> Down the street about here. The boat launch is as soon as you = enter into onto Caruso Drive.

Mr. Undercuffler: The open space, what percentage of that is uplan= d?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Scoville: <= /b> Approximately 75% of the parcels of= open space being proposed are wetlands.

Mr. Spath: The idea, you can cover that with a conservation easement area, which actually, in Planning or Zoning that counts towards op= en space. We're trying to protec= t the wetlands. This is the Town of Watertown parcel here, I think there wa= s a request by a couple of the Commission m embers to try and make this area larger. That was done. This was made larger. We would like to, when we were dea= ling with Mary before, Mary left the town, we were lo= oking at improving the area down here. When we started the first meeting it didn't go that way, so we didn't continue with that. But we do= have the pictures. I mean if you t= ake a look at these and the existing boat ramp, the condition it's in now it's no= t being used. I think the reason it's= not being used is due to the condition. If it were a nice boat ramp we had a couple of picnic tables in ther= e, maybe a paved apron into the ramp, people would actually use this boat ramp. Right now I think it's = just used as a parking lot by kids.

Mr. Undercuffler: What's the name of the road?

Mr. Spath: That's on Caruso Drive, right on the corner. That's right at the beginning of t= he road.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Undercuffler: So are you proposing that you would do that? Who owns that property?=

Mr. Spath: = It's owned by the Town right now an= d we were looking at Mary's request at the time, this is going back maybe 6 mont= hs, instead of giving any open space, we gave open space, but improving that ar= ea with possibly fixing, actually doing a gravel parking, or partial paved gra= vel, possibly with a paved apron, I don't know how the Commission feels into the lake so people can actually launch a canoe or a boat, and the ruts wouldn't= be there. There would be less maintenance. Actually putting= in a few garbage cans, picnic tables, in that respect and bring it up to date.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 9

&nb= sp;

Right now it is the To= wn's property, I don’t think it was ever in the posit= ion for the Town to take care of. It needs to be inputted to that to actually be used. It was given for a reason but I do= n't think any money was put in to be used for that reason. We were looking at that. We are still offering open space.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> We did add on to this here. We still offer that, it's not a mo= netary wise, I don't think a huge amount, but I think it would add to the area or = add to the Town to have something that would be revamped and could be used.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Now what was the idea to deed that = to the Town or to the property owners?

Mr. Spath: = Where the boat launch is right now,= that actually is the Town's property.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: I meant the open space you were, with the wetlan= ds?

Mr. Spath: = That would go to the Town, it could be a part of the association.

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, cause we haven't= had good luck with easements given the property owners in a lot of cases.<= /o:p>

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: = Well sometimes what happens is it's= hard to do, but sometimes if the property owners around the area have to take ca= re of it, it gets better taken care of, but then they think it's theirs. So you would want the Town to own = this, but to tell you the truth, the Town to own this, there is an area of wetlan= ds that comes in this area that if they were to use this, it does intersect the property and the lake. The la= ke is wetlands because it's a water body, but I think this area, left as open spa= ce, people could use this, the Town could put a couple of picnic benches out th= ere (Tape #1, Side A ended - may have missed some). So this would be a Town area, we c= an proposed, this is usually done through Planning but I know you're intereste= d in this, we can propose picnic benches, people could use this area. We do not want to create too big o= f an area that people are going to abuse. There's an area down here right now that's created, that I don't thi= nk was ever brought up to standards to take care of so I think if we were able= to down the corner here, right about here, the end of the lake and beginning of this road, I think we could tell you exactly what you're doing, I'm just throwing some things out, showing you a plan, but I think if we paved the entrance for a boat ramp, put some picnic tables, put possibly a self stand= ing roof to keep the sun off over the picnic tables and either paved that or we= can re-gravel it and pave aprons coming in to leave it more nature cause it's around the lake, I actually think that would get used by the Town much more. It's on the corner, thi= s is more in the center of the neighborhood, you don't want people coming down, = you can leave it as Town land, but I think if you really are going to put picnic tables and approve it right down here on the corner would be the best, you = have a boat ramp.

Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, you're right on the lake there.<= /span>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 10

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: Mary's idea was that from Day 1 and that's what = we were always thinking, but it kind of got turned around in the process but I really think this is going to be beautiful, I think this is all going to he= lp the lake. We're taking away a= lot of things, replacing larger houses and there will be lawns, but on the side= of the lake, where all the structures are now, there will be 3 residences, the rest will be cut off by the road, so that's going to help the lake environmentally right there, instead of having various structures and vario= us septics along the lake that's not under any real zoning regulation now. It's a dirt road and you go in bet= ween trees. This will I think mirr= or the beginning of the road here, Caruso Drive, that was done a few years ago and that looks beautiful. I think we ought to spend the time= down there, if the commission thinks that's a good idea I can come up with what I think would best match and you can put your input in and I think we can com= e to an agreement.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: Your proposal at the beginning where the launch = is, are you proposing to clean up just the area that they propose or are you go= ing to clean up the whole lot in order to make some room for (inaudible)?<= /o:p>

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: = I think we would go in there, at le= ast pave an apron going into the site, maybe leave it gravel, I'm not sure, for= an area, then pave an apron where it slopes down to the lake, create freestand= ing, maybe put like 4 picnic benches in there, put in a couple of freestanding w= here people can actually use the area and clean it up so it's brand new. The Town at that point would take = it over, but at that point everything is new.= They own it, but hey would take over the care and it would be in pristine condition at that time, but I think people would take care of it because they would be proud to take care of it.

Mr. Polletta: How big of a lot is that?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: = I'm not sure off the top of my head= .

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> I think it's a little over 2 acres.=

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> The boat launch?<= /p>

Mr. Zawadzki: Yes.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: = The area may not be that big right = now but . . . . .

Mr. Undercuffler: Is that the only boat launch?<= /p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 11

&nb= sp;

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: That's the only one that I know of, unless there= 's another one on the other side of the lake, but down in that area that's the only one that I know of. I th= ink kids are just parking there now, and maybe somebody uses the boat launch, b= ut it's not much to speak of. I = think that would be the greatest improvement, we are still giving open space to protect the wetlands, we still added on to this area, but I wouldn't push t= his for development, being in the middle of a subdivision along a road, being a= t a corner there we have a parking lot and direct access that's already built i= nto the lake, and just improving it, I think it would be better down there.

Mr. Undercuffler: Those houses, you mentioned 3 houses along the lake.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: = There's one proposed here, these ar= e the new houses taking over the existing structures that are all on this side of= the road now. There's one here in= the beginning, at the end of the existing road there is one there, there would = be one other one, and one other one here.&nbs= p; These other structures are across the road.

Mr. Undercuffler: My question on those 3 that are on the lake, what kind of protection will there be on the lake? Is there any kind of easement?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath: I think there is what I'm not sure what they proposed in the past, but you have to be 100 feet back. We want those people to have acces= s to the lake, but it does not have to be a, we do not want a lawn down to the l= ake, especially in this area where there's a wetlands. It's being used as that now, though. You can see right here there's like a little dock area here, so we would try to use that existing = area right there. We can come up w= ith a plan, there are 2 docks on this here, 2 little areas right there now, there= 's 2 docks here, so it's already being used that way, but we can better define t= hat for the Commission. We don't = want a lawn that goes down to the lake = because of the chemicals.

Mr. Polletta: The new foundation of the new houses, will they = be located in the same areas where those trailers are now, or are they going t= o be knocked down?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I know that some of them were prop= osed to be additions, I'll let Ed explain that.<= /o:p>

Mr. Scoville: They are all going to be proposed as new foundations. Looking at it se= ems like that would be the most . . . .

Mr. Polletta: In the same location where the trailers are now?=

&nb= sp;

Mr. Scoville: It varies. For example on this lot here, it's actually moved back away from it. The existing dwellings are within 5 feet of the water, we're pushing it back. This one is being moved back from = this trailer, probably about equal distance back from the long trailer that we s= ee here with the oil tank. This = one is being moved back about 16 feet and it's a good portion of the house is over= the existing . . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 12

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: Basically you're going to move it closer to the = road and eliminate all the oil tanks and everything.

Mr. Scoville: Yea, all the oil tanks would be required to be p= ut inside the houses and get rid of the oil tanks we see here and here.

Mr. Undercuffler: At the very beginning it was mentioned by the so= il scientist that there's part of a Japanese knotweed and some other things in there. Is there going to be a= ny cleanout done of that stuff?

Mr. Spath: I think the knotweed is pretty common.

Ms. Sharp:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I would recommend that as a condition. The Japanese knotw= eed and the autumn olive should be eliminated.

Mr. Undercuffler: Well it seemed from you report that that was the main area where it was.

Mr. Spath: This area here where there's a crossing, this is= one of the areas that we're filling, where you'd come off the curb and that's l= ike an intermittent watercourse that comes down, we're filling over that. If there are specific areas we can= meet with Moosa out there and we can remove that knotweed if there are areas that are over invasive.

Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, anything you can do along that . . . .=

Mr. Spath:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> We can walk and look at that.

Mr. Zawadzki: Moosa, did you get any response from the applica= nt on these items in your memo of June 30th?&= nbsp; You said that Ms. Sharp's report covered Items #1 and #2, but in #3,= #4, #5, and #6 they're . . . that= 's where the comment is the Town of Watertown owns 2 acres of lakefront parcel= .

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I think one issue of the open spac= e this Commission will make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission= and they're the ones who will decide what to do with the open space, if they wa= nt to take the land or a fee in lieu of open space. Instead of digging a hole and crea= ting more manmade wetlands, any question to Ms. Sharp is how can they improve and enhance the health of the existing wetlands on the property? Is there anything you can recommen= d to protect those wetlands, or improve the situation we have there?<= /span>

Ms. Sharp:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I think when Charlie was talking a= bout not having lawns not going right down to the edge of the lake, that if we can g= et some kind of a buffer between the edge of the wetlands and the edge of the = lawn in some of these lakeside lots here, let it grow up so that you have natural vegetation between the wetland fringe here and whatever lawns.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 13

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> You can put a conservation easemen= t over the wetlands and the 50 foot setback area to help protect the wetlands.

Ms. Sharp: Right.

Mr. Spath:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Obviously because it's lakefront property we would leave access to the lake for those property owners. We're not looking to take away, ma= ke a buffer I can't touch the lake, there's no reason for that. By actually doing what we're doing= I think we're improving the wetlands, but I think in these areas, there are existing areas here that there are docks in, you want to be able to access = the lake at some point but we can go over that and I don't think there's an are= a, I think what Moosa was asking, how can we maybe add to the existing wetlands.= I don’t' think adding to the wetlands is really a good idea all the tim= e.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> No, I didn't say to add to the wet= lands, I said instead of adding, how can we improve the situation or protect the wetlands.

Mr. Spath: I think by protecting the wetlands in most areas, they're not being protected now. These were marked as wetlands, nobody ever knew they were wetlands, and they were using them. A lot of lawn are= as that just meet the wetland soil types in some areas, but now that we know they're wetlands we can protect those and designate areas down to the water= .

Ms. Sharp: I'm not saying you need to completely cut off the person's access to the water, but I think you could cut a path through, may= be a meadow or something that could run along the edge of the wetland to give it some protection and to also act as a buffer to catch any fertilizers that m= ight be coming off the lawns, but definitely keep the access, and again removal = of invasive species would increase the biological diversity in the wetlands and the biggest concentration of invasive in this wetland here which is going t= o be partially filled but not completely, and I think we can actually remove the= invasive during the road construction there.

Mr. Zawadzki: Normally we require a proposal from the applican= t to items that would mitigate the impact of what we're doing, which is basically what we're talking about right now, so if you haven't done it already, it's= on our standard list of required items for applicants but we would need to get that and such measures include but not limited to actions which avoid destruction or diminution of wetlands, watercourse functions, recreational uses, natural habitat, that's all what we're talking about right now so we'd like to get a proposal from the applicant basically summarizing the things we've been discussing.

Ms. Sharp:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I think that can be done.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 14

&nb= sp;

Mr. Spath:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes, we can do that and I think we= have to give an extension?

Mr. Zawadzki: Yes.

Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I also didn't receive a report fro= m the Torrington Area Health District for the septic systems.

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, our technical staff hasn't had a chance to review all your proposals to date as it is and now we would have to close t= he public hearing by the 18th of August, but with you permission, in writing, = we can go beyond that and extend the public hearing to our next scheduled meet= ing.

Mr. Spath:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Okay, we will offer an extension tonight.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: Just for the record we already received 65 day extension. By statute the Com= mission can ask only 65 days, but if the applicant is willing to give more than wha= t is required by statute, then . . . .

Mr. Spath: I'd like to give an extension at least until the next meeting and then at that time, if there is any need, I think that will= be adequate, don't you think?

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea. Any other questions by the Commission? At this time I'd like to open the = floor to any comments, questions form the public. Please come up and state your name= and address and use the microphone. The applicant can take notes and answer all the questions after all the comments. Anybody? Chuck, do you have any comments? You said you haven't had a chance = to review the information. Do yo= u want to elaborate on that?

Mr. Berger: I don't see the drainage issues being very compl= ex here because it is right near the lake, which is a big, not technically a f= lood control but it's going to serve like that for the small amount of imperious area that' they're adding and I don't think the drainage review will be very complex and I will have that done prior to the next scheduled meeting.=

Mr. Zawadzki: So we have an extension until the next scheduled meeting?

Mr. Rafey: Did you look at the feasibility of putting drain= age swales instead of curbs and catch basins?

Mr. Scoville: Yes, we did take a look into doing that and in my professional opinion I think catch basins and drainage is going to a gross particle separators is more appropriate for this subdivision.

Mr. Zawadzki: Anything else?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 15

&nb= sp;

MOTION:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Recess the Public Hearing for App. #5<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>52 of Anthony Caruso for construction of 8-lot proposed Lakeside Estates Subdivision, Phase II located on Caruso Drive, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

Public Hearing Recesse= d at about 7:45 p.m. (no time given).

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Ronald = Jones, Secretary

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetland Agency

  &nbs= p;         _________________= _________________

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