MINUTES
CONSERVA=
TION
COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUA=
TION
OF PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY=
, SEPTEMBER
14, 2006 - 7:00 P.M.
APPLICAT=
ION #552
– ANTHONY CARUSO
PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
L=
ucia
DiBona
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Joseph Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
;
ABSENT: &nb=
sp; =
=
G=
len
Duplissie
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Ron
Jones, Secretary
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Charles
Thermer
=
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; James
Zawadzki, Chairman
ALTERNATES PRESENT: &nbs=
p; Martha Sturgis, Acting
Secretary
ALTERNATES ABSENT: =
; <=
/span>Peter Peluso
OTHERS PRESENT: &n=
bsp; =
; Chuck
Berger, Town Engineer
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; Moosa Rafey, Assistant
Wetlands Enforcement Officer
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 7:10 p.m=
.
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, asked Ms. Sturgis to sit in for Mr. Jones, in =
his
absence, and also to act as Secretary.
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Ms.
Sturgis, Acting Secretary, executed the Roll Call.
Mr.
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman, read aloud the Ground Rules for the record as
follows:
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
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 2
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
&= nbsp; A. Continuation of Public Hearing from August 10, 2006 - Application #552 of Anthony Caruso= for construction of 8-lot proposed Lakeside Estates Subdivision, Phase II locat= ed on Caruso Drive, Watertown, CT.
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Recess
or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by September 14, 2006.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 3
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> I'd like to highlight some changes =
and
make a note on (inaudible). S=
ince
the last public hearing we have scheduled a meeting with the engineering
department to discuss some issues with the site and there's some confusion =
with
the name of this subdivision being similar to the name of another subdivisi=
on
in Town so I've changed the name on the plans to Waters of Winnemaug to pre=
vent
further confusion. I'd like t=
o make
note of that for the record.
At the last meeting Pe=
nny
Sharp was here and we had her visit the site and look at 2 areas of the site
that had Japanese Knotweed. W=
orking
with her we put together a proposed removal sequence and detailed new plant=
ings
for that area which is on Lot #1 and #4 I believe, and that was going in and
cutting and removing the Japanese Knotweed monitoring that area for a perio=
d of
2 years, then replanting the area with shrubs.
Mr. Undercuffler: Where is that plan?
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> It's sheet M1, the last sheet of the
series. We've depicted the ar=
ea of
the Knotweed in the cloud on each lot and at the bottom center we put toget=
her
a planting plan for that. In
addition to that at the last meeting we were discussing the open space at t=
he
site and the requirements and with the open space not meeting the upland
numbers of the other area, we're proposing some renovations to the existing
Town parcel at the corner, improving the boat ramp that's washed out and th=
at's
depicted on the sheet as well, which includes regarding the existing ramp
that's washed out going into the lake.&nbs=
p;
There's a gulley that's washed out from the existing parking lot,
restabilizing that and doing (inaudible) a couple trees planted around the
gravel parking lot that will be regraded.
Mr. Polletta: Do that in lieu of open space?
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> In lieu of a fee in lieu of open
space. We're proposing open s=
pace
in the parcel but since it's not of all of uplands, and there's a high
percentage of wetlands, we're proposing this as opposed to a fee in lieu of=
so
there would be more a public recreational benefit and enjoyment of the exis=
ting
lake.
Mr. Undercuffler: Is that in one of these charts did=
you
say?
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> The open space breakdown?
Mr. Undercuffler: Well what you just said about the =
. . .
.
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> Yes.
The same sheet all the way on the far left side of the page.
Ms. Sturgis: Where's the dock you're talking
about? Okay.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 4
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> You're still giving the 10% to the =
Town
required, but because we don't have any uplands, you're doing this?
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> Correct.
Mr. Polletta: What is the amount of land that yo=
u're
giving, this is along the lake, is that what we've been talking about, did =
not
change, right? Where the Town=
of
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> No, that will be added to that as
depicted on sheet R1. On shee=
t R1
we're proposing that 16,549 square feet be added to the existing Town of
Mr. Undercuffler: This says 23,740 square feet. Am I reading that wrong?
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> The other piece is 15,549 plus or
minus. That's what he's addin=
g to
the land next to the Town of
Mr. Undercuffler: This says to be conveyed to the To=
wn of
Mr. Polletta: Can you show us where=
all
the open land is here?
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> Over here.
Mr. Undercuffler: So it's 2 pieces.
Ms. Sturgis: Where is the other piece?
Mr. Undercuffler: Right at the cul de sac.
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> To go through it exactly so there's=
no
confusion, currently the Town of CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 5 Mr. Polletta: The question before was that betwe=
en the
2 pieces that you're going to add to the existing, does that meet the 10%?<=
o:p> Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> Correct. We're giving about 1 acre of prime
waterfront property and in addition to that we're giving 1.38 acres of open
space on the other side of the road which is predominantly upland swamp. Mr. Undercuffler: This open space wetlands area ther=
e,
where does that fall in the scheme of things? Is that part of this or Phase II?<=
o:p> Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> No, all of the open space is to be
conveyed. Ms. Sturgis: Where is the wet uplands portion?<=
o:p> Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> Across the street from the cul de s=
ac. Ms. Sturgis: Do they connect? With the exception of the road, do=
the 2
parcels connect? Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> No, they can't connect because ther=
e's a
road in the middle. Ms. Sturgis: No, but I mean you could walk acro=
ss
(inaudible). Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> You could actually start at the lak=
e,
walk across the road, go through the edge of that wetlands, then walk to the
Town of <=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Charles Spath, Enginee=
r
Mr. Spath: =
This is the open space over here, t=
here's
wetlands, and this is the area here that's getting added to the town piece,=
the
existing Town piece right here, so this is the Town, this is what's getting
added on, and this is the upland wetlands area, it's a wetlands, it's uplan=
d.
Mr. Polletta: So basically this is all Town prop=
erty
and this is all Town property.
Mr. Spath: =
That's right.
Mr. Polletta: Are you adding this?
Mr. Spath: =
No.
Ms. Sturgis: And you're adding this and this.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 6
Mr. Spath: =
Yes.
Mr. Polletta: This is uplands?
Mr. Spath: =
This is it here.
Mr. Polletta: What about this?
Mr. Spath: =
This is open wetlands but it's a
wetlands.
Mr. Polletta: (Inaudible) to get to this?
Mr. Spath: =
It's connected to the Town, yea, yo=
u can
walk down there, down to the road, walk down to this piece.
Ms. Sturgis: You're giving this and this?
Mr. Spath: =
Actually (inaudible) this is the To=
wn of
Ms. Sturgis: And this is already the Town's?
Mr. Spath: =
No, this is getting added, I pointe=
d to
the wrong place, sorry. This =
is
getting added on, this is getting added on, also this, plus we're looking at
improving the corner (inaudible). It's
more than 10%. We need 10%.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 7
The boat ramp right no=
w is
gravel and it's leaching into the lake because it's the lowest spot going i=
nto
the lake obviously and we're looking at paving that, adding another picnic
table over here, and paving the entrance and ripping out broken asphalt, and
there's also wells that we're looking to abandon. We have on there a covered dumpste=
r,
we'd have to talk to the Parks Commission.=
Right now there's a lot of people there, there's not a garbage can, =
in
this area in here there's some garbage there, so we are looking at definite=
ly
improving the corner which would be nice for the Town and the neighborhood.=
That basically summarizes the
non-technical changes to the plan.
Mr. Undercuffler: You're showing this road going rig=
ht
through a piece of that wetlands, is there some way you can reduce that,
eliminate that?
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> When the road was reviewed for the
possible future connection, I tried to keep it in line with the leased area=
s,
we didn't, we looked at this as one possibility. At some point in the future, there =
may be
other alignments that are more suitable for it that we'll be able to work o=
ut,
so this is one possibility, I'm sure there are many other ones with that, b=
ut
not to infringe on the leased areas that were depicted on file, that would =
be
in line to show that and my alignment also is used at the other end to meet=
up
with Flint Lock with that road alignment coming through.
Mr. Undercuffler: I can see that, that's no problem =
over
at that end. Well you recogni=
ze if
we were to approve up through the cul de sac, then beyond that would be ano=
ther
application later on and would be subject to denial if you were going across
wetlands.
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> Yes, it would be subject to review =
at
that point.
Mr. Undercuffler: Possible denial. Chuck Berger had made a comment, h=
is
item #10, it should be noted the proposed addition of .0429 acres to be add=
ed
to the area of existing Town Open space is proposed to be graded to 2:1 whi=
ch
will not be acceptable for any public access.
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> Yes, from the time that I submitted=
the
plans to Chuck Berger I've added this parcel that provides more of a flat
access, it can be seen on the site development sheet, sheet S1. We're coming back at this point on=
to the
existing grade here, so that will provide access going into that parcel.
Mr. Undercuffler: You buy that?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 8
Mr. Berger: I do agree with that, that I will p=
rovide
better access but then I would also note that we have a drainage outfall th=
at
we'll have to deal with as we get down onto that piece of property and get =
over
towards the southeastly direction, you see that drainage outfall coming from
the road, we'll have to cross that, assuming there's some sort of developme=
nt
of that piece of property for recreational purposes.
Ms. Sturgis: The drainage problem will be on the
piece of property that they're conveying to the Town?
Mr. Berger: Yes, it's not insurmountable but ju=
st to
note that there is a drainage pipe discharging on that new access area.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well this is something maybe they =
could
take care of, right?
Mr. Spath: =
Yea, right now the drainage pipe is=
kept
farther away from the lake as not to, any sediment that outfalls from the
drainage pipe, that's why it's so far away, but I think what Chuck is saying
the piece that we're giving there's also an outfall, I don't think it's
necessarily a problem, but that's one of the discharge points for the road,=
and
we have it kept back, we don't discharge right at the lake, so as a wetlands
issue it's better keeping it back.
Mr. Polletta: We have a comment from last month =
from
our engineer, (inaudible), are these 18 that you provided that were respond=
ed
to? These are the ones from l=
ast
month? This what you gave us
tonight is that your response?
Mr. Spath: =
The comments that we gave you tonig=
ht,
this is actually September 8th, so this is not last month, these are last
Friday's comments.
Mr. Polletta: Have you had a chance to review th=
ese?
Mr. Spath: Since last Friday we =
can
run through the list. We did =
have a
chance to review most of the items, we did that actually in the last couple=
of
days. These comments were last
Friday.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> I understand that, so you don't hav=
e the
response on most of these?
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yes, we do, we can go through thos=
e one
by one.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Well I'm just concerned, make sure =
that .
. . .what I'm asking is did the Town review the comments you gave them this
month, they said they responded and make sure if you see anything wrong with
that or you have to review them, I'm just looking at your input on this.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 9
Mr. Berger: My comments were late last week, I =
got
their response today, some of my comments were fairly significant in nature=
and
the responses, I'll need some more time to review those before I agree with=
all
of those or accept some of the responses.&=
nbsp;
Also some of the responses note that some of the information will be
submitted as a condition of approval.
There are a number of options the Commission has tonight and we can =
talk
about them at some point.
Mr. Undercuffler: It seems like there's a lot of thi=
ngs
open here.
Mr. Spath: =
Well we just received the comments =
and we
tried to address them all, but we really did not have enough time to address
them. We do agree with most o=
f the
comments. I'd like to go thro=
ugh those
to tell you the truth. I'll l=
et Ed
go through them.
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> I'll go through the questions first=
that
were provided by the Town Engineer and then I'll read our response.
1. =
Supporting
calculations should be submitted for sizing all of the proposed drainage and
outlet structures. Additional
information should be submitted to justify the statement that detention is =
not
required. The proposed catch =
basin
(inaudible) does not meet the Town standards maximum of 300 feet.
Calculations for the
drainage outlet sizes have been performed and are attached. Detention is not required for this
project because of the project's proximity to
Mr. Undercuffler: Now when you say detention is not
required because of the project's proximity to
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> The amount of water that we're incr=
easing
in relationship to the lake in the area of the lake is not going to change =
any
downstream, there will be no downstream effect because it's an insignificant
amount of water to the lake. =
I mean
it would be raising the lake to a fraction of an inch, so with that, so tat=
the
output will be nothing cause it's such a large area with the lake.
Mr. Undercuffler: You're saying the lake is the dete=
ntion
pond?
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> Exactly, the lake is the detention.=
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 10
Someone said something
(inaudible).
Mr. Berger:=
No, I don't really want to go thro=
ugh
each one of these and comment on them at this point without, I mean I can
comment on this one, I agree with what he said but I would like some, I don=
't
know what the fraction of an inch is, but just some general numbers about t=
he
amount of impervious area here, you're creating here, the watershed area to
Lake Winnemaug, the size of the lake, just a little bit more technical back=
up,
I agree with the conclusion, I don't want to know the fraction, just a litt=
le
bit more (inaudible).
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> No problem.
2. =
Any
existing drainage structures, buildings, outbuildings, docks, etc. proposed=
to
be removed should be noted on the plan.
&=
nbsp; The
structures to be removed have been depicted on the 40 scale plan.
3. =
All
footing and roof drain discharge points should be shown on the plan.
&=
nbsp; We've
highlighted all of the roof and footing drain discharge points on the plans
that were submitted tonight.
Mr. Berger:=
Can I go back to the existing stru=
ctures
comment as long as I've been asked to make comments. I would just note, and this is not=
a
technical or an engineering comment, but look at Lot #7 for example, I beli=
eve
there are 4 dock structures proposed to remain in the lake. (Tape #1, Side A ended - may have =
missed
some.) Or maybe some of them =
should
be shown and be removed. Take=
a
look on Sheet A1. Maybe a way=
to
further minimize impact is to reduce that number.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Say that again, Chuck please?
Mr. Berger:=
Look at
Mr. Spath: =
Those are existing. I think what Chuck is saying is no=
w that
it's one lot instead of 4 dots or 4 individual structures, we can limit that
amount and we thought when he meant to limit the structures we were talking
about the buildings to be removed and the oil tanks, so that can be done, i=
t's
not a problem, I think he's just making a point that this is a good time to=
do
it.
Mr. Berger:=
Yes.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 11
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> I'd like to make a point, the docks=
do
provide great habitat for large mouth bass to go underneath them. There is a fishing benefit to them=
.
4. =
Verify
drainage outfalls proposed on one new system tying into an existing
system. The feasibility of
combining systems and storm water quality measures to minimize future
maintenance responsibilities should be considered. Any drainage easement areas should=
be a
minimum of 25 feet wide.
&=
nbsp; On
that item, the 5 outlets are provided to keep the storm water from the road=
and
the storm water that is crossing the road separated. This design requires a fewer numbe=
r of
structures, less pipe and smaller underground separators that will require =
less
maintenance. In our opinion d=
ispersing
the runoff throughout the site will also serve to improve water quality and
increase wetland saturation.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Do you agree with that?
Mr. Berger:=
I'd like to have more discussion o=
n that,
especially if we're coming out of the existing cul de sac, we're still on s=
heet
A1, that first crossing, I wonder if it's not a better idea to combine all =
of
that and redo what's in that cul de sac now. 2 existing sets of catch basins
connecting by 15 RCP and now we're also proposing a new 18 inch RCP. If we could actually get some water
quality treatment on those existing catch basins if we combine them and put=
in
a larger treatment.
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> Maybe I could review that as a tech=
nical
change with . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: We've got 18 items over here and n=
ow
we're going through all of them. I think
you should get together with Chuck and make sure that we agree on everythin=
g,
and if there are some questions, you can address them and he can recommend,
cause we can be here until midnight.
Mr. Undercuffler: Definitely.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Chuck, you need more time to review=
this,
correct?
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, I don't think we're in a posi=
tion
now to analyze this 18 items. I'm
still hung up on this need to, the plan to put that road where it is over t=
here
on
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 12
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Actually the road was moved farthe=
r away
from the, we're trying to take a balance between the two. The road that exists there now is =
in a
lowland close to the lake, that cuts across the Town of
We were trying to rais=
e the
road up a little bit so we could utilize the land to the right. That would bring the road off the =
Town
of
Mr. Undercuffler: I think it could be moved up somew=
hat
here but down here the only reason you're moving it up is so you can get th=
is
other lot in here.
Mr. Spath: =
The road that we have designed here=
was
approved prior to this. When =
Mr. Undercuffler: Who approved that?
Mr. Spath: =
This was part of, when this got app=
roved
here, this road had to show that it was getting connected and these plans a=
re
in file now that shows this road being connected down to there, so we kept =
that
in mind, but we're not just trying to get this lot, there's a lot of struct=
ures
down here now, there is a lot that we would like to utilize here cause we w=
ant
to utilize that area, but this road here is not getting pushed up, the exis=
ting
road is right, it's over the existing road right in that area, this is the
existing road, is actually to the right more, this is where it crosses right
there.
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, it says dirt roa=
d.
Mr. Spath: =
This is the existing road, so it is=
over
the existing road as it is now, I just want to point that out, right here.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> See so we are going over that and =
then
we go to the right in this area.
Mr. Polletta: But the only piece of wetlands that
we're disturbing with this road is the one over on this corner, right?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 13
Mr. Spath: =
That's a pocket that somebody dug o=
ut
that became wetlands with like a backhoe.&=
nbsp;
It's in Penny Sharp's report.
Mr. Polletta: When we did the field walk I remem=
ber
there was something there.
Mr. Spath: = There are a couple of areas on this= site, one up here, that somebody dug out and there's one there, and what happens = is there was probably some outflow over the hill, an area was dug out . . . .<= o:p>
Mr. Polletta: This doesn't connect anything?
Mr. Spath: =
No.
The pristine wetlands is this wetlands right here on the whole
parcel. We intend to end the =
road
before we get close to that, as you see this is the wetlands right here, th=
is
is the wetlands, we're ending the road before the wetlands. Where the road would get extended
possibly in the future, is actually the best position for the road using the
Planning and Zoning, or the Zoning guidelines now and your wetlands, we're =
on
the fringe of the wetlands. Y=
ou see
the wetlands comes out right there, we're on the fringe of it and we're try=
ing
to use the radius' that the Town ordinance has for a road design and using =
the
existing road that's there now, but we're not proposing that at this time, =
but
the connection is good, it does work out.&=
nbsp;
I don't want to go over Chuck Berger's comments, but I don't know if
there is any additional concerns that we could address. I think we tried to address all of=
the
concerns since the last meeting, and we tried to address most of those, but
probably the best thing is to go over it with Chuck on that.
Mr. Polletta: Chuck, would you suggest that you =
meet
with them again and table, get an extension on this?
Mr. Undercuffler: We can't get an extension, we've r=
eached
the limit on extensions. We h=
ave to
close the hearing or deny the application, or they can withdraw.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> If we have some small items they ca=
n be
addressed with Chuck, if he feels comfortable with that, but if there are a=
lot
of things that you're not happy with, then there's something we need to som=
ehow
deny or . . . . no more extensions?
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> You received more than 65 days.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Yea but I remember at the beginning=
when
they put the application in a couple of times they didn't have no time to c=
ome
before the meeting, it was something like that.
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yea, we got a little held off, thi=
s was
actually . . . . .
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> I'm talking about at the beginning =
of the
application.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 14
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Yea, there were some problems ther=
e, but
I think the comments from Chuck, Chuck can speak for himself, we've worked =
with
Chuck in the past, I don't think any of the comments are any that, if there=
are
other issues maybe there would be, but I don't think any of the comments ca=
n't
be addressed. I would not lik=
e to
withdraw the application, it's kind of tough, we received the comments only
this week and we tried to address them the best we can, we have to meet with
Chuck, but if we cannot give an extension, we will work with Chuck on his
comments. I don't know if the
commission has any final . . . .
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> I'm saying if you present the appli=
cation
and then we put you on the agenda for whatever reason, I don't know what ro=
ute
we could take, if the application was given to the Town and you did not come
for the public hearing, and then we should give them an extension or do
something about it. My point =
is why
when the application was put in, did not come before us for the public hear=
ing.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> This is the third night of public
hearings that you are holding. The
only suggestion that I can make is that you can waive the application fee if
they want to withdraw this application and resubmit it, we'll put it back on
the agenda next month. It's b=
etter
to do that so there's time for the applicant to respond to these comments a=
nd
we received the maps tonight.
Mr. Spath: =
I don't think, just on behalf of the
client and myself, we submitted this months ago and the public hearing actu=
ally
didn't get to 3 months until after we submitted the application was accepte=
d,
it was about 3 months that we finally had a public hearing. Chuck had some comments, we did re=
ceive
them and he just went over it, we don't have a problem going with him, that=
's
why if you would like I would like to go over them individually and spend t=
he
time tonight, because for us to withdraw, we could be looking at another 5 =
months
and I don't think that's right in this case. I would like to ask . . . .
Mr. Undercuffler: Well it wouldn't necessarily requi=
re
another public hearing, would it?
Mr. Rafey: =
No, you could put the public hearin=
g for
next month. Withdraw this, gi=
ve the
Commission and the applicant time to review and respond.
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Okay.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 15
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Gail McTaggert, Attorn=
ey
Atty. McTaggert: I think Moosa is right. We could if the Commission were
cooperative with us and would schedule it, we could withdraw and immediately
resubmit and we'd be back right where we are without a timeframe with the
understanding that obviously it would be helpful for Chuck to go through th=
ese
comments with the engineers and I think the Commission would be more
comfortable with us coming back if there were a few issues that were left to
discuss rather than just leave it where you've got to decide it and you don=
't
have the answers. I think it =
makes
sense.
Mr. Rafey:<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I suggest that the Commission waiv= e the application fee because it was staff's fault that we didn't do it on time.<= o:p>
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, it's certainly the same appli=
cation.
Mr. Rafey: =
Just write a letter to withdraw this
application and you can bring it to my office tomorrow and we'll put it bac=
k on
the agenda for the next meeting.
Atty. McTaggert: Just resubmit it immediately and t=
hen
you would go ahead and get the notice in so we'd be back on track.
Mr. Rafey: =
The legal notice for next month, you
would have a public hearing everybody has enough time to review everything =
and
answer all the questions.
Atty. McTaggert: That's great, and I think that wou=
ld be
the best thing, and it should work, and we ought to be ready to be in the s=
ame
spot we'd be in next month anyway.
Mr. Undercuffler: There is going to be conservation
easements on this waterfront property, right?
Mr. Spath: =
We can go over that there was limit=
s of
disturbance that we have here, these shaded areas, here, here, we actually =
went
out to the site, here's another one here, here, this is your piece, we didn=
't
put any on yours, but we do have limits of disturbance shown on there so th=
at
hasn't been overlooked but we can possibly if Moosa has time we can go over
that with him.
Mr. Undercuffler: That would be placarded so that pe=
ople
would know?
Mr. Spath: =
Yes, placarded or maybe post, maybe=
some
stones, because it's something that you're going to look at against the lak=
e,
probably be better, maybe a low lying stone wall, Moosa and the owner would
know that's the limit and I think that would probably work best in this cas=
e.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 16
Mr. Undercuffler: Yea, and I don't recall what kind =
of
trees are along there, but part of that would be there is no clearing of tr=
ees.
Mr. Spath: =
We do have pictures that are shown =
on
there, but I can go over that in more detail now.
Mr. Polletta: By next month you'll have everythi=
ng
answered and it will be (inaudible) for us too.
Mr. Rafey: =
I asked the commission to waive the
application fee, but the public hearing fee, the cost for the legal notice
publication, that will be an additional fee.
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> All right, thank you.
Mr. Berger: I'd like to make one recommendation=
, that
during this coming month that the applicant also talk to the Parks and
Recreation Commission. Any ac=
tivity
that is going to increase recreational use and recreational facilities at t=
hat
lake ought to be clear to the Parks and Recreation Commission if that's goi=
ng to
be part of your decision making process.&n=
bsp;
I think we ought to get their input on that, improvements to the inf=
ormal
boat launch area out there as well as the additions to the lakefront proper=
ty.
Ms. Sturgis: Does that mean they'd come to the =
public
hearing or they'd send us a letter?
Mr. Berger: Whatever they want. I think if it's=
going
to be part of your decision making process, you ought to know where they st=
and
on the items being proposed.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> We can submit a set of plans to the
Parks and Recreation Commission for their review and comment.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> And that should be done before our =
next
meeting so we have all these answers.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> And we also don't have the approva=
l from
Torrington Area Health District, so if you can work on that too.
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> I've been working on that with Bob =
Smith,
I responded to his stuff, this week he called me today and said he hasn't h=
ad a
chance to go over the new set of plans that were dropped off earlier in the
week.
Mr. Rafey:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> If we can get that by next month, =
that
would be helpful.
Mr. Scoville: <=
/b> I should have that next week.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 17
Mr. Undercuffler: Any other comimssion members have =
any
other comments? Is there anyo=
ne in
the public who wishes to speak?
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Sandra Ramer,
Ms. Ramer:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> I received a certified letter in t=
he
mail regarding this issue. We=
were
not able to make it to the last hearing, so we're just finding out about th=
is. When will we have an opportunity t=
o ask
questions and to find out how it will impact our well, our sewers, things l=
ike
that?
Mr. Undercuffler: Right now.
Ms. Ramer: =
Where is the road going through in
relation to the end of Flint Lock and will there be dynamite and will it im=
pact
my well and my sewer? I haven=
't
seen the plans yet so I don't know where this is in relation to my property=
.
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> You're located at the end of Flint
Lock? The road is actually en=
ding
over here, it is not going to connect at this time to that road.
Ms. Ramer: =
This is Flint Lock?
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That's right, and this is the prop=
osed
cul de sac here, existing dwelling next to yours, another dwelling, another
dwelling, another dwelling, we're only developing this piece here, we're
looking to remove the existing buildings that are in now structures and it
would be a 7 lot subdivision, not including this, so it's not going to conn=
ect
right now.
Ms. Ramer: =
Is this Phase III?
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> We're actually showing that to con=
nect,
we don't know at what time that would . . . . .
Ms. Ramer: =
(Inaudible) Phase II?
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> It's not really a phase, we're just
proposing up to here now. We'=
re
showing that this is designed that it could connect in the future, just as =
this
was shown when this subdivision was done, so we show that it can connect.
Ms. Ramer: =
How soon to here will you be develo=
ping
and where will be the dynamiting be and it will it impact my well and sewer=
?
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> There could be some down on this l=
ot
here.
Ms. Ramer: =
There's a lot of ledge in there.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 18
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Down on this lot there is some
excavation, there could be some blasting in there. This is a fill, this is pretty muc=
h on
grade, this road, so there wouldn't be anything close to you.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> According to that map, where is your
house?
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> This is Flint Lock, it's over here=
.
Mr. Polletta: <=
/b> Oh, you're in the last possible pha=
se.
Ms. Ramer:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> But I border the property right on=
the
end of
Mr. Spath: =
She's about right here.
Mr. Polletta: So you don't go through
Ms. Ramer: =
I go on the other side, but I borde=
r the
lot on Caruso. Is that lot go=
ing to
be . . . .
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Nothing has changed. If you walked down here now, there=
's
these 6 dwellings here . . . .
Ms. Ramer: =
I'm on this side. Where all the woods are.
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> If you pass that one dwelling, go =
by a
large area of wetlands on the other side of the wetlands, on the existing
trail, that's where the road is going to end.
Ms. Ramer:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> And your development stops here?
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That's right, for any road
development. These structures=
here
next to, on that side and this side are to remain right now.
Ms. Ramer: =
This structure will remain and this
structure will remain?
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> Nothing is going to change. Down on the other side of the wetl=
ands,
yea, the road is going to end right there.
Ms. Ramer: =
If you do have to dynamite, if ther=
e is
ledge in there, how will you determine how far it will impact and whether it
will impact my well and sewer?
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICATION #552– ANTHONY CARUSO
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 19
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> That's through the Fire Marshall, =
that
will actually, if you're the closest house, one of the closest houses, duri=
ng
the blasting, if there is blasting, they'll set up the device at your house=
and
do a pre-blast inspection of your house if there's a problem, you're far aw=
ay,
I don’t' think that, you're far away from any proposed development th=
at
we're doing, so I personally don't think it's any issue because the blasting
would be going down in this area, if there was any, so you're far away.
Ms. Ramer: =
Will this commission know if there =
will
be any blasting needed before it's improved?
Mr. Spath:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'> There will be some blasting for
construction of this drive and on this hill, we show our grading if there
wasn't any blasting, but there may be some there, which would mean less gra=
ding
of the soil. It's hard to say,
sometimes you say there's not going to be and there will be, sometimes you'=
ll
say there will be some blasting and there won't be any, but we do have test
holes that we've done out on the site and we've looked at it and there poss=
ibly
could be some in this area here, that's where it would be.
Mr. Undercuffler: Anybody else? Okay, I guess that's it.
MOTION:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> (Mr.
Polletta, sec. Mr. DiBona) to Close the Public Hearing for App. #5
Discussi=
on: =
; None
MOTION P=
ASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
Public Hearing Closed =
at about
8:00 p.m. (no time given).
Respect=
fully
submitted,
Edwin
Undercuffler, Vice Chairman
Conserv=
ation
Commission/
&nbs=
p; _________________=
_________________
&nbs=
p; Lynn
M. LaForme, Minutes Secretary