beagenda

MINUTES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

PUBLIC H= EARING

&nb= sp;

WATERTOWN HIGH SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY CENTER

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

&nb= sp;

APPLICAT= ION #567 – ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY

&nb= sp;

PRESENT: &nb= sp; = 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; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Moosa Rafey, Assistant Wetlands Enforcement Officer

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at about 8:40 p.m. (= no time given).

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Jones, Secretary, executed the Roll Call.

&nb= sp;

3. = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; D. Application #567 of Zohra and Moosa Rafey for construction of a common driveway to Lot = #16 and #20 off Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Recess or Adjourn Public Hearing must be Closed by Sept= ember 14, 2006, unless applicant grants a time extension.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Mr. Jones, Secretary, read 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= 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 10, 2006 at Watertown High School Technology Cente= r, 324 French Street, Watertown, CT to hear and act upon the following application:

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Application #567 of Zohra and Moosa Rafey to conduct the following regulated activities involved in the construction of a common driveway off of Highmeadow Road on= Town of Watertown property to access two residential lots, located on Thomaston = Road and Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT in an R-90 Residential Zoning District:<= o:p>

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; 1. = Disturbance of approximately 1,800 square feet of upland review area by the placement of fill, a culvert and grading associated with the construction of a proposed common driveway.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; 2. = Installation of erosion and sediment control measures within the wetlands/watercourse up= land review area.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; At this Hearing interested persons may be heard and written communications received. A copy of the applications is on file at the Planning and Zoning Office, 51 Depot Street, Suite 502, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Dated at Waterto= wn, CT this 27th day of July, 2= 006.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Dated at Waterto= wn, CT this 3rd day of August, = 2006.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Ron Jones, Secretary

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency"

&nb= sp;

Moosa Rafey, Applicant, 12-5 Maybury C= ircle, Waterbury, CT 06705=

Mr. Rafey: = Just for the record, I'm not going = to charge the Town of Watertown during this Public Hearing while I am presenting my application to you.

I gave a presentation = at the last meeting and I'm going to briefly describe what I am proposing tonight = and where this property is located. The map that I have here is the subdivision that shows the Highmeadow Subdivisi= on and during the approval of this subdivision in 1987 the Planning and Zoning Commission at that time required the developer to provide a 50 foot right of way to provide access to these 2 lots, not only these 2, but there are some landlocked properties behind this subdivision on Highmeadow Road.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

As you can see Lot #16= is located here and my wife owns this property and also there is another lot, = Lot #20 is behind this lot, I have another map that= I will show you later, that has frontage on Thomaston Road. What I am proposing is to put a co= mmon driveway on this 50 foot right of way to access Lot<= /st1:place> #16 and #20. For Lot #16 as you can see on this map there is no other frontage on any public road. This is the only way th= at I can get into this lot and develop this.&nb= sp; Lot #16 is 3.6 acres of land and Lot #20 is 2.95 acres of land and both of them are conforming to all zoning regulations after I received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The only issue in front of you ton= ight is because we did investigate that 50 foot right of way on my property there are no wetlands located on the 50 foot right of way. But there are some wetlands locate= d on the abutting property located on the north side of this 50 foot right of way and the driveway that I am proposing for these 2 lots is going through a 50 foot upland review area. Orig= inally I proposed an 18 foot wide driveway and the impact within the 50 foot setba= ck area was 1,800 square feet. I= think Mr. Berger did review this application and he submitted a memo to you and y= ou should have a copy of that in your file.&n= bsp; He recommended to you, he mentioned the condition that I want to res= pond to those points. If you look = at your memo it is dated July 20, 2006.

Item #1 was that addit= ional information should be provided for the alternative location for another driveway from Thomaston Ro= ad. I did provide that map to Mr. Berg= er and you should have a copy of that in your packet. He also suggested that recently the Commission approved other subdivisions with common driveways to 2 or 3 lots with 15 feet width and suggested that this can be reduced from 18 to 15 feet. I agree with that and I= made those changes and I have a map that I will show you now. Let me give you a copy of it becau= se I just received it today and I didn't get a chance to give it to Mr. Berger.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The difference between this map an= d the original map is the width of the driveway is 15 feet wide and I also talked= to the, there was another comment from Mr. Berger that the driveway should be moved south as much as possible and we moved it 3 feet. Now the impact is less than what w= as originally proposed and there is a reduction of about 280 square feet of up= land review area which is (inaudible) less than what was originally proposed.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> So what is the new total then?=

Mr. Rafey: = It will be 1,520 about. And the reason why I didn't want to bring this all the way to the edge of the 50 foot right of way is because t= here were some existing trees and shrubs there, I wan= t to keep those as a buffer between this driveway and the abutting property. If you remember on the site walk w= e also went to Thomaston Road to look at the situation there to see if it is feasible to put a driveway f= rom Route 6 to Lot #20, and at that time I d= idn't have a detailed map of the alternative.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 4

&nb= sp;

As you can see, this is Route 6, this is Lot #20, and this is lot #16, as you can see this is the o= nly frontage that Lot #16 has on this public right of way, there is no frontage= on any other public road. For th= is lot there is no other alternative, but for Lot #20 there is an alternative to go from Route 6 and put a driveway. As you can see the construction of= this driveway will impact almost the entire lot, and you can see (inaudible) the elevation from this point from Route 6 to the top of the hill is more than = 90 feet, and assuming that the entire hillside is rock and we can blast this a= rea, there will be a 40 feet high rock wall in front of the driveway and only if this is hard rock. If this is= soft material even construction of this driveway is impossible to do it, it's not feasible. If you allow to put= a driveway here for Lot #16 it doesn't make any sense to do all this construc= tion for a driveway to another lot and that's why we are proposing to put a comm= on driveway for 2 lots and it is recommended by all the agencies who are encouraging the Town to look at the lower impact and development in their t= owns and I went to many seminars and they're encouraging to put common driveways= if you can eliminate the number of driveways on a road, that way you can reduce the amount of impervious surface area and drainage and all other problems, especially in this case, this entire area is wooded now as you saw on the s= ite walk, and the trees and all this areas has to be cut and blasted in order to put in a driveway.

One other issue that i= s very important for this driveway is that the posted speed limit on Route 6 is 50= mph and most people drive at lest 60 or 65 mph sometimes, and having even a 15% slope, even if it is possible to build this driveway, a 15% slope in an icy situation, I cannot imagine someone putting their children in the car and g= oing to a highway at 50 mph posted speed limit.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> What is the site line, when you exi= t out onto Route 6, are you around the bend?

Mr. Rafey: Yes, also the site line has = problems, we'd have to do some blasting on both sides and do some grading in order to have the required site line for this lot.&= nbsp; At this time I don't have anything else to say, just that it is a co= mmon driveway to 2 lots with minimum impact on the 50 foot upland review area, originally was 1,800 square feet and I've reduced it to 1,520, that's the b= est I can do, that' only 15 feet wide. Just for your information the easement area for the CL&P power l= ine is 290 feet and this is only 15 feet (inaudible) middle of 290 feet easement area. Do you have any questio= ns?

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, it's not feasible to go all the way over to= the edge of the 50 foot right of way? Is there a setback requirement there as far as how close. I see when you're down in the 15 <= span class=3DGramE>feet, you have 14 feet to the edge of the 50 foot righ= t of way. How close can you get to= the edge?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 5

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: = There is no reg= ulation, in standard situations you can put the driveway to the property line. But on this if I want to keep an e= qual distance between the 2 properties and also to have some area to do some gra= ding but if I bring the driveway all the way to the edge of the 50 foot right of way, then there is no room for grading, it goes into private property and I don't have the right to do that.

Mr. Zawadzki: Now which portion of that is the existing gravel driveway that CL&P uses?

Mr. Rafey: = This is the existing driveway, I th= ink you can see it on your map, and this is outside of the 50 foot setback area= .

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> Okay, but that's still within the 2= 90 foot right of way of CL&P, right?

Mr. Rafey: = Yes.

Mr. Zawadzki: <= /b> But it's not on the part that the T= own of Watertown owns?

Mr. Rafey: = No, it's located on private propert= y.

Mr. Polletta: On the field trip we asked for a site plan for F= ernwoods section too and wetland area, can you find anything?

Mr. Berger: I'm not able to find, I found the approved subdivision for the Fernwoods which is what Mr. Rafey has on one of those p= oster boards, but I have not found the site plan that shows wetlands on there. I did attach to my July 20th memo actually the best thing I could come up with was the Town-wide wetlands map which does show, I believe, the wetlands on the property to the north is re= ally the beginning of a wetlands system that continues down along the back yards= of all those homes in the Fernwoods subdivision.

Mr. Polletta: So it starts from right from where the proposed driveway is and goes north.

Mr. Berger: Continues north, yes.

Mr. Polletta: And how far is it from the other property, or you couldn't find it?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 6

&nb= sp;

Mr. Berger: Well I couldn't find it on a site plan that show= ed what was approved, and I did not walk through the back properties, but it appears that it is along the back property lines of all those houses, to the north of this area, and then you go to the next northern street crossing, w= hose name escapes me right now, but there's a culvert crossing there and a conti= nual flow of water. (Tape #3, Side= A ended - may have missed some.)

Mr. Rafey: = If you look at your packet you shou= ld have a map like this and this is the wetland map. These red lines are the power line= s, and I drew over them and these 2 green spaces, this is the approximately locati= on of Lot #16 and Lot #20, and as you can see there are no wetlands on these t= wo properties, and also where I am proposing the driveway there is no wetlands= . If you can com= pare that to this, see that line, well that is a road. See that red line is the power lin= e and this green area is the approximately location of Lot= #16 and #20. You can see the = dashed areas are wetlands and there are no wetlands here and this is where I'm proposing the driveway, but it shows that there are some wetlands on the neighbor's property but nothing on the 50 foot right of way. You can see the dotted line, that = is the intersection and this is lot #16 and Lot #20, this is Thomaston Road, and y= ou can see that there is a wetland here in this area which is located on CL&am= p;P property and behind Mr. Salamone's property and even some other houses, but there is nothing within the 50 foot right of way. I think Mr. Berger also asked me w= hy the driveway has to be paved, because it's a common driveway Mr. Chairman and i= t's better to be (inaudible) destroy this part or that part, and this Commission approved many subdivisions in the past with common driveways that are paved. The grade here is (ina= udible) 6% which is not too bad, but it is good not to have any erosion into those = wetlands on the neighbor's property, it's better to pave it, and because it's a comm= on driveway, I don't want to (inaudible).

Mr. Zawadzki: Is there any requirement for a certain width or minimum width for a common driveway?

Mr. Rafey: I think 15 feet is kind of common, this Commissi= on approved another subdivision recently with 2 common driveways going to 3 lo= ts and that was 15 feet wide. I originally proposed 18 feet and Mr. Berger said it was too wide and I agreed with that. That is also a reduction. The length of this driveway here is 471 feet by reducing 3 feet 3 times 471 feet is a lot of impervious area that I reduced by reducing the width of the driveway, and we will have less impervious surface area and less drainage.=

Mr. DiBona: Is the driveway for Lot #16 already approved or no?

Mr. Rafey: No, it is in front of you.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 7

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: Now either side of the driveway is going to be graded? It's not going to be a swale, is it?

Mr. Rafey: It will be graded to 2 sides, (inaudible) if you look at the lower impact development, they always recommend to just reduce the sheet flow instead of concentrated flow. It will be graded to both sides. In this area there is a little dri= veway here that we saw, and between there is like a lower area that will be grass= ed with some natural vegetation in the water fro half of the driveway because = it will be crowned, it will be drained in both directions. The top of the driveway will be dr= ained on the south side and half will be drained to the north part. The Town of Watertown doesn't have any other regula= tions for driveways other than the slope, which is the maximum slope is 15% and t= his is only 6% which meets all the zoning requirements for a driveway.

Mr. Polletta: During the field trip, Chuck, we asked to see wh= at kind of,. Was it a pristine = wetland, was it a good wetland, I mean how do you feel? Do you feel that that wetlands were crossing is a good wetland or not?

Mr. Undercuffler: It's not a wetland, it's a . . . ..

Mr. Zawadzki: No, it's just the buffer.

Mr. Polletta: No, I mean where the driveway is?

Mr. Rafey: There are no wetlands there. This is the wetlands.

Mr. Polletta: <= /b> Right now you moved it so you're ou= t of it?<= /o:p>

Mr. Rafey: No, we were always out of it. This line is the 50 foot setback l= ine, see 50 feet? This is the wetl= ands and this area will be within the upland review area, nothing within the wet= lands. This is about = 25 or 30 feet or even more away form the wetlands. You should have a copy of the soil report that the soil scientist submitted and he was present at the l= ast meeting and gave a presentation about the wetlands. Just for the record, this area has= been disturbed during the construction of this subdivision. All the topsoil from this area has= been removed, and CL&P also because of their power line easement, they go th= ere and actually recently in March or April they went there and cleared out all this area, no vegetation was left there, there was nothing, but now it is growing back. Every so many y= ears they go there and clear cut this area because of the power lines, they don't want any tall vegetation to be there. The topsoil from this area was removed. This is like aquint soils, that means that this is a wetland soil that all the top layers of the soil has been removed, (inaudible) and actually you can see it on that prof= ile there.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 8

&nb= sp;

Mr. Polletta: Do you remember when we went on the field trip t= here was like a little bit of wet area and they were going to put a pipe over th= ere or something?

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: There is an existing pipe on the CL&P driveway, that is just for conveyance of the drainage = from one side to the other side. I= 'm not touching that and I put the same size 15 inch pipe there for that water that comes from the other side of the driveway to go to the other side, just conveying the drainage. It's = not a watercourse, it's not a wetlands. The length of the pipe was also reduced, = the (inaudible) area was kind of reduced a little bit compared to the original plan.

Mr. Zawadzki: Any other questions? Any other comm= ents, Chuck? At this point w= e'll open the floor to the public to comment on Application #567, Zohra and Moosa Raf= ey, Highmeadow Road. I'd just like to comment that at t= he last meeting we determined that this was not a significant activity but we'= re holding a public hearing because of signed petition by the public. We were in receipt of a letter fro= m N.U. commenting on the right of way usage but they had no mention of the impact = on wetlands and they weren't concerned about that, so we won't that make that a matter of the record for this meeting.

Mr. Rafey: For that letter from CL&P, I also have a response for you for your records. I'd like you to read that into the record.

Mr. Zawadzki: Well again this doesn= 't address any issues in front of this Commission in terms of impact on wetlan= ds so I don't think it should be part of the record. Any discussion= on that?

Mr. Polletta: I agree.

Mr. Berger: I would suggest they both be part of the record = but you can give them the appropriate weight in your decision making process, i= t's not applicable to wetlands issues, then you make= that determination as you deliberate your decision.

Mr. Zawadzki: Well they already are part of the record.

Mr. Berger: Right, maybe I was just being a little more care= ful with the words, I think they're both part of the record. As far as reading it into the reco= rd, that's up to you. If you do I wonder if you should read the original letter and then get the response.

Mr. Zawadzki: Because none of these, the CL&P letter didn't address any wetland impacts and this one doesn't either.<= /p>

Mr. Rafey: As long as it is part of the record I don't have= any . . . . .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 9

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: It is part of the record by nature by you giving= it to us, as is the letter from Northeast Utilities. Any comments f= rom the public on Application #567?

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Lou Salamone, 160 Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT 06795=

Mr. Salamone: Mr. Chairman, just a little clarification if I m= ay, the announcement mentions the fact that one of the properties that we're talking about here is on H= ighmeadow Road. Neither of these properties has frontage on = Highmeadow Road. The other question I need to be cl= ear on because it seems to be going around in circles here, the property the appli= cant is trying to access from H= ighmeadow Road to the public land, who is the owner of t= hat property?

Mr. Zawadzki: The applicant.&= nbsp; Lot #16 and #20?

Mr. Salamone: Well I've heard that one lot was in his name, one lot was in his wife's name, Zohra, I presume.

Mr. Rafey: That is correct.

Mr. Salamone: So Lot #16 th= e one that we're trying to access from Highmeadow Road, is under Mrs. Rafey's name, she is the owner?

Mr. Zawadzki: That's my understanding, yes.<= /p>

Mr. Salamone: Well then it seems that we have another little predicament here, perhaps just another minor housekeeping issue. I came across . . . .

Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, let me just stop you right there, because we're here to address the impact on the wetlands, and not about ownership or the applicant has made his presentation.

Mr. Salamone: But this was the very fundamental presentation of this issue here before you sir.

Mr. Zawadzki: And the issue is wetland impacts.

Mr. Salamone: The issue is whether this applicant should be in front of you presenting this case himself or not.

Mr. Zawadzki: No, it isn't.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 10

&nb= sp;

Mr. Salamone: If by State Statute he doesn't have the right he should disqualify himself from presenting or representing anyone else in fr= ont of this Commission. How could= that not be an issue? Plus we have= just spent the better part listening to his presentation with issues with him accessing his property from Route 6, Route 6 has no wetland issues, but yet= you indulged him. Can I ask the same of you, sir?

Mr. Zawadzki: That was an alternate proposal which we requeste= d him to make, and as a private citizen he's entitled to make a presentation or application for a permit before this Commission.

Mr. Salamone: Okay so he has the leeway to venture into areas = that do not directly impact wetland issues, whereas you almost chose not to incl= ude CL&P's objections to this driveway, you're telling me that anything bey= ond a wetland issue is not something . . . .

Mr. Zawadzki: Well it's not within our prerogative of this Commission, this Commission is a wetlands commission.<= o:p>

Mr. Salamone: Sir, with all due respect, the applicant has been indulged through this whole process, not only by you, by this Commission, b= ut other commissions and other Town officials. Directly related to the influence = of his job and his position in this Town and I'm asking you to grant me the leeway just to explain what I'm about to regarding the State Statue here, and then= I will go further into my comments regarding the wetland issues.

Mr. Zawadzki: All right.

Mr. Salamone: Chapter 24 on Zoning, Section 8-11, Disqualifica= tion of members of Zoning Notoriety. No members of any Zoning Commission or Board or member o any member of Zoning Board of Appeals, or any municipal agency exercising the powers of any zoni= ng commission or board of appeals, whether existing under the general statutes= or under the special act, shall appear for or represent any person firm corporation or other entity in a matter pending before the Planning and Zon= ing Commission or Board, or said Board of Appeals or agency exercising powers of such commission or board in the same municipality. In our first meeting along these l= ines, the applicant claimed he is not a conflict because he is not a member of the board and that he had gotten an opinion from the Town Attorney regarding th= at, so did he get the opinion as a Town employee or did he get an opinion from = the Town Attorney on a personal level?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 11

&nb= sp;

All I'm trying to say = sir is that there are improprieties or appear to be improprieties in this whole process. The Town Council had refused him on 2 occasions unanimously to use that piece of land for his own personal use, whether it be for a road or for a driveway, yet this Commission has chosen to act or take up his application. He is neither the owner nor does he have permission to use the land. Does that mean that I can come bef= ore this Commission and apply for a permit to put in a driveway at Veteran's Fi= eld and you're going to take up that application?

Mr. Zawadzki: If you represent that party we have applicants a= ll the time that are represented by lawyers, engineers, what have you. The applicant in most cases we nev= er see.

Mr. Salamone: I understand.&n= bsp; Are we saying that he is acting on behalf of the Town?

Mr. Zawadzki: No.

Mr. Salamone: So he's not acting on behalf of the Town, he does not own the property, nor does he have permission from the Town Council whi= ch represents the taxpayers of this town to use that property, but yet his application is being taken up. I can't fathom that. I'm missing something here which is very fundamental to this whole process.<= /span>

Mr. Polletta: I thought that this property was either a paper street property or a right of way to that property.

Mr. Salamone: This is not a paper street. It is a piece of land that when I = moved into that area, was space to be deeded to the Town.

Mr. Zawadzki: Which it is.

Mr. Salamone: Which it is.&nb= sp; There is also an equal amount of property on the directly opposite t= his, going west. That is not leadi= ng to any interior property so how can we say that we are so certain that that la= nd was left there for the purpose of accessing Lot #16, yet the one across the= street goes nowhere, just open space given to the Town as in the case in any development? It's simply is inappropriate, improper for this driveway or road whatever to be put on that piece of land. First of all i= t's going to devalue the price of my property.= Secondly it flies in the face of 2 unanimous Council decisions but y= et we're moving forward with it. It seems to me this is just like a rubber stamping process. There was an independent attorney = hired for this particular situation. He was supposed to have rendered a decision 2 or 3 weeks ago, and perhaps Mr. Berg= er can better enlighten me on that date, yet he has not rendered an opinion. Quite honestly I think he is waiti= ng to see what this Commission does so he can simply r= ubber stamp his approval as well.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 12

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: What attorney was that?

Mr. Salamone: Attorney Hess recommended by our own Town Attorn= ey, surprise, surprise. As far s = the driveway itself is concerned, the applicant is proposing on surfacing almost 8,500 square feet of area. Yo= u were out there, you saw the terrain, there is no way = you're not going to create a concentrated runoff at the bottom of that driveway. Oh yea, it's going to be capped, a= nd we're going to drain to either side of it, until we get to the bottom where he's going to install a pipe that's going to allow that drainage to go onto= my property. As I said at the la= st meeting, I spent almost $25,000 to minimize and not alleviate the water flow onto my property. This is not= going to help it. This is going to = negate what I did. So as a property = owner am I just going to be out that money and I have to be quiet about it. A roadway or driveway on that prop= erty is going to increase the amount of what is already a terrible activity with regards to off road vehicles. We're constantly calling the cops. = If there is a driveway there, that's going to become a little racetrack for th= em. I stand in my, I'm getting frustra= ted here, I'm raising my voice, but it seems as every time I turn, every time t= he neighbors turn around, this process just gets pushed along further and furt= her and further and it seems to me that it's been put on the fast track ever si= nce there's been a significant change in the Town official sin the past 6 or 8 months. This driveway is goin= g to create ultimately what I consider to be an interior lot. It was my understanding that the T= own was against interior lots and I think I heard you state earlier Mr. Chairman th= at when you put an easement in the hands of a property owner, you haven't had = much luck. It has not proven to be= very successful. I understand you = want to focus on wetland issues, but please understand that what you do here is going to have ramifications on other actions in this process. You approve this driveway and Atto= rney Hess is going to rubber stamp an opinion that Mr. Pilicy put together not l= ong ago. An opinion tha= t he should have never put together. H e should have recused himself from even getting involved. I'm asking you to be just as conce= rned about my rights and the rights of my neighbors. As everybody s= eems to be concerned about the rights of Mr. Rafey. Thank you.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Ryan Fahey, 104 Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT 06795= =

Mr. Fahey: Not to rehash too much of what I said in the pas= t, the only questions that I have with regards to this is you've stated that y= ou did the site walk, you looked at the property etc., you've see the whole proposal here and you determined that the effects were minimal, I spoke to = Mr. Berger yesterday and he did show me on the maps that you just looked at and= he told me that there were no wetlands really going to be impacted. But I will say the same thing to y= ou that I said to him yesterday, that the area right where Mr. Rafey wants to = put this driveway, I'm not an expert on this stuff but in my view lately it's b= een more dry typically than it usually is.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 13

&nb= sp;

Like I said I'm not an expert on this tuff, but I always considered that area to the left of where= the CL&P driveway is, the trails over here, to the left of that, as Mr. Raf= ey explained, there's a pipe underneath and that lets whatever drainage from t= he right side of the driveway, I mean whatever water that collects, which is considerable, sometimes it's like up to 3 or 4 feet of water drains onto the other side, at least to me that looks like it creates an intermittent watercourse on the left side where Mr. Rafey's property is. Because of that, not where his pro= perty is but where the right of way that leads to his property will be. Now due to that I suppose now he's= going to install this pipe which will allow that water to flow into this area over here, which is wetlands, as Mr. Berger said that he determined from looking= at the overall thing and now there are quite a bit of wetlands back there beca= use I go back there all the time, I've done it for years, I haven't sent he map= of when the subdivision as originally approved either but I'm a little bit concerned about this water here being moved around, disturbed, and especial= ly being drained into that wetland area already, I that going to cause because that water is now going to pool to the left, even though Mr. Rafey or whoev= er claims that it doesn't, it does pool there during the Spring months and if = all that water that pools there is now going to go into the wetlands, if that's going to cause expansion of the wetlands at all into the people, other peop= le further up Highmeadow like Mr. Citaro there who does have wetlands behind h= is property, as a matter of fact his back yard is pretty wet if I'm not mistak= en so as far as the neighbor's on the street are concerned, I spoke to them an= d we turned in the petition so that we could address this unfortunately a lot of people couldn't be here but I'd just like to know how this is going to impa= ct this subdivision as a whole. = Now as we know this when this subdivision was approved this was not part of the subdivision. In my view what = Mr. Rafey is basically trying to do is add 2 lots onto the Fernwoods subdivision whic= h is a subdivision that he is not a part of.&nb= sp; Without going through that whole process.= Normally when you have lots on a subdivision, you would go through an approval process and you would look at= how this was related to the whole subdivision, but it doesn't seem like that was ever done of course because these 2 lots are now part of the subdivision. They were never intended to be acc= essed through this piece of property here despite what he said he can access both properties from Route 6 and not have any wetlands impact whatsoever and no impact to the surrounding properties like Mr. Salamone who had to have a st= orm drain moved for $25,000 so he wouldn't have water on his property so you sa= id you wanted to focus on wetlands issues and I agree and these are the issues that run through my mind.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 14

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: Basically as part of my understanding of the pipe under the driveway there was the fact that the driveway, when it was instal= led by CL&P would act as sort of a physical barrier, even though it's all gravel to the natural flow of water from south to north in this case and th= at the pipe allows the water to pass from the one side to the other of the driveway so in fact it's preventing water from accumulating on the south si= de of the driveway and therefore allowing it to pass through into its normal f= low which was into the wetlands at the north, in other words to prevent a parti= al drying up of the wetlands.

Mr. Fahey: I agree, but that's exactly my point. CL&P put the driveway in there= and that kind of acts as a dam which causes the water to pool on the right hand side. I suppose you could say= the north side or the south side.

Mr. Zawadzki: It's the south side.

Mr. Fahey: The south side, now as far a= s the south side going on the north side, were that driveway not there tha= t whole area would be wet because the water wouldn't pool on the right side and it would spread over to the left. (Tape #3, Side B ended - may have missed some.) And they had previously had proble= ms due to that. They had to re-gravel their driveway was because what they were having problems with was original= ly when that CL&P driveway was just dirt, they were getting mud so bad the= re that they couldn't even get trucks or people or anything up there because it was so bad. My point is that = the area is a lot wetter than it would seem at first and like I said, were the CL&P driveway not there to stop the water from pooling over to the left hand side, or the north side, that whole area underneath the power liens wo= uld be wet and would probably be wetlands or watercourse or whatever you want to call it.

Mr. Zawadzki: Well that's speculation.

Mr. Fahey: Well I just want to know how it's going to affect it, cause the pipe is going to be there and we're going to be moving water = to areas that it doesn't go naturally so looking at that area now it's been pr= etty dry the past few months right where Mr. Rafey wants to put the driveway, bu= t I can assure you it gets pretty wet there sometimes, cause you can see right since they did the clear cutting the vegetation has changed a little bit but you get some pretty good skunk cabbage growth over there pretty regularly s= o I mean it's a wet area, this whole area is a wet area underneath the lines. I guess that's it for now.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 15

&nb= sp;

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Janet Spinella, 104 Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT 06795=

Ms. Spinella: I won't reiterate what they have said. I really think what Mr. Salamone s= aid and what my son said have a lot of validity to it, to the comments, and I w= ill say that I noticed all during the Hearing you were all looking at whoever w= as speaking, and when Mr. Salamone was speaking you were all looking down, and that conveys to me that you aren't comfortable and you should have been, because this process has been going on for 5 years. It's been passed from board to boa= rd to board to board. The Town Coun= cil turned this request down twice. I understand you're only talking wetlands here, but what Mr. Salamone said is true, if you approve this, then you're giving a rubber stamp and that's basically why Mr. Rafey keeps coming back and coming back and combin= e back, and that's because he has all these ears to listen to and that's inappropriate. Another thing = that's inappropriate is you received a letter from Northeast Utilities dated August 8th. He has given you a rebut= tal dated, today is the 10th. If = he was just any person, he wouldn't have access to that, but he got I believe Mr. Jones you received the letter.

Mr. Jones: No.

Ms. Spinella: Well its addressed to you. My point is that he has = access to charts, he can have charts made, he can have this done, that done, and l= et's face it, when you know someone you give them more consideration than a stranger, and that's what's happened continually, so I would ask you to ple= ase listen to what Mr. Salamone said, what Ryan said, and what my other neighbo= rs feel, there's a reason why there was better than 25 names on that petition. And this has gone o= n for 5 years and hopefully it will come to an end shortly. He has the access from Route 6, so= be it. When he bought that land,= let the buyer beware. He knew wha= t the grade of the land was. Thank = you for your consideration.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Jim Petroccia, 22 Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT 06795= =

Mr. Petroccia: A couple hundred yards down from where this place is. I'm amazed that this thin= g is still being asked to be approved. I bought a lot there in 1981, and before I did Garrassino tried very hard with the Planning and Zoning Commission to get approval for this piece of land t= hat was primarily landlocked and he was refused outright, and so he said that's= it, that was the end of that. I t= hought that was the end of that too. Then subject to that it came up before another commission and they refused it. After that another try and they refused. I can't understand h= ow long do you have to do with this? Can this go on this many times and be reconsidered? I think there's a little bias ther= e and it should be considered. It's bias and I don’t think it should have been considered at all because it was refused from the original developer. It wasn't part of the subdivision,= they didn't want it and that was the end of it.= I thought. Thank you.<= o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 16

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: I wasn't around then but the right of way was established by a unanimous vote of the Planning and zoning Commission on September 2, 1987 for the express purpose of providing access from the publ= ic road, Highmeadow to an interior property including Mr. Rafey's property, and that's a matter of public record, from September 2, 1987.=

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Ryan Fahey, 104 Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT 06795= =

Mr. Fahey: I can address what you're talking about there Yes it is true. That was originally, I = mean I guess you could yes it was planned to be a right of way approved whatever d= ate you specified, 1987. What Mr. Petroccia is referring to is that originally the original owner of the prop= erty wanted to get access through there and it was denied. When Mr. Garrassino passed away hi= s son deeded agreed to deed that property to the Town without the consent of the = neighbors or anyone else which is exactly what his father had promised not to do. None of the neighbors were informe= d when this was done and that's why the neighbors have had such problems with this supposed right of way ever since. Though it was agreed in concept in 1987 that they would put a 50 foot strip there and in fact was not deeded to the Town of Watertown until 2001 I believe I think = it was January 2001, after Franklin Pilicy contacted Mrs. Garrassino in Wisconsin = and got her to deed it to the Town like it was originally supposed to have been= and that occurred after Mr. Rafey bought the property in 1999, not before in 19= 87 or anything like that. We bou= ght our lot for instance in 1986 and there was no discussion about any 50 foot = strip going there for a right of way or anything else at the time. So as far as the right of way, it = was there, but nobody knew about it. That was one of the issues. <= /span>#2 though they agreed to put the 50 foot strip there, Stan Masayda who was the head of the P & Z Commission at the time, though it was approved by unanimous vote he states, if you red the minutes, that they weren't sure th= at it would work, they wanted to try it out, they weren't sure it would work #1 because of concerns from CL&P and #2 because of other concerns, whatever they may be. For one thing th= at piece did not have frontage on a road, and of course Mr. Rafey was granted = the variance on his second go through after it was denied the first time, now w= hy they gave it to him the second time I have no idea other than there being different personnel on the board with different opinions of the matter. So after it was approved he then h= as proceeded to go through all these motions here, but I don’t' like to rehash all of this old stuff, but that's really what lot of people are still upset about. And for everyone= to just kind of brush it off like well this was already approved, there was a reason why things were approved and not approved so I mean though it was approved in concept as I said, there were questions as to whether or not it would be feasible and the Town so far has not agreed with doing it which is= why they denied Mr. Rafey the right to go through there, not once but twice already.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 17

&nb= sp;

Now as I already said before, he also has approval to go from Route 6 and he can access both lots from there despite what he says. He had an engineer draw up the plans and they told him it was feasible in fact= , it would just cost a lot of money and be very difficult, but financial considerations are not supposed to be a hardship in matters like this. Now as far as going from Route 6, = he made a comment about something to the effect of as far as Lot #20 I can acc= ess that from Route 6, but Lot #16 has to come from Highmeadow Road by this driveway so he made it sound like there's got to be a driveway from Highmeadow = Road no matter what, but that's not the case.&n= bsp; He can access both lots, Lot #16 = and #20 from Route 6 by using a common driveway just like he wants to do from <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Highmeadow Road and that is what the neighbors, the residents of Highmeadow Road had wanted him to do from the start. And that's what the original plan was. Now the difference between Mr. Raf= ey and Mr. Overton who was the previous owner, Mr. Overton was the original owner = of Lot #16 before Mr. Rafey owned it, he wanted access= to Highmeadow Road from there. At the time 1987,= they agreed that they'd put a 50 foot strip there so he could potentially access it. The difference between Mr. Overton and Mr. Rafey is that Mr. Overton only owned Lot #16 and that parcel was a landlocked parcel at the time, and the only reason they agreed to put that 50 foot strip there to access it was because he had no access on any street whatsoever, so Lot #16 could only be accessed from Highmeadow Road at that time.

Now since then Mr. Raf= ey purchased that property, subsequently to purchasing a piece of property on Route 6, which is Lot #20, and I believe it was early 1999 he purchased Lot= #20 which abuts Route 6 and then 6 months later he bought Lot #16, after he bou= ght Lot #20. Now that he owns bot= h of those parcels, he has access to both Lot #16 and Lot= #20 from Route 6. He has the = variance, and minimum frontage for Lot #16 so with that variance he can access Lot #16 through Lot #20 from Route 6. He doesn't need= anything else to do that at this point other than what he has already. There are no wetland issues whatso= ever or any other issues with the neighbors or anybody else if he comes from Rou= te 6 and that is basically what the Planning and Zoning Commission had advised h= im to do originally but he has just been hell bent on going from Highmeadow Ro= ad from the start due to financial considerations and that's basically what it comes down to. I hope that cl= ears that up.

Mr. Polletta: You keep saying that the Town of Watertown has an access to that first l= ot, am I right?

Mr. Fahey: Yes.

Mr. Polletta: So that means it's been approved that he can use that right of way to go to the first lot, am I right or wrong? I'm getting confused over here the= way it was approved (inaudible).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 18

&nb= sp;

Mr. Fahey: It is very confusing.

Mr. Polletta: The way you're saying to the best of my knowledg= e I thought that this was a right of way to get this land, now we're going acro= ss this piece of land, but you're saying that Mr. Rafey does not own that.

Mr. Fahey: The piece, well he owns Lot #16 and Lot #20, he does not own the right of way no. The Town of Watertown owns the right of way. Calling it a right of way is a loos= e term. I mean everyone accepts it as a ri= ght of way in principal, there's nothing on the deed that indicates that it's a ri= ght of way anywhere. The only thi= ng that indicates that it's a right of way is the minutes from the meeting of = 1987 where they forced Mr. Garrassino to deed the 50 foot strip as a condition of approving that section of the subdivision, which they had no legal basis fo= r, by the way. I mean I'm not a = lawyer but it was basically blackmail when you look at the situation, but that' neither here nor there.

Mr. Polletta: At one point Mr. Garrassino used that as a right= of way to access to that lot?

Mr. Fahey: No, Lot #16 w= as never owned by Mr. Garrassino. The area where the 50 foot strip is, was owned by Mr= . Garrassino, he owned that, he owned all this property over here. Lot #16 was back here, and when Mr. Garrassino was [putting in the subdivision, the owner of Lot #16 approached= him and wanted to get a right of way (inaudible) road, he said no way, I'm not going to do it. This is a pla= nned subdivision, there's no right of way to be had. Mr. Overton then approached us and several of the other owners further down asked us about letting him through, sharing a common driveway with us, etc., we said no. Take a walk. At that point Mr. Overton went to = the Planning and Zoning Commission when Mr. Garrassino was getting this section= of the subdivision approved, and said look, I'm about to be cut off here completely and even though Mr. Garrassino said to the Commission look, you'= ve always been cut off, which he was, when the Rufton Farm was there he had no= access to anything because Highmeadow Road wasn't there. After Mr. Garrassino put Highmeadow Road in, and had it paved and it was accepted as a road by the Town, Mr. Overton wen= t to Stan Masayda the head of Planning and Zoning at the time and said look you'= ve got to give me a right of way here, I'm about to be cut off, so he went bef= ore the commission and stated his case, and like I said there was no real basis= for it, he was able to convince them to do it.= Now like I said his situation was a little different because he only owned Lot #16 and at that time the 50 foot strip would have been the only w= ay that he could have accessed Lot #16 realistically because at that point he owned Lot #16.

Mr. Polletta: At one point they deeded this land to access Lot #16. (Inaudible.).

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 19

&nb= sp;

Mr. Fahey: Yea, it was a coercion but yes, it was done, but like I said, that was their plan, whether or not it was going to work or not they didn't even know, they stated right in the minutes its kind of a moot point, but they would do it anyway, and that's kind of what started all the trouble because they never should have done it to begin with.

Mr. Undercuffler: I think we're straying from inland/wetlands. I mean this is all very interestin= g history, it's all zoning issues . . . . .

Mr. Fahey: I realize that, I just wanted to answer his question.

Mr. Zawadzki: Any other comments on wetland issues? Not to belabor what's already been= said.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Lou Salamone, 160 Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT 06795=

Mr. Salamone: Mr. Rafey stated again this evening as he did wh= en you were at the site, that CL&P often goes in there and just clear cuts everything. That is absolutely false. That is not true. I have been up there 14 years. The only time CL&P has come in= and clear cut that strip, that 50 foot strip from Highmeadow Road, east to the = high tension lines, was this past December or January, just a few months before = his soil scientist showed up to look at the property. They have never done that before.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I even spoke to the contractors wh= o did the work, they never performed that type of work any place else. I just wanted to get that clear, b= ecause he mentioned that at the site, he mentioned it again this evening that they often go in and clear cut, that is not true.

Mr. Undercuffler: I don't think that affects anything, does it? What's the impact?

Mr. Salamone: That when you clear cut that land I think it has= a lot to do with drying it up a little bit before your soil scientist goes in the= re.

Mr. Zawadzki: Anybody else?&n= bsp; Okay, Mr. Rafey, do you have any counter comments?=

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Moosa Rafey, Applicant=

Mr. Rafey: I don't have to answer to any of these questions because they have nothing to do with my application, to be hones.

Mr. Zawadzki: I understand.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 20

&nb= sp;

Mr. Rafey: Just for clarification I want to touch on a few = points that they made. There is no conflict of interest for me to be in front of you representing my wife or myself with an application. I= am not a member of any land use board or commission, period. There is no conflict of interest.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There are legal opinions, there is= a statue and I don't want to go into details, but there i= s no conflict. It is very normal for someone to p= resent their wife or brother or cousin, or landowner, I= mean they said that I cannot be here in front of you to represent my wife or myself? I mean that is a stra= nge . . . . and Mr. Fahey made a few points . . . . these 2 lots are not part of that subdivision and they= are not going to be a part of that subdivision. Mr. Fahey said that by putting this driveway they become part of the subdivision; that is not correct. These are individual parcels of lo= ts existing there, before the subdivision and after the subdivision. They are not going to be a part of= the subdivision period, because they have concerns just for their information, = it's not going to be a part of their subdivision. The only question that was really = relevant to this application was that Mr. Fahey said that I am going to change the drainage or the pipe and stuff, I am not going t= o make any changes. Whether I put th= is driveway in or to, that water is going from the south side of that CL&P driveway to the north side anyway. What I'm doing is I'm just putting another pipe for the same water t= hat is coming now and going to that driveway, I don'= t know what will be the impact. With= all due respect, I respect all of the neighbors, and always when I see them I s= ay hello to them and I don't care if they say hello to me or not, but this is = the type of person I am, but with all due respect to them this development, this proposal has no impact on anybody's property period. Some of those houses, I mean Mr. Petroccia's house is not even on this map, I think this is Mr. Petroccia's = lot, I'm sorry. This lot 48 is Mr. Petroccia. The only 2 neighbo= rs that are close to this property is Mr. Salamone, and Mr. and Mrs. Rectanwal= d, but I don't think they're here tonight.&nb= sp; This house is far away from this.&n= bsp; You see there is 290 feet of easement between Mr. Salamone's and Mrs. Rectanwald's, and this driveway will be in the middle of that nowhere. After awhile no one will even noti= ce it is there. I'm not going to be= like against the entire neighborhood there.&nbs= p; I don't know, I never knew what they want= . I called everybody before I submit= ted my original application, the response that I receiv= ed was very unfriendly. Even one tim= e my wife called one of the neighbors and the answer was just go and talk to my attorney. I mean we don't hav= e any problem with this (inaudible) I don't know what they want from this. We have the right to develop our l= and like everybody else. I have t= he right to appear in front of any board and commission like anybody else.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 21

&nb= sp;

Like I said, this application is for a very minor regulated activity. This Commission has approved many subdivisions recently and in the past, that is why we have this Commission here. Actually to be honest, I shouldn't have gone there to check the soil. I sent my soil scientist 3 times t= o this property, I even did some off site work to make = sure that I don't make any mistakes here. I spent (inaudible) there was no wetlands on my properties, on both lots, there are no wetlands on the 50 foot right of way, and at one of the P & Z meetings one of the neighbors mentioned there are wetlands on the CL&P property. I sent the= soil scientist again and he flagged that piece of wetlands that you can see on t= his map, this is off site. This C= ommission never asked any developer any applicant to go and delineate off site wetlands. I did just because = I'm working for the Town, I didn't want anybody to make an issue. I went there and I saw there was a= piece of wetlands and I sent the soil scientist.= Again they said that there are wetlands within the 50 foot right of way. I sent the soil scientist again and we found there is a wetland area on Mr. Salamone's property. Just to make it short and quick, M= r. Chairman, I want to thank some of the neighbors who mentioned that 's been 5 years that I've been going from board to board. Instead they are calli= ng this a rubber stamp. I wish t= hey get the same rubber stamp when they have an application in front of these boards and commission. I'm re= ally sick and tired. If they are t= ired of coming here to complain about this, imagine how tired my family and I am= to go from this, and this is all because of personal issues. I don’t' want to get into that. My proposal in front of= you is a driveway to 2 existing lots, there is a wetlands next to this 50 foot right of way, I am putting this driveway within 50 foot upland review area,= the impact is 1,520 square feet approximately within the upland review area, nothing in the wetlands. I ha= ve the right to be in front of this Commission like everybody else to submit an application for your (inaudible) situation. I asked the commission to please c= lose the public hearing and make a decision on this as soon as you can, cause I'm really tired of this.

Mr. Zawadzki: Have you ever applied to the Conservation Commis= sion before on this application?

Mr. Rafey: No, this is the first time I'm here. Those other issues, they said that= the Town Council refused this twice . . . .

Mr. Zawadzki: Well we're not here to discuss that.<= /span>

Mr. Rafey: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Zawadzki: Chuck, do you have any comments?

Mr. Berger: I have no comments.

Mr. Zawadzki: Anybody else?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 22

&nb= sp;

Jim Julian, 94 Highmeadow Road, Waterto= wn, CT&nbs= p; 06795

Mr. Julian: Just one quick thing= that really gets me here, it has no effect on me at all where I am, I am support= ing our neighbors. I'm not saying= the price of our lots, the last lot sold for $300,000, he paid $10,000, it means nothing to me. To put a septic tank with ledge, probably $50,000, $150,000 for a driveway, go to Highmeadow= Road you have free sewers and water. I don't care about the money. M= y big concern is 1982 I bought property in Waterbury, closed down Mobil Gas station, RL zone, they have a big wallet, we all know. Everybody got paid off.= The neighbors told me to give them $10,000, so we got $5,000, okay a gas station in Waterbury in an RL zone. Closed down, I buy it. 20 years convenience store, still = in business right now, I don't own it no more. 20 years, 7 days a week, it's a go= od living. Go to City of Waterbury I own o= ne square acre, beautiful piece of land, I want to = double the building, put some rents. My retirement right now is my lease. Great lease, triple (inaudible) business, good living. Mr. Polletta knows, he owns some businesses like that. Go to City of Waterbury= I want to put an addition, exact same size building, 2 more rents. Can't do it Mr. Julian, RL zone, residential light duty. You can add onto the building 50% bigger, go to a hearing use non-conforming use, I said no, but I want to pu= t a couple more businesses. Can't do it. Hire an attorney.

Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, how is this relevant to our application?

Mr. Julian: Now I go to the meeting I get voted down, I went down this year I cannot apply this year.&n= bsp; I got voted zone. Forg= et it Kenny. The only thing you tol= d me is some day the zoning may change, I can't even apply no more. I got voted down, don't come back again. Wh= en I don't go down, when all the people retire, maybe a new crew might like me.<= /span> I was voted down and I can't even = apply again. I can't apply again, I= got voted down, don't even bother coming down.= That's my concern. I got voted down, cannot do it again. I'm doing this to support my neighbors. This has been I do= n't know where we're going, this meeting, town board, all got voted down, keep coming back and back and back. I want to know because if this goes through . . . .

Mr. Zawadzki: This has never been presented to the Conservatio= n Commission prior to this . . . .

Mr. Julian: PZ, Planning and Zoning voted it down, it's one step to another. I want to know if it works, c= ause if it does, I'm going to Waterbury and hir= e a lawyer and say the Town of Wat= ertown did it . . . . .

Mr. Zawadzki: Well this is the process in Watertown, I can't speak for Waterbury.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 23

&nb= sp;

Mr. Julian: I'm sure it's all state rules not town rules.

Mr. Zawadzki: Yea, we do have State Statutes but the land use regulations are zoning and that's the individual Town so Waterbury has its own zoning and Waterto= wn has it's own.

Mr. Julian: I'm sure of that, but if it works here I'm going= to go for it down there.

Mr. Zawadzki: Do you have anything new to add?

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Ryan Fahey, 104 Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT 06795= =

Mr. Fahey: Just one response to something that Mr. Rafey sa= id. He basically was saying that he's = been going around, how would he like us to go through= all of this to get something approved. <= /span>Well I would remind him of one thing, we bought lots and built houses in an appr= oved subdivision and lots that were already approved and all this stuff was alre= ady settled ahead of time, he did not. <= /span>He's trying to build houses on 2 lots he bought for junk, he bought $13,000 and = he got 2 lots and he's trying to get them approved, like I said, he's basically adding on to the subdivision.

Mr. Polletta: This has nothing to do with wetlands.=

Mr. Zawadzki: Again it's not relevant.

Mr. Fahey: Well I'm responding to what he said.<= /span>

Mr. Polletta: I understand, but it's not related to wetlands.<= o:p>

Mr. Fahey: That's all I have to say, because he is going through a process that we didn't have to go through because we had approved lots already so it stands to reason.

Mr. Zawadzki: So you had already gone through the process.

Mr. Fahey: Well Mr. Garrassino had obviously. He is trying to put a driveway in a right of way, where in Watertown there are no instances where there's a driveway through a public right of way, that is not part of an approved subdivision, which this isn't, just remember that.

Mr. Zawadzki: Okay, anybody else?

Mr. Rafey: Do you have any questions for me regarding this = application? Any Commission members, anything that is not clear for this Commission?<= /span>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #567– ZOHRA AND MOOSA RAFEY=

AUGUST 10, 2006

PAGE 24

&nb= sp;

Mr. Zawadzki: I don't, anybody else= ? (Tape #4, Side A ended - may have missed some). Remind you that we ruled a month ago that this was not a significant activity and we held the public hearing because of the petition, so at this point is there any discussion as to keeping the public hearing open?

MOTION:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>       (Mr. = Undercuffler, sec. Mr. Polletta) to Close the Public Hearing f= or App. #567 of Zohra and Moosa Rafey = for construction of a common driveway to Lot #16 and #20 off Highmeadow Road, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

  &nbs= p;         Public Hearing Recessed at 9:52 p.m.

  &nbs= p;         Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called a 10 minute recess at 9:52 p.m.

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