beagenda

MINU= TES

&nb= sp;

CONSERVA= TION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY

CONTINUA= TION OF PUBLIC HEARING

&nb= sp;

JOHN TRUMBULL PRIMARY SCHOOL MEDIA CENTER

THURSDAY= , JULY 19, 2007 - 7:00 P.M.

&nb= sp;

APPLICAT= ION #589 – JOSEPH MASI

FRENCH H= ILL ESTATES

&nb= sp;

PRESENT: = ; &n= bsp; = ; Thomas Murphy, Secretary

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; Donato Orsini, Vice Ch= airman

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

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

ABSENT: &nb= sp; = = L= ucia DiBona

= ; &n= bsp; = ; = G= len Duplissie

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

ALTERNATES PRESENT: = ; Denise Russ

ALTERNATES ABSENT: = ; <= /span>Greg Hawes<= /span>

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Scott Marotta

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

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Moosa Rafey, Assistant Zoning Enforcement Officer

1. = Call Meeting To Order

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at 7:11 p.m.

2. &nb= sp; Roll Call

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, executed the Roll Call.

Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, asked Ms. Russ to sit in for Mr. DiBona, in his absence= .

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 2

&nb= sp;

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

&nb= sp;

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.

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.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 3

&nb= sp;

3. = Hearing of Applications

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; A. Continuation of Public Hearing from June 14, 2007 - Application #589 of Joseph Masi for construction of French Hill Estates a 16 lot residential subdivision locate= d on French Street= , Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Public Hearing must be Closed by July 19, 2007, unless applicant grants an extensi= on of time.

Janet Brooks, Attorney Repres= enting Applicant

Atty. Brooks: I'm going to just make some brief comments tonight and then turn it over to Don Nolte from the Stuart Somers Company. This regards a comme= nt made by one of the Commissioners last month in which there was the proposit= ion set forth that nothing was going to be approved in the upland review area, = and I just wanted to review the current status of the law so that we're all on = the same page as to the legal effect of activities in the upland review area. We have the benefit of 2 State Sup= reme Court Cases since the year 2000. One in 2001, the Keach Decision out of Branford, and the 2004 decision, Riverbend Associates out of Simsbury. In that case we have the benefit o= f the court telling us what it means to be looking at activities in an upland rev= iew area, and quite clearly that it is not a buffer, no build area. This is a quote from the court in = the 2001 Keach Case. "The up= land review process does not forbid activity based solely on proximity to wetlands. Rather the upland r= eview process merely provides a basis for determining whether activities will hav= e an adverse impact on the adjacent wetland or watercourse, and if necessary, regulating them". Then it skips around and "an activity in the upland review area does not bar e= very proposed activity within the 100 foot upland review area." In Branford they have a 100 foot u= pland review area they were talking about. And the court reiterated that when it had the opportunity in 2004, relying precisely on that portion of the Keach Decision, so the inquiry of = the Commission is appropriately due any of the proposed activities that are in = the upland review area have an adverse impact, and its those activities and only those activities that the Agency would appropriately have the jurisdiction = to look at conditions or look at the adverse effect, but the mere fact of it b= eing proposed in the upland review area isn't a sufficient trigger to say no, it= 's really not a no build or setback in a zoning sense where you really can't do anything in a setback from a side line or a front line, so I just wanted to leave that with any of you and if any of you had any questions Id be happy = to address that in more detail. = One can think of a number of scenarios where any number of activities won't have any effect, so your focus would want to be on only those activities in the upland review area that could have adverse effect, and determine whether in fact they do have one. Seeing= no questions, I'll turn it over to Don Nolte now to comment on the technical aspects.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 4

Don Nolte, Stuart Somers Comp= any

Mr. Nolte: = I'd first like to enter into the re= cord the affidavit of certified mailing to the abutting property owners and point out that our location of the meeting was the High School, not this facility= but I understand a sign has been put on the door so people have been duly notif= ied.

Over the past several days we've received Town Engineer's reviewed comments and = had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Berger to verify and discuss these issues. We've also seen some preliminary draft comments from Sean Hayden who may be here this evening, I haven't seen the final report although it was handed to Charles Spath this evening. Given the recent information provided to us we are more than likely and requesting an extens= ion to continue this public hearing and I'll submit a written request at this time. I will point out that in response to these comments we have taken action to hire a chief technical engineer to help address some of the concerns that have arisen. His name is Herb Blocdell and we m= et with him and upon his return from a week's vacation, he will be visiting the site with a backhoe to excavate test bits to determine the dept of the ledg= e, rock type if possible, and soil characteristics that he can help us make an informed decisions on slope stability, absence or need for retaining walls shown on our plans, and other soil related issues. So that is something that will sor= t of guide the revision process to our plans and hopefully addressing all concer= ns (inaudible) so far. This is t= he extension letter.

Mr. Rafey: (Inaudible.)

Mr. Nolte: = No, I'm not. I'm not sure whether at this point= it would be prudent, with the absence of certain Commission members, a number = of issues out there it would be better to refine and revise this presentation because there are drainage modifications that are being looked into, mitiga= tion alternatives that may help deviate the wetland crossing, the intermittent watercourse crossing, and that one of them, they'll probably, the most like= ly one involves a possible revision to the drainage and detention system to tr= eat the French Street runoff or a good portion of that hill for sand and suspen= ded solids through our storm water detention facility so the calculations are g= oing to be changing and with the soil tests probably the grading plan will be, a= nd we've also commissioned a landscape plan for the basin in response to Mr. Hayden's comments. So there a= re significant changes. I can go= over any part of those or an item by item basis and the review letter if you'd l= ike, or just field any questions, but I don't have complete new revised plans because the comments just came to us.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 5

Mr. Zawadzki: As you say, you've go= t a lot of information in this memo from Sean Hayden and most of us have seen it just this minute so as you say we're going to require an extension so I thi= nk as the applicant, it's up to you how much you want to say tonight. We do have a couple of absent memb= ers and if there is anything really relevant that's changed since our last meet= ing, that would be fine, other wise . . . .

Mr. Nolte: = I'll just be really brief on one ch= ange made to the plans that are in progress is to create 30 scale drawings, 4 sh= eets that outline the phases of construction very clearly on a large scale, they address some of the drainage that concerns Mr. Hayden with wall intercepting swales, wall drains, drainage improvements, it's probably too much (inaudib= le) to show them to you at this point, but that has been done. The other thing of interest (inaud= ible) on the way over this evening I visited the site as I have been monitoring t= he flow through that intermittent watercourse for the past 6 weeks or so, since our site walk, the last time I've seen water flowing through that ditch was= at the site walk (inaudible) probably had 10 inches of rain in April (inaudibl= e) 5 or 6 in one storm event but that really surprised me because I think we probably from the Taft School Web Site had an inch and a half of rain a cou= ple of hours ago and there is nothing flowing through that intermittent watercourse. It's been dry (i= naudible) flow seasonally when the ground water levels are quite high. Maybe there will be a lag in time = as to building house drains and curtain drains for the road systems, (inaudible) there's not persistent flow just to let you know, put on your overshoes and= go out there after the meeting and verify that for yourself. Other than that, it would probably= be best to get our consultants in line, get the feedback, meet with your consu= ltants in the interim, and come back with a full presentation.

Mr. Polletta: I think that's a wise= thing to do, get everything answered because if he doesn't have all of the inform= ation and we have to repeat it again, have all the answers and questions answered= for the next meeting.

Mr. Murphy: I agree.

Mr. Rafey: We have Mr. Hayden pr= esent tonight, do we want him to . . . . or we'll wait= until next month?

Mr. Zawadzki: Well if you just want= to maybe give a 5 or 10 minute summary, don't go through a blow by blow.<= /o:p>

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 6

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Sean Hayden, Soil Scie= ntist, Northwest Conservation District

Mr. Hayden: We are a non-profit organization ba= sed out of Torrington, = CT and our mission is to support towns= with their environmental goals, whichever they might be. I have 34 towns that I help out, <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Watertown being o= ne of them, and they asked me to come in and comment on this proposal, knowing my expertise. So I just put toge= ther a report which basically compared the application to the 2002 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines (inaudible), the 2004 Storm Water Quality Manual and the Commission also requested for me to look at the wetland delineation= to make sure it's correct, and I've done all of that, it's all here in the rep= ort so I just wanted to introduce myself and summarize what my report is.<= /o:p>

Mr. Zawadzki: Because none of us ha= ve had a chance to read this report as of this moment either.

Mr. Hayden: Does everybody have a copy who needs a copy?&nbs= p; Interveners?

Mr. Zawadzki: Yes.

Mr. Rafey: = I received an email from the interv= ener to continue the public hearing until next month, and I gave that to the Cha= irman. I don't think they're present here tonight. I'll make sure they = get a copy of this report.

Joe Masi, 33 Pleasantview Street, Oak= ville, CT&nbs= p; 06779

Mr. Masi: <= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-weight:bo= ld'> As the applicant I have a few thing= s to say. My sister Margaret and I= had instructed both our attorney and our engineers to cooperate with the Board = as much as possible and to give you folks as much information as necessary so = that we could make a rational, intelligent decision on the property. So we haven't heard any obstructio= ns at this particular point in time and we don’t plan to do that. We want to get through this as fas= t as you folks with the right information and for the right reasons.

Mr. Zawadzki: Is there anyone from = the public who wishes to speak regarding this application? We do have an extension granted, so there will be a continuation of this public hearing.

James Beveridge, 359 French Street, Oakville, CT 06779=

Mr. Beveridge:<= /b> I've lived here for 45 years. I ask you again tonight to deny th= is application because I believe it endangers the wetlands and intermittent watercourse and Echo Lake Brook. I have some = things tonight I'd like you to consider in making your decision on this applicatio= n:

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 7

·        I ask you to consider whether the proposed subdivision is, will actually be a large construction site rather = than a project of limited scope. The= 2 saws and 2 guidelines that I believe apply here state that projects, from a total land disturbance of 5 acres or greater, are considered large construc= tion sites and the application describes the subdivision as 14 plus or minus acr= es with 7 acres or about half of it to be disturbed. The guidelines again, which I beli= eve apply here, all deference to Mr. Hayden, define large construction sites as those with major construction activities such as earth moving, grading work= , land grading that will use heavy earth moving equipment and when excavation will last more than one construction season, which is typically March through December. I believe the propo= sed subdivision will be a major construction activity because it's for 16 homes= , a new road, sidewalks, a detention basin, new storm drainage along French Street, long hilly drives to the rear lots, and installation of underground public utili= ties to all the homes located throughout the facility. This could go on for I believe up = to 5 years.

·        I'd ask you to consider how effective phasing really would be with = the first two phases having the same start date, with major construction activity goi= ng on. I believe the guideline r= equirements are based on the total disturbance of land area regardless of project phasi= ng.

·        I'd also ask you to consider how can phase I be considered independ= ent of road and drainage construction when both have the same start date. All of this I believe individually= and collectively has an impact on the wetlands, intermittent watercourse, and t= he brook.

·        The application states that the State Storm Water Pollution Control Plan is not required due to the limited scope of the project. I ask you to consider whether this= plan and registration with the D.E.P. is required.

·        I ask you to consider whether a State Storm Water Management Plan is required because the proposed subdivision meets at least 4 of the 10 requirements in Chapter 9 of the Connecticut Storm Water Quality Manual that states when this plan should develop, and they are any development resultin= g in the disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre of land, residential development consisting of 5 or more dwellings, storm water discharge to wetlands or watercourses, or new highway road or street construction.<= /o:p>

·        I ask you to consider that the Town's storm water management plan addresses storm water runoff from new development projects and that the Tow= n copies with its plan by enforcing the requirements of the 2002 guidelines and State and Local regulations to its various commissions including the wetlands inl= and waterways commission. The guidelines re= quire that the plan identify an agent or agent who has the responsibly and author= ity for implementing operations, monitoring and maintenance of all the erosion = and sedimentation control measures. Have these people been identified?

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 8

·        I ask you to consider that the Guideline is only defined a minimum acceptable standards that must be met.&nbs= p; They don't preclude the use of other measures or conditions that you might determine or require for the effective sediment control for this subdivision.

·        I ask you to consider the impact to the wetlands and brook if an emergency access way should become a requirement for this subdivision.=

·        I ask you to consider a D.E.P. funded study by the Connecticut State Climate Center at the University of Connecticut and the = Northeast Regional Climate Center at Cornell University to update Connecticut's rainfall statistics. The public results show that rainf= all is significantly increasing in C= onnecticut and any given storm will be more intense with more water than previously expected and we had a taste of that this afternoon. Just another reason to make sure t= hat the new drainage requirements and culverts and all the other structures wil= l be designed to handle the peak flows that will increase with more intense stor= ms and more rainfall.

·        I ask you to consider who has the ownership of the detention basin = and whether this is a public or private subdivision? I believe the guidelines state that ownership and responsibility for inspection, operation, and maintenance of = the detention basin should be determined by the completion of the local regulat= ory process. Who will be responsi= ble for the continuing inspection, operation, and maintenance (inaudible).

·        I ask you to consider whether a wetland performance bond should be required to guarantee the design construction and proper function of the proposed drainage system over time to protect the wetlands and the Town.

·        And last but not least I would ask you to consider that effective s= torm water management is a Town concern because Echo Lake Brook and Steele Brook that it ultimately flows into are both MS4's listed in Watertown Storm Wate= r Management Plan as receiving water in Watertown, with Steele Brook already on a list of impaired water bodies.

It's up to you to dete= rmine the value of the information you've got through these hearings, and it's up= to you to determine whether there is a plan in place that will effectively com= ply with the 2002 Guidelines and the State and Local Regulations. It's up to you to ensure that all = the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed and there a= ren't any shortcuts as we go through the process. Thank you. I have copies for the Commissioner= s.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt'>Paul Rainone, 443 Riverside Street, Oakville, CT 06779= =

Mr. Rainone: My house is on the co= rner of Riverside and French and I guess my concern is going to be that the brook comes right up in our back yard and we got burned a couple of times in the = 28 years I've lived there, one of them was Mt. Fair Farm - when that was built= all the silt ended up in Echo Lake, ended up in our brook. I never really said anything, I never really got involved in anything like this.

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 9

The next time was when= they rebuilt French Street, they had silt fence all over the place, they rea= lly tried to keep the silt out. Y= ou get a rain like you had today, there's not much you're going to do about it and we'd get silt again. I just h= ope that everybody does what they are supposed to because I just get a little (inaudible) have it happen again, that's all. Thanks.

Mr. Zawadzki: Does the applicant ca= re to respond to any of the comments at this point? Any other ques= tions from the Commission?

Mr. Rafey: = Do you want to read that email I re= ceived and also the letter we received tonight?

Mr. Zawadzki: = I'm going to read into= the record the email from Richard and Patricia Fusco of 300 Woodbury Road, Watertow= n, CT, addressed to Moosa Ra= fey:

"Due to a prior commitment I will be unable to attend the public hearing for the Masi property. It was my understan= ding that an independent third party review will be done on this project. As the legal interveners we never received a copy of this study so we would be unable to comment at this time= . I would ask that you continue the = public hearing until such time as a proper review of the independent review is ava= ilable to all that area interested, ourselves included.= Thank you.

Richard and Patricia Fusco"

Mr. Zawadzki: This is a letter from Stuart Somers Company, addressed to the Chairmen of the Inland/Wetland Agen= cy, Town of Watertown, = Watertown, CT, referencing the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency Application #= 589, Masi French Hill Estates Request for a Time Extension:

"Dear Mr. Zawadzk= i:

We are in receipt of C= huck Berger's July 16th memo and Moosa Rafey and Sean Hayden's draft review comm= ents dated July 11, 2007. Yesterda= y we met with Mr. Berger to clarify and discuss his comments and concerns and we have not yet received Mr. Hayden's final comments. We have recently retained the serv= ices of a geotechnical engineer and have tentatively scheduled soil testing at t= he subject property with him for August 2nd.&= nbsp; We are in the process of revising the plans in response to the comme= nts received to date, but we will require additional time to respond to both. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Please accept this letter as a gran= t of a 65 day time extension to the time period provided by Statute for the Agency= to convene the public hearing and/or render its decision.

Si= ncerely, Charles S. Spath, Jr."

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLAND AGENCY=

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING

APPLICATION #589 - JOSEPH MASI, FRENCH HILL ESTATES

JULY 19, 2007

PAGE 10

MOTION:<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>       (Mr. Polletta, sec. Ms. Russ) to Recess the Public Hearing for App. #589 of Joseph Masi for construction of French Hill Estates a 16 lot residential subdivision located on French Street, Watertown, CT.

&nb= sp;

Discussi= on: = ;      None

&nb= sp;

MOTION P= ASSED UNANIMOUSLY

  &nbs= p;         Public Hearing Recessed at 7:40 p.m.

Respect= fully submitted,

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Thomas Murphy, Secretary

Conserv= ation Commission/

Inland Wetland Agency

  &nbs= p;         _________________= _________________

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