Matt Tellier, Dave Zukauskas, Jim Deutsch, Jim Benway, and Scott Gray, as a voting member and Ron Mormile, Zoning Enforcement Officer.

Matt Tellier, Dave Zukauskas, Jim Deutsch, Jim Benway, and Scott Gray, as a voting member and Ron Mormile, Zoning Enforcement Officer.

ATTENDANCE: Matt Tellier, Dave Zukauskas, Jim Deutsch, Jim Benway, and Scott Gray, as a voting member and Ron Mormile, Zoning Enforcement Officer.

MINUTES:
Regular Meeting of June 20, 2007
Regular Meeting of June 6, 2007

MOTION: to accept the minutes of June 20, 2007 meeting, as amended, by Mr. Deutsch, seconded by Mr. Zukaukas, and the vote passed unanimously.

MOTION: to move minutes of June 6 from table by J. Deutsch, seconded J. Benway and the vote passed unanimously.

MOTION: to accept the minutes of June 6, 2007 meeting, as amended, by Mr. Deutsch, seconded by Mr. Deutsch, and the vote passed unanimously.

MOTION: to move minutes of June 6 from table by J. Deutsch, seconded, and the vote passed unanimously.

TREASURER’S REPORT: Mr. Tellier did not yet have a fresh budget report. He spoke with the Mayor about renaming line items, such as Arbor Day, which is no longer used. The Mayor suggested working with the Town Planner when the next budget comes up in January or February to amend the line items.

ENFORCEMENT REPORT:

1. 467 Carter Road – Mr. Neil Gagnon – Mr. Tellier read into the record a letter from Mr. Mormile to Mr. Gagnon dated June 21, 2007 issuing a cease and correct order. The letter summarizes the corrective actions that are to be taken by Labor Day 2007.
2. 14 Williams Way – Kello – Mr. Tellier read into the record a letter from Mr. Mormile to Mr. Kello dated June 27, 2007. Mr. Mormile indicated that the fill had not yet been stabilized and M. Tellier asked R. Mormile to call Mr. Kello and report back for the next meeting.
3. 64 Carter Road– Rockfall Company, LLC – Mr. Tellier read into the record a letter from Mr. Mormile to the Rockfall Company dated July 5, 2007 requesting that they deploy E/S measures as soon as possible. R. Mormile visited the site and was told by the developer that they were putting in a modular home and needed to wait before putting in water bars until it was prudent to do so.
4. 42 South Street – Evergreen & Rosewood – Macdonald – Mr. Tellier read into the record a letter from Mr. Mormile to Ms. Macdonald dated June 22, 2007, which was based on the recommendations of the Commission regarding sediment and erosion controls. Mr. Tellier read into the record a letter from Juliano & Associates to Mr. Gordon Lang dated June 27, 2007, which provided an update on the work being performed at the site. The letter indicated two follow-up site visits will be performed on July 6 th and July 13, 2007. R. Mormile visited the site and observed that many of the items were addressed and the few that weren’t done they are currently working on. The Commission is currently waiting on another report based on the results of the two follow-up visits.

Ms. Macdonald indicated that if anyone had any questions, C. Armstrong did install silt control measures and is still working on the situation.

Mr. Benway asked the reason why the consultant issued a letter of corrective action on April 26 th and the Commission had not seen any results in the last two months.

Ms. Macdonald replied that the construction manager went out and got bids for doing the job instead of taking care of it immediately. She then instructed the manager to not proceed with a bid process and to get the work done.

Mr. Benway asked if the sediment and drainage discharge at Hillside Avenue had been addressed.

Ms. Macdonald responded that she wasn’t sure how to address it. The storm drain at 55 Hillside Avenue is town owned and has no sump in it and it can’t be cleaned up. She has submitted a new application for maintenance and is willing to clean up storm drains on Hillside Avenue as well.

PUBLIC COMMENT: None

PUBLIC HEARING:
Proposed amendments to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations.

M. Tellier thanked the Commission for all their hard work in preparing the proposed amendments which have taken quite some time to work through. He indicated that the purpose of amending the regulations was to get Plymouth up to speed on the state regulations and what neighboring communities are doing. The Commission discussed and noted any corrections that needed to be made on the proposed amendments and Chairman Tellier opened it up to the floor for public comment.

PUBLIC COMMENT:
J. Zappone, 32 Wilton Road, asked if it is mandatory by the state to amend the regulations. He expressed concern that people who have owned land here in town for the last eighty (80) years will not be able to use it. He is especially concerned with the buffer of fifty (50) feet being changed to one hundred (100) feet and that this regulation change would be too restrictive for residents. He felt that the proposed changes will have a negative impact for future generations because they are “over” what is necessary.

M. Tellier replied that wetlands regulations are mandated by the state. M. Tellier explained that the proposed changes were based on 4 th edition of state module and what neighboring communities were doing as well. M. Tellier indicated that the buffer doesn’t prevent a resident from performing work within the buffer, but requires an application be reviewed by and permit issued from the Commission. He further stated that some of the properties in town are less than ideal for certain situations. This has resulted in more flooding due to the fact that prior to 1974 there was no one to regulate certain activities.

Mark Malley, 174 Keegan Road, stated that even though the buffers are not intended as “no work” areas, but in practice that is what they become. For the most part the applicants will stay out of the buffer area altogether. He also stated that the Commission is probably quadrupling its work load by extending the buffer zone. All these people who are now putting in pools, sheds, etc. within one hundred (100) feet of the wetlands will now have to come before this Commission when they already have to see Mr. Mormile on these projects. Furthermore, if a persons activity is a half a mile away from the wetlands, but has an impact on the wetlands than the Commission has the authority to regulate it so the buffer won’t make a difference anyway. Subdivision applications always have to be seen by wetlands even if the property isn’t located on wetlands because zoning requires that they be reviewed by wetlands first.

D. Zukaukas stated that the Commission never told people that they could not perform work within the buffer and if the applicant elected not too that was their choice, but that some people really stretch the limit in the situation and as a result more and more wetlands are being destroyed in this country and in Connecticut. We need to be looking more closely at what people are doing than we have in the past.

M. Malley said that the wetlands are being destroyed by people who don’t bother to come before the Commission, not by those who are applying. If people are required to come before the Commission why do we have this language in the regulations authorizing an agent to issue permits?

M. Tellier replied that that language is there for Fall Mountain Lake and Lake Plymouth where the homes are tiny. The Commission would be bombarded with hundreds of applications for people that just want to put up a deck or things of that nature. Therefore, with more simple permits such as decks or fences around lake areas they have given the enforcement officer the authority to issue permits.

M. Malley asked, “and make people put a notice in the paper?’, as required by the regulations. Sections 4.6 and 4.7 dictate that once a duly authorized agent to approved or extend an activity that’s not located in the wetlands if he finds that the activity would result in no great impact. The regulations further state that once the approval has been granted the applicant must then file a legal notice in the paper within ten (10) days, followed by an appeal period, and that such a requirement is “nuts”. How would the Commission even be enforce such a regulation? This is especially true where the language includes everyone who is not in the wetlands. He is also stated that he is bothered by the fact that the Commission is making their regulations stricter, but on the other hand you are giving one person authority to do all the things that you’re afraid aren’t going to be done right. He doesn’t have a problem with Ron, but who knows with the next person to come into the position, who could just give approval to anyone. He again refers to the language “non wetland areas” which is essentially everyone who comes to Ron for an application has to put an ad in the paper. M. Tellier responded that the Commission delegates to their duly authorized agent that these are the things that we don’t need to look at and that has been how it was in the past and how they have always handled it. M. Malley further indicated that putting legal ads in the paper aren’t practical because no one reads them and even when signs are put up on the property that residents will frequently state that they didn’t see them. D. Zukaukas replied that the ads in the paper aren’t monitored, but signage is monitored by the town. M. Malley said that sending letters to adjoining property owners made more sense than publishing it in the newspaper. It could also invalidate the permit farther down the line if someone were to say that it was never published and the Commission could be setting itself up for a lot of aggravation in the situation. D. Zukaukas said that we state in our regulations that it is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain their permits and file the notice and that they have not had a problem in the past over the issue.

M. Malley then referenced section 4.1 (b) which is outdated and no longer necessary because it covers permits that are more than twenty (20) years old and the permits are only good for a year and this section should be deleted from the regulations because there is no reason to have it there. On page 13, section 7.5 (h), land is a better word than property because property also covers other property such as vehicles that aren’t relevant to the situation. The other problem was the section that covers application fees requiring that payment be made by certified check or money order. There hasn’t been a problem with people paying by personal check all along and that shouldn’t change. D. Zukaukas expressed concern over developers making large payments and the chance that the check could bounce. M. Malley pointed out that the Commission would know well before the fourteen (14) day period that the check bounced and it would result in the applicant’s credibility being compromised. R. Mormile stated that he only had one check that bounced. J. Zappone stated that people want to be able to deduct the application fee and that it is easier to have the record readily available from a personal checkbook. For simplicity the wording regarding how it is to be paid should be removed and state that the fees must be paid in full. P. Herzing stated that acceptable method of payment could be laid out in the fee schedule rather than the regulations so that payment terms could be changed without requiring amendments to the regulations.

M. Malley then pointed out that section 12 is precisely the same as sections 4.6 and 4.7 verbatim and one or the other should be removed because they are redundant. It makes more sense to take out the latter rather than the former. He then went on to point out that on page 12, section 7.4 again puts the Commission in a sticky situation regarding the significance of the work being done. It is far more prudent for the Commission to decide if it is significant by reviewing the application in full.

Teresa Lyon, 36 Todd Hollow Road, has a question regarding her situation and doesn’t know why she is required to be at this meeting. M. Tellier says that her specific situation will be covered once the Commission gets to the new application and he appreciates her patience.

S. Macdonald asked the Commission to consider keeping the buffer at fifty (50) because she owns several properties that would be affected by the change. She also asked how wetlands would handle the matter of run-off to the roads. The state makes no distinction between man-made vs. natural wetlands. Her other question was how the regulations affect flood plains and was told by M. Tellier that flood plains are not covered by wetlands. She then asked the impact it would have on farming activity. M. Tellier responded that the Commission was attempting to clarify the definition of farming activity. Each application is unique and the Commission will at times look for alternatives. S. Macdonald then asked for the reason why the Commission is looking to go to one hundred (100) foot buffers and M. Tellier responded that they wanted better protection for the wetlands.

P. Herzing asked if they had considered all the options on the footage requirements, the amount of applications that will now be required, and the clarity of their agent of authority. He then expresses concern over violations or disturbances that could occur and that lake properties may not be as safe as the Commission may think. He also expressed concern over how the regulations would affect farming operations. M. Tellier indicated that wetlands are based on clean water acts not farming regulations. P. Herzing asked the Commission to clarify the meaning of indispensable and M. Malley agreed that clarification of the language was needed. The other concern made by P. Herzing is regarding how authority and minimal impact is defined. He also reiterated with regard to increasing the buffer to one hundred (100) feet and how it relates to significant activity. D. Zukaukas stated that applications were reviewed on a case by case basis and significant activity is not a cut and dry issue. P. Herzing is also concerned about how the situation will affect property values. J. Benway said that with more pristine wetlands it will give us a nicer town overall. M. Tellier said that in certain situations it is a disadvantage to have phrases too tightly defined. D. Zukaukas also indicated that applications are reviewed by R. Mormile and W. Kuehn before they even get to the Commission.

Steve Worhunsky, Washington Road, also indicated that from the perspective of a land owner the change to a one hundred (100) foot buffer becomes problematic and objects to the change. D. Zukaukas responded that each applicant is treated differently based on their particular circumstances. S. Gray said that anyone would be hard pressed to find another town that has only a fifty (50) foot buffer and that most communities are going to two hundred (200) foot buffers.

P. Herzing then stated that he was concerned over costs associated with filing an application for the land owner, such as survey costs and paying a soil scientist. J. Benway responded that changing the buffer wouldn’t make the costs any different.

S. Macdonald asked if the Commission had considered moving the buffer to seventy-five (75) feet and it had been discussed by the Commission, but then it would have an impact on septic systems and the health department.

MOTION: to keep public hearing open on proposed amendment changes until next meeting made by J. Deutsch and seconded by J. Benway.

MOTION: to call a recess made by J. Benway, seconded by D. Zukaukas. Recess was called at 9:25 p.m.

Meeting called back to order by Chairman Tellier at 9:33 p.m.

CONTINUING APPLICATIONS: None

NEW APPLICATIONS:

1. 36 Todd Hollow Road – Teresa Lyon – Septic System Repair #07-07 M. Tellier read the application and a site map of the location was reviewed by Commission. Ms. Lyon and Jeff Perniciaro explained that the work being done is in the buffer. The situation involves a septic system that is seeping raw sewage (which was verified by Robert Smith, TAHD, during a site inspection) and could impact a nearby stream. Torrington Area Health District will proceed with a new septic system once they receive approval from wetlands on the seventy-five (75) foot buffer. Mr. Perniciaro stated that there will not be any stockpiling in the situation because the dirt will be hauled out by the contractor, Abe’s excavation, due to contamination of the dirt. Recommendation by R. Mormile is to allow applicants to go forward with the work because it involves a health issue. R. Mormile asked the applicants to check with TAHD for follow-up.
2. 42 South Street – Susan Macdonald – Wetlands Maintenance #07-08. Ms. Macdonald submitted an application for a permit with a proposal for corrective action (siltation control) in response to complaints from neighbors regarding run-off issues. J. Benway asked if the ponds were being cleaned as part of the maintenance efforts. R. Mormile asked her to take pictures of clean-up efforts. She responded that she would take pictures and invited the Commission to visit the site area.

MOTION: motion to approve application #07-08 (not a regulated activity) by J. Benway and seconded by J. Deutsch and the vote passed unanimously.

3. 226 Harwinton Avenue – Halm, LLC – Construction of sidewalk. #07-09     Application submitted with maps and a drainage report. Application was     accepted and continued to September.

4. N/Side Harwinton Avenue ( Lot 1-1) – RC III Development, Inc. #07-10     Construction of Adult Community Brista Commons. Application submitted with     maps and a drainage report. Application was accepted and continued to
    September.

NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Tellier is at the end of his term as Chairperson of the Commission and prefers not to be nominated for another term. Mr. Zukaukas will also be resigning from his position with the Commission. Mr. Tellier has spoken to the Mayor about new appointments and they are looking at applicants.

CONSERVATION TOPICS: None

CORRESPONDENCE: Order from DEP Bookstore has been placed. Five (5) copies of DEP Bulletin No. 9-revised, Method of Evaluation, Inland/Wetlands in CT., A Watershed Approach.

OLD BUSINESS: update on 142 Main Street. R. Mormile did not have an update because it is still an ongoing project. The Mayor’s update indicated that the estimate of product in the ground is about 10,000 gallons.

MOTION: To adjourn at 10:44 p.m. by Mr. Deutsch, seconded by Mr. Benway and the vote passed unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Desjardins, Recording Secretary

Mayor Krampitz, Councilman Goodwin, Councilman Zagurski, Councilwoman Scoville, Councilwoman Murawski.

1.

The Public Hearing was called to order by Mayor Krampitz at 6:31 p.m. Mayor Krampitz read the legal notice into the record: Notice is hereby given to the legal voters of the Town of Plymouth and other interested persons that the Town Council of the Town of Plymouth will hold a Public Hearing in the Town Hall Community Room 80 Main Street Terryville, CT 06786 on Monday, June 11, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. for the following purpose: To discuss 2007 Neighborhood Assistance Act Program Application for a skateboard park. Mayor Krampitz gave a brief summary of the project. She stated that this was on the Council agenda for a presentation in April. It was discussed and the Council was updated on the past history and possibility of having a skateboard park in town. At that time, it was said that the town would apply for any grant available that could be used for this project. An example of one of those grants is what we will be discussing tonight. The Council’s response in April was favorable. The deadline for this grant application is July 2 nd. It requires a public hearing and vote by Town Council in order to simply send in the application. We hope to receive more than one grant and in-kind services for this project. This grant application is for $100,000 and the proposed site is the field behind Town Hall. Mayor Krampitz reminded the audience to comment on this topic only and to give their name and address for the record before speaking. The Mayor turned the microphone over to Officer Kevin Sulek, who has been a part of this project since its inception in 2001. Officer Sulek reviewed the proposed locations of the skateboard park, i.e. the field behind Town Hall and at one time, the grassy area near the Learning Center . Officer Sulek believes this is a positive thing for the town. The skateboard park will include a walking trail and picnic tables and in the winter could be used for ice skating. It will be a place for families to go and spend time together. The students in town were surveyed and the result was that they would prefer a skateboard park to a community center. The students would design the ramps, rails etc. in the park because they will use it more than if they were handed a park they had no part of the designing. The park would only be open until dusk and would be fenced in. Officer Sulek stated that the park could not fall under the Police Department’s jurisdiction, but that it would be covered under our insurance’s umbrella policy. The children would have to sign a waiver before using the park. In most cases, a skating, biking, or blading injury is seen as a trophy, not a lawsuit. Mayor Krampitz reiterated that the town will do everything to fund this park with grant money and in-kind services. Officer Sulek gave an example of a way to generate money during the park’s operation – Keep a Powerade machine there and charge $1.00; $.50 of that will go to the park. He added that high school students must fulfill a community service requirement before graduation and a way to do that is to have students man the entrance to the park. Officer Sulek commented that if the children ruin the skateboard park with vandalism or graffiti, then they have ruined it for themselves. Jim Deutsch, 34 Orchard St. - asked why the Town was not applying for the grant maximum of $150,000. Mayor Krampitz responded that $100,000 was the Capital Improvements Committee’s recommendation. It is a yearly grant, so the Town would continue to apply and hopefully find a grant for the walking trail around the park. He also asked that assuming we receive the grant, do we lose it if we don’t use it. Cayla Brayton, 47 South St. - concerned about lack of adult supervision, but thinks the park is a great idea. Warren Brayton, 47 South Street – concerned about maintenance and adult supervision. Mr. Brayton thinks insurance premium will rise. Officer Sulek responded that the point of the skateboard park is to find a safe place for the kids to go. Joe Kucia, 38 Hillside Ave. – stated that if the park is located behind Town Hall as planned, then the police could drive by it on their way in and out of the parking lot. He also does not see a problem with charging admission to the park to defer any type of cost that may arise. Officer Sulek stated that he has not heard any negatives from kids that use skate parks in other communities. Our park would be modeled after Farmington ’s which is enclosed by a ten-foot fence and is running successfully. Farmington ’s park cost about $70,000 to build years ago. When Plymouth first discussed a skateboard park, there were local contractors willing to donate the asphalt; that may not be likely at this point but we will certainly ask them. Karen Zagurski, 125 Washington Rd. (Parks & Recreation Commission Chairwoman) – concerned that it will be too costly to insure this park. Mrs. Zagurski stated that when the skateboard park project first came about in 2001 that the Parks & Recreation Commission did not want it to become the department’s responsibility to staff it and maintain it and that has not changed. She would like a legal opinion stating that the insurance cost will not increase. Mayor Krampitz responded that we had the information necessary to submit the grant application and we will not know what the project will cost until we go out to bid. Those types of details will get answered after we receive the grant and can see the project come to fruition. Linda Kazmierski, 20 Joseph St. – stated that residents should read past Recreation Commission meeting minutes to become familiar with the numerous discussions the commission has had about this project. Alesia Leduc, 76 North Main St. – stated that kids do need a place to go, but concerned that the skateboard park would benefit too few people and skateboarding is a risky activity. Gerard Bourbonniere, 6 Fairmount Ave. – stated that with this park, kids will have a central location to “be kids.” He also commented that a select group of kids are interested in each type of sport and you shouldn’t take their interests away from them. Officer Sulek responded that the kids in town need a safe place to skate before someone is seriously injured on the street. Dave Barbieri, 10 Scott Road (Capital Improvements Committee Chairman) – stated that the figures on the grant application were recommended by the Committee. The Committee also ranked all the project requests and the skateboard park was ranked as “desirable.” The discussion around the ranking was that it would never be an essential project, but those kinds of projects are only going to happen when we can find money to fund them. Mr. Barbieri urged the Council to go ahead with the grant application. Nancy Santorso, 99 Allen St. – asked clarification if tonight was only about whether or not to apply for this grant. Mayor responded affirmatively. Mrs. Santorso stated she is 100% behind this project. She asked if there was a timeline in which the Town had to use the grant money. The Mayor responded that there will be a deadline, but was unsure, at this time, what the timeline is. Linda Kazmierski, 20 Joseph St . – stated that she is in favor of the park, but reminded all present that the park will not solve all safety issues – it is still possible the a kid will be skating on Main St., fall and get killed. Beth Anderson, 62 Orchard St. – stated that the Council should apply for the grant and worry about the project details later. Melanie Church, 328 Main St. – concerned with the fact that the Town is applying for the grant without a plan in place. Karen Zagurski, 125 Washington Rd. – stated that the Council should apply for the grant, but keep the lines of communication open when it comes time to plan the park. Joe Kucia, 38 Hillside Ave – stated that the worst that could happen is we lose the grant. He reminded the Council that at one point in years, a company had given the Skate Park Committee a complete project cost estimate. There being no further public comments and no questions from the Town Council, Mayor Krampitz closed the Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m. The Mayor stated that there would be a five-minute break before the start of the Special Town Council Meeting.

Submitted by: Erica Nodine, Acting Council Clerk

Mayor Krampitz, Councilman Goodwin, Councilman Zagurski, Councilwoman Scoville, Councilwoman Murawski.

The Public Hearing was called to order by Mayor Krampitz at 6:33 p.m. Mayor Krampitz led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Krampitz read the legal notice into the record.

Notice is hereby given to the legal voters of the Town of Plymouth and other interested persons that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 7-191 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Town Council of the Town of Plymouth will hold a Public Hearing in the: TOWN HALL COMMUNITY ROOM 80 Main Street Terryville, CT 06786 on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. for the following purpose: To establish the assessments for the Fall Mountain Water project. Any property owner aggrieved by this assessment may appeal to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Britain, located at 20 Franklin Square , New Britain, CT by service of process, made in accordance with General Statute Section 52-67. The filing of an appeal shall not stay and proceedings hereunder, or the payment of any assessment or installment thereof or interest thereon. Dated this 21 st day of November 2006, Plymouth , Connecticut . Barbara K. Rockwell, Town Clerk.

The Mayor made a public announcement indicating the location of the Community Room exits for the safety of all in attendance. Mayor Krampitz gave a brief summary of the project. She stated that the work for bringing water to the Fall Mt. area had begun in 1990 with a survey done by former councilman George Castle. The results of that survey indicated that well water supply could become critical during extended dry periods. Negotiations were started with the Connecticut Water Company. They were interested in extending the service. The town had to purchase land to build a water tank and the public was assured that the project was moving forward. Letters were sent to property owners in October of 2003 so they could meet with the staff concerning the installation of water service to their property. Assessments were proposed at the go to referendum hearing and the referendum passed on May 2, 2002 . After this hearing, the Town Council will set the assessment at their regular town council meeting. The proposed assessment is $3158 and payments can be spread out over fifteen years. This assessment does not include quarterly water usage billing by the Connecticut Water Company or associated hook-up fees. Mayor Krampitz reminded the audience to give their name and address for the record before speaking. Cliff Morrin, 58 Dorothy Ln. – asked what the lien fees were. Linda Hood, Tax Collector, explained that it protects the town in the event that someone did not pay. This was a special benefits lien. Jack Tardy, 63 Lakeview Rd. – wanted to know what the assessment was based on. Mayor Krampitz explained that it was based on the loans and the amount incurred to purchase land to build the tank. Brian Barnes, 25 Fall Mt. Lake Rd. – as President of the association he wanted to know about the grant for financial assistance. Mayor Krampitz told him that Wagoner and Associates had a program to help people with their hook-ups. Tom Morrissey, 2 Fall Mt. Rd. – asked what the project costs covered. He was told that everything was covered except for the cost of connecting the water line to the house. Gerlinde Elliott, 16 Fall Mt. Lake Rd. – stated that she received three cards and wanted to know if she would save money if she combined lots. She was told that she would have to check with PZC before combining lots and check with the assessor. Don Souza, 50 Eastview Rd. – was concerned about who pays the cost if an appeal is successful. Dan Morin, 60 Dorothy Ln. – wanted to know if the rest of the residents would pay a higher price if some appeals were successful and he was told that would not be the case. The Mayor indicated that unbuildable lots would not be assessed. They were not factored in. Doris Culver, 6 Siebert Dr. – stated that she was on a corner lot and was concerned that she had to pay two assessments. The Mayor assured her that only one assessment would be levied. Brian Barnes, 25 Fall Mt. Lake Rd. – wanted to know why the assessments would not go down if the Town decided to sell some of the property that it owns. Mayor Krampitz explained that it would be a big “if” and any sale would go to pay the debt of the road paving and bridge repair. Kathy Schwartz, 60 Town Line Rd. – was interested in seeing an expense report. Linda Hood, Tax Collector, explained the payment plans that were available to the residents. Denise Mckearny, 11 Siebert Dr. – wanted to know when the assessment would be due. Linda Hood said it would depend on the Town Council’s action but if it was in February of 2007 then it would be due yearly after that. Gerard Collins, 27 Eastview Rd. – wanted to know if the capacity of the system was for 1000 homes or was it for 550. Craig Patla, Ct. Water Representative, stated that the system was for the 550 homes. The extra capacity was to provide the necessary water pressure for the fire hydrants. Rodney Houle, 16 Frankie Ln. – stated that until recently, the Fire Dept. had eight minutes of water to put out a house fire and it took the other companies fifteen minutes to get to the Fall Mt. area. We now have fire hydrants all over the mountain thanks to this water system and it is safe for everyone. Roland Deveau, 14 Helen Rd. – asked if he had to hook-up if his well was sufficient and he was told that he did not have to but he would still be assessed. Lisa Whitney, 541 Main St. – stated she owns a property at 3 Driftwood Ln. and wanted to know if vacant lots would be assessed. Mayor Krampitz answered that only the buildable lots were planned to be assessed. The second question was if the property sold for more than $250,000 would all of that go into that area. The Mayor explained that the road and bridge projects were estimated at 1.3 million dollars so there would be plenty of debt incurred. Karen Shipe, 42 Highland Rd. – was concerned about who would pay the difference if 550 people did not have to pay assessments. Don Souza, 50 Eastview Rd. – asked if the bridge was part of the original project and if the land was sold why it would go toward that project. Mayor Krampitz explained that the water line goes through that bridge and it was determined that it needed repairs when it was inspected for this project. Amy Ferrer, 10 Missy Rd. – questioned how the repaving and bridge work will be paid. The Mayor explained that the Town has been promised some grants and loans from the USDA and will work with those programs. James Hill, 10 Missy Rd. – was concerned about water that is on the roads and the potential for icy conditions. Dan Morin, 60 Dorothy Ln. – asked if he can hook-up to city water and maintain his well and was told he could have both. Craig Palta explained the process and inspection that needs to be done in order to have both systems. Jackie Perry, 45 Lakeview Rd. – wanted to know what the cost would be if she was hooked-up but never used the water. She was told the cost was $22-$25 a quarter. Melanie Church, 328 Main St. – stated that she did not think the land was purchased properly back in 2000. Mayor Krampitz disagreed with her statement. Doris Culver, 6 Siebert Dr. – wanted to know how someone can use city water and well water at the same time. The separation valve system was explained to her. Pattie DeHuff, 20 Lynn Ave. – stated that the $250,000 for land divided by 550 was $454.55. This could possibly be reduced from the assessment. Mayor Krampitz stated that the project went back long before the land purchase and the USDA is aware of the purchase and it is part of the project. Brian Barnes, 25 Fall Mt. Lake Rd. – asked how the land was funded. The Mayor explained that the Town purchased the property and will now be reimbursed. Don Souza, 50 Eastview Rd. – explained that the Town received the land from Mr. Lovely who was going to develop that property. Dan Morin, 60 Dorothy Ln. – asked if anyone from Bristol was hooked-up and he was told no. He also asked for projected costs for water bills for an average family of four and was told $110-$120 per quarter. Hearing no other comments, Mayor Krampitz closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.

Submitted by: David M. Denis, Council Clerk

Mayor Krampitz, Councilman Goodwin, Councilman Zagurski, Councilman Sekorski, Councilwoman Scoville, Councilwoman Murawski.

The Public Hearing was called to order by Mayor Krampitz at 7:03 p.m. Mayor Krampitz led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Mayor made a public announcement indicating the location of the Community Room exits for the safety of all in attendance. Mayor Krampitz read the legal notice into the record. Notice is hereby given to the legal voters of the Town of Plymouth and other interested persons that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 7-191 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Town Council of the Town of Plymouth will hold a Public Hearing in the: TOWN HALL COMMUNITY ROOM 80 Main Street Terryville, CT 06786 on Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. for the following purpose: To provide an opportunity to comment on the Charter Revision Commission’s draft report as filed with respect to provisions of Chapter VII of the Plymouth Town Charter regarding the annual budget process, and in particular the procedures set out in Section 3b. Dated this 23 rd day of August 2006, Plymouth , Connecticut . Jan A. Krampitz, Mayor. The Mayor informed the public that the old language and new language was available at the back of the room that indicated striking “individual department” adding the word “aggregate” and erasing the “s” on budget. Pattie DeHuff, 20 Lynn Ave. – claimed that the draft report before the council is not the same as the one approved by the Charter Revision Commission. She also claimed the tape makes no mention of the word “aggregate”. Mayor Krampitz responded by stating that the council has the final draft. The tapes and the minutes have been checked and Mr. Barbieri’s wording was used and the attorney has checked all of the paperwork and there is nothing inappropriate or out of order in this circumstance. Mayor Krampitz said that the word “aggregate” was used in the meeting, not the hearing. David Barbieri, 10 Scott Rd. – stated that the comments made by commissioners were about individual departments and they chose not to speak for or against the term “aggregate”. The motion the Mr. Barbieri said he asked for a motion on was as follows: “Council adjustments to the aggregate budget excluding debt service shall not exceed 3 percent of the current year’s budget”. Mr. Barbieri stated that these words are on the tape and the members voted in favor of that. Pat Budnik, 140 Poland Brook Rd. – stated that there is confusion with the word budgets. Mayor Krampitz explained that the “s” has been removed. Rick Pinkerton, 22 Oakdale Rd. – stated he was a member of the commission and seconded the motion and “aggregate” was in the motion. It had bi-partisan support and that is good for the town. Kathy Kosak, 201 Harwinton Ave., was concerned about one-time large expenditures. Mark Goodwin, 5 South St. – stated that he did not see the connection of the final budget to the Board of Finance. Pat Budnik, 140 Poland Brook Rd. – stated that the Board of Finance should be involved in the final process. Councilwoman Murawski stated that there are items that a future charter revision commission could look into but these are not the focus of what we are doing tonight. Cathy Paskus, 4 Arrow Dr. – stated that there were things that the commission wanted to do but did not have time. This change will help the town this year and another charter revision commission can be established. Melanie Church, 328 Main St. – stated that she is against the word aggregate. Mayor Krampitz asked Attorney Sam Caligiuri of Day, Berry & Howard to expound on the word aggregate. Attorney Caligiuri explained that when the words “by department” were deleted and you did nothing else, it would be unclear what the 3 percent applies to with respect to those adjustments. They felt it was important to add language that would clarify what the 3 percent adjustment relates to. The word “aggregate” is intended to make clear that the 3 percent adjustment applies to the total sum of the budget as opposed to an individual department line item amount for that budget. Kathy Kosak, 201 Harwinton Ave. – stated that there are also additional appropriations that do not need to be voted on by the people that get added to the budget. Susan Kosikowski, 109 Scott Rd. – wanted to know why there was a rush to do this. Councilwoman Murawski responded by stating that she wanted everyone to look at a budget and know that that is where the money needs to be spent. Matt Tellier, 238 Preston Rd. – stated that the individual department language made a mess. Money could not be moved where it was needed. Line items did not make sense. Diane Schenkel, 269 Mt. Tobe Rd. – stated that no one on the previous charter commission thought that the budget could be reduced by 3 percent nor did they ever discuss adding the word “amended” to budget. Mike Brown, 154 High St. – suggested using the words “adopted budget” because it would be understandable to everyone. Kathy Kosak, 201 Harwinton Ave. – stated that the one issue that should go before the voters is the by department language. Cathy Paskus, 4 Arrow Dr. – stated that the by department language almost stopped the town. This change is to make the town run more smoothly. Melanie Church, 328 Main St. – questioned who would be eligible to vote on this charter question. Mark Goodwin, 5 South St. – stated that anything can be manipulated and the Board of Finance should deal with financial issues or disband them. There being no further public comments and no further questions from the Town Council, Mayor Krampitz closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. The Mayor stated that there would be a short break before the start of the Special Town Council Meeting.

Submitted by: David M. Denis, Council Clerk

The Special Town Meeting was called to order by Town Clerk Barbara Rockwell at 7:02 p.m. in the Community Room of Plymouth Town Hall. The Pledge was recited, fire exits were noted and the call was read. B. Rockwell opened the floor to nominations for a moderator. S. Murawski nominated Mark Malley. This was seconded by D. Sekorski. Hearing no other nominations the nominations were closed. A vote was called on the nomination of M. Malley and passed. Mark Malley asked Mayor Krampitz to read the resolution: BE IT RESOLVED THAT: $1,100,000 be appropriated to meet a prior expenditure of funds used to pay bond anticipation notes for the Industrial Park from grant proceeds. This was seconded by Ann Tuleja. Discussion followed- the Mayor and the Comptroller explained that this is just a housekeeping issue for the auditors. The money had been received by the town a year or so ago as a grant toward the Industrial Park and was spent paying down bonds for the Industrial Park and wasn’t appropriated. Cindy Scoville moved the question. This was seconded by Joe Sekorski. A 2/3 majority vote is needed to pass this motion. A show of hands was unanimous, the motion passed. M. Malley appointed 4 tellers, Cathy Mathiason, Ann Tuleja, Joe Sekorski, and Sally Barnes. Ballots were handed out. VOTING – 55 NEEDED TO PASS 28 YES 53 NO – 2 Moderator Malley declared the motion passed. A motion to adjourn was made by D. Goodwin and seconded by S. Murawski. Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

Submitted by: Barbara K. Rockwell, Plymouth Town Clerk