Commissioners also set Wednesday, October 14, as the date for the Housatonic Railroad public hearing.

Larry Edwards, Professional Engineer, 227 Stepney Rd., Easton, representing William Joyce in the application for a 38-lot subdivision on Sherman and Berkshire Roads, briefly addressed comments from Steve Trikaus of Trikaus Engineering, Southbury, the expert for the commission.

At the commission's August 26 meeting, Mr. Edwards had presented four alternative development plans as requested by commissioners. Mr. Trikaus said alternatives two and three were no more than a rehash of alternative one.

Mr. Edwards agreed with the comment, adding alternatives two and three were variations the applicant considered before choosing the alternative Mr. Edwards presented in the original application.

In response to the comment that alternative four did not show detail for the secondary drainage, Mr. Edwards said zoning waivers would be required to implement the alternative so it was not worth the time and money to develop it in detail.

Mr. Edwards disagreed with Mr. Trikaus' criticism that the proposed water quality basins do not meet standards. He said the proposed plan not only complies with the guidelines, but exceeds them.

Mr. Edwards said he had personally reviewed the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) calculations presented by George Logan, Rema Ecological Services, Manchester, and concurred with them.

He added that Mr. Logan prepared the calculations instead of Mr. Edwards because the commission had specifically asked Mr. Logan to do the work.

Mr. Logan told the commission he disagreed with Mr. Trikaus' comment that the basins do not comply with the accepted standards, saying, "I use science and not a cookbook."

In his comments, Mr. Trikaus referred to the use of wet ponds to remove TSS. Mr. Logan felt it was inappropriate to use a model that is not part of the application.

Mr. Logan emphasized figures he had previously presented, saying that his proposed filtration system will remove 85 percent of solid phosphorus.

After the applicant's presentation, Ms. Peters told Mr. Edwards that by not including detail in his discussion of alternatives, he effectively denied the commission the ability to review the data for themselves and concur with him.

Mr. Edwards responded that the first criteria used to judge alternatives is the impact to wetlands. When he was able to determine that an alternative had a greater impact than the applicant's plan, he stopped detailing the alternative.

He said it's not his duty to present four or five complete plans for the commission's consideration. He emphasized that the plan presented in the application has the least impact on the wetlands.

Ms. Peters said she's not sure she agrees with Mr. Edwards.

Commissioner Philip Kotch said the regulations require applicants to show an alternative which would have less or no environmental impact.

Mr. Edwards responded that the applicant could have presented a plan for 50 lots and then an alternative for 38. He asked the commission the difference between that scenario and presenting the plan for 38 lots as the applicant did.

Commissioner Katja Pieragostini noted that the number of lots is always 38 on all plans.

Mr. Edwards said that putting 38 lots on the parcel of land is an appropriate use and only 180 square feet of the 150 acres is directly impacted. He added that the development plan provides for a large open space.

Referring back to the tape from the August 26 meeting, Ms. Peters understood the alternatives were not genuine because they were not buildable.

Mr. Edwards clarified that he never said the alternatives could not be developed. The only alternative that is not immediately feasible is alternative four.

This scenario of affordable housing does not conform to regulations because the parcel of land is not adjacent to a state road.

The commission closed the public hearing after asking for comments from the public and receiving none.

The commission addressed the property clean up at Newtown Car Wash on Simm Lane.

Commissioners had hoped the applicant would be able to remove contaminants impacting wetlands in the area, extending the remediation work over the property line to fix the problem as a whole.

The applicant has not been able to obtain permission from the neighbor to work past the property line. Given this information, the commission unanimously decided that Simm Lane, LLC, should proceed with work on their own property.

Christine Unger, representing Neil and Ann Marie Unger, 46 Shepard Hill Rd., presented a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Unger, detailing how they plan to remove the violation they received after converting a stream to a pond.

The plan includes suggestions the commission offered at previous meetings, including the cleaning out of a drain pipe and restoring the original flow of the stream.

The commission thanked Ms. Unger, promising to review her materials and offer a decision at the next meeting.

Lucas Hellerich from AECOM, Rocky Hill, represented Noranda Metals Industries in an effort to remove contaminants from 11 Prospect Drive and 40/50 Mile Hill Road South.

He told the commission that the applicant had decided to shorten the temporary road to be used to transport material and equipment necessary for the cleanup. It reduces the impact to wetlands by approximately 1,000 square feet.

Commissioners decided to review the new information and walk the property.

Mr. Edwards, this time representing H&F, LLC, for an application for a single-family residence, New England Woods Lot 3, Jet Brook Road, explained that the five-lot subdivision had been approved by the commission 10 years ago but the five-year term of the permit has lapsed.

The applicant would like to build one house on Lot 1 at this time, leaving the other lots undeveloped.

Mr. Edwards offered to stake the property for the commissioners so they could walk it and familiarize themselves with it.