Commissioners also approved two existing applications and denied a third.

Catherine Cuggino of Chipman, Mazzucco, Land and Pennarola, 30 Main St., Danbury, representing the Hattertown Road applicant, explained the commission previously considered the application as a four-lot development and denied it at the end of 2008.

John McCoy, Professional Engineer, 440 Main Street, Ridgefield, presented maps to illustrate the proposed development and how it compares to the previous application.

Mr. McCoy noted that there are two official building lots on the map and three proposed lots.

He showed how the lots allow for ample space between them, removing the need for grading and drainage easements between lots and helping erosion control.

He had prepared a table to show the level of disturbance to wetlands for each lot. For three of the lots, there is no disturbance to wetlands. For lot A4, there is 2,700 square feet of disturbance.

Along Hattertown Road, development would cause a temporary disturbance to 56 linear feet of wetlands by implementing a drainage system called a plunge pool.

While the wetlands would be disturbed, the pool itself would take up some of the functionality, resulting in no permanent change in function.

There are some disturbances on lot B where the applicant proposes to cross the wetlands in an area that has historically had a crossing. The driveway for this house would need 16 square feet of wetlands to be filled.

Mr. McCoy then showed how development would occur, including the location of houses, driveways, septic systems, storm water systems and erosion controls.

He said the plan provided a "no work zone" between the lots, approximately 10 feet of space between the silt fences for each lot.

Mr. McCoy noted that Mother Nature creates gutters despite man's intentions and proposed a grid chamber to collect water running off Hattertown Road.

The grid chamber would remove 80 percent of solids and the owner of the lot on which the chamber would be located would be responsible for pumping it out yearly, "as any inlet structure should be."

According to Mr. McCoy, there is erosion on the property caused by water coming from the street. The development plan implements a drainage system before the lots are developed.

Development would occur in phases. The first phase would be driveway construction to provide stable access to the lots.

The second would address areas behind the house that require disturbance in order to replace vegetation as quickly as possible.

The last two phases would address septic and then the house itself. Contractors would not be allowed to start the next phase until the previous phase had been completed.

Commissioner Katja Pierogostini asked if the driveway for lot B could be gravel or another pervious surface.

Mr. McCoy said that part of the driveway would be very steep and he couldn't recommend a gravel surface because it would deteriorate and ruts would appear.

At Ms. Pierogostini's suggestion, he promised to investigate the possibility of making some portions of the driveway pervious.

Commissioner Sharon Sailing said she could envision multiple contractors working on the houses at the same time.

Mr. McCoy said he has always envisioned the lots as stand-alone projects and contractors would need to access the street to move from one lot to another.

Given the individual silt fences for each lot and space between them, contractors could not cut across the lots.

Matthew J. Popp, Environmental Land Solutions, LLC, 8 Knight Street, Norwalk, described the property to commissioners, noting some site disturbances from ATV traffic and paint ball games. He provided photos to illustrate his description.

He gave commissioners a list of wildlife species he noted on the property and said he verified with the state Department of Environmental Protection that there are no threatened species in the area.

He noted the open space is adjacent to off-site open space and a conservation easement to help protect the wetlands.

Commissioner Mary Curran asked the difference between open space and a conservation easement.

Mr. Popp said it is determined by who owns it. A conservation easement belongs to the homeowner and is located on his or her lot. The town or some other entity may own open space.

He described the plunge pool as a way to treat storm water runoff, trapping sediment and preventing it from washing into the wetlands.

He finished his presentation by saying the mitigation measures mean there will be no long-term impact to wetlands.

Commission Chair Anne Peters invited comments and questions from members of the public.

Gloria Horvati, 5 Hattertown Rd., asked if the lots meet the minimum requirements for lot size and if the proposed drainage systems would impact or erode her property on the opposite side of the street.

Ms. Peters said Ms. Horvati could find answers to many of her questions in the application. She suggested Ms. Horvati review it and added that she could still ask the questions.

Vincent Brunelli, 42 Hattertown Rd., presented the commission with maps, questioning the property line and the location of wetlands. His maps showed different locations and configurations as compared to the maps presented by the applicant.

Rob Sibley, deputy director of the Land Use Agency, asked the applicant to submit original reports and not copies and a pre- and post-storm water quality and quantity report.

He noted that if there is an activity that must occur on neighboring property but the applicant does not have legal access to it, the commission cannot consider that activity.

Mr. Sibley wanted it stated for the record that the application suggests a plunge pool for mitigation purposes but the commission's policy does not allow storm water solutions as mitigation solutions.

He told the applicant's representatives that the site has plenty of areas for mitigation and asked them to consider mitigation techniques that the commission has approved in the past.

Commissioners unanimously denied an application by Norman Nagy, 12, 38, 40 Cold Spring Rd., for the restoration of a dam and dredging of a pond because the application was incomplete.

They unanimously approved the removal of a violation for Neil and Ann Marie Unger, 46 Shepard Hill Rd., accepting their plan to restore wetlands after converting a stream to a pond.

They also unanimously approved Noranda Metals Industries' plan to remove contaminants from 11 Prospect Drive and 40/50 Mile Hill Road South.

Ms. Sailing told the applicant's representative, Lucas Hellerich, from AECOM, Rocky Hill, that the application was, "If not the best, among the best materials presented."

Mr. Hellerich thanked the commission and said his goal was to improve the contaminated wetlands.

The commission noted there is a public hearing set for October 14, when the Housatonic Railroad Company will respond to a cease and desist order for filling activities associated with extending a rail spur.