TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741
Telephone (860) 395-3131 FAX (860) 395-1216
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – “THE PRESERVE”
Monday, February 6, 2006 at 7:30 P.M.
OLD SAYBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL
60 SHEFFIELD STREET
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:35 p.m., Chairman Paul Smith called to order a special meeting of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission (IWWC) for the purpose of deliberating Application #05-016.
II. ROLL CALL
Attendant Members Absent Members
Paul Smith, Chairman None.
Charles Sohl, Vice Chairman, Zoning Rep.
William Pollock, Secretary
Kevin Zawoy, Regular Member
Frank Reichart, Economic Development Rep.
Robert McIntyre, Planning Rep.
Judy Preston, Conservation Rep.
Town Staff and Consultants
Damon Hearne, Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Whitney McKendree Moore, Recording Clerk
Michael Cronin, Esq., Consulting Legal Counsel
Wade Thomas, Consulting Civil Engineer
Mary Armstrong, Consulting Golf Course Architect
R. Richard Snarski, Consulting Soil and Wetlands Scientist
Chairman Smith began by noting that six Regular Members were present and that the seventh was currently en route. As recommended by counsel, consideration of the golf course would be addressed “hole by hole.” At each hole, Commissioners would look for possibly “significant” impacts from three points of view: (1) within the actual wetland or watercourse; (2) within the protected non-encroachment area; and (3) within the protected area due to activity from outside it.
III. DELIBERATION
05-016 “The Preserve” – River Sound Development, LLC
Application to construct an open-space subdivision country club, golf course community (934 acres total) and open space (542.2 acres) within 100 feet of wetlands (114.5 acres total wetlands).
Residence Conservation C District, Aquifer Protection District
Applicant: River Sound Development, LLC Agent: Attorney David Royston
Chairman Smith opened by asking the Town consultants to elaborate on how the 25-foot golf course buffer zone was derived. The response from Wade Thomas was that the 100-foot regulated area has been traditional in protecting inland wetlands; 25 feet would, in their opinion, be the absolute minimum buffer to construct the golf course. The Commissioners decided to focus on the 100-foot “review area” associated with each golf course hole and determine whether or not the activity there would raise any significant impacts. If so, they would see if any “feasible and prudent alternatives” might be available to mitigate the problems. If no significant impacts were found, they would simply move on to consider the next proposed activity.
Hole 1
Using the checklist approach suggested by Attorney Cronin, the Commissioners considered “flyover” areas of clearing, topography, and impacts to Vernal Pool 21. They also considered issues related to excavation, water flow, disturbance to critical terrestrial habitat, and the adequacy of plans for controlling soil erosion and sedimentation. When initially polled, four Commissioners felt there could be significant impacts generated by activity on this site; three did not. Counsel was sought from Wade Thomas regarding soil controls. He responded by recommending the IWWC require a much more detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan.
Hole 2
A great deal of attention was given to the cart path located mid-fairway and to a watercourse located between Wetland 23 and Wetland 18. According Richard Snarski, the applicant has made no indication that a pipe or bridge would be installed and appears to be proposing to fill this watercourse. He urged Commissioners to require a bridge instead. Other concerns of the Commissioners included:
§ Removal of the canopy from almost all of Wetland 23.
§ Elevations and steep slopes at the southern end of the site (there is also a steep slope from nearby high-density development to consider).
§ The extent of excavation that would be required to create the green.
There was concern about Wetland 23 and Vernal Pool 22, where approximately 85% of the canopy would be disturbed, and there was also concern about discharges into the watercourse during construction. Richard Snarski recommended against allowing discharges into vernal pools; Wade Thomas agreed, stating that suspended soils would likely get into the wetland. There may be some new products on the market capable of mitigating this problem.
Five members felt the activity at this hole could generate significant impacts; two felt the impacts might be mitigated by imposing conditions; one asked about dropping the cart path further to the south, which was discussed but deemed untenable. Chairman Smith stated that the general sense seemed to be that this hole is more significant than Hole 1 and that, if it survives, it would be conditional with a bridge over the intermittent stream. As for documenting likely physical changes, members pointed to data demonstrating that removing canopy from Wetlands 23 and 24 would likely cause physical changes in their environments; that discharges containing silts would likely change Wetland 18; that the loss of Vernal Pool 22 would disturb upland areas and that there would be a 56.32% disturbance of critical terrestrial habitat, a
level 31% higher than the recommended limit.
Hole 3
Close scrutiny was given to the clearing that is proposed along this wetland and to the number of discharges with traps that would remain after construction to become permanent bio-basins. There was concern over drainage and the need to control water from coming off the hill. In addition, the Commissioners discussed the possible relocation of the cart path and a wooded portion of the cart path that would likely require clearing. Every Commissioner felt this hole would pose significant impacts, with two members thinking it might be possible to compensate for those impacts.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
At this point, the agreed-upon time for concluding had arrived, so the Chairman requested a motion for adjournment until the next special meeting, which will be held at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 9, 2006 in the library of the Old Saybrook Middle School, 60 Sheffield Street.
MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. MADE by J. Preston. SECONDED by
C. Sohl. VOTED IN FAVOR: W. Pollock, J. Preston, F. Reichart, P. Smith, R. McIntyre,
K. Zawoy, C. Sohl; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 7-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Whitney McKendree Moore
Recording Clerk
| 
