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”
Thursday, February 9, 2006 at 7:30 P.M.
OLD SAYBROOK MIDDLE SCHOOL
60 SHEFFIELD STREET
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 p.m., Chairman Paul Smith called to order the 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
Christine Nelson, Town Planner
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
Penelope Sharp, Consulting Biologist and Wetlands Scientist
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 the meeting by continuing the approach of covering the golf course hole by hole.
Hole 4
The Commissioners began by collectively gathering concerns, then discussing possible ways to mitigate those concerns. They discussed the proposed close cropping (1 to 3 feet) of vegetation in some detail, and there was interchange between Town consultants and Commissioners about the possibility of setting a minimum clearing height for that vegetation of five feet, below which there could be no cutting.
There was some focus on Wetland 18 as being important and on Wetland 40, which Richard Snarski deems a possible vernal pool because it had a foot of water in early January 2006. He didn’t auger it, but there was amphibian presence. He explained that a vernal pool is not a wetland, but all vernal pools have wetland soil. This is mapped as a wetland. Charlie Sohl asked if all the clearing activity would fragment the wetland to the point it would be harmed. Penny Sharp replied that “it definitely alters the composition of the wetland.” She said that setting a five-foot minimum would give enough cover for migratory species. Commission members and consultants discussed the extensive clearing of wetlands and possible wetland fragmentation.
Commissioners asked if sediment could be transported into the wetlands. Richard Snarski said that there seems a high probability of some suspended soils getting into the wetlands and that clays cannot be removed by precipitation. Contours presented another issue, because these slopes seem to be directed toward the wetland side. The plans for building bio-basins raised more concerns, especially with regard to surface discharge. Richard Snarski says the designs call for building bio-basins into the water table, which would not sufficiently contain overflow.
Overall concerns with Hole 4 were with the amounts of disturbance, clearing, and grading within the review zone, and with the effects of discharges upon the wetlands, habitat, and vernal pools. Attorney Cronin reminded the Commissioners that golf courses are “allowed as a right” provided they do not significantly impact wetlands. The Chairman polled to determine whether or not the members felt this site posed potentially significant impacts. Four members considered the issues significant; three felt the conditions they had discussed could reduce the impacts.
Hole 5
At the outset of this discussion, four members felt the activity required for this hole would not be significant; one felt it was significant, and two wanted to reserve judgment. Judith Preston described this hole as “really squeezed into a large wetland area.” The location is very wet because it is wrapped by a significant wetland. Members expressed concern about single-point discharges, especially where drainage appears quite close to the wetlands and could impact vernal pools. Penny Sharp pointed out that there is a discharge into Vernal Pool 23, which is non-conserved. There was concern over the percentage of disturbance and also over the proximity of discharges that could change the wetlands and affect vernal pools. After discussion, three members felt that alternatives could
lessen the problems; four did not.
Hole 6
Chairman Smith asked for an initial reading from each Commissioner, finding that everyone considered Hole 6 to be significant at the outset. Their areas of concern included:
§ Drainage coming off Hole 5 into Hole 6.
§ Discharges into a 25-foot zone (Wetlands 18).
§ The amount of blasting the hole would require.
§ The challenges associated with that much rock removal.
§ The extent to which grading and re-grading would be required after blasting.
§ The amount of clearing required for a 240-foot bridge through the wetlands.
§ Erosion controls would be a challenge on the hole.
Much attention was given to the proposed clearing within the 25-foot buffer zone and to the amount of disturbance associated with the 240-foot span crossing the wetlands. Commissioners considered whether relocating the bridge could reduce the impacts to Vernal Pool 18, which some experts believe to be the most productive one in the state. Commissioners concluded that the proposed location does appear to be the most feasible and prudent alternative because anything else would increase the amount of clearing through the wetlands. They agreed that, of the options presented in the application, this one seems the least harmful.
Members felt that the bridge, as proposed, might be too low. There was consideration of ways to help mitigate the problems caused by shade, which could reduce existing vegetation. One alternative might be to require five feet of open air underneath the span.
Members remained concerned about the extent of rock-cutting and grading that is being proposed; concerns also remained as to the amount of clearing that is being proposed within the 25-foot buffer zone. In addition were concerns about sedimentation, erosion, and the steepness of slopes, all of which seem directed toward, or into, the wetlands. When polled, seven of the seven Commissioners felt the activity proposed for Hole 6 would be significant.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:55 p.m., the Chairman requested a motion for adjournment until the next special meeting, which will be held at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 13, 2006 in the library of the Old Saybrook Middle School, 60 Sheffield Street, Old Saybrook, Connecticut.
MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. MADE by R. McIntyre. SECONDED by
J. Preston. 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
| 
