Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Inland Wetlands Minutes September27, 2005







OLD LYME
INLAND WETLANDS/WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005


PRESENT WERE:  Chairman Tom Degnan, Evan Griswold, Janet Bechtel, Lewis DiCamillo, Agnes O’Connor, David McCulloch, and Don Willis.  Also present were: Ann Brown, Tony Hendriks, Susan Marquardt, Robert Giannotti, Kim Groves, Diana Atwood Johnson and other members of the public.

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED AUGUST 23, 2005 AND SEPTEMBER 8, 2005

Agnes O’Connor asked if the meeting of September 8, 2005 was the site walk.  Mr. Degnan indicated that was correct.  Ann Brown noted there was not a quorum at that meeting so there were no minutes to approve.  A summary was submitted to the clerk.  Mr. Degnan, Mr. DiCamillo, and Agnes O’Connor indicated they not received the minutes of August 23, 2005.  Janet Bechtel and Don Willis both indicated they had received the minutes.  Ms. Bechtel further stated she had received her minutes within a week of the meeting.  Therefore, the commission agreed not to vote on the minutes.

PUBLIC HEARING - QUESTA BUILDERS & DESIGN, ROBERT GIANNOTTI, 4 HUNTLEY ROAD

Ann Brown clarified with the commission the members who would be eligible to vote on the application should the commission decide to take action.  

Mr.  Hendriks submitted plans to the members  dated June 2005 revised through September 27, 2005.  He noted the revisions were made as a result of Mr. Metcalf’s letter to the commission dated September 22, 2005.   Mr. Hendriks stated at the last meeting the commission expressed its concern as to the size of the building and the close proximity to the vernal pool.  He noted the applicant has reduced the size of the building by 20 feet and all of the grading has been relocated outside of the 100-ft. review zone with the exception of  some minor grading.  Mr. Hendriks noted on the landscaping plan a soil and erosion control barrier has been located farther away from the property line and closer to the proposed construction.  Ann Brown asked if the area 75-ft. from the wetlands and to the west of the silt fence would not be disturbed.  He indicated this was correct.  He further stated all of the water that is generated on the site still would continue to go towards the wetland.  Mr. Degnan asked what was being proposed to be planted on the site.  Mr. Hendriks indicated it would be 10 white pines.  Mr. Degnan indicated the white pine would grow very well on the site due to the sandy soil.   Mr. Griswold stated it was fast growing and would provide screening fairly quickly and would not impact the vernal pool habitat.  Mr. Griswold asked when the vernal pool was established.  Ms. Bechtel indicated there was a letter dated May 2003 from Margaret Washburn, a registered professional soil scientist, to the adjacent property owner indicating the wetlands were clearly functioning as a vernal pool.   


Page 2


Ms. Bechtel stated indeed the building has been reduced; however there was no change to parking as a result of the reduction in the building size.  She further stated she had hope the overall footprint of the plan could be reduced to provide as much buffer as possible.  She noted the corner of the building was located at
the 100 ft review zone but, in order to work, a considerable amount of grading will take place within that review zone which is the vernal pool envelope.  Mr. Hendriks indicated this would be a one-time
construction disturbance.    He indicated the dumpster has been moved out of the review zone.  Mr. Hendriks indicated the owner would need a reasonable amount of access around the building for maintenance.  He noted the grading could be pulled up tight to the building and have a 3 or 4 ft exposed foundation showing at that location but that would not be a prudent alternative for the applicant as far as maintaining the building.  
Ms. Bechtel indicated there was lawn within the review zone which often means fertilizer and best practices recommend that all activity be removed from the vernal pool envelope.   She further asked if there were any restrictions on the plan for salt and pesticide use; she indicated she was looking for the plan to go further.  Mr. Hendriks suggested the commission consider approving this project subject to the applicant restricting his fertilizer usage.  The commission suggested that area be left in its natural vegetative state.  

Mr. Degnan stated the commission is concerned how the remaining buffer is re-vegetated following the construction.  Mr. Hendriks indicated on a map an area that could remain in its natural state.   Ms. Bechtel asked if the well issue was addressed to Mr. Metcalf’s satisfaction.  Mr. Hendriks indicated it has been resolved.  He further stated the drainage pipe has been relocated to 25 ft away and the level spreader has been moved closer to the rear boundary.   Ms. Bechtel asked if the applicant would consider changing from a six-inch bituminous lip curb to a cape cod curb.  Mr. Hendriks indicated that would not be a problem as long as it was able to function properly.  Ms. Bechtel asked if the large shade tree would be able to stay.  Mr. Hendriks stated it would not be removed.  Ms. Bechtel also asked about the lighting.  Mr. Hendriks indicated  the lights would be all-side shielded.  He further noted the hours of operation would be 9 to 5 and perhaps motion detector lighting would be installed for evenings.  

Mr. Hendriks summarized by stating the plans before the commission reflect and address all of Mr. Metcalf’s concerns.  

Evan Griswold made a motion to close the public hearing.  David McCulloch seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING KENWOOD, LLC – MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PERMIT – WOOD CREST ESTATES

Ann Brown stated the commission has had a number of  new submissions including new drainage evaluations, plans, and a  letter of McDonald/Sharpe & Associates to John DiCastro, DOT .  Ann Brown read the letter into the record.  The letter indicated the revised plans have been submitted for their review.  Susan Marquardt, P.E. of Angus McDonald & Gary Sharpe Associates gave a brief summary of the last meeting.  She indicated the approved plan used the existing wetland for detention.  She further stated the plan that was before the commission at their last meeting did not include any detention on the site and there were questions as to the impact to the wetlands drainage leaving the site.  Therefore, since the last meeting there have been discussions with Mr. Metcalf and the drainage calculations have been revised.  Previously, the existing drainage calculations only took into account what was draining to the wetlands.  Currently, the drainage is split into three areas.  The north drainage area which is going to existing wetlands on the property and leaving the site to the DOT system.  The western drainage area  which runs along the back part of the schematic houses.  The southern drainage area which includes from the wetlands on the site which drains to

Page 3

Route 156 and then to the DOT system.   There are currently two detention basins proposed.  One is located on Lots 1 & 2  within the 100-ft. review area and also in the conservation easement.  The second basin is located on Lots 9, 10 & 11.  Therefore, utilizing the two proposed basins it achieves no net increase overall
leaving the site.   She further indicated Mr. Metcalf’s letter indicates he has not completed his review but he has agreed the concept is acceptable.  

Janet Bechtel asked what sort of additional clearing is needed for the detention basin in comparison to the original approval.  Susan Marcquardt stated the one that was originally approved used the wetland area itself as detention therefore there was no clearing.  Mr. Griswold stated the whole area where the detention basin is now located would have to be cleared of trees and graded and filled with riprap.  Mr. Griswold asked about the long-term maintenance of the basin. Ms. Marcquardt stated the interior of the basin will naturally grow.  She further stated Don Fortunato was present for any questions.  Mr. Fortunato, Certified Soil Scientist, stated in the southern basin there would be wetland plantings (conservation mix or wetland mix) at the outlet portion and also in the basin bottom depending on what it looks like after construction.   He further stated usual practice is to have a maintenance plan for three to five years after construction.  

Mr. Degnan stated the original approval the commission approved was a vortech Model 500 which would put the water directly into the wetland above the road and then a weir that would keep the water flowing at a rate that would not cause flooding downstream.  Then he stated the next set of changes was the removal of the curbing.  The applicant stated there was no longer a need for the weir, and that it was negligible how much additional water would be entering the wetland.  He stated now there is a lot of clearing to solve a drainage problem when this commission has already approved the drainage the way it was.   Mr. Degnan further stated this is a lot of clearing and a big impact when water flow from the site into the wetland did not seem to be a big concern during any phase of the review process.   

Ms. Marcquardt stated it was her understanding from the previous proposal that the wetland was being used as detention which naturally is a detention area, and there was some question as to whether detention would be increasing the water elevation onto the adjacent property owners.  She believed it was referenced in a letter that easements needed to be received from the neighbors and these could not be obtained.  Ms. Bechtel stated as a result the system of using the wetland to handle the water run-off was no longer acceptable.  Therefore, what the commission approved could not be built.  The revised plan sent the water directly into the wetlands without detention.  Then it came back before  the commission where it was explained it would be sending water into this section, therefore the commission requested Mr. Fortunato take another look at the proposal. There were differences in interpretation of the drainage information between the applicant and Mr. Metcalf.   Mr. Griswold indicated it was too bad the neighbors did not speak with the Wetlands Commission perhaps the commission could of explained that the function of the wetland as a detention basin was more important in the long run to the overall viability of the area then creating a huge swath of cleared area on a very steep slope.    Mr. Degnan asked if the weir was removed how much ponding was going to occur.  Ann Brown stated Mr. Metcalf had questioned that evaluation.  Therefore, this is the new scheme to avoid ponding on the neighbors properties and to take into account the removal of  curbing.  

Ann Brown asked if the proposal requires any changes to the conservation easement.  Ms. Marcquardt stated the conservation easement line was revised to install the detention basin.  Ann Brown stated last month the commission questioned the need for the fill.   On the original plan it was explained to the commission that the roadway needed to be filled that way because the wetland above was going to be used as a detention area.  Therefore, do we need that fill in the roadway?   Mr. Degnan asked if the applicant addressed whether filling is required at all?  Ms. Marcquardt stated a span bridge 12 ft wide by 4 ft. high was reviewed by Conn Span (it did not span the entire wetlands) would be in the similar location as the box culvert.   Mr. Fortunato stated

Page 4

he was not crazy about the spans because it is his experience that when you build them they make a mess and what you end up with is that the span over the top of the wetlands and the wetlands ends up bare ground.

Janet Bechtel asked what would that do for drainage if there was no filling and they spanned the entire wetland area?  Would it then allow the wetland to function in its current state?  Ms. Marquardt stated it would not change the drainage calculations therefore the detention basin would still be needed.  Ms. Bechtel asked if it would be prudent but not feasible to start over again.  Mr. Griswold stated he did not think it was within the commission’s purview.  

Ms. Bechtel expressed her displeasure with the plan.  She further stated some of the steepest slopes on the property are being cleared.  Therefore, should there be more pervious surfaces as a trade off?  Mr. DiCamillo asked if there could be changes made to the whole plan that would reduce impact on the flow into the wetlands. Mr. Degnan stated one of the biggest concerns of the commission was that the vegetative buffer be maintained above the wetlands.  He further stated this plan is a big diversion from what was originally approved.  

Mr. Fortunato stated the applicant was much happier with what was originally approved.  However, the easements could not be obtained which necessitated changes to the entire plan.  Ann Brown asked if there was a possibility of a scheme where you could infiltrate in small areas along the road so there would not be the need for one large area.  Mr. McCulloch asked if it could be a buried system.  Ms. Marquardt indicated a much larger area would need to be disturbed for a buried infiltration system.  

Mr. DiCamillo suggested perhaps the number of homes could be reduced which would possibly eliminate the problem.

Ms. Marquardt asked the commission to summarize their concerns.  Mr. DiCamillo suggested they investigate whatever will reduce the runoff in the upper wetland.   Mr. Degnan stated the size of the detention basin and clearing associated is a concern.  

The applicant granted the commission a 30 day extension to continue the public hearing.  

FMTM, LLC – 254-254-1 BOSTON POST ROAD

The applicant has requested the hearing not be open until the October meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

QUESTA BUILDERS & DESIGN, ROBERT GIANNOTTI

Dave McCulloch suggested the area in the review area be allowed to revegetate to a natural state.   This will allow it to remain free of fertilizers and pesticides.   Mr. Degnan stated this would preserve the integrity of the wetland.  The commission delineated on a map the area to remain in its natural state.  

Don Willis made a motion to approve the application with the modification as shown on the plan, and the six inch curbing be changed to cape cod curbing. Evan Griswold seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.  

Page 5

KATHERINE GREEN – 16 HILLSIDE

This application has been tabled until the October meeting.  A letter has been submitted by the applicant granting the extension.  

DENISE AND EDWARD TONINO – 49 FOUR MILE RIVER ROAD

The commission discussed the fact that this was the home that was destroyed buy a fire.  The footprint would change because an addition was being added to the north.  Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted.  Dave McCulloch seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

CAROL STANLAND – 5 COBLLERS LANE – INGROUND SWIMMING POOL

Carol Standland presented the proposal to the commission which she felt incorporated some of the suggestions made by the members during their site walk.  She indicated she had moved the pool 4 feet back from the wetlands, which took off 2 feet of vertical drop.  By doing this, it creates a 2 foot difference between the top side of the pool (left side) and the lower side (right side) of the pool.  The first proposal includes a concrete block wall.  The second proposal eliminates the block wall and just grades right down to the existing tree line.  She also presented the commission with a grading plan.  She also stated the reasons she would not want to put the pool in the back yard.  She also noted the entire yard is within the 100 ft setback.

In order to allow sun on the pool there would need to be a large amount of cutting.
She located the pool at least 25 ft from the leaching field.
She noted she would need a variance to put the pool in the building setback, and did not
think it would be fair to be told to put the pool in a different setback.
This location would have less impact on the neighbors
If the leaching field was to fail the only place to put it would be the back yard.

Carol Standland concluded by asking the commission to approve the location she has submitted for the pool.  Dave McCulloch stated one of the advantages to the cinder block was that it provided a walk along the edge of the pool.  Ms. Standland noted she will need to obtain a variance to put the pool in the building setback as proposed.

Janet Bechtel stated when she visited the site she indicated it would be much better if the pool stayed on the lawn area and did not travel into any of the brush that was protecting the steep slope.  She stated it was also discussed that silt fencing should be placed along the edge of disturbance and the construction work would take place from the north.  She also stated she would like to see plans from the pool contractor stating the commission’s concerns would be addressed during construction.  

Mr. Degnan suggested a pre-construction meeting with staff.  Ann Brown stated the applicant could also come back before the commission for their okay.   This would ensure that the plan would comply with the approval.  

Mr. Griswold asked if the pool contractor would be providing a more detailed plan.  Mr. Degnan stated he felt what was important that what is proposed does not change.  Ms. Standland suggested a letter from the pool contractor rather than a plan.  Ann Brown suggested the commission require a plan.  


Page 6


Agnes O’Connor expressed concerns about the pumping and filtering of the pool and would like to have more information on that aspect.  Ms. Bechtel asked about the approval sequence between zoning and wetlands.  Ms. Brown indicated each approval was independent of the other.  

Mr. Degnan stated he did not feel the need for the applicant to come back before the commission with the information, he felt it was adequate for the Inland/Wetlands Officer to review the information.

After much discussion the commission agreed to require the applicant to provide detailed pool plans,  construction plans, stock piling, stabilization and pumping information for the next meeting.  

NEW BUSINESS

FOUR PONDS DEVELOPMENT – BOSTON POST ROAD – PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION

Mr. Hendren, Project Architect, presented his preliminary schematic drawing for the  83 acre  Planned Residential Cluster Development.  This proposal will consist of 35 house lots with a community center.  The houses will be 3 bedrooms and range in size from 2,800 sq. ft to 3,500 sq. ft.  

Mr. DiCamillo asked if the only impact to the wetlands would be the crossing.  Mr. Hendren stated it was an existing crossing but that it would be enlarged.

Mr. Griswold asked if there is only  a short bit of wetlands to cross why does the road have to be as wide at the crossing as the remaining road.   Mr. Griswold asked if a waiver would be possible from the Planning Commission.  Mr. Hendren stated he would be more than willing to make those inquiries to the appropriate agencies.  

SJE DEVELOPMENT, LLC – FLAT ROCK HILL ROAD – 3 LOT SUBDIVISION

Scott Effinger, representing SJE Development introduced the project.  He noted the six acre parcel is located at the end of Flat Rock Hill Road.  The proposal consists of three building lots.  After some discussion the commission agreed a site walk was not necessary at this time.  

GRC ASSOCIATES – MARC S. CUMMINGS – TANTUMMAHEAG ROAD

Mr. Hendriks, representing Marc Cummings who owns the parcel at the end of Tantummaheag Road.  He noted there are several houses on the property.  The applicant is proposing to do some improvements to a strip of land that is the access to several properties.  He noted there is an existing bridge/culvert at the beginning of the roadway which needs to be replaced.  The applicant is also interested in providing two way traffic across the area.  The current pavement is approximately 14 to 16 feet wide.  Therefore, this roadway needs to widened to 20 ft to meet the minimum town road standards for dead end roads.  The applicant is looking to subdivide the two parcels which are located on the Connecticut River into six parcels.  Two of the parcels have existing houses and four parcels will be created.   He noted because of the increase in traffic on the roadway the applicant is interested in making it safer and more user friendly.  This roadway is intended to be private and end in a hammerhead turnaround to service the existing lots.  The drainage will be shuttled down into a detention basin before it enters into the wetland area.  He stated in order for the drainage to work properly he recommends a swale be developed.  


Page 7


Therefore, he stated an application has made to the commission for approval of this regulated activity to widened the road, make improvements to the bridge and drainage structures.  

Ann Brown asked if the plan was ready to be referred to Mr. Metcalf for evaluation.  Mr. Hendriks stated it was not.  Mr. Hendriks stated he wanted to get the application submitted and set a site walk.  The commission set a site walk for Saturday, October 8th, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. at Tantummaheag Road.

PETER KNUSTON – 22-2 TOWN WOODS ROAD  

Mr. Knutson stated he would like to erect a fence to screen his property from the Town Woods Recreational facility.  Mr. Knutson review his map with the commission members.  Ann Brown stated it would be within 100 ft. of the brook and the vernal pool.  The fence is approximately approximately 1,100’ in length.  Mr. Griswold noted that  there are animals using the pool  so whatever fencing is installed should continue to allow the animals to pass through.  Ann Brown asked if the fence would be carried all the way down through the marsh area.  Mr. Knuston stated he would like to continue it all the way to the existing post shown on the map.  

The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, October 8th, 2005 at 9:30 a.m.    

OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB – 40 MCCURDY ROAD

Arthur Reeds, Board Member, stated that this proposal is to enlarge and elevate the existing first green.  The commission reviewed the map.   Mr. Reed stated beside it being a very difficult hole, in the spring the bunkers do not drain.  This proposal will increase the size  and raise the green, eliminate the current bunkers and create a new bunker and flatten it out.  Therefore, the green will be bigger, flatter, higher and will have fairway in front of it rather than bunkers.   The commission agreed to set a site walk on Saturday, October 8th, 2005 at 10:15 a.m.

SHIRLEY NOBILE – PROPERTY IN UPPER MILL POND

Ann Brown stated the applicant proposes to do mechanical hydroraking project on portions of the Upper Mill Pond to manage to nuisance growth.    The applicant will be providing more information at the October meeting.

TOWN OF OLD LYME – 14 CROSS LANE

Ann Brown stated this is the pond located behind the Fire House.  She noted in the last twenty five years or so it has filled in so that most of it is water lillies.  There are no inlets.   There is one outlet of this pond.  The proposal is to restore the pond so it has 4 ft. of depth and remove the weeds and silt from the property.  They would install a sump pump and pump clean water out into the adjacent wetlands to dry out and muck the extra dirt out and remove it from the site.  Ms. Brown further noted the description of what they are proposing is not exactly precise at this time.  She noted there is also a large amount of brush growing along the edge and they would like to trim and make it grass along the edge.  She noted there are a lot of children and families who use the pond and would like access to the edge of the pond.   

Dave McCulloch indicated he was all for it and wished this could be done to all the ponds in town.  Ms. Brown indicated the applicant will provide further information at the next meeting.  The commission agreed to walk the pond on their own individually prior to the next meeting.





Page 8

DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION PROCEDURES

Ann Brown noted that Rob Linde had some suggestions with regard to procedures, however he was out of town this month therefore this will be discussed at the next meeting.

Respectfully submitted,


Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator