OLD LYME
INLAND WETLANDS/WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 25, 2005
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Tom Degnan, Evan Griswold, Janet Bechtel, Agnes O’Connor, David McCulloch, Evan Griswold, Robert Linde and Don Willis. Also present were: Ann Brown, Tony Hendriks, Kevin Kenny, Leslie Hollow, Kim Groves, Diana Attwood Johnson, Todd Machnik, Don Bugbee and other members of the public.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED AUGUST 23, 2005 AND SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 and OCTOBER 8, 2005
Robert Linde stated he had listened to the tape of the September 27, 2005 meeting. Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes with the following correction that on Page #4 of the August 23, 2005 minutes– last paragraph that a sentence be added “if we are indeed going to say no”. Martin Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Agnes O’Connor abstained from the August vote. Martin Griswold abstained from the September vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
KENWOOD ASSOCIATES – 392 SHORE ROAD – MODIFICATION TO EXISTING PERMIT
This application is continued until the November 29, 2005 meeting.
FMTM, LLC – 254-254-1 BOSTON POST ROAD
Attorney John Bennet was present to represent the applicant. He stated the notice to the abutting property owners was mailed on October 11, 2005 because October 10, 2005 was a national holiday. He stated the applicant would like to proceed this evening in presenting the modifications to the plans that were submitted yesterday. The revised plans address the changes with respect to erosion, sedimentation and road construction. He also stated he thought it would be beneficial to proceed this evening in order to be able to receive the commission’s input and have the opportunity to address their concerns at next months meeting. He also noted that if the commission determines it would like an extension of time the applicant would be happy to provide it. Janet Bechtel
asked Attorney Bennet when the plans were submitted. Attorney Bennet stated the revised plans were submitted yesterday. Chairman Degnan noted due to the timeframe that the revised plans were submitted that Tom Metcalf or Wendy Goodfriend would not have comments for tonight. Chairman Degnan noted the public hearing was not properly noticed by the applicant’s failure to mail the notices to abutters in the proper time frame, therefore defeating the purpose of a public hearing. Ann Brown noted she spoke with counsel who stated that October 10, 2005 was the date by which the notices had to have been sent. She also stated it was not discussed that the 10th was a holiday. Attorney Bennet stated he had received signatures from all the adjoining property owners indicating they had been notified of the hearing.
Page 2 – Minutes
October 25, 2005
Janet Bechtel stated that at our last meeting Attorney Bennet made the point in his letter to Chairman Degnan that he was quite dismayed at the pace of the application process. He further indicated that he had submitted plans for Mr. Metcalf’s review the week of August 29th, 2005 which was after the commission’s August meeting and did not receive comments until just prior to the September meeting. He was also displeased that Mr. Metcalf indicated that he found the plans to lack sufficient information for a proper review. Therefore, Ms. Bechtel asked why were these plans submitted so late? Attorney Bennet stated he did not submit the plans and Mr. Hendriks would have to comment on that aspect. He further stated there were substantial changes made to the plan. Ms. Bechtel, stated she would like to review Attorney Bennet’s letter with the commission because the tone of it was rather accusatory. She noted as a result of the letter she went back and reviewed the time line of the
application and has a submitted a letter into the record on behalf of the commission. She further added she did not feel at all that any of the delays that have been brought about are a result of the commission or its engineer.
Janet Bechtel asked if revisions to the plan address the comments made by Wendy Goodfriend in her letter of September 23, 2005. Mr. Hendriks stated he would like to begin discussing the project, familiarize the commission with the application as well as address Ms. Goodfriend’s comments. He also indicated he would be meeting with Mr. Metcalf in the near future to discuss any of his concerns. Janet Bechtel stated on September 27, 2005 before the commission last met, Mr. Metcalf stated that in his opinion the plans lacked sufficient information and clarity to properly assess the project and provide the commission with review comments; he recommended that you meet, therefore did that meeting ever happen between then and now. Mr. Hendriks indicated it did not.
Therefore, the only additional information Mr. Hendriks has had since then was from Ms. Goodfriend. Mr. Hendriks stated Mr. Metcalf had already commented very elaborately on some of his concerns on the previous application so these plans were very sufficient for him to review but because of the soil conservation service concerns Mr. Metcalf did not want to do this at this particular time. She further stated the commission substantially reviewed Broad Brook Estates in February 2004 and it is now October 2005 and that plan was withdrawn because the commission had a motion on the table to deny it. The second time the commission reviewed Broad Brook Estates it was for Lot #1, and Lot #2 only, which was approved, so this is a brand new application which is outlined in the timeline. Further, as stated in the letter) and Mr. Hendriks admitted there are significant changes in the plans based on meeting minutes in August. Ms. Bechtel requested that Mr.
Hendriks not refer back to something that does not exist. She stated this is a brand new application with brand new information. Therefore, Mr. Metcalf has not yet in this application process given the commission any comments on this application. Mr. Hendriks indicated this was correct.
Attorney Bennet stated for clarification purposes that the agenda referenced three proposed crossings and there are only two. Ann Brown stated the application states three.
Chairman Degnan asked the commission if they felt it was appropriate to accept testimony from the applicant. The commission indicated it was their preference to move forward with the application this evening.
Attorney Bennet indicated this is an application for two wetland crossings on a shared driveway in a proposed subdivision. He further stated the commission as indeed seen some semblance of this application previously.
Page 3 – Minutes
October 25, 2005
Mr. Hendriks introduced himself on behalf of the applicants for Broad Brook Estates Subdivision. He stated this is a 50.2 acre parcel located on the Boston Post Road. The parcel is surrounded by the Stone Ranch’s property on three sides. He indicated an agricultural road historically accessed this property for the purposes of haying. The proposal is for 5 lots with 16 acres of open space. He stated this application is different from previous applications because the 16 ft. wide driveway has been revised to utilize the existing wood road as much as possible. Mr. Hendriks stated that all work involved with Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 is located outside of the review zone. Mr. Hendriks reviewed the crossing with the commission that was originally approved at the
time the one lot re-configuration was presented. Mr. McCulloch asked if there are a total of three crossings. Mr. Hendriks stated there are two crossing proposed and one that was previously approved. Mr. Linde asked if there were any design changes to the crossing since the time it was approved. Mr. Hendriks indicated there were not. Mr. Hendriks stated the reason the applicant decided to put the third crossing into this application was because initially the applicant thought that the portion of the roadway would not be paved and it may not still be paved. However, in the event that the applicant wants to pave the entire roadway then that part of the crossing would become part of the application. The applicant has indicated that the driveway would be paved through its entire length as part of this application. Mr. Linde stated that this commission has not approved an impervious surface. Mr. Linde stated then there
are three crossings the commission needs to approve as part of this process. Mr. Hendriks stated the crossing has been approved but the surface treatment has not been approved.
Mr. Hendriks stated as a result of Ms. Goodfriend’s comments he has revised the Soil and Erosion Sedimentation details and provided a separate package to go along with the subdivision. Mr. Hendriks he stated he does not feel this subdivision is any different from any other development but the Soil Conservation Service has been requiring more stringent controls on how exactly a project is developed and constructed. Therefore, he has supplemented what was originally submitted to adhere to the requirements.
Janet Bechtel asked Mr. Hendriks if soil delineation has been done on the plan based on Ms. Goodfriend’s comments. Mr. Hendriks indicated he has done so on the map. Mr. Hendriks stated one of the comments was to delineate the exact soil types on the property. Mr. Degnan asked why they should be listed. Ms. Bechtel stated because very clearly there are about seven different soil types. Three of them are poorly drained soils, five of the seven soils are very unsuitable for a number of different functions. Mr. Hendriks indicated they are listed as Note #14 on the plan. Ms. Bechtel stated they are listed but not located on the plan. Mr. Degnan stated soils that are in the New London County Soil Survey probably should get reanalyzed again by Mr. Fortunato. Mr. Hendriks stated working within the guidelines for Middlesex County it was difficult to locate the exact lines. Mr. Hendriks stated he attempted to digitize the lines as shown on the Soil Conservation Service maps
and those are on the plans with respect to the limits of those soil types. Mr. Griswold asked if there was any attempt to ground truth any of those lines. Mr. Hendriks stated he thought the report gave a pretty good indication which is included as part of the application. The commission agreed to have the soil types reviewed in the area of clearing. Mr. Hendriks stated the revised plan addresses 99% of Ms. Goodfriend’s comments.
Ms. Bechtel stated that crossing #2 had been delineated as a stream by the biologist. Therefore, is there any plan for stream restoration? Mr. Hendriks stated he did not feel it was necessary. Mr. Hendriks stated Priscilla Bailey is present and maybe could address some of the issues.
Page 4 – Minutes
October 25, 2005
Ms. Bechtel asked if blasting was addressed. Mr. Hendriks stated he believed so, but could not find it at the moment. He further stated there definitely would be blasting at the site.
Janet Bechtel asked in the phasing process has the applicant indicated whether or not he will construct the entire private driveway before the lots are cleared. Mr. Hendriks stated yes. Mr. McCulloch asked if this included the utilities. Mr. Hendriks stated the utility company would normally trench and set a transformer location at the base of the driveway. Then when the driveway and house are constructed it will trench from the transformer location. Janet Bechtel asked if one individual would be handling the soil and erosion control. Mr. Hendriks indicated yes for the roadway but not for the individual driveway and lots.
Mr. Linde asked if the utility service would be taken from the Post Road to the junction of each individual lot at the time of initial construction. Mr. Hendriks stated the utility company dictates the location of the transformers. Mr. Linde further stated that the utility company would not have to come back through subsequent to the road being built and have activity within the wetland review. Mr. Hendriks stated this was correct.
Janet Bechtel stated Wendy Goodfriend also requested the wetland be re-flagged prior to any construction activities. Mr. Hendrik’s indicated this could be done in a couple of different ways. There are accurate coordinate locations for all the flags that Mr. Fortunato placed. He stated they can be replaced or we can re-flag a particular line in a particular location where there might be some activity.
Mr. Hendriks stated on the plans there is a dotted area along the whole the extremity of the entire proposed roadway which are erosion and control blankets. He further stated the detailed sheet of the plan covers both installation and site preparation.
Mr. Linde asked if the designer suggested where sediment basins and mats were to be installed in specific locations. Mr. Hendriks indicated they have not zeroed in on that. He further noted some of this occurs during the construction process as needed. Mr. Linde stated he understood there could be some unforeseen circumstances, but it seems that an expert in the area will be able to identify problem areas.
Mr. Hendriks stated one way to do it is to look and take individual areas and install sediment basins. Mr. Linde asked if this has been done on this property. Mr. Hendriks indicated it had not, but he was waiting for recommendations from both Wendy Goodfriend and Mr. Metcalf. Mr. Linde asked if it was the responsibility of this commission to have our consultants do that job for you. Mr. Hendriks indicated he was not asking them to do that job, but if they feel it is necessary he will, however at this point he does not feel it is necessary to spec these areas out.
Janet Bechtel asked if the revised plan still has a retaining wall in it. Mr. Hendriks indicated it did not.
Mr. Hendriks stated there are approximately 17 acres of wetlands on the site. Approximately 20 acres are within the review zone. The proposed roadway and the associated grading within the upland review zone comprise some 2.1 acres or 9.9 percent of the site. The expansion of the existing road is 0.7 percent of the total wetland area and approximately .26 percent of the total land area. The proposed open space is 32% of the total parcel. Mr. Linde asked that all numbers be submitted to the commission in writing. Mr. Hendriks indicated all the numbers were part of the file with the exception of the proposed driveway. He stated he would submit a revised letter to the commission. Ann Brown asked the numbers be submitted in square feet and include the amount of square
feet of actual wetland disturbance.
Page 5 – Minutes
October 25, 2005
Mr. Hendriks stated on the first crossing which is already approved represent a total activity of 1,617 sq. ft.
This is the roadway and associated grading along the side. The second crossing is 5,427 sq. ft. or .12 acres which is the largest. The third crossing is 1,918 sq. ft or .04 acres.
Mr. Hendriks summarized by stating there are no significant activities on the site and if there are some very small activities they are taking place as part of this proposal they are in fact dealt with from a soil and erosion control standpoint in accordance with the state guidelines.
Priscilla Bailey, Ecologist, Botanist, of Marine and Freshwater Research Service located in Guilford, Connecticut submitted her resume to the commission. She stated her original report was dated May 27th, 2005 and it described the wetlands at the three road crossings. Janet Bechtel pointed out the fact that this was a new application and this report was submitted with a different application, therefore some of the new members on the board may have not reviewed the report.
Priscilla Bailey stated the new application includes the two remaining crossings aside from the one that has already been approved and the redesigned road. She stated the road now proceeds through some upland review area that she did not look at the first time around. Therefore, she went back out on September 7, 2005. She submitted a follow-up letter to the commission. Janet Bechtel stated one of the questions she had in the proposal submitted was the destruction of tree cover and damage to vegetation that will occur during construction of this roadway. She asked what this damage would do to the overall temperature of the wetland. She was also concerned about the dust that will be generated from the road construction and blasting.
Priscilla Bailey stated the site is fully wooded, a lot of ledge and wetlands. There is a small stream that eventually goes under the road and discharges into Rogers Lake. The water was clear in the brook during the Spring. The wetlands on the site are all hardwood swamps dominated by tall trees. She stated crossing #2 was quite a small stream or even perhaps just some drainage that makes its way across. Crossing #3 is more of a stream. She noted in the upland review area the road is always 50 ft. or more away from the wetland boundary except in one area. She noted it is difficult to tell vegatatively what is upland and what is wetland. It is just plain forested all the way through. She noted the wetland was evaluated in her report.
Crossing #3 appeared to have been cut over fairly recently. She noted as far as the site plan is concerned she felt they minimized the impact. She stated the applicant is following the wood road until it becomes a small path. She stated currently there is a lot of erosion on the road especially at the crossings. Therefore, she felt the work proposed at the crossing would eliminate erosion rather than create it. Janet Bechtel asked if the disturbance to date was a result of the clearing to access the site. Ms. Bechtel noted when the commission walked the site in early 2004 there was no where near the disturbance that there was when it was walked in 2005. Ms. Bailey stated she did not know what the disturbance was but she did know the water runs across the roadway.
Mr. Hendriks stated when the property was surveyed three or four years ago there was a significant amount of off road vehicles doing a lot of disturbance. Janet Bechtel stated she thought the commission walked the site on the 18th of August and at that point in time equipment had been in there and moved rocks out of the way, specifically in the third crossing as the roadway started to go the upland. This had not originally been done when the property was walked in 2004.
Page 6 – Minutes
October 25, 2005
Attorney Bennet stated this was incorrect and that there was no work done in those crossings. Ms. Bechtel stated no formal work, but perhaps access so that it could be flagged. She further stated some sort of heavy equipment has been in the site between when it was first walked in 2004 and when it was walked again in August 2005. Attorney Bennet responded that there has been no earth moving. Ms. Bechtel stated not earth moving, but tree and rock moving. Mr. McCulloch suggested perhaps it was a result of the test hole digging. Mr. Hendriks stated he did not recall exactly when the test holes were done but that would be the only time that machinery was at the site. He further added the test holes were done on September 2003.
Janet Bechtel asked Ms. Bailey when the trees are removed and the vegetation is disturbed by the heavy equipment in order to put the roadway in will this be a considerable change to the site? How will this destruction effect the wetland? Ms. Bailey stated when ever the tree cover is opened up there is a change in the sunlight which could possibly change the vegetation. She further noted it was currently typical wetland vegetation. It was mostly forest. She added these are not large water bodies; these are intermittent streams. Ms. Bechtel asked Ms. Bailey what she thought the effect of non-point source pollutants would be on the wetland from the road construction. Mr. McCulloch stated this would be hard to answer without reviewing the drainage plan.
He further stated if this is a paved road we don’t know where it intends to discharge. Ms. Bailey stated there would be dust collected on the leaves, but one good rain will wash it away. She further stated this is a temporary situation that should have no impact.
Ms. Bechtel asked Mr. Hendriks what was planned for dust control. Mr. Hendriks stated he believe the plans recommend a product to use for dust control when and if it is necessary. Ms. Bechtel asked if the product was calcium chloride and if it is approved for wetlands. Mr. Hendriks noted it was the product used by the State of Connecticut. Ms. Bechtel asked that the product be checked to be sure it was approved for wetland use.
Mr. Linde stated he thought after the third crossing there was a fairly steep incline in the road and asked if the road would be graded in a particular way that it would not go directly into the wetland. Mr. Hendriks stated the roadway location has been changed from where it is presently existing so it allows some slope to be taken out of the access. The road is crowned in that area to channel the water and is banked on both sides.
Mr. Linde asked about details for the crossings. Mr. Hendriks stated there are crossing details and on the plan profiles; there is a pipe going under the road with a plunge pool on either side. Mr. Griswold asked if they were sized to handle this October’s rainfall. Mr. Rowley stated a drainage report was submitted in accordance with town standards and everything is designed for a 25 year storm.
Mr. Linde asked if a one way bridge over wetlands crossings had been considered given this is a private driveway with only four homes. Also, is there any need to pave more than 8 ft or 10 ft of the road given that is only access to four homes. Mr. Hendriks stated he would discuss this with the Planning Commission but there are standards in the regulations that need to be followed. Mr. Hendriks stated he felt a driveway for four homes needs to be 16 ft. wide in order to provide safe access to those homes.
The public hearing will remain open and the applicant has granted an extension.
Page 8 – Minutes
October 25, 2005
OLD BUSINESS
KATHERINE GREEN – 16 HILLSIDE ROAD
The applicant has requested this application be tabled until the November meeting.
CAROL AND DAVID STANDLAND – 5 COBBLERS LANE
The applicant has requested this application be tabled until the November meeting.
SJE DEVELOPMENT, LLC – FLAT ROCK HILL ROAD – 3 LOT SUBDIVISION
Ann Brown explained this was a proposed three lot subdivision located at the end of Flat Rock Hill Road. Dave McCulloch stated the water from the driveway would run straight down Flat Rock Hill Road. Ann Brown stated the applicant would have to come to the Wetlands Commission at the time of house construction.
Robert Linde made a motion to approve the application as presented with the addition of a note to be added to the plan specifying that any activity within the 100 ft review zone needs to come back before the commission. Agnes O’Connor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
GRC ASSOCIATES – MARC S. CUMMINGS – TANTUMMAHEAG ROAD
Tony Hendriks, introduced himself on behalf of this applicant, Mr. Cummings. This application was received at the last regular meeting. He stated the during the site walk the commission had comments which will be discussed with the Planning Commission at their next meeting. Mr. Hendriks stated the existing driveway is approximately 12 ft. wide and services three existing houses. The proposal consists of widening the pavement for safe access and increasing the number of homes to seven and still is in conformance with the state guidelines for zero percent increase. The application also includes improvements to a bridge at the end of Tantummaheag Road. The proposal includes three 42” culverts and continue to use all of the existing stone pilings to put a bridge
front on both the top and sides so it will look like the structure that currently exists. He further noted the only activity that is proposed in the wetland is to formulate the area between the transition to the road and everything coming off the hill. Janet Bechtel asked for the dimensions on the swale. Mr. Hendriks stated it is 11 ft x 3 ft. with 2 to 1 slopes on each side and stone lined.
Agnes O’Connor made a motion to hold a public hearing for Item #6, GRC Associates. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. Mr. Linde asked if there was a need to do another site walk. Chairman Degnan suggested that another site walk might be set once the public hearing is opened. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 8 – Minutes
October 25, 2005
PETER KNUTSON – 22-2 TOWN WOODS ROAD – INSTALLATION OF FENCE & TREES
WITHIN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Ann Brown submitted copies of the adjacent property where the vernal pool is located. Mr. Knutson stated he would like to secure his property boundary from the adjacent playscape located on the town property.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Don Willis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB – 40 MCCURDY ROAD – REDO THE FIRST GREEN
Evan Griswold recused himself from the application.
Rick Ermler, from the Old Lyme Country Club stated they were proposing renovations to the first green within a 100 ft. of the wetlands pond area. He noted the commission walked the site on October 8, 2005. He stated the club wants to increase the size of the green from 2,500 sq. ft to 4,000 sq. ft. They would also like to fill in two sand bunkers that are in the front portion of the green and build a new sand bunker at the rear portion of the green.
Mr. Linde asked if there were any changes in the chemicals that are used to maintain the green versus the longer grass and the area around it. Mr. Ermler stated according to the Course Superintendent there was not.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Don Willis seconded the motion. The motion passed.
SHIRLEY NOBILE – 112 SILL LANE – UPPER MILL POND PROPOSAL TO HYDRORAKE
Dominic Meringolo, Environmental Engineer with Aquatic Control Technology has been working with the residents at Upper Mill Pond for several years. He noted the residents have decided to go forward with the hydro-raking project to remove some of the nuisance vegetation. This is primarily water willow and water lilies. He submitted an information package to the commission members. He stated the hydro-rake is a floating backhoe powered by hydraulic paddle wheels. It has a 12 foot hydraulic arm on the front machine with a york rake attachment. The machine moves around the pond and rakes up the material and deposits it along the shoreline. The material is then loaded into trucks and disposed of in an upland location away from the pond. The pond itself is about 10 acres –
approximately 5 or 6 acres in the north end and is completely grown in with all types of vegetation. The pond is about 2 to 3 ft deep and gets to about 6 to 8 ft down by the dam. The machine will be launched at Ms. Nobile’s property at 112 Sill Lane which has an open pathway down to the water. Several off loading locations have been chosen both on the south and north side of the pond. He noted the rake does not remove sediment or muck and is not considered dredging by the State or the Army Corps of Engineers, therefore we are not required to obtain permits. It is simply a restorative technique.
Evan Griswold asked about any change in habitat because the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Old Lyme Conservation Trust have constructed a fish ladder at the dam that creates this pond. Therefore, has any
Page 9 – Minutes
October 25, 2005
survey been done of the pond. Mr. Meringolo stated they went out on the pond in a canoe with a base map of the pond and visually sketched in the areas of vegetation. Mr. Griswold asked if there was any woody debris in the water. Mr. Meringolo stated for the most part that was limited up to the north end of the pond, which is a more established wetland area. Mr. Griswold stated he asked because if there was woody debris it should be left because it is important for the young herring as they develop from egg stage.
Mr. Jerome Edwards, property owner at 112 Sill Lane, stated it was his understanding that the fish ladder has been dismantled. Mr. Griswold stated that was the first he heard of it.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application as proposed with a condition that during the de-watering process that some sort of sediment control be placed around the material that has been removed from the pond. Mr. Meringolo stated this was up to the commission but the materials that were being removed would be placed right on the edge so anything going back into the pond would be going back into its original area. Mr. Linde asked how long it was typically stockpiled next to the water. Mr. Meringolo stated it really depends on how much area is available. He further stated the material de-waters fairly quickly.
Evan Griswold withdrew his condition from the approval. Martin Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
TOWN OF OLD LYME – 14 CROSS LANE – RESTORATION & MAINTENANCE OF POND
Don Bugbee, Director of Parks & Recreation for the Town of Old Lyme, stated he has submitted a proposal to clean up the existing pond at Cross Lane Park. Todd Machnik stated the pond was constructed back in the late 70’s. He stated it was a wetland that was excavated to generate fill to make the existing Cross Lane Firehouse and Athletic Fields. Mr. Machnik stated the use was for recreational and educational purposes for kids. He noted it is currently being overtaken by water lilies and the sides of the pond are becoming unreasonable to maintain. He noted there is an existing spillway which is where we are proposing to use an electrical pump to dig in a well a few feet deep lined with stone and install a pump so the water being pumped would be clear. There would be no
excavation while the pond level is being lowered. This work will take place during the dry time of the year. The excavated material will be stockpiled toward the skating shelter, which is easily accessible to the road. Any stockpiled areas will have silt fence around it. Mr. Griswold asked if the stockpile could be covered with straw while it is de-watering.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the application. Agnes O’Connor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
KATHLEEN ROLLAR ABBOTT – 8 FLAGLER AVE – ADDITION IN THE UPLAND REVIEW
Ms. Abbott stated she had submitted an application proposing an addition on her house. The addition included a second floor to the existing house. The existing house was only 850 sq. ft. She further stated she also submitted a letter stating the provisions for what she would do with the soil. The commission reviewed the proposed building plans. The commission agreed to schedule a site walk for Saturday, November 19, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. Ann Brown noted she will not be able to attend.
Page 10 – Minutes
October 25, 2005
100 ACRES – 218 SHORE ROAD – 2 LOT SUBDIVISION
Joe Wren, P.E. for the applicant oriented the commission with the site. Mr. Wren stated the current proposal it to subdivide the restaurant portion out from the rest of the property. The total parcel is approximately 32 acres. The plan provides for 2.4 acres for the restaurant and associated parking and the rest will be left in remaining land. Mr. Wren reviewed the maps with the commission and discussed possible future plans for the site.
EVELYN R. SMITH – CORNER OF RTE. 156 AND BILL HILL ROAD
Angus McDonald stated the parcels were divided prior to wetland regulations. Mr. McDonald stated the proposal is to construct a gravel driveway approximately 60 feet from the wetlands. The commission reviewed the plans and agreed to walk the site on November 19, 2005 at 9:15 a.m.
COLLEEN SABLONE – 68 GRASSY HILL ROAD – DEMOLISH AND REPLACE A HOUSE
Mr. Sablone stated he has lived in his home for approximately three years and it was located on Rogers Lake. The proposal is to demolish the existing house and construct a 26 ft x 50 ft house. He noted he is in compliance with the zoning regulations with the exception of the 75’ square. The new house will be located further away from the lake and the existing shed on the property will be removed. He also stated the house will remain a three bedroom but the septic still will require upgrading. He further stating the existing house is on piers with cinder blocks between the piers.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for November 19, 2005 at 9:45 a.m.
CAROLINE AND BLAIR HOXBY – 33 NECK ROAD
Ann Brown stated the applicant has submitted a plan to this commission along with a Special Exception Application to the Zoning Commission to construct a dock. The applicant states there are no inland wetlands on the property. The property is located along the Connecticut River.
Evan Griswold made a motion that the commission has no jurisdiction. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PETER KNUTSEN – 22 SUNSET DRIVE – CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE
The commission discussed the application with Mr. Knutson. The question was raised as to whether a soil scientist is required for the application. The commission noted if they should determine at the site walk they would like the soils delineated on the plan the applicant runs the risk of not being able to accomplish this task prior to the next meeting which would in fact delay the application. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 19th, 2005 at 10:15 a.m.
Page 11 – Minutes
October 25, 2005
DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION PROCEDURES
Dave McCulloch suggested the public hearings be placed last on the agenda in order to avoid having the public waiting for so many hours. The Commission agreed to put new business at the beginning of the meeting. Robert Linde suggested perhaps the public hearings should be scheduled for 8:30 p.m.
Mr. Linde discussed the issue of the commission reviewing incomplete plans. Ann Brown stated the commission is required to accept the plans, however, whether the commission discusses it at the next meeting is up to the commission. Ann Brown agreed to pass the commission’s concerns and frustrations on to the applicants with regard to incomplete and late submissions. Mr. Linde stated the commission should establish guidelines and a checklist to help expedite the process.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
