OLD LYME
INLAND WETLANDS/WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
PRESENT WERE: Chairperson Janet Bechtel, Vice Chairman Robb Linde, Agnes O’Connor, David McCulloch, and Skip DiCamillo. Also present were: Tony Hendriks, Kevin Kenny, Priscilla Baillie, Don Fortunato, Jeff Flower, Bob Chapman, Steve Joncus, Kim Groves, Diana Atwood Johnson, and other members of the public.
The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
Ms. Bechtel introduced Linda Krulikowski to the commission.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES DATED JANUARY 24, 2006
Agnes O’Connor made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF THE SITE WALK MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2006
Agnes O’Connor made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
JAMES MCINERNEY – 7-13 LAKESIDE AVENUE – REPLACE 10 X 14 WOODEN DECK WITH WITH 12 X 14 WOODEN DECK, AND TO REPLACE A 15 X 8 CONCRETE PLATFORM WITH A 15’ X 8’ WOODEN DECK WITHIN 100’ OF ROGERS LAKE
Mr. McInerney presented the proposal to the commission. He explained that the 15 x 8 deck would be located on the rear of the house and it would replace a concrete platform. He stated the deck would be placed on sonitubes approximately 24” deep. The 12 x 14 deck would replace an existing deck and it would be built approximately 2’ feet larger. He noted this deck was located on the lake side of the property. He stated that both decks would be constructed of the plastic coated treks material.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 8:00 a.m.
Page 2 – Minutes
February 28, 2006
ALFRED & DONNA SECONDINO – 10 MATSON RIDGE – TO PLACE APPROXIMATELY 377 C.Y. OF GRAVEL FILL WITHIN 100’ OF THE WETLANDS IN ORDER TO MAKE A REASONABLY LEVEL ACCESS TO THE GARAGE OPENING SIDE OF THE EXISTING FOUNDATION
The commission agreed to receive the application and table any action until next month. Ann Brown will notify the applicant to be present at the next meeting to explain the application.
OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB – 35 MCCURDY ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING AREA, PADDLE TENNIS COURTS, AND INDOOR FACILITY AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING
The commission agreed to receive the application and table any action until next month. Ann Brown will notify the applicant to be present at the next meeting to explain the proposed project.
ROBERT CHAPMAN – 28 KELSEY AVENUE – CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITHIN 100’ OF THE WETLANDS
Mr. Chapman explained the proposal to the commission members. He presented photographs and used a prior site plan of the site to show the location of the proposed garage on the property and its proximity to the wetlands.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 8:30 a.m.
ROBERT SHICKEL – CONSTRUCT A DOCK AND WALKWAY – 2 NORTH STREET
Mr. Schickel presented the proposed project to the commission. He noted there are only tidal wetlands. He further stated this application has also been submitted to the DEP. The commission reviewed the plans and determined there was no jurisdiction.
Robb Linde made a motion to find no jurisdiction on the site. Agnes O’Connor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
WOODCREST ESTATES – KEVIN KENNY – EROSION & SEDIMENTATION BOND
Mr. Kenny explained to the commission that condition #3 of their approval on April 26, 2005 for Woodcrest Estates that a bond amount, satisfactory to the Commission’s engineer, be submitted to the commission prior to construction was also required by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kenny reported that Mr. Metcalf has set the bond amount at $15, 248.00. Therefore, Mr. Kenny requested that the Inland/Wetlands commission amend their approval to delete condition #3. The commission discussed this action that resulted in double bonding for the same item. Mr. Linde asked if the staff conducting the inspections on the site would be different depending on which commission held the bond. Ms. Brown indicated the staff would be the same regardless of which commission held the bond. Mr.
Linde stated he felt it would be very unlikely the bond would be released by either commission against the recommendations made by staff. After much discussion the Inland/Wetlands Commission agreed to notify the Planning Commission that they would hold the Soil & Erosion bond for Wood Crest Estates since it was a part of their approval.
Page 3 – Minutes
February 28, 2006
Dave McCulloch made a motion that the Inland Wetlands/WaterCourses Commission maintain the Erosion & Sedimentation Bond in the amount set by Mr. Metcalf. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 to 1. Robb Linde voted against.
Agnes O’Connor made a motion to confirm the bond amount of $15,248.00. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
FMTM, LLC – 254-254-1 BOSTON POST ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY WITHIN 100’ OF INLAND WETLANDS, AND THREE WETLANDS CROSSINGS
Mr. Hendriks stated he has submitted new plans. He noted that he as attempted to address the concerns expressed in the memorandum of decision by this commission last month. The commission received the application and decided that they would wait until next month to determine if a public hearing would be required it there was deemed to be significant impact on the wetlands. Mr. Linde asked the applicant if he would like the commission to set a public hearing tonight to avoid a one month delay. The applicant indicated that there was time to make that decision next month.
MARGARET CLEARY – 61 SHORE DRIVE – REPAIR AND REPLACE A RETAINING WALL AT THE EDGE OF ROGERS LAKE
Ms. Clearly stated she has a retaining wall on her property that was constructed over 75 years ago and is desperate need of repair. She noted it is located right at the waterfront. She stated that the wall was approximately 40 ft long and 3 feet high. She reported that all the repairs will be done by hand, therefore it requires no machinery at the waterfront. Mr. Linde asked Ann Brown to assist the applicant in providing some further details on the plan for the commission to review next month.
The commission agreed to walk the site on Saturday, March 11, 2005 at 8:45 a.m.
OLD BUSINESS
PETER W. FERREBEE & LOUISE K. FERREBEE – 5 ELM STREET – CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE WITH REAR ENTRY APPROXIMATELY 70’ FROM THE WETLANDS
Janet Bechtel stated the commission walked the property last month, however the applicant was not present. The commission decided to table this item until March when the applicant could be present to answer some questions with regard to the proposal.
STEPHEN JONCUS – LARRY & SHARON FAZZONE – 64 GRASSY HILL ROAD
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING HOUSE WITH A NEW HOME ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING GARAGE WITHIN 100’ OF THE WETLANDS
Mr. Joncus, agent for the applicant, presented house plans as requested by the commission at their meeting last month. The commission reviewed the house plans. The commission stated they also requested that the septic, well, and proposed footprint, and silt fence and stockpiling locations be shown on the site plan. The commission agreed to table any action until next month when the site plan is revised to include these items that were previously requested.
Page 4 – Minutes
February 28, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
GRC ASSOCIATES – MARC S. CUMMINGS – 15-2 TANTUMMAHEAG ROAD
Janet Bechtel noted additional correspondence has been received today:
Letter from Wade Thomas dated February 28, 2006
Letter from Wendy Goodfriend dated February 28, 2006
Letter from Penelope Sharpe dated February 26, 2006
She further stated this was a lot of material for the commission to read this evening. Ann Brown stated since the last meeting she received a plan showing soil types as well as revised drainage calculations and plans.
Mr. Hendriks stated he submitted this information to the office several weeks ago, but did not receive any comments until this evening. Therefore, he stated he also would like the opportunity to review the comments. Mr. Hendriks offered the commission an extension of time to conclude the public hearing. Mr. Hendriks stated that since the public was in attendance this evening it would be a good idea to get their input.
Ms. Bechtel stated she had some questions with regard to the application. Janet Bechtel asked Dr. Baillie if she has received any input back from Jane Dixon with regard to endangered species . Dr. Baillie stated she has not yet heard back. Ms. Bechtel asked Dr. Baillie what the status of bald eagles is in the state of Connecticut. She indicated she was not sure. Ms. Bechtel noted that Dr. Baillie indicated in her Natural Diversity Report that the site was located on a marshy, rock shore and upland habitat. She further asked what is the habitat that bald eagles rely upon? Dr. Baillie stated they pretty much rely on open water, and they due roost in trees along the river. She further stated as far as she knew they do not rely on forest habitat, they are fish eating
eagles.
Ms. Bechtel stated that Mr. Fortunato indicated on the soil boundaries map that the drainage outfall between Lots 2 and 3 end up on a hollis soil type, therefore she asked what the characteristics are of a hollis soil type? He stated hollis is very shallow to bed rock. She then asked what shallow to bed rock means. Mr. Fortunato stated the soil has to be less than or equal to 18” of bedrock.. Ms. Bechtel asked Mr. Fortunato if he was comfortable with the information provided on the deep test pits. Specifically the deep test pit close to the out fall between Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Fortunato stated he was not involved in the deep test pit data. Ms. Bechtel stated in a number of reports this drainage structure has been questioned because it is on what is considered a
highly erodable soil type. She asked if the hollis soil type was highly erodable. Mr. Fortunato stated hollis soil was not highly erodable because there is not much soil there.
Page 5 – Minutes
February 28, 2006
Ms. Bechtel read a sentence into the record from Dr. Baillie’s report on Page 9 relating to the conservation area “it maintains that “hardwood forest within the conservation area at the north end of the field will remain undisturbed, together with additional forest outside the protected zone on Lot #4.” She asked Mr. Hendriks and Mr. Flower if indeed Dr. Baillie’s report is accurate; how do you plan on preserving and protecting this hardwood forest? Mr. Flower explained that the terrain of the property would not lend itself to being developed. Ms. Bechtel asked Mr. Flower what assurance he had that this would not happen. Mr. Flower stated a restriction could be placed in the homeowners documents.
Ms. Bechtel asked if any provisions have been made in this application to restrict homeowner limits of clearing on this site. Mr. Flower stated only within the conservation easement.
Mr. Flower stated he met with Mr. Wade Thomas, Consulting Engineer, shortly after the last commission meeting and discussed his report item by item. He stated at the conclusion of the meeting he felt there was an understanding as to what would be done by each of the parties. Therefore, he was confused tonight that there are still a number of items in his letter that he felt had been resolved at their meeting. Mr. Flower further stated he wanted it to be clear to the commission that it was not the applicant not getting the job done, it appears to be a miscommunication. Mr. Flower went on to state some of the suggestions made by Mr. Thomas appear to conflict with some of the desires of this commission. He noted he found this very frustrating and suggested some sort of joint meeting
take place to be sure everyone is working in the same direction. Ms. Bechtel stated sometimes certain circumstances take precedent over the desires of the Inland/Wetlands Commission.
Ms. Bechtel asked Mr. Hendriks to explain headwater conditions that Mr. Thomas used in his report in discussing the first culvert underneath the roadway. Mr. Hendriks stated it is the water coming down from the north that passed through that culvert. Mr. Hendriks stated Mr. Thomas is asking for headwater conditions of both the existing and proposed culvert. Mr. Hendriks indicated no changes are proposed. Ms. Bechtel asked how upstream properties could be affected by headwater. Mr. Flower stated that if something was created smaller than what was originally there it would create a dam. He also said if it was made bigger it would create an easier flow allowing things to move quicker.
QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:
THOMAS BAGG – TANTUMMAHEAG ROAD
Mr. Bagg stated when he reviewed the plans he felt he was dealing with the sort of people whose way of getting rid of their garbage is to put in a plastic bag and get in the car and go out on I-95 and throw it out the window. He realized that there were 18 catch basins being put in, all of which fed into a drainage system that came down a detention pond and from there went in to a stone ditch and then went through two 15 x 27 box culverts into a hole in our lawn. He presented to the committee photographs of this hole. He stated he would love to have somebody give him something he could read that would convince him that this system would work. He stated he hired Penny Sharpe to review the project. He stated in her report she expressed concerned about the detention basin. He
concluded by stating there is a very lovely wetland on his side of the road which he shares with the Johnson’s and he would really not like to see this water disposition problem solved by trashing this natural phenomenon.
Page 6 – Minutes
February 28, 2006
DIANA ATWOOD JOHNSON – TANTUAMMEHAG ROAD
Ms. Johnson stated she would like to start out with a little larger perspective. She noted she has served on the board of The Nature Conservancy for ten years and during that time the lower Connecticut River tidelands were declared as one of greatest places worldwide. The following year the Ramsar Convention declared the lower Connecticut River a wetlands of national importance and prior to that U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service declared this one of forty vital ecological regions in the country. She stated she was really dismayed when Tony Hendriks stated he did not feel a public hearing was required. This is the only property in Lord Cove with the potential for development and therefore a potential of adverse impact on one of the last great places in the world. Therefore, this
cannot be treated like any old development and must be held to the highest of standards. She urged the commission to carefully scrutinize all of the regulations and make sure this property is treated with the sensitivity that it should be. She stated she did not feel what is being proposed meets those high standards of environmental sensitivity.
She presented the commission with several items.
1. A drawing of her own personal observations of the bird life in this area. She reviewed the drawing with the commission.
2. The Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy
3. A List of the Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Species as of last year.
4. The Nature Conservancy brochure.
She stated all of these items should be taken into consideration and fall under the Inland/Wetlands Regulations. She stated there is not a lot of detail about the detention basins, but the entire area will be bulldozed to create this big pond with a berm on it. The applicant is proposing to move the roadway over to the eastern side of the road where there is a little wetland with a number of birds. She noted another area will be bulldozed which is a delightful area were there is a lot of understory that protects the birds. She concluded by stating she was glad that the big concrete abutment that was proposed for the bridge is gone, however she does not understand how you can expand this road to a 20 ft. width and extend the culvert without impacting the wetlands.
CHARLES HENRI MANGIN - 17-1 TANTUMMAHEAG ROAD
Mr. Mangin stated he moved into this area in 1981 and lived there during the 1982 flood. He asked the developer what would happen the next time there is a flood or hurricane with the same large amount of precipitation. He asked how this would impact the dams and wetlands. He also expressed concern about the habitat living in this area. He stated trees will be cut which will increase the amount of water coming down.
Mr. Flower stated there are specific guidelines for retention. He stated this project is being designed to do (handle water flow amounts) exactly what it is currently doing today. He noted he is not changing or enlarging because the moment (the 1st culvert) becomes larger people will feel they are getting more water; the state told us to just repair it. He noted, as far as new construction that happens upstream: under new regulations every single one of them will have to detain water on-site and have no increase in runoff. Therefore, the flow will be exactly the same as it is today.
Page 7 – Minutes
February 28, 2006
Mr. Mangin stated with all the clearing there will be a change in the amount of water absorbed into the soil. Mr. Flower stated by adding a detention basins, the 1st one (between lots #2 & #3, will allow the water to go back into the soil and that the 2nd basin (by the middle road) will hold any increased runoff for a period of time before releasing it and it will then be dry.
JANET BAGG – TANTUMMAHEAG ROAD
Mrs. Bagg asked Mr. Flower to clarify his statement that there will be no additional flow, but just an increase in the rate of flow per hour. Mr. Flower stated the only increase will be on the upper driveway where the water is being diverted. He stated that the amount of flow that is being added to the drainage basin is the same amount of water. He stated some of the water is being retained and put back into the ground and there are also a number of open rip-rap areas that are designed to absorb some of that water. He also noted that swales will run along the driveway.
Ms. Bechtel explained that the point Mr. Flower is making is that when it rains the same amount of water comes out of the sky, but it’s movement is being altered when it hits the property. She stated in order to accomplish that a series of catch basins, detention basins, and rip-rap plunge pools will be built. Ms. Bechtel further stated that the state guidelines require the applicant not to increase the water that comes off of the site.
JOHNNIE JOHNSON – 6 TANTUMMAHEAG
Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant was stating that the cubic feet of water flowing through the site over the course of twelve months will not change. Mr. Flower stated he would have to have the engineer explain exactly how much if any isn’t retained in the first detention basin.
GERALDINE FOSTER – 6 TANTUMMAHEAG ROAD
Mrs. Foster stated she was still not convinced there would not be flooding. She expressed concern over her stream and pond. She stated anything that comes off that hill will run into that stream which goes into the pond. She noted the water in her pond is currently very high. She also noted for the record that she does have a bald eagle in her tree, and is also concerned about her owls, turtles, snakes, deer, skunks and muskrats and the list goes on. She stated that these animals are all apart of the habitat.
Ms. Foster read an excerpt from the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. She noted that this plan is a guideline that the town should be following. She asked if all the commissions where responsible for following the Plan of Conservation & Development. Bechtel stated she believed that was correct.
Janet Bechtel stated that there have been some recent legislative decisions that take away the jurisdiction of the commission to preserve the habitat; he noted this commission cannot protect wildlife or habitat. She stated it is the job of the commission to protect the function of the wetland and the animals that rely upon that function for their survival. She reported that it is a very tricky, tightly defined.
Page 8 – Minutes
February 28, 2006
HEZELLA PEASE- 51 & 53 COULT LANE
Mrs. Pease stated this plan will take the water and pipe it underneath the wetland area and cover the top with macadam up to the stonewall. Therefore, she does not feel this is preserving the wetland. She also expressed concern about the habitat in this area.
CHIP BARRY – 57 COULT LANE
Mr. Barry stated his name was omitted from the plans and he had requested previously that the maps be corrected. He stated if the road could not be built without impacting his property there would be no project. He stated he was currently having his property surveyed so he will know exactly where the boundaries are located. He expressed concerns about how this project would impact his brook. He also stated he has a bridge that goes across his brook. Mr. Barry stated he did not see anything in the plans about silting or how it will impact his property. He further stated that the detention basins were mosquito breeding basins. Mr. Barry suggested the commission deny the project until the applicant shows how Barry’s property will be protected from the proposed driveway and culvert construction.
Mr. Flower explained that one of the bridges Mr. Barry expressed concern over was located on a town road and was not the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Barry stated the bridge would not currently support the necessary construction equipment for this project.
Ms. Bechtel clarified that the bridge located on the town road is not part of this application. This commission has no jurisdiction on anything outside the boundary of this particular site plan.
Ms. Foster stated that this was the exact reason she referenced The Town Plan of Conservation and Development. She felt it would provide the commission some assistance in its review process.
Mr. Flower stated that same plan also provides rights to individual landowners. He noted the proposal is for four new homes. He stated all of the area that is being discussed currently exists. Mr. Flower stated the property owner under zoning has certain rights to use his property. He further stated the state determines how the water should be dealt with and this plan complies with those state guidelines. Mr. Flower stated it was the goal of this developer to have this area as natural as it is today when the project is completed.
Mrs. Foster stated anything that is done on this project changes it from the natural habitat of today. Mr. Fortunato stated the current driveway runs through an existing wetland. He further stated the subdivisions that are built today are held to a much higher standard.
JANET FUNK - 41 COULT LANE
Ms. Funk stated that a portion of her property abuts the proposed development, therefore she asked what impact the clearing of the trees on the site will have on the water running down the steep hill onto her property. Ms. Bechtel highlighted the topographical lines on the plan to help illustrate the flow. She stated the water hits the stonewall, which is located in the center, and what is on the west side flows in that direction and what normally falls onto the Funk property will continue to do so; therefore, they should not pick up any additional water. Ms. Funk. asked how she can be assured that the stonewall will not be knocked down or removed. Mr. McCulloch stated the flow really has nothing to do with the stonewall.
Page 9 – Minutes
February 28, 2006
JANET BAGG – 17 TANTUMMEHEAG ROAD
Ms. Bagg stated this is a private driveway not a road; she submitted a photograph and the dimensions so that when the access is discussed it was not referred to as a road.
Mr. Linde stated he was aware that the commission asked for calculations on how much impervious service there would be. He stated he would like to know what is the percentage of increase in the impervious service.
Mr. Flower addressed Mrs. Bagg’s comment with regard to the driveway not being a road. Mr. Flower stated he attended a Board of Selectman meeting where there seemed to be no disagreement that this was a pre-existing town road which services a total of five houses as of today. He stated the only issue is that under the old regulations (pre 1999) a private road had to be 30 ft wide. He stated the new regulations require a 50 ft road width.
Ms. Bagg read the minutes from the Board of Selectmen Meeting which Mr. Flower is referring. “Mr. Flower is requesting the Board of Selectmen agree that the first 400 ft. of Tantummaheag Road will be considered an existing private road.” She stated this is not Tantummaheag Road. She stated Tantummaheag Road bends to the left and goes up through the Johnson property. Therefore, she felt to give the Selectmen the impression that this is already a part of Tantummaheag Road was misleading. Mr. Flower stated he took offense to that comment. Mr. Flower stated if you look at the signage at the end of road it says “Tantummaheag Road Extension”. Mr. Flower stated he never told the Board of Selectmen that it was a different road than it is. He stated he
showed pictures of the road and they determined this was a town road because it is shown on the assessor’s map that this piece of property is as town property; which it is not, it is part of our deed.
Janet Bechtel stated the road determination is truly a Planning Commission issue. She further stated when the road or the bridge is enlarged will be a wetland issue.
KATHY PASTEL - 12-1 TANTUMMEHEAG ROAD
Mrs. Pastel just stated she supported all the comments that were made by the public tonight. She echoed Diana Atwood Johnsons concern for the wildlife and habitat in the area. She asked the commission to do everything they could to try to maintain the integrity of this area.
DIANA ATWOOD JOHNSON
Mrs. Johnson asked to respond to what the soil scientist was referring to earlier. She stated the report submitted by Penelope Sharpe somewhat disagrees with the quality of the wetland between the upper road and the middle road. Janet Becthel clarified that Mrs. Johnson is referring to a letter dated February 26, 2006 from Penelope Sharpe. Ms. Bechtel read into the record from that document “there are a number of issues related to inland wetland impacts that will result from the proposed development. In general I concur with the observations of Ms. Priscilla Baillie regarding wetland characteristics and functions. The proposed road construction does seriously diminish these values and impede upon wetland functions particularly wildlife habitat. Between the upper road and the
middle road as defined in the Baillie Report, there is a
Page 10 – Minutes
February 28, 2006
proposed detention basin that will discharge stormwater into the wetlands with the likely result of degrading water quality. A stone rip-rap swale is proposed to be constructed within a wetland that is presently vegetates with small trees and shrubs that provide food resources and good cover for wildlife species. Construction of the swale will disturb wetlands soils, increase turbidity and destroy the wetland vegetation within the path of the swale”
Janet Bechtel noted that this report is part of the record and is available for the public to review. Mr. Fortunato stated that the rip-rap swale will all be replanted with wetland plants and restored, and monitored over a three year period. He stated it is usually difficult to see a difference between what was there then and currently.
Priscilla Baillie stated that in her report she do go into some detail about the importance of the lower Connecticut River. She also mentioned it was interesting to hear that there are actually eagles nesting in this area. She noted she did not see any but was looking. She further stated the development will cause no change to the range of trees along the river which are also protected by a conservation easement.
Mr. Mangin brought up the issue of tree cutting as it pertains to the open field along the shoreline and stated that he takes issue with the applicant referring to this as an open field. He explained that this area was a dense forest with pines and that only a small pathway existed through it. He further stated that to the best of his recollection, this entire area was cut less than three years ago and that a number of the trees which were cut, were on his property. Dr. Baillie stated that the site aerial included in her report show this area as an open field. Dave McCulloch stated there is a Gateway Commission that can exert some control on what happens along the edges of the Connecticut River. He stated the Old Lyme Planning Commission has not accepted those regulations and if they had
probably those trees would not of been cut. Ms. Brown stated it is the Zoning Commission that approves those regulations and they are the agency to contact about the Gateway Regulations.
Janet Bechtel stated she felt it would be a good idea to obtain an extension from the applicant because there still is a lot of material that needs to be reviewed. Mr. Hendriks agreed to grant the commission a 35 day extension.
Mr. John Johnson asked the commission the members how long they had to render a decision after the public hearing is closed. Ms. Bechtel stated the commission has sixty-five days.
Ms. Brown stated the next meeting will be held on March 28, 2006.
APPROVAL OF NEW WETLANDS APPLICATION
Robb Linde made a motion to approve the change in the application and fee schedule as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 11 – Minutes
February 28, 2006
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Janet Bechtel stated she has created a list of the applications that the commission has reviewed over the past year. She further stated she would like to see a follow-up on these applications. Ms. Bechtel gave some examples of why follow up is necessary. The commission agreed to set up a procedure for follow-up on approved applications.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
AGENDA
SITE WALKS
OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING, SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 2006 AT 8:00 A.M.
Call to order at the 7-13 Lakeside Avenue at 8:00 a.m.
James McInerney – 7-13 Lakeside Avenue – 8:00
Robert Chapman – 28 Kelsey Avenue – 8:20 a.m.
3. Margaret Cleary – 61 Shore Drive – 8:45 a.m.
At the Chairman’s request two additional items have been added:
Alfred and Donna Secondino – 10 Matson Ridge – 9:15 a.m.
Old Lyme Country Club – 35 McCurdy Road – 9:45
Respectfully submitted,
Janet Bechtel
Chairperson
| 
