Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Inland Wetlands Meeting Minutes March 28, 2006
*






OLD LYME
INLAND WETLANDS/WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 28, 2006


PRESENT WERE:  Chairperson Janet Bechtel, Vice Chairman Robb Linde, Skip DiCamillo, Don Willis, Evan Griswold and Martin Griswold.  Also present were:  Tony Hendriks,  Priscilla Baillie,  Don Fortunato, Jeff Flower, Bob Chapman, Steve Joncus, Gary Sharpe, Jane Marsh, Kim Groves, Diana Atwood Johnson, and other members of the public.

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2006

Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.  Martin Griswold seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

APPROVAL OF THE SITE WALK MINUTES DATED MARCH 11, 2006

Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.  Robb Linde seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS


BRIAN FARNHAM – 29 NECK ROAD – CLEARING, GRADING, STUMP REMOVAL, AND RAKING WITHIN 100’ OF WETLANDS AND WATERBODY

Mr. Farnham explained his proposal to the commission and used his previously approved site plan to depict the locations of clearing on his property.   Mr. Farnham also gave a brief history of activity on his property since he purchased it over three years ago.  He further reviewed  in detail his prior Inland/Wetlands approvals.  He stated the remaining stumps cannot be removed by hand and will require machinery.    Ms. Bechtel expressed  her concern with stump removal in close proximity of wetlands.  The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, April 15th, 2006 at 8:30 a.m.

ENOK PEDERSEN – PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION – BURR ROAD AND SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD

Mr. Doane discussed his preliminary proposal with the commission to divide an 84 acre parcel into 19 single family residential lots.   He further stated approximately a month ago the commission walked the site and one of the primary areas of concern was a driveway crossing.  He noted in order to eliminate this crossing the


Page 2 – Minutes
March 28, 2006


roadway needs to be placed adjacent to the wetland area next to the field.  Mr. Doane reviewed the preliminary plans with the commission to seek their input.  Ms. Bechtel asked if a vernal pool assessment had been done on the site.  Mr. Doane indicated Mr. Snarksi has flagged the site and will do further testing in the spring.   Mr. Linde asked if the subdivision could be cut down to 18 lots to minimize the impact.  Mr. Doane stated he stated he did not feel that was necessary because the impact would be minimal.  Mr. Griswold asked what the average lot size would be.  Mr. Doane stated they ranged from 2 to 5 acres.  No action was taken.

MARIO CAMPAGNA – 72 CORSINO AVENUE – RESPONSE TO ENFORCEMENT FOR FILLING WITHOUT A PERMIT

Mr. Campagna’s son was present on Mr. Campagna’s behalf due to medical reasons.  He stated his Dad apologized for not obtaining a permit. A site plan was  presented for the commission to review.  
Ms. Brown stated the surveyor has produced a map showing what is presently there and also has shown a line of shrubs that is proposed along the edge of the wetlands.  The commission will provide the applicant with planting suggestions that would stabilize the area. The commission agreed to set a sit walk for April 15, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

DAVID AND CAROL STANLAND – 5 COBBLERS LANE – CONSTRUCT A 20’ X 40’ INGROUND SWIMMING POOL WITH A 3’ DECK WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 4O’ OF THE WETLANDS

Ms. Stanland explained she appeared before the commission previously and was approved for a different location on her property for the placement of a pool.  She noted since that approval was granted the Zoning Board of Appeals denied her variance for a setback.  Therefore, she is currently back before the commission for approval of her inground swimming pool in a new location.   She noted the previously approved application was 27 feet from the wetlands and the current application at its closest point is approximately 39 ft.  Ms. Stanland also indicated that she had located on her site plan a placement for the silt fence as well as the stockpiling location.   Mr. Griswold asked if trees would have to be removed for the new location.  Ms. Stanland stated she had to remove four trees out of this area which is unfortunate as the other two locations required no tree removal.  Mr. Linde asked why the trees were removed.  Ms. Stanland indicated they were removed because they created a huge shade area.  Mr. Linde asked Ms. Stanland if she obtained a permit to remove the trees.  Ms. Stanland stated she was told that no permits were required to remove tress on your own property.    Mr. Linde stated that if the applicant was so disturbed that the trees had to be taken down why was the pool not located closer to the house.  Ms. Stanland explained that the septic was close to the house.  The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, April 15, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.  Ms. Stanland asked the commission (since this application was previously approved) if there would  be the possibility of modifying the prior application in an effort to expedite the process.   Ms. Bechtel indicated this is a new application with a new location and therefore would need to go through the process.

CAROL WINTERS – 12 WHIPPOORWILL ROAD – RE-ESTABLISHING A DRIVEWAY WITHIN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA

Ms. Winters reviewed the proposal with the commission.  Ms. Winters stated there was previously a driveway in this location that was constructed in 1952.   However, she noted when Whippoorwill Road was repaved her father had just passed away, therefore they did not make an issue of it at that time.  She further stated at this time she would like to re-open the area.  Ms. Brown stated the plan does not show exactly


Page 3 – Minutes
March 28, 2006

where the driveway would be installed.   Mrs. Winter reviewed with the commission members the map that was submitted with the application.  The commission agreed to set a site walk for April 15, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.   Mr. Linde asked the applicant if they had obtained the necessary permits to construct a driveway from the town.  The applicant indicated she had and they were approved.

GRC HEARING – MARC S. CUMMINGS – LORD COVE

Ann Brown stated that the applicant has requested the hearing be postponed until the April Meeting.  Mr. Flower asked  that the hearing be extended without testimony because there are only four commission members present for the hearing this evening,  who have all listened to the tape, and also due to the large amount of comments that were received by the commission today that the applicant has not had the opportunity to respond to.

Ms. Bechtel noted the commission received several pages of correspondence which include letters from both Wendy Goodfriend and Wade Thomas.  Ms. Bechtel also gave the applicant a copy of a document, which she created with her questions and curiosities about the plan.   Ms. Bechtel agreed to continue the hearing until the next regular meeting. Mr. Linde asked if there was  anyone from the public in attendance this evening that would not be able to come next month, and if so he though the commission should give them the opportunity to speak this evening.  Ms. Bechtel indicated that the commission can either open the hearing this evening or continue until the next meeting.  Mr. Linde asked why the commission could not take testimony this evening and still grant the extension.  Ms. Bechtel stated the applicant has requested that since there are only four commission members present who have heard all the testimony  they would rather have a more complete commission on board to present their application.  Mr. Linde stated if the commission chose to take testimony this evening and the applicant would choose not to extend we are not required to vote.  Mr. Linde stated the commission could close the public hearing and not take anymore testimony from the applicant and the commission could choose whether or not to act on the application.  Ms. Bechtel stated the applicant would like a full vote of the commission on this application and felt  is entitled to this consideration.  Ms. Bechtel stated that if this commission makes the decision that we will not hear the application tonight then we do not listen to the public or we make the applicant stay and we go through it and then it will still need to be continued to April because there is more information that needs to be given.  Therefore, she asked the commission for their preference.  Mr.  Griswold indicated he no problem with tabling the application.  Ms. Bechtel indicated she did not either.  Mr. DiCamillo stated he had no problem continuing the application until April.  Mr. Linde stated he has a problem only if there is a member of the public who would not be able to participate in the hearing.  He further stated the commission has no control over the timing of receipt of information and materials, whereas the applicant has almost complete control depending on when the information is provided.    Ms. Bechtel stated she did not think whether the public could make it or not falls under the commissions’ decision as to whether to table the application.    Martin Griswold stated there was a lot of information received today that needs to be reviewed.  Ms. Bechtel said any of the public that is in attendance that has questions can submit them to the commission or the applicant for answers.  Mr. Griswold asked if the public has access to the information that was received by the commission.  Ms. Brown indicated that was correct.  Evan Griswold stated he felt the public would be better served if they had the opportunity to review the information.   The commission agreed to continue the hearing until their April meeting.

Chip Barry and Diana Attwood Johnson both expressed concern that both the public and commission  could find itself in the very same situation next month.  

Page 4  - Minutes
March 28, 2006


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

The commission noted the applicant is out of town.   Ms. Brown stated she had mailed an agenda to the property owner.   Janet Bechtel reported the commission had questions when they walked the site because of  the brush and wood piles in the wetland area.  Ms. Bechtel asked the commission if the application should be denied at this time, wait for the applicant to return and/or approve it with conditions.  Mr. DiCamillo asked if the application could be tabled until the applicant is present to attend a meeting.  Ms. Brown noted that the commission did not seem to have issues with the proposal but just with the extraneous storage in the wetland.  Therefore, she suggested the application be approved with the condition the debris be removed from the wetland area.    She reminded  the commission that they needs to make a decision within 65 days of receipt of the application.  

Martin Griswold made a motion to approve the application for the Ferrebee’s located at 5 Elm Street with the condition that the wetland to the north be cleaned of extraneous debris organic or non-organic on the north side of the silt fence.  Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Evan Griswold stated he would like to add a  stipulation to the motion.  Mr. Linde stated it is difficult when the  applicant is not present to know exactly what is proposed.  Ann Brown read the proposal from the application submitted.   The commission stilled had questions including the lack of information on the driveway.  

Martin Griswold withdrew his original motion and made a motion to deny the application for lack of insufficient information regarding the driveway and the approach to the garage.  Evan Griswold seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

STEPHEN JONCUS – LARRY & CHERYL 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. Hendriks was present to represent Mr. & Mrs.  Fazzone.  Mr. Hendriks submitted a plan that depicts both the existing footprint of the house, the propose footprint of the house, the proposing relocated leaching system as well as the additional items the commission requested.     He further reported the plan includes the stockpiling location, construction vehicle location, and silt fence.  Mr. Hendriks stated the property currently has lawn right up to the edge of the lake and this plan proposes an 8-ft wide planting bed along the edge of the lake except for the access to the existing dock.   He noted there is a temporary soil and erosion control barrier during the construction of the house.    He stated there is an on grade patio shown on the plan.  Mr. Hendriks stated the leaching system, which compiled with the public health code when it was installed in 1974 does not


Page 5 – Minutes
March 28, 2006


meet the current standards, therefore a new leaching system is proposed.  The existing well will be relocated on the site.  Mr. Linde asked what material will be used to construct the patio.  Mr. Hendriks indicated it would be flagstone or something similar.  Evan Griswold asked what the difference in square footage was between the existing and proposed house.  Mr. Hendriks stated the existing coverage of the site is 10.1% and
proposed coverage is 15.4%.   Mr. Griswold asked if the proposal to handle the additional runoff from roof surfaces would be ground infiltration.  Mr. Joncus stated that was correct: for the most part the owner does not like gutters.  Mr. Joncus stated the garage roof that now slopes up from the street would slope off either side.  He further stated a dry well may have to be added around the front entry way.  Mr. Linde asked what the soils were.  Mr. Hendriks indicated the soils were tremendous; consisting of sand and gravel down to at least 100 inches.  Mr. Griswold stated  that with the additional 5 percent coverage and additional runoff he wondered if the applicant would be willing to double the width of the erosion and control barrier of the non-lawn landscape plantings to take care of the additional 5 percent.   Mr. Hendriks also suggested some additional dry wells could be installed.   Mr. Joncus stated increasing the barrier would be acceptable to the property owner.  Mr. Linde asked if the 15 percent coverage included the patio area.  Mr. Hendriks indicated it did not.   Ms. Brown asked for a clarification of what is meant by “proposed planting bed”: could the applicant describe what would be planted in the 16 feet.  Mr.  Griswold stated he would expect some perennial plants and/or flowerbeds and low shrubs.  The commission agreed to provide the applicant with a list of shrubbery.   Ms. Brown stated her idea of a flower bed would have open mineral soil.  Mr. Griswold stated he would expect something heavily mulched.  Mr. Linde asked what assurance the commission has that the buffer will be maintained.    Ms. Brown indicated the commission has enforcement as a resource.  

Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions:

The vegetative buffer between the house and the lake is increased from 8 feet to 15 feet.
The existing septic gallery system be removed and stabilized during the construction of the new septic system.

Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.  

JAMES MCINERNEY – 7-13 LAKESIDE AVENUE – REPLACE 10 X 14 WOODEN DECK 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

Janet Bechtel stated the commission walked the site on March 11, 2006 at which time the commission told the applicant he did not need to attend the meeting.  Evan Griswold suggested that the property owner be informed that if he leaves the piles of dirt around the tree it will damage the tree.  

Robb Linde made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the additional condition that the stockpile around the large tree to the southeast be returned to grade.  Evan Griswold seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.  








Page 6 – Minutes
March 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

Mr. Gary Sharpe was present to represent the application of Alfred & Donna Secondino.  He stated there is an existing residence on the property with a foundation located to rear of the residence, which was originally intended by the builder to be the  site of a second garage.  Mr. Sharpe noted this garage was never constructed; however the Secondino’s would like to utilize that foundation as it was originally intended.  He further stated he understood that the commission raised the question about minimizing the footprint of the wetland activity.  Mr. Sharpe submitted plans revised through March 23, 2006.   He noted this plan incorporates a stone
retaining wall, which cuts the footprint down by 1,000-sq. ft., which, diminishes the amount of material to be placed in the regulated area.  Mr. Griswold asked if machinery would be in the area between the stonewall and the silt fence.  Mr. Sharpe stated that the bulk of the activity would take place from above.  Janet Bechtel stated the applicant indicated on the site walk that there was quite a lot of debris that needed to be removed from the site before it was stabilized.  Mr. Sharpe stated he thought the debris was at the site when it was purchased but has since been removed.  Ms. Bechtel stated there was still some debris at the back end of the garage including brush and nursery pots.  Mr. Linde stated he understood that the garage would be used for the storage of antique automobiles and therefore would have limited traffic.  He further stated if the four-car garage could be entered from the north side and by taking out the wall there would not be a need to install a driveway along the wetland area.   Mr. Sharpe stated he felt reconstructing the building was extreme.  He further stated he did not feel the activity was significant and the disturbance was minimal.   Janet Bechtel asked if the surface of the driveway had been determined.  Mr. Sharpe stated it is presently a gravel driveway and will remain one.  Mr. Griswold asked if some water bars could be installed along the driveway.  Mr. Sharpe indicated that would be reasonable. He also noted  at one edge of the driveway a crush stone infiltration trench is being installed.

Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the revised application as presented with the condition that the gravel driveway have water bars or similar erosion control features incorporated into the structure of the driveway to minimize runoff coming into the turnaround area.  Martin Griswold seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Robb Linde stated he felt there is a prudent and feasible alternative that may be more expensive but should be considered.  Evan Griswold stated the alternative would create the same amount of disturbance.  Mr. Linde indicated the alternative would be out of the review zone and while he understood that the area had already been disturbed.  Dumping another 300 yards of gravel would not help.   Janet Bechtel asked if there was any room to move the stone retaining wall closer to the garage.  Mr. Sharpe indicated it is the minimum required to move a car around.  

The motion passed 4 to 1. Linde voted against.




Page 7 – Minutes
March 28, 2006

OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB – 35 MCCURDY ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING AREA, PADDLE TENNIS COURTS, AND INDOOR FACILITY AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING

Evan Griswold recused himself from the application.

Gary Sharpe stated that approximately one year ago the commission visited the site for a preliminary discussion in addition to the 3/11/06 site walk.  He stated the property is located on McCurdy Road.  The features of the site include a steep embankment along the railroad, a central portion which is relatively flat, and a circular wetland which is approximately 20,000 sq. ft.  He noted the wetland has been degraded for a number of reasons due to intervention throughout the years.   He stated the activity is proposed in two phases.  Phase One is to construct a parking area which will later become the pad for a new indoor tennis court building.  Also included in Phase One will be to move the paddle tennis courts located in the vicinity of the pool building down to this area.  The second phase of the project is the placement of the indoor tennis facility on the temporary parking and a new parking facility will be constructed up above, adjacent to the railroad line.  Mr. Sharpe stated the water coming off the golf course to the east will flow under McCurdy Road into the newly constructed wetlands pond and then under the proposed road into another wetlands pond and then back out.  Therefore, this will force the water to flow through the entire wetlands system providing an opportunity for it to be filtered.  

Dr. Baillie reported she was retained to look at and evaluate the wetland.  She stated as part of this application it was an opportunity to improve the water quality which will go under the tracks and out to the salt marshes.  She visited the site on September 28, 2005 and October 21, 2005 and did a vegetation analysis of the wetland.  She stated the wetland lines runs as a semi-circular pattern up to McCurdy Road.   She reported another feature of the site is the drainage ditch that leaves from the McCurdy Road culvert straight across to a culvert along the railroad tracks.  She noted it is a .47 acre wetland which extends around and along the ditch.   The vegetation is shrubby with a lot of invasive species.   She further stated it is currently not functioning very well as a wetland.  Dr. Baillie continued to review her report and pointed out the various wetlands and vegetative species on the site plan with the commission.   A copy of the report is available.  She concluded by stating the value of the wetland is very low because of its highly disturbed area and size.  

Rich Snarski, Soil and Wetland Scientist, agreed with Dr. Baillie’s evaluation of the wetland.  He stated he conducted the wetland delineation a year ago and due to the depth of the ditch the water table has been lowered which has impacted the wetland  functioning.   Mr. Snarksi reviewed his planting plan with the commission.   He stated the newly created wetlands would be of a higher function to mitigate the existing degraded wetland area.  The created wetlands will be planted between April 1 and July 1.  The arrowhead plants will be installed between April 15 and June 1. He stated a monitoring report will be sent to the Old Lyme Inland Wetland Commission each January for a period of 2 years.  The report will address the success of the plantings and will make recommendations for if any remedial measures are needed.  

Mr.  Linde asked if there would be any advantage to creating a similar marshland area on the golf course side of McCurdy Road in terms of filtering out the nitrates.  Mr. Sharpe stated there would be an advantage, obviously the larger marsh created the more effective it might be.  However, what is proposed will dramatically improve the quality of the water that leaves the golf course presently.   

Mr. Brainars, the representative  from the golf course stated that if there is a perforated drain along the side of the road it has been there a long time.  He further stated the pond is a considerable distance away.  Therefore, adding another pond from a players point a view would be difficult.  Mr. Sharpe also stated until

Page 8 – Minutes
March 28, 2006

quite recently there was a house on this location which had an impact on what took place at the wetland area.  Ms. Brown asked if the plans had been revised.  Mr. Sharpe indicated they had not but the revisions will be made and submitted to the commission.  

Mr. Sharpe indicated he did not know the height of the building that would enclose two indoor tennis courts.  Mr. Linde indicated since it was part of the application the commission would like that information.  Mr. Sharpe stated roof leaders are proposed for the runoff to discharge into the drainage way.  

Ms. Bechtel asked if Phase I and II were all part of this application.  Mr. Sharpe indicated that was correct.  He further stated Phase I would likely occur quickly, and Phase II could be several years away.  

Mr. Linde asked if the paddle tennis courts could be moved further out on the strip of  land.

Martin Griswold asked what the success was of constructing new wetlands to mitigate destruction of existing ones.  Mr. Sharpe indicated years ago people were told wetlands could not be created, however it has been done successfully.  

Mr. Linde wondered, if for some reason Phase II never happened, was it better for the wetlands being built as well as the land that is currently there to actually have the parking lot built where it is shown on the  Phase II plan.  If  so, why is the parking lot not being constructed in that location now?  Mr. Sharpe stated part of the reason of building the parking lot as shown in Phase One  is in anticipation of  Phase II.  Mr. Sharpe stated by putting a parking lot there a pad is formed for the building and the pad is compacted by being used as a parking area.  Mr. Sharpe stated if the building in Phase II  is never built, then removing the parking area from the immediate vicinity of the wetland would make some sense.  He further stated while the club has indicated it is not economically feasible presently the goal is to achieve this in the near future.  Mr. Linde asked if there was that significant of a positive benefit to have people parking on the pad for a couple of years.  Mr. Sharpe stated it is beneficial if the building is going to be built.  Mr. Sharpe further indicated currently there is limited parking at the facility.   Mr. Linde asked if it made sense to limit construction around the wetland area until it is absolutely necessary and would this still fit with the overall plan.  Mr.  Sharpe stated he would take this under consideration to discuss at a future date.  

Mr. Sharpe stated he would submit revised plans on the hydraulics within the next two weeks.  

ROBERT CHAPMAN – 28 KELSEY AVENUE – CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITHIN 100’ OF THE WETLANDS

Mr. Chapman submitted revised plans showing the present curbing.  Mr. Chapman stated the commission requested a hay bale area for the storage of the soils.  He further stated the curbing would be left during excavation and site work for erosion control.  

Robb Linde moved to approve the application.  Evan Griswold 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

Attorney John Bennett stated at this point the commission needed to determine if a public hearing would be held.   Attorney Bennett stated he felt the issues of concern have been addressed and he would be happy to

Page 9 – Minutes
March 28, 2006

make a presentation.   He further stated the plan has not been changed except for the questions raised by the last decision of the commission.  He reported Mr. Metcalf has not reviewed the plans.  He stated there are three basis for a public hearing.  The first is a petition, the second is a high degree of public interest, and the third is significant impact.    He further stated in as much as the plan is similar and most of the issues were of a technical nature which will be addressed by the engineers he felt a public hearing is not necessary.

Ms. Bechtel asked a couple of things for clarification  and stated she was not sure if any of the members have commented on “significant”.  She noted there have been public hearings on this application on two previous occasions based on the fact there is between 8,000 and 12,000 sq. ft. of fill being proposed.  Furthermore, in speaking with counsel, since the commission felt that the prior two applications were significant,  (and we are still looking at the same thing),  then it may indeed ultimately be determined it is significant.  Therefore, her recommendation is to go forward with a public hearing.  

Attorney Bennett stated he did not mean to suggest it was not the commission’s determination but he was suggesting at the December meeting several members indicated they did not feel there was significant impact but clearly it is the commission’s determination.  

Mr. Linde stated for the record the commission did offer the applicant the opportunity to set a public hearing at the February meeting at which time they indicated there was time at the next meeting to discuss that option.  
Mr. Linde stated he felt it was in the best interest of the town and the commission to hold a public hearing.

Evan Griswold stated there has been no public comment, which may be due to the fact the project is remote, however it does not mean that the wetlands that are  impacted are any less important, but just not particularly visible.

Mr. Linde stated if all the concerns have been addressed the hearing could be open and closed next month.  

Mr. Linde asked how many days notice is required to hold a public hearing.  Ann Brown stated the commission has to notify at least 15 days prior to the public hearing according to the regulations.  Mr. Linde asked if the commission could actually open the public hearing and walk the site one more time to get clarification of the current changes in an effort to keep the process streamlined without jeopardizing the project.  Therefore, Mr. Linde asked if the public hearing could be opened at the site walk prior to next month’s meeting.  Ann Brown stated this was possible.  Janet Bechtel stated during the hearing the commission needs to remain together and it becomes difficult on a large piece of property.  Mr. Linde asked if the commission could  walk the site prior to the public hearing.  Ms. Brown stated once a hearing is declared all business should be done within the hearing process.  

Attorney Bennett stated the commission could hold a special meeting in the form of  a public hearing which is a site walk and notice it for the proper time frame and then continue the public hearing thereafter.  

Robert Linde made a motion to require a public hearing and that hearing open at the site walk on April 15th, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.  Evan Griswold seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.  





Page 10 – Minutes
March 28, 2006


Robert Linde made a motion to continue the public hearing from April 15th, 2006 until April 25th, 2006.
Evan Griswold seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

Janet Bechtel asked the applicant if a vernal pool assessment has been done on the property. Mr. Hendriks indicated he believed so, but would double check.

MARGARET CLEARY – 61 SHORE DRIVE – REPAIR AND REPLACE A RETAINING WALL AT THE EDGE OF ROGERS LAKE

Janet Bechtel stated the commission had received a letter from Ms. Clearly which addressed the questions raised by the commission at their site walk.  

Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application as submitted.  Robb Linde seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

COMMISSION BUSINESS

Mr. Linde stated he attended the DEP training Session I, at which he had the opportunity to discuss an application before the commission.   He explained how the information to the commission was continually received at the last minute. Therefore he asked the DEP attorney if it was appropriate to get feedback from an outside consultant after the public hearing is closed.  He noted the attorney indicated that it is preferable that the commission not receive information after the hearing.  Mr. Linde then asked the attorney how the commission was suppose to make decisions if  it is required to vote on the application or otherwise it is approved.  The attorney stated the commission can deny the application due to lack of information and also under no circumstances are wetland applications approved without a vote to approve.  The Attorney noted that the wetlands regulations are very different from other commissions (planning and zoning) meaning that they are not automatically approved.  Mr. Linde noted this had not been his understanding, but felt this provides the commission with a tremendous amount of leeway that he did not realize we had.  He noted if the commission receives an application and it does not feel it has the information or knowledge to approve or deny we have the ability to not take any action.  He stated the applicant then has the right to due process which is to take it to the DEP.  

Janet Bechtel asked why would the commission choose not to make a decision when the commission has the ability to deny it for lack of sufficient information?   She further stated in the case of an application that comes in late and keeps changing when the commission is up against a deadline it is far more preferable position to state the hearing is closed and make a motion is to deny based on lack of sufficient information.  

Ms. Bechtel stated she did not understand the advantage of turning an application over to the DEP.  Mr. Linde stated the DEP’s regulations are usually far more stringent that the commissions.  Ms. Bechtel indicated she felt the commission has the ability to be far more stringent than the DEP.  Mr. Linde stated the commission will not get sued if it does not take action.  Ms. Brown stated she felt the commission makes itself a whole lot more vulnerable when no action is taken.  Ms. Brown further stated that DEP could come in and take away the commission rights to regulate their wetland if the commission does not do its job




Page 11 – Minutes
March 28, 2006


responsibly, therefore she stated she felt failing to act is irresponsible.   She noted this duty has been delegated to the commission because the commission is familiar with its properties and overall goals for the town.  Ann Brown stated it is easy enough if the commission does not have what it needs to act to deny the permit, but failing to act is not a good policy.  She stated Mr. Linde is correct; the application will not get automatically approved.  Mr. Linde stated it is not a process that would be used without concern, but it is an option.  He further stated it was an option he was not aware the commission had.  Ms. Brown stated statutes tell the commission to make its decisions within very specific time periods, but it is true the applications will not automatically be approved if the commission  does not act.

Janet Bechtel stated one of the items she requested to be included in the packet to the commission is that the Town of Branford’s language on deeded limits of clearing.  She noted the commission has the right to ask the applicant for certain things and she does not feel this commission is as pushy as it could be because it does not wish to be confrontational.  She stated the limits of upland clearing  are some of things in the commission’s jurisdiction that she felt should be looked at more closely.  

She also noted she has begun collecting regulations from other towns and at some point down the road will suggest that the Old Lyme IWWC regulations be amended again to include some of this language in an effort to tighten the regulations.  

Mr. Linde stated the commission has the right to establish deadlines, requiring specific information prior to acceptance.  Ann Brown noted the application must be  accepted, however it made be turned down due to lack of information, but the commission must accept what is submitted.  Mr. Linde stated there are no requirements for what is submitted.  Ms. Brown noted an application and a check.   Ms. Bechtel stated that if the application includes a payment it must be accepted.  Mr. Linde asked if counsel could be asked what is considered an application.  Ms. Bechtel stated she asked counsel and he indicated the commission has a responsibility to accept the application as submitted at the next regularly scheduled meeting as long as there is a fee.

Evan Griswold stated it was said to him that this was a most reasonable commission.  He noted this translated to him as being a very easy commission.  Ann Brown stated she did not think so, she felt the commission was not confrontational.  She also stated some commissions do not allow any disturbance in an upland review area and she noted that is not right, that is not the goal of the commission.  Mr. Griswold stated he would like to see Old Lyme mandate cluster housing unless there is some overwhelming reason not to cluster.  

Mr. Linde feels the commission acts very differently for private owners versus developers. He further stated he feels the commission needs to be careful and consistent.  Ms. Bechtel stated the commission does not have to be consistent.  Each application is different and has different properties. Mr. Griswold clarified that it is the process of application review, not the property itself, that needs consistency.

Mr. Linde asked if the agenda might let up moving forward or should the commission meet at 7:00 rather than 7:30 to try to discuss some guidelines for submission of applications.  Ms. Bechtel stated the commission just adopted a four page application.  Mr. Linde stated he was suggesting creating a simple one page guide for the homeowner.  He further stated he would like to establish guidelines for accepting new information and plans during the hearing process.   Martin Griswold noted that some applications that do not

Page 12 – Minutes
March 28, 2006



warrant hiring a surveyor, therefore he did not feel all applications  (a shed for example) needed to go through the same paces as a development.  

Mr. Linde asked the commission if they would be willing to set aside some time to try to accomplish some standards.  The first is a citizen’s guide to a wetland application.   Evan Griswold noted a professionally done plan is helpful because it shows elevations.  Mr. Griswold suggested the members jot down a list of items that would be helpful to the applicant prior to the next meeting.   Mr. Linde stated the other goal would be to discuss what types of  timeframes does the commission want to put into place and are there other regulations that should be required.  Janet Bechtel stated these are administrative items that the commission could work on through email.  

The commission agreed to wait until May to meet at 7:00 p.m.

The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,


Kim Groves