OLD LYME
INLAND WETLANDS/WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 25, 2006
PRESENT WERE: Chairperson Janet Bechtel, Martin Griswold, Dave McCulloch, Linda Krulikowski, Skip DiCamillo, Evan Griswold. Also present were: Tony Hendriks, Lee Rowley, Attorney John Bennett, Gary Sharpe, Ann Brown and other members of the public.
Chairperson Bechtel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Bechtel made a motion to amend the agenda to include the permit modification for Wood Crest Estates under Old Business. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
LORD COVE LANDING – GRC ASSOCIATES – TANTUMMAHEAG ROAD
Bechtel noted a letter has been submitted to the commission formally withdrawing the application. She further noted the letter states the applicant is in the process of making revisions to the plan in which they will attempt to incorporate the comments and suggestions made by both the commission and public. A new application will be submitted in the near future.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES DATED MARCH 28, 2006
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC HEARING & SITE WALK MINUTES DATED APRIL 15, 2006
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes including the points covered by the applicant during the site walk. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
NEW ENGLAND NATIONAL, LLC FOR PROPERTY AT 29-1 HATCHETTS HILL ROAD-
8 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH ACTIVITIES IN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Evan Griswold recused himself from the application.
Jim Bernardo was present on behalf of the applicant, New England National, LLC. He stated the applicant is proposing 8 single family homes on approximately 44.17 acres. He noted Don Fortunato, Certified Soil Scientist, has delineated the wetlands. He oriented the commission as to the location of the wetlands on the plan. He stated six of the lots would be accessed off of a shared driveway. The two remaining lots will be
Page 2 – Minutes
April 25, 2006
accessed off their own private driveway from Hatchetts Hill Road. He noted during the design process they considered constructing a road to town standards, but found it did not allow them the flexibility they wanted to meander around the regulated areas. He noted the private driveway would be located outside the 100 ft. regulated area, however one of the driveways is within the 100 ft regulated area.
Mr. Bernardo stated the applicant is proposing to dedicate 6.63 acres of open space and additional 9.6 acres will be placed under a conservation easement to further protect the wetland resources.
Chairperson Bechtel asked what was the proposed driveway surface? Mr. Bernardo noted the shared driveway would be paved asphalt. The property owners will determine the surface of the driveways to the individual homes. He stated the individual lots range in size from 5 acres to 9 acres. Bechtel asked what the topography was on the site. Mr. Bernardo indicated it was fairly flat with a few ridgelines. Bechtel asked if there were any vernal pools on the site. Mr. Fortunato indicated there were no vernal pools on the site. The Wetlands Ecologist, Clint Webb, stated that in his opinion there is no vernal pool habitat on the site.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 5:30 p.m.
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION – FOUR PONDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PRCD SUBDIVISION AT 313-335 BOSTON POST ROAD.
Evan Griswold was reseated. Martin Griswold arrived at 7:40 p.m.
Gary Hendren, Architect and Land Planner for the Four Ponds Development, LLC presented the preliminary application. He noted the commission was introduced to this project at the end of last summer. He stated since that time the house count has been reduced to 33 homes (down from 35) on 85 acres. The property has approximately 17 acres of wetlands. Mr. Hendren reviewed the drawings with the commission. Mr. Griswold asked how the property was zoned. Mr. Hendren indicated the parcel is located in an R-80 zone, however since it is a PRCD, house sites are permitted within 30 ft. of each other, however in this proposal they are all in excess of 80 feet. Mr. Griswold asked if the applicant had considered placing the house
sites within 30 ft of each other giving it a more compacted situation, therefore allowing a greater percentage of open space.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Wednesday, May 3, 2005 at 6:15 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB – 35 MCCURDY ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING AREA, PADDLE TENNIS COURTS, AN INDOOR TENNIS FACILITY AND A MAINTENANCE BUILDING, IN TWO PHASES, ACTIVITIES IN THE WETLANDS AREA AND UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Evan Griswold recused himself again from the application.
Mr. Sharpe indicated there has been a modification to the drainage system as discussed with the commission last month. He noted it now enters into the property from under McCurdy Road and travels parallel to McCurdy Road into the second pond and then back out of the site. He stated this route allows more
Page 3 – Minutes
April 25, 2006
residence time for the water in the shallow marshes allowing more potential for water quality renovation in that environment. Mr. Sharpe also submitted copies of the lab analysis of the two water samples. The sample were taken at the eastern end of the ditch adjacent to McCurdy Road and at the western end of the ditch just before the water exits the site close to the railroad tracks.
Dr. Baillie stated the sample taken from the east end had a very of high nitrate value of 2.3. She noted the total value (including nitrate, nitrite, TKN and phosphorus) is 3. 681. The second sample taken in the railroad end was very similar. The total value was 4.10 and more than half of it was nitrate. Therefore, she stated she felt the ponds would be very valuable because they will reduce the nitrate. Mr. McCulloch stated currently the drainage ditch has a lot of algae growing because there is a lot of food there (nitrate), therefore he assumed that will also go on in the ponds. Dr. Baillie stated whether the ponds will be scenic or not will depend on how efficient they are in removing the nitrate.
Ms. Bechtel asked why Phase II needed to be approved at this point in time. Mr. Sharpe stated the overall disposition of the club has a lot to do with both approvals. He further stated the proposed parking area in Phase I is to occupy the same footprint.. The usage of the parking area will provide for the compaction of the site. Bechtel asked if the commission approved Phase I this evening would the applicant then have a problem coming back to the commission for Phase II at which time the drainage could be reviewed as well as how the wetlands are functioning. Mr. Sharpe stated that the Phase II drainage for the new parking that will occur in the area of the railroad is going to be just about nil because that area is very porous. Therefore, he felt the addition of
the parking will not add to the drainage and the addition of the building will not be substantial either.
Robert Bollo, President of the Old Lyme Country Club, stated one of the objectives of this property when it was purchased was to consolidate the tennis center. He reviewed the goals for expansion of the club with the commission. Therefore, he stated an approval in two phases would leave open the long-range plan of the club as to ultimately what could be done with the property. He concluded by stating he would like to have the plan in place prior to the start of altering any portion of the property. Bechtel stated her concern is that the two wetlands that are being proposed are new and it is unclear how they will function in the future on the site. Mr. McCulloch also expressed concern about what will happen to the ponds. Mr. Sharpe stated Mr. Snarksi will be
monitoring the ponds and submitting reports to the commission. Dr. Baillie stated that they are not really ponds, but shallow wetlands. Mr. DiCamillo asked what the height was of the proposed building. Mr. Sharpe indicated it was in the neighborhood of 30 feet which is in compliance with zoning. Martin Griswold asked if there would be roof leeders off the building for drainage. Mr. Sharpe indicated normally they might consider infiltrating the roof leeder, but in this case the water coming off the roof will be fairly clean. Mr. McCulloch asked Mr. Snarski how successful he had been in building wetlands. Mr. Snarski indicated he was successful about 95% of the time.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the application of Phase I as presented. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Evan Griswold was reseated again.
Page 4 – Minutes
April 25, 2006
BRIAN FARNHAM – 29 NECK ROAD – CLEARING, GRADING, STUMP REMOVAL, AND RAKING WITHIN 100’ OF WETLANDS AND WATERBODY AND INSTALLATION OF A FENCE
Janet Bechtel stated the commission walked the site on April 15, 2006. She noted at the end of the site walk she made some notes on some of the issues and points the commission discussed. She distributed copies of her notes for the commission to review. She further noted Mr. Farnham sent a letter to the commission after the site walk outlining his understanding of the concerns the commission expressed at the site. Bechtel also noted Mr. Linde emailed a letter to the commission because he was not going to be present this evening. expressing his concern that the fencing that was in place was sort of arbitrary and that when it was viewed it was used as a wetlands marker. Therefore, she asked the commission if they had a problem where the fencing was located. Mr. McCulloch stated the
fencing was approximately 40 from the wetlands. Bechtel asked the commission if anyone had an issue where the fences were located on the site. Evan Griswold stated he did not, and indicated he felt that the fencing was a minor issue compared to everything else going on at the site. The commission reviewed the points outlined after the walk. Mr. Griswold asked if Item 1 could be clarified. He asked if “in front of or behind” could be clarified to whether it is the wetland side or away from the wetland. Bechtel stated she felt as long as silt fencing was installed up against the fencing on either side when the lawn was being worked on it would protect the wetland. Mr. Griswold stated he felt it would work better if it was placed on the up slope side of the fence.
Mr. McCulloch discussed the method of stump removal. Ms. Bechtel stated those stumps behind the fencing in the yard area could not be removed but should be cut to ground level. Mr. Griswold informed the applicant that there are materials to speed up the rotting process of stumps. Ms. Bechtel distributed a booklet on trees, shrubs and ground covers. The commission stated they would prefer the applicant hand seed rather than hydro-seed.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to grant approval to conduct the regulated activity described in this application subject to the conditions listed below.
Silt fencing should be installed immediately in front or behind the two sections of existing split rail fence. Hay bales to be installed to reinforce the silt fence if necessary.
Stump removal and foundation excavation in yard section “B” permitted;
Debris piles to be removed in Section “A” permitted
Sections “A&B” to be york raked, topsoil to be brought in if necessary and hand-seeded: permitted;
No grade changes are permitted in the lawn in the vicinity of the fencing or wetlands
The existing stockpile of dirt behind the fence near Section “B” shall be removed
The existing stumps behind the fence near Section “A” or “B” may be cut to ground level but NOT removed
Existing pear trees (recently planted behind the fence near Section “A” shall be replanted in front of the fence in Section “A” yard or lawn area
Mulch may be used under the fencing and back 6’ to 8’ in the “wetlands buffer zone” if necessary;
A planted “wetlands buffer zone” between the “yard/lawn” and the vernal pool is requested (see attached Buffer Zone planting suggestions)
At minimum, the wetland buffer zone is to remain undisturbed and allowed to revegetate, and should not be treated with any chemicals. Removal of junk, dead wood, and invasive plants is allowed;
Silt fencing shall be removed at the completion of the project
Any erosive drainage into the wetlands must be corrected.
Page 5 – Minutes
April 25, 2006
Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MARIO CAMPAGNA – 72 CORSINO AVENUE, RESPONSE TO ENFORCEMENT FOR FILLING WITHOUT A PERMIT
Mr. Campagana apologized to the commission for not obtaining permission prior to doing work, he explained he was not aware of the permit process. He further noted he has already begun cleaning the debris. He further stated seven years ago he cleaned tires, mattresses, bedposts and other items from the wetlands. He also stated he never uses chemicals on his lawn. Mr. Campagna did ask the commission if the buffer could be reduced from 10’ to 5’. Mr. Griswold explained that we cannot regulate the entire property, but almost every application is required to maintain a buffer area.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to grant approval to conduct the regulated activity described in this application subject to the conditions listed below:
A 10’ wide “vegetated buffer area” shall be maintained around the perimeter of the property.
Existing “retaining walls” of telephone poles, etc. may remain
Trash in the wetlands/marsh area is to be removed, including ripped silt fence.
The Rose of Sharon bushes and grape vines which have already been planted may remain;
The vegetated buffer area is to be planted and allowed to re-vegetate, and should not be treated with any chemicals. Bayberry as indicated is acceptable, Burning bush is not. (See attached Buffer Zone Planting Suggestions.
Mulch under the plantings in the 10’ buffer area is permitted.
This project is to be completed by June 15, 2006;
The Wetlands Enforcement Officer is to inspect the progress and report to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission and to issue a completion certificate when the project is completed.
Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
CAROL AND DAVID STANLAND – 5 COBBLERS LANE – CONSTRUCT 20’ X 40’ INGROUND SWIMMING POOL WITH A 3’ DECK WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 40’ OF WETLANDS
Bechtel noted the commission walked this site on April 15, 2006. Ms. Standland stated she was fine with the conditions discussed at the site walk.
Evan Griswold made a motion to grant approval to conduct the regulated activity described in this application subject to the conditions listed below:
Silt fence shall be installed by the pool contractor and inspected by the ZEO/IWEO prior to any excavation;
The location of the pool shall be staked out as shown on the plot plan prior to any excavation;
The dirt stockpile area shall be surrounded by silt fence and mulched to prevent run-off during heavy spring/summer showers.
Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 6 – Minutes
April 25, 2006
CAROL WINTERS – 8 WHIPPOORWILL ROAD – RE-ESTABLISHING A DRIVEWAY WITHIN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Bechtel noted the commission had discussed on this application that silt fence is to be installed along the leaf line at the edge of the property and the grass and topsoil is to be removed from the site. The surface of the driveway will be gravel and the silt fencing is to be removed on completion of the project.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the application. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
WOODCREST SUBDVISION – 392 SHORE ROAD – PERMIT MODIFICATION
Mr. Kevin Kenny stated he was requesting a modification to the grit chamber, which is to address the collected piped stormwater for the road system. He noted originally CL& P advised that the underground utilities would come from the South Lyme Estates portion of the project and terminate at the cul-de-sac. He further stated that now CL& P wants to bring the utilities in for Wood Crest Estates on Wood Crest Drive. He stated the size of the chamber, which takes up most of the space between the edge of pavement, and the street line is a potential problem. Therefore, they have reviewed a different option. He explained this model is a Storm Ceptor unit, which is approximately 21 sq. ft, rather than the original 91-sq. ft., which fits better. Mr. Kenny stated Mr. Metcalf is
currently reviewing the proposed change. He noted that these units take anywhere from three to six weeks to manufacture and he would like to install the unit as soon as possible, therefore he asked the commission if they could approve the change of the Storm Ceptor unit subject to a final recommendation from Mr. Metcalf to the Wetlands Enforcement officer which will allow the application to move forward at the May Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Bechtel asked if Mr. Metcalf has indicated that he is happy with the Storm Ceptor or are the final details still being worked out. Mr. Kenny indicated he thought they were close but Mr. Metcalf has requested some additional information.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application for the modification with the condition that the commission’s engineer confirms that the change is appropriate. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
FMTM, LLC – 254-254-1 BOSTON POST ROAD- CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY WITHIN 100’ OF INLAND WETLANDS, AND THREE WETLANDS CROSSINGS, TO ACCESS REAR LAND FOR A PROPOSED 5 LOT SUBDIVISION.
Ms. Brown collected the proof of mailing certificates for the hearing that was initially started at the site walk.
Mr. Hendriks stated the proposal is to divide a 50-acre parcel into 5 building lots. The property is located on the easterly side of town on Boston Post Road. Mr. Hendriks noted this property has been before this commission several times. He also noted at some point the Town of Old Lyme had an interest in purchasing the property.
Page 7 – Minutes
April 25, 2006
Mr. Hendriks submitted plans revised through April 24, 2006. Mr. Hendriks stated the commission requested the applicant to show the five vernal pool locations. Mr. Hendriks noted Don Fortunato, Soil Scientist has visited the site to observe the vernal pools and they are now shown on these new plans. Mr. Fortunato noted at the entrance way there was an area 25’ x 25’ which he considered marginally to be a vernal pool. He stated what happens is there is a stream that comes through and during high flows it overflows. Mr. Fortunato explained the different characteristics of the various vernal pools on the site. He indicated there was one larger vernal pool on the site. He further stated all the development is away from the vernal pools and will have no impact
on them. Ms. Bechtel asked about the run off drainage if it is not treated. Mr. Fortunato stated these soils are like sponges and they filter very well. Mr. Hendriks stated at the crossings the applicant is proposing to install detention systems on either side of the roadway to help settle out the solids. These systems will be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association.
Ms. Bechtel asked if the limits of clearing have been noted on the plan, and if so is the activity sufficiently away from the vernal pool so the temperatures are not altered. Mr. Fortunato explained he felt confident there would be no impact. He further stated the pools sit closer to the stream in the center.
Ms. Bechtel asked if the driveway was curbed. Mr. Hendriks indicated it was with the Cape Cod style curbing. Mr. Rowley stated curbing would be done in the steeper areas as recommended by Wendy Goodfriend.
Attorney Bennett submitted two aerial photographs.
Attorney Bennett submitted copies of Dr. Baillie’s report, which she had prepared for, the initial application dated May 26, 2004. He stated the report was updated September 20, 2005 and again presently with a letter from her dated April 25, 2006. Dr. Baillie stated the commission has reports, which she had written for earlier applications and the updated letter of April 25, 2006. Dr. Baillie stated the site is very wooded, has ledge and includes wetlands and a small stream which runs under the Post Road and eventually discharges into Rogers Lake. She stated it is a very well defined stream bed and appears to be undisturbed with clear water. She stated all the wetlands on the site are hardwood swamps dominated by tall trees. The main species are beech, oak,
birch, ash, hickory and some red maple. The road crosses the upland review area of some of these wetlands, and the access road curves up slope and goes through part of the upland review area. She further noted that in this revised application the road has been moved slightly away from the wetlands. Dr. Baillie stated that wetland (flag #89) is in an area where the stream comes down the slope and the roadway stays on this side (northeast) of the wetland. Mr. Hendriks stated the road has been pushed away from the wetland in this area because of the concerns expressed by the commission in the past.
Mr. Hendriks thanked the chairman for putting together the 4/15 site walk punch list, he found it helpful and it provided him an opportunity to review and make changes.
Mr. Hendriks addressed Mr. DiCamillo’s suggestion with regard to Lot #4. Mr. Hendrik’s stated he reviewed the area and stated this was the only location for the roadway that would not impact the minimum area of buildable land for this lot. He further stated the applicant is not in a financial position to give up a lot. He noted the proposed roadway is not in the wetland. He noted even though it is in the review zone, he feels the design engineers are comfortable that the work being done will be able to address any issues. Mr. Hendriks stated he was also cognizant of where the house is located. The proposed driveway to the house site from the roadway will require fill in an area that is a draw toward the wetlands. Mr. Hendrik’s stated Ms. Goodfriend’s
Page 8 - Minutes
April 25, 2006
comments are respected, but the design as proposed with this particular plan guarantees that the water will continue to come through this draw and continue to feed that wetland. He stated Ms. Goodfriend’s states in her letter that there would not be a groundwater recharge of that wetland because of the filling in that area.. Mr. Hendriks stated that most of that wetland is surface water and some ground water. He stated this design still incorporates with the detention basins and the underground piping system and that water will still ultimately comes down through that draw, even though there is a driveway through, and the water will continue to feed that wetland. However, Mr. Hendriks presented the commission with an alternate driveway location that would essentially keep all of the
draw area virtually free of any pavement (Sheet 7A of 12). Mr. Hendriks noted in this revision there is only one pipe and one detention basin across the street picking up the low point and piping it under the road to the wetland. Mr. Hendriks asked the commission to consider this as an exhibit rather than a change. Ms. Bechtel stated that it was explained at the site walk that the commission was only looking at proposed house locations. Therefore, Ms. Bechtel noted this answers the question where there is an alternative location for the driveway should the buyer come back before the commission for a change at the time of development. Mr. Griswold stated he felt the most important part of this change was the ability to maintain some natural vegetation between the house and road.
Mr. McCulloch asked how Mr. Hendriks knew it was surface runoff and not groundwater that feed this wetland system (below Lot #4). Mr. Hendriks indicated it was visual. He further stated in order for a wetland to exist there must be water within 14” of the surface and so that is not water that is groundwater induced. This is water that is mostly surface water induced. Mr. Fortunato confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Rowley, engineer for the applicant, discussed how this project was designed and the elements that make it different from the traditional subdivision. Mr. Rowley explained this project was located on a different type of land with wetlands; rolls, it pitches and runs from the wetlands all the way up to highlands so it is probably not conducive for a typical subdivision. He stated he felt this design was suited for this type of parcel. He noted he has attempted to incorporate the latest technology and thinking available from the DEP. Mr. Rowley stated the proposal includes a narrow road with a pavement width of sixteen feet with two-foot wide structural shoulders. He stated it would support a car when two cars are traveling by each other, but due to the fact there were only five homes (proposed
)he expected traffic to be minimal. He stated he eliminated putting in the typical drainage systems and went with a softer approach with regard to the environment. He stated there is a situation where the road comes in and it cuts into along the bottom of the slope (a fairly large slope – 150 ft) from the top of the hill to the wetland. This creates a situation where this is a lot of runoff coming top of the hill and traveling down and intersecting the road. He stated rather than try to collect al of it into one point discharge he has tried to go with the natural contour of the land and have short pick up areas where the drainage can be carried from the high side to the low side with a minimum amount of structures. He stated when hard pipes are installed in the ground they carry any kind of siltation pick up, that there is a natural siltation that is running off the site continuously, but when calculations are done for a
sedimentation trap you take into account the areas that are not disturbed. He stated obviously there would be some runoff depending on the intensity and the amount of rainfall, and obviously, if it were let undisturbed as has been done then there will be the least amount running off.
He stated the drainage swales have been designed to pick up the upland runoff and convey it along the eastern side of the road. He noted from the entrance to the site all the way up the road is crowned, therefore the water is shedding equally to each side. He stated as recommended in the Water Quality Manual from the DEP, the paved surface width should be limited, as has been done in this proposal. The rock-lined swales will actually retain a lot of the siltation and the sand. However, if over time there is build up it could be vacuumed out. Mr. McCulloch stated these areas would probably vegetate. Mr. Griswold stated they would become grassy swales. Mr.
Page 9 – Minutes
April 25, 2006
Rowley stated this subdivision was designed with a soft approach rather than installing hard drainage. This approach allows the water to transfer from one side to other side of the road and get into the wetlands and eventually the brook.
Mr. Rowley addressed the vernal pools on the site.. He stated there are a number of things that can be done: planting high grasses between the discharge point (on the east side of the road) , an other option would be to install a structure such as a storm ceptor or vortechnic unit which will remove 80 percent of the suspended solids. However when it must be maintained forever, which can be a burden to the homeowner’s association or the town. He stated there is only one location that he felt was appropriate for such a unit. He stated reviewed the drainage structure: the 1st one is when you enter, approximately 75’ into the site, and because the stream is running from north to south it is not likely that any thing that is carried
through this piping system would go to the north. The second one is designed to come into a plunge pool and that takes the velocity out of the water and is sheet flowed through a level spreader and is designed to follow the contours and miss the vernal pools to the south in this area. He stated if the commission desired the applicant could build some filter beds, therefore if any sand or silt were to be carried through the piping system, through the plunge pool, through the level spreader and head towards the wetland then these grass filters could be installed which would function better than a mechanical device. The next crossing is Station #6 +35 and it is a bigger pipe with a fairly large draw which comes in and it is designed to dissipate the energy on the upland side and then carry it through the pipe and dissipate it again and then discharge. He noted the way the contours are it would flatten and have little impact.
Mr. Griswold asked how large were the plunge pools and how long do they retain the water. Mr. Rowley stated they do not retain water. Mr. Rowley stated however, during the spring it will be a continuous pond, but in the summer it will be dry. Mr. Fortunato explained there could be vernal pools in a lot of places. Mr. Rowley has stated that at the crossing that has the most impact he would suggest diverting runoff to the side or possibly installing a vortechnic unit if that is the preference of the commission. Mr. McCulloch asked if he meant velocity. Mr. Rowley stated strictly impact from siltation. Mr. Griswold stated due to the area there will be water channels meandering through so whatever energy is spilling into the wetland will further
dissipate. Therefore, it is actually acting as a filter. Mr. Rowley stated he could run a long contour and put in a grass swale that would dissipated the energy of this runoff and filter it Attorney Bennett asked if Mr. Rowley considered this a large problem? Mr. Rowley stated it was not, but it is the most impact on the site. Mr. Rowley stated if the goal is to take 80 percent of the sediment out of the runoff in sensitive areas this would be only the area that would be considered in his opinion.
Mr. Rowley stated that at the last crossing the runoff is heading towards the bottom of the wetland area and continues to the stream. This is a significant crossing in terms of land area that it is picking up, but it should not have any impact.
Mr. Rowley stated the roadway going up slope has been moved over and because of the area he went from a swale along the side of the road and installed cape cod curbs in that particular area where the grade goes up.Also, because this is a fill area, he put in an under drain which keeps the velocity of the water from eroding an area that it is compacted but might be subject to some sort of erosion. Therefore, the water is being carried from a cut area through a fill area through the pipe, back through a fill area and back into a cut area again. Ms. Bechtel stated that was what Mr. Metcalf explained in the field with the site plan profiles.
Page 10 – Minutes
April 25, 2006
Mr. Hendriks stated the plans dated April 24, 2006 incorporate comments from Mr. Metcalf, specifically Items 5, 6, 7 in his letter of April 23, 2006 as engineering revisions.
Ms. Bechtel stated she has created a list of concerns after reading the letter to the commission from Mr. Metcalf. She stated Mr. Metcalf indicated there was a revised drainage report coming. Mr. Rowley stated the report that has been submitted works out fine. He further indicated what Mr. Metcalf wanted was back up worksheets. Mr. Rowley stated he had brought the worksheets with him tonight. Ms. Bechtel stated that this was an outstanding item to be resolved with Mr. Metcalf not the commission. Mr. Hendriks stated Mr. Metcalf was uncomfortable with the drainage report because he had not seen it in this type of format and therefore requested some background information.
Ms. Bechtel noted the vernal pools have been addressed. She stated storm water quality has been discussed. However, she asked whether the applicant would be willing to deed restrict some of the steep slopes if the commission determined that was necessary. Mr. Hendriks stated he has not had the opportunity to discuss this with his client from a legal standpoint. Ms. Bechtel stated that the limits of clearing couldn’t be controlled once they have been deeded over to the homeowners. Mr. Griswold stated he had just represented a subdivision with a similar situation and that limits of clearing were done by a series of three tiered restrictions. He noted each tier becomes more restrictive in the clearing that can be done. Ms. Bechtel noted that as the land becomes more
and more marginal in Old Lyme practices such as limits of deed clearing would become more and more common.
Ms. Bechtel stated for example, Lot #4 which is located at the head of the draw, she does not see a huge need to own all that land. She stated she would hate to see a property owner decided to clear-cut a path straight through to the wetland. She noted a large portion of the property they would own is vital to the protection of the stream and the vernal pools. Attorney Bennett stated the commission cannot anticipate what a homeowner will do. Therefore, the commission cannot consider and approve an application based on the suspicion that someone will violate the law. Ms. Bechtel stated an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, therefore she is simply asking the applicant if he would be willing to deed limits of clearing on this application. Mr. Hendriks stated he would
be willing to work on this and see what legal language could be drafted for this process.
Mr. Bechtel stated the Stormwater Manual states that stormwater maintenance requirements are an integral part of a site stormwater management plan and maintenance of residential installations typically performed by private landowners etc. She stated this is a cumbersome problem and . noted there is a sophisticated stormwater management system in place for the design of this road, therefore how will it be maintained, and by who and that this process needs to be a part of this application. The other issue is to request a chemical and physical analysis of fill that gets used. She noted it seems in some other areas of town that suspect fill is coming in that is used in construction projects.
Mr. DiCamillo asked if there was a way to restrict the use of sand and salt on the road. Ms. Bechtel indicated she did not think you could restrict sand but perhaps salt. Mr. Rowley stated the State DOT has now developed a new technique that is a spraying a solution. Mr. DiCamillo indicated he was aware that there are things that can be done, but could these restrictions be placed on the homeowner’s association along with the clear cutting. Ms. Bechtel stated the commission could research if this has been done and it’s success.
Page 11 – Minutes
April 25, 2006
Ms. Bechtel submitted a sheet of conditions that the commission members could review for their input at the next meeting. She also gave commission members copies of the buffer zone booklet.
Mr. Hendriks asked if the commission could possibly act on the application tonight with the conditions as discussed. Attorney Bennett stated he was concerned about the limits of clearing not being specifically identified.
Ms. Bechtel stated this commission does not condition when there are still outstanding engineering issues. Furthermore, she stated this commission has put to much time in on this plan not to have the site plan when it is approved, to be the working, regulatory legal document. Therefore, she recommended the commission hold off a few days. Ms. Bechtel asked if the commission members have any other concerns could they, she suggested, submit them to Ann Brown prior to the next meeting to avoid any new issues at the next meeting.
Attorney Bennett submitted Mr. Metcalf’s letter of January 20, 2006 as part of the record.
Mr. Rowley stated he has been talking to a representative from Contech on the vortech unit and he has tentatively scheduled a demonstration for Friday. Mr. Rowley asked if anyone would be interested in having the demonstration at Town Hall.
The commission agreed to hold the meeting at the Town Hall, Friday at 12:00.
Ann Brown requested an extension from the applicant to keep the public hearing open until the May meeting.
The applicant agreed to supply this in writing. The public hearing was continued to the May 23rd meeting.
DISCUSSION
The commission discussed suggestions and concerns they had with the preliminary application presented by Bob Doane for the Enok Pederson property. Ann Brown indicated that Bob Doane will be returning to this commission for further, more direct input.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
