OLD LYME
INLAND WETLANDS/WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
MAY 23, 2006
PRESENT WERE: Chairperson Janet Bechtel, Dave McCulloch, Linda Krulikowski, Don Willis. Also present were: Tony Hendriks, Lee Rowley, Attorney John Bennett, Ann Brown and other members of the public.
Chairperson Bechtel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES DATED APRIL 25, 2006
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF THE SITE WALK MINUTES DATED MAY 3, 2006
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Ann Brown distributed copies of the enforcement report and reviewed it with the commission members.
NEW BUSINESS
ENOK PEDERSEN, PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF A SUBDIVISION – BURR ROAD AND SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD.
Bob Doane presented revised preliminary drawings that reflected some of the changes the commission had discussed both at their site walk and meeting. Mr. Doane noted the proposal has been reduced by two lots. One of which had a septic system and driveway in the wetlands review area and the other had activity within 100 ft. of the wetlands. Mr. Richard Snarski, soil scientist, has done an inventory of the vernal pools on the site (he noted there are five) and a report has been prepared. Mr. Doane noted that the open space area has been expanded to minimize the disturbance around the vernal pool area and stated that it would be further expanded with conservation easements.
Mr. Doane noted the lots would be at least three acres in size to allow for the potential keeping of horses. He stated the open space would wrap around the entire area as much as possible. He stated the total property area is 95 acres with 37 acres of open space. He also noted Mr. Pederson has an agreement to purchase a
Page 2 – Minutes
May 23, 2006
portion of the adjacent property, which has enabled the roadway to be moved away from the wetlands. The roadway crossing will utilize a three-sided box culvert.
Ms. Bechtel stated there is one area where a crossing was proposed which required quite a bit of fill. Mr. Doane indicated this was the one and it will need approximately 12 ft. of fill. Mr. Doane stated that this project is not an open space subdivision but the proposal has included as much open space as possible, including 3-acre lots.
Ms. Bechtel asked if the project will be developed all at once or will the individual lots be sold. Mr. Pederson indicated he had not yet decided how the project would proceed. Mr. McCulloch noted that all of the lots with the exception of one would have to come back before the commission prior to construction. Ms. Bechtel provided Mr. Doane with labels to be placed on the final mylar, indicating to a prospective buyer that they will need to obtain Inland Wetlands approval for their individual lot prior to any home construction. Mr. Doane stated he was now in the process of preparing the final plans and asked the commission to please let him know if they had any further input.
Ann Brown asked if the roadway would be constructed to town standards. Mr. Doane indicated it would not be. He further stated he would be submitting a proposal to Mr. Metcalf outlining the details.
Linda Krulikowski asked if the road would require curbing in the area of the vernal pools. Mr. Doane indicated it would because the drainage would need to be controlled coming down the hill. He noted he would be using the modified Cape Cod curbing.
Mr. McCulloch asked if there was anyway to divert some of the salt coming down the road. Mr. Doane indicated that was possible and options could be explored.
Ms. Bechtel asked if it was possible to restrict salt in the sensitive areas. Mr. Doane indicated these would be town roads. Mr. McCulloch indicated the sand/salt was already mixed and would be very difficult to restrict.
Ann Brown asked why the open space was extended around the perimeter of the parcel. Mr. Doane stated it provides a buffer around the property and creates a setback for the buildings. He noted a lot of the open space subdivisions, in other towns, require a buffer of some width around the parcel. Ms. Brown asked if it would have public access. Mr. Doane indicated there would be public access in the open space.
Ms. Bechtel asked if the majority of house construction was pulled back from the 100 ft. review area. Mr. Doane indicated the houses and the sanitary systems with the exception of one are outside of the review zone.
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION – HUSSEIN MUSHIN – OLD LYME HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION – OLD STAGECOACH ROAD
Girard Marterilli presented revised schematic drawings as a result of his discussions with this commission, the Planning Commission, and Fire Marshall. He noted the Planning Commission suggested the applicant meet with the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal indicated the crossing could be eliminated as long as the road
Page 3 – Minutes
May 23, 2006
is paved and 24 ft. wide. He further noted the Fire Marshal also expressed concern about fire protection. He stated there is presently a man made fire pond on the site utilized for the kennel. He asked if this commission would consider an expansion of the pond away from the wetlands. The commission also discussed the roadway and its proximity to the two wetlands. Mr. Marterilli stated the proposal consists of 35 lots and the disposition of the open space has not been decided. Ann Brown suggested the applicant contact the Open Space Committee for their input. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 5:30 p.m.
APPLICATION OF POOLS, ETC. AND INES DIGENIO FOR PROPERTY AT 8-1 RIVERDALE LANDING, DECK AND SPA WITHIN 100’ OF THE WETLANDS.
Mrs. Digenio stated her proposal is to install an inground spa and to construct a deck over an existing brick patio. Ann Brown reported she had visited the site. She asked the commission if they wanted to evaluate the application or recommend that it be handled as an administrative permit. Ms. Brown stated the activity is at least 60 ft from the wetland boundary. She further reported there would be digging for the inground spa, which was not in the guidelines that were approved for an administrative permit.
The commission agreed to allow Ann Brown to issue an administrative permit.
FRED HOLTH FOR ROGERS LAKE AUTHORITY, APPLICATION TO ALLOW SELECTIVE HARVESTING OF WEEDS IN AN AREA OF ROGERS LAKE 200’ X 200’ AND 6’ DEPTH, 2 MOWINGS OF APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES.
Fred Holth distributed copies of the Rogers Lake Diagnostic Feasibility Study. He stated the study was conducted by Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. He reviewed the study with the commission. The hatched areas on the plan represent the most intense area of infestation in the lake. He stated there is a shallow area extending from Whale Island to Blueberry Island, which is located between; the two hatched areas just to left of the State Boat Launch. The proposal is to do selective cutting of that area; which has been targeted as the primary area of infestation. He stated there is a public safety concern with the weeds in the lake because the shallow depth makes it impossible for someone to get down into the water enough to be out of the range of a propeller.
He further stated there are snags, which could possibly injure someone, skiing behind the back of a boat. He stated that the harvesting machine which would be used has a hopper on the back that would pick up nine or ten yards of material at a time. This will then be discharged to a shore side location while it dries down to one-tenth of its initial weight. At this point it can be utilized as compose or taken to the landfill.
Mr. Holth stated that harvesting is the least damaging of the perspective evils. He stated in the long term he would hope that someday a package could be presented that would use a sand and gravel outfit to suction dredge the areas of silt, remove the gravel and deepen these areas. He reported that when you get below 10 to 15 ft there is no longer sunlight that propagates the development of vegetation.
Linda Krulikowski expressed concern about the placement of the clippings. She indicated they should be removed before they rot and decay because of the odor. Mr. Holth indicated they would only be left for a day or two. Mr. McCulloch stated that they make containers for the clippings that allow them to dewater prior to be removed from the site.
Page 4 – Minutes
May 23, 2006
Janet Bechtel gave Mr. Holth a copy of Marianne Pfeiffer’s the booklet of suggested plants to be used as a buffer around the lake.
Ann Brown asked when they would begin the project? Mr. Holth indicated he hoped it would begin in July.
DAVID CIMADON – PROPERTY OF WESTWINDS CONDO ASSOC. – POND ROAD – MAINTENANCE OF GRADING OF A GRAVEL PARKING LOT, PAVING OF DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES AND FOUR WALKWAYS
Mr. Cimadon indicated the property was located in Miami Beach on Pond Road. He stated there is a parking lot that belongs to the Westwinds Condo Assoc. He stated there is a strip of grass from the edge of the asphalt to the fence. He noted this area gets muddy. He stated there are four breaks in the fence which are entrances into the parking lot. He stated the proposal is to asphalt the walkway entrances, which are approximately 4 ft x 3 ft and to asphalt the aprons into the parking lot.
Ann Brown asked if the applicant owned the alleys at the end of the road. Mr. Cimadon indicated that they owned all three alleys. Ann Brown explained to the commission that this was a large gravel parking area. This parking area has a pond along one edge (abutting Mario Campagna’s property). She also noted there have been drainage problems in this area.
Mr. Cimadon submitted plans and reviewed the locations of the proposed walkways and aprons. Ann Brown indicated there were two sheds in the parking area; only one of which obtained a permit. Mr. Cimadon indicated he did not know who owns the other shed on the property.
Ms. Brown asked if the Miami Beach Association had been contacted about paving up to the edge of their road. Mr. Cimadon indicated they had not. Ms. Brown suggested they be contacted. Janet Bechtel asked if the Miami Beach Association owns Pond Road. Mr. Cimadon indicated that was correct, and further noted that this road is a disaster. The commission agreed to walk the site on Thursday, June 8, 2006 at 5:00 p.m.
FMTM, LLC – PROPERTY AT 254-254-1 BOSTON POST ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY WITHIN 100’ OF INLAND WETLANDS, THREE WETLANDS CROSSINGS TO ACCESS REAR LAND FOR A PROPOSED 5 LOT SUBDIVISION.
The FMTM public hearing has been continued/rescheduled to a Special Meeting on Thursday, June 1, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. due to the lack of a quorum this evening.
NEW ENGLAND NATIONAL, LLC FOR PROPERTY AT 29-1 HATCHETTS HILL ROAD-
8 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH ACTIVITIES IN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Jeffrey Torrance introduced himself on behalf of the applicant, New England National, LLC. He stated Clint Webb, Biologist and Mr. King, Engineer for the project were in attendance to address comments received on the application.. Mr. Torrance stated he incorporated the comments from the site walk and submitted revised plans dated May 11, 2006. He also expressed his displeasure over the time frame in which the applicant received comments from both staff and consultants with regard to the revised plans. Mr. Torrance noted he was prepared to address the comments raised in Mr. Metcalf’s letter of May 18, 2006 and May
Page 5 – Minutes
May 23, 2006
22, 2006. Ann Brown also provided the applicant with a copy of Mr. Ron Rose’s letter dated May 23, 2006. Mr. Torrance noted, for the record, that the state health codes which ultimately govern the construction of septic systems are more difficult to comply with than Section 5.8 of the Old Lyme Regulations. He further stated the septic systems on the plans do comply with the requirements of the State Health Codes.
Mr. Webb, Environmental Scientist, stated he was asked by the applicant to conduct a vernal pool study because one of the wetlands flagged had physical characteristics of a vernal pool. He stated a study was conducted on April 10, 2006 of all of the wetlands on the site, which included a physical exam, and dip netting, as well as a meandering survey for amphibians. He stated there were no amphibians on the site. He further stated the actual wetland in question was bone dry. He noted this area would not be recharged by groundwater because it is located at the top of the bedrock knob. He revisited the site two more times after recent rainfall and found little to no water in the wetland. Therefore, he stated the wetlands had no characteristics that would indicate that water was
being held in this area for any length of time. Mr. Webb stated a minimum of two months, and six to ten inches of water is necessary to create any activity in the wetland. Ms. Bechtel stated then this was not a vernal pool. Mr. Webb submitted his reported dated April 21, 2006 for the record.
Mr. Torrance stated the first item addressed in Mr. Metcalf’s 5/18/06 letter was the redesign of Lot #8. He noted the original plan was to bring a secondary driveway off of Hatchet’s Hill Road approximately 800 feet into the lot. He noted as a result of the discussions with this commission a crossing was created in an effort to keep the wetland canopy undisturbed. He also noted that subsequent to the site walk the issues of open space were discussed. Therefore, revised plans were submitted dated May 11, 2006 that reflect the common driveway entrance that will service all 8 lots following the existing wood road.
Mr. King, Engineer for the applicant, stated he was proposing to install a 24” box culvert across the driveway (into Lot #8) which will be more than adequate. He stated a spot has been chosen where the wetlands are the narrowest to limit the activity to around 600 sq. ft.
Mr. King stated Mr. Metcalf’s letter stated that site improvements activities associated with house construction on Lots #2 and #8 are proposed within 100 ft. of identified wetlands. Mr. King stated he did not believe the plans show any activity for the house or septic systems that is in any jurisdictional regulated or upland review area on Lot #2 or #8. Ms. Bechtel stated that Lot #2 becomes problematic if the wetland was determined to be a vernal pool because vernal pool extends out at least 100 ft. However, since it has been determined not to be a vernal pool then it is not an issue. Mr. King stated the clearing is a lot lighter than it is actually shown on the plan by the draftsman.
Mr. Torrance stated Mr. Metcalf’s letter (5/18/06 item #4) suggested that the clearing limits of the share driveway adjacent to the wetland areas to the west be limited to the edge of the 40 ft. wide share driveway easement and be depicted on the plan. He stated the applicant has no issue with that as a condition of approval and/or is willing to place a note on the plan.
Mr. Torrance stated there would be no construction on the site prior to getting all the necessary permits.
He further stated he found a pre-construction site meeting to be a customary requirement and would have no problem doing that. He also noted the plans would be signed and sealed by the responsible parties including the soil scientist.
Page 6 – Minutes
May 23, 2006
Mr. Torrance stated that Mr. Metcalf’s May 22, 2006 letter received by the commission, deals with his concern over the septic system areas on the site and the potential for future intrusion into the upland review area.
Mr. Torrance stated 60 test holes were dug at the site for the 8 lots. He noted the applicant is providing a feasible home site and a septic system area for a four-bedroom home. He further stated the they are not engineering the final design for each of these home sites because it is not known at this point where the home will be located on the lot. He further stated an engineer designed system would be provided at the time of home construction and suggested that a note to this effect will be placed on the plan.
Mr. King stated he did not feel that any of these lots could not sustain a single-family house. Mr. McCulloch stated if there is a lot that cannot have a system then it won’t be approved. Ms. Brown stated this would be a problem for the Town of Old Lyme if they approved a lot in subdivision and someone purchased the lot and found they could not construct a home. Mr. King stated he felt that the applicant has done his work to a degree that provides assurance that the systems will function. Ann Brown asked if most of the systems would require fill. She further asked how many lots would require fill? Mr. King stated all of the lots would require fill because of the depth-to-ledge. There must be 48” of dirt over ledge, plus another 18”
to 24” of fill over that. Therefore, you would have to have at least six feet of cover over ledge. Mr. King stated there would have to be six feet of material above the ledge to be able to put a system in without having to bring in fill. Mr. King stated the State requires a minimum of at least two feet of soil untouched over ledge; mounding and sloping of the fill to approximately fifteen feet of the system is required to prevent breakout. Mr. King stated that these will be raised systems but they are not sticking way out of the ground. He noted in some cases they may be sixteen to eighteen inches above ground, which means there may be a slight rise, but not a lump sticking up in the middle of the yard. Ann Brown stated she was concerned there was going to be quite a lot of fill brought in for the septic systems; therefore she felt it was appropriate to design out all the systems, so the Wetlands Commission could actually understand what is
actually going to be done on the ground. She further stated it is very nice to have a typical idea, but the plans only show le blocks for both the house and septic systems, and the realistic extent of disturbance is not shown. She further stated some of the test hole data shows that there is maybe only two or two and a half feet of ground above the ledge. Mr. King stated he did not disagree with the concern, but realistically there is almost nowhere in Connecticut you cannot put some kind of system. If you have the money you can install a system. He stated anywhere on the site could have the addition of two to two and half feet of fill. If fill is required, then the elevation of the first floor of the building is dictated in terms of elevation relative to the system, therefore the house will be up a little bit, but you grade away from the house. He further stated you are talking generally approving a site to include coverage over the
septic system without having to be obtrusive. He concluded by stating that to request a designed system ahead of time for each lot is a bit of a burden without having a specific plan for a house. Mr. Torrance stated they develop home sites, they do not construct homes.
Ms. Bechtel asked Mr. Torrance to discuss Lot #8 as a specific example of additional fill being needed for an engineered system. She stated this lot is one of the two-wetland lots which concerns this commission. The commission and Mr. King reviewed on the plan the specific tests hole data and fill requirements for the Lot #8 system. Mr. King stated that if you have a 12” gallery system then the ground is coming up about 18”. Ann Brown indicated she thought it was a 24” gallery system. Mr. King indicated she was
Correct, so it would be another 6”. He further stated the system would come a bit on the downward side. He stated the 2-ft. contouring indicates there is a 24” difference between each of the contours, so if it was covered with 24” of material, you are effectively starting with a contour back here, which will have to come
Page 7 – Minutes
May 23, 2006
around to be in front. Therefore, ground is not being pushed way out. He noted you couldn’t allow the ground 15 feet in front of the system to go any lower than the system itself in order to prevent breakout. Ms.
Bechtel stated that it appears to be very tight on this particular lot. Mr. King concurred with that statement. Ms. Bechtel stated that Lots 1, 2, 7, and 8 will have to come before the commission prior to home construction and requested it be noted on the plan.
Mr. Torrance stated he would be submitting a more detail plan prior to the next meeting.
WOODCREST ESTATES - 392 SHORE ROAD AND 3 WOODCREST DRIVE – MODIFICATION TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Ms. Bechtel stated that at the last meeting the commission granted approval subject to a favorable response from Mr. Metcalf. She indicated Mr. Metcalf still has concerns. Mr. Kenny stated Donald Ballou, P.E. has submitted a report in response to Mr. Metcalf’s comments. Ms. Bechtel stated she had a conversation with Mr. Metcalf on April 28, 2006. He indicated there was a performance difference in the systems. He stated the Vortechnic unit that was originally planned for the project would handle a 10-year storm event while the StormCeptor unit being proposed would only handle the first inch. Mr. Kenny stated his engineer is convinced that the StormCeptor will doing everything the Vortechnic Unit will do and possibly better. He further stated he believes that
when Mr. Ballou speaks with Mr. Metcalf he will submit a favorable response to the commission. Ms. Bechtel asked Mr. Kenny what the “treated flow” rates were for each unit. Mr. Kenny stated he would prefer not to discuss the specifics of the units because it was not his area of expertise. He noted the report submitted by Mr. Ballou is complex as far as technical hydrological information. He submitted several copies of the report and noted he would be delivering a copy to Mr. Metcalf tomorrow. Mr. Kenny also reported that the StormCeptor unit is currently being used in other locations in Old Lyme. Ms. Bechtel noted there was a unit installed at the All-Pro Gas Station, but it is being used for a different purpose then what is proposed in this project.
Mr. Kenny stated one of the reasons this change is being requested now, after the approval has already been given, is that the project engineers, McDonald & Sharpe, proposed a grit chamber (Vortechnic). Mr. Kenny further stated that instead of investigating this recommendation, he just went along with it. He stated the contractor has now pointed out that the Vortechnic Unit is so heavy and so massive that even a large backhoe cannot lift the unit, therefore a crane needs to be brought on site for the installation. He also noted he was unclear about the life span of this unit and since this will be a town road it would become the responsibility of the town should they need to remove or change the unit. He also stated it is a very expensive unit and they would like to avoid that additional cost.
CORRESPONDENCE – CONSTRUCTION OF LORDS MEADOW LANE EXTENSION
Janet Bechtel read a letter into the record from Mr. John Alexander dated May 15, 2006 expressing his concern that the commission exercise oversight with regard to tree cutting, root trimming and the filling over tree roots in order to preserve as much of the canopy over the wetlands as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
