OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Linda Krulikowski, Don Willis, Martin Griswold, David McCulloch, Skip DiCamillo, Evan Griswold. Also present were: Attorney Michael Cronin, Tony Hendriks, Richard Snarski, Matthew White, Richard O’Connor, Michael Gosselin and Ann Brown.
Chairman Bechtel called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED AUGUST 22, 2006
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
Bechtel made a motion approve the minutes as submitted. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2006.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Martin Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Robb Linde arrived at 7:36 for the remainder of the meeting.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT - The commission tabled the report until the end of the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
MICHAEL GOSSELIN – 123 BOSTON POST ROAD – CONSTRUCT A STONE WALL WITHIN 100’ OF THE WETLANDS
The commission reviewed the site plan and photographs submitted by the applicant. Ann Brown noted it is a perimeter wall, but there are wetlands along the driveway and to the rear of the property. The commission agreed to walk the site on Thursday, October 12th at 7:00 p.m.
Page 2
ENOK PEDERSEN – BURR ROAD – 17 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS WITH TWO WETLAND CROSSINGS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE REGULATED REVIEW AREA
Bob Doane presented the application on behalf of the applicant, Enok Pedersen. Mr. Doane stated he was proposing a 17 lot subdivision located on 87 acres including 28 acres of open space. He noted there is an 1800 ft. roadway that comes into the site which is located next to an existing house and has two wetland
crossings. He reported the crossings are handled by a 60” diameter pipe. He stated originally he was proposing an open bottom box culvert which created more disturbance. He further stated the DEP requires that a foot of soil be placed a foot below the stream bed. He noted there are 6 vernal pools on the site five of which have no disturbance proposed. Mr. Linde asked when Mr. Snarksi visited the site. Mr. Doane stated the initial flagging was done several years ago and he revisited the site again this year. A stormwater management report has been submitted as part of the application and forwarded to Mr. Metcalf for his review. He stated this report indicates a 5% increase in stormwater runoff which he feels the stream can handle. He also noted he had
discussed this with Mr. Metcalf to see if he felt detention was necessary because it is currently not proposed. The roadway contains two stormwater structures for stormwater quality control.
Janet Bechtel asked if the Stormwater Report reflects the whole build out including driveways and home sites. Mr. Doane indicated the analysis takes into consideration the developed watershed. Ms. Bechtel asked if the roadway surface was gravel or paved. Mr. Doane indicated it would be paved. He also noted they are recommending pavement on the driveways that exceed 8 percent. Mr. Linde asked if the calculations were based on paved or gravel driveways. Ann Brown asked if the roadway complies with the Design and Construction Standards for the Town of Old Lyme. Mr. Doane indicated it would be constructed to standards and therefore no waivers will be requested. He further indicated he tried to eliminate the curb on the roadway, but there is a problem with the
steepness of the road.
Evan Griswold asked Mr. Doane if the open space corresponded with any of the adjoining open space. Mr. Doane indicated it did not. Bechtel asked if there was any activity in the wetland for fire suppression. Mr. Doane indicated there was none proposed at this time, he further stated there is a pond available to the site for fire fighting, but he will be discussing this matter with the Fire Chief.
The commission agreed to walk the site on Thursday, October 12th at 5:30 p.m. A public hearing will be held at the October 24th meeting. The commission agreed to forward a copy of the plans to Wendy Goodfriend for her input. Mr. McCulloch asked the applicant to consider moving the discharge pumps away from the stream so there is some overland flow before it dumps directly into the stream. Mr. Doane agreed to make some changes.
Evan Griswold asked if the applicant had considered proposing an Open Space Subdivision. Mr. Doane stated he did but the problem is the area available for the sanitary systems. Mr. Linde asked if any portion of the development would lend itself to this type of subdivision. Mr. Doane stated he would review it on a lot by lot basis.
Page 3
OLD BUSINESS
RICHARD D. O’CONNOR – 108 SILL LANE – CONSTRUCT A DECK OVER THE SPILLWAY OF MILL BROOK AT UPPER MILL POND
Janet Bechtel noted that this is the application before the commission that had not been permitted. She noted several commission members had visited the site.
Mr. O’Connor stated the property has a long and historic history. He stated there was originally a road across the spillway which he pointed out on the picture located in the conference room of the Town Hall. He stated over the years it has been a walkway, wagon track, a road and most recently a narrow walkway, but there was the suggestion that it did not have any rails. Mr. O’Connor indicated it always had rails because of the risk of falling into the stream. He noted it is currently bigger than it was but it was his intention to have the property be useful rather than just access from one side to another. Janet Bechtel asked about the deck installed by the entrance to the fish ladder. She stated there was discussion that DEP was concerned that the deck obstructed
access to the fish ladder. Mr. O’Connor stated he had several conversations with Mr. Gephardt (DEP) and he never expressed any of these issues. O’Connor noted that the deck on the top of the fish ladder is not bolted into the property. He stated it is capable of being lifted and moved. He stated that there was always a deck on it after the state put the fish way in. He stated the agreement was the state was going to cover the top of the fish way because it is dangerous without a cover. He stated the state never did; therefore, he did because from his point of view it is a piece of property that needs to be covered and he expected to have some use of it. He stated the fish way is 2/3 of the way up the stream and he enjoys sitting on the deck looking at the view. Ms. Bechtel stated there is a question that these decks are restricting light in that particular area. She further noted one of the decks has a
blue tarp attached. Mr. O’Connor indicated that was true and he indicated he could do something more esthetically pleasing than the blue tarp, however he indicated he is sensitive to the sun and likes a cover during the summer months. Mr. O’Connor stated he had heard there were concerns that there would be wild parties and the area would be littered. He stated he has lived in that home for over 25 years and has yet to have any wild parties and nor did he plan too.
Mr. Linde stated Mr. O’Connor would not live in this house forever and once the deck is there than the use is there and there will be no control over the next owner of the house.
Mr. O’Connor stated he started with the proposition and it is his intention to be cooperative and seek the commission’s agreement, but he stated he thought he could build a road there if he so desired. He stated the intention of the deck was to make it esthetically pleasing and to utilize the space.
The commission asked if the plan submitted was accurate as far as the deck and covering. Mr. O’Connor indicated it was fairly accurate, but not a survey. Skip DiCamillo asked if the commission needed to approve a more detailed drawing of the area. Bechtel stated the commission needs to approach it as if it isn’t built and the applicant is requesting for it to be built and therefore it is either approved or denied. The commission will require plans indicating exactly what is at the site. She further stated this would enable the commission to take action in the future should the improvements change or expand. She stated in her conversation with Mr. Gephardt he was very specific about the fact that any deck over the entrance to the fish ladder be able to be
removed. Evan Griswold stated he thought it was also important for the fish to have light. Bechtel stated the fish do not like going into a dark tunnel. Griswold stated it is not only an esthetic issue it is a biological issue. Griswold stated when the fish arrive in the Spring there should be a
Page 4
way a making sure that cover is open. He noted the other fish ladder located down stream has a cover on it but it is a metal grate that allows light to penetrate.
Mr. O’Connor stated the dimensions of the decking are in his application. He further noted he would be very happy to have Mr. Gephardt come in and replicate the deck and construct it with steel which would allow the light to penetrate. He further stated Mr. Gephardt had agreed to do this, but never did. Ann Brown stated the dimensions on the deck that go across the spillway are 12 x 20 and it is shown on the application.
Bechtel asked if the commission was looking for something more formal as part of the application. Mr. O’Connor reviewed his drawings with the commission that illustrated the repairs made to the dam. Bechtel asked if the person who constructed the lower deck had any working plans of the structure. O’Connor indicated he did not. He stated this was built by some retired navy friends. Bechtel asked the applicant if he had any pictures of the current pergola. O’Connor indicated he did not. Bechtel stated she believed if this application had come before this commission and requested a permit for the pergola, the commission would have walked the site, questioned why as a replacement it needed to be so big, and/or why it needed to be a deck with a pergola. She
further stated she did not think this commission would have allowed the sides to go up with the intent the property owner would be able to sit out there under an awning over the stream. She stated she felt the application would have been denied. However, the commission is now in the position of looking at it this as to whether it should be removed, or does the commission leave it the way it is and wonder where this will stand when new owners occupy the site. Bechtel stated the commission would like copies of what is presently at the site, pictures of the deck and decking for the file. Mr. O’Connor indicated this was reasonable and stated he would be happy to provide them. Bechtel stated if he installs a blue and white awning will the next owner decide it should be asphalt shingles. Bechtel indicated she would like to see the entire top from the railings up be cut down and the deck replaced properly for the fish ladder.
Skip DiCamillo stated he felt the commission needs to review the items outlined and vote on the application at a later date. Mr. O’Connor stated that perhaps the commission could vote on the application with the condition that he provides photographs to the commission within thirty days.
Mr. Linde stated that Mr. O’Connor was clearly a savvy individual and had contact with both the DEP and town and is aware of the process, therefore, why did he not submit an application prior to doing the work. Mr. O’Connor stated he was not familiar with the commission and its operation, but he got to know very well the Conservation Commission with which he had informal discussions. He also spoke with the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection about his intentions at the site. He indicated Mr. Gephardt had no concerns about what he put over the entrance to the spill ladder. He further stated the Conservation Commission also expressed no concerns, but were only anxious for him to agree to allow them access to his property. Mr. McCulloch indicated
he was a part of those prior discussions.
Bechtel asked since this was put up for the applicants enjoyment would he consider removing it prior to selling the property. Mr. O’Connor indicated he would not do be interested in doing that.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the application with the provision the applicant supply photographs of the existing structure within 30 days. Don Willis seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Robb Linde stated he thought the commission should consider denying the application based on the information given because it suggests that shade will have a negative impact on the wetlands.
Page 5
Dave McCulloch asked if the fish were using the ladder. Ann Brown stated she heard a rumor that there were not any fish using the ladder. Don Willis stated he has seen a fish ladder installed under a bridge on Rte 32 so he does not understand the light issue. Robb Linde stated he understood the enforcement associated with a denial, but he also feels the commission needs to take a stand. Mr. McCulloch stated the town has had comparable situations all along the wetlands, but he felt they were not intentional. Mr. McCulloch further stated there is no precedent set with wetlands because each application is evaluated individually.
Robb Linde stated given that the basis of his objection was the light and not having grated coverings at the lower fish ladder that the commission requires the applicant to replace the decking. Bechtel stated the applicant is willing to replace the decking and/or remove the deck in the Spring. Mr. O’Connor stated he would like to keep the deck to sit on for his enjoyment. Mr. Linde stated that perhaps the commission should delay the approval and allow the use of the deck and in the meantime work with the DEP to see what can be resolved.
Ann Brown stated the commission could approve the project and then the commission could write to DEP and request that the deck be replaced because of the concerns raised. Evan Griswold stated the fish run starts in March and ends in May so by the time it is warm enough to use the deck the run is generally complete. Bechtel stated she was still concerned with the size of the deck over the spillway and how the commission controls it now and in the future. Mr. O’Connor stated both his application and photographs would cover that and he would further agree to no further improvements in the future.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application with the submission of current photos in the file within thirty 30 days, no additional expansion of either deck or the spillway which includes the cover, and the commission approaches DEP about getting the proper deck over the entrance to the fish ladder. Mr. O’Connor stated he would like the deck over the fish way to continue to be the size of what is currently there. He stated the fish way is just a box and just covering it would not provide him the ability to sit down there. He also noted that this is what the DEP agreed to do, but once the box was put in the state has never been back to the site except to check the water. Bechtel stated that what Mr. O’Connor is saying is that if DEP came in and lifted the deck and replaced the
decking with their fish ladder decking it would diminish the size of what is currently there. Mr. O’Connor stated that was correct. Bechtel stated she would consider that to be a compromise. Mr. O’Connor indicated he would like to keep the same size deck. Robb Linde stated that, prior in Mr. O’Connor’s discussions, he indicated he would be amenable to having the state come in and pull up the deck and replace it with fish ladder decking. Mr. O’Connor stated if he spoke that way he misspoke, and it was his intention to have the State come back and install the decking, but at the size of what is currently there.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the two structures that are installed with the condition that photographs of the structures be submitted within thirty days and that no more expansion of either decking is permitted and no permanent cover over the pergola but a temporary sunshade is allowed and Mr. O’Connor has agreed to remove his lower deck between March, April and May. Don Willis seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Skip DiCamillo asked the commission members to consider if they would approve this application prior to it being built and to consider this before they vote.
Page 6
The motion carried 5 to 2. In favor: McCulloch, Willis, Krulikowski, Griswold, Linde. Against: DiCamillo, Bechtel.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Bechtel stated the commission would currently be reviewing all three applications under public hearing.
Attorney Cronin stated this is a continuation of the Public Hearing which began at the commission’s last meeting. The commission expressed some concerns about the property and conducted a site walk. He stated that during the site walk questions were raised that it had been a relatively dry Spring and it may have impacted an area that could be a vernal pool. Attorney Cronin stated since that time Mr. Richard Snarksi visited and reviewed the site. Attorney Cronin introduced Matt White, Project Engingeer and Richard Snarksi, Wetland and Soil Scientist and reviewed their qualifications for the record. Attorney Cronin presented a plan for the commission to review. He stated the first application is for a lot located on Bill Hill Road. The second application is a rear
lot in the name of Ted Zito. The third lot is located on 143 Neck Road. There are two areas of concern on the parcel.
Richard Snarski stated he did the wetland delineation on the property last year. He noted he revisited the site. Snarksi reviewed the characteristics of the property with the commission.
Evan Griswold asked if there was a way to test for species even though there is only a small amount of water. Snarksi stated he did not see any evidence and he even netted the area. Griswold stated some of his concerns were that the area is so flat that during a wet year the entire slope would be wet and it would flow to the southeast. Snarski indicated it would not flow toward that slope. Matt White stated the area may flow over land but the grading around the house would prevent it from flowing right at the house. Griswold asked if the house would have a basement. White stated the house would have a basement and a footing drain. Linde stated he recalled that wetland to be located on a knoll and therefore the amount of water that would run towards
the house would be limited. Griswold stated he was just concerned about development being put in harms way and in the way of water movement.
Bechtel asked the size of the house? White stated it had a dimension of 28 ft and 76 ft. long including the garage and the septic is designed for a four-bedroom house. Bechtel stated a portion of the house is located in the 100 ft. envelope. White stated the house is within the 100 ft. regulated area for wetland but no portion of the house is within 100 ft. of the area that Mr. Snarski determined to be the potential/possible vernal pool area. He further stated there is 297 ft. of water in this location and that is the only disturbance within 100 ft. White stated he had made a few adjustments on the plan to minimize the disturbance area.
Brown asked how after construction the lawn area might be limited. Attorney Cronin indicated language could be placed in the deed restricting the limits of clearing.
DiCamillo asked Mr. Snarski if the fertilizers on the lawns would have any impact on the vernal pools. Mr. Snarski indicated there was a large wooded area between the lawn and the vernal pool so there should not be any impact. Bechtel stated looking at 3-1 Bill Hill and considering how tight that whole area is why does it need to be a four bedroom house. She stated when the commission walked the site they felt it was a marginal piece of property to be developed, therefore she indicated she was surprised that there is the exact same size house on all three lots when all three lots are not created equal. She stated it is a very sensitive
Page 7
tight lot. White stated the developer did not feel that these were particularly aggressive homes. Bechtel asked if the applicant would consider redesigning the house to remove it completely out of the regulated area. White stated if the commission requires that then he will have to look at that option.
Linde stated the soil scientist has indicated the house will not have an impact on the functioning of the vernal pool. The house is within the 100 ft. review zone of the wetland itself, but it is also downstream of the wetland so what effect does the commission think it would have on the wetland given the fact that it is down gradient. McCulloch stated it would certainly reduce its impact being down gradient. Bechtel stated the commission has now reviewed the three parcels under discussion and asked if there are any members of the public present that would like to speak on the applications.
Lee Rowley spoke on behalf of the Johnston’s who own property to the south of Lot #3. The Johnston’s position is that they do not object to the development of the parcel if it is done properly. However, the concern they have is that this area naturally drains from north to south and there is a wetland on the south end of the parcel with a fairly extensive wetland systems that goes through the Johnston’s property. The Johnston’s want to be on record stating they would like the developer and/or commission to ensure that all proper precautions are taken to protect this area so there is no unusual amount of sediment and soils washing down to their property. Rowley stated in addition to that he would like a note added to the plan that Soil & Erosion guidelines will be
followed. He also requested a double set of hay bales to ensure adequate protection. Matt White suggested a location on the plan to put the double silt fence. Linde stated since the applicant is down gradient from the wetland on the left is there any benefit to moving it towards the upgrading wetland. White stated he did not see any particular benefit.
Albert Brehon & Jeanne Eman - 145 Neck Road – Mr. Brehon submitted a map that reflects the subdivision with buildable squares as they were shown in December. He further stated based on the position of the wetlands and regulated areas he had no reason to think that the home sites would be other than those shown at that time.
He stated his interest is with the disposition of 3-1 Bill Hill Road. He stated it seems that the original position at the easement part of the lot is a better site for construction. He said that this leaves the most southern wetland area free of disturbance with regard to construction of the house, driveway and septic.
He also noted that his attorney informed him that the proposed easement for access as shown which has since been formalized is a gravel driveway easement and does not include a utility easement. Therefore, utilities to this property will need to be shown traversing the wetland by an alternative route.
He also stated he finds this proposal to be less desirable. He stated this proposal can only come to pass if endorsed by this commission which would thereby be advocating it as a more desirable than the previous determination.
Martin Griswold asked Mr. White what his plan was for bringing utilities into the site. He stated he was assuming that they would be underground utilities. Bechtel stated this item would need to be clarified. Bechtel stated not all of the potential issues and concerns will be resolved by this commission.
Linde stated it is encumbent upon the applicant to build as presented and if they can’t build it they need to come back for the change.
Page 8
Linde stated assuming one ran a 20 ft long driveway along the circumference of that lot what would the limits of clearing look like over in the building area in the top left corner? White illustrated on the site plan what it would look like. The commission discussed and reviewed the site plan. Linde stated it is a tough balance between the house existing on that property and having less overall clearing on the lot versus having the house exist entirely outside the review zone but still have clearing within the review zone and overall more clearing on the lot. Mr. McCulloch stated he would like to see the proposal drawn up both ways with the calculations. Linde stated he would also like to see the drawings.
Attorney Cronin stated he would consent to an extension to the next regular meeting to provide the commission with an alternate plan including the possibility of submitting a smaller home on 3-1 Bill Hill Road.
OLD BUSINESS
APPLICATION OF ZITO BUILDERS – 1 BILL HILL ROAD – REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF NO JURISDICTION
Martin made a motion to close the public hearing. Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Bechtel asked considering the slope on the property does the commission want to have a finding of no jurisdiction or require a permit. The commission reviewed and discussed the submitted site map. Bechtel noted for the record the attorney for the applicant agreed to put limits of clearing in the deed and to have the language reviewed by town counsel.
Bechtel stated there are no other concerns with this particular lot but she would like to hold onto the jurisdiction and permit the application that it carries a notation in the deed. Ann Brown stated the applicant offered to stake out the limit of clearing prior to any clearing.
Evan Griswold made a motion that this commission has a finding of jurisdiction on the property at 1Bill Hill Road. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Bechtel made a motion to permit the application with the condition that the note pertaining to the 100’ regulated area be carried over into the deed and that the silt fence be installed marking the limits of clearing prior to construction. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION OF TED ZITO – 3-1 BILL HILL ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH ASSOCIATED GRADING, SANITARY SYSTEM, UTILITIES AND DRIVEWAY IN THE REGULATED AREA
The commission agreed to table any action until their next regularly scheduled meeting.
Page 9
APPLICATION OF ZITO BUILDERS – 143 NECK ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH ASSOCIATED GRADING, SANITARY SYSTEM, UTILITIES AND DRIVEWAY IN THE REGULATED AREA
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application for property at 143 Neck Road as submitted with the addition of provisions that the silt fencing be doubled up along south side of the driveway up to the area of the well and the limits of clearing be staked out prior to construction and the note be on the plan pertaining to the 100’ regulated area be carried over into the deed. Don Willis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MAURIZIO NICHELE – 1 WOODRIDGE HILLS ROAD – INSTALL AN ABOVE GROUND POOL AND PATIO/DECK WITHIN 100’ OF WETLANDS
Bechtel indicated she was not in attendance on the site walk but it was her understanding that there were no outstanding questions.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the application. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
DOLLARD AND PHYLLIS COTE – 159 BOSTON POST ROAD – ONE LOT SUBDIVISION WITH ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE 100’ REVIEW AREA
Ann Brown stated she had received new plans today, and neither she or Wade Thomas has reviewed them. Mr. Hendriks distributed copies of the revised plans to the members. Mr. Hendriks noted the property is located on Boston Post Road near Illiano’s. Mr. Hendriks suggested the commission review the plan it used when it walked the site prior to reviewing the new plans. Mr. Hendrik’s stated the new plan is virtually has the same house and garage location that was approved by this commission five or six years ago, however the subdivision did not proceed at that time. Mr. Hendriks’s presented the revised plan which shows the house size has been reduced and pushed back further and there is no grading on the down hill side. Mr. Hendriks’s stated that Wade Thomas reviewed
this plan on behalf of the Planning Commission and the revised plans submitted this evening address all of the concerns raised in his letter. He further stated these revisions address the issues raised at the site walk in particular the wetland concerns. He stated the driveway access on the uphill side of the building did not work, therefore it has been changed.
Mr. Griswold asked if there would be clearing all the way down to the slope. Bechtel indicated that was correct.
Mr. Hendriks stated that Wade Thomas indicated in his letter to the Planning Commission that he had no engineering concerns with regard to the shared driveway. Mr. Hendrik’s also noted he has added a retaining wall details to the plans.
Mr. Linde asked about the issued raised that the limits of topography exceeding 20 percent as measured over increments of 40 feet should be added to the plans and the area should also be determined and added to the plan. Mr. Hendriks indicated he had a problem with that comment because that note has to do with subdivision regulations with regards to MABL. He stated in order for us to clarify that for Mr. Thomas he added some detail to the limit of MABL in the legend.
Page 10
Ann Brown asked how the MABL area is marked on the plan. He stated it is marked with a thick, shaded line. Mr. Hendriks outlined the MABL on the plan for the commission to review. He stated the MABL area has to be at least 30,000 square feet and contain a square of 125 ft inside of it and cannot have 20 percent slopes and no more than 2 ft disturbance. He stated it is recommended that the MABL area include the septic system but the house does not have to be within the MABL area.
Griswold asked about the soil erosion control barrier that should be removed from the adjoining property to the southwest. Mr. Hendrik’s noted a soil and erosion control barrier was indicated on the old plan that stretched over the property line which has been removed.
Ann Brown asked if the plans included a detail for the retaining wall. Mr. Hendrik’s indicated they did. Mr. Hendriks indicated there would be no stockpiling on site.
Bechtel asked if soil and erosion control blankets would be used for all disturbed slopes. Mr. Hendriks indicated they would be used and he is not sure exactly where until the site work begins. He stated he recommends that this be a condition. Ann Brown indicated she thought they would be needed below the house on the steep slope. Mr. Hendriks indicated he did not think that slope would be disturbed. Bechtel stated it is within the limits of clearing. Mr. Hendrik’s indicated that was correct. Bechtel stated when it is cleared it will be disturbed and needs to be stabilized. Mr. Hendrik’s stated it was his opinion that the slope would not be disturbed. Mr. Linde stated there would be a 14 ft. drop over 50 ft. Bechtel asked
Mr. Hendrik’s if he was in agreement to use erosion control blankets. Mr. Hendrik’s indicated that was correct. Becthel asked who would be determining if the slope is disturbed. Bechtel stated when the tree comes down and the stump is removed because it is one of ones that is necessary and it is on a steep slope the commission would like an erosion control blanked put there to hold that in place. Bechtel asked if that could be added to the plan. Hendrik’s indicated that could be provided. Mr. Cote indicated he would not be clearing any more than necessary.
Mr. Hendrik’s noted for the record that all of the neighbors have reviewed and endorsed the plan.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the plan with the addition of the erosion control blankets as needed and Ann Brown is notified who the contractor will be at the site. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
FOUR PONDS DEVELOPMENT, LCC
Bechtel stated the applicant was notified at the site walk that Mr. Metcalf would not have the plans reviewed for the meeting tonight. The discussion will continue at the next month’s meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Ann Brown submitted copies of her report to the commission. Ann Brown noted that on Monday 9/25, she and Chairman Bechtel visited two sites which have received complaints.
Page 11
The first site, 7 Hillwood West has been cleared and filled to some degree in the wetlands. However, the owners of this property came to Town Hall to check the Wetlands Map (no wetlands shown on their property). Dave McCulloch pointed out that the Town Wetlands Map is not definitive and that only a survey by a soil scientist can make a final determination.
The second visit, 31 Library Lane, the Chadwick property, was a prior violation dating back to 2001. This is the site of a wetland area that was cleared of trees, stumped and regraded. Brown stated the final approval was conditioned upon the applicant replanting some flowering tress and shrubs and only mowing the area occasionally. Brown stated the site was recently mowed and it is a very wet meadow. Bechtel stated that although this area is not mowed often, the site has not revegetated, the replanting plan has not been completed and the area just looks like bad lawn. Bechtel is concerned that when this property changes ownership, new owners will attempt to turn this area into lawn, not realizing this is meant to be a wetland buffer area.
Discussion ensued among the commission members as to how to most effectively deal with the violation issues that are occurring around town. In both instances, it appears that the contractors doing the work should have been aware of the wet conditions on the ground and should have know about the need for an IWWC permit. It was decided that a letter from IWWC to various local contractors outlining the permit process would be a place to start.
In addition, Ann Brown will contact the owners a 7 Hillwood West and obtain the name of their contractor and contact Ms. Chadwick at 31 Library Lane and inform her of the commissions request to see this area not mowed and allowed to revegetate as a buffer area.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
