OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2006
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Don Willis, David McCulloch, Skip DiCamillo, Evan Griswold and Robb Linde. Also present were: Attorney Michael Cronin, Tony Hendriks, Matt White, and Ann Brown.
Chairman Bechtel called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 12, 2006
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
The commission agreed to table this report until the end of the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
KEVIN MCMAHON – 59 GRASSY HILL ROAD – CONSTRUCT A GARAGE IN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Tony Hendriks presented the proposed application to construct a 20’ x 40’ garage located at 59 Grassy Hill Road. Mr. Hendriks indicated all the existing buildings are located within the 100-ft. review zone. He stated there is a barn on the property that has been converted into a home site with an existing driveway that runs right through the property. He stated it is the applicant’s intention to build this garage in the same location as the existing driveway and to abandon the use of the driveway beyond the garage that currently crosses a wetland. He noted they have located some potential stockpiling locations on the site. A silt fence will be located around the site to eliminate any disturbance to the wetlands downstream. The area disturbed around the proposed
barn during construction will be allowed to return to its natural state. Ann Brown requested the applicant submit building plans prior to the next meeting. The commission reviewed the plans and discussed the proposal. Evan Griswold asked the applicant if he considered moving the garage closer to the house where it would serve to create more of a backyard for the property and would also provide a buffer from the wind. Mr. Hendriks stated the applicant would like to leave the area behind the barn in its natural state and he felt moving the barn closer to the house would create a wind tunnel. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 4, 2006 at 8:30 a.m.
Page 2 – Minutes
October 24, 2006
HAL EDMONDS – 31 SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD – MODIFY THE EXISTING WETLANDS PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS TO THE HOUSE AND GARAGE WITHIN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Mr. Edmonds presented a modification to the permit that was granted previously by the commission. Mr. Edmonds reviewed the proposal with the commission. He noted it reduces the impervious area. Mr. Linde stated he thought this plan was an improvement over the previous plan. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 4, 2006 at 8:45 a.m.
IRVING A FANNER – 9 MILL POND ROAD – ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING HOUSE WITHIN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
The applicant was not present to present the application. Ann Brown read the written proposal stated on the application to the commission. The commission asked Ann Brown contact the applicant to see if they could be available for a site walk on Saturday, November 4, 2006 at 9:15 contingent upon plans being available for the commission to review at the site walk.
PUBLIC HEARING
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.
Attorney Michael Cronin stated at the end of the last public hearing the commission asked the applicant to design an alternate plan for the lot that would relocate the house to the eastern corner of the property as opposed to the west corner. Mr. White presented the plan, which shows the house entirely outside of the 100 ft. regulated area. Attorney Cronin also reported that the applicant has agreed to limit the house size to three bedrooms. Cronin also noted he had discussed the utility issue and at this point it still remains unresolved. He noted the clear intent originally from the developer was to install the utilities underground when the driveway is constructed, however if an agreement cannot be reached then an alternate access would have to be found for the utilities.
Janet Bechtel stated in her opinion she felt this was a better plan. Evan Griswold stated he felt it was better since the house was now out of the review zone, but expressed concern about more clearing being created along the length of the driveway. Mr. McCulloch stated he felt there was less clearing in the regulated zone. Ann Brown suggested the commission provide some kind of physical markers in the field that delineate the limits of clearing. Mr. Linde suggested a note be placed on the plan requiring the driveway be a gravel surface.
Brett Enman thanked the commission on behalf of himself and his wife and stated he very much appreciated the efforts of the commission and noted that their hard work had made a significant difference in the quality of their lives.
Bechtel made a motion to close the public hearing. Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 3 – Minutes
October 24, 2006
OLD BUSINESS
DECISION
TED ZITO – 3-1 BILL HILL ROAD
Robb Linde made a motion to approved the permit according to the drawing dated June 22, 2006 revised through 10/23/06 with the stipulation that the driveway be identified as a gravel driveway and that the limit of clearing to the north be deeded and the boundary limits of clearing be field marked prior to construction. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MICHAEL GOSSELIN – 123 BOSTON POST ROAD – CONSTRUCT A STONE WALL WITHIN 100’ OF WETLANDS
Bechtel stated the commission had walked the site and found there to be no significant impact to the wetlands.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as presented. McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
FOUR PONDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC – 313-335 BOSTON POST ROAD – APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A 28 UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING A CLUB HOUSE AND SWIMMING POOL, ROADS, UTILITIES AND A COMMUNITY SEPTIC SYSTEM, WITH ACTIVIES IN THE WETLAND AND IN THE UPLAND AREAS
Bechtel stated she had a meeting with Ann Brown and Mr. Metcalf to review his letter to the commission dated October 7, 2006. She stated as result of her meeting with Mr. Metcalf, she was not in a position to recommend to the commission that this plan be approved because of the large amount of outstanding items. She further stated she spoke with Mr. Hendren on the telephone to notify him she was preparing a motion for denial and asked him if he would prefer to withdraw the application at this time. Mr. Hendren submitted a letter to the commission today formally withdrawing the application. Bechtel stated she also told Mr. Hendren she would keep this item on the agenda for discussion tonight. The commission agreed to discuss this item after the next agenda item.
ENOK PEDERSEN – 1 BURR ROAD – 17 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS WITH TWO WETLAND CROSSINGS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE REGULATED REVIEW AREA.
Bechtel stated that Bob Doane, agent for the applicant, is now in the process of revising his plans based on the letter submitted to the commission from Wendy Goodfriend. Mr. Linde expressed concern about discussing the application prior to the public hearing, which will begin in November. Bechtel stated she
Page 4 – Minutes
October 26, 2006
hoped this discussion would streamline the public hearing process, but it would not however take away any of the rights of the public to ask questions. Ann Brown stated she did not feel it was a problem to have a presentation from the applicant because a complete hearing record will be established at the November meeting. Mr. Linde stated the commission agreed one month ago to hold a public hearing on this application at their November meeting, therefore holding discussions outside of the hearing he felt was inappropriate. Ann Brown stated she felt is was fine to have a presentation of the changes in the plans as a result of comments received by the commission. Bechtel stated originally the public hearing would of began this month, however at the site walk it was determined that
there were enough changes to be made to the plan that it would be better to push the hearing off an additional month. The commission further discussed the procedures and agreed to have Mr. Doane present his revisions to the plan.
Mr. Doane stated the significant issues in Ms.Goodfriend’s letter dated October 13, 2006 were the outlets for the storm drainage; she was not enamored of the mass particle separators and other mechanical means and would prefer that primary systems such as rain guards or outlet basins which are more strongly recommended by the Stormwater Quality Manual. Mr. Doane reviewed the changes on the plans with the commission. Mr. Doane also noted that during the site walk Diana Atwood Johnson stated she did not like the strips of open space around the property so they have been removed. Mr. Doane also stated he would be addressing Ms.Goodfriend’s comments regarding the sedimentation and erosion control details.
David McCulloch stated most of the items discussed in the letter were also discussed at the site walk; and did not feel there was anything new at this point.
Mr. Linde asked if the road to the four homes in the rear could be eliminated and replaced with a driveway. Mr. Doane indicated the regulations limit the applicant to two-access strips maximum adjoining one another.
Bechtel stated she thought Ms. Goodfriend’s letter was incredibly complete and Mr. Doane did a good job outlining the issues in the field. Bechtel stated originally when the application was presented, the applicant, Enok Pedersen, indicated one of the reasons the parcels where kept at 3 acres in size was so that the property owners could have horses. She reported that a symposium was held recently were they discussed rules and regulations with regard to livestock in wetland areas. Bechtel asked if indeed this property was going to have horses she would like a waste management plan submitted because this is a very sensitive piece of property. Mr. Doane stated he would clarify the intent of the applicant with regard to horses on the property. Evan Griswold
stated the Town of Lyme prohibits animals in wetlands.
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF FOUR PONDS, LLC – STONE MILL MANOR
Bechtel reported that all of the items outlined in Mr. Metcalf’s letter to the commission still remain outstanding. She also noted when she spoke to Gary Hendren she pointed out that at the last site walk both she and Skip had asked about protection of the buffer zone that goes around Four Ponds. She stated she did not feel the easement language she had received pertained to this commission because it specifically addresses the open space. This commissions is concern with the 50 ft of buffer area around the ponds and does not want it turned into lawn area or to see structures being built. She stated Mr. Hendren indicated this protection might be in the covenant document.
Page 5 – Minutes
October 24, 2006
Bechtel further stated that in reviewing the plans most of the home sites sit right on the 100 ft. review line which means there will be encroachment in the review zone. She stated she emailed Attorney Mattern to ask if there is any further buffer protection language in the covenent document.
Bechtel stated Mr. Hendren was frustrated because he felt he had requested input at the preliminary discussions with this commission. Bechtel stated she felt the commission does not always provide sufficient detail for fear of implying to the applicant that he will be granted an automatic approval.
Evan Griswold stated the commission has encouraged preliminary discussions and made fairly clear what the commission would like to see in the various proposals to assist in the effort of receiving a quality plan, which makes the process much smoother.
Ann Brown stated that in the commission’s preliminary discussions with Mr. Hendren no big concerns were expressed, but the commission certainly was very forthcoming with their desires both at the meetings as well as the site walks. Bechtel stated the preliminary plan was a one-page plan and that prior to the submittal of the application there was no opportunity to review the topography and house locations. Bechtel stated that maybe it was her mistake not have the applicant attend last months meeting because she indicated to Mr. Hendren it was not necessary for him to attend unless he had finalized the protection language and wanted to review it with the commission.
DiCamillo stated the commission discussed the process with the applicant at the last site walk. He further noted Mr. Metcalf had not had time to due a complete review and that is why the applicant did not attend the last meeting. Bechtel stated the confusion began because the commission felt they gave the applicant enough information for them to make changes to the plan. She stated there was obviously some miscommunication between the applicant and the commission. The commission reviewed the most recent set of plans, which Bechtel had highlighted. She noted the limits of clearing appear to have been expanded. She also noted the septic will be reviewed by the state and this also encroaches into the wetland review area. It is located
on the steep slope and there is some confusion as to whether the applicant plans to allow the area to revegetate. Bechtel asked the commission if they would be satisfied with a statement from the DEP indicating this system will work or will they want an independent review because of its location and amount of encroachment, Ann Brown reported that both the WPCA and the Health Department will be involved in the approval process.
Bechtel stated the stormwater treatment system is indicated on the plan as “to be determined” and the retaining wall still needs “to be designed”. She noted Mr. Metcalf has also noted these items in his letter and indicated they need to be designed before the commission can move forward. She also requested the members to review the plan so any of their comments can be forwarded to the applicant. The commission discussed the individual locations of the house sites and whether individual permit applications will be requested for each individual home site. The commission agreed they were in favor of requesting individual permits.
Page 6 – Minutes
October 24, 2006
Bechtel stated that in addition to the items in Mr. Metcalf’s letter of October 7, 2006 the commission is looking for an attempt by the applicant to get some of the house locations away from the 100’ review line. The commission agreed to forward a copy of the resubmitted application to Wendy Goodfriend for her review.
Ann Brown noted the applicant is requesting the fee be waived for the new application and this application be considered his resubmission. The commission agreed not to waive the fee and accept the application.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
The commission reviewed the enforcement report.
Griswold noted the owner of 7 Hillwood West is a new owner. He stated an agent from his office sold the house to the new owners. He stated the agent had mentioned to the new owner that there were wet areas on the property. He further stated the new owner had equipment on the property the day of the closing and had already started clearing prior to the title being passed. Bechtel stated she received two telephone calls with regard to this property. She noted both Ann and herself walked this property recently and met with the owner who indicated they do not have any plans to do any further work at the site, however if things change they would be required to obtain the appropriate permits from the town. Brown also stated she had informed a neighbor that this item would
not be discussed this evening and therefore requested the commission not discuss it at this time.
Linde stated he was confused because neither the Subdivision Map nor the Wetlands Map indicated any wetlands on the site but there are indeed wetlands. Ann Brown stated there is an obligation on the property owner to be sure no permits are required. Bechtel stated if you are standing in water that might be a reason to check and see if it is a wetland. Griswold stated there are some people who truly are not aware that permits are required.
Bechtel distributed a draft copy of a “contractor letter” the commission has discussed mailing out, to area contractor’s working in the Town of Old Lyme, informing them of the need to obtain a permit prior to conducting work within 100’ of a wetland or watercourse. She asked commission members to review this draft and email her with any suggestions, deletions and/or additions.
Skip DiCamillo again expressed his concerns with the activity still being conducted on both 21-1 Longacre Lane and 18 Sill Lane. Ann Brown agreed to follow up with the property owners on both of these enforcements.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrators
| 
