OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2006
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Don Willis, Skip DiCamillo, Evan Griswold, and Martin Griswold. Also present were: Bob Doane, Attorney Michael Cronin, Tony Hendriks, Ann Brown, Gary Hendren, Steve McDonnelll and other members of the public.
Chairman Bechtel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 24, 2006
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Martin Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2006
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
MAXINE M. ILLINGSWORTH FOR PROPERTY AT 21 CONNECTICUT ROAD, CUTTING VINES, TRIMMING DEAD BRANCHES, CHIPPING VINES AND BRANCHES, CUTTING HIGH GRASS
The applicant was not present to discuss the application, however Ann Brown reported that this application was in response to a wetlands violation. The commission reviewed the application and agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, December 9, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.
TOWN OF OLD LYME FOR APPROVAL OF PHASE II OF THE TOWN WOODS RECREATION AREA
Tom Hammerberg of Volmer Associates presented Phase II of the application. He noted that Phase II would consist of two baseball fields. The commission reviewed and discussed the proposed plans. Mr. Hammerberg noted that the home plates of both the Little League Field and the Softball Field had been repositioned since the approval of Phase I.
Ann Brown asked how much fill would be brought into the site. Mr. Hammerberg stated it would be about 8, 000 cubic yards, which would be used to raise the fields to provide for better drainage.
Page 2 - Minutes
Bechtel asked if pesticides would be used on the fields. Mr. Hammerberg noted there was a management plan approved as part of Phase I and that would also be followed for Phase II. Bechtel also asked if other alternatives were looked at that would minimize the impact on the wetlands. Mr. Hammerberg stated the proposal was designed to minimize any impact to the vernal pool on the site.
Ann Brown asked if additional parking would be added to the site. Mr. Hammerberg pointed out on the plan where the additional 9 spaces would be located.
Evan Griswold expressed concern that the building was moved closer to the vernal pool.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, December 9th at 8:30 a.m.
PETER BERTINATO & SUSAN LAGRECA FOR PROPERTY AT 1 LONGACRE LANE, PAVE AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY
Mr. Bertinato was present to discuss the proposal. Ann Brown reported that this job was actually in progress when she contacted the homeowner to inform him he needed to submit an application prior to doing any further work at the site. The commission reviewed the plans and photographs of the site. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, December 9th at 9:15 a.m.
EMILY FOWLER – 15 LIBRARY LANE, MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING RESIDENCE, NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS IN THE REGULATED AREA
Stuart Fairbanks, of Angus McDonald & Gary Sharpe Associates presented the proposal. The commission reviewed the site plan and agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, December 9th at 10:00 a.m.
ROBERT L. DAY CO., INC. FOR PROPERTY AT 24 GRANDVIEW AVENUE, CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
Stuart Fairbanks of Angus McDonald & Gary Sharpe Associates presented the proposal. The commission reviewed the site plan and agreed to set a site walk for Saturday December 9th at 9:30 a.m.
ROBERT L. DAY CO., INC. FOR PROPERTY AT 32 GRANDVIEW AVENUE, CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
Stuart Fairbanks of Angus McDonald & Gary Sharpe Associates presented the proposal. The commission reviewed the site plan and agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, December 9th at 9:30 a.m.
CARYN ERICKSON FOR PROPERTY AT 11 LONGACRE LANE, CLEARING IN THE WETLANDS
Ann Brown reported the applicant had submitted an application as a result of a wetlands violation. The commission briefly discussed the proposal and agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, December 9th at 9:20 a.m.
Page 3 - Minutes
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENOK PEDERSEN FOR PROPERTY AT 1 BURR ROAD, 17 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS WITH TWO WETLANDS CROSSINGS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE REGULATED REVIEW AREA
Attorney Michael Cronin and Robert Doane, P.E. presented the proposal on behalf of the applicant, Enok Pedersen. Mr. Doane submitted plans revised through November 27, 2006 as a result of comments received from Mr. Metcalf and Wendy Goodfriend. He also noted he would be forwarding copies of the revised plans to both Mr. Metcalf and Wendy Goodfriend. Mr. Doane noted this proposal was for a seventeen-lot subdivision on 87 acres. He noted 13 acres of the parcel is wetlands,l 37 acres of the parcel are within 100’ of the wetlands and that 2.5 acres of construction activity will occur within 100’ of the wetlands. He stated the proposal includes two roadways and three wetland crossings and the area of development will include 3.5 acres for the roadway and 10 acres of lot
disturbance. He also stated there would be approximately 26.85 acres of open space and 20 acres included in a conservation easement. There are 6 vernal pools on the site. Mr. Doane noted that five of the vernal pools would be placed in a continuous open space and conservation easement area. The sixth vernal pool is also in open space area where no activity is proposed.
The three wetland incursions were discussed in detail. Blue Heron Drive at Station 7 + 50, will have 325 sq. ft. of fill. Osprey Lane at station 0.83 will have 1,425 sq. ft. and the common driveway to Lots #8, 9, 10 & 11 will have 450 sq. ft. of fill. The installation of the 60” diameter pipes at two of the wetland crossings was explained as was their ability to handle between 45-65 cfs.
Mr. Doane stated the watercourse that is receiving the runoff from the detention basin north to south and crosses the old Saunders Hill Road to two 24” diameter pipes. It then passes down and goes under Saunders Hollow Road to the 36” corrugated pipe. He also noted there is 150’ of drainage that goes toward Burr Road which will come down into an outlet basin onto the Pedersen Property adjacent to the town roadway.
Mr. DiCamillo asked if there would be an increase in flow off the property at the southern portion. Mr. Doane stated that with the detention basin and the recharge from the roofs they are very close to a net zero increase. He further stated the original proposal reviewed by Mr. Metcalf had about a five- percent increase in flow and with the addition of the detention basin that percentage would be re-reviewed by Mr. Metcalf.
Neil Blinderman asked Mr. Doane to point out the detention basin center on the map. Mr. Doane indicated this location on the map. Mr. Blinderman asked how there would be only a five- percent increase in flow with the amount of building on the site. Mr. Doane stated that calculation was done prior to the detention basin so now it is approaching zero percent. Mr. Blinderman asked who would maintain the mechanicals of the basin. Mr. Doane explained there would be no mechanicals, but the basin would be located in an easement in favor of the town therefore, the town would be responsible for the maintenance of the basin.
Steve Cinami asked if they would be standard hooded catch basins. Mr. Doane indicated that was correct. He indicated the paved road would be 22 ft. He further stated Wendy Goodfriend has asked the applicant to consider reducing the pavement. Mr. Doane indicated it might be possible to reduce the pavement to 20 ft. He stated the curb would be a modified cape-cod berm, which is more critter friendly than the standard bituminous concrete.
Page 4 - Minutes
Mr. Doane stated all of the lots with the exception of one touch the 100-ft. review area. He stated he has tried to mimic that line at most places with a conservation easement. He further stated a conservation easement on the individual property would be binding and the buyer would be aware of it and when the properties are monumented the conservation easement could be monumented as well. He stated this could be done by placing placards on the trees that indicates a “wetland no disturbance area”.
Steve Cinami asked Mr. Doane if he had done a calculation of the cut and fill areas. Mr. Doane indicated he did not have those figures.
Attorney Cronin asked Mr. Doane to verify that there were only three points on the map where there is actual activity proposed within the wetlands themselves. Mr. Doane indicated this was correct. Attorney Cronin asked Mr. Doane to explain those three points and exactly what the applicant is proposing. Mr. Doane stated the first area is where the roadway hits at about Station 7 + 50 and it touches the northeast corner of the wetlands and there is filling that incorporates 825 sq. ft and the reason for that activity is the alignment of the roadway. He stated this was caused as a result of moving the roadway away from the vernal pool area. Attorney Cronin stated this movement was at the suggestion of Wendy Goodfriend. Mr. Doane indicated that was correct.
Mr. Doane indicated the next crossing was located on Osprey Lane. He stated it was at Station 0 + 83 there would be a 60-ft long culvert. He stated they would be excavating the boulders and stream base for the culvert placement. The culvert will come in 4’ lengths of reinforced concrete 5’ diameter and the downstream piece is done first. The fill from the stream will be placed back on top of the pipe. The 60” diameter is not necessary for the hydraulics, but for the critters to be able to stay in the streambed.
The third crossing is the common driveway that is located on the narrowest portion of the stream and the identical spot where the woods road crosses the stream. He stated a 60” diameter reinforced concrete pipe is proposed approximately 30’ long. Mr. Griswold asked for the travel width of the driveway. Mr. Doane stated it was 14’ with 3’ shoulders on each side. Mr. Griswold asked what the height would be of the retaining walls. Mr. Doane indicated they would be about 7’ high. He further stated approximately 4’ of it would be exposed. Mr. Doane further indicated that they are proposing to do the utilities over the top of the pipe, as the utility companies are hesitant to put them under the pipe.
Attorney Cronin asked Mr. Doane if he had considered alternatives to these particular crossings. Mr. Doane stated he did consider utilizing an existing cart path but the net result was that a lot more wetlands would be impacted than currently proposed. He also noted he had chosen the narrowest points that fit with the topography suitable for the roadway. Attorney Cronin asked Mr. Doane if he felt this was the best alternative to the development of this property. Mr. Doane indicated that was correct.
Bechtel asked Mr. Doane what type of fire suppression is proposed. Mr. Doane indicated it was a town road up to the hammerhead, which will allow for a truck to come in and back up. He also stated that fire apparatus could access any of these driveways. Bechtel asked if any standpipes would be needed. Mr. Doane stated that if he did a standpipe a tank would need to be installed. He further stated he would be discussing this with the Fire Chief. He also noted that if a water tank were required the most logical area for installation would be at the intersection (Blue Heron Road and Osprey Lane).
Page 5 – Minutes
Evan Griswold asked if any other alternatives were explored for the largest intersection (station 0+83). Mr. Doane indicated that several options were explored with Mr. Snarski, Soil Scientist and he felt that by the time the footings were installed for a bridge including the amount of blasting that would be necessary, the pipe was the best option.
Steve Cinami asked the size of the detention basin. Mr. Doane stated the bottom would be 100 x 100 and the top would be 150 x 150. Mr. Cinami asked if it would be filled with water most of the time. Mr. Doane indicated it would not because it is designed to meter out the stormwater in about 12 hours.
Mr. McKee asked Mr. Doane if he felt there would problems establishing wells and sanitary systems on each lot. Mr. Doane stated numerous days of testing have been done at the site for the sanitary systems. He further stated this testing is done to establish an area that is suitable for designing and building a code compliant system. He stated he has found an area on each of these lots that demonstrates that a code compliant system can be built. Mr. McKee asked how the well position was established on each of these seventeen lots and what happens if water is not achieved. Mr. Doane stated the position shown on these drawings is based on the public health code. Mr. Doane stated the Town of Old Lyme has the well drilling done early in the process so potable water
must be established prior to the installation of the foundation.
Mrs. McKee expressed concern because her well is 500 ft deep with a very low return rate. She asked if there has been a survey of the general area as to where the groundwater is coming from and going to and whether it can support seventeen more houses. Mr. Doane stated he has not conducted a groundwater survey, however typically there is not a problem for a house with an average lot size of over 3 acres.
Nancy Mol asked Mr. Doane to show her the proposed house location of the lot adjacent to her property. Mr. Doane indicated on the map the location and also noted she was adjacent to the vernal pool, which would provide an additional buffer.
Martin Griswold asked if it was possible for any of the clusters of houses to be serviced by a community septic system. Mr. Doane stated the most suitable area for such a system is where the detention basin is located.
Attorney Cronin asked for clarification to a question that was asked to the commission. He reiterated that if any of the individual sites had wetlands on them, they would be back before the commission for a review prior to construction. He further stated the areas that are shown for the houses and the access to the houses are merely schematic and that this application does not actually ask this commission to grant permission for that plan. Mr. Doane indicated that was correct. Attorney Cronin stated there was one exception and it is the areas shown to be common driveways. He noted the applicant is requesting specific permission as part of this application for the locations of the common driveways shown on the plan. Mr. Doane indicated that was correct.
Attorney Cronin further stated that on these plans no house is located within the 100’ review area and with one minor exception all of the septic systems and the reserve areas are also located out of the 100’ review area. Mr. Doane indicated that was correct.
Neil Blinderman expressed concern that after the approval of the application there is pressure on the town to grant the necessary variances needed to the property owners who purchase the lots.
Barbara McKee asked what makes the water flow down to the basin? Mr. Doane indicated there is a storm drainage system in the roadway.
Page 6 - Minutes
Janet Bechtel asked how many catch basins would be installed. Mr. Doane stated it would be 12 on the 1,800-ft. road and 4 on the 850-ft. road.
Judy Breault asked what would happen at the entrance to Burr Road. Mr. Doane stated the proposal would come out on Burr Road about 50 to 60’ east of the existing Carlson driveway. There will be a set of catch basins at that point. She asked Mr. Doane to define what a catch basin is. Mr. Doane explained a catch basin is just a 3’ x 30’ concrete basin that has a grate on it that is located in the gutter of the roadway that collects the stormwater that is running down the roadway. She asked what the elevation change would be going easterly. Mr. Doane stated the elevation in front of the roadway is 207 and about 201 at the catch basin.
Steve Cinami asked if there were any anticipated line of sight improvements on Burr Road. Mr. Doane indicated there would not be because the existing sight line is good.
Janet Bechtel noted for the record that all of the non-wetland issues, such as road width, traffic, etc. would be addressed at the Planning Commission meeting on December 14, 2006.
Lee Fribill asked about the wildlife habitat. Mr. Griswold stated they will find new places to exist, however the homeowners in the association should encourage one another to not develop as much property as possible to allow the wildlife to continue to exist in the area.
Attorney Cronin stated he would submit a draft of the conservation easement for the commission to review. Evan Griswold suggested the Open Space Committee review the document. Mr. Doane stated the Open Space Committee has reviewed the plan.
Bechtel stated the public hearing would be continued until the next meeting on January 23, 2007. Attorney Cronin stated for the record the applicant does consent to an extension.
Bechtel read a letter into the record from Carolyn Clarke, which was received November 27, 2006, and she states her opposition to the subdivision. (Letter attached)
OLD BUSINESS
KEVIN MCMAHON – GRASSY HILL ROAD – TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE IN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Mr. Hendriks noted he had submitted building plans to Ann Brown. Mr. Hendriks indicated Ann Brown has asked if the barn could be pushed further away from the wetland boundary. He noted the property is located in an R-20 zone which has a side yard requirement of 20 feet. He stated the barn is located at 20.5 feet. He stated the location chosen was to allow the building to be parallel to the existing house. He noted Ann Brown also asked why the barn has to be so large. Mr. McMahon stated the house has no basement or attic. He noted he currently has a small shed on the property, (which is in conformance), that he will be removing if the garage is approved, therefore he needs a place for a couple of cars and a workshop. Mr. Hendriks noted for the record that Mr. McMahon is planning to
abandon the existing roadway in the rear of the property and allowing the area to re-vegetate to its natural state.
Mr. Griswold stated several years ago a permit was issued to extend the house and it was his impression at that time there was some stipulation that the property be left in its natural state and that has not been done.
Page 7 - Minutes
Mr. McMahon stated at that time his original plan was to make a square building, however, the corner of the building was removed in order to comply with the setback.
Janet Bechtel asked if the reason the garage could not be moved closer to the house is because the lot begins to narrow. Mr. Hendriks stated that as the garage is moved closer towards the road it also becomes closer to the property line. Bechtel stated the garage could be moved down towards the road and over closer to the house. Mr. Hendriks stated that then the garage would be behind the house. Bechtel stated it might angle a bit. Martin Griswold asked what the reason was for the 40-ft. depth of the garage. Mr. McMahaon stated it was to allow for a workshop and storage. Bechtel asked if it was a story and a half garage. Mr. McMaMahon indicated that was not correct. He stated the house is one and half stories. Bechtel stated a 22-ft. peak is often
considered a story and a half for a garage. Bechtel stated there would be 24’ x 40’ of upstairs storage space so it is not like there is not storage and technically a garage and workshop could still fit if the building was reduced by 10 feet. Mr. McMahaon stated it would be a truss roof so it will not allow for any storage. Bechtel stated if the concern is that the applicant does not have an attic or basement then the top of the garage could be used as storage. She further stated 40’ is a very long garage and it is a tight lot and it is up against the wetlands and if the garage cannot be moved forward then she felt a good compromise would be reduce 10’ off the rear of the garage.
Mr. Hendriks asked how this helps the wetlands or the setbacks. He indicated it does not because if 10’ is taken off the back of the garage and the distance are still 25’ away from the wetland. Mr. DiCamillo stated it would be further from the back wetland. Mr. Hendriks indicated that was correct. Mr. Hendriks asked Mr. McMahon if he would be willing to cut 8’ to 10’ off of the garage. Mr. McMahon stated he would be willing to redraw something that would be meet the guidelines.
Bechtel asked if the current house was 30 x 32. The applicant indicated it is actually a little larger because of the 10’ x 22’ addition.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application with the following stipulation that the garage be moved forward 10’ toward the road and that all the other stockpile areas remain the same and submission of a new plan for the file showing the new location of the garage. Don Willis seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Martin Griswold stated the plan indicates the shed will be removed or relocated. Mr. Hendriks indicated it has already been relocated and will be removed when the garage is constructed.
The motion failed. 2 in favor ( Don Willis & Evan Griswold) – 2 opposed (Martin Griswold, Skip DiCamillo)
Martin Griswold stated he was not comfortable approving a second building that is almost the same size of the house when the commission had a lot of trouble approving the prior application for the barn/house conversion. He stated he feels it is a very tight, wet spot and this building seems excessive.
Mr. Hendriks requested this application be tabled for sixty days to allow the applicant to resubmit a new plan. The applicant asked the commission for any recommendations in his new application that would be supported by all the members. Janet Bechtel stated when the commission walked the property at the time of the previous application we felt the applicant was pushing the envelope. She stated it is not a great piece of
Page 8 - Minutes
property for buildings. She stated it is very wet with a high water table as noted with the inability to have a basement. She stated that as sad as it is, not all properties can be all things to everybody. they due have
limitations. She stated the applicant would be lucky to get a one car garage but this property does not accommodate this proposed building.
Mr. McMahon asked if he agreed to a 24’ x 30’ garage, which is smaller and more conducive to the lay of the land would that be more agreeable to the commission.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application of Kevin McMahaon with the following changes:
A new plan is submitted to Ann Brown showing the garage at 24’ x 30’ and that it be moved 10’ forward as shown on this existing plan.
Martin Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
HAL EDMONDS – 31 SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD – TO MODIFY THE EXISTING WETLANDS PERMIT FOR ADDITIONS TO THE HOUSE AND GARAGE WITHIN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the plan as presented with modifications to the existing plan that was already approved. Don Willis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
IRVING A. FANNER – 9 MILL POND LAND – ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING HOUSE WITHIN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Ann Brown stated the applicant was requested to submit a modified plan because they changed the building design. The commission reviewed and discussed the application. Ann Brown noted Dave McCulloch asked that the commission urge the property owner to plant some shrubs around the pond edge.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of a 15’ vegetative or natural buffer along the northern boundary of the pond. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
FOUR PONDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC – 313-335 BOSTON POST ROAD WHICH IS OWNED BY RICHARD, ROBERT AND JEAN FOSTER, APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A 28 UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
Gary Hendren reviewed the modifications to the plans. Mr. Hendren noted they have moved the houses 10 ft closer to the driveway to address the comments made with regard to the houses proximity to the review areas. He stated the houses were not in the review area, but the proposal was to give each homeowner a 40-ft yard around each house. He stated they have defined on the plan a limit of landscaping, therefore the only places that would be impacted are the red lines shown on the plan and these areas would have to be approved by the Wetlands Commission. He also noted the covenant has been modified to re-emphasize the restrictions outside the defined landscaped area.
Mr. Griswold asked if these houses would be individual owned. Mr. Hendren stated they would be condominiums. The land is owned in common, but they have a defined area they have control over, but they do not own. Mr. Hendren also noted the conservation easement has been amended based on conversations with the Open Space Committee. Bechtel asked who is responsible for implementing the easement. Mr.
Page 9 - Mintes
Hendren stated for the first twelve months it is the developers, but when 90 percent of the homes are sold and after that it is the association. Bechtel asked what if the build out takes longer than twelve months and 90 percent of the homes are not sold and it takes three to four years?. Mr. Hendren stated the developers assume responsibility until that time.
Mr. Hendren stated from a wetlands standpoint there is only one crossing. Mr. Hendren also noted he had schematic drawings of the proposed homes. Bechtel noted that this was not a wetland issue. However she did note that back in April the applicant submitted a letter to the Planning Commission requesting a deferral of a number of items and she stated it is her understanding that has not yet been determined. She further stated the deferral included items pertaining to walls, fencing, storage areas etc. and questioned if any of these items fall within the 100’ review zone. Bechtel stated this commission’s job is to assess the impact to the wetlands of this plan. Therefore her concern is that any of those items might be handled at the rear of some of the homes
which would impact the review zone and if the Planning Commission defers those items, the commission won’t know about them or be able to assess their impact.
Mr. Hendren stated he asked for them to be deferred because the specific homes have not been designed at this time, which makes it impossible to design specific driveways and things around them. Bechtel stated she thought this was a Planned Community. Hendren stated this commission must approve anything in the red zone. Bechtel stated this is a Planned Residential Cluster Development, not a subdivision where individual lots are being sold, but there is not a plan because everyone gets to come in and do exactly what they want. Mr. Hendren stated this development does have characteristics of ownership of a PRCD and does follow all the rules of a PRCD but there are items that are far more generous than those rules. Therefore, they are taking advantage of the benefits of a PRCD such as
keeping the homes closer together, minimizing the impact on the trees and avoiding the individual septic systems but they are not constructing a stereotypical version of a PRCD. He further stated he is allowing people to custom design their own home within the guidelines. Bechtel asked what size homes are shown on the plan. Mr. Hendren stated they are 2,000 sq. ft. but that homes as large as 6,000 sq. ft. are allowed. Bechtel asked if the footprint for the garages is shown on the plan. Mr. Hendren indicated they are not. Bechtel stated this makes it really hard to assess impact. Mr. Hendren stated none of the footprints are shown within the 100-ft. review area. DiCamillo stated there are wetlands on the property and the regulations require each homeowner to appear before the commission for approval of that particular residence.
Mr. Hendren stated the approval they are requesting is for the infrastructure and the road knowing at some point this commission will have an opportunity to review each individual house. Bechtel asked if the community building design was finalized. Mr. Hendren indicated it was not. He stated the association would have input into the building and the amenities, however the size has been limited.
Mr. DiCamillo asked if there was going to be any restrictions on lawn fertilizers? Mr. Hendren stated it has been discussed and will be included in the language approved by counsel. Mr. Hendren indicated the information pertaining to that was sent to Attorney Jim Mattern. Bechtel stated she contacted Attorney Mattern who indicated he did not see anything in the documents that pertained to or limited the 40’ envelope around the homes. Hendren indicated it had been sent. Bechtel agreed to review the matter.
Steve McDonnell, WMC Consulting Engineers, stated Mr. Metcalf had commented on the plans several weeks ago and since that time the plans have been revised to address those comments. He stated he field walked the property again on 11/27 with Wendy Goodfriend and Tom Metcalf. He stated one of the issues is
Page 10 – Minutes
stormwater treatment and the state guidelines. He stated Ms. Goodfriend has recommended grass swales rather than the hydrodynamic separator. He stated in his discussion with Mr. Metcalf he is not sure that Metcalf agrees with that. McDonnell stated he is not convinced that the bio detention basins work long term in terms of maintenance and other issues associated with them. Mr. McDonnelll stated that Ms. Goodfriend made a comment that the hydrodynamic separator’s recent testing has shown they are also insufficient. Therefore, the applicant is asking the commission for their input. He stated the applicant is willing to do it either way, but the plans reflected the use of the hydrodynamic separator. He stated one of the down sides of going to a bio detention basin
is it is very large and while the footprint for a hydrodynamic separator is a small. Therefore, a fairly significant upland review area would be disturbed with the bio detention basin.
Evan Griswold asked for the road width and length. Mr. McDonnell stated it is 22 ft wide and 600 ft long. He stated the removal efficiency is very good with the hydrodynamic separator. Bechtel asked for the grade of the road. McDonnell indicated it was 12 percent. Mr. Hendren indicated this would be a private road.
Steve McDonnell stated he would like to address some of the issues raised with the community septic. Bechtel stated the DEP’s 6/2/06 letter expressed concern about the constructability of the system given the steep existing slopes. Mr. McDonnell stated his firm has designed more of these DEP systems than anyone in the state. He noted there are four or five of these systems throughout the state including the one at the Lyme/Old Lyme High School. He stated it is the exact same treatment process and the exact same constructive fill. He stated it is a membrane bio reactor. Basically it uses natural wastewater treatment plant technology, but after it is treated it goes through a membrane which will filter out anything in the wastewater. He stated the membranes are so
efficient at removing suspended solids and everything else that we are getting no bacteria and virus. He stated after traveling through the membranes, the wastewater goes through ultra violet disinfecting to assure that there is no bacteria and virus in the discharge. He stated that by the time the water comes out of the treatment plant it reaches drinking water standards. He stated it then goes into a subsurface disposal system. He also noted the water has to be in a 21-day treatment system before it reaches any point of concern. There is also further dilution when it is in the leaching system.
Bechtel asked if the system would have a further chance of break out because of the slope it is located on. Mr. McDonnelll stated the system is designed for a lot of different criteria. He stated one of them is hydraulics, which has to do with speed, the soil and the window it travels through. He stated that the grading under the system is only 3 percent grading.
The commission discussed whether rip-rap or jute mats should be used to stabilize the slope. Evan Griswold stated he would like to see a vegetative slope. Steve McDonnell stated that this had been discussed with Wendy Goodfriend as was addressed in her 11/28 memo to the commission. If this slope will be stabilized with stone, which is recommended by the DEP, then they could make the slope ratio steeper then the proposed 2:1. If indeed the slope were to be vegetated, then the slope should be flatter than 2:1.
Mr. DiCamillo asked what the maintenance would be on the system. Mr. McDonnell stated it is a treatment plant with requirements that an operator continually visit and monitor the site. He noted the maintenance plan would be part of the documents submitted as part of the application, and stated the DEP requires the system be over designed. Bechtel asked if the developer would be responsible for the system until the association is formed, and asked how the system works if only a couple of the houses are using it. Mr. McDonnell stated when there is little usage of the system it sometimes need to be fed. Similar to the LOL school district’s system during vacations.
Page 11 - Minutes
Mr. McDonnelll stated another change would be to install a larger pipe between the two ponds as suggested by Ms. Goodfriend. He stated this addresses the comment #7 in her letter of today. Bechtel also asked about the footing drains. Mr. McDonnelll stated he is not proposing to have roof leaders on the houses so rain will not be collected off of the roofs. The footing drains are required and some will go into dry wells. Bechtel asked if the plan she had was accurate because she had highlighted the limits of clearing. She stated that some of them show the drains at the wetland or within the review zone. Mr. McDonnelll stated he is proposing the installation of a shallow pipe that will work around trees and can be installed with a small machine.
Ann Brown asked when the plan is submitted where the footing drains designs have been modified would those then outlet inside the area that each homeowner owns. Mr. Hendren stated the plan has not been modified since the house locations were adjusted.
McDonnell asked the commission if they had any thoughts on the stormwater treatment. Bechtel stated she did review Ms. Goodfriend’s letter. She stated she has the tendency to prefer a bio detention basin system because it picks up a lot of things, but is concerned about the size of the system. Mr. Hendren stated in this situation the water is coming down the hill and something needs to be created to spread the water out. He stated he felt the topography of this parcel is not suited for that type of system. Bechtel stated that the homeowner’s association is going to have to fund a fair amount of technical stuff, i.e roads, a stormwater system and a community septic system, and all of this will need to be paid for out of dues. Therefore, Bechtel asked what
would be safer and easier to maintain. Bechtel suggested that Mr. Metcalf make the recommendation on this matter because of the amount of engineering involved. Evan Griswold stated that the vortechnic unit takes up less space and that is appealing because fewer disturbances are involved.
Bechtel asked Mr. Hendren asked if a management plan was submitted as noted in Ms. Goodfriend’s letter in Comment #8. Mr. Hendren stated that would be addressed in the land management plan included in the Public Offering Statement. Bechtel stated she thought Goodfriend’s comment #8 spoke to the buffer area concerns that were expressed by the commission when they walked the site on September 14, 2006 and to date the commission has not received any information on how this area will be handled. Mr. Hendren stated he would write a document that will address the buffer area and submit it to the commission. Bechtel stated she supports comment #8 and suggested it be addressed on the plan in some way. Ann Brown stated there will be homeowners who will want to use this
area in some way, therefore it needs to be controlled and if there are drains outleting into the 100 ft review zone and they are clogged does that mean people can clear to eliminate the problem.
Mr. Hendren stated there is an open space plan that shows the border and he has suggested incorporating the buffer language into this document. The commission reviewed the language. Bechtel asked if there was an overlay that showed where the 100 ft. review zone was in relation to the conservation easement. She was referred to site plan sheet OS-1. She then stated that if the boundary of the 100 ft. review zone was also the conservation easement or common open space boundary then incorporating that language in the easement document could be done in one complete package because all of the buffer zone would be under common openspace. However, if that is not the case then it doesn’t make sense to put it in the conservation document. Bechtel stated that currently the
buffer zone area is still left unmanaged and she maintains it needs to be managed.
Page 12 - Minutes
DiCamillo asked if the applicant was planning on using medallions as suggest by Ms. Goodfriend. Mr. Hendren indicated he was not planning on going around the entire sixty acres with medallions. Ann Brown asked if each lot would be monumented to show what area the property owner have control over. Mr. Hendren stated when the home is constructed the area will be flagged during that process. Ann Brown stated there would be encroachment if the area were not marked. Bechtel stated she wanted this marked in some
way that will allow Old Lyme to police this area generations to come. Mr. Hendren did not support this idea but agreed to look into this matter. Evan Griswold said people are continually disregarding items that have been stipulated in the permits.
Mr. Hendren asked the commission if they would be willing to issue a conditional approval at this time. Bechtel indicated that is not a practice of this commission. She also noted the plan is not there yet and there still are too many outstanding items that need to be addressed.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Ann Brown noted she had not printed an enforcement report. Brown stated she has not yet heard back from 7 Hillwood East. She noted she had sent a letter requesting a plan be submitted demonstrating the work that was done on the property and any new work proposed. Bechtel noted the neighbor to this property attended the meeting this evening.
APPROVAL OF 2007 MEETING SCHEDULE
Martin Griswold made a motion to approve the meeting schedule for 2007. Bechtel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
| 
