OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2007
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Don Willis, Mike Moran, Robb Linde, Skip DiCamillo, Evan Griswold.
Martin Griswold joined the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DATED JANUARY 23, 2007
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2007
Robb Linde recused himself. Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SHOW CAUSE HEARING DATED FEBRUARY 15, 2007
Robb Linde recused himself. Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PERMIT FOR LORD’S WOODS SUBDIVISION, ORIGINAL PERMIT APPROVED 3/23/04. THIS PERMIT WAS GRANTED A ONE YEAR EXTENSION ON 2/22/06.
Robb Linde recused himself.
Attorney Block stated he had spoken with Ann Brown earlier in the week and it was his understanding that this item (extension of the original permit) and the continued hearing on the Cease & Desist Order would be discussed at a Special Meeting to allow the time needed for Mr. Hendriks to submit revised plans and for Mr. Metcalf and Wendy Goodfriend to review them. Bechtel confirmed that the commission has received a letter from Mr. Metcalf stating he does expect revisions and will need to review them. Attorney Block indicated the plans would be submitted to Mr. Metcalf on Wednesday, February 28, 2007. Joan Bozek stated they are also interveners in this action and will also have experts who would like to have the opportunity to review the plans. Bozek asked since the plans have
not been filed yet, would the commission tconsider waiting two weeks to schedule the Special Meeting. Bechtel stated she would like to continue moving this along and if Mr. Metcalf can comply with March 7th or 8th and the commission members can make those dates she would like to meet next week, however if that is not possible then the meeting
Page 2
IWWC 2/27/07
can extend to the following week. Diana Atwood Johnson, Chairman of the Open Space Committee noted for the record that Open Space will be meeting on March 9, 2007 at which time they will be discussing this important matter. After much discussion the commission decided to hold the Special Meeting on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
Skip DiCamillo noted he had been contacted by Tom Degnan, Tree Warden, who has requested Mr. Hendriks be in touch with him this week. DiCamillo further noted the Tree Warden has ultimate control and responsibility for every tree on town property.
VIOLATIONS:
Robb Linde has been reseated for the remainder of the meeting.
7 HILLWOOD WEST, PROPERTY OF GREGORY AND SHEILA GIANGRANDE
Bechtel stated the commission walked the site on February 10, 2007. She further noted she received a phone call from Mr. Giangrande on February 15, 2007 stating the stone mason he hired to place the large stone steps is not comfortable, nor does he feel articulate enough, to appear before this commission and present a plan. Mr. Giangrande also stated he felt the commission members were rather abrupt at the site walk. He stated he was not sure how to proceed since he could not comply with the commission’s request to have the stone mason present at the next meeting. Bechtel stated he did obtain local legal counsel, but she advised him that she felt his money would be more wisely spent hiring a wetland scientist. She stated he has hired Don Fortunato to review the site. Bechtel
stated Mr. Giangrande indicated he would like to proceed with the installation of the stone stairs while the ground is still frozen and the equipment can be moved across the hillside to set them.
Don Fortunato, certified soil scientist, introduced himself and asked if the steps were the only issue at this meeting. If that is the case, the proposed steps are about a 130 feet away from the intermittent watercourse toward the back of the property. Therefore, it would seem that at least this is out of the upland review area. He stated that clearing has been done all the way to the back and at this time determining the extent of the wetland boundaries t is hard to tell because of the frozen ground and snow. Fortunato stated he recommended that in the back, where there was a lot of fill, to plant a conservation mix and place lawn up to that area and presented pictures of the conservation mix for the commission to review. He stated this mix is almost as good as wooded forest land for
controlling runoff and providing a good cover.
Bechtel asked Mr. Fortunato if Mr. Giangrande discussed with him revisiting the site when the ground was not frozen to do wetland flagging. Mr. Fortunato indicated he did not. He went on to state that according to existing wetlands maps no wetlands or watercourses show near this area. He stated the USDA soil map is not always accurate for these small areas but it usually shows something low and wet. Mr. Fortunato again confirmed that the steps are outside of the review zone.
Robb Linde asked if the ground was frozen how wetlands soils and footage can be determined. Mr. Fortunato stated you could tell from the surrounding ground and stated that the property to the right has an intermittent watercourse or low spot and that there is also a low spot on the left. He stated by looking at the next door neighbor's property it is very obvious where Giangrande's fill begins and stops and the natural ground. Mr. Linde stated you can see where the watercourse is but how does one know where the
wetland soils are on either side of the watercourse. Mr. Fortunato stated holes would have to be dug.
Page 3
IWWC 2/27/07
Bechtel stated the issue of fill came up because the applicant took great offense to everybody on the commission stating the area was obviously filled. The applicant stated it was stumps and debris that had been buried on the property and that he only brought in fill to help grade a steep embankment that goes down the south side of the property. Mr. Linde stated there would be maintenance required when the stumps rot and sink holes possibly occur on the property. Bechtel asked Don Fortunato if he had discussed reconnecting the watercourse. Fortunato stated the channel would have to be cut to reconnect the water. Bechtel asked if that had been discussed with the applicant. Fortunato stated the applicant wanted to know how that could be done.
Fortunato presented the USGS topo map that shows a brook that is not on this property. The commission reviewed the map. Robb Linde asked if there would be a benefit to putting shrubs in that areas as well as the conservation mix. Fortunato stated that would be fine and would also give it a jumpstart. Linde stated it would be beneficial to the commission to know what is planted. Bechtel asked if the wood chips would need to be removed from the area prior to planting. Fortunato stated it depends on how thick the chips are in the area.
Bechtel asked if they wanted to act on the steps and then follow up with a replanting plan. Evan Griswold stated it would be helpful to have a survey map to scale with the wetland and watercourses shown on the plan. Linde stated he was disappointed that nearly a month after meeting with the applicant there was no plan and no urgency to start a plan to remediate the damage that was done. Linde stated that given the fact there is a violation at the site, this is grounds for denying the application. He further stated he did not see how the commission would have any leverage to get this applicant to do any work to remediate once the steps are permitted. McCulloch stated the commission would still have recourse. Bechtel stated the applicant has expressed a willingness to work with the
Commission. Linde remarked that the applicant stated a willingness, but he has not shown that. Bechtel stated the commission has an applicant who she believes is somewhat willing to work with the commission to do restoration. Therefore, what steps does the commission want to take. Linde stated the commission could approve the steps and require the applicant to post a bond in an amount sufficient enough to encourage the applicant to comply. Brown asked if the commission required a bond and the applicant failed to do the work would the commission then use the bond to do a survey and replanting plan. Linde stated the point is that this commission is responsible for protecting the wetlands. Ann Brown questioned if a bond was the leverage the commission would want and would it follow through the court system to gain access to the property. Brown stated her feeling is that the applicant is willing and ready to improve the site and a
soil scientist has been hired, who is qualified to do the work. Therefore she wondered if the bond was necessary. Bechtel stated the commission requested a plan from the stone mason on the site walk but did not ask for a restoration plan. Bechtel stated she agreed with Brown that a bond on private property is difficult. Fortunato stated he felt the applicant was confused as to what was being requested but wanted to be cooperative. DiCamillo asked Fortunato if the applicant has hired him to develop a process for the site. Fortunato indicated that was correct.
Bechtel stated she felt the steps were a minor issue; the commission should request a survey of the property, the property should be flagged by a wetland scientist and a restoration plan for the property should be presented, but she felt they did not need to incorporated the hillside with the steps and compound the situation. DiCamillo asked if the commission could approve the steps and require a restoration plan at the next meeting. Bechtel stated that might not be possible considering the time frame. Fortunato recommended the steps be done prior to April. Brown asked if the commission really needed an A-2 survey. Griswold stated the commission needed some way of measuring the distances, the wetland soils delineated and some accurate information. Brown stated she thought there may be a
subdivision map on file in Town Hall.
Page 4
IWWC 2/27/07
Bechtel asked the commission to make a determination as to whether the steps were in their jurisdiction. The next item would be to draft a letter to the applicant and ask Mr. Fortunato to be back in touch with the client about going forward with his survey and restoration plan to be presented at our April 24, 2007 meeting.
Dave McCulloch made a motion that the steps are not within the jurisdiction of this commission. Don Willis seconded the motion.
Discussion: Linde stated that this commission does not really know where the wetland boundary is based on the amount of fill brought into the site. Willis stated the commission does not know, but there is a wetlands scientist at the meeting who does know. It was agreed that silt fencing and hay bales, if necessary, be installed below the work are to contain any potential erosion/runoff resulting from the installation work.
In favor: McCulloch, Moran, Willis, M. Griswold, DiCamillo. Opposed: Linde
Abstained: Evan Griswold and Bechtel
MAXINE M. ILLINGSWORTH – 21 CONNECTICUT ROAD – CUTTING VINES, TRIMMING DEAD BRANCHES, CHIPPING VINES AND BRANCHES, CUTTING HIGH GRASS
Brown stated she has heard nothing from the applicant. Brown also noted at the last meeting she indicated she would send a notice to the property owners at 25 Connecticut Road, however that did not happen. Brown indicated she would do that prior to the next meeting.
The commission agreed to send a Cease & Desist order to each of the property owners as discussed on Connecticut Road.
CUTTING AND CLEARING: 29 WHIPPOORWILL ROAD – PROPERTY OF DELORES GREEN
Bechtel stated it was her understanding that nothing further was happening at the site. Ann Brown stated no further clearing will be done. Brown stated Ms. Green came to the office and has retained an engineer. Brown noted her application was not yet complete and she was still negotiating with her neighbor about the shared driveway. Brown also noted the applicant is very willing to comply.
CARYN ERICKSON – 11 LONGACRE LANE – REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANTS, SELECTIVE TREE CUTTING, MOVING LARGE ROCKS TO REBUILD ROCK WALL, REMOVAL OF ROTTING DEBRIS AND STUMPS, REMOVAL OF SMALLER TREES LEAVING LARGER, MATURE TREES ALONE
Skip DiCamillo recused himself from the application.
Caryn Erickson stated she did not have a plan, and she only received the request from the commission to have a plan last Thursday. She noted Mr. Snarksi, will be preparing the plan. She further stated she is willing to do whatever needs to be done. She also noted for the record that she was unaware of the infringement upon the wetlands. Bechtel noted that the commission has a statement to the contrary indicating Ms. Erikson was aware she needed a permit to do any work. Erickson indicated that was not correct. She also noted that the information received by the commission was from her soon to be ex-
Page 5
IWWC 2/27/07
husband. Erickson stated Mr. Diebolt was well aware of the work done on the property in 2004 and 2005 and never once told her she was in violation. She also noted when the initial approval was granted it was
prior to her having met her husband, therefore she was unaware of what the rules were in town. Bechtel asked if the house was currently on the market. Erickson indicated that was correct. Bechtel stated she had been in touch with counsel pertaining to this application and reported that an order will be recorded on the land deeds so that anyone purchasing the property will be aware of the present violation and that this commission is seeking a restoration plan. Erickson requested that a bond not be requested or required because she has no access to financial resources and has not for over a year. Bechtel asked how she planned on getting a restoration plan. Erickson stated she was borrowing money from her parents to live and they would also be paying for the plan. Erickson
apologized once again, as she did on the site walk, stating she was completely unaware of any violations. She also stated she was willing to do what was required to correct the situation. Bechtel stated for the record "when you and your husband came before this commission to build the house there were limits of clearing placed on the wetlands permit that you were granted and they clearly indicated that any clearing outside of the driveway was beyond the limits of clearing". Bechtel stated, "you and your husband also came back before this commission to move the driveway and that application was withdrawn because you did not like how the questions were answered at that point in time". Bechtel stated she found it hard to believe that Erickson was unaware of the wetland violation. Erickson stated construction in the setback area she was aware of, however tree clearing and brush clearing she was not aware of and was told the
exact opposite by her soon to be ex-husband. Again, she apologized that her personal situation is affecting this situation. Bechtel stated the order and filing will be recorded on the land records and both Erickson and her husband would be receiving certified copies. Bechtel asked the commission if they wanted to bond the restoration work on the property? Bechtel also asked Erickson when she planned on having a full restoration plan for this commission and when the work would be executed. Erickson stated as soon as Mr. Snarski is able to come and visit the property and prepare a plan. Linde asked if an appointment has been scheduled. Erickson stated she was trying to get him as soon as possible. Linde asked if it was reasonable to expect a plan by the next meeting. Griswold stated the planting plan could not be implemented at this time of year. Bechtel stated the commission does not need flagging or planting at this point, just a restoration plan.
Linde asked for some factual information regarding violations. He noted because he was not familiar with the original permit what was the difference between Item 4 and Item 5 on the agenda. Brown stated Item 4 actually had brush and small trees cut down and the ground is not disturbed, however that is where the driveway will actually go so there eventually will be ground disturbance. Brown noted she received a complaint and contacted the applicant to stop her prior to doing any further work. For Item 5 there was a permit approval in place and not only were trees and brush cut, but grass was planted and rocks and stones moved. Additionally, Item 4 if left alone would probably return to its naturally state, whereas Item 5 would require some help to return to its natural state.
Erickson noted she has done some replanting in the area by the wetlands. Griswold noted the commission needed to be sure that whatever was planted was appropriate for that area. The commission requested that Erickson contact Snarksi and relay their concerns and see if he could have a planting plan for the next meeting. Linde asked how the filing on the records would impact the title to the home. Bechtel stated it was simply a notification to potential buyers that a wetlands violation existed on this property. This does not hamper the title in any way.
Linde made a motion that the notice be filed on the land records and that the applicant be given one month to prepare a plan and if a plan does not come before the commission within a month, that a bond be requested. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 6
IWWC 2/27/07
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENOK PEDERSEN – PROPERTY 1 BURR ROAD
Bob Doane, the applicant's engineer began a lengthy and detailed discussion about on site, individual lot, stormwater retention and infiltration. Drainage calculations, cfs', culvert size, lot density and soils were reviewed. Tom Metcalf 's letter dated February 24, 2007 and Wendy Goodfriend's letter of February 26, 2007 stated that individual lot stormwater retention was counter-intuitive to handling runoff from this site. The commission concurred with their consultants. After further discussion of possible options, the applicant chose to withdraw this current application. New applications will be received in conjunction with the O’Neill driveway culvert and an upgrade of the town’s culvert on Saunders Hollow Road.
The applicant asked if the Commission would be willing to waive the application fees associated with the resubmission of the subdivision plans. Bechtel stated she thought the commission could waive the application fee as long as the out-of-pocket expenses for ongoing site plan reviews by the Town's consultants were paid for by the applicant. This did not apply to the new application fees regarding the O'Neill driveway culvert and the town's culvert upgrade on Saunders Hollow Rd.
OLD BUSINESS
MATTHEW GRISWOLD – 7 OSPREY ROAD – ADDITION TO THE HOUSE
Evan Griswold recused himself.
Bechtel stated the commission did not appear to have any concerns when they walked the site. She stated she told Ann Brown to notify the applicant it was not necessary for him to attend the meeting this evening.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
HENRY AND SUSAN SKELSEY – 22-1 EDGE LEA ROAD - ADDITION
Bechtel noted when the commission walked the site no concerns were raised and the applicant was told they did not need to attend the meeting this evening.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
FOUR PONDS DEVELOPMENT, LLC – 313-335 BOSTON POST ROAD
Gary Hendren addressed comments from both Mr. Metcalf and Wendy Goodfriend.
Bechtel asked Mr. Hendren where, in the revised covenants dated February 20, 2007, were the lawn, landscaping and meadow maintenance plan details. Mr. Hendren indicated they were not there. Bechtel confirmed that they have not been submitted to this commission for review. Mr. Hendren indicated that was correct. Mr. Hendren stated he submitted to the commission an Alternate Conceptual Site Plan. Bechtel
Page 7
IWWC 2/27/07
stated there is a lot of material here on the table tonight therefore she asked Mr. Hendren if he had something to present to this commission tonight prior to the commission discussing this application amongst themselves
and determining which way we will vote because we are out of time. Mr. Hendren stated he would like to make some general comments prior to turning it over to his engineer. Bechtel instructed him to proceed.
Hendren stated he responded to all of the comments from the last meeting in terms of clarification. He stated at each home site location he has removed the house symbol and added a building area on each site. He noted each site is slightly different based on the very specific restrictions such as 10’ away from the 100’ review area and 30’ street setback line as well as 40’ from house to house. He also noted the covenants define the 100’ setback with the common open space easement.
Steve McDonnell, Engineer for the applicant, stated there are quite a few comments they have responded to from both Tom Metcalf and Wendy Goodfriend. Mr. McDonnell stated that not every house would require a foundation drain. He stated some of the drains drain directly into catch basins and then into a drainage basin. He stated there have been very conservative clearing limits placed on the plan. Mr. McDonnell stated the Conservation Commission wanted to see a stormwater test site at the outlet of the pond and this has been identified. He stated as a result of this request concerns have been raised; he noted it was requested so they complied. He stated he was not a big proponent of the placards that are placed on the trees, however they are trying to come up with something a
little more permanent and subtle. Mr. Hendren indicated he has agreed to do the placards. He stated they have shown on the plan, in the green area, a temporary sedimentation basin which he does not feel is needed because there is adequate sedimentation and erosion control but it has been provided if needed. Linde stated he thought Mr. Metcalf’s concerns were "if it needed to be put in": "what was planned to be put in was not adequate". McDonnell stated that Metcalf did not like the location because of the steep slope but it is a fairly sizeable area. Linde asked about a dam permit. McDonnell indicated a dam permit would not be required because it does not contain enough volume. Linde stated he did not understand the difference between the common use open space and the conservation easement. The easement document allows different levels of activities and the conservation area allows limited
activities whereas in the common space there are walking trails, etc. Bechtel asked Mr. Hendren to verify what was the last piece of documentation submitted on common open space. Mr. Hendren indicated it was the February 7, 2007 document. Bechtel stated there are "restricted acts" in the documentation that allows for modification by the developer or the homeowners association with the approval of the Inland/Wetlands Commission. Bechtel reviewed the document with the commission. She stated one of the items which she had a major questions on was outlined under the heading Soil and Water. It is indicated in the easement document that such activities as walking trails or horseback riding trails shall not be prohibited by this easement. Bechtel stated she recalled stating at one of the earlier meetings that if the applicant was serious about considering a horse stable on top of the community septic system than this commission
would want to see a waste treatment plan and that she did not feel that a stable on the top of the hill up gradient of the ponds was necessarily the best use. Bechtel stated she feels that the open space easement documentation has a lot of disclaimers in it but noted this is for the Open Space Committee to determine.
McCulloch stated the Open Space Committee will review the document but then they will come back to this commission for our opinion. Hendren stated this document was taken from another easement that was provided to us by the Open Space Committee. He further stated he would be glad to modify the document given some direction from this committee. Bechtel asked if the document was submitted to counsel. Hendren stated it was submitted a long time ago. Hendren also noted the Open Space committee has reviewed this document and did not have any objections. Diana Attwood, Chairperson, Open Space Committee stated she only received a copy of this current document Friday and it has changed significantly
Page 8
IWWC 2/27/07
in substance because the items that have been discussed of concern are different than the document that was provided previously to the committee. She also noted that typically in easements there are no exceptions.
She further stated this document would be discussed at the next Open Space Committee meeting. Linde asked for the record when the exceptions were put into the document. Mr. Hendren stated the exceptions were added later to the document because after discussing the hiking trails it was amended to not preclude them. Linde again asked when the document was amended. Bechtel stated one revised conservation open space easement that came through was dated December 8, 2006 and the next one was dated February 7, 2007. McCulloch again expressed concern over who would be responsible for the enforcement of the document. Atwood stated the easement will be granted to the town, however if there was a violation of the easement then the zoning commission or its successor would deal with the remediation.
Mr. McDonnell addressed Mr. Metcalf’s concern, Item 12 in his letter of February 18, 2007. Mr. McDonnell noted he has incorporated the temporary sedimentation basin into the design of the project. Linde stated he has heard that the vortechnic units are not as effective as they once thought they were. Mr. McDonnell stated this system takes this into account. Mr. McDonnell stated he thought after long discussions with this commission it was their preference to stay with the vortechnics unit over the bio-detention basin. He stated he was also fairly confident that they achieved a high level of treatment.
Mr. McDonnell stated the chain link fence has been changed to more decorative type fencing. He also noted fencing is required because of the depth of the pond and is a safety issue.
Mr. McDonnell stated he was aware that the commission had some concerns about the treatment system itself and the operation of the system. Bechtel asked if there were any comments from the most recent meeting with the WPCA. Mr. McDonnell stated not concerning the treatment system. Mr. McDonnell stated his meeting with the WPCA had more to do with the dollar amounts of the system and the protection to the town. Bechtel asked if the WPCA would be required to hold a public hearing on the agreement with the developer. Counsel for the applicant noted he was not aware of any requirements and he did not see anything in the regulations. He also noted the WPCA was just waiting for the dollar amount to be presented.
Mr. McDonnell stated the DEP has done an extensive study on the Xenon Brand of Treatment system that are operational in the state and they have operated well. He also noted they are not relying on the treatment plant entirely for nitrogen removal. He said the treatment plant achieves a very high level of nitrogen removal because after it goes through the treatment facility there is a very large leaching system and very large drainage area that treats the nitrogen before it can reach any point of concern. He stated all of the systems in the state are meeting the ground water requirements. Mr. McCulloch asked about the bonding. Mr. Hendren stated that is the commission decision. He noted the applicant would submit a bond estimate for the commission to review for approval.
Mr. McDonnell addressed Ms. Goodfriend’s comments. He stated one of her comments was referring to the NRCS soil mapping available on-line. He stated the applicant has had a certified soil scientist actually identify the soils and that map has been provided, as part of the application, which they feel, is more accurate than the on-line mapping. McDonnell stated since Ms. Goodfriend requested this mapping, it has been provided. He stated the tree markers will be placed on the site as requested. He stated the stockpile areas have been placed in areas that are not heavily vegetated with trees and outside of the 100’ review area. Mr. Hendren stated Ms. Goodfriend requested a wetland maintenance plan, which has not been provided, however he would accept that as a condition
of approval.
Mr. McDonnell stated he has received a letter from the DEP with a sort of conceptual approval. Following this, plans and specifications are submitted and the actual permit application. He stated then the DEP gives
Page 9
IWWC 2/27/07
the applicant a Notice of Tentative Determination which is published in the newspaper and then there is a 30 day public comment period and then final plans are submitted. The DEP then gives final approval to build the system and after building the system an as-built is provided to the DEP and the actual permit to discharge is issued to the developer.
Linde stated he noticed on the top page of the plan it states that all areas of disturbance will be covered with a minimum of 4” of topsoil and seeded with grass. Linde asked if this would happen in those areas where wetlands are crossed. McDonnell stated the only grass that crosses the wetlands would be next to the shoulders. McDonnell stated he could use a wildflower mix around the wetland areas.
Bechtel stated she was pleased the applicant was willing to place Ms. Goodfriend’s and Mr. Metcalf’s notes on the plan. She further noted this commission must act on this application this evening. She also noted as a result of this timeframe the commission has a lot of paper work to look at in a very short period, which puts the commission in a difficult position. Bechtel stated, in addition to her concern of reviewing the plan to be sure that the consultants comments have been addressed, she has a few concerns of her own. She stated one of her biggest concern is the way this plan has ultimately evolved through this commission. She stated the applicant specifically came here for a Wetlands Commission review and it has not gone through the proper channels. She stated looking
at the road as it goes through the wetlands crossing, the question was could it be made smaller. Bechtel stated the applicant went to the Fire Department and they said they needed a wider road. She stated the question of the status of Nicoja Way has still not been answered. She noted the Fire Department requested this width because it is a dead end. Bechtel stated she feels the commission is being forced to look at a plan to determine wetland impact when all of the information that would totally impact this plan has not been reviewed. Therefore, Bechtel asked why these details have not been sorted out so the commission has a better idea of the impact to this site.
The applicant stated there was a question of ownership of Nicoja Way. He stated this road would be improved at part of the project. He stated the developer has a right to do that. He also noted the Fire Department was aware that the road would be routed through there. Bechtel stated it was her understanding that the road was not going through. Hendren stated a narrow road was proposed, but the Fire Department has not responded to the applicant. He stated the Fire Marshal, Dave Roberge, has insisted on two lanes. Linde asked since there is access to the public parcel through Nicoja Way why is there a need for a crossing. Linde stated it can be accessed in the front by Old Stagecoach Road. Bechtel stated there needs to be a crossing because the sewer pipes will go
through. Linde stated the installation of the sewer pipes is a one-time thing. Bechtel also stated the property owners need to get to the clubhouse and they will not want to drive down the Boston Post Road every time. The applicant stated it is also required for emergency access. Bechtel asked if the Fire Marshal definitely understood there was access coming in both directions? Hendren, stated initially he did not understand there was any question about the 14 ft road. Brown stated she is assuming the applicant did not really get comments from the Fire Department. She stated the comments received were from Dave Roberge, Fire Marshall. She stated these two departments do not always communicate. Hendren stated it has been difficult to get in contact with the Fire Chief. Hendren stated that if the commission can get the road narrowed down they would be glad to comply. McDonnell stated one of the
concerns he has as an engineer is the liability issue. He stated that typically everything is designed to standards and when you begin diverting from those standards people get nervous. Bechtel asked since it was a private road would that effect the liability issues. McDonnell indicated it did not. Hendren stated the town road standards do not differentiate between private and public.
Skip DiCamillo asked what materials would be used to construct the walking trails around the pond. Hendren stated depending on the exact location it will either be crushed stone, wood chips or gravel.
Page 10
IWWC 2/27/07
Bechtel stated she felt the commission should deny this application for lack of sufficient information, with no prejudice, and this will give the consultants and commission members a chance to review the plan. She stated the commission has been presented with too much new information and it is a very large project. She also stated the commission needed the opportunity to discuss what conditions they might put on the plan if it was given an approval. Linde added the application lacked sufficient information regarding, but not limited to, the easement and reviews from the engineers regarding sediment trap 2, sediment trap 1 and sizing calculations for these two sediment basins.
Brown stated she felt it would be very helpful if this application came back as a preliminary application before another application is submitted. She stated this would give the commission an opportunity to discuss some of this information before a finalized plan is presented.
Evan Griswold stated he felt the general overall concept and layout seemed to be headed in the right direction from the standpoint of what this town should be looking for. He stated that land in town is going to continue to be subdivided, therefore this plan, in his estimation, begins to approach the kind of subdivision that should be promoted. He noted there is a lot of information and details but he thought the commission should be encouraging all the developers to begin to look at property more like this than the typical subdivision. Therefore, he stated he did not want to discourage developers from taking this type of approach.
Bechtel stated the commission is forced to go one way or another. She stated she was unclear if anyone on the commission at this time could properly condition this application tonight with the amount of outstanding information. She stated this action would not be a denial of the plan but a denial due to insufficient information, without prejudice, until the items are resolved.
Linde asked if the commission could accept the application at the Special Meeting. Brown stated it can be submitted any time but it should be accepted at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Linde stated he just wanted to be accommodating if possible.
The attorney for the applicant, Sal Diglio, asked if the commission was allowed to grant only one extension. Brown stated you are allowed 65 days from the date of receipt and that can be extended, with the applicant’s permission another 65 days. Brown stated that today was 127 days. The applicant asked if the commission would prefer if they withdrew the application: the commission stated they would prefer that process. Hendren questioned the timing. The commission reviewed the timeframe.
Bechtel confirmed for the record that when the applicant withdrew his initial application at the October 24, 2006 meeting the commission agreed to accept the new application at their next regular scheduled meeting on November 28, 2006, therefore there is still one month to go. The applicant concurred with this timeframe. This item will be discussed at the next regular meeting on March 27, 2007. Bechtel made a motion to clarify the 10/24/06 minutes to reflect that the new application was being received at the 11/28/06 meeting. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves, Land Use Administrator
| 
