OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
MARCH 14, 2007
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Skip DiCamillo, Dave McCulloch, Martin Griswold and Mike Moran. Also present were: Ann Brown, Tom Metcalf, Atty. Jim Mattern, Atty. Mark Block, Tony Hendriks, Don Fortunato, John Alexander, Allen Hull, Diana Atwood Johnson, Intervenors Robb Linde and Joan Bozek.
LORDS WOODS SUBDIVISION
Bechtel stated the first order of business would be to officially clarify for the record that our intervenors, Joan Bozek and Robb Linde, were indeed intervenors.
Attorney Block stated for the record on behalf of the applicant, Dr. Awwa, that he sent a letter to the commission concerning the status of the intervenors and that he does agree to admit them, but objects to that status.
Attorney Mattern stated he had reviewed this matter in accordance with the statutes regarding intervenors. Mattern stated the commission may recall that the original pleadings, filed by the two proposed intervenors, were not under oath and they kept filing the same type of application several times. He noted they have now filed the appropriate, "verified", under oath pleading, and as such they would be entitled to be intervenors. Attorney Mattern noted that the statute does state that the filing is to be done 5 days prior to the commencement of the hearing, but the statute also provides discretion to the commission to allow a late intervenor to come into play in the event there has been a good faith effort made to become an intervenor. He further stated, given the fact that these two
individuals attempted, although unsuccessfully, to become interven0rs, until just lately, he would recommend that they be permitted to be intervenors of record.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to accept Robb Linde and Joan Bozek as intervenors. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Bechtel stated she would like to discuss the exceeded limits of clearing. She stated the applicant has submitted a separate landscape plan. She noted the Open Space Committee, at their meeting on 3/9/07, discussed this plan. Bechtel also noted the intervenor’s soil scientist, Richard Snarksi, has submitted information. Snarski has made recommendations with regard to plantings. Bechtel stated in reviewing the landscape plan she had a couple of recommendations. She stated the plan refers to the coordination of plantings with the 'wetland officer'; she feels it should be coordinated with an 'open space designated representative'. She stated there is an area on the plan where there is a small wetland towards the end of the cul-de-sac and the northern most part of
that area also had excess clearing on it, The plan indicates that this area is to be stumped and hydro-seeded; she felt since it was located at the northern most tip of the wetlands, the stumps should be cut flush and the area should be planted with the New England Conservation Mix. She noted the other issue was the planting of (14) fourteen, 2” caliper, street trees (sugar maples) and she felt this was not a Inland/Wetland issue and should be deferred to the Conservation Commission and the Planning Commission to review when the road was finally completed. She also suggested that this
Page 2 – Show Cause Meeting Minutes
IWWC - 3/14/07
Commission support the Open Space Committee’s recommendations outlined in a memo dated March 6, 2007. Based on these issues, Bechtel asked if a motion could be made to table this item until a further time when the Open Space Committee could make a recommendation to this commission.
Diana Atwood Johnson, Chairman of the Open Space Committee, stated she invited Mr. Hendriks to meet with the committee at their monthly meeting. She stated it became apparent that Mr. Hendriks had not reviewed the letter that was submitted at the last Show Cause Hearing, therefore he had no response regarding their requests. She noted Mr. Hendriks requested that the Open Space issues be kept separate from other issues.
Attorney Block stated if the exceeded limits of clearing are separate in part from the Cease & Desist Order then they were prepared to continue to work with the Open Space Committee. He further stated they are prepared this evening to address all of the Open Space issue.
Tony Hendriks stated he did meet with the Open Space Committee. He stated as a result of that meeting, he has a field crew at the site surveying all the stumps that were cut, both within the allowable work areas and also stumps that were located outside that area. He also noted the Open Space Committee only recently came into ownership of this parcel. Bechtel stated that the commission has new input from Mr. Snarski and there needs to be more coordination done with the Open Space Committee. Therefore she requested a motion be made to table this item. Mr. Fortunato pointed out to the commission that additional changes have been incorporated into the Landscape Plan revised to March 9, 2007.
Joan Bozek stated that there may be items that come up over the course of this hearing that may impact how the commission chooses to vote overall on this plan, therefore she requested the commission wait to vote until the end of their discussion on whether or not to table this issue on the exceeded limits of clearing.
Attorney Mattern stated the Cease & Desist Order that was issued did include a sentence regarding the over clearing of the property and because the commission is acting pursuant to a statutory timeframe, a decision has to be made on any issue in the Cease & Desist Order within 10 days of the completion of the hearing. Therefore, if the commission is going to table that aspect it can only be tabled for 10 days, otherwise it becomes a moot matter. Mattern further explained that if this is a concern to the commission, (about the Cease & Desist Order applying to the over stripping of the land) then if it is tabled, it is pretty much taken out of the order at the present time.
Robb Linde asked if the commission was suggesting that the remediation plan be tabled until a later date, or whether we were suggesting that the decision of whether or not the over clearing represents a violation, is to be tabled. Bechtel stated it was the remediation plan.
Skip DiCamillo stated that if tabling this item takes it out of the overall Cease & Desist he does not support that action. Martin Griswold concurred with Mr. DiCamillo. Mr. Metcalf stated from a practical matter restoration will have to be done no matter what, therefore if it is not included in the Cease & Desist, and if it is resolved a month or two from now it still has to be done as part of the overall plan.
Attorney Mattern stated the commission can sustain the Cease & Desist Order as it is presently issued, or modify the Cease & Desist Order based upon the condition that a properly approved remediation plan is provided and that would uphold the Cease & Desist Order as modified.
Page 3 – Show Cause Meeting Minutes
IWWC - 3/14/07
Diana Atwood Johnson stated she felt that all of this should be part of the discussion of the Cease & Desist Order and that in fact what the Open Space Committee requests be a requirement of any relief from the Cease & Desist Order.
John Alexander stated the term that is being used is landscaping and remediation and he feels this is deforestation and the tree expert should be examining reforestation to create the canopy that protects the wetlands at the earliest possible time.
Attorney Block stated the applicant takes very seriously the encroachment that occurred and it is their intention to work with the open space committee and this commission to arrive at an agreeable and acceptable plan to remedy the condition that has been created.
Mr. Hendriks presented the revised plans. He stated since the last meeting he met with the Chairman, Ann Brown and Mr. Metcalf to address the concerns. Mr. Hendriks stated the first two plans (Demonstration Plan A & B) represent an area where there was a deviation from the existing contours from what the aerials showed in the field. He stated once road construction began they found there was a problem in this area (which is highlighted in yellow). Hendriks stated Ann Brown asked for plans that showed this area more clearly and Mr. Metcalf asked for plans that would be used by the contractor to construct the road. Hendriks stated the grading, the vertical changes, and cross sections have been done based on the new field topography, which provided revised numbers from one month
ago. Hendriks stated the A & B drawings are based upon the approved subdivision but show the revised contours. McCulloch asked what the revised contours were based on? Hendriks stated the revised contours were based on a field survey.
Robb Linde asked Mr. Hendriks if he was stating that the plan that was submitted last month was also inaccurate. Mr. Hendriks indicated it was not. He stated there were some graphic changes that Mr. Metcalf asked him to review and change in the cross sections. He also stated the scales were marked incorrectly. Mr. Metcalf confirmed there were some graphic, notational and scale errors. McCulloch stated that when the commission receives a set of plans for an approved subdivision and there is topography mapped on them and the center line of the road and the stations are shown, he had presumed that was a surveyed line, but now he has concluded that the line is not surveyed, but it is drawn in on a map. McCulloch said otherwise, when you ran that line over the topography you would have
determined elevations to plot that line correctly. McCulloch then asked, when the commission receives a drawing for a subdivision, is that line not surveyed in? Or is it a rough estimate of where the centerline is made? Hendriks stated that most engineering firms along the shoreline rely on the aerial photography to do their initial design work. Hendriks stated the information should be checked. He stated Mr. Hull would agree that the information is checked just prior to construction work.
Bechtel asked Mr. Metcalf if he would be willing to explain the plans to this commission because she felt he had the ability to explain them in a very concise manner. She further stated she thought it would be beneficial to have the town’s consulting engineer review the applicant's plans with the commission.
Mr. Metcalf stated the commission has received a copy of his letter dated March 10, 2007. He stated Item #3 outlines his understanding of the plan. Metcalf stated that the first plan (A) is a 1"=20' scale map which was the approved plan with the incorrect topography. He stated the yellow demonstrates where the erroneous topography was located. Metcalf stated 'Plan B' is in essence the same plan but has the correct underlying topography. Mr. Metcalf stated Mr. Hendriks using the same vertical and horizontal alignment of the
road showed proposed grading of what it would be with the road graded 8 percent to the real topography.
Page 4 – Show Cause Meeting Minutes
IWWC - 3/14/07
Metcalf stated the grading limits on this plan, necessary to construct the road based on real topography, are no greater than what was previously approved by this commission, based on the erroneous topography. Metcalf stated the modified construction plan is taking the plan approved by the commission (construction drawing) and showing the plan and profile with the underlying topography corrected. He noted this is a revision to the approved plan in consideration of the new topography. Metcalf stated because of the change in the underlying topography there might have to be some minor adjustments of the catch basin locations, but there are no major changes to the drainage. He also noted there is no further encroachment to the wetlands than what was originally approved. He stated the next
plan shows a section view every 50 feet through the road showing what the cuts and fills will be and it also shows the elevation of the road in relation to the existing ground. The next sheet addresses the concern regarding the horizontal positioning of the road. He stated this plan shows the corrected topography and that the underlying road elevation is the same. Mr. Metcalf noted he met with Mr. Hendriks and based on the section views it appeared to him that a benefit in the construction of the road would be to change the grade of the road. Metcalf stated the road grade has now been revised to 5.5 percent. Demonstration 'Plan C' has the same horizontal alignment but the vertical alignment is changed to 5.5 percent and the associated grading is also shown on the plan. He again noted the limits of grading on this plan are no greater than what was originally approved and there will be no changes in the drainage. In addition, he noted that one of
the sheets of the plans shows the section views with the cuts, which shows less cutting into the ground and it also raises the road level up above ledge conditions so there will be less blasting required. Skip DiCamillo asked if raising the road eliminated more cutting in the upland. Metcalf stated that was correct. Skip DiCamillo asked if the contours had been correct on the original plan would it have been better to move the road further to the right side considering it can be raised up and still have less cutting into the upland area. Mr. Metcalf indicated yes. Bechtel stated as a point of reference, that in the meeting minutes of the original approval, Attorney Block stated that the applicant could, engineering wise, move the road twenty feet up hill, but the applicant did not feel that it was a feasible and prudent alternative and that they did not feel that the impact into the wetland review zone was significant enough to warrant doing
that. Skip DiCamillo stated at that time the commission thought there would be more cutting into the upland portion. Metcalf stated without having the benefit of having that design done it would be difficult to conclusively say. Metcalf stated the last sheet shows that the road as designed, (which is in the location closer to the wetlands), has approximately 31,000 cubic feet of material to be excavated from Station 7+ 00 to Station 12+00, over a distance of approximately 500 feet, and then shown moved 20 feet to the right, the calculation of the amount of material that has to be excavated is about 57,000 cubic feet. He further noted the areas of disturbance are essentially the same.
Linde asked if the applicant provided a series of cross sections at 50 foot intervals for the road moved 20 feet further to the right at the same elevation so that those plans and calculations could be accurately reviewed. He also asked if the applicant submitted a series of cross sections at 50 feet showing the road moved over 20 feet at a higher elevation. Mr. Metcalf indicated those were not submitted.
McCulloch stated the commission looked at this originally and approved it. Therefore, is the fact that we now discovered the road could have been moved more to the right, does that justify the commission in not considering it a valid approval for the subdivision. Skip DiCamillo stated in his mind the commission approved erroneous plans that were not accurate and if the commission had received the proper plans they may not have approved that plan. Dave McCulloch stated most of the road is outside of the regulated zone. Metcalf stated at the time of the initial review and approval there was just one section view submitted.
Page 5 – Show Cause Meeting Minutes
IWWC - 3/14/07
Bechtel stated that when this application came before the commission and was reviewed, this commission did not request a public hearing. She stated a site walk was scheduled and by that day there had been enough
interest on the part of homeowners in the area that a petition of 25 people was submitted and the commission was under public hearing. She further noted the site walk at that time was cancelled and at the next meeting the public hearing began. She stated every single issue that came up in that public hearing was about the road extension at the end of the cul-de-sac going into the Kus property. She also noted there were documents and minutes that support that and Tom Degnan [past IWWC Chairman] stated he did not believe this project would have come under public hearing because the impact was minimal and what needed to be done was to stay on top of the erosion and sediment controls. She stated Attorney Block also stated on the record that nobody had made an issue of there being any significant
activity within the wetland area. Bechtel stated that McCulloch chaired one meeting and he reminded everyone that this commission allows activity within the upland review zone. She also noted that she felt the exceeded limits of clearing have exacerbated this particular problem and she really believes this is a modification to the road construction and it ultimately ends up being a better road than the road the commission approved.
Linde asked to clarify a statement made by Bechtel; according to the official minutes from the public hearing on February 3, 2004 “John Alexander – 12 Lords Meadow Lane – asked if the curvature of the entrance was moved (he pointed to the map to show where) they could be on the top part of the ridge instead of on the side of the ridge". Therefore, Mr. Linde stated the item was brought up and noted in the Public Hearing. Bechtel stated it was, but the commission did not ask the applicant to go back and show us the road design moving the road up to the top of the hill. Bechtel stated, we only asked the applicant to go back and show us a road design moving it over. Linde stated that Bechtel’s comment was that the public did not express concern about the location of
the road near the wetlands and that is not a correct comment as noted in the minutes of February 3, 2004. Bechtel stated that was the only reference in all of the meetings and there was no other reference to moving the road, every single reference was a right-of-way/cul-de-sac issue.
John Alexander stated the minutes are exactly as he presented. He stated his testimony was that it was clearly visible that excavation would be minimized by placement.
Bechtel stated that Mr. Alexander's was the one, lone voice; the rest of the public was concerned about the cul-de-sac. Bechtel further stated this was not what the commission asked the applicant to do. DiCamillo stated the commission asked about moving the road but because the results showed so much cutting of the upland portion the commission just dropped it because they felt it would be more impact to the area.
Metcalf stated the information currently shown now still shows that if you move the road 20 ft to the right there would be more material excavated. Bechtel stated this commission’s job is to look at impact and this was an approved road; that construction has begun where it was approved. She stated the work was stopped because improper information was supplied and correct information was needed to construct the road, and so the commission could be sure that the road constructed would not cause greater impact than what was approved. She stated there is testimony that there will be less blasting and less fill removed so this is a better plan than what was approved.
Linde asked to remind the commission that Item #3 on the motion for approval states “ that the applicant has provided convincing documentation that no feasible and prudent alternative exists for the roadway as proposed within the review zone at Station 8 + 8”, the applicant today, based on new plans, states that there is at least one other feasible and prudent alternative so what other alternatives have not been considered that would have been considered.
Page 6 – Show Cause Meeting Minutes
IWWC - 3/14/07
Bechtel stated Item #3 was not a condition of approval. Linde stated it was in the motion. Bechtel stated again that it was not a condition of approval; it was a reason why the approval was granted. Bechtel stated the commission has been presented with a better road design than was originally approved and reiterated that a good remediation plan is needed and to stay on top of the E & S controls.
Linde stated the commission does not have the information as to whether moving the road further up the hill at a higher elevation would benefit the wetlands.
Bozek stated, at this point in time there is no valid permit. She stated the permit expired on February 22, 2007 so there is a full opening for the commission to consider this application again. She stated it could be argued that the applicant did submit a request on February 15, 2007, however that request is not timely under the current regulations. She stated the regulations under Section 7.7 currently state that an application to renew shall be granted unless there is enforcement action in place, which there is. Bozek read into the record the remainder of Section 7.8. Bozek stated according to the regulations the applicant no longer has a valid permit. Bozek stated this commission should be requesting the applicant to submit a new permit because they failed to comply with
the regulations.
Attorney Block stated the permit is issued for five years. Block stated the former regulations address renewable licenses for periods of time to complete work. Block stated the applicant has submitted annual requests for renewal of a license which have been renewed on two prior occasions and which were requested to be renewed again prior to the expirations of the license. Block stated this was the way the commission regulated or established oversight over the work to be done under a wetlands permit. Block stated it was his position that this applicant has a five year permit; a timely request was submitted for a renewal of a license which does not appear to be provided for in the existing regulations. Block further stated the applicant is before the commission because of an error,
however, that error does not exceed what this commission approved prior and may in fact be less impact than what was approved previously. He concluded by stating that he feels this commission needs to concentrate on Mr. Metcalf’s paragraph 4 of his report which provides that he believes that the road and drainage design associated with Demonstration Plan C is the most desirable proposed when using the corrected topographic conditions. Attorney Block read the remainder of this paragraph into the record. Attorney Block stated he believed the commission was present this evening to determine whether to accept the recommendations of Mr. Metcalf based on Mr. Hendrik’s revised plan. Block further stated he was not here seeking to modify a permit and encroach any further. It is less impact.
Attorney Mattern reviewed a couple of statutes with the commission. Mattern stated there is a statute that basically states that when an Inland/Wetlands Agency approves a request for a license, that is also a subdivision, that approval shall be for a period of five years. Martin Griswold asked if there was a difference between a license and a permit. Mattern stated he did not feel there was much of a difference; but no matter what he felt, the approval granted would be for five years. He also noted that this was a subdivision approved by the Planning Commission so therefore he feels the license is good for five years. Mattern also noted there is an additional statute that states if the regulations change those regulations are not applicable to a prior application.
Bechtel then stated, this commission does have a permit in place, therefore, the commission needs to decide whether it wants to move forward with the modified plan. Mattern stated the commission needs to first complete the hearing. He stated once the hearing is complete there is only one of three things that can be done on a Cease & Desist. The Cease & Desist can be upheld, set aside or revised. Mattern stated the commission has the right to take the Cease & Desist Order and modify it to the extent the commission feels
Page 7 – Show Cause Meeting Minutes
IWWC - 3/14/07
appropriate. McCulloch asked if the commission modifies the permit can they request additional changes. Mattern indicated that was correct. Mattern stated the commission has the ability to modify the Cease & Desist Order as it determines to be appropriate and can put conditions on that modification. Brown asked if the commission could allow work to proceed under a revised plan, but keep the Cease & Desist Order still in place so that the commission would have oversight of the project to ensure the corrections were completed.
Diana Atwood Johnson requested that a remediation plan be negotiated and be part of the revised Cease & Desist Order. She also suggested compensation be a part of the discussion. Johnson stated this would include a conservation plan that is acceptable to the Open Space Committee and once the results of the certified foresters' appraisal of the property was complete, there be financial compensation to the open space fund. Bechtel stated these items were outlined to the commission in a memo from Ms. Johnson dated March 6, 2007.
Mr. Fortunato noted for the record that due to the time of year he felt it was best to stabilize the site as soon as possible and get the erosion controls installed.
Bozek stated to the commission that there is a Cease & Desist order pending and it can result in revocation of the permit. She noted that Mr. DiCamillo asked Mr. Metcalf if contours were correct would it be better to move the road up. Bozek stated Mr. Metcalf answered yes to that question. Bozek reminded the commission that revocation is an option. She also noted that this commission has continued to see revolving plans with a lot of patchwork and not a lot of thought. She further stated she feels the applicant has blatantly disregarded this commission by knowing in December it had incorrect contours and waiting until January to make the commission aware. She also noted the applicant promised the road contractor would be informed to stop work in the area of concern, but at the
hearing the contractor indicated he had not been made aware of that situation. Bozek stated in Mr. Metcalf’s letter of March 10, 2007 he states if this is approved he identified a significant number of items that need to be adjusted to the plan. She noted this is not a final plan, therefore she requested if a decision is made, it be made once, and right.
Linde stated Mr. Snarksi commented on the existence of a high-value wetlands and he feels it deserves the entire 100’ buffer. He stated that the 100 ft. buffer has been denuded to within 5 feet of the wetlands in some places so it cannot possibly due the job of protecting a wetland. He also noted that in over three years this applicant has yet to submit an error free set of plans, therefore what makes this commission feel these plans will provide what is needed to enforce this application.
Chairman Bechtel asked if there were any further questions or comments from the public and then made a motion to close the public hearing. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Bechtel stated she totally agrees with Ms. Bozek's list of concerns regarding the oversight of this project. Bechtel stated, in addition, she was appalled that Mr. Hendriks failed to make the pre-construction meeting of 9/22/06. Bechtel also expressed concern that the site is exposed and would like to get construction moving along with the proper controls in place. Griswold asked if it was possible to address the portion of the application that includes the deforestation, prior to reconstruction. Bechtel stated that Open Space has requested that some of the road slopes be completed and stabilized prior to replanting. She noted from a wetlands point of view, even though it has been deforested it is not the best alternative for the wetland to be bringing in heavy equipment and large
trees. Bechtel stated she thought the memo Diana Atwood Johnson wrote, dated March 6, 2007, was succinct and addressed a lot of the issues.
Page 8 – Show Cause Meeting Minutes
IWWC - 3/14/07
Bechtel stated she had 8 items she felt should be conditions of the approval:
that the new road plan be modified as shown in Demonstration “C”, dated 2/28/07
that the applicant submit weekly construction updates and Erosion & Sedimentation reports to: Ann Brown, IWEO, T. Metcalf, P.E. L.S. consulting engineer and J. Bechtel, Chairman, IWWC.
that the applicant must reimburse the Town of Old Lyme for the expenses associated with T. Metcalf’s weekly review of those reports and his weekly inspection of the site and follow-up reports to A. Brown, IWEO, and J. Bechtel, Chairman, IWWC
that the applicant have its certified soil scientist, re-flag the on-site wetlands to avoid any possible further incursion into those areas.
that T. Metcalf's notation’s, as outlined in his 9/22/06 pre-construction meeting and his 3/10/07 letter to this commission, be incorporated into the above referenced updates and plan modifications
that a restoration plan, based on the Open Space document dated 3/6/07, acceptable to the Open Space Commission be submitted by 3/27/07 to the IWWC for their review
that revised plans be submitted with the additional updates and modifications by 3/27/07
that at any point in time should the activities, reports or requested modifications fail to meet the satisfaction of T. Metcalf, in his capacity as consulting engineer for the Town of Old Lyme, then this project will once again risk the possibility of having its permit suspended, modified or revoked.
McCulloch suggested that an additional condition be added to prioritize the work to proceed as quickly as possible to stabilize the area of the concern. Metcalf stated the progression of work would probably begin down towards the cul-de-sac. McCulloch asked if that would be to establish grade for drainage. Metcalf stated it would be for cuts and fill. Metcalf stated initially there would be more work out towards the cul-de-sac than up in the 7+00 to 12+00 area. He stated he could make sure that adequate erosion control measures were in place in the critical areas.
DiCamillo asked what happens if the weekly reviews are not done. Bechtel stated then the applicant would have to reimburse the town for the expenses associated with Mr. Metcalf’s weekly review of doing the reports himself.
Mike Moran asked in what timeframe would the roadway be completed. Mr. Metcalf indicated about 3 months or a little less.
Martin Griswold asked the other commission members how they felt about moving forward with revocation of the permit and possibility of looking at the road up on the ridge.
Attorney Mattern stated that the commission is within its bounds to revoke the permit.
Griswold asked again how the commission felt due to the amount of errors in the process. He further discussed stabilizing the area for now while the applicant went through the process again.
Bechtel stated she was not sure that moving the road up minimizes the overall impact and that is the job of this commission. Griswold also noted that there will be future impact including road salts. Bechtel stated the commission can revoke the permit but was not sure that was the best thing for the project.
Page 9 – Show Cause Meeting Minutes
IWWC - 3/14/07
Bechtel stated she felt that this was an application that this commission looked at and reviewed. She noted the only error in the plan was topography and she stated she agreed with Attorney Block that if that original plan had not come in with the proposed retaining wall, it may have just been an administrative review by Mr. Metcalf. Therefore, she stated she does not feel it is proper to go back now on a plan that was approved, where there is a modification that shows less impact, and apply new standards to this particular application.
Griswold stated he concurred with Bechtel’s statement. DiCamillo stated he feels if he had the proper information that he would have focused and asked more questions and he may not have voted in favor of the original application.
Bechtel stated her motion would be to modify the Cease & Desist Order. Griswold asked for clarification. Mattern stated the commission needs to vote to sustain the Cease & Desist as it currently exists, set it aside or revise the Cease & Desist Order in any way the commission would like.
McCulloch stated he would like to support the revised Cease & Desist, however he expressed his displeasure with the applicant.
Bechtel made a motion to revise the Cease & Desist Order for the Lord’s Woods Subdivision conditioned upon the following nine items:
that the new road plan be modified as shown in Demonstration “C” dated 2/28/07,
that the applicant submit weekly construction updates and Erosion & Sedimentation reports to: Ann Brown, IWEO, T. Metcalf, P.E. L.S. consulting engineer and J. Bechtel, Chairman, IWWC,
that the applicant reimburse the Town of Old Lyme for the expenses associated with T. Metcalf’s weekly review of those reports and his weekly inspection of the site and follow-up reports to A. Brown, IWEO, and J. Bechtel, Chairman, IWWC,
that the applicant have a certified soil scientist, re-flag the on-site wetlands to avoid any possible further incursion into those areas,
that T. Metalf's notations, as outlined in his 9/22/06 pre-construction meeting and his 3/10/07 letter to this commission, be incorporated into the above referenced updates and plan modifications,
that a restoration plan, based on the Open Space document dated 3/6/07, acceptable to the Open Space Commission be submitted by 3/27/07 to the IWWC for their review,
to allow construction to recommence, in compliance with the previous conditions, on 3/15/07,
that revised plans be submitted, with the additional updates and modifications by 3/27/07, and
that at any point in time should the activities, reports or requested modifications fail to meet the satisfaction of T. Metcalf, in his capacity as consulting engineer for the Town of Old Lyme, then this project will once again risk the possibility of having its permit suspended, modified or revoked.
Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed. In favor: Mike Moran, M. Griswold, D. McCulloch, J. Bechtel. Opposed: Skip DiCamillo.
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to adjourn. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
