OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2007
Present were: Chairman Janet Bechtel, Vice Chair Robb Linde, Dave McCulloch, Don Willis, Evan Griswold, Martin Griswold and Skip DiCamillo. Also present were: Attorney Michael Cronin, Bob Doane, Enok Pedersen, Don Lucas, Lee Rowley, Ann Brown, Robert Giannotti and other members of the public.
Chairman Bechtel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
AMENDED AGENDA
Janet Bechtel made a motion to accept Item #5 and Item #6 on the amended agenda. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED MAY 22, 2007
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Don Willis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED JUNE 21, 2007
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
FMTM, LLC – DISCUSSION OF PHASING
Frank Martone, owner of FMTM and Broad Brook Estates was present to discuss a modification to the phasing that was originally approved by this commission. Mr. Martone stated the commission received a letter from Mr. Metcalf with regard to his opinion on the proposed phasing. Bechtel stated that Mr. Martone submitted a letter to the town, dated 6/7/07, requesting that the phasing be eliminated on this project. Bechtel stated that Mr. Metcalf has reviewed that request and has responded in a letter dated 6/18/07.
Bechtel stated that for the record that when FMTM was approved back in June 1, 2006 one of the conditions of approval was that this project definitely be phased. She further noted the applicant is now requesting this commission waive that condition of approval. Evan Griswold asked for clarification that the only portion being waived is the clearing; not the stumping and grubbing. Bechtel stated that is Mr. Metcalf’s recommendation, that if the commission considered eliminating the phasing on this project there would be no stumping or grubbing, only tree clearing. Metcalf also gave specific instructions on how he wanted the asphalt binder course of the paving handled.
Martone stated he would like to be allowed to clear the entire project and then grub and sub-prep, while maintaining the erosion and sediment control policies according to the town’s recommendations, and not lay
Page 2 – Minutes
June 26, 2007
down any asphalt whatsoever. He noted it has been his experience that even the binder course will take a beating and may have to be redone. Therefore, Martone stated his thought was not to stump and grub everything, but to do all the clearing and then stump and grub in phases, but before moving onto the second phase to stump and grump, the first phase would be prepped with a sub base, but not with asphalt. Bechtel asked Mr. Martone if he was in agreement with Items 1 and 2 of Metcalf’s 6/18/07 letter but not Item 3. Bechtel noted that she was not in agreement with Mr. Metcalf’s letter. She explained that the commission has reviewed this application over a period of 3 1/2 years, that the conditions were created for good reasons, felt all of the conditions should stay exactly as they
were, and that the applicant's request should be denied. Martone asked the commission if they did not feel that running large equipment over the road would have an impact. Martone once again stated the impact that he felt that large equipment would have on the new road.
Bechtel then asked the applicant why he accepted the conditions of approval. Martone stated he was under the gun at the time, and he now realizes it does not make sense to proceed with this process. Bechtel stated one of the reasons the commission conditions phasing on projects is to be sure that the work is done in total compliance with all of the specifications before a subsequent phase is started.
Don Willis stated he concurred with Mr. Metcalf’s recommendations in his letter of 6/18/07. Linde pointed out to the applicant that his requests before the commission this evening were continually changing depending on whom he was conversing with at the time. Linde also noted that at the time of the permit approval the applicant agreed to the conditions willingly. Linde stated the commission has the right to expect that the applicant will uphold the conditions that were agreed to at the time the permit was issued. Linde stated based on conversations this evening it seems it might be reasonable to allow for clearing of the whole road and staging the binder. Martone stated he attended the meeting in the hopes of not even having to put the binder course down because
his experience indicates that the binder will be ruined as well. Linde stated that the applicant was aware that the binder would be ruined when the application was originally approved.
McCulloch stated he felt it was quite fair for the applicant to request a modification. He further stated he felt the commission should consider his request. DiCamillo stated he agreed with Mr. McCulloch that the commission has modified plans before on prior applications. He further stated he has no experience with road construction, therefore he did not feel qualified to determine if this was a reasonable modification.
Don Willis and Mike Moran reiterated their agreement with Mr. Metcalf's recommendations as outline in his 6/18/07 letter.
Evan Griswold stated he felt the biggest potential for major erosion happens in the summertime.
Griswold made a motion to approve the changes to the permit following Mr. Metcalf’s letter dated June 18th, 2007. Don Willis seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Robb Linde expressed concern, given what has happened with the Lords Woods Subdivision, and he suggested the limits of clearing be clearly marked on the property and reviewed by staff prior to the commencement of any work. Martone stated the clearing limits were shown on the drawings. Linde stated he understood that, but based on past experience he would like it marked in the field prior to clearing.
Page 3 – Minutes
June 26, 2007
Griswold accepted this condition as an amendment to his motion.
The motion passed. Bechtel – opposed - DiCamillo – abstained.
EMILY FOWLER – 15 LIBRARY LANE – REMOVAL OF EXISTING FIBERGLASS POOL W/CONCRETE DECK AND INSTALLATION OF NEW GUNITE POOL WITH 20’ BLUESTONE TERRACE
The representative from Yankee Remodeler stated the applicant is proposing to remove an existing fiberglass pool and replace it with a same square footage gunite pool and move it three feet further from the wetlands. He also stated they are proposing to build a 20' x 20' bluestone patio, which will connect the pool to the terrace. He noted part of the existing fencing would be removed. Brown noted the applicant currently has an existing permit to replace the garage. She noted at that time the applicant did not realize they needed to replace the pool as well. Brown stated the machinery will be brought in away from the wetlands and the work will be done from the far side. She further noted all the materials will be taken off site. She stated ultimately the applicant would be
submitting a landscaping proposal. Therefore, the applicant is wondering if it is possible to add this work onto their existing permit, or to issue an administrative permit, because of the distance from the wetlands and the work is in an existing contained area.
The representative noted the applicant plans to be back to the commission with a complete landscape plan. The commission reviewed the pool/terrace plan. Brown noted the applicant intends to continue to comply with all the existing conditions of the previous approval, including the rubbish removal from the wetland area.
Linde asked if there was a reason for not including the planting plan at this time. The applicant's representative noted that a landscape architect was designing the entiresite will be submitting a formal plan.
Bechtel asked Brown if the question to the commission was, if they would like this handled as an administrative permit, or if the existing permit could be modified, or whether the commission felt it was sufficient activity that no action be taken at this time. Martin Griswold asked if the commission could set a time limit for the submittal of the planting plan.
Martin Griswold made a motion to modify the existing wetlands permit to the allow the removal of the fiberglass pool and construction of the gunite pool within ± three feet of the existing location and that the applicant return to the commission in two months to submit a planting plan. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PAUL LUSSIER – 26 LIBRARY LANE – INSTALLATION OF A TWO CAR GARAGE AND REGRADING USING A SMALL EXCAVATOR MACHINE
Paul Lussier representing the owners, Jim and Ann Fafalla, stated he has applied to build a garage on the site and the wetlands are located on the adjacent property. Mr. Lussier reviewed the site plan and photographs he had taken with the commission. He also noted he staked the location of the garage on the site. Robb Linde and Evan Griswold stated they would like to see a more detailed site plan. The commission discussed establishing minimum requirements for all site plans that are part of the wetland applications. The commission agreed to discuss this topic at the end of the meeting.
The commission agreed to set a site walk was set for Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 5:30 p.m.
Page 4 – Minutes
June 26, 2007
PAUL & MAUREEN NELSEN – 1 PARSONS FARM LANE – INSTALLATION OF A DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGE
Rebecca Moss, the agent for the Nelsen’s submitted an A-2 survey. She also noted a soil scientist flagged the site. She stated the project is located in the buffer zone, but is approximately 40 ft away from the flagged wetland area. She stated currently they have an attached two-car garage, which has been permitted to be turn into a master suite. She stated the applicant is also requesting to install underground utilities to replace the existing overhead service and would like to install a trellis/pergola, which would attach the garage to the existing house. Moss submitted plans for the garage for the commission to review. Linde asked why they are proposing a detached garage so close to the wetlands as opposed to just leaving it attached. She stated the
Nelson’s require a large master bedroom for a variety of reasons and this location would minimize the disruption to the yard. Griswold suggested a location that would move the proposed structure an additional 20-ft from the wetlands. Linde also asked the applicant to show the location of the silt fencing and stockpiling areas.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 5:50 p.m.
TIMOTHY LONDREGAN – 3 HUNTLEY – CONSTRUCTION OF A DAY CARE FACILITY
Don Lucas, representing the applicant, stated they are proposing to construct a day care facility in a commercially zoned area on a relatively level site. He noted all of the work would be accessed from the upland area. He noted the project is located at the split of Huntley Road and Halls Road. The commission reviewed the site plan.
Bechtel stated she believed that this application came to the commission last month as a preliminary application. She noted at that time she pointed out that there is a 100-ft. review zone for a reason. She stated Vice Chair Linde mentioned that he has never seen a building used as a buffer for wetland. She further noted the plan being presented shows a building as a buffer for the wetlands and a complete disregard for the 100 ft. review area. Therefore she is wondering why the same plan is back when commission indicated they were not happy with the preliminary application.
Hans Hartman, Environmental Conservationist, who is also working on this project, submitted a photograph of a building, (Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water), that demonstrates it is possible to have a building close to the wetlands that has a zero or positive impact on the wetlands. He further stated the groups proposing this project have a real commitment to conservation. He stated the applicant is looking to follow the guidelines using the principles 'renew' and 'reuse' for the building. Bechtel asked where the outside playscape was located. Hartman stated everything used in the play area would all be natural things to the Connecticut Environment.
McCulloch stated at the time of the site walk it would be helpful to see the type of drainage proposed. Lucas stated the drainage would be collected in the far corners of the building. The drainage for the parking lot would sheet flow and then percolate into the ground. Linde suggested that a wetlands expert review the plan on the commission’s behalf.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 6:15 p.m.
Page 5 – Minutes
June 26, 2007
RONALD SWANEY – 61-1 BUTTONBALL ROAD – DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND PAVING
Ronald Swaney stated this was an ongoing project. Swaney indicated he had installed a culvert pipe without permission in a driveway because of a water problem. He also installed a swale so when the water comes off the driveway it lands in the swale and catches in the catch basin and travels under the driveway to the wetland. He stated the culvert pipe does not have a runoff area or stone so it directly goes into the wetland. He stated the proposal is to pave all the way up to building. The commission reviewed the site plan. He stated that because of the intended use of the driveway it needed to be paved. He noted one portion of the building is going to be used for antique cars and the other portion would be for a personal training facility. He also noted these uses will both
be going for zoning approval.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 6:45 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ENOK PEDERSEN – 1 BURR ROAD – 17 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS WITH TWO WETLAND CROSSINGS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE REGULATED AREA
Bechtel stated the commission received a letter indicating that Mr. Metcalf has not had a chance to complete his review of all of the plans that have been submitted but he will forward his comments when his review is complete. Bob Doane, agent for the applicant, presented the plans for the project dated April 6, 2006 revised through February 21, 2007. Doane noted he also submitted a Stormwater Management Report dated September 1, 2006 revised to June 15, 2007. Doane stated this project is situated on an 87-acre parcel of land which the applicant is proposing to divide into seventeen lots. He noted this application was before the commission several months ago and there were issues regarding the stormwater management and off-site runoff. He stated the applicant is addressing that with two other
applications that will be presented tonight. He also noted in the original application he had proposed on-site stormwater retention for each of the houses and Wendy Goodfriend/Mr. Metcalf did not favorably receive that. He stated the applicant abandoned that option and withdrew the application and is now resubmitting without the stormwater detention for the individual lots. He noted the two, separate, additional applications propose to enlarge two downstream crossings to accommodate the 5 or 6 percent increase. He reiterated that on-site there are three wetland crossings. He stated there are two proposed roadways; one @ 1,800 ft (Blue Heron Road) and the other @ 875-ft (Osprey Lane). Doane stated the entire road systems drains down to a detention basin that is on the southern end of the cul-de-sac which has enabled the applicant to provide stormwater quality, quantity and control.
Attorney Cronin, attorney for the applicant, asked that all previous materials that were submitted and reviewed by the commission be incorporated into the record of this hearing. He stated that legally this can be done and would also save a lot of time and effort in going through each of the items in detail again. Bechtel stated her only concern is that when the public hearing is closed that means whoever on the commission is voting will have to have a solid body of knowledge of that entire record, therefore the commission would need a quorum of members that would have that knowledge. Doane stated the purpose of this request is to show on the record that the applicant has demonstrated that they have reviewed all
Page 6 – Minutes
June 26, 2007
alternatives to their proposal and feel that this proposal now is the best alternative. Doane asked that all the prior minutes be part of this record, which would reflect the progression the plan has taken. Bechtel asked if he was stating that by submitting all of the past material it can clearly be shown that this project has undergone considerable review and the comments from Ms. Goodfriend and Mr. Metcalf and they their comments have been taken into consideration and substantial adjustments were made to their plans based on those comments. Doane indicated that was correct.
Bechtel stated that when there is a project with significant impact the commission asks the applicant to demonstrate they have looked at all feasible and prudent alternatives. Therefore she felt both cluster and lot reduction could be seen as additional feasible and prudent alternatives. She concluded by stating that she felt this application represents a very heavy footprint on a sensitive piece of property and while the applicant has been attentive to every detail that Ms. Goodfriend and Mr. Metcalf have brought up, Goodfriend is not a Wetland Scientist but a Natural Resource Special, and Mr. Metcalf is an engineer and it is not his job to determine whether or when too much is activity is too much for a wetland. That is what this commission decides. Bechtel recommended the prior record and submitted
materials be brought forward with this resubmitted application.
Linde stated if there are members of the public in attendance who do not feel they are receiving enough information they have the right to request more information. Bechtel noted all the information is available in the town office for the public to review, including minutes and tapes. Brown suggested that Mr.Doane review the high points of the changes to the plan.
Doane stated Richard Snarski, Soil Scientist visited the site and there are six vernal pools on the property. Doane indicated he has tried to incorporate the vernal pools into the open space on the property. He stated that 26.85 acres out of the 87 acres is open space. He also noted that 20.73 acres of the site is under conservation easements.
Bechtel asked Doane to submit the revised plans to Ms. Goodfriend for her review. Linde stated based on the math it appears there is roughly 30 acres of land that is not either open space/conservation land or road. Linde stated that would leave roughly 1- 2 acres per lot to be cleared, which seems like an awful lot. Attorney Cronin stated that the house locations, clearing areas and septic locations are schematic at this time. He further noted that as each house is built, it would require that a separate application be submitted to the commission for approval on those particular issues. He also noted the conservation areas would be marked in the field on trees with placards.
McCulloch asked who would be the owner of the easement. Attorney Cronin stated he had submitted draft language to the town counsel for review.
Linde asked Doane if he had done any calculations to show what the effect on the runoff would be if there was a additional 1-2 acres cleared on every lot. Linde stated the reason he was asking is that if there is a limit to what the drainage can handle, when the individual lots appear before the commission and additional clearing limits are requested and granted, what will happen when the commission is half way through the development and realizes the drainage structures cannot handle the amount of additional clearing. Doane stated he has not discussed the new applications that address the two downstream structures; but, he has designed the driveway crossing for a 25 years, therefore he is essentially tripling the capacity of the existing culvert and there is only a 6 percent increase and the culvert at
Saunders Hollow Road has been designed for a 50-year storm.
Page 7 – Minutes
June 26, 2007
Evan Griswold asked if there could be a limited building envelope established at this time rather than have each individual property owner appear before this commission and propose something different for each lot. Griswold suggested the developer stipulate those conditions on the plan or in the legal documents. Doane
indicated he would review this request with Mr. Pedersen and possibly include it in the Covenant of Restrictions.
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
Robb Linde indicated to Bechtel that he could not hear the questions and answers from the audience nor most likely could the tape machine. The public was asked to speak up and state their name and address for the record.
Jane Klimczak, Burr Hill Rd., expressed concern over the amount of water that currently overflows the road and questioned what would happen with the new development.
Doane stated during a 2 or 5 year storm the culvert that crosses Saunders Hill Road overpass very frequently runs down the driveway and then onto Saunders Hollow Road and crosses probably 300 to 400 ft. to the east of the intersection and that will be addressed with the replacement of the box culvert to prevent this from occurring at the frequency that it now does.
Judy Brault, 16 Burr Rd., asked how long the system would last. Doane indicated he would be using reinforced concrete or corrugated plastic pipe and the only maintenance required would be cleaning and removing the sediment that may collect, which should be minor.
Caroline Clark, Bill Hill Rd, asked who would maintain the culverts and catch basins. Doane stated it would be the responsibility of the town.
Ann Bain, Matson Ridge, asked if there was open space along the streams. Doane stated the stream that comes from the east side is all in open space or conservation easement and the stream from the north crosses some private property but it is also in a conservation easement.
Ann Bain asked how the blasting would effect the stream. Doane stated he blasting would not effect the stream.
Ann Brown asked Mr.Doane if the required adjacent property owners had been notified of the hearing. Doane submitted proof of mailing receipts for the record.
Linde stated that Bechtel indicated earlier that Ms. Goodfriend is not a wetland expert and therefore wondered if the commission should consider retaining their own expert. Bechtel stated she was comfortable with Mr. Snarski’s analysis. McCulloch stated he felt that the commission had always considered wetlands scientist as independent specialists. Linde stated if a wetland scientist testifies before the commission that there is not an impact, the commission must accept that testimony and is unable to turnaround and state there is an impact because the commission is not experts. He stated if the commission has its own expert who contradicts the application information that then commission can challenge that. Bechtel stated Snarski has not testified that there is no impact; he has
evaluated the wetlands to determine their location and function and the location of the vernal pools.
Page 8 – Minutes
June 26, 2007
Bechtel suggested the commission ask that Mr. Snarski attend the next meeting with the possibility there might be a question for him and at that point in time, if the commission questions his interpretations than the commission would be free to then look for another wetland scientist and ask them to respond independently back to the commission to that particular question.
Doane stated he would ask Mr. Snarski to attend the next meeting.
The commission agreed to continue the hearing until the July meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
ROBERT GIANOTTI – 2-4 HUNTLEY ROAD, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO CONSTRUCT A MULTIPLE OFFICE COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH DRAINAGE STRUCTURES CONNECTING TO AN EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Bechtel stated the commission received a letter from Mr. Metcalf indicating he has not finished his evaluation of the plan, however he has a meeting scheduled with Mr. Rowley to go over further drainage calculations. Linde asked if in the interest of time would it be sensible to wait for the comments and discuss the application at that time. Bechtel questioned if the commission had any questions for the applicant outside of Mr. Metcalf’s drainage report.
Bechtel stated at one point she had asked Mr. Metcalf if it made sense to take the drainage from this building, #2 Huntley, and instead of attaching it to the drainage to #4 Huntley that they check to see if they could tie into the DOT drainage system that was on the other side of Tire Country on Halls Road. Bechtel stated the reason that Mr. Metcalf’s review of the drainage is so critical is because of the location of the vernal pool on the Farnham property, west of #4 Huntley Rd. She also noted the commission originally asked the applicant to investigate if some of the drainage could be moved from between the two building to east of the proposed building at #2 Huntely Rd. create a longer draw period for the drainage to infiltrate. She indicated the most recent plans still show all the
stormwater being collected between the two buildings.
Rowley stated they have reviewed many options and feel what is being presented is the best alternative. He stated since the application has been resubmitted it has been revised based on comments from Mr. Metcalf. Rowley stated the only person who has expressed any interest in the application is Mr. Farnham. Bechtel stated that they are the only property owners with any lawn left in the area. Bechtel stated this commission has a responsibility to be very careful about what drains onto the Farnham property and the vernal pool on their property. Rowley stated the system was originally designed to handle a 25-year storm without discharge. Bechtel stated the drainage calculations are technical and the commission will rely on Mr. Metcalf for his opinion.
Rowley stated he would not recommend taking any water off the site and sending it in a different direction. He stated the reason for that is the current wetland is dependent on groundwater, therefore if the water going into the ground is reduced there would be some sort of impact on the wetland functions.
The commission agreed to continue this application to next meeting when Mr. Metcalf's review will be complete.
Page 9 – Minutes
June 26, 2007
WOODS OF OLD LYME, LLC AND OLD LYME HEIGHTS, LLC FOR PROPERTY AT 27-29-1, AND 29-2 OLD STAGECOACH ROAD AND 22-1 OLD POST ROAD. 38 LOT SUBDIVISION
Girard Morterelli, agent for the applicant, submitted a revised plan that addressed the comments from Ms. Goodfriend. Bechtel indicated Mr. Metcalf has not finished his review. Bechtel also noted a meeting has been scheduled for the applicant to meet with Ms. Goodfriend on July 6, 2007 in Middletown at which she plans to attend. Brown asked for the revision date on the plans. Morterelli indicated it was May 30, 2007. Bechtel stated some of the pages in the plans have earlier dates.
Morterelli stated the commission had requested that limits of tree clearing be shown on the plan. He stated he has noted on the plan limits of clearing on all the lots in the subdivision. He stated there might be cases where changes have to be made because of blasting or other field issues.
Morterelli explained why the application would proceed with swales rather than storm drainage at the 10 percent grades. He stated they installed a check dam and they feel this will get the best end result and they feel it is the best way to manage erosion during construction because all the detention areas (plunge pools) can be used for siltation basins during construction. He stated once every thing is set they are cleaned out and grassed up and this will create a nice system. The commission indicated they often prefer swales to a piped system of stormwater management.
The commission also suggested the applicant meet with the Open Space Committee.
THOMAS DOBBINS – 1 SHORE DRIVE – REPLACE THE ORIGINAL STEPS FROM THE PORCH DOOR WITH A SIMPLE UNCOVERED DECK WITH STAIRS TO THE GROUND
Bechtel stated she walked the property with Evan Griswold and notified the applicant he did not need to attend the meeting because it was a small expansion of the existing steps.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MICHAEL AND DELORIS PERUCH – 4 HEMLOCK CIRCLE – CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-BEDROOM HOUSE, WELL, SEPTIC SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED GRADING
Bechtel indicated that a site walk was conducted with the applicant. Gary Sharpe stated at the time of the walk he did not get the impression that were any particular concerns with respect to this existing lot. He noted at the time the lot was approved the wetland setback was 50 feet. He noted that he has tried to situate the house foundation as far away from the wetlands as possible. Sharpe stated Griswold asked at the site walk whether or not the Peruch’s intended to clear the whole lot. He stated the Peruch’s indicated they would not be clearing the whole lot and would be keeping a portion of the natural vegetation. Bechtel asked how far from the wetlands the silt fence was currently shown. Sharpe indicated it was about 15ft to 18 ft and further
indicated he would be willing to move it further away from the wetlands.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application with revised plans being submitted to the Zoning/Wetlands Officer showing a natural vegetative buffer of 20 ft around the wetlands and the proper placement of the silt fence. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 10 – Minutes
June 26, 2007
JOHN AND IMELDA KOPTONAK – 184 MILE CREEK ROAD – DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE
Bechtel and Skip DiCamillo attended the site walk and informed the applicants they did not have to attend the meeting. Bechtel stated it was a flat level site and indicated on the plans the change in the footprint, which she felt was minimal. She also noted the location of the dumpster on the existing driveway and the soil stockpiling location. Robb Linde made a motion to approve the plan as submitted. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
CLARKE PAYNE – 228 MILE CREEK ROAD – SUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS INTO FOUR LOTS – NO ACTIVITIES WITHIN 100’ OF REGULATED AREA
Robb Linde made a motion to approve the subdivision plan as revised. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ENOK PEDERSEN – PROPERTY OF JOSEPH O’NEAL – 43-1 SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD – TO MODIFY THE STREAM CROSSING AND REPLACE THE CULVERT
Doane indicated the application was for a crossing on Saunders Hill Road. He indicated that Mr. Pedersen has a right of access over Saunders Hill Road and under that right he has the right to maintain the roadway and therefore he is replacing the twin culverts with a box culvert. He noted the twin culverts can handle roughly 30 CFS and that the box culvert will handle 84.3 CFS. Doane indicated it was a relatively simple installation.
Comments will be forwarded to the commission once Mr. Metcalf finishes his review.
ENOK PEDERSEN, PEDERSEN ASSOCIATES – REPLACEMENT OF A CULVERT AT SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD, PROPERTY OF THE TOWN OF OLD LYME
Doane stated this application is very similar to the prior application but on a larger scale. He stated the current pipe is 36” and will be replaced with a 72” pipe. He noted they will be using reinforced concrete instead of corrugated or aluminum.
Comments will be forwarded to the commission once Mr. Metcalf finishes his review.
VIOLATIONS:
LORDS WOODS SUBDIVISION
Bechtel stated she spoke with Mr. Metcalf who indicated reports are being submitted in a timely fashion and are in compliance with what was requested in the Cease & Desist Order. She also noted that the forester has forwarded the results of his report to Diana Atwood Johnson, Chairman, Open Space Committee, pertaining to the excessive limits of clearing. Ms. Johnson indicated she would be discussing this with her committee and forwarding comments to the commission. Bechtel suggested the commission hire an independent wetland scientist to provide guidance on the restoration plan. Brown also noted the commission has not yet been reimbursed for their engineering fees.
Page 11 – Minutes
June 26, 2007
Bechtel introduced James Sipperly, a recent resident of the Town of Old Lyme. He indicated for seven years he was an Environmental Planner for the town of Cheshire and staff to the Wetlands Commission. He noted for the past ten years he has been staff to the City of Middletown’s Wetland Commission. He also noted for five years he was a part-time Wetlands Agent for the Town of Portland.
He indicated he was interested in the vacancy position on the commission. Bechtel provided him the necessary application and the commission indicated they were very anxious to have him join the commission.
VIOLATIONS:
CARYN ERICKSON
Bechtel indicated there was a letter from Richard Snarski dated 6/19/07. Bechtel read a portion of the letter into the record and distributed copies to the commission. She also suggested Ann Brown and a couple of commission members visit the site. Robb Linde and Evan Griswold agreed to visit the site on Monday 7/2/07.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
