OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007
PRESENT WERE: Chair Janet Bechtel, Evan Griswold, Skip DiCamillo, and Martin Griswold. Also present were: John Anderson, Robert Bollo, Tim Londregan, Christiaan Dinkeloo, Tony Hendriks, Geri DeVeaux, Ann Brown, Kim Groves and a number of local applicants. Commission member Robb Linde was seated at 7:50 pm.
Bechtel made a motion to amend the agenda under new business for the application of Old Lyme Country Club located at 35 McCurdy Road. She noted the application is to fill approximately 3,359 sq. ft. of wetlands, construct a 45 space gravel parking lot, install a paddle tennis court and 24'x24' shed/warming hut. The next amendment to the agenda was under Old Business: the current application for Timothy Londregan is being withdrawn and he is submitting a revised application to be added under New Business. Martin Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK DATED OCTOBER 13, 2007
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Martin Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
#07-42 APPLICATION OF OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB – 35 MCCURDY ROAD – FILL IN APPROXIMATELY 3,359 SQ. FT. OF WETLANDS, CONSTRUCT A 45 GRAVEL SPACE PARKING LOT, INSTALL A PADDLE TENNIS COURT AND 24’ X 24’ SHED/WARMING HUT
John Anderson, Environmental Land Use Analyst and Robert Bollo, President of the OLCC, were present to discuss the application. Mr. Anderson noted the commission reviewed and approved a similar application last year. He noted after the town approval was granted, the OLCC submitted information to the Army Corps of Engineers for their review. He stated they rejected the application as having too great an impact on the wetland/watercourse resources on the site. He stated at that time the Army Corps suggested the plans be revised, which has been done, therefore this new plan is being presented as a result of those meetings. He
Page 2 – Minutes
October 23, 2007
stated it is essentially the same plan as last year with the exception of far less impact to the wetland area. He stated the Army Corps requested the amount of fill be reduced and enhancement of the graded wetland. He stated the applicant has decided to abandon the previously proposed shallow marsh system in favor of a wetland enhancement plan prepared by Richard Snarski. He stated Snarski reviewed the present type of vegetation and made recommendations for the removal of certain invasive species in the hopes this would provide an overall enhancement to the quality of the wetlands. Anderson stated he felt this was the most prudent and feasible alternative for the site.
E. Griswold asked for clarification of the wetland area on the plan. Anderson indicated the gray area shown on the plan delineated the wetland area. Griswold asked if the area to the southeast was some sort of mitigation to what was being filled on the northwest. Anderson indicated no, that the grey area was the entirety of the wetlands soil areas on the site and the darker hatched area indicated Federal Wetlands.
Bechtel stated she read the report from the Army Corps and it was interesting that they felt there was too much impact. Bechtel stated one of the reasons the commission allowed greater impact over the surface area was because the commission was concerned with the runoff coming off the Country Club property and going underneath McCurdy Road into the ditch. She stated the original plan had that water going into a two-step series of wetland ponds so the water was being filtered and trapped before it traveled through the ditch and underneath the railroad tracks and ultimately to the marsh. She expressed concern that the treatment of the runoff had been lost in this revised plan. Anderson noted that as a result of meeting the requirements of the Army Corps they lost the areas that were going to be used
as detention ponds. He stated one of the reasons for the change is that Army Corps feels that created wetlands often fail due to lack of follow-up maintenance. Therefore the Army Corps has taken the position that they would rather not see wetlands created. He stated, if the commission has concerns about water quality there are other avenues that can be reviewed. He stated he felt the impact on the current plan is far less than what was proposed prior and therefore, the quality of wetlands will be improved.
Robb Linde arrived at 7:50 p.m. and will be seated for the remainder of the meeting.
Bechtel stated she would be interested in knowing what Richard Snarksi recommends for water quality enhancement. She stated the commission's concern is with the water coming off the Country Club and McCurdy Rd that flows into the ditch. She noted that during discussions of the original application (minutes of 2006) the commission wondered if it would be possible to do some type of detention water treatment basin on the Country Club property to the east of McCurdy Road, but at that time it was indicated that would interfere with one of the golfing holes in that area. Bechtel asked the applicant if Mr. Snarksi could make some suggestions to the commission as to what could be done to achieve water quality without impacting what the Army Corps of Engineers has recommended.
The applicant mentioned that the parking spaces have been reduced from 53 to 45 spaces and asked the commission members if they had any additional concerns on this application. The commission did not and agreed a site walk was not necessary.
#07-43 Application of Douglas Andrews, 29 Boston Post Road - Construction of a 30’ x 28’ garage
The commission reviewed the plot plan submitted by the applicant. The applicant provided the commission with photographs of the site and also noted they had been to the site for a prior application for an inground swimming pool. The commission agreed to walk the site on Saturday, November 17th, 2007 at 8:30 a.m.
Page 3 – Minutes
October 23, 2007
#07-44 Application of Corey & Kristin Bullock – 30 Champlain Drive - Construction of an addition and garage
The applicant indicated no construction would take place in the wetlands. The commission discussed some of the characteristics of the property with the applicant. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 17th, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.
#07-45 Application of Bedri Babasuli – 20 Grassy Hill Road - Proposed driveway construction to provide off road parking and septic system repair.
Tony Hendriks, presented a site plan on behalf of the applicant. Hendriks indicated this was a seasonal cottage with no on site parking and a septic system that is in desperate need of repair. He stated the only parking is on Grassy Hill Road. He also noted the house is located on a very bad corner. Bechtel stated the sight lines are terrible at that location. Hendriks stated he is proposing to develop a driveway on the lower area where it is open and suitable to park a couple of cars. He indicated that it was a steep grade. Hendriks suggested another site walk to look at this particular situation. He also noted he has designed a septic system that is at least 50’ feet away from the water line, which is in conformance with the regulations.
Bechtel asked what grade the driveway will be: Hendriks indicated it would be 20 percent. Linde expressed concern about the water coming off the driveway into the lake. Hendriks stated that is what it is currently happening. Linde stated there would be a significant difference between water running down a grass slope opposed to an asphalt driveway. Hendriks stated that at this point he has not incorporated any type of design that would filter the system, but he can try to develop some sort of oil/water separator at the bottom to catch the water before it enters the lake. Hendriks indicated this would only be a driveway for a single family home. Brown asked if the street water would be running down the driveway. Hendriks indicated it would not; because of the grading the
street water would be kept in the gutter.
Bechtel stated she walked the site recently and looked at the retaining wall. She stated her concern is that even if Mr. Babasuli never puts down anything to thaw ice (salt or sand) to get up the 20 percent grade in the winter, it doesn’t mean it can be deed restricted so that nobody else ever will. She further stated this has to be one of the more challenging pieces of property she has seen.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 8:45.
Linde asked about the total impervious lot coverage on the parcel. Hendriks stated he would have those calculations put on the plan for the next meeting.
#07-46 Application of Michael and Anna Switzer – 5 Gould Lane - Addition to structure including screen porch
Architect Geri DeVeaux reviewed the project with the commission. DeVeaux stated the existing house is and L-shape contemporary home that has views to the marsh. She stated the proposal would require the existing septic system to be relocated. She indicated the test holes would be done on Friday, at which time the applicant has a preferred location which would locate the system outside of the regulated area pending the test hole data.
Page 4 – Minutes
October 23, 2007
DeVeaux stated the proposal includes an additional bedroom, enlargement to the kitchen and a screen porch addition. She stated the areas of the bedroom and kitchen would require a new crawl space foundation and the screen porch area would be constructed on sono tubes. DeVeaux also indicated the applicant has received approval from the neighbors as required by the association.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 17th at 9:30 p.m.
#07-47 Timothy Londregan – 3 Huntley Road – Construction of an office building
Londregan highlighted the changes on the revised plans. He stated he has reduced the size of the building and moved its location, which has significantly reduced the area of disturbance. He stated the property has been resurveyed. The building is now located in a level area, as recommended by Wendy Goodfriend. The footprint has been reduced, as requested by the Chair of this Commission. Londregan also stated the total area of disturbance within the 100’ ft has been reduced.
Bechtel asked if Mr. Metcalf had received the plans. Londregan indicated he had received the plans and they would be forwarding additional details to him in the next week or so.
The architect for the site, Christiaan Dinkeloo, stated the original application was for a two story, 14,600 sq. ft. office building with a level spreader, continuous across the rear of the building in the area facing the wetlands, which would handle the roof runoff. He stated the current proposal has rotated the building to lessen the encroachment in the 100 ft. review area and the footprint has been consolidated from 9,000 sq. ft on the first floor to 7,300 sq. ft. on the first floor. He stated they have gone from a level spreader to a detention pond, sized for a 25-year storm, to handle the roof runoff. The architect presented the commission with an overlay of the buildings on the site showing the difference in the two proposals. He stated this plan shows that the previous footprint from the 100’ line down was over 7,000 sq. ft. and the current building footprint 2,799 sq. ft. He also demonstrated the amount of trees that will be saved as a result of the change in the
construction limit line.
Bechtel stated she thought the plan looked better. She further noted this plan would be forwarded to Metcalf for his review and perhaps Wendy Goodfriend.
OLD BUSINESS
#07-31 – APPLICATION OF TIMOTHY LONDREGAN AT 3 HUNTLEY ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING
The applicant submitted a letter formally withdrawing the application.
#07-38 APPLICATION OF BEDRI BABASULI, 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD – REPAIR EXISTING RETAINING WALL ALONG ROGERS LAKE AND TO EXTEND THE WALL ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE LAKE
Bechtel noted the commission did walk the site although the members did not meet with the applicant. Bechtel stated the wall repair is proposed on the existing footing. Hendriks confirmed that all the work proposed is to take place on the footing that exists for the retaining wall. Bechtel stated she did not have a
Page 5 – Minutes
October 23, 2007
problem with the applicant re-facing what was currently there. She further stated she felt it was better than having what was currently there tumble into the lake.
Evan Griswold stated he had a general comment pertaining to retaining walls on the lake. He stated he would like to see all the natural lakefront shoreline and vegetation be restored over time and all of the retaining walls removed.
Linde stated the commission has been requesting that people doing improvements in and around the wetlands, establish a 10' to 20' vegetative buffer between their lawns and Rogers Lake. He stated he was also looking at the new application for this property, the driveway, and that application includes the rebuilding of the retaining wall across the entire length of the property and has an asphalt driveway running right to the retaining wall and up to the lake. He asked what are the effects of one application on the other. He further stated due to the grade he would like to see some sort of physical barrier or berm to keep the water from going right into the lake. He expressed concern over approving the retaining wall now, therefore he suggested the applications run together to avoid problems
for the applicant in the future.
Bechtel stated there is already an existing stone wall that is being undermined and currently we are in a low water situation, so this would be an ideal time to work on the wall. Hendriks stated the wall is in desperate need of repair and this application is totally separate from the driveway application. Bechtel stated the applicant needs to do this and she is comfortable with the applicant working on the existing footing. Griswold asked if pitching the driveway away from the lake into a cobblestone ditch would help with the runoff. Linde again expressed concerns about approving the applications separately because of the impact one could have on another. Bechtel stated that once again the applicant is only repairing what is already existing. Linde stated he did not feel the water
running into the lake was appropriate. Linde stated what is being shown is not in the best interest of the wetlands and the commission will probably be asking for something else to occur. Therefore, if we approve the wall repair the applicant may have to tear it out and redo it. He concluded by stating if that is a risk the applicant is willing to take then it can be approved.
Hendriks stated the applicant is in the masonry business and would like to repair the wall. Linde stated once again this commission might be asking for the wall to be raised higher or redesigned to make sure that when that water comes flying off the driveway it does not go directly into the lake. Bechtel stated she could not imagine the commission would ask the applicant to remove the wall; it might need to go higher or he might not be granted a driveway. She also noted all the work is to be done by hand.
Linde stated he would like to see a 20' buffer all along the lakefront. Bechtel asked Linde if he walked the site. Linde indicated he did not. Bechtel stated she did not think the applicant could get anything to grow on this site due to the lack of sunlight. Linde stated if there is nothing there that is fine. Bechtel stated the area is undisturbed.
Hendriks proposed some locations on the plans that could provide a buffer. Brown asked if the commission’s expectations were that the trees will remain. Bechtel stated yes for this application. Brown stated if the commission is thinking there should not be a vegetative buffer because there is shade it is really easy to cure the shade by cutting down the trees. Martin Griswold stated he felt a perennial shade buffer would hold the soil better than bare dirt.
Linde made a motion that the applicant could repair the existing retaining wall and must maintain a vegetative buffer with shade grown coverings 10' from the wetlands across the length of the property with
Page 6 – Minutes
October 23, 2007
the exception of the existing walkway and the existing wood deck and that the large trees are to remain. Bechtel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The commission did not address the "extension" of an additional retaining wall along the property at this time.
#07-39 APPLICATION OF FRAN AND COLLEEN SABLONE, 68 GRASSY HILL ROAD – CONSTRUCT A CONCRETE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE LAKE FRONT
Roger Bruenig stated he was present on behalf of the applicant, Fran Sablone. He stated he was present at the site walk at which time several comments were made by the commission. He stated one of the comments was the placement of an additional silt fence be put into the lake itself and the other was that the blue book be used for guidance in the selection of the plantings. Bruenig reviewed the additional drawings submitted to the commission with the members. He stated the drawings include the buffer and berm that were suggested at the site walk.
Bechtel asked how far back the house was from the proposed seawall. The applicant indicated it was approximately 35 ft. Bechtel stated there was a stockpile of muck on the site. Bruenig indicated that the muck on the site was a result of the lake dredging project. Brown noted that the muck was supposed to be cleared off the site within a week or two of the dredging. Bruenig indicated it was the applicant’s intent to combine the muck in with the soils that are used for the plantings on the site.
Linde expressed concern about the wetlands buffer. Griswold ask what material would be used for the proposed patio; Bruenig indicated the applicant had not made that determination. Griswold stated he would like to see the patio moved back 10 feet so a 10-foot wide vegetated buffer could be maintained along the entire property adjacent to the lake. There was a discussion of different "buffer" widths and the applicant indicated she would adhere to with a 10' vegetated buffer. Bechtel stated the long-term goal is that when people are in Rogers Lake they will see a green buffer around the lake, not a trex deck, or a patio and lawn furniture etc. right up to the water line. Linde also added that from a wetlands standpoint they were trying to prevent runoff of fertilizers and pesticides
into the lake and the vegetative buffer would act as filter so that the long term water quality in Old Lyme is not diminished.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application of Fran and Colleen Sablone, 68 Grassy Hill Rd., for the construction of a concrete retaining wall along the lakefront and a 10' x 20' patio, with a 10-foot wide vegetative buffer to run along the concrete retaining wall, allowing for a 4-foot wide pathway to access their dock. Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
#07-40 APPLICATION OF LESLEY CHICK – 66 GRASSY HILL ROAD – CONSTRUCT A CONCRETE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE LAKE FRONT
The commission reviewed the plans. The applicant indicated the wooden deck had been removed from the site. The commission also discussed the material that would be used to construct the steps. The applicant indicated she would like to create a stone staircase. The applicant also noted she did have a dock on the
property at one time and at some point down the road she would like to create a new dock for the site. Bechtel asked if a patio was also proposed for this site. The applicant indicated that was correct.
Page 7 – Minutes
October 23, 2007
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application of Lesley Chick at 66 Grassy Hill Rd., for the construction of a concrete retaining wall along the lakefront, with cut in stairs, and a 15' x 20' patio, with a 10-foot wide vegetative buffer to run along the concrete retaining wall, allowing for a 4 foot wide pathway to access the stairs. Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
#07-41 APPLICATION OF ERIK BLOCK – 4 ROSE LANE, CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
The commission walked the site and indicated it was a very level and flat site. Griswold indicated with proper management of the stockpile and soil there should not be any problems with the site. The commission suggested a stockpile area, if necessary, be located beside the addition. The commission reviewed the plan submitted. The commission noted a discrepancy on the site plan submitted, however the application narrative was very clear. Linde recommended the applicant submit a revised plan to avoid any future confusion as to what was actually approved.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application at 4 Rose Lane with the condition that a new site plan be submitted showing the exact location of the proposed addition, what currently exists, that a stockpile location be shown on the plan and a silt fence be placed between the project and the stonewall. Martin Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
VIOLATIONS
LORDS WOODS SUBDIVISION
Bechtel stated the commission received the requested monthly status update from Attorney Block dated 10/23/07. She further stated on August 27, 2007 the commission revised the Cease & Desist Order to add a nine-point Remediation Plan. She stated the first three items pertained to the replanting plan, which have not been completed and that Attorney Block has requested an additional month to complete them. She stated items 4 & 5 had been completed and item 6 was not under IWWC jurisdiction. She stated item 7 had been satisfied, as the applicant’s Attorney met with Open Space and a good faith effort was made to resolve the request for financial compensation. She stated item 8, the deadline for replanting, would be extended as requested and item 9, had been completed by Tom
Metcalf and he did not feel further review was necessary, per his 10/4/07 letter to this commission.
Bechtel made a motion to modify the Cease and Desist Order on the IWWC permit for Lord’s Woods Subdivision as follows: Items 1,2, and 3 must be completed to the satisfaction of this commission, the work is to be inspected by the WEO upon completion, and a portion of the bond must be retained to complete this work if necessary. Upon satisfactory completion and inspection of the work, the Cease and Desist order will be lifted.
Martin Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
