OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2007
Present were: Chairman Bechtel, Skip DiCamillo, Martin Griswold, Dave McCulloch, Mike Moran, Jim Sipperly and Don Willis. Also present were: Ann Brown, Kim Groves, Joe Wren, Tony Hendriks, Tim Londregan, John Anderson, Robert Bollo and other members of the public. Commission member Evan Griswold was seated at 7:55 pm.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED OCTOBER 23, 2007
Martin Griswold made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED NOVEMBER 17, 2007
Don Willis made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
AMEND AGENDA
Don Willis made a motion to amend the agenda to add the Point O’ Woods application as Item #3 under new business. Jim Sipperly seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
ROBERT L. DAY COMPANY, INC. – FOR A WETLANDS CROSSING ON GRANDVIEW AVE.
Bechtel noted the applicant was not present and reported that she had received notification from some of the neighbors on Grandview Ave. and Boughton Rd. requesting a Public Hearing be held on this application. She further reported that this application is for additional roadwork that will require filling. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, December 8th at 8:30 a.m. and to hold a Public Hearing at their next meeting on January 22, 2008.
Page 2 – Minutes
November 27, 2007
APPLICATION OF ROBERT ELY DOUGHERTY – 146 NECK ROAD – REQUEST FOR FINDING OF NO JURISDICTION
Evan Griswold recused himself from this application.
Bechtel indicated this property located directly off Rte. 156 and abutting the Lyme town line had been walked by most of the commission members on a previous application. Evan Griswold stated the applicant is proposing to subdivide his 7.0 acre property into two lots. One of the lots would retain the existing house, the second lot would be a 3.0 acre building lot. Bechtel stated there is a signed note on the plan indicating that a site inspection by Richard Snarski, CPSS, found no inland wetland soils, vernal pools or watercourses on the property.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to find no jurisdiction. Martin Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed.
POINT O’ WOODS – CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WITHIN THE REGULATED AREA
Bechtel read the letter into the record from Robert Prybylo, P.E. that outlines the proposed activity. (Copy attached). Robert Prybylo, RFP Engineering LLC, presented the application for Point O Woods (POW). He stated that POW has been working on this application for many years and they are now getting close to construction: they plan to begin in the summer of '08. The work to be performed in the regulated area consists of the installation of a new wastewater pump station, control building, emergency generator and installation of associated gravity and force main sewers. The pump station will be installed on property owned by The POW Association, Inc. Pipelines will be installed within the roadway's right-of-ways that are either owned or maintained by The POW Association, Inc. or by the State
of Connecticut DOT. In all cases, work activities will not be occurring directly in wetland areas, only within the 100’ upland review area.
Prybylo stated the pumping station work will involve the excavation of approximately 20’ to get to the bottom of the pumping station and this would amount to about a 10’ diameter manhole and then it would be back filled. He indicated that ,with the exception of a propane tank, the rest of the work would be above grade.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, December 8th, 2007 at 9:15 a.m.
Jim Sipperly asked what the setback was from the pumping station to the wetland. Mr. Prybylo indicated it was about 50 ft. Mr. Sipperly also asked what would be done about dewatering. Prybylo stated the contractor would be putting in dewatering basins. McCulloch suggested that based on the public interest of this project the commission consider holding a public hearing.
The commission agreed to discuss at their 12/08/07 site walk, the possibility of a holding a public hearing, beginning in January,
Page 3 – Minutes
November 27, 2007
OLD BUSINESS
APPLICATION OF TIMOTHY LONDREGAN AT 1 HUNTLEY ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING
Joe Wren, engineer, was present to represent the applicant, Huntley and Halls, LLC. Bechtel clarified for the commission that in early November Mr. Wren replaced Don Lucas. Wren confirmed that was correct but indicated that Mr. Lucas would still be doing the septic system design.
Wren stated he basically created a new plan for the site and indicated that the parcel was originally created by a division back in 2004. He stated the parcel is approximately 6.8 acres and more than half of it is
comprised of inland wetlands, specifically a deep water marsh/pond. Wren stated that in the initial proposal there was a lot of underground storage for the detention of storm water. Mr. Wren identified on the boundary survey that various colored lines marked the edge of the pond, the wetland soil boundary and the 100' review area. He stated the buffer is comprised of very sparse underbrush and some mature trees. He stated in the prior application, a number of the trees located in the buffer were to be removed because of construction. He stated since that time he has revised the shape of the building.
Wren indicated that when he took over the project he scheduled a meeting on Nov. 5th with Bechtel, Goodfriend and Metcalf. He stated at that meeting they discussed what could be done to make this a better project. He stated the first thing he wanted to review was the drainage. He stated initially there was a detention pond and several hundred feet of underground infiltration galleries. He stated that when you are that close to a large water source, especially this subject property, you are not concerned about quantity of stormwater runoff. He stated if you let all of the additional runoff created by this project go directly into the pond, (quality aside), the quantity would not raise the level of the pond by any measurable amount. Therefore, from a quantity standpoint he did not need to
remove any of the existing buffer or fill in any areas outside of the proposed construction or take down any trees. Wren stated that at the 11/5/07 meeting, Wendy Goodfriend suggested that since the runoff from the actual roof area is clean water, that it could be put into underground galleries. He stated the plan now shows 64 feet of concrete 4 x 4 galleries which is just for the roof runoff. He stated the rest of the water on the site, beginning with the parking lot, is graded such that it will run into two catch basins. He stated the rest of the drainage will drain into a crushed stone apron to prevent erosion and provide infiltration before it gets down into the detention area. He stated the portion of the pavement that needs to be drained will drain into one catch basin which goes into a 2,200 gallon drywell. The overflow from the bio-retention area is designed to handle between 1 to 2 inches of stormwater, and Wren stated that typically in
areas like this we like to store at least the first 1” of runoff and stated he oversized this somewhat to account for any debris, blockage or anything that might occur. He also noted if the area does fill up there is an overflow device which would make it way into the catch basin and on into the infiltration galleries. He stated there is no point discharge into the buffer at all, it is all directed underground. He stated what he likes about this design is that the bio-retention area is used to treat the stormwater runoff off the parking lot prior to making its way into the groundwater.
Wren noted the trees to be removed are noted with an “R” on the site plan. He stated a silt fence line has been shown on the plan to be very clear. He stated there are 25 trees proposed to be removed and of those 25 only 13 are in the 100 ft buffer. He stated the closest point of disturbance shown on the plan is
59.4 feet which is from the corner of the parking which includes the 14,600 sq. ft. building and the 73 parking spaces required. He noted the soil type lines have been re-delineated on the plan. Wren stated the plan
Page 4 – Minutes
November 27, 2007
incorporates a covered portico. He also reviewed the traffic flow pattern with the commission and the handicapped parking. He also noted drainage calculations have been provided and noted that the roof infiltration systems handles a minimum a 1” of runoff from the roof and an overflow is provided into the 2,200 gallon drywell. Wren noted the lighting is not shown on the plan but it is very similar to what was shown before, a light approx. every six parking spaces and kept as far away from the wetlands as possible.
Wren stated for erosion and sedimentation controls a silt fence line is shown on the plan and because of the quality of the wetlands and the sensitivity of the buffer and the wetlands themselves there is a silt fence detail provided. He stated that detail requires a wood chip berm against the silt fence which promotes the stability of the silt fence. He stated there are two stone construction entrances shown on the plan and those details are also provided on the plans. He stated a stockpile area is shown and he reviewed the Soil and Erosion, Stormwater Management, and Detailed Construction Sequencing narratives on the plan with the
commission. He stated the bio-retention area would not be a wetland because it is not low enough and not close enough to the groundwater table but it will have about 12” of organic matter and there will be some shrubs, which will tolerate draught conditions.
Wren stated a Wetlands Table has been included on the site plan. He stated it summarizes: Total Parcel Area 6.2 acres, Wetlands Activity is Zero, and Zero Fill in the Wetlands, and the 100 ft. review zone activity area is slightly over 12,000 sq. ft. and that would essentially be delineated by silt fence up to the 100’ buffer line.
Total sight disturbance is 1.25 acres and the proposed paving area is 28,400 sq.ft. which is about .65 acres.
Wren stated he spoke to the Fire Marshal who indicated that no standpipes or dry hydrants would be required for fire protection. Wren also indicated the plans have been submitted to Mr. Metcalf for his review and he hopes to have comments by early next week. He also noted he did receive a full set of comments from Wendy Goodfriend and stated that most of those comments can be addressed with minor revisions to the plan.
McCulloch asked if the amount of parking spaces complied with the zoning regulations. Wren indicated that was correct.
DiCamillo asked about the loading zone shown on the plan. Wren indicated that was a zoning requirement for commercial buildings. He also noted there would not be any large trucks servicing the building.
The commission asked the applicant what style of roof he had proposed. He indicated he was not sure at this point due to the fact the building had been reconfigured in shape.
Evan Griswold asked Mr. Wren if he had considered stormwater collection for use within the building for flushing toilets. Mr. Wren indicated he could look into that possibility. He further indicated this type of system could be a problem in the northeast because of the cold temperatures in the winter season.
Mike Moran asked about the dumpster enclosure and how leakage would be prevented especially since it was a medical building. Mr. Wren stated there would be no medical waste, because it cannot be thrown out in normal trash. He stated that the area is pitched towards the catch basin and it would flow through all the primary and secondary treatment train.
Jim Sipperly asked about Ms. Goodfriend’s comment #2b with regard to the outlet being located mid-basin. Wren stated the basin is not really graded downward; it has a flat bottom, but he stated the outlet could be simply relocated so runoff can travel through the maximum distance.
Page 5 – Minutes
November 27, 2007
The commission and the applicant discussed the address of the proposed site and agreed it would be called 1 Huntley Road. Wren also noted he would be submitting his application to the Zoning Commission at their December meeting and at that time the plans would be revised.
The applicant agreed to grant the commission an extension of time until the January meeting.
OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB – 35 MCCURDY ROAD – FILL IN APPROXIMATELY 3,359 SQ.FT. OF WETLANDS, CONSTRUCT A 45 SPACE GRAVEL PARKING LOT AND INSTALL PADDLE TENNIS COURTS AND A 24’ X 24’ SHED/WARMING HUT
John Anderson, Environmental Land Use Analyst, from the Law Firm of Robinson & Cole was present to discuss the application. He also noted Robert Bollo, President of the Old Lyme Country Club and Richard Snarski, Certified Soil Scientist were in attendance. Anderson stated at the last meeting the commission requested that water quality issues be reviewed since the previous proposed water quality basins had been abandoned. Anderson stated he met with the Superintendent of the OLCC and Mr. Snarski and reviewed the opportunities to improve water quality. Anderson stated that there were limited opportunities on the site to create basins.
Bechtel stated this plan was submitted to Mr. Metcalf for his review. She stated that she felt the memo from Metcalf to the commission was to the point and very extensive and covered all of the issues. She noted there was one area on the site plan that needed clarification and asked the applicant to explain this and stated that that Metcalf's 11/26/07 letter also concurs with the Army Corps of Engineers that this new plan has less impact overall.
Anderson clarified the issue on the map by stating on the southerly end of the wetland area there is a contour marked as #9 and it wraps around the bottom and extends up and that contour is actually a scrivner error and it was left on the plan from the prior approval and it has nothing to do with this application. He stated they are not proposing any filling or grading in the wetlands beyond the 3,359 sq. ft. at the northerly end.
Anderson once again stated for the record the reason for this new application is when the application was forwarded to the Army Corp they found that the amount of fill approved by this commission on this application was not acceptable from their standpoint.
Bechtel stated that one of the things included in the conditions of approval is that she would like an individual to be identified in the wetland enhancement plan that would be responsible for the maintenance work. John Anderson indicated that Mr. Snarski would be that person.
McCulloch requested that roundup not be used in the removal of invasive plants and requested that mechanical means be used as much as possible to avoid harming the animals. Snarski stated the tops would be broken off and the stumps of plants painted with the roundup to limit the impact.
Bechtel handed out a draft motion listing conditions of approval that the commission reviewed.
Page 6 – Minutes
November 27, 2007
After review of the information presented before this commission at a regular meeting on 10/23/07;
* Site Development Plan dated 7/17/07
* 9/28/07 letter from J. Anderson, Land Use Analyst, Robinson & Cole to Ann Brown, WEO,
* 7/31/07 letter from R. DeSista, Army Corps of Engineers to B. Skelly, Superintendent, O.L. County Club
* Wetland Narrative - as shown on site plan
* Inland Wetland & Watercourse Assessment, 2/5/06, revised 9/12/07, by Priscilla W. Baillie, PH.D.
* 8/6/07 letter from R. Snarksi, C.P.S.S. to J. Anderson, Robinson & Cole
and a through evaluation of the 11/26/07 letter from T. Metcalf, P.E., L.S. consulting engineer, to
J. Bechtel, Chairman, IWWC
… and in consideration of the factors specified by the Connecticut General Statutes, CGS §22a-36 through 45, including but not limited to the factors set out in CGS §22a-41 and Old Lyme's Inland Wetlands Regulations Section 10:
Jim Sipperly made a motion to approve this application with the following 12 conditions:
1. that the wetland boundaries be re-flagged to assist in the construction and inspection of improvements,
2. that the Wetland Enhancement Plan as outlined in R. Snarski's 8/6/07 letter to J. Anderson be administered by an individual familiar with the identification of the plants to be eradicated and the use/application of the herbicide 'Round-up'. In addition, that individual is to be identified in the Wetland Enhancement Plan.
3. that the silt fence be extended from WF11 south easterly to WF8,
4. that silt fencing be installed prior to any site disturbance other than the cutting of vegetation,
5. that the silt fence installation be inspected by the Town prior to construction,
6. that the proposed improvements should be field staked by a licensed land surveyor,
7. that within the wetland area where parking is to be constructed, organic material and other unsuitable soils should be removed prior to placement of gravel base material and that the gravel base material should be clean, bank-run material of an appropriate gradation,
8. that the embankment slope between the parking area and wetlands and the cut slope parallel to the railroad and to the SW of the wetlands be planted with vegetation that will require minimal maintenance
and fertilizing and be included on this site plan,
9. that the applicant post a separate Erosion & Sedimentation and Wetland Enhancement Bond, specifically relating to the construction of the proposed activities as outlined in this application, the implementation of the Wetland Enhancement Plan as outlined in R. Snarski's 8/6/07 letter to J. Anderson and the necessary inspections of the above prior to any site disturbance or construction. This Bond is to be in addition to any bonding required by the Zoning Commission. The form and type of bond shall be reviewed and approved by this Commission's legal counsel. The applicants' consulting engineer shall prepare and submit the bond estimate to this Commission for review and approval. This bond is to be held by the IWWC,
10. that the proposed guard rail along McCurdy Rd. be compliant with Conn. DOT specifications,
that a revised site plan which includes items #2,3,8 and 10, be submitted to the WEO prior to the issuance of a wetlands permit, and
that this plan must be resubmitted to IWWC for further review, should any changes be made to this site plan as a result of compliance and/or conditions requested by the zoning commission.
Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 7 – Minutes
November 27, 2007
DOUGLAS ANDREWS – 29 BOSTON POST ROAD, CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE
Bechtel stated the commission walked the site and agreed the applicant did not need to attend the meeting
and made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Don Willis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
COREY & KRISTIN BULLOCK – 30 CHAMPLAIN DRIVE – CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITION
AND GARAGE
Bechtel stated the commission met at the site with Mr. Bullock and he explained he would be grading up to
the foundation and there would be footing drains. Bechtel requested the applicant show the location of the
drains on the plan and indicate there would be a 4 ft. "no mow" strip between the boundary of the wetlands
and the edge of the grading so the grasses growing in that area would provide greater protection for that
wetland area. Bechtel indicated that silt fencing has been shown on the plan but she felt it should be extended
and reinstalled. Bechtel stated the corners of the garage have been staked and the stockpile location has been
shown on the plan. Bechtel stated she was concerned about the grading because of the short distance to the
wetlands; she requested the silt fence be checked prior to construction and that the site be re-inspected after
the grading is completed and before final planting.
The applicant noted he had shown an 8-ft no mow area on the revised plan.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of a silt fence inspection
before construction begins and an inspection of the grading limits before top soil is spread. Don Willis
seconded the motion.
The motion passed. McCulloch and Sipperly abstained.
BEDRI BABASULI – 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD – PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION TO
PROVIDE OFF ROAD PARKING AND SEPTIC SYSTEM REPAIR.
Hendriks stated he was present to discuss the application with the commission. He indicated he reviewed some of the options to get parking on the site. He noted they discussed the fact that this was a seasonal home and was it worth the expense of installing a huge oil/water grit separator that is normally only used in a commercial type of activity. He stated presently a lot of the water is coming down the hill into the lake and he also looked at Rogers Lake Boat Launch, which continually has boats backing down it with, motors into the lake. He stated this driveway is steep and it services a three season home.
Bechtel asked Mr. Hendriks if he had made any changes to the plan since the last meeting. Hendriks
indicated he had not. Bechtel stated, after walking the site she felt she had never seen an application that
deserved a denial more readily than this one. However, she stated the commission did not want to do an
outright denial so the commission decided that this plan would be forwarded to Mr. Metcalf for his review and input to the commission.
Hendriks stated he had not made any changes because he was looking for some direction from the
commission. He stated he felt from an engineering standpoint that this driveway can be constructed.
Hendriks agreed to discuss the application with Mr. Metcalf.
Page 8 - Minutes
November 27, 2007
Hendriks also discussed the installation of catch basins with some some shallow galleries that the water could infiltrate into and settle out during a storm event and into some pipes.
Bechtel stated the commission also expressed concern about the clearing of trees on the upland slope for the expansion of a septic system. Hendriks noted that the Health Department has indicated that they will be signing off on that septic system location.
Mr. Hendriks agreed to grant an extension for the application to the next regular meeting (1/22/08).
MICHAEL & ANNA SWITZER – 5 GOULD LANE – ADDITION TO STRUCTURE INCLUDING SCREEN PORCH
Geri DeVeaux, Architect, was present on behalf of the applicant. Bechtel stated that Gary Yuknat from Shoreline Sanitation was present at the site walk to explain the scope of his work and were the septic system would be placed. Bechtel stated the only concern that the commission expressed was the location of the silt fencing above the steep slope. Bechtel suggested the silt fence be reinforced from the downward side because of the location of the work on the site. Bechtel also suggested the silt fence be inspected by the contractor after a storm event and that it be removed upon completion.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of double or reinforced silt fencing and inspections. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATION CHANGE
Dave McCulloch presented a proposed regulation change to the Old Lyme Subdivision Regulations drafted by George James. (Copy Attached)
Bechtel stated that she felt the proposed regulation was in response to the clearing that was done on the FMTM, LLC property which is located off of Route 1 (next to Stone Ranch). She stated she recently walked the property with Diana Atwood Johnson and the limits of clearing are clearly marked and they have not cleared beyond the limits of clearing. She further stated that this subdivision requires a lot of roadwork for five homes. She also reported that Tom Metcalf is inspecting that roadwork.
McCulloch expressed concern that the open space that was granted was entirely wetlands. Bechtel stated that appears to be something that needs to be impressed upon the Planning Commission - that the desire is to get usable/buildable land and not just wetlands factored into the open space requirement. Bechtel stated the Planning Commission may not feel that they can hold out against the developer. A discussion ensued about why the Planning Commission does not calculate a larger percentage of usable/buildable land. Sipperly stated sometimes commission's look at the amount of acreage being given rather than the quality of land. He offered to provide some open space language that is used by other towns. Bechtel and McCulloch stated they did not feel the
problem was with the open space language, but a lack of communication between the commissions.
Ann Brown, ZEO/WEO, explained that it would be unwise to tie the hands of the Planning Commission with a regulation stating that they must accept a certain type of property because in some cases there may be a wetlands of interest that you would like to protect. Brown noted that the Planning Commission has all of the power to determine where and what the open space should be.
Page 9 – Minutes
November 27, 2007
Brown stated that by statute, Open Space dedication is not so that the town can have open space, it is for the benefit of those people in the subdivision. Sipperly stated the resources on the property also play a role in the criteria of the selection.
LORDS WOODS SUBDIVISION
Bechtel stated she met with Attorney Block, Diana Atwood-Johnson and Allen Hull of B & L Construction at the site on 11/16/07. She stated the decision at that time was to table the replanting plan until Spring '08. She noted the property is stabilized and Metcalf will review and advise on whether or not to remove the silt fence at this time. Therefore, the agreement is to re-evaluate the replanting plan: it would definitely be nothing more than was outlined and it might be less, depending on re-growth. Bechtel suggested a site walk in the Spring to reassess the site.
Bechtel informed the commission a financial agreement has been reached with the Open Space Committee.
REGULATION REWRITE
Bechtel stated she has rewritten the IWWC regulations to bring them into compliance with the DEP’s model
regulations which were revised to reflect all legislative changes to the Act to date. She stated in the process of doing that she had also attended a DEP and a CACIWC session on the vernal pool monitoring program and incorporated some of those suggestions into the regulations.
Bechtel asked the commission how they would like to review the document. The commission agreed to have the document emailed to them with the changes underlined.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
