OLD LYME INLAND WETLAND AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 27, 2008
Present were: Janet Bechtel, Robb Linde, Evan Griswold, Dave McCulloch, Mike Moran, Don Willis, Skip DiCamillo and Sabine O’Donnell.
Bechtel called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
AMENDED AGENDA
Bechtel made a motion to accept the amended agenda. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED APRIL 22, 2008
Robb Linde made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Don Willis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED MAY 1, 2008
Don Willis made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
08-08 OLD LYME HILLS – WOODS OF OLD LYME – OLD STAGECOACH ROAD – SUBDIVISION
Bechtel stated this application was before the commission last year and was withdrawn for further refinements.
Gennaro Martorelli and Hussein Muhsin were both present on behalf of the application. Martorelli stated the parcel of land was located off Old Stagecoach Road just beyond Rogers Lake. He stated the parcel consists of 128 acres with 38 proposed building lots. He reviewed the layout and access into the subdivision with the commission. He noted that at the time of their prior submittal this commission asked if the access into the site could be revised to eliminate a wetlands crossing. Martorelli stated he discussed the access with the Planning Commission and they were amendable to the revision. He stated there is a major cut coming into the property. He noted testing has been done for ledge in that area and it has been determined that there is no ledge. He
stated there is storm drainage in the cut entering into
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC May 27, 2008
the site. He stated the remainder of the road follows the natural topography of the land with one small exception which is located between two major wetlands. He stated this area is approximately 50 feet in length. Martorelli also indicated that the site plan shows limits of tree clearing and also conservation easements on those lots with wetlands or adjacent to wetlands.
Martorelli indicated that at the time of the last application the Old Lyme Fire Department indicated they did not want a standpipe located in the pond, but preferred to just drop their hoses into the pond.
Bechtel asked Mr. Martorelli if he was still using the same engineer for this application as he did for the prior application. Martorelli indicated that was correct. Bechtel stated when the prior application was submitted the commission had a meeting in Middletown with Wendy Goodfriend, Mr. Metcalf and the applicant’s engineer. Bechtel asked if any substantial changes have been made to the site plan since that time other than addressing the comments of that meeting. Martorelli indicated there were a lot of changes as a result of that meeting including; the type of drainage structure to be used at Old Stagecoach Road, the design of the drainage swales along the side of the road, and an additional drainage structure which has been added to the north side of the property. Martorelli also
indicated tests were done in the area of the entrance to the site which verified there was no ledge. Bechtel indicated that no specific type of unit was specified for the entrance at the time of the prior application, but that a hydro-dynamic separator would be recommended.
Brown asked if the applicant planned to have the roads be accepted as town roads. The applicant indicated that was correct.
The commission agreed to send the application out for review by Tom Metcalf, Wendy Goodfriend, Ron Rose, Dave Jewett and Diana Atwood Johnson.
Bechtel asked the applicants if permission was granted to commission members who would like to walk the site individually. Mr. Martorelli indicated that would be fine but would appreciate a prior phone call. In addition, if anyone would like him or Mr. Muhsin to join them they would be happy to do so
Brown suggested the applicant be in touch with the Fire Chief about his application. Bechtel stated that the applicant already had a number of discussions with the Fire Department regarding his original application. Martorelli indicated he had a letter from the Fire Chief with regard to the site; Bechtel read that letter dated February 10, 2007 from Dave Jewett, Fire Chief, into the record. She stated the letter indicated the Fire Department’s needs had been satisfied. Kim Groves noted the new submittal has already been forwarded to the Fire Department for their review.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
08-09 SHORT HILLS PROPERTIES, LLC – 16-2 SHORTS HILLS ROAD – SUBDIVISION
Chris Smith, Land Use Attorney, with the law firm of Shipman and Goodwin located in Hartford, CT stated he was present before the commission on behalf of the contract purchaser, Real Estate Services Inc. located in Middletown, CT. Smith stated that the applicant for the project was Marty Smith who is one of the owners of the company. He stated the civil engineer for the project, Michael Bennett was not able to be present this evening. Smith stated it was his understanding the application would be received by the commission this evening with a brief overview of the proposed project.
Smith stated the proposal is for a seven lot subdivision on 25 acres with wetlands indicated in blue on the plan. He oriented the commission to the site located on Short Hills Road. Smith stated the unimproved roadway would be finished and two different water quality basins would be installed; one would be located on Lot #1 and the other one located towards the end of the road. He stated the road would be approximately 1,400 feet in length. He stated there are no activities in the wetlands, just two activities in the regulated upland area; a drainage ditch and a water quality basin on Lot #1. He stated there are wetlands located on Lot #5 and across the open space area; however the regulated upland review area does extend onto Lot #4. He stated there are three wetlands
located to the west of the public roadway and one does constitute a vernal pool. Smith stated this was verified by their wetland scientist, Penny Sharpe. He further stated she has prepared a wetland assessment which will be filed with the commission by the end of the week. Smith stated there are approximately 8 acres of regulated upland review area and there is activity that would impact approximately 2.2 percent of that area. Smith stated there is no activity proposed that will directly impact the wetlands. Smith stated the wetland (designated as Wetland #1) on Short Hills Road has an existing drainage ditch located along Short Hills Road and the applicant will be making improvements to that area so those activities will be occurring within 100 ft. of this wetland area. Smith stated the drainage ditch is approximately 100 ft. to the west of the intersection of the proposed subdivision roadway and Short Hills Road; this is
Regulated Activity #1. Regulated Activity#2 involves a water quality basin that is proposed to be located on the southwesterly corner of Lot #1 which will be picking up the sheet flow from the first 350 ft. of the roadway that will be traveling in a north/south direction towards Short Hill Road. He stated this is a water quality basin not a detention basin, it is designed to meet all of the 2002 DEP Stormwater Guidelines for stormwater quality treatment and that the water will sheet flow off a level spreader that is approximately 100 ft. in length and will then go toward the regulated upland review area. He stated lot development that will be occurring on Lot #4 and Lot #5 is proposed to be outside of not only the wetland system (Designated as C in the report) but also outside the upland review area associated with that wetland system.
Smith noted for the record that the proposed subdivision roadway activity will be outside the upland review area for the two wetlands which constitute vernal pools. Smith stated the report from the wetlands expert does indicated this proposal will have no long-term adverse impact on any of the wetlands systems involved.
Smith summarized by stating it is a 7 lot subdivision on a 25 acre site with approximately 8 acres of regulated upland review area, and that the impact for Wetland Area #1 is 3,350 ft. and Wetland Area #2 is approximately 7,500 sq. ft which is only 2.2% of the total upland review area.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
Bechtel asked the applicant to orient her to the site as to the proximity of I-95 and Flat Rock Hill Road. The applicant used the plan to orient the commission to the site. Bechtel asked if all of the house lots were located to the east of the subdivision road. Smith indicated that was correct. The commission asked if the house sites shown on the plan were actual or proposed. Smith indicated that they were proposed. Smith stated the proposed lot development is outside of regulated upland review area. He further stated that if anyone who purchases a lot wants to modify the location they would have to come back before the commission.
Linde asked if the applicant would be willing to place placards in the necessary areas. The applicant indicated that would not be problem. Linde asked if silt fencing would be placed to protect the vernal pools. Smith indicated there is a mitigation plan included in the proposed plans submitted to the commission.
Smith indicated the proposal before the commission is Phase I of what he hopes will be a Phase II development. He further noted the property is owned by King & Tooker and is under contract to purchase as well as other parcels located to the North. Smith further stated he would be submitting a Lot Line Modification application to the Planning Commission along with a Subdivision Application at their June meeting.
Discussion ensued about the plans for Phase II of the project.
The commission originally agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, June 5th.
This has been changed to Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. K. Groves will notify the applicants of this date/time change.
08-05 REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #18 – RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TRACK AND REVISED DRAINAGE
Bechtel indicated the commission received correspondence from Thomas E. Metcalf, Consulting Engineer regarding his review of the application. This is available for anyone to review and has become part of the record. Bechtel stated the commission does have a list of exhibits which lists all of the correspondence to-date in the file.
John Rhodes, Director of Facilities, Lyme-Old Lyme High School stated that they would be providing an overview of the whole design. He further noted there have been changes since the site walk and April meeting which address the comments and concerns raised by the commission. Rhodes stated Dick Webb, Clough Harbour and Associates will review the design and highlights of the changes. He also noted that Dave Arthur, CHA, Civil Engineer, will discuss the storm drainage and Ben Rieger will discuss the Environmental impacts on the proposed project. In addition, John Rhodes stated that Sue Fogliano, Chairperson, BOE, Nan Salvino, Treasurer, BOE and Facilities Committee Assistant Chairperson and Jim Whitkins, BOE member and Facilities Committee Chairperson were in attendance this
evening.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
Webb, Landscape Architect and Project Manager, stated that the basic program elements have not changed at all, therefore the application before the commission is still for the reconstruction of the
existing high school track. He stated the existing track is a cinder track located in a position just to the south of the high school. He stated the general location of the track will remain unchanged and will be
rebuilt in its basic orientation and configuration. He stated the limits to the west, closer to Center School, and to the north, will be held and maintained with the new track construction. He noted the geometry of the track will be expanded about 20 ft to the east, into the slope, as you begin to work into the knoll on the property.
Webb stated the track is proposed as a six lane, 400 meter, synthetically surfaced track. He stated it will have continuous drainage at the interior portion of Lane 1. He noted six distance lanes are added on the east side straight away to accommodate the additional events for track and field. He stated the “D” areas, shown on the plan in a semi-circle at the ends of the track, will contain high jump, pole vault and long-triple jump and will also be a synthetic surface. He stated the throwing events are located outside the field itself including the shotput and discus, as shown on the plan. He noted the project does include the installation of a chain link fence at the limit of the throwing event areas. He stated the field itself, located
inward of the track, is proposed to be natural grass with an irrigation system. He stated it is proposed to have a 2+ crown and the field will be slightly reduced and will accommodate multiple sports. Webb stated, with the exception of the drainage, there are no other significant utility improvements to the project and there is no proposed lighting for the track.
Webb provided samples of different types of synthetic surfacing. He stated both of these samples have a polyurethane base mat with impervious embedded texture. He stated both of these systems are constructed with an epidium rubber. Webb submitted a copy of a letter from one of the track surfacing companies confirming their product and the fact that there are no heavy metals used in the construction of the product. He stated this product is totally different from recycled tires.
Webb stated the track does not affect any regulated setbacks from the wetland area. He stated the one impact in the regulated area involves the construction of the outlet for the storm water drainage system.
Dave Arthur, Engineer for the Project, stated he designed the proposed storm drainage for the track. He stated the storm drainage system has been designed and reviewed by the town’s engineer. He stated the track drainage system will be collected and brought to a new proposed outfall at the northern end of the track. He stated the track area itself previously discharged to a smaller, older pipe, at the opposite side of the field, so this new drainage will change the entire direction of the flow. He stated previously the flow discharged to Library Lane and flowed down to the Duck River crossing. He stated this proposal calls for a new outlet to collect just this portion of the site bring it down the access roadway. He stated the system has been designed to mitigate the flow
to the wetland system and particularly the headwater of Appleby Pond. He stated a hydrodynamic separator is installed for storm water quality after which the storm water flow passes through the outfall site and discharges to a storm water detention basin which controls the one, two, and ten year storm events from the site. He stated after this, it is discharged through a level spreader to the wetland area. He stated from here it travels approximately 300 ft. to the Duck River and then 250 ft. to the tidal area and then 150 ft to the head of Appleby Pond. Arthur stated the goal of the storm water detention was to mitigate any increased water flow from the site at that
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
particular location and in addition, it actually improves the situation at Library Ln. because it is taking a very large portion of the area that is now discharging into the small undersized pipe to the Library Lane
system. He also noted that previously there was no storm water quality system and no usage is proposed that generates a lot of sediment load in general. He stated the main purpose is to detain the flow.
He stated the excavation through the site will involve rock cuts and approximately 400 cubic yards of rock will have to be blasted. He stated it is a very deep excavation through the knoll on the site but it will become shallow prior to the outlet to the detention area.
Ben Rieger discussed the Best Management Practices that will be used at the school. Griswold stated he assumed that whatever those practices are they take in account not only the health of the students playing on the surface but the water quality as well. John Rhodes stated there was correspondence submitted to the commission today which outlines the long-term commitment from the Board of Education to protecting the environment and setting an example for the students. Rhodes further outlined their current fertilization program. He stated they have been using organic based fertilizer for
three or four years, and also discussed the pesticides management plan that is in place for the district. He stated that they also only apply pesticides on an as needed basis.
Sabine O’Donnell asked for further clarification on the surface being used on the track and asked for the fact sheet that coincides with the surface that is planned for the project. She indicated she would like to research the safety of the surface. Webb stated he would provide the sheets that go along with that particular surface.
Bechtel asked what the distance was from the edge of the level spreader closest to the wetlands flags overland through the wetlands before it reaches the Duck River. Dave Arthur indicated it was approximately 200 ft. and stated the Duck River, at that point, is not a defined channel. Brown asked if the area around the construction of the level spreader would be disturbed during construction. He indicated the area would be marked out and although it was very close he felt it was possible and all the necessary controls would be in place. Rhodes stated this project will be very closely monitored through the construction process.
Questions from the Public:
David Winer – 20 Library Lane introduced himself and stated he had concerns regarding the salinity in Applebee Pond with the potential increase in freshwater input from the new storm water drainage system being proposed for the track. He stated the DEP is monitoring the pond’s flow rate and sediment transport with gauges.
Mark Lewchick – 8 Dunn’s Lane introduced himself and stated he also had concerns over the amount of additional flow that would be entering the Duck River from the proposed drainage system and potential flooding of that area which already suffers from a very high groundwater table.
Bill Folland – 6 Dunns Lane spoke to the same issues raised by David Winer, and the DEP’s monitoring of sediment build up in Applebee Pond and urged the commission to re-examine the current track drainage system thru the culvert under Library Lane of they felt the proposed storm water detention/level spreader/drainage system would adversely affect the Duck River and Applebee Pond.
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
After much discussion Robb Linde stated he hoped all the tabulations for the project included any anticipated further development and reiterated his earlier request that he did not want to see additional intrusions into the wetlands at a later date for an issue that could be addressed now.
OLD BUSINESS
08-04 KRISTEN LAMBERT – 13 ROGERS LAKE TRAIL – DEMOLISHING EXISTING STRUCTURE, RETAIN EXISTING FOUNDATION AND REBUILD YEAR ROUND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
Bechtel reported that the commission walked the site on May 1st and at that time agreed the applicant did not need to be present. The commission reviewed the revised site plan and noted it did not show a buffer along the entire length of the Rogers Lake Shoreline as discussed at the walk.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application contingent upon a revised plan be submitted showing a 15’ buffer along the entire Roger’s Lake Shoreline with a 4’ access. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion.
In addition Robb Linde asked Ann Brown on contact our IWWC Attorney, Mark Branse, to obtain language to be included in our revised IWWC Regulations that will address a requirement for a 15’ buffer along all waterfront properties.
08-06 BEDRI BABASULI – 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD
The applicant’s representative requested the application be tabled until the June 24thmeeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
REGULATION REWRITE
The commission noted they will continue working on the regulations. Sabine O’Donnell indicated she had reviewed the proposed regulations and had some questions. Brown agreed to meet with O’Donnell to discuss her questions. Robb Linde reiterated the need for buffer language.
LORDS WOOD REMEDIATION PLAN
Discussion ensued about the Lord’s Woods Restoration Plan
John Alexander questioned the adequacy of the level spreader to handle the flow. Bechtel indicated it has been determined that it is adequate to handle the flow.
Bechtel stated that Attorney Block’s 4/22/08letter indicated the repair work on the level spreader will be performed when the area is sufficiently dry enough to permit the work to proceed with minimal damage to the open space area. His letter further stated this work will be coordinated by B & L Construction with Mr. Metcalf and Lee Rowley.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
Robb Linde, intervener, requested that all of the work be completed before the bond is released. Bechtel agreed. Linde also asked (with regards to the proposed outlined motion under Item #1) who would determine which of the stumps will be cut. Bechtel stated that would be the contractor. Linde asked that some sort of quantity of plantings be added to Item #2 of the proposed motion. Linde also suggested that the condition of inspection be added to Item #4 prior to the removal of the Cease and Desist Order.
Bechtel asked Griswold about quantity of shrubbery at the mouth of the level spreader. Griswold suggested something be put in along the lines of a variety of appropriate shrubs sufficient to stabilize the area. Brown suggested a density be described. Griswold suggested grid work pattern of every 3 ft. DiCamillo asked about size. Griswold suggested they be potted shrubs on a 3’ grid. Griswold asked if Sipperly’s planting plan showed the shrubs and trees laid out. Bechtel stated Sipperly’s plan showed very specific trees and a quantity but stated he did not address the mouth of the level spreader the same way. She stated when the commission visited the site and saw the re-growth on the stumps they felt there would be far more intrusion to go in at this point
and start planting some of the bigger trees and the decision was hand plant seedlings in the area of excess clearing and plant a number of larger at the mouth of the level spreader.
Regarding the question of who was overseeing the replanting, Bechtel felt the commission could require the applicant to hire Don Fortunato to supervise and sign off on the planting plan.
Bechtel reiterated that correspondence indicated that B& L Construction would schedule the work later in the Spring when weather conditions were more favorable and they would contact Tom Metcalf at that time to schedule necessary inspections. Bechtel indicated that once the commission’s motion is finalized and approved she will have it sent to Allen Hull to make sure the work starts and the shrubs are planted after the level spreader has been stabilized.
Janet Becthel made a motion to further revise (the restoration plan) on the Cease & Desist Order on the IWWC permit for the Lord’s Woods Subdivision as follows:-
1. All work in the Open Space parcel, east of the roadway, is to be done by
hand vs. heavy machinery. Stumps that show no re-growth are to be cut to grade;
stumps showing re-growth are to be left alone.
2. J. Sipperly’s original planting recommendation is to be revised in light of current re-growth and 250 each of white pine, red oak and grey dogwood seedlings are to be set by hand in the area of excess clearing between station 8+400 to 16+50 on the Open Space parcel, east of the roadway. In addition, a variety of appropriate potted shrubs – in a 3’-4’ grid pattern (i.e. highbush blueberry, winterberry, spicebush, red osier dogwood, sweet pepper bush, witch hazel, and chokeberry) are to be planted at the mouth of the level spreader to assist in erosion control. Don Fortunato is to supervise the replanting of the wetland
appropriate plants.
3. A 2-year monitoring report is to be submitted yearly (in the early fall) addressing the success of the plantings (and possible replanting of replacement plantings if needed) and inspection to ensure the exotic invasive species are eradicated if they happen to colonize the targeted mitigation areas.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
4. All silt fencing on the site is to be removed once the level spreader is repaired and erosion control shrubs are well established upon Tom Metcalf’s approval.
5. The new timetable for the completion of this restoration plan is now June 24th with a letter due to the IWWC by it’s meeting on that date stating that the planting is complete. At that time a site walk will be scheduled and work will be inspected.
Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
FMTM, LLC
Bechtel stated the commission has received a letter from Mr. Tom Metcalf with regard to the subdivision.
Bechtel stated she visited the site on 5/26 and asked Mr. Martone why work had been started one Phase II when the permit stated that ‘as builts’ were to be supplied and approved prior to work beginning on Phase II. Mr. Martone stated his contractor had made an error. Bechtel stated she was very upset with the condition of the site. Martone stated since her visit he has repaired the silt fence per Tom Metcalf’s recommendation and his excavator has stopped working in Phase II. Martone indicated he was proceeding to take care of everything in Phase I. Bechtel asked for clarification of that statement. Martone stated he was attempting to address all of the issues raised by Mr.Metcalf’s letter. Martone asked why Mr.Metcalf does not contact him with his concerns
since he is paying for his services each month. Bechtel stated he was not paying for his services. Bechtel stated Metcalf does erosion and sediment control reviews for the commission. Bechtel asked Martone if he was aware that the construction sequence required that inlet and outlet protection be done on the storm piping that was installed, that the level spreader was suppose to be dealt with as construction continued along the roadway and that the boulders were not suppose to be left in their current location. Martone stated that the plan does not indicate the boulders have to be removed from the site. Bechtel asked where the boulders were shown on the site plan. Bechtel stated the boulders should be placed in the stockpile area. Martone stated his contractor lined an area which is not in the area of the wetlands. Brown stated it is right down along the wetland edge. Bechtel stated there was an approved site plan that showed grading
plans and stockpile areas and that Martone had not adhered to any of it. Martone asked if the boulders need to be removed. Bechtel stated that Mr. Martone wanted someone to micromanage the construction of this site and it is not going to happen. Martone stated he was not asking for that but he was seeking input from Mr. Metcalf during the course of project for things he does or does not like. Bechtel stated the commission approved a site plan that told the applicant how to proceed with the construction of the project and that was not being followed nor were the terms of the permit. She further stated “it is not Tom Metcalf’s job to tell you how to proceeds, it is only Tom Metcalf’s job to point out when you are not following the site plan”.
Martone stated he could address the items in Mr. Metcalf’s letter dated May 23, 2008.
Brown stated she visited the site today and there are some places where it has been seeded and grass has started grow, but the vast majority of site is still open. She further stated the drainage structures are not
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
armored in anyway. There is loose mineral soil and the water is picking up silt and heading to the silt fence that has been repaired but was not installed correctly the first time. Brown stated there is a vast open area in the middle of the project that needs to be stabilized. Brown stated all the detail work that was agreed to on the site plan and approved has not been followed. Brown further stated it appears the work is not being done in a controlled process. Martone indicated some of the concerns would be addressed once the road bed was completed and paved. Bechtel stated no outlet protection has been provided in Phase I. Brown stated this commission is very concerned about what is happening with all the water on this site right now. Brown further stated she did not
think any of them had a good idea of what timeline Martone expected to follow and when the commission could expect to see stabilization of the site.
Linde stated he and the applicant argued a year ago when this was discussed because of Mr. Martone’s desire to continue with the stumping of the remainder of the property before the binder was put down. Linde stated he was concerned that this activity was a deliberate act because this was something the applicant clearly wanted to do and did not want to be regulated against doing it. Linde went on to state that he did not understand how anyone could walk away from our meetings, knowing the desires of the commission, and have such poor control over his own project and let someone proceed to do exactly what this commission told him not to do. Linde further said “you either have no control over your construction site or no regard whatsoever for the wetlands and therefore I do not see any reason this
commission should allow you to move forward with this project”. Bechtel agreed with that statement and felt that a Cease and Desist Order should be put on the project until the applicant can come up with a very definite sequence of events in writing of what will be done at the site to address all the issues on Phase I.
Martone expressed concern about the current economy and stated that a Cease & Desist on the project would cause him great financial hardship. Bechtel indicated that was not her problem, impact to the wetlands were. Linde told the applicant that his failure to control his construction site was not a problem of this commission. Martone stated he would control the site and get in touch with Mr. Metcalf to discuss the issues. Martone expressed concern about being able to reach Mr. Metcalf by phone or getting him to visit the site. Brown asked what type of questions he had for Mr. Metcalf. Brown stated what has happened at the site does not match the plan that was approved by this commission. Bechtel stated it is not the responsibility of Tom Metcalf to visit the site and interpret
the plan for the applicant.
Bechtel stated she has concerns that financially the project will not move past Phase I and major damage has already been done to the wetlands in Phase II. Martone asked how he has impacted the wetland. Bechtel stated he has caused such erosion and siltation that it is truly beyond belief. Martone stated only the stumps had been removed. Bechtel stated no stabilization was done as he went along. Bechtel asked why the contractor did not work on completing Phase I. Martone stated the contractor felt he had it well under control and they were waiting for the paver to come to the site. He stated once the paving was done it would have been completed. Bechtel asked if the paving meant the binder course. Martone indicated that was correct. Bechtel stated she was confused as
to why bringing in a person to lay down a binder course would significantly alter some of the shoulder work that still needs to be completed. Martone stated his excavator felt that a lot of the shoulder work was going to be graded up to the pavement. Bechtel stated she felt there was a lot of rock and grading that needed to be done at the site prior to grading up to a binder course.
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
Brown asked when the paver was scheduled; Martone indicated last week. Brown asked when was he now scheduled. Martone stated he is bringing his machine in tomorrow at the end of the day. Martone stated if he grades on Thursday he would pave on Friday or Monday.
Bechtel stated when the commission approved this site plan they discussed stockpile locations along the way and she has not seen any of those locations surrounded by silt fence for material that may be used someplace else. Bechtel stated when she reviewed the site plan she did not see any buffer of boulders as an embankment or any such thing. Martone stated there is nothing to stockpile and additionally he has already taken a ton of materials off site.
Bechtel discussed one of the photographs she had taken of the site on 5/26. The photograph was taken at Station 6+ 35; the first wetland crossings upon entering the site. She stated there is a lot of rock material and asked what Martone was proposing to do with this material. Martone stated he eventually planned to remove it from the site, then grade and seed. Bechtel asked if it would be removed from the site after the binder course was installed. Martone stated that was part of the plan. Bechtel stated that approach was inconsistent with the applicants desire to keep heavy equipment from traveling over the binder course and asked again why the contractor was not busy stabilizing Phase I.
Don Willis asked Mr. Martone how long it would take to pave and grade the site and install the binder. Martone indicated it would take about three days. Willis suggested we give the applicant until the next month to resolve these issues.
Bechtel stated there are three wetlands crossings on the project, but there are drainage structures. She noted the one at the beginning picks up surface flow coming down the roadway and there is no level spreader at all in place. Bechtel reviewed the photographs of the site with the applicant indicating the issues that need to be resolved.
Martone stated he will hold off on paving for ten days and spend the next two weeks taking care of these issues. Martone stated he would like to the commission and Mr. Metcalf the visit the site after those two weeks.
Discussion ensued between the commission and Mr. Martone on how was to best handle the site at the present time.
Linde stated that this whole situation concerns him. He stated the commission is presently instructing the applicant how to specifically do day to day activity and questioned how the commission was going to trust this developer for two additional wetlands crossing. Linde once again stated that Mr. Martone does not seem to have control of his construction site. Bechtel stated considering what has been heard and discussed tonight it appears the applicant is looking for everybody else to tell him what he should be doing.
Mr. Martone asked what the benefit would be to issuing him a Cease and Desist Order. Bechtel stated the project would be stopped until Mr. Martone hires somebody qualified to come into the site and do it right. Mr. Martone stated he was not in a position to hire B & L Construction to come in and finish the project.
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
Sabine O’Donnell stated to the applicant that he was aware since last Friday that there were issues on the site to be resolved but he still continued working on Phase II. O’Donnell asked if the Cease & Desist could be structured to specify what type of work can be done and what Phases were involved.
Bechtel stated the commission can do a staged approach Cease & Desist. Mr. Martone stated the work done on Phase II today was to install the silt fence properly, but no other work was being done.
Brown stated the approved site plan includes details for construction and she does not think it has been followed. Brown suggested Mr. Martone review that plan which outlines the process for that site. Bechtel stated that when a plan is approved and a permit issued, the Commission expects the applicant is following those plans.
Bechtel asked the applicant what he could do to convince the commission that he could get Phase I property stabilized and completed before Phase II is discussed. Mr. Martone stated he did not need a Cease & Desist Order. Bechtel stated the commission can put conditions on a Cease & Desist Order but it will remain as a warning that this project is not proceeding as approved and permitted.
Bechtel stated that the applicant has had a lot of time to get this project right. Mr. Martone indicated she was correct, but he did not have the financial resources to do it. He further stated he was aware that it was not the commission’s problem. He also stated if he had the money he would hire someone like B & L Construction to complete the project. Bechtel stated then maybe the project should not continue. Martone stated he was too far into the project at this point to walk away. Bechtel stated this commission cannot ignore its’ responsibility based on his level of hardship. Martone stated he was not asking for sympathy but trying to explain the reason why things have preceded in this manner.
McCulloch suggested giving the applicant a target date to evaluate the project and make any further decisions at that time.
Bechtel stated she was concerned that the applicant did not appear to comprehend the level of work that needs to be completed at the site and that the commission will be in this same position in two weeks time, dealing with the same issues.
Linde suggested the commission issue a Cease & Desist Order with the exception of stabilizing Phase I. Linde stated there will need to be a Show Cause Hearing within fourteen days after issuing the Cease & Desist. Linde suggested the commission use the June 10th date and can then assess if the applicant at that point in time has shown that he has regained control of the construction site and been able to get the work done without Tom Metcalf having to go out there and hold his hand or his excavator’s hand. He further stated the commission can decide at the Show Cause Hearing whether we want to enforce the Cease & Desist beyond Phase I. Linde stated if the commission does not issue the Cease & Desist now and goes through the process again in 10 or 14 days the
applicant will continue to work and possibly cause further damage to the site.
Brown stated she felt Metcalf’s suggestion that if Phase II will not start up for thirty days, temporary stabilization measures should be employed as soon as possible and by June 15th at the latest.
Page 13 – Minutes
IWWC – May 27, 2008
Bechtel stated she would like to see Phase II left alone until the commission feels that Mr. Martone has an understanding of what was agreed to be done per the approved site plan. Bechtel stated she will have Ann Brown put into motion a Cease & Desist order and if the commission is not satisfied with the way the site looks on June 10th, 2008 the commission will hold a hearing on the night of the 10th at which time it will consider formally putting the Cease and Desist Order on the balance on the project.
Linde asked Mr. Martone to clarify his statement that he visits the site daily, but over Memorial Day Weekend he was not at the site and that was when the damage was done. Mr. Martone clarified the contractor had proceeded last week sometime. Linde stated that the applicant needs to begin to provide clear and concise answers at all times in order to build some confidence with the commission. Bechtel reviewed Phase I as marked on the plan with the applicant.
Bechtel made a motion to direct Ann Brown to issue a Cease & Desist Order that will allow work in Phase I. No other work is to be ongoing. Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The commission agreed to walk the site for Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 at 5:30 p.m.
CODE OF ETHICS
Bechtel stated the commission has been give a code of ethics. She stated it has been sent out by the Selectmen’s office to all the commissions for their signature. Bechtel read the letter into the record. The commission agreed to sign the document and requested that Ann Brown return the signature forms to the town clerk’s office.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
