OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Robb Linde, Mike Moran, Don Willis, Sabine O’Donnell, Dave McCulloch, Evan Griswold and Skip DiCamillo.
Bechtel called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING DATED MAY 27, 2008
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING DATED JUNE 10, 2008
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING JUNE 10, 2008
The minutes of the site walk were incomplete and therefore tabled until the July meeting.
08-09 SHORT HILLS PROPERTIES, LLC – 16-2 SHORT HILLS ROAD – SUBDIVISION
Bechtel stated she has received a petition containing signatures from property owners in the area adjacent to the proposed Short Hills Subdivision; (phase I, 7 lots) and further noted she also received a phone call from a neighbor in that area requesting that a public hearing be held on this application. Bechtel stated that public interest is one of the reasons this commission can call for a public hearing and noted that the commission has not yet assessed whether this proposal will significantly impact the wetlands. Bechtel asked the commission if they were in favor of holding a public hearing.
Evan Griswold made a motion to hold a public hearing on the Short Hills Application on July 22, 2008. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
08-10 GRAYBILL PROPERTIES, LLC – 147 BOSTON POST ROAD – PROPOSED ACCIDENT AND TOW ZONE VEHICLE IMPOUNDMENT AREA
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC 6-24-08
Mr. Hendriks stated he was representing the applicant on this application. He noted there was a letter submitted into the file from the First Selectmen, Tim Griswold with regard to this application.
Bechtel read the letter from Timothy Griswold, First Selectmen into the record. Bechtel noted that Mr. Griswold endorsed the project in his letter but noted that there was nothing in the letter pertaining to inland/wetlands.
Bechtel asked if this proposal was on the same piece of property that has the hydrodynamic separator located to the rear of the lot where the outfall ultimately drains into Black Hall Pond. Hendriks indicated that was correct. Hendriks stated the reasons for this proposal is that an area is needed for the cars that are towed from the Sound View area due to illegal parking and for cars that are involved in accidents in town or on the highway or that have mechanical failures. Hendriks noted that Mr. Graybill, All Pro Automotive has the towing contract for the town of Old Lyme and is currently storing the vehicles on Halls Road at the Shell Station, however, his lease is due to expire at that location and is proposing this new location on Boston Post Road. Hendriks indicated the vehicles
need to be stored in a secured area that is monitored 24 hours a day by staff personnel. Therefore, the proposal is to create 7 spaces behind his garage and storage barn which would house the vehicles for short periods of time. Hendriks noted that some of the proposed area is within the 100’ wetlands review zone. Hendriks illustrated on the map the 3.5 spaces that fall within the 100’ setback. Hendriks stated the parking area would be constructed of gravel with an impervious membrane located about 4” from the surface therefore, if there is a spill that soil can be cleaned up by hand and taken away and be replaced with clean gravel. Hendriks further stated that should there be a large spill, the area is graded toward a drainage area (a grass swale as recommended by the DEP) which would end up in a detention silting pond where it again can settle out before entering the wetland which is approximately 75’ away.
Bechtel requested Mr. Hendriks provide the commission with a copy of the prior approved site plan for the next meeting. Bechtel stated she would like to get the scope of what the commission originally approved and the location of the pond and abutting neighbors. Hendriks indicated he would provide that information at the next meeting.
Bechtel also noted that she would review the minutes of the prior application because she recalled that at the time of the original application there was much concern about cars being stored on the site because of the proximity to the wetlands. She further noted that there was a lot of discussion as to how the rear of the lot would be treated and how the hydrodynamic separator would be maintained to avoid any pollution entering into the Black Hall Pond. Bechtel stated that she thought that this commission requested that no vehicles be stored on the site at the time of the original application.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for July 10, 2008 at 5:30.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
08-11 MARSH – 8 LOT SUBDIVISION – 81 MILE CREEK ROAD
Bob Doane presented the application on behalf of the applicants, Edward and Linda Marsh. Doane stated the proposal is for an 8 lot subdivision on 53.7 acres located at the corner of Mile Creek and Buttonball Roads. Doane noted that six lots will be serviced by a common driveway and pointed out on the plan the small area of inland/wetlands. Doane indicated that all of the grading, sedimentation and erosion controls and driveway would be away from the wetland, and noted that the existing farm will remain on a 17.5 acre parcel. He stated a conservation easement is proposed which includs a peninsula located out on the Black Hall River and is approximately 6.8 acres. Doane stated they had an option of building a public road but felt with cross easements a country lane type driveway would be
more suitable for the site and would run along the edge of the field and allow the field to stay in tact as much as possible. Doane reported that there is some activity within 100’ ft of the tidal wetlands, but no activity within 50’ of the tidal wetlands. O’Donnell asked Mr. Doane to point out the lot sizes in the subdivision. He noted that Lot 1 is 3.5 acres, Lot 2 is 6.16 acres, and Lot 3 is 3.5, Lot 4. is 4.73, Lot 5 is 11.99 and Lot 6 is 5.18. Doane indicated that there are very good gravels on the site but he did hit some ledge between Lot 1 and Lot 4 but other than that the systems are located in good soil conditions.
Mike Moran asked if the driveway would be constructed of gravel. Doane indicated that the steeper section is more than 8 percent so that area will have to be paved but it will be gravel down below. He noted there are two culverts proposed for the driveway. He noted Richard Snarski flagged both the tidal and the inland/wetlands on the site.
McCulloch asked if a clearing line was shown on the plan. Doane indicated it was difficult to see on the plan but there is a grading limit that goes 10’ beyond the driveway and that is intended to be the clearing limit as well. Robb Linde asked if any activity was proposed within the review zone. Doane indicated it was not. Linde stated the commission could do a finding of no jurisdiction, but he would feel more comfortable reviewing the site and issuing a permit providing the commission with jurisdiction should something occur in the process of development. . Linde also asked for some further details on the plan and that the area including the wetlands be blown up to a larger scale. .
The commission agreed to set a site walk for July 10, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.
08-12 PAUL & MAUREEN NELSON – 1 PARSONS FARM LANE –
RELOCATION OF A DRIVEWAY IN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA AND INSTALLATION OF A FENCE AND POTTING SHED AREA IN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA
Ann Brown stated the commission walked this property at the time of the applicant’s prior application to construct a garage adjacent to the wetlands.
Paul Nelson presented the commission with photographs of the site. Nelson stated their proposal was to screen the potting shed area which is located behind the garage and to remove the fence from its existing location and to reconstruct it in a new location that would provide screening for the potting shed and
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
garden supply area. Nelson noted when he purchased the property the fence was existing (in another location), and assumed since it was already on the property it would not be a problem to relocate it to its new location on the property; he noted he was incorrect in that assumption.
Bechtel asked if the applicant was proposing to relocate the driveway. Nelson indicated that was correct. He further noted this relocation would allow them better access to the new garage. He stated the 7 ft. of blacktop would be removed and gravel would be put down and either pavers or cobblestones will be installed at the apron edge. He noted they planned to complete this project by October 1, 2008. Bechtel suggested a site walk be scheduled to see the property because she did not recall the prior application.
Brown stated the reason that the commission is even aware of this application is because when she did her site visit to issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the garage she found that a fence had been installed in the upland review area. Brown stated the work has been neatly done and completed and therefore suggested an administrative permit or modification to the existing permit as a good way to handle this application because of the minimal impact. Linde asked if the driveway was located outside of the review zone. Nelson indicated the location on the map and stated it was within the review zone.
Brown noted the site was also very flat. Bechtel again, asked for history on this application and wanted to know if the previous application to construct a garage was because the applicants remodeled the existing one into a downstairs bedroom. The applicant indicated that was correct. Bechtel recalled that the garage was very close to the wetland line and thought that the original application stated there would be plantings behind the garage; not fencing and a potting shed area. Bechtel stated she would like to walk the property because it was her understanding that the area to the rear of the garage was to stay a natural buffer because of its proximity to the wetland line.
The commission agreed to walk the site on July 10th, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
08-05 – REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 18 – RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TRACK AND REVISED DRAINAGE
John Rhodes, Director of Facilities, Lyme-Old Lyme Schools stated they were present this evening with their experts from Clough Harbor and Associates. Mr. Rhodes introduced Dick Webb, Landscape Architect; Dave Arthur, Civil Engineer and Ben Rieger, Environmental Scientist for the project. Rhodes stated Mr. Webb would again present a brief overview of the design of the project and also address the questions raised regarding the composition of the track surface.
Webb gave a brief overview of the project. He noted the proposed track is a 400 meter, combination six distance and eight straight lane track proposed essentially in its current location on the high school campus. Webb stated the track has been shortened in the area of the southern property line. Webb stated the track does expand about 20 ft to the east and the reason for this expansion is it allows
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
for increased multi-flexible use of the natural grass athletic field. Webb stated the “D” zones areas located at both ends of the track are proposed to be surfaced and will accommodate the field events. Webb stated there is a fence proposed at the limit of these areas to segregate Center School activities from any track activities. Webb stated the field itself will be completely rebuilt as a part of this project and but will remain a natural grass field with amended topsoil, under drainage and an automatic irrigation system.
Webb stated that the proposed track surface is a 2-layer material. He stated the lower paved base mat material is an SBR rubber material that.is fully bond and encapsulated within the polyurethane binder. He stated it is installed with a paving machine to make it a stable sort of paved forced reduction mat for the track system. Webb stated on top of that encapsulated rubber is a layer of EPDM rubber which is further bound by the polyurethane binder and that is the wearing course of the track. Webb stated the SBR rubber is not exposed to any sort of abrasion because it is protected by the structural spray. Webb stated that as shown in the sample provided, the red is the top surface layer and the black is what is below. O’Donnell indicated that the top layer looks like it is
just a painted surface. O’Donnell further indicated that this was what the spec sheet specified as well. Webb stated it was a mixture of polyurethane binder with small EPDM rubber granules. Bechtel stated the commission has been provided the data on that material. O’Donnell asked Mr. Webb to show the commission which surface MSDS is being referred to for this particular application. Webb further indicated the top surface will need to be redone in approximately 8 to 10 years depending on the amount of usage on the track.
Dave Arthur, Civil Engineer for the project, designed the storm drainage for the site. Mr. Arthur stated the track area currently drains to a 12” inch pipe which drains to Library Lane. He stated the proposal is to collect the water in an improved underdrain system for the track which connects to drainage with an outfall which discharges to the Duck River. Arthur stated the discharge would end up in a constructed wetland detention pond prior to discharging to the physical wetland along the Duck River. He noted there is no disturbance to the wetland at this location. He stated the basin has been designed so if any expansion is needed for the campus it will be still be within the review zone but further away from the wetland area. Arthur stated he met with Mr.
Metcalf at the site and also submitted a Stormwater Management Report for his review. Mr. Metcalf reviewed the report and requested some changes along with a test pit at the site. He noted Mr. Metcalf has visited the site a second time and reviewed the changes as requested and submitted a letter to the commission dated June 21, 2008 stating that his concerns have been addressed by the applicant.
Bechtel asked Sabine O’Donnell if she still had a specific concern with the surface of the track other than the fact it does leach zinc to a certain degree. Robb Linde stated the commission does not know that the proposed surface leaches zinc. He further stated the only report that he saw was in the state of North Carolina where ground up rubber was used as a mulch and it was indicated that zinc was found to be leaching for that surface. He further stated the proposed surface for this project was a very different scenario because this surface is bound in polyurethane so the surface area available to leaching is much smaller. Bechtel stated she stood corrected on this fact; the commission does not know if this surface leaches zinc.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
O’Donnell asked if the applicant could confirm the MSDS sheets and that it is in fact the surface area that is proposed. O’Donnell felt this information should be provided to the public should they want to research the materials being used at the site. Webb reviewed the MSDS sheets with the commission. Brown asked if they could be marked for the file. Webb stated it was the Beypur 100 system and it is labeled structural spray. O’Donnell stated the sample that was given to the commission has two layers but to her it looks like one material covered with a coat of paint on top. Webb stated that the paint being referenced is actual the structural spray. Webb also noted that the sample provided to the commission was also cored out of an older track that is
getting to ready to receive another coat of spray. O’Donnell asked where on the sheets is the actual ground up rubber. Linde stated the sheets only deal with the polyurethane binder and the components used to make it. Webb stated that was correct. Linde stated for the record he is a PhD - Synthetic Organic Chemist and noted that polyurethane is an organic polymer. Linde stated he was not concerned with the polyurethane once it is a solid, but he is concerned with proper containment controls that are used to make the polymer in the first place. Therefore, as part of any approval he would like to see a detailed plan of containment and use of the materials being installed. Linde noted the track was far enough away from the wetlands that he was not concerned about over spray but would be concerned should there be a major spill or leak. O’Donnell asked Mr. Webb if the company had a chemist who could verify the material and
provide a statement as to leaching or any hazardous concerns of this material. Webb stated the company has a chemist who authored the letter earlier in the hearing process but he did not want to speak for the company in terms of what they could provide. McCulloch stated he spoke with the company a couple of days ago and the chemist is on vacation and will be back on Wednesday. Bechtel stated she read a report that had been referenced in the web links provided by S. O’Donnell. This study, conducted in Bainbridge Island, WA, discussed extensive water saturations studied done on similar materials. The conclusion of that study was that there might be slight leaching of zinc but nothing else was found.
Ben Rieger, Environmental Analyst for the project stated that in the proposed detention basin there will be two “wet bottom” planting sections and organic matter will accumulated here. The metals uptake (such as zinc) will occur with the absorption of organic molecules in this wetland system.
McCulloch stated there was mention of possibly using the herbicide Merit. McCulloch stated that Merit is highly soluble and he was not sure how much Merit could be extracted in the detention basin. McCulloch stated he was concerned because The Duck River is a highly productive creek and did not want the herbicides going beyond the detention pond and causing damage.
Rhodes stated for the record they do not use Merit. He stated they have done spot applications of dylox which is very quick acting. He stated this year they (Region #18) were going to go to a milky spore application which is a multi-year program. He noted the only reason the district gets into pesticides is to avoid injuries. Rhodes stated that grubs loosen the turf and moles creates holes in the field which can lead to athletic injury on the playing field. Rhodes noted the items discussed are only used on the athletic fields and the remainder of the campus is not treated. Linde stated that the Merit would actually go down below the level of the catch basin so if there were any merit that were go into the field itself it would actually leach into the wetlands through a
couple hundred feet of soil. Rhodes stated that the
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
district rarely uses Merit and if this is an issue they certainly would be willing to stipulate that it would not be used on the site.
Griswold asked how long water will stand in the detention basin after a rain event. Arthur stated it depends on the amount of water and noted that the detention basin is not designed to hold water. Griswold asked if the residence system time was enough for mosquitoes to breed in the basin - in which case something would have to be applied to water to kill the mosquitoes. Arthur stated in this particular case they were not looking to trap standing water but to create a wet bottom system.
Arthur stated that this is a fluctuating entity but there is also a wetland system directly adjacent to it with the same scenario happening.
QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC:
Mark Lewchik – 8 Dunns Lane - asked what the difference in elevations was between the holding pond and the existing channel of the Duck River. Arthur stated it was slightly higher than the Duck River channel. Arthur stated he did not have survey points on the Duck River elevation or the Duck River culvert, however the detention pond bottom is around 93 and there is a 5 ft elevation drop.
Bill Folland – 6 Dunns Lane - asked if the applicant had physically gone into that area and looked at the brush. Mr. Folland stated there is a very definitive channel. Arthur stated the channel is more definitive in the lower portion but not the upstream.
Mr. Folland shared with the commission photographs looking back into the estuary. Mr. Folland also stated that a previous speaker stated that the discharge from the pipe was going from the discharge point into the wetlands of the Duck River and he noted for the record that the discharge is going into Appleby Pond. Folland stated he is in support of the track but does have some concerns with the stormwater discharge system that is being proposed. Folland noted a botanist from Connecticut College visited the area to discuss the impact of fresh water discharge into the estuary. Folland stated that the botanist indicated that any reduction in the salinity in the pond would increase the rate of growth of the phragmites and other vegetation would be diminished, therefore Folland expressed
concern that these changes might have a reverse effect on everything they have been attempting to do over the last three years to improve the health of the pond. Folland also noted he is currently working with the DEP.
Folland stated he also discussed with the botanist the existing drainage system that is currently being used for a portion of the campus. He stated the botanist indicated that if the system for the track was incorporated into the existing system there would be no effect on the estuary, in his opinion. Folland requested the school, as a good neighbor, reconsider this part of the application and explore expanding the existing system which would completely bypass the estuary. Folland stated the applicant has not provided the answer as to how the salinity level in the pond will be impacted or the vegetation and noted that the DEP office in Franklin is currently conducting tests on the salinity and tides in that pond.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
Ben Reiger discussed the salinity level He stated that there are about 200 acres of watershed above Library Lane contributing to the river and pond. He stated about 5% is being added in land area to the watershed. He stated the pond under discussion is an ecosystem with tidal influence; ; at low tide during a rain event that pond will have fairly low salinity but during the dry season and full moon tide that pond will be more saline because of greater seawater influence.
Bechtel asked the applicant to point out the discharge outfall location on the map. The applicant used the drawing to locate the area. Bechtel asked where it was fresh and where it starts to become brackish. The commission and Mr. Folland where given maps to review as the applicant explained the flow.
Jim VanDeusen – 5 Dunns Lane - asked if any consideration had been given to using the existing system. Dave Arthur stated they had reviewed a number of drainage options for the site including the upgrading of the system on Library Lane.
Mr. Folland asked what the rationale was for not using the existing 12” pipe. Mr. Arthur stated the 12” pipe would need to be upgraded in size and reconstructed along Library Lane, including underground subsurface detention for the track at the discharge point, to maintain the existing predevelopment condition to the post development condition. He stated the current proposal was able to provide treatment that subsurface detention does not.
Folland stated the applicant could have a detention pond between the discharge point in the existing system and the school property. The applicant stated there is no room for that to be possible. Folland asked if cost was the primary driver in choosing this system. Arthur stated cost was a consideration for the applicant. Folland asked the applicant if he knew what the cost would be to go down Library Lane. Bechtel stated the cost to the applicant is really not a wetland issue. Folland stated he was just trying to understand why this discharge system was chosen.
Arthur stated from an engineering standpoint using District 18’s own property was a viable option that worked. Arthur stated Library Lane has an undersized system which would involve construction on
numerous private and town owned property. Webb stated they met with the DEP and who also recommended this stormwater management approach. Bechtel explained that the applicant did come before the commission with a preliminary application where they presented Options A through G and explained each of the options. Bechtel stated at that time they explained why Option F, which is the one proposed, is preferable and this commission also asked questions about the other options and agreed with the applicant that pursuing Option F made the most sense from a wetlands point of view. Bechtel stated the commission understood that the volume of water for the track could either be piped through backyards dealing with a lot of property owners to an undersized culvert or the applicant could indeed work on stormwater
detention on his own property traveling through a wetland which we know works for nutrient uptake and traveling a greater distance which reduces some of the impacts to the wetland and therefore asked the applicant to proceed with Option F.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
Folland indicated that the tidal line shown on the plan does not necessarily reflect the actual line at all times. Bechtel stated the DEP indicated to this commission that where the proposed outfall was located was not longer tidal. If it was tidal it would not have come under local IWWC jurisdiction.
Folland asked District 18 to help with the phragmities removal in the pond because he felt there would
be additional growth due to this proposed application under discussion.
David Winer - 20 Library Lane - stated when he purchased his property 19 years ago he contacted the
DEP about the salinity of the pond. He stated the DEP indicated that the salinity level was low and that
problem was escalated when some of the beavers built a dam down near the road which caused a change
in the salinity. Reiger stated that beavers will create a much larger change than a small addition of
freshwater.
Winer stated if the pond only has at best a 1% or 2% salinity level then it is not going to take much fresh water to dilute it further. Reiger stated, in a rain event, the whole pond gets diluted. Winer again expressed concern that greater amounts of freshwater would change the flora of the pond. Reiger stated if the vegetation is periodically inundated with saltwater it will dominate the vegetative community and we know that the system is really not that saline because you are getting phragmittes and cattails which do not do saltwater.
Winer asked how far the distance is between the detention pond and Appleby Pond. Arthur stated it was approximately 700 ft. Winer stated his concern is that the current flow rate is fairly low rate and would not be powerful enough to keep all the siltation moving thru the pond and it would accumulate. Reiger stated the proposed design incorporates a hydraulic separators which will remove 80% of the suspended solids as it comes off from the track. Arthur also noted this is not a parking lot with heavy silt and salting, it is a running track.
Winer stated that Appleby Pond has silted in significantly over the last the twenty years, and the basin of the pond has risen so much that when there is a heavy rain, water levels rise into their yards. Therefore, if we are adding more water to the pond then what does one do if the silting is a result of something man made as opposed to naturally made and what is the recourse for the property owner. Webb stated we are talking about a synthetically surfaced running track so it not subject to the silts and sands that vortechnic units are normally designed to handle, therefore it is starting with a much cleaner base of stormwater that is still improved with the vortechnic unit and further improved with a detention basin and further improved with gravel.
Winer stated he is trying to point out that with very little basin left, at high tide there is probably about 2 inches of water so it does not take a lot of extra silt to raise the basin level. Bechtel stated the biggest threat of siltation is not from this project but from any upstream activities and flooding. Bechtel stated one of the reasons she is comfortable with this proposal is because they have utilized a good percentage of their property to control the outflow. Bechtel stated the concerns being raised are truly with Appleby Pond which is now some 500 feet below the outflow of this particular project and those concerns, such
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
as culverts under the street need to be taken up with the town. She further stated you are dealing with a tidal brackish pond which is not under the purview of this particular commission. Winer stated we cannot pretend what happens 500 feet downstream has no effect on the pond. Bechtel stated the applicant has mitigated the effect that the proposal will have on Appleby Pond, but they cannot correct its current problems.
Bechtel explained that when an applicant comes before the commission it is their job to make sure that whatever condition currently exists is not increased. Bechtel stated the District does not have to fix the current condition but they cannot add to them and what the design of the detention basin has done or attempted to do is to make sure that this project does not increase runoff prior to what is currently coming off the site. Bechtel stated the applicant has also stated during the public hearing that when they increase development at the school they have the land to increase the detention basin away from the wetland to make it bigger,to handle a greater volume of water if that is what is indeed necessary. Bechtel reiterated the fact that the applicant does not need to fix problems that
currently exist.
Winer stated he is not asking to fix the problem but stating it cannot get any worse without causing a serious problem and if that does occurr what type of recourse does he have against the situation based on where he lives.
Folland stated he has not been given any assurance by the applicant that the additional freshwater coming into Appleby Pond will not increase the amount of phragmites causing greater silting in the pond
Linde stated this commission has heard loud and clear the concerns about the potential for decreasing the salinity and increasing siltation and the desire for the commission to consider the other alternative plans.
Brown asked the applicant if 10 years from now the approximate tidal line will be in the same location. Arthur stated he believed it would be, however he does not have a natural timeline. Brown asked if he believed this project would change the tide line. The applicant stated he did not.
Bechtel noted for the record that Tom Metcalf submitted a letter to the commission dated June 21, 2008. Bechtel summarized the letter and noted that Mr. Metcalf has reviewed all the reports provided by the applicant.
Griswold stated that in a previous subdivision application before this commission there was a minor increase in flow off of a piece of property and the applicant actually increased the size of a culvert downstream off of the property. Griswold asked if the problems of Appleby Pond were being created by Library Lane if it would make sense as part of this application to require District 18 to contribute to the installation of a larger or a second culvert under Library Lane to increase the tidal action. McCulloch stated that the culvert acts as a partial dam and in doing so it helps trap the freshwater somewhat upstream of that culvert. Arthur stated that this would change the dynamics and tide line of the pond.
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
Bechtel stated that the applicant of the subdivision that Mr. Griswold referenced knew there was considerable flooding in the area of his project therefore, the decision was to increase a town road culvert. However, this was a decision that the applicant chose to do, not something required by this commission.
Bechtel read a letter into the record from Mr. Carl Nilsen dated June 24, 2008. (Exhibit P) Bechtel also noted that she responded to Mr. Nilsen’s email.
Robb Linde made a motion to close the public hearing. Evan Griswold seconded the motion
08-08 OLD LYME HILLS – WOODS OF OLD LYME – OLD STAGECOACH ROAD – 38 LOT SUBDIVISION
Bechtel reported that the commission has not received any comments from Mr. Metcalf or Wendy Goodfriend on this application. Bechtel further stated she has reviewed the application and noted there are a lot of drainage structures on the site that will need to be reviewed by Mr. Metcalf, therefore she suggested the commission wait until the comments are received and then schedule a site walk where the commission could specifically discuss their concerns on the ground.
08-07 BEDRI BABASULI – 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD – PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDE OFF ROAD PARKING AND SEPTIC SYSTEM REPAIR
Bechtel noted for the record the applicant has requested a 65 day extension on this application. Hendriks submitted maps that showed the additional details the commission requested the last time the application was discussed. Bechtel noted she would forward the revised plans to Mr. Metcalf for his review.
OTHER BUSINESS
REGULATION REWRITE
Bechtel stated that she would like the rewrite to be completed ASAP as it would provide greater vernal pools and buffer protection. Linde asked if we were still waiting for language from Attorney Branse. Brown stated that Bechtel, O’Donnell and she would be meeting to edit some of the text and ask Attorney Branse where he thinks it would be best to have it inserted. Linde asked why Attorney Branse would not just draft the language. Brown indicated that Bechtel has already drafted the language. Linde stated he felt it would be less expensive to the town to have Branse just draft the language and insert it into the text where he felt appropriate rather than for us to draft the language and send it to him for his review and then send it back to him for approval. Brown and O’Donnell agreed to meet Friday to complete the language.
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
FMTM, LLC - SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Bechtel stated the commission received a letter from Mr. Metcalf and noted he walked the site with Ann Brown yesterday (6/23). Bechtel indicated she reviewed the letter and asked Mr. Martone if he had also had chance to review it. Mr. Martone indicated he had reviewed the letter.
Martone suggested a meeting be set up to discuss the issues raised in the letter. Brown agreed to set up a meeting and also suggested a Planning Commission member attend as well. .
Mr. Hendriks asked if Mr. Martone could proceed in addressing some of the issues raised in Mr. Metcalf’s letter. Linde stated his concern is that there have been a number of misunderstandings with what the commission has asked to have done and what has actually been done, therefore he did not support continuing any further work until the meeting took place and things became crystal clear as to exactly what needs to be done and there is no room for misunderstanding. Mr. Martone stated he would like to rectify some of the items outlined in the letter that do not impact the wetlands. Linde stated that the project has not been built according to the plans approved by the commission. Discussion ensued.
Robb Linde made a motion that no work take place at the site until a site meeting is conducted. Bechtel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ann Brown will schedule the meeting and notify all.
LORDS WOODS SUBDIVISION ENFORCEMENT
Bechtel stated that at the 5/27 meeting the commission finalized what it wanted in the restoration plan and put the 24th of June as deadline for completion. Bechtel stated the commission realized at the time that the deadline was counterproductive as the level spreader cannot be repaired until it is dry enough, which will not be a great time for planting.
Brown reported that Kim Groves called Attorney Block yesterday and left a message. She noted she had not yet heard back from Block Brown stated that Don Fortunato did call today because he was reviewing the minutes and realized the deadline date. Fortunato also noted he has not been contacted by anyone on behalf of the applicant. Griswold noted he has visited the site and is quite encouraged by the vegetation that has grown up over the Spring and it is stopping a lot of the erosion. Griswold stated he would be in favor of making sure the level spreader is repaired and waiting until next Spring or possibly the Fall to do the plantings. Griswold also noted that the stumps that were to be cut down are sprouting. Griswold expressed concern about the huge rain events
impacting the open soils and felt at this point it looked very well contained and he did not feel there was any more need to panic.
Brown agreed to contact the developer about the level spreader to try and move it along. Bechtel asked Griswold if it was his preference to leave the stumps alone. Griswold stated the stumps do not bother him. Bechtel stated she would like to inform the open space committee as to the preference of the commission. Bechtel stated she would speak with Diana Atwood Johnson about the site.
Page 13 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
John Alexander (member of the public)
Mr. Alexander continued to express his concern that since February all of the drainage from the high section of the property has been going under the level spreader and taking silt down through the hay bales toward the wetlands. Alexander asked if the remedy that is being proposed has been presented to Tom Metcalf and if he believes it is a remedy for the fact that the level spreader does not function as a level spreader. Bechtel indicated that was correct. Alexander stated the area is eroding every time there is a rain and if the remedy that is proposed will fix that and have it operate as a level spreader it will be fine. Bechtel stated she was aware this issue needs to be addressed and will follow through to see that the level spreader is repaired.
#08-05 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DECISION REGIONAL DISTRICT #18
Bechtel distributed a draft motion for the commission to review. Linde discussed item by item his input with the items outlined in the motion. He also stated that based on specific items that were raised by the public regarding siltation he did a quick calculation - assuming that the track adds an additional 5% to water being discharged into the system and if 80% of the solids are removed by the vortechnics system and assuming that 75% (of the remaining 20%) are removed travelling through the detention basin and he did not know what the rest of the removal rate would be through the rest of the wetlands we are talking at most a 0.5% increase in the amount of silt that would be available to that wetland area. Therefore, he was not concerned about that issue. He noted the applicant did a great
job with describing the variation of salinity at the site in addition to the metering of the water which will lead to a minimal if any effect on the relative amounts of freshwater versus saltwater at that interface. Linde stated in terms of stormwater he felt Bechtel did a great job of describing during the Public Hearing why the commission suggested to the applicant to proceed with Option F as opposed to other options.
Griswold stated he did not feel this project will have much effect on the pond, but feels the pond has undergone a number of changes overtime. He stated the biggest one being when the beavers moved in and plugged up the culvert and the siltation of the pond became much more rapid.. Griswold also noted that he felt due to the rise of sea level he felt Appleby Pond will become more saline overtime. Griswold stated he wished there was a way for the school to reuse the water that falls onto the school grounds. He also encourage the school to use this opportunity to monitor this system as a school project. .
O’Donnell asked if the commission ever puts a condition in place that allows the commission to revoke a permit should the track materials prove to be hazardous in the future. Bechtel stated if conditions change than the commission has the authority to go revisit the application and permit granted. Linde stated that all the commission can do is deliberate based on the facts that are presented, and therefore cannot deliberate based on speculation or fears.
McCulloch questioned Item 9 in the draft motion. Bechtel stated she was not sure that needed to be in there. Griswold stated considering the quality of the water coming off he felt it should be eliminated. Bechtel eliminated this item from the motion.
Page 14 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
Linde asked with regard to Item 10.5 if the applicant was currently using mosquitoe control in this area. The commission agreed to eliminate 10.5
Griswold asked if the commission felt Item 5 should be eliminated. The commission agreed it should be and therefore, would not restrict the applicant.
Linde asked Ann Brown if there was a best management practices for schools in Connecticut. Brown indicated she felt there must be but did not have details.
Linde suggested that the commission include in the motion that during the application of
the track that the contract follow all OSHA guidelines pertaining to the use of the
chemical binders, etc. Linde added this statement as Item #12
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the application the with the following (twelve) conditions:
1. The outfall protection performance must be monitored by CHA for a period of one year following installation to confirm the provisions of adequate erosion control. In addition, Erosion & Sedimentation BMP's in this area and the installation of the Vortechs drainage structure and drainage piping from the Vortechs drainage structure to the detention basin should be closely monitored/inspected by CHA during the construction process.
2. The construction schedule shall be outlined so that erosion control planting in the area of the outfall is conducted immediately following final construction to avoid erosion and limit the potential for colonization by invasive plant species.
3. A fertilizer management plan is to be implemented to mitigate the amount of nutrients exiting the athletic fields through both groundwater and overland flow. This plan must implement reduced amount of fertilizer applied more frequently, the incorporation of unfertilized buffers around paths and water ways, soil testing to determine the quantity and distribution of fertilizer required and the use of slow release or natural fertilizers. Conservative application rates should be prescribed based on the shallow groundwater present beneath the fields and the need to be protective of surrounding wetlands.
4. Any and all technical items that warrant further clarification in the option of the Town's consulting engineer, Thomas Metcalf, P.E.,L.S., are to be finalized to his satisfaction prior to initiating any construction on this project.
5. The applicant's consultant is to submit an E & S Control Bond estimate, securing the protection and
restoration of the on-site wetlands for review and approval by the Commission. This Bond is to be held
by the IWWC.
Page 15 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
6. Prior to construction, the applicant shall arrange a pre-construction site meeting with the selected contractor, the Town's consulting engineer, a representative of the School District and Clough Harbour & Associates' project engineer.
7. Clearing limits within the 100' regulated area must be field staked by a licensed land surveyor and inspected by the Town's consultant or WEO prior to any clearing and silt fencing must be placed prior to any site disturbance.
8. Upon completion of the drainage improvements, an as-built plan showing as-constructed drainage improvements within the 100 ft. regulated area must be submitted for review by the Town's consulting engineer.
9. If these plans change as a result of reviews by other agencies, commissions or individuals, revised
plans must be forwarded to the IWWC and the WEO to determine if additional review by the
Commission is necessary.
10. The Stormwater Management Area (SMA) is to include the Basin Restoration Plan as described on Site Plan sheet C-403, revised 5/27/08, it's associated drainage system and the 100' regulated area. The following requirements apply and are to be listed on the final site plan:
The property owner shall be responsible to maintain the Stormwater Management Area (SMA) and the drainage system as follows:
1. All plantings shall be trimmed as needed and maintained in a healthy condition and replaced if necessary.
2, Any trash, debris or sediment shall be removed from the SMA a minimum of two (2) times per year and disposed of properly off-site.
3. The SMA shall not be filled or modified.
4. All weeds and any invasive plant growth shall be removed from the SMA and disposed of properly.
5. All catch basin hoods and sumps shall be cleaned twice per year preferably in March and September and the Vortechs unit is to be maintained
in compliance with the manufactures recommendations.
6. All drainage pipes, inlets and outlets shall be kept free of debris and in operable condition.
7. Any erosion along the banks of the SMA or at any drainage outfalls shall be adequately repaired in a timely manner.
8. The person responsible for the above must be identified on the plans.
11. A minimum of two (2) sets of complete final plans and specifications, appropriately signed and sealed by the project engineer(s) and others, shall be submitted to the Commission. The two sets will enable one set for field use and one set for the permanent file.
12. The applicant shall follow all OSHA guidelines for the storage, handling and application of the track surfacing materials as specified by the MSDS guidelines.
Suggestion:
Of the thirteen functions and values of wetlands that are considered in the review of any application, this wetland habitat possesses nine (9), and due to its close proximity to the Lyme-Old Lyme High School, it has the potential to provide additional educational and scientific value to the students. The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses commission strongly urges Regional School District #18 to undertake
Page 16 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-24-08
additional educational studies of this unique wetland habitat to further the understanding and protection of this valuable natural resource.
Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion
The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
