MEETING MINUTES
OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2008
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Robb Linde, Mike Moran, Don Willis, Sabine O’Donnell, Evan Griswold and Skip DiCamillo.
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING DATED JUNE 24 2008
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SITE WALK MEETING MINUTES – JUNE 30, 2008
Robb Linde made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SITE WALK MEETING MINUTES – JUNE 10, 2008
Robb Linde made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS – LORDS WOODS SUBDIVISION ENFORCEMENT
Bechtel noted that she would be stepping out of order on the agenda to address Item #2 under Other Business – Lords Woods Subdivision Enforcement. Bechtel explained that John Alexander has been very interested in the Lords Woods Subdivision which has been under a Cease & Desist Order for about a year. Bechtel stated that Mr. Alexander attends every meeting to monitor the progress on this site. She noted when he attended last month’s meeting she promised to be in touch with the attorney for the applicant and other appropriate parties to resolve the problem in the hopes that he would not need to attend the next meeting.
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – July 28, 2008
Bechtel reported the problem has not been solved; however she presented Mr. Alexander with a Certificate as an Honorary IWWC Member for “his many hours of meeting time, vigilant surveillance of wetland properties, diligent attention to meeting minutes and continual prodding of commission members to follow through with the enforcement of issued permits”.
Bechtel stated she and staff have placed calls to the attorney in effort to see what the status is of getting the level spreader fixed at the Lords Woods Subdivision. She noted she also spoke with Tom Metcalf who reminded her that it was agreed that the level spreader and the parking for open space would be dealt with at the same time. Metcalf also noted that a plan is needed from the applicant’s engineer as to what the parking will be for the open space. Bechtel stated she would inform Mr. Hendriks that a plan is needed so that B & L Construction can bring their equipment to the site to get the work done. Bechtel also noted that Mr. Metcalf indicated that he does not feel that the timing of the level spreader repair at the moment is critical and she concurred.
Alexander asked the commission if they would consider using the bond money secured by the town to complete this project if no action is taken by the applicant to complete the necessary work at the Lords Woods Subdivision. Bechtel stated that after the approved plan is submitted if she feels that money is an issue with getting the work done at the site she would check with the proper people to see if indeed the bond money could be used to complete the work.
PUBLIC HEARING – 08-09 SHORT HILLS PROPERTIES, LLC – 16-2 AND 20 SHORT HILLS ROAD – SUBDIVISION
Martin Smith, Principle Owner of Short Hills Properties, LLC introduced himself along with his team: Mike Bennett, Engineer and Professional Land Surveyor, Penny Sharp, Environmental Consultant, Chris Smith, Attorney for the applicant, and Howard Tooker, one of the land owners for the project.
Bennett began his presentation by submitting proof of mailing receipts to the chair as part of the public hearing record.
Bennett stated the proposal is for a seven lot subdivision on approximately 25 acres. Bennett stated there is currently a gravel road which runs approximately in the same area as the proposed road. He noted there are two wetland areas in the western portion of the site (designated as Open Space Parcel B) which have been identified as vernal pools. He stated on the east side of the road in the north end (Designated as Wetland Parcel C) there are no vernal pools associated with this wetland area. Bennett stated a portion of the Wetland has been incorporated in (Open Space Parcel A). He stated there is a small wetland in the south end of the property (Wetland Area A) located on Lot 1.
Bennett stated the activities that require permits are identified on the plan and shaded in green. He stated the first area (Wetland Activity 1) consists of constructing a drainage swale and there are no wetland disturbances proposed as part of the construction of the swale. He stated approximately 2,400
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – July 27, 2008
sq. ft. of upland review area will be disturbed which is part of the existing swale on the side of the road and also runs southerly of an existing culvert on the driveway to the Campo property.
Bennett stated the second wetland activity is on Lot #1; there are no wetlands proposed to be disturbed as part of this activity and all the work is located within the upland review area. The proposal is to construct a bituminous road through a portion of the upland review area (which encompasses approximately 300 sq. ft.). He stated slopes will be constructed along the roadway in addition to a water quality basin. He noted it would all be located within the upland review area and this amounts to a total disturbance of 7,500 sq.ft. He further indicated that at no point is this closer than approximately 30 feet to the actual wetlands. He stated the construction of this basin is intended to be excavated into the ground. There is no berm or outlet structure proposed. He stated
a very long level spreader is proposed so when the basin fills up, the water will run out of the basin towards the wetland.
Bennett stated the design was prepared in conjunction with the recommendations of the 2004 Stormwater Quality Manual and the 2002 Erosion and Sedimentation Control guidelines. He stated some of the features that are included outside of the upland review area are to help mitigate the effects of stormwater, erosion and sedimentation and includes the construction of the majority of the roadway without curbing. The cuts and fills will follow the grade of the existing gravel road. He stated a small portion of the roadway on the west side has curbing and collects water in the gutter as it comes down the roadway. He noted the area will have a silt sack during construction until the project is stabilized. He stated the water collected in that area is being channeled into the water quality basin
and outlets to a four bay which has been designed to the 2004 standards. He stated the stormwater on the west is being collected in a swale that is running along the roadway and goes through a new culvert that will be constructed under the Cullotta driveway and then continues into a swale into a catch basin located off the road in a grassed area. He stated in addition to that, at the intersection, there is a catch basin that will collect stormwater from half of the roadway which is a small portion of stormwater. Bennett stated the center line of the roadway will act as a ridge line in the stormwater watershed and water will be distributed by sheet flow on both sides of the road either through the lots or open space areas.
Bennett stated in the north end of the roadway where the turnaround is located there is another small water quality basin and the intent of this basin is to collect the water from the centerline of each road and will be discharged into a very flat, shallow, water quality basin where the grasses can filter it prior to it going into a catch basin and later discharging into the upland area of Lot #5 to Wetland C.
Bennett submitted revised plans along with a letter to the commission which address the comments made by Wendy Goodfriend in her letter of July 21, 2008. Bennett and the commission reviewed the responses and changes to the plan from the applicant as a result of Ms. Goodfriend’s letter. Bennett also noted for the record that Ms. Goodfriend did not have a copy of the drainage report when she conducted her review and therefore he felt many of her concerns would have been addressed in that report. Bechtel also noted for the record the commission received a letter from Tom Metcalf dated July 22, 2008 which indicated that he has not had a chance to review the revised plans and support information for this subdivision.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – July 22, 2008
Bennett noted they did not provide discharge locations of the roof leaders and footing drains because these plans are developed in conformance with the Old Lyme regulations and it is the intent to show that the lot is buildable and not to show every single construction detail because when the lot is purchased to be built on all of those details may change. He further noted at the time of construction a detailed plot plan for that individual lot will be submitted for review. He further noted he has provided a lot of detail on the site plan submitted to the commission which includes the location of the driveway, house, primary septic system area, reserve septic system area, well location, silt fencing, down grading areas that will be disturbed, proposed grading, house elevations and clearing limits. Bennett also stated a note has been added to the plan for Lot 1, Lot 4, Lot 5 and Lot 6 indicating that these are lots where there are portions of wetlands or upland review area.
Bennett stated there is also a note that states “if there is any deviation beyond the clearing limits shown on the plan that are along the upland review area the owner has to come back and submit an application to the wetland commission. He stated that note is intended to define the area along the upland review areas.
Bennett provided the commission with an “Impervious Area Presentation Plan”. He stated the yellow area outlines the proposed seven lot subdivision. He stated the area shaded in gray represents the 850 ft. area surrounding the vernal pools. He noted the plan also includes computations which demonstrate the developing characteristics of the site.
Sabine O’Donnell stated that this map shows the gray area as undisturbed or undeveloped. Bennett stated the map is showing what the characteristics are today. O’Donnell stated there is planning going on right now that also takes into consideration developing this gray area, therefore the numbers being presented are temporary. Bennett stated the numbers are associated with this application. Bennett stated 25 acres are being developed and two large open space parcels are being provided and only creating 1.8 acre impervious area which is very small and well within the guidelines.
Attorney Chris Smith stated with regard to Wendy Goodfriend’s comments (re: the upland review area), that the State Supreme Court upheld that, the test is whether there is an adverse impact on the wetlands not on an upland area that might provide habitat for amphibians in a vernal pool.
Bechtel stated that the driveway to Lot #4 is directly opposite one of the vernal pools and asked if it could be relocated. She stated all of the road runoff does have the potential to adversely impact the vernal pool and change its characteristics. Bennett stated he would review this location and try to address the concerns prior to the next meeting.
O’Donnell asked Bennett to explain again why there is no curbing on the west end side of the road. Bennett stated there is no curbing on the west end side of the road and much of the east end side of the road in an effort to let the water sheet flow and spread out throughout the entire area to allow the existing leaf litter and vegetation to filter the water as it flows. Linde stated it is this commission’s preference to have sheet flow rather than curbing.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC - July 22, 2008
Linde asked if the drainage calculations were assuming an impermeable driveway on all the homes. Bennett indicated that was correct. Linde asked if the catch basin in the triangle turnaround area was being created by the crown in the road. Bennett indicated that was correct. Linde asked if there was any reason that road could not be canted to the outside. Bennett stated typically the town likes to see the road crowned in the middle. Linde asked who would be maintaining the catch basins. Bennett stated they would be initially be maintained by the homeowner’s association. Bennett further noted that this roadway was intended to be a public road. Griswold stated then eventually the town crew would be maintaining the catch basins. Bennett indicated
that was correct.
Bechtel asked what the ownership would be of the water quality basin located on Lot 1. Bennett stated the water quality basin is located in the fee limits of Lot 1 in an easement. Bechtel asked if the easement would be to the town. Bennett indicated that was correct.
Brown asked why this was kept on Lot 1 rather than in the town’s road right-of-way. Bennett stated Lot 1 has a general area that needs to be maintained as far as size.
Griswold asked for the curbing area to be clarified. Bennett pointed out the areas on the plan. Griswold asked why the decision was made not to use a swale there as well as on the west side. Bennett stated the decision was made not to use a swale in that area because of the grading in the cut area on that side of the road. He stated in order to make the road wide enough to accommodate a ditch and swale more disturbances would be created.
DiCamillo asked what the current width of the road is versus what is proposed. Bennett stated the width of gravel road is currently 12 to 15 ft and the proposed road will be 22 ft.
Bechtel asked if the culvert was being upgraded to the existing house. Bennett stated he was adding a culvert in that location.
Penelope Sharp, Certified Wetlands Scientist introduced herself to the commission. Sharp reviewed the Environmental Report she prepared on the Short Hills Road Subdivision with the commission. Sharpe stated that (Wetland A) was a very small pocket isolated wetland. She stated that each time she has seen this wetland there has been no water in it. She stated there are nine flags located around the wetland. She noted the dominant tree is red maple (there are two of them), along with a couple of black birch. She stated there is also swamp bush, one winterberry, and blueberry and there is some wildlife cover.
Sharp stated that Wetand C is also an isolated wetland. She noted if you walk through it you might not even recognize it as a wetland. She noted it is slightly depressed in the landscape; the species there are red oak, black birch, beech, all upland trees that tend to grow in those areas rather than in wetland areas. She also noted once again this wetland has been completely dry every time she has visited site. She also reported that this wetland is not connected to any larger system and very low functioning.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – July 27, 2008
Sharp felt that not curbing the roads was the best way to handle the stormwater because it would have a chance to filter through the leaf litter, which absorbs many of the contaminants and allows for amphibian movement. She also noted the stone walls on the property are acting like a sediment trap. She stated a conservation easement is proposed as recommended by Wendy Goodfriend which will allow the area to remain in its natural state.
Sharp summarized by stating she did not feel this proposal had any adverse impacts on the wetlands.
Bechtel asked Sharp for her opinion on the location of the driveway on Lot #4. Sharp stated she would also recommend if possible the driveway be relocated closer to the lot line. Bechtel asked if a shared driveway would be possible. Sharp stated if possible that would be a great alternative. Bennett stated he would research and make adjustments prior to the next meeting.
Griswold asked if the swale was located inside or outside the wall. Bennett stated the area located opposite Open Space B is all direct sheet flow.
Linde asked what the maximum grade was at any point along this development and stated the reason for his question was concern about silt contamination into the wetlands. The commission discussed the fact that they do not have control over the town crew during the plowing season in the winter months as to which roads are sanded and salted. It was stated once the mix is on the truck it is distributed on all the roads regardless of their location or proximity to the wetlands.
Griswold expressed concern that the lots with no wetlands or upland review area could be completely cleared and an entire lawn could be installed. Bennett stated those two lots would fall under the same restrictions of any other lot in Old Lyme that has no wetlands located on the property. Griswold stated the area is currently good habitat and asked the applicant to consider limits of clearing on all lots. Bennett stated that would be considered and discussed at the next meeting.
O’Donnell asked Sharp to explain the difference between vernal pools and other wetlands and whether or not a 100’ buffer is sufficient. Linde stated he did not feel the second question was appropriate for this meeting. Sharp presented some detail characteristics of the plants and habitat and species which depend on these vernal pools. She also noted the smaller wetlands, which have limited water for short periods, are inadequate for development and successful amphibian breeding. Sharp concluded by saying she felt the buffer provided adequate protection in the proposed development.
Attorney Chris Smith asked Penny Sharp " in your opinion is there sufficient upland habitat area for the amphibian and species associated with the two vernal pools that are the subject of the application". Sharp responded "yes".
Attorney Smith asked Sharp "in your opinion do any of the regulated activities associated with this 7 lot subdivision result in an adverse impact to a wetland or watercourse". Sharp responded "no".
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – July 22, 2008
Attorney Smith asked Sharp "do the regulated activities satisfy the statutory factors provided by the General Statues 22a - 41 in the Connecticut General Statutes which we are all familiar with". Sharp stated "they do".
Smith asked Sharp, "in your opinion do the regulated activities satisfy the regulations of this commission". Sharp indicated "they do".
Bechtel noted for the record unless the commission takes great issue with what a soil scientist presents to this commission that they have the tendency to go with their recommendations unless there is conflicting information, as these professionals are held to a very high standard.
QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC:
Attorney Michael Cronin introduced himself for the record and stated he was present on behalf of property owners Victoria Lanier and John Eichholz who resided at 24-2 Short Hills Road. Cronin noted he had also spoken to other property owners in the area who share their same views.
Attorney Cronin stated there are some issues in the application that his clients are definitely in opposition to. Cronin stated this is not a simple seven lot subdivision. He stated in the applicant’s application process and in pending applications to both the Planning Commission and Zoning Commission this is described as a 256 acre project with 83 units. He noted there is currently a proposed zone change application to the Zoning Commission to allow cluster housing. Cronin also indicated this is only the first step with regard to the application. Linde stated for the record this commission can only consider what is in front of the commission tonight. Cronin reiterated that this only the first step with regard to the application.
Cronin pointed out that in this commission’s regulations under Section 7.5g (Application Requirements) addressed this type of issue. Cronin read the section into the record "All applications shall include the following information in writing or on maps or drawings… (g) a site plan showing the proposed activity and existing and proposed conditions in relation to wetlands and watercourses, and identifying any further activities associated with, or reason to be related to, the proposed regulated activity which are made inevitable by the proposed regulated activity and which may have an impact on wetlands and watercourses”. Linde stated that “key word” is made inevitable and he does not believe this application makes anything else inevitable. Cronin stated the commission has
discretion in that part but he believes that this is not a simple seven lot subdivision.
Cronin stated the concern is the size of the project. It may have offsite implications that this commission should take into consideration with the proper exercise of its authority and responsibility. Cronin identified for the record some of the general concerns.
1. The existing condition of Short Hills Road. He stated this road is not adequate for school buses, emergency vehicles and at some point it will need improvement.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – July 22, 2008
2. He stated this proposal refers to only the 25 acres. He stated there are 256 acres involved in this project. He stated the remaining area has extensive wetlands and there is an interaction between the wetlands and the surrounding area. He stated the applicant has stated that two or three years ago an evaluation was done on this property and that evaluation is not part of this application. Cronin stated the commission has the right to request that information be brought forward.
3. The final concern is access to the site. The proposal is to make this roadway the sole access to the 250 acre development. He stated this is an unacceptable approach to the neighborhood.
Cronin stated he felt Wendy Goodfriends’ report was excellent. He noted there are 23 recommendations in that report including sub recommendations under each one of those 23 points. He noted the applicant has addressed some of these issues and stated he will address the remaining when the hearing is continued in August. Cronin noted he has not yet reviewed the responses by the applicant. He also noted he would have his expert review the issues as well.
Cronin stated one of the issues brought up was the location of the basin in the regulated area. Cronin stated the obvious reason it was not relocated is because it would impact the size of some of the lots and the developer would possibly loose a lot. Therefore, he questioned if the priority was the number of lots or the wetlands.
Cronin stated testimony was given regarding vernal pools. He stated at the beginning of the 256 acre project there are two vernal pools. He stated based on the technical information on preserving vernal pools and assuming all of this land around it cannot be taken into consideration these pools are not protected. He stated the land around the area could be used to protect these pools. He further noted that no easements can be granted on land that is not part of the proposal.
Linde asked Attorney Cronin if he was a wetland expert. Cronin stated he would have a wetlands expert at the next meeting.
Cronin requested the applicant amend their application to show wetland crossing areas on Short Hills Road along with the proposed improvements to the roadway. Cronin stated he felt this was the appropriate time to do this rather than after this application to this commission. Cronin also requested the applicant amend the application to show the full 75% protection of critical threats to the habitat and the two vernal pools shown on the plan. Cronin also requested that the applicant amend the plan to show location and evaluation of other wetlands areas on the remaining 231 acres of the proposal. He also requested that the applicant show an alternative site for the location of the water quality basin and require full conformance with Wendy Goodfriend’s letter to the commission dated July 21,
2008 and ask the commission’s attorney to review the legal effect updated with present court conditions with regard to jurisdiction of the commission beyond the 100’ area.
Linde asked Bennett if he wanted to comment about the location of the stormwater treatment area in
an effort to provide the commission’s engineer with all the information possible in his review of the
application.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – July 22, 2008
Bennett stated although the property in which the basin is located is described as being flat, it does pitch gradually in the direction of Short Hills Road. He reviewed the profile of the roadway with the commission and stated they are following the existing grade of the roadway and the water will run down in the direction of Short Hills Road and the basin is intended to catch and treat the water as it runs down. Bechtel asked if Wetland A was a wetlands soil. Bennett stated it did come up as wetland soils but not as a vernal pool. Bennett clarified that Wendy Goodfriend stated in her report that it did not show as wetlands. Bennett stated it is a very small isolated pocket and things of that size generally do not show. Bechtel asked if there was information on the soil types in that
area. Bennett stated he could provide the information. Sharp stated none of these areas were mapped on the soils map.
Beth Sullivan – 5 Maywood Drive
Sullivan stated in looking at the plan it seemed very similar to reading a sentence out of context to the whole paragraph and you do not get the full impact of the meaning of it. Sullivan stated the initial section of Short Hills Road has wetlands. She further stated that Shorts Hills Road is the only entrance in and out of this development and therefore this commission needs to look at the entire picture of this proposal. Sullivan submitted photographs for the commission to review.
Michael Sullivan – 5 Maywood Drive
Sullivan submitted USGS maps to the commission. He stated the applicant has only addressed a portion of the runoff and with the increased traffic that will travel through this area expressed concern about the Balchunas Property. He also expressed concern about the effect it will have on the headwaters of that property.
Michael Boardman – 4 Maywood Drive
Boardman stated his first concern is that Question #11 on the IWWC application asks the applicant to explain what alternatives have been considered in lieu of impacting the wetlands. Boardman stated one of the alternatives that exist is accessing this proposal via Route 1, which is actually under application as the construction entrance to the subdivision. Boardman requested the commission request the applicant to explain this alternative. He also asked if the easement being used over the Kus property to get the construction traffic into the development would have any impact on the wetlands? He also suggested the commission walk this area. Boardman also asked why the applicant’s proposal is to only improve the road to a certain point. He further asked who would be
financially responsible for the remaining improvements to the road.
Ron Richardell – 8 Short Hills Road
Richardell stated he has lived in the area for 21 years and has slowly watched Short Hills Road erode into the wetlands. Richardell presented photographs to the commission showing the exposed utility cables laying on the front of his property which were buried 2 ft underground 20 years ago. Richardell expressed concern about how much of the roadway has washed away into the inland/wetlands.
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – July 22, 2008
Matthew V. Barrett – 5 Short Hills Road
Echoed the comments of the neighbors as well.
Elizabeth Hamilton – 5 Short Hills Road
Echoed the comments of her neighbors and expressed concern about the impact of the proposal on the area.
Ted Kiritsis – 78 Flat Rock Hill Road
Kiritsis stated his concern is that years ago the town leased property up there for a septic lagoon. He stated he did not know what type of adverse effect this could have to wetlands or property owners but suggested the commission consider this information.
Henry Balchunas – 15 Short Hills Road
Mr. Balchunas stated many years ago he was granted permission to build a pond on his property. He stated his pond is spring fed and eventually the water that goes under the culvert (under discussion) makes it to his pond. He stated he has large mouthed bass growing in the pond. He also reported that recently someone has added an additional culvert into his property; he has no idea who allowed or permitted this installation. He stated he was very afraid that if the water was not handled properly it will have a bad impact on his pond.
John Alexander - Lords Meadow Rd.
Mr. Alexander asked Mr. Bennett if the level spreader would be built to a specific standards. Mr Bennett stated it would be built to a standard and reviewed by the commission and the commission’s engineer.
Peter Straus – 75 Flat Rock Hill Road
Mr. Strauss expressed concerned about the financial implications to the town if the road was not constructed up to the proper standards by the developer to support this development and any future development.
The hearing was continued until the August meeting.
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – July 22, 2008
OLD BUSINESS
#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
Bechtel reported that the commission walked the site and she did in fact review the prior wetlands permit issued on this property. Bechtel stated the original application shows there is 30 ft. from the corner of the garage to the wetlands boundary, which is the 30 ft. buffer area that the commission originally requested be maintained along the wetlands edge behind the garage. The commission discussed the fact that the proposed driveway relocation was not an issue, but that the fencing, gravel and storage shed needs to be removed; nothing can be put behind the garage and the property must be properly graded off and allowed to revegetate.
Bechtel made a motion to allow the relocation of the driveway but to require the applicant to remove the fence , gravel and shed from the property and allow the area to grow back into its natural state after re-grading the dirt piles on the site and noted that the applicant is not to proceed with the driveway until the other work on the site is completed. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
#08-08 – OLD LYME HILLS – WOODS OF OLD LYME – OLD STAGECOAH – 38 LOT SUBDIVISION
Bechtel noted for the record the applicant has granted the commission a 65-day extension on the application and reported that the commission received a letter from Tom Metcalf stating that he has not had an opportunity to review the plans. Bechtel also noted that Mr. Metcalf indicated to her that upon his review of the plans he would like to set up a meeting with the applicant and his engineer prior to the next meeting.
#08-07 – BEDRI BABASULI – 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD - PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDE OFF ROAD PARKING AND SEPTIC SYSTEM REPAIR
Hendriks indicated that Mr. Metcalf has raised several issues in his letter to the commission and he and the applicant have not had an opportunity to address these issues. At the applicant's request, the commission tabled this application until the August meeting.
#08-10 GRAYBILL PROPERTIES, LLC – 147 BOSTON POST ROAD – PROPOSED ACCIDENT AND TOW ZONE VEHICLE IMPOUNDMENT AREA
Hendriks indicated that Mr. Metcalf has reviewed the application. Hendriks stated as a result of that review he has met with the owner of the site and during that meeting it was concluded that a lot of the concerns would be eliminated if the impoundment area was paved. Hendriks indicated that the new plan shows pavement in that area, but this addition to the site plan has not yet been reviewed by Metcalf.
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC – July 22, 2008
Bechtel stated the commission walked the site and at that time the commission members felt this applications was too consumptive of the buffer area that remains and therefore discussed denying the application.
Hendriks stated that Mr. Graybill was not present, but their intention was to address Metcalf’s comments and would like to continue the application to the next meeting.
Bechtel asked the commission members if the paving of the surface of the impoundment area, versus the original gravel base, changed their opinion of the proposal.
Bechtel stated the commission members felt was that the upland area that was left of this property is needed to buffer the pond and any further encroachment into the 100’ review area would be beyond what this commission could approve and therefore the application would be denied.
Bechtel made a motion to deny the application and stated other feasible and prudent alternatives exist. Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
08-11 – MARSH – 8 LOT SUBDIVISION – 81 MILE CREEK ROAD
Evan Griswold recused himself from any discussion of this application.
Bechtel noted for the record that she informed the applicant's representative that he did not need to attend. She reported that the commission walked the property; the application proposes no activity in the wetland or within the 100’ review zone.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the permit as submitted with jurisdiction and to accept the $75.00 fee submitted by the applicant with this application. Mike Moran seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
FMTM – SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Hendriks indicated he did meet with Mr. Martone. He reported he submitted new plans which provide proposed improvements to the roadway. Hendriks stated Mr. Metcalf has copies of the 'Site Restoration Constructive Action Plan' but has not had the opportunity to review them in detail at this point.
Bechtel confirmed that Mr. Metcalf has not yet reviewed the plan, however he indicated he would like to review the plan and meet with the appropriate parties. Bechtel asked Ann Brown to attend the meeting as well. Bechtel stated if Metcalf and the applicant reach an agreement the commission would be agreeable to proceeding with these items. Bechtel stated she had reviewed the plan and noted it provides some clear detail. She also noted the proposal includes removing the boulders that are under 3’ in diameter and regarding, except in a few areas where there is encroachment into the wetlands.
Page 13 – Minutes
IWWC – July 22, 2008
Bechtel suggested that hay be put down at the site to prevent further erosion. Bechtel stated there were a couple of vernal pools in Phase I off to the east side and asked the applicant to proceed carefully in that area.
Linde stated that in Paragraph 3 of Metcalf’s letter he suggested that if work is not going to begin on Phase II in thirty days that stabilization of Phase II should happen sooner rather than later. Linde stated if the commission were to decide to proceed with this action it would be the responsibility of Mr. Rowley to direct and oversee the applicant.
Bechtel summarized by stating Phase I it is under administrative permit after Mr. Metcalf reviews and approves the plans submitted by the applicant. Linde made a motion that the commission would also improve the implementation of the 3rd paragraph of Mr. Metcalf’s July 22, 2008 letter under the direction of the design engineer. Bechtel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
30 CHAMPION ROAD – Brown indicated that the applicant has not built the garage and has now presented a modified plan which moves the garage away from the wetlands. Bechtel expressed concern that the proposal is right up against the buffer and the driveway is much closer than the initial proposal. The commission reviewed the previously approved application and the modified plan. The commission expressed concern about leaching into the wetlands as result of the close proximity to the wetlands. The commission agreed to require a new application.
REGULATION REWRITE
Brown stated prior to the next meeting she would finish working on the regulations and forward them to Attorney Branse for his review and comment.
Linde stated he had philosophical/logistical concerns about the 400’ review zone around anything that might potentially be a vernal pool. Linde stated the commission will experience a huge increase in the amount of applications. Linde asked Brown to ask the Attorney about his questions and concerns regarding vernal pools.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
