Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Inlands Wetlands Commission Minutes 10/28/2008
INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETNG
OCTOBER 28, 2008


Present were:  Vice Chair Robb Linde, Sabine O’Donnell, Dave McCulloch, Evan Griswold and Skip DiCamillo,  Also present were Ann Brown, Tony Hendriks and Lee Rowley.

Vice Chair Linde called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.  Dave McCulloch seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2008

These minutes were tabled until the next meeting in order to be completed.

MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED OCTOBER 18, 2008.

These minutes were tabled until the next meeting due to the lack of a quorum in attendance to approve the minutes

NEW BUSINESS

Teleaid – 43 Hatchett's Hill Road – All proposed activity is at least 220 feet from the wetland.  Request for determination of no jurisdiction.

Matthew White of Angus McDonald & Gary Sharpe was present to discuss the application.  White stated that this property is currently located at Diebolt and Company on Hatchett's Hill Road.    He stated that Teleaid (a computer network company) would like to move a portion of their existing business into the existing building.  He noted that they currently have locations in both Niantic and Waterford.  The proposal is to relocate 35 employees to the Old Lyme site.  White stated on the initially approved plans for the site in 1997 their were eight parking spaces but the proposal is to add nine spaces.    He further noted that the initial proposal included additional parking beyond that to be added but they have since decided not to pursue that at this time because of their long-range plans for an expansion to the building.  White stated at the end of build out there maybe as many as 100 employees at this location. He stated the proposal also includes upgrading the existing septic system.

Linde asked White if there was anything about this application that would restrict the commission’s ability to regulate the wetland for the expansion in the future.  White noted that the second sheet shows the entire property and demonstrates that the site could accommodate the future expansion.   

Linde asked White if all the activity proposed is well outside the review zone.  White indicated that was correct.  White also reviewed both the swale and silt fence locations shown on the plan.  

Evan Griswold made a motion find that this application falls outside the jurisdiction of this commission.  Linde seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS

BEDRI & DANIEL BABASULI – 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD – PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDE OFF ROAD PARKING AND SEPTIC SYSTEM REPAIR

Rowley noted that the proposal is located on small site on the west side of Grassy Hill Road right on Rogers Lake.

Rowley noted he had sent a letter to the commission dated September 17, 2008.  The commission indicated they had received the letter.  Rowley also noted he had not yet received comments on the proposal from Tom Metcalf, Consulting Engineer.  Ann Brown stated that the commission asked that it not be forwarded to Metcalf for a review until a presentation had been made to the commission and they had an opportunity to discuss it.  Brown stated that this item was on both the August and September agenda but no one was present at either of those two meetings to present the application.  Linde stated as a result the commission was not sure what the specific changes were from the previously submitted plans and what was hoped to be accomplished in this plan versus the other plans.

Rowley stated as the commission is aware we have had several different designs for this site.  The commission also noted that they have walked the site several times.

Rowley distributed packets to the commission that show the various designs that were attempted for the site.  The packet contained Options A through E.

Option A was  the original design submitted last year dated July 29, 2007.  Rowley stated it is very similar to the plan that is before you today except it didn’t have as many protective measures with regard to rainfall runoff to the lake.

Option B – Rowley stated that Option B called for an additional arrangement where we would have a driveway that came in off of Grassy Hill Road and swung around and came back out again and the septic system would be located underneath.  He noted this option required an extensive retaining wall between the driveway and the house.  Rowley stated the problem with Option B is the there is no direct access to the tanks for maintenance and pump out measures.  

Option C – Rowley stated that Mr. Metcalf had pointed out some interesting issues with this proposal.  He further stated that he thinks that Option C with the driveway in that location the septic cannot be maintained and there is no access to the house down below.  He also noted in addition to that this driveway location requires a large retaining wall and the sightlines are poor.

Option D – Rowley stated Option D is very similar to Option C but just has an additional arrangement for access but still presents itself as a public safety problem.  

Rowley stated that brings us to the plan that is currently before the commission.  Rowley discussed the benefits of this plan as opposed to the other alternatives presented.  This plan has the driveway coming down from Grassy Hill fairly steeply and it levels off at the bottom.  He stated the wall located on the north-easterly side of the driveway is not really a wall it is like a curve and there is not much difference in the drop off.  He noted the contours of the land will match this slope and curve.  He stated on the south-west side the wall is a little bit more substantial and he believes the highest point is 5’ high.  He stated because the applicant builds walls for a living he feels he can construct both the wall and driveway by hand or with a small machine.  

O’Donnell asked the applicant if he could show the commission an elevation of the existing slope and then the proposed design.  Rowley stated he had not drawn cross-sections to scale but would be willing to present some at the next meeting.  Rowley stated he had done a profile of the wall.  O’Donnell stated she recalled the area being an extreme slope and therefore she felt a significant amount of fill would be needed to make
it accessible and create a navigable slope for a car.  Rowley stated there is only one stretch that is the high point which is about 5’.  O’Donnell stated that is the location where the wall exceeds the existing slope.  Rowley stated that is correct, but the as you continue down the difference becomes minimal.   McCulloch noted that there were cross-sections included in the plans.

O’Donnell asked the commission if the 3 ft buffer shown on the plans was acceptable.  Brown stated that was a previous approval.  

Rowley stated the applicant is proposing stone pavers which will allow the water to filter through.   He further noted the proposal also includes a stormceptor and catch basin so any silt or sand that washed down would be captured either through the catch basin or the stormceptor before there was a discharge to the lake and would remove 80 to 100 percent of anything from the driveway.  He also noted not having an asphalt service on the driveway will also be less likely to produce those types of issues.

Linde asked if there was anything on the plan that would protect the road runoff from going down the driveway.  Rowley stated it would be designed so that no runoff from the road would go down the driveway.  Linde stated it would be designed or it is currently designed.  Rowley stated it is.  

Rowley stated from a public safety point of view the applicant would have the ability to get his cars off the road and he would have the ability to turn the car around.  Linde stated this commission does care about the public safety but it is not something that the commission takes into consideration.  Rowley stated that the other alternatives may be more beneficial from a wetlands point of view but are not acceptable and would not get improved by the Board of Selectmen from an access point of view.  Therefore, Rowley stated if the property cannot be developed this way the applicant will not be able to park on the property.  Linde stated that would be a concern of the applicant.  Rowley stated he could increase the buffer and push the catch basin and stormceptor back.  He further noted the buffer could be any type of plantings and noted he was not looking to create a lawn in that area.  

Danny Babasuli stated he could use three inch stone to further minimize the run-off from the driveway.  He further stated the joints could be filled in with small pea gravel, therefore any water that will go into the driveway will go right into the ground.  
Linde stated it looks likes the proposal is taking 20 percent or so of what’s remaining of the property that was pervious surface and the eco-system that was there to protect the watercourse, therefore he has concerns about having the driveway over that much of what is an important piece of real estate for protecting the watercourse.  He noted that he appreciated that the applicant was willing to change the width of the buffer and the willingness to design the driveway in a specific way, but he noted the plan needs to be forwarded to the town engineer to make sure from an engineering perspective it makes sense.

Linde also discussed the fact that the applicant has described a number of things it could do on the driveway, but he was not hearing a specific plan or what or how it will be constructed.  Rowley stated the plan does call for the driveway to have pavers with open joints.  

Rowely asked the commission what can get into the lake.  He stated he could understand the concern if a large asphalt area was proposed, or a giant parking lot but he felt the impact of a single driveway would be minimal.    He further noted protective measures have been taken by the applicant at the site.  Rowley stated the commission is trying to protect the water quality and therefore he asked when the rainfall hits a driveway and runs over the grass or land what is going to be in that water?

Brown stated that the stormceptor proposed takes the water into the catch basin and discharges it into the lake.  Rowley stated that was correct.  Brown stated what is proposed is concentrating the runoff into one spot, so where you might have had salt and sand and so forth from the street you now in one way or another having much more of an opportunity to concentrate that and take that salt or sand and put it into the lake; rather than having the water filtered through the ground prior to entering the lake.    She noted that the stormceptor is an effort to clean the water, but she still has the concern of concentrating the water on the site.  Rowley stated he was trying to diminish the effect on the lake.  Brown stated it has been a concern all along of the scope of the project because of the size of the lot.  Rowley stated he is not saying there is not an impact but he is trying to minimize the impact.  Rowley stated he is trying to do more than any of the other houses that are built that have driveways before us on the street.

Linde stated this is the absolute reason that Mr. Metcalf needs to review the plans, it sounds like a great idea to have a pervious surface, but the town engineer will provide the commission with a better understanding of the impact.  

Danny Babasuli stated that based on the way he will construct the driveway he feels that 80 percent of the water will be lost.  Linde stated at that slope 80 percent of the water is going to go into the ground rather than shed off.  Rowley stated he did not know that it
would be 80 percent, but what the applicant was saying was that having a pervious surface rather than a paved surface would minimize the impact.  

Brown asked how far the septic tank was from the lake.  Rowley indicated it was 26 ft.  Brown noted the proposal was for a repair.  Rowley stated that the existing septic system was closer to the lake and was in a position that it could not be maintained.  

O’Donnell stated she recalled an existing garage on the site, and asked if any of the earlier applications included plans to make the existing garage into a parking area.  Rowley stated that was proposed in Option C.  Griswold noted in that location the sight lines would be decreased.  O’Donnell questioned why this application was abandoned by the applicant.  Rowley stated they would like space for more than one car on the site.  Rowley stated this location was difficult for a car to back out of and he did not feel a permit would be issued by the Board of Selectmen.  DiCamillo stated he felt that Option C had a better sight line.  Rowley stated in Option C the applicant would be backing onto the road as opposed to pulling out onto the road.  DiCamillo also stated it appears that Option C has room for more than one car.  Rowley stated that Mr. Metcalf had several concerns with the proposal and suggestion that the applicant make sure he could obtain a driveway permit prior to even submitting to the IWWC.  

Linde stated that the regulations state that in the absence of a feasible and prudent alternative is not a reason to approve an application.  Therefore, this commission has to concern itself with protecting the watercourse and any plan we approve has adequate protection or does not impact on the wetland or watercourse.  Rowley asked the commission to look at what other people have done with their property and compare it to the applicant’s proposal he stated the applicant is taking it upon himself to offer an alternative that provides protection.  Linde stated what this commission must do in terms of comparing this application with other applicants is the following:  each piece of property is unique but we have to be consistent with how we evaluate a piece of property, so the solutions or lack of solutions on a given piece of property may change from site to site but we will take and we do take a consistent approach to each application.

Linde asked the applicant if he would be willing to grant an extension to allow the town engineer time to review the application.  He further noted the applicant has had two prior opportunities to present the application and has not done so.   The applicant agreed to grant an extension to the next meeting.

Brown asked the applicant if this was the only feasible place to put the new septic system.  Rowley stated he has tried to move it up slope and down slope and he believes this is the best location for the septic system.  He stated it needs to be higher.  Brown
asked if that was because of groundwater.  Rowley stated it was because of a combination of different things; soil types and groundwater.  

Tony Hendriks stated for the record that he has reviewed this proposal with Mr. Ron Rose, Town Sanitarian and the basic criteria is to try to bring this leaching system into conformance with today’s public health code which means bringing it back at least 50’ away from Rogers Lake.  Hendriks stated where the system is located on the plan is 50’ from Rogers Lake.   Brown asked if that was the main reason.  Hendriks indicated that was correct.  Brown asked for the location of the proposed well.  Rowley pointed out the location on the plan.  DiCamillo asked if all the trees would be removed on the site.  Hendriks stated they were trying to keep as much tree cover as possible.  He noted the Babasuli’s are trying to do as much work as possible by hand.  He noted the test pits were dug by hand.

Linde asked if a holding tank was a viable option for the site.  Hendriks stated the State Department of Health would not approve that option except in an emergency situation.  Linde state he would like to see a calculation that looks at the current amount of land available to filter water (lot size minus the existing house and existing garage and existing impervious surfaces) and then look at the remaining land and what percentage of that is going to be disturbed either through construction or by having the driveway there.  Linde stated it appears that the proposal is taking at least half or maybe more of the impervious surface and either permanently disfiguring it or damaging its ability to protect the wetlands or at least in terms of temporary disturbance.  

Linde also asked the applicant to submit his qualifications as well as his references which would support his ability to build a technically challenging driveway so that the commission can have confidence that this driveway can be built to protect the wetlands in the long term.

Rowley stated he was willing to make modifications to the application based on recommendations from both Tom Metcalf and Wendy Goodfriend.  

Mr. Hendriks asked if the commission has determined this application will require a public hearing.  

The commission agreed to schedule a public hearing for the application next month.  The commission also agreed to forward the final plans with the exact details when provided by the applicant to both Tom Metcalf and Wendy Goodfriend.

08-15 – PRAMOD R. MINEXIBAN P.W. PATEL – 268 SHORE ROAD – PROPOSED RETAIL FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED PARKING

Rowley asked if Mr. Metcalf had reviewed and submitted comments for the project.  Ann Brown stated we have not yet received comments.   Rowley asked the commission if they had received a copy of the soil scientist report.  Rowley submitted a copy of the report to the commission dated November 2006.   

Linde clarified that the plans had been forwarded to Mr. Metcalf.  Brown stated the commission at their site walk requested that the applicant investigate relocating the building, relocating the septic, relocating the parking or provide an explanation of why it should be presented this way.  

Hendriks stated for the record that the only request  at the site walk was to look at alternative building locations.  Brown stated there were lots of reiterations as she recalled.  Hendriks stated the building was staked out and a design was created in a location that we felt it was best to be done.   Hendriks stated that they have prepared some plans that we believe is the best location to allow the Patel’s to be able to use their property in accordance with C-10 zoning locations.

Rowley stated he was aware the commission walked the site.  He also noted that Mr. Hendrik’s recalled the commission walking the site several years ago when the plans were in the preliminary stages for the site.  Rowley stated that Hendriks indicated that during that initial walk through the commission was concerned with the proximity of development to the wetlands and the members stated they would not want any activity closer than 40’ to the wetlands.  Brown stated she needed to clarify that statement.  She stated that 40’ was involved in an enforcement where the property owner had gone and clear cut the whole works and the commission was present on the site for enforcement and the commission determined that the owner should replant the area 40’ from the wetlands up.  She further noted that they didn’t require him to map the wetlands but just to replant.  Brown stated the applicant never did replant it but the lot re-grew.   Rowley stated he stood corrected.

O’Donnell asked if the Environmental Report was conducted prior to the enforcement action.  She stated she felt the conditions on the site have changed since that report was provided and that more wetland plants have re-grown and it is a different environment.  Hendriks stated that he disagreed with that and he has spoken with Don Fortunato recently and it is his opinion that this report is fairly current; however he would be willing to ask Mr. Fortunato to revisit the site and update the report if necessary.  Hendriks stated they are also in contact with him regarding some mitigation for the site in replanting the area that has been decimated with floods.  Hendriks noted the proposal is to keep all the leaching systems at least 100’ from the wetland line, while there is some
activity within 50’.    Linde stated in looking at the plan he felt there was activities within approximately 2’.   Rowley stated there are some activities such has regrading going on in close proximity.

Rowley stated there is an existing commercial establishment on the site that fronts on Shore Road.  The proposal is to make some improvements, put in some parking for the building in the front, and some additional parking for the proposed building in the rear of the site.  Rowley stated the building in the rear is for the applicant to improve his current building to a newer building in the back with an apartment above it.  The applicant would like to rent the front building and remove a portion of the rear building and make it a small office building.  Rowley stated there is a public water supply on Shore Road and they are planning to bring a water main back to supply the rear building.  He noted the design calls for putting a septic system as far away from Swan Brook and the wetlands.  Rowley stated there are restrictions in the front of the property because of the necessary 75’ radius from the local wells.  Rowley stated any stormwater that would fall would be directed to a small water quality swale in the back.  He stated the water would shed off both parking lots into the water quality swale.  It was designed so that the water would flow into the swale and seep into the ground into underground storage pipes and eventually feed back into the stream.  It is designed for a first flush so everything would run into the swale first.  Brown asked about the third parking lot.  Rowley stated the third parking lot has a little catch basin in the corner and there is a pipe that runs from the catch basin draining to the same place.  DiCamillo asked if details of the underground pipes were provided.  Rowley indicated they were shown on the plans.  

Linde asked what the capacity of the swale.  Rowley stated it was a shallow swale and not designed to handle a 100 year storm.  Rowley stated it could handle a 1 or 2 year storm.  Rowley stated if there was a larger storm the water quality swale (detention system) would fill up and overflow over the weir and into the brook.  Linde asked the distance.  Rowley stated it was about 25’ to the edge of the stream.  Linde asked what the characteristics were of the wetland swale to drain the water out of the bottom.  Rowley stated there are two different soils that have a fairly good permeability underneath.  Rowley stated the drainage report shows these items.  The commission noted it does not have a copy of the drainage report.  Rowley agreed to provide a copy.  The commission agreed to clarify if Mr. Metcalf had received the report.

O’Donnell stated the site was very level and expressed concern about the sheet flow.  Rowley stated that was also provided in the drainage report.  McCulloch stated there are elevations shown that demonstrate that it is pitched.  Rowley also submitted alternatives to relocating the building on the site. Hendriks stated that Mr. McCulloch asked if the primary and reserve area could be reversed.  Hendriks indicated they could be, but the biggest problem is determining the existing status of a well in the area.  He also noted that this would not allow the applicant to move the building closer to the street.  He stated we have looked at all of these options and feel this is the best location due to the leaching system and drainage on the site.  Linde asked why the building needed to be that size.  Hendriks stated the building size has been reduced and the configuration has been change.  Rowley noted that they could actually put a bigger building on the site but the applicant asked that the size be reduced.   Rowley stated that they tried to come up with something that was reasonable and not overpowering for the property and was environmentally sound.

O’Donnell stated that she did not feel that locating the dumpster up against the water quality swale was a good location.  She noted that this was discussed also at the site walk.  Rowely stated he could move that.  O’Donnell asked if the alternative building locations were part of the application.  She further asked if an architect had already completed the design and if so they would be willing to change that design.   Linde stated he did not feel that was the concern of the Inland Wetlands Commission.  Rowley stated he was unclear as to whether the applicant would be willing to go back through the design process because this is what he has custom designed for his needs.  Linde clarified that if the footprint changed the applicant would need to come back before this commission.

Brown stated the commission has had this application for onward of sixty days and therefore either needs to render a decision tonight or the applicant needs to grant an extension.

The applicant agreed to grant an extension to the next regular meeting.

Dave McCulloch chaired the next item on the agenda due to a conflict.  Linde recused himself for this application.

  • JOAN BOZEK & ROBB LINDE – 16 MANSEWOOD ROAD – REPLACE OF EXISTING HOME WITH NEW FOUR BEDROOM HOME AND SEPTIC SYSTEM, WELL AND RELOCATE DRIVEWAY
The commission walked the site and noted all of the activities are outside of the regulated zone.  Evan Griswold asked if there was any determination if there were vernal pools on the site.  Linde stated it was marked at the wrong time of year, but he would be more than happy to have it surveyed next Spring. Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application submitted.  Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

Linde returned as Chair for remainder of the meeting.

  • WAYNE WHIPPLE – 308 FERRY ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS
Wayne Whipple was present for the application.  The commission reviewed the plans and walked the site.  Linde stated he recalled there was a breach in the silt fence along the wetland that the commission would like repaired.    The applicant drew and initialed on the map the stockpile location that the commission requested and also agreed to continue to run the silt fence past that location.  The applicant also agreed to dig a hole to allow the water to infiltrate into the ground and also allow the wetlands area to re-grow.   Brown stated on the site walk the applicant described a small retaining wall that he intended to put on the side of the house.  Whipple stated he was not sure of his exact proposal.  Brown stated it should be on the plan if you intend to do work in that area.  

O’Donnell asked the applicant to show the location where the wetlands will be allowed to re-vegetate.  The applicant pointed out the location on the map.

Linde also noted for the record that he was very disappointed to see that the wetland had been clear cut.  He stated that technically this is in violation, however the commission is not going to issue a violation, but noted that this commission takes these actions very seriously.  Mr. Whipple apologized for his ignorance and assured the commission that in the future he would come before the commission for the proper reviews and permits.

Robb Linde made a motion to approve the application with the following modifications:

  • The stockpile and silt fence gets extended as shown on the plan.  
  • A drywell is installed proximate to the greenhouse into which the roof leaders from the eastern portion of the house can drain into.
  • The applicant allows the wetlands to re-vegetate and maintain an approximate 10’ buffer around that wetland.  (Noted it was an area that could be mowed once a year)
  • Contingent upon a plan being submitted for a terrace on the northeast corner.
  • The silt fence on the eastern side of the house with the breach in the silt fence is repaired.  
Evan Griswold seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.  

MICHAEL BRADY – 83 SHORE DRIVE – REPAIR EXISTING DECAYING DECK ON LAKE SIDE OF RESIDENCES

Mr. Brady was present to discuss his application.  Linde noted that the commission walked the site and reviewed the application.  He stated what he saw appeared to be essentially a repair of the existing deck and he did not see any real impact to the wetlands.  Griswold stated from an aerial view there was no additional footprint and no real change.  McCulloch also noted that he saw no impact.

Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the application as submitted.  Evan Griswold seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

  • - JOHN P. SHEGIRIAN – 4 LONGACRE LANE – 2 STORY ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
Brown stated that she felt the conditions of the application were worked out pretty well when the commission walked the site.

Robb Linde a motion to approve the application with the following conditions:

1.      That the wetlands area that is currently lawn be allowed to re-vegetate and a   10’ buffer area is established to allow the ferns and wetlands plants to        reestablish themselves.

2.      That this area should be mowed or cut only once or twice each year, and that
        no more trees should be cut down in the wetland area.

3.      The area to be converted to a buffer is south of the line between the two large         trees which are at the edge of the slight drop off in the lawn.

  • Any stockpiles of dirt must be kept north of the silt fence.
Evan Griswold seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS

FMTM

Brown noted we have still not received an as-built plan and the site appears to be at a standstill.

REGULATIONS

Brown reported she has sent off the draft regulations that Bechtel had done although not very long ago.  She noted that Branse was already prepared to work on the buffer.

LORDS WOODS SUBDIVISION

Brown reported that Metcalf had visited site and although the level spread has failed and needs to be repaired he doesn’t see any damage being done at the site.

Brown also noted that she contacted Don Fortunato and he also visited the site and thought that the re-growth was going very well and he also saw no damage at the site.

Brown also noted that she has had no further contact with Attorney Block or Dr. Awwa since the last meeting.

Evan Griswold stated he all visited the site and did not see any damage either to the site and noted there is very little channeling.  Skip DiCamillo also concurred after visiting the site.

Intervener – Robb Linde – Asked if the land records have been attached.  Brown indicated that they have been attached but they have not been returned to her after being recorded.  She noted as soon as that happens she will forward a copy both to the Attorney and the marketing agent for the property.

Respectfully submitted,



Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator