OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Robb Linde, Sabine O’Donnell, Mike Moran, Evan Griswold, and Skip DiCamillo. Also present were Ann Brown, Lee Rowley, Michael Harkin, Joseph Cancillieri, Steve Gaudio, Joseph McAraw, Jason Wilcox and Kim Groves.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING DATED JANUARY 27, 2009
Robb Linde made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2009
Robb Linde made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
JOSEPH AND TAMARA MCARAW – 23 TALCOTT FARM ROAD – PUBLIC HEARNG – CEASE AND DESIST ORDER – CLEARING IN THE REGULATED AREA IN VIOLATION OF PERMIT 07-09.
Bechtel noted for the record that the property owners are in violation of their permit which was granted on May 31st 2007.
Brown reported that she had received a phone complaint stating there had been clearing at 23 Talcott Farm Road in the area between the house and the water. Brown noted there are both inland wetlands and tidal wetlands at the boundary of this property. Brown stated she visited the site and took photographs and reported that there has been clearing beyond the limits shown on the plan. Brown discussed the limits of disturbance shown on the approved plan with the commission. Brown distributed photographs of the cleared area for the commission to review. Brown stated that she spoke briefly with Mrs. McAraw when she visited the site. Brown stated that Ms. McAraw indicated they
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
had done clearing but was not aware it was a problem or violation. McAraw further indicated that it was their intention to do some replanting and landscaping in the area that had been cleared. Brown suggested the commission schedule a site walk which will give the property owner an opportunity to present some sort of mitigation plan.
Jay McAraw stated that the house was finished last June. He noted there was a lot of brush and dead trees leaning against each other that he felt were dangerous, therefore it was his sole intention to clean things up on the property. He stated as you can see by the photographs it was not his intention to wipe out all the trees in front of the water because 40 or 50 trees have been left and there are no further plans to clear.
Jason Wilcox who preformed the tree work at the site was present to address the commission. He stated a high percentage of the tree stumps that are shown in the photographs which are close to the wetlands were already cut and lying on the ground when the property was purchased. Wilcox stated that the previous owner had done the clearing to open up the view. Wilcox stated that since the commission was already at the site once for the initial approval they must have seen all the trees that were laying on the ground. Wilcox reported that he spent an entire day just removing the fallen trees that the previous owner had dropped and cutting down some of the stumps that were left too high. Wilcox stated there were definitely some trees removed in addition to that work. McAraw stated that they
have no intention of any further clearing and thought the healthier trees would now begin to fill in the area. Brown stated she did not have any photographs of the site from the time of the initial approval by this commission.
Brown noted the commission had received a letter dated February 22, 2009 from the Talcott Farm Association expressing their concern about the clearing that had been done at the site. Brown read the letter into record. (A Copy is attached )
Brown stated that a conservation area was shown both on the Subdivision Map and the Condominium documents. Brown also noted that the association has authority over these areas as well.
Linde stated this was a subject that was discussed by this commission at the time of the initial approval. Bechtel stated there was a lot of discussion about the conservation areas and they were researched going back to the original Talcott Farm documentation. Bechtel stated at the time it was discussed, the question was asked was if the commission would allow the property owner to have his own driveway or did we insist that the shared driveway remain. Bechtel stated in the minutes from that 2007 meeting “Mr. Griswold asked if there would be sufficient room around the concrete walls for the machinery to operate without intruding into the limits of clearing. Mr. Hendriks indicated that there was enough area although it would be tight”. Bechtel stated we knew when we approved
this plan that it was a very tight plan and that you were going to be very severely restricted to working outside of the limits of clearing as they were designated on the site plan. Bechtel stated that she is really astounded at the level of clearing that has been done going in direct violation of what the permit allowed as well as the by-laws of the Talcott Farm Association.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
McAraw responded that he was simply worried about his kids running around the yard. He stated he would do it again because he was very concerned about a couple of branches and trees that had fallen in some of the recent storms. Bechtel stated that the property owner could have come before this commission and requested a permit for tree work and we would have visited the site, looked at the trees and we could have supported the decision. McAraw agreed, but further stated that five days ago they did come home to someone trespassing on their property – taking photographs around our yard. Brown stated that she was that person. McAraw stated he would have expected to be contacted prior to someone visiting the site. Bechtel asked McAraw if when Ms.Brown visited the site that was
his first indication of any problem. McAraw stated he had talked to the Association but he had not talked to Wetlands Commission yet. Again he stated they had only finished the project a week ago.
Wilcox stated the root systems of the trees close to the pool were very destroyed from the excavating around the pool and the entire back fill that was 6 to 8ft above normal grade. Wilcox stated there were a few trees that were leaning and balancing near the fence in the pool area. Wilcox stated for the pool to be located where it was the trees should have been removed or the pool should not have been installed.
Bechtel asked Wilcox what sort of distance he would have recommended that the trees be kept from the pool to be safe. Wilcox stated the trunks of the trees were buried in the fill which caused them to die. Wilcox further stated some of this work should have been done prior to the house being constructed because some of the trees were such a hazard. He further stated down the property there were uprooted dead hemlock tress with stumps that were left 4 ft high.
Bechtel stated that Mr. Wilcox’s original statement makes the most sense and that the swimming pool never should have been approved to begin with. Bechtel stated this is a very good lesson to this commission that we do not factor in enough buffer space and a lot of these things were it is too big and to tight the answer should simply be no.
Bechtel stated she would like to schedule a site walk so the members of the commission can come out and take a look and then a restoration plan can be discussed with the McAraw’s.
Linde stated there were several failures on this project. The first being the failure of the homeowner to come before the commission to get the necessary permits to do the work. He further noted he was also very disappointed in the professional and felt it was his responsibility to know the regulations about doing work in the proximity to wetlands.
Wilcox stated he measured everywhere and it was over 100 ft. Wilcox stated the only ones he removed were the fallen dead hemlocks and the stumps that were already cut and the trees that were already on the ground from the previous owner. Bechtel stated when the commission walked the site there was nothing dangerous and this site was walked more than once.
Bechtel stated it was a failure all the way around on three parts. The commission’s, the professional’s, and the homeowner’s so now we have to go back and figure out what we have to do to rectify it.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
Bechtel stated in the future if it looks wet and there is a wetland and the water sparkles please give a call and we will gladly come out. Wilcox stated it was 100 ft from the wetland.
Brown stated the commission has jurisdiction over everything within a 100 ft of a wetlands boundary. Brown stated that sometimes there is greater jurisdiction depending on the site. Wilcox asked what the rule of thumb would be. Brown stated 100’ from the wetlands which is not necessarily from running water or open water from a marshy area. She further stated if there are any questions either the professional or the property owner can check at the Land Use Office located in Town Hall.
McAraw asked what the next step would be to rectify the situation.
The commission agreed to tentatively set a site walk for Saturday, February 28th at 8:30 a.m. McAraw stated he would check to see if the date would work for him and notify the Land Use Office. Bechtel asked if he could have a representative there if he could not be present. McAraw stated it is his preference to be there and expressed concern once again that someone visited his property without notice. McAraw agreed to contact Kim Groves and let her know if the commission could walk the site on February 28th.
McAraw asked the commission what the next step would be to solve this situation. Linde asked the property owner if a landscape architect had been retained. McAraw stated he had someone who did previous work at the site. Linde stated that the sooner a plan is submitted to the commission the sooner it can be reviewed. McAraw stated he would like some direction from the commission prior to beginning the planning process.
PUBLIC HEARING
08-14 – BEDRI & DANIEL BABASULI – 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD – PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDE OFF ROAD PARKING AND SEPTIC SYSTEM
Bechtel asked if everyone had received Tom Metcalf’s comments dated February 24, 2009. Bechtel asked the commission members if they had any further questions about the proposal. Bechtel stated she did not think it was necessary for Mr. Rowley to go back over the application. The commission distributed a copy of Metcalf’s letter to Mr. Rowley for his review.
Sabine O’Donnell stated that Mr. Metcalf’s letter referenced several safety concerns regarding the driveway and she wondered if this action needed to be decided by some other entity before the commission discussed the environmental impact of the driveway.
Brown stated in general the Board of Selectmen issues Driveway Permits approving both the cut into the driveway as well as the design. Brown stated this situation is unique because the construction of the driveway falls within the regulated area. Brown stated that no commission wants to approve something that is inherently unsafe; or is not feasible to be built. Brown stated if this commission concludes from
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
Mr. Metcalf’s evaluation that this particular plan is essentially impossible and is dangerous not only from a wetlands standpoint but from a public safety standpoint all of that can come together in the decision.
O’Donnell stated in light of the answer to her question she would suggest that the commission look at denying the application at this point until the other questions have been resolved. Meaning … is this a driveway that is feasible based on other town regulations and then once that has been determined this commission can then look at the impact again. She stated she thought this would be a reasonable approach to the application rather than hearing the same proposal over and over again and further noted that most of Tom Metcalf’s comments are regarding safety issues with the driveway.
Bechtel stated she concurred. She further stated this commission has been reviewing this project since December 23, 2007 and it has come back in a number of iterations but it is still basically the same project. Bechtel stated there has been nothing in Tom Metcalf’s correspondence that indicates that this project is a sound project to be approved. She further stated that this application presents a number of potentially adverse impacts on the watercourse known as Rogers Lake which is a very important lake to the town from a recreational point of view and is something that this commission has an obligation to protect for the people of the town and for future generations. Bechtel stated this house sits within six feet of the edge of Rogers Lake and there is also a proposed driveway going in at
a 30% or better gradient slope down to the water and they are discussing a proposed septic system which would require taking trees off of the top of the hillside which would contribute unduly to erosion and siltation and it would also negatively impact Rogers Lake. Therefore, she stated for those reasons she feels this application should indeed be denied and recommended that the applicant research other alternatives to this particular plan which might be to repair the existing septic system that they have on site and pursuing other avenues for parking a vehicle. Bechtel stated the house is a three season home and it has never had a driveway and it was purchased exactly as is and it not a hardship situation and something else can be done.
Griswold stated he has been particularly concerned about the hardening of the driveway and removal of the canopy. He stated there may be ways of cleaning the water but it is just more water and he is also worried about setting a precedent with this application. He stated there are a lot of cottages along Grassy Hill Road.
Linde asked at the last meeting what percentage of the property was going to be impervious surface? Rowley stated he provided that figure at the last meeting. Bechtel stated it was 36.2%. Linde stated his concerns are that every bit of this property that can possibility filter out debris and oils and the like from Grassy Hill Road and the use of the property are needed. He stated the proposal is to go from 14% to 36% taking roughly a ¼ of the property that was available to be able to do that wetland protection and eliminating that cannot be beneficial to the lake and has to be detrimental to the lake. Linde stated the surrounding states all have required buffers from 15 to 25 or more feet on the edge of any type of wetland and the proposed driveway is located within 3
ft.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
Linde stated this property has been in use for 75 years and putting in the driveway is going to have a detrimental impact on the wetland/watercourse and failure to put it in does not prevent the owner from being able to use the house.
Skip DiCamillo stated there are other areas for a garage; Bechtel stated a garage currently exists. DiCamillo stated then he felt there were other available alternatives. Linde stated he was not going to state whether he was in favor of denying the application until the public hearing was closed and the commission had heard all the testimony but noted he does have the concerns.
Bechtel asked if the commission had any further questions for the applicant. Brown stated all of the commission members have had an opportunity to read Mr. Metcalf’s letter and our applicant has had an opportunity to also read the review comments. Brown noted that Mr. Metcalf indicated in his letter to the commission that he felt there were still outstanding items that should have been submitted in order for him to do a proper evaluation of the plan such as how would well be drilled, what sort of temporary platform was to be installed. Brown stated there also concerns raised on Page 4 of his letter that indicate that no specific details were provided on how the driveway would be constructed. Brown stated at the last meeting Mr. Linde asked for some specific information about the
construction of the driveway that would support that it would hold up over a period of time. Bechtel stated Mr. Metcalf did answer that question in his letter. Brown stated he was concerned that he did not have a plan showing that information. Bechtel but he definitely answered one of questions which was whether pavers or asphalt would be an issue and Metcalf did in the letter indicate that he did not feel that one or the other would make or break the proposal. Linde stated he said technically it was feasible but with regard to this particular plan he did not have the specifics of what types of pavers, what types of fill to be able to say whether or not this particular plan was feasible.
Lee Rowley stated he has not had an opportunity to go over Mr. Metcalf’s letter in detail so he will not be able to respond and he felt it would be unfair to ask him to do that since he received the letter this evening. Rowley stated he is extremely disappointed that the commission’s engineer has had an extensive amount of time to review this very simple plan and it was unfair for him to receive his comments this evening.
Bechtel stated that Rowley’s statement was entirely unfair. Bechtel stated this commission has gone around and around on this application and each time the plan has changed it has been sent back to Mr. Metcalf. She stated the letter the commission received is very similar to his prior comments but he has only expanded upon it in greater detail and has only further emphasized his displeasure with the plan. Rowley stated he understood that the commission doesn’t like the plan but requested the opportunity to review the comments and perhaps withdraw the application. Rowley stated he could have looked at this plan and responded. Bechtel stated that “this is what you constantly do … you wait for Mr. Metcalf to attempt to come up with a plan that this commission
will approve and then you take his comments and you go back and you tweak a plan and then you come back again”. Bechtel stated the way the system is supposed to work is that the applicant comes in with a plan and asks this commission if they will approve the plan or not, it is not a matter of exercising the town engineer, and this is what you (Rowley) have done continually. Bechtel stated this needs to stop. She said we have had a public hearing and you
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
know this commission has been unhappy with the plan and we have no further questions of the applicant.
Bechtel asked the commission if they would like to close the public hearing on this application. Rowley stated he feels the applicant should have the opportunity to respond. Bechtel stated the plan has been presented. Bechtel stated the commission is allowed to get comments from Mr. Metcalf after the hearing is closed, therefore you don’t need to respond to his response. Bechtel stated you presented this plan and the commission sent it to Metcalf and his comments are basically a staff review.
Bechtel asked for a motion to close the public hearing on this application. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Linde stated he did not see any harm allowing the applicant to respond at the next meeting. Bechtel stated the applicant has submitted the application and commission is able to receive staff reviews after the hearing is closed. She further stated she did not understand what yet another round and more iterations were going to accomplish, so she disagreed with Mr. Linde.
Bechtel asked how many members vote to close the public hearing.
Linde stated we are still in discussion.
Bechtel asked what additional items needed to be discussed.
Linde stated that we chose not to close the public hearing at the last meeting in order to wait for staff comments. .
Bechtel stated we did not close the hearing because Linde was going to contact a lake expert, which did not materialize.
Bechtel once again stated she would like to close the public hearing.
Bechtel asked for everyone in favor of closing the public hearing:
Motion to Close – Bechtel, O’Donnell, Moran, Griswold, DiCamillo
Motion Against – Linde
Motion carried to close the public hearing.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
OLD BUSINESS
08-15 – PRAMOD R. MINEXBAN P.W. PATEL – 268 SHORE ROAD – PROPOSED RETAIL FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED PARKING
Brown confirmed that all the commission members had received Lee Rowley’s letter dated February 21, 2009. Bechtel stated the commission needed to review the timeline of this application. Bechtel asked Mr. Rowley if the last revision to the plan is dated January 5, 2009. Rowley stated the plans have been revised through February 19, 2009. Rowley stated there are only three changes relating to wetlands made on the revised plan. Rowley reviewed the wetlands issues. He stated that Metcalf asked for some clarification on the level of water in the detention water quality swale. He said an extensive drainage report was done which shows for the various storm events 1, 10, 15, and 25 year what those elevations will be. Rowley stated Metcalf wanted this information shown on the
plan so he has added it to the plan as well. Metcalf was also concerned about how much water would go over the weir and how it would impact the velocity and the downstream of the weir and this has been demonstrated by a 10 year storm which shows the water would not travel over the weir so there should be no concern about erosion and velocity.
Rowley stated Metcalf suggested that the design engineer be involved in the construction to ensure that the facility is constructed as designed an also an As-Built plan be submitted. Rowley stated he has placed notes on the plans indicating this request. Brown asked for the number of the note. Rowley stated it was Note #27 on Sheet 5 of 6. He further stated that Best Management Practices have also been added to the plan on Sheet 1 of 1 and it refers to the BMP’s on Sheet 6 of 6.
Bechtel asked about the silt fence that was shown on the plan which she took to be the broad dashed line which is closest to the wetland. Bechtel asked how far the silt fence was from the closest wetland flag. Rowley stated it was approximately 2 or 3 ft. Bechtel asked what type of buffer was being provided for the wetland on this plan. Rowley stated that once the suppressed area of the water quality swale is completed it would be 10 ft. Bechtel asked if that was after the silt fencing was removed. Rowley stated there was 10 ft. between that and the weir but the swale itself will be acting as a natural buffer. Bechtel stated it still has to be constructed. Bechtel stated she did not feel there was a sufficient buffer for the wetland shown on this plan.
Tony Hendriks stated he was aware the commission had walked the property and were aware that there is nothing natural about this piece of property at all. He stated it is all fill and it was wiped out by the ‘82 Flood at one point and there is not a natural thing out there at all. Bechtel stated the regulations tell us that simply because something has been degraded doesn’t mean that we allow it to become more degraded. Hendriks stated he felt this plan helps the whole effort of everything. He said all the water that comes off of Cottage Lane and Boston Post Rd. will all be filtered through this water quality swale.
Rowley stated if the town doesn’t want any activity then perhaps this property should not be zoned commercial. Bechtel stated, your job is to bring us a plan; ours is to evaluate it and determine whether
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
or not it is a plan that we find acceptable, and this plan has been before us in at least four different scenarios and she still doesn’t feel there is an adequate buffer as she stated in all the prior applications.
Rowley stated due to some of the limitations on the site he felt this was the best plan. Bechtel stated the footprint could be reduced to help increase the buffer. Rowley stated this was the plan they were presenting.
O’Donnell stated she has repeatedly expressed concerns at the last three meetings over the dumpster location shown on the plans. She noted she also provided her reasoning as to why she didn’t feel the location shown was ideal. Rowley stated the location of the dumpster is predicated primarily by the regulations of the zoning commission. Rowley stated the dumpster has to be accessible for a truck to get to it . O’Donnell stated most of the areas around the building are paved so she would assume there would be plenty of other locations that a truck could access the dumpster. Rowley asked what the concern was about the dumpster. O’Donnell stated her concern was the dumpster leaks out whatever is put into it and the dumpster is currently right up
against the water quality swale so whatever leaches out of the dumpster would drain right into the swale. O’Donnell stated the argument presented at the last meeting is that it would be mostly cardboard relating to the currently proposed business. She stated her concern is that the business could change in the future and who knows what would be put into the dumpster then. Rowley indicated that the area is curbed and the only way that runoff would run from here would be to run around into the water quality swale but the dumpsters have covers on them. O’Donnell stated she often sees the covers up on dumpsters. O’Donnell further stated she was discouraged to see that none of her concerns had been addressed. She also noted that she did not find this situation fair to the client or the commission to keep responding month after month to pretty much the same plan and being forced to waste everybody’s time.
Linde stated it is not the commission’s job to redesign the plan.
Hendriks stated he looked hard and long at the proposed dumpster location and further noted the property is located in a commercial area and therefore the fact that we are proposing dumpsters that have tops knowing that these are closed in and we have proposed a curb around the outside to protect the wetlands. Hendriks stated he wants to provide a good location for a profitable business that can be taxed by the Town of Old Lyme and we don’t want a dumpster sitting out in the front yard. O’Donnell suggested he be creative and design it so it could be hidden. Hendriks concluded by stating he felt it was the most prudent location.
Rowley stated there are a number of zoning issues which are like housekeeping items. Bechtel stated that we don’t need to go through the zoning issues. Rowley stated that he just wanted to noted that these items would be addressed prior to the next Zoning Commission meeting.
Bechtel stated at last month’s meeting it was discussed that if there were any changes at all to this plan made by the Zoning Commission the plan would come back again before this commission. Rowley stated that was correct.
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
Griswold asked a general question as to who develops the definition of 5, 10, or 25 year storms. Griswold noted that in the sixty years he has been alive there have been at least two 100 year storms. Rowley stated it is all done statistically by the USGS.
Linde stated the amount of soil left on the site for the water to travel through is less than there would be in nature. Rowley stated this is correct.
Bechtel noted that the commission needs to vote on this application tonight and if we vote to approve the plan we need to sit down and make sure that we put a bond on soil and erosion controls, we need to discuss whether we want supplemental plantings to be put into the site as discussed at the time of the prior violation at the site. Bechtel stated she also feels there are reasons to deny the application. She feels that there is not enough buffer on this project and that there are alternatives that the applicant could indeed look at to still make it a viable commercial project that would bring income revenue into the Town of Old Lyme and that would allow the front building to be maintained which would still allow commercial space and residential space above. She further stated she did not feel the
applicant had worked very hard to address the concerns raised by the commission.
Griswold stated that he thought it would be good to have an adequate natural buffer between the swale and the outer edge of the spillway. Bechtel stated there would be 10 ft after construction. Brown wanted the commission to be aware that during construction the disturbance might expand beyond where the silt fence is located. Griswold stated that could be stabilized once the swale was constructed and noted if the spillway was not going to be utilized except in extreme conditions he felt it is incumbent that the silt fence be maintained during the project.
Bechtel made a motion to deny the application based on the fact that there is not a sufficient buffer between the drainage swale and the wetlands and that she is not satisfied with the maintenance plan on the drainage swale. She would like to see something a lot tighter and more specific with more timelines in it including who would be responsible for cleaning it out and not such a pro-forma maintenance plan.. Bechtel stated enforcement is difficult so therefore the more information that becomes part of the permit the better off we are at enforcing it when necessary.
Linde added to the motion that he feels that there are feasible and prudent alternatives to the plan in front of us and that there is a significant amount of impervious surfaces that has put into place and as a
result of that debris, chemicals, and oils are going to be transported much closer to the wetlands than they currently are and will likely have a negative impact on the wetlands.
Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed to deny the application. Voting: Bechtel, Linde, DiCamillo, Griswold, Moran and O’Donnell.
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
09-05 – JOSEPH CANCELLIERE – 62 GORTON AVENUE – DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURE AND REBUILD PRIMARILY ON THE EXISTING FOUNDATION
Joseph Cancelliere was present to address the commission. Bechtel noted for the record that Evan Griswold and Mike Moran were not present on the site walk. They indicated that they had independently reviewed the site. She distributed copies of Option A which is the applicant’s preference for the site. Cancelliere stated he believed the commission would be less in favor of Option B because it has a 30 ft separation to the wetlands and Option A provides a 50 ft separation.
Cancelliere stated the 1 ½ story dwelling at 62 Gorton Ave. has building violations and does not comply with the current building codes. He stated the building was constructed in 1948. He noted his father purchased the property in 1973 and at that time it had a failing foundation. Therefore, in 1990 the cottage was elevated and dug out around the entire perimeter of the foundation and a new foundation installed. He stated the building as well as having structural problems also has functional problems. He stated the building started as a two apartment rental income property. Therefore, he stated in order to make this home a good home it will require an entire rebuild.
Bechtel stated that the applicant presented two alternatives to the plans that were before the commission. Bechtel stated all the commissions questions were answered at the site walk. Bechtel stated that Mr. Metcalf’s letter indicated that there were no problems with this application although he did have a couple of suggestions which were discussed when the commission visited the site such as silt fencing and stockpile locations but basically this is a good application.
Cancelliere stated when the house was raised in 1980 it was raised above flood elevation at that time. He noted the additional living spaces provide him with the area to hide the mechanical systems. He stated they are also proposing to put an alternate energy system in the home. He stated they are also proposing to do a code compliant sub-surface sewage system.
Bechtel stated the silt fence location needed to be shown on the plans. Cancelliere indicated that the wetland boundaries have been marked on the plan. He noted that 5 feet from the wetland boundary a construction fence will be erected which will prevent any materials or equipment or manpower from trespassing. He stated 5 ft in front of that he will erect a silt fence which will create a double barrier. Cancellieri reviewed the Best Management Practices shown on the plans with the commission and submitted it to the commission as part of the application. Cancellieri indicated the lot area is 10,765 sq. ft. He noted the existing building has a footprint of 1,084 sq. ft and the extensions are an additional 401 sq. ft. which is the addition in impervious area. It totals to be 3.72 percent
increase in impervious area. He further noted the percent of increase in the 100 ft review area is 2.16 percent.
Linde asked the applicant if he would be willing to restrict mowing the area that extends down to the association land to only once a year. The applicant indicated yes.
O’Donnell asked what type of treatment was used on the lawn. Cancellieri stated he did not use pesticides. He stated he uses two light doses of fertilizer consisting of a start fertilizer in early Spring and late Summer.
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
Cancellieri stated the property will be restored back to grade. He stated there might be 4” of cover on the natural ground, therefore he was not sure that contours would be necessary on the plan. The commission indicated they were not. O’Donnell asked the commission if they feel the lawn treatment should be made part of the plan. Bechtel stated the commission could recommend but it cannot be enforced. O’Donnell stated she felt there should be at least one or two sentences of the commission’s recommendations with regard to lawn applications due to the close proximity to a wetland whether it is enforceable or not. Griswold stated that mowing the grass area and leaving the requested area to be mowed only once or twice a year is a great help.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted being Option A which includes the Best Management Practices that we have been given. Bechtel also asked that if Item 8 in Metcalf’s letter is deemed necessary which is the suggestion that a stoned construction entrance be implemented the applicant comply with that request. Griswold seconded the motion.
Linde asked to add two additional items. He would like for the applicant to illustrate where the stockpile location will be at least 48 hours prior to construction and contact the enforcement officer with that location. Secondly, he would like the applicant to make a good faith effort to allow the area within the paper street to re-vegetate and mow no more than once a year.
The motion passed unanimously.
09-06 BARBARA GAUDIO – REMOVE EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW DWELLING AND GARAGE
Bechtel stated that Mr. Metcalf has not finished his review of this application which means the commission would not vote on it before he finished his review. Bechtel stated the commission also received a report from Wendy Goodfriend on this application.
Michael Harkin presented the proposed project at 7 Town Landing Road. He stated at the previous meeting he was asked to go out and stake the clearing limit and that was done on Friday, February 13,
2009. He further stated on February 14, 2009 the commission walked the site. Harkin stated there is a new revision date on the plans dated February 23, 2009. He stated the revisions take into consideration what the commission had presented at the last meeting, zoning comments, DEP, Gateway, staff comments, and comments from the Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District (Wendy Goodfriend’s review). Harkin reviewed the comments pertaining to the wetlands commission. Harkin stated all of the comments he has received back thus far have been minor in nature. He stated the majority of them have been addressed with this revised plan.
Harkin stated a note has been added to the plan to incorporate rain gardens. He stated these gardens would be incorporated into the property where applicable. He further noted pervious pavers have been noted on the plan as well in two locations. He stated he has provided a detailed construction sequence that is site specific to this project.
Page 13 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
O’Donnell asked Mr. Harkin to explain the difference between pervious and impervious pavers. Harkin stated the blocks are all the same but what is different is the actual construction sequence. He stated instead of laying the pavers in a bed of concrete we are proposing to lay down a bed of process and stone dust so the rainwater can infiltrate through the cracks.
Harkin stated on Sheet D1 an 18 item construction sequence has been provided as requested. He further noted he has also added estimated times for those proposed activities. He noted of the two major items being proposed is the clearing limits to be staked, but we are also calling for a pre-construction meeting with the town engineer, commission members or anyone who would like to attend. He also noted that all the pertinent contact members have been provided with regard to the site. He stated this project is a two phase construction to prevent the possibility of any erosion going into the wetlands. The first phase will be the area to the back of the detached garage, all the fill, the striping and things of that nature will only be about half of the disturbed site. He stated a stockpile
area has been shown on the site which is located on the furthest point it could be from the wetlands without having to keep moving the pile. He stated the pile is big enough to handle the entire site.
Griswold asked Harkin how long he thought it would take to install the septic system. Harkin stated it would be about two or three days. Griswold questioned whether it made sense to move the fill from the septic system and truck it; he thought it might be worth thinking about a smaller stock pile with silt fencing around it in case of a rain event.
Harkin stated the plan calls for a 100 ft natural buffer from our edge of construction and disturbance to any adjacent wetland areas. Harking stated at the Zoning Commission hearing there were two comments. He stated the first was the commission asked us to plant two trees in the rear portion of the house to soften the view from the river side which we agreed to do and the second being is to note that the actual size of the house is 6,500 sq. ft. which is stated in the application. He noted the garage is 1,500 sq. ft. so this structure is 8,000 sq. ft and the detached garage is 2,000 sq. ft. He stated that the wetlands application states the house is 6,500 sq. ft which it is but there are also two additional structures.
Harkin stated sheet D-1 lists the Best Management Practices. Harking reviewed those practices with the commission. He noted that within the drywells there is a separator which will be placed to collect the salts and oils from the driveway. He stated the fill proposed to brought into the site will be somewhat similar in nature to what currently exists and will be tested on site to make sure it is similar.
Moran asked about the dust control. Harkin stated the soil will be watered as needed.
Bechtel asked if the soils were flood plain type soils. Harkin stated he was not a Soil Scientist but noted the soils he encountered were good sand and gravel. He further noted they tested everywhere they could to determine the best house location but he is not sure about the soils.
O’Donnell asked what the distance was between the main house and 100 ft line for wetlands. Harkin stated the closest point was 138 ft.
Page 14 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
Harkin noted that an engineering firm called RACE is also involved in this project and worked closely with regard to complying with the FEMA regulations.
Brown questioned Mr. Harkin about Wendy Goodfriends’ suggestion of possible removal of the phragmites in the wetlands area and also her concern about the debris deposited in the wetlands on the west side. Harkin stated most of the phragmite is on the Nature Conservancy property and they would have to be contacted to get the necessary approvals. Harkin stated he had not seen the debris that Ms. Goodfriend referenced in her letter. Bechtel stated it appeared to be at the tip of the bottom wetland but it appeared to be more like brush that had been there a long time. Mr. Gaudio stated it was brush piles that were put there by the prior landowner and noted most of it is located on Nature Conservancy land. He stated those piles were being created for habitat for birds and other animals and
it has been there for years. Bechtel stated it was not a problem for her and she felt that brush piles decompose after a period of time anyway. She further stated she felt more disturbance would be caused trying to remove the debris then just leaving it to decompose on its own. Griswold also stated he felt it was also beneficial to leave the brush pile for the habitat in the area.
Harkin submitted copies of the revised plans for the commission and staff to review.
Linde asked if the applicant would consider taking a portion of the 100 ft review zone and making it a conservation easement to protect it in perpetuity. Bechtel stated the applicant had addressed that at the last meeting by indicating that would not be their choice to do. Linde asked if it was marked on the plan that any activity within that review zone must come before this commission. Harkin stated it is not stated on the plan and he does not anticipate any work in that area and he is stating that no work will be within the 100’ upland review area. Linde stated this makes it clear for any one in the future. Harkin agreed to make that notation on the plan.
Evan Griswold made a motion to further amend the agenda by adding an Item 4 under OTHER BUSINESS the application of Bedri and Daniel Babasuli. Bechtel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
REGULATION REWRITE
Linde stated he spoke with Chuck Lee, DEP on two occasions and he indicated he does not have the time to consult with the commission directly. He is going to send to Ann Brown and himself some individuals who might be able to provide the commission with some information in that regard. He further stated he is also reaching out to an expert from New Hampshire with regard to lake protection. He stated the concern is water quality so it doesn’t really matter where the expert comes from that addresses the need to have some sort of a buffer to protect the quality of water. He stated that water is water no matter what state it is in. Discussion ensued about vernal pool, buffer and lake language and it was suggested that language being used in other towns be reviewed.
Page 15 – Minutes
IWWC – 2-24-09
Bechtel stated she would forward the lake book to Robb Linde and contact Wendy Goodfriend with regard to the vernal pool buffer language.
Bechtel discussed with the commission the need to be fiscally responsible of the costs associated with the rewriting of the regulations.
LORDS WOODS ENFORCEMENT
Bechtel reported that she spoke with Diana Johnson who indicated that she and the attorney were still working on a letter pertaining to the open space on this parcel. Bechtel stated that she reiterated that the IWWC was satisfied with the re-growth and would like to walk the property prior to anything be done when an agreement is reached.
ESTELLA BESAW – 175 BOSTON POST ROAD
Brown stated she saw Mrs. Besaw who indicated the site was all cleaned up.
DECISION - BABASULI – 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD
Bechtel stated she has been keeping a timeline on the Babasuli application and had draft languge on a motion to deny and distributed copies to the commission to review and discuss.
Bechtel made a motion to deny the application of Bedri & Daniel Babasuli, 20 Grassy Hill Rd. because it presents a number of potentially adverse impacts to the watercourse known as Roger’s Lake. Due to the size of this property, 1/4 acre
4. The suitability of these proposed activities for the area in which they are proposed are
not necessary for the economic well-being of the Town, nor a safe use of the property
under discussion and will inevitably impede this Commissions ability to protect the
natural resources of Roger’s Lake for the people of the Town and for the benefit of
future generations.
The Commission finds that there may be feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed
activities which would likely cause less adverse impacts on the water quality of Roger's
Lake and proposes the following, nonexclusive list as types of alternatives which the
applicant may investigate:
1. Repair and stabilization of the existing garage to provide off road parking
2. Alternative parking solutions off-site
3. Repair of the existing septic system
Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
