INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 24, 2009
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Robb Linde, Evan Griswold, Don Willis, Mike Moran, Sabine O’Donnell and Dave McCulloch. Also present were: Ann Brown and Kim Groves.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to amend the agenda to include Items 3 and 4 under New Business and Item 3 under Other Business. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MEETING MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2009
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
SITE WALK MEETING MINUTES DATED MARCH 12TH AND MARCH 17TH
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
09-08 MATTHEW AND SANDRA MACDONALD – 155-1 BOSTON POST ROAD – 2 LOT SUBDIVISION- PROPOSED DRIVEWAY WITHIN 100’ OF THE WETLAND
Matthew White, of Angus McDonald and Gary Sharpe and associates was present to represent the applicant. White stated the property is 13.9 acres with frontage along the east side of Boston Post Road. He noted the property is served by a 50’ access strip. The proposal is for two rears lot that would share the existing driveway up to an area similar to a cul-de-sac and at that point the new driveway would come around to access the new lots. He stated the wetlands were flagged by Richard Snarksi and he noted there is a wetland right along the entrance driveway in the regulated area. Therefore the beginning of the proposed driveway would be within 100’ of the wetland, however it is currently within an open field and is a maintained lawn. White outlined the location with the commission
on the plan. White noted the driveway is flat with a gravel surface. He also
noted the proposal includes a portion of the property to be placed into a conservation easement which is adjacent to existing open space land.
The commission agreed to walk the site on Thursday, April 16th at 5:30 p.m.
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 3-24-09
09-09 DAVID AND MARY EKLUND – 312 FERRY ROAD – 9 LOT SUBDIVISION. NO ACTIVITY PROPOSED WITHIN THE WETLAND OR THE 100’ REGULATED AREA.
Matthew White, of Angus McDonald and Gary Sharpe Associates was present to represent the applicant. White stated this parcel is 18.9 acres located on the south side of Ferry Road west of Sandpiper Road. White stated the site is wooded with the exception of a small interior field and there is one existing dwelling on the corner of Ferry Road and Sandpiper. He stated there are some wetlands soils surrounding the Shippee Pond and the remainder of the land is high and dry with gently sloping sandy soils. He stated the eight new proposed lots will have frontage on existing roads, therefore there are no new proposed roadways. White stated that all the homes are able to be constructed without infringing on the wetland area.
Griswold stated that it appeared that the construction activity for a couple of the individual house sites would impact the regulated activity. White stated that is a possibility depending on how the lots are developed and further stated he felt that most of the lots would be back before the commission prior to any construction.
White also noted that approximately 7.25 acres would be placed into open space.
Griswold asked if a conservation subdivision would be an option for this site. White stated that all of the lots are relatively small, and the slopes are fairly flat and there is already a drainage divide. He further noted that roof leeders are proposed for the individual houses.
Moran asked about the slope on the driveway to Lot 2. White stated it is approximately a 4 ft slope and that house will have a walk out.
The commission agreed to walk the site on Thursday, April 16th at 6:15 p.m.
09-10 TOWN OF OLD LYME – 109 FOUR MILE RIVER ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUS PARKING FACILITY. ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UPLAND REVIEW AREA.
Matt Brown with Anchor Engineering was present to explain the application. Brown stated the proposal is to locate a bus barn facility on the town landfill property. Brown noted the parcel is located adjacent to the commuter parking lot. He stated the facility will consist of spaces for 30 student transportation vehicles with a combination of buses and cars as well as employee parking. He stated it will also include a 1,100 sq. ft. dispatch building with site utilities, septic system, retaining wall, a dumpster, site lighting and a 2,000 gallon above ground storage tank. Brown stated the storm water will be handled by several catch basins on site – and a vortechnics pre-treatment unit.
O’Donnell asked Mr. Brown to point out the wetlands locations on the plan. Mr. Brown did so.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 3-24-09
Brown stated there will be a minimum amount of clearing for the access drive and parking at the site. Brown stated the storm water discharge will be located in the northeastern corner of the facility, which will included several different pipes leading to a rip-rap splash pad. He stated erosion control measures will be erected during construction including an anti-tracking apron and silt fencing. He further noted a temporary siltation basin will be installed so that the water will be routed to a particular area until the paving is completed. He also noted that any stockpile locations will have silt fencing placed around them. He noted that several measures will be taken around the fuel tank to prevent a release into the wetlands. He stated during deliveries there will be
catch basin covers that will be installed over the catch basins on the site to minimize any potential problems. There were also be spill response equipment, speedy dry and those sort of materials over by the filling location.
Bechtel asked who would be responsible if there was a spill? Brown stated that during normal business hours it would be staff at the site. He further stated there would also be an emergency shut off valve should there be a problem. Bechtel asked what type of staff would be at the site. Brown stated it would be the bus company staff. DiCamillo asked if they were trained for this type of situation. Brown stated he was not aware of their particular training. He also noted that the tank would be a doubled wall tank to prevent any failure.
Ann Brown stated that there is also an opportunity for spills when it is being put into the tanks. Brown stated this would be no different than the normal gas station.
Griswold asked what the surface would be of the parking area. Brown stated it would be bituminous. Griswold asked for the slope of the site? Brown stated 2 or 3 percent across.
O’Donnell asked what watershed this operation drains to. Brown stated it is the Four Mile River. O’Donnell asked the distance to the Four Mile River? Brown stated it was several hundred feet.
Bechtel asked what the plan was for lighting on this entire piece of property. Brown stated that they are using the minimum foot candle of .25 feet. He stated that vandalism has been a problem historically at bus parking facilities so the entire facility will be lighted 24/7. Brown further stated it is cutoff lighting. He also noted extra conduit would be placed in the event cameras are desired on the light poles. He also noted the entire site will be enclosed with a chain link fence and gate.
Bechtel stated that normally the commission requests a maintenance plan for the site, but since the operators of the site could change with contracts she suggested that Mr. Brown ask the First Selectmen if a point person could be assigned to the site. Ann Brown stated the Zoning Commission would also be following through on this issue.
Linde asked if there was a catastrophic failure of the tank what would be the extent of the spread of that diesel. Brown stated that a full 2,000 gallons would not be contained fully within the vortechnics unit because it does not have enough floatable storage for that entire volume. Brown concluded by stating a full 2,000 gallon spill would make it into the wetlands.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 3-24-09
Bechtel asked that this plan be sent to Mr. Metcalf for his review.
09-11 – ROGERS LAKE AUTHORITY – ROGERS LAKE – INSTALLATION OF 5 SEMI-PERMEABLE BLANKETS FOR WEED CONTROL
Bechtel discussed with the commission as to whether or not the installation of the blankets into Rogers Lake might be a permitted right and therefore not really under our jurisdiction. McCulloch stated that historically this commission has let the Roger’s Lake Authority determine what happens in the lake. Bechtel stated she agreed that has been the pattern in the past.
Bechtel stated the application is for the installation of five (5) semi-permeable bottom blankets 10’ by 40’ for control of aquatic weeds. Ann Brown stated the blankets would be placed initially around the swimming area and moved around the lake.
DiCamillo asked what material were used to construct the blankets. Bechtel stated a spec sheet was submitted with the application. Brown stated the material allows for the water to follow through but keeps the light out. O’Donnell stated she was concerned about transferring jurisdiction to a homeowner’s association. Linde stated the Lake Authority always discuss their plans with the commission, it is not just a rubber stamp process. McCulloch stated the association has been taking steps to improve the lake over the last several years and this is another part of the process.
Griswold asked if these mats were used in other lakes and if so did we know what effects they had on the critters in the lake. Brown stated they submitted several links with this information and she would forward it to the commission for their review. O’Donnell stated she felt it was good idea to have the pads in a limited area. O’Donnell asked how they were attached to the lake bottom. Bechtel stated they were anchored down and removed in one lump. Moran stated when he grew up the weeds kept the sunlight from reaching the bottom of the lake and eventually they would use a paddle wheel and then the stuff cut would be left floating all over the lake top.
Brown stated she felt it would be a great system. McCulloch stated since it was being used in a limited area he felt there would be no damage.
Bechtel asked Brown to forward the links to the commission and noted the commission could review the application which contained a product list and also information about other lakes that have used the same system.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 3-24-09
PUBLIC HEARING
JOSEPH AND TAMARA MCARAW – 23 TALCOTT FARM ROAD – CEASE AND DESIST ORDER – CLEARING IN THE REGULATED AREA
Bechtel stated the McAraws informed Ann Brown that they were unable to attend tonight. Brown further noted that that Jason Wilcox has picked up a copy of the plan and he is going to show on the plan what trees he cut and submit a report to the commission at their next meeting. Bechtel asked if he could provide a stump count. Brown stated she would ask Mr. Wilcox.
OLD BUSINESS
09-06 – BARBARA GAUDIO – REMOVE EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW DWELLING AND GARAGE
Michael Harkin was present on behalf of the Gaudio’s for the property located at 7 Town Landing Road. He stated at the last meeting the commission did not make a decision because they were waiting for a letter from Thomas E. Metcalf, Town Engineer and that letter has now been received and the appropriate revisions have been made and Mr. Metcalf has issued a clean letter. Harkin stated the other outstanding issue was the commission had asked the applicant to put a note on the plan stating that any work within the upland review area was to come back before the commission. He noted this note has been added to Sheet SD-1. Bechtel asked if there were any revisions after the plan dated 3/4/09. Harkin indicated there were not. Brown also noted that the house has been shifted southerly. Harkin also noted that Torrance Downes also issued a revised letter of approval after the building was shifted. Mr. Rose, Town Sanitarian also reviewed and approved the revised plan.
Griswold asked how the upland review area would be managed. Harkin stated on Sheet EX-1 a note has been placed. He also noted a note has been placed on the detail sheet stating it has to be staked by a licensed land surveyor. Harkin also noted that Mr. Gaudio stated for the record that the area will only be mowed once a year in late Fall.
Bechtel stated for the record the commission was in receipt of Mr. McCulloch’s letter and the concerns raised were discussed. Bechtel stated the commission felt it was the property owner’s right to build where they are building and not really an inland wetlands issue but they were well aware of the concerns raised in the letter.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted, revised through March 4, 2009. Linde asked to include the stipulation that the wetland review area be only mowed once a year. Bechtel amended the motion. Don Willis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – 3-24-09
09-03 – ESTELLA BESAW – 175 BOSTON POST ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A PATIO
Ann Brown submitted photographs as requested by the commission. The commission reviewed the photographs. Brown noted the applicant had applied for the permit for the work that was done at the site but the commission was holding up on any action on that permit until the site was cleaned up.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to grant the permit. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
07-06 – BRIAN MACNEIL – 295 BOSTON POST ROAD – RENEWAL OF EXISTING PERMIT THAT WAS GRANTED ON MAY 15, 2007
Janet Bechtel made a motion to renew the application that was granted on May 15, 2007. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
LORDS WOODS ENFORCEMENT
Brown reported she walked the site yesterday and suggested that the commission visit the site individually. She further stated nothing is different except in one area someone has driven their off road vehicle a little bit more but it is as stable as it was and perhaps the grass has grown in a little more on the shoulders.
Linde asked the members when they visited the subdivision to look at the area when you enter the site where there is a big sweeping right hand turn and the area slopes down. He expressed concern about the mowing in that area. The commission agreed to visit the site prior to the next meeting. Bechtel suggested the commission send a letter to the owner requesting that equipment be kept off that hillside and suggest limited mowing when necessary. Brown agreed to contact the owner prior to the next meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRAL
Brown stated the referral was sent to the Inland Wetlands Commission as a courtesy to make you aware of their proposal. Brown stated it is really a technical change that clarifies their two approvals. Brown stated the “conditional approval” does not allow the applicant to sell lots until they complete the improvements. Groves also noted that previously approved subdivisions were expiring because the developers were unable to file the mylars because of the bond amounts required to be posted in order to file the mylars.
Linde asked what the advantage was to the town of not letting these subdivisions expire.
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – March 24, 2009
Brown stated there was not one. She further stated that most towns use to take surety bonds for insurance companies but the Town of Old Lyme requires a 100 %cash bond. Therefore, if you want to make an improvement a certain amount of dollars is required to be placed in an escrow account with the town. She stated often developers have been posting a restoration bond so if the subdivision fails the town has enough money to restore the disturbed area and make it stable. She stated it is just a more practical way for subdivisions with no harm to the town.
Groves noted prior to drafting the language the Planning Commission reviewed language from several of the local area towns. Brown also noted that the current state statutes already allow for this process.
Linde asked what the benefit is to the developer. Brown stated he can have an approved plan and not have to post the 100% bond, he can actually do the work but not sell any lots.
Bechtel stated that Mr. Linde’s asked what the down side was of the developer not filing the mylar and letting the subdivision application become null and void. Brown stated she felt that would be cruel to the property owners. Griswold stated he did not understand why we would change the regulation to make it easier for the developer which would appear to be encouraging development which is not necessarily good for the town. Linde stated that this would allow developers to be grandfathered in under the regulations at the time of their approval and therefore would not be subject to any new regulations. Therefore, he did not feel it was a good idea for the town to handcuff itself by allowing an application where nothing can get done and the applicant was not able to post a bond why would they
want to see that happen.
Brown stated that the statutes already provide for the type of “conditional approval”. She stated we are not inventing something different. She stated there is a sort of amount of responsibility to your property owners ….Plan of Conservation and Development. Discussion ensued. The commission expressed concern that the regulations would change and the applicant would not be held to the new standards because of this “conditional approval”
McAraw – 23 Talcott Farm
Bechtel stated that Kim Groves will mail out the original easements and language of the association that are in the file from the original approval on this application.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
