OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2009
PRESENT WERE: Vice Chair Robb Linde, Sabine O’Donnell, Skip DiCamillo, Dave McCulloch and Evan Griswold.
Vice Chair Linde called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING DATED JUNE 9, 2009
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING JUNE 18TH, 2009.
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING MAY 26, 2009.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
- CAROL VANPATTEN – 162 MILE CREEK ROAD – APPLICATION
CONCERNING ACTIVITIES AND ENFORCEMENT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSE COMMISSION
Linde reported that the commission walked the site on June 18, 2009. He reported that the grounds around the pond were maintained in a way that was consistent with what the commission considers to be Best Management Practices. Linde also stated that during the site visit the commission noted that there was a tree in the area that was either dead or dying. He recommended that it could be removed at some point in the future. He also reported that there were some phragmities on the property. If the owner chose to do any alterations to this site, an application should be submitted to the commission. Linde stated he did not currently see anything at the site that would constitute a violation or significant activity.
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
The commission reviewed the application submitted by Mrs. VanPatten. Brown reported that Mr. Battalino filed an application to remove a tree on the property, but the application was withdrawn due to a question of title to the property. Brown stated that Mrs. VanPatten stated that she or the Estate of her husband owned this property and therefore submitted an application because she was concerned about a possible violation.
McCulloch made a motion that the commission had walked the site and found no violations of the wetlands regulations. Robb Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
- – REGIONAL DISTRICT 18 – 69 LYME STREET – ACTIVITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF THE LYME/OLD LYME HIGH SCHOOL
Dick Webb, Landscape Architect, with Clough Harbor and Associates presented the application. Mr. Webb stated this project was discussed with the commission on an informal basis several months ago in an effort to receive their input and comments prior to submitting the application. Webb stated that the plans have been finalized and a formal application has now been submitted to the commission.
Webb stated the prime purpose of the project is the renovation and expansion of the existing high school facility with the addition of closing the courtyard space located between two buildings. He stated the project involves the reconfiguration of the parking and drop off areas and to segregate the bus drop off from the parent drop off, but noted that the parking space count will remain the same. He noted the field between the existing high school and middle school is being renovated and will be used as the construction staging area. He also noted the girls’ varsity softball field will also be reoriented and reconstructed. He stated the proposal will include re-grading and disturbing the lower field to the east of the high school that is used for miscellaneous physical education events.
He stated that the reason for the disturbance is that this area is that this will be the location of the geo-thermal well field. He stated that there will be approximately 100 wells and noted it will be a closed loop system. He stated there will be some minor driveway realignments, including additional pedestrian access lanes to access Lyme Street.
Webb stated that all the work is located within the 100 ft. regulated area except for one minor 25 sq. ft disturbance to a small existing wetland where a head wall will be need to be removed. Webb stated the proposal will include the construction of a northerly detention basin which is immediately adjacent to a small wetland area which is located to the north and west of the reconfigured parking area. He stated in conjunction with that detention basin, they will be creating a bio-vegetative swale on the far side of the circulation drive that will also assist in managing storm water quality. He noted the
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
proposal calls for the elimination of the drainage pipe that currently flows under the existing school. O’Donnell asked why this pipe was being eliminated.
Webb stated it is good engineering practice to not have a pipe running under a school. He also noted there was some alignment and structural problems with the existing pipe. O’Donnell asked if the new drainage system which will go around the school building will direct drainage into the same area. Webb stated it will exit in the same area which borders the Duck Pond.
Webb stated that during his informal discussions with the commission they had discussed potentially improving some of the discharge points in this wetland finger. He stated that the proposal does not change the actual pipe outlet points. He stated those pipes are located in the wetlands itself so it was the preference to connect to the pipe outside the wetlands.
Griswold asked if the pipe would take drainage from the roof leaders. Webb stated that the pipe will take drainage from the roofs, as well as some of the offsite drainage and the overflow from the sedimentation basin. Webb stated the detention basin that was expanded and constructed as part of the track project will accept some drainage water from the site improvements in the south east portion of the project site. He stated the center and middle school drainage will now be collected and piped over to the detention area. Webb stated there is no expansion toward the wetlands and no change in the outlets and no work any closer to the wetlands than has already taken place.
DiCamillo asked if any irrigation was proposed for the field. Webb stated there are no plans at this point to irrigate the field.
O’Donnell asked if any of the runoff water would be used for other purposes in the building. Webb stated it is not part of the current application. Webb stated the roof leaders are directed to provide some increased freshwater flow to the Duck Pond area. O’Donnell asked how much the footprint of the school would be increased by the new construction.
Rhodes, Director of Facilities, stated that the footprint essentially stays the same because the only addition is in the covering of the courtyard which is already concrete.
O’Donnell asked if an engineering report had been submitted as part of the application since additional drainage would be entering the system. Webb stated a drainage report has been submitted as part of the application.
DiCamillo asked if the driveway that is currently located in the northern portion of the property would remain. Webb stated there are no changes proposed to the existing parking configuration. DiCamillo expressed concern that there were wetlands in the area.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
Webb stated there are two changes proposed at the connection points of the existing parking. The first change is to do some earth work to improve the storm water quality and promote the infiltration and the second proposal is to install vortechnics to improve storm water quality from the existing parking area.
Linde asked the commission if it was their desire to hold a public hearing on the application. The commission agreed to hold a public hearing.
O’Donnell asked if more detailed maps would be submitted for the public hearing. Webb stated an entire set a plans has been submitted with the application and a full presentation will be made at the public hearing.
Evan Griswold expressed concern about the temperature of the runoff water during the summer months with the additional impervious surface being added to the site.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for July 2, 2009 with a fall back date of July 9, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. and the applicant agreed to contact the Land Use Office and confirm for which date the engineers would be available. The commission agreed to set the application for public hearing on Tuesday, August 25, 2009.
PUBLIC HEARING
JOSEPH AND TAMARA MCARAW – 23 TALCOTT FARM ROAD – CEASE &
DESIST ORDER – CLEARING IN A REGULATED AREA IN VIOLATION OF
PERMIT 07-09
Attorney Sean Donlan was present on behalf of the McAraws. Mr. Donlan presented the commission with a restoration plan. The commission reviewed the plan and discussed the proposed plantings for the site. Skip DiCamillo asked if a maintenance plan was proposed for the site. Evan Griswold stated that all the trees need to be planted properly and have at least a 3’ perimeter of mulch placed around them. Griswold stated whoever does the planting should be aware of these practices. Linde also stated the commission could request to visit the site after the planting is complete and once a year for the next two years.
O’Donnell asked if the blueberry bushes were appropriate along the steep slope in the pool area. The commission felt those plantings would be adequate. O’Donnell also asked why there were no plantings proposed in the area identified as “existing wood chips”. The commission reviewed the plan and agreed the wood chips would be sufficient in that area and noted that sweet fern was proposed to be planted just beyond that area.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
Linde asked Mr. Griswold if he felt the saplings would eventually fill out the canopy in
the area. Griswold stated they will form a canopy but it will be a low canopy. Griswold
stated as long as there is some sort of ground cover and canopy that will break the rain
drops.
Donlan noted the applicant has not yet hired a landscaping contractor to do the planting, so no timeframe has been established. Griswold stated at this point he would recommend that the planting be done in the fall. DiCamillo asked about erosion on the site between now and September. Linde stated there was one area where the curtain drain was coming off.
Donlan stated the applicant stated he would address the curtain drain immediately.
Brown reported that in the past the commission has required that a landscape architect
certify that the plan has been completed as designed.
Linde stated that the commission had stipulated that a plan be submitted that showed
what was removed from the site including size and location. Donlan stated this has not
been done. Linde asked the commission if they felt the restoration plan was reasonable and therefore did not feel the need to see a map of what was removed. The commission
agreed that was not necessary. Linde also suggested that the commission visit the site
after the planting was completed and once a year for the next two years to assure that
the site restoration was progressing. He noted this would also assist the commission in making decisions in the future if another restoration plan is required.
O’Donnell expressed concern that the designer was not affiliated with a landscaping firm
that would be doing the actual planting. Griswold stated the applicant has not yet
decided on who will be doing the plantings. The commission stated they would like to
be provided with the name of the person or company who will be doing the planting at
the site. DiCamillo expressed concern about Best Management Practices being used when
the plantings are put into the ground. Linde stated if they are not done properly they
won’t survive the two years.
Linde asked the commission if they wanted to put any limitations on the type of
equipment that could be used at the site. Griswold stated that would be difficult given the
size and height of the trees being planted.
Donlan stated if the commission would like to close the public hearing they could
stipulate that when the company that is going to be planting is identified, they report to
Ann Brown and provide her with a timeframe so a site walk can be scheduled.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
Questions from the Audience:
Stanley Kolber – 25 Talcott Farm Farm – Mr. Kolber stated that there has been some
discussions over the last couple of meetings that this plan will be submitted to the Talcott
Farm Association and therefore asked if this still would be the process.
Donlan stated it was his understanding from the last meeting that we would all be
working together and therefore offered Mr. Kolber a copy of the plan to take to the
Talcott Farm Association for their review and comment. Kolber stated he was not a representative of the association but if Mr. Donlan would like to designate him to bring the plan to the association it he would be happy to do so.
Linde stated the risk of submitting a plan solely to this commission is that if the Talcott
Farm Association has changes, a revised plan would then have to come back before
this commission for approval.
Donlan stated it was his understanding that the association would agree to whatever this
commission approved. Kolber stated he did not think that was what was said. Kolber
stated he did not represent the association but would like them to have the opportunity to
review and comment on the plan. Kolber took a copy of the plan to pass on to the
association for their review and comment prior to the next meeting.
Linde stated if the commission chose to close the public hearing, then any changes as a
result of the association review would have to come back before the commission.
Brown asked the commission if they were satisfied with the restoration plan presented.
The commission agreed that they were satisfied with the plan.
Kolber stated that this was the first time a plan has been presented and noted that
members of the Talcott Farm Association had been attending all meetings up until
this point and therefore he didn’t think it was too much to ask the commission to hold the
hearing open an additional month in an effort to receive their input.
Donlan stated that the Talcott Farm Association has no authority over this commission.
The association can just provide public input like everybody else and noted that they have had that opportunity and had it again tonight but chose not to come. Donlan also expressed concern about the expense to the applicant to continue the hearing. O’Donnell stated that this is an association, not just one individual and felt that their Board should have an opportunity to review the plan.
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
Skip DiCamillo asked Donlan if his client would agree to the stipulations discussed by
the commission. Donlan reviewed the stipulations with the commission:
- A maintenance plan should be provided.
- Each individual planting will be provided with a 3” perimeter of mulch.
- There will be a requirement to replace any plantings that die.
- The commission will visit the site at the time of planting, and for two consecutive years after that.
- The applicant will repair the curtain drain as soon as possible.
- The commission will be provided with the name of the person or company which will undertake the plantings.
- A certification of plantings will be provided to the commission that the work was done as shown on the plan.
The commission agreed to leave the public hearing open until the July meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
09-16 – GARY TUFANO – 19 5TH AVENUE – TOP DRESS PORTIONS OF THE YARD AND RESEED AND ADD ADDITIONAL DIRT FOR GARDEN
The commission reported they had walked the site and informed the applicant at that time that he did not need to attend the meeting. The commission reviewed photographs of the site.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the application with the condition that a 10’ buffer between the lawn and the pond area will be mowed only once or twice a year. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
09-17 – WILLIAM KADLEC – 1 MILL LANE – REMOVAL OF TREES AND LAWN MAINTENANCE
Robb Linde reported the commission had walked the site and informed the applicant that he did not need to attend the meeting.
Ann Brown stated Mr. Kadlec hoped to have someone come into the site and grind the two big stumps that were located near his brick patio and also remove the other fallen tree. Brown noted Mr. Kadlec would also like to bring in some top soil to help fill in the lower level. She noted the applicant would install silt fence during this process.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
Linde made a motion to approve the application to grind the stumps and add some top soil to cover the roots on the lawn with the stipulation that a silt fence be established between the small lawn area and the wetland.
Discussion:
DiCamillo stated that he felt silt fencing should also be placed along the stream. Brown asked if the applicant intended to fill along that area as well. DiCamillo stated there were a lot of ruts from Tom Loomas working at the site.
Linde amended his motion to include both sides of the stream. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
09-18 – WHIPPLEBOMB, LLC – 308 FERRY ROAD – MODIFICATION TO EXISTING PERMIT TO BUILD RETAINING WALL AND PATIO AROUND POOL.
Linde stated the commission had walked the site at least once during prior a prior application. O’Donnell stated at the last meeting the commission asked the applicant to bring a plan that would show the wetland area and its proximity to the proposed work. The commission reviewed a plan which was submitted with an earlier application . O’Donnell also asked to see the hand drawn sketch that was used at the last meeting. The applicant stated he had the sketch but did not bring it to the meeting.
Brown asked the applicant if he intended to leave a buffer along the edge of the wetland. O’Donnell suggested a stipulation be placed that the area not be mowed more than twice a year. Brown stated the commission has made this condition part of their approval when the original permit was approved at the site.
DiCamillo made a motion to approve the plan as presented with the 40” retaining wall around the pool.
Discussion – O’Donnell asked that the sketch be made part of the application and put in the file prior to construction and also the location of the 10’ buffer be delineated on the plan in the are of Wetland Flag #5. The commission agreed.
Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
FMTM
Brown reported that the seeding had not been done yet due to the weather. It was also noted that site had not yet been barricaded to stop dumping in the area. Griswold asked if the commission resolved the issue of the boulders along the right hand side of the roadway. Brown reported that the site plan was modified for this to be in compliance with the permit.
LORD’S WOODS
Linde recused himself from this portion of the meeting. Dave McCulloch chaired this agenda item.
Attorney Block reported that he met with Attorney Cassella, Ann Brown, Diana Atwood Johnson, Tom Metcalf and Allen Hull to discuss the outstanding issues at the site.
The committee reviewed the agreement. Brown reported that the Chairman of the Open Space Committee has also agreed to the document. McCulloch stated the question is whether the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission is willing to release the Cease and Desist Order. McCulloch summarized Tom Metcalf’s comments regarding this issue as outlined in his letter to the commission.
McCulloch asked the members if they were willing to release the Cease and Desist Order with a promise that the work would be done by a certain date.
Attorney Block submitted a plan that delineates the parking spaces at the subdivision. Block also noted due to the weather Allen Hull of B & L Construction has not been able to do the work at the site. He further stated it will be completed by the July 15, 2009 date. McCulloch stated that neither the stumping nor the parking area is a concern of this commission. Block stated he understood the level spreader was this commission’s concern with regard to the site. Block also noted that his client, Dr. Awwa has signed the mortgage and the amendment. Brown asked that those documents be given to Attorney Cassella.
The commission expressed concern about lifting the Cease and Desist Order without the work completed. It was noted that there would be a $25 a day penalty for each day the work was not completed by the said date. Block stated the commission has a mortgage on the property. Block stated his client would not be able to close on a lot until the Cease and Desist Order is lifted but if lifted, it would allow his client to list the properties for sale.
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
O’Donnell stated it was her recollection that this commission was advised by counsel to not rely on a bond to get the work completed should the applicant not comply, therefore she did not feel that using bond money would be a remedy for the commission. O’Donnell stated that would the town have the level spreader fixed with bond money, the town would then be liable for the work done on the level spreader if work was not done properly.
Block once again asked the commission for their consideration for the sixty day period.
DiCamillo asked how long it would take to complete the work. Block stated he didn’t feel the work would take more than a couple of days to complete. Brown stated that the weather has definitely been a factor in getting the work finished.
O’Donnell asked about the exact language of the Cease and Desist Order. Brown stated that the order was several pages long. Brown stated it was initially a request to stop all work and make corrections and it has evolved from that which has allowed them to finish up in areas that were not in dispute. O’Donnell asked which activities were under Cease and Desist right now that the applicant wants lifted. Brown stated he wants the Cease
and Desist lifted so he has a clear title to sell lots. Block stated he thought when the first agreement was signed the Cease and Desist was lifted from the land records. Brown stated that any work that could be done now has been done except for the corrections. Brown stated the Cease and Desist only involved the open space property and the extra clearing around the whole perimeter of the road right of way and the corrective action that needed to be taken was to finish off the stumps and do any replanting that this commission and the Open Space Committee felt was needed and now currently it has been decided that it is growing up adequately. Brown stated the Open Space Committee has agreed to accept $75,000.00 in damages from the Dr. Awwa.
Block stated there was discussion about Dr. Awwa doing some plantings at the site, but last summer when we met at the site and reviewed the growth at that time it was agreed not to do any plantings because it appeared that the area was restoring itself. Block stated at the last meeting two weeks ago it was also noted again that there was sufficient growth and no plantings were necessary.
O’Donnell stated she was present at one site walk where the commission viewed that area as well as the level spreader location which is within the 100 ft. review zone and the commission decided then to wait for the regrowth and also noted that there was no point in planting until after the level spreader was repaired.
O’Donnell stated to leave the Cease and Desist in place at this point as she does not feel was an extreme hardship to the applicant, and would be an additional incentive to get the work finally completed.
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
McCulloch stated he felt it was a hardship, but the applicant needed to complete the work.
O’Donnell stated it is only for another sixty days.
Griswold stated if this commission’s concern is the level spreader, then as soon as the level spreader is fixed the commission could remove the Cease and Desist Order.
Block asked if the level spreader is fixed and Mr. Metcalf certifies to that would the commission be willing to hold a Special Meeting to release the order.
The commission agreed to hold a Special Meeting as soon as the spreader was repaired in order to lift the Cease and Desist order.
OTHER BUSINESS
REGULATION REWRITE
O’Donnell stated that during discussions with the McAraw application at some point she asked if there was a method for the commission to issue fines to the applicant to generate compliance .Her recollection was that Ann Brown said that whatever fines the commission enforces, those fines would go to the State of Connecticut and that the Town of Old Lyme has no way of collecting those fines.
O’Donnell stated she spoke to an Attorney about this because she felt it was strange that the town would not have some sort of leverage to enforce their regulations with fines and he mentioned that the Town of Westbrook has as part of their IWW regulations language that allows the enforcement officer to actually pursue fines and collect them for the town. O’Donnell stated she received a copy of their draft regulations and suggested the commission look into this as part of the regulation rewrite process.
Brown stated she must have misunderstood the question, but the infractions/tickets that she could issue through the town ordinance would generate fees to the town.
Linde asked if Westbrook stipulated the level of fines. O’Donnell stated she has not reviewed the details, but suggested that she and Ann Brown meet to review what we currently have in our regulations to be sure that we have the necessary language included for this enforcement.
Brown also noted that the Town of Old Lyme has a Wetlands Hearing Board to review the tickets issued. Brown stated that there is an enabling statute that allows the town to have ordinances to issue citations.
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC – 6-23-09
CORRESPONDENCE
7 MILL POND LANE
O’Donnell submitted a photograph that showed some activity that she felt was in violation of the Inland Wetlands Commission. O’Donnell requested that Ann Brown visit the site and report back to the commission at the next meeting.
JASON WILCOX
Brown reported that she sent a letter to Jason Wilcox after the May meeting informing him of his liability for the work he does in the Town of Old Lyme. Brown further noted that he recently contacted her to meet her at a particular site to review the work he was going to be doing at the location to be sure he was in compliance.
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
