OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 .
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Mike Moran, Sabine O’Donnell, Skip DiCamillo, Dave McCulloch, Evan Griswold and Robb Linde. Also present were: Ann Brown and Kim Groves.
Bechtel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES DATED AUGUST 25, 2009
Dave McCulloch noted that in the minutes the term “impervious was used when it should have been “pervious” on Page 4 under the Regional School District discussion.
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mike Moran seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SITE WALK MEETING MINTUES DATED AUGUST 27, 2009
Due to the fact the minutes were not complete this item was tabled until the October meeting.
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SITE WALK MEETING MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
09-25 – Richard Battalino – 166 Mile Creek Road – Application to cut down two
trees and remove surface rocks.
The commission reviewed the application with Mr. Battalino and noted they had recently
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
visited the site. Bechtel also noted that she recused herself from this particular
application originally. The commission requested that Mr. Battalino mark the trees to be
removed at the site prior to their site walk on Thursday, October 1, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.
09-26 – Peter Sutherland – 73 Rowland Road – Construct a garage within the
regulated area.
The commission reviewed the site plan and oriented themselves to the location of the
property. Bechtel read the statement of intent submitted by the applicant into the record.
She noted that the applicant proposes to construct a two car garage which is 28’ x 32’ and
is located approximately 85’ from the wetland area. The letter also noted the applicant
proposes to install silt fencing. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday,
October 1, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. The applicant agreed to stake out the location of
the garage.
PUBLIC HEARING
09-20 – 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.
John Rhodes, Director of Facilities and Technology, for Regional School District 18 introduced the team working on the project. David Arthur, Civil Engineer, Ken Biega, O & G Industries and Dick Webb, Senior Project Manager, of Clough Harbor and Associates.
Webb stated he would like to briefly review with the commission some of the items outlined in the letters to the commission from Tom Metcalf’s and Wendy Goodfriend.
Webb stated one of Metcalf’s recommendations was to add a walkway from the south end of the north parking area to connect over to the existing walkway. Webb stated the revised plans would incorporate the walkway as suggested by Tom Metcalf.
Webb stated there were notes regarding the landscaping for both the wetland area and the water quality basin. He stated the proposal for the wetland enrichment planting was proposed by their Environmentalist and therefore felt the plantings were appropriate as recommended. He further noted that these plantings are very similar to the plantings that was installed in the track detention area and noted that they are pleased with the growth in that area, however they will be including the seeding mix for the water quality basin as recommended by Wendy Goodfriend.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
He noted that the revised plans also include a guide rail to separate or isolate the water quality basin as recommended by Tom Metcalf.
Linde asked if there would be any sort of barrier along the walkway to discourage pedestrian traffic from eroding a path through the wetland. Webb stated with the walkway an additional section of guide rail might be added to discourage the walking traffic.
Webb stated that Goodfriend recommended further water quality improvements to the north parking area. Webb stated that this area of parking was not located in the project area. He further stated the proposal is to bring everything in the project area up to current standards.
O’Donnell asked if there was a difference between a guard rail and a guide rail? Webb stated they are both the same things in his mind. Webb stated the intent would be to provide something that was in character with the campus. Brown stated she was the one who changed it from Metcalf’s suggestion of guide rail to guard rail because she saw them along roadways where cars would be and she wanted to make sure they were sturdy enough. O’Donnell stated she just wanted to be consistent with whatever term is used in case there was a difference.
Webb distributed Sheet 3 of 3 of the Site Grading Plan – Drawing No. C-203. He stated the first grouping of items revolved around the emergency access way. He stated the original proposed plans included a 14 ft wide paved drive to continue the access for the emergency personnel and fire department. He stated the current plans shows a reduction in that width from 14 ft to 10 ft and also regrades the drive to cross pitch the drive toward the baseball fields to the south and not towards the wetlands. He stated the recommendation is that the driveway be continued with a paved surface because the use is for emergency personnel. He stated the graphic illustrates the layout dimensions of the “future” baseball field. He stated he illustrated the field to demonstrate the edge
of the main expanded storm water detention basin over to this drive. He stated the location needs to stay where it is proposed but we can agree to the reduction of pavement. He stated these issues still need final review from the Fire Chief. He also stated he was not sure as to whether a turnaround or hammerhead would be required.
He stated an additional guide rail has been provided in the southwest corner of the wetland finger as recommended by Metcalf. He also noted that the miscellaneous storage shown on the plan is proposed to be moved with the project because there is a central storage facility.
Webb stated there is clearing proposed in the area to north of the expanded storm water detention basin which is required for the construction. He stated the top soil stock pile locations will be located in the relocated varsity softball field area and on the west side of
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
the geo-thermal well. Webb stated the drawing also illustrates the maximum limits from the geo-thermal well fields. He said they also outlined a more specific sedimentation trap sequence in a temporary basis during the construction of the geo-thermal well area.
O’Donnell asked if the setup was similar to the one they visited in Waterford. Webb stated that was correct. O’Donnell asked what would happen to the water at the end of treatment? Arthur stated if everything goes right, no tanks will be necessary. He stated they will use the sediment traps, and then the water drops right out and is cleanthen if the water table is high and they are unable to do that then they will take it to the tank and then to the pump system and discharge across a grass area lined with stone and allow it to flow naturally. O’Donnell stated that eventually the water is going to come out and she felt it would be a good idea to show on the plan where it was intended to go.
Webb stated in the supplemental document some additional fill disposal was proposed over the leaching area and that information has been submitted to DEP. He noted a verbal approval has been received but are still awaiting something in writing. Webb confirmed that the intent for what is proposed here is a native excavated material as a part of the project and not a construction debris disposal area.
Webb stated that Goodfriend has several comments related to the redesign of the expanded southeast detention area. He stated this detention is supporting some of the high school expansion but is primarily supporting the capturing of drainage to correct the issue over in the field at Center School. He stated the basin cannot be deepened, however it can be expanded and that has been incorporated into the project.
DiCamillo asked when the tree line will be cleared along the baseball field. Webb stated the clearing in the right field area will be accomplished at the same time as the other clearing is done because it affects the detention basin and associated grading so it will happen in this phase to allow future construction.
Linde asked based on the level of groundwater that is at the detention basin do you expect that you will see groundwater in the sediment trap. Arthur explained that they did not expect any groundwater
O’Donnell asked if the project would be bonded. Biega stated when they bid out the project they ask the contractor to insure the project. O’Donnell asked if the bonding would be adequate if there becomes a situation where things get out of control and some of the sediment got into the wetlands and there was major contamination and the area
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
needed to be restored. Biega stated he would have the site contractor hire a consultant to assess the situation. O’Donnell stated it sounds that the drilling will be able to be controlled. Biega stated he has shut down operations before if they cannot control something. Rhodes stated the contractors are required to carry insurance and it would be their responsibility to restore the site.
Brown asked if District 18 requires any cash bond to be submitted. Rhodes stated that performance bonds are required. Brown asked if it was a cash bond or an insurance bond. Rhodes stated the contractor would be insured along with a cash bond for the project. Brown asked Rhodes to supply her with what the District requires so the commission can determine whether it needs additional bonding for erosion Rhodes asked whether they would like the bond or the insurance. Brown stated what this commission would be concerned about is erosion and sedimentation control or restoration should the project cease prior to completion. Rhodes agreed to submit the information.
Mike Moran asked if there was a timeframe for the “future” ball field to be completed and why it was not incorporated now to avoid coming back to the commission for future permits. Rhodes stated the ball field was included in the original referendum that failed so it was one of the items removed when the project was put forth a second time and approved. Rhodes stated he felt it would happen in the next two or three years depending on finances. O’Donnell asked if the area would be seeded now. Rhodes stated the area will be completely graded as a baseball field now, but no fencing will be installed or the infields will not be carved out.
O’Donnell stated that Item #25 on Sheet C-6 on the proposed draft motion talks about additional erosion and sediment measures. Brown stated it will be outlined more specifically on a sheet that is submitted in the final plan. Webb stated all the information will be submitted in a complete package. He stated they were not able to accomplish everything since their meeting with Metcalf yesterday.
O’Donnell stated Item #32 requires that an E & S bond be submitted. She asked if that was the documents Ann Brown had requested. Brown stated ordinarily with a regular applicant we ask them to provide an estimate of what their erosion and sedimentation control structures will cost. Metcalf then evaluates the estimate and either adds or subtracts and that is the dollar amount of the bond that is required by the commission. She further stated in the past the town projects have not always required that our commissions hold bonds but that is up to the commission. She stated that is why she inquired about what bonding the school system will already be holding to see whether the commission felt that would be adequate or they would still want additional bonding.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
O’Donnell asked where the safety fence was located that was discussed in Item #16. Arthur stated the safety fence would be around the staging area and major construction debris will be generated. O’Donnell asked what type of debris would be in this area. Arthur stated it would be trash.
DiCamillo asked if the new ball field was being approved as part of this application. Rhodes stated when that field is constructed they will be back before the commission.
Linde stated he didn’t really understand what the hardship was of moving the road closer to where the ball field is and asked if it could be asymmetrical (as are some famous baseball fields to the north of us) with a short left field to allow the road to be moved further away from the wetlands. Webb stated it is true that ball fields can be asymmetrical. He stated it is our intent that we don’t want to make it asymmetrical because a lot of times those layouts have a vertical component. It is our intent not to have to construct that in this left hand corner. He stated the distance of 300 ft down the line is a national high school federation standard for varsity baseball fields and the goal is to improve the conditions and the playing dimensions in comparison to where they are
playing on presently. Webb stated there is some slope and grading from the limit of the field up to the rye and they have done everything they can to be as aggressive as possible with that slope but at the same time make it as manageable and maintainable for the district all in an effort to reduce the amount of clearing and work within the buffer.
O’Donnell asked Webb to point out on the map the location of the existing road. Rhode stated there are fields but really what we need the outfield for and where it being asymmetric really hurts the district is the fact that we are really limited on practice space for soccer in the Fall. Rhodes stated that the Town Woods site is getting a lot of wear and tear on it and the back field is currently being used as a full size soccer field so when that outfield become asymmetric it becomes much less usable for soccer in the Fall.
Bechtel asked specifically how many feet to the north was the access roadway relocated closest to the wetland finger. Webb stated approximately between 40 and 50 feet O’Donnell stated that Metcalf suggested concrete pavers for an alternative for the emergency access way. Webb stated the thought was from a maintenance perspective the preference was bituminous concrete. Webb stated when he reviewed some of these final components with the Fire Chief he would certainly discuss material. Bechtel stated that the Fire Department will have the final say on the access way.
O’Donnell asked how often the access way is used. Rhodes stated it is primarily used by the Fire Department for practice. He noted however that it is a fire well for the entire Lyme Street area. Brown asked if it is plowed in the winter. Rhodes stated it is plowed but not sanded or salted.
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
McCulloch stated the wording with regard to pesticide management should state “Integrated Best Management”. Webb stated that the program outlined at the last hearing would be the process used.
Bechtel asked if the commission was prepared to close the public hearing or do they feel there are more questions that might come to light. Bechtel also noted that Brown has submitted a draft motion for this application. Therefore, she asked if the commission feel the outstanding issues are housekeeping details that can be overseen by staff with revisions to the site plan or would the commission like to see a further revised site plan prior to acting on the application?
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to close the public hearing. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Brown suggested that prior to closing the public hearing the commission go through the items point by point with the applicant to see what has been added to the plan, what needs to be added to the plan, what items are still open and require further discussion.
Bechtel stated perhaps the public hearing should not be closed in order to give the applicant an opportunity to respond, but if the commission is not in the position to act on a motion tonight then the public hearing should remain open.
McCulloch asked if the commission would consider a written explanation from the applicant. Brown stated she felt the applicant could provide the commission with an explanation right now for most of the items.
O’Donnell stated she would feel more comfortable seeing the details on the plans to eliminate any confusion.
Linde stated he was much more comfortable having the modifications made on the plan.
Therefore, the plan that is in front of us is the plan that we are approving and there is no question about it. Linde also asked if the commission had any concerns with moving that roadway 40 feet closer to the wetland.
The motion failed unanimously.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
Bechtel stated the public hearing will be continued and noted the commission would like to see more of what is listed on the draft motion finalized on the site plan for next month.
Bechtel stated she personally would like to see a tentative conversation take place with the Fire Department and know if they will be satisfied with a 10 foot road or they are going to require a 14 foot road. Bechtel also stated she would like to know if they would be requiring any additional impervious surface edging up to the wetland for parking.
Bechtel stated in terms of the relocation of the road to the wetland finger she felt if commission members have a major concern with that then perhaps the commission should visit the site again to see exactly where the road is currently as opposed to where it is proposed.
O’Donnell asked if the drainage basin could be reshaped differently to rotate the baseball field away. Webb stated there is a little bit of potential rotation but it doesn’t help us in that area.
O’Donnell asked if the construction project will add or take away water flow into the wetland. Arthur stated it will remain the same based on their calculations. Webb stated the peak flows are not changing. O’Donnell stated that more of the parking drainage is going in that direction that used to go toward the Center School. Arthur explained the flows will remain the same.
Discussion ensued and the commission agreed they would like to visit the site. Webb agreed to stake out the area prior to the site walk.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, October 1, 2009 at 5:00 p.m.
Linde stated what he heard was it would be inconvenient for the applicant to make that field asymmetrical because the District would not be able to get as much use from the soccer field therefore he would be very interested in knowing at what point that field becomes unacceptable or not preferred.
Rhodes stated that the Middle School currently uses the back field for all their fall sports and needs to meet regulations which are close to the same as required by the High School.
Linde stated at some point it becomes unreasonable to ask or becomes unpractical to do it but he would like to know what that point is so the commission can balance their concerns.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
Rhodes asked if the road was pervious would that make a difference. Linde stated it always helps but in this case we are talking only 15’ left of vegetative buffer. Webb stated it will be graded away from the wetland and absolutely no salt or sand will be used. Rhodes stated he would be more than happy to discuss the surface of the road with the Fire Department. Bechtel stated when the commission walks the site they will look at the fact that we are talking about it being graded towards the field and also see exactly what kind of vegetative buffer exists and what would will be lost and could it be replaced with something else that would protect the wetland.
NEW BUSINESS
09-21 – Paul & Christine Wysocki – 19 Brighton Road – Construction of an
overpass/bridge over wetlands in order to preserve and maintain both side of wetlands and to remove debris.
Bechtel stated the commission walked the property in August. She further noted this item was on the agenda as well last month but the Wysocki’s were not able to attend the meeting. She noted that the commission had received a letter from the Chairman for the Board of Governors for the White Sands Beach Association, therefore the commission continued this agenda item until the September meeting so the applicant could be present for the discussion.
Bechtel stated the commission visited the site and walked the bridge. Wysocki noted for the record that she had submitted photographs of the bridge as well. Bechtel stated that one of the questions that developed at the meeting last month was why was the bridge constructed. Wysocki stated the bridge was not constructed to get to the other side because both sides of the bridge are located on her own property.
Wysocki stated there are wetlands located all along the rear of her property and therefore stated she could not get to the other side to clean it. She noted she cannot go under the wetlands or on the side of the wetlands so the only option is to go over the wetland in order to maintain and preserve the wetland. She stated this bridge enables her to pick up the debris such as old fencing, cigarette lighters, personal items, bags of trash, tennis balls and other garbage. Wysocki stated the wetlands were being choked by “bramble bushes”. She stated it is her intention to follow the guidelines set forth by the Inland Wetland and Watercourses as to the plantings to be used for that area. Wysocki stated the bridge location was determined by the existing trees on her property because she
did not want to disturb any of their root systems. She also noted that installing the bridge in the widest portion allowed her more access to clean the area.
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
Bechtel asked Ms. Wysocki when she steps off the back side of the bridge how much property exists from the edge of bridge to the beginning of the White Sands Beach Association. Wysocki stated there was 2 ½ feet. Bechtel asked if the bridge enabled her to stand on the bridge and access the wetland without going into it from the left and the right side of the bridge and also to clean along that 2 ½ foot space along the back. Wysocki stated that was correct.
Bechtel stated the 2 ½ feet between yourself and White Sands Beach would be best planted in some sort of a vegetative buffer which would prevent debris from coming from White Sands Beach. She also noted that the commission does not prohibit people from going into their wetland area to pick up and remove debris so she felt the bridge was constructed to get from Point A to Point B and therefore did not feel it was necessary for the clean up or the protection of the wetland.
Wysocki stated that there are rocks and stones and therefore would not want to walk into the wetland and step on something that she did not see or fall in that area and injure herself.
O’Donnell asked her for the width of her yard. Wysocki said it was about 80 feet. O’Donnell asked her for the width of the bridge. Wysocki stated it was approximately 3 feet. Therefore, O’Donnell stated the range that could be reached into the wetland is limited. Wysocki stated they use long poles and a net and also noted that the bridge is constructed in the widest part of the wetland.
Moran asked what the depth of the water was in the wetland. Wysocki stated it varies but it is always wet, muddy and soggy.
Bechtel asked Attorney Kaplan that in his letter it states that the first step off the place of the bridge places you on your client’s property which is White Sands Beach. Bechtel stated the applicant said that there are 2 ½ feet. The attorney debated the 2 ½ feet. Wysocki stated the survey that was recently completed demonstrates the boundary marker. Bechtel stated the issue of boundary is not a wetland issue but is an issue for either zoning or a boundary dispute.
Bechtel stated the bridge was constructed without a permit. She then asked the commission if it was there preference to leave it in place as it currently exists because there is less potential for disruption to the wetland or do they feel it is intrusive to the wetland.
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
McCulloch stated he felt at the last meeting the commission determined there was no significant impact. Bechtel stated the commission discussed the issue but no conclusion was reached.
Griswold stated he felt there was no impact to this specific wetland but expressed concern about setting a precedent for other applications. McCulloch stated the commission has always said that each application is assessed on its own merit and no one decision sets a precedent for other wetland applications.
O’Donnell asked if there were any fines or procedures in place for structures that are erected without a permit. Brown stated this commission has not imposed any punishments in the past, however some towns double their permit fees for work without a permit.
Linde stated since it is the applicant’s intent to go into the wetlands and clean up the area and install plantings he felt it might be appropriate for the applicant to submit a planting plan to the commission for their review. Brown also noted the commission discussed requiring a rough buffer along the edge of the wetland. Brown also noted that this application is also currently in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Linde suggested that the applicant submit a plan to the commission next month prior to acting on the application.
Brown stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has held their hearing open in an effort to have the decision of the Wetlands Commission prior to rendering their decision. Brown asked the commission if they would be willing to write a progress letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to their next meeting.
Linde suggested we send a note informing them that this commission does not have an issue with the structure but are waiting to review the planting plan. Brown stated that would satisfy their needs.
Bechtel stated the commission could move the application along and approve it with the condition that a planting plan be submitted. Brown stated she was not a wetlands plant expert.
Bechtel stated she would write a progress letter to the ZBA stating that this commission has reviewed the work that has been done and this commission does not feel it would be in the best interest of the wetland to remove the structure. The commission concurred. She further noted that the commission is requesting a planting plan which will also show a buffer area as well so that the lawn does not slope down directly into the wetlands prior to issuing the permit for the site.
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
09-23 – John and Daryl Hornby – 7 Mill Pond Lane – Clearing, rock removal and relocation, applying top soil and reseeding within the regulated areas.
Bechtel noted that she was not able to make the site walk, however Dave McCulloch and Skip DiCamillo walked the site.
Skip DiCamillo stated he felt a buffer needed to be put in place between the pond and the work being done on the site and noted the applicant has agreed to do that. Dave McCulloch stated there are also two trees on the site that the applicant would like to take down and he felt they were also very dead and a danger to the area.
DiCamillo stated that the existing buffer kind of meanders around the edge of the pond so in some areas it is approximately 3 to 4 feet and other areas it is 20 feet. O’Donnell asked if the silt fencing had been installed. DiCamillo stated the fencing is up but not properly installed but the applicant has agreed to repair the fencing so it will function properly. DiCamillo stated they plan to do other work on the property in the future and have agreed to submit an application prior to starting any of the other additional work at the site.
DiCamillo also noted the disturbed area have been seeded and hayed. McCulloch noted that they were very cooperative and willing to comply with any conditions that the commission required.
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions:
1. A 20’ buffer is maintained around the pond and that are not be mowed more than
once a year.
2. The motorized equipment be stored in the upland area in the proximity of the
driveway and/or garage area.
3. Wood chips be placed along the bottom of the silt fence until the lawn is established.
4. Any further activity must come back before this commission for permits.
Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
FMTM – Show Cause Hearing – Permit – 06-08 – Continued
Brown stated that Frank Martone met with her and Tom Metcalf at the site and they discussed what work needed to be done to stabilize the site. Brown stated he has brought his small bulldozer to the site and completed much of the work a meeting has been set with Tom Metcalf for tomorrow to evaluate the site. Brown stated Martone was also going to seed the area in the next few days.
Page 13 – Minutes
IWWC – September 22, 2009
OTHER BUSINESS
Regulation Rewrite - This item has been tabled to next month.
FEES
Bechtel asked Brown if the commission has any power that allows them to assess fines or double the permits fees for work that is done without a permit. Brown stated the commission can modify the fee schedule to double the fees for work done without a permit or the commission can issue tickets. Brown stated there is a lot of paperwork and issues to collect the ticket fines if the property owner chooses not to pay. Therefore, Brown stated that doubling the permit fees is a lot easier administratively. Brown agreed to review this issue and provide further information at the next meeting.
McAraw – 23 Talcott Farm Road
Brown stated she would follow-up on the status of the planting at the site.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
