MINUTES
OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 27, 2009
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Robb Linde, Sabine O’Donnell, Dave McCulloch and Evan Griswold.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
Robb Linde made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED AUGUST 27, 2009
The commission clarified who was in attendance at the site walks. Sabine O’Donnell made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED OCTOBER 1, 2009
Bechtel noted that under Item 1 (section should be plural) and (under the Battalino application it should read 20 feet rather than 20 inches pertaining to the buffer around the pond) Robb Linde made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
09-30 WOODS OF OLD LYME, LLC – AND OLD LYME HEIGHTS, LLC – OLD STAGECOACH ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A 38 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH PROPOSED ROAD WAY.
Bechtel noted that this application has been before the commission on and off since 2007.
Bechtel stated she felt this application should go to public hearing because she feels there is potential for significant impact to the downstream receiving area which is Rogers Lake.
Evan Griswold concurred and stated he also felt a subdivision of this magnitude will have an impact downstream with the increase in roadways, lawns and rooftops.
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
Robb Linde made a motion to set the application of Woods of Old Lyme, LLC and Old Lyme Heights, LLC.for public hearing on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
09-27 FRANK MORELLI – 244 SHORE ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A 12 X 18 SHED.
Brown stated the property is located in a commercial zone. Brown stated the proposal is to install a simple household shed behind the existing residential house within the wetlands review zone. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 7th at 8:30 a.m.
09-29 PHILIP SALAFIA – 44 FLAGLER AVENUE – ENCLOSE EXISTING PORCH AND PATIO, EXTEND EXISTING DORMERS
Bechtel asked if Flagler Avenue was located in the Miami Beach Area. Attorney Cronin indicated that was correct.
Attorney Michael Cronin stated that this property was granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted it was pointed out during the application process with the Zoning Board of Appeals that an application would be required to this commission because this lot was not a part of a previously approved subdivision by the Planning Commission. Cronin stating he was seeking an administrative permit due to the minor nature of the application. Cronin stated the proposal will not disturb any new areas. He stated the carport is existing on the northerly side and the proposal is to enclose the carport and convert it into a seasonal room. He stated to the south of the structure there is an existing deck and the proposal is to extend the existing structure into the back area which is presently
occupied by the deck. He stated since the current deck will not hold the weight a footing needs to be constructed under the deck and noted that this would be the only ground area disturbed. Cronin also noted the septic system has been upgraded, approved and installed. He stated the additions are to allow for an improvement to the kitchen and to allow for a hot tub area. Cronin stated across the back property line is a stone wall that separates the back of the property from the ditch. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 7th at 9:00 a.m. and at that time, the commission would determine whether or not the improvements could be handled administratively.
Cronin stated that time is an issue for the application. He stated the applicant has hoped to begin in the project this Fall and noted he would like to pour the concrete before the weather gets too cold, therefore he stated it would be a tremendous help if the commission felt it was appropriate after their site walk to issue an administrative permit.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
Bechtel stated that while she understood the applicants desire to proceed quickly with this project, the commission has been meeting on the 4th Tuesday of every month and this application could have been submitted at any time prior to the month of October and she resents the implication that it is now the Commission’s responsibility to hurry .
Linde noted that neither the stockpile or silt fencing locations are shown on the plan. Linde also expressed concern that the commission did not review the plan prior to the installation of the septic systems which definitely had an impact on the wetlands. Bechtel also noted that the 100’ review zone is not delineated on the plan.
Linde also stated that this commission will be making a decision based on what is best for the wetlands not based on the timing of the applicant.
09-33 BENNETT BERNBLUM – 9 CUTLER ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A FROST WALL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE GARAGE WITHIN A 100’ OF WETLANDS
Bechtel stated upon her review of this application the only map she could find enclosed was a map dated July 1986. She noted there was not much on the map that she found to provide a good assessment of the work to be done or the wetlands location. Mr. Bernblum stated he took the actual wetlands location off the town map. He stated he delineated the silt fence line which is also interrupted by a stonewall 3’ high. He stated according to the town map this proposal is very close to being outside the regulated area. He stated the wetlands contain old growth trees and the proposed silt fence runs along the 38’ elevation line and there is a proposed spot for spoils which is out of the regulated area.
Brown asked the applicant to give the commission an estimate of how far the activity is from the wetlands. The applicant stated he was 90 ft and noted there will also be 20 ft of undisturbed grass land filter strip between the walk and the edge of the disturbed area. He stated his goal would be to complete the activities within a week. Brown asked what type of addition is proposed. Bernblum stated it is a sunroom constructed on a frost wall. Linde asked if there was an as-built for the site. Bernblum stated this was the as-built for the existing house. O’Donnell asked if the frost wall would support a structure. Bernblum stated that was correct and noted the structure would be 22’ x 22’. O’Donnell stated the copies were very difficult to read. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 7th at 9:30 a.m..
Linde expressed concern that again there were no stockpile or silt fence locations shown on the plan. Brown stated that was her fault; she should have requested another plan.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
09-28 JOHN SZOSDOWSKI – 25 CONNECTICUT ROAD – REPLACEMENT OF A HOME THAT WAS DESTROYED BY A HOUSE FIRE IN 2008
Brown stated that the commission had a prior enforcement down behind this house. She noted that this house has suffered a fire and needs to be replaced. She stated the applicant has paid his fine and has submitted a plan to replace the home.
Bechtel stated her notes after reviewing the information submitted indicated the map submitted with the application was unacceptable. She noted the wetlands are shown but the 100’ review zone is not indicated. She stated it appears that the proposed house increases what is existing by almost 50%. Bechtel asked if the house burned completely to the ground. Szosdowski stated not completely to the ground but everything inside was destroyed. Bechtel asked if there was anything still standing. Szosdowski stated there is still some portion of the structure on the site. It was noted that the new home will be tied into the Point O Woods Sewer system. Szosdowski stated the proposed home will be moved forward which will move it further from the wetlands. The commission
asked the applicant to stake out the house location prior to the site walk.
Brown asked the commission if they were intending on holding a public hearing on this application. Bechtel stated she remembered the terrain to be relatively flat and felt the silt fencing was adequate and the stock pile location was sufficient. She also noted that she did not feel the house would have significant impact and therefore did not feel a public hearing would be necessary. However, she further stated if the commission was to receive a petition from a group of neighbors containing 25 signatures she would be required to hold a public hearing. O’Donnell asked if the proposed home was in character with the neighborhood or significantly larger. Bechtel stated the commission would only be concerned with the size if the home could not be constructed without impact. Linde asked
since the impervious surface on the property was being doubled would the applicant be proposing any type of roof leaders or drainage. Szosdowski stated he would be willing to do whatever the commission preferred as a way to handle the drainage.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 7th at 10:00 a.m.
09-32 CHARLES LARSON – 1 LAKE DRIVE – CONSTRUCTION OF A 10’ X 23’ DECK AND HANDICAPPED RAMP
Brown noted that Bob Chapman submitted the application. Brown reviewed the map with the commission. She explained they would like to install a deck with a handicapped ramp up the side in an area which is quite close to the edge of the lake. She noted the applicant has already started construction but stopped when he became aware that permits were required. Bechtel expressed concern that the additional structures continue to
Page 5 - Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
encroach on the buffer area. Brown also noted that this application may require additional approvals from other commissions.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 7th at 10:45 a.m.
09-31 – DAVID BOURNE – 31 PIN OAK TRAIL – INSTALLATION OF A 500 GALLON PROPANE TANK
David Bourne was present to discuss the application and he also distributed photographs for the commission to review. Bourne noted the proposal was to install an in ground propane tank. He stated he currently has an above ground oil tank and feels it is a hazard. He stated he has wanted to switch to propane for a long time because he feels it is a lot cleaner and less maintenance. O’Donnell asked if the commission was familiar with the installation of in ground propane tanks. Bourne stated since the tank is located in the regulated area it has to be secured to a concrete pad. He stated the hole is generally 5 feet deep and the top six inches are fill. McCulloch asked what the water table was in the area that the tank would be buried. Bourne stated the bottom of the pad
table would be about a foot above the high water table. McCulloch asked Mr. Bourne if he could provide a drawing at the site walk of a typical installation. Bourne agreed.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 7th at 11:15 a.m.
09-34 – HELEN FLYNN – 35 HILLSIDE ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A YEAR ROUND THREE BEDROOM DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
Bechtel stated she received a letter from Joe Wren, Indigo Land Design, on behalf of the applicant to the commission requesting an Administrative Permit on this application. Bechtel distributed photographs for the commission to review. Bechtel stated that the wetland under discussion is across the road from this particular property. Bechtel stated we could visit the site on the 7th and make a determination at that time whether this application could be handled administratively.
Bechtel stated that in the letter it indicated that both the well and the driveway would be within the 100 ft review zone. Bechtel stated the map shows a temporary stockpile location, and indicates there is no grade change. Linde stated since the permit is for a new house he would really not want to do an administrative permit. He stated that when the language was discussed regarding administrative permits it was for small projects, and small things with little impact and therefore he doesn’t feel a house falls under those parameters. He stated he felt it would be a bad idea for the commission to extend the term “small” to a three bedroom house.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC -10-27-09
Groves agreed to provide copies of the letter from Indigo Design to all the commission members prior to the site walk.
The contractor, Bob Alfano, was present at the meeting and indicated the house location would be staked prior to the commission visiting the site.
Linde clarified that the application looks like a complete plan, but he just doesn’t think it fits under what the commission has defined as what is eligible for an administrative permit.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 7th at 11:45 a.m.
09-35 – KEVIN KEHOE/BARBARA STANLEY – REQUEST TO ALLOW ACTIVITIES PERMITTED BY RIGHT – ROUTE 156 – 112 NECK ROAD.
Bechtel stated that the property under discussion is a large white house that sits at the top of Tantummaheag Road and Route 156. Bechtel stated that she got the impression from the application that work has already been started at the property. Mr. Kehoe stated that was correct and they were not aware they needed a permit. He stated the wetlands are a result of drainage easements from the neighboring yards that come together on his yard. He stated there is an area (which is approximately 15-20%) of their total land which has been completely inaccessible because of the over growth and prior dumping of leaves, branches and dead trees. He stated their goal was to clean it up by removing all the stuff and cutting down all the dead trees. He stated the middle portion is covered by a
large canopy and is full of moss. He stated they have planted some arborvitae’s up by the road for cover and also down by the little dog leg which is not shown on the map which goes into a stream and also some white pine. Bechtel asked when this was planted. Kehoe stated it was planted last week. Kehoe stated in the future he would like to replant the area with more appropriate trees and shrubs.
A neighbor and his representative were in attendance to speak about the application. Bechtel informed the neighbor he was welcome to submit a letter for the file but this application was not open to public discussion. She further stated that until the time that the commission members feel there is significant impact to a wetland or watercourse, that would cause them to call a public hearing, or until such time as 25 people get together and sign a petition requesting a public hearing, the meetings are for the commission members to review an application and for the applicant to present his proposal.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, November 7th at 12:00.
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
PUBLIC HEARING
09-20 – REGIONAL SCHOOL 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 was present along with Dick Webb, Landscape Architect, of Clough Harbour Associates for the presentation.
Webb stated at the last meeting held in September he received comments the day before from the town’s consulting engineer, Tom Metcalf. Webb stated he had briefly characterized those at the hearing and noted a lot of the comments were clarification and supplemental information. He stated since that time he has made revisions to the plans which have been submitted to the town and directly to Tom Metcalf that reflect his comments. He noted they also formally prepared response letters to both the Inland Wetlands Commission and the Zoning Commission.
Webb stated additional drainage information requested has been provided in the Lyme Street area. He stated Metcalf requested that the northern stormwater management area include a walk to provide student access to the parking and this has been added to the plans. He noted guiderails have been added to separate the entrance road from the stormwater management area. He stated the drainage has been addressed by rip-rap in the parking lot area for stabilization.
He stated at the last hearing the question was asked if the field could be reduced in size to increase the separation from the wetland finger area. Webb stated problematically the field cannot be reduced because they need the area from a program perspective. He stated he has met with both the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal and they are pleased with the 10 ft width and agreed to a permeable grass concrete paver surface. He noted they have also provided plantings in this area on the wetland finger side of the access road to supplement the edge. He stated it is their intent to identify the clearing limit in the field to minimize clearing as much as possible and maximize the existing vegetation as much as possible. He noted although they were not able to reduce the size of the field, they were able
to retain all the way back to the southern point where the detention basin is – so the volume of the detention basin has not changed but the shape has been reworked which has allowed the whole field to be moved 12 ft to the south. He stated therefore at the tightest point “Wetland Flag 47” they are 30 ft and it rapidly increases as they move away from the flag. He noted that the drive has been pitched toward the baseball field so there is no drainage that works back toward the wetland. He stated all of these details are included on the drawings. He noted stockpile locations are shown outside of any
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
regulated areas. He stated they further refined the grading and earth work quantities to minimize clearing in this area which is also shown on the plan.
Brown asked if this area would be covered with top soil at the end of the project. Webb stated that was correct and it would be permanently stabilized. He stated they have received the approval from the DEP.
Bechtel stated she did have a conversation with Tom Metcalf today who indicated he did receive the revised plans but he had not had a chance to finish his review and submit a letter. Bechtel stated that Metcalf indicated he was comfortable that any of the final engineering details that need to be worked out could be finalized should the public hearing is closed this evening.
Bechtel stated she asked Ann Brown to go through and revise her Draft Condition of Approval and cross out items that already had been addressed by the applicant on the plans. Bechtel asked if the commission has any more questions of this particular applicant.
Evan Griswold expressed concern about material being added to the leach field area where there is a 3 to 1 slope. Webb stated all 3 to 1 slopes are stabilized with erosion control which is typical on all slopes throughout the project.
Brown asked if the propane tank location was formalized. Rhodes stated it will probably located in the vicinity of the maintenance shop but will be outside of the review area.
Brown asked if an erosion and control sequencing had been included on the plan. Webb stated that had been completed and was shown on the detail sheets.
O’Donnell asked if and E & S Bond estimate had been submitted. Brown stated that the town engineer will review the bonding and determine if additional bonding is required beyond what the District has in place.
Brown asked if the commission was satisfied with the planting details that had been shown on the plan. O’Donnell stated she didn’t feel she had enough time. Bechtel stated she was comfortable with what was shown. Commission members took a moment to review the planting details on the site plan. O’Donnell asked again if the bonding is still a requirement. Brown stated ordinarily the commission holds the bond for erosion and sedimentation control but John Rhodes explained in one of the previous meetings that the School District was going to be requiring insurance and bonding from the contractors to make sure that all things are done properly. Rhodes stated it is a requirement as part of the municipal process. Bechtel stated that the bonding details can be handled
after the
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
close of the public hearing and the amount is not something the applicant sets. O’Donnell was concerned that the school bonding would not cover some of the concerns of the commission. Bechtel stated it was agreed at the last meeting that John Rhodes would submit the bonding to the town for Tom Metcalf to review and determine whether it was adequate or if additional bonding would be required by the commission. Bechtel further noted this is one of the items that the commission includes in its standard approval language.
Linde asked how much closer the proposed roadway is to the wetland than the existing roadway. Webb stated at Wetland Flag #47 the roadway is approximately 12 feet closer.
Webb stated there is a planting plan on the plan that mimics the plantings that were used in the first phase of this project because of the success of those plantings on the project.
Brown asked if the dumpster storage has been finalized and detailed on the plan. Webb stated the dumpster storage is located in the rear and detailed on the plan.
Linde stated when he visited the site there was a lot of woodshop debris in the wetland and therefore asked if a sign could be placed stating “No Dumping”. Rhodes stated that was actually a raccoon but he further indicated he did not have a problem installing the signage. Webb also noted the guiderail is being extended beyond the wetland finger which will provide a little more protection.
Linde also asked if the applicant would consider making this project an educational tool for the students of the high school to make them more aware of wetlands and the importance of protecting and maintaining wetlands and also discourage them from dumping into the wetlands.
Bechtel stated the commission went through this process with the track and it cannot make it part of their approval but they can make a recommendation that the school work to make this an educational opportunity to the students. Rhodes stated they would be more than happy to make this recommendation and also noted they will be using this project for points towards LEED certification for the District in one of their projects.
Linde stated as part of the approval he would like to include a recommendation that they have stated they intend to use this project as an educational tool.
Linde made a motion to close the public hearing. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Linde noted for the record he has listened to the tapes of the Public Hearing on this matter held on September 22, 2010.
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
OLD BUSINESS
09-21 PAUL & CHRISTINE WYSOCKI – 19 BRIGHTON ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVERPASS/BRIDGE OVER WETLANDS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN BOTH SIDES OF THE WETLANDS AND TO REMOVE DEBRIS
Bechtel stated at the last meeting the commission requested a planting plan. Bechtel circulated the planting plan to the commission members. Bechtel asked for clarification of the trees shown on the plan. Wysocki indicated that the trees are located on the far side of her property.
Bechtel stated the commission needed to establish a buffer width. It was noted that the area was not a steep slope but a continual slope. Griswold suggested a 25 ft buffer. Brown stated that 25 ft would take up a large portion of her yard. Discussion ensued about the distances between the house and the wetlands.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the plan with a 20 ft buffer to be mowed only once a year except for a 4 ft wide access path to the bridge. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
09-25 – RICHARD BATTALINO – 166 MILE CREEK ROAD – APPLICATION TO CUT DOWN TWO TREES AND REMOVE SURFACE ROCKS
Bechtel stated that the commission was very clear at the site walk with Mr. Battalino that any additional work in the area will require a more detailed application including an A-2 survey with a 100’ wetland boundary and 20 ft buffer area. Bechtel stated he has done additional work. She stated he has done work on the stone wall and removed a section of the wall approximately 12 ft wide.
Bechtel stated the application that was submitted was to remove two dead trees and a few surface rocks and therefore he appears to have exceeded that activity. The commission discussed what the next step would be to require the applicant to stop working at the site.
The commission agreed to issue a Cease and Desist Order on the site.
09-26 – PETER SUTHERLAND – 73 ROWLAND ROAD – CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITHIN THE REGULATED AREA
Mrs. Sutherland stated at the site walk the commission requested that silt fence and stock pile locations be shown on the plan and noted this has been done. She noted in addition to that they have shown two possible location areas for the shed. She noted that on the
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
plans the sheds were shown as relocation area 1 and 2 with 1 being the preference. The commission reviewed the drawings.
Bechtel asked if she was correct in looking at the drawing that there were two proposed locations for the shed. Sutherland stated that was correct. Bechtel stated that the shed shown in Location 1 (behind the silt fence virtually in the wetlands) is totally unacceptable. Bechtel stated that this map is a very deceptive in that it shows no topography. Bechtel stated the area behind where the proposed garage is staked out it completely falls away down to the wetland from the back of the garage. Therefore she asked why the proposed garage is so large for the size of the property. Sutherland stated she was willing to cut down the size of the garage. Bechtel asked if the applicant had considered doing a sloped roof on the garage. The applicant stated the roof would be guttered.
Linde stated he requested a replanting plan. The applicant submitted the planting plan for the commission to review. The applicant stated they were also willing to accept any further suggestions in additions to the plantings shown on their plan. Linde also was not in favor of Location 1 for the shed. Griswold concurred.
Sutherland also agreed to cut the width of the garage down to 26 feet. Linde stated this would move it two feet further from the wetlands. Sutherland agreed to modify the plans to show 26 feet. Bechtel stated she would also like to see the length cut down because the back corner sits on a real slope down to the wetlands. She noted she was generally not in favor of a lot of tree removal but the 5 trees that the applicant would like to remove are up and away from the wetlands so she would much rather see the trees removed and the garage go in that direction. Sutherland agreed to drop the length down to 30 ft.
Linde clarified by stating, “we are proposing to move the north wall 2 feet south and east wall west for a final dimension of 30 ft x 26 feet”. Linde stated the commission is in favor of shed location #2 and specifically does not approve proposed Location #1. Linde also wanted to be sure that the planting plan is part of the application. O’Donnell asked if there would be a provision for the commission to visit the site after construction. Brown stated she would inspect the site after completion.
Linde proposed that we accept the plan as submitted with the following conditions:
- The north wall be moved 2 feet to the south
- The east wall be moved west
- The final dimension of the garage will be 30 ft x 26 ft.
- The shed will be placed in Location 2.
Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONS OF APROVAL ON THE REGION 18 APPLICATION – 09-20
Brown stated she had taken the Draft Conditions that were submitted last month and modified them to eliminate the items that had now been completed and include the additional conditions the commission discussed. She also noted that she reviewed this document with Mr. Metcalf.
Linde stated since the commission would be meeting again within 10 days he suggested that Metcalf review the conditions. Brown stated she spoke with Metcalf specifically about all the items on last month’s list and he agreed with the items that have been eliminated. Brown stated Metcalf requested that any approval be contingent upon his approval of the final engineering work. Brown stated he was confident with the plans as long as the commission was satisfied with the general scheme.
Linde stated he suspected that there may not be an issue on getting it approved with certain conditions but suggested the commission take the time to review the conditions and have a more complete document prepared at the Special Meeting to be held in the next ten days.
Brown noted that Metcalf suggested that the commission require inspection reports from either the school consulting engineer or himself as he has done in the past.
Bechtel also noted she had drafted additional conditions. Brown agreed to take that document and add it to the initial draft motion to review and make a complete document prior to the Special Meeting.
O’Donnell stated she found it very difficult in a meeting to evaluate and suggested that these things be sent out with the agenda if possible. Brown stated when that is possible she certainly does. O’Donnell stated she doesn’t feel she has time at a meeting to have an educated opinion. Bechtel stated considering this was done at 6:00 it was not possible to send out to commission members. She further stated they are pretty much standard conditions of approval that we have included on everything and stated she would email O’Donnell the standard language to be used anytime there is a large project under consideration. O’Donnell stated she was just surprised that it didn’t come up last month if this is standard procedure. Brown stated
many of these items are included. Bechtel stated part of the whole genesis of this commission is that all the work of the commission was always done at this meeting. She stated the review of all the site plans were never done by anyone at home, it was never done by staff, that is why the meetings went on to
Page 13 – Minutes
IWWC -10-27-09
2 a.m. to hammer these details out. O’Donnell stated in the day and age of email she thought it could be handled more efficiently. Brown stated when that is
possible we certainly do it. O’Donnell stated she was not being critical but felt we were dealing with fairly complex applications and for her own piece of mind she felt that there are professionals spending weeks and months planning and as a commission member she did not feel qualified without spending a couple of hours. Bechtel stated she has had a set of plans that she has been reviewing that she was not aware that had been updated in October and she would like to think that she was not the only person that didn’t realize that and that somebody else came into Town Hall and pulled the plan for the school and realized that they had been updated, if not that’s too bad. She stated that is a huge error on her part and she probably could have saved the applicant 30 minutes of conversation
had she reviewed that but she should not be the only one reviewing the plans. O’Donnell stated what would be helpful to her, because she has flexibility during the day, is that if there is significant information that comes in prior to a meeting she would like an email and then she would come in and look at the plans and not waste meeting time, because otherwise she doesn’t feel confident voting on anything if she really didn’t understand it.
Linde stated the commission also has to be careful not to prejudge an application and wait for all of the information to be submitted. He also stated he felt it was a good practice to draft things up prior to a meeting.
The commission agreed to have staff fine tune the conditions and email them out for everyone to review prior to the next meeting.
Linde stated he would like the language inserted that “commends the school board for their efforts to protect the wetlands during their application process, and also commend the school board for their stated intention to include a wetlands education program as part of their long term plan”.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
FMTM – SHOW CAUSE HEARING – PERMIT 06-08 – CONTINUED
Brown stated that Frank Martone stated he would be attending but has not yet arrived. Brown stated he has gone out to the site with his bulldozer and scratched and smoothed things out. She stated he has also seeded and mulched.
Brown stated he was planning on attending the meeting to discuss the possibility of completing Phase II without paving Phase I and then go on and pave them both at the same time.
It was noted that the applicant was not present to ask the commission but the commission indicated they were not in favor of this process.
Page 14 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
JOSEPH AND TAMARA MCARAW – 23 TALCOTT FARM ROAD – STATUS OF PLANTING RESTORATION PLAN
Bechtel asked about the status of the planting. Brown noted she has not visited the site but will get out there in the next few days. Bechtel stated she would like a report prior to the November meeting. Brown stated since she would not be at the November meeting she would send a written report.
OTHER BUSINESS
“For the record, Robb Linde stated that he has been by the B
FEES FOR FINES
Brown stated that she had modified the existing application and added a line that would double the fees if work had already begun without a permit.
Linde asked if the applicant had to be current with all his fees, fines, reimbursements prior to the actual permit being issued. Brown stated some of the fees are generated after the permits are issued from inspections and further site reviews by Tom Metcalf. She noted the money is always received upfront for the permit application. Brown stated we could include language that a permit would be revoked if fees are not kept current. Linde stated he felt that language would be in the best interest of the town.
O’Donnell asked if the $60.00 fee was a flat fee for all applications. Brown stated that was correct. She stated the state has increased fees everywhere. She also noted that the town keeps $2.00 on every $60.00 fee charged.
O’Donnell asked if our fees were consistent with other towns. Bechtel stated when she revised the application she researched the fees in Old Saybrook.
McCulloch stated he did not feel doubling the fees were adequate, he felt it should be four times the fee.
Discussion ensued about the issuing of tickets. The commission agreed to review the fees and discuss them at the next meeting.
Bechtel asked why a ticket was not issued at the McAraw site. Brown stated she thought we were going to get compliance without it. Brown stated a ticket could have been issued. Griswold stated the commission needed to get the word out about the importance of wetlands.
Page 15 – Minutes
IWWC – 10-27-09
Linde stated in some respects this commission has not been particularly difficult on people and have given people the benefit of the doubt and if we feel we need to be more aggressive with how we deal with these things then we need to take some action on that.
Discussion also ensued about the quality of drawings that are submitted to the commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
