MINUTES
OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2010
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Bechtel, Sabine O’Donnell, Dave McCulloch, Skip DiCamillo, and Evan Griswold.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2009
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED DECEMBER 1, 2009
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED DECEMBER 12, 2009
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
09-30 WOODS OF OLD LYME, LLC AND OLD LYME HEIGHTS, LLC – OLD STAGECOACH ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A 38 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH PROPOSED ROADWAY.
The applicant submitted a letter formally withdrawing the application.
NEW BUSINESS
09-38 – CHRISTINE WYSOCKI – MODIFICATION TO EXISTING PERMIT
Attorney Matthew Berger stated the commission approved an application for this property back in September, however the Zoning Board of Appeals did not grant a variance for that proposal. Berger stated since that time the applicant filed another application with the Zoning Board of Appeals for a modification to the bridge and a variance was granted for that application. He stated the modification included a reduction in the size of the bridge so it was not as much of an intrusion into setback. Berger stated he did not believe that the shrinking of the bridge would alter or impact the
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 1-26-2010
wetlands in anyway from what was already approved by the commission. Berger stated that the White Sands Beach Association felt that the proximity was too close to the Beach Club where the bridge terminated so the terminus will move a bit closer to the Wysocki house but the terminus will still not be in the wetlands. Berger stated the bridge is already up and the work to remove the terminus would not involve any work within the wetlands themselves, so he did not feel this would harm the wetlands. The commission reviewed the pictures that were submitted with the application which indicates that approximately 11 ½ feet will be removed from the bridge. Bechtel asked if the sonotubes would remain the same. The applicant indicated that was correct.
Bechtel asked when applicant anticipated completing this work. Wysocki stated the ZBA stated that the work needed to be completed by Memorial Day. The applicant stated it is their intent to complete the project as quickly as possible once the weather permits.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the modification to the existing permit at 19 Brighton Road. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
10-01 – ROBERT BEAUDOIN – 86 GRASSY HILL ROAD – REPAIR LAWN AFTER REMOVAL OF TREE STUMPS FROM TREES THAT WERE CUT DOWN BY PREVIOUS OWNER, ALSO INSTALL DRYWELLS AT CORNER OF HOUSE
Bechtel stated that after reviewing the application she believed that the drywells were already installed. Brown stated she thought that was correct. Brown further stated the yard is currently torn up and also noted the applicant was currently away but would be happy to have the commission visit the site. DiCamillo asked how the trees were removed. Brown stated that some sort of machinery had been used at the site. Bechtel also noted that the applicant indicated that his landscape architect would be available to attend the site walk. Brown agreed to contact the landscape architect to attend the site walk meeting. Bechtel also noted the map did not clearly indicate the distance between the house and lake and requested that information be provided as part of the application.
Bechtel also noted that Brown sent a letter dated January 5, 2010 to the applicant stating that generally the Inland Wetlands Commission requires a rough buffer 10’ to 15’ in width be maintained along the lakefront in order to try to keep fertilizers, pesticides and debris from getting into the lake.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 8:00 a.m.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – January 26, 2010
10-02 – TOM GRANT – 9 LAKE DRIVE – TREE REMOVAL IN PROXIMITY TO THE LAKE
Bechtel stated the commission received a proposal for tree removal at the property from Jason Wilcox. Bechtel distributed copies of the map for the commission to review. She stated the map indicates the deck on the site is virtually on the lake.
Bechtel stated that the proposal from Wilcox includes:
1. Removal of the red maple tree over the dock in the water.
2. Removal of a white oak tree by the fence with lower trunk decay.
3. Removal of all the debris along the fence from the water to the road.
4. Grading out composed matter along the fence.
5. Pruning and crown lifting of a red maple over the deck and water and
selective major limbs will be removed over another red oak over the house and the drive.
6. Light pruning of a pine and dogwood tree. Stumps will be ground below grade
and all grinding will be removed.
The commission reviewed the application with the applicant and agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, January 30th, 2010 at 8:20 a.m.
10-03 – NICHOLAS DICORLETO – 42 BREEN AVENUE – REQUEST FOR FINDING OF NO JURISDICTION
Bechtel noted that the applicant has also submitted an application to the Zoning Commission for a complete demolition and rebuild. Brown stated there are no wetlands around the property, however whenever you apply for a Special Permit a wetlands finding is required. Bechtel stated that Breen Avenue is part of the Old Colony Beach Association. Bechtel noted she visited the site and it was a fairly flat piece of property, however the next road over is Gorton Avenue and there is a wetland adjacent to that road. Bechtel stated it would have been her preference to have the 100’ review zone shown on the map because there is a wetland on the other side and it was likely the jurisdiction of this commission came right up to the back end of the property. She further stated in the future she would
like applicants to indicate where the nearest wetland is located.
Griswold asked if the house would be rebuilt in the same location. Brown indicated the house would be built on the same lot but further away from the wetland.
Dave McCulloch made a motion for a finding of no jurisdiction. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – January 26, 2010
REQUEST FOR BOND RELEASE – WOOD CREST ESTATES – WOOD CREST DRIVE
Kevin Kenny was present and stated that he had submitted a letter to the commission requesting the soil and erosion bond be released for the site. Bechtel stated the commission held the E & S Bond for this particular project based on the steep slopes and the construction of the driveway. Bechtel stated that Tom Metcalf submitted a letter to the Planning Commission stating the site has been significantly stabilized and therefore recommended the bond be released.
Bechtel stated her concern was the stormceptor unit that was installed at the base of the road and therefore would like to see a report on the condition of that stormceptor. She noted the town has not yet accepted the road but thought at some point the developer would be seeking that acceptance. Kenny indicated that was correct. Bechtel stated this was a big mechanical device and noted the town has had concerns about accepting these devices; therefore she would like to hold onto the bond money until an inspection of that stormceptor unit has been done to ensure it was installed properly. Kenny stated the unit was inspected by Metcalf and also recommended a portion of the Planning Commission bond be released as well. Bechtel stated her concern was that the drainage system may need to be
cleaned again. Kenny stated that was a possibility but once again stated that Metcalf has inspected the workings of the system all the way through the project. Bechtel stated she would like to know that the drainage system is functioning properly prior to release of the bond. Kenny stated Metcalf’s only comment was with regard to cleaning. Bechtel asked if he had a letter from the company who manufactured the system indicating they were on site when the unit was installed as requested by the commission when the approval was granted. Bechtel stated if there is verification that this did happen it could be submitted, however additionally she would still like to have the drainage system inspected.
Brown asked if the inspection would be that the system was cleaned out and functioning properly. Bechtel stated yes. Kenny submitted an invoice from CRS Environmental dated December 15, 2009 stating the system was cleaned.
Bechtel reviewed the invoice with the commission. Bechtel stated that was just what she wanted and thanked the applicant.
Evan Griswold made a motion to release the bond. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – January 26, 2010
REQUEST FOR BOND RELEASE – OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB
Brown stated she visited the site and noted it was stable, however the landscaping, clearing, cleaning and the plucking of invasive species was not done as approved. She noted it was done mechanically rather than by hand. Brown stated she received a letter from the landscape architect evaluating what was done at the site. She stated the replanting has been completed. She also noted that the large wetland area has been filled in with woodchips instead of the natural growth as intended. Therefore, Brown stated the site is stable but the project has not been completed in accordance with the approval granted by this commission, therefore she suggested the commission retain the bond until a restoration plan is submitted.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, January 30th, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Brown agreed to contact the landscape architect to see if she was available to meet the commission at the site. Bechtel also asked Ann Brown to bring a copy of the plan that was approved along with the landscape architects comments to the site walk. The commission also agreed to look at the parking lot lighting on the site.
OLD BUSINESS
09-36 – BRIAN FARNHAM – 29 NECK ROAD – INSTALL CEMENT PIERS FOR EXTERNAL STAIRCASE ON SOUTH SIDE OF GARAGE
Brian Farnham, owner of the property was present to discuss the application. He stated there were several requests on the application including the construction an external staircase, tying the garage into the existing septic and the addition of a 3’ wide gravel skirt around the garage foundation.
The commission reviewed the application and photographs provided by the applicant. Farnham stated he has been in contact with Ron Rose, Town Sanitarian and Building Official who has stated that there is no requirement to have a second egress from the garage.
Evan Griswold asked if the external staircase would be in addition to the internal stairs or a replacement. Farnham stated the current stairway is going to be reconfigured to become a part of the 20’ x 20’ lower room in an effort to connect it with the upstairs room which would isolate the garage area, therefore the external staircase would allow for a second egress out of the building.
Bechtel asked Mr. Farnham what the distance would be between the edge of the building and the flagged wetland. Mr. Farnham stated there is no buffer because the building was built in 1860 and the unattached garage was built in the 40’s. He stated there was a footprint from a stone foundation which was from the original dairy barn which actually
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – January 26, 2010
goes into the wetlands. He further stated that all of the area properties’ drainage/water has been directed down to his property so overtime it has become a vernal pool. Farnham stated if the commission applied the current 100’ buffer rule from the wetlands there would not be a house on the site
.
Bechtel stated she understood that, however noted that Mr. Farnham has been before this commission with prior applications and the approval for the unattached structure was limited to the existing footprint. Bechtel stated the commission also maintains that the wetland water issues would not have been so great if the property owner had not removed all of the trees from the site.
Bechtel stated that she feels that the encroachment that currently exists on the property into the wetland is sufficient and to discuss gravel to the back or an additional staircase to the south into the wetland seems excessive.
Farnham stated the location of the piers would be in an area that is basically a natural barrier between the wetlands and a solid surface of land. Bechtel stated that it probably only became more solid ground in the process of the work that has been done on the property. Farnham stated when he purchased the property there were huge amounts of waste in the area all around him by the previous owners, and therefore feels he has been a good custodian of the property and has put up barriers to protect the wetlands. Bechtel stated it is her opinion that this request is an excessive consumption of what is left of the wetland.
DiCamillo asked if there was a doorway on the side of the building. Farnham stated there were only three windows. DiCamillo asked if he considered putting a non-permanent structure that could be attached to the side of the building and could be lowered to the ground as needed and would not encroach on the wetlands. Farnham indicated he had not.
Griswold stated there was a lot of debris in the back of the property and noted that the applicant stated at the site walk that he would be willing to clean some of the old debris out of the area.
Evan Griswold discussed a different location where the commission had allowed a gravel skirt and noted he had been watching it over the years and felt it had stayed in place and functioned as it was intended to.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the cleaning of the debris in the rear of the barn and the installation of gravel 2 ft. wide to stabilize the area in the back and authorize Mr. Farnham to connect the barn (which is not under the jurisdiction of the IWWC but is within the review zone) to the septic. The exterior stairway was not approved.
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – January 26, 2010
McCulloch asked if the current septic system could handle the additional building. Farnham stated he would be discussing this issue with Mr. Rose, Town Sanitarian but noted there was no area for a new system.
Brown asked for clarification as to the process for the removal of the debris. The commission clarified that any removal was to be done by hand.
Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
09-37 – DONNA SCOTT – 43-1 SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD – PERMIT FOR EXISTING DECK
Bechtel stated the commission walked the site on December 12, 2010 to review the location of the in-ground propane tank. Bechtel stated that during the November meeting when the commission reviewed the application for the propane tank it was determined that the applicant had also added a deck to the property. The commission noted that the deck was not part of their review at that time.
Brown stated she issued a permit for the deck to replace the wood on the existing deck but also noted on the permit that if the footings needed to be altered in any way a wetlands permit would be required.
Bechtel asked if the footings were replaced. Groves stated she recalled that when the applicant discussed the application at the November meeting it was determined that the footings were replaced without a wetlands review. Bechtel reviewed the November minutes with the commission.
Discussion ensued. It was noted that the applicant received an administrative permit for the tank and Brown stated she would contact the applicant to apply for a permit for the installation of the piers for the deck on the property.
09-35 – KEVIN KEHOE/BARBARA STANLEY – 112 NECK ROAD – PERMIT FOR ACTIVITIES IN WETLANDS
Bechtel stated that she and Brown walked this property and met with the owners of the property. Bechtel stated the original the application requested activities permitted by right on the property and noted that when they walked the property they informed the owners this was not the case and it was indeed a regulated activity within a wetland. Bechtel stated the work has already been done including brush clearing, removal of invasive species, and the removal of large trees. She noted that the canopy is still intact on the property. Bechtel stated there was also a fair amount of stone relocation on the property.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – January 26, 2010
Bechtel stated she told the property owner that the commission would not have allowed the scope of what was done but noted some replanting has been done and informed the owner that any further activity in the wetland needed a to come before this commission.
Bechtel suggested that this property be monitored to ensure no further activity takes place and the new plantings survive the winter.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application for the activities within the wetlands with the provision that any further activity come before the commission. O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
09-32 – CHARLES LARSON – 1 LAKE DRIVE – CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 X 23 DECK AND HANDICAPPED RAMP
Bechtel stated the commission reviewed the application in November and asked the applicant to come back to the commission with some revisions. Elin Larson submitted a packet for the commission to review which contained expanded landscape details along with three possible designs reflecting a reduction in size as recommended by the commission at their November meeting. Brown stated the commission walked the site and was therefore familiar with the area. She stated the commission suggested that the deck be made smaller and the ramp be relocated.
Larson reviewed the information she submitted with the commission and explained in more detail the topography and elements of her property. She stated the deck size has been cut back at least 4 ft in the direction of the lake. She stated this proposal will not disturb any of the existing buffer land. Larson stated that Lake Drive slants down so whenever it rains water enters onto the property and that has been managed by a double wide gravel driveway. She further stated that they also installed railroad ties which has also helped handle the erosion beautifully.
Larson suggested reducing the deck by 4 ft. but retain access to the ramp. She further noted it would not impact any of the topography. She further stated it is up to the commission to determine whether disrupting what is on the north east side of the propery is what will be required or whether they can compromise with reducing and simplifying the deck. Larson reviewed Option 2 with the commission. Larson also expressed concern about having activity around her dug well which has been on the property for sixty or seventy years.
Bechtel suggested the commission visit the site again with the revised plans that have been submitted. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, January 30th, 2010 at 8:40 a.m.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – January 26, 2010
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
JOSEPH AND TAMARA MCARAW – 23 TALCOTT FARM ROAD – STATUS OF PLANTING RESTORATION PLAN
Bechtel stated this property was walked on November 1, 2009 by Evan Griswold, Sabine O’Donnell and Ann Brown. Bechtel asked how the property looked. Brown stated it looked great. Griswold stated it looked well stabilized and properly done.
The commission agreed to follow up with a site visit in June.
DISCUSSION OF A FORMAT AND REQUIRED FOLLOW UP FOR AN EXPANDED ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Bechtel stated the commission needed to discuss a format to track both enforcement actions by the commission as well as any of the properties that require follow up. Griswold suggested a tickler file be created. Bechtel stated she thought individual commission members could be assigned to follow up on some of the sites that are in close proximity to them or on a path they travel through frequently. She stated that would provide the commission with additional eyes and ears and if a problem was spotted that member could get in touch with Ann Brown immediately as opposed to waiting till the next meeting to address the issue.
Sabine O’Donnell stated that Bechtel had kept an excel spreadsheet of all of the applications which would be a good way to document and monitor all applications. The members also discussed some of the projects they would like to monitor.
HILLSIDE ENFORCEMENT
Bechtel stated the commission did receive an opinion from Don Fortunato, Soil Scientist , that the kettle hole under discussion is indeed a wetland under the jurisdiction of this commission. She reported that a letter has been sent to the four adjacent properties asking them to clean out the area. She noted that one property owner sent a letter back stating the hole was originally dug to bury horses years ago. Bechtel noted that when she met with Ann Brown last week she asked her to contact the property owners to clean out the wetland. Brown stated she had only received feedback from two of the four adjacent property owners. Brown agreed to contact all the property owners.
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – January 26, 2010
OTHER BUSINESS
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Dave McCulloch made a motion to reinstate the existing slate of officers. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
FEES AND FINES
Bechtel made a motion to double the permit fees for anyone that comes in for a permit after the fact. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The commission discussed fines for contractors and property owners. Bechtel asked Brown to explain the steps that would be taken for the commission to issue a fine. Brown stated the fine is separate from the permit issued. Brown stated the commission would take a vote as to the amount of the fine to be issued and then she or a police officer would issue a ticket. DiCamillo asked if there was a specific dollar amount. Bechtel suggested it could perhaps be based on a percentage of the cost of the job. Brown noted that the maximum fine is $1,500.. Bechtel suggested that the commission set up a fee structure that goes in increments from $250.00 to $1,500.00. Bechtel suggested that if equipment is being used on the site the fine start at $500.00. If it is a homeowner
that has done it himself then we start at $250.00. This will be discussed further as the need arises.
REGULATION REWRITE
The commission noted that the only outstanding issue still to be addressed in the rewrite is the buffer language. Evan Griswold stated he was still in favor of the buffer language used in New Hampshire. Bechtel noted that she had forwarded that information to Robb Linde to review as part of the rewrite. Griswold stated that the entire language did not need to be adopted but felt it had some good points.
OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB
Brown distributed copies of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission’s motion for approval as well as the approved site plan for the Old Lyme Country Club for the paddle court and new parking lot. Brown reviewed the plan with the commission. Brown also distributed copies of the letters received from the landscape architect. The commission also discussed and agreed to review the lighting at the site.
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – January 26, 2010
WORKSHOPS
O’Donnell expressed interest in attending the workshop presented by Steven Byrne. She also stated that she thought it would be helpful to have continuing education. Groves agreed to forward any workshop information that was available to the commission.
TREE REMOVAL NEAR A WETLAND
Brown stated she received a call from a homeowner about removing trees near a wetland. She stated in some cases it is fine for a homeowner to wait a month or so but it is not fine other times. She asked the commission if they would consider setting a policy with guidelines that would allow people to remove trees without waiting a month for a commission vote.
Brown stated she will allow the property owner take down dangerous trees but not remove the stump. She also noted it will encourage people to come in rather than avoid the process. Griswold stated he supported tree removal in dangerous situations but did not support granting permission for owners who did not want to wait a month for a commission review. O’Donnell stated she also thought the means of the tree removal should be considered because machines obviously do a lot more damage than a climbed tree.
Discussion ensued about various reasons trees would be removed without going to the commission. No guidelines or policies were set at this time.
15 ACADEMY LANE
Brown stated the property owner at 15 Academy Lane is going to be submitting an application and therefore asked if she could add him onto Saturday’s site walk agenda.
The commission stated that was fine. Brown agreed to contact him.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim L. Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
