OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Robb Linde, Dave McCulloch, Evan Griswold, Skip DiCamillo, Linda Krulikowski and Sabine O’Donnell. Also present were Kim Groves and Ann Brown.
NEW BUSINESS
REQUEST FOR BOND RELEASE – SOUTH LYME ESTATES
Bechtel noted that this piece of property was developed about the same time as Wood Crest Estates and is located directly opposite from the entrance to Point O’ Woods. Bechtel stated the Planning Commission received a letter from Thomas E. Metcalf dated January 16, 2010 that he has approved the bond release.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the bond release. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
09-37 – DONNA SCOTT – 43-1 SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD – PERMIT FOR EXISTING DECK
Bechtel stated that during last month’s meeting the commission requested that Ann Brown contact the applicant to submit a permit for the deck that already exists on the site. Brown agreed to contact the applicant prior to the March meeting. No action was taken.
09-32 – CHARLES LARSON – 1 LAKE DRIVE – CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 X 23 DECK AND HANDICAPPED RAMP
Bechtel stated that during the site walk the commission met with the Larson’s and their contractor, Bob Chapman, and reviewed the three proposals as well as what was currently exists at the site. She noted the commission members felt the Larson’s original proposal was the best and it also eliminated anybody walking along the far steep side of the lake.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the original proposal as presented, with the stipulation that vegetation to the west side and south corner of the ramp and deck should be left in its original state. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 2 – Minutes
February 23, 2010
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 INSTALLED DRYWELLS AT CORNERS OF HOUSE
Bechtel noted that the commission walked the site and at that time requested that the applicant’s landscape architect be present at the February meeting and provide a complete replanting & grading plan which shows the distance from the back of the porch to the edge of the lake. No one was present to represent the applicant so the application will be tabled until the next meeting. Ann Brown was asked to contact the landscape architect for the March meeting.
10-02 – TOM GRANT – 9 LAKE DRIVE – TREE REMOVAL IN PROXIMITY TO THE LAKE
Bechtel noted the commission walked the site and stated this property bordered some of the association’s right of way. Bechtel stated the commission discussed the fact that the tree closest to deck and the tree closest to the lake could be removed and the stumps ground. She further noted it was recommended that the tree along the fence line be pruned, cleaned and given a wide area of mulch to encompass its roots. Griswold stated he revisited the site on his own and stated the tree along the fence does appear to have some rot along the back and therefore, he recommended that the applicant be allowed to remove that tree as well.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application to remove the three trees, as noted, with the stipulation that the silt fencing be installed along the lake prior to any debris removal along the fence line. Janet Bechtel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB – RELEASE OF BOND REQUEST
Bechtel stated that the commission visited the property. Brown stated she spoke with both the facilities manager and the landscape architect and was in the process of drafting a letter that would request a repair and restoration plan. Brown further noted that there are items that have not been completed in compliance with the plan.
Griswold stated that Tom Metcalf’s letter indicated that there were elements of the landscape plan that were not followed at all and the lighting was improperly placed. Griswold stated he had a real issue with the lighting and said it was shining right into the wetlands and research has shown very definitively that excessive lighting interferes with wetland functions as it relates to amphibians. Brown stated the lighting was approved on the plan, however some of it not quite where it was approved but there are formalities of the parking area itself that have not been completed including the surface and islands.
Brown stated the lights themselves appear to be pretty much what was approved. McCulloch asked if she meant in terms of the lights themselves or the placement. Brown stated the placement. Griswold stated the choice of lighting is really inappropriate due to the proximity of the wetland. Brown stated
Page 3 – Minutes
February 23, 2010
those light as far as she can tell are what are detailed on the plan and they are required to be turned off
by 10:00. She stated when she visited the site they were off. Bechtel stated she knows that this commission does not get involved with the lighting because that falls under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission, however considering the Old Lyme Country Club did not follow through on what they said they were going to do and some of the stuff was completed incorrectly she suggested the commission have a discussion with the OLCC about getting the proper lighting in there. Brown stated the letter which Richard Snarski wrote, which was part of the record ,was not followed. Brown stated she would also discuss the lighting issue with the country club and see if they would be willing to modify the lighting as well as install timers and/or motion sensors.
MINUTES
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED JANUARY 26, 2010
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED JANUARY 30, 2010
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
KEVIN W. SIRONTAK – 102 BOSTON POST ROAD – VIOLATION, DUMPING IN THE WETLANDS
MR. & MRS. RICHARD OESCHGER – 100 BOSTON POST ROAD – VIOLATION, DUMPING IN WETLANDS
MR. ADVAH AND MRS. LORRAINE REYNOLDS – 38 HILLSIDE ROAD – VIOLATION, DUMPING IN THE WETLANDS
Bechtel stated that the commission walked the site back in November of 2009 as a result of an application submitted by Helen Flynn to construct a new home at 35 Hillside Road. She stated this property was located across from the drainage ditch. Bechtel stated at the time the commission walked the site they noticed that the ditch had been filled in and the commission requested that the neighbors be notified to clean it out. Bechtel stated that this property was flagged a wetland on the map submitted with the Flynn’s application. Bechtel stated as a result she drafted a letter to the neighbors which was sent out in November. She stated at the November Inland Wetlands and Watercourses meeting the commission decided to request that a Soil Scientist review the property to confirm it was
indeed a wetland and under the jurisdiction of this commission. Bechtel stated that Soil Scientist, Don Fortunato, visited the site and submitted a letter stating that it is indeed a wetland, definitely not highly functioning
Page 4 – Minutes
February 23, 2010
but a wetland none the less and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the commission. Bechtel stated the commission requested that the neighbors simply pull the debris that they have been dumping (which was really nothing more than leaves, brush and cut up logs) out of the ditch and cease using it as a dumping area. Bechtel stated since the letter was sent out the commission received two letters back from the neighbors stating a variety of different things. She noted that a Cease and Desist Order was sent out by Ann Brown, Enforcement Officer and as a result this Show Cause Hearing was added to the February agenda. Brown stated that was correct. Bechtel stated it was now up to the neighbors to explain why they have problem cleaning out the ditch.
Mrs. Lorraine Reynolds of 38 Hillside Road questioned who determined the area to be a wetland. Bechtel stated the soil scientist. Reynolds stated it was never a wetland just a lot. She stated the area flooded in 1982. Bechtel stated the commission did receive her letter explaining what occurred in 1982. Bechtel stated that the Show Cause Hearing was really an opportunity to ask if the neighbors had a problem cleaning out what is now designated a wetland by a soil scientist.
Mr. Oeschger of 100 Boston Post Road expressed concern that the commission only received the report from the soil scientist yesterday. Brown explained that the commission had received an email response from Don Fortunato back in December. She stated after she sent out the Cease and Desist Order she knew they the property owners wanted to talk to the commission and therefore requested that Mr. Fortunato formalize his response and he did so. Brown also stated she would be happy to provide the neighbors with copies of the emails back in December.
Mr. Oeschger stated he did not feel that it was the job of a soil scientist to determine a wetland. Mr. Oeschger also asked the commission members to introduce themselves for the record. The members introduced themselves. Mr. Oeschger stated he has lived at the property for 35 years and the first time he has heard about this determination was in a letter he received from the commission. Mr. Oeschger asked how the property across the street was determined to be wetlands. Bechtel stated that the Flynn’s, who are across the street and constructing a new home, hired a surveyor to survey their property and re-stake it in order to get a building permit to build a house and at some point in time during that process somebody flagged that area as a wetland.
Mr. Oeschger asked who can flag a wetland. Bechtel stated she did not know what the exact procedure was with the Flynn’s but knew that they came before this commission with an application and map that noted there were wetlands.
Mr. Oeschger asked who flagged the property. Bechtel stated that she did not know but noted it was really not the issue. Bechtel stated that when the commission visited the site and saw dumping they requested that the dumping stop. Then the commission verified the condition of that swale by requesting that a soil scientist (who is the only person who can determine a wetland in the State of Connecticut by state statutes) go to the site.
Page 5 – Minutes
February 23, 2010
Mr. Oeschger again expressed concern that the report was received yesterday. Bechtel stated once again it was not decided yesterday, she stated the letter clearly indicated that he visited the site in early December.
Bechtel stated that the best way to solve the issue would be for the three adjoining property owners to hire their own soil scientist. Mr. Oeschger stated he did not see a need for a soil scientist. Bechtel stated they could hire their own expert to refute the findings; if not, it stands as a wetland.
Oeschger stated he has lived at this property since 1974 and therefore felt his property was grandfathered. McCulloch stated if there is a wetland on a property than this commission is bound by state statute to protect that wetland. Bechtel stated that dumping in the wetland is not a permitted use as of right.
Reynolds stated she felt the designation would depreciate her property value. Bechtel stated this would not impact the value and no one was taking away property, the commission was simply requesting that there be no dumping and that the leaves and brush be removed.
Reynolds expressed concern that there would be flooding in the area if the brush was removed from the ditch.
Discussion ensued. Bechtel stated that this was a very simple issue and the commission was only asking that the dumping of debris stop.
Mrs. Oeschger stated she did not feel it was fair that any work done on their property within 100’ feet of a wetland would be regulated by this commission. McCulloch stated that is true of all properties in town. It was also noted that 80% of the Town of Old Lyme has wetlands.
Mr. Adavah stated in 1982when the area was flooded he made a deal with Wallace Moore, Selectmen at the time, to install a pipeline to prevent flooding down Hillside Road. He stated he allowed them to go through his property. He stated at that time he was told he could fill in the area. Reynolds stated there is an easement on her property on file with the town that drains that road so it doesn’t flood out the adjoining properties. She also noted that when the road was constructed it was not built as depicted on the plan.
McCulloch asked how this was connected to the depression. Reynolds stated there was never any water in it in the summer; she stated it only held water when the ground froze. She further stated there was no livestock in it. She also stated they had farmed the area.
Brown stated the only work the commission has requested is to remove the yard debris from the wetland suppression. She stated she visited the site that afternoon and met with Kevin Sirotnak of 102 Boston Post Road.
Page 6 – Minutes
February 23, 2010
Mr. Sirotnak stated he has lived at 102 Boston Post Road for six years. He stated he did not know the history of the area but he stated as a learning process he reviewed all the records and there is nothing in Town Hall stating it is a wetland. He stated if the commission has the authority to just add this wetland to their inventory and then tell the property owners they must remove the debris he found that to be disturbing, however if that is what the situation is then it is what it is. Griswold stated this commission is mandated by state statute. He stated this commission is here today because the State of Connecticut has decided that wetlands need to be protected.
Mr. Oeschger stated he felt his assessment should be adjusted because this commission is telling him he can’t put his logs or brush into the ditch. Therefore, he feels the monetary value of his property has been impacted.
Linde stated that in the State of Connecticut a wetland does not require water. He stated a wetland is determined by the type of soil that is in the ground.
Bechtel stated this commission received a report stating this is a wetland, and therefore if you don’t want it to be a wetland and you don’t think it is wetland than the three properties owners should hire a wetland scientist to take soil samples on all of the properties and if a letter is issued to the commission stating it is not a wetland than this issue is done. She stated the commission would take their soil scientists recommendation over the commission’s, but presently there is a letter stating that this commission regulates this wetland.
Linde stated that the ordinance states two things. The property owner has the right to use the land and the commission has an obligation to regulate how the land is used.
Linde stated the only way that this commission can change its view is if another wetlands soil scientist comes before the commission and provides the commission with documentation that it is not a wetland.
Bechtel once again asked if we could all just try to find a way to resolve the issue of a small depression that accidentally came to our attention and unfortunately needs to be regulated and all the commission is requesting is that no further dumping continues.
Mrs. Sirotnak stated the issue is, if one of us wants to sell our homes and a real estate agent shows the home and they disclose this area is now a wetland she felt this would deter potential buyers from purchasing the property.
The property owners also stated that 35 Hillside had filled in their property prior to construction of their new home. Sirontak stated that the topographical area of that lot was a flat land bowl. Bechtel stated the commission walked the vacant property and felt it was flat. Reynolds stated that was incorrect and the low area collected water.
Page 7 – Minutes
February 23, 2010
After further discussion the commission agreed to leave the Cease and Desist in effect and in early Spring Ann Brown will contact each of the three individual property owners to arrange a time to visit the properties and decide what will need to be done to remediate the properties.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Bechtel spoke to Ann Brown regarding the protocol for issuing a Cease and Desist Order and expressed her concern over the handling of enforcements.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
DISCUSSION OF A FORMAT AND REQUIRED FOLLOW-UP FOR AN EXPANDED ENFORCEMENT REPORT
No action was taken.
REGULATION REWRITE
No action was taken.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
