INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Robb Linde, Sabine O’Donnell, Linda Krulikowski, Skip DiCamillo, Dave McCulloch and Evan Griswold.
Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
MINUTES
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED MARCH 23, 2010
Kim Groves noted the minutes were amended to reflect additions submitted by both Robb Linde and Sabine O’Donnell.
Robb Linde 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 APRIL 17, 2010
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the site walk minutes. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
10-07 – SCOTT WISNER – 9 APPLE TREE DRIVE – CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
The commission walked the property on April 17, 2010. Photographs were distributed for the commission to review. Scott Wisner stated he provided a summary of the proposed work along with his application to the commission. He stated the proposal is to construct a 24 x 16 addition off the rear of the house on a full foundation. Wisner stated at the site walk the commission requested additional information. Wisner stated he modified the site plan to show contour lines as well the potential for a retaining wall in the rear if determined to be necessary. He stated his proposal was not to change the grade in the back yard. He stated the runoff will be dealt with via drywells so there will be no impact on the wetland area. He stated that every structure on
his property is between the
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 4-27-10
50 and 100 ft review area. He stated his property was approved in 1995 prior to the changes in the regulations.
Robb Linde stated he understood the proposal to be to construct the addition and then reinstall a deck. Wisner stated that was correct. He noted the deck would be done in the future and the size would be approximately 8’ x 24’.
Wisner noted that even with the large amount of rains in the past few months he had no erosion on his property.
Linde stated what concerned him was the 3 to 1 pitch down from the lawn. Griswold expressed concern about the lawn clippings.
O’Donnell asked how the commission felt about the proposed retaining wall. She stated she felt there was enough natural buffer, vegetation and so on. She also expressed concern about what impact the retaining wall would have on the wetlands. Wisner stated the retaining wall would not encroach any further towards the wetland area which is 1,300 sq. ft out of 29,000 sq. ft of the property. Wisner pointed out on the photographs the location of the wall and also noted if there was a concern about runoff he would install a perforated pipe on the back side of the retaining wall. Griswold stated he didn’t know if a retaining wall was necessary. Wisner stated he put it on the plan if the commission determined it to be required. Griswold noted that the property had good
draining soils.
Linde asked when the deck was originally built. Wisner stated in 1997. Linde stated his concern was the house was built and then a deck was added on and now the deck is going to be replaced by an addition to the house and there are plans to put a deck back on again, therefore he is a little concerned about the continued encroachment toward the wetland of building and activity on the property. Wisner stated he did not anticipate anything beyond this. He stated his situation was that the current house was inadequate for his family and he really didn’t want to move. McCulloch noted that any additional improvements would still have to come back before the commission.
The applicant was told he did not need to attend next month’s meeting.
10-08 – JOSEPH CHONTOS – 33 NECK ROAD – PERMIT FOR SEPTIC TEST PITS AT 38 NECK ROAD.
Joe Chontos presented his proposal. He oriented the commission to the site. He stated the lot was adjacent to the Old Lyme Marina. He noted the plans delineated the tidal wetlands line as well as the inland wetlands line. He noted there is no dock on the property, however there is a valid granted permit for a dock. He stated this application
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 4-27-10
is just for the test pits for the septic and there are two holes which are located right where there is small rock exposure. He stated if it is determined with test pits that they are boulders he would propose to remove them and fill them with the appropriate material.
Chontos stated if the application is approved and the test pits show what he hopes they will show he does not yet have a firm plan for what he will do at the site. He stated the major concern for him in building the dock is the difficulty of access to the lot. He stated it is a fairly dangerous section of road to cross back and forth and he has young children.
O’Donnell asked who determined the inland wetlands on the property. Chontos stated that Soil Scientist Richard Snarski did the delineations and flagged the area. O’Donnell asked for the report. The commission noted that often reports were not generated by soil scientists but a line was placed on the site plan for the soil scientist to certify to the mapping. Brown also noted that she had discussed the site with Richard Snarski and he has verified with her his findings on the property. Chontos also noted his name is mentioned in the notes on the plans.
O’Donnell asked Chontos if his goal was to build a residence or a boat house. Chontos stated he would not be building a residence, but would like to construct a dock on the property for kayaking, viewing and/or maybe a small sailboat. He stated because of the traffic on the road he would like to have a building with a bathroom and shower facility to prevent the continual crossing back to the house.
Bechtel stated the applicant submitted with the application a very complete project description, sequence of construction, design construction and maintenance program and noted that they are available in the office for any of the commission members to review.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, May 13th at 5:30 p.m. It was noted that parking would be available at the applicant’s home and his access was off of Huntley Road.
10-09 – CHRISTOPHER VERNOTT (APPLICANT)– J. MOYNIHAN – PROPERTY OWNER - 10 BILLOW ROAD – PROPOSAL TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CAST CONCRETE STAIR AND A MASONRY PAVER PATIO WITH A NEW WOOD FRAMED STAIR AND TERRACE.
Chris Vernott, Architect and applicant for the homeowner James Moynihan. Vernott distributed pictures of the property which show the existing patio that is proposed to be replaced with a wood terrace. Vernott stated the house was recently remodeled.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 4-27-10
Vernott reviewed the summary of work, sequence of work and the scheduling with the commission. (available in file).
Linde asked Mr. Vernott if he had any drawings. Vernott indicated they were submitted with the application. He stated they are not a survey but are fairly accurate. Griswold asked if the proposal was to essentially match what is currently existing except for the replacement of pavers with decking.
Brown stated there is a stone wall at the rear boundary which separates this activity from the wetlands.
Brown suggested this application be handled by an administrative permit because of the minimal impact. Linde stated he would just like to be sure when the project is completed that the deck is no larger than what is currently there. O’Donnell asked if the commission had a recommendation on building materials. Griswold stated if the decking is IPE it will be non-toxic and further stated that all of the pressure treated lumber today does not have arsenic in it. O’Donnell asked what they currently put in it. Griswold stated it is now a copper base without arsenic.
Evan Griswold made a motion to handle the application administratively. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
10-4 DONNA SCOTT – 43-1 SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD – PERMIT FOR EXISTING DECK
The commission walked the site for the second time on Saturday, April 17, 2010. The commission also reviewed recent photographs taken of the site as well as a print out of the property from the multiple listing services prior to the house being sold to the applicant.
Linde stated what he saw at the visit and what was confirmed from the pre-construction condition is the deck itself has essentially been replaced in the same location but there is an additional stairwell from the deck, two landings and a hot tub that has been installed between the deck and the wetland without a permit.
Bechtel stated one of the issues was the work had been done without permits, but asked the commission what the feeling was on the additional encroachment into the buffer and wetland. Griswold stated he also felt there was additional encroachment from the stairway, landing and hot tub.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 4-27-10
Bechtel asked with the additional encroachments what the distance was presently to the wetlands. The commission reviewed the drawing which showed the additional structures.
Brown stated the deck repair was approved originally in a zoning permit, however if new footings were required the property was to submit an application for a wetlands permit. Brown stated that was what they were going to do and it turned out they had added on the new steps and deck for the hot tub. Therefore, Brown stated this application is for the footings that were replaced as well as the new stairs and landing.
The contractor stated he did submit a new drawing. Brown stated it was permitted with the application on 3/23/10. Linde stated that was post construction. Brown stated that was correct and the applicant has paid the penalty.
Scott noted for the record that she has four dogs and she has just invested in Koi fish for the pond and she is environmentally conscious and she has spoken to several people in the hot tub business about getting the water to a PH that would be fine to empty it and noted she has also investigated having a company come and pump the hot tub out so there is no effect on the wetlands.
Linde stated there will be an increased use within 27 ft of the existing stream. Linde stated if the applicant had come before the commission with a plan to replace what was there originally and what has been added the commission would probably have limited the approval to the replacement of what was originally on the site.
Linde stated there is no loss of use and all kinds of potential impact on the wetlands by putting the deck and hot tub in the close proximity to the wetlands and creating additional traffic by forcing people to walk further around the deck. Scott stated the people actually walk down the stairs. Linde stated there would be foot traffic on the ground around the hot tub. He stated it is not something he would have been in favor of. Bechtel also raised concern about the mowing of the lawn in the close proximity of the wetland.
Scott stated she was very willing to plant any type of planting that the IWWC recommends to create a buffer between this area and the wetlands. She further stated she has no further plans to do anything near the wetlands.
McCulloch stated the site allows room for a 20 ft. buffer. Brown stated there are shrubs up to the base of the hot tub and the steps. Scott also noted that there are several large trees.
Bechtel stated she would like to have a proper survey done of the back corner with a site plan with all structures as built in place with grades shown and wetlands flagged and
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – 4-27-10
marked. She also requested the plan include a planting plan that shows a 25 ft. buffer along the stream to protect it. Griswold stated if there was something in place that would
prevent the use of this area (between the edge of the hot tub and the wetland) that would be a no mow zone. The contractor stated that the only access to get into the tub is from the on the deck and the staircase.
Linde asked if the hot tub had been there for awhile. Scott stated she recently had the hot tub moved to the property.
Brown asked if Scott planned to continue to use the lawn beyond the brook. Scott stated that was correct. Brown asked if she would want access through the buffer to be able to cross over to the other side of the lawn. The contractor stated the access did not necessarily need to be in this location.
O’Donnell stated she supported also getting a site plan and landscaping plan for the property.
Linde stated he would also like to see an alternative location for the hot tub shown on the plan. Scott stated there was no other logical location. Linde stated if the hot tub is currently on the south side he would like to see an alternative plan with the hot tub on the east side. Scott stated there are currently well lines, gas lines and also the air conditioning units which will be installed in this area. O’Donnell stated that the A/C units are not currently on the property. Linde stated that this work was also within the review zone. The contractor stated that permits were already granted for the units. Brown stated she was unclear whether they had been issued or not. Linde stated the revised site plan should also include these units.
Scott expressed concern about being able to move structures on her current limited budget. Linde stated that both the applicant and the contractor were well aware that this area was under wetland review and the necessary permits were required. Linde stated if the process is done correctly the first time then no additional costs will be incurred.
Linde also noted that contractor has a responsibility to the property owner and the commission to obtain the necessary permits and do the work in the correct order.
Bechtel reiterated she would a survey submitted showing the front facade of the house back towards the stream with specific distances, specific grades and proper dimensions of the house, deck, stairs and hot tub and the exact location of the stream. This plan will clarify what is on the ground and show the location of the 25 ft. buffer and can be put into the file to travel with this property. She further stated when that is complete a simple drawing which can overlay the plan with a proposed alternative location for the hot tub should also be submitted.
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – 4-271-0
Linde stated he would also like a specific delineation as to where the wetland is and not just the stream along with any wetlands on the site. He further stated since he understood there was a desire to maintain lawn on the other side of the stream he would like to know exactly what is planned for that area.
Scott stated what is on the other side of the pond is existing. The contractor asked if the commission had determined if the existing survey was adequate and the decking and landing and other structures could just be added to it. . Linde stated they also want to see the contours.
Krulikowski asked why the hot tub needed to be moved. Bechtel stated the commission asked for an alternative location. Krulikowski stated that is indicating the commission wants the hot tub moved. Linde stated prudent alternatives are standard requests.
Bechtel stated this commission would rather look at a plan before a permit is granted rather than have people do what they want and then come in with their plan and explain why they did it and then grant the permit. Bechtel stated the procedures should have been followed. Therefore, if money is as tight as it is then she would recommend that the applicant not be so hasty to pursue expensive plans but wait and err on the side of caution to get your permits in place so that when the work is done it is done with the proper permits. Bechtel stated none of that has been followed on this property and it is disturbing to this commission to have this activity which is so close to a stream. Bechtel stated the commission has not stated the decking has to be removed but she is very concerned that we have an
as-built A-2 Survey of what is on the property so that the commission has a good understanding of the site.
Linde stated the commission is requesting the wetland be flagged and when that is complete a soil scientist can comment on the potential impact from the additional structures to the site. Linde stated having that expert testimony will assist the commission in making their decision.
Robb Linde requested that Ann Brown provide the contractor and the homeowner with a bulleted list of what the commission requested for the next meeting.
10-5 – JOAN BOZEK – ROBERT G. LINDE II – 16 MANSEWOOD – REPAIR DRIVEWAY AND INSTALL CATCH BASINS
Robb Linde recused himself from the application.
Bechtel noted for the record she walked the site.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – 4-27-10
Robb Linde presented the application. He noted when they were last in front of the commission they did not have a specific plan as to what they were going to put in place. He stated they contracted with Matt White of Angus McDonald and Gary Sharpe and Associates to pull together a plan. He also noted the question was raised at the last meeting as to the ownership of the lot that the work was being done. He stated all the work that is proposed will be done on his property He stated the proposal is to install a catch basin and let the water run through a pipe underneath the road out through the existing rock wall (which will have to be rebuilt) to some rip-rap and out to a level spreader. He stated the purpose of that is to slow down the volume of water and spread it out to avoid
some of the scouring on the property. He stated the goal is to protect the driveway and repair the existing conditions.
The commission reviewed the photographs of the site. Brown asked how much of the wall needs to be rebuilt. Linde indicate it was a small area and silt fence would be installed while the working was going on.
Joan Bozek stated that they are relatively new homeowners in the area but the neighbors, The Barton’s have indicated that in the fourteen years they have never experienced this current situation. She further stated they have observed that one of the neighbors seems to be changing some of the landscaping on the other side of the wetlands including perhaps building up their lawn with a rock wall and therefore she felt some of the activity may have contributed to the run down of water onto the property. She noted they had no evidence but were curious if that situation has had an impact on their property. She further stated every action in and around a wetland has a downstream impact.
Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION
J0E WREN – BABASULI – 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD
Joe Wren, Professional Engineer addressed the commission. He noted he has not been retained yet but wanted to discuss the application before he spent anytime creating a plan.
Wren stated what he visited the site. . He stated the existing garage extremely restricts the line of sight from any where. Therefore, Wren proposed to completely remove the garage and create three parallel parking spaces. (Wren presented a plan outlining the area). He stated the spaces would be approximately 12’ from the existing edge of pavement. He stated the applicant would also propose to do a 6’ to 8’ high- stone masonry retaining wall so no grading will be necessary. Wren stated it would be his goal to save as many of the trees as possible but noted it may be necessary to remove 2 or 3 of the less desirable trees. Wren stated the location of the spaces would provide convenient
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC -4-27-10
access to their stairway down to the dwelling. Wren also noted he had not investigated the septic system which may need to be improved.
Griswold noted that when the commission reviewed the site in prior applications one of the items discussed was the possibility of removing the garage and creating a parking pad in that location for a couple of cars to park. Griswold stated he felt this current proposal was far safer. Wren stated exiting from the current garage is very dangerous due to the sight lines. Wren also noted this area could also be used for potential septic upgrades.
Brown also noted that the applicant would need to retain driveway permits and possibly an approval from the Zoning Commission depending on the amount of fill needed to be brought into the site.
O’Donnell asked why the proposal did not incorporate the area of the existing garage and just add more spaces to that. Wren indicated there was a utility pole in the way.
Robb Linde stated he noticed the garage currently being used as well as the same car parked across the street, therefore he questioned if the property owners has a right to use that property for parking. Brown stated they did have rights for a period of time but that has ended.
Brown recommended that the septic issue be resolved to be sure the proposed parking didn’t restrict any septic improvements.
Griswold suggested that pavers be used in order to minimize runoff.
Wren stated he thought he would be back with a formal application next month.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Brown distributed the enforcement spread sheet. Brown stated that she felt the spread sheet should have less on it and then have a separate page with much more extensive information for each application.
Brown stated if there are other columns you would like added or specific information should would be happy to add them. Griswold suggested that the contractor’s name be added as well. Linde stated he would like to see this in a situation where if somebody comes in and they would like the names of the professionals we could provide the sheet and that will provide the information and action of those applications that the particular contractor was involved in.
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – 4-27-10
O’Donnell asked about the Inland Wetlands Actions required column. O’Donnell stated she felt this information would be helpful to the commission. Brown agreed but expressed having too much information on the sheet it would become difficult to read. She suggested a link to specific actions. Linde agreed. O’Donnell stated she felt the action points were the key and felt it was easy to look at the file rather than have a separate sheet. Brown stated she felt the timelines and other pertinent information would be helpful on separate sheets including a synopsis of the file rather than having to flip through an entire file. O’Donnell stated she felt it was very important as a commission member to get the action items prior to the meeting so she is prepared at the
meeting. Once again she stated she felt it was important to have a separate list of the action items in order to keep track of them. Brown stated she would create one sheet with all the action items.
Ann Brown also reviewed several properties with the commission that had done emergency repair work as a result of the large amount of rainfall in March. The properties discussed were:
1. 220/222 Whippoorwill Road – Brown indicated they would submit a plan when
the project was completed.
2. 9 Browns Lane - Brown indicated that this project was not finished yet but a plan
would be submitted when the project was completed.
3. The intersection of Flat Rock Hill Road/Mile Creek. – Discussion ensued about
Public Works meeting with Tom Metcalf to discuss the engineering needs of that
road.
Brown also reported that the job trailer that was located out in the swamp by Four Mile River has been removed.
Brown also reported that Richard Battalino will begin removal of the trees on the Mile Creek property.
Brown reported that Brett Painting on the Corner of Rte 156 and Four Mile River is storing paint supplies outside of the building in close proximity to the wetlands which is not permitted.
Bechtel made a motion to adjourn. Linde seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
