MINUTES
OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2010
PRESENT WERE: Vice Chair Robb Linde, Sabine O’Donnell, Dave McCulloch and Linda Krulikowski.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED APRIL 25, 2010
Linda Krulikowski provided some typographical corrections on Page 6 to the minutes. Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
10-10 – WILLIAM AND DEBRA LACY – 34 & 35 SHORE ACRES ROAD – PROPOSED HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY LOCATION
Brown distributed the town assessor’s map to orient the commission with the location of the property within Point O’ Woods. Brown stated the applicant has also made an application to the Planning Commission for the reconfiguration of lot lines. Brown noted that this application is not a subdivision and therefore generally the Inland Wetlands Commission does not review or approve Lot Line Reconfigurations but the applicant has chosen to submit an application to show how the lots will be reconfigured. Linde asked if the applicant would have to come back before the commission prior to development. Brown indicated that was correct. Brown stated it is currently one tiny lot and one large lot and the proposal is to create two building lots. Linde asked if there were originally two
building sites. Brown stated there are two parcels of land. Linde asked if the redrawing of the building lines changed the use of the land (in other words after the reconfiguration could a second house be constructed where it could not of been prior). Brown stated there intention is to create a second lot that can be built on. Linde asked if they were able to put a house on the site now. Brown stated not as it currently exists.
Page 2 – Minutes
May 25, 2010
Brown stated that Don Fortunato has marked out the soils on the property. Linde asked if a scaled drawing was submitted showing the original lot. Brown stated it was not. Brown suggested the commission request the applicant stake out the house location.
Tony Hendriks arrived. Linde asked Mr. Hendrik’s: “for the record as the lots are currently laid out can two houses be constructed on the property without redrawing the boundary lines”. Hendriks replied no. McCulloch requested that Mr. Hendriks stake out the house location prior to the site walk. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 6:15 p.m.
10-11 – BABASULI – 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A VEHICLE PULL-OFF AND PARKING AREA.
Joe Wren, Professional Engineer, stated he presented an preliminary plan and had an informal discussion with the commission at the April meeting. Wren stated since that meeting additional surveying was done and elevations were added to the plan, and the individual trees have been located on the site plan.
Wren stated there is currently no where to park on the property. He stated previously the applicant had permission to park across the street but was unclear if that was still an option. Wren also noted that this street was difficult for pedestrian traffic. Wren stated the proposal is to create three parking spaces on the property. He stated initially he looked at perpendicular parking spaces but noted it was not suitable for two reasons. He stated it would cause vehicles to back out onto the roadway and would take up a greater footprint and require a larger retaining wall. Wren stated he therefore designed this proposed parking area which will accommodate three cars parallel parked. Wren stated the garage is proposed to be removed. He noted the surface of parking area on
this plan is shown to be asphalt but based on comments from the commission the applicant is willing to install pavers rather than asphalt. Wren stated on the second sheet of the plan there is a detail provided for the retaining wall. He stated the wall would be constructed of a natural stone and mortar with a maximum height of six feet and it would feather out to essentially nothing on both sides. He stated the parking surface would slope back out towards the roadway gutters so any storm water runoff would not go over the wall and down the property towards the lake it would go back into the road gutter. Wren also noted with stone pavers there would be minimal runoff. He also noted that the entire area of this activity is only .038 acres. He stated the wall will have a concrete base and the parking area will be backfilled.
Page 3 – Minutes
May 25, 2010
Wren demonstrated on the plan how the area will be safely constructed. He stated the trees that will need to be removed on the plan are indicated. He also stated there is a note on the plan that states that any other trees besides the ones that are called out on the plan that need to be removed must be approved by the commission. He stated there is also a note that states when the topsoil and trees are removed nothing can be stockpiled on the site longer than 48 hours.
Wren stated the activity distance from Rogers Lake at the shortest point is approximately 60 feet and in the location where the house is in between is approximately 75 feet. He stated the entire property is within the 100’ of the upland review area. Wren concluded by stating the activity is limited to 1390 sq. ft.
O’Donnell noted that prior plans submitted to the commission indicated that this area was intend for the use of an upgraded septic system, therefore she wondered how this new plan would impact a possible future septic system area. Wren stated the plan still shows the two test hole locations and noted there would still be enough room but stated currently there is no plans to upgrade the system. Wren stated there is also an area of fewer trees that might be suitable and less steep. He stated this area was not shown before because of the proposed retaining wall and driveway area. Brown asked how many yards of material would be brought into the site. Wren stated 156 cubic yards which would be approximately 10 truck loads.
McCulloch asked how the water is removed from behind the wall. Wren stated there are 4” PVC pipe drains.
O’Donnell asked if the plan shows where the gutters are located on the road. Wren stated the gutter is essentially in the shoulder and the shoulder line and is not marked on the plan. Wren stated there is not a lot of drainage in this area. Wren also noted with the stone pavers a lot of the rain/water will be absorbed into the ground.
Krulikowski asked where the well was located. Wren stated he did not know specifically but was told it was within the footprint of the house.
Brown asked Mr. Wren if he had spoken to Public Works about obtaining a Driveway Permit. Wren indicated he had not yet.
Page 4 – Minutes
May 25, 2010
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
Linde asked the commission members if they felt a public hearing should be held on this application given the sensitive nature of this property and the potential for significant impact. Linde stated he feels a hearing gives the commission the best opportunity to protect the property. McCulloch asked if there was going to be a significant impact. Linde stated it is the likelihood or potential for significant impact. McCulloch and Linde stated they felt there is especially given the slope of the property. Brown also noted it gives the commission the power to ask additional questions. O’Donnell stated she thought there was significant activity with the removal of trees and building a six foot wall. Linde stated it was not significant activity but significant impact. Krulikowski
stated she also agreed a public hearing should be held.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to hold a public hearing on this application at the June 22, 2010 meeting. O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
10-13 – O’CONNOR – 108 SILL LANE – REPAIR STORM DAMAGE
Dick O’Connor introduced himself and his contractor Mr. Parker. Mr. O’Connor distributed photographs of the site. He stated it is the stone house that sits right next to the stream. He stated in the heavy rain in late March there was an extraordinary amount of water that came over the dam which created a series of problems. He stated it moved some stones that were adjacent to the dam which are now distributed throughout the streambed. He stated it also eroded the area directly underneath the patio and the patio plays a role in supporting the dam. He stated he felt this may put the area at some risk which would put other areas also at risk. Mr. O’Connor reviewed and explained the photographs with the commission members.
O’Connor stated his proposal is to just restore the area. He further stated under the regulations he thought he might have the opportunity to do this work as a matter of right but he would like to have the commission’s approval. He stated he would like to do the work when the water level is low in Mid-July through August 1st, 2010.
Steve Parker, Contractor, stated an excavator on steel tracks would be required to do the repair and move the rocks. He stated the steel tracks have low ground pressure. He stated one of his concerns is whether the rocks currently on the site are adequate to restore the area or whether larger rocks should be used. O’Donnell asked how the excavator worked. Parker explained it has continuous belts like a tank. O’Donnell asked how the site would be accessed. Parker stated there is an area downstream.
Page 5 – Minutes
May 27, 2010
O’Donnell asked about the construction debris. Parker stated he assumed the material was part of the dam and they would be cleaning up the area.
Brown asked if more patio would be added. O’Connor stated the patio would remain just as it was prior. Brown asked if any fines (materials) would be brought into the site. Parker stated he would like the commission’s input as to whether they thought some larger rocks should be brought in and be combined with the smaller material at the site. Brown stated the larger stones in theory are still at the site. Parker stated his question is whether they are large enough since they have moved so far down the stream. He stated typically in a stream/river you use about 1 to 2 yard rocks. Brown stated it sounds as though you feel it would be right to bring in some larger stones to secure the area. Parker stated he did not want to be back again next year repairing
again, so therefore he thought larger stones would make the area more secure.
McCulloch stated he felt it would be better to bring in fines rather than mine them out of the streambed. Parker stated he would not be digging in the streambed. He stated there was a lot of material that originated at the site so that material will be used.
O’Connor stated he was in favor of bringing in more stone because he has seen what that water can do and if the stone isn’t big enough he will be back before the commission.
Parker stated when the fish ladder was constructed they imported some 1 to 2 yard rocks on the side so he would like to create the same thing on the other side.
McCulloch asked if there was any provision to drain the pond. O’Connor stated there was not and no drainage structure.
Parker also suggested utilizing the fish ladder to divert the water around it. Parker also noted that in August there would be very little water.
Brown stated the applicant has requested that he be able to proceed as a permitted by right restoration repair and maintenance of his property and the commission has the right to make that determination or not. Linde asked if the commission could still require an application for the repair. Brown stated that was correct.
Page 6 – Minutes
May 25, 2007
Linde stated since the work was not planned until July he would like to visit the site. O’Donnell stated she felt these repairs should be monitored and documented. McCulloch suggested the commission require an application. O’Donnell concurred. Linde asked the applicant to provide information on how the wall will be constructed with the larger stone and a brief description of the construction plan and the equipment that will be used and the plan for diverting the water to limit downstream impact. The applicant agreed to submit an application to be discussed at the June meeting.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 7:15 p.m and the contractor agreed to be present.
10-14 – JAMES MOSER, OWNER, WILLIAM LEFFINGWELL, APPLICANT – 5 LEDGEWOOD DRIVE – INSTALLATION OF INGROUND SWIMMING POOL
The co-owner of the property was present to discuss the application. He stated the proposal is to install an in ground swimming pool. He stated that testing has been done at the site and there is quite a bit of ledge on the property. He reviewed the site plan with the commission and noted it is the only location to install a pool on the property. He noted that Ann Brown visited the site.
O’Donnell asked what the distance was from the brook. Brown stated the activity would be in the neighborhood of 75’ from the wetlands. McCulloch asked if it was a steep slope. He noted it was a gentle slope. Brown noted the pool area was relatively flat.
O’Donnell asked when the trees were cut on the site. He stated along time ago. Brown noted some trees were more recently cut in order to investigate the area.
Linde requested the applicant provide a scaled drawing showing the pool, the slope within the review zone and limits of clearing around the pool and noted there appears to be quite a lot of work to be done to prepare the site for the pool.
Brown suggested the applicant use the subdivision plan to create the documentation required by the commission.
McCulloch asked the applicant how frequently if at all the water is change in the pool. He stated due to the type of filter there is no backwashing or rinsing. He stated the only time water would be discharged would be after a rainstorm at which time a hose would be run to the front of the house. He further stated the water level might also need to be lowered when the pool is closed at the end of the season.
Page 7 – Minutes
May 25, 2010
O’Donnell asked where the discharge would go in the front of the house. He stated it would run down the driveway to the roadway drainage and the valve could be opened to run slowly and it could be done over a twelve hour period. O’Donnell asked if it was chlorinated water. The applicant stated they were putting in a salt water pool. He stated it would be salt water but it does generate chlorine gas. The applicant noted the well is also behind the house so there would be no drainage to the rear of the property. Brown asked roughly how much is discharged when the level of water is lowered for the winter time. He stated approximately 250 gallons which can be done over a three or four day period.
He stated that DEP now requires that anytime a pool level is lowered he has to report that information. He stated he pays a $500 fee per year for residential pools and $500 per commercial pools that are discharged. He further stated he has to test the water before it is dumped and keep a record of that information. Brown asked when the water is discharged into the street storm drainage does DEP believe it is diluted enough that it is not a problem. He stated it is a program that has just started.
Brown stated she thought there was a low spot at the bottom of the driveway the commission could look at when they visited the site. O’Donnell asked if there was any technology available that would neutralize the water prior to discharge. He stated the pool is shut off for a couple of weeks prior to discharging so the chlorine count is very low. Brown asked what the salt count would be. He stated it all depends on the time of year. He noted in the Fall it is a lot less. He stated they put in about 450 pounds of salt to open a pool. Brown asked if it is lost over a period of time. He stated by rain and adding water to the pool, however there is a mechanism that monitors the salt and tells the customer when they need to add salt to the pool. Brown asked if it was
less salty than sea water. He stated it was approximately 1 tablespoon of salt to every gallon of water.
Linde requested the applicant supply a scaled drawing showing the deck, size of the pool and specific locations.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
10-4 – DONNA SCOTT – 43-1 SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD – PERMIT FOR EXISTING DECK
This item was tabled until the June meeting. Linde noted the applicant was still in the process of obtaining the information and drawings the commission required.
Page 8 – Minutes
May 27, 2010
10-7 – SCOTT WISNER – 9 APPLE TREE DRIVE – CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
There were no outstanding items or questions pending from the April meeting when the application was accepted and from earlier site walk. Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the application. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
10-8 – JOSEPH CHONTOS – 33 NECK ROAD – PERMIT FOR SEPTIC TEST PITS AT 38 NECK ROAD
Chontos stated at the site walk Robb Linde requested a letter from Richard Snarski with regard to the site. Chontos submitted a letter from Mr. Snarski to the commission.
McCulloch asked what type of machine would be used to dig the test pits. Chontos stated he believed it would be a small excavator. Linde asked if a note was on the plan indicating the test pits had to be backfilled. Chontos stated there was a note on the plan. Linde reviewed Note #4 on the plan with the members. O’Donnell asked the depth of the test holes. Brown explained that the depth of test pits vary depending on what is proposed for the site. Linde stated the plan calls for six test pits but no depth is specified. Linde further noted that two of test pits were specific to determination of potential ledge.
Linda Krulikowski made a motion to approve the application. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Dave McCulloch asked Ann Brown if she had visited the Four Mile River site. Brown stated she did visit the site but she has not yet made contact with the owner. McCulloch expressed concern that work was being done at the river side. Brown stated she did not see any activity down by the river.
Brown distributed the enforcement report and noted that Robb Linde has done a great job with the work sheet. She stated the sheet he has put together that will be distributed at the meetings will show current applications and what is important about them. She noted the spreadsheet has more administrative items and dates. The commission was very pleased with the document. Brown will continue to update the information. O’Donnell asked if the sheet could be emailed out prior to the meeting. Linde stated that could be done.
Respectfully submitted,
| 
