OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2010 AT 7:30 P.M.
OLD LYME TOWN HALL, 52 LYME STREET, OLD LYME, CT
PRESENT WERE: Robb Linde, Linda Krulikowski, Skip DiCamillo and Evan Griswold.
Vice Chair Linde called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED MAY 25, 2010
Linda Krulikowski made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED JUNE 1, 2010
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
10-11 BABASULI – 20 GRASSY HILL ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A VEHICLE PULL OFF AND PARKING AREA.
Joe Wren, Professional Engineer, representing the applicant, Bedri Babasuli at 20 Grassy Hill Road presented the application. Wren stated that since the last meeting the commission visited the site and reviewed the conditions.
Wren stated he provided the Land Use Office with a copy of all the certified mailing receipts and submitted the originals for the file. He noted there were six total mailings but noted to date he had only received four back. Wren noted that he also submitted a list of all the adjacent property owners along with GIS map identifying the parcels.
Wren stated the plan being presented this evening is basically the same plan that was presented at the last meeting but noted the surface of the parking area has been changed from a bituminous concrete surface to stone pavers in order to provide a more pervious surface.
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-22-10
Wren stated the site is located at a high point on Grassy Hill Road and noted the elevation 58 and 56 contours shown on the plan. He noted as a result of these elevations there is not a lot of offsite drainage that runs toward the site. He noted the activity area is less than 1,400 sq. ft and the majority of that will be stone pavers, therefore they don’t anticipate any measurable runoff from the site.
Wren stated the trees to be removed have been identified on the plan. He stated any additional trees that might need to be removed would need further approval by the commission. Robb Linde asked for the exact wording of the note on the plan with regard to this issue Wren read the statement into the record “all trees shall be removed by a professional arbor”.
Wren stated he also had Richard Snarksi, Soil Scientist visit the site. He read his Mr. Snarski’s handwritten notes into the record, but noted the commission would receive a formal letter by tomorrow. He stated that Snarski indicated in his notes that he did not see any temporary and/or permanent impact to the site. Wren also noted that Snarksi’s recommendations for stabilizing the site were indicated with notes on the plans.
Griswold asked why the retaining wall was designed with an interesting curvature? Wren stated it was for aesthetics but also noted that there was a SNET pole and the large curve at the end would allow the cars to pull in around the pole from the north so they would be headed back out south which would also avoid having the vehicles back up onto Grassy Hill Road.
Griswold asked if there still was an area remaining for the septic to be improved. Wren stated as far as he knew the septic was functioning adequately but noted there is still an area with good soils.
Wren stated he spoke with Ed Adanti, Director of Public Works, several times and he feels it will be a vast improvement to the property and also felt with the elimination of the garage the sightlines would be improved. Wren also noted that Tom Metcalf, consulting engineer for the town would be reviewing the plan and providing comments to both Public Works and the commission.
Brown asked if the entire wall along the roadway would be removed or if a small portion would remain to provide a safety barrier. Wren stated there is only 12’ to the road so if the wall is kept it takes up a lot of the 12’ width which would make it very tight in that area. Wren stated, however, there is the potential for having a low thin curbed grass island to separate the edge of the road from the parking area.
Wren stated the plans provide a detail of the wall to be constructed and a note has been placed requiring a low railing. He stated there will be granular base below the wall.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-22-10
Linde stated at the last meeting he recalled some drainage in the wall being discussed. Wren stated that Note 2 on the plan states that drains shall be installed a minimum of every 15’ along the length of the wall.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Anthony Hendriks – Hendriks Associates
Mr. Hendriks stated as he understands it that this application and plan in front of the commission relies heavily on the boundary line survey and the topographic survey done by Hendriks Associates.
Wren stated it is a reference map identified on the plan.
Hendriks stated that Mr. Wren has done no field work, no topographic work it is all based upon the plan done by Hendriks Associates.
Wren stated the field work that he did was general in nature and it included general locations including the tree line and identification of the individual trees specimens.
Hendriks asked Mr. Wren if he realized that Mr. Babasuli never compensated him for any of this work that is being relied upon.
Vice Chair Linde asked Mr. Hendriks to limit his comments to items which are pertinent to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission.
Hendriks stated he would do that. Hendriks stated the topography cannot be attested to, the boundary line survey cannot be attested to either and he feels that information is pretty relevant to the application before this commission. Hendriks stated he believed that on several occasions his office had applications in front of this commission with respect to driveway locations and topography, etc including a number of letters in the commission’s file that should be made part of this application and they should be reviewed by this commission as to the previous application including comments made by Mr. Metcalf and commission members.
Hendriks stated with regard to what Mr. Babasuli is proposing he does not have any objection. He noted a parking area is necessary at the site but felt the A-2 survey and topographic survey that could not be substantiated and certified is part of the application.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-22-10
Linde asked Mr. Hendriks if had any reason to believe the plan as drawn is not accurate. Hendriks stated he did not know. Linde stated he believed that Mr. Hendriks stated that he provided the drawing this plan is based upon, so is there any reason to believe it is not accurate? Hendriks stated he believed his work was accurate, but he did not know what this plan is?
Wren stated in his industry there is an unwritten rule that if someone has worked on a property and is not compensated at all and another firm is retained they want to make their colleague in the industry is compensated. So Wren stated when he first heard of this issue was earlier today at which time he began doing his own research. He stated prior to working on this application he was told by Attorney Sheehan that Mr. Babasuli had compensated Mr. Hendriks maybe not 100% but he did compensate him to date in the amount of $10,000.00 to $11,000.00. Wren stated being familiar with projects like this and discussing with other surveyors and A-2 Boundary Survey with topography on it for a quarter acre piece of property in this area could cost anywhere between $2,000 to $4,000. Therefore, he
felt there was enough compensation provided to pay for what they received. He stated in addition to that he believed a copy of the A-2 survey was provided as public information in the town files in previous applications. Wren stated if there is an outstanding balance between Mr. Hendriks firm and the property owner that is not my issue and noted when A-2 surveys are done and paid for they become the property of the property owner and stated in his industry they are commonly used.
Linde stated the previous applications are relevant to the extent that they are alternatives. Linde stated he believed at least Skip DiCamillo and Evan Griswold were present for all the prior applications. He stated from what he recalled he did not see them as being reasonable nor prudent alternatives to what is being presented tonight. Griswold stated this plan has minimal impact compared to what the commission has reviewed at the site previously. DiCamillo also concurred and noted he felt it was a good alternative and was minimum impact and created safety.
Griswold suggested that a concrete pad be placed in the area of the existing garage with the possibility of a carport structure over it to provide some covered area. Wren noted the existing garage is in a non-conforming location. He also noted it was there goal to avoid anyone parking perpendicular to the road and backing out into the road.
Brown suggested that Mr. Wren review with the commission how he came up with the proposal.
Wren stated before he was involved in the project he reviewed all the files and minutes of the prior meetings and comments. He stated he felt it seemed to him for the size of property what was previously proposed was much too intense for the site. Therefore, when the applicant came to him and explained his need was parking and they began the design process that would be most suitable, safe and have minimal impact on the site.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-22-10
Mr. Hendriks stated as with any other applicant or application we generally ask that the applicant support and provide a Class A-2 boundary line survey and a Class T-2 topographic survey certified by that individual. Therefore, he stated if this applicant can go ahead and provide that independently of any work we have done that is fine other than that I think the commission has an obligation to review this with that in mind.
Wren stated there is no proposed elevation on the plan and his surveyor did visit the site to add elevations in the road which tie into what is existing on the plan. He stated for the issue of building the retaining wall there are no proposed elevations associated with it and there is a detail shown on the plan. He stated the surface of the parking area is also detailed on the plan and is based on the edge of the road. Wren stated as far as the boundary line is concerned the right of way part of this parking area will be up to the right of way line and extend from the edge of the road in and the only other property line can easily be taken from the existing survey which is part of the file and public information from the previous application. Wren stated as far as he is concerned and the research
he has done the A-2 survey that they retained Hendriks Associates to do they were compensated adequately for that survey so it becomes their property. He stated since the survey is the very first thing you do for a project he felt they had been compensated.
Linde stated he felt the ethics associated with both parties have been met.
Linde asked Mr. Hendriks if the survey was accurate. Mr. Hendriks stated he did the Class A-2 survey of that property and it was accurate but was not certifying to it.
Linde asked Mr. Wren if he relied upon the A-2 survey that was provided to the applicant. Mr. Wren stated he did and noted there was a reference to the survey on the plan in Note 1. Wren read Note 1 into the record.
Linde stated what the commission has is an accurate A-2 survey which was submitted by Rowley Hendriks and that survey was relied upon by the applicant and his representative to put together this plan and for the purposes of this plan there is no reason to believe that this is not an accurate depiction of the site both from our view when we visited as well as the chain of custody of the plan. Linde asked the other members if they felt it was correct.
Griswold stated in previous applications the applicant was relying on the accuracy of the survey and at that point it was certified by the surveyor. He further stated he did not know if the accuracy needed to be recertified.
DiCamillo stated he believed it was accurate but his only concern is it an actual certified plan currently.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-22-10
Krulikowski stated she felt confident it was certified because otherwise people would have to be continually resurveying their lots anytime there is a change.
Linde asked Ann Brown if there is a procedural issue the commission should be concerned with. Ann Brown asked Joe Wren what a certified plan meant to him.
He said it could mean a lot of different things. He stated site plans are generally done by engineers and or surveyors. He stated this site plan has not certified the boundary. He stated you will not see any metes and bounds. He stated the information is based on the referenced map. He stated that map that is referenced essentially covers both parties. He stated there was a certified A-2 survey for this property by a licensed land surveyor that was already made part of the record from pervious applications and already compensated for. He noted a as a side note he was given copies of cancelled checks in the amount of $6,700.00 prior to this meeting but was told that they will review their accounting further and there is probably another $4,000 that has been paid. Wren stated
he would certify this plan once it is approved by this commission as an engineer certifying that the proposed conditions as shown on here are accurate. He stated if his company or firm made an error in referencing the map and if the property line is incorrect that would be his error. He stated if his firm misrepresented the survey that would be his liability but noted he has referenced the certified survey on the plan.
Brown stated the note that has been placed on the plan states that the plan that you drew took a copy of the certified survey and then the engineering work was added to the plan so the commission can assume from the note on the plan that you worked from a certified plan and added the additional information.
Wren stated that a Class A-2 survey has to meet certain standards so therefore he always has to assume that any site plan that he has given to him by a licensed land surveyor is correct.
Brown stated you also stated that you did have a licensed land surveyor add some topography lines to the plan. Wren stated that was correct. He stated that those lines do not rely on the boundary survey.
The commission agreed to hold the hearing open until the July meeting to give Tom Metcalf an opportunity to review and comment on the plan as well as receive a copy of Richard Snarski’s letter.
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-22-10
NEW BUSINESS
10-16 – SUBDIVISION – RICHARD BATTALINO – 160 MILE CREEK ROAD – PROPOSED REVISED NEW LOT AND PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE – CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DRIVE TO EXISTING HOUSE
Tony Hendriks stated he hoped the commission would receive the application this evening. He stated it has been submitted to the commission because it is a subdivision application. He stated back in 1965 or 1967 this property belonged to one person and they subdivided it illegally. He noted an application has also been submitted to the Planning Commission to rectify this situation. Hendriks stated there were three lots, and noted Mr. Battalino’s home is located in the rear and he runs Village Landscape from that residence, and a parcel out in front he would like to establish as an approved building lot.
Hendriks stated there are some wetlands on the property and noted the commission has walked the site for prior applications. He noted there are a couple of man made ponds on either side of the driveway. He noted a house has been shown on the proposed lot but all of the activity is located outside of the review zone. He stated the existing driveway will service the new house and the proposed driveway will service the existing house. He stated there will be no grade changes.
Linde stated that Mr. Hendriks indicated that there was no activity within the 100’ review zone but yet the proposed driveway is next to the wetlands. Hendriks indicated Mr. Linde was correct.
Evan Griswold asked Mr. Hendriks if he was required to show the primary and secondary for the septic on the plan. Mr. Hendriks state they were shown on the plan. He further stated they had great test holes and good perc tests and no impact on the wetlands or the review zone. Hendriks stated again the reason the plan is before the commission is because the applicant is required to receive Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Linde suggested the commission walk the site. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, July 1, 2010 at 6:15 p.m.
Brown asked Mr. Hendriks to stake out the center line of the driveway and the house location. Hendriks agreed.
Griswold asked if the applicant would consider possibly abandoning the existing driveway and consider a shared driveway which would allow that area to grow back to its natural state. Hendriks stated that was not considered. He stated the driveway already existed and therefore there would be no disturbance. He noted it will remain a gravel driveway.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-22-10
Linde asked Mr. Hendriks to clarify his statement that there is no impact on the site and asked what expert testimony that was based on. Mr. Hendriks stated it was his expert testimony. He further stated the grading changes were so minimal. He also offered to obtain expert testimony. The commission stated they would walk the site and determine if that testimony would be necessary.
Mr. Hendriks stated it was not Mr. Battalino’s intention to develop the lot at this time. Hendriks stated it is an existing parcel that was subdivided illegally.
OLD BUSINESS
10-4 – DONNA SCOTT – 43-1 SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD – PERMIT FOR EXISTING DECK
Brown stated we have not received new maps, but noted she had been told that someone has been hired to work on the project. Brown agreed to follow up with Donna Scott. Linde stated he did not want the July meeting to come and ago without having the applicant come before us and would like to know what the commissions options are shall that happen.
10-10 – WILLIAM AND DEBRA LACY – 34 & 35 SHORE ACRES ROAD – PROPOSED HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY LOCATION
Hendriks stated this application was for an original division. He stated since 1917 this land has always been two pieces of property. He stated while the assessor’s office is showing this land as two separate parcels under the zoning regulations because this is a non-conforming parcel adjacent to a parcel under the same ownership the two parcels became merged under zoning. Therefore, the applicant initially was going to revise the boundary line between the two parcels, but after speaking with the applicant’s attorney, Michael Cronin, he suggested the property owner make application for an Original Division. Hendriks stated a new house location has been proposed. He stated the house is outside of the 50’ tidal wetland review zone and outside of the 100’ review
zone, however some grading and driveway areas are located within the tidal review zone. Hendriks stated both of the lots conform to the MABL requirements. He stated these lots are serviced by public water and sewers.
Hendriks stated the proposal includes taking the existing roadway and extending it upto a house site. He stated one of the commission members on the walk expressed concern about the trees and how much of the area would need to be cleared. Hendriks stated he has submitted a report done by a licensed arborist as part of the application outlining the 19 trees in the area of the house. He stated 100 plus trees will remain. He stated a small area will be cleared for the house and noted where the driveway is located is already an established lawn area.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-22-10
Brown stated she submitted a request for additional information and questions including a commitment that the property owner actually has the right to have sanitary sewers on this new lot because there is some question as to whether a new lot is actually eligible to hook into the sanitary sewer system. Hendriks stated that Mr. Lacy stated that he thinks he can connect in fact when the work was provision were made to allow both lots to be connected. Brown stated she would hope before this commission makes any decision that confirmation is submitted. She further stated if a septic system has to be installed she was unclear what impact that would have on the lot layout but felt is should be answered prior to any approvals. Hendriks stated that Mr. Lacy is working on that issue and noted that the Point
O’ Woods WPCA meets the day after the next Planning Commission meeting.
Griswold reviewed the map as to exactly what areas were tidal wetlands and inland wetlands. It was noted that the new driveway would be within the 100’ review zone.
Linde stated the limits of clearing as shown encompass approximately 30 to 40 percent of the available upland area protecting that wetland which is a pretty sensitive wetland. Hendriks showed the area on the plan which is already cleared. He stated the extension of the roadway is all grass almost to the house location. Linde stated for the last 93 years this has been a single property and the proposal will be at least doubling the everyday use of that property and everyday use of the land which is protecting that wetland.
Linde stated he recalled at the last meeting that Mr. Hendriks stated that as currently as drawn it can only support one house. Mr. Hendriks stated that correct. Mr. Hendriks stated he was asked at the last meeting by Mr. Linde if that little piece of property could support a house and leaching system and he replied no. Linde stated without redrawing any boundaries you cannot put two houses on that overall piece of property. Hendriks stated that was correct because the small piece is just too small. Linde stated so as of right now if there are no changes you cannot put two houses on that property. Hendriks stated that was correct. Linde stated for 93 years you could not put two houses on that property. Hendriks stated that was correct.
Hendriks stated but you can revise the common boundary line between two properties to make them both conform to the regulations and that is what is proposed, however at the suggestion of Attorney Cronin and Ann Brown we chose not to revise the common boundary line between the two properties but take it as one parcel and do a one lot split which they are entitled to do. The commission reviewed the boundary lines shown on the plan. Hendriks stated it was a 10,000 sq. ft. zone. Brown noted that any new lot must be at least 30,000 sq. ft.
This item was tabled until the July meeting.
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-22-10
10-13 – O’CONNOR – 108 SILL LANE – REPAIR STORM DAMAGE
Mr. O’Connor stated he was present at the May meeting and since that time the commission visited the site. He stated his proposal is to repair the damage as a result of the storms. Mr. O’Connor distributed photographs of the area both before and after the storm. He noted all of the stone below his waterfall was moved as a result of the storm and he would like to restore to how it was prior to the storm.
Krulikowski asked if the base of the dam was damaged. O’Connor stated not the base of the dam but on the left hand side under the patio was substantially damaged. He stated the extra stone would go into this area to support the patio.
Brown suggested that Mr. O’Connor consult with Dam Safety to see if they would like to be involved in the project if there is any damage to the dam itself.
Griswold asked how the repair would be done. O’Connor stated at the last meeting as well as the site walk his contractor was present and explained how the repairs would be completed. He said there will be a machine that will lift up rock. Linde stated it was testified last month that a tract vehicle which has limited pressure will be used and there is an access area downstream that they will be able to enter with limited damage to the streambed.
Linde further stated the work is proposed to be done in late July or early August when the water level will be at its lowest.
Linde made a motion to approve the application as described by the contractor which includes:
1. Use of a tracked vehicle in the streambed for repair the area of the patio.
2. Appropriate sedimentation control downstream and also including replacements of
rock with larger rocks as appropriate to re-stabilize the streambed.
3. The work is to be done at the time of low water level in late July or August.
Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
10-14 – JAMES MOSER, OWNER, WILLIAM LEFFINGWELL, APPLICANT – 5 LEDGEWOOD DRIVE – INGROUND SWIMMING POOL
Linde stated the commission received a new plan of the proposed improvements to the site. Krulikowski stated she was very concerned about the erosion between the house and the pool excavation. Mr. Ashworth stated there is a lot of ledge on the site. He stated the plan provides a description of the plantings that would be provided to stop any erosion. Ashworth stated from the house there is an elaborate drainage system to carry the water
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-12-10
around the house to the rear of the property. He stated a lot of the area that appears to be erosion is really a result of the contour of the land. He noted the site was engineered to move the water away from the house when it was constructed in the early 70’s.
Ashworth explained the rear of the property is shaped like a saddle and then has a steep drop in the far rear. Krulikowski asked where the pool and pool house would be located. Ashworth stated that there is so much stone that will be dug at the site that they can jumble large stones and place plantings between them. Krulikowski stated that the amount of rock on the site could actually improve the erosion on the site. Griswold asked how the pool would be anchored to the ledge. Ashworth stated it would not be in the ledge, but located in the bottom of the saddle area of the land.
Skip DiCamillo asked how far the pool house would be located from the wetlands. Mr. Ashworth stated it would be fifty feet. Brown stated the pool was eighty feet and the pool shed would be fifty feet. It was noted that the distances were noted incorrectly on the proposed plan.
Linde stated the first page of the plan shows the silt fence between the pool and the pool house and suggested that given the amount of work that is going to be done that the silt fence be located between the pool house and the wetlands. Mr. Ashworth stated he had no problem with moving the silt fence location.
DiCamillo proposed that the area where the brush was cleared be allowed to return to its natural state. Krulikowski stated the location of the boulders would eliminate the constant wash down which would give the plants a chance to re-establish themselves.
Griswold stated that based on the contour of the property and the amount of the ledge and the amount of water movement he would to maintain a buffer that was sufficient enough to protect sediment from getting into the stream.
Griswold asked if there was any consideration to locating the pool closer to the house. Mr. Ashworth stated there was but because of the location of the well it was difficult. He further noted that the location shown would prevent the need to cut down trees on the site. He also stated it was the only place on the property that had sunshine.
Brown stated the commission is concerned about the area beyond the pool that is a steep slope down to the wetland. Ashworth stated there is an area that is not planted but it is all stone and is difficult to plant. He further stated there is a large canopy. The commission reviewed the photographs from their site walk at the property.
Brown stated the plan indicated that the applicant is expecting to take excavated (ledge) materials from where the pool is going and spread them around the perimeter of the area which would extend to about 35’ from the edge of the wetlands. Ashworth stated that
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC – 06-22-10
was correct. Brown clarified the applicant did not propose anything beyond that because the boulders would hold things back and be a barricade. Ashworth stated the boulders would serve as a baracade and there are no activities planned beyond them. Linde stated that 35’ was close enough and didn’t want to see any disturbance beyond that distance.
Linde asked the members who walked the site if they felt there needs to be an attempt at replanting in the area in the space located on the hillside. Skip DiCamillo stated he felt the area should be replanted but noted if nothing was done it would still probably grow back.
Ashworth stated another concern is what will be done with the water when the pool needs to be drained or lowered. He stated the original proposal was to run it down the driveway but then we discussed running the water down the hill on the east side of the property It was also noted that the pool could be drained over a 5 day period and did not to be done all at once.
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the plan as presented including the pool house and the landscaping as designed with a buffer of rocks between the pool and the wetland area and the drainage will run along the east side of the driveway and will drain down into the area along the driveway and the silt fence will be located to the north of the pool house between the rock buffer and the wetland. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Linde asked Ann Brown to clarify with the applicant the conditions of approval granted with the permit when it is issued.
ENFORCEMENT REPORT
Brown stated she printed up the active applications on the spreadsheet.
ADJOURNMENT
Griswold made a motion to adjourn, Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
