OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
PRESENT WERE: Janet Bechtel, Evan Griswold, Robb Linde, Skip DiCamillo, Linda Krulikowski and Sabine O’Donnell.
Bechtel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED AUGUST 24, 2010.
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 2010.
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
10-23 PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION – ROGERS LAKE WEST SHORES ASSOCIATION – DRAINAGE ISSUES ON EPSILON AND SPRUCE STREETS
Stuart Fairbank of Angus McDonald and Gary Sharpe & Associates and Dave Evers, President of the Rogers Lake West Shores Association were present to discuss their proposed improvements. Fairbank distributed photographs for the commission to review that demonstrate the flooding that currently occurs in this area. Fairbank also reviewed a map of the area with the commission.
Fairbank noted that all of these improvements will have to be discussed with the Board of Selectmen as well as the 300 residents who live in this immediate area. Stuart suggested the commission visit the site and walk the area.
Fairbank also reviewed a tax map with the topography overlay of the area with the commission Fairbank noted that the area is relatively flat and that is why it is difficult to get the water out of here. He stated the roads were constructed with minimal drainage.
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 9-28-10
He stated the two streets this project would focus primarily on are Epsilon and Spruce Street. He noted there is one road in the middle which is known as Avon Road but is considered to be a paper road. Fairbank stated the proposal would be to install some drainage at the ends of these roads.
O’Donnell asked if the wetlands were located to the west of this area. Fairbank stated that there are pockets of wetlands throughout the area. He stated the wetlands have not been flagged because of the size of the area. Griswold stated that he felt if these homes were proposed today they would not be able to be constructed because a lot of the area was swamp. Krulikowski stated when she moved into the area in 1965 there were relatively no homes and she felt that as each new home was built it acted as a dam to the groundwater and has changed the flow. She further noted that most of the homes have had basement flooding during the heavy rainfall.
O’Donnell asked how they would propose to solve the problem. Fairbank stated some of it would be handled through ditching and swaling as well as the installation of some pipes which would remove the water from the area without running it down the middle of the road. O’Donnell asked where the water would be piped. Fairbank stated it would have to be piped to Rogers Lake.
Brown stated we do have some statements from Richard Snarski stating that this area is not a wetland. She also noted that there is a flood zone. Brown noted that the town does have a lot of mapping of this area all the way through Epsilon and Avon. O’Donnell asked how current the mapping was of this area? Brown stated it was completed in the last ten years. O’Donnell asked how many homes had been constructed since that time? Brown stated maybe one or two.
McCulloch asked who would be doing the work. Fairbank stated the town owns Rogers Lake Trail but the remainder is owned by the association therefore the two parties would have to have a discussion and determine what they would be willing to do and how these two parties would interact.
Krulikowski asked who maintains the catch basins that are not on the main trail? Evers stated there is only one and it is empty and has no sediment built up and this basin is the association’s responsibility. Krulikowski stated that the town is responsible for the main route which they are not maintaining.
Bechtel asked the commission if they wanted to wait till the improvements are more finalized and it is determined which improvements will be done and who will be doing them. Brown also noted it might be beneficial for the commission to wait until the leaves are off the trees, which will provide a better view of the area and upstream.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 9-28-10
Bechtel asked the applicant his proposed timing for the project. Evers stated they would like to move forward as quickly as possible. He noted they do have some funding.
Bechtel asked if it would be possible to come back to the next meeting with a map indicating the areas to be addressed and the proposed improvements for those areas. She also suggested a colored map which would demonstrate which property was association and which was town owned. She stated at that time a site walk could be set for early November and the commission could look at those specific areas. Griswold stated he did not feel it would be a benefit for the association to move forward with their improvements if the town is not willing to address their portion. He further stated he felt it needed to be a comprehensive effort.
Fairbank stated they could come back with additional information but they would not have a final design by the next meeting.
Griswold also noted that the property owners in the area need to be educated about the use of pesticides on their lawns because these improvements will increase the flow of water into Rogers Lakes which could have a very negative impact.
The applicant agreed to be back before the commission on October 19th, 2010.
10-24 BEVERLY PIKNA – 85 SHORE DRIVE – REPLACE A DECAYING DECK WITH A NEW AND EXPANDED DECK
Beverly Pikna stated she has an elderly deck which is 4’ x 18’ across the house. She stated it needs to be replaced because it is falling apart and therefore she is seeking approval to construct an 8’ x 18’ deck. She stated she would move the posts 2’ toward the lake. Pikna submitted photographs of the site. Brown noted that the commission visited an adjacent home a year ago. She stated noted there is an 8’ lower patio and a 4’ retaining wall, and a 20’ patio. She stated the posts for the elevated deck are 8’ high. She noted the current deck is very narrow and has very little room to move around on. She stated the holes for the posts would be hand dug and poured with cement.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, October 16th at 8:30 a.m.
10-25 LAWRENCE & KAREN GALBO – 27 CHAMPLAIN DRIVE – INSTALLATION OF A PROPANE TANK
Bechtel stated that the commission would visit this site individually in an effort to complete this application as quickly as possible since the property owner currently has no heat at the dwelling. Bechtel asked the applicant to flag the area the commission needs to
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 9-28-10
review. The commission agreed to visit the site and report back to Ann Brown with any issues or concerns. She further stated if the members had no issues with this proposal an administrative permit could be issued. Brown stated there are quite a bit of wetlands around his yard but the activity is very mild. The commission reviewed the plan the applicant submitted. Mr. Galbo indicated that the wetlands are approximately 110’ feet from the activity. Brown also noted there was a modest watercourse in the area of the property. O’Donnell asked if there were any alternative locations. Galbo indicated that he felt this was the best location.
OLD BUSINESS
10-16 – SUBDIVISION – RICHARD BATTALINO – 160 MILE CREEK ROAD – PROPOSED REVISED NEW LOT AND PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE- CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DRIVE TO EXISTING HOME
Bechtel recused herself from the application. Dave McCulloch chaired this agenda item.
Lee Rowley and Rick Battalino were present to discuss the application. Rowley stated he was aware that the commission had discussed this application previously. He stated there was an illegal subdivision created in 1966. He stated Mr. Battalino has purchased a portion of this property and would like to have an approval granted for the subdivision. Rowley stated he has submitted a demonstration plan that shows the proposal which meets all the requirements. Rowely stated the existing lot that Mr. Battalino owns is smaller than this and contains a man made pond and therefore he would like to make it a more developable piece property and that is why an additional piece of land has been added. Rowley stated as part of the Planning Commission approval the applicant has to demonstrate a house
location, septic location, test pits and a future driveway location to service that lot. Rowley stated at this point in time it is not Mr. Battalino’s intent to develop the property which would include the installation of the driveway which shows some proposed grading. Rowley stated it is shown on the plan to demonstrate what may be done in the future with the site. Rowley stated they were present this evening to present the plan to the commission and also noted that Mr. Metcalf had reviewed the plan but indicated most of his comments were relative to the Planning Commission approval.
Rowley stated since there is no proposal on the table to do any development at this point but he would ask the commission to stipulate that at the time of development the property wner would have to come back before the IWWC for an approval. Rowley stated currently the Battalino property is served by an existing driveway that is very close proximity to the wetlands.
O’Donnell asked if the existing driveway would be abandoned. Griswold stated he discussed this issue with the applicant when the commission visited the site and the
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 9-28-10
applicant indicated he would not want to share a driveway. Battalino stated he would rather not have a partner. Rowley stated right now to demonstrate to the Planning
Commission that these are stand alone parcels and the applicant has no plans to develop the parcel currently. O’Donnell stated the plans currently show two accesses into the site.
McCulloch stated that the applicant is simply asking for no jurisdiction. Brown stated the commission has jurisdiction because the proposal is for a subdivision with wetlands on the site. Rowley stated the proposal is to correct an error that was made in the past on the site and to legitimize the lot in accordance with the subdivision and zoning regulations. McCulloch stated so this commission would only be concerned at the time the work is actually proposed at the site.
Cassella stated the applicant needs wetlands approval to subdivide the property prior to planning approval. He stated the commission can stipulate that before any actual development on the site gets done another site development plan needs to be submitted. He further stated that the concepts needs to be on paper and approved by this commission before the planning commission can act on the application.
Cassella stated his concern is with the driveway issue. He stated when the applicant goes to the Planning Commission he will need to present the same plan that this commission approved. He stated what he understands is the applicant is only asking for the existing driveway to serve both lots. Rowley stated that was incorrect. Cassella said then the proposal is to include the construction of a second driveway and for this commission to act on this driveway and therefore the applicant cannot have it both ways. Rowley stated we are not proposing but just demonstrating that a driveway could be built at some future time but the current driveway as it stands will remain in its current state.
DiCamillo asked if this commission approved this application would they be approving the second driveway. Rowley stated you might be approving the concept but not building. DiCamillo asked how you could approve a concept on paper. Brown stated the commission would be committing itself to allowing a driveway on that strip if the plan is approved. Brown stated the commission should have an engineering, erosion and sediment plan as to what the impacts would be if the driveway was constructed.
Evan Griswold stated this commission is concerned about the impacts to the wetland and so whether the driveway remains or is abandoned is germane because that obviously has a lot more impact on the wetland than the new proposed or conceptual driveway which remains at the very edge of the buffer area. He stated in terms of wetland protection the most prudent thing to do is to stipulate that when this lot comes back for approval for development that the existing driveway be abandoned and moved to the new driveway. O’Donnell agreed. Griswold stated this commissions charge is to keep the impact as far and as minimal from any wetlands as possible. He further stated he felt shared driveways can be handled with driveway maintenance agreements.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC - 9-28-10
Griswold stated he wanted to be sure that this commission does not close the door on the possibility of abandoning the current driveway and moving it to a shared driveway and the length would be proportional to the use by the two properties.
Evan Griswold stated what he felt this proposal was a boundary line adjustment between two lots to correct and illegal subdivision. Rowley stated there is enough land to make it legal but in order to make it a more attractive building lot and to keep the impact to a minimum an additional piece of land was added to the parcel.
Cassella stated the commission is approving the creation of a new lot and with the creation of a new lot you are essentially giving the approval for the development of that lot. He stated this commission needs to focus on two things. Is the commission going to provide commentary that when the site development plan comes before this commission for this lot the commission may consider abandoning the existing driveway and allowing a new driveway to be built. He further stated he did not feel the applicant was asking for approval of the second driveway so access to Parcel A & B would be over the existing driveway in its current state. Brown stated there are currently utilities underground and the demonstration plan shows the existing driving going through the proposed house shown on the plan.
Rowley stated it was just to the side of it. Brown stated if the commission approves this plan they approved what is on the plan before them.. Therefore, if the commission does not want to approve a new driveway the new driveway should come off the plan and the approval is contingent upon a share driveway.
Cassella stated if the commission wants to approve the activity of creating of a new lot tonight it needs to be conditioned upon removing this driveway from the plan for now.
Cassella asked the commission if the applicant came before the commission to remove one driveway and construct another driveway would the commission be in favor of that proposal. Brown stated what she heard was the opposite that the applicant wants both houses accessed through the new driveway and to abandon the existing driveway. Brown stated if this plan is approved it does not show that either. Cassella stated that the applicant does not presently want to build this driveway. Griswold asked if it precludes moving the driveway in the future. Cassella stated the commission cannot mandate it but a commentary could be issued.
O’Donnell asked if the driveway would have to be moved when that lot is developed. Rowely stated the Planning Commission requires certain criteria but if the option is to develop this property in a couple years the applicant may change the location but currently the plan is demonstrating that it meets the applicable regulations.
Cassella states this lot has an existing driveway which the Planning Commission would request an easement from Richard Battalino to Richard and Donna Battalino’s property and from a legal perspective that would be sufficient for this subdivision without the
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – 9-28-10
driveway actually being built. Cassella stated there is no need for this grading and driveway for this commission or the Planning Commission to approve the application.
O’Donnell stated so this commission should require the applicant to submit a plan without the driveway. Cassella stated the commission needs to be sure that a full site development plan is submitted to this commission which would include clearing limits which could potentially be within the review zone, driveway access, and sedimentation and erosion control before this lot is developed. Cassella stated he wanted to be clear that a permit is not issued that is more than the commission is willing to do.
Brown stated if this commission has more guidance for the Planning Commission and/or the applicant she would urge the commission to provide it in the approval.
Evan Griswold state he would like to require a shared driveway at the margins of the review zone and abandon the current driveway in the middle of the wetland as it currently exists.
McCulloch stated if you look at the ground cover built by this you are covering up a lot of the pristine land and also altering the drainage in the side hill and there maybe more impact from the wide fill than from the narrow road between. He therefore stated he thought it was a toss up with regard to impact.
Cassella asked if the commission was proposing to allow both driveways to be used at the same time or would the commission approve this plan with the new driveway upon the condition that the old driveway is abandon from the property line forward.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the proposed lot with the stipulation that the current driveway at the time of development is abandon and upon development of the site the commission would like a plan showing access to the home on the new lot, site clearing limits and the proposed remediation of the abandon driveway and the access for this lot is by right of way over a new proposed driveway on the southern boundary of Parcel A. O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
10-4 – DONNA SCOTT – 43-1 SAUNDERS HOLLOW ROAD – PERMIT FOR EXISTING DECK
Janet Bechtel stated the commission walked the site. She further noted that the September 7, 2010 site walk meeting minutes reflect what the suggestion were for the applicant and the applicant was told she did not need to attend tonight.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to accept the suggestions as listed in the Site Walk Meeting Minutes A, B & C as conditions of approval. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. (See attached minutes of Site Walk)
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – 9-28-10
10-20 – MIAMI BEACH ASSOCIATION – RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING ROAD WITHIN WETLANDS BUFFER INCLUDING GRADING OF ROAD FOR PROPER DRAINAGE. INSTALLATION OR REPAIR OF DRIVEWAY APRONS. TOPSOIL, RAKE, SEED, MULCH ALL DISTURBED AREAS.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
10-21 – WOODS OF OLD LYME, LLC AND OLD LYME HEIGHTS, LLC – OLD STAGECOACH ROAD – PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF 38 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATION IN RU-80 ZONE.
Bechtel stated the commission accepted the application at the August meeting. She noted the commission was asked to hold off on scheduling a Public Hearing until October. She further stated that the commission was all in agreement that the drainage on the access road into the subdivision does present the potential for significant impact to the downstream receiving areas of Rogers Lake, therefore a public hearing will be scheduled for our next meeting on October 19, 2010.
Janet Bechtel made a motion that the application of The Woods of Old Lyme be scheduled for Public Hearing. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
10-22 – TALCOTT FARM ASSOCIATION – TALCOTT FARM ROAD AND CATBRIAR LANE. REMOVAL OF TREES
Sabine O’Donnell recused herself from this application
Bechtel stated the commission walked the site and viewed the trees that were flagged. She stated that Robb Linde did indeed ask the members if they felt there was significant impact to the wetland. Bechtel stated the commission was in agreement that they did not feel there was significant impact to the wetlands from the tree removal. Brown stated the applicant told her they were going to attend the meeting with their expert as well as submit written comments from both the forester and arborist.
Evan Griswold stated he visited the site and looked at the trees and from a forestry and an arborist standpoint he could see how someone might have the desire to spend money to cable a safe tree in a strategic but frankly he did not see the real need other than to save an individual tree and did not feel it was necessary.
He stated the tress that Mr. Kolber wanted to save the arborist said they could be saved,
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – 9-28-10
fed and cabled but that it was an awful lot of effort for one tree. Griswold stated he felt if that tree was removed there were other trees that would take its place very quickly. He concluded by stating he did not really see any problem with removing the trees.
Krulikowski questioned the letter submitted to the commission with regard to referring this issue over to the Tree Commission. Bechtel stated it was her understanding that the Tree Commission handles trees along town roads. She further stated that Talcott Farm is entirely private so the tree commission has no jurisdiction and their own association rules carry all of the jurisdiction they need to take a tree down or put a tree up so she felt what was really on the table for the IWWC was did the commission have an issue with removal of the trees that were flagged within the 100’ review zone. She stated at the site walk she got the impression that the commission did not have a problem with every tree coming down that was flagged. Griswold agreed. Bechtel further stated she felt there was
no impact whatsoever and but noted she left the site walk with the feeling that there were two parties within Talcott Farms that were in disagreement as to whether the trees should or should not be removed. Therefore, she felt the association should refer to their own guidelines within their association documents.
Bechtel noted that Chairman Linde specifically asked for information from the experts on this application. She noted that information has not yet been submitted, therefore, she suggested the application be tabled until Chairman Linde has an opportunity to review it.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to continue this agenda item to the Special Meeting on October 19, 2010. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO CREATE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
Attorney Cassella stated there is a pending ordinance with the Board of Selectmen to establish an Open Space Commission. The commission reviewed the latest ordinance that Robb Linde and Attorney Cassella had worked on. Cassella stated specifically one of the powers as proposed for the Open Space Commission No. 4 “is to supervise and manage open space lands, preserve and protect natural resources, and all the standards and limitations for the uses.” Cassella stated that Chairman Linde’s concern was that the IWWC has jurisdiction over a lot of the open space land to the extent that they contain inland wetlands, watercourses, buffer areas or areas that impact inland wetlands and he agreed that was true, therefore language has been added that basically states “this commission shall
continue to have jurisdiction concerning activities, uses, etc which fall under its jurisdiction as are prescribed under the statute and the ordinance which
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – 9-28-10
establishes this commission”.
Cassella stated the real reason we are involving the wetlands commission on this level is when the Land Acquisition Fund was established in 1997 and in 2004 there was an amendment to that ordinance which had a section that has the IWWC as the stewards of open space land under the Land Acquisition Fund Ordinance. Cassella stated that those duties include to develop, update and maintain the list of land which is appropriate for acquisition as open space for the protection and improvement of the environment for recreational purposes and to make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen for acquisition of parcels of land as contemplated by the land acquisition of open space and to develop appropriate standards and limitations for the use of parcels of land acquired pursuant to this article to assure their continued use
as open space for protection of the environment or for recreational purposes. Cassella stated when this was proposed to the Board of Selectmen the proposal was to eliminate or revise Section 52.4 from the Land Acquisition Fund because it doesn’t necessarily serve any purpose. He stated an ordinance amendment which deletes Section 52.4 in its entirety and is moved over to the Open Space Commission with the caveat that any uses and limitations are subject to the jurisdiction of the IWWC. Therefore, Cassella stated that before the Board of Selectmen eliminated a power or a duty of this commission they wanted to be sure that it was on the agenda for the members to discuss and comment prior to its removal.
Brown stated it was her belief that the ordinance was defective when it was approved and that it really meant the Conservation Commission when the commissions were separated.
Bechtel asked what the next step would be for this commission. She further stated she was involved in the discussions with regard to the language Mr. Linde wanted added into the ordinance and she felt that had been successfully completed under Item 4. She further stated that Ann Brown has explained why the section needs to be deleted and agreed it was not what this commission wants to be doing.
Cassella stated he felt the Board of Selectmen just wanted to be sure that this commission has no issues with the deletion of Section 52.4. He stated the creation of the Open Space Commission is really a different forum for discussion.
Skip DiCamillo asked what the difference was between a commission and a committee. Cassella stated that the statutory enabling authority for the so-called Open Space Commission under the Land Acquisition and Development Authority which gives it a little more stick than just a committee.
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – 9-28-10
Dave McCulloch stated that this commission is set up under state statute but this commission would be set up under town ordinance. Cassella stated that there is a State
Statute which authorizes this type of commission. McCulloch said it was not state mandated. Cassella stated that was correct and that there is no requirement.
McCulloch distributed information for the commission to review with regard to the forming of an Open Space Commission. McCulloch stated he felt there was a large redundancy with this creation and it also eliminated discussions between this organization and the Conservation Commission.
Bechtel asked if the commission was comfortable voting on Section 52.4 being rightfully put back to the duties of the Conservation Commission and then let that issue be decided between the commissions or committees in discussion.
Brown stated that when the Conservation Commission was also the Inland Wetlands Commission the Conservation Commission did in theory all the things that are in that ordinance as well as wetlands. She further stated because of all the work of the Wetlands Commission they did not have a lot of time for the other duties it was not a problem because the town had an active Open Space Committee . She stated so that is how it work until the separation.
O’Donnell stated that the section that suggests that recommendations are made to the Board of Selectmen for the acquisition of selected parcels of land may come into play in the future at some point. Brown stated then that recommendation would be made to the Open Space Committee.
O’Donnell stated she just wanted to be sure the commission understood what was being given up. Bechtel stated it was something they did not want and never did.
Griswold stated that the work of the Inland Wetlands Commission overwhelmed the Conservation Commission and there was an inherent divide within the commission which was the Conservation Commission was an advisory committee and the Inland Wetlands is a regulatory committee and when members of the commission wanted to make recommendations or give advice to landowners in town during the course of an Inland Wetlands Application we could not advise while we were regulating and so that is why the commissions divided. Bechtel stated it created much confusion for the applicant.
Bechtel stated that she felt the feeling of the commission was that if the activities listed under Section 52.4 no longer belong to IWWC, that would not be a problem. Griswold stated it should go to the Conservation Commission and then the Conservation Commission and Open Space will decide where it resides.
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC - 9-28-10
Griswold stated he is currently on the Open Space Committee and he did vote for it and he understands the issues of what the state initially mandated but over the years the reality is that Open Space has been short changed. He further stated he would like this town go to a mandated Open Space Subdivision Regulation except in those clear instances where it is impossible to do that.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves,
Land Use Administrator
| 
