MINUTES
OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2010
OLD LYME TOWN HALL, 52 LYME STREET
OLD LYME, CT
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Robb Linde, Sabine O’Donnell, Evan Griswold, Skip DiCamillo, and Linda Krulikowski.
Chairman Linde called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 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 – OCTOBER 16, 2010
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
10-21 – Woods of Old Lyme, LLC and Old Lyme Heights, LLC – Old
Stagecoach Road – Proposed Construction of a 38 Lot residential subdivision
located in an RU-80 Zone.
Gennaro Martorelli one of the owners of the site presented the proposed 38 lot residential subdivision located on Old Stagecoach Road. He stated it is three parcels of property which include a 14 acre parcel, 73 acre parcel and a 127 acre parcel. Martorelli stated that the only legal access to the 73 acres is a 50 ft. access which begins at Old Stagecoach Road and runs directly south across the largest wetland on the property. He stated that several years ago this proposal was brought before this commission and the members at that time suggested the road be eliminated that crossed that wetland. He stated as a result of that suggestion they discussed this issue with the Planning Commission who indicated they agreed they could possibly grant a waiver to eliminate the loop road which would
eliminate this crossing.
Martorelli stated there is small encroachment into the 100 ft buffer area that surrounds the wetland which is known as the regulated area. He stated in between the two wetland areas shown on the plan there are some water quality basins which are basically engineered
Page 2 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
structures to slow the water down and filter out the sand before it runs into the quality basin. He stated from a wetlands perspective he felt the impact was very minimal. He further stated there are some significant cuts to get into the property but through the work his engineer and the town’s engineer some very ingenious solutions have been designed to accommodate the cuts without having any risk of any erosion during construction. He stated the road follows the natural contours of the land with very minimal cuts and fills.
Linda Krulikowski asked the applicant to orient the commission to the location of the roads around the site. Martorelli pointed out the location of Old Stagecoach Road, Post Road as well as Route 1.
Scott Poryanda, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor of Connecticut Consulting Engineers located in Meriden, Connecticut presented the proposal. Poryanda stated that the project is located on the easterly side of Old Stagecoach Road in an RU-80 zone. He stated the proposal includes 38 individual lots with 5200 linear feet of road as well as 22 acres of open space and 6 acres in conservation easements. He noted the lots will be served by individual wells and septic. He stated there is only minor activity proposed in the regulated area and that there will be no work within 60’ of the wetland.
Poryanda stated that all drainage will be discharged during construction into a sedimentation basin which is designed for a 100 year storm event and then those sedimentation basins will then be converted over to water quality basins. He further stated that under the recommendation of the town’s engineer, the water quality basins will also act as detention basins. He stated again that all discharge does go into a water quality basin and then into a level spreader and sheet flows over land for at least 100’ to the wetland except for one area. He stated the storm water will be treated with a vortech system, therefore all the drainage is in accordance with the 2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual. He also noted they have submitted an extensive Erosion Control Plan which is designed in
accordance with the 2002 Connecticut Guidelines for Erosion and Sedimentation Control. He stated the proposal will be broken up into three phases. He reviewed the three phases shown on the plan with the commission.
Linde asked the engineer to point out the locations of the detention basins on the plan. Poryanda pointed out the basins on the plan and noted the six locations.
Martorelli noted for the record that as part of the proposal the access to the man made fire pond will be upgraded with crushed stone to provide better access for the fire trucks.
Evan Griswold asked what the lines meant on the plan around the various home sites. Poryanda stated they show the areas of proposed clearing based on schematic house sites.
Page 3 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
Griswold asked if clearing limits were proposed for each lot. Poryanda stated other than the lots that abut the regulated area no clearing limits are shown on any of the lots.
Griswold stated with over a mile of road shown if each lot owner cleared to the limits of its ownership it would have an impact on the drainage on the roadway. Griswold stated the more forest that is eliminated the more pressure is going to come to bear on the
erosion control systems that are in place. Poryanda stated currently a basic house design is shown on the plan with a well and septic location. He further stated they have taken the overall average design of each lot development and figured their calculations on that including a 100 year storm. He stated they will be trying to obtain a zero increase in runoff for a 100 year storm, but nevertheless he felt the increase in runoff even without proposing detention the wetlands are such in size they would be able to handle the increase.. Linde asked if that would be the case regardless of how much is cleared on the individual lots. Poryanda stated the calculations are based on runoff. Linde asked if all of the properties shown clear 50% more than what is planned what effects will that have
on the calculations. Poryanda stated we planned for a 100 year storm and we were still close to a zero increase in the runoff. He stated again even without the detention the wetlands are such a large size that the increase would be really minimal. Linde asked the applicant to demonstrate how the water flows into the various retention basins. Poryanda showed those areas on the plans.
O’Donnell stated the plan shows large areas of wetlands and asked the applicant if they had commissioned a study of those wetlands which states current conditions and impact of the proposed development on these areas. There will be a soil scientist testifying later.
DiCamillo asked if a homeowner association was proposed. The applicant stated they are very flexible on this issue
Krulikowski asked if the driveways were proposed to be gravel or pavement. The applicant stated that they anticipated paved driveways but it would be up to the individual homeowners.
Griswold asked the applicant he if could explain the cuts on the road and the slope and how they would be maintained. Poryanda stated that the road at some points is right on grade and has been stepped down a foot, and the one cut that will happen during construction the developer is proposing the cut to start from up above and a huge storage basin will be created below which will eliminate the possibility of wash out down towards Old Stagecoach Road. He stated they also will be installing a re-enforcing mat with low grade plantings that will also help stabilize the area.
Linde asked the applicant if the town engineer had a full set of plans. He indicated that he did. Linde asked the applicant to explain to the runoff in the purple section shown on
Page 4 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
the plans. Poryanda stated as shown on the plan that one area would remain in its existing state so the only impervious areas that would be added to the watershed area discharge by Old Stagecoach Road is basically the length of road and little portions of the driveway and what we have done to zero out the increase so no additional water is being added down toward the road. Martorelli also noted that a vortechnic unit is proposed.
James Sipperly, Certified Soil Scientist, asked the commission if a public hearing was scheduled due to a submission of 25 signatures or was it declared by the members as significant impact. Linde stated the commission determined that there was the likelihood of significant activity based on the number of applications that have come before us and this current application.
Sipperly stated he performed a wetlands evaluation back in 2007 on this property. He stated he used a spade and auger which is typical of soil scientist going through a large piece of property. He stated in his report he references 5 wetlands area and noted that there are only 4 shown and stated apparently the other wetland area is just off the property. He stated when he did the delineation it was during the summer and there was very thick vegetation and it was unclear where the boundary was located so there is a Wetlands Series C which is not shown on the plan.
He stated the majority of the wetlands soils on site other than this big large wetland are classified as poorly drained soils that are very typical of areas found in glacial uplands. He stated they are basically located in little depression areas. He also noted there is a watercourse which is Swamp Brook. He noted there is an existing pond which is part of the larger wetland system. He stated the wetland system is a wooded swamp with a very large thick under story shrubs. He stated there is also muck in this area which is 3 to 4 feet thick. He stated the reason it is so deep is because the wetland is fed by groundwater and surface water. He stated it is a low lying area. He stated there is storm water that runs through this area that discharges along the existing stonewall. He stated it has the potential to store great quantities of water because of the muck. He stated on the other side of this area is a saddle of land. He stated there is a little wetland that flows
towards the north. The wetland delineated area is very rocky and is relatively steep in slope. He noted there was also spring like features coming out of the ground in this area which also contributes to the groundwater seepage. He stated there is not a solid flow through this area but kind of a meandering flow with lots of rocks, boulders and wooded areas.
He stated Wetland Area D shown on the map is basically a small depression that collects water. He stated the ground water is close enough to the surface that it indicates that it is a wetland soil but nothing flows in or out of it. He also stated he did not think it actually functions as a vernal pool because it is a flat area. He stated the perennial watercourse in the back is Swamp Brook which flows in a southerly direction and is very heavily wooded with a steep embankment on both sides going down to the brook.
Page 5 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
Sipperly stated the fire pond is a man made pond. Anson Clinton (Old Stagecoach Road) testified that he dug the pond back in 1979 to serve the kennel. Clinton noted it was a seasonal pond. Sipperly stated it was built properly and functioning very well.
Sipperly stated he received a letter from Tom Metcalf yesterday and as a result the applicants called a meeting to discuss that correspondence. Sipperly read his letter addressed to Robb Linde, Chairman dated October 18, 2010 into the record. (See attached).
Sipperly asked the commission members if they had visited the site. All the members in attendance indicated they had visited the site.
Sipperly discussed the Design Point A in his letter which states – “in offsite areas OS-2 is an existing storm sewer outlet that discharges west to an area towards Rogers Lake. Based on the proposed development there is a slight increase of 0.14 cfs. He further stated it was so negligible that you can’t even measure it. He further stated that is all done based on calculations and assumptions based on drainage co-efficient.
Linde asked Mr. Sipperly if he was qualified to state that it was not measurable. Sipperly stated he was not an engineer but it was his review of the calculations. Therefore, he feels it is negligible for an impact from a wetland standpoint.
Sipperly pointed out Design Standpoint B and noted it was Wetland Area 1. He stated all of the drainage that is located in the red area is all going to go through this wetland and its going to discharge. He stated that increase is 12.07 cfs in a 100 year storm. O’Donnell asked what letter that Wetland was labeled. Sipperly stated it was Wetland Series A.
He stated Design Point C is one the of second largest areas. He stated all the area in green is going to come into this wetland and will discharge off the property and that will be 10.40 cfs.
Krulikowski asked if the calculations were based on the land in its current state or after development. Sipperly stated it was after construction. He further stated that what the engineer did in his tables was to calculate what the current runoff is pre-development and after the roads, driveways and lawns are added he then comes up with a post calculation. He stated the difference between pre and post are the numbers that are being presented now.
O’Donnell stated the applicant did not specify any clearing limits on the plan and therefore wondered how it could be calculated without having fixed clearing limits or knowing how much of that area will be left vegetated.
Page 6 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
Poryanda stated he has taken a basic design and used that to establish the clearing limits. O’Donnell asked if there was an average number. Poryanda stated it based on the size of the lot, septic system, and driveway. Poryanda stated once they have those figures they show a basic clearing limit and then calculate the grass area, the impervious area, and the area that remains for each lot. O’Donnell asked if the average lot size was a minimum of 2 acres. Poryanda stated that was correct.
Sipperly stated the last point of discharge is the blue area. He stated this area all flows to the north through discharge point Design B. He stated this goes into the Swamp Brook and the increase there is 7.62 cfs.
Sipperly stated he was not an engineer but he wanted to explain it so everybody could understand what we are looking at and the numbers he believes the engineer is going to work and quantify some of these things with clearing limits and the ability of the water quality basins that are shown on the plan there is the potential to use some of this as storage.
Sipperly stated the information that is presented to the commission tonight and the storm drainage calculations that the commission has in the file which have been reviewed by Tom Metcalf and in addition to the meeting yesterday he felt the applicant will be back at the next meeting with those numbers significantly reduced.
O’Donnell asked the location that is shown as an offsite drainage area known as Design Point C that is approximately 210 acres. Sipperly stated that the wetland system continues down off the property and goes onto other properties which is not mapped but used as a resource map by the engineers to calculate the drainage. Poryanda stated this would be the total watershed that is contributing to Design Point C down to Rogers Lake.
Sipperly summarized the wetland impact and stated he was sure the commission was aware of what their regulations define as a significant activity and stated that when the commission decides on this application they are going to have to determine if the proposed construction has a significant impact on the wetlands and watercourses on or adjacent to this site. Sipperly stated based on the proposal and its design there are no activities at all in any wetland areas. He further stated the only areas that are within the 100’ regulated area is two locations and the reason for that is because of the proximity to the wetlands for these water quality basins to be constructed and designed so they will actually work and drain into the wetland. Sipperly stated he did not believe that there will be any
significant adverse impacts to the wetlands on or off site. He also noted the project will be phased. He further stated that there is always the potential for something to go wrong with erosion sedimentation controls or big storms so the commission has to look at the probability and how it can be reduced. He stated the commission can have regular inspections, using the established 2004 guidelines for erosion control for the State of Connecticut, good construction practice by the contractor and the town’s engineer.
Page 7 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
Griswold asked if the two storms in March this year were considered 100 year storms. Poryanda stated that based on the New Haven data 7.1 inches in 24 hours is a 100 year storm.
Krulikowski stated in the 80’s there was 18 inches of rain and there was extreme runoff and noted this Spring there were extreme problems which is prior to any trees being removed or any defoliation and this is one of her main concerns in this area. She stated there has already been extensive drainage and flooding problems going down to Rogers Lake, Route 1 and the Army National Guard. She stated there is concern because there are water problems prior to this development and her concern is the drainage is going add to an already existing problem.
Linde stated the commission has to concern itself with the wetland and the impact of the wetland. He further stated if there is flooding concerns of people’s homes while the commission does care about it the commission is concerned about the effect on the wetlands. Linde stated however, the commission can certainly look at the additional runoff down stream and even outside of the 100’ review zone if we feel there is going to be an impact on the wetland.
Sipperly stated he indicated on the record that right now there is a proposed increase but based on the meeting yesterday the engineers are looking at redesigning some things that came up as a result of his input and input from Tom Metcalf. Therefore he knows the numbers will be significantly reduced.
Martorelli stated that the water quality basins to the south were designed to handle a 100 year storm but the regulations of the town do not require zero runoff. He stated we never looked at these areas for potential detention but the reality is that the size of these basins for water quality are what we think will be the exact same size of basins that could be used for detention. He stated we are going to look at how the water is being discharged out of these water quality basins and if that water can be metered out then there will be no additional impact to create that detention. He further stated they are not looking at any major changes to the plan between now and the next meeting it is more going to be the issue of how we are addressing the discharge from the water quality basins without increase.
Krulikowski stated from what she understood the water from the catch basin is going into the wetlands and therefore how could that not impact the wetland. Sipperly stated the water will first be collected in the catch basins and then flow into a drainage system and eventually go into one of the water quality basins and stay there for awhile. He stated the sand and things will come out and then it will flow out into the wetland area when it is clean.
Page 8 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
Poryanda stated there are only a few structures on the site. He stated in the cut situation going down to Old Stagecoach Road but under the direction of town staff the proposal is to now sheet flow the water off the road into grass swales that are designed for in excess of a 100 year storm.
Linda Krulikowski recused herself from the application.
O’Donnell asked the other commission members if they felt the commission should retain their own expert to review the impact. Linde stated that was certainly something to consider.
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
Daniel Jones – 10 Old Post Road – Mr. Jones submitted photographs for the commission to review along with a survey of his property. Mr. Jones asked for the capacity of the proposed basins. Poryanda stated they were designed for a 100 year. Sipperly stated Mr. Jones was asking for the volume and area. Poryanda stated the volume was 29,000 cubic feet and 1,000 cubic feet. Poryanda further stated those numbers may change when they complete the design working towards zero runoff. He further stated the flow that is entering his property now will remain the same.
Jones reviewed the photographs taken of the various areas and noted each picture was numbered. He stated the pictures were taken after a moderate rainfall on October 1, 2009. He also reviewed pictures taken on January 26, 2010. He stated it shows the water accumulating on the proposed site and coming through on his property and continuing down. He stated the water is flowing pretty good and fans out as it approaches Old Post Road. He showed the culvert on his side as well as the property across the street. He stated this is the water runoff he is looking at with no houses, roads or detention basins. He expressed concern that the water would continue and head straight toward his house and felt this water would devastate his property as well as impact the wetlands on his
property.
Linde stated just to clarify Mr. Jones concern is the impact of any increase runoff on the wetland that is down stream on his property. Jones stated that was correct. Jones formally requested an expert be brought into review the plan.
Sipperly stated for the record that the photos that are being submitted are photos that depict the wetland delineation that had been formed on his property. DiCamillo asked what happened to the property in the flood in 1982. Jones stated he was not living there. Griswold asked what happened in March of 2010 during the two significant rain events. Jones stated he got a little bit of water in the basement. He stated he has stone foundation
Page 9 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
which he has been working on to eliminate some problems and doesn’t want things to get any worse.
Sipperly asked if over the years this wetland has been more defined in a channel or has it been cutting in or is it still pretty much overland with not much of channel. Jones stated that the only time this runs is when it rains. He also noted in the summer time you could walk in the area and not get the top of your sneakers wet. Jones stated the stream that goes underneath Route 1 goes into what is known as Davis Pond and that in turn comes back around and impacts Grassy Hill Road. He concluded by stating that water is a very powerful commodity.
Linde again stated he understood that Mr. Jones is concerned about the wetland on his property and the potential impact of any increase in runoff. Mr. Jones stated that was correct and felt the roadways and manicured lawns would definitely impact his property.
Wayne Smith – 25 Stagecoach Road - He stated that he lived at this address in 1982 and the whole area was flooded. He also expressed concern about how much water goes into the wetlands. He said in December and January when it snows those wetlands grow almost twice in size. He also expressed concern about the area the applicant stated was a dry hill because he has been going back there since he was a kid and has never seen it totally dry in his life. Sipperly stated from a wetlands standpoint there have to be certain types of physical characteristics in the soil to determine a wetland but the road is a lot higher than the surrounding area. Smith asked if they knew how high the mountain is on the third Phase. He further stated there is so much water that comes
off that hill you wouldn’t believe it. Sipperly stated the wetland does get larger as it rains but that is the function of the swelling. He further stated just because you have standing water outside it doesn’t mean that it’s the limits of the wetlands. He stated they are based on soil types and you need to look and see where the water sits and is it long enough to give it gray soil, therefore standing water after heavy rain does not necessarily qualify as a watercourse or a wetland.
Sipperly stated there is a drive that has been cut into the hill. Smith stated all the water that comes off that hill right now goes across the street to the Roche property. Sipperly stated that will be stopped once this is constructed. Smith stated he didn’t feel it would be stopped with a couple of catch basins. Sipperly stated he was talking about the situation referenced in 82’ coming through there. Smith stated he didn’t feel that was possible.
Linde asked Poryanda to comment on this issue. Poryanda stated 8 sets of catch basins are proposed to collect the water. He also noted that the maximum distance between those catch basins is 150’ where normally the separating distance is 250’ or 300’. He stated we proposed this to make sure we capture as much as water as possible. Linde
Page 10 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
asked if this would be sufficient to keep the water from running along the street and out. Poryanda stated that was correct.
Thomas Burr – 33 Old Stagecoach Road – Mr. Burr stated back in March with the grade as it currently is this area washed half way across Old Stagecoach Road. Mr. Burr stated even with a catch basin when it rains hard and the water comes down this road it crosses the catch basin into his shared driveway. Therefore, he expressed concern that all the water that comes off this hill will not be saved by these catch basins. Poryanda stated the flow will remain the same and based on the town requirements an increase in the line is not required. Burr asked what the pipes were designed for. Poryanda stated they were designed for a 50 or 100 year storm. Burr asked if they anticipated additional water coming off the hill. Poryanda stated there would be
additional water but the increase would re-routed to maintain the zero increase. Linde stated he was not sure there was a wetland impact in that area, but also noted that the town engineer would be checking all the calculations.
Gerald O’Dell – 5 Grassy Hill Road – Mr. O’Dell stated in 1981 he granted the town a drainage easement to upgrade the road. He stated the easement was only for reducing the flow off of Old Stagecoach Road providing there was no increase on his property and does not include anything else.
Roger Bruenig – 72 Grassy Hill Road – Mr. Bruenig asked how the increase runoff would impact Rogers Lake. He further stated this runoff will eventually reach the lake. He stated he heard a lot of reference to 100 year storm but a 100 year storm at the dam into the lake will give you a 24.2 inch rise in the lake level and noted this was based on FEMA numbers. He stated this past March the lake came up 31 inches and did a lot of damage. Therefore, he stated there has to be some allowance for the lake. He further stated he would like to see this project placed on an overall map that shows him where this is on the watershed. He stated we need to look at the big picture and know where the water goes when it leaves one of those exits and what the volume is. He
stated he felt there is some risk involved with this site. Poryanda stated as part of the presentation they reviewed four discharge points off the property and went over the flows that comply with the regulations. He also noted the current numbers will be reduced by the next meeting. Bruenig asked what the basis was for reducing those flows. Poryanda stated that they do the preconstruction calculations and then match the post construction calculations. So for example if there is a discharge of 10 cfs we will make sure that we maintain the same discharge at the point where it leaves the property. Poryanda stated they will try to retain as much water on the site as possible.
Linde asked if there is going to be any additional runoff from the site he would like to know what percentage of increase it is compared to what it is currently. Linde further stated he would also like know what additional percentage of additional runoff would be added to Rogers Lake watershed.
Page 11 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
Diana Atwood Johnson – Chairman of the Open Space Committee – Ms. Johnson stated she didn’t feel the applicants proposal of open space was enough and should not only consist of wetlands it should be land with upland characteristics that are beneficial to the people who live in this community. She stated many of these homes are going to have horrible level spreaders in their front lawns and felt this proposal was just a 2 acre cookie cutter subdivision. She further stated she didn’t feel they had done the best effort for Old Lyme as a subdivision or open space. She also stated she was aware that Tom Metcalf was working hard to make the water satisfactory but it sounded to her based on the testimony this evening that all the water is going right into the detention basin which
the applicant has indicated will absorb it all and possibly spread out a little bit which means it will spread out into the wetland areas and upland areas that exist around the edges of this wetland and so what’s the point for open space. She stated we need to have some or both and the Open Space Committee has been striving over the last years to at least get an equal percentage of upland and wetland.
She also noted that in one area there are additional conservation easements that are in favor of the Town of Old Lyme and stated this is a very important area that has to be looked at by both the Open Space Committee and the Conservation Commission for years as something that is very fragile and very vulnerable and needs to be protected. She stated she was not convinced that what is shown on the plan will adequately protect this area. She asked the commission to make sure that runoff is as pristine as it can be. She also noted that the Town of Old Lyme is going to assume the responsibility.
Poryanda stated he would assume that the maintenance of the water quality basins would lye with the Homeowner’s Association and not the town. Poryanda stated he was not completely aware of how the Open Space parcel would be dedicated. Poryanda stated as far as impact to wetlands these water quality basins are designed to function. He also noted that he was aware that the grass swales and level spreaders were not that attractive but those are the guidelines that are established because water quality groups are all concerned about water quality and these swales the way they are installed now and recommended is they do improve water quality but do not look that great.
Linde stated once again that the Inland Wetlands Commission is considering retaining their own wetlands expert.
Ruth Roach – 30 Old Stagecoach Road. Roach stated that the cut on Old Stagecoach Road that is being discussed where the culverts will be placed is right across from her family’s property. She stated on the other side of Old Stagecoach Road is the Spring House. She stated that Spring House is the exit point for an underground spring which feeds the family home. She therefore expressed concern about the impact it would have on the wetlands on the Roach Property and that Spring House when all the water is
Page 12 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
diverted. She stated in the summer time this well dries up and they depend on that spring to supply water to that house for the whole summer.
Sipperly stated he was not familiar with that Spring. Roach asked if he had looked on the other side of the street. Sipperly stated that a spring is usually a point of discharge of groundwater for a specific reason whether it be soil types or bed rock outcrops that define where the water comes out. He stated he didn’t know the area of contribution for that spring. He stated he could not comment on that but the soils in the area have a very deep (the non-wetlands soils) groundwater. He stated he was not an engineer but felt all the water that goes through this area now is only going to be a .14 increase. Sipperly stated nothing goes this way now and we are not changing anything. Roach asked the commission to research what will happen to the water that impacts this area.
Linde stated he felt it would be in everyone’s best interest if the applicant would have the engineer answer questions about flow and drainage questions and have the wetlands expert answer questions about water quality.
O’Donnell asked whether wetlands needed to be mapped beyond the development shown (such as across the street to the proposed subdivision). Griswold stated the road and the cut would be within the 100’ review zone. Linde stated the applicant can’t go onto someone else’s property to map something without their permission. Therefore he stated if that permission was granted we would review the result. Roach stated that would be up to the family. Sipperly stated he was not aware of what maps the Town of Old Lyme had with regard to aerial photography but suggested that possibly something could be obtained from the DEP showing accurate limits. He further stated that the wetlands on the other side of the street are dependent on the topography.
Daniel Jones – 10 Old Post Road. Mr. Jones stated the commission asked if he lived at his current residence during the 82 storm. He stated that was when they began the construction of Old Stagecoach Road. He stated that was when the rain washed out the road. Anson Clinton stated that Old Stagecoach Road did not get washed it. Jones stated they needed to go back in and re-grade the road.
Linde stated the commission has already agreed to review the downstream impacts.
Anson Clinton – 29 Old Stagecoach Road – Mr. Clinton stated he has no vested interest in this development. He stated in 1979 he brought a lawsuit against the Town of Old Lyme with regard to Stagecoach Road. He stated he won the lawsuit and they had to build the road. He stated that Fred Radcliffe was the engineer who did the design work for the town. He stated they took the watershed calculations at that time and that watershed and design criteria was all taken into consideration at the time of construction. He stated when you come into the wetland area on the site, he stated it is a seasonal wetland and is a 1’ stream. He stated the runoff from the hill is also seasonal and dries
Page 13 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
up. He stated when he dug the pond it was not in the wetland classification. He stated the pond is shown as a huge area and there is no water there. He stated there is rocks and during a high water it will puddle and then dry out. He stated it is not a pond it is a wet area and it when it gets down to Daniel Jones’ property the water comes from here and follows a stream about 2’ feet wide crosses over and goes into Rogers Lake. He stated in the subdivision itself he is concerned a little because of the percolation here which abuts his 16 acre parcel and it is a higher water table coming down. Mr. Clinton stated that whether the people cut their lawns or not we still have a watershed which is being directed now into different areas so once the calculations are completed it
won’t be the volume that people feel it will be. He stated on the Stagecoach Road area the volume of water that comes down right now is because it is unregulated. He stated once the road is constructed and the catch basins are installed and the water is directed into the systems that will be under a controlled measure.
Linde stated that wetlands do not necessarily mean wet soil. In the State of Connecticut a wetland is determined by type of soil and can actually be dry practically year round and still be wetlands.
Daniel Jones – 10 Old Post Road – He stated the town had an underground culvert which was a steel pipe that went from the southbound of Stagecoach Road down to a neighbors property and stated that culvert seems to have disappeared.
Breunig asked if the wetlands commission would require bonding on this project. Linde stated as part of a wetlands application bonds are considered for the project.
Anson Clinton stated with reference to the 31’ level of water at Rogers Lake that people should keep in mind all that water didn’t come from this piece of property. Bruenig stated if that number became 35’ it would create the potential for a problem.
Linde stated he has heard the public that they would like the commission to retain a wetlands expert to evaluate the property as well as the downstream area. He further stated the commission has asked the applicant if there is increase in runoff from the property what is the percent increase both to Rogers Lake and in particular from Wetlands 183 (B). He also heard a concern raised of the effect this proposal would have on the spring located on the Roche Property.
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to continue the public hearing. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 14 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
OLD BUSINESS
10-24 – Beverly Pikna – 85 Shore Drive – Replace a decaying deck with a new and
expanded deck.
The commission visited the site and notified the applicant she did not need to
attend the meeting. O’Donnell stated she took pictures of the site and she will submit
them to the commission for the file to have as a record of pre-existing conditions.
Linde stated this property was an example of development right up to the lake without a
buffer and expressed the importance of getting that information into the regulations in the
next rewrite.
DiCamillo made a motion to approve the plan as submitted with the addition hay bales to
be placed along the edge of the existing terraced area closest to the wetland during
construction. Sabine O’Donnell 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.
Chairman Linde noted that the commission received two reports, one by the DEP Division of Forestry and the other by Jonathan Parker, arborist.
David Primo, stated with respect to the concern raised the association hired both a forester and arborist to evaluate the trees in general. He also noted that this area does not involve any private property. He stated after the area was evaluated there was a lot of question about what could or could not be done because the area was a wetland. Primo stated as a result an application was submitted to this commission for the removal of the trees.
Linde asked what the Talcott Farm Association was asking for as part of their permit at this point. Primo stated they would like approval to remove the trees and then resolve any disagreements to which trees within the association. He further stated he felt there was some opposition to that but noted they do have an association who will vote on the matter.
Page 15 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
Linde stated he understood after reviewing the report the arborist agrees in some cases with the removal and disagrees in other cases in terms of the need. Linde asked if the applicant was asking the commission to approve an application to remove the trees that had been originally suggested or is the request for the commission to approve an application based on the recommendation of the arborist. Primo stated he was asking for an approval of the application as originally submitted with the understanding that the information with respect to the arborist and the forester will be used by the association to make a final determination. He further stated that the forester was engaged to specifically look at the situation in the directive of how that land was to be cared for. He stated what
the arborist looked at was strictly was whether the trees posed a significant hazard whether they come down or not.
A member of the public asked to speak and Mr. Linde reminded him that this was not a public hearing and therefore he could only take testimony from the applicant. Linde allowed Mr. Kolber to make a brief statement.
Stanley Kolber stated as he understood it the question as to what trees are going to come down is going to be submitted to the Board of Directors for the association and presumably these reports will be furnished to the Board of Directors. He stated he would like to just clear up a few things. One is that the permission granted to take down these trees will be reviewed on the basis of its Inland Wetland jurisdiction and not on the question of tree safety and no ruling is made on the conservation restrictions. Linde stated this commission will be ruling based on the impact on the wetlands.
Griswold asked what type of equipment would be used for the removal. Primo stated that all work would be done from the roadway. He stated the stumps will be left.
Griswold stated after visiting the site and looking at the impact on the wetland the trees up on the ledge he did not see any impact whether they were removed or not. He clarified stating they do fall within the review zone but felt there was no impact. He also stated the area along Catbriar Lane there were trees they also did not feel had a significant impact on the wetland. He stated he is most concerned with the removal of #3 and #4 near the fire pond. He stated #1 and #2 are within the wetland as to whether they should or should not be removed some of trees look like they have been damaged during construction and therefore if they were removed he felt it would open up space for better formed trees.
Linde stated that the arborist recommended that #1 be removed and #2 and #3 be secured by cable and no action for #4, #5, #6, and #7.
Griswold stated his main concern was how the trees are removed not whether they were removed.
Page 16 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
Discussion ensued amongst the members.
Griswold made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the exception of the removal of #3 and #4 and the remainder of the list to be left up to the Homeowner Association to work out between the arborist and forester. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. .
OTHER BUSINESS
Preliminary Discussion – Rogers lake West Shores Assoc. – Drainage issues on Epsilon and Spruce Streets.
Dave Evers was present from Rogers Lake West Shores Association to discuss the application. Mr. Evers stated he was present to address the water issue that is present on the back of Spruce Street which funnels down through the back of these lots and pools up and eventually works in way down to the corner lot on Epsilon and continues across the street and dumps into storm drainage. Mr. Evers presented the commission with a plan which outlined the town roads versus the association roads as well as the storm drains in the area.
Mr. Evers stated the association would like to come up with a plan that is feasible to fix this problem prior to Spring. He further noted they do have some funding allocated for the project at this time. He also noted that all this water eventually works out into the lake it just takes time and settles through all these peoples property. Linde stated he was aware it was a huge inconvenience but part of the purpose of having that land is to filter the water so the water quality in the lake is not impacted.
Mr. Evers stated that a lot of the storm drains are not functioning and therefore would like a permit to repair these items. Evers stated the goal is to set up a walk with the commission to review area. Evers said that they did not want to invest in final designs without a preliminary discussion with the commission.
O’Donnell stated the engineer stated at the last meeting that the flooding would be handled with ditching and swaling as well as some installation of pipes. She stated it was her understanding it would not be piped directly into the lake it would run through some other features which would treat the water before it gets to the lake. Therefore she stated the commission would like to see on a plan what type of measures would be used to treat the water prior to entering the lake. She stated even if it was a preliminary sketch.
Page 17 – IWWC
October 19, 2010
Krulikowski stated she felt as well the catch basins were not functioning properly. It was also pointed out on the plan with catch basins were association responsibility and which were town responsibility. Griswold suggested that the association work out something with the town to be sure they were working together on a solution.
Linde asked how we would know that installing a catch basin over here will prevent all the water from flowing through this area. Evers stated it would not prevent all of it but a lot of the water that runs through there would be collected.
Linde stated that these commissions concerns are the quality of the water going into the lake. He further stated he felt it was a bit premature to walk the site until a more complete design is submitted. DiCamillo asked if the association had received a cost estimate for the project. Evers stated that he was informed by Angus McDonald & Gary Sharpe Associates that the plan could cost approximately $30,000.00 to design.
Krulikowski wanted to clarify that the proposal is to repair the catch basin and fix the pipe and just by opening up that drainage will help alleviate the flooding so the water has a place to go. Therefore she asked if that plan could be developed and presented.
Linde stated the commission would be more than willing to walk the site when a plan is presented. He further noted the commission is very familiar with the area. DiCamillo expressed concern about the water coming off the wetland and these repairs not being adequate to resolve the problem.
The commission stated they felt they needed a more detailed plan and suggested that it would support reviewing a phased project if it fit their budget and noted that they understood the overall concept.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
