INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 30, 2010
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Robb Linde, Sabine O’Donnell, Dave McCulloch, Evan Griswold, and Skip DiCamillo.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED OCTOBER 19, 2010
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
2011 MEETING CALENDAR
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the 2011 Meeting Calendar. 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 SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN AN RU-80 ZONE.
Linda Krulikowski is recused from this application. Linde noted for the record the commission has not yet received full comments back from Tom Metcalf or Penny Sharp. Dave McCulloch confirmed that he had listened to the tapes from the October 19, 2010 public hearing.
Gennaro Martorelli presented an overview of the proposal. He noted the site is 128 acres with 10 percent of wetlands and is located on the east side of Old Stagecoach Road. He stated there are no wetlands crossings on the site and the closest discharge is about 50 feet from the wetlands. He noted that there were several issues raised at the last public hearing:
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
1. He stated one of the concerns raised was with regard to the spring located on the
Roach Property on the opposite side of the entrance to the subdivision. Martorelli
stated he had an opportunity to visit with the members of the Roach family and the spring had a couple of inches of water in it and it is water that percolates out of the ground. He noted there was concrete curbing around it and that water is piped to the house and is critical to their use because they have a hand dug well and when Rogers Lake is lowered sometimes that well goes dry and this well serves for flushing toilets and various purposes in the house. He stated one of the main concerns that was addressed to him was water coming down the steep slope across the road and bringing salt on to there property. He stated this was discussed with his engineer and a revision has been made to the plan since the last meeting which includes double catch basins at the entrance on either side.
2. He stated there was also questions raised with regard to the maintenance of the drainage swales. He stated most of the roads have drainage swales instead of storm sewer pipes on the side of them. He stated the maintenance of those swales as indicated on the plan is the responsibility of the individual lot owners. He further noted that since it is a town road the town will be responsible for the catch basins and the water quality-detention basins on the site.
3. He noted the Chairman of the Open Space Committee expressed her concerns about the aesthetics of the level spreader. Mr. Martorelli submitted a photograph that shows what they are now proposing as an improvement from the original structures proposed.
4. He also noted there was a large concern by the abutting property owners about the additional water runoff onto their properties and he noted that they indicated at the last meeting that the plan was going to be modified to reflect water quality basins and detention basins.
5. He stated that Tom Metcalf had some concerns about the berms on the detention basins and water quality basins and some modifications to those basins have been made.
Linde stated that Mr. Martorelli stated that the drainage swales are the responsibility of the individual property owners and therefore asked how many lots had swales on them. Martorelli indicated that approximately 25 lots contain swales. Linde stated that over half the lots in the development have drainage swales and therefore it was his understanding that each and everyone of those swales has to be properly maintained for the drainage system to work properly and therefore he had concerns that there will be 100
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
percent compliance amongst the property owners to maintain that and felt there should be a single point of accountability. Martorelli stated that issue was open for discussion but noted that the swales were put in place as a recommendation of this commission and staff in lieu of pipes.
O’Donnell asked what the maintenance of the swales would include. Martorelli stated the size of swales are approximately 4ft deep and are pretty large open areas and maintenance consists of keep them free of any debris.
Griswold stated culverts will also be placed under the driveway, therefore he asked if part of the maintenance would also include those culverts. Martorelli stated that would also be the responsibility of each individual lot owner.
McCulloch asked how much water did they feel would be infiltrated into the swales instead of moved downstream into the next swale. Poryanda stated he did not feel it would be much due to the slope of the roads.
O’Donnell asked if there was a life expectancy for the swales or would they fill in eventually. Poryanda stated if they are maintained they would not fill in. Poryanda stated similar to most of the roads in town that do not have any storm drainage and the water just sheet flows out and down the side which is basically the same concept presented here. Griswold stated that generally the swales were grassed and mowed and that grass slows the water down and the sediment is caught by the vegetation.
Member of the Public…..asked the applicant to present a map that would orient them to the site with regard to roadways, etc. Poryanda reviewed a map for the members of the public showing the location of the site and the surrounding roads and areas.
Poryanda stated they have now created their water quality basins into detention basins. He stated all the water that would be collected either through a swale or drainage type network then a stone check dam is proposed so any sediment will be captured in the fore bay and then it gets metered out through a detention structure which is basically a standard catch basin and then into a stone basin and then out through the stone level spreader. Poryanda presented a photograph of the proposed level spreader which he felt was more aesthetically pleasing.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-20-10
Griswold asked the size of the pipe coming into the fore bay. Poryanda stated it was a 15 inch pipe. Griswold stated there is a 15 inch pipe coming in and a six inch opening metering the water out and therefore wondered if that hole would be overwhelmed by the amount of water from that pipe. Poryanda stated it is designed for a 100 year storm so it will maintain all the water in that retention structure; however in the event there is a larger size storm event there is a weir in the back of the catch basin along with the catch basin grade itself and if that all failed there is rip-rap emergency swale that would come down through the storm basin and then into the level spreader.
Martorelli stated there is a concrete structure with a little hole in the bottom and the water is coming in faster than the water is going out so if the basin fills to a height greater than the 100 year storm capacity that it is designed for there is a big opening in the top of the back of the catch basin and if it fills up above that then there is grade of the catch basin and if the water goes higher than that there is a spillway.
DiCamillo clarified that the maintenance of the detention basins is the responsibility of the town. Poryanda stated that was correct but noted he didn’t feel much maintenance would be required. Linde asked who was responsible for the combination of water quality and retention basins. Poryanda stated that the town would be responsible.
O’Donnell asked for clarification of the concerns expressed in Mr. Metcalf’s letter to the commission with regard to the water quality foundations being constructed in fill. Poryanda stated at one time the plan proposed the lower side of the detention structure in fill, however a portion of the basin in fill is normal, but he has modified the basin and lowered the berm. He further stated he will be reviewing this issue with Mr. Metcalf at their Friday meeting. Poryanda stated if Mr. Metcalf felt it was better to make them wider and shallow for better stability that to would be discussed. .
O’Donnell asked if the structures would be built with materials existing on site. Poryanda stated that was correct.
Poryanda stated in the predevelopment this portion of the subdivision flowed down to Old Stagecoach Road but in trying to keep the heavier flow to this wetland they have taken 2.2 acres and brought it through a storm drainage network and then tied into a detention water quality basin.
Linde asked if the rate of discharge would be the same but the volume would be different. Poryanda stated that was correct.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
Poryanda presented a map that shows the Rogers Lake drainage basin and its proximity to the subdivision and noted this project falls within that water basin and it depends on where you draw the line as to what you consider diversion and not diversion. He stated that DEP considers diversion 50,000 gallons a day or 100 acres and in this case it involves 2.2 acres and basically the peak discharge. O’Donnell asked where the 2.2 acres number came from. Poryanda stated that it is the area of diversion. O’Donnell clarified that the 2.2 acres is the area where the water will be diverted in a direction that is not its natural flow.
Martorelli stated that the Old Lyme Subdivision Regulations do not require detention or zero increase in runoff. Martorelli stated as a developer they are concerned with the water coming off the subdivision onto Old Stagecoach Road. Therefore, his direction to the engineer was to try to keep the quantity of water the same pre and post development and so they felt it was wise to take the 2.2 acres and put it through this massive wetland. He further stated that now that we have introduced the concept of detention it would be very simple for us to install another water quality detention basin at this point and tie that water into Old Stagecoach Road. Linde asked if that was part of this application. Martorelli indicated it was not.
Linde stated the question as to whether the water is being diverted from one wetland to another or diverted from one persons property to another is a question that may or may not be pertinent to the Planning Commission. He further stated that the concern of the IWWC is whether the additional water that is going into wetland area (2) will have an impact on that wetland area or downstream area. (with regard to potential modifications to the plan) Linde stated this commission can only consider the application before the commission and cannot make a decision based
on any other options. Martorelli stated they will be meeting with the town engineer on Friday and depending on how that discussion goes this may be modified.
QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC:
Attorney Michael Cronin, was present on behalf of his client, Daniel Jones. Attorney Cronin stated his client was present at the last hearing and expressed particular concerns and that is why he is present this evening with a couple of experts. Cronin stated he believe as part of the record the commission has a map which shows Mr. Jone’s property. He stated his property is directly south and down stream from this project. Cronin used Map 1 to demonstrate the common boundary lines between his client and the subject property of approximately 1,300 feet. Therefore, he stated whatever happens to this wetland will eventually come down onto his client’s property. He stated they are very
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
concerned about how this project will impact his property. Cronin also presented a contour map which indicated the steep slopes on his client’s property. Cronin stated at the last hearing his client submitted a series of photographs which demonstrate what happens to his property when it rains. He stated since that time he has keyed those particular photographs into a scheduled outlining the rain events on those particular days. Cronin stated that Mr. Jones position is that the property owners have the right to develop their property and he is not objecting to the development but has requested that if it is approved by this commission it be done in a manner that will have the least possible effects on the adjacent properties in the area and consistent with good principles with respect to the
preservation of the natural wetland areas.
Donald T Ballou, Professional Engineer was also present on behalf of Mr. Jones. Mr. Ballou provided the commission with his resume. Mr. Ballou reviewed with the commission a map he prepared which outlined the Rogers Lake Watershed, the Town boundaries, the proposed subdivision and the properties of Jones, Smith & Clinton. The map also shows that about 40 percent of the proposed subdivision flows north into the Town of Lyme. After he reviewed the information contained on his map he stated he felt a submission should be made to the Town of Lyme for this project. He also stated he felt inquiries should also be made to the Regional Planning Agency, the U.S. Corps of Engineers , the DEP to determine if they have any interests in viewing the proposed subdivision submittals
and if not he would request a letter indicating their position. .
Linde asked Mr. Ballou if he was requesting that this application should go to those agencies instead of this commission (OL IWWC) or in addition to this commission. He stated he felt it should go to this commission as well as the additional agencies mentioned.
Mr. Ballou also submitted a map of Rogers Lake as part of the record and noted he would provide the commission with a copy. Linde asked if there was anything different in this map than what the applicant has presented. Mr. Ballou indicated that this was their map and the only addition was Mr. Jones’s property.
Mr. Ballou stated there was a road detail on Sheet 31 which shows the road ROW pitched to drain to the paved road and therefore he was under the impression that the use of side road swales implied that the road drained equally to both sides to the roadside swales.
Ballou presented a map which he laid over the previous map which he traced onto the existing watershed areas. He then colored between the existing and proposed to show the areas that are being redirected which are shown in pink. He located the large area that is under question. He stated this shouldn’t be allowed. Linde asked why it shouldn’t be
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
allowed. Ballou stated the water that presently drains to the Clinton Property is now being directed to drain to Mr. Jones property. Linde stated where the water goes is potentially a question for the Planning Commission not a question for this commission. Linde asked from a wetlands perspective why it shouldn’t be allowed. Ballou stated that additional water is being directed into the wetlands. Linde asked if a wetland is not designed to handle water. Ballou stated he would leave that question to the environmentalists.
O’Donnell stated that Mr. Ballou indicated that the proposed drainage swales work best at 2 percent (meaning the slope of the road) so what is his opinion on the effectiveness of what is proposed. Ballou stated he has not had an opportunity to do a full review and had a quick look at the swale and driveway pipe. He stated the driveway has an 18 inch pipe underneath and as stated earlier by the developer the swale has a 4 foot bottom width and 3 to 1 side slope which gives you a 16 foot top lift. He stated the swales are two feet deep and recommended the green filter back be used in the swale which has a longer longevity. Ballou stated when there are 8 to 10 percent slopes the swales are not doing what the environmentalist say they will do and that therefore fails the reason for having
swales.
McCulloch stated this commission like swales because of infiltration not to pipe water to a system. He further stated this plan looks like it’s designed to get rid of the water quickly.
Ballou stated in his report he suggested with regards to maintenance of the swales, piped drainage system and the Water Quality Basins/Stormwater Detention Facilities the following is suggested.
1. A legal caveat registered with the Town Clerk’s office discussing the formation of a Homeowners Association with the legal responsibility of maintaining the above suggested items.
2. Until a sufficient number of houses are sold (to be specified) the Developer will be financially responsible for performing the specified maintenance; this may be a period of 5 years or more.
3. A contract with a company that performs this kind of maintenance work should be in place as a final condition of approval by the Town of the subdivision.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
Ballou stated the town should not bear this responsibility because these six or seven basins are going to be difficult to keep going because they will get clogged with some frequency. He suggested an inlet vault should be utilized prior to runoff accessing the Water Quality Basins. The inlet vault has at least two compartments with interconnecting submerged water ports. The sediment and floatables are captured in the first compartment. This vault is placed near the traveled right-of-way so that a vacuum truck can clean the first compartment as needed.
Linde stated there was significant discussion at the last public hearing when a similar application was before the commission on this property. He asked the applicant at some point to reiterate the rationale for the swales along the slope that goes upwards of ten percent and why it would function properly.
Ballou stated he only had time to review the Time of Concentration, “Tc” as found on Drainage Area “WL-2”. McCulloch as what Time of Concentration meant. Ballou stated the time of concentration is one of the ingredients that are used in developing an inflow storm type of graph. He said it is the time it takes a drop of water to travel from the hydraulically most remote point in the watershed to the consideration point. Therefore he suggested the developer revisit this issue.
Ballou stated that no swale area delineations could be found on the plan, therefore he could not evaluate the calculations. He also noted that the typical road detail on Sheet 31 shows the road ROW pitched to drain to the paved road. He stated he was under the impression that the use of side road swales implied that the road drained equally to both sides to the roadside swales. He stated if it is not serving an environmental issue he would not want to be saddled with it on his property.
Ballou stated the road sections shown on Sheet 28 (the entrance road) shows section 2+00 or 5+00 and asked where the rest of the sections were shown. He stated he felt more detailing should be added to the road sections.
Ballou stated the concrete level spreader details on Sheets 32 & 34 are not in agreement and should be revisited. He stated the runoff curve numbers selected have no back calculations that he could find enclosed.
Ballou stated Swale #3 driveway pipe (the one that has an 18 inch pipe under the driveway) and surcharges by 0.45’. He expressed the flow is no good if the water cannot get into the pipe. Therefore he suggested larger pipes or a pair of pipes.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
He reviewed his comments on the Water Quality Basins; also stormwater detention basins: He stated the packet he received for the water quality basins was rerun on October 26, 2010 and the 100 year storm used was 7.95”. He stated all the developers use 7.1” for a 100 year storm so he questioned the use of 7.95”. He further stated within a year there will be new rainfall frequency distribution.
Linde asked if the applicant was using the correct standards. Ballou stated that accepted standards are being used. Ballou stated the design storms should be 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 & 100 year 24 hour storms events. He also noted that the plans should include the earthen material utilized in the basin construction, construction lift thickness, maximum stone size in each lift, a gradation analysis and winter conditions and compaction should also be included. He also noted as a DEP requirement the top width should be 8 feet.
Linde summarized by stating that there are a number of issues with regard to missing details from the construction plans, and also noted that the plans are not currently construction ready, and further noted that the Town Engineer, Tom Metcalf, has also found a number of these same issues and is in conversation with the applicant to get them resolved. Linde stated that Mr. Ballou also mentioned a concern about the diversion of the water from the 2 plus acre watershed to the south instead of to the west but he did not hear any comment as to why that might have an impact on the wetland. Linde stated that it was stated that the environmental scientist would comment on that subject.
Linde urged the applicant to resolve these issues by the January meeting so the commission would have all the information they needed to render a decision on the application.
Ballou also suggested that the emergency spillways not be placed in the embankment.
Linde summarized further that Ballou was questioning the design and details in certain areas that will allow the commission to have confidence that the plan will function as designed. Ballou concurred.
David H. Lord, Soil Scientist and Environmental Consultant, presented his profile and work experience to the commission. He noted he was present at the hearing on behalf of his client, Daniel Jones. Mr. Lord stated he had not completed his final report but has made some notes with regard to the project.
Mr. Lord stated he felt the commission should receive an ecological studies report that describes the character, function of the wetland system, vegetative cover types as well as soil types. He stated it is very difficult to assess the potential for impacts to a wetland without some baseline information on what that wetland system contains.
Page 10 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
He stated another factor that is very regularly required in the ecological study is the presence or absence of the physical characteristics that could provide vernal pool habitat functioning. He stated it would also include the types of wetlands soils and in this particular application the upland soils and their suitability for the proposed development activities.
Lord stated the swales are proposed to be mowed by the applicant/homeowners and the driveway culverts and his experience with this is that there is sand accumulating into those areas. He stated the sand will not accumulate in the steep portions of the drainage swale it will be transported down into the low areas and once thick layers develop enough it will impede vegetation.
McCulloch asked if the winter sanding would go into the swales. Mr. Lord stated any sand on the road will go into the bottom of the swales.
O’Donnell asked if Mr. Lord if his comments were based on information supplied by the applicant. Mr. Lord stated he reviewed the application file which included the documents, maps and drawings and also toured the perimeter of the subject property on the south side and along Stagecoach Road. O’Donnell asked if his recommendation was to have an ecological study done. Mr. Lord stated that was correct.
He further stated one of the key elements he reviewed from a stormwater management system that he think needs to be incorporated into the plan is to retain as much surface water that is generated by the development on site. He stated detention basins work fine for the peak flow runoff but all these pavement surfaces, the roofs, the driveway, will increase the volume and there is simple methods that can be used to retain on site and break up the surface water runoff. He suggested roof leader infiltrators, rain gardens, and 1-2 foot deep sump areas below outlet ports in water quality basins.
Linde asked Mr. Lord that as the plan is proposed today what impact he felt it would have on the wetland. Mr. Lord stated that a greater volume of water is being added quicker to the wetland than presently occurs on the site. He further stated detention basins do a very good job of taking the peak rate of runoff and keeping it to a mirror of the existing conditions. He further stated depending on the type of wetland system it can cause changes to soils, vegetation and functioning. Linde stated the applicant stated the rate of water into the wetland would remain the same but the volume of water would change. Lord stated that was correct. Linde asked what impact will there be on the wetlands by having the increased volume of water in the wetland. Lord stated he could not tell because he
did not know the type of wetland system. He said it has the potential to change: make it wetter, increase the area of saturation, length of saturation. He stated wetlands are poorly drained soils which have a particular seasonality as far as the depth
Page 11 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
of water table below the ground surface. He stated you can change a wetland from a poorly drained to a very poorly drained. He stated it can change vegetation and habitat diversity all relating to the physical characteristics.
Griswold stated presuming the maintenance of a wetland like this and the seepage discussed earlier from the hard pan and assuming on top of the hard pan the water flows latterly if additional volume introduced does that surface flow change. Is there a reversal of that flow back into the surrounding water table? He stated it depends on the time of year and the saturation conditions of the wetlands. He stated in some times of the year it could be beneficial and other times it would not be beneficial.
Lord stated the clearing limits are based on schematic house locations and he felt where that clearing is on a lot that is within the upland review area the commission may want to consider imposing strict clearing limit designation or the requirement for that house to come back for approval from this commission if that limit is proposed to be changed.
Lord stated that water quality basins #1, #3, and #5 are located on private building lots and access is by a drainage easement and he has seen issue with access over that if you have to drive over the homeowner’s driveway and through his back yard to get to the basin. He stated the basins do need to be maintained such as mowed and inspected on a fairly regular basin early on after construction of the project.
O’Donnell asked how many basins are effected because she thought the two main ones were in common areas. Lord stated 4 & 5 are in common areas and 1, 2 & 3 are on building lots. O’Donnell asked who would be responsible for those. Martorelli stated the town would be responsible and if that is a responsibility the town does not want an association can be formed. Lord stated these easements and covenants are going to be very important to the people who purchase those lots because access is going to be fairly often through their property to inspect and mow that basin.
Lord stated the design of the basins in some cases needs to be revisited because the inlets and outlets need to be placed as far as part as possible. He said in basin #6 they are directly across from each other and the water needs to move throughout the basin. He also suggested fore bay be resized.
DANIEL JONES – 10 POST ROAD
He stated he was the property owner of 26 acres south of this proposed complex. Mr. Jones stated he had submitted a set of photographs from the last meeting and wondered if his peak flow had been determined after reviewing the pictures. Jones stated at the end of March there was 11.96 inches of rainfall on the 30th and 4.9 inches on the 29th which caused a lot of problems. He further stated that on the 10th of February there was 9.53
Page 12 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
inches and on the 16th there was 10.47. Mr. Jones provided a document which provided the remaining dates and data.
He further stated that the water comes down with a lot of force which causes destruction. Mr. Jones expressed concern that when Davies Pond rises it impacts several adjacent properties and that is without all these houses and catch basins. He also stated he felt some peoples basements would fill up much quicker than normal. He stated he was not happy and didn’t want the water coming down to his property and stated there is an 11 acre wetland on the site and he has a 2 acre wetland on his property and he felt this wetland would drastically impact his wetland which in turn will dramatically impact everybody down that stream. He stated he was not for it and he didn’t like but was aware he could not stop a development but he will protect his property rights.
Martin Ewers – 13 Old Post Road
He expressed concern that his wetlands don’t currently drain and has lost a furnace and replaced his well pump and felt his property could not handle any more runoff.
Judy Sholtis - 11 Post Road
She stated during the last rainfall her husband and her were out for 24 hours three days vacuuming up water from her basement. She stated they cannot take anymore water.
Art Avery – 210 Boston Post Road
Mr. Avery submitted photographs. He stated he owns land on Old Stagecoach which already contains an easement to the town. He stated everything that drains from Mr. Jones property or Davies Pond drains into his front lawn. He further noted he already has a lot of wetlands on his property and does not want anymore. He also explained some of his prior expenses with regard to flooding on his property.
Daniel Jones – 10 Old Post Road
Mr. Jones stated that Grassy Hill Road has been closed twice over the last 3 years for flooding.
Art Avery – 210 Boston Post Road
Mr. Avery submitted photographs of the dam for the commission to review. He noted there was captions on the back of each of the photographs.
Page 13 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
Penny Sharp –- Consultant for the Town
Ms. Sharp also supported getting an ecological study and noted she would have her comments in a timely manner. She also asked if the wetlands could be flagged.
Daniel Jones – 10 Old Post Road
Mr. Jones invited the commission to walk his property.
Mr. Martorelli said he has heard several parties question the use of swales on the property versus pipes and asked for some feedback. Linde stated he actually prefers swales but his concern is with the maintenance of the swales. He stated he would like a defined maintenance plan and that there to be responsibility and accountability for it. O’Donnell also expressed concerns for the swales that will be located away from the road. Linde stated in order for this to work it requires 25 individuals to each do their part, the town to do their part so it is a system that is pretty much designed to fail. Martorelli stated that the town does do maintenance on catch basin currently located on town roads.
Griswold stated he prefers swales over pipes because at least with swales you have some idea how the water is behaving. He further stated at some times of the year it allows the water to aerate and have some biological activity.
Linde stated it was his understanding that for moderate rain events the swales function better than a pipe because some water will get infiltrated and some of it will get filtered on its way to the detention. He further stated in a heavy rain event the swale essentially becomes a pipe because the water is moving so fast. He stated there maybe some concerns as to whether the swale can handle the heavy rain event and the erosion in the swale.
Linde stated that from the testimony this evening he said there are still a large number of engineering details that need to be worked out on the plan. He stated for this commission to approve any plan it must be construction ready. He concluded there is a huge amount of work that needs to get accomplished in the next several weeks and failure to do that amount of work will really impact the commission’s ability to make a decision especially the ability to make a favorable decision.
Linde also requested from the applicant a detailed biological survey of the wetlands, a proper flagging of the wetlands and a proper description of when and where soil samples were taken and the type of soils on the site.
Page 14 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-30-10
Linde stated the applicant has already said there will be an increase in volume of runoff and this commission has to concern itself with the impact of that volume of runoff on the wetland both onsite and the wetlands downstream. He stated personally he is concerned and is concerned about the volume of water going on adjacent properties but from a wetlands perspective it does not fall under this commission’s purview but it may fall under the purview of Planning.
Linde requested again what the additional volume of water is leaving the property.
The commission continued the hearing to a Special Meeting on Tuesday, January 11, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.
The Commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, December 4, 2010 to walk the Daniel Jones property at 8:30 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
Dave McCulloch reported on two sites he inspected with regard to enforcement issues.
The commission agreed to visit Billow Road and Hartung Place following their site walk at Mr. Jones property.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
