OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2011
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Robb Linde, Janet Bechtel, Sabine O’Donnell, Skip DiCamillo, Evan Griswold and Linda Krulikowski.
Chairman Linde called the meeting to order at 7:07p.m.
MARK BRANSE
Attorney Mark Branse was present to discuss policies and procedures with the commission. He also distributed copies of Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations by Michael Zizka and discussed portions of the document with the commission.
MINUTES OF MEETING DATED JUNE 28, 2011
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED MAY 5, 2011
This item was tabled until the August Meeting.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED JULY 7, 2011
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 07-26-11
11-14 – MODIFICATION OF APPLICATION – TALCOTT FARMS – REMOVAL OF FALLEN TREES AND BRANCHES
Brown stated she invited Stanley Kolber and Dave Primo representatives of the Talcott Farm Association to attend the meeting. Kolber stated he was under the impression that the commission wished to reconsider this application. Brown stated she thought it would be appropriate to reconsider all of the proposed four activities that were in Penny Sharp’s report. She stated this would give the commission the opportunity to discuss these items with counsel present. Branse clarified that this was an application that was already acted on by this commission. Brown indicated that was correct.
Kolber stated the Talcott Farm Association was prepared to submit a modification to the application or a new application but were told not to do so. Kolber stated the commission walked the site and as a result of the walk it was recommended that they hire an expert which we did (Penny Sharp) and her report is included as part of the application. He further stated if the photographs submitted were inadequate he apologized for that and offer to redo the areas of concern. Kolber stated that a great amount of the leaf litter branches will remain. Kolber stated the end result was portions of the application were denied and he does not understand why and would like to understand the distinction between the areas. He further stated he felt at the walk there was an indication that there was
wildlife activity in the wetland and which they were mindful of tand care a great deal about it and did not feel the removal of the few branches that are down will have any impact. He stated Area 3 which was rejected by the commission he walked over to the area and paced off the distance from the vernal pool to the area in question and it was over 10 feet and our intent was to only pull some dead stuff that was very close to road and there will be tons of stuff that will remain. He further stated with respect to Area 2 it was noted in the application that no work would be done while it was wet and we would wait until the area was completely dry and all that was going to be done is to chop some limbs off a huge dead hemlock that is being held up by branches underneath on the ground and further stated he felt ultimately the tree would fall and begin to disintegrate and do good things for the area. He stated the application did not even ask to remove the huge trunk
but just to take off some of the stuff. He stated this was an effort to try and do something within the association that would not violate anything and would be consistent with the regulations but at the same time address the needs of those concerned within our community.
O’Donnell stated she was not clear as to the specifics of the modification of the application. Kolber stated their original application covered these areas as well as areas in the wetland itself which is shown on the map. Kolber pointed out the areas now involved and reviewed the proposed work for those areas using the photographs
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 07-26-11
submitted with the application. Kolber stated they withdrew areas as a result of the site walk and then hired Ms. Sharp to try and reach a solution that would be supported by the commission based on the information from Ms. Sharp and the discussion at the site walk.
Linde clarified that Area 2 is situated on the west side of the small vernal pool. In this location a large hemlock has fallen. It is proposed to remove the upright branches from the trunk of the tree, but not the main trunk or underlying supporting branches. Area 3 is located slightly west of Area 2. There are several dead branches lying on the ground. It is proposed to remove the dead branches, however, all leaf litter in this area will remain.
Linde also noted that Penny Sharp concludes in her report by stating that all the work will be done by hand with no heavy machinery will be utilized within any of the four areas. Leaf litter will remain on site . The proposal has been reduced in scope so that no work
will occur within the wetlands. Work as proposed within the regulated review area will not result in any impact upon the nearby wetlands or wetland functions. Linde stated as he recalled there was concern from Evan Griswold and other commission members based on their years of experience on the Wetlands Commission that they felt this could be significant impact.
Krulikowski stated that the exception that you have brought up twice is that nothing would be done at the vernal pool until its in a dry state. Krulikowski stated that the definition of a vernal pool is that it has a flooded area where all the salamanders and other creatures do their thing and its definition has a dry up stage and there is no living activity but it is still defined as a vernal pool. Krulikowski asked the applicant if the work would be done in the off season. Kolber stated that was correct. Krulikowski stated she felt then it was a safe time to move this debris. Kolber stated they would not go into the area while there could be stuff going on with creatures. Krulikowski asked if this was included in the application.
Branse asked the applicant if they would consent to an approval that the work be done under the supervision of Penny Sharp. Kolber stated that would involve expense and the question is whether it is an expense that really is necessary. He stated he didn’t feel the work of picking up branches and carrying them to the road needed supervision. Griswold stated he was the one who made the comments about the wetland functions and he stated his sense of a wetland is it goes well beyond the definition. He also noted that a wetland functions as a habitat and therefore his objection to the activity that is proposed is that it will modify the structures of the habitat within the wetland. He further stated it was his sense that habitat benefits from complex structures therefore the more
complex the structure the more diverse the better. Kolber stated he absolutely respected his philosophical views but the question is whether this activity will impact the wetlands.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 07-26-11
Kolber stated that the amount of material that is going to leave the area could not possibly affect the food supply and cover.
O’Donnell stated she was not clear….she noted that there is a decision by the commission at this point with regards to the application therefore she was not sure why the commission was discussing an application that has already been decided. She stated the commission already had this discussion last month and now we are discussing the philosophical points. Kolber stated he would assume that if the commission’s counsel determines this commission does not have jurisdiction he would advise you. Branse stated he felt the commission does have jurisdiction because it is the removal of material which is defined. McCulloch asked Brown why she invited the applicants back.
Linde stated in some respects Talcott Farm had questions about the application and the commission’s approval therefore Linde stated the commission can do nothing or we could modify or reassess the application. Branse stated the applicant has said they were contemplating a reapplication to the commission before that time staff contacted them and said lets have an informal pre-application which is allowed so he would expect before filing the application to ask the commission to revisit areas to improve there has been dialogue and now a new application can be submitted. Kolber asked if a new application could be considered at this time if it was noted on the record. Branse stated if the applicant wants to state that we hereby file a new application for Areas 2 and Areas 3 to be received tonight you
could do that but he would not recommend it. Kolber asked why. Kolber stated there is a question of our time and expense and your time and expense and there is not a lot more that can be said about this that has been said on papers and in this record and we are here and you are here and I am requesting that you treat our presence here tonight as an application for modification and if you wish I will undertake tomorrow to submit the fee that is required because we would like to get this done. Branse stated the law is that if you make the same application with the same facts and under the same conditions they are mandated to deny it and therefore I am suggesting that you take the feedback you heard tonight and file a new application that modifies the activity that would allow the commission to approve the application. Kolber stated Talcott Farm will file a new application which would include the time of year that the work would be done.
David Primo also present on behalf of the Talcott Farm Association stated three months ago there was a site walk where members from this commission walked the site and looked at the proposal and made suggestions which were followed. He further stated we have submitted all the materials requested and have spent a lot of time, money and energy and therefore questioning the process he felt is bordering on ludicrous.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 07-26-11
Krulikowski stated she felt it was very important to stress in the new application that the idea of working near the vernal pool is done at the end of the season. She stated at that point she would have no objection because you are not affecting the animal life that is no longer active. She also noted the proposal is not to tramp around inside the vernal pool but working around it and therefore I think it’s significant the time of work is important and once it is stated she has no objection.
Linde stated that it was his understanding that Evan Griswold’s concern was the structure of the debris within the wetland review was important in terms of maintaining the function of the wetland. Griswold stated that was correct.
Kolber stated he did not attend the meeting where the statement was made on the record that work would be done when it was dry but noted that the minutes do reflect that but as long as we are re-applying the application will make a specific reference to that.
Bechtel reviewed the June minutes……stating she asked what the commission felt was the best time for the entire project….Griswold stated August….she stated that however was the commission’s discussion but was not stated in the report.
11-21 – TOWN OF OLD LYME – GRIND AND REPAVE LIBRARY LANE, ELM STREET, AND DUNNS LANE
Brown stated she received an email this week from a property owner on Dunns Lane informing her that the town was about to undertake the re-construction of Library Lane and associated drainage. She stated she spoke with Ed Adanti, Director of Public Works, who told her that was not true. He stated they were simply going to grind the surface and repave the pavement of Library Lane, Dunn Lane and Elm Street. Brown further stated they are going to take those very same materials and lay them right back down (pack and regrade). He stated they are not proposing to go beyond the paved area at all and she noted they will loam and seed any disturbed areas and hay bales will be installed at Duck River which is entirely tidal wetlands since the culvert was opened.
O’Donnell expressed concern about the ability to review the impact of road construction and design on the wetlands.
The commission agreed to set a site walk for Thursday, August 4, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – 07-26-11
OLD BUSINESS
11-15 – QUESTA BUILDERS, INC. – 5-1 DAVIS ROAD EAST – CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 STORY BUILDING WITHIN 100’ OF THE WETLANDS
Robert Doane submitted revised plans consisting of 5 sheets total. He noted that Sheet 1 of 1 reflects a revision date of 5/6/11 and Sheets 1-4 have of revision date of 7/25/11. He noted that one of the items that was addressed is the non-connection of the wetland area at the northeast corner of the property to the large wetland area to the east and north east of the property. He further noted the design of the stormwater infiltration system is consistent with practices of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection “2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual.” Brown stated she walked the site today so she could see the relationship between the inland wetland and the tidal wetland. She asked in the event of a storm did Mr. Doane feel that the inland
wetland would ever fill up and spill over. Doane stated it would take a lot of discharge to do that especially at that elevation.
Linde reviewed the items outlined in Tom Metcalf’s letter dated July 26, 2011 to the commission. Brown reviewed the bonding process with the commission.
Brown clarified that the only approval involved the activities on the commercial development area. Doane indicated that was correct.
Linde made a motion to approve the application and plan revised through July 25, 2011 based on the following conditions:
1. A soil and erosion bond estimate be submitted and reviewed by the town
Engineer and then posted by the applicant.
2. Prior to construction, the applicant and site contractor should arrange an on-site pre-
construction meeing with the Wetlands Enforcements Officer to review site
construction and erosion and sedimentation measures to be employed.
3. Prior to the construction meeting clearing limits should be field stakes by a licensed
Land surveyor and reviewed and inspected by the Wetlands Enforcement Agent.
4. If the proposal is modified/revised as a result of a review by the other town land
Use commissions the Wetlands Enforcement Officer should determine if a
modification of the IWWC permit is necessary.
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – 07-26-11
DISCUSSION:
Dave McCulloch raised the issue in Metcalf’s letter stated the applicant should address the proposed landscaping within areas regulated by this commission.
Doane reviewed the landscaping plan with the commission.
Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed. Janet Bechtel abstained due to the fact she was not present at the meetings were this agenda item was discussed.
11-19 – BUCKLEY FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, FRANCIS J. BUCKLEY, JR., TRUSTEE – 84 GRASSY HILL ROAD – REPAIR APPROXIMATELY 50’ OF THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL ALONG ROGERS LAKE TO ELIMINATE ANY SOIL EROSION
The contractor for this project requested that this item be tabled until the August meeting.
11-20 – GALCO, LLC – 17 SILL LANE – CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND A SEPTIC SYTEM IN THE REGULATED AREA
Robert Pfanner distributed revised plans as well as report from Soil and Environmental Services, Inc. Pfanner reviewed the plans with the commission. The property is located in two zones and R-15 and RU-40. The map he presented was outlined with colors which delineated the various lines on the plan. He noted that the septic system is 100 ft from the brook. The house is approximately 2000 sq. ft. and will have access off of Sill Lane. Pfanner stated that after the site walk he added a buffer area with shrubs and plantings to try to enhance the area in the rear after the construction is complete. He noted the limits of clearing as well as the silt fence location is shown on the plan.
Don Fortunato, Soil Scientist reviewed the soils and wetlands shown on the plan. Fortunato stated after the area is graded out and the construction is finished he will come in with conservation mix as well as a wetland mix and see which one takes better and then add some shrubs. Fortunato distributed photographs of the mixes used in other areas. He stated the mix does create a really heavy buffer so any type of stormwater has a hard time penetrating through so he feels it makes a nice buffer.
O’Donnell asked if the mix would work in an area with a lot of tree cover and shade.. Fortunato pointed out a picture that has a lot of shade and noted that it grows fine in shaded areas. He noted the shrubs in the report are general in nature due to the fact sometimes at planting time that particular shrubs are not available or it is determined not to be suitable after construction is complete. It was noted that the Mill Brook is tidal and
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – 07-26-11
influenced from the Lieutenant River. Brown stated from the commission’s standpoint she felt it was important to know where it was inland wetland and where there is tidal wetland and where they overlap. He stated if fresh water fish are in the water there very may well be both types of wetlands. Therefore, she felt this line should be clarified and noted it could have a zoning impact down the road. DiCamillo asked Pfanner to point out the wetlands line. Pfanner pointed it out on the map.
Bechtel asked why a paved access was proposed. Pfanner stated it was his belief that gravel driveways require a lot more maintenance and have a lot more problems with groundwater. He stated there is some benefit because you do get some infiltration however over time they do become packed down and puddles are created. Bechtel also asked why a deck was proposed in such close proximity to the wetland. Pfanner stated that the area was already disturbed for construction and people do enjoy a deck and noted the rest of the area will be lawn.
DiCamillo asked if the garage was necessary and if so could it be relocated. Pfanner stated he could slide it forward about 2 feet but he had to meet the zoning setbacks.
Linde asked if this was an approved building lot. Brown stated it is a pre-existing lot as she understood it.
Brown stated it appeared to her that the lot has been used by the neighbors in quite an unkind way and that it should be restored as well as the rubbish be removed from the wetlands. Pfanner stated they have not proposed going into the wetlands. Brown stated she would think the developer would want to remove the unnatural items (wood, plastic, buckets) from the wetlands.
Bechtel suggested the buffer be extended further down to provide more protection from the wetlands.
DiCamillo expressed concern about the lawn fertilization going into the wetlands and out to the sound. O’Donnell also expressed concern about the impact to the wetlands.
Linde stated the best way to review the application is to set a public hearing which gives the commission the opportunity to receive their own expert testimony.
Griswold stated this lot was created prior to zoning and therefore unless the town is prepared to purchase the property then we have to be prepared to allow the land to be developed and do the best we can to protect the property within our regulations.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – 07-26-11
Krulikowski expressed concern about the impact to the wetlands during construction. Linde asked if a silt fence was proposed. Pfanner stated he was proposing wood chips as well as silt fencing. He noted that wood chips collect a lot of sediment prior to reaching the silt fence.
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to set a public hearing for the application at 17 Sill Lane due to the fact that there may be significant impact. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
