OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Robb Linde, Janet Bechtel, Sabine O’Donnell, Evan Griswold, Linda Krulikowski and Dave McCulloch.
Chairman Linde called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
This item was tabled until the November meeting.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2011
Linda Krulikowski made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed with Voting in Favor (5). Against (0). Abstention (1). .
PUBLIC HEARING
11-22 LYME ACADEMY COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS – 77 LYME STREET – CONSTRUCTION OF TWO BUILDINGS FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, A 1,250 FT. ACCESS ROAD, TWO SANITARY SYSTEMS, PARKING, ACCESS AISLES.
Bob Doane, P.E., Doane-Collins Engineering and Richard Snarski, Soil and Environmental Scientist were present on behalf of the Lyme Academy application. Doane stated last month when he attended the meeting he spoke about the changes that were going to be made to the plan and noted these changes have been completed and revised maps have been submitted to this commission, as well as the Zoning Commission and Tom Metcalf for review.
Doane stated the driveway has been changed to a consistent cross slope from north to south so it matches the elevations in the field better. He noted there will be a grass swale on the right hand side which will run into the fire pond. He stated on the north side he run a curtain drain with stone to be sure whatever surface flow that is coming across will be picked up. He stated the curtain drain on the north side that runs under the roadway will be terminated at a flare down section just short of the wetlands. He noted because
Page 2 – IWWC
October 25, 2011
of the grade he will need to scoop out about 10 feet of the wetland area to pull it back. O’Donnell asked Doane to explain the procedure of pulling it back. Doane stated he and Mr. Snarski met with the Army Corps of Engineers at the site. He stated the material will be pulled back with an excavator which will reach out and pull the material back. He noted during this process no material can be deposited or added. He stated they will not be going all the way through the top soil or the mat but just down enough to reach the appropriate elevation. He further noted that Mr. Snarski will be required to be on site during this operation and verify that the process is being done in accordance with the Army Corps requirements.
Doane stated he did modify the retention area for the first inch of runoff and enlarge the four bays to accommodate another basin. He noted Snarski designed the plantings for the area and stated that they may vary a bit after construction. Doane stated originally when there was the subsurface discharge area he didn’t show a stockpile area but noted it will probably be in the area of the buildings/court yard because the retention basin needs to be built first because its is needed for the soil and erosion.
Doane stated that the bridge details and construction details are provided by the company that does the actual design. He noted these details will be reviewed by Mr. Metcalf prior to construction. He noted the company will not do the design unless the client commits to the order. He stated the bridge will be supported on poured concrete footings. He stated they are able to work on both sides with no disturbance to the wetlands. Brown asked how close to the wetlands the excavation would be for the footings. Doane stated the activity will be about a foot away from the wetlands and approximately three feet deep. He said the material will be put into a truck on the site. He also noted at that point there will be a road basin installed so they will be able to work in that area
and pull everything away from the wetlands and noted that silt fence will be running along the wetland area. He noted with that excavation the process is to go down vertically and noted the area is flat and does not have water moving through. Brown asked if a narrative will be submitted explaining the process. Doane stated that he needed the details from the bridge supplier to complete the narrative and once that is provided to him he will be submitting it as part of the application. Doane stated the footings will be L-shaped creating a retaining wall and go away from the wetlands so the bridge will sit on the wall and the weight of the material gives it the support.
Griswold asked a question with regard to the system. Doane stated it is just stone/sand with a stainless grid which provides a good efficiency area. Griswold asked what the soil was in this area. Doane stated when the test holes were logged that on the west side of the wetlands there was porous gravel and noted they are 50 feet away and the soil in between will not be disturbed. He also noted that the storm water basin is down gradient from the sanitary system and noted it is a lot tighter soil on that side of the wetlands.
Page 3 – IWWC
October 25, 2011
Griswold stated he just wanted to be clear that the vegetation was designed correctly in that area to provide the best effort to capture any nutrients.
Bechtel asked when they would like to begin construction. Doane indicated they would like to have the units available for the Fall 2012 class. He further indicated it was there hope to begin construction as soon as possible.
O’Donnell asked if the commission felt the need to have more information with regard to the construction of the bridge due to its close proximity to the wetlands. Doane stated that it was not an unusual construction and a typical procedure. He noted it would be excavated and formed in the same day and the concrete poured and then after 48 hours the footings would be striped. He further stated the exposure to the wetlands is not that significant because it is a very flat wetland area and would be done during a good weather window. Linde asked Mr. Snarski as a Soil Scientist what he felt the short term as well as the long term impact would be from the construction of the bridge. He said with the erosion controls in place as noted on the plan there should not be any sediment running into
the wetland. He further stated that the area that is being crossed was ditched out years ago and is kind of stagnant. O’Donnell asked why the footings could not be four or five feet from the wetland. Doane stated it was the velocity of the span of the bridge without having to install a center pier. He further noted expense also played a role in the structure.
Linde asked O’Donnell asked if she was still concerned given the fact that the commission has received testimony from Richard Snarski stating there will be no impact from the bridge. O’Donnell stated she was asking to see if there were other options that would allow the bridge to be constructed further from the wetlands.
Brown asked if Mr. Snarski would be observing the installation of the footings for the bridge. Doane stated he will be onsite for all the phases of construction.
Griswold asked what was proposed for the area where the soils were disturbed from the footing construction one it was completed. Doane stated it would be seeded and mulched. He further stated there is currently not much growth. Snarski stated it would be seeded with a shade grass.
Brown asked if there was a sufficient area for the dewatering from the pond and if it was really going to work. Doane stated the gravel from the pond would be used in the road beds. Doane stated he was not dewatering. Brown stated the notes indicated there would be. Doane stated he thought his notes stated it would be dug in the wet by a drag line or an excavator but not dewatered. Brown stated it seemed to say both. Doane stated they are not intending to dewater. He stated the top soil and sub-soil will take a little longer to dry but the gravel will dry very quickly and can be used almost immediately.
Page 4 – IWWC
October 25, 2011
Bechtel asked if any blasting would be required. Doane stated there was a nod that needs to be taken down and pointed out its location on the plan. He further indicated they had very good soils and it would be a shallow blast and would not have an impact on the neighboring wells. He stated it would also create a low point for the drainage.
Bechtel asked if the town hall or the school had water issues. Doane stated it was the school and the issues were both quantity and quality. He stated there will be two separate wells on the site one for each building and they are not relying on those wells for fire protection. Bechtel asked if water testing had been done. Doane indicated in this situation since there is no public water available if necessary a treatment system will have to be installed.
Bechtel asked if we had received comments from Tom Metcalf. Brown indicated we have not received review comments as he received revised plans on Friday.
Linde asked Doane if he would be amendable to a pre-construction meeting. Doane stated he thought it would be very helpful and had no objection.
Brown noted that the applicant needed to grant the commission an extension to continue the public hearing. Doane granted the extension verbally for the record and stated he would follow up with a letter.
The public hearing will be continued until the November 29, 2011 meeting.
Doane asked if Mr. Snarski needed to attend the next meeting. Linde stated he did not know if there would be additional questions but noted it was helpful to have him present tonight. Linde stated he was aware that there was an additional but cost but felt it was helpful to the commission to be able to get direct answers should they have questions.
OLD BUSINESS
11-20 – GALCO, LLC – 17 SILL LANE – CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND A SEPTIC SYSTEM IN THE REGULATED AREA
Linde asked if the applicant had submitted modified plans. Brown noted she had not yet received them but stated she had a message from Mr. Pfanner stating he would be dropping them off. She further stated she sent him a copy of the draft motion and he agreed to all the conditions and was working on revising the plans. Brown stated one of the things she wanted to see was the relocation of the deck on the plans, but noted there was only a small area that it would be permitted under the zoning regulations. Brown suggested the commission set some guidelines for the size of the deck.
Linde stated he was disappointed that the commission had not received revised plans.
Page 5 – IWWC
October 25, 2011
Discussion ensued….
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application of GALCO, LLC, for property at 17 Sill Lane, to construct a single family house with an attached garage and on site well and septic system, with activities in the upland review area, as shown on plans titled, “Improvement Location Survey, Property of GALCO, LLC”, sheets 1 and 2, dated June 21, 2011, with revisions through September 23, 2011, prepared by J. Robert Pfanner & Associates, P.C.;
The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission finds that sufficient evidence and information have been provided to demonstrate compliance with purposes and provisions of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act with the following modifications required to be added to the final plan:
- A copy of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission Permit shall be added to the final plan;
- A mylar copy of the final plan shall be recorded on the Old Lyme Land Records;
- Invasive plant species shall not be removed from the vegetative buffer area, wetlands and watercourse areas, and the non-disturb areas shown on the approved plan; the “Wetland-Upland Enhancement” section on sheet 2 shall be modified to reflect this change;
- Wetland-Upland Enhancement requirements #1-#5 and #7 shall be completed in compliance with the plan prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance;
- Inspections described in Wetland-Upland Enhancement #6 shall be completed as described, including the yearly report to the Commission for three years;
- The deck shall be relocated to the north side of the house and not exceed 12’ x 14’ and shall have no external access;
- Rubbish and junk which has been allowed to accumulate in the intermittent watercourse and adjacent areas shall be removed from the site;
- There shall be no activities beyond the “limits of clearing” line shown on the plan; Placards shall be installed to mark the areas which shall not be disturbed;
Therefore, the Old Lyme Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission grants approval to GALCO, LLC, for the activities listed above for property at 17 Sill Lane, Old Lyme, CT, with the conditions and modifications specified.
Janet Bechtel seconded the motion. The motion passed with 5 voting in favor. 0 Against. 1 Abstention.
Linde stated that the commission was in a difficult position with this site because it was an existing approved building lot and the commission has to allow something but noted it was not something they would generally support.
Page 6 – IWWC
October 25, 2011
11-28 – MAXWELL GREENWOOD – 228-1 MILE CREEK ROAD – 40’ LOG BRIDGE OVER WETLAND STREAM USING TREE LOGS THAT FELL IN HURRICANE
The commission reviewed the plan submitted and noted they walked the site and at that time told the applicant he did not need to attend the meeting. Linde stated the applicant is proposing to relocate the large trees that fell down during the hurricane and put them between the two logs to create a temporary bridge which would provide him access to other areas within his property.
Linde noted that this is a temporary bridge. Brown asked how long was temporary. Linde stated if the bridge requires repair or replacement including the planking it would not be supported by this commission.
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the application as presented to construct a 40’ Log Bridge over the wetland stream using tree logs that fell in the hurricane with the following conditions and modifications:
1. Permit to be a one time issue
2. No replacement of logs or planking allowed.
Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed. Voting in Favor (5). Against(0) Abstention (1).
11-29 – CHRISTOPER CAULFIELD – 7 MCCURDY ROAD – MUDROOM ADDITION
Christopher Caulfield stated that during the site visit with the commission this issue of having a 20 ft no mow except for twice a year buffer around the pond was discussed and it turns out there is a 25 ft. no mow buffer that was put in 2005. He stated there are also two 20 ft. accesses that come right to the pond. Therefore, he stated he has staked out 25 ft. and spoke to the homeowners about how they have to adhere to that condition.
Linde stated that the 25 ft. no mow zone is not being respected at the moment. Caulfield indicated that was correct. Brown stated there is a note on the plan indicating the requirement for the 25 ft no mow. Caulfield noted that Note #4 on the plan states that “a 25 ft. minimum width vegetative buffer shall be retained around the pond. The buffer area may be mowed no more than twice per calendar year. Two (2) maintained access ways to the pond, 20 ft. maximum width total are permitted.” He stated those areas are not defined. Brown stated she felt the note intended two 20 ft. maximums in two separate accesses being 20 ft. total. Caulfield agreed. Bechtel stated she felt it was clearly stated on the plan.
Page 7 – IWWC
October 25, 2011
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application as presented. Janet Bechtel seconded the motion. The motion passed. Voted in Favor (5) Against (0) Abstention (1).
ADJOURNMENT
Sabine O’Donnell made a motion to adjourn. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
