INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSON
REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2011
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Robb Linde, Janet Bechtel, Evan Griswold, Dave McCulloch, Sabine O’Donnell, Skip DiCamillo and Linda Krulikowski.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
This item was postponed until the January meeting.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DATED OCTOBER 5, 2011
Linda Krulikowski made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Janet Bechtel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED OCTOBER 5, 2011
This item was postponed until the January meeting.
2012 MEETING CALENDAR
Skip DiCamillo made a motion to approve the 2012 Meeting Calendar. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
69 LYME STREET – FIRE POND MAINTENANCE
Brown reported that the fire pond has silted in quite a bit and they are unable to depend on reliability of this water source, therefore they would like to dig down and remove some of the muck.. Brown stated this is something that has just happened over time. Linde suggested they submit a maintenance plan with their application so they don’t have to continually come back before the commission.
PUBLIC HEARING
11-22 – LYME ACADEMY COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS – 77 LYME STREET – CONSTRUCTION OF 2 BUILDINGS FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, A 1,250 FT. ACCESS ROAD, 2 SANITARY SYSTEMS, PARKING, ACCESS AISLES.
Bob Doane, Doane-Collins Engineering was present on behalf of the Lyme Academy. Doane stated that the overall layout of the plans have not changed. He noted however some minor revisions have been made as a result of discussions with Tom Metcalf and the plans have been revised and forwarded for his review. Doane stated a considerable number of details have been added including construction notes, details on the
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-29-11
construction of the pond, bridge and the sedimentation and control storm water outlet basin. Doane reviewed with the commission the items outlined in Metcalf’s letter dated November 26, 2011. Doane stated that Metcalf was concerned that the fitting on the end of the hydrant was suitable for fire pond use and noted he had contacted the Fire Chief for his review. Doane stated he has provided a detail on the plans which show the standard sections of the bridge. He noted the intent is to not disturb any of the wetlands at the bridge. He also noted that prior to construction Richard Snarski will verify the flagging and a detailed field topography will be provided. He also noted that detailed drawings will be provided by the shop manufacturer but not until an approval is given by the
town because of the expense involved in the design process. Linde asked if the shop drawings will be reviewed by Metcalf. Doane stated that Metcalf will be reviewing the drawings as well as doing inspections during the construction. Linde noted that Metcalf indicated in his letter that temporary access during construction through the wetlands is prohibited. Linde asked if this was an Army Corp issue. Doane stated it was not an Army Corp issue and he was unable to reach Metcalf to discuss this comment. Doane stated there is a cart path that goes across the wetlands and they are planning to bring the initial equipment through that path which is also the same path that was used for the soil testing which was done with a large excavator. He stated there will be no filling of the wetlands required. Brown stated the cart path does not really show up on the plan. Doane stated it shows up on the town mapping. O’Donnell asked
why the access would not be through the school property. Doane stated he will be on the upcoming school agenda and noted they had been in discussion with the school. He further stated that during the initial stage they planned on using the cart path. He further stated he did not think it was prohibited by any regulations. Snarski stated unless at least 2 feet of fill is placed in wetlands the area is till classified as wetlands, therefore the existing woods road is still classified as wetlands as shown on the plan. Doane stated the woods road will only be used until the bridge is installed.
O’Donnell asked Doane to explain the abutment wingwalls. Doane drew a picture of the poured concrete walls. O’Donnell asked how close they would be to the wetlands. Doane stated the footings would be a foot away from the wetlands and the wing walls would be further than that.
Krulikowski asked about the dewatering for the construction of the bridge. Doane stated that Metcalf feels they may have to dewater so they are leaving it open and noted if dewatering is necessary it will be done uphill and not into the wetlands. .
Doane stated they had to analyze the wells to be in compliance with the State Health Department. He noted they are also required to be 150’ from the sanitary system. He said with the design flow of 150 gallons per bedroom it would be 1800 gallons per building and spreading that flow over a 24 hour period that is 1.25 gallons per minutes. He stated they had to analyze for 450 gallons per unit because of the zoning requirements and even at that very conservative number for a 12 hour period it comes up to 3.75 gallons per minute which is still well under the 10 gallons per minutes. He said there will be times that the flow coming out of the well will exceed 10 gallons per minute. He noted that the town requires that the wells be tested prior to installing the foundation
so the wells will be drilled and the yields will be tested on quantity and quality and based on that the pumps will be set up. Krulikowski asked if it was an artesian well. Doane stated it was a drilled well.
Linde asked if the type of plantings were stipulated in the storm water basin. Snarski provided the commission with a list and noted it was shown on the plan.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-29-11
Griswold asked about the lighting on the bridge. Doane stated the bridge will have a light at one corner. He noted there are lights along the northern side of the roadway and felt it was important to put one light at the bridge. Griswold asked if there was any effort to minimize the light escaping. Doane stated they are all dark sky friendly lights and noted the light is up in the head shining down. Doane stated they will be put on a timer set to go on at dark and off at daylight.
Linde asked the commission if they felt they had enough information to close the public hearing. DiCamillo asked about the bonding. Linde stated the commission would retain a cash bond. Brown stated the applicant will submit an estimate for Tom Metcalf to review and the bond amount will be set. Linde verified that the process of negotiating the bond amount does not need to be done under public hearing. Brown stated that was correct.
O’Donnell stated the only concern she felt was the cart path access. Linde asked for confirmation that if for some reason the applicant is prohibited from crossing the wetlands the applicant does have the ability to access the property from the school. Doane stated they have not yet received permission. Doane stated therefore to be on the safe side he felt it was necessary to receive approval to use the cart path access to construct the bridge because they don’t want to assume the school will grant them permission.
Bechtel stated that Metcalf indicates in his letter that it is his understanding that temporary access through the wetlands for construction purposes is prohibited. Bechtel asked if anyone has any knowledge of that comment because she did not recall any discussion where this commission prohibited temporary access. Doane stated it was a surprise to him as well. Snarksi stated he thought that Metcalf may have assumed that in order to use that access fill would be required and they would need permission from the Army Corp. Brown stated the map does not show the crossing so Metcalf may not have been aware.
Linde stated the commission could leave the public hearing open or close the public hearing and have discussion limited to staff.
Bechtel expressed concern about Metcalf’s comment that temporary access is prohibited. Brown stated she never heard talk of the cart path before tonight. Brown suggested that Snarski provide the commission with more information on the cart path and that the activities proposed will not harm the wetlands and will not cause any siltation or break the surface in the manner that will be detrimental.
Linde said there are two possibilities they have access over the cart path or they don’t. He stated if they have access over the cart path they have everything in place that they need, if they don’t have access over the cart path the access would either have to be through the school or re-submit. He stated if the access were through the school does the commission feel that has any impact on the wetlands. Linde stated there is nothing in the Inland Wetland Regulations that prohibits them from doing it so in that case they have two options: access through the school or they can come up with a different plan and come back to the commission. He just want to be sure that whether they have access over the cart path, which at this point the commission believes will not have impact on the
wetland, makes any difference from a wetlands perspective.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-29-11
Doane provided the USGS Maps and showed the location of the cart path. Doane noted that all the machinery used for the testing used the cart path access. Griswold stated when he walked the site he came out on the cart path and did not recall getting his feet wet.
Doane stated if there is a regulation that he is not aware of that comes up he is more than willing to make it a condition of approval.
Linde stated he felt it was more a matter of convenience for the applicant to access the site than impact on the wetlands. Brown stated if there is no impact to the wetlands while using that crossing than that is true. Therefore, the commission needs to decide if they want additional information.
Snarski suggested that the approval have a condition that during the temporary crossing of the cart path area that no fill will be used and in the event any soils become exposed they will be restored and seeded down when the construction is complete.
O’Donnell asked Snarski what his opinion was as a Soil Scientist as to the impact of construction traffic. Snarski stated he was present at the site testing with the excavator and there was no impact. Doane noted that the equipment will only cross the area once to get in and once to get out. Snarski also noted the equipment to do the abutments will be have less impact than the soil testing.
McCulloch suggested the commission move forward with the application and if there is some agency that regulates this beyond our commission than the applicant will have to deal with that agency. Snarski stated he was quite sure the work proposed was not prohibited.
Linde stated he would like the plan to include when and where the crossing would take place and the frequency it would be crossed. Doane stated he would provide that information.
Linde stated from the commission’s perspective he said the commission should determine whether they have concerns about access and if so the meeting should be kept open and if there are not then the hearing should be closed.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to close the public hearing. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
REGULAR MEETING
DECISION – LYME ACADEMY – SOUTHWICK COMMONS – 77 LYME STREET
Sabine O’Donnell noted for the record she had listened to the tapes.
The commission discussed the draft motion provided by Ann Brown..
I, Janet Bechtel, make a motion to approve the wetlands application of Lyme Academy College of Fine Arts, Inc., for property at 77 Lyme Street, for activities in the wetlands and the upland review area, as shown on plans submitted and as revised: . A set of Site Plans, 6 sheets total, prepared by Doane-Collins Engineering Associates, LLC (Doane-Collins hereafter). Ident. No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of 6 reflect a revision date of 11/11/11. Ident. No. 4 and 6 of 6 reflect a revision date of 11/14/11; A Landscape Plan revised to 11/11/11 prepared
Page 5 - Minutes
by Doane-Collins; Architectural Plans A1.01 and A2.01 dated 10/07/11 prepared by BL Companies, for the construction of two multi-family apartment buildings, a 1,250 foot access road (driveway) which includes a bridge over a watercourse, two sanitary systems, two wells, parking and access aisles, stormwater management systems, and construction of a fire pond;
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:
1. The proposed fire pond and dry hydrant assembly must be reviewed and approved by the Old Lyme Fire Department, and connection fittings must be compatible and acceptable with the Fire Department; any modifications to the plan necessitated by fire Department requirements must be submitted to the Commission for approval;
2. In concept, the proposed 30 ft. x 50 ft. bridge spanning the wetland/watercourse is acceptable; however, the applicant must address access for bridge construction purposes on the east side of the wetlands. The IWWC approves the temporary use of the existing cart path located between wetland flag 30 & 31 but should soil and erosion occur during temporary access remediation to existing conditions will be undertaken by the applicant. After the bridge is installed access over the cart path is now prohibited.
3. Prior to issuance of a Wetlands Permit or any construction, including clearing, bridge shop drawings, prepared by a professional engineer, should be submitted to the Commission; drawings shall include dimensioning of structural components, elevations of key components, i.e. top of footing, top of abutment, top of steel, etc.); field verification of topographic conditions is required and to be reviewed by the town’s engineer.
4. The preparation of shop drawings shall be based on field survey data; the elevations of the watercourse “stream bed”, wetland surface and partial stone wall in relation to the bridge structure will need to be considered/coordinated; additionally, it appears that abutment wingwalls` may be necessary to accomplish grading without intrusion into the wetlands and any deviation from currently submitted plans must be submitted to the Commission for approval;
5. Prior to any construction or clearing, the wetland limits shall be clearly staked; the limit staking shall be maintained and shall remain throughout construction and so as to be readily identifiable;
6. Should dewatering for construction of the bridge abutments be necessary; provisions for dewatering will be reviewed by the town engineer.
7. The applicant shall document the right to use the “Emergency Access” to the property over School property to the satisfaction of the Commission;. if this access way will be used during construction, it should be clearly noted; IWWC approves the temporary use of the existing cart path but should soil erosion occur remediation to existing conditions will be undertaken by the applicant.
8. Driveway/parking curbing limits should be clearly delineated to assure proper drainage flow;
9. Roof drain outfalls shall be shown.
10. Proposed landscaping and stormwater basin plantings are approved as shown.
11. An IWWC cash erosion control bond shall be posted for the project, cost estimate to be submitted by the applicant and the amount to be evaluated and approved by the Commission engineer; considering the size and scope of the project, the bond shall include bonding for site stabilization and for the construction of the stormwater recharge basin in the event the project is terminated during construction;
12. Construction of the bridge shall be inspected by the design engineer or and the town’s engineer and the costs of the inspection to be reimbursed by the applicant and that a notice of construction compliance with design plans be provided to the Town upon completion. The town will be reimbursed for all inspections.
13. Survey as-built plans showing the location and, as applicable, elevations of all improvements, be submitted to the Town prior to issuance of a Zoning Certificate of Compliance.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – 11-29-11
The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission finds that:
- The environmental impact of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses is acceptable;
- The Commission has considered feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed regulated activity, and the Commission finds that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands and watercourses;
- The relationship between the short term and long term impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of such wetlands and watercourses is acceptable;
- Irreversible and irretrievable loss of wetland or watercourse resources which will be caused by the proposed regulated activity, including the extent to which such activity would foreclose future ability to protect, enhance or restore such resources, and any mitigation measures which may be considered as a condition of issuing a permit for such activity including, but not limited to, measures to (1) prevent or minimize pollution or other environmental damage, (2) maintain or enhance existing environmental quality, or (3) in the following order of priority: restore, enhance and create productive wetland or watercourse resources is acceptable;
- The character and degree of injury to, or interference with, safety, health or reasonable use of property which is caused or threatened by the proposed regulated activity is acceptable; and
- Impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses outside the area for which the activity is proposed and future activities associated with or reasonably related to, the proposed regulated activity which are made inevitable by the proposed regulated activity and which may have an impact on wetlands or watercourses are acceptable.
Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
