MINUTES
OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING, TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Robb Linde, Janet Bechtel, Evan Griswold, Skip DiCamillo and Sabine O’Donnell.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Janet Bechtel made a motion to elect Robb Linde as the Chairman of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The commission discussed the possibility of electing a Vice Chairman for the commission in the event the chair is unavailable on the day of a meeting. Sabine O’Donnell volunteered for the position. Evan Griswold made a motion to elect Sabine O’Donnell as Vice Chairman. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
Evan Griswold 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
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF REGULAR NOVEMBER MEETING
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – 01-24-12
NEW BUSINESS
12-1 DANIEL R. JONES – JONES TIMBER HARVEST PROJECT – 10 OLD POST ROAD – REQUEST FOR FINDING OF NO JURISDICITON
Chris Casadei, Forest Resource Manager of Hull Forest products was present to discuss the Forest Management Activity the company plans to conduct on the Jones Property.
Mr. Casadei stated it was a pretty simple harvest. The commission reviewed the map submitted with the request for a finding of no jurisdiction. He noted it was a small volume harvest which consisted of 25,000 board feet and about 64 cords of firewood which approximately 20 truck loads.
He stated on the east side they are proposing a Shelterwood Harvest to foster some natural rejuvenation. He noted on the west side it is more of a Timber Stand Improvement which involves removing approximately 30 percent of the trees concentrating on the poorly formed, diseased and declining material.
Sabine O’Donnell asked the commission if a project requests a finding of no jurisdiction and the commission supports this finding is the application not discussed. Brown stated this is an agricultural activity permitted by right. O’Donnell asked if Section 4 has exceptions to it. Brown stated she felt this activity was covered in Section 4 a. Linde stated that any activity can be permitted by right but the commission can still regulate it. Linde stated that no jurisdiction means that the commission chooses not to take any regulatory role. Brown stated the commission has every right to ask the applicant to explain the proposed activity to determine that he is not in some way impacting the wetlands.
DiCamillo asked if the commission would be acting on the application tonight or would a site walk be set. Bechtel stated the commission had previously walked this property rather extensively when the subdivision was proposed up above this area.
Linde asked the applicant if he was doing any work in the wetlands. Casadei stated he was not and the activity proposed would have no impact to the wetlands.
Linde asked Brown if this proposal was determined to be permitted by right meant the applicant did not have to wait the 15 days to receive the approval. Brown stated she thought that was correct but would check to be certain.
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – 01-24-12
Linde asked Brown if the commission should retain a bond until the work is completed. Brown stated if the commission feels they need to regulate this activity then they should require a permit.
Griswold stated he feels this is an agricultural use and harvesting a crop. Bechtel stated she also felt it was a permitted use of right and therefore under those circumstances she did not feel bonding would be appropriate.
Bechtel stated she was perfectly comfortable with it going as a permitted use and not taking it any further.
O’Donnell wanted the record to reflect that this was a homeowner in connection with a prior subdivision application that was very adamant during the public hearing process about concerns of flooding on his property. She therefore stated she was surprised to see that same property owner come back to harvest trees on his property.
Bechtel stated a large subdivision was proposed on the top of the hill where the impervious surfaces were creeping up expeditiously with steep grades and every down hill homeowner was concerned about development impact in their immediate neighborhood. Bechtel further stated that she felt that what subdivision drainage would do to a piece of land was completely different than tree removal. She stated that thinning out half of the wood that has been blown over or taking out the dead and still leaving a canopy which effects rainfall is entirely different than the activity of subdividing property.
O’Donnell expressed concern that tree removal on his own property could impact the drainage. O’Donnell asked for the removal percentage? Casadei said in terms of percentage of removal it is approximately 75 percent on the eastern side of the street and 30 percent on the western side. O’Donnell asked how many trees are on the property and how many of those trees will be harvested? Casadei stated there are thousands of trees and they are removing 442 firewood trees and 160 trees larger than 14 inches.
Griswold stated that Mr. Jones is doing this process correctly by hiring a forester who is licensed and a logging company that is certified in the state of Connecticut. He further noted that there is continuing education required for individuals doing this type of work. Griswold further stated he was not concerned about the project.
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – 01-25-12
O’Donnell asked how Shelterwood would be defined. Griswold stated shelterwood is done by going into the area and removing the majority of the trees and leaving the better formed trees to provide the seed source for the next generation. He stated once that generation is established some time years later you go in and harvest the trees that were left.
Linde clarified that the applicant has stated that there are no wetlands crossings, no trees to be removed from wetlands, the existing roads will be used and the skid trails and yard areas will be properly put to rest upon completion. Casadei stated that was correct.
Evan Griswold made a motion that this commission finds that this activity is permitted by right.
Linde amended the motion to include a permitted by right activity with no wetlands crossings and no trees to be removed from wetlands.
Discussion:
O’Donnell asked if there was a buffer area provided for the stream. Casadei stated the buffer is variable and marked in the field. O’Donnell asked the width of the buffer. Bechtel stated this activity is either a permitted use of right or it’s an application.
Skip DiCamillo seconded the motion.
O’Donnell stated she wanted to put on the record what exactly what the plan is but asked if an application permitted by right should not be discussed. Therefore, she stated if the commission feels it is a permitted use by right and reasonable then further detail should not be necessary. Brown stated the applicant is bound by the description provided in the application to the commission. Linde stated if the commission makes this finding he has the right to forest on the property. However, if the commission feels he is foresting the property in way that is detrimental to the wetland this commission has the right and obligation to regulate that activity. Linde stated therefore from his perspective as long as no work is being done within the wetland it meets his criteria which is permitted
by right and will not have a direct impact on the wetland.
O’Donnell stated the commission in reviewing the plan should be looking at impact along the little stream and what the plan is to protect the stream. Casadei stated there is a buffer provided as needed and varies from 30 feet to 75 feet.
The motion passed. 4-0-1. Bechtel abstained.
Page 5 – Minutes
IWWC – 01-25-12
12-2 JOSEPH FEDORICH – 13 CHAMPLAIN DRIVE – GARAGE FAMILY ROOM ADDITION – 24 X 28 AND A 4 X 18 COVERED FRONT ENTRY WAY
Brown stated the applicant is proposing to put an addition on existing house. Brown also noted that the addition currently shown on the plan will be reduced a bit prior to the next meeting. The commission reviewed the plan and set a site walk for Saturday, February 28, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
