MINUTES
OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2012
PRESENT WERE: Robb Linde, David McCulloch, Linda Krulikowski, Janet Bechtel, Evan Griswold, Sabine O’Donnell, and Skip DiCamillo.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the October 23, 2012 minutes. Janet Bechtel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2012
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the September 29, 2012 site walk minutes. Linda Krulikowski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
12-20 CONSTANCE M. AYARS – 107 BOSTON POST ROAD – REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN AN EXISTING INLAND WETLAND AREA TO CREATE A WET BOTTOM POND.
Michael Harkin, Professional Engineer presented the application. Mr. Harkin stated that the subject parcel is located in the RU-40 zone and is comprised of approximately 6.34 acres. He noted of the 6.34 acres approximately 1.61 acres is wetlands. The wetlands were flagged by Richard Snarski. The pond is approximately 49 feet wide by 100 feet long. He stated there will be less than 5,000 square feet of disturbance.
Harkin stated that Mr. Snarski tried to get out into the wetland area to flag the limits, however 3 feet from shore he sunk down about 4 feet and was able to pry even deeper approximately 6 feet at about 5 feet off the shore. He noted the plan shows a proposed spoil area but noted they don’t think there will be any spoils from that pond whatsoever. He stated the activity is more of a restoration to clean out some of the vegetation so the water can physically flow.
Page 2 – Minutes
November 27, 2012
Harkin asked the commission to officially accept the application and set a site walk. He also noted that both he and Mr. Snarski will be present at the walk.
He also noted there is erosion and control shown on the plan as well as a dewatering area that they don’t feel will be needed along with a dewatering berm to clean anything up before it goes back into the pond. He also noted the plans shows hay bales along with silt fencing and also the trees proposed to be removed. He noted some are dying and some are dead and others need to be removed to work in that vicinity. He also noted a top soil stockpile area is shown.
O’Donnell asked the size of the wetland area. Harkin stated it was 1.61 acres.
Griswold asked what the nature of the vegetation was that is proposed to be removed. Harkin stated that Mr. Snarski could provide that information. Harkin did note it was anchored to the bottom and once it is pulled there will not be the quick re-vegetation of the area nor will it spread.
Harkin noted that currently the lawn area is mowed up to the edge of the wetland so a fairly large excavator will be used that can physically sit on the bank with a long arm to reach out and physically turn the bucket to put anything in the spoils area.
Krulikowski asked if the proposal was to dredge the pond. Harkin stated that they were not taking any fill from the bottom. The proposal is to remove the plant matter that is resting on the top. He said they would just skim the root system to restore it back to a normal pond.
Linde asked if Mr. Snarski provided a final planting plan. Harkin stated it is noted on the plan that a Registered Soil Scientist is to review and monitor the work and this is also noted on the proposed plan. Harkin read the note on the plan into the record. He noted the specific species list has not yet been provided until they can actually see the water.
Linde state it has been described that the lawn is mowed straight to the edge of the wetland which will make it easier to place the machinery to do the work. Linde stated from a wetlands perspective there is a 100 feet of potential buffer that is missing. Linde stated he would like Mr. Snarski to provide a planting plan that would establish a new buffer around the area.
O’Donnell asked if the pond would be used just for aesthetics or would the property owners be swimming in it. Harkin stated it would be aesthetics. Harkin stated it is largely over grown and also has had debris thrown into it.
Page 3 – Minutes
November 27, 2012
Bechtel noted the commission had visited the property within the last two years for the construction of a terrace. Brown asked if there were trees down by the pond. Bechtel stated there are some trees but the pond is very over grown. Bechtel also noted at the time of the previous permit she did indicate at some point down the road she would be back before the commission to do some cleaning out of the pond.
O’Donnell asked if the pond could be seen from the road. Bechtel stated you would need to go down the driveway.
Griswold asked Mr. Harkin to stake out the review zone prior to the site walk.
The commission set a site walk for Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
Linde also asked that Mr. Snarski provide a report on what impact if any there will be on the wetland as a result of cleaning it out.
O’Donnell asked what time of year the work would be done. Harkin stated the work would be done during the summer months. Harkin also noted if the project is approved the contractor will be Schumack Construction out of Clinton, Connecticut.
O’Donnell asked if there was any flow in the pond. Harkin stated they searched for a positive in flow and could not find one so they are thinking it might come in from some culvert on the Post Road. Harkin also noted for the record this application is NOT for an excavation permit.
Brown stated this project has potential for more impact and therefore you might consider holding a public hearing. Therefore, Brown recommended the commission include this as possible discussion on the Site Walk Agenda and therefore the hearing could be held at the commission’s next Regular Meeting in January. The commission agreed.
O’Donnell asked how many neighbors were around the wetland area. Harkin stated there were approximately 2 that would be directly impacted. Linde asked why the number of neighbors was of concern. O’Donnell stated she wondered how many people would be interested. Linde stated the reason for the public hearing is because of the impact.
Linde also stated that based on the information provided in Mr. Snarski’s report the commission may decide to get their own expert opinion.
Brown also noted that the commission is required to hold a Public Hearing within 65 days of receipt of the application.
12-21 ROBERT AND TONI JUDGE – 27 & 31 ROGERS LAKE TRAIL – DEMOLITION OF A NON-CONFORMING HOUSE AT 31 ROGERS LAKE TRAI. COMBINING THE LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM
Mike Harkin, Professional Engineer was present to discuss the proposal with the commission. He noted that currently it is two separate properties consisting of 27 and 31 Rogers Lake Trail. He noted that both properties abut Rogers Lake to the east. He stated there is an existing dwelling to the south of property which is shaded on the map which is 27 Rogers Lake Trail and 31 Rogers Lake Trail is an existing non-conforming property. He stated they would like to completely remove and demo the property at 31 Rogers Lake Trail and then add that property into 27 Rogers Lake Trail creating a larger lot and then construct an addition on the existing house that currently resides at 27 Rogers Lake Trail.
Harkin noted that the 100’ review area comes out to the street, therefore anything that is done on the property is within the review area. He noted they are proposing to be put in a new septic. He stated the existing septic is located adjacent to Rogers Lake. Therefore the septic will be moved closer to the road and away from the lake. He noted they will also be drilling a new well. He stated one of the existing wells will be abandoned and the other well is located in the house. He noted that both residences are year round.
Bechtel asked if the current septic served both lots. Harkin showed the location of the existing septics and stated they would be removed. Krulikowski stated removing the inadequate systems would be a benefit to the pollution in the lake.
Harkin also noted there are a couple of docks on the property. Griswold asked if one of the docks would be removed. Harkin stated one of the docks is the primary one and was not sure if the other was a portable dock.
DiCamillo asked about the deck on the lake side. Harkin stated it is really just a small area to allow people to get down to the lake.
O’Donnell asked how much the house square footage would be increasing. Harkin stated the lot coverage is 20.9 but he did not know the existing but he believe it was actually smaller than having the two homes but will provide this number at the next meeting.
The commission agreed to set a Site Walk for Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. and asked Mr. Harkin to stake the corners of the proposed addition.
Page 5 – Minutes
November 27, 2012
12-22 CPD ENGERY – 85 HALLS ROAD – RENOVATION OF EXISTING GASOLINE/FILLING STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE AND MINOR RECONFIGURATION OF PARKING LOT. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SEPTIC WITHIN THE REGULATED AREA
Russell N. Cyr, P.E. was present to discuss the proposal. Mr. Cyr stated the property is located at 85 Halls Road and is a triangular piece of property that is approximately 26,634 sq. ft. He noted there is a wetland across the street. He stated the proposal is to renovate the building with a new store face with a bump out on the side and back. He also noted that a new septic system is proposed in the regulated area.
Bechtel asked if the site would remain a gas station. Cyr noted the tanks would remain.
Brown asked if the use would change inside the building. Cyr stated it is a convenience store now and would remain a convenience store. Brown asked if the convenience store would be expanded into the existing repair bays. Cyr stated that was correct. Brown stated so the use is being changed somewhat. Cyr stated he did not feel the repair bays were currently being used.
The commission agreed to set a Site Walk for Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
OLD BUSINESS
12-19 OLD LYME CEMETERY ASSOCIATION – 16 CONNECTICUT ROAD – IMPROVE THE USE AND APPEARANCE OF THE CEMETERY LAND. ENCLOSE THE SEASON STREAM IN A 15” PIPE.
Rod Madison state after speaking with the commission at the last two meetings and at the site walk he knew the commission was in favor of putting it back the old way. He stated the issues with that process will be more dirt to be removed, more trees removed and more expensive. Madison stated the truck cannot drive right to the edge of the 20’ pipe so on one side he can probably drive on half of it but on the other side there will be less than that. Therefore, Madison suggested 40’ of piping would solve that problem. Linde asked if truck was necessary back there. Madison stated it was a big area when it comes to cemeteries and graves and they would like to put a lot of graves back into the area.
Bechtel and Brown both stated they could understand the need for the additional radius.
Page 6 – Minutes
November 27, 2012
Griswold stated the option that the commission discussed was Option 4. Griswold stated he felt that option made the most sense after visiting the site as opposed to piping the whole thing.
Bechtel stated her feeling is that they have pipe there and it needs some sort of a flange and if Al Bond Contracting, who deals with these types of projects feels that realistically an additional 20 feet is the best option especially when you lay it on the ground and it gets eaten up fairly quickly then she is comfortable with that option.
Brown asked if they still proposed to gentle out the slopes along the brook. Madison said they could make a one foot edge to the brook.
O’Donnell asked Mr. Madison if he had a plan that had all the details being presented or is it in the application. Madison said the plan was filed with the application as well as the in the statement summary description on the application.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the application Option/Item 4 with the addition of 20 additional feet of piping. Sabine O’Donnell seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Robb Linde stated the pipe may come in 20 foot sections but if the commission thought it should be less it could be cut down. Bechtel stated if that was what Al Bond recommended she was comfortable with that footage.
Griswold made a recommendation that once the banks of the stream are regraded they be properly secured. Madison stated the installation of mats are included as part of the application.
Brown stated she felt seeding and mulching would be adequate. Linde stated his concern is that we are looking at a plan that is essentially drawn on the back of an envelope and he cant remember the last time this commission approved an application especially when it was in a wetland/watercourse that didn’t have a more detailed plan. Linde stated there is no planting plan.
O’Donnell stated she agreed with Robb, she also noted she missed last month’s meeting but did attend the site walk and she recalled it was a fairly deep at the bottom and if it is being made wider there is a lot of space being lost on the triangle that they are trying to create.
Page 8 – Minutes
November 27, 2012
O’Donnell also said the widening will involve all kinds of large trees. Madison stated it will involve three trees. One of which is in the brook, the other is on the edge and the other where traffic will cross. Madison noted that Option 4 clearly noted that 3-4 trees are involved in the proposal. O’Donnell stated she felt it is a more extensive project now than when the commission walked the site. She stated at that point it was small pieces of pipe with fill on top and everything else was to be left the way it is and now we are talking about quite a different project. Therefore she agrees with Robb that we have no idea exactly what the end result will be. McCulloch stated that widening was discussed prior to reduce the slopes. Brown stated they also have now
provided more storage area. O’Donnell once again stated it is just a bigger project. O’Donnell stated she felt the commission needed additional information.
Linde stated to add some specificity we are talking about a 20 ft section going from the center of the stream towards the left and 15 ft on the other side. Linde stated the drawing shows Options 1 through 4 and we are approving Option 4. Linde stated he would condition the approval with the requirement that we receive a cleaned up drawing from the applicant showing where the limits of the watercourse are going to be upon completion and where the additional 20 feet of pipe with stipulation that we are approving Option 4. This would provide the commission something very specific that they can measure against when the project is completed.
Bechtel stated she disagreed. She stated all of the information has been on the application all along. It has been in narrative form and written form. She stated it may not have been in the map form. Therefore if the commission wanted a more detailed map then they should of asked for it at the second meeting so we had it this month. She stated she was comfortable with the plan. She stated the plan as it was submitted she felt was very clear. She stated the only confusion was regarding stabilization which is provided in the narrative language on the application when the plan was first presented. She stated the only concern was whether the commission was going to allow the entire area to be piped for a full 100 feet and so the commission visited the site. She stated at
that time we were clear about the tress on the site walk and then last month the commission wanted to get Evan Griswold’s input because the association wanted the whole thing piped and this commission really does not like putting water in pipes.
Therefore, Bechtel stated she felt is poor of the commission at the very end after having the plan for two meetings to request a better plan.
Page 9 – Minutes
November 27, 2012
Linde stated he will disagree that the applicant came in as a Preliminary in September and with a formal application in October. He stated at the last meeting the proposal was still to pipe the entire property and three other options. Bechtel stated that was correct. The applicant drew out four options and provided a narrative on those options. Linde stated this is the first night the smaller section of pipe is being discussed. Bechtel stated the application before us has always been to pipe the stream and she felt the commissions conditions will be the determination. She stated if we asked the applicant they still may want all 100’ of pipe so it’s now incumbent on the commission to make a motion to approve the application with 40 feet of pipe plus 5 feet of flange as
submitted in Option 4. Option 4 showed which direction it was going with taper for 20 feet and taper for 15 feet and a current 3 foot bed, and 3 to 4 trees to be involved. She stated this is Option 4 that she made the motion to approve.
The motion passed 6 to 1. In Favor: Bechtel, O’Donnell, Griswold, DiCamillo, Krulikowski, McCulloch. Opposed: Linde Abstained: 0
REVISIONS TO THE OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSE REGULATIONS
Brown reported that Kim Groves and Janet Bechtel inserted the buffer language provided by Mark Branse. She noted there is a question in the definition of buffer area where the commission needs to determine the number of feet along a watercourse. The commission decided to insert a number of 50 feet. The commission also discussed a couple of typographical areas as well as agreed to ask Mark Branse for his input on Section 10.5 on page 17. Griswold also discussed the term “Trimmings” and agreed to make the text Trimmings/Thinning.
Brown agreed to forward a copy to Mark Branse for his final review. The commission agreed to hold a Public Hearing in January. Brown also noted she will have some expert testimony comments prior to the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
