MINUTES
OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2013
PRESENT WERE: Skip DiCamillo, Janet Bechtel, Dave McCulloch, Evan Griswold, Stanley Kolber and Tim Rollins
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Tim Rollins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED OCTOBER 2, 2013
This item was tabled until the November meeting.
2014 INLAND WETLANDS MEETING CALENDAR
Stanley Kolber made a motion to approve the Inland Wetlands Calendar with the change that the November Meeting be held on November 18, 2013. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
13-26 – GARY OZANICH – 11 MAYWOOD DRIVE – INSTALLATION OF 1000 GALLON UNDERGROUND PROPANE TANK
Mr. Ozanich was present to explain they would like to install a backup generator and an underground propane tank. The commission reviewed the plan submitted with the application. The applicant explained it was relatively flat in that are but noted it does slope down toward the wetlands. The commission set a site walk for Saturday, November 2, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
13-27 – MARK FADER – 6 ROSE LANE – CONSTRUCT A GARAGE & BREEZEWAY
Mark Fader stated that they have lived in the house since 2004. He noted the existing garage has been converted to a family room so they would like to now add a garage to the house. Griswold asked the size of the proposed garage. Fader stated it would be 24 x 24 with a 6’ breezeway. Mr. Fader submitted a letter from Highland Soils, LLC stating that the wetlands were field delineated in accordance with the standards of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. He noted based on the field measurement the wetlands are approximately 75 feet from the existing house.
The commission set a site walk for Saturday, November 2, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.
Page 2 - IWWC
October 22, 2013
13-28 – PAUL & CHRISTINE WYSOCKI – 19 BRIGHTON ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE SHED
The applicants were not in attendance. The commission reviewed the plot plan submitted with the application and noted they had been out to the site for a prior application. The commission set a site walk for Saturday, November 2, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PERMIT – 50/52 SHORE ROAD – LAURIE WILLIS
Chairman DiCamillo noted that Laurie Willis was not able to attend the meeting. This item will be tabled until next month. DiCamillo stated the commission will be asking her to submit a new permit rather than a modification. Bechtel clarified it would be a new application.
DiCamillo stated at the end of the meeting he would like to have a discussion amongst commission members about the storage of vehicles and boats near a wetlands.
13-30 TALCOTT FARM ASSOCIATION, INC. – REPLACEMENT OF (31) 6 X 6 GROUND POSTS ON TALCOTT FARM ROAD.
Christina Clayton was present on behalf of Talcott Farm Association. She noted the application is to replace (31) deteriorating wooden posts along both sides of Talcott Farm Road which were required on the original subdivision approval. She noted on one side they are preventing cars from going into the fire pond and other side they prevent cars from going into a vernal pool. She noted they proposed to replace the existing wooden posts with treated wooden posts so they will last longer. She noted this activity is within a wetland even though this wetland had to be filled as part of the creation of Talcott Farm Road. Skip DiCamillo asked if this application met the guidelines for an Administrative Permit. Brown stated due to its proximity to the wetlands it does not meet the criteria. Brown stated the commission can vote to handle it administratively it they desire. DiCamillo asked who would be doing the work. Clayton stated they currently have to contractors bidding on
the project.
Griswold asked if there would be a barrier placed between the posts. Clayton stated there is not one currently and the spacing is such that it is not necessary. Griswold asked if they have investigated the various types of treated posts. He noted the most chemically benign posts would be either cedar or locust. He stated if the existing posts have been there since the sixties and are just now being replaced they probably were treated with arsenic. He stated there are new formulations for treated posts and felt they should be considered and suggested the association investigate what the alternatives are for the most benign posts so there is no impact to the wetlands on both sides.
Bechtel stated since it is a replacement of existing posts should the commission just stipulate red cedar or locust so an Administrative Permit can be issued or does the commission have other concerns. Griswold stated there are probably aesthetic concerns and red cedar would be much more natural. Griswold also noted there are new formations of pressure treated lumber. Skip DiCamillo asked the commission how they would like to proceed. Griswold stated he would like the applicant to make some inquiries about the posts and let the commission know what will be used before a decision is made.
Page 3 – IWWC
October 22, 2013
13-29 – STEVEN & VICKI URBOWICZ – 74 ROWLAND ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE
Joe Wren, PE representing Steve and Vicki Urbowicz presented the proposal. He noted the property is located at 74 Rowland Road. He noted they are currently two parcels proposed to be merged into one. He noted the applicant is purchasing the entire 4 ½ acres. The lot to the east is mostly wetlands and the lot to the west does not contain any wetlands at all. Wren stated there is a driveway proposed in the regulated area and is located where there is a natural break in the stone wall on the property. He noted the driveway will be crushed stone with the exception of the apron that will be paved as required by the Town of Old Lyme. He stated a single family residence is proposed with an attached garage as well as a detached garage. He further stated there is a lean too shown
off the back of the garage but noted it is not proposed to be constructed at this time.
Wren also pointed out on the site plan the proposed septic system and well location. He noted there is some clearing proposed but stated it is not proposed up to the wetlands. He indicated a minimum of a 25 ft. buffer will remain all along the wetland edge and at some points will be more than 50 ft. He noted the proposed activity in the upland review area is .7 acres. He also noted there was soil testing done at the site and it was excellent for septic. He noted there are two stockpile areas shown on the plan as well as a silt fence around the clearing limits.
Griswold asked if there was sufficient room around the stockpile locations shown on the plan for machinery. Wren stated the pile shown is approximately 50’ long and will be used mostly for topsoil. He also noted a portion of the house will have a crawl space and both of the garages shown on the plan will be constructed on slabs therefore requiring very little excavation. Wren stated he would be happy to make any modifications to the plan and or shift the stockpile locations.
Brown asked Wren if ultimately the property owner would like to pave the driveway. Mr. Urbowicz noted that he was not an asphalt fan and he would be more apt to use pervious concrete. Brown noted that if that was not shown on this plan they would have to come back to the commission when and if they decided to change the gravel surface of the driveway. Wren also noted they designed the house to have the least impact on wetlands and still comply with the zoning setbacks.
The Commission set a site walk for Saturday, November 2, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
OLD BUSINESS
13-25 – KENNETH STONE – 17 SILL LANE – CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 X 16 SHED
Brown noted that she visited the site and part of the initial approval for that site was to submit a report about the success of the plantings. Mr. Stone stated he intended to submit a report and is keeping a log. DiCamillo stated the only issue the commission saw when they visited the site is that there has been some rip-rap that is an extension of the driveway in the direction of the wetlands. He noted this activity was not permitted. Griswold stated he thought it would be prudent to ask for an application after the fact. Mr. Stone apologized for not getting a permit and explained the rip-rap was installed to prevent further erosion during the heavy rain events after the top soil was initially put at the site. He
Page 4 – IWWC
October 22, 2013
noted both times he tried to establish a lawn there were periods of heavy rain and the topsoil washed out in that particular area leaving 6 inches of mud.
Mr. Stone agreed to submit a modification to the existing application and a plan at the November meeting delineating the changes he made to the site.
DiCamillo asked Stone to clarify what he would be storing in the shed. Stone stated he would be keeping a hand mower, gardening tools, pots, vases, and various things for his flowers.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the shed with condition that no gas, oil or pesticides be stored in the shed. Kolber seconded the amended motion. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD LYME COUNTRY CLUB – BOND RELEASE
David Lane and Matt Sharp were present to represent the Old Lyme Country Club. DiCamillo noted that he and Stanley Kolber visited the site. He further stated at the last meeting the commission requested that a plan be presented with the type of material that would be used to separate the driveway from the buffer zone of the wetlands.
David Lane presented a drawing delineating the location of the material. He also submitted a photo of the material to be used as well as a picture of the sign that will be installed indicating “Wetlands Area to be mowed only once a year”. Ann Brown read a letter into the record from Richard Snarski dated July 11, 2013 which outlined some items still to be completed. Kolber asked if there was a more benign chemical treatment type of material to be installed to separate the area from the wetlands he would suggest it be used. Lane stated that most of the pressure treated lumber that is available now is non-toxic. DiCamillo also noted that the area was very flat.
Brown asked how long it would take to install and complete the project. Lane indicated it would be less than a month. Kolber verified with Ann Brown that a written request had been received for the release. Brown indicated that was correct.
Janet Bechtel made a motion to approve the release of the bond. Kolber amended the motion to include “upon the completion of the work”. Dave McCulloch seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PRESSURE TREATED WOOD
Bechtel stated considering the commission has had pressure treated wood come up twice in this particular meeting she felt the commission needs to be consistent so we don’t dither back and forth with applicants. Ann Brown agreed to research the current pressure treated wood on the market to
determine if it is no longer toxic. Bechtel stated this would allow the commission to move an application along once we have that information. Griswold suggested that the DEEP website might have a recommendation.
Page 5 – IWWC
October 22, 2013
DISCUSSION OF THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND BOATS IN THE WETLANDS
DiCamillo stated we have had a couple of instances recently on our site walks where we have seen cars, boats and other mechanical items stored in or near wetlands. DiCamillo stated that the commission recently asked someone to move a boat and he understood that Mr. McCulloch had some questions with regard to this matter.
McCulloch stated the boat was in the regulated zone not the wetlands as their neighbors stated. Secondly he noted that the commission allows a lot of things in the regulated zone such as septic systems. He clarified this does not mean we should allow items that are deleterious but we should not exclude things that are not bad for the wetlands in the regulated zone.
Bechtel stated she felt it would make sense to ask the Willis to have their property flagged so that we know where the boundary of the wetlands are versus what is the upland review zone. McCulloch stated he thought some of the area maybe tidal. Bechtel stated if it was tidal then this commission has no jurisdiction. She suggested they retain a soil scientist.
Kolber stated the regulations make reference to a Map and he wondered how the property was noted on the Map. Kolber asked what is the authority to taking a flat position on mechanical devices in the wetlands. He asked what if we put a diaper on the boat and said you can’t wash it and the lower section was draped so there is no drip page onto the ground. He said the issue that lies with zoning as to whether it is a structure does not involve this commission. Therefore if we could eliminate anything going into the wetlands would there be impact? Bechtel stated the commission is allowed to review each application based on its own merit as an application could involve properties with far greater slopes and grade so the location of where something was parked would be more harmful. She
noted a variety of factors go into the determination. She noted one of the things that make this particular situation so difficult is that there was comment that they filled into the wetland to make this space where the boat is parked. Kolber clarified it was the additional stone. Bechtel stated that was correct. She stated the question is, if they came to the commission with an application to fill the wetland for parking for a boat would we have allowed the creation of the space that they made for the parking of the boat. Kolber stated what if he had an application that said he wanted to put down rock to park a boat and it would be on a trailer and they noted they would not wash the boat and the boat would
be protected from any runoff because it’s in a garage. He further stated what if you drape the engine in a way to prevent any leakage from the engine. Bechtel stated the commission would ask to see the wetland flagged so we knew where the edge of the wetland was and where the 100’ review zone was and how much of an encroachment it was into the wetland and the review zone and what the slope and topography was on the site. Griswold stated we would also look to see if there were any prudent alternatives to that site. Kolber asked if we permitted any filling of the wetlands. DiCamillo stated in the regulations it states “that no person shall conduct any activity in the upland review area within 100’ of the watercourse or Wetland boundary”. He said that means any activity within that 100’ requires a wetland permit. Bechtel stated if the activity was within the
100’ review zone it would be reviewed. If it was within the wetlands it would be a no. Bechtel stated there is no filling of a wetland. Brown stated that was not true the commission tries not to have filling but it is allowed for a bridge or pass and repass but basically we do not fill wetlands. Brown noted the commission regulates any filling.
Page 6 – IWWC
October 22, 2013
DiCamillo stated each application is look at individually and the commission makes a determination on adverse impact.
Bechtel stated that with applications that are submitted as a result of a violation, the commission is running behind to catch up with work that has already been done at the site. She said the commission has an obligation to look at work that has already been done. Griswold further stated that a wetland can disappear 15’ here and 15’ there which can eventually nibble away an entire wetland. Griswold further stated he felt allowing this type of action sets a bad precedent. Kolber stated he would use the commission’s power to fine for violation activities or whatever the
regulation allows. Brown stated there is an ordinance that enables the town to issue tickets for wetlands violations. Kolber stated he felt the presumption should be protection and the applicant should demonstrate that there is no deleterious effects.
Bechtel stated the problem with 50/52 Shore Road is that it was brought to the attention of the town as a violation awhile ago and only made it to the Wetlands Commission now. The applicant has stated they didn’t fill their property they just dropped stone and she believes a neighbor stated they did indeed fill the property. So how do we run behind something that is picking up speed and now only the applicant is allowed to speak because it is not a public hearing so neighbors are not allowed to weigh in at all? She stated the problem is that the damage has been done because it was called in as a violation and when the complaint was made months ago the Chairman should have received a phone call and it should have gone on the agenda as areported violation and the commission should have walked it at that time. Brown stated she did contact the property owner. DiCamillo stated the Lage’s correspondence goes back months. Kolber stated we have only recently become involved in this
situation in the past three months.
The commission reviewed the permit issued. DiCamillo stated the installation of the stone is a done deal but noted he has asked the property owner to come back with an application for the boat. He further stated this commission asked the property owner to move the boat to another location on the site. He noted they also have indicated that they do not want to move the boat so they will be back with another application .
DiCamillo stated he has seen other areas in town where boats and cars are stored in the wetlands and upland review area. DiCamillo stated he asked Ann Brown to visit the site. Brown noted she held off till the commission had this discussion. Kolber stated he is not suggesting that every boat or car should be permitted in a review area. Kolber stated staff has to visit the site and report to the commission so steps can be taken to resolve the issue.
Kolber asked if the Map would provide enough information to determine if the area is tidal or inland wetlands. Brown stated the applicant has acknowledged that she thought it was inland wetland and that the edge of it was quite well defined. She also acknowledged there was some tidal influence.
Page 7 – IWWC
October 22, 2013
Brown also noted that regarding the property on Champlain the vehicles were in the rear yard and many people will park their vehicles in the driveway. She asked the commission if they would regulate an established driveway. Bechtel stated she felt it was implied that car is in the driveway are in working condition; if it is in the back yard where we mow once a year its implied that maybe it’s not registered and there are zoning regulations as to how many unregistered vehicles can be on a property.
DiCamillo once again stated that if the commission sees something that appears to be a violation the commission needs to follow up and make a determination. He further stated each situation needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Kolber stated he did not feel we should ask someone to make an application if we believe it is a violation. He stated if the commission feels it is a violation and staff agrees the the commission should initiate a procedure. He stated that if I know the worst thing that is going to happen to me if I violate the regulations is I have to make an application and I will receive a retroactive decision it is to weak. Kolber asked if the commission has the right to issue a statement for publication that calls to the attention of Old Lyme Citizens about possible violations and maybe deters some people that are tempted. He said the goal would be to put down the mark that the commission is not going to tolerate this stuff. We want people to know that we are alert and awake and violations
will be dealt with.
Brown stated if someone is uncooperative a Cease and Desist is issued and the commission must hold a Show Cause Hearing within ten days and that is when they bring in their excuses and perhaps a plan to remediate the site. Kolber stated that was very good. He stated that is what should happen in a violation a Cease and Desist should be issued not a request to submit an application.
Brown noted she called Darcy Winter and asked her about permitted by right uses in the wetlands themselves. She stated the one about what you do at someone’s home is somewhat convoluted and hard to stand. Winter said to keep in the mind that many things regardless of impact are allowed by right in a wetland. Brown read the statue into the record.
Bechtel clarified that the applicant has been asked to come back with an application to store the boat on the gravel and the commission is still debating its jurisdiction. Bechtel asked if it would make the most sense to have this property flagged so we know what is wetland and upland review or tidal. Griswold concurred that we needed an inventory of the property. Brown will follow up with the property owner.
The meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
