MINUTES
OLD LYME INLAND WETLANDS ANDWATERCOURSES COMMISSON
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2013
PRESENT WERE: Skip DiCamillo, Dave McCulloch, Evan Griswold, Christian Tompkins, Tim Rollins and Stanley Kolber.
Chairman DiCamillo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DATED OCTOBER 22, 2013
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Christian Tompkins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED OCTOBER 2, 2013.
This item was tabled until the January meeting.
MINUTES OF SITE WALK MEETING DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2013
Dave McCulloch made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Christian Tompkins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
13 – 32 – ROUTE 156 AND SOUND VIEW IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – EXISTING PARKING LOT TO BE CONVERTED INTO A PARK WITH REDUCED PARKING AND THE ADDITION OF A RESTROOM BUILDING. REQUEST FOR FINDING OF NO JURISDICTION.
Bonnie Reemsnyder, First Selectwomen and Kurt Procherena, Engineer from BSC Group, a firm located in Glastonbury were present to discuss the scope of the proposed improvements. Reemsnyder stated the plan is to improve the existing town parking lot located on Hartford Avenue. She noted the proposal is to make a portion of the area into a park which in turn will reduce the amount of current parking spaces. She stated the plan will also include the plantings of grass and plants which are appropriate for this area.
Page 2 – Minutes
IWWC – December 3, 2013
She stated as the town moves forward with the project in developing the RFQ for the scope of work to reach a cost estimate the question was raised by Ann Brown as to whether the Inland Wetlands Commission had jurisdiction. Reemsnyder presented a plan which delineated the proposed area as well as the surrounding properties. She noted a retention pond is also shown on the plan. Prochorena stated from the aerial photograph the wetlands were approximately 150 feet away from the proposed improvements. Reemsnyder stated based on that measurement she questioned as to whether this commission would require an application be submitted. She stated if that is the case that would need to be included in the scope of work. DiCamillo stated it is beyond the 100 ft. buffer zone and regulated area.
Griswold stated for many years this commission has required the citizens of Old Lyme to verify wetlands boundaries so the commission knew the location of the 100 ft. buffer zone or review area. He stated that this practice over a period of time would help the town establish wetland locations and also would assist in mapping wetlands accurately. Reemsnyder stated they reviewed prior applications submitted to this commission and did not find any instances were flagging was required outside of the 100 ft. area.
Groves also noted that no flagging was required for the Miami Beach roadwork or the Rogers Lake roadwork that was recently approved.
Reemsnyder also noted that there was an existing parking lot closer to the pond that was not flagged either. They also noted there were several properties in the area where sheds had been placed and vehicles are parked on gravel surfaced parking lots and none of those properties had been flagged. DiCamillo asked that these areas be looked into by Ann Brown to verify they were properly permitted activities.
Griswold stated if the commission asks property owners to have their wetlands flagged that the municipality should be required to do so as well. Reemsnyder questioned why it would be asked of the town when they are more than two properties away and the project is over 150’ outside of the regulated area. She also noted the proposal is not really changing anything but just improving what is already existing. She further stated the parking is being reduced which is lessoning the impact on the environment. DiCamillo asked if the area was presently a parking lot. Reemsnyder stated the area currently provides parking for 100 cars but this proposal will reduce the parking to approximately 44 cars.
Kolber asked what actual work will be done at the site. Prochorena stated it would involve some equipment to grade the area, plant the grass, dig the holes to plant the trees, and material will be brought into create the parking lot which will be impervious in nature. He noted there we a small amount of excavation for the utilities for the bathroom facilities. He noted they will be composting facilities. He noted these types of facilities are currently being used by the DEEP. He also noted it would not be a lengthy construction process due to the
Page 3 – Minutes
IWWC – December 3, 2013
minimal amount of work to be done at the site. DiCamillo asked if there will be fencing along the road. Reemsnyder stated there is currently a split-rail fence and some sort of aesthetically pleasing fence will remain in the same place but the final design has not been decided. Griswold asked if it was presently an impervious surface. They stated it was presently compacted dirt and this would be an improvement. Reemsnyder stated part of the RFQ deals specifically to the sensitivity of the environment.
McCulloch asked if the park is above the high sea level. Prochorena stated they will be addressing this so if and when sea water does reach the area the plants and grasses are not destroyed.
Kolber stated that everything that has been described that could impact wetlands would be described on a piece of paper which would show what would be done to prevent runoff, excavation etc.
Griswold stated that the pond has been encroached upon over decades. McCulloch stated it used to be open to the sound for fishing. Griswold stated maybe the soils under this whole area are wetlands but have been filled over and over again. Kolber stated the question is whether the town is applying or is the request to state that is area is somehow exempt from what is normally required. Kolber further stated he felt the town should be a model citizen. Reemsnyder stated she took exception to that statement. She stated the town was asked to attend this meeting and ask this commission whether or not they had jurisdiction. She stated if the commission votes that they have jurisdiction the town will provide everything that is requested for the application. She further noted that anyone else can
come to this Board for a jurisdiction determination. She stated she would like to know where the jurisdiction is if they are over 150 feet away from a wetland. Reemsnyder stated if the commission would like the area to be flagged to prove that then we need to know so it can be included as part of the scope of work required for the project. She further stated prior to going to a Town Meeting to have the project approved the scope of work needs to be defined.
DiCamillo stated there is no application at this point. Kolber stated he understands the commission is being asked to find that there is no jurisdiction based upon an aerial map. Kolber stated the commission has typically asked that the area be flagged or the property owner demonstrates to the commission so they can determine whether or not it is in our out of the wetland. He stated he did not feel a no jurisdiction should be based upon an aerial map. Kolber asked if flagging would cause a significant delay or hardship to the project.
McCulloch stated if the flagging somehow showed that under that parking lot that there may have been wetlands soils at one time no one is going to dig up the parking lot and the only wetlands this commission is concerned about are over 150 feet away from this project. He stated he felt wherever the old wetlands soils were located is a moot point. Kolber stated he
Page 4 – Minutes
IWWC – December 13, 2013
Disagreed, it maybe the parking lot as such has been covered over but the work that is being done may affect other regulated areas. McCulloch stated we deal with stuff that is less than 100 feet from wetlands. McCulloch stated based on the regulations we are allowed to use aerial photographs to define wetlands boundaries.
Reemsnyder asked how far away the commission will have jurisdiction. DiCamillo stated it is not a question of the distance but is there additional wetland beyond that defined boundary that has been covered. Reemsnyder stated if the commission is looking at soils she would be concerned that wherever is tested south of Route 156 we will find wetlands soils. Reemsnyder stated if the commission is concerned about the pond and the possibility of the work having an impact on what is growing in that wetlands she stated once again they are over 150 feet away.
Griswold stated the commission is only allowed to regulate on the basis of soil and you cannot tell what the soil type is based on an aerial photograph. Griswold stated this area has been filled and filled. It was also noted that there was a parking lot and road between the wetland and proposed project.
Kolber asked if flagging the wetlands would create a hardship for the project. Prochoreno stated it would impact the schedule because the ground is frozen for the winter months and is difficult to do soils at this time.
DiCamillo asked the commission if they would like to walk the site. Groves asked if everyone had visited the site. Kolber indicated he had not. Reemsnyder encouraged everyone to see the area.
DiCamillo stated the purpose of the project is admirable,s the question is whether the commission has jurisdiction. DiCamillo asked if top soil would be added to the area. Prochoreno stated the grade level will not be changed and noted the area is relatively flat. He noted top soil will be added for the plantings and they will be adding materials that will allow the area to infiltrate more and open up the soils.
Reemsnyder stated we are trying to prepare ourselves to get the plan specifications for this project and in order to do that the town has to have a number of what it will cost and then it has to go to a Town Meeting for approval before we can even start on getting the plans and specifications. She stated even know it’s a grant the Town has to approve the entire project. Therefore if this is going to be a part of the process we need to take that into account and make sure we are covered expense wise. She stated at some point we will have all of that information and noted this project is under a DOT grant and the town has to abide by those standards which are very strict.
Page 5 - Minutes
IWWC – December 3, 2013
Dave McCulloch made a motion to grant the request of a finding of no jurisdiction. Christian Tompkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Griswold stated his point of raising the issue of soils and mapping wasn’t to be obstructionist but this commission has a job to do under state statutes and needs to approach each application and he felt this had been vetted very well.
The motion passed. 5 (In Favor) 1 (Opposed).
Voting in Favor: McCulloch, DiCamillo, Tompkins, Rollins, Griswold.
Voting Against: Kolber
13-34 – KEITH CZARNECKI – 2 PARSONS FARM LANE – CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND GARAGE
Joe Wren, Professional Engineer, presented the proposal on behalf of Keith Czarnecki. He noted Parsons Farms Lane has an existing 1 acre approved subdivision lot. He stated the proposal is to construct a 3 bedroom house, septic system, stone driveway, and underground utilities. He noted there is a narrow band of wetlands along the existing stream. He stated when this parcel went through resubdivision there was a 50 ft. conservation easement secured as part of the approval process. He also noted there is another small pocket of wetlands to the northeast. Wren noted this was an approved building lot from the Planning Commission. Wren pointed out the driveway, house and septic locations on the plan. He further stated it is a very flat lot and would require minor grading.
DiCamillo asked if the entire home would be within the buffer area. Wren stated that was correct. Griswold asked what the actual distance was from the corner of the house to the conservation easement. Wren stated it was approximately 77 ft. to the conservation easement and 57 feet to the wetlands.
DiCamillo asked if there was a difference between placing the house versus the septic system within the regulated area. Wren stated the house does not generate any pollution. Wren stated most towns prefer to have the house over the septic system in the regulated area.
The commission agreed to set a site walk on Saturday, January 4, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
Page 6 – Minutes
IWWC – December 3, 2013
13-33 – EDWIN WOOD – 54 GRASSY HILL ROAD – EXTENSION TO AN EXISTING DECK ON REAR SIDE OF HOUSE
Mr. Wood presented the commission with drawings and photographs of the area. He explained he would like to increase the deck size. He noted the addition would come out from the corner of the house approximately 4 feet. He noted it would be constructed on sonitubes.
The commission agreed to set a site walk on Saturday, January 4, 2013 at 9:15 a.m.
SOUTHWICK COMMON – 77 LYME STREET – LYME ACADEMY APARTMENTS – REQUEST FOR BOND RELEASE
This item was tabled until the January meeting.
SET A SPECIAL MEETING TO HOLD A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
The commission agreed to hold a workshop at 6:00 p.m. prior to their Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on January 28, 2013.
13-35 – KENNETH STONE – 17 SILL LANE – MOVING A NUMBER OF ROCKS AND BOULDERS. SUBSOIL AND TOPSOIL ALSO TO BE MOVED ONTO THE ROCK BASE.
Mr. Stone was not at the meeting. The commission agreed to set a site walk for Saturday, January 4, 2013 at 9:45 a.m.
OLD BUSINESS
13-26 – GARY OZANICH – 11 MAYWOOD DRIVE – INSTALLATION OF 1000 GALLON UNDERGROUND PROPANE TANK
Kim Groves noted she had sent all the commissions updated maps that delineated the items (silt fence and stockpile location) requested by the commission at the site walk.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Tim Rollins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 7 – Minutes
IWWC – December 3, 2013
13-27 – MARK FADER – 6 ROSE LANE – CONSTRUCT A GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY
Mark Fader explained his proposal to construct a garage on the side of his house. He noted the house had a garage at one point which was converted to a family room. He noted this happened prior to his purchase of the property. He stated they have wanted a garage for a number of years. He stated a soil scientist marked the property and the commission visited the site.
Griwold stated there was some discussion about rotating the garage and he did not feel turning the garage would be of any real benefit to the wetlands. DiCamillo clarified that the entrance to the garage would be in the front. Fader stated that was correct. DiCamillo asked how much excavation would be required and asked where the stockpile would be located. Fader stated he had not located it on the plan but would be happy to comply with any of the commission’s requests. McCulloch suggested we draw it on the plan this evening.
Kolber asked the applicant if an architect would be drawing the plans. Fader stated his contractor would be drafting the plans.
DiCamillo stated if the commission renders a decision and then the architect decides to change something a new application would have to be submitted to the commission.
Kolber asked if it was possible to say in principle the proposed location of the structure is satisfactory as a wetlands matter but normally the commission would review a set a plans that would show the silt fencing as well as the stockpile location so therefore could it be approved subject to a submittal of a plan delineating the items requested by the commission. McCulloch stated the commission generally likes to see everything on the plan and suggested the applicant add them to his plan this evening. DiCamillo stated the plans should also include water runoff and at this point there is no roof design and where the downspouts will be located.
DiCamillo explained the applicant had a couple of choices. He could make the additions to the plan right now or it can be delayed until the January meeting.
Discussion ensued:
Kolber made a motion to conditionally approve the location of the structure (new garage) based on the drawing that was presented but that approval is subject to the presentation of a site plan that shows how construction will go forward and the location of silt fences, the stockpile location, and drainage location.
Page 8 – Minutes
IWWC – December 3, 2013
Motion Passed. 4 (In Favor) 2 (Opposed)
Voting in Favor: Kolber, Griswold, McCulloch, Rollins
Voting Against: Tompkins, DiCamillo
13-28 – PAUL & CHRISTINE WYSOCKI – 19 BRIGHTON ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE SHED
The commission walked the site. DiCamillo noted the applicant provided the commission with additional information as requested on the site walk. He noted the shed will be placed on cinder blocks. The applicant also submitted a photograph delineating the location.
Evan Griswold made a motion to approve the application as submitted on the revised plans as discussed at the site walk. Christian Tompkins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
13-29 – STEVEN & VICKI URBOWICZ- 74 ROWLAND ROAD – CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE
Joe Wren, PE was present on behalf of the applicants Steven and Vicki Urbowicz. Wren noted the commission had the walked site. He stated the only change on the plans was to show the driveway paved as requested by Ann Brown just in case it is paved in the future.
The commission discussed the driveway runoff, the clearing limits and test hole information.
Griswold asked how the land would be managed adjacent to the clearing limits. He further suggested the commission would like to see a buffer. DiCamillo asked if a note could be added to the plan. Wren stated they would be happy to include that.
Christian Tompkins made a motion to approve the application as presented with the condition that mowing be limited to 6 times a year east of the driveway. Rollins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 9 – Minutes
IWWC – December 13, 2013
13-30 – TALCOTT FARM ASSOCIATION – REPLACEMENT OF (31) 6 X 6 GROUND POSTS ON TALCOTT FARM ROAD.
Stanley Kolber recused himself from the application.
DiCamillo noted for the record that Christina Clayton was unable to attend the meeting. He noted the commission had walked the site. DiCamillo thanked the applicant for providing all the information that the commission requested. Griswold also thanked the applicant as well for the information provided.
McCulloch made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Evan Griswold seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
..
| 
