PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES  89 Walnut Hill Road – Walnut Hill Chase LLC

EAST LYME CONSERVATION COMMISSION

FEBRUARY 4, 2008

3.       89 Walnut Hill Road – Walnut Hill Chase LLC.  Subdivision.  Assessor’s Map 52, Lots 57, 57-1, 123-1. 

Members Present:  Ed Hafner, Chairman; Walt Prochorena, Cheryl Lozanov, Candace Bodenhofer, Chuck Reluga, Norm Bender, Rich Gallagher, Alternate Members Keith Hall, Phyllis Berger and Lori Corona.  No alternate members were seated.

Also Present:  Keith Hayden, Conservation Enforcement Officer; Atty. Ted Harris, Bob Landino, BL Companies; Jeff Johnson, BL Companies representing the applicant; Michael Klein, Certified Soil Scientist

Mr. Hafner had stated earlier that he would not be voting on any motions made unless necessary to break a tie.

MOTION 1:     Ms. Lozanov moved to open the public hearing at 7:13 p.m.  Seconded by Mrs. Bodenhofer.

VOTE:           Motion passed unanimously.

The following exhibits were entered into the public hearing record:

Exhibit 15:     Original permit dated 2/5/07

Exhibit 16:     Permit modification 07-05M dated July 9, 2007

Exhibit 17:     Legal Notice of Public Hearing published on February 2/1/08

Exhibit 18:     Change in Plans for hiking trails requested by the Planning Commission

Exhibit 19:     Mailing Receipts

Exhibit 20:     Polaroid Photographs of storm drains and erosion

Exhibit 21:     Letter dated February 4, 2008 from Beverly Picazzio

Exhibit 22:     Application dated November 9, 2007

Exhibit 23:     Letter from Kelvin Cooper dated February 4, 2008

Exhibit 24:     Niantic River Watershed Plan

Exhibit 25:     Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex for East Lyme, Connecticut, June 2005

Exhibit 26:     Letter from Barbara Wingardner dated January 25, 2008

Mr. Hafner stated that testimony in favor of the application would be heard first with the applicant having first opportunity to speak.

Atty. Harris stated that all of the activity is in the upland review area and an additional parcel of property was acquired to add to the parcel to gain a secondary access to the Walnut Hill Road site.  Atty. Harris stated that they will be making drainage improvements to the road safety improvements to the road itself.  They will be adding drainage pipes and catch basins.  Atty. Harris stated that the Town Engineer requested that they replace a stone retaining wall.  Atty. Harris stated that they are proposing a privately owned open space area and additional hiking trails were added at the request of the Planning Commission.  The trails will not go into the wetland area. 

Mr. Johnson reviewed sheet GD5 of the plans and stated that the road will be 22’ wide with curbing and they will be fixing all of the existing drainage problems and a new retaining wall will be constructed.

Mrs. Bodenhofer asked if this will address concerns about the neighboring yards flooding.  Mr. Johnson stated that they will be putting in a new reinforced corrugated pipe to correct the problem.

Mr. Gallagher asked Mr. Johnson to discuss how the rate of flow will be acceptable.  Mr. Johnson explained why there will be no increase in the rate of runoff. 

Mr. Johnson stated that Michael Klein, Biologist and Certified Soil Scientist had flagged the wetlands on the original plan and the new parcel. 

Mr. Johnson stated that the road improvements are being made at the request of the Town and there are not direct wetlands impacts.  There will be 6’ of clearing for the walking paths. 

Mr. Prochorena asked if this is a new application.  Mr. Hayden stated that it is a permit modification.  It was part of the approved subdivision and  it does not make sense administratively to consider it as a new application.  Atty. Harris stated that there have been no changes to the previously approved plan.  There are requesting approval for additional activity. 

Ms. Lozanov asked what changes there would be to the plans if they had not acquired the additional parcel.  Atty. Harris replied none. 

Mr. Landino stated that all of the proposed changes were requested by Town Staff. 

Mr. Hafner asked for public comment.

Bob Hudyma of 41 Grassy Hill Road stated that he has been farming this property for 55-60 years and it should be called Pigeon  Hill Ridge.  Mr. Hudyma stated that from the old house going north to south all that water is going to run west and come in contract with Walnut Hill Road.  A wetlands web site says standing water for more than seven days is a wetlands.  He has harvested hay in water coming over the tires in a dry spell and a fire truck sunk up to its axles in the 1960s.  The property can be build on but it needs a lot of work to drain water away from the homes.  Pigeon Hill Ridge is the headwater for Latimer Brook.  Mr. Hudyma stated that he called the Army Corps of Engineers and they said they have not heard from Mr. Hayden he (Mr. Hudyma) does not know why it takes so long.  Mr. Hudyma presented photos of the driveway from 40-44 Walnut Hill Road.  Mr. Hudyma thanked the Commission for listening. 

Mr. Landino stated that they had met extensively with  Town Staff on the drainage computations. 

Mr. Prochorena asked how clogging of the catch basins will be prevented.  Mr. Johnson stated that is a maintenance issue for the Town.  Mr. Landino noted that the drainage was already approved and it will improve public safety. 

Nancy Kalal of 80 Grassy Hill Road asked when the drainage calculations were done.  Mr. Johnson stated that the TR55 Calcs were used to design the drainage and it is done by a computer program. 

Mr. Hafner asked if the applicant would be before the Commission if this work was not requested by the Town.  Mr. Landino stated that they do not have to do this work  It is being done because the Town wants them to pay for it. 

Beverly Picazzio of 28 Grassy Hill Road stated that she is concerned and you as the Conservation Commission  must ensure that the rules and regulations of East Lyme are followed.  It is essential to protect the wetlands and this is only a small part of the overall plan.  This land is not suitable for the proposed density.  Ms. Picazzio read her letter.

Nick Dombrowski of 103 Walnut Hill Road stated that he found out about this application from a neighbor and wondered why he did not receive notice of the hearing.  He is a new property owner.  Mr. Dombrowski stated that he went to Town Hall and looked at the storm water management report and Mr. Hayden indicated that there is no increase in flow.  Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Hayden is correct.

Andrea Zrenda of 18 Latimer Drive stated that she knows that every time it rains her house has water.  It looks very pretty but she does not understand how you can have new homes and lots and roads and not have more water running off.  She is told there will be no impact and she has impact every time it rains more than 4 inches.  The Conservation Commission should take a good look at this.  It just does not make any sense.  Take a good look at what is happening here.

Creig Peterson of 53 Walnut Hill Road stated that he is concerned about the effects on vernal pools.  Mr. Peterson read a letter about vernal pools.  Mr. Peterson stated that this application should be considered incomplete because question number 13 on the application was not answered.  Mr. Klein stated that he does not have the authority to go on other properties to determine if there are any vernal pools. 

Patricia Butterfield of 6 Upper Walnut Hill Road stated that they heard the applicant is not obligated to fix any thing on the larger property.  If the project is not approved the Army Corp. will not address the damage that needs to be fixed.  Mr. Landino stated that the site will be restored when the Army Corps tells them it is OK.  Ms. Butterfield stated that a person in the audience water about the roads and water coming off the driveway.  Some of the problem is that the  Town does not perform maintenance of roads.  Approval will improve the road and the Town does not maintain the improvements.  There will be 2-3 cars per house in the subdivision will be added to traffic on the road.  Tax money is not set aside to maintain roads. 

Atty. Harris stated that this is helping the Town save money.

Ms. Butterfield stated that this is a wealthy town but it cannot maintain their infrastructure.  There is an approved golf course two miles away from here.  The Town needs to figure out how to fix our own problem and not rely on developers. 

Maureen Bell of 18 Upper Walnut Hill Road stated that she has lived in Groton, Waterford and Mystic and she has learned a lot about water than she has ever wanted to know.  She is concerned about computer programs not taking leaves into consideration.  She wonders about damaged liability of runoff water.  Who is liable, the developer?  Things don’t always go as calculated.  Ms. Bell stated she heard that Mr. Landino does not have to be here tonight so why is he doing it.  It’s out of the kindness of his heart or because he wants to make a better relationship with people who make decisions?

Mr. Landino stated that as a developer in town it is appropriate to address people’s concerns and build a quality development. 

Mark Butterfield of 6 Upper Walnut Hill Road stated that it was glossed over the fact that the original permit was on a different application which was denied by the Planning Commission.  It is the Conservation Commission’s responsibility to review the original permits.  The original permit was for a $1 million bridge which was changed to a culvert.

Atty. Harris stated that the original permit is still in effect for five more years.

Kelvin Cooper of 44 Cardinal Road reviewed Exhibit 25.  Atty. Harris rebutted Mr. Cooper’s comments.

Julia Hickory of 112 Walnut Hill Road read Exhibit 26 into the public hearing record. 

Bonnie Dombrowski of Walnut Hill Road asked why trees were cleared on Walnut Hill Road.  Atty. Harris stated that they have a letter of  permission from the DEP to remove trees to improve sightline.  Mr. Landino noted that the removal of the trees has nothing to do with the application before the Commission.

Andrea Zrenda of 18 Latimer Drive asked if a storm water study was ever requested for other projects aprpoved by the Commission and stated shame on the Commission for not requesting one.

Ken Sylvestri of 66 and 68 Walnut Hill Road submitted photographs of catch basins and stated that he is worried about runoff.  Mr. Sylvestri stated that he was not here to knock the applicant he is just worried about runoff on his own property. 

Joan Kwasniewski Bengston of 67/69 Walnut Hill Road stated that her family has owned property since the 1960s and the Town does not have the resources or staff and planning to made improvements.  She wants to make sure her comments are word for word for the record.  Runoff needs to be addressed.  Water needs to go into the road not the ground.  Protection is needed up there. 

Steve Ruhnke of 85 Walnut Hill Road stated that where the trees were cut is making his driveway wash out.  It needs to be addressed.

The resident at 20 Chapman Drive stated that they had to evacuate their house last spring.  It is owed to the people who already live here that they do not get flooded out.

Mr. Hudyma stated that on the old farmstead the land was dug up that could have been contaminated and we do not know where the stuff was hauled off to.  Mr. Hafner asked if Mr. Hudyma has evidence of pesticides on the site.  Mr. Hudyma stated that if there were orchards there you have pesticides.  Mr. Orvedal illegally filled in the wetlands.  Atty. Harris stated that a pesticide study was done for the Planning Commission.

Mr. Gallagher left the meeting at this time.

Mr. Johnson addressed the comments made by Dr. Cooper.  Dr. Cooper stated that the would like more calculations done.  Mr. Hafner asked Dr. Cooper if he was speaking as an expert. 

Dr. Cooper stated he was not.  When the pipe gets filled you will still get flooding.  Mr. Landino stated that he takes exception to Dr. Cooper’s comments.  All of the calculations were done by Licensed Professional Engineers.  The existing homes in the area were developed when there were no standard drainage requirements.  Atty. Harris stated the applicants feel they have presented what the Conservation Commission needs and would urge the Commission to close the hearing.  They have presented all of their evidence.  Much of what was discussed tonight was already addressed in the existing permit.  They have no further information to present.

Mark Christiansen of 66 Grassy Hill Road stated that the Commission has to consider testimony from the applicant but must consider testimony from everyone.  He would like to point out that much of the room has cleared out since the Chairman said at 9:20 there would be a cutoff for people to speak and many of those people who wanted to speak left.  You would do a disservice to change that.  Mr. Hafner stated that if people left the meeting it was of their own accord.  Mr. Christiansen stated that most people are not lawyers, just Town people.  Atty. Harris pointed out the fact that the Chairman had indicated that the hearing would either be continued or closed.  Atty. Harris stated that the applicant would like the hearing to be closed as it must be brought to a conclusion at some time. 

MOTION 2:     Mrs. Bodenhofer moved to close the public hearing.  Seconded by Mr. Reluga.

Mr. Bender stated that the public hearing should be continued because people have concerns.  Ms. Lozanov agreed.  One more month will give people more time.  We are here to represent the Town in good faith. 

Mr. Prochorena stated that Atty. Harris is correct.  Most of the comments made were on the project that was already permitted not on the application before the Commission tonight. 

Mrs. Bodenhofer stated that she feels the hearing should be closed because they had heard three hours of testimony, it is repetitive and she does not know what more the Commission can hear.  There was very little discussion directly addressing the property that the application is for. 

Mr. Bender stated that the Commission is obliged to hear the public. 

VOTE:           Motion passed 3-2-1.  Aye:  Mrs. Bodenhofer, Mr. Reluga, Mr. Hafner.  Nay:  Ms. Lozanov, Mr. Bender.  Abstained:  Mr. Prochorena.  (Mr. Gallagher had left the meeting at this point.)

Respectfully submitted,

Marilyn Wright, Recording Secretary