These minutes are for information purposes only. For official minutes please contact the Town Clerk's office.

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Howard Beach called the January 4, 2000, meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Simsbury High School Amphitheater. The following members were present: Thomas Sharpless, William Nowak, John Yocom, Richard Miller, and alternates Andrew Bucknam and Pierce Clayberger. Laurie Whitten, Conservation Officer and Staff Liaison, was also present.

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

The Chairman appointed Mr. Clayberger to sit for Karl Pech, and Andrew Bucknam for Helene Wade.

III. PUBLIC HEARING - Discussion and Possible Vote

a. Application of River Bend Associates, Inc. and Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc., for a permit to conduct regulated activities in connection with "Meadowood" planned residential development, County Road, Hoskins Road, Holcomb Street, Firetown Road, and Barn Door Hills Road.

Secretary William Nowak read the call for the public hearing. The Chairman announced that the meeting will move to the auditorium in order to accommodate the audience.

MOTION: Mr. Clayberger moved that the meeting be relocated to the auditorium in order to accommodate the large audience. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nowak and approved unanimously.

The meeting reconvened at 7:50 p.m. in the auditorium and the Secretary read the call for the public hearing again for the record. The Chairman announced that he is the sole proprietor of a small business in town and has purchased materials from Imperial Nurseries, but has never profited from them and feels no conflict for him to participate in the deliberations. He also stated that the commission is acting as the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency as well as the Conservation Commission, which will make a referral to the Zoning Commission with respect to activities in an Aquifer Protection Zone.

Conservation Officer Laurie Whitten introduced the following professionals retained by the Town: Keane Callahan, Environmental Analyst, and Robert Melvin, both with Robinson & Cole, David Lord, Certified Soil Scientist with Soil Resource Consultants, and Gordon Brookman, P.E., L.S.P, and L.E.P, President of Environmental Risk Limited. Copies of staff reports were distributed to the commission members.

Timothy Hollister, attorney for the applicants, addressed the commission and introduced speakers for the applicants: Bill Richter, John Ianni, Soil Scientist, Ed Pollack, Professional Biologist, Bob Potterton, Engineer, and David Ziaks, Professional Engineer.

Bill Richter gave an overall description of the proposal to construct homes on the 364 acre site, and identified the streets on the plans. There are 13 wetlands on the site which comprise 22 acres. He identified the location of the Hoskins Aquifer Recharge Area, and noted that there are 141 acres of Open Space, which make up about 38% of the site. Proposed are 9 detention basins which will create new wetlands. Five are designed as solar retention basins, and will be planted with several plantings, including cattails.

John Ianni, Soil Scientist, reviewed a map indicating the different soils and areas they are located on the site. There are 22 acres of wetlands in over 3 areas, he said.

Ed Pollack, Soil Scientist and Professional Biologist, addressed the wetland sites (1-13) individually. He indicated that wetlands 2,7, &12 are vernal pools, wetland 3 provides flood control wetlands 6 & 9 provide groundwater discharge, wetlands 5 & 13 provide flood storage, and wetland 7 is a seasonal watercourse and drains to the north. He reviewed in depth the existence/survival of water life, i.e. frogs, tadpoles, salamanders, in each of the wetland areas. Some of the wetland sites, he said had dried out by June 1999. Mr. Pollack addressed 7 activities proposed in the wetlands. Activities include some filling of wetlands and removal of sediment, construction of culvert boxes and retaining walls, boardwalks for walking trails (to be built on pilons), and construction of roads. Mr. Pollack addressed activities proposed for the intermittent watercourses, which include some filling and replacement of culverts. He reviewed the regulated upland forest areas on the maps. (Copies of all maps and reports with exact figures, locations, acreage, and plans are on file in the Planning Department.)

Bob Potterton, Engineer, addressed the Residual Pesticides. Studies began in September 1994 with the Francis Farms proposal and a more extensive study was done in 1998, he said. The site was tested and they found 160 compounds out there. There were 505 soil samples and 54 groundwater samples. Pesticides were found mostly in the upper 6 inches of soil. There were none below 18 inches anywhere on the site, he said. There were very low levels of EDB in the groundwater, and he said there would be no impacts to the groundwater. He identified the types of pesticides and what to do about them. He stated that their goal is to bring the soils into conformance with the DEP Remediation Standards Regulations (RSR). He explained the process and testing procedure. They tried the process of soil mixing on one acre to see if it is viable to bring the site into conformance. The process requires turning over the top 6 inches of soil into a minimum depth of 3 feet. An air quality monitor program and post-soil mixing confirmatory sampling will be in place. If the residual pesticides become airborne, an engineering control plan will be used to lower the dust level (e.g. a water truck). Post soil mixing requires sampling of soil from each site from a depth of 3 feet below grade. The soils will be analyzed to see if they meet the RSR soil remediation criteria. The applicants feel there will be no impact on the air or ground water quality. The applicant has submitted a small blue bound booklet entitled "Soil Mixing Plan, River Bend Associates/Griffin Land, Meadowood Development, Simsbury, Connecticut, January 2000", put out by Fuss and O'Neil Inc., Consulting Engineers, and copies are on file in the Planning Department for the public to review.

Dave Ziaks, Chief Engineer, referred to the plans and reviewed the five major watersheds on the site: they are the Bissell Brook to the north; one to the center/north; one east of Saxton Brook; one southeast of Bissell Brook south, and one south of Firetown Road, a part of Hop Brook watershed. He referred to the Town's Master Drainage Study and the Stormwater Management Plan. Each lot, he said, is to be graded; new roads will be built to town standards; there will be 9 man-made detention basins; and sedimentation controls will be installed. He addressed roads, noting there will be 2 means of egress to the sectors of the community to the collector roads. Mr. Ziaks addressed Ms. Whitten's staff report dated 12/29/99, and with respect to item #3, concerns of drainage of the wetlands into the detention ponds, Mr. Ziaks stated that they have taken this into account and have adjusted the elevations and outlet structures of the ponds; with respect to item #5, regarding increased density/runoff, Mr. Ziaks stated that there would be no difference in rates of discharge with the increased density.

Atty. Hollister invited the commission to ask questions at this time, and the Chairman announced that first there would be a 10 minute recess. The commission recessed at 9:55 p.m., and reconvened at 10:05 p.m. The Chairman announced that the meeting must adjourn at 11:00 p.m. because it is in the school building, but assured the public that it will be continued to the meeting of January 18, 2000.

Thomas Sharpless asked why the commission should consider this application when there are two factors that could change it (referring to the WPCA pending information), and Mr. Ziaks explained transferring sewer capacity from another site. River Bend owns another parcel (parcel 1) in an aquifer zone which can be developed Industrial use. He assured the commission that if they transfer some of the sewer rights from parcel 1 and it was to be developed in the future, there would still be enough capacity on that parcel for any future proposed industrial development. A question was raised about the pesticides on the site and "hot spots" (concentrated areas). Mr. Potterton stated that there are no hot spots and that the pesticides are evenly distributed over the site. They are not required by the state to clean up the site, he said. They only need to meet the state levels and standards.

Richard Miller asked if they had to meet the RSR Criteria, and Mr. Potterton stated that, technically, no, but they (the proponents) are very concerned about safety and health of the public.

John Yocom inquired about the pesticides, and asked that if they just "sit there", will they migrate. Mr. Potterton stated that the potential for materials to migrate is very, very slight.

Bill Nowak asked about the location of the soil mixing, and Mr. Potterton said they mixed the soil in another location.

Thomas Sharpless identified himself for the proponents as a Chemistry Professor at the University of Hartford with a BS in chemistry. He had questions regarding the immobility of chlordane and what happens when organic material disappears. He had concerns it will find its way into the gas and liquid water phases and back to organic soil. Mr. Potterton stated that he hasn't seen any literature on microbiological degradation. Mr. Sharpless also asked about the levels of chlordane and concentrations at the site, and felt there was a discrepancy, and they referred to and discussed items on page 4aa, section c, " and page 4b (with respect to hot spots) of the large 4" binder submitted earlier to the commission members entitled "Application of River Bend Associates, Inc., and Griffm Land & Nurseries, Inc., for permit to conduct regulated activities in connection with "Meadowood" Planned Residential Development, County Road, Hoskins Road, Holcomb Street, Firetown Road, and Bam Door Hills Road, November 9, 1999, submitted to Simsbury Conservation Commissiom" (A copy is on file in the Planning Department for the public to review.) After discussion, Mr. Potterton stated that he will provide the commission with the detailed data from the lab for the next meeting.

Andrew Bucknam had questions about who is responsible for post-mixing, and Mr. Potterton stated that there is a monitoring program in place. Mr. Bucknam asked if it was the Town or the DEP, and Mr.Potterton stated that the applicant is responsible for the monitoring.

Pierce Clayberger (referring to the binder report named above) asked about the 17 chemicals found in the last ten years and if Mr. Potterton could name them, and he replied that he did not know because he is not a chemist.

John Yocom, a Chemical Engineer and Environmental Consultant, asked if there was an air monitoring plan, the proponent stated yes.

Bill Nowak asked about the mixing procedure, and Mr. Potterton explained there are three means of doing it, including the tilting of the blade when they turn over the soil.

Chairman Howard Beach asked about the average depth of the top soil and was informed it would be 6 inches. Mr. Beach was concerned that bringing up sandy soil from below would not allow for growing lawns etc.

Tom Sharpless referred to a report from the Dept. of Health and Dept. of Envirorunental Protection noting that there were no signatures and they were not on respective letterheads. He had questions about the RSR exceedances, and asked about soil mixing and the specific hot spot areas, and felt they should be removed instead of mixed into the site. He was concerned that they may contaminate the sod more, and felt they should be re-done.

Andrew Bucknam referred to the two reports distributed at the beginning of the meeting and asked the applicant to review them for the next meeting.

Richard Miller had concerns about using the material as fill, and that it would still exceed the RSR's criteria after mixing the soils. Mr. Potterton did not agree.

The Chairman announced that it was nearing 11:00 p.m. and that the hearing would be continued to the meeting of January 18, 2000, at a place not yet determined. He also announced the dates for the meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commissions.

MOTION: William Nowak moved that the hearing be continued to the meeting of January 18, 2000. The motion was seconded by Pierce Clayberger and approved unanimously.

IV. PRESENTATION - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. No New or Pending Applications

V. DISCUSSION

a. Open Space Issues

A commissioner asked about the Sottile property and thought there were some problems. Ms. Whitten had no knowledge and stated that she will check into it for the next meeting.

VI. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS

a. Simsbury Land Conservation Trust, Saddle Ridge and Lenora Drive

VII. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS - there was none.

VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of December 7,1999

MOTION: Andrew Bucknam moved to approve the minutes of December 7, 1999, as submitted. The motion was seconded by William Nowak and approved unanimously.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION: William Nowak moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. The motion was seconded by John Yocom and approved unanimously.