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

SPECIAL MEETING

FEBRUARY 16, 2000

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Howard Beach called the February 16, 2000 Special Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Simsbury High School Amphitheater. The following members were present: John Yocom, William Nowak, Thomas Sharpless, and alternates Andrew Bucknam, R. Pierce Clayberger and Margery Winters. Also present was Laurie Whitten, Conservation Officer and Staff Liaison.

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Beach appointed Commissioner Bucknam to serve for Commissioner Wade

Commissioner Miller arrivedat 7:10 pm.

III. PUBLIC HEARING - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. Application of Joseph Herzog for a Map Amendment for the construction of an office building at 146 Hopmeadow Street.

Mr. Steve Selger of Landscape Architectural Design Associates gave an overview presentation on the proposed application. The proposal includes an office building and parking. Drainage will be overland sheet flow into biofiltration swales before reaching the wetlands. He also proposed to continue use of the access to route 10. The site is flat with 2' to 3' in overall grade change.

Mr. Michael Klein, Environmental Planning Services, recommended grasses as biofilter for 100'. He explained that the amount of disturbance would be about 31 %, the original proposal was 37%+/-.

Due to confusion over why or how the wetlands had changed in 10 years, a site walk was scheduled for Saturday, February 26th at 9:00 a.m.

Steven Weisman, a unit owner at Talcott Acres, spoke of concern with water going into culverts.

A motion was made to continue this application until March 7, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Beach called a 5 minute recess. The meeting reconvened.

b. 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.

Attorney Tim Hollister gave the Commission a plain language summary of the testimony that has been presented on the pesticide issues. He also said that Mr. Fisher has prepared a letter regarding the request for information on the insurance records of the contents of the burnt barns on the Meadowood property.

Mr. Dave Ziaks, Chief Engineer of FA Hesketh Associates, said that their firm was responsible for the civil engineering, land surveying and traffic engineering of this project. Mr. Ziaks said the he would like to address outstanding issues that have been raised on various reports they have received from staff and consultants that have been hired by the town. Mr. Ziaks discussed improvements that they are proposing at the intersection of Saxton Brook Drive and County Road. He showed the details on a colored up plan. He also clarified improvements being proposed at the intersection of Whitcomb & Holcomb. Mr. Ziaks also explained what part DEP would have in permitting an erosion control plan for this site. He said that for any site larger than five acres the DEP requires registration through a general permit process.

Mr. Ziaks said that he has reviewed the written comments presented by staff and he has broken his comments into three basic categories. The categories he discussed are wind and soil erosion control, storm water management basin design and ground water issues and water quality. He said that they have no serious differences of opinion or disagreements with staff comments at this point. Mr. Ziaks also said that Fuss & O'Neill has prepared a detailed water quality report for the Commission. He also discussed comments he received from Milone & MacBroom, consultants for the town. Mr. Ziaks said that they have prepared all the plans and studies that are before the Commission this evening and they are in accordance with the town's standards and requirements.

Mr. Ed Pawlak of Connecticut Eco Systems gave a summary of some of the important points he gave at his initial presentation. He said that the design team has achieved the goal of minimizing wetland impact to the maximum possible extent. The total wetland impact from the development will only be approximately 1/10th of an acre, which only represents about .42% of all the wetlands in the property. He gave additional information on a proposed outlet structure across wetland #5. Mr. Pawlak put into the record 5 copies of a more detailed topographic map of that area prepared by Hesketh Associates.

Mr. Pawlak spoke of water quality issues. He said that they have previously stated that the conversion of these large agricultural tobacco fields on both east and west portions of the property which currently export sediments into the onsite and offsite wetlands and the water courses provides an opportunity to significantly reduce the amount of sediments that enter these resources. He said that he also has had discussions with the applicant and they are willing to consider additional best management practices with respect to fertilizers and pesticide use on residential properties in order to gain further water quality benefits. Mr. Pawlak gave four general recommendations for the Commission to consider. They are:

1. The fertilizer to be used is slow release.
2. The fertilizer application is based upon soil testing.
3. A minimum of one annual fertilizer application be organic based.
4. With respect to fertilizers, the recommendation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques is utilized.

Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Pawlak asked if the suggestions were for the proposed homeowners.

Mr. Pawlak responded that the majority of the lawns would be under control of the homeowners association.

Commissioner Miller asked if he was referring to the common grounds as opposed to the individual homeowner's lots.

Mr. Hollister responded that this would be set up so that everyone including the owners of the individual subdivided lots would be a member of the association.

Dr. Kevin Miller went over questions from Bill Voelker's letter dated February 11, 2000. He said that he has broken this down into four different categories. The first was a request for the names of the people who were interviewed, approximate dates and criteria used to interview the people. The second topic had to do with descriptions of where exactly pesticides were used an mixed and why we felt that they were not mixed around barn areas on this site. The third topic was in regard to pesticide testing around the barns. The fourth question dealt with hot spots. The responses have been submitted to the Commission. The responses are in Addendum #1 attached.

Dr. Miller also spoke of a letter from Soil Resource Consultants to Laurie Whitten given to him this evening regarding organic carbons in soils at depth and that chlordane would apt to be more mobile after soil mixing. He wnet over the four points in the letter and said that in general they do not have any major disagreements with any of these points. He feels that they pretty much confirm what they have said on the record in the past.

Dr. Miller said that soil mixing has been going on for a long time and chlordane has been around since right after World War II. He also said that there is no chlordane in most drinking wells. He said that in most literature you read there is no ground water impact from chlordane. Dr. Miller said that this probably is a new method to remediate the site, but it is not new in development.

Dr. Miller discussed the number of samples and statistical techniques. He said that generally speaking you want to take enough samples at a site to determine whether you are above or below a target concentration. Dr. Miller said that what you really want to prove is that you remediate a site below that concentration.

Commissionaer Bucknam questioned the protocol that was utilized to interview people and eliminating chemicals from the list of chemicals that were tested for. He asked if any of the five people interviewed said that they had no recollection of one of those chemicals being used there, was that the end of the inquiry.

Dr. Miller responded that if the person said that they had specific knowledge that a certain chemical was not used then it was eliminated, but if they said they had no recollection it was not eliminated from the list.

Commissioner Bucknam asked what the cost would have been for all 69 chemicals as opposed to testing for the 44 that were tested.

Dr. Miller said that he did not know if they had done a cost evaluation on that. He said that they did an analysis called total line chromatography. Dr. Miller explained that this is a general screening procedure that you can compare any peak you get on this with the National Bureau of Standards Library.

Commissioner Nowak said that he knows that they did not inspect the soils inside the barn areas, but feels this would have been a good benchmark indicator.

Dr. Miller said that there are two types of soil sampling. One is called judgmental and the other is random testing. Dr. Miller said that they used random testing.

Dr. Miller also said that this is a voluntary remediation of this site. He said that they are meeting the Connecticut DEP and DOH standards to a point where they believe that they are protective of human health.

Mr. Bob Potterton, Fuss & O'Neill, spoke of the additional materials that they submitted. He said that four volumes were submitted. Two of them consisted of laboratory data, one was supplemental material, and the last was the revised soil mixing plan.

Commissioner Clayberger asked if there are any other specific areas where this tilling process has been used.

Mr. Potterton responded there is one in South Windsor and one in East Lyme. He also said that soil mixing has been used most extensively in New Jersey.

Commissioner Sharpless asked what was the pollutant of concern in South Windsor and in New Jersey,

Mr. Potterton said that in South Windsor it was arsenic. He also said that in the New Jersey sites he is not aware of what the contaminant concern was.

Commissioner Nowak said that soil blending was done in South Windsor and East Lyme, but that no post soil sampling was done. He asked what was the criteria used to determine if this was done successfully.

Mr. Potterton said that he is not aware of what was done in East Lyme. He said that the criteria to say that it was successful or not is based on a mathematical analysis and he assumes that they felt they could meet the standards.

Commissioner Bucknam asked in the soil mixing plan for this development if they are proposing a post remediation soil sampling be done.

Mr. Potterton said yes, extensive sampling.

Commissioner Bucknam asked what in the extensive sampling will be the level that tells them that a certain pesticide is at such a level that the soil needs to be remixed or removed from the site.

Mr. Potterton responded that if the post remediation sampling indicates that the soil does not comply with the remediation standard regulations then the soils will be either remixed or removed from the site.

Commissioner Sharpless asked Mr. Potterton if anyone at Culbro had indicated to him that chlordane had ever been sprayed on the tobacco crops.

Mr. Potterton said that he had not inquired as to precisely how the chlordane was used. He said he only knew was that it was applied to the field.

Commissioner Sharpless asked Mr. Potterton if he had asked any of the Culbro personnel about the treatment of poles with chlordane.

Mr. Potterton responded that no he had not.

Bob Melvin, Special Counsel for the Town, asked Dr. Klemens a few questions to establish his qualifications to provide his expert opinions.

Dr. Klemens said that more field work is needed on this site. He said that there is a deficiency in fieldwork that needs to be addressed. Dr. Klemens told the Commission that they need to look at a much broader area than 363 acres to understand the impact. He said that these are a highly diverse wetlands type and structurally complex with lots of different vegetation levels and some of them are somewhat stressed. Dr. Klemens spoke of three special concern species that should be looked for. These are the eastern box turtle, ribbon snake and the hognose snake.

Ms. Laurie Whitten asked Dr. Klemens if he studied the effects of lawn fertilizers on vernal pools.

Dr. Klemens responded that fertilizers tend to eutrophy wetlands.

Ms. Whitten asked Dr. Klemens if he has seen any evidence of wildlife migration on the site.

Dr. Klemens said he was only on the site for a few hours, but saw lots of deer tracks and saw beaver activity in the swale. He said that wildlife moves through the landscape.

Ms. Whitten asked if there was any evidence or potential for habitat restoration in both the wetlands and upper and lower fields.

Dr. Klemens responded said that by looking at the photographs in the report many of the wetlands do not look like they need restoration.

Commissioner Nowak asked Dr. Klemens if he considered wetlands #13 and #7 a wetlands corridor where aquatic life and wildlife might go from Great Pond to McLean or even further up to Massachusetts.

Dr. Klemens said that this is a vital area.

Mr. Arnold Sholovitz, North Simsbury Coalition, asked Dr. Klemens if he could describe what the edge effect is and how the property may be developed to provide the optimum habitat for amphibians.

Dr. Klemens responded that the edge effect is a phenomenon that occurs along the edge of anything. He said that many of the amphibians that they are dealing with are more interior species. Dr. Klemens said that the major thing that has to happen is to maintain the connectivity between the wetlands in a meaningful way. He also mentioned reforestation.

Jim Gazzola, 9 Briarwood Drive, questioned fragmentation and the boundary roads.

Dr. Miller said that roads could be constructed that would not kill or fragment habitat.

Steve Bissett, 21 Clifdon Drive, asked what impact and potential buffer area might be needed on site surrounding the area and how to protect that pond area.

Dr. Miller said that he does not know what is in that pond.

Commissioner Miller asked about the tendency of some of the species to bio-accumulate and in particular the snapping turtle. He asked if this would be reproductive toxic for them.

Dr. Miller said that turtles could concentrate things that would kill us easily and keep on going.

Commissioner Miller asked if other species on the site are like the snapping turtle in their ability to bio- accumulate and not have any effects.

Dr. Miller said that they do not know what the long term effects are on some of the other things, but amphibians do bio-accumulate.

Joe Barna, 42 Wyndham Drive, spoke of the migration area and of the wildlife located there.

Jane McAlpine, 1 Scarborough Road, asked if each recreational facility development is compatible to the wetland corridor and also spoke about the increase in traffic.

Rich Afergola, North Drive, said that he has taught biology for 35 years and he is bothered by the soil mixing concept. He does not feel that it is right to destroy a natural resource like top soil.

Joan Coe, 26 Whitcomb Drive, said that she is also concerned about the soil churning. She feels that the state should take a major role in the project as this is going to set precedence for the entire state of Connecticut for all agricultural land. She also questioned whether all this digging would change the water table.

Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Hollister about his memo on public act #99-68. He said that in the memo Mr. Hollister makes a statement about legislative history and asked him to attach copies of what ever type of evidence he has to lead to that conclusion.

Mr. Hollister responded that he does not have this with him tonight, but will get it.

Dave Fagone, Whitcomb Drive, spoke of Simsbury being in the forefront of the soil mixing concept.

Lynn Melman, Berkshire Way, spoke of her concern of the soil mixing. She said that they should give them guarantees that there will not be any health concerns 10, 20 or 30 years down the road.

Virgina Peake, Surrey Circle, spoke of the wildlife. She said that she would like to see this Commission get together with other towns around the area to work on larger concepts of wetlands preservation, to make Culbro a partner of ours to go in concert with residents in the area to begin to construct an idea that would really work for everyone.

Chairman Beach said that the town already does some work on trying to establish and maintain wildlife corridors. He said that they have not specifically worked with adjoining towns, but have picked areas for wildlife corridors that align with areas in adjacent towns that are already being preserved.

Kathleen Bissett, 21 Clifdon Drive, spoke of comments made by Attorney Tim Hollister and Dr. Miller on the February 2nd meeting regarding the list of the 22 chemicals that do not appear in their Meadowood application Appendix A. She also spoke of Dr. Callahan's testimony that confirmed the importance of testing for these 22 additional chemicals.

Mark Turpin, Sanctuary Drive, spoke of the soil mixing. He asked how universal mixing could be achieved with a bulldozer on the site.

Jane McApine, 1 Scarborough Road, clarified some references to chlordane she submitted to this Commission following the February 2nd meeting. She said that this information was not taken from the Internet, but was forwarded to her directly from someone at the U.S. EPA Fresh Water Protection Office in New York City.

Jeff Melman, Berkshire Way, made comments on the soil mixing.

Joan Coe, Whitcomb Drive, spoke of aerial spraying. She asked if DDT is one of the chemicals that has been used on the land.

Chairman Beach said at the beginning of the meeting Tim Hollister asked, on behalf of the applicant, to request an extension of the public hearing. He said that the next most reasonable date to extend the public hearing is March 7th.

Commissioner Sharpless said that he feels that to extend the public hearing would be a bad precedent.

Mr. Hollister said that the main reason they agreed to extend the public hearing was that the Intervenor had asked for additional time so that Dr. Callahan could look at the additional information that was submitted last Friday. He also said that one problem is that their Consultants have not been able to speak to the town's consultants.

Matt Koch, North Simsbury Coalition, asked for a request for an extension of time. He said that they would like to bring Dr. Callahan back for March 7".

Dwight Merriman, Special Counsel to the Town, said that the issue of the caveat of the land record is not resolved. He also said that he made a recommendation to town staff regarding the consultant to consultant meetings that the applicant has requested. He said that because there are Intervenors under 22-a19 in this proceeding and in the Planning Commission proceeding he feels it is a real risk of a violation to the procedural due process rights of the Intervenor.

Chairman Beach asked for a motion to continue the public hearing until March 7th. This motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Sharpless reminded the applicants that the Commission still has not received some of the statistical data. He said, for example, the EPA's standard deviations amounting to something like a 50% air bar and he would like to see some documentation of that and if possible standard deviations for the measurements.

Chairman Beach discussed a memo addressed to the Town of Simsbury Conservation Commission from Attorney Robert S. Melvin and Keane Callahan, Environmental Analysis dated February 14, 2000.

IV. PRESENTATION - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. No New Applications

V. DISCUSSION

a. Open Space Issues

Regarding Sotille property, unmotivated buyer believes if town willing to buy floodplan property it must be valuable. Price too high.

VI. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS

None

VII. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS

NONE

VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 2, 2000

Approved with changes.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.