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

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 7, 2000

1. CALL TO ORDER

Howard Beach, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Simsbury High School Amphitheater, 34 Farms Village Road, Simsbury. The following members were present: Helene Wade, Pierce Clayberger, William Nowak, John Yocum, Andrew Bucknam and Margerie Winters. Also present were Laurie Whitten, Conservation Officer, and other interested parties.

2. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Beach appointed Commissioner Bucknam to serve for Commissioner Sharpless.

3. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. Application of Joseph Herzog for a Map Amendment for the Construction of an Office Building at 146 Hopmeadow Street

Steve Ossias, LADA, stated that they are requesting an amendment to the wetland map based on the re-flagging of the wetland area. He noted that, based on their report, the area is not in fact wetlands. Chairman Beach stated that the commission went on a site walk at which time soil samples were taken.

Joyce Curr, President of the Talcott Acres Condominium Association, stated that the existing culverts drain off of the Talcott Acres land and she questioned who would take responsibility if the land floods.

Bob Hacken, 1A Talcott Acres, questioned whether additional wetlands will be formed based on the runoff from the proposed parking lot.

Commissioner Yocum moved to close the Public Hearing regarding the map amendment for the construction of an office building at 146 Hopmeadow Street. The motion was seconded by Commission Clayberger and carried unanimously. Commissioner Yocum moved to approve the map amendment as defined in the application of Joseph Herzog. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger and carried unanimously.

4. PRESENTATION - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. Application of Joseph Herzog for an Inland Wetlands Permit for the Construction of an Office Building at 146 Hopmeadow Street

Dave Whitney, Engineer, addressed the drainage at the site and stated that there will be an additional .9 acres of impervious surface on the site. He stated that they proposed sheet flow down to the 1.2 acre wetland area. He noted that there is 1/2 acre of wetlands on the site and 8 acres of watershed drain to the low lying wetlands area. Mr. Whitney explained that currently 2 pipes from the condominium driveway pick up excess water and deposit it into a natural detention basin. He stated that a 10 year storm would produce no flooding or impact to the condominiums. He stated that a 100 year storm would elevate the water 2 feet which would cause a flow 6 inches over the top of the pipe, but would be below the top of the retention basin. He noted that the water level would not rise above the road level. Mr. Whitney stated that the Town Engineer reviewed the plans and will provide a letter of acceptance for the commission. He stated that their plan will change 11% of the 8 acre watershed to impervious surface, but the existing system will mitigate the increased flow.

Chairman Beach questioned whether the existing pipe size can handle a 10 year storm. Mr. Whitney stated that the pipe can handle a 25 year storm. Chairman Beach questioned whether bio-remediation is proposed along the swale.

Michael Klein, Biologist and Soil Scientist, stated that there is a grass swale to the west of the building to the wetland. He stated that the parking lot discharge to the south is through a grass swale to the wetlands Mr. Klein noted that they propose a wetland seed mix in the swale and the swale will provide remediation of the storm water quality prior to discharge to the wetland. He suggested that there will be no significant degradation of the water because the parking lot will be little traveled.

He stated that they will add wetland habitat plantings.

Commissioner Nowak questioned why the building could not be moved further from the wetlands. Mr. Herzog stated the location decision is based on their ability to maximize the size of the building while including the required parking in relation to the wetlands. Commissioner Nowak questioned whether they plan to mitigate the effect on the wetlands. Mr. Klein stated that the grades are relatively flat so sediment and erosion control are not an issue. He stated that de-watering filtration is possible and out-wash soils drain readily.

Commissioner Nowak moved that this is a regulated activity, based on Section 4.1 of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, because the soils may be deposited, altered or otherwise moved about the property in the buffer zone adjacent to the property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger and carried unanimously.

Commissioner Nowak moved that this is a significant activity as defined by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, because there is the possibility of an alteration to the watercourses in periods of heavy rain and possible sediment and siltation during the construction of the project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger and carried unanimously.

Commissioner Nowak moved that this application be approved based on the Conservation Officer's report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger.

Chairman Beach requested the plan to de-water the soils. Commissioner Nowak requested the report from the Town Engineer stating that the existing retention area is adequate to handle the increased runoff from the property. The vote was unanimous. The motion carried.

Commissioner Clayberger moved to amend the agenda to address the application of Udolf Enterprises. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nowak and carried unanimously.

b. Application of Udolf Enterprises LLC for an Inland Wetlands Permit for 971 Hopmeadow Street, Meadowview Apartments

Kevin Clark, Clark Engineering, explained the problems with the existing sewer system due to age and a failing pump. He stated that they propose construction of a new collection system which would require them to cross the regulated area with an enclosed pipe system. He noted that the wetlands would only be disturbed during the installation process. Mr. Clark stated that the WPCA has requested a minor technical revision and Mr. Sawitzke has requested a change in pipe size, both changes they will make.

He stated that they will install silt fencing on either side during construction. He noted that they will be crossing over a culvert that carries Owens Brook. In response to Commissioner Nowak, Mr. Clark stated that they will re-seed the grass areas and replant small evergreen plants and trees to re-buffer on the hill.

Commissioner Clayberger moved that this is a regulated activity because it passes through the 75 foot regulated area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam and carried unanimously.

Commissioner Clayberger moved that this is not a significant activity because few neighbors are effected. The motion was seconded by Commission Bucknam and carried unanimously.

Commissioner Clayberger moved to grant the inland wetlands permit because it will probably enhance the operation of the sewer system. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam and carried unanimously.

5. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION - 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

Commissioner Wade recused herself from this application.

Dr. Callahan, representing the North Simsbury Coalition, reviewed her concerns regarding pesticides at this site (Addendum 1). She pointed out that there have been 35 fires reported at the site and the use of chlorinated organics has been reported at the site. She suggested that it would be prudent to determine whether dioxins are present. Dr. Callahan cited a document from the U.S. Geological Society which states that dieldrin's potential to accumulate to levels which are toxic to humans and aquatic life is much greater than other pesticides. She discussed the need to compare data to the correct criteria and to make sure the area is remediated for aquatic life. Dr. Callahan addressed hot spots and pointed out that the applicant accepts the DEP remediation plan, but doesn't accept the DEP hot spot definition. She stated that the OSHA guidelines for air particulate are only appropriate for workers, not the old, young, or sick.

Commissioner Clayberger questioned whether a barn full of hanging tobacco could create dioxin residue. Dr. Callahan stated that it depends on the amount of pesticide, but the pesticides stay on the plant a good period of time. Commissioner Nowak questioned the claim that pesticides can move through soils. Dr. Callahan stated that these pesticides bind tightly to soil and have been known to migrate to ground water. Commissioner Nowak questioned if the migration could be faster if the soil is disturbed. Dr. Callahan stated that it is possible and the type of soil could impact the speed of migration, such that sandy soil could cause a faster migration.

Mr. Hollister questioned whether there is any evidence that chlorinated organics burned on the site. Dr. Callahan stated that if chlorinated organics were sprayed on the plant and a fire occurred, the chlorinated organics burned. Mr. Hollister questioned whether you would need to know the amount of the pesticides. Dr. Callahan responded that you would need to know the amount to judge the risk. Mr. Hollister questioned whether Dr. Callahan contacted Fuss & O'Neill. Dr. Callahan stated that she had all of the information she needed. Mr. Hollister suggested that Dr. Callahan could have obtained information on the composite samples. He questioned whether Dr. Callahan did a risk assessment calculating that the soil mix program would cause an unhealthy risk at Squadron Line School. Dr. Callahan stated that she did not do calculations.

Kathy Martin, Vice President North Simsbury Coalition, questioned when Dr. Callahan received materials to review for tonight's meeting. Dr. Callahan stated that she received materials this afternoon and yesterday, approximately 50-60 pages. Ms. Martin distributed Dr. Callahan's February 1st report and a listing of 35 fires which occurred on the site between 1953 and 2000.

Wayne Cobleigh, North Simsbury Coalition, 8 Crestwood Road, stated that he is an environmental consultant and he reviewed his questions and concerns regarding the Fuss & O'Neill report.

Ms. Whitten distributed Michael Klemens March 7th report.

Mr. Hollister stated that because additional reports are being requested they may need to extend the Public Hearing. He noted that the Farmington Valley Health District and the DEP are currently having discussions regarding this proposal. Mr. Hollister stated that the applicant provided examples of records of 3 fires to demonstrate the contents of the sheds and did not say that only 3 fires were reported on the site. He expressed his frustration that the North Simsbury Coalition has been unwilling to meet with those involved in the application so that they can answer the questions of the coalition.

Mr. Hollister outlined the 5 areas the Conservation Commission should address with regard to this application. He noted that this application is for specific regulated activities in the wetlands and watercourses and their direct impacts. He suggested that 6.2B of the Simsbury Regulations are outdated and the current state standard is to provide feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed regulated activities when necessary. Mr. Hollister stated that the commission should address soil mixing and pesticide remediation within the regulated area if the activity will pollute or alter the wetlands or watercourses. He pointed out that the commission cannot assume that improper erosion or sediment controls will be used. Mr. Hollister stated that the commission needs to make a referral to the Zoning Commission regarding aquifer protection and make advisory recommendations to the Zoning Commission on conservation issues. He pointed out that the intervention petition does not make a difference in this situation because they are covered by the issue of feasible and prudent alternatives in the wetlands.

Mr. Hollister suggested that if the impact to the wetlands and watercourses is minimal or non-existent there is no need to show feasible and prudent alternatives. He stated that the applicant tried to stay out of the wetlands and it would not be prudent not to do these minimal activities, i.e. widening Firetown Road and the use of an existing farm road which crosses the wetlands in the narrowest place. He stated that if the commission denies the permit for regulated activity, based on a feasible and prudent alternative obligation, the commission needs to tell the applicant what they need to do as an alternative.

Mr. Hollister addressed Dr. Klemens' remarks and stated that if the commission considers this a biological region of 1,000 acres then the state law needs to be changed. He suggested that Dr. Klemens' comments on species of special concern are supposition. He noted that amphibian life is currently good with cultivation occurring on the site.

David Lord, Environmental Consultant to the Conservation Commission, stated that his February 28th memo raises the issue of the retention basin structure's effect on the wetland areas and buffer. He stated that the applicant did not address why the retention basin needs to be in this specific location which will impound water into the retention basin. Mr. Lord pointed out that detention basins 1,3,4,6,7,8 and 9 require grading and filling activities within the wetlands and buffers. He noted that 2.47 acres would be re-graded in the wetland area. Mr. Hollister stated that a portion of the detention basin is within the 75 foot area and doesn't require a feasible and prudent alternative under law, because the issue is impact not location.

Ed Pawlak, Connecticut Ecosystems, stated that during 12 site inspections he did not observe the species listed by Dr. Klemens. He stated that he disagrees with the box turtle being wetland dependent. Mr. Pawlak addressed Dr. Klemens' comments from a landscape perspective. He stated that he does not believe that the on-site conditions are ecologically connected to off-site conditions. He stated that the off-site wetlands are separated from Great Pond due to distance, habitat fragmentation, residential development and well traveled roads. Mr. Pawlak stated that he disagrees that the vernal pools are part of a 800-1,000 acre system. He stated that alterations of habitat form islands without movement between and causes habitat fragmentation.

He stated that the fragmentation and distance between vernal pools makes migration unlikely between the vernal pools.

Mr. Pawlak addressed Dr. Klemens' suggestion of a 600 foot buffer around on-site vernal pools. Mr. Pawlak noted forestry habitat buffers, and pointed out that amphibians have persisted on the site regardless of the cultivation that takes place and therefore should exist post-development. Mr. Pawlak noted Dr. Klemens' concerns regarding protecting the hill, the wetlands and the western section of the site. He stated that regulated portions of the hill will be preserved, as well as regulated areas on the west portion of the site. He noted that the only disturbance will be soil mixing.

Mr. Pawlak noted that Dr. Klemens' was concerned that the storm water control structures in the wetlands could intercept amphibians. He stated that all basins are 500 feet from the vernal pools, but they could consider constructing low barriers to prevent amphibians from entering the basins. He pointed out that storm water from land, not roads, will run into the vernal pools. Mr. Pawlak stated that Dr. Klemens' assumptions are conjecture and not supported by Mr. Pawlak's direct observations. He stated that there is .1 acres of wetlands impacted from Meadowood and 3.37 acres in storm water basins will provide wetland compensation.

Mr. Hollister introduced Chester Hoynoski, who was the Farm Manager at this site from 1978 to 1986. He read Mr. Hoynoski's affidavit which states that pesticides were not stored in the sheds, but in separate building located on County Road. Mr. Hoynoski stated that pesticide use is closely monitored by the state and if chlordane was used it was prior to his association with the company.

Chairman Beach questioned whether chlordane was used around the poles outside. Mr. Hoynoski stated that they used red cedar then pressure treated wood poles and did not use chlordane around the poles. Chairman Beach showed a list of trade names for chlordane to Mr. Hoynoski. Mr. Hoynoski stated that lindane was the only name that was possibly familiar. He stated that they did not have a termite problem in the sheds.

Ms. Martin questioned whether Mr. Hoynoski's experience regarding chlordane only relates to 1978 to 1986. Mr. Hoynoski stated that the policy for pesticides applied to all districts from 1946 to 1986 and he is 100% certain that chlordane was not used from 1978 to 1986. Ms. Martin questioned whether pesticides were stored in sheds between 1978 and 1986. Mr. Hoynoski stated that company policy was to store equipment and pesticides separate from the tobacco sheds. He stated that there were storage sheds for equipment, not fertilizer and pesticides, at the site. Ms. Martin asked specific questions regarding Mr. Hoynoski's management of the farm.

Dr. Callahan stated that since chlordane was present on the site, it must have been used within the last 40 years because its half life in soil is 40 years.

Ms. Whitten questioned what distance causes fragmentation. Mr. Pawlak stated that it depends upon the nature of the fragmentation and the biology of the species in question. Ms. Whitten questioned the interconnectedness on the site among the 71 species found. Mr. Pawlak stated that wetlands interconnect to varying degrees and the degree of wetland dependency varies from species to species. Ms. Whitten questioned whether Mr. Pawlak used the WEThings methodology at the site. Mr. Pawlak stated that he did not use WEThings methodology because it is a crude tool. He stated that his experience has been that WEThings gives a list which then needs to be modified with professional judgment.

Commissioner Nowak questioned whether Mr. Pawlak believes there is a wetlands corridor from Great Pond to wetlands 7 and 13 through to McLean Refuge. Mr. Pawlak stated that he didn't observe large movements of wildlife species, but it is feasible that there is a corridor. He suggested that the one road crossing, with an arched culvert, would not sever the corridor.

Chairman Beach noted a discussion at the Connecticut Association of Wetland Scientists which suggested that even with fragmentation there is cross-migration because species which have died out will repopulate 2-3 years later. He suggested that if there were amphibians on the site 100 years ago, they should assume that there has been some cross-migration. Mr. Pawlak stated that he doesn't believe they are interconnected due to the distance between the vernal pools. He stated that he doesn't believe that Dr. Klemens' landscape approach applies to this site with cultivated land.

Ms. Martin questioned whether Mr. Pawlak believes there is a wildlife corridor on the west side of the site. Mr. Pawlak stated that he did not observe numerous wildlife specifies moving across the area, but given the proximity of wetlands 7 and 13 to 9 and 11 it is conceivable that a corridor may exist. He suggested that it is more likely for large species, such as deer and fox, and the movement would continue to occur post-development.

Ms. Martin questioned whether a natural resource inventory was submitted to Nancy Murray at the state DEP. Kane Callahan, Robinson & Cole, stated that Mr. Hollister provided the natural resources inventory from Mr. Pawlak and he forwarded the information to Ms. Murray. Mr. Hollister questioned what Ms. Murray is reviewing and for what purpose.

Mr. Lord stated that it is his professional experience that the DEP doesn't approve retention basins in the wetlands area when another site is available. Mr. Pawlak noted that the DEP may or may not review this project and the focus should be on the impact on the function of the wetlands. Mr. Lord stated that when an alternative exists, with less or no impact to the wetlands, it is the requirement of the applicant to demonstrate to the Conservation Commission that there is no alternative. He suggested that taking a wooded swamp wetland system and replacing it with wetlands inside of a retention basin is not wetland replication or wetland mitigation. He stated that the Army Corp of Engineers will not allow retention basins to serve as wetland replication. Mr. Lord expressed his concern with roadway runoff entering vernal pools. Mr. Pawlak stated that they have matched the hydrology of the existing vernal pools and the road water runoff is directed away from the vernal pools.

Mr. Hollister stated that they will answer Mr. Cobleigh's questions, await the new ERL report and the DEP comments and report. He requested a list of Mr. Cobleigh's questions and backup on the list of fires at the site. He stated that Mr. Ziaks and Fuss & O'Neill still need to give their rebuttal.

Mr. Melvin stated that he will contact Ms. Murray, at the DEP, to determine if she will be submitting a report. He stated that he will also inquire with the Farmington Valley Health District and the DEP as to the status of their discussions.

Chairman Beach suggested continuing the Public Hearing to the next meeting, to include the rebuttals and to allow 30-45 minutes for discussion. He noted that the responses must be received prior to the March 21st meeting.

Commissioner Nowak moved to continue the Public Hearing until March 21, 2000. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam and carried unanimously.

6. DISCUSSION

a. Open Space Issues

There was no report.

7. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS

None.

8. MINUTES

None.

9. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Commissioner Clayberger requested information on the Frances Farm Zoning Commission decision.

10. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Bucknam moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:25 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocum and carried unanimously.