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

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 21, 2000

1. CALL TO ORDER

Howard Beach, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Simsbury High School Amphitheater, 34 Farms Village Road, Simsbury. The following members were present: Helene Wade, Pierce Clayberger, Thomas Sharpless, John Yocom, Andrew Bucknam and Margerie Winters. Richard Miller arrived at 7:10 p.m. Ms. Wade departed at 7:20 p.m. Also present were Laurie Whitten, Conservation Officer, and other interested parties.

2. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Beach appointed Commissioner Bucknam to serve for Commissioner Nowak.

3. REFERRAL TO ZONING COMMISSION

a. Special Exception for Earth Excavation in Aquifer Protection Zone at 995 Hopmeadow Street for a Proposed Track and Field Facility at Westminster School (5/31/00)

Dick Webb, Kaestle Boos and Associates, presented the master plan for the school and the site plan for the proposed track and field facility. He stated that the proposal is for a 400 meter equal quadrant synthetic surface track with a natural grass field within the track. Mr. Webb stated that the track is level and there is an inside perimeter drain around the inside of the track which collects the runoff. He noted that the perimeter drain connects to a series of galleys to the north and south of the track. Mr. Webb stated that the galleys will provide direct storm water discharge into the soil. He pointed out that there will be no change in the watershed pattern and the storm water is very clean. He stated that they agree with the staff comments regarding the maintenance program and the construction staging areas and fueling.

Commissioner Sharpless questioned the continuous storm water collection device. Mr. Webb stated that it is a sloped channel drain product which is a polymer type product with a set level and a sloped bottom that pitches to the galley systems. Chairman Beach questioned the type of track surface. Mr. Webb stated that the track consists of a bituminous concrete base with a 1/2" base mat of rubber covered with EPDM rubber. Commissioner Yocom requested information on the infiltrators. Mr. Webb stated that there is a product cut called the infiltrator system which will run in a continual east west direction. He stated that the drainage is piped into the infiltrators and the infiltrators have the capacity to absorb the storm water and allow infiltration. He noted that they are below grade and it is a linear type of dry well. Chairman Beach expressed his concern with mixing chemicals on the site for the rubber coating. Mr. Webb stated that the mixing is done on the track with plastic down in the mixing area.

Commissioner Sharpless moved to send a letter to the Zoning Commission, with the following information: the Conservation Commission finds that there will be no redirection of storm water into a different watershed, and the storm water will be able to infiltrate into the ground and ultimately back into the aquifer, and the storm water will not be polluted or adversely affected by the proposed change or use. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom and carried unanimously.

IV. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. Continuation from March 7, 2000 - 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

Mr. Hollister distributed 7 documents, regarding technical memoranda, to the commission and the drilling logs requested by Mr. Cobleigh. He requested that any additional comments from the public be made prior to the final rebuttal from the applicant.

Arnold Sholowitz, North Simsbury Coalition, submitted one copy of the transcript from Dr. Callahan's March 7th presentation to the commission.

Wayne Cobleigh, 8 Crestwood Road, North Simsbury Coalition, distributed a summary of the general issues of concern based on his previous testimony. He expressed his overall concern that they would be trying a new remedial technology without adequate understanding of how that approach was chosen as the most effective. He stated that the chosen technology may put groundwater at risk and leave contaminants in the mixed area of soil that would allow those contaminants to be exposed to the surface again.

Mr. Cobleigh stated that because this study took place over several years it is hard to follow how they established their objectives for collecting data and whether their objectives reflect their understanding of the site and the problems at the site. He suggested that there should be a plan for why they took samples where they did and whether they feel they have adequately characterized the site to reach a conclusion that their method for cleaning the site is appropriate.

Mr. Cobleigh stated that a 1998 EPA manual, which addresses field sampling techniques, led to his concern that composite sampling could allow for volatilization when looking for a pesticide because pesticides behave like organic volatile compounds. He contended that the composite sampling is an averaging method and doesn't address what will actually be exposed in the environment to sensitive receptors. Mr. Cobleigh suggested that things you need to know to determine a remediation type are missing from the reports. He stated that the data recorded on the ground water contaminant was never determined to be invalid due to the holding time being exceeded. Mr. Cobleigh stated that the Meadowood News includes inaccurate information which is not based on the facts, such as the statement that their plan is "to unquestionably rid the site of any contamination". He pointed out that they are not getting rid of the contaminants and this comment is misleading.

Mr. Cobleigh discussed what he feels are the 4 fundamental areas missing: (1) no details were provided about the soil type, (2) there was no modeling or studies to come to the conclusion that contaminants, because they stayed immobilized in the top 6 inches, when repositioned at further depth would not have an effect when mixed, (3) long term studies haven't been provided, and (4) the analysis of what happens to these chemicals, from the standpoint of public safety and their effect on the wetland biological life, hasn't been looked at in any depth. He expressed his concern that the data has not been presented in an understandable manner and he questioned whether the decisions made are reliable.

Mr. Cobleigh questioned whether the remedial action plan has been proven to be safe, effective, and capable of achieving the results that residents, neighbors and wildlife of Simsbury can live with. He suggested that this is really the burden of proof.

Mr. Cobleigh stated that the best way to come to an understanding is to simplify the information. He noted that just because the remediation standard regulations are good enough for an industrial site, it doesn't mean it is good for Meadowood. He stated that this site falls outside the realm of state regulated activities.

Joe Barna, 42 Windham Drive, questioned whether the storm water at the end of Windham Drive will flood the backyards of residents on the west side of Windham Drive with the Meadowood development.

Jane McAlpine, 1 Scarborough Road, stated that she is concerned with the potential detrimental impact to ground water from the proposed soil mixing plan. She noted that Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin #42 outlines items included in her report. She questioned how Fuss & O'Neill can refer to Appendix A and neglect to mention that the bulletin states that dieldrin and chlordane were detected in ground water. Ms. McAlpine suggested that the applicant misled the commission and residents regarding discussions that Dr. Miller had with Dr. Pignatello of the Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station. She noted that Dr. Miller stated that he and Dr. Pignatello felt that soils at the 4 foot level would have very little degradation, although there may be some degradation of the organic carbon closer to the top of the soil column, but in both cases there would be no impact to ground water. She submitted a letter from Dr. Pignatello which clarifies his statements and she read a portion of his letter, noting that such hypotheses are subject to experimental verification preferably using the most contaminated samples to test the worst case scenario.

Ms. McAlpine expressed her concern that there are discrepancies included on Page 2 of Fuss & O'Neill's report. She questioned how the highest detection of chlordane, at 1.62 feet of soil, got there. Ms. McAlpine stated that she feels this development proposal is flawed and inadequate and places residents and our environment at risk She stated that Griffin Land does not appear to be a good neighbor.

Ms. Whitten distributed a letter from Matt Koch, President of the North Simsbury Coalition, to the Inland Wetlands Commission, dated March 21, 2000.

The applicant began their rebuttal. Mr. Hollister stated that Mr. Ziaks will discuss the drainage issue on Windham Drive.

Ed Pawlak, Connecticut EcoSystems, addressed species of special concern on the Meadowood site as noted in Dr. Klemens' letter. He stated that he performed an extensive study of the site and did not observe any of these species during his inspections.

Mr. Pawlak stated that he and Dr. Klemens' have a fundamental disagreement with imposing a landscape paradigm on the Meadowood property and surrounding areas, and he suggested that landscape alterations have severed connections and altered habitats. He stated that connections that currently exist will remain connected after development. Mr. Pawlak stated that he doesn't believe that this site is part of a 1,000 acre ecosystem.

Mr. Pawlak addressed his conversation with David Lord. He stated that the .1 acre of wetland that will be disturbed is wooded and most of this area is characterized by existing disturbances. He noted that they will create 3.77 acres of new wetlands which will provide wetland functions such as ground water recharge, water quality renovation, storm water detention and retention, and wildlife habitat. He stated that this is a net gain in wetland value.

Mr. Pawlak stated that during his inspections he observed an abundance and diversity of vertebrates and invertebrates within the wetlands on site. He stated that most of these species are sensitive to water quality. He suggested that the wetland disturbances proposed have been minimized to the absolute maximum practical extent. Mr. Pawlak stated that the control structure proposed across the narrow constriction in Wetland 5 corridor is similar to that approved in the Frances Farm application.

He noted that this wetland has historically been flooded by blocking culverts at a road crossing in this general area which provided irrigation for tobacco fields. He pointed out that Wetland 5 will only be subject to temporary shallow inundation following storm events.

Mr. Pawlak stated that the majority of disturbances to the upland review areas will be due to the soil mixing program, for which Fuss & O'Neill has determined there is no feasible and prudent alternative. He noted that only 12% of the upland review disturbance will occur in wooded areas. Mr. Pawlak stated that they have presented multiple storm water BMP's in order to renovate the water leaving the site. He stated that Fuss & O'Neill conducted a ground water study of the general area and their conclusions, with respect to Great Pond, was that Meadowood will not alter the ground water hydrology of Great Pond.

Commissioner Sharpless questioned whether wildlife meets with fewer obstacles for migration in the current agricultural setting than if the land is developed for Meadowood. Mr. Pawlak stated that the amphibians reside mostly in wooded areas, and within 500 feet of Wetland 2 there is a wooded habitat island up to the Wetland 5 area and the majority of amphibians traveling from those woods will remain after Meadowood. Commissioner Sharpless questioned why Mr. Pawlak is assuming 500 feet. Mr. Pawlak stated that a number of studies on migration distances show that 95% of salamanders would travel 534 feet or less. He stated that 500 feet is a reasonable estimation of where these individuals are traveling from.

Commissioner Bucknam questioned whether anyone has gone back to the site to look for the 3 state endangered or threatened species mentioned during Dr. Klemens' presentation. Mr. Pawlak stated that they have not and those species would be in hibernation at this point.

Commissioner Miller questioned the percentage increase of impervious surface to the site and whether this would alter the hydro-geology. Mr. Pawlak stated that Fuss & O'Neill addressed this in their study.

David Ziaks, F.A. Hesketh Associates, addressed the situation on Windham Drive. He stated that they did a field review of the abutting properties and they have incorporated drainage improvement proposals in the project to make sure that Meadowood doesn't drain onto abutting properties. Mr. Ziaks stated that they have provided a design with the most prudent and feasible alternatives. He reviewed the proposed road layout and the crossing of Wetland 7.

Commissioner Miller questioned how they would build the arched bridge. Mr. Ziaks stated that they would build a foundation on both sides and then place pre-cast units into the foundations. He stated that they may need to drive wood piles down below the concrete foundation and pour concrete in that area. He discussed the access from Barn Door Hills Road. Mr. Ziaks stated that if they used a box culvert they would have to excavate that portion of the watercourse, put in a stable material, then put the box culverts in and expect the watercourse to re-establish itself through the box culverts. Commissioner Miller questioned whether grading and clearing will be necessary to get into this area. Mr. Ziaks stated that they will work within the constructed roadway corridor.

Mr. Ziaks stated that trying to avoid the 2 wetland crossings would involve tying into the existing roadway network into cul-de-sac roads. He suggested that the small amount of disturbance which will be necessary to complete the main route through Meadowood seems to be the most prudent to complete those 2 crossings. Mr. Ziaks noted that the Milone McBroom February 11, 2000 memo is in agreement that the proposed development layout has carefully preserved virtually all of the designated inland wetlands and watercourses.

Mr. Ziaks addressed Mr. Lord's February 28, 2000 report. He noted that Mr. Lord states that detention basins 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are proposed to be at least partially in wetland buffer area. Mr. Ziaks stated that this is correct, but they have worked with Mr. Pawlak regarding the placement of those detention basins in those areas adjacent to the wetlands. He stated that they are trying to integrate the man-made habitat with the natural habitat. He noted that they will plant the detention basins with wetland vegetation. Mr. Ziaks stated that the concept is to build the detention basins as close to the natural systems as they can to integrate the man-made system with the natural system. He suggested that it is not prudent to move the man-made systems further away and have a 75 foot distance between the man-made and natural wetlands. He stated that it is feasible to move the basins, but not prudent.

Mr. Ziaks stated that they considered the effect that the basins might have on the localized ground water, which is based on the location of the outlet structure on the basins. He stated that this is addressed in the Fuss & O'Neill report and the ground water elevation has been considered in the design of all 9 basins so there is no detrimental impact on the localized ground water. Mr. Ziaks noted that only basin 9 is utilizing an existing wetland corridor for temporary storm water detention. He stated that in the other 8 basins they have undisturbed wetlands and in these areas have chosen to use upland detention basins. Mr. Ziaks stated that they will temporarily store water in wetland areas, as the farmers did in the past. He pointed out that this type of proposal was used in the Frances Farms development. Mr. Ziaks disagreed with Mr. Lord's comment that the DEP would not accept these detention basins, noting that the DEP is concerned with basins in undisturbed wetlands. Mr. Ziaks addressed Mr. Lord's erosion and sediment control concerns due to soil mixing and stated that there are no steep soils and the area is plowed annually without an erosion problem.

Bob Potterton, Fuss & O'Neill, reviewed his March 3, 2000 letter responding to comments made by ERL. Mr. Potterton addressed Milone & McBroom's March 7, 2000 letter. He stated that they addressed the entire aquifer area and the recommended refinements wouldn't change the conclusions. He suggested that the existing pollutant loadings in the storm water are higher at the cultivated site than will be with the development.

Mr. Potterton addressed some of Mr. Cobleigh's comments and suggested that there are some misunderstandings. He stated that residential pesticides aren't volatile and they did not rely on composite samples for their conclusions. He stated that the EDB results were not received until after the 14 day holding time and therefore they re-sampled for EDB. In response to Commissioner Sharpless, Mr. Potterton stated that they re-sampled for EDB in October because that is when they realized the problem with exceeding the holding time. Mr. Potterton addressed Mr. Cobleigh's issues included in the summary of his February 2nd and March 7th testimonies.

Commissioner Miller questioned whether surface water sampling was performed. Mr. Potterton stated that there will be a net increase in storm water quality from agricultural use to development. Commissioner Miller suggested that the applicant doesn't know what will change with the development and questioned how they can determine risks to people and wildlife. Mr. Potterton stated that they have a model of the storm water under developed conditions. Commissioner Miller questioned why if there is a measure of risk in the soil is there not a measure of risk in the surface water. Mr. Potterton stated that they looked at the sediment and they don't expect these pesticides in surface water. Commissioner Miller expressed his concern with a creating a pathway for ground water contamination. He noted that there were higher concentrations in the sediment samples and activity on the site, such as soil mixing, could move pesticides into the surface water. Mr. Potterton stated that soil mixing is a tightly controlled process and airborne particulates would immediately be addressed with corrective measures. Commissioner Miller questioned whether there would be no alteration to the ground water hydrology due to the addition of impermeable and impervious surfaces. Mr. Potterton stated that they looked at the impervious surfaces and the water that will not be available to the aquifer.

Commissioner Clayberger questioned whether other tilling operations were on agricultural or industrial land. Mr. Potterton stated that one site went from agricultural to residential and another site is used as a soccer field. Commissioner Miller questioned what other remedial solutions were considered for this site. Mr. Potterton stated that there are long term solutions, such as plant remediation, but they would be experimental with these pesticides. Commissioner Yocom noted an article about a company in Washington who suggests oxidizing the soil and returning it the site. He submitted the article into the record. Commissioner Clayberger questioned whether post soil mixing testing was done at the orchard. Mr. Potterton responded that it was not.

Wayne Cobleigh, North Simsbury Coalition, stated that there was no further analysis by the SPLP method to feel confident that the hot spot area could be confidently addressed by soil mixing. He noted that the spot was next to the border of the test area.

Mr. Potterton stated that in 1995 the SPLP method was not used and in adjacent areas they did extensive grab sampling. Mr. Cobleigh suggested that they should use new and established methods to address this sample.

Kevin Miller responded to Dr. Pignatello's letter. He stated that he doesn't disagree and this is Dr. Pignatello's own hypothesis. Commissioner Sharpless questioned Dr. Miller's assumption that Dr. Pignatello was writing about mixing all the way to ground water. Dr. Miller stated that Dr. Pignatello must have misunderstood his question about effects of mixing on ground water quality.

Dr. Miller stated that although they used Appendix A, Bulletin 42 for their list of compounds, many compounds were tested by default, with the exception of formaldehyde. He stated that formaldehyde was used on seeds and soils at .1% and are water soluble so formaldehyde is no longer on the site. Dr. Miller addressed Dr. Callahan's concerns regarding dioxins and stated that if drums of chemicals had burned that would be a concern. He noted that the burning of tobacco leaves, with residual pesticides, would not create dioxins which would cause a risk to human health.

Dr. Miller discussed the Woodbridge article and stated that of 53 wells 1 had chlordane and when the test was repeated it was negative. He stated that the issue of dieldrin in the ground water in New Haven is an ongoing investigation and they have not reached a conclusion. Dr. Miller stated that inhalation exposure is insignificant and the FDA considers residual pesticides in farmland to be inconsequential with respect to produce grown. He pointed out that most of these pesticides are not water soluble so they would not affect the surface water.

Dr. Miller stated that the applicant is willing to place four high volume samplers and test samples for pesticides, as well as perform real time monitoring of dust during the soil mixing process. Dr. Miller stated that they will take samples and tests so they know the real time concentration of dust. Commissioner Yocom suggested that they wet the area before and during mixing to avoid dust. In this way air monitoring might not be necessary. Mr. Potterton stated that they will have a water truck to wet the soil for mixing if there is dust. Dr. Miller stated that there is no evidence of a risk from the soil affecting ground water.

Commissioner Miller questioned the conclusion on the sediment impact for Wetlands 5 and 10. Dr. Miller stated that the land is being tilled now and will improve with development. Commissioner Miller expressed his concern that the contaminants in the sediment are persistent and could be disturbed if there is activity in the area. Dr. Miller stated that they will monitor their activities.

Robert Melvin stated that he spoke with Nancy Murray at the DEP and provided additional documents to her from the record. He stated that they expect a response from the joint inquiry of the DEP and the Farmington Valley Health District next week.

Mr. Hollister reviewed Mr. Melvin's March 17th memo and stated that the Conservation Commission has 3 discreet things to vote on and he reviewed the pertinent statutes. He stated that the intervention petition is mute because it is addressed with the prudent and feasible alternatives issue. Mr. Hollister suggested that there has been a laundry list of speculation and stated that the commission should not make assumptions because if something is on the plan it will be installed and maintained properly. He stated that the applicant cares about the health and safety of the homeowners and has worked to protect the wetlands.

Ms. Whitten distributed Hesketh & Associates memo to Mr. Sawitzke, dated February 11, 2000. Mr. Melvin reviewed his March 17th memo regarding procedure. He stated that he is not aware of a difference in the definition of regulated activities between the Town and the state statute.

Commissioner Clayberger moved to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 10:40 p.m. and reconvened at 10:50 p.m.

Commissioner Sharpless moved that the Conservation Commission finds the following activities as regulated activities: soil mixing and reseeding in regulated areas next to Wetlands 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 by reason of alteration of soils, stone dust walkway in regulated area next to Wetlands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 13, flared end section plunge pool in regulated area next to Wetlands 1, 2, and 3, flared end section and level spreaders in regulated area next to Wetland 6, emergency spillway in regulated area next to Wetland 1, grading and filling in regulated area next to Wetlands 2, 7, bituminous walkway in regulated area next to Wetlands 2 and 7, storm water discharge to Wetland 2, boardwalk crossing watercourse in Wetland 3 and intermittent watercourse No. 2, boardwalk in Wetland 7, 9 and 10, road crossing regulated area in Wetland 3 and 5, construction of gazebo in regulated area next to Wetland 3, concrete sidewalk in regulated area next to Wetland 3, landscaping in regulated area next to Wetlands 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10, outlet control structure in Wetland 5, storm water management basins in regulated area next to Wetlands 5, 10 and 12, detention basin in regulated area next to Wetland 7, sanitary sewer installation with 2 manholes in regulated area next to Wetland 6, road crossing on BEBO arch in Wetland 7, road widening in Wetland 9, fill intermittent watercourse No. 1, abandonment of culvert under Holcomb Street carrying intermittent stream No. 3, putting intermittent stream No. 3 in a 400 foot 36 inch pipe. These activities are regulated because of their entailing either removal or deposition of material, construction on a wetland, obstruction of a wetland, alteration. Commissioner Miller amended the motion and stated that it may appear in other wetlands which have not been enumerated and reserved the ability to discuss those impacts and activities as they effect the wetlands on the site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger and carried unanimously.

Commissioner Sharpless moved that soil mixing and reseeding in regulated areas next to Wetlands 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, are significant activities by reason of having a potential to cause pollution to the wetlands and in addition that storm water discharge to Wetland 2, road crossing regulated areas in Wetlands 3 and 5, road crossing on the arch in Wetland 7, outlet control structure in Wetland 5, the storm water management basins in regulated area next to Wetlands 5, 10 and 12, the detention basin in regulated area next to Wetland 7, the sanitary sewer installation with 2 man-holes in regulated area next to Wetland 6, the road widening in Wetland 9, the filling of the intermittent watercourse No. 1, and the abandonment of the culvert under Holcomb Street carrying intermittent stream No. 3 and putting No. 3 in the pipe are significant activities by reason of having a potential for causing a decrease in water quality in either wetlands or water bodies. Commissioner Miller seconded and amended the motion, stating that it may appear in other wetlands which have not been enumerated and reserved the ability to discuss those impacts and activities as they effect the wetlands on the site. The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Melvin discussed his recommendations for how to proceed. He suggested that staff go through the list of regulated activities and put them on a map for discussion. Commissioner Sharpless expressed his feeling that activities other than soil remediation are premature and he suggested that they should decide on whether to grant the permit for the proposed soil mixing activities. He stated that he was impressed with how little analysis of sediment and wetlands was done, and general evaluation of the health of organisms in wetlands. Commissioner Sharpless stated that his understanding of the statutes is that the commission has the right to request remediation as a condition of a permit. He noted 22A-42A-D and 22A-41. He suggested that Wetland 10 is in need of remediation.

Chairman Beach requested information on the legislative finding, 22A-36. He questioned whether it is within the commission's purview to look at human health based on detriment to the wetlands. Mr. Melvin stated they need to tie it to the regulated activity. Chairman Beach noted that the regulated activity is the soil mixing which has the potential to cause an increase in the permeability of soil and a better chance of pesticides leaching into the water supply system. Dwight Merriam pointed out that there are no areas on the site which will be restricted from human access. He stated that no report was provided on the existing conditions and post-construction conditions effect on sediment and ground water. He noted that they heard experts with different opinions and suggested that there were gaps in the information from all sides. Mr. Merriam stated that the commission has to decide who they believe and if they have enough information. He pointed out that commission members can provide their own information based on their own personal expertise.

Commissioner Miller stated that contradictory information was presented through the Public Hearing and he questioned how the commission should reconcile these differences. Mr. Melvin suggested that staff recreate the record and find the information submitted. Mr. Merriam discussed the situation with the definition of hot spots and the soil removal element. He stated that the commission has to decide if they have enough evidence to make a decision in particular areas. Mr. Merriam stated that the commission needs to consider (1) the individual regulated activities, (2) the over-arching activities on the entire site, and (3) the feasible and prudent alternatives. He suggested that the commission review what feasible and prudent alternatives were put forward and what evidence in the record supports the positions taken on those alternatives. Mr. Merriam noted that the commission needs to make some judgments as to whether all of the feasible and prudent alternatives have been appropriately presented and analyzed, and whether the commission accepts that analysis or whether they believe there is the likelihood of a feasible and prudent alternative that hasn't been put forward. He pointed out that the developer's objective is to build 630+ homes and that objective weighed in the developer's decision regarding feasible and prudent alternatives.

Ms. Whitten stated that the commission has 35 days to take action on this application. Mr. Merriam discussed the procedural issue regarding who is the proper applicant, and the inclusion of Fairfield 2000 in the application to the Zoning Commission. He noted additional minor inconsistencies with the application.

Mr. Merriam stated that they will retrieve from the record what they have for feasible and prudent alternatives. He stated that he does not recall seeing anything on economics, volume of material, cost or disposal sites, but they will review the record for any of this information. Mr. Merriam suggested that they provide a chart of the activities listed by Commissioner Sharpless and transfer them to a plan sheet for review by the commission. Chairman Beach suggested that they then relate feasible and prudent to each of the activities. Commissioner Sharpless stated that the activities are presented on the maps in 7a, b, c, d. Mr. Melvin briefly reviewed the Analysis of Regulated Activities and Wetland Impacts chart he submitted. Chairman Beach requested information which supports alternatives, in each of the documents, to each of the wetlands. He noted that there is the assumption that they would have to bring in topsoil to build the organic component of the soil to support lawns and pointed out that this issue was not specifically addressed. Mr. Melvin suggested that they list the activities which were voted on and selected as regulated activities and include a second section to include other items which might be on the list.

Commissioner Clayberger moved to continue the discussion of this application to the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried unanimously.

V. DISCUSSION

a. Open Space Issues

No discussion took place.

VI. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS

None.

VII. MINUTES of March 7, 2000

Commissioner Clayberger moved to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bucknam and carried unanimously.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Clayberger moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:44 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried unanimously.