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

APRIL 18, 2000

REGULAR MEETING

I. CALL TO ORDER

Howard Beach, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:09 p.m. in the Simsbury High School Amphitheater, 34 Farms Village Road, Simsbury. The following members were present: Pierce Clayberger, Thomas Sharpless, Richard Miller, William Nowak, and Andrew Bucknam. Helen Wade arrived at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Miller departed at 8:55 p.m. Also present were Laurie Whitten, Conservation Officer, and other interested parties.

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Beach appointed Commissioner Bucknam to serve for Commissioner Yocum.

III. PUBLIC HEARING (CLOSED) - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. Discussion and Decision Tabled From April 4, 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

The commission reviewed changes to the proposed motion. Commission Bucknam suggested that the hog nose snake be added to the list of species of concern. He also recommended changes regarding the potential to prevent current amphibian migration.

Commissioner Bucknam moved to amend the proposed motion based on his comments. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger.

Commissioner Bucknam amended his motion to include the comments from Dr. Klemens report which note the potential species hog nose snake and blue-spotted salamander. Commissioner Clayberger amended his second. The vote was unanimous. The motion carried.

Commissioner Sharpless recommended that the Page 5, paragraph xi reference to solid state chemical oxidation include "or reduction". He also suggested that all statements that "The Applicant did not perform the more exacting vernal pool wildlife inventories and studies recommended by Dr. Klemens" be changed to "The Applicant did not perform sufficiently exacting vernal pool wildlife inventories and studies such as were recommended by Dr. Klemens."

Commissioner Sharpless moved to amend the proposed motion to include his comments. The motion was seconded by Commission Bucknam and carried unanimously.

Chairman Beach noted that the commission can move to grant the permit in part for the 3 minor activities noted. He suggested that a motion to deny would be more representative of the commission's view of the application as long as they state that there are aspects of the application which have merit, but there are overriding concerns which are the reason for denial. It was the consensus of the commission to accept a motion for denial.

Members of the commission read the following motion:

APRIL 18, 2000

APPLICANT: Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc.

OWNER: River Bend Associates, Inc.

TITLE: Meadowood Planned Residential Development

PROPERTY: 363 Acres Between/Adjacent To County Road, Hoskins Road, Holcomb Street, Firetown Road, and Barn Door Hills Road

SUBMITTED: November 10, 1999

MOVED, that the Town of Simsbury Conservation Commission (the "Commission") deny an inland wetlands and watercourses permit for the reasons specified in this motion.

1. PUBLIC HEARING

Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc. (the "Applicant") and the owner of the subject property, River Bend Associates, Inc. (also identified as an applicant in portions of the record), submitted the application referenced above (the "Application") to the Town of Simsbury Conservation Commission (the "Commission") for a permit to conduct certain regulated activities in connection with a proposal to build a planned residential development ("Meadowood"). The Commission opened the public hearing on the Application on January 4, 2000. The public hearing continued through six meetings with extensions and consent from the Applicant. At the January 18, 2000 meeting, North Simsbury Coalition, Inc. filed a verified pleading under Section 22a-19(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes and was granted intervenor status in the proceeding. The Commission closed the public hearing on March 21, 2000. The Commission discussed the hearing record and Application during its meetings on March 21, 2000, April 4, 2000 and April 18, 2000, at which time the Commission voted to adopt this motion.

2. FINDINGS

Having considered the record in this proceeding, as well as the factors for consideration identified in Section 22a-41 of the Connecticut General Statutes and Section 6 of the Town of Simsbury's Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, the Commission makes the following findings:

A. The subject property and surrounding region provides a habitat for many species of flora and fauna, including sensitive vernal pool species and other wetland dependent species. Located between Great Pond State Forest (immediately south of the site) and McLean Game Refuge (immediately north of the site), the property provides ecological connections among the region's many natural resources, including several inland wetlands and watercourses. The property itself includes over 23 acres of wetlands. Over half of the site lies above aquifer recharge areas designated as the Bissel Brook Aquifer and Recharge Area and the Hoskins Aquifer Recharge Area.

B. The presence of these habitats is well documented in the record, including without limitation Connecticut Ecosystems LLC's Wetlands Report dated October 29, 1999, the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's letter dated January 12, 2000, and Dr. Michael W. Klemens' letter reports dated January 17, 2000 and March 7, 2000. Nancy Murray of the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's Environmental and Geographic Information Center advised the Applicant that "Great Pond is considered a significant habitat that supports populations of [three] plant species listed as State Endangered and [one] listed as State Threatened (R.C.S.A. Sec. 26-306). The habitat for all 4 plants is the pond margin." In Connecticut Ecosystems LLC's March 20, 2000 letter report, the Applicant's consultant stated that he "observed a diversity and abundance of amphibians and invertebrates in the on-site wetlands, including wood frogs, spotted salamanders, American toads, and fairy shrimp." Dr. Klemens, a herpetologist with considerable expertise on Connecticut vernal pools and amphibians, concluded that "there is a high potential for the occurrence of two State-listed Special Concern species on the site," the Eastern Box Turtle and the Ribbon Snake, and the potential for finding the hog nose snake and the blue-spotted salamander as well. Noting that the Applicant had identified the presence of Spotted Salamanders at several site wetlands and citing related studies on amphibian migration, Dr. Klemens concluded that the 363-acre tract and its wetlands are part of a much larger, interconnected ecosystem.

C. The ecology of the on-site inland wetland and watercourses has been depressed by the physical and chemical impacts of farming practices that the Applicant and property owners have allowed on the property. The record includes observations that tobacco farming on the property continues to impact certain wetlands and watercourses, such as Wetlands 2 and 5 and the property's irrigation ponds (Wetlands 3 and 9), by exporting silt and sediment. Soil and sediment at the proposed site are extensively contaminated with organochlorine pesticides used and handled at the site, primarily chlordane and dieldrin. There is also evidence of groundwater contamination by the pesticide, ethylene dibromide (EDB). The record includes evidence that roads and residential neighborhoods previously constructed in this area between Great Pond State Forest and McLean Game Refuge, as well as the site's farming activities, adversely affect the functioning of the site's wetlands and watercourses.

D. The Commission can not permit the Applicant's proposed soil mixing and reseeding regulated activities (listed by the Applicant as upland activities 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19) for the following reasons:

i. The record suggests that soil mixing is a relatively unproven, untested and unregulated remedial method that would likely result in immediate reductions in pesticide concentrations, but would spread the contamination to greater depths and possibly into wetlands, watercourses, perched and shallow groundwater, and other environmental media through increased leaching, sedimentation, and dispersion. The Applicant's soil mixing data and information were limited to sites and studies where little or no post-remediation sampling and regulatory review took place. The Applicant's pilot study excluded portions of the site where higher pesticide levels had been detected.

ii. Soil mixing to the depths proposed by the Applicant would reduce the organic content of existing topsoils and sediments that retain a large portion of the pesticide residues remaining at the site.

(1) The record suggests that this disturbance may increase pesticide mobility and result in greater transport of pesticides into perched and shallow ground water that drains into wetlands and watercourses and greater pesticide transport directly into wetlands and watercourses from mixed soils and sediments that erode or disperse into such areas.

(2) These organic rich topsoils and sediments also support vegetation and microorganisms required to maintain and enhance the environmental quality of adjacent wetlands and watercourses. The Commission notes that the proposed soil mixing regulated activities would disturb such soils up to four feet below the surface, a much greater disturbance than the tilling of fields performed to support tobacco farming.

(3) Such disturbed topsoils may not support the manicured lawns proposed by the Applicant for many portions of the site. The Applicant's representatives stated that the Applicant would import topsoil to the site as needed to replace any such damaged topsoil; however, the Applicant has not described these plans in any detail. Such use of imported topsoil in regulated areas at the site is likely to affect, alter or pollute a wetland or watercourse through erosion, sedimentation or direct filling and is prohibited without a permit from this Commission.

iii. The Applicant's consultant confirms that site investigations were not intended to evaluate the ecological impact of pesticide residues on the wetlands and watercourses at and near the site. The main objective of these investigations and the Applicant's soil mixing plan was to evaluate and achieve consistency with direct exposure and pollutant mobility criteria in the State of Connecticut's Remediation Standard Regulations. These remediation standards are primarily intended to control human health risks resulting from direct exposure to contaminated soils and from mobility of pollutants from soil into groundwater. The Remediation Standard Regulations define soils to exclude sediments entirely. Regs. Conn. State Agencies Sec. 22a-133k-1(a)(60). The state's Remediation Standard Regulations do not establish criteria that ensure adequate restoration of contaminated upland soils and sediments that are adversely impacting or threatening wetland and watercourse habitats.

(1) The Applicant limited the sampling of sediments to 10 samples and the sampling of surface waters to 1 sample across the 363-acre site, foregoing water, soil and sediment testing in most wetland and watercourse areas altogether. The record indicates that organochlorine pesticides adsorb tightly to organic materials present in wetlands and watercourses and tend to accumulate in wetlands and watercourse soils and sediment. In fact, investigations performed by the Applicant after submitting the Application indicate that Wetland 10 and the Hoskins 7 area are particularly polluted with dieldrin. The Applicant has proposed further investigation in this area and soil remediation beyond the soil mixing proposed for other areas of the site. The Applicant needs to assess the present condition of soils, sediment and water in and around all wetlands and watercourses affected by regulated activities to determine whether they are in need of remediation, whether their flora and fauna are particularly vulnerable to further pesticide contamination, and how to select and perform the regulated activities that will best maintain and enhance the long-term productivity of such wetlands and watercourses and preserve the future ability to protect, enhance and restore wetland and watercourse resources. The Commission also wishes to avoid unnecessary sedimentation and the risk of spreading contamination until the extent of sediment and other contamination in wetlands and watercourses has been determined and appropriate remedial action can be taken. Any investigation, remediation or other regulated activities planned by the Applicant that are likely to affect a wetlands or watercourse need to be delineated and described further in a remedial plan and permit application for review by the Commission in accordance with the Town's Regulations.

(2) In response to these concerns the Applicant indicated that it would perform an ecological risk screening study and possibly a comprehensive ecological risk assessment; although, the Applicant did not submit a detailed scope of study for either assessment. Appropriate surveys would include, among other things, analyses of sediments and surface water quality, assessments of benthic organisms, and more sophisticated inventories for macro-organisms potentially present in all affected wetland and watercourse habitats. Such risk assessments should assess the synergistic effect of contamination by multiple pesticide compounds, as well as the effect of each individual pesticide, on species that might inhabit the wetlands and watercourses, including vernal pools, on and near the site. The Commission can make no further findings as to the adequacy of the proposed ecological assessments without more detailed information on the scope of the proposed studies.

iv. The Applicant proposes to achieve site-wide consistency with an alternative pollutant mobility soil criteria set forth in the Remediation Standard Regulations. The alternative criteria are ten times higher than the default criteria normally applied to a site like Meadowood where groundwater is classified "GA". The Applicant proposes to qualify for these alternative criteria by relocating soils from a narrow strip of land at the northeastern edge of the 363-acre site to other locations on the site and then mixing the relocated soils with soils at the new locations. To the extent that this site will be comprised of many parcels, rather than one 363-acre parcel, this plan is inconsistent with the relevant pollutant mobility criteria provisions. These provisions allow use of the alternative criteria only if the location of the soil contamination on each parcel will be too distant from all downgradient parcels to migrate into groundwater under such downgradient parcels (at concentrations that would present an unacceptable health risk). The provisions do not provide for grouping of lots into one large parcel, relocating soils to the interior of the group of parcels, and ignoring the potential for pollutants to mobilize into groundwater under individual lots within the group. The Applicant's remedial plan would put the quality of groundwater under the site at risk.

v. The Applicant's data suggests that levels of pesticide contamination vary significantly among sampling locations. The information on the record does not indicate that the Applicant has identified all portions of the property containing pesticide levels that are much higher than the levels present in surrounding soils and sediment. The record suggests that these areas, referred to as hot spots, could have resulted from pesticide spills, accumulation of pesticides in organic matter, or possibly pesticide applications that were not uniform throughout the site. The Applicant and its consultant assumed a uniform pesticide application model without conducting step sampling and other tests to determine whether the property owners or farmers spilled or mishandled pesticides or employed preferential pesticide treatments on screen support poles, barns or other areas. Soil mixing based on the present data set would not ensure safe, effective and permanent remediation of such hot spots.

vi. The Applicant's selection of contaminants for testing was subjective, based largely on comments offered by former employees. The record includes publications, reports and other documents suggesting that the site should have been tested for other pesticides, including more soluble chemicals that might impact wetlands, watercourses and groundwater.

vii. The standard erosion and sediment controls proposed by the Applicant are inadequate to control potential erosion and sedimentation that could occur during soil mixing.

viii. The Applicant's soil mixing plan places an undue reliance on the accuracy and use of dust monitoring data to prevent the potential deposition of contaminated soil particles on wetlands, watercourses and other sensitive receptors. The Applicant should further assess remediation and dust control methods that would reduce the reliance placed on air monitoring.

ix. The Applicant's soil mixing plan fails to address the risk that construction of roads, utilities, foundations and other subsurface features might interfere with the ongoing and future soil mixing efforts and disturb contaminated soils that have already been mixed. To ensure complete remediation prior to the completion of development features and to minimize soil disturbances, the remediation plan should carefully coordinate both remediation and construction activities.

x. The findings described above support the Commission's finding that the proposed soil mixing and reseeding regulated activities are likely to impact or affect wetlands or watercourses.

xi. The Commission is unable to find, on the basis of the record, that there does not exist a feasible and prudent alternative to soil mixing and reseeding, which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses. The record supports the existence of such feasible and prudent alternatives, including removal and off-site disposal of contaminated soils and sediment, capping of contaminated soils, solid state chemical oxidation or reduction, soil washing, thermal desorption, vitrification, and bioremediation. However, the Applicant has provided little or no evidence on such processes and relative costs. The Applicant should further investigate these and all other remedial alternatives, including more detailed analyses of each alternative's potential social and environmental detriments and benefits, as well as financial cost.

E. The Commission can not permit the Applicant's proposed regulated activities that would create a road crossing through Wetland 7 and adjacent stormwater management basin (listed by the Applicant as upland activities 12 and 13 and wetland activity 5) for the following reasons:

i. Both the Applicant's expert, Connecticut Ecosystems LLC, and the town's expert, Dr. Michael W. Klemens, identified a wildlife corridor that extends north from Great Pond State Forest into Wetlands 12, 11, 9, 13, and 7, continuing off the site into McLean Game Refuge. In its October 30, 1999 report, Connecticut Ecosystems LLC described Wetland 7 as a vernal pool that "is rated high quality for wildlife habitat." This report also notes the diversity and abundance of hydrophytic vegetation in Wetland 13, a wet meadow north of Wetland 9, as well as the valuable wildlife habitat provided by Wetland 11 and Wetland 12, a wet meadow that extends from the property's southern boundary and connects into vernal pool and other habitats located in Great Pond State Forest.

ii. As an inevitable impact, the regulated activities proposed to construct a road and stormwater management basin across Wetland 7, and the subsequent use of these facilities, will further sever and restrict the wildlife corridor that connects Great Pond to McLean Game Refuge, as well as the amphibian migration routes between the Wetland 7 vernal pool and the wooded hill east of the road crossing and other surrounding upland habitats. Severing this valuable resource with a road will inevitably cause unacceptable amphibian and other animal mortality from the vehicular traffic directed into this roadway and may also potentially prevent current amphibian migration.

iii. The Site Grading Plans submitted by the Applicant show very steep grades at the crossing leading down to the stream that runs through Wetland 7. Construction of the proposed road and BEBO arch across Wetland 7 unduly risks sedimentation and erosion into the high quality wetlands and watercourses of this area.

iv. The proposed regulated activities will inevitably result in short-term and long-term impacts to the sensitive wetlands and watercourses of Wetland 7 and other wetlands and watercourses ecologically connected to this area. These impacts include without limitation hydrological changes and discharge of new or increased stormwater pollutants. The Applicant did not perform more sophisticated studies that would estimate the potential impacts to the water quality and the hydrology of vernal pools and other wetlands and watercourses at and near the site. The Applicant did not perform sufficiently exacting vernal pool wildlife inventories and studies such as were recommended by Dr. Klemens. Contrary to claims made by the Applicant and its representatives, their efforts to design sophisticated stormwater management systems, project pollutant removal efficiencies, and cite widely-ranging published pollutant loading factors do not establish that the development will result in a net benefit to water quality compared to the farming practices continuing on the Property. Furthermore, the proposed regulated activities would foreclose a future ability to protect, enhance or restore the wetland and watercourse resources that are located in and ecologically connected to this area.

v. The findings described above support the Commission's finding that the proposed regulated activities related to the road crossing and stormwater management basin are likely to impact or affect wetlands or watercourses.

vi. The Commission is unable to find, on the basis of the record, that there does not exist a feasible and prudent alternative to these activities, which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses. The Applicant failed to submit any analysis of alternative road and stormwater control designs that would avoid the Wetland 7 wetlands, watercourses, and ecologically connected upland habitats entirely. The Applicant made reference to traffic problems that would allegedly result from alternative road designs; although, no detailed traffic analyses were submitted for such alternative designs. The Applicant should further investigate alternative road and stormwater control designs and alternative methods for crossing the wetlands, such as a span. The alternatives assessment should include more detailed analyses of each alternative's potential social and environmental detriments and benefits, as well as financial cost.

F. The Commission can not permit the Applicant's proposed regulated activities that would widen Firetown Road and construct new stormwater control structures in the regulated area of Wetland 9 and south of Wetlands 13 and 7 (listed by the Applicant as upland activity 17 and wetland activity 6) for the following reasons:

i. Both the Applicant's expert, Connecticut Ecosystems LLC, and the town's expert, Dr. Michael W. Klemens, identified a wildlife corridor that extends north from Great Pond State Forest into Wetlands 12, 11, 9, 13, and 7, continuing off the site into McLean Game Refuge. In its October 30, 1999 report, Connecticut Ecosystems LLC described Wetland 7 as a vernal pool that "is rated high quality for wildlife habitat." This report also notes the diversity and abundance of hydrophytic vegetation in Wetland 13, a wet meadow north of Wetland 9, as well as the valuable wildlife habitat provided by Wetland 11 and Wetland 12, a wet meadow that extends from the property's southern boundary and connects into vernal pool and other habitats located in Great Pond State Forest.

ii. As an inevitable impact, the regulated activities proposed to widen a road and construct stormwater control structures discharging into the Wetland 9 regulated area, and the subsequent use of these facilities, will further sever and restrict the wildlife corridor that connects Great Pond to McLean Game Refuge, as well as the amphibian migration routes between the vernal pools and surrounding upland habitats. Severing this valuable resource with a wider road will inevitably cause unacceptable amphibian and other animal mortality from the vehicular traffic directed into this roadway and may also potentially prevent current amphibian migration.

iii. The proposed regulated activities will inevitably result in short-term and long-term impacts to the sensitive wetlands and watercourses in this area. These impacts include without limitation hydrological changes and discharge of new or increased stormwater pollutants. The Applicant did not perform more sophisticated studies that would estimate the potential impacts to the water quality and the hydrology of vernal pools and other wetlands and watercourses at and near the site. The Applicant did not perform sufficiently exacting vernal pool wildlife inventories and studies such as were recommended by Dr. Klemens. Contrary to claims made by the Applicant and its representatives, their efforts to design sophisticated stormwater management systems, project pollutant removal efficiencies, and cite widely ranging published pollutant loading factors do not establish that the development will result in a net benefit to water quality compared to the farming practices continuing on the Property. Furthermore, the proposed regulated activities would foreclose a future ability to protect, enhance or restore the wetland and watercourse resources that are located in and ecologically connected to this area.

iv. The findings described above support the Commission's finding that the proposed regulated activities related to the road widening and stormwater control structures are likely to impact or affect wetlands or watercourses.

v. The Commission is unable to find, on the basis of the record, that there does not exist a feasible and prudent alternative to these activities, which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses. The Applicant failed to submit any analysis of alternative road designs that would avoid widening and curbing Firetown Road and directing stormwater runoff into the Wetland 9 regulated area. The Applicant should further investigate alternative road and stormwater control designs. The alternatives assessment should include more detailed analyses of each alternative's potential social and environmental detriments and benefits, as well as financial cost.

G. The Commission can not permit the Applicant's proposed regulated activities that would create a larger road crossing through Wetland 5 and related stormwater control structures (listed by the Applicant as upland activities 6, 7 and 9 and wetland activities 1 and 4) for the following reasons:

i. Wetlands 2, 3, 4, 10, 5 and 6 form a corridor of wetland and upland habitats running from the interior of the eastern portion of the property to the dense hardwood forest in the north central portion of the property. This hardwood forest is bordered by Wetland 6 on the east and the Wetland 7 wetland corridor on the west. In its October 30, 1999 report, Connecticut Ecosystems LLC described Wetland 2 as an aquatic shrub swamp and vernal pool that "supports the breeding and development of wood frogs and invertebrates (e.g., fairy shrimp)." Connecticut Ecosystems also observed egg masses deposited by spotted salamanders in Wetland 5, but concluded that the pond was not a vernal pool due to the presence of finfish known to consume the eggs and larvae of such obligate vernal pool species. The record also includes other evidence of diverse wildlife dependent on the wetlands and watercourses in this corridor.

ii. As an inevitable impact, the regulated activities proposed to construct an improved road and system of stormwater controls across Wetland 5, and the subsequent use of these facilities, will further sever and restrict the wildlife corridor in this area. Severing this valuable resource with a road will inevitably cause unacceptable amphibian and other animal mortality from the vehicular traffic directed into this roadway and may also potentially prevent current amphibian migration.

iii. The proposed storm water outlet structure will create more frequent inundation and more sediment disturbance than the present drainage system. This flooding could extend from Wetland 5 to Wetlands 3, 4 and 10. Construction of the two stormwater control structures will require rip rap and other filling of wetlands and watercourses that was not adequately described by the Applicant.

iv. The proposed regulated activities will inevitably result in short-term and long-term impacts to the sensitive wetlands and watercourses of Wetland 5 and other wetlands, watercourses, and upland habitats ecologically connected to this area. These impacts include without limitation hydrological changes and discharge of new or increased stormwater pollutants. The Applicant did not perform more sophisticated studies that would estimate the potential impacts to the water quality and the hydrology of vernal pools and other wetlands and watercourses at and near the site. The Applicant did not perform sufficiently exacting vernal pool wildlife inventories and studies such as were recommended by Dr. Klemens. Contrary to claims made by the Applicant and its representatives, their efforts to design sophisticated stormwater management systems, project pollutant removal efficiencies, and cite widely ranging published pollutant loading factors do not establish that the development will result in a net benefit to water quality compared to the farming practices continuing on the Property. Furthermore, the proposed regulated activities would foreclose a future ability to protect, enhance or restore the wetland and watercourse resources that are located in and ecologically connected to this area.

v. The findings described above support the Commission's finding that the proposed regulated activities related to the road crossing and stormwater control structures are likely to impact or affect wetlands or watercourses.

vi. The Commission is unable to find, on the basis of the record, that there does not exist a feasible and prudent alternative to these activities, which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses. The Applicant failed to submit any analysis of alternative road and stormwater control designs that would avoid the Wetland 5 wetlands, watercourses, and ecologically connected habitats entirely. The Applicant made reference to traffic problems that would allegedly result from alternative road designs; although, no detailed traffic analyses were submitted for such alternative designs. The Applicant should further investigate such alternatives. The alternatives assessment should include more detailed analyses of each alternative's potential social and environmental detriments and benefits, as well as financial cost.

H. The Commission can not permit the Applicant's proposed regulated activities that would create stormwater control structures discharging into the regulated areas of Wetlands 2, 3, 6, and 10, construct sanitary sewer lines adjacent to Wetland 6, fill Intermittent Watercourse 1, construct an access road and parking lot for a tennis court facility between Wetlands 3 and 10, and fill the regulated area of Wetland 2 adjacent to a proposed recreation center (listed by the Applicant as upland activities 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11 and intermittent watercourse activity 1) for the following reasons:

i. Wetlands 2, 3, 4, 10, 5 and 6 form a corridor of wetland and upland habitats running from the interior of the eastern portion of the property to the dense hardwood forest in the north central portion of the property. This hardwood forest is bordered by Wetland 6 on the east and the Wetland 7 wetland corridor on the west. In its October 30, 1999 report, Connecticut Ecosystems LLC described Wetland 2 as an aquatic shrub swamp and vernal pool that "supports the breeding and development of wood frogs and invertebrates (e.g., fairy shrimp)." Connecticut Ecosystems also observed egg masses deposited by spotted salamanders in Wetland 5, but concluded that the pond was not a vernal pool due to the presence of finfish known to consume the eggs and larvae of such obligate vernal pool species. The record also includes other evidence of diverse wildlife dependent on the wetlands and watercourses in this corridor.

ii. The proposed stormwater control structures discharge into or immediately next to regulated areas. This design will increase the sediment and pollutant load directed into wetlands and watercourses. In the case of upland activity 11, the proposed stormwater control structures threaten the integrity of the proposed stoned dust walkway by discharging immediately above the walkway.

iii. The Applicant has not adequately tested the intermittent watercourse south of Wetland 6, which could be a source of sediment contamination. Filling this intermittent watercourse without such information presents an unacceptable risk of injury to, or interference with, safety, health and the reasonable use of this area. The regulated activities proposed around Wetland 6 will increase the sediment load and related contaminants directed to this very valuable wetland, particularly the more steeply-graded portions.

iv. As an inevitable impact, these proposed regulated activities will further sever and restrict the wildlife corridor in this area. Severing this valuable resource with the proposed regulated activities will inevitably cause unacceptable amphibian and other animal mortality from the vehicular traffic directed into this roadway. The grading and filling proposed next to Wetland 2 and the subsequent use of the area for a recreation complex threatens the sensitive ecology of this vernal pool area.

v. The proposed regulated activities will inevitably result in short-term and long-term impacts to the sensitive wetlands and watercourses in this area and the wetlands, watercourses and upland habitats ecologically connected to this area. These impacts include without limitation hydrological changes and discharge of new or increased stormwater pollutants. The Applicant did not perform more sophisticated studies that would estimate the potential impacts to the water quality and the hydrology of vernal pools and other wetlands and watercourses at and near the site. The Applicant did not perform sufficiently exacting vernal pool wildlife inventories and studies such as were recommended by Dr. Klemens. Contrary to claims made by the Applicant and its representatives, their efforts to design sophisticated stormwater management systems, project pollutant removal efficiencies, and cite widely-ranging published pollutant loading factors do not establish that the development will result in a net benefit to water quality compared to the farming practices continuing on the Property. Furthermore, the proposed regulated activities would foreclose a future ability to protect, enhance or restore the wetland and watercourse resources that are located in and ecologically connected to this area.

vi. The findings described above support the Commission's finding that the proposed regulated activities are likely to impact or affect wetlands or watercourses.

vii. The Commission is unable to find, on the basis of the record, that there does not exist a feasible and prudent alternative to these activities, which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses. The Applicant failed to submit any analysis of alternative road, sewer, stormwater control, and recreation center designs that would avoid these wetlands, watercourses, and ecologically connected habitats entirely. The Applicant should further investigate such alternatives. The alternatives assessment should include more detailed analyses of each alternative's potential social and environmental detriments and benefits, as well as financial cost.

I. The Commission can not permit the Applicant's proposed regulated activity that would create a stormwater management basin and outfall discharging into the regulated area of Wetland 12 (listed by the Applicant as upland activity 19) for the following reasons:

i. Both the Applicant's expert, Connecticut Ecosystems LLC, and the town's expert, Dr. Michael W. Klemens, identified a wildlife corridor that extends north from Great Pond State Forest into Wetlands 12, 11, 9, 13, and 7, continuing off the site into McLean Game Refuge. In its October 30, 1999 report, Connecticut Ecosystems LLC described Wetland 7 as a vernal pool that "is rated high quality for wildlife habitat." This report also notes the diversity and abundance of hydrophytic vegetation in Wetland 13, a wet meadow north of Wetland 9, as well as the valuable wildlife habitat provided by Wetland 11 and Wetland 12, a wet meadow that extends from the property's southern boundary and connects into vernal pool and other habitats located in Great Pond State Forest.

ii. As an inevitable impact, the proposed regulated activity, and the subsequent use of these facilities, will further sever and restrict the wildlife corridor that connects Great Pond to McLean Game Refuge, as well as the amphibian migration routes between the Wetland 12 vernal pool and surrounding upland habitats in this corridor.

iii. The proposed stormwater management basin is located in an area where tobacco farming and pesticide application has taken place. The Applicant has not addressed the increased risk of contaminated soil erosion and sedimentation that will exist during construction of this stormwater management basin.

iv. The proposed stormwater management basin discharges into the Wetland 12 regulated area. This design will increase the sediment and pollutant load directed into wetlands and watercourses.

v. The proposed regulated activities will inevitably result in short-term and long-term impacts to the sensitive wetlands and watercourses in this area and the wetlands, watercourses and upland habitats ecologically connected to this area. These impacts include without limitation hydrological changes and discharge of new or increased stormwater pollutants. The Applicant did not perform more sophisticated studies that would estimate the potential impacts to the water quality and the hydrology of vernal pools and other wetlands and watercourses at and near the site. The Applicant did not perform sufficiently exacting vernal pool wildlife inventories and studies such as were recommended by Dr. Klemens. Contrary to claims made by the Applicant and its representatives, their efforts to design sophisticated stormwater management systems, project pollutant removal efficiencies, and cite widely-ranging published pollutant loading factors do not establish that the development will result in a net benefit to water quality compared to the farming practices continuing on the Property. Furthermore, the proposed regulated activities would foreclose a future ability to protect, enhance or restore the wetland and watercourse resources that are located in and ecologically connected to this area.

vi. The findings described above support the Commission's finding that the proposed regulated activity is likely to impact or affect wetlands or watercourses.

vii. The Commission is unable to find, on the basis of the record, that there does not exist a feasible and prudent alternative to this activity, which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses. The Applicant failed to submit any analysis of alternative stormwater control designs that would avoid these wetlands, watercourses, and ecologically connected habitats entirely. The Applicant should further investigate such alternatives. The alternatives assessment should include more detailed analyses of each alternative's potential social and environmental detriments and benefits, as well as financial cost.

J. The Commission can not permit the Applicant's proposed regulated activity that would create a stormwater management basin and related stormwater control structures discharging into the regulated area of Wetland 1 and the connected wetland and watercourse south of Hoskins Road (listed by the Applicant as upland activities 1 and 3) for the following reasons:

i. Connecticut Ecosystems LLC described Wetland 1 as a deciduous wooded swamp dominated by red maple, highbush blueberry, winterberry and skunk cabbage that "supports the breeding and development of wood frogs and invertebrates (e.g., fairy shrimp)."

ii. The proposed stormwater management basin is located in an area where tobacco farming and pesticide application has taken place. The Applicant has not addressed the increased risk of contaminated soil erosion and sedimentation that will exist during construction of this stormwater management basin.

iii. The proposed stormwater management basin discharges into the Wetland 1 regulated area and the connected wetland and watercourse south of Hoskins Road. This design will increase the sediment and pollutant load directed into wetlands and watercourses.

iv. The proposed regulated activities will result in short-term and long-term impacts to the sensitive wetlands and watercourses in this area and the wetlands, watercourses and upland habitats ecologically connected to this area. These impacts include without limitation hydrological changes and discharge of new or increased stormwater pollutants. The Applicant did not perform more sophisticated studies that would estimate the potential impacts to the water quality and the hydrology of wetlands and watercourses at and near the site. The Application includes very little information concerning the ecology of Wetland 1 and the connected wetland and watercourse south of Hoskins Road. Contrary to claims made by the Applicant and its representatives, their efforts to design sophisticated stormwater management systems, project pollutant removal efficiencies, and cite widely ranging published pollutant loading factors do not establish that the development will result in a net benefit to water quality compared to the farming practices continuing on the Property. Furthermore, the proposed regulated activities would foreclose a future ability to protect, enhance or restore the wetland and watercourse resources that are located in and ecologically connected to this area.

v. The findings described above support the Commission's finding that the proposed regulated activities are likely to impact or affect wetlands or watercourses.

vi. The Commission is unable to find, on the basis of the record, that there does not exist a feasible and prudent alternative to these activities, which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses. The Applicant failed to submit any analysis of alternative stormwater control designs that would avoid these wetlands, watercourses, and ecologically connected habitats entirely. The Applicant should further investigate such alternatives. The alternatives assessment should include more detailed analyses of each alternative's potential social and environmental detriments and benefits, as well as financial cost.

K. The Commission can not permit the Applicant's proposed regulated activities that would create a system of walkways, boardwalks, gazebo, and landscaping throughout the regulated areas of the property (listed by the Applicant as upland activities 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18, wetland activities 2, 3 and 7 and intermittent watercourse activity 2) for the following reasons:

i. As an inevitable impact, the proposed regulated activities, and the subsequent use of these facilities, will further sever the wildlife corridors that connect wetlands, watercourses and upland habitats throughout the property, as well as the amphibian migration routes between vernal pools and surrounding upland habitats.

ii. Many of the proposed regulated activities are located in or near areas where tobacco farming and pesticide applications have taken place. The Applicant has not addressed the increased risk of contaminated soil erosion and sedimentation that will exist during construction of the proposed structures.

iii. The proposed regulated activities will inevitably result in short-term and long-term impacts to the sensitive wetlands and watercourses on the property and other wetlands and watercourses ecologically connected to this area. The Applicant did not perform sufficiently exacting vernal pool wildlife inventories and studies such as were recommended by Dr. Klemens. Furthermore, the proposed regulated activities would foreclose a future ability to protect, enhance or restore the wetland and watercourse resources that are located in and ecologically connected to this area.

iv. The findings described above support the Commission's finding that the proposed regulated activities are likely to impact or affect wetlands or watercourses.

v. The Commission is unable to find, on the basis of the record, that there does not exist a feasible and prudent alternative to these activities, which would cause less or no environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses. The Applicant failed to submit any analysis of alternative designs that would minimize the fragmentation and impact to the wetlands, watercourses, and ecologically connected upland habitats. The Applicant should further investigate alternative designs for creating public access to regulated areas. The alternatives assessment should include more detailed analyses of each alternative's potential social and environmental detriments and benefits, as well as financial cost.

3. DECISION

The Commission denies the Applicant's Application for a permit, without prejudice, for the reasons specified in this motion.

Commissioner Clayberger moved to deny the permit, as presented within the motion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nowak and carried unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.

Chairman Beach read the motion relative to the intervenor status.

Commissioner Sharpless moved to adopt the findings specified in the motion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger and carried unanimously. Chairman Beach read the referral to the Zoning Commission regarding land use activities in an Aquifer Protection Zone.

Commissioner Miller moved to adopt the referral to the Zoning Commission regarding land use activities in an Aquifer Protection Zone. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger and carried unanimously.

IV. PRESENTATION - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. Application of James A. Calabrese for a Permit to Install an Above Ground Swimming Pool, 16'x 32' Within Regulated Area at 97 Wildwood Road

Commissioner Sharpless and Commissioner Miller recused themselves from this application because they both live within .5 mile of the site.

Mr. Calabrese stated that he would like to install an above ground pool which will be partially in the wetlands and just outside of the 100 year floodplain. He stated that they will remove 2-3 inches of grass and put down sand beneath the pool. He stated that the grading would occur on the site.

Commissioner Bucknam questioned how the water will be drawn down for the winter. Mr. Calabrese stated that he will remove the water through a hose to the front of the house. Commissioner Bucknam noted that staff recommends that the water dissipate over the lawn and not go near the storm drain. Chairman Beach stated that the water should not drain near the neighborhood pond either.

Commissioner Nowak questioned the ground disturbance due to the new deck. Mr. Calabrese stated that they will use sonotubes and probably put stone under the deck. He explained why other locations on the property are not feasible for locating the pool. Chairman Beach requested that all of the construction take place outside of the 100 year floodplain and as far from the wetlands as possible.

Commissioner Bucknam moved that this is a regulated activity as the activities are within the buffer area to a wetland, including Nod Brook. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nowak and carried unanimously.

Commissioner Bucknam moved that this is not a significant activity because the slope of the property is flat, there is little possibility of sedimentation, there will be very little grading, and the closest corner of the pool is 60 feet from the wetlands.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger and carried unanimously.

Commissioner Bucknam moved to grant a permit to install an above ground swimming pool, 16' x 32' within the regulated area at 97 Wildwood Road, with the stipulation that water from the pool not be discharged into the wetlands, storm drain or existing pond, but instead flow over the lawn, and that construction equipment not be run within the wetland areas and sand be kept out of the regulated area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger and carried unanimously.

b. Application of the Masters School for a Permit to Construct an Athletic Field Within a Portion of Wetlands and Regulated Area at 36 Westledge Road

Robert Stevens, Landscape Architect, spoke on behalf of the Masters School. He presented the site plan for construction of an athletic field. He stated that Michael Klein, Soil Scientist, determined that there is .1 acres of wetlands in the area. Mr. Stevens explained why the proposed site is the only feasible location for the field. He noted that the field will shed away from the wetlands and the pond. He stated that they will relocate the Hedgehog Trail in this area. Mr. Stevens stated that silt fencing and hay bales will be used for erosion control.

Commissioner Wade questioned whether the pond is part of the wetlands. Mr. Stevens responded that the pond is not contiguous to any wetlands. Commissioner Bucknam suggested a site walk.

Commissioner Bucknam moved to schedule a site walk on May 2, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. at the Masters School. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nowak and carried unanimously.

V. DISCUSSION

a. Open Space Issues

None.

VI. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS

None.

VII. MINUTES of February 16, 2000 and April 4, 2000

Commissioner Nowak moved to approve the minutes of the February 16, 2000 meeting, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger and carried unanimously.

Commissioner Bucknam moved to approve the minutes of the April 4, 2000 meeting, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nowak and carried unanimously.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Clayberger moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:32 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sharpless and carried unanimously.