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

JULY 6, 2000

SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING

I. CALL TO ORDER

Howard Beach, Jr., Chairman, called the Special Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:40 P.M. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Pierce Clayberger, Richard Miller, William Nowak, Thomas Sharpless, Margery Winters, and John Yocom. Also present were Laurie Whitten, Conservation Officer, Lisa Arakelian, Commission Secretary, and other interested parties.

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Beach appointed Commissioner Winters to serve for Commissioner Wade.

III. PUBLIC HEARING - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE (continued from 6/21/00)

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

Dr. Michael Klemens expressed his concerns regarding the concept of ecological connectivity and the interdependence of the wetlands on the site. He stated that he is particularly concerned about the carnivores, amphibians and reptiles that will use the "corridors" established if the application is approved. Dr. Klemens reiterated what he had said at a public hearing in the spring, that it is his opinion that this site is part of a much larger ecosystem in excess of 1,000 acres. He stated that he attended a site walk prior to this meeting and dip netted in Wetland #2 and came up with spotted salamanders and wood frogs. He then moved into the ditch at Wetland 5 and, again, found spotted salamanders and wood frogs, in addition to fish and crayfish. Dr. Klemens predicted that, with night-time traffic on the existing and proposed roads on the sites, there will be significant mortality of animals as they move back and forth between areas.

Dr. Klemens also visited Wetland 1 and found it to be a very diverse wetland with diverse vegetation and a floating bog mat. He stated that it would be an excellent habitat for the spotted turtle and ribbon snake, both species of special concern. He noted that, according to the plan, there are house lots going right up to the edge of this wetland. He recommended that, even though this wetland is off-site, the applicants need to consider it in order to understand how the whole area holds together as an ecosystem.

Dr. Klemens stated that the proposed "corridors" will not be adequate to protect the box turtles on the site. He explained that animals move across the landscape in different patterns and will not stay only in the "corridors" set aside for them.

Commissioner Nowak asked how Dr. Klemens justifies his conclusion that the reptiles and amphibians move about as they do. Dr. Klemens replied that he has witnessed amphibians moving several hundred feet through fields and across roads, and he feels that, without large blocks of land set aside for their habitats, the reptile and amphibian population will decline.

Commissioner Nowak asked for clarification of Klemens' opinion that a much larger ecosystem (not just these 373 acres) must be considered. Klemens replied that these species are not generally found on landscapes of less than 1000 acres, and at least that much area should be considered.

Commissioner Miller asked Dr. Klemens if he had seen any evidence of the ribbon or hog-nosed snake on the site. Klemens replied that the habitat could support both species, but he did not find any solid evidence of their existence there.

Commissioner Miller asked for Dr. Klemens' reaction to the proposed crossing of Wetland 7. Dr. Klemens replied that he has no specific opinion about the crossing, but he sees Wetland 7 as being constricted into a very linear strip which will not help to conserve the species inhabiting the wetland.

Attorney Tim Hollister asked Dr. Klemens which areas of the site he feels should be set aside in order to promote the ecological connectivity. Dr. Klemens replied that there should be broad connections between habitat areas, roads further away from wetlands, and limited development around the water tank. He stressed that this is an ideal piece of land where both development and conservation can co-exist.

Hollister asked Dr. Klemens if it is his opinion that, if the development is built as proposed, the amphibians will be exterminated from the site. Dr. Klemens replied that, over time, the chance of those animals surviving is very minimal.

Hollister asked Dr. Klemens how the commission can regulate beyond the 75-foot wetland buffer, given that their jurisdiction is wetlands, watercourses, and adjacent areas defined by distance. Dr. Klemens replied that there is case law where conservation commissions' decisions outside the normal regulated area have been upheld when upland areas have been integral to the survival of wetland species. He further stated that many towns have extended their authority to regulate far beyond the 75-foot buffer.

Ed Pawlak responded to Dr. Klemens' presentation and his letter to William Voelker, dated June 27, 2000. He stated that he disagrees with Dr. Klemens that there are ecological connections between the wetland areas. It is his professional opinion that the agricultural fields adjacent to the vernal pools are not critical upland habitat. Pawlak feels it is very unlikely that the obligate vernal pool salamanders and wood frogs reside in those fields, or migrate through them, because they are primarily forest dwellers, and because the fields do not lie between the vernal pools and any large terrestrial, non-wetland wooded habitat. For example, beyond the large tobacco fields east and south of Wetland 2 lie well-traveled roads, residential areas, and a poorly drained swamp. Beyond the agricultural field located west of Wetland 2 lies Barn Door Hills Road, a large tobacco field, and a small, wooded triangle that includes Wetland 8. These conditions exist on several areas of the site and, thus, preclude the agricultural fields from playing a role in the vernal pools' web of life. Pawlak further stated that the on-site obligate vernal pool amphibians have persisted throughout at least 100 years of intensive agriculture and they will continue to persist following the development of the site as proposed.

Mr. Pawlak took strong exception to Dr. Klemens' statement in his letter that Mr. Pawlak has been "disingenuous' in his wetland characterizations, and Dr. Klemens' inference that Mr. Pawlak has not been honest in his evaluations. Mr. Pawlak stated that his characterizations and evaluations are based upon his thorough knowledge of the site and the surrounding landscape. He stressed, again, that based upon existing land uses on- and off-site, he feels that the large agricultural fields are not crossed by migrating salamanders, since there are no nearby well-drained forests at the opposite ends of the fields. It is also Pawlak's opinion that, where ecosystem connections currently exist, they will be maintained to the greatest possible extent within the context of the Open Space plan which will preserve 40 percent of the site in an undeveloped condition. He further noted that this plan has been improved in the revised submission, based, in part, on comments from Town land use commissions, staff and consultants. Pawlak pointed out that the plan does provide for larger, interconnected habitat areas, and that the integrity of the Wetland 7/13 mosaic will be preserved by the elimination of the formerly proposed road crossing.

Mr. Pawlak clarified that he recommended that soil mixing not take place between October and April in any areas where box turtles are suspected to be hibernating, and that he did not provide exact locations of box turtle sightings because of his concern that the information might come to the attention of collectors.

Mr. Pawlak disagreed with Dr. Klemens' opinion that his 40.65 hours of field work on a 363.89 acre site were insufficient for determining the existence of blue-spotted salamanders, and ribbon or hog-nosed snakes. Pawlak stated that, because approximately 200 acres of the site consists of currently or recently cultivated fields, the area of the site that merited his investigation is far less than 363.89 acres. He further stated that he conducted frequent and thorough investigations of the areas of the site that could potentially be utilized by the four cited Species of Special Concern, and it is his professional opinion that the frequency and intensity of his investigation were more than adequate to determine whether any of these species occurred on the Meadowood site.

Mr. Pawlak addressed the suggestions by Barbara Callahan, Ph.D., that alternatives to the proposed stormwater basins be considered and that proposed basins have a normal or permanent interior pool of standing water. Pawlak responded that, since the stormwater basins are located outside of the 75-foot buffer zone, their construction is considered a non-regulated activity and, therefore, does not fall under this commission's jurisdiction, and it would be inappropriate for the commission to attempt to regulate them. Also, he stated that wet ponds are not feasible on this site because their construction would require a very deep excavation to get down to the water table. In response to Dr. Callahan's suggestion that a monitoring and maintenance plan for the basins be prepared, Mr. Pawlak stated that this is a reasonable request and the applicant would be willing to prepare such a plan and document the survival of vegetation.

Commissioner Miller asked for clarification of Mr. Pawlak's opinion that it would be inappropriate for the commission to regulated beyond the 75-foot buffer of the wetlands. Mr. Pawlak responded that one must look at the site-specific conditions, and one cannot just assume that amphibians are making mass migrations, over long distances, in all directions from the wetlands.

Chairman Beach asked if Mr. Pawlak felt that there may be migration of spotted salamanders between Wetlands 1 and 2. Pawlak replied that it was highly unlikely as the distance between the wetlands is in excess of 1000 feet and salamanders generally do not migrate that far.

Commissioner Winters asked Mr. Pawlak to address the increase in mortality of the amphibians with site development as opposed to the agricultural use. Mr. Pawlak replied that he believes that the majority of migration is occurring within the small wooded islands within 500 feet of the wetlands and very few of the amphibians will cross the road.

Commissioner Nowak asked how far a salamander can migrate. Mr. Pawlak replied that, according to studies, the majority of salamanders can migrate approximately 534 feet.

Dr. Michael Klemens made a few follow-up comments. He stated that there is no way of knowing for sure that the salamanders are not using the agricultural fields for migration. Klemens also stressed that the commissioners must remember that amphibians migrate not just for breeding, but for "gene flow" between the "islands" described by Mr. Pawlak. If the amphibians are not able to maintain "gene flow", they cannot survive.

Gordon Brookman, President of Environmental Risk Limited, addressed his memos of June 29 and July 5, 2000. He stated that the major point in his memos continues to be the definition of "hot spot". He has proposed at previous hearings using a level of two times the standard as the "hot spot" definition. Brookman said that Fuss and O'Neill originally had no definition of "hot spot". They changed it to ten and now have lowered it to six. He still does not feel this is appropriate.

Brookman also stated that the information received from New Jersey does not contain similar conditions to the Meadowood site. For instance, most of the data from New Jersey deals with arsenic and dieldrin, but does not deal with chlordane. Also, in most of the cases, the data was in the neighborhood of one-and-one-half to four times the cleanup standard. Two cases involved samples which were as much as eight to ten times the cleanup standard. One of these two sites also had 100,000 cubic yards of soil removed from the site. Brookman could find no indication of what level of contamination was used to decide between what was excavated and what was blended.

Brookman informed the commission that the results of resampling of the one-acre pilot test plot by Fuss & O'Neill appear encouraging as no chlordane was detected in the mixing zone soil, the soil beneath the mixing zone, or the groundwater. Fuss & O'Neill suggests that volatilization is the reason for the absence of chlordane. Brookman finds it hard to believe that all the chlordane has disappeared since the last sampling two years ago. He has asked Fuss & O'Neill to review their sampling and analytical protocols to ensure the accuracy of the results.

Mr. Brookman was assisted by Emmanouil N. Anagnostou, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Connecticut, to perform a statistical analysis of the pre- and post-sampling plans. Dr. Anagnostou concluded that the current proposed sampling plan is not sufficient.

Rich Afrigola, North Drive, asked Dr. Klemens if it was his opinion that the amphibians may lay their eggs in the detention basins instead of the wetlands and that the eggs would then dry out before they hatched. Dr. Klemens replied that salamanders will migrate until they find water, then, thinking they have found a wetlands they will lay their eggs. However, the area they have found may not be sufficient for the eggs' development, hence they will dry up and die. These areas are called decoy wetlands and it is a particular problem with detention basins that are placed near breeding wetlands.

Emmanouil Anagnostou, environmental engineer and professor, reviewed the main findings from his statistical investigation of the Meadowood East development area chlordane concentration sample data. He found that the chlordane concentration (ChC) exhibits significant spatial variability, which indicates that the area-wide arithmetic average of ChC may not be a representative value of the actual ChC value for individual locations within the development area. Dr. Anagnostou also found that the estimation of the expected value of ChC for each location within the development area is associated with significant uncertainty, which is due to the limited number of available samples and their location configuration. He referred to figures provided in his letter dated July 5, 2000 to show that it is apparent that the difference between the mean estimate and the sum of mean and the confidence level value (CL) magnifies significantly when the CL changes from 80% to 95%. This indicates that significantly more samples than are currently available are required to reduce the CL values, and so increase the accuracy of the ChC mean estimates for every single location within the development area.

Based on his available data, Dr. Anagnostou determined that ChC mean estimates with CL decrease on the order of 80% would have an approximate final relative error of 16% with respect to their value. When the CL decrease is 60% and 40%, the relative error for the ChC estimated mean values would be 33% and 50%, respectively. Dr. Anagnostou recommended that the town should not accept a relative error greater than 20% so that the sample size is large enough to provide an appropriate confidence to the estimated ChC mean values.

Dr. Anagnostou's Figures 5 and 6 (upper left panels) also show the 95% CL value reduction associated with the supplemental sampling locations proposed by Fuss & O'Neill. He stated that the proposed sampling configuration is not optimal as it leaves large regions with CL reduction of less than 40%. More importantly, these regions are in the areas where the ChC mean values are significantly above the critical level of 490 ug/Kg and should be estimated with the highest accuracy. Furthermore, the areas where the developer plans to densely sample do not seem to be that interesting form the point of ChC mean values. Dr. Anagnostou recommended that, if the developer revises its proposed sampling plan, they take into consideration the suggestive plans of Figures 5 and 6.

Dr. Anagnostou recommended that the same spatial statistical analysis be performed for Meadowood West.

Dr. Anagnostou stated that he was also asked to review the developer's proposal for supplementary studies submitted to the Planning Department on June 19, 2000.

Dr. Anagnostou reiterated his finding that the 50 supplemental samples in 30 random locations proposed by the developer for Meadowood East are not optimal. His analysis shows that, if the town desires ChC estimates with errors less than 20%, they should require at minimum 75 supplemental samples at .25 feet soil depth and 100 supplemental samples at 1 foot soil depth. Dr. Anagnostou also proposed a different location for the pilot test area of soil mixing. The pilot test area proposed by the developer and the alternative area proposed by Dr. Anagnostou are shown in his Figure 7 along with the estimated values of mean ChC. His suggested pilot test area covers the region with the most critical ChC values. Anagnostou stated that the proposed 50 sampling locations is adequate to offer errors of less than 5%-8% within the pilot test area.

Dr. Anagnostou commented on the developer's statement in their proposal regarding the SW-846 calculations. He stated that these calculations offer an estimate of the sampling size that is adequate for evaluating an area-wide average value. It cannot be used to determine the area-average value's representativeness to the expected value of an individual location within the area. This can only be determined through spatial statistics that evaluate the spatial variability of the value.

Dr. Anagnostou went on to recommend that, if sod remediation is completed, an additional 50 to 75 soil samples be collected at the same locations as shown in his Figures 5 and 6 to verify with confidence that the soil has reached ChC values below the required level. He also suggested that the town should not accept as representative estimate of the ChC value the area-wide arithmetic average as it may diverge significantly from the actual ChC values for different locations within the development area. Anagnostou recommended that new spatial analysis be conducted in order for the town to make its decision based on objective criteria and information.

Commissioner Sharpless noted that the applicant has demonstrated a disinterest in spatial variability and asked Dr. Anagnostou if he agreed that, in 1995, when the applicants began their measurements of contamination they should have considered spatial analysis. Dr. Anagnostou agreed. Commissioner Sharpless then suggested that, by conducting random sampling thereafter, the applicants really weren't accomplishing anything that is useful. Dr. Anagnostou agreed.

Chairman Beach asked if Dr. Anagnostou was suggesting that an additional 50 to 75 samples be taken or sites be evaluated. Anagnostou replied that he was referring to additional sites.

Commissioner Sharpless asked if there are other techniques that could have been used to examine "hot spots" when high values were found. He also asked if there should have been some sampling techniques applied near those "hot spots" in order to locate their centers and their boundaries. Anagnostou replied that, optimally, one would start with a few samples from random locations spread throughout the area. When certain higher values are found one would sample at locations which would cover many different inter-sampled distances so that that would provide some adequate information to provide some correlation versus distance estimates. That, eventually, will give one an idea of how to go about doing the final sampling.

Commissioner Yocom asked about sampling on a grid basis and, then, if more information is needed, one increases the density, but stays within a definite pattern. Dr. Anagnostou replied that that would be a good approach if there is zero correlation between any given points in your field, or if the variability is completely random. One would still want to increase the sample locations over areas of higher concentration and decrease it over areas of lower concentration.

Jim Gozzola, Briarwood Drive, asked what value sampling has if the one who is performing the sampling has a bias. Commissioner Sharpless replied that some information is obtained, but at a very low confidence level.

Bob Potterton, engineer, stated that the applicants, as a condition of approval, are willing to follow the recommendations made by Dr. Anagnostou for pre- and post-mixing sampling on the site, and conducting the ten-acre mixing pilot test in the area that was recommended by Dr. Anagnostou, as opposed to the area originally proposed by the applicants. The applicants are willing to accept, as a condition of approval, the successful completion of the pilot test and the demonstration of consistency with remediation standard regulations. Also, if the commission feels samples should be taken on the western portion of the site, the applicant is willing to do that.

Potterton took exception to Mr. Brookman's comment that the data from New Jersey was not similar to this site because the data that was exceeded in many of the New Jersey sites was 1.5 to 4 times the cleanup standard. Mr. Potterton said that very few samples from Meadowood East exceeded that standard. Most importantly, Mr. Potterton stated, is that the applicants have demonstrated through pilot testing that soil mixing will work very well on this site. He also stated that the applicants have conducted their sampling and analysis in accordance with very strict procedures and protocols.

Mr. Potterton defined a "hot spot" as being two times the RSRs. He stated that, when soil remediation is completed, there will not be any areas on the site that exceed twice the criteria of RSRs.

Mr. Potterton sought to clear up confusion by staff as to which areas will have soil mixing and which areas will have excavation. He stated that the areas surrounding Wetlands 2 and 10 will have soil removal and no mixing. After the initial six inches of material is removed from those areas, the intent is to do post-remediation sampling of those areas. If any of the sampling indicates that any area is not in compliance with the RSRs, additional soil will be removed up to 1.5 feet, if necessary.

In response to Wayne Cobleigh's question regarding comparison of the water table levels between May 1999 and April 2000, Mr. Potterton stated that the April 2000 water level was one foot higher than in May 1999 in well 1, and six feet, two inches higher than in May 1999 in well 6. In response to Cobleigh's concern about leeching fields, Mr. Potterton pointed out that he had performed extensive testing and post-remediation samples and none of the samples leeched. Therefore, the post-mixing soils do not have a potential to leech.

Gordon Brookman clarified that he had not recommended that additional sampling be performed at Meadowood West, rather that the spatial statistical analysis be performed for that area.

Tim Hollister, attorney, stated that the applicants have proposed that Meadowood be a common-interest ownership community, applying even to those who would be the owners of the individual, sub-divided lots. All owners will be members of the association. The applicants have proposed to the DEP that, within the common interest ownership documents governing the entire community, there be an agreement with the association through insurance or some other financial mechanism to indemnify owners of those individual lots from any claims of dry well contamination emanating from those lots. Hollister stated that the applicants would accept this as a condition of approval.

Commissioner Miller asked what the fee per property owner would be for such an insurance policy. Mr. Hollister replied that the fee had not yet been discussed.

Kevin Miller stated that the applicants were surprised to see negative results when the pilot test area's soils were re-sampled and tested for chlordane. He speculated that this may have been due to volatilization as a result of increased surface area post-mixing.

Miller also stated that he does not believe that the burning of tobacco with residual chlordane on the leaves would generate a significant amount of dioxin to cause any significant risk to human health. Therefore, the applicants have not tested for dioxins.

David Lord, Soil Scientist and Environmental Consultant, reviewed his letter to Laurie Whitten, dated July 2, 2000, regarding the proposed soil erosion and sedimentation controls during the proposed soil mixing operations. He suggested that the General Construction Sequence prepared by the applicants needs to be more detailed. He stated that the note on the written sequence indicating that a detailed schedule of construction would be provided at a later date may prohibit review by the commission or town staff if not so stipulated.

Mr. Lord also recommended that the disturbed areas within the soil mixing process should be permanently stabilized immediately following the mixing and not left for two to three days as indicated in the construction sequence. He also noted that no procedure is described for additional control measures that may be required.

Mr. Lord went on to point out that no details are provided for structural measures listed on page 4-3, and that the structural measures are not given any specific locations. He stated that they will most likely be necessary given the large amounts of land area to be open at any one time. In addition, no maintenance schedule is provided for the erosion and sedimentation control measures listed on drawing SMP-2. Details should include such items as cleanout specifications and haybale replacement intervals.

Mr. Lord also noted that no specifications are provided for temporary or permanent seeding measures, or mulching. Specific details for the ultimate disposal of all sediments collected within erosion and sedimentation control measures should also be provided.

In addition, the erosion control measures listed on SMP-2 are not indicated by symbols on SMP-1. Mr. Lord stated that this can make installation and inspections difficult.

Finally, Mr. Lord noted that the soil erosion and sediment control measures proposed for areas within the wetland buffer zones do not appear to adequately address the issue of potential movement of fine soil particles and organic matter to adjacent wetlands. He stated that sediment filter fencing is, at most, 75% effective in trapping sediments. The remaining 25% contains fine soil particles which generally pass through sediment filter fencing.

Tim Hollister asked Mr. Brookman if, given the fact that results have been received from the one-acre pilot soil mixing test and the applicant has made several revisions to the soil mixing plan at Mr. Brookman's request, he can say that the soil mixing plan is likely to create an unreasonable risk to human health.

Mr. Brookman replied that it has been opinion from the beginning that, with the right type of data characterization and the right type of soil mixing plan, this plan could work. He does not feel that the plan is at the point where he can be assured that the health of the residents who live there and the environment will not suffer.

Mr. Hollister asked Mr. Brookman to tell him all the things he felt needed to be changed in order to satisfy him.

Mr. Brookman replied that he could not think of all the things off the top of his head, but that he would review the plan once more and compile a list of recommendations to be provided to the applicants on Monday, July 10, 2000.

Roger Kellman, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates, responded to the letter from David Lord. He stated that the soil erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater management plans are perfectly acceptable at the point in time that we're at and at the scale that we're working at. Kellman noted that there are always details that are added as conditions are placed and as one gets further along in the process. He also stated that there is generally an "overuse" of the soil erosion and sedimentation control plans. Kellman said that one cannot have a more detailed "General Construction Sequence" until there is a pre-construction meeting with a contractor. He also noted that soil stabilization within two to three days is "immediately" in the "real world" of construction.

Mr. Kellman stated that the DEP and the General Permit Regulations dictate when soil erosion and sediment control measures are necessary. In addition, the town can monitor the site and determine when additional controls are required.

Kellman replied to Mr. Lord that the details, including specific locations, for the erosion and sedimentation control structural measures were included in the original plan. He also stated that he is relatively certain that the stormwater management plan includes a maintenance schedule.

Mr. Kellman stated that specifications for seeding measures will be prepared after post-mixing sampling is completed. He did not think mulch would be needed.

Finally, Mr. Kellman explained that sediments collected within the control measures would be deposited in upland areas, and that symbols for the control measures listed on SMP-2 will be added to SMP-1.

Mr. Kellman quickly reviewed his memo to the commission dated July 6, 2000, regarding Rich Sawitzke's June 27, 2000 memo.

Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Kellman if he was agreeing to follow all of the recommendations in David Lord's letter. Kellman replied that he was willing to do it all.

Wayne Cobleigh, of North Simsbury Coalition, handed out excerpts from, and referenced, the book, Our Childrens' Toxic Legacy, by John Yargo, in which Mr. Yargo concludes that science and law have failed to protect people from the harmful effects of pesticides. Cobleigh stated that he wanted to let the commissioners know that he thinks it's okay for them to be skeptical about the risks associated with soil mixing since the soil mixing process will release soil sediment particles containing pesticides into the air.

Cobleigh reminded the commission that, in March, he had given testimony indicating his concern that volatilization might have been introduced through the sampling method and he was told by the engineers from Fuss & O'Neill that there was no way the chlordane had volatilized because it was a residue that almost behaves like solids. He noted that, now that they need a theory as to why there is suddenly no chlordane evident in the soil, they are embracing the theory of volatilization.

Cobleigh also reminded the commission of a letter that was received in March from Dr. Joe Pignoterro of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in which he concluded that the soil mixing hypothesis of thinking that the materials will not migrate to groundwater when there is less organic material or when the soil is changed due to mixing, is just that--a hypothesis--and Mr. Cobleigh suggested that the applicants are proposing to conduct this 150 acre "experiment" on a grand scale in the Town of Simsbury. Cobleigh wanted to make sure that this letter remains a part of the public record.

Tim Hollister suggested that the hearing remain open and continued until Monday, July 10, at which time he will provide a written list of the things the applicants have agreed to do as conditions of approval. He also requested that Mr. Brookman let him know at that meeting what Mr. Brookman would like added to the soil mixing plan to make it "acceptable" to him.

Jim Gozzola, Briarwood Drive, expressed his concern regarding air pollution related to soil mixing affecting current residents at the beginning of construction, before anyone actually moves on to the site

A motion was made by Commissioner Clayberger to continue the public hearing until Monday, July 10, 2000 at 7:30 P. M. at the Simsbury High School Amphitheater. Seconded by Commissioner Nowak and unanimously approved

IV. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS

A. St. Catherine of Siena, Stratton Brook Drive, application to construct a shed.

V. ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made by Commissioner Clayberger to adjourn the meeting at 11:49 P. M. Seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried unanimously.