CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING - TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
SIMSBURY TOWN OFFICES - 7:30 P.M. - MAIN MEETING ROOM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Howard Beach, Jr. called the Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Main Meeting Room at Simsbury Town Hall. The following members were present: Margery Winters, Richard Miller, William Nowak, John Yocum, and Christopher Ursini.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None
III. PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
Application of Ensign-Bickford Realty Corporation for an Inland Wetlands Permit for regulated activities associated with the proposed development of 182 homes within The Powder Forest at Bushy Hill Road and Stratton Brook Road. (continued from 9/7/04 meeting)
Commissioner Beach stated that last meeting’s discussion centered on conditions of approval, and noted the Commission received the conditions of approval document from the applicant.
Mr. Dwight Merriam read the list of conditions document.
A best management program will be implemented with an integrated turf management plan, limiting the types and amounts of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that go onto the property.
There will be a visual inspection at least four time a year with town staff present for the first few years to be sure it is being managed in accordance with the best practices plan.
Town staff and the Commission will visit the site after the completion of the storm water improvements to see that it was completed accordingly.
The post construction monitoring will consist of visual inspection with town staff. Sampling will be done at the bio-remediation chamber outlet to second brook. The first sampling will occur at 18 months after most of the turf growth has occurred. The second sampling will take place at the completion of the project, approximately 40 months afterwards.
As the community is a common interest ownership community, the applicant has offered to include in the declaration of covenants and restrictions, that owners are prohibited in applying any herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers anywhere on the property other than in pot containers.
Mr. Merriam also stated they are installing field markings in order that owners know that they are not to apply any pesticides, etc to the rear of the yards. He stated that this could be amended to the conditions as well if the Commission so wishes.
Commissioner Beach stated he reviewed the list and acknowledged it does seem to address the concerns brought up by the commission.
Commissioner Beach noted that the public hearing was closed at the last meeting so no additional information is required from the applicant. He asked if any other members had concerns.
Commissioner Nowak asked if it was agreed on that some sampling would also be done at the beginning of the project to establish a baseline with the follow up to be done 18 months later as indicated in the conditions. Mr. Merriam referenced paragraph 5 of the document, saying that because there are no surface flows at the Hazel Meadow Pond, and in terms of second brook, without the installation of the storm water management system; there really isn’t anything to sample.
Commissioner Nowak stated that there is water in the pond at this time. Mr. Merriam explained that the applicant has no access to the pond, it is not under the applicant’s control. He added that there are no surface flows to the pond, and therefore no impact to the pond. It was determined that there is no opportunity to sample existing conditions. The critical issue is making sure that any new water coming out of the chamber is in accordance with the best practices management plan.
Mr. T.J. Donahue stated that in addition to the materials presented they also presented a phase one study of the environmental conditions of the entire site. He stated the phase one report was sent to town staff, as well as planning and zoning. Commissioner Beach said they had not seen the report, and other commissioner members acknowledged that they would like to see it as well.
Commissioner Miller had concerns regarding the eastern box turtle. He asked for more information concerning the how, when and where of their monitoring process and asked if a monitoring plan could be implemented as a condition of approval. Commissioner Beach stated that Mr. Michael Klein noted the turtles were looked for several different times during the year, and did not find any evidence of them. There was a discussion amongst the commission members regarding the DEP study.
Commissioner Yocum asked about mosquitoes and their control, seeing that the area is a wetland. Mr. Merriam stated that the best management practices plan includes integrated pest management practices and will be submitted to staff and the commission prior to the commencement of construction.
Commissioner Yocum asked why the bio-remediation sampling is limited to phosphate, bod, nitrate, and chloride. Commissioner Beach noted that at the previous meeting Commissioner Sharpless stated these were the important things to look for, as they have the most impact on the water quality.
Commissioner Nowak asked if the commission could get the results on the hazard analysis report. Mr. Merriam stated that Commissioner Nowak is referring to the safety analysis. This analysis has to do with the federal statutory separation requirements from the materials that Dyno Nobel maintains on the remaining land, which is not under the applicant’s control. He added that the analysis is not about environmental matters on the site. The study was done and reviewed by the fire marshall and is consistent with federal law. He added that he would be happy to get a copy to the Commission. However, Mr. Merriam did clarify that that there are no hazardous materials on the project’s site.
Commissioner Winters raised a concern regarding the wildlife corridor assessment. She stated that at the last meeting there was discussion about the possibility of enlarging the corridor, and had asked if the four units backed up to each other could be pulled away making a corridor behind them. Commissioner Beach said that there was not any response by the applicant to do this. Mr. Merriam said that this question came up at the zoning meeting concerning this, and the reasons for this are included in his report.
Commissioner Nowak asked a question regarding the issue of a performance bond. Mr. Merriam said that the bond amount would be determined at a later date. He said the applicant would be willing to come back once they have had a chance to review the construction level drawings to determine if a bond is warranted and what the amount may be and what might be covered under it.
A motion was made by Commissioner Miller that this is a regulated activity by reason of the possible impacts on the wetland and the amount of construction activity occurring within a wetland watercourse or in close proximity to a wetland review area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocum, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Miller that this is a significant activity, by reason of the extent of the activity occurring in the wetland review area or in the watercourse of the wetland.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocum, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Miller to grant a permit for the proposed activity subject to the conditions listed in the conditions of approval document submitted by the applicant, with three additions. 1. A performance bond will be added after the final construction drawings and engineering are complete. 2. Item #4 of the document will also state that monitoring for the presence of eastern box turtles (nesting site) within the wetland will continue. The town will be notified if their presence is discovered within the wetland and appropriate mitigation measures will be taken in the form of a plan of action, prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by town staff. 3. If any of the documents, testimony, or materials submitted should prove to be false, it is the obligation of the applicant to correct and
update that material.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocum, and carried unanimously.
IV. PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Application of Thomas and Sharon Hallen, Owners, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to place a shed within the regulated area on property located at 9 Tollgate Lane
Mr. & Mrs. Hallen were present to address the board. They propose building a 12x36 or foot shed for use as storage and workshop. The pre- fabricated shed will be installed within the upland review area on a flat piece of land. The property is within 100 feet of a drainage stream. It is a constructed watercourse. About 6 feet of topsoil will be taken up, and the shed will be placed on a 46-foot bed of crushed stone. Concrete will not be used as a foundation.
Commissioner Beach asked whether the area between the shed and drainage ditch is grass. Mr. Hallen responded that there are some trees and bushes nearby. Commissioner Beach stated that there have been some problems in this area with the beavers.
Commissioner Nowak asked about the timetable for the project and if trees will be cut down. Mr. & Mrs. Hallen responded they would only be digging up topsoil and not disturbing the wooded area. They will be doing some minor grading of the excess soil around the site. The project will be completed in 30 days after all permits are approved.
Commissioner Winters asked about the disposal of the excess materials being dug up.
Mr. Hallen stated that they would either have a contractor take it or spread it and seed it out around the property.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak that this is a regulated activity by reason of construction activity in the upland review area to a wetland.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak that this is not significant activity because the disturbance in the upland review area is quite minimal, the ground is level, and the area is grassed. It should not present any long tem disturbance to the wetlands.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak to grant a permit for the proposed activity because it is not a significant activity and will be completed within a short period of time by a professional contractor. It is understood that the excess material spread out on the site will be stabilized. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
b. Application of Norris, Noel, Nels Christiansen, Owners, Jed Drake, Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct driveway, house, well, septic system and do related grading and clearing within the regulated area on property located at Shingle Mill Road, West Simsbury.
Mr. David Whitney, P.E. was present to speak to the board.
The applicant wishes to build a single-family home on a lot located on the north side of Shingle Mill Road, approximately 800 feet west of West Mountain Road. The house will be built approximately 670 feet from Shingle Mill Road. The site, currently owned by the Christiansen Brothers is about 23 acres. Five acres of the site is to be deeded to the Simsbury Land Trust. The remaining 18.25 acres is to be the site of Mr. & Mrs. Drake’s single-family home.
Mr. Whitney pointed out on the plans the existing wetlands on the property. He explained that there is a 79 square foot area in the front of the property. A 3,400 square foot area in the middle of the site, and an old spring in the back of the site which is about a third of an acre in size. Stratton Brook also runs along the property from north to south along the western property line. It enters into a larger wetland area, just under an acre in size, in the front of the property and through a ten foot arched culvert under shingle mill road and then down to the south.
He explained that the topography of the site varies. The site slopes from the north down to the south, with grades varying from flat to slopes of 18-20 percent. At the location of the house there is a natural bench area, a perfect spot for the house. For the most part, they are keeping the house and septic system outside of the 100-foot upland review areas. All portions of the house, septic system, and construction activities will occur more than 100 feet from the brook.
Mr. Whitney spoke about the driveway. It will be a paved drive 10 feet wide with 3-foot shoulders on each side. A 24-inch culvert will be installed at the drainage swale in the front of the property which will involve about 30 yards of fill in the wetlands a 24 inch pipe with about 3 ½ feet of cover over it. The amount of wetlands disturbed in order to let the drain swale, in which the culvert is to be placed, is about 364 square feet. The driveway has a 10 percent grade the whole way (town max is 12 percent). The front portion of the drive is fairly flat. Once the land starts to rise, there will be some cuts and fills. At the house site the area is almost dead flat in the area of the turn around, necessitating minimal grading.
Soil tests have been conducted throughout the site, with more testing to be done in the vicinity of the septic system. Generally the non-wetland soils on the site are relatively well drained sands and gravel.
Erosion control measures to be taken consist of silt fencing installed along the down hill side of the driveway and around the house area outside of the 100 foot upland review areas. Mr. Whitney indicated that the maximum cut slopes are to be two horizontal to one vertical. All disturbed areas are to be loamed and seeded. A 20-foot anti-tracking pad will be installed at the driveway entrance.
Mr. Whitney explained that there are two detailed construction sequences. The first is for the installation of the culvert, which is one of the first activities that will need to occur in order for construction of the driveway. The second construction sequence is for the remaining activities on the lot. He explained that this requires a pre-construction meeting on the culvert, and the limit of disturbance to be staked out by a surveyor, as well as erosion control measures established prior to starting any clearing or disturbances.
Mr. Whitney explained that with the exception of crossing the drain swale in the front, they have stayed away from all of the actual wetland areas. All activities will be well above the stream. He stated that with careful construction measures and proper erosion control, the impact to the wetlands should be manageable.
Commissioner Beach asked if the eroding area, which creates a water path when it rains, would be stabilized. He stated that the stream is susceptible to siltation and sediment problems. Mr. Whitney said that there is no proposal at this time, but stated that the homeowner might want to look into doing this. He stated that at the entrance there is a catch basin with a 12-inch pipe that discharges the drain swale. There is also a pipe that discharges at the same location, and there is some sediment at the outlet. He said they propose installing a small rip-wrap sedimentation basin, which might help to trap the sediment that is presently there. Commissioner Beach suggested installing a catch basin with a deep sump pump if proposing to replace it, but stated that Mr. Whitney’s idea of a basin would also work well
as it is right near the road, making it easy to clean out.
Commissioner Miller stated that neighboring homes have raised concerns about drainage issues, downstream sedimentation and erosion issues. He said that the stream is very clean but anyplace that it flattens out there is a tremendous deposit of sediment.
Commissioner Miller asked about the acreage that will be donated to the town. Mr. Noel Christiansen pointed out the area, explaining that the 5-acre parcel will be an important wildlife corridor, and that its’ development rights will be handed to the land trust.
Mr. Whitney explained that there is an existing waterline that flows from the existing springhouses down to flaming farm. There is an easement over that waterline and rights will remain. Mr. Christiansen explained that his family owns the waterline.
Commissioner Nowak asked if there were any wetlands on the eastern portion. Mr. Christiansen confirmed that there is not.
Commissioner Nowak asked if other locations for the house have been considered. Mr. Whitney said that the proposed site makes the most sense as it has a natural shelf, and has a beautiful view.
Commissioner Nowak stated that the whole of the application be presented to the Commission. Mr. Whitney said it was an oversight, and he will provide the information requested.
Commissioner Nowak and Commissioner Miller both suggested that a site walk would be appropriate before approving of the application, given the site of the property.
Commissioner Beach asked about the proposed construction schedule. Mr. Drake explained that they would begin spring 2005.
Mr. Christiansen noted that the stream is pristine, and that the only silt problem that he sees is from the street. Commissioner Beach explained that the silt problem he is familiar with is located at the top of Shingle Mill Road. He said there are no sumps in any of the catch basins up there, but has spoken to the town engineer to see if this can be rectified.
Commissioner Nowak asked if the lot is densely wooded and if so would there be much tree clearing. Mr. Whitney explained that some parts of the site are denser than others. The driveway area is where most of the tree clearing will take place.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak to schedule a site walk for Saturday October 2, 2004 at 8:30 AM, and that the application will be discussed further at the October 5, 2004 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried unanimously.
c. Application of Simsbury Hopmeadow Street, LLC, Owners, Errol Bede Moore, Facilities Engineer, Dyno Nobel - Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to repair flood gates within the regulated area on property located at 660 Hopmeadow Street
.
Mr. Bede Moore, Dyno Nobel Facilities Engineer was present to address the board.
The applicant proposes repairs to the 2 floodgates at the dam. The floodgates have portions that are eroded or rooted away, necessitating the need for replacement. In order to replace them they need to lower the level of the brook about 18 inches to the top of the dam. He stated that if they are not fixed they will eventually break, and with the level of water relatively low at this time, it would be a good time for the replacement before the winter. The part of the brook affected is up to Hop Brook Tavern. The project will take approximately from one day to a week.
Commissioner Nowak asked Mr. Moore to define the construction sequence. Mr. Moore said that it is done on site. They will raise the gate, remove it, take pieces of it apart, put in the new pieces, slide them in the track, put new rollers on them, and drop it down in sections. It will be done in pieces.
Commissioner Yocum asked if the replacement parts are available or are they fabricated. Mr. Moore said they are fabricated ahead of time. He stated he wants to build one gate brand new, take the second one out and take the pieces off of it and build the second one. If it can’t be done, they will have to fabricate it.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yocum that this is a regulated activity because it will modify the flow of a stream and will effect the area adjacent to the stream.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yocum that this is a significant activity, by reason that the activity will possibly take longer than anticipated and the extent of the area that is affected by the raising and lowering of the level is significant.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yocum to grant a permit for the proposed activity and hope that it is as expeditious as possible with no complications. It is an improvement as well as a safety issue to repair the flood gates. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried unanimously.
At this point, Commissioner Miller recused himself.
d. Application of Ron and Paula Bartgis, Owners, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct a house within the regulated area on property located at 316 Firetown Road.
Mr. Bartgis was present to address the board. He stated their current home is on the site and will be demolished after the completion of the new home. Half of the new home is located within the regulated area. All of the construction traffic will come in through the existing driveway, away from the wetlands. The house will have a walkout basement to minimize any grading. Silt fencing and hay bales will be installed along the wetlands for erosion and sedimentation control. Minimal grading will be done on the side of the basement. There is a large 7-acre wetland near the property. There is a drainage easement that runs off, and Mr. Bartgis stated he foresees no impact on the wetlands, but if the Commission wishes him to direct roof run off he would be happy to comply. He stated he has lived there 5 years and has never yet
seen more than six inches of water in the wetlands.
Commissioner Nowak noticed that he has the wetland buffer at 75 feet and not 100 feet.
Mr. B answered that when the survey plan was done in 2002, 75 feet was the standard distance.
Commissioner Nowak asked where the piles of fill would be kept. Mr. Bartgis stated that they will be kept on site and used for fill to cover the existing house’s foundation after its’ demolition.
Commissioner Beach asked about the distance of the silt fencing. Mr. Bartgis said he would move the silt fence 20 feet away from the foundation. Commissioner Nowak stated he would like to see silt fencing around the piles as well. Mr. B answered he will put them on the side yard, as far away from the wetlands as possible.
Commissioner Nowak asked about soils. Mr. Bartgis answered he has about 18 inches of good topsoil and below that it is sand and some large stones.
Mr. Bartgis said they initially wanted the driveway in a different location nearer to the wetland, but in discussions with the Mr. Voelker it was decided to keep it in its’ current location.
Commissioner Beach asked about what types of plants they propose putting in, noting that they prefer native plants to planted. Mr. Bartgis said that they have no intentions of planting anything, there will only be grass. Commissioner Winters said that native plantings anywhere along the wetland is fine.
Commissioner Beach stated that Mr. Bartgis must notify the town 3 days before the start of the project so that a Commissioner officer can be present.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak that this is a regulated activity by reason of significant disturbance in an upland review area to a wetland.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocum, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak that this is a significant activity, by reason of the major ground disturbance that will occur in the upland review area during the construction.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak that a public hearing is not required, as there has not been any indication of public interest in the problem.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak to grant a permit for the proposed activity because it is a short-term disturbance not having a long-term impact in the upland review area or the wetland area adjacent to the site. The ground is fairly level which should not create a problem, and with proper erosion controls any possibility of erosion will be minimized even if there is significant weather activity occurring at that time. It is understood that the permit is granted on condition that the change in placement of the silt fencing is updated on the map and resubmitted.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocum, and carried unanimously.
The applicant for 32 Butternut Lane was present and it was discussed that she will come back at the next meeting on October 2nd to present her application.
CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Beach stated there is a program entitled Wetland Commission Training Program. Saturday October 16th is the first one. If anyone would wishes to attend he/she should contact Lois Laczko in the planning department.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 7, 2004
Commissioner Nowak motioned to approve the September 7, 2004 with 2 corrections.
Commissioner Ursini seconded, with all in favor.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Yocum moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM.
Commissioner Nowak seconded with all in favor.
| 
