Conservation Commission/ Inland Wetlands
And Watercourses Agency Minutes
Regular Meeting- Tuesday May 16, 2006
Simsbury Town Offices- 7:30PM- Main Meeting Room
Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7:33pm in the Main Meeting room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioner Winters, Commissioner Nowak, and Commissioner Mihalic. Also present was Conservation Officer Howard Beach.
II. |
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES |
None
III. |
PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE |
a. |
Application of Timothy J. Ruark, Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to pump water from pond within the regulated area on property located at 7 Hop Hollow. (tabled at 5/2/2006 meeting) |
b. |
Application of Elmer, Clark, Buda, Kevorkian and Whitman, Applicants, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to pump water from pond within the regulated area on properties located at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 Apple Lane. |
Mr. Ruark and Mr. Kevorkian were present to discuss the application.
At the last meeting the Commission asked to know how much water the sprinkler company shows each applicant uses. Mr. Kevorkian responded that the average is 4,000 gallons per day.
Commissioner Mihalic voiced his concern regarding the definition of person/applicant as stated in the regulations, but stated that the Commission is responsible for dealing with this.
The Commission discussed the drawing of water from the pond during low flow times. Mr. Kevorkian stated that the pond does not normally experience dry periods and has good flow. He added though, if there were to be a drought, flow would be low because the weir needs to be repaired.
Mr. Beach explained the issues with the weir and the Hopmeadow application for drawing/diverting water from the pond.
Mr. Ruark explained that the pipe in the pond was put in to lower the water in the pond, and it is capped.
Commissioner Winters asked whether the Commission has the authority to issue a condition on the permit to address the periods of low flow. Mr. Beach answered that the Commission can stipulate that if the water falls below a certain level, the permit is to be withdrawn. He added that if the state declares a drought, that might also be the deciding factor.
Chairman Miller stated that there could be more houses downstream drawing water as well. Mr. Beach stated that at least with this water diversion, they know how many property owners are drawing the water and there is a permit.
Chairman Miller spoke of using the level of the water below the notch of the weir as the only viable measure of the water being drawn. Commissioner Winter expressed that rainfall would be the better gauge.
Mr. Kevorkian allowed that both he and the Whitmans are below the weir and therefore drawing water from below the weir.
Commissioner Mihalic expressed concern as to how the pond will be monitored. Chairman Miller stated that even though Mr. Beach could drive by, the applicants are basically on an honor system.
Commissioner Winters expressed that the summer months are the worst time to draw the water. She also added that the water does not, as previously thought, eventually drain back down into the ground water pond, it gets transpired into the plants. She reiterated that the drawing is for cosmetic purposes.
Chairman Miller stated that unless the Commission receives better information from the state, the level of rainfall data is the best regulating option. Commissioner
Commissioner Winters expressed that it is not just whether there is a dry summer, but a dry spring as well. Commissioner Mihalic expressed that using rainfall as a measure is reactive, not proactive. Commissioner Winters commented that the Commission should issue a 1-2 year permit.
Chairman Miller agreed that issuing a short permit is probably the better option, giving the Commission time to look into the other issues.
Commissioner Nowak voiced his disagreement with the fact that the water is being used for aesthetic reasons only.
It was determined that at least 18,000 gallons per day will be drawn for each property owner.
Mr. Kevorkian stated that if they are told of down stream low flow, the applicants would do what they could to use less water.
Chairman Miller expressed that DEP should be invited to a meeting to discuss the issues.
Mr. Beach stated that if a permit were to be issued and later on a problem was found, the permit can be rescinded.
Commissioner Mihalic stated that the permit is issued for each of the applications presented.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is a regulated activity by reason of diversion of water in a watercourse.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is not a significant activity based on information asserting that for the past 30 years the activity has been taking place and there has been no significant evidence that the withdrawals made during that time have effected the flow of the stream to a degree that it has been problematic to the wetland and watercourses immediately downstream of the properties.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic to grant a permit to Ruark (7 Hop Hollow), Elmer (2 Apple Lane), Clarke (4 Apple Lane), and Buda (6 Apple Lane) to withdraw water from Hop Hollow pond consistent with the daily limits as set forth in the application. A permit is granted to Kevorkian (8 Apple Lane) and Whitman (10 Apple Lane) to withdraw water from the stream directly below Hop Hollow consistent within the limits of their application. The permits are granted subject to the following conditions: 1. All withdrawals/diversions of the water from either Hop Hollow Pond or the stream below it cease in the event of a statewide or a regional drought. 2. All withdrawals and/or diversions from Hop Hollow pond or the stream immediately below it cease upon notice from the Conservation Officer that there are downstream
droughts or low flows. 3. There will be no increase in the daily withdrawal amounts from any of the permits from Hop Hollow or the stream immediately below it. 4. The permit is issued for a period of two years only. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Winters to amend the agenda to discuss the St. Catherine of Siena Church application ahead of the 316 Firetown Road application.
Commissioner Nowak seconded, with all in favor.
c |
Application of Reverend Richard Russell, St. Catherine of Siena Church, Archdiocese of Hartford, Owner, Anthony Drapelick, Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to repair a span at a crossing within the regulated area on property located at 265 Stratton Brook Road. |
Mr. Anthony Drapelick was present to discuss the application. The Commission looked at the site plan and discussed the various points of interest.
Mr. Drapelick explained that the church wishes to make use of land on the other side of the property’s wetlands. They wish to reconstruct/resurrect an old crossing bridge on this site, replacing the stone culvert with a piece of 24 inch PVC pipe, seeding the land up to the bridge, and placing netting across the bridge. They would like to add pea-stone onto the pedestrian only bridge. The bridge will have the same footprint as the old bridge, approximately 8 feet wide by 60 feet long. There will be no excavation; the 1-2 yards of excess material will be disposed of properly, out of the wetlands and the regulated area. The work will be done by machine, and it was determined that the bridge will be able to support the construction truck(s).
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak that this is a regulated activity by reason of soil disturbance in a wetland.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak that this is not a significant activity because the disturbance will occur only one day, the less than two yards of soil to be removed will cause minimal disturbance, and the project will be an improvement over the existing crossing.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nowak to approve the application with the following conditions:
1. The crossing will be built no larger that the existing footprint. 2. The bridge is designed such that motor vehicles or ATVs do not have access to it.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters and carried unanimously.
d. |
Application of Paula Bartgis, Owner, Glenn Suchon, Landmark, Inc., Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct an inground swimming pool within the regulated area on property located at 316 Firetown Road. |
Mr. and Mrs. Bartgis were present to discuss the application.
Commissioner Mihalic asked if Glenn Russo is associated with Landmark, Inc. as Commissioner Mihalic’s company represents a company named Landmark. Ms. Bartgis answered that she did not believe so.
The Bartgis’s are currently constructing a house on the site and wish to construct an inground pool at the back of the house. The impacts to the wetland are minimal. There will be a silt fence and if any water is to be pumped down it will be pumped away from the wetlands. When the pool is to be drawn down, it will be chemical free for 2 weeks prior to its’ draining and therefore chemicals will not be deposited into the wetlands. The chlorinated pool will be at grade level and the area will be stabilized after construction. Alternate areas for the pool were considered, but the area considered contains a buried 2,000 gallon propane gas tank and there are regulations in place regarding its’ proximity to other devices. As well, they want to have the pool in the backyard for privacy. The vehicles coming in to
the site, will come in through the pre-existing driveway, nothing will be coming on the wetland side.
Mr. Beach spoke on the cease and desist order and explained that in driving by the site he noticed that the silt fence was down. It was explained to him that the building inspector told Mr. and Mrs. Bartgis to add 5 more feet of grade.
The Commission discussed the issue of the change of grade, as it did not seem to occur to either the building inspector or the Barges’ to return to discuss this issue with the Commission.
To remedy the violations of the first permit, Mr. Bartgis immediately corrected the silt fence, installing hay bales staked out along the perimeter, and Mr. Beach stated that he has not currently seen any evidence of any siltation into the wetland. Mr. Beach established that an amendment to the permit was filed once it was realized that the house needed to be jacked up and to bring the grade down to a 2to1 slope. Mr. Bartgis agreed to do anything needed to correct the grade, and it was determined that he has taken the necessary steps to correct the issues brought forth in the cease and desist order, except as pointed out by Mr. Beach, the area where dirt has been pushed down close to the wetland, which should be pushed back.
Commissioner Nowak stated that with all of the violations as noted in the cease and desist order, he cannot see that it all has been corrected. He said that Mr. Bartgis could have put down hay mulch to stabilize the soils. Mr. Bartgis said that he did put down hay mulch.
It was noted that when the silt fence was initially installed it had been appropriately installed, but at the time Mr. Beach drove by it was down.
Mr. Beach said that the erosion issue has been rectified with the silt fencing that has been installed, and the amended application is for the correcting of the basic situation of the grading change due to the building inspector’s requirement.
Mr. Beach expressed that the building inspector required that the house be jacked up 5 feet in order to have positive drainage. The cost to the Bartgis’s was $20,000.
Motion for the Amendment to the existing permit application.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is a regulated activity by reason of activity and soil disturbance within the regulated area.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is not a significant activity based the following:
1.The homeowner has taken the necessary actions to prevent siltation into the wetlands. 2. Town staff has reviewed the property and deemed that the wetland has not been impacted by the activity, and that all of the disturbances are within the regulated area and have not extended any further.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic to approve the amended permit based on staff recommendations and conditions consistent with the protection of the wetland, and limiting disturbances to the regulated area of the wetlands themselves.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters and carried unanimously.
Cease and Desist Order
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic to lift the cease and desist order based upon the applicant’s testimony and subject to staff’s inspection of the site, ensuring that all steps were take to make sure the applicant is compliant with the amended permit as granted.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nowak, and carried unanimously.
Motion on the application
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is a regulated activity by reason of part of the footprint of the pool is in the regulated area.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is not a significant activity based on the following reasons: 1. Construction vehicles will ingress and egress through an area that is already hard packed and not in the regulated area. 2. The construction itself is significantly away from the wetlands. 3. Best management practices concerning the removal of the chlorine before the pool water it is drawn down seem to be in place.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic to grant the permit subject to the conditions imposed by the Conservation Officer concerning necessary siltation fences and steps to ensure the wetlands are protected.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.
IV. |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 2, 2006 |
Postponed until the next meeting. There was no quorum.
a. |
Application of Bob Cowthon, Owner, Dan Gringras, Ct. Remodeling, Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to repair a deck on rear of house within the regulated area on property located at 10 Dominique Lane. |
Mr. Beach stated that the applicant is replacing the woodwork on the deck and the piers of the deck because they were not done properly. There will be minimal disturbance, all of the dirt coming out of the post holes will go right back in. As is done for any other application, the applicants went through a full permit application and Mr. Beach wrote up a staff report
Pool applications
Chairman Miller expressed that he wants the Commission to hear applications dealing with pools because they often have a significant impact to the wetland. The members agreed.
b. Grade change on 316 Firetown Road application.
The Commission discussed the issue of the significant grade change to the site as required by the building inspector. It was discussed that if a permit requires a change such as this it should come before the Commission. It was discussed that a letter should be written to the building inspector and the selectman’s office indicating the issue of the building inspector requiring changes to a site after the Conservation Commission has issued a permit. Mr. Beach and Chairman Miller stated they will work on drafting the letter.
c. Powder Forest
The Commission discussed the issues which came to light on the Powder Forest site. Mr. Beach noted that the site is not a town site, it is a private development, and as such the town cannot take over when issues arise.
d. Question from the public.
Mr. Beach answered a question regarding the Powder Forest site regarding the regulation of the cutting down of trees, the traffic calming measures installed and the level spreaders, etc. He explained that if there is to be a site change after the permit was granted they have to come back.
e. Diversion permits
The Commission expressed interest in having someone from DEP coming to a Conservation meeting to discuss diversion permits along with other issues. Commissioner Winters stated that she knows Bob Gilmore from DEP who might be able to come in, also some people from USGS she could contact as well.
VII. |
CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS |
Chairman Miller stated that this meeting is the last for Commissioner Nowak because he is moving to North Carolina. The Commissioners expressed their thanks to Commissioner Nowak for all of his work throughout the years, commended his service to the town and wished him well. Commissioner Nowak expressed his deep regard and best wishes for the other Commission members, and expressed his high regard and great respect for Mr. Beach.
Commissioner Mihalic made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00pm.
Commissioner Winters seconded, with all in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________
, Secretary
| 
