Conservation Commission/ Inland Wetlands
And Watercourses Agency Minutes
Regular Meeting- Tuesday September 5, 2006
Simsbury Town Offices- 7:30PM- Main Meeting Room
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7:32pm in the Main Meeting room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioner Yocom, Commissioner Mihalic, and Commissioner Bucknam. Also present was Conservation Officer Beach.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None
III. PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. |
Application of John Green, Owner, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct an addition with a deck within the regulated area on property located at 3 Crestwood Lane. |
Mr. Green, General Contractor for the project, and Ms. Danielle Dermo, owner, spoke on behalf of this application. Mr. Green discussed the plans for the addition and the deck. The wetlands are approximately 55 feet from the proposed edge of the deck, and 65 feet from the addition. As well, the wetlands are located on the property owned by the church behind 3 Crestwood. A berm is to be built along the side of the property and will be planted or covered with hay for the winter season. The land being excavated is currently flower gardens and lawn, and when dug out will not intrude upon the wetlands. The addition will have a crawl space as a foundation. Access to the site will be along the left side of the house where there are no trees.
A concern voiced by Mr. Beach was that at this time of year if the plantings do not take, the area should be covered with hay to stabilize the area.
Also proposed on the site is a concrete slab, post and beam shed, but being that it is outside the 100-foot regulated area it not on the application proposal.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is a regulated activity by reason of construction within the regulated buffer area to a wetland.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is not a significant activity because the construction occurs 60+ feet from the boundary of the wetland and there is a stone wall at the boundary as well. Also, based on the town report, if the owner follows the Conservation Officer’s instructions, there should be no impact to the wetlands itself.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic to grant the permit with the noted
change that the applicant may use bark or hay mulch as necessary and as appropriate.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.
b. |
Application of Neil C. Hansen, Jr., Owner, Garth F. Meehan, Meehan Group, LLC, Agent, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to excavate material for addition foundation and footings within the regulated area on property located at 9 Basswood Lane |
Mr. Garth Meehan, agent representing Mr. Hansen, spoke on behalf of the application. Mr. Meehan discussed the construction of a 437 square foot addition at the rear of the house. The addition is approximately 40 feet from the wetland watercourse of Calves Tongue Brook. The yard is level and gently slopes from the area to a drop where the wetlands begin. The addition is to be built on a slab, and the minimal excavation material will be used to fill in an area around the foundation to provide drainage around the house. All of the activity will be by the driveway side, and excavation will be brought up to grade away from the wetlands. The silt fence will be left in place for one year, a full growing season, to assure that no soil is washed into the wetland. Mr. Meehan assured the Commission that whatever material is excavated
will be put back into the site.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this is a regulated activity by reason of construction activity within the 100-foot upland review area of Calves Tongue Brook and the adjacent wetlands.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mihalic, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this is not a significant activity due to the construction being 40 feet from the wetland areas and is across previously disturbed lawn and a wooded buffer. There does not appear to be a significant chance of siltation from the construction into the wetland.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam to grant the permit with the recommendations set forth in the staff report, underscoring the importance of having the silt fence in place for a full growing season in order to be certain that silt does not flow towards the wetlands during the winter.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom, and was carried unanimously.
c. |
Application of Charlotte Bidwell Bacon, Owner, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for removal of silt from a small farm pond within the regulated area on property located at 133 Terry’s Plain Road. |
Ms. Bidwell was present and spoke on behalf of the application. The application is for the dredging of a 45-50 foot pond on the property that has silted over during the years. The Commission discussed the source of the pond’s water and looked at maps of the area. Ms. Bidwell explained that an excavator will be used to dredge the pond. Depending on the material found in the pond it will be either hauled out or piled far enough away from the pond to dewater. If the material is determined to have some value it will be used as fill in a spot north of the barn. As per the recommendation of staff, hay bales will be staked across the stream below the pond to filter the silt. Chairman Miller expressed that dredging the area might improve the water quality.
Commissioner Bucknam asked whether it is an as of right use to dredge, being as the pond is on an existing farm. Mr. Beach expressed that if the pond is actively being used as a farm pond it is as of right and asked Ms. Bidwell if the pond is used for the animals. Ms. Bidwell acknowledged that it is used for the animals. Commissioner Mihalic read the regulation regarding the as of right issue. Ms. Bidwell responded that she does not have the 5 acres as required per the regulations. Commissioner Bucknam stated that the Commission would proceed with the permit to be safe.
Commissioner Yocom asked about water flow during storms. Ms. Bidwell said that it comes down the brook but doesn’t go into the cellar and she hasn’t had any problems.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yocom that this is a regulated activity by reason requiring the removal of soil from the streambed.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yocom that this is not a significant activity due to the work being done over a short period of time and there being adequate protection. It is understood that when the material is removed, the level of the pond will lower, hindering the silt from moving downstream. There will be no machinery in the pond, all work will be accomplished from the outside digging in, and haybales and other measures will be in place in the downstream part of the brook to filter out any sedimentation.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yocom to grant the permit with the recommendations set forth in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and was carried unanimously.
d. |
Application of William Selig, Owner, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for an addition to house and barn, and also septic system repair within the regulated area on property located at 40 Riverside Road. |
Mr. and Mrs. Selig were present and spoke on behalf of the application. Maps, site plans, house design, and photos of various areas on the site were looked at and discussed.
They wish to renovate the existing house built in 1920 and upgrade the existing horse barn. Also, the applicant proposes an addition on the south end of the house, a slab on grade porch on the north side, and a porch on the front of the house. He explained that the porch is not going further out than what currently exists, and is a much further setback than current neighbors are.
There is a stream on the property that drains back up to East Weatogue. He explained that the cellar is wet, but that he has a sump pump. He added that the house foundation is now in the flood zone, but by but doing some work on the casement window, etc., he will get it out the flood zone. Mr. Beach explained that that the requirement for any habitable structure in the flood zone must be flood proof 2 feet above the elevations, thus necessitating the work to be done.
The house will be heated by oil. The tank is housed in the basement with a double wall to insulate it.
Commissioner Bucknam asked whether the concern is of a possible storm during construction and possible repercussions. Mr. Beach explained that the main concern is that is of construction in a wetland in the flood plain. Mr. Beach explained that the water from Farmington River never comes across Riverside Road, but instead the wetness comes from behind the site, by way of a swale, and as soon as the water elevation goes down, the area is dry.
In speaking about the barn, Mr. Selig stated that it is to be higher than where the floodplain reaches. He wants to make the barn large enough to bring in farm equipment, and on another side he wishes to add more stalls for the horses. Mr. Beach explained that typically building structures in the floodplain should be facing the flow, so that in the event of a flood the flow going right through the building and keep going instead of knocking it right over.
Mr. Selig said that one of the problems, a zoning concern, is the issue of bringing out the barn 90 feet from the property line. If that is not allowed, the barn could be built out another way, showing that other option on the site plan.
At the front section of the site, Mr. Selig proposes building a run in shed for hay bale storage, possibly round bales. He also explained that another structure is proposed for the horses, with the walls being raised up a certain distance in the case of a storm.
Mr. Selig stated that a small irrigation pond will be built in back to compensate for soils needed to take out. Mr. Beach explained that in a flood plain one can’t do anything that decreases the flood storage, and if material is brought in, material must be borrowed from somewhere on the same sight to compensate. In this case, approximately 100-yards of material must be compensated for.
Mr. Selig explained that they will erect barriers around the pasture to protect the animal as well as humans.
Commissioner Bucknam asked about the construction of the new barn flooring. Mr. Selig explained that the current slab center section will be continued out. The side section of the barn, used for the animals as well as storage space will have a stone dust or dirt floor.
Commissioner Mihalic asked about as of right activity. Mr. Beach explained that as it has been a historic farm for the last 50-75 years, approvals for the barn and pole barn are not needed. Mr. Beach noted that the highest elevation was picked for the barn and stated that the house is the bulk of the application.
Commissioner Mihalic asked how big the property is and questioned how many horses can be housed on a property of that size. Mr. Selig said that it is 5 acres, and expressed that he will be using the property for his personal horses.
Commissioner Mihalic asked if any other issues should be brought to the forefront. Mr. Beach expressed that there are some zoning issues.
Commissioner Bucknam asked about the house’s foundation. Mr. Selig answered that the house addition will have a crawl space foundation, and the porch will be on a slab and built on sonotubes.
Chairman Miller asked about the area behind the creek irrigation pond. Mr. Selig said that it is part of the pasture and there are brush and oak trees.
Chairman Miller asked about clearing to be done. Mr. Selig said that some clearing will be done, but he intends to leave some for shade. He will be leaving some of the bigger stumps, and has been stockpiling in the back of property.
Chairman Miller expressed concern about the stockpiling of material explaining that the State has solid waste disposal requirement stating that a permit is required if one has more than 10 cubic yards of material unless one chips it up and uses it. Mr. Selig said that the stumps will not be more that 10 cubic yards, and that most of the rest of it is brush that needs to die down to be able to send through the chipper. He added that he does not have a problem in meeting that requirement.
Commissioner Yocom asked if there was a need for a site walk. Other Commissioners expressed they were comfortable with Mr. Selig’s responses and photos shown, and did not feel a site walk was required.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is a regulated activity by reason of construction in a floodplain.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic that this is not a significant activity due to the house’s distance from the river and other sensitive wetland areas, which is great enough that no foreseeable impact to the wetland from construction activities that occur on the property other than the house itself, can be seen. The barn construction is being done as of right, and therefore not under the town’s jurisdiction. As well, because there is a small amount of impervious surface relative to the whole parcel there would not be any adverse effect to water quality.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Mihalic to grant the application with the recommendations set forth in the staff report and subject to the condition that there cannot be more than 10 cubic yards of deposited material, eg. tree stumps, in any one location on the property.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom, and was carried unanimously.
IV. |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 20, 2006 and July 18, 2006 |
Minutes were tabled until the next meeting.
None
a. 31 Riverside Road
Mr. Beach explained that the house’s foundation material was used to grade around the house, thereby raising up the foundation significantly. DEP and the Army Corps were called about adding material in a flood plan. He spoke with the owner who explained that he didn’t want to stockpile the material in any one place in order to have better access to the site. The pier in question had the poles replaced. The decking was replaced. Commissioners discussed whether it is possible to revoke their permit because they did work in the river.
Mr. Beach said that when coming in for the permit, the applicant indicated that the old house would be retained, thus grandfathering them in to allow construction close to the river, and knock it down using the same footprint to build the house. During the demolition of the house, they found that the foundation is had two levels, a foundation and a sub-foundation. They ripped out the foundations and put in another in the same location because they were told that the house would not be able to support the new house. Mr. Beach expressed that it resulted in excavation work on the top of the riverbank where it wasn’t expected.
As for the deck on the river, they did rebuild the deck, but not change it. Mr. Askew, visiting the site with Mr. Beach, said there should not be lawn right to riverbank, but that there should be some kind of vegetative buffer. He also suggested taking birch plugs and pushing them into the riverbank from the water line up to help vegetate the bank. Mr. Beach said that the river undercuts the bottom part of the bank, and there was much discussion with Mr. Askew about methods to stabilize the bank.
Commissioner Mihalic asked if the permit could be pulled to see what was actually approved, and if a site walk is warranted. He read the regulation, which states that if they are in violation of the permit, they could be fined $1,000 per day, among other possible situations. He read regulation 11.9a.
Commissioners agreed that even though construction has already begun the applicant is not exempt from getting a fine, and should come back to discuss the issue with the Commission. Mr. Beach stated that he would read the minutes and the permit issued concerning this application
b. Ensign Bickford- The replacement/rebuilding of the dam gate.
Mr. Beach explained that the rod to help raise/lower the gate has not arrived, but the gate is open. Water is flowing through, but is just not being stopped at the usual area.
c. Executive session on 9/19 to discuss the Meadowoods application.
Mr. Beach said that Simsbury Coalition has signed off on the last round of environmental testing. There had been concern about possible dioxin and pesticides. Mr. Beach said that 4 test pits were drawn in a down gradient area, and a very low-grade pesticide was detected.
Mr. Beach expressed that the wildlife corridor will be preserved and spoke on some of the various areas on the site slated for development. He stated that the Commission needs to have an executive session on this issue at the next meeting.
d. ERT Review – Ethel Walker Site
Mr. Beach handed out the ERT report commissioned by the town with the permission of EWS and their attorneys. Commissioner Bucknam questioned whether the Commission should even read the report, given that reading it might impact the Commission’s decision making when voting on the possible application.
Commissioner Mihalic stated that his law firm represents TPL (Trust for Public Land) and any voting involving this application would necessitate his having to recuse himself.
Mr. Beach stated that the report is public record and is on ERT’s website.
Commissioners Bucknam and Mihalic decided to not to read the report, and gave it back to Mr. Beach.
e. New Commissioners needed.
Mr. Beach said that he will work on getting some new members to fill in the vacant spaces.
VII. |
CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS |
Commissioner Yocom made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30pm.
Commissioner Mihalic seconded, with all in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________________
Secretary
| 
