Simsbury, CT - Conservation Commission Minutes

Conservation Commission/ Inland Wetlands

And Watercourses Agency

Regular Meeting- Tuesday February 6, 2007

Simsbury Town Offices- 7:30PM- Main Meeting Room

Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7:34pm at the Simsbury Town Offices in the Main Meeting Room The following Commissioners were present: Commissioner Winters, Commissioner Yocom, Commissioner Bucknam, and Commissioner Zackeo. Also present was Conservation Officer Beach .

APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Commissioner Zackeo was appointed to serve for Commissioner Mihalic.

PUBLIC HEARING(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

Application of Jonathan Batterson, Owner, Gregory Maglieri, Maglieri Development, LLC, Agent, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct a road and homes within the regulated area on property located at 344 West Mountain Road. (continued from meeting of January 16, 2007)

Atty. Richard Case and Atty. William Case- Case & Case, P.C., Mr. Skip Alford and Mr. Christian Alford-Alford Associates, Mr. John Stewart- CR3, Mr. Michael Girard- President Sismcroft Echo Farms, Mr. Gregory Maglierei- Maglierei Development, and Mr. George Logan- REMA Environmental Services, were present to discuss the application.

Conservation Officer Beach received from Mrs. H.B. Kaplan a notice of intervention. Commission Bucknam read the notice of intervention, which speaks of five concerns regarding the project. It was noted that, Mr. DiCrecenzo, town attorney, sent an e-mail noting that the intervention meets all of the procedural requirements of the CT General Statutes and as such should be accepted. The notice of intervention was duly noted by the Commission included in the application’s file.

Mr. Richard Case explained that changes have been made to the plans since the January 16, 2007 meeting. He stated that the execution of the plans will be sensitive to the characteristics and conditions of the site, there will be no direct impact to the wetlands on the site, there degradation of water quality, no increase in water flow off the site, all adequate erosion and siltation mechanisms will be installed in accordance with the plans. He stated however that there will be activities within the upland review area. He explained that Dr. Welty was hired to perform some deep booring tests, which are part of the file. House five has been moved father away from the wetland area. House six has been pitched so that it is also farther away from the wetlands. Additional planting areas have been added in front of lots five and six. The elevation of lot six has been raised. Through an agreement with the Batterson’s at 350 Mountain Road, the applicant will acquire the drainage easement located on that property in exchange for other lands. Mr. Case explained that new home property owners will be members of a homeowner’s association, registered with the Secretary of State, and that the association will have the authority to enforce the conservation easement. A best management practices plan for the areas owned by the association and the lots themselves will be in place, and no fertilizers and pesticides will be allowed that aren’t already approved. A list of those products will be written up and included in the deed.

Mr. Case explained that the original plan presented in October 2006 proposed eight home sites and a bridge entrance on the south portion of the site. Since that time, two isolated wetland areas were found by Mr. Logan, which were not originally on town wetland maps. Because of this, the original plan was rejected and the new proposal was developed, representing the more prudent and feasible plan.

Mr. Case explained that all information and documents were made available to concerned neighbors and their experts, and the applicant extended an invitation to neighbors, etc., to sit and discuss the plans. He stated that the applicant has not been contacted from any concerned citizens.

Mr. Christian Alford spoke on the construction plans. The first phase entails constructing a temporary road to get to the back portion of the site. Approximately 4,200 cubic yards will be removed during this phase. A berm will be constructed, and filter fabric used so that all the water will move into a siltation basin. The second phase of construction involves the removal of 7,200 cubic yards of material, and noted that all of the water will drain towards a settling basin. There will be no work/activity upgradient of the wetlands. The third phase of construction involves constructing retaining walls, finish grading the remainder of the road, installing storm drainage, and constructing the 500- foot long, 24-foot wide road. Not until the road is complete will trees on the lots be cleared. After construction of the road a permanent rain garden will be constructed with storm drainage and two chamber catch basins. Mr. Alford said that construction will be done in logical increments so as not to disturb a large amount of area at once, and to minimize the chance of impact to the wetlands, adding that to work on the houses will commence only when the road is finished.

In answer to Commissioner Bucknam’s question, Mr. Alford explained that in order to construct the 24-foot wide road, 120 feet of area, at the road’s widest part, will be disturbed, with 90 feet being disturbed at the closer areas.

Mr. Alford explained the storm drainage system sequence. He stated that because the road won’t be heavily traveled, pollutants entering the water system will be few. He explained what would occur if a high intensity storm were to occur, and the storm drain will have the capacity to handle the water. If there were a very intense short duration storm some overflow could occur, but he stated that during most storms the water will infiltrate. Mr. Case stated that roof water run-off and downspout water will be infiltrated into the soil.

Mr. Alford stated that the houses are greater than 100- feet away from the wetlands. He explained that the applicant has spoken with the Peterson’s and an agreement has been made to swap some land, enabling the house on Lot 5 to be pushed further away from the wetlands. The backyard of the lot will be 40 x 60 feet. The wetlands will be maintained and protected by wetland plantings, the conservation easement, and the homeowner’s association regulations. Lot number 6, within the R25 zone, will also have wetland plantings. Mr. Alford stated that the distance from the fence to the brook is 55 feet, to the wetland it is 45 feet in distance.

Mr. Alford said the main road has been moved closer to the brook in order to minimize the area of the setback, adding that the lower the cut the less impact. He said that Mr. Sawitzke, town engineer, is comfortable with the change. Walls will be constructed to stabilize the areas, plantings implemented, woodchips used, and a mesh plastic webbing fabric laid down to aid with stabilization of the area. Mr. Stewart explained the fabric type to be used to stabilize the slope. Mr. Logan said a biodegradable coco mat would be preferable.

Commissioner Winters asked about the previous plans, which included a rain garden at the center of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Alford explained that town staff rejected the rain garden due to snow plowing and school bus difficulties.

Commissioner Winters asked about the configuration of the Lot 6 house, asking if the house could have a front-loading garage enabling the house to be moved up on the lot. Mr. Maglieri stated that houses shown on the plans are to demonstrate the location of the homes, and they could certainly look into a front loading garage for house #6.

Chairman Miller asked about the infiltration devices, noting that this application has more infiltration devices than they have seen with other applications. He asked why the applicant feels the site lends it self to infiltration. Mr. Alford explained that the site lends itself because of the type of soils.

Chairman Miller asked if the calculations have been done to be able to infiltrate the sub water shed. Mr. Alford said yes, it is sized to be able to handle the impact.

Chairman Miller asked Mr. Alford to explain the infiltration devices at the top of the hill. Mr. Alford explained the sequence and the sizes of the pipes. He added that the chamber has an open bottom with side perforations. Around the cul-de-sac there will also be infiltration units, which will be underground, and Mr. Alford explained how these underground units will work.

Commissioner Yocom asked if siltation will get trapped in the underground infiltration units. Mr. Alford said there will not be much silt getting into the units.

Chairman Miller asked would happen if rain garden water froze. Mr. Alford said there is an overflow system in place, adequate to serve the overflow. Mr. Alford noted on sheet N1 the area of the water basin. Chairman Miller voiced concern about material coming off the slope where the retaining walls are, noting that the material will hit the raingarden before it hits the sedimentation chamber. Mr. Alford said that once the slope is stabilized, no fine material will run off.

Mr. Stewart spoke about the retaining wall and plantings. The 3-foot high concrete retaining wall will resemble brownstone. A gravel blanket will be installed behind the walls so that water moving down the slope will follow the proper path. Water will not breach the wall because the soils are so permeable; it will instead infiltrate into the soil. Topsoil will be brought in to hold the planting’s roots in place. The types of plants selected do well in the types of soils found on site, and are generally used for slope plantings. Best management practices will be utilized to minimize fertilizer use in the area. Mr. Stewart explained the types of plants to be used along the wall and the rain garden. He stated that REMA Ecological Services has been consulted with regards to using native plants as well as plants appropriate to the soil type. The intention is not to prune the plantings, but instead have them develop naturally. He said that the planting plan is a conceptual plan.

Mr. Stewart explained that along the properties of lots six and five, native species will be used. No mechanical equipment will be used to plant the area; it will be hand dug. The existing large tree canopy will not be disturbed.

Commissioner Winters asked about removing the barberry shrub. Mr. Stewart said it could be removed.

Commissioner Winters asked about the possibility of deer eating the plantings. Mr. Stewart said that if that occurs the area will be looked at. Mr. Logan said that in answer to the deer question, Irish spring soap around the plants will deter the deer.

Mr. Logan spoke on his January 12, 2007 report, which is part of the file. He explained that since the last meeting three borings, B1, B2, and B3 were tested. B1 and 2 are within the watershed itself. Test pit 10 is in the record already. Based on the testing/soil exploration done coarse material was found. He stated that the sieve analysis found in the report shows that the government has correctly classified the soils as sandy loams. Test pit B1 was dug again and it was found that the rate there is 5.5 inches per hour. He also spoke about the amount of discharge.

Commissioner Yocom asked if the sieve analysis was done with wet or dry soil. Mr. Logan said dry soils were used. He said they used the hydrometer to distinguish the fines found. He said that typically they don’t do a wet analysis. Mr. Yocom questioned this, stating that he himself has taken part in many wet sieve analyses.

Commissioner Bucknam asked about soil permeability with regards ranges measured in feet per day. Mr. Logan referred him to Mr. Welty’s report, explaining that at one point on the site there is a permeability of 65 feet per day, which is very rapid. Mr. Logan said that if the infiltration is less than 5.5 inches per hour (12 inches per day) that is considered poor. He stated that DEP deems less than .3 inches per hour as not appropriate for infiltration. Commissioner Bucknam asked why the soil scientist report of January 9, 2007 states that booring three at 20 feet is 135 feet per day, and Mr. Welty’s report states 40 feet per day. Mr. Logan said that their study came up with something different, but that either way the soil is very permeable, very rapid, and is within the good infiltration category.

Mr. Logan expressed that the ice channel deposit is very coarse, with fine, excessively drained soils. On lots 2,3, 4, and 6 the soils are rapid, stating if they are too rapid there are issues with the septic system.

Mr. Logan spoke about the wildlife corridor; an issue brought up at the last meeting. He explained that Nod Brook does act as a wildlife corridor, however there are two other crossing points are found. He explained that animals could travel over the esker to reach the brook, but will most likely choose the easier pathway. He stated that he does not see a significant corridor connecting a significant habitat, but added that wildlife will continue to travel through the development, adding that all of the passage animals will continue to move through.

Mr. Girard explained the construction process. The survey begins the process, then they move on to drawing the layout, accounting for clearing limits, clearing the site of trees, leaving the stumps in place, putting in erosion control measures, installing anti-tracking pads, and finally building the construction road to begin the excavation work. He added that proper signage would be put on West Mountain Road. No trucks will haul before 8am or after 5pm. Trucks will utilize both the north and south routes, and the roads will be swept clean. He stated that 15,000 yards of material will be removed from the site. The high quality topsoil will be removed off-site first and then the underlying material, gravel and sands will be removed. He explained that the entrance is the most sensitive area, noting that any water in that area will end up in the temporary basin. The first phase entails the upper portion of the slope and the retaining walls will be constructed. He stated that the wall is an excellent product. It will take three days to build the upper wall, the lower wall approximately one week. An access road will be built into the bank.

As for the number of trucks needed to haul out the 15,000 yards of material, 6 trucks will haul out 7 loads of material per day. It will take 3-4 weeks depending on the number of trucks to be used. The whole job, including the construction of the road will take 2-2.5 months.

Chairman Miller asked about refueling on the site. Mr. Girard explained that a mobile fuel vehicle will be used for refueling. He stated that it is very safe and that there have been no spills in their 35 years of business. He said that only the backhoes and the bulldozers will be fueled on site, the trucks will not.

Commissioner Bucknam asked if the initial road is to be cut in for access. Mr. Girard said it will be, adding that the hill on the right hand side will be maintained thereby protecting anything from flowing into the brook.

Mr. Christian Alford and Mr. Girard explained how water will flow to the basin, adding that the basin will be in place before the wall is installed. Mr. Girard stated that all of the cautions have been taken, and he feels confident that the design will work. Mr. Girard said that when the stumps are in place there is no erosion, it is only when the stumps are removed does the erosion begin, and it is at this time that erosion control and sedimentation controls are implemented.

Commissioner Bucknam asked Mr. Alford about net output of water, pre and post construction. Mr. Alford said that it would be about the same, there would be no increase in flow off of the property, nor any increase in volume. He noted that they are infiltrating enough water and it would be the same post construction. He explained the sequence of water flow off the main road itself. Mr. Alford said that he did calculations, which shows that there is no increase in flow off the property, but there will be a decrease in flow in the direction of the some of the neighbors. He discussed the storm types, and added that Mr. Sawitzke has reviewed the reports and found them to be reasonable.

Chairman Miller opened up the discussion to the public.

Mr. Bob Bingham, 341 West Mountain Road

Mr. Bingham expressed his concern about the culvert running under the road, stating that in the fall of 2005 there was an overflow. He expressed concern about the amount and speed of traffic along West Mountain Road, and asked that there be a flagman at the site’s entrance point. He said that the density of the subdivision will greatly change the character of the are. He also has concerns about lot # 6 being so close to the watercourse.

Mr. Mark Phenix, mother owns house on 42 Fernwood Drive.

Mr. Phenix expressed concerns about the justifications for building a subdivision at this site, and the issue regarding the orientation of the house, which the applicant has stated would prohibit encroachment into the area because all activity would be toward the back of the house. He said that if there is so much concern about building so close to the sensitive area, they would not have a need to construct a house within the upland review area. He asked if there is a great need for high-end, necessitating that these houses built within the review area. He said an owner of a house on Fernwood Drive built a concrete slab in order to facilitate rinsing his paintbrushes into the stream.

Damon Hearne, Farmington River Watershed Association.

Mr. Hearne said that FRWA submitted another letter dated February 6, 2007 to the town regarding this project. He corrected the opening statement of the letter, which should read, “ I write this letter on behalf of the Farmington River Watershed Association to express our continued concerns regarding this application to construct a road and homes within the review area on property located at 344 West Mountain Road.”

The concerns regard the amount of upkeep needed along the landscaping around the walls. Another concern pertains to the use of fertilizer. He asked that pesticides and fertilizers in specific areas not be used at all. There is the concern about topsoil placed on slopes. He asked for reassurance that the topsoil not end up into the rain garden, and also expressed that woodchips could also enter into the water system. Mr. Hearne asked about houses #5 and #6, asking how much of the house and surrounding outside living/gardening areas are within the review area. He expressed that with houses within the review area, the Conservation Commission does not have an obligation to approve this proposal, and that the Commission has the ability to restrict what occurs in the review area. He said that in years to come significant issues will arise based on the fact that houses are so close to the wetlands. He stated there are also concerns regarding the application itself.

Mr. Michael Klein, Soil Scientist, Biologist, representing Mrs. H.B. Kaplan.

Mr. Klein said that the application has been revised. The primary concerns regard water quality pre and post construction, the protection of Nod Brook, the relationship of houses 5 and 6 to Nod Brook, and the preservation of the corridor along the brook. He said that at this meeting there is much new information that still needs to be included into the plan. He said that the FRWA is working to get the lower reaches of the river designated by the park service and the preservation of the river should be taken into account. He has questions about the initial cut, and possible sediment coming into the road.

He has concerns about the procedures to clean out the detention basin. He does not see a specific design for the biofilter or raingarden, adding that it looks like a water quality basin, not a raingarden. He stated that there is only a concept as to how the raingarden will be planted. He said that the plantings show many ornamental species. He expressed concern about the use of woodchips; they use a lot of soil’s nitrogen to decompose. He expressed that he heard the final size of the raingarden is undetermined. He stated that is not up to the Commission to craft a motion addressing parts of the plan that have not yet been finalized. He said that for more than 50% of the area of dense plantings there is no design for the types of plantings to be used. He said there should be a designated refueling area with secondary containment.

He said that the Commission should not rely on the fact that Mr. Maglieri will be building the houses. He said the plan now includes infiltration galleries, but they require pretreatment, and a catch basin is not pre-treatment. The biofilter at the outlet is not included in the plans he received, adding that seeding and grading plans also need to be specified. He expressed concern about the conservation easement, saying that there is a provision that it allows those to be extinguished. He noted that the rear and side yards are not large and in time will encroach into the wetland areas.

He noted that one alternative was presented, but alternate locations of actual homes on the lots needs to be discussed, he expressed that homes could be located along West Mountain Road.

He noted that an outlet for the settling basin is good, but it points towards the temporary soil stockpile. He expressed that there has not been enough time to work on all of the changes and add them to the plans.

Mr. Mark Austin, Licensed Professional Engineer, representing Mr. and Mrs. H.B. Kaplan.

He expressed that houses 5 and 6 could be placed along West Mountain Road, and this should be investigated as an alternative. He stated that the conservation easement can be revoked after 10 years. Mr. Case said that based on the law of perpetuity, it would require an act of the town to revoke the easement. The new locations of the raingardens are not shown on the plans, but are recommended. He said that some of the landscaping could be reduced, to provide a smaller turn around. A concrete split rail fence could be used to contain the dense planting along the easement to preserve the wetlands and allow for viewing the brook. He has concerns about the best management practices, the catch basin, the infiltrator, and the landscaping, adding that the practices should be written out for the Commission to approve. He expressed concern regarding the fine sands found along the hill, adding that these types of soils are difficult to settle and maintain. He said there should be extra maintenance for the raingardens.

Chairman Miller asked about slope benching as noted in the CT Guidelines for Soil and Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Mr. Austin explained that for every 15-foot rise in slope a reverse bench is required before going up in slope.

Mr. Charles Warren, Registered Professional Engineer, representing Mr. and Mrs. H.B. Kaplan.

Mr. Warren handed out his February 6, 2007 letter to the Commission. He voiced concerns regard setbacks, slopes, the retaining wall, the clearing of the trees on the slope, test pits dug and the sandy soil found, run off coefficients, and calculations for the box culvert under West Mountain Road, which he said saw overflow in 2005 and 2006, the cut to be done and the walls. He stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Klein’s letter, especially the issue of the lack of information still needed. He questioned the limits of the clearing, the septic systems, and the excavation limits.

Mr. Warren asked if Mr. Sawitzke could confirm he is satisfied with the responses to his concerns. Conservation Officer Beach said that Mr. Sawitzke reviewed the reports and submitted a report to the Commission. Mr. Warren expressed concern about the raingarden with regards to sight lines. He said it is unclear that whether a portion of the space would be deemed open space and whether the public would have access to it. He expressed concern regarding deed restrictions. He said he is uncertain whether all of the buffer areas are protected by the various conservation easements. He said that deed restrictions should be under the ownership of the association. He said that the December 12, 2006 letter from FVHA said the soils are fine for wells and septic systems to be implemented. He said there is some confusion about percolation rates for septic systems. He stated that the well and septic system spacing is adequate for the most drained soils. Mr. Beach handed out a letter from FVHD. He said only one alternate plan was shown and stated that others should be considered, either by placing two houses along West Mountain Road, or placing fewer houses on the site, or placing one or two houses to the north and east of Nod Brook. He expressed that it might be more reasonable to use the space as open space.

Mr. Damon Hearne, Farmington River Watershed Association.

Mr. Hearne asked if the applicants are coming back to discuss the home configurations. Chairman Miller said that the hose designs are merely representations of sample houses.

In response to Mr. Warren’s comments, Mr. Case said that the cut will be 22 feet, not 50 feet.

Conservation Officer Beach noted that the public hearing needs to come to a close, and the next meeting should be the last.

The Commission said they need more information regarding the following: The undersized culvert under the road, the exact distances of lots 5 and 6 to the wetland, fertilizers usage, maintenance of the catch basins, planting details for the raingarden and the embankment, any impact of the Commission’s regulations on the slopes, the issue of slope benching, runoff calculations, the proximity of the retaining wall to the limit of clearing, the proximity of the upper temporary sedimentation basin’s outlet to the soil stockpiling area, the use of woodchips on the embankment, pretreatment on the infiltration units, biofiltration from overflow from the infiltration galleries, the blending of the stone walls, details for the tie backs going into the slopes.

Conservation Officer Beach said Mr. Sawitzke, town engineer, has reviewed each revision plan, has reevaluated the each situation and submitted a letter for the file. He noted that there have been many discussions regarding the box culvert under the West Mountain Road and is designed for a 50-year storm, because sizing it for a 100-year storm is too costly, it is the normal design for the town, and it is the largest box culvert that could fit in the area.

Mrs. H.B. Kaplan, 36 Drumlin Road

Mrs. Kaplan read her and her husband’s letters placed in the application’s file. She said that one of the main issues is the building of houses the scale of Drumlin Road on R-25 lots, and the issue of the cut to be done. She said that the actual cut is 50 feet from the road itself to the top of the hill. She read the letter from her husband and herself. They expressed concern about problems that arise with homeowner associations. They state that the basic proposal has not changed and still threatens the brook. The plans are in contradiction with the town plan of development. She said that alternatives have not been discussed. They expressed concern about the wildlife corridor. She said that the only reliable protection is to make sure there is adequate undisturbed land.

Mr. Case said the applicant will grant an extension to the Commission.

Commissioner Bucknam motioned to continue the public hearing at the next meeting.

Commissioner Yocom seconded, with all in favor.

Conservation Officer Beach said that if at the next meeting there are still concerns, they be addressed to town staff.

PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

Application of David Grainger, Owner, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to create lawn space within the regulated area on property located at 15 Orchard Lane. (continued from meeting of January 16, 2007).

APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 16, 2007.

Commissioner Bucknam made the motion to table the minutes until the next meeting.

Commissioner Winters seconded with all in favor.

CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Commissioner Bucknam made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:25PM.

Commissioner Winters seconded with all in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________________

Commissioner Ryan Mihalic, Secretary