Conservation Commission/ Inland Wetlands
And Watercourses Agency
Regular Meeting- Tuesday November 21, 2006
Simsbury Town Offices- 7:30PM- Main Meeting Room
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7:30pm in the Main Meeting room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioner Sharpless, Commissioner Yocom, Commissioner Bucknam, and Commissioner Sexton. Also present was Conservation Officer Beach.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Commissioner Sharpless was appointed to serve for Commissioner Mihalic.
Mr. Beach stated that the Planning Commission was currently holding a meeting and were waiting to hear the Conservation Commission’s decision regarding the Edith Yakemore Trust application.
Commissioner Yocom motioned to amend the agenda to first hear the application of Edith A. Yakemore Revocable Trust. Commissioner Bucknam seconded with all in favor.
PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
Application of Edith A. Yakemore Revocable Trust Andrew M. Yakemore, Trustee, Owner, 10 Winslow Place Simsbury, LLC, Agent, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct the Simsbury Elegant Banquets facility within the regulated area on property located on the east side of Winslow Place
Attorney David Sherwood, and Phil Doyle, Site Planner, were present to discuss the application.
Mr. Doyle stated they would like to have a decision made on the application and whether the project is a significant activity. Attorney Sherwood asked that they be able to address specific comments and factual mistakes made in the letter from Farmington River Watershed Association, submitted on November 21, 2006. He stated that other than utility lines, all of the construction for the project is outside of the regulated area. Commissioner Bucknam expressed that he would like to hear the presentation before he makes the decision whether the project is a significant activity.
Mr. Doyle showed on the plan the pertinent areas and the storm drainage location. He reiterated that there are no activities within the upland review area, besides the utilities. They have identified all of the trees above 12” in caliper, which will not be disturbed. There are to be two easements on the property, a conservation easement along the riverbank, prohibiting clearing/disturbance, and the other along the sewer line for town access. He stated that they have worked extensively with Mr. Rich Sawitzke, Town Engineer.
Mr. Kevin Clarke, Civil Engineer, explained the storm water management plan. He stated that Mr. Sawitzke wants them to be extremely careful with the ground water recharge because there were problems with this. Mr. Clarke explained the process to address the groundwater/storm water. They will be constructing an infiltration system which will handle a two-year storm and almost up to a five-year storm. He stated that they will propose the management plan if Mr. Sawitze is comfortable with it. Mr. Clarke stated that the only activity within the regulated area is the piping system necessary to access the storm water system. He expressed that they have met the conditions of town standards as per Mr. Sawitzke’s letter.
Chairman Miller asked how far one of the northerly discharge areas is to the erosion area. Mr. Clarke said that Mr. Sawitkze was concerned about water coming through the area in question, but it was concluded that the water will not back up very high for a long period of time and there is no concern about water coming through the culvert. He also answered that there are no concerns about the integrity of the pipe.
Chairman Miller asked if other options were considered for infiltration. Mr. Clarke said that this is the best type of infiltration to use. He stated that both the north and southerly parking areas will be direct discharge areas. At the northerly section the soil is clay and the water will not dissipate correctly.
Mr. Beach confirmed that the system is designed so that the sump pump chambers hold the first inch of rain on the site to aid in remediation.
Mr. Clarke said that they will use vegetative matting. With time, silts will build up and the channels repair themselves.
Mr. Clarke answered that they will be infiltrating .65 acres, and the total impervious surface is 3.95.
Chairman Miller expressed his thanks to him for working with Mr. Sawitzke and coming up with an infiltration system that works.
Mr. Clarke said that along with the storm water management plan, there will be an operation maintenance plan that will be on file, as per the guidelines.
Mr. Eric Hammerling, Executive Director of the Farmington River Watershed Association submitted his letter to the Commission in which he asks for a public hearing on this application.
Mr. Clark responded to points made in Mr. Hemmerling’s letter. In response to Mr. Hemmerling’s concern regarding the issue of the regulated area and the significant activity, Mr. Clarke said there is no activity proposed on the river side except for the utility connections, the northerly storm water outlet, and the small portion of the driveway which drains away from the river. Regarding the letter’s point on adequate treatment of the stormwater, Mr. Clarke said this point was addressed in his presentation just made. Mr. Clarke added that the letter from Mr. Sawitzke states that the stormwater management treatment plan is adequate for the site. Regarding vegetation removal and destabilization of the steep slopes along the river, Mr. Clarke expressed that there is no activity proposed on the steep slopes
between the site and the river, other than the utility connections, which will be stabilized.
Commissioner Bucknam asked if there is the potential for excavation material from the parking lot to run down the slope. Mr. Clark said the area where plant material is stored is to be graded down, and added that they will be grading away from the slope. He did express that they might do selective tree limbing in conjunction with town staff but other than that there is no activity proposed on the slope.
Commissioner Bucknam asked if any of the vegetation behind the area will destabilize the area. Mr. Clarke said that because the soils are sand and gravel, the water will dissipate into the soil.
Commissioner Yocom asked about the grading of the parking lot and what will happen to water during a rainstorm. Mr. Clark confirmed that the outlet for the storm sewer system will be constructed first, and explained that they will excavate below the basins, and then the water will go up toward the basin leaving the sediment behind. He stated that this is all explained in the sedimentation and erosion control plan.
Mr. Clark discussed the third point of the letter regarding erosion and sedimentation. Mr. Clark said they have provided for long term control of the site by the way the site is developed and the erosion should not be an issue.
Per Chairman Miller, Mr. Clark took the Commission through the sedimentation and erosion control plans.
Chairman Miller asked if Mr. Clarke had any experience with straw waddles in place of haybales. Mr. Clark said that he has seen them, but said that that hay bales are much higher than straw waddles and would be a better visual barrier, therefore they will be using hay bales.
Mr. Clark disputed the issue in Mr. Hammerling’s letter, which asserts that the area in question is a primary habitat. Mr. Clarke stated that the area is not listed on the DEP national diversity database.
Mr. Hammerling expressed that he was uncomfortable with the procedure of the applicant answering the questions in his letter, and stated that the applicant could do better in answering some of the concerns raised. He expressed he would like them to better address the erosion control plan specifically speaking to the issue of a fresh water mussel found in the area, susceptible to sedimentation. He also expressed that there are many areas in town, which the town has expressed an interest in protecting, and this is one of those areas. He stated that he would like the Commission to hold a public hearing on this project to address these concerns and others.
Commissioner Bucknam stated that Mr. Clark answered the Commission’s questions and concerns satisfactorily about sedimentation, etc, and questioned whether further discussions are necessary. He expressed that if there are species iving in the river that could be harmed by sedimentation, the applicant should make every effort to be very careful, but Commissioner Bucknam stated that the applicant’s plans seem to be considered and careful.
Mr. Hammerling stated that there will be selective tree limbing, mulching, and removal of invasive species within the 100 foot regulated area. Mr. Doyle said that during the site walk with the Commissioners it was discussed that under the guidance of the Mr. Beach, Inland Wetland Officer, some invasive species and vines should be removed, and tree limbing done. Mulch will be put in the areas to help with stabilization. Mr. Hammerling questioned why mulch will be used instead of native species. Mr. Doyle said the site currently contains sandy soils and general leaf clutter. He stated that they will not be planting haphazardly or planting something not indigenous to the site.
Commissioner Sharpless asked how much infiltration a site such as this is able to withstand. Mr. Clark said he has not yet brought the infiltration plan to Mr. Sawitzke, but will abide by Mr. Sawitzke’s plan. He said that the infiltration will not have a great impact on the plan. Mr. Beach said that Mr. Sawitzke is concerned with any infiltration hitting the bank. Mr. Clarke answered that they are trying to mimic the natural conditions as best as possible.
Commissioner Sharpless expressed that some of the details still need to be worked out, and he is inclined to have a public hearing. Mr. Beach said that the detail still needing attention is the recharge issue, which was discussed on the site walk with the Commissioners.
Commissioner Sexton expressed that there is enough interest in the project that there should probably be a public hearing.
Attorney Sherwood stated that there is no testimony that the project is a significant activity. He said that the application has been on many agendas, and they have not been given the opportunity to work with Mr. Hammerling to discuss the issues in his letter. Mr. Sherwood said that Mr. Hammerling came in at the last hour with a letter which does not reflect the current plan; the letter talks about impacts to the area, which do not exist. Mr. Sherwood asked that if the Commission finds the activity significant, that they tell the applicant what it is that makes it significant.
Commissioner Bucknam stated that because the outlet is 300 feet from a river, it could be seen as a significant activity. Commissioner Bucknam asked if there would be a problem if the decision on the application were to be postponed. Mr. Beach said that if the application is to be continued at another meeting that the process will be delayed, unless the applicants are given an extension. Mr. Beach stated that the Wetlands Commission needs to act on the application before the other Commissions receive it. Chairman Miller said that Commissioner Mihalic, who was not at this meeting, had issues and concerns with this application with regards to the Commission hearing it before it comes on the agenda.
Chairman Miller expressed that the infiltration has an impact on the area. Mr. Clark said that he will be glad to work with Mr. Sawitzke to infiltrate as much water as he will let them. Chairman Miller said that the infiltration is not just necessarily a technical detail, it does have an impact. Mr. Clark expressed that it is a positive impact. Commissioner Sharpless said that per Mr. Sawitzke’s report, it tends to indicate that infiltration can be dangerous. If too much water is put in one spot, the banks of the river could be destabilized.
Commissioner Bucknam asked whether the new regulations give the Commission the ability to review activity outside of the 100- foot review area. Chairman Miller said yes the regulations allow the Commission to consider activity outside of the regulated area, which may have an impact within the regulated area or in a wetland or watercourse. Chairman Miller stated that Mr. Sharpless is skeptical of the advantages of infiltration based on Mr. Sawitzke concerns.
Commissioner Yocom asked what more would be learned if there were to be a public hearing and whether the public would have anything more to contribute. Chairman Miller said that infiltration is based on drainage calculations, and it still seems to be a work in progress. Mr. Beach said that talks have been going back and forth for 3 months.
Commissioner Sexton said that the other issues to talk about might be the tree limbing and bank clearing.
Mr. Beach said that they could refer to the document on the clearing.
Chairman Miller asked about the amount of impervious surface and parking spaces. Mr. Doyle said they have ± 20 parking spaces to spare based on the amount regulated.
Mr. Beach said that if the application were to be delayed, construction of the facility would also be delayed, and they would miss the window for the summer 2008 wedding bookings. He expressed that at the site walk the Commission strongly advocated for infiltration, and the applicants have been working with Mr. Sawitzke to accomplish this.
Commissioner Bucknam expressed concern whether a precedent would be set by not having a public hearing. He stated that typically there are public hearings on projects where there is discharge of water 300 feet from an important watercourse, adding that the public ought to be able to comment on this application because of this.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this is a regulated activity by reason of activity of a regulated activity within a regulated area of a watercourse.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sharpless, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this is a significant activity due to the discharge of stormwater in an engineered structure 300 feet from an important watercourse in the town of Simsbury.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sharpless. The motion was opposed by Commissioner Yocom. The motion carried.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam to hold a public hearing because of the interest the public holds in the project and in the potential impact to the Farmington River.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sharpless, and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
Application of Jonathan Batterson, Owner, Gregory Maglieri, Maglieri Development, LLC, Agent, for a Map Amendment on property located at 344 West Mountain Road.
Commissioner Sharpless read the call.
Mr. Christian Alford-Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor-Alford Associates, Mr. Gregory Maglieri-Maglieri Development, and Mr. James McManus-Licensed Soil Scientist were present to speak on the map amendment.
Mr. Alford explained the details of the site per the maps shown, and stated that that the site is wooded. He established that Mr. McManus found wetlands near on area of Nod Brook, where the current Town of Simsbury wetland maps show no wetlands.
Mr. McManus established the soil type found on the site. He said that he looked at the upland areas as well as the wetland areas, and he explained for the public how soils/areas are determined to be wetland soils.
Mr. Beach said that he and Mr. George Logan also walked the site and took auger samples on Monday November 20, 2006.
Chairman Miller expressed that it is not unusual for the town’s wetland maps to be inaccurate. He stated that when an application comes before the town wherein the parcel needs to be accurately mapped, the Commission asks the applicant to submit the map in electronic format so that the town wetland map can be amended and revised. Mr. Beach agreed with this statement, adding that when the regulations were changed this past year, the request that applicants submit their map in electronic format was added. He stated that the applicants for this project still need to do this.
Mr. Alan Peterson.
Mr. Peterson asked whether this application is on the proposed subdivision development. Chairman Miller said that the public hearing is to solely discuss the map amendment based on the data found by the soil scientist.
Mr. Lee Blackman, 34 Drumlin Road
Mr. Blackman asked how one would know whether they will hit soils other than sandy gravel. Mr. Beach said that soil tests are based on scientific evidence. Mr. Blackman expressed concern about gravel being washed down to the brook. Mr. Beach stated that his question concerns the subdivision development not the map amendment.
Member of the public.
A gentleman asked whether at this point the Commission is creating a more official record of the wetland, and also creating a regulated area that cannot be disturbed. Chairman Miller answered yes, adding that the Commission reviews and regulates this regulated area. Chairman Miller stated that soil types are based on soil characteristics, and that it takes decades to establish the organic soil types that are considered wetland soils. He added that even though there might be standing water in an area, it does not mean that there are wetland soils underneath.
Mr. Robert Rodin, 360 West Mountain Road.
Mr. Rodin said he observed wetland soils on an area that was not delineated. Mr. Alford said that one has to be the property owner in order to submit an application to revise the wetlands map and they do not have the authority to do that. Mr. Bucknam stated that the applicant can only revise/remap areas on their property, they do not have the authority to go on property not owned by the applicant. He added if there are additional wetlands on either side of the watercourse, unless it is already indicted on the current existing wetland map for that other property, it does not come into play.
Mr. Richard Knapp,31 Drumlin Road.
Mr. Knapp asked about the issue of impact to the wetlands from runoff. Chairman Miller said that issue will be discussed during the presentation portion of this application.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yocom that the wetland map entitled G1 dated 9/21/06 showing the outline of wetlands as determined by a soil scientist be accepted based on the fact that town staff also observed some of the augering of the site, the topography of the land clearly indicates which areas to be tested for wetland soils, and the map shows there to be more wetlands on the site than currently noted on the Town of Simbury wetland maps.
Commissioner Sharpless, and carried unanimously.
PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Application of Jonathan Batterson, Owner, Gregory Maglieri, Maglieri Development, LLC, Agent, for a Map Amendment on property located at 344 West Mountain Road.
Mr. Beach said that the town received a petition signed by more that 25 people over the age of 18 asking for a public hearing on this application. Commissioner Sexton read from the regulations, “ A petition signed by at least 25 persons who are 18 years of age or older and who reside in the municipality in which the regulated activity is proposed requesting a hearing as filed with the Commissioner not later than 14 days after the date of receipt means that the Commission shall hold a hearing.”
It was noted that December 19, 2006 is the earliest date the Commission can set a public hearing for this project. It was decided that since there were a large number of the public at this meeting, the applicants would present a summary of the project.
Ms. Kaplan, 36 Drumlin Road.
Ms. Kaplan asked whether this presentation would be repeated at the public hearing seeing as there are many people who were unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Beach confirmed that the applicants will repeat this whole presentation at the public hearing.
Mr. Christian Alford was present to discuss the application. He reviewed the 9-acre site and where the roads and houses will be built and where the basins, culverts and catch basins will be located. The main road will be town owned and will serve 6 houses. He stated that for most storms the water will be infiltrated into the ground; for an intense storm the water overflows to an outlet. All of the homes will have infiltration chambers to collect rainwater from the roof, and all houses will be served by septic systems and wells located away from the regulated areas. Construction on the house lots will begin after the road is completed. Silt fences will be used, and there will be no increase in flow off of the property. The closest construction point to the wetland line is 50 feet.
Chairman Miller said that a site walk is warranted for this project and that a soil scientist could be there to augur the site. A gentleman stated that he would be willing to let the applicants augur along his property during the site walk. Mr. Beach said that he strongly recommends a site walk for this project.
Mr. Alford said that they have augured the soils around the septic system areas and have found them to be sufficient.
Commissioner Sharpless expressed concern about the steep slopes and the sedimentation and erosion control issues. He also stated that the holding pond in the northwest corner of the lot seems too small.
Commissioner Bucknam said that during the site he would like to seeing where the main road is to be located and if there is any potential for run off from the impervious surfaces.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that a public hearing be scheduled for this application based on the public interest and the receipt of a petition signed by more than twenty five people.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom, and carried unanimously.
A site walk will potentially be scheduled for December 2, 2006, prior to the public hearing.
Application of Maureen and Marc Gastonguay, Owners, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct an addition and install an exercise pool within the regulated area on property located at 3 Winterset Lane.
Mr. Marc Gastonguay was present to discuss the application. Mr. Gastonguay wishes to build an addition to his home which will enclose a treadmill pool. The structure will be 20x14 feet and when completed the addition will be within 16 feet from the wetland area. The wetland is a wooded with mostly pines. A silt fence will be installed, and stockpiled soils will be temporarily housed on the opposite side of the property, away from the wetlands, and will be used for backfill. The topography of this lot is fairly flat and slopes down. The area of construction is currently lawn. After construction the lawn area/back yard will leave about 10 feet of lawn. The addition will be a concrete slab on grade. As per Mr. Beach’s memo they will apply hay to prevent erosion. The excavation equipment will access the site of the
driveway, without having to trek into the dirt. Pending approval the construction will begin this fall.
Chairman Miller asked if trees will need to be cleared. Mr. Gastonguay said no.
Chairman Miller said that the 50-100 feet long paved asphalt driveway will be able to act as an anti-tracking pad.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this is a regulated activity by reason of work and construction activity within the regulated area of a wetland.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this is not a significant activity due to the fact that the construction area is previously disturbed lawn, there is a flat level slope to the wetlands, the closest point of activity to the wetlands is 26 feet, and there is minimal possibly of sedimentation given that there is 10 feet of lawn to catch the sediment and another 16 feet to the wetlands beyond that.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam to grant the application with the recommendations set forth in the staff report, including stockpiling of soil as far away from the wetland as possible covering with a tarp, using a silt fence and haybales, and that the applicant notify the Conservation Officer three days before the silt fence is installed so that he may observe its installation.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom, and carried unanimously.
Application of Brian Foley, Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for culvert and headwall repair within the regulated area on property located at 76 Hartford Road.
Mr. Jeremy Vroom was present to speak on behalf of Mr. Foley.
There is a concrete 24-inch pipe underneath the bridge, which needs repair. Their intention is to lower the pond and divert the water around the bridge and then let the pond fill back up. All of the work can be done on the property. Mr. Vroom said that the bridge is deteriorating fast because of the erosion problems from the disconnected pipe.
Mr. Beach answered that the pond is a farm pond and the work is as of right work.
Commissioner Sexton asked if work on the pipe had been done previously. Mr. Vroom answered that he did not do any work on it, but explained that someone years ago put in the two piece pipe.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sharpless that this is a regulated activity by reason of activity within a watercourse. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sharpless that this is not a significant activity due to the fact that the existing structure is to be repaired benefiting the area after construction, and the activity in the adjacent pond is an as of right activity in that the property owners can move the water level as they wish.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sharpless to grant the permit with the stipulation that the drawing down of the water be done at an appropriate time of the year when there is low water flow.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam, and carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 17, 2006
Commissioner Yocom moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2006.
Commissioner Bucknam seconded with all in favor.
APPROVAL OF 2007 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE
Commissioner Yocom moved to approve the 2007 Regular Meeting Schedule.
Commissioner Bucknam seconded with all in favor.
STAFF REPORT(s)
None
DISCUSSION
Riverside Road
Mr. Beach said that there has been no disturbance to the bank and there are now hay bales at the property. The Commission decided to hold off on this discussion until Commissioner Mihalic is able to attend the meeting.
b. Plan of Conservation and Development
The plan is on the town website, and Commissioners should try and print out relevant sections. The Planning Commission would like the Conservation Commission’s input. There are three public hearings scheduled November 27, November 29, and November 30th. Commissioners will review pertinent sections and then will get back to Mr. Beach with their comments and concerns.
c. Conservation/Inland Wetland Commission
Per Commissioner Sexton’s questions, the Commission discussed what issues are of concern to the Commission as opposed to the other Boards and Commissions.
d. Elegant Banquet Facility
Mr. Beach said that because the Commission found the activity as significant, it puts the project into a whole new level of review. He stated that according to DEP, once an activity is deemed significant it must be proved that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to that activity. Chairman Miller said that years back they had a motion which included the mention of prudent and feasible alternative. Mr. Beach said that it is fine to do so, so long as it is on record. Commissioner Bucknam expressed that having a public hearing protects the applicant and the commission even though the project might be delayed.
As per the discussion on scheduling site walks Mr. Beach said that just scheduling a site walk is not considered an action, it is a decision.
CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Document handed out for review.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Yocom made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:45PM.
Commissioner Bucknam seconded with all in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________________
Commissioner Ryan Mihalic, Secretary
| 
