Simsbury, CT - Conservation Commission Minutes

Conservation Commission/ Inland Wetlands

And Watercourses Agency

Regular Meeting- Tuesday February, 20, 2007

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

Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7:30pm at the Simsbury Town Offices in the Main Meeting Room The following Commissioners were present: Commissioner Winters, Commissioner Yocom, Commissioner Commissioner Bucknam, and Commissioner Zackeo. Also present were Conservation Officer Beach and other interested parties.

APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

PUBLIC HEARING(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.

It was noted that the soil scientist for this applicant is not available for the meeting. When Chairman Miller asked whether anyone from the public would like to voice their concerns/opinions on this application, no one came forward.

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

Commissioner Yocom seconded, and carried unanimously.

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 February 6, 2007).

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

Mr. Case stated that on February 16, 2007, the applicant and Mr. Christian Alford submitted to town staff, exhibits and a letter written by Mr. Case answering concerns raised at the last meeting, and noted that town staff did not raise any additional questions or concerns. Mr. Case said that the applicant has undertaken every measure to ensure there will be no adverse impact on the wetlands, and the applicant and the experts have shown that there will be no direct impact to the wetlands. Mr. Case made the Commission aware of the submitted revised planting plan, entitled LB1 and LB2, which indicates detailed buffer plantings, details for the water quality basin, number and locations for specific plantings within the water quality basin, and the extension to the retaining walls to address the benching concern. Mr. Case stated that the plan shows the use of brick chips for the ground cover instead of a coco mat.

Mr. Stewart explained that fractured brick chips will be used for the site’s slope stabilization. The chips will not move when water moves through them, they act as a mulch, they will not add nitrogen to the soil as mulch will tend to, and they do not need to be replenished. Mr. Stewart said that the brick chip and the coco mat are both good products, but the brick chip solves the problems, and the slope will not need to be remulched and will continue to look good. He said that if the area was a broad area, a coco mat would be suitable, but on this slope the chips area a better option.

The Commissioners discussed the pros and cons of using mulch or brick chips. Commissioner Winters said the coco mat is organic whereas the brick chips are not, adding that organic mulch does more for the plants.

Mr. Stewart indicated that the planting plan for the water quality basin, developed with the REMA’s help, indicates species, sizes and quantities. The plants are low growing, with some tall species towards the back, and are types that thrive in this environment. Mr. Christian Alford explained that the basin will house 2 inches of top soil, 10 inches of loamy sand, and lastly stone trench wrapped in filter fabric, as seen on Exhibit 5.

Commissioner Winters expressed that 2 inches of topsoil seems too little. Mr. Logan said that the basin act like a bio-retention bed, and the idea is to have a minimum amount of topsoil to promote infiltration. He expressed that it could be taken up to three feet, if necessary.

Chairman Miller asked about soils used for raingarden. Mr. Logan said that loamy sand will allow for rapid infiltration.

Commissioner Winters asked if there is to be a planting maintenance plan for the rain basin. Mr. Alford said the homeowner’s association responsible and will hire a contractor to handle the maintenance of the basin. Mr. Case said that during construction the applicant will be involved and will make sure the basin is maintained.

Chairman Miller voiced concern about the problem of silt being trapped in the filter fabric of the water basin. Mr. Alford said that fine soils will not find their way through the topsoil and sand layers, adding that the area is not heavily traveled. Mr. Logan expressed that based on the stipulations in the 2004 Water Quality Manual, the basin is oversized for the small watershed, in order to be sure the basin is vacated of water between storms.

Chairman Miller stated that NEMO puts out many brochures on raingardens and suggested plantings. Mr. Logan said he worked with Mr. Stewart and found a good seed mix to use. Mr. Stewart said that the planting plan is quite extensive and highly specific with regards to the seeding and plantings being implemented. Chairman Miller expressed concern about the layers of soils in the basin.

Commissioner Winters said she is pleased with the plants being used, and asked if invasive species will be removed. Mr. Logan said that could be a stipulation in the management plan.

Chairman Miller expressed concern about using the brick chip. Mr. Maglieri said the brick chips are broken up brick with the texture of a washed stone. They can be purchased in different sizes, does not lose color, and is very stable. It is initially expensive, but over time is more maintenance free. Commissioner Winters said the shredded bark mulch is more stable than brick, and is an organic product.

Chairman Miller expressed concern about the use of the brick chips on the slope and asked how they will be put down. Mr. Maglieri said a that a bucket loader will be used to lay the chips. Mr. Maglieri expressed that he does not have a problem using bark mulch, but stated that at past meeting there were concerns voiced about nitrogen going into the soil. Mr. Stewart said that they are fine with whatever the Commission prefers. The Commissioners agreed that a coco mat with mulch on top is the preferred option, as opposed to the brick chip material shown on the plans.

Mr. Case stated that another change to the plans is the relocation of house # 6, farther from the wetlands. The house is 67 feet to the wetlands, at its closest point, and 80 feet from the brook. Before the relocation the house was 54 feet from the wetlands. The septic system has also been redesigned, a 40-inch galley has been added allowing the house to be moved and rotated.

Commissioner Winters asked why there is a side entrance to the garage area. Mr. Alford said the septic has to be 25 feet from the house, so whether from the front or side, not much is gained by a front entry garage, adding that that the backyard is where people tend to congregates.

Commissioner Bucknam asked whether house #6 will be built on the actual location shown on the plan. Mr. Alford said that the house will not be built any closer to the wetlands than what is shown on the plan. Mr. Alford

also answered that nearer the house the area is flat. He showed on the plan where silt fencing will be placed, saying that it will be 25 feet from the house. Mr. Alford noted that the side yard is 15 feet.

Commissioner Winters asked about the plantings on the side yard. Mr. Alford said there are currently giant pine trees. Commissioner Winters said that understory planting could be implemented. Mr. Alford said the conservation easement goes around the entire back yard with a vegetative buffer along the side of the stream, with added plantings buffering the homes from the neighbors.

Chairman Miller asked about the slope towards the brook on Lot number 5. Mr. Alford stated that the slope is over 10%. He added that the house is 72 feet from the wetlands at its closest point, with the other side being 100 feet from the wetlands. The entire house is within the regulated area.

Chairman Miller asked what other options were considered for the location of the house on Lot number 5. Mr. Alford said the original plan had the house closer to the wetlands, the new plan has moved the house about 25 feet further to the west, away from the brook. This has been accomplished by a swapping some land with an adjacent neighbor. Mr. Alford said that with this change he foresees no impact to the wetlands. Chairman Miller asked if the resulting conclusion that there will be no impact is the based on soil type, and the fact that there is enough sandy loam soil. Mr. Alford acknowledged this to be the case. Mr. Alford said there is no activity within 50 feet of the wetlands, except enhancement.

Commissioner Yocom voiced concern about the elevation of house number 5. Mr. Alford stated that the existing ground is higher pre construction than it will be post-construction. Mr. Alford agreed there will be some material removal, also noting that the closest the silt fence comes to the wetlands is 50 feet. Mr. Alford added that work being done in excess of 50 feet from the wetlands will not impact the wetlands.

Zoning Compliance Officer Beach read a memorandum dated February 20, 2007 written by Mr. Rich Sawitzke, Town Engineer, to the Conservation Commission regarding this application. Mr. Sawitzke memo states that based on the information submitted by the applicant, he finds the design parameters sufficient, and noted his reasons for this finding. The letter was duly noted and submitted for the file.

Mr. Case reiterated that in their letter to the town, responses to questions were addressed.

Chairman Miller asked about the comments made by Mr. Dick Davis, one of the interveners and a member of the land trust, regarding the ice channel deposit. Mr. Logan explained that Mr. Davis observed that groundwater was seeping out of the ground and that is the reason no ice was detected on one side. Mr. Logan discovered the reason for the seepage is because of sun exposure on the hill, which warms the up the area, thereby melting the ice.

Chairman Miller asked for public comment.

Mr. Lee Blackmon, 34 Drumlin Road.

Mr. Blackmon voiced concern about the plantings and asked if the plants die will there is a maintenance plan in place, expressing concern that the homeowner’s association will not make it a priority. He said that Drumlin Road is going to be effected, lowering property values. He also added that that there are too many houses being squeezed on the land and expressed that he hopes the applicant will to be careful not to clear any of their trees. He expressed that he has observed red paint marks on some of their oak trees.

Mr. Maglieri stated that the landscaper guarantees the plants and if the plants do die they will be replaced. Post –construction the contractor hired for the homeowner’s association will be responsible for weeding and maintenance. He stated that the plant list is on the landscape detail plan.

Mrs. Rae Blackmon, 34 Drumlin Road.

Mrs. Blackmon stated that their house abuts the proposed project, and voiced concern about the impact to the trees near their house from the adjacent septic system. She declared that she has seen towns where every piece of land is filled with houses, and expressed her hope this does not happen to Simsbury.

In response to her concerns, Mr. Alford stated that the septic system could be adjusted so as not to impact any trees. He noted that the septic system is 20 feet from the property line and would not impact the trees near the Blackmon’s property. Mr. Alford said that implementing 4-foot deep concrete galleries could reduce the septic system field area of Lot # 2. Mr. Maglieri assured the Commission and the Blackmons that there will be back plantings on all of the back yards in the conservation area once the project is completed, so views are not disturbed.

Commissioner Buckman asked what the distance is between the conservation line and the back property line. Mr. Alford said it is 40 feet.

Chairman Miller asked if the septic system could be moved to retain the 40-foot vegetative buffer. Mr. Alford said that could be done.

Mr. Harold Bender, 16 Maureen Drive

Mr. Bender said that using local measurement readings more accurate rainfall statistics could be had. He stated that the average local rainfall is more than an inch, and asked how much of the roadway water flow will flood the basin out before the next storm. He stated that all of the grass areas will effect the water flow unless it can be guaranteed that organically material will be used. He declared that due in part to the development at stone crossing, Nod Brook is flowing more than it had previously.

Ms. Nancy Gregory, 44 Fernwoood Drive.

Ms. Gregory asked how far house number 6 will be from her property. It was acknowledged that the septic has been moved to 10 feet from her property line. Mr. Maglieri noted that the area will be back planted with trees. Regarding the issue of paint on trees that Mr. Blackmon voiced concern about, Ms. Gregory stated it is due to children playing paint ball. She expressed to Mr. Maglieri that he does good work and hopes he continues to do so.

Mr. Mark Austin, Licensed Professional Engineer.

Mr. Austin stated that both he and Mr. Warren have submitted letters with their concerns. Mr. Austin read from his letter dated February 19, 2007 addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Kaplan, stating the following concerns: The method for delineating the conservation easement needs to be shown on the plans, construction entrances need to shown, grading needs to be shown for the southern biodetention basin, widths and lengths of the bio-retention swales are needed, slope benching is required on the slope, the possibility that changes will be made to positioning of the houses by the homebuyers, and concerns about infiltrators being able to handle construction vehicle impacts. Mr. Austin also expressed that the feasible and prudent alternative proposed to the applicant has not been considered. He stated that this alternative would protect Nod Brook and not increase the water flow. Mr. Austin stated that in the response letter, the applicant said the reason for not using the alternative plan is due to insufficient sight lines.

Commissioner Bucknam asked if the proposed project increases the impact to the brook. Mr. Austin said it could potentially, noting that Mr. Warren addressed this issue in his letter.

It was noted that if the any of the house positions change, creating more of an impact to the wetlands than the proposed plan, the applicant is required to return before the Commission.

Mr. Austin expressed that there is a fine soil component with a tendency to clog the system and will need to be maintained at least every two to three years. He stated that this maintenance would require that the established vegetation be removed. He said that at the last meeting it was stated there are fine soils as 18%.

Attorney Case communicated to the Commission that the applicant’s letter to the town states that due to soil conditions, sight lines, and aesthetics, they have elected not to construct homes five and six on West Mountain Road. Attorney Richard Case explained that because the average house size is 3,500 square feet, it would be difficult to install septic systems there. He explained that it would be dangerous for ingress and egress for sight lines on West Mountain Road, and placing the houses along the road would directly impact the wetlands. He stated that their proposed plan is the most prudent and feasible.

Chairman Miller asked if the retaining walls could be extended. Mr. Maglieri and Attorney Richard Case expressed that the landscaping plan shows the walls have been extended 15 –20 feet, with no need for benching.

Mr. Alford explained that erosion and sedimentation control guidelines state that if the slope is greater than 3 to 1 and there is no retaining wall and is higher than 15 feet, a reverse bench needs to be put in. Mr. Alford stated they did not want to implement that, because it would involve cutting more trees, adding as well that there is no watershed there.

Commissioner Bucknam asked about the possibility of the high capacity infiltrators being crushed. Mr. Alford responded that the infiltrators are located in the lawn areas and would not be driven over by tractor-trailers. Mr. Girard said that standard construction practices require the area to be roped off where the infiltrators are located.

Mr. Case pointed out that there are two sediment control systems dealing with the small watershed, and a two-tiered system to control the sediment. Mr. Alford said that the 18% soil sediment referred to by Mr. Austin is the soil that is underneath the ground and will not get out to the roadway.

Mr. Logan explained that the Connecticut DEP recommends that if these types of basins hold water for more than 72 hours they should be investigated for possible blockages. He expressed that this could be added as a condition of the permit. Chairman Miller asked if that could be a problem for the raingarden infiltration basin. Mr. Logan answered no.

Commissioner Bucknam stated that Mr. Warren in his letter of February 20, 2007, states that prudent and feasible alternatives have not been addressed by the applicant because there will be a net increase in water flow by 1.5cfs to Nod Brook. He stated that item number 7 of Mr. Warren’s letter needs to be substantiated. Commissioner Bucknam stated that so far there has been no testimony by the town or other experts showing that the proposed plan will increase the flow into Nod Brook, but that the intervener’s proposed alternative plan for lots 5 and 6 shows a direct impact to the wetlands. Mr. Austin explained that the benefits of moving lots 5 and 6 include less impact from pesticides, protection of the riparian zone, and less immediate impact to Nod Brook.

Mr. William Case stated that statement that there will be impact to the wetland with the proposed plan should be ignored because it is unsubstantiated. Commissioner Bucknam said there needs to be an explanation to substantiate Mr. Warren’s statement. Commissioner Bucknam said that the town engineer has not bee able to review other calculations, and in his memo he states that there is no impact.

Attorney William Case said there is much testimony about the best management practices regarding pesticides and the fact that there will be no impact.

Mr. Harold Bender, 16 Maureen Drive

Mr. Bender expressed that that old stone crossing was designed to have no impact, and he stated that everything together will compound the flow of the Nod Brook.

Ms. H.B. Kaplan, 36 Drumlin Road

Ms. Kaplan said that in Mr. Warren’s opinion, the runoff coefficients were listed conservative and infiltration coefficients were maximized. Ms. Kaplan stated that a neighbor on the opposite side of Fernwood sees flooding of the road many times per year. Chairman Miller said the Commission is aware there is an issue with Brook near Fernwood. Ms. Kaplan read Mr. Klein’s letter dated February 20, 2007, and addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Kaplan addressing further concerns.

In response to Mr. Kleins’s letter, Mr. Logan read his letter dated February 20, 2007 addressing these concerns.

Chairman Miller asked about an alternative to the seed mix. Mr. Logan said there is an erosion sedimentation control seed mix.

Attorney Case expressed that the homeowners will be members of the homeowners association and will be charged with protecting the easement, along with the town of Simsbury. He stated that he also lives in a community with a homeowners association and they haven’t had problems maintaining the best management plan.

Commissioner Bucknam asked about the possible pesticide impact to the brook with the conservation easement in place. Mr. Logan said that with the low groundwater levels, and the sandy soils, the worst case scenario would involve overspraying into the conservation easement. Because of the soil types there would be quicker run-off.

Mr. Austin expressed that the applicant’s letter dated February 6, 2007 in response to Charles A. Warren, does not mention soils as being a reason the alternative plan was not considered. Mr. Case responded that in his letter dated February 16, 2007, soils types, sight lines, and aesthetic issues were listed as reasons.

Mr. Case stated that there will be no direct impact to the wetlands, questions and concerns raised by the Commission and the neighbors have been answered, all steps will been taken pre and post construction to make sure there will be no adverse impacts on the wetlands. He asked that the Commission find in favor of the application.

Chairman Miller asked if the outlet for the upper temporary sedimentation basin has been relocated. Mr. Alford said there is no outlet, the water will infiltrate.

Commissioner Bucknam motioned close the public hearing on this application.

Commissioner Yocom seconded, and carried unanimously.

A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this is a regulated activity by reason of construction in the upland review area of a wetland and watercourse.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.

A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this application represents a significant activity because of the possibility of impact to Nod Brook and the surrounding wetland areas and the upland review area.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.

A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam to grant the permit, subject to the concerns raised and the changes made to the current plans submitted at this meeting. In addition, the applicant commits to the following: changing the seed mixture, reducing the septic system field area of Lot # 2 by implementing 4 foot deep concrete galleries, reducing the side yard of Lot #6 to 20 feet, increasing the width and length of the conservation area, the assurance that the raingarden and plantings will be maintained by the developer during the site’s development and by the homeowner’s association thereafter, the maintenance of the raingarden if there is visible ponding of water for more than 72 hours. In addition, the applicant has agreed to use a coco mat and a small amount of mulch on top, as opposed to using the brick material as shown on the plans.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters, and carried unanimously.

Chairman Miller said there are still worst case scenarios to be concerned with, noting that Nod Brook is an important resource and the applicant needs to be very cautious, making sure that all control measures are in place. He reminded the experts that their reputations are on the line with this project. He noted that the applicant has been diligent in answering all of the questions posed. Chairman Miller said that the Commission has not been given enough evidence showing that the alternative is more prudent or feasible. The alternative plan shows direct impact, whereas the proposed plan only shows speculative impact.

Commissioner Bucknam said that the points raised by the public and the intervener’s experts were helpful in presenting alternatives. He noted that the weight of the evidence goes toward the applicant.

Commissioner Yocom said that the area has granular material, producing silt from trucks, which could cause obstructions.

Commissioner Bucknam motioned that the Commission’s findings do not agree with the assertions made in the intervener’s application, as filed by Ms. H.B. Kaplan on February 6, 2007 regarding damage to Nod Brook and associated wetlands from this project. The weight of the evidence favors the application as opposed to the alternatives proposed by the intervener and the experts who testified for the intervener.

Commissioner Yocom seconded, and carried unanimously.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 16, 2007 and February 6, 2007

Commissioner Bucknam made a motion to table the minutes of January 16, 2007.

Commissioner Yocom seconded with all in favor.

Commissioner Yocom made a motion to approve the minutes of February 6, 2007.

Commissioner Bucknam seconded with all in favor.

a. Commissioner Winters expressed that she liked the best management plan of the applicant and asked if it could be kept on file for future applications. It was expressed that REMA might not approve.

b. Commissioner Winters gave a list of native wetland plants.

c. Zoning Compliance Officer and the Commission discussed the issue of the new upland review area dealing with slope and soil types. They discussed this issue with regards to the previous application.

d. Commissioner Winters said a letter from the open space committee will be submitted for the next meeting

CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Commissioner Bucknam made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:25PM.

Commissioner Winters seconded with all in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________________

Commissioner Ryan Mihalic, Secretary