Simsbury, CT - Conservation Commission Minutes

Richard Miller, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at timeMinute30Hour197:30 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Commissioners Ryan Mihalic, Margaret Sexton, Margery Winters, John Yocum, and Alternate Dominick Zackeo. Also in attendance were Director of Planning Hiram Peck, Town Engineer Richard Sawitzke, Commission Clerk Debra Sweeney and other interested parties.

a. Application of John D. Ritson, Manager, R.C. Connectors, LLC – Owner, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct a building and associated parking lot within the upland review area to a wetland on property located at addressStreet146 Hopmeadow Street. (continued from meeting of dateMonth5Day15Year20075/15/2007).

David Whitney, PE, representative for the applicant, stated that they had requested that the public hearing be kept open so that a report could be received from Henry Moeller, a soil scientist. A copy of the report was distributed to the Commission. The site is 3.3 acres located on the south side of addressStreetHopmeadow Street and .94 acres (or 28%) consists of wetlands located in the center of the site. The proposal is to construct a building, parking lot and play area for a daycare facility, a considerable portion of which is within the100 foot upland review area.

Since the previous submission, the site plan has had a change in the building footprint in that the length of the building has been reduced from 140’ and 180’. Mr. Whitney submitted revised plans dated dateYear2007Day4Month6June 4, 2007. The revised plans incorporated recommendations from the soil scientist. The soil scientist’s report indicates some historical disturbance of the wetlands and that they consist of silt loam. Also, no vernal pools were observed and ponding water is year-round.

The site is flat and the proposal is for the parking lot to drain by sheet flow to two rain gardens, per a suggestion that was made at the Commission’s last meeting. The rain gardens would be planted with herbs and a series of rain garden-recommended plants, although a specific planting plan has not yet been prepared. A gentle pitched bioswale is proposed between the rain gardens and the wetlands. The plan also proposes the removal of invasive species (phragmites) at the edge of the wetlands. Concern over mosquitoes near the play area resulted in a plan for low growing types of plants. The playground area surface would be primarily wood chips and there would be a row of wetland plantings along the wetlands to demark their location. A double row of silt fence and hay bale would be placed along the entire area of disturbance due to construction activities.

Chairman Miller asked what the distance was from the parking lot to the wetlands and Mr. Whitney indicated that it was 15 feet and 10 feet from the sidewalk. Ms. Winters asked about building roof run-off and Mr. Whitney said that it would have to be discharged to the ground surface via downspouts. Mr. Mihalic asked how the phragmites would be removed and Mr. Whitney thought that it would be by hand. John Ritson, owner of the building, added that most of it is located in the proposed parking lot area.

Ms. Winters asked how long the silt fence and hay bales would be in place and Mr. Whitney stated that it would be until the site is stabilized (about one year). Ms. Winters said that she was pleased to see the incorporation of rain gardens into the plan and wondered if they could also be used in the islands located in the islands in sunken rather than raised beds.

Chairman Miller confirmed with Mr. Whitney that, in the event of a heavy storm event, the only overflow is to sheet flow over the parking lot. He wondered if there might be things draining from the curb separating the wetlands and suggested that a swale be added along the sidewalk. Chairman Miller asked what ratio was used to determine the number of required parking spaces and Mr. Ritson responded that the first floor daycare would require 20 spaces and, if apartments go on the second floor, two per dwelling would be required (16) or, if a commercial tenant were to take the space, he would have to go for a parking variance or enter into a reciprocal agreement with the restaurant next door.

Chairman Miller asked about proposed mosquito control and Mr. Ritson said that it would be up to the tenants, although is hoping that the play area being kept open will help. Ms. Winters asked if the areas outside the conservation areas would be grass and, if so, how would it be maintained. Mr. Ritson said that he currently uses Merit and organic fertilizers on his property and does not use pesticides.

Relative to the soil scientist’s site visits to check for vernal pools, Chairman Miller wondered if December was too early and the latter part of April was too late to observe egg masses. Chairman Miller confirmed that the site is an isolated one acre wetlands system that is not fed by any watercourse. Chairman Miller asked about the piles of trash and debris that have collected over the years and Mr. Ritson stated that it is primarily bottles and that they will be cleaned up.

Bob Hafner, 126 Hopmeadow Street, stated that he was president of the Talcott Acres Condominium Association and wanted to know how far the proposed building was off the property line in the revised plans. Mr. Whitney said that there had been no change and that it was still 51 feet from the rear property line and that the play area was 25 feet from the property line. Mr. Hafner asked if there was a pitched roof and what the plan was for drainage from the roof at the back of the building. Mr. Whitney said the roof is pitched and that there was no firm drainage plan at this time.

Mr. Hafner expressed his concern that, given that the elevation of the proposed building is 179.9’ and most of the condominiums are at 180’, an excess water event could result in flooding. One of the condo units is only 100’ feet away from the proposed building. Mr. Whitney concurred that this is a valid concern and thought that they would probably use some type of leaching chambers and down spouts to route the water towards the wetlands, but said that the details have not yet been resolved. Ms. Winters said she would be interested in seeing the drainage calculations for such a large roof.

Chairman Miller stated that he would like to see the storm drainage detail off the back of the building worked out and would like to have the soil scientist answer some of the Commission’s questions and asked if the applicant was asking for an extension. Mr. Ritson confirmed that he would prefer an extension.

a. Application of Richard L. Sawitzke, Town Engineer, Town of Simsbury – Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to channel restoration and stream bank stabilization within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at Minister Brook at 20 & addressStreet22 Red Stone Drive.

Town Engineer, Richard Sawitzke, stated that the floods of October 2005 caused severe damage to approximately 300 feet of the Minister Brook channel in an area immediately east of addressStreetRed Stone Drive. He provided the Commission with photographs of the damage. The stream channel was cut down by 5-6 feet in certain areas and the banks were cut down. Mr. Sawitzke said that he contacted the Department of Agriculture’s placePlaceNameNatural PlaceNameConservation PlaceNameResource PlaceTypeCenter for assistance in restoring the stream in a natural looking way. The proposed plan consists of three phases:

Mr. Sawitzke stated that the project will cost approximately $100,000 and the Army Corps of Engineers requires that the work be done between June and late September and they also have a one-year maintenance period. Mr. Mihalic asked how long the project is expected to take and Mr. Sawitzke indicated that it would take about one month to complete. Chairman Miller asked if there would be adverse consequences to holding the public hearing in July and Mr. Sawitzke thought that it would not be a problem as they should be in the bid phase in early July.

Mr. Mihalic made a motion to move this application to public hearing as it constitutes an activity involving deposition or the removal of material which will or may have a significant impact in a regulated area in a part of an inland wetland or watercourse system and which may substantially change the natural channel and will inhibit the natural dynamics of the watercourse system, it may be considered a significant activity under regulations and thereby requiring a public hearing. Ms. Sexton seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

b. Application of David & Jill Nelson, Owners, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for construction of an addition to an existing garage within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at addressStreet43 Fox Den Road.

Dave Nelson, owner, stated that his septic system failed during the recent heavy rains and was replaced with a new system and, therefore, there has been a fair amount of unplanned disturbance on the property and they now wish to put an addition on to the garage. The house was built in 1965 and is in an older, wooded area with rolling hills. The area of his property that is considered to be wetlands is actually a catch basin for the street, although there is no standing water. Chairman Miller asked if the new bay would be on slab and Mr. Nelson said that it would. Mr. Nelson stated that the property is flat on the garage side and that there is a swale that goes around the property and slopes towards the wetlands. The proposed addition would be on the side of the house that is opposite the wetlands.

Mr. Mihalic asked how far the corner of the new bay would be from the wetlands and Mr. Nelson thought that it would be approximately 92 feet. Mr. Yocum confirmed that the wetlands had been aerially located, not by actual site testing. Mr. Mihalic confirmed that there would be net loss of material and asked if Mr. Beach had suggested putting up a silt fence. Mr. Nelson said that the house really would serve as a silt fence, but Mr. Beach had indicated that he would be monitoring the project.

Mr. Mihalic made a motion that this is a regulated activity as it involves construction of an addition to a garage that is located within the 100 foot regulated area. Mr. Yocum seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Mr. Mihalic made a motion that it is not a significant activity because it does not involve construction or excavation or any type of activity in that regulated area that would appear to result in an impact to the wetland that is located some 90 feet away and beyond a house and paved driveway. Ms. Winters seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Mr. Mihalic made a motion to approve the application subject to the condition that staff will go to the site and monitor all the activities that are occurring on the project to insure that all the best practices are being used to protect the wetlands. Ms. Winters seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

c. Application of the Estate of Ruth H. Shaw, c/o Gregory F. DeManche, DeManche McChristian, LLC, Attorney in Fact, David Shaw, Executor, Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to deposit material (fill, septic system, and well) within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at 70 Notch Road.

Greg DeManche and Doug Ellis, an engineer from Buck & Buck represented the applicant in a proposal to divide an existing lot into two lots, with the provision that no improvements can be made on the proposed new lot to the north without an impact within the 100 foot regulated area. He provided the Commission with a letter from the Farmington Valley Health District indicating that the site can support a septic system as well as a reserve area for the existing house.

Mr. Mihalic asked for clarification as to what exactly was being applied for; as he understood it, the applicant was asking the Commission to approve the conceptual idea and that there would be no permit to construct a house at this time. If the property were to be sold, then a separate application would have to be filed for a permit to construct. Further, the plan that the applicant was presenting was a schematic only that is used for a subdivision plan and does not represent an actual house. Mr. Mihalic stated that he does not see the Commission in a role of issuing blanket approvals that would allow other land use commissions to alter them. Chairman Miller asked if there might be a risk that a change to the schematic could result in a greater impact on the wetlands.

Mr. Peck suggested that an approval could be issued on the schematic with the condition that, should there be any changes made to the schematic, then it would come back to the Commission. That same condition would go forward to the Planning Commission so that, if they decide to act on it and bring it to subdivision, then they will know the intentions of this commission.

Mr. Yocum noted that the wetlands had been delineated by soil sampling. Mr. Mihalic confirmed that necessary notice had been provided to the wetlands agency for the Town of placeCityCanton. Ms. Winters noted that the slope has the potential to impact the wetlands even though it is outside the 100 foot regulated area.

Mr. Mihalic made a motion to approve the application limited to the fact that the applicant may proceed to the Planning Commission for subdivision approval on the condition that any proposed application to develop the parcel must return to the Wetlands Commission for such specific development, which it may or may not approve, and that this approval will in no way limit this Commission’s jurisdiction going forward. Mr. Yocum seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Chairman Miller referred to the proposed amendment to the Simsbury Code of Ordinances pertaining to fees to be charged for the engagement of consultants to assist the land use commissions in reviewing large and/or complex projects. Chairman Miller asked if the applicant would be involved in the selection of the consultants. Mr. Peck stated that there would be a list of identified consultants that he would compile in conjunction with each commission. The applicant would be asked if they had a problem with any given consultant, but would not be part of the selection process

Ms. Winters made a motion to approve the SCTV recording on DVD of the April 25, 2007 Special Joint Meeting of the Zoning Commission, Planning Commission, Design Review Board and Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency. Mr. Yocum seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

The Commission was advised of the administrative issuance of an Inland Wetlands Permit on the application of Mark and Joan Dymersky, owners, for construction of a pool deck within the upland review area to a wetland on property located at addressStreet16 Amy Lane.

Mr. Peck stated that an application has been received for the River Oaks project and provided the Commission with a tentative schedule of the application process and related deadlines. He noted that the Zoning Commission officially received the application at their meeting on June 18^th and that there had been no Wetlands application submission yet. The applicant is claiming that one is not required and Mr. Peck is consulting with Special Counsel as to whether that is indeed the case.

A letter from the SHARE organization expressing their support of the use of a charette in connection with drafting new zoning regulations was distributed to the Commission. Mr. Peck stated that implementing a charette process is limited by cost, the willingness of an applicant to participate and time restrictions. He did not feel that a full-blown charette would be currently possible due to the expense involved and the fact that there is now a pending application.