CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS & WATERCOURES AGENCY
MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17, 2007
I. CALL TO ORDER
Richard Miller, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:40 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Commissioners Margery Winters, Margaret Sexton, and Alternate Thomas Sharpless. Ryan Mihalic arrived at 8:20 PM. Also in attendance were Town Engineer, Richard Sawitzke, Commission Clerk Alison Sturgeon and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Mr. Sharpless was appointed to serve for John Yocum.
III. PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
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 146 Hopmeadow Street. (continued from meeting of 6/19/2007)
David Whitney, PE, representative for the applicant, stated that they are proposing a three-story building located at 146 Hopmeadow Street. He stated that at the last meeting, there was some discussion regarding three major topics: the drainage from the roof of the building; a certain wetlands being a vernal pool; and the rain gardens. Mr. Whitney stated that since the last meeting, he has made some revisions to the plans and Henry Moeller has submitted a supplemental soils report dated July 12, 2007. Regarding gutters and downspouts, Mr. Whitney stated that the plans have been revised to show two underground pipes, which will be a collection system from the downspouts. They will discharge in two locations adjacent to the wetlands.
Chairman Miller asked Mr. Whitney to summarize Mr. Moeller’s letter dated July 12, 2007. Mr. Whitney stated that, in summary, Mr. Moeller concluded that he did not see any evidence of biological activity for a vernal pool. Regarding the rain gardens, Mr. Moeller’s biggest concern is the outlet. Mr. Whitney stated that he is proposing two rain gardens at the bottom of the parking lot where the water will sheet flow into these gardens; they are also proposing 200’ long, shallow, flat grassed bioswales. Mr. Whitney stated that these are the first rain gardens he has ever had on plans and that Mr. Ritson is committed to building them properly, although they would like to put them in at the new locations shown instead of in the middle of the parking lot.
Mr. Whitney then read a portion of Mr. Moeller’s report regarding the roof discharge to the wetlands. “Third, there was a concern for roof runoff and water quality. Rainfall naturally contains nitrogen. The water will also contain some phosphates due to dust and some air pollution. Any other trace elements from the roof material itself will be extremely low. This water will be discharged to two rip rap outlets in the grass area next to the wetlands. While the wetland may pond water briefly, it functions primarily as a soil. It has a very large store of nutrients in the muck forming the soil surface. Both the soil itself and the dense vegetation will absorb most of the nutrients coming off the roof. The roof water is relatively clean and has a low concentration of nutrients or
other potential pollutants. The amount of nutrients reaching the wetland soils from the roof is insignificant in relation to the total amount of nutrients in the wetland soils. The wetlands will also continue to create more organic matter that will trap nutrients from the upland soils and paved surfaces. The wetland is not a pond or water body that can be degraded from the runoff. It has been functioning as a sediment and nutrient trap for hundreds of years.”
Chairman Miller questioned if the wetlands could handle the additional capacity during a heavy storm event. Mr. Whitney stated that the wetland itself is a large natural retention basin and over an acre in size. He also stated that it has an outlet where the applicant will be constructing a trash rack. Regarding this trap rack, Chairman Miller stated that this would trap some of the debris, which the applicant will then have to commit to an operation maintenance plan. This would require weekly inspections by the applicant or after a storm event and documented properly. Mr. Whitney stated that, perhaps, there could be a periodic inspection of the trash rack for the first year, and then modified after the first year. There was some discussion by the Commission regarding when inspections should take place and
what language should be used in the maintenance plan.
Commissioner Sexton questioned if there would be any grass area and how the applicant planned to maintain this area. Mr. Ritson stated that this would be a natural area with high grass approximately 1 ½’ - 2’ high. Commissioner Sexton also questioned if there would be grass in the back of the property. Mr. Ritson stated that this would depend on what happens at the Zoning Commission meeting.
Bob Hafner, 126 Hopmeadow Street, stated that Mr. Whitney was correct in saying that this is a very flat piece of land. The difference between this site and his yard is only approximately 3 inches in elevation. Mr. Hafner questioned what kind of traps there would be for the swales to capture the pollutants that would be carried into the wetlands. Mr. Whitney stated the entire parking lot would flow to one of the two rain gardens, which are 30’ in length and 12’ wide, which will have a mixture of peat moss and sand and loam with a series of plantings. He stated that these rain gardens would function as sediment basins during construction; the purpose of the rain gardens is to uptake the pollutants through the plants. There would not be any direct discharge of the parking lot into the wetlands.
Mr. Hafner questioned what Mr. Whitney was planning to do with all of the snow from the parking area during the winter. Mr. Whitney stated that the snow would be plowed into the corners of the parking lot. Chairman Miller stated that he has seen research regarding rain gardens and bioretention swales; they continue to infiltrate during the winter months when other ground is frozen. The rain gardens would not be able to perform their functions if they were covered with snow during the winter months.
Commissioner Winters questioned how the rain gardens would function after sanding the parking lot during the winter. Chairman Miller stated the rain gardens, in order to continue functioning properly, would have to be maintained. Once the gardens started to gather sand and silt over time from the sanding of the parking lot, they would not function properly.
Mr. Whitney stated that he would be willing to designate snow removal/storage areas on the plans in other areas where the rain gardens were not located. He showed the Commission where those possible areas could be. He also stated that he would put a note on the plans that the parking lot is to be swept in the spring.
Regarding the mixture of the rain garden soil, Commissioner Winters stated that instead of peat moss, she would like the applicant to consider compost, which she feels works well.
The owner of 132 Hopmeadow Street stated her concerns regarding possible flooding in the back of her property because of this proposed project. She questioned what her recourse would be if the applicant did not comply with the conditions of an approval from this Commission. Howard Beach stated that if the applicant does not comply with certain conditions of approval, she could come to the Town and they would make them comply. Her other alternative would be a civil suit.
Mr. Whitney stated that when this application is heard before the Zoning Commission, there would be information regarding the drainage calculations at that meeting; he has not yet submitted those calculations. He stated that the concerns regarding 132 Hopmeadow Street might be better addressed at that meeting. He also stated that the topographic map shows the elevation of the ground along Hopmeadow Street is generally 181-182; the elevation down in the wetlands is 179-178. The natural flow of the water would be to the south.
Concerning the rain gardens, Commissioner Winters questioned that if, in the event of a big storm, the plants were uprooted, there would need to be a condition that these would be replanted and maintained so they would function properly after a storm. Mr. Whitney stated that the plantings would be done under the supervision of Henry Moeller, Soil Scientist. Chairman Miller stated that a transitional plant that can be drought tolerant would be ideal for this area. The water will not be resident in the rain garden for long if it is functioning properly; it infiltrates very quickly.
Judy Rabinowitz, 126 Hopmeadow Street, questioned if issues regarding berms, fences and characteristics of the buildings were the province of the Planning and Zoning Commission as opposed to the Conservation Commission. Chairman Miller stated that she was correct; this Commission could also talk about plantings and if the berm is serving a purpose for retention or buffering the wetlands, this Commission might discuss that also.
Commissioner Winters motioned to close this public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sharpless and was passed unanimously, except for an abstention by Commissioner Mihalic.
Commissioner Winters motioned that this is a regulated activity as it involves activity in the upland review area. Commissioner Sharpless seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously, except for an abstention by Commissioner Mihalic.
Commissioner Winters stated that this is a significant activity because of the sediment control, the rain gardens, and construction features which will minimize the impacts on the wetlands and that a feasible alternative does not exist. Commissioner Sexton seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously, except for an abstention by Commissioner Mihalic.
Commissioner Winters motioned to approve this application subject to the conditions in the staff report as well as during the hearing regarding the designated areas for snow storage and that the parking lot will be swept of sand in early spring. Also, there will be maintenance of the rain gardens so that they will function properly and that the swales along the sidewalks will be directed toward the rain gardens. Also, that a log will be maintained by the applicant of inspections within the first year of the trash rack or after any large storm event and ongoing maintenance of that trash rack. Commissioner Sharpless seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously, except for an abstention by Commissioner Mihalic.
b. 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 & 22 Red Stone Drive.
Richard Sawitzke, Town Engineer, stated that this property is located in the vicinity of Minister Brook Drive and Valley View Drive. He stated that this situation developed during the intense storm, which occurred in October 2005. The area of stream, which was severely damaged, is immediately east of a double barrel culvert under Red Stone Drive on Minister Brook. Approximately 300 feet of stream was damaged. This project has been reviewed by FEMA and has been referred to the State DEP, who, in turn, referred it to the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Mr. Sawitzke stated that they are proposing to restore the stream in a natural way. The side slope areas will be stabilized with natural rock. He stated that after talking with homeowners in the area, it was concluded that the stream would not be
able to fit back into the old configuration, which would create a more natural side slope. Mr. Sawitzke stated that the goal of this project is to create the channel during the low flow period in August. He stated that the NRCS and the Town feels that this is the best and most prudent way to fix this situation.
Commissioner Sharpless questioned what kind of expertise was brought in to determine what the remedy should be. Mr. Sawitzke stated that a full design team of the NRCS was used out of the Tolland office and that the project would be managed out of the Litchfield office.
Commissioner Winters commented on the Dogwood and Pussy Willows, which will be planted upstream. She questioned the size of the plantings. Mr. Sawitzke stated that the plantings would be approximately 2’-3’ high and would be planted in the fall.
Commissioner Mihalic questioned if all of the homeowners involved with this project agreed with what is happening. Mr. Sawitzke stated that they have agreed to grant access rights to the Town in order to do the work.
Chairman Miller questioned if this project would require the stream to be diverted. Mr. Sawitzke stated that, no, this project would be done during the dry period.
In response to a question regarding erosion control, Mr. Sawitzke stated that there would be a silt fence in place.
Commissioner Mihalic motioned to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters and was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Mihalic motioned that this is a regulated activity because it involves construction work in a watercourse and in and around wetland soils. Commissioner Sexton seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Mihalic motioned that this was a significant activity because it involves construction directly in the watercourse and in the wetland soils. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Mihalic motioned that based on the testimony of the witness and the evidence provided, that there is no prudent and feasible alterative to the applicant’s plan concerning this construction. Commissioner Sharpless seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Mihalic motioned to approve this permit subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
IV. PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Application of Hopmeadow Country Club – Owner, Erick Holm, Golf Course Superintendent – Hopmeadow Country Club, Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit relating to the construction of culverts and related till for several small crossings on the golf course within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at the Hopmeadow Country Club, 85 Firetown Road.
Howard Beach stated that the applicant regarding the Hopmeadow Country Club would like to be removed from the agenda for tonight’s meeting. Final calculations on the culvert sizes are still needed.
Commissioner Winters motioned to amend the agenda and postpone action on Item 4a. Commissioner Sharpless seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
b. Application of Dennis E. Jacobs, D.E. Jacobs Associates, Inc., Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct a detached garage with storage room within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at 190A Bushy Hill Road.
Dennis Jacobs showed the Commission members pictures he had taken of the site and a map of the property. He stated that this property is a rear property that is set in the back. They are proposing to construct a detached garage on the northern side of the house and reconfigure the driveway over the same footprint of the existing driveway. He pointed out the brook bed and the high rise on the property. He stated that all of the construction would be completely on the other side of the rise. Because the grade slopes down 2’ toward the proposed garage, they would like to bring the grade of the driveway down so that it is not sloped directly into the garage. They will also be installing a silt fence as a protective measure.
Commissioner Sharpless questioned about the direction of the water flow. Mr. Beach stated that the water that flows down the driveway would not go into the wetlands.
Commissioner Mihalic questioned if the stone wall would also serve as a retaining wall to keep the berm stable. Mr. Paine, the property owner, agreed. In response to Commissioner Mihalic’s question regarding the footprint of the garage, Mr. Paine stated that the dimensions of the three-bay garage are 27’ deep and 42’ wide.
Howard Beach stated that the edge of the driveway was approximately 50’-60’ away from the brook. Commissioner Mihalic questioned if the driveway and garage are in the regulated area. Mr. Beach stated that they were. Also, all construction vehicles would enter and exit from the driveway.
Mr. Paine stated that he has talked to his neighbors and they have all given their consent to this project.
Chairman Miller stated that this could have been a consent item; it is within the regulated review area. He stated that this brook has been of some concern with this Commission in the past on different applications. The topography of this property is very unusual; the brook is upgrading.
Commissioner Winters motioned that the construction of the garage and the extension of the driveway is in the regulated area. Commissioner Mihalic seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Winters motioned that this is not a significant activity as the applicant will be replacing the existing driveway and the construction will be downhill of the stream. Mr. Mihalic seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Winters motioned to approve this application subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Commissioner Mihalic seconded the motioned, which was passed unanimously.
c. Application of Philip and Carol Carollo, Owners, David Shrake, Summit Construction Services, Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct a new three car garage with family room above within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at 6 Vincent Drive.
David Shrake stated that they were only proposing a 2-car garage, not a 3-car garage as stated. Currently, there is a walkway between the garage and the house. The house currently has a 1-car garage, which is 15’ wide. This will be torn down. The proposed 2-car garage will be 28 feet. He stated that although they will try to use the existing sewer connection, he has applied for a new sewer connection.
Mr. Shrake stated that the proposed garage will be built into a bank, which is approximately 6’ high; the fill will be taken off site. There is a seasonal swale on the other side of the driveway, which is currently dry. They would like to start the work immediately if approval is granted. Howard Beach stated that the swale starts at the road near two storm drains, flows through the property and then disappears into a pipe, which continues underground.
Commissioner Winters questioned if she was correct in saying that the garage is 30’ from the swale and the edge of the driveway is approximately 20’ from the swale. Mr. Beach stated that it varies, but at its closest point, it is approximately 8’-10’ away.
Regarding a question from Commissioner Mihalic about the construction equipment, Mr. Shrake stated that all equipment would enter and exit from the driveway. He stated that the fill would be removed from the property right away to give them more room to work.
Commissioner Mihalic stated that it was reported in the staff comments that if the bed of the swale is disturbed as a result of the sewer connection, the base of the swale should be turfed to prevent erosion from a sudden storm event. Mr. Shrake stated that he his hopeful that he can use the existing sewer connection and in that case, he will not be near the swale.
Commissioner Mihalic motioned that this is a regulated activity because it involves excavation and construction within a regulated area. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Mihalic motioned that this is not a significant activity because it involves excavation and construction 30’ away from the swale based on the evidence presented by the agent for the applicant. They will be taking steps to not impact the wetlands and watercourse involved. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Mihalic motioned to approve the permits subject to the conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
d. Application of Alan Levesque, Owner, for an Inland Wetlands Permit relating to the restoration of pond silt catchment system within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at 16 Saw Mill Road.
Mr. Levesque stated that this property is between the end of Saw Mill Road and Cedar Glen Road. There is a stream running through the property and flows generally toward the high school and it meets Hop Brook. There is a man-made pond, which was designed with a forebay. At this point, there is a lot of silt in the forebay. It needs to be dredged in order to perform its proper function. Over the past few months, during large storm events, silt will pass through into the larger pond.
Mr. Levesque stated that because of the October 2005 storm, the water flow was so great in the stream that large logs from upstream came downstream. Because of this, currently when there is even a modest storm, the water backs up upstream of the driveway; it is almost in danger of going over the driveway and perhaps washing out the driveway.
Mr. Levesque stated that he is asking this Commission for permission to restore the forebay by excavating the silt. The silt that is removed will be stockpiled on the lawn for a period of time until it dewaters. He then showed pictures of his property to the Commission showing the forebay and where they intend to stockpile the silt, and where the logs are now located.
Commissioner Winters questioned what kind of fertilizers and pesticides are used on the lawn area. Mr. Levesque stated that he uses OrganiCare; he stated that he tries to be very careful.
In response to Commissioner Sexton’s question regarding the kind of equipment that will be used, Mr. Levesque stated that a backhoe is proposed to be used.
Chairman Miller questioned if there was rip rap between the forebay and the edge of the pond. Mr. Levesque stated that the rip rap is 3”-6” stone; the vegetation grows up through that in the summertime, but the stone can be seen during the winter. Chairman Miller stated that the staff report is suggesting that there be some hay bales installed along this area.
In response to a question regarding a timeline, Mr. Levesque stated that the contractor has indicated that he would like to start work during August.
Commissioner Sexton motioned that this is a regulated activity with work within a watercourse. Commissioner Mihalic seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously.
There was some discussion between Commission members regarding if this was a significant activity. The Commission decided that a forebay is designed for maintenance and did not need to go to a public hearing.
Commissioner Sexton motioned that this is not a significant activity because this would be considered maintenance of a forebay and not of the watercourse itself. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, except for Commissioner Mihalic who abstained.
Commissioner Sexton motioned to approve the application subject to the conditions of the staff report and that these activities be conducted in the near future to minimize the amount of water in the forebay. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously, except for Commissioner Mihalic who abstained.
Commissioner Mihalic suggested that a maintenance regulation and criteria be written so in cases like Mr. Levesque’s application, the Commission has clearer language to follow. Chairman Miller thought it was a good idea to amend the Regulations when the need arises. He also stated that he would like to look at the issue of the steep slope. Howard Beach stated that there have been people who, when they have a steep site, want to cut the timber and grade the site. After this is done, they then want to come in and start applying for the permits. All of the Commissions in Town feel that the topo map is essential to figure out the grade. The Commission continued to discuss the issue of slopes and soil types and the impacts that they have on the wetlands.
There was some discussion regarding the Hopmeadow Country Club application that was taken off of the agenda tonight. Howard Beach stated that the applicant would like to be on the September agenda, and that if a site walk is needed, that can be scheduled prior to September. He stated that the applicant is proposing to replace the existing culverts, which wash out when there is a large storm. The issue is that they do not want to design something for the 100 year flood because it will be too big. They want to design it for a 50 year storm, with a design spillway or something like this so if the water comes over the top, it will not cause any erosion. He stated that they are only changing the design of the culvert, they are not changing the placement. The Commission discussed whether or not they needed to
have a site walk. After much discussion, they decided that it would be more practical for Mr. Beach to take pictures of the site to give to the Commission prior to the next meeting. There was also discussion regarding if this application should be a public hearing. Chairman Miller questioned if there should be a public hearing based on public interest or significance. Commissioner Mihalic read the definition of “significant” and the definition of a public hearing from the Regulations. It was decided that a public hearing was not needed for this application.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regarding the June 13, 2007 minutes, the Commission discussed and decided that the minutes could not be voted on because there was not a quorum of Commission members in attendance tonight that attended the June 13th meeting.
Commissioner Winters motioned to approve the minutes of June 19, 2007. Commissioner Mihalic seconded the motion with all in favor.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
There were no staff reports.
VII. DISCUSSION
Riverside Road
Commissioner Mihalic stated that this applicant did not adhere to their permit, they did not come back to this Commission, and that they replaced the posts without any approvals. Mr. Beach stated that he talked to DEP regarding this issue. He stated that the applicant should have come back before this Commission to request to replace the poles, which they did not do. Commissioner Mihalic stated that, in hind sight, this application would have been handled differently by this Commission. He stated that it was also the applicant’s duty to notify this Commission of any significant changes to the approved application.
Mr. Beach stated that the applicant could be brought in to the next meeting, but, unfortunately this Commission will probably only get an apology. He stated that another option could be to reprimand the applicant by sending a letter with copies to the DEP and Army Corps. of Engineers. This would make it very hard for this applicant to pull a permit from these agencies in the future. The Commission agreed to have Mr. Beach draft this letter to be reviewed by this Commission at the next meeting.
Commissioner Mihalic stated that, in the future, this Commission needs to be more vigilant about applicants not complying with their approvals.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no correspondence or announcements at this time.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Winters made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 PM. Commissioner Mihalic seconded the motion with all in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
-------------------------________________________________________
Commissioner Ryan Mihalic, Secretary
| 
