CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS & WATERCOURES AGENCY
MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING
February 5, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Miller called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:35 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Commissioners Margery Winters, Margaret Sexton, and Darren Cunningham. Also in attendance were Howard Beach, Conservation Officer and Alison Sturgeon, Commission Clerk.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
There were none.
III. PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Application of Federic Jardinico, Applicant/Dyno Nobel, Inc., Owner, for an Inland Wetlands Permit relating to the closure of two abandoned landfills within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at 660 Hopmeadow Street.
Mr. Beach showed the Commission a map depicting the Dyno Nobel site and the two landfills that the applicant is proposing to abandon. They are proposing to cap the sites in place. A wetlands permit is needed because the toe of slope of the landfill is the wetlands; the toe of slope is the edge of the wetland. Mr. Beach stated that a report was submitted by the applicant regarding the Phase 2 & 3 analysis of the site.
The Commission discussed what Dyno Nobel does on their property and talked more about the surrounding developments to the site.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING(S)
Commissioner Cunningham motioned to schedule a public hearing on the application of Federic Jardinico for March 4, 2008. Commissioner Sexton seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of January 15, 2008
Commissioner Sexton motioned to approve the January 15, 2008, minutes as written. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
VI. DISCUSSION
The Commission discussed the draft PDD. Chairman Miller stated that this Commission had written a memo to the Zoning Commission regarding their comments on Konover’s draft PDD, prior to Konover withdrawing it. These comments were taken into consideration by the Town when they drafted this current PDD. Chairman Miller handed out that memo to the Zoning Commission dated September 4, 2007 along with a copy of the draft PDD. The Commission reviewed and discussed whether or not their comments were incorporated into the latest draft regulation written by the Town. The Commission felt that many of their recommendations were not addressed.
Mr. Beach explained the process of an applicant applying for a PDD zone change and went through the steps addressed in the draft PDD.
Commissioner Cunningham stated that on Page 2 of 11 on the Draft PDD it talks about the Zoning Commission in Step One. When looking down to Step Two, it states, “the Commission”. He feels that they should continue to name the Zoning Commission to be consistent throughout this section. The Commission also discussed that nowhere in the Draft PDD does it refer the applicant to the Wetlands Commission. Commissioner Winters stated that she would like to see not only a referral to the Wetlands Commission but to add a Conservation Commission
preliminary review also. The Commission agreed that this issue should be address under Section B. Process, in Step Two.
On Page 4 of 11, under Section D., #13, Chairman Miller feels that the various components of LEED standards should be listed here.
On Page 3 of 11, under Section C., Commissioner Sexton stated that each point is a command, except for 5 & 7, relating to this Commission, which only encourages the applicant, but does not require them. She would like to see #5 as, “Achieve” and #7 as, “Require”. Number Five would now read, “Achieve conservation of natural features…,” and Number Seven would now read, “Require energy efficient development and redevelopment.” The Commission agreed.
Mr. Beach stated that on Page 11 of 11, regarding municipal benefits, this is for transfer of development rights or fee in lieu of, etc. The applicant would have to provide a municipal benefit in exchange for the increased density or coverage in excess of 40% up to a maximum of 60% on a PDD site. The Commission discussed impervious coverage and the River Oaks application and how the applicant was counting sidewalks as public spaces.
On Page 10 of 11, under Section J, Item a., Chairman Miller stated that in this section, they should be encouraging some of the low impact development techniques. He also suggested that, when the draft PDD speaks of the 60% coverage, he would like to see some of their comments that were made to the Zoning Commission added. He feels that the comments on Page 1 of 3 of their memo to Zoning under Item 3 would fit nicely into the draft PDD at this point Mr. Beach stated that within that coverage, sidewalks are not included. Rooftops, parking areas, circulation drives or any paved asphalt surface for parking would be included, although it does not specifically include sidewalks. Commissioner Sexton questioned if these issues and definitions regarding impervious coverage should be in their Regulations. Mr. Beach
stated that the Town Regulations are based on the Connecticut General Statutes and there are very strict areas within that which they can regulate. The Commission cannot exceed what the State allows. The State dictates what the laws are and this Commission enforces them to that standard, although they can suggest that an applicant consider the Low Impact Design and/or try new innovative techniques.
Regarding the Development Standards on Pages 5 & 6, Section H, Chairman Miller suggested that this be enhanced to with respect to LID. Commissioner Sexton stated that they are addressing coverage requirements on Page 6 of 11, Section I, Item 4, when it says that the Commission may reduce the requested coverage unless the applicant is able to show that the proposed coverage will not have an adverse impact on the environmental characteristics of the area. She feels that this may be confusing when an applicant reads Zoning’s 60% coverage of impervious surface and then sees the 12% impervious coverage in the sub-watershed.
Chairman Miller did not know if it would be appropriate to include both the 60% and the 12% because of the confusion. Commissioner Sexton suggested having an Item 5 under Section H, labeled Sub-watershed Protection instead of listing it under Coverage Requirements. It might read, “…considers the impact of the proposed development on any affected sub-watershed. No more than 12% IC is recommended for each sub-watershed that intersects the proposed development lot…” Commissioner Winters stated that if an applicant has 60% coverage on their site, but if the land around them is forested or grassed in the sub-watershed, then that land can be set aside. Mr. Beach explained that different locations are in different sub-watersheds with different percentages and this needs to be taken into
consideration. Chairman Miller stated that the difficulty is the lack of Statutory authority to enforce this, although there could be some flexibility there so if an analysis is done and a certain property exceeds the threshold, then maybe the applicant would need to show good faith efforts to mitigate up to and including purchase of development rights.
Mr. Beach stated that on Page 3 of 11, Section C, Item 5, this might be the place to demonstrate that there should be no negative impact on the sub-watershed. Chairman Miller stated that they should put something in the draft PDD regarding the applicant being required to do an analysis to find out what impacts their proposed development would have from a sub-watershed basis and impervious coverage.
Mr. Beach suggested that under Section H, Item 4 on Page 6 of 11 be re-worded. Commissioner Sexton continued to voice her opinion that the 60% coverage and 12% sub-watershed were two different issues and both should be included in the draft PDD. Mr. Beach stated that an applicant would question this Commission in terms of what
they expect and the applicant might even ask the Commission to demonstrate how their site would have a negative impact.
Chairman Miller stated that he would like to see this Commission start building awareness and make the applicant do an analysis as to the impacts of their site. Then this Commission would have the ability to question what the applicant can do to offset or mitigate. This will help encourage the applicant to think about these issues. The Commission continued to discuss this issue. Commissioner Sexton stated that although she realized that the different percentages might create some confusion, she feels that it would be a missed opportunity to not include them both.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were none.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Sexton motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 PM.
Commissioner Winters seconded with all in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
-------------------------
________________________________________
Commissioner Ryan Mihalic, Secretary
| 
