Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 02/07/2017
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
FEBRUARY 7, 2017
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson, Margery Winters, opened the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Also present were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. ROLL CALL
Commission Members and alternates in attendance were: Margery Winters, Charles Haldeman, Craig MacCormac, Jason Levy, Darren Cunningham, Donna Beinstein, Donald Rieger, and Jim Morrison.
1. Appointment of Alternates
Chairperson Winters appointed Commissioner Beinstein to serve for the vacancy.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to move Application #17-01 to the top of the Agenda.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Receipt of New Applications:
b. Application #17-01 of Scott and Michael Brickey, Owners, to modify the existing approval for a culvert installation within the upland review area to a wetland on the property located at 18 Shingle Mill Road (Assessor’s Map A10, Block 419, Lot 013-1). Zone R-40. (received 01/17/2017; decision must be rendered by 03/23/2017)
Chairman Winters read Application #17-01 into the record. Commissioner Rieger advised that the Simsbury Land Trust neighbors this property, but he did not consider the relationship sufficient to require his recusal.
Mr. Brickey believed this to be mostly a housekeeping matter; 7 years ago the Wetlands Commission approved for the previous owner a single culvert which was then changed at Town Staff’s suggestion to a double culvert; however, this Application is because it never went back to Wetlands for further approval of the double culvert, which they learned should have been done when they applied for the house six weeks ago. He indicated the Mylar was signed off on for the double culvert and the drainage system was also based on it. He said the two 15-inch culverts are a little smaller than the larger single 18-inch culvert and provide more coverage over the pipe to keep frost heaves down and they were installed during the dry season. He said the area is very flat with no ponding and they needed to get water from one side of the driveway to the other; and there has been a full year of growth.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion that installation of the culvert is a regulated activity.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion that it is not a significant activity because of the limited flow through the area and the minor change from the original application.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion to approve Application #17-01.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Application #16-24 of of Rick Wagner, Agent; Richard D., Jr. and Madeline F. Wagner, Special Trustees, Owner; for review of wetlands disturbances from the proposed 7-lot re-subdivision of the properties located at 152 Old Farms Road (Assessor’s Map C07, Block 303, Lot 010), Old Farms Road (Assessor’s Map C07, Block 303, Lot 009B), and Old Farms Road (Assessor’s Map C07, Block 303, Lot 001). Zone R-80. (65-day extension granted; public hearing must be closed by 02/09/2017)
Chairman Winters read Application #16-24 into the record. Chairman Winters and Commissioner Reiger recused themselves due to their connection to Simsbury Land Trust. Chairman Winters turned the meeting over to Commissioner Cunningham as Acting Chairman. Chairman Cunningham appointed Commissioner Haldeman to serve for Commissioner Rieger.
Terri-Ann Hahn of LADA P.C. land planners represented the Applicant and provided an overall review of the project which has undergone a number of revisions. She said the 20+ acre property located on Old Farms Road has 2 areas of frontage and is mostly woods with meadow in back. She continued there are 2 wetland areas – one part of a pond system along Old Farms Road and a second small sliver of wetlands that goes offsite north onto the George Hall property, both of which have associated upland review areas (URA); a soil scientist identified and evaluated the wetlands and submitted a report. She indicated the proposal is for a 7-lot subdivision with a Town road utilizing a single curb cut to minimize impacts coming into the subdivision with driveways for the 7 lots coming off the Town road; they minimized impact on the URA at only 100 sq. ft. in the northern wetlands associated with future septic system construction; for the main wetlands, they looked at driveway locations and determined the best area to minimize URA impact located at the existing drive area allowing them to deal with storm water and importantly minimize tree removal. She said the subdivision comes to a cul-de-sac and following the Town Engineer’s review of the Town road the proposed detention basin it became a more conventional system with forebay and detention basin; they were requested to perform test pits, which revealed very good soils and they anticipate no discharge; but following their last review with the Town Engineer, they agreed to provide an emergency spillway and made some small changes to the detention basin. In addition, the Town Engineer requested they look at the overall system on Old Farms Road, including pipes and catch basin, and they will connect to that system and replace about 85 linear feet of pipe due to changes in how to calculate drainage based on storm size, and since those pipes need to be replaced they have tied it into their development; technically, that is within the URA and represents additional disturbance, although it is outside their property line. Regarding sight distance, she noted some trees between the road and pond top that need to be replaced; they propose fairly significant planting to occur and the soil scientist prepared and they have submitted a 2-year maintenance plan to prevent immediate infestation of invasive species. She indicated their current overall URA disturbance totals 27,855 sq. ft. plus an additional 800 sq. ft. for the pipe removal or just over 28,000 sq. ft. in total. She added that there is no wetland disturbance.
Chairman Cunningham asked about the type of plantings proposed and if they are native. Ms. Hahn responded the proposed plantings for the pond edge include over 300 types of native ferns consistent with nearby growth patterns along the road and elsewhere that are particularly attractive, as well as native low-bush blueberries for habitat plantings in areas of concern as requested by Town Staff, which will all be field located for maximum coverage; and there is also a seed planting plan for the meadow and around the basin shown on the planting plan.
Regarding open space, Ms. Hahn noted the Simsbury Land Trust is the adjacent neighbor and the Application proposes fee in lieu and as previously discussed with involved Commissions/Boards they have included an extensive edge planting requirement along the property line. At the family’s request, she said they are looking at other creative alternatives to offer as voluntary additional deed restrictions to assure the land is preserved and to maintain the sense of being in the country, which could include tree protection maintenance with no-clear limits, additional deed restrictions codifying a 40-foot no-building zone given that setback requirements for side yards could change in the future; deed restrictions requiring the property owner to maintain the plantings installed and potential no-use zones with planting in front and some land between those plantings and the property line where leaf clippings might be placed. She indicated these additional efforts reflect the family’s interest and are not required by the Code. Coincidentally, she said the areas they are talking about are just over the 4-acre target or 20% requirement for open space combined for all of the lots. Commissioner Beinstein asked who would do the maintenance. Ms. Hahn responded the individual property owners would have a deed restriction and she felt that gives the Town more control. Mr. Glidden disagreed with that indicating the Town does not have the ability to enforce a deed restriction; for enforcement purposes Staff recommended a conservation easement in these areas, which would be formalized from an enforcement standpoint. Regarding whether the Conservation Easement helps with planting maintenance, Ms. Hahn indicated that would be part of subdivision approval; Mr. Glidden indicated it may be beyond Commission authority. Ms. Hahn continued they are offering that to address concerns of the adjacent property owner.
Chairman Cunningham clarified there are two separate two issues before the Commission: 1) the actual development and disturbance to the URA and the plan; and 2) a separate recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding open space.
Rick Wagner of 152 Old Farms Road in Simsbury, the Applicant, addressed the Commission and talked about organizing his recently departed mother’s belongings, including notes from when she served on the Conservation Commission. He was struck as he read through her notes about how lucky Simsbury has been having people like her and like the current Commissioners serving the Town on a volunteer basis. He thanked the Commissioners for their work, not only in preserving wetlands according to statute, but just as important in endeavoring to serve the best parts of the rural nature of our community. He also thanked Simsbury Land Trust (SLT) and offered an apology – they have acted responsibly and fully in line with their mission to protect open space when it comes to interpreting their obligations toward the new Zoning application of fee in lieu of open space. He now understands that he said some things at the last meeting that could be perceived as damaging to their reputation and intent; while no organization can claim to have enough financial backing, the SLT clearly has a very well-heeled treasure chest to fulfill their mission now and for years to come. He is glad they do this work because they maintain and promote open spaces without costing Simsbury taxpayers a single cent; their sponsored walks and other activities, grant writing, and advocacy are helping to make Simsbury a better place for years to come. He continued that it has been 4 years since they began the tedious process of subdividing this property and he has learned a lot about the process, which experienced developers would take for granted and it may have been easier to let the pros buy the land and muscle their proposals through the Planning Commission, with the exception of Scott Brickey. But he felt he could do something better to leave a legacy honoring his parents and not tear down the existing house, but equally to set an example of fine colonial custom architecture that will hopefully guide the other houses should this development be approved. Also, he sought input from neighbors starting several years ago, and from these meetings totally redesigned the development taking into account some of the neighbors’ wishes; and to be honest, he felt the extra time and expense in this effort enhanced this development with better access and site placement. This brought him to the SLT which presented to him what seemed an abstract notion of the possibility of this plan harming the bucolic value of the boundary adjoining a relatively small part of the SLT 62-acre Wagner Woods. He said it may have been ignorance on his part or blind self-interest, but he did not get it at first and given his family’s generous donation of Wagner Woods that some say was the largest ever donation in Simsbury outside of Eno Hall, it took him a while to be educated and now in retrospect he sees that SLT had every right and even an obligation to object to this subdivision given their mission. He continued that similar to the modifications to accommodate the neighbors and keep the homestead, he is looking forward to proposing modifications to the Planning Commission that not only help preserve SLT’s interest, but ultimately will make this development a classier and more desirable place to live. He noted Ms. Hahn showed the Commission proposed land use restrictions for adding zones of no-use or no structures which will contain bullet-proof language on land reversion equal to that specified in their gift of Wagner Woods; he thanked Mr. Glidden for language about conservation easements, which they will have to work out. He commented that open space without proper land use language can be overturned in later years, as happened in Avon several years ago. He said these restrictions will also override any zoning appeals or zoning modifications the Town permits in the future. Lastly, he said given the fact he and his wife, Carol, have life-time membership in the SLT, they hope very much to help them in any way they can to fulfill their mission and honor his family with a lasting legacy.
Chairman Cunningham invited public comment.
Sally Rieger of 9 Stodmore Road represented the SLT for Fred Feibel who was away on vacation. She clarified that the SLT never opposed the subdivision, but would really like to see this Commission recommend to the Planning Commission option #1 that is in the subdivision regulations to require up to setting aside 20% of the development in order to protect the border between the lovely property the Wagner Family donated to SLT and the houses. She continued that the subdivision regulations recommend fee in lieu for those occasions when setting aside open space does not make sense because the open space would be an isolated parcel and not have any particular connective value. In this case, the land abuts the 62-acre Wagner parcel and SLT believes fee in lieu is not the best option here and would rather see the 20% set-aside for open space. She said SLT is very happy with having the subdivision there, but would like maximum protection for a very nice property where people walk and feel they have a place to get away from neighborhoods. Commissioner Haldeman asked Mrs. Rieger about SLT’s perspective compared to the last Public Hearing vs. today’s suggestions. Mrs. Rieger believed the 20% set-aside would be optimal and on a permanent basis without worrying about deed restrictions, which is preferred by SLT in accordance with the recommendations of the subdivision regulations where open space abuts other open space.
Mr. Glidden suggested reviewing the Staff report and draft motion to see if the Applicant has any further concerns. He noted one comment for #3 requiring a bond for installation of plants or financial surety which would only apply to the wetland restoration plants, e.g. ferns and blueberry bushes, and not the perimeter plantings. Mrs. Hahn noted on the plans they are identified as pond edge plantings on sheet L-4(1). Mr. Glidden asked if the Commission would like to discuss whether the maintenance plan and any monitoring of the plan for invasive species should be part of the approval; Ms. Hahn responded they offered that. Mr. Glidden wanted to have the Applicant’s agreement on the record as part of the Public Hearing.
As a point of business, Mr. Glidden noted that the Applicant withdrew their application before the Planning Commission so this Commission is not currently reviewing the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which will be referred to this Commission when they return to Planning; however, Ms. Hahn has addressed his concerns. He continued it should be noted in the record and it is in the draft motion that this development will result in a disturbed area greater than 5 acres so a State storm water permit will be required; Ms. Hahn noted standard practice is to include the Town representative in the application. Mr. Glidden indicated Staff efforts to identify projects exceeding 5 acres of disturbance and to acknowledge in any E&S approval or storm water approval that a State permit is needed and Staff needs to receive a copy before work begins on the site.
Commissioner Morrison asked who would be responsible for maintaining the detention basin. Ms. Hahn responded that because it is a Town road, maintenance would be the Town’s responsibility and meets Town requirements. Mr. Glidden noted a travel lane on top of the berm was modified at the Town Engineer’s request so crews can access the ponds, and overflow was requested. Mr. Glidden added the only other change was improvements on Old Farms Road at the cross culvert replacement; Ms. Hahn responded that she discussed catch basins and connection to the 87 feet of replaced linear pipe; Mr. Glidden indicated that is part of additional disturbance to the URA since revisions occurred. Commissioner Beinstein asked what percent of the area is proposed to be set aside as an easement. Ms. Hahn responded that under their current plan it is 4+ acres or up to 20% open space. Chairman Cunningham clarified they are asking for fee in lieu of. Ms. Hahn responded that they are doing both, but are asking at this Commission for fee in lieu of, and will continue to follow up. Commissioner Morrison asked if there was a specific reason for fee in lieu as their other plan indicated the area was not planned for development. Ms. Hahn responded that it is a process and they will not be turning land over to the Town so it will be part of the lots and does not technically qualify as open space; the restrictions are voluntary. Mr. Glidden indicated that if they were conservation easements, according to subdivision regulations they would count toward the 20% open space, but the Applicant is showing two options and the Commission will pick one in its advisory capacity to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hahn clarified they are not asking the Commission to choose; they are proposing fee in lieu and will continue to evolve the voluntary restrictions on their part; and if it ends up being a Conservation Easement, they have no objection; they originally discussed the deed restrictions with Mr. Rabbitt, but they are not asking this Commission to choose. Mr. Glidden noted the Commission’s role is advisory to the Planning Commission regarding open space, so a recommendation could be made to set aside 20% of the development in some form of open space, but ultimately it would be the Planning Commission’s decision which option to choose; a comprehensive plan has been presented on how to deal with open space including fee in lieu of and what was seen tonight as conservation easement. Mr. Glidden clarified this Commission’s role is to indicate its preference which will be discussed further when the Hearing is closed; that recommendation would be forwarded to the Planning Commission, although it is not binding on them. Commissioner Haldeman noted the Applicant described deed restrictions on the land, and asked Mr. Glidden for further clarification regarding changing to conservation easements. Mr. Glidden responded that for the Applicant to receive credit in front of the Planning Commission for those restrictions under the subdivision regulations it is either fee simple ownership with open space deeded to the Town or another entity controlling development rights, or conservation easements; a private deed restriction would not prevent clear cutting land because there is no binding agreement compared to a conservation easement guaranteeing surety it is left in conservation. Commissioner Morrison asked about the gray area around the border. Ms. Hahn responded that is an area where there would be no building/structures, but access would allow area surface activity potentially for maintenance, driveways, etc. so they are asking for fee in lieu and are adding the additional restrictions. Mr. Wagner indicated his intention to do what makes the most sense and was under the impression that land restrictions go for 100’s of years with the land and cannot be taken away, which Mr. Glidden does not agree with. Mr. Glidden indicated it is a matter of enforcement; if it is held by a private entity/builder and not the Town, the Town cannot enforce it. Mr. Wagner indicated the reason they are looking at a combination of restrictions and easements, is that a conservation easement may be too drastic where there is under-utilized open space all around, as they want to optimize the development and are proposing both options.
Commissioner Levy made a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Commissioner MacCormac seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Chairman Cunningham suggested the Commission first take up the subdivision issue and URA disturbance on the plan.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion finding this is a regulated activity because there is disturbance within the wetland.
Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion that this is not a significant activity because the area of disturbance is relatively limited in scale and the native plants will add in some way to the habitat that is there.
Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion to approve the wetlands Application subject to the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions in the 02/06/2017 Staff Report, including the changes to #3 and monitoring of invasive species that the Applicant agreed to.
Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion.
Chairman Cunningham asked for any further discussion by Commissioners; there was none.
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Cunningham opened discussion of the 2nd issue - the recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding open space for either fee in lieu of or 20% set aside. Commissioner Beinstein noted the Conservation Easement possibilities throughout the development, except for the driveway section, and some combination and proposed fee could be a nice mix. Commissioner Morrison noted a large area would be left undisturbed and subject to a Conservation Easement which seems to be in the interest of both the Applicant and SLT. Mr. Glidden suggested the Commission could indicate preference for open space through either a Conservation Easement or deeded open space; or fee in lieu of could be commented on as appropriate for this Application due to the fact that Conservation Easements were presented. Chairman Cunningham agreed with moving in that direction given the Applicant has made a good faith basis significantly changing the design and considering the historical nature of the family and what they have given to the Town and the open space issue, which should be taken notice of; given their willingness to work with the Town to come up with a fee in lieu of and significant conservation easement-type land restrictions for preservation, the Planning Commission should seriously consider the Applicant’s hybrid plan. Regarding wording the recommendation, Chairman Cunningham would begin with the Applicant’s request for a fee in lieu of with the understanding that there will be a 20% effective conservation easement of some kind and this Commission agrees with that. The Commissioners agreed they would not want to broadly recommend open space and then have a decision made that a whole lot area be set aside and begin the whole process again, but rather to accept the Applicant’s desire of fee for open space with some sort of conservation easement to satisfy that. The Commissioners agreed that the Applicant has made every effort to preserve enjoyment of the adjoining property while making it possible to fulfill the design of the 7-lot subdivision noting: their willingness to do the conservation easement; the historical nature of the family involved; and that for people to be willing to donate open space in the future, the Town needs to be willing to work with such people; therefore, the Commissioners saw no reason not to grant the Applicant’s request. Mr. Glidden summarized the discussion for a potential motion, and asked for clarification regarding adding in supplementing in conservation the area exceeding 20% of the area of development, but the Commissioners decided not to put a number on it as it approached 20% in spirit; and given the Applicant’s willingness to preserve about 20%, fee in lieu of may not be necessary. Mr. Glidden advised that fee in lieu of is a set fee agreed on by the Planning Commission of about $7K per lot transferred at the time of first sale and is based on a rough estimate of parcel value minus the value of improvements to the existing home and credit to one other lot as there are currently 3 lots; but the Planning Commission could decide on another fee amount. The Commissioners discussed encouraging the Planning Commission to consider the donation of Wagner Woods and the Applicant’s further efforts in deciding on the fee amount; Mr. Glidden noted the Applicant is proposing the fee. The Commissioners agreed to accommodate the Applicant’s request in the motion.
Commissioner Levy made a motion to send a positive recommendation to the Planning Commission that fee in lieu of open space is appropriate for this Application because the Applicant’s presented areas of development that would be supplemented in conservation easements.
Commissioner Haldeman seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
At 8:30 p.m. Margery Winters and Donald Rieger rejoined the meeting. Commissioner Winters resumed chairing the meeting; Commissioner Rieger resumed his seat, and therefore Commission Haldeman was no longer seated.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Receipt of New Applications:
b. Application #17-02 of Dorset Crossing LLC, Owners, to demolish existing culvert and install a new 5’x4’ box culvert as a result of the re-subdivision of 115 Casterbridge Crossing (Assessor’s Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-G), and 130 Casterbridge Crossing (Assessor’s Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-D). Zone PAD. (received 01/17/2017; decision must be rendered by 03/23/2017)
Chairperson Winters read Application #17-02 into the record.
Dave Zyacks, P.E. of F.A. Hesketh represented the Applicant and noted a report prepared by Robert Russo, Soil Scientist, regarding construction impacts was submitted to the Town on 02/07/2017. He reviewed the general layout of Dorset Crossing and believed it was the original PAD in Town; construction over the last few years included: the Dorset Crossing roadway system off Rte. 10 with traffic light; the mini roundabout; Casterbridge Crossing public road constructed down to the area for this Application; the first medical building constructed next to Rte. 10; the PAD sites were established to allow additional development; the apartment complex was constructed; the special housing for MS patients was completed and is fully occupied; and Eversource completed a major upgrade to its area. He showed the area set aside for open space and where Saxton Brook crosses Rte. 10. He continued that as part of the original construction, Casterbridge was built to Town standards to accommodate the special housing where it stopped; the overall master plan is to continue Casterbridge past the mini roundabout and out to the Wolcott traffic light, and in the future continue the road into the large Griffin Land Holdings. He said they did temporary work at the historic gravel pit crossing paving the road across the old culvert and building a temporary turnaround for Town snowplows. He said it was always envisioned to build the road, extending it across Saxton Brook to full Town standards, bring the sidewalk and utilities across, and replace the culvert, which is the subject of this Application. He said the landowners are getting interest in the two lots; therefore, there are questions regarding when the road will be extended so the owners have come forward with this Application for the necessary permits to extend the road to meet developer needs.
Commissioner Morrison asked if the southern crossing road downstream from the culvert has been constructed. Mr. Zyacks responded that was part of the original master plan but now is off the table – there is no road or crossing in that area of the stream. He said they submitted a full set of engineering drawings with erosion control as part of the Application. He showed where the road ends and where open space touches Casterbridge; an existing set of old farm culverts brings one side of Saxton Brook to the other side and they propose removing them and installing a new properly-sized box culvert to accommodate up to a 100-year storm with appropriate inlet/outlet treatments to assure no erosion from culvert flow; the road and cul-de-sac would be built to current Town standards; a sidewalk with pedestrian-protective wood beam rails on both sides would be installed; and completely stabilize this historically disturbed area. Commissioner Morrison asked about the size of the current culvert. Mr. Zyacks believed they were undersized twin 24-inch plastic pipes installed for a farm road. He reiterated because there is now interest in the last two lots they are moving forward with this Application; they calculated for the culvert installation that they would be disturbing 2293 sq. ft. of wetland on both sides – the flagged wetlands were shown on the map by a green line. He continued that this area has been disturbed over the last 50 years at this crossing and this is an opportunity to put in the right culvert and stabilize the area with vegetation. Commissioner Rieger asked about reports that construction techniques used will deal with water quality issues. Mr. Zyacks responded the work would be done during the summer dry season when Saxton Brook is below seasonal high water – probably in the next 3 months or so, and a temporary stone check dam with erosion control fencing would be put in. He noted the current culvert is at an odd angle to the road and the new one will be squared to the road, and much of the culvert can go in before removing the old culvert; the new culvert would be compacted with gravel; he did not see this work taking very long with components pre-manufactured and the culvert delivered to the site in sections and ready to go. Commissioner Rieger asked if stone would be used. Mr. Zyacks responded they would probably use 1 ½-inch stone with the temporary check stone dam below and silt fence and hay bales as backup, with the work done in dry weather so there is not a lot of pumping. He noted they do not have a strict deadline to meet and the costs would increase if high water conditions became an issue.
Bob Russo, Soil Scientist from CLA Engineers, evaluated the site and provided a report assessing potential impacts. He noted that older aerial photos show there was a crossing in this area preceding any residential development; an aerial photo showed the wetland location with the stream having a vegetative corridor along it and the crossing in place segmenting the area and sandy gravel pits reflecting historic use. He showed on the site plan the diagonal location of the two pipes and when water exits the pipe it goes into an upland bank creating scour under an existing Birch tree, and in high flow events the bank continues to be undercut. He described a photo in the report looking down from the bank top to where the plunge pool would be - you see in the photo center the narrow stream corridor going away, and in the photo front lower left corner you see a small amount of watercourse, and the shrump clump is where the splash pad would be. Otherwise, he said the upstream side of the crossing has multi-flora rose and frag mites disturbance along the edge, which is expected in a disturbed situation along a road bank down to a wetland. He continued that looking at existing functions, the corridor has wildlife habitat value, some sediments and nutrients come in from the existing development, and on a local level there is some flood control value from the undersized pipes holding back some water. Essentially, he said this location has already been largely disturbed for a crossing and this would incrementally add 2293 sq. ft. of impact in order to have a road that meets Town standards cross there; given existing roadside species at this location, there is not a lot of high quality vegetation that would be lost; and an advantage for the slope would be that the plunge pool would dissipate velocity lessening erosion that is currently a problem at the pipe outlet. He said overall there is direct wetland impact along the fringe of an existing roadway and the wetland portion is already impacted, and he did not believe it would be a real detraction from existing wetland values and functions, and in fact, thought it would help eliminate the existing scour and erosion problem. Chairperson Winters asked if the plunge pool would eliminate the scour areas or would more stabilization be needed below the plunge pool. Mr. Russo responded that additional stabilization is not needed - this stabilization would take care of the scour problem.
Chairperson Winters asked about the location of multi-flora rose and whether it would be removed. Mr. Russo indicated multi-flora rose and frag mites are predominantly along the upstream bank with the stream corridor grading over into Alder and more native species; and those invasive species will have to be removed during construction and regrading. Commissioner Morrison indicated that typically pre-formed scour holes are used where you have high velocity runoff from parking lots, roofs, etc. and he has not seen them installed in an active channel, and asked if it has been done. Mr. Russo has experience with them and felt they were important to put in and asked Mr. Zyacks to comment on the engineering aspects. Commissioner Morrison asked about the size of sediment material in the channel. Mr. Russo indicated the downstream channel contains sand, cobbles and stone ranging from 2 mm. sand grains and smaller to gravel size to cobble size to even larger stones, which is typical for a sand/gravel deposit of glacial outwash; also typical in the channel are rock surfaces coated with finer sand/silt scoured out of the soil and dropped downstream, but the predominant matrix is sand, gravel, and cobble. Mr. Russo clarified for the record that the range of particle size in the stream is about 2 mm. diameter for sand, cobbles about the size of a fist, and stones about a foot or more in size. Mr. Zyacks answered regarding the plunge pool that in discussions with the Town Engineer the theory that on any given day Saxton Brook appears to be a very low flow stream, but there are days when it appears angry and flowing faster digging into the stream channel and causing erosion. He said the goal here is to provide stone dissipation downstream and when the stream is at its higher-designed velocity that stone will break up that velocity before it comes down into the brook. He said you would not typically see this if the culvert were larger and the normal area flow was higher, although he sees DOT projects doing this probably because of maintenance concerns to armor plate everything. He said in this case, it actually fits the brook’s needs which can move from harmless meandering to roaring because of the large upstream watershed, old irrigation ponds upstream that overtop, and because of development on this property - all of which can result in a big rise in velocity over a short period of time with sand/gravel soils that erode. He said the goal is to put some rip rap in and stabilize this area for the first time ever. Commissioner Morrison commented that a stream channel over time normally develops its own equilibrium with no need to knock out velocity, but with a new development and a lot of impermeable surface you do need this type of mechanism. Mr. Zyacks has seen the Saxton Brook in both low and high flow conditions and discussions with the Town Engineer were to determine what mechanism could prevent scour and improve control. Commissioner Morrison noted that installation of the culvert itself can change stream flow because any pipe results in a different flow than for a natural channel with rocks slowing water turbulence before needing a scour hole.
Commissioner Morrison’s major concern about the culvert and scour hole lined with rip rap related to fish and wildlife habitat in the stream and their ability to move up/down the channel. Mr. Zyacks believed the plunge pools provide nice habitat over time with the rip rap collecting vegetation/sediment in the rocks and leaves over the seasons creating an interesting habitat environment; he added this representation is greatly enlarged and is far less offensive in the field. Commissioner Morrison noted that all of the water coming through the culvert has to go into the plunge pool. Mr. Zyacks responded that when velocity levels out you don’t have that concern; it is when you have a velocity surge it can eat into the bank, and this proposal will prevent and stabilize the area. Commissioner Morrison noted there is currently a culvert in place causing the erosion problem. Mr. Zyacks responded the existing culvert is not in line with the channel and the proposed box culvert will align with the channel. Commissioner Morrison asked if they considered other options, e.g. a bridge, or half buried culvert without a concrete bottom. Mr. Zyacks responded given the nature of the 5x4 crossing piped through this area, that it is not an overly sensitive area, and historically there have been a series of pipes, that he felt it was too small for a bridge; but if the Commission were concerned, they could jump a size on the box culvert and introduce a natural bottom, so rather than a 5x4 box culvert, it could be a 6x4 with sand/gravel fill in the culvert bottom. Commissioner Morrison asked if a one foot increase would be enough. Mr. Zyacks believed it would be enough. Mr. Russo noted the crossing was present with a disconnect, but what the Commission is suggesting would improve the habitat at this location; the Army Corps recommends a foot depth of material at the bottom when permitting a new crossing of a wetland, and here they could also put in native material matching the material downstream, so it would come from the site, match particle size, and provide more continuous substrate, and effectively rejoin these two areas that have been split for a number of years, which is not uncommon to do.
Commissioner Morrison asked if the Applicant went with a deeper culvert and the native natural fill, would the scour hole be needed. Mr. Zyacks will discuss that with the Town Engineer before this Commission’s next meeting. Mr. Glidden advised that the Town Engineer has not yet approved this Application as supplemental information was just received today. Mr. Glidden noted another outstanding item is the watercourse on the flood insurance rate map is an approximate A zone with the need to determine from a flood plain review the base flood elevation in relation to drainage comps in a supplemental document and have it illustrated on the plan. Mr. Zyacks acknowledged it is currently approximated on the plan. Mr. Glidden indicated Staff would like to see the data for the CFS crossing pre-installation of the culvert. Mr. Zyacks responded they would work that out over the next couple of weeks with Staff.
Commissioner Rieger queried Staff that with some of the disturbed area being Town property, whether the Town should also be an applicant. Mr. Glidden responded that if they go beyond the right of way that will have to be discussed and the Town may have to sign off on some of the improvements. He indicated this was shown on the subdivision plan as an improvement, but not this design improving this crossing, so there was an understanding in original approvals that this area was eventually going to be improved. Mr. Zyacks agreed this is subject to final design and planned to satisfy this Commission with the details for approval. Commissioner Morrison asked whether it would be possible to specify that the backfill material structural fill will not contain any asphalt millings. Mr. Zyacks agreed it would be native material.
Commissioner MacCormac made a motion to table Application #17-02.
Commissioner Levy seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Mr. Glidden advised Mr. Zyacks that the next Commission meeting is scheduled for 02/21/2017.
VI. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Correspondence
a. Drought Ordinance Draft
At 9:05 p.m. Bob DeCrescenzo, Town Attorney, joined the meeting. He indicated that he worked with Commissioner Rieger on this draft and believed it was in good shape and recommended the Commission consider it along with a motion to send it to the BOS. Commissioner Rieger noted that the Commissioners needed the most current draft iteration. Commissioner Rieger commented that a principle BOS objection was about sending Police into people’s homes to attack faucet leaks, so that section was changed to only deal with external water supplies. He said another important item was adding K to the list of restrictions that, “such other uses and activities as the BOS may declare following a public hearing thereon”, which would allow the BOS to depart from the restriction list, but only after a public hearing. He said the Town Attorney added to exceptions language for applying for and getting an exception, if needed. Attorney DeCrescenzo explained that could be a nursing home with a special treatment center using an extraordinary amount of water, but the need for the water application outweighs the restriction; and there is ample provision for being able to promptly turn around that type of request. Attorney DeCrescenzo continued that any BOS power relies on another agency concurring with the conclusion there is a water shortage or serious situation. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated he was comfortable with this revised draft and noted the $50/day fine, which could quickly add up to a substantial amount.
Commissioner Morrison asked about the exemption section being specific to only people on public water and not on wells, and Commissioner Rieger indicated that exemption is gone. Attorney DeCrescenzo added the Conservation Commission has statutory authority to regulate or has jurisdiction over ground water supplies, including private wells; Commissioner Rieger noted that after the last meeting, that public water utilities are all using ground water with no reservoirs to drain. Attorney DeCrescenzo noted each water company selling water in Town is now identified and believed the draft was ready to send to the BOS. Commissioner Morrison asked about the declaration of State water use restriction; Commissioner Rieger responded that has no relevance here; it is something the State can do, but it is not a trigger for any action under this ordinance; the triggers here are state of groundwater depletion, and water shortage which covers only water company water, but a state of groundwater depletion would open the door to the same restrictions on wells, if necessary. Attorney DeCrescenzo added the Town would have to be in a very severe drought in order for the BOS to implement this ordinance.
Commissioner Morrison asked if the BOS can declare a state of ground water depletion without restriction. Commissioner Rieger affirmed that, and the BOS would consult with entities including FVHD, and would also talk to water companies managing large wells in Town. Attorney DeCrescenzo read from the definition of groundwater depletion that, “State of groundwater depletion shall exist whenever the Board of Selectmen, after consultation with the Director of Public Works, the Chairman of the Town Conservation Commission, and with the Farmington Valley Health District, determines that the underground water supplies within the town are at, or are in danger of reaching, levels insufficient to provide for the needs of the public health, preservation of human life, sanitation, safety, welfare, or economic needs of those served by wells within the town.”; and he noted the wells within the town also include the public water supply. Commissioner Rieger explained that the BOS first would notice a threatened water storage, which does not trigger restrictions, but does allow them to adopt a drought management plan; and a member of the BOS was insistent a drought management plan be drafted which Commissioner Rieger has done. He continued the drought management plan would allow the BOS to create a working group including the Director of Public Works, the Conservation Commission Chair/delegate, and FVHD, to assemble information and talk with relevant people and water companies reflecting to the BOS their assessment of the situation and recommendation for action; and they would regularly update the BOS as to whether the restrictions are needed or should be tailored/fine-tuned. The drought management draft could be an added exhibit to the ordinance for the BOS to consider adopting when the situation arises.
Attorney DeCrescenzo summarized there is clear statutory authority for the Conservation Commission to recommend this ordinance, and clear authority for the BOS to adopt it; there are a number of checks/balances within the ordinance; and in current jurisdictions between towns, municipalities, and the state for the Town to have jurisdiction over its water supply; although the state Dept. of Public Health regulates public water companies and approves wells, they do it on a state-wide basis and there may be instances within a town that give rise to a need for an ordinance like this, e.g. the Greenwich example; also, New Britain is currently in a severe water shortage situation and must buy water from MDC, which fortunately has it to provide.
Commissioner Levy made a motion to send this draft to the Board of Selectmen.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Chairperson Winters and the Commissioners thanked Attorney DeCrescenzo and Commissioner Rieger for putting this ordinance together.
Commissioner Rieger advised that First Selectman Lisa Heavner requested this ordinance be put on the BOS agenda for the 6 p.m. 02/15/2017, which is a Wednesday meeting; and Lisa felt it important for as many Commissioners as possible attend.
b. Expert Testimony
Attorney DeCrescenzo believed this relates to the request to amend the fee ordinance and offered to provide the Commission with a draft amendment reflecting the Commission intent. Currently, he said the fee ordinance defines large and complex projects the same as the State does, which is 200 cars or 100,000 sq. ft. of building. He believed it is the feeling of this Commission that there may be complex projects coming before it that do not meet either criteria and for which the Commission may need to hire outside experts under the fee ordinance. He advised that recently the courts have sanctioned these ordinances requiring payment of additional fees on a project-by-project basis; there is a recent Superior Court case that within the powers of a municipality under General Statute 8-1c fees are allowed to be imposed. He offered to put together a draft ordinance amendment for Commission review; and Commissioner Rieger will work with him on the draft.
c. POCD Update
Chairperson Winters believed the date for submitting POCD comments is approaching and provided the Commissioners with draft comments including: 1) the drought management plan; 2) the issue of non-native plants in Town and the large impact on wild areas; 3) development/implementation of a policy to use native plants in Town; 4) ability to prevent degradation of agricultural soils; and 5) a management plan for all Town open space land; and page 2 has specific suggestions, which she invited the Commissioners to add to. Commissioner Rieger suggested adding, “develop a plan and regulations that would preclude water bottling businesses pumping groundwater for export of water bottling plants.” Chairperson Winters will submit these POCD comments.
d. Constitutional amendment on open space to provide more permanent protection for open space.
Regarding the question of the proposed constitutional amendment to provide more permanent protection for open space, Commissioner Reiger indicated the process is it goes twice to the Legislature - it has been there once and is now back the 2nd time for potential adoption; and Senator Looney is in now in favor of it. He said this Commission was going to consider whether to add its name as a signatory urging adoption along with many other signatory Commissions, Land Trusts, etc. and is still open for more signatures to be added.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion that the Conservation Commission adopt the January 9, 2017 letter to members of the Connecticut General Assembly in support of the reintroduction and passage of Resolution Act 16-1 in the 2017 legislative session as its official position; and
that the Conservation Commission instruct and authorize its secretary to communicate that approval to relevant persons and to request that the Commission’s name be added to the letter as a signatory.
Commissioner Levy seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the January 3, 2017 Regular Meeting
Chairman Winters accepted for the record the January 3, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes, as written.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:29 p.m.
Commissioner Levy seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.