Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 03/17/2015
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS &
WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
MARCH 17, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Margery Winters opened the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission at 7:40 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were Jim Morrison, Phil Purciello, Darren Cunningham, Donald Rieger, Patrick Spaulding and Andrew O'Connor. Also present were Rachel Blatt, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Following introduction of members, Chairperson Winters appointed Commissioner Morrison to serve as the alternate for Margaret Sexton.
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairperson Winters opened the floor for nominations for Chair.
Commissioner Rieger nominated Margery Winters as Chairperson.
Commissioner Purciello made a motion to close the nominations.
Commissioner Spaulding seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Margery Winters was elected unanimously as Chairperson.
Chairperson Winters opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chair.
Commissioner Purciello nominated Darren Cunningham as Vice Chairperson.
Commissioner Purciello made a motion to close the nominations.
Commissioner Spaulding seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Darren Cunningham was elected unanimously as Vice Chairperson.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL(s)
Town Staff advised the Commissioners that an Application was received regarding installation of a generator and propane tanks at the Upland Review Area edge with minimal impact, and following discussion with the Commission Chairperson it was approved administratively.
V. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
1. Application #15-01 of Carol E. Gallagher, Owner, for existing grading and leveling in the Upland Review Area to a watercourse on the property located at 6 Wintergreen Lane (Assessor’s Map B14, Block 301, Lot 127). Zone R-040 OS.
The Applicant's son, with power of attorney, explained his Mother graded an area in the backyard quite a few years ago as part of providing housing for fellow church members. The graded area was located near the septic system was flattened to allow vehicles to turn easily. The Applicant's son indicated Zoning had approved the structure for communal living use with 5 residents now in the house. The representative believed the watercourse has never been affected with the changes having occurred many years ago and no erosion problems ever; the Health Department subsequently confirmed the septic tank to be 30+ feet away from the parking area; errors in Town maps were also found. The Commissioners were shown photos of the grassy parking area to the left side of the house where cars are much less visible from the street so the property continued to look nice. The representative believed the mildly graded area was too far from the watercourse to affect it; some existing material from a hill on the property was used to flatten the area at a maximum of a foot deep; the area pitches toward the brook, but is quite dry. Town Staff confirmed there were no obvious erosion issues found to date and suggested putting shade seed down to assure solid growth. While the house has been on the market for some time, the representative indicated it would likely go to foreclosure, and the Commissioners discussed issues related to permit issuance and that the best course would be for Town Staff to follow up.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to delegate the matter to Town Staff under Section 12.1 of the Regulations.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
2. Application #15-03 of K&K Developers, Inc. and Garden Homes, Applicants; Infinity IV, LLC, Owner; for the construction of storm water management improvements within the Upland Review Area to a wetland, as well as a subdivision plan review, on the property located at 34 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map E18, Block 117, Lot 001). Zone PAD.
The Applicant's attorney reviewed that K&K Developers/Garden Homes applied for a PAD 08/2014 for the 60-acre site to develop 181 multi-family units as the first development - the PAD was approved by Zoning in 11/2014 for mixed-use residential/commercial/office, including the existing industrial CL&P site. The attorney noted they appeared before the Commission for both comments related to conservation and for Inland/Wetland Agency regulatory approval, which was granted on 9/30/2014 allowing a road crossing at an existing drainage swale, which was a key element in pursuing the PAD plan. The attorney noted that once the site was fully engineered, the approval required the Applicant to return to the Commission regarding Parcel 1B's storm water design, the implications for the approved crossing, and the planting plan for the rain garden area. The attorney indicated the engineering plan has been developed by the Applicant, and they have appeared before the Planning Commission for review of the residential development site subdivision required for permitting, but Planning requires a decision from this Commission before they can act; they also received a positive recommendation from the Design Review Board on 03/16/2015; and they plan to go before the Zoning Commission on 04/07/2015 for site plan approval, but in order for Zoning to act, they also need to receive this Commission's decision. The attorney believed this Application to be a further review of the permit previously granted for the existing crossing, with no hearing requested by the public to date, and requested the Commission allow them to proceed. The attorney noted State regulations require Commission review of a subdivision when there are regulated areas on the site, which would need to be part of the decision.
The Applicant's architect noted the Commission previously granted a wetlands disturbance permit conditioned upon their returning to the Commission with additional details, so they have filed a full Application. The architect indicated the plan for this residential component was virtually identical to the original proposal in its coverage, open space, and use of green infrastructure; and provides additional detail for drainage, storm water, green infrastructure and landscaping. The Commissioners were shown what was permitted with view shed, with the primary culvert now relocated to the low point of the site. The architect indicated the major change reflected in the Application relates to phasing regarding entrance to the property and the heavily landscaped rain garden gateway; the development flows to the east, but water does not flow uphill, however, it is a feature of the development locked in place via the PAD Application, and they are now presenting their vision of what it may look like when the development occurs, depending on how development of the front land parcel unfolds, e.g. it may be bigger or smaller; this is the low point of the site and a logical location to treat storm water. The architect acknowledged the incorporation of the Commission's input regarding landscaping using native materials; the Commissioners were shown an image presented to the Design Review Board 03/16/2015 suggesting no trees and keeping the site agrarian.
The Applicant's engineer noted that currently the undeveloped site drains toward a center low point with storm water flowing through the wetland to a 30-inch pipe, to a ditch about 300-feet away, through the ditch about 200 feet into a 12-foot wide box cover underneath the trail, and ultimately discharging into the Farmington River. The engineer indicated their storm water design utilized the Simsbury Town Zoning Regulations and Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual so they cannot increase peak flow runoff from the site; zero percent increase in peak runoff leaving the site would be accomplished using infiltrators and detention systems scattered throughout the site to handle runoff from parking lots and building roofs; their open bottom system soil tests indicate 50 inches per hour groundwater recharge providing more recharge than originally anticipated. The engineer described the majority of the site entering the storm water pipe network and moving through the detention systems; water quality features on the site highlighted in green on the layout indicate a large lawn area with a small depression collecting water from the parking area through ducts during water events, and if water gets high enough, it would enter the infiltrators; if the infiltrators fill up, the water would enter the storm water pipe network through the drainage system ultimately discharging at the site low point; the two pipes would discharge into a level spreader before entering the wetlands to prevent concentrated flow erosion. The engineer noted the cross culvert placed in the wetland area would take the field overland flow across the main driveway maintaining the current flow pattern; storm water collected in the main entry drive is picked up by 4 catch basins through a hydrodynamic separator into a vegetative swale and ultimately to the leveler; before storm water enters the infiltrators, it goes through 4 hydrodynamic separators sized to remove 80% of suspended solids on site; additional measures include rain gardens, level spreaders, and infiltrators. Regarding how the water is spread, the engineer explained the layers provide for water to be collected in catch basins and then through the pipe network (demonstrated by blue lines) about 5 feet below the green area; the water moves through hydrodynamic separators prior to entering the subsurface; and very effective infiltrators were described as a half pipe open on the bottom with a full void inside and surrounded by stone. The Applicant's architect noted the main reason for returning to the Commission with this Application relates to water flowing downhill and the need to bring drainage farther down the hill but closer to the wetlands in order to limit disturbance to a smaller area.
Regarding erosion control measures during site construction, the engineer indicated proposed controls conform to 2002 Connecticut Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines, as well as Connecticut DEEP General Permit water requirements for construction activities. The engineer indicated they would be providing the required more detailed construction narrative and registration to DEEP. The engineer explained there is a maintenance schedule in the Stormwater Management Report with rain gardens having debris regularly removed and sediment removed at certain depths. The engineer noted the plan shows silt fence around the entire perimeter with additional protection provided by hay bales where they about any wetland areas or watercourses; all slopes greater than 3:1 have erosion control measures as does the Hopmeadow construction entrance. The engineer indicated silt sack placement shown by orange circles; as sediment fills up during construction, it would be removed with backhoes; large circles indicate areas where that material would be stored. The engineer explained that the infrastructure for the site is anticipated to be completed all at once; the Applicant indicated it would take about 2 years for full site construction, which will be done in sections. The engineer added that temporary sediment traps would be used throughout construction of sections with sediment settling in basins prior to entering installed storm water management. The architect confirmed the culvert would be put in when the road goes in and the wetland crossing would be sufficient for subsequent phases.
The Applicant's soil biologist described the existing site as a fallow agricultural field with a fragment of forest, fully developed areas to the north and south, Hopmeadow Street to the west, and the rail trail to the east. The biologist noted the wetland depicted in the darker green map color is a small narrow intermittent watercourse with minor woods and vegetation on either side and substantial culvert discharge disturbance at the northern end of the system. As a result of storm water piping and agricultural use, the biologist indicated substantial erosion has occurred in this area; the principal function of the system is groundwater interchange with recharge during drier times and discharge during wetter times; other functions are limited due to history of disturbance and modification of vegetation due to area drainage features with the area seasonally saturated. The biologist noted the area and location of requested approval is the same as previously approved, totaling about 1400 sq. ft. or 3/100th of an acre, and it was his opinion the adverse impact would be negligible.
The biologist indicated indirect impacts evaluated included: soil erosion, subsequent deposition into a wetland, removal/alteration of native vegetation and wildlife habitat, and alteration of hydrology and change in water quality. The biologist reviewed that the site soils are nearly level with the majority at 3% or less of slope with the potential of only slight erosion; nevertheless, the 2002 Guidelines were followed in providing the required plan, and the plan will be resubmitted. The biologist noted the landscape plan emphasizes native species with the rain garden substantially adding to wetland vegetation. The biologist believed altering site hydrology was a positive proposal element; site characteristics are well suited for development with coarse grain soils, and structural water management measures would improve storm water quality under State statute removing 80% of removable sediment, as well as catch basins and hydrodynamic separators to infiltrators. Therefore, it was the biologists opinion there would be no adverse impact to watercourses in the area.
Regarding bike path access, Town Staff noted the crossing showing 15-foot wide pavement could accommodate it, if the path ends up there.
Town Staff noted a request to be copied on the final plans.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion that this is a regulated activity as it involves construction in a wetland.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion that it is not significant activity in that it involves a minimal disturbance to wetland areas, but on the whole no significant impact on wetlands and watercourses.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to grant the permit noting that this is for the Parcel 1B; it does not relate to the other aspects of the entire parcel, although we note a subdivision is occurring here and find that the subdivision is not inconsistent with our permit. The permit is granted conditioned on the revisions to the silt fence mentioned by the soil scientist.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion finding that the Sedimentation and Erosion Plan is satisfactory subject to Town Staff being satisfied with the construction narrative addition, as required, following submittal to DEEP.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
3. Discussion on Commission roles and responsibilities
Because there are new Commission members, Town Staff discussed the Commission's 3 roles: 1) the primary statutory Inland/Wetlands Water Courses Agency role; 2) the secondary conservation advisory role to other commissions; and 3) through the Town Chapter 128 oversight role for Erosion and Sedimentation Control with items that do not fall under 1) coming before the full board in this role. Town Staff indicated that the ordinance allows for some reviews to be handled by staff, but does not specify any triggers for dividing projects between Commission review and staff review. Town Staff recommended that projects with more than 1/2 acre of disturbance be brought before the Commission, as this is one of the milestones in the CT Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines; for less than 1/2 acre, it could be handled administratively in consultation with the Chair. Administratively, it must be determined whether a separate permit is required, or is it tied to the Inland Wetlands permit when there are wetlands involved. The Commissioners questioned what goes into storm drains when a large construction project takes place. Town Staff indicated anything at the 1/2 acre mark could automatically require an Application to the Commission for review of their full Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan; silt fence would likely be required in other cases, as well as wood chip berms. The Commissioners and Staff agreed under Section 128.4b, to test 1/2 acre of disturbance as the threshold.
4. Discussion and review of the Commission Bylaws
Town Staff noted the current Bylaws do not include all Commission roles, and language could be added; the Commissioners requested Town Staff take the lead on this effort.
VI. RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS
Town Staff received an Application from Metacon Gun Club Friday, allowing sufficient time to act if a public hearing is held. Metacon has already completed the Corp process and their Application proposes grading 16.6% or 5.81 acres of the 35-acre wetland on the property.
Commissioner Cunningham recused himself from the Application, as a member of Metacon.
The Commissioners questioned whether there could be a lead issue for the shooting range.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to schedule a Public Hearing, in the public interest, for the Metacon Gun Club Application.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed with 6 votes in favor; Commissioner Cunningham abstained.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Town Staff noted an item received from Aqarion seeking receipt of Environmental Champion Award nominations by 5/6/2015; a CD is available for viewing.
Town Staff noted the annual Wetland Scientists meeting will be held a full day in Southbury on Thursday, 3/16/2015; an attendee form is available.
Town Staff indicated Cumberland Farms, working with Water Pollution Control, will have some dewatering with fractation treatment settling tanks for sediment taking place over 3 days this summer to allow installation of underground storage tanks; they will tie the dewatering system directly by pipe into the sanitary sewer system so that no water leaves the site; because they are near a wetlands area, additional hay bales and sedimentation controls will be utilized.
The Commissioners indicated on Thursday, 3/19/2015 at 6 p.m. at the Library Main Meeting Room, the Open Space Committee will discuss with public input what should be done with the 1 Old Bridge Road property, prior to making a recommendation to the BOS.
The Commissioners noted that on Wednesday, 3/25/2015 at 5 p.m. a meeting will be held in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices to discuss Fuss & O'Neill's plan for Simsbury Meadows wetland protected land between Iron Horse Boulevard and the river. The meeting was set up for Economic Development, the BOS, and others; and Conservation Commission members are invited to attend. The Fuss & O'Neill representative has distinguished between State and Federal wetlands and there will be a discussion regarding State laws for wetlands and potential paving near the river.
The Commissioners advised that on Saturday, 3/21/2015, the annual Connecticut Land Conservation Council meeting will be held with the "2015 Excellence in Conservation Award" this year being given jointly to the Town of Simsbury and the Simsbury Land Trust for their creative and collaborative work in protecting the George Hall Farm.
Town Staff indicated an opportunity to submit further questions/comments to Planning or Zoning regarding the 34 Hopmeadow Street development or to resend the previous letter. The Commissioners agreed to send a letter advising they are satisfied regarding storm water for Parcel 1B, and that in general, previous comments made on the PAD are still valid and relevant.
VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of February 17, 2015 Regular Meeting
On Line 29, "Chapter 8” is corrected to "Chapter 128".
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to approve the February 17, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes, as amended.
Commissioner Purciello seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Commissioner Purciello seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.