Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 04/04/2017
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
APRIL 4, 2017
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - SUBJECT TO VOTE OF APPROVAL
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 Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development, 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, Donna Beinstein, Jim Morrison, Darren Cunningham, and Donald Rieger.
1. Appointment of Alternates
Chairperson Winters appointed Donna Beinstein to serve for Jason Levy.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. None
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Applications:
a. Application #17-02 of Dorset Crossing LLC, Owner, 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 as Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-D). Zone PAD. (received 01/17/2017; 30-day extension granted; decision must be rendered by 04/22/2017)
Chairman Winters read Application #17-02 into the record.
Dave Zyacks, P.E. of F.A. Hesketh reviewed 2 remaining questions from the meeting 2 months ago to: 1) look at potentially modifying the culvert design to introduce a natural bottom, rather than a concrete bottom; and 2) look at the standard DOT-style rip rap outfall design and come up with a more natural design. He believed they have accomplished both, as incorporated in the two Staff reports along with housekeeping engineering comments, which they have no problem with. He indicated they increased the culvert size from 5’x4’ to 5’x5’ allowing them to put in a 1-foot natural gravel bottom with stones; and a more natural design for the rip rap pad, which will be discussed further by their soil engineer, Bob Rousseau.
Bob Rousseau, certified soil scientist, worked with the Applicant and their engineers to redesign the culvert. He reviewed that currently there are 2 existing pipes minimally connecting upstream and downstream habitat and the Commission suggested they work on improving existing conditions. He showed on sheet GR3 the thread of Saxton Brook and the proposed cul-de-sac new access; by using a 5’x5’ culvert they can native backfill the lower 1-foot with native material that matches size and texture in the downstream channel and requires him and Dave to oversee onsite installation assuring proper backfilling when the first pipe goes in. He noted the outlet was originally designed as a DOT detail but they want to do the best they can looking at stream conditions to fit in with existing characteristics, including first placing native rocks as footing below streambed level and then other rocks to form a weir, so that for low flow there is a gap left in the weir as a low flow channel moving from the first small pool to the second pool in another direction off to the side and then to the third pool in another direction off to the side providing 3 pools during high flow and a stony low flow channel in summer. In his experience, this works well and fits existing channel characteristics.
Commissioner Morrison asked if the weirs would be placed rocks with no mortar. Mr. Rousseau confirmed that and said it was a leaky weir similar to a pool and riffle habitat with several rocks locked together and is copied from what DEEP fisheries does so that during low flow there is one channel concentrating flow and during high flow provides velocity protection; these would be large 2-3 foot native rocks butted against each other as he and Dave would direct onsite for each one – like a mini-stone wall project done in low flow conditions.
Commissioner Rieger asked about structure maintenance as well as for backfill material. Mr. Roussea responded the part in the stream would not need any maintenance; it is possible if sediment was deposited upstream the Town would be responsible for cleaning out the catch basins. Commissioner Rieger asked if construction is being done on Town land in the wetland, is the Town also an applicant. Mr. Glidden noted this is open space deeded to the Town. Mr. Rabbitt explained that any work done in the road right of way requires permission from the Town, which would be done in a pre-construction manner and this permit would authorize that; they are seeking to do work within and just beyond the right of way and when construction begins they would need to pull a highway construction permit; and a pre-construction meeting could be required.
Commissioner Morrison asked for the soil scientist’s opinion regarding the effects on wildlife, specifically for connectivity. Mr. Rousseau responded the connectivity for wildlife using this stream will improve considerably: 1) first the current 24-inch diameter pipes make it very difficult for wildlife to get through and it will be much easier for larger wildlife to migrate through this tunnel and because there will be a natural bottom surface; and 2) this is an upper perennial stream and it is currently hydraulically impractical with the pipe perched high above the stream for smaller fish to move from the downstream to the upstream side, and this would provide better connectivity with the series of pools for the stream corridor.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion finding this is a regulated activity because the proposed work is in a water course.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion finding this is not a significant impact activity, especially with the changes made since the initial application and the Applicant’s soil scientist’s statement that the biological connectivity of the stream is improved significantly based on this project.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion to approve the Application subject to the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions in the 03/29/2017 Staff Report.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion.
The Commissioners discussed including the 27 conditions contained in the Town Engineer’s report. Mr. Glidden explained the Town Engineer’s report was mainly for housekeeping issues, which the Applicant would address in the final subdivision plans that would be submitted to the Planning Commission and recommended sticking to items under the Commission’s jurisdiction contained in the Staff report dated 04/03/2017.
Commissioner Morrison amended the motion to approve the Application subject to the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions contained in the 04/03/2017 Staff Report.
Commissioner Cunningham re-seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
b. Application #17-04 of Jerome Shea P.E., Town Engineer, Applicant; Town of Simsbury, Owner; for the Town Forest Park improvements project, including demolition and construction of a parking lot and trails on the property located at 86 Town Forest Road (shown on the Assessor’s Map as West Mountain Road, Map B14, Block 301, Lot 016, the work site being approximately 700 feet northeast from where Nimrod Road meets Town Forest Road). Zone R-40. (received 03/21/2017; decision must be rendered by 05/24/2017)
Chairperson Winters read Application #17-04 into the record.
Adam Kessler, Project Engineer for the Town, reviewed that since the last meeting Parks and Rec demolished the building outside the upland review area (URA), restored the slope, put some hay and seed down, and plans to return in the growing season to add soil and more seed. He noted a concern raised about roadway erosion with sediment from the road running into Stratton Brook; as shown in figure #3, the recent rain allowed them to observe a leak off with a lot of sediment in stone and fines making their way through; and Parks will go out this week to remove that sediment; they looked at how to rectify the situation – figure #1 shows gutter flow down the road entering the existing sandy/gravelly parking lot picking up sediment and then flowing back into the gutter moving to the leak off; and they are looking at how to divide gutter flow so it does not erode the shoulder resulting in even more sediment. He indicated they observed an existing swale directing runoff into the wooded area behind the basketball court, and over the years sediment and gravel has created a berm along the road isolating that swale so it no longer performs its function; Parks proposed removing a section and reconnecting the swale to the gutter, as they have observed sediment in the gutter, and that would allow infiltration westward. He continued that further east this project should alleviate potential erosion; they would pave and reduce the entrance size and exposed soils with grading directing runoff to a green area slight depression disconnecting that section of runoff from the gutter flow to Stratton Brook, which they believe will correct the 2 main sediment sources leading to the leak off. He also mentioned that at least the first 45 feet of the parking lot will be paved; the add-alternate bid process allows contractors to submit a low bid potentially allowing more paving within budget.
Milone and MacBroom’s landscape architect and their environmental scientist, who identified site wetlands, were present and provided current photos of the site with its large gravel parking lot used to access the park and larger trail network for Stratton Brook and Ethel Walker Woods open space; and some old structures demolished by the Town. The proposal is to provide Town Forest Park improvements including: formalizing a partially paved smaller parking facility, with paved trails connecting the parking area to the trail head, and repairing the bridge crossing to the south with no direct impact on wetlands. He continued that some construction for the paved walkway would fall within the URA, as well as for the bridge structure; and another structure of about 550 sq. ft. fully within the URA would be demolished. He indicated trail improvements include excavation, grading, and paving of a bituminous asphalt trail with about 1000 sq. ft. of impact. Their engineering plans show S&E controls to prevent silt migration during construction and to protect identified onsite turtle habitat – the turtle management plan will fully surround the construction site with silt fence and there will be rules the contractor must follow if turtles are encountered within or outside the site.
Commissioner Cunningham asked for discussion of the stairs. The landscape architect responded they would be another bid alternate and the last photo showed their current beat-up condition providing the most direct route; the stairs are proposed to be reconstructed in the future with timber steps; the most accessible route from the parking area is down the approximate 5% slope hillside flattening out and following grade to the currently unsafe bridge, which has also has a step up; they plan to ramp up to the bridge and build a new deck with a ramp down on the other side, in order to get visitors to the next set of trails for this portion of the project.
Chairperson Winters asked about the undefined parking area and how much top soil would be brought in. The architect responded they would remove the sandy gravel mix and bring in a skin coat of good quality top soil to grow some low maintenance native grass with no intent for regular mowing, as confirmed by Staff. Commissioner Morrison asked if the parking lot itself would be gravel. The architect indicated, if funds allow, the parking lot would all be paved alleviating rutting, or it would be a formalized engineered gravel system that could be paved in the future. Commissioner Morrison asked if existing surface will be removed; the architect confirmed it would be skimmed off and replaced by a real surface aggregate base for a smooth surface, without much grade change.
Chairperson Winters asked about the demolished red building with stone foundation and having material to hold it in place; Mr. Kessler reconfirmed that hay has been put down where that building was with some seed and Parks will go back in the next few weeks to top dress and add seed to the area. The architect added there will be some regrading to that area and they will have the contractor re-dress and stabilize the area; Town Staff will keep an eye on it. Commissioner Morrison asked about the plan for the building and slab next to the brook intended to be demolished next. The architect responded that once the 6-8 inch concrete slab is removed by a jackhammer, they will fill in the 550 sq. ft. flat area with 5 ft. outside ring protected by a 5-10 ft. silt fence off the structure foundation with native soils, and top dress and establish the area so it blends back into the site. He said the only remaining structure would be a covered pavilion in good shape that will be cleaned and dressed up a bit.
Chairperson Winters asked where staked hay bales would be used; the architect responded they would be used at the stockpiling area, which would also be ringed by silt fence. The architect explained there are a lot of tree protective measures on the site as shown by the dark line with the dots representing silt fence; although the light hatch for silt fence does not show on the plans; there would be one stockpile area in the gravel parking area with not much material anticipated to be on the site at one time.
Chairperson Winters asked about the turtle management plan and if the construction people would be the only ones involved in moving them to the other side of the fence. The architect responded that is standard language and a requirement on the contractor with periodic inspection by Milone and MacBroom and Town Staff for box turtles at the site.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion finding this is a regulated activity because the proposed construction is within the Upland Review Area.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion finding this is not a significant activity because with the erosion and sediment controls proposed by the Applicant there should be very little impact to the wetlands.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion to approve the Application subject to the Standard Conditions and Special Conditions in the 03/27/2017 Staff Report.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Chairperson Winters explained to an audience member because this is a meeting of the Commission no public comment can be taken as required by law.
c. Application #17-05 of Burke LaClair, Business Manager, Applicant; Town of Simsbury, Owner; for reconstruction of the tennis courts on the property located at 34 Farms Village Road (Assessor’s Map F11, Block 148, Lot 016). Zone R-40. (received 03/21/2017; decision must be rendered by 05/24/2017)
Chairperson Winters read Application #17-05 into the record.
Burke LaClair was present on behalf of the BOE regarding this project on the Town’s Capital Plan and to answer any questions. Milone and MacBroom’s landscape architect and their environmental scientist were present. The architect indicated they were asked to design and construct 6 new tennis courts at the high school and demolish 6 existing bituminous asphalt damaged tennis courts; 3 of the older courts would be replaced by 3 new courts near the parking lot and 3 new courts back in an existing under-utilized athletic area. He indicated the courts are in a flood plain and a more suitable post-tension concrete construction would be used, which don’t crack, are lower maintenance, and hold together with cabling in the concrete slab, although they look like any other tennis court. Commissioner Cunningham asked whether there are no longer paddle tennis courts; the architect was not familiar with them. He showed the existing court locations on the plan with existing driveway along the east side of the courts, which drive can also be reconstructed providing a route to other fields. He noted they would try to salvage some old court stone base to save on construction cost and fill with topsoil and seed an area for 3 courts; the thick blue dash shows the URA which has about 23,000 sq. ft. of impact for grading and construction. Commissioner Cunningham asked what the reason was to move 3 of the courts. Mr. LaClair responded it is part of athletics master planning with a second field proposed on the Town CIP; currently, their grass fields are not supported by bathrooms, kitchens, etc. and the removed 3 court area could provide an area for future central services. Chairperson Winters asked about the necessity of touching the wetland edge. The architect explained it is the tree line and they are about 50 feet from flagged wetlands shown by the gray line. Chairperson Winters asked how much space would be required for central services. Mr. LaClair responded there is no firm plan or budget yet, but it is desirable to have a direct walkway serving the largest stadium and other games occurring simultaneously. Commissioner Morrison asked about the walkway shape. The architect responded that at some point walkways may be extended to other areas and following review of numerous designs this is currently how they ended up.
Commissioner Rieger asked if given the substantially flat area sloping slightly toward the brook, whether there was any consideration for storm water due to the additional paving; Commissioner Cunningham noted this would be additional to what is in the URA corner. The architect responded they are matching grade and not changing drainage patterns much; the second blue line represents the 100-year flood plain, which the courts are inside no matter where they are placed posing challenges for future projects in the area.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion that this is a regulated activity because it involves both construction and construction in the Upland Review Area.
Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion that this is not a significant activity because it involves very limited disturbance within the Upland Review Area.
Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to grant the permit subject to the Standard and Special Conditions contained in the 03/27/2017 Staff Report.
Commissioner Rieger seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Receipt of New Applications
a. Application #17-06 of Robert and Joan Aiken, Owners, for the replacement of a deck in the upland review area to a wetland on the property located at 22 Park Road (Assessor’s Map D16, Block 406, Lot 060). Zone R-40. (to be received 04/04/2017; decision must be rendered by 06/08/2017)
Mr. Glidden indicated Application #17-06 proposes placing a deck within 29 feet of mapped wetland soils and will be heard at the next meeting.
b. Application received 04/03/2017 from the Silverman Group for 200 Hopmeadow Street for a multi-purpose trail linking the northern parcel of Hartford’s holdings to the southern parcel and to Canal Way and ultimately to the Farmington River Valley trail system
Mr. Rabbitt noted the Commission has been provided copies of the Application and plan for 200 Hopmeadow; there would potentially be 20 sq. ft. of wetland disturbance for the proposed pylon and deck system that provides golf cart style passage. He indicated the Applicant’s representatives are present to review scope and specifics in order for the Commission to determine whether this is a significant activity requiring scheduling a public hearing.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to amend the Agenda to add discussion of this Application.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Mr. Rabbitt also introduced Mike Siska, representing the Town tonight due to a conflict of Town Attorney DeCrescenzo; Mr. Siska is a well-versed land use attorney and former DEEP employee as a geologist, and author of the book, “What’s Legally Required”.
Attorney T.J. Donohue representing the Silverman Group was accompanied by Rod Selicki, Project Engineer for DHP, who is the primary designer for the 40-acre site. Mr. Selicki provided an overview of the application for about 485 linear feet of bike path and elevated board walk through the URA and about 180 feet through the wetlands. He continued that the site is currently an open agricultural field bounded by Hopmeadow Street and the Farmington River with the majority of the site running overland to the Farmington River and Minister Brook. He indicated under proposed conditions their site design would collect storm water in a closed pipe network, send it to underground infiltration basins strategically placed underneath parking lots, and a rear infiltration detention basin with a sediment fore bay for pre-treatment. He added that in order to maintain existing drainage patterns, they propose 2 outlets – one near the Farmington River and one by Minister Brook; they would both be concrete level spreaders designed to dissipate flow with rip rap taking the water, filling up, and spilling out to avoid bank erosion and dissipate flow speed. He noted the red line shows flagged wetlands and the blue line is about 50 feet outside of the buffer. He indicated their infiltration testing revealed excellent rates and decided to place different underground systems to dissipate where they are infiltrating in order to maintain ground water levels and help water enter underground into the Farmington River and Minister Brook.
Mr. Selicki showed the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the overall site, which lines the limit of work with silt fence to keep sediment outside wetlands and URA and keeps critters and endangered species from crossing over to the work site; they would use temporary sediment basins to infiltrate water and diversion swales leading to them as an overall plan, which utilizes the great rates rather than having potential sediment enter wetlands. He noted the Hartford Form Based Code prepared by the Town connects the north and south parcels via a walking trail for pedestrians/bicycles; another requirement was that as the north is developed it connect to the Farmington Heritage Trail; the dark yellow shows the elevated boardwalk along Hopmeadow with a trail connecting via a 12-foot wide path, crossing an existing signal to be modified for a crosswalk to an existing sidewalk connecting to Heritage Trail. He said the boardwalk was designed with 10-inch diameter posts driven into the ground setting the pile with an excavator on top of the bridge building 10 feet at a time, so equipment is never in the wetlands minimizing impacts; the impact would be vegetation clearing within the URA and wetlands and minor grading prior to the crossing. He noted an existing rip rap protected culvert crosses under Hopmeadow Street and its span would increase from about 10 feet to 40 feet to assure culvert integrity is maintained and flow patterns match today. They have worked with a wetlands scientist who coordinated with DEEP, which prefers crossing along Rte. 10 rather than disturbance further east, and they have submitted that application to DEEP. He described various views of the area for the Commissioners.
Commissioner Morrison asked how far off the road the trail would be. The architect responded the trail is all on the Hartford private north and south properties about 50 feet off the road. Chairperson Winters asked if it would be at a lower elevation than the road. The architect indicated it would be a little above to avoid no more than about 250 sq. ft. of fill, as the road would flood in the 100-year storm. Commissioner Morrison asked where the fill would go and its purpose. The architect indicated they calculated it based on the piers/posts in the flood plain; the material would be pressure treated wood pushed into the ground; Mr. Rabbitt explained it is typically done with a vibratory hammer resulting in minimal soil displacement.
Mr. Rabbitt reviewed that there are two aspects: 1) under the regulations, the Commission would determine whether any activity here is considered significant; those criteria include displacement of wetland soil and in this proposal 20 sq. ft. is associated with driving piles into a regulated area; and 2) the decking and board walk will be above and over regulated wetland soils, and issues associated with about 1550 sq. ft. of shaded wetland soils; the area is urban with road shoulder and snow shelf with readily-reachable invasives in the tree line that would be removed potentially improving the area. Commissioner Morrison asked about identifying the criteria for a significant activity; Mr. Rabbitt referred the Commission to its regulations page 19, which discusses criteria for holding a public hearing, and also page 7, to definitions; and he suggested the Commission have an early discussion because a hearing would have to be held within 65 days of application receipt, and given notice requirements. Commissioner Rieger noted a public hearing may be called if the Commission considers it to be in the public interest, irrespective of whether it is a significant activity. Mr. Rabbitt agreed it is within the Commission’s jurisdiction to decide 20 sq. ft. of wetlands disturbance and 1550 ft. of decking is in the public interest, but has to say why. The Commissioners discussed whether it is a significant activity and concluded the public interest does not require a public hearing; Mr. Rabbitt suggested it would be appropriate for a motion stating that because if it were done in 65 days, a public hearing cannot be held as it would exceed statutory authority and the applicant is not bound to grant an extension. Attorney Siska advised the statute says you shall not have a public hearing unless you make a determination it is in the public interest, or it is a significant activity, or you receive a petition within 14 days; the implication is if you find it a significant activity, it is safest to hold a public hearing and avoid future litigation. Commissioner Cunningham discussed if the Commission later found it to be a significant activity with subsequent litigation, but said nothing today given the application has not yet been reviewed. Attorney Siska commented the motion could say the Commission does not find a reason to hold a public hearing.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion we do not, on the information available to us thus far, find it necessary or desirable to hold a Public Hearing.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Mr. Rabbitt requested Commissioners contact him with any questions in order to receive additional information regarding the application; a referral from the Zoning Commission under Chapter 128 will be on the Agenda in 2 weeks, which relates to the Commission’s role as the Erosion and Sedimentation Control board.
VI. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Correspondence
Commissioner Rieger recalled that sometime ago the Commission responded to EPA’s request for comments regarding the Clean Water Act, and the Commission expressed support for EPA’s position, which was different than Mr. Scalia’s opinion. He continued that recently the President issued an executive order instructing EPA to re-open the Clean Water Act question, which Mr. Pruitt is doing with the Corps of Engineers. He brought this to the Commission’s attention in case there is interest in commenting again. He clarified EPA is re-evaluating the last rule and is required to accept public comment.
Commissioner Rieger commented that about 10 years ago the Commission endorsed the Wild and Scenic designation for the lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook, and it has been re-introduced by Senator Murphy, passed committee, and is now on the floor of the Senate awaiting combination with other land bills in an omnibus lands package, and will then go to the House for potential passage. He noted last year it passed the Senate, but no omnibus lands bill was adopted by Congress; however, Senator Murphy’s office senses it may get done this time. Chairperson Winters noted Sally Rieger has worked on this bill since the Wild and Scenic study group was formed, which has been an arduous task.
Mr. Glidden reminded the Commissioners that the forest public forum will be held on 04/17/2017 at the Public Library, and anyone planning to attend should email Helen Petersen. Chairperson Winters and Commissioners Haldeman and Rieger were planning to attend, particularly as it is relevant to this Commission’s approval of the Onion Mountain forestry plan.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the March 21, 2017 Regular Meeting
Chairman Winters accepted for the record the March 21, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes, as written.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner MacCormac made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.