Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 08/01/2017 SPECIAL MEETING

Subject to Approval

Town of Simsbury

Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 7:30PM

Simsbury Town Offices – Main Meeting Room

933 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, Connecticut

PRESENT:   Margery Winters, Craig MacCormac, James Morrison, Donald Rieger, 

                              Alternate Charles Haldeman; Assistant Town Planner Michael Glidden.

ABSENT:    Darren Cunningham, Jason Levy, and Alternate Donna Beinstein.

I.  CALL TO ORDER:

The meeting commenced at 7:30PM.

II.  ROLL CALL:

1.  Appointment of Alternates.

Mr. Haldeman was seated for Mr. Cunningham.   

III.  GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS:

1.  Approval of the Minutes of the July 18, 2017 Regular Meeting.            

The July 18, 2017 Minutes should be amended as follows:

Line 10, Line 22, Line 92, Line 95, Line 99, Line 151, Line 159, Line 182, Line 203, and Line 238 should change the name “Reiger” to “Rieger”.

The July 18, 2017 Minutes as amended were accepted.

2.  Deepwater Wind Solar Project.

a.  Referral from Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Glidden reviewed site maps from the Deepwater Wind Petition.  He noted on the erosion and sediment control plan that the lines depicted in green represent the limits of inland wetlands soils, the areas marked in orange represent the perimeter fencing, the red boxes represent the sediment traps, the pink represents stockpile locations and the blue lines representing diversion swales associated with the proposed temporary sediment traps.  Mr. Glidden noted that the grading plans are limited, but show some grading plans in the northern corner.  Mr. Glidden reviewed the areas of grading activity.

Mr. Glidden also noted conflicting information regarding the access roads.  Mr. Glidden noted that there is no phasing plan included in the 1200-page petition.  He noted that he has requested a site visit but has not received permission.  The items that the Commission would review and be seeking should this have been the type of project that was regulated by this Board were noted. 

Concerns with potentially having to recycle the panels was discussed.   The decommissioning plan was also a concern.

A draft reply correspondence, dated August 1, 2017, to the Board of Selectmen's request for comment regarding this petition was reviewed and discussed.

Changes to the draft included the following:

The text in the second paragraph on the first page reading, “…Commission reached the consensus that if it were within the Commission’s power to protect the site’s agricultural soils, it would probably seek to do so, but that being possible, approval of the project was, on balance to be recommended from a conservation point of view…” should instead read, “…Commission reached the consensus that if it were within the Commission’s power to protect the site’s agricultural soils, it would probably seek to do so.  Residential or industrial development of the site would portend a complete loss of the agricultural soils whereas the project could serve as a placeholder for later agricultural use.  Given that choice, approval of the project was, on balance to be recommended from a conservation point of view…”;

The text in the second paragraph on the first page reading, “…Meanwhile clean energy is a desired social good…” was stricken;

The text in the third paragraph on the first page reading, “…The Commission nonetheless has several comments and concern…” should instead read, “…To be sure, if this application was submitted to the Commission in a jurisdictional capacity, it would have required more information and documentation on numerous aspects.  Lacking that, the Commission nonetheless has several comments and concern…”;

The text in the fourth paragraph on the first page reading, “…would like to see a cover crop that is both pollinator-friendly…” should instead read, “…would like to see a cover crop identified that is both pollinator-friendly…”;

The text in the fifth paragraph on the first page reading, “…of undertakings with which the Commission takes comfort…” should instead read, “...of assurances and undertakings upon which the Commission relies…”; and

The text in the first paragraph on the third page reading, “…extending the construction entrance be a minimum length of xxx feet due to…” should instead read, “…the construction entrance length due to expected high volume…”.

It was also agreed that a paragraph, identified as #12, should be added to the end of the letter, reading, "The Commission is concerned that the decommissioning plan might not be robust enough to assure that resources are sufficient to deal with the economic and other changes over the life of the project."

Additionally, commissioners agreed to add the following language, “The Commission has noted that there are two wetlands crossings, WF 6-600 and WF 6-158 as well as WF 6-200 and WF 6-223, shown on surveys but not revealed in the text.  A disclosure of the impact from these closings is obviously needed.”

It was agreed that a concluding sentence should be added to read, “…The foregoing list of comments and concerns is not exhaustive and were the Commission acting in a jurisdictional capacity, we would require much more information…”.

IV.   ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION:  Mr. Morrison, Mr. Haldeman second, to adjourn at 8:55PM; unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted,               

Pamela A. Colombie      

Commission Clerk