Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 10/17/2017

Simsbury Conservation Commission

TOWN OF SIMSBURY

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:30PM

Simsbury Town Hall – Main Meeting Room

933 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, Connecticut

PRESENT:  Margery Winters, Jason Levy, Craig MacCormac, James Morrison, Donald Rieger, and Alternate Charles Haldeman; Assistant Town Planner Michael Glidden.

ABSENT:  Alternate Donna Beinstein.

ALSO PRESENT:  Assistant Town Planner Michael Glidden.

I.  CALL TO ORDER:

The meeting commenced at 7:30PM.

II.  ROLL CALL:

1.  Appointment of Alternates.

III.  PUBLIC HEARING:

1.  None.

V.  OLD BUSINESS:

1.  Applications:

A.  Application #17-21 of Robert and Stephanie Carroll, Owners, for the construction of a 2-story addition to the existing residence on the property located at 62 West Mountain Road, West Simsbury (Assessor’s Map B11, Block 406, Lot 012). Zone R-40.

Robert and Stephanie Carroll appeared before the Commission regarding this application.  Ms. Carroll reported that they had previously added a garage on their parcel which was closer to the wetlands than their current proposed work.  Mr. Glidden reported that the proposed work is approximately fifty-nine (59’) feet from the edge of the wetlands soils. 

MOTION:  Mr. Rieger, Mr. Haldeman second, that the Commission finds this to be a regulated activity as it involves construction in the upland review area; unanimously approved.

MOTION:  Mr. Rieger, Mr. Haldeman second, that the Commission finds this to not be a significant impact activity as it involves no direct impact nor portends any damage to the wetlands; unanimously approved. 

MOTION:  Mr. Rieger, Mr. Haldeman second, to approve Application #17-21 of Robert and Stephanie Carroll, Owners, for the construction of a two-story addition to the existing residence on the property located at 62 West Mountain Road, West Simsbury (Assessors Map B11, Block 406, Lot 012). Zone R-40, subject to the following standard and special conditions:

1.  The Conservation Commission’s agent shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencement of any construction activity.

2.  Final stabilization of disturbed soil areas shall be stabilized with the application of loam, seed, required plantings and appropriate erosion control measures.

3.  At all times, during site work and until soil areas are stabilized, the applicant shall install and maintain erosion and sediment control measures such as fabric filter fence, staked hay bales or other measures deemed necessary by the Commission’s agent to prevent erosion and sedimentation impacts.

4.  Erosion control and soil measures shall comply with the approved plans and the guidelines as established in the Connecticut Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, 2002, CTDEP Bulletin 34.

5.  Upon direction of the Commission’s agent, erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed by the applicant following stabilization of the site.

6.  Site plan calls for the removal of fill from foundation excavation.  No change of grade is permitted.

7.  Erosion and sediment control must be installed prior to the start of foundation excavation.  Said measures are to be reviewed and approved by Commission’s agent before site work commences.

8.  Approval is work within the area of upland review.  No authorizations for work within mapped inland wetland soils and/or watercourses are granted by this permit.  Work beyond the limits of clearing/disturbance as illustrated on the approved site plan shall be considered a violation of this permit and subject to an immediate enforcement action.

   All work and all regulated activities conducted pursuant to this authorization shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit.   Any structures, excavation, deposition of fill, obstructions of flow, encroachments or other regulated activities not specifically identified and authorized herein shall constitute a violation of this permit and may result in permit modification, suspension or revocation.

   In the event that any wetland or watercourse regulated activities are required as a result of other agency permitting to support the proposed activity, the Simsbury Conservation Commission reserves the right to reconsider the proposal activity and may require modification to minimize the impact to wetland resources.

    In evaluating this application, the Commission has relied on information provided by the applicant.  If such information subsequently proves to be false, incomplete and/or inaccurate, this permit may be modified, suspended or revoked.                     Motion unanimously approved.

B.  Application #17-22 of The LRC Group, Agent; St. Mary’s Church Corporation, Owner; for the construction of an addition to the existing church and school and associated site improvements on the properties located at 940 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 001); 942 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 001); 944 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 002); 946 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H08, Block 227, Lot 002); 948 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 002); and 950 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 002). Zone SC-1.

Landscape Architect Henry Thomas of The LRC Group, accompanied by that company’s staff engineer Rich Reynolds, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.  Also accompanying Mr. Thomas and Mr. Reynolds was Licensed Environmental Professional Martin Brogie.  Plans for the proposed two-story addition connecting the church and the school was described for the Commission.  

The changes in the paved parking and proposals for traffic flow were reviewed.  Mr. Thomas noted that the work produces a net-zero effect to the storm water.  He explained that there is 390 square feet of wetlands at the base of a drainage outlet which is primarily a discharge from the State of Connecticut.  He noted that the driveway skirts the review area.  Mr. Thomas reported that the last section of pipe is at the point that it is disconnecting and the headwall needs to be replaced.  Mr. Thomas noted that the proposal includes building a plunge pool and cleaning out the sediment. 

Mr. Reynolds reviewed storm water drainage proposed as part of this project.  He noted that there is also a maintenance management plan that has been included.  The applicants were unsure whether a state permit was necessary for the project.  Mr. Thomas explained that the plans include creating the plunge pool first followed by the headwall replacement at which time the removal of invasives would occur.

Mr. Brogie addressed the Commission reviewing his October 2, 2017 correspondence wherein he had provided details from his findings after delineating the wetlands at the site.  Mr. Brogie described the methods he has suggested to remove the invasive plants by removing the rhizomes and roots of the invasives in and around the excavation area.  He described the “snip and drip” method that he suggested for the 8000 square feet in the regulated area, in which the stems are snipped and Round-up is sprayed into the stems to knock them down.

With regards to the larger wetland off the property, Mr. Brogie noted that so long as the applicant maintains the erosion control and quickly installs the plunge pool, water quality in the area will actually be improved.  Mr. Rieger suggested that the applicant may want to consult with the neighbor to jointly address the invasives.

In response to whether there might be an alternative to the plunge pool, Mr. Reynolds opined that the eighteen inches in the plunge pool is the best energy dissipater using the 6”-10” riprap.  It was noted that the spoils would likely be brought back to the contractor’s yard after it is dewatered.

The applicant agreed that they would verify that no other state permits are required as part of this work.  Additionally, the consensus of the Commission was that there would be a better outcome if the applicant were able to reach an accommodation with its neighbor both to have a preferable design for the plunge pool and to undertake a more widespread invasives project.

MOTION:  Mr. Morrison, Mr. Rieger second, that the Commission finds this to be a regulated activity because the proposed construction is in a wetland and within an upland review area; unanimously approved.

MOTION:  Mr. Morrison, Mr. Rieger second, that the Commission finds this to not be a significant impact activity because the erosion sediment controls that are part of the plan appear to be appropriate for the proposed construction and that the purpose of the work in the wetlands is to improve the erosion sediment control features that are already there and this will have a net positive impact on the wetland; unanimously approved.

MOTION:  Mr. Morrison, Mr. Haldeman second, to approve Application #17-22 of The LRC Group, Agent; St. Mary’s Church Corporation, Owner; for the construction of an addition to the existing church and school and associated site improvements on the properties located at 940 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 001); 942 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 001); 944 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 002); 946 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H08, Block 227, Lot 002); 948 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 002); and 950 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 002). Zone SC-1 subject to the following standard and special conditions:

1.  The Conservation Commission’s agent shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencement of any construction activity.

2.  Final stabilization of disturbed soil areas shall be stabilized with the application of loam, seed, required plantings and appropriate erosion control measures.

3.  At all times during site work and until soil areas are stabilized, the applicant shall install and maintain erosion and sediment control measures such as fabric filter fence, staked hay bales or other measures deemed necessary by the Commission’s agent to prevent erosion and sedimentation impacts.

3.  Erosion control and soil measures shall comply with the approved plans and the guidelines as established in the Connecticut Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, 2002, CTDEP Bulletin 34.

5.  Upon direction of the Commission’s agent, erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed by the applicant following stabilization of the site.

6.  Limits of clearing and grading are to be marked in the field and approved by Commission’s agent before start of site work.

7.  On site preconstruction meeting is required with Commission’s agent before start of site work.

8.  An erosion and sediment control bond is required for site work.  Applicant is required to post $5,000.00 bond (either cash or letter of credit) with the Town of Simsbury before start of site work.  Bond is not to be released until all areas which are regulated by the Commission are stabilized.

9.  Area for construction access for outlet and headwall construction shall be stabilized with New England conservation seed mix.

10.  Supervision by both the design engineer and soil scientist are required for headwall and outlet construction.  Written confirmation from both professionals is required that work has been completed in conformance with the approved plans for issuance of certificate of occupancy.

11.  Approval is for filling and grading of 390 square feet of mapped inland wetland soils.  Expansion of the activities within mapped wetland soils will be considered a violation of this approval unless written approval is granted by the Commission.

12.  Changes to outlet and/or headwall location will require approval by the Conservation Commission.

13.  Work on storm water outland and headwall are to be timed for period of dry weather.

All work and all regulated activities conducted pursuant to this authorization shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit.   Any structures, excavation, deposition of fill, obstructions of flow, encroachments or other regulated activities not specifically identified and authorized herein shall constitute a violation of this permit and may result in permit modification, suspension or revocation.

In the event that any wetland or watercourse regulated activities are required as a result of other agency permitting to support the proposed activity, the Simsbury Conservation Commission reserves the right to reconsider the proposal activity and may require modification to minimize the impact to wetland resources.

In evaluating this application, the Commission has relied on information provided by the applicant.  If such information subsequently proves to be false, incomplete and/or inaccurate, this permit may be modified, suspended or revoked.                     Motion unanimously approved.

V.  NEW BUSINESS:

1.  Receipt of New Applications.

None.

VI.  GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS:

1.  Approval of the Minutes of the October 3, 2017 Regular Meeting.

The October 3, 2017 Minutes were approved as presented.

2.  Forestry Management discussion & workshop – Eric Hammerling of CT Forest & Park Association.

Connecticut Forest and Park Association Executive Director Eric Hammerling appeared before the Commission, and reviewed his history and background with Simsbury.  He explained that he has worked for many years on forest policy issues.  Mr. Hammerling indicated that as he is not a certified forester nor an expert in the forest characteristics of Belden Forest or the Ethel Walker Woods, he would not provide specific recommendations for what management prescriptions should be employed.  He opined that it makes sense for folks to consider managing forests in Simsbury as either old growth or wildlands. Mr. Hammerling defined wildlands for the Commission.  Referencing a letter provided to the Commission from himself, Mr. Hammerling also provided copies of a pamphlet put together by the University of Massachusetts Extension a few years ago entitled, Restoring Old-Growth Characteristics.

Ms. Winters explained that the purpose of the workshop was to engage in discussion to review whether to approve the proposed management plans for four identified parcels.   She noted that whether to manage these as part of a piece-meal plan or a regional plan is also a point for consideration.  Mr. Hammerling noted that it would be wise to reach out to neighboring communities to examine what they are doing and how they are managing. 

Mr. Hammerling described invasive treatments that can be undertaken during harvests in forests.  He noted that Simsbury would be the first town to join the Old Forest Growth Network.  Mr. Morrison questioned whether there was any empirical data to support one type of management strategy over another.  Mr. Hammerling indicated that there is history dating back sixty years for the Harvard Forest but there is not a deep pool of knowledge in this regard. 

Mr. Hammerling relayed how Middlefield Forest is managed minimally.  He also addressed how wildlife is handled within the forests that are managed. 

Open Space Committee Member Helen Peterson stressed the importance of identifying the pieces of forest land that the town has and the ecological history of these assets.

Susan Masino of 41 Madison Lane, the Old Growth Forest Coordinator for Hartford County, reported that there is a request that this Commission forward to the Board of Selectmen a recommendation to have the forests in town considered for incorporation into the network.  She remarked that there are no legal commitments with this incorporation.  Ms. Masino distributed copies of FAQs regarding this concept.

It was noted by a commissioner that it may be premature to seek the designation as established goals, established processes, and established management plans have not yet been adopted.  It was also noted that the Town has not managed their own invasives, noting that there is pachysandra at Belden Forest that have not been dug up and so still remain.

John Schaefer of 16 Lostbrook Road addressed the Commission, opposing the active management of the town’s forests.

Dr. Susan Brachwitz of 10 Pinecrest Drive spoke about and explained natural forest management. 

The Commission will seek to establish goals and definitions in the future relative to the forest management plans.

3.  Removal of rocks in streams for sculptures/piles – Commissioner Levy.

Mr. Levy described a practice he recently became aware of occurring in another town of removing rocks in streams and creating random sculptures with them.  He shared concerns that this could occur within this town.  It was noted that any removal of rocks from a watercourse is a violation of the state’s wetlands laws and an activity like this would certainly require a permit.

4.  Fracking ordinance.

Mr. Glidden explained that this Commission received a request to review a potential fracking ordinance. 

VII.   ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION:  Mr. Morrison, Mr. Haldeman second, to adjourn at 10:04PM; unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted,

Pamela A. Colombie

Recording Clerk