Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 11/17/2015
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Margery Winters, Chairperson, opened the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission at 7:35 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were Charles Haldeman, Andrew O’Connor, Darren Cunningham, Jim Morrison, Donna Beinstein, and Donald Rieger. Also present were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairperson Winters seated Commissioner Beinstein for the vacancy and Commissioner Haldeman for Pat Kottas.
III. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS
None.
IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
1. Application #15-45 of Jan Litner, Applicant; Town of Simsbury, Owner; for the installation of a fertilizer injector in the wetland on the property located at 1 Old Bridge Road (Assessor's Map H11, Block 144, Lot 007). Zone R-15. (received 10/20/2015; decision must be rendered by 12/24/2015)
Application #15-45 was read into the record.
The Applicant explained their goal is to put in an injection fertilizer system for the Flower Bridge in order to reduce/control the amount of fertilizer and frequency of use. The Applicant noted there has been vandalism to the existing irrigation system so they are concerned that new equipment out in the open could also be damaged and/or stolen. Therefore, the Applicant proposed a cedar structure 4’wide x 2 ½’ deep x 4 ½’ high to protectively house the equipment that the high school would build for them - a picture was provided to the Commissioners. The Applicant added the structure would be located near the 1st railing abutment on the northwest side of the bridge requiring 4 holes for posts and digging a trench from existing water to its location. The Applicant’s reason for the structure’s location related to experience with last winter’s snow where snowplows drove plywood protectors into the existing backflow preventer; the proposed location would be closer to the river at a higher point near a steep embankment with a railroad tie keeping dirt from falling.
Regarding the current method of fertilizing, the Applicant explained fertilizer goes in at a higher concentration when the baskets are planted; mid-season the plants receive a boost which is harder to gauge and foliar feeding has the potential for overspray into the river – the proposed system would be much more contained. The Applicant noted that irrigation is done both via a feeder tube in the boxes on both sides of bridge and also to the baskets above using a drip line; with the proposed injector system, they can better control the timing/dilution. The Applicant indicated they are considering liquid Nature’s Source Organic Fertilizer which is seed based, as opposed to smellier fish based fertilizers; unless the fertilizer is soluble, they run the risk of plugging the irrigation lines; the system would run about a cup of fertilizer from a 5-gallon stock tank running it for 5-10 minutes and then clear water run to flush out the system. Regarding frequency of fertilizing, the Applicant noted it would likely be weekly, the stock tank would be manually filled with the force of water moving it into the irrigation system and it would only hold the amount of fertilizer for that one use – they do not want the solution to remain in the tank in order to keep the system plug free. Regarding who would be handling the fertilizer, maintenance, and frequent calibration, the Applicant indicated it would be their irrigation person who also opens/closes the system seasonally.
Regarding storm water runoff from the shed which is on dirt but at the same level as the street and bridge, the Applicant indicated it would run north into the parking lot and meadow with swale; the location of a water faucet was noted to be in a flood way. The Commissioners expressed concern about chemicals near a watercourse with a history of site vandalism and noted a Town engineering project to develop a plan for the Hudson property with the potential for this Flower Bridge proposal to benefit from the safety of that professional expertise. The Applicant responded they started their investigation prior to the Town purchasing the Hudson property, and they have reached out to the Town to see what could be incorporated. The Applicant indicated the fence behind the shed is metal and because of the shed location further back, it would likely not have snowplows pushing it into the fence.
Regarding an emergency plan, Town Staff indicated concern that this structure would be located in the the flood plain within the flood way, which is the area where there should be no structures and that this structure not become dislodged during a storm; best management practices should be utilized and fertilizer must be stored offsite. The Applicant confirmed they would not store fertilizer onsite or in the 5-gallon tank which could be removed and the lines flushed when there is a flood watch. Regarding the integrated pest management plan, the Applicant confirmed there would be no pesticides due to concern for the river and pollinators, although it could be done with this system. The Commissioners requested that an Emergency Contingency Plan of about a ½ page be provided to Town Staff. The Applicant confirmed that the shed would be built offsite and then installed. The Commissioners noted the current fertilizer foliar spray application problem with overspray into the river.
The Commissioners complemented the Applicant on their concern for protecting the river but felt that integrating it with the Hudson property made sense. The Applicant agreed but had no assurance their work could be incorporated nor the funding to do so; but if the engineers’ recommend moving the shed elsewhere, that could be done as much of the PVC pipe to the faucet is sub-grade with pipe water removed during winter. Town Staff explained the flood way ends just before the Hudson house on that side of the river and beyond that is the 100-year flood plain; the Hudson property is still in the planning stages and the Town is waiting to hear whether FEMA will award a grant with that timetable unknown.
The Commissioners summarized concerns for Application #15-45, including: potential shed vandalism and structural adequacy; the risks of weekly handling of fertilizer in the tank, noting nearby agricultural businesses handle even larger quantities of fertilizer. The Applicant indicated they would likely use about 1-gallon of fertilizer for the 5-gallon tank for 6 lines time set to run, emptied and then flushed with clear water; the fertilizer would be very dilute at a 1:100 ratio which is considered optimal for container plants and is also Nature Source Organic Fertilizer’s recommendation. Town Staff indicated giving a 1-year approval would be very difficult to enforce and recommended either approval or denial of the Application. The Applicant confirmed the goal of the system to reduce the amount of material entering the river, which also optimizes the amount of micro nutrients the flowers and soil receive for a healthier overall system.
The Applicant confirmed 12-inch holes would be dug for the posts; Town Staff recommended the posts be concreted in place with sonotubes going down and something on the side to hold it so the shed does not become mobilized. The Applicant noted the fence behind the shed is anchored in cement; however, Town Staff recommended separately anchoring the shed so in a flood it can deflect the force of the flood because it is poor flood management practice to rely on human intervention in a flood; and the fence behind the shed in a flood could contribute to dislodging it. Town Staff recommended the posts be set deeper at 18-36 inches, rather than 12 inches. The Applicant confirmed their agreement with the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions contained in Town Staff’s 11/10/2015 memorandum.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion that this is a regulated activity since it involves installation in the wetlands and also the use or storage of hazardous material or other pollutants in the wetlands.
Commissioner O’Connor seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion that it is not a significant activity because there will not be onsite construction, disturbance to the wetlands area will be minimal, the chemicals to be stored will be dissipated often, and overall it involves less use of chemicals in and around the wetlands.
Commissioner O’Connor seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to grant the permit subject to the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions listed in the 11/10/2015 Conservation Commission memo from Town Staff, as well as the addition that the shed footings be placed 18-36 inches deep and not 12 inches deep as proposed in the Application; and stipulating the fertilizer mixing ratio and maximum 2-hour run time with a qualified person putting the fertilizer in the injector and no storage of fertilizer onsite.
Commissioner O’Connor seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
2. Application #15-46 of Cameron Cantelmo, Applicant; Simsbury Board of Education, Owner; for the replacement of a ramp to the dock in the watercourse on the property located at 46 Drake Hill Road (being shown as a portion of 36 Drake Hill Road on Assessor's Map H11, Block 226, Lot 001-1A). Zone R-40. (received 10/20/2015; decision must be rendered by 12/24/2015)
Application #15-46 was read into the record.
The Applicant proposed replacing the floating removable portion of the ramp at the Simsbury Boat House; while the height remains the same, there is an additional 4 feet in length and 18 inches in width; construction material utilizes wood, brass screws and brackets; it would be painted offsite with a more adhesive material to prevent slipping. The Applicant confirmed the 4-foot longer ramp provides a less steep angle for users carrying boats so they don’t slip off the side; the river at this location is at least 80-90 feet wide; the ramp pushes along parallel to the shore and up river.
The Applicant showed the location on a photo of the sewage treatment outfall, and explained that another advantage of pushing the dock upstream is to further open up the 8-foot deep concrete plant headwall containing the outflow pipe. The floating ramp sits on a plastic dock which is attached by chain on each side; the plastic dock is attached at the far end by a chain to an onshore tree, so the watercourse bottom would not be disturbed nor would any vegetation; the old dock would be moved offsite. Town Staff indicated if they were extending further toward the center line of the river channel, there would be a DEEP issue; however, the Applicant is following the bank line so it falls under Town and Commission jurisdiction only; and the Army Corps is not involved.
Regarding timing, the Applicant anticipates construction completion end November/early December and installation in the spring when they are able to pull out the existing ramp.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion that this is a regulated activity because it involves construction in the Upland Review Area and on the banks of a watercourse.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion that it is not a significant activity as it involves no impact on vegetation, no disturbance of the watercourse, no discernable impact on the wetlands
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Morrison made a motion to grant the Application with the Special Conditions and General Conditions cited in the 11/10/2015 Staff Report.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Application #15-47 of Christian Alford, Alford Associates, Inc., Applicant; Norma D. Duschaneck, Owner; for the regulated activities associated with a 3-lot subdivision on the property located at 25 Holcomb Street (Assessor’s Map D05, Block 301, Lot 007). Zone R-80. (received 11/17/2015; decision must be rendered by 12/24/2015).
Application #15-47 was read into the record and Town Staff will have the decision date corrected.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Town Staff noted recent CACIWC training took place and Commissioner Rieger shared training material concerning the role and responsibilities of the Commission along with a legal update, including the River Bend example.
1. Draft Letter re: pesticides application at Simsbury Meadows
The Commissioners discussed the significant number of frogs at Simsbury Meadows and concern regarding pesticide application and agreed to suggest to the Town that it is not a good idea. Town Staff suggested Messrs. Toner and Roy meet with the Commission to discuss their practices prior to sending the letter to Parks and Recreation. The Commissioners noted spraying on roadways is usually adjacent to storm basins and it would be interesting to see what the Town does and why, even though only the State has jurisdiction over pesticides; however, the Commission acts as an advocate for the environment in its conservation role.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to approve the letter.
Commissioner O’Connor seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Reiger provided an update of Open Space Committee (OSC) activities noting pressure from the BOS and BOF to consider setting up a process to dispense with some open space. At the next OSC meeting in December, they will consider 2 draft documents:
1) An amendment to Chapter 21 of the Town Code prepared by the Town Attorney proposing that if the BOS would like to dispense with some open space or an interest in open space, it will refer that to the Culture, Parks and Recreation Committee, Conservation Commission, and OSC, for their consideration and to advise the BOS of their opinions and then the BOS will decide. The BOS can consider whether to take a conservation easement for any parcel sold; and if a property is sold to an abutting property owner, the BOS could consider precluding a subdivision. Commissioner Rieger believed this document needs further work and revision.
2) A draft procedure for the OSC, including specifying the need for deed restrictions, donor intent, public hearings, site walks, etc. with a strong bias in favor of retaining open space is fairly complete.
Commissioner Rieger indicated the open space inventory work begun by a summer intern who coded habitat, wetlands, etc. has now been put into the GIS file, which includes parcel owners, deed references, taxes, acreage, zoning, etc. The OSC is working to bring up to date the code parts relating to how burdensome it is to own this property for Parks and Rec; recently, it was discovered that the Tarriffville Green needed to be added to the database. This OSC targeted work should help evaluate open space properties and their current status.
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the October 20, 2015 regular meeting
On Line 180, the comma is deleted between the words “Winterberry, Holly”.
On Line 184, the word “Irish” is deleted.
On Lines 610 and 617, the word “proof” is deleted and replaced with “approval”.
Chairperson Winters accepted the October 20, 2015 minutes, as amended.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.