Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Minutes 11/20/2012 ADOPTED
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS &
WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
NOVEMBER 20, 2012
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Richard Miller, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Education Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were Donald Rieger, Margaret Sexton, Margery Winters, and Patrick Kottas. At 8:05 p.m., member Darren Cunningham joined the meeting in progress. Also present were Howard Beach, Conservation Officer, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Miller appointed Commissioner Rieger to serve as an alternate for Alan Needham and Commissioner Kottas to serve as an alternate for Ryan Mihalic.
III. ENFORCEMENT
a. Application #12-44 of Thomas Boggin, Owner, for the deposition of leaves and wood chips from yard cleanup into wetlands adjacent to Nod Brook on property located at 31 Fernwood Drive (Map B18, Block 506, Lot 054).
Mr. Beach received calls regarding deposition of leaves and material in a stream. He viewed the site, called the homeowner, and sent out a cease and desist order. He said the former owner and current owner both deposited material in this area and when the cease and desist was issued the current owner stopped work immediately. He said, in addition, this is a FEMA flood plain area and the Applicant then hired Guy Hesketh of F.A. Hesketh and Associates. Applicant Katherine Wall introduced herself and her husband Thomas Boggin and said when they purchased the home, the real estate disclosure indicated no wetlands. She said, following last year's storm, they hired tree people to remove trees from the area, which were chipped and deposited onsite and stopped the work immediately when Mr. Beach contacted them.
Guy Hesketh said the Applicant contacted him regarding material deposited in an area adjacent to Nod Brook in a flood plain. He looked at the material's potential negative impact on the brook's flow and flood storage capacity behind the culvert. He submitted to the Commission photos of the area; the first aerial photo, taken 3/11, shows the general outlined area where the material is located, totaling about 1500 sq. ft. and is about 18 inches deep in the center, tapering to a few inches at the pile edge, and appears to have been broadcast by a grinding machine. He said the photo on page 7 looks northeast toward the concrete box culvert crossing under Fernwood Drive with Nod Brook flowing in a general easterly direction and this property on the upstream side. He said this slightly depressed land area near Nod Brook is part of the floodplain and tapers away further toward the north and west blending in with the surrounding area. He said the close-up photo on page 10 shows the area height variations where lawn leaves have been raked; and on page 12, the photo shows a hole dug in the pile center with its darker organic material. He said the material amount is consistent with 2 trees removed adjacent to the Applicant's driveway.
Mr. Hesketh looked at the impact on the floodplain with this material deposited there and 2 FEMA issues: 1) the impact on instantaneous flow of water through Nod Brook and into the culvert and whether it impedes the flow and its effect on up-gradient property owners; and 2) if flood waters rose to the point where the culvert was a restriction, would it raise flood elevation to the area behind the restricted culvert. He noted in that portion of the watershed the box culvert would be the restriction and the way the material was broadcast far enough away from the culvert and measuring a cross-section 50-100-feet upstream, it is significantly larger than the 3x10-foot portion of the culvert. He concluded a lot of filling would be required to cause a restriction and this material would have de minimis impact or no measureable impact. He explained FEMA's model of developing cross-sections of portions of the watershed and looking at restriction points using significantly larger cross-sections; they look at cross-sectional geometry and the Manning co-efficient friction factor of how water flows through a channel, e.g. a concrete channel with smooth trapezoidal sides would have a very low friction co-efficient, but with a natural stream bank with trees, shrubs, rocks, logs, etc. would provide a significantly higher co-efficient. He looked at the area using the Manning co-efficient and again found de minimis impact, as it is similar to the natural deposition process. He said FEMA's model was run off the previous, more restrictive 36-inch diameter reinforced pipe culvert providing much more restriction than the replacement 10x3 box culvert. He said FEMA's model was never updated, as the Town decided not to pay for it to be redrawn, and the previous culvert model provides even greater restriction. He concluded the deposition of this material causes no increase or measureable value to any increase in flooding or increase in the stream.
Regarding options for the material, Mr. Hesketh said they could either leave it in place or come in with machinery and scrape it off; however, instantaneous stabilization at this time of year would ironically call for putting wood chips down. He said this organic material will decompose over a few years, and if the trees had fallen into the wetland, the material would have eventually ended up there. He recommended placing a restriction for current and future homeowners to deposit no further material in this area and to use other areas in the backyard. He said the homeowners hired a professional to do the work and, combined with the real estate disclosure, they did not intentionally deposit material in a restricted area. He recommended leaving the material in place so natural deposition can take place. Regarding whether this material would flow down the river in a flood, he believes it is stable and decomposing with little risk it will move. He said they are requesting an after-the-fact permit.
Regarding the assumption equipment is needed to remove the material, Commissioner Rieger asked if 3 people couldn't remove the loose material off the top. Mr. Hesketh said the material is stable and natural and it would be quite a bit of work to remove material by hand. He said they have accelerated the natural process by chipping the material, as opposed to a 6-inch diameter branch decomposing. He said while the current culvert is less restrictive, it still remains the choke point. Mr. Beach said the Town provided the information to FEMA, which required $3000 to update the model, so it did not go forward. Regarding the real estate disclosure form, Mr. Beach said wetlands are often not checked by homeowners who view it as negative to a potential sale. Commissioner Winters said that often an organic layer is placed near the stream to prevent soil from entering the stream.
Mr. Beach said he requested the Applicant do the FEMA analysis to keep the Commission from violating the regulation and not create a problem with FEMA; the conclusion by a certified engineer that the impact is de minimis fulfills that requirement. Mr. Hesketh said the water in the stream would have to rise about 2 1/2 feet to inundate the area, but that would not reduce the flood storage capacity. He added the area is fairly porous and absorbs a lot of water. If the area were inundated, he said the Manning co-efficient indicates the type of vegetation and flow restrictions typical for a wooded stream bank, e.g. the friction factor for concrete pipe is 0.013 and, for a stream channel, .24 or .4, which is quite restrictive. He said the material is about 10 feet from the stream bank. The Commissioners discussed a past case on Hedgehog Lane where a homeowner used woodchips to push further into wetlands and it is now a mowed lawn. Mr. Beach said the tree companies had nowhere to take the chips following last year's storms. Commissioner Winters noted a tree left in a stream bank has a higher coefficient than this wood chipped material. The Commissioners agreed it did not make sense to move this material and Commissioner Winters suggested it is better to chop up leaves and use them on the lawn as organic fertilizer. Mr. Beach said the Application was done in the form of a permit to leave the material in place if the Commission agrees and remediate the enforcement action.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion the Commission find that this is a regulated activity because it does involve deposition of material in a wetland and in the upland review area. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion this is not a significant activity based on expert testimony indicating that impacts would be de minimis and not harmful to the wetland watercourse. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to grant the requested permit with the understanding this is a retrospective permit accepting the deed that has been done but not authorizing any further deposition of this sort on the site. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. Application #12-20 of Timothy J. Hayes, Owner, to remove from pond the algae growth, silt, mud, and other organic materials currently adversely affecting pond health on property located at 3 Linda Lane (Map D06, Block 303, Lot 015).
Mr. Beach has made repeated attempts to contact the Applicant and recommended denying the permit without prejudice as the time limit has passed.
Commissioner Winters made a motion to deny without prejudice and remove the Application of Timothy J. Hayes, Owner, to remove from the pond algae growth, silt, mud, and other organic materials.
Commissioner Sexton seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
Commissioner Cunningham joined the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
b. Application #12-36 of Richard Sawitzke, Agent for the Town of Simsbury, Owner, to remove stone from stream and place gravel and construct in the 100-foot upland review area to a wetland on property located at Firetown Road (Map C02, Block 203, Lot 025).
Mr. Beach said this storm-related Application is for one of 3 streams called Bissell Brook and this one is between Northgate and the Simsbury-Granby town line at the little waterfall in the woods on the left side across from McLean’s trail entrance. He said the stream formerly flowed in a gentle sweeping curve following Firetown Road's profile under the bridge and easterly into the flood plain. He stated, following a big storm, the stream jumped its channel at that elbow, causing a large hole in the bank, and made a 90 degree bend continuing down the stream. He said when the road was repaved they did not recurb it and there were no catch basins for several hundred feet and the velocity of the water jumped the curb and ripped slots in the bank for runoff. He said the curb is now replaced and the runoff slots patched, but the road is becoming undermined within 4 inches of pavement edge. He said they propose putting siltation blanket in the hill with rip rap over it and taking boulders that have rolled down the stream, using a grade-all machine to rake them back up against the toe of the slope to armour it, so when the stream makes the sharp bend, its energy will be dissipated before damaging the bank again. He said they are not changing the stream's channel configuration, but instead armouring it, and they hope in low flow it will stay in the channel.
Commissioner Sexton asked about a previous site visit the Commission made to this area. Mr. Beach said that was about 1/4 mile down at the culvert between Old Farms Road and Northgate, which was replaced with 2 large box culverts. He said the beavers were damming it and the headwall was collapsing and the road was closed during a Jewish holiday last year when schools were closed to avoid bus delays. He explained modified rip rap are larger, heavier sizes; from 3-4 inches up to 12-15 inches, with smaller pieces filling voids between larger pieces, and more stable. He said the native stream bed is round rock and the modified rip rap is angular, so fines will not be washed out to protect the bank, and the boulders will be up against that and also dissipate the energy.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion the Commission find that this is a regulated activity because it involves construction and deposition of materials in a watercourse and in the upland review area. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion this is not a significant activity because it will not have an adverse affect on the watercourse and on the contrary will reduce erosion and be beneficial to the stability of the bank and quality of the water in the watercourse. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to grant the requested permit. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger noted that the Land Trust, which is the most significant adjacent property owner, was not listed among the abutters.
c. Meadowoods Conservation Easement Recitals
Mr. Beach said issues have arisen that must be resolved in a meeting before Commission review. He requested Commission Rieger be authorized in future face-to-face meetings to represent the Commission's interests in reaching agreement and that the final deal he hammers out at the meeting will be agreed to by the Commission. He provided the Commissioners with a copy of the latest recitals and asked the Commissioners to submit any comments to him by Monday, 11/26/12, as they hope to hold the meeting next week to resolve all issues.
Commissioner Winters made a motion that Commissioner Rieger represent the Conservation Commission at Meadowood discussions to reach consensus and then return to the Conservation Commission for final presentation and a vote, with Commissioner Rieger's recommendations. Commissioner Kottas seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATION(s)
a. Application #12-43 of Wesson Energy, Agent for Darlene Koplien, Owner, for a 500-gallon underground propane tank and trench to generator within the 100-foot upland review area to a wetland on property located at 2 Weldon Way (Map E10, Block 147, Lot 016B).
1) Mr. Beach said this 500-gallon underground propane storage tank is being installed next to the house, behind the bleachers at the high school, and is the first house on Welden Way. He discussed this with Mr. Sawitzke, who thought that, given the amount of excavation work,
it should be reviewed by the Commission at the next meeting.
2) Mr. Beach said another application is at 20 Southbridge in the Stratton Forest subdivision to install a propane generator on gravel base 3-feet from the house with gas and electric run to it. He said because it is more than 1 foot, it must be trenched by hand, digging 2 feet to the generator from the side of the house. He said it is in an upland review area to a wetland, but is de minimis and can be handled administratively.
3) Mr. Beach said 15 Brook Ridge off Old Stone Crossing is also applying to install a propane generator. He said the propane tank is already buried with the pipe running into the house underneath the deck and they want to dig into the existing pipe under the deck and put the generator under the deck. He said the area is already disturbed in the upland review area with minimal movement of dirt and can be handled administratively.
4) Mr. Beach said 4 Apple Lane's $1000/day fine has resulted in the homeowner filing an application for a permit to leave the dock in place, which will be heard at the next meeting. The Commissioners noted there are issues regarding property ownership under the dock and deed and homeowner restrictions. He has been counseled by an attorney, if the Commission grants the permit, to condition it on a Certificate of Title for the property to be provided by the homeowner. Mr. Beach said a meeting was held with the Hearings Officer, who continued the hearing and decision on the fine until this Commission makes its decision at the 12/4/12 meeting; the Hearing Officer will hear it again on 12/7/12.
The Commissioners agreed Mr. Beach administratively handle 2) and 3) above.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Beach said under Subdivision Regulations, any time a parcel is submitted for subdivision application, the statute requires that wetlands on the property be reviewed to obtain a permit, but the application may change with the applicant returning to the Commission. He said Mr. Sawitzke is comfortable with an administrative review being issued to the Planning Commission that there are no wetlands on the site. He said currently they are creating a one-lot subdivision (2 lots, if you count the lot it is created from); when they actually do the subdivision they will have to come in for a soil erosion plan.
PROPOSED 2012 MEETING SCHEDULE
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to approve the proposed 2013 Meeting Schedule, as amended, eliminating the 7/2/13 meeting. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 16, 2012
On Line 121, "Commissioner Kottas" is corrected to "Commissioner Needham".
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to approve the minutes of October 16, 2012, as amended. Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Winters made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
________________________________
Ryan Mihalic, Secretary