Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 02/16/2016
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Margery Winters, Chairperson, opened the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were Charles Haldeman, Andrew O’Connor, Jim Morrison, Donna Beinstein, and Donald Rieger; and new member, Craig McCormick, was welcomed. Also present were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. ROLL CALL
1. Appointment of Alternates
Chairperson Winters seated Commissioner Beinstein for the vacancy.
III. APPLICATIONS
1. Public Hearings:
a. Application #16-02 of Town of Simsbury, Owner, to retain and maintain a culvert constructed along the trail on the property located east of the recreation fields at 28 Iron Horse Boulevard (being shown in the Assessor’s records as Hopmeadow Street, Assessor’s Map H09, Block 226, Lot 005). Zone R-40. (received 01/19/2016; Commission called for public hearing 02/02/2016; public hearing must open by 03/24/2016)
Application #16-02 was read into the record.
Town Staff reviewed work completed to date, program goals, and future plans for the site; as the once popular site became overgrown over the years, use by residents decreased and a goal is to re-establish the trail at an estimated line item cost of $195K. Town Staff indicated Phase 1 under their General Permit began with Public Works and other Town Staff on Saturdays using equipment to remove chest-high brush and fallen trees in order to be able to survey the entire area and determine where the trail was originally and better estimate cost; the final goal would be to complete the trail loop reconnecting with the Simscroft property. Town Staff noted historically the area was used for tree farms, regular farming, sewer lagoons, corn, with some fields mowed to stop forest growth. The Commissioners were shown trail locations on a map with aerial photos used to locate old road systems; also shown on the map were systems brought back in yellow, a large stand of pines with a trail in the center, farmed areas, the Simscroft property, and a difficult area to cross. Town Staff showed photos of cleared areas and brush hog work done revealing a stable surface below, but with some areas down to bare earth. A beaver slide and dams were found with a crossing needed; Town Staff determined the appropriate crossing method to be a small culvert using a corrugated HDPE pipe with 2 cubic yards of processed stone with no digging strengthened by the addition of material above; their final plan in the spring is to put in loam and appropriate plantings and seeding in the culvert area, as well as any areas of disturbed earth and bare soil. Town Staff proposed beginning surveying the last leg of the loop connecting to Simscroft and believes due to area wetness that some structure may be required.
The Commissioners noted a perched culvert appears to have been installed, which is a barrier to wildlife’s ordinary movement, including the life cycle of amphibians and reptiles that seasonally transit the watercourse. Town Staff was not comfortable with that description and noted that the bottom of the culvert is within 1-2 inches of the existing flow line and provided photos of the area illustrating it was dry during the summer and 1-2 weeks ago was not full even with ample recent precipitation. Regarding the culvert’s size, Town Staff confirmed it was 12 inches in diameter - a larger culvert would require more excavation; the watercourse was described as a finger off the pond with the flow adequate for the pipe size and a ford with no inflow/outflow; the finger of water goes another 50-80 feet south. Town Staff did not believe a larger diameter pipe would keep the area from going dry as the area is perched above the height of the surface water in the larger pond area. Town Staff described the waterbody with the north/south culvert connecting the larger wetland to a smaller area; they avoided disturbing a larger area along the river bank with the beavers having built the beaver slide in order to float wood up to build their dams. Town Staff confirmed the area does not drain but is an extension of the pond - the southern area goes dry and was expanded by the beaver dam and the northern area shrinks but does not go dry. Regarding the alternative of a bridge, Town Staff indicated it would need to be large enough to: 1) support mowing equipment for maintenance and control of invasive species; and 2) accommodate emergency vehicles, e.g. a police car for emergencies only, due to use of the area for hiking and active recreation; a bridge would require more disturbance, excavation, and deposition of material. Town Staff noted the terrain is relatively flat with area roads and the culvert location is the only weak link.
Town Staff confirmed Application # 16-02 includes the culvert, areas where there is bare earth, and areas on the road side where there is brush and debris that could be chipped; there are also wood chips believed to have been chipped onsite on the yellow trail south of the culvert. The Planning Director saw two issues: 1) material that has been chipped and may be piled and/or wind driven which could be removed; and 2) 1-2 piles of material resulting from the clearing activity piled as potential bird habitat described in language contained in Mike Glidden’s 2/12/2016 memo, or the material could easily be removed given the existence of more than adequate acreage for bird habitat; per DEEP Bulletin 34, it could be reused as a soil erosion control mechanism. The Commissioners noted the chipped material also has value as trail base.
The Commissioners clarified that the activity required a permit, which is one of three violations for Application #16-02. Regarding whether the culvert aggregate contained recycled material, Town Staff confirmed it did not and was a specific non-recycled base. Town Staff believed the General Permit approved about a year ago provided for permitted activities, e.g. drainage improvements, which do not require a standalone permit. However, Town Staff confirmed that the regulated activities in Application #16-02 require a permit. Town Staff is working to solidify activities that fall under the General Permit versus those requiring a specific permit.
The Commissioners discussed the trail going through the white pines where bare earth was exposed and soil torn up potentially inviting invasives and resulting in requirements for sedimentation and erosion control; previously the area was an established wooded habitat and will now require extensive cleanup. Town Staff planned to rake, level, and reseed any rutted areas and to deal with any stream channel development in the spring.
The Commissioners reminded Town Staff of a previous request to address numerous violations at this site. Town Staff clarified the Public Hearing is specific to Application #16-02; the Application was expanded to deal with treatment of the disturbed trail systems exposed earth utilizing the appropriate methodology remedy in compliance with DEEP Bulletin 34 to provide appropriate growing medium or an alternative, such as wood chips.
Chairperson Winters invited public comment.
Judy Schaffer of 16 Moss Brook, West Simsbury, asked whether the purpose of the trail was to access the wetlands, or for the general public to drive, walk or bike in the area. Town Staff confirmed as part of the project the gate was closed and locked preventing unauthorized vehicles from driving into the area; they would like to have the general public have access to hike and walk on this magnificent property. Ms. Schaffer expressed concerned about protecting the wetlands and that existing roads on the property have invited traffic into the area. Town Staff believed closing the gate will prevent that. Ms. Schaffer thought that more people accessing the area could result in the need for more emergency vehicle access.
Mark Deving of 3 Ryan Circle, and Chairman of the Simsbury Economic Development Commission (SEDC), as a private citizen felt this was a beautiful property, although not widely known to 96% of residents. As SEDC Chairman, beginning in 2008 they collected all existing reports – archaeological, ecological, recreational, etc. which they put on a map to increase the walking/hiking accessibility of the area as an economic driver given the unique resource of a river next to downtown. Following the 2008 economic downturn, the SEDC has recently come back to considering the Town’s economic advantages, which include arts and recreation. He believed this area encompasses recreation and as downtown develops, according to the Charrette, with greater density this area will be invaluable to area residents to visit and enjoy; it is low impact with only clearing of roads and pathways and provides access to people walking and emergency vehicles, if needed; the culvert provides that access and is a common-sense approach.
Eileen Fielding of the Farmington River Watershed Association (FRWA) indicated she would be submitting written comments. Ms. Fielding viewed the newly cut trails last November in a wheeled vehicle and believed removal of massive quantities of invasive species was positive with the river now visible and accessible. However, Ms. Fielding was concerned about the extent/size of the cutting with these roads providing a different feel than in State Parks and noted a private landowner would likely have been unable to do this clearing without a permit. Ms. Fielding questioned whether the roads needed to be so big to encourage recreation and whether they all needed to be that large; where wetlands are near the roads, could they be scaled back to provide more walking, birding activities, rather than inviting use by ATVs or pickup trucks, in order to have more of a natural feel and repair some of the bare areas. Ms. Fielding suggested a middle ground between the area’s former inaccessibility and having old roadways. Ms. Fielding felt the habitat will grow back better and noted in 2006 the Farmington Valley Biodiversity Project identified this area as a primary conservation area for Simsbury, and she suggested highlighting it as a natural area for accessible low-impact recreation, rather than scenic roads. Town Staff clarified this was the first phase at only a cost of $5K and the area could be mowed regularly for continued access and in order to re-establish the loop, given the extensive amount of invasive species. The Commissioners noted the existence of a pretty well-established foot path in the center of the white pines, as previously provided to the Town on maps. Town Staff expressed appreciation for the Commissioner’s knowledge of the area. Ms. Fielding noted the area was once used for waste water treatment and FRWA offered recently to send biologists out to update whether there is anything vulnerable and important to protect living in the area.
Linda Schofield of 3 William Circle, elected as State Representative in 2006, indicated a number of residents spoke to her about resurrecting this property following the Charrette process, which identified this area as a natural asset for smart growth to encourage residents living downtown. Ms. Schofield noted the purchase of the Hudson property on the river and the advantage of having trails in this area with wider trails helping to keep ticks off people. Ms. Schofield added that the World Wildlife Fund found a need to compromise on shutting down zoos in order to have supportive donations to protect endangered animals in the wild – people need to support protecting wild spaces by enjoying them.
Sally Rieger of 9 Stodmore Road, asked about adequate bird habitat in this area and whether that was determined by an ornithologist. Town Staff responded there is over 200 acres associated with the culvert crossing and this property is 48 acres; the material in the 6’x10’ culvert crossing is about 60 sq. ft. and is very small compared to an acre which has 43,560 sq. ft. Mrs. Rieger suggested keeping in mind the effect of cumulative incremental damage to the area
Commissioner Morrison made a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Commissioner McCormick seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
The Commissioners discussed whether receipt of the Staff report at this meeting provided enough time to consider its contents in order to make a decision. Town Staff provided the Commissioners with a favorable draft motion in a logical format containing line items to be considered, including Special Conditions 1-4 and Standard Conditions 1-5. The Commissioners noted that any motion should be specific to activities presented as part of this Application and should not include the broad term “trail maintenance” which is not specific enough; maintenance of the culvert would be a non-regulated activity. Town Staff clarified the draft motion deals with removal of vegetation undertaken by Public Works in the last 6 months. The Commissioners noted the Application received stated, “retain and maintain a culvert”. The Commissioners discussed the trail width to allow emergency vehicle access and that it would be good to have on record a specific recommendation from law enforcement in order to recommend narrowing the trail in the future. Town Staff indicated this is a natural trail with various areas that are vegetated in some places, woodchips in others, and with areas where vegetation may have difficulty becoming established under tree canopies; Staff does not intend to mow this system as a fairway long term, but to brush hog it about once a year.
The Planning Director described his 26-year experience winning awards received for trail planning through the Greenways Council and stated trails in their native state evolve on their own; if not heavily used, trails will be single track, as the path of least resistance; a police car can move through 2-feet of tall meadow grass, but it is not desirable to unload heavy equipment and bring it through the woods to a culvert that is not there. Town Staff indicated that initial clearing may be wider than the path regenerates to be, with the goal of a smaller footprint. The Commissioners requested specific information on how wide the path needs to be – 6 feet or 8 feet have been discussed. Town Staff responded it is difficult to know that, but once the area is cleared it would be mowed about once a year; this Phase 1 allows access to the area and the ability to evaluate usage, and in Phase 2 to survey, engineer, and define cost estimates for the final trail. Regarding further emergency vehicle access to the area, Town Staff confirmed there would be a spine trail allowing access and the last section to be built will likely be an elevated boardwalk.
The Commissioners discussed their regulated activities include the watercourse and soil disturbance, including cleared brush chipped and where it would be put down. Town Staff recommended the chips be put down over disturbed earth areas with chips disintegrating over time allowing herbaceous growth. The Commissioners discussed whether chips would interfere with quick establishment of plants where the earth has been damaged; however, that depends on the thickness of the chips.
The Commissioners noted the decision for this Application includes the culvert, disposal of existing cleared material and whether to remove it or chip it, and restoration/planting of the bare soil, and if expertise should be sought by the Town prior to a decision. The Planning Director explained the trail system is 2000 ft. long and given a 10-foot wide cross-section with a 2-foot load bearing shoulders and a 14-foot clearance in a 16x14 high envelope; DEEP’s Bulletin 34 provides guidance that without having a survey of the entire 2000 feet and all of the associated conditions, there are some areas in an existing vegetative state, other areas with bare soil at a zero percent grade where conservation mix may be used, where people walk 2 abreast wood chips may only be put in the center to not further degrade the soil; conditions in the trail system will vary with Public Works walking the site with Staff to properly re-establish vegetation in sections of trail using DEEP’s manual as guidance given field conditions. Without doing an intensive site survey of every foot of the trail system, Town Staff cannot state today what must be done at each station; the work has to be done in the field using best management practices with some understanding by the regulatory agency allowing Staff discretion representing the Commission within defined parameters moving the project forward over time. Town Staff added that if vegetation cannot be established, the next best option is wood chips; there have been no discussions of stone dust or trap rock in this location.
Town Staff explained this area will be maintained in its rough condition and appropriately stabilized. The Commissioners clarified their concern with specific smaller areas taken down to bare earth. Town Staff believed existing topography can be recreated and vegetated, which may involve woodchips and excluding the public from that area until vegetation is established. The Commissioners believed the permit should be as limited in scope as possible with a clear specific plan for this area, including requiring regrading for the rutting and erosion control measures, particularly because this took place last fall and this work could have been done immediately after. The Planning Director suggested they prepare 3 or 4 cross-sections of appropriate treatment based on a condition, e.g. for a wet condition - regrading, wood chips or vegetation; for a dry condition - vegetation; for a wet perched water table area – wood chips that are not in a flow area. Town Staff requested they be provided with a “tool box” of options allowing appropriate staff to make appropriate decisions; surveying the entire 2000-foot length would be very costly and Staff believed the disturbed areas can easily be corrected. The Commissioners discussed whether reclamation of the area should wait until the area is surveyed with approval only for the culvert area. The Director of Planning clarified that granting this permit requires the Director of Public Works to move forward only under the guidance/supervision of Staff utilizing DEEP’s Bulletin 34.
The Commissioners believed it would be useful for Staff to walk the trail and provide the Commission with feedback and noted past issues of lines crossed with the need to establish clear guidelines for Staff. The Director of Planning indicated his intention to establish that relationship with the Commission. The Director of Public Works added that nothing on this site was done with anything but the best intentions and planning with the Land Use Department’s awareness. The Commissioners acknowledged Staff’s good intentions and explained that their regulatory authority does not permit delegating to Staff any activity in wetlands and watercourses; only delegation in the URA is allowed. The Chairperson believed Staff is qualified to oversee this project and suggested moving forward on this Application for the small culvert site which will be stabilized in the spring, as well as each of the bare soil areas which will be addressed individually; other issues for this area separate from this application can be addressed at a future meeting.
Commissioner Beinstein made a motion to accept Application #16-02.
Commissioner O’Connor seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Beinstein made a motion that this is a regulated activity because it occurs in a wetland with a culvert and deposition of materials.
Commissioner McCormick seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Beinstein made a motion that this is not a significant activity based on the amount of material.
Commissioner McCormick seconded the motion, and it was passed with 5 in favor and 1 opposed.
Commissioner Beinstein made a motion to approve the permit for the regulated activities associated with the installation of the 12-inch culvert and trail maintenance with the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions contained in Staff’s 2/12/2016 memo; Application #16-02 includes placement of fill around the culvert, and the clearing of the trail and trail work performed in the fall of 2015.
Commissioner McCormick seconded the motion, and it was passed with 5 in favor and 1 opposed.
2. Discussion and Possible Action:
a. Application #16-02 of Town of Simsbury, Owner, to retain and maintain a culvert constructed along the trail on the property located east of the recreation fields at 28 Iron Horse Boulevard (being shown in the Assessor’s records as Hopmeadow Street, Assessor’s Map H09, Block 226, Lot 005). Zone R-40. (received 01/19/2016; Commission called for public hearing 02/02/2016; public hearing must open by 03/24/2016)
b. CONTINUED FROM 02/02/2016; CONTINUE TO 03/01/2016: Application #16-03 of BMG Management, LLC, Owner, for clearing and regrading the parking lot to install utilities and improve drainage on the property located at 560-566 Hopmeadow Street, (Assessor’s Map G12, Block 132, Lot 036). Zone B-1. (received 01/19/2016; 30-day extension requested; decision must be rendered by 04/23/2016).
3. Receipt of New Applications
None.
IV. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Correspondence
a. Memo from Solitude Lake Management, re: Aquatic Pesticide Permit Applications, dated February 3, 2016
Town Staff received 4 aquatic pesticide applications for: Whitman Pond, Hopmeadow Country Club, Heller’s Pond at 24 Ferry Lane, and Lake Basile. Town Staff noted the applications were forwarded as a courtesy to the Town, but are regulated by DEEP.
b. Letter from Aquarion Water Company, re: Aquarion Environmental Champion Awards, dated January 20, 2016
Town Staff noted Aquarion is looking for individuals or organizations nominated by the Commission for environmental protection and conservation
c. Comments from Donald F. Rieger, Jr., re: Simsbury Meadows, dated February 2, 2016
The Director of Planning discussed with Town Counsel issues regarding historic activity at Simsbury Meadows and suggested holding a workshop to review events that have occurred and what permits require. From his past experience working on projects in excess of 400 acres, he has learned that adherence to permit conditions is where difficulties lie with the need to correct situations as they occur. The Commissioners noted that regulations provide an avenue for dealing with violations and welcomed holding a workshop soon; Town Staff will follow up with Counsel and advise the Commissioners of the workshop date. Town Staff noted the need for validation and permit clarity to facilitate effective enforcement; fines are only leveled by judges who look at the record. The Commissioners commented, that in addition to issuing permits, they also deal with activities where wetlands were illegally filled.
The Commissioners recalled that the Director of Public Works was requested at the 02/02/2016 meeting, which was the second request, to provide all supporting documentation for Application #16-02 prior to this meeting; the Director of Planning was requested to convey that documentation for any future requests from Public Works be provided when the Application is accepted, as regulations specify required Application content and can be rejected for not meeting that criteria.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the February 2, 2016 regular meeting
Chairperson Winters accepted the February 2, 2016 minutes, as written.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Beinstein made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:23 p.m.
Commissioner McCormick seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.