Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 03/04/2014 ADOPTED
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
MARCH 4, 2014
MINUTES FROM REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Rich Miller called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were: Jim Morrison, Patrick Kottas, Bertram Kaplan, Margaret Sexton, Margery Winters and Donald Rieger. Also present were: Howard Beach, Conservation Officer, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Miller appointed Commissioner Kottas to serve for Darren Cunningham and Commissioner Morrison to serve for Nick Zackeo.
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Commissioner Sexton made a motion to move III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS to after VI. RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS. Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING(s)
a. Application #14-02 of Thomas Evans, Owner, for the development of the parcel into a mixed-use development to include retail uses, offices, and gasoline sales in the Upland Review Area to a wetland on the property located at 155 Hopmeadow Street (Map F17, Block 201, Lot 002A). Zone I-1.
Commissioner Winters read Application #14-02 into the record. It was explained by the Applicant's representative that they are requesting approval of regulated activities related to a mixed-use development proposed for 155 Hopmeadow Street. While there are no wetlands on the site, it does have an intermittent watercourse, resulting in activities being regulated. The Applicant provided Town Staff a copy of the Affidavit for the sign required to be posted on the property, together with an accompanying photo of the sign.
The Applicant presented the proposed project as follows: the site engineering and storm water management were addressed and a Google area map with color key provided to the Commissioners. The property is located between Hopmeadow Street and the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail (the Trail). Nearby are a synagogue, apartments, nursery supply business, the Hartford, and the Hamilton Lane well house. No wetlands have been identified on the site, but there is a manmade intermittent watercourse that drains storm water from the State highway along the southern and western borders of the site. Depicted in blue is the surface water flow path which runs about 4200 feet from the highway, toward wetlands to the north, and then east to a tributary to Minister Brook to the Farmington River. An existing site condition map was provided of the former pool and patio barn, gravel parking areas, and garage; a pipe from Rte. 10 picks up storm water runoff from the adjacent area and discharges into the manmade drainage ditch flowing westerly along the southern boundary, turning 90 degrees and running north along the area between their site and the Rail Trail, then into Minister Brook and the Farmington River. A Town map showed the location of the wetland limits to the north and west of their property.
A graphic was provided depicting their proposal for the site, including: reuse of the existing barn with a portion near the highway removed and the majority of the barn restored for use; a new 4200 sq. ft. convenience store with a pathway to an existing bridge connecting the store to the Trail with access to restrooms; 4 canopied fuel dispenser islands with underground dual-contained tanks and interstitial monitoring; access drives from Hopmeadow Street utilizing the existing curb cut and another curb cut matching one across the street; paved parking areas with some pervious paver parking in the rear allowing storm water infiltration, a water quality basin storm water management facility; underground utilities to service the building; a sanitary sewer line runs along the southern border of the property; and connection to Rte. 10 potable water, electric and communication services.
A graphic of the grading, sedimentation and erosion control plan showed the proposed layout, location of Town wetlands, and that all proposed activities would be within the 100-foot Upland Review Area. Improvements proposed within the Upland Review Area include: cleaning up the existing erosion from the State highway storm drain outfall, extending the pipe and replacing the flared end section and constructing some stone rip rap for erosion protection in that area; a couple of storm drainage catch basins where it is very flat along Rte. 10 maintaining the same discharge points; the area watershed would continue to flow to the catch basins with highway runoff continuing to flow to the ditch; a water quality basin is proposed for the rear of the facility to pick up operations runoff with standard catch basins and culverts and the runoff would be put through one of two hydro-dynamic separators to trap total suspended solids, and floating materials such as oil, gasoline, bottles and other trash and then discharged into the water quality basin which would have an outlet structure that fills up during a storm and then discharges to the manmade ditch near the existing bridge with some installation of rip rap to mitigate erosion. The impacts were stated to be minor with direct impacts to the watercourse including installation of about 15 cubic yards of riprap to stabilize two areas for about 350 sq. ft. of disturbance; there are no direct wetlands impacts; and work in the upland review area is calculated at about 1.2 acres. The Applicant indicated existing drainage patterns would be maintained with water in the rear of the site infiltrating using the pervious pavers; any product onsite would go into a catchment area flowing perpendicular to the contour flowing to the catch basins and hydro-dynamic separators. Rainfall on the canopy would be picked up by the storm drains tied into the catch basins; the fueling area is crowned so that water sheds from it with the canopy protecting the area. The goal is to keep the area sealed to prevent product being introduced; around the edge are concrete striations to capture about 11 gallons of product and State requirements will be met.
Multiple redundant systems for surface spills include: breakaway couplings on the dispenser that seal; shear fittings on the dispenser break and seal if hit by a car; concrete grooves on the pavement; hydro-dynamic separators; and the water quality basin polishes and treats storm water runoff and provides retention and mitigation for the peak rate of runoff.
During construction measures for sanitation and erosion control include: using silt fence trenched into the ground allowing water through and filtering sediment; a crushed stone anti-tracking pad for vehicles; hay bale erosion checks around the catch basins and storm drain inlets; and a silt sack for the Rte. 10 catch basins.
Permanent erosion controls proposed include: riprap plunge pools and erosion protection for each storm drain outlet to dissipate velocity; stabilizing vegetation; hydrodynamic separators; and the water quality basin. The Applicant summarized that the proposal involves minimal impacts and is consistent with DEEP's 2002 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines in addition to the 2004 Water Quality Manual and will not adversely impact the wetlands or watercourse.
Regarding the striations, it was explained grooves about 1 1/4 inches deep are cut in perpendicular to and on the edge of the concrete pad; they have break points between them to contain the spill. The 3-4 grooves in a line are called positive limiting barriers and can store about 11 gallons per pump and are disconnected so there is no carry over from one to the other. Industry standards currently require pumps to have shear valves, breakaway hoses, and a shutoff at the end of the pump and the pump nozzle would have to be held manually to be open. If any product exceeded the grooves, it would flow into a hydrodynamic separator due to the crowned surface.
Sheet LA1 showed the snow storage areas off pavement and would be kept clean with water continuing to flow through the separators. The pervious pavers would either lock into a plastic template or use spacers with a specified material filling the space; a sub-base material is required beneath the pavers. Annual maintenance would include vacuum assisted sweeping. Whether pavers should be used at a gas station site was discussed, the Applicant was trying to use low impact design. If gas gets into the separators or is noticed on the surface, onsite personnel would notify corporate who would dispatch professionals; but a small amount of surface sheen would evaporate. The separators would typically be cleaned in the spring and fall; the manufacturers requirements are that they should be cleaned when debris/sediment meets 15% of capacity, but the shop clerk would not know that. For hydrocarbon to reach the watercourse in a heavy rain, one of the separators can take 90 gallons of spill and the other takes twice that amount, and then it moves into the water quality basin; as standard operating procedure for a spill of such a magnitude, authorities would be notified and proper action taken. The entire site is in the Minister Brook watershed.
Parking areas were shown and people would be allowed to park on the pavers which was said to be encouraged by DEEP as a best management practice. The tanks are fiber reinforced plastic material, double containment with an inner and outer tank and between the two in the interstitial area is a calcium chloride-type fluid that is monitored for any decrease. Leaks from the inside tank would cause the calcium chloride to enter the tank with its level dropping setting off an alarm; if there were a leak in the outer tank, similarly calcium chloride would leak out and an alarm would go off and service dispatched. The piping also has a system for leak detection.
Excavation around the tank is backfilled with pea stone material and the tanks are anchored by straps to concrete; the backfill material is geo-textile around the outside to keep any soil or fine materials from going through the pea stone; a series of monitoring wells are installed around the tank to observe for product, ground water levels and things of that nature. The pumps from the tanks to dispensers are in a sump area and have dual contained piping; if there is a leak, the pipes are sloped to go back into the sump with monitoring and alarm systems shutting the system down and calling for repair. Underneath the dispensers is another sump with alarm/monitoring systems that would shut down; in addition, there are algorithms run that monitor systems and measure product brought in compared to product going out for further alerts. The fuel truck drivers check tank levels and calibrate the right amount of fuel to dispense. Their information management system notifies corporate and has a backup. Regarding the tank overfill issue, they looked at where the product would go, and noted natural barriers and granite curbing would lead product to the separators.
About 40-feet on the front of the building would be removed; at this point, remediation studies have not been done. The existing building was heated by gas. The building would be for mixed retail with the historic building preserved and reused; some utility bump out areas would be removed.
The Applicant’s hydrogeologist looked at drinking water wells nearby and whether any release or contamination from this site could affect any municipal water supply. He recommended as follows: a hydrogeologic study looks at the occurrence and flow of groundwater below the surface and how sub-surface geology affects the movement of groundwater and any contaminants that might enter groundwater. The study evaluated potential risk for this service station on the area wells; research was done into available sub-surface information, the geology of the area and sediments below the site, observations on site with soil test boring, and measurements of whether the water flows from one area to another, how fast and in what direction, and whether the water levels onsite are affected by pumping at nearby wells. For a week, they made measurements every two minutes with recording devices in the wells. Factors influencing hydrocarbon contamination of wells include: distance, depth, chemistry, geology, hydrology and biology. The study concluded that the gasoline tanks on site do not pose a risk to any drinking water wells in the area, including Latimer Farms well #1, and any individual and municipal wells in the area.
Different types of sediments on the site were discussed and the general geology of Farmington Valley with watershed to the Farmington River running centrally and Minister Brook secondarily which is in turn part of the Connecticut River water basin. Minister Brook's drainage basin encompasses the entire site. Site soils were discussed with top soil composed of sandy permeable material to 15 feet below grade, and then a thick layer of silt and clay to about 140 feet and very impermeable, tight material, and below that 10 feet of low-permeability til material. All wells in the area are in bedrock; Latimer Farms well #1 gets water from about 80 to 140 feet below grade based on FVHD water well construction details with about 60 feet of silt and clay fine impermeable material. Water on the 155 Hopmeadow site is shallow and ranged from 3 to 7 feet below grade during the measurement period. Any release of hydrocarbons to the sandy top 15 feet of the site would not get through the 100-foot layer of silt and clay. Another key factor is the orientation of the bedrock layers which dip from west to east across central Connecticut, including in this area. Also, water from the shallow depth runs through the bedrock to about 600 feet. A Connecticut DEEP topographic map was provided for the area with the yellow area delineating Minister Brook; the water typically flows from high points across contour lines where the brook outfalls to the Farmington River and that takes decades. There is no aquifer protection in this area as DEEP aquifer protection requires sand and gravel materials that yield high amounts of water to wells of at least 25-100 gallons/minute; Latimer Farms well #1 data states a yield of 18 gallons/minute. The geologist explained that at this location the bedrock runs from 80-160 feet below grade.
Regarding whether a spill would affect a drinking water well, the first consideration is direction; at this site the groundwater in the top 15 feet flowed from north to northeast; in the deep bedrock it flows to the east; therefore, the water drawn from the wells comes from the southwest with 155 Hopmeadow downstream from the wells drawing water. Regarding discovery of a cone of depression which is a change in water level based on the pumping of a well that forms a funnel shape in the sediments containing water, it does not mean the well will capture that water. It was clarified a cone of depression is circular but because the water table slope here draws water west to east you get an ellipse where sometimes 90-98% of water comes from the upslope side; you get a very short distance from which a well can draw water; most water comes from the up gradient and a small amount from the down gradient and is not quantifiable. The aquatard layer of fine materials cuts off upper from lower water preventing the migration of hydrocarbons from the 15-foot layer to the bedrock 100 feet below grade which would take decades to centuries. Water flow is extremely slow and hydrocarbon is degraded by the sediments they pass through; biological microbes in the subsurface eat the hydrocarbons with their population exploding; chemical processes also break down the hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide, water vapor, sulfate, etc.; and the physical process where sediments 100-feet thick filter the hydrocarbons over centuries.
In addition to this discussion of theory, the geologist took actual measurements in January/February of water levels in the observation wells every 2 minutes for 1 week to see if there was any water level movement in the water table attributed to the pumping of any well in the area, and they saw no movement. For expected seasonal variation with the sediments fairly coarse in the upper region, a 2-foot change could occur. Also, the 100-foot filter will not allow gasoline through it within the distance of these wells and the geologist has never seen gasoline at any well site move in the opposite direction of ground water flow 200 feet or more; research shows the majority of hydrocarbon plumes extend no more than 200 feet from the source.
The Commissioners asserted that their Regulations require them to protect the aquifer, wetlands and watercourse, and this would be a significant activity if exposed to the risk of pollution. The Applicant responded that groundwater would not be in the purview of the Commission except as it affects surface availability for wetlands and watercourses as drinking water wells are not regulated by Wetlands Commissions. However, their goal is state-of-the-art safety measures built into the system to protect everyone's drinking water wells. The geologist's report was intended to provide information if there were a hydrocarbon release and additional barriers of protection in the watershed.
The Applicant’s geologist discussed the capture zone, which is an area a well actually draws water from, the data confirmed the capture zone of that well did not reach the area of the underground storage tanks.
The Applicant explained that reasonable and prudent alternatives were not part of the Application because the plan has no impacts and the courts require more than a mere possibility of pollution. Based on the design, redundant safety features, and the site geology and topography, there are no likely adverse impacts on the site; therefore, there are no prudent and feasible alternatives. The Commissioners advised that projects are increasingly using tertiary containment, as well as secondary containment, to lessen the risk of pollution. The Applicant acknowledged additional systems could be added but stated that there is no adverse impact to water sources from this Application. The Applicant summarized that with advancements at the Federal and State level, they would utilize modern technology for tanks, fueling systems and piping systems which are polymer reinforced without oxidation and rusting; redundant systems; interstitial monitoring; alarm systems and telemetry for alerting authorities; and these best available management practices are prudent and reasonable alternatives. Also, erosion control materials would enhance area resources.
The Applicant's soil scientist commented as follows: He identified soil types to evaluate whether the drainage ditch qualified as a watercourse. The property is 1.9 acres on fairly level, gently sloping terrain, dominated by a short grass field periodically mowed, and gravel parking. Soils on the site are a mixture of natural soil under the grass field and man-altered soils on the gravel parking. The soils range from medium to fine sands which are well to moderately well drained. The manmade drainage ditch begins at Rte. 10 and runs along the southern property line to the western property line in a northerly direction; it is several feet deep with steep banks. A sanitary sewer line runs westerly along the side of the ditch and underneath the ditch below the Rail Trail. The ditch is vegetated with cattails and golden rods. Water flows slowly in the ditch qualifying as an intermittent watercourse and is a manmade feature receiving storm water runoff from Rte. 10 and continues offsite feeding into Minister Brook. The ditch vegetation provides filtration of storm water. The proposed storm water management plan would have the most effect on the ditch and includes a number of controls to prevent degradation of the watercourse, including hydro-dynamic separators, the water quality basin planted with native seed mix, outflow metering of the basin, and placement of stone rip rap where the basin discharges to the ditch to prevent erosion. The amount of proposed impact is 380 sq. ft. and is minor; drainage ditches are typically subject to erosion with riprap used to maintain them. The plan includes landscaping with a mix of native trees and shrubs planted along the road and edges of the ditch providing some wildlife improvement. The soil scientist concluded that this development would not result in any adverse impacts to the manmade ditch watercourse nor to the downstream wetlands and watercourses. The plantings list was provided on Sheets LS1 and LS2.
There is a Town water main on Rte. 10 and the Applicant did not anticipate irrigation as likely.
The Applicant confirmed the ditch on the southern portion is mostly on their property and on the west side is on State property. They would plant on the edge of their property, but any maintenance on the State portion would require an agreement with the State to do that, as well as to have access from their site to the Trail which is typically done in the encroachment process and could be a permit condition. Regarding wildlife habitat issues in the wetland offsite, the soil scientist could not identify any and believes the map may be incorrect with the wetlands located farther north.
The hours of operation remain to be determined with Planning and Zoning. Regarding lighting, the Applicant said foot candles have to go to zero at the property line and full cutoff fixtures will likely be used.
Regarding removal of soils, the Applicant indicated soil will need to be imported with excavated soil for the tanks utilized as fill onsite.
The timing to begin the development would be for a summer start pending approval.
The meeting was opened for public comment.
Todd Picken of 4 Hamilton Lane commented as follows: He currently manages the well association which is a public water supply governed by the State Water Department; the wells have existed for about 50 years and the gallons per minute is believed to be much higher than the Applicant suggested for the 7 homes serviced. They have satisfied a number of State Health Department requirements in recent years, including new tanks, heads on the wells extending further into the bedrock, and they file annual reports. The actual depth of the well is not 70 feet. He was directed to DEEP by a Health Department analyst which governs them as strictly as they do a municipal well. DEEP provided him an email indicating gas stations pose a threat to their community well. (Regarding dispensing diesel, the Applicant confirmed that is likely.) Mr. Picken advised diesel does not dissipate as gasoline does and travels through soil differently. The DEEP representative's letter expressed concern about both dissipation at the shallow level and about the area water table; in particular, Mr. Picken's basement sump pump runs about every 15 seconds most of the year indicating there is infiltration and a high ground water level. He said there are swales in the land and standing water much of the time at his neighbor's home, which is closer to the site, and with sump pumps running most of the time, there could be vapor intrusion into their homes from any surface spills. They are more concerned about spillage when tanks are filled as it doesn't take a lot for diesel or gasoline to filter into a shallow water supply. He expressed concern about nearby lighting effects as well. They decided not to go on Town water as this is some of the best water in Simsbury and they maintain the well which the community enjoys. Despite the remediation presented, he suggested thinking about risk management when there is a diesel or kerosene spill in an area with a high water table. He understood that under State statute, should there be any spill, protection would be required for their community by the developers and bonds issued.
The Commission suggested the Applicant address questions following public comments. Town Staff confirmed that after checking with several attorneys and the Department of Public Health regarding wetlands commission's purview over sub-surface water, that the only case in the State upheld by the Court was where actual sub-surface water drained a wetland hydrologically altering and destroying the wetland; in that case the Court upheld their ability to look at that situation; other than that case, wetlands commissions are not permitted to regulate sub-surface water. The Applicant was asked by Town Staff to do the analysis of sub-surface water due to public interest in the nearby well; however, sub-surface water is controlled for well-head or aquifer through the DEEP Aquifer Protection Act by the Department of Public Health and locally by the Farmington Valley Health District. Town Staff added there is a Department of Public Health letter stating they no longer regulate Hamilton Wells because they do not regulate anything for less than 25 people. Mr. Picken indicated their well association still must follow the same guidelines as any public utility or they could be shut down. Town Staff clarified while a different agency now monitors Hamilton, the Wetlands Commission does not legally have the purview to deny a permit based specifically on sub-surface water, and rather looks at wetland impacts and surface spill impacts. The Commission's purview is defined by State statute and focuses on wetland and watercourse impacts from any surface. Town Staff clarified for public attendees that the Zoning Commission would be involved as re-zoning would be required for this Application. Regarding retaining the quality of well drinking water, Town Staff explained that would be regulated by the Department of Public Health and the Farmington Valley Health District.
Alan Needham of 2 Basswood Lane - a member of the Planning Commission whose presence at this meeting was not related to that work, commented as follows: He - felt the concern with groundwater was well taken. He did not want to see gasoline in the neighborhood wetlands, or at the rear of residents’ homes, nor in the watercourse near the gas station. He noted there could be another mistake like MTBE pollution and damage; he did not believe the protection systems are fail safe, and asked what is the assurance a convenience store clerk can be relied on to monitor these systems. He acknowledge that if the maintenance is not there, these systems will fail and historically every gas station in Town has had tank leaks. He added while tanks are better, systems are better, and MTBE is gone, the people installing these tanks are taking the risk, not the residents; how do residents know in good faith that the tank owners will do everything they need to do. He read a number of incidents of significant gasoline spillage, including 250 to 800 gallon spills caused by delivery accidents and cars striking pumps.
Regarding maintenance, he read from a report of the California State Water Resources Control Board Advisory Panel on the Leak History of New and Upgraded UST (underground storage systems) Systems: "There is evidence of releases from new and upgraded UST systems. Releases are often related to improper installation or maintenance. There is evidence that leak detection programs may not be performing as intended. ...Less than 4% of leaks during a four-month period were discovered by a leak detection program. It appears in many instances tank owners are simply not conducting the leak detection tests required or doing maintenance. We must rely heavily on the good will of tank operators to operate and maintain their systems." He asked that if they didn't do it in the past, why should we think they'll do it now? He noted massive development is about to begin northeast of this project and how would that be affected. He felt no risk is acceptable and the protection afforded in Minnesota which does not allow siting of a gas station within 1000 feet of a well, is what should be done here.
John Lucker of 88 Blue Ridge Drive asked why if this development isn't currently allowed on the property, it is being debated. He noted zoning for a gas station requires several exceptions, including consideration of adjacency to a church like the neighboring synagogue. He noted in Town there are at least two brownfields as a result of gas stations, including one at McDonalds and another at Iron Horse Boulevard with its petroleum smell permeating the ground. He recalled that Stop & Shop wanted a gas station and it was not allowed because of the aquifer. He recited there were about 8 gas stations to fill up at. As an insurance person, he said actuarially every event is independent and even though there was just a 100-year storm, another one could occur. He asked who maintains the hydro-dynamic separators and is liable for inadequate maintenance and who regulates that; are youthful gas station clerks up to the task of monitoring environmental hazards; and not all gas stations perform hazardous activity under the canopy like pouring and spilling oil. He expressed a lack of confidence that what was described would be appropriate if there is a spill. Evaporation from the pad could travel to neighbors’ windows a few hundred feet away. He has noticed constant digging around Dunkin Donuts and across the street and was told because of the high water table there is a drainage problem. He said that the presentation tonight confirmed with the 3-7 foot water table so close to the surface that during a storm the water is almost perking out of the ground and that should be within this Commission's purview.
He wondered how a storage tank with air in it is kept underground - with water only 3-7 feet below the ground, is the tank floating and do the tie rods keep the tank underground. He asked about Farmington River Watershed Association's position. Regarding the 1 1/2" deep grooves, 1 inch wide x 50 feet square, he calculated 14 gallons or 36 cubic inches of product per groove. He was advised release of gasoline is the liability of the operator and the property owner who are responsible for cleanup; the polluting party which adversely affects private or public wells and presumably wetlands under State Statute is required to clean it up. He added one spill would wipe out about a 100 years of profit and questioned what liability policies would be available; he suggested the Town assure adequate bonding.
Gedalyah Jeremiahs of 1 Hamilton Lane related reading 3 articles today on BP oil spills. He is concerned about a gas station so close to their well and the possible contamination of soil and drinking water. He and his wife are concerned about the impact on their 5 children. In a recent article, he read there are 9000 new leaks reported annually from underground tanks. He asked whether the Town needs another gas station given blighted gas stations in the area. Also, he noted the noise from the gas station pump TVs and loud music and the effect on his synagogue experience next door. As a cancer survivor, he moved here to live a cleaner and healthier lifestyle and would not like to see underground tanks and the fumes of a gas station. He respectfully urged the Commission to vote no on this proposal.
Nathan Berry followed up on the question of how typical pavers are for gas stations, which was added to the questions for the Applicant to answer.
Isabella Danielson of 2 Hamilton Lane talked about a lot of families and children in the neighborhood; her family re-located to Town because of the caring reputation about its citizens and would like to remain many years. She said she and her husband support business, but not that cause harm to families.
Claudia Sarkowski of 5 Quad Hill Road - a member of the Simsbury Humanity Task Force which was not related to her presence at the meeting - spoke about the Town's image as a clean-energy, bicycle-friendly community, and as a young person and sustainability professional felt this project would be redundant and a step in the wrong direction.
Regarding the proposed path from the convenience store to the Trail, Mr. Picken commented that would be a path to family backyards with their safety at risk. He felt alcohol sold at the convenience store and individuals frequenting these stations, perhaps having a cigarette or walking around, could pose a risk with the potential of hiding out in their backyards, as opposed to recreational users of the Trail who are not a problem.
Mr. Needham added a statistic that: "The U.S. GAO in 2003 said of the 693,107 tanks equipped with leak detection and prevention equipment, 200,000 were not being operated properly." and that is a risk. He added that oversight is voluntary and there are not enough funds for State oversight.
The Chairman stated that members' resumes with relevant experience are on file and accepted Jim Morrison's resume as a new Commission member. Commissioner Morrison summarized his background working as an environmental consultant for about 8 years and holds a Bachelor's Degree in Geology from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master's Degree in Geology from the University of Arizona and expressed his pleasure to be part of the Commission.
How to proceed was discussed with the Applicant who requested a 5-minute recess to go through the list of questions.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to recess. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
The Public Hearing resumed. Applicant stated there were no buildings to the north and they did not believe gasoline product would enter groundwater given the precautions built into the design and delivery system. While tanks are installed in a groundwater area with the potential to create buoyancy, excavation has advanced and a sufficient amount of concrete installed on a pad would create weight with the tank strapped to the concrete block so it would not float out of the ground. Regarding any comments related to wetlands, the Applicant would be happy to return to satisfy additional questions and thanked Town Staff for their assistance and attention and restated their request for approval of this regulated activity.
Given members schedules and other issues on the Agenda, the Commissioners felt it would be best to continue the Application to Tuesday, 3/18/2014.
Town Staff advised that Commissioners cannot discuss the Application among themselves and the public cannot contact the Commissioners about the Application. If there are questions or issues, they should be communicated to Town Staff who will communicate them to the Commissioners or Applicant. The Commissioners asked for more information on the pavers, how the storm water calculation would change if they eliminated the pavers, and what is the depth of groundwater under that area. The Commission noted their support of permeable features and wanted to assure it is the right application here; e.g. does DEEP recommend pavers in a fuel setting. The Applicant will also plans to highlight how the area is a separate sub-watershed of the site relative to where gasoline is dispensed. The Commissioners requested a spec sheet for the hydro-dynamic separators; while there is a recommended maintenance schedule, some Towns have a required maintenance schedule and Town Staff added that could be a condition of site plan approval. Regarding system failure, the Commissioners requested more concrete information on actual practical experience, including for autos colliding with tanks and ways to mitigate that risk and the timeframe these systems have been in effect. Regarding the onsite water quality basin attenuating a 100-year storm, Town Staff requested information on whether there is net volume increase running off the site.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to continue the hearing to the next meeting. Commissioner Sexton seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Town Staff advised public attendees that the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 18th at 7:30 p.m. in the same room.
V. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. Re-allocation of soil material/open space at Dorset Crossing: 30 Dorset Crossing Drive (Map I04, Block 403, Lot 013-A), 10 Dorset Crossing Drive (Map I04, Block 403 Lot 13C-F), 55 Dorset Crossing Drive (Map H04, Block 403, 13A-B), 100 Casterbridge Crossing (Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-C), 115 Casterbridge Crossing (Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-G), 130 Casterbridge Crossing (Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-D).(90 Casterbridge Crossing is owned by CT Light & Power - Map H04, Block 403, Lot 013-B)
Town Staff advised Dorset Crossing's next phase of development involves determining how to deal with excess soil material. They have been borrowing material from the rear of the site landfill area and would like to refill it with 25,000 yards of excess material, and then grade and reseed it. The dirt road runs on the edge of the wetlands open space and soft ground may require bringing in some crushed stone in this Upland Review Area. The Commissioners agreed that for this significant amount of material, an Application should be submitted. Town Staff would also require LEP to sign off on this proposal and will advise Dorset Crossing to submit an Application.
VI. RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS
a. Application #14-03 of Jamie Herrick, Applicant; Peter Murphy, Owner; to install an inground swimming pool and fence within the Upland Review Area to a wetland on the property located at 33 Blue Ridge Drive (Map E19, Block 618, Lot 104). Zone R-40.
The Applicant elected to return March 18th later in the meeting.
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
The Commissioners discussed the order of business where Public Hearings are taken up first under the Bylaws.
The Chairman indicated willingness to continue as Chair resigning sometime in 2014 to allow time to determine the next Chairman.
Commissioner Sexton nominated Rich Miller for Chairman, Margery Winters for Vice Chairman, and Don Rieger for Secretary. Commissioner Kottas seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
VII. DISCUSSION ON ANNUAL REPORT
Town Staff requested the Commissioners input which included revised regulations and taking the lead on river protection relative to MDC.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Town Staff mentioned the Connecticut Association of Wetland Scientists meeting to be held in April providing a science-based presentation information; the Commissioners will be advised of future dates.
Re the Hartford property zoning process, the Commissioners noted they had not been included in the process and were advised the flow process chart is being adjusted allowing the Commission to respond on a conservation point of view conceptual basis. Many LID features were incorporated in the draft document circulated and this Commission lead in that effort; however, those features were not included in the next draft and the consultant was concerned about that and their re-incorporation in the document is anticipated.
It was noted that John Hampton introduced a Water Planning Bill #5424 which goes to hearing on the 7th and it was suggested the Commissioners look at it.
IX. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 15, 2013; November 19, 2013; February 4, 2014
For the November 19, 2013 minutes:
On Line 69, the word "less" is changed to "fewer".
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to approve the November 19, 2013, minutes as amended. Commissioner Kottas seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
For the February 4, 2014 minutes:
On Lines 52 and 81, the spelling of Commissioner Rieger's name is corrected from "Reiger" to "Rieger".
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to approve the February 4, 2014 minutes as amended. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Winters made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Commissioner Sexton seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
___________________________
Donald Rieger, Secretary