Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 04/19/2016

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS

AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES

APRIL19, 2016

REGULAR MEETING

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 Craig MacCormac, Jim Morrison, Donna Beinstein, and Donald Rieger.  Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.

ROLL CALL

Appointment of Alternates

Chairperson Winters seated Commissioner Beinstein for Darren Cunningham.

APPLICATIONS

Old Business

Discussion and Possible Action:

(CONTINUED FROM 03/15/2016)  Application #16-05, of Joseph Campolieta, Applicant; Joseph Campolieta and Nancy Grandin, Owners; for an addition to the existing residence on the property located at 3 Browngate Lane (Assessor’s Map C03, Block 203, Lot 032). Zone R-40 OS.  (received 03/01/2016; decision must rendered by 05/05/2016)

Application #16-05 was read into the record.

Nancy Grandin, Owner, indicated the requested permit is for an addition to their house; and following Mr. Rabbitt’s site visit, all documents have been adjusted to provide protection to the wetlands.  Commissioner Rieger recalled that a drainage study may be required with Staff having discretion to dispense with wetland delineation if the drainage study were sufficient.  Mr. Rabbitt met with the builder regarding the proposed addition, which is 11 feet to the south of the house, and to identify associated wetlands and/or stream channel to determine the level of additional mapping and/or flagging required.   Mr. Rabbitt provided the Commissioners with a sketch plan showing in the bottom right hand corner a catch basin located in the street drainage system with an outlet structure running at a 90-degree angle to the road, while the property line does not, and there is a very hard edge to the outlet structure channel inside an existing pine grove and little to no vegetation in a 6-foot wide x 2-foot deep stream channel running from the road east to the wetlands area taking flows off the road and hillside to the west; the area has a mature stand of pines with little light under the canopy and pine straw.  Mr. Rabbitt noted they are over 50 feet away doing all work on an existing lawn area with no encroachment into the canopy tree line, other than structure in the side yard.  Mr. Rabbitt added the box on the sketch shows an 11-foot addition; a supplement showed they would match existing grade with a footing poured, full foundation wall acting as a retaining wall to support the addition; some grading activity associated with landscaping relates to preparation for the addition to the east of the house, as shown in the aerial photo.

Mr. Rabbitt noted there was a substantial stand of pines in the rear of the house, which are no longer there.  Staff recommended, prior to issuance of a building permit for this addition, that the Applicant be required to submit a re-vegetation plan for landscaping that would function over time as a filter strip between the yard and the large wetlands to the east, with a 15-20-foot buffer.  Ms. Grandin indicated the pines were removed because they threatened the house and grading was done due to large holes left by the pines, although no dirt was brought in; and dying hemlocks were also removed; they do not use any chemicals nor do any seeding and take care to protect the land; Mr. Rabbitt provided a letter from the homeowner for the record with that explanation.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated the pines removed were not in the wetlands; the soil to the west of the wetland system is very nice clean flowing material, but not having the canopy anymore requires the area be re-vegetated with grasses and trees that could mature over time to re-establish a canopy working with their landscape architect.   Ms. Grandin noted there are still pines in the area; Chairperson Winters explained that in this Upland Review Area it is important to re-establish vegetation leading to the wetland.  Ms. Grandin indicated there would be no change to the septic system.  Staff provided a map showing where silt fence has been installed on their property. 

Commissioner Morrison made a motion finding this is a regulated activity because the proposed activities are within the Upland Review Area.

Commissioner Rieger seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Morrison made a motion that this is not a significant activity because with the controls in place it does not seem there will be much risk to the wetlands that are to the south of the house.

Commissioner Rieger seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Morrison made a motion to approve Application #16-05 subject to the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions in the Staff Report and also on the condition that the Applicant shall develop a landscaping plan prior to issuance of a building permit and that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the landscaping plan is implemented; and specifying that the landscaping plan will provide for a suitable vegetative buffer to the wetlands at least 15-feet wide and be populated by a variety of suitable native plants which are approved by Staff.

Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

(CONTINUED FROM 04/05/2016)  Application #16-07 of Carrie and Patrick Roden, Owners, for the construction of an addition to the existing residence on the property located at 48 Long View Drive (Assessor’s Map D13, Block 318, Lot 015). Zone R-40. (received 03/15/2016; decision must be rendered by 05/19/2016)

Application #16-07 was read into the record.

Carrie Roden, Owner, was present.  Mr. Glidden reviewed that there had been confusion between the house plan and the plot plan provided and what the dimensions were of the addition shown in the aerial photo hatched area.  Mrs. Roden indicated the confusion was caused by Exhibit 3, which was drawn incorrectly, and the Exhibit 4 site map setback line showing the rock wall does not have the addition drawn line drawn in; the Commissioners asked her to draw the line in.  Mr. Rabbitt noted the Applicant submitted the documents with their Application; the Applicant felt someone else drew the line in incorrectly.  Mrs. Roden indicated they would be keeping the original house exterior walls and adding to it.  Mr. Rabbitt clarified Exhibit 3 is the floor plan and Exhibit 4 is the site plan with the garage located on the west side of the house and asked the Applicant to draw where the addition would be; she showed the line it goes to and the change would be how they would enter the garage with new foundation and structure west of the existing home, and potentially the old driveway could be removed or left for basketball and a new driveway put in.

 The Commissioners noted from the aerial photo, if the drawing were correct, the front of the house would actually be in the wetlands with construction in the unpaved wetlands, as shown on the wetlands map; currently, the driveway is on the west property edge and below it a manicured lawn.  Mrs. Roden indicated they would like to keep the house’s look in concert with the neighborhood; they could not build in the house rear because the septic system is located there.  The Commissioners discussed the need for a clean plan showing actual dimensions and accurate lines and grading in order to assess impact wetlands.  Mrs. Roden planned to return to the next meeting with the requested information.  Mr. Rabbitt repeated Staff’s offer to meet with the Applicant to assist them with providing the required information.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion to table Application #16-07 pending receipt at the next meeting of more complete information to make the Application become satisfactory.

Commissioner MacCormac seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Application #16-08 of Michael R. Nowak, Owner, for grading following pool removal on the property located at 35 Fernwood Drive (Assessor’s Map B18, Block 506, Lot 015). Zone R-25. (received 04/05/2016; decision must be rendered by 06/09/2016)

Application # 16-08 was read into the record.

Michael Nowak, Owner, referred to Exhibit 2 of the Application fully outlining his proposal; he removed an above-ground pool and would like to level the land and plant grass returning the area to its original state with no change in topography or runoff.

Mr. Glidden has been onsite and advised the work has already started - the pool was removed without the benefit of approvals; he observed silt fence along a stream from a neighboring site  and contacted the homeowner who immediately filed for a permit.  Mr. Glidden explained the backyard requires grading with 8 yards of topsoil brought in to dress the disturbed area; the silt fence is functioning and no erosion/sediment control issues were observed.  Mr. Glidden noted the other document provided was for an above-ground pool permit issued in 1995 with a condition the owner re-establish vegetation along the bank to stabilize the area.  Mr. Nowak clarified that no shrubs/trees were removed from the area and he proposed planting 3 more of the existing plants, but needed about a month to identify and match the existing shrubs (Hostas, Pachysandra); the purpose of the shrubs was to keep the lawn from going up to the waterway and keep fertilizer, /phosphorous, etc. away from the stream with about a 4-5-foot buffer.  Chairperson Winters responded that it would be helpful to have the buffer at least double that width.  He believed only 2-3 plants should be added at 4-foot spacing to finish the hedge.  Mr. Glidden commented that probably more plants would be needed and the buffer width should be at least 10 feet with a plan indicating specific plant species, spacing, and width to define the line between lawn and the riparian corridor along the water course.  The Commissioners explained planted buffers work to help water quality and intercept nutrient runoff before reaching the stream; expanding native plants is attractive, provides area habitat, and plant diversity is beneficial when disease occurs.  Mr. Nowak would like to finish the hedge and the Commissioners recommended doing that with a variety of plants. 

Mr. Nowak would like to bring in the 8 yards of top soil soon for regrading the pool area with a yellow area showing the extent of 1-2-inch regrading in other areas.  The Commissioners recommended Mr. Nowak bring a plant branch to a nursery to determine the species.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion this is a regulated activity as it involves grading within the Upland Review Area.

Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion it is not a significant activity as it does not portend any impact on wetlands.

Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion to approve the permit with the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions contained in the Staff Report, amending that only in the first Special Condition to specify the riparian buffer be 15 feet.

Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Application #16-09 of Gerry Toner, Director of Culture, Parks and Recreation, Applicant; Town of Simsbury, Owner; for the construction of a warming shelter on the property located at 100 Old Farms Road. (received 04/05/2016; decision must be rendered by 06/09/2016)

Application #16-09 was read into the record.

Jeff Shea reviewed the documents provided in the packet include site plans, wetlands delineations, etc.; an 830 sq. ft. building is proposed for viewing hockey games and would be within the existing ice rink roof structure.  Mr. Shea indicated disturbed areas would be areas around the rink and grass slope between the golf course parking lot and hockey rink; the building would be about 70 feet from the wetland edge and in the URA with no impact on natural areas; there is a small retaining wall for a portion of the slope slightly encroaching the area.  Regarding roof runoff, Mr. Shea indicated it would be piped to an existing under drain running below the building and will be clean with tie in of drainage operation done last; some of the roof will be below the existing rink roof with a portion outside.  Mr. Shea noted there would be typical poured foundation with frost wall and it will be a heated building handicapped accessible.  The Commissioners asked if there was a sedimentation and silt fence plan; Mr. Shea indicated that was not done due to the massive size of the site and they did not see the disturbed area having any impact on wetlands, as discussed with Staff and as provided for in Special and Standard Conditions.  Commissioner Morrison noted the area would all be paved between the building and wetlands; Mr. Shea confirmed it is currently paved but drains through the under drain which drains to the pond; during construction planned for summer they will retain as much as possible and may temporarily relocate the under drain once they find it.  Regarding the option of covering the drain during construction, Mr. Rabbitt added that during construction sequence the nature and scope of the project is so small in relation to its impact that coordination with Public Works and Staff would take place in the field to assure utilization of  required sedimentation controls.

Commissioner Morrison made a motion finding this is a regulated activity because the proposed activities are in the Upland Review Area.

Commission Beinstein seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Morrison made a motion that this is not a significant activity because it does not appear there will be any impact to the wetlands.

Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Morrison made a motion to approve Application #16-09 conditioned on the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions in the Staff Report with the exception of Special Condition #2, which will be amended to say Erosion and Sediment control measures shall be installed at the discretion of Town Staff.

Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Application #16-10 of Thomas Roy, Director of Public Works, Applicant; Town of Simsbury, Owner; for the stabilization of the river bank from a manhole station 62+70 to 56+90 on the sewer easement located on the property from Winslow Place to Tamarack Lane along the Farmington River bank. (received 04/05/2016; decision must be rendered by 06/09/2016)

Application #16-10 was read into the record.

Tony Piazza, Superintendent for Pollution Control, reviewed that in October of 2015 the project was approved for armoring the river bank using rip rap and other materials from the existing Army Corp of Engineers main stream stabilization area approximately 450 feet to the north. Since then he explained that heavy rains increased damage to the bank in two sections:  1) a 3-foot wide x 20-foot long area that slumped into the river; and 2) another section with a sheer wall that has eroded.  He indicated they are working with a consultant to finalize the Army Corps permit and also with the National Park Service to get their recommendations regarding the permit process for the wild and scenic part of the river.  He indicated their main concern is to prevent the sewer line from falling into the river; therefore, this Application is to potentially put in steel sheeting 4-5 feet away from the pipe in the ground, which would stay in, and they would armor the bank so it looks as it does now.  He noted soil monitors placed in the ground will notify him by text of any bank movement; they can also potentially plug the sewer line and bypass 700 feet to prevent problems to the river.  He indicated while their preference is to not put sheeting in, they need to be prepared and are evaluating several contractor bids:  one option is to sheet the entire 350 feet of the river bank, which would allow them time to wait for the Army Corps permit; a 2nd option is to armor the two worst sections; and a 3rd option is to have sheeting onsite with a contractor on call to put it in. 

Mr. Piazza summarized they are requesting the permit in order to be prepared and assure no violations.  Chairperson Winters asked about previous armoring and whether it caused this problem?  Mr. Piazza responded that about 900 feet was armored in the early 1990’s upstream of this section, but this section was in worse condition and was not done, although the Army Corps questioned it.  Commissioner Rieger asked if there was a realistic alternative.  Mr. Piazza recalled historically that in 1988 they looked at moving the 30-inch sewer line which handles about 1 million gallons/day in dry weather and 3-5 million gallons day in wet weather for the south side of Town and portions of Avon; the cost to move the line at that time was about $7 Million and today would be about $20 Million.   Tom Roy added that while bank armoring is not desirable, they are ready to conduct the mussel survey as soon as water temperature permits, and need to be prepared to protect the area with a permit in hand as part of a multiple-layer protection plan if the bank starts eroding.  Commissioner Morrison asked if too much of the bank were lost, would the armoring plan need to be changed?  Mr. Roy believed that if a significant change occurred, they would have to re-evaluate.  He indicated if they armored this section and the soil eroded, while the pipe line would be fine, it would not be the river the Town would like with nothing allowed to access the bank, so their plan is to do the original stone armoring with this backup plan.  Mr. Roy noted you would not know the sheeting is there – the sheeting is driven vertically 25 feet below ground.  Mr. Roy did not know bedrock depth but the engineers who previously investigated these soils felt 25 feet appropriate; Commissioner Morrison cautioned that bedrock at 15 feet would result in sheeting above ground; Mr. Piazza explained the original survey found silt and sand when they did the borings; they also have a letter from the Army Corps indicating steel sheeting is outside their jurisdiction, which they believe does not affect the water way.  Chairperson Winters asked if after the sheeting is put in would they still be doing armoring?  Mr. Roy confirmed that if sheeting is put in under one of the 3 options depending on price and timing, they will still go forward with planned armoring.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion that this is a regulated activity as it involves construction in the Upland Review Area to a water course.

Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion finding that this is not a significant activity as it does not portend any direct impact on the water course.

Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion that the permit be granted with the Conditions contained in the Staff Report.

Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Referrals

(CONTINUED FROM 04/05/2016)  Referral from Board of Selectmen:  Modifications of Open Space and Conservation Easement, Tariffville Water Company

The BOS Referral was read into the record. 

Shelby Beauchemin represented the Tariffville Water District Commission providing to the Commission, as requested at the last meeting, a letter regarding PCBs and demolition materials stating their belief there are not any, photos from 2000, and agreement the contractor will perform sampling and provide sample results.  She indicated the letter also addresses their plan to demolish the current tank to 12-inches below grade, and fill the entire area with the top 4 inches loam and seed.  She noted 4 reasons for not removing the entire tank, including:  1) increase in scope and costs; 2) difficulty in defining the scope with the concrete depth unknown; 3) for future construction, there are no plans at this time; and 4) it is typical to leave certain barrier structures in place.

Commissioner Morrison asked if the PCB testing would be done before the easement is granted?  Mr. Beauchemin responded they plan to do the testing in early May, depending on weather.  Commissioner Rieger commented on the submission from the Open Space Committee (OSC) which raised two relevant issues:  1) OSC recommended a flora/fauna survey of the disturbed area, rather than relying on only the Natural Diversity Database; and 2) OSC noted an informal trail connecting the dirt road near the tank north to the national scenic trail and hoped it would be restored at the end of the process.  Ms. Beauchemin added that currently there is not a lot of growth or animals in the area and they would comply if that is a condition imposed by the Town and they would restore Woods Road, if required. 

Mr. Rabbitt noted this referral from the BOS regarding conservation/open space is a policy related function of the Commission while the Commission’s regulatory function relates to the erosion and sedimentation control plan.  Commissioner Morrison emphasized doing PCB testing before the easement is granted and if there are PCBS that remediation be put in place before granting the easement.  A representative of the Water District asked if the old tank will continue functioning with nothing done to it, would it be reasonable to mandate PCB testing before any demolition, but not prior to easements, because any timing delays moves them closer to winter?  Mr. Rabbitt discussed that under the Commission’s policy function making a recommendation to the BOS that PCBs be considered prior to demolition, but noted timing is critical and can be handled by other regulatory agencies making it a condition of approval.  Commissioner Morrison expressed concern that if the tank is never demolished, there is no mechanism to assure testing for PCBs in the tank or surrounding soil.  Mr. Rabbitt believed that other regulatory agencies would look at the testing requirement, including asbestos in concrete, and that typically occurs at the building permit or zoning process; he would bring something forward to the Zoning Commission requiring PCB testing in the tank and surrounding soil prior to demolishing the tank or bringing the other tank online to assure it is addressed.  Commissioner Morrison believed there is potential for testing to be done with a huge increase in cost to demolish the structure and/or remediate the soil, etc. which could affect the rest of the project; it makes more sense to test first to understand the risk and have a plan in place to address PCBs ahead of granting the easement because granting the easement is the Town’s leverage to insure cleanup takes place.  Mr. Shea indicated the actual easement on the property is in favor of the State of Connecticut, so the Town may not be able to determine easement modifications as State easement language is standard and very specific.  Mr. Rabbitt believed the most appropriate forum to be at the Zoning Commission permit level to require PCB testing, and remediation and not allowing them to turn the new tank on until remediation associated with the old tank takes place.  Commissioner Morrison noted regarding timing that the testing would be done in the next month.  The Water District representative described their concern that the preliminary engineering report indicated the old tank could go at any time, and he was concerned there was no other source of water for 1324 people, including fire protection; he felt PCBs can be looked at and dealt with appropriately and noted they have been working with the Town for over a year on this project.  Commissioner Morrison noted that it could have been dealt with before now and granting the easement is the Town’s leverage to require testing of materials in the tank and surrounding soil and remediation, if required, and this Commission would be putting their faith in other Town Commissions to address this concern on its behalf.  Mr. Rabbitt committed to putting correspondence forward to Zoning pointing out the concern to test for PCBs and potential remediation.  Commissioner Morrison asked if the easement needs to be granted prior to going before the Building Department and Zoning Board?  Mr. Rabbitt responded that the Town owns the land and the State has the easement and prior to footings in ground that easement language needs to be sorted out; mechanisms can be placed on the approval side from Zoning that run independent of the agreements among the State, Town and Water Company.  Mr. Morrison asked how long it would take for the easement to be finalized?  Mr. Shea, Town Engineer, responded they do not know at this point, but are currently having informal conversations with the State, and wanted to have local approvals before requesting formal State approval with the timing unknown.  Ms. Beauchemin indicated they expect to hear something from the State in the next two weeks.  Commissioner Morrison noted if the building permits will not be issued until the easement is in place, then doing testing will not slow down the project.  Mr. Rabbitt believed the mechanism to handle PCBs is the Zoning Commission requiring that if PCBs are found, remediation be undertaken and resolved as part of the process for the new tank; and if PCBs are found, another process may be required beyond the Commission’s policy scope.  A 2-part motion was discussed.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion commending this project to the Board of Selectmen and respectfully suggest that there be a survey of the disturbed area for environmental impacts on flora and fauna early in the process; and further that to the extent the informal trail in the vicinity of the disturbed area connecting the dirt road to the national scenic trail should be disturbed, that it be restored at the end of the work.

Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion recommending to the Board of Selectmen to refer a matter associated with the potential of PCBs onsite for consideration by the Zoning Commission in their land use application process with regard to submission of a potential remediation plan, depending on the results of the PCB investigation.

Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

Referral from Planning Commission for review of erosion and sedimentation plan on Planning Commission Application #16-01 of Mansour Prime Properties, LLC, Agent; Royce Palmer, Owner; for a 23-lot affordable housing subdivision under CGS 8-30g on the property located at 80 Climax Road (Assessor’s Map D20, Block 608, Lot 001). Zone R-40.

The Planning Commission Referral for Application #16-01 was read into the record.

Commissioner Rieger asked what the time constraints were on this matter at the Conservation Commission level?  Mr. Rabbitt responded that a response is required within 30 days of receipt of the referral received today with two subsequent meetings in that timeframe; he noted counsel representing an abutter will be submitting a request for public hearing, and therefore,  recommended tabling this matter in order to receive guidance from counsel regarding the public hearing request.  Commissioner Rieger noted the need for Staff to also provide the Commission with a robust report.

An attorney filed a petition signed by more than 25 residents requesting a public hearing, and offered to site pertinent regulations, including:  under Section 9 of Town regulations, on Public Hearings, there are 2 conditions required to request a public hearing:  1) that there be 25 persons  18 years older or residents of the Town of Simsbury and he has submitted 29; and on page 6 of the Commission’s regulations where water courses may be impacted on the site or outside the site, either within the 100-foot buffer area or outside; if the Commission holds a public hearing and remembering there were more than 200 people at the last Zoning hearing on this property, he felt the public would be very interested in this Application.  The Attorney requested the matter be tabled and that the Town Attorney rule on the question of a public hearing.  Commissioner Rieger believed this falls under Chapter 128 which does not contain anything related to public hearings and agreed this is a matter for counsel.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion to table this matter pending advice of counsel regarding the Applications for Public Hearing and also pending Staff having the opportunity to properly Staff the Commission on the intricacies of the erosion and sedimentation control matters.

Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion to amend the Agenda to provide for discussion and possible action regarding the Application relating to the October activities in the wetland.

Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

Mr. Rabbitt noted receipt of 3 new applications and requested they be dealt with first.

New Business

Receipt of New Applications

Application #16-11 of Steve Feldman, Applicant; Steve and Lisa Feldman, Owners; for the placement of a shed in the floodplain on the property located at 90 Riverside Road (Assessor’s Map H11, Block 107, Lot 043). Zone R-15. (to be received 04/19/2016; decision must be rendered by 06/23/2016)

Mr. Rabbitt reviewed Application #16-11 regards placement of a shed in a flood plain; the Application received this evening by statute cannot be acted on; the Applicants were not present.

Application #16-12 of Shelby Beauchemin, P.E., Woodard and Curran, Applicant; Town of Simsbury, Owner; for construction activities associated with the replacement of the Tariffville Water Storage Tank on the property located on the westerly side of Mountain Road, being shown as Assessor’s Map K05, Block 127, Lot 020. Zone R-25. (to be received 04/19/2016; decision must be rendered by 06/23/2016)

Application #16-12 was received at this meeting and the Applicants were present to answer any questions.

Application submitted by Parks and Culture requesting a permit to install a filter strip from where it ends at the playground easterly tying into the lawn area at the Dog Park

This Application from Gerry Toner is not in the packet.  Mr. Rabbitt noted an existing grass filter strip from Iron Horse around the playground easterly which ceases to exist at the PAC office and again east to the Dog Park field.  From a drainage perspective, west of the PAC office is uphill of any parking gradient, but it is important to have a vegetative buffer there; they propose removing any stone/gravel material placed during non-permitted activity, to loam the area and re-vegetate with conservation mix, excluding leaving a sidewalk path of 1 ¼-in stone on the east side of the office complex to the doorway with 90% of that excess material removed and incorporated into the parking lot; 2 existing brownstone blocks would be moved north 3-5 feet and existing portable toilets would also be moved north; and the vegetative buffer strip would be provided east, west and south of those facilities.  The Application is received tonight and Mr. Rabbitt recommended tabling it to the next meeting.

Chairperson Winters recalled a significant amount of Japanese Knotweed in the area and asked if there is a plan to address it.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated that as the grass filter strip is established, they would have it wide enough to still provide for mechanical equipment to operate on so the roadside mower could be used to control the bank, staying away from herbicides. 

Mr. Rabbitt noted they would also like to deal with the substantial potholes in the parking area, which require 20-40 tons or two triaxle loads of either clean processed 3/4-inch gravel or ¾-inch processed trap rock mix placed and graded to re-establish the parking lot due to safety concerns, which could be done sooner as part of maintenance.  Commissioner Morrison noted that the permit was for 4-inch thick gravel which is now about 3 ½-feet thick.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated the area discussed for re-grading would be matched to eliminate 6-8-inch potholes; they are not manipulating grade, but re-establishing the parking lot.  Mr. Rabbitt did not have test pit data on the gravel material depth.  Commissioner Morrison noted the test pit data found 3 ½-feet of fill in the wetland delineation report.  Commissioner Rieger noted there is also a question about the safety of the material that was used and it should be thought through. 

Commissioner Morrison noted the filter strip would be on a slope.   Mr. Rabbitt indicated 80% of the filter strip is uphill of the parking lot and changes the dynamics of how water enters the wetlands, which would not run off north to south to the wetlands, except in the area of the toilets with some water flow and sediment transport; elevation rises west toward the PAC office at a higher elevation.  Mr. Rabbitt recommended establishing the grass filter buffer close to where it was originally intended and with changes in elevation, he did not believe there was a need for a bio swale and the area would be kept mowed so invasives don’t creep in.  Commissioner Rieger asked if the wetlands were right against the building?  Mr. Rabbitt indicated in his discussions with Mr. Toner that there is no intent to go into the wetlands and the filter strip would be conservation mix mowed every 1-2 months.  Commissioner Morrison asked if the material cleared and then placed in the parking lot would be compacted?  Mr. Rabbitt planned to recommend they mix the 1 ¼-inch trap rock in with the material they are bringing in.  

Site Walk Discussion

Commissioner Rieger discussed an area found after significant rain deep under water which they walked today with the ground scalped.  He believed Town Staff was proposing a more suitable pathway and proposed the area from the junction of the Town’s alternative path north to Pent Road be abandoned as a trail, re-vegetated with suitable native shrubs, rather than allowing invasives to take over, with every reasonable effort made to encourage its re-vegetation and to prevent further wetland damage.  He noted the trail to the west appears more promising and does not imply any regulated activities so far; in any event, the Town can come to the Commission for  necessary permits. 

Regarding the letter from the Army Corps and why they do not have jurisdiction over sheeting, the culvert project Meadows involved filling a wetland connected to the river, and Commissioner Rieger asked if a permit from the Corps was needed for the culvert?  Mr. Rabbitt’s understanding was that a Corps permit is triggered when ground disturbance exceeds 5000 sq. ft. or you impede the flow of a primary river or tributary to it; he saw no evidence placement of the culvert in the connection of the system to the south back to the river via surface water flows.  Commissioner Rieger believed only hydrologic or biological connection under the Clean Water Act was needed and any deposition of fill in the wetland requires a Corps permit.  Commissioner Rieger noted the culvert cannot be removed without a permit from this Commission, but believed the Commission should discuss not giving permits for things that violate federal law. 

For clarity, Mr. Rabbitt, showed the Commissioners a map of the area identifying the area where they walked and the area that should be abandoned noting that getting back to the original trail is the goal.  Mr. Roy confirmed when they worked in the area they only took out material that had fallen. 

Commissioner Rieger made a motion that the previously approved plan asked Staff to develop two trail cross-sections to clarify   where the trail should have been on the westerly edge in the higher area, with the condition the low area trail section to the south discussed be abandoned and re-vegetated with suitable native plants, which recommendation of a variety of native plants Staff will submit to the Commission for approval, and the public will be excluded from that area, to the best of Town Staff’s reasonable ability, so that re-vegetation can properly occur.

Commissioner Beinstein seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion to place a further condition on the permit to require Staff to respond to the Commission as to the need or lack thereof of a Corps of Engineers’ permit.

Mr. Rabbitt responded they would do that in the course of business and they will look at what was cut down in the area and may be appropriate to put back.  He asked as they are making the western trail and at a 10-feet width and an Autumn Olive is next to trail can they remove it by cutting at the base?   The Commissioners agreed that was a good idea and not a regulated activity.  Mr. Roy explained when the brush hog goes over areas of tufted grass, it becomes barer; in areas where fallen trees are removed with their mulch, it becomes barer.

GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS

Commission Education/Workshop:  Legal – Policy/Procedures

Mr. Rabbitt suggested that during summer there may be opportunity for a workshop with Bob DeCrescenzo.  Chairperson Winters reminded Staff of their request to know exactly what is being used for spraying around Town, especially near drains.  Commissioner Rieger noted they are waiting for a response to the First Selectman regarding pesticide application.

Correspondence

Mr. Rabbitt noted correspondence from Mr. Martin in the packet and recommended referring it to counsel for guidance, and possible discussion at the next meeting. 

Commissioner Rieger asked if the required report due in December was received from Griffin Land?  Mr. Glidden made contact and was awaiting receipt of the report and will follow up.  Commissioner Rieger reminded Staff that when that report is received Staff countersigns and sends it to the Corps of Engineers, as provided for in the documents.

Mr. Glidden noted a report was received in the last month from Cumberland Farms.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the April 5, 2016 regular meeting

Chairperson Winters filed for the record the April 5, 2016 regular meeting minutes, as written.

ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Beinstein made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m.

Commissioner MacCormac seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.