Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 06/21/2016
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
JUNE 21, 2016
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Margery Winters, Chairperson, opened the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission at 7:32 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. ROLL CALL
Commission Members and alternates in attendance were: Margery Winters, Darren Cunningham, Jason Levy, Craig MacCormac, Jim Morrison, Donna Beinstein and Donald Rieger.
1. Appointment of Alternates
Chairperson Winters seated Alternate Commissioner Beinstein for Andrew O’Connor.
III. APPLICATIONS
1. Old Business
a. Applications:
i. None.
2. New Business
a. Receipt of New Applications:
Mr. Glidden noted receipt of 2 new applications: 1) for removal of irrigation pond sediment at Simsbury Farms Golf Course; and 2) a residential property at 5 Great Pond Road proposing an above-ground pool and shed – with the shed about 10 feet from wetlands and the pool about 30 feet from wetlands.
IV. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Correspondence:
a. Timothy Martin to Commission, received 04/11/2016 (Lark Road property)
Mr. Rabbitt indicated Counsel was present to discuss Mr. Martin’s concerns associated with potential wetlands on his property. Mr. Rabbitt reviewed that about 2 months ago, at the Commission’s direction, Mr. Martin’s correspondence was forwarded to Counsel and his proposed response is now before the Commission.
Town Attorney, Bob DeCrescenzo, summarized for the Commission that Mr. Martin owned a parcel of land at the end of the Lark Road cul de sac, which parcel was created following purchase of a house on Dogwood by an entity controlled by Mr. Martin; the related entity sold the house and supporting land with Mr. Martin retaining the parcel at the end of the Lark Road cul de sac. Attorney DeCrescenzo provided further background that Mr. Martin filed a parcel division map with Land Records and there is associated litigation – initially, Mr. Martin appealed the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s (ZEO) letter responding to his request for a Building Permit recommending he come to the Inland/Wetlands Commission for determination of whether the proposed building constituted a regulated activity on the land because of evidence of wetland soil; and secondly, the ZEO found the lot did not meet Zoning Regulation requirements and recommended Mr. Martin go in a different direction if he wanted to develop the land. Attorney DeCrescenzo continued that Mr. Martin then sued regarding the ZEO’s determination; subsequently, Mr. Martin brought a variance on the zoning issues which was denied by ZBA because he has 50 feet of frontage and 200 feet are required. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated there was a full court hearing of the ZEO determination and Mr. Martin lost in a strongly worded decision that he did not have adequate frontage for a buildable parcel; he also appealed the ZEO/Conservation Commission determination that there may be inland/wetland soils present on the parcel and he should come to the Inland/Wetlands Commission for that determination, which Mr. Martin appealed and is pending that alleges negligence and other wrongful acts on the part of Town Staff, and the Court determined on the Motion to Dismiss that there were enough factual allegations to go beyond the initial pleading. Attorney DeCrescenzo continued that Mr. Martin also submitted a letter to this Commission asking for a determination of whether the Commission believes it has jurisdiction over this parcel; and Counsel was asked to comment.
Attorney DeCrescenzo commented that the parcel of land is not included on the filed Inland/Wetlands map in the Town Clerk’s office; however, as noted in his letter, the Inland/Wetlands Agency jurisdiction is not limited to those parcels that are mapped on the official wetlands map; and regulations are very clear that the Inland/Wetlands Agency regulates those parcels of land where there is evidence of inland/wetlands soil as cited in Section 2.1. of his letter where “Regulated Area” means “Any wetland as defined in these regulations and as shown on the ‘official Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Map, for the Town of Simsbury, CT,’ it should be noted that some wetland boundaries may vary from the official map or may not have been depicted. In such cases, the actual character of the soils determines whether the area is subject to the regulations.” Attorney DeCrescenzo added under Section 3.1., “Inventory of Regulated Area”, it states, “The Commission may use aerial photography, remote sensing imagery, resource mapping, soils maps, site inspection observations or other information in determining the location of the boundaries of wetlands and watercourses.” Attorney DeCrescenzo continued that Section 6.1. “Regulated Areas to be Licensed”, states, “The Commission regulates those regulated activities that are not permitted as of right or non-regulated pursuant to Section 3 of these regulations. No person shall henceforth conduct a regulated activity in a regulated area of the Town of Simsbury without first obtaining a permit from the Commission.” Attorney DeCrescenzo concluded that the map filed in the Town Clerk’s office is not the boundary of the Agency’s regulations nor is it the only source to be considered in determining whether a parcel of land is a regulated area; in Staff’s research, they referred to other sources regarding character of the soil and found that according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services Mapping (NRCS) there is an area on that parcel of Raypol silt loam, which is defined by the State of Connecticut as a wetlands soil; an area very well shown on a series of maps (copies attached to the letter) that indicates where other map sources indicate wetland soils, the Agency may exercise its jurisdiction over the parcel as a regulated area and require a permit to conduct a regulated activity. Attorney DeCrescenzo cited a case in the letter, Ahearn v. Inland Wetlands Conservation Commission of the Town of South Windsor, where the Court found that South Windsor could rely on substantial evidence beyond the town’s own map to determine whether a particular parcel of land included a regulated area, if importantly, the local regulations say so – local regulations are authorized by State law. He continued the Inland/Wetlands Agency regulates wetlands soils and where there is evidence of wetlands soils on a parcel, that parcel is considered a regulated area, and to build a house or for any regulated activity the owner would come to the Agency for a permit. Attorney DeCrescenzo acknowledged any property owner can dispute that it is a regulated area and their soil scientist may provide testimony to disprove it; however, if there is credible evidence of wetlands soils on the parcel, it is up to the Agency to decide whether the mapping is credible evidence of a regulated area under Agency jurisdiction.
Chairperson Winters noted an application has not yet been received. Attorney DeCrescenzo confirmed that only a letter from the property owner has been received to date asking whether Staff’s determination that he needs an Inland/Wetland’s Agency permit is correct; and it is the right process for the property owner to ask whether he is subject to regulation by the Inland/Wetlands Agency. The Commissioners noted that the property does not have a buildable lot under Zoning regulations. Attorney DeCrescenzo explained the property owner could propose some form of regulated activity, and although there is nothing before the Agency, he was asked to comment on Mr. Martin’s letter. Commissioner Cunningham asked for more information on the resource for the record of State evidence. Attorney DeCrescenzo responded the source was NRCS mapping of the Town of Simsbury, which indicates on that property, Map Unit #12 (pg. 3 of attachment), there is Raypol silt loam running roughly through the center of the property (shown in red); following the property owner’s division of the original larger parcel, this parcel ended up with a great deal of the Raypol silt loam.
Chairperson Winters indicated she received a tel/message from Mr. Martin that the Agency has 60 days, and asked Attorney DeCrescenzo if there was a time limit? Attorney DeCrescenzo responded that there is no application before the Agency, and the Agency could indicate in the minutes that if an application were received, it would be considered a regulated activity because there is evidence the parcel has a regulated area within it; and if the Agency believes there is sufficient evidence to amend the map, that amendment should be done. Attorney DeCrescenzo has been on the property and indicated it has the look of wetland soils. Chairperson Winters and Attorney DeCrescenzo agreed that this could all be cleared up if it were studied by a soil scientist; the Town has not done that. Attorney DeCrescenzo added that the property owner has received a septic permit from FVHD following a perc test. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated that if this Agency stated it believes there are wetland soils on the property and will exercise its jurisdiction under the regulations, as he has spelled out here, the property owner has the right to dispute that and come in with a wetland soil study, as other applicants have done. Commissioner Cunningham noted that following Staff not signing off, what action could be taken unless an application were received by this Agency requesting a permit? Mr. Glidden responded that if the owner disagreed, their two options would be to 1) retain a soil scientist and present their findings in an application to conduct regulated activities; or 2) to amend the official Town Map. Chairperson Winters indicated she received a subpoena today and asked if Mr. Martin hired a consultant for wetland delineation? Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated he hired a consultant for the perc test, but not for wetland delineation to date. Commissioner Cunningham noted Mr. Martin does not have a permit and the next logical step would be for him to submit an application for a permit to this Agency, as advisory opinions are not typically provided. Attorney DeCrescenzo noted a process in Agency regulations known as “Map Boundary Disputes” so even if it is not on the wetlands map, regulations provide that if there is evidence of wetlands soils, this Agency is authorized to regulate it. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated if Mr. Martin wants to dispute that, he must bring in evidence to refute that determination, as other applicants have done; however, Mr. Martin’s claim is if it is not on the map, he does not have to come before this Agency and the map defines the Agency’s jurisdiction. Attorney DeCrescenzo and Staff have informed Mr. Martin numerous times that under wetlands regulations jurisdiction goes beyond map areas to areas where there is evidence of wetland soils, and the purpose of the map is to identify known wetland soils in Town but they are not limited to the map.
Attorney DeCrescenzo summarized in his letter that, “Based on these maps and other resources, the Commission could conclude that substantial evidence exists that the subject property includes areas where inland/wetlands soils are present, and therefore, the property is subject to its regulations, if the owner proposes to conduct a regulated activity.” Mr. Rabbitt suggested the Commission could acknowledge receipt of Counsel’s map, and by consensus indicate no disagreement with Counsel’s map, but Commission regulations are broader than the map; and there is no disagreement with Counsel’s response to Mr. Martin’s request. Mr. Rabbitt noted there are no applications before this Commission and for someone to dispute that something is not on the official wetlands map, they would hire a soil scientist to solidify that fact, which has not been done here; so if someone asks Staff if a permit is required, other resources are considered, as allowed by the regulations, with the updated GIS map as one resource and NRCS another resource; a final determination could be made if an application were received with testimony by the applicant’s soil scientist. Commissioner MacCormac asked if a formal motion could be made acknowledging receipt of Mr. Martin’s letter, guidance from Counsel, and responding to Mr. Martin’s letter that we do or do not believe this is a regulated activity. Attorney DeCrescenzo recommended a motion acknowledging receipt of Mr. Martin’s letter, acknowledging the Commission asked for Counsel’s advice regarding the letter and acknowledging that advice was received, and any application received related to the subject property would be considered in the context of everything received so far. Commissioner Morrison noted a common problem regarding NRCS maps to take care in noting warnings regarding zooming in; Staff has familiarity in dealing with that issue.
Commissioner Levy made a motion acknowledging receipt of Mr. Martin’s letter, acknowledging the Commission asked for Counsel’s advice regarding the letter and acknowledging that advice was received, and any application received related to the subject property would be considered in the context of everything received so far.
Commissioner MacCormac seconded the motion.
Chairperson Winters recused herself from the vote, due to her receipt of a subpoena from Mr. Martin.
The motion was passed with 6 in favor.
Chairperson Winters requested further discussion with Town Counsel regarding the summons received.
Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested that if the Commission believes there are wetland soils on this property, that a map amendment be considered to formally depict them on the wetlands map; once that is done, the legal argument Inland/Wetlands has the right to regulate outside the map no longer has to be made. Mr. Rabbitt indicated that the Inland/Wetlands Agency has the right to adopt and/or amend the wetlands map; currently, Engineering is updating parcel data and once it is solidified the overlay for wetlands could be reviewed and also DEEP’s update of Town paper maps; the last Town update was an ink set, which can be checked for inconsistencies; and a new map could be adopted including DEEP water courses and the wetlands overlay as a new regulatory Town Map. Commissioner Morrison asked about the number of parcels affected, and Mr. Rabbitt believed the last parcel update was 5-6 years ago, and there may be 100+ parcels affected by subdivisions and parcel adjustments. Regarding parcels affected just by wetland soils that were missed, Mr. Rabbitt indicated as part of the process that will become known when they have the parcel overlay and print out to scale. Commissioner Cunningham asked about the legal requirements for amending the map? Mr. Rabbitt responded it would be an Agenda item, requiring a public hearing, and as a legislative act requires public notice with legal newspaper and general circulation of the intent to amend the map. Attorney DeCrescenzo noted that would provide Mr. Martin an opportunity to attend the public hearing and comment. Mr. Rabbitt noted they are not yet ready to perform this work, but understand that the Commission would like Staff to undertake an update of the Inland/Wetlands Map associated with the update of the parcel history map. Chairperson Winters commented that update would be beneficial to future applicants.
b. Draft Letter, Don Rieger to Lisa Heavner, dated 06/07/2016 (Pesticides)
Chairperson Winters wanted to bring the draft to the full Commission to get input and benefit from members’ expertise. Commissioner Rieger reviewed that a letter was written to the First Selectman in November indicating that while the Commission understood that spraying in Simsbury Meadows was legal and being done by a licensed applicator, the Commission nonetheless felt it was ill-advised as the two products being used are labeled by the EPA as highly toxic to aquatic organisms, pollinators, etc. He continued that the First Selectman wrote back to Commission in May that it was legal and being applied by a licensed applicator. He noted the Commission wanted to respond that while it is legal, the consensus is that if you have a known public health risk and known vector and pesticide known to be effective against that vector, then you have the raw material to make a judgement about whether the environmental risks being taken are appropriate or not. He indicated this letter is an effort to go back to the First Selectman and bring in some recent statements from DEEP regarding Zika, which is not a concern in northern Connecticut. He also noted a DEEP document brought up by the Chairperson that came out after the November letter referred to in the draft where DEEP makes a distinction between adultacides and larvacides and treats larvacides as less troublesome and more effective and cheaper; therefore, the draft was revised from the last meeting to indicate DEEP’s recent pronouncement suggests at the very least that larvacides, rather than adultacides, may be the way to go if there is a need for treatment at Simsbury Meadows, and to get an unbiased assessment regarding what is currently being done.
Chairperson Winters asked for the Commissioners comment. Following his research on larvacides, Commissioner Levy agreed with the changes to the draft. Commissioner Rieger noted that $2700 was spent on mosquito control for concert goers.
Commissioner Levy made a motion to accept the letter and send it to the First Selectman.
Commissioner MacCormac seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Mr. Rabbitt asked for clarity on the number of seated members. Chairperson Winters noted that Commissioner Beinstein was seated and it was clarified there are 7 regular members for this Commission, not 6, and there are 2 alternates.
c. Draft Letter, Don Rieger (Simsbury Meadows Senior/Community Center)
Commissioner Rieger understood a multi-commission meeting was to be held by the BOS including the Public Buildings Committee, PAC, and Board of Education, but when he read the minutes found it would not include the Conservation Commission nor other land use commissions. He believed that the BOS has decided to site the Center at Simsbury Meadows, but continue discussing the issue. He felt since it is a role of conservation commissions to advise other boards/commissions on land use matters, that it would be appropriate to share this Commission’s point of view with them. He noted an issue raised by Staff that could be perceived as creating a problem because taking a position as a Conservation Commission could be raised as prejudice or pre-disposition should a matter come to the Commission in its capacity as the Inlands/Watercourses Agency. He viewed that as not a problem and noted case law in which a commissioner served on both a Planning Commission and Inland/Wetlands Agency and both dealt with the same matter; there was a challenge and the Court found there was not predisposition because different considerations, criteria, and standards applied to each commission, e.g. speaking as the Conservation Commission, a gas station on Hopmeadow Street was disliked; however, acting as the Inland/Wetlands Agency saw no alternative to granting the permit.
Mr. Rabbitt reviewed that the BOS selected a site in order to do preliminary analysis and a very preliminary design for the Center; sites have been under consideration for about 5+ years and a final decision on the location has not been made. He noted the design is schematic with a footprint and some parking with no topography, no grading plan, no final budget number as it relates to site improvement, and no hard engineering; he felt the Commission was being very pre-emptive, without any solicitation of input, to be judgmental at this point in time and conclude it does not belong at this site; it has to come before the Commission as a regulatory agency and potentially under 8-24 when the investment is made as a referral and to Planning also. The Commissioners asked what would be the appropriate time to provide input? Mr. Rabbitt indicated they would not go to final design until they decide to expend funds, with the design and its many potential implications unknown currently, and it may not be located in Simsbury Meadows. Commissioner Beinstein, as member of the Architecture Selection Committee, noted that the architect has indicated it would be a difficult and small site to put a 2-story building on; she felt it was an appropriate time to comment and that waiting too long could look more prejudicial. Commissioner Cunningham added that the letter only says, “if there is another viable alternative, the Conservation Commission strongly advises against locating the Senior/Community Center at Simsbury Meadows”, which is pretty tempered; and the last paragraph covers any concern in that the Commission is a quasi-judicial agency and will apply what should be applied if there is ever an application.
Chairperson Winters asked if there was any preliminary part in the process where they would come before the Commission? Mr. Rabbitt indicated that Staff has made those suggestions, that at the appropriate time it may be important to determine feasibility because it is a tight sight; applications may come before the Commission with potential impact on regulated areas. The Commissioners discussed offering potential suggestions at this point and whether prejudice would be an issue at a later date, but was concerned about funds being expended and people becoming invested in a plan. Mr. Rabbitt responded that Staff has cautioned them of the nature and complexity of the Inlands/Wetlands Agency and concern over regulatory actions, which include proximity to or in a regulated area. Commissioner Rieger indicated the Commission is not talking about acting in its regulatory capacity, but is concerned about a conservation view separate from the strictures of regulations. Mr. Rabbitt noted the current schematic plan is for PAC to grass to be utilized for parking, the grass area would be utilized for building/structure, and the southern Dog Park area would be utilized for parking, with possible parking relocation possible; there are many moving pieces with a generally more square shape on the southern part of the site, without the finger towards Iron Horse. Chairperson Winters noted other Town entities have been asked for input and asked whether the Commission should ask them to be included more in the process? Commissioner Rieger asked if there was consensus on the penultimate paragraph in the draft letter? Commissioner Morrison noted the area of concern is the wetlands, as his primary consideration.
Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated his view that the Conservation Commission provides advice based on conservation values and related policies; he suggested additional language in the 3rd paragraph to address Staff’s issues, “As a matter of policy, given the scale and location of the proposed development as we understand it, if there is another viable alternative the Conservation Commission strongly advises against locating the Senior/Community Center at Simsbury Meadows.”; the next sentence begins, “It is our view as a Conservation Commission, the wetland and wildlife habitat in that open space area has already suffered damage and are under unrelenting pressure from the parking from facilities developed there heretofore.” Attorney DeCrescenzo felt 1) it should be made clear only the Conservation Commission is speaking; 2) the Conservation Commission is commenting on the plans as the Commission understands them at the time of sending this letter; and 3) the scale of this proposed development, as the Conservation Commission understands it, is causing concern for the impacts of conservation values. Commissioner Cunningham believed for the BOS to determine a better site, they would want information. Attorney DeCrescenzo continued that the letter would end inviting them to make a presentation to the Commission when they have a more defined proposal. The Commissioners noted there was a previous public presentation, but only to the Building Committee. Attorney DeCrescenzo noted once an architect is designing the site, with these thoughts in mind, they could come before the non-regulatory Conservation Commission and have the Town-hired professionals explain how they propose to mitigate impacts on adjoining areas, which will be core issues for this site for Conservation, Zoning and Planning. Commissioner Rieger agreed with Counsel’s suggested language.
Mr. Rabbitt asked whether there was enough knowledge of the project at this time to make a decision and suggested in the next 14 days providing the preliminary schematic to the Commissioners; he suggested rewording the letter to indicate that “based on a preliminary review of the schematic that was available to us, we have some concerns about putting this type of facility, at this scale, in this location, due to pressures here. It is our understanding that you are evaluating the location for a site and given its potential scale and scope in the known location, we have concerns as a Conservation Commission and would appreciate a presentation.” Chairperson Winters felt it would be good to look at what is proposed even if it is preliminary. Commissioner Rieger said the other side is that the Commission would be responding to the schematic and lose the big picture view. The Commissioners noted the BOS may again not pay any attention to the Commission’s letter. Mr. Rabbitt believed that without the schematic, the letter would potentially have to be watered down; he thought the language was good about potential pressure associated with balancing this area with appropriate growth, but he felt the letter now could only allude to the fact there is development on the horizon vs. waiting 2 weeks and adding the statement “based on a preliminary review of a schematic associated with…. we have the following concerns.” Mr. Glidden noted there is only one meeting in July. The Commissioners reviewed Counsel’s suggested language again; Attorney DeCrescenzo noted the law requires giving effect to both functions of the Commission simultaneously; the 3rd paragraph wording could be changed to, “As a matter of policy, a development of this size and scale in that general vicinity, causes the Conservation Commission concern.”
The Commissioners asked about the status of the Town process over the next month? Mr. Rabbitt indicated they will continue vetting concept design; if he learns from Jeff Shea that there is a critical path, the Commission with 24-hr. notice could call a Special Meeting to vet the final language for the letter. Chairperson Winters asked if Staff could inform them we are working on a letter to be submitted to the BOS, the Commission would like to be part of this process, and invite them to make a presentation to the Commission. Mr. Rabbitt will keep the Chair and members informed. Attorney DeCrescenzo will redraft the letter, circulate it to the Commissioners via email, and incorporate comments received into the draft.
Commissioner MacCormac made a motion to ask Town Staff to alert the parties that the Commission would like to be part of the input process.
Commissioner Levy seconded the motion, and it was passed with 6 voting in favor.
d. Draft Letter, Don Rieger to Lisa Heavner, dated 06/07/2016, (Town Code Section 85-6.1)
Commissioner Rieger noted that a letter was written to the First Selectman seeking support to modify Section 85-6.1 of the Town Code recognizing that the Commission will occasionally have a large and complex application requiring the use of an expert at the applicant’s expense, as other towns already do. He acknowledged Mr. Glidden’s good research obtaining model language from other towns; the problem in Simsbury is that the Code does not allow the Commission to request an expert given the requirements it must have a parking lot for 200 cars or a 100,000 sq. ft. building; however, the Commission could have a complicated matter requiring an expert with an applicant having an expert the Commission cannot match, and is therefore asking to have the threshold to hire an expert reduced. Attorney DeCrescenzo responded he may have misinterpreted the request, as it is clear the Commission is seeking an amendment from the BOS to redefine complex, because in the conservation area it does not have to be large to be complex. He indicated the Commission is perfectly within its rights to ask the BOS to amend the fee ordinance to allow the Commission to use the same process for a complex application without regard to size; he cautioned under 8-1c telling the Town that ad hoc fee determinations are somewhat suspect, as out of 169 regulations some form of it would probably be found in 150. He recommended if the Commission wants greater latitude in this area, that an amendment be proposed to the BOS to add additional definition to “complex”, other than just large; however, there has to be some objective standard to what is “complex” because the legal concern under 8-1c is due process so that an applicant knows whether the Commission has the authority to require the Applicant to hire and pay for a consultant. Commissioner Rieger noted that model language from other towns did not include a metric. Attorney DeCrescenzo will work with Staff to come up with some language. Commissioner Rieger noted the safeguard that the Commission cannot do this without BOS approval.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to table the letter and direct the Town Attorney to redefine the word “complex” in that ordinance.
Commissioner Levy seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
e. Draft Letter, Don Rieger to Zoning Commission, dated 06/07/2016 (water usage)
Commissioner Beinstein recused herself from discussion and voting on this topic.
Commissioner Rieger reviewed this relates to the bottled water industry; with such a facility planned to be opened in Bloomfield. He noted Simsbury is 100% reliant on ground water and vulnerable to an enterprise exploiting ground water to an extreme; this is an area where the Commission can express its view to other Boards. He continued that this draft is a suggestion to Zoning they might consider water bottling plants and enterprises, other than regulated utilities, that extract ground water for removal from the lot for ultimate sale as drinking water, and make that a non-permitted use; beyond that the Commission suggests they think about other large users that might be prejudicial to the public welfare by using a large amount of water. His 1st footnote suggests documenting that this is a big industry and is perceived as problematic where it has been established; and the 2nd footnote shows there is an interest in CT groundwater by those who might exploit it. Regarding the email, it was produced in a FOIA brought by the water protection group in Bloomfield fighting Niagara Water. Commissioner Morrison indicated a part of Town near Simsbury Commons receives water from Avon Water Company; Commissioner Rieger believed that may be ground water; Mr. Rabbitt clarified the letter reference was that all of the water is groundwater recharge resource and only MDC has draw down from an open water pipe; many modern facilities have standpipes and drilled wells in stratified material next to a reservoir and are less likely to get pollutants in a closed source vs. an open source. Mr. Rabbitt noted it was a very generalized recommendation to the Zoning Commission, which is undertaking revision of their regulations, and it may or may not be incorporated.
Commissioner Levy made a motion to accept this letter.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the June 7, 2016 Regular Meeting
Chairperson Winters filed for the record the June 7, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes, as written.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Commissioner MacCormac seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.