Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 07/19/2016

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS

AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES

JULY 19, 2016

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

I.             CALL TO ORDER

Margery Winters, Chairperson, opened the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices.  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, Charles Haldeman, Jason Levy, Craig MacCormac, Donna Beinstein and Donald Rieger. 

1.            Appointment of Alternates

Chairperson Winters seated Alternate Commissioner Beinstein for Andrew O’Connor and Commissioner Haldeman for Jim Morrison.

Commissioner Morrison joined the meeting at 7:33 p.m. and Commissioner Haldeman was no longer seated.

III.           APPLICATIONS

1.            Old Business

b.            Applications:

i.              Application #16-17 of Gerald Toner, Director, Parks & Recreation, Applicant; Town of Simsbury, Owner; for the removal of sediment from two irrigation holding ponds on the Simsbury Farms Golf Course on the property located at 100 Old Farms Road. Zone R-40. (received 06/21/2016; decision must be rendered by 08/24/2016)

Chairman Winters read Application #16-17 into the record.

Mr. Toner indicated that Mike Wallace, Golf Course Superintendent, would oversee the proposed project to remove debris buildup over the past 4 years for 2 manmade ponds that serve as collection areas for the irrigation system.  They evaluated alternatives and decided the proposed method would be very effective in accomplishing the work; Town Staff looked at the site with the goal to minimize any effects.  Mr. Wallace described a process of surveying the sediment to determine the size pump required to move the sediment; their divers use equipment to vacuum the muck and collect it in a giant silt bag; then the water is allowed to leak out; and the remaining material dries in the bag and is later recycled for use on the golf course.  Mr. Wallace summarized that this system is very unobtrusive, compared to dredging the ponds, and they would have their well on to maintain the pond water level and pond integrity.  Mr. Wallace explained that the muck in the pond is getting into the irrigation system and could cause it to fail; the sediment would be sampled prior to using it.  Regarding Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, Mr. Wallace confirmed they checked with them and a permit is not required.

Commissioner Levy made a motion this is a regulated activity because the removal of sediment is within the wetland area.

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

Commissioner Cunningham made a motion it is not a significant activity due to the procedure being used, which is far less invasive and disturbing than the dredging process.

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

Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to grant the permit subject the further testing discussed here.

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

ii.             Application #16-18 of Michael Best and Rachelle Rebick, Owners, for the installation of an above-ground swimming pool and 12’x16’ shed in the upland review area to a wetland on the property located at 5 Great Pond Road (Assessor’s Map F09, Block 147, Lot 001B). Zone R-40. (received 06/21/2016; decision must be rendered by 08/24/2016)

Chairman Winters read Application #16-18 into the record.

Ms. Rebick proposed installation of an above-ground swimming pool on the back side of the house about 4 feet from the current deck; photos were provided to the Commissioners.  She indicated there would be some minor grading to level off the area for the pool; a 12’x16’ shed would be located to the left of the pool – Mr. Best indicated it would sit on stone and have no foundation.  Commissioner Morrison asked how material/equipment would be brought into the backyard, Mr. Best responded it would be through a cleared area from the wood line to the shed on the north side; he indicated the height of the shed above the wetlands is at least 10 feet and the vertical drop standing at the brook at his 6’5” height is substantially above his head.  Mr. Glidden has been on the site and indicated there is a clear definition of the URA as it slopes to Hopbrook with about a 1:1 slope; no armoring is recommended because this activity is further within the yard, which is why this location was chosen.  Mr. Best added the lawn is flat and the pool would be 67 feet off the lawn edge.  Mr. Rabbitt clarified that the only real prep in the yard is pad prep under the proposed pool and shed, with minimal grading so they sit flat on the existing maintained lawn; there is a well-defined stream channel/edge with a significant vertical elevation change between the stream and existing yard.  Commissioner Rieger asked whether the pool would be drained significantly in winter and expressed concern that the pool water not find its way into the brook or storm drains.  Mr. Best believed the pool may be drained 6-8 inches, and that it can be managed where the eaves run off the house there is a downspout and even with heavy rain water sits in the yard.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated Staff could work with the Applicant to find an appropriate location for the drainage as a condition for approval.  Mr. Best noted they are working with an ecosystem company from Massachusetts and they do not plan to use chlorine; they also have no plan to run an electrical connection to the shed, which would be used to store lawn/snow equipment.

Commissioner Morrison made a motion the Commission finds this is a regulated activity because the construction will take place in 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, based on the plans proposed in the Application, it does not appear there will be any direct impact to the wetland.

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

Commissioner Morrison made a motion to approve the Application with the added condition that the Applicant will work with Town Staff to find an appropriate location to discharge the pool water.

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

2.            New Business

a.            Receipt of New Applications:

i.              Application #16-19 of Linda and Paul DeFlaun, Owners, for the construction of a deck on the back of the existing residence in the upland review area to a wetland on the property located at 26 Southbridge Court (Assessor’s Map E11, Block 150, Lot 001B). Zone RD. (to be received 07/19/2016; decision must be rendered by 09/22/2016)

IV.          GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS

1.            Preliminary Discussions:

a.            Development of 32 and 36 Iron Horse Boulevard (Mike Girard and Donald Powers, AIA, Union Studio Architects)

Mr. Girard requested and thanked the Commission for their preliminary feedback regarding proposed plans for their 13.86-acre property at Simscroft yard; they have also had preliminary discussions at the Zoning and Planning Commissions; he thanked Town Staff for working through the process with them.  He reviewed they have worked with Milone and McBroom to update the FEMA map and have spent a lot of time on the engineering process; Debbie Bernard was present and worked on the marketing/design end; and Jeremy Lake was present representing Union Studio Architects.  Mr. Girard indicated the property borders hundreds of acres of Town and State open space on 3 sides of this property which is the only SC-5 residential zone in Town; once this project is approved their operations would move to 80 Wolcott Road.  He noted they took the best parts from dozens of plans considered which provides a very unique development for the center of Town.

Mr. Lake indicated Union Architects works to assure their projects contribute to the community.  He described the property’s location, which is in both the center and on the edge of Town; a ¼ mile circle showed the area for a 5-minute walk and a larger ½ mile circle for a 10-minute walk for residents of the development; the red boundary line on the plan showed the current borders screened by berms/trees with Barber Cove and wetlands on the lower site portions; topographically the site drops off significantly along the northern and eastern edge with the site draining toward a temporary settlement basin.  He showed some of the schemes considered for the SC-5 residential site with the number of units ranging from 150 to 200+ units.  Mr. Lake noted an extensive process was undertaken to redefine flood plan areas for the FEMA map and buildable areas.  He described their thought process in coming up with the design – entering the site off of Iron Horse via Pent Road and bringing it to the river’s edge and a great lawn; thinning out scrubby trees to provide views of Simsbury Meadows to the south; the current moonscape site would retain and bring back to health the one tree now in poor shape and eventual communal area; an internal north/south connection through the site and loop road; and this would provide a 4 1/2-block  neighborhood for housing structures.  Green spaces would cut through the site center and he showed examples of various unit structures, including multi-family buildings of 12 units each with two buildings connected by shared lobbies located along Iron Horse, town houses at the far ends on Iron Horse and on the moderate-size central green and far ends, with the remainder of the community single-family homes with front porches; and parking areas/lanes and garages would be in the rear.   He indicated they currently estimate there would be 135-155 units and showed various views/renderings of the community and its two-way tree-lined streets and pedestrian zones.  He showed the Commissioners some examples of their other completed projects and they are working with Ms. Bernard to assure this project fits in Simsbury.  Mr. Girard hoped that the perimeter roads would become Town roads providing public access as they work to provide a variety of housing.  Ms. Bernard indicated they are refining the unit sizes and currently envision the apartment rentals ranging from 590 – 1275 sq. ft. to potentially bring young people back into Town; 750 - 1275 sq. ft. for 1-2 bedrooms; 1375-1825 for 2+ bedrooms; and 22-32 small detached 3-4 bedroom homes from 1575 – 2200 sq. ft. 

Commissioner Rieger noted previous discussions regarding the great lawn area allowing it to naturally repopulate and asked if a real lawn is contemplated?  Mr. Girard responded the area is currently planted in clover and is easily accessible as it is a foot above the water; he felt there were a number of options for the area.  Chairman Winters felt it could be a meadow with a potential winding trail through it tying into surrounding wild areas and neighboring trails.  Commissioner Rieger commented a chemically-treated area would be a conservation concern.  Mr. Girard noted there would be about 3 acres of grass and marsh.  The Commissioners believed the area having life in it is more desirable.  Mr. Girard anticipated public access to the site as an extension of Town and noted Pent Road is on their right of way.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated the Town has deeded access between Iron Horse and Simsbury Meadows Land Holdings, which would require BOS approval to change it and must be in the Town’s best interest and keeping public access; Mr. Girard has an easement on the existing portion of Pent Road that cuts through to Hopmeadow with potential for reciprocal opportunities; they have had lengthy discussions on how to incorporate this development, which would expand downtown about 20% or from 40 to 50 acres, and supporting existing businesses and infrastructure and potential growth in a walkable and sustainable manner. 

Mr. Girard indicated currently they drive down into the site and they would like to raise the site’s level for a better feeling by about 2 feet to 162 feet, similar to its north/south site elevation, and there is a lot of soil present to accomplish that.  Commissioner Morrison asked if the site would drain toward Hopmeadow?  Mr. Girard responded that currently everything drains to one area on the site and they plan to re-engineer for on-site infiltration; Mr. Lake added a combination of strategies and LID would be used.

Chairman Winters recommended they utilize a variety of native plants on the site.

Commissioner Rieger asked if the site would be built in phases?  Mr. Girard responded it would likely be a 3-4-year project, depending on interest.  Ms. Bernard felt this would be a very unique project with demand likely.

The Applicant thanked the Commissioners for their feedback.

2.            Correspondence

Draft Letter to BOS regarding the Senior/Community Center

Mr. Rabbitt provided the Commissioners reworked language for the Draft letter, which was different than provided in the online meeting packet.  Commissioner Rieger asked why the last sentence was eliminated that, “Any such application would be evaluated under specific statutory regulatory criteria different from the general conservation assessment underlying the statement.”, which was the rationale for the prejudice statement.  The Commission requested input from Selectman Mike Paine, who was present and is the BOS liaison to this Commission, regarding the proposed Senior/Community Center location.  Mr. Paine explained that at the BOS meeting the issue was to bring some, but not all, interested groups together prior to presentations to various Commissions.  Mr. Rabbitt added the intent was to reach out to potential users of the Center to gain a better understanding of functionality and services needed, and where there is redundancy with existing Town entities, e.g. the Library, Simsbury Farms, and Senior Center.  Commissioner Beinstein felt it would be better to receive Commission input before extensive time is invested in developing a plan and then coming before the regulatory commissions.  Mr. Paine indicated the current drawing is a footprint only and Town Staff would come in once they get closer to what could be presented and the regulatory commissions would be included.  Mr. Rabbitt added the building is not engineered and is at only an informal footprint for items like parking spaces with nothing yet for things like storm water; e.g. what was presented earlier for Simscroft represented 4 months of meetings with Mr. Girard on that proposed development.   Commissioner Rieger indicated this Commission is looking at this from a conservation conceptual point of view, which does not require engineering.  Mr. Rabbitt commented the draft letter was written before the Commission even saw a concept plan.  Chairman Winters noted that was what was requested.  Commissioner Rieger responded a draft was floated for consideration.  Commissioner Morrison believed it is always better from a conservation perspective to develop a better use for an existing property, rather than developing a new area, which is what this Center would be at this location and why he supported the letter recommending finding an alternative site; a significant change to the design would not alter that calculus because this undeveloped area would be developed.  Mr. Paine clarified they have looked at 4 sites, each with different variables, and they have not honed in on a single site; and depending on the site selected, things would change.  Mr. Rabbitt talked about potential issues discussed relating to the Simsbury Meadow site and the need to vet it internally and determine the scale allowing the Commission to see a plan. 

Chairman Winters asked if there would be concept plans for the other potential sites?  Mr. Paine understood this was the only concept plan to date.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated they are only in Phase 1 and they are currently re-evaluating the Center’s needs.   He has explained to the Building Committee and Staff the intricate nature of a site which other regulatory agencies in Town have authority over; the balancing of this public project is still being vetted.  The Commissioners liked the potential green area aspect replacing the problem PAC parking area.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated they are very far from any remediation discussions for this area, but he has advised them of the Commission’s regulatory requirements for potential remediation.  Chairman Winters requested that Mr. Paine share the Commission’s concerns with the BOS.  Mr. Paine believed the purpose of the Center is not to duplicate services already offered by the Town, but rather to find a balance and offer a minimum of 20 years of life.  Commissioner Rieger reiterated that the Commission has considered non-regulatory conservation issues related to this parcel and are troubled about this location for the Community Center; it is within the Commission’s statutory responsibility to give advice from a conservation perspective.  Chairman Winters added the Commission is recommending caution for this location, as this is a special place in the Town. 

Going back to why the last sentence of the draft letter was deleted, Mr. Rabbitt responded that Counsel removed it because any application would be evaluated on specific statutory and regulatory criteria different from the general conservation assessment and the Commission is not yet at that phase; and the Commission needs to clearly and fairly judge an application with its other regulatory hat.  Commissioner Rieger felt the statement fairly reflected case law on the matter, but agreed to the revision.  Regarding “unrelenting pressure”, Mr. Rabbitt noted there is a dog park, band shell, parking, trails, and a construction yard on a 200+ acre site, and that statement would be very strong for a 10,000 sq. ft. building.  Commissioner Beinstein believed the statement, “ We are of the opinion that if there is another viable alternative” should be deleted and recommended, “The Conservation Commission strongly advises against locating…”, since we know there are other sites that can be discussed and it may not be necessary at this point to even discuss other sites.  Mr. Rabbitt summarized that the Commission has concerns based on the concepts and implores seeking out an alternative, if one exists, given policy concerns.  Chairman Winters noted the conservation aspects should be in the mix as sites are evaluated.  Mr. Rabbitt believed the BOS will understand the Commission’s concerns and appreciate its foresight as they quietly evaluate the project.  Commissioner Morrison suggested deleting the phrase, “We are of the opinion that…” since it is not followed by an opinion.  Commissioner Rieger did not believe “…as a matter of policy” adds to the reasoning.  Regarding the first paragraph, the Commissioners agreed the two references to the “Commission” should be changed to “stakeholders”.  In the next paragraph, “…as a matter of concern..”, would be used.  In the middle of the 2nd paragraph, “We are of the opinion that” would be deleted.  Commissioner Rieger suggested at the top of the 2nd paragraph to put a period after “conservation” in the 2nd line; to delete “and”; to capitalize “In response”; and for a new paragraph after “the data” to set the statement aside.  The Commissioners agreed the 3rd paragraph would begin “Given the proposed scope and location of the facility, as we understand it, if there is another viable alternative the Conservation Commission strongly advises against locating the Senior/Community Center at Simsbury Meadows.”

Commissioner Cunningham made a motion to accept the letter as redrafted.

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

Commissioner Rieger believed that the official election of officers would take place at the first meeting in September, and that his term as Secretary expires on that date.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated there are two options:  1) the slate could exist until an election is held; or 2) elections could be held at the first September meeting; two officers were elected mid-season and it is believed election was pegged to the September meeting.

Commissioner Rieger was approached by a citizen who was concerned that dust suppression material was being spread at Simsbury Meadows, which would be an issue if it were.  Town Staff will follow up.

Commissioner Rieger asked if the pesticide letter was sent.  Mr. Rabbitt believed it was before Counsel.  Commissioner Rieger believed it had been approved in front of Counsel.  Chairman Winters noted she had not yet signed the letter and Staff will check on it.

Commissioner Rieger asked if Staff completed their review of whether the Clean Water Act applied in the area at Simsbury Meadows where the culvert was installed.  Mr. Rabbitt responded that Staff’s view is that the culvert installation does not trigger the Clean Water Act, but is meant for a much grander scale and impact; the culvert provides for north/south water flow through an existing low area crossing the trail. 

Chairman Winters will come in to sign letters prepared by Staff.

Regarding Counsel’s preparation of language regarding the expert matter, Mr. Rabbitt indicated Counsel was working on many items for the Town and the language is still in process and Staff will follow up.

Commissioner Rieger asked about the status of the violations at Simsbury Meadows, which have been discussed for over a year and workshops were intended to resolve those issues.  Chairman Winters noted there was one presentation.  Regarding the installation of the filter strip, Commissioner Rieger viewed it on Monday and noted its small size with gravel along the building edge and a white parking strip less than 4 feet off the building and hoped it would be larger.  Mr. Rabbitt indicated the filter strip in front of the building filters water hitting the building and is on the west side of Iron Horse Boulevard and the Farmington River side; they were supposed to align the 3 brownstone blocks with the building front and that was readjusted earlier this week; the toilets near the Dog Park low area for runoff have been pulled out 4-5 feet; and the PAC potentially lost 2 parking spaces, rather than 1 space.  Commissioner Rieger thanked Staff for following up on that.  However, he felt active collaboration in this format has been lacking.  The Commissioners agreed that it may be desirable to set a schedule for this area at the first September meeting; Mr. Rabbitt indicated they are working with other Town departments to accomplish these tasks and have made some progress.

V.            APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the June 21, 2016 Regular Meeting

Chairperson Winters filed for the record the June 21, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes, as written.

VI.          ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Levy made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:22 p.m.

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