Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 09/02/2014 ADOPTED

CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS &

WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES

SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

REGULAR MEETING

I.          CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Rich Miller called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices.  Other members and alternates in attendance were Jim Morrison, Darren Cunningham, Margery Winters, Margaret Sexton, and Donald Rieger.   Also present were Michael Glidden, Code Compliance Officer; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.  Also in attendance was Hiram Peck, Director of Town Planning, who introduced to the Commissioners the new Assistant Town Planner, Rachel Blatt.

II.        APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Miller appointed Commissioner Morrison to serve as an alternate for the Commission vacancy. 

III.       DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

a.         Application #14-24 of Roger and Lisa Putnam, Owners, for the placement of a pre-built shed and standby generator in the Upland Review Area to a wetland on the property located at 8 The Glade (Map C05, Block 203, Lot 025).

The Applicant requested a continuation to the next meeting.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion to table Application #14-24.

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

b.         Application #14-25 of Deborah R. Mason, Owner, for the construction of an addition to the existing residence in the Upland Review Area to a wetland on the property located at 29 Drake Hill Road (Map G11, Block 144, Lot 006).

Application #14-25 was read into the record.

The Applicants provided site drawings to the Commissioners and requested approval to build a 10-foot addition on the end of the house which would be 3-4 feet closer to the wetlands on the diagonal; excavated material would immediately be removed from the site.  Construction would begin as soon as the Applicant finalizes selection of a builder, which would likely take several months.  Regarding steepness of the embankment at the 156 line, the Applicant confirmed there is a flat area and then it drops off dramatically into the swamp area.  An existing stonewall was discussed and whether it would be moved since a retention wall for the patio would be required.  The Commissioners advised that a silt fence for erosion and sedimentation control would be required along the wetland edge.  Entry to the site would be via the Applicant's driveway with the truck needing relatively close access to the area.  The Commissioners discussed the need to stabilize any soil-disturbed area if work is not completed before the onset of winter and the need to put hay on the soil or by mid-November to plant inexpensive perennial rye which takes 7 days to germinate.

Commissioner Rieger made a motion that it is a regulated activity because it involves construction in the Upland Review Area.

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

Commissioner Rieger made a motion that it is not a significant activity because it involves no actual disturbance of the wetland, no activity of consequence or likely impact near the wetland, and will be protected by appropriate oversight by Town Staff, as well as erosion controls and the like.

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

Commissioner Rieger made a motion the permit be granted subject to oversight by Town Staff in terms of the timing of the construction and the adequacy of the erosion sedimentation controls.

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

c.         Referral for the offer of Open Space/Flood Plain to the Town of Simsbury from Simsbury Specialty Housing, LLC, Owner, for a portion of the property located at 100 Casterbridge Crossing (Map H04, Block 403, Lot 13A-C). Zone PAD.

The referral was read into the record.

Town Staff discussed the specialty housing building currently under construction at Dorset Crossing and that the developer overlooked that the wetlands line running through their property required flood insurance.  Since the building was never planned to intrude into the wetland area and it abuts existing Town open space, the developer has now offered to donate the wetland open space to the Town.  The Town Attorney's review determined there would be no impact on the Town.  Town Staff believed that if the Board of Selectmen determined any work in this area was needed, the developer would be required to perform the work; the Commissioners discussed potential invasives or other costs.  How to cost-effectively deal in the future with the care of Town Open Space was discussed.  The Commissioners believed this additional open space and the overall development to be beneficial to the Town. 

Commissioner Rieger made a motion that the Commission finds that the Town's acceptance of this Open Space appears to be in the public interest and does not present to the Commission any concerns from an environmental or conservation point of view, but that the Commission does think that in accepting the donation, which it encourages, that the Town should carefully review the property for invasive plants or any other conditions which would imply the need for expenditures which are not disclosed or understood at this time.

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

d.         Review of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless's application to the Connecticut Siting Council for the regulated activities associated with the shared use of an existing tower at 344 Firetown Road (Map F05, Block 302, Lot 001).

Town Staff advised that pursuant to Docket 34, the Town was informed that Verizon applied for a tower share at 344 Firetown Road, and it has been forwarded to the Commission for comment.  It falls within the Siting Council's jurisdiction and will be on the agenda at their 1st meeting in October, and they will consider comments from the Town.  Verizon would add another co-locator on the existing tower requiring construction of a new shelter involving clearing, grading, and establishing a larger fenced compound.  Plantings are proposed with grass swale and level spreader behind the expanded enclosure; the level spreader would be within 7 feet of mapped inland wetland soils.  The planting schedule called for 16 white pines and the Commissioners believed native plants compatible with wetlands would be a better choice.  It was believed the plantings would screen the compound area which would have a 6-7 foot tall chain link fence.  The Siting Council will consider the Commission's comments and decide whether to incorporate them into the permit.  The Commissioners discussed drainage and that the grass line swale would drain into the level spreader with rip rap; the grass swale would pick up drainage from the grassy areas and runoff from the exposed pad to protect the expanded shelter area. 

The Commissioners summarized their concern to the Siting Council that the white pines may not be suitable to the wet site and suggested consideration of native plants that would be:  1) compatible with proximity to the wetland site; and 2) compatible longer term with the objective of screening the site visually, as the white pines will not do that after the first 10 years.

IV.       RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS

a.         Application #14-26 of Mark Greenberg, INFINITY IV, LLC, Agent; K & K Developers Inc., Owner, for regulated activities associated with the Zoning Application for a PAD on the property located at 34 Hopmeadow Street (Map E18, Block 117, Lot 001).

Application #14-26 was read into the record.

The Applicant's Attorney noted Application #14-26 is pending before the Zoning Commission for a PAD to allow Garden Homes development of 181 multi-family unit mix of town houses and apartments.  K & K has a contract to purchase a southeasterly portion of this 60-acre site.  Part of the plan includes a wetland crossing roadway at a northern point in an isolated wetland system.  They are requesting:  1) a recommendation from the Commission in its conservation capacity for the overall 60-acre PAD plan with a lot of open space included in the Master Plan; and 2) for a regulated permit to effectuate the access road into the site.  Regarding the material to be reviewed, Town Staff has copies of about 100-pages available for review.  As part of the PAD process, they previously provided an informal joint presentation to the Design Review Board and the Zoning Commission and believed the referral was positive.

The Applicant's engineer noted that Garden Homes is a premier housing developer in the northeast having completed over 40,000 residential units.  This 181 unit Phase 1B project would be less than half the density of the former proposed River Oaks project; the number of homes for the next three phases have not been determined and would be guided by the Master Plan approval.  Their Attorney clarified for this new zone placed over the parcel, any significant deviation would require Zoning approval, but the uses, amount of density, parking, road layouts, open space areas, and view sheds would be controlled by the Master Plan.  They would return for a site plan review once the Master Plan is approved.  Phases 1A, 1C and #2 across the CL&P property would be mixed use 1 and 2-story buildings comprising about 166,000 sq. ft.  This process would lock in the property in terms of character and scale, and subsequent deviations from that would return to the Zoning Commission for approval.  They noted the POCD alternative strategy for this area is mixed use development and the objectives they followed in the POCD included:  1) connectivity, with Hopmeadow Street remaining a 2-lane road and only 3 curb cuts added along with the existing shared access on the CL&P property - those 3 primary entrances would feed 181 units of apartments and 166,000 sq. ft. of mixed use which is important for traffic management and in determining road location; 2) maintaining the iconic views to Talcott Mountain and Heublein Tower, including determining building heights before they completely obscure the mountain view and locating the buildings with 150-200 feet of open space between the development and Hopmeadow Street resulting in site coverage of 36.5% - that open space would be green infrastructure, low-impact development mechanisms dispersed fairly evenly throughout the property low points and the Merrimac soils present should allow detention of almost all water onsite and infiltration and recharge onsite. 

The onsite wetlands were described as one small fingerlike drainage swale and another longer swale which are not connected.  A long-term CL&P drainage easement discharges into this system and was believed to be a manmade drainage ditch with limited functionality.  In looking at a road system in light of the POCD's requirement for terminal view sheds from Blue Ridge Drive and Meadow Plains, they provided a diagram of the proposed layout taking into account DOT's safety requirement the future roadway signal must be properly aligned.  They have worked internally to mitigate disturbances, including the 1500 sq. ft. disturbance at the northern isolated wetland, by planning a large rain garden, bio-detention area at the site's low point as the development's gateway which also performs necessary engineering functions in excess of the wetlands they would disturb.  They acknowledged a key question is determining the right size for the rain garden.

The Applicant's soil scientist began work at this site in 2006 and has performed detailed botanical and wildlife surveys and marked the wetland boundaries consisting of 2 narrow drainage features.  The two wetland areas have been altered and to a certain extent are manmade and will be further researched prior to the next meeting.  The narrow channels with intermittent water course outlets/inlets were noted; the central 13-acre portion of the site is existing industrial with lawns and parking lots; the site also contains 2 agricultural fields - a northern 10-acre field and a southern 20-acre site which were planted in corn through 2008, and there are hedge rows in a few perimeter areas.  The wetland system is a wooded swamp dominated by trees at least 20 feet tall including, American Elm, Green Ash, and Sugar Maple which suggests limited soil saturation.  The wetland functions and values are primarily groundwater interchange with discharge to groundwater during wet times and recharge to groundwater during dry times; flows are conveyed from the outlet to the inlet.  Wildlife habitat is limited by the small area, its isolation, commercial development on the north, development on the south, and erosion caused by the row corn crops.  The natural diversity database indicated 5 species of special concern, but to date they have not found any of those species which appear to be more associated with the neighboring 150-acre Nod Brook Wildlife Area managed by DEEP.  While they found a State-listed plant along the right of way off their property, the proposed development would not affect that plant which has since been removed by land management. 

A preliminary wetland impact assessment indicated the site would be well-suited to support the proposed development; it is mostly level with slopes 3% or less, almost 90% textured soils.  A high percentage of the land does not support native vegetation; the area is supported by a full suite of utilities; erosion hazard of soils is low; and the depth of groundwater is great.  External factors dictate road location in terms of access to Hopmeadow Street and its orientation toward the mountain to the rear requires filling about 1600 sq. ft. of the northern portion of the wetland system.  Because of the small area and that they avoid bisecting this system with its low level of functions and values, the soil scientist judged the adverse impacts to be negligible. 

They also looked at indirect impacts regarding erosion and sediment associated with construction, vegetation removal/alteration associated with construction and long-term maintenance, work effect on wetland hydrology or water course flow, impacts on water quality and quantity, and habitat alterations and erosion sediment control.  They found the soils to be nearly level, not highly erodible, and among the best soils to work with in terms of controlling erosion/sedimentation, and the developed area downstream would not be susceptible to effects of erosion/sedimentation.  Potential habitat loss in this 6-7 acre area surrounded by intensive agricultural use, industrial use to the north, and commercial development to the south indicated no significant forest habitat value; hydrology and water course flows have already been altered and developed for industrial use and their storm water management plan has been designed to minimize alteration to existing drainage patterns given the level soil and good infiltration which controls water quality and quantity for most storm events with water recharged to groundwater tables and LID water quality measures with ample room to provide for pre-treatment filtration, water quality swales, catch basins, polishing in dense turf, and recharge to the water table in grassy areas throughout the site; the water table on the site is deep at 80 inches. 

In summary, the Applicant's engineer believed impact on the degraded wetland would be small and indirect impacts would be negligible given their plan incorporating appropriate measures for LID and erosion/sedimentation controls.

Their attorney reviewed they have an Application pending before the Zoning Commission calling for a development plan with certain parameters that would be locked into place if the Master PAD Plan were approved.  A key component involves the wetland crossing because of both the safety alignment with the Blue Ridge Drive access point and because of the main terminal view shed requiring the road come in straight and to cross the northern tip of the wetland.  They are requesting the Commission's feedback on effectuating the wetland crossing on the northern tip prior to fully engineering the plan.  They would also come before the Conservation Commission for review of the Master Plan which they believed would not require a public hearing.  But for a regulated activities permit from the Commission, they believed a public hearing at the next meeting would be required with the Applicant providing a full presentation at that time.  They suggested a regulated activities permit with conditions could also be approved requiring them to return to work out final details.

The Commissioners discussed a detention area draining to an existing swale in the last phase on the site, and the Applicant indicated infiltration and LID would guide that in the future, but currently they would only be engineering the first phase.  The overall PAD recommendation Master Plan would pertain to the entire site, but the public hearing would be for the regulated activities permit request to cross the specified wetland.  The PAD information submitted to the Zoning Commission was more extensive; however, the development is not fully engineered as the PAD is set up as a two-phase process; the Applicant is requesting a Commission referral and guidance on their proposal.  The Commission noted there is potentially another regulated area on the site that would require a specific permit at a future time.  The Applicant will further review that separate area and requested a permit for only the first phase with conditions.  The Applicant believed the Zoning Commission would like feedback from the Commission on open space and roadway layouts for the PAD.  Whether an invasive species program would be needed was discussed along with native plant concepts.  Regarding impervious coverage of 36.5% for all 60 acres, the Commissioners discussed its inclusion in the PAD, but the Applicant believed the POCD requirements to be primary requiring mountain views and green space on Hopmeadow Street.  The Applicant believed their preliminary engineering indicates the soil 6-feet deep above gravel will infiltrate well with LID, and if necessary, mechanical systems could be used.  Detention areas would be located between buildings in green space and would all be interconnected as part of the design. 

The Commissioners discussed their further review of the materials submitted by the Applicant and working with Town Staff to develop a draft compendium to be shared with the Applicant at completion.  The Applicant planned to provide the invasives plants study the next day to the Commissioners.  The Commissioners recommended the Applicant address the issue of open space maintenance.  The Applicant was advised that other issues considered by the Commission include wildlife, plantings, and water resources.  The Applicant believed after the PAD and Master Plan are adopted, the Commission could decide to approve a regulated permit crossing the wetland with conditions requiring them to return with an engineered plan.  The Applicant's attorney summarized that Section 9.1 of the State Statute regarding Wetlands Commissions indicates a public hearing is held:  1) if the matter is determined to be in the public interest; or 2) if the matter is a significant activity; or 3) a petition is received from 25 signatories requesting a public hearing.  The Applicant's attorney indicated when they return to the Commission with final engineering details a public hearing could be held and they would not oppose that, but if the crossing permit is granted, the Commission would not be able to rescind that permit.  The Applicant referred the Commissioners to the executive summary as providing a good analysis of the project.

Commissioner Cunningham made a motion under Section 9.1 to schedule a Public Hearing on this Application because its proposed activity may have a significant impact on wetlands or watercourses and is in the public interest.

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

b.         Application #14-27 of Angela Parent, Owner, for the reconstruction of an existing headwall for driveway culvert in the wetland on the property located at 372 Bushy Hill Road (Map C17, Block 404, Lot 031-B).

 Town Staff received Application #14-27 today for reconstruction of an existing headwall.

Applications were also received for 660 Hopmeadow Street, EB, for construction of a generator pad; 39 Westledge for a shed; 5 Hamilton Lane for an addition; 121 West Street, Salter's Express, for french drains and LEP documents, and 2 Park and Rec applications for regrading and paving 2 park entrances, one off Hartford Road and one off Quarry; there will be 10 items on the next Agenda for the 9/16/2014 meeting.  The Commissioners discussed administrative approvals and Town Staff indicated that currently no one is duly authorized until certification by DEEP.  Town Staff will check with Applicants regarding who could delay to the October meeting since statute allows 65 days to hear applications, given the Public Hearing scheduled for the next meeting.  The Commissioners suggested contracting with Howard Beach to provide administrative approvals and noted the certification classes are coming up soon.

V.        CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Town Staff provided the Commissioners with a copy of "The Habitat" and other correspondence.  The Commissioners were invited to leave documents for collection by Staff for reuse at the next meeting.

VI.       APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 1, 2014

Commissioner Winters made a motion to approve the July 1, 2014 minutes, as written.

Commissioner Cunningham seconded the motion, and it was passed with Commissioner Rieger abstaining.

VII.     ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Rieger made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. 

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

_____________________________

Donald Rieger, Secretary