Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 09/30/2014 SPECIAL MEETING
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS &
WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 30, 2014
MINUTES FROM SPECIAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Rich Miller called the Special Meeting of the Conservation Commission to order at 7:32 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were Phil Purciello, Jim Morrison, Patrick Kottas, Darren Cunningham, Margery Winters, Margaret Sexton, and Donald Rieger. Also present were Michael Glidden, Code Compliance Officer; Rachel Blatt, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Miller welcomed Phil Purciello as a new full Commission member. Chairman Miller appointed Commissioner Kottas to serve for the Commission vacancy.
III. PUBLIC HEARING(s)
a. Application #14-26 of K & K Developers, Inc. Agent/Applicant; Mark Greenberg, INFINITY IV, LLC, Owner, for the regulated activities associated with a wetland crossing for roadway access into the south easterly area of the Master Plan site which is part of the Zoning Application for a PAD on the property located at 34 Hopmeadow Street, approximately 60 acres on the easterly side of Hopmeadow Street between the Avon Town line and Tower Office Park (Map E18, Block 117, Lot 001). Zone I-1. (received: 9/2/2014; public hearing must conclude by: 12/11/2014; action date: 2/14/2015)
The Applicant's representative, Chris Ferraro, a Licensed Landscape Architect, AICP Certified Planner, and Vice President with Fuss & O'Neill, introduced the team present including: Eli Pechtold, a partner with Garden Homes, Robin Pearson, Esq., and Michael Klein from Environmental Planning Services. The Applicant's representative provided an overview: 1) for a concept plan as required for the PAD Zone and indicated their agreement with the referral drafted by the Commission to be provided to the Zoning Commission; and 2) a Public Hearing was opened predicated upon the approximate 1400 sq. ft. impact to a wetland.
The Applicant's representative reviewed that a PAD zone requires Master Plan approval as part of the zone change process and a number of documents have been submitted at a preliminary level. Their proposed wetland disturbance requires the Commission to render a decision, as a Commission denial would change the nature of the project moving forward in the site planning process. The 60-acre site location was described as consisting of two parcels with the existing CL&P office/industrial site in the middle; one parcel of about 26 acres and the other parcel of about 34 acres. The land was described as historically nonproductive old agricultural land. At the southernmost point adjacent to the Avon town line was a manmade ditch wetland system identified by the soil scientist as low quality; the wetland system is composed of an upper piece separated from a lower piece; the lower piece would not be impeded and continue to carry storm water from CL&P's parking lot via an easement into the lower parcel; and the 1400 sq. ft. under discussion was located at the tip of the upper piece.
The project proposes 181 units of housing, including an access road which is the subject of the wetland crossing; housing would be the first part developed and was projected to make future development of the entire Master Plan feasible. The Master Plan included 168,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, excluding CL&P's existing facility, which would be spread throughout a number of mostly small buildings; the largest building would be 39,000 sq. ft. and preclude big box stores coming in. The structures were designed to maintain views to the ridgeline with 1-story buildings in front in conformance with the POCD, and specifically for established terminal views with unobstructed views from identified street intersections to the mountain and maintaining mountain glimpses over the buildings where possible. The proponents indicated the interconnected open space system makes use of passive and active recreation, fits into their storm water management plan making good use of the beneficial soils on site for infiltration purposes and utilizing LID techniques. The POCD from a protected open space standpoint identifies maintaining the 150 to 200-foot wide green space along Hopmeadow Street which works to maintain views and pushes buildings farther away from Hopmeadow Street while retaining the open field gateway into Simsbury; the open spaces would be a substantial 39% of the site. If the project were developed under its current I-1 zoning, office or industrial buildings a maximum of 40-feet tall could be constructed to cover 50-60% of the property right up to Hopmeadow Street. They believed the Town's control over future development under the proposed PAD for this parcel would be much greater than under the current I-1 zone.
The Applicant's representative identified the location of the proposed wetland crossing and discussed why they need to disturb the 1400 sq. ft. ditch and that in the future when the project is fully built out, the DOT would require signalizing only an existing Rte. 10 intersection and not between 2 driveways. They would have interconnected vehicle circulation with a low number of curb cuts on Rte. 10 including: CL&P's existing entrance, a service drive, 2 main entrances, and a shared access point driveway off the property in the future. The wetland disturbance was described as necessary to conform to the POCD terminal view requirement. Effort was made to balance a valuable piece of property located near an Avon commercial area with environmental impacts, including onsite storm water management to maximize recharge in multiple open spaces around the property, and addition of a rain garden.
The Applicant's soil scientist involvement with this property began with a soil survey in 2006 and included mapping the single intermittent watercourse and very narrow wetland system that is clearly disturbed and broken into systems. The system has received discharge for many years from CL&P's industrial/commercial use. The wooded wetland was described as a wooded swamp, which is the most common type in Connecticut; however, the dominant Maple tree is Sugar Maple rather than Red Maple, indicating a drier end of the spectrum; also present were American Elm, Green Ash, Spice Bush and Winterberry, Arrowood in the shrub layer, a moderate amount of invasive Honeysuckle and Multi-Flora Rose, and the ground cover typically includes Skunk Cabbage, Jewel Weed, Lady Fern, etc. The southerly-flowing intermittent watercourse in the bottom of the system showed very significant sediment deposition and a lot of erosion adjacent to and in the watercourse likely because of the storm water discharge occurring there now; the water is frequently degraded by the storm water system. The other important physical elements for the wetland system were described as it being isolated and disconnected to any other permanent wetland feature with a disconnected finger at the end and a storm water input and another outlet at the Avon town line.
The soil scientist indicated the Connecticut Valuation Technique developed jointly by the Federal Highway Administration and the New England District of the Army Corps of Engineers was the de facto method for looking at functions and values of wetlands and 13 separate functions and values were examined in a report provided to the Commission. The evaluation factors included landscape position, substrate with the soil, physical features, vegetation hydrology, size and history of prior disturbance; and a table on page 2 summarizes the opinion. The principal function identified was for the function provided at the highest level within the system but not in comparison to other wetlands - that was groundwater interchange or discharge and recharge; during the spring some groundwater discharge likely occurs in the depression several feet below the surrounding landscape probably intercepting the water table at the stream base and followed by the water table dropping during the summer when minor storm events occur and there would be some infiltration into the water table. Due to the intensive land use history in the surrounding area, the wetland’s isolation and small size, the soil scientist believed it provides no other functions at the principal level and no other functions of significant value.
Their soil scientist looked at the proposed wetland-crossing plan of about 1400 sq. ft. of direct wetland impact in the upper tip for about 3/100 of an acre of small low-functioning wetland and did not think the direct impact was significant. They looked at indirect impacts outside the wetland that could affect the wetland and watercourse and indicated that with proper design, best management practices, and proper construction oversight, those impacts can usually be prevented. Typically of most concern would be erosion and sedimentation because sedimentation flows with the water to the wetlands, but because this site is nearly level with no significant cuts/fills required and importantly, the coarse grain soils not easily erodible, it would allow storm water to naturally infiltrate the ground without large amounts of water flowing over the surface lessening significant erosion; therefore, the soil scientist believed in this case standard erosion techniques properly installed and maintained would be more than adequate to prevent such problems.
They looked at the adverse impact of removal of native vegetation and subsequent habitat loss which occurs when a site is developed; their soil scientist believed native vegetation loss would be minimal as the site is already cleared and has been used for agriculture for years, the area of wetland vegetation disturbance is very small, there is not a lot of native vegetation in the adjacent area, the wooded area surrounding the wetland is only 10-12 acres and expected to support typical disturbance tolerant ecological generalists - they reviewed the DEEP natural diversity database which showed no locations of State listed species and queried DEEP about several locations overlapping this site and found none of those species on the site, and a detailed analysis was provided in their report. It was noted there is potential for a non-wetland rare plant in the right of way at the rear of the site where DEEP continues to mow as part of their maintenance which could be a conservation concern.
Regarding the indirect impact on the flow of water quality in terms of altering the hydrology, quantity of water, and water quality, the soil scientist noted the hydrology of this wetland system has already been substantially altered by the CL&P development in the property center, and the piping at both the upper and lower ends. Nevertheless, the soil scientist felt that the very favorable soils present would very likely handle all the storm water on the site with infiltration systems; those systems may vary across the site but will generally be large shallow basins landscaped with native vegetation, as is anticipated for the 15,000 sq. ft. feature near the road, or would be shallow turf areas depressed slightly with high infiltration capacity allowing water to soak into the ground after a major storm events. Their goal was to prevent increased peak flows offsite and at this parcel the soil scientist believed they could prevent peak flow increase and handle any increase in volume. For water quality, the soil scientist indicated that the large basins are very effective at filtration which occurs in the thatch of the turf, in surrounding native landscaped areas, as water infiltrates into the ground, and there is also bio-uptake and a variety of other processes; there would be pre-treatment prior to the outlets to remove larger sediment with final treatment in these facilities with the same positive soil characteristics for controlling erosion/sedimentation and allowing infiltration making these soils well-suited for LID.
The Applicant's soil scientist concluded that the site soils were predominantly well drained, have no significant development limitations, most of the southern portion of the site where the first area of development would occur has been managed for row crop agriculture for many years, there is a small isolated wetland in the south central portion of the property which originates in a storm water discharge and empties into a culvert at the southern end where it is piped a substantial distance through adjacent commercial developments and likely exits through Nod Brook and eventually the Farmington River; the wetland system does not provide high quality values for most wetland functions; erosion/sediment control during constructions can be accomplished with conventional techniques; the long-term water quality at and downstream of the site would be protected by the storm water management system emphasizing biological treatment and infiltration. In the soil scientist's judgment, the proposed plan as shown assuming proper implementation and maintenance of all the control features would have no significant adverse impact on the wetlands or watercourses either at the site or down gradient of the site.
The Applicant's representative added that regarding any wetlands off the site, the soil scientist did locate an intermittent stream with some wetland soils and would be the subject of a future application.
Regarding low-impact development (LID), the Applicant's representative indicated their goal would be 100% natural, nonmechanical infiltration on site; this would be enabled by the low density of the proposed development which is one-half the density of the former River Oaks property with 39% open space provided. It was noted that an invasive species report was prepared and submitted to the Commission. Alternatives were presented in exhibits to the Commissioners, including: 1) a layout with a 90 degree angle straight line up to Hopmeadow Street which was considered infeasible because of issues associated with the future signal alignment; 2) a curved line which would not be as efficient and does not comply with the POCD's establishment of the terminal views; or 3) an example of a fully-engineered site plan was provided with entrance road which drops down 4-5 feet at Hopmeadow Street with the road being nicely graded out establishing the low point at that disturbance; the 15,000 sq. ft. basin and potential rain garden would be the entrance feature and heavily landscaped front door for this high-end development; from an engineering perspective there is not a big difference between a water quality basin vs. a rain garden and they could be combined here; road runoff from parking lots and buildings collects in the basin and discharges after treatment through a swale to the final outlet. The Applicant preliminarily estimated 1463 sq. ft. of disturbance and for future discussion would like to move the pipe to cause less disturbance, but it would involve the plunge pool adding another 150 sq. ft. which would make engineering sense and also minimize buffers to provide a clearer mountain view.
The Commissioners asked how the site line study to the ridgeline was done and where were the points measured. The Applicant's representative indicated that cross-sections were taken in various points throughout the site to the top of the ridge from the road at about a 4 foot level from the road looking at where different building heights should be located to maintain the view and lowering some front building heights to a 30-foot height allowing a 200-foot view of the ridge top; however, the terminal views intended by the POCD would be unobstructed and provide a clear view. Relatively low landscape would be toward the front with trees going in farther back on the site. The Commissioners confirmed that the proposed removal of the wetlands and putting in a road would create that terminal view; however, most of the woody swamp would remain. With the existing erosion/sedimentation issue caused by CL&P, the Applicant’s representative indicated that would be engineered as part of their upcoming site plan and would go to DEEP and the Town for permits. Regarding the water quality coming out of the pipe, their representative indicated a Phase 1 environmental report showed some pesticide issues, but did not recall anything substantial, and that would also be part of a proposed site plan. CL&P's existing easement would remain with no change proposed. The Applicant's engineer indicated both properties currently have one owner and if the PAD is successful, a subdivision application as part of the site plan application would follow, including a new entrance way and rear housing site and by default 2 separate parcels with the housing piece sold to the developer.
The Commissioners asked how a terminal view was defined. The Applicant's representative indicated the POCD provides for a terminal view from Blue Sky and did not believe it would be shorter; however, CL&P's vegetation blocks the view; from a traffic circulation standpoint the proposed entrance would be clearer and grander and there are more positives resulting from clearing the ditch. Regarding removal of other vegetation, they would ask the Commission to move the pipe and have a rip rap plunge pool at that point with limited removal of vegetation around it to minimize disturbance at the bottom of the 2 on 1 slope with existing trees remaining and an improved view. The 39% site open space was for the total property and this parcel would provide 27% open space useable grass; site coverage would be 18.7% on the housing site. Impervious coverage would be at 40% and includes all pavements, building roofs, sidewalks, etc. and would not include rain gardens or softscapes.
The Commissioners asked about other features. The representative indicated there are very few garages for the 181 units of housing and no big surface parking lots; the system throughout the site would have active open space in front, e.g. swimming pools, and passive open space in back adjacent to office buildings with the roads draining into the shallowed out active areas with their permeable soils as part of the storm water management system. The Hopmeadow Street open space could include in future development things like bio-swales on the edges, but they believed this unique relationship between open space and storm water to be beneficial for overall management of storm water.
The Commissioners asked about a previous discussion to recess planting areas in the parking lots, rather than desert mounds. The Applicant's representative indicated they were looking at curbless areas that would flow naturally and noted in New England a backup drainage system would have to be designed and could be a bump out or tree boxes. The Commissioners noted that often such systems do not work because they do not get water; putting the islands at a lower grade with water flowing to the trees also provides another way for water to infiltrate; the Applicant indicated they would look at that. The Commissioners asked about plantings near Hopmeadow, rather than mowed grass, and their representative indicated nothing would happen until there are developers for that area, but it should be handled carefully to maintain views and active space. The Commissioners encouraged use of native plants as much as possible to provide food for native wildlife and to prevent escape of non-native species which is a consideration given the nearby wildlife area. Their representative was concerned about defining native and indicated native to the northeast would be tried. Regarding whether the 3-year post construction period would be adequate, their soil scientist responded that once the landscape is established and the ground stable and supportive of vegetation, the major problems with invasives are over, but they are a fact of life throughout the country and biological controls developed will influence their presence, and the length of the post construction program has a point of diminishing returns.
The public was invited to speak.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion that it is a regulated activity in that it involves construction, and deposition of material and the like in a wetland.
Commissioner Sexton seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion that this is not a significant activity because it has limited effect on a wetland of minimal contribution, and that such effect as it may have is presumably to be offset by the creation of the rain garden feature.
Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to grant the requested permit with a number of conditions. Obviously, this is a preliminary matter and the Commission has not seen much of the detail it would ultimately need to see before permitting actual construction. The Commission would need to have the Applicant back before it prior to breaking ground and disturbing soil for this project. Obviously, the Applicant will have spent quality time with the Town Staff before coming back to us. The Commission will need to have a good understanding of the erosion and sedimentation controls; the sequence and timing of the construction vis a vis the rain garden water feature and how it fits into the storm water management infrastructure, including moving the pipe, needs to be clearly understood; a good understanding of the operation and maintenance of the rain garden, with more data on the nature of the vegetation to be used there. The Commission needs to be satisfied that the rain garden feature does fully compensate for what small diminution it thinks there has been to the wetland.
Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. Referral to Zoning Commission regarding Application #14-37 of Robin Messier Pearson, Esq., for K & K Developers, Inc. Agent/Applicant; Mark Greenberg, INFINITY IV, LLC, Owner, for a Zone Change from I-1 to PAD on the property located at 34 Hopmeadow Street, approximately 60 acres on the easterly side of Hopmeadow Street between the Avon Town line and Tower Office Park (Map E18, Block 117, Lot 001). Zone I-1. (Zoning Commission public hearing 10/06/2014)
The Applicant's representative was in agreement with the Commission's drafted recommendations and requested they be referred to Zoning. Regarding the Applicant addressing the Commission’s concerns in their presentation to the Zoning Commission, the Applicant’s representative noted the zone change would be global. The Commissioners suggested the Applicant stress to the Zoning Commission some of the LID green infrastructure concepts and proximity to the river, along with the vegetation. The representative noted the 2 original slides provided to the Commissioners responded to that and the Commissioners commented the Applicant's range of options would also be important. The representative asked the Commission to list the top 5 priorities to modify the slides and noted the importance of global issues such as vegetation, storm water management, environmental protection, and wildlife protection of the Nod Brook Sanctuary. The Commissioners felt that concepts such as offsetting impervious cover should be emphasized; the representative indicated relatively low parking numbers were used with 13% of residential parking deferred and remaining as green space until needed for future development.
The Commissioners noted this development would be a big increase in site density and looked to the developer to offset that increase because a threshold of 12% impervious cover affects water quality in a watershed. The representative acknowledged degradation of the water shed, but felt this development to be more like a downtown area with this type of project belonging in this location; the whole watershed includes the nearby golf course, etc. The Commissioners understood that sub-watersheds are involved but suggested looking at opportunities to offset impervious cover with parking spaces that are permeable asphalt, which has worked well at Drake Hill, or porous pavers for plazas, tree boxes, and other methods to offset impervious cover, e.g. utilizing higher-efficiency infiltration reducing velocity and runoff from the site down toward the Farmington River and in the sub-watersheds. While the zone accommodates a particular density, the Commissioners noted there are opportunities to offset adverse impacts in this kind of area. The top priorities discussed included: storm water management, vegetation, LID opportunities, pesticide management/invasive species, and bike friendliness.
[See ADDENDUM A for Draft Conservation Commission Comments on the Garden Homes PAD Proposal]
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to adopt the set of comments as its own changing only the line at the bottom to indicate it was adopted this evening and not last week.
Commissioner Kottas seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Rieger made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Commissioner Sexton seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
Donald Rieger, Secretary