CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS
AND WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Richard Miller called the regular meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Margery Winters, John Yocom, Andrew Bucknam, Ryan Mihalic and Thomas Sharpless. Commissioner Mihalic left the meeting at approximately 8:55 p.m. Also in attendance was Howard Beach, Conservation/Inland Wetlands and Zoning Compliance Officer, as well as other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
At the onset of the meeting no alternates were appointed. However, upon Commissioner Mihalic’s departure and prior to the vote on the application, Chairman Miller appointed Commissioner Sharpless as alternate.
III. ELECTION OF OFFICER (SECRETARY) (tabled at 6/20/06 meeting)
Chairman Miller indicated this issue has been tabled at the last couple of meetings due to the lack of a quorum, as well as the fact that no one has stepped forward and ask to be nominated. Mr. Beach provided a description of the Secretary’s responsibilities, which mainly include note-taking on field trips, reading the call at meetings and signing of the approved minutes. Commissioner Mihalic offered to fill the position.
Commissioner Bucknam nominated Commissioner Mihalic for the position of Secretary. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom and approved unanimously.
IV. PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Application of Thomas C. Pedrotty, President & COO, Ensign-Bickford Realty Corporation – Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for building underpinning within the regulated area on property located at 75 West Street.
Peter Yarum, Facility Manager for Ensign Bickford Realty and representing Mr. Pedrotty, gave a brief history and description of the proposed project. He indicated that approximately 2 years ago it was discovered that the SE corner of the building at 75 West Main Street, which sits directly in the Hop Brook, had a hairline crack in the mortar joints. Until the heavy rains in the Fall of ’05 the crack had only grown to approximately ¼”. After the heavy rains, the crack has now increased to 2”. The cause of the problem is unclear. The engineer is basing his assumptions on the fact that the footing is failing, which would be the worst-case scenario. Three 3-foot sections of concrete would then be needed to put under the building in order to hold it in place. Mr. Yarum indicated
best-case scenario would be simply rebuilding the corner itself. Referring to a void in Photo #1 of the distributed materials, Mr. Yarum noted water may be entering that void, working its way through the walls of the building, and getting trapped in the corner. The proposed plan is to repair the existing sluice gate, then drain the pond level via the sluiceway, install a 36”diameter drainage pipe approximately 120 feet from the base of the dam past the work area. If the whole building needs to be underpinned, a coffer dam will be installed in the work area. Mr. Beach noted he has asked the Town Engineer to review the pipe size and adjust if necessary.
In response to Commissioner Bucknam, Mr. Yarum indicated the water level in the photo is typical. However, he also noted how high the water rose during the October ’05 flood. Mr. Yarum confirmed the water needs to be drained to the stream bed in order to discover the cause of the problem, as well as to make the necessary repairs. In response to Commissioner Yocom, Mr. Yarum indicated he believes the 300 year-old building is built on ledge. He described Photos #3 and #4, which show a patio area downstream of the work area that was destroyed during the ’05 flooding, as well as a large pile of stone, from both the base of the dam as well as upstream, that was deposited just below the dam. The deposited stone would be moved and placed against the building to protect its base.
Mr. Yarum described for Commissioner Mihalic the access and work that would hopefully be done in early to mid-August and last approximately 10-20 days. Access will be via the cul de sac on the south side of the building, a point where the grade change from water to access point is the lowest. The equipment would enter the stream via the embankment on a blast mat, as suggested by Mr. Beach, and the machinery would then be walked upstream. The machines will stay for the duration of the project, with only one access in and out. Mr. Beach indicated there is a place to park the machinery when it is not in use without having it sit directly in the stream. He confirmed for Commissioner Bucknam that the 36” drainage pipe will move the water past the work area, reducing the flow but not eliminating it.
Upon completion of the work, he indicated that the existing dam itself will be re-inspected.
In response to Chairman Miller, Mr. Yarum indicated they had not consulted any fisheries experts, but had contacted the Army Corps of Engineers. This project is classified as one that does not require notification (i.e., working in less than 5,000 sq. ft., and doing maintenance only). Mr. Yarum noted for Commissioner Mihalic that the building has no historic designation, despite its age. He also explained for Commissioner Mihalic that the machinery to be used is a fairly new diesel-fueled excavator, however contingency plans will be put in place by Simscroft Echo in the event of a diesel leak. In response to Commissioner Winters, Mr. Yarum explained that the excavated materials (stone and rock, no wetlands soil) would not be removed, but rather would be used to refurbish the deck area previously eroded during
the heavy Oct ’05 rains.
Commissioner Mihalic suggested this may be the sort of application on which a public hearing should be scheduled, based on both the regulations and the Commission’s track record for doing public hearings. Work will be directly in the watercourse, involving a piece of machinery in the watercourse for as much as 20 days. The size and mass of the possible underpinnings are significant, and the impact of those on the watercourse itself could be an issue. In his opinion, the public hearing would provide an opportunity for public comment, as well as notifying the public of the project. In Mr. Beach’s opinion, he does not see any reasonable or prudent alternatives and characterized it as a kind of emergency repair situation. Commissioner Winters noted the flow will be rerouted only slightly and still
maintained. Aside from the diesel spill issue, Commissioner Bucknam questioned what other dangers exist for soil erosion or siltation. In Mr. Beach’s opinion, there is no native soil in the area, which is comprised mostly of ledge or large boulders. Mr. Yarum gave an overview for Commissioner Bucknam of who neighbors and/or is downstream from the proposed project, including Hopmeadow Place, Dyno Nobel, Woodland Place and 10 Mill Pond.
Commissioner Mihalic cited the definition of ‘significant’ from the regulations (#1 and #6) and noted both give rise to the Commission investigating this project further. Chairman Miller expressed his concern with the estimated length of time for the proposed project. Commissioner Winters questioned what input would be gained from a public hearing. Mr. Yarum responded to Commissioner Bucknam indicating although the building would not flood if heavy rains occurred, the corner of the building would likely be taken with it. A discussion then ensued regarding the necessary timing of the work being done (i.e., the driest time of year as possible), the results of waiting too long to do the repair, as well as the procedure for scheduling a public hearing. Commissioners Winters and
Bucknam both agreed the activity was not significant due to the fact the project is a repair, with a diversion of the water and no apparent long-term change to the watercourse. Commissioner Winters confirmed that, in addition, the applicant has said that the machines will be in a dry area when work is not being done and if the water flow were to increase significantly due to heavy rains work would be ceased. In response to Chairman Miller, Mr. Yarum explained the projected 3-week time-frame for the project is due to the need for individual pours of concrete on each of the 3-foot sections of underpinning. Chairman Miller suggested the use of a sediment/dirt bag at the end of the discharge pipe in addition to the hay bales in the detention basin in order to minimize silt and sedimentation issues.
After discussion as to the proper procedure for calling for a public hearing, Commissioner Mihalic then made a motion that the activity is a regulated activity because it is work being doing in a watercourse. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters and passed unanimously. Commissioner Mihalic motioned that the activity is significant due to definitions #1 and #6 of ‘significant’, citing both of those definitions. Due to the lack of a second, Chairman Miller provided the second for the sake of discussion. Commissioner Bucknam disagreed the activity is significant, due to the apparent lack of potential for serious impact, the fact that the water will be diverted, and the urgency to the project. Commissioner Mihalic rested on the definition of the word ‘significant’ in the regulations. Chairman Miller agreed with Commissioner Mihalic on the definition and the potential for a significant impact in a valuable resource (i.e., primary tributary to a Class A river) due to the
length of the project. In addition, there are enough issues that have yet to be addressed (i.e., fisheries issues, cause for length of project, diverting a large flow due to a wet year, risks). Commissioner Winters reiterated her questioning of the significance, citing the water diversion, mitigation of siltation, and removal of machinery should there be high-flow conditions. Commissioner Yocom agreed. With regard to the motion of significance, the vote was 3-2 against, with Commissioners Mihalic and Miller voting in favor and Commissioners Yocom, Bucknam and Winters opposing.
Chairman Miller called a recess at 8:55 and reconvened shortly thereafter.
Chairman Miller motioned to appoint Commissioner Sharpless as alternate for Commissioner Mihalic. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom and unanimously approved.
Commissioner Bucknam motioned that this is a regulated activity due to proposed work in a watercourse. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
Commissioner Bucknam motioned that this is not a significant activity. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom and unanimously approved.
Commissioner Bucknam motioned that the permit be granted to do the activity as proposed and with the Conservation Officer’s recommendations incorporated, including that the Conservation Officer will monitor the work as it progresses, and that the conditions for dewatering, as stated by Chairman Miller, will be incorporated as well. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters and unanimously approved.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 2, 2006, May 16, 2006 and June 20, 2006
The Commissioners discussed how to address the lack of quorum that could possibly be reached to approve the minutes of 5/2/06 and 5/16/06 due to the subsequent resignation of several Commissioners that originally attended those meetings. It was decided to go ahead with the vote to approve.
Commissioner Winters motioned to approve the minutes of 5/2/06 as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom and unanimously approved.
Commissioner Winters motioned to approve the minutes of 5/16/06 as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam and unanimously approved.
Due to the fact that a quorum was possible for the 6/20/06 minutes, it was agreed to table them.
Commissioner Bucknam motioned to table the minutes of 6/20/06. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yocom and approved unanimously.
VI. STAFF REPORT(s)
None.
VII. DISCUSSION
Referencing the most recent publication of The Habitat, Mr. Beach highlighted the article regarding the new encroachment law. CEQ was involved in getting the law passed, which also includes language regarding ATVs. Mr. Beach also noted new language regarding unauthorized tree-cutting which now provides for fines based on assessed value rather than timber value. Chairman Miller commended Mr. Beach on his work on the CEQ.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman Miller indicated he has been contacted by another representative of the Keep the Woods group requesting a letter in support of the open space value of the Ethel Walker property. As occurred at the last meeting, The Commission agreed a letter would not be written, due to the fact that there is a good possibility an application may come before the Commission at a later date. As Town Staff, Mr. Beach has volunteered for the First Selectman to speak in favor of the property’s environmental aspects (i.e., wildlife connectivity, etc.). He indicated for Commissioner Winters that the Planning Commission has written a letter in support of the issue, but were careful to only speak to the value of the land and not whether it should be built on or not. Chairman Miller suggested once the Board of Finance
reviews the proposal and takes action the issue can be discussed again and possibly be weighed in on via the Commission’s Conservation role.
Chairman Miller read into record a letter of resignation from Commissioner Christopher Ursini effective immediately. Chairman Miller indicated he is actively working on recommending people and is in conversation with both the Democrat and Republican Nominating Committees to fill the 3 vacant positions. Mr. Beach indicated the need for individuals with an environmental background.
Chairman Miller referenced a recent email he forwarded to the Commissioners regarding the Hopmeadow Diversion permit. The permit, which was written by Liz Napier of the DEP Inland Water Resources Division (IWRD), includes an installed automated stream gauge. The pumping from that tributary will be based on actual flow in that river. Denise Ruzicka, Director of the IWRD, suggested using that as a measure to indicate when pumping could be allowed up at Hop Hollow. He noted to Mr. Beach that when the Hop Hollow applicant returns in 2 years that can then be added as a condition. Mr. Beach suggested if conditions warrant the issue can be re-visited any time. It was also agreed to have Liz Napier come in September to speak to the Commission regarding criteria to be looking for when evaluating similar
applications (i.e., diversions under 50,000 gallons per day) in the future.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Yocom motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bucknam and unanimously approved.
___________________________________________
Ryan M. Mihalic, Secretary
| 
