Conservation Commission/ Inland Wetlands
And Watercourses Agency
Special Meeting- Tuesday December 12, 2006
Simsbury Town Offices- 7:30PM- BOARD OF EDUCATION CONFERENCE ROOM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 7:40pm in the Board of Education Conference Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioner Sharpless, Commissioner Bucknam, and Commissioner Sexton. Also present was Zoning Compliance Officer Beach and other interested parties.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Commissioner Sharpless was appointed to serve for Commissioner Mihalic.
PRESENTATION(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
Application of Edith A. Yakemore Revocable Trust, Andrew M. Yakemore, Trustee, Owner, 10 Winslow Place Simsbury, LLC – Agent, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct the Simsbury Elegant Banquets Facility within the regulated area on property located on the east side of Winslow Place (Lot 3CB, Block 145, Map G14).
Commissioner Sharpless read the call.
Mr. Phil Doyle, Landscape Architect & Urban Planner- LADA, Mr. Kevin Clarke-Registered Civil Engineer, and Henry Mueller-Certified Soil Scientist, and John Royce-Owner of the proposed facility.
Mr. Doyle explained that the public hearing for this application was deemed necessary because of potential/consequential impacts to the site. 1,495 square feet of the site will be disturbed due to an existing drainage swale that will be improved upon through work on the site. A third of an acre (.33) of upland review area will be disturbed by the work due to work on the two drainage lines and sewer lines. There will not be any permanent disturbances to the wetland or the upland review area. The application also includes selective tree limbing directed by a licensed arborist and under the observation the town conservation officer. Also to be included in the application is the removal of debris piles.
Mr. Doyle explained various aspects of the site on the USGS map and the site map. He stated that the storm water pollution prevention plan will be filed with the Department of Environmental protection, as is necessary for proper monitoring of the site during and after the construction. He showed on the map the wetland line and the upland review area, stating that the proposed construction activities are entirely outside the 100 –foot upland review area. The only activities within the review area are the snaking of the sewer and storm water line down through the area. Access to the site is by way of Winslow Place, and the building is to be located at the middle of the site. There will be fire access to the site as well.
Mr. Doyle stated that during they have spoken with the Planning Commission, who were wholly in favor of the proposal, the Design Review Board, the Economic Development Commission, and have also worked with The Farmington River Water Association, and at each turn the application has seen slight modifications. Through their talks with these various entities they are proposing a conservation restriction placed on all of the area from the 100-foot upland review area down to the river line. This restriction would allow no future cutting of the property. They also propose two access easements to grant access along the edge of the river with the first connection potential along an old driveway, and the second along the northern side of the site near the rails to trails. Mr. Doyle said they are confidence there will not be any
impact on the river.
Mr. Henry Moeller, Certified Soil scientist spoke on wetlands on the site and the potential impacts to the site.
Mr. Moeller read from his report, on file with the town, and stated that the fieldwork was completed on June 30, 2006. He showed on the site plan the locations of the wetlands. He stated that most of the soils are silty and well drained. The steeper soils consist of gravel. The main wetland is the Farmington River; the largest wetland soils are located on the southeast section of the property. There is also a small highly disturbed wetland area, a seepage area that receives run off from the rails to trails. He expressed that the main impacts entail safely discharging run off from the building and parking lot into the wetland and explained how this would work.
He explained that most of the construction is on the upper level where there are gently sloping soils. Basic erosion control measures will help to mitigate the impact to the wetland areas. He also expressed that invasive species should be removed, explaining that they can kill the trees if not removed.
Chairman Miller confirmed that the Conservation Commission approved the wetlands map at a previous meeting.
Mr. Doyle stated that on the site walk the Commission saw some of the invasive plants and had expressed that the removal of the invasive species be done under the auspices of an arborist and the Conservation officer. Chairman Miller stated that the treatment of the invasive species should be written into the conservation easement
Mr. Kevin Clarke, Registered Civil Engineer addressed the state of the utilities, storm water drainage systems, and erosion control issues. He also illustrated how they are working with the storm water systems to achieve no downstream impact. He explained the storm water management plan and stated that they will be using a vortexnik unit. He stated that Mr. Rich Sawitzke, Town Engineer had concerns regarding the infiltration of storm water, the ground water undermining the trunk sewer, and was also resistive to any sort of ground water recharge. Based on that discussion and discussions with the Conservation Commission and the Farmington Valley Watershed Association, Mr. Clarke redesigned the system to infiltrate only the building’s roof water, a design that met with the approval of Mr. Sawitzke.
Mr. Clarke said that the storm water chamber first proposed was sized to handle the first one-inch rainfall, but based on requests from FVWA the chambers will be sized to handle a two-inch rainfall.
Mr. Clarke explained that the northerly storm water system will work the same as the first. There will be another vortexnix unit sized to treat the watershed and explained how it will work. There will also be a series of check dams across the swale to allow for addition filtration.
Chairman Miller asked about the infiltration system, which was of concern to Mr. Sawtizke. Mr. Clarke said Mr. Sawitzke voiced concern regarding the amount of water that may back up at the culvert. Mr. Clarke investigated the amount of time the water remained and the height of the water, and based on the outcome, Mr. Sawitzke approved of the design.
Mr. Clarke explained that the erosion control plan organizes management and the construction of the site. There will be hay bales and silt fence along the top of the slope serving as a visual barrier for the contractor. The slopes will be restabilized after they are disturbed and the house is taken down. In the upper areas the site will be graded in and away from the slopes. There will be an area for topsoil stockpiling. There will be temporary sediment areas in the area of the catchbasins. He explained that if the area disturbed is between 5 to 10 acres of land, the site must be registered with DEP and the plan must show pre and post construction storm water management plans, and all of the contractors must sign the plan saying they’ve read the instructions.
Mr. Clarke explained that they are looking into taking the sanitary sewer around the building and back into the system being installed. The reason being for the grease trap out at the loading dock area.
Mr. Clarke informed the Commission that the following manuals were used to prepare the plans. The CT Dept. of Transportation Drainage manual was used for the storm water management system and the pipe conveyance systems. The 2004 CT Storm Water Quality Manual by the Dept of Environmental Protection was used for the storm water quality best management practices. The 2002-CT Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control was used for site erosion and sedimentation control. Mr. Clarke read, as stated in the 2004 CT Storm Water Quality Manual by the Dept of Environmental Protection, “The purpose of the manual is to provide guidance on the measures necessary to protect the waters of the state of Connecticut from adverse impacts of post construction storm water runoff.” Mr. Clarke stated that in his
opinion they meet or exceed the recommendations in the manual and as such they meet the purpose of the manual and there will be no adverse impact from the stormwater discharge.
Commissioner Sharpless asked whether there are test pits showing ground water depth. Mr. Clarke said they did a series of test pits in various areas and found stratified sands and gravel down to depths of 10-15 feet and then a silt clay layer where there is water, but added it does vary on the site. The basement will be close to the silt level and will have to be managed during the design of the basement. There may well be pumping of water from around the building, which will be tied into the storm water drainage system for discharge downhill. Mr. Doyle said that the location of the basement has been chosen because it is well away from the base of the slope. Mr. Clarke said a test pit was dug at the loading dock area down 155 inches and there was no groundwater. Mr. Doyle said that the basement is above the groundwater
level, adding that the groundwater will be relatively consistent in that area.
Commissioner Sharpless stated that during a rainy season water could be found to be perched on the impenetrable layer. Mr. Doyle agreed with this statement adding that some amount of mounding will occur during intense rains.
Chairman Miller asked Mr. Clarke to describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures. Mr. Clarke said that the stockpiled areas will be rimmed with silt fence and any of the stockpiled areas left undisturbed for more than 15 days will temporarily seeded, they will not be covering the piles with a tarp. There will be haybales and silt fence along the top and bottom of the slope. Chairman Miller said they should think of using haybales and silt fence around the stockpiles as well. Mr. Clarke said if the Commission so desires this they will comply.
Chairman Miller asked if there are silt fence and hay bales down by the river. Mr. Doyle said yes. Commissioner Bucknam questioned whether the silt fence and hay bales next the river is a precaution because there is no activity downgradient of the other silt fence. Mr. Doyle confirmed this is true.
Chairman Miller asked if the storm water infiltration goes into underground detention chambers, a series of perforated pipes. Mr. Clarke said yes, adding that there will be a stone pad and a series of pipes located underneath the parking lot that extend from one end to the other infiltrating the water into the ground. Mr. Clarke acknowledged that the entire roof area is to be infiltrated, it does not count as additional impervious coverage.
Chairman Miller asked how much additional impervious coverage is added. Mr. Doyle said that infiltrating the water mitigates the fact that there is a hard roof surface. He said that they are at 45% impervious surface. He added that if the roof surface were to be transformed to “green” surface it would put them under the impervious surface number and would not need the special exception calculation approval from the Zoning Commission. Originally they had wanted to infiltrate all of the storm water, but Mr. Sawitzke was not comfortable with that idea.
Chairman Miller said that with the swale and check dams the system seems to be good one. Mr. Clarke said they have used this type of system on other projects and it has worked very well.
Chairman Miller asked about irrigation. Mr. Doyle said that irrigation might possibly occur on the parking lot islands.
Mr. Doyle stated that at the last meeting there was a discussion regarding mulching and woodchipping sections of the riverbank. He explained that currently the bank is stabilized, leaf mulched and bark mulched and it will remain as such, there will be no herbicides or fungicides used.
Commissioner Bucknam asked about the conservation easement. Mr. Doyle said they do not currently have the document on hand, but explained that the document gives the town the responsibility of enforcing activity in the upland review area and the northern section of the property. He reiterated that the only activity allowed is tree limbing, with the aid of an arborist and the Conservation officer.
Commissioner Bucknam asked if there is anything in place to prevent the current owners from clear-cutting the property. Conservation Beach stated that one cannot clear cut a wetland, but the owner could clear cut the property. Commissioner Bucknam expressed that with the addition of the conservation easement, the applicants are adding an improvement to the property. Conservation Officer Beach said that normally once a conservation easement is put on a property, it becomes a safety issue. With this application they had to create a special conservation easement allowing them to take out the invasive species, do tree limbing and cull out some of the small caliper trees.
Chairman Miller expressed that an integrated pest management approach is needed, and should be done before a rainfall is expected. Mr. Doyle confirmed that no broadcast fertilization or pest control will be used. He stated that they are currently working out a plan for the removal of the invasive species.
Chairman Miller expressed that the applicant has been very environmental conscientious and wondered if they have considered sustainable design for the building itself. Mr. Doyle said that with the help of the architect they are currently going through the checklist for creditable sustainable design elements.
Mr. Doyle spoke on alternatives for the project, but stated that the project is the most prudent and feasible one. An alternative for the property comprised of constructing an R-40 subdivision for four homes, with less impervious surface, but more disturbance to the upland review. He stated that this alternative would be a less practical use of the site. He also expressed that the storm water chamber is sized to handle a two-inch rainfall, instead of one inch as originally proposed. He stated that the Design Review Board expressed that the building will be a fine addition to Weatogue, and hoped that it will perhaps inspire other projects in the area.
Mr. Doyle stated that their proposal is entirely consistent with the Wetland Regulations, specifically section 10.2 (page 20), and restated how they will deal with the issues of environmental concern.
Chairman Miller asked about the use of a larger vortexnik unit for a two-year storm. Mr. Clarke said that using a larger unit results in the removal of many more pollutants. He stated that the larger unit does not mean there is more water flowing out of the unit at a time. He added that there will be a document regulating the operation and document for the cleaning of the unit.
Commissioner Bucknam expressed that the reason for the public hearing was because of discharge of water within 300 feet of the river. He asked if any alternative locations were considered for the direction that water would flow from the site. Mr. Clarke said that there is currently storm water discharge down near the culvert, so they will be bringing the water down to that area. As for the second area, Mr. Clarke said that the route proposed is the most direct path to provide adequate water treatment.
Mr. Rich Sawitzke, Town Engineer, stated that the applicant has worked extensively with the town. Mr. Sawitzke was present to address the concerns he had with the project and how those problems were rectified. The concerns dealt with the rate, the volume, and the quality of water run off. He expressed that the change to a two-inch pipe allows a greater amount of movement and gives a very good level of water treatment. The volume of run off is related to infiltration units, and he had concerns about this. Twenty years ago the town’s main sewer, a 36 inch pipe that runs along the bank of the river settled due to high velocity groundwaters, allowing soils into the river. Given this incident, Mr. Sawitzke did not want the applicant to increase the rates of infiltration, but to kept the rates as they are currently. He
added that the applicant has moved the water away from the bank and shifted it southerly. The rates of run off will remain the same. Mr. Sawitzke said that he also did not want the applicant to go over the riverbank due to the soils being very well drained and easily disturbed. The applicant was asked to use two existing areas for drainage, one to the north near the old railroad right-of-way, and the second to the south where there are sewer connections. Mr. Sawitzke expressed that the applicant has done a good job balancing rates, volumes and quality of water run off, and expressed that the applicant’s report was also very good.
Chairman Miller asked if one cleaning year of the vortexnix unit is sufficient. Mr. Sawitzke said yes, adding that the town had not had a problem with their units’ cleanings.
Public Comment
Mr. Eric Hammerling, Executive Director of The Farmington River Watershed Association.
Mr. Hammerling expressed his thanks to the Commission and the applicant for their work, and supports what Mr. Sawitzke expressed about the difficulty of the site. He stated that he hopes there is still an opportunity to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site. He expressed his thanks to the applicant to treat two inches of rainfall flowing off of the parking surface and feels this shows commitment to protecting the river. The fact that the applicant will be implementing a vortexnix unit will help in preserving the fresh water mussel. He encourages them to keep the small trees on the site. He added that if care is taken with the vegetation management, the view of the site from the river will be reduced and the disturbance of the bank will be minimized. He added that they do not have a problem with the use of
herbicides, but encourage them to manage the property organically, and not using lawn care pesticides, adding that he is glad to see the use of soils tests. He expressed that he is pleased with the outcome and thanked the Commission for holding the hearing and the questions asked throughout the process.
As to the number of parking spaces, Chairman Miller stated that the applicant has come down from 370 parking spaces to 303.
Jim Creighton, 274 Stratton Brook Road
Mr. Creighton agreed with the comment made with Mr. Hammerling about the use of organic lawn care products. He stated that there is a certification system for organic land care providers, and hoped there could be some sort of agreement that one be employed for this project.
Mr. Joel Mandell, 7 Harriet Lane
Mr. Mandell stated that he is at the hearing as a resident and not as a selectman. He expressed that the project is sensitive to the property, respects the use of the land, ad he is wholly in favor of it.
Commissioner Bucknam motioned to close the public hearing. Commissioner Sharpless seconded with all in favor.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam that this is a regulated activity by reason of work and construction activity within the upland review area of a wetland, specifically the Farmington River.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sharpless, and carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bucknam to grant the permit according to the stipulations and safe guards contained in the drawings submitted as part of the application, i.e.: the use of haybales and silt fence in the appropriate places. The permit is also granted with the following conditions: The applicant shall give appropriate notice to town staff prior to the commencement of the construction activities, both silt fencing and hay bales shall be used around the stockpiled materials, an integrated environmentally sound pest management best practice plan shall be used for both the routine landscape maintenance and the invasive plant management plans as part of the conservation easement, the applicant shall forward the report and/or bill of the annual cleaning of the systems to town staff in order to keep a record of
the cleaning. The Commission has heard testimony from the applicant that they have considered other prudent and feasible alternatives both to the type of development proposed and to the specific engineering structures proposed, and have found that due to the topography of the land, it seems that this plan is the most feasible and prudent alternative for the site.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sharpless, and carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 21, 2006.
Commissioner Buckman moved to approve the minutes of November 21, 2006 with corrections.
Commissioner Sharpless seconded with all in favor.
STAFF REPORT(s)
None
DISCUSSION
The January 2, 2007 meeting will most likely be cancelled.
Woodchuck Hill applicant wishes to build a shed 75 feet from the wetlands. It was determined that it could be done administratively
Commissioner Sexton asked if some of the mailings she has received about the Route 44 project. It was noted that Ms. Sexton should make it known that she has been receiving correspondence, and the applicant can make the choice if they do or do not want her to vote.
CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
John Yocom put together a sympathy card for Tim Hollister, opposing council for Meadowoods.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Bucknam made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 PM.
Commissioner Sharpless seconded with all in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
__________________________________
Commissioner Tom Sharpless, Acting Secretary
| 
