Simsbury, CT - Conservation Commission Minutes 03/18/2008

Commissioner Winters called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:30 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Commissioners Andrew Bucknam, Ryan Mihalic, Nick Zackeo, and Donald Rieger, Jr. Commissioner Darren Cunningham arrived at 7:40 PM. Also in attendance was Lynn Charest, Conservation Officer.

a. Application of Vera H. Bruun, Applicant, for an Inland Wetlands Permit relating to a two-lot resubdivision of property including site grading and the construction of a house, driveway, and foot draining; and the installation of a septic system within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at 14 Weatherly Road.

Attorney Donohue, representing Ms. Bruun, stated she is a 40 year resident of Simsbury and has lived that long at 14 Weatherly Road. They are here before this Commission tonight looking for a letter of referral stating that this application has been reviewed and is consistent with the Regulations.

Marck Kement of Sanderson & Washburn, stated that this property is located on the north side of Weatherly Road at the end of the cul-de-sac. They are proposing to split one lot. This property is wooded with a sloping gradient going from a south to north direction. The soils are a medium coarse sand. Lot #1, which is the existing house lot, will be 1.5 acres, and Lot #2, which is the additional building lot, will be 1.2 acres. They are also proposing an 80' band around the property for open space, which extends the existing open space corridor at the south side of this property. Mr. Kement showed the Commission the 100' regulated setback on the map.

Mr. Kement stated that this proposal was forwarded to the Farmington Valley Health District for their review regarding the septic system. They approved the septic system as well as a reserve area for this site. Prior to final approval for a building permit, a detailed site plan with a detailed septic system will still need to be approved by the FVHD.

Mr. Kement stated that the map shows, for Lot 2, a band of silt fence down gradient of the proposed construction. This will protect the wetland and the down gradient properties from siltation. He stated that there is no activity in the wetlands at all. The proposed house is approximately 50' from the nearest wetland. There are no impacts directly to the wetlands.

Commissioner Mihalic questioned if the plans show the exact footprint of the house that will be built or just an estimated drawing. Attorney Donohue stated that these are not specific plans, and it is highly likely that Ms. Bruun will be back before this Commission for specific permits with specific detailed plans in the future.

Lynn Charest stated that the Regulations state that the Planning portion of a subdivision requires a buildable square be placed on a plan to show that it does not impact the wetlands. The Conservation Commission, tonight, is looking at site suitability. After reviewing this application, the Commission will then need to give a referral to the Planning Commission on this resubdivision.

Commissioner Rieger questioned how far the lawn area could extend on this new lot. Mr. Kement stated that the silt fence is approximately 30' from the house, which is an area for lawn. Attorney Donohue stated that the upland review area is something that this Commission could review when an actual plan came in.

Regarding the nature of the wetlands, Michael Gragnolati, a registered professional soil scientist, stated that the wetlands on this property is lightly wooded. He stated that they have delineated the wetlands behind the existing house, which are Walpole sandy loams grading to Scarboro mucky loams. He stated that the wetlands are very viable. In response to a question by Commissioner Mihalic regarding a comparison to Mr. Gragnolati's delineations and what is on the Town's mapping, Mr. Gragnolati stated that he mapped more than what the Town is showing, although both maps are substantially similar.

Commissioner Rieger stated that there is an indication that there has been a breakdown in the septic system on the existing lot. Attorney Donohue stated that Ms. Bruun reports that she had never had an issue with her septic system. Mr. Kement stated that they are required to provide a 100% reserve area in the event that if the system does fail, there is a location for an expansion.

Commissioner Winters stated her concerns regarding building a house in the regulated area going toward the wetlands and the possibility of landscaping in the wetland areas. She stated that the applicant might consider a conservation easement be placed on the back end of the lot so there will not be any encroachment of lawn into the back area of the lot. Attorney Donohue stated that would be an appropriate note to put in a recommendation for them to discuss. He stated that it would also be helpful to articulate the specifics that this Commission is looking for regarding this issue.

Commissioner Winters stated that the house on the proposed lot is set back rather far and the driveway is very long. She questioned if the applicant would consider shortening the driveway, which would move the house away from the open space corridor. Mr. Kement stated that although it would be possible, they would probably have to relocate the septic system if this was done. The house needs to be 25' away from the septic system. The driveway is approximately 100' long, which he does not consider to be extremely long.

Commissioner Bucknam motioned to write a letter of referral. The letter will indicate that the development, as proposed, looks acceptable given certain protections: 1) that the construction activity is restricted by silt fence that is at least 20' from the closest wetland (Wetland #11); 2) that the house be located as far as possible away from the wetlands, given the septic restriction; 3) a request that a conservation easement be placed on the back of the property to make sure there is no landscaping or other activity from a subsequent buyer, which might negatively impact the wetlands and take away the buffer protection that is currently there. Commissioner Mihalic seconded the motion.

Commissioner Mihalic offered several amendments to Commissioner Bucknam's motion. He feels that the recommendation for consideration of a conservation easement is based upon testimony that this is a high quality wetland and that this Commission views this as an additional mechanism along with the deeded property to protect that system. Also, the recommendation as proposed, assuming all proper protections, following staff recommendations are followed, that this application is consistent with the Regulations, however, this Commission fully expects an application for a wetlands permit prior to any construction activities.

Lynn Charest stated that there were several inquiries for this property, which was on the market. In looking at photos on the real estate webpage, it was revealed that there was some work done along the stream corridor that comes through One Cedar Hill. People who were interested in this property came into the Town Hall wanting to make sure that the wetland permits were actually pulled for the work that was done including landscaping and stones placed along the streambed. A bridge was also constructed on the property without a permit.

Lynn Charest stated that Mr. Beach was in contact with the property owner regarding the work that was done. In researching the file, it was noted that this stream is considered to be in a FEMA Flood Zone. The concern is that there was unpermitted activity done by the placement of the footings for the bridge. Another concern is that the amount of water capacity that can flow through the floodway might be impacted.

Jim and Carroll Veltrop, the former owners of the property were present. Mr. Veltrop stated that they purchased One Cedar Hill Road in January 1997. When they purchased the property, there was a bridge already on the site. Several months after purchasing the property, they replaced that bridge with a bridge that had an arch to permit more water to flow underneath it. In 1999 and 2006, several bridges washed out, but were replaced both times. In 2006, they had a concrete footing placed there so the bridge would be secure.

Regarding the stones along the banks of the river, Mr. Veltrop stated that there were stones already there when they purchased the property in 1997. Because of some erosion that occurred, they placed more stone in that area.

Commissioner Mihalic stated that, when a violation is seen, the owner can then come in and file an application. Lynn Charest stated that this is being handled as an enforcement action/show cause hearing and not as a formal application. This Commission can make a decision regarding this issue tonight. Commissioner Mihalic stated that this Commission has the authority to make the homeowner remedy the violation, although the Veltrops do not currently own the property, they are still responsible for the violation. Although the Veltrops have an agreement with the new homeowners to indemnify the property, they do not own the property. He feels that the new owners of this property should be before this Commission also. The Commission continued to discuss this issue.

Commissioner Bucknam questioned the other members if they had any issues regarding if they feel that these activities that are in violation have caused water quality issues or flow issues. Commissioner Mihalic stated that he has several issues. He stated that this Commission spends a great deal of time with applicants to make sure that the right engineering steps are taken to ensure that there will not be future problems. He feels that an engineer should look at this property because it should have already been done.

Commissioner Bucknam stated that Town staff is very knowledgeable. He asked Lynn Charest for her opinion as to whether this property has any issues as a result of the stones being placed on the banks. Ms. Charest stated that Mr. Peck is responsible for any activity in a FEMA Flood Zone and he has suggested an engineer verify that the work that was done did not impact the flow of the stream.

Commissioner Mihalic suggested that this show cause hearing be tabled until the next meeting. An engineer, working with Town staff, should address Mr. Peck's concerns regarding the footings for the bridge and submit a report to this Commission. He stated that he would also like Mr. Veltrop and the currently homeowner at the next meeting to address these issues. Commissioner Winters stated that she would also like to educate the current homeowner regarding what their limitations are on the property.

Commissioner Mihalic made a motion to table this show cause hearing until the next regular meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency. In the interim, Town staff will work with the applicant, Mr. Veltrop, to coordinate, review and examine the activities that occurred without a permit and determine whether or not a more formal review is necessary to the satisfaction of the Town staff concerning FEMA requirements and the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Commission. All of this information shall be brought to the next meeting at which time Mr. Veltrop and the current owner will be present and this Commission will resolve this issue. Commissioner Bucknam seconded the motion, which was unanimously passed.

Application of Hoffman Enterprises, Landowner: Betty Ann Fiora and Rose Rhea Hoffman Trust (Phyllis Hoffman, Trustee), for an Inland Wetland Permit relating to the increase of impervious surface for a proposed vehicle storage area and expansion of existing detention basin on property located at the Hoffman Auto Park , 395 West Mountain Road and Albany Turnpike, Simsbury

Commissioner Rieger stated that he attended the CLEAR Land Use Academy this past week. He stated that it was very informative. There was a strong point to use Town staff and outside experts more fully. The Commission had a short discussion regarding this issue.