Simsbury, CT - Conservation Commission Minutes 06/17/2008

Chairman Miller 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 Ryan Mihalic, Andrew Bucknam, Margery Winters, Darren Cunningham, Donald Rieger, Jr, and Patrick Kottas. Also in attendance was Howard Beach, Conservation Officer.

a. Application of Timothy and Kelley Budlong, Owners, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for addition of a deck to an existing shed within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at 430 Bushy Hill Road (tabled at June 3, 2008 meeting)

Mr. Beach stated that the applicant could not be here again tonight because of babysitting issues, although he will be able to attend the next meeting. Mr. Beach stated that because by Statute, the decision regarding this application needed to be made, Mr. Budlong has granted the Commission a one month extension. Mr. Beach stated that he could not approve this application administratively because the shed is in the wetlands.

Commissioner Winters questioned if the shed would be on concrete blocks and if there would need to be any excavation. Mr. Guadliana stated that there would not be a need to do any excavation, and that he would be putting the shed on concrete blocks. She then questioned what kind of wetlands were on the property. Mr. Beach stated that it is an isolated wetland that flows to the southeast and then ends in the next neighborhood; the wetland line runs to the corner of the applicant's house.

Chairman Miller questioned if there was fill on top of the wetland soil and if there was any standing water in that area. Mr. Beach stated that they are wetland soils although they are not wet. Compost has been put in this area and grass has also grown there. He stated that there is not any standing water in the area; it is just damp. It is a fully grassed backyard.

Chairman Miller asked the applicant to describe the shed and how he planned on installing it. Mr. Guadliana stated that he would be putting down concrete blocks with a platform on top of that. The shed would be put on the platform. He would also be building a plywood ramp for an entrance to the shed. Mr. Guadliana stated that the best solution would be to put gravel under the concrete blocks so it would not settle, although he was not sure if this was allowed.

Commissioner Mihalic questioned what Mr. Guadliana would be storing in the shed. He stated that he would be storing his lawnmower and snow blower in the shed. Commissioner Mihalic stated his concerns that gas and oil not be stored in the shed because of the close proximity to the wetlands.

The Commission continued to discuss the best option for the base of the shed. The Commission agreed that Mr. Guadliana should not put down gravel under the shed. This would be filling in the wetland, which the Commission could not allow. They felt that concrete blocks would be sufficient.

Commissioner Mihalic made a motion that this is not a significant activity because it is a very minimal intrusion limited to the footprint of the four concrete cinderblocks of the width and diameter of the shed. The shed will be placed on top. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

Commissioner Mihalic made a motion to grant the permit subject to the condition that any hazardous materials are maintained in the garage and that there is not filling of vehicles in the shed or in the wetland; this should occur at some other location on the property. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

c. Application of Edward Caputo, Owner, David Stoner & Company, Agent, for an Inland Wetlands Permit to allow the clearing of existing vegetation, grading and filling for a driveway and utilities for construction of a new home within the regulated area to a wetland on property located at 24 Cobtail Way.

Mr. Cassidy, professional engineer, and Mr. Stoner were present regarding this application. Mr. Cassidy stated that this is the last lot on Cobtail and they would like to develop it as a single family residential house. In the process of preparing their Site Plan, they discovered there is a wetland at the front corner of the site. He stated that the property slopes from its easterly boundary line in a westerly direction to a low point with grades that would be classified as steep with elevations ranging from 550 to 290.

Mr. Cassidy stated that they did hire a soil scientist to delineate the wetlands, which is shown on a survey that each of the Commission members had a copy of. Because of the grading for the driveway, they have now relocated the driveway in order to not intrude on the wetlands. The driveway is now along the northerly property line to get up to the house site. They will then be creating a plateau area for the development of a 2-story structure with a footprint of approximately 3,000 s.f. as well as a detached garage. In the back of the property, because the grading is so steep, they will be creating a series of step retaining walls to create a 3 to 1 slope. Mr. Cassidy stated that the property is serviced by a community septic system. They will have a sewer line that runs out to a septic tank, which ties into the existing system in the road and continues down Cobtail Way. He stated that there will be a private well for this property.

Regarding the type of wetlands that have been delineated, Mr. Cassidy stated that the determination has been based upon ground seep; there is a high ground water table at the lower portion of the site. In this area, there is a small isolated wetland. The quality of the wetlands on the site are low to moderate because it is very small and because it does not have any substantial or significant vegetation; it only receives the ground water seep.

Mr. Cassidy stated that one of his major concerns regarding this site is erosion sediment control. He stated that at the toe of the slope, they will have a silt fence with a series of staked hay bales to ensure that if anything does come off of this slope, it is captured before it can be discharged into the wetlands area. In addition to when they do the grading, because of the steep area, they will be using an erosion control blanket as soon as it is graded to help stabilize it quicker. For permanent stabilization, they will be landscaping that will consist of mulch along the slope with Junipers or other landscaping.

Commissioner Bucknam questioned how far the closest construction activity was to the wetland. Mr. Cassidy stated that they will be 5 feet away at the toe of the slope; that will be the clearing limit. The driveway will be approximately 50 feet away from the wetlands.

The Commission discussed the catch basins on Cobtail Way. Mr. Cassidy stated that they would tie the footing drains into the catch basins on the road. If this is not sufficient to the Commission, they can use a splash pad that will discharge just prior to the wetlands. Mr. Beach stated that Town staff would prefer that it goes to the catch basin because any silt would tend to settle out in the catch basin, although he does not think that there will be any silt; it should be clean water. He stated that a separate splash pad would be another intrusion to the wetlands. Also, he stated that he would be talking to Mr. Sawitzke regarding a deeper sump.

Commissioner Winters stated that the Staff report indicates that this site is encumbered by a cutting restriction. Mr. Cassidy stated that there are restrictions. There is a setback line along the back of the property that they can cut up to. There is also a 100' buffer that is supposed to be maintained along the westerly boundary line. They have revised the grading to accommodate these restrictions.

Commissioner Bucknam questioned Mr. Beach if he had any issues regarding the hay bales and the silt fence. Mr. Beach stated that he did not have any problems with this. He stated that Mr. Stoner has built on several lots down the street and realizes the concerns of the area. That is why he is proposing the hay bales and the erosion control blanket.

Regarding the plateau area, Chairman Miller questioned if this would involve cutting and filling. Mr. Cassidy stated that it would, although he is hopeful to have a balanced site. Chairman Miller then asked where they would be stockpiling during construction. Mr. Cassidy stated that they would stockpile along the turnaround by the driveway, although he does not anticipate a lot of stockpiling. He stated that any cutting that needs to be done will be placed around the front and back to make a level platform. Only the topsoil may need to be stockpiled. Chairman Miller questioned if they would be putting a tarp over the topsoil while it is being stockpiled. Mr. Cassidy stated that he would not be opposed to doing that.

In response to Commissioner Winters, Mr. Stoner stated that they will be sodding, which will help to stabilize the slope better. Mr. Cassidy stated that they would be mulching and putting more landscaping on both sides of the slope for stabilization and to keep the weeds down. The erosion blanket will be underneath that.

Chairman Miller questioned the Commission member if they felt they needed a site walk or if they had enough information regarding this application as well as remembering other applications that have been before this Commission within this same subdivision. The Commission agreed that a site walk was not necessary. Commissioner Bucknam stated that to the degree that the applicant has interacted with Town staff and have come up with strong practices for erosion control, he feels that this is sufficient. Also, he does not want to push back their timeframe if possible.

Commissioner Bucknam made a motion that this is not a significant activity because of the relatively minor amount of work that will occur in the regulated area and because of the management practices that Town staff has reviewed as to the erosion controls, to bring the possibility of problems down. Commissioner Rieger seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

Commissioner Bucknam made a motion to grant this permit with the added provision that the applicant shall put a device into the catch basin and all other practices that have been put into the application for erosion and sediment control, including Town staff recommendations. Also, if there is any soil stockpiled on the site, the applicant shall tarp it.

a. Show Cause Hearing for un-permitted wetland activity at One Cedar Hill Road, Carroll Veltrop, Owner. (continued from meeting of March 18, 2008, tabled at meetings of April 1, 2008, April 15, 2008, May 6, 2008, May 20, 2008 and June 3, 2008)

Doug Ellis, from Buck & Buck Engineering, showed pictures to the Commission members regarding the footbridge and the armoring of the stream. He stated that he has run the computations about the floatation of the footbridge. Historically, there was a flat foot bridge in that location; Mr. Veltrop replaced it with an arched bridge in the late 1990's. After the bridge washed away several times, footings were added to the bridge, which are 5' x 3' x 8' thick footings that are anchored to each side of the bridge. There has been several floods since this time and the bridge has not moved. The footings tripled the weight of the bridge, which anchors it that much better.

Regarding the armoring, Mr. Buck stated that he does not know the existing conditions prior to the armoring. He stated that he believes this has stopped the erosion on the stream bank in a minimal cross section that it took up. Regarding vegetation, the homeowner stated that the area was planted heavily with Junipers; that area has only sparse plantings now.

Commissioner Mihalic questioned if the Town staff was satisfied with Mr. Buck's analysis. Mr. Beach stated that there were two separate issues at the onset of this Show Cause Hearing. One issue is that the work was done without a wetlands permit. The other issue is that it does show as a FEMA Flood Stream and they were concerned about any reduction in the flood storage capacity or flow capacity. He believes that the analysis done by Mr. Buck indicates that there is not a reduction.

Commissioner Mihalic stated that the Commission has several options. The bridge and armoring could stay in place or they could order the homeowner to remove it. Commissioner Cunningham suggested that this Commission send the landscaper who did this work a letter so that he knows not to do this again in the future. Commissioner Bucknam agreed with Commissioner Cunningham. The Commission continued to discuss the option of sending a Notice of Violation and other options they might have. Mr. Veltrop stated that he would provide the name and address of the landscaper who did this work.

Commissioner Bucknam made a motion that as to the Show Cause hearing for the property at One Cedar Hill Road, that the findings of the hearing will reflect that there have not been significant or substantive changes to the river flow that would affect any of the FEMA issues that Town staff was concerned about due to the deposit of stone on the banks of the stream. As a result, the Commission is satisfied that both the past and current property owners have provided enough information and engineering analysis to enable this Commission to find that it is not a FEMA issue.

Commissioner Bucknam amended his motion to reflect Commissioner Mihalic's statement. Commissioner Bucknam also added to the motion that part of the Commission's inquiry and findings were that there were no significant impacts as a result of proceeding without the permit. There was significant discussion about the appropriateness of the armoring treatment and whether any other bioengineering options would have been preferable and would have provided a better stream environment and that those issues were noted by both the current and the former owners of the property. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion as amended, which was unanimously approved.

Commissioner Bucknam made a motion that, under Section 14.3 Section C of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations for the Town of Simsbury, the Commission/Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency write a notice of violation and a request for a written response to the landscaping company who did the work at One Cedar Hill Road to give him an opportunity to let the Town know if he has done any other work that is not acceptable to the Town in order for the Town to review that work. The letter will make the landscaper well aware of this Commission's jurisdiction and penalties and that there are obligations if there are more properties like this. There are legal obligations for there to be permits. If the landscaper does not respond to the letter within 30 days, this Commission can decide to exercise their authority however they feel necessary. Commissioner Mihalic seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

Mr. Beach stated that a letter was sent to the Zoning Commission regarding Dorsett Crossing, which he distributed copies of to the Conservation Commission. He stated that the applicant, Mr. Georgio, has been to the Planning and Zoning Commissions with a conceptual plan. The Planning Commission has made a favorable recommendation regarding the zone change and text amendment that was being proposed.

The Commission discussed sending a letter of recognition to former Commissioners Sharpless and Yocum. They talked about their years of service on this Commission. Mr. Beach asked that any suggestions regarding the contents of the letter be e-mailed to him.

Commissioner Rieger stated that he recently visited several wetlands on Town property above the sandpit on Town Forest Road. He did see a highly productive vernal pool and also a larger wetland that is wet year round. He stated that he is mentioning this because if the Town continues to use the sandpit, eventually there might be a conflict between the wetlands and the sand operation.