Minutes
Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency - Minutes - Jul 13, 2026
Jul 13, 2026
A public record published by the Town of Simsbury (simsbury-ct.gov). mySimsbury indexes it and makes it readable; it is not the official copy. View the original file.
Page 1 of 3 Conservation Commission / Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency1 Special Meeting2 Ju1y 13, 2026 – 5:00 P.M.3 Virtual Meeting held via Zoom4 5 MINUTES6 7 I. CALL TO ORDER – Chair Winters called the meeting 5:00 P.M.8 9 Present: Chair, Margery Winters; Vice Chair, Jason Levy; Secretary, Joseph10 Campolieta; Commission Members: Jason Berman, Donald Eaton, and Charles11 Haldeman; Alternate Commission Member, Sue Brittell; Planning Director, George12 McGregor; and Assistant Town Planner, Brittany MacGilpin.13 14 Absent: Commission Member: Michael Luzietti; and Alternate Commission Member,15 Alison Wilcox.16 17 Seating of Alternate: Commissioner Brittell was appointed as a regular member for18 tonight’s meeting.19 20 II. IWW APPLICATIONS21 22 Application CC #26-02 of SL Simsbury, LLC applicant and owner, for a wetland23 permit to construct +/-689 residential units with associated improvements that includes24 disturbance in the upland review area at 200 Hopmeadow Street (Hartford South)25 (Assessor’s Map F17, Block 154, Lot 009-2) Simsbury, CT 06089, Zone HS-FBC.26 (Public hearing for this item was closed at the June 9, 2026 meeting.)27 28 MOTION: Secretary Campolieta made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Levy, that29 the Simsbury Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency30 DENIES Application CC #26-02 of SL Simsbury, LLC applicant and owner, for a31 wetland permit to construct +/-689 residential units with associated improvements that32 includes disturbance in the upland review area at 200 Hopmeadow Street (Hartford33 South) (Assessor’s Map F17, Block 154, Lot 009-2) Simsbury, CT 06089, Zone HS-34 FBC, based on the following findings:35 36 37 Page 2 of 3 38 1. The Simsbury Conservation Commission/ Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency39 (IWWA) has considered the Criteria for Decision found in Section 10.2 of the Town40 Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations and finds that, based upon the testimony41 and evidence on the record and the Applicant’s submission, the project does not meet the42 standards for approval and will reasonably likely adversely impact the wetlands and43 watercourse in the following manner:44 45 a) Per Section 10.2 f. of the Regulations, the IWWA determined that there was not46 sufficient evidence submitted by the applicant to show there will be no adverse47 impacts of the proposed regulated activity on the wetland soils, watercourses,48 including habitats for wetland-dependent species. The applicant’s consultant, VHB,49 acknowledged there are five vernal pools (VPs) present on site as described in the50 Biological Assessment Report, dated March 9, 2026. While the measures to be taken51 to protect these areas during the construction phase of the project were addressed,52 there was no evidence demonstrating that the health and integrity of the VPs will be53 protected in the long term.54 55 The applicant acknowledged the best practices for conserving these areas by56 referencing the study, “Best Development Practices- Conserving Pool-Breeding57 Amphibians in Residential and Commercial Developments in the Northeastern United58 States (Calhoun and Klemens, 2002)” but did not utilize the recommendations in the59 study. Specifically, the applicant did not limit construction within the 750-foot60 Critical Terrestrial Habitat (CTH). This is shown in Table 1 of the applicant’s61 response #25 in the third-party reviewer’s (CHA) Application Review document62 dated June 4, 2026.63 64 While it is recognized that this habitat area is beyond the 100-foot regulated Upland65 Review Area as defined in the local regulations, State Statute 22a-42a (f), allows for66 consideration of environmental impacts of proposed activities on wetlands and67 watercourses, which may, in some instances, come from outside the physical68 boundaries of a wetland or watercourse. The IWWA determines the proposed69 development, which includes impervious surfaces of parking and roadways in the70 CTH and only approximately 100 feet from vernal pools, will have a direct and long-71 term negative impact on the wetland soils as well as the amphibian population that is72 currently present on site, which has a symbiotic relationship with both the vernal73 pools and connecting wetland soils.74 75 b) The Commission has considered Section 10.2.b related to feasible and prudent76 alternatives and finds there are other potential feasible and prudent alternatives which77 might have less impact on the wetlands, watercourse and habitats for wetland-78 dependent species. The alternatives that were submitted by the applicant did not79 address modifications to specific elements of the preferred design that would further80 reduce or eliminate the remaining URA disturbance.81 82 83 Page 3 of 3 The project proposes 1,035 parking spaces associated with 689 units. The traffic84 generation will result in concentrated runoff from cars such as oil, gasoline, and other85 vehicular fluids as well as salt from road de-icing efforts. There are sections of86 roadways within the 100-foot regulated areas. Contaminants are reasonably likely to87 cause an adverse physical impact to wetlands and watercourses and to the species and88 habitats of those within the wetlands and watercourses.89 90 Furthermore, the applicant submitted previous plans to the Zoning Commission91 proposing smaller developments at this site - 580 units revised down to 432 units. The92 proposed 689 units is an approximately 60% increase in size to what was previously93 proposed. This fluctuation demonstrates there is flexibility on the developer’s part to94 adjust the design of the project. Reduction in impervious surface associated would95 reduce impacts to wetlands and watercourses and their associated habitats and96 species.97 98 For these reasons the IWWA finds that feasible and prudent alternatives do exist99 which would further reduce the scope and footprint of the development proposal and100 remove site grading and roadway from the upland review area.101 102 c) Section 10.2.g of the Regulations considers the suitability or unsuitability of the103 activity to the area for which it is proposed. The General Site Description offered by104 the applicant’s consultant, VHB, in the Wetland Impact Assessment Report dated105 March 9, 2026, speaks to the number of wetlands, water courses and other106 environmentally significant areas within the site. This includes the presence of vernal107 pools that support breeding habitats of wood frogs and fairy shrimp that will108 reasonably likely be harmed by the proposed development.109 110 For these reasons the IWWA finds that the proposed scale of the project in such111 proximity to functionally active and important wetland and watercourses is112 determined to be unsuitable.113 114 The motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).115 116 III. ADJOURNMENT117 118 MOTION: Vice Chair Levy made a motion, seconded by Secretary Campolieta, to119 adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).120 121 Chair Winters adjourned the meeting at 5:10 P.M.122 123 Respectfully submitted,124 125 Amanda Blaze126 Commission Clerk127