The Simsbury Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency on July 15 directed staff to issue a designated-agent approval for application CC-25-18, a wetland permit to install an accessory building and bring in fill at 3 The Muse (assessor’s map C04, Block 203, Lot 010).

The application, presented by applicant and property owner Brian Catino, covers an accessory structure described in the filing as roughly 20 feet by 38 feet but later clarified by Catino as a 20-by-22-foot enclosed area with an attached open pavilion. Agency staff member Britney summarized that the project area is approximately 10 feet from the mapped wetlands and that the applicant proposes about 15 cubic yards of fill and the installation of silt fencing per the submitted plan. "The project area is approximately 10 feet from the mapped wetlands," Britney said.

The permit was handled as a designated-agent approval rather than returned for a full-agency significance determination. A commissioner moved that the commission "directs application number 25-18 at 3 The Muse for designated agent approval per section 12 of the Simsbury Inland Wetland and Watercourses Agency regulations," the motion was seconded, and a voice vote was taken; the chair called the vote in the affirmative and the motion carried.

Why it matters: the site is within the town's Upland Review Area, which triggers inland-wetlands oversight even though the proposed building is outside the mapped wetland vegetation. Staff and the applicant emphasized erosion controls and construction methods intended to limit disturbance. Britney said she had visited the site and "did not see obvious wetland vegetation" adjacent to the proposed placement, and the applicant will use silt fence to protect runoff.

Key project details discussed during the meeting included the following: the applicant said the building will sit on piers and not on a poured slab; drilled piers were described as extending to about 48 inches deep with roughly 10–12 inch diameters, 6 inches of crushed rock at the base, poured concrete in sonotubes and possible rebar; the applicant said the design follows building-code requirements to reach below the frost line. Catino said the intent of bringing in topsoil was to match driveway grade and prevent erosion; he described chipping trees on-site and reusing chips away from the wetlands and more than 100 feet from the tree line. Catino said he intends to schedule work in the fall and will hire a professional tree contractor to fell trees.

Commissioners raised implementation questions but recorded no formal objection: one commissioner asked whether imported topsoil suppliers would be screened for invasive jumping worms; Catino said he had not planned that but could seek prescreened topsoil. Tree-root impacts were discussed; Catino noted a large nearby tree with a reported circumference of about 75 inches and said the pier approach minimizes root disturbance. Staff observed the house and subdivision predate the current wetlands regulations (construction circa 1975), which factored into the staff recommendation for agent approval.

Formal outcome and next steps: the commission directed designated-agent approval under section 12 of the Simsbury Inland Wetland and Watercourses Agency regulations. Britney said she would issue the approval letter, publish the decision consistent with agency practice, and the applicant must still obtain any required building permits and retain a professional for tree removal. The approval includes the proposed silt-fence erosion controls and the plan to limit on-site chipping and placement of material outside the 100-foot buffer. The transcript did not record any conditions beyond those discussed; staff will document the permit conditions in the approval letter.

Discussion-only items noted in the meeting included concerns about invasive species in imported topsoil and operational questions about on-site chipping versus off-site removal. Those items were left as implementation details for the applicant to address rather than formal conditions recited in the meeting.