Consultants for application CC 25-29 presented site plans and environmental analyses to the Simsbury Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Agency on Nov. 5, saying the proposed single‑family house, associated barns and a roughly one‑mile driveway would avoid direct impacts to wetlands while requiring limited activity in upland‑review areas.

Mike Segan of Richter and Segan, speaking for the applicant, described a 70.15‑acre parcel with two wetlands and said the team had revised lot lines so all proposed development sits in a consolidated Parcel 1. Segan said the design moved the driveway alignment to reduce wetland exposure and accepted a roughly 16‑foot cut into a steep slope to keep the driveway approximately 46 feet from the closest wetland tip. "We have moved the driveway as close as we can or as to the southern part into this slope," Segan said, outlining alternatives the team considered.

Wetland scientist Eric Davidson told the commission that Wetland 1 is a hillside groundwater seepage system that drains ultimately to Cherry Brook and that some interior areas show potential vernal‑pool hydrology. Using Metropolitan Conservation Alliance guidance, Davidson said the team mapped potential vernal pools and ran a 0–100‑foot and 100–750‑foot landscape analysis. "For Vernal Pool 1 ... post‑development forest cover is 82 percent," Davidson said, and for Vernal Pool 2 the post‑development forest cover is about 76 percent — levels he said meet the guideline thresholds used in the assessment.

Davidson also reported a Natural Diversity Database screening that flagged box turtle presence and said the applicant prepared a box‑turtle protection plan consistent with Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) expectations. The plan focuses on preventing construction‑season mortality through pre‑construction sweeps, use of erosion‑control barriers and temporary exclusion measures where needed.

Civil engineer Tom Cromwell described a phased erosion‑ and sediment‑control program that would limit areas open at any time, install construction entrances and perimeter sediment logs backed by six‑foot wood‑chip berms, and use temporary sediment trenches and traps. Cromwell said the basins are designed as infiltration basins set two feet above seasonal high groundwater and that roof runoff from all structures would be routed to underground precast gallery chambers for treatment and infiltration. He also reported that the Fairington Valley Health District issued a letter of suitability for septic designs for the three structures identified on the plans.

Commission members questioned construction staging, materials sourcing and whether the larger parcel size changes the agency's view of the project's significance. Several commissioners noted the project is large in scope but stated that actual upland‑review activity within Simsbury totals about 0.8 acres. After deliberation, the agency did not classify the application as a "significant activity" under its regulations but voted to hold a public hearing in the public interest. The hearing was scheduled for Dec. 2 at 7 p.m. via Zoom.

Next steps: the applicant will appear at the public hearing and the commission will accept public comment before taking a final permit decision. The applicant and consultants said, contingent on permits and seasonal constraints, on‑site construction is expected to begin in late spring with the primary driveway work to the house taking about 8–12 weeks to stabilize.

Authorities referenced in the presentation included the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance vernal‑pool guidance, the DEEP construction general permit process, and the Natural Diversity Database (NDDB) screening process. The record shows the application was introduced as belonging to "Michael Segan" in the application materials and later referenced during the motion as "Michael Keegan"; the applicant's consultant introduced himself as Mike Segan during the presentation.