Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Determination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation agency finds Simsbury Fire District training building replacement not a significant wetlands activity
Summary
The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency determined on June 16 that replacing a Simsbury Fire District training building at 251 Hopmeadow Street is a regulated activity in the upland review area but not a significant wetlands impact; the motion passed unanimously.
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Determination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Simsbury Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency on June 16 determined that the proposed demolition and replacement of a fire-training building at 251 Hopmeadow Street is a regulated activity in the upland review area but not a significant wetlands impact.
Vice Chair Jason Levy moved that Application CC #26-09 "be deemed a regulated activity because it is occurring in the upland review area and it has been determined as not a significant activity as it has no direct wetlands impact and just replacing existing building and associated pavement." The motion was seconded and carried unanimously (6-0-0).
Assistant Town Planner Brittany MacGilpin provided the staff overview. The application listed the Simsbury Fire District as owner and named Matthew Pearce as the applicant; a facilities representative identified in the meeting record as Matt Pierce provided the on-site overview. The proposal calls for demolition of the existing training building and construction of a new 70-foot by 20-foot building in approximately the same location.
The commission's determination was procedural: commissioners asked follow-up questions about site work and impacts but concluded the replacement project has no direct wetlands impact because it occurs in the upland review area and occupies the same general footprint. No wetland-specific conditions were imposed by the motion recorded in the minutes.
The commission recorded the determination as a formal action; no vote on permit conditions was required at this meeting. The agency will follow its standard permitting and agent-review processes if further site work or mitigation measures are proposed.
