Simsbury conservation hearing on SL Simsbury wetland permit draws broad public opposition; hearing continued

The Simsbury Conservation Commission on an ongoing public hearing reviewed an application (CC-2602) from SL Simsbury LLC for a wetlands permit to build about 689 residential units and associated improvements at 200 Hop Meadow Street.

An intervenor, Christine Sinopoli of Southfield, opened the public hearing portion by filing a Notice of Intervention under the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act (CGS 22a-19) and asked the commission to make her filing part of the administrative record. Sinopoli told the commission third-party reviewer CHA/EcoMaps and other materials show substantial gaps in the applicant’s hydrology and stormwater analyses, including no analysis for wetlands identified as numbers 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, incomplete cumulative watershed assessment, unclear sediment-control sizing and placement, and an insufficient alternatives analysis. “The applicant has not yet shown the proposed activity will not impair the wetlands,” she said, and asked the commission to require complete responses or deny the application if the applicant cannot substantiate that wetlands, groundwater and the Farmington River will not be unreasonably impaired.

An attorney speaking for the applicant objected to the intervention petition, arguing it lacked the required verification and specificity and relied on third-party consultant materials rather than presenting independent factual allegations. The applicant asked the commission to deny or strike the filing on procedural grounds. Staff recommended delaying any decision on intervener status until the town attorney could review the late submission; commissioners accepted that approach.

Paul Bettaliano, a civil engineer for VHB speaking for the applicant, said the team submitted written responses to the third-party reviewer the day before the meeting, performed on-site testing the prior day, and expects updated plans by the end of the week. Bettaliano told commissioners that the project’s drainage design emphasizes infiltration and water-quality treatment units and that existing final pipe outlets inspected on site would be reused where appropriate; he said sanitary sewer capacity had been approved by the WPCA and that the water company had indicated support pending an official letter.

Residents raised a sequence of technical and community concerns during a lengthy public-comment period. Speakers cited the project’s size, potential to increase town population substantially, risks of increased stormwater runoff and pollutant loading (oil, heavy metals, fertilizers, pet waste), and threats to vernal pools, upland buffers and species of concern. Multiple speakers said earlier developer-funded reports and the applicant’s maps appeared inconsistent with state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection habitat mapping. Several commenters noted that sections of the Farmington River corridor in this area are part of the national wild-and-scenic river system and cited regional biodiversity and mussel surveys that document endangered or at-risk freshwater mussels downstream of the site.

Residents asked the commission to require fuller, independent analyses: a cumulative watershed and hydroperiod assessment, more explicit sediment-control and dewatering plans, an enforceable salt-management plan, and clear long-term protections for vernal-pool buffers and habitat. One commenter asked the town to fund an independent review because the application package runs to hundreds of pages of technical materials that residents and local staff may lack capacity to vet fully.

Commissioners and staff clarified performance numbers in the record: the town planner’s staff report included an impervious-area comparison showing an overall reduction from 30.65 acres to 27.96 acres (about an 8% reduction) in proposed conditions, while the applicant explained much of the upland-review-area work involves removing existing parking-area pavement and replacing it with pervious areas and green space. The applicant acknowledged some plan details remain to be finalized.

After public comment and staff updates that the third-party reviewer was still evaluating the applicant’s responses, the commission unanimously voted to continue the public hearing to June 9 (location to be determined) to allow the third-party review and town attorney consideration of the intervention filing. Earlier in the meeting the commission also approved its prior minutes.

Next steps: the commission will receive the third-party reviewer’s evaluation of the applicant’s recent responses, the applicant’s updated plans, and the town attorney’s review of the late intervention filing before reconvening the public hearing on June 9.