Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Simsbury conservation panel directs staff to prepare denial for 689‑unit Hot Meadow proposal
Summary
The Conservation Commission directed staff to draft a denial for a proposed 689‑unit development at 200 Hot Meadow Street, citing risks to vernal pools, runoff, lighting and the absence of demonstrated feasible alternatives; a special meeting will be scheduled before the July 14 decision deadline.
The Simsbury Conservation Commission on July 7 directed staff to draft a denial for application CC 26‑02, a proposed 689‑unit residential development at 200 Hot Meadow Street, after commissioners said the record does not show the applicant has met the statutory burden to prove no feasible and prudent alternative exists.
Commissioners cited potential long‑term impacts to nearby vernal pools, Minister Brook and the Farmington River, and raised concerns about stormwater, road salt, nutrient loading from pet waste and the tire‑derived chemical 6PPD‑q. Staff reminded the panel that the public hearing closed June 9 and that the statutory decision deadline is July 14; because the matter had been deemed large and complex, a third‑party reviewer participated in the record.
“Under the significant‑impact standard a permit shall not be issued unless no feasible and prudent alternative exists,” said a commissioner who reviewed the commission’s regulations and Connecticut General Statute 22a‑41. “The applicant has not met that burden.”
Commissioners pointed out the developer previously proposed smaller schemes for the same site (documents in the record showed proposals of about 580 and 432 units), and several members said that evidence supports that reduced footprints and larger buffers are feasible. One commissioner said the project places roads almost three‑quarters of the way around vernal pools and warned that even with engineered hydrodynamic separators, the systems are ineffective at removing nitrates and some pollutants the commission fears will harm amphibians and native fish.
Commissioners asked staff to capture specific findings about vernal pools, runoff controls and lighting (including concerns about headlights and nighttime spill from multi‑story units) in the denial draft, to run the draft by the town attorney and to return it at a special meeting to be scheduled before July 14. The motion to direct staff passed on a voice vote; a roll‑call tally was not recorded in the transcript.
Next steps: staff will prepare the denial letter and consult the town attorney; the commission will meet in a special session before the July 14 statutory deadline to consider the draft and make formal findings.
