A central point of discussion revolved around the proposed bridge and its alternative, a culvert, to cross a waterway. The bridge’s design and potential impact on the surrounding wetlands were debated, with commission members raising questions about the disturbance to the wetlands and the bridge’s alignment relative to the property line. The construction of the bridge was juxtaposed with the culvert option, which was designed to accommodate a 100-year storm event but raised concerns about water ponding and the need for additional storage above the culvert to prevent such occurrences.

The solar project’s stormwater management plan was another prominent topic. The commission examined the applicant’s modeling of stormwater runoff and peak flows, expressing satisfaction with the calculations and methodologies used. However, there was a discussion about the potential increase in erosion due to grazing animals on the site. The commission underscored the need for a grazing plan that is adaptable and minimizes negative hydrologic impacts. Moreover, concerns about groundwater mounding and the impact of raised basins on nearby Bordering Vegetated Wetlands were debated, with a proposition to phase construction prioritizing vegetation growth before installing solar panels.

Another environmental consideration was the project’s impact on the local animal populations. The commission deliberated on the classification of the land as agricultural and the presence of livestock for grass maintenance under the solar arrays. The debate touched on the property’s qualifications for Chapter 61A, which involves tax benefits for agricultural land. Criteria for farm exemptions under state regulations and the potential benefits of dual land use for solar energy production and farming were also discussed.

The solar panel orientation relative to the topography was scrutinized, with concerns about the perpendicular placement in steep areas and the impact on stormwater flow. Suggestions for mitigating runoff included the installation of intermittent riprap rows to slow down the water’s movement during storms. Further discussion was required for the sediment forb sizing information and the frequency of reporting for grass growth maintenance, crucial for effective stormwater management.

The commission evaluated the Riverfront area performance standards, providing a comprehensive summary of resource area impacts. They reviewed the history of land use and the Wetlands Protection Act’s definition of agricultural use. The narrative detailing proposed conditions related to agricultural use was discussed alongside exemptions for minor activities in the buffer zone. Other resource areas, rare species, alternatives to the proposed work scope, and significant adverse impact were also addressed.

An issue that emerged was the potential encroachment on the 25-foot no-disturb zone of the wetlands. The commission considered the need for permanent boundary markers to delineate the zone, and the possibility of employing alternative markers with minimal environmental impact was discussed. Additionally, concerns about the impact on the Scantic River due to nitrogen loading were mentioned, with the commission noting the implementation of infiltration basins and vegetation to address nitrogen removal.

Technical difficulties during the meeting, such as issues with remote participation and document sharing, were briefly discussed, along with the need for a call-in number for future meetings. Moreover, the commission noted typos and errors in the submitted documents, raising concerns about the applicant’s credibility.