surrounding development and the Commission
Materials to be accepted include:
wood and construction waste;
demolition waste
Concrete
Tires
Land clearing debris
Roofing
Blacktop
Bulky Waste
Appliances
Materials that will NOT be accepted include:
Municipal solid waste
Sludge or liquid wastes
Biomedical waste
Compressed gas cylinders
Asbestos-containing materials
Plastic or metal drums unless confirmed to be empty
Hazardous waste
All of the operations will be conducted within completely enclosed buildings, however, it
appears that non-recyclable material will be temporarily stored in covered containers
outside the buildings.
A traffic report has been submitted. I would note for the record that the commercial
road that the traffic report refers to is actually a driveway, not a road. The applicant is
proposing to pave the entire driveway; currently it is only partially paved. State Traffic
Commission approval is not required, as neither the number of parking spaces nor the
size of the buildings meets STC threshold requirements. The traffic report recommends
that an exclusive left-turn lane be added to the Route 5 median opening at this location.
This requirement would be subject to ConnDOT approval. South Windsor Police Dept
has reviewed the plans and, while he notes a concern with left turns into the facility, he
also notes that the limited number of trips may not present a problem.
The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposal and has indicated that he has no concerns
with the facility.
Parking requirement for this proposal is 53 spaces; the applicant is requesting a waiver
to allow 32 spaces. There are 7 overhead doors facing onto the main paved area.
The Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed this proposal on December
6. At the time ADRC reviewed the site, there was still a 44,000 square-foot building
proposed. The ADRC had the following modifications to request:
Parking lot lighting be reduced to a minimum at the end of the work day
Fencing should be added with screening, if necessary
Additional landscaping should be planted in areas out side of the access easement to the
adjacent property.
It appears that the applicant has complied with two of ADRC's suggestions. The third recommendation, for additional landscaping in areas outside of the access easement to the adjacent property, has not been done. We note that some of the new pine trees to be planted are within an access easement; and if the access easement is used in the future, the pine trees would need to be removed.
There are no signs included with this proposal.
There are no buffer requirements, as there is no residential land abutting this site.
There are no regulated wetlands on this site but there are wetlands on the adjacent
property to the north. The application was approved by IWA/CC on March 6, with a
$6,000 bond, and additional perimeter plantings to be placed on the plans that will
enhance wildlife food habitat
Public water and sewer will be brought in from Route 5. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
If this application is approved, Planning Dept. requests no additional approval
modifications except those already noted.
Jeff Doolittle read the Engineering Report:
The size of the subsurface retention system designed for the site which is being addressed
by the applicant's engineer.
The trench drain is connected to the sanitary sewer system must have grate with
openings that are no greater than 1/2 inch in any dimension. This is to comply with
the South Windsor WPCA regulations and this application will need approval from the
South Windsor WPCA.
Final comment is to include a note on the plans, "All construction to conform to the
Town of South Windsor Public Improvement Specifications".
Public participation:
No one spoke in favor of the application. The following people spoke in opposition to the application:
John Moreland, Chapel Hill Condos
Bob Pellegatto, 128 Chapel Road
Kathy Franklin, 120 Chapel Road
Mark Strickland, Chapel Hill Condominium Assn President
Barney Daley, 165 Ellington Road
Gladys Daley, 165 Ellington Road
Barbara Stambo, St. Marc Circle
John Woodcock, 30 Oxbow Lane
Luis Tamay
Jack Lawton
Rhode Russak, 561 King Street
Art Utay, 482 Main Street
Joe Monegon, Old Farm Road
Bill Jenkins, St Marc Circle
Diane Tanguay, St. Mark Circle
John Moreland, St Marc Circle
T. Salvati, Chapel Road
Louis Berom, Chapel Hill Condos
Sue Belanger, 71 Chapel Road
Denton Hopper, Levy & Droney, P.C.
Bruce Burnham, Main Street
Kenneth Pudeler, Pudeler Engineering
Kathryn Hale, 54 Orchard Hill
M. Franklin, 120 Chapel Road
(There were other speakers who did not provide their name/address, or whose name was not legible on the sign-in sheet.)
The following concerns were raised by the people who spoke in opposition:
There are many compliance issues for recycling plants in various towns; information
obtained from DEP.
Three hundred trucks/450 trucks/800 trucks a week will create a dangerous intersection.
This will be a "self inspected" operation.
Will there be future expansions? Increase in number of trucks? What's to stop these
increases from happening?
If there is no "hazardous" waste, then why all of the precautions outlined by the applicant? Children playing at Pleasant Valley School will be subject to floating dust.
This is not the right business to locate next to a residential area.
Trucks will damage the roadways (weight).
This operation could end up similar to the trash facility near Brainard Road, with odors and problems.
Will this be a 24-hour operation?
This area is already very unattractive. Allowing this new facility will This area is a gateway into South Windsor, so we should be looking for high-quality businesses.
A petition with 530 signatures in opposition was presented.
The negative-air dust control system cannot control this situation because of the very large overhead doors.
This site will end up being a glorified dump.
Impossible to have 100% inspection.
Building demolition materials can contain much that is hazardous, such as formaldehyde, chlorine.
This operation will be like Murphy Rd in East Windsor: idling of trucks waiting to drop off loads, noise of unloading, odor.
Property values will plummet.
What effect will this operation have on asthma sufferers? Other respiratory disease sufferers?
There will be long-term negative consequences, this is a town-wide issue.
The commission is acting in a legislative capacity on this application, not in an administrative capacity. There are plenty of reasons within the CommissionWho monitors the training; who monitors the facility? Not possible to always be on top of each individual. Is this facility OSHA approved?
Rail siding will come too close to condos; too noisy.
Roof can fly off the building in a storm; debris can fly off the trucks. The backup beeping of 800 trucks will be very offensive.
The intersection of Chapel Rd and Route 5 has had many people seriously injured or killed.
Well water concern.
This facility will not do anything for the Town but drive people out.
A fear that bringing this business in will cause unnatural problems in the future.
What is the capacity of the facility; what % capacity will it open at?
Overhead doors will open for all trucks (450 x 2), electric opening (slow), dust will escape during that time.
Not worth it for the gain of only 27 employees.
Will want a future entrance on Chapel Road.
Media is filled with stories about facilities like these that start out with good intentions and engineering, go through a predictable cycle of decline.
What happens if they find hazardous waste on the top conveyor belt, and some has fallen through the grate on the lower conveyor belt?
Teenagers driving on Route 5 combined with hundreds of trucks is a big problem.
Diesel fumes will be wafting across the newly-renovated Veterans Memorial Park pool, people will stop using. Route 5 is in dire need of both left and right turning lanes.
Overhead doors will open every 3 minutes.
How will they check for hazardous waste? Some asbestos will escape
A 10-micron filter is not good enough.
Materials coming in can come from anywhere, without regard for ConnecticutThe Strategic Plan vision: doesn't it apply here also?
Many people in the audience have wells (show of hands).
The deep clay layer means that water doesn't permeate but stays on top of the clay. Pollution will migrate north into the Podunk River, and the fish ladder at the Mill on the River.
There is more land available around this facility that could be used by this facility in the future.
How many dumpsters will there be on this site? How many different types of waste will be separated into different dumpsters? The overhead doors will also have to open for the dumpsters.
Who's going to inspect every inch of a building to be demolished for asbestos?
Are tops of trucks coming in going to be sealed? Asbestos dust will be blowing from the trucks.
Dangers of asbestos: we won't find out for 20 years (that
Ken Pudeler, P.E., representing the Chapel Hill Condominium Assn., reported that he has reviewed the plans and has the following comments/questions:
Regarding parking, would this proposal reduce the adjacent gas company's parking below requirements? How about parking requirements for the storage building?
Will the shed remain at the property line?
The roof slopes toward the front, yet the drainage swale is in the rear; is this the right way?
Where is the mechanical equipment located? The air handlers must be sizeable.
In the vortech drainage system, flows higher than 4 cfs will bypass the vortech unit.
Percolation tests were performed, but it should have been permeability tests performed for the drainage design.
Detention basin storage volumes are inaccurate.
Proposed floodlighting barely reaches the shed; how will the scale house operator check trucks?
Dumpster for on-site refuse?
Roll-off containers: what type of cover?
Traffic study: p.m. peak is actually 3:30-4:30, per DOT records.
The access drive has no storm drainage system, and the drive needs extra heavy pavement design.
Attorney Kathryn Hale, representing the Chapel Hill Condominium Assn., submitted an Intervention pleading, a copy of the applicant's Operation & Maintenance handbook, and a handout to supplement her presentation. She noted the following points:
Zoning regulations violated: special exception criteria, especially the criterion requiring a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs. The applicant bears the burden of proving they meet special exception requirements.
The Town Plan of Conservation and Development discourages truck and warehouse facilities and encourages office, high-tech facilities. The rejection of two prior applications on this site (1985, 1991) is further evidence of inconsistency with the Town Plan.
"Hazardous" is by definition. Even for "non-hazardous" materials, too much in the wrong place can be bad. For example, cement is inert until you grind it up, then you get silica dust which can cause silicosis.
This facility will receive as much waste in a month as the entire Town generates in a year.
The O & M plan does not specify who the operator will be and what their compliance record is.
Nearby schools, day care centers require special concern.
The most difficult traffic issue is trucks leaving the facility. Trucks taking a left turn to go south to I-291 may sit in median waiting to get into southbound lanes, but the median is not wide enough for this. Also, cars may think the new turning lane is the Chapel Road turning lane and then have a difficult time getting back out of the left turn lane.
The site is too small and too close to residentially-zoned property to be physically suited to this use.
Since perc test was done instead of permeability test, applicant hasn't demonstrated that infiltrators will work. What about chemical residues? Infiltrators may get clogged. In large storms, stormwater will bypass treatment. There are highly productive wetlands to the north (evidenced by presence of beavers).
This area is included in the DEP Natural Diversity Data Base as a potential site for endangered species.
Permeability concern: if the soil drains too slowly, system backs up; if the soil drains too quickly, the water doesn't get cleansed. Since the permeability is unknown, we donDonApplicant has not submitted a noise study (as was done in the 1991 application that was rejected by PZC). Applicant has not submitted any plans for the machinery that will actually be used.
The site has already been neglected for the several years the applicant has owned it, yet the applicant is suggesting that they will be in compliance in the future.
Mold and moldy drywall are a concern and are harmful to human health even though not defined as "hazardous." Ten-micron filter won't work, these spores are smaller (like asbestos fibers can be). The smallest particles are the biggest problem, since they go deep in the lungs and cannot be cleared.
The tax delinquency of this property has increased since the current owner has owned the site (credibility issue).
Eastern spadefoot toad could be on site (endangered species).
Are roll-off containers airtight and watertight? The storage building doesn't have a ventilation system.
Noise issues include the fact that the overhead doors will be open frequently.
The Operation and Maintenance manual has many blank spaces thus is missing real data.
Motion to continue the public hearing to April 23, 2002, was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Commissioner Montana would like to see a map showing how close Spring Pond would be from the proposed facility.
ITEM: Bonds
Motion to initiate calling for letter of credit for Appl. 99-60P, Rockville Bank expiring on April 1, 2002, was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Larsen. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m.was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Montana. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelli Gaetano
Recording Secretary