 |
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin McCann, Louise Evans, Marshall Montana, Tim Wentzell, Sue Larsen, Suzanne Choate, and Patrick Kennedy
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Gary Bazzano sat for Sue Larsen until her arrival at 8:00 p.m., Roger Cottle sat for Marshall Montana until her arrival at 7:37 p.m.
Bart Pacekonis arrived at 7:40 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman McCann called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
Chairman McCann stated the Public Hearing was a continuation from May 7, 2002.
A motion was made to take a brief recess of the Public Hearing to take up a matter in the Regular Meeting and then return to the Public Hearing was made by Commissioner Kennedy and Seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Chairman McCann appointed Commissioner Bazzano to sit for Commissioner Larsen and Commissioner Cottle sit for Commissioner Montana.
A motion was made to approve a bond for improvement to Buckland Road for Stop & Shop, Inc., in the amount of $492,300.00 with 10% of the bond being retained for a one year maintenance period beginning on the date these improvements are substantially complete and accepted by the town was made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Chairman McCann returned to the Public Hearing continuing with comments from the public and stated the comments should be directed to the new information.
Appl 02-11P, 420 John Fitch Blvd, LLC, request for a Special Exception to Article 6.1.3.7 for a 27,216 square foot Materials Reduction Facility for property located on the easterly side of John Fitch Blvd and northerly of Chapel Road (420 John Fitch Blvd), I Zone -Continued from May 7, 2002.
Commissioner Wentzell indicated that he would not be recusing himself from this application and read an excerpt from a legal opinion by Barry Guliano, Town Attorney, supporting this position. Commissioner Wentzell noted that he had not made up his mind on this application prior to hearing the application.
Chairman McCann continued the hearing with public comment regarding the new information presented by the applicant at the previous hearing on May 7. The Chair noted that the public comment would be followed by Commission questions, and then the applicant would have an opportunity for summary.
Gladys Daley questioned who would monitor the trucks for adequate cover and noted that trucks will take the shortest route, thereby using Town roads. She also questioned danger to pedestrians; whether workers would need masks and earplugs; what happens if it is very damp; whether children at the school will need masks to play outside; and whether the applicant was turned down elsewhere.
Nancy Harris, representing JMJ Construction, noted that there is not much buffer proposed between the subject site and an adjacent site owned by JMJ Construction. JMJ constructed the Chapel Hill condominium development and still owns some of the units, and JMJ is concerned about their property values, vibration and noise as well as environmental issues, air and water pollution. She questioned whether the applicant has bonding and liability insurance in place; who will monitor and regulate the volume of material; what type of training the operators will have.
Robert Pellegatto said that he would like to see simpler data. His main concern is not what the building looks like. It is difficult to make the turn into the site drive. The Commission should visit Murphy Rd/Brainerd Rd in Hartford and see what this facility could end up like. Pollution, water and air quality are all issues. The reality is that people operate the plant.
Charles Moreland noted that this is not just a Chapel Hill condominium issue, as there are 163 families at Chapel Hill, but over 800 signatures on the petitions.
Kathryn Hale, attorney representing Chapel Hill condominium association, noted that the Special Exception criteria govern this decision, and no information has been submitted regarding noise calculations (Sect. 6.1.5.1.c), and this is a fatal flaw. She also noted that the appraisernoted that her concern is whether the metals are migrating off-site, not on-site. This applicant has not adequately explained what happened to known contamination.
Attorney Hale reminded the Commission that she had previously submitted to them a written motion to deny this application that includes the regulations with which this application is not in conformance. She noted that the letter from the Economic Development Commission makes it clear that this application does not conform with the Plan of Conservation & Development. She also indicated that the applicant has not demonstrated a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs. The applicant
Attorney Hale continued that this project would create adverse environmental impacts. There are big gaps in the information submitted. She noted that she has been asking for details of the air handling system but the applicant has provided only oral statements about the system performance. There are many materials that become hazardous when processed, such as pressure treated wood and cement. Mold is also an issue. A 10-micron filtration system will let through everything under 10 microns; and it's the small size particles that cause the most problems.
Adverse traffic impacts include the left-turn lane on Route 5 for southbound trucks.
Attorney Hale said that while there is a need for more tax dollars, the EDC indicated that this project would not have that effect. Also, she noted that the property taxes on this property are not current. Attorney Consoli objected to this information as not relevant, but Hale noted that it applies to the applicant's credibility. She then referred to the Waste Management recycling facility on Nutmeg Road which she noted is much smaller (6,000 square feet) than the proposed facility. The proposed facility is much different in that it is larger and closer to residential property.
Kenneth Pudeler, P.E., representing Chapel Hill Condominium Assn., reported that there was not enough field testing for drainage design, and that statements that roof drainage will "probably" be designed in a certain way does not meet regulations. There was no noise data submitted. Designs for air filtration and fans, and negative pressure, have not been submitted, nor any indications of where such systems will be located and how noisy they will be. Specifications for the dust suppression system were not submitted. What are the health hazards of high humidity? What type, size containers will be used for storage? Roll-off containers do not have their own covers.
Gennarro Russo reminded the Commission that there have been problems with other projects such as Cupid Diaper and nearby residents. This site was zoned Industrial before Spring Pond was purchased by the Town, and allowing an industrial use to locate very close to Spring Pond would be a problem. The subject site is small now, but will be expanded in the future, and that will bring it closer to Spring Pond. Usually these facilities are on 50 to 100-acre sites, he noted, so the facility will have to expand as there is not enough room there. He questioned whether the monitoring wells are on the site due to activity from this site, or due to activity on another site.
Commission questions and comments:
Commissioner Bazzano asked how many containers are on site any given day, and whether a transport company removes the containers when they are full? The applicant indicated that the number of containers depends on the amount of material being stored, and that the maximum number of containers that the site will hold is approximately 55, or 1000 tons of material; and that it is a transport company that removes the containers when full. Commissioner Bazzano also questioned whether the Dept. of Environmental Protection makes periodic site inspections. The applicant replied that the DEP does unscheduled site inspections that generally average quarterly. Attorney Consoli also noted that the applicant would agree to a Town-selected consultant to perform site inspections and report to the Town, at the applicant's
expense.
Commissioner Montana asked how the applicant would select an operator to run the facility. Attorney Consoli noted that every operator has to be licensed and approved by DEP, based on the operator's history, number of infractions, and operating record. The applicant would interview licensed, approved operators and select one. Commissioner Montana asked about the elevation of the site in comparison to the elevation of Chapel Hill condominiums; the answer was that the subject site is about 10 feet higher in elevation than the condominium site.
Commissioner Montana noted that she is disappointed in the level of detail presented by the applicant because the lack of detail causes uncertainty: what if the Commission misses an important clue and doesn
Commissioner Evans asked about the type of information DEP would require for this operation. The applicant responded that DEP would look at site information; the type of facility; materials handling and processing; and machinery. The operator of the facility would select the manufacturer of the equipment. The methods of dust control, air filtration systems vary somewhat with different manufacturers; this is a level of detail that generally gets finalized at the building permit stage. Commissioner Evans noted that that is the issue: how does the Commission get assurance regarding the performance of these systems? Attorney Consoli noted that they have stated that the applicant will comply with all State and local regulations. Commissioner Evans replied that the Commission needs ongoing assurance, and she is not sure that a
Town-selected consultant is the way to do this.
Commissioner Evans questioned whether there is any hazard from the propane tanks located on the adjacent site; the applicant responded no. Commissioner Evans noted that there is a large quantity of wood, brick, rock currently on the site; is there a landscaping plan? Attorney Consoli noted that this site is in transition, awaiting development, so ultimately the site will be cleaned up. Commissioner Evans responded that this owner has already owned the site for several years.
Commissioner Choate asked how much construction debris a town typically generates. Attorney Consoli answered that it depends, but they anticipate that the lion's share of the debris will come from a twenty-mile radius, based on where other recycling facilities are located. Commissioner Choate asked how many towns are within a twenty-mile radius; the response was probably 6-12.
Commissioner Kennedy noted that the applicant
Commissioner Kennedy referred to the applicant's response to the EDC's letter (in opposition to this project), in which the applicant suggested that the EDC is looking for the wrong type of business for this area. Attorney Consoli replied that the applicant was never given an opportunity to discuss their plan with EDC. The Town Plan of Conservation and Development specifically supports regional recycling, Consoli noted. This site is not located within the I-291 zone, and some of the recommended uses in the EDC letter are not even permitted uses in the I zone. The EDC has indicated that the Town is having some difficulty attracting commercial uses just east of the railroad tracks because of the at-grade railroad crossing. The EDC letter is a departure from clearly stated policies in the Town Plan of Conservation and
Development, Consoli said. Commissioner Kennedy concluded with a question regarding how the applicant has met the burden of proof for environmental compliance when the suppression/filtration systems are still conceptual. Attorney Consoli responded that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all zoning regulations.
Commissioner Wentzell asked about the duration of time that overhead doors would be open, and whether doors would remain open while trucks are on the tipping floor. Attorney Consoli replied that the door can be shut behind the truck but will not always be closed. Even if doors remain open, dust will not escape. Commissioner Wentzell asked why a 70-foot scale is needed if trucks bringing materials to the facility have only a 30-yard capacity; the applicant answered that trucks could be larger than 30-yard roll-off trucks. Tractor-trailers could be used to bring materials in or out. All containers will be loaded inside the building.
Commissioner Wentzell asked about possible re-use of this building if this operation should fail and told of a failed construction debris recycling facility (Stapleton) that then involved State funds for clean-up. Attorney Consoli noted that this facility will be bonded and will carry hazard liability insurance policy for $10 million, which is the industry standard. There is no State funding in this project, so the project has to meet all of the scrutiny of a business lender. Also the facility would handle non-hazardous materials, so any clean up would simply be hauling away wood, concrete. The building could be reused as a conventional manufacturing building. When asked whether the principals in this project are involved with any other similar facility, Attorney Consoli indicated they are not.
Commissioner Wentzell indicated he was somewhat confused regarding asbestos shingles: could they be accepted at the site, and wouldn
Commissioner Wentzell questioned what happens to liquid waste, such as rain from construction debris containers sitting outside uncovered at construction sites. The response was that the containers are not watertight, so the water drains out. If there is any drip water, it is not an issue because there is no hazardous material. Commissioner Wentzell commented that it is difficult to evaluate the project without engineered systems, as it is hard to clearly understand the total package.
Commissioner Cottle questioned whether the applicant was waiting to see if Special Exception approval is forthcoming before completing the final engineering details of the various systems. Attorney Consoli responded yes, after receiving Special Exception approval, the applicant would then apply for DEP permits with final engineered systems. The applicant has no specific operator in mind yet. Commissioner Cottle asked whether the building would be visible from Chapel Hill condominiums; it will not, as indicated by the pictures submitted by the applicant.
Chairman McCann asked about the quantity of processed material to be stored at one time. Attorney Consoli indicated that DEP will let them store up to three times the volume of material that can be received daily (500 tons), a total of 1500 tons, but the site is not large enough to store 1500 tons. There will be no outdoor storage of containers; all 55 storage containers can be stored inside a building. Both the storage shed and the main building will hold 25-27 containers. Materials will be stored on site for no longer than three days. Materials are generally first-in, first-out, except that some things removed from the waste stream may not be first out if the quantity is not large enough. There will not be a significant amount of material stored on the site for a significant amount of time.
Chairman McCann noted that there has been much opposition, no one speaking in favor of this proposal including businesses, so where is the neighborhood acceptance? Attorney Consoli said that many more businesses did not oppose the facility. The applicant did not campaign to get people in favor to the meetings. A small fraction of the PZC's constituency appeared in opposition. The Chairman noted that what exists on site now is not attractive and doesn't enhance property values; and he doesn't know if this use would impact property values or not. He noted concerns about access to the facility for traffic, particularly heavy trucks and potential disruption to the flow of traffic on Route 5. Attorney Consoli responded that no study was performed of the actual movement of the trucks entering and exiting Route 5 for this
facility, but the traffic engineer's opinion is that trucks can enter the highway safely.
Chairman McCann noted that the applicant has requested a Special Exception approval without full engineering details, yet the Special Exception by its nature requires more information. Attorney Consoli replied that a noise study is not required by the regulations, which just require that the applicant comply with the noise regulations. It is difficult to do a noise study on a building not yet built. Noise regulations are a condition that must be complied with, and there is a recourse if the requirement is not met. If the applicant doesn't comply, he cannot operate the facility. The risk is to the applicant, Mr. Consoli indicated. Chairman McCann said that the risk is to the Commission, as the Commission has to give approval.
Commissioner Evans requested a copy of the DEP application requirements that the applicant had provided verbally. Carl Stopper, from TRC consultants, noted that the list is a summary of DEP requirements and is not the actual DEP application.
Commissioner Kennedy asked Joseph Mongeon, a local realtor who testified that the project would have negative property value impact, the basis for his opinion. Mr. Mongeon indicated that he has been a realtor for 10 years and this is what he does for a living. He gave an example of a condominium complex in East Windsor (Millbrook) that has a contamination issue stigma, East Windsor lowered the assessed value by 30%. He noted that power lines impact property values. This facility would be a material fact that would have to be disclosed to a potential buyer, Mr. Mongeon concluded. Attorney Consoli asked Mr. Mongeon whether he had conducted any specific studies on which to base his opinion, whether being located next to an Industrial zone has an impact on property values, and whether the site in its current condition affects
property values. Attorney Consoli noted that Mr. Mongeon's testimony is just an opinion, not expert testimony. Mr. Mongeon responded that current property values take all of these existing conditions into account.
In summation, Attorney Consoli told the Commission that the applicant has met the burden of proof and has complied with the technical requirements. As a matter of procedure, Attorney Consoli requested that the Commission please reconsider Commissioner Wentzell recusing himself from the proceedings.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m.was made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Kelli Holmes Date Approved
Recording Secretary
| |
