TOWN OF WILLINGTON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 2, 2001
A. ST. LOUIS CALLED A MEETING OF THE WILLINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 7:33 P.M. OCTOBER 2, 2001 AT THE TOWN OFFICE BUILDING, 40 OLD FARMS ROAD, WILLINGTON.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
A. St. Louis B. Begansky
R. Tulis S. Trueb, alt.
L. Dion T. Radell
E. Kalbac
D. Lytwynn, alt.
W. Goodale, alt.
The commission seated D. Lytwynn for T. Radell and W. Goodale for B. Begansky.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. File #2001-45-Application for a special permit for a gravel excavation located off Trask Road and Route 32 on 5.62 acres. (Map 29, Lot 4, 31 acres). Estate of Joseph Mihaliak owner/applicant. (Received on 08/21/01, hearing on 10/02/01, decision by 12/04/01).
Russell Heintz spoke on behalf of the applicants.
The commission reviewed the info in the file.
A. St. Louis said he witnessed that the public hearing signs were posted.
R. Heintz noted Margaret Harris and Mike & Lisa Kinderman of Mihaliak Trucking were also present as applicants.
R. Heintz said this is a 31.15-acre parcel on the east side of Route 32 and south of Trask Road, bordering near Abby Road. The state of Connecticut property abuts to the west. He listed other abutters’ names.
This application has been here before. He showed the map of the existing parcel, excavation & erosion & sedimentation plan and also the reuse plan. He reviewed the delineated wetlands and the 100-foot regulated area. None of the excavation in phase one or two is within the 100-foot regulated area. The proposal is 2 phases, about 5.52 acres, with phase one being about three acres and phase 2 being about 2.52 acres. The total gravel estimated to be removed is about 50,000 cubic yards.
The proposal is to install a 30” pipe under the access drive, and have a dustless surface. He showed machine storage plans and stockpile areas. The proposal is to bring the drainage to a level spreader to slow the velocity. He explained the drainage plan and said the plan is also to redefine the swale that is there by adding riprap to ensure it is working properly.
The reuse plan calls for planting maple trees and loam & seeding the disturbed area into a grass field.
The regulations say it can be no more than a 3-1 slope, so they have cut an area where a future drive could go and a possible area for future site development of a home.
About 3 years ago this parcel was shown with 5 phases of gravel excavation with 300,000 cubic yards. Since then soil testing was done to confirm final grades and this is why it is down to 5.5 acres. Closer to the wetlands they were hitting ledge & high ground water.
They have received approval for phase one from the IWWC and they are supposed to monitor the pipes. It made sense then, but not now with the new plan.
He reviewed the differences between this plan and the previous plans. They are far from the wetlands now and they do not feel the ground water will be affected. The finished grades will be 440 & 510. It is 70 feet in elevation change.
It is hoped that the estate will be settled in a timely manner.
A. St. Louis asked if he was looking for a waiver.
R. Heintz said he wants one regarding the wetlands monitoring.
S. Yorgensen read the IWWC conditions from 3/22/99 into the record.
R. Tulis said the PZC cannot remove something the IWWC has recommended.
A. St. Louis asked if abutters’ notices went out.
R. Heintz submitted a Certificate of Mailing for the record.
L. Dion said that only shows that they were mailed, not that they were received. Green cards are what is usually used.
R. Tulis asked the mailing date.
A. St. Louis said it is 9/20/01.
W. Goodale said that only means they were mailed. There was no return receipt requested. They were sent regular mail.
A. St. Louis asked about rock outcroppings.
R. Tulis asked what the elevation of the top of it would be.
R. Heintz said it is in the vicinity of 456.
R. Tulis asked what will happen to it.
R. Heintz said it will remain. The only way they will know the extent of the ledge is through excavation. There is a test hole beside it.
R. Tulis said it is about 50 feet away.
R. Heintz reviewed the test hole data and elevation info. He said there will be an exposed piece of rock. It will be similar to the one on Ruby Road and he assumes it will remain there.
The commission discussed the test hole data.
R. Tulis said sheets 3 of 6 and 4 of 6 do not agree on the stockpile info and stumps.
R. Heintz said they will probably end up using the info on the S&E plan. He can push the screening operation out of the stockpile area. In phase one the screening operation will move because of stumping and because they are working in smaller areas at a time.
R. Tulis said common sense can be applied but it would be helpful if the sheets agreed.
R. Heintz said he will make sure it is updated.
R. Tulis said he would like to see info in the dissertation on excavation that addresses what happens if the ledge turns out to be more extensive than what has been calculated to date. What happens if they bottom out on ledge?
Lisa Kinderman said you cannot dig gravel out of rock.
R. Heintz said you can’t go in to that situation and walk away because you would create a non-useable property.
L. Kinderman said you cannot build a house on ledge, so they are not putting a house there. They will not know what they have until they start digging.
S. Yorgensen said based on the test hole data, you cannot do much in one area. You can’t develop on the hill because of ledge or water close to the surface. If you build, you can’t go up. She would like to see the proposed plan based on the proposed final contours. They still have enough decent existing soil a couple feet above the ledge and groundwater to put a septic for a residential home.
R. Heintz reviewed the existing grades and said they are finishing off the area at 3%. He feels it would take care of a single-family house. They’re not proposing a shopping plaza. He showed the area where he feels a house can go. The ideal situation is to sit a house on the knob overlooking the valley. They can weave a driveway through at 12%.
S. Yorgensen said at 12% it would all have to be paved.
R. Heintz said he feels the ledge is no more than a knob. They are excavating less on one side than the other. It must be brought back to 3-1 unless it is exposed ledge. If they run into ledge and they can’t make the grade, the driveway would have to be moved.
There is a letter of approval from the town engineer in the file. He showed how Karl’s changes were implemented. He read from the plan regarding disposal of stumps.
L. Dion asked how many trucks a day would be coming out.
R. Heintz said it is around 50,000 cubic yards.
L. Kinderman said they have 3 trucks and 2 full-time drivers. Depending on the economy, it could be just one.
R. Heintz said it will also depend on the type of material. If it is septic fill, it will be determined by the building market. It takes approximately 5-6 loads per house.
L. Kinderman said the number is variable. There are weeks when they do 3 septic systems and there are weeks when they do none.
L. Dion asked how that would affect the timeline.
L. Kinderman said it depends on the economy.
L. Dion said that means it may not be completed as stated.
R. Heintz said they are supposed to come back once a year for renewal.
A. St. Louis reviewed Karl’s info for the record.
E. Kalbac read the note regarding truckloads per day. He feels it is more than 150 truck trips. It is probably about 3000 per the formula used, unless they mean 150 truck trips per week.
R. Heintz said it should be per week.
L. Dion asked for a copy of the abutters’ letter.
R. Heintz said it was a copy of the legal notice and he submitted it.
A. St. Louis said last time there was a lot of public participation and they were notified by return-receipt.
L. Kinderman asked what the regulations read.
W. Goodale said the way the were sent, there is no proof they were received.
L. Kinderman said it depends on how you interpret the regulations. The applicants all argued that green cards were not required in the regs.
S. Yorgensen asked about the machinery to be used.
Mike Kinderman said they will have a D8 and a loader and possibly a backhoe. The backhoe is only for stumps.
S. Yorgensen asked about the trucks.
M. Kinderman said they are stored at the garage.
A. St. Louis asked if there were any comments from the public.
There were none.
R. Heintz noted the plans say that machinery storage must be kept in an impervious area. There will be no fuel storage on site.
L. Dion asked if earth product would be sold to the public off the premises.
L. Kinderman said it is primarily for construction use. Sometimes they get someone looking for a couple yards if they are putting in a pool. It is mostly for contractors.
R. Tulis asked if this falls under water company jurisdiction.
S. Yorgensen said it is not on that side.
R. Heintz said Karl’s recommendations have been implemented and this will be a benefit to the town to get the swale fixed. When the site is done, 75% of it will remain in its natural state, and no excavation will be seen from Route 32. If the ledge is bigger than they think it is, they will be back with a revised plan.
A. ST. LOUIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FILE #2001-45-APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A GRAVEL EXCAVATION LOCATED OFF TRASK ROAD AND ROUTE 32 ON 5.62 ACRES. (MAP 29, LOT 4, 31 ACRES). ESTATE OF JOSEPH MIHALIAK OWNER/APPLICANT. (RECEIVED ON 08/21/01, HEARING ON 10/02/01, DECISION BY 12/04/01).
SECONDED BY D. LYTWYNN.
Discussion:
L. Dion said he feels uncomfortable closing the hearing. He is not saying the applicant did anything inappropriate by not using green cards, but he does recall the previous hearings and there were a lot of neighbors with a lot of concerns. He is surprised that they are not present if they did receive the notices.
S. Yorgensen said she did receive one phone call and was asked if everything was the same as before. She told the caller it was.
L. Kinderman said the signs are properly posted and asked how long the commission expects her to keep fighting with these people.
A. St. Louis said the applicant is not at fault. The commission is saying it must clarify its own regulations and position. Per the regulations, the green cards cannot be required so they must take what is given.
A. ST. LOUIS WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND D. LYTWYNN WITHDREW THE SECOND.
MOTION WITHDRAWN.
R. Heintz said the first plan met with a lot of opposition. He reviewed abutters who had concerns. Those people’s concerns have been addressed.
The commission discussed what was required per the regulations.
R. Heintz said many towns are getting away from the green cards due to the expense. The applicants directed him to read the regulations and do what they said, and that was done. Certification of mailing is what is required.
A. ST. LOUIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FILE #2001-45-APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A GRAVEL EXCAVATION LOCATED OFF TRASK ROAD AND ROUTE 32 ON 5.62 ACRES. (MAP 29, LOT 4, 31 ACRES). ESTATE OF JOSEPH MIHALIAK OWNER/APPLICANT. (RECEIVED ON 08/21/01, HEARING ON 10/02/01, DECISION BY 12/04/01).
SECONDED BY L. DION. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
A. ST. LOUIS CALLED THE REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER AT 8:37 P.M.
Same members seated as above.
PUBLIC SPEAKER:
Bob Francis, re: Tower Regulations
Bob Francis, president of Cordless Data Transfer, said he has 14 telecommunications facilities in Connecticut. He wants to build one in Willington on land owned by William & Hazel Barber on Turnpike Road. The regulations are a little cloudy as to whether or not he can apply to build a facility.
S. Yorgensen said the regulations say the applicant must be a carrier. This was discussed with the town attorney and this was the wording that was approved. You must be a carrier or provider. The attorney said licensed carrier & licensed provider are the same thing.
B. Francis said he was at a meeting of the PZC and they were trying to make room in the regs so an entity who is not a carrier could apply. He read from Section 11.13.04.09.
S. Yorgensen said it is her job to interpret the regs and the regs say you must be a carrier.
B. Francis said there is no such thing as a carrier who has standing before this board. It is illegal for a carrier to come before the board.
S. Yorgensen reviewed the history of the file and suggested to Mr. Francis that he apply for a regulations change.
A. St. Louis asked Mr. Francis if he could go before the siting council.
B. Francis said he can. But carriers cannot come before this board. They must go to the state. He asked SNET, AT&T & Omnipoint to come with him because they all want to put a facility in Willington, but they cannot come before the board because they do not have standing. They must go before the DPUC and siting council. He described the process of applying through the state. He stated that the town would have no say in the matter if this process goes through.
A. St. Louis suggested that Mr. Francis go before the siting council as the regulations suggest. The PZC has a letter on file from the siting council stating the town will have a say. He repeated that Mr. Francis should go before the siting council.
B. Francis said that costs a lot of money.
A. St. Louis said the PZC cannot just sit here and change the regulations. They were designed so people do not just come into town and put up spec towers.
B. Francis said the commission voted to give the ball to the next higher authority.
R. Tulis said it has been explained and will be explained again. The applicant must be a carrier with a tower builder. That is where it is at.
B. Francis said that means there can be no applicants.
R. Tulis said that would mean the conversation is apparently over.
The commission concurred Mr. Francis’ best option was to make a regulations change application.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. File #2001-24-Application for a special permit for a truck wash located at 327 Ruby Road (Truck Stops of America) in a DC zone. Royce Property LLC owner/applicant. (Received on 03/20/01, hearing on 05/15/01, continued to 06/05/01, 06/19/01, decision by 08/21/01, 65-day extension requested and approved, decision by 10/16/01)
R. Tulis recused himself from this file.
D. Lytwynn noted he has reviewed the hearing tapes.
The commission reviewed the plans.
W. Goodale said he is concerned with the sludge. It seems it is illegal to just put it in the dumpster. It must be dried so that oil and other substances are dried off.
L. Dion said he recalls it was going to be hauled out by a legal hauler.
W. Goodale said his concern is that it must be dried or the water must be first drained from it according to the president of the Connecticut Car Wash Association, who works closely with the DEP.
A. St. Louis read info from the DEP on file. He noted the section of the DEP that has approved this is the storm water section, and they would not have commented on the removal of the sludge.
W. Goodale said he is also concerned about the chemicals that will be used. Data sheets must be kept, but truck washes use a higher ratio of acid at their washes.
The commission reviewed letters in the file from various agencies.
A. St. Louis said according to the DEP approval, there can be no discharge anywhere. It must be self contained.
S. Yorgensen reviewed the drainage system on the plan. She said the DEP did not approve anything from the recycle system to go back into the storm drain.
The commission discussed water discharge.
A. St. Louis said he does not have a problem with the truck wash itself, but he is concerned with other issues at the facility such as traffic and litter management. There is also a lengthy list of conditions.
The commission reviewed the proposed conditions & discussed the DEP approvals.
S. Yorgensen said she does not have a problem with the truck wash. The truck stop is already there & she would just assume it be profitable . But there are definitely problems that need to be addressed. She discussed conditions that Mr. Giguere feels he may not have control over. Chairman St. Louis said that the Commission must look at this site as a whole, not as leased spaces.
A. St. Louis said the commission should ask for a waste disposal plan for the sludge.
The commission discussed waste disposal.
The commission discussed denying the application and/or approving it with several conditions.
A. St. Louis said if it is denied, then the issues that need to be addressed will not be addressed.
L. DION MOVED TO APPROVE FILE #2001-24-APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TRUCK WASH LOCATED AT 327 RUBY ROAD (TRUCK STOPS OF AMERICA) IN A DC ZONE. ROYCE PROPERTY LLC OWNER/APPLICANT, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Report to be submitted by a traffic engineer to review and resolve traffic problems created by the facility both internal to the site and off the site. Any suggestions regarding directional signs should be included as well. Report will be submitted to the commission prior to a special permit being issued. The report shall cover both current demand and growth potential. Once the commission has reviewed and approved the plans, the suggested improvements must be completed and a 30-day trial/review period must be implemented prior to the start of construction. Any changes to the plan regarding proposed interior or approach traffic or emergency access pattern as required in modification to approval of Modified Site Development Plan shall be included on the revised plans in conjunction with this special permit as
well.
2. A site-specific operation and maintenance plan must be established to address all aspects of facility operation and maintenance. The plan to include, but not be limited to, the following items:
¨ Procedure for unloading all chemicals associated with the facility.
¨ Sampling and analysis plan for all wastes generated within the facility.
¨ Exclusion of any vehicle pre-rinsing or washing vehicles, exterior to the building.
¨ Spill response capabilities, limitations, notification and procedure.
¨ Reporting requirement to local agency
a) Semi-annual summary progress report, which shall include but not be limited to:
1) Number of vehicles washed
2) Chemical usage - (type and amount)
3) Sludge disposal quantity and copies of manifests or bills of laden for CT regulated waste for all hazardous and non-hazardous waste generated at the facility.
4) Spills or emergency response notifications
5) Proposed facility modifications
6) Rinse water testing results (criteria to be reviewed and approval by the Commission) shall be submitted semi-annual/1st year, annually thereafter
b) Spill notification requirement to local agency and CT DEP within 24 hours of spill (verbal notice) and written follow- up within 5 days.
c) Waste management plan for all hazardous and non-hazardous materials to be submitted and approved by the commission prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. Plan to be in compliance with all State, Federal and local requirements.
Draft plan to be submitted prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. Final plan to be submitted prior to a Certificate of Compliance for a CO to be issued. Plan to be submitted by applicant and approved by the Commission or its agent, copy to DEP.
3. A detail of the overflow structure from the 5,000 gallon holding tank including a backflow preventor and a detail of it and all other structures to be submitted. Unless approved by the Town engineer, the connection to the storm drain system shall be eliminated. 5,000 gallon holding tank to contain only potable water from well. Wash and rinse water to be held in a separate tank. Revised plans shall include information on the existing well, interconnections for water supply within the building and, reasons for the connection from the outside storage tank to the storm drainage system as well as information on the well to be used for water supply, its status as to Health Department approval for potable use, any interconnections through interior or exterior plumbing, its yield and method of pumping, the
connection of the water supply tank overflow to the storm drainage system. Plans to be revised prior to issuance of special permit and filing of Mylar's.
4. Emergency spill response plan submitted by applicant, reviewed and approved by Commission, copy to Fire Marshall/Department, copy to DEP.
5. Chemical storage area to be access to be from bay (this shall include for loading and unloading).
6. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, building plans to be revised to show a ventilation system, storage area, eye wash, emergency shower, detail of ramp, floor elevation, detail of floor of containment area, separate storage areas for each chemical, plumbing plan to call for color coded piping, and to be reviewed and approved by the Commission or its agent.
7. Exterior of building must be compatible with those buildings already existing on the site.
8. Prior to the issuance of a special permit, verification of the true location of existing potable water line by a certified surveyor shall be produced if location of line is as per plan, building is to be relocated so that it is not on top of the existing water line, or the water line shall be relocated. Plans shall be revised accordingly and shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission or its agent. (Any substantial change in location shall require approval of the Commission).
9. A shallow slope could slow the velocity of flow to the trenches and possibly divert runoff toward the doors.] Plans shall be revised to show 1% floor slope unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer.
10. Although the sump pump is removable for routine maintenance, it is not a portable pump. Plan to be revised to remove the note referring to the sump pump as portable.
11. Seals and signatures of professionals preparing these plans (live – not copied) are required for both the Site Plans and the Wash Building Facility, to be submitted prior to Special Permit issuance and Modification of Site Plan Mylar being filed.
12. All debris and litter on site and adjacent to the site including the frontage along Ruby Road from the southern property line heading north and along the intersection of Turnpike Road and Lohse/Michalec Roads including the overpass to be cleaned up. A litter control plan shall be submitted and approved by the Commission or its Agent prior to a Zoning Permit being issued.
13. Landscape buffer be installed to prevent doors to wash from being visible from the street. Trees to be planted to be of nursery quality and maintained or replaced as necessary. (Species and caliper to be approved by the Commission)
14. Biofilter deficiencies to be corrected prior to zoning permit being issued construction and the discharge of any additional flow into the storm water system.
15. The exterior lighting plan, as submitted, is not approved. Lighting plan meeting Zoning Regulations to be submitted and to include specifications of fixtures prior to a zoning permit being issued.
16. TCLP testing shall be done quarterly for the first two years, if results warrant a reduction thereafter testing can be reduced to twice annually, the third week in December and the third week in March. Results shall be submitted to the commission.
17. No flushed liquids shall be disposed of to any on-site surface or subsurface drainage system.
18. No modification to the facility including but not limited to; type of filtration/treatment equipment, chemicals used in the process, storage of chemicals, wastewater and sludge can take place without prior written approval by the Commission or its agent.
19. Construction area to be inspected by agent prior to activity.
20. All outlying disturbed areas to be graded, and final growth established prior to operation.
21. Emergency vehicle access to remain clear at all times (gate locked, area clear).
22. Fire Marshall to review and approve building and access prior to certificate of occupancy
23. Submission of updated Site As - built and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CO).
24. Criteria set forth in Stipulated Agreement shall be adhered to as well as all other conditions previously imposed for special permits and/or modifications on this site, conditions of IWWC permits and CO conditions. Any and all violations of aforementioned stipulations and conditions shall be corrected prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
SECONDED BY D. LYTWYNN.
YES: A. St. Louis, L. Dion, E. Kalbac, D. Lytwynn, W. Goodale
RECUSED: R. Tulis
Motion Carries
2. File #2001-45-Application for a special permit for a gravel excavation located off Trask Road and Route 32 on 5.62 acres. (Map 29, Lot 4, 31 acres). Estate of Joseph Mihaliak owner/applicant. (Received on 08/21/01, hearing on 10/02/01, decision by 12/04/01).
Discussion deferred.
MINUTES:
R. TULIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPT. 18, 2001 AS SUBMITTED.
SECONDED BY W. GOODALE.
YES: R. Tulis, E. Kalbac, W. Goodale, D. Lytwynn
ABSTAIN: A. St. Louis, L. Dion
W. GOODALE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPT. 4, 2001 AS SUBMITTED.
SECONDED BY E. KALBAC.
YES: A. St. Louis, E. Kalbac, W. Goodale, D. Lytwynn
ABSTAIN: R. Tulis, L. Dion
CORRESPONDENCE:
1. CC letter to S. Yorgensen from ZBA, re: 156 River Road property (Inframat Corp.)
2. 9/26 e-mail from D. Ennis, re: representation of town at PZC
3. College of Agricultural and Natural Resources Journal, Summer 2001
4. 9/17 flier from CCM, re: convention and exposition
5. CC 9/24 letter from G. Jones to Mike & Pat Richey, re: 535 River Road zone
6. 9/18 fax from George Giguerre, re: potential sign plan for TA
7. CC 9/21 letter from Mike & Pat Richey, re: 535 River Road zone
DISCUSSION:
S. Yorgensen passed out information as requested by Mr. Ennis’.
The commission discussed applications that are approved with multiple conditions and whether they should be approved or denied. When there are a lot of conditions because applications are technically incomplete, it creates a lot of extra work for staff.
A. St. Louis asked about an addition being put on a house on Luchon Road.
S. Yorgensen reviewed info from the building file.
The commission discussed the status of Rainbow Acres Campground and the possibility that someone is living there illegally.
STAFF REPORT:
S. Yorgensen showed the commission Mr. Giguere’s draft for possible signage improvements at the truck stop.
S. Yorgensen relayed the questions from Mr. & Mrs. Richey regarding the River Road property. They were told there was no intent to keep the property anything but residential over the years. Gary notified them their best bet may be to apply for a home occupation permit. The property cannot be made non-conforming.
R. TULIS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:54 P.M.
SECONDED BY A. ST. LOUIS. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
| 
