Planning and Zoning Commission
40 Old Farms Road Willington, CT 06279
May 17, 2011 – 7:30 PM
Meeting Minutes
Roll Call
Members Present:
Matt Ellis – Chairman
Andy Marco – Vice Chairman
Tom Murphy
Phil Nevers
Walter Parsell
John Sullivan
James Poole - Alternate
Members Absent:
Edward Standish - excused
Also Present
Susan Yorgensen
Public Hearing
M. Ellis called the Public Hearing to order at 7:40. J. Poole was seated for E. Standish
PZC2011-11 Application Special Permit for Material Recycling Facility at east side of 262 Ruby Road 1-1/4 mile south of Exit 71 I84 (Map 42 Lot 49-A Zone DI) Owner: Ruby Road Development ~LLC Applicant: Green Hills Recycling & Landscaping Products, Inc (Received March 15, 2011 Public Hearing April 19, 2011 P.H. continue until May 17, 2011 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
Frank Leone was present to represent the applicant and address the Commission’s concerns and supplement the previous information provided. He said a lot of the client’s machinery is portable and they will be doing some of the work off site. Atty. Leone said, in regards to the Use Regulations, they have two options to address their concerns; one was to fence in the property and the second was a landscaping plan. He said that is why they engaged the services of a Landscape Architect.
Eric Roise, of Roise and Linden Land Design, was present for the applicant and gave his credentials. He said the plantings proposed are native to the area and will handle the soil on the site. Mr. Roise said they are filling in with White Pine as a buffer and showed the areas on the plans. He said there will be a green wall all around so that no-one can see in or out. Mr. Roise said the pines will be 6 to 7 feet high and he presented the commission the Landscape Plan with Buffer Plantings Specifications. Mr. Roise submitted the detailed landscaping plan for the record.
J. Sullivan arrived at 7:47.
Atty. Leone said any equipment used by Green Hills will be registered to Green Hill and taxable by Willington and this goes for the facility on site, as well.
Bennett Brooks of Brooks Acoustics Corporation was present for the applicant. He said he has been in the sound business for 35 plus years and gave his credentials. Mr. Brook said the sound will be generated by 4 principal pieces of equipment and showed the areas on the site plan. Mr. Brooks submitted an Acoustical Engineering Study for the record. J. Poole asked what equipment is currently on site and Mr. Brooks said a CEC Boxer Screener.
Mr. Brooks presented his findings. He said he ran the numbers on all the equipment used simultaneously. He said this would never happen given the nature of the business but he ran the numbers for the purpose of the study. Mr. Brooks said they met all the town regulations in section 4. He gave the location of the equipment and the areas that would act as sound barriers. Mr. Brooks explained the documents presented including the Charts on the Environmental Sound Level Tests. T. Murphy asked if this would change throughout the season and Mr. Brooks said slightly; the leaves provide some benefit.
A discussion was held on the surrounding neighbors and why the testing was not done using the neighbor across the street.
Mr. Bennett said the applicant will be in compliant with all state and town regulations on all boundaries of the property.
Atty. Leone said, regarding the concerns about truck traffic, they will be submitting a sign application and presented a picture with specifications. He said it will be a double sided, non-illuminated sign.
Attorney David Losee said, Bob Hannon, the DEP Coordinator scheduled a meeting for him, with DEP, and DEP said, as long as they are operating under the scale presented, they would fall under the General Permit. He said the ground water person, Nisha Bartell, hasn’t run the calculations through the computer but said since it is not a big site and everything is being controlled on the site, she did not think they would need a Discharge Permit. She did say she was concerned about the amount of disturbance on site and if they are over the threshold. Atty. Losee said DEP gave them suggestions on how to control the footprint. He said DEP wants them to run calculations on the assumption that all pieces of equipment are operating simultaneously; 24 hours a day , 7 days a week even though they are not going to do that and P & Z would not want them to do that.
Atty. Losee said, he asked DEP about the permit that was rejected which was brought up at a previous meeting. He said it was not his team and was not rejected while they were representing the applicant. On the third attempt, his associate was retained and he hired Fuss & O’Neil. He went back with the application and it was then approved the first time. Atty. Losee said he could provide information to the commission if they so desire.
M. Ellis asked if part of DEP’s approval was based on approval from the town and Atty. Losee said that is a separate issue. He said there are certain things they want to know in regards to groundwater and disturbance on the site. He said it is essentially a separate review but DEP does want to know if you are approved by the town because, at that time, you would go to a different level. J. Pool asked if DEP was concerned about the size in regards to stormwater discharge only and Atty. Losee said they also want to know the equipment used and the volume of work to be done on site.
Russell Heintz said they did the soil testing per the request of the Town Engineer. He said they dug the first hold and got over 16 feet down. The other spots were 4 ½ feet and 6 feet due to ledge or rock. Mr. Heintz said they are proposing 3 concrete galleys and gave the specifications. He said they are eliminating 2 storage chambers and will submit an updated plan.
Mr. Heintz showed the chip piles on the plans. He said they would have retail sales and showed 4 blocked areas to contain 25 cubic yards of material at a time. Mr. Heintz said this plan incorporates 95% of the comments the Town Engineer made. Mr. Heintz submitted a copy of John Ianni’s report on the soil testing.
Atty. Leone said he feels the application complies with the regulations and the landscaping plan complies with the site line requirement.
M. Ellis asked if they had something to present on where they are today and where they are going to be. Mr. Heintz presented a chart of what the site looked like in the last 3 months. A discussion was held on the elevation in regards to the berms and what is visual from across the street. J. Poole asked if they are going to landscape the berms and Mr. Heintz said they are proposing landscaping along the road which will serve the most purpose. A discussion was held on the view shed. J. Poole asked if they would be willing to put balloons back there. He said the back area is a 660 elevation with 25 foot piles. Atty. Leone said the screener is 12 feet high so they could not get a 25 foot high pile. A discussion was held.
Mr. Heintz said, in regards to truck traffic, their trucks will have a clear site and not pose a hazard.
J. Poole asked if there are buffers on the berms. S. Yorgensen said they submitted both plans and the commission can decide.
A discussion was held on the piles and what the plan would be if they reach capacity. Atty. Leone said Mr. Magliari won’t make money unless he gets the material in and out. Mr. Magliari said when people bring things in, they charge and process the material. He said you cannot bring a 100 yard truck on that hill; you would not be able to turn around. Mr. Magliari said they are not going to have a large stacker and he said he does not ever see capacity as a problem as there is a lot you cannot do on the site due to size.
S. Yorgensen asked the size of the bays shown. Mr. Heintz said 50x50x15 high and holds 1300 cubic yards. He said DEP limits you to 3000 total yards of unprocessed material on site.
A letter from Lyle and Delight Champagne, in opposition of the application, was submitted for the record.
Darlene Chapdelaine was present to represent an opposing party, Ruby Associates, the general abutters to the north. She submitted photo journals and said you can still see the facility from the road. Ms. Chapdelaine said her client is concerned on the large area that is vacant and said she was on her client’s property to take photos. She said the equipment specifications that show elevations are not going to block the site line for the tub grinder from her client’s property.
Ms. Chapdelaine said she is the certified inspector for the United Recycling site. She referenced the regulations in regards to asphalt and spoke about wood recovery. Ms. Chapdelaine said portable equipment is not easy to move and they would need permits to move it. She said the applicant is not going to turn away trucks and the site does not meet DEP requirements but they are two separate reviews. Ms. Chapdelaine said she gave the commission the copies of the permits with her first submission. J. Sullivan asked if Ms. Chapdelaine had an agenda or if she could give bullet points as he was having a hard time following her.
Ms. Chapdelaine said they would need a General Permit with the state and a storm water permit. She said it does not meet site lines with the size of the equipment that she provided in her specifications Ms. Chapdelaine said her client wants to make sure every part of the regulations are addressed.
Ms. Chapdelaine submitted the following documents for the record: two letters from Diane Chapdelaine of Action Consulting & Associates dated May 17, 2011; Minimum Stands of Accuracy Content & Certification for Surveys and Maps; Regulations of CT State Agencies; OIR Research Report A-2 Surveys.
Rocco Demilia of 228 Ruby Rd was present. He questioned when they took the sound test because if the commission came to their house, inside the house, they could hear the equipment. Mr. Demilia said as far as the site goes, they can see it already and he is worried about property values going down. Irene Lackman of 88 Ruby Rd was present. She said she lives across the street and is worried about the noise. Mrs. Lackman said she can already hear Becker’s and Stafford Speedway.
Ralph Tulis said he was not speaking pro or con but wanted to bring up some points. He said it appears from the site plan that the main entrance is different from what is currently there and would like to know where that is going to be in reference to the property across the street. Mr. Tulis asked about the mix of vehicles so DOT can review and asked if there would be fencing. Mr. Heintz showed the entrance on the plans.
A. Marco motioned to close the Public Hearing. P. Nevers seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.
Regular Meeting
M. Ellis called the Regular meeting to order at 9:00.
PZC2011-20 Application to amend Special Permit and Final Site Development Plan to construct a storage building at 327 Ruby Road (TCA) Owner: Royce Properties LLC /George Giguere ~Applicant: CoreStates Group /Tom Cannarella Received April 19, 2011, Decision by June 21, 2011)
This application to be discussed under Old Business.
PZC2011-21 Application to amend the Willington Zoning Regulations (Sections 11.17.01 & 11.17.04) to allow Riding Academies on parcels of 20 acres or more Applicant: Willington Planning and Zoning (Received May 3, 2011 Public Hearing June 21, 2011) Decision within 35 days after close of P.H.)
Public Hearing has been set for June 21, 2011.
PZC2011-22 Application to amend the Willington Zoning Regulation ~5.04 and 5.04.01.02.37 to allow dog kennels as a Special Permit Use in a Designed Commercial Zone subject to the provisions of section 11.16 Applicant: TJE.LLC ( Jeff Love Love Veterinary) (Received May 17, 2011 Public Hearing June 21, 2011) Decision within 35 after close of P.H.)
Public Hearing has been set for June 21, 2011.
Old Business
PZC2011-5 To adopt comprehensive changes to the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Willington including provisions for open space subdivision, low impact development. (Public Hearing May 3, 2011 P.H. closed) Applicants: Willington Planning and Zoning Commission)
J. Poole motioned to adopt the comprehensive changes to the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Willington including provisions for open space subdivision, low impact development effective June 1, 2011. M. Ellis seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.
PZC2011-6 To amend the Willington Zoning Regulations (Section 4.04, 4.15, 4.18, 4.19, 4.21, 4.23, 5, 10, 11, and Table 8.02 to provide consistency with the proposed Subdivision Regulations. Applicants: Willington Zoning Commission (Public Hearing May 3, 2011 P.H. closed)
M. Ellis motioned to amend the Willington Zoning Regulations (Section 4.04, 4.15, 4.18, 4.19, 4.21, 4.23, 5, 10, 11, and Table 8.02 to provide consistency with the proposed Subdivision Regulations effective June 1, 2011. J. Poole seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.
PZC2011-20 Application to amend Special Permit and Final Site Development Plan to construct a storage building at 327 Ruby Road (TCA) Owner: Royce Properties LLC /George Giguere ~Applicant: CoreStates Group /Tom Cannarella ~~Received April 19, 2011, Decision by June 21, 2011)
M. Ellis motioned to approve the application with the condition that the applicant move all extraneous materials inside as overseen by staff. P. Nevers seconded the motion. A. Marco abstained. All others in favor. Motion carried.
PZC2011-11 Application Special Permit for Material Recycling Facility at east side of 262 Ruby Road 1-1/4 mile south of Exit 71 I84 (Map 42 Lot 49-A Zone DI) Owner: Ruby Road Development ~LLC Applicant: Green Hills Recycling & Landscaping Products, Inc Received March 15, 2011 Public Hearing April 19, 2011 P.H. continued to May 17, 2011 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
A. Marco said the applicant did a good job addressing the issues. A discussion was held on noise. A discussion was held on the owner across the street. A discussion was held on the site line and the regulation.
J. Sullivan said the applicant presented a very professional, compelling case, in his opinion. W. Parsell said as long as they meet the criteria. S. Yorgensen asked the commission to review the application and all the material provided.
A discussion was held on Mr. Brooks report and the 4 pieces of equipment on his report. S. Yorgensen read the list of machinery in the application. A discussion was held on the Industrial/Commercial zoned areas.
J. Poole asked if they would scrap the current reclamation plan and have them do a new one. S. Yorgensen said if that is how you approve it. A discussion was held on bonds.
A discussion was held on the Dust Control Plan, the hours of operation and defining the machineries hours of operation.
Minutes
M. Ellis motioned to approve the minutes of May 3, 2011. J. Poole seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.
P. Nevers motioned to approve the minutes of April 19, 2011. J. Sullivan seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.
Correspondence
1. A letter from Lyle and Delight Champagne regarding Green Hills Recycling.
2. Letter and information from the Town of Tolland regarding regulations and creating a town center.
3. Copy of a letter from Town of Tolland to WINCOG.
4. Notice from DEP regarding a Tentative Determination at 327 Ruby Road.
5. Regulation information regarding Affordable Housing.
6. Emergency Incident Report regarding a petroleum release at 126 Schofield Rd.
7. Emergency Incident Report regarding a petroleum release at Exit 71 off 84.
8. Emergency Incident Report regarding a petroleum release at 470 River Rd.
9. Emergency Incident Report regarding a petroleum release at 327 River Rd.
10. Emergency Incident Report regarding a petroleum release at 467 Willington Rd.
11. Letter from Town of Union regarding Public Hearing on Adult Oriented Business.
12. Letter from Town of Ellington to Donna Hardie, Town Clerk, regarding Planning & Zoning Amendments.
Discussion
A discussion was held on updating the sound regulations. A discussion was held on the information S. Yorgensen sent out regarding the DEF tank. A discussion was held on having a berm around the tank.
Meeting adjourned at 9:37.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michele Manas
Recording Clerk
| 
