Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
PZC Meeting Minutes 04/16/2013
Planning and Zoning Commission
40 Old Farms Road Willington, CT 06279
April 16, 2013 – 7:30 PM
Meeting Minutes


Roll Call

Members Present:
Andrew Marco – Chairman
Thomas Murphy – Secretary
Phil Nevers
Edward Standish
Walter Parsell
Doug Roberts

Members Absent:
John Sullivan - excused
James Poole - excused

Also Present:
Susan Yorgensen - Zoning Agent
Mark Branse – Zoning Attorney

Public Hearing

Chairman Marco called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30.  D. Roberts was seated for J. Sullivan.
PZC2013-8 Application for Special Permit for Rear Lot at Tolland Turnpike (Map 29 Lot 7 Zone R80) Owner/Applicant: Mark Marquis (Received March 19, 2013 Public Hearing by May 21, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

Richard Mihok, an Engineer and Land Surveyor, was present for the applicant and addressed the Commission.  He said the site was originally created in 1991 and subdivided into two lots. The front lot has a dwelling and Mr. Marquis purchased the rear lot which is 15 acres.  Mr. Mihok explained Mr. Marquis has access off Route 74 and said there is an agreement in the land records between the Duhansky’s and Vonasek’s to share Old Johnson Road, a semi-abandoned road.  Mr. Marquis would like to construct a dwelling on the rear parcel and a new driveway off Route 74 to access the dwelling.

Mr. Mihok said they have talked to the DOT regarding the slightly restricted site line but mentioned sharing the existing apron or perhaps widening the apron to make a private entrance.  He said they have done soil testing and received feedback from the Sanitarian, Jody Schmidt.  Ms. Schmidt’s comments have been addressed and the plans revised.  Mr. Mihok said all activity is outside the 100 foot wetland and setback area.  Mr. Mihok said the DOT won’t entertain any comments until the Commission has acted and the only question the applicant has is whether they can share the apron, widen the apron or construct a new apron.  He said they will to have access off Trask Rd but not sure if they have rights.  

Chairman Marco opened the floor to the public.  Joanne Vonasek Yando, of Glastonbury, said her parents own the front lot and sister & brother-in-law own the land behind the parcel.  She expressed her concern on the apron; what it will look like and how it will affect her parent’s driveway which has a steep grade and is not very wide.  Ms. Yando said the road between the properties belongs to the Vonasek's, Duhansky's and whoever owns the front piece and questioned how the apron would work.  She referenced the regulations under Section 4; the Commission will determine rear lots and one of the elements is to ensure it is not detrimental to the property.  Ms. Yando said she is concerned about the Vonasek’s land and the affect the application would have on the lot behind the Frazer’s lot; would it prohibit the lot from becoming a future building lot.

Ms. Yando asked if the apron is considered part of a single driveway or part of two driveways.  She referenced section 4.18.04.07; should be a maximum of 2 adjacent or contiguous lots including rear lots and abutting property.  She asked what affect the regulation would have on the property value on what’s behind the Frazer land. Ms. Yando said there was also something in the regulation that talks about utilities but asked her brother to speak on this.  

Atty. Mark Branse said some of the questions that were asked should be responded to by the applicant.  He said they were quite pointed questions that deserve quite pointed answers.

Mr. Mihok said the only portion of the apron that will be shared is within the DOT right-away which is owned by the state.  He said the utilities proposed are underground and the driveway as proposed is totally off Old Johnson Rd. and on Mr. Marquis property except for the apron which is in the DOT area.  Mr. Mihok said, as for property values, the Vonasek’s do have another parcel located to the west of the parent’s property and have access to that parcel off Route 74.  He said they would not have any effect on the remaining property the Vonasek’s have or utilities; CL&P will determine what kind of utilities go in.  

Ms. Yando said the other piece of land has a steeper grade and she is unclear if or how that could be used for a driveway.   She asked the measurement of width on the apron and if the properties were to share the apron, how would it affect the abutting property owners.  Ms. Yando referenced the regulation that states there will be one rear property that the driveway would serve and asked the applicant if he could address that.  

Atty. Branse said Mr. Mihok indicated it is not a shared driveway because the state owns the first area.  He said the definition of a driveway in the regulations is any access from a public highway used or intended to be used for vehicular ingress and egress to any building structure, use of lot. Atty. Branse said whether the pointed intersection is on state land or private land, the definition of driveway is still access from a public highway.  He said that raises the question on whether or not the driveway is shared and whether the driveway intersection complies with section 4.21 which is the driveway criteria.  Atty. Branse read 4.21.0; driveways shall intersect roadways at an angle of approximately 90 degrees.  He said the driveway does not seem to intersect the highway at 90 degrees, it intersects another driveway that intersects the highway at 90 degrees Atty. Branse said the applicant has a dilemma; if they say the driveway doesn’t include what’s in the right-of–way they are not at 90 degrees and if they say it includes the right-of-way they have a share driveway. Atty. Branse said he is not sure how they can have it both ways.
Atty. Branse referenced 4.18.02, rear lots and adjoining property, and said it is first come, first serve. He said the Commission could approve this application and it could preclude a rear driveway on the adjoining property but that would not prevent the Commission from approving the application.  Atty. Branse referenced 4.18.04.02, the Commission can approve a rear lot or lots only after an engineer or staff report on the overall lay-out (the construction and design). He said there is no engineer report at this time and once the question is raised, input from an engineering consultant is prudent.  He suggested tabling the application until the next meeting.

Mr. Mihok said the engineer approving this application is the DOT as far as grades.  He said it may not be totally at 90 degrees although, if the DOT allows them to widen the apron, it will be at 90 degrees.  Mr. Mihok said Mr. Marquis has the right to use the Vonasek’s driveway by Deed but they would like to have their own driveway.  A. Marco asked if applicant owns the property that abuts 74 and Mr. Marquis said yes.

Ms. Yando said she is not certain what the Deed says but would like it to be part of the record before a decision is made.  She said the regulations also state a staff engineering report and not a DOT report.  A discussion was held on keeping the Public Hearing open.  Atty. Branse suggested keeping the Public Hearing open so the applicant can address new information and comments in the engineering report and to allow Mr. Mihok to review the questions he has heard and respond accordingly.  

Mr. Mihok said, if the DOT lets the applicant widen the apron, it will be completely off the Vonasek’s property and he will attempt to contact the DOT regarding this.  

Chairman Marco asked for additional questions or comments from the public. Ted Vonasek of Tolland Turnpike addressed the Commission.  He questioned the comment of first come first serve on the rear and said the way he read it was that you can’t have more the 2 abutting rear lots.    Atty. Branse said it doesn’t say first come, first serve, it states it just can’t be more than two so if there is one there, there can’t be another one.  Mr. Vonasek said it states there has to be consideration on what it would do to the abutting properties.  Atty. Branse said it is a valid point but would not preclude the Commission from approving the application.  

A discussion was held on the division of the lot.  S. Yorgensen said she believes historically the other lot that could potentially be divided may have already been divided since subdivision was in effect. A discussion was held on any parts that may have been cut off from the piece and Mr. Vonasek said his grandfather’s house and pond were cut off.  S. Yorgensen said if anything was cut off since March of 1969, another cut would require subdivision.  A brief discussion was held on rear lots and subdivision.  Mr. Vonasek asked for information on Open Space Subdivisions and Atty. Branse suggested he talk to staff after the meeting.  

Chairman Marco said the Public Hearing will remain open and continued to May 7, 2013 at 7:30 and will be at the library on the corner of Rte. 320 and Rte. 74.

PZC2013-3 Application for Zone Change from R80 zone to Design Commercial (DC) zone at 00 Polster Road & 3 Polster Road & 00 Polster Road (Map 46 Lots 16 & 17) Owner: Joseph & Frank Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (Received February 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)


PZC2013-4 Application for Special Permit for motor vehicle fuel sales, tire repair and replacement, retail trade and two restaurants (Travel Stop) at 00 Polster Road & 3 Polster Road (Map 46 Lots 16 & 17) Owner: Joseph & Frank Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (Received February 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

Attorney Leonard Jacobs addressed the Commission for clarification on the procedures for the Public Hearing process. He said they filed two applications; 1 for a Zone Change and 1 for Special Permit.  Atty. Jacobs said the information will be the same so they would like to proceed with the applications simultaneously.  Atty. Branse said the zoning regulations in Willington contain Design Development Zones which are Floating Zones and they require a simultaneous application by the applicant for change of zone (map amendment) and a preliminary site concept development plan.  He explained the applicant is required to present to the Commission the change of zoning of the parcel and what they intend to do with it if the zone change is granted; this is the feature unique to Floating Zones.  Atty. Branse said, under the regulations, the applicant could come in with a preliminary plan and return later with a special permit which would have more detail.  He said the applicant is coming in with both the zone change and concept plan at once and has provided the level of detail for the Special Exception. Atty. Branse said there’s nothing wrong with holding the hearing concurrently; its two applications with two decisions.  

Ralph Tulis, of Lohse Rd, said he understands the rationale but is concerned on the concurrent Public Hearings from the Publics perspective and the Commissions perspective with regard to separating the philosophical and legislative aspects of a zone change from the specificity that goes along with a special permit.  He said there is a lot of overlap but when it comes to decision time, there is one set of criteria from the zone change which could possibly get confused with the specificity of the special permit and vice versa. A. Marco said he believes the audience will be able to embrace both concepts and the Commission members agreed.  

Karen Bradley, of Schofield Rd, said she would like to hear on zoning, digest it, and then hear on the special permit as this is a huge change to the locale.  

Chairman Marco said it should be understood that the Public Hearing is a presentation and not a question and answer session although public questions are encouraged.  A discussion was held.  A. Marco said the applicant has the burden of presenting a plan as to why they want the zone change and this plan is also part of the special permit so you cannot talk about the plan without talking about the specifics of the application.  

Nancy Gauthier, of Fermier Rd, and Shirley Ernst, of Balasz Rd. expressed their concern on presenting the applications concurrently.   

Douglas Stanish, of Y Rd., said he is hearing that the zone change deals specifically with the land and the special permit which may or may not be granted will deal with specifics on how the Commission allows the land to be used once the zone change is granted.  A. Marco said the public hearing is only for the presentation of evidence and no decision is made.  Further discussion was held.  Atty. Branse said, in a Floating Zone, the applicant is required to present a conceptual plan and conditions can be imposed by the Commission.

Dean Palotti, of Turnpike Rd., said he believes one takes precedence over the other; the zone change comes first and once approved, the Commission decides what the applicant can and cannot do. He said if the zone change is dead, the application is dead.  
Atty. Branse said that is incorrect; the zoning in this instance requires a presentation of a plan and a Special Permit also involves a plan which is the same plan in both cases.  He said you would hear the plan under both applications but the level of detail would not be presented if the zone change was heard separately.  A. Marco said, from what he is hearing from the public, they want to hear a great level of detail so the Commission is going to proceed with the applications concurrently.  

Attorney Jacobs noted that there may be concern that proceeding in this way benefits the applicant; it does not benefit the applicant and is immaterial to the applicant except for the fact that as part of the zone change, the applicant has to present the use they are proposing as acceptable. The advantage to everyone would be one hearing, not two hearings with exactly the same presentation.  

Tony Lennon, of Fenton Rd., Stafford, questioned the change from a floating zone as he thought it to be a change from a residential zone to a commercial zone, not a floating zone to a commercial zone.  Atty. Branse said the change is from a residential zone to a planned development zone and the type is a commercial zone.  He said the procedure is called a floating zone.

Chairman Marco said each application is considered by the Commission separately even if presented together.  Further discussion was held on the floating zone.  

Brian Semprebon, of Turnpike Rd., asked if the specifics for the special exception would be tighter on the zone change if they were separated and Atty. Branse said no.  Mr. Semprebon asked if the plan presented is the final plan and if something were to change, say a detention basin moved, would that be a different plan? And if so, would both applications be gone?  Atty. Branse said yes, that is correct.  

Chairman Marco said, let the record show, the Commission is going to combine PZC 2013-3 and PZC 2013-4 and turned the floor over to the applicant.

Attorney Leonard Jacobs addressed the Commission.  He said they have filed two applications on Polster Road; the first being an application for Zone Change to the Design Commercial Zone and separately, a Special Permit application.  Atty. Jacobs acknowledged the regulations in the Town of Willington are very thorough and complete and because of this, they have to touch on every aspect of the application.  Atty. Jacobs said they did go through an extensive IWWC process; the Wetland Commission rejected the application initially stating what was wrong with the application.  He said they corrected everything the Wetland Commission raised and subsequently were approved by the Wetlands Commission.  

Atty. Jacobs said the applicant had previously been before the P & Z Commission asking for a change in the zoning regulations as to the travel distance from the site to the interstate highway.  He said at the hearing the Commission was told they represented Loves and wanted to bring a travel center application to this particular site; the application was approved although the approval does not guarantee an approval for the current application.  Atty. Jacobs said the zone change was applied for under Section 12 of the regulations asking for a zone change from R80 to Design Commercial Zone.  He said they have submitted all required information.  Atty. Jacobs said the signage was posted on both properties and all abutters were notified by certified mail and by certificate of mailing; both items were submitted for the record.  

Atty. Jacobs said the site is a 39 by 26 acre site in the R80 zone; he said the area is currently zoned R80 and immediately across from Polster Rd is a gasoline service station and a station that appears to do car repairs.  He said it is a business use that is complementary to the use they are proposing.  He said a short distance from the site (400 feet from the intersection) is the off and on ramp to the interstate highway and obviously the interstate highway has a tremendous impact on the application and what the property should be used for.  Atty. Jacobs said the site would be clearly visible from the highway and gave the details of accessing the site from the highway.  He said the distance travelled in the Town of Willington would be very small and would be very different from the TA Site which he understands has been a problem in town.  Atty. Jacobs showed the details of traveling to TA verses traveling to the Love’s proposed site.  

Atty. Jacobs referenced the Plan of Development in which he said is different from the Zoning Regulations because the Plan of Development is more of a general statement of concepts.  He said after reading through the plan a couple things jumped out; only 1.3 percent of land is vacant and usable and can accommodate future development. He said the Plan of Development also says that commercial industrial development is a goal for the community to promote diverse economic development which provides services, employment and tax revenue in well located commercial areas.  He said this is significant because the Plan of Development also points out that along the interstate is a good place for commercial development. Atty. Jacobs said he believes the Plan of Development supports the application because the application provides goods, services, employment opportunities and tax revenue.

Atty. Jacobs also referenced a portion of the Plan of Development that talks about stakeholder interviews and touched on points of control growth and uncontrolled growth; he said growth along the highway is not uncontrolled growth because that’s where the Plan of Development suggested is the best place to have growth in the community. Atty. Jacobs thinks the project meets all the requirements of the Plan of Development.  

Atty. Jacobs said development does have to be protective of the environment but this was the subject of the Wetland applications.  He said letters have been submitted for this application addressing the same subjects that were raised at the Wetland Commission and addressed at that time.  Atty. Jacobs said he does not believe it is fair or appropriate.

Atty. Jacobs submitted a copy of the Permit approved by the Wetland Commission for the application.  

Atty. Jacobs referenced the Design Commercial Zone in which they hope will be used by people on the highway and the townspeople.  He said the uses are diverse and are complementary to the area and gave further details.  Atty. Jacobs said the uses in the Design Commercial Zone are many but the uses they would like to take advantage of are restaurants, retail trade, motor vehicle gasoline sales and motor vehicle limited sales.  He said the only repairs to be done will be limited to tire repair.  

Atty. Jacobs referenced Section 12.03.03.03 and said all material required by this regulation has been submitted. He said when the Commission considers the application for the zone change, the criteria for the zone change is different than the special permit.  

Atty. Jacobs said he believes the use will be profitable and be a large taxpayer.  He said he does not think the project will have any adverse effect on any existing uses or of the character of the neighborhood in this location.  He said the location and character of the building are proper, traffic circulation is proper, they have been to the Wetland Commission, water is available and the building is keeping with the character. Atty. Jacobs explained his conversation with Staff on the building and said the building was modeled on the recommendation made by staff.  He said his last consideration in the zoning regulations is economics of the project and it’s fair to say all towns in Connecticut would like economic development and the Town of Willington is fortunate to have land that’s along the highway.

Atty. Jacobs said he understands there are people present that object to the application and he is respectful of that but it is appropriate to say, if you want to have commercial development, have a site that is perfect for it, and the Plan of Development calls for it; it is owed to the community at large to give it a lot of thought and not walk away.

Atty. Jacobs said he thinks they have met the requirements both by providing information required, by showing the Plan of Development and all the reasons indicated. He said the Commission not only has to agree with the zone change they also have to approve the zone change knowing what the use would be; they could not come back with an entirely different use proposed   Atty. Jacob said they came back with the Special Permit, with all necessary documents submitted with the zone change stating the zone change is appropriate and the Special Permit stating the use is appropriate for the site.  

Atty. Jacobs said they recognize section 13.05 which has all the criteria for decision on the special permit and then turned the floor over to Fuss O’Neil.

Tom Galeota, Senior Engineer at Fuss & O’Neill and also a construction specialist has been with the firm for almost 20 years. He presented the site plan and showed the limit of disturbance on the parcel which is within 50 to 100 feet within the western edge of development; the remainder of the parcel to the west will be undisturbed.  Mr. Galeota pointed out the areas of wetlands owned by the state around the parcel and presented the areas zoned R80 and the areas zoned Design Commercial at this time.  He said you can see the site from eastbound and west bound; he said no Love’s bound traffic will pass any residence between the off ramps. He said they have submitted a General Statement, potable water supply evaluation and noise statement.  

Mr. Galeota said the total area of the site is 39.9 acres and of those 9.0 acres is wetlands and 12.39 acres will be disturbed.  He said the proposed development is the smallest footprint Loves has ever proposed in the nation to achieve environmental sensitivity.  He said the natural topography on the site is steep in areas and requires the shape of the site to be elongated. He said the proposed uses on the site will include a Country Store with two quick service restaurants, outside fueling islands with a canopy cover, 7 bay diesel island for trucks and 12 position canopy islands for passenger.  There will 53 parking spaces for passengers for the store and 56 truck parking spaces north of the store; the site is designed to keep trucks and passenger vehicles traffic separate to maintain safe efficient circulation throughout the site.   All onsite utilities shall be run underground and Mr. Galeota said all systems shall be designed per Connecticut DEEP.  The system will include a grease trap, septic tank, pre-treatment for other constituents including nitrogen and phosphorous, potable water to be provided by two wells drilled on site which is included in the submitted documents.  Mr. Galeota said, as shown in the submitted documents, they are very confident there will be adequate water for the site which will need about 4 to 5 gallons per minute.  Mr. Galeota said electric and telecommunications will be served from existing overhead utilities.  He said the proposed timetable for development includes sturdy construction within 3 months of receiving regulatory approvals; weather permitting and construction duration is anticipated to be 9 to 12 months.  Mr. Galeota said the project will be completed in one phase and the general sequence of the construction of the project is shown on drawing CE501; it is a detailed sequence shown at the request of the Wetlands Commission.  

Mr. Galeota said there are two detention basins on the site and pointed them out on the plans.  He said during the wetland process, a condition was imposed to have a Fuss and O’Neill representative on site during the construction of the detention basins due to the concern on the environmentally sensitive areas on the site. Mr. Galeota said they also agreed to have a licensed professional engineer on site to observe the construction of the retaining walls needed for the site along the west portion.

Mr. Galeota presented the layout of the site; the proposed building is 15,000 square feet with a passenger vehicle parking area and a tractor trailer parking area in the northern portion of the site.  Mr. Galeota presented the circulation of traffic; passenger vehicles coming up Polster Road will turn left into the parking area on the southern end of the site and trucks turning into Polster Rd will travel north on Polster Rd. and then to the north end of the site taking a left into the site and into the truck parking area.  If the truck was not going to park, it would travel south on the site to the diesel fueling islands then travel a short distance north turning left onto Polster Rd to head east or right onto Polster Rd. to head west.  Mr. Galeota said the circulation for the trucks will be kept separate from the passenger vehicles.  

Mr. Galeota said Polster Road will be improved its entire length from the intersection of 320 all the way to the north to the truck turning entrance.  He said the road will only be widened at the intersection of 320 to incorporate a north bound left turn lane for passenger vehicles into the parking area.  

Mr. Galeota touched on grading and presented the areas to be excavated along Polster Road and showed the area retaining walls to be built on the western edge of the site to minimize the slope intrusion toward the wetlands.  He said the truck parking to the north is 10 to 15 feet below Polster Road so you would be looking down into the truck parking area.  Mr. Galeota said the building and parts of the passenger vehicle parking are higher than some parts of Polster Road so it is clearly visible as you are getting off the highway.  Mr. Galeota said the retaining walls range from 10 to 14 feet high.  

Mr. Galeota said the drainage is separated into 3 areas; 1 to the south and 2 to the north with 1 on the pavement and 1 on the non-paved area.  He said the southern drainage area incorporates most of the passenger vehicle pavement, the roof of the building, the passenger vehicle fueling island and the diesel truck fueling island.  He said the reason they broke the southern area out was to get the area into one detention basin and through a redundant system that could filter out floatables, food packages and in an unlikely event of fuel on the pavement, it would take the fuel out of the storm flow.   Mr. Galeota said the redundant system includes two oil/water separators, each a 500 gallon capacity of floatable liquid including fuel and a hydro-dynamic separator which filters out 80% of suspended solids and can hold approximately 250 gallons of floatable liquid. He said it then goes down to the detention basin and to a forebay which filters out even more suspended solids if still there after going through the hydro-dynamic separator.  Mr. Galeota said the forebay is lined with an impermeable liner and has an oil boom that floats on the surface and would trap any other floatable product.  He said there are 3 systems, triple redundancy, to trap any floatable product that might get on the pavement in the unlikely event of a spill.
Mr. Galeota showed the areas of the fuel storage tanks and diesel tanks and said both have their own containment system.  He said the nozzles to take fuel out of the trucks are over a catchment area which contains a catch basin.  Mr. Galeota said Loves has their own trucks and their own drivers that are schooled on fuel delivery.  He said the Wetland Commission was very concerned about this and Love’s has an extremely good, solid safety record in respect to the driver’s and fuel delivery.  

Mr. Galeota said the north area drains to the northwest and to a detention basin that has a hydro-dynamic separator to filter out solids and floatable products and then goes to a forebay to catch additional suspended solids and out to the detention basin.  He said the forebay and detention basin are both lined due to concerns of the Wetland Commission; they were concerned about the elevation of the bottom of the basin, and that it might drain and take water away from Wetland J.  Mr. Galeota said the detention basins have level spreaders that are approximately 120 feet long.

Mr. Galeota said the 3rd drainage area is a non-paved area; there a swale with an under drain on the east side of the parking lot and a swale with an under drain on the west side of the parking lot, both head to the south and connect into a manhole that discharges to the west and then to a level spreader.  He said the storm water from both swales will always be clean and do not need the same redundancy as the previously described systems.  Mr. Galeota said along both edges of the parking area, there will be 3 foot wide stone shoulder and will reduce any of the storm water velocity coming off the pavement.  He said the eastern swale is an infiltration swale to attempt to recharge some of the ground water in the area.  Mr. Galeota said the storm water design follows DEEP Storm Water Quality Manual which Fuss & O’Neil wrote.   

Mr. Galeota said they have received review comments from the Town Engineer and from the Public Works Director and are in the process of addressing them and will respond to them.  He said the improvements to Polster Road are included in the proposal and they do meeting meet the frontage and improvement requirements.  Mr. Galeota said driveways and pedestrian ways are interconnected to provide safe and efficient movement throughout the site.  He said driveways are more than 100 feet apart which is required in the regulations and driveway widths and site lines will comply with the state DOT standards.  He said emergency access has been provided site wide.

Mr. Galeota gave the numbers of the sanitary waste disposal plan; the onsite septic sewage disposal system anticipated flow is 6000 gallons per day but the leeching system is designed for 9000 gallons per day which is required by the DEEP.  He said the DEEP regulates the system and is responsible for technical review.  Mr. Galeota said they have done substantial sub-surface soil testing which helped to preliminarily locate the system.  He said the system will not have any adverse effect on the adjacent wetland to the east, up gradient or down gradient because the system will be hydraulically independent.

Mr. Galeota said pretreatment will reduce nitrogen and other constituent levels prior to discharge to the system.  He said soil testing and preliminary design calculations have shown that federal drinking water standards for nitrogen and fecal coliform will be met based on the currently proposed locations of the system.  He said quarterly ground water monitoring for nitrogen, phosphorous and fecal coliform will be required as part of the DEEP approval of the system to verify that the system does not adversely impact the surrounding wetlands for the life of the system.  

Mr. Galeota said erosion sediment control standards used (2002 DEEP Erosion Sediment Control Guidelines) includes extensive use of silt fence, sediment traps and sediment control blankets during construction and after construction until full stabilization on any slopes steeper than 3 to 1.  He said construction entrances and a detailed narrative are all included in the plan.  

Mr. Galeota said they have provided surface and groundwater protection, a redundant storm water system with extensive design/review and DEEP will monitor the septic system leeching field, Mr. Galeota said the site is not served by a water company and they have provided a potable water supply evaluation with the application.  He said there is adequate access for emergency vehicles but they have not yet received review comments from the Fire Marshal.  Mr. Galeota said the site is not on a floodplain so they don’t have to worry about flooding. He said the site lighting will be done by a professional lighting engineer; they will be full cut-off LED dark sky lights and the maximum pole height will be 20 feet per the regulations.  There will be sharp cut-off on the horizontal plane as required and you will not be able to see the lights spilling from the fixture.    

Mr. Galeota said the building materials will be stone and brick facade with an architectural roof which meets the regulations.  He said the site is landscaped and screened per the regulations and all deciduous trees have a minimum caliper of 2 ½ inches, all evergreen trees have a minimum height of 6 feet and all shrubs are of a size of at least 1/3 of their mature potential. Mr. Galeota said the landscaping is enough to buffer it visually and soften the view from Polster Road and 320 but not completely block the view into site.

Mark Wojcik of Lohse Road said he is concerned on the beeping noise when the trucks back into parking spaces and asked what would be done to mitigate noise pollution.  

Rick Sheffield, of Love’s Travel Center, said as a general rule 18 wheelers don’t have a beeping mechanism when they back up; usually the beeping noise is trash trucks or other. A brief discussion was held.   

Mark Bertucci, Senior Traffic Engineer at Fuss & O’Neil presented the findings of the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the truck stop.  He said the site is located to the north of interstate 84 and showed the area on the plans. Mr. Bertucci said the site has great visibility to the highway and great direct access which TA does not have.  He presented the regional road network and detailed the state route designation on the plans.  He said the regional road network is already built to support interstate traffic and all the roads in the studied network have a posted speed limit of 25 mph.  Mr. Bertucci said the intersections reviewed as part of the study are the intersections of Rte. 320 and the I-84 eastbound off-ramp, the intersection of Rte. 320, Ruby Road and Turnpike Road, Lohse Road at Ruby Road, the intersection of the eastbound off-ramp at 320 and Lohse Road and the intersection of Mihaliak, Polster and Lohse Road.  

Mr. Bertucci said they performed traffic counts at each of the 5 area intersections, counted during the morning (7:15 to 8:15) and afternoon (4:30 to 5:30) peak periods.  He said they also conducted an automatic traffic recorder on Polster Rd. adjacent to the site and the 24 hour volume was 240 vehicles per day.  He said the daily speed was also measured and 85th percentile speed was 46 mph.  He said they took the counts and drew them to the anticipated design year of 2014 utilizing a growth rate of 1.5% per year provided by the DOT.  Mr. Bertucci said they utilized empirical data and used the IT land use code for fast food at a drive thru, service stations and convenience stores.  He said the data is very limited for trucks stops so they utilized Love’s records and the average per day would be 600 trucks with approximately 60 trucks in the peak period.  He also touched on people utilizing more than one use on the site and explained the credit taken. Mr. Bertucci said the total trips estimated on site are 300 trips in the morning peak hours and the same in the afternoon peak period and said the estimates are conservative.  He said some of the traffic will be taken away from TravelCenters so all the traffic is not new, it will just be moved around on the road network. Mr. Bertucci said 2/3 of the traffic (60%) will come from I-84 heading in the westbound direction which is very easy on and off and the eastbound direction will be 33%.  

Mr. Bertucci said in order to access the impact on the adjacent road network, they added the traffic generation from the truck stop to the background baseline 2014 traffic conditions and ran capacity analyses at each of the 5 intersections giving the details of the analysis run.  He said all the intersections in the study area are acceptably at level service C or better before and after the truck stop traffic is added with one exception; the Fed Ex driveway operated at level service D in afternoon peak hours.  Mr. Bertucci touched on queuing of vehicles and said they are not expecting any queuing at all on Polster Road and then mentioned the queue issue TravelCenter is having due to the entry gate and said there will be no gate entering Love’s site.  

Mr. Bertucci said they reviewed intersection site lines looking to the left and right out of each the 3 driveways; site lines were reviewed in accordance with criteria published in the ConnDot and based on a 46 mph speed limit on Polster Road as higher speeds require a lengthier site distance.  He said they also based all the site distances on a tractor trailer requirement which requires more significant site distances.  Mr. Bertucci said they need 780 feet provided in both directions from each driveway and presented the site line plan; raised areas of berms and areas to be graded to provide for sufficient site lines.  He said accident data was reviewed for the last 3 years and found an average of 3 accidents per year (or less) recorded at each intersection with no fatalities and 1 injury.   

Mr. Bertucci talked about routing of trucks and said they prepared a comprehensive signage plan to guide vehicles to the site and said TravelAmerica does not have clear signage on where to go.  He said they are proposing interstate signage, directional signage with Love’s logo and directional arrows; Polster Road will have extensive signage for car entrance and truck entrance so each vehicle will know which driveway to pull into.  Mr. Bertucci said on Polster Road at the northerly most driveways they are proposing various signages; no through truck signs, no access to highway signs, truck entrance here signage and signage regarding the bridge with the 34 ton limit.  He said they are currently working with town staff on the wording of the signage and there will be clear extensive very large signage directing the trucks.  Mr. Bertucci said coming out of the site there will be similar signage with 2 I-84 signs at each of the 3 driveways with an arrow and will have truck and buses with a no left turn signs at the northerly 2 driveways.

Tony Lennon, of Stafford, CT, asked about the location of the directional signage for cars and trucks and if they would be on the Loves side of the road or the vacant side of the road and if it would be acceptable to the town.  Chairman Marco said any signage would go through an extensive review and meet signage regulations and would be part of the application that would be reviewed.    

Mr. Bertucci said, lastly, he would like to talk about errant trucks if they get lost, drive up Polster Road, and said it is extremely unlikely to happen as the site will be clearly signed and the site clearly visible off the ramp.  He said in the existing condition there are trucks that have travelled up Polster Road, gone over the bridge and are unable to turn around; he believes they are using their GPS which is giving them bad directions.  Mr. Bertucci showed a truck going up Polster Road into Stafford at Rockwell Rd and Fenton Rd and the first opportunity they would have to turn around; he presented a turning movement diagram.  He said they are not proposing a truck turn-around in the Town of Stafford and the signage implemented will have very clear direction on where to go and will benefit from having the 3 driveways and the loop available for someone that has gone in the wrong direction.  Mr. Bertucci concluded with 4 primary recommendations of the traffic study; improvement of Polster Rd from Lohse Rd north along the site frontage, north bound left turn lane at the southerly driveway, site line improvements (grading, clearing of vegetation and an easement from the State of Connecticut), a stop sign on Mihaliak Road westbound approach from the Polster Rd. intersection, and a comprehensive signage plan to direct vehicle to and from the site.  Mr. Bertucci said with the recommendations proposed, passenger car and truck traffic to and from the proposed Love’s Stop will be able to safely and efficiently access the site via the state and local road network.  

Atty. Jacobs said they just recently received communication from the Town Engineer and will address the comments.

Dean Palotti, of Turnpike Rd., expressed his concern on trucks heading westbound and going through the guard rail.  He said he is concerned on them making the corners and possibly clipping a school bus; he questioned the turning radiuses.  

Gail Campbell, of Turnpike Rd, expressed her concerns on the number of accidents on the off-ramp; it is insufficient for trucks coming down the hill with the 90 degree bend and then having to stop.  She said the ramp needs to be longer with the bend taken out.  

Dennis Milanivich, a representative for the Town of Stafford and Town Engineer, said he takes objection on the intersection presented as a turn-around for errant drivers. He said he would like to request a copy of the traffic report and state publically that several assumptions are challengeable.  He expressed his concern on the amount of traffic that will be traveling from Stafford down 190 and to Polster Rd to a gas station that is known to have competitive pricing.

Melissa Miller of Mihaliak Rd expressed her concern on the sign on Mihaliak Rd; living in a residential area and stopping for truck stop traffic is unfair to residents.  She said she is also concerned on property value decreasing and asked if the applicant conducted a criminal impacts study on truck stops and the impact it may have on the area.  

Rick Zulick, Stafford Director of Public Works, expressed his concern on the inclusion of CR106 and said there were no communications with the Town of Stafford.  He expressed his concern on site lines at Rockwell and Fenton.  A. Marco said improvements there are not part of the application and they have no jurisdiction.  Dennis Milanovich requested the Commission remove the drawing from the set.  Atty. Branse said, by statute, the Town of Stafford can be heard and the points of concern can be considered by the Commission but the Commission cannot strike anything from the record.  Mr. Milanovich said they would like to assert their rights under 8-24.

Rick Zulick said he is concerned about accidents and public safety at the intersection of Rockwell and Fenton brought on by increased traffic as an inevitable shortcut to the plaza.  

Scott Wing, of Lohse Rd., expressed his transportation concerns and stated since TA was opened there have been 28 traffic trailer accidents at the westbound intersection at Exit 71.  He expressed his concern on accidents, on the chemicals released from the trucks and his concerns on the structure of the exit ramp.  Mr. Wing asked if any of the applicants had a CDL and expressed his concern of fumes getting stuck in the valley and entering homes.  

Mark Houle, of Rockwell Rd, expressed his concerns on tired drivers going through the guard rails and taking out the bridge.

Bruce Semicole, of Polster Rd, expressed his concerns on the bridge and the navigational devices directing the trucks the wrong way.  He said he has seen a guy pull a back axel out of his trailer when the tire blew.  

James Phillips, of Lohse Rd, expressed his concern on exit 71 going westbound; it is very steep and very dangerous for trucks especially when fully loaded. He said if you miss the stop sign there is a big cliff at the bottom.  Mr. Phillips said the truck stop cannot go in with the existing exit ramp as it is very dangerous; he suggested they move it a mile up the road.  He said he would like to see businesses come into town but not in this location.  

Karen Bradley, of Schofield Rd, submitted pictures to the commission regarding repairs done to the bridges and various pictures of the current conditions and pictures dating back to 2011.  She read a portion of the Willington POCD, Section 1 Preamble, and referenced various points including promoting the growth of the Town of Willington and the general welfare and prosperity of the people, lessoning congestion in the streets and securing safety.  She expressed her concern on the welfare of the people and the possibility of inviting more transients into town.  Ms. Bradley expressed her concerns on doubling traffic and congestion in the streets and the backing up of tractor trailers near the transfer station.  She asked how another truck stop would preserve and protect the value of Willington. Ms. Bradley expressed her concern on litter (pee bottles and garbage) and presented pictures to the Commission.  She said the applicant said there won’t be trucks going down residential roads and presented pictures showing trucks that have done so.  Ms. Bradley said the Commission is charged to protect the welfare and value of the Town of Willington and this is going to be a devastating mess.  She said the townspeople want commercial but not high intensity 24/7 commercial.  

Leroy Ziegler, of Fenton Rd, said he has lived in town for 20 years and expressed his concern on traffic.  He asked the applicant to clarify the location, date and timeline of the auto-counter on Polster Road.  Mr. Bertucci said it was placed on Polster Road at the site frontage in December of 2009.  Mr. Ziegler asked the applicant to consider a recount at Polster Rd. and asked the size and timeline of the signs placed on the site for the public to see.  Chairman Marco said it is in the regulations and met by the applicant.  Mr. Ziegler said the signs were blown off the posts during a recent storm.  

Mark Wojcik, of Lohse Rd, expressed his concern on the exposure generated and said it is not site specific. He said he has concerns on water pollution and Roaring Brook.  

Janice Angrisani, of Lohse Rd., expressed her concern on the traffic ramps at exit 71; high traffic, sharp inclines, curved and too short.  She said Ruby Rd. and Lohse Rd. should be widened.  Ms. Angrisani said recently they were hit by a truck going over the bridge and is also concerned on lost trucks and car drivers.  She expressed her concern on trucks causing damage to personal property and the negative impact the truck stop will have on the environment.  

Brian Semprebon questioned the traffic study and the 1/3, 2/3 split as he does not think it is realistic.  He asked about a plan for tandem trucks and parking spaces available and said he is concerned about gridlock on Love’s driveway.  Mr. Semprebon referenced the IWWC approval and asked if the plan presented for the Special Exception was the plan that went before the IWWC and asked if it is the final location.  He said the criteria for the Zone Change was addressed but not the criteria for the Special exception and would like that criteria addressed.  Mr. Semprebon asked if the applicant has been before any other commissions in town and expressed his concern on traffic crossing the street for additional repairs needed at the service station.  Mr. Semprebon asked if this location is final as the detention basins and septic have not yet been submitted to DEEP.  Chairman Marco said the applicant is still waiting for engineering feedback.  Att. Branse said it is common for land use reviews to require multiple permits.  He said if one department requires a change, the applicant has to come back before the other agencies; one permit doesn’t overrule other permits.  

Mr. Semprebon asked the height of the retaining wall and would like clarification on the retaining wall height in the area of the site that slopes down; he believes it may be closer to 50 feet.   Mr. Semprebon expressed his concern on the steep drive and cars sliding down in front of trucks when it is snow covered.  He also questioned the water supply plan.

Melissa Miller asked if the applicant had done a study on wildlife impact. Atty. Branse said the letter from the Conservation Commission is the file.  

Christina Mailhos, the First Selectman, said a letter has been submitted from the Town Engineer, Public Works Director and herself.    She said they have concerns on traffic and turning radiuses, road ownership issues, drainage on the roads, site line issues and a plan for errant traffic on Polster Rd. but is also concerned about errant traffic on Lohse and Mihaliak.  Selectman Mailhos said they have concerns on tandem trailers and the guard rails on Polster Rd; the town replaces the guard rails and the majority of the time, this is a cost to the town.  

Ralph Tulis said he has questions on the adjacent land uses map and referenced section 12 of zone change requiring the applicant to submit a map and report everything within 1200 feet.  Mr. Tulis expressed his concern on the traffic study done in Dec. of 2009, the day the count was taken (Wednesday) as it is the least travelled day and if the count was done by visual means to differentiate cars from trucks.  He asked if they looked at ConnDots for traffic counts as they are online.  Mr. Tulis said the exits were designed in the late 70’s and the trucks at that time are not the trucks of today which require a larger turning radius; he has the geometry on the interchange and will show the turns that are deficient at a future hearing.  He said he is concerned about not having a gate or guard shack at the entrance because of “lot lizards”.  

Mr. Tulis expressed his concerns on the signs on 84.  He said TA only has signs westbound and asked if the applicant has looked at the criteria that permits the signage as he believes TA would have had them eastbound if allowed; the exits are too close together.  Mr. Tulis expressed his concerns on the traffic that comes to and from Turnpike Rd because Turnpike Rd. connects to Rte. 89.  He asked if the applicant studied the behavior of the truck drivers that make the turns and the vehicles that blow through the stop signs.  

Mr. Tulis expressed his concerns on the location of the entrance and exit to the facility and suggested a median be installed in the central truck exit to the facility.   He said he is concerned on trucks making a left hand turn into the site and suggested a left turn lane.  Mr. Tulis said the confining aspects of the guard rails on the west side were not discussed and it is almost a 90 degree turn.  He brought up concerns on traffic counts; 60 trucks per hour, 1 a minute and 90 cars, 11/2 a minute and asked what would happen if the trucks queue up on Rte. 320.  

Mr. Tulis said the bottom line is the interchange was designed back in the 70’s with a rural exit, local traffic, residential access and an occasional tractor trailer and now Willington has Fed Ex and TA in which the Commission did not want.  He said from a traffic perspective, the proposal is awful and this kind of proposal for a commercial zone should be denied.

Noah Passardi, of Potter School Rd., expressed concern on the smell of brakes on the trucks and the amount of stops signs and pot holes the town crews have replaced on Potter School Rd.  He expressed his concerns on truck drivers backing up on the roads and on the 24/7 operation proposed.  

Don Berg, of Red Oak Rd, said he is concerned about the soils and bacteria.  He said he does not feel the drainage is triple redundancy because the first trap lets 20 % through and the second picks up the balance of the floatables.

Dan Donahue, of Mansfield Rd, Ashford, said he owns property on Lohse Rd and asked the applicant to refer to the POCD appropriately which is a document that balances conservation and development.  He said if you look at the document you will find more compelling arguments against the application than for it.  

Eric (last name and road unheard) expressed his concerns on the tire changing aspect of the business and questioned the enclosed areas in which to work on the trucks.  He said he is concerned about the tax value and the replacement costs to the town as well as increased medical calls; he said the devaluation of property would offset the tax value.  

Dave Kuchinski, of Lohse Rd, said he is also concerned about the POCD; creating new design development and the criteria required and believes the proposal falls short.  He referenced the control plan objective and said the proposed use is not compatible to the rural character of the town. Mr. Kuchinski said he is also concerned about water quality management because the site borders on Roaring Brook.  He said the truck concerns go well beyond the confines of the property.

E. Standish left at 10:55.  Atty. Branse said E. Standish will listen to the tapes so he is qualified to vote.

Mike Hery, Old County Road, said he has winter traffic concerns during snow storms and how a tractor trailer will get up or down the hill.

Karen Bradley referenced the POCD and read 4.2.2; identify and require appropriate traffic calming and safety measures and implement them on a systematic basic.  She then read objective B, part 2 regarding reducing the impact of truck traffic on the community.  Ms. Bradley asked how the Commission goes about deciding yay or nay.  Atty. Branse said the Commission applies the criteria of sections 12 and 13 of the zoning regulations.

Mr. Tulis referenced GI-102 and said Roaring Brook is not fully shown on the map which is essential to the evaluation of the site.  He suggested the Commission walk the perimeter of the site.  Mr. Tulis said the southwest corner of the site on his property is not drawn correctly and believes there are a lot of holes in Fuss & O’Neil’s evaluation.  He said the culvert is also not shown on the site and asked the proximity of Roaring Brook particularly to the wetlands and relationship to the waste water treatment center. Mr. Tulis said just because IWWC approved the application, it does not require the P & Z Commission to approve the application.
 
Nancy Gauthier said the way things are now; it’s only a matter of time before there is a fatality of one of the townspeople.

Bruce Cermicol, of Lohse Rd., expressed his concerns on litter as a result of the truck stops.

John Daly, of Turnpike Rd, asked the Commission to take the townspeople into consideration when they make their move.  

Atty. Branse asked the applicant to address CR104 which is the proposed off site signage plan; some of the signs referenced indicate the need for private property easements. He would like to know if the applicant has the easements or not and what the inability to post the signs would mean to the traffic report and what the traffic report is predicated on.

The Commission continued the Public Hearing to Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 7:30 at the Library.    

The Commission scheduled a Site Walk on Saturday, May 4, 2013 at 9:00.

The following correspondence was submitted for the record on PZC2013-3 and PZC2013-4 and is on file in the Land Use Office:

  • Letter from Stephen Sears dated April 16, 2013.
  • Email from Willimantic River Alliance Inc. dated April 16, 2013
  • Letter from Christine Sears dated April 12, 2013.
  • Letter from Diane & David Kuchinsky, trustees, Deborah & Ralph Tulis, and Laura & Scott Wing dated April 9, 2013.
  • Letter from Don Berg dated April 16, 2013.
  • Letter from Connecticut Fly Fisherman’s Association Inc. dated April 3, 2013.
  • Letter from Scott Wing dated April 15, 2013.
  • Letter from Glenn & Ann Bradley dated April 8, 2013.
  • Email from Alfred & Janice Angrisani dated April 10, 2013.
  • Email from Michael & Elizabeth Breton dated March 17, 2013.
  • Email from Lisa Jordan date March 5, 2013.
  • Email from Ted Pawelec dated March 18, 2013.
  • Email from Alfred & Janice Angrisani dated March 26, 2013.
  • Letter from Karen Bradley dated April 5, 2013.
  • Letter from Inka Wrubleski dated March 19, 2013.
  • Letter from Ellen Peloquin dated March 21, 2013.
  • Letter from Karen Bradley dated March 18, 2013.
  • Letter from Scott Bradley dated March 15, 2013.
  • Letters (3) from Leroy Zeigler dated March 18, 2013.
  • Letter from Diane Kuchinsky dated April 1, 2013.



Regular Meeting

Chairman Marco called the Regular Meeting to order at 11:15.  D. Roberts was seated for J. Sullivan.

PZC2013-13 Application for sign permit to replace existing signs at 327 Ruby Road (Map 42 Lot 45 Zone DC) Owner: Royce Properties LLC Applicant: Carl Voas (Received April 16, 2013 Public Hearing or decision by June 18, 2013)

Carl Voas was present and explained the application; it is to replace the sign and façade on the gas facility only and has submitted a full application with drawings.  Mr. Voas said he made an error on the square footage and submitted the corrected square footage for the application.  S Yorgensen said the application seems fairly simple but the office cannot issue any type of permit if the applicant is in violation and she believes TA may be in violation of some zoning regulations.  Mr. Voas said he was not aware of any violations.  

Mr. Voas reviewed the 3 permit applications submitted with the Commission and reviewed the corrected signage submitted.  Mr. Voas said he is looking to permit 2 signs, 33.5 x 33.5, total square footage each.  He said the signage change would be a reduction in square footage.  Mr. Voas explained the second application and the lens changes proposed; he said the size of the signs are exactly the same.  A discussion was held on the canopy and the building application.  S. Yorgensen said the applicant can contact the building inspector.  Mr. Voas said he submitted before and after pictures of the light bar and calculations have been submitted.  A discussion was held on the wattage calculations.  

The Commission said they would not make a decision on the applications at this meeting and the applicant does not have to come back before the Commission when a decision was made.


PZC2012- 14 Application Modification to Preliminary & Final approved site plan & Special Permit at 264 Ruby Road east side of CT RTE 320 1mile south of I-84 Exit 71(Map 42 Lot 49A Zone DI) Owner: Ruby Road Development LLC Applicant: Green Hill Recycling & Landscaping Products, LLC (Received April 16, 2013 Public Hearing or decision by June 18, 2013.)

Russell Heintz presented plans and highlighted the area of disturbance.  Mr. Heintz said, due to a court settlement, they are buying 18 acres of land.  He said the intent is move the driveway access to the North and come up in the future with an access road.  A discussion was held on modified site plan and S. Yorgensen asked if it was for the driveway and access only. Mr. Heintz said yes and a discussion was held on the plan.  Mr. Heintz said the landscaping has not changed.
 
Atty. Branse said the revised plan shows a new driveway on the plan and asked if the use was expanded.  Mr. Heintz said no. A discussion was held on the buffers and the adjacent property.  Mr. Heintz said his client would be willing to notify the abutters.

A discussion was held on holding a Public Hearing.

T. Murphy motioned to hold a Public Hearing.  P. Nevers seconded the motion.  A vote was held; A. Marco in favor, D. Roberts and W. Parsell opposed.  The Public Hearing was set for May 21, 2012.

Old Business:

PZC2013-8 Application for Special Permit for a 15 acre rear lot to build a single family dwelling with barn/garage located on the north side of Tolland Turnpike/Rt 74 across from Glass Factory Road and shown on the Town Assessor’s (Map 29 Lot 7 Zone R 80 Owner/Applicant: Mark Marquis (Received March 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

The Public Hearing was continued to May 7, 2013 at 7:30 at the Willington Library.  

PZC2013-3 Application for Zone Change from R80 zone to Design Commercial (DC) zone at 00 Polster Road & 3 Polster Road & 00 Polster Road (Map 46 Lots 16 & 17) Owner: Joseph & Frank Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (Received February 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

The Public Hearing was continued to May 7, 2013 at 7:30 at the Willington Library.  

PZC2013-4 Application for Special Permit for motor vehicle fuel sales, tire repair and replacement, retail trade and two restaurants (Travel Stop) at 00 Polster Road & 3 Polster Road (Map 46 Lots 16 & 17) Owner: Joseph & Frank Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (Received February 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

The Public Hearing was continued to May 7, 2012 7:30 at the Willington Library.  

Meeting Adjourned at 11:45.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michele Manas
Recording Clerk