Town of Willington, CT - PZC Meeting Minutes 05/07/2013

PZC Meeting Minutes 05/07/2013

Planning and Zoning Commission

40 Old Farms Road Willington, CT 06279

May 7, 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

Caleb Hamel – Zoning Attorney

Public Hearing:

Chairman Marco called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30. D. Roberts was seated for J. Sullivan. A. Marco said the Public Hearing was continued from April 16, 2013 and the applicant will present and answer questions. Attorney Mark Branse introduced Attorney Caleb Hamel; a new member of the firm.

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 continued to May 7, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

Richard Mihok, an Engineer and Land Surveyor, was present for the applicant and introduced Attorney Joe Capasella. Atty. Capasella said he has read the minutes and will try to address the questions asked at the April 16^th public hearing. He referenced Ms. Yandow’s question on the affect the application might have on abutting property owners and submitted a Declaration of Common Driveway Easement dated November, 1991 and signed by the Vonaseks, Duhanskys and Frasers. Atty. Capasella said Old Johnson Rd is an old abandoned roadway and all property owners agreed this stretch of road could be used by all abutting land owners. He said another point raised was section 4.18.04.07 which states there should be a maximum of 2 adjacent lots and they do not have 2, only 1 and they do not believe it pertains to this application. He said the third item was the use of the apron and believes it is an issue for DOT to resolve.

Mr. Mihok said he submitted plans and a sightline profile to the DOT which is close to what is required for 45 mph speed limit and he has not heard back as of yet. He said they have 550 feet sightline in either driveway at the top of the hill and heading east and 500 feet is required by the DOT. Mr. Mihok said they will have to relocate a small portion of a stone wall and showed this on the plans. He said the present driveway there is 17 or 18 % and is very steep and they wish to have a driveway that conforms to the 4% per car length and 12% the rest of the way. Mr. Mihok explained the 3 set of drawings submitted and said the Town Engineer, Joseph Dillon of Jacobson & Associates, has reviewed the plans and provided his recommendations. Chairman Marco read Mr. Jacobson’s the letter into the record; 1. Due to the steep grade along the shoulder of CT 74, we recommend the intersection of the proposed driveway and the existing bituminous driveway be moved approximately 100 feet back from the gutter line of CT 74. This would place the intersection of the 2 driveways at a flatter grade. 2. The proposed layout calls for the 2 driveways to intersect at an 18 % grade which is undesirable. A referral to CT DOT should be made for work occurring within the CT DOT right-of-way. 3. A detailed intersection grading plan should be provided. It is unclear where the CT DOT right-of way line crosses the existing bituminous driveway. Additionally easements will be required for areas where proposed grades cross onto the neighboring property.

Mr. Mihok said in summary he believes the Town Engineer is saying to make the driveway better, flatter and in conformation with the town regulations and then branch off either way or widen the existing driveway. Atty. Capasella said he believes the entrance to the driveway is really a state issue and if the special permit is granted for the rear lot, they still cannot proceed until they have the state’s approval.

Chairman Marco asked if it is a shared driveway and Mr. Mihok said the application is to share the apron within the right-of-way and the Town Engineer is saying to go a little further before branching off (100 feet). Atty. Branse asked the location of the driveway and a discussion was held on the 3 plans. Mr. Mihok said he just received the Town Engineer’s comments and has yet to make the changes. Atty. Branse said Atty. Capasella is correct in that the DOT has jurisdiction over the curb cut but many activities require multiple jurisdictions and the P & Z regulations say the commission shall not approve a rear lot until determined that such lot or lots provides (various criteria) and to evaluate drainage and passage impact and accessibility by occupants and emergency vehicles during all weather and seasons, driveway sight lines and service utilities capacities. He said the DOT and the Commission’s approval would be required and if the town Engineer is saying he satisfied with grading 100 and if DOT approves and the Commission agrees with the recommendation; it is a shared jurisdictions. Atty. Capasella said he would like the Commission to be satisfied with their regulations but they still will have to get approval from the DOT.

Atty. Capasella referenced 4.21.08 and said if they T-off further up, they will be at 90 degrees. A discussion was held. Atty. Capasella said rear lots are allowed with a Special Permit and in 1991 the then owner prepared a map and put on file but never did the conveyance to make it happen and the first time a conveyance occurred was when Mr. Marquis purchased the back land. He said the staff report has been submitted and he believes, other than final DOT approval, an application has been submitted that conforms to the regulations for Special Permits. Chairman Marco said a modified plan would have to be submitted.

Ms. Yandow addressed the Commission and submitted a map of 1991 for the record. Ms. Yandow said the map went before the Commission in the past for the rear lot and was denied. Mr. Mihok said it was denied because they didn’t own a 25 foot strip and since there were not subdivision owners at that time, they could divide the parcel in half which is legal. He said they then went back to P & Z with the required 25 feet so the map is irrelevant. Ms. Yandow said she could not find the deed with the 25 foot strip and asked if there was a separate deed. She questioned whether Mr. Martin’s conveyance of the rear parcel could have been done pursuant to the regulations and said it was known in 1991 that the rear lot was a nonconforming parcel. A discussion was held.

Chairman Marco asked the impact of the missing easement and Ms. Yandow said based on what was found in 1991, the town denied the application. Further discussion was held on the 25 foot strip and if there was a deed associated with it.

Ms. Yandow reference 4.18.04.01 and 4.21.07, accessibility of emergency vehicles and questions the 75 foot requirement. E. Standish said it has to be within 75 feet of the house. A discussion was held on the meaning of the 25 foot fee simple owned access. Mr. Mihok said it means the lot owner owns the land. Ms. Yandow questioned the rear drive serving more than 1 dwelling and asked if the applicant was looking for a waiver of the regulations. Mr. Mihok said they are trying to follow the Town Engineers comments. Ms. Yandow questioned 4.21.09, no common drive and Mr. Mihok said it would be an entrance shared in accordance with the Town Engineer. Ms. Yandow said it sounds like the applicant is digging into her parent’s driveway.

Ms. Yandow referenced 4.21.12 and said by adding 3 dwellings off the driveway, they are adding to traffic coming in and out of pieces that don’t fall within the regulations in regards to the intersection and sightline.

Atty. Branse referenced 4.18.04.05, no rear lot will service more than 1 dwelling and the Town Engineer is recommending a split 100 feet off the road. A discussion was held on the Town Engineers recommendation first 100 feet will service one driveway and then split off and service two. Further discussion was held on the 25 foot strip. A. Marco said the final application is not on the table and a discussion was held on keeping the public hearing open. The Public Hearing was continued to May 21, 2013.

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 continued to May 7, 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 continued to May 7, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

A site walk was conducted May 4, 2013 and Chairman Marco submitted Minutes for the record.

Attorney Leonard Jacobs addressed the Commission; he said they will respond to questions raised by the public at the previous public hearing and present new information. He referenced the comments made comparing Loves and TA and said they are not apples and oranges, TA is much larger than Loves; they have a hotel and a truck repairing facility.

Atty. Jacobs said there were letters from the public submitted acknowledging the site is going to be commercial development and although they may disagree with the use of the site, the point was made in the letters. He said Loves is a good operation and they spent a lot of time at Wetlands explaining spill containment and how the site will be monitored. Atty. Jacobs said, in regards to the truck traffic and issues on Polster Road, they have not contributed to this and he believes there site will decrease the truck problem, not increase it. He said, with Love’s application, you will get off the highway, drive a few hundred feet onto the site and then drive back the same distance to the highway and they believe this will reduce errant truck traffic.

Atty. Jacobs said there were a lot of comments made about truck drivers; they are not evil, not unneeded and they move the products of our country through our country. He said it is not fair to disparage a group of people doing a good, honest job.

Atty. Jacobs said the Inland Wetland approval has been made part of the record and they would not have approved the application if they felt there would be harm to the wetlands or the river. He then turned the floor over to Tom Galeota of Fuss & O’Neill.

Tom Galeota of Fuss& O’Neill addressed the commission and the read following document in response to the questions asked at the previous Public Hearing.

May 6, 2013

Responses to Questions & Comments

Love’s Travel Stop and Country Store

In this section, Love’s Travel Stops and Country Stores, LLC is providing responses to various questions and comments asked by various agencies, the public and Planning & Zoning Commission at the public hearing on April 16, 2013. Specific sources are listed chronologically in bold below. Questions/comments under each heading are paraphrased in italics with Love’s responses immediately afterwards.

Connecticut Fly Fisherman’s Association April 3, 2013 Letter

These comments were considered and addressed during the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses application process which resulted in approval of the project.

Town of Willington Conservation Commission April 10, 2013 Memorandum

These comments were considered and addressed during the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses application process which resulted in approval of the project.

Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing April 16, 2013

Is signage part of the application and how does this get approved by the Town?

Roadway signage is part of this application and would be approved by the Towns traffic authority for all local roads.

How is the proposed facility consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development?

The General Statement located in the Supporting Documents submitted with the application, the application itself and our testimony during the hearings describes how the application is consistent with the Willington Plan of Conservation and Development.

What are the criteria for special exception?

The criteria for Special Exception are found in the Willington Zoning Regulations and are what were followed for this application.

What is the height of the proposed retaining wall?

Individual walls range in maximum height from 8-12’. Please note that some changes in grade are accomplished with 2 or 3 walls in a tiered configuration. For example, in the northwest corner of the tractor-trailer parking area, 3 tiered walls are 10, 12 and 12 feet high. The total change in elevation from the base of the lowest wall to the surface of the truck parking lot at this location is approximately 38 feet with some sloping (a total of 4’) proposed between the walls.

What noise will be generated from truck backup alarms?

OSHA requires back-up alarms on construction vehicles. Construction vehicles typically do not use this type of facility. We contacted Fed-X Ground, Schneider National and JB Hunt motor carriers. These companies have three of the largest truck fleets in the nation. The trucks they use are referred to as over-the-road trucks and are typical of freight haulers. These are the type of trucks that would visit the Love’s facility. None of these companies require backup alarms on any of their trucks. Please note that some non-construction vehicles, such as some garbage trucks, have backup alarms and may occasionally visit the site.

Has a criminal impact study been performed as part of the application?

No, a criminal impact study is not required by the regulations.

How will chemical releases from truck accidents be managed?

Suspected hazardous material spills from any motor vehicle crash must be reported by the fire or police departments, vehicle driver or concerned citizen to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), Emergency Response Unit. The Unit determines the proper response effort.

What “fumes” will be generated from vehicles visiting the site?

Government regulations have resulted in new technology diesel engines, which have been on the market for several years. They use ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel and have advanced engine and emissions control systems resulting in near zero emissions for nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulate matter. These regulations are tiered so that they continue to get more stringent over time thereby reducing emissions even further. Over time, older diesel trucks are constantly being replaced by cleaner running diesel powered vehicles.

How will litter be managed by the proposed facility?

Litter throughout the site will be picked up daily by Love’s associates.

Will the proposed development have a negative impact on the environment?

The proposed development has received approval from the Willington Inland Wetland and Watercourses Commission. During that process, which included several public hearings and site walks, the applicant provided evidence that the development will not have an adverse impact on the environment.

Does this plan need to be approved by other agencies?

Yes. The storm drainage improvements proposed for CT Route 320 will require review by the Connecticut Department of Transportation as part of their encroachment permit process. The proposed septic system final design will have to be reviewed and approved by the CT DEEP after local approvals as described in the next comment response.

Has the septic system plan been submitted to DEEP for their review?

The CT DEEP will not review a final septic system design until all local approvals have been obtained. However, they do provide guidance for a preliminary design that can be done during the local review process. A preliminary design was done by F&O in accordance with the CT DEEP’s preliminary design standards for septic systems. This preliminary design included meetings with CT DEEP. Soil investigations and subsequent calculations proved that it is feasible to place a leaching field in the location shown on the plans. A final design will be completed and submitted to the DEEP for their review and approval once local approvals are received. A preliminary subsurface wastewater absorption system design report was submitted as part of the application package.

Is the proposed water supply adequate?

Yes. The proposed water supply will be adequate as detailed in the Potable Water Supply Evaluation submitted as part of this application.

Has a wildlife study been done for the area?

The CT DEEP Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) was reviewed. No state or federal listed species or significant natural communities were indicated on or immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. The nearest NDDB area is located approximately 1.9 miles northwest of the site.

On sheet GI-102, can the location of Roaring Brook be added, can the property lines SW of the site be verified, can the test hole in the brook be verified, and can culverts in Polster Road be shown?

The off-site location of Roaring Brook and Polster Road cross-culverts within 500’ of the property boundary will be added as requested. The property boundary for the subject parcel is correct. It was prepared by a licensed land surveyor to the accuracy of a class A-2 survey. There may be a discrepancy in the off-site boundary to the southwest. However, this does not affect the subject parcels property line locations.

Mr. Galeota said there was a question from Mr. Tulis about a test hole in the brook that he was not able to locate and asked Mr. Tulis to provide the location.

Since no gate is proposed, how will the facility prevent vehicles from staying an extended duration?

Love’s associates monitor truck dwell time on a daily basis as part of their regular duties.

Is the existing subsurface too porous for the proposed septic system?

No. The soil characteristics and leaching field effluent travel times and distances estimated during preliminary design fall within the acceptable rates set by the CT DEEP.

Is the proposed stormwater management system really a “triple redundant” system when the volume that can be stored at each structure is limited?

Yes, the system is redundant. Typically we would provide only an oil/water separator to address petroleum spills at a fueling facility similar to this. Petroleum spills, although very unlikely, can occur. Spills that do occur are typically small and well within the 500 gallon petroleum capacity of the oil/water separator alone. The redundant system was proposed to increase the factor of safety to further insure that petroleum products are contained on-site. The combined system can contain approximately 13,500 gallons of petroleum. For comparison, the average fuel tanker carries approximately 9,000 gallons. Love’s owns and operates the fuel trucks that will deliver to this site. The drivers receive training about all aspects of fuel delivery including procedures to prevent spills and what to do if a spill occurs. Portable spill kits will also be permanently located on-site.

Will tires be changed inside or outside and where will the compressor be for the air gun?

The compressor for the tire service air tools will be located inside the tire care facility building. Wheels will be removed from the vehicle while it is parked under the shed roof attached to the tire care building. Once removed from the vehicle the wheel will be taken inside the building for the repair work. Once repaired, it will be remounted to the vehicle under the shed roof. The air tool used to remove the wheel from the truck is a pneumatic drill. The noise level standing next to this tool is approximately 80 decibels, which is comparable to a kitchen garbage disposal at a distance of three feet from the ear. Love’s services three to five tires per day. It is difficult to estimate at what distance this sound can be heard because it depends on many factors including levels of background noise from I-84, wind, humidity and elevation difference. The tire care building and carport will shield some noise from leaving this area.

What additional maintenance requirements will be required from town staff as a result of this project?

Love’s will provide any and all maintenance necessary on their property. Love’s has agreed to provide and maintain pavement markings on Polster Road along their property frontage. Love’s has also agreed to assist in the Town’s snow removal efforts on Polster Road. Polster Road, along Love’s entire frontage, will be reconstructed providing the town with a new roadway with a typical life expectancy of twenty years.

How will winter conditions affect road safety?

Love’s has agreed to assist in the Town’s efforts to clear snow from Polster Road along their frontage with their on-site snow removal contractor.

How will the facility accommodate tandem trailers?

The facility can accommodate fueling tandem tractor trailers. There is no parking available for tandem trucks at this facility. Tandem trucks needing to park or access services other than those available at Love’s will use other facilities.

Does the plan depict a final location of proposed features?

Yes, the only exceptions are the septic system leeching field that might shift slightly as a result of the DEEP final review and any revisions required by the Commission or Town Agency.

Is the length and slope of the passenger vehicle entrance adequate?

The passenger vehicle entrance length and slope is acceptable.

Mr. Galeota said the Love’s drivers are schooled on spills and the same drivers come back to the sites over and over again. He said they gave a lot of thought on where to locate the underground storage tanks for diesel and gave a lot thought about the delivery system when the trucks pull up to fuel the tanks; He said there is a catchment area in the unlikely event of any spill which goes into the storm drain and immediately takes it to a system with the oil water separator, swirl concentrator and down into the lined sediment forebay with a floating oil boom. Mr. Galeota said each fueling area has a catch basin that travels to an oil water separator and all the fueling areas pitch toward the catch basin which then travel to the separator and so forth. He said the automobile fueling area has reservoir grooves along the outside to collect any spill before it gets off the pad. He then turned the floor over to Mark Vertucci.

Mark Vertucci of Fuss & O’Neill addressed the Commission and read through the following question and answer document.

Is the existing I-84 westbound off ramp adequate for the proposed truck traffic?

As part of the State Highway system, the I-84 westbound off-ramp has been designed to accommodate truck traffic. The ramp was recently reviewed by CTDOT and improvements to signage and the installation of advanced warning flashers were completed on November 5, 2011 to increase safety of the ramp. Also, CTDOT has recently improved the sightline approaching the westbound ramp by clearing vegetation and trees.

A review of the accident data shows that the improvements have resulted in a decreased accident rate on the ramp and at the intersection with Route 320. In addition, the exit to the ramp and the intersection with Route 320 at the bottom of the ramp are not currently listed on CTDOT’s Suggested List of Surveillance Study Sites (SLOSS) list, which identifies intersections where accident reduction techniques should be investigated. The absence of this location on the SLOSSS List indicates that CTDOT has not designated the off ramp as a high accident location, has not targeted the off ramp for an upcoming improvement project, and considers this ramp to be safe in the existing condition for passenger car and truck traffic.

What is the accident history at the I-84 westbound off ramp?

We reviewed the accident data for the I-84 westbound off-ramp. The analysis shows that the improvements made by the CTDOT to the signage and advanced flashing warning system have resulted in a reduction of crash rates from previous years. Accident rates have decreased from an average of over 5 accidents per year to an average of 2 accidents per year. This accident rate is not considered abnormal for an interstate highway off ramp and this ramp is not included on CTDOT’s SLOSSS list, as noted in the previous comment.

Is the size (i.e., length and width) of the existing Polster Road bridge adequate to accommodate trucks?

Yes, the bridge is able to accommodate truck traffic. It is rated for 34 tons.

What is the accident history of the existing Polster Road bridge?

Accident data has been requested from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Analysis of the accident data will be provided when the data is received.

Is the intersection of Fenton Road at Rockwell Road adequate for trucks to turn around and are there adequate sight distances?

The intersection provides sufficient space for a WB-67 vehicle to turn around. The intersection is a three-way stop where all vehicles must slow down and come to a stop before proceeding through the intersection.

Mr. Vertucci said they are not proposing the intersection as a turnaround but there has been truck traffic using the intersection as a turn around.

Will trucks turning around at the intersection of Fenton Road at Rockwell Road promote vehicular accidents?

Accident data has been requested from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Analysis of the accident data will be provided when the data is received.

What are the assumed vehicle trips to the Love’s facility that originate from the Town of Stafford and how will this affect the overall traffic volume on Polster Road?

The existing volume of traffic on Polster Road is negligible in comparison to the traffic that utilizes the I-84/Ruby Road ramp system. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Love’s development will attract any appreciable amount of traffic from the north on Polster Road. The minimal traffic volumes that currently exist on Polster Road indicate that the existing TA truck stop is not attracting appreciable traffic from Polster Road or the Town of Stafford via Polster Road. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the Love’s travel stop, having similar but less variety of amenities than TA, will not cause traffic volumes on Polster Road from the north to be appreciably different than exists today.

All truck traffic to the proposed Love’s facility is expected from I-84 and Route 320. Polster Road/Fenton Road are town roadways and Willington/Stafford can elect to prohibit through truck traffic on these facilities with appropriate signage as depicted on the proposed off-site signage plan (CR-104).

Why is the proposed stop sign on Mihaliak Road westbound necessary?

A stop sign is proposed for Mihaliak Road westbound due to the insufficient sight line for vehicles looking left out of Polster Road in the existing condition. The sight line travels through the existing vacant gas station building limiting the sight line to only 350 feet. This existing deficiency should be addressed regardless of the Love’s project.

What precautions will be taken so trucks do not drive past the truck entrance?

An extensive off-site signage plan has been included in the application as drawing CR-104. Multiple proposed signs on Polster Road provide clear direction to motorists at the truck entrance and passenger vehicle entrance. High visibility, oversized “No Access to Highway”, “No Thru Trucks”, and bridge weight limit signs are proposed for northbound Polster Road traffic. See proposed off-site signage plan (CR-104).

Mr. Vertucci presented and explained the proposed signage plan. Atty. Branse asked if changes were made since the last Public Hearing and Mr. Vertucci said they made some minor changes. Att. Jacobs said they are still meeting with the Town Engineers and will submit new plans at the next meeting that will incorporate all of the engineer’s comments as well as the new signage plan. Mr. Vertucci will leave a copy of the plan presented this evening.

What impact will truck traffic have from the proposed development on neighboring residential streets (i.e., Mihaliak Road and Lohse Road)? What would happen to trucks that accidentally travel past the Love’s facility on Mihaliak Road, Lohse Road or Turnpike Road?

The Traffic Impact Study submitted with this application indicates that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact to intersections along Mihaliak Road and Lohse Road where site generated traffic is expected to travel. As shown in the study, negligible traffic volume from the proposed facility is expected to traverse Lohse Road west of Ruby Road or Mihaliak Road east of Polster.

In terms of errant truck traffic, the visual sight line to the Love’s site from the highway and Polster Road as well as the extensive proposed signage plan will virtually eliminate the possibility of a truck losing their way or passing the Love’s site inadvertently. In the rare event that a truck destined for Love’s mistakenly continues on Mihaliak Road, Lohse Road or Turnpike Road, trucks will utilize the closest intersections to perform a turnaround maneuver. On Mihaliak Road, the intersections with Mihaliak Road Extension or Dozatzak Road contain sufficient space for a turnaround maneuver. On Lohse Road, the intersection of Lohse Road and Kucko Road can be utilized. On Turnpike Road, Turnpike Road extension can be used for a turnaround maneuver. Again, with the extensive signage and visual sight line to the Love’s facility, it is not expected that any trucks destined for Love’s will not be able to navigate between I-84 and the site.

Mr. Vertucci added that the errant truck issue that is occurring today is an issue with TA and will not occur with Loves

Is the traffic count data from December 2009 still valid?

Yes. Due to the length of review and approval periods, traffic counts are often grown to future years (typically up to 5 years) to obtain a conservative estimate of traffic volumes as part of the traffic impact study. Upon consultation with CTDOT, the 2009 traffic volumes were determined to be accurate as little development and traffic growth has occurred near and within the study area in the past 4 years. A comparison of traffic data indicated that the projected background traffic volumes were within ±5 to 10 percent of the latest available 2011 CTDOT counts.

As stated in the Traffic Impact Study for this project, the 2009 existing traffic volumes were projected to the 2014 design year using a 1.5 percent per year peak hour growth factor to account for normal traffic growth in the study area. Given the lack of development that has occurred in this area and stable traffic counts, the projected 2014 traffic volumes utilized in this study should be considered conservative. It is likely that an updated 2013 traffic count would depict actual traffic volumes on the road network as being lower than the projected/grown volumes utilized in the study.

What will be the size of the directional signage?

The size of the proposed directional signage will be added to existing and proposed off-site signage plans (CR-103 and CR-104).

Will Ruby and Lohse Roads be widened as part of this development?

Ruby Road and Lohse Road are currently of sufficient width to accommodate truck traffic based on CTDOT standards and will not be widened as part of this development. The Traffic Impact Study does not indicate that these roads will require widening.

What is the basis for the 1/3:2/3 Love’s traffic split in the Traffic Study?

The proposed traffic distribution was based on experiences at other Love’s facilities and truck travel centers across the country. Due to the fact that there will be a truck/automobile facility on both sides of I-84, a more even split of traffic from each ramp will not be likely. Truck traffic in the eastbound direction will more frequently visit the TA while truck traffic exiting in the westbound direction (with the Love’s site directly in front of them), will more frequently visit the Love’s. This is consistent with typical driver behavior. When two similar services are located on opposite sides of a roadway, in most cases drivers will choose the service on their side of the road due to the fact that it can be accessed more easily and directly.

Will vehicles travel between the Love’s and TA facilities?

It is possible that some trucks may visit both the Love’s and TA facilities during the same trip. Some trucks traveling I-84 westbound originally destined for the TA travel center will divert to Love’s, thereby reducing the existing number of trips to the TA along Route 320 and Ruby Road. In addition, any trucks that visit Love’s and then proceed to the TA will not create additional trips along Mihaliak and Ruby Road as they would have already been traveling through these intersections to access the TA if Love’s did not exist..

Is there enough queuing distance between the passenger vehicle entrance and stop sign on Polster Road?

Yes. As shown in the Traffic Impact Study, the Polster Road at Mihaliak Road intersection operates with minimal queuing on the Polster Road approach due to negligible conflicting traffic volumes on Mihaliak Road westbound. According to the analysis, less than one truck is expected to be queued on Polster Road during the peak hours. Polster Road has sufficient space to store two trucks (120 feet) before intersecting with the passenger vehicle driveway.

Does the plan included in the submission depict the final location of proposed features?

Yes. The only exceptions are the septic system leaching field might shift slightly as a result of DEEP’s final review and any revisions caused by Town agency review.

Is collecting traffic counts on Wednesday adequate?

It is standard engineering practice for traffic counts to be conducted on a normal weekday; which in transportation engineering are Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Counting on other days of the week is less accurate as trip patterns are inconsistent due to vacations, holidays, etc. In addition, due to normal schedules of truck travel, travel stops typically experience the highest amount of truck traffic on Wednesdays.

Has a traffic engineer visually observed existing traffic patterns at the site?

Yes.

Has existing CTDOT traffic count information been reviewed?

Yes, traffic counts available on the CTDOT website was reviewed as part of the Traffic Impact Study. However, the traffic counts from CTDOT are only available for State Routes and only include average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, not individual turning movements. To obtain traffic volume information for the traffic impact analysis, turning movement counts at the study area intersections and ADT along Polster Road (not available in the CTDOT data) were conducted. As stated in the Traffic Impact Study, these 2009 counted traffic volumes were projected to the 2014 design year using a 1.5 percent per year peak hour growth factor to account for normal traffic growth in the study area and obtain a conservative estimate of traffic volumes in the study area. Upon consultation with CTDOT, the 2009 traffic volumes were determined to be accurate as little development and traffic growth has occurred near and within the study area in the past 4 years. A comparison of traffic data indicated that the projected background traffic volumes were within ±5 to 10 percent of the latest available 2011 CTDOT counts.

Does the existing I-84 westbound off ramp meet today’s design criteria?

Is the design of the study area intersections adequate to support truck traffic (specifically truck turning radii)?

Yes. A review of the study area intersections was performed and turning movement diagrams of each intersection are included on plan CR-109.

Why are there existing westbound logo signs on I-84 but no existing eastbound signs on I-84?

Due to CTDOT regulations, logo signage is not allowed on the I-84 eastbound approach to Exit 71 because the distance between the Exit 70 and Exit 71 ramps are too closely spaced to allow for adequate signage patterns. Instead, I-84 eastbound provides standard signage directing drivers to the food, gas/diesel, phone and lodging services available off of exit 71. On I-84 westbound, full logo signs are available on the highway and exit off ramp as the distance between exits meet CTDOT criteria.

How does the traffic study account for truck traffic to the facility from Turnpike Road?

No truck traffic is expected to access the facility from Turnpike Road. As shown in the Traffic Impact Study, all trucks destined for the facility are expected to come from I-84.

How does the traffic study distinguish between cars and trucks?

Traffic turning movement counts performed at the study area intersections distinguished between vehicular traffic and truck traffic. This percentage of trucks in the traffic stream is then incorporated as part of the capacity analysis methodology outlined by the Highway Capacity Manual, an industry standard publication on traffic analyses.

Should a rollover median be used to prevent vehicles from entering the outbound driveway?

Adequate signage and pavement markings will be provided on Polster Road and at the entrance to discourage trucks from entering the exit-only driveway and to guide trucks into the appropriate entrance to the north.

Should a left turning lane be added on Polster Road at the truck entrance to the site?

A left turn lane on Polster Road for the truck entrance is not warranted by the analysis shown in the Traffic Impact Study. As shown in the analysis, minimal queuing of less than one vehicle is expected for left turns entering the driveway and there is minimal opposing traffic (less than 10 vehicles in the peak hours) southbound on Polster Road. Additionally, that portion of Polster Road will be regraded to significantly reduce the existing roadway slope.

What is the actual span of the existing Polster Road bridge?

The span is 25 feet as listed in the September 2011 CTDOT Bridge Inspection Report.

Should the applicant address the existing truck through issue on Polster Road?

The issue of trucks travelling on Polster Road to get to Stafford and Route 190 is an existing issue. This existing issue is independent of this application. However, the proposed project includes extensive signage to reduce the potential for this issue to continue. Additionally, the Love’s facility itself will provide a turnaround in the unlikely event that an errant vehicle attempting to access Interstate 84 heads northbound on Polster Road.

Will eastbound traffic on Route 320 turning left onto Polster Road back up past the westbound I-84 ramps?

The Route 320 eastbound traffic onto Polster Road will be a free flow condition with no traffic control and therefore no queues will be formed entering Polster Road.

How is the signage plan affected if the signs proposed on town or private property are not authorized?

The proposed signage on private property is helpful for guidance purposes, but it is not required. The standard DOT service signs will be provided on the I-84 eastbound off ramp which will guide vehicles to the proposed facility as described in the Traffic Impact Study. In addition, unlike the TA, the Love’s site will be visible to both I-84 eastbound and westbound traffic as they approach Exit 71.

Atty. Jacobs said they answered all the questions raised by the public at the last meeting and at the next meeting they will present the plans that incorporate the Town Engineer’s comments. Atty. Jacobs submitted a public hearing extension letter to the Commission.

Atty. Branse asked if anyone felt their question asked at the last meeting was missed.

Brian Semprebon, of Turnpike Road, said looking at the contour lines, he comes up with a height of 48 feet at the northwest corner and questioned the heights quoted earlier. Atty. Jacobs said they will double check and respond at the next meeting.

Chairman Marco asked if there were any new questions.

Elaine Newcomb, of Fermier Rd, said there was an accident report cited from westbound exit ramp on I84 stating it was regraded and the accident rate went down. She said at that time there was no reason for trucks to be turning right and asked what the expected impact would be when the trucks turn right on the road

Mark Wojak, of Lohse Rd, expressed his concern on the noise level and asked for a member of the Commission to observe the noise level in the area. He said the noise level will double if the project goes in.

Daniel Donahue, of Mansfield Road, Ashford, and owns property on Lohse Road addressed the commission.. He said he has a Masters in Science and has been a professional forester for 32 years. Mr. Donahue gave his work experience and listed the boards and commissions he has served on throughout the years; his resume was submitted for the file. He said he has been on a lot of land in Tolland County and has a lot of perspective of what is valuable as a natural resource area.

Mr. Donahue read the following document with his questions and comments and the document was submitted for the record.

Comment 1: In this presentation at the Public Hearing on April 16, 2013, Mr. Jacobs, the applicant’s attorney, would lead the Commission to believe that any and all environmental concerns have been successfully resolved as a result of actions taken by the Willington IWWC. With due respect, this is simply not true. As state in the POCD, “The identification and prioritization of the relative value of natural resources that exist in Willington is an important consideration in planning future development.” The PZC plays a vital role in considering important environmental issues that are not within the jurisdiction of the IWWC. For example, Section 4.23 of the Zoning Regulations establishes special protective status for the riparian corridors of Roaring Brook, the Fenton River, the Willimantic River, plus their tributaries. Most riparian corridors customarily include substantial areas of land that are not wetlands. The PZC is charged with regulating land use. It is the land use being proposed for this particular property that I contend is inappropriate given the exemplary condition and quality of all the site’s collective natural resources.

The riparian and upland forest habitats that occupies the subject property is an outstanding example of a mature, mixed deciduous-coniferous forest growing on very fertile soils in a topographically protected valley. The fact that it abuts a large section of the Nipmuck State Forest where the woodlands are equally spectacular only amplifies the natural resource values of the property and the entire Roaring Brook riparian corridor. In my experience this is one of the most productive and aesthetically beautiful forested areas in the Town of Willington and is worthy of the special consideration that its close proximity to Roaring Brook affords it.

The Town of Willington has evaluated, identified and designated over 630 acres of Design Commercial and Design Industrial zoned land that is currently vacant and unused. If the Town were to undertake a town-wide evaluation of individual parcels and their relative value for natural resource evaluation, I believe the subject property would rate very highly.

Comment 2: The proposed development will have a significant, negative impact on wildlife habitat. In addition to the habitat that is totally destroyed with the development footprint, there will be negative impacts on the undeveloped acreage, as well as the abutting Nipmuck State Forest. The forest currently supports a diverse assemblage of native birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. These will be replaced by common species that compete better in developed or urbanized settings – crows and raccoons, for example, as well as invasive species like English house sparrows. This is why land that is specifically conserved for wildlife habitat purposes is typically connected to other habitat that has already been conserved.

Comment 3: The PZC should consider a further evaluation of the large wetland that bisects the center of the property and is missing from the plans. It appears to me to function as a tributary of Roaring Brook, which would provide it additional protective status under the P&Z Regulations. This wetland is recognized by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in their National Wetlands Inventory database.

Question 1: The forest on the subject property appears to me to have local and, potentially, regional significance. Will the PZC consider retaining a qualified natural resource professional to provide an independent evaluation of the “relative value of the natural resources”.

Questions 2: With respect, I believe that Mr. Galeota’s presentation on April 16 failed to fully convey the magnitude of the cut and fill operation and retaining wall construction that will be required to make the site usable for the proposed commercial activities. It has been clarified tonight but we need a better way for the PZC and the public to get a full appreciation for the true nature of these immense alterations. Will the PZC consider requesting that the applicant prepare several cross-section profiles depicting the existing topography and the post-development landscape?

Question 3: It has been stated by the applicant’s representatives that the proposed land use is complimentary with other nearby business. In my opinion it is not at all complimentary, but in fact redundant. Willington residents and highway travelers currently have three locations in town in which they can purchase, fuel, snacks, fast food and other conveniences. Will the PZC request a clarification from the applicant’s representatives on how exactly the land use will complement the other commercial land uses that have been permitted at two of the three I-84 interchanges in Willington?

Mr. Donahue said he does not believe commercial development is inevitable and the property should probably be preserved. He expressed his concerns on fuel spills and said it would be better if the applicant showed the entire site so the public and commission can see what part of the site will be altered. Chairman Marco said they conducted a site walk on May 4^th and the public was invited. Mr. Donahue referenced 4.5.2, of the POCD and said if you preserve the property or develop it less intensely, you’ve accomplished everything in section 4.5.2. He then closed by reading a section of 5.2 of the POCD; Growth Management Strategies.

Melissa Miller, of Mihaliak, commented on the necessity of a stop sign on Mihaliak Road and said if it was a necessity, wouldn’t there be one there now. She expressed her concern on the turn and asked if there would be changes and if it would be widened.

Kathy Demers, of the Conservation Commission, said they submitted a letter and would like to highlight a few points. Ms. Demers read the following from the letter submitted:

The Conservation Commission has reviewed the referenced application for a change of zone along with its Preliminary Site Development and Land Use Concept Plan. Based on our review of Willington’s Plan of Conservation and Development (2006) as well as the Natural Resource Inventory and Open Space Conservation Plan (2007), we have significant concerns that the high intensity use plan, for which the zone change is being requested, will have negative impacts on the quality and character of the Town’s natural resources. We will enumerate these concerns in light of the Town’s Zoning Regulations, Section 12.04.01 regarding zone changes, wherein the PZC shall consider the impact to:Section 12.04.01.02 –

“…the character and uniqueness of the natural resources of the neighborhood,...”

Section 12.04.01.05 –

“The quality of the natural resources within the proposed zone and the effect the proposal will have on such resources. The presence of wetlands and flood plains, the quality of the water in streams and ponds, the impact the proposal might have through the disposal of septic effluent or stormwater runoff, the degree of topographic alteration, and the uniqueness of animal and plant communities shall be considered…”

Ms. Demers said the applicant has said their concerns seem disingenuous but according to the regulations, the PZC can reconsider their concerns. She described the Nipmuck State Forest which is in Willington, 320 acres, and extends into Stafford; it is 1 of 4 in Willington of this size and the only 1 in the northern section. Ms. Demers showed the areas of Roaring Brook on the map and said there’s a lot of conifer along the corridor and a large amount of mature hemlock forest which protects the brook and the watershed in terms of the quality of the water, erosion and sedimentation and from the effects of heat. She said when the water is heated it no longer becomes a good habitat for the wildlife including the brook trout. Ms. Demers asked how the applicant would protect against temperature changes and said the watershed has already been impacted by other industrial development and any additional development will put additional stress on the watershed.

Ms. Demer said the wild trout breeds in this river whereas a lot of streams in Connecticut, the DEP has to stock fish in the rivers to resupply. Ms. Demers said IWWC approved the application with conditions including monitoring of the brook above and below the site. She said the applicant has discussed erosion and sedimentations but has not talked about how they will protect the brook against temperature changes.

Ms. Demers said the State Forest is also an important recreation area for the town; people hunt and fish there and the area is a core habitat for larger mammals. She said the site is going to have a significant topographical change and 31% of the site will be disturbed. Ms. Demers said there are beautiful stone walls on the site along Polster Road and asked how the applicant will protect and/or reconstruct the walls.

Ms. Demers said there are a lot of steep slopes and mature trees which help to keep the ground cool. She said the best erosion and sediment plan is to keep the forest intact. Ms. Demers referenced the applicants plan XC101 to depict all the water resources on the site and pointed out Roaring Brook and the 7 wetlands on the site which are detailed in their document submitted. She said wetland F and G are a 4.5 acre hemlock forested wetland and even the applicant in their assessment described this as unique. Ms. Demers said this is the wetland that Mr. Donahue felt needed more study. She showed the wetlands that drained into Roaring Brook and said whatever gets into wetland F, G, and H has the potential to get into the brook. Ms. Demers said the site is very ecologically sensitive and requires a higher standard than what the applicant has provided.

Ms. Demers referenced Detention Basin #2 on CG102 and said the basin and the level spreader are going to require a lot of clearing very close to the wetlands that are contiguous with Roaring Brook. She referenced regulation 4.23 of the zoning regulation which identifies Roaring Brook as a special concern and states there should not be any septic or vegetation clearing less than 150 feet from wetlands that are adjacent to Roaring Brook and because of the connectivity it can be argued the wetlands are adjacent.

E. Standish asked if the information presented was covered in the Conservation Commission letter and Ms. Demers said that it was. E. Standish left at 10:00. Ms. Demers said the IWWC approved the application but is concerned about the quality of the water. Atty. Branse asked if Ms. Demers is authorized to speak for the IWWC and she said no. Atty. Branse said the record and permit is in the file from the IWWC so representation of things they said cannot be made. Ms. Demers said in the wetlands approval and conditions it is stated that they have concerns and expressed her concerns on a possible fuel spill.

Ms. Demers talked about Vernal Pools which are special and unique habitats and said particular amphibians rely on vernal pools. She submitted CT DEEP information on spotted salamanders and wood frogs and said they have been identified in the vernal pools on site. Ms. Demers read the following from the letter submitted by the Conservation Commission:

According to CT DEEP (2013), populations of many vernal pool-dependent amphibians, including wood frogs and spotted salamanders are on the decline, not only because of loss of vernal pool breeding habitats, but of even more importance, the reduction of upland habitat surrounding their aquatic breeding sites, as well as road mortality. Most wetland regulations prescribe a 50-100 foot wide forested buffer around vernal pools. This buffer is to maintain water quality. To maintain the amphibian biodiversity of a vernal pool requires 500 feet or more of primarily forested habitat surrounding vernal breeding pools.

Ms. Demers said in vernal pool D there were 500 wood frog egg masses noted and submitted Best Development Practices Conserving Pool-Breeding Amphibians in Residential and Commercial Developments in the Northern United States for the Record. Ms. Demers quoted portions of the document and said 75 % of the area, 750 feet from the vernal pool edge, should be protected as forested over story. Ms. Demers expressed her concerns on the disturbed soils, the change in topography, noise and lighting and invasive plants which are detailed in the document submitted.

Ralph Tulis said, on the site walk, he observed the lack of branches on the trees, the over story was quite high and when the site gets opened up with no foliage on the trees, the hillside and trees will be starved from water. He said this will further compound the problem Ms. Demers is speaking about.

Ms. Demers referenced Vernal Pool D on CG 101 and said it is a breeding site for amphibians that will be migrating across the landscape and expressed her concern on the amphibians migrating during construction, the areas they will be funneled to and the volume of traffic. She said the pool will be monitored per IWWC but once the population is impacted, it may never rebound. Ms. Demers submitted a listing of the known and expected wildlife in the area for the record. She said there are several other associations and commissions concerned about the natural resources that have also submitted letters for the record and are in the file.

Ms. Vitulis said at the prior meeting, the applicant talked about site line excavation and asked if they could expand on it. She asked about the maintenance road and asked what would be taken out.

Scott Wing, of Lohse Road, expressed his concerns on the signage and the trucks maneuvering with the angle of the roads. He said he believes this is the wrong site and does not want any more commercial development.

Karen Bradley, of Schofield Road, referenced 4.2.2 of the POCD, reducing the impact of truck traffic on the community, and expressed her concerns on truck traffic and the impact it will have on the neighborhoods.

Dorie Wilson, of Mihaliak Road, expressed her concerns on the bridge on Polster Road and asked the proposal for fixing this.

Nancy Gauthier, of Fermier Road, asked about the DEEP approval for the septic system and Chairman Marco said it goes through the town and the town sanitarian first and the state won’t evaluate it until the town has submitted their approval. Ms. Gauthier asked about ZBA approval and expressed her concerns on the septic system, waste water, and emissions levels. She also expressed her concerns on health, safety, and balances within the town.

Janice Angrisani expressed her concerns on the truck traffic and the trucks stopping at the incline on Polster Road during inclement weather. She suggested Polster Road and Route 320 be graded and widened and asked the plan for correcting these issues

Barbara Dion of Kucko Road expressed her concerns on the animals and invasive plants. She said she is concerned about the trout in Roaring Brook, light pollution, signage and litter on the roads.

Alfred Angrisani said he is concerned about damage to private property, road maintenance and the town’s revenue and asked what Loves plan is for structural road maintenance should Polster Road not stand up to truck traffic.

Brian Semprebon questioned ZBA’s rejection for the septic system and S. Yorgensen said someone could request a hard copy if they wanted it submitted. Mr. Semprebon referenced 11.08.01 of the zoning regulations and asked if the zone change should be approved by ZBA prior to this application. Mr. Branse said they have separate statutory requirements and they are separate boards with separate approvals.

Elaine Newcomb asked how the commission could make a zone change without knowing the project and questioned why the applicant wants to come to Connecticut with the high gas tax.

Mr. Tulis questioned how the Commission could make a zone change for a 40 acre site without knowing it will be approved by ZBA and asked what happens if ZBA denies. Atty. Branse said all the required permits and approvals would have to be acquired before the applicant can proceed. Atty. Branse said because it is a floating zone, it is this site plan and mix of uses that would be approved and if it turns out they cannot have a gas station, they cannot have anything unless someone comes back in to modify the proposal.

Mr. Tulis asked if the site development plan is the preliminary and the final plan; are they are tied in both directions and Atty. Branse said that is correct. Mr. Tulis asked if the approval for the preliminary site development plan and zone change is concurrent and Atty. Branse said it would be one vote but the Special Permit would be a separate vote.

Mr. Tulis referenced 13.03.06 of the regulations; shall provide to the commission a certified copy of a certificate of public convenience and necessity and Atty. Branse said it would have to be part of the application if they are a water company and that would be a question for the applicant. Mr. Tulis referenced 13.03.0; shall provide a verified approval for subsurface approval disposal and asked if it was part of the application and asked how the Commission can act on an incomplete application.

Mr. Tulis expressed his concerned on the traffic and said the intersection is poorly configured by someone that is not familiar with the area. He asked the applicant to take a truck and try to maneuver the turns. Atty. Branse asked Mr. Tulis to submit his comments for the record by the close of the hearing. Mr. Tulis expressed his concerns on the wording Mr. Vertucci’s used and statements that were made. He said you cannot predict the future of traffic flows and lanes used on highways therefore you have to take the traffic study with a grain of salt.

Mr. Tulis said his comment regarding the left turn lane had nothing to do with traffic safety; he said it was to provide an escape lane for someone that cannot stop. Mr. Tulis expressed his concern on the Polster Road Bridge and the different widths that were provided by the applicant’s engineer.

Mr. Tulis referenced regulation 12.03.05.02 regarding changes to the drawings and asked the applicant to read it and said that the plans submitted by IWWC and the plans submitted to P & Z have a different date. Mr. Tulis added the IWWC plans had a smaller number of vehicles stated than P & Z and asked about the revision to the plans.

Melissa Miller said she does not want this business “in her backyard” and expressed her concerns on the lighting, smog and crime.

Janice Angisani, of Lohse Road, asked the plans for the storm water drainage on Polster Road that will be a problem during winter weather.

David Kuchinsky, of Lohse Rd, said the property is special and needs the commission’s stewardship. He also expressed his concerns on the traffic study and his concerns on errant trucks.

Nancy Gauthier asked to see DEEP comments regarding the wetlands.

Attorney Mark Branse asked the following question of the applicant:

4.23: Do you agree that the wetlands on the site are "adjacent" to Roaring Brook watercourse and hence governed by Section 4.23 and its 150' setback? Some research on the word "adjacent" might be helpful, and Josh Wilson may also have an opinion concerning impacts on the wetlands as triggering impacts on Roaring Brook. Despite your wetlands permit, the PZC can consider broader environmental issues in its review of a change of zone.

13.03.06, Water supply: Will this project trigger a certificate of public necessity and convenience? If so, has it been applied for or have there been preliminary discussions with DPH? If it's a water company, how do you propose to address Section 13.03.06? If you propose this as a condition of approval, is there evidence of a probability of it being approved? See Gerlt v. Planning and Zoning Commission of South Windsor,

290 Conn. 313 (2009).

13.03.03.01, sanitation: Is this material part of the submission? If not, are you seeking a waiver and how would you justify it? As for conditions of approval, see preceding point.

Signs: The submissions are totally inadequate--no dimensions, number, location, etc. See 12.03.02.07, 13.03.07.05.01 (location of signs),

13.03.02.05.02 (height of signs etc.), 19.07.02.

Lighting: Sheet EL-101 doesn't include fixture height, as far as I can see. Note maximum 20' height per 13.06.02. Fixture height and detail must be provided per 13.03.02.05.02.

Architecture, Sheet A-101. See 13.03.02.05.12 and 13.06.01.

Section 11.08.01, the ZBA location approval: Which comes first under case law? I do recall a case on point.

Attorney Branse submitted the above comments to the applicant in writing.

S. Yorgensen said the public can submit any concerns they have in writing for the record. Mr. Tulis asked how they would get answers and S. Yorgensen said they may not get individual answers but their submittal would be part of the record.

The Public Hearing has been continued to May 21, 2013 at 7:30 and will be held at the Willington Library.

Regular Meeting

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

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 May 21, 2013 decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

The Public Hearing was set for May 21, 2013.

PZC2013- 15 Application for a 1 lot subdivision at 55 Blair Road (Map 53 Lot 3 Zone R80) Owner/Applicant: Stephan G. Lackman (Received May 7, 2013 Public Hearing or decision by June 18, 2013)

This application was tabled to the next meeting, May 21, 2013.

Old Business:

The Public Hearing was continued to May 21, 2013 at 7:30 at the Willington Library.

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)

A brief discussion was held on the application.

Chairman Marco motioned to approve application PZC2013-13 and T. Murphy seconded the motion and unanimously approved.

The Public Hearing was continued to May 21, 2013 at 7:30 at the Willington Library.

The Public Hearing was continued to May 21, 2012 7:30 at the Willington Library.

Minutes

D. Roberts motioned to approve the minutes of 4/2/13. W. Parsell seconded the motion and unanimously approved.

Meeting Adjourned at 11:30.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michele Manas

Recording Clerk