Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commission
40 Old Farms Road, Willington, CT 06279
Sept 13, 2010
Meeting Minutes
Members Present:
Ken Metzler – Co-Chairman
Dave Schreiber – Co-Chairman
Tess Gutowski
Evan Brand
Mark Drobney
Greg Blessing – Alternate
Also present:
Gary Jones – Planner/Zoning Agent
W2010-11 Application for construction of travel stop, including store, food service, fueling station and associated construction at 3 Polster Road (Owner: Frank & Joseph Malack etal Applicant: Loves Travel Stop and Country Store Inc. (Received April 12, 2010 Public Hearing May 10, 2010 continued to June 14, 2010 continued to July 12, 2010 P.H. closed 37 day extension granted for decision)
K. Metzler informed the commission that a decision had to be made tonight.
T. Gutowski said in regards to the letter from the Conservation Commission, the Commission did received a response from Fuss & O’Neil. She said, in regards to the May 28th letter from the Commission’s engineer Joe Polulech, of the 4 issues brought forward 2 of the issues were not addressed. G. Jones confirmed that he had read the file and did not see the 2 items addressed. T. Gutowski said Joe Polulech reviewed the file and confirmed the items were missing.
D. Schreiber motioned to deny this application.
The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission of the Town of Willington (the “Commission”) makes the following findings based on the record before it:
- The Commission received the application for an inland wetlands and watercourses permit from Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (“Applicant”) for activities in the regulated area of property located at 3 Polster Road, Willington, Connecticut (the “Property”).
- The over all application involves the proposed placement of a travel center along Polster Road on 41.962 acres of land. Within this 41.962 acres are separate areas of wetlands which have been labelled A/B, C, D, E, F/G, H, I and J on the surveys submitted by the Applicant. (See Sheet XC-101).
- The wetlands areas include three vernal pools, located within the wetlands areas flagged as C, D and E, as well as a hemlock swamp in the wetlands area designated as F/G and groundwater discharge wetlands in wetlands H, I and J. The wetlands flagged as A/B is the Roaring Brook and its associated flood plain.
- The groundwater discharge wetlands, H, I and J, serve the purpose of moderating the temperature and pollutants from the roadways, and are considered vital to the cleanliness and suitability of the Roaring Brook for the habitation of trout and other similar species which require extremely clean water qualities.
- The Applicant has proposed activities which would involve 5.15 acres of regulated area, all of which is in the upland review area. These activities involve two detention basins, with their associated level spreaders, rip rap and fore-bays, handling water from the travel center parking lot, as well as pavement area, grading and galleys for the on-site sewage disposal system.
- The site contains many features which are unique within Willington and relatively rare within the State of Connecticut. The Applicant’s use of standard Ammann methodology for evaluation of the biology on site does not account for the unique nature of wetlands types present at this location.
- The Applicant was requested to perform test borings at the northerly detention pond and indicated it would not do so. As a result, the Commission is left unable to determine whether this detention basin will be overwhelmed during certain storm events, spilling water into Wetlands J.
- The erosion and sediment control plan details set forth on sheet CE-101 involve the use of certain chemicals, such as calcium chloride and fertilizers during periods of temporary seeding. These chemicals will introduce nutrients to the wetlands which would usually be caught in detention basins. This influx of nutrients is likely to cause harm to the wetlands and alter their function.
- While the Applicant has taken steps to mimic the present flow of water on site, the Commission continues to have concerns that certain wetlands, specifically E and F/G, will receive less water. The vernal pool (#1) in Wetlands E could be de-watered.
- The detention basin on the southwesterly side of the parking area discharges within 50 - 150' of Vernal Pools #1 and #2 and lies somewhat between them. These distances do not provide the necessary separation to insure the vernal pools’ function and the placement between relatively close-together vernal pools has the potential to serve as a “decoy wetlands” for amphibians.
- The catastrophic spill plan relies on contingencies that the Commission has not been persuaded will come to pass in the present situation. Additionally, the permanent heavy duty oil containment boom and petroleum sorbent booms requested by Joseph Polulech, P.E., the Commission’s consulting engineer, have not been shown on the plans.
- The evidence regarding potential slope failure during the construction period was unpersuasive. Additionally, much of the work on the detention basins must occur in very close proximity to the wetlands without an adequate demonstration of how these wetlands will be protected during this period. As a result, there may be more damage to the wetlands than has been stated by the Applicant.
- The maintenance of the detention basins will involve the bringing of equipment into sensitive wetlands areas without the infrastructure required to insure that this can be done with minimal impacts to the wetlands. This is especially true if there is an incident which results in petroleum products getting into the detention basin areas.
- While the Applicant has demonstrated a good track record in spill cleanup and mitigation, the Commission is cognizant that this permit runs with the land and not with the owner. As a result, the evidence of the Applicant’s good track record will not matter if the travel center is taken over by another party.
- The alternatives presented to the Commission were cursory and inadequate. The dismissal of the Ashford site as “not prudent” simply due to its failure to maximize its visibility to truck traffic along Route 84 is inconsistent with the Regulation’s definition of that term. The term “prudent” is defined in the Regulations as: economically and otherwise reasonable in light of the social benefits to be derived from the proposed regulated activity provided cost may be considered in deciding what is prudent and further provided a mere showing of expense will not necessarily mean an alternative is imprudent.
- The Commission could not verify on the plans that the roof structures over pump dispensing areas and UST filling areas were draining to tanks, as had been requested. Additionally, the Commission was unable to verify whether the UST filling areas were to be installed with concrete pads and positive limiting barriers.
- As shown on Sheet CU-103, the zone of influence for the nitrogen dilution for the galleys designed to hold the septic waste for the site runs right up to the edge of the Wetlands J. The Commission is not persuaded that the nitrogen will stop at the boundary, and there is no margin for error as shown on the plans.
- The Commission has particular concerns about the following two criteria as set forth in Section 10.2 of its Regulations:
(e) The character and degree of injury to, or interference with, safety, health or the reasonable use of property which is caused or threatened by the proposed regulated activity. This includes recognition of potential damage from erosion turbidity or siltation, loss of fish and other beneficial aquatic organisms wildlife and vegetation, the dangers of flooding and pollution, and destruction of the economic, aesthetic, recreational and other public and private uses and values of wetlands and watercourses; and
(f) Impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses outside the area for which the activity is proposed and future activities associated with or reasonably related to, the proposed regulated activity which are made inevitable by the proposed regulated activity and which may have an impact on wetlands or watercourses.
The potential loss of fish in the Roaring Brook due to the dangers of flooding and pollution greatly concern the Commission. Additionally, the impacts which are made inevitable by the activities proposed will negatively affect the wetlands themselves, even if the permit itself is only calling for activities in the upland review area.
- Such other violations of the Regulations as the record before the Commission may indicate. Because the Commission has identified the most serious deficiencies in the application does not mean that the above list is exhaustive. Quite the contrary, there are numerous other defects in the application but the Commission is not required to prepare a “punch list” of them. The applicant is expected to be familiar with the Regulations and to submit an application which is compliance with them.
For the preceding reasons, in addition to the evidence on the record, the Commission hereby DENIES this application.
T. Gutowski seconded the motion. Commission voted. All in favor. Application Denied.
W2010-21 Application to construct single family dwelling, septic, well, driveway and site grading within upland review area at 18 Balazs Road (Map 44 Lot 16 Zone R80) Owner/Applicant: Craig A Johnson (Received July 12, 2010 Public Hearing by September 13, 2010 Decision within 35 days after close of P.H.)
Ed Pelletier was present for the applicant.
K. Metzler said all members except for E. Brand have been on site. He said his major concern is the clearing and how close it is to the stream. A discussion was held on the distances to the stream and if the association restricts clearing. Mr. Pelletier said the foundation could be moved back and the driveway put on the other side.
Mr. Pelletier explained the proposed plans. T. Gutowski asked if there were any other differences other than moving the septic up. Mr. Pelletier said no. He said they did add a Management Plan for the septic and read this to the commission. M. Drobney expressed his concern on the wording of pumping the septic on a regular basis and felt this should be more descriptive. A discussion was held on how the homeowner would know about and abide by this plan. Mr. Pelletier said he was not sure and also said this design may not be what is built. The owner is selling and another design may come before the commission.
T. Gutowski asked the footage from the structure to Fenton Brook. Mr. Pelletier said 150 feet. Mr. Pelletier went over the alternatives.
K. Metzler said he does not have a problem with the house, his concern is maintaining an adequate vegetated buffer. He said if he could be sure the buffer would stay in place, he would not have a problem with the house. A discussion was held on possibly putting a limit of disturbance on the plans and a discussion was held on the possibility of an easement. G. Blessing asked the distance from the reserve to the edge of the wetlands and Mr. Pelletier said 8 feet. G. Blessing asked if they could raise the septic and Mr. Pelletier said they originally planned it that way but the Health Department denied it because they could not follow the contours of the land.
Mr. Pelletier said he could look into a conservation easement with the association. A discussion was held. K. Metzler asked if the applicant was willing to grant an extension and Mr. Pelletier said yes and he will follow up with the applicant and the association regarding the easement. Mr. Pelletier granted an extension to the October 25th meeting.
A discussion was held on alternatives for the foundation drain. M. Drobney asked the applicant to make the Management Plan a little more specific.
W2010-22 Application to upgrade existing gravel driveway to 24 ft wide paved driveway to create access to 316 acres. Located at Ruby Rd between house #168 and #190 (Map 33 Lot 19) Owner/Applicant: Ruby Road Associates LLC c/o Stanley Sadlak (Received July 12, 2010 Public Hearing by September 13, 2010 Decision within 35 day after close of P.H.)
Ed Pelletier was present for the applicant and explained the plans. He said the only place they have access is in the area proposed. He said DOT has looked at the plan and approved a driveway in the proposed area. Mr. Pelletier said the maximum slope they can do is 12% and this is 12%. He explained the driveway design and said they will put a concrete box culvert in.
K. Metzler asked if there were any speculative plans once the driveway is in. Mr. Pelletier said not at this time as it’s very expensive. He said they wanted to come before the Commission first to see if they could put a driveway in to gain access. K. Metzler asked why a 24 foot drive and Mr. Pelletier said to allow 2 cars to pass. T. Gutowski asked why a 500 foot driveway; why not 10 feet past the crossing. Mr. Pelletier said to get vehicles up the hill onto the site. T. Gutowski asked the applicant to read the IWWC Regulations and said they that is where their concern is.
A discussion was held on the width of the driveway. K. Metzler asked if there were any other logging road access and Mr. Pelletier said no. T. Gutowski asked about alternatives and Mr. Pelletier said a plan was submitted with the previous application and showed this on the plan. He said it would not meet regulations for the town and would not meet DOT guidelines. A discussion was held.
K. Metzler said he would like to see the development plan and not just the driveway. Mr. Pelletier said there is no plan now; they are very limited. He said if they can’t get past IWWC for a driveway, there’s basically 316 acres they can’t use.
D. Schreiber motioned to deny the application. T. Gutowski seconded the motion.
K. Metzler said he does think it is the permission of the commission to approve access. If is just access wanted to get up there, the existing path seems sufficient.
All in favor. Motion carried. Application denied.
Correspondence
1. Emergency Incident Report for a transformer spill at 429 Tolland Tpke.
2. Emergency Incident Report for a petroleum spill at 327 Ruby Road.
Minutes
K. Metzler motioned to approve the minutes of August 31, 2010. T. Gutowski seconded the motion. All in favor.
The minutes of July 12, 2010 will be review at the next meeting.
Discussion
K. Metzler said he is considering resigning effective the first of the year and will decide by the next meeting.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:37.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michele Manas
Recording Clerk
| 
