Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commission
40 Old Farms Road, Willington, CT 06279
August 15, 2011
Special Meeting Minutes
Members Present:
Dave Schreiber – Co-Chairman
Ken Metzler – Co-Chairman
Tess Gutowski
Evan Brand
Mark Drobney
Members Absent:
Greg Blessing – Alternate
Also present:
Susan Yorgensen – Planner/Zoning Agent
Attorney Mark Branse
Public Hearing
W2011-27 Application for construction of travel stop, including store, food service, fueling station and associated construction at 3 Polster Road (Owner: Frank & Joseph Malack et al Application: Loves Travel Stop and Country Store Inc. (Received June 13, 2011 Public Hearing August 15, 2011 Decision within 35 days after close of P.H.)
D. Schreiber called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 and said the role of this commission is to address only the things that pertain to inland wetlands. He said they cannot address roads, etc. and these items would have to be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Atty. Mark Branse said a Public Hearing will be held before zoning to address traffic, roads, lighting, character of neighborhoods but the charge of this commission is to address impacts on wetland watercourses only.
Attorney Leonard Jacobs was present for the applicant and introduced Jim Perry and Josh Wilson, both of Fuss & O’Neill, and Rick Sheffield of Love’s Travel Stop. Atty. Jacobs presented the proposed site plan on the 40 acre parcel and said that most of the development is along the eastern side of Polster Rd. He said they have been before the commission many meetings prior and the previous application was denied in September 2010. They then came back before the commission in November of 2010 for clarification and questions. Atty. Jacobs said, when they were denied, they knew there was information they needed to develop so they took the time to analyze the denial. He said they have two general matters; one is their previous Professional Engineer, Rich Pettinelli, left Fuss & O’Neill
approximately a week ago and Jim Perry, also a Professional Engineer, has picked up the file from the time Rich left. Jim has done everything he can to acquaint himself with the file but you may have some questions that he has to research in more detail in which he will come back with answers at the next meeting. The second matter is the new Professional Engineer the Commission has chosen for the project. The applicant has received a 7 page document from Jacobson & Associations but they have not had the time to digest the document fully and have not met with the town engineer.
Atty. Jacobs said they have made changes, listened to the commissions and public comments and are willing to adopt any feasible and prudent alternatives that are necessary for this project.
Jim Perry, a Senior Vice President at Fuss & O’Neill, introduced himself. Mr. Perry said he has 35 years experience doing development work and 20 years in the state of Connecticut. Mr. Perry gave some background information on previous projects he was involved in which included Rentschler Field in East Hartford.
Mr. Perry said the site is a 40 acres parcel on Polster Rd. All development is tucked up against Polster Rd because all the wetlands are concentrated on the west side of this property and the layout was chosen to have minimal impact on the wetlands. It consists of 7 truck fueling stations, weigh station, convenience store with a couple of restaurants, 12 bay covered canopy fueling station, and a truck parking lot on the northern part of the site.
Josh Wilson, a Professional Wetland Scientist with Fuss & O’Neill introduced himself and said his resume and background information has been submitted to for the record. Mr. Wilson presented the overall site layout and explained the 8 wetlands on site. He gave the characteristics of each of the wetlands, labeled A through J, all of which is detailed in the plans and Wetland Assessment Report submitted for the record. Mr. Wilson explained the vegetation of each wetland as well as the functions and values of each which is also detailed in his report. He said wetlands C, D, and E have been identified as potential Vernal Pools. Mr. Wilson said they went out to observe the breeding amphibians in the Vernal Pools in June of 2009, twice in March of 2010 and in April 2011. He gave their findings in each
which is also detailed in the Assessment Report.
Mr. Wilson said they tried to maintain the integrity of the buffer in the wetland review area and that there will be impact to the forest canopy in two areas due to 2 detention basins and gave the details. He said a 3rd level spreader was installed for discharge of surface run-off and the goal is to minimize the impact the impervious surfaces will have on the ground water and he showed this on the plans. Mr. Wilson said, in terms of water quality, they do not feel there is going to be a significant impact to the wetland. He said the 3 Vernal Pools on site ranked as moderate in terms of protection.
Mr. Perry presented the Proposed Site Plan Board and said they developed a layout in a way that has minimal impact on the environment. Mr. Perry then presented the Proposed Watershed Map and explained the drainage layout. They tried to keep most of the water to the northern part of the site and keep the water moving toward detention basin #2 and away from any petroleum products. He said the majority of the drainage on site goes thru detention basin #2 and he also explained the oil/water separators and containment areas that then drain into detention basin #1. They additionally put in something different from the prior application for the water that drains on the parking lot; a Gull Wing Drainage System and Mr. Perry gave the details of the system. He explained the infiltration swales on both sides of the parking
lot and said they came up with good ideas to increase infiltration. He said the roof water will go into the infiltration chamber.
Mr. Perry referred to some of the points brought up in the previous denial and new level spreaders were added in the south and west area of the parking lot, one for detention basin #1 which is 90 feet in length, one in detention basin #2 which is 120 feet in length and substantially different from the prior application. He showed the new location of the leaching area for the septic system that they believe is a more favorable location. They did a series of subsurface investigations for an area of better permeability and looked for a natural location that didn’t require fill and they found a really good spot. They will put a small barrier in wetland I and it will travel to wetland H in a 35 day travel time from the leaching area to wetland H. He said the septic system will be a DEP approved system. He also
briefly explained a pre-treatment/nitrogen reduction system that will be installed.
Mr. Perry referred to the Sedimentation/Erosion Control Plan and said he saw some areas he will make improvements to. The greatest threat to wetland is during construction and he would like to prepare a much clearer plan to be presented at the next meeting. He said silt fence will go in first before anything else happens and they will construct detention basins early to get them stabilized as quickly as possible. Mr. Perry said he wants the site in a disturbed phase in as short an amount of time as possible.
K. Metzler asked how he would contain a catastrophic failure. A discussion was held on the grade and the walls. K. Metzler said he was not asking him to address it right now but would like to see it presented when they come back. Mr. Perry said he is passionate about sedimentation and erosion control and they have to treat it incredibly carefully and lay it out specifically. He said there will be a Spill Prevention Plan for the fueling and diesel tank areas and explained the containment details while showing the areas on the plans.
A discussion was held on the differences between the oil/water separator and the vortex. Mr. Perry said the oil/water separator is meant for very low water flow and acts as a low hydraulic capacity system. The vortex units are much larger units and have a swirl circulator which separates out particulates and then goes into baffles that act as a small oil/water separator. They can handle much higher drainage flows. D. Schreiber asked the capacity of the oil/water separator and Mr. Sheffield said they will get the number to them for the next meeting.
In the previous application, K. Metzler said he was concerned about the level of ground water on the site. Mr. Perry said they now have test boring information and showed. K. Metzler the borings on the plans. A discussion was held. He said they will also eliminate the use of fertilizer and calcium chloride and explained the different ways they have increased infiltration on the site. K. Metzler said he realizes they made a lot of improvements on water infiltration to mimic the natural flow of the site but he would like an analysis on how balanced the drainage is on the site.
Mr. Perry referred to some of the comments on the previous denial and gave some detail of what will be on the plans to come. K. Metzler asked about an access way to maintain the detention basin and Mr. Perry showed an access way that will be a gravel road to get down to the basin and lower area. Mr. Perry gave a quick review of the previous comments and said they took the commission’s comments very seriously. The commission will get even more information at the next meeting. K. Metzler said he would like to take some time to look over the new plans. T. Gutowski referred to the previous application and the water that was coming off the site to the east and asked if that’s been eliminated. Mr. Perry said the only water draining to the east is the tiny entrance drive. T. Gutowski questioned
the moderate wetlands ratings and Mr. Wilson said they follow the criteria and all the information is on Table 4 and 5 in his assessment.
D. Schreiber asked if there would be a maintenance schedule for detention basins and Mr. Perry said yes, there will be a written narrative. Atty. Branse said he was not present for the first wetland application in regards to maintenance and asked if the proposal included a bond. Mr. Sheffield said they are willing to entertain that request if desired by the board.
K. Metzler asked if the boring logs were on the plans and Mr. Perry said no, but they will be.
D. Schreiber opened the floor to the public. He read an email from Pearl Lake in opposition of the application.
Ralph Tulis, an abutter on Village Hill Road, submitted a letter dated August 15, 2011 for the record. He said his review was based on an old set of drawings and now sees that additional information is continually coming in. He reserved the right to modify his letter when he goes through the plans as they are now. Mr. Tulis felt the residents should be able to review the information prior to the public hearing. Atty. Branse said the public has an opportunity to review the information as soon as the Commission receives it and once the public hearing closes, they cannot submit anything additional and everyone will have the opportunity to review documents when the commission gets them.
T. Gutowski said the application and plans submitted by Love’s were the ones provided to the town engineer and asked if there was any new material. S. Yorgensen said the only new material was a supplemental Wetlands report dated August 12th. Atty. Jacobs said they are following S. Yorgensen’s suggestions and would like to set up a meeting with the Jacobson firm. Atty. Branse expressed his concern on information coming in to the commission a couple days before the public hearing and Atty. Jacobs said he understands and if that did happen they would have to give the commission more time.
Mark Wojcik of 40 Lohse Rd asked the amount of times an applicant can come before the commission. D. Schreiber said they can only turn them down as long as the rules and requirements are not followed; if all regulations are followed, they cannot deny or they can get sued in court and lose. K. Metzler said every application is a separate application and once a decision is made, it closes the door on that application and any subsequent application is a new application. Atty. Branse said the law is if the commission votes, they cannot vote the opposite way on what is substantially the same application. The applicants know this and address and make changes based on the grounds for denial. He said they cannot come back over and over again with the same application.
Scott Wing of 68 Lohse Rd said the retaining wall seems to be a major part of the project and if you put so much liability on the retaining wall, what happens in a catastrophic event? He referenced the retaining wall at Home Depot that failed and said it takes a very long time to clean up. He expressed his concerns on the roads, wetlands and septic system. Atty. Branse asked about his experience and if he encountered a situation where the retaining wall failed and gas tanks were involved. Mr. Wing said he is employed by the Department of Environmental Protection and works on clean up of spills but has not encountered this happening in Connecticut.
Karen Bradley of Schofield Rd said there are many rest areas and truck stops in this area as well as a rest area and truck stop right in Willington and gave the location of each. If Loves wants to do the right thing by travelers, by towns and by truckers, they need to go westbound and not in Willington; we are already accommodating the truckers and do not need another truck stop in town.
Rob Symonds at 110 Lohse Rd expressed his concern on the retaining wall. He said they are dealing with a 30 to 40 foot wall which doesn’t compact over night. He foresees a problem down the road with a wall that tall and said it is a bad location; wrong application for the wrong spot.
Kathy Demers of the Conservation Commission explained the functions of the wetlands and said the Conservation Commission is concerned about dewatering of the wetlands, particularly wetland D and E, and diverting the water to the southern portion. She also expressed her concern about breeding amphibians, particularly the wood frogs, within several hundred feet and how the noise and light pollution will impact their breeding. Ms. Demers is also concerned about this area bordering 320 acres of the Nipmuck State Forest and the animals getting to the Vernal Pools. They are going to be up against retaining walls and catch basins and would like the commission to consider this as well as wetland functions.
Mr. Wojcik asked Mr. Perry if he has done a project like this before and Mr. Petty said he has not done a truck stop but he has worked on a number of large construction sites with significant retaining walls.
Mr. Tulis expressed his concern on Fuss & O’Neil delegating the design responsibility to another party and Atty. Branse said he knows Mr. Tulis is a professional engineer but case law tells the commission in order to review applications of this kind, they need to hear from people of expertise, not speculate. Speculation is not proof and it is the charge of the experts to determine whether or not a wall will fail and if contamination will reach the wetlands.
Nancy Gauthier, of Fermier Rd, said they already have a truck stop and Fed Ex in that area and is concerned about air pollution and the effect it will have on people with respiratory problems. D. Schreiber said air pollution concerns will have to be brought before the P & Z commission.
Jim Butler questioned various areas on the plans and expressed his concerns about the wall in regards to spills. He asked if people will be monitoring the site and Atty. Branse said the commission can require an on-site supervisor to be hired at the expense of the applicant, i.e. engineering monitor. Mr. Butler expressed his concern on the septic.
Janice Sastre asked if there are any wetlands across the road that may be impacted and Mr. Wilson said yes, there are wetlands across the road but they will not be impacted as the water flows to the west.
Mr. Tulis said, from someone that lives in the area, there are wetlands on the east side of Polster Rd and it will impact the wetlands if they widen Polster Rd. Atty. Branse asked if the plans show widening of the road and if the applicant intends on doing so. Atty. Jacobs said they do plan to widen the road but doesn’t think it reflects on the plans but they will address that at the next meeting.
Bill Hale of Lisa Lane expressed his concern on the language used in assessing the effects on ground water such as minimal or reduces. D. Schreiber said a lot of this comes down to the definition of terms.
A discussion was held on continuing the public hearing and a date of the next hearing. Atty. Jacobs said they will try for September 12, 2011 if they can set up a meeting with the Jacobson firm in time.
K. Metzler motioned to continue the public hearing to September 12, 2011 at 7:30 in the common room. T. Gutowski seconded the motion. All in favor.
Public Hearing adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michele Manas
Recording Clerk
| 
