Members Present:
Dave Schreiber – Co-Chairman
Ken Metzler – Co-Chairman
Tess Gutowski
Evan Brand
Mark Drobney
Heather Dionne - Alternate
Members Absent:
Greg Blessing – Alternate
Also Present:
Susan Yorgensen
Attorney Mark Branse
Public Hearing
W2011-51 Application for construction of travel stop, including store, food service, fueling station and associated construction west of Polster Road & north of Lohse Road at the intersection of these roads (Map 46 Lots 16 &17 Zone) Owner: Frank W & Joseph Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (Received November 14, 2011 Public Hearing January 9, 2012 Decision within 35 days after close of P.H.)
D. Schreiber called the Public Hearing to order at 7:45 and explained that the Commission will only discuss items that pertain to Inland, Wetlands and Watercourses only. Atty. Mark Branse introduced himself as the Commission’s Attorney. He asked the Commission to disclose if they felt they may have a conflict of interest and all members stated they did not have a conflict of interest.
Attorney Leonard Jacobs introduced the team; Jim Parry, Josh Wilson and Tom Galeota of Fuss & O’Neill and Rick Sheffield from Loves Travel Stop & Country Store. Atty. Jacobs explained that the first engineer from a prior application is no longer with the team and now Jim Parry has taken over over. He said they withdrew the last application based on questions that arose from the public and questions from Attorney Branse and went back to do further research and are now back tonight with a good presentation. Atty. Jacobs referred to an email from Atty. Branse regarding 4 items; retaining walls, the easterly side of Polster Road, fuel storage and maintenance.
Atty. Jacobs said the Town hired an engineer, Jacobson & Associates, who will review the application and file a report with the Commission. When the report is written, the applicants engineer will sit with the town’s engineer and go over the comments. Last Wednesday, a meeting was held between Jim Parry, Tom Galeota of Fuss and O’Neill and Joe Dillon of Jacobson & Associates. Atty. Jacobson said changes were asked of them that they would be willing to make and it did not sound as if they had any disagreements. He asked that the Commission not close the Public Hearing until they have the opportunity to make the changes that are asked of them.
Jim Parry referred to a letter that had been submitted with responses to Jacobson & Associates questions. Mr. Parry also submitted the following documents for the record; Overall Site Layout, Proposed Site Plan, Detention Basin #1, Truck Scale and Section A-A. He said they withdrew the application in August to do some additional work and resubmitted November 14, 2011. Mr. Parry referred to the Overall Site Layout and said is at the corner of Lohse or Mihaliak depending on where the road ends. The 40 acre site is on the western side of Polster Road of which they are occupying 8 or 9 acres of the site. Mr. Parry pointed out the area of Roaring Brook and the wetlands. He said the project is Love’s Travel Stop which consists of a convenience store, 2 small fast food restaurants, 12 auto fueling islands, 7
truck fueling stations, a truck scale and a small truck parking area. Mr. Parry said they have widened the western side of Polster Road and have 3 curb cuts off Polster Road into the site.
Josh Wilson, a Professional Wetland Scientist and Registered Soil Scientist, referred to the Overall Layout Plan and the delineated wetlands. Mr. Wilson gave the details of the wetlands which are all detailed in his Wetland Assessment Report. He said there are 8 wetlands on site. Mr. Wilson pointed out wetlands A and B which constitutes Roaring Brook and is Floodplain wetlands, wetland C is an isolated wetland/potential vernal pool, wetland D is a depressional wetland and there is a narrow crossing between D, F and G. Wetland E is a small isolated wetland/potential vernal pool. Wetland F and G are large Hemlock and Red Maple swamp. Wetland H is a seepage wetland and intermittent stream and Wetland I and J are also seepage formed wetlands. He said J does receive some storm water run-off from Polster Rd. Wetland X is an offsite perennial watercourse and associated wetland. Mr. Wilson described the vegetation of each wetland area which is also detailed in his Wetland Assessment
Report.
Mr. Wilson gave the functions and values of the wetlands. A and B are largely ground recharge/discharge wetlands with fish, shellfish and wildlife habitat and scientific, educational and recreational value. Wetland C is primarily groundwater recharge/discharge and very limited habitat. Wetland D provides groundwater recharge/discharge, flood flow alteration, sediment nutrient renovation retention, production export, wildlife habitat and scientific, educational and recreation value. E is a groundwater recharge/discharge wetland. He said one note about wetland E and C is they are perched wetlands. F and G have quite a few functions; groundwater recharge/discharge, flood flow alteration, sediment nutrient renovation retention, production export, wildlife habitat and scientific, educational and recreational
value. H is a seepage wetland which provides groundwater recharge, wildlife habitat and very little sediment nutrient renovation. I is a very small seepage wetland between H and J. J is groundwater recharge/discharge and eventually the groundwater makes its way down and recharges out through wetland H. Wetland X receives groundwater discharge flow into it and also provides some recharge. At the end of X, there is an excavated pond that provides sediment nutrient renovation and has some wildlife habitat.
Mr. Wilson briefly went over the hydraulic characteristics of the area; D, F and G eventually discharge into Roaring Brook which is the main hydraulic flow. J discharges along to the west and I is similar. H flows and eventually gets into a portion of Roaring Brook.
K. Metzler asked the depth to groundwater between J and H. Mr. Wilson said they are on the drawing but they did test pits this past year and the depth to groundwater is greater than 8 ½ feet at 12 and greater than 7 at 13.
Mr. Wilson explained the potential vernal pools; wetland C, D and E were all identified as potential vernal pools and X was also at one time. He said wetland C was 8 feet on average in the spring but they did not observe any wood frogs eggs. Although, they did observe 5 to 7 salamander eggs both times they investigated but in the spring the egg masses were sitting on the top as the hydro-period was not sufficient to support the amphibian population. Wetland D was 3 feet to 4 feet deep and in the wetland they saw over 500 wood frog eggs and 23 spotted salamander eggs in the area. Wetland E was 18 inches average depth and both years’ 8 to 9 salamander eggs were spotted but no wood frog egg masses. He said they used Appendix A of the Watercourse regulations to rate the vernal pools which are listed in his
report on Table’s 4 and 5. Wetland C received a numerical ranking of 6, D a ranking of 10 and E a ranking of 7. He said all 3 of the vernal pools, based on the regulations, are moderate vernal pools.
Mr. Wilson said ultimately the goal of the project is to have no significant impact on the wetlands and with this project; they will not have any direct activity on the wetland. He said all activity is in within the 100 foot upland review area. Mr. Wilson said groundwater impacts and surface water impacts have been minimized on the site and all attempts have been made to collect surface water and discharge it back into the wetlands where it would have gone and he showed this on the plans. He said in regards to groundwater impacts, the design of the site is to meet the recommended groundwater recharge volume to the site. Mr. Wilson said the goal for this site is 0.112 acre feet (the information is available in the storm water manual) and they are recharging at 0.182 acre feet on this site. He said there was
concern about E as being a small vernal pool which could be de-watered but they were not able to calculate groundwater recharge value for that particular area. However, the design was to look at the actual impact and the amount of impact here is 10% of the watershed that will be impacted and collected in detention basin #1.
K. Metzler asked for clarification as he thought Mr. Wilson said they were going to increase the amount of groundwater discharge. Mr. Wilson said they are not increasing the groundwater; they are meeting the minimum amount of groundwater discharge. K. Metzler asked if they were meeting the minimum amount of infiltration that will maintain the groundwater and Mr. Wilson said that was correct and gave the details of the requirements.
Mr. Wilson said, in regards to water quality, the design of the site meets all the requirements of storm water removal. With regards to functions and values, they do not believe there are going to be any direct impacts to the wetlands and watercourses on the site and no direct loss of function values or indirect loss of functions or values. He said with regards to vernal pools, there are protections requirements in place and explained an exclusion barrier that will be installed to exclude any amphibians from getting into detention basin #1.
Jim Parry presented the Storm water Management plan on the Proposed Site Plan. He said Detention Basin #1 is a fore bay and adjacent detention basin with a level spreader. He said they concentrated on this area because it is a remote area with the longest travel time and they looked at anything related to a potential petroleum spill. Mr. Parry explained the catch basin, the 1000 gallon oil water separator with a 500 gallon oil control separator and the fore bay with the containment boom; this one area is the containment around the gasoline fuel tanks and the fueling stations drain toward detention basin #1.
Mr. Parry then explained the roof water drainage system which goes to an infiltration chamber and then discharges into detention #1 when you’ve exceeded the capacity of the infiltration chamber. Mr. Parry explained the drainage for the truck island area and truck diesel tanks which includes a piping system to an oil/water separators; almost no rain water reaches the oil water separator. He said they have really good protection with the 2 oil water separators and showed the locations on the plans. K. Metzler asked about the box to the north of the automobile filling area and Mr. Parry said that is a catch basin that takes in surface water in the parking lot to the west of the building. He then explained the additional piping on the southwest corner of the paved site that feeds to a 300 gallon capacity vortec
unit.
Mr. Parry explained detention basin #2. He said all the truck parking is rear in parking and there is a Gull Wing design where all interior water drains to detention basin #2. Two central catch basins feed all of the interior drainage west to a vortec unit. Atty. Branse asked the significance of the trucks backing in and how they would require it. Rick Sheffield said the rear in parking applies to 98% of their locations; the trucks are not designed to pull forward due to the turning radius. He said they can effectively back in safely as opposed to backing out and this utilizes space so they can have the least amount of impervious space.
Atty. Branse asked about the 300 gallon vortec unit and how many gallons does a typical diesel truck hold. Mr. Sheffield said 150 to 300 gallons, the max fill being 300 gallons, but Connecticut has a lower fill level due to the higher taxes. Mr. Sheffield said ruptured tanks would typically drive onto a diesel island which would go into catch basin #1. D. Schreiber said the trucks have 2 tanks, one on each side, so if there was a rupture it would be only on one side which would be 150 gallons max? Mr. Sheffield said that was correct unless someone is being malicious.
Mr. Parry said the remaining catch basins which are not in spill prone areas drain to detention basin #2. Mr. Parry explained level spreader #3 which involves clean water in which a swale on the east side and west side flow to this level spreader.
Mr. Sheffield gave the specifics of the company which is a subsidiary of Gemini Motors. He said they have 260 delivery trucks, 500 drivers and in 2011 delivered 342,890 loads of fuel. Mr. Sheffield looked into the spill history which was approximately 20 minor spills under 20 gallons. He explained the chain of command; each driver has a district manager and their bonuses go strictly off their performance, not the loads delivered. Mr. Sheffield explained the 90 day training which includes a Code of Conduct that each driver signs. He explained the driver inspections and monitoring that takes place as well as the tank capacities and the average amount of fuel on site. Mr. Sheffield said they have tight reins and controls in place in regards to checks and counter checks.
T. Gutowski asked if the spills were their delivery trucks and Mr. Sheffield said yes. T. Gutowski asked if they are trying to minimize the spills and Mr. Sheffield said yes, with training; they are continually updating the Code of Conduct. T. Gutowski asked the type of spills and Mr. Sheffield said gas spills or if someone drives off with a hose. He said if someone hits a pump it would triggers a shut off valve. He said the more typical spill would be if someone pulls in with a leak and in that case, personnel is trained to have them pull up to the diesel islands.
Jim Parry presented feasible and prudent alternatives and referred to a document that was previously submitted. He said they started out on this layout as presented today with zero impacts and explained the site that was previously considered. Mr. Parry said they could not make the site work and then flipped to the current piece of property. The original site had much more wetlands impact. Mr. Parry explained the current parcel and said the only way to minimize impact is to stay on the eastern portion of the site. He said this is about the smallest footprint Mr. Sheffield has done; they are at bare minimal development. Mr. Parry went over prudent alternatives which include modification of the parking lot to have the gull wing shape, swales, infiltrators, roof drainage and moving the diesel tank they
formally had in the north location away from the fill area.
T. Gutowski asked about snow removal and a discussion was held. Mr. Sheffield said he would like to table this item and will provide the Commission with a better plan at the next Public Hearing. T. Gutowski asked if there was a re-design on detention basin #1 as most of the contaminated material is in that area and Mr. Parry said they will have a containment boom which is the last line of true defense. Atty. Jacobs said they will take a look at this item and provide additional comments at the next Public Hearing.
Tom Galiotta, a Senior Designer and Construction Specialist at Fuss O’Neill presented the Erosion and Sediment Controls. He said he was on the design team for Rentschler Field and Lake of Isles Golf Course. He explained the single phase construction and gave the details of the cuts and fills; the back of the site will become higher and the front lower. They will build a retaining wall to minimize disturbance. When Mr. Galeota looked at the site, he suggested they build the detention basins in their entirety and stabilize them before doing anything else on site. Mr. Galeota said he has included an Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative on the plans and read this aloud. The project will take 9 to 12 months from ground breaking to ribbon cutting, weather permitting. He read the Means and Methods and listed
the sequence of the project and the approximate timeline. Mr. Galeota said a licensed profession engineer or his or her representative would observe the construction of the retaining wall with weekly inspections at the very least and inspection within 24 hours after a rainfall event.
Mr. Galeota referred to Section A-A and gave the details of the retaining wall construction. He said he chose segmental block retaining walls and presented the Versal-Lok Design. Mr. Galeota went over the steps involved in the design elements and the system followed by the manufacturer when the wall is designed and constructed. The maximum wall height will be 8 feet. K. Metzler asked if they will bring in fill and the fill specifications. Mr. Galeota said he would have the specifications at the next meeting.
T. Gutowski asked about back-up power and Mr. Sheffield said they have generators at most locations which are typically back by the power box but he will have the answers for the Commission at the next meeting.
D. Schreiber opened the floor to public comments. Peter Anderson and Kathy Demers, of the Conservation Commission, said they have concerns about the wetlands and submitted a document dated 1/9/2012 for the record. Ms. Demers read portions of the document. She said they have significant concerns that the proposed development will negatively impact the quality and function of the wetlands and watercourse. Ms. Demers said the wetland report has contradictory statements and read this portion from the document: The wetland report has contradictory statements including, “The depth of the standing water ranged from 0.5 to 2 feet within this wetland” and later in the same paragraph, “No pools of sufficient size or hydroperiod were observed in this wetland complex to support breeding populations of
obligate vernal pool amphibians.” She read their concerns of the significant impacts on Roaring Brook’s cleanliness and suitability for the habitation of trout and aquatic species that require extremely clean water qualities and moderate temperatures. Ms. Demers said a moderate protection rating for vernal pools advises there be no disturbance with 50 feet of the pool perimeter and no storm water discharge within less than 50 feet from the pool. She expressed their concerns on the detention basins serving as decoy wetlands as well as the retaining wall possibly restricting migration routes. Ms. Demers said they are also concerned about noise pollution and the increase in traffic, light and other pollutants and how it will affect the wetlands and the wildlife.
Scott Wing of 68 Lohse Road asked the Commission to check the records of the other truck stop as the spill containment was not an accident; the driver made the decision to put diesel in the oil/water separator. He said he is concerned about driver error and said the site is not economically because they have nowhere to expand.
Karen Bradley of Schofield Road said she is concerned about spills and catastrophic events off site and the cost to the town from damage caused by tractor trailers. She also expressed her concerned about littering of bottles, human waste and garbage and submitted several pictures to the Commission.
Ralph Tulis of Village Road said he owns property at 12 and 22 Lohse Rd. He said he is a licensed engineer and is concerned about Roaring Brook and two other potential sites that could create a disaster for this watershed; TA and Fed Ex. Mr. Tulis said the prior set of drawings had multiple types of pavement and this one has 2 which could get distressed over time. He said Fuss & O’Neill should be responsible for the hillside from start to finish and expressed his concern about storm water maintenance. Mr. Tulis said the completed areas should be tested to make sure it mimics the natural flow. He asked the questions of showers on site, water volume and flow into wetland D and how long the boom will last in detention basin #1.
Bob Bloom of Dale Road said he is concerned about snow and ice control and the chemicals that will be used.
Jim Butler of Turnpike Road referred to the Proposed Site Plan and asked the reason for swales rather than curbing everywhere. Mr. Parry said the swales on the east and west sides allow ground water infiltration to occur. Mr. Butler expressed his concern of the backed in trucks leaking into the swale and asked the details of the septic system.
Atty. Branse said it is shown on the plans and if the Health Department has different requirements, the applicant will have to come back. Mr. Parry said they would have to get approval from DEP for the septic system. Mr. Butler asked if Love’s is bigger or smaller than TA and Mr. Parry said much smaller. Atty. Jacobs said as long as the septic is in the proposed area on the plans, they are okay, and if not, they will have to come back before the Commission.
Nancy Gauthier of Fermier Road asked if they can speak at the next Public Hearing and the Commission said yes.
Rob Symonds of Lohse Road asked about showers, car wash and water usage; how many gallons per day.
Marilyn Schreiber of Lohse Road asked about the use of rain gauges. Mr. Sheffield said they would not necessarily have rain gauges, an inspection would occur after a rain event. Mr. Galeota said readings would be taken from the National Weather Service or Weather Underground but they could have a gauge at the trailer as a backup.
Douglas and Sherry Strickland of Village Hill submitted a letter stating the truck stop would be beneficial to travelers and added revenue for the Town of Willington and should be approved.
K. Metzler motioned to continue the Public Hearing to February 13, 2012 at 7:30 in the upstairs Common Room. T. Gutowski seconded the motion. All in favor.
Regular Meeting
W2011-57 Application to construct new driveway w/culvert installation in upland review area and construction of single family dwelling on south side of Tolland Turnpike (Map 22 Lot 37 Zone R80) Owner/Application: Christopher Chaplin (Received January 9, 2012 Public hearing or decision by March 12, 2012.)
The Commission took a look at the plans and would like the Commissions engineer to look at the plans due to the amount of grading. K. Metzler said he is concerned about changing the grade with the compact till soils; there could be a lot of ground water discharge.
W2011-54 Application for agricultural exemption clearing land for horses, farming & agriculture use (Violation for initiating activity prior to permit) (Map Lot Zone R80) Owner/Applicant: Matt & Amy Michanczyk (Received January 9, 2012 Decision by February 13, 2012)
The Commission discussed the site walk and looked at the plans. A discussion was held on the terrain and the wetlands. A discussion was held on the Notice of Violation. The Commission would like the Notice of Violation added to the next agenda as a separate item. The application was tabled until the next meeting.
W2003-49 Notice of violation: TravelCenters of America (the Lessee) and George Giguere of Royce Properties (the Owner) of property located at 327 Ruby Road.
This Notice of Violation was tabled.
Minutes
Minutes of 12/12/11 and12/29/11 were tabled until the next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 11:06.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michele Manas
Recording Clerk
| 
