Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
IWWC Minutes 04/23/2012
Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commission
40 Old Farms Road, Willington, CT ~06279
April 23, 2012
Special Meeting Minutes

Members Present:
Dave Schreiber – Co-Chairman
Ken Metzler – Co-Chairman
Tess Gutowski
Mark Drobney
Heather Dionne - Alternate

Members Absent:
Evan Brand
Greg Blessing – Alternate.





D. Schreiber called the meeting to order at 7:10.

Heather Dionne seated for Evan Brand.

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.)

The members reviewed the application. Ken Metzler moved to approve file W2011-51. Tess Gutowski seconded the motion. There was a discussion regarding the conditions Tess Gutowski asked to amend #5 to include a plan for remediation, K. Metzler amended his motion to read:

MOTION FOR APPROVAL
APPLICATION W2011-51
MOVED, that the Willington Inland Wetlands Commission approve  Application #W2011-51, Application for construction of travel stop, including store, food service, fueling station and associated construction 3 Polster Road (on the west side of Polster & north of Lohse Road at the intersection of these roads, also identified as(Assessors Map 46 Lots 16 &17 Zone R80), Owner: Frank W & Joseph Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions.
Findings
  • The Commission finds that the application is complete and that sufficient information has been provided by the applicant to allow the Commission to reach a decision on the merits.
  • The Commission has given due consideration to the reports received, particularly from the Commission’s consulting engineer, its consulting soils scientist, and the Conservation Commission.
  • Because the Commission determined that the application involved a significant activity, as defined in its regulations, it held a public hearing on the application.  The finding of significant activity requires, per  Section 10.3, that the Commission deny the application unless it finds that no feasible and prudent alternative exists to the activity which has no impact, or a lesser impact, with such impact evaluated based on the criteria of Section 10.2
  • The Commission finds that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives that would reduce or eliminate any adverse impacts of the proposed activity, which alternatives have not been incorporated into the plans during the course of the application process, or which are required under the conditions of this approval. For that reason, the conditions of approval contained in this motion are integral to the approval, and the Commission could not and would not have granted approval but for such conditions.
  • The Commission finds that Vernal Pool # 2 (Wetland D) is of special significance due to its exceptionally high productivity and quality, and that protection of Vernal Pool D is essential to a finding of no adverse impact.
  • The Commission also finds that Roaring Brook, and especially its water quality, nutrient levels [and water temperature changes] are of great concern.  The Commission fears that the level of change will reach a tipping point and the water quality and temperature will change, reducing the biodiversity of these bodies of water, and therefore regular monitoring is necessary.   
  • The Commission finds that, except for the conditions below, the applicant’s engineers have properly addressed the potentially adverse impacts of the application in terms of the design work that they have done.  Therefore, the major remaining impacts arise out of the potential that the contractors who actually build the proposed facility do not follow the engineer’s plans and specifications.  Any deviation from the approved plans could have significant impacts on the adjacent wetlands and watercourses, and those wetlands and watercourses are of very high function and value.  For that reason, the conditions of approval place special emphasis on monitoring and supervision during the construction phase and the immediate post-construction phase.
  • The Commission finds that the other criteria of Section 10.2 are met, provided that the conditions below are incorporated into this approval.
Conditions of Approval
The application is approved subject to the following conditions which, as noted above, are integral to this motion for approval:
  • Any modifications to the plan shall be submitted to the Commission for their review and approval.
  • Three construction bonds shall be submitted to the Commission prior to the commencement of construction activity.  The first such bond shall be for sedimentation and erosion control; the second for the construction of the access road to the detention basins and the detention basins;  and the third for final stabilization of the site, including landscape plantings.  Cost estimates shall be submitted by the applicant’s engineer for review and approval by the Commission.  All bonds shall be by cash (must be used for erosion and sedimentation control), letter of credit, or passbook in the name of the Commission in a form satisfactory to the Commission’s attorney.
  • Daily site inspection logs and E&S inspection reports shall be conducted by the site engineer (hereinafter “the Engineer”) and submitted electronically on a weekly basis to the Commission.  The Commission approves Fuss & O’Neil as the site engineer.  Any change in designation of the Engineer will require Commission approval in order to establish that the replacement engineer is sufficiently familiar with the approved plans, specifications, and conditions.
  • Prior to construction, proof of registration with the DEEP for a permit for Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters from Construction Activities shall be submitted to the Commission.
  • Environmental Assessment of vernal pool #2 (wetland D) shall be collected prior to construction by a qualified individual (to be approved by the applicant and the Commission) with additional sampling one, two, three and five years after construction is completed.  Monitoring may be required to be extended if the results are not conclusive to determine whether or not significant changes to the ecological condition of the vernal pool have occurred.  Annual report shall be submitted to the Commission.  “Environmental assessment” includes the monitoring of plant life, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates and changes in the health and reproductivity of the population. If monitoring indicates adverse impacts, the applicant shall, within such time period as the Commission may specify, submit a remediation plan for the Commission to review and approve in order to prevent or remediate harmful impacts to the sensitive areas.
  • Groundwater monitoring wells shall be installed prior to construction in two areas.  The first area is down gradient of the proposed diversion swale between Wetland J and detention basin #2 to determine if the diversion (swale) is working as designed. Monitoring wells shall also be installed down gradient of the two infiltration areas indicated on the applicants’ plan, with water collected and periodically tested for organic carbon, aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals. Copies of the results shall be submitted to the Commission.  If groundwater monitoring indicates the presence of petroleum products, the applicant shall, within such time period as the Commission may specify, submit a remediation plan for the Commission to review and approve in order to prevent or remediate harmful impacts to the sensitive areas.
  • Water quality [and temperature] of Roaring Brook both above and below the site shall be monitored, with base line data collected prior to construction and then semi-annually for the first 5 years, thereafter annually.  
  • Copies of manufacturer specifications for oil water separators; Vortech units etc shall be submitted to the Commission. Computations for the proposed Vortech hydrodynamic separators and corresponding by-pass manhole systems should be provided.  The Commission must approve the specifications and calculations provided prior to unit installation.
  • The Engineer shall provide a design for the membrane liners for both detention basins.~ The designs should include specific details and specification that are in accordance with manufacturers specifications. Complete design calculations for the liner in detention basin #2 shall be submitted along with specific details and manufacturer specifications regarding installation and maintenance. The Commission must approve the design and specifications prior to installation.
  • The Engineer shall be on-site and oversee the dewatering and construction of the detentions basins as well as the diversion ditch swale for detention basin #2. A report indicating the Engineer's approval of such work shall be submitted to the Commission.
  • Detailed design calculations and final retaining wall plans shall be submitted by the Engineer, to be reviewed and approved by the Land Use Engineer.  The Engineer shall be on-site to oversee the construction of the retaining wall, the compaction of soils, and the functional integrity of the adjacent E & S controls. A report indicating the Engineer's approval of such work shall be submitted to the Commission.  During construction, submissions of daily inspection reports shall be submitted to the Commission, and photographs of the work shall be submitted to the Commission weekly.
  • The spill prevention/maintenance plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission prior to occupancy of the site or the filling of any tanks with petroleum products. The document shall include a comprehensive maintenance plan that addresses the oil/water separators, Vortech units, detention basins, level spreaders, oil containment boom, catch basin sumps, asphalt maintenance etc. It shall include the description of all testing to be done and a map showing the location of said testing. It shall include a plan for training all new employees and managers.  Any violation of the spill prevention/maintenance plan shall constitute a violation of this permit and subject the applicant, owner, or other persons involved to the penalties provided by law.
  • A snow removal plan that excludes sodium chloride, includes chemical application rates, method of application, storage of materials, and area of snow stockpile to be submitted, and approved by the Commission prior to occupancy of the site.
  • Engineered site as-built plans shall be submitted to the Commission.  These plans shall include surveyed invert and outlet elevations of all drainage structures.
  • Copies of all groundwater, potable water, stormwater testing done for State agencies shall be submitted to the Commission.
  • Whenever this motion refers to “the Commission,” the Commission shall have the option to delegate the required reviews and approvals to its staff, including, but not limited to, the Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer and the Commission’s consulting engineer.
Dated at Willington, Connecticut, this 23d day of April, 2012.


Vote:  Unanimous. Application approved with conditions.