Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Town Resources
  • Agendas & Minutes
  • Forms, Documents & Permits
  • Pay Bill Online
  • GIS/Maps
  • Contacts Directory
  • Subscribe to News
  • Live Stream and Recorded Video
  • Charter & Ordinances
  • Employment Opportunities
  • RFPs / Legal Notices
  • 250th Anniversary
  • Casino Development Agreement
March 27, 2007 Minutes

Public Hearing #1503
March 27, 2007

***** Draft Document – Subject to Commission Approval *****

The Meeting was called to order in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. at 7:03 P. M. by Chairman Ouellette.


A quorum was established as four Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Menard [arrived at 7:05 pm.], and Ouellette) and three Alternate Members (Farmer, Matthews and Tyler) were present.  Regular Member Saunders was absent.  Initially Chairman Ouellette noted Alternate Members Matthews and Tyler would sit in on all Items of Business this evening; after the arrival of Regular Commissioner Menard Chairman Ouellette suggested membership rotation indicated Alternate Commissioner Tyler should complete the Board as a voting member this evening. (See individual Applications where voting participation was changed due to participant not being present during discussion heard at previous meeting.)   Also present was Town Planner Whitten.



Chairman Ouellette acknowledged receipt of the following Applications:

1.      Application of Frances Borys for a 2-lot subdivision of property located at 260 Scantic Road.  [A-1 Zone; Map 34, Block 22, Lot 37].

2       Application of Steve Dearborn for a Special Use Permit and Modification of      Approved Site Plan to expand approved parking and storage area for a volume     reduction facility located at 68 Newberry Road, owned by Newberry Road  Enterprises, LLC.  [M-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 19, Lot 6],


The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, March 15, 2007, and Thursday, March 22, 2007, was read by Commissioner Guiliano:

1)      Application of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc., for a Special Use Permit for excavation in four phases for property located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc.,  [M-1 & Z-2 Zones; Map 36, Block 49, Lot 17C].

PERFORMANCE BONDS – ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS:  Coleman Farms – Request from Leonard Jacobs for an extension of the time limit for the Special Use Permit for Coleman Farms, Tromley Road.  (Expires 4/9/07):

Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business.  Appearing to discuss this issue was Attorney Leonard Jacobs, of 146 Main Street, (town not stated), representing the developer; and Attorney Hal Cummings, representing the homeowners association.

Attorney Jacobs noted the developer had received a Special (Use) Permit, which is good for 5 years, with the ability to extend the same permit for another 5 years.  He suggested that with a large project it’s not unusual to have pending issues.   Attorney Jacobs noted the homeowners association has raised concerns with regard to uncompleted items.  The developer has paid off outstanding mortgages; they have agreed to a schedule for completing the clubhouse but the only problem is they still need to get together to talk over the issues in a timeframe that’s would be in conjunction with the Commission’s meeting schedule.  Attorney Jacobs indicated he would like to request a 30 day extension of the Special Use Permit as they about 90% in agreement between the developer and homeowners association.   Attorney Jacobs would then request a further extension after his next appearance before the Commission.

Attorney Cummings introduced himself as representing the Coleman Farms Homeowners Association; with him was Don Raposo, President of the association.   Attorney Cummings noted they have been going back and forth with the intent to present to the Commission an extension with conditions, including that the Certificates of Occupancy would be held up until the conditions have been met.  He indicated that they also support a 30 day extension request; they will submit through Town Planner Whitten a list of conditions which could be attached to the permit extension to be sure the amenities will be built.                                                                                                                                                                                                

Discussion followed regarding the availability of the various parties for subsequent meetings.   Attorney Cummings noted he will be overseas for a couple of weeks and would request the issue be put on the Agenda for the Commission’s May 22nd  Meeting.  Town Planner Whitten noted that Town staff will not issue any new Building Permits for this property during this extension period, and agreement has been reached.  Attorney Jacobs noted they have a client coming in to close within that time; he would appreciate consideration for that situation.   Attorney Cummings noted the association is looking to tie the building schedule into the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, but they are ok with Attorney Jacob’s request.  Discussion continued regarding the continuation date; April 10th was ultimately chosen to accommodate various schedules.

MOTION: To EXTEND the Bond Hearing for Coleman Farms as requested by    Leonard Jacobs for an extension of the time limit for the Special Use Permit for Coleman Farms, Tromley Road.  The current expiration date for the Performance Bond is April 9, 2007; the Commission has agreed to extend the bond until 4/10/2007.

DISCUSSION:  Attorney Jacobs indicated he was ok with the extension until 4/10/2007 but questioned what would happen if there were problems?  The Commission agreed to revise the extension date to May 9, 2007.

REVISED MOTION: To EXTEND the Bond Hearing for Coleman Farms as                 requested by Leonard Jacobs for an extension of the     time limit for the Special Use Permit for Coleman Farms, Tromley Road.  The current expiration date for the Performance Bond is April 9, 2007; the Commission   has agreed to extend the bond until 5/09/2007.

Guiliano moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:   Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Tyler)

CONTINUED HEARING: F & G, LLC – Text Amendment to Section 9A.5 Minimum Standards for Volume Reduction Facilities and Section 4.1.71, Volume Reduction Facility (definition).   (Deadline to close hearing 4/17/07):

Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney T. Mark Barbieri, representing the Applicant, F & G, LLC; George Roberts, Operations Manager for F & G, and owners Frank and Gerry Antonnuci.

Attorney Barbieri noted the facility has been operating in Town for 10 to 15 years.  He felt this facility was the first of its kind.  The permit has been renewed many times over the operation period; they will return shortly for another renewal of the most recent permit issued 5 years ago in July.  Attorney Barbieri indicated the facility has been successful; most of the materials are recycled.   In addition they have found over the years that they could use a small part of the facility for a transfer station.  Materials would be delivered, compacted, reduced in volume, and then sent out in trucks to be incinerated.  Any materials coming in must go out the same day.   

Attorney Barbieri then reviewed the proposed amended wording and read same FOR THE RECORD.

Attorney Barbieri noted that under subsection “g” this section would not apply to municipal solid waste as is set forth in Section 9.A.5.  He further noted that in Section 4.1.71 – Volume Reduction Facilities – the amount of material is being changed to 500 tons rather than the 200 tons now listed.  Attorney Barbieri clarified that the Town permit allows for processing 200 tons/day of bulky waste while the State permit allows 500 tons/day; they are requesting the change to allow them to comply with the requisites of the State permit.  He noted that the Applicant must return under a Special Use Permit and apply for the facility, at which time they could redo the traffic study.   Attorney Babieri considered that although they would now be processing 500 tons/day rather than 200 tons it might not produce any more traffic.     Mr. Roberts felt another traffic study would be redundant as the previous one was made based on processing 500 tons/day.  Attorney Barbieri also noted the installation of a new traffic light at the intersection of Shoham Road and North Road/Route 140 which now controls traffic.

Commissioner Guiliano questioned that if they were now surviving on processing 200 tons/day why do they need to go to 500 tons/day?   Attorney Barbieri indicated they would be processing more volume.  Discussion followed regarding the allowable amount of tonnage to be processed.   Attorney Barbieri felt they should continue as they have in the past – taking the operating one step at a time.   He felt that approach had satisfied everyone.  He noted there had been complaints of noise in the past but now the Applicant owns everything on the street and has the ability to control that activity.

Chairman Ouellette noted he was having a hard time with the definition of transfer station.   Mr. Roberts suggested a transfer station is strictly dropping off materials and reloading them for transfer elsewhere.  He noted they are also presently successfully operating a facility in Waterbury.

Commissioner Matthews questioned the volume of traffic.   Mr. Roberts suggested those coming in would be 8 to 12 ton, while those going out would be 22 ton.  Commissioner Matthews questioned if the trucks would be similar to those picking up waste around town?   Mr. Roberts clarified the material wouldn’t be household garbage; it would be material that’s picked up in front loading containers.  Commissioner Menard questioned that they would be varying sized dumpsters?   Mr. Roberts replied affirmatively.  

Commissioner Matthews questioned including the term “non-petrescibles” as he felt if they had petrescibles there is the potential for odor and rodents.   Attorney Barbieri felt there was little concern for that because of the timeliness of the processing – everything comes in and goes out the same day.  

Commissioner Matthews questioned if the material goes to a landfill?  Mr. Roberts indicated  either a landfill or a burnfill.  Commissioner Matthews felt that landfills have a closing time; he questioned if there should a time limit in the regulations?  Attorney Barbieri clarified that the specifics of the operation would be determined at the time they come in for the Special Use Permit.

Chairman Ouellette questioned if the amendment were approved would the revised language apply to other volume facilities in town?    Attorney Barbieri replied affirmatively but noted there are no others in town; the State controls the location of operations.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Commissioner Tyler questioned if this transfer station be available to other town besides East Windsor?   Mr. Roberts indicated this is a commercial facility; it’s not for residential waste.  Commissioner Tyler questioned if it could become for residential materials?  Chairman Ouellette and Commissioner Guiliano felt discussion on specifics should be delayed until the Applicant comes in for the permit extension.  Commissioner Matthews requested the wording be changed to “ non-residential solid waste”, he is concerned with odor emanating from petrescibles.   Discussion followed regarding various regulatory agencies, including the Zoning Regulations, with Attorney Barbieri pointing out specific sections - 9.A.5(b), 9.A.5(f), and 9.A.5(h) - which address Commissioner Matthews concerns.  

Chairman Ouellette requested that Attorney Barbieri convince him the amendment will improve the health, safety, and welfare of the community.   Attorney Barbieri suggested the amendment will allow more efficient movement of waste of all types to the places where it should go – most of it will get burned, and there will be 20% less traffic.  Commissioner Menard requested an explanation of the reduction in truck traffic.   Mr. Roberts cited the incoming vehicles will carry 8 to 10 tons of material while the trucks leaving the facility will be larger, reducing the traffic going out of the facility.  He noted those figures are based on 500 tons/day of materials; the end result is 20% less traffic.  

Chairman Ouellette opened discussion to the audience; no one requested to speak.  Chairman Ouellette then queried the Commission regarding action to be taken.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of F & G, LLC for                        a Text Amendment to Section 9A.5 Minimum Standards for Volume Reduction Facilities and Section 4.1.71, Volume Reduction Facility (definition).

Menard moved/Guiliano seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Tyler)

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of F & G, LLC. for a Text Amendment to Section 9A.5, 9A.5g, and 4.1.71, to allow for transfer stations for municipal solid waste to be allowed with associated volume reduction facilities by special use permit, with a maximum of 500 tons per day of non-petrescible solid waste.

The proposed changes shall become effective once filed in the land records.  


1.      A copy of the final motion and text amendment shall be filed in the Office of the       Town Clerk on the effective date by the applicant.  Said amendment shall bear the signatures of the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission, and the approval and effective date of the amendment.  

Gowdy moved/Guiliano seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Tyler)

Reasons for Granting request are part of the record.

Gowdy moved/Guiliano seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous

The Commission RECESSED at 7:52 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:00 p.m.

CONTINUED HEARING:  David MonacoSpecial Use Permit to allow construction of 11 residential units below the first story of retail commercial building located at 112 Main Street, Broad Brook.  [B-1 Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lot 4]  (Deadline to close hearing 4/17/07):

Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description.  Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Fahey, representing David Monaco; David Monaco, the owner; and Scott Poranydi, Professional Engineer.

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Matthews will sit in on this Application rather than Commissioner Tyler.   Chairman Ouellette requested Attorney Fahey summarize the proposal.  

Attorney Fahey noted the Applicant previously received a text amendment to allow construction of apartments for his buildings on Main Street.   The text amendment allowed residential studio apartments below, rather than above, commercial space where the grade of the property permitted such construction.  This amendment allowed them to come back for a Special Use Permit Application, which is the Application that was presented at the last meeting.  Attorney Fahey suggested the plans comply in all respects with the current regulations.  Mr. Monaco felt a more accurate description of the apartments is they are lower level walk-out units rather than basement apartments.  Residents will drive around to the back of the building for parking, which includes at least one handicapped space.  The apartments will be studio units of 750 square feet containing a kitchen, dining area, bedroom and bath.  The units will create a mixed use environment on Main Street; because of the size these units won’t appeal to families.   Attorney Fahey noted someone last week reported other apartments nearby in which families reside; he suggested that situation will be controlled by the lease agreement.   Attorney Fahey referenced a similar project containing 10 units above commercial units which was constructed in Windsor Locks; he noted they were constructed 13 years ago and have never had a vacancy.

Attorney Fahey also noted there was discussion at the previous meeting of access to the mechanical room located within the caretaker/superintendent’s studio apartment.  

Attorney Fahey recalled for the Commission that Commissioner Matthews and some of the public raised concerns for potential health hazards from the abutting Hamilton Standard site, specifically from dust blowing through the air from the Hamilton Standard site which could descend on the residents of these apartments.  Attorney Fahey recalled Town Planner Whitten had contacted DEP regarding the Hamilton Standard study, and questioned if it has any impact on this mixed use development on the Applicant’s site.  Attorney Fahey felt the responding letter/e-mail vindicated what they have been saying all along – that there is no impact to their site and there is no reason for the oppositions raised.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned the notation for 1 ½ handicapped parking spaces in the back of the building.   Mr. Monaco suggested that requirement was made at the request of the Building Department when Specialty Pool and another company occupied the rear units.

Chairman Ouellette suggested he didn’t feel all the vegetation shown on the plans was actually present on the site, he cited two large deciduous trees in front specifically.  Mr. Poryandi suggested some specimens reflected on the plans presently exist, while others will be added.  Mr. Monaco indicated more vegetation can be planted if the Commission prefers.  Chairman Ouellette requested the additional landscaping be included as an additional condition of approval.  Commissioner Guiliano also noted an area around a rear drain in the parking lot which could be repaired.   Mr. Monaco indicated that area will be totally resealed and restriped and the handicapped spaces will be spread out differently; these issues have already been discussed with Building Official Stanley and Fire Marshal Simpkins.  Commissioner Menard felt the ingress/egress to the back of the building was narrow; Mr. Monaco gave a history of previous tenants.  Mr. Poryandi noted they will be installing signage as recommended by Town Engineer Norton.
Chairman Ouellette queried Commissioner Matthews with regard to the e-mail provided by DEP.  Commissioner Matthews felt he was more concerned after reading the e-mail than he had been previously; he felt the adjacent site was still contaminated as he didn’t see any remediation on the plans.  Lengthy discussion followed, including review of the e-mail provided by Maurice Hamel of the Remediation Division of CTDEP.   Commissioner Matthews continued to state concerns.  Attorney Fahey felt the Commission had taken an extra step of due diligence by contacting DEP for updated information.  The e-mail provided by Maurice Hamel follows; Mr. Hamel’s responses follow Town Planner Whitten’s questions and are indicated as answers as they are preceded by an asterisk (*):                                                                                                                                
DEP e-mail response:

-----Original Message-----
From: Hamel, Maurice
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:19 AM
To: 'Laurie Whitten'
Subject: RE: Broad Brook Mill Site - East Windsor


As a follow-up to our discussion last week, I have inserted a written
response to your questions into your e-mail.

Maurice Hamel
Remediation Division

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurie Whitten []
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:30 PM
To: Hamel, Maurice
Cc: Lwhitten
Subject: Broad Brook Mill Site - East Windsor

Hello Maurice:

As we discussed earlier during our phone conversation, the East Windsor
Planing and Zoning Commission (PZC) has an application pending on the
commercial center of the Broad Brook Mill Superfund site located at
110-112 Main Street, Broad Brook Connecticut.
(EPA ID # CT0002055887; Site ID# 0102950; aka Millbrook Condominiums)

The property has a commercial strip mall, with tenant spaces to the
rear, with a walk out access. ~The application is to convert the
commercial tenant spaces into 11 studio apartments. Approximately 10-12
feet of pavement will be removed in front of the tenant spaces, and
replaced with brick pavers and landscaping.

Knowing that this site is part of the Superfund site, the PZC had the
following questions:

1. ~ ~ Is there any concern converting these tenant spaces from
commercial to residential?

* Based on my knowledge of the two parcels, I see no need to restrict
the future residential use of the strip mall parcel.

2. ~ ~ Is there any concern for removal of the pavement in front of the
proposed tenant spaces?

* The contamination related to the ash fill from the mill facility was
found to pinch out along the western end of the parking lot. ~That
polluted fill was removed late in 2006. ~I have no reason to believe the
soil beneath the rest of the parking lot is any different than what
would be found on the rest of the neighboring Broad Brook properties.
However, being an area which has been developed for over 100 years, the
"urban fill" mixed in with native soils could make the soil less than
ideal for activities such as vegetable gardening.

3. ~ ~Is there any concern regarding wind blown contaminants from the
neighboring mill site?

* The issue of fugitive dust will be addressed as part of the clean-up
plan for the mill parcel. ~Presently, the vegetative cover at the mill
site seems adequate to minimize dust migration. ~In general, the
polluted soils present at the site are not contaminated to a level where
small amounts of dust would be a concern.

4. ~ ~Overall, do you have any concerns, issues, or suggestions for
conditions of approval should this application be approved.

* ~DEP does not have any concerns about the project proceeding.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions, need to
see a site plan or any other issue.

Thank you for your time and effort on this matter. ~It is greatly


Laurie Whitten, CZEO, AICP
East Windsor Town Planner

Chairman Ouellette opened discussion to the public:

Bill Loos, Melrose Road:  felt the document from DEP satisfied his concerns.   He suggested that the Commission was giving this Applicant permission to build and 3 or 4 years down the road if someone comes in and says it’s contaminated that one sentence on the bottom confirms that it isn’t; he is satisfied.

Commissioner Guiliano questioned the result of the decision of having an access to the mechanical room from upstairs.   Mr. Loos felt there should be a door on the outside as well.  Commissioner Guiliano suggested retaining the additional access from the upstairs would answer the concern.

Chairman Ouellette queried the Commission for their opinions regarding this Application.  The Commissioners agreed to move forward.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of David Monaco          for a Special Use Permit to allow construction of 11 residential units below the first story of retail commercial building located at 112 Main Street, Broad Brook..  [B-1 Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lot 4] .

Gowdy moved/Menard seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Matthews)

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of  owner David  Monaco requesting a Special Use Permit for eleven residential units to be placed under, and accessed from the rear of the commercial mall space known as Building #1 at 112 Main Street, Broad Brook, Zoned B-1, Assessors Map 28, Block 5, Lot 4 .
        Said permit is subject to the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

-       Site/Landscape Plan prepared for Broad Brook Town Centre Shops and Offices, Main Street, East Windsor, CT, dated 11/29/06, scale 1” = 20”,  prepared by Connecticut Consulting Engineers, LLC, 1 Prestige Drive, Ste. 110, Meriden CT 06450, 203/639-8636, 203/238-0840 fax

-Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:

1.      All final plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the        appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.

2.      The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and   their successors and assigns.  A copy of this approval motion shall be filed in the land        records prior to the signing of the final plans.

Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:

3.      One set of final plans and one set of mylars, with any required revisions incorporated  on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission.  Both sets shall be   filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.

4.      A cash (escrow) or passbook bond (made out to the applicant AND the Town of East        Windsor) shall be submitted for sedimentation and erosion control maintenance and       site restoration during the construction of the project.  Any funds that may be withdrawn by the Town for such maintenance or restoration shall be replaced within      five (5) days or this permit shall be rendered null and void. The applicant's engineer shall submit an estimated cost of the E & S controls to the Town Engineer.  The amount of said bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer.

5.      (No condition listed on staff proposed approval motion)

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

6.  5.  Final grading and seeding shall be in place or a bond for the unfinished work   submitted.

7.   6. Final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, driveways and final floor   elevations as well as spot grades shall be submitted.

8.  7.  All public health and safety components of the project must be satisfactorily   
        completed prior to occupancy. In cases where all public health and safety       components have been completed, the Zoning Officer may issue a Certificate of   Zoning Compliance provided a suitable bond is retained for any remaining site   work.  

General Conditions:

9.  8.  In accordance with Section 13.5.4 of the Zoning Regulations, any approval of a          site plan application shall commence the construction of buildings within one   year from the date of approval and complete all improvements within five        years of the date of approval, otherwise the approval shall become null and     void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

10.  9. A Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work.

11.  10.This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the filed plans.  Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.

12.  11.Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the site plan is subject      to the approval of the town engineer.

13.  12.Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if    field conditions necessitate.

14.  13. By acceptance of this approval and conditions, the applicant, owner and/or their               successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter        upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the    terms of this approval

15.  14. All required landscaping shall be adequately maintained.

(Additional Condition):

15.     Additional trees and landscape buffer screening shall be placed along rear
       property line opposite apartments to be approved by staff.

DISCUSSION:     Commissioner Guiliano requested that the comments provided by the DEP be included in the Minutes (see inclusion in Record discussion).

Gowdy moved/Menard seconded/
VOTE:   In Favor:       Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette
                Opposed:        Matthews
                Abstained:      No one

NEW HEARING:  Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. – Special Use Permit for excavation in four phases for property located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Northern capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc,. [M-1 & A-2 Zones; Map 36, Block 49, Lot 17C]  (Deadline to close hearing 5/1/07):

Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description.  Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Alan Koerner, representing the Applicant; Herb Holden, owner of Herb Holden Trucking/operator of the pit; Mr. Botticello, owner; Scott Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates, Traffic Engineer; and Mark Zessin, supplier of information regarding the water table.   John Cohen, also of Herb Holden Trucking, will offer information later in the discussion.

Attorney Koerner described the site as being fairly remote, as it is located 2600+ feet from the nearest residence and ½ mile from the nearest road.  He indicated there are not many close neighbors.

With regard to the length of time this proposed excavation will entail, Attorney Koerner indicated because of the restriction on the number of trucks entering and exiting the pit daily it will take 10 to 12 years to removed an anticipated 2 million yards of material.   He also noted market demand will generate the excavation rate.

Mr. Ussery referenced a site map and aerial photo to explain the location of the proposed pit, which will comprise 86+/- acres.  They propose to use the driveway which was the former entrance to this operation and the former NORCAP landfill and is the present entrance to the generator plant built at the location of NORCAP.  They would like to use the scale at that entrance for this operation.   Mr. Ussery noted that continuing on to the northeast is the intersection of Miller and Graham Roads – the site of the Gilson Farm and 2 new houses built about 3 to 4 years ago; Mr. Ussery suggested they are 2600’ or a ½ mile from the closed point of this property.  Continuing on to Rockville Road if you go left onto Windsorville Road you’ll pass the entrance drive the Charbonneau pit.   Since the 1 mile radius line (between pit entrances) goes beyond the entrance to the Charbonneau pit they are asking for a waiver to use the Charbonneau entrance.  Mr. Ussery noted they have easements to access Plantation Road.   He suggested there is nothing on Plantation Road adjacent to the entrance except tobacco sheds, but as you go down Plantation Road there is the Guarantee operation and then new houses on the south side and existing houses on the north side, all of which would be 3500’ away from this site.  A site drive would come out on Plantation Road and continue down Wapping Road, where there is only one house near the Christmas tree farm; the distance to that house would be 2200’.  Going along Apothecaries Hall Road and Rye Street there is a new subdivision on the King property; the closest residence in that subdivision would be 2000’ to 2200’ away.  Mr. Ussery suggested no one should be able to hear or see this operation from the roads; he felt this was an excellent location for excavation as it’s more remote than the Charbonneau pit.  He referenced an aerial photo, noting the work will be done in the field to the rear behind the railroad, which is some distance from Wapping Road and Rye Street.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned the location of Ketch Brook on the aerial photo; Mr. Ussery indicated it was too small to see but would be reflected on the site plan.   Town Planner Whitten questioned where the current excavation is; Mr. Ussery noted it’s right in front of the railroad.   He estimated the nearest residence is 1500 to 1600’ from the current excavation.  

Commissioner Guiliano questioned which direction Mr. Ussery would anticipate truck traffic would go when they leave the site – would they use the existing driveway or the driveway to Plantation Road?  Mr. Ussery suggested they will be requesting a waiver to use the site driveway on Wapping Road, and noted Scott Hesketh would answer the directional question.

Mr. Ussery then referenced a site plan which reflected 4 phases of excavation each containing 12 acres.  He cited the existing conditions are 75% agriculture, while the rest is wooded.    Mr. Ussery suggested the blue line is the wetlands line delineated by a soil scientist; they also have a large drainage swale to Ketch Brook and will be maintaining that same drainage pattern as prior to excavation and have added a sedimentation basin and pipe under the railroad tracks and isolated wetlands.   Mr. Ussery suggested they will be lowering the elevation to 3:1 side slopes; nothing will be less than a 2% slope.  He also noted they have a bad erosion problem, including a wash out; they have added a temporary berm to fix that problem.

Mr. Ussery noted Town Engineer Norton is looking for them to complete the excavation in 2 phases.  Town Planner Whitten has requested 5 to 7 acre increments; Mr. Ussery noted they are proposing 12 acre increments as 5 acres can be difficult from a safety prospective with regard to the amount of area to work in with a screening and crushing plant.  Mr. Ussery felt they would need to work in 2 phases at the same time to complete the excavation in smaller phases.  

Scott Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates summarized the information submitted in a letter dated March 5, 2007.  Mr. Hesketh reported that with regard to the current gravel operation ConnDOT indicated the average daily traffic volume during 2001 was 750 vehicles; peak hour volume was 100 vehicles in the a.m. and 75 in the p.m.  Hesketh Associates installed an automated traffic counter during December (2006) to early January (2007) and found an average daily traffic volume on Wapping Road of 602 vehicles; peak hour volume was 92 vehicles in the a.m. and 83 vehicles in the p.m.  Mr. Hesketh suggested the traffic volumes seem to be consistent, and have actually declined somewhat, which he would contribute to the capping of the landfill.  

Mr. Hesketh indicated they were not able to do a traffic count on the entrance to the current gravel operation, but Herb Holden Trucking provided them with trucking logs during a similar period in December (2006) and January (2007).  Mr. Hesketh reported there are also 2 employees on the site.   The current operation generates 60 truck loads/day, which results in 120 trips/day, with peak hours generating approximately 11 trucks or 22-25 trips.  He suggested the peak hours were between 7 and 9 and 3 o’clock, depending when the trucks were there to pick up their loads.  Mr. Hesketh reported the site is currently not generating a large volume of traffic, and the current request is in line with what is currently being done.  

With regard to the sightline, Mr. Hesketh reported it is in excess of 700’ in both directions which equates to a 50 mile/hour design speed.    Mr. Hesketh reported Wapping Road is currently posted for a speed of 35 miles/hour, therefore, the sight lines are better than 15 miles/hour over the current speed limit.

Mr. Hesketh reported the direction of travel depends on what job the hauler is working on.   If they are working in Stafford or Somers they would go left; if they are working in East Hartford or Hartford they would go right.  The direction of distribution depends on who picks up loads on any day.   They have assumed, as did the Speers report, that the distribution of traffic would be 75% to the south towards South Windsor and 25% in the other direction, with the peak hours experiencing 11 to 25 vehicles.  Mr. Hesketh reported they see no increase in traffic from the development of this proposal.  

Commissioner Matthews questioned if they could anticipate more traffic in the warmer weather?   Mr. Hesketh reported maybe, but it really depends on who picks up the loads and where the job is.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the two pits would be operating simultaneously?  Attorney Koerner reported the intention is to complete the Maslak pit before opening another area.  

Attorney Koerner suggested that the Maslak pit must be completed before opening the Holden pit could be a condition of approval.  

Commissioner Guiliano questioned if the Commission decided not to go with the one mile radius and not go with that entrance would the Applicant do another study?   Mr. Hesketh reported they don’t have counters on Plantation Road, but he felt that would generate significantly less traffic than on Wapping Road.  There would be no level of services constraints on that road.  Commissioner Guiliano questioned the appropriateness of the sightline?   Mr. Hesketh indicated he didn’t check that sightline because the proposal was for this location.  Mr. Ussery suggested the road is relatively flat; he felt that to the east it is in excess of 800’ and the other direction 1000’.   Mr. Hesketh reported that as long as the sightline was in excess of 700’ it would meet ConnDOT requirements.  Mr. Ussery felt trucks would probably go left to Wapping Road; he wouldn’t anticipate anyone going Plantation Road to Rye Street.  
Mr. Ussery indicated that with regard to the grading elevation relative to groundwater DEP requires extensive monitoring of the wells at NORCAP.  He referenced the handout reflecting “Groundwater Contours & Proposed Grading” which reflected a finished grade of 128.  He suggested the benchmark would be in the 5’ to 6’ range as a differential between groundwater and finished grade.  Mr. Ussery referenced various points of grading within the parcel, noting they have at least 8’ of separation and in some areas they have 18’ to 20’.  Mr. Ussery READ FOR THE RECORD correspondence from Bob First, Senior Groundwater Manager, citing that 8’ of separation is adequate.  Mr. Ussery indicated that this site is currently in agricultural use and Mr. Botticello intends to continue that use after completion of this project.   He would be continuing a 6’ to 8’ separation distance between groundwater and finished grade for the future agricultural operation.

Chairman Ouellette READ FOR THE RECORD Town Engineer Norton’s comments regarding use of the hauling road on the properly formerly owned by Mary Nilsson.  Mr. Ussery reported it wasn’t their desire to use that hauling road but they felt an obligation to show same on the maps.    He clarified that they have an easement for ingress/egress via the Nilsson property but that easement is restricted to agricultural use; there is another adjacent parcel owned by Edward Markowski for which ingress/egress is unrestricted but it isn’t their intent to use that access.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned that the Maslak pit and this pit wouldn’t be open concurrently?  Attorney Koerner indicated they are going to finish the Maslak pit first.  John Cohen, of Herb Holden Trucking, speaking from the audience, reported that within the next few months they will be finishing the Maslak site.   The amount of material left to remove under the current permit will be gone within the next few months; that site should be completely closed before they go into this operation.    

Attorney Koerner indicated they would be agreeable to a condition that there be no concurrent operation of the Maslak and Holden pits.                                                                                                        

Commissioner Guiliano questioned if the owner would have any problem with him visiting the site to view the elevations?  Attorney Koerner felt he didn’t see why there would be an objection.  

Commissioner Matthews suggested if he wanted to have a landfill this is the way he would do it; it’s completely surrounded.  He indicated he’s concerned with the future use of this site; if it’s going to be used for farming that would be ok.  Commissioner Matthews questioned who owned the triangle of land to the right of the proposed site; he questioned why that wouldn’t be taken out to have completely flat land to farm?   Mr. Ussery reported the triangle he felt Commissioner Matthews was referring to is part of the NORCAP landfill; it’s not gravel; they would be excavating trash.  Commissioner Matthews questioned what about the area further north?   Mr. Ussery reported that is the resource area for Ketch Brook.  Town Planner Whitten noted the Town doesn’t allow a solid waste facility in this zone.  Attorney Koerner indicated that isn’t what the Applicant is here for and is not permitted under your regulations; any application for such a facility would have to come before this Board for approval.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned hours of operation.  Attorney Koerner indicated they are requesting 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, no weekends or holidays.  He indicated that is a reduction of the current operation, as with that parcel they are allowed limited Saturday hours.  

Town Planner Whitten noted the traffic report indicated the trucks started at 7:00; would the 7:30 start time be a change?  Chairman Ouellette concurred that 5 samples within the traffic report indicate 7:00 in the morning.  Commissioner Guiliano noted there are residents in the area; 7:00 a.m. isn’t fair to them.  Commissioner Guiliano and Commissioner Menard both concurred that trucks come by now at 7:00 a.m.  Town Planner Whitten indicated the RECORD showed they are coming through at 7:00 a.m.; she referenced Table II.  

Herb Holden, speaking from the audience, agreed they arrive at 7:00 a.m. now, but he is willing to go to 7:30 a.m.

Attorney Koerner questioned a clarification of proposed condition #10 – which allows screening and crushing, and condition #11 – which seems to prohibit those activities.  Town Planner Whitten suggested that would refer to any activity you might expand to beyond what’s approved – such as stump grinding – that would then be a volume reduction plant/facility and would require an approval modification.  

Attorney Koerner questioned condition #39 regarding removal of vegetation; Town Planner Whitten suggested it would refer to vegetation to be removed on each phase.

Attorney Koerner referenced Town Planner Whitten’s suggestion to work in 5 to 7 acre phases.   He agreed they could limit the size to the 5 to 7 acres but would like to be able to work in 2 phases at a time.  Commissioner Gowdy questioned why Town Planner Whitten had chosen that number?   Town Planner Whitten indicated she has found that in general that was the amount of acreage that was worked at one time.  Commissioner Menard agreed with the 5 to 7 acres, as it gives the Town a better hold on the operation.  Commissioner Tyler disagreed with the 5 to 7 acres; he felt that the smaller the area being worked the more dangerous it gets.  He disagreed with the 5 to 7 acreage restriction if they would not be allowed to work in more than one phase at a time.   Discussion continued regarding the conditions being proposed vs. completion of review of the excavation regulations.  Town Planner Whitten noted this Application is pending and is based on the current regulations; however, the Commission could continue this Hearing while the Commission discusses the excavation regulation further tonight and then revise these proposed regulations if necessary.  She felt the Applicant should be heard under the current regulations.    Although the new regulations wouldn’t be adopted for this Application it would give the Commission a better feel for what it wants.  Town Planner Whitten noted this Applicant has proposed many things which are not currently in East Windsor’s Zoning Regulations; they have been pro-active with this Application.  Town Planner Whitten noted various Commissioners also want to do a site walk.                                        

The consensus of the Commission was to continue the Hearing.


Gowdy moved/Guiliano seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:   Unanimous

The Commission RECESSED at 9:39 p.m. and RECONVENED at 9:47 p.m.

Chairman Ouellette queried the audience for comments; no one requested to speak.

Attorney Koerner reported they have no objection to continuing the Public Hearing, as it would permit the site walks and allow for revisions of the regulation conditions if necessary.  Attorney Koerner suggested Herb Holden Trucking has been a good citizen in town for a number of years and has operated a number of sites, including the one adjacent to this parcel, and that should have some bearing on the Commission’s decision.  Herb Holden Trucking is a good corporate citizen.

Commissioner Matthews questioned the paving of the entrance.   Attorney Koerner felt that was addressed in the conditions but they are agreeable to suggestions.

Chairman Ouellette questioned if their grading would cause problems for other properties?  Attorney Koerner replied negatively.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned the installation of a gate to prohibit entrance before 7:00 a.m.  Commissioner Tyler felt that shouldn’t be a problem for people in that area; they are up at 7:00 a.m.   He would rather see a start time of 7:00 a.m. rather than extending to 4:30 p.m. when kids are out later.   Commissioner Guiliano suggested it’s the same on the other end; the trucks get there at 6:30 or 6:45 a.m.  It’s not fair to the people   Commissioner Guiliano suggested all other operations start at 7:30 a.m. and this should be the same.  

Discussion followed regarding access to the property for a site walk.  Attorney Koerner requested people contact him for admittance; Mr. Ussery and Mr. Holden agreed to provide vehicle access.

MOTION: To CONTINUE the Public Hearing on the Application of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. for a Special Use Permit for excavation in four phases for property located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Northern capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc,. [M-1 & A-2 Zones;               Map 36, Block 49, Lot 17C]  until the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on April 10, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Menard moved/Gowdy seconded/

DISCUSSION:  Chairman Ouellette suggested continuing this Hearing until the Commission’s second monthly meeting to give the Commission time to work out their regulation revisions.

Menard amended her motion/Gowdy seconded:

MOTION: To CONTINUE the Public Hearing on the Application of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. for a Special Use Permit for excavation in four         phases for property located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Northern capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc,. [M-1 & A-2 Zones; Map 36, Block 49, Lot 17C]  until the Commission’s meeting/work session scheduled for April 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Menard moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Matthews/Menard/Ouellette)

BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Zoning Regulations – Proposed Draft:  8.13 Earth Removal & Filling:

The Commission discussed the purpose of these regulations, and how to revise same to allow the property owner to use their land while not desecrating the property and limiting future land use.  Discussion followed regarding the residual end result of previous pits vs. their potential use.  The Commission discussed the various slope grades  - 2:1 (very steep and not stable), 3:1 (holds vegetation and stabilizes slope area), 4:1 (takes a greater amount of land out of operation) vs. limitation of grades to be consistent with surrounding properties/topography.  The Commission determined the purpose of these regulations are to control excavation to make land useable for agriculture, housing, etc., and to prevent mining operations which leave large holes/pits surrounded by limiting slopes.   Negatives of excavation operations were noted to be dust, noise, traffic (one of the reasons for the 1 mile radius condition), early operating hours not conducive to residential areas; discussion continued regarding  gravel as a natural resource for which there is a market demand.   The Commission felt some additional conditions to consider include retaining native soil, keeping the proper depth above groundwater, developing zone appropriate regulations with specific guidelines.

MOTION: To EXTEND this Meeting until 10:45 p.m.

Gowdy moved/Guiliano seconded/VOTE:     In Favor:   Unanimous

Town Planner Whitten requested Commissioners to review regulations from surrounding towns provided for them and advise her of positive conditions.  Commissioner Farmer                           particularly liked the format for Ellington and Tolland for ease of review.

BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Zoning Regulations – Proposed Draft:  8.50 Volume Reduction Facilities:

No discussion.

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)  Correspondence:

Chairman Ouellette noted receipt of various flyers.

BUSINESS MEETING/(3)  Staff Reports:            None.


MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Public Hearing #1502 dated March 13, 2007 as amended:  Page 8, third paragraph – Specialty Printing to be revised to Specialty Pool.

Gowdy moved/Matthews seconded/
VOTE:   In Favor:       Guiliano/Matthews/Menard/Ouellette
                Opposed:        No one
                Abstained:      Gowdy


·       Four Fathers
·       Steve Dearborn


MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 10:45 p.m.

Guiliano moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous       

Respectfully submitted,

Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission