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
June 12, 2007 Minutes
Planning and Zoning Commission

Public Hearing #1508
June 12, 2007

***** Draft Document - Subject to Commission Approval *****

Chairman Ouellette called the Meeting to order at 7:05 P. M. in the Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.


A quorum was established as 4 Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Menard, and Ouellette), and three Alternate Members (Farmer, Matthews, and Tyler) were present at the beginning of the Meeting.  Chairman Ouellette noted all Regular Members would serve on the Board this evening; Alternate Member Farmer would sit in on new Hearings and Items of Business as well.   Regular Member Saunders joined the Board at 8:10 P. M.  At that time he replaced Alternate Farmer on the Board.  Also present was Town Planner Whitten.



Chairman Ouellette acknowledged receipt of the following Applications:

        1)      Application of Rejean Jacques for a Special Use Permit for                                      Excavation/Fill for property located on chamberlain Road and                            Windsorville Road, owned by Dorothy Calderado.  (R-3 Zone; Map 31,                      Block 58, Lot 11).

        2)      Application of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC for Renewal of Special Use                     Permit for the operation of a volume reduction facility at 9 & 11 Shoham                        Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, LLC.  (M-1 Zone; Map 5, Block 17,                      Lots 56 & 57).

        3)      Application of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC for a Special Use Permit for                   the operation of a transfer station at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9 -                         13 Shoham Road, LLC (M-1 Zone; Map 5, Block 17, Lots 56 & 57).          
        4)      Application of Southern Auto Sales, Inc. for a Zone Change from A-1 to                  B-2 for property t 205 South Main Street, owned by LCC Partnership                      (Map 34, Block 22, Lots 4 & 6).

The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Friday, June 1, 2007, and Friday, June 8, 2007, was read by Chairman Ouellette:

        1)      Application of East Windsor Limited Partnership for a 6-lot industrial  resubdivision located at 96 Newberry Road.  [M-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 19, Lot 2].

CONTINUED 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 extended to 7/5/07):

Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Koerner, representing the Applicant, Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. and NORCAP, the property owner; Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates; and Scott Atkins and Mark Zessin of Anchor Engineering.   Speaking later on behalf of Mary Nilsson, abutting property owner, was Attorney Janenda, and James Dziuba, of GeoInsight.

Attorney Koerner initiated the presentation by noting that the following are pending issues from the previous meeting:  1) access issues; 2) discussion of potential erosion of terrace escarpment slopes; and 3) the plume under the landfill and what would happen to it when the project is completed.  

Regarding access to the subject parcel Attorney Koerner reported that when they told you they had access through the Markowski property it was true at the time of discussion.   Mr. Markowski has been persuaded to rescind that access; the Applicant is now proposing an access road through Wapping Road via the Mitchell property.  Attorney Koerner reported he has spoken with Ron Boreski, of (Conn)DOT, who has also spoken with Town Planner Whitten; Mr. Boreski has concurred it is feasible to access Wapping Road along the railroad access.  

Attorney Koerner also noted that previously Attorney Janenda submitted the last page of a deed conveying property from Mary Nilsson to Mr. Botticello.  Attorney Koerner now submitted the first page of that deed, which reflected a $1.8 million purchase price.   He suggested the Commission had the right to balance the rights of the property owner with those of the community; he felt Mr. Botticello should have use of the property to recoup some of that cost.

Mr. Ussery referenced the plot plan, noting that rather than leaving the property at the scale house and entering Wapping Road they would now come southerly across NORCAP onto the Mitchell property.   Mr. Ussery recalled that the PZC had previously approved an application for a storage facility for the Mitchell property, which had formerly been a gravel operation. He indicated that the Mitchell access still exists, although it is currently blocked by concrete blocks.  Mr. Ussery suggested the Applicant could enter into a Lease Agreement with the railroad and Mitchell to access the site.  With regard to the regulation requirement that entrances to gravel pits be 1 mile (5,280’) distant Mr. Ussery noted that the distance for this new access from the entrance to the Charbonneau pit is 8000’ and therefore meets the regulation requirements.  

Commissioner Guiliano felt the new access doesn’t meet the distance requirement from the scale house road being used for the remainder of the work being done by Herb Holden Trucking (for the Maslak pit).  Attorney Koerner clarified that they have said they would close the existing (Maslak) pit before opening this new one.  He indicated that at the last meeting Attorney Janenda had said they didn’t have another access, and there was a question if the Commission could grant approval of an alternate route.   Attorney Koerner clarified they want to continue to use the same ingress/egress; they don’t really want to use a new access, which does meet the regulation requirements, but felt they should demonstrate they could use the right-of-way along the railroad.  Their preference is to still use the existing access point.  Town Planner Whitten recalled that when the Mitchell application came before the Commission that applicant had an issue using the right-of-way due to Yankee Gas being there.   Attorney Koerner indicated they would need to make sure the road was properly engineered because the jetway is underneath; Mr. Boreski had said it was an engineering question.  Commissioner Guiliano recalled that Mitchell had said they couldn’t use that property because it was landlocked; now Attorney Koerner is telling the Commission they can.  Discussion continued regarding the actual availability of the Mitchell access.

Mr. Ussery referenced discussion at the last meeting, and public comments, regarding terrace escarpment slopes on this parcel and the possibility of soil erosion in the proximity of the slopes on the north side of the parcel and near Ketch Brook.  He suggested they feel they have a well engineered plan, and do not have erosion issues, but they asked Anchor Engineering to request Clarence Welti, PhD, PE of Glastonbury do a peer review of the proposed plan.  Mr. Ussery cited Dr. Welti’s report dated 6/12/2007, noting the following highlights:  1) makes a recommendation to install a temporary erosion control measure to the toe of the existing slope to keep sedimentation during storms from coming down the slopes; and, 2) makes comparisons to existing slopes of 1.5:1, which are extremely steep and are not eroded, to the proposed 3:1 slopes, and the 2:1 slopes typical of highway grading.  Mr. Ussery noted the erosion reflected in the photos submitted by Mr. Thomson would be repaired. Commissioner Matthews questioned how the types of soils referenced in Dr. Welti’s report were determined?   Mr. Ussery indicated the applicant has done test pits, and the Hartford County Service did tests in the 1950s as well to determine soils for the agricultural piece.  These area TG soils - sand and gravel material.  Commissioner Matthews questioned how the large gully could be explained?  Mr. Ussery indicated it’s not erosion; the slope is heavily vegetated; it appears to be a naturally occurring condition.  Commissioner Farmer questioned if Dr. Welti visited the site?  Attorney Koerner replied affirmatively, and he also did test borings for Anchor Engineering.  He suggested that the site has been engineered since 1975, which included test borings, because of the landfill.

Attorney Koerner indicated he felt some members of the Commission had not been aware that the adjacent landfill had a plume, which also goes off the site, and is the reason for the monitoring.   Chairman Ouellette indicated he had not been aware of that issue.  Attorney Koerner apologized, noting he didn’t think that information was a secret; they are not trying to conceal anything.

Attorney Koerner then introduced Scott Atkins, and Mark Zessin, Vice President and President respectively of Anchor Engineering.  Mr. Atkins, LEP, submitted a copy of his letter dated 6/12/2007 which responded to questions raised at a previous meeting.  He gave a description of activities that occurred at the landfill site over the past 30 years through its closure and capping with a membrane material in 1994.  The affect of that activity on the groundwater has been monitored and has not changed that much in that time.  They determined an approved limit for the leachate plume, and they extended that line 50’ to 150’ out further on the south and north end to the brook; Mr. Atkins noted they have not had a problem with the leachate extending beyond that line.  He also noted that the zone of influence is 300’ to 500’ from the nearest property to the west.  Mr. Atkins suggested that the water running off a cornfield is similar to that of the gravel operation; what’s being proposed is very similar to what is occurring there now.

Commissioner Guiliano questioned the height of the elevation of the wells?  Mr. Atkins indicated the water in the landfill is mounded; the water comes out the bottom of the landfill and flows to the water table and is transported to the plume.   There is no seepage from the sides of the landfill.  He suggested there has been 23 years of groundwater monitoring, including elevation monitoring and testing the quality of the water for the inclusion of leachate.  Discussion continued regarding how a change in the direction of the plume would be corrected.  He felt the State wanted the landfill to purchase the Nilsson property; they didn’t have a choice.  Mr. Atkins suggested they could have stopped operating.   Commissioner Guiliano felt that by choosing to continue to operate it makes the asking price of the Nilsson property irrelevant; Commissioner Menard agreed.  Attorney Koerner indicated he wasn’t criticizing Mrs. Nilsson for what she was paid for the property, but felt it was fair for the Commission to know it was a significant price.   He didn’t think it was wrong for the Nilssons to sell the property, of for Mr. Botticello to purchase it.   Commissioner Guiliano objected to the way Attorney Koerner presented the information, as it inferred that the Commission had an obligation to consider the cost of the purchase by Mr. Botticello in relation to this proposal.  Attorney Koerner indicated that wasn’t the reason he provided the information.  

Mr. Atkins returned to his presentation.   He referenced a previous question raised by a Commissioner regarding who would have the responsibility for corrective action if the plume were found to be widening - Mr. Atkins indicated that responsibility rests with the landfill.   They are responsible for the location of the plume and have posted a post closure trust for $500,000 relative to the monitoring process.  

Chairman Ouellette referenced the second bullet mentioned in Mr. Atkins letter of 6/12/2007 - in the unlikely event that it appears that the groundwater table is becoming

elevated, then the proposed excavation contours could be adjusted - he questioned what Mr. Atkins meant by that?   Mr. Atkins indicated that he understood the Commission’s regulations to include a requirement for a minimum separation distance between excavation and groundwater table location.   Chairman Ouellette questioned what could be done if the area had already been excavated down to the bottom of the pit?   Mr. Atkins suggested the two detention basins should be reviewed.   The one on the southside will be accepting nearly the same amount of water it is currently; he doesn’t expect any issues with that basin.   They will be adding some water to the basin on the northeast corner but the water will go into a level spreader.   There is also a greater separation distance; Mr. Atkins suggested, in his professional opinion, that there wouldn’t be any issues with this basin either.  If any issues were to occur it would be some time down the road; by the time excavation got to that area you would know if there were any issues.  

Commissioner Farmer referenced the third bullet in Mr. Atkins letter - in the event that it appears that the leachate plume location is extending westward to the adjacent property, the landfill owner will have to implement appropriate measures to control the plume, including but not limited to installation of barriers or pumping - he questioned what type of barriers would be installed?   Mr. Atkins indicated some people put in flurry soils but you would have to go into the water table to do that; you could also pump the water back onto the landfill site and treat it.  Commissioner Farmer questioned that such measures would have to be maintained for a period of time?   Mr. Atkins replied affirmatively.  He indicated that based on everything that’s been done in the past and the existing soils he doesn’t see the plume heading off in another direction.   Mr. Atkins noted they test samples at Ketch Brook, near Hartford Toner, near the railroad tracks, and at Rye Street where Ketch Brook goes under the road.  He also noted someone mentioned the elevated water temperature at Ketch Brook and the effect of that; he noted the warmest temperature is at the Hartford Toner site, and he feels this operation will have no affect on that.  The highest temperature last July was at “point 3” (where you are just getting into the predicted plume); Mr. Atkins suggested things were moving pretty slow at that time.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned what any of this information had to do with digging the hole?  Mr. Atkins suggested he didn’t feel the gravel operation will affect any of those test points; it may dilute the plume because of water coming into the area and the plume will get more diluted as it goes on.  Town Planner Whitten questioned if the gravel would infiltrate at the same rate?  If there is 10’ of fill vs. 60’ of fill the peak infiltration rate will be greater where it’s 10’; is that a good thing?  How does that affect it overall?  Mr. Atkins suggested that if you have less distance you will have less time to infiltrate through, and the dilution of the plume is always there.  Town Planner Whitten then questioned that it was actually a good thing to get the dilution?   Mr. Atkins replied affirmatively.  He noted the amount of leachate is constant because the operation of the site has stopped; if you can dilute the amount of leachate coming out there will be less impact on the wells and Ketch Brook.  


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

The Commission RECESSED at 8:00 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:10 p.m.

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Saunders arrived at the Meeting at 8:10 p.m.

Attorney Koerner offered the following summarization of the Application:  1) the proposal is for an isolated site; 2) they have met, or exceeded, all requirements of the regulations - they have exceed the requirements by changing the slopes on the west side from a 3:1 grade as permitted, to a 5:1 slope as requested; and 3) gravel operations in general are not well regarded but it is a necessary natural resource; this location is the best because of the quality of the material and the isolated location.

Attorney Joel Janenda, representing Mary Nilsson, introduced James Dziuba, LEP, Senior Consultant of GeoInsight. Mr. Dziuba submitted copies of his report dated 6/12/2007 to the Commissioners at the meeting.  He indicated he disagreed with Mr. Atkins on one point.  Mr. Dziuba suggested that with regard to the natural hydrology of the site, the land elevation peaks at approximately 170 ft in the center of the property and slopes away to the north, west, and south; this area contains natural vegetation or agriculture, which he calls the natural lay of the land today.  Mr. Dziuba felt the excavation would substantially alter that condition.  He reported that 47” of rain will fall on this property in a given year; the run off will sink into the ground, or partly into the ground, and then be taken up by the vegetation and will release water back into the atmosphere.  Under the current conditions for this property the rain fall will stay the same.  Mr. Dziuba suggested that on the natural slopes 9” of that 47” represents 20% of the rainfall, while 20”, or 43% of the rainfall, will leave the site as overland runoff, or evapotranspiration, and 18”, or 37% of the rainfall, will recharge the aquifer.  Mr. Dziuba suggested that under the mining operation the land elevation peaks at 130+/- feet in the center of the property, and slopes to the detention basins in the north and south, and the land will be stripped of vegetation.  The amount of annual rainfall will be the same, at 47”, but there is no place for the run off to go because the grade is pitched for the water to remain there.  By removing the vegetation you are removing the ability of the water to be sucked from the ground and returned into the atmosphere.  Commissioner Tyler questioned if that assumption was made based on stripping the whole site of vegetation and not putting anything back until the mine is closed?  Mr. Dziuba described the proposed phasing of the project, and questioned how some phases could be closed out completely while access to other phases might be required through the phases previously closed.   He suggested perhaps he didn’t understand the plan but he felt it was reasonable to believe that they would be stripping vegetation all at one time.    He felt they would be putting 44” of water into the ground on top of the 47” of rainfall, and all of that would eventually go into the groundwater.   Mr. Dziuba indicated that with regard to the affect on the Zone of Influence (ZOI), he ran into the same brick wall that Mr. Atkins did; to correctly assess the effect on adjacent properties a detailed hydrogeologic study/report needs to be done.  Mr. Dziuba said that what is being proposed raises substantial issues

with regard to the ZOI.  While the landfill is closed and is monitored to the State’s satisfaction you presently have a natural system which is pretty much stable, and static, and predictable, and if you make changes to that system the stability will be changed.   Mr. Dziuba reiterated he didn’t feel anyone has been able to assess the impact.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned if more water in the aquifer is a good thing with regard to dilution of the plume?  Mr. Dziuba replied affirmatively, but noted that’s half of the question.  The other concern is where is the plume going to go when you dilute it?  Chairman Ouellette questioned what the negative impact would be?   Mr. Dziuba suggested the plume could go onto other properties not currently in use, it could shoot under the wetlands rather than discharging into it, it can change the ability to go down and come back up.  Commissioner Gowdy questioned if, based on the numbers, could Mr. Dziuba predict that would happen?   Mr. Dziuba indicated he could predict it’s possible, but without a computer model he couldn’t be specific.  He suggested he couldn’t tell that the plume would shift 175’ to the west, but he could tell the plume was going to shift; he felt there was no way to pump that much water into the ground without affecting it.  Commissioner Gowdy questioned if Mr. Dziuba could predict if it would be a minuscule change, or a gradual change?   Attorney Janenda reiterated a detailed hydrogeological assessment would be required; he didn’t feel either Mr. Dziuba or Mr. Atkins could tell you specifically; they are giving their opinion of the impact.  There must be much more work done to give an answer without a reasonable doubt.  Commissioner Gowdy felt that based on 30 years of excavation in East Windsor that hasn’t happened.   Mr. Dziuba indicated he didn’t know.  Commissioner Matthews questioned if they expected the water table to rise?  Mr. Dziuba felt it could; it’s sand and gravel soil; the water table could rise 2”.  Commissioner Menard questioned why adding significant amounts of water to the aquifer was a problem?  Commissioner Matthews felt it probably was a good thing, but the problem here is having a good amount of contaminated water underlying the landfill.  Town Planner Whitten questioned if dilution would be a good thing?   Mr. Dziuba suggested it could be if we were not sending pollution somewhere it’s not already going.  

Commissioner Farmer referenced a comment made by Mr. Atkins indicating that the leachate would go pretty much straight down into the water table; could any of the leachate get onto the surface of the excavation area or is it going straight down and dissipating?  Mr. Dziuba concurred that the leachate is going straight down.  He felt if you stay far enough from the closed landfill the probability of digging down and finding some of this shouldn’t be a problem.  Mr. Dziuba felt this assumes the soil under the landfill is the same type of soil.  

Attorney Janenda returned discussion to access to the site.  He reported he read Minutes of the January 2007 Application to amend the regulations to permit a waiver of the 1 mile radius requirement; he noted that Application was approved by this Commission.  Discussion indicated that this applicant and this site has access on Plantation Road but if a waiver were granted  they would use the NORCAP access.  When he gave the Commission part of the deed and maps for the Nilsson property at the last meeting he was

trying to demonstrate where the 2 right-of-ways were, which included the Nilsson right-of-way on the property sold to Mr. Botticello.  Attorney Janenda felt what was paid for that parcel isn’t relevant.  Mrs. Nilsson gave the right-of-way that connected to the right-of-way on the Markowski property.  Attorney Janenda said that Attorney Koerner indicated they had a 150’ frontage to the Markowski property and Mr. Markowski was willing to allow them to come off that property at that 150’ frontage.  Attorney Janenda said that Mrs. Nilsson has had numerous discussions with Mr. Markowski and he said they don’t have access along the 150’ frontage.  Attorney Janenda suggested their premise of a right to go out Plantation Road wasn’t so.  The Applicant now says they have taken care of that and there is another way to go.  He reported that DOT wants  4 things done, which include the submission of engineering plans which are satisfactory to DOT, the railroad, and Buckeye, for the Applicant to have the right to use the current NORCAP crossing or go along the tracks.  Attorney Janenda noted the Commission is being asked to approve a plan but there is nothing in front of you that the Applicant has satisfied the DOT requirements to have access to the railroad right-of-way.  He felt the Commission shouldn’t consider approval until they see specific plans for access and that the Applicant has demonstrated that they have all their State Permits.  He questioned how this proposal could be in the best interest of the Town, noting that Mrs. Nilsson has 200+/- acres adjacent to the landfill, and others have property adjacent as well.  

Chairman Ouellette opened discussion to the public:

        Karen Boutin, Windsorville Road, Broad Brook:  questioned the validity of the   Mitchell access; cited the potential vulnerability of the dam behind Hartford   Toner,  what happens if it gives way?  Chairman Ouellette suggested he felt the         Applicant was   in discussion with DOT regarding the Mitchell right-of-way but he       also didn’t feel there was any evidence of the results of those discussions.    With    regard to the dam, he   indicated he understood that it may be a sensitive area but     he questioned how it relates    to this Application?  Ms. Boutin felt someone had        mentioned the water in that area was    warmer; what happens to the rest of the         pond if the dam breaks; will it pollute the pond any more; what of the fish?    Chairman Ouellette reiterated he couldn’t see the connection.   Town Planner    Whitten questioned if Ms. Boutin was concerned with an increase of water onto   the subject site if the dam broke?  Ms. Boutin replied affirmatively.   Town    Planner Whitten felt there would be an increase but it would be surface water.          Ms. Boutin then referenced the traffic study done in December 2006, and January         2007, citing it was a time of low activity as none of the agricultural people would     have been working yet.  She also cited speed and safety issues on Windsorville Road.

        With regard to the Mitchell access Commissioner Guiliano felt the Commission    had been advised at the time of a previous Application for Mitchell that they   couldn’t use the railroad access and the Commission received documentation to that effect.  Town Planner Whitten indicated she recalled that as well but will research the Mitchell file.  Chairman Ouellette requested the Applicant provide   proof of access.  

        Charlie Sears, 3 Stepping Stone Drive:  questioned if there was an aquifer - an         area from which he gets his water - below the subject property?  Mr. Atkins responded negatively, noting the leachate is in a well defined area, and the gravel         pit as proposed wouldn’t have any affect on his well.   Commissioner Gowdy referenced a copy of the Zoning Map, and noted there is no aquifer reflected on same.  

        Russ Ellsworth, representing William, Imogene, and the late Robert Ellsworth:  cited his family has farmed the property for centuries; is concerned with water quality as their property abuts Ketch Brook; he gave a history of the    Ellsworth Water Company (which was later sold to Connecticut Water Company) which provided water to people on Rye Street; cited concern with leaching from the plume.

        Barbara Smiegel, Melrose:  cited Herb Holden had other gravel pits in Melrose;  cited concern with change to the topography due to removal of soil which creates a natural filtration system; questioned ability to predict the direction of flow or    what water quality will be; she felt the Town will be assuming the responsibility for destroying        residential drinking water; she cited health impacts.

        Nancy Masters, 312 Rye Street:  cited a black spruce bog, one of three in the   State, near the access being proposed; cited current truck traffic passing by on        Rye Street every few minutes and felt it was equivalent to the number being proposed under this Application; cited concern that aquifer comes from the Ellsworth property to the Connecticut River and will pass under her well, she    cited the lack of availability of  public water on Rye Street.

        Randy Myette, Rye Street, is also speaking for his mother Marjorie Myette of            15 Plantation Road:  questioned the number of monitoring wells, and when was    the last time they were monitored; cited concern for groundwater, and the lack of public water; noted his residency since a child and awareness of erosion; suggested a $500,000 bond over a 23 year period works out to $21,000/year; questioned what will happen to the groundwater and the aquifer?

        Mr. Atkins reported only 5 or 6 wells were put in originally but over time that number has increased; 16 wells are tested every quarter, and in the Fall 20 wells       are tested for elevations.  Mr. Atkins referenced the plot plan, noting the location of various wells, including some within the landfill itself, some on the property  edge near the proposed site, some near Ketch Brook.  Mrs. Masters questioned if the test results were available to the public; Mr. Atkins replied affirmatively.  With regard to the $500,000 cash trust for post-closure issues that might develop,    the Trustee holds the bond but if something comes up the landfill must pay for  resolution and DEP must approve the reimbursement.  Mr. Zessin, of Anchor

        Engineering, gave details of the trust. 

        Donna House, Wapping Road:  questioned the direction of truck traffic, will it  be to South Windsor or back through East Windsor, as she has truck traffic      already.  Chairman Ouellette noted submission of a traffic study by the Applicant.      Ms. House felt it was erroneous; she disagrees with same; it’s understated.   She       questioned if the town or city would be getting another traffic study?

        Barbara Smiegel, Melrose:  regarding testing the wells Ms. Smiegel said Mr.     Dziuba said there will be an increase in water going down into the soil and if there isn’t adequate sand and gravel for the water to seep through would that water rise to the surface and create contaminated surface run off?  Mr. Dziuba suggested the       design of  the mining operation is to leave  8’ of soil above the water table; that     amount would be available to infiltrate, although he couldn’t say if 8’ is better than 12’.  Mr. Atkins suggested they will have 8’ to 10’ of soil with the water table below, and the water will be moving in and out of that area.  He also cited       the water that’s being handled is really rain water coming down from above; it isn’t contaminated water.  

        Nancy Masters, (312) Rye Street: cited she walks the tracks and the landfill is close to the tracks; cited seeing yellow “ooze” coming from the landfill which she      feels will get  into Ketch Brook; she questioned the quality of water again; she        questioned if the Town would be bringing water to her end of the street?

        Mark Zessin, President, Anchor Engineering:  cited without a doubt they are in  Phase 3 of the Maslak pit; they are working through closing issues with Phases 1 and 2  but only Phase 3 is open; he cited it’s common to operate pits in phases - especially one of 50 acres in size; 4 phases as proposed for this pit is doable, he  gave examples of other pits in other towns as evidence of operating procedures.         Mr. Zessin reported he is familiar with this property, since the 1980s on most of it was tilled - sometimes for tobacco and sometimes for corn.   He felt the stated amount of water before and after excavation infiltrating into the ground was       exaggerated.  Mr. Zessin reported there has been no change since 1975, or during         the time of the operation of the Maslak pit, in the limits of the plume.

        Mr. Zessin suggested most of the southerly infiltration basin is outside the plume,     so he didn’t see what force of physics would force the water away beyond the    limit of the plume; he didn’t see how that would force water to the north.    He        suggested that 50 acres (of the project) seems like a lot but when you have over        1,000 acres of watershed on the south side of the plume it isn’t that much.  Commissioner Menard questioned how quickly vegetation returns to a closed  phase; Mr. Zessin reported that Phase I was grassed over within the season, and         they were also stripping Phase II.

        Robert Ryback, Rye Street:  felt the terrace escarpment slopes collapse quickly

        and could occur anywhere on site; grass is significantly different than other types     of vegetation; he felt the information being presented tonight is everyone’s opinion and best guess.

        Randy Myette, Rye Street, is also speaking for his mother Marjorie Myette of    15 Plantation Road:  requested information on the impact of this proposal on    water quality.  Commissioner Guiliano requested to be advised of the height of the water in the area of the excavation, and the quality of that water.  Commissioner Tyler requested to be advised how the water has changed over the last 20 years.

        Nancy Masters, Rye Street:  cited the railroad tracks are very close to the     landfill, will they have to excavate the landfill to put in the road?  Mr. Zessin       advised there are roads on both sides of the tracks already.  Chairman Ouellette        questioned if they were the roads within the DOT right-of-way to which there is         no access?  Town Planner Whitten noted she has also spoke with Ron Boreski of   DOT, who has said he is working with the Applicant and he has every confidence  they will be able to reach an agreement regarding use of the railroad crossing.          The agreement is in the works; everyone is working in the same direction.   It will     require plans and deeds, etc., to be filed on the Land Records.   Town Planner  Whitten clarified that this is strictly concerning crossing the railroad tracks and access.  Mr. Zessin reported representatives        from Buckeye Gas were out there as well; they are working with DOT regarding engineering plans for the Central New England Railroad.   Commissioner Tyler questioned if the fuel line was active;       Mr. Zessin replied affirmatively.

        Commissioner Guilianio requested copies of the Minutes of Mitchell Application,         and any pertinent information regarding DOT and the gas company and the railroad.

        Town Planner Whitten noted procedurally the extension time is running out; the  Commission must close the Hearing at the next meeting.   If any additional      information is required of the Applicant, or regarding the Application, requests        must be made by Wednesday.

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]  to the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on June 26, 2007, at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall     Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

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


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

The Commission RECESSED at 9:40 p.m. and RECONVENED at 9:47 p.m.

NEW BUSINESS:  East Windsor Limited Partnership: 6-lot industrial resubdivision located at 96 Newberry Road.  [M-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 19, Lot 12]  (Deadline to close hearing 7/17/07):

Chairman Ouellette read the description of business.  He noted Regular Commission Member Saunders would sit in on discussions/decisions; Alternate Commission Member Farmer would sit out from this Application forward.  The 5 Regular Members now would be voting.

Appearing to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates, representing the Applicant, East Windsor Limited Partnership.  Mr. Ussery recalled he came before the Commission about a year for informal discussion regarding this proposal for a 90+/- acre site on Newberry Road.  One building presently exists on the site, the prior mushroom factory which was built in the 1960s.  This proposal is for resubdivision for 6 individual lots.   Mr. Ussery noted the plans show conceptual buildings to demonstrate the feasibility of potential construction.  Mr. Ussery noted lengthy discussion occurred at the Inland/Wetlands Commission regarding clarification of their approval of building lines only.  He referenced a note on the plans, which he READ FOR THE RECORD; the buildings are conceptual only.   They are looking to rebuild Craftsman Road to Town standards, and to create lot lines for marketing purposes.  By approving this proposal the Commission is also approving on lot division; development of any of the parcels would require an applicant to return to this Commission with separate and detailed Site Plans.

Mr. Ussery noted they have 2700’ of private road running from the west side of the parcel east to Newberry Road; some of the road already meets Town standards and is 30’ wide.   From the corner northerly is currently a private driveway; that area will be reconstructed to the 30’ width, a formal drainage system, including culvert, will be installed under the road.  They will be extending the sewer from Newberry Road to Lots 5 and 6; an existing sewer presently serves Lot #4 (the mushroom factory) - that sewer will also serve Lots 1, 2, and 3.  All utilities are available for the various lots.

Mr. Ussery also noted there is a substantial amount of wetlands on the parcel; those areas are reflected in white on the plans.  A table of buildable lot area appears on the plans.  Mr. Ussery reiterated the discussion at the Inland/Wetlands Meeting, and referenced the note shown on the plans again.  He noted approval has been received from the Inland/Wetlands Commission.

Mr. Ussery felt there would be change to the Level of Service with regard to this proposal; he has submitted an application to DOT for a Certificate for this development.   

Mr. Ussery noted he received a memo from Town Engineer Norton asking that they approach an adjacent property owner to purchase a small amount of land to be able to create more of a curve at the turn of the road.   If that were to occur they would return to this Commission for a modification of the plans due to the change in the roadway.  Mr. Ussery indicated they are also appearing before the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) for approval of the extension of the sewer.  

Discussion continued regarding possible alternatives to roadway construction with regard to the 90 degree turn, and the purchase of additional land.   Possible alternatives hypothesized were stop signs, cul-de-sacs, deadending both roads.  Discussion turned to the need for a 50’ right-of-way on either side of the road.   Mr. Ussery noted the Applicant owns the land; the 50’ right-of-way is only required in residential subdivisions.   Chairman Ouellette questioned the amount of corner radii at Newberry Road; was it enough to accommodate larger tractor trailers?   Mr. Ussery cited difficulties with giving more room, as other property owners have driveways along the private roadway.   They are showing an extended area in the Town right-of-way as it is.  The same problem doesn’t exist at the other end of Craftsman Road as it’s a straight-through road.  

Discussion occurred between the Commission and audience members regarding the parcel under discussion for purchase.   The property owner was noted; an individual in the audience introduced himself, noting he was presenting representing his wife’s interest as she owns the land in question.   Discussion followed regarding options of lot assemblage, frontage requirements, and road access.

MOTION: To CONTINUE the Application of East Windsor Limited Partnership for a 6-lot industrial resubdivision located at 96 Newberry Road.  [M-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 19, Lot 12]  to the Commission’s regularly  scheduled Meeting on July 10, 2007, at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

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

To comply with bylaw requirements the Commission paused to consider extension, or adjournment, of the Meeting

MOTION: To EXTEND this Meeting until 10:45 P. M.

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

NEW BUSINESS:  Arvind Persaud: For Site Plan Approval to allow truck sales, service, leasing and rentals at 272 South Main Street, owned by Irving S. and Penny Borookow, and approval of proposed 3-bay garage.  [B-2 Zone; Map 38, Block 5, Lot 96]  (Deadline for decision 7/26/07):

Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Ray Nelson, PE; the Applicant, Arvind Persaud, was present in the audience.

Mr. Nelson described the project as a 70’ x  40’ addition to the existing building; the addition will include be a pre-fab building containing 3 bays with 3-14’ doors to service box trucks.  Sale or rental of box trucks will occur on the site as well.  They will be adding pavement in front for parking; an additional acces drive will be gravel.  Handicapped accessible parking will be available.  The addition will not contain floor drains; Mr. Nelson felt there were no issues of drainage or contamination at this site.  

It was noted that Town Engineer Norton has requested before and after drainage calculations; Mr. Nelson suggested the parcel is flat with a slope towards to back.   He felt there is not much run off from this site.  The small amount of drainage increase will flow to the brushy area in the back.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned what the diesel fuel storage tank was for?  Mr. Persaud submitted a brochure to the Chairman, noting they will be leasing vehicles with the tanks filled.  Town Planner Whitten noted the tank is permitted; the Commission can require screening if they prefer.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned where the mechanicals for the new addition would be; he is considering aesthetics from the street.   Mr. Persaud indicated they were not yet on the plans as they have not decided where they will be.  Chairman Ouellette questioned if there would be a need for exterior lighting?  Mr. Nelson indicated nothing free standing.  Mr. Persaud indicated he would need flood lights; at Chairman Ouellette’s request they will be on motion activation.  

Chairman Ouellette noted an existing sign located within the landscape island is within the State right-of-way; he questioned if there was a lease for that sign?  Mr. Persuad indicated he would like a sign for his business as well.  Chairman Ouellette reiterated the existing sign is on someone else’s property; there might be a problem adding to that sign; permission must be obtained to install the sign.  Mr. Nelson noted there will be a chain link fence along Route 5 with sliding gates; Chairman Ouellette questioned if the gates would be secured during non-business hours.  Commissioner Tyler questioned if the Applicant would be dealing with trailer trucks?   Mr. Persuant replied negatively, noting the vehicles he intends to service would be straight trucks.  Commissioner Guiliano questioned the hours of operation?   Mr. Persuad suggested they would be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, perhaps a half a day on Saturday, no Sunday hours.  

Commissioner Farmer opened discussion on the potential for servicing trailer trucks; could that be a condition of approval.  He noted that Route 5 merges into one lane going north; people are trying to pass others going into Harken’s Market nearby or Scantic Road.  Discussion continued.  Town Planner Whitten noted the Applicant needs to maintain a drive isle within the parking area.  The grey area shown on the plans was identified as a non-parking area which needs to be available for trucks to turn in, etc.   Town Planner Whitten cautioned that the Applicant needs to be sure that area isn’t necessary for parking; if an area isn’t shown on the plans and identified as parking, and space appropriately, etc. then the Applicant would be in violation of the Site Plan if that area were used for parking.  

Commissioner Menard considered that they would be adding a metal building to the existing building, and the addition will be higher than the existing building.  Mr. Persaud  indicated that it would be a separate building which would be accessed from the concrete building.  Commissioner Menard suggested there may be some concern from others regarding an unattractive building.

To comply with bylaw requirements the Commission paused to consider extension, or adjournment, of the Meeting.

MOTION: To EXTEND this Meeting until 11:00 P. M.

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

The Commission requested submission of more detailed plans reflecting the issues discussed made and the comments made during this presentation.

MOTION: To CONTINUE the Application of Arvind Persaud for Site Plan Approval to allow truck sales, service, leasing and rentals at 272 South Main Street, owned by Irving S. and Penny Borookow, and approval of proposed 3-bay garage.  [B-2 Zone; Map 38, Block 5, Lot                96]  to the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on June 26, 2007, at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

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

BUSINESS MEETING/(1)  Sewer Service Area Map Draft, Review and Comment:

Town Planner Whitten noted the WPCA has submitted a new Sewer Service Area Map; they have looked at zoning areas which contained failed septic systems, and have also considered areas under the consideration of the Office of Policy and Management.   The WPCA is looking for comments from various commissions by July 15th.  Commissioner

Tyler indicated the WPCA has changed significant areas of non-service to service areas without contacting property owners; he indicated he would oppose any comments from this Commission until they address that issue.   Town Planner Whitten requested Commission members provide her with comments for the next meeting.

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)  Correspondence:     None.

BUSINESS MEETING/(3)  Staff Reports:

Town Planner Whitten reported Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek has resigned her position at East Windsor; she will be leaving June 20th for a new position in Westbrook.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES/May 8, 2007, and May 22, 2007:

MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Public Hearing #1506 dated May 22, 1007                as written.

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

MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Public Hearing #1507 dated May 8, 2007,                        as written.

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


        *       Borys Subdivision
        *       Letourneau - Norton’s Crossing


MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 11:00 p.m.

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

Respectfully submitted,

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