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 26, 2007 Minutes

Public Hearing #1509
June 26, 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 7:01 P. M. by Chairman Ouellette.


A quorum was established as three Regular Members (Guiliano, Menard, and Ouellette) and two Alternate Members (Farmer and Matthews) were present.  Regular Members Gowdy and Saunders and Alternate Member Tyler were absent.  Chairman 0ullette noted  Members present would sit in on all Items of Business this evening.   Also present was Town Planner Whitten.



Chairman Ouellette acknowledged receipt of the following Applications:

1.      Application of Cello Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless for Site Plan Approval to allow the installation of 12 antennas on existing water tank, along with equipment shelter on the ground at 104 Prospect Hill Road, owned by Connecticut Water Company.  [R-3 Zone; Map 5, Block 17, Lot 38].

2.      Application of LTP Realty, Inc., for a 3-lot resubdivision of property located on the west side of Winkler Road.  [A-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 17, Lot 19].


The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, June 14, 2007, and Thursday, June 21, 2007, was read by Chairman Ouellette:

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].

PERFORMANCE BONDS - ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS:  Kingshire Subdivision, Phase I – Request from Ken Nelson for release of erosion control bond.

Chairman Ouellette noted receipt of  the following:  1) letter, (which he READ FOR THE RECORD), dated 6/12/2007 from Ken Nelson requesting release of the Erosion Control Bond presently posted for Kingshire Subdivision, Phase I; and 2) memo from Town Engineer Norton recommending release of the referenced bond.  Town Planner Whitten noted the amount of the bond is $10,000; she has no concerns regarding Town Engineer Norton’s recommendation.

MOTION: To RELEASE the Erosion Control Bond for Kingshire Subdivision,                  Phase I.

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

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 & Z-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; Scott Atkins and Mark Zessin of Anchor Engineering; John Saxton, and independent Environmental Specialists specializing in hydrology; and Scott Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates.   Speaking on behalf of Mary Nilsson, abutting property owner, was Attorney Janenda, and James Dziuba, of GeoInsight.

Attorney Koerner opened discussion by submitting the following:  1) copy of East Windsor Wetlands Map showing the black spruce bog, which is outside of the railroad tracks, and the Zone of Influence discussed regarding the landfill; 2) copy of letter from DOT indicating they are thinking about giving the Applicant a license, and the CNE is considering a lease with the Applicant; and 3) copy of letter from Central New England Railroad citing no objection to Herb Holden Trucking using the road as access.  Attorney Koerner reiterated this is not the desired access; they continue to propose the use of the existing access on Wapping Road which has been in use for 40 years.  He suggested if the Commission is looking for documentation that they have access via an agreement with the DOT then the Applicant should withdraw this Application, do 6 months of research, and return to the Commission; however, they would still be saying they don’t want to use the alternate access via Plantation Road.  

Commissioner Matthews noted he had walked the railroad access the previous evening; at that time he found the “road” is only wide enough for an ATV and there is an 8’ drop on the side.   There was also much pooled water, maybe 60%, sometimes on both sides.  Attorney Koerner indicated that historically this “access” was used for trucks hauling from a gravel extraction operation.  Commissioner Matthews questioned how long it had been abandoned?   Mr. Holden, of Herb Holden Trucking, felt it had been used through the 1990s.  John Cohen, also of Herb Holden Trucking, indicated the DOT took the right-of-way by eminent domain in the 90s; it was used by Penn Central and Conrail (both now out of business) in the 90s as a low-use line, Mitchell has also used it - DOT now has title to the right-of-way.  Commissioner Matthews questioned if Mitchell is active?  Attorney Koerner replied affirmatively, noting they use it for access to Wapping Road.  Commissioner Guiliano clarified that Mitchell uses the site for storage of containers, not gravel extraction; Commissioner Matthews suggested there was evidence of gravel and debris in the area.   Mr. Cohen suggested that the brick piled up on the site is used to fill roads for erosion control by those using 4 wheelers.  
Attorney Koerner introduced Scott Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates.  Mr. Hesketh updated the traffic study prepared in December, 2006 and January, 2007 with the following information:  in response to comments made at the previous meeting Mr. Hesketh indicated they have done a 7 day count (beginning last Tuesday) to update the traffic counts on Wapping Road in the vicinity of the existing road.  The effective daily average was 942, with a peak daily volume of 1133 vehicles.  A peak hourly volume of 151 vehicles was noted in the morning and a peak hourly volume of 112 in the afternoon.  In comparison to the peak daily average of 704 in December, 2006 and January, 2007 the current peak daily average of 942 is an increase in excess of 61% in peak daily volume.   With regard to peak hourly volumes 87 vehicles passed the site in the morning in January, 2007 compared to 151 today, for an increase of 74%, and 83 vehicles passed the site in the afternoon in January, 2007, compared to 112 today, for an increase of 35%.  Mr. Hesketh suggested site access at the driveway would continue to operate at a Level of Service A (vehicles can enter or exit a site with a minimal - less than 10 seconds - delay), as was reported in March; there would be no negative impact on access to the site.   Mr. Hesketh indicated that in his opinion there would be no change in the Level of Service due to development of the surrounding area; he suggested the access drive has been operating in a similar way for a number of years.  In response to Chairman Ouellette’s question Mr. Hesketh reported the numbers reflect total traffic volume, rather than classification counts.  Chairman Ouellette questioned if there were any monthly variations?   Mr. Hesketh reported the traffic volumes during the first 3 days (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday) were slightly higher than the December counts but noted the peak hours were consistent.  He suggested he understood there was a large operating going on down the street, and also farming operations nearby.

Attorney Koerner cited Mr. Dziuba’s concern for mounding of water of the leachate plume in the landfill, in response they have moved the location of the detention basins.  Mr. Ussery referenced a site plan, noting the basin in the north east corner of the site has been relocated slightly to the west to take it out of the area of the leachate plume, while the basin along the southerly corner of the site has been reconfigured and moved to the west slightly also.  The basins are still sized to handle a 50 year storm; there are minor changes in grading of the floor.  The surface water flow remains the same; it’s just going to a different corner.   Chairman Ouellette questioned if the change in location of the basins affects the approval granted by the Inland/Wetland Commission?   Mr. Ussery suggested the basins are actually further from the wetlands, and probably have less impact than before.  The basins were re-sized to the 50 year storm in response to Commissioner Matthews comments at a previous meeting; there is less impact than what the Inland/Wetlands Permit was issued on.  Town Planner Whitten concurred that the locations appear to cause lesser impact; she didn’t feel the changes require a Wetlands application modification.  

Discussion continued as to the access drive through the various phases;  Commissioner Matthews felt there were areas of flagged wetlands on the map through which the trucks would travel.  Attorney Koerner suggested the wetlands map isn’t that accurate; Mr. Ussery indicated the areas flags on his plans are identified in the field.  He suggested the access road is some distance from the detention basin in the southerly corner; he referenced plans to identify the areas of discussion, including the proximity of the spruce bog.  Mr. Ussery indicated they have discussed access via this alternate route with the railroad and DOT; letters indicate they are willing to work with the Applicant.   They have not done any heavy mapping of the alternate access location as it is not the access of their choice.  

Attorney Koerner introduced Scott Atkins of Anchor Engineering, and John Saxton, and independent environmental specialists.  Mr. Atkins submitted a letter dated 6/26/2007 which includes information regarding the elevation of the groundwater in the proximity of the wells in the proposed gravel area.   Mr. Atkins suggested the groundwater table has increased approximately 1+/- foot in the past 6 years; he suggested that the rainfall average in Connecticut since 2000 has been substantially higher, therefore the amount of precipitation has contributed to the increase in groundwater.  Mr. Atkins also noted the report shows the proposed grades and how they relate to the ground elevation near the landfill; he suggested there have 10 +/- feet of separation between the groundwater and the bottom of the proposed elevation.  Mr. Atkins referenced Section B of his report, which shows grafts of the groundwater quality for the last 3 years; he noted that information is taken from the data which is reported to the State.  Mr. Atkins noted the locations of various wells throughout the monitoring area - 213 is in the middle of the site but out of the Zone of Influence (ZOI), 205 and 202 are at the edge of the ZOI, 6A is in the middle of the ZOI and would be the worse wells with regard to level of impact.  He suggested the quality of water at 202 and 205 and 213 are essentially drinking water quality.  Mr. Atkins suggested the Maslak pit has been open for 10+/- years yet there has been no impact on ground mounding in that time.  Mr. Atkins noted the direction of the arrows on the map indicate the direction of the flow of water; it is heading towards the north and northwest.  He suggested the soils are highly permeable; both he and Mr. Dziuba have said there should be no change in the water table - then the direction of the arrows won’t change.  With regard to the amount of water which will go into the water table Mr. Atkins suggested Mr. Dziuba had talked about 45% of the rainfall will evaporate into the sky.   Mr. Atkins concurred that a with nice, grassy area 20” will go into the atmosphere, but when someone is growing corn most of the water goes into the soil, and the farmer often needs to irrigate the crop.   Mr. Atkins reported he had talked to Mr. Ussery regarding moving the sedimentation basins out from the edge of the plume, so if there might be mounding over the plume the basins will act as barriers to the Zone of Influence (ZOI) and any mounded water would be pushed back into the ZOI.  Based on the work they have been doing for the State Mr. Atkins felt work in the gravel pit won’t change the direction of the arrows or cause any mounding; the work to be done in the pit won’t have any impact on any of those wells.

Commissioner Guiliano questioned if Mr. Atkins could, in his professional opinion, make that guarantee?  Mr. Atkins felt they had made that guarantee to NORCAP.  Attorney Koerner noted the regulations require renewal of the special Use Permit every 2 years, and the wells are monitored quarterly; they could submit those reports to this Commission.   Commissioner Guiliano felt the purpose of purchasing the additional property was to protect the neighbors from the plume; the State wants them to spread out their holdings.   To him that’s a safeguard the State wants; he questioned if they want that safeguard disturbed?  Mr. Atkins felt any impact on the wells would push the water back to the site, not outward toward the property lines.  He suggested there are safeguards built into the yellow line (1 mile radius for the ZOI); he felt they could put a well on the property line and not expect any impact from the pit.


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

The Commission RECESSED at 7:55 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:01 p.m.

Attorney Koerner noted that when Mr. Botticello was required to purchase the additional land the ZOI, in its original position, was part of the landfill since 1975.  That ZOI hasn’t changed significantly from its originally anticipated location.  

Attorney Koerner introduced Mr. John Saxton, of Independent Environmental Consultants.    

Mr. Saxton gave his professional credentials, noting his expertise is in the study of modeling and mounding.  (The following comments are a summarization of Mr. Saxton’s findings; more detailed information is available in his letter dated June 26, 2007 addressed to Chairman Ouellette, a copy of which was submitted at this meeting).   Mr. Saxton reported he looked at what was needed to be done to get information for a model; he felt that modeling wouldn’t show anything different than has already been reported.  Mr. Saxton felt that mounding would not be an issue for this site.  He noted that water from approximately half of the site currently collects in an existing depression along the south end of the property.  A major change to the pre and post condition of the site is the creation of the detention basins.  The detention basins will allow infiltration of the water into the ground and aquifer.  He suggested that gravel has a higher level of permeability, therefore, the infiltration of water into the groundwater will occur at a higher rate - 60 feet per day - and dilute the quality of the water.  Although he felt that mounding of water would not occur he suggested if anything it would be localized and would not appreciably change the Zone of Influence (ZOI), nor would it change the direction of the ZOI.  To avoid adverse impact to adjacent properties Mr. Saxton recommended that the location of the detention basins be moved further to the west, which would then create a pressure ridge which would cause the water to go back towards the east into the subject property.

Attorney Koerner submitted a letter dated June 26, 2007 which summarized his position that:  1)  the Application meets or exceeds all requirements of the regulations, 2) their experts have concluded the proposal won’t adversely impact the environment, and 3) that this is an isolated site, there are no residences within eyesight or earshot of this proposal.
Discussion followed regarding what defines an acceptable level of a particular material, identification and definition of collection criteria,

Chairman Ouellette questioned on many years of additional groundwater monitoring will occur at the landfill?   Mr. Atkins reported they will be looking at the site for 22 to 23 years longer; NORCAP has posted a 30 year monitoring bond which is updated annually.  Chairman Ouellette questioned that all this monitoring information is reported to the DEP?   Mr. Atkins noted that all the information presented in the table in his reports to the Commission is the same information reported to DEP in their annual report.  Chairman Ouellette questioned that the DEP acts as a watchdog for NORCAP; if issues were raised would who would they contact?  Mr. Atkins reported he works with Tom O’Connor at DEP on a continuing basis.  In response to Commissioner Matthews question, Mr. Atkins noted Ketch Brook is sampled a 4 specific spots ranging from the dam of the Windsorville Pond, along the railroad tracks, within the ZOI, and downstream to Rye Street.  All that data is in the report.  Commissioner Matthews questioned if any of that data relates to contamination?   Mr. Atkins noted there is also impact from upstream; there are other agricultural uses upstream of the outlet at Windsorville Pond.  Nothing proposed to be done at the gravel excavation would change the impact of the surface water.   As mentioned at the previous meeting if there were impact it would be diluted by the increased infiltration.  

Town Planner Whitten requested clarification from Mr. Saxton of the rate of infiltration and its affect on the plume.   She questioned that when they have 30’ of material between the infiltration point and the groundwater the infiltration rate would be “x”; wouldn’t that change when the site has been excavated and there is perhaps 10’ of material between the infiltration point and the groundwater?  Mr. Saxton suggested you would still have the same infiltration rate, but it would take longer to go down with the 30’ of material.  He suggested the water will move horizontally as it goes down and will not expand the plume.  He suggested you might loose some storage space with the different amount of material but it won’t change the rate.  Commissioner Guiliano also queried the infiltration rate?  He also felt the water would infiltrate faster with less material to travel through.  Mr. Saxton indicated that whatever is infiltrating now will reenter the water table.  Town Planner Whitten indicated he had no problem with the water reentering the water table; she did want to know that there would be no affect on the plume.  Mr. Saxton suggested there is a limited rate going in - even though there is a certain distance.  He stated the only thing you doing is changing the amount of storage, you are not changing the water table.  Mr. Atkins suggested that it now takes 1 1/2 days for the water to get to the water table, after excavation it would take a day or a 1/2 day for that to occur because there would be a shorter distance.       .

Chairman Ouellette opened discussion to the audience:

James Dziuba, of GeoInsight, representing Mrs. Nilsson:  feels a detailed hydrogeological investigation must be done, everything presented is based on assumptions; agrees the data regarding the Zone of Influence (ZOI) varies at times; it is an area that will have an impact on water quality; the reason the ZOI must be owned is you must be able to guarantee that no one is putting in wells, and you must be able to monitor the area significantly; submitted a letter from the Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District dated 1982 which discusses the landfill and possible impact on the groundwater and Ketch Brook, that same discussion is occurring today, 25 years later, which further supports his contention for the need for the hydrogeological study.  Chairman Ouellette questioned how long the hydrogeological study would take, and what could be expected to be learned from that report?  Could two consultants debate the results of that data?  Mr. Dziuba suggested it would take several months to accumulate the data from the site, that data is then used to run computer models to predict where the water will flow, etc.  The data acquired would be actual site data collected from the site.  Chairman Ouellette questioned if Mr. Dziuba had ever seen such a report prepared for a Planning Commission?   Mr. Dziuba reported he had not done any for a Commission.  Chairman Ouellette questioned what could change the direction of the water flow?   Mr. Dziuba indicated it would by the pressure exerted on the groundwater from sources entering the system; if you put extra rainfall into the groundwater it will change the pressure, etc.  

Commissioner Guiliano questioned who sets the limits of the Zone of Influence   (ZOI)?  Mr. Dziuba indicated the DEP would; they will analyze and accept a consultants information but the DEP must put their blessing on the ZOI.  The owner of the landfill must have the ability to control the plume, either through an easement or a purchase as was done here.   Commissioner Guiliano questioned if it were needed could Mr. Dziuba find a consultant to back up his opinion?   Mr. Dziuba replied affirmatively.  

Commissioner Matthews questioned if Ketch Brook is surface water?  Mr. Dziuba   replied affirmatively.  Commissioner Matthews questioned the direction of flow  of Ketch Brook beyond this ZOI; does it flow under the road and does it affect the      property owners on the other side of this site?   Mr. Dziuba suggested the rule of      thumb is that groundwater discharges to surface water.  You could reasonable    assume that most of that ZOI is going into Ketch Brook; it could flow underneath        the road but then the surface water body eventually collects it all.

Commissioner Guiliano returned to his question regarding the percolation/infiltration rate of water going into differing amounts of soil.   Mr. Dziuba indicated that the type of soil defines how fast the water will percolate down; water moves pretty quickly through sand and gravel.  He indicated that off the top of his head he didn’t have the data being requested.  In response to Attorney Janenda’s question Mr. Dziuba indicated the information presented in the reported prepared for the previous meeting didn’t calculate the rate, it calculated the volumes.

Attorney Janenda, representing Mrs. Nilsson:  suggested the regulations were            previously amended to permit a waiver of the 1 mile radius between active gravel        pits, the Applicant’s position to allow granting them that waiver to use Wapping        Road was that they did have access to alternative access routes although those  alternative routes were less desirable.  Attorney Janenda ran through a         summarization of various alternative routes, and the various requirements needed        to use those routes.  He suggested the amendment to waiver the 1 mile radius was        based on the availability of alternative routes, and it must be in the best interest of         the town to grant such a waiver.  Attorney Janenda felt there was no reason to  grant that waiver and asked the Commission not to grant it.  
Attorney Janenda then addressed the estimated potential traffic to be generated by      this operation, and noted Mr. Hesketh has updated the traffic information in    response to comments raised by the public at the last meeting.  

Attorney Janenda then explained Mrs. Nilsson’s choices regarding her property to        allow Mr. Botticello control of the land affected by the Zone of Influence - either     outright sale, or a 30 year lease of water rights.   Mrs. Nilsson position was that     she didn’t want this land if there was contaminated water under it, so she sold the land to Mr. Botticello.

Attorney Janenda then submitted aerial photos of other gravel operations - the  Myers   pit on East Road and the Maslak pit adjacent to the landfill - as examples      of how the sites are worked and the exposure of the site.   He felt the denuded risk is intolerable; this site is different because of its proximity to the landfill and the    contaminated plume; he suggested Mr. Holden find gravel elsewhere.


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

The Commission RECESSED at 9:07 p.m. and RECONVENED at 9:15 p.m.

Chairman Ouellette continued audience participation:

        Nancy Masters, Rye Street:  cited an alternative access is adjacent to the black        spruce  bog, she cited its relevance and efforts to preserve it; cited process for      widening Rye    Street 5 years ago and its impact on Ketch Brook.

        Karen Boutin:  cited comment previously made during Mitchell Application that   their parcel was landlocked, she questioned how the applicant could make the    claims he did at this meeting?

        John Cohen, representing Herb Holden Trucking:  submitted photos of the 3rd     phase of the Maslak pit taken 2 days ago showing finished grade and area being  worked back, he showed various grades within the site and noted areas that have         been revegetated, and areas that will be returned to farmland; he also submitted a      photo of farmland noting it returns to tobacco, etc.  

        Randy Myette, Rye Street:  cited concern about condition of well, questioned    the number of monitoring wells on the site - Mr. Atkins reviewed the information        presented to Mr. Myette at the previous meeting, noting the 30 is monitored by 30       wells with 16 being monitored on a quarterly basis, and noted that DEP keeps a  list of contaminated areas on its GIS which includes information on contaminated        residential wells.  

        Cathy Pippin, Woolam Road:  suggested Mr. Holden is a wonderful man, and a      millionaire, she suggested he buy another pit and go somewhere else to avoid            impact on these adjacent land owners.

MOTION: To CLOSE 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 & Z-2 Zones;       Map 36, Block 49, Lot 17C]

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

NEW HEARING:  Rejean Jacques – 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]  (Deadline to close hearing 7/31/07):

Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description.   Mr. Jacques had a family emergency, appearing to represent him, and the Application, was Rejean Fillion.  

Upon questioning from Chairman Ouellette Mr. Fillion indicated he had little knowledge of the Application, or why it was being sought.  Town Planner Whitten indicated she understood the issue to be that Mr. Jacques was bringing fill into this property; the amount of dirt coming in exceeded the amount which is allowed without a Special Use Permit.  She reported she didn’t know the reason for the filling; it appears he is trying to put in a road but there is no other information.  Based on discussions with the North Central Health District Town Planner Whitten understood there is intent for development of this property, but there has been no discussion with the Applicant on that issue.  Town Planner Whitten noted the Applicant did go to the Inland/Wetlands Commission with this Application; the Inland/Wetlands Commission took a position of  “No Jurisdiction”.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned if the Applicant had the right to add fill to the property?   Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively, but noted because of the amount being deposited he needs a Special Use Permit to be sure the process is done under best practices - that there is no dirt left on the road, etc.  Chairman Ouellette questioned how the area of estimated fill was calculated?   Town Planner Whitten felt it was the result of information as to how much has been brought in and how much more is anticipated.  

Chairman Ouellette noted that Town Engineer Norton has signed off on the Application; he reiterated that the Inland/Wetlands Agency has made a ruling of “No Jurisdiction”.

Commissioner Farmer questioned what the road was being improved for?  Mr. Fillion replied he didn’t know.  Town Planner Whitten indicated the parcel is presently nursery stock; she felt they are trying to improve the road now and the Commission will see an Application later regarding future development.   Commissioner Farmer felt that based on the appearance of the grade they will be getting down into the wetlands.    Town Planner Whitten suggested if they go beyond the wetlands limit the Inland/Wetlands Commission will get involved again.

Discussion followed regarding what is being approved under this Application.  Commissioner Menard questioned that by approving this Application the Commission was not approving the road?  Town Planner Whitten indicated she assumed they were felling in the gullies in the farm road, and have gone beyond the allowable limit of 100 cubic yards of fill; they are now required to apply for a Special Use Permit.

Chairman Ouellette opened discussion to the audience.

        Karen Boutin:  suggested the parcel under discussion was used by Herb Holden    for a gravel pit two years ago, and is the reason the land was dug way down and         way back.   Also, when the houses were built on Chamberlain Road all that dirt  went into her pond.  In response to Commissioner Matthews question if this work         would aggravate that; Ms. Boutin replied it might.  Town Planner Whitten noted  that when she visited the site it appears to be overland flow to the sides.

Discussion continued as to the Applicant’s awareness of procedures for filing of the appropriate applications prior to initiating extensive work beyond what is address under this Application.   Town Planner Whitten indicated she will discuss the issues with the Applicant again.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the 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].

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

MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of Rejean Jacques and owner Dorothy Calderado requesting a Special Use Permit for an excavation permit to allow the import of material to create an improved roadway bed at  property located on the north side of Chamberlain        Road, and west side of Windsorville Road, Assessor Map # 31, Block #58, Lot #11, R-3 Zone
This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

Special Permit Fill Placement Plan Chamberlain Rd & Windsorville Rd, prepared for Rejean Jacques, East Windsor CT prepared by Megson & Heagle, Civil engineers & Land Surveyors, LLC 81 Rankin Road, Glastonbury CT 06033 860/ 659-0587, dated 4/25/07 scale 1” = 100’


Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:

1.      The name and phone number of an individual for 24 hour emergency contact for erosion control problems must be noted on the plans.  Any changes in the individual responsible for emergency contact must be reported immediately to the Planning and Zoning Department.
2.      One set of final plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for review and approval of Town Planner.

Conditions that must be met prior to issuance of permits:

3.      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 mylars.
4.      One set of final mylars shall be filed in the Planning & Zoning Office by the applicant prior to issuance of any permit, one set shall be filed on the land records in Town Clerks Office.
5.      A performance bond with amount to be approved by Town Engineer, with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney shall be provided by the applicant.
6.      A full anti-tracking pad, or similar treatment must be installed in the construction entrance from Phelps Road. Any erosion and sedimentation control measure must first be approved by the Town Engineer

General Conditions:

7.      A zoning permit shall be obtained prior to the start of any work or new phase.  No zoning permit shall be issued until a cash or passbook bond for site restoration, erosion and sedimentation control has been submitted.  Such bond shall be good for the life of the permit/project.  Any funds that may be withdrawn by the Town for such maintenance shall be replaced within 5 days or this permit shall be rendered null and void.
8.      The final grading shall conform to the proposed final grading as indicated on the referenced plans; but in no case shall any final slope be steeper than a rise to run ratio of 1:3, also knows as a 33% slope.
9.      No trees, brush or stumps shall be buried on site.
10.     The driveway and roadway in close proximity shall be cleaned regularly to minimize the dust nuisance created by exiting/entering traffic.
11.     The total number of loaded, or partially loaded, incoming trucks to the site shall not exceed an average of sixty (60) trucks per day or a maximum of three-hundred (300) trucks in any one week period, counting Monday through Friday.
12.     Activity on the site shall not occur before 7:30 a.m. and shall not be opened or operated later than 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, Monday through Friday., or holidays and weekends.
13.     Measures to minimize the dust nuisance from the site shall be provided by the applicant for review and approval of Town staff.  Additional measures are to be undertaken if required by staff if field conditions necessitate.

14.     The “Best Management Practices” outlined by the Hartford County Natural Resource Conservation Service shall be adhered to.
15.     The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of their Inland Wetlands Permit.
16.     The vegetation (trees) to be removed shall be accomplished in one step and the topsoil shall be stripped off and stockpiled immediately or a temporary vegetative cover implemented.
17.     Certified as-builts showing contours of completed and active areas shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department
18.     There shall be no on-site maintenance of equipment unless it is a clear emergency.  Town staff shall be notified if such emergency exists.
19.     All trucks and equipment shall be parked off-street.

20.     Additional drainage and erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.
21.     Any modifications to the proposed drainage for the site plan is subject to the approval of the town engineer.
22.     This project shall be executed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans and conditions.  Minor modifications to the approved plans which result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.
23.     By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner 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.


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

The Commission RECESSED at 9:58 p.m. and RECONVENED at 10:06 p.m.

OLD BUSINESS:  Arvind Persuadfor 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.    Mr. Nelson submitted revised plans to the Commission at this Meeting.  

Mr. Nelson reported on the following plans revisions:  1)  they are proposing lighting in the back right hand corner of the site and o the building; it is full cut off for the area lighting; 2) they have added additional landscaping on the left side of the new parking area; and 3) the mechanical equipment is being installed in the back rear right hand corner of the building.

Chairman Ouellette noted one of the signs on this parcel is located within the State right-of-way; nothing can be done with regard to identification of this business as it would be a modification.  He suggested the Commission can’t approve any additions to that sign as it has no jurisdiction over that sign.  If there is no permission for that sign then it really should come down.   Chairman Ouellette noted there is a second sign within the property; Mr. Nelson concurred that additional wording would be added regarding this business.  Chairman Ouellette noted the need to review the specifications of the sign and the size with Town Planner Whitten before installation.

Mr. Nelson presented an architectural rendering of the proposed building; it will contain a 3 bay garage with a gabled roof extended over the existing building.    They will not be extending the existing footprint.  Later discussion found the building height will be 22’ to the eves; bay doors will be 14’ in height.

It was noted Town Engineer Norton has commented under his memo dated 6/21/2007 that he questioned the ability of the existing dry well (in the existing pavement) to take additional run off.   Mr. Nelson indicated that the existing dry well, which is 6’ in diameter and 4’ deep, currently has 2’ of sedimentation in it.  The sedimentation should be removed, thereby increasing the capability of the dry well for accepting run off.  He felt the native soils of the site indicate that a dry well is an appropriate drainage structure for this parcel, however, the existing dry well could be excavated out and a large one installed.

Mr. Nelson also referenced Town Engineer Norton’s comments regarding run off from the building and the site itself onto adjacent properties.   He reported the site is pretty flat, with perhaps a 10’ difference in elevation in areas.  He has modified the grade and installed a high point at the southwest corner of the building, added new curbing along the west and south edge of the pavement, and will install a dry well and catch basin as well.  This will allow the new pavement to drain into the dry well and also to take the roof run off.  

With regard to the drainage pattern from front to back and its affect on other properties, Mr. Nelson suggested there is a subtle low spot at the rear where run off collects.  Although he doesn’t expect much impact on that area, or adjacent properties, due to this development he suggested they could excavate the low spot and create a rain garden to collect all run off.  He felt there would be no impact on adjacent properties.  

Mr. Nelson also noted that Town Engineer Norton had indicated he didn’t think it was a good idea to grade towards Route 5, but Mr. Nelson felt by installing the catch basin and adding curbing it will alleviate the concerns about flow towards Route 5.

Mr. Nelson reported they are also installing a 1,000 gallon grease/oil/water separator in the building.  

Discussion followed regarding the adequacy of the 18’ access being wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles.    Town Planner Whitten noted the plans are sent to the Fire Marshal; it’s up to them to provide comments for Commission review.  

Chairman Ouellette noted the additional landscaping on the south side of the property line but questioned that it was to extend to the property line?  Mr. Nelson thought the intent was to screen parking only.   Chairman Ouellette suggested he would like to see the landscaping extended to the property line.   Commissioner Farmer noted the landscaping is shown on the plans to be located within the fence.  Mr. Nelson suggested it is a 6’ high chain link fence as the parcel is located within a industrial zone.   Town Planner Whitten clarified that the property is located within a commercial zone; it makes sense to move the landscaping outside the fence line.  

Commissioner Farmer reiterated his concern that this property couldn’t handle servicing tractor trailer trucks; he requested the addition of a condition to limit the size of trucks to 40’ in length.  


Menard moved/Farmer seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous
Discussion continued regarding access to the site, the number of curb cuts existing on this parcel, possible benefits for reducing the number of curb cuts, and the amount of traffic existing in the proximity of this location already.   Mr. Pervsaud indicated they will 5 or 10 vehicles to service day, by appointment.  Initially they will be servicing their own trucks, with customers being added later.  He felt they would service a maximum of 10 trucks per day.

The Commission did not request a reduction to one curb cut.

Town Planner Whitten noted Town Engineer Norton hasn’t seen these revised plans, which arrived at 4 o’clock this afternoon.  She requested time for Town Engineer Norton’s review to consider if his comments have been addressed to his satisfaction.

Chairman Ouellette summarized the Commission’s comments/concerns from this meeting:  1)  Extend arborvitae to the property line; 2) switch landscaping outside of fence; 3) sign in State highway right-of-way to be removed; 4) access is to be retained as it is presently.  Town Planner Whitten suggested Mr. Nelson contact Planning staff this week regarding revisions.

MOTION: To CONTINUE the Application of  Arvind Persuad 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} until the Commission’s next regularly scheduled meeting on July         10, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street,     Broad Brook, CT.

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

NEW BUSINESS:  Donald BischoffSite Plan Approval for a 1,000 square foot covered material storage building at 112 Prospect Hill Road (Yankee Gas) owned by Norconn Properties, Inc., [M-1 Zone; Map 5, Block 17, Lot C-01 & P] (Deadline for decision 6/28/07):

Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business.   Appearing to discuss this proposal was Donald Bischoff, Regional Facilities Supervisor for Connecticut Light & Power/Norconn.  Mr. Bischoff indicated they are required to have two covered concrete bins, one to hold materials taken out of the ground, the second to hold new materials.   They are covered to keep the materials dry.  One bin was located sitting on a property line, and was too close to the leach field for the septic system.  The North Central Health District has approved the relocation; Mr. Bischoff submitted a copy of the approval for the property file.  Town Planner Whitten noted the lots have been combined to eliminate the problem with the property line.

Chairman Ouellette questioned if the bins are visible from the street?   Mr. Bischoff only the top of the cover over the top of the trees.  Commissioner Matthews questioned if residential properties could be seen from this location?  Town Planner Whitten indicated the property tot he east is a trucking terminal, the property to the south of that is mostly their own land and is wooded; she noted she couldn’t see the bins until she got into the site.  

Chairman Ouellette noted Town Engineer Norton has signed off on the Application; the Inland/Wetlands Commission ruling has been received.  Town Planner Whitten noted she is ok with the Application; she requested her 3 comments be made conditions of approval.

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Donald Bischoff representing owner NorConn Properties, Inc, requesting a site plan modification to install two materials bins with covers at 112 Prospect Hill Road – Assessor’s Map 5, Block 17, Lot 0005-17-C-1 & 17-PC,   M-1.  This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)

        Referenced Plans:
Site Plan –Current Conditions of Property of NORCONN Properties Inc. property located at Prospect Hill Rx. (Rte 5) East Windsor CT dated 5/31/06, scale 1” = 40’ Sargis Associates, Inc, rev through 12/12/06

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

1.      A paper copy of the final approved plans (revisions included) shall be submitted to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of final plans.

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

3.      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.

4.        A deed reflecting the merging of the two parcels must recorded in the land records.

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

4.      One full set of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. Set shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.

5.      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, if deemed necessary.  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.

6.      A zoning permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

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

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

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

General Conditions:

10.     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.

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

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

14.     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.     All landscaping shall be maintained.

Additional Conditions:

16.     A new map showing merged parcels and recorded deed reflecting same will be required prior to issuance of zoning permit.
17.     A zoning table, reflecting full build out of approvals should be added to the   plans,  reflecting the merged conditions i.e. total area, building coverage,    impervious coverage, etc.
18.     NCHD must sign off on location of both shed covers

Matthews moved/Farmer seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous

BUSINESS MEETING/(1)  Informal Discussion - M & L Mason’s Brook:

Town Planner Whitten suggested this discussion occur at the next meeting.  

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)  Sewer Service Area map Draft, Review and Comment:

Town Planner Whitten noted she continues to look for comments/input from Commissioners prior to July 15th.  Chairman Ouellette suggested the name/title of the map be changed.  

Commissioner Matthews would like to have the ability to limit the sewer service area to 150’ from the road on large parcels rather allow service on a full 40 acre parcel.  He felt this map is in conflict with the service service area depicted in the Plan of Conservation and Development.  Town Planner Whitten suggested residential development must be allowed; Commissioner Matthews didn’t want to encourage multi-family development.   Town Planner Whitten indicated potential development is dependent as plans are submitted to the Commission; there are also density scenarios built into the regulations to guide development.

Commissioner Matthews suggested the map shows areas on Wells and Mahoney Roads which are large parcels.  Chairman Ouellette and Town Planner Whitten noted the septic systems are bad in that area; this is also a strong recommendation from the North Central Health District that that area be sewered.

BUSINESS MEETING/(3)  Correspondence:

Town Planner Whitten requested comments from Commissioners regarding the Farm Regulations and grants applications and how the fit into East Windsor to refer back to CRCOG

BUSINESS MEETING/(4)  Staff Reports:

Town Planner Whitten referenced authored by Nancy Rudek before leaving East Windsor’s employment.  


MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1508 dated June 12, 2007                      as written.

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


        *       Dearborn - Main Street

        *       Dearborn - Newberry Road


MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 11:15 p.m.

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

Respectfully submitted,

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