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
February 9, 2010

Public Hearing #1564
February 9, 2010

The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. by Chairman Ouellette


A quorum was established as five Regular Members (Devanney, Farmer, Gowdy, Ouellette, and Thurz), and one Alternate Member (O’Brien) was present.    Alternate Members Matthews and Mulkern were absent.  Chairman Ouellette noted all Regular members would sit in on all Items of Business this evening.  Should any of the Regular Members need to step down from service Alternate Commissioner O’Brien would serve in their place.   

Also present was Town Planner Whitten.

ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:             None.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES/January 26, 2010:

MOTION:  To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1563 dated January 26, 2010 as presented.

Devanney moved/Thurz seconded/
        VOTE:   In Favor:  Devanney/Farmer/Ouellette/Thurz
                        Opposed:  No one
                        Abstained:  Gowdy


Chairman Ouellette acknowledged receipt of the following Applications:

1.      Application of Racers Performance for Site Plan Approval to allow used car sales at 38 Prospect Hill Road, owned by Dean A. and Caren E. Rasmussen.  [M-1 Zone; Map 12, Block 17, Lot 32].

2.      Application of Emil S. Demikat for a 2-lot Resubdivision of property located at 93 Rockville Road, owned by Emil S., Carl L. and Linda A. Demikat.  [A-1 Zone; Map 42, Block 64, Lot 10].


The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Hartford Courant on Friday, January 29, 2010, and Friday, February 5, 2010, was read by Chairman Ouellette:

·       Application of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc., for a Special Use Permit for Earth Excavation Activities at property located to the rear of Wapping Road, owned by Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc.,  [M-1 & A-2 Zones; Map 36, Block 49, Lot 17C].

PERFORMANCE BONDS - ACTIONS; EXTENSION; ROAD ACCEPTANCE:  Norton Glen Condominiums – Request from Rejean Jacques for release of the performance bond and erosion control bond for the Norton Glen Condominiums:

Town Planner Whitten noted this action item had been on the Agenda for the previous Meeting; she now has a recommendation from Town Engineer Norton to release both bonds entirely.  Assistant Town Planner Newton and Town Engineer Norton both visited the site and found the work to be completed.  

Chairman Ouellette noted the Commission had received in their packets a hand-written note from Rejean Jacques.  Town Planner Whitten noted that had been Mr. Jacques original request; he had to return to the Commission subsequently to change his lighting plan.  

MOTION: To APPROVE THE RELEASE of the remainder of $15,000 for the Performance Bond and $10,000 for the Erosion Control Bond for Norton Glen Condominiums as requested.

Devanney moved/Thurz seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/O’Brien/Ouellette/Thurz)
              No oppositions/no abstentions

CONTINUED HEARING:  Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. Special Use Permit for Earth Excavation Activities at property located to the rear 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 3/2/2010):

Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description.  Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Allan Koerner, representing the Applicant; Jay Ussery of J. R. Russo & Associates; and Scott Atkin, of Anchor Engineering.  The Applicant, Herb Holden, was present in the audience.

Attorney Koerner noted one of the Commission members present this evening was not present at the previous Meeting.  Chairman Ouellette concurred; he questioned Commissioner Gowdy if he had familiarized himself with the Application?  Commissioner Gowdy replied “not completely”; Chairman Ouellette replaced Commission Gowdy on this Hearing with Alternate Commissioner O’Brien, who had been present during the previous Meeting.

Mr. Ussery briefly summarized the proposal, noting it was an Application for earth excavation west of Wapping Road and west of the railroad tracks.  They will be using the entrance to the old NORCAP landfill on Wapping Road; they also have a Right-To-Enter Agreement from the State of Connecticut to accomplish access across the tracks.  

Mr. Ussery reviewed the proposed Phasing Plan, noting Wapping Road is to the east, and the railroad runs along the east side of the excavation site.  Mr. Belliveau, of the Central  New England Railroad Company, was present at the previous meeting and noted concerns regarding improvements to the railroad crossing.  To address those concerns the Applicant is proposing to install 300’ anti-tracking pads on either side of the railroad tracks.  The Phasing Plan also includes 2 sedimentation basins.  Mr. Ussery noted the Area of Influence/(Zone of Influence) was also discussed at the previous Meeting.  Phases 1, 2, and 3 are located outside the Zone of Influence, while Phases 4 and 5 are located within the Zone of Influence.  They have raised the floor of the excavation.  Current regulations require a separation distance of a minimum of 8’ between groundwater and excavation; Mr. Ussery reviewed various areas of the plan while noting proposed elevations.  He noted separation distances range from 10’ to 22’ above the groundwater table.

Scott Atkin, of Anchor Engineering, took the floor.   Mr. Atkin noted at the previous Meeting they talked about the groundwater in the Zone of Influence, and what impacts, if any, were expected due to the proposed excavation.  Mr. Atkin recalled Commissioner Farmer had asked him to look at the other areas of NORCAP which had been excavated.  Mr. Atkin submitted to the Commission his letter dated 2/9/2010 regarding his findings related to the request for additional review of information.

Mr. Atkin suggested that due to the removal of the material the rainwater will infiltrate quicker, and there might be some mounding because of the excavation and under the detention basin, but he felt the bigger impact would be due to the removal of the vegetation, which decreases evaporation and allows the water to infiltrate.   

Mr. Atkin noted that Commissioner Farmer had questioned what had happened on the Maslak piece?  The Maslak parcel, containing approximately 14 acres, was located to the northeast of the landfill site; excavation began in the late 1990s.  Part of the excavation occurred within the Zone of Influence, while the remainder occurred outside the Zone of Influence.  Mr. Atkin noted monitoring wells were installed in the 1980s; (monitoring well) #301 is located on the edge of Ketch Brook.  Information regarding groundwater elevations was available from 1993 – 2006; that information has been presented in a graft which Mr. Atkin submitted to the Commission.  Monitoring well #5 is shown as the blue line, monitoring well #301 is shown as the red line, and monitoring well #214 is shown as the green line.  Mr. Atkin suggested that the information for monitoring well #214 (the green line) is in about the same range of elevations as monitoring well #5 (blue line) and monitoring well #301 (red line).  He noted that monitoring well #214 is located on the opposite side of the landfill as monitoring wells #301 and #5.  Mr. Atkin suggested there was a very dry season between 2002 and 2003.  With regard to mounding Mr. Atkin suggested the numbers are fairly consistent throughout the time depicted on the graph; the distance between the slope and the contours was fairly consistent as well.  Mr. Atkin suggested there really was no mounding.

Mr. Atkin suggested monitoring well #301 is located outside the Zone of Influence.  It is considered a compliance well.  During testing he is focusing on concentration limits for hardness, total dissolved solids, and chloride as well as volatile organic compounds.  The result of these reports are made available to DEP and the landfill quarterly.   Mr. Atkin reported throughout the 10 year period the levels of hardness, total dissolved solids and volatile organic compounds were fine.  Mr. Atkin reported a compliance level of 26 mgs/L for chloride is considered acceptable; from 2000 to the present there were 2 instances where the chloride levels were slightly elevated – at 27 mgs/L.  Chairman Ouellette questioned who set the concentration levels?   Mr. Atkin indicated they were set in 1996 and agreed to by the DEP.  

Mr. Atkin suggested there was no evidence of mounding, or changes in groundwater elevations, or flow direction noted in monitoring well #301, or the Zone of Influence, due to excavation at the Maslak pit.   

Commissioner Thurz questioned the depth of the testing?   Mr. Atkin suggested it is done at  7’ to 10’ into the groundwater.  Mr. Atkin noted NORCAP was one of the first real landfills in the State; many others had previously been dumps.  They did a study of the groundwater flow direction in 1975 and found it flows perpendicular to this area and ends up in Ketch Brook.  While NORCAP was operating they also excavated gravel and stored some of the material on the site; that operation also included a detention basin.  During that time the groundwater continued to flow in the northwest direction.  In 1990 the landfill was capped with plastic; rainwater runs off but continues to flow in the northwesterly direction.  Mr. Atkins indicated in general the groundwater flows in the same direction.  With the proposed plan they have monitoring wells in Phase 3 which are tested quarterly for the water level and quality.  Monitoring the existing wells will continue through 2029.  

Commissioner O’Brien questioned if the well within the proposed site would be tested for concentrations?  Mr. Atkin replied they test for both conditions.   The concentrations of contaminants would be inside the Zone of Influence.  Commissioner O’Brien suggested most of the testing is occurring on the northeast side, which is behind where the water is going under the groundwater, and this area is where the groundwater will be moving through the pit area; he suggested the north area is still to be determined.  

Commissioner Farmer questioned how the line depicting the Zone of Influence is determined?   There is nothing north of the tip of the Zone of Influence; how does the Commission know that’s where the line is?  Mr. Atkin suggested they tried to be consistent; the over lying factor is the direction of groundwater has been clean.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned if the DEP agreed with the Zone of Influence?  Mr. Atkin replied they approved the Zone of Influence and signed off on it.

Town Planner Whitten referenced the graph – which depicts groundwater levels and flow - submitted by Mr. Atkin.   She noted that at elevation 114 the groundwater levels are shown with standard deviations of 2’ to 3’+/-, but she also noted there are 3 anomalies of 8 ½’ above and 6’ below in January 2001 in the Maslak pit.  She questioned the reason.  Mr. Atkin guessed the levels were reported mistakenly.  Town Planner Whitten requested clarification that the 3 peaks shown on the graph are mistakes in the information?  Mr. Atkin replied affirmatively.  Town Planner Whitten questioned why Mr. Atkins stopped reporting the data after 2006?  Mr. Atkin reported he has someone prepare the graph for him; he needed time to review the data.  He has more information which he can provide for the Commission.  Commissioner Farmer questioned when the Maslak pit began?  Mr. Atkin reported excavation from the Maslak pit occurred from the mid to late 90s.  Commissioner O’Brien suggested it appears the elevation is going up but the Commission lacks information after 2007/2008 to determine what is occurring.  Commissioner O’Brien referenced monitoring well #5N which shows a higher elevation; he questioned if that was a mistake?  Mr. Atkin suggested it probably was.  Town Planner Whitten suggested there is a gap in the information provided.  Commissioner O’Brien questioned if every well is tested every time?  Mr. Atkin suggested that monitoring well #301 in 2007 is relatively consistent.  Commissioner Gowdy noted there is no data for the period between July 2003 to July 2004; was no data taken?  Mr. Atkin indicated he couldn’t answer that.  Chairman Ouellette noted the graph submitted ends in October 2006; he questioned that there was data ending 2007 and 2008?   Mr. Atkin replied affirmatively.  

Town Planner Whitten noted that during this period of anomalies no evidence is shown of the plume moving.  Mr. Atkin suggested that was correct.  Commissioner Farmer referenced 5 wells on the plan; he questioned if those were tested for concentrations?  Mr. Atkin replied affirmatively.  He suggested more wells could be installed; Town Planner Whitten concurred, noting she is recommending quarterly reports be submitted.  Commissioner Farmer indicated his concern is that more water will be getting into the groundwater due to the excavation and expanding the Zone of Influence.  He highlighted wells on the plans which he would like to see monitored quarterly.  

Commissioner O’Brien questioned how they would remedy a situation if they did see a change – a spike – in contaminants?   Mr. Atkin reiterated he didn’t feel there would be any problems but they would have to bring the Zone of Influence back to what’s been approved.  Mr. Atkin suggested they would have to notify the DEP, the operation would be stopped, they would take a year to accumulate seasonal data while taking more frequent testing.  Attorney Koerner suggested such a situation could be dealt with via  multiple engineering solutions.    Mr. Atkin concurred that they will be testing the wells highlighted by Commissioner Farmer in Phases 4 and 5.  

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if it would be possible to give Town Planner Whitten information as to why the data was missing in the gaps, and if there is data available to then give it to Town Planner Whitten?  Mr. Atkin replied affirmatively, noting they can talk about this excavation operation specifically in the quarterly reports to focus on the information better.   

Chairman Ouellette queried the Commission for additional comments; no one had any further comments or concerns to discuss.  Chairman Ouellette suggested he would open discussion to the audience, unless the Applicant had more information they wanted to present.

Attorney Koerner reported he felt they have presented an Application which was mindful of the comments made by the Commission during the previous application, which include the issue of the access and the railroad crossing.  He noted this is a local business that has been in town for many years, they employ local people, and sand and gravel is a resource.  They have asked for a waiver of the limit on acreage within the phases, as the 7 acres specified in the regulations is a bit restrictive for operating large machines.  If the Commission is inclined not to agree they could re-engineer the phases, but they like the phasing as proposed because it’s more practical and works better for this site.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if Town Engineer Norton had comments regarding the phasing?   Town Planner Whitten clarified Town Engineer Norton had suggested a change in the sequence of phases.   Attorney Koerner suggested they have revised the plans to reflect Town Engineer Norton’s recommendation, and are now building the second detention basin on the other side of the site earlier.

Chairman Ouellette then opened discussion to the audience:

Bob Lyke, 80 Rye Street:  noted he had been before the Commission years ago when there were concerns with EDBs in the well water.  Mr. Lyke felt the Commission members had made good technical questions during discussion.   He suggested he is a good judge of character and knows Herb Holden wants you to take a practical approach in these economic times.  Mr. Lyke noted Mr. Holden pays taxes on his equipment, and hires professional people to monitor the sites.  He also noted Mr. Holden has served on the Economic Development Commission.  Mr. Lyke encouraged the Commission to approve this Application.  

Chairman Ouellette requested Mr. Ussery to review the issues/concerns of the Inland/Wetlands Commission with regard to the steep slopes on the northern part of the site.  Mr. Ussery suggested that on the north side of the site there are existing steep slopes which are associated with the Ketch Brook watercourse.  The Inland/Wetlands Commission felt those slopes might be terrace escarpment slopes composed of sand over silts and clay; their concern was that the excavation might promote erosion.  The Applicant hired Dr. Clarence Welti, of Geotechnical Engineering, to review the plan; Dr. Welti’s comments are included in the booklet prepared by Mr. Ussery presented with this Application.  Dr. Welti has determined the slopes are really terraced gravel .  Dr. Welti also addressed the steepness of the grades, noting they are fully vegetated with trees and shrubs.  He noted there is an area of erosion adjacent to the agricultural field which needs to be repaired.  Dr. Welti suggested the degree of the slopes is 34 or 35’; they will be grading to the interior of the site at a 3:1 grade.  The water comes in to the inside of the site.  Mr. Ussery suggested the grades are much flatter than what is there under natural conditions.  There is no erosion, except for the area mentioned.  Mr. Ussery READ FOR THE RECORD Dr. Welt’s conclusion:   “….. the proposed excavation can be accomplished with no significant impact on the escarpment slopes, the abutting wetland, or Ketch Brook.”

Chairman Ouellette questioned Town Engineer Norton’s recommendation for a 300’ anti-tracking pad near Wapping Road?  Mr. Ussery reported the driveway existing today is paved about 700’ back to the scale from Wapping Road; they would install an additional 300’ of anti-tracking pad, to provide approximately 1,000’ of paved surface for the driveway.  Mr. Ussery also noted they are proposing to install anti-tracking pads on both sides of the railroad crossing.

Chairman Ouellette then noted the current Regulations specify 7 acres as the maximum size for a phase; he questioned Town Planner Whitten if any other permitted operations who wanted more than 7 acres have been allowed?  Town Planner Whitten thought that the last two phases of the Charbonneau pit may have been larger than the 7 acres.  Mr. Ussery also noted that some of the original phases of the Charbonneau pit, which go back to the ownership by Manchester Sand and Gravel, were larger than the 7 acres and have now been restored.  Chairman Ouellette questioned what additional flexibility the larger phases give the operation?  Mr. Ussery suggested thousands of yards of material is being excavated, with some being stockpiled within the phase, and large equipment – loaders, crusher, screener – and trucks coming into and out of the site; all of that eats up a lot of space in a hurry.  Mr. Ussery also noted they will be bonding phase by phase.  Commissioner O’Brien questioned how long it’s expected to dig each phase?  Mr. Ussery suggested it’s a matter of economics.  

Chairman Ouellette addressed Attorney Koerner, noting Julie Thomas of the Rail Unit of the DOT, had requested 2 conditions in the agreement between the railroad and the Applicant be added to the Commission’s approval.  Attorney Koerner referenced Condition #5 and #6 of the Right-To-Enter Agreement, which he described as really 3 conditions/requirements:  1)  closing of the existing grade crossing, 2) creating a new rail crossing, and 3) closing the cattle crossing which currently exists under the railroad.  Attorney Koerner noted they will be installing a pipe through the closed cattle crossing for utilities for future use, if it happens.  Attorney Koerner noted they are in agreement with the addition of these conditions to the Special Use Permit approval.

Devanney moved/Thurz seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/O’Brien/Ouellette/Thurz)
              No oppositions/no abstentions

The Commission RECESSED at 8:20 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:33 p.m.

Chairman Ouellette returned discussion to the elevation graph submitted by Mr. Atkin.  He noted that July, 2001 was the driest Summer in years; it’s not surprising that those numbers were low.  He referenced the break in data between July, 2002 and July, 2003, noting there is nothing in the way of information for monitoring well #214.  He also noted a similar gap in information for monitoring well #5N.  He suggested if that information reflected spikes in elevations then it would be predicting a trend.  Mr. Atkin suggested his assumption would be that the lack of information might be due to a field error, but he will review the gaps – July, 2002 to July, 2003; October, 2002 and January, 2003; October 2003 to April 2004 – and provide the Planning Office additional information.  Mr. Atkin also noted information is available for 2006 to 2009.  Chairman Ouellette suggested the Commission is questioning if there was anything to show unusual elevations near the Maslak pit vs. the overall operation.

Chairman Ouellette noted Phases 1, 2, and 3 are on the west side of the Zone of Influence, while Phases 4 and 5 are inside the Zone of Influence.  He questioned Attorney Koerner if the Applicant would consider the Commission taking the proposal a bit slower – if it approved only Phases 1, 2, and 3 on the west side (outside) of the Zone of Influence?  That would give the Applicant the opportunity to operate for some time and then return to the Commission for the annual renewals.  Attorney Koerner requested to discuss the proposal with Applicant outside of the Meeting Room.

Upon returning to the Meeting Room Attorney Koerner suggested the Applicant has asked if the Commission would allow them to modify the Application to remove Phases 4 and 5?  That would allow them to operate and provide many data points along the way.   Discussion followed regarding procedures; Town Planner Whitten noted the Commission has the right to approve, modify, or deny any application.  This recommendation would be a modification.  The Applicant has the right to request to add additional phases when more data is provided; this recommendation is a fair compromise.  It affords the Applicant the ability to complete their data points and allows at least a year more of monitoring to consider.  She noted the final mylars will show only the 3 phases approved; a closing plan at the end of Phase 3 should be shown in the wording of the plans.   Attorney Koerner suggested they could also label Phases 4 and 5 as “Not Approved”.

The consensus of the Commission was to approve only Phases 1 to 3.                                                              

Chairman Ouellette noted the 7 acre size of the phases seems to be an arbitrary number; it was noted the proposed acreage in Phases 1 to 3 respectively is 10.6, 10.3, and 9.8.  Chairman Ouellette noted he has no objection to larger phases in this operation.  Commissioners Gowdy had no objection, especially with the stockpiling and the use of large equipment.  Commissioner Devanney suggested she had no problem in this case.  Commissioners O’Brien and Farmer had no objections as well.

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

Town Planner Whitten questioned Attorney Koerner if the Applicant had any objections to the conditions proposed?  Attorney Koerner indicated they had reviewed the conditions and had no objection to the general or special conditions.

Chairman Ouellette clarified that Commissioner O’Brien would participate in the votes on this Application.

MOTION: To CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING on the Application of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. for a  Special Use Permit for Earth Excavation Activities at property located to the rear of Wapping Road, owned by Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc.  [M-1 & A-2 Zones; Map 36, Block 49, Lot 17C].


Devanney moved/Thurz seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/O’Brien/Ouellette/Thurz)
              No oppositions/no abstentions

MOTION: To APPROVE A WAIVER of phase size as specified in Section 814.3.f of the Zoning Regulations from 7 acres per phase to up to 11 acres per phase.


Devanney moved/Thurz seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/O’Brien/Ouellette/Thurz)
              No oppositions/no abstentions

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of  Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. and owner Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc (NORCAP) for a Special Use Permit to allow excavation and removal of earth products, screening and crushing of products, on property located to the rear of Wapping Road.  M-1 & A-2 Zones. [Map 36, Block 49, Lot#17C  This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

Cover Sheet - Proposed Gravel Removal Operation Wapping Road, East Windsor, CT, Applicant Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. 59 Broad Brook Road, Broad Brook, CT 06016, 860/623-8855; Owner Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc. 321 Olcott St., Manchester, CT 06040 prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 860/623-0569, fax 860/623-2485, dated2/21/07.Last revised 6/25/07
Sheet 2 of 5    Area Map, last rev 2/21/07 scale 1” = 500’, rev. 6/25/07
Sheet 3 of 5    Grading plan, rev. through 2/21/07, rev. 6/25/07
Sheet 4 of 5    Grading Plan, rev. through 2/21/07 rev. 5/02/07
Sheet 5 of 5    Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Notes rev. 5/21/07

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.      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.

Conditions that must be met prior to issuance of permits:

3.      A performance bond, with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney shall be provided by the applicant prior to the signing of the mylars.

4.      One set of final plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the commission.  The signed plans shall be filed in the Planning & Zoning Office by the applicant prior to issuance of any permits.

5.      In order to ensure the site is graded in accordance with the approved plan, vertical and horizontal control points shall be setup around the entire perimeter of the parcel.  Such control points shall be located as per approved plans.

6.      In addition, the applicant shall be required to provide the Zoning Enforcement Officer with as-built drawings six months after the issuance of the permit to demonstrate compliance with the approved grading plan, Any deviation from the approved plan shall be a violation and cause for revocation of the permit.

7.      No phase may begin until the previous phase has been substantially completed except for the phase containing the reclamation plan as indicated on the referenced plans.

8.      Prior to the start of any new phase, the applicant shall submit evidence of conformance to the approved plans for the previous phases including a certified as-built survey showing finished grades.
9.      Re-approval must be requested annually, at such time an as-built will be required.

10.     Hydraulic data indicating the location of the plume shall be submitted with each renewal.  D.O.T. should be provided with this data as well.

11.     Ground water monitoring reports shall be submitted quarterly.

12.     An anti-tracking pad should be installed and maintained on either side of the railroad crossing.  Crossing should be kept free of dirt and debris.

General Conditions:

13.     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.

14.     Operation of the gravel pit may include:

·       screening of excavated material pursuant to provisions of Section 9 and 9A.5.
·       crushing of rock and gravel mined on-site only with portable crushing apparatus and pursuant to provisions of Section 9 and 9A.5.

15.     Excavation shall not ever exceed the approved finished grade elevations.  Subsoil must remain native.

16.     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 known as a 33% slope.

17.     In the event that the operation ceases before all phases are completed, the remaining land shall be graded to leave no slope exceeding 33%.

18.     As each area or phase is graded to final contours, the ground shall be back covered with topsoil or loam to render it usable for growing agricultural products.  All areas will require a minimum of 6 inches of topsoil in accordance with the regulations.

19.     No trees, brush or stumps shall be buried on site.

20.     The driveway to the pit shall be maintained in a hard surfaced, paved condition from Wapping Road inward for a minimum distance of two hundred feet.  The
driveway shall be cleaned regularly to minimize the dust nuisance created by exiting traffic.

21.     An oversized 300 foot gravel anti-tracking pad leading to the driveway shall be installed and maintained to further minimize dust nuisance.

22.     The gate across the driveway into the pit shall be maintained in good condition and kept closed and locked during all times when the pit is not in operation.  “Private Property – No Trespassing” sign shall be maintained at the entrance to the pit facing outward toward Wapping  Road.

23.     The total number of loaded, or partially loaded, outgoing trucks from the pit 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.

24.     The pit shall not be opened or operated before 7:30 a.m. and shall not be opened or operated later than 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, Monday through Friday.

25.     The pit shall not be open or operated on weekends.

26.     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.

27.     The “Best Management Practices” outlined by the Hartford County Natural Resource Conservation Service shall be adhered to.

28.     The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of their Inland Wetlands Permit.

29.     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. Stockpiled soil shall remain on site for future reclamation of site.

30.     Finished grades may not be closer than 8’ to the water table, and must adhere to approved plans.

31.     There shall be no on-site maintenance of equipment unless it is a clear emergency.  Town staff shall be notified if such emergency exists.

32.     There shall be no bulky waste or debris disposal allowed on the site.  The operator of the pit shall provide adequate security measures to prevent unauthorized waste disposal.  Any unauthorized disposal shall be cleaned up and disposed of off site by the operator of the pit.

33.     The project shall be carried out in phases as shown on the plans.

34.     All trucks and equipment shall be parked off-street.

35.     Upon completion of the excavation, the land shall be cleared of all debris and a minimum of six (6) inches of topsoil shall be spread over any disturbed areas.

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

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

38.     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.

39.     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.

40.     This approval shall expire one year plus 30 days (to allow for signing and filing       of mylars) from the date of approval

Additional Conditions:

41.     The railroad crossing, and cattle path shall be relocated per mutual agreement between Applicant and Central New England Railroad Company.

42.     Well #210 shall be added to monitoring list to check for volatiles.

43.     Should quarterly groundwater monitoring reports reflect excessive mounding or contaminants, all work within said phase may be required to be halted until such time that subsequent reports, and/or evidence demonstrates that the plume has not been adversely affected.


Devanney moved/Thurz seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/O’Brien/Ouellette/Thurz)
              No oppositions/no abstentions
NEW BUSINESS:  Racers Performance – Site Plan Approval to allow used car sales at 38 Prospect Hill Road, owned by Dean A. and Caren E. Rasmussen.  [M-1 Zone; Map 12, Block 17, Lot 32].   (Deadline for decision 4/15/2010):

Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business.  Appearing to discuss this Application was Jose Jimenez, Applicant for the proposal; and Richard Powloka, owner of the business.  

Mr. Jimenez reported the proposal is for the sale of autos purchased at auction for resale to customers.   There will be no vehicle storage on site; Mr. Jimenez reported nothing is changing on the current Site Plan; the existing parking will remain the same.

Town Planner Whitten clarified that this proposal is a change of use because it now becomes an auto dealer which needs to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.  Even though there will be no vehicle storage on site the dealership still needs approval.  Town Planner Whitten noted she has strongly urged the Applicant there can be no storage of vehicles at this location because the site is already heavily impacted by parking.  

Commissioner Devanney questioned how the autos are sold?  Mr. Jimenez reported that to sell more than one vehicle in a year they need permission from the Motor Vehicle Department.  They purchase vehicles at auction and can resell the vehicle at another auction, or to a private customer.  The autos are typically retained at the auction site for pick up by purchasers.  They will have a website to advertise this service; they can also do virtual tours of the vehicles available.  They will advertise in the Journal Inquirer.  A customer would have to accompany Mr. Jimenez to the auction site to physically view a vehicle.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned that the remainder of the building will be retail sales for Racers?  Mr. Jimenez replied affirmatively.     Commissioner O’Brien questioned if they service vehicles?   Mr. Powloka joined the Commission, noting they do bring in motors or transmissions to be rebuilt, but no vehicles are physically stored at this location.  There are 8 slots allotted to Racers for customer and staff use.  Discussion followed regarding other uses at this location.  Mr. Jimenez noted Heavy’s, which is nearby, will have cars out for display but Racers has no intent for display for sales.   Commissioner O’Brien questioned if the 8 slots for Racers are well designated, and is there overflow from Heavy’s?   Mr. Jimenez suggested the spots are well designated; there is no overflow from Heavy’s.  Town Planner Whitten clarified that there are 2 spots for employees; the others are for retail customers and must be in the location shown on the plan.  She noted she visited the site today; the only spots delineated are those applicable to Heavy’s.  Littco’s parking spaces are perpendicular to the side yard.  Town Planner Whitten reiterated there are parking issues on this site.  Commissioner O’Brien questioned if the customer picks the vehicle up at auction?   Mr. Jimenez replied affirmatively, or noted they will deliver the vehicle.  There will be no “for sale” signs at Racers, and no vehicle parking.  They are not looking for vehicles that need work; they are looking for “sale ready” vehicles.  Town Planner Whitten noted banners or temporary signs are not allowed without permits.  

Commissioner Farmer questioned how they would do warranty work?  Mr. Jimenez suggested they would work with another contractor regarding those issues.   Commissioner O’Brien questioned if that would be something Mr. Jimenez could see expanding?  Town Planner Whitten noted anyone would be hard pressed to expand any business at that location.  Chairman Ouellette noted he has no objection to this Application, but he has huge issues with the site with regard to parking and signage.  

MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of Racers Performance, Inc and owners Dean & Caren Rasmussen requesting site plan approval for internet used vehicle sales, to be located at  38 Prospect Hill Road, in the M-1 Zone. Map 12, Block 17, Lot 32
This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)

        Referenced Plans:

-       Sheet 1 of 1 - “Location and Layout Plan prepared for Heavy’s Automotive Inc,, 38 Prospect Hill Rd, Rte 5 East Windsor CT Map 12, blk 17 Lot 32 zone M-1 prepared by JR Russo & Associates LLC 1 Shoham Rd, East Windsor CT 06088 860/623-0569, 860/623-2485 fax scale 1” = 30’ dated 8/27/09

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

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

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

7.      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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

14.     Storage of cars on site for RACERS PERFORMANCE  is strictly forbidden.  Only internet sales of vehicles is permitted from this site/tenant space

Devanney moved/Thurz seconded/

DISCUSSION:  It was noted “internet” shall be stricken from the approval motion.

VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz)
              No oppositions/no abstentions

BUSINESS MEETING/1)  Farm Regulations – Discussion:

Town Planner Whitten noted she has spoken with the Department of Agriculture (DOA) regarding their response to farm animal complaints.   They would respond, but have only one person available for the entire state.  They also work with the Health Department and the Agricultural Commission.

The process would be for the complaint to come in to the Town, who then contact the Health Department, who would contact the DOA if the Health Department felt it was necessary.  If it’s an issue regarding manure or water quality it gets reported to the DEP Water Quality Unit; if it’s an issue regarding flies it becomes a Health Department issue.  Issue with flies doesn’t fall within the Right-To-Farm; it becomes a health issue.  

Town Planner Whitten noted she has also spoken with staff at the Town of Guilford; they have written regulations which seem acceptable to the farming community.  Guilford has had no complaints, but their regulations have only been in existence for a year.  They allow 4-H projects, but only under a Special Use Permit – for which they charge a fee.  

Town Planner Whitten reported Joan Nichols, of the Connecticut Farm Bureau, has agreed to offer input to the Commission.  The Commission welcomed her contribution.

BUSINESS MEETING/2)  Correspondence:

Town Planner Whitten noted receipt of a flyer from the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies regarding its 62nd Annual Conference, Thursday, March 18, 2010 at the Aqua Turf Country Club, Plantsville, CT.  

BUSINESS MEETING/3)  Staff Reports:

·       Town Planner Whitten noted she has visited the Heavy’s site; the sign had been located on State property.  She has made suggestions regarding appropriate relocation.

·       Chairman Ouellette questioned if the Planning Department has received any Applications for Temporary Signs?   Town Planner Whitten replied negatively, but noted several signs were noticed today.


·       USA Hauling, 3 and 5 Shoham Road, Laird Building, LLC.


MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 9:34 p.m.

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

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