P&Z
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2020 – 7:30 PM
Meeting Minutes
Please not this meeting was held online.
Members Present:
Walter Parsell
Bob Shabot
Joseph Hall
Doug Roberts
Laurie Semprebon
Other Members present:
Michael D’Amato – Zoning Agent
Ashley Stephens- Assistant Land Use Agent
Ken Slater - PZC Attorney
W. Parsell opened the meeting at 7:45 pm.
D. New Business:
1. Z-20-30: Special Permit for Home Occupation: Section 11.01.02: 54 Baxter Rd,
Owner/Applicant: Allison Laprad
Application has been received and a public hearing will be held at the following meeting, May 19, 2020.
2. PZ-20-1: Special Permit for Retail Trade: Section 5.04.01.02.19: 11 Phelps Way, Owner:
BTV Realty of Willington, Applicant: Katie Marek
Application has been received and a public hearing will be held at the following meeting, May 19, 2020.
E. Unfinished Business:
1. Z-20-22: Site Plan Application Renewal: Section 15.09.03:180 Tolland Turnpike: Owner: Holt Mountain LLC, Applicant: Diane Becker (continued from April 21 meeting)
2. Z-20-24: Site Plan Application Renewal: Section 15.09.03:171 Tolland Turnpike: Owner: Lawrence Becker, Applicant: Diane Becker (continued from April 21 meeting)
3. Z-20-25: Site Plan Application Renewal: Section 15.09.03: 9 George Drive: Owner:
Lawrence Becker, Applicant: Diane Becker (continued from April 21 meeting)
4. Z-20-26: Site Plan Application Renewal: Section 15.09.03. 328 Ruby Road: Owner: Ruby Assoc. General Partnership: Applicant: Diane Becker (continued from April 21 meeting)
W. Parsell asked M. D’Amato to discuss what he heard from the state.
M. D’Amato talked with two people from DEEP their offices had been called from people in the area about concerns relating to ground water. Both people he talked with at the state said there is currently no data they are using to take some specific action against the property owner. The State also understands that they are not formally apart of this process. They also confirmed that if a problem is identified in the future, they have the authority to act. The submitted plans do get evaluated. The applicants are required to provide water test results to the state and if they identify issues within test results, will trigger inspection, with other actions set in motion if there are bad test results.
D. Roberts asked if this means the state has received chemical test data.
M. D’Amato stated he believes there was a call that was made by someone in town to the state, and the local health district sampled water, looked at the test results, which were submitted to state, and they found that all things in the test, fell within a normal, acceptable ranges, which is why the state called me to let us know we don’t have any bad data.
W. Parsell stated they are continuing with all items from old business from the April 21, 2020 meeting.
P. Alter is the attorney for the applicant who will continue to represent all 4 applications along with J. Buchanon. He stated they submitted documents in advance of the meeting to respond to questions from the previous meeting and Commission members after the last meeting.
These are applications for section 15.13 in zoning regulations. On northerly and southerly sides on route 74, Tolland Turnpike. They are legally existing uses that predate all regulations in the Town of Willington. At the last meeting, there was uncertainty with the operations regard. Under the law and regulations, the commission has a limited scope of review that predates zoning, and it is to apply the regulations to determine if the procedures and operations standards in regulations are satisfied. We submit that they are and we have no information that they are not in compliance for the preexisting mining operations, with CT law supporting them. We also recognized that not all Commission members were on the Commission in 2008 when this particular regulation came into being, so we thought it would be helpful to provide a complete summary of the excavation operations that are under consideration tonight. That is why we submitted exhibit A as part of documentation for the meeting tonight. It has been in the files in the town hall since 2008, with the long history of the excavation operations, and provides a background and understanding showing that they have been fully compliant since the regulation was adopted over 12 years ago. We agreed to provide, although there is nothing in your regulations that requires us to, to provide the Commission with a soil management plan, and stormwater pollution prevention plan. They are not there for approval or review, it is submitted to inform and demonstrate we are complying operationally with all that is expected for mining operations. Documents will continue to be addresses and improved for best management practices for the future.
A commissioner referenced a guidance document published in December 2019. We submitted a copy of the document as exhibit B for part of the record. We don’t believe we need to refer to documents people can’t read and evaluate for themselves. J. Buchanon stated last meeting that this document is directed at communities about to consider possible large scale projects under proposal but not yet in existence. We don’t feel that document is relevant tonight. We have 50 years of experience and no indication that there is any impact on the watershed or the Willimantic river watershed over the course of 50 years of operation. All aware Willimantic river is subject to testing on a periodic basis and if there were an issue that matter would have been addressed.
Another commissioner asked about evidence that stormwater leaving the site after treatment or brown water is adversely impact by potential containments that would adversely affect downstream resources, and the short answer is there is no such evidence because there have been no such impacts. To be sure, we committed resources through the engineer to test the acidity of the stormwater runoff where the results are provided in exhibited c.
J. Buchanon stated she collected water samples after two rain events from 180 and 171 Tolland Turnpike and submitted them to a certified lab in CT for PH testing to help alleviate some concerns from the Commission. Test indicates that the PH falls within the range of 5-9 which DEEP considers normal for stormwater runoff and water bodies in eastern CT.
P. Alter asked J. Buchanon how PH relates to acidity.
J. Buchanon stated that PH of 7 is neutral, anything below 7 is increasingly acidity and anything above 9 it is increasingly toxic. Anything less than 4 would be something to worry about, but because we are in the range, there is not anything to be concerned about.
P. Alter asked J. Buchanon what happens to stormwater pollution prevention plan document.
J. Buchanon stated it’s a living document and it will have some other testing done twice a year that includes other test that M. D’Amato referred to earlier such as oxygen levels, oil and grease, suspended solids, visual inspection, how much sediment might be in the water. These are to help support the best water management practices at the sites.
P. Alter stated they were asked to submit a stormwater pollution prevention plan and wanted to confirm that your Commission is in receipt of that.
W. Parsell stated it was received by the Commission.
P. Alter stated that one commissioner asked why we would take steps to re-grade the northern property and not leave it in an excavated state. Since before 2008, it has been the plan of Becker Construction, the northerly side of Tolland turnpike, once fully excavated, it will be utilized as a light industrial park and turned into productive property. It’s been a plan that has been known to the community since before 2008 and it is within the document submitted in 2008 when the original permits were issued. We have continued to direct our efforts to create the light industrial park, and in order to do that the property has to be properly graded and made to accept construction of buildings and roadways. Great amounts of material on both sides of route 74 still need to be excavated but ultimately there has to be a plan for all properties and there is a vision for the properties.
B. Shabot stated that PH is only half the story and can tell you the buffering capacity of water, but doesn’t reflect what’s dissolved in water. Thinks it needs to be part of management plan, otherwise its half a cup full. In the 80’s acid rain was a big deal, and rain that falls between 5 and below.
B. Shabot asked if there was an Industrial Stormwater Permit for the property.
J. Patton said that’s what the stormwater pollution prevention plan is.
L. Semprebon asked J. Patton if he was speaking about all 4 sites.
J. Patton-Stated it was just for the Quarry, the other sites do not have enough activity to require it.
L. Semprebon- don’t you do washing on other sites? Doesn’t that use water to rinse materials and involve storm water?
J. Patton I’m not sure how it involves stormwater?
L. Semprebon asked what happens to the water you use to wash there.
J. Patton- it’s a three closed loop pond.
L. Semprebon- is there any permit required for that system?
J. Patton- none that I know of. I’ve had to inform the State if water was taken out of the river. Originally the water came out of the river and went back in. Since then things have changed and that’s why there are ponds.
W. Parsell- question for J. Buchanon what are your thoughts on what we just discussed?
J. Buchanon- not aware that anything at that site would require a State permit and agree with J. Patton
B. Shabot any of the suspended solids that settled out in stormwater pond or three system pond?
J. Patton Are you talking about the fines that come out of the water? Yes, we take out of water once a year to dry and we dispose of them at 171.
B. Shabot- any inclination of J. Buchanon running tests on those fines and what might leachate?
J. Patton- never had that, and if something did show up it would show up there. Asked J. Buchanon to do the PH test. PH was about 6. So if there was something there, it would show up. The water just stays there.
B. Shabot thinks there is more to than just PH test especially in closed loop systems. You can have a lot in a leachate from a basic solution to more acidic solution. Just thinking about that material being used for fill and the reclamation process, it’s going to be exposed to rain water over the years and possibly a situation. Everyone thinks there’s nothing to be feared. Just a concern.
P. Alter asked J. Buchanon if there was a Soil Management Plan for the north side
J. Buchanon freshly quarried mine rock is considered clean material per DEEP so there would be no testing. Part of soil management plan for 171 for receiving materials is sweeping chemical testing that needs to be completed and the criteria is the residential exposure criteria and pollutant criteria which are considered by DEEP acceptable in residential development, playground, drinking well water, etc. It’s high level criteria and everything at 171 meets that criteria.
B. Shabot stated basically it’s based solely on PH.
J. Buchanan No, there’s a whole list. In soil management plan shows the list of testing that needs to be performed and is performed for residential areas.
P. Alter and just to be clear, that is the standard that all soil coming to the site must meet.
B. Shabot Anything from wash ponds goes through same testing before dumped on 171.
J. Patton we don’t do that for that area, but you’re above and beyond what you focusing on. People around here don’t test their soil, and stuff on the state’s site that is dumped isn’t tested. Before you require this, think about the expense on us because we want to keep it clean.
B. Shabot might be stepping outside of bounds about what we should be talking about, but asking questions we’re on behalf of Willington residents.
W. Parsell stated that the Commission needed to stick to evaluating the application based on the Town’s Regulations.
L. Semprebon- The Commission is not experts on this and were trying to do the best we can for the town and we don’t know enough about it, because we don’t have a lot of background.
J. Buchanon No criteria in permit that states how much rain needs to occur to test, it just needs to be done twice a year.
L. Semprebon people within area, are you aware of any concerns or complaints about any of the sites with water quality or water issues?
J. Patton we have never been notified of any complaints.
M. D’Amato informed the Board state called to tell them they had been called and EHHD. In the last year and a half he has only received one complaint related to clearing, which turned out not to be an issue.
L. Semprebon aware of one property that had their stream tested for PH. You haven’t seen that M. D’Amato
M. D’Amato- we don’t regulate PH, and we’ve never had anything related to that.
L. Semprebon has the sand and gravel extended on the boundaries of the original permit? If you look at aerial view, seems like excavation on adjoining lot, not sure it’s in the permit.
J. Patton Excavated in the past, shown on the plans in 2008 on initial permit. Contours has not changed.
L. Semprebon Adjourning property is list as part of permit?
J. Patton said it Exists as a part of the permit
L. Semprebon know that requested for extension of renewal, feel 1 year is appropriate, but also think zoning regulations state that need to have PH to go beyond 1 year.
K. Slater the regulations do say that for 1 year extension, appropriate on this application. Special use for preexisting use and no authority to stop them from continuing that use but regulate that use for operating standards. Certain operational requirements, and have them report back to you within parameters. Different than if someone wanted to open a new excavating operation. Don’t have a right to stop them if they are following the parameters of the permit and regulations. Limited nature of authority with preexisting before zoning regulations. Can’t just say stop under CT zoning laws.
D. Roberts comment on plan for 171 on page 24 with summary table, clarification on it. Becker will test and use more stringent for criteria. Is that correct?
J. Buchanon that is correct. The base criteria is the residential. First test that you run. If a number that you get from that reaches a certain value, then you run the leeching test and that is compared to the other value. Usually first one is usually well below so don’t need the second.
D. Roberts- 500 to 1,000 yards... is that a DEEP guideline.
J. Buchanan Mass landfills accept as their daily cover soil per every 500 yards. We use 250 to be more conservative. Industry standard to use 1 per 500. Not a law to use particular numbers. On case by case, may change to 250 for all soil. May loosen if data is consistent.
D. Roberts--- Stated that in some points in the document you use the word “may” and in other places you use “shall”
J. Buchanon- I agree, shall is a stronger word.
D. Roberts just a general comment if we use shall. Section 5 of the document- assuming person that delegates will also be a professional engineer? Is that correct?
J. Buchanon- I would say a professional engineer or an engineer in the training with an engineer on site.
D. Roberts Roles and responsibilities regarding Becker’s operation, it lists people’s personal names and not so much their role. Exhibit D. pollution prevention team member, it would be good to include table like this into plan so there is direct correlation in names and roles at the quarry.
J. Buchanon- I don’t see why we couldn’t do that... the reason it’s that way is because it’s a requirement in the guidance document from the state. Soil management plan is a document that is not required it is something we did.
D. Roberts- 3.11 for 171 plan says Becker’s can change criteria, but that wouldn’t be against EPA guidelines?
J. Buchanon- more for incoming material, observed to be different, Becker’s has right to reject or if Becker’s decides to collect sample from soil on their own, they can have the person bringing soil in remove from site to give people warning.
J. Patton- also realize this is new, but this document that you’re reviewing, you won’t find at many other reclamation places. We did it on our own, and people don’t do it.
L. Semprebon concerned about long term effects... asked mike if he received email from anyone.
M. D’Amato – yes there was an email sent to a number of people, the person outlines the testing was done by a UCONN professor. Email states no clear connection between properties. There is no definitive information. Email is not part of the exhibits, this is not a public hearing.
K. Slater Doesn’t fit in regulatory frame work. Good information to understand operations, but in terms of the application, it’s an existing quarry and subject only to operational standards. You are not DEEP. DEEP deals with that and you are not charged with doing and does not need to be a part of this record.
B. Shabot- page 18 points of comment, list of materials that you’re aggregate is used for, comment, concrete was still listed in that list.
J. Patton- it’s from the 2008 document provided to Commission for background info for this hearing.
L. Semprebon like to state we’re lay people and trying to understand this and try to provide due diligence. No one is against business, just concerned about future. Is engineering report permanently inclusive, or accept the permit with this as just information. So many things already grandfathered
P. Alter we provided these reports for informational purposes, not for operational requirements or anything under your regulations. Submitted them to demonstrate that we use best management practices, not for your approval.
K. Slater I agree with P. Alter. What is grandfathered is the use itself. Nothing in documents will change the scope of work. IF there are specific standards that are violated within the next year, the zoning agent can enforce that. In file for information, nothing in legal status.
W. Parsell I have the minutes for July 16, 2019 wasn’t there but there was a motion to approve this application with the condition with the soil management plan for March 1, 2020 and passed unanimously. Wasn’t that the condition to approve it?
M. D’Amato yes that was the previous condition and it was submitted on time. At the last meeting, we did talk about paving at 180. The stakes are out there, just so the Commission is aware.
W. Parsell lets discuss about how we’re going to proceed. Are we ready to vote?
B. Shabot Accept extension of special permit for all four items for one year.
Joe Hall seconded.
All in favor.
W. Parsell motion carries for all four items.
F. Minutes:
W. Parsell made a motion to approve the minutes from April 21, 2020
L. Semprebon seconded the motion. All in favor.
G. Correspondence
No correspondence.
Public Comment:
The Commission will hear brief comments at this time from anyone wishing to speak. No business can be conducted here nor can any comments be made about any items on the agenda.
C. Donaldson request as noted already, navigating through virtual meetings, info coming rapidly, in the future when there is things with the quarry, asking that abutters be sent letters that there is a discussion and that format be moved to public hearing for greater impact from public.
K. Slater stated that PH is for special permit, an extension of this special permit, do not require that a public hearing needs to be held.
I. Staff Report/Discussion:
1. FY 20-21 Budget Update
2. PZC Procedures
3. Outdoor Dining for Restaurants
M. D’Amato stated that A. Marco asked to discuss budget at a previous meeting. Wanted to let the Commission know they couldn’t send out budget before submitted. Provide flat budget and negative 3. Negative 3 was met by taking out the GIS and zoning regulations long term projects, were the two items significantly reduced to get to negative 3. Can’t cut most of the budget because 80-90% is non-negotiable. May hinder zoning regulation revisions if that is adopted by Board of Finance, but doesn’t take away anything for this year.
L. Semprebon stated that the State requires that we notice 24 hours ahead of meetings for agendas, I would like us as a commission to consider to create our own rule to give it out before that especially when we have something like Loves for a quarry renewal. It’s not possible to read through them in 24 hours. I think 5 days is reasonable to consider.
W. Parsell it would be a good practice to get it a few days ahead of time. Maybe not for everything, but on the complex applications it would be helpful.
M. D’Amato stated that when we set an agenda and when we receive documents. We can make documents available and email them to you when we get them, we can do that. We are not obligated by any statue. We wait for the agenda on 24 hours, we revised it for this meeting for a PH, and I would have had to make them wait another 2 weeks if I didn’t get them on and revising this. But I can send documents in the future.
L. Semprebon agrees.
B. Shabot agrees as well. Needs leeway for agenda, but it would be beneficial for documents regarding applications.
L. Semprebon what about access to the public? They would like to read it before 24 hours.
M. D’Amato public wants to be involved in apps that zoning regulations say they can’t. No process for them to submit testimony. Anything in office is discoverable. Commission can direct him to get things on the website ahead of time. Documents normally never go to the pubic are being posted on web that are normally never posted on web. Anyone can come in and ask for a copy if they ask.
Outdoor dining for restaurants, governor said slow roll of opening things on May 20, 2020. Restaurants can open only if they have outdoor dining. That is challenging for everyone, including Willington, usually need a special permit, and alcohol needs a special permit, and notices to abutters, and all stuff that can’t happen before May 20, 2020. Not a lot of authority to move this process under our regulations by that opening date. How do we figure that out? But state may be working on.
K. Slater executive commit from P & Z form the bar, how can the governor fast track this? Not sure where it will go yet, the governor may allow staff to authorize certain uses that might not otherwise be allowed, may not need any referral to CROG. Could be a fast track possibility to allow regulations quicker. We’ll know more in the near future.
D. Roberts- if governor comes up with something, but comes up late, pull together a meeting if need something from commission? Should we plan on having a meeting in a week?
M. D’Amato stated that we don’t have a ton of businesses that would need this help, but we can get fire, health and safety on board quickly. If we need to get a special meeting, we will ask you to do that. We need to do as much as possible to make this easy for restaurants. They’re biggest concern is wanting to get back to normal as soon as possible.
W. Parsell adjourned meeting at 9:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ashley Stephens