2026-10-29 - Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting

00:23Okay. Call the meeting order.

00:25>> Thank you.

00:26>> This is a hybrid meeting. Citizens can

00:27attend by WebEx or in person.

00:30Uh meeting number 28698574422.

00:35Password PZC. here.

00:39>> I'm sorry.

00:45>> Password PZCZ

00:48102926.

00:49Join by phone 415655001.

00:53Call to order. Roll call, please.

00:57>> Brian Card

00:58>> here.

00:59>> Norman Farren,

01:00>> present.

01:01>> Michael Hugo,

01:02>> here.

01:03>> John Serenopoulos

01:04>> here. and Keith Thurlo

01:06>> here.

01:08>> Okay, we don't need any alters. We don't

01:10have any. So, unfinished business site

01:13plan application 261383 Ryan Companies.

01:17Uh, somebody want to speak introduce

01:20yourself please for the record. And

01:22>> Mr. Chair,

01:22>> ma'am,

01:24>> just for a point if you want to just

01:27>> Sorry.

01:28>> Um, you have one uh intervenor petition

01:31that came in after the last meeting. If

01:33you want to really quickly take um that

01:35under consideration, it's for Diana

01:37Weber. It is essentially um the same as

01:40the other interveners uh petitions that

01:43came in. Uh so similar to last time, it

01:45it would be limited in scope uh to

01:48erosion and sedimentation control and

01:49storm water. Um so if you guys want to

01:51take a vote on that to allow that

01:53petition in.

01:54>> Okay. Um,

01:56do we any do we need any discussion on

01:58it other than

01:59>> I can also add counsel for the record

02:02review didn't have the same advice that

02:04we we provided. It's a close call, but

02:05we recommend that for the the two

02:07limited uh aspects of your regulations

02:11um that um we would think it would be

02:14sound to find uh intervention status uh

02:17to present evidence limited to the

02:18things that relate to those specific

02:20sections of your regulations.

02:25Mr. Chair, may I just note for the

02:26record,

02:27>> excuse me, please take over.

02:33>> Uh, good evening, members of the

02:34commission, Evan, Seaman, Robinson, and

02:36Cole on behalf of the applicant, and I

02:38just wanted to note our objection to

02:41this petition for the same reasons as

02:42before, and I will leave it at that.

02:44Thank you.

02:46>> All right. Thank you.

02:48Um,

02:49>> so does anybody want to make a motion to

02:51anything with that other intervenor

02:53status that we just got?

02:55>> Yeah.

02:56>> I mean, the recommendation would be to

02:57accept it under the same conditions as

02:59the previous

03:00>> Yeah, I'll make that

03:01>> intervenor statuses. Okay. John makes

03:03that motion. Do we have a second?

03:05>> I'll second.

03:06>> Second by Norm. Any discussion?

03:10>> All in favor say I. I.

03:12>> I.

03:12>> Opposed?

03:15one out of the office.

03:19>> I'm sorry. Apologize.

03:23>> So, we are aware

03:24>> we accepted it. Same conditions as last

03:26time.

03:26>> Okay.

03:28Did you want to do any other discussion

03:30on the other interveners at [snorts]

03:32this point or

03:34>> No, I think you can hear from the

03:35applicant, pose questions to them, then

03:38let the intervenors do any presentation

03:40they may or may not have. The applicant

03:42then gets um to ask questions of the

03:45intervenors expert. Um and then at that

03:47time, Attorney Slater will advise you if

03:49we get to that point um if you want to

03:52act on those um interventions tonight.

03:54So, we'll see if we get that far in the

03:56process, but uh we'll guide you when we

03:58get to that point.

03:59>> Okay.

04:01Go ahead, sir. Apologize.

04:03>> No problem. Thank you. U me Mr. Chair,

04:05members of the commission, Evan Seaman,

04:06Robinson, and Cole on behalf of the

04:08applicant, Ryan Companies, US Inc., Uh,

04:11we do have some slides that I believe

04:13we're trying to load right now. So, I'll

04:16just wait a moment for that to be done.

04:22There we go. Um, so uh this is an

04:26application for uh site plan review. um

04:30approximately 340 acres uh known as the

04:33project site, 76 of which are proposed

04:35to be uh put in conservation as part of

04:39of a wetlands application pending before

04:41the inland wetlands and water courses

04:42commission. There's an additional 216

04:45acres of land that's also proposed to be

04:47put in into conservation. U this

04:49property, as you know, is in the

04:50business park zoning district again uh

04:53for a warehouse and distribution center

04:56uh uh to be developed on this property.

04:58uh we appeared before the commission uh

05:01uh 10 days ago on intervention and prior

05:03to that on I believe September 21st uh

05:07given the late hour we kind of gave an

05:08abbreviated presentation about 25

05:10minutes or so. So the intent tonight is

05:12to go through our full presentation. Um

05:14here is a slide that has our agenda and

05:18attendees. Uh so I'll give a a brief

05:20introduction uh and then uh Tim Unurko

05:23from Langen uh project engineer going to

05:26uh discuss site design overview uh storm

05:29water management and erosion control.

05:31>> Go ahead.

05:33>> We have uh Andy Defor and Dave Valvy um

05:37who will be discussing our blasting

05:39plan. Uh we have uh our architects here

05:42to discuss uh the architectural elements

05:44of our project.

05:46>> Chris Summers to discuss fire

05:48protection. and Ben Mueller to discuss

05:50the sound study. Uh Mark Veruchi, our

05:53traffic engineer, uh and then Tim Murko

05:55to discuss a couple other uh uh matters

05:57pending before other agencies. Uh

06:00following that, I'd like to uh briefly

06:02discuss uh zoning compliance. Um and uh

06:06we will also discuss the TIG bond um

06:09review comments and the process uh that

06:11we have ongoing with Tigen Bond. uh and

06:14we will also address the the intervenors

06:16and um the the report that has been

06:19submitted. So, next slide, please.

06:22So, I discussed this a bit last time and

06:24I wanted to we're doing our full

06:26presentation again, so I thought uh it

06:27would be beneficial to uh talk a little

06:29bit about the plan of conservation and

06:31development and how we got where we are

06:32today. So, as this commission knows, the

06:34the POCD is the town's long range

06:36planning document. Uh by statute, the uh

06:40municipalities in Connecticut are

06:41required to adopt this plan every 10

06:44years, which sets the the long range

06:47goals and policies that the town hopes

06:49to achieve. Uh the POCCD is not a

06:51regulatory document. It's a guidance

06:53document. And you have some quotes from

06:56the PC on this slide, uh which we

06:58believe, uh are help is is helpful

07:01contextual information about how we got

07:03here. Uh the PCD specifically calls out

07:06this land in the business park district

07:08uh adjacent to I395 not only for

07:11development but for development uh using

07:14uh trucks to transport goods and and uh

07:16this will also um advance the the over

07:20one of the overarching goals of the PCD

07:22to encourage and promote business

07:23development uh particularly in the

07:26business park district which was uh

07:28established in about 2000 and has

07:30remained largely vacant since then. Uh,

07:32next slide, please. So, here's the town

07:35zoning map. So, when the POCD discusses

07:39the business park zoning district, as I

07:41uh just went over on that prior slide,

07:43it's it's uh ident it's discussing the

07:46the the parcels identified on this slide

07:48on your zoning map in green. This is the

07:50only business park zoning district in

07:52the town of Killingly. It's adjacent to

07:54I395. So when the POCD is discussing uh

07:59uh land that is appropriate for you

08:03>> who made the complaint here I don't want

08:04to disrupt but we got called

08:07>> there's a complaint that was made

08:09>> somebody

08:11>> I was told that Mr. Daniels approached

08:13the attorney attorney

08:15>> that's that's correct

08:17>> the the gentleman in the back

08:19>> there's multiple gentlemen

08:21>> um the reg Mr. Daniels, right? That man,

08:25>> M. Mr. Daniels, you just want to come

08:26out and talk to us real quick.

08:31>> And then did one of you guys call? Who's

08:33the one who called?

08:35>> I called the town manager. So,

08:37>> okay. Do you mind if you come out and

08:38talk to me and take

08:47>> Please proceed. Thank you. Um so as I

08:50was saying the land uh this is the

08:52official zoning map of the town. So when

08:54the PCD is discussing the business park

08:56zoning district it's specifically uh

08:58talking about this land in green which

09:00is the subject of this application. Uh

09:03when the PCD is uh uh identifying uh

09:06long range goals of um uh development of

09:10the business park district for uses such

09:12as uh uh transporting goods uh via

09:15truck. It is uh specifically discussing

09:18this land identified in green. Next

09:20slide, please.

09:21>> I guess you come out and speak to us

09:22because this is all.

09:25>> Can we take our recess?

09:27>> All right, we're going to take a short

09:29recess. A motion for that.

09:32>> Motion.

09:32>> Second.

09:34>> Second.

09:34>> All in favor say I. I opposed.

12:13back to me to order.

12:16[clears throat]

12:21>> All right. Thank you. Um, again for the

12:23record, Evan Seaman. Um, so I had just

12:25gone over before the recess the plan of

12:27conser conservation and development. And

12:29as I noted before, the POCD is not a

12:32regulatory document. It sets guidelines

12:34longterm goals and policies that the

12:36that the town hopes to accomplish. So

12:38um, in looking at the POCD, the town

12:40then took steps to advance those goals

12:42and policies in of the plan and

12:44conservation and development in two

12:46ways. First, in 2022, um a uh private

12:50[clears throat] land owner who owns

12:51three parcels in the business park

12:52district totaling about 200 acres

12:55submitted a text amendment application

12:56to this commission. Um at the time, the

12:59business park district had uh pretty

13:02ownorous uh restrictions on warehouse

13:04and development uses. Um they were uh

13:06limited to 40,000 square feet in size by

13:09special permit um accessory, I believe,

13:12to uh research facilities. So they were

13:15not allowed as principal uses. There

13:17were also uh very ownorous setback

13:19requirements of about 750 ft or so. So

13:22as part of that application, the

13:24commission approved a tax amendment to

13:26allow warehouse and warehouses and

13:28distribution centers as principal uses

13:31with no limitations of size. No more

13:3340,000 foot limitation. Uh and it

13:36reduced the setback requirement from 750

13:38ft u to what they are presently along

13:41with some other changes. Uh that was a

13:43very public process. Notice in the

13:46newspaper um members of the public

13:48attended uh and there were public

13:50hearings held. Um following that um

13:54approval, the the town then uh uh

13:57considered additional amendments to the

13:59business park zoning regulations. This

14:01was the town's text amendment. It wasn't

14:03it wasn't an application of a private

14:05land owner. Uh many workshops were held

14:07over the course of almost a year.

14:09Probably eight or nine workshops in

14:10total. uh members of the public

14:12attended, members of the EDC attended,

14:14town council members attended. Um and um

14:17as part of that process um the business

14:20park district um was further amended and

14:23as it relates to warehouse and

14:24distribution centers, there were um

14:26standards and criteria that were um

14:29revised and and created. And um one of

14:32the other changes as part of that

14:34application is that um warehouse and

14:36distribution centers were changed from

14:38special permit uses to site plan uses.

14:41Next slide please.

14:43So this is I think helpful in providing

14:45some context. This is from the town

14:47attorney's memorandum as part of the

14:48first site plan application that was

14:50before you for the approximately the

14:52first half of the year. Uh this is a

14:54memorandum uh June 27th 2026. This is

14:57the memorandum on the intervention

14:58petitions and uh there's some helpful

15:01discussion in there about the site plan

15:03review process and um as noted by the

15:05town attorney uh site plan review is the

15:08lowest lowest burden and least

15:09discretionary form of zoning review

15:10available in Connecticut. And then

15:12moving down to the second paragraph um a

15:16warehouse distribution center use in the

15:18BP district is a use permitted requiring

15:20only site plan review. Uh the commission

15:23therefore exercised no discretion over

15:24whether a warehouse use belongs on this

15:26parcel as that legislative judgment was

15:29made when the use cases of warehouse and

15:31distribution uh were uh listed as

15:34permitted by right. Um so we think that

15:36provides some helpful context. Again uh

15:38as part of this application um it's not

15:42whether the warehouse and distribution

15:44uh is an appropriate use or not. that as

15:47noted by the town attorney that decision

15:49has already been made uh by virtue of

15:51the text amendment adopting

15:54warehouse and distribution centers by

15:56right. Next slide please.

15:58And then before passing this uh it over

16:00to Timurko there is one other matter I

16:03wanted to um highlight and I know as far

16:05part of the first application process

16:07there was a lot of discussion about um

16:09off-site traffic impacts and other

16:11things and I thought it would be helpful

16:13um to provide this slide. This is this

16:16is a a quote from a case and the case is

16:18called UW Vintage Lane 2 LLC versus

16:22Planning and Zoning Commission. It's a

16:23case out of South Windsor. Uh it was a

16:25case in the land use litigation docket

16:27which is the specialized land use docket

16:28in Connecticut. And that case involved a

16:30warehouse and dist distribution center

16:32and that warehouse and distribution

16:34center was denied by the planning and

16:35zoning commission for uh off-site

16:38traffic impacts and other other issues.

16:41And the court said uh you know that's

16:43not proper. you know, the planning and

16:44zoning commission uh because that in

16:47that case a warehouse and distribution

16:48center was also permitted by Wright uh

16:51the the planning and zoning commission

16:54um uh couldn't consider uh off-site

16:57traffic impacts and for that reason the

16:58court reversed the decision uh and uh

17:01ordered that the that the permit be

17:03granted for the warehouse and

17:04distribution use. So this is a quote um

17:07uh from that case and it relies on

17:08Supreme Court uh cases and and to quote

17:12one of the Supreme Court cases, it

17:14relies on uh uses uh designated by

17:17zoning commission as a permitted use in

17:19a specific zone uh establishes a

17:21conclusive presumption that such use

17:23doesn't adversely affect the district

17:25and precludes further inquiry into its

17:27effect on traffic, municipal services,

17:30property values, or the general harmony

17:32of the district. So, I know there was a

17:33lot of discussion during the first

17:35application and I thought it would be

17:36helpful uh to point um the commission uh

17:40to this uh this case and the the Supreme

17:42Court cases it relies on. We've provided

17:45a letter to the town attorney um uh

17:47previously as part of the first

17:48withdrawn application and and also with

17:51this application. So, if if the town

17:53attorney or town planner if you have any

17:55questions for them, uh we'd welcome

17:56their input. But, um

17:58>> put a question to you.

17:59>> Yes, sir. Isn't it also true that the

18:01plan must must meet all written

18:03standards?

18:05>> Yes.

18:07Well, isn't it uh also true that uh

18:11and just give me a minute here because I

18:14think this is an important issue.

18:21Um

18:23that it must meet 4713 standards of

18:27approval which is within the site plan

18:30document.

18:32>> Yes sir, we agree.

18:33>> Okay. And it says that uh in reviewing

18:36and acting upon an application for site

18:38approval, the commission shall take into

18:40consideration the health, safety,

18:42welfare of the public in general and the

18:45immediate neighborhood in particular as

18:47well as the following factors and it

18:49lists them. So how can you say that uh

18:52uh that uh you conclusive presumption?

18:57I mean that that's a stretch, isn't it?

19:01>> We don't believe it's a stretch. That's

19:03from the Connecticut Supreme Court.

19:04That's the connect that's that's the

19:06Connecticut Supreme Court considering

19:07this very issue. And if the town

19:09attorney would would like to provide

19:10input, we welcome it. Well, how can you

19:12how can you square that, you know, when

19:16our regulations say that this is a part

19:18of the process

19:20and you're trying to say that that uh we

19:24have to pick and choose in this

19:26particular case all the things that

19:28we're charged with with uh uh enforcing

19:32the regulations of this community that a

19:34section of them in in your particular uh

19:37application doesn't apply.

19:40That's that's the that's correct. Your

19:41site plan review criteria do not include

19:44consideration of off-site traffic

19:46impacts. So, uh because of that and

19:49because of it's more than one case, it's

19:51many cases including case multiple cases

19:53before the Connecticut Supreme Court.

19:56These these are issues these issues on

19:58this on this slide as noted in this case

20:02um are for by uses uses permitted by

20:05site plan review um are there is that

20:09conclusive presumption that conclusive

20:10presumption applies.

20:13>> Well, look at you know uh you've got

20:15you've got this thing that you handed us

20:18concerning uh uh inland wetlands, right?

20:22and they talk about issues in there that

20:24go off site and yet they apply. How come

20:28this doesn't apply when you know we're

20:31not we're not disputing uh the site plan

20:33itself or I'm not I'm speaking for

20:37myself. However, you know uh

20:42sound for an example sound isn't just on

20:45that site. Whatever sound is generated

20:48affects the surrounding area. uh just

20:51like traffic

20:53>> pollution.

20:54>> So addressing sounds, we we did provide

20:56a sound report, a sound study. Um it's

20:59actually not required by your

21:00regulations. We we we provide it for

21:02information purposes.

21:04>> According to our regulations, it does

21:06though because this 470 is within the

21:10content of uh of site review.

21:14>> A sound study is not required by your

21:16regulations. It's been provided and we

21:18have a brief presentation to provide to

21:19you uh this evening. But um you're

21:22right, section 470.13 are your site plan

21:24review standards. Later on in the

21:26presentation after we go through the

21:28site design and all of all of the um uh

21:31experts are going to discuss their

21:33various reports and studies, I will

21:35address section 470.13

21:37and I will address some of the other uh

21:39uh criteria in the business park zoning

21:41district. But um sound is is regulated

21:46by the town's noise ordinance, not by

21:47the commission.

21:49>> But it still affects I don't care who

21:51regulates it, but it affects more than

21:53just the site itself, does it not?

21:58Just like water. I mean, if you're if

22:00you're polluting water on site and it's

22:02going off site,

22:04>> okay,

22:05>> you know, so how can you exclude

22:07them from being a part of of whatever is

22:10taking place? I don't understand that.

22:12>> So,

22:13>> no.

22:14>> And there's only one other thing and you

22:16know, uh, this is all a hat because you

22:18guys have gotten all of the records

22:20that, you know, you, uh, requested, but

22:23I've done some and I don't think it's,

22:26uh, I think I'm I'm doing my fiduciary

22:30responsibility is being on this

22:31commission and and looking into all of

22:34these various matters and getting

22:37whatever information I can in addition

22:39to what's being provided to us. whether

22:40it's to the public or or from legal

22:43counsel. Uh I've seen a lot of uh uh

22:47evidence out there where this thing is

22:49not, you know, a conclusive

22:53situation where uh there are

22:56circumstances where

22:59where these things apply. The only

23:02things that don't apply is contesting

23:06its use, his designation, which I don't,

23:10you know, I haven't said anything that

23:12>> yeah, as far as that's concerned.

23:15>> So, uh, you know, that's not what the

23:17Connecticut, as I mentioned, the

23:18Connecticut Supreme Court disagrees with

23:20that. I'm not sure um what what evidence

23:24uh you've looked at or

23:25>> I've gone I've gone on these sites uh

23:26that are numerous today and

23:29>> Well, you haven't tell me that look this

23:32thing is not you know cut in stone that

23:36in the majority of cases yes it's it's

23:39out of bounds but it's not conclusive

23:43>> in this case our position is it's also

23:45not appropriate

23:46>> that's your position

23:47>> that's that's and if and if you or the

23:49commission would like further guidance

23:50>> and this thing is also going to go

23:52before the connected transportation

23:54board again

23:55>> before they approve it am I correct

23:57there

23:58>> OSA yes

23:58>> yeah good all right

24:00>> that's correct and we do have our

24:01traffic engineer, but I wanted to

24:03provide that background. A traffic

24:04impact study has been submitted to the

24:06record. Um it's being reviewed by OSA.

24:09Uh Mark Fertuchi from Fuss and O'Neal is

24:11going to um as part of our presentation

24:13address um the status of the OSTA

24:16process and and again the traffic impact

24:18study has been uh submitted for

24:21uhformational purposes as part of this

24:23uh this application.

24:26Uh, Ken, could you could you comment on

24:28this back and forth?

24:31>> Well, I I prefer to defer to it because

24:33I my expectation wasn't you weren't

24:35going to be del actually deliberating

24:36it. Now, there's I think the ultimate

24:38answer I think the planner is preparing

24:40a staff memo on it. I plan to present a

24:43memo on it. Um, and I think there's

24:45truth in both things that are being

24:46bandied about. One is that there are

24:48standards in the regulations. Those have

24:50to be followed as as uh Commissioner

24:52Serenopoulos had said. That said, there

24:55is also a lot of case law that talks

24:57about what kind of off-site

24:59considerations can you take in take into

25:01account such as can you have a permitted

25:04uh by right uh permitted use, not it's

25:08not a special permit. You're not asking

25:09for a zone change or having a special

25:11kind of a zoning tool. And if the use is

25:13determined has been allowed, there's

25:16case law that would say that a

25:17commission can't say, well, you're

25:19creating too much traffic. You're going

25:20to adversely impact the neighborhood.

25:22That's the conclusive presumption that

25:24basically when a use is determined,

25:27somebody wants to build a single family

25:28home in a single family residential

25:30neighborhood, someone can't say that

25:31that home is going to have an adverse

25:33impact on the environmental on the

25:35neighborhood. Uh that there's case law

25:37on that, but I expected I'll I'll flesh

25:39that out in more detail in a in a memo

25:40to be presented to the commission um

25:42before it actually deliberates.

25:44>> Okay. I'm sorry.

25:47>> No, thank you. Um, so with that, I'd

25:50like to now ask Tim Anduro from Lang to

25:53come up and uh start our presentation.

25:59[clears throat]

26:06[clears throat]

26:10Okay.

26:12Good evening to Manduro, professional

26:14engineer with Langan. Uh what we have up

26:17on the screen is a a rendered site plan

26:19showing uh aerial uh imagery with

26:23surrounds to to give you some

26:24perspective of where we sit in terms of

26:27building parking and truck court. Uh

26:30north in this case is to the left of the

26:32image. So we are turned [clears throat]

26:3490 degrees from the cardinal direction

26:36and I 395 goes across the bottom of the

26:39page Westcot Road uh up and down on the

26:42very extreme right hand side. proposed

26:45building is 1.23 million square feet. It

26:48has 31 uh dock spaces for parking at the

26:52back of the building and has 58 dock

26:55doors, so rollup doors that allow

26:57tractor trailers to park at the

26:58building. Uh we have parking spaces on

27:01the east and north side of the building

27:04for 370 trailers and the front parking

27:07field uh which in this case would be on

27:10the west side of the building provides

27:12parking for 729 vehicles uh and per the

27:16zoning regulations uh 616 are required.

27:19So we have a surplus of spaces to meet

27:21the operational needs of the facility.

27:26Uh

27:27>> so 729 vehicles is all that

27:30>> that is

27:31>> passenger cars or combination.

27:34>> Uh it is passenger cars I believe ADA

27:37spaces and I think eight motorcycle

27:39parking spaces. So

27:41>> not the trucks.

27:41>> Not the trucks.

27:42>> Okay.

27:43>> That is just uh vehicles for passengers

27:46and and employees. And uh what we have

27:49up on the image here is the parcel map.

27:52and Attorney Seammons spoke to this a

27:55little bit. Uh what we've got in yellow

27:58is the existing hunt club. Uh that land

28:02uh totals about uh 215 acres or so. Uh

28:08of that existing 215 acres, uh somewhere

28:11between 95 and 100 acres is kind of

28:14currently actively cleared, managed, and

28:17used by the hunt club. that those yellow

28:20parcels uh would be conveyed to the town

28:23uh to use as open space and the hunt

28:25club activity would cease on that land.

28:28The blue parcels uh the blue blue area

28:31is uh the proposed development area

28:34which has uh about 340 acres. 76 of uh

28:41the eastern acres would be protected uh

28:44in a conservation easement and of the

28:47remaining land about a less than a third

28:50would be used for the proposed

28:52development program. So uh 215 acres in

28:56yellow 340 in blue totaling um uh just

29:02over 500 acres. Next slide.

29:05Now, if we kind of merge the two, uh,

29:08yellow again is the the hunting preserve

29:12or hunt club, you can see their cleared

29:15land and and active activity uh, within

29:18the yellow boundary and the blue

29:20boundary is the development parcel. The

29:23orange is the area proposed on site uh,

29:27for conservation easement. So, that's

29:29the 76 acres. The uh pink or magenta is

29:33the proposed building footprint, parking

29:36area, truck court, and the uh call aqua

29:40color is the limit of disturbance that

29:43it takes to construct the facility um

29:46from start to finish. So uh that that

29:49aqua area is uh under 100 acres uh

29:53whereas the the blue is somewhere around

29:56340 if that gives you a sense of scale.

29:59Next slide.

30:02Uh again, similar to what we talked

30:05about when the uh color rendering was

30:07up, yellow is the parking lot for

30:10associates and employees. Red is areas

30:14for tractor trailers and loading

30:17operations at the backside or east side

30:19of the building. And uh the site shares

30:23a common driveway, but as soon as we uh

30:26make it a good distance in, we try to

30:28separate passenger cars and uh trucks as

30:32soon as possible. And on the right hand

30:36side of the image is the main uh guard

30:39shack or truck court that uh processes

30:42the tractor trailers to enter the back

30:44of the facility, head to the loading

30:46docks, and pick up trailers to leave.

30:48Um, and the the yellow parking field is

30:51kind of symmetrically split uh off of

30:54the main entrance, which is that bump

30:56out in the bottom center of the building

30:59itself.

31:04Uh, one thing that, and if you've had a

31:06chance to, um, read some of the, uh,

31:09correspondence we've had with your third

31:11party peer review is making sure that we

31:13had accommodations for snow storage and

31:16kind of how snow is managed on a site

31:18like this. Uh, we've identified areas in

31:21the purple hatch here. Apologize, it's a

31:23little hard to see on the the screen,

31:25but the hatch areas identify areas

31:27specifically uh left as open space uh so

31:31that in winter months snow could be

31:33stored there. Uh totals somewhere around

31:36uh 7 to 8% of the total impervious uh

31:40parking area on site. Um and we have uh

31:44are continuing the dialogue uh with your

31:46peer reviewer on identifying additional

31:48areas that may be used um that are uh

31:52underparked or or underused by trailers

31:55if additional on-site storage was

31:56needed. Um and then at some point uh

31:59until you have a large enough snowfall,

32:01the snow removal contractor actually

32:02would remove snow from the site. um as

32:05is common in most commercial plazas as

32:08as you reach a a level of snow storage

32:10that exceeds the on-site storage. So um

32:13that those areas are noted on the site

32:15plan and uh there is correspondence with

32:17your peer reviewer uh on the topic.

32:20>> So do you have any way of pointing from

32:22your student? [clears throat]

32:27>> Probably not. Oh, there you go. So um

32:30you want to point to the the purple that

32:32purple that you see. So, there's three

32:34areas kind of uh right there on either

32:37side. And then at the northern end of

32:39the employee parking lot, there's an

32:42area in the um Yep. And then there's

32:45another area around the back in the

32:47trailer court. And then at the other

32:49corner of the building, um another spot,

32:53too. So, ability to move snow off of

32:56paved areas.

32:58And as we'll we'll get into um storm

33:01water management, snow that melts from

33:04those areas drains to areas that are

33:07treated by the storm water management

33:09system. Uh so all of those areas are

33:12contained by the infrastructure that

33:15protects downstream waters. So um we've

33:18got a a couple of slides on that that

33:20we'll get to in a minute. So those areas

33:21were specifically chosen um so that as

33:25the snow melts, one any debris that

33:27might be in snow is is captured and the

33:30actual runoff from the snow melting um

33:32is treated through our storm water

33:34management system.

33:39Uh we have spent some time with the fire

33:42marshall in identifying vehicle

33:46movements for uh fire apparatus on the

33:50site. Uh the fire marshall provided us

33:52with a template for the vehicle that he

33:55would like to see modeled. And um we've

33:58included this in in correspondence as

34:01well that uh the we've made sure that

34:04all of the site improvements allow the

34:07movement of the fire truck both in the

34:10areas where tractor trailer moves which

34:12I would expect would not be difficult

34:14for a firet truck relative to the scale

34:16of a tractor trailer but also in areas

34:20where we typically have passenger cars.

34:22So, the four uh bumps that you see

34:25across the front of the building are

34:27employee parking and drop off areas.

34:30We've modeled that firet truck movement

34:33to make sure that the truck can move

34:34through those areas, get approximate to

34:37um the building. Uh and we've also on

34:41this plan identified where the uh fire

34:43command center is. That's the call out

34:45in the middle of the building at the

34:46front doors. um and uh think we've we've

34:50worked closely with the fire marshall to

34:52alleviate any concerns and comments he

34:54might have on this configuration. Um and

34:58have included just just to let you know

34:59that we've had that discussion and have

35:02completed that coordination.

35:06Uh another item that and there's the uh

35:08template of the uh aerial truck that we

35:11were asked to model and and move through

35:13the site in our uh traffic modeling

35:15software. One item that we have also

35:18spent time with on the fire marshall uh

35:20was the design of the bridges that enter

35:23the property from Westcot Road. And as

35:26part of that, the fire marshall had

35:28asked for a straight median in between

35:30the inbound and outbound lanes as you

35:32enter the property from uh Westcot Road.

35:36And this is reflected in this section.

35:38And and again this has been reviewed

35:39with the fire marshall uh to provide the

35:42adequate width um for emergency access

35:49utilities. Um we have uh a number of

35:52buried [snorts] utilities. Nothing is

35:54overhead here. Power supplied by

35:56Eversource. Water um would be supplied

35:59by Connecticut Water. As part of that

36:02coordination with Connecticut Water,

36:04they would be extending a water mane up

36:06Westcot Road from the west side of 395

36:10to our site driveway. And then the water

36:12mane would be carried up uh into the

36:14property to serve the building. And uh

36:17we have two uh different types of

36:20treatment for sanitary waste from the

36:23site. We have a connection to the town

36:27sanitary sewer system uh at a level less

36:31than what is currently draining to the

36:33town sanitary sewer system via the

36:35existing homes uh at the front of the

36:38property that would be taken down. So

36:40the existing homes generate somewhere in

36:42the order of 1,600 gallons per day of

36:46sanitary waste to the municipal sewer

36:49system. And as part of the plumbing

36:52design, we have designed um components

36:56that contribute less than a,000 gallons

36:58a day to the municipal system. And that

37:02would be floor drains, uh any condensate

37:05from uh HVAC equipment as well as um

37:10essentially the mop, bucket, sink, uh

37:12for lack of terms, a scrubber bucket. uh

37:15for any floor cleaning. Any of the

37:19toilet and sink waste would go to an

37:22on-site uh septic system. To call it a

37:25septic system is a bit of an

37:27understatement. There's an on-site

37:28wastewater treatment facility that

37:31polishes and renovates the water and

37:33then uh discharges that water to a

37:35leeching field. That system because of

37:37its size is administered by Connecticut

37:40DP. uh and we are working through kind

37:43of technical comments with them uh as

37:46part of that review. Uh that process

37:50similar to OSA is lengthy and technical

37:54um but continues on uh as we uh develop

37:58the project.

38:02We have included as part of the site

38:04plan submission a lighting plan. This is

38:07a phototric plan to show uh zero light

38:11spill at property lines. And um we do

38:15have uh I think one or two comments in

38:17the staff technical report um

38:20specifically about uh showing compliance

38:23to uh dark sky standards as well as the

38:27lights for the flag pole. Uh some towns

38:32have an exemption for uplighting with

38:34flag poles. does not appear that

38:37Killingly does. So, we have to flip our

38:39light to light the flag uh from the top.

38:42So, um a technical comment that if you

38:44had a chance to read the staff report,

38:46we'll be working through. Um but, uh

38:48otherwise, a phototric plan includes

38:50foot handle measurements as well as the

38:52cut sheet of the fixtures proposed on

38:54site.

38:58Moving on to storm water management. Uh

39:01we have a number of components that make

39:04up the storm water management system. We

39:06have pipes in light blue that move water

39:09from uh parking area and truck court as

39:13well as the roof. We have uh those kind

39:16of dark blue circles are hydrodnamic

39:18separators or kind of the first line of

39:20defense. Those systems swirl the water

39:24to remove floatable material. They also

39:27help to settle uh larger particulate and

39:31sediment. From those we then move the

39:34water into underground detention

39:36systems. These systems capture the water

39:39from the roof and parking and allow us

39:42to meter its discharge so that we can

39:45control how much water leaves the pipes

39:47at the end of these systems to mimic

39:49existing conditions from before uh the

39:52project is constructed. On the outside

39:55or the downstream side of those

39:58attention systems, we have a media

39:59filter system. Their brand name is

40:01called Jellyfish. Um, we've spent some

40:04time um talking about those and there's

40:08technical review by your third party

40:10peer reviewer on the topic. And then

40:13ultimately move uh the water after it's

40:16been filtered to level spreaders where

40:19we allow it to infiltrate and spread to

40:22lower its velocity and uh place it back

40:26mimicking the existing uh flow paths

40:29that um the water takes today on site uh

40:33as it heads down the hill uh mostly from

40:37uh east to west.

40:41So what do those components look like?

40:43They they move in a train. Uh we the

40:46first stop is a catch basin which

40:49probably familiar with. Uh those catch

40:51basins have a sump at the bottom that

40:54allows it to capture some of the biggest

40:55material. Uh the hydrodnamic separator

40:58is the image in the top middle. That's

41:01the swirl chamber that helps to make

41:03material float to the top and make

41:05sediment sink to the bottom. The uh

41:08upper right hand image is what the

41:10underground attention system looks like.

41:12They're concrete cubes that allow water

41:14to come in, be stored, and then metered

41:16on the discharge out. And the image in

41:19the bottom middle is the jellyfish

41:21filter. So this is truly a filter media

41:25that filters the water before it's uh

41:27discharged. And then the last step in

41:30the train there is level spreader uh

41:32where you see in the lower right hand

41:34corner uh large rip wrap stone and curb

41:37to slow the velocity of water allow it

41:40to infiltrate and move down uh

41:42downstream on site.

41:46Uh in addition to the the fact that

41:49those components all exist, there is

41:51ongoing post construction operations and

41:54maintenance. we've included in our storm

41:57water report and operations and

41:58maintenance manual. Um that's been

42:00amended as part of the discussion with

42:02your peer reviewer. Um but it talks

42:05about what components exist on site. So

42:07if you were to show up 3 years after the

42:10site is built, you would know where to

42:11look, what to look for, what the

42:13components are, how you maintain them,

42:16what are you looking for in terms of

42:17sediment buildup, what requires action.

42:20Uh and uh here we've included kind of a

42:22sample of one of the the maintenance

42:24checklist. Uh but a full uh

42:26post-operation storm water and

42:28maintenance uh manuals in the um storm

42:32water report. Uh and due to the size of

42:35the site with more than five acres of

42:37imperous coverage, we would be required

42:39to apply for a commercial general permit

42:42with Connecticut DP where they have kind

42:45of oversight authority on uh larger

42:48parcels and can uh ensure that the the

42:51ongoing operations and maintenance are

42:53are being conducted.

42:56Uh as part of the submission, we

42:59included phase soil erosion and sediment

43:02control plans. Uh in addition to the

43:05fact that we prepare plans uh as part of

43:08the municipal submission, we also must

43:10apply to Connecticut deep for a

43:13construction general permit. Uh that

43:16permit uh essentially regulates storm

43:20water during construction.

43:22uh because of the size of our site, we

43:25would uh require third-party review of

43:28any materials that we submit as part of

43:30that uh application prior to

43:32construction. And that third party is

43:34completely independent of the current

43:36design team. We wouldn't be able to use

43:38time bond who reviewed it as uh part of

43:41your work. So an independent third party

43:43would review our plans including the

43:45soil erosion and sediment control plans,

43:47any inspection and monitoring

43:49requirements and they have to provide a

43:51third party sign off to Connecticut deep

43:54before we could issue be issued the

43:56permit to commence on-site struct

43:58on-site construction uh and disturb

44:00soil. And um

44:04while the the work is ongoing, that

44:07permit requires weekly or better uh

44:10inspection. And if I think if you go to

44:12the next slide, Dustin, uh something

44:15like this where we prepare a compliance

44:17report, we walk the site, we take

44:20photos, we look at items of where work

44:23may be moving, we will look at where

44:25work has been completed. uh if we notice

44:28that a portion of silt fence was damaged

44:31that would be noted for repair and we

44:33also come back at the ne next inspection

44:36to ensure that the items that were noted

44:38for action and remediation previously

44:40had been completed. So um these reports

44:44live on site in the trailer Connecticut

44:46deep could uh complete an inspection at

44:49any time. Uh and uh you this is just a

44:52sample of one to show you what that

44:54regular uh ongoing observation looks

44:57like while the the site is under

44:58construction.

45:23Good evening. Um, good to see everybody

45:26again. So, uh, we don't have any new

45:28material tonight, so hopefully we can

45:30>> continue to for the record introduce

45:32yourselves.

45:32>> Yes, my name is Andy Dufour. I'm with

45:34Meling and Blasting.

45:35>> Dave Alvi, Manger Blasting,

45:37>> and we'll jump right into it.

45:39[clears throat] Uh, this first slide

45:40here, uh, is what we call a rock cut

45:42map. Um, as you can see the the areas in

45:46red are where the construction is.

45:48That's where we anticipate a rock

45:50removal to be required by explosive

45:52methods. Um, that area there, the darker

45:55the red, um, the deeper the rock cut,

45:57the lighter the red. Um, so it's some

46:00people call it a heat cut map, but

46:01that's generated by analyzing

46:03geotechnical reports and we compare

46:05those against uh, the design plan and

46:08um, that's how we do our quantity

46:09takeoffs. Uh so we then overlay that

46:12onto this aerial photo here so we can

46:14compare it to the closest structures um

46:17which you can see on there. Uh there's

46:19two lines um shown on this map. Uh the

46:23first one's in red. That is a 250 foot

46:27offset to the closest bore hole where

46:29rock removal will be required. Um what

46:32that line is is uh it's a code line. So,

46:36for us to pull a permit, we have to

46:38prove that we've done pre blast

46:40inspections of any existing structures

46:42within that um zone. Uh the orange line

46:46is what this project specific

46:48requirement is for us to do. That's a

46:501500 ft line. Um so, you know, 250 into

46:54to 1500, right? That's six. So, I don't

46:56know if that's six times um the amount,

46:59but that's what's going to be required

47:00for us to to go out and do our work

47:02before we pull our permit. Um so just

47:05wanted to point that out here but uh how

47:07um far beyond the regulation we have to

47:09do for pre-blast surveys.

47:13Next slide. Uh so this slide here is um

47:16a slide we presented before because we

47:19wanted to show uh the environmental

47:21impact or address the environmental

47:23impact. Um so like we said before we

47:26didn't want to come up here and tell you

47:27what we can and can't do, right? but

47:29show you what we have done and where um

47:32rock fragmentation by explosives

47:34methods, you know, can be used safely

47:35because it's used uh quite frequently.

47:38But this was a um a job in Abington

47:40where they had to expand their their

47:43reservoir. Um so the scope here was more

47:45than 900,000 lbs of explosives were

47:48used. Uh and blasting took place below

47:51the water table, you know, directly

47:52directly adjacent to the actively used

47:55existing reservoir. Um, so that top

47:58picture in the uh in the photo split

48:00there, you can see the the existing

48:02reservoir right there with the active

48:05blasting going on in that light brown

48:07area while that reservoir was in

48:10existence. Um, and then the the photo

48:12below is is current day. So that

48:15reservoir was expanded um by the use of

48:17blasting.

48:19>> Excuse me. Can you explain if that's

48:21Abington Mass? Abington.

48:22>> It's Abington Mass. It's Abington Mass.

48:24Yes.

48:28>> [clears throat]

48:29>> Um, in blasting, we are obviously

48:31heavily regulated by federal, state, and

48:33local authorities. If you look on the

48:35right, that is a sample blast report

48:36that actually came from a project we did

48:38in Killingly earlier this year. Um, we

48:40did get a permit from the fire marshall.

48:43This project was different than the one

48:45we are currently looking at. Um, this

48:47was in a neighborhood in close proximity

48:48to houses and obviously school, trails,

48:50and the rest of it. Safety is our

48:53priority. Um and we will comply with any

48:56and all regulations.

49:01This is a seismma graph. So this is our

49:04report card. This will measure ground

49:06response as well as uh air over

49:08pressure. These will be set up all along

49:10the project. Um they record actual

49:13events. Um and they are used throughout.

49:16They'll be surrounding the project

49:17probably on all four corners.

49:22And again, this is a notification we um

49:24offer to anyone. Um so there is a phone

49:27number up there you can call if you

49:28would like to be on the call list and

49:31that will be at one hour before each

49:32blast.

49:37>> Thank you.

49:38>> Thank you.

49:39>> So quick question for you. Please step

49:40away, please.

49:41>> You mentioned the geotech report. What

49:43geotech report did you review?

49:46>> Um we've got that actually from the

49:48customer. So it's basically a boring

49:49log.

49:50>> I'm sorry. It's what

49:51>> basically a boring log. Well, they'll

49:52actually go do borings pits.

49:54>> I don't I don't recall that in the

49:56record seeing any geotech report with

49:57boring logs.

49:58>> Um I can double check. My engineer put

50:00that together for me, but I can get you

50:02that information if you like.

50:02>> And what's the maximum depth of your

50:04blasting?

50:05>> Sorry, not blasting but rock cut.

50:06>> Sure. It's approximately 40 ft give or

50:08take. They're off a little bit. Um once

50:11it's stripped, we'll have a much better

50:12idea.

50:13>> And how much under blast are you doing

50:14below the below the finish grade?

50:16>> Uh varies. Um minimal sub drill in the

50:19building footprint. Um, we'll actually

50:21do test drilling with that. So, we'll

50:23excavate after a test blast to make sure

50:24that we achieve the grade we wanted. Um,

50:26but we do want to basically just go

50:28about a foot to two feet under the

50:30building footprint.

50:31>> Okay. And what was that blast line that

50:32was on the um western side below the uh

50:35retaining wall?

50:36>> That's So, if you're looking at the red,

50:39that's the 250, which is code.

50:40>> No, no, no. The a little bit of blasting

50:42occurring there.

50:44>> Oh, that's just uh for retaining walls

50:45or fill walls, I believe.

50:47>> Okay.

50:48you know material that has to lay back.

50:50>> Yeah, that's fill in the wall.

50:52>> Those are shallow cuts down there.

50:55>> If you kind of look at the top, you can

50:56see those dark reds as Andy spoke to.

50:58And that's that's where the majority of

50:59the rock is.

51:01>> And how many how many private or public

51:03wells are inside your 1600 foot radius,

51:06you said?

51:07>> Yes, that I don't have.

51:13>> Should that be in your blasting plan?

51:15Uh, we would get with Randy on that, but

51:16for us to get private wells, I don't I

51:18don't know if that information is

51:20readily available to us.

51:22>> Do we know how many residents are in

51:23that side zone?

51:24>> Uh, I believe there's eight total.

51:32>> Okay, thank you.

51:35>> Dustin Curran, Ryan Company's director

51:37of real estate development. Uh maybe you

51:39can clarify too just on the 1500 ft

51:41radius that that is a voluntary

51:43extension beyond the code required. So

51:46we're doing that voluntarily outside of

51:48the code uh to expand on our monitoring

51:52um of the site. So it's beyond code

51:55undership. There's also some deep

51:57guidance out there too that you didn't

51:59mention at all here that we talked about

52:00I believe at one point in time. Some can

52:02get deep guidance on blasting

52:06>> from the state itself.

52:07>> Yeah. Uh yeah, we would follow all

52:09regulations with the state.

52:10>> Sorry, it's a guidance memo on blasting

52:11and effects on groundwater quality.

52:14>> So actually I'm glad Andy brought that

52:15up. So if you look at the IME which is

52:18on the Abington slide, that's best

52:20practices and that's how we do not

52:23contaminate any type of water with

52:24nitrates.

52:28That's not our standard. That's theirs.

52:34and uh Commissioner Card Timurko with

52:37Lang and um I had I had I believe before

52:40the uh the main drilling folks were here

52:43I had provided the uh the quotes from

52:45the deep guidance. We'll find those and

52:47and provide them. Off the top of my head

52:49I believe the range is somewhere in the

52:525 to 600 foot is the the offset at the

52:55maximum extent from deep guidance on uh

52:59on testing. So, it's larger than, I

53:01believe, the code requirement for the

53:02250 ft, but well below the the 1500

53:06proposed there. But I I'll I'll clarify

53:07that.

53:08>> Yeah. And I'm more concerned. I'd like

53:09to see whatever geotech information

53:10they've um based their drilling on. Um

53:13that's been one of my comments for a

53:14while now, especially it relates to the

53:16gravel rules. So, um we have not seen a

53:19full geotech analysis in my as far as I

53:21know in the record. Any

53:28other questions?

53:30>> Thank you.

53:30>> Thank you very much.

53:39>> Good evening everybody. Juan Bernui with

53:42McGregor.

53:44The proposed LZD1 facility is a modern

53:48industrial and logistic development

53:50designed to support distribution

53:52operations to the efficient side

53:55circulation

53:57trailer storage employee parking support

53:59infrastructure.

54:00The project includes a board warehouse

54:03building along with a main office

54:06component that incorporate employees

54:08amenities

54:10training facilities and administration

54:12functions.

54:14The building consists on 1,186

54:18984 square footage warehouse facility

54:21with a building footprint measure around

54:2364 ft by 1,848 ft. The facilities

54:28include a second level mezzanine with

54:31approximately 1,35,270

54:35square footage, 36,000 square uh foot

54:40main office bamount and three ancillary

54:42buildings uh two uh guard houses and one

54:47pal fire pump house. Uh the building

54:50height is 50 feet that is in compliant

54:52with the current code. Um the building

54:56is designed

54:58utilizing low bearing insulated pre-cast

55:01uh concrete wall panels with interior

55:03structural steel framing system. The

55:06roof structure is of steel bar joist and

55:09joist griders. Also the build the

55:12facility will be fully heated and

55:14conditioned to maintain

55:18interior temperatures and also will be

55:21include fire protection system uh that

55:24it will be discussed later um for

55:27security

55:29sustainability was a key consideration

55:30for this building. to the design. The

55:33project incorporates low carbon concrete

55:36f foot foundations footing and slab and

55:39gr construction with a targeted of 8%

55:42reduction in involved carbon along with

55:45low carbon structure steel targeting an

55:47additional 10% reduction. Building

55:50systems are fully electric including

55:52HBAC system to support to reduce the

55:54operational emission of the building.

55:57Water conservation is achieved through

56:00the use of lowflow domestic plumbing

56:02fixtures while energy efficient is

56:05encased to the high efficiency LED

56:07lighting through the interior and

56:09exterior of the facility. Coupling

56:12daylight harvesting control to reduce

56:14lighting demand when natural day is

56:17available. The project also supports

56:19transportation certification by

56:21providing EV charging infrastructure

56:23within the trunking core. During the

56:26construction, a comprehensive waste

56:28manage program will be divert 80% of the

56:30construction waste from landfills

56:32furthering reducing the products

56:34environment impact and supporting

56:36sustainable building practices.

56:41Any questions?

56:47Thank you.

56:49Um Durko, professional engineer with

56:52Langan. Uh also included uh in the plan

56:56set is a planting plan that identifies

56:58on-site plantings uh as well as

57:00restoration to areas that are disturbed

57:02outside of the the truck or associate

57:06parking area. Um plant size and species

57:09are uh included in the plan set to to

57:12show what they are. Um this is a a mix

57:15of uh native vegetation with a a good

57:19diversity of species. So we don't have a

57:21monoculture on site uh including trees

57:23and bushes and shrubs.

57:28>> Do you want me to talk about signage

57:30here? Sure. U uh on the site plan we

57:33identify at the site entrance to uh the

57:36property from Westcot Road that there

57:38would be a monument sign. Uh specifics

57:42are included in in the plan set. Uh hard

57:44to read of the dimensions up there. I

57:47don't know if you can see them on your

57:48screen, Dustin. Looks like 12 feet wide

57:49and

57:51eight and 8t tall. Thank you.

57:56>> You got a location for this sign more

57:59specific?

58:00>> Yes.

58:02I don't know if you want to

58:05try and point to it. So, uh, call it,

58:08uh, adjacent to the D off of WCOT. So,

58:11it's right on the side of the driveway.

58:13Yes, thank you. Yeah, it would be right

58:15at the side of the entrance drive on

58:17West. Do

58:18>> you have a detail on in the drawings of

58:20exactly where it's going to be located?

58:21>> Yes, the site plan does show exactly

58:23where the sign is located.

58:24>> The lighting.

58:25>> Yes.

58:26>> For it as well.

58:27>> Yep.

58:29>> And was that the actual sign that's

58:31going to be used?

58:32>> Yes.

58:32>> So, there's going to be labeled

58:33fulfillment center. Well, the the box uh

58:37the box to the left would have the uh

58:39the Amazon name next to the fulfillment.

58:41>> I'm more worried about the word

58:42fulfillment. It will have fulfillment

58:44there.

58:46>> I don't know the exact wording that

58:48would be on the sign, but we'll get it

58:50for you.

58:51>> Thank you.

58:56Uh as part of the prior application, we

58:59spent some time uh looking at sight

59:01lines and cross-sections from

59:03surrounding roads and properties to the

59:06building itself. Uh we prepared six

59:09crosssections

59:10labeled A through F here. Um and we'll

59:15start at the top with A taking you from

59:19Mockingbird Lane. This is on the north

59:21side of the site to um to the proposed

59:25building recognizing that the dimensions

59:28are very small at this scale but from

59:31the building uh which is the Amazon on

59:35the right hand side to the nearest home

59:37uh on mockingb bird is 3,280

59:40ft and as you can see the existing

59:43topography is represented there as well

59:45as the existing um trees and vegetation.

59:49So the building would not be visible

59:51from the north.

59:53>> So that section of the building is that

59:55the rooftop we're looking at

59:57>> that that is that section. Yep. That

1:00:00little guy at the the right hand side

1:00:02that is cutting through the the building

1:00:05profile. So that is a 50 foot tall

1:00:08building uh on site. The grades you can

1:00:12see there's a call out for truck court

1:00:14immediately to the left of the building.

1:00:17you then uh enter um undisturbed land.

1:00:22You would actually cross through a

1:00:23function of uh somewhat yeah right

1:00:26around there you're in the um the the

1:00:29hunting preserve uh some of their

1:00:32clearing and then eventually you you

1:00:34head to uh the private property on the

1:00:36left hand side. So over 3,000 ft of

1:00:39separation between uh building to

1:00:42building.

1:00:46uh similarly prepared a section. This is

1:00:49kind of heading diagonally in the

1:00:51northeast direction uh to Cook Hill

1:00:54Road. Uh again, you've got a separation

1:00:58distance of 2,692

1:01:01ft building to building. And uh because

1:01:05of the cuts that we have along the

1:01:08eastern side of the building, you can

1:01:09actually see that the building sits down

1:01:12relative to existing grade uh and is

1:01:14blocked by topography and existing

1:01:17vegetation as you run along that entire

1:01:19section. Portions of that today are

1:01:22actively cleared and managed by the hunt

1:01:24club. And uh that clearing and activity

1:01:27would stop once the um the hunting club

1:01:30was closed. And just on these

1:01:32cross-sections, what's the source of

1:01:34your uh vegetation elevation?

1:01:37>> Uh a typical ochre maple, I think, at 50

1:01:40to 60 feet.

1:01:42>> So, are those scaling at 60 ft or or or

1:01:46taller in uh in some cases? So, they're

1:01:50mature growth trees uh between

1:01:53properties

1:01:54>> and that's representative of what's out

1:01:56there.

1:01:56>> Yes.

1:02:00So between B and C,

1:02:04right in the middle, you you pick that

1:02:06area to go to B

1:02:08>> and but right in the middle.

1:02:09>> Yeah.

1:02:10>> Perpendicular. Correct.

1:02:11>> Yeah.

1:02:12>> So about how far is that road from the

1:02:14building?

1:02:16>> Uh farther than 2,692

1:02:20ft.

1:02:21>> So it's further out.

1:02:22>> Yeah. We we went to closest points which

1:02:24were on the corner. The distance spreads

1:02:27farther. Um, and that's that is markover

1:02:30preserve land uh from there uh there to

1:02:34the east.

1:02:34>> So the residences on in the section that

1:02:37I'm talking about would be further out

1:02:39than in

1:02:40>> we we we yes we picked these sections to

1:02:43find closest homes. So uh I think when

1:02:45we first started our presentations early

1:02:48in the year um we didn't have a section

1:02:50going to A. We added A. Um we had left

1:02:53it off because it was closer but or it

1:02:56was further away. um but have now kind

1:02:58of hit the spiral around. If there was a

1:03:01desire for us to cut another one, more

1:03:02than happy to do that. Um but think we

1:03:05kind of representatively kind of swung

1:03:07the pendulum around in all directions.

1:03:10Uh C is uh to mash and tuck. Uh this

1:03:15distance is uh 1,943

1:03:18ft. And here you've got again existing

1:03:21vegetation. you have um

1:03:25uh quite a bit of topography change too

1:03:27that u prevents sight lines between

1:03:30structure to the proposed building. We

1:03:34then go to Wescott. Uh this is this is a

1:03:37long run kind of mimicking the length of

1:03:40the driveway. And here we've got uh

1:03:432,920 ft from the building out to the

1:03:48property. And this property is actually

1:03:49on the far side of WCOT Road in that um

1:03:53the homes on the north side of WCOT Road

1:03:57uh are part of the application property.

1:03:59So uh you can see the property line in

1:04:01red there on the lefth hand side. You'd

1:04:03have then crosscott and then uh get to

1:04:05that far structure. And then uh our last

1:04:08section, our second to last section is

1:04:11E2. And this crosses from uh the western

1:04:17side of the site across the 395 corridor

1:04:21to the homes uh on the on the far side

1:04:24of 395. And that distance is 1,650

1:04:28ft. Uh and through vegetation uh

1:04:32specifically the vegetation on the uh

1:04:35west side of 395, the the building and

1:04:38site improvements would not be visible.

1:04:40Um, this is also an area where we can

1:04:42point Dustin, um, on the top of the

1:04:46retaining wall on our site. Uh, uh,

1:04:49Commissioner Thurlo, I believe you, we

1:04:51had spent some time as part of the prior

1:04:52application talking about, uh, the

1:04:55desire for triple row screening that's

1:04:57included here, a mix of species so that

1:05:01we have both, um, quick growth as well

1:05:04as long-term visual and audio

1:05:07protection. Uh so using a mix of furs

1:05:10and spruces. We know furs grow quick but

1:05:13then they become limmy down below. So

1:05:15we've uh chosen a mix of trees with

1:05:18heights uh varying from 6 feet to 14 ft

1:05:21at planting. So you get a full spread uh

1:05:23in multiple rows as well as the fence

1:05:25that exists behind the retaining wall.

1:05:27So um that continues to be carried

1:05:29through as part of this application

1:05:31after our discussion um at length about

1:05:33that as part of the prior application.

1:05:35and that those trees are reflected um

1:05:38with heights and species on the

1:05:39landscape plan.

1:05:42And then um the the last section we have

1:05:45here is from the intersection of WCot

1:05:47and Mash and Tuck uh through the the

1:05:50southern side of the property showing uh

1:05:53a separation distance of 3,170

1:05:58ft from uh the nearest home uh at that

1:06:02intersection.

1:06:16Hello. Uh my name is Chris Summers. I'm

1:06:17a fire protection engineer with HGI.

1:06:21[clears throat]

1:06:22Excuse me. Uh this building is going to

1:06:25be protected uh complete with a fully

1:06:27automatic uh sprinkler system that's

1:06:30been designed uh based on a

1:06:32performance-based design specific to the

1:06:35um commodity and storage arrangement

1:06:38with the ASRS system in this building.

1:06:41Um there are also going to be two

1:06:43independently um sourced and powered

1:06:46diesel fire pumps. one on the um

1:06:52northeast corner of the of the site and

1:06:54also on the southeast corner of the

1:06:56site. This provides 100% fire flow for 4

1:06:58hours which is uh double the code

1:07:01required uh for this building. Um and

1:07:05also for uh an S1 building um there's

1:07:08minimal fire fire audio and visual

1:07:11alarms. This building has a complete

1:07:13NFPA72

1:07:14uh fire uh fire alarm system which uh is

1:07:18above and beyond the code minimum. Uh

1:07:20the performance base design um which is

1:07:23based on fullscale fire testing in

1:07:24Uwell's labs in North Brook, Illinois.

1:07:27Um that design report has been submitted

1:07:31and approved by the Connecticut State

1:07:33Fire Marshall. Um and that

1:07:36correspondence has has gone to the fire

1:07:38marshal uh Killingly Fire Marshall as

1:07:40well.

1:07:43So the building uh utilizes uh what

1:07:46essentially looks like a Roomba. It's a

1:07:48uh automated storage and retrieval

1:07:51system with uh thousands of robots

1:07:55working throughout the robotic storage

1:07:56field. Uh these robots are um have

1:08:00battery management systems that uh

1:08:02maintain the health of the and of the

1:08:05unit itself. There are no lithium ion

1:08:08storage on site for this facility. Any

1:08:11problem for this uh robot would be

1:08:14handled offsite uh triggered by that BMS

1:08:17system. Um

1:08:20Amazon utilizes those throughout their

1:08:22all their facilities across the the

1:08:24United States and and the world.

1:08:27Um like I said before, this uh

1:08:29performancebased design um it's it's

1:08:31based on full scale fire testing. I was

1:08:33just there this week in Chicago myself

1:08:35doing full-scale fire testing. Uh,

1:08:40basically what it is is it it it we we

1:08:43light this stuff on fire in the in a

1:08:45worst case scenario against the exact

1:08:47same sprinkler system that's going to be

1:08:49putting the the fire out. Um, minimally

1:08:52code requires you contain a fire. Uh, we

1:08:54we get it down to suppression. Okay. So,

1:08:57if a fire starts within two minutes,

1:08:59it's suppressed. And that's the same for

1:09:01this type of facility as well.

1:09:03Um there's also another code uh path

1:09:06that we use for the uh performance

1:09:08performance-based design and that is uh

1:09:10egress. Uh we use uh computer modeling

1:09:13to make sure that there is full egress

1:09:16uh within a within a uh 20-minute period

1:09:19which is well within the uh the

1:09:22parameters of this building as well.

1:09:25>> Any questions?

1:09:28>> What kind of batteries do you use? You

1:09:30say that you don't use lithium ion.

1:09:32>> No, there's no lithium ion storage. I

1:09:34said in this in this facility that the

1:09:36batteries do use lithium ion in within

1:09:38the

1:09:38>> So you they are being used then. You

1:09:41just don't store them there. Is that it?

1:09:43>> That's correct. There's no storage.

1:09:44>> Okay.

1:09:49>> Where are they charged?

1:09:50>> The charged self-contained the the

1:09:53batteries are self-contained within the

1:09:54units and they're they're charged

1:09:56similar to the how you would charge a

1:09:58computer. They're uh they have uh

1:10:00charging stations throughout the uh

1:10:01spread throughout the facility.

1:10:03>> Have you considered making a charging

1:10:06room?

1:10:07>> That has not been a consideration.

1:10:10>> Could it be?

1:10:12>> I don't know that I could answer that.

1:10:13That that would be an operational uh

1:10:15Amazon question for sure.

1:10:18I like that to be brought up that if all

1:10:22the battery if you're charging in one

1:10:24area and you can segregate that room if

1:10:27something happens to the battery you're

1:10:29not all over the place.

1:10:32>> I would argue that that would create a

1:10:35storage type situation which would be a

1:10:37beyond what we're doing. Uh by

1:10:40scattering it throughout you're you're

1:10:41limiting the uh the load to that

1:10:46to your concern. So,

1:10:47>> right, but if you got a fire,

1:10:50if you got a segregated room and you can

1:10:52segregate it, shut it off from, you

1:10:55know, stop the oxygen, it'll kill the

1:10:56fire.

1:11:00>> I I guess I disagree with you.

1:11:04>> Okay. Just something I wish somebody

1:11:06would look at. And do you have will then

1:11:10that's operation and that's uh

1:11:12guidelines as far as accountability. If

1:11:15there is a fire

1:11:18you need to accountability for the

1:11:21personnel inside.

1:11:24>> Yeah, I agree completely. My my whole

1:11:26design is based on accountability for

1:11:28fire safety. That's what we want.

1:11:30>> Okay.

1:11:31>> We're going to design it. This building

1:11:33is very robustly designed. It's It's

1:11:35above and beyond any building you're

1:11:37you've been in before, I promise. So,

1:11:41>> plus the accountability for personnel,

1:11:43make sure everybody's out.

1:11:44>> Yeah. And that's that's covered with the

1:11:46uh the smoke modeling. That's an egress

1:11:48modeling um computerized software that

1:11:51that models how long it takes for an

1:11:54individual to to get from where they

1:11:56need to be or from where they are to

1:11:58where they need to be. And that even

1:11:59includes the storage fields which don't

1:12:01contain uh people. So, we've designed to

1:12:04a spot uh even beyond where the uh where

1:12:07the members will be.

1:12:10>> Okay.

1:12:10>> One followup question. You said you

1:12:12could fire out.

1:12:14>> You could put the fire out fast.

1:12:16>> Yep.

1:12:17>> I saw where a Tesla truck burnt the

1:12:20other day and the thing kept on burning.

1:12:23They couldn't put it out. How what's a

1:12:25process that you use to put out a

1:12:27lithium ion barrett?

1:12:28>> We don't store Tesla trucks.

1:12:29>> You don't what? We do not store Tesla

1:12:32trucks.

1:12:33>> I didn't uh

1:12:36>> they didn't store they don't store Tesla

1:12:38trucks.

1:12:40>> No batteries.

1:12:41>> The fire load is completely different.

1:12:42>> I'm assuming that they use lithium ion

1:12:44batteries. That's why I mentioned it.

1:12:46Correct.

1:12:47>> And that thing was on the road. It

1:12:48caught fire. Or if you had a fire in

1:12:51your warehouse with one of those

1:12:52batteries, you said that you can put it

1:12:55out in a hurry. They couldn't put that

1:12:57thing out in a hurry. How do you put it

1:12:59out in a hurry? That's my question.

1:13:01>> So, for for

1:13:04historical purposes, these uh the

1:13:06lithium-ion batteries, which are

1:13:08generally smaller than a garden tractor,

1:13:10are within the uh robotics unit. It's

1:13:14high dense plast. It's contained within

1:13:15highdense plastic and metal, which is

1:13:18limited or non-combustible materials.

1:13:20We've actually tried to light some of

1:13:23these on fire during our fire testing.

1:13:25it's we're unsuccessful even in even

1:13:27creating the combustion for that. So

1:13:29they're self-contained. If there if they

1:13:31had any issue where it may get close to

1:13:34having an issue, whether it's

1:13:35temperature, some sort of battery

1:13:36mismanagement, the battery management

1:13:38system takes, you know, shuts it down in

1:13:40place, sends an alert to one of the

1:13:42associates. The associates will take it

1:13:44take care of it in their manner. They

1:13:46send it off site to be reconditioned or

1:13:49fixed. in that regard. They have over 10

1:13:53million of these units and they have not

1:13:54had a single one light on fire.

1:13:59>> Okay.

1:14:04>> Is that it? Thanks.

1:14:15>> Good evening. Ben Muller with Ostard.

1:14:19Um so ju just for uh we're going to walk

1:14:21through the stages we did in our sound

1:14:23study. Um keep it high level but we we

1:14:27look at all these any project regardless

1:14:29of whether it's a warehouse or or any

1:14:31other type of project. But we're going

1:14:33to look at what our our code limits are.

1:14:36We're going to do acoustical modeling of

1:14:38our site sound emissions and then uh to

1:14:40compare it to those ordinances and then

1:14:42assist with development of any necessary

1:14:44mitigation in order to bring that into

1:14:45compliance. Next slide please.

1:14:48Um, we've seen several slides of the

1:14:50site and its layout uh throughout the

1:14:52evening. So, I won't belabor it. Um, but

1:14:55we're fully within the BP uh business

1:14:57park district. And I bring that up

1:14:58because we have codes that relate to the

1:15:01zone. Um, and then as we just heard with

1:15:03our sighteline discussions, all

1:15:05residences are in excess of 1500 feet

1:15:07away uh from the proposed building. Next

1:15:10slide.

1:15:12Uh, so going over our regulations. So,

1:15:14under the state, the Connecticut state

1:15:16code, which sections 22A,

1:15:19um it's going to be limited based on the

1:15:21source, the receptor use, not the zone,

1:15:24and the time of day. And it's going to

1:15:26apply at the receptor uh beyond our

1:15:29property line. For residences during the

1:15:31day, the daytime hours between 7 a.m.

1:15:34and 10 p.m. is going to be 61 dBA. dB

1:15:38being the uh abbreviation for decibel

1:15:40and A signifying the A waiting uh which

1:15:42is the common metric to evaluate

1:15:44environmental noise during the nighttime

1:15:46that limits decreased by 10 dB down to

1:15:4851 and that's to be more accommodating

1:15:51for uh the sensitivity increase during

1:15:53sleeping hours the provision the codes

1:15:56also have um flexibility or or

1:15:59discretion to allow for higher sound to

1:16:03be um emitted for short periods of time

1:16:07and that's no different than what we

1:16:09experience on a daily basis when a car

1:16:10plane passes by or a vehicle passes by

1:16:13and so the human response to sound is

1:16:16going to be more tolerable if it's in a

1:16:17short duration. Uh so just as there are

1:16:20se several different um adjustments that

1:16:23can be done. The one that would apply to

1:16:26the s to this activity on site would be

1:16:29that we can increase the sound uh limit

1:16:31by 3dB for periods of less than 15

1:16:34minutes.

1:16:35There's also u other noise ordinances

1:16:38for impulsive sounds which are are the a

1:16:40clap a sound shorter than one second. So

1:16:43that would be your coupling to coupling

1:16:45uh or other types of of of uh a short

1:16:48duration air brake release would be

1:16:50another example of on-site impulsive. I

1:16:53won't belabor that because it's done

1:16:54using a different uh metric. Um and

1:16:58we're really not at any uh have any

1:17:00issues with compliance with that. Uh

1:17:02lastly to point out that the specific

1:17:05sound emission ordinance does exclude

1:17:07motor vehicles. Those are regulated

1:17:09separately. And well when they say then

1:17:12well what does it apply to? Uh it would

1:17:14apply to all stationary noise sources.

1:17:16So that would be your HVAC and the

1:17:18Connecticut code also goes into detail

1:17:20about how that would apply to any

1:17:22unloading and loading once the truck is

1:17:24positioned in the dock and turned off.

1:17:26We move on to uh motor vehicle ordinance

1:17:29under 14-8A.

1:17:32Um here the vehicles are regulated by

1:17:36their sound emissions based on a

1:17:37distance from the vehicle and their

1:17:39speed and the type of surface they're

1:17:41on. Um when you look at that, that makes

1:17:44the noise code [clears throat] relative

1:17:47to the vehicle. And so a vehicle can

1:17:49kind of travel anywhere it's permitted

1:17:51to and still comply with that code. So,

1:17:54uh, we find that not only do modern

1:17:57vehicles fully comply with th those

1:17:58limits, uh, but they're also not useful

1:18:01in an evaluation, um, such as what we're

1:18:03trying to do, which is determine if

1:18:05there's any impacts to the surrounding

1:18:06area. Uh, just as an example here, for

1:18:09heavy trucks, the sound limit for the

1:18:10state code would be 86 at 50 ft, and

1:18:13that's for a truck going under 35 miles

1:18:15per hour. So, that's one of the more

1:18:17stringent limits, and you'll see when we

1:18:19talk about the actual on-site activity

1:18:21that they're all well below that. Next

1:18:23slide. Can you uh before you go uh can

1:18:25you can you identify what your source

1:18:27and receptor classes are that you put up

1:18:29there?

1:18:30>> Um

1:18:32class of vehicle you're saying?

1:18:34>> No. As far as the top line. So basically

1:18:36the red the limits that you provided

1:18:38right it's limit based on source and

1:18:39receptor use. Right.

1:18:40>> So would that be a class C source to a

1:18:42class A receptor?

1:18:43>> Yes. Correct.

1:18:44>> A class E source is defined as what

1:18:46>> as uh would be industrial sources

1:18:48>> and Okay. And what's a what's a class B?

1:18:50B is uh commercial and A would be

1:18:53residential or noise sensitive.

1:18:54>> Should this use be more a class B

1:18:56receptor, a class B source even though

1:18:59it's a business park and and also more

1:19:02commercial in nature versus industrial?

1:19:04>> Uh I don't I don't think so. Um when you

1:19:06have you can look at the different types

1:19:08of uses. I know industrial by definition

1:19:11is that you have to make something. Um

1:19:14however when we look at the class of the

1:19:17quantity of vehicles and the caliber of

1:19:19our modern warehouse uh professionally I

1:19:21would put it into an industrial category

1:19:24>> right but vehicles are separate. So what

1:19:25would be the limits if it was a class B

1:19:26to a class A.

1:19:28>> Um

1:19:31I don't have that on hand. Um I

1:19:35I'd have to dig it out for you. Uh

1:19:37actually hold maybe I do have it written

1:19:39down here.

1:19:56No, I don't have that uh handy, but I

1:19:58can look into that. You're you're

1:20:00implying that it would be a a a more

1:20:03stringent

1:20:05>> uh criteria.

1:20:06>> Yes,

1:20:06>> correct. Yes.

1:20:07>> Um understood. Um, but number one, I

1:20:11guess I would believe my opinion is that

1:20:14this is an industrial source. And number

1:20:17two, uh, despite there being changes in

1:20:20those criteria, uh, the the limits that

1:20:24we're talking about here, 51 at night is

1:20:27more than protective for, uh,

1:20:29residential communities. Um, we see that

1:20:31practiced in various municipalities. My

1:20:35office is based in New Jersey. Our state

1:20:37code for night is 50. Uh I I believe in

1:20:40in my opinion the class B to class A

1:20:43difference is because when you have a

1:20:46purposeful

1:20:47um commercial area, maybe your your main

1:20:50street or your you know retail uh office

1:20:53type use that are adjacent to houses

1:20:56that is more stringent because

1:20:57businesses are often used as a

1:20:59transitionary

1:21:01um zone between residences and u and

1:21:05businesses. Would you not believe that a

1:21:07business park zone is a commercial is is

1:21:09a purposeful commercial zone?

1:21:11>> No, I I don't believe so. I mean, the

1:21:13zoning regulations uh allow for all all

1:21:15kinds of things and we heard a lot of

1:21:17testimony earlier on this evening that

1:21:19warehouses are permitted use. Uh so

1:21:22business park as the modern definition

1:21:23goes has expanded to be different kinds

1:21:27of businesses.

1:21:28>> Right. But to and just going back to

1:21:29your own words so I was clear. an

1:21:31industrial class C industrial zone is

1:21:33usually defined as something a business

1:21:34that makes something correct.

1:21:36>> Yes. Per definition. Yes. In in most

1:21:39ordinances and from a noise point of

1:21:41view, uh I kind of consider I would

1:21:44consider industrial to be a

1:21:46classification of of caliber.

1:21:49>> Right. Thank you.

1:21:50>> Mhm.

1:21:52Um so moving on to the local ordinance,

1:21:54uh we have article four of the killingly

1:21:57uh code. It it uses the same limits that

1:22:00the state does uh but it's regulated by

1:22:02zone, not by use. So that would mean

1:22:04that if you had a resident in a

1:22:06non-conforming um district, then that

1:22:09the local code wouldn't provide

1:22:11protection for that receptor. Uh we have

1:22:15again the 61 uh and 51 ordinances. Uh

1:22:19similar to the state, the local

1:22:20ordinance also provides this exception

1:22:22to allow for um slight exceedences for

1:22:25short durations. Uh the local code also

1:22:28defers to the state ordinance for motor

1:22:31vehicle and there other exclusion of

1:22:34relevance here is warning devices such

1:22:36as backup alarms.

1:22:38Next slide.

1:22:41So how do we look at all of this? Right?

1:22:43We have some things that are clearly

1:22:44regulated. We have some things that are

1:22:46are not regulated or in the in the event

1:22:48of motor vehicles, they're regulated in

1:22:50a manner that is uh different compared

1:22:54to how sight sound emissions are looked

1:22:55at. So for our steady noise sources, our

1:22:58stationary, which would be our HVAC, it

1:23:00would be the loading and loading once

1:23:02trucks in a dock. Uh those are clearly

1:23:04defined per both state and local

1:23:05ordinances. And we would uh look at the

1:23:0861 and the 51 as our criteria for motor

1:23:12vehicles. where we discussed that the

1:23:14code is relevant to the vehicle. And so

1:23:16you could have a situation where it

1:23:18could be in full compliance no matter

1:23:19where it goes to. Uh so that doesn't

1:23:22help us in in comparing whether or not

1:23:24that this type of development at this

1:23:26location would pose any dramatic

1:23:28changes. Uh so what we did was we just

1:23:31adopted that state and local noise code

1:23:33ourselves as a project goal. Uh so

1:23:35realizing that it's not code-driven uh

1:23:38but rather we think it'd be uh

1:23:40appropriate to have on-site trucks

1:23:42comply with those limits as well.

1:23:46We did two different acoustical models.

1:23:48First we looked at HVAC. We looked at

1:23:50what the collection of the proposed

1:23:52system would be um on the rooftop of the

1:23:55building. Uh roughly 168 different types

1:23:58of HC units, exhaust fans, RTUs, mega

1:24:01bear units, etc. uh anywhere from five

1:24:05horsepower, sorry, five tons to 40 tons.

1:24:08So, we looked at what those specific uh

1:24:11calls are on the roof plan to model them

1:24:14appropriately. Uh sound levels, sound

1:24:16power levels uh range from 63 to 93. So,

1:24:20little guys to to big guys. When we get

1:24:23into our trucks, then for comparison,

1:24:26um maximum trucks driving around a site

1:24:29will produce levels of 74 at 50 ft. when

1:24:32we have our higher level events, which

1:24:35would be backup alarms, uh, coupling to

1:24:38decoupling, which is connecting or

1:24:39disconnecting trailers, uh, or air brake

1:24:42release, we can have maximum sound

1:24:44levels slightly higher, 79 at 50 ft. So,

1:24:47you can see already that both of those

1:24:49fully comply with the Connecticut state

1:24:51motor vehicle limits. Um, idling truck

1:24:54is going to be significantly lower in

1:24:56level. I I typically don't focus on

1:24:58idling trucks. We we are aware that

1:25:00there are are state ordinances. um

1:25:02curtailing or or per uh allowing for

1:25:05certain durations of idling and the site

1:25:08would fully comply with those from a

1:25:10noise point of view. Uh they're kind of

1:25:12a very low level uh entity. Next slide

1:25:16please. So this is we'll call it a heat

1:25:19map but this is not a temperature

1:25:21gradient but rather sound gradient. And

1:25:24so we look at the noise source um the

1:25:27strength of the HVAC noise is is

1:25:29propagated into the model. All the blue

1:25:31pluses that we see in the center are

1:25:34representative of different HVC

1:25:35equipment and we look at how that sound

1:25:38falls off with distance through roof

1:25:40edge shielding uh through affecting or

1:25:43interacting with the geometry. Uh all

1:25:46the elevation contours are included in

1:25:48the model. Uh hard to see at this

1:25:50distance but they're shown in in a teal

1:25:53uh lines on the drawing. The red line

1:25:56shows the property boundary. And then

1:25:58when we look at the color contours, the

1:26:00one that we're really most focused on is

1:26:01going to be the gray. And that is the

1:26:0450dB color contour. And so with a

1:26:07nighttime limit of of 51, uh that's what

1:26:10we're looking at. So you can see that

1:26:12with the rooftop equipment that the 50

1:26:15doesn't even spill off uh beyond the

1:26:17site property line. Uh when we look at

1:26:19our residences, which we said are over

1:26:211500 feet away, um maximum sound

1:26:23emissions of 32 to to 38 depending on on

1:26:27your uh relative distance and uh

1:26:30location to this. So no concern about

1:26:33compliance with HVAC. I know that we

1:26:36didn't include loading and unloading in

1:26:38this, but we're going to discuss that in

1:26:39the next slide if we go to there.

1:26:42[snorts] So this is the one that's of

1:26:44more interest. Um this is the the site

1:26:48fully populated with a variety of

1:26:50driving trucks as well as multiple uh

1:26:52what we'll call truck events which are

1:26:54the 79 DBA source. So your backup alarm,

1:26:57coupling to coupling, etc. And we took

1:27:00an approach here to to really throw the

1:27:03kitchen sink at this site. I know that

1:27:05we're going to hear traffic testimony

1:27:07and you're going to hear the number of

1:27:08vehicles. Uh but from an acoustical

1:27:10standpoint, because all those noise

1:27:12sources are not only mobile, right?

1:27:14they're driving and they're coming and

1:27:15going. Uh, but they're also all dynamic.

1:27:17So, in other words, when an event

1:27:19occurs, the noise is contributed and

1:27:21then it goes away, right? When the truck

1:27:24finally goes into position and turns

1:27:25off. So, what we've done here from to be

1:27:28conservative is we modeled all of these

1:27:30entities occurring at exactly the same

1:27:32time and we showed that we can fully

1:27:34comply with the nighttime noise

1:27:35ordinance for the state and local uh uh

1:27:38code limits. Um I think also what's

1:27:40important here is to show that the site

1:27:42not only has substantial distance uh but

1:27:44we also we talked about uh from the

1:27:46blasting discussion before about how to

1:27:49the northeast there's going to be a

1:27:51substantial amount of of removal. So you

1:27:53can see then how to the northeast the

1:27:56sound propagation is is is muted. Uh how

1:27:59the color contours fall off a lot

1:28:00quicker. Uh that's purely due to that

1:28:03screening and shielding that's provided

1:28:05by the cut um to the west across the

1:28:08395. You can see that that isn't kept in

1:28:11because we have the opposite where we're

1:28:13going to be a taller noise source. Uh

1:28:15but still distance attenuation prevails

1:28:18and we have no issues with uh full

1:28:20compliance uh by the time we get off of

1:28:22our property.

1:28:24Um next slide. So, just in summary,

1:28:27right, we're able to show that this

1:28:29project uh can fully comply with state

1:28:31and local ordinances. We've adopted our

1:28:34own project goals to apply to on-site

1:28:36trucks uh which I think is prudent,

1:28:38right? We wouldn't want to I would not

1:28:40take a stance that because it's exempt

1:28:42under certain ordinances uh that that

1:28:45wouldn't uh somehow potentially create a

1:28:48nuisance. Uh we've shown here though

1:28:50that it it doesn't and in fact it's

1:28:52below those limits by a wide margin. Um

1:28:55we've also showed uh to touch upon the

1:28:58loading and unloading right when we talk

1:29:00about loading unloading um activities

1:29:02are going to be levels that are lower in

1:29:06in in level than what we've shown for

1:29:08driving trucks and the coupling

1:29:10decoupling activity that was fully

1:29:12modeled. So I'm fully confident that if

1:29:14if we were able to show the level that

1:29:16level activity as being compliant that

1:29:19if we were to specifically model loading

1:29:20and unloading and include that in the

1:29:22HVC model again that we would have full

1:29:24compliance. Um

1:29:28while not included as part of the code

1:29:30because the code is absolute uh just

1:29:31pointing out that we know that we're

1:29:33along um 395. 395 has its own presence

1:29:37and so especially for the receptors that

1:29:39are closer to either welltraveled roads

1:29:42or 395 um our sound emissions will be

1:29:47are expected to be equal to or lower

1:29:48than that. uh in other words allowing

1:29:50for greater compatibility because uh

1:29:52there are other elements that exist

1:29:54currently that will be subsume our site

1:29:57sound and then the conclusion from all

1:30:00of the above is then that we're not

1:30:01going to have a negative impact uh from

1:30:04this site.

1:30:08>> Thank you. Any questions?

1:30:09>> Can [clears throat] you go back a slide,

1:30:10please?

1:30:12>> What's what's happening up on that

1:30:14eastern side where it looks like you

1:30:15have a break line?

1:30:16>> Sure. So there's a steep elevation

1:30:18change there. So what you're seeing

1:30:19there is how that ridge is providing a

1:30:22natural buffer for the the propagation

1:30:24of sound.

1:30:28>> Okay. Is there is there varying shades

1:30:31on your color map as well? Because it

1:30:33seems like your scale colors are not

1:30:35matching the colors on the on the

1:30:36drawing itself.

1:30:37>> Uh correct. Good good uh good question.

1:30:40So what we do is we've provided the the

1:30:42actual saturated color in 5dB increments

1:30:46um along the legend. However, the actual

1:30:50uh contour increments are in one

1:30:51decibel. So for example, if we just talk

1:30:54about the difference between um the gray

1:30:57and the orange which are adjacent to

1:31:00each other uh or or or peach I should

1:31:02say you then have um if gray is 50 and

1:31:07um peach is 55 then we have a 51 that

1:31:12becomes a part gray part peach right a

1:31:14transition as it goes to that. Um so the

1:31:16each contour can be counted. So when you

1:31:19find the the gray 50dB contour, you can

1:31:22count 49, 48, 47, etc. Uh by the rings

1:31:25like you would on a topographic map. Uh

1:31:27but that's the see that has been deemed

1:31:31the easiest way to kind of relay the

1:31:34complexities of what we're talking about

1:31:35here in in a nice visual package.

1:31:37>> It's actually very confusing when you're

1:31:39looking at the color map.

1:31:40>> Okay.

1:31:41>> Um is there a note you can put on there?

1:31:43Is there different scales or just

1:31:44something else you can put in a report?

1:31:46Because I'm trying to match up your

1:31:47colors. Sorry. Like I'm trying to match

1:31:50up your colors um on the bottom here

1:31:52with the color scheme and some of them

1:31:54actually look like the 20 scale when

1:31:56you're looking at from a color

1:31:57perspective.

1:31:58>> And I know it's not 20. Um so again,

1:32:00when you're looking at the color scheme

1:32:01and the differentiation between the

1:32:02colors seems to be a little bit

1:32:04misleading when you're looking at the

1:32:06the scale compared to the color map.

1:32:08>> Um understood. uh in in

1:32:13I mean

1:32:13>> either that or label the contours do

1:32:15something to identify what those

1:32:17contours are.

1:32:17>> I can I can look into that. Uh I mean

1:32:19the the limitations are that there's

1:32:21only so many colors in the rainbow. Um

1:32:23that we're not trying to be misleading

1:32:25by having 20 dB be a very pale yellow

1:32:28and 45 be a a more banana yellow. Um I

1:32:32understand your point. There's also a

1:32:34widespread difference between those two.

1:32:36So

1:32:37reasonably, we wouldn't see 20 cropping

1:32:40up in the middle as we're going through

1:32:4250 and and 44 or sorry 40. 40 is green

1:32:46and 50 being gray. Uh I mean I could

1:32:49remove the 20. There are no 20 dB

1:32:51contours um shown on this this uh these

1:32:55results at all. That's just beyond the

1:32:57the level of

1:32:58>> No, but you can see what I'm saying. If

1:32:59you look at that 20, you look at the

1:33:00map, it looks like there's 20 across the

1:33:02map.

1:33:02>> Sure. if you're trying if you're trying

1:33:04to match up the colors because someone's

1:33:05just looking at your scale and looking

1:33:06at the map, they're like, "Oh, wait a

1:33:08minute."

1:33:08>> And for for to assist in that, we have

1:33:11our discrete locations A through G that

1:33:13are are at the surrounding receptors,

1:33:16residential receptors. And then the

1:33:17table on the the bottom left side

1:33:20tabulates what exactly you don't have to

1:33:22do any interpretation of the the the

1:33:24contours, the limit, the levels that

1:33:26it's contributing are right there.

1:33:28Right. But it but it's not a straight

1:33:29it's not a straight for a better term a

1:33:32straight line reduction in sound. You do

1:33:33have sound jumping just like that issue

1:33:36we talked about on the east side. Right.

1:33:37You do have sound jumping over that

1:33:39issue to the other side. You have higher

1:33:40sound on the other side. So again you

1:33:42can't just extrapolate down based on the

1:33:44points

1:33:45>> right and say okay it's higher as I go

1:33:46in because the sound may jump.

1:33:48>> So just something to clean it up

1:33:51identify.

1:33:51>> There's no jumping per se. Uh but

1:33:53elevation does factor in

1:33:56>> I'm I'm using simple language. I know

1:33:58the sound doesn't jump but the sound

1:33:59will jump it will move over certain

1:34:01topographies right and you might get a

1:34:03lower sound in the valley and a higher

1:34:04sound than a higher peak that's simply

1:34:06essentially jumping the valley if you

1:34:08want to call that understood.

1:34:09>> Um but again so becomes a little bit

1:34:11misleading if someone's looking at this

1:34:12from a general public point of view. So,

1:34:14I'm looking at a way for you at to fix

1:34:17this a little bit or put some additional

1:34:18contours or notes or whatever or

1:34:20nomenclatures on those contours to help

1:34:22the public and us all right look at this

1:34:25and make sense of it.

1:34:27>> Okay.

1:34:27>> Because not everybody's going to

1:34:28understand that piece of what they're

1:34:30looking at pick up on that scaling. I

1:34:32>> I guess also the um on on our in our

1:34:35defense, we're presenting this and I'm

1:34:37working through a a substantial report.

1:34:39So if you were to read the full context,

1:34:42it it it walks through that in a in a

1:34:44more logical way,

1:34:46>> but I believe the maps are the same in

1:34:47the report.

1:34:48>> They are. They are, but but the content

1:34:49is there to explain that better than

1:34:51perhaps I'm trying to uh do in a concise

1:34:54manner.

1:34:54>> Yep. And I've read the report and again

1:34:57I'm still asking you to fix it.

1:34:59>> Thank you.

1:35:00>> If I may, Tim Mandurko, professional

1:35:01engineer with Lane, would would the idea

1:35:03of major essentially major contours be

1:35:06helpful? I think to to see those

1:35:08transition points. I'm trying to think

1:35:11of like how I would compare to a

1:35:13topographic map and sometimes major

1:35:14contours are helpful in seeing the

1:35:16progression. Something along those

1:35:18lines. Is that what you're you're

1:35:19thinking?

1:35:20>> Again, as a professional engineer,

1:35:21that's what I would do. Um again, but

1:35:23I'm leaving it for you guys to decide

1:35:24how you would approach it to let the

1:35:26public understand what it is. So,

1:35:32>> question double is going to be going

1:35:34into that site.

1:35:35>> I'm sorry. What?

1:35:36>> Doubles.

1:35:38>> You mean tandem trailers?

1:35:39>> Trailers, doubles hooked together.

1:35:43>> Like a a tandem, right?

1:35:44>> Tandem. Yeah.

1:35:45>> Yeah. One one cab, two trailers

1:35:47connected.

1:35:47>> Yeah.

1:35:48>> Uh the traffic engineer could talk about

1:35:49that, but acoustically it's the cab that

1:35:52is causing the noise.

1:35:53>> Pardon?

1:35:53>> It's it's the it's the truck that

1:35:56>> you're going to you're going to have

1:35:56more activity. I mean, you got to break

1:35:59those things down and put them back

1:36:00together. I mean,

1:36:01>> right. And we included a a sub.

1:36:03>> Was that included in your studies?

1:36:05>> Coupling decoupling was. Yes.

1:36:07>> Yeah.

1:36:11>> No, no reefers. It's not cold storage

1:36:13here.

1:36:31Uh, good evening folks. Dean Gustin,

1:36:33director of environmental services,

1:36:34senior wetland scientist, All Points

1:36:36Technology, Waterford, Connecticut. Uh,

1:36:39I'd like to provide the commission with

1:36:41a brief summary of our current

1:36:42application to the Inland Wetlands

1:36:44Commission. Next slide, please.

1:36:48Um

1:36:49the project will not result in any

1:36:51impacts to the highest functioning

1:36:53wetlands and streams on the subject

1:36:54property and will actually uh subject

1:36:58those areas to preservation through

1:37:00conservation easement of the protective

1:37:02measures. Uh the project is limited to

1:37:05wetland impacts to four isolated

1:37:07wetlands that support minimal functions

1:37:10and values. In fact, the project

1:37:12received an approved jurisdictional

1:37:14determination from the New England

1:37:16District or the Army Corps of Engineers

1:37:18that those wetlands are in fact not

1:37:20regulated as federal wetlands. Our

1:37:22current wetland application has

1:37:24incorporated notable changes to the

1:37:26project including

1:37:28uh minimization and reduction in

1:37:30building size, reduction in impervious

1:37:33surfaces and stormwater runoff

1:37:34discharges to wetlands. Uh and

1:37:37particularly significant increase to the

1:37:39wetland mitigation plan. Uh we've

1:37:42increased that mitigation plan by 87%

1:37:45um from the original plan and have

1:37:47brought up the wetland mitigation area

1:37:50to 82,800 square ft. Uh which represents

1:37:54a 3.59 to1 mitigation ratio. Uh that far

1:37:59exceeds the town's 1:1 mitigation ratio

1:38:02policy. Um so the project has gone to

1:38:05great lengths to protect and preserve

1:38:07wetland resources on this project. Uh,

1:38:10and we find that it adequately addresses

1:38:12and satisfies the town's wetland

1:38:14regulations.

1:38:16So, that concludes my piece. Happy to

1:38:18answer any questions.

1:38:25>> Yeah. Um, I don't know if you're the

1:38:27right person for this question, but I'm

1:38:29wondering about um like uh salt

1:38:32treatment on the in the parking lot, how

1:38:34that might affect wetlands if there's

1:38:36some way to remove the salt once it's

1:38:38dissolved into the runoff water. Is that

1:38:42going to be removed somehow or is that

1:38:43go in into the uh wetlands and then the

1:38:46aquifer?

1:38:47>> I think that quite it's a great

1:38:49question. Number one, I think that's

1:38:51most appropriately addressed by Tim

1:38:53O'Neo as part of the storm management

1:38:55system controls.

1:39:19Uh good evening. I'm Mark Fertuchi. I'm

1:39:21a senior transportation engineer at

1:39:23Fussen O'Neal. Uh we're located at one

1:39:25financial plaza in Harford. I'm also a

1:39:28registered professional engineer in

1:39:30Connecticut and a registered

1:39:32professional traffic operations

1:39:33engineer. Uh as you know Fussen O'Neal

1:39:36did prepare a traffic study uh for this

1:39:38proposed development. I want to briefly

1:39:40describe uh what we did as part of this

1:39:43study. Um give you a high level overview

1:39:46of the uh the findings and also update

1:39:49you on where we are with the DOT and

1:39:52state traffic administration review

1:39:54process. Um first of all again just to

1:39:57orient you with the study area. Um, you

1:40:01know, the site is essentially located

1:40:03here in the northeast quadrant of the

1:40:05Westcot Road I395 interchange. So, it

1:40:09provides excellent access, um, direct

1:40:11access to the interstate highway system,

1:40:14uh, with the site driveway proposed just

1:40:16a few hundred feet off to the east of

1:40:19the 395 ramps. Uh, the access proposed

1:40:25uh, on Westcot Road is opposite the

1:40:27Reynolds and Hillside View intersection.

1:40:30Uh Wescott Road is a is designated as

1:40:33state highway 607. So it uh is a state

1:40:36road. It is under the purview of the

1:40:38department of transportation. Um as

1:40:40obviously is the uh the 395 ramps and uh

1:40:44Gothier Avenue also is a state roadway.

1:40:48We did review eight intersections in the

1:40:51study area. Uh they are denoted by the

1:40:54green circles uh on the map. So, we

1:40:57looked at obviously the site driveway

1:40:59intersection with Reynolds and Hillside

1:41:01View. Uh the 395

1:41:04uh northbound

1:41:06on-ramp and Knox intersection, the 395

1:41:09southbound off-ramp and Gothier Avenue

1:41:13intersection. Uh and then we added some

1:41:15additional study intersections that were

1:41:18uh requested as part of the Tyenbond

1:41:20peer review. In the initial application,

1:41:23uh, we extended our study area over to

1:41:25Route 12, Main Street, Wescott Road

1:41:28intersection. We looked at Westcot at

1:41:30Mashant Tuck Road, Knox at Killingly

1:41:33Drive, Gothier at Killingly Drive, and

1:41:35the 395 northbound off-ramp intersection

1:41:39uh to Knox and Lome Street. Uh, so all

1:41:43of these eight intersections were uh

1:41:45analyzed in the background and the build

1:41:49condition.

1:41:51Um so just going to explain briefly here

1:41:53what we did uh scope-wise as part of

1:41:56this study. Uh we began uh with an

1:41:58operational analysis. We did uh traffic

1:42:01counts at all of these intersections. Uh

1:42:04the the ones included in our initial

1:42:06study were done in March of 2025 and the

1:42:10additional intersections that I

1:42:12mentioned uh as a result of the tie and

1:42:14bond peer review were done in December

1:42:17of 2025.

1:42:19We did grow those counts uh to the 2027

1:42:22build year with a growth rate provided

1:42:24by the department of transportation.

1:42:27Uh we also then calculated uh the

1:42:30traffic we expect to be generated uh by

1:42:33this development using empirical data

1:42:35from Amazon. Uh the rates were highly

1:42:39conservative as we use peak seasonal

1:42:41rates. Uh we also uh did not adjust

1:42:49We also did not um adjust those rates uh

1:42:53downward for the latest uh development

1:42:56plan that is proposed. So the the

1:43:00initial plan had a higher square footage

1:43:02uh and parking uh numbers than what uh

1:43:05we currently have. So when that size of

1:43:08the development was reduced, we did not

1:43:10uh take credit for that in our

1:43:12calculation. So again, very very

1:43:13conservative with the trip generation

1:43:15rates. I did want to note all of these

1:43:19uh traffic volumes uh what the counts

1:43:22and the trip projections have been

1:43:24reviewed and approved by the DOT

1:43:26planning division. So at each of these

1:43:29study intersections then we we analyze

1:43:31them uh in the background uh 2027

1:43:34condition without the proposed

1:43:36development and then again in the 2027

1:43:39build condition with a proposed

1:43:40development and we compared uh the

1:43:43findings uh the before versus the after

1:43:45findings to determine where we had

1:43:47impacts and where we needed mitigation.

1:43:51Uh we also conducted a thorough safety

1:43:53review

1:43:55um of the study area. We confirmed u

1:43:58acceptable sight distance at the

1:44:00proposed driveway. Uh we also examined

1:44:04crash history at all of the study

1:44:06intersections to identify any abnormal

1:44:08crash patterns or frequencies. And then

1:44:10from there we developed our

1:44:11recommendations to mitigate operational

1:44:13impacts and ensure the driveway location

1:44:17and each of the intersections uh can

1:44:19maintain safe and efficient operations

1:44:22in the build condition.

1:44:24On the next slide, I'll explain the uh

1:44:28what we found in uh as the findings of

1:44:30this study as well as our

1:44:32recommendations. But I first want to

1:44:33give you a brief uh history of the

1:44:35submissions uh of this traffic study.

1:44:38Our initial submission uh is as part of

1:44:41the um earlier application. Uh the

1:44:45traffic study had two driveways. uh one

1:44:48driveway at the present Baker location

1:44:51uh and another the the second driveway

1:44:54is is the location of the current sole

1:44:56sole access to the site opposite

1:44:58Reynolds and Hillside View. Uh we

1:45:01received comments uh from OA and the

1:45:03peer reviewer Tyen Bond u requesting

1:45:07that that site access be consolidated to

1:45:10a single driveway. So, our second

1:45:12traffic study submission uh incorporated

1:45:16uh those comments and reviewed the

1:45:17single drive option. And then our latest

1:45:20traffic study submission uh earlier this

1:45:23month uh as part of the current

1:45:25application uh updated the building

1:45:28square footage and parking

1:45:31as well as some minor comments we've

1:45:32received from from Ostas so far. Um but

1:45:35again, we did not change the analysis.

1:45:37uh we maintained uh a conservative

1:45:40approach there using the larger square

1:45:42footage and parking as I mentioned a few

1:45:44moments ago.

1:45:47So the recommendations of our study uh

1:45:50were to and I'll show these on a graphic

1:45:54in a moment but uh first recommendation

1:45:57was to replace the traffic signal at

1:46:00WCOT road I395 southbound off-ramp and

1:46:04Gothier Avenue. um that will help to not

1:46:08only mitigate the traffic uh from the

1:46:11development but also improve the safety

1:46:13of uh operations there.

1:46:16Uh we're also proposing to implement

1:46:19traffic signals um at Knox and the site

1:46:23driveway intersection as well to

1:46:24facilitate uh safe uh and efficient

1:46:27operations. Uh that those plans, as I

1:46:30said, are currently being reviewed by

1:46:32DOT.

1:46:33Uh we're proposing the addition of an

1:46:36eastbound left turn lane at the site

1:46:38driveway. So that will require some

1:46:40widening of Westcot uh road near the

1:46:43site. And we're proposing the addition

1:46:46of a westbound left turn lane on Westcot

1:46:49under the 395 overpass. Uh that will be

1:46:53accomplished with a with a restriping of

1:46:55the road. No widening required there. Um

1:46:59so with the implementation of these

1:47:02improvements

1:47:04uh we did find that all of the

1:47:06intersections in the study area will

1:47:09operate at an acceptable level of

1:47:11service. Um our site distance

1:47:13measurements uh did confirm that the

1:47:16site driveway can provide safe and

1:47:18efficient egress uh for both passenger

1:47:21cars and tractor trailer uh trucks.

1:47:25Um the following slide,

1:47:27I'm just going to show you again a

1:47:29graphic of these improvements I was just

1:47:31describing. So this is the site driveway

1:47:33intersection with Westcot Reynolds and

1:47:36Hillside view where we're currently

1:47:38proposing a traffic signal and uh an

1:47:40eastbound left turn lane on WCOT road

1:47:44entering the site. Uh the site driveway

1:47:47egress would have two lanes, a left turn

1:47:50lane and a right turn lane out and uh

1:47:54sterns would be um converted to one way

1:47:57away from the intersection. Although

1:47:59that road will essentially have no

1:48:01volume um following um the uh this

1:48:04construction is there there's there's

1:48:06nothing that will the property is

1:48:08currently on the north side of Sterns.

1:48:10uh would not be there anymore once this

1:48:11project is in place. And the chamber

1:48:14there has access directly off of WCOT.

1:48:18Uh and then moving to the west. Um these

1:48:22are the uh the offsite improvements on

1:48:24WCOT under the 395 at the 395

1:48:27interchange and underneath the overpass.

1:48:29Again, there's that westbound left turn

1:48:32lane proposed with the restriping onto

1:48:35Gothier and the placement of the traffic

1:48:39signal at Gothier and the 395 southbound

1:48:41ramp and the new traffic signal at Knox

1:48:45and the 395 northbound on-ramp

1:48:48intersection.

1:48:51>> Sure.

1:48:57>> Yes. Do you know the distance of the

1:49:00road underneath on Westcot underneath

1:49:03the 395?

1:49:06>> Yeah. Let me just so I don't misspeak.

1:49:08I'm going to go to my Q table.

1:49:16[snorts]

1:49:30Yeah. So the distance about 550 ft.

1:49:34>> No, I mean the the width.

1:49:36>> Oh, the width

1:49:38>> width of uh what Wescott is underneath

1:49:41the bridges.

1:49:42>> Yeah. Uh that is

1:49:47uh I believe we have the three lanes

1:49:49there. We're we're roughly somewhere in

1:49:52the 30 36 to 40 foot width range.

1:49:55>> What's what's existing now?

1:49:57>> What's existing now?

1:50:00>> It's the same. We're not we're not

1:50:02proposing to change the width. It's a

1:50:03it's a rest.

1:50:05>> Currently, the two the two lanes

1:50:07underneath are are wide. They have wide

1:50:09shoulders. So, it's a restrip.

1:50:12If you stop

1:50:15and trucks coming off of 395, they're

1:50:18close to where you stop. It's they're

1:50:21not that wide. I'm going to

1:50:23>> I'm going to have to

1:50:24>> So, what what we're proposing here there

1:50:27go ahead.

1:50:27>> Please be quiet.

1:50:31>> I I know what you're proposing that it's

1:50:34going to come to about 34 feet and I

1:50:36don't know if there's 34 feet there.

1:50:39>> Yeah. Yeah. there there there's

1:50:41sufficient width there and the wid the

1:50:43lanes that we're showing um 11 to 12

1:50:45foot lanes are resistant for

1:50:47>> we can go out and measure that. Thank

1:50:49you.

1:50:51>> They are what we're proposing does meet

1:50:53uh DOT criteria for lane widths on a

1:50:56state road. So I just want to make that

1:50:58um clear the three lanes underneath

1:51:00there and they and the state has

1:51:02reviewed it and um they are in agreement

1:51:04with the installation of that turn lane.

1:51:06>> Okay.

1:51:13Um so again just want to mention it's a

1:51:16good segue into where we are with the

1:51:18state um review process.

1:51:21Uh so as you know this uh development

1:51:23does qualify u for an OTAA review state

1:51:28traffic administration. Uh we did submit

1:51:30to OSA for a scoping level review before

1:51:34we even submitted a formal application

1:51:36to get some preliminary comments from

1:51:37them. Uh went then went in with our

1:51:40formal step one submission. Uh that was

1:51:43approved. All of our traffic volumes and

1:51:45trip projections were approved as I

1:51:46mentioned earlier. We then went and

1:51:49submitted step two which was the full

1:51:51traffic study. Uh all of our off-site

1:51:53improvement plans. Uh we that was

1:51:56reviewed by the department. We got a

1:51:58round of comments from them. Um, we have

1:52:01addressed those comments resubmitted.

1:52:03Uh, we've got some now additional

1:52:06comments from them that we're working

1:52:07through uh with them right now. So,

1:52:10we're we're nearing the end of the step

1:52:12two uh review process. Once we get

1:52:14through that, uh it'll be the formal

1:52:16step three certificate application,

1:52:18which um is really a formality at that

1:52:21point and typically takes anywhere from

1:52:23from one to two months to get approval

1:52:25once you're into step three.

1:52:28Um should this get OSA approval and

1:52:31approval by this commission u we would

1:52:33then go into the encroachment permit

1:52:35review process. So this is where uh the

1:52:39off-site improvement plans would be

1:52:41advanced into detailed design plans uh

1:52:44construction documents. Um they would

1:52:47then get submitted to the DOT district 2

1:52:49office for review. there'd be a

1:52:52preliminary semi semi-final and final

1:52:54design uh review process. Uh so three

1:52:58rounds of reviews there. Um and when we

1:53:01get approval, the encroachment permit

1:53:02would be issued allowing the contractor

1:53:04to complete the work in the state right

1:53:06away. So um to give you a level of

1:53:09comfort, six total rounds of review

1:53:12here. The DOT is going to be looking at

1:53:15this very thoroughly. They already are.

1:53:17They will continue to be looking at

1:53:19this. um as we move forward and complete

1:53:22this uh review process

1:53:27and this is largely um I've already

1:53:29covered this Dustin. So that that

1:53:31concludes my remarks on traffic. Um I

1:53:34can either answer any additional

1:53:35questions now or we can continue. I

1:53:37think we have a few more things to cover

1:53:40in the presentation.

1:53:42>> Couple questions. Uh what use

1:53:44classification did you use again for

1:53:46your trip generation?

1:53:47It was not an uh IT land use um

1:53:51classification. It was the um uh

1:53:55empirical data we received from Amazon.

1:53:57So they they provide data on hourly

1:54:01um passenger car truck volumes

1:54:04throughout the day. Um we compared that

1:54:07to um several different IT land use

1:54:10codes and the Amazon numbers in every

1:54:12case were higher. So, we went with the

1:54:15with the empirical data from Amazon.

1:54:17>> That was going to be my question. Next

1:54:19question was what was the comparison?

1:54:21So, do you not I don't think that

1:54:23comparison was in your report, was it?

1:54:25>> I don't believe we include that. No. And

1:54:28I and I um I can get you that for the

1:54:30next meeting. I don't have the exact

1:54:32number written down, but I'm happy to

1:54:34get you that.

1:54:34>> It'd be interesting to see that that

1:54:35comparison compared to the standard

1:54:37classification codes if you could. Uh

1:54:39there was a comment made I believe at

1:54:40the first meeting that this this

1:54:43particular facility will not have any

1:54:44local deliveries.

1:54:46>> Right. Um so my next question would be

1:54:48if local deliveries were included how

1:54:50would that change the analysis and did

1:54:52the Amazon numbers that you said were

1:54:54provided

1:54:55>> was that from a facility that included

1:54:56local deliveries or was that just

1:54:58tractor trailer loads going in and out

1:55:00and employees in and out?

1:55:01>> Yeah. So we we were you we use the most

1:55:04conservative data from them. So um peak

1:55:07as I mentioned earlier peak uh seasonal

1:55:10rates which don't occur most of the

1:55:11year. Um we also were conservative and

1:55:14using the higher numbers than the size

1:55:16of the development currently proposed.

1:55:18Um those numbers all include what we

1:55:21would call flex drivers. So um drivers

1:55:24that uh would deliver locally even

1:55:27though that's not proposed in this

1:55:28development. It's not the intent of this

1:55:30development right now. the numbers,

1:55:32factor those in if they were ever to be

1:55:35added in the future, which they would

1:55:37have to come back to this commission if

1:55:39that were proposed.

1:55:41>> That information I don't think wasn't

1:55:43clear in the report as to what was

1:55:45included and what wasn't included. So,

1:55:46if that could be outlined

1:55:48>> um

1:55:48>> and amended, please.

1:55:54>> Okay.

1:55:58Uh Tim Mandurko, professional engineer.

1:56:01Just wanted to come back to the comment

1:56:03on salt. Um so you may not have had a

1:56:06chance yet, but um as part of the

1:56:09updated submissions, we include in the

1:56:12storm water and uh the stormwater

1:56:14maintenance plan a um winter deicing and

1:56:18anti-icing standard operating practice

1:56:22document. uh that was requested by uh

1:56:24the peer reviewer as part of the

1:56:26intervenor petition. Uh that outlines

1:56:30how sand and salt should be used. Uh and

1:56:33that is based on uh statewide

1:56:37um call them lessons uh for lack of a

1:56:41better term. Uh DEP and DOT run a

1:56:45training program for both municipal

1:56:47snowplow operators. So individual towns

1:56:50can send snowplow operators to a full

1:56:52day training uh session to understand

1:56:56when salt is appropriate, when sand is

1:56:59appropriate and how um brine solution

1:57:03which you see more prevalently used uh

1:57:05ahead of storms and they also offer the

1:57:08same testing program same the teaching

1:57:11program to private contractors. Um, this

1:57:14is all based on a program run by the

1:57:16state of New Hampshire. In the state of

1:57:18New Hampshire, in order to be a private

1:57:21contractor for snow removal, you have to

1:57:24essentially be licensed and uh follow

1:57:26that state code. Uh Connecticut adopted

1:57:29it uh and uses as training, but it's not

1:57:32state law like it it is in New

1:57:34Hampshire. So uh as part of that we

1:57:36included um you know the the best

1:57:38management practices from that training

1:57:40program identified that the snowplow uh

1:57:44operator subcontractor for the site

1:57:46would be required to participate in that

1:57:48training. Uh and it outlines a a pretty

1:57:51robust uh guidance on how do you uh

1:57:56prevent icing and use the minimal amount

1:57:58of salt. So actually following

1:58:02guidelines in terms of what is the

1:58:04pavement temperature, what is the

1:58:06condition outside, you can reduce your

1:58:08salt usage by about 50%. Um we often

1:58:11here, well, we'll just use sand, but the

1:58:14the state Connecticut D and DOT actually

1:58:17don't recommend sand in a number of

1:58:19scenarios, essentially above 30° when

1:58:21you're kind of at that cusp of wet and

1:58:24and cold. So if you you get a chance um

1:58:28we can certainly go into it in more

1:58:30depth the the next meeting. Um but there

1:58:32is a full document included in the

1:58:33operations and maintenance plan. Uh and

1:58:36again that is uh it includes best

1:58:38management practices for the actual

1:58:40application of sand and salt. Um as well

1:58:43as what should you do to calibrate your

1:58:45equipment? What should you do to make

1:58:47sure your conveyors are working? Your

1:58:48spreaders are throwing at appropriate

1:58:50widths. So that similar to if you've

1:58:52ever fertilized your lawn, the bag has a

1:58:55recommendation on pounds per thousand

1:58:57square ft. You would set the spreader to

1:58:59to meet those um those standards.

1:59:02Similar um criteria applies to salt and

1:59:05sand spreading uh in parking lot

1:59:07operations. So um we included that. We

1:59:10expect that um the third party peer

1:59:12reviewer would be reviewing it as part

1:59:14of the resubmission from this week. Um

1:59:17but wanted to to follow up on that point

1:59:18and let you know that that's included.

1:59:21Okay. And so uh basically saying that um

1:59:25you use uh the the minimum required

1:59:28rather than but um I guess there there

1:59:31it doesn't exist the technology anywhere

1:59:35uh to actually remove dissolve salts

1:59:38from the runoff water before it gets

1:59:41into the ground. That's nobody addresses

1:59:44that at this point.

1:59:45>> No. when um you know from a kind of a

1:59:49topography and drainage standpoint uh I

1:59:51don't know what the number is off the

1:59:52top of my head but say 90% of our site

1:59:55drains to the side of 395. So we are

1:59:58flowing in a direction of a state

2:00:00highway that Connecticut DOT applies

2:00:02sand and salt. Our goal would be to

2:00:04minimize the amount that we use on site.

2:00:07uh you know if if sand and and one of

2:00:09the reasons that you often see in storm

2:00:12water standards about suspended solid

2:00:14removal a tss term that you hear is by

2:00:18grabbing the sediment you get all the

2:00:21stuff that typically sticks to sediment.

2:00:23So while we are are not able to you know

2:00:26boil the water to remove the salt the

2:00:29the fact that we are removing sediment

2:00:31in both the hydrodnamic separators as

2:00:34well as the filter units. Yes, there is

2:00:36salt dissolved in water. There is salt

2:00:38dissolved in water on any highway, any

2:00:40shopping center in town. But the plan is

2:00:43best management practices to minimize

2:00:45the amount you use. The um the operating

2:00:48procedure also talks about postevent you

2:00:51go and clean up. If the clump fell, you

2:00:54you know have a maintenance program too

2:00:56to make sure that you're keeping the

2:00:57minimum amount amount on the ground.

2:00:59Using more salt than you need is

2:01:01essentially a waste of capital. It's not

2:01:03free. So um while there is not the

2:01:05ability to remove dissolved salt the the

2:01:08management practice by deep and doots to

2:01:11minimize the amount you need uh I like

2:01:13to say the solution to pollution is

2:01:15dilution. We also have a number of areas

2:01:17on site where salt is not applied. We

2:01:19have a mill million square foot roof

2:01:21water that also coingles with the

2:01:23parking lot and truck court water where

2:01:25you are further diluting uh any

2:01:28concentration of a pollutant that might

2:01:30be in it. So, um there there is not at

2:01:33this point a way to to safely, you know,

2:01:36keep a driveway and a parking lot um

2:01:39safe without the use of some salt and

2:01:42sand, but doing it appropriate we think

2:01:43is the the best method.

2:01:45>> Thank you.

2:01:48>> Oh, still me. Uh Tim Madurero with Lang

2:01:51again. uh other reviewing agencies

2:01:54um

2:01:56shipo uh uh I think there was some

2:01:58discussion in our prior application. So

2:02:01in order to secure a state permit you

2:02:04have to is specifically the storm water

2:02:07general permit you have to show um that

2:02:11your site is in compliance with a number

2:02:13of uh components regulated by other

2:02:16agencies. Uh Shipo is one of those

2:02:18agencies. Over the course of the summer,

2:02:21uh we dug 1,272

2:02:24test pits across the property or shovel

2:02:27tests to look for historic usage uh and

2:02:32historic artifacts on the property in

2:02:34coordination with Shipo. Uh there were

2:02:37no significant findings and on September

2:02:4029th uh Shipo gave us an allclear letter

2:02:43uh for the development as it's currently

2:02:45designed and we can use that letter to

2:02:48check the box as part of our um deep

2:02:51permits. Connecticut water uh as I

2:02:53mentioned earlier we continue to work

2:02:55with them on the design of the water

2:02:57main extension and the pump house that

2:02:59goes with it. Um that on that work is

2:03:02ongoing while they're not really a reg

2:03:03regulatory agency. They're important

2:03:05part of the project. Um, and Connecticut

2:03:07Deep, as I mentioned, is the regulatory

2:03:09body for the septic system. Uh, we

2:03:12continue to coordinate with them. We did

2:03:14some additional testing in October per

2:03:16their request and continue to um model

2:03:19the design to um move forward in that

2:03:21application process.

2:03:25>> Do you have a a sewer letter?

2:03:28>> You mentioned that's different. Um, this

2:03:30time you said you're actually connecting

2:03:32to the sewer for I think you said 1,000

2:03:34gallons a day. Yes.

2:03:34>> Do you actually have an approved sewer

2:03:36letter for that connection?

2:03:37>> Uh, I don't know if we have a letter or

2:03:40we have correspondence with the town

2:03:42engineer, but we we'll get something for

2:03:44the record.

2:03:46>> And when you say Connecticut deep

2:03:48applications, which one are you

2:03:49referring to there?

2:03:50>> That is for the um the wastewater

2:03:52treatment, the the um the sept

2:03:54essentially the septic system. So the

2:03:57the project generates more than 7,500

2:03:59gallons per day of waste water. So it is

2:04:02not a septic system regulated by the

2:04:03health department. We get flipped to the

2:04:05state and they take full control of

2:04:07that.

2:04:08>> And that application has been submitted

2:04:10based on that comment.

2:04:11>> Yes, we submitted to them in the

2:04:13beginning of the year. They came back

2:04:15with comments. Um they have a kind of a

2:04:18limited window of how long you have to

2:04:20respond. We had to go do additional

2:04:21testing. So, we withdrew the application

2:04:24to not run out the clock and then we'll

2:04:26be resubmitting back to them with the

2:04:27updated testing material that we um

2:04:29completed this month.

2:04:31>> And what was that additional testing?

2:04:32>> Uh some more hydraulic conductivity

2:04:34testing uh in the area of um the the

2:04:38leech the leech field. So, uh we did a

2:04:40couple days of additional borings and

2:04:42laboratory testing to give some more

2:04:43data points.

2:04:49Oh, and real quick uh for Commissioner

2:04:51Card, uh there is Geotech data in

2:04:54appendix I of the stormwater management

2:04:56report. Uh it includes uh boring logs,

2:05:00test pit logs, as well as a location

2:05:02plan that shows the location of those

2:05:05test pits and borings.

2:05:15Thank you again for the record, Evan

2:05:16Seaman. I know we've been at it for

2:05:18about two hours, maybe a little bit

2:05:19more. I want to make sure that the

2:05:20commission is okay to continue. Um,

2:05:23we're near we're getting close to the

2:05:24end of the presentation and I wanted to

2:05:26make sure uh now is a good time to

2:05:27proceed rather than short break. Thank

2:05:29you. Next slide, please.

2:05:34So, I want to um go over [clears throat]

2:05:36some of the sections of the regulations

2:05:38which I have highlighted here. Um on the

2:05:40right um is an image of the first page

2:05:42of uh your staff report that you

2:05:44received which I think is uh very

2:05:46helpful. It provided a comprehensive

2:05:48review of of the of the uh application

2:05:51documents. Um there are um some requests

2:05:54for additional information and and

2:05:56clarification on issues that we're

2:05:57working to um update right now and we

2:06:00will be providing that. Um we're

2:06:02confident we can respond to those. Uh

2:06:04they seem to be relatively minor in

2:06:05nature. Um so uh section 436 which deals

2:06:09with the business park district, section

2:06:11450 in table A which are the dimensional

2:06:13requirements. Section 470 site plan

2:06:16review standards. Section 530 off

2:06:19streetet parking and loading. So

2:06:21[clears throat] site plan uh review

2:06:22standards. The first standard deals with

2:06:24uh the plan of conservation and

2:06:26development um which is uh point A and I

2:06:30addressed that earlier in the

2:06:31presentation and and the zoning

2:06:33regulations recognize that the POCD is

2:06:35just a guidance document. It doesn't

2:06:36control but uh that is a consideration

2:06:38and and I went over that a little bit

2:06:40earlier in the presentation. Uh uh next

2:06:42subb the arrangement of building

2:06:44structures and uses on the site and um

2:06:47we went over this as part of uh Mr. and

2:06:49Durko's review of the civil engineering

2:06:51plans, but all building structures and

2:06:53uses on the site have been uh located to

2:06:55take advantage of the natural dense

2:06:56vegetation and screening on the site um

2:06:59along with the proposed

2:07:02uh conservation space, the 76 acres

2:07:04proposed within the project site along

2:07:05with the 216 acres or so which are part

2:07:08of the uh pending wetlands application

2:07:11uh as well as I395 to the west. Um uh as

2:07:16noted in the staff report uh there's

2:07:18compliance with all dimen uh dimensional

2:07:20requirements area bulk height setback

2:07:22requirements um have been met. Uh the

2:07:24sighting of the proposed building uh uh

2:07:27to on this point uh frontage and

2:07:29setbacks significantly exceeds the

2:07:31existing requirements. So uh minimum

2:07:34setback from street uh front street line

2:07:36115 ft required more than 2,000 ft

2:07:39proposed. uh uh set back from uh the

2:07:42sideyard 65 ft required 425

2:07:46uh proposed. Uh in the rear uh setback

2:07:4965 ft required, 509 ft proposed. Um

2:07:54outdoor trailer storage is located on

2:07:56the north and east sides of the

2:07:57building. Um as adjacent properties on

2:07:59those sides are undeveloped and heavily

2:08:01treed with natural vegetation. Uh and

2:08:04that's uh in addition to that the 216

2:08:06acres of lands um which the applicant

2:08:08proposes putting in conservation uh

2:08:11includes lands on the north and east of

2:08:12the project of the project site. Uh

2:08:15similarly truck loading docks are

2:08:18located um uh only on the east side of

2:08:20the building. They don't face any public

2:08:21streets which is a requirement of your

2:08:23zoning regulations. Um and uh land in

2:08:26this area is also heavily treated. Um

2:08:29the next uh criteria is uh uh subc which

2:08:33deals with interior vehicular

2:08:35circulation which we went over a little

2:08:36bit earlier. Um the site has been

2:08:39designed to provide for safe and

2:08:40convenient interior vehicular uh

2:08:42circulation. [clears throat]

2:08:43Um truck turning movements are included

2:08:45in your plan sheets. U the staff uh

2:08:48report did ask for um additional truck

2:08:51route signage which will be provided. Um

2:08:54and um that's in addition to the

2:08:57wayfinding uh uh uh uh directional uh

2:09:01locationational signs that are already

2:09:02included. Employing parking is designed

2:09:05with speed bumps, crosswalks, and wheel

2:09:06stop protection and sidewalks.

2:09:08>> Can I Yes.

2:09:09>> Can I interrupt you for just a minute?

2:09:12>> Uh signage. You're going to add all the

2:09:14stop signs onto the site plan.

2:09:18Also, on exiting the

2:09:23facility, you want you you said you

2:09:26rather they use 395 than Wescott. So, is

2:09:32it possible to put a sign saying right

2:09:34turn only for trucks, right turn only so

2:09:38they don't take a left onto Ecot?

2:09:44Yes, we can we can uh provide that

2:09:47information.

2:09:49>> And you were in the crosswalks.

2:09:52You were saying there you go to speed

2:09:53bumps and everything. The crosswalks to

2:09:56the sidewalks presently are every other

2:09:59one on the employee parking lot. Can we

2:10:03do everyone? Is it possible to do

2:10:06everyone? Because if there's no

2:10:09crosswalk, what you know, the safety

2:10:11reason just be safer for everybody.

2:10:16>> We'll take a look at that.

2:10:18>> And can you give me the the dimensions

2:10:21of the sidewalk? I didn't see it on the

2:10:24drawings.

2:10:25>> I believe this was a comment uh of yours

2:10:28in the first application. Six. Yeah. Um

2:10:30it if it's not six feet, it will be

2:10:32supposed to be six, but your comment

2:10:35said it was five. I just, you know,

2:10:37please clarify that.

2:10:40>> Okay. The rest I can wait.

2:10:43>> Thanks. Um, can I I'll since we had a

2:10:46pause, I'll jump in because I was going

2:10:47to bring it up when when you finish, but

2:10:49I was going back and looking at the

2:10:50dimensional requirements rule again. So,

2:10:52450.3 and 450.6 and the table A. And as

2:10:56I was looking at your site plan, you

2:10:57guys have an engineered retaining wall

2:10:59on the western side, correct?

2:11:02>> Southeast West.

2:11:03>> Yes.

2:11:04>> Right. And that engineering wall is

2:11:06greater than 50 ft in multiple

2:11:07locations. Correct.

2:11:09>> Yes.

2:11:10>> So I can't wrap my head around how that

2:11:13does how that complies with 450.3 in

2:11:16table A because our 450.3 in table A

2:11:19says that no structure shall exceed 50

2:11:21ft. And that engineered wall is a

2:11:24structure.

2:11:29Okay. We'll look into the definition.

2:11:32It's a structure. It's an engineered

2:11:34structure.

2:11:35>> Some towns. It's an engineered

2:11:37structure.

2:11:38>> No matter what rule you look at, it's an

2:11:39engineered structure.

2:11:40>> Okay.

2:11:40>> And by engineering standards, a

2:11:42structure.

2:11:43>> Okay.

2:11:44>> 450.

2:11:46>> You were citing 458.

2:11:47>> 450.3.

2:11:48>> 450

2:11:49>> which is structures. Well, building

2:11:51height. 450.6 is business park building

2:11:54height and also talks about structures.

2:11:55And then table A says no structure shall

2:11:58exceed 50 feet in the building building

2:12:00park district.

2:12:03Thank you. We will uh look into that and

2:12:05provide a response.

2:12:05>> And is there any other area on your site

2:12:07that has any because in your details you

2:12:09have two details. You have a rock wall

2:12:11face, right? And you have the engineered

2:12:13structure for Gabian retaining wall. Is

2:12:16there anything that's an open rock face?

2:12:20>> The the uh the the engineered face on

2:12:23the east side could be exposed rock

2:12:26depending on the depth of overburden and

2:12:28and material.

2:12:29>> Okay. So our gravel rags say that no

2:12:31nothing can exceed 2 and a half to one.

2:12:35>> Okay.

2:12:36>> So if it's an open rock face, it has to

2:12:38be filled back in two and a half to one.

2:12:40It cannot be left at one to one.

2:12:41>> This is a

2:12:43the category is a like a for gravel

2:12:46>> under our 570 which which complies

2:12:49anything over a thousand cubic yards of

2:12:50removal which would imply to the site

2:12:52plan review right as one of the finished

2:12:54performance criteria is nothing can be

2:12:56left at greater than two and a half to

2:12:58one.

2:12:59But is that for gravel?

2:13:01>> That would It's under the gravel rules,

2:13:03but that section applies to site plan

2:13:05review. Okay. Anything that has greater

2:13:07than a thousand cubic yards of earth

2:13:09removal.

2:13:09>> Okay.

2:13:10>> Which your site object obviously does.

2:13:12>> Yeah. Take a look.

2:13:13>> So

2:13:15that was 570 point.

2:13:17>> It's section 570. I can't give you 570

2:13:19point what it is, but if you get 570,

2:13:20look at the performance criteria.

2:13:22>> Thank you.

2:13:28Uh so moving on in the the site plan

2:13:30standards in section 470. I I uh we just

2:13:33uh discussed interior vehicular

2:13:35circulation. Uh next is uh uh safe

2:13:38pedestrian movement. Um uh complies

2:13:42there. This isn't open to the general

2:13:43public. No pedestrians will be accessing

2:13:45the site. As you heard from Mr. Veruchi,

2:13:48uh there are off-site uh proposals that

2:13:50are currently under review by OSA. Um,

2:13:53uh, point E, adequacy of emergency

2:13:56vehicular access. Um, we've been working

2:13:58with the the town's fire marshall, as

2:14:01you know, as part of the first

2:14:02application, he, Mr. Bashard, issued a a

2:14:05letter. Um, and we've taken his comments

2:14:07into account, and the project has been

2:14:10designed to ensure adequate um, access

2:14:12for emergency vehicles. Um, Mr.

2:14:14Bashard's letter is dated June 18th,

2:14:162026. It's part of the record. Uh and he

2:14:19also provided dimensional information to

2:14:21use for our truck uh plan sheets which

2:14:23are included in the materials uh and and

2:14:26have been

2:14:28>> what's that?

2:14:30>> Could you say that again please?

2:14:31>> Yes. The town fire marshall provided

2:14:33dimensional information to use for the

2:14:35fire truck vehicle movements um which he

2:14:38identified as the largest and most

2:14:39restrictive emergency vehicle for the

2:14:41site and those dimensions have been

2:14:43incorporated into the design for the

2:14:44site

2:14:45>> plan. So they they also meet your

2:14:47tractor trailer rate standards, your

2:14:48class 8 vehicles

2:14:50as well.

2:14:53I mean, you know, this the fire marshall

2:14:54has got access. He's his control is fire

2:14:58safety, access to fire equipment, but

2:15:00your your site has to maintain also

2:15:03access for obviously the tractor

2:15:05trailers, the class A vehicles, the

2:15:07personal vehicles. There's a lot more to

2:15:09it than just fire access.

2:15:11>> Correct. and and our uh employee

2:15:15passenger car vehicles are designed for

2:15:17passenger cars as well as the firet

2:15:20trucks. Any of the truck tractor trailer

2:15:22areas are designed for the 80,000lb

2:15:25tractor trailer whatever be road legal.

2:15:28Uh and those areas also provide the

2:15:30necessary clearances and movements for

2:15:32the fire truck. So, tractor trailers

2:15:34dictate sizing and weight requirements

2:15:38uh in those areas, but um there are a

2:15:40number of specific requirements from the

2:15:42fire marshall on clear height uh and

2:15:44vehicle movement that may be different

2:15:46than what you would have for tractor

2:15:47trailer and we're compliant with his uh

2:15:49request for those. So, yes, we we

2:15:52understand that we're not ne just

2:15:54designing to the firetruck. We've areas

2:15:57that will have tractor trailer

2:15:58trafficics are designed to to

2:15:59accommodate those. Well, you keep

2:16:01repeating, you know, that access is for

2:16:04the fire marshall and access for fire

2:16:06trucks.

2:16:07>> Yeah.

2:16:07>> You know, we kind of keep hearing it and

2:16:10Okay. So, okay. Does that make sure we

2:16:11meet

2:16:12>> all the stuff that you're trying to do?

2:16:14>> And what

2:16:16>> stupid, but when you hear it so

2:16:17repetitively, you have to keep

2:16:18questioning.

2:16:19>> Sure. and and what is often kind of the

2:16:22opposite in that you have areas designed

2:16:24for passenger cars and then you go and

2:16:26drop a template on for a firet truck and

2:16:28it doesn't it doesn't work because

2:16:29you've been designing for 18t cars and

2:16:32not a 40 foot long fire truck. So, um we

2:16:36we bring that up because safety and and

2:16:39coordination with the fire marshal is an

2:16:41important part of the site plan

2:16:42application. Uh and just wanted to make

2:16:44sure it's clear that we've gone through

2:16:45that with them.

2:16:48>> I'm sorry. And just for the record, I

2:16:50have to step back. I can't remember if I

2:16:51told you 570 or 560 for earth removal. I

2:16:53just want to make sure I It's It's the

2:16:55earth removal rags. I'm trying to

2:16:56remember the number off top of my head

2:16:57right now. Thank you. Five. Did I I

2:16:59think I said 570, right?

2:17:00>> 560.

2:17:01>> Yeah. So, I wrote down 570. It didn't

2:17:03look right.

2:17:03>> Thank you.

2:17:04>> Just want to make sure for the record I

2:17:05didn't get.

2:17:05>> I appreciate that. Thank you.

2:17:08>> Um, so the next consideration is

2:17:11>> you're still on 470, right?

2:17:12>> Yes, sir.

2:17:13>> 13. Yeah. I'm going to tell you, uh, I

2:17:16don't think you've addressed, uh, the

2:17:18opening statement where it says the

2:17:20health, the safety, and the welfare of

2:17:22the public in general, uh, should be,

2:17:25uh, dealt with, and you're not doing it.

2:17:28Uh, and as far as, uh, presumption,

2:17:35uh, you know, the statement where you're

2:17:38continuously saying it's a conclusive

2:17:41presumption. Maybe it's a presumption of

2:17:44compatibility at the very best, but not

2:17:47uh as you people have uh tried to

2:17:49interpret this uh in order to exclude uh

2:17:53that from being a part of this

2:17:55discussion.

2:17:56>> I want that on the record.

2:17:59>> Sure. And it's

2:18:00>> I'm object I'm objecting to it.

2:18:02>> What are what in particular? Well,

2:18:05you just had an engineer up there go

2:18:07through what uh uh all these studies

2:18:11you've conducted offsite concerning

2:18:14traffic. We're dealing with a unique

2:18:16situation where you've got access roads

2:18:20the south either going in or going

2:18:22towards the south. It's a unique

2:18:24situation and you've got neighborhoods

2:18:27in that area that are going to be

2:18:29adversely affected by it. and you're

2:18:32telling us that uh uh hands off yet

2:18:36you're doing studies on it and trying to

2:18:39give us information. uh you know I think

2:18:41it's uh

2:18:44it's uh it's a big problem and I'm and

2:18:49by objecting to it if nothing more maybe

2:18:52the state uh transportation when they

2:18:54take a look at it will uh give that a

2:18:57little more weight but uh that is

2:18:59certainly going to adversely affect that

2:19:03and it it it's actually the whole length

2:19:07of the burrow that's going to be

2:19:09affected.

2:19:11and beyond going up on Lum Street and

2:19:14everything. Uh, I think there's an easy

2:19:16fix. Takes money, but that should be a

2:19:20true four-way intersection right there.

2:19:23And those high those access roads should

2:19:25be eliminated. That's

2:19:29that's what would make this all work. Uh

2:19:32but as it is now, you're asking us to uh

2:19:36completely avoid

2:19:38uh this uh area in the conversation and

2:19:42uh as far as I'm concerned, you're

2:19:43putting that whole area at risk.

2:19:46>> Yeah. Well,

2:19:49>> the the

2:19:53Thank you. So,

2:19:56I hear your concerns. What I repeated,

2:19:58what I discussed before was it's it's

2:20:01not us telling you that you can't

2:20:02consider this. This is the Connecticut

2:20:04Supreme Court. The Connecticut Supreme

2:20:06Court, it's it it's multiple cases of

2:20:09the Connecticut Supreme Court in the

2:20:10case that I noted on that slide. I hear

2:20:14your concerns. We hear your concerns.

2:20:15It's going to be reviewed by OSTA. OSTA

2:20:17is the agency that has authority over

2:20:20off-site traffic impacts. Uh and this

2:20:22issue was reviewed as part of the first

2:20:24withdrawn application. This Tigen Bond

2:20:26was involved in that process. Their

2:20:28traffic engineer was involved by in this

2:20:30process. Their traffic engineer was here

2:20:33addressed the commission. We

2:20:35>> saying that there wasn't a problem.

2:20:37>> Correct.

2:20:37>> Yeah.

2:20:38>> Correct.

2:20:38>> As far and I'm no engineer, but I just

2:20:41have to look at it and I can see whether

2:20:42there's going to be a problem. uh the

2:20:44figures that were initially given to us

2:20:47uh and I'm not an expert at math either,

2:20:50but the math I did every nine minutes

2:20:53there's going to be a truck going in or

2:20:55out of that facility. I mean, uh

2:21:00they're going to get nine eight and a

2:21:02half minutes of sleep in between people

2:21:05living in that neighborhood. Trucks are

2:21:06noisy, you know, and I'm going to be the

2:21:09first one to tell you if you got it, a

2:21:11truck brought it to you. I'm not

2:21:14condemning transportation. I'm not

2:21:16condemning your site. You know, I think

2:21:18you're doing a great job uh with what we

2:21:20ought to do there, but this is a unique

2:21:24situation

2:21:26uh uh 395 and I don't know why they ever

2:21:29did that uh and putting those access

2:21:32roads in, but for for the volume that

2:21:35this is going to create, it's not

2:21:37workable. Uh and

2:21:41uh I would be a bit uh remissed if I

2:21:44didn't

2:21:45>> We understand your comment and and this

2:21:47is being this is part of the uh the

2:21:49Oster review process. You're welcome.

2:21:51And we understand also that

2:21:53>> the town attorney um will be and town

2:21:55planner will be addressing this issue at

2:21:57some point as they stated earlier, but

2:21:59>> um uh

2:22:02we're relying on the on those cases. The

2:22:04Connecticut Supreme Court, there is a

2:22:05conclusive presumption. This is a use

2:22:06that's by site plan. It's not by special

2:22:08permit. Special permit uses, the

2:22:11commission has wide authority, wide

2:22:13discretion over any public health and

2:22:15safety concerns. Site plan review is

2:22:17more limited as noted in the town

2:22:19attorney's memorandum of June 27th.

2:22:23>> You cannot deny

2:22:25based on uh

2:22:30and uh you have to bear with me here for

2:22:33a minute. You know, it's true that the

2:22:37uh off-site considerations

2:22:42uh you're not supposed to deny if the

2:22:45pro if the project meets the regulations

2:22:49for site plan.

2:22:51You can't deny it be uh for any reason.

2:22:56That's a right. However,

2:23:01it doesn't exclude completely

2:23:04considerations for other factors.

2:23:07That's my interpretation of it. Okay.

2:23:10And uh

2:23:13I'm going to listen to everybody.

2:23:14>> Thank you.

2:23:15>> As I have,

2:23:17>> but uh I want that on the record.

2:23:19>> We agree. And those factors have to be

2:23:21set forth in the regulations. Those are

2:23:22the factors that I've been going through

2:23:24under section 470 of your site plan

2:23:26review standards. Um and and the next

2:23:29one is storm water management um uh

2:23:32adequacy of storm water management which

2:23:33Mr. Anderero um already went through and

2:23:36there's been coordination back and forth

2:23:37with Tyen Bond on that issue. Um

2:23:42uh the next one adequacy of water sewer

2:23:45uh which we excuse me which we uh just

2:23:48addressed those are being coordinated

2:23:49with other agencies as noted in in the

2:23:52staff report uh number comment number uh

2:23:55or u in the chart number 29. Um outdoor

2:23:59lighting is another consideration of

2:24:00your site plan review standards. Uh we

2:24:03include a full phototric light plan. Uh

2:24:06all uh fixtures are dark sky compliant.

2:24:09Um and uh staff in the staff report did

2:24:12request in comment in number 15

2:24:14additional information which will be

2:24:15provided. Um outdoor storage is point I

2:24:20the next consideration uh there is no

2:24:22outdoor storage other than trailer

2:24:24storage which is permissible um under

2:24:26the a per permissible accessory uh under

2:24:29the regulations and that's noted in in

2:24:32uh number two of the staff report. Um,

2:24:35in addition, I'd like to say outdoor

2:24:37trailer storage is, as I mentioned

2:24:39previously, is located to the north and

2:24:41east sides of the building. Um, and will

2:24:43be where there are uh dense natural

2:24:46vegetation uh um already existing. Um

2:24:50and in that area also the proposed

2:24:52conservation property

2:24:54signage which we discussed already uh is

2:24:58uh point J point K the adequacy of

2:25:01landscaping treatment. Um and the plans

2:25:04as we went through earlier include uh a

2:25:07planting plan. Uh hundreds of trees and

2:25:10shrubs and thousands of ground cover

2:25:11plantings are proposed as part of this.

2:25:13And the staff report uh notes compliance

2:25:16with this in numbers 12 and 13 as well

2:25:18as 23 and 24. Um that's it for the site

2:25:23plan review standards. There are other

2:25:25sections noted up here. Uh the business

2:25:27park

2:25:29um and off- streetet parking. Business

2:25:31park is section 436.2 and I'll go

2:25:33through this quickly in the interest of

2:25:34time. A lot of them are duplicative of

2:25:36the site plan review standards that I

2:25:37just addressed. Uh the first though is

2:25:39enclosed structures. is everything has

2:25:41to incur occur all operations within the

2:25:43building u aside from uh loading and

2:25:46unloading comply with that as noted in

2:25:48the staff report number 10 um outdoor

2:25:52storage which I just addressed the staff

2:25:54which the staff report notes is

2:25:55permissible and number two

2:25:58uh number three uh in section 436.2 two

2:26:01is uh provide access which deals with

2:26:04parcels that are um uh landlocked which

2:26:07does not apply. Um point four which

2:26:10deals with utilities putting all

2:26:12utilities underground we comply with

2:26:14that. Uh all utilities to be installed

2:26:16underground interior circulation is the

2:26:19fifth one address that as part of the

2:26:20site plan review standards. uh bicycle

2:26:23and pedestrian paths. Um Mr.

2:26:25Commissioner Huo, the uh the sidewalks

2:26:28um have to be six feet and they will be

2:26:30six feet per um your comment.

2:26:33Um

2:26:35uh truck parking and building setbacks

2:26:37is uh 7. Uh uh buildings have to be set

2:26:41back 50 ft from any residential district

2:26:43boundary. And um uh truck barking and

2:26:46building setbacks have to be 150 ft ft

2:26:49from a game preserve complies as noted

2:26:51in the staff report numbers 6 through 8.

2:26:53Uh landscaping is the next

2:26:55consideration. Um addressed that

2:26:57previously and the staff report notes

2:26:59compliance with landscaping requirements

2:27:0112 and 13 and 23 in the chart included

2:27:04in your staff report. Any can you can

2:27:07you add a note in there saying any

2:27:10damage to vegetation during construction

2:27:14will be replaced?

2:27:17>> Yes,

2:27:22>> I'm just jotting that down. Yep.

2:27:29>> Um

2:27:32buffering and screening

2:27:34is uh number nine. Um uh the staff

2:27:38report has requested some some minor

2:27:41revisions. Uh plan should include the

2:27:43staff report notes that the proposed

2:27:45conservation space is appropriate to use

2:27:47as buffers and screens. Uh it has

2:27:50requested uh revisions to indicate the

2:27:52limits of clearing no cut buffer which

2:27:54we will be doing. Um lighting is is

2:27:56number 10. The next consideration under

2:27:58the business park uh regulations which

2:27:59were addressed as part of the site plan

2:28:01review standards. Again a phototric plan

2:28:03has been included. There has been one

2:28:05request by uh uh staff to provide some

2:28:08additional information on the on the

2:28:09phototric plan which we will do. Um uh

2:28:12number 11 is refuse enclosures. Um and

2:28:16we comply with that. We have uh

2:28:18dumpsters on site.

2:28:21>> Okay. Seen you're on that. Can we have

2:28:23information on the external compressor?

2:28:27I think it's compactor and the augers.

2:28:30Can we have some information on that?

2:28:32Plus information on the generator.

2:28:36And how what is what how is the

2:28:38generator being powered?

2:28:41>> Uh on a uh a diesel uh

2:28:46subtank. I don't know what the the term

2:28:47is. Uh

2:28:48>> it's it's part of the generator.

2:28:50>> Yeah. The the the generator sits on its

2:28:53own on on its own tank. There's no

2:28:55natural gas service into the site.

2:28:56>> No, I I wasn't sure if it was propane or

2:29:00>> Yeah. Uh a belly tank. That's the term

2:29:02I'm looking for.

2:29:02>> And and it'll be contained.

2:29:05>> It has double Yeah. It's double 110%

2:29:07containment on its storage volume. Yes.

2:29:09We can compile some of that information

2:29:11for you.

2:29:11>> Yeah. If you can get us information on

2:29:13those.

2:29:13>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I I I think the on

2:29:16the staff report um there was a comment

2:29:18about uh and it sounds like uh

2:29:21Commissioner Huk, you found it. Uh I

2:29:23think in the staff report identified

2:29:25that the compactor trash wasn't found,

2:29:28but it's at the very southeast corner of

2:29:31the building. There are three positions.

2:29:33So we can

2:29:35>> Yes, we can provide information on that.

2:29:41>> So that is 436.2 2 business park uh

2:29:46district regulations and then there's

2:29:47additional regulations in 436.3 for

2:29:50business park uses subject to site plan

2:29:52review. They're really duplicative of

2:29:54everything I've just addressed and the

2:29:55staff report uh notes compliance with

2:29:58them. So uh in the interest of time I am

2:30:00going to uh skip those. We will provide

2:30:02a written submission on on these. Um we

2:30:05recognize tonight is not the final night

2:30:07because the wetlands agency hasn't acted

2:30:08yet. So this commission can act. So, as

2:30:11uh you requested as part of the first

2:30:13application process, Mr. Chair, uh we

2:30:15will provide kind of a a final um a

2:30:19document demonstrating compliance with

2:30:20all of the applicable requirements that

2:30:22have been discussed and that have been

2:30:23raised as part of the questions this

2:30:25evening. Um uh so with that,

2:30:30um the

2:30:33we did want to Yes, Mr. Cart. Again, I

2:30:35don't know why we keep missing it, but

2:30:37section 560 needs to be addressed. staff

2:30:39didn't address it and you guys haven't

2:30:41addressed it yet either. So, there's a

2:30:43section in 560 that I brought up with

2:30:45Tai and Bond for their review as well as

2:30:47you guys before that needs to be looked

2:30:49at related to the amount of excavation

2:30:51and the impacts on the groundwater flow

2:30:52regime. Right. You guys made a cursory

2:30:55comment last time, but you're add you're

2:30:57taking away 40 50 60 feet of fill I'm

2:31:00sorry existing natural drainage area um

2:31:02that's got groundwater filtration and

2:31:04you're putting about 50 acres of

2:31:05impervious area on top of that. There

2:31:07will be a change in the groundwater flow

2:31:09regime and there will be a change change

2:31:10in the groundwater quality that will be

2:31:12impacted that needs to be addressed. I

2:31:15will look at appendix I to see what the

2:31:16test reports show from test pits and

2:31:18boring logs. But um my last review was

2:31:21not sufficient enough to identify and

2:31:23delineate what those potential impacts

2:31:25may be to the groundwater flow regime

2:31:28related to the gravel worth especially

2:31:29when you're moving into that amount of

2:31:30material.

2:31:31>> Sure. Understood. We'll we'll pull some

2:31:34information together. And I think what

2:31:35you'll see is that from ground surface

2:31:38to competent bedrock is about 5 to 6

2:31:41feet maximum in places. So groundwater

2:31:44is about yay thick before you hit solid

2:31:47material. Uh I know this comment came up

2:31:49with time bond. We can pull out that

2:31:51information and provide you some

2:31:52additional

2:31:52>> but it's a large infiltration area that

2:31:54feeds the surrounding areas. So

2:31:56>> yep, again from our perspective and

2:31:57again I'm not going to delve into the

2:31:59wetlands guys, right? But it has an

2:32:01issue on the surrounding area and the

2:32:02drainage paths of that groundwater flow

2:32:03and which way it's going to go and how

2:32:05it may affect those those periphery

2:32:07areas around you that you identify that

2:32:08you are preserving and maintaining.

2:32:11>> Sure. and and that is the you know the

2:32:13the entire design and and maybe some of

2:32:16this discussion we've had with wetlands

2:32:17and what we should bring here too but

2:32:20the the storm water management system is

2:32:22designed uh with this explicit intent to

2:32:25redirect back to those same flow paths

2:32:27to so what we take as part of the the

2:32:30earthwork and removal we get back to

2:32:33those locations so um one of the items

2:32:35and I I can't recall if we've discussed

2:32:37it with you but the outfall locations

2:32:39were GPS located specific specifically

2:32:41to mimic existing conditions. So the

2:32:44outfalls that you see for the storm

2:32:45water management system are specific and

2:32:48explicit based on field conditions of

2:32:50where those areas drain. So we can

2:32:52aggregate all that up but

2:32:53>> it's on the surface water side you need

2:32:55to bring in the groundwater side too.

2:32:57>> Sure. Okay.

2:33:05>> So we we do have we recognize there are

2:33:08interveners in this proceeding. Um, we

2:33:10do, um, I have a couple slides on that.

2:33:12I don't know, um, if now would be an

2:33:15appropriate time for

2:33:17Tagen Bond, your third party peer

2:33:19reviewer, to to go through the review

2:33:21process before we get to the

2:33:22intervenors. Um,

2:33:25>> can I ask?

2:33:26>> Yes, sir.

2:33:26>> Just two uh, two questions. There will

2:33:30be no fueling on site, right? So,

2:33:33>> correct.

2:33:34>> So, they'll have to go to Dave or the

2:33:36new one in Adawan or some place. They'll

2:33:38have to find a spot if they need fuel.

2:33:41Okay. And is there a first aid room

2:33:46>> in the building?

2:33:59>> Is there a first podium, please?

2:34:07And where is it located if there is?

2:34:16>> No. For the programing? No. But we can

2:34:19include it if needed, but it's not for

2:34:21now.

2:34:24>> Nothing.

2:34:26>> You said not not right now, but if if

2:34:28you would like one included. Well, if I

2:34:32think it'd be easier for the ambulance

2:34:34for one, if if something happened, you

2:34:36got to at least they'll know where it

2:34:38should be in the first aid room.

2:34:39>> Okay.

2:34:40>> And it should be on I think that's the

2:34:42west side where the employees parking

2:34:44lot.

2:34:45>> Yes, sir.

2:34:47>> Thank you. [clears throat]

2:34:50>> So, under site plan review

2:34:54that says the site plan should have

2:34:5618inch trees marked out. It was I I'm

2:35:00sorry if they're here. I can't see them.

2:35:04Have they been marked out and with the

2:35:05species and all

2:35:08>> existing trees?

2:35:09>> Yes.

2:35:09>> No, they're they're not

2:35:11>> that's the requirement under 470.7C.

2:35:14>> Okay. I don't know that you need to do

2:35:16700 acres or whatever it is, but but

2:35:20>> yeah,

2:35:21>> the ones close to being

2:35:25um

2:35:27also you talked about how salt off the

2:35:30snow offsite where do you have any idea

2:35:32where you might be putting that or would

2:35:34you at some point

2:35:36because if it's in town or not it's I

2:35:40think it's a area of concern if it's a

2:35:43salt salt contaminated snow or

2:35:46>> No, I don't don't know. It would depend

2:35:49on the the contractor and the vendor.

2:35:50Yeah.

2:35:51>> Yeah. So, but certainly if it was a

2:35:53requirement that we provide that

2:35:54feedback, we could um you know, those

2:35:56those disposal areas are are typically

2:35:58regulated to prevent, you know, dumping

2:36:01from streams and wetlands and all that

2:36:03kind of stuff. But we can compile that

2:36:05information uh and and provide it when

2:36:07uh a contractor is engaged.

2:36:10Um I do a lot of snow plowing have for

2:36:14numbers of years and I just look at your

2:36:17what you were showing on snow plowing it

2:36:19seems very limited. I mean it I mean for

2:36:22the no average snowstorm you're probably

2:36:24sufficient. If you start getting into

2:36:27I don't know the rarities of the 20 and

2:36:2930 inch storms it seems like you want to

2:36:31be having backups and a lot of little

2:36:34more areas. Well, the the trade-off is

2:36:37we go cut down trees to create space for

2:36:42possible snow storage.

2:36:45I guess a trade-off that

2:36:46>> I'm not a forester,

2:36:48>> right?

2:36:49I don't know.

2:36:50>> I mean, you brought it up as snow. I'm

2:36:52looking at it from a snow point of view.

2:36:54That's all you

2:36:56>> It's your job to design you figure.

2:36:58>> Yeah. And it's and I would argue it's a

2:37:01balance of uh of additional site

2:37:05clearing to create more real estate to

2:37:08put lawn there to maybe someday have

2:37:10snow in it. Um we tried to and I I again

2:37:14I think the number is somewhere around

2:37:1610%. I think Ty Bon identified that you

2:37:18know some guidance as around 20%.

2:37:21>> So we're half of that in discrete areas

2:37:24plus some some fluff in the parking and

2:37:27and trailer court. Um, so we're probably

2:37:29not at 20%, but we might be at 15 18%

2:37:33when when you're done. Um, and then I

2:37:36don't know of a you know, again, that's

2:37:38a rule of thumb. Maybe last year it was

2:37:40not enough and this year it's too much.

2:37:42>> Changes we all understand.

2:37:43>> Yeah. But um you know it's certainly a

2:37:45balance of we can create more real

2:37:48estate and and the same same goes true

2:37:50with uh and I think one of the comments

2:37:53uh from the third party reviewer is

2:37:55talking about additional um why not do

2:37:58more above ground storm water basins and

2:38:01more infiltration. The trade-off is we

2:38:04go and cut down another 10 or 20 or 30

2:38:06acres of trees to go dig a storm water

2:38:09basin. Our goal would be to limit

2:38:12disturbance to the maximum extent

2:38:14feasible. We think we've done that with

2:38:16the limited disturbance, keeping it

2:38:17close to the site. That comes at a

2:38:19premium and and putting underground

2:38:21storm water chambers. Um, but I would

2:38:24say the same with snow storage of maybe

2:38:26there's a premium for for hauling it

2:38:28off, but the trade-off is we keep our

2:38:30limited disturbance as tight as

2:38:31possible, maximize the amount of open

2:38:33space we keep, and maximize the amount

2:38:35that we can put into uh conservation.

2:38:38So, but point taken.

2:38:40Um,

2:38:42so access to the parking lot I was

2:38:45looking at

2:38:48the print and it shows I'm just trying

2:38:50to be clear here understanding traffic

2:38:52flows.

2:38:53Um, it shows the the main access road.

2:38:56It looks like it exits. How do you get

2:38:58to the employee parking lot? I guess

2:39:00that's the simplest question.

2:39:02>> Sure.

2:39:09go all the way.

2:39:10>> So, you got a split that goes to the

2:39:11rear. I assume that's the truck traffic.

2:39:13>> Yes. Yeah, I'll get there uh shortly.

2:39:17Oh, that rendering might have been a

2:39:19good one. Okay. So, come in from from

2:39:22Westcot. Uh and then keep moving the

2:39:25cursor right around there. We

2:39:27transition. And so at this point, we've

2:39:29cleared the constraints of the narrowest

2:39:31parts of the driveway, the bridges, and

2:39:34the driveway expands to four lanes.

2:39:37Trucks move to the right lane and

2:39:39continue up along the right hand side.

2:39:42Yep. Keep going right. And that brings

2:39:44you directly back to the uh guard shack

2:39:47to enter the truck court. If you are in

2:39:49the the lefth hand lane inbound, you

2:39:54would Yeah. At the split here, you you

2:39:57would stay straight. The the truck turn

2:39:59is the actual movement off. Uh you would

2:40:03uh head in here, keep going. Uh then you

2:40:07continue on and it brings you to the um

2:40:10the western side of the associate lot

2:40:13where you could then enter um the

2:40:16parking field. Um and then to leave, you

2:40:20would go in reverse. You would head back

2:40:22to the western edge of the associate

2:40:24lot. Uh, yep. Right there. And then

2:40:27continue down the page. Uh, and um, the

2:40:32truck traffic would have merged with

2:40:33you. Uh, when we were at four lanes

2:40:35back. Yep. Thanks. That's the exiting

2:40:37traffic from the main guard shack. They

2:40:39come in and merge into the right-hand

2:40:41lane. Uh, we then head out and down. Uh,

2:40:45we then uh, transition from four lanes

2:40:48to two to get to the bridges and the

2:40:49narrowest part of the site. and then

2:40:51head back out. So, um the other thing

2:40:54that I would point out and um this was a

2:40:56discussion with the fire marshal. Uh if

2:40:59you were say uh to drive an emergency

2:41:03vehicle in and you followed the truck

2:41:06route, keep going. Yep. Uh keep going.

2:41:08Right there, there is a cut over that

2:41:11would allow an emergency vehicle, so

2:41:13mountable curb would allow emergency

2:41:15vehicle to get to the front of the

2:41:18building if that's where they were

2:41:19trying to go. So call it a relief valve.

2:41:21Um that was in coordination with the

2:41:23fire marshall to make sure that his

2:41:25vehicles had another way if say it's

2:41:28your first day driving a firet truck and

2:41:30you came here um and you headed up the

2:41:32truck route, you would still be able to

2:41:33access the front of the building. And

2:41:35the same with leaving a fire truck could

2:41:37use that as an emergency egress route

2:41:39and get to the truck route and uh and

2:41:42head head down and uh west and south.

2:41:45So, um the intent is to split the

2:41:49traffic as as soon as possible. Um but

2:41:53working within the constraints of the

2:41:55existing wetlands and the driveway

2:41:57coming in off of Westcop.

2:41:58>> So the [clears throat] you put the arrow

2:42:01back on the corner.

2:42:03So then that road right there is the

2:42:05two-way traffic for the in and out. And

2:42:08so what's the word to the south of that

2:42:11or west of that?

2:42:12>> Yeah, right there.

2:42:13>> Yep. that that is the exit from the

2:42:16secondary guard check. So, there is a

2:42:18second way uh for trucks around the

2:42:20building. It's not used regularly. Um if

2:42:24there was a maintenance or something had

2:42:26to happen at the primary guard check and

2:42:27that uh impeded the ability for trucks

2:42:30to to get in or out, um we have a uh a

2:42:34second means of moving trucks uh out of

2:42:36the facility. So that is actually grade

2:42:39separated from the the main drive that

2:42:42runs north and south across the bottom

2:42:44of the associate parking lot driveway.

2:42:47So there's a dedicated truck lane there.

2:42:49Uh and it eventually merges in. But um

2:42:52that is uh just another means of egress

2:42:55from the uh the truck court and uh we

2:42:58keep that separated from passenger

2:42:59vehicles for as long as physically

2:43:00possible.

2:43:02So, is there a cross-section on what the

2:43:05design of the pavement structure is?

2:43:08>> I didn't.

2:43:08>> Yes. In the CS500 series, there are

2:43:11details of the

2:43:12>> Do you remember how thick the asphalt

2:43:14is?

2:43:17>> Uh,

2:43:18typically two lifts, generally four to

2:43:20four and a half inches. You know, it's

2:43:23uh, you know, it used to be class two

2:43:25and class one. Now, I think they're

2:43:27super pave mixes

2:43:28>> dimensional. Yeah, it's um and there's

2:43:30typically two sections. There is a a

2:43:32passenger vehicle section and then I

2:43:34call it a heavy duty section uh for

2:43:36areas that take the the truck loading.

2:43:38Um and with that, the pavement thick

2:43:40thicknesses vary as well as the subbase

2:43:43thicknesses.

2:43:45>> So, Robin, would would there be a

2:43:47bonding issue on this project?

2:43:54I mean, it's in the site plan review

2:43:56rags, but I'm just asking if it's

2:43:59>> So, I'll have Ken confirm this, but for

2:44:01bonding under the statute, you can only

2:44:04bond for public improvements.

2:44:06>> Okay.

2:44:06>> This is all private on-site. Um, you can

2:44:09>> I it's on

2:44:12>> um you can bond for erosion and

2:44:14sedimentation control measures. Um, but

2:44:17other than that, you're really limited

2:44:18on a private development.

2:44:20>> Okay.

2:44:21So that's something to consider.

2:44:23>> I don't disagree with that, Mr. Chair.

2:44:25>> I'm sorry.

2:44:25>> I said I don't disagree with that, Mr.

2:44:27Chair.

2:44:30>> Sir,

2:44:31>> I have one other

2:44:33>> uh

2:44:35in this document for tonight's meeting

2:44:38under working list of conditions for

2:44:40consideration. Number 10, it uh it

2:44:45addresses the fact on those access roads

2:44:48where trucks will be prohibited from

2:44:50parking there waiting for access into

2:44:53the facility

2:44:55and uh

2:45:06what's

2:45:08to wait there idle, you know,

2:45:11Uh so again, you know,

2:45:16it seems as though it's it's selective

2:45:20where we're able to talk about certain

2:45:22things and not other things, but uh

2:45:25include that in whatever you give the

2:45:27DOT. You know, that's going to be a

2:45:29problem, too. you know, truckers. Uh uh

2:45:33there's a lack of uh of uh rest areas

2:45:37nationwide

2:45:39and uh

2:45:42somebody's going to have to enforce

2:45:43that, but uh that certainly should be in

2:45:46as a condition of improvement. There's

2:45:48no question about that.

2:45:52>> Sure. We we don't anticipate that's

2:45:54going to be an issue, but it is a

2:45:55proposed condition of approval here. Uh

2:45:57yes, Commissioner Hugo.

2:45:59>> Oh, no. Okay.

2:46:02>> So far,

2:46:03>> thanks.

2:46:06>> So, we discussed earlier about in your

2:46:09first

2:46:11you you said everything that was

2:46:12approved at that time was moving forward

2:46:14into this application from the first

2:46:16application to this application. So, I'm

2:46:19just want to verify like the open space

2:46:21connection

2:46:23for uh to the town's open space. I

2:46:27probably remember

2:46:31the 216 acres.

2:46:32>> Yeah, exactly. Exactly.

2:46:34>> Yes, that's correct.

2:46:35>> Don't see it mentioned. So, I'm

2:46:38>> Make sure we make sure.

2:46:41>> Sure.

2:46:44>> So, on that drawing right there, what's

2:46:46the blue line? The the light blue line,

2:46:48I guess. Yeah, that

2:46:51>> that's the limit of disturbance. That's

2:46:53the area that work needs to take place

2:46:55in to build the improvements. So it's a

2:46:58little bit wider than you know the curb

2:47:01and the walls and the driveways. So

2:47:03accounts for grading um the septic

2:47:06system and any of the storm water

2:47:07outfalls.

2:47:08>> So down off of Baker Street you've got a

2:47:10something what is that connection right

2:47:13there?

2:47:14>> Yeah. So, uh, as part of the first phase

2:47:18of work, um, there is a temporary access

2:47:22proposed to, um, enter from the Baker

2:47:26right away to allow us to get to the

2:47:29back side of the bridge. Uh, that allows

2:47:33the bridge abutment to be built so that

2:47:35we have the ability to have abutments on

2:47:37both sides and build the bridge. So that

2:47:39is an early phase of uh essentially a

2:47:43temporary driveway to allow that

2:47:45backside bridge work and that's

2:47:47abandoned receded uh and then the bridge

2:47:50structures are used to enter and exit

2:47:52the site.

2:47:53>> So

2:47:55that particular section is going to be

2:47:57graveled or stoned or what what are you

2:48:00planning?

2:48:00>> Yeah, it it would be a construction

2:48:02Yeah, non-pave construction driveway.

2:48:04It's um generally steep slopes. for

2:48:07flattening them out in some spots, but

2:48:08that's for uh construction traffic to

2:48:12allow access to the um north side of the

2:48:16the bridge abutman construction. Now, to

2:48:20go back to one of my earlier questions

2:48:22about alternate access, why couldn't you

2:48:25leave that there to provide an emergency

2:48:29access,

2:48:33you know, instead of just the narrow

2:48:34part of the road and the bridge if there

2:48:36something were to happen because it does

2:48:38appear where hooking up the road

2:48:40actually widens out at that point

2:48:44>> on the former Baker Street or Baker

2:48:47Street? Oh, it widens out on your road,

2:48:49your proposed.

2:48:50>> Oh, where we we start a transition to

2:48:52four lanes. I understand the bridge.

2:48:54>> Okay.

2:48:55>> So,

2:48:55>> so evaluate the idea of keeping that

2:48:58temporary access to essentially an

2:49:01>> emergency emergency alternate access.

2:49:03>> Okay.

2:49:04>> It's already there. I mean,

2:49:07>> okay, take a look.

2:49:09>> The rest of the road is d wide. Yep.

2:49:11>> That's the narrow section. That would be

2:49:13what I'm concerned about as far as

2:49:15emergency access. Okay.

2:49:17Emergency access in a sense of an

2:49:19emergency.

2:49:25>> Any other questions from other

2:49:26commissioners?

2:49:32>> No,

2:49:33>> not right now.

2:49:36>> So, I think we have Are you going to the

2:49:39phasing slide?

2:49:42>> That's probably the best. try to keep it

2:49:43before

2:49:44>> we're going to D. Well, yeah, it's it's

2:49:46hopefully a back and forth to spark some

2:49:49dialogue. Um, so, uh, and forgive me, I

2:49:54don't have the section written down in

2:49:55front of me. Um, but your zoning

2:49:58regulations identify that project

2:50:01phasing should disturb no more than five

2:50:03acres

2:50:04>> uh, at a time subject to um, you know,

2:50:07the discretion of the commission through

2:50:09discussion with the applicant. So we

2:50:11have been looking at the phasing uh with

2:50:15the construction team and the the site

2:50:18contractor that would be executing the

2:50:21work. Um and the this plan uh is is the

2:50:27desired work plan. um where we would ask

2:50:30for the ability to disturb up to 30

2:50:33acres as part of a phase um which is

2:50:38permitted through um Connecticut deep

2:50:42permit but um recognizing your zoning

2:50:44regulations have a a different um value

2:50:47established um and the reason for the

2:50:50request to uh a larger work area um

2:50:54again it [clears throat] would be

2:50:55appropriately um designed in terms of

2:50:58spell erosion and sediment control is um

2:51:02going to a smaller area prolongs the

2:51:05construction process by four to 5 months

2:51:08probably at least if we um were to

2:51:11shrink this to um a 5 acre disturbance.

2:51:14So what we would request the 30 acre

2:51:17work plan is that it allows us to

2:51:21construct the um the site driveway. So,

2:51:25um that is the the finger you see there.

2:51:28Um that from Wescott into the the heart

2:51:31of the site is about 15 acres worth of

2:51:34disturbance. We would then request the

2:51:37ability to conduct blasting and rock

2:51:40removal in a 1 acre increment that moves

2:51:43along uh the eastern side. And with that

2:51:47rock removal, we're able to process the

2:51:50rock, build the fills to allow the

2:51:53driveway to come up to grade and begin

2:51:55the work for the retaining wall um where

2:51:58the the cursor sits. And then as that

2:52:02either of those areas is established and

2:52:05set, we would then move to the north uh

2:52:09and to yeah, basically just to the north

2:52:12on both the eastern and western side. Um

2:52:15again the the reason for the request is

2:52:18we need to move the fill from the

2:52:20interior of the site to establish the

2:52:23roadway grades and to to build the

2:52:25retaining wall. Uh it is possible to do

2:52:28in uh with only 5 acres of disturbance.

2:52:31Um and do you have that slide? And

2:52:34basically uh is there another one that

2:52:37um

2:52:39uh okay it's all right. Um but but what

2:52:42happens is we uh have the we start the

2:52:46blasting work in a oneacre increment in

2:52:49the southeast corner but we are only we

2:52:53are taking some of our disturbed area to

2:52:55establish a hall road and then are now

2:52:57working in a very small area at the

2:52:59entrance to Westcot and then we

2:53:02piggyback and move all the way in. So um

2:53:06doing that again it just uh adds time to

2:53:09the total construction duration. We we

2:53:12don't think that the 30 acres is

2:53:15unreasonable for a project of this scale

2:53:18and uh with the type of construction

2:53:20team that builds these. In my 24 years

2:53:24of being a professional engineer, I've

2:53:26never had a project in the state that

2:53:28was limited to uh five acres of

2:53:31disturbance. If you had a 5 acre

2:53:33disturbance cap, you wouldn't be able to

2:53:35build the lows, you know, uh, in a

2:53:38single shot, you would have to phase it

2:53:40because the building and the parking

2:53:41would exceed it. Even something like a

2:53:43stop and shop would likely exceed the 5

2:53:46acre disturbance. So, um, we wanted to

2:53:48to start the dialogue and recognize we

2:53:51may not conclude it, but, um, and can

2:53:54certainly come back with more detailed

2:53:56information, but, uh, as we've been

2:53:58looking at this, the the ask is, um,

2:54:02from a ability to move the work,

2:54:06you know, minimize the amount of

2:54:07disturbance we have, minimize the amount

2:54:09of time that we have disturbed soil,

2:54:12minimize the amount of time that we have

2:54:13truck and construction traffic. uh

2:54:15moving this in larger phases helps us

2:54:18accomplish that. So uh I'm sure the

2:54:20commission's dealt with this on other

2:54:22>> phases would that be

2:54:23>> uh so at at you know it's call it three

2:54:26and a half it's probably four phases um

2:54:29if we moved at uh 30 acres a clip um but

2:54:32the

2:54:34>> isn't that all part of the uh gravel

2:54:36rags I think isn't five acres

2:54:42>> right?

2:54:44Yes, it's it's in the the zoning

2:54:46regulations or at the commission's

2:54:48discretion is kind of how it's left.

2:54:50Yes.

2:54:50>> And then for a Corey, I think there is a

2:54:53a hard cap at 10. Um

2:55:01so again, recognizing that we've been

2:55:03talking for a long time, but this is an

2:55:05item that we wanted to to get in front

2:55:07of you and begin the dialogue on. Um

2:55:09certainly wouldn't want to you know

2:55:11recognizing it's a balance of how much

2:55:13activity uh you want occurring at one

2:55:16time but also need to balance how long

2:55:19the activity happens for um and don't

2:55:23want to arbitrarily extend um you know

2:55:26site disturbance and construction

2:55:27activity longer than necessary um you

2:55:30know if you have that discretion. So,

2:55:33>> right. Um, also, do you have,

2:55:38forgive me if it's already on your plan,

2:55:39do you got ledge outcroppings on shown

2:55:41on it? I didn't

2:55:43>> uh Yeah, I think on on probably on the

2:55:45survey it it is, you know, surf there

2:55:49are surficial areas where you can walk

2:55:50and and see ledge. Um, I'm not aware of

2:55:54any, you know, rock fa you know, cliff

2:55:56faces. It's um you know the the

2:55:58overburden on the existing bedrock is

2:56:01shallow and the rock itself is very

2:56:04competent. Um so you don't go down far

2:56:07till you hit um near competent rock.

2:56:11>> And one other thing for the water storm

2:56:14water I know there's a there's a big

2:56:17pipe that comes from down here all the

2:56:19way up there. I'm not sure if it goes to

2:56:20that side of the highway or not. It's

2:56:24like a six or nine foot diameter pipe

2:56:26that that goes all the way up. Is that

2:56:28>> there?

2:56:29>> Do you have knowledge of that?

2:56:30>> Yeah, our our survey. So, as part of our

2:56:33storm water analysis, we we got the

2:56:35original 395 drawings that show the the

2:56:39pipe network uh that they installed as

2:56:41part of 395. Um, and I don't have that

2:56:45specific watershed, but everything kind

2:56:47of moves around the bend uh to the north

2:56:51kind of off the page here. And then

2:56:53there's the large culvert that goes

2:56:55under um 395. Uh and then

2:56:59>> so it does start on your side of

2:57:00>> there. Yeah, it it kind of it's on both.

2:57:02There's there is a call it a swale that

2:57:05was constructed on the east side of 395

2:57:08and there's another swale that was

2:57:09connected on the west side of 395. Those

2:57:12all head north together taking

2:57:14intermediate runs and catch basins

2:57:16taking the median of 395. Uh but

2:57:19eventually after you get around the bend

2:57:21there, they all come together. Um and

2:57:23that was some of the analysis that we

2:57:25did. Again, if you had a chance to read

2:57:27the the time bond comment about um they

2:57:30asked us to look at impacts to off-site

2:57:33areas. Um and as part of that we

2:57:35included you know some of that figure

2:57:37but um yeah there is there is large

2:57:40pipes as you uh head north on 395 that

2:57:43take I don't I don't know I' be guessing

2:57:46at the number another 100 acres of 395

2:57:48right away uh including

2:57:50>> So is that whole series is off of your

2:57:52land? I'm

2:57:53>> Yeah, it is on 39. It is on the state

2:57:55right away. The state right away.

2:57:57>> Correct. Yeah. All those pipes uh exist

2:57:59on 395 and the swale itself kind of

2:58:03bounces on the property line. Um I don't

2:58:05know, it's probably hard to see at this

2:58:06scale, but you can see some dark

2:58:08contours right off the shoulder of 395.

2:58:11And then there's a swale that you know

2:58:13as you come up the back side of the

2:58:14swale, you're probably crossing onto the

2:58:17um the private land. But um the

2:58:19infrastructure itself was built as part

2:58:21of the 395.

2:58:22>> Ultimately, all your drainage

2:58:24>> goes

2:58:24>> goes in that same pipe.

2:58:26>> Yes.

2:58:26>> Yeah. for uh call it twothirds of the

2:58:31property there is a small piece that uh

2:58:33heads to the east and then um as you

2:58:36come down the driveway you eventually

2:58:37coingle with the WCOT uh drainage system

2:58:40and what exists in Stern and Baker but

2:58:43um the you know the basically what

2:58:45you're you're looking at there between

2:58:46395

2:58:48uh and the parking lot as well as a

2:58:49parking lot and most of the roof

2:58:52comingle with all that 395 drainage as

2:58:54it leaves our site.

2:58:57Okay.

2:58:59>> And I found the section of the phasing

2:59:01that was being discussed earlier, the

2:59:02five acres versus 30. That's uh section

2:59:05560.7, which is the performance

2:59:07standards. If you go to U of that

2:59:10section, that's the the one that was

2:59:12being discussed,

2:59:13>> but that was in the gravel, right? 560

2:59:15is a gra

2:59:17>> earth and excavation.

2:59:18>> Yeah.

2:59:18>> Yes.

2:59:19>> 560 point

2:59:22>> 560.7. if you go to U all the way at the

2:59:25end of that section.

2:59:29>> Okay.

2:59:32>> So, how does the five acre increments

2:59:33impact your um phasing plans that you

2:59:36have in the set of drawings they

2:59:37provided us?

2:59:39>> We're we're going to do new ones and

2:59:41that was uh some of our response to time

2:59:43bond as we kind of deferred on answering

2:59:46um or completing updates to the soil

2:59:48erosion sediment control plan. Um

2:59:50because is either scenario of if we had

2:59:52to take it from what's currently shown

2:59:54as a full fa a single phase um which we

2:59:58commonly do and if we we met uh at a 30

3:00:01acre threshold we would adjust the plans

3:00:03to reflect that um and if we were um

3:00:06down at 5 acres the plan would look

3:00:08different. So, um, that was one of the

3:00:11items that we, uh, left open in the

3:00:12entire bond response saying we we're

3:00:15work going to work through with the

3:00:16commission on what the the right number

3:00:18is and then adjust the plans

3:00:19accordingly. So, um, those plans will be

3:00:22revised as we work to a solution here.

3:00:25>> Yeah, I don't believe in the rules we

3:00:26have the ability to go above 10, but

3:00:32>> Okay. [clears throat]

3:00:34>> Just I don't remember anything that

3:00:36allows us to go above. I know we can go

3:00:38from 5 to 10. You can go from 5 to 10

3:00:40with commission approval, but I'm not

3:00:41sure we can go above 10.

3:00:45>> The regulation says that rock quaries

3:00:47cannot exceed 10 acres. So that that

3:00:50restriction on 10 acres in this section

3:00:52applies just to rock quaries. It doesn't

3:00:54doesn't address the other uh types of

3:00:57proposed uses.

3:00:59>> So

3:01:01>> without that prohibition,

3:01:02>> I think there's another section

3:01:03somewhere that does scope 10, but that's

3:01:05okay. Yeah.

3:01:09So, what other questions? Other

3:01:12commissioners got any others? Um, I'd be

3:01:14curious what the architect might have to

3:01:16say about the roof like snow loads. How

3:01:18what's the like 30 inch with ice? How

3:01:21how, you know, what would be the maximum

3:01:25that it could take. I only say that

3:01:27because of, you know, we have we don't

3:01:29get it a lot, but we do get where you're

3:01:31shoveling roofs off. Um I I I remove

3:01:36snow in the industrial park and I've

3:01:38been out there a lot of times getting

3:01:39that. So those are would be the extreme

3:01:42situations.

3:01:43That's what I'm kind of referring to

3:01:45when I talk about having the enough area

3:01:48and then or having places to to dump it.

3:01:52I mean I know what we go through to try

3:01:54and find spots to put dump what we have

3:01:55and I work out of the industrial park

3:01:58which is I don't think all of it

3:02:00combined is close to what you guys got.

3:02:03So,

3:02:04it's it to me it's a concern.

3:02:07>> Sure. We'll we'll take a look at that.

3:02:11>> Any other questions for Christian? I I

3:02:13do have one.

3:02:15>> How and where

3:02:17will the snow be removed from the

3:02:20trailers

3:02:22before they leave the premisy premises?

3:02:25>> Yeah. Um what Amazon does in the winter

3:02:27time is they bring in one of the roof

3:02:28rakes uh at the outbound lane to um the

3:02:32guard check. So they don't have a

3:02:33permanent uh you know snow broom or

3:02:35whatever you may call it. Um but they do

3:02:37they do bring it in for the winter uh as

3:02:40needed to pull the snow off the roofs

3:02:41because you can't drive with the

3:02:42unsecured load on top. So um it is a a

3:02:45thing that they do.

3:02:46>> So it will be

3:02:47>> so it will be by the guard checks.

3:02:49>> Yeah. on on the outbound area as

3:02:52[clears throat] you're heading. So, as

3:02:53you're heading to leave the facility,

3:02:54you you'd pass through it

3:02:56>> and then they will be there to remove

3:02:58the snow from the road

3:02:59>> and they'll have to remove the snow from

3:03:01the road or

3:03:02>> or if there's a more appropriate

3:03:04location that allows the truck to spin

3:03:06around. Um, but it would be a temporary

3:03:09structure. It's not permanent. Bring it

3:03:10in for the season. Um, but we've uh as

3:03:13we were coordinating some of the

3:03:15responses uh and you know there was a

3:03:16number of questions about on-site

3:03:17fueling and and you know vehicle

3:03:19maintenance and that you know that does

3:03:22not happen on site. Um but they did

3:03:24Amazon folks did tell us that they do

3:03:26have the snow broom or it's got a brand

3:03:28name I can't think of off the top of my

3:03:29head but um that is brought in for the

3:03:31winter for snow removal off the top of

3:03:33the trailers.

3:03:35>> Okay.

3:03:36>> Okay. Um anybody else at this point? Do

3:03:40we

3:03:42intervene or do we address that? Now

3:03:45>> I I had one question for if I could, Mr.

3:03:48Chair, of of the applicant. Um there was

3:03:51a report that came in last week from the

3:03:53third party reviewer that in in some

3:03:56instances

3:03:57um agreed that the uh interveners

3:04:01consultant Steve Trinkus' requests um

3:04:05were reasonable and there were some

3:04:06things that were requested. Um and I

3:04:08just got the report uh actually just

3:04:11today. Um what's the status of that? Is

3:04:13there going to be because that report

3:04:15was relatively recent. Is some

3:04:16additional information going to be added

3:04:18because if it's related to the you know

3:04:20one angle one thing that could happen

3:04:22tonight depending on how many how long

3:04:24the commission wanted to meet is you

3:04:25could hear from the interveners. The

3:04:27intervenor um I think ms Murphy said

3:04:30last time that they were going to rely

3:04:32on Mr. Trinkus's report. So they might

3:04:34not want to present any additional

3:04:35testimony. So that's one thing you could

3:04:37get clarified tonight whether or not

3:04:39anything in addition is going to come

3:04:40in. Um so I'd suggest doing that um if

3:04:43you were going to continue beyond where

3:04:45we are right now. And then the other

3:04:47thing would be um to get clarification

3:04:50if there is going to be some more

3:04:51information that did relate to what Mr.

3:04:53Trinkus was recommending. Um I would

3:04:56suggest waiting to make the final

3:04:57determination on the issues that were

3:05:00raised by the interveners until that

3:05:02additional information comes in. But you

3:05:04could still use the time tonight to the

3:05:07the extent that the intervenors wanted

3:05:08to present any evidence. Uh give them

3:05:10that opportunity. So that's one

3:05:12recommended course of action you could

3:05:13take.

3:05:15>> And and am I right? Is there additional

3:05:17information that's going to be coming as

3:05:18a result of third party review and some

3:05:20of the comments that were made with

3:05:21respect to the trinkus report? I

3:05:23>> I've made it through page 17 and 25 and

3:05:25uh nothing yet.

3:05:28Um,

3:05:34>> oh, I think I'm getting closer here.

3:05:37>> Yeah, we and um for council this you're

3:05:42referring to our October 28th response

3:05:45to the time bond response to the

3:05:47trinkets letter. Is that the am I

3:05:49chaining that correctly?

3:05:51>> Maybe. Uh so on the 23rd, I've got the

3:05:54report today from the third party

3:05:56reviewer on the 23rd that indicated that

3:05:59there were some some aspects some they

3:06:02didn't they didn't think you needed to

3:06:03provide any additional information and

3:06:04others you did. Um have you responded to

3:06:07the areas where they asked you and

3:06:09provided the additional information and

3:06:11when did the when did we get that? I

3:06:13haven't seen it but when did the

3:06:14commission get it?

3:06:15>> Sure. So um on October 28th we responded

3:06:21to the October 19th time bond letter. So

3:06:26uh Trinkus uh letter was dated October

3:06:291st. On October 19th, Thai Bond uh

3:06:34provided a review uh answered many of

3:06:37the questions or comments and then

3:06:40issued a letter to us on the 19th saying

3:06:44here are a number of items that the

3:06:45applicant can respond on. Uh we

3:06:50finished that response on the 28th and

3:06:53submitted it and I believe there are

3:06:58I want to say yes there are items

3:07:01related to updating the soil erosion and

3:07:04sediment control plans per the

3:07:05discussion with commissioner card on um

3:07:10depending on which way the phasing

3:07:12direction goes from the commission um

3:07:15those plans would need to be revised.

3:07:17But out of the um 41 comments

3:07:23um

3:07:25there may be two or three that relate to

3:07:29the soil erosion and sediment control

3:07:31plans. I believe I'm comment

3:07:34looks like 29 31 39 and so maybe four

3:07:40and 41 all relate to the soil erosion

3:07:43sediment control plan. and we say, you

3:07:45know, our kind of our last paragraph on

3:07:48item number 41. Um, you know, we say,

3:07:51see comment above. Um, and we're

3:07:53requesting planning and zoning

3:07:54commission feedback on the project

3:07:56phasing approach. Upon the feedback,

3:07:58we'll proceed the selected path, review

3:08:00and revise the construction sequence.

3:08:02Um, and with that sequence comes the

3:08:03soil erosion and sediment control plans.

3:08:05Um I would say all of the technical

3:08:08comments with regard to uh storm water

3:08:13all the general comments storm water

3:08:15comments uh were addressed. Um now

3:08:19obviously time bond has not provided a

3:08:22feedback on that yet I'm sure if they're

3:08:23here this evening um but the soil

3:08:26erosion measures uh are are relying on

3:08:29our total phasing acreage that uh we

3:08:31just started discussing.

3:08:33Hope that helps. a lot of words I know

3:08:34but

3:08:35>> um so just for the record I think the

3:08:37issue here is when their response memo

3:08:40came in it is actually not to you guys

3:08:43um it is to uh the in the wetland

3:08:45commission and so it is not in your

3:08:48packets and you have not seen it um

3:08:50because it wasn't to this commission so

3:08:54>> um I know it's hard because it's the

3:08:56same for both but we don't put

3:08:59memorandums to the planning you know

3:09:01that's to the wetlands and the planning

3:09:02and zoning commission packets It's so

3:09:04you really should, you know, change that

3:09:06and then we can put it in the right file

3:09:07for you.

3:09:08>> Okay. So, so with that, I think you

3:09:11should refrain from making the final

3:09:12decision on the the questions raised by

3:09:15the intervention petition. But um the as

3:09:19the the applicant has finished their

3:09:21presentation if the commission wanted to

3:09:24give an opportunity for the the uh

3:09:26interveners if they had anything to

3:09:27present in addition to the reports that

3:09:29they've submitted as again my memory was

3:09:32from the last meeting that they

3:09:33indicated that they were not going to

3:09:34submit anything other than the trinkus

3:09:36report. But I think that as a party who

3:09:38you've granted intervention status for,

3:09:40you should give them an opportunity to

3:09:41present if they have anything else to

3:09:43present and that might be an effective

3:09:45use of their time and it might not take

3:09:46much time.

3:09:48>> Miss Murphy, if you could

3:09:52say it name and address for the record,

3:09:54please. So,

3:09:59>> um, you got to hit the

3:10:03>> on this thing. Hello. There it is. Uh

3:10:06Michelle Murphy, 325 Break Neck Hill

3:10:08Road. Um I just have one thing to

3:10:11submit. We had Al Drain do a uh an

3:10:14explanation of where the waterways are

3:10:16underneath and um where the wersheds are

3:10:20and he like he said he doesn't know

3:10:22exactly what the wersheds are. I'll just

3:10:24submit that it's the other end of Steve

3:10:26Trinkus' report. Steve will talk on um

3:10:29the storm water and the pollution and

3:10:30the erosion and this just tells you if

3:10:32it was polluted that's where it would

3:10:34go. So, I'm just going to submit that to

3:10:35you guys. Steve is on the line because I

3:10:38was told he was there to answer

3:10:40questions. So, he probably will present

3:10:42a little bit that uh when I had said I'd

3:10:45just do the report, it was because I

3:10:48didn't know he had to be here. So, now

3:10:49he's been here for three hours. He's

3:10:51probably going to want to say something.

3:10:52Uh so, Steve, you there?

3:10:56>> Oh, yes, I am.

3:11:01>> Can you hear me, Commission?

3:11:03>> Yes. Go ahead.

3:11:04>> Okay. Yes. Um, for the record, Stephen

3:11:07Trinkus, I'm a licensed professional

3:11:09engineer from Southbury, Connecticut.

3:11:12Um, I did a limited review of these

3:11:14plans because you had Ty and Bond doing,

3:11:17you know, a full civil engineering

3:11:18review. Um, I focused more on the storm

3:11:21water and the erosion. And, uh, just a

3:11:24couple comments on what I heard tonight.

3:11:26Um you know under the connected general

3:11:30permit uh for construction activities

3:11:32deep actually has a limit also of the

3:11:34five acre threshold. If you want to go

3:11:37more than that coverage is not allowed

3:11:40under the general permit based at least

3:11:42how uh deep treated a project of mine

3:11:44about five or six years ago where we

3:11:47wanted to disturb 10 acres at one time

3:11:49and we had to get an individual permit.

3:11:52We could not get coverage under the

3:11:54general permit. Uh that's more of a

3:11:56question for the uh the group at DP. Um

3:12:00however, you know, in the world of

3:12:01engineering and erosion control, the

3:12:03best way not to have problems on your

3:12:05site is to restrict the area that you

3:12:08disturb at one time. To open up 30 acres

3:12:11of a site with shallow soils over

3:12:14bedrock, it will be next to impossible

3:12:16to control the construction water coming

3:12:19off that site. uh silk fence waddles all

3:12:23have limitations and the site is just

3:12:26too huge to prevent the discharge of uh

3:12:30dirty construction water. Um you'll be

3:12:33chasing your tail to try and prevent it

3:12:35from getting offsite or getting down to

3:12:37the wetland areas. Um, another issue

3:12:39before I get into a couple comments from

3:12:41my report of October 14th, uh, to follow

3:12:44up on the chloride issue, um, deicing

3:12:47agents that use chloride, the chloride

3:12:51ion does not come out of storm water in

3:12:54any way. There is no conventional

3:12:56practice. There is no low impact

3:12:58development practice, which is my area

3:13:00of expertise to remove it. Chloride ions

3:13:03simply don't play well with anything

3:13:04else. It stays in solution. it will stay

3:13:08in the soils. Um if you're plowing uh

3:13:12impervious cover um where you put the

3:13:14the brines down first um is it sprays up

3:13:18to vegetation. It will kill uh trees

3:13:21particularly evergreens. Um the only way

3:13:24to avoid the chloride impacts quite

3:13:26honestly is not to put it down to use

3:13:29more sand to use very little amounts of

3:13:32rock salt to melt ice that may form. But

3:13:35the use of uh the brines um even in a

3:13:39you know controlled by contractors it's

3:13:41it's an environmental impact that does

3:13:43not go away and it simply gets worse

3:13:46over time. Um there's no way to prevent

3:13:48the chloride impacts. I wish there was

3:13:51but uh nobody has come up uh with a way

3:13:53to to do that. Um, I think with the

3:13:57applicant making their suggestion of the

3:13:5830 acre threshold, some of my pre-order

3:14:00via erosion comments may be a little

3:14:03moot, but there was also a temporary

3:14:06access shown from um that same access

3:14:09that Tim discussed uh to get to uh on

3:14:12the uphill side of the bridge, but this

3:14:14other access went up to the main body of

3:14:16the construction site. It also had a

3:14:19stream crossing. There was no

3:14:21information on how they were going to

3:14:22cross that stream. Was this temporary

3:14:24roadway nor was there any grading and it

3:14:27did traverse some fairly significant

3:14:29slopes and I do understand they need to

3:14:32lower the actual site of the development

3:14:34to get the material to build the

3:14:36roadway. Um but there's a lack of

3:14:39information on that temporary

3:14:41construction access uh going up there.

3:14:43Um there were also general comments

3:14:46about you know diversion swailes for

3:14:48temporary sediment basins. You know

3:14:50again they've got to convey a certain

3:14:51amount of be able to convey a certain

3:14:53amount of storm water uh for it. The

3:14:56detail also called out a V-shaped

3:14:58cross-section which is not what you want

3:15:00to do because a V-shaped cross-section

3:15:02will have a high velocity in the center

3:15:05of the V. If you're doing diversion

3:15:07swailes, you want to use a trapezoidal

3:15:09or even a parabolic prox, excuse me,

3:15:12cross-section that's fairly wide to keep

3:15:15the flow velocities down so you don't

3:15:17actually erode the soil itself. Um, on

3:15:21the storm water side, I'm just going to

3:15:23briefly focus on water quality. Um, in

3:15:26in the October 14th uh report which I

3:15:29submitted, I prepared what's called a

3:15:31pluton loading analysis. This is a

3:15:33process developed by Tom Scheler from

3:15:36the center of watershed protection um

3:15:39when he was initially there. It's a

3:15:41calculation using published data for

3:15:43pollutant concentrations and then you

3:15:46use removal efficiencies based on field

3:15:49monitoring data and be able to show you

3:15:51know what percentage of the various

3:15:53pollutants you're going to uh remove.

3:15:55Now is the applicant's proposal has the

3:15:57catch basins to the online hydrodnamic

3:16:00separator goes to the underground uh

3:16:03galleries which are basically an

3:16:05underground bathtub to just you know

3:16:07hold the water and then the uh online

3:16:10jellyfish filter. Um both the separator

3:16:13and the jellyfish filter when they're in

3:16:16online configurations are not as

3:16:18efficient contrary to what the

3:16:19manufacturers uh claim. The separators

3:16:23have been around since the mid9s.

3:16:24they've always had an internal bypass uh

3:16:28system. However, what research has shown

3:16:30by both the New Hampshire Stormwater

3:16:32Center um and uh what's called the

3:16:35American Society of Civil Engineers BMP

3:16:37database is field monitoring data of

3:16:41these sites. And what the data shows is

3:16:44there's a significant difference between

3:16:46an online configuration and offline. Um,

3:16:50an online configuration for a

3:16:51hydrodnamic separator will remove about

3:16:5429% total suspended solids. If it's

3:16:57offline where the water quality flow

3:17:00goes through it, that goes up to 75%.

3:17:03The jellyfish filter, there is

3:17:05absolutely no data on uh offline uh

3:17:08versus online. Um, in the analysis I

3:17:12did, I uh that jellyfish recommends it

3:17:15being an offline configuration. So, I

3:17:17used those pollutant removal

3:17:19efficiencies, but as proposed, it would

3:17:21actually be less than we calculated. But

3:17:24the Connecticut D in their 24 storm

3:17:27water quality manual has uh pollutant

3:17:30reduction requirements that we we as

3:17:33design professionals need to meet. They

3:17:35want postdevelopment total suspended

3:17:37solids or TSS reduced by 90%. They want

3:17:41phosphorus to be reduced by 60% and

3:17:44nitrogen by 40. And when you look at the

3:17:48loading analysis, I just did one of the

3:17:50systems on the site. Um you'll find that

3:17:53after going through the catch basins,

3:17:55the online separator, and the jellyfish

3:17:57filter, you're only going to remove 64%

3:18:00of total suspended solids. That's 2/3 of

3:18:04what Deep wants us to meet. You're going

3:18:06to be 40% phosphorus. Again, that's

3:18:09about 2/3 of what D wants. Nitrogen,

3:18:13you're about a little over half. It's

3:18:1524%.

3:18:16So, the design as proposed does not meet

3:18:19the D requirements. Um, additionally,

3:18:23um, when I heard the applicant

3:18:24discussing the discharge points to kind

3:18:26of mimic the natural flows, when you

3:18:29look at the existing conditions maps,

3:18:32the runoff from this site is all

3:18:34occurring as overland flow through the

3:18:35forested environment. what the

3:18:37applicant's proposing with the level

3:18:39spreaders. While a level spreader will

3:18:41provide a instead of concentrated flow,

3:18:44a slightly um shorter overland flow via

3:18:48the concrete beam that they proposed.

3:18:50It's still concentrating the water

3:18:52instead of overland flow that the mother

3:18:55nature currently does on the site. So

3:18:58you really are not mimicking the exact

3:19:00discharge points because as proposed the

3:19:03water is sheeting across you know the

3:19:06forest over a wide length you know it's

3:19:08not going to be under post development

3:19:10conditions it's going to be fairly

3:19:12concentrated um at those points um um

3:19:16while I didn't have a chance to go

3:19:17through the time bond in great detail um

3:19:21one of the comments that I had made was

3:19:23that I believe there should be

3:19:25cross-sections done through the building

3:19:27from the high side through the low side

3:19:29retaining walls to provide the

3:19:31commission with a visual of the extent

3:19:34of the earth moving that's going to

3:19:35occur here. That downgradient wall

3:19:38varies between 40 up to 70 feet in

3:19:41height. And I believe the uphill walls

3:19:43are maybe a maximum of 40 feet give or

3:19:46take. But cross-sections, three or four

3:19:49of them across the uh width of the

3:19:51building, you know, maybe one 100 feet

3:19:53in from each end and one in the center

3:19:56would definitely give the commission a

3:19:58much better view of uh how this building

3:20:01is going to require massive earthwork to

3:20:04fit on this particular site. And I think

3:20:06it's something the commission really

3:20:08should consider uh having the applicant

3:20:10provide. It will provide a lot of

3:20:12valuable uh information for uh your

3:20:15assessing of this project. Um that's all

3:20:17I have to say. I mean all my other

3:20:19comments are in my uh uh October 14th

3:20:22report. Um thank you for the time to

3:20:25share them.

3:20:26>> Thank you.

3:20:34Thank you. For the record, Evan Seaman,

3:20:36um we and as Mr. Ando noted, we did

3:20:39respond to the the Tigen Bonds review of

3:20:42Mr. Trinkus' report um uh to the

3:20:44wetlands agency and and now that will be

3:20:47included in your packet so they can

3:20:48review here.

3:20:49I do want to address some of the the

3:20:51issues in in the report and that were

3:20:53just raised. Under 22A19, which is the

3:20:56intervention statute, the interveners

3:20:58have the burden of proof to establish uh

3:21:01reasonable likelihood of unreasonable

3:21:02pollution to uh natural resources of the

3:21:05state. Um when this commission permitted

3:21:08permitted them to intervene in the

3:21:09proceeding uh the the subject of of um

3:21:13the scope of the intervention is limited

3:21:14to soil erosion sedimentation control

3:21:16and stormwater management issues and

3:21:19their uh alleged impacts to natural

3:21:21resources within this agency's review

3:21:24authority. Uh impacts to wetlands, water

3:21:27courses, wetland dependent wildlife,

3:21:28which is all in Mr. Trinkis' report.

3:21:31That's more appropriate for another

3:21:32agency, not this one. Um what you've

3:21:35heard this evening is um as uh a case

3:21:39called Riverbend has described is uh

3:21:41general concerns and speculation and

3:21:43conjecture. It's it's criticism about

3:21:46non-compliance with a uh with with CTDep

3:21:50guidelines which which Mr. Trinkus has

3:21:53described as requirements. Douglas

3:21:55versus Planning and Zoning Commission is

3:21:57a case that is considered intervention.

3:21:59The issue of intervention under 22-way19

3:22:02and it stated that non-compliance with

3:22:04requirements not just guidelines with

3:22:06requirements is not sufficient uh to

3:22:09carry the burden under is not is not

3:22:11sufficient even to get in under 20 22

3:22:14A19 let alone to to carry the burden of

3:22:16proof. So um can you go pull up the

3:22:19PowerPoint? I do have a couple slides on

3:22:21on the issue of intervention I wanted to

3:22:23discuss.

3:22:27while that happened tonight.

3:22:29Uh Tim Durko, professional engineer, a

3:22:32question to staff. So the October 19th

3:22:35tyin bond response to the intervenor

3:22:38engineering comments was that also

3:22:41provided to the commission to the

3:22:43planning and zoning commission because

3:22:44it is addressed to San Diego. So we

3:22:46might be talking about things that have

3:22:48not made it to this. Was the time bond

3:22:51letter written twice to both uh chair

3:22:56Edgars and Chair Thurlo?

3:23:03>> I have a tie in bond response to the

3:23:07planning and zoning commission on an

3:23:09evaluation of the intervenors

3:23:11engineering comments dated October 23rd.

3:23:15>> Okay.

3:23:15>> Is that what you're

3:23:16>> Yeah. So the o I have a paper copy of

3:23:19the their October 19th letter which was

3:23:22to wetlands. So it sounds like they did

3:23:24a save as on the 23rd and went to this

3:23:27commission. Excellent.

3:23:28>> We're trying to keep them separated. So

3:23:30whomever you are directing them to is

3:23:32the files they're going in.

3:23:34>> Okay.

3:23:37>> Thank you. So, this is one of the I kind

3:23:38of covered this already, but um this is

3:23:41this is actually from uh as part of the

3:23:44first withdrawn application, the town

3:23:45attorney issued a memo to the commission

3:23:47about intervention. And this this is the

3:23:50case law um regarding uh the point that

3:23:53I just made that the intervenors have

3:23:54the burden of proof to establish

3:23:56environmental harm. We as the applicant

3:23:58do not have the burden to disprove what

3:24:00they say. They have to meet their

3:24:02burden. And as you'll see at the bottom

3:24:04here, I believe this is quoting the

3:24:05Riverbend case that I referenced,

3:24:07Riverbend Associates versus Conservation

3:24:09Commission. General environmental

3:24:10impacts, mere speculation or general

3:24:12concerns are not substantial evidence.

3:24:14Substantial evidence is what you need to

3:24:16base any decision on. Substantial

3:24:18evidence is is uh what's required for

3:24:20this agency to to render a decision one

3:24:23way or the other. Next slide, please. Um

3:24:25and this is from the staff report, and

3:24:27we agree with with staff's um assessment

3:24:29of Mr. Trinkus' report. The interven

3:24:32intervenor's engineering submission

3:24:33consists principally of general

3:24:35statements about storm water pollutants,

3:24:36published performance data for device

3:24:39types other than those specified,

3:24:41disagreement with the methodology of the

3:24:432024 Connecticut storm water quality

3:24:46manual and requests for additional

3:24:48information. It contains no sight

3:24:50specific data or analysis showing an

3:24:52unreasonable impact on an identified

3:24:54resource and its single quantitative

3:24:56analysis contains calculation errors and

3:24:58is measured against design targets

3:25:00rather than resource impacts. So again,

3:25:02they haven't satisfied their burden of

3:25:04proof. Um I also have have submitted to

3:25:07the record and I'll hand it out to the

3:25:09commission now.

3:25:20This is a letter. So within the past um

3:25:23two years, Mr. Trinkus has been been

3:25:25involved in in quite a few land use

3:25:27cases that have reached the Connecticut

3:25:29Superior Court's land use litigation

3:25:32docket. The Connecticut Superior Court

3:25:34land use litigation docket is the

3:25:35specialized land use court throughout

3:25:37the state. And I I'll [clears throat]

3:25:39wait till members of the commission get

3:25:41this, but

3:25:44In the past two years, the court has

3:25:47found Mr. Trinkus to be not credible on

3:25:49at least four separate occasions. And

3:25:52this this uh this handout goes through

3:25:55those cases. Um as described below, the

3:25:58superior court has observed that Mr.

3:26:00Trinkus relies on the same comments as

3:26:02part of his opposition work regardless

3:26:05of the project. Uh the first case,

3:26:07Fairfield Housing Corp versus

3:26:09Conservation Commission, is a 2024

3:26:11decision. Um, and these are all quotes

3:26:13from the cases. This is this is not

3:26:15criticism from me, from from anyone on

3:26:19our team. This is quotes from the judge,

3:26:21from the court. Given his inaccuracies,

3:26:23factual incompleteness, and selective

3:26:25omissions, Trinkus' opinions do not

3:26:27constitute a substantial basis of fact

3:26:30to sustain the commission's denial.

3:26:32Bullet two. Therefore, Trinkus'

3:26:34conclusions can only be seen as

3:26:36speculative or conjectural without

3:26:38supporting analysis. Further, Trinkus'

3:26:41views about increased storm water

3:26:42volume, no infiltration and poor water

3:26:45quality were based upon selective

3:26:47citation from the deep manual that

3:26:49omitted parts of the guidelines that

3:26:51when read together demonstrate both that

3:26:53his criticism was not valid and that the

3:26:55work of the plaintiff's engineer was

3:26:56competent. Trinkus' opinion regarding

3:26:59infiltration is similarly flawed as

3:27:01incomplete and selective in its

3:27:02articulation of the deep guidelines.

3:27:05Therefore, the reports and evidence from

3:27:06Trinkist are based on incomplete

3:27:08information that is not substantiated by

3:27:09the record developed during the public

3:27:11hearing and upon which the commission

3:27:12could rely. The next case is 751 Weed

3:27:16Street. Uh the second bullet, therefore,

3:27:19the overwhelming evidence of the record

3:27:21is that evaluation of the pros and cons

3:27:22of plaintiff's proposal fairly and under

3:27:25the statutory standard was a process

3:27:27that took place among the other

3:27:29engineers, not with trinkets. Uh the

3:27:32course review of his July 11th, 2022

3:27:34letter reveals no calculations at all by

3:27:36Trinkus, either to support his positions

3:27:38or to demonstrate that the plaintiff's

3:27:40detailed engineering calculations in the

3:27:42reports submitted were in error.

3:27:44Further, the court observes that

3:27:45Trinkus' testimony in this matter,

3:27:47except for the very last road icing, is

3:27:50nearly identical to his testimony in

3:27:52other matters.

3:27:54Reading the final reading the transcript

3:27:56of the final hearing made one wonder if

3:27:58Trinkus was discussing a different

3:28:00application.

3:28:01Um, next case, Ali versus Wetlands, uh,

3:28:04board. The record is clear that Trinkus'

3:28:07conclusions were factually inaccurate or

3:28:08based on outdated information and that

3:28:10he selectively omitted evidence.

3:28:12Plaintiff's engineers addressed these

3:28:14inaccuracies and defects on the record

3:28:16and Trinkus made no effort to either

3:28:17refute the criticism or even worse to

3:28:19correct his own statements.

3:28:21uh in some Trinkus' views relying upon

3:28:23obsolete partial or false factual bases

3:28:25were clearly unsound given his

3:28:28inaccuracies, factual incompleteness and

3:28:29selective omissions and his failure to

3:28:31provide any detailed analysis to refute

3:28:33that of the qualified engineers he was

3:28:35critiquing. Trinkus' opinions do not

3:28:38constitute a substantial basis of fact

3:28:40sufficient for the board to rely on rely

3:28:43on them to deny plaintiff's application.

3:28:47As this court has previously observed,

3:28:48Trinkus' views are generally consistent

3:28:50with views he's given in opposition to

3:28:52several other developments. And then the

3:28:53last case, which is July 31, 2026.

3:28:58Also, Jacobson Engineering revealed that

3:29:00certain authority Trinka cited could not

3:29:01be found and respectfully disagreed with

3:29:03other sources he cited. In some an

3:29:05examination of the record exposes the

3:29:07stark qualitative difference between

3:29:09Jacobson Engineering's measured tone and

3:29:11detail in its role as consulting

3:29:12engineer to the commission and Trinkus'

3:29:14repetitive conu concl conclusions and

3:29:16accuracies made without supporting

3:29:18detail or analysis. Um similar conduct

3:29:22of Trinkus as an opposition expert in

3:29:24other cases has been observed by this

3:29:25court.

3:29:27The report that he submitted uh as part

3:29:30of this we do not believe it's credible.

3:29:32We we don't believe uh that that he has

3:29:35that the interveners have um sustains

3:29:39their burden of proof. Um there it's

3:29:43just comments about uh requests for more

3:29:46data. No,

3:29:49they don't identify any resources to be

3:29:51impacted. Um they haven't sustained

3:29:54their burden of proof and we'll leave it

3:29:55at that. Happy to answer any questions.

3:30:00>> Commissioners, any questions?

3:30:03Mike [clears throat]

3:30:04>> John Brian respond

3:30:10>> staff.

3:30:12>> No, but I I heard someone in the public.

3:30:14Yes.

3:30:15>> Yeah. We um Mr. Trus is trying to get

3:30:18on.

3:30:18>> Yeah.

3:30:20>> Okay. Mr. Trinkus.

3:30:23>> Yes, I'm here.

3:30:25>> You're trying to get on. You want to

3:30:26comment?

3:30:28>> Oh, yeah. I' I'd like to just, you know,

3:30:30address this issue as attorney Seaman

3:30:33brought this up at the wetlands meeting.

3:30:35Um, I have done land use primarily on

3:30:37the development side of the coin since

3:30:391983

3:30:41um in support of commercial sub uh

3:30:45projects, site plans, subdivisions

3:30:48um and have been found extremely

3:30:51credible. Um, Judge O'Hanlin in the past

3:30:54two years has found in his opinion my

3:30:56testimony is not credible. However, if

3:30:59the commission finds my testimony

3:31:01credible, they're free to make a

3:31:04decision based upon that. And that comes

3:31:06from the Forcel versus Reading

3:31:08Conservation Commission court case,

3:31:10which was an appellet decision that said

3:31:12when you have multiple expert opinions,

3:31:14the commission may listen to the expert

3:31:17they find most credible. And that's what

3:31:20in these other cases occurred. uh the

3:31:23Fairfield Housing Project, the applicant

3:31:27uh engineer was proposing low impact

3:31:29development practices that the 2004

3:31:33storm water quality manual said you

3:31:35could not put in those particular soil

3:31:37types. That was the comment that I made.

3:31:40That's a factual comment. They would not

3:31:43have functioned. Um and I stand by all

3:31:45the comments in all of these particular

3:31:47cases. If the commission finds my

3:31:50testimony credible, that's all I'm

3:31:52concerned about. Um, I'm not really

3:31:54concerned professionally that the judge

3:31:57makes a decision that I'm not credible.

3:31:59The burden in every land use application

3:32:02I have ever done is on the applicant. We

3:32:05must prove that our designs work. They

3:32:08must prove that we do not cause

3:32:09environmental impact. It is not the

3:32:12burden of an intervenor expert to prove

3:32:15the contrary. The applicant's burden is

3:32:18to prove that they fully comply. And

3:32:20what I've given you in the October 14th

3:32:23is clear mathematical evidence that the

3:32:26storm water quality standards that deep

3:32:28wants us to achieve are not being met.

3:32:32And those impacts, the appendix to that

3:32:34letter discusses the environmental

3:32:36impacts primarily to aquatic systems due

3:32:39to these pollutant loads. So it is

3:32:42connecting the dots and that that's all

3:32:44I have to say. Thank you,

3:32:49[applause]

3:32:51>> m Mr. Chairman. Um, on that on that

3:32:53issue of burden of proof, Mr. Mr.

3:32:56Trinkus is not correct. The interveners

3:32:59do bear the burden of proof under under

3:33:01Connecticut law on the issues within the

3:33:03scope of their intervention and that's

3:33:05already been addressed in the town

3:33:06attorney's memorandum.

3:33:09>> Mr. chair. Um, my suggestion continues

3:33:12that that there are some more reports

3:33:15that came in. The third party reviewer

3:33:17did did uh endorse in some some respect

3:33:20some of the things Mr. Trinkus said and

3:33:22it sounds as though that the applicant

3:33:24has responded and provided some more

3:33:26information which the commission doesn't

3:33:27have yet. So my my recommendation to

3:33:29hold off on making the final decision. I

3:33:32have a memorandum that I that I would

3:33:34would be able to go over with the

3:33:35commission tonight if it was going to

3:33:37proceed with the decision on the

3:33:39petitions. Um there are really two

3:33:42different burdens going on. What Mr.

3:33:43Trinkus was just talking about is he's

3:33:45correct. The applicant has the burden of

3:33:48on its on his application, but there's a

3:33:51decision tree under the intervention

3:33:52petition where the intervenor does bear

3:33:55bear a burden and and if the intervenor

3:33:58bears a burden, then you get a feasible

3:34:01and pr prudent alternative analysis that

3:34:03you have to go to. If the intervenor

3:34:06does not sustain his burden, then you

3:34:08proceed to consider the application into

3:34:10the ordinary standards that you apply.

3:34:12But when you look at those standards,

3:34:14the applicant bears the burden of

3:34:15demonstrating compliance with the

3:34:16standard. So there's a couple of

3:34:18different burdens going on. So my

3:34:19suggestion is is await making the final

3:34:22decision on the petition intervention

3:34:24petition. not you've already granted sta

3:34:26uh standing, but now that you've granted

3:34:28them standing, whether or not they've

3:34:30satisfied their burden of proof, um the

3:34:32memo will be in your can be in your

3:34:34package before the the next meeting on

3:34:37uh on following through the steps that

3:34:39you need to for 229

3:34:42petition and that you await making the

3:34:44ruling on that until the next meeting.

3:34:48>> Great.

3:34:50>> Commissioners,

3:34:51>> so I I just got a question, I guess,

3:34:53then for staff. So, we got two memos in

3:34:56our two packages delivered to us. Um,

3:34:59one they both dated October 26. Both

3:35:01address the planning and zoning

3:35:02commission. One was more detailed than

3:35:04the other. So, I assume the more

3:35:05detailed one is the one we should keep.

3:35:09>> Yeah. And we'll be adding to that. So,

3:35:10typically what we do is we have a

3:35:12working staff report. So, as new

3:35:14information comes in, like today there

3:35:17was stuff that came in that clearly are

3:35:18not addressed in yesterday. Um, they

3:35:20will be added to that. A new date will

3:35:22be added to it. You can keep it, but

3:35:24you're gonna get a new one. So, you

3:35:25don't necessarily have

3:35:26>> Again, they're both the same date and

3:35:27they both address the same. So, that's

3:35:28why I'm asking which one's correct. So,

3:35:30I'm gonna keep

3:35:31>> I'm not sure how you got two. I didn't

3:35:32do two different staff reports.

3:35:35>> It's So, we got one again. Looks they

3:35:37look the same, but one came in. I guess

3:35:39I was out of town. One came in yesterday

3:35:40and one came in today delivered.

3:35:43>> I don't know who delivered whatever. Is

3:35:45that the case?

3:35:46>> So,

3:35:46>> I don't know. Well, I think the second

3:35:48one has the tying bond

3:35:51response or their response to tying

3:35:53bond. Sec. Yeah, we had more detail in

3:35:55the second one, but but anyway um so

3:35:57just want to make sure I'm keeping the

3:35:58second, but anyway, in your in in the

3:36:00staff comment under the intervenors I

3:36:02think um the lawyer brought it up or

3:36:04someone brought up staff is making a

3:36:06comment that it's it's um the single

3:36:08quantitative analysis contains

3:36:10calculation errors and is measured

3:36:11against design targets other than rather

3:36:13than resource impacts. No backup. If

3:36:17staff did backup and can prove those

3:36:19errors, can we get that? So that's going

3:36:21to come from Tai and Bon. But my point

3:36:23is and and Ken can add to this is there

3:36:27is nothing in the report from Steve

3:36:29Trinkis that identifies an environmental

3:36:33impact that this commission

3:36:34>> I'm not I'm not arguing that point in

3:36:35your in the memo the staff memo. I'm

3:36:37just asking about the staff is making a

3:36:39statement a specific statement that it

3:36:41contains quantitative errors in the

3:36:42calculations

3:36:44>> does not say time bond identified. It

3:36:46says staff identified

3:36:48>> again for reading through and I I can

3:36:50take that out and just reference Tai and

3:36:52Bond stuff in there. But but the point

3:36:54[clears throat] the point was it was

3:36:55connect it's not connected to a natural

3:36:57resource that you guys have jurisdiction

3:36:59over.

3:36:59>> I just wanted the source. So if we're

3:37:01going to rely on it then we need to know

3:37:02what it is able to see that.

3:37:04>> So

3:37:06I believe Tigen Bond is here this

3:37:08evening too and we do have separate uh

3:37:10comments that we have responded to. I

3:37:12don't know if time permits.

3:37:13>> We we just got all those today. Um, so I

3:37:17not even prepared to even ask time on

3:37:18it. He can go through it all, but it

3:37:20means nothing to me because I haven't

3:37:21seen read or any of it.

3:37:22>> Understood.

3:37:23>> That's the problem with getting stuff

3:37:24the day of the meeting. Um, like the

3:37:26October 29th memo that you guys, well,

3:37:29they just responded to your October 28th

3:37:30memo, which was yesterday again. So,

3:37:33some of us travel for work around town

3:37:34and we can't review that stuff in two

3:37:36hours. So,

3:37:38>> I've got a procedural question.

3:37:43>> Go ahead. So, uh, as I said, I had

3:37:45something that was going to identify the

3:37:47water pathways and the aquifers and how

3:37:50everything travels. Am I Are we still

3:37:52allowed to submit more information? So,

3:37:56I find it difficult that you would make

3:37:58a decision on whether we've met our

3:38:00burden if we're still allowed to put in

3:38:02more information.

3:38:04>> We're not making a decision tonight.

3:38:06We're carrying. Okay. We're

3:38:07>> carrying. Cool. Thank you.

3:38:09>> I think at this point we've had enough.

3:38:12Can I just

3:38:13>> go ahead.

3:38:14>> So just to clarify, so do we have an

3:38:16extension request uh extension?

3:38:18>> He he said he was

3:38:20>> and what is the date you're giving us?

3:38:22>> Yes. So I I previously provided um a

3:38:25letter through your next meeting which I

3:38:26believe is November 16th,

3:38:29>> right? So December because it was

3:38:31comments in the somewhere December.

3:38:34>> It says December 25th is the last

3:38:36possible action date.

3:38:37>> Okay.

3:38:38>> So we would have one more meeting in

3:38:39December.

3:38:42And one thing that could change that is

3:38:44that that there's always the pro when

3:38:47you have inland wetlands and water

3:38:48courses application there's a you can't

3:38:51decide within a certain period of time

3:38:53when they give the decision. So it's po

3:38:55it's possible if their decision was

3:38:56delayed. We've got one in another town

3:38:59where the wetlands commission went on

3:39:00for months and months and months and

3:39:02months uh and so that the planning and

3:39:04zoning commission couldn't act on it

3:39:05because they had to wait. So it's

3:39:06possible that that could impact it. But

3:39:08if just say for the sake of argument the

3:39:10Wellland Commission acted tomorrow, then

3:39:13you're right, that's the kind of

3:39:14extension you'd need need to be able to

3:39:15get into into December. And I'm only

3:39:18asking for for two reasons. One is

3:39:19obviously we another meeting coming up

3:39:21in November, a regular meeting. There's

3:39:22more information coming. Um, do we need

3:39:24to have another special meeting

3:39:25somewhere in between or after to be able

3:39:27to get through all this information? And

3:39:29I prefer not to have that information

3:39:30show up the day of the meeting. like to

3:39:31get it a couple weeks in advance so we

3:39:33can review it, have good questions, and

3:39:35if we do make do need to make a decision

3:39:37at that next meeting, we have to have

3:39:39that information in our heads and go

3:39:41through it. So I don't know what are you

3:39:44guys willing to give an extension to to

3:39:46make sure we understand kind of the

3:39:47timeline.

3:39:49>> Sure. So So currently the extension

3:39:51we've we've provided is through November

3:39:5316th. Um we we are uh willing and able

3:39:58to give the maximum extension through

3:40:00December 25th. Um I believe you meet

3:40:04Christmas Day, but I believe you meet uh

3:40:07a couple days before that. Um, and as

3:40:09Attorney Slater noted under the general

3:40:11statutes 8-7DE,

3:40:13if the wetlands agency doesn't act, uh,

3:40:15in this application is pending and and

3:40:17the time for you to make that decision

3:40:20has expired, that statute gives you an

3:40:23extra 35 days after the wetlands agency

3:40:26acts. So, it it does have that that kind

3:40:28of buffer time in there. Um, so we're

3:40:30we're happy to provide the maximum

3:40:33extension now. We've provided uh

3:40:35currently through November 16th. Um, and

3:40:38there is that statute that offers that

3:40:39additional time as I just mentioned. Do

3:40:41>> you want to just put that in the in in

3:40:43uh in writing to to staff tomorrow?

3:40:45>> Yes, sir.

3:40:47>> Okay. Anything else?

3:40:50Can I have a motion to

3:40:51>> adjourn?

3:40:57If you want.

3:40:59>> No.

3:41:01>> Motion to

3:41:02>> second. Second. Got it. All in favor say

3:41:07I.

3:41:08>> I oppose extensions. None.

```*