HomeMy WebLinkAboutSite Plan - Conservation (473) TOWN.OF SOUTH VMSOR
INLAND WETLAND, 'WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION APPLICATION g1
APPLICATION i. C'I/- Z-13 P DATE RECEIVED INN UthWrLA Win
saoNCY(
CONSERVA'nON COMMISSION
INSTRUCTIONS
1. The application, map and plans must be submitted in triiplicate. together With the fee set
forth in the Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations, Tows of South
Windsor. (See Regulations, Section VI).
2. The South Windsor Inland vetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Regulations should be
revi "d with respect to the standards and criteria for application evaluation. (See
Regulations, Sections Vill - Z)
3. The applicant understands that this application is to be considered complete
information and documents required by the only when all
Section VII). Agency have been submitted. (See Regulations
A. APPLICANT'S NAME Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
ADDRESS 321 Olcot t Street
Manchester, CT 06040
PHONE: (HOME) N/A (WORE) ( 203)649-3665
B. LEGAL OWNER'S NAME: Anthony B o t t i c e l l o
ADDRESS 321 Olcot t Street.
Manchester CT 06040
PHONE: (HOME) N/A (WORX) ( 203) 649-3665
(List additional owners, addresses, and phone numbers on back of application).
C. IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT TEE Obi= OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, A LETTER BY THE PROPERTY
• OWNER(S) AUTHORIZING THE PROPOSED REGIILA?ED ACTIVITY SET FORTH IN THE APPLICATION MUST
ACCOMPANY THIS FORM AND WILL BE PART OF !BE APPLICATION.
D. PROJECT NAME: (if any) Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
1. Contact Person (if further information is.needed).
Wayne C . Gerlt , Esq . , Brookside Professional Building
435 Buckland Road, South Windsor, CT o6074
E. THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS TO BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
REGULATED ACTIVITIES INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO ALLOW
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY ON THE INLAND WETLAND AND WATERCOURSES MAP.
East of U . S . Route 5 (John Fitch Blvd. ) south of Pleasant Vail ey Road
north of Chapel Road, south of the Podunk River, the site of former
sand, gravel and clay mining operations .
PAGE 1
f
• i
F. NAMES OF ALL ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNMLSt (USE SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY)
Attached
G. .NOTIFIED ALL ABUTTING PROPE
RTY OWNERS BY CERTIFIED LETTER THAT
AN APP
LICATION IS
B RE THE AGENCY?.
**(You are required to supply a copy.of the letter with the list of the names of
the 4but rs).**
H. PURPOSI AND DESCRIPTION OF ALL PROPOSED REGULATED ACTIVITY(S) INC=IVG AMOUNT AND TYPES
Of FILL AND THE TIMa ELEMENT
The filling of a roximatel 4.6 acres of man made wetlands is proposed. The wetlands
were created as a result of excavation of sand gravel and .clay below the water table.
Tize ex osed cla is oorly drained. AU2roximate 80,000 cubic - arils of e It
will be deposited in the 4.6 acres. The final land will be suitable for ndustria
e_velopme in approximately five years.
I. A CLASS A-2 NAP OF THE PROPERTY DRAWN TO 10-401, SHOWING TEN AREA TO BE DEVELOPED, maMIT
OF THE WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES AFFECTED, TOPOGRAPH, EZISTING AND PROPOSED ACTIVITIES ME
NAM AND LOCATIONS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS MUST BE SUBMITTED.
Class D map referring to
J- ACREAGE OF WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES TO BE ALTERED: 4. 6 acres Class A-2 maps submitted.
K. ACREAGE OF WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES-TO BE CREATEDt none (0)
L. LINEAL PEST OF PROPOSED STREAM ALTERATION none (0)
M. TOTAL LAND AREA PROJECT AND PERCENTAGE WHICH IS WETLANDS: 2F Cl ctortd
N. IDENTIFY ALL OTHER PERMITS OR APPROVALS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED, APPLIED FOR, OR REQUIRED
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY SIT FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION. (These may include
but not be limited to, local Planning i Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals, D.E.P., F.E.M.A.
D.O.T.. The Army Corps of Engineers, and any other state, Local or Federal Permits.)
Loca.1 planning and zoning, DEP Stormwater discharge (may be required) ,
EPA Stormwater discharge (may be required) ,U.S . Army COE (may be required) .
DEP "volume reduction facility" permit required. Dam safety permit (may be req.
0. THE APPLICANT (OR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE) HEREBY ATTESTS THAT A SIGN WILL BE POSTED AT
THE FOLLOWZIIG LOCATION/S on tree at R.O.W. to Route 5 on wood post at
Chapel Road
b7 Applicant NAMS Dennis Botticello
ON OR BEFORE T FO DATE:
SIGNATURE: �-
THESE SIGNS MUST BE DISPLAYED CONTINUOUSLY FOR AT LEAST FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO SCHEDULED
MEETING. (See Regulations, Section 6.3a).
. I
PAGE 2
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPLIES FOR THE REGULATED ACTIVITIES LISTED IN PARAGRApH H ABOVE. FOR
A INLAND WETLAND, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HE MN AND
CONFIRMS THAT
1. HE IS FAMILIAL NITS THS CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE -INLAND WETLAND, WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION
REGULATIONS OF TIM TOWN or SOUTH WINDSO&.
2. HE/SHE UNDERS?ANN THAT AT ANY TIM3 DURING THE REVIEW PERIOD. THE AGENCY MAY REQUIRE THE
APPLICANT TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATI
AND/OR ANY PROPOSED ACTIVITY. ON ABOUT THE WETLANDS AND/OR WATERCOURSES IN QUESTION
3. ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW SHALL BE CONSIDERED FACTUAL. OR It
THE CASE OF ANTICIPATED ACTIVITY, BINDING. A KNOWING FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT Olt ANY OF
HIS/HER AGENTS TO PROVIDE CORRECT INFORMATION, OR PERFORMANCE MCCEEDING THE LEVELS OF
ACTIVITY ANTICIPATED, SHALL BE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF ANY PERMIT UNDER THESE
REGULATIONS .
4. BY MAKING THIS APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT GIVES PERMISSION TO THE INLAND WETLAND,
WATERCOURSES AND CONSERVATION COMMISSI
ON KEZO3 ERS AND/OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE 1►0 EVERTHE
PORTIONS OF THE PREMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INSPECTION AND INVESTIGATION AND OTHERWISE EVALUATING THE MERITS OF THE AppLICATION• BOTH
BEFORE AND AFTER A FINAL DECISION HAS BEEN ISSUED.
Signature of Applican Date
Received and filed at the office of the Planning Department this
day of 19
Signature of Agent Date
FEE RECEIVED YES_ NO AMOUNT
DATE RECEIVED by
HEARING DATE HEARING ADV. (1) (2)
PERMIT GRANTED DATE PERMIT DENIED DATE
PAGE:3
STATEWIDE INLAND WETLAND `&: WATERCOURSE ACTIVITY REPORTING FORM
(See instructions on back)
In accordance with the requirements of Section 22a-39-14 of the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies, this form is to be completed for each action.
Completed forms for all reportable actions during a calendar month shall be
mailed to the Commissioner by the local agency no later than the 15th day of
the month following the month in which the action was taken.
*******************************************************************************
1. TOWN: South Windsor
2. A. LOCATION: (Attach an 81 by 11 inch photocopy at the original scale of
the appropriate USES Quad Map with the project site outlined.
B. USGS QUAD MAP NAME OR UNIT: Manchester, Connecticut
3 . APPLICANT'S OR VIOLATOR'S NAME: Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
4. PROJECT NAME (If any) : Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
5 . ACTIVITY TYPE CODE (See list of codes ,in instructions) : . . .•. . . . . . . [ 1 ]
If Type Code is 13 "other," describe the type of activity:
6. ACTIVITY PURPOSE CODE (See list of codes in instructions) : . . . . . . . . . . . [ DJ ]
7. ACREAGE OF WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES ALTERED (or proposed to be altered) :
(for all agency actions; permits, denials and enforcement)
{
A. Soil type(s) (If Available ,MaW • Made.Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . [ 4.6 ACRES]
B. Only if soil type is not available specify area altered as follows:
Swamp, . . . . . . . . . . [ ACRES] Marsh. . . . . . . . . . ..[ ACRES]
Bog. . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ACRES] Open water. . . . . . [ ACRES]
8. ACREAGE OF WETLANDS OR WATERCOURSES CREATED: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[ D ACRES]
9. LINEAR FEET OF STREAM ALTERATION: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FEET]
10. TOTAL ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ 78.9 ACRES]
* *
For Local Wetland Agency Use Only * For State Use Only
*
11. REPORTING MONTH:
* GIS CODE:
12. PUBLIC HEARING HELD: YES NO
* *
13 . ACTION: (Circle. only one action)
* *
- A. permit issued B. permit denied
*
C. permit extension/amendment
*
D. map amendment E. enforcement
* *
F. jurisdictional ruling
* *
14. AGENT: * DATE RECEIVED
ar I _� �t l'I/ � Y''r i►L`.,��� � %;"I y � u r c p //�.. + ../�C'.- ��; � 'y'�R
.� ,'' .��.>,-,+, "`• IIL"�hr'a1dt�`/ ollrnll.,,� ♦� /)1'1/��• 1,� l ., U., " Q D � r '�O + •'e.,r/ ar/4/ ' I�� �}
-r ;; n `;li 1 �1.n 'V� :�''�.,°'a` .4� '�; �yd; 0�•• � U° , ,/�'��e�-r n ,;� � ,' 'r• � ,,r, '
..O � •' 'r� .Il : �� 'a r.' >� 'li r� t•� � R'�., j,•! �a,7:•.3 r ':Y , I •
"Laar't'�S�• :I 'Is ~IrrG �. `,�J�\..T�� o '- '�ri � rr � ri p ,Vi o . . _• / r<ri' � I.
I �. �• •• ,' I, IM I ■� °...'' '.•'fi'�'�' r \`��� �' n..0 b 0 I; � � o• "�. r r/9
'' ''gyp"r� :II: .... •„ ( ��:•i, � � � tl ��.. Jr CON` 1'"'r � ° '.\ 1 /, .. r�j� I` �r ro ,, �/�°
,( .S '�.' 1 .. p _ rr � I � �, ,'I 4/�� t �,,,, �/ Off✓/.r ` .9(/ / rr�/�';�(:•.,_ 0 0 '� v
17
• 1, � •.�o ..-- l.i-'�-•' '\ is�' i\� !r (�' 1 /L� )
:t vr� 31 I •I� •i I • , �a fJ
11 •;r��l I,: I�I i'�• I .AZ, ` Q r:l / ��� / k ••1%�/�\\\•�`l,j� —� `�4/R :0 7' ��".tiZ)•
17
rT \\ Z / I f, 1. •'' 11 ,•.c _ `, :',rr U , i�\'IM"
��'� 1 1 j•, ` Q: ,e' r fir•.`� � �• t, a •:;I '; i °I' /• ) � � •. �1 ilk �/ �a� rj I `� �� ����l l �''
I1....,1• _�;e: ` \- —`� ,� .y11 _. _ ,r_ -oo/ \..� R 2 A •:r ,I� � �J �I �;; ���
d �^� 1 4' NG�`HIC ���r' •� <O '- :._\i'.• ••� r•• )` D $_ I�' ' I - CL ( Ikb I .�l .
'' �l (\;r�ur 1 ;', "tom ..Y /�'i t Lr,ti,c7• C,•• -0� t 1 t . j•' i , k `I �/��
In
1
0 r�'%. ( ?: /.�,.O,l,�. D�/r IrI I,\ uI , It 'M ,i, .-•-.
'•<<. �, .-)i \ 1, � n " u I t //p-0 J" �� _.••��•• •y ���(^ N.\�.�F:.♦ 1.II•. il.' ..,\ I. I I.I�l I I�i / �
' ��� � I�� � �"j-l` -'rY> � n � ` �� 'r/ r+� . .� y. �. 'I •� � �j•. RO,°` � .... \'. t '�l � 11 I �I +, �^ /��' ,�.,,
c •• J t• q
,''I ��� 1`\1 .. .. I1 I < / '\ , \.\ . '.,\, •.�\\�'•.•q ��' ``'�' ;�L \. I IL I�' !' r I/I I 1�
1, _/..+-T Sr�s 1�� I/.G1 ( �,i••� t\ 1.. \,. �'r•.��• .� `� � � 4:••,°a ' I '1�• I ,�/ �: ( ,'I.l
� n �/ '�r/I ,� ^• � �:\,\��y .a \ ��',/ �, .LS � 0 ••� •---� I (`I��t�� ZZ�_09 �
1 D A. ). r. ,`,1 �. ''_ I�1' � '� •� �.s8 I \,/, `"�\r,�,w.ttiwtn n•,w'ltnm `:�— /, 'r � .�\. (7 I IFII`
l ��• /% � I/ \�/ C,y� �1 l �!� \���W `Ew d '� .p Ot! .I Ik I�i �-t�Ip �I
• � '/; '1 I / ,� �''� '�` 'ilty R. / ter. p _ / J �''• .F / I I� � k I�
,a, ,�... rl 1e � ��I � `' `. ;Y �1,��,� �;�r.. •\ I� •���/. I(�r�lk Ik ',I� ..;'�\�17�I T,'�f�•-1 •\0...1� �•) �... �'�1 I� '�' I�'�I,LI 1� If'. �'i
� U T � /i � Il 1} I ' �'�' /!tt v I���+a; tom., `I ,' ,l/�r / r f 1� I,b 7 �7•. 1'1 (���;`tl� �� '� •-,I'` � ',� i rll. I I � j�
:'.,�;. � I� \\\ 'i, �` 9'`+�„rJ�.; A '�,, I I' I t t� rl,�� 1�%:/?C• l � �I f`r .� \R� � �,I.t� Ih1,�'. I
� I ,V c I O ,y. � �� '•' � I rt-'/, \ I � -,I, I \�•C '`7 I`/�I
' �,\ jt•rSrll/r r�Yi �^�' � .1I•\,)\ �J�I/ �.r..// � ..'),.;I, '�J,y �'!''.✓ / �I \� 1. � j r�/'1 !! ' ��,�' fl l�L( ,,,r.; __:'•-• l:V \\` `,y \ `� '. 1, +� , '� I - 'I If.... '�,• \�li ,i ; 11'. ,'tea• •�l. 'l
j; i ,',r' ; � •��-- 1 \\' , 7//' .t ,l �, , } I t ,r /\ '\ j'V •ao j
''�`'r. �Ilr(: ; �•-� � 'a � lid: ;�:��i � � �'�/`:.o � "U' N�'� ) I'1 I �' '��,�� r( \ I't(� l) �,;' r :io. O , `V,,I
•",�.�\. 'J $ I. ' /! ' f• •t ��� ,I �"I \ �'<<l �� •� �I �� / /� •fit L�..�/r- -I ' � �, /� � I
._ \�� Zr� ,I MI�III�-,:�� 1 ! �/I�r /;.� ^� I:�r 1 I �•` �I ',h\/.., �i f.F�/ERC r c? t`" /• J�
IY
.. � V 'I II• (17 r U.r Y /- ``�l".• II I ( I , I ,��� v ,, •T _� �(J: 0. J '!i i;�``� ' �.
A
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS
MAP NO. LOT NO. OWNER
22 3 George Haller
22 5 Dunn Bros. , Inc.
22 6 Propane Gas Service, Inc.
22 7 Eve Haller
22 8 Eve Haller
22 . 11 John R. Neilson & Sons, Inc.
22 9 Ronald Friedman
22 10 John R. Neilson & Sons, Inc.
22 12 I.M.W.A. Equities V. I. Co. L.P.
22 13 Jean Marc Jacques
22 14 Jean Marc Jacques
22 15 Louis J. & Barbara Pola
22 16 Louis J. & Barbara Pola
22 17 Frances R. Tremontana
22 18 Automotive Industries, Inc.
22 20 Connecticut Valley Properties
23 53 Chapel Hill Condominium
23 91 Town of South Windsor
23 92 Town of South Windsor
23 20 Manual R. & Fernand Pires
33 23 Bruce C. and Nancy D. Bantle
33 24 Dorothy M. & Albert Fournier, Jr.
33 27 H.S. & D. Realty Corp.
33 29 H.S. & D. Realty Corp.
33 30 H.S. & D. Realty Corp.
33 33 H.S. & D. Realty Corp.
33 34 Russell Anderson
33 35 Norman G. Bolduc
34 122 Henry C. Ordway
CONRAIL
MMZ0712A91\91194
FtiN
r ••
• Q,+ y
.•• ,, ,tip • l 1•. r!
I
f -
I- -
f7�
-----------
i
r
I;
.I�
MOO
9 - roslz. ,,Er
°� ✓llig•C ( 7)
X2 1
IeA
_to — "V —
/ 17
��--
CA
S� -
I
lid � 1
!I>
"I
I ;
I"
III
Imo, 1
700
I
I I �
y�v
�i
�► 380
Ii m�L i�
I`
i
i
i�.
I,I
I,I
I'!
� i
�I
i
i
iI
;I.
' I!
I:
i ,
I
I ,
ii
i
ii
ji
VI
OAF
will
♦ , ♦ ,.
IA ISlax�,�
W"
• *0 �
FEE
•
I
' S a+-�-c Crime /�o i►�`)� �/y,•'L�a1r !Y�,"�. q j` ?
dp
I
S8 L/
�/j/Jrc�r. t�� L1/i� 0 / '► �LG /���v� � C� ��
" ;,�0e Col^ �a-Jr�tJ C /,'lam J Q-/t
fTcrr �w% Ca 00 l¢{
I!
2.5.e.2. Dead End Streets in Tndustrial Industrial Park Zones.. geed.
end streets shall terminate in a circle 5S feat in radius,
shall be paved to an outside radius of 42 feet, and shall
not exceed 600 feet in length. The Commission may grant a
request for a waiver of the length requirement of this
section in Industrial/Industrial Park: zones only, if the
COMission'deems it desirable because of adverse topographic
conditions, difficult site configuration, or such street is
likely to be extended in the future to another outlet,
subject to the following:
I. In no case Shall a dead and street which does not have
provisions for future extension (i.e. . extension to
property line shown on subdivision map), exceed 1000
feet in length.
2. The "future outlet, option must be considered prior to
requesting the 600, length waiver. The applicant must
demonstrate to the Commission why a future outlet is
not feasible.
3. If the Commission determines that s future outlet is
Possible, but not desi
rable. applicant is prohibited
from ted
ro m seeking a length waiver.
4• Waiver provisions shall not be applicable in
circumstances whereby surrounding developments, rather
than actual site conditions, preclude future street
extensions. Under such circumstances, the length
waiver shall not be granted.
2.5•f Future Street Stubs: Street stubs shall be provided where, in M
the opinion of the Commission, they are necessary for a
coordinated street system connecting a subdivision with
adjoining land that may be developed in the future. These 4
street stubs shall not require pavement, unless one or more
lots have their frontage on these street stubs.
It shall be ..the responsibility .of_the subdivider-who is
Providing these ,rights-of-way to:
(1) Donate the land for these street stub rights-of-way to
the Town.
(2) Bring these street sub rights-of-way to the proper
rough grade 'as shown on the final, plans.
The final construction of these street stubs shall be
done by the subdivider. of the abutting land. In the
event two or more abutting subdivisions are being built
simultaneously, it shall be the shared responsibility
of the subdividers to fulfill these requirements.
Ownership of these stubs shall be transferred to the
Town, at the time of transfer of all other streets in
- 14
JODIE T. CHAR
ENVIQONMENTAL CON,5ULTANT
PHRAGMITES AUSTRALIS
"The importance of the species in the overall function of the wetland systems of the
United States has not been identified. Phragmites australis has one of the highest
standing crops associated with wetland systems. In dense homogeneous stands, the
plant will militate against waterfowl, waterbird, and furbearer populations by replacing
desirable food plants and reducing habitat heterogeneity, and open water space
(Buttery and Lambert 1965, Ward 1968, Vogl 1973, Jones and Lehman 1986). This
species also causes fire hazards, impedes water flow, penetrates and clogs
underground pipelines, restricts access, and provides roosts for destructive blackbirds
(Beck 1971, Riemer 1976, Ricciuti 1982). Phragmites australis, however, is effective in
erosion and water quality control and is commercially harvested outside the United
States."
From: Shisler, John K. 1990. Creation and restoration of coastal wetlands of the
northeastern United States, p. 157. In Wetland Creation and Restoration, The Status
of the Science, Eds. Kusler and Kentula, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
References noted above:
Buttery, B.R. and J.M. Lambert. 1965. Competition between Glyceria maxima and
Phragmites communis in the region of Surlingham Broad. I. The competition
mechanism. J. Ecol. 53:163-181.
Ward, P. 1968. Fire in relation to waterfowl habitat of the Delta marshes. Proc. Tall
Timbers Fire Ecology. Conf. 8:254-267.
Vogl, R. J. 1973. Effects of fire on plants and animals of a Florida wetland. Am. Midl.
Nat. 89:334-347.
Jones, W. L. and W.C. Lehman. 1986. Phragmites control with aerial applications of
glyphosate in Delaware. Trans. Northeast Fish and Wildlfie Conf. 43:15-24.
Beck, R. A. 1971. Phragmites control for urban, industrial and wildlife needs. Proc.
Northeast Weed Control Conf. 25:89-90.
Ricciuti, E. R. 1982. The all too common, common reed. Audubon 85:65-66.
Riemer, D. N. 1976. Long-term effects of glyphosate applications to Phragmites. J.
Aquatic Plant Management 14:39-43.
The AU Too Common, Common Reed
f:.
A truly remarkable organism, phragmites may be the most widespread flowering plant
in the world; but a lush stand of reeds covering a marsh brings sadness to those
who love wetlands, for it thrives in the wake of destruction and pollution. 1
article by EDWARD R. RICCIUTI
photography by LES LINE
s
HE HAMMOCK RIVER marsh brown and die during the winter, they
Tcovers
floodplain of Iraq's Tigris and Euphrates
the better part of a small do not disappear. Thus, the old tufts, rivers, the snows of Lapland and Sibe-
t peninsula that juts into Long Island buff-colored and sere, stand above ria, and hot springs.in Japan.
Sound from the town of Clinton, Con- spring's greenery. And by the end of. If not excessively flooded, phragmites I
necticut. Clinton is the community ad- July, in my area, new flowers are push- can be incredibly tough. Small stands
, ..:jacent to mine, and I visit the marsh ing their way up from the stems. hold out in all sorts of unlikely places 1
now and then to see what flies, creeps, Although impressive .to look .at, a that once were marshes or at:least were
' or swims there. I am always struck by field of phragmites covering a marsh near them.;You can find patches of
a
wk how in midsummer the greenery of the brings sadness to those who love wet- phragmites, .albeit often stunted, in
marsh has two shades, distinctly differ- lands. Phragmites dominates a marsh parking lots, along railroad tracks,and !
ent, on each side of the narrow, black only after it has been disturbed by behind shopping centers, wherever. I
topped road that crosses the wetland drainage, pollution, or similar acts of slight depressions allow for a little wa-
and bridges the river. man or nature. The eastern portion of ter, even temporarily. Pollution that
West, toward the river mouth, the the Hammock River marsh, for in- kills most marsh grasses often fails to
color is light green, shading almost to stance, was sealed off from the tides stop phragmites, so it thrives even
Yellow in some places. East of the road, several years ago by floodgates under the where the environment has been thor-
' upriver, the vegetation is darker, to my bridge:Plant remains in the peat under oughly.poisoned.
eye blue-green. The variation in color the phragmites indicate that before the The doggedness of phragmites is illus-
occurs because the road is a border; a tide was blocked, spartina—typical of a trated by observations made in Scot-
different type of grass rules the land- healthy wetland—grew there.The affin- land during the last century. Patches of
scape on each side. ity of phragmites for marshes in poor the reed continued to crop up year after
Westward grow the spartina grasses— health has earned it.a bad name, but year in a field that had been cultivated
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and on the big grass is not only useful to pea continuously for a hundred years.
slightly higher ground a smattering of ple, it is a truly amazing organism. Despite its .ability to adjust, phrag-
"' salt hay (S. patens). Across the road, : Phragmites is of ancient lineage. mites attains its greatest height—about
another grass thrives to the exclusion of Grasses seem to have evolved about twenty feet—in warm climates and is
virtually any other significant growth. ninety million years ago; and phrag- primarily a plant of wetland fringes. A ,
With sturdy, jointed stems that can mites must have appeared very early, prime site for phragmites is on the
3.; stand more than twice the height of a because fossils show-that a type very banks of streams or ditches. In fact, its
man, it is the common reed, Phragmites similar to that of today grew in the Cre- name—from the Greek word phrag_
communis. taceous period, which ended about sev- ma, for "hedge"—is derived from its
1 The stand of phragmites is thick and enty million years ago.. tendency to edge watercourses.
covers almost two hundred acres. It is a Additionally, phragmites may be the It often grows upland of salt marshes,
lovely sight, especially in a breeze, for most widespread of all flowering plants. or where salt marsh shades into fresh.
x. the leaves, blue-green and lanceolate, It grows coast to coast from central water wetland.Although phragmites fa
all point downwind, as if giving a pre- Canada to southern South America, vors water that is brackish to fresh, it
cision performance.The leaves grow al- across Eurasia, in much of Africa, and will tolerate,but not flourish in,salinity
ter•nately on opposite sides of the cylin- in Australia " ' of up to twenty-seven parts per thou-
'drical stem. Each can pivot a half-circle The tremendous adaptability ofthe sand, approaching that of the ocean.
around the axis of the stem, so those . common reed is shown not only by the Phragmites. needs an environment.
facing the wind turn toward the lee. expanse of geography over which it is that is soggy but not waterlogged. Be-
When pushed by the wind, the fluffy 'found but b the environmental ex- cause its•leaves cannot photosynthe- .
tufts of the'flowers high atop the stems tremes with which it copes. Among its size underwater, a plant regularly sub
bend, like plumes on a hat being habitats: 16,000 feet up in the moun- merged to two-thirds of its height will
doffed. Although the flowers and stems tains of Central Asia, the steaming-hot perish.
—65
Like other grasses, phragmites is an- immensely productive, due to the way flooded for several years. At first, a
chored in the soil by both roots and the grasses break down into detritus, touch or two of spartina appears on the
rhizomes, a network of underground bits of organic matter that form the first shores of tidal creeks. As phragmites
stems from which.new,plants sprout. link in the sea's food chain. Phragmites gives way before the tides, spartina,
The rhizome mat under phragmites -, .does not have this trait,nor does it pro- which grows in places subjected to tidal
spreads through the earth with aston-. vide food for many animals. flushing, gradually retakes lost ground.
fishing speed, sometimes advancing as True, one can see muskrats, red- Environmental concerns aside, phrag-
! much as thirty feet a year, pushing up. winged .or yellow-headed blackbirds, mites has a utilitarian value in many
i new sprouts throughout the conquered gulls, and perhaps a few waterfowl in parts of the world. The so-called
territory. Phragmites persists, too, with phragmites marshes. But teeming wet- "Marsh Arabs," inhabiting the vast
some very large mats estimated to be a lands life is absent.Fiddler crabs throng wetlands of southern Iraq, build elabo-
thousand years old. in spartina marshes but not in phrag- rate homes, some more than fifty feet
The annual growth pattern of phrag- mites.: Since the clapper rail feeds long and almost twenty feet high, of
mites is boom or bust. The plant bur mainly on crabs, it seldom prowls the tightly bound phragmites stems. As a
i geons profusely in spring and early phragmites, either. One study of an building material, in fact, phragmites
summer; then growth slows to near East Coast salt marsh taken over by has seen service for thousands of years.
dormancy. During the time of explosive phragmites showed that only fourteen Pliny wrote of reeds used as roofing on
growth, phragmites is`exceedingly vul- species of birds lived there regularly. homes built by tribes of northern Eu-
nerable to damage.lri a Fairfield, Con-. Records from before the phragmites' rope in the days of the Roman Empire.
necticut, marsh, for example, broken time, though, cited sixty species. Homer refers to phragmites as thatch-
floodgates allowed the tide to flush a _ Worse yet, a marsh under the sway of ing. Remains of phragmites bedding
large phragmites stand during its prime phragmites for a long time is destined and roofing have been found in the ru-
growing season. The year before, the to vanish, imperceptibly but steadily ins of ancient Swiss lake villages. I have
grass had stood.about nine feet high, building in elevation until it passes into tried my own hand at building a struc-
but after the flooding it reached only upland. Phragmites roots and rhizomes ture of sorts with phragmites, for as
about six feet. trap debris carried in on an extra-high many other waterfowlers know, the
! Under natural conditions, long-term tide or drained from upland. When the stems make.admirable covering for a
flushing by high tide bars phragmites tough stems and leaves finally fall, they blind.
from advancing beyond the fringes of a pile up in a heavy mass around the In some localities,the stems of phrag-
salt marsh. Similarly, as long as water bases of the standing stems. Eventually, mites are woven into mats or dried for
it stands fairly deep in a freshwater marsh, the ground rises until, not even the fuel. Indians of the southwestern
the reeds cannot move very far into it. phragmites have access to water, and United States and northern Mexico
Lower the water level, however,.and the reeds, like the marsh, disappear. used the hard, dried stems for arrow
you open the door to phragmites. For all that, phragmites can rescue a shafts.
ff In many .salt marshes, "islands" of marsh that has been degraded. Para If you believe writers on natural
blue-green phragmites appear, scattered doxicall Not really, if one looks at foods, phragmites is downright tasty.
amidst the lighter green of the spartina • things optimistically. Phragmites is bet- Various Indian tribes gathered the stems
grasses. These phragmites stands mark ter than no vegetation at all,which can in early summer before they flowered,
the sites of isolated spoil heaps piled be the case once spartina is driven from when they were soft, juicy, and sugary.
just high enough above the rest of the: a marsh.by pollution or drainage. At They dried the stems in the sun, then
marsh for the giant reed to take hold.., the least, the rhizomes and deep roots ground them into flour, which they
Once started, phragmites quickly cuts of phragmites thwart erosion of what is moistened.This dough was cooked,and
out competing plants. The dense mat left of the marsh, and there is cover, the result, described as tasting like
of rhizomes prevents most from rooting, though not the best, for wildlife. marshmallow, was eaten as candy. Ind!
while the few that do make little head- There are recent indications, further- ans also used phragmites to make gruel
way in the shade of the close-packed more, that phragmites may help cleanse and dug up its roots for boiling or roast-
ranks of reeds. polluted water. Researchers examining ing. Perhaps the most unlikely food
the impact of phmgmites on sewage made from the reed, however, was con.
flowing into a large lake in Hungary cocted in England, according to botani-
TO THE UNPRACTICED EYE, found that the plant caused a 98 per- cal writers of many years ago. Young
a dense stand of phragmites cent drop. in phosphorus and 95 per, shoots, cut off at the root, were said to
might make a marsh look lush and cent reduction in nitrogen from the ef- make excellent pickles.
healthy. The territory bordered by the fluent. Perhaps, scientists suggest, the All things considered,phragmites is a
reeds has the aspect of wilderness— chemicals were taken up by algae, bac- marvelous plant, even if in many places
hidden, mysterious, and rather like a teria, and other organisms on the stems it testifies to the degradation of natural
jungle. This impression, unfortunately, of the reeds. marshes.The domination of a marsh by
is a mirage. Phragmites marshes are What all this adds up to is that phragmites may symbolize the environ
relatively vacant of other plants—and phragmites can maintain a faltering mental imbalances that can be caused
wild animals—especially when com- marsh until it can be restored. Spartina by thoughtless human activities. In the
pared with healthy wetlands. . marshes have recovered where tide long run, however, it also testifies to
Spartina marshes, for instance, are gates have been opened and phragmites the resiliency of nature. �a
--66—
218 PLANNING AND ZONING STATUTES STATE OF CONNECTICUT 219
Subsec.(t)rea state regulation of inland wetlands,nation of former Subsea(g)as(f)and adding proviso re commissioner's boundary or change.All petitions submitted in writing and in a form prescribed by the inland
authority to act on applications filed prior to designation of municipal agency. .
Cited. 179 C.250,252; 180 C.421,423;id.,692,693.Cited. 183 C.532,533.537,539,540,551,552.The inland Wetlands agency,requesting a change in the regulations or the boundaries of an inland wet-
wetlands and watercourses act cited.186 C.67,71.Cited. 192 C.247,249.Cited. 193 C.414,421.The inland wetlands and land and watercourse area shall be considered at a public hearing in the manner provided for
watercourses act cited.196 C.218,221.Cited.203 C.525,526,550,551.Cited.209 C.544,546,562.Cited.Id.,652,654. establishment of inland wetlands regulations and boundaries within ninety days after receipt
Cited.211 C.416,417.Inland wetlands and watercourses act cited.212 C.710,713,720,722,726;1d.,727,730;213 C.6oa,
606,610,611. of such petition. The inland wetlands agency shall act upon the changes requested in such
Cited.4 CA 271-273.Cited.5 CA 70,71.Cited.6 CA 715,717,718.Inland wetland and watercourses act cited. 12 CA petition within sixty days after the hearing.The petitioner may consent to one or more exten-
47-52,54,55.Inland wetlands and watercourses act cited. 15 CA 336,337;18 CA 440,448.Cited. 19 CA 713-715.Inland sions of the periods specified in this subsection for the holding of the he and for aC[iOR
wetlands and watercourses act cited.20 CA 309,310,317.Cited.35 CS 145-147;36 CS 1,3,4,6. on such petition,provided the total extension of any such period shall not be for longer than
Subsec.(a): the original period as specified in this subsection,or may withdraw such petition.The failure
Cited.193 C.414,421.cited.212 A 13, 18. of the inland wetlands agency to act within an time period specified in this subsection or
Cited. 18 CA 440,446.Cited. l9 CA 713,71s. g Y Y p p ,
Cited.35 CS 145,148,150. any extension thereof,shall not be deemed to constitute approval of the petition.
Subsec.(c):
Cited.183 C.532,540,552.Cited.186 C.67,71.Cited.193 C.414,422.Cited.203 C.525,551.Cited.209 C.544,545,
556,557,560,561. (c) On and after the effective date of the municipal regulations promulgated pursuant to
Cited. 12 CA 47,48.Cited. 19 CA 713,718,719.
145
Cited.35 CS 145, 148. subsection(b)of this section,no regulated activity shall be conducted upon any inland wet-
Subsec.(e): land and watercourse without a permit. Any person proposing to conduct or cause to be
Cited. 183 C.532,540,541.Cited.212 C.710,720.Subsec.(f): conducted a regulated activity upon an inland wetland and watercourse shall file an applica-
Cited. 19 CA 713,718. tion with the inland wetlands agency of the town or towns wherein the wetland in question is
Cited.35 CS 145,148. located. The application shall be in such form and contain such information as the inland
wetlands agency may prescribe.The day of receipt of an application shall be the day of the
See. 22a42a. Establishment of boundaries by regulation. Adoption of regula- next regularly scheduled meeting of such inland wetlands agency,immediately following
tions.Permits.Filing fee.(a)The inland wetlands agencies authorized in section 22a-42 the day of submission to such inland wetlands agency or its agent of such application,pro-
shall through regulation provide for(1)the manner in which the boundaries of inland wet- vided such meeting is no earlier than three business days after receipt,or thirty-five days
land and watercourse areas in their respective municipalities shall be established and after such submission,whichever is sooner.No later than sixty-five days after the receipt of b>'
amended or changed, (2) the form for an application to conduct regulated activities, (3) such application,the inland wetlands agency may}told a public hearing on such application.
notice and publication requirements,(4)criteria and procedures for the review of applied- i v ice of the hearing shall be published at led twice at intervals of not Less than two days,
tions and(5)administration and enforcement. the first not more.than fifteen days and not fewer than ten days,and the last not less than two
days before the date set for the hearing in a newspaper having a general circulation in each
(b) No regulations of an inland wetlands agency including boundaries of inland wetland town where the affected wetland and watercourse,or any part thereof,is located.All appli-
and watercourse areas shall become effective or be established until after a public hearing in cations and maps and documents relating thereto shall be open forp�blic inspection.At such
relation thereto is held by the inland wetlands agency,at which parties in interest and citizens hearing any person or persons may appear and be heard. The heanna shall e7�com leted ys
shall have an opportunity to be heard.Notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be within forty-five daof tts commencement Action shall be taken on such application
published in the form of a legal advertisement,appearing in a newspaper having a substantial withln thlrty-five days after the completion of a�ublic hearing or in the absence of a public '3s
circulation in the municipality at least twice at intervals of not less than two days,the first not hearing within sixty-five days from the date of receipt of such application. The applicant
may consent to_one or more extensions of the periods s,ecif ,din,this_subsection for the
more than twenty-five days nor less than fifteen days,and the last not less than two days, --P _Le
before such hearing,and a copy of such proposed regulation or boundary shall be filed in the holding of the heanrig,and for actogon such application,provided the total extension of any
` - psio
office of the town,city or borough clerk as the case may be,in such municipality,for public such period shall not be for longer thaq,the original penod as specf d in this subsection,or
inspection at least ten days before such hearing,and may be published in full in such paper. may withdraw such application.If the inland wetlands agency fails to act on any application
A copy of the notice and the proposed regulations or amendments thereto,except determina- Wufi in thirty-Mve days after the completion of a public hearing or in the absence of a public
tions of boundaries,shall be provided to the commissioner at least thirty-five days before hearing within sixty-five days from the date of receipt of the application,or within any exten-
such hearing.Such regulations and inland wetland and watercourse boundaries may be from sion of any such period,the applicant may file such application with the commissioner of
time to time,amended,changed or repealed,by majority vote of the inland wetlands agency, environmental protection who shall review and act on such application in accordance with
after a public hearing,in relation thereto,is held by the inland wetlands agency,at which this section.Any costs incurred by the commissioner in reviewing such application for such
parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard and for which notice shall inland wetlands agency shall be paid by the municipality that established or authorized the
be published in the manner specified in this subsection. Regulations or boundaries or agency.Any fees that would have been paid to such municipality if such application had not
changes therein shall become effective at such time as is fixed by the inland wetlands agen- been filed with the commissioner shall be paid to the state.The failure of the inland wetlands.
cy,provided a copy of such regulation,boundary or change shall be filed in the office of the agency or the commissioner to act within any time period specified in this subsection,or any
town,city orborough clerk,as the case may be.Whenever an inland wetlands agency makes extension thereof,shall not be deemed to constitute approval of the application.
a change in regulations or boundaries it shall state upon its records the reason why the change
was made and shall provide a copy of such regulation,boundary or change to the commis- (d) In granting,denying or limiting any permit for a regulated activity the inland wet-
sioner of environmental protection no later than ten days after its adoption provided failure to lands agency shall consider the factors set forth in section 22a-41,and such agency shall state
submit such regulation,boundary or change shall not impair the validity of such regulation, upon the record the reason for its decision.In granting a permit the inland wetlands agency
u. i v ✓s" k is*I
` �� � I • � i �I I i
I ° I ' I I I
I
'l Ir R ? I J
I I ,
j -
y
ORDINANCE NO. 112
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
SCHEDULE A o
A -
BE IT RESOLVED that Sections 5-100 through 5-105 of the Ordinances of
Town of South Windsor are hereby repealed; and
THAT the following are hereby adopted as new Sections 5-100 through 5-
of the Ordinances of the Town of South Windsor:
5-100 - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
5-101 - ESTABLTSHED
The Town of South Windsor shall designate one solid waste disposal fa F
within or without its territorial limits by resolution of the Town Council:
an affirmative vote of three-quarters (3/4) of its members. The Town Counc
may also designate, by affirmative vote of three-quarters (3/4) of its meat"
a transfer station in addition to or in lieu of such aforementioned solid`"
disposal facility. = -
5-102 - DEFINITIONS
Unless the contest specifically indicates otherwise, the meanings ofJ
terms used in these regulations shall be as follows:
(a) "Bulky rubbish" shall mean nonputrescible solid waste consist
combustible and/or noncombustible waste materials from dwelling`
commercial, industrial, institutional, or agricultural establ s-
which are. either too large or too heavy to be safely and cony
loaded in solid waste transportation vehicles by solid waste co
ors with the equipment available therefor.
(b) "Demolition and construction waste" shall mean waste materials..
the construction or destruction of residential, industrial, pu�
LAw O/•ICES - or commercial structures, or improvements or any streets or r
_HARD M.RITTENBAND (c) "Facility" shall mean the solid waste disposal facility.
BAND
1734 ELLIMOTON ROAD
bAO
�{r wINOSOA.CONN.06074 - -
(d) "Garbage" shall mean putrescible animal or vegetable wastes t 06O7t
f2O31644.1.56 from the handling, preparation, cooking, serving-. or consumpti.
1UMS NO.50412 f o o d.
(e) "Person" shall mean any individual, partnership, co-partnersh.
company, corporation, association, joint stock company, trust-
political subdivision, or organization of any kind, or their..
representatives, agents or assigns.
ww�;Fv
•f
- 2
i�
(f) "Processing" shall mean incinerating, composting, baling, shredding,
salvaging, compacting and other processes whereby solid waste
characteristics are modified or solid waste quantity is reduced.
"Recycling"
- " recovered resources manufacture,
(gecvclina means the reuse of recove__d r sourc_s in .nanufac�sr,_,
agriculture, power production or other processes : .(
(`l) "'Refuse" shall mean solid wasae.
it
(i) "Resources recovery" means the processing of solid wastes in such a
way as to produce materials or energy which may be used in manu-
facturing, agriculture, or other processes. ;
(j) "Shall" is mandatory; may is permissive ,(
(?c) "Solid waste" shall mean unwanted or discarded waste materials in a lit
to including but not limited to,
solid liquid, or semisolid spa g ,
bulky rubbish, garbage, ashes, street refuse, rubbish, dead animals,
animal and agricultural wastes, yard wastes, discarded appliances,
special wastes, industrial wastes, and demolition and construction
wastes, and contained gaseous material.
L '
(1) "Solid waste container" ,shall mean a receptacle used by any person to .
store solid waste during the interval between solid waste collections.
(m) "Solid waste disposal" shall mean the process of discarding or getting
rid of unwanted material. In particular the final deposition of
solid waste by man. Solid waste disposal shall not include resources
recovery or recycling.
(n) "Solid waste disposal facility" shall mean the location utilized for
solid waste disposal and may include a transfer station. F
(o) "Solid waste management" shall mean the entire solid waste system- of
storage, collection, transportation, processing and disposal.
(p) "Special wastes" shall mean scrap metal and white goods, tires, bulky
items and items such as furniture, mattresses, rugs and similar non-
metallic items.
(^) "Storage" shall mean keeping, maintaining or storing solid waste from j
the time of its production until the time of its collection.
(r) "Town" shall mean Town of South Windsor, Connecticut..
(s) "Transportation"- shall mean the transporting of solid waste from the
1k
place of collection or processing to a solid waste processing facilt t; l
or solid waste disposal area.
(t) "Yard wastes" shall mean shrubs, branches, limbs, brush and similar
materials grown on or emanating from land, including trees, parts of
trees and/or tree stumps.
t x
� ,n Yiijj i F
- •ate - .
''Rr IL
•�
-3 �r
�.
5-103 -' ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATION
Any refuse disposal facility established or maintained` within the Town, shall be administered and controlled by the Town Manager who shall promulgate
:. rules and regulations governing the use of said facility so that it is operated
and maintained in a safe efficient and sanitary manner.
Said lations shall provide for the hours .of operation of the facilitulethent regu-
amount of material to be accepted at the facility; the separation of variousnd
types of material where applicable; the types of vehicles which will be permit-
ted at the facility; and shall provide for means of identif in r
porting material to the facility and the source of said materialPe�sons trans--
5-104 - PROHIBITED DISPOSAL PRACTICES
SF:t
It shall be unlawful for any person to:
(a) Dispose of solid waste, generated out the corporate Iimits of the
Town, at any location within the corporate limits of the Town.
(b) Dispose of solid waste at any facility or location in the Town .which
is not approved by the Town Council and the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection.
(c) Deposit solid waste in any solid waste container other than his own,
without the written consent of the owner of such container.
5-105 - PENALTY
Any person violating the terms of this ordinance shall be fined $99 for
each offense.
ewNo Approved at a Special Meeting of the South Windsor Town Council
�•� held September 30, 1985. .
06074
. , ATTEST:
i
ac%tieline J. , Smith, Town Clerk
y
T ,
r �
Title 22a Ch.446d SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 395 i f
sufficient notice of the toll-free line. !
p
(P.A.86-332,S.4,20;P.A.87.489,S. 1, 14.);{
ii
History:P.A.87-489 amended Subdiv.(1)to delete provision m a dedicated telephone line for continuous monitoring and i
all make pro- substituted in lieu thereof provision re continuous monitoring with remote telemetry.
ons of certain ;
the maximum Secs. 22a-194 to 22a-206. Reserved for future use.
al base level
s necessary.
report to the CHAPTER 446d*
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
*Annotations to former chapter 361a:
Cited. 174 C. 146, 151.
Preemption of local zoning ordinances by conflicting state statutes.34 CS 177, 180.
231 and 22a-
at reclaiming Sec, 22a-207, (Formerly Sec.19-524a).Dermitions.For the purposes of this chapter
emissions" and chapter 103b:
'ssions of any
(1) "Commissioner"means the commissioner of environmental protection or his autho-
rized agent;
(a)The com- (2) "Department"means the department of environmental protection; j
of health ser- i
ter 54,except (3) "Solid waste"means unwanted or discarded materials,including solid,liquid,semi- !I
ality standard solid or contained gaseous material;
ek and in the
this chapter (4) -"Solid waste facility"means any solid waste disposal area,volume reduction plant,
g Water resource recovery facility or biomedical waste treatment facility operated by any municipal
lations there- or regional authority or any person if such area,plant or facility handles more than five tons a ,}
year of solid waste or any amount of biomedical waste;
i
'th subsection (5) "Volume reduction plant"means a plant having the capacity to process in excess of
lation of such two thousand pounds per hour of waste material input,which plant is designed primarily for }
the purpose of reducing the volume of solid waste which must finally be disposed of,includ-
ing but not limited to incinerators, pulverizers, compactors, shredding and baling plants,
transfer stations, and compost plants or other plants which accept and process refuse for
services shall recycling,reuse and resouVe recovery; i
sidered Y th
nd furan emise (6) "Solid waste disposal area" means the location utilized for ultimate disposal of it
wastes;
(7) "Recycling"means a method of reducing the volume of wastes which results in the
separation, extraction, refinement or utilization of wastes to produce energy or material
ssioner of which may then be reused in manufacture,agriculture or in other processes;
d responding I
program shall (8) "Resource recovery system"means a solid waste management system which pro-
department of vides for collection,separation,recycling and recovery of solid wastes,including disposal iy
tors including, of nonrecoverable waste residues;
nt of a toll-free i I
e public with (9) "Municipality"means any town,city or borough within the state; I�
),.
{
�i C
396 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Title 22a
(10) "Municipal authority"means the local governing body having legal jurisdiction 53
over solid waste management within its corporate limits which shall be,in the case of any
municipality which adopts a charter provision or ordinance pursuant to section 7-273aa,the PM
municipal resource recovery authority; re
(11) "Regional authority"means the administrative body delegated the responsibility of Im
solid waste management for two or more municipalities which have joined together by creat- bi1i
ing a district or signing an interlocal agreement or signing a mutual contract for a definitive ae
.all
period of time; wa
wasf
(12) "Region"means two or more municipalities which have joined together by creat-
ing a district or signing an interlocal agreement or signing a mutual contract for a definite
+!, period of time concerning solid waste management within such municipalities; soli
and
(13) "Solid waste management plan"means an administrative and financial plan for an soli
area which considers solid waste storage, collection, transportation, volume reduction, m0.
recycling,reclamation and disposal practices for a twenty-year period,or extensions there- tior
of; . and
hea
(14) "Municipal collection"means solid waste collection from all residents thereof by a the
municipal authority; ed.
met
(15) "Contract collection"means collection by a private collector under a formal agree- stet
creE
ment with a municipal authority in which the rights and duties of the respective parties are set wel
wel
forth; and
ordt
(16) "Solid waste planning region" means those municipalities within the defined song
boundaries of regional planning agencies or as prescribed in the state solid waste manage- mist
j ment plan; strut
acct
(17) "Biomedical waste"means untreated solid waste generated during the administra-
tion of medical care or the performance of medical research involving humans or animals (l
and which,because of its quantity, character or composition,has been determined by the (t
commissioner to require special handling, including infectious waste, pathological waste P.A.
and chemotherapy waste,but excluding any solid waste which has been classified by the xi
department as a hazardous waste pursuant to section 22a-115 or is a radioactive material resow
�
regulated pursuant to section 22a-148; snbse g P agama
Comm
i (18) "Generator of biomedical waste"means any person who owns or operates a facility r�st�
that produces biomedical waste in any quantity,including,but not limited to the following: octob
General hospitals, skilled nursing facilities or convalescent hospitals, intermediate care now
(b)to
facilities,in-patient care facilities for the developmentally disabled,chronic dialysis clinics, estabt;
free clinics,health maintenance organizations,surgical clinics,acute psychiatric hospitals, ing,Cf
laboratories, medical buildings, physicians' offices, veterinarians, dental offices and than o
conic
' funeral homes; retette�
i repeah
(19) , "Biomedical waste treatment facility"means asolid waste facility capable of storSee
-
�!' ing,treating or disposing of any amount of biomedical waste,excluding any facility where cio
.: the only biomedical waste treated,stored or disposed of is biomedical waste generated at the snt
J;; '
Cia
site.
li,
RESEARCH T y'
Invaders in the Marsh
he giant reed, Phragmites australis, is an invasive
weed that thrives in brackish wetlands and ditches
along highways. This large, familiar member of the
grass family, with its striking tasseled seed heads,
grows particularly well in disturbed wet habitats,
reaching gigantic proportions in places such as the Back
Bay Fens, the upper edges of Saugus Marsh, and along , „yi� ,ip�11,+1r�•'��► ,;;;����t, '!
the Massachusetts Turnpike.
Whether Phragmites is truly an exotic in the United .V /
States has been a subject of debate. According to
botanist Lisa Standley, the current thinking is that the 4
species was naturally present in the southern United I
States in precolonial times. But the plants now thriving `\
in New England and other northern states are descen-
dants of a type of Phragmites with a more aggressive 1
genetic constitution, which was introduced to this
country sometime after the arrival of Europeans. So our t 1i
Massachusetts Phragmites should be considered an
exotic genetic strain, but nevertheless a native species. 1 I
P
Phragmites'reputation as a bad plant stems from its
aggressive growth in brackish wetlands and from the
notion that it has less value to wildlife than the native
salt marsh plants it usually replaces. Its leaves are too Native Great Blue Heron in Invasive Phragmites.
tough and its seeds too hairy to be eaten, and it is not
considered an important nesting habitat for any bird
including some species that are absent in other parts of
species. In dense Phragmites stands, where plants can
reach twelve feet in height, almost no other plants can the marsh. Ponds within the Phragmites section provide
grow. In other parts of the world, the reeds are the only habitat at Belle Isle Marsh for muskrats and
harvested for building material and for baskets, but are also used by black ducks and mallards. Up to thirty
there is no such market here. black-crowned night-herons use the Phragmites as a
Massachusetts Audubon Society staff scientists have daytime roosting area in certain seasons, perhaps
been involved in a project, funded by the Massachusetts attracted to the safety of the dense impenetrable tangle
Bays Environmental Trust, that is assessing the poten- in an otherwise relatively open region of marshland and -
tial for restoring a section of a salt marsh invaded by urban development. The American bittern, a bird listed
Phragmites. Belle Isle Marsh, located at the junction of in the state as a species of special concern, has regularly
Revere, Winthrop, and East Boston, is the largest been observed in the Phragmites too. Because the
remaining salt marsh in Boston proper. It is a popular Phragmites area is so difficult to explore, it is hard to
destination for birders and local residents, all of whom say what else might be in there. In a landscape context,
enjoy the open space and wildlife in an otherwise urban the dense border of Phragmites buffers the rest of the
environment. An old photo taken around 1910 shows a salt marsh from the noise and activity of the surroun-
pure salt marsh without any Phragmites. In the 1930s, a ding city, something that is probably attractive to
twenty-five-acre section of the marsh was enclosed wildlife and certainly to human visitors.
behind a berm created from dredge spoils. By reducing So the Phragmites area is not a biological desert as
the tidal flow into this part of the marsh, the salt con- we had first thought, and individuals involved in the
tent of the water was lowered, creating the brackish restoration effort have generally agreed that some
conditions under which Phragmites thrives. Today much Phragmites should remain.This decision is fortunate
of this section is a dense stand of the reed. because technically it would be impossible to remove all
Massachusetts Audubon has been asked to assess the the Phragmites without drastically increasing the
present value of the impacted area to marsh organisms, amount of funding needed for the project. Because
including birds, fish, vegetation, and marine inverte- most of Belle Isle Marsh is still a thriving salt marsh
brates, and to advise the Army Corps of Engineers on a community, a more appropriate goal is preventing
restoration plan. further encroachment by Phragmites into the salt marsh
As usual, our research suggested that the situation is rather than attempting to eliminate it altogether. From
not as simple as we had hoped. Based on our own a scientific perspective, we have learned once again that
observations and the aid of local naturalists, we found ecological myths are often worth investigating, some-
that the Phragmites area is not without value to wildlife, times case by case. L Robert Buchsbaum 1
24 MASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY
SOUTH WINDSOR -INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY MINUTES
Monday, June 10, 1985
Page 3
Mr. Lane stated not a great deal of fill would be needed; he planned to use what
came out of the cellar.The back part of the lot may have a couple feet of fill,
and although he could get along without it, he wanted better top soil.
There was some confusion about first floor elevation. According to the numbers
on the plan, it would seem the first floor would be 6 ft about ground level. J.
O'Sullivan felt that would mean a large amount of fill.
There was some question about the posting of IWA sign. L. Paulus said she
would check and �re-post if necessary.
8. APPlication No. 327 - Hi-G Company
Construction of additional drive and parking on property located at 85 Nutmeg
Rd. Ken Pudler (Fuss & O 'Neill) Gary Flor (Hi-G) present for proposal.
vir. Pudler explained the location of the project was the Olivetti warehouse
building on So. Nutmeg Rd. This was an existing_ building with existing parking.
Their request was for additional parking on the south and north sides, and new
water and sanitary services. The present building is on septic systems. The
proposed parking areas are in mapped wetlands. There will be extensive renovation
inside the building for an assembly facility for electronic parts.
It was noted that there would be some removal. of top soil to put in gravel; not
;uch fill would be needed; and increased run-off would be handled by catch basins
with underground galleys, allowing water to filter -back into ground water. The
galleys would collect roof drains, both parking lots and extra catch basins. There
is an overflow catch basin along the railroad to a very large storm.
Regarding the question of hazardous material stored on site, Mr. Flor stated the
majority of the .facility would be used for electronic assembly, but there would be a
smallprocess plating area. Some hazardous material would be stored on site in 55 gal.
drum special containers, with no more than approximately six drums stored at one
time. This residue took the form of sodium hydroxide sludge with some level of
heavy metal wit. The storage area would be inside with a berm around it.
Flor also stated they had applied to DEP because the material required
treatment, and a treatment plant would be on site to take care of the waste. The
residue Would be trucked away by licansed carriers for eventual disposal to landfill
areas in either upstate New York or somewhere down south.
iir. Flor noted they would be under the inspection of DEP, who will do. initial
and periodic inspections to insure everything was up to par.
9. A-oplication No. 331 - Anthony Botticello
Filling existing excavation with clean fill and bulky waste and creating industrial
subdivision. Jeff Hyden, Stephanie Fuss, present for proposal.
Pir. Hyden began by stating that the property involved is 78 acres of industrial
land located north of Chapel Rd. , east of Rt. 5 and south of Pleasant Valley Rd.
:f
SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY MINUTES
Monday, June 10, 1985
Page 4
The goal would be to fill it and develop an industrial subdivision on land which
has been mined for clay and used for the manufacture of brick. According to Mr. Hyder
due to those uses, the land was largly undevelopable.
A 177acre piece of land abutting Veterans Memorial Park would be deeded to the
town and would extend the park to along the Podunk River.
Tha,e is frontage on Pleasant Valley Rd. and Mr. Botticello would like to retain
easement there in the event he wanted to construct a roadway, which at this time he
does not.
The plan as developed is not in any wetland or watercourse. It does encroach a
small amunt into 100 year flood plain for the purpose of constructing sediment basin
and erosion control basin.. The proposed finished project wLild have access off
Chapel Rd. with 35 industrial lots. They would be serviced with sanitary and water
from Chapel Rd.
In order to develop the first parcel, they must fill in a large hole. Because of
the prohibitive cost of clean fill, they would like to use that hole for bulky
waste disposal. Bulky waste consists of land clearing material such as rubble,
stumps, wood products; there would be no refrigerators, dryers, etc. metals or
tires.
The rest of the area would be clean fill which would include soil, asphalt,
bricks and demolition materials. It does not include metals or organics. The
filling operation would be in compliance with DEEP regulations for clean fill and
bulky waste disposal.
Thre would be two phases of filling, each phase lasting approximately 5 years.
Phase I includes the filling operation and Phase I subdivision; hay bales will be
put up before the filling operation begins. After filling, 7 lots would be sub-
divided and road and utilities would be installed.
First they would create a gravel access road, and then construct a dyke system.
The runoff from the filling process would go into a hole and would be filtered out.
Sediment in the runoff would be contained and settled out. Clear water would pass
through- pervious and impervious dykes out an existing culvert.
Before bulky wast would be brought in, the bottom of the hole would have to be
graded to slope correctly and a gravel blanket added according to DEP regulations.
When the fill:tg was finished, they would place a minimum 20" of cover material,
4" of top soil and then seed the entire hill.
They would then implement the subdivision plans for Phase I, which would include
road, utilities and a 100 ft buffer against the neighboring condominium project.
Phase II of the filling operation would follow the same procedure. They would
leave. the dyke until the end of the operation. Whenthe hill was stabilized, they
' SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY MINUTES
Monday, June 10, 1985
! Page 5
would then remove the silt fence.
Phase II subdivision also includes road and utilities in the subdivided area.
Phase III includes only roads and the subdividing of lots; no filling is necessary
in this phase.
Mr. Hyden felt the plan provides a number of opportunities for South ;Uindsor.
Because the land is not developable, he noted it would be good for a linear par'_ ,
since it is uniquely situated off Veterans %lemorial Park, and also felt it would
be of economic benefit to the town to have its own waste disposal area. The lard's
ultimate development for industrial use would be a plus to the town.
Regarding erosion and sediment control, mr. Hyden noted under DEP requirements, as
any portion reached finished grade, within 30 days it must be covered and loamed and
surface stabilized in the next growing season. It will not be left unfinished for 5
years.
When questioned about the final contour, ?fir. Hyden noted -it would be at elevation
83. The existing ground about 400 ft. away is at elevation 70. DEP reauires a
minimum slope of 4%, maxim 3 to 1 , and require that it drain in a radial manner.
The end result would be a 4% crown for final landform of landfill.
It was noted that the bulky waste area was approximately 100 ft away from the
=odunk at its closest point. C. Lane asked how they would grade tothe river so
there would be no fast runoff into the river.
This would be done by grading the site, under where the bulky waste will be,
at a fairly gentle slope, with a positive grade down to the sediment basin, then
placement of 2 ft of gravel blanket , and filling from that surface up to the proposed
grade as shown on the plan.
Any ;eater leaching through the mound :would settle into the 2 ft gravel drain, then.
purcoiate into the ground. If this were maintained as' a high and dry design, there
would be no leaching problem.
C. Lane wanted to '_snow who would check the truck loads to be sure they contained
no metal, tires, etc.
Mr. Hyden stated three possibilities: I . The owner-operator of the site should
check the loads, 2. DEP employs an inspection force, and 3. The town has
responsibilities and rights to inspect users of the site.
J. Moran noted there seemed to be two different operations: 1 , to bring in
fill to fill the site for construction, and 2. a landfill to attract other
developers to bring in waste. He asked if this would require two different kinds
f permits.
Mr, Hyden said clean fill required no permit, but bulky waste required a 5 year
solid waste permit from DEP with performance standards to meet.
Mr, Davies expressed concern for the neighbors to the east, Chapel Hill Condos,
SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY MINUTES ,
Monday, June 10, 1985
Page 6
;ince they were not aware of the proposed landfill andlRad no representatives at
the meeting. He also expressed concern about the impact on the Podunk - that there
be some method to check the quality of the water.
Mr. Hyden stated that at the public hearing they could offer evidence of testing
to show drinking water quality at the base. He did not believe the plan effected
the quality or quantity of water in either the wetlands or the Podunk. Also,
the DEP plan submitted/require monimoring. inhere would be quarterly reports to the
town and the DEP: these reports to be approved before the site could go into place
relative tothe DEP permit.
J. Moran suggested some information be submitted in regard to comparable kinds
of operations and the impact they have had, and also, alternatives to bulky waste.
Mr. Moran also brought up the matter of the I'!A and CC summer schedule. These
commissions meet once in July and not at all in August. He suggested that Mr. H-Yden
submit a letter to I1,9A requesting a 65 day extension from the time the date
believed necessary was received, with the same '.rind of letter after the June 17
Conservation Commission meeting. Otherwise, the commissions would have to deny
without prejudice, and the whole process would have to start from the beginning
again in Sept:emb(br. 1,11ith request for continuance, all informational data received
(such as impact on water purity, comparable operations, etc.) can be submitted to
SCS and Engineering for review.
Mr. Dick Kelley, a developer of Bissell Commons (industrial condominiums) 'he
abutting property, stated their enginee^s' research showed the entire area or
Ellington Rd. and Long Hill Rd. cannot be developed for an industrial area unless
there is some form of drainage system, on Chapel Rd that will go into the Podunk by
way of the Botticello property, or it TMust go the length of Chapel Rd. under Route 5
to the Podunk River.
Mr. Kelley also noted it can be seen by locking at the Pi ssell Cormons industrial
area and the neighboring residential condominiums, that it is ressible to buffer
the areas so they are compatible.
10. Application No. 326 - `:','indshire Abbe Estates
Renewal of prior application re '^li.ndshire TV and V. R. Kelley present for proposal
1°1r. Kelley stated the reasons this application on phases T_V and V had lapsed.
Because of trying to work out problems with abutting property owner, Phil Ireland,
and work on '-,Iindshire Abbe `II, out of neglect, this application expired. They also
knew the PI"" permit was still in force, and forgot I71A permit was for only one year.
Basically the work in Phases IV and V was finished except for some clean up
left to do. They must also wait for town approval of the street.
1
SOUTH WINDSOR INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Minutes September 9 , 1985
Page 2.
10 . Application NO 352 - Lynn Mazotas . Mrs . Warren siad that she had
not seen a sign. Applicant unaware of regulation on a sign.
Motion to table: K. Rennie; Second: E . Warren. Unanimously
voted in favor.
11 .. Application NO . 302 - JMJ - Pleasant Valley Homes Section I
Ken Smith of Reino Hyyppa Associates explained the requests and
answered the questions . Mr. Jacques responded to questions also .
Mr . Davies commented .that the developer has worked hard to im-
prove the area.
Section II - Mr. Smith expleined the phase and gave details of the
plan.Mr . Moran asked if they have received the report from SCS .
They will forward it to us upon receipt. Mr . Davies said that
the developer had been cooperative with SCS and Engineering Dept .
Mr. Le Foll added comments He asked for immediate action.
Attorney Le Foll stated he felt the SCS report was complete.
There may be more information forthcoming .
12 . Application No . 348 - Request continuation of existing project .
13 . Application NO. 280 - Peter Gorecki
J. Moran said that he had just received a letter through Engineer-
ing Department from E. Sweeney addressing problems of water on a
neighbors 'property. Mr. Cotton, (representing the applicant) asked
if we would act on the application tonight . J . Moran said we would
attempt to cover as many applications as possible.
14. Application NO. 3-31 - Anthony Botticello .
Mr . Moran explained the requirements of any application and re-
viewed the progress of this application. Extension of deadline dat�
and more information requested from the applicant. It never came.
The time period having lapsed, also . Mr . Moran recommended- the
Commission deny application without prejudice and the applicant
may apply again if he so desires . -
Mr. Rennie pointed to Sec . 22 A - 42A (c) of the Connecticut
State Statutes applies to this case.
There was a discussion on notifying Town Council and/or the
public of future applications . It was agreed that Dep . Mayor
Richard Ryan would be kept informed ; contacting individuals would
not be feasible.
Motion to deny application NO 331 by K. Rennie because the
time for action (65 days) had run out and further information
requested was not submitted/ the application was inactive.
Seconded by C . Lane. Unanimously voted in favor .
Mr. Nadel asked for a procedure of the Commission. Mr . Moran
explained it. Mrs Long (who has faithfully attended Agency
meetings for three years) stated she had no problems obtaining
information on the meeting times and content.
15. Application NO. 076 - Russo Brothers .
K. Rennie made motion to- grant 1 year extension for the
application. J. Flynn seconded the motion. Unanimously
voted in favor.
16 . Application NO. 103 - Russo Brothers .
Mr. Davies commented that Engineering had no problem with this
I y (3/�5
ft se"
t `4 1'
H . " 7owna74
, v
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINOSOR. CONN. 06074
AREA COOE 203/644-2511
oSOR,�u�'
RICHARO J. SARTOR September 3 , 1985
Town Manager
Members of the Town Council
South Windsor , Connecticut
Dear Councillors :
Re : Application of Mr . Anthony Botticello - Chapel Industrial Park
Status Report
The purpose of this report is to review the proposal of
Mr . Anthony Botticello of Manchester , Connecticut , who applied to the
Conservation Commission/Inland-Wetlands Agency in June for approval
of a landfilling/bulky waste operation and ultimate industrial
subdivision , identified by the Applicant as the "Chapel Industrial
Park . "
The subject site consists of 78 .85 acres , the majority of which
( 77 . 942 acres ) was purchased by Mr . Botticello in 1983 from
Plasticrete Corp . and Quinnipiac Industrial Corp . The balance of the
site , consisting of a strip of land ( .91 acre ) , 75 feet in width , and
530 feet in length , was recently purchased by Mr . Botticello from the
developers of the Bissell Commons Industrial Condominium , following
an August , 1984 resubdivision approval . This strip gives the site
direct access to Chapel Road . The only other access points are over
a narrow and unimproved easement to U .S . Route #5 (which presently
serves Dunn Bros . , among other businesses ) just north of Chapel Road ;
and via an unimproved and relatively steep strip of land accessing
Pleasant Valley Road , just east of Jeffrey Drive .
The site is bounded on the east by Bissell Commons Industrial
Condominium , Chapel Hill Condominium (consisting of 163 multi-family
residences) , vacant land of John Russo , and Veterans ' Memorial Park
--including the Town ' s public swimming facility . It is bounded on
the west , principally , by vacant land of others between the site and
U.S . Route 5 and ConRail--although this site does contain a short
frontage strip along the ConRail line .
On the south , the site abuts numerous industrial and commercial
enterprises--including Dunn Brothers , Propane Gas Service Inc . ,
Nielsen & Sons , and Bissell Commons , among others . The site is thus
east of U .S . Route 5 , north of Chapel Road , south of Pleasant Valley
Road , and west of Route #30.
r
{ 00'7131
Members of the Town Council
Re: Chapel Industrial Park
Page 2
September 3 , 1985
The site is characterized by a large depression where clay was once
excavated , the ruins of former industrial plants .( including a
brick-making operation) , and the abandoned Plasticrete facility . It
is , virtually , the identical site , save for the addition of the
access strip to Chapel Road , that was the subject. of a proposal by
Taylor & Fenn to dispose of its casting sand . That particular
proposal was denied by the Inland-Wetlands Agency . The entire site
falls within the Industrial Zoning District , with the exception of
the Flood Plain District along the Podunk River . Only the site ' s
Podunk River streambelt lies within regulated inland-wetlands .
Mr . Botticello ' s overall intention appears . to be to-_( 1 ) Fill the
site ' s depression (or 36 .45 acres ) with 436 ,000 cubic yards of "bulky
waste , " and 507 , 250 cubic yards of "clean fill ; " ( 2) develop an
industrial park consisting of new interior roads , and up to 35
building lots ; and (3) deed residual land along the Podunk River
( 17 .63 acres) to the Town .
As best can be determined at this time , Mr . Botticello proposes to
complete his project in three (3) phases . Phase I , with a five-year
horizon , would have truck access via Chapel Road , just west of
Bissell Commons . A gravel access drive would serve the disposal
area ; and , upon completion of the Phase 's landfilling operation ,
roads and utilities would be constructed to serve a seven-lot
in park; and a 100-foot wide landscaped buffer would be
installed along the Chapel Hill Condominium property .
Phase II--again , with a five-year horizon--would have truck access to
Route #5 , over the aforementioned easement north of Chapel Road .
During Phase II , all landfilling operations would be completed ,
followed by an extension of roads and utilities capable of serving
an additional 11 building lots .
Phase III would again consist of utility and roadway extensions to
serve a final 17 building lots .
_Regarding the "approval process , " Mr . Botticello will need--at the
very minimum--the following government approvals :
1 . Permits to construct and operate the proposed "clean fill"
and "bulky waste" disposal facilities from the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection .
2 . Inland-wetlands and conservation plan permits from South
Windsor ' s Conservation Commission/Inland-Wetlands Agency .
at
h
Members of the Town Council
Re : Chapel Industrial Park
Page 3
September 3 , 1985
3 . Site Plan of Development , Land Filling , and Subdivision
Permits from South Windsor ' s Planning and Zoning Commission .
4 . Sanitary Sewer Service permit from the South Windsor Water
Pollution Control Authority .
As observed above , Mr . Botticello made application to the
Inland—Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission in June ; and his
application is pending . The Agency will not schedule a second meeting
on this application until such time as the applicant furnishes
additional information--which , at the time of this writing , is still
forthcoming . Given the magnitude of the project , the Agency intends
to convene a Public Hearing on the application (most likely in
October )--once again , if the requested information has been received .
Respectfully submitted ,
Richard J . Sartor
Town Mana r
RJS : prb
i
•
1 P�
•
RECEIVED
SOIL SEAL CORP
JUN 12 1989
June 8, 1989 FUSS & O'NEILL, Ipir,
Thank you for your interest in Soil Seal Concentrate.
Please find attached a brochure describing our surface
erosion control and dust abatement product, Soil Seal
Concentrate.
Soil Seal Concentrate is a patented formulation comprised of
acrylic co. .oy�ner � and other materials, which has been used
f V. --
or years as:
--a binder, or tackifier in revegetation projects
including hydro-seeding
--for the control of surface erosion and rilling
on bare slopes
--a dust abatement treatment and in blow sand
control
Soil Seal Concentrate is a liquid which is further diluted
with water in the field for application. Soil Seal is spray
applied to the soil surface. The Soil Seal solution soaks
into the soil, and cures to form a crust through the
cohesive binding with the surface soil particles. Soil Seal
can also be mixed directly into a hydro-seeding slurry for
economy of application when used as a binder or tackifier in
. revegetation products .
The Soil Seal crust allows for movement of air and water in
the soil, yet is sturdy enough to form an erosion resistant
barrier to protect the soil surface against the ravages of
wind and water.
Specified and used for years by private industry as well as
the Bureau of Reclamation, US Army Corps of Engineers ,
California Department of Transportation and others, Soil
Seal is a proven and safe method for controlling harmful
surface erosion, and blowing dust and sand, in a large
variety of applications.
Please contact us if we can provide specific information and
recommendations on the use of Soil Seal Concentrate for
erosion protection of your projects .
Sincerely,
Dawn Preiss
SOIL SEAL CORPORATION . 3015 Supply Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90040 • (213)727-0654-FAX(213) 727-6037
SoH Seal Concentrate U.S.Patent 3,763,072
r
BEAL COULD HAVE
HELPED. r
Without the right protection, you never know just how far erosion will go . . . g
In any serious erosion control situation, you need strong soil protection.
SOIL SEAL CONCENTRATE is the soil stabilizer best suited for rigorous surface
erosion control.
Soil Seal is tough. Soil Seal penetrates the soil and binds particles together =L
to form a strong, long lasting crust. <r
SOIL SEAL CONCENTRATE is a patented copolymer mixture. It is highly
resistant to ultraviolet and moisture. Yet it is also moisture permeable, and =1
does biodegrade. A Soil Seal application leaves-your landscape looking natural. z
SOIL SEAL CONCENTRATE can handle the roughest erosion control projects o _
for only a penny or two per square foot! Compare that to the high cost of
labor-intensive erosion control blankets, nettings and mattings. Y
So don't let erosion carve a national monument out of your next project. r=L
Specify SOIL SEAL CONCENTRATE. Call for more details today.
SOIL SEAL CONCENTRATE: - I!J
WHEN JUST ANY SOIL STABILIZER
WON'T DO.
SOIL SEAL CONCENTRATE is manufactured and shipped I
internationally.
SOIL SEAL CORPORATION 3015 Supply Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90040 '=CORP
Phone: (213) 727-0654 FAX: (213) 727-6037
a
NO
A SOIL STABILIZER
Patent No.3,763,072
WHAT IS SOIL SEAL? Distributed by:
Soil Seal is a soil stabilizer which prevents erosion by creating a large
mass of stabilized soil which is not easily disturbed by wind and
water.A patented formulation composed primarily of high rade la-
tex acrylic-balanced copolymers prepared in emulsion orm—i is
ypica y reduced w water to be a spray applied to various types
of soils.Soil Seal penetrates the soil surface and forms an excellent
cohesive bond between the soil particles.It can be used as a sole
treatment in combating soil erosion,or as a tackiffer in hydroseeding
and mulching applications.It is a non-toxic,non-corrosive,non-flam-
mable auxiliary soil chemical formulated to provide safe and eco-
nomical surface soil stabilization. SUGGESTED APPLICATION:
Soil Seal is sold as a concentrate which is mixed with water to a
desired percent of solution.This mixture is then applied at a specific
- APPLICATIONS: rate,typically described as gallons per acre of concentrate.The
Landscape—both commercial and residential-Public works-High- Percent of solution is usually about 2 to 3 percent while the applica-
ways,roadways and railroads-"In-progress"construction-Mining tion rate will vary more widely depending on the soil characteristics;
and mine reclamation-Forestry and reforestation-Recreation and surface contour;specific conditions of wind and water;and whether
park areas-Agriculture-Airfields and aircraft operations-Oilfields- Sod Seal is used as a sole treatment or in conjunction with hydro-
. Water districts and irrigation systems-Land fills. seeding or mulching.
The Soil Seal solution will penetrate the soil surface to form a crust,
the depth of which will vary from I/s inch to about 11/z inches
ADVANTAGES: depending on soil characteristics,dilution percentage and applica-
Soil Seal Concentrate is: tion rate.As an example,coarse materials containing little or no fine
soil will be penetrated to a greater extent while fine,silty materials
versatile;proven effective in controlling a wide range of erosion P 9 tY
problems caused by wind and water,effective in dust abatement would be penetrated to a lesser degree.Suggested mixtures for gen-
and blow sand control. eral conditions are as follows:
-Unique;patented formulation provides increased soil penetration
and deeper crust formation. To Establish vegetation(minimum per acre requirement)
Safe;non-toxic anf�ngn-corrosive Soil Seal m�be s ra ed over
E_��,..�., 30 gals.Soil Seal Concentrate Seed(as required)
•existtng,yegetation without harm,and used in seeding 750 lbs.of wood cellulose Fertilizer(as required)
applications. (see manufacturer's instructions) 1,200 gals.water.
-Highly resistant to ultra violet,moisture,and alkaline soils; Soil Stabilization)min.per acre requirement)
provides long lasting solutions to surface soil erosion problems. 45 gals.Soil Seal Concentrate Herbicides,etc.(as required)
-Colorless and odorless;natural appearance of landscape is main- 1,500 gals.water.
tained.Not a petroleum product
-Economical;high concentration of high grade latex acrylic Dust Abatement And Blow Sand Control(min.per acre
copolymer allows for lower gallon per acre application rates than requirement)
many similar products. 60 gals.Soil Seal Concentrate 2,000 gals.water
-Reliable;fifteen years of field experience provide numerous job Each project will generate its own requirements.The foregoing is a
applications confirming the reliability of this product general guide.Please contact your Soil Seal Distributor,or Soil Seal
-Permeable to moisture;allows infiltration of water without Corporation,Los Angeles,California for specific recommendations
destroying crust integrity. -- concerning your particular project
-Able to reduce soil evaporation rate;actually aids in surface soil
moisture retention in many cases.
-A liquid concentrate;easy to handle and easy to mix with water, SOIL STABILIZATION SPECIFICATIONS'
fertilizers,seed,herbicides,mulch,etc.in slurry form. Please refer to the Soil Seal brochure,your Soil Seal Distributor or the
Soil Seal Corporation,Los Angeles,California for assistance in gen-
METHODS OF APPLICATIONS' erating specifications for specific projects.
Soil Seal lends itself to nearly all types of equipment designed to PHYSICAL PROPERTIES:
apply liquids.The equipment may vary in size from a common garden
LdIstri'buting
sprayer to equipment as large as a hydro-seeder or Appearance(as shipped) Aqua colored liquid
lcher.In all cases,the equipment should be capable of Solids 46-60%
the material in a uniform pattern,applying the solution VA gh(as�PP�) 1.9 lb
s.
o lets and avoidin fine mists.As re uired b ood t per gall°" No -tP 9 q Y 9 Toxicity Non-toxic
ce practices,all tools should be flushed clean with water Flammability Non-flammable
the use of Soil Seal. .Odor(Concentrate) Ammonia present
LONGER LASTING - SAFE- ECONOMICAL-WATER PERMEABLE SOIL SEAL CORP
SOIL SEAL CORPORATION, 3015 Supply Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90040 - Phone: (213) 727-0654 FAX: (213) 727-6037
soil seal corporation has Conducted extensive laboratory and field testing in order to determine the benefits of sod seal Concentrate.The information and suggestions presented
herein are based on those tests and the best technical information available at the time of priming.No representation or Inducement Is made guaranteeing results Indicated w it be
obtained by anyone using such information or suggestions.Further.the information and suggestions presented are not intended to serve as any basis for warramies,express or
Implied.as to merchantability,fitness for purpose Sold,description,quallry,productiveness,or any other matter on soil Seal concentrate.
Soil Seal Concentrate is manufactured and shipped internationally. Printed in USA.
SOL=tORP
MR-Manufacturer PP-Product Presentation
The Soil Seal Corporation Advantages:
The Soil Seal Corporation has pioneered the use of soil stabilization Soil Seal Concentrate prevents erosion by creating a large mass of
materials in the field of surface soil erosion control.Soil Seal Con- stabilized soil which is not easily disturbed by wind and water.Soil
centrate has been used successfully in hundreds of surface soil Seal Concentrate is:
stabilization projects both in the United States and abroad over the •versatile;proven effective in controlling a wide range of erosion
past fifteen years.Soil Seal Concentrate has been specified for use problems caused by wind and water,effective in dust abatement
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and and blow sand control.
many state and local highway departments as well as numerous •unique;patented formulation provides increased soil penetration
architectural and engineering firms.Soil stabilization projects tend and deeper crust formation.
to be varied and are hardly ever straightforward.Our experience in •sate;non-toxic and non-corrosive,Soil Seal may be sprayed over
the field gives us an excellent background to assist the architect, existing vegetation without harm, and used in seeding applica-
engineer, developer or contractor in assessing their soil erosion tions.
problems, and recommending the proper application of Soil Seal •highly resistant to ultra violet,moisture,and alkaline soils;pro-
Concentrate to solve their problems. vides long lasting solutions to surface soil erosion problems.
•colorless and odorless;natural appearance of landscape is main-
UA-Uses,Applications tained, not a petroleum product.
Applications• •economical; high concentration of high grade latex acrylic
copolymer allows for lower gallon per acre application rates than
Landscape — both commercial and residential •Public works a many similar products.
Highways, roadways and railroads *"In-progress" construction • •reliable; fifteen years of field experience provide numerous job
Mining and mine reclamation •Forestry and reforestation •Recrea- applications confirming the reliability of this product.
tion and park areas -Agriculture *Airfields and aircraft operations • •permeable to moisture; allows infiltration of water without de-
Oilfields *Water districts and irrigation systems *Land fills stroying crust integrity.
•able to reduce soil evaporation rate; (see chart, pg. 4) actually
PP-Product Presentation aids in surface soil moisture retention in many cases.
Soil Erosion •provided as a liquid concentrate;easy to handle and easy to mix
Environment is of paramount importance to many of us.Soil erosion, with water,fertilizers,seed,herbicides,mulch,etc.in slurry form.
caused by the elements,primarily water and wind,is one of the major AI-Assembly,Installation
contributors to the destruction of our environment.The cost to the
taxpayer, developer, owner or farmer due to soil erosion can be Methods of Applications
devastating if not checked. Soil Seal lends itself to nearly all types of equipment designed to
apply liquids.The equipment may vary in size from a common garden
What is Soil Seal? insecticide sprayer to equipment as large as a hydro-seeder or
Soil Seal is a soil stabilizer,a means by which the surface of the soil hydro-mulcher. In all cases, the equipment should be capable of
can be stabilized in place against the ravages of wind and water.It is distributing the material in a uniform pattern,applying the solution in
a patented formulation composed y large droplets and avoiding fine mists.As required by good main-
p p primarily of high grade latex tenance practices, all tools should be flushed clean with water
acrylic balanced copolymers prepared in emulsion form—which following the use of Soil Seal.
is typically reducedwit water to be a spray app 17 ed�o v'a'rious types
of soils.Soil Seal penetrates the soil surface and forms an excellent
cohesive bond between the soil particles. It can be used as a sole
treatment in combating soil erosion,or as a tackifier in hydroseeding
and mulching applications. It is a non-toxic, non-corrosive, non-
flammable auxiliary soil chemical formulated to provide safe and
economical surface soil stabilization.
I
Example of Soil Seal's excellent f
crust forming characteristics. . ail''
•
Y.
Jr
An application of Soil Seal could have prevented this %� ' '��r Soil Seal used as a tackifier in a hydro-seeding
erosion damage. ; operation.
2
u
2.9/Soi
Useful Information
• Soil Seal should never be applied during, before or immediately Blow Sand Control (min. per acre requirement)
following rainfall. Air tem erature should be ab F.Avoid 60 gals.Soil Seal Concentrate
application in high wind.Mix thoroug y e ore using.Don't freeze. 2,000 gals.water
• Soil Seal solutions will provide a surface crustation of from 1/8"to Each project will generate its own requirements.The foregoing is a
11/2"depending on the soil classification.It is this crust which is so general guide.Please contact your Soil Seal Distributor,or Soil Seal
effective in stabilizing the soil against erosion from wind and water. Corp., Los Angeles, California for specific recommendations con-
• Soil Seal solutions may be sprayed upon existing-vggetation with- cerning your particular project.
out harmful effect,a obi'u h`�e c t p[aM_.Shoul •be 7rotected..
•App1y,Sra 1-SeaYsWW n so that droplet size is at least as large as in TS-Technical Support
a moderate rain storm.Avoid fine mists. Soil Stabilization Specifications
•Soil Seal Concentrate is shipped in 50-gallon metal or fiber open-
mouth drums. Special packaging is available — contact local Purpose:
distributor or our Los Angeles sales office. It is the purpose of the soil stabilization specification to minimize the
effects of wind and water upon the cut and fill slopes and other
exposed surfaces in and around the project,preventing the possibil-
ity of pollution of adjacent properties,and the costly regrading and
Al-Assembly,Installation revegetation caused by the unwanted movement of soil and water.
SuSuggested Application: Method:
gg pp The contractor shall provide a method of soil stabilization wherein
Soil Seal is sold as a concentrate which is mixed with water to a the natural appearance and beauty of the site shall not be affected by
desired percent of solution.This mixture is then applied at a specific the applications of such stabilizing agents. Further, the medium
rate, typically described as gallons per acre of concentrate. The used shall not measurably change the physical or chemical makeup
percent of solution is usually about 2 to 3 percent,while the applica- of the soils encountered. The product shall be capable of being
tion rate will vary more widely depending on the soil characteristics; applied by readily available and commonly used equipment easily
surface contour;specific conditions of wind and water;and whether located within the industry.
Soil Seal is used as a sole treatment or in conjunction with hydro- Product:
seeding or mulching. The soil stabilizing vehicle shall be a copolymer emulsion consisting of
The Soil Seal solution will penetrate the soil surface to form a crust, at. %grylic, Thyrylic emulsion shall be disbursed in water.
the depth of which will vary from 1a inch is about 1c inches depend- Soil Seal Concentrate as manufactured by Soil Seal Corp., 1111 West
ing on soil characteristics,dilution percentage and application rate. Sixth Street,Los Angeles,California 90017(or approved equal)shall be
As an example,coarse materials containing little or no fine soil will utilized as the acrylic emulsion.
be penetrated to a greater extent while fine,silty materials would be The soil stabilizing compound shall include the constituent sodium
penetrated to a lesser degree.Suggested mixtures for general condi- silicate which facilitates the penetration of the compound_'into the
tions are as follows: earth and which assists in creating a crust through the cohesive
To Establish Vegetation(min.per acre requirement) bonding of the surface soil particles to a depth sufficient to stabilize
30 gals.Soil Seal Concentrate the soil surface.Further,the compound shall contain an antifoaming
750 lbs.of wood cellulose(see mfgrs.instructions) agent,allowing said compound to be mixed within a hydraulic appli-
Seed(as required) cating device without prohibitive foaming. When the compound
Fertilizer(as required) is mixed with water and applied to the soil,it shall notchanoe the off
1,200 gals.water. f t�or of the soil more than one (1) pH unit. The compound shall
Soil Stabilization(min.per acre requirement) contain a color additive which wilt-Assisf th4 applicator in the uni-
45 gals.Soil Seal Concentrate form application of the product after mixing with water,and which
Herbicides,etc. (as required) will disappear from the soil surface within 36 hours of application:
1,500 gals.water continued on page 4
.d.
y
Soil seal used as tackifler
with seed, fertilizer and
mulch on steep hillsides -W-�
assures a lush green
growth even after heavy `- -
rain and wind.
Mining reclamation and erosion control,one of many Soil Seal ap-
plications.
SOIL SEAL CORPORATION 3
Soil Stabilization Specifications continued _.
Application: Mote:The foregoing"Application"section is relevant to one type
The soil stabilizing solution shall be applied in accordance with the of Soil Seal application ONLY. Hydroseeding, for instance, will
manufacturer's instructions.The soil stabilizing compound will be require other description. Please contact your local Soil Seal
poured into a container with preferably no more than 50%of the distributor,or Soil Seal Corp.,Los Angeles,California,for assist-
water required for its proper mixture already therein.The remainder ance in specifying other of the many applications for this product.
of the water is then to be added, and the total mixture agitated to
insure a completely homogenous final solution.
The soil stabilizing compound shall be added to the water in a Performance:
quantity so as to be percent of the total quantity of water,shall The soil stabilizing compound shall be readily miscible in water,
be applied at a rate to provide coverage of gallons of soil non-injurious to seed or animal life, non-offensive in odor or han-
stabilizing compound per acre.The soil stabilizing solution shall be dling by humans,non-flammable,and capable of providing surface
applied evenly in an even sprav,the droplets of which should be no soil stabilization in various soil classifications without totally inhibit-
smaller than those encounterea in a moderate rain storm.All materi- ing water infiltration.The soil stabilizing solution shall air cure in 48
als shall be delivered to the site in unopened containers, and all hours under normal conditions and have a characteristic of being
containers shall remain tightly closed until used. transparent after drying.
Technical Data:
pH Factors: Physical Properties:
Soil Seal Concentrate 10.56 Appearances(as shipped) Aqua colored liquid
1% Solution 7.00 Solids 46-60%
2% Solution 7.38 pH(as shipped) 10.56
5% Solution 8.10 Weight per gallon 8.9 lbs.
10% Solution 8.88 Toxicity Non-toxic
The pH solutions containing Soil Seal Concentrate are indicated above. Flammability Non-flammable
Field testing has revealed that the soil pH after application of a Soil Seal Odor(Concentrate) Ammonia present
solution will vary from 0 to 0.8 pH units.
Soil Temperature: Sol Moisture:
The temperature of the soil is unaffected by an application of Soil Seal Table below illustrates the effect of Soil Seal upon soil moisture.The ap-
solution.Due to the fact that the crustation does allow sufficient air and plication of Soil Seal reduced the evaporation rate but the percentage
moisture to pass through, the temperature change is not measurable. of overall evaporation remains essentially constant.
Infiltration: Imgstion:
Depending on the formulation of the solution the crustation can either Irrigation should be withheld for a 24-48 hour period after application of
entrap the water and reduce infiltration,or allow the water to pass through the Sal Seal solution.Once the solution has had an opportunity to cure
in moderate rates.However,it is a characteristic of Soil Seal that except and dry,irrigation may begin in sufficient amounts to provide for the re-
for the heaviest of application rates, infiltration does exist. quirement of any vegetation or seed.
Soil Moisture—Evaporation Rate(Field capacity to 25%—3"depth)
Guaranteed Analysis:
Co-Polymer of Methacryfates and ASryates(4�bj;.Poly_Ethoxylated P _
t ano (1%); Silicates
Soil Seal Corporation has conducted extershs laboratory Distributed by:
and field testing in order to determine the benefits of Sod
Seal;Concentrate. The information and suggestions
SKWACW presented in this brochure are based bl those rests and
information best technical inforetion available at the time of
printing. No representation-or_inducement is made
guaranteeing results indicated in this brochure will be
obtained by anyone using such information or sugges-
tions.Further,the information and suggestions presented
in this brochure are not intended to serve as any bass
C7 SOIL SEAL CORPORATION for warranties,express or implied,as to merchantabili-
ty,fitness for purpose sold,description,quality,produc-
CORD 3015 SUPPLY AVENUE tiveness,or any other matter on Soil Seal Concentrate.
LOS ANGELES,CA 90040 PRINTED IN USA
(213)481.7185
s
BEAL APPLICATION
CONCENTRATE . . . A SOIL STABILIZER REPORT
HYDRO-SEEDING WITH SOIL SEAL CONCENTRATE
Landscape and erosion control contractors regularly use the technique of hydro-seeding for the application
of seed, mulch and fertilizers in revegetation projects. Hydro-seeding is generally considered to be the application
of seed, fertilizer and mulch to the soil surface in a slurry with water. Specialized equipment is used for this.
Soil Seal provides an important benefit to hydro-seeding. Soil Seal Concentrate acts as a tackifier, or binder,
to keep the seed, mulch and fertilizer from washing or blowing away due to wind and rain before growth can
be established. Soil Seal helps assure a successful revegetation project.
WHAT IS SOIL SEAL CONCENTRATE
Soil Seal Concentrate is a high grade latex copolymer based material. It is a patented formulation which has
been specifically designed to penetrate the soil and form a long lasting crust through the cohesive binding
of the soil particles. Soil Seal is highly resistant to ultra-violet radiation and to breakdown by moisture. It is
non-toxic, non-hazardous, and is registered with the State of California as an auxiliary soil chemical.
HOW DOES SOIL SEAL WORK
Soil Seal Concentrate is packaged in concentrated liquid form and diluted with water in the field for application.
A typical dilution ratio is thirty (30) parts water to one (1) part concentrate, but this can vary depending on
project conditions. The Soil Seal is mixed directly with the hydro-seeding slurry, or spray applied to the soil
as a final treatment after seeding has been completed. Soil Seal works by soaking into the soil surface and
forming a crust through the cohesive binding of the soil particles. Once cured, Soil Seal will not reemulsify
by subsequent rainfall or irrigation. Because of the crust forming characteristics of Soil Seal, an integrated
application is formed binding together seeds, mulches and fertilizers with the top layer of soil. This proves
extremely effective in stabilizing the surface materials. Soil Seal assures that the seeding materials are not
washed or blown away before satisfactory plant development has taken place.
Despite Soil Seal's binding power and crust forming characteristics, a major percentage of water is still able
to infiltrate the soil surface providing moisture for the growing process. Seeds are not hindered in germination,
and plants can easily penetrate the Soil Seal crust when-the concentrate is applied at normal rates.
HOW IS SOIL SEAL APPLIED
Soil Seal can be applied by standard hydro-seeding equipment, water truck or agricultural spray unit. In hydro-
seeding, the Soil Seal can be added directly to a slurry of seed, mulch and fertilizer and applied in one operation.
In some instances it may be desirable to apply Soil Seal separately as a final treatment after seed, mulch and
fertilizer have been first applied. A Soil Seal solution should be applied as a dense, soaking spray to promote
maximum soil penetration and crust thickness.
Soil Seal is packaged as a concentrate, and requires dilution with water at the time of application.The applicator
will insure that the Soil Seal solution is applied in an even and consistent manner, avoiding excessive runoff
during applicaiton. Avoid application to excessively damp soils or application during stiff breezes.
4
WHEN IS SOIL SEAL APPLIED
Soil Seal should not be applied during a rainstorm or at times when rainfall is expected. Irrigation should be
withheld from a newly treated area until satisfactory curing has occurred.A Soil Seal solution will require anywhere
from 24 to 48 hours to properly cure, depending on temperature, humidity and moisture content of the soil.
During the curing period, the Soil Seal application can be harmed by rainfall or irrigation.
Soil Seal should not be applied when there is substantial wind. The affect of wind on a Soil Seal application
will depend on the application method and equipment. Soil Seal should not be applied if there is a possibility
of significant drift of the material, or of excessive surface drying of the solution before adequate penetration
can be obtained.
Excessively hot and/or dry soil surfaces can present problems for a Soil Seal application. Excessively hot and
dry soil surfaces can seriously inhibit the ability of the Soil Seal solution to penetrate the soil to form a satisfactory
crust. Contact your local Soil Seal representative for application recommendations if this job condition exists.
Soil Seal should not be applied if there is a possibility of the soil surface freezing before the treatment has
had an opportunity to properly cure. Once the Soil Seal treatment has cured, freezing conditions will not generally
impair the strength and life of the application.
ABOUT PLANTS, SEEDS, ETC.
Soil Seal Concentrate is non-toxic to plant and animal life. Soil Seal is not harmful to existing vegetation. Areas
treated with Soil Seal will continue to exhibit normal weed growth and occurrence of natural vegetation.A Material
Safety Data Sheet for Soil Seal Concentrate may be obtained from your Soil Seal Representative, or directly
from our main offices in Los Angeles.
Since Soil Seal is not harmful to existing vegetation, it may be used in and around newly planted ground covers
as a soil stabilizing treatment.
Some Soil Seal applications will reduce the rate of moisture evaporation from the soil surface. This can be
beneficial for seed germination particularly in areas of marginal rainfall and limited irrigation.
APPLICATION NOTES
Hydro-Seeding With Soil Seal and Mulch:
Mulch is generally defined as a protective covering (as sawdust, compost, straw/hay, wood fiber and/or paper
materials, etc.) used on the ground especially to reduce evaporation, prevent erosion, control weeds, control
surface temperature and to enrich the soil. Perhaps one of the least effective characteristics of most mulches
is the ability to control erosion. Soil Seal is not considered to be a mulch, but it is very effective in controlling
surface erosion. It holds mulch in place, along with seed and fertilizer, against the affects of wind and rain
in a hydro-seeding application. This ability of Soil Seal to safely hold, or bind, the hydro-seeding materials to
the soil surface in support of germination and plant growth is important insurance for any revegetative project.
A typical application rate when Soil Seal is used as a tackifier in hydro-seeding will be in the range of 40 to
60 gallons of concentrate on a per acre basis. Contact your local Soil Seal representative for specific
recommendations.
When the Soil Seal is mixed directly into the hydro-seeding tank as part of the seeding mixture, it is not necessary
to specify a dilution ratio since there will be ample water available for proper mixing. This is true because of
the generally large amount of water necessary to properly pump and spray wood and paper fiber mulches.
The following is the sequence for mixing the ingredients in a hydro-seeding unit:
1. water - approximately 50% of total volume
2. seed - based on pounds required for project
3. fertilizer - based on pounds required for project
4. mulch - based on pounds required for project - consistent with amount hydro-seeding unit is able
to spray in one load.
5. Soil Seal Concentrate - based on gallons required for project.
6. water - remainter of volume
If the Soil Seal is applied separately as a final treatment to a seeded and mulched slope, it will be important
to properly dilute the concentrate. Generally, Soil Seal application rates of fifty-five(55) gallons of concentrate
per acre or less should be diluted with at least forty(40) parts water to one(1) part Soil Seal. Application rates
of greater than fifty-five (55) gallons per acre can often be diluted with thirty (30) parts water to one (1) of Soil
Seal. It stands to reason that heavier mulch applications will require greater dilution ratios(more total solution)
to obtain proper penetration and wetting of the soil surface. As in all cases, it is prudent to contact your Soil
Seal Representative for specific recommendations.
Hydro-Seeding With Soil Seal But Without Mulch:
In some instances it will be decided that a mulch material is not required in a revegetative project. Soil Seal
can then be applied in a slurry of only seed and fertilizer.
In the hydro-seeding application incorporating mulch we did not have to worry about dilution ratios for Soil
Seal. The mulch usually requires a sufficiently large volume of water for adequate pumping and spraying to
provide us with adequate Soil Seal dilution. However, in hydro-seeding with only Soil Seal, seed and fertilizer
you must be attentive to dilution ratios. As discussed above, Soil Seal applicaiton rates of fifty-five (55) gallons
of concentrate per acre and less should be diluted at the rate of at least forty (40) parts water to one (1) part
of Soil Seal. Application rates exceeding fifty-five(55)gallons per acre can often be diluted at the rate of thirty
(30) parts water to one (1) part of concentrate. Consult your local Soil Seal Representative for specific
recommendations.
The sequence for mixing Soil Seal in a hydro-seeding slurry of seed and fertilizer is the same as that shown
above - only delete step #4 for mulch.
Soil Seal can also be applied as a last and final treatment over an area hydro-seeded with seed and fertilizer.
The foregoing dilution criteria apply.
CLEAN UP
All tools and equipment, including agitators and pumps, should be flushed thoroughly with water to remove
any build-up of Soil Seal, seed, mulch and fertilizers.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
As is true in any hydro-seeding application, care must be taken to control drift and overspray on adjacent areas.
Overspray, as well as spilled Soil Seal Concentrate, can be cleaned up with water if not allowed to stand for
too long. Having a small quantity of water handy to clean up any spills or oversprays can be helpful.
The Soil Seal Concentrate containers should be properly stored and tightly closed when not in use. Keep all
chemicals out of reach of children as a matter of good practice.
The foregoing should be taken as a specific recommendation for the use of Soil Seal Concentrate only.
Manufacturers and suppliers of seed, fertilizer, mulch and hydro-seeding equipment should be contacted for
specific recommendations regarding the application and use of their respective products.
SOIL SEAL CORPORATION
Los Angeles, California
(213) 481-7185 Revised 9/1/1988
1
BEAL APPLICATION
CO
NCENTRATE . . . A SOIL STABILIZER REPORT
AFFORDABLE SLOPE EROSION PROTECTION THAT WORKS
WITHSTANDING THE TEST OF TIME IN PROVIDING
EROSION PROTECTION
Soil Seal Concentrate is a patented formulation of acrylic copolymers in _
combination with other ingredients which form an erosion resistant crust with the R -
soil surface. Soil Seal has been used since the early 1970's in a variety of surface �^
erosion control applications,
Soil Seal Concentrate holds seed, mulches and fertilizers in place against the ' �+ r
effects of wind and water erosion. Soil Seal is extremely beneficial in holding ,y� V �se• :d:
revegetative materials in place so that they are not washed or blown away before r p,
vegetation can be established. Thousands of dollars per acre can be saved by
the use of Soil Seal in insuring A SUCCESSFUL REVEGETATIVE EFFORT. a
SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE TO MORE EXPENSIVE METHODS
Soil Seal Concentrate is an effective alternative to the use of expensive nettings, blankets and mattings on many
hillside revegetation projects. The expense of obtaining and installing these erosion control materials can increase
the cost of a project by as much as 90 cents to over four dollars per square yard. Yet their installation by no means
guarantees an erosion free slope.
Soil Seal Concentrate, on the other hand, is simple to handle and apply. Soil Seal soaks into the soil to bind the
surface soil particles with seed, mulch and fertilizer to form an erosion resistant crust. Soil Seal is often applied
in a slurry of seed, mulch and fertilizer as part of a hydro-seeding application. A typical applied cost for Soil Seal
Concentrate is rarely more than 10 cents per square yard.
SAFE TO USE, BIODEGRADABLE
Soil Seal Concentrate is non-toxic, non-hazardous and safe for the environment. Soil Seal biodegrades after its
job is done. Used at the proper rates, Soil Seal will not hinder germination in seeding operations. Soil Seal will
not harm existing vegetation.
CALL FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
For additional information on how to save money while gaining security for your a
erosion control and revegetation projects, contact your local Soil Seal
representative, or our main offices in Los Angeles.
Soil Seal Representative:
SOIL SEAL CORPORATION
SOIL SEAL CORP COMP 3015 SUPPLY AVENUE
(21 A481-71 ,CA 90040 -
1213)481.7185
40wN a
A `1Q JAN 24 1992
�-1 • U
70'U00fl 01 South Windsor
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONIW 7WETLANDS AGENC""
s•Co AREA CODE 203/644-25110ONSERVATION COMMISI I
January 24, 1991
HAND DELIVERED
Members and Alternates
Inland/Wetlands Agency
T'own of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: The Applicability of Ordinance No . 112 to Application #91-34P ,
Podunk Earth Recycling Center
Dear Members and Alternates:
In a memorandum from your chairman , you have asked whether the
above application will violate the terms of Town ordinance No . 112 .
It is my understanding that the application includes a request for
approval of a recycling operation. The ordinance (Sec . 5-102)
specifically excludes resources recovery or recycling from the
definition of solid waste disposal . Therefore , a re_cy_cling
operation would not violate the ordinance .
It is my further understanding that the other part of the applica-
tion is to fill a hole in the ground with "clean fill" . The
question, then, is whether "clean fill" is "waste" under the ordinance
and, therefore , violative of it .
"Clean fill" , under your (IWA) definition "means uncontaminated
natural soil or rock which is inert in terms of leaching and poses
no threat, present or future , Of pollution to surface waters or
ground waters . Moreover, clean fill typically excludes. . . "demolition
or construction waste materials or debris (combustible or non com -
bustible) including concrete, asphalt, paving materials- or by-products;
The ordinance includes as solid waste demolition and construction
----- s_ _wastes . -_ _ �:_ --_
Therefore , if the "clean fill" of the applicant includes concrete ,
bricks, ceramics and asphalt paving fragments , it is not clean fill
and is waste and is prohibited by the ordinance as a fill for the
hole . Further, it would not meet your own definition of clean fill.
f
-2-
However, it is my understanding that the applicant now proposes to
use clean fill as defined in your regulations . i.e . "uncontaminated
natural soil or rock" .
On that basis, it must be determined if such clean fill fits the
definition of "solid waste" under the ordinance . In my opinion,
it does not , for the following reasons :
1 . Dictionary definitions of "waste" include "garbage ,
trash, anything that is useless or worthless" . The Living Webster
Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language (1977) ; also, see the
American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Company ( 1985) . I do
not believe clean fill (uncontaminated, natural soil or rock) fits
that definition. It is certainly
a ly not worthless or useless if it
can be used to fill the hole subject of this application and can be
used for other purposes as well.
2 . If there is any ambiguity in the ordinance , and I do not
believe there is , then one must look to the legislative history of
the enactment of the ordinance by the legislative body, in this case
the Town Council . From a review of the minutes of the pertinent
meetings and from my own personal knowledge (since I was then Town
attorney and was present and participated in the discussions) , the
intent of the Council was to prohibit "bulky waste" , and other
categories , but not clean fill.
The source of the clean fill, however, can be important since the
definition of solid waste in the ordinance specific4LJy includes
"demo'lition and construction wastes"a d that is defined in the
n ordiance as 'waste water a s from the construction or destruction of
residential industrial �'public orcommercial strucox~ mprove-
ments or any streets or roads" . I would interpret--t`hat to mean , for
exampre, that—if^--a--royad -,were torn up to make way for I-291 , the
soil underneath the road, if contaminated with concrete , asphalt , etc . ,
which would probably be the case , would fit the demolition waste
definition and be prohibited. If , on the other hand , the soil were
taken from someone' s private field or from a hill that had to be
eliminated to make way for I-291 , it would not be demolition or
construction waste. In sum, unless you know the source of the fill
and whether or not it is contaminated, it is premature to say that
it is prohibited in the ordinance as "demolition and construction
waste" . The same rule would apply to demolition of a structure .
However, if it is not shown that the fill is demolition or construction
waste , and if it meets your definition of clean fill or is simply
"uncontaminated, natural soil or rock" , it is not waste under the
ordinance, and its use to fill the hole would not violate ordinance
No . 112 .
As to whether you "can take action on this application regardless of
the applicability of the ordinance" (Betty Warren' s memorandum) , you
should not approve it if it does violate the ordinance . However,
-a-
based upon the information before me , I do not believe it does
violate the ordinance. Therefore , you should act upon the
application in accordance with your own regulations as you
customarily do.
Very tr yo s
Richard Rittenband
Town Attorney
RMR:fd
U
Tau� O-P slo� ?d&U&01t
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074'- -. -
rtioSOR, AREA CODE 203/644-2511
October 21, 1991
TO: Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman, IWA/CC
FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer S
Re: Application. #91-43P, Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED: Application form, Site Development Plans for
Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center (9-24-
91) and Design Report (September 1991 )
COMMENTS :
1 . The application form does not indicate that notification to
e . all abutting property owners has been accomplished. This must
c( be done via certified mail and a copy of the letter and list
of the abutters must be submitted.
2 . Item M of the application form, "total land area of project
and percentage which is wetlands" has not been provided on the
F+v application.
The application form indicates approximately 4-6 acres of "man
made wetlands" will be filled with approximately 280,000 cubic
yards of "clean fill" . The wetlands have been flagged by John
P. Ianni, Certified Soil Scientist and a report has been
submitted (July 1991) . The wetlands have been described in
the report and the report states that he has reviewed the
plans . In the report by the Soil Scientist, he refers to a
seasonal watercourse. This should be shown on the plans . He
also indicates that the area is currently overgrown with
phragmites and alders . The Soil Scientist has been. identified
directly on the plans .
4 . The Podunk River is located along the northerly extent of this
property (flowing from east to west) and there is a tributary
)which flows northerly through the property. The applicant
Ffio should ensure that there will be no detrimental impact on the
`!water quality in the area.
5 . The impact would appear to warrant a detailed natural
resources inventory and impact assessment. The functional
value of the wetlands, in this area, should be discussed and
Jad�L
G�use • the applicant should very clearly document the justification
t:
for filling these wetlands. A history of the site should also
be provided.
6 . Based on the information in the Design Report, it appears that
the 280,000 cubic yards of "clean fill" includes crushed earth
materials (rock, concrete, bricks, ceramics, and asphalt
paving fragments) , as well as the possible inclusion of ground
tree stumps and trunks . They indicate that the material is
considered "clean fill" by the Connecticut Department of
ClA` j�zv
if Environmental Protection. The proposed "clean fill" as they
hole ' describe it does not appear to conform to the "clean fill"
definition as found in section 2 . 1x of the IWA/CC Regulations .
7 . They are proposing approximately twenty-six feet- of fill
(depth) be placed in this area. Once filling of this site
starts, assuming an approval is granted by the Agency, it will
be very difficult to control what actually gets placed as
"clean fill" . A method of monitoring and documenting the
progression of fill by a third party should be included as
part of the plan.
8 . The existing tree limits have been shown on the plans. The
proposed tree limits should also be shown. Tree protection
should be included as a detail on the plans . A note should
rho also be added stating that, "limits of tree clearing will be
flagged in the field and inspected by the Town prior to
clearing the site" .
9 . The Agency should discuss this application with regard to
section 10 . 1 of the Regulations to determine whether or not
this may have a "significant impact or major effect" (as
defined in section 2 . 1q) ; this would require that a public
hearing be scheduled within 65 days from the "date of
receipt" .
10 . This site is very large and the impacted wetland areas are
somewhat remote. I would suggest the applicant provide eleven
�fb copies of the sheet no. K1 (100 scale map) so the Agency
members can find their way around the site.
11 . The Access to Site/Traffic Report, found in the Design Report,
indicates there could be up to 45 round-trip truck hauls
generated per day. The primary access to this site will be
via a gravel drive in excess of 1,000' (one thousand feet) .
* ` A� This is a great potential for dust problems . . The primary
end' °,,, 161 access should be paved. Lf_.It_is not paved use�of a durable
�1kk 'p liquid dust suppressant should be required and stated on 'the
moans . T e proposed alternate access would provide or
e another 1,400 ' (fourteen hundred feet) of gravel drive. This
access is not, recommended but, if an alternate drive is deemed
x
necessary its use should be limited. (Liquid dust suppressant
should again be required. )
12 . The construction schedule on. sheet #E1 discusses anti-tracking
aprons . These should be shown directly on the plans at
locations where unimproved drives intersect with pavement.
13 . They are proposing to fill the large wetland area via four
sequential phases . A method for minimizing and stabilizing
the slopes associated with each phase should be provided. The
plans should also include a detailed plan for handling runoff
as each phase is accomplished.
14 . The outlet protection, concrete weir and slope paving should
be designed and shown in detail based on the expected C.F.S .
=�o discharge and in accordance with the Guidelines for Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control, CT. Documentation of the design
criteria should be submitted.
15 . . A detailed cross section should be provided for the proposed
sedimentation basin. A sediment dike should be included
6 across the basin to ensure that sediment will not overload the
proposed sediment basin and fill the outlet structure.
Cwuntl�ar.CGfJ'R�J
16 . The application indicates that a number of additi nal permits
ay_be_,_.re uired" . This included possible .E. , E.P.A. , and
+ S.. Army Corp approval . The Agency should be given a clear
understanding as to what permits will be sought, and in place,
to ensure the project will be closely reviewed and monitored.
i` The required class A-2 map of the area has not been submitted.
The file copies should be appropriately certified.
18 . There are remains of an old processing plant northerly of the
csa �G .sr-�6 proposed sediment basin, southerly of the Podunk River, which
should be labeled as a "structure" . This structure should be
l removed and properly disposed of . There is also miscellaneous
debris throughout the site which should be removed. Notes
should be added to the plans .
19 . The "processed and unprocessed earth products stockpile area"
includes approximately one and one-half acres of area. It
would appear that this will be an unfinished area which will
be susceptible to wind erosion_._and--will__resul _ i n dust
problems,-,,(_Gravel should be_ onsidered-ix- ths__are (The
existing soils in the area are Windsor Loamy Sands . )
20 . There are erosion and sediment control items on the Site Plan
which are not included as part of the Erosion and Sediment
/'/-O Control Plan (such as the proposed sediment structure and
proposed sediment basin) . The plans should be consistent.
The E. & S. C. plan also does not show the proposed 44 , of 18"
R.C.P. (and rip rap) and .its relationship to the proposed
erosion control lining for the swale.
21 . Sediment barriers should be shown northerly of the proposed
swales beyond phase I and II and also the swale .behind the
"processed and unprocessed earth products stockpile area" .
These swales will be worked into existing steep .grades and
could easily become a difficult situation to stabilize.
22 . Based on the language in the CT State Statutes the "receipt
date" of the application (which was submitted. on October 9,
1991) would be the date of the October 21, 1991 regular
meeting. The action date will be calculated based on that
date. (There is a provision for extension of the date if
necessary. )
23 . Comments from the Engineering Department (October 28, 1991)
have been attached.
24 . These comments should be addressed prior to any approval by
the Agency.
v
` x
October 28, 1991
M E M O' R A N D U M
TO: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
RE: Podunk Earth Products Site Plan # 1-43P
We have reviewed the drawings dated 9-24-91 and the Design Report
for the proposed Earth Products Site Plan and have the following
comments as they relate to Inland/Wetland and Conservation
concerns :
1 . The drainage analysis .has been reviewed and as we have
some concerns, a meeting with the applicants engineer has
been scheduled on 10/29/91. If there are any unresolved
questions or if concerns still exist, I will forward a
subsequent memorandum.
2 . Part of this proposal is to fill approximately 261+ in
elevation over a large wetland area. The total amount of
fill is to be "non-marketable clean fill" . What
constitutes "non-marketable" is not identified. Also
clean fill is identified in part as "asphalt paving
fragment We have several concerns:
a. A large wetlands is to be destroyed.
b. The size of this operation precludes anything but
spot checking by the Town of the fill being
utilized. Who will monitor this large operation?
3 . It is felt that the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection should review this application
because of both the type of facility proposed and
because of the large area - not only wetlands - involved.
4 . Sheet E1 - E&S Note #3 looks to be unacceptable -
"restabilization will be scheduled as soon as practical"
has no definition. This should be done in accordance
with the "Connecticut Guidelines" .
5 . Sheet El - Construction notes 10 & 11 should spell out
temporary measures to be used.
a
x
Mr.John McCahill
October 29 , 1991
Page 2 .
6 . The existing property contains items from unsupervised
dumping such as autos, refrigerators, barrels with
unknown substances etc. , which will need to be cleaned up
and disposed of properly prior to any site improvements .
These may have already contaminated the soil and a test
of those areas would seem appropriate. This is not
covered in the plans nor the Design Report.
7 . We have a concern that proper controls may not be
possible to ensure that this facility is operated as
indicated in the proposal.
8 . Page 2 of the design report indicates that "Calcium
chloride in granular, pellet or flake form will be spread
over gravel and dirt drives and stockpiles . . . . " The use
of this. on stockpiles which can be used as fill may
constitute contamination of this material and the area it
is placed.
JCl/jsv
cc: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works
w�own se,`ce
� To�
1 Saum
V/ ?4
C �
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
AREA CODE 203/644-2511
October 24, 1991
Denise Conkling, District
ct Man
ager
Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District
627 River Street
Windsor, CT 06095
Dear Denise:
Re: Application #91-43P, Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
At the December 9, 1991 public hearing of the South Windsor Inland
Wetland Agency/Conservation Commission, the Agency requested that
plans, application, and correspondence be forwarded to your office
for review and comments by the Soil Conservation Service.
The site development plans to be reviewed are entitled, "Podunk Earth
Products Recycling Center" , dated September 24, 1991 (revised 10-21-
91 and 11-26-91) . I have also included a copy of the application and
all correspondence which is part of the file as of this date.
Please note that the Agency must complete the public hearing process
no later than January 23, 1991 . We would therefore request that this
review be conducted as soon as possible. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 644-2511, extension 229 .
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
John E. McCahill
Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement
Officer
JEM/pmm
Enclosures
cc: Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman, IWA/CC
Attorney Wayne Gerlt
40 Elizabeth Zane-- -
Tolland, CT.06034- _
December 6,4991, -:
The Board of Commissioners
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Iand Development by Podunk Earth Products
To Whom It May Concern:
b�I, Herbert S. Delasco of H.S. &D. Real �rvner oWf J4e rev rive Industrial
Park in South Windsor, have reviewe lans for filling
of land abutting the above-mentioned p e aned that there �S will be no conflict or problem with their plans as affects our property. D
Sincerely, `
bJ
Herbert S. Delasco
H. S. &D. Realty
cc: H. R. Delasco
y
December 6, 1991
Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman
Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Ms. Warren:
The intent of this letter is to give my opinion on the application
before the Commission regarding "The Recycling Center" off Chapel
Road. I was one of the developers of Bissell Commons and have
first hand knowledge of the site.
This vacant parcel of land is an ideal location for recycling
material and possibly re-claiming the land as a valuable resource
for an industrial park. As developers of Bissell Commons it was
recommended to us by engineers that we could do the exact thing
that this aplicant wants to do. However, the times were not right
and other applications on the same site met stiff opposition and
became "politically sensitive". Times have changed; traffic now
enters off an improved Chapel Road near the proposed I-291
corridor, and the area around the site has been developed.
Recycling is here to stay. Land-fills are not the answer. Those
of us, especially in the development arena, need. an approved
location to take amesite, concrete and sometimes stumps instead of
paying in "solid gold" at the mercy of the land-fill owners. Much
of our "dump" material can be re-used on site with this type of
venture. It should be a primary concern of any individual whether
or not it is better to recycle and reclaim .the material with
mandatory controls as the watch-word.
It is to everyone's benefit to give this application serious
discussion and see whether everyone together can make it work.
I think it is better kor us to-do this in our own style and with
our own motives rather than someone else's.
Thank you for permitting me to state an individual opinion.
Zic
' rely,
� Kelley
"
rd S.
MMI
ounn ons.,inc.
DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS
SINCE 1936
December 6, 1991
To Whom It May Concern:
As an abutting property owner of your Podunk Earth Products Recycling
Center proposal , I wish to go on record as being in favor of your
project, as outlined on your maps, etc. , as drawn by fuss & O'Neill.
Very truly yours,
Melvin J. Baroni/
President
MJB/jgb
420 JOHN FITCH BOULEVARD, P.O. BOX 173, SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 • TELEPHONE (203) 528-9201
3
R5K�llllllllllllllllllKELLC01 NC.
• Developers 1744 Ellington Road
• Builders South Windsor, CT 06074
• Property
Managers Tel: 203-644-8761 / 644-8140
Fax: 203-644-5650
December 6, 1991
Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman
Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission SEC '; 11
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074 u,::I S 0 r
INLAND 4EILANDS ACENCY/
Dear Ms. Warren: CONSERVATION COMMISSION
The intent of this letter is to give my opinion on the application
before the Commission regarding "The Recycling Center" off Chapel
Road. I was one of the developers of Bissell Commons and have
first hand knowledge of the site.
This vacant parcel of land is an ideal location for recycling
material and possibly re-claiming the land as a valuable resource
for an industrial park. As developers of Bissell Commons it was
recommended to us by engineers that we could do the exact thing
that this aplicant wants to do. However, the times were not right
and other applications on the same site met stiff opposition and
became "politically sensitive". Times have changed; traffic now
enters off an improved Chapel Road near the proposed I-291
corridor, and the area around the site has been developed.
Recycling is here to stay. Land-fills are not the answer. Those
of us, especially in the development arena, need an approved
location to take amesite, concrete and sometimes stumps instead of
paying in "solid gold" at the mercy of the land-fill owners. Much
of our "dump" material can be re-used on site with this type of
venture. It should be a primary concern of any individual whether
or not it is better to recycle and reclaim the material with
mandatory controls as the watch-word.
It is to everyone's benefit to give this application serious
discussion and see whether everyone together can make it. work.
I think it is better for us to do this in our own style and with
our own motives rather than someone else's.
Thank you for permitting me to state an individual opinion.
Richard S.tKelley
We Build Our Reputation
November , 1991
Boards and Commissions
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application of Dennis Botticello & Podunk Earth Products
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I have reviewed the application and discussed his plans with the
applicant. I am writing this letter in support of the application.
I am sure Dennis Botticello will operate his business in full compliance
with all regulations.
Very truly yours,
f
The Raycliffe Corporation
340 Smith Street ='
South Windsor '
Connecticut 0607441
November o19 , 1991
r'
;a
Boards and Commissions
Town of South Windsor :
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074 ;.
Re: Application of Dennis Botticello & Podunk Earth Products '
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I have reviewed the application and discussed his plans with the >�
applicant. I am writing this letter in support of the application.
I am sure Dennis Botticello will operate his business in full compliance
with all regulations.
Very truly yours,
• tk
j
r
+ S
i;t.
November -36) , 1991
Boards and Commissions
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application of Dennis Botticello & Podunk Earth Products
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I have reviewed the application and discussed his plans with the
applicant. I am writing this letter in support of the application.
I am sure Dennis Botticello will operate his business in full compliance
with all regulations.
Very truly yours,
G&R VALLEY, INC.
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS-LIC# 1020
Since 1966 PLUMBING •HVAC•SPRINKLERS
December 6, 1991
Botticello Inc.
321 01cott Street
Manchester, CT 06040
7: Dennis Botticello
RE: Non - Hazardous Landfill .
To Whan It Play Concern:
.G & R Valley, Inc. is not opposed to using the the area that abbots our property
on Chapel Road in South Windsor, CT. We are under the impression that this is to
be a Non Hazardous Landfill.
If have an ions lease feel free to contact this
y� Y � � P � office.
Sincerely,
G & R Valley, Inc.
��
E. A. igue
President
350 CHAPEL ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074 (203) 289-6896 • FAX (203) 282-1675
� D
J. R. NIELSEN & SONS, INC.
William R. Rogers Abrasives Division .
Tumb-L-Matic Division
WALNUT SHELL GRITS
APRICOT PIT GRITS
GRADED HARDWOOD
SAWDUST December 6, 1991
Hic" .
�Pl•
PIt�SHAVWGs i n
Sot�t(i.iJ gd q Inla
a
'rDilll H82� s_ Lw � s '"r+ i.� s y R x.s
PINEfA r
SWEEPINGCOM{�gIlND South
PACKAGING MATERIAL
Dear Sir
Exceww Please be advised-,-I have reviewed the site plans and business
ECO-FOAM Loose Fill
proposal for Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center of South
MASS FINISHING Windsor, CT.
SUPPLIES*
Tumbling LIES*ent This project has my approval and support as outlined, with
Abrasives
traffic entering and exiting along Chapel Rd.
Compounds
Creams This project properly managed should increase the Towns Tax Base
Tumbling Pegs and add much needed employment within the town.
CEDAR KENNEL BEDDING ` Sincerely, f
LAB SORB
J
Hardwood Animal Sodding
David Nielsen )
:. - � s j_ .- pp p�,-*rp.,;5�.. e•• «.,�il'��.�r. --"wu.(c•��s.���..•*a�t�r1-»'v ,'�a�r _. . .
.y...♦ yy....a�.,v__—� W'N�rq.'w`4Yt +cam by..�.n.,.,� ��n.�q
# rVM.A1+Yr
.-` _���F ter++ � -v✓w� + a.y!^
- �.•R � ..�.� L N-. �r . -i. 1 b N1 Y.� !I_Ni' St'TN ... .:
{(may • .... ... ..... .. a-.-.:... t ^� T.. i.4 ~ -
Ca(Utter
gn'l-otohs�
cone(,Gran
260 Chapel Road • P.O.Box 132 • South Windsor,Cr.,06074-0132 USA
Tel.(203).528-2107 • Fax(203)289-9393.
"Serving Industry& Science Since 1928"
DEC - 6-91 FRI 1 2 : kip P . 01
M 0N
CO., INC.
336 CHAPEL ROAD
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074
TM 1203! 289.4297
December 6, 1991
Mr, Wayne C. Gerlt
Attorney for Podunk Earth
Products Recycling Centex, Ina.
FO Box 559
South Windsor, CT 06074 :
REs PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR PODUNC EARTH PRODVOTS
RECYCLXNG CENTER, INC. & FILLING OF.OLD CLAY PIT
Dear Attorney Carlo
I am a property abutter of the land owned by
Anthony sotti,collo. The aaplicabion of
Podunk Earth Product$ Recycling Center will be
oA that property. I have discussed the plane for
• this project with DonAis Sotticello and support his
app].,car ion. .
I have. walked the property -in previous years. I-think
It would be an improvement to the property if Jhi6
application is granted.
S isia are ly, ;
Orrin Pcla .
r
I Christine Lane * South Windsor, CT. 06074
(203)528-4431 (203)644-9603
*Developers
�� *Residential
�` �'� *Industrial
*Commercial
November 26, 1991
I
,
1
i
Mr. Wayne C. Gerlt
Attorney for Podunk Earth
Products Recycling Center, Inc.
PO Box 559
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR PODUNK EARTH PRODUCTS
RECYCLING CENTER, INC. & FILLING OF OLD CLAY PIT
i Dear Attorney Gerlt:
I am a property abutter at Bissell Commons, 400 Chapel Rd. ,
of the right-of-way into the property owned by
i Anthony Botticello. The application of Podunk Earth
Products Recycling Center will be on that property. I have
discussed .the plans for this project with Dennis Botticello
and support his application.
I have walked the property in previous years. I think it
would be an improvement to the property if this application
is granted.
i
Sincerely,
Robert Urso
General Partner
i
l
i
i
Propane Chas Service, Into
December 6, 1991
Mr. Wayne Gerlt
435 Buckland Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center I
Dear Sirs,
Having read your design report and examined the blue prints
of your proposed project in South Windsor, we feel it will be
beneficial to the area.
Therefore, as of this date, we at Propane Gas Service, Inc. ,
are in favor of the recycling center.
We wish you the best of luck in your new venture.
Sincerely yours,
Propane Gas Service, Inc.,
j'
I
Bruce S. Trombley T
! President
BST/mjm
420 John Fitch Blvd., P.O. Box 87, South Windsor, CT 06074 (203) 289-0267
12/82/91 14:50 2036442567 W.C.GERLT, ESGUM PAGt 64
ef
i .
;
ERUM and BMW HA g
381 PLamm VALUM 1K1ilD
Wn Wes. CT OW74
November 26, 1992
Mr. Wayne C. Gerlt
Attorney for Podunk Earth
?"chat= Recycling Center, Inc,,
P. O. Boot 559
South windeor, CT 06074
Re: PDXILV appl.,i catiCn!! far Podm* Raztb
P[ndueCg -
c7antos', ?.ae. 8trxi
fillitx,� of OW Clay pit.
DW Mr. Gorlt:
WO are abutters to the property Owned by Anthony Botticello. application
Of Ppdunk Earth Products Recycling Center will, be on that property. U 3 have
discmwd the plans fOr the project with Dma-da Botticello and we auIX
his application.
We we sure that the activities planned by Podunk will not Ca
problems, what so ever.
VWY truly Yours.
Byre Bantle
12/02/91 14:50 2036442567 W.C.GERL1, E"SOIJIRE PAGE 02
479 PLXLWM VNQM RQilD
�Ota9VINDOORt Q 06074
November 26, 1991
Mr. Wayne C. Gerlt
Attorney for Podunk Earth
Products Recycling Center, Inc.
P. O. Box 559
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: ling appl#wtiana for POdnnk Earth
Products Center, Ibc. and
filling cc am clay pit.
Deer Mr. Gerlt:
We are abutters to the property owned by AnthOW Botticello. application
of Podunk Earth Products Recycling center will be on that property. have
diecnesad the plans for the project with Dennis Bottimlla and we a
his application.
We are sure that the activities planrAd by Podunk will not ca any
problems, what so ever.
Very truly yo=,
t::0 gay
t
Wiley Pine Company, Inc.
Wholesale Lumber Dealer
P. 0. BOX 147
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT 06074
TELEPHONE (203) 289.4273
_ - �Q
i
Boards and Commissions
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application of Dennis Botticello & Poduak Firth Products
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I have reviewed the application and discussed his plans with the
applicant. I am writing this letter in support of the application.
I am sure Dennis Botticello will operate his business in full compliance
with all regulations.
Very truly yours,
C)' jurz�-q.T f Crj
J
ALBERT FOUWER, JR.
and
DOROTHY FOERNIER
373 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD
SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
November 26, 1991
Mr. Wayne C. Gerlt
Attorney for Podunk Earth
Products Recycling Center, Inc.
P. 0. Box 559
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Pending applications for Podunk Earth
Products Recycling Center, Inc. and
filling of old clay pit.
Dear Mr. Gerlt:
We are abutters, along Pleasant Valley Road, of the right-of-way into
the property owned by Anthony Boticello. The application of Podunk Earth
Products Recycling Center will be on that property. We have discussed the
plans for the project with Dennis Boticello and we support his application.
We have lived here since before Plasticrete operated on the property
and we have never had any problems, even when the Plasticrete trucks used
the right-of-way as an access to the site. Ode are sure that the activities
planned by Podunk will not cause any problems, what so ever.
Very truly yours,
Albert Fournier, Jr.
-»
LAW OFFICES OF .) +
Y J
WAYNE GHRISTOPHER GERLT r a
435 SUCKLANO ROAD
A 0. 60X 559
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.06074
I�;--�':-' 'TEL./2031644a66S7
�O rd���:`/�iaFraa,�i�6•w�-asad V
December 6, 1991
r
Ms. Louise Evans
Chairman
Town Planning and Zoning Comm.
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application of Podunk Earth Products
Recycling Center/Property of Anthony Botticello
Application Nunber: 91-43P
Dear Ms. Evans:
This letter will formalize our acceptance of your commission's treatment
of our application as an Application for a Special Exception and Site Plan,
pursuant to Section 6.1, et seq. , of your Regulations.
Neither the applicant nor the land owner have any objection to the
application being considered an Application for a Special Exception and Site
Plan.
Thank you.
V
ery
�
WCG:aks
This letter was read, approved and agreed to by:
Anthony Bgtticello, land owner
Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
By:,
Dennis Botticello
i
LAW OFFICES OF
WAYNE GHRISTOPHER GERLT
43S BUCKLAND ROAD
P.O.BOX 559
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.06074
TEL.(203)644-256S
FAX(203)644-2567
November 26, 1991
Mr. John McCahill RECEIVED
Enforcement Officer
Inland Wetlands Agency/
Conservation Commission , 9 � �
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue WINDSOR PLANNING DEFT.
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
Application No.: 91-43P
Dear John:
Thank you for forwarding the article and transmittal memo concerning
"Invaders in the Marsh". When you have the opportunity, please call me so
that we might discuss the article.
Thank you.
Ver 1 y yours,
a e Ch topher Gerlt
WCG:aks
December 3, 1991
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Pla ing
FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
RE: Podunk Earth Products Site Plan #91-
We have reviewed the revised drawings dated 11/26/91 for the
proposed Podunk Earth Products Site Plans . The Design Report was
not revised and therefore the comments indicated below are the
same as in my October 28, 1991 memo. Listed below are comments
on the revised drawings .
Drainage Analysis
1 . We will require a drainage area map identifying the
existing conditions . '
2 . The weighted Cn should be calculated for areas that have
mixed types of ground cover.
3 . . If the Planning and Zoning Commission approves this
application, it is recommended that as a condition of
approval the applicant submit intermediate grading plans
for each of the phases . These plans should indicate the
proposed grading for the swales and the sedimentation
basin.
General Comments
1 . We recommend that the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection review this application.
2 . The existing property contains items from unsupervised
dumping such as autos, refrigerators, barrels with
unknown substances etc. , which will need to be cleaned up
and disposed of properly prior to any site improvements .
These may have already contaminated the soil and a test
of those areas would seem appropriate. This is not
covered in the plans nor the Design Report.
i
Marcia A. Banach
December 3, 1991
Page 2 .
3 . We have a concern that proper controls may not be
possible to ensure that this facility is operated as
indicated in the proposal .
Design Report
1 . Page 1 indicates the filling of 280, 000 cubic yards of
"non-marketable" clean fill. What constitutes "non-
marketable" fill and what qualifies it as non-marketable?
2 . Page 1 also identifies clean fill as rock, concrete,
bricks, ceramics and asphalt paving fragments . - The Town
and more specifically the Inland-Wetlands ' Commission does
not consider asphalt paving fragments as clean fill .
3 . Page 2 indicates that "For the time being, it is proposed
that some processing [wood product] will be undertaken
outside" . Why and for how long will this occur?
4 . Page 2 indicates that "Calcium chloride in granular,
pellet or flake form will be spread over gravel and dirt
drives and stockpiles . . . . The use of this on stockpiles
which can be used as fill may constitute contamination of
this material and the area it is placed.
5 . Page 12 indicates "Compaction will be performed between
each lift" . What is height of a "lift" and what method
is to be used?
Site Plans
1 . Sheets S-8 & S-9 show an old structure - Is this to be
removed?
2 . Sheet S-5
a. Service drive should be shown as gravel.
b. Proposed spot elevations should be shown for the
easterly half of the stockpile area and for the
processing area.
Marcia A. Banach
December 2, 1991
Page 3 .
C . Roof drains indicated to be "ADS brand or equal" .
As this is a long run of pipe at minimum slope, it
is recommended that no flexible pipe be utilized.
d. Office building and access drive should be
dimensioned.
e. Same comment as 4c.
3 . Sheet S-6
a. Access road to the sedimentation structure and over
pipes should be provided.
b. Some of the contours for the ditch along the north
east side of the fill area cross . They need to be
reworked.
C. The riprap ditch should be labeled as such.
d. Detail of "2" Stone Filter" in Sedimentation Basin
is required.
e. Same comment as. 4c.
4 . Sheet S-3
a. Riprap outlet should be dimensioned.
b. The 18" RCP shown at 21+65 may be out of ground
based upon invert at D-G Endwall and existing
contours . Please provide Top of Frame elevation,
spot elevation at centerline of access drove. Also
Town standard is for minimum of 21' cover over top of
pipe.
C . Access road should be identified with centerline
curve and tangent data. Also road should be staked
out prior to construction to avoid unnecessary
clearing of trees .
1
Marcia A. Banach
December 3, 1991
Page 4 .
5 . Sheet S-1
a . Width of paved roadway not shown
b. Will existing curb radius (at Chapel Road) be
sufficient for type of vehicles that will utilize
this facility?
C . The new roadway causes storm water to flow into
Chapel Road. At present time, this does not occur.
Town requires a zero net increase in storm water
discharging into the Town storm water system.
Please have applicant address this .
d. Same comment as 4c.
6 . Each sheet requires A-2 Certification, the note on .sheet
S-1 "Map certification for sheets Sl-S9 " is not
acceptable. Also original Seal and Signature required.
Key Map
1 . Storm drainage and sanitary sewer flow arrows required.
2 . Minimum frontage requirement doesn't seem to be met.
Details
1 . Sheet D-1 — culvert end detail should indicate depth of
toe wall as 42" minimum.
2 . Sheet D-2 - Slope paving detail shows dimensions of 4'
min. , 10' min. & 26 ' min. What are actual dimensions to
be used. Also drawing does not pictorially show the
length of last row of stone as 26 , min.
3 . Sheet D-2, precast manhole detail. Detail required for
frame & cover. Min. height of 1/21, mortar for leveling
is not sufficient. It is recommended that a min. of 6"
and max. of 12" of brick be used.
4 . Sheet D-3 Sedimentation structure - should indicate top
of frame elevations of inlet and outlet sructures .
i
Marcia A. Banach
December 3, 1991
Page 5 .
5 . Sheet D-2 - "Bituminous Concrete Drive" pavement section
indicates 8" rolled gravel base. Standard Section Sta.
9+00 to Sta. 14+30 indicates 12" gravel base. Please
revise the Bituminous Concrete Drive details . Also 3"
bituminous pavement should be provided.
6 . Sheet D-1 - Detail of Anti Tracking Apron indicates it is
50 ' in length. Sheet S3 indicates 100 , in length.
Please have applicant correct this to 100, minimum in
length.
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
1 . Sheet E-3 does not show the "2" Stone Filter" in the
Sedimentation Basin.
JCl/jsv
cc: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works
s
JODIE T. CHAR
ENVIRONMENTAL COMULTANT p
EGd
DEC 6 1991
South Windsor �
a
Environmental Review
of
Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
Route 5 and Chapel Road
South Windsor, CT
November 1991
Environmental Impact Amewment-A • Coastal Site Plan review • Erosion Control Mana8ement Inland Wetland Evaluation
660 We5tcheater 12oad. Colchester. Cr 06415 (203)267-1332
i
JODIE T. CHME
ENVIRONMENTAL COMULTf1NT 2
Introduction
The 78.85± acre property was the site of a clay excavation and brick manufacturing
operation that has been abandoned for a number of years. At this time, the applicant is
i
proposing establishing an earth products recycling center on the property. As part of
an inland wetland permit application, an environmental review of the project and its
potential impacts on wetlands was conducted in November of 1991. The findings of
that review are presented here and include a discussion of the proposed project, an
inventory and evaluation of the delineated wetlands, and a determination of wetland
impacts. This review references plans entitled "Podunk Earth Products Recycling j
Center", prepared by Fuss & O'Neill, Inc., Consulting Engineers and dated September
26, 1991 and a soil report prepared by John P. lanni, Certified Soil Scientist, dated July
1991.
Wetland inventory
The delineated wetlands encompass approximately 9.5 acres and are both naturally
.occurring as they relate to the Podunk River and largely man-made as they occur
southeast of the river. The Podunk River occurs in the northern section of the site and
establishes a portion of the northern property line. The wetlands are largely confined to
the river channel and a narrow margin and generally support alluvial soils. At several
locations the wetlands extend to the 100 year flood elevation. The wetlands south of
the river in the northwest corner extending to the 100 year flood level are located in an
area that was probably a former clay pit. The soils consist primarily of varved clay with
some alluvial deposits (lanni 1991). These riverine wetlands support a mixed
deciduous forest of varying age. The most common upperstory species include; red
-- -
maple,_ ugr ma le, red and black oak, white ine A sparse shrub stratum is present
P _ � ..- _ _ _._...._.p .__.... .. p
and-includes._mix,of,.U,ppQrstoryMecig5,,
f
JODIE T. CHAR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONKILTANT 3
The wetlands southeast of the river occur at the excavated clay pits which are now
considered wetlands by definition. The wetlands that have formed in the clay pit are a
result of seepage which originates from the south. The floor of the pit is clay which
allows little if any water infiltration into the soils (lanni 1991). The vegetation in the
larger clay pit is a monoculture of Phragmites with grasses and other herbs occurring
...___- -- - .
at the wetland-upland interface followed by moderately,dense shrub vegetation. A
dense stand of alder occurs at the western limit. A seasonally flowing drainage
channel within the pit receives input from seeps and surface runoff. A smaller pit
occurs north of the cart path and the large pit. It is also dominated by Phragmites. The
surrounding forested areas support young stands of elm, popular,_willow, birch and
maple. The extremely dense shrub layer is dominated by muitiflora rose, honeysuckle,
alder and viburnum. Wetland hydrology is largely a result of intercepting groundwater
through excavation and associated seepage and surface runoff from adjacent uplands.
Wetland Evaluation
The soils report indicates that "a majority of the wetlands on this site are a result of a
former clay excavation which has intercepted the water table in some areas". This
activity has severely affected the quality of these wetlands. Wetlands cif this nature are
of limited value in terms of wetland functions and characteristics. The primary function
-------------
of these excavated clay pits is intercepting and detaining storm water runoff. Due to the
clay bottoms of the pits these wetlands do not function in groundwater infiltration or
exfiltration. The extremely dense vegetation, particularly the Phragmites, is effective in
removing sediments and pollutants contained m:;that runoff. The other functions
attributed to wetlands such as wildlife habitat, finfish habitat, visual and esthetic quality,
educational opportunities, are all lacking here {
JODIE T. CHAR
ENVIRONMENTf1L CON6ULTANT 4
The wetland associated with the Podunk River is confined by topography and includes
the river and a narrow floodplain. The terrestrial wetland consists of a mature mixed
deciduous forest of red maple, black and white oak, and occasional white pine. This
..� wetland is far less disturbed than other on-site wetland areas. The Podunk River i
wetland Provide a variety of functions including wildlife habitat, finfish habitat,
visual and esthetic quality, educational opportunities, in addition to storm water
management. Where Podunk wetlands extend to the 100 year floodplain, a young
deciduous forest occurs. This area is valuable not only for its storm water management
capabilities and associated water quality renovation but also as wildlife habitat.
Proposed Project Details and Wetland Impacts
The proposed recycling center will be confined to the uplands in the southwest corner
of the site and the wetlands associated with the clay pits. Activity associated with the
delineated wetlands includes filling of 4.96±acres of the large clay pit located south of
the cart path. No activity is proposed within the 100 year flood elevation. The proposal
includes a soil erosion and sediment control plan that provides for both short- and long-
term protection of the inland wetlands, particularly those associated with the Podunk
River. A detailed construction sequence is also include. Both the erosion control plan
and the construction sequence meet or exceed the State of Connecticut Guidelines for
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control.
Long-term impact to the delineated wetlands involves filling of the clay pit which will be
accomplished in four phases and has been designed to achieve appropriate erosion
control and storm water management. A sedimentation basin is proposed at the
western limit of the clay pit. It will function during construction and filling of the clay pit
and throughout the Life of the recycling operation. A sediment chamber will receive the
first flush of storm water. Larger particles will settle in the chamber followed by
JODIE T. CHAM
ENVIRONMENTAL COWSULTANT S
discharge to the basin. The basin is actually two smaller basins separated by a dam of
2,stone. Storm water will leave the sediment chamber and will be discharged to the 1I
first basin. Particulate matter will settle and water will pass through the stone dam
which will trap sediments and particulate matter. The second basin is one foot deeper
than the first which will allow water to remain for a longer period of time. Additional
settling of particles will occur. Storm water substantially free of sediments will leave the
basin at its northern end and flow overland to the wetlands associated with the Podunk
River. A rip rapped pad at the out flow will prevent erosion of the slope.
As was previously detailed, the clay pit wetlands are a result of excavation. Wetlands
j of this nature are of limited value in terms of wetland functions and characteristics. The
primary function of the excavated clay pits is receiving and detaining storm water runoff
i, r
generated on-site. The protect has been designed to result ,n a zero increasenoff-
n u i
The proposed sediment/detention basin replaces the clay pit in terms of both sediment
i control and detention.
j
The other functions attributed to wetlands such as groundwater infiltration and
exfiltrati on, wildlife and finfish habitat, visual and esthetic quality, educational
opportunities, are lacking here. Due to the clay bottoms these wetlands do not function
in groundwater infiltration or exfiltration. The extremely dense vegetation, particularly
the Phragmites, is effective in removing._sediment�.and pol utantss contained_i.n...r_unoff.
- _
With the exception of water quality renovation, Phragmites,,.,s_of.,no,.ecological value. It
is not used by wildlife and pure stands of Phragmites, such as those occurring on the
project site, prevent native species, which are of far greater ecological. value, from
establishing. The educational potential of the wetlands associated with the clay pits is
limited due to the low diversity of vegetation and wetland types.
I
JODIE T. CHAR -_-
ENVIRONMENTAL CON(5ULTANT 6
The wetland impacts associated with this project will not result in significant impact to
the natural environment because.these._wetland$_,.Oo net._provide.the valuable functions
typically associated with naturally occurring and vegetationally diverse wetlands. The
wetlands associated with the Podunk River are a far more valuable ecological resource
and provide several wetland functions.' All activities associated with the proposed
project are a minimum distance of 100' from the Podunk and, therefore, will have no
impact on this riverine wetland system.
f
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
FUSS & O'NEILL, INC.
PROJECT: Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
DATE: December 9, 1991
COMMENTS
MADE BY: Planning Department
ON: November 6, 1991 (+)
Comment # Response
Key Map
a. The zoning table will be amended to indicate
that the subject property has 75.22 feet of
frontage on Chapel Road and 67.74 feet of
frontage on Pleasant Valley Road.
b. The number of parking spaces was derived by
the square footage formula. 5,200 square
feet of building yields 7 . 4 spaces at 1
space per square foot. The application
proposes 10 spaces which would allow up to
15 employees at the required rate of 2
spaces per 3 employees.
C. The access road has been relocated to Chapel
Road after discussion with Town staff.
d. A landscaped buffer has been shown on the
revised plan.
e. The dumpster has been shown with a concrete
pad and screened fence on the revised plans.
f. the main access road from Chapel Road is
shown as paved for the first 535 feet
followed by a 100-foot long anti-tracking
apron and then a gravel road. Any dust
problems will be controlled with the use of
water spread on the surface of the gravel.
See revised plans.
JJ01209A91\91194
corres.
Response Comments
Made by Planning Department
December 9, 1991
Page 2
Comment # Response
g. The reclaimed steel will be stored in
roll-off containers for transport to a steel
reclaimation facility. The non-relcaimed
steel does not get included with the fill
material. It gets transported and disposed
of off-site at a permitted disposal
facility.
Landscaping Plan
a. A landscape buffer has been included on the
revised plans.
Architectural Elevations
a. The applicant appeared before the
Architectural and Design Review Board on
November 14, 1991 and presented the project.
Traffic Report
a. Please refer to the revised traffic report.
b. The Route 5 access road has been eliminated
from this project.
Acoustical Study
a. The crushing and screening operations have
been relocated such that they are now at
least 350 feet from the nearest industrial-
zoned property boundary on all sides.
b. The only processing that will be undertaken
outside is the shearing of large .pieces of
wood., such as tree trunks.
General Comments"
a. All miscellaneous debris and the abandoned
structure will be removed 'X=m the property
prior to the start of operations.
JJG1209A91\91194
corres.
Response Comments
Made by Planning Department
December 9, 1991
Page 3
Comment # Response
General Comments (continued)
b. The main access road has been relocated to
Chapel Road after discussion with Town
staff . The Route 5 access was deemed
unacceptable for safety reasons by the
Traffic Authority.
WPCA Comments
a. The applicant proposes to construct a
subsurface disposal system for the one (1)
restroom that will be contained in the
on-site office. Connection to the sanitary
sewer system on Chapel Road would be a
hardship due to the fact that this sewer is
over 2, 000 feet from the office structure
and the connecting lateral would have an
unacceptable slope . A pump would be
required for this one (1) restroom.
Public Works Department
a. All required DEP permits will be obtained
prior to operation of the recycling
facility.
JJ01209A91\91194
corres.
7
sit
FUSS&O'NEILL D *1
consulting engineers oE� 9 1
December 5, 1991 South WN dsG�N���
4o w�101A G0;;%SS1110
Atty. Wayne C. Gerlt ��NS�RVA��o�
435 Buckland Road
P.O. Box 559
So. Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Revised Traffic Impact Study
Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
South Windsor, Connecticut
Dear Mr. Gerlt:
This letter has been prepared to update the traffic impact study
submitted as part of the September 1991 design report for the
Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center. Specifically, this
report will address the traffic impacts associated with the
change in access for the proposed recycling center from Route 5
to Chapel Road.
Access to the proposed development is now proposed to be from
Chapel Road, as shown on the site layout plan (Sheet No. S1) .
The proposed access driveway is located on the north side of
Chapel Road approximately 1,800 feet east of Route 5. Chapel
Road, in the vicinity of the proposed site access driveway, is a
two lane roadway with a total width of 34 feet which provides 17
foot travel lanes in each direction. This roadway was recently
reconstructed and the present roadway surface is in excellent
condition. The posted speed limit on Chapel Road in the
vicinity of the site is 35 miles per hour. Fuss & O'Neill, Inc.
conducted a speed survey of all vehicles in the vicinity of the
proposed site access. This data indicates that the 85th
percentile speed on Chapel Road in this area is 43 miles per
hour in both the eastbound and westbound directions.
In order to determine the traffic impact of the proposed
development on the adjacent Chapel Road traffic, Fuss & O'Neill
installed automatic traffic recorders (ATR) on Chapel Road in
the vicinity of the proposed site access driveway on December 3
and 4, 1991. The traffic volume data collected was compared to
other count data from Fuss & O'Neill projects and public records
in order to test their validity. In addition, comparisons were
made to traffic volume data which was obtained from the
Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) for Route 5
in the vicinity of the site. After reviewing and balancing the
traffic data, the volumes were projected to the 1992 design year
(anticipated year of full operation) using a three percent (3%)
WAV1204A91\91194
Correa.
146 HARTFORD RD./MANCHESTER, CT 06040-5921/TEL: (203) 646-2469, FAX: (203) 643-6313
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT•WASTE WATER SYSTEMS•EROSION CONTROL•WATER SYSTEMS•HYDROLOGY and DRAINAGE SYSTEMS•SITE PLANNING
HIGHWAYS and BRIDGES•SURVEYING•LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE•TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC•PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT•HYDROGEOLOGY
RECYCLED PAPER
Ano
Atty. Wayne C. Gerlt
December 5, 1991
Page 2
per year peak hour growth factor to account for normal traffic
growth in the area. Figure II-4, attached, shows 1992 external
traffic volumes which are defined as design year traffic which
does not have the site as its origin or destination.
The greatest traffic impact on the adjacent roadway network will
occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours - the period when
commuter trips are at their highest levels. The traffic ,count
data indicates that the a.m. peak hour occurs at 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. and the p.m. peak hour occurs at 4: 15 p.m. to 5:15
p.m. Therefore, these hours were subsequently analyzed.
Estimates of the amount of traffic generated by the proposed
development was based upon data concerning the development
operations, as documented in the September 1991 design report.
We anticipate no change in the amount of site generated traffic
due to the change in location of the site access. Therefore,
the same amount of site generated traffic will be used as
previously stated and as shown on the attached Figure No. II-5.
These volumes were added to the 1992 external peak hour traffic
volumes to yield the 1992 combined peak hour traffic volume as
shown in Figure No. II-6.
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the a.m. and A:
p . m. peak hours to determine the effect of the new site
generated traffic on the existing operating characteristics of
Chapel Road in vicinity of the proposed site access driveway.
The analyses were conducted using the procedure for unsignalized
intersection capacity analyses as described in the highway
capacity manual (Special Report No. 209 ) , published by the
Transportation Research Board in 1985. The analysis technique
rates the delay time experienced by stopped vehicles at the
intersection, and focuses on left turning and right turning
vehicles exiting from the "side street" (site driveway) and left
turning vehicles from the "main street" (Chapel Road) entering
the site access driveway. Through traffic and right turning
traffic from the main street are anticipated to have minimal
delays, since minimal conflict occurs with these movements.
The term Level of Service ( LOS ) is used to describe the
calculated operating characteristics of an unsignalized
Intersection. LOS is a measure of the delay experienced by
stopped vehicles at an intersection. LOS is rated on a scale
from "A" to "F" with "A" describing a condition of very low
delay (less than 5 seconds per vehicle), and "F" describing a
condition where delays will exceed 60 seconds per vehicle.
WAV1204A91\91194
Correa.
FUSS&O'NEILL
Atty. Wayne C. Gerlt
December 5, 1991
Page 3
Delay is described as a measure of driver discomfort,
frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. Therefore,
intersections with longer delay times are less acceptable to
most drivers. Based on the unsignalized capacity analyses
( analysis worksheets attached), a LOS "B" or better for any
approach will be provided at the intersection of the proposed
site access driveway with Chapel Road. The main line traffic
volumes on Chapel Road, will experience little or no delay as a
result of the new site generated traffic.
Sight distances looking east and west at the location of the
proposed access driveway were measured by representatives of
Fuss & O 'Neill as part of the data collection process. The
sight lines were measured from a point 15 feet back from the
edge of pavement on Chapel Road at the location of the proposed
site access driveway. The sight line looking to the east was
measured to be approximately 830 feet, and the sight line to the
west was found to be approximately 1,075 feet. The measured
sight lines exceed the required sight distances as set forth in
ConnDOT's "Guidelines for Highway Design, " dated January 1990.
Based upon the above analyses, it is the professional opinion of
Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. that the introduction of traffic generated
by the proposed development will not disrupt the continuity of
traffic flow on the adjacent roadway system. Existing roadway
conditions will be sufficient to provide safe and efficient
travel for the traffic in the area.
We trust the information contained within this report is
sufficient to address any traffic concerns expressed by the Town
of South Windsor. We will available be to present the findings
of this report to the appropriate Town staff at meetings and
hearings as necessary. Please feel free to contact us should
you have any questions concerning this report or if additional
information is needed.
Ve/een
y ours, "141
a
4
. Mitchell, P.E. William A. Vliet, P.E.
As Transportation Engineer
Director of Traffic Engineering
/dms
Enclosures
W"1204A91\91194
Correa.
A.M. PEAK HOUR
7:00 - 8:00 A.M.,
ti
0
N
1
o L0
N o *-0
SITE ACCESS
DRIVEWAY
tr
v
U)
UJ t
N '
0'a'
Q 0
QO
U
P.M. PEAK HOUR
4:15 - 5:15 P.M.
ti
1
L-0
ti o 4-0
L' SITE ACCESS
DRIVEWAY
ti
Nt
1
ti
Q)
N
J FIGURE NO Z 4
w
IL
i
V MANCNESTER. CONNECTICYT
1992 EXTERNAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PODUNK EARTH PRODUCTS
RECYCLING CENTER
SOUTH WNINDSOR CONNECTICIIT
h f'R"Na 91494 GATE:DEC.1991 SCALE: WT.&
JOSEPH MEARRT&CO. r r. ✓
A.M. PEAK HOUR
7:00 - 8:00 A.M.
s
t-6
SITE ACCESS
1 F* DRIVEWAY
N
1
N
Q
Q
O
U
P.M. PEAK HOUR
4:15 - 5:15P.M.
•Y.+
M
s
L6
•-e
SITE ACCESS
T + DRIVEWAY
J FIGURE NO X -5
Ire
a.
(� ft MANCNESTER. CONNECTICUT
SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PODUNK EARTH PRODUCTS
RECYCLING CENTER
aSOUTH WINDSOR coNNEcncur
N
-` PROJ.NO- 91494 LATE:DEC.1991 SCALE: N.T.S.
JOSEPH MERiRITT&CO. 7,777 ✓V�
A.M. PEAK HOUR
Fm
7:00 - 8:00 A.M.
N
Ls
0
N m *--7
SITE ACCESS
t r. DRIVEWAY
N N
to
1
J
<10
0
ct
U
P.M. PEAK HOUR
4:15 - 5:15 P.M.
U
ti
1
t-6
{` M 4—8
SITE ACCESS
DRIVEWAY
N
1
co
N
—� FIGURE NO X — 6
W
V
� MANCHESTER. CONNECT{CUT
1992 COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PODUNK EARTH PRODUCTS
RECYCLING CENTER
SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT
PRod.No...:9W94 oATE:OEC.1991,
JOSEPHMERRITT&CO..
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 45
PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . CHAPEL ROAD
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAY
NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. - WAV
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 12-04-1991
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P.M. PEAK HOUR
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1992 COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (FILE BOTAPMC)
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
LEFT 3 0 -- 2
THRU 754 297 -- 0
RIGHT 0 1 -- 6
NUMBER OF LANES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
LANES
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS ( ft) ACCELERATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
------- - ------ ---------------- -----------------
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- -
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
$ SU TRUCKS $ COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES $ MOTORCYCLES
----------- ------------- -------------
EASTBOUND 0 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND -- --- ---
SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL
(Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP
-------------- -------- ----------- ------------
MINOR RIGHTS
SB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6. 10
MAJOR LEFTS
EB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30
MINOR LEFTS
SB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . CHAPEL ROAD
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAY
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 12-04-1991 ; P.M. PEAK HOUR
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1992 COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (FILE BOTAPMC)
CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) C (pcph) C (pcph) C (pcph) C = C - v LOS
p M SH R SH
------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ ---
MINOR STREET
SB LEFT 2 153 153 > 153 > 151 > D
> 369 > 360 >B
RIGHT 7 697 697 > 697 > 691 > A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 3 832 832 832 829 A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . CHAPEL ROAD
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAY
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 12-04-1991 ; P.M. PEAK HOUR '
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1992 COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (FILE BOTAPMC)
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 45
PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 1
AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . CHAPEL ROAD
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.. . . . . . SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAY
NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. - WAV
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 12-04-1991
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.M. PEAK HOUR
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1992 COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (FILE BOTAAMC)
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION t
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST
CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 9 0 -- 1
THRU 207 542 - 0
RIGHT 0 2 -- 6
NUMBER OF LANES
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
LANES
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
------- ---------- ---------------- -----------------
EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- -
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N
VEHICLE COMPOSITION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES
----------- ------------- -------------
EASTBOUND 0 0 0
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
NORTHBOUND --- --- ---
SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0
CRITICAL GAPS
Ce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL
(Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP
-------------- -------- ----------- ------------
MINOR RIGHTS
SB 6.10 6. 10 0.00 6. 10
MAJOR LEFTS
EB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30
MINOR LEFTS
SB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . CHAPEL ROAD
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAY
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . .. . 12-04-1991 ; A.M. PEAK HOUR
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1992 COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (FILE BOTAAMC)
CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3
------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
SB LEFT 1 261 258 > 258 > 257 > C
> 447 > 439 >A
RIGHT 7 509 509 > 509 > 502 > A
MAJOR STREET
EB LEFT 10 628 628 628 618 A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . CHAPEL ROAD
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAY
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 12-04-1991 ; A.M. PEAK HOUR -
OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1992 COMBINED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (FILE BOTAAMC)
XC 9 1991
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. South Windsor
INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY1,
¢ONSF,RVATION COMMI>MOM
PROJECT: Podunk Earth Products, Application #91-43P
DATE: December 9, 1991
COMMENTS
MADE BY: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
ON: October 21, 1991
Comment # Response
1. Attorney Wayne Gerlt will respond.
2. The total land area of the project is 79±
acres. Approximately 20± acres of this area is
wetlands.
3O. ? The seasonal watercourse does not show on
exist-ing --topographaca maps and would be
difficult to field locate without a considerable
amount of brush cutting. However, an estimated
location can be shown on the .plans if such is
considered necessary.
4. The applicant has proposed a sedimentation
structure to capture large particles of
sediment, floatables, oil and grease as well as
a sedimentation basin to capture small particles
of erodible material. In addition, silt fences
and hay bales have been proposed to prevent
erosion. All of these measures were proposed to
ensure that there will be no detrimental impact
on water quality in the area.
5. A report by Jodie T . Chase, Environmental
Consultant, entitled Environmental Review of
Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center, Route 5
and Chapel Road, dated November 1991, was
submitted to the Planning Department on December
6, 1991. In addition, Ms. Chase will report her
findings to the Wetlands Commission on December
9, 1991.
JJG1209B91\91194
corres.
{
Response to Comments
by John McCahill
December 9, 1991
Page 2
Comment # Response
6. Clean fill, as defined in Section 2. lx of the
IWA/CC regulations as "uncontaminated natural
soil or rock which is inert in terms of leaching
and poses no threat, present or future, or
pollution to surface waters or groundwaters" ,
will be placed and compacted on-site. This
clean fill will exclude demolition and
construction waste materials including concrete,
asphalt, paving materials or by products; yard
wastes , including branches , limbs , brush,
shrubs, trees, parts of trees, tree stumps and
similar materials grown on or emanating from
land; non-putresible solid wastes, combustible
or noncombustible; and bulky rubbish or refuse
including putresible solids, semi-solids or
liquids.
A third party monitor is acceptable to the
applicant and the applicant will reimburse the
Town of South Windsor for this service if
desired by the Town.
8. The proposed tree limits were and are shown on
Sheet L2 (200 scale drawing) of the plans and
have also been added to the 40 scale revised
plans. A note indicating that the "limits of
tree clearing will be flagged in the field and
inspected by the Town prior to clearing the
site has been added to the plans. A tree
protection detail will be added to the detail
sheets
9. No response required.
10. Eleven ( 11 ) copies of Sheet K1 ( 100 scale map)
were provided to the Agency.
JJG1209B91\91194
corres.
h
F`
Response to Comments
by John McCahill
December 9, 1991
Page 3
Comment # Response
11. The plans have been revised to show that the
access drive to this site will be via Chapel
Road. This access point was recommended by the
Traffic Authority over the Route 5 access point
and was ultimately acceptable to the Planning &
Engineering departments. This first 535 feet of
the drive from Chapel Road will be paved
followed by a gravel road to the facility. An
--
---------------- -
anti-tracking apron will e constructed (100
feet long) between the bituminous paving and the
gravel paving . Dust_ problems, should they
occur, will be suppressed with water and/or wood
chips. -
12. An anti-tracking apron has been located as
described in 11 above.
13. The plans have been revised to show that Phase I
of the filling is now the previously proposed
Phase III and vice versa. Phase I will also
include construction of the sedimentation
chamber, drainage system and sedimentation basin
with rock filter. The phasing, as proposed,
will allow all drainage from each phase to pass
through the sedimentation basin without
impediment. A method for stabilizing the slopes
of each phase is included in Section V of the
2 Design Report . This section includes
stabilization methods for filling operations as
slopes are completed (J) and where slopes are to
be disturbed for more than thirty (30) days.
14. Concrete weir details are shown on Sheet No. Dl
of the plans. Slope paving details are shown on
Sheet D2 of the plans . Outlet protection
(riprap splash pad, riprap ditch, and slope
paving) details are shown on Sheets D1 and D2 of
the plans . Storm drainage computations were
provided in the Design Report. Any additional
documentation of tlb'_� design criteria will be
su�mi`tted sass required.
--
.73G1209B91\91194
corres.
Response to Comments
by John McCahill
December 9, 1991
Page 4
Comment # Response
15. A detailed cross section of the sedimentation
basin will be added to the plans. A sediment
dike is now included on the revised plans.
16. All required State and Federal permits will be
applied for and in place prior to commencement
of the project. Those permits which appear to
be required are as follows:
0. Corps of Engineers wetlands permit
b. DEP stormwater discharge
C. DEP volume reduction permit
d. NPDES stormwater permit for construction
activity
17. A certified A-2 map has been filed with the
Town.
18. The old processing plant will be labelled on the
plans, removed, and its debris will be properly
disposed of at permitted facilities. Notes will
be added to the plans.
19 . This area will be prepared with a 6-inch
processed earth base in all places where the
existing bituminous paving and concrete slabs do
not exist . A note to this affect has been
placed on Sheet S5 of the revised plans.
20. All required erosion and sediment control items
on the Site Plan will be included as part of the
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
Sediment barriers will be placed on the plans as
requested.
22. No response necessary.
23. No response necessary.
24. Noted. We fully intend to comply.
JJG1209B91\91194
corres.
4� �'-�s•— No✓ S a tick s%nce aa-
1
,
wL
C-w
Zl �v G�fj��u,z•;l b
00
s,
(J-M
-e;e" e4a, olc,-e r `ems,
A Uw
f / a�` f
SG F't 4 CLJdJ' �kJi✓! � iJY'r/ZL�
_ -
1 b a
P
S, 7cZ fy
t
T } a,. h -. ( ° �z sa�c�#c,x;!!�si �+ad^z K+' '`i a�. ,� ,z ,:. ,k -•rs-�.'t Y{ � t
w k raN
RSK-KELLEUINC.
• Developers 1744 Ellington Road
e Builders
• Property South Windsor, CT 06074
Managers Tel: 203-644-8761 / 644-8140
Fax: 203-644-5650
December 6, 1991
Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman
Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission -JEC
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074 sOr
INLAND V E-I LANDS AGENCY/
Dear Ms. Warren: CONSERVATION COMMISSION
The intent of this letter is to give my opinion on the application
before the Commission regarding "The Recycling Center" off Chapel
Road. I was one of the developers of Bissell Commons and have
first hand knowledge of the site.
This vacant parcel of land is an ideal location for recycling
material and possibly re-claiming the land as a valuable resource
for an industrial park. As developers of Bissell Commons it was
recommended to us by engineers that we could do the exact thing
that this aplicant wants to do. However, the times were not right
and other applications on the same site met stiff opposition and
became "politically sensitive". Times have changed; traffic now
-enters off an improved Chapel Road near the proposed I-291
corridor, and the area around the site has been developed.
Recycling is here to stay. Land-fills are not the answer. Those
of us, especially in the development arena, need an approved
location to take amesite, concrete and sometimes stumps instead of
paying in "solid gold" at the mercy of the land-fill owners. Much
of our "dump" material can be re-used on site with this type of
venture. It should be a primary concern of any individual whether
or not it is better to recycle and reclaim the material with
mandatory controls as the watch-word.
It is to everyone's benefit to give this application serious
discussion and see whether everyone together can make it work.
I think it is better for us to do this in our own style and with
our own motives rather than someone else's.
Thank you for permitting me to state an individual opinion.
Richard S.tKelley
We Build Our Reputation
a`
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center is being
proposed on a parcel of land east of U.S. Route 5 between
Pleasant Valley Road and Chapel Road in South Windsor,
Connecticut ( Figure I-1 ) . The Podunk Earth Products
Recycling Center will process surplus earth and wood
materials into saleable products. The filling of up to
ro0% nw��fc ` 280,000 cubic yards of clean fill, as defined in the South
[Windsor regulations, is also proposed.
Proposed recycling process operations are as follows:
A. The crushing of earth materials including rock,
concrete , bricks , ceramics and asphalt paving
fragments for sale as processed aggregate and select
td trench back ill . These materials are considered
"clean ill " by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental - Protection since they are virtually
inert and pose neither a pollution threat to ground or
surface waters nor a fire hazard.
B. The grinding of tree stumps and trunks and the
chipping of trunks and limbs. A shredder/mulcher may
also be utilized . A hydraulic shearer will be
utilized to fragment oversized wood pieces in the
initial stage of the process.
C. The sizing of crushed earth materials and soils will
also be performed with gradation screens equipped with
a rubberized suspension system.
Goods and products which will result from the recycling
operations include the following:
A. Processed aggregate products suitable for roadway
subbase and select trench backfill.
B. Clean fill suitable for borrow material uses such as
the formation of roadway embankments.
C. Wood chips and wood mulch for landscaping, erosion and
weed control applications.
D. Reclaimed steel suitable for recycling. Up to 85
percent to 95 percent of the steel embedded in the
processed concrete materials can potentially be
recovered. The non-reclaimed steel will be disposed
of off-site at a regulated fac_-1-TL31 y.
MMZ1004A91\91194 DEC �nn�
Corres. EC 77
oath Windsor
Pla -ling & Zoning Commission .
V(to ArIIIAc")
v
As previously mentioned, clean fill, as defined in Section
2 . lx of the IWA/CC South a i u T rs—as
2 / "uncontaminated n�_ atur&l__._so.:L .-- 4ar- rock which is_�.ziert in
`` terms of—leaching and. poses no threat, present or future,
�Q or po ution o sur ace wa er waters , will be
placed-anc�—compacted on-site. This clean fill will
exclude demolition and construction waste materials
including concrete, asphalt, paving materials or by
products; yard wastes, including branches, limbs, brush,
shrubs, trees, parts of trees, tree stumps and similar
materials grown on or emanating from land; non putresible
solid wastes, combustible or non-combustible; and bulky
rubbish 'or refuse, including putresible solids, semi-
solids or liquids. The proposed fill area is the site of
former sand and gravel and, to an even greater extent,
clay mining operations. It is intended to ultimately fill
this area to elevations nearly matching the originally
pre-mining topography. This would enable the site to be
suitable for planning and development in the future.
A wood product processing building is proposed to house
most of the wood processing equipment. For the time
being , it is proposed that some processing will be
undertaken outside. Dust and noise are not expected to
create any nuisances due to the location and intensity of
scale of the operation and proper management of potential
dust problems through application of water. a wi l be
spread during dry periods over gravel and dirt drives and '
stockpiles containing significant portions of fine �d�
materials for the purpose of allaying potential dust
conditions. 3 .
An acoustical study for the proposed recycling center has
been performed and is included as Appendix G of this
report . Based upon acoustical measurements of the
proposed equipment to be utilized, and subsequent analysis
of the site and surrounding property, conformance with
town and state noise level standards beyond the boundary
of the lot is expected.
The proposed earth products recycling center is consistent
with former uses for the site which have included brick
and concrete material production and storage, as well as
the previously mentioned sand, grv_el and clay mining. In
addition, the recycling center has been planned to conform
to the performance standards of the Industrial Zone as
well as the Town ' s zoning regulations in general.
Neighbors of the recycling center will not be subject to
nuisance or detriments to health, safety or welfare.
- 2 -
MMZ1004A91\91194
Corres. -
Finally, the applicant strongly believes that the project
is consistent with the State of Connecticut's adopted
Solid Waste Management Plan. This . plan, prepared by the
DEP and issued in February 1991, states- that:
"Certain portions of the bulky waste stream already
are being recycled, including a large amount of brick .
and other used building components of considerable
value. Technology exists to process certain other
portions, notably block, paving and rubble, into
aggregate materials . This technology merits
examination and, where feasible, will be promoted for
recycling. . . " page 32 of State of Connecticut Adopted
Solid Waste Management Plan, Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, February 1991.
The . Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center will be an
example of the implementation of current processing
technology for the recycling, reclamation and reuse of
material.
TABLE ONE
AREA, YARD AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
PODUNK EARTH PRODUCTS
RECYCLING CENTER
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
INDUSTRIAL ZONE
SCHEDULE OF AREA, YARDS AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
( from Section 5.2 of South Windsor Zoning Regulations)
Regulations Proposed
Minimum lot area 20,000 sq. ft. 3, 435, 000+ sq. ft.
(78.85+ acres)
Minimum lot width 100 ft. 2000+ feet wide
Minimum lot depth 150 ft. 1500+ feet deep
Maximum stories 2 1 story
Maximum height 40 ft. 27 feet
Maximum lot coverage 50% <10%
Maximum impervious cover 65% <10%
Minimum front yard 35 ft. 100+ feet
Minimum rear yard 25 ft. 500+ feet
Minimum each side yard 10 ft. 50+ feet
Parking
1 per 700 GFA or 2/3
employees 8 spaces 10 spaces
3 -
MMZ1004A91\91194
` Corres. 9
66 �
THE FOLLOWING ARE SOUTH WINDSOR PAVING AND PIPE CONTRACTORS. THESE
BUSINESSES WOULD LIKE A RECYCLING OPERATION IN SOUTH WINDSOR BECAUSE
OF THE LACK OF DUMPING PLACES AROVI%'D. THIS WOULD HELP THE ENVIRONMENT
AS IT WOULD BE A LEGAL PLACE TO DUMP RUBBLE TO BE RECYCLED FOR RE-USE
IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. ALSO, THESE BUSINESSES FEEL THERE IS A
NEED FOR AN APPROVED PLACE TO DUMP. UNCONTAPIINATED NATURAL SOIL AND THIS
WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT USE OF THIS PARCEL OF PROPERTY.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, AGREE WITH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED .' TATF-I!�kNT. AND,i
FULLY SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED RECYCLING OPERATION: J
COMPANY NAME SIGNATURE
417
Vol
�9
i
nEc -- 6 - 91 FR I 1 2 : 50 K — V N I ANTIC BRANCH �P _ 01
�q.r.�wwNr.w r.a.wow_r�r-..r.•.-rr...r....�..r��....r
DEC- 6-91 FRI 11:41 A - FAX NO. P890138 P.Ql
NuventeC . 1991
wards arxl Convi nvio1w
ToWn of ;auth Windsor
1540 Sullivan avenue
tputh Windsor. CT 00074
R82 AWlicatiOn of Damda DoLticello ftdunk Forth Pcoductu ,
z Dear Chairparzon and Meiubvrs:
I hove reviewW the application and discussed his plans with the
applicant. I ant writing this latter in support of the application.
I am sure Dennis Sotticullo will operate his business in full compliance
with all rtsulations.
very truly yours,
i�
l _
November I�, 1991
Boards and Commissions
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application of Dennis Botticello & Podunk Earth Products
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I have reviewed the application and discussed his plans with the
applicant. I am writing this letter in support of the application.
I am sure Dennis Botticello will operate his business in full compliance
with all regulations.
Very truly yours,
1-7 /q P� l�cr
G-✓r ,•rNSat-
November zD , 1991
Boards and Commissions
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application of Dennis Botticello & Podunk Earth Products
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I have reviewed the application and discussed his plans with the
applicant. I am writing this letter in support of the application.
I am sure Dennis Botticello will operate his business in full complian
with all regulations.
Very truly your
0100ts--)
I-vq,7zc4 �t
Alitcljell ftterprio!�, Inc.
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
P.O.BOX 715
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.06074
289-5121
November , 1991
Boards and Commissions
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application of Dennis Botticello & Podunk Earth products
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I have reviewed the application and discussed his plans with the
applicant. I am writing this letter in support of the application.
I am sure Dennis Botticello will operate his business in full compliance
with all regulations.
Ve r
y rs,
November , 1991
Boards and Commissions
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application of Dennis Botticello & Podunk Earth products
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I have reviewed the application and discussed his plans with the
applicant. I am writing this letter in support of the application.
I am sure Dennis Botticello will operate his business in full compliance
with all regulations.
Very truly urs;
10�--
EASTERN
ROOFING CORP.
so& WiA .. ct.
Member 5, 1991
Boards and Commissions
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Conn. 06074
Re: Application of Dennis Botticello and Podunk Earth Products
Dear Chairperson and Members:
We have reviewed the application and have had several discussions with the
above applicant. We are writing this letter in support of the application of
Mr. Botticello and. Podunk Earth Products.
We are sure that Mr. Botticello will operate the business in full compliance
with all rules and regulations.
S' -y s
Th o g
Eastern Roofi g orporation
and
Fay Realty
TJY/flf
317 CHAPEL ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR, OT 06074 TELEPHONE 282-0711
I. -
4
1t
= f
December 2, 1991
Boards and Commissions
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor,, CT 06074
Re: Application of Dennis Botticello Podunk Earth Products
Dear Chairperson and Members:
I R ve reviewed the plasm
and filling:,operat1a='�kf tt* BA
facility such as this is 1 9 , On ftq thU a and that this
project is best suited for.thp site OMPO"d
I am sure Dennis Botticello will operate his business in full com-
pliance with all regulations.
very truly yours,.
**
A Qli �l l�
J .
ALC/kmj
Andre Charbonneau & Sons
General Contractor • Concrete • Paving • Commercial &Industrial Warehousing
125 Edwin Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 528.7551
g -
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Richard M. Rittenband, Town Attorney
FROM: Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman, IWA/CC
DATE: December 10, 1991
RE: Application #91-34P, Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
At the public hearing held on December 9, 1991 for the above
referenced application, several comments and concerns were made
regarding Town Ordinance No. 112, Solid Waste Disposal.
It is the Agency's understanding that you have reviewed the ordinance
to determine whether or not it applies to the proposed use by Mr.
Anthony Botticello
The Agency has requested that you forward your opinion regarding this
in writing. In addition, the Agency would like you to clarify that
they can take action on this application regardless of the
applicability of the ordinance.
I would appreciate a reply by December 16th because the public
hearing for application #91-34P, Podunk Earth Products Recycling
Center, was continued until December 16th.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Pmm
cc: Attorney Wayne Gerlt
John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Inland Wetland Agency/Conservation Commission
FROM: Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman
DATE: December 10, 1991
RE: Application #91-43P, Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
As you already know, the public hearing for the above application was
continued until December 16, 1991 . In order that we may carry out
Other Business, the public hearing has to be limited to one hour
(7 :30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. ) . This will allow Commissioners time to
present concise concerns, questions, and comments . It is
anticipated, with the outstanding request for a review of the
application by the Soil Conservation Service, that the public hearing
will be continued in January.
Please take time to prepare your concerns, questions, and comments
before the December 16, 1991 meeting. Thank you.
PmM
cc: Attorney Wayne Gerlt
John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
PODUNK EARTH PRODUCTS - PLANNING DEPT. P.H. REPORT ' S
Swh/CC
CAP ecl --'ra.,n
7 '
2. In 1985 the Town Council passed Ordinance Number 112, which
concerns solid waste disposal within South -Windsor. The - - -- -
ordinance essentially establishes that (1) the Town shall
designate one solid waste disposal facility by resolution of the
Town Council; (2) any refuse disposal facility established or
maintained within the Town shall be administered and controlled
by the Town Manager; and further that it shall be unlawful for
any person to. dispose of solid waste at any facility or location
in the Town which is not approved by the Town Council. The
ordinance provides definitions of many terms used in the
ordinance, including demolition and construction waste.
Demolition and construction waste, as defined in the ordinance,
are considered solid waste. Our Town Attorney has provided to me
and the Town Manager a verbal opinion that it is debatable
whether clean fill is covered by the ordinance; and whether the
proposed fill violates the ordinance may depend on where the
material comes from. If we do not know where the fill material
is coming from; Attorney Rittenband has indicated that it is
premature to say it is a violation of the ordinance. If the fill
material comes from a construction site, it may violate the
ordinance; that has not been determined.
1
December 3, 1991
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Ehorccement Officer
FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
RE: Podunk Earth Products Site Plan
We have reviewed the revised drawings dated 11-26-91 for the proposed
Earth Products Site Plan and have the following comments as they
relate to Inland/Wetland and Conservation concerns:
1 . Part of this proposal is to fill approximately 261+ in
elevation over a large wetland area. The total amount of
fill is to be "non-marketable clean fill" . What constitutes
"non-marketable" is not identified. Also clean fill is
identified in part as "asphalt paving fragment" . We have
several concerns :
a. A large wetlands is to be destroyed.
b. The size of this operation precludes anything but spot
checking by the Town of the fill being utilized. Who
will monitor this large operation?
2 . It is felt that the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection should review this application because of both the
type of facility it is proposed to be and because of the
large area - not only wetlands - involved.
3 . Sheet E-1 - E&S Note #3 looks to be unacceptable -
"restabilization will be scheduled as soon as practical" has
no definition. This should be done in accordance with the
"Connecticut Guidelines" .
4 . Sheet E-1 - Construction notes 10 & 11 should spell out
temporary measures to be used.
a
C �
1
5 O�PSaU& ?40&U&Ot
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE . SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
�f AREA CODE 203/644-2511
SOR•CO Ct
December 24, 1991
Attorney Wayne C. Gerlt
112 Deming Street
.P.O. Box 559
South Windsor, Ct 06074
Dear Attorney Gerlt:
Re: Application #91-37P, Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
At the continuation of the public hearing held on December 16, 1991
there were several requests for additional information. The
additional information should be submitted in. preparation for the
continuation of the public hearing, scheduled for January 13, 1992 .
What follows is a brief summary of the information that was
requested:
comments/response to S .C.S. review, once received
OJcvj '3-c'e, ; tky� "; """,
- additional information from the Soil Scientist regarding the
watercourse he indicated exists on the property
a phasing plan which shows how a phase of the filling operation
'I will be accomplished ��
' � l 2_'00 U IQND !,�. CK� / i,,,0f )
14Ja00 C'j"O ` City
- water availability compared to water (needs for dust control, stump
grinding, etc .
T-=
Cf 1. l0 - use of liquid emulsion on the proposed gravel road(s )
��- - additional informa}tiLon regardi^n-g' phragmites �� L..-,(
7y
-written response to Jerry Iazzetta's 12/3/91 comments ---
description of"inert material~_ s�w-
process for chipping of wood
pP� g
more detail regarding dust control, (i.e. plans during cold
weather) _ 4, L," 6, t �
difference between old and new bituminous (asbestos and .oil (
content) L
z
Ce ;�� VS -
c�ndr�-trams
- will swales become regulated areas which pose a concern with the
proposed and future operation? 0 lkw-�) C;c—s,
n r - more refinement of erosion and sedjMQeftt control notes, (i.e. "as
.fiz
soon as practical" - too vague) 0
other alternatives considered ( "no feasible and prudent 4 ,
7 g 2 alternatives" ) -1 OP C,oc' =
I. e loav� _ S-6 ref,
- possible detrimeri @a eqq�e`c'. to surrounding properties
, �- how the site will be monitored
B -P Pna-4dt n)-t J�. f-C.i ce, —+C4--' 07- WcJT'e.1—l.�+s
JUwn 4-Y S 3I�e� be F e,�.bvrtcl. + e�n kJ No sG�
If you nave any questions, feel free to call meat 644-2511,
extension 229 .
Very truly yours,
¢¢
. c-
John E. McCahill
Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
JEM/pmm
cc: Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman, IWA/CC
C . C(40,
J�
Ile
L\�
1 y�
rl/
• t
FUSS&OINBLU
> consulting engineers
r
January 9, 1992
Ms. Elizabeth Warren, Chairperson
Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission
Town of South Windsor
1541 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Podunk Earth Products
Pleasant Valley Road
South Windsor, Connecticut
Dear Ms. Warren:
During the Wetlands Public Hearing, a question was raised
concerning the recycling of bituminous concrete which might
contain asbestos. I have researched this issue and offer the
following response.
I made inquiries to the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection's Air Management and Health Services Departments, the
Connecticut Department of Transportation's Materials Testing and
Pavement Management Departments as well as their Massachusetts
counterparts. Each of these departments had very little or no
knowledge of the subject.
I then spoke with Mr. Robert Joubert, District Engineer of the
Massachusetts office of the Asphalt Institute, an international
non-profit organization serving the asphalt industry through
programs of engineering, research and education. Mr. Joubert
stated that asbestos fibers were used in bituminous concrete
curbing and bituminous- concrete bridge decks in the 1950's and
early 19601s. Typically, it was only used where very sandy
materials were available for the production of these bituminous
products in an effort to increase their strength. Where larger
aggregate was available, asbestos was not used. Of the major
producers of bituminous products in Connecticut, it is likely
that only one might have included asbestos in the production of
some curbing and bridge decks since, at times, their excavation
pits yielded only smaller aggregate.
Unlike ceiling tiles or insulation products that were made with
asbestos, the few bituminous products that were produced with
asbestos contained relatively small amounts of it since asbestos
was included only to supplement the primary bonding agent, a
petroleum based product.
TJG0107A92\91194
Correa.
146 HARTFORD RD./MANCHESTER, CT06040-5921 /TEL: (203) 646-2469, FAX: (203) 643-6313
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT•WASTE WATER SYSTEMS•EROSION CONTROL•WATER SYSTEMS a HYDROLOGY and DRAINAGE SYSTEMS a SITE PLANNING
HIGHWAYS and BRIDGES a SURVEYING a LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE a TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC a PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT•HYDROGEOLOGY
RECYCLED PAPER
Ms. Elizabeth Warren
January 9, 1992
Page 2
Additionally, since asbestos is "bound" into the bituminous, it
tends to stay bound and not become airborne even when the
bituminous is crushed during recycling. To the best of Mr.
Joubert' s knowledge, no recycling facility in the nation has
ever been restricted from processing bituminous concrete which
might contain asbestos.
I trust this information is a sufficient response to the
question, however, should you have any additional questions or
comments, please call me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
60
Thomas J. Galeota
Site Engineer
/lel
TJ00107A92\91194
Correa.
r
1
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
FUSS & O'NEILL, INC.
PROJECT: Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
DATE: January 13, 1992
COMMENTS
MADE BY: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
TO: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
ON: December 3, 1991
General Comments
COMMENT # RESPONSE
1. The fill proposed to be placed in the wetland area
will be clean fill as defined in the South Windsor
Inland Wetland regulations. No asphalt paving
fragments will be included in the fill.
a. The applicant prefers to characterize the
proposed filling as reclamation of a man-made
wetland . Ms . Jodie Chase, Environmental -
Consultant, testified before the Inland
Wetlands Commission that this wetland has
little, if any, value.
b. The applicant has offered to pay for the
services of a Town-hired inspector to monitor
the filling operation.
2. The Connecticut DEP will be asked to review the
proposed facility. Applications will be submitted
to the DEP for a volume reduction permit and a
stormwater discharge permit. A wetland permit
will also be applied for through the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
3. This note will be changed such that it is in
accordance with the "Connecticut Guidelines" .
-1-
JJ00113A92\91194
r
Response to Comments
by Jerry Iazetta on 12/3/91
January 13, 1992
COMMENT # RESPONSE
4. Construction notes 10 and 11 will be revised to
provide more detail. The temporary measures to be
used will be in accordance with the "Connecticut
Guidelines" .
5. Sheet E-3 will be revised as requested.
6. Items from previous unsupervised dumping will be
removed and properly disposed of prior to any site
improvements. All necessary permits required for
the cleanup will be obtained by the applicant.
Notes to this effect will be placed on the plans.
7. The applicant has every intention of operating the
facility as proposed. The Town and State have
requirements that must be met and penalties that
can be imposed if they are not met.
8. The plans and design report have been revised to
indicate that water will be used in lieu of
calcium chloride to control dust. :..
-2-
JJ00113A92\91194
LAW OFFICES OF
WAYNE CHRISTOPHER GERLT
435 BUCKLAND ROAD
P.0. BOX 559 -
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.06074
TEL..(203)644-2565
` FAX(203)644-2567
January 13, 1992
Ms. Elizabeth Warren, Chairman
Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application #91-43P / Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
Dear Chairman Warren:
Enclosed, for your consideration, are copies of the pertinent regulations
and ordinances of the Town of South Windsor, as well as a photo copy of the
documents including an old petition submitted by Mr. Joel Nadel on the first
night of the public hearing. We have highlighted certain portions of the
material submitted to make it easier to follow the position we have set forth in
. this letter. The documents enclosed are:
1. A copy of ordinance #112;
2. A copy of the definition "waste" from the Random House Dictionary,
published in 1985;
3. The Inland/Wetlands definition of "clean fill which was adopted in
1988 and is identical today. There was no such definition of clean fill in your
regulations in 1985. Although, in 1985 this Commission did define "material" in
language identical to the definition as it appears in your regulations today;
4. Section 14.1 of the current Planning and Zoning Commission
Regulations defining the earth products left over from a construction project as
"surplus material";
5. Section 15 of the current Planning and Zoning Regulations which
exclude "Town Operated Sanitary Landfill".
It is our position that a fair reading of these regulations and the
definitions make it clear that the Town of South Windsor, in its regulatory
scheme, does not include uncontaminated natural soil or "clean fill" as defined
in your regulations to be "waste or construction debris" which would be
prohibited from placement in the Town of South Windsor under the Solid Waste
Disposal Ordinance. Additionally, a plain language definition of waste as
defined in the Random House Dictionary, clearly refers to it as trash, garbage,
etc. , as do the. definitions in the regulatory schemes set forth in Ordinance
#1"12, which is clear from a reading of the highlighted portions. "Bulky
Ms. Elizabeth Warren, Chairman
January 13, 1992
Page 3
application is quite different from the 1985 application, since the applicant
uncontaminated natural soil as the proposed fill
today proposes only to use
material to reclaim the pit.
3. The Minutes of the September 3, 1985 Town Council Meeting reflect,. at
the bottom of page one, this explanation
from
(accordingttorD.E.P. )�
who was then
is land clearing
the Public Works Director. y waste Laster, stumps, brush, etc. . Clean .fill
debris and demolition material, wood, p On
is soil, rock, brick, stone, etc. , inert material with no pollutionon
threat."
page two of those minutes, then Mayor Mitchell, was concerned about a possible.
underground fire problem. Mrs. Pastula questioned how long it would take for a
stump to decay".
1985,
4. Another article from the Hartford. Courant, dated September 17 the ure p proposed
quotes then Council Member Richard Nicholson
would "effectively prohibit the disposalwaste at any other tsein the Town,
including the site that is under discussion." Thata article bulky waste goes
on and
to
refer to Botticello's application as one to open
indicates that he would fill an abandoned clay pit with "stumps, rubble and
dirt." Again, this is substantially different from the application before you
today.
Following those hearings the ordinance was drafted with clear intent to
avoid a bulky waste or sanitary land fill and
not intended, nor does it
ot uncontaminated natural
fairly cover, reclaiming a clay pit by the placement
soil as allowed by your regulations.
It is our position that ordinance #112, regarding sanitary landfills, has
no bearing on our application.
Very tru
n is opher Gerlt
Atto y for Podunk Earth Products
Re cling Center
WCG:aks
encl.
HAND DELIVERED AT
MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 13 , 1992
,January 13 , 1992
South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency/
Conservation Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor ,^ CT 06074
RE: Application Number 91-43P
Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center/Solid Waste Dump
Dear Commission Members:
As a home owner and resident of Chapel Hill Condominiums , I am very
much opposed to the idea of placing a solid waste damp this close to the
163 units and its residents .
We have oht.a.ined over• 130 signatures of residents who are also in
opposition to this activity. I have expressed my concern at. several Town
Council meetings regarding the noise Level , dust, control and additional
vehicle movement on Chapel Road, I have also observed thousands and
thousands of birds migrate through the area of wetlands that run along the
western edge of Chapel Hill Condominiums over the years I have lived
there. This application will not only harm our wildlife but it will do
irreparable harm to the wetlands and our environment .
This project, is not suitable• for the Town of South Windsor as
evidenced by the 1985 Town ordinance prohibiting a solid waste dump in
South Windsor . I urge its rejection. Thank you.
Sincerely ,
Scharun J. Moreland
ZL889E8� 9I : II 26 , SI Ndf
' Hartford County Sail and Water Conservation District
627 RIVER STREET * WINDSOR, CT 06095 * 688-7725
January 15, 1992
To: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement .officer
Town of South Windsor
From: M Douglas Hoskins III
Subject: Application #91-43P, Podunk Earth Products Rec. Center
In your letter of 10/4/91
received 12/11/91) you requested from
this office a review of the above mentioned development proposal.
Included were plans entitled "Podunk Earth Products Recycling
Center", dated 9/24/911 last revised11/26/91. Also included were
the design report, environmental review, the inland wetland
permit application and several pieces of correspondence. A visit
was made to the site on 1/10/92. in attendance were yourself,
Eric Scherer (District Conservationist, U.S.D.A. Soil
conservation Service) and myself.
My comments and suggestions�,wi.11 be limited to the impact the
proposed development may have on the Podunk River and the
adjacent wetlands, and the adequacy of the erosion and
sedimentation control measures on the site.
wetland Impact
The wetland boundary, flagged by the soil scientist appears to be
substantially correct, although only those wetlands on or near
the area of the proposed development were delineated. The unique
characteristics of this parcel and its wetland soils make
deliniation a challange. Mast of the wetland flags in the
Phragmites stands were not visible making it difficult to
accurately review the boundaries in this area. Having the wetland
flag numbers indicated on the plan would also have made it easier
to interpret the boundaries.
Besides the "seasonal watercourse" described by John Ianni in his
soils report there were other watercourses observed during our
field visit that were not indicated on the plan. There were two
__ _ - �.� _ _M w ._�_._ found ih the�..upper ie t cif s iee`t
watercourses that draine an
w =_
uv
e 'c' ned to gain under the cart path fouincT an the~uPpecr-
_ .
r` h`! c er of sheet S5 of the plain. This scatrCt``-' Beaus°e
- llustrates -connection .between the abandoned clay
Y k Fx #.
t.
Page 2 of 3
pits and the Podunk River not otherwise indicated on the site
plans.
The conclusions of the environmental review placed "limited
value" on the wetlands located in the abandoned clay pits.
Through photo-interpretation,- and subsequently the field visit,
it was noticed that the western section of the clay pit had a
MT much more diversified plant life than that found on the eastern
side. The thick Phragmites stands found in the eastern side of
I� 1 the clay pit, dogenerally__have law^value fore.�nctions such as
wildlife habitat yet still ,h significant value in siicl�i'� �r
` func ions as va sual/esthetYc mqualitys�.edu! agonal:Potential and
ago word ness. Te observedndicatians that nearby residents use
the 6artpaths for sreat�i where the open space associated with
the revegetating clay pits provided a natural backdrop.
The clay pits wetland area could provide a unique educational
opportunity to study the Phragmites stands themselves. There
seems to be differences in various clay pit areas on the site. As
a result of an aerial photo
survey
thiback
pitsowas4thelt was
first to
found that the: western section of e clay
' be excavated, followed by the eastern section. There is a
possibility that over time the eastern clay pit could, if left
i
undisturbed, begin to resemble the more diverse area to the west.
These possibilities are mentioned to indicate that just because
these are made wetlands with less than desirable functions and
values, they are still wetlands- a steadily dwindling and
regulated resource in the Connecticut River Valley. While certain
functions such as flood control and nutrient retention/sediment
trapping appear to be mitigated through the installation of the
proposed sediment basins, others will be lost without any
mitigation.
Perhaps a compromise can be reached which could be considered a
feasible alternative. Without too much detail at this time, what
I'd like to propose is for the "clean-fill" area to be restricted
to the less diverse eastern side of the clay pits (Please see
enclosed diagram) . This would leave the most ecologically diverse
section of the clay pits untouched and reduce the wetland impact
considerably.
The "mitigation" for those wetland acres that yould be impacted
woul4 come in the farm of th reation_ of -Public ,open space or
thL +
lacement of conservation restr_ictionsqpon o 'j��rtions
(Refer
of the parcel adaacent to tie Podu to enclosed
diagram . Vconse�vation restriction would ensure the presence of
a natural buffer area to improve and maintain the quality of the
Podunk River corridor, while public open space on this portion
would encourage its current use Af passive recreation. An
additional mitigation proceedur ? ould be the removal of-thee
del�ri that was observed in_somo• sect- 4 ofr� wetland are
a from
the cart path iri the western section of the parcel.
AL-,_
,:. {- �a ne `. , � � �,..,K
6ti tiS . Z6 ` S t1! €0d8L� SAS �IOSQNI SZLL889�0 x ,t
• Page 3 of 3
Finally, any alterations within a wetland may require a permit
from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. For information on this
possibility call the Army Corp Regulation Division at 1-804-343-
4789.
Erosion and Sedimentation Contro
The E + S control plan, as revised according to your comments, is
generally well done. The following items should be added:
uS
* Location(s) for the temporary topsoil li�ockpile.(s) , if
necessary, should be indicated on the an. __•�__
* Locations for the disposal of cleared material (vegetation
and stumps) should be located on the plan. Its obvious that
these areas will be in place when the facility is finished,
but where will this material be stored in the meantime?
The use of mulch and fertilizer should be included as part
of the permanent vegetation process.
* It is possible that the proposed construction on this site
will require a Stormwater Discharge Permit from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . EPA's new stormwater
regulations became effective on December 17, 1990. The
regulations mention "Construction activity including
clearing, grading and excavation, except operations that
result in the disturbance of less than 5 acres of total land
area which are not part of a larger common plan of
development or sale" as a regulated activity. For such
operations, a permit is required no less that 90 days before
any construction begins.
Finally, mention should be made of the wetland evaluation study,
almost completed for the Town of South Windsor, by Tim Dodge of
the Soil Conservation Service, Storrs, Connecticut. Preliminary
results show that the wetlands on this sight have: been included
in a study area 11P3" and functional values were generated for
this general area. While not distinguishing between those
wetlands immediately adjacent to the river and those in the clay
pits, this area scored relatively high in values such as finfish
habitat, educational potential, shoreline anchoring and
noteworthiness.
The noteworthiness function received the highest score possible
because there are several potential archaeological and/or
historical sites in or near this wetland group. It is strongly
recommended that the Town contact Nick Bellantoni, CT State
'Archaeologist, by calling 486-5248 or 486-4460 for additional
information.
0E tit6 ST Ndf _£ trod_
,. SOS NOS I I I
C * F Tcw� O-P siou�
G �
s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
SOR Get, AREA CODE 203 644-2511
January 16, 1992
Dr. Nicholas Bellantoni State Archaeologist o�
Office of State Archaeologist (ggba)
SZyg
CT Museum of Natural History �g6" '
University of Connecticut
U-23, Storrs, CT 06268
Dear Dr. Bellantoni:
Re: Application #91-43P, Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
Enclosed is a location map, a plan showing the proposed development
and fill area, and a review of the above mentioned development by
Douglas Hoskins III, Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation
District (dated 1/15/92) .
In his closing paragraph he strongly recommends that the Town contact
you for additional information regarding potential archaeological
and/or historical sites in or near this proposed development. We
would like to formally request any information you may have regarding
this area.
The public hearing being held by our Inland Wetlands
Agency/Conservation Commission, regarding the proposed wetland
impacts, is in progress and has been continued to February 3, 1992.
We would respectfully request any information you may have, prior to
that date. Please contact me immediately if this creates a problem,
or if you need any additional information.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
John E. McCahill
Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
JEM/pmm
Enclosures
cc: Doug Hoskins III
Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman, IWA/CC
Attorney Wayne Gerlt
PROJECT
LOCATION S
o I I
r
r SOUTH
W I N DSOR
^.i:;.:.; a. s.,. r V SMITF� ET
:::..:.:....::.::.' r THE
VALL
ty
040
4 Pe
W � �
W I
/ PRpPO I- MANCHESTER
jay _ 40
0
Z p
F
Q 11
EA T HARTFORD
f _j
GQop��N STREE- 49--oaf r 111
Rlk-
t
��$ GY• . -� �'' � WEST M100 I
�E
FIGURE NO. I- I
cl rr
/
.T' RJSS& hIBI4 0 MANCHESTER. CONNECTICUT
LOCATION MAP
V 90 „ PUDUNK EARTH PRODUCTS
RECYCLING CENTER
CHAPEL ROAD SO. WINDSOR CT.
fpncw.No. 91-194 BATE MAY 1991 SCAu:I'=2000
��_ �►�1 �a�_J��'ti._ � �..a L��_ ,e�r3�_�����-.:—%ice,-���.r=,`���/���_ ,�:�
110
OR
.�=_��ili� � gat � /�� •�__=_ --_� � , \
�r;
MRS
ill - M "re),
mil-
ME
Moo
WIMP Isk
RON
D
�I 1�
mo Rai+��
IS
7ff;
�+� ► ,,� ,MIN ,,
�1 � f���Ilt��/fl4lll�i�� '�i cam_ •�%.E���`\�� _a � ,. '� �� �
rill SUN
fr— �r is i / , u �"` �►/� W . di
�LL889E0Z - - - - 9t : tt Z6 S
Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation District
J
627 RIVER STREET • WINDSOR, CT 06095 • 688-7725
January 15, 1992
To: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Town of South Windsor
From: 0 Douglas Hoskins III
Subject: Application 091-43P, Podunk Earth Products Rec. Center
In your letter of 10/4/91
received 12/11/91) you requested from
this office a review of the above mentioned development proposal.
Included were plans entitled "Podunk Earth Products Recycling
Center", dated 9/24/91, last revised11/26/91. Also included were
the design report,
plication and several environmental review, the inland wetlanAdvisit
permit apl pieces of correspondence.
was made to the site on 1/10/92. In attendance were yourself,
Eric Scherer (District a Conservationist,
U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service) myself.
My comments and suggestions will be limited to the impact the
proposed development may have. on the Podunk River and the
adjacent wetlands, and the adequacy of the erosion and
sedimentation control measures on the site.
Wetland Impact
The wetland boundary flagged by the soil scientist appears to be
substantially correct, although only those wetlands on or near
the area of the proposed development were delineated. The unique
characteristics of this parcel and its wetland soils make
delineation a challenge. Most of the wetland flags in the
Phragmi.tes stands were not visible making it difficult to
accurately review the boundaries in this area. Having the wetland
flag numbers indicated on the plan would also have made it easier
to interpret the boundaries.
Besides the "seasonal watercourse" described by John Lanni in his
soils report there were other watercourses observed during our
field visit that were not indicated on the plan. There were two
watercourses that drained land found in the
f upper-left
on Of sheet
$6 and' joined to drain under the cart path
per-
right corner of sheet S5 of the plan. This is significant because
it illustrates a hydrologic connection between the abandoned clay
............. .4 -
`:.rtry'„
Page 2 of 3
pits and the Podunk River not otherwise indicated on the site
plans.
The conclusions of the environmental review placed "limited
value" on the wetlands located in the abandoned clay pits.
Through photo-interpretation, and
Cubonfnthe tly the clayfpitdhadsat�
it was noticed that the western se
much more diversified pleststandsife t found han hin the at neaste nesidetofn
side. The thick Phragmit
the slay pit, do generally
hold significant value have low value for cinosuchuch as
wildlife habitat yetesthetic quality, educational potential and
functions as visual/
. noteworthiness. We observed indications that nearbyace esidents use
the cartpaths for recrei�soprovided the
naturalpbackdrop.
ith
the revegetating clay p
The clay pits wetland area couldthemselves�aTherel
opportunity to study the9m ts it areas on the site. As
seems to be differences in various co�ngp}aack to 2940, it was
a result of an aerial photo survey g its was the first to
found that the western secthen Of the eastern section. There is a
be excavated, followed by it could, if left
possibility that over time the eastern clay P
undisturbed, begin to resemble the more diverse area to the west.
These possibilities are mentioned to indicate desirable just beca se
these are made-wetlands with led
values, they are still wetlands- a steadily dwindling and
y. While
reiver valle
ulated resource in the Connecticut Rrsedimentcertain
g
I functions such as flood control and nutrient retention/
trapping appear to be mitigated through the installation of the
proposed sediment basins, others will be lost without any
mitigation.
Perhaps a compromise can be reached
muchwhich
detaillatbthisntime�ewhat
feasible alternative. Without
I'd like to propose is for t sidehe cofa l a rea t s
theclaypits (pleaseseected
to the less diverse eastern
enclosed diagram) . This would leave the most ecologically diverse
section of the clay pits untouched and reduce the wetland impact
considerably.
The "mitigation" for those wetland
acres
of public openespacecord
would come in the form of the creation
the placement of conservation Podunk°tions upon River certain
portions
of the parcel adjacent t
diagram) . A conservation restriction would ensure the presence of
a natural buffer area to improve lcdenmaintain
space on thisl portion
ty Of he
Podunk River corridor, while publ op
would encourage its current use of passive
uld be trecreation. A the
additional mitigation proceedure
debri that was observed in sectionlofsthe parcel
i of the wetland area from
the cart path n the western
t Lti tlQN I M
��ST,N.. '£0d 8
6t:itzs ,� -SOS NOS SZLL889£9Z
.,.w�To.....u..._..:�..,..........
B .
• Page 3 of 3
Finally, any alterations within a wetland may require a permit
from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. For information on this
possibility call the Army Corp Regulation Division at 1-800-343-
4789.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The E + S control plan, as revised according to your comments, is
generally well done. The following items should be added:
* Location(s) for the temporary topsoil stockpile(s) , if
necessary, should be indicated on the plan.
* Locations for the disposal of cleared material (vegetation
and stumps) should be located on the plan. Its obvious that
these areas will be in place when the facility is finished,
but where will this material be stored in the meantime?
* The use of mulch and fertilizer should be included as part
of the permanent vegetation process.
* It is possible that the proposed construction on this site
will require a Stormwater Discharge Permit from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . EPA's new stormwater
regulations became effective on December 17, 1990. The
regulations mention "Construction activity including
clearing, grading and excavation, except operations that
result in the disturbance of less than 5 acres of total land
area which are not part of a larger common plan of
development or sale" as a regulated activity. For such
operations, a permit is required no less that 90 days before
any construction begins.
Finally, mention should be made of the wetland evaluation study,
almost completed for the Town of South Windsor, by Tim Dodge of
the Soil Conservation Service, Storrs, Connecticut. Preliminary
results show that the wetlands on this sight have been included
in a study area "P3" and functional values were generated for
this general area. While not distinguishing between those
wetlands immediately adjacent to the river and those in the clay
pits, this area scored relatively high in values such as finfish
habitat, educational potential, shoreline anchoring and
noteworthiness.
The noteworthiness function received the highest score possible
because there are several potential archaeological and/or
historical sites in or near this wetland group. It is strongly
recommended that the Town contact Nick Bellantoni, CT State
Archaeologist, by calling 486-5248 or 486-4460 for additional
information.
0z TT z6. ST Ntif. tied MT.,' , 1 j
. t�.. SOS NOSQNIM SZLL889£0Z a
..'k7..r2s. ..3..�•'....�10i.:_'aa ~�f�....i.:o-. t .a(:. v...�fs--r..
WO wnr�
}
Hartford County Soil and Water Consery do District- <
627 RIVER STREET 9 WINDSOR, CT 06095 a 688-7725 D ,
JAMI
SOittLi, =.�r
January 15, 1992 1NL.A.%D
CONSERVAT!:;1i C� MISSigh
To: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Town of South Windsor
From: 00�
Douglas Hoskins III
Subject: Application #91-43P, Podunk Earth Products Rec. Center
In your letter of 10/4/91 (received 12/11/91) you requested from
this office a review of the above mentioned development proposal.
Included were plans entitled "Podunk Earth Products Recycling
Center", dated 9/24/91, last revised 11/26/91. Also included were
the design report, environmental review, the inland wetland
permit application and several pieces of correspondence. A visit
was made to the site on 1/10/92 . In attendance were yourself,
Eric Scherer (District Conservationist, U.S.D.A. Soil
conservation Service) and myself.
My comments and suggestions will be limited to the impact the
proposed development may have on the Podunk River and the
adjacent wetlands, and the adequacy of the erosion and
sedimentation control measures on the site.
Wetland Impact
The wetland boundary flagged by the soil scientist appears to be
substantially correct, although only those wetlands on or near
the area of the proposed development were delineated. The unique
characteristics of this parcel and its wetland soils make
deliniation a challange. Most of the wetland flags in the
Phragmites stands were not visible making it difficult to
accurately review the boundaries in this area. Having the wetland
flag numbers indicated on the plan would also have made it easier
to interpret the boundaries.
Besides the "seasonal watercourse" described by John Ianni in his
soils report there were other watercourses observed during our
field visit that were not indicated on the plan. There were two
watercourses that drained land found in the upper-left of sheet
S6 and joined to drain under the cart path found on the upper-
right corner of sheet S5 of the plan. This is significant because
it illustrates a hydrologic connection between the abandoned clay
Page 2 of 3
pits and the Podunk River not otherwise indicated on the site
plans.
The conclusions of the environmental review placed "limited
value" on the wetlands located in the abandoned clay pits.
Through photo-interpretation, and subsequently the field visit,
it was noticed that the western section of the clay pit had a
much more diversified plant life than that found on the eastern
side. The thick Phragmites stands found in the eastern side of
the clay pit, do generally have low value for functions such as
wildlife habitat yet still hold significant value in such
functions as visual/esthetic quality, educational potential and
noteworthiness. We observed indications that nearby residents use
the cartpaths for recreation where the open space associated with
the revegetating clay pits provided a natural backdrop.
The clay pits wetland area could provide a unique educational
opportunity to study the Phragmites stands themselves. There
seems to be differences in various clay pit areas on the site. As
a result of an aerial photo survey going back to 1940, it was
found that the western section of the clay pits was the first to
be excavated, followed by the eastern section. There is a
possibility that over time the eastern clay pit could, if left
undisturbed, begin to resemble the more diverse area to the west.
These possibilities are mentioned to indicate that just because
these are made-wetlands with less than desirable functions and
values, they are still wetlands- a steadily dwindling and
regulated resource in the Connecticut River Valley. While certain
functions such as flood control and nutrient retention/sediment
trapping appear to be mitigated through the installation of the
proposed sediment basins, others will be lost without any
mitigation.
Perhaps a compromise can be reached which could be considered a
feasible alternative. Without too much detail at this time, what
I'd like to propose is for the "clean-fill" area to be restricted
to the less diverse eastern side of the clay pits (Please see
enclosed diagram) . This would leave the most ecologically diverse
section of the clay pits untouched and reduce the wetland impact
considerably.
The "mitigation" for those wetland acres that would be impacted
would come in the form of the creation of public open space or
the placement of conservation restrictions upon certain portions
of the parcel adjacent to the Podunk River (Refer to enclosed
diagram) . A conservation restriction would ensure the presence of
a natural buffer area to improve and maintain the quality of the
Podunk River corridor, while public open space on this portion
would encourage its current use of passive recreation. An
additional mitigation proceedure could be the removal of the
debri that was observed in some sections of the wetland area from
the cart path in the western section of the parcel.
Page 3 of 3
Finally, any alterations within a wetland may require a permit
from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. For information on this
possibility call the Army Corp Regulation Division at 1-800-343-
4789.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
The E + S control plan, as revised according to your comments, is
generally well .done. The following items should be added:
* Location(s) for the temporary topsoil stockpile(s) , if
necessary, should be indicated on the plan.
* Locations for the disposal of cleared material (vegetation
and stumps) should be located on the plan. Its obvious that
these areas will be in place when the facility is finished,
but where will this material be stored in the meantime?
* The use of mulch and fertilizer should be included as part
of the permanent vegetation process.
* It is possible that the proposed construction on this site
will require a Stormwater Discharge Permit from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . EPA's new stormwater
regulations became effective on December 17, 1990. The
regulations mention "Construction activity including
clearing, grading and excavation, except operations that
result in the disturbance of less than 5 acres of total land
area which are not part of a larger common plan of
development or sale" as a regulated activity. For such
operations, a permit is required no less that 90 days before
any construction begins.
Finally, mention should be made of the wetland evaluation study,
almost completed for the Town of South Windsor, by Tim Dodge of
the Soil Conservation Service, Storrs, Connecticut. Preliminary
results show that the wetlands on this sight have been included
in a study area 11P3" and functional values were generated for
this general area. While not distinguishing between those
wetlands immediately adjacent to the river and those in the clay
pits, this area scored relatively high in values such as finfish
habitat, educational potential, shoreline anchoring and
noteworthiness.
The noteworthiness function received the highest score possible
because there are several potential archaeological and/or
historical sites in or near this wetland group. It is strongly
recommended that the Town contact Nick Bellantoni, CT State
Archaeologist, by calling 486-5248 or 486-4460 for additional
information.
-4�-..wl _
�K a1\ i�
1 r � 5Y\6 '_� '�
MrMAI
Mw
WHISMIANVY A, Nf\
ro .._fir, .ri,��. (.� ► � '"_"�.� .'A �� •
��� � �-,_ a.►1. ® ®�Ilii���+����� ,ter,%,� �,
— 1-, � • +
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
FUSS & O'NEIL.L, INC.
PROJECT: Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center "tir:,ND
DATE: January 22, 1992 ... "
COMMENTS
MADE BY: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
TO: Atty.. Wayne C. Gerlt
ON: December 24, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Comment # Response
1. S.C.S. comments forthcoming.
2. John Ianni responded at wetlands hearing on 1/13/92.
3. See revised sheets S6, E3 and Construction Notes -
Filling Operation (Sheet E1 ) for description of
sequential filling.
4. Estimated maximum water usage for the site:
Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 GPD (Total )
Water Sprays (Chipping & Crushing) . . 300 GPD
Water Sprays (Gravel drive) . . . . . . . . 1000 GPD
Water Sprays (Stock piles) . . . . . . . . . 500 GPD
1925 GPD
Potential water well capacity rate:
10-20 GPM = 600-1200 GPH = 14,400-28, 800 GPD
Therefore, water supply far exceeds demand.
5. To aid in dust suppression which might be required for
the gravel drives, we are proposing to use the
following:
A. Water sprays (year round) .
B. Liquid emulsion if Item #A is ineffective see
attached product flyer) .
C. Calcium chloride in sub-freezing weather only if
water sprays cannot be used.
G:\PROJECTS\91194\JJG01168.WP\Correa.
Response to Comments by John E. McCahill
On December 24, 1991
January 22, 1992
Page 2
Comment # Response
This is reflected in Note 3 of the E&SC notes found on
Sheet El.
6. Jodie Chase responded at wetland hearing on 1/13/92.
7. Response to Jerry Iazzetta 12/3/91 comments. See
separate sheet.
8. The material to be recycled, which is virtually inert,
is rock, concrete, brick, ceramics and asphalt paving
fragments. The eleventh addition of Hawleyg heroical
Dictionary defines inert as, "a term used to indicate
emica inactivity in an element or compound" .
9 . Wood products arriving at the site will be placed in
the "outside wood products processing area" as shown
on Sheet S5. Stumps will be split with a stump shear
to reduce their size. Any material other than wood
(metal, brick, concrete, etc. ) will be separated out
and recycled or properly disposed of. The wood
products will then be transported into the wood
products processing building where they will be fed
into a wood chipper/shredder. The processed wood, now
in chip form, will be transported to the wood product
storage area east of the building by a conveyor belt.
The resulting pile of chips will be moved to a larger
stockpile just east of the building where ' they will
await sale Oas the need arises.
10. For dust control proposed for the gravel roads, see
Response #4. Water sprays shall be utilized on a
year-round basis for dust control on the earth and
wood products stockpiles. Water sprays in sub-
freezing weather would freeze on the piles creating a
"cap" to minimize dust migration. Should additional
dust control be required on the stockpiles, tobacco-
type netting will be used. Dust control for the major
fill area will be accomplished year-round by water
sprays.
11 . Refer to the letter dated January 9, 1992 addressed to
Chairperson Elizabeth Warren concerning asbestos in
0:\PROJECTS\91194\JJGO116B.WP\Correa.
r
Response to Comments by John E. McCahill
On December 24, 1991
January 22, 1992
Page 3
Comment # Response
bituminous pavement. With regard to oil content in
old and new bituminous, petroleum based products have
always been used as the primary bonding agent for
bituminous. The percentage of petroleum products in
the bituminous varies with the "class" or type of
bituminous Pavement. Bituminous pavement is virtually
in no chemical actav ) under climatic conditions
of this region. This recycling facility will crush
bituminous from its "pavement-like" state into pro-
cessed aggregate at the ambient outdoor air tempera-
ture. The bituminous will not be heated during any
phase of recycling.
12. The proposed drainage swales were designed with the
intention of collecting stormwater from rainfall
events and directing it to the proposed sedimentation/
detention basin. It was not and is not our intention
to create regulated areas by proposing these swales.
13. The erosion and sediment control notes and construc-
tion notes have been revised to be more site specific.
Notes revised include Note 3 and the addition of Note
15 of the E&SC Notes, and Notes 2, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 12
of the Construction Schedule.
14. Atty. Wayne Gerlt to respond.
15. Atty. Wayne Gerlt to respond.
16. Atty. Wayne Gerlt to respond.
G:\PROJECTS\91194\JJGO116B.WP\Correa.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEI
FUSS & O'NEILL, INC, J4.-V 2 � 1992
Town of Oath Windsor
PROJECT: Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center Engineering
Dept. �
DATE: January 22, 1992
COMMENTS
MADE BY: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
TO: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement
Officer
ON: December 3, 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment # Response
1 . The term "non-marketable" has been replaced with the
term "clean fill" as defined by Section 2.1X of the
Town' s IW/CC regulations.
A. The "asphalt paving fragment" was mentioned to be
clean fill by the DEP definition to characterize
the material to be recycled. This material will
not be used as fill in the wetland area.
i
B. The applicant has agreed to a third party monitor
? the filling operation and will reimburse the Town
for this service.
2,✓ An application must and will be submitted to the DEP
for review and approval.
3. That note has been removed since other notes on the
plans specifically address this issue in detail and are
in accordance with the Connecticut Guidelines.
4.✓ Notes have been revised.
5 Plans revised as requested.
6. Items from previous unsupervised dumping such as autos,
refrigerators, etc. will be cleaned up and disposed of
properly as soon as the recycling facility is
operational. The applicant will retain the services of
an environmental engineer to assess the environmental
impacts, if any, this dumping has caused. The
environmental engineer will make recommendations to
G:\PROJECTS\91194\JJG0116A.WP\Correa:
remediate any impacts and the applicant will undertake
clean-up as recommended.
7. The applicant will be the operator of the proposed
facility and fully intends to operate the facility as
proposed.
8. Calcium chloride shall not be used on stockpiles at any
time. Water sprays shall be utilized year-round to
minimize fugitive dust. This is reflected in Note 3 of
the E&SC notes on the plans.
G:\PROJECTS\91194\JJ00116A.WP\Correa.
a°1 Yr -
i a t
f sly
JAN 30 1992
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS South Windsor
FUSS & O'NEILL, INC. INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
PROJECT: Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
DATE: January 29, 1992
COMMENTS
MADE BY: Douglas Hoskins III, Hartford County Soil and
Water Conservation District, Windsor, CT
TO: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
ON: January 15, 1991
RESPONSE BY: Tom Galeota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wetland Impact
There is indeed a hydrologic connection between the clay pit which
we propose to reclaim and the Podunk River. A review of the
existing topography on the plans reveals this. Stormwater from
areas adjacent to the clay pit flow into it, travel in a
northwesterly direction to and through a pipe under the cart path,
then to a forested area where the water is dispersed and meanders
its way to the Podunk River. Our proposal does not break this
connection. We are proposing to construct pipes and ditches to
redirect stormwater which would have previously flowed into the
clay pit to a sedimentation basin. This basin's primary function
is to filter particulate matter out of the stormwater prior to its
discharge to the wetland in the northwest corner of the clay pit,
a wetland which will remain undisturbed. A watercourse which
serves to drain a large portion of the clay pit is shown in the
upper left corner of Sheet S6 and S8. A "finger-like" watercourse,
which drains a small portion of the northwest area of the clay pit
joins this watercourse at the pipe under the cart path and drains
through it. Neither of these watercourses will be disturbed.
Mr. Hoskins suggests that a compromise could be reached with regard
to the fill limits which could be considered a feasible
alternative. This proposal went through several iterations during
the design process and the applicant feels that this layout is a
compromise. The applicant elected to provide a large natural
buffer between the Podunk River and the facility. The applicant
elected not to fill the area between the proposed sedimentation
basin and the cart path to the north in an effort to reduce the
impact of the reclamation.
G:\PR0JECTS\91194\TJG0128A.WP
Corres.
F11SS&07VEY.L,9YC.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
JANUARY 29, 1992
PAGE 2
The configuration of the area of the proposed fill creates a
contiguous parcel with the land to the west of it, thereby creating
a more desirable parcel for future industrial development.
Erosion and Sediment Control
The plans have been revised to include the items requested in the
first three comments in this section. We are fully aware of the
Stormwater Discharge Permit regulations from the US EPA and will
obtain the necessary permit, if required.
I tried unsuccessfully to speak with Mr. Tim Dodge of the SCS
regarding the townwide wetland evaluation study, he is preparing.
As Mr. Hoskins stated when he referenced Mr. Dodges' preliminary
findings, "when reporting the value of wetlands in this area, Mr.
Dodge did not specify whether his findings applied to wetlands
adjacent to the Podunk River or the upland wetlands found in the
clay pits" . I suspect the former is true since he refers to Col @
functional values such as finfish habitat and shoreline anchoring. �S'.m L
I contacted Mr. Nick Bellantoni, the State Archeologist and briefed
him on the proposal as well as sending him a set of site plans. I
understand that you also spoke with him regarding this project and
requested his assistance in an archeological review. Mr.
Bellantoni will research his files as well as visit the site and
make a recommendation based on his findings.
Jodie Chase, the environmental consultant is responding to Mr.
Hoskins comments in a separate memo.
G:\PROJECTS\91194\TJG0128A.WP
Corres.
FUSS&OTIELL.INC.
i JODIE T. CHAR
ENVIQO MENT.1L CO'vKLT_1NT
To: Town of South Windsor Inland Wetland Commission
From: Jodie T. Chase, Ecologi
Re: Letter of Douglas Hoskins, Hartford County Soil and Water ; 9
Conservation District, dated January 15, 1992 �
Date: January 30, 1992 J '
Hoskins Comment Page 2 Paragraph 1
The far western edge of the clay pit does support several shrub species. Anything
other than a monoculture of Phragmites could be construed as being "much more
diversified". Mr. Hoskins goes on to state that Phragmites "hold significant value in
such functions as visual/esthetic quality, educational potential and noteworthiness".
Mr. Hoskins is obviously referring to the State of Connecticut's "Method for the
Evaluation of Inland Wetlands In Connecticut" by his mention of these wetland
functions. What Mr. Hoskins fails to do is apply the specific criteria for these functions
to the clay pit wetlands. Had he done so he would find that the clay pit wetlands rate
extremely low for the functions he mentions largely because this wetland is a
Phragmites monoculture. Attached are the data sheets with criteria for the functions
noted by Mr. Hoskins. The wetlands of the clay pit receive very low value for each of
these functions.
Hoskins Comment Page 2 Paragraph 3
Mr. Hoskins suggests the clay pits could provide a "unique educational opportunity".
As noted above and in the attached data sheets the clay pits do not rate high for
educational potential. While anything is possible, it is highly unlikely that the clay pit
will begin to resemble the more diverse area to the west. What may have occurred
here is that the more diversified area became vegetated before Phragmites entered
the area. Were a more diversified vegetation community to overtake the Phragmites it
would surely have done so by now. Further, Mr. Hoskins gives no data or basis for his
suggestion.
Hoskins Comment Page 2 Paragraph 3
Mr. Hoskins has failed to demonstrate that functions other than flood control and
nutrient retention/sediment trapping exist in the clay pit. Rather it appears he is relying
on a wetland evaluation prepared by Tim Dodge of the Soil Conservation Service for
the Town orWindsor which does not distinguish between the wetlands associated with
the Podunk River and the clay pits. (We question whether this evaluation did, in fact,
include the clay pit.) We have provided expert testimony based on many hours of field
observation.
South
i
i
f
JODIE T. CHAR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONOS[ LTANT '
Town of South Windsor Inland Wetland Commission
Page 2
January 30, 1992
Hoskins Comment Page 3 Paragraph 2
Mr. Hoskins notes of the evaluation by Mr. Dodge that "while not distinguishing
between those wetlands immediately adjacent to the river and those in the clay pits,
this area scored relatively high values in such areas as finfish habitat, educational
! potential, shoreline anchoring and noteworthiness". I believe the attached data sheets
prove that the clay pits do not meet the criteria of these functions and, therefore, it is
unlikely Mr. Dodge considered the clay wetlands as an integral part of the Podunk
River wetland system. Specifically:
1) Finfish habitat evaluates the suitability of watercourses associated with the
wetland for either warm water or cold water fish. The wetland on-site appropriately
evaluated by this criteria is the Podunk River and its adjacent wetlands. It would not
relate to wetlands that do not maintain a hydrologic connection to the river capable of
supporting fish. The specific criteria of this function illustrates this well and is not
appropriately applied to the clay pit.
2) Educational potential evaluates the suitability of the wetland as a site for an
outdoor classroom. Criteria for this function include the proximity of schools, public
access, student safety, ecological integrity of the wetland and the number of different
types of wetlands available.
3) Shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces evaluates the
effectiveness of the wetland in preventing shoreline erosion. This requires the
presence of open and typically flowing water. Such does not exist in the clay pit. This
! criteria appropriately evaluates the Pondunk River and those wetlands maintaining a
significant hydrologic connection to it.
4) Noteworthiness evaluates the wetland for certain special features such as the
presence of: archaeological sites, critical habitat for endangered species, scientific
research, state or federal natural landmarks, documented biological, geological, or
other features which are locally rare. The clay pit wetland neither supports nor
maintains any of these.
In conclusion, I believe Mr. Hoskins' remarks do not appropriately review the project.
He has made use of a wetland evaluation study that does not specifically refer to the
clay pits and in all likelihood does not place significance on the clay pit wetland in its
evaluation of the Podunk River system. The Podunk River supports and maintains a
diverse wetland community of high ecological integrity, the clay pits do not add to this.
Further, our project will have no discernible impact on the Podunk River.
!
i
I
i
CONNECTICUT WETLAND EVALUATION METHOD DATA SHEET
FUNCTIONAL VALUE 4 - FINFISH HABITAT FOR WATERCOURSE(S) ASSOCIATED WITH WETLAND
Name of Watercourse(s) Being Evaluated /
Evaluation Computations Evaluation Fcnctionai
Questions or Actual Value Cri`.pria Value 'rder
PART A - STREAMS AND RIVERS
1 . Physical character of a. Stream is in a natural 1 .0
stream associated with channel , either a mean-
wetland. dering low gradient
(less than 0.2 percent)
stream
or
moderate to high (0.2
percent or higher) grad-
ient stream with pools
and riffles.
b. Portions of stream re- -0.5
cently modified or strearr
formerly channelized but
has regained some natur-
al channel features
through the onse' q`
,,nrlering, the regrowth of
instrnam vegetatior, or
the addition of rover oh-
jects such as rocks and
snags.
c. Stream has recen`ly been 0.'
rhannelized
or
stream •.n corficod in -.
Porveaekotcd shut e _
2. Available shade. a. Woodland, shrun'. n; ,
other tali vegetation
provides shade to P7 n-
a significart portion n'
the stream.
h. Portions of ♦hp sf rl .
tank ❑rvegetaind nr .eg-
etatinn tor, low to D-r -
1 shade..
Str•q,or bank,
..^r .roCt ,.•r.r tr, ,
o ov i de shads.
gin _
CONNECTICUT WETLAND EVALUATION METHOD DATA SHEET
FUNCTIONAL VALUE 4 - FINFISH HABITAT FOR WATERCOURSE(S) ASSOCIATED WITH WETLAND
(Cont'd)
A B C D
Evaluation Computations Evaluation Functional
Questions or Actual Value Criteria Value Index
(FVI )
PART A - STREAMS AND RIVERS (Cont'd)
3. Highest stream order with- a. Third order or higher. 1 .0
in wetland. b. Second order. 0.5
c. First order. 0.1
4. Barrier to anadromous a. No barrier(s) present 1 .0
fish passage (such as or if present equipped
dams, waterfalls, etc.) with fish ladders or
between stream reach other provisions for
being evaluated and fish passage.
Long Island Sound. b. Barrier(s) present and 0.1
without provision for
fish passage.
5. Stream width. a. More than 100 feet. 1 .0
b. From 2 feet to 100 feet. 0.5
c. Less than 2 feet. 0.1
6. Water quality of stream. a. High: Minimal pollution- 1 .0
meets or exceeds Connec-
ticut DEP class B or SB
standards.
b. Medium: Moderate pollu- 0.5
tion-meets class C or SC
standards.
c. Low: Severe pollution- 0.1
class 0 or SD quality.
7. Dominant land use in a. Woodland, wetland, or 1 .0
watershed above wetland. abandoned farmland.
b. Active farmland, or 0.5
rural residential .
c. Urban and heavily de- 0.1
veloped suburban areas.
-30-
CONNECTICUT WETLAND EVALUATION METHOD DATA SHEET
FUNCTIONAL VALUE 4 - FINFISH HABITAT FOR WATERCOURSE(S) ASSOCIATED WITH WETLAND
(Cont'd)
A B C D
Evaluation Computations Evaluation Functional
Questions or Actual Value Criteria Value Index
(FVI )
PART A - STREAMS AND RIVERS (Cont'd)
8. Abundance of cover. a. Abundant-more than 70 1 .0
percent of water area
contains cover objects
such as submerged logs, -
undercut banks and float-
ing or submerged vegeta-
tion.
b. Moderately abundant-from 0.5
30 to 70 percent of wat-
er area contains cover
objects.
c. Scarce-less than 30 per- 0.1
cent of the water area
contains cover objects.
9. Spawning areas. a. If low gradient stream 1 .0
there are abundant areas
of grass and low growing
emergent vegetation
present which are flood-
ed several weeks in the
spring.
or
If a medium or high
gradient stream there
are abundant areas of
gravel suitable for
spawning.
b. Moderate amount of 0.5
spawning areas present.
FVI FOR PART A = Average of -
Column D
FOR PART A
-31.-
CONNECTICUT WETLAND EVALUATION METHOD DATA SHEET
FUNCTIONAL VALUE 13 - NOTEWORTHINESS
A g C D
Evaluation Computations Evaluation Functional
Questions or Actual Value Criteria Value Index
(FVI)
1. Wetland contains critical a. Yes. 1.0
habitat for a state or fed- b. No. 0.0
erally listed threatened
or endangered species.
2. Wetland is known to contain a. Yes. 1.0
an important historical or b. No. 0.0
archeological site.
3. Wetland is known to be a a. Yes. 1.0
study site for scientific b. No. 0.0
research.
4. Wetland is included on a a. Yes. 1.0
state or federal list of b. No. 0.0
natural landmarks.
5. Wetland has local signifi- a. Yes. 1.0
cance because it contains b. No. 0.0
the highest number of WVU's
within the study area for
one or more functional
values.
6. Wetland has local signifi- a. Yes. 1.0
cance because it has a doc- b. No. 0.0
umented biological, geo-
logical, or other feature
which is locally rare or
unique.
FVI FOR FUNCTIONAL VALUE 13 = 1.0 if the FVI for any question is equal to 1.0, otherwise the FVI
for FUNCTIONAL VALUE 13 is 0.0.
EVALUATION AREA FOR FUNCTIONAL VALUE 13 = Total area of wetland =
-65-
CONNECTICUT WETLAND EVALUATION METHOD DATA SHEET
FUNCTIONAL VALUE 6- EDUCATIONAL POTENTIAL
Location of Potential Educational Site
A B C D
Evaluation Computations Evaluation Functional
Questions or Actual Value Criteria Value Index
(FVI)
1. Ecological Integrity. (Average FVI from FUNCTIONAL
VALUE 2)
2. Proximity of potential edu- a. Within safe walking dis- 1.0
cational site to schools. tance.
b. Within 1/2 hour drive. 0.5
c. More than 1/2 hour drive. 0.1
3. Off road parking at poten- a. Wetland within walking 1.0
tial educational site distance or easily de-
suitable for school busses. veloped parking area
within 300 feet of edu-
cational site.
b. Moderate expense required 0.5
to develop parking area
within 300 feet of educa-
tional site.
c. Parking within 300 feet 0.1
of educational site not
feasible or expensive to
develop because of traf-
fic flow, soil suitabil-
ity, or other problems.
4. Number of wetland types or a. Four or more. 1.0
classes accessible or pot- b. Two or three. 0.5
entially accessible for c. One or none. 0.1
study at potential educa-
tional site.
5. Access to perennial stream a. Direct access available. 1.0
at potential educational b. Water access not avail- 0.5
site. able but feasible to
develop.
c. Access not feasible or 0.1
perennial stream not
present.
-40-
CONNECTICUT WETLAND EVALUATION METHOD DATA SHEET
FUNCTIONAL VALUE 6- EDUCATIONAL-POTENTIAL
(Cont'd)
A B C D
Evaluation Computations Evaluation Functional
Questions or Actual Value - Criteria Value Index
(FVI)
6. Access to pond or lake at a. Direct access available. 1.0
potential educational site. b. Access not available but 0.5
feasible to develop.
c. Access not feasible or 0.1
pond or lake not present.
7. Student safety. a. No known safety hazards 1.0
such as busy roads, steep
embankments, railroad
trestle, etc., within po-
tential educational site.
b. One or more.safety hazards 0.5
present which could be
overcome at moderate ex-
pense.
c. Obvious safety hazard which 0.1
would be difficult and/or
expensive to overcome.
8. Public access to poten- a. Public access prohibited 1.0
tial educational site. or controlled. Interfer-
ence with study area or
equipment unlikely.
b. Some access by general 0.5
public but at a level
which will not greatly
interfere with class
activities or equipment.
c. t)nlimited public access, 0.1
interference with study
area likely.
9. Level of ecological manage- a. Wetland within an organ- 1.0
ment. ized nature study center
or wildlife management
area.
b. Wetland managed secon- 0.5
darily for wildlife. _.
c. Area not under any eco- 0.1
logical management.
� m
—41—
CONNECTICUT WETLAND EVALUATION METHOD DATA SHEET
FUNCTIONAL VALUE 7 - VISUAL/ESTHETIC QUALITY
(Cont'd)
A B C D
Evaluation Computations Evaluation Functional
Questions or Actual Value Criteria Value Index
(FVI)
6. General appearance of the a. Undisturbed and natural : 1.0
wetland and surrounding No visual detractors
land use(s) visible from present such as litter,
primary viewing loca- abandoned cars, etc.
tion(s). b. Limited disturbance in 0.5
and/or around wetland-
minor visual detractors
present.
c. Severe disturbance-major 0.1
visual detractors present
such as landfills, aban-
doned gravel pits, etc.
7. Landform contrast. a. Wetland provides dramatic 1.0
contrast with surrounding
topography such as trap
rock ridges.
b. Wetland provides some 0.5
contrast with surrounding
topography.
c. Wetland provides no visual 0.1
contrast with surrounding
topography.
8. Dominant surrounding land a. Woodland, agricultural 1.0
use visible from primary land and well landscaped
viewing location(s). residential and commercial
areas.
b. Other residential and 0.5
commercial areas of
ordinary visual quality.
c. Urban and built-up areas 0.1
of low visual quality.
9. Area of wetland dominated a. More than 5 acres. 1.0
by red maple trees. b. From 1 to 5 acres. 0.5
c. Less than 1 acre. 0.1
FVI FOR FUNCTIONAL VALUE 7 = Average of —
Column D
EVALUATION AREA FOR FUNCTIONAL VALUE 7 = Wetland area visible from =
primary viewing location(s)
-47
r
CONNECTICUT WETLAND EVALUATION METHOD DATA SHEET
FUNCTIONAL VALUE 7 - VISUAL/ESTHETIC QUALITY
Location of Primary Viewing Locations(s)
A B C D
Evaluation Computations Evaluation Functional
Questions or Actual Value Criteria Value Index
(FVI)
1. Number of wetland types or a. Three or more. 1.0
classes visible from pri- b. Two. 0.5
mary viewing location(s). c. One. 0.1
2. Dominant wetland type or a. Marsh, open water. 1.0
class visible from pri- b. Shrub swamp. 0.5
mary viewing location(s). c. Forested. 0.1
3. Noise level at primary a. Low: Bird, wildlife, and 1.0
viewing location(s). other naturally occur-
ring sounds only.
b. Moderate: Some traffic or 0.5
other noise audible.
c. Loud: Continuous traffic, 0.1
factories, or similar
noises.
4. Odors present at primary a. Natural odors only-Note: 1.0
viewing location(s). Some natural odors may
be unpleasant.
b. Some unnatural odors pre- 0.5
sent such as automobile
exhaust.
c. Unnatural odors distinct 0.1
and noticeably unpleas-
ant.
5. Approximate extent of open a. More than 3 acres or 300 1.0
water visible from primary feet of stream.
viewing location(s). b. From 1 to 3 acres or 100- 0.5
300 feet of stream.
c. Less than 1 acre or 100 0.1
feet of stream.
-46-
CONNECTICUT WETLAND EVALUATION METHOD DATA SHEET
FUNCTIONAL VALUE 6- EDUCATIONAL POTENTIAL
(Cont'd)
A g C D
Evaluation Computations Evaluation Functional
Questions or Actual Value Criteria Value Index
(FVI)
10. Proximity of potential a. Upland forest or aban- 1.0
educational site to other doned farmland in var-
communities. ious stages of secondary
succession within short
walk to potential educa-
tional site.
b. Potential educational 0.1
site is not within short
walk to other plant
communities.
11. Visual/esthetic quality of a. Undisturbed and natural- 1.0
potential educational site. no esthetic detractors
such as litter, abandoned
cars, landfills, road
noise, etc.
b. Limited disturbance-minor 0.5
esthetic detractors pre-
sent.
c. Severe disturbance-major 0.1
esthetic detractors
present.
FVI FOR FUNCTIONAL VALUE 6 = Average of —
Column D
EVALUATION AREA FOR FUNCTIONAL VALUE 6 = Area of potential educational site =
-42-
MEMORANDUM
FEB 1I�
TO: Inland/Wetlands Commission South Windsor
Town of South Windsor
Owning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Patricia Bizzoco
Robert Riccobene, Residents of Chapel Hill Condominiums
RE: Proposal to build an Earth Products Waste Recycling plant on property
adjacent to Chapel Hill Condominiums
DATE: February 3, 1992
Following is a list of bird species that are known to be thriving on the
property in question:
1. Blue Heron
2. Green Heron
3. Cardinal
4. Red Winged Blackbirds
5. King Birds
6. Cat Birds
7. Northern Oriole
8. Brown Thrashers
9. Black-capped Chickadees
10. Thrush
11. Tufted Titmouse
12. Red-bellied Woodpecker
13. Hairy Woodpecker
14. Downey Woodpecker
15. House Finch
16. Purple Finch
17. Gold Finch
18. Ruby. Throated Hummingbirds
19. Towhee
20. Song Sparrow
21. White Throated Sparrow
22. Fox Sparrow
23. House Sparrow
24. Common yellow throated Warbler
25. Palm Warbler
This list was provided by Karen_ Phillips, formerly of Chapel Hill (1983-1988)
and still a concerned resident of South Windsor. Karen is a participant in the
Cornell University Birdfeeder/Watch program since 1984.
We are appealing to the Inland/Wetlands Committee to consider the ecological
value and importance of the property in proportion to the lack of necessity and
value of another 'Waste Recycling' facility.
x•-•� a .`g r ,+<"tr.37, i,a—�r..r,i. _ - t L::;„, fy R`::,� ati. .�� 1+. .
.'
' Connecticut State
. , MUSEUM OE NATURAL HISTORY
3 February 1992
John E. MaCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Application #91-43P
Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
Dear John,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-named development
project for its archaeological sensitivity. A search of the State of
Connecticut Archaeological Site Files and Maps shows no known
archaeological resource within the project area. However, three
prehistoric Native American settlements have been recorded on properties
immediately east and north of the project area. 'These sites represent
encampments of aboriginal. Indians exploiting natural resources along the
Podunk River, probably on a ,seasonal basis, beginning around 7,000 years
ago. Two sites are located across Route 5 and one site is located oil
Pleasant Valley Road, directly across from the project area. All three
sites are situated on well-drained soils above the river terrace.
While no sites are located within the project area, topographic and
environmental factors similar to those described for the three recorded
sites are present in the northeast portion of the property along the
Podunk River (See Enclosed Map). Undisturbed portions of this area have
a high sensitivity to undiscovered archaeological resources.
The Office of State Archaeology strongly recommends that an
archaeological survey of this area be conducted prior to any construction
activities. The survey should locate potential sites if they exist and a
management strategy can be developed to preserve. therm for the future. If
sites are located in an an area proposed for development, we would
recommend an intensive sssrvey to remove site material from the p>r'o je of
area to avoid any future impact on these historic resources.
The Office of State Archaeology is prepared to offer technical assistance
to the Town of South Windsor and Podunk Earth Products on this project.
Please feel free to contact me at any your convenience for any further
information.
Sincerely,
Ni olas F. Bellantoni
State Archaeologist
cc: 'Thomas Galeota, Fuss & O'Neill Consulting Engineers
Tkrh I Iniuprcitu nF C'rinnorliriit. I 1-71 9 7,, N. `ap1p.viEIP. Rrl_ • I;te7frS. C7 06269-3023 • (203) 486-4460
.rll
;r14
,
! ~ All K ��
jq -It1! 1 � l `.
�1�:/' ,��t�I�. � ���:: �`�: r /I��1 r /f.l'WI�
�� �y�: r_ 'ice—f// /�. �L1►1�W ��ie`��
No
01
41
"'r
kI
d CP
MAW1J
.POR
t %•r! yam, �rJ��H �'il
�.}'�� '� -���,��f,//�'j/ / "� � i ♦ �� try
c
�3
+'",' f _ LAW OFFICES OF
WAYNE CHRISTOPHER GERLT
435 BUCKLAND ROAD
199r `�•_ P.O. BOX 559
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.06074
TEL.(203)644.2565
Sou ``jj�r FAX(203)644.2567
INLAND vi :;, ;,yU, AGENCXl SENT BY FAX TO: 236-4986
CONStRVA,TIQN CO,(AMIS$1( 1
` February 5, 1992
Mr. Larry White
Hfiite & Katzman
606 Farmington Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
Re: Chapel Hill Condos. Application of Podunk Earth
Products Recycling Center, Inc.
Dear Mr. White:
As you may recall, I wrote to you in November concerning the referenced
application and discussed the matter with you during several telephone calls
during December.
At the last meeting of the Inland Wetlands Commission on Monday, February
3rd, it became apparent that many of the residents have questions and would be
served by an information session at which time the applicant and his
representatives could present a full overview of the project, all of the
safegaurds that have been built into the project and the design criteria and
considerations that went into the layout, as presently proposed.
My client remains ready to schedule a meeting to discuss the project with
the residence and is even willing to try to schedule that before the next public
hearing which has been set for February loth.
We are sending this to you by fax in the hopes that you can expedite the
communication to the association and perhaps agree to a meeting on Saturday,
February 8th.
Thank you.
Very tr o s,
W Chr'stopher Ger1t
WCG:aks
cc: Dennis Botticello
John McCahill
r'
February 7, 1992
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of P1hningFROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
RE: Podunk Earth Products Site Plan
We have reviewed the revised drawings received February 5, 1992
dated 11/26/91 for the proposed Podunk Earth Products Site Plans
and Fuss & O'Neill' s response to comments of December 3, 1991
dated January 22, 1992 also received February 5, 1992 .
General Comments
1 . . All drawings must have latest revision dates on them.
2 . If the Planning and Zoning Commission approves this
application, it is recommended that as a condition of
approval the applicant submit intermediate grading plans
for each of the phases . These plans should indicate the
proposed grading for the swales and the sedimentation
basin.
3 . The existing property contains items from unsupervised
dumping such as autos, refrigerators, barrels with
unknown substances etc. , which will need to be cleaned up
and. disposed of properly prior to any site improvements .
These may have already contaminated the soil and a test
of those areas would seem appropriate. This is not
covered in the plans nor the Design Report. Fuss &
O'Neill's letter of January 22, 1992 indicates this will
be done . as soon as the recycling facility is operational.
This must be done as soon as site development is started
and completed prior to its becoming operational.
. We have a concern that proper controls may not be
possible to ensure that this facility is operated as
indicated in the proposal.
Marcia A. Banach
February 7, 1992
Page 2
Site Plans
1 . Sheets S-8 & S-9 show an old structure with note "Remove
Existing Structure" . This note should indicate that this
material should be removed from site and disposed of in
an approved manner.
2 . Sheet S-5
a . Roof drains indicated to be "ADS brand or equal" .
As this is a long run of pipe at minimum slope, it
is recommended that no flexible pipe be utilized.
b. Same comment as 4c .
3 . Sheet S-6
a. A 10 ' wide gravel access road over pipes going into
and out of Sedimentation structure should be
provided. Also access road to outlet structure
should be provided.
b. The riprap ditch should be labeled as such.
C . Same comment as 4c.
d. The note #10 for Filling Operations on sheet El
should also appear on this sheet.
4 . Sheet S-3
a. Riprap outlet dimension not clear.
b. Same comment as 3d.
C. Access road should be identified with centerline
curve and tangent data.
5 . Sheet S-1
a. Same comment as 4c.
b. Handicap ramps should be provided for sidewalks
going across the driveway apron. A- Detail will be
required.
Marcia A. Banach
February 7, 1992
Page 3 .
Key Map
1 . Storm drainage and sanitary sewer flow arrows required
and identified as such.
2 . Variance for frontage should be referenced on drawings
that are to be filed.
JCl/jsv
cc: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works
- II
4
{
�P�owN Sf'q`�
Town
- L/�V/ S--O-UAV&U&ot
O �
C U
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
SOR-CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511
February 7 , 1992
Chapel Hill Condominium Association
Board of Directors
c/o Mr. Fred Smith
P-7 , St. Marc Circle
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Mr. Smith:
Re: Application #91-43P, Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
In response to the Intervention Statement (dated February 6 , 1992 )
that you submitted to the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation
Commission for application #91-43P; we would be glad to provide you
with plain copies of all applications , correspondence, memoranda,
plans , studies and supporting data submitted and hereafter submitted
to the Commission in connection with the application pending before
the Commission.
In accordance with Section 1-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes
we have calculated the estimated cost of reproducing the IWA/CC file
to date and would request prepayment as follows :
+490 pages at . 25 per page = $122 . 50
27 sheets for site plan at $1 . 60 = $ 43 . 20
The total fee to be prepaid is $165 . 70 . At such time as this is
submitted, we will gladly reproduce the file and make arrangements to
secure copies of the plans for you. You also have the option of
reviewing the files and selecting the material you desire to have
copied .
Enclosed is a copy of the schedule of all regular meetings of the
Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission for 1992 . If special
meetings are scheduled, you will be notified as soon as practical .
If you have any questions feel free to contact me in the Planning
Department . We also remind you that your are free to review the file
at any time during normal working hours here at the Town Hall .
Mr. Fred Smith Page Two February 7 , 1991
Very truly yours,
John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands
Enforcement Officer
JEM/pmm
cc : Richard M. Rittenband, Town Attorney
Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman, IWA/CC Chairman
Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
>T�
February 7, 1992
M E M 0 R A N D' U M
TO: John McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enf cement Officer
FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
RE: Podunk Earth Products Site Plan - #9rP
�j
We have reviewed the revised drawings received on 2-5-92 still dated
11-26-91 for the proposed Earth Products Site Plan and have the
following comments as they relate to Inland/Wetland and Conservation
concerns :
1 . Part of this proposal is to fill approximately 261± in
elevation over a large wetland area. We are concerned that a
large wetlands area is to be destroyed.
2 . The existing property contains items from unsupervised
dumping such as autos, refrigerators, barrels with unknown
substances, etc. , which will need to be cleaned up and
disposed of properly prior to any site improvements . These
may have already contaminated the soil and a test of those
areas would seem appropriate. This is not covered in the
plans nor the Design Report. Fuss & O'Neill's letter of
January ll, 1992 indicates that this will be done after
recycling center is operational. This should be done as part
of the construction of the recycling center and should be
completed before operations begin.
3 . We have a concern that proper controls may not be possible to
ensure that this facility is operated as indicated in the
proposal.
JCl/jsv
cc: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -
NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER
165 Capitol Avenue, Room 553
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Natural Diversity Data Base
February 4, 1992tv
John McCahill ' � ,'
Town of South Windsor 1
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074 FEB 6 1992
SOuil Windsor
Dear Mr. McCahill• INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY(
CONSERVATION COMMISSIO14
I have reviewed Natural Diversity Data Base' maps and files
regarding the area delineated on the map you provided: Podunk
Earth Products Recycling Center in South Windsor. According to
our information, there are no known extant populations of
Federally Endangered and Threatened Species or species proposed
for State Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern status
occurring at the site in question.
Natural Diversity Data Base information includes all
information regarding critical biologic resources available to us
at the time of the request. This information is a compilation of
data collected over the years by the Natural Resources Center's
Geological and Natural History Survey and cooperating units of
DEP, private conservation groups and the scientific community.
This information is not necessarily the result of comprehensive
or site-specific field investigations. Consultation with the
Data Base should not be substituted for on-site surveys required
for environmental assessments. Current research projects and new
contributors continue to identify additional populations of
species and locations of habitats of concern, as well as, enhance
existing data. Such new information is incorporated into the
Data Base as it becomes available.
Please contact me if you have further questions (566-3540) .
Thank you for consulting the Natural Diversity Data Base.
Sincerely,
�c
Nancy M. Murray
Biologist/Environmental
Analyst III
NMM/dmt
(Printed on Recycled Paper)
165 Capitol Avenue•Hartford,CT 06106
An Equal Opportunity Employer
f
1
t ,
l 1
February 10 , 1992
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission
FROM: John E . McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
RE: Appl . #91-43P, Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
At the February 3 , 1992 public hearing for the project referenced
above, the Agency requested information regarding private wells and
public water in the area of the proposed project. Please be advised
that the Metropolitan District Commission services the southwestern
portion of South Windsor and has about 1 ,493 customers in Town. The
M.D.C . service provided in the "block" surrounding the project is as
follows :
Chapel Road, between John Fitch Boulevard and Ellington Road: 18
of 23 properties are serviced by M.D.C.
Pleasant Valley Road, between John Fitch Boulevard and Ellington
Road: 37 of 42 properties are serviced by M.D.C .
- John Fitch Boulevard, between Pleasant Valley Road and Chapel Road:
5 of 9 properties are serviced by M.D.C.
- Jeffrey Drive: 4 of 5 properties are serviced by M.D.C.
Parkview Drive: none of the 15 properties are serviced by M.D.C.
Please note that the Town does not have an actual record of the
number of wells in the area.:
JEM/pmm
Enclosure
m
�i. '
it O \ Z AY
ASCO`p I ! U C
3 e \FIV 1, STA 710NI
/
iJ ' .A000AIS IF.RS—_
r r�l • lu
% Sq>•F'-., U� RO oRq ,,. �2 O= p GqO ?; ,
%1J/l' <</TF' q ✓v0Y� ' '�� I q �yv�P � `�•l �� nx,x(wr.xr
O
ryT W ;o
.J fi
r _
m
% 1
LE
J! ((APO(A•If '. �h 9�^V?%SJ,h/ ^.. '1�'.'ll.'I
_... I � pR ! \1 mgrYer4 :.1/1 Gg �Or - "•.�y..
O �'hYx'�'FS r• nS,jNoa! '�•
4 r _ OR �` Rivf.R O
r
:4 ' p , `
e h e
' 4 / , • / RpNpq, + R Rpk'gy �. \pvgRRY BROOK sn c C/RqR�/F a
D
4
w
,J , i,' ' � •� � Jry� �2 NORT~Fy m /� AMOR �P�� � � eRC-..
ASP Ch
,i,l••�J, M•fl.�• w�tR Mi.1..Hi'�i'1Q• +°qRk • �i �� \ 7ro FL � `1 O
j
• 'r pR m 2 A O F
LC w - m m ti
gsgryr ter,.. �c; oq c�F
x1, cr q c
( p �
d R
/ � O,? •SPA�Y �
Q l '� nvxhl.c rllh
ill\fl.�
Oa CNq e(, O CgRFY Cp`F • •
MAR Ty
q
LA RG '/ �?•'
_ sec 4RF 2
j1: �1.ODd 0 o4 eLVo T we
,rsr, L gv A /C L
RICIIARD M. RITTENI3AND RIM91YE1
AT T( �
)RNEY AT LAW FEB 19 992
1750 ELLINGTON ROAD
.A)UTH WINDSX)H.CONNECTIC'UT W074 South Windsor
INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY;•
(203)644-2456 CONSERVATION COMMISSION
February 13 , 1992
Ms . Marcia A. Banach
Director of Planning
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor , CT 06074
Re : Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center - Applicant ' s
Offer to Fund Staff Position
Dear Marcia:
This is in response to your letter of January 14 , 1992 as to
whether the applicant could pay the Town the amount of money
required to provide a Town employee to monitor the earth
filling operation.
It seems to me that under the provisions of Sec. 8-1c of the
General Statutes , which applies strictly to planning and
zoning, the only fees authorized to be charged to applicants
are those to cover the costs of "processing" applications and
then only if the planning & zoning commission has adopted a
schedule of such charges . Therefore , I do not see where there
is any authority for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
put a condition on approval that would require the applicant ,
even if voluntarily made, to pay for the cost of a Town
employee as suggested..
There is , perhaps , another way to do this . That would be to
put a condition on the approval that the applicant provide ,
on a periodic basis , tests and reports thereof done by a pro-
fessional engineering firm approved by the Town to ensure that
only clean fill is being deposited in the subject hole . The
applicant would, of course , pay the engineering firm, and the
Planning and Zoning Commission would have to feel comfortable
with accepting a report from .an engineering firm that was -
hired by the applicant . Further, the P & Z must have in its
Ms . Marcia A. Banach -2- February 13 , 1992
regulations the right to condition its approval on adequate
assurance from the applicant that the operations will not
cause adverse consequences under Sec . 8-2 of the General
Statutes .
On the other hand, under Connecticut General Statutes 22a-42a (e)
an inland wetlands agency can require an applicant for a wetlands
permit to pay for the costs of reviewing the application and for
"monitoring compliance with permit conditions or agency orders . "
Therefore , the inland wetlands agency, if it chooses to do so ,
could put a condition on its approval that the applicant pay the
Town for the cost of the town employee who would be hired to
monitor compliance with the permit conditions or agency orders
to the effect that only clean fill be deposited in the subject
hole .
I trust this answers the questions raised in your letter of
January 14 , 1992 .
Very ul ,
G
Rich rd M. Rittenband
Town Attorney
RMR: f d
cc : Betty Warren L-'�
Inland/Wetlands Agency
RICHARD M. RITTENBAND
ATTORNEY AT LAW FEB 90 M?
1750 ELLINCTON ROAD
CTICUT06071 UT AI O
SOUTHWINDSOR.CONNE INLAND WL 'D tNGYI
(203)644-2456 CONSERVATION COMMISSION
February 19 , 1992 y
Mrs . Betty Warren, Chairperson
South Windsor Inland/Wetlands Agency _
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor , CT 06074
Re : Application #91-43P
Dear Betty:
Per the IWA memo of February 11 , 1992 , you have asked whether
the intervenor' s petition of Chapel Hill Condominium Association
dated February 6 , 1992 is valid.
Section 22a-19 of the General Statutes requires the filing of a
verified pleading (petition) . A verified petition has to be
signed by the appropriate people who have to swear , under oath,
to the truth of the allegations in the petition. As it stands ,
the petition is not valid. It can be valid if :
The words "Intervention Statement" are inserted
1 and
"Notice of Intervention" ;of-ter the words N
2 . Either Ceil Gersten signs in both places where her
name appears or she is left out and Fred Smith and
Brian Groner are listed on page 4 of the acknowledgment
narrative as "being a majority of" the Board of
"
Directors . . . .
3 . All signatures are notarized by a notary public who
should affix his/her seal and state when his/her
commission expires ; or by an attorney (Commissioner
of the Superior Court) who should print his/her name
below his/her signature.
Very truly yo s , !✓
f
U
ichard M. Rittenband
� ! J Town Attorney
RMR: f d
I
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission
FROM: Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1992
RE: Application #91-43P, Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
Please note that we must act on application #91-43P by 3/16/92
and therefore, I would encourage the Commission to review the
information presented and be prepared to vote on the applicatior;.
I would also like to request that each of you be prepared to
concisely state the reasons for approval, or denial, of the
application; as we need to clarify that in the process of acting
on this application.
Thank you.
PMM
cc: Attorney Wayne C. Gerlt
John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer
SogN S{.,�
f r
�
F TOn ate SOUA �
a
U
9 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
i, SOR-Ca AREA CODE 203/644-2511
February 26, 1992
TO: Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairman, IWA/CC
FROM: John E. McCahill, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer �•q/m•
Re: Application #91-43P, .Podunk Earth Products Recycling Center
Please accept this as a follow-up to my letters dated October 21,
er 23 1991. Consideration has been given to
1991 and December
documents, correspondence, and plans submitted up to this date.
IF APPROVAL IS CONSIDERED, SUGGESTED APPROVAL CONDITIONS INCLUDE:
1 . Items from previous unsupervised dumping (such as autos, auto
parts, refrigerators, etc. ) shall be cleaned up and properly
disposed of as soon as the recycling facility is operational .
A plan for the clean up and restabilization of the area shall
be submitted to the IWA/CC for approval.
2. The barrels of unknown substance(s ) on the site shall be
removed, and properly disposed of, prior to any site
improvements . Soil tests shall be done to determine whether-
or not the soil is contaminated. If so, proper soil
remediation shall be done.
3 . The filling of the clay pit shall take place in accordance
with the phasing plan. Each phase shall be stabilized befor(
a new phase is started.
4 . Monitoring wells shall be placed around the fill area and
water samples shall be taken bi-annually. Results of water
samples shall be submitted to the Town.
5 . Any dust control problems are to be remedied immediately.
Ongoing operations, which are contributing to dust problems,
are to cease until dust control measures are implemented.
6 . Once the filling operation is complete, any future activity or
development of the site shall require approval by the IWA/CC.
When future development is proposed, a beltway along the
Podunk River is to be deeded over to the Town, or an
organization, that will ensure its preservation.
Page 1 of 2
Elizabeth A. Warren Page Two February 26 , 1992
Application #91-43P
7 . Adequate -funds shall be made available, by the applicant, to
provide a daily inspector for the site while the filling
operation is taking place. The details for this are to be
worked out with the Town Manager and the Town Attorney. The
inspector shall maintain a log indicating the origin of the
fill, shall monitor the site for compliance with the permit
conditions, and shall have other responsibilities as
determined appropriate by the Town.
8. In future development proposals, if any work is proposed near
the northeasterly portion of the property (along the Podunk
River) , an archaeological survey shall be conducted prior to
any construction activities . The survey shall determine
potential archaeological sites and a management strategy shall
be developed for preserving them. This shall be coordinated
with the Office of State Archaeology.
JEM/pmm
cc: Attorney Wayne Gerlt
Director of Planning
Town Engineer
I a�•f
e4
THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER
School of Medicine
Farmington, Connecticut 06032
February 28, 1989
Kathy Alexander
Compost specialist
DEP Recycling Program
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Dear Ms. Alexander
I attended your February 24 , 1989 workship on municipal leaf
composting as a representative of the Town of Canton (Chairman,
Conservation commission) . The program was a complete success,
very educational, and presented in an outstanding professional
manner. I appreciated your effort in this area.
Professionally, I am the Director of Pulmonary Research at the
University of Connecticut Health Center, and from a lung/health
standpoint, a potential problem exists. One of the practices of
composting (turning the piles) exposes the workers to antigens
which cause hypersensitivity pneumonitis (Farmer's lung disease) .
The bacteria (thermophilic actinomyces) responsible for the
composting process have been shown to cause hypersensitivity
pneumonitis. When the composting piles are turned, ' clouds of
these bacteria and their spores are dispersed from the piles and
can be inhaled by the workers. This presents a risk factor to
the workers. I strongly urge you to contact your health
professionals in this area for advice.
I do not believe that this, by any means, should terminate the
program. There are many avenues available to help eliminate or
minimize exposure. The fact that this occurs outdoors is helpful
and the workers wearing a filtering mask would also be
beneficial. The first step should be educational and recognizing
that the potential risk factor exists. Along these lines, I
would recommend that a mandatory class be taken for operators of
these facilities. I also would recommend that someone (or
agency) establish a set of guidelines which are acceptable to you
and health officials which would minimize exposure.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or
desire further information concerning this matter. I worked on
this group of lung diseases for six years in Wisconsin and feel
quite competent in this area.
An Equal oavortu+nr Employer
Kathy Alexander
February 28, 1989
Page 2
I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor. It is an important
step forward in our recycling efforts and I feel confident that
you will coordinate a fine program.
Sincerel ,
.Yf_~
Roger S. Thrall, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
Director of Pulmonary Research
Department of Medicine
RST:bcd
ppp-
452 �1 ih;Ga` Lieu;�uJ/ /le�� M. Schatz and R. Patterson
/ ! 6 F3 Hypersensitiv
Table 1. Etiology of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis (HP)' Tabh
!� �hermophilic actinomyces antigens
Wh
� + Name of disorder Antigen source` Wo Bagassosis Moldy sugarcane(bagasse) _
Farmer's lung Moldy hay and other moldy organic material on dairy
farms
Fog fever Cattle t Nam(
Mushroom worker's lung Moldy compost t Col
Thatched roof lung in one Col
instances Contaminated thatch
Gri
Ventilation system HP Tal
(certain cases) Contaminated air conditioning and humidification systems Te
i
Vineyard sprayers lung Vineyards Th,
- C
Fungal antigens
Name of disorder Antigen source Fungus To'
Cheese washer's lung Moldy cheese Aspergillus clavatus Ve
Cheese worker's lung Cheese mold Penicillium casei I
Dry rot HP Contamination of moist Mendius lacryrnans W(
wood
Farmers lung Moldy oats,corn Aspergillus in two
instances7"' j
Humidifier lung Humidifier water Cephalosporium in one
instance69
Japanese summer-type HP Home environment(?) Cryptococcus species
Malt worker's lung Moldy malt and barley Aspergillus species
i dust Etiology
i Maple bark stripper's lung Moldy maple bark Cryptostroma corticale
1 Paprica slicer's lung Moldy paprica pods Mu,cor stolonifer The
f Sauna-takers disease Contaminated water Pullularia Tab
V""Sequoiosis Moldy wood dust Pullularia/Graphium
Sewer water HP Flooding of a home with Cephalosporium mv�
• sewer water
z iris
J Suberosis Moldy cork Penicillium frequentans rtov
Other antigens rea((
Name of disorder Antigen source Antigen
of E
Bat lung(?) Bat droppings Bat serum proteins ani
Bird fancier's lung Parrot, parakeet, Avian serum proteins to t
budgerigar droppings
V Dirt HP Processed dirt Streptomyces a16us chE
Duck fever Feathers Duck proteins be(
Feather plucker's lung Chicken products Chicken proteins ren
Gerbil keeper's lung Gerbil excreta Gerbil proteins
Humidifier fever Contaminated water Amebae(?) tiot
Isocyanate HP Isocyanate containing Toluene diisocyanate
materials Diphenylmethanane mo
diisocyanate mi<
Pigeon breeder's lung Pigeon droppings Pigeon serum proteins hot
Pituitary snuff taker's lung Heterologous pituitary Bovine and porcine du,
- powder proteins val
Paulig reagent HP Paulig reagent Sodium diazobenzene
sulfate hot
Pyrethrum HP lnsectinde Pyrethrum hot
Rat lung Rat excreta Rat serum proteins exJ
Turkey handler's lung Turkey products Turkey proteins HF
453 f;�t; j:
d R. Patterson:' � Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis P ,
W. i+
Table 1. (continued)
Wheat weevil disease Infested wheat flour Sitophilus granarius
I k � l
�/ Wood dust disease Old wood dust Bacillus subtilis in one
instance"
on dairy Unknown antigens
-T.
Name of disorder Antigen source r` s
E:
i Coffee worker's lung Coffee dust ( :
Coptic lung Cloth wrappings of mummies
Grain measurers lung Cereal grain
ation systems Tap water disease Contaminated tap rater
Tea growers lung Tea
Thatched roof(New `tr Guinea)lung(most Thatch or contaminants
i!s'1 F"
cases)
Tobacco grower's lung Tobacco plants
system HP '
tvatus Ventilation s Air conditioning and humidification systems
(certain cases)
sei t
Wood dust disease (most t
Imans ✓ cases) Saw dust' k ,
I two 'Data modified from Salvaggio=and Pink'. l 1
'' g `
um in one
species
pecies t;
corticale
' Etiolo
Eer The various illnesses making up the HP group of disease are summarized in
Table 1. Many of the illnesses are caused by species of thermophilic actino-
phrum myces including Micropolyspora faeni, Tlzermoactinomyes vulgaris, T. saccliarii, T.
am
r"g viridis, and T. candidus. These ubiquitous, saprophytic organisms, which are !-l.
wentans now classified as bacteria, thrive well at 5O-60'C, temperatures commonly `lt;
♦f :ty
reached during the decay of vegetable matter.'
P Other HP illnesses are caused by fungi that contaminate the environments
of certain occupational groups. Still other illnesses are caused by heterologous
dein5
animal proteins, particularly avian proteins, with exposure often occurring
proteins O""' to the serum proteins present in excreta. More recently, HP caused by certain
isoc anates�'•I' and sodium diazobenzene sulphate" have
bus chemicals such as y
been reported..Finally, in some instances of apparent HP, the actual antigen
?:
ins j ` remains unknown.
s Although many of the HP illnesses are associated with unusual occupa-
tional exposure, an increasing number are being reported that may occur in ,
yanate
anane = � more common settings. For example, a contaminated air-conditioning or hu- �}
aw midification system may produce HP in the. common office setting,Zb•Z' at h,
proteins home,26.1 or even in an automobile.29 HP in the home has also been reported
t .I
rcine `� due to contaminated water from the tap,90 in a sauna, I and in a cool-mist
vaporizer." Avocational exposure to birds, including a single bird in the
t..I
Ienzene "W home," may produce HP. Finally, HP caused by wood dust exposure in the l;
home has been reported recently."Thus virtually all patients are potentially
Ieins exposed to known HP antigens, and additional antigens capable of causing
s .�.
• HP continue to be reported.
tt
i..
H. S. Novey CLIN REV ALLERGY 537
1:537-542, 1983
allergy to a factory
. Br kited j 2:94-95,
Capsule Reviews of Other Hypersensitivity
reak in office work,
,rs exposed to hum- 1 neumonitls Syndromes
tie Befeuchterlunge.
7, 1979 Harold S. Novey
Allergy 11:227-235,
rtamination of a car
Bagassosis
disease:2211en-
?36:2209-2211, 1976 Bagassosis is considered to be a form of hypersensitivity pneumonitis cause
"I species.J Allergy by the inhalation of the dust of bagasse—the residue of sugar cane fiber. It
is an occupational lung disease essentially limited to workers in the sugar
naire's disease. Am cane byproducts industry. Clinically, there is an acute form manifested by
..
fever, chills, cough, and dyspnea, and a more insidious form featuring cough,
dyspnea, weight loss, and radiographic findings of a diffuse interstitial lung
disease. It was categorized as an example of hypersensitivity pneumonitis
r not only by its clinical and radiographic features, but also by histologic,'
immunologic,'' bronchial challenge,' and animal model studies.'
p' The first published account is attributed to one case report by Jamison and
Hopkins' read before the Orleans Parish Medical Society in 1940. Miliary
tuberculosis was first suspected,but the authors concluded that their patient's
respiratory disease was caused by an unspecified fungal contamination of
bagasse dust. Their coined name for the condition, "bagasscosis," was sup-
planted by "bagassosis," a term preferred by British investigators who pre-
sented evidence of an allergic reaction based on immediate and delayed skin
tests to an extract of bagasse.'
Bagasse, originally the French word for refuse from olive oil mills, and by
derivation something worthless or even disreputable, gained commercial value
in 1922 when a Louisiana factory incorporated it into fiberboard building
material. Although respiratory illness associated with its processing likely
occurred shortly afterward,' the relationship was not recognized until the
1940 report. By 1967, some 480 cases from many countries had been reported
in medical literature.'Synthesis of the initial impressions of fungal and allergic
etiologies came from the work of Hearn and Holford Strevens in Trinidad
and London,' and Seabury et al in New Orleans' who isolated thermophilic
actinomycetes from bagasse dust and demonstrated precipitins in exposed
workers and positive bronchial challenge tests to extracts of the organisms.
Lacey" later classified the thermophile as a new species called Therinoactino-
mycetes sacclwri.
From the Department of Medicine,Division of Basic and Clinical Immunology,University of
California at Irvine Medical Center, Orange,California.
Send correspondence and,requests for reprints to Harold S. Novey, MD, Department of
Medicine,Division of Basic and Clinical Immunology, UC Irvine Medical Center,101 City Drive
South, Orange,CA 92668.
®1983 by Elsevier Science Publishing Co.,Inc. 0731-8235/83$03.00
52 Vanderbilt Avenue,New York,NY 10017
538 H. S. Novey Capsule Revie%N
O; -
t_ Treatment in individual patients has consisted of removal from the sources
were
F4
..: of exposure and corticosteroid administration.' Preventive measures. have tempt
been rewarding. In a Louisiana plant where bagassosis had once been en-
demic, the disease can no longer be found. Over a five-year period, changes scribe
' in storage and processing of bagasse apparently resulted in less microbial Schul:
the m
contamination and, in turn, healthier workers.'o
specif
De
_= Maltworker's Lung way t
The c
This form of hypersensitivity pneumonitis, peculiar to maltworkers, was first strati`
- shown to be the result of sensitization to the spores of Aspergillus clavatus in prote
a Scottish distillery in 1968."Although there were earlier reports of respiratory eratir
. .. illness among maltworkers in France in 1928, Hungary in 1958, and Czech- door!
oslovakia in 1966,1' most of the cases attributed to a hypersensitivity pneu- tatior
monitis (allergic alveolitis) have originated from Scotland."-'°
• Fergt
The diagnoses were supported in several reports by clinical, radiographic, mopl
mycological, immunoserological, and bronchial challenge studies. An epi- be tr,
cl miological survey of essentially all workers in Scotland's malting"industry duce
(711 of 768) by Grant et al in 1976"discovered an incidence rate of the disease
of 5.2%. The rate varied with the process used in the distilling. Malt-is barley is h '
s hil
that has been moistened, allowed to germinate, and then dried in order to M
allow natural enzymes to reduce proteins and starch to sugars. Both traditional facili
and more modern mechanized methods are used to promote germination. In peril
the traditional method, moistened barley is spread in a thick laver on an open imp(
concrete floor where fungal contamination is a danger.The mechanized meth- for t
ods are closed systems and contamination is minimized. The incidence of devc
hypersensitivity pneumonitis was 6.8`7o in open-floor malting vs 1.1% in the faem
best closed system. Preexisting atopy did not appear to be a predisposing and
factor because there was no difference in atopy between those with hyper- pne`
sensitivity pneumonitis and those without. These data support the evidence in tl
j for a type III (or IV) rather than type I allergic reaction. It appears that in
creasing mechanization of the malting process will result in the virtual elim-
ination of this form of hypersensitivity pneumonitis among maltworkers. WOOdwor
However, there was a recent disquieting report" of cavitary pulmonary dis-
ease by Aspergillus fumigatus in a worker in the industry. His exposure came
I not from the threshing floor, but from the contaminated malt dust left in the Sul:
jhopper of his truck used to transport the grain. Thi
ind
i as t
' Mushroom Worker's Lung beii
c This condition was first reported in 1959 as a variant of farmer's lung among in 1
t 16 patients who handled the compost used to grow mushrooms."All patients cor
were migrants from Puerto Rico, and they experienced either acute febrile 1
pneumonias or milder recurrent episodes associated with recurrent work ex-
posures. Other cases were not reported until 1967 when Sakula,18 using only Gu
aerological tests and not provocation challenges, identified thermophilic ac- sea
f tinomycetes as the sensitizers. f
After Sakula's four case reports, only 11 other ur
cases were reported in any detail."'In most of these cases, serum precipitins fur
:., AL
539
S. Novey Capsule Reviews
sources were not present to the thermophilics, but only to extracts of mushroom
the have composts not further identified. Of the eight bronchial challenges at-
a
jthe s been en- tempted,=0`' only one positive reaction was reported. The reaction was de-
ce
od, changes scribed only as a pyrexial response to a dilute extract of mushroom compost.'"
ss microbial
Schulz et al" attribute the disease to sensitization not to contaminants of
the mushroom compost but to the mushroom spores themselves, and more
specifically to Pleurotus florida, a common commercial mushroom.
Despite the relative paucity of reports of mushroom worker's lung, the
way this edible fungus is grown in some locations suggests the risks are high.
•rs, was first The compost is an amalgam of horse manure, grains, vegetable leavenings,
straws, and gypsum designed to produce a pH of 8-8.5 and an optimum
s clavatus in
protein content." It may be kept outdoors for weeks decomposing an gen-
E respiratory
and Czech- erating temperatures as high as 175°F. The compost then is transferred in-
and p Czech-
doors, perhaps to tiered platforms in windowless sheds, for further fermen-
tation. Live steam may be introduced to speed up the process in cooler climes.
idiographic, Fergus'-° examined the flora at this stage and found an abundance of ther-
es. An epi mophilic and thermotolerant fungi and actinomycetes.The compost may then
rig industry be transferred to trays where the mushroom mycelia called spawn are intro-
' duced. After the mushrooms are harvested, the compost is sterilized by steam
the disease -
!all the
is barley ing. Sometimes when the indoor temperature is over 10�F and the humidity
is high, workers remove the compost from the trays by hand.
all
traditional Mushroom growing is often a cottage-type industry with a number of sm
in order to
h traditional
I facilities employing perhaps a dozen or so workers scattered around the
periphery of an urban area. As in the case of the first report, migrant and
on an open imported workers may be used. Medical examinations are few and far between
nized meth-
cid for these individuals. This author treated a worker in such a facility who had
nence of
cid developed far-advanced pulmonary fibrosis and positive precipitins to M.
1.1%
in in the heing facni, but who returned to his native Mexico rather than risk exposure as an
with hyper- undocumented alien. Asthma and type I reactions but not hypersensitivity
evidence pneumonitis were found in eight workers exposed to dried mushroom extracts
he
lars he that in-
in the process of preparing soup products.='
virtual elim-
,altworkers• Woodworkers' Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis
:nonary dis-
,osure came
3t left in the Suberosis
This form of hypersensitivity pneumonitis, found among workers in the cork
industry, derives its name from the oak tree, Quercus suber, whose bark serves
as the source of the cork. The bark becomes contaminated with fungi after
being stacked wet for straightening purposes in hot,damp warehouses mainly
ung among in Portuguese factories.Z" Workers are exposed to dust and spores from the
All patients cork during sorting, grading, cutting, sanding, and packing operations.
icute febrile Pimentel and Avila" discovered that the most likely antigen was derived
nt work ex- from Penicillium frequentans among multiple fungal and bacterial contaminants.
' using only Guinea pigs and rabbits exposed to cork dust eventually developed nonca-
nophilic ac- seating granulomas, as well as inclusions of cork particles. This latter finding
fly 11 other has suggested that cork particles might enhance the pathogenicity of the
i precipitins fungal antigens by serving as a long-acting irritant and as a repository of
I
H. S. Novey ,y'_" Cap
540
fungal parts. However, it appears that clean, uncontaminated cork dust alone
._ is probably not capable of producing the disease.
= -
Precipitin tests using Penicillium frequentans extracts were found helpful in
confirming the diagnosis. While 38% of 648 cork workers had precipitins,
- only 1 of 157 nonworkers was positive. Furthermore, the positive rate for Mi
affected workers was 98% versus 7% for those unaffected.
As in the case of other industries, once recognition of the disease an
v. identification of the agent were established,various preventive measures were
° instituted. Better ventilation, increased hygiene, and the use of fungicides
M appear to have lessened the incidence of the disease.="Penicillin species have
r been incriminated not only in suberosis, but also humidifier lung(see section),
in citric acid manufacturers,' and Swiss cheese workers."
z:
,.-_;, .� ✓ Merle-Bark Disense
-:- Emanuel et al in 19623' first described interstitial pneumonitis in a paper mill
r worker and attributed the disease to sensitization to extracts from Conioshoriiun
"Y (later called Cryptostroma) corticale. The spore size measured 4-5 µm in di
ameter and the spore's distinct characteristics placed the fungus in a new
genus. These spores are able to enter wounds of tree trunks and broken
r,f
branches to eventually produce a sooty bark disease."
Towey et al in 1932 reported 35 cases of asthma among workers who
1 .
stripped the bark of maple trees infested with black dust from fungal con-
=s;
taminants.3a It is fascinating to learn that over 30 years later, when Emanuel's
R.
x. group rediscovered the disease, they obtained samples of Towey's original
�y <,-
-.:, mold from the maple logs and were able to grow an organism identical with
nr` Towey's and to even produce positive skin tests in their sensitized guinea
pigs.
A survey of a paper mill with 37 workers uncovered the disease in five,
confirmed by lung biopsy in four of them, a milder form in nine, and evidence
M of sensitization by precipitins in an additional four. Ambient air spore counts
correlated with the disease. When sanitary measures were installed, the spore
counts diminished and the disease was eliminated.35
There is a report's of a logger with acute hypersensitivity pneumonitis who
had precipitins to both C. corticale and to a thermophilic actinomycete, Sac-
<'`s: charomonospora viridis, but the bronchial challenge was positive only to an
extract of the latter organism.
"aR ✓ Wood-pulp worker's disease17 involved two workers exposed to f_u
_contaminated wood chips who had interstitial lung disease diagnosed by
biopsy, and who expene cn ed positive bronchial challenges of a biphasic type
to extracts of Alternaria species. The more severe reaction occurred 6 hr after
- ( exposure.
Hypersensitivity pneumonitis was suspected in another group of wood
handlers, but a survey of 45 workers engaged in stripping aspen tree bark
for pulp, known as popple peelers, failed to define a relation between the
work and lung disease. The authors concluded that the diffuse lung disease
present in four of the workers could be explained by nonimmunological causes.'
Another respiratory condition present in some 5% of workers in the western
541
S. Nov Capsule Reviews
.y y
r
hypersensitivityof
al red cedar industry resembles asthma
d no ase personal communication).
alone•k dust o
monttis have been ,locum
id helpful in
precipitins,
itive rate for Miscellaneous Syndromes
There are other entities (see Table repoin rts, lchlw will 1not be7con8de considered
disease and scribed in either a single or a few p
easures were separately. Some of the syndromes may no longer exist because of complete
)f fungicides removal of the antigenic source, while others are newly recognized. The
species have number of entries attest to the productive activity in this field.
(see section), -
References
I. Boonpuckna Sig V of amara pulmonary biopsies from six cases. Am]Clan Pathol�9 bh-4 2, 1973
pathological
V:Immunological aspects of Bagassosis.Br J Ind Med 25:283-2 ,
i aaer mill
pp 2. Hearn CED,Holford-Strevens
Con iosPori um 1968
and
-5 µm in di- 3. Seabun•J,Salvaggio J,Buechner H,Kum ldv Bagassosis.3.Isolation of Med
12 :351 36
;us in a new mesophilic actinomvicetes and fungi from moldy bagasse.Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 129:351-360,
eu-
and broken 1968
4 Kawai monitis,Sh bagasse and t e W,H rric aO nomyc e antigen.J Allergy Clin Immunol 50:276-288,
a fungal con- 5. Jamison SC,Hopkins J:Bagasscosis:a fungus disease of the g.N Orl Med Surg J 93:58(i-58 ,
workers who 1972 lung.
en Emanuel's 1941
on JL: Bagassosis: an industrial lung disease. Br M
ti'ey'S Original 6. Castleden LIM, Hamilton-Patters ed J
2:478-480, 1942 with further historical
identical with 7. Buechner HA, Prevatt AL,Thompson J,Blitz O:Bagassosis:a review,
data,studies of pulmonary function,and results of adrenal steroid therpy.Am J Med?5:7
�itized guinea -247•
1958
isease in five, 8. Buechner HA:Bagassosis. GP 35:108-114, 1967
and evidence 9. Lacey J:Thermoactinomyces acchari sp.nov.,a thermophilic actinomvicete causing Bagassosis•
J Gen Microbiol 66:327-338, 1971
spore counts
Weill H, Salvaggio JE: Elimination of bagassosis in Louisiana paper
lied, the spore 10. Lehrer SB, Turer E,
manufacturing plant workers. Clin Allergy 8:15-20, 1978
11. Riddle HFV, Channell S, Blvth W, Weir DM, Llovd NJ, Amos WMG, Grant IWB; Allergic
-umonitis who alveolitis in a maltworker.Thorax 23:271?80, 1968
omycete, Sac- 12. Riddle HFV:Prevalence of respiratory symptoms and sensitization by mould antigens among
ve only to an a group of maltworkers. Br J Ind Med 31:31-35, 1974
13. Channell S, Blyth W, Lloyd M,Weir DM, Amos WMG, Littlewood AP, Riddle HFV,Grant
!Sect to fungal IWB:Allergic alveolitis in maltworkers:a clinical, m}'colugical, and immunological study. Q
diagnosed al J Med 38:351-376, 1969
i basic type 14. Grant IWB`sBlla`kadd Jrl 4 Greenberg
erg M Bhth W. Extrinsic allergic alveolitis in Scottish
i b P yP maltwork
xred 6 hr after 15 Blyth W,Grant lWB,Blackadder ES,Greenberg M:Fungal antigens as a source of sensitization
and respiratory disease in Scottish maltworkers. Clin Allergy 7:549-562,horax 36:5
52-553, l
roup Of wood 16. Ellis ME, Friend JAR: Progressive Ioh ntJ sease Respirator in a y disease of mushroomwo kers:fa8m
spen tree bark 17. Bringhurst LS,Byrne RN,Gerson-Co
n between the er s lung. J Am Med Assoc 171:101-104, 1959
18. Sakula A:Mushroom-worker's lung. Br Med J 1967 28
>e lung disease 9-1293, 1970
,logical causes.'
19. Craig DB:Mushroom-workeus lung.Can Med Assoc)
20. Jackson E, Welch tCMA:Mushroom worker's lung.Thorax 25:25-30, 197
in the western
I
H. S. Novey
542
21. Chan-Young M, Grzybowski S,Schonell ME:Mushroom worker's lung. Am Rev Respir Dis
r` J
105:819-822, 1972
��- 22. Stewart C): Mushroom worker's lung—two outbreaks. Thorax 29:252-257, 1974
- 23. Stewart CJ, Pickering CAC: Mushroom worker's lung. Lancet 1:317, 1974
24. Schulz KH, Felten G, Hausen BM:Allergy to the spores of Pleurotus Florida. Lancet 1:29, 1974 '
25. Moster U, Hausen BM,Felten G,Schulz KH:Mushroom worker's lung caused by inhalation
of spores of the edible fungus Pleurotus florida("ovster mushroom").Dtsch Med Wochenschr
-` 101:1241-1245, 1976
_ 26. Fergus CL: The thermophilic and thermotolerant molds and actinomycetes of mus room
Y. ;. compost during peak heating. h4ycologia 56:267-284, 1964
W, McLean DA: Type I allergy in mushroom soup processors. Clin
27. Symington IS, Kerr J _
;.L Allergy 11:43-17, 1981
j M1t' 28. Avila R,Lacey J:The role of PenicilliumFrequentans in suberosis(respiratory disease in workers
in the cork industry). Clin Allergy 4:109-117, 1974
-x- -
u` S" 29. Pimentel JC, Avila R: Respiratory disease in cork workers("suberosis"). Thorax 28:409 423,
a 1973
30. Horcj�i M, $ach J,Tom�ikova A, tiled A:A syndrome resembling farmer's lung in�+orkers
inhaling spores of aspergillus and penicillia moulds. Thorax 15:212-217, 1960
..
31. deWeck AL, Gutersohn J, Butikofer E: La maladie des laveurs de fromage. Schweiz Me
Wochenschr 99:872-876, 1969
Wenzel FJ: Ma le bark disease. N Engl J Med 266:333-337, 1962
32. Emanuel DA, Lawton BR, P
33. Gregory PH, Waller S: Cryptostroma n,rticale and soot♦ bark disease of sycamore (flier pseu
doplatanus). Trans Br Mycol Assoc 34:579-597, 1951
34. Towev JW, Sweany HC, Huron WH: Severe bronchial asthma apparently due to fungus
spores found in maple bark. JAMA 99:453-459, 1932
35. Wenzel FJ, Emanuel DA: The epidemiology of maple bark disease. Arch Environ Health
14:385-389, 1967
,.
*� '= 36. Greene JG, Treuhaft MW, Arusell RM: Hypersensitivity pneumonitis due to 81 ammo-
a:.:
nospora viridis diagnosed by inhalation challenge. Ann Allergy 47:449-452, 19
r 37. Schlueter DP, Fink JN, Hensley GT: Wood pulp workers' disease: hypersensitivitypneu-
_�t._,_...; monitis caused by Alternaria. Ann Intern Med 77:907-914, 1972
38. Thiele WH,Banaszak EF,Fink JN,Unger GF,Scanlon GT:Hypersensitivity studies in popple
=3 (aspen tree) peelers. Chest 67:405-407, 1975
1
'` Y