Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
App 18-48P Connecticut Soil
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM , Application Number: Official Receipt Date: I19 n v Munis Application I 1Tf1N11�19 ;�til ��• APPLICANT: 1`AC-2 �o�,fo� �06-� ii�(., ��5���c�D CT b(,14gPj PROJECT NAME: '�3 l COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: "i2-0 :16k/yo V,�cU C0 v`Vne C'-T,wT © 1 'Reai-4-f GL'C� a�P�canfi OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS:Q 17e���s �e'ct,c ello Tso-,,t r�Ol��ee��e LckUe tyaa� OWNER ADDRESS: art ) SUt' f- CT 0('0tA Z GIS PIN # Li-10 P QkL1 ZONE 1 S©C L.,u 2,2G NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE & EMAIL ADDRESS OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED: C,�n� . `51,�UsAo.4 �S�oc�c��es L.L.0 §0 g3 r"��c 9' Las-, UJ, S3�F0 to Z�—0 (o fiLdO «CJ 5Sc'1=GC�� Estimated presentation time: THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply): ❑ Zone Change to (Public Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Required) ❑ Open Space Subdivision/Resubdivision (Public Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Required) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Minor ❑ Major ❑ Resubdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Minor ❑ Major ❑ Conditional Subdivision ❑ Special Exception to Table (Public Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Required) Site Plan of Development 0 New ❑ Modification Building(s) Sq Ft ❑ General Plan of Development ❑ Earth Filling (Sec. 7.6) and/or Earth Removal (Sec. 7.16) (Public Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Required) ❑ Regulation Amendment ❑ Zoning ❑ Subdivision - Attach proposed amendment (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Temporary and Conditional Permit (Public Hearing Required) for ❑ Temporary and Conditional Permit Renewal for ❑ Detached In Law Apartment or ❑ Accessory Apartment (Public Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Required) ❑ Major Home Occupation (Certificate of Mailing Required) for ❑ Other (explain in detail) PLEASE NOTE: An Application Pending Sign is required to be posted on the property for all applications ten (10) days prior to being heard by the Commission. -�. Signatur ant Signature of Property Owner Print N of Applicant/��UV�e� Print Name of Property Owner Revised 1/9/2017 RUSSO SURVEYORS • ENGG EERS P O BOX 938, EASE WIN S R. CT 06088 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CT: (860)623-0569 DATE: 9-6-18 JOB NO. 2018-007 MA: (413) 785-1158 ATTN: Michelle Lipe TO Town of South Windsor RE: CT Soil Planning Department WE ARE SENDING YOU ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover Via Deliver the following items: ❑ Cover Letter ❑ Paper Prints ❑ Mylars ❑ Specifications ❑ Report ❑ Other COPIES DATE SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION 3 9-5-18 410 Site Plan 2 9-4-18 1/1 PZC Application 2 9-5-18 44 Check List 2 9-4-18 450 Drainage Report 1 9-4-18 Check No. 1009 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED (as checked below): ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ For review and comment ❑ As requested ❑ For signature ❑ For your records ❑ Returned after loan to us ❑ Forbids due REMARKS: CC' SENT BY: Page 1 of 1 TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CHECKLIST REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE PLANS APPLICANT L.,oyVJ er`, r.� ink\ V, PROJECT NAME CVvWAer- �cLc�1 �o 1 This checklist must be signed by plan preparer (P.E./L.S.) declaring that all required information is provided. Items 1-7 are required for all applications; items 8-11 required where appropriate. Check mark for each item supplied. J 1. On each sheet for plans or maps, title block with the following information: ,f a. Name, address and telephone of applicant. V b. Name, address and telephone number of Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer. c. Name of Development. d. Date when drawings were made. J2. Key Map: An overall map drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals either 100 feet or 200 feet. This map will show the overall design of the Development and surrounding property within 500 feet. a. Data block which gives needed zoning information such as percentage of lot coverage, acreage of tract, number of apartment units, parking requirements, etc. b. Outline of buildings. Jc. Layout of streets. Jd. Surrounding property boundaries-within 500 feet. V e. Names of abutting property owners. f. Proposed open spaces and recreation areas. ./ g. Driveway cuts on abutting properties and any properties across from / proposed site. j/ h. Distance to and name of nearest intersection street. k3. Architectural Elevations: See attached checklist for Architecture and Design Review. 1 ./ 4. Plot Plan: A layout map of the proposed site drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet on either of the following size sheets: (1) 24" x 36" with a 3/4" ruled / margin; (2) 18" x 24" with a 1/2" ruled margin, containing the following data: v a. Distance and bearings of all boundary lines and acreage of site. Iron pins 1 required at all property angle points and shown on map. N� b. Proposed streets and street lines with center line station, curve data, and parking spaces. Jc. Building lines in accordance with zoning regulations. Jd. Proposed buildings and other structures, including signs, outside lighting, and dumpsters (on concrete pad and screened). 4Z e. Easements, noting grantors, grantees, and purpose must be shown in table format, e.g. below Grantor Grantee Type of Date Filed Vol/Pg Easement �l f. Names of abutting property owners. �1 g. Monuments will be indicated at corners and angles of all streets and at all points of curvature and tangency. The monumented points within proposed site shall be coordinated. These coordinates shall appear in tabular form on the plot plan. The accessibility of these CGS points shall be determined by the Town Engineer. h. All open space or other common or public land uses shall be indicated. i. A-2 certification; P.E./L.S. Seal. V/ 5. Topographic Map: A map drawn to a scale of 1 inch to 40 feet on sheets not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled margins shall in addition to the requirements of the plot plans show the following: a. All existing and proposed buildings. Jb. Curb Lines and pavement width, sidewalks. c. Existing and proposed sanitary sewers. d. Existing and proposed water and-all existing utilities. 2 Je. Present wooded area indicated by foliage lines. Any trees to be saved should be shown. f. Existing and proposed contours shall be shown in not less than two-foot intervals, but in cases of relatively.level land, the contours shall be one- foot intervals and spot elevations. g . Regulated wetlands and 100-year floodplain or note that none are present. h. Proposed storm drainage system, showing all catch basins, endwalls, manholes, lengths and sizes of pipes and elevations of structures. (Maximum distance between catch basins shall be 300 feet and minimum size of storm drain lines shall be 15 inches, within Town ROW.) If plan/profile sheet is provided all of this does not need to be shown. Only top of frame elevations and inverts of open discharge pipe shall be shown / on this plan. J i. Connections of all springs into proposed storm drainage system as needed. j. Location and indications of existing brook channels, and 100-year flood Ilimits. k. A-2 &T-2 Certification; P.E & L.S. Seals. 6. Landscaping plan 7. Drainage calculations: - Zero Runoff Increase per attached guidelines. 8. Traffic Report 9. Site Lighting Plan 10. Plans and Profiles: A plan and profile of the proposed streets drawn on plan/profile paper of scales 1 inch to 40 feet horizontally, and 1 inch to 4 feet vertically on sheets not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled margins and containing the following: a. Layout of streets in sections coordinated by stations with the profile. b. Street plan showing roadways, drainage, sanitary sewer (including house sewer), foundation drains, lot lines, buildings including all utilities with A elevations (top frame and inverts), size, type, length, slopes of pipes. f 1 c. Sight line at driveway &street intersections. 3 d. Profile of roadway showing existing and finished grades. Roadway profile will show all tangent grade and all vertical curve information. N� e. Profile will show all catch basins and all drainage lines between catch basins with all invert and top of frame elevations, sizes, lengths and slopes of pipes. �► f. Where any storm drainage line discharges into an existing brook sufficient profile of this brook will be shown to determine conditions. g. CGS datum shall be used on all sites accessible to these controls. The Town Engineer shall, based on standard engineering practices, determine the accessibility of these controls. n h. Profiles shall show all sanitary sewer lines and manholes, including elevations, (inverts, top of frame) sizes, lengths, and slopes of pipes. Top of foundation elevations for building shall be shown. %K1 11. Open Space Site Improvement Plans: For sites which require or include a provision for open spaces, a plan which contains data for site improvement may be required. This map shall be drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet. 12. Sanitary Report: Where individual sanitary sewage disposal systems are proposed, the final plans shall include a Sanitary Report certified by a Professional Engineer. The report shall demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed individual systems. tt PLAN PREPA ER (P.E./L.S.) DATE February 2002; Rev. 4-04 4 DRAINAGE REPORT Connecticut Soil 420 John Fitch Boulevard South Windsor, CT September 4, 2018 Prepared for: Connecticut Soil 1462 Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 Project No. 2018-007 Prepared by.- J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC Land Surveyors & Professional Engineers Licensed in CT&MA P.O. Box 938, East Windsor, CT 06088 Ph: (860) 623-0569 Fax: (860) 623-2485 www.jrrusso.com L INTRODUCTION A. Project Description Connecticut Soil is proposing to develop property at 420 John Fitch Boulevard in South _ Windsor, Connecticut for the purpose of storing an �`processin _earth excavation `materials. The subject site includes the 4.92 acres at 420 Jo��itch Boulevard and 15.08 acres of surrounding land which will be leased. Although the total area of the site encompasses 20 acres, the majority of the activity will occur on approximately 9 acres including the land at 420 John Fitch Boulevard and the immediate area to the east. New construction will be limited to an extension of the existing railroad spur, the clearing of .,. additional land to be used for material storage, the construction of an access drive out to Chapel Road, the installation of a truck scale, and the construction of a ramp and elevated conveyor system. The only new impervious area is associated with the new access drive. In order to manage the runoff from the new driveway and materials storage area, a series of subsurface and surface infiltration systems are proposed. In addition, a pair of existing drywells that currently collect runoff from existing paved areas, but are full of sediment, will be replaced with new catch basins and a subsurface infiltration system. B. Existing Conditions 420 John Fitch Boulevard is an industrial site located at the rear of other industrial lots in the vicinity of John Fitch Boulevard and Chapel Road. The site is accessed by a common driveway off of John Fitch Boulevard. The site is currently occupied by a small office building and three larger warehouse buildings. A spur of the Connecticut Southern Railroad enters and terminates on the northern portion of the site. The western portion of the site in the vicinity of the buildings is either paved or consists of packed traprock. The middle portion of the site is currently cleared, bare soil. The western portion of the site is undeveloped woodland. The majority of the site is relatively flat at an elevation of approximately 68 feet. Runoff from the developed western portion of the site is currently directed to one of two drywells located within depressions in this area. These drywells were observed to be full of sediment and not functioning properly. Overflow from the drywells appears to flow to the south toward an existing detention basin on the abutting property. The northern and eastern portions of the site slope gently toward the north. A steep slope exists just beyond the railroad spur that leads down to a former mined clay pit to the north. The clay pit area has developed into a large wetland. Another area of interest related to the proposed project is a 70-foot wide strip of land that extends to Chapel Road near the southeastern corner of the site. The strip is currently wooded and contains a depression where runoff appears to accumulate and infiltrate back into the sandy soils. The strip is located between two developed industrial properties. Based on the topography, it appears that runoff from both of the adjacent properties flows into the depression within the strip of land. Overflow from the depression appears to flow Page I of 6 — toward the same detention basin where overflow from the western portion of the site goes. Based on a review of the USDA Soil Survey of Hartford County, the site soils are classified as Udorthents-Urban Land complex (See Soils Map in Appendix 1). This soil category is typically used to classify previously developed areas. The USDA Soil Survey defines groups of soils into Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG) according to their runoff- producing characteristics. Soils are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D Groups). In group A, are soils having a high infiltration rate when thoroughly wet and having a low runoff potential. They typically are deep, well drained, and sandy or gravelly. In group D, at the other extreme, are soils having a very slow infiltration rate and thus a high runoff potential. They have a hardpan or clay layer at or near the surface, have a permanent high water table, or are shallow over nearly impervious bedrock or other nearly impervious material. The HSG classification of the Udorthents-Urban Land complex is HSG B for the underlying soils and D for the developed areas. Two test pits and percolation tests were conducted on October 8, 2001 to confirm soil conditions at the site. The test pit, perc test locations and results are provided on Sheet 5 of the plan set. The test pits confirmed the presence of fine loamy sand subsoil overlying a fine to coarse loamy sand substratum. No clay or evidence of the water table was detected in either of the test pits which were dug to 10-foot depth. Perc tests performed at the test pit locations revealed a perc rate in the fine loamy sand subsoil at test pit #1 of approximately 8 min/in, and a rate in the fine to coarse loamy sand substratum at test pit #2 of approximately 0.33 min/in. In April of 2002, additional soil samples were collected from three locations at the site and analyzed for permeability. Sample locations are shown on Sheet 5 of the plan set. Samples were collected from the sandy substratum soils at depths of 4'-7'. The resulting permeability rates were measured at 9.5 in/hour, 12 in/hour and 22 in/hour(See Appendix 1). The average permeability rate is calculated to be 14.5 in/hour. IL STORMWATER R UNOFF A NA L YSIS A. Methodology r The peak runoff flow rated for the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year and 100-year, 24 hour design storms were determined for pre- and post-development conditions using Applied Microcomputer System's HydroCADTM Stormwater Modeling System. This computer software employs the SCS Technical Release 55 and 20 (TR-55 & TR-20) methodology. As stated above, the runoff from the developed western portion of the site currently overflows to the existing detention basin to the south of the site. However, as a result of the development, this runoff will be redirected to the north, essentially eliminating any discharge from the site in this direction. As a result, it was not deemed necessary to analyze this design point. Thus, two design points were selected in order to determine allowable release rates from the proposed stormwater management systems and Page 2 of 6 surrounding on site drainage areas. Design point DPI is the northern property boundary leading toward the former clay pit. Design point DP2 is the overflow location from the existing depression located within the access strip at the southeastern corner of the site. Design point locations are shown on the Drainage Area Maps in Appendix 2. B. Pre-Development Hydrology The pre-development area to the site was divided into four subcatchments as shown on the Pre Development Drainage Area Map in Appendix 1. Subcatchment I includes the developed western portion of the subject site that overflows to the detention basin to the south. As discussed above, due to the re-direction of this runoff as a result of the proposed development and elimination of discharge toward the south, this area was not included in the analysis. Subcatchment 2 includes the remaining portion of the developed area that contributes runoff toward the clay pit to the north (DPI). Subcatchment 3 includes the undeveloped, wooded area that contributes runoff toward the clay pit to the north (DPI). Subcatchment 4 includes the area that contributes runoff to the depression within the access strip which overflows to design point DP2. Pre-development runoff characteristics for each of the subcatchments are provided in Appendix 3. A summary of the calculated peak flows is provided in Table I below. C. Post Development Hydrology The development of the project site will include an extension of the existing railroad spur, the clearing of additional land to be used for material storage, the construction of an access drive out to Chapel Road, the installation of a truck scale, and the construction of a ramp and elevated conveyor system. The only new impervious area is associated with the new access drive. Runoff from the development will be collected and diverted through a series of surface and subsurface infiltration systems designed to provide treatment, groundwater recharge, and reduction in peak discharge from the site. The proposed drainage system will include new catch basins, manholes, piping, a stormwater treatment unit, two subsurface infiltration systems, two surface infiltration basins, and a new outlet constructed at the toe of the slope into the adjacent clay pit to the north(DPI). The design points selected for calculations of the pre-development condition are also used for the calculations of the post-development condition. The post development site is divided into 6 subcatchments as shown on the Post Development Drainage Area Map in Appendix 2. Subcatchment 1 includes the developed portion of the site that discharges to the southern drywell. This drywell is to be replaced with a catch basin and the runoff diverted through a treatment unit prior to conveyance to DPI. Subcatchment 2 includes the developed portion of the site that discharges to the northern drywell. This drywell will be replaced with a catch basin that will discharge to Subsurface Infiltration System #1 which will overflow to DPI. Subcatchment 3 includes the majority of the new driveway along the southern property line that is designed to sheet flow into Surface Infiltration Basin #1 with an overflow to DPI. Subcatchment 4 includes the remaining eastern portion of the site that will sheet flow to Surface Infiltration Basin #2 with an overflow to DP 1. Subcatchment 5 includes the area contributing runoff to the depression Page 3 of 6 within the access strip to Chapel Road. This runoff will be collected and diverted to a subsurface infiltration system #2 with and overflow to DP2. Subcatchment 6 includes the area along the northern portion of the site that will continue to sheet flow to the clay pit to the north (DP 1). The post development subcatchment characteristics are summarized in the attached HydroCAD data sheets in Appendix 4. —. The bottom of proposed surface and subsurface infiltration systems are set at elevations consistent with the loamy sand subsoils at the site. As discussed above, the average permeability of these soils was measured to be approximately 14.5 in/hour. However, for the purpose of the design, the lower permeability of 10 in/hour was used. This rate was further adjusted to assume 50% clogging as a worst case, leaving a design infiltration rate of 5 in/hour. The surface infiltration basins will be finished with a layer of crushed stone i rather than topsoil in order to ensure that the permeability of the underlying sandy soil is the limiting factor with regard to infiltration from the basin. Subsurface infiltration system #1 consists of 70 Stormtech SC-740 chambers on a 6" bed of stone. The system provides a storage volume of approximately 5,639 cubic feet prior to backing up over a weir located in a DMH2 and into the piped outlet to DP 1. Subsurface infiltration system # 2 consists of 28 Stormtech SC-740 chambers on a 6" bed of stone. This subsurface system provides a storage volume of approximately 2,368 cubic feet. In addition to the storage within the subsurface system, the area surrounding the catch basin inlets provides an additional capacity of approximately 15,400 cubic feet prior to the water level reaching the point where it will spill over onto the abutting property to the west (DP2). Surface Infiltration Basin #1 will be approximately 2' deep with a storage capacity of approximately 19,766 cubic feet. It will be equipped with a yard drain to provide an emergency overflow to the piped system which discharges at the edge of the clay pit to the north (DPI). Surface Infiltration Basin #2 will be approximately 3' deep with a storage capacity of approximately 31,618 cubic feet. It will be equipped with a catch basin to provide an emergency overflow to the piped system which discharges at the edge of the clay pit to the north (DP 1). Using the characteristics described above, the Post Development peak flow rates for the site were calculated for the design storms. Refer to Appendix 4 for HydroCAD data sheets. Table 1 compares the pre-development peak flows with the post-development peak flows at the design points. The resulting post-development peak flows are less than the pre-development peak flows at the design points. It should be noted that both surface infiltration basins have been designed to infiltrate the entire 100-year design flow from their respective contributing areas prior to any discharge. Likewise, Subsurface Infiltration System #1 will infiltrate up to the entire 10- year prior to overflow. With regard to Subsurface Infiltration System #2, the peak water surface elevation does not exceed the rim elevation of the connected catch basins until the 25-year design storm. Page 4 of 6 Thus, the system is adequate to contain at least up to the 10-year design storm without any overflow. During the larger storm events, some water will pond above the catch basins within the existing driveway and surrounding depression. However, even during — the 100-year storm event, this water is anticipated to drain back to levels below the elevation of the catch basin grate within a matter of about two hours. Only during the 100-year storm event does the water level reach an elevation where it can spill over onto the adjacent property to the south as it does currently. At no time does the water elevation spill over into Chapel Road. TABLE 3 - PEAK FLOW COMPARISON 2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year — Design Point Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post 1 5.1 4.9 10.1 E73 12.9 8.9 17.9 14.22 0.1 00 00 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 D. Pipe Sizing All piping proposed at the site consists of smooth bore high density polyethylene corrugated plastic pipe (HDPE). The roughness coefficient used for this pipe type is 0.012. The analysis provided in Appendix 4 indicates headwater elevation at each pipe inlet for the design storms and compares it to the flood elevation, which corresponds to the top of frame. With the exception of catch basins #4 and #5 upgradient of Subsurface Infiltration System #2 discussed above, the calculations demonstrate that the proposed pipes have sufficient capacity for the 100-year design storm without exceeding the flood elevation. E. Treatment All infiltration systems have sufficient capacity to infiltrate at least the 10-year design storm without any discharge. The only impervious area that does not discharge to one of the infiltration basins is the area that discharges to catch basin #1. In order to provide treatment of the stormwater prior to discharge, a CDS stormwater treatment unit is proposed immediately downstream of this catch basin. The CDS unit is design to remove a minimum of 80% of the total suspended solids (TSS) in accordance with the CT Stormwater Quality Manual. Sizing calculations are provided in Appendix 5. Additional treatment measures will include oil/trap hoods installed in catch basins #1, 42 and #4, and isolator rows to capture the first flush in each of the subsurface infiltration systems. The subsurface infiltration/retention systems will also be equipped with cleanout ports and access manholes to provide maintenance. Maintenance requirements for all stormwater system components are provided on the site plans. Page 5 of 6 E. Pipe Outfall Protection Outfall protection for the pipe discharge at the toe of the slope into the clay pit will -- consist of a modified riprap apron. The apron was designed in accordance with the requirements of the Table 8.6.1 of the CT DOT Drainage Manual provided in Appendix 5. G. Summary of Results The proposed design and analysis indicates that there will be no increase in peak runoff off from the site for the indicated design storms. In addition, the treatment measures discussed will provide pollutant removal prior to discharge of stormwater from the site. Page 6 of 6 Appendix 1: SOILS INFORMATION a Soil Map—State of Connecticut 3 6985W 69%M 698700 698800 69WW 699000 699100 41°491'N p 91°491'N y5_8y� 3 8 5 41°48'31'N r - 41°98'31"N 6995M 699600 .7. 699800 698900 69M 699100 3 3 Map Sole:1:4,480 ff pnnted cn A pornt(8.T x 11")sheet A R N Mete s 0 SD 10D 200 300 — 0 200 400 800 1200 Map projection:Web Mercator Cane coordinates:WGS84 Edge ti :UiM Zone 18N WG584 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 I I I I 1 1 I I ! I I I I I I I I 1 I Soil Map—State of Connecticut MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AD[) W, Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AD I were mapped at l_1 Area of Interest(AOI) p y Ston Spot 1!12,000. Soils very stony spot Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Map Unit Polygons Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause .;;„. Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Other line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of p Soil Map Unit Points Special Line Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed .� Special Point Features Scale. Uo Blowout Water Features Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation Clay Spot P��.�. Rails Source of Ma Natural Resources Conservation Service Closed Depression Web Soil Survey URL: ..";,,. Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) X Gravel Pit US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator „ Gravelly Spot Major Roads projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts Landfill distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more f Lava Flow Background accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as Mine or Quarry of the version date(s)listed below. Soil Survey Area: State of Connecticut Miscellaneous Water Survey Area Data: Version 16,Sep 15,2017 0 Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales Rock Outcrop 1:50,000 or larger. + Saline Spot Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Mar 28,2011—Apr 18,2011 Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Severely Eroded spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor Sinkhole shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Slide or Slip Sodic Spot USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2018 2iii—M Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—State of Connecticut Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AO1 Percent of AO1 304 Udorthents,loamy,very steep 0.0 0.1 306 Udorthents-Urban land 17.2 42.8% complex 307 Urban land 3.2 8.0% 308 Udorthents,smoothed 19.7 49.2% Totals for Area of Interest 40.2 100.0 — uSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description:Udorthents-Urban land complex--State of Connecticut State of Connecticut 306—Udorthents-Urban land complex Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 91mg Elevation: 0 to 2,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 43 to 56 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 185 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Udorthents and similar soils: 50 percent —' Urban land: 35 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations,descriptions,and transects of the mapunit. Description of Udorthents Setting Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Drift Typical profile _ A-0 to 5 inches: loam C1-5 to 21 inches: gravelly loam C2-21 to 80 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 25 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Very low to high(0.00 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 54 to 72 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None —' Available water storage in profile: Moderate(about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated): None specified Land capability classification(nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Typical profile H-0 to 6 inches: material Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description:Udorthents-Urban land complex—State of Connecticut Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated): None specified Land capability classification(nonirrigated): 8 Hydrologic Soil Group: D Hydric soil rating: Unranked Minor Components Unnamed,undisturbed soils Percent of map unit: 8 percent Hydric soil rating: No Udorthents,wet substratum Percent of map unit: 5 percent Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No Rock outcrop Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: State of Connecticut Survey Area Data: Version 16,Sep 15,2017 U Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 DR. CLARENCE WELTI, P.E., P.C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 227 Williams Street • P.O. Box 397 Glastonbury, CT 06033 (860)633-4623/FAX (860)657-2514 April 17, 2002 Mr. Joe Russo J. R. Russo Associates 1 Shoham Road East Windsor, CT 06088 Fax# 523 2485 Ref: Permeability Tests on Soil Samples taken from Dunn Bros. Site on April 10, 2002 Dear Joe: The results of the permeability tests performed on soil samples taken from test pits at the above referenced site were as follows: Sample No. Permeability(ft/day) TP-1 @ 4'-6' 24 TP-2 @ 5'-7' 44 TP-3 @ 4'.6' 19 Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Max Welti, P.E. Appendix 2: FIGURES NIF DESIGN POINT DP Dennis BotticeUo et ca =zm ur:m imL x LIMIT OF DRAINAGE AREA, TYP. 1—gy Propane LLC N11 Dennis Bottit 00 p Ir r r I V 4V*4*44W 4( -7 pp: 9 rrr ON NIF Cubasmart LP NIF Jean Maro JaoVms DESIGN POINT DP2 as c PRE-DEVELOPMENT, � '� DRAI AGE A i+ i AR EA N F MAP Union 1 41F 43S;Ft-11 19=150, C=lw ............................................................................................. I I............................. ... A................... DESIGN POINT DP1 Dennis Bottic*Uo at al Z Z t 111114 11, 7 7 7 7 7--.7- Ell F km ........... .......... .... ............ .... .. ........................................ ............... ............ mw . ........ .. ...... ....... .... ... .. .... . . . ....... NIT k Inergy Propane 2 41P LLC 40P NIT Dennis Bottic 3 7- -Y 7 -------07 1 -MIT J---- -�;7F-DRAfNAGE-�-'--++-- NIF Oubownart LP AREA, Typ. NIF DESIGN POINT DP2 Joan Marc Jacques ................. A4 C POST DEVELOPME T DRA NAGE t AREAMAPJF n U�L cl L........... I lw=150' B*sel --- --- . .. -- . ............. . ........ ...... .............. ... ............. ... ........ .... ............. f\ r I rf w f _ Appendix 3: PRE-DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS P1 ew Pond 2 3 Sub 2 Sub 3 z!_ EP 4 Z�k Depression Sub 4 (new Pond) (Bobca [�> Reach! on I k Routing Diagram for 420 John Fitch Pre — l ' Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 8/30/2018 -� HydroCADD 10.00-18 s/n 02386 0 2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pre-Development 420 John Fitch Pre Type ///24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 8/30/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1421 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=3.257 ac 24.59% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.46" Flow Length=340' Tc=3.4 min CN=78 Runoff=10.09 cfs 0.667 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=3.046 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.01" Flow Length=395' Tc=37.3 min CN=32 Runoff=0.01 cfs 0.002 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=1.961 ac 27.54% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.62" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=51 Runoff=0.69 cfs 0.102 of Pond DEP: Depression Peak Elev=66.43' Storage=639 cf Inflow=0.69 cfs 0.102 of Discarded=0.35 cfs 0.102 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.35 cfs 0.102 of Pond DP1: (new Pond) Inflow=10.09 cfs 0.670 of Primary=10.09 cfs 0.670 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Pre-Development 420 John Fitch Pre Type /// 24-hr 90-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 8/30/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff = 10.09 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.667 af, Depth= 2.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Area (ac) CN Description 0.277 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 2.179 77 Fallow, bare soil, HSG A 0.801 98 Impervious 3.257 78 Weighted Average 2.456 75.41% Pervious Area 0.801 24.59% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.6 100 0.0100 1.04 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.20" 1.3 220 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.5 20 0.0200 0.71 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 3.4 340 Total Summary for Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff = 0.01 cfs @ 23.25 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af, Depth= 0.01" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Area (ac) CN Description 2.924 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 0.122 77 Fallow, bare soil, HSG A 3.046 32 Weighted Average 3.046 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 28.3 100 0.0100 0.06 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.20" 8.7 260 0.0100 0.50 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 0.3 35 0.2000 2.24 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 37.3 395 Total Pre-Development 420 John Fitch Pre Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 8/30/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff = 0.69 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.102 af, Depth= 0.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Area (ac) CN Description 0.881 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 0.540 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A " 0.540 98 Impervious 1.961 51 Weighted Average 1.421 72.46% Pervious Area 0.540 27.54% Impervious Area -- Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.1 50 0.0670 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.20" 7.6 50 0.0670 0.11 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.20" 12.7 100 Total Summary for Pond DEP: Depression Inflow Area = 1.961 ac, 27.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.62" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.69 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.102 of Outflow = 0.35 cfs @ 12.68 hrs, Volume= 0.102 af, Atten= 49%, Lag= 24.6 min Discarded = 0.35 cfs @ 12.68 hrs, Volume= 0.102 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 66.43' @ 12.68 hrs Surf.Area= 2,960 sf Storage= 639 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 15.4 min calculated for 0.102 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 15.5 min ( 939.5- 924.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 66.00' 16,017 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 66.00 5 0 0 67.00 6,855 3,430 3,430 68.00 18,319 12,587 16,017 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 66.90' 10.0' long x 9.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Pre-Development 420 John Fitch Pre Type 111 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 8/30/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.46 2.55 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.68 2.67 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.67 2.69 #2 Discarded 66.00' 5.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 60.00' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.35 cfs @ 12.68 hrs HW=66.43' (Free Discharge) t-2=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.35 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs HW=66.00' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond DPI: (new Pond) Inflow Area = 6.303 ac, 12.71% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.28" for 10-year event Inflow = 10.09 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.670 of Primary = 10.09 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.670 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 3.0 min Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow Area = 1.961 ac, 27.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Pre-Development 420 John Fitch Pre Type l//24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 8/30/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1421 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=3.257 ac 24.59% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.27" Flow Length=340' Tc=3.4 min CN=78 Runoff=5.12 cfs 0.346 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=3.046 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.00" Flow Length=395' Tc=37.3 min CN=32 Runoff=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=1.961 ac 27.54% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.15" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=51 Runoff=0.06 cfs 0.025 of Pond DEP: Depression Peak Elev=66.07' Storage=18 cf Inflow=0.06 cfs 0.025 of Discarded=0.06 cfs 0.025 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.06 cfs 0.025 of Pond DPI: (new Pond) Inflow=5.12 cfs 0.346 of Primary=5.12 cfs 0.346 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Pre-Development 420 John Fitch Pre Type /// 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 8/30/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1421 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN _. Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=3.257 ac 24.59% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.14" Flow Length=340' Tc=3.4 min CN=78 Runoff=12.89 cfs 0.853 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=3.046 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.07" Flow Length=395' Tc=37.3 min CN=32 Runoff=0.03 cfs 0.018 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=1.961 ac 27.54% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.97" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=51 Runoff=1.33 cfs 0.159 of Pond DEP: Depression Peak Elev=66.63' Storage=1,365 cf Inflow=1.33 cfs 0.159 of Discarded=0.53 cfs 0.159 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.53 cfs 0.159 of Pond DPI: (new Pond) Inflow=12.89 cfs 0.870 of Primarp12.89 cfs 0.870 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Pre-Development 420 John Fitch Pre Type 111 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=6.90" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 8/30/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 1421 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=3.257 ac 24.59% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.38" Flow Length=340' Tc=3.4 min CN=78 Runoff=17.89 cfs 1.190 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=3.046 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.29" Flow Length=395' Tc=37.3 min CN=32 Runoff=0.13 cfs 0.075 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=1.961 ac 27.54% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.70" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=51 Runoff=2.72 cfs 0.278 of — Pond DEP: Depression Peak Elev=66.95' Storage=3,072 cf Inflow=2.72 cfs 0.278 of Discarded=0.81 cfs 0.272 of Primary=0.25 cfs 0.006 of Outflow=1.05 cfs 0.278 of Pond DPI: (new Pond) Inflow=17.89 cfs 1.265 of Primary=17.89 cfs 1.265 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.25 cfs 0.006 of Primary=0.25 cfs 0.006 of Appendix 4: POST DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS (new Po n ) DMH4 DMH4 Sub 6 ca G83 C133 ce Ce .... ,' 2 "'----I> Surface#2 Sub 4 Sub 2 SubsurfaZ#IDMW/WEIR DMH3 -- Sub 3 Sub 1 C131 CDS1 Surface#1 Sub 5 NF 3 --� (new Pond) Subsurface#2 �Subca\: R:ea ch1 011' Link Routing Diagram for 420 John Fitch POST Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 0 2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type /// 24-hr 90-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 3551 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN ._. Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 1: Sub 1 Runoff Area=1.535 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>4.46" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=0.848 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>4.46" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=4.02 cfs 0.315 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=88,842 sf 56.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.49" Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=8.39 cfs 0.592 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=173,418 sf 16.90% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.72" Flow Length=250' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=7.9 min CN=81 Runoff=11.87 cfs 0.903 of Subcatchment 5: Sub 5 Runoff Area=1.849 ac 39.70% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=61 Runoff=1.83 cfs 0.184 of -- Subcatchment 6: Sub 6 Runoff Area=69,748 sf 10.56% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.31" Tc=10.0 min CN=44 Runoff=0.17 cfs 0.042 of _ Pond CB1: CB1 Peak EIev=63.80' Inflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=90.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond CB3: CB3 Peak EIev=60.69' Inflow=728 cfs 0.571 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=70.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond CDS1: CDS1 Peak EIev=63.17' Inflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of .. 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=8.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond DMH2: DMH2 W/WEIR Peak EIev=62.25' Inflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=200.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond DMH3: DMH3 Peak EIev=61.31' Inflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=108.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond DMH4: DMH4 Peak EIev=56.19' Inflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=74.0' S=0.1216 '/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond DP1: (new Pond) Inflow=7.33 cfs 0.613 of Primary=7.33 cfs 0.613 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of -. Pond INF 1: Subsurface #1 Peak EIev=63.78' Storage=4,264 cf Inflow=4.02 cfs 0.315 of Discarded=0.60 cfs 0.399 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.60 cfs 0.399 of Pond INF 2: Surface#1 Peak EIev=65.10' Storage=8,395 cf Inflow=8.39 cfs 0.592 of Discarded=1.44 cfs 0.788 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.44 cfs 0.788 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Pond INF 3: Subsurface#2 Peak Elev=64.87' Storage=2,335 cf Inflow=1.83 cfs 0.184 of Discarded=0.43 cfs 0.194 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.43 cfs 0.194 of Pond INF 4: Surface#2 Peak Elev=64.76' Storage=14,411 cf Inflow=11.87 cfs 0.903 of Discarded=1.85 cfs 0.996 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.85 cfs 0.996 of Post Development -' 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 1: Sub 1 Runoff = 7.28 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.571 af, Depth> 4.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Area (ac) CN Description 1.535 98 Impervious 1.535 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff = 4.02 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.315 af, Depth> 4.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Area (ac) CN Description 0.848 98 Impervious 0.848 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff = 8.39 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.592 af, Depth= 3.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Area (so CN Description 50,405 98 Impervious 38,437 77 Fallow, bare soil, HSG A 88,842 89 Weighted Average 38,437 43.26% Pervious Area 50,405 56.74% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff = 11.87 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.903 af, Depth= 2.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Area (sf) CN Description 29,305 98 Impervious 144,113 77 Fallow, bare soil, HSG A 173,418 81 Weighted Average 144,113 83.10% Pervious Area 29,305 16.90% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.4 100 0.0100 0.31 Sheet Flow, Fallow n= 0.050 P2= 3.20" 2.5 150 0.0100 1.00 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Nearly Bare & Untilled Kv= 10.0 fps 7.9 250 Total Summary for Subcatchment 5: Sub 5 Runoff = 1.83 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.184 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Area (ac) CN Description 0.208 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 0.907 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.734 98 Impervious 1.849 61 Weighted Average 1.115 60.30% Pervious Area 0.734 39.70% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.1 50 0.0670 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.20" 7.6 50 0.0670 0.11 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.20" 12.7 100 Total Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 11124-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCAD@ 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment 6: Sub 6 Runoff = 0.17 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 0.042 af, Depth= 0.31" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Area (sf) CN Description 5,773 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 7,367 98 Impervious 56,608 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 69,748 44 Weighted Average 62,381 89.44% Pervious Area 7,367 10.56% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond CB1: CB1 Inflow Area = 1.535 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.46" for 10-year event Inflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Outflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.571 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.2 min Primary = 7.28 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Peak Elev= 63.80' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 65.60' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices - #1 Primary 61.85' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 90.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 61.85' /61.40' S= 0.0050 7' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=6.62 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=63.72' TW=63.11' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 6.62 cfs @ 3.86 fps) Summary for Pond CB3: CB3 Inflow Area = 8.404 ac, 50.13% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.82" for 10-year event Inflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Outflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.571 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.2 min Primary = 7.28 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Peak Elev= 60.69' @ 12.17 hrs Flood Elev= 65.80' Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type /// 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 59.32' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 70.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 59.32'/58.97' S= 0.0050 7' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 3.14 sf _ Primary OutFlow Max=7.22 cfs @ 12.17 hrs HW=60.68' TW=56.16' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 7.22 cfs @ 4.47 fps) Summary for Pond CDS1: CDS1 Inflow Area = 3.575 ac, 75.31% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.92" for 10-year event Inflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Outflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.571 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.2 min Primary = 7.28 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Peak Elev= 63.17' @ 12.11 hrs Flood Elev= 67.70' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 61.40' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 8.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 61.40' /61.36' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 '-" n= 0.012, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=7.22 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=63.16' TW=62.17' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 7.22 cfs @ 4.39 fps) Summary for Pond DMH2: DMH2 W/WEIR Inflow Area = 4.423 ac, 80.05% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.55" for 10-year event Inflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Outflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.571 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.2 min Primary = 7.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Peak Elev= 62.25' @ 12.14 hrs Flood Elev= 67.60' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 60.86' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 200.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 60.86'/59.86' S= 0.0050 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=6.90 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=62.23' TW=61.22' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 6.90 cfs @ 4.25 fps) _ Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Pond DMH3: DMH3 Inflow Area = 4.423 ac, 80.05% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.55" for 10-year event Inflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Outflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.571 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.2 min Primary = 7.28 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Peak Elev= 61.31' @ 12.17 hrs Flood Elev= 67.40' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 59.86' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 108.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 59.86'/59.32' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=6.81 cfs @ 12.15 hrs HW=61.29' TW=60.65' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 6.81 cfs @ 3.97 fps) Summary for Pond DMH4: DMH4 Inflow Area = 8.404 ac, 50.13% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.82" for 10-year event Inflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Outflow = 7.28 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.571 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.2 min Primary = 7.28 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.571 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Peak Elev= 56.19' @ 12.19 hrs Flood Elev= 67.40' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 55.00' 24.0" Round Culvert L= 74.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 55.00' /46.00' S= 0.1216 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=7.22 cfs @ 12.19 hrs HW=56.19' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 7.22 cfs @ 3.71 fps) Summary for Pond DP1: (new Pond) Inflow Area = 10.005 ac, 43.80% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.73" for 10-year event Inflow = 7.33 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.613 of Primary = 7.33 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.613 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.2 min Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow Area = 1.849 ac, 39.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Summary for Pond INF 1: Subsurface #1 Inflow Area = 0.848 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.46" for 10-year event Inflow = 4.02 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.315 of Outflow = 0.60 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.399 af, Atten= 85%, Lag= 29.1 min Discarded = 0.60 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.399 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Peak Elev= 63.78' @ 12.56 hrs Surf.Area= 2,620 sf Storage= 4,264 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 49.3 min ( 797.4 - 748.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 61.40' 2,365 cf 25.25'W x 103.301 x 3.50'H Field A 9,129 cf Overall - 3,216 cf Embedded = 5,913 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 61.90' 3,216 cf ADS_StormTech SC-740 +Cap x 70 Inside#1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.121 = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.561 with 0.44' Overlap 5 Rows of 14 Chambers #3 61.10' 58 cf CB (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 5,639 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 61.10 12 0 0 65.90 12 58 58 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 61.10' 5.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 59.00' #2 Primary 63.90' 4.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) 2.0' Crest Height Discarded OutFlow Max=0.60 cfs @ 12.56 hrs HW=63.78' (Free Discharge) L1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.60 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs HW=61.10' TW=60.86' (Dynamic Tailwater) L2=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 11124-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Pond INF 2: Surface #1 Inflow Area = 2.040 ac, 56.74% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.49" for 10-year event Inflow = 8.39 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.592 of Outflow = 1.44 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.788 af, Atten= 83%, Lag= 28.0 min Discarded = 1.44 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.788 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Peak Elev= 65.10' @ 12.54 hrs Surf.Area= 10,380 sf Storage= 8,395 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) -- Center-of-Mass det. time= 52.9 min (848.5- 795.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 64.00' 19,776 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store _ (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 64.00 4,901 0 0 66.00 14,875 19,776 19,776 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 64.00' 5.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 60.00' #2 Primary 62.80' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 62.80' /62.55' S= 0.0050 7' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #3 Device 2 65.80' 16.0" x 32.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Discarded OutFlow Max=1.44 cfs @ 12.54 hrs HW=65.10' (Free Discharge) L1=Exfiltration ( Controls 1.44 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs HW=64.00' TW=61.40' (Dynamic Tailwater) L2=Culvert (Passes 0.00 cfs of 2.77 cfs potential flow) L3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) ._ Summary for Pond INF 3: Subsurface #2 Inflow Area = 1.849 ac, 39.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.19" for 10-year event _ Inflow = 1.83 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.184 of Outflow = 0.43 cfs @ 12.83 hrs, Volume= 0.194 af, Atten= 77%, Lag= 37.9 min Discarded = 0.43 cfs @ 12.83 hrs, Volume= 0.194 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Peak Elev= 64.87' @ 12.83 hrs Surf.Area= 1,148 sf Storage= 2,335 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 11124-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Center-of-Mass det. time= 75.7 min ( 958.8 - 883.1 ) .... Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 61.50' 1,073 cf 11.00'W x 103.30'L x 3.50'H Field A 3,977 cf Overall - 1,295 cf Embedded = 2,682 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 62.00' 1,295 cf ADS_StormTech RC-760 +Cap x 28 Inside#1 Effective Size= 45.4"W x 30.0"H => 6.49 sf x 7.121 = 46.2 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 2 Rows of 14 Chambers #3 62.60' 15,399 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 17,767 cf Total Available Storage -- Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 62.60 12 0 0 66.00 12 41 41 67.00 6,410 3,211 3,252 68.00 17,885 12,148 15,399 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 61.50' 5.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 60.00' #2 Primary 66.90' 10.0' long x 9.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir -� Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.46 2.55 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.68 2.67 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.67 2.69 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.43 cfs @ 12.83 hrs HW=64.87' (Free Discharge) t-1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.43 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs HW=61.50' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) t-2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond INF 4: Surface #2 Inflow Area = 3.981 ac, 16.90% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.72" for 10-year event Inflow = 11.87 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.903 of Outflow = 1.85 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 0.996 af, Atten= 84%, Lag= 33.6 min Discarded = 1.85 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 0.996 of Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 of Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 1.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Peak Elev= 64.76' @ 12.67 hrs Surf.Area= 11,520 sf Storage= 14,411 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 81.4 min ( 904.9 - 823.5 ) Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 63.00' 31,618 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 63.00 4,886 0 0 64.00 8,617 6,752 6,752 66.00 16,249 24,866 31,618 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 63.00' 5.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 60.00' #2 Primary 65.80' 16.0" x 32.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads -. Discarded OutFlow Max=1.85 cfs @ 12.67 hrs HW=64.76' (Free Discharge) L1=Exfiltration ( Controls 1.85 cfs) _ Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 1.00 hrs HW=63.00' TW=59.32' (Dynamic Tailwater) L2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 3551 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 1: Sub 1 Runoff Area=1.535 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.97" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=0.848 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.97" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=2.72 cfs 0.210 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=88,842 sf 56.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.08" Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=5.11 cfs 0.354 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=173,418 sf 16.90% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.47" Flow Length=250' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=7.9 min CN=81 Runoff=6.36 cfs 0.487 of Subcatchment 5: Sub 5 Runoff Area=1.849 ac 39.70% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.44" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=61 Runoff=0.48 cfs 0.068 of Subcatchment 6: Sub 6 Runoff Area=69,748 sf 10.56% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.03" Tc=10.0 min CN=44 Runoff=0.01 cfs 0.004 of _ Pond CB1: CB1 Peak Elev=63.25' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=90.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond CB3: C133 Peak EIev=60.41' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=70.0' S=0.0050'/' Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond CDS1: CDS1 Peak EIev=62.75' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=8.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond DMH2: DMH2 W/WEIR Peak EIev=61.95' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=200.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond DMH3: DMH3 Peak EIev=61.00' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=108.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond DMH4: DMH4 Peak EIev=55.95' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=74.0' S=0.1216 '/' Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond DP1: (new Pond) Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.384 of Primary=4.92 cfs 0.384 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Pond INF 1: Subsurface #1 Peak EIev=62.84' Storage=2,503 cf Inflow=2.72 cfs 0.210 of Discarded=0.48 cfs 0.300 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.48 cfs 0.300 of Pond INF 2: Surface#1 Peak EIev=64.66' Storage=4,340 cf Inflow=5.11 cfs 0.354 of Discarded=1.07 cfs 0.584 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.07 cfs 0.584 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type/1/24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Pond INF 3: Subsurface#2 Peak Elev=62.24' Storage=441 cf Inflow=0.48 cfs 0.068 of Discarded=0.20 cfs 0.096 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.20 cfs 0.096 of Pond INF 4: Surface#2 Peak Elev=63.99' Storage=6,628 cf Inflow=6.36 cfs 0.487 of Discarded=1.24 cfs 0.626 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.24 cfs 0.626 of Post Development -' 420 John Fitch POST Type/1/ 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 3551 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 1: Sub I Runoff Area=1.535 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>5.26" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=8.53 cfs 0.673 of Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=0.848 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>5.26" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=4.71 cfs 0.372 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=88,842 sf 56.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.25" Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=10.14 cfs 0.723 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=173,418 sf 16.90% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.43" Flow Length=250' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=7.9 min CN=81 Runoff=14.92 cfs 1.138 of Subcatchment 5: Sub 5 Runoff Area=1.849 ac 39.70% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.68" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=61 Runoff=2.72 cfs 0.259 of Subcatchment 6: Sub 6 Runoff Area=69,748 sf 10.56% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.56" Tc=10.0 min CN=44 Runoff=0.42 cfs 0.074 of _ Pond CB1: CB1 Peak Elev=64.37' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.673 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=90.0' S=0.0050 T Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.673 of Pond CB3: CB3 Peak EIev=60.83' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of - 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=70.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of Pond CDS1: CDS1 Peak EIev=63.45' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.673 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=8.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.673 of Pond DMH2: DMH2 W/WEIR Peak EIev=62.40' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=200.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of Pond DMH3: DMH3 Peak EIev=61.47' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=108.0' S=0.0050 7' Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of Pond DMH4: DMH4 Peak EIev=56.31' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=74.0' S=0.1216 '/' Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of Pond DPI: (new Pond) inflow=8.91 cfs 0.765 of Primary=8.91 cfs 0.765 of '- Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Pond INF 1: Subsurface #1 Peak EIev=64.07' Storage=4,707 cf Inflow=4.71 cfs 0.372 of Discarded=0.63 cfs 0.438 of Primary=0.93 cfs 0.018 of Outflow=1.57 cfs 0.456 of Pond INF 2: Surface#1 Peak EIev=65.31' Storage=10,726 cf Inflow=10.14 cfs 0.723 of Discarded=1.62 cfs 0.901 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.62 cfs 0.901 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type ///24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Pond INF 3: Subsurface#2 Peak Elev=66.49' Storage=3,170 cf Inflow=2.72 cfs 0.259 of Discarded=0.94 cfs 0.268 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.94 cfs 0.268 of Pond INF 4: Surface#2 Peak Elev=65.14' Storage=19,081 cf Inflow=14.92 cfs 1.138 of Discarded=2.17 cfs 1.216 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=2.17 cfs 1.216 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 11124-hr 900-year Rainfall=6.90" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 3551 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN ... Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 1: Sub 1 Runoff Area=1.535 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>6.66" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=10.73 cfs 0.852 of Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=0.848 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>6.66" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=5.93 cfs 0.471 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=88,842 sf 56.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.61" Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=13.17 cfs 0.954 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=173,418 sf 16.90% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.71" Flow Length=250' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=7.9 min CN=81 Runoff=20.32 cfs 1.563 of Subcatchment 5: Sub 5 Runoff Area=1.849 ac 39.70% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.63" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670'/' Tc=12.7 min CN=61 Runoff=4.45 cfs 0.405 of Subcatchment 6: Sub 6 Runoff Area=69,748 sf 10.56% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.11" Tc=10.0 min CN=44 Runoff=1.27 cfs 0.148 of Pond CB1: CBI Peak Elev=65.35' Inflow=10.73 cfs 0.852 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=90.0' S=0.0050 T Outflow=10.73 cfs 0.852 of Pond C133: C133 Peak Elev=61.32' Inflow=12.95 cfs 0.915 of -� 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=70.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=12.95 cfs 0.915 of Pond CDSI: CDS1 Peak EIev=64.06' Inflow=10.73 cfs 0.852 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=8.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=10.73 cfs 0.852 of Pond DMH2: DMH2 W/WEIR Peak EIev=62.92' Inflow=12.95 cfs 0.915 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=200.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=12.95 cfs 0.915 of Pond DMH3: DMH3 Peak EIev=61.97' Inflow=12.95 cfs 0.915 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=108.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=12.95 cfs 0.915 of Pond DMH4: DMH4 Peak EIev=56.73' Inflow=12.95 cfs 0.915 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=74.0' S=0.1216 '/' Outflow=12.95 cfs 0.915 of Pond DP1: (new Pond) Inflow=14.15 cfs 1.063 of Primary=14.15 cfs 1.063 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.24 cfs 0.004 of Primary=0.24 cfs 0.004 of Pond INF 1: Subsurface #1 Peak EIev=64.31' Storage=5,002 cf Inflow=5.93 cfs 0.471 of Discarded=0.66 cfs 0.485 of Primary=3.46 cfs 0.063 of Outflow=4.12 cfs 0.548 of Pond INF 2: Surface#1 Peak EIev=65.66' Storage=15,020 cf Inflow=13.17 cfs 0.954 of Discarded=1.94 cfs 1.103 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.94 cfs 1.103 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=6.90" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/3/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Pond INF 3: Subsurface#2 Peak Elev=66.95' Storage=5,280 cf Inflow=4.45 cfs 0.405 of Discarded=1.36 cfs 0.408 of Primary=0.24 cfs 0.004 of Outflow=1.60 cfs 0.412 of Pond INF 4: Surface#2 Peak Elev=65.76' Storage=27,843 cf Inflow=20.32 cfs 1.563 of Discarded=2.72 cfs 1.627 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=2.72 cfs 1.627 of Appendix 5: MISCELLANEOUS CALCULATIONS W t 8 7-7 =` r lverts c r, OUTLET PROTECTION-OUTLET VELOCITY<14 feetlsee OUTLET PIPE DIAMETER OR SPAN in DISCHARGE 12 15 18 24 1 30 36 42 48 54 60 cfs 0-5 10 10 USE 6 12 11 7 13 12 8 14 13 12 MW MUM 9 14 13 10 15 13 11 16 14 LENGTH 12 14 14 16 14 16 17 15 14 OUTLINED -- 18 18 16 15 20 17 15 14 22 18 16 15 24 17 15 14 26 17 16 15 28 18 16 15 30 19 17 16 35 20 18 17 16 40 20 18 17 l6 45 21 19 18 16 50 22 20 18 17 55 21 19 18 60 22 20 19 65 24 21 20 70 25 22 20 75 26 23 21 80 24 22 90 26 24 -` 100 28 25 110 27 _ 125 29 130 30 Table 8-6.1 - Length-La(feet) Type A Riprap Apron Notes: 1. Bold face outlined boxes indicate minimum La to be used for a given pipe diameter or span. 2. Rounding and interpolating are acceptable. October 2000 ConnDOT Drainage Manual ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CDS ESTIMATED NET ANNUAL SOLIDS LOAD REDUCTION BASED ON THE RATIONAL RAINFALL METHOD _ CONNECTICUT SOIL SOUTH WINDSOR, CT Area 3.58 ac Unit Site Designation CDS1 Weighted C 0.75 Rainfall Station# 36 t� 5 min CDS Model 2025-5 CDS Treatment Capacity 3.2 cfs Rainfall Percent Rainfall Cumulative Rainfall Total Flowrate Treated Incremental Intensity' in/hr Volume Volume cfs Flowrate(cfs) Removal(%) 0.08 34.3% 34.3% 0.22 0.22 31.7 0.16 21 A% 55.7% 0.43 0.43 18.9 0.24 13.3% 69.0% 0.65 0.65 11.1 0.32 8.7% 77.7% 0.86 0.86 6.9 0.40 5.1% 82.8% 1.08 1.08 3.8 0.48 2.8% 85.7% 1.29 1.29 2.0 0.56 2.6% 88.3% 1.51 1.51 1.7 0.64 1.8% 90.1% 1.72 1.72 1.1 0.72 1.2% 91.3% 1.94 1.94 0.7 0.80 1.3% 92.7% 2.15 2.15 0.7 1.00 1.7% 94.4% 2.69 2.69 0.7 2.00 3.8% 98.2% 5.38 3.20 0.7 3.00 1.1% 99.3% 8.07 3.20 0.1 4.00 0.7% 100.0% 10.75 3.20 0.1 0.00 0.0% 100.0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0% 100.0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0% 100.0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0% 100.0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0% 100.0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0% 100.0% 0.00 0.00 0.0 80.1 Removal Efficiency Adjustment2= 0.0% Predicted %Annual Rainfall Treated = 97.3% Predicted Net Annual Load Removal Efficiency= 80.1% -� 1 - Based on 14 years of 15-minute data from NCDC station 4488, Mansfield Hollow Lake, Tolland County, CT 2- Reduction due to use of 60-minute data for a site that has a time of concentration less than 30-minutes. Page 1 of 2 Pioiect: Connecticut Steil Location, South Windsor.CT Prepared For: J#1.Russo.attti'Associates Purpose: To calculate the first flush runoff flow rate(WQF)over a given site area. In this situation the WQV to be analyzed is the runoff produced by the first 1"of rainfall. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service TR-55 Manual Structure A A Runoff Percent Imp. tc Given: Name (acres) I (Miles 2) Coefficient I (%)* I (min) (hr) CDS1 3.58 1 0.00559 0.75 1 75.33 1 5.0 0.083 *Assumes runoff coefficient of 0.3 for pervious areas and 0.9 for impervious areas. Procedure: The Water Quality Flow(WQF) is calculated using the Water Quality Volume(WQV). This WQV, converted to watershed inches, is substituted for the runoff depth (Q) in the Natural Resources Conservation Service(formerly Soil Conservation Service), TR-55 Graphical Peak Discharge Method. 1. Compute WQV in watershed inches using the following equation: WQV= P* R where: WQV=water quality volume(watershed inches) P =design precipitation (inches) _ (1"for water quality storm) R = volumetric runoff coefficient=0.05 +0.009(l) 1 = percent impervious cover tructure PercentWQV, Name Imp. (%) R (in) (in) ff] CDS1 75.33 0.728 1.0 0.728 2. Compute the NRCS Runoff Curve Number(CN) using the following equation, or graphically using Figure 2-1 from TR-55 (USDA, 1986): CN= 1000/[10+5P+10Q-10(Q2+1.25QP)'/2] where: CN = Runoff Curve Number P = design precipitation (inches) = (1"for water quality storm) Q = runoff depth (watershed inches) n ure Q e (in) CN DS1 0.728 97.28 3. Using computed CN, read initial abstraction (la)from Table 4-1 in Chapter 4 of TR-55; compute la/P, interpolating when appropriate. Structure a Name (in) la/P CDS1 0.056 0.056 Page 2 of 2 4. Compute the time of concentration (tj in hours and the drainage area in square miles. Structure tc A Name (hr) (milesZ) CDS1 0.083 0.00559 5. Read the unit peak discharge (q j from Exhibit 4-III in Chapter 4 of TR-55 for appropriate t,for type III rainfall distribution. Structure 1qu Name (hr) la/p (csm/in) CDS1 0.083 0.056013333 650 6. Substituting WQV(watershed inches)for runoff depth (Q), compute the water quality flow (WQF)from the following equation: WQF = (qu)*(A)*(Q) where: WQF =water quality flow(cfs) q„= unit peak discharge (cfs/miZ/inch) A=drainage area (mil) Q= runoff depth (watershed inches) Structure q„ A Q WQF Name (csm/in) (miles) (in) (cfs) CDS1 650 0.00559 0.728 2 i34 Lipe, Michele From: Jay Ussery <jussery@jrrusso.com> Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 9:16 AM To: Folger,Jeffrey Cc: Lipe, Michele Subject: RE:420 John Fitch site plan #18-48P Thanks Jeff James E. Ussery Jr., LLS Principal Land Surveyor RUWO SONM CT a J.R. RUSSO &ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. Box 938, 1 Shoham Road East Windsor,CT 06088 (CT)860.623.0569(MA)413.785.1158 lussery@irrusso.com I www.irrusso.com From: Folger,Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Folger@southwindsor.org] �� Sent: Friday,September 07, 2018 8:58 AM To:Jay Ussery<jussery@jrrusso.com> Cc: Lipe, Michele<Michele.Lipe@southwindsor.org> Subject:420 John Fitch site plan#18-48P Hi Jay. The following are comments on the submitted site plan for CT Soils. A functions and values report of the adjacent wetland must be submitted. Silt fencing must be installed along the excavation for the outlet pipe to the north. Please show the outlet location in the field. Please provide suitable habitat plantings in the area of the outlet to mitigate the proposed disturbance. Regards,Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner,Town of South Windsor PLANNING DEPARMENT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM DATE: September 10, 2018 TO: Matt Galligan, Michael Gantick, Walter Summers, Jeff Doolittle Ray Favreau, Chris Dougan, Heather Oatis, Kevin Cooney, Tony Manfre, John Caldwell, Andrea Confrancesco, Chris Duchesne, Vincent Stetson FROM: Michele Lipe, AICP, Director of Planning The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following projects: Appl 18-48P, CT Soils LLC Location: 420 John Fitch Boulevard ® Site Plan ❑ Subdivision No. Acres 5 " Zone I ❑ Industrial ® Commercial ❑ Residential No. Lots/Units Water: ❑ Public ® Private Well Sewerage: ❑ Public ® Septic System Project Description: storing,processing and manufacturing of earth materials Future Town-owned property involved? ❑ Yes ®No ❑ new street(s) ❑ new detention area ❑ new open space/recreation area ❑ active ❑passive Planning Department notes: 100 trucks a day delivering rock for processing; wholesales from the site Please comment by 9/21/18 and return to the Planning Department. C ' Tiov� O-P siou� ?d&U&Ot 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 soe•co TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511 September 17, 2018 Connecticut Soil Realty LLC C/O J.R. Russo & Associates LLC Tim Coon P.O. Box 938 East Windsor, CT 06088 Dear Mr. Coon: RE: Appl. 18-48P, Connecticut Soil Realty LLC- request for site plan approval for the storing, processing and manufacturing of earth materials, on property located at 420 John Fitch Boulevard, R014 Pleasant Valley Road and L022C Chapel Road, Industrial zone Please be advised that the Public Hearing of the Planning & Zoning Commission in the above referenced matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue. Someone must be present at the meeting to represent the application. Three signs advertising the hearing must be posted on the property for ten (10) consecutive days prior to the hearing and must be clearly visible from a town street. The signs must be posted on John Fitch Boulevard, Pleasant Valley Road and Chapel Road by Friday, September 21, 2018. Signs can be obtained in the Planning Department. If you have any questions, feel free to call 860- 644-2511 Ext 253, Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Sincerely, Lauren Zarambo Planning Department Secretary LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RUSSO SURVEYORS ENGINEERS DATE: 9-20-18 JOB NO. 2018-007 Shoham Rd East VvIndsor,CT 06088 ATTN: Michele Lipe CT: (860)623-0569 RE: MA: (413) 785-1158 Connecticut Soil TO Planning &Zoning Commission 420 John Fitch Boulevard 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, CT 06074 WE ARE SENDING YOU ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover Via delivery the following items: ❑ Cover Letter ® Paper Prints ❑ Mylars ❑ Specifications ❑ Report ® Other COPIES DATE SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION 3 9-20-18 410 Site Plans 2 9-20-18 Letter Providing Additional Information (Project Narrative, Turning Movements, Impervious Coverage Calculation) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED (as checked below): ® For approval ❑ For your use ❑ For review and comment ❑ As requested ❑ Fof signature ❑ For your records ❑ Returned after loan to us ❑ Forbids due REMARKS: 1 t r" 1 Sra ir�i'N1ND3:)F; y« cc: Connecticut Soil SENT BY: Timothy Coon Page 1 of 1 RUSSO ""'J�+IEYOF2� EN GI�IEEk September 20,2018 Michele Lipe Director of Planning 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Additional Information CT Soil,420 John Fitch Boulevard Dear Michele, Based on the preliminary meeting with Town staff, the applicant and Jay Ussery of our office, I am providing the following additional information: • Revised Site Plans—revised to address initial staff comments; • Project Narrative providing a description of the proposed operations; • Proposed Truck Turning movements on site driveway to demonstrate that the drive has sufficient radii to accommodate the proposed ten wheel dump trucks that will transport material to and from the site; and • A sketch showing the area used for the impervious coverage calculation at 420 John Fitch Boulevard. This area includes the existing buildings, pavement and packed gravel on the western portion of the site. Using this area, the impervious coverage is approximatmely 58% where 65% is allowed. The bare soil to the east where the crushed stone material is to be stockpiled will be scarified to loosen up the soil and promote infiltration prior to the crushed stone being stockpiled. Based on discussions with Max Welti of Clarence Welti Associates, the stockpiling of crushed rock on the existing bare soil is not anticipated to compact the soil significantly making it impervious. In fact, no compaction is proposed. The material will simply be stockpiled on the bare soils. According to Max, the weight of the stockpiles is more likely to compress the clays which exist under the sandy material at the site, rather than significantly impact the permeability of the sandy overburden soils. He expects that the sandy soil under the stockpiles will continue to allow water to infiltrate. I hope the additional information and this discussion satisfactorily is helpful. If there are any questions,or you require further information,please call our office at(860) 623-0569. Sincerely, Timothy A. Coon,P.E. J.R.Russo&Associates,LLC Attachments 1 Shoham Rd.East Windsor,CT 06088.www.jrrusso.com.CT 860.623.0569•MA 413.785.1158 SERVING CONNECTICUT &MASSACHUSETTS Russo SU RVEYORS•ENG IN EERS Project Narrative Connecticut Soil, LLC 420 John Fitch Boulevard South Windsor, Connecticut Connecticut Soil is a Connecticut based limited liability company that manufactures stone aggregate products from excavated rock. Connecticut Soil is proposing a new stone product manufacturing facility at 420 John Fitch Boulevard in South Windsor, where the company will manufacture a variety of stone products and sell the manufactured products on a wholesale basis only into the marketplace. No retail sales to individual consumers will occur at the South Windsor manufacturing facility. The proposed South Windsor facility consists of approximately 17 acres and is presently accessed via John Fitch Boulevard (1FB). It is located east of JFB and north of Chapel Road in an industrial zone. The proposed use is a permitted use in the Industrial Zone by Site Plan approval pursuant to South Windsor zoning regulations. This facility will be receiving all of its rock inventory from the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) Tunnel Project in Hartford. Rock is being excavated from approximately 250' below ground level and crushed to 6" or less as it is removed from the tunnel project. The stone will then be transported to Connecticut Soil via tri- axle dump trucks for manufacture into marketable stone products. All excavated material will be virgin, non-contaminated stone and will be tested regularly during the tunnel construction process. Pre-construction borings have been taken to determine to test the stone material, to determine the types of rock to be encountered and to ensure compliance with CT DEEP guidelines for reuse by Connecticut Soil and others.This MDC project is overseen by CT DEEP and federal EPA regulators. It is anticipated that when in full operation, Connecticut Soil will receive 60 to 90 truckloads of stone per day between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. In the event that the MDC project is required to work on Saturdays as a result of unforeseen circumstances, excavated rock may be received on some Saturdays between 7:00 am and 12:00 pm. The facility will be closed on all Sundays and state holidays, except Columbus Day and Veterans Day.Trucks will enter the facility from Route 5 northbound through a paved driveway located just north of Chapel Road and will off-load into a hopper. From the hopper, an electric conveyor system will carry the rock to a conveyor radial stacker which will stock pile the material.The conveyor is equipped with an automatic water mist system to control any dust. The boring equipment used to extract the rock from the tunnel project uses water for lubrication and dust control, therefore the material will be damp when transported to the South Windsor manufacturing facility and therefore dust is not expected to be an issue. Trucks leaving the facility will exit onto Chapel Road; they will be required to turn right and go back out to Route 5.All on site truck traffic will be limited to a 5 mile per hour speed limit. A substantial portion of finished stone products will be shipped via the rail spur existing on the site. The presence of a rail transit opportunity is a significant element of the manufacturing facility as it permits transportation of larger quantities of stone at a lower economic cost than trucking and a much more efficient method of transportation for the manufactured products. Rail facilities also create a much greater market penetration for the products as more distant markets are more easily accessed. Connecticut Soil proposes to invest in an extended rail spur to provide greater number of rail cars for loading and to increase the rail usage and efficiency. Although much of the rock will be sold as 6" minus, some of it will be manufactured into a smaller stone product.This process will require the use of an electric screener and cone crusher.This process will take place on the westerly end of the facility nearest Route 5.This location is approximately 1800' or 0.34 miles removed from the nearest residence located east of the facility. The screener and crusher will also be equipped with a water mist system to control dust, as needed. The South Windsor zoning regulation requires a 50' buffer between industrial and residential uses. Connecticut Soil's proposal provides a vegetated buffer of approximately 350' between the nearest residence and the exit driveway to Chapel Road. In accordance with a condition of approval that was part of the unanimously approved inland wetlands permit granted on September 19, 2018, Connecticut Soil will engage an independent engineering consultant to periodically (six-month intervals) test the water quality of storm water leaving the site and entering into the wetland area to the north and east of the project site. To further allay concerns expressed by an IWWA commission member as to potential air quality concerns, if the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that it is appropriate,the applicant will agree to engage an independent engineering consultant to periodically test air quality as the facility is in full operation. If either testing regime indicates that water quality or air quality standards exceed state standards, the applicant will be required to remediate the condition to ensure that the water and/or air quality standards are met. The findings of the independent consultants will be provided to town staff for review as received. Connecticut Soil will employ 4 to 6 people who will be at the facility daily.The employee traffic and truck traffic will not have an impact on the local roadway system.The average daily traffic(ADT)flow on Route 5 at Chapel Road is 22,000 vehicles per day. The Chapel Road ADT is approximately 3,400 vehicles per day between Ellington Road and Route 5.The increase in traffic from the Connecticut Soil site is anticipated to be about 110 trips per day. These added trips will equate to a 0.5% increase in the Route 5 ADT and a 3% increase in the Chapel Road ADT. These minor increases will not change the level of service on this section of Chapel Road, Route 5, or at the Chapel Road / Route 5 signal. A licensed professional traffic engineer has been retained by the applicant and a separate traffic analysis report is to be provided in advance of the presentation to the Commission. Connecticut soil is working closely with the Town of South Windsor staff to ensure this facility is in compliance with the zoning regulation and provides a professional operation that will be an asset to the town. Sincerely, Mitchell Flynn, President Connecticut Soil, LLC ------------ T T d .,J ................. Le/v ------ F/t c o _ !6" wn,ter 5uPPiy Main _ _ w w w - w-------- w 3�" RC:P ie�wer Main - W vv Irk N -- W • 1tt f 1 LEASE LINE - - - -- - - - - -7o- If { � TREES TO BE r it MATERIAL REMOVED r` f PROCESSING & STORAGE ��t AREA l ✓• } OPA vEL r / SLiR.FACE � S i/ STACK 2'x2'X6' CONC. BLOCKS TO / CREATE BINS, TYP. i c 5 GU r I K Y,l (. n i< t \ \ CONC BLOCK r f, EXISTING PAVED ACCESS FROM JOHN r' FITCH BLVD Ex7ST. '? BUILDiNfG ! t' 7 I' it 1 r� r IF a&-p 'f F� t �r .eve �o ly LLC 'y f f A T T71 ■ �� �� / INFILTRATION BASIN #1 I I� ao' ' R 7r [ I I REGULA, LINE BOTTOM & SIDES I I: W/ ---- 4BOT.7NLEV.=64ZO HED STON E ' I I. LZZJ I I . I ; I ' ------------------------ met - - i • pwo . ----------- - - — —• ----- V�IAI�.W✓J�_A.I.A.VJJ.- - .A3���J✓�lM•�-�J r ---- BEGIN : - CURB } , 5 K r r 4 t t i.' c K AT SF, � 1 = LA© r I nI "P. ' IUI'SW + tJCIPILE E � i I APE, COD RBr TYP. I N/F Union " Glen i �---� i ssoczates Inc. ti " I Co; s " } J " S ; I � I 31 1 r � / PROP. ROLLING , -r P VE / PROP. GATE $V TREELINE, �� DJ%VwfiE TYP. PI J t SI rt v'.J t L D.,.J SAWCUT & REMOVE EXIST. 1 & SIDEWALK & CURB ACROSS I t� Ptr£ rys1.- C� EXIT DRIVE . i, 12 '`=s�� INSTALL NEW CURB RAMP '%� �`�` T. JRt,E' C } a St•L i — _ _ ova 70 i FRAME & COVER Tha e Ro( E.VSr - - `` ;F=c�9.3 J FYJZT CIF PROVIDE CLEAN SAWCUT & ;r= ;. TACK COAT EDGE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF NEW PAVEMENT I" %~l. NiiL w ANC. _ wr ABANDONED UPON ^ EXTENSION OF RAIL ROAD S'�10 L :AIlW1 ISM, - END or Ensym R.at 87,5 ! T. ROAD SaW HN ATE IN - .............. - _- A OGG* PROP.'CMD STORAGE 67.5 86.3 wr PROPANE'lANx \ BUILI NC FIN.h 72.2 f7UlI.DING, 8!T PVAI/. Aawc:.faSEr r'INill. PROP. EQUIPMENT STORAGE s YGA •—__ ` _.. A MULL ❑ � t� QR _wL. _ AWINfi ,., �, p, - _ BOOM (DOM BY 67.2 lop szI C,t�V �,ACAE 1 I0 E'XI T. l/��M'/��U Q L BUIL(ING 80.2 / INSTALL SLT SACK STOR WE 6ZO IN CO AM law INSTALLATIONS TYP. �` PAD PACED � GRAVEL , ' i Ara U. MATERIAL SiOfS(PEE AREA / WALL SEprN:sys Ev / 60 ! ,• CAI ' J C '- ..rr."3""::i ;, .4:Y�-.... Via_:....•.,.•-3 -'r -":•--' B WING EN.. .-68.2 / -68•— \ / \ TRATION BASIN \ W / 90T101A AC SID awsm all ELEV. o I a7. ov azu Ras r....�.-----__..._.—_.__._._,, \ aze a7s / PAVED DRIVE Yo' LRrc "ems,_...----- 67.67.8 C8 FLArw C8 RAMP CR IO)'TOP C� b SOME CET FLAT MEMORANDUM To: Michele Lipe, Director of Plannning From: Jeff Doolittle, P,..E., Town Engineer Date: August 20, 2018 Re: App 18-48P Connecticut Soil Site Plan 420 John Fitch Blvd I have reviewed the plan for the above application and I have the following comments: 1. How will the material be moved from the stockpile area to the processing and storage area? What equipment will be used and what route will they use? 2. How will material be loaded when it is sold and what route will be used for material to leave the site? 3. The plans state both the existing well and septic will be abandoned upon extension of the railroad siding. Where will a new well and septic system be located? The proposed locations should be shown on the plans. 4. 1 suggest the TF of both AD1 and CB3 be lowered slightly to 65.5 to provide a little more freeboard between the high water level and top of the ground around infiltration basin 1 and 2. 5. What will prevent the rock in the material stockpile from falling into the infiltration basin 1 and 2? A more substantial barrier such as concrete blocks or barriers should be placed along the sides of these infiltration barriers to keep material out. 6. What is the expected side slope of the material stockpile? 7. I suggest the pavement detail be modified to show two 2" lifts of Class 1 pavement because of the heavy trucks and equipment running on the paved drive and areas. 8. How will the site be restored after all the rock material has been sold and removed from the site? Please let me know if you have any questions. Lipe, Michele From: Lipe, Michele Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 4:33 PM To: 'Tim Coon' Cc: 'Peter Alter' Subject: Appl 18-48P CT Soils Planning Comments Hi Tim, In follow up to our conversation yesterday, I indicated I would let you know of any planning comments on the revised plans/narrative submitted. • The storage piles indicate they may be as high as 40 feet. Section 2.11a requires all outdoor storage be screened from public ways. Can you verify with a cross—section that this is being accomplished. • A cross-section addressing the buffer requirement should be provided as well (the buffer to the east is mentioned in the narrative) • We are still waiting for the traffic statement. In particular,the amount of potential traffic generated as result of the wholesale use has not been addressed in the narrative. • The western most area that is shown as the screening and sorting area is apparently the area where some of the items"cleaned up"from 420 John Fitch Boulevard have ended up. This has created a zoning violation as there are no approval at all on that land. Please be advised that staff will be recommending that area be cleaned up as a part of this approval Engineering comments will be forth coming. Thank you, Michele Michele R. Lipe,AICP Director of Planning 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, CT 06074 (860) 644-2511, ext. 252 i LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RUSSODATE: 10-1-18 JOB NO. 2018-007 SJRVEYORS ENGINEERS St-;oharr Rd East Windsor,C. 0603L� ATTN: Michele Llpe CT: (860) 623-0569 RE: MA: (413) 785-1158 Connecticut Soil TO Planning &Zoning Commission 420 John Fitch Boulevard 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, CT 06074 WE ARE SENDING YOU ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover Via delivery the following items: ❑ Cover Letter ® Paper Prints ❑ Mylars ❑ Specifications ❑ Report ® Other COPIES DATE SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION 12 9/27/18 Site Traffic Assessment 12 9/28/18 Response to Town Engineer's Comments THESE ARE TRANSMITTED (as checked below): ® For approval ❑ For your use ❑ For review and comment ❑ As requested ❑ For signature ❑ For your records ❑ Returned after loan to us ❑ For bids due REMARKS: cc: Connecticut Soil SENT BY: Timothy Coon Page 1 of 1 Bubaris A.19"Traffic . A S s 0 C I A T E Planning•Engineering«Design i l.' i To: James E. Ussery,Jr., LLS,J.R. Russo&Associates EMaiik jussery@jrrusso.com Phone: (860)623-0569 From: James James G. Bubaris, P.E. Pages: Three(3) Date: September 27,2018 Re: Site Traffic Assessment Proposed Connecticut Soil Facility 420 John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) South Windsor, Connecticut • Introduction Reference is made to the proposal to develop a new stone processing facility on the east side of John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5), north of Chapel Road, in the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut, as shown in the copy of the site plan on the following page. The facility will receive about 60 to 90 loads per day of virgin rock from an excavation project in the Hartford area between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm daily, Monday through Friday, and on some Saturdays between 7:00 am and 12:00 pm. The facility will be closed on Sundays and holidays. Trucks will travel to South Windsor via Interstate 291 located to the south of the site, and will enter the facility from the Route 5 northbound lanes through a paved two-way drive just north of Chapel Road. The virgin rock will be off-loaded on site for processing, and exiting trucks will exit the site via a paved drive onto Chapel Road east of Route 5, making a right turn onto Chapel Road to utilize the signalized intersection of Route 5 at Chapel Road to gain safe access onto the Route 5 southbound lanes, returning to the Hartford site to pick up additional virgin rock, again via Interstate 291. No left turns leaving the site will be allowed onto Chapel Road. Eventually, the virgin rock will be processed into smaller stone product for consumer use, when it is expected that 60 to 90 trucks per day will deliver this finished product by gaining access to Route 5 southbound via the Chapel Road site drive to the signal at Route 5, or to Route 5 northbound via the two-way site drive which intersects Route 5 directly_ It is anticipated that there will be from 4 to 6 employees at the site at all times. P® Box 4250 • YalesviIIle,CT 06492 • Telephone: (203)265-8086 • Cell: (203)606-4742 • JimBubariskhotmaii.com • e 80 Pe'OUT E /0'SEMNT FAVOR OF 1/p coNNdcTIC SOIL fX/STiNc v, AEALTY LLC(SRN DETAIL A) A/CIlT tD LMD �^R n AND UNLOAD RAIL j/' 1, Oannu eull(arlb rl v! ROAD GRS 1N FAVOR BrE� Of JUEJRCT PAACRL fBpE�] N PROPOSED LEASE LNE .".....• �a ----��-------------1LL��� CX)STINL _ 0 B¢fl !lo er n( y 10's e0'DM/NACf ] dASeNRNY3 IN GV X OF SUBJECT PARCaI l�/f ! aa' ae !C 1 PROPOSED LEASE UK % •- I AB C� JA N N aVrcY¢ EXISa£TfNC YO fL'GRAYWR L t)0 V C� DorncdLto N ! el•��,s 8 - Iwreb/Nepona P�j A - i{ i C` o m 2 q { my Hatr 'g' a g ttc y�?_ SUBJECT PARCEL Y� Proposed Lease Area v� g VOLUME 2231 PACE. 293 R: Areq=485,683t s,j., Denny eal .tlr<!n, AREA = 214,503 S.F. 15r Ac. , K ." OR 4.9R ACRES w Har a:de i v CROdXInwoN 1 L' r� • a6'U"UrY MUENI IN FAMA or /'• J j't I1 f 1 BS NBB[a SS. iM VpLUNL11 B o ST T, \-"'.` o.�. \\.'\• �� \Z _.---1 Naa•araa nae o.r -.. a•r1 ra'. s.ee' ¢ ae'BY'S as pa'(Caeca) ,� • — S• !'. POP COA N/F 1]ae RIF BOTTICELLO ET AL \ a 4 I B%ISTfND ACLHSS Cudemwrf LP CROJS NATCiI N/£ JASENENT TO FTE.a EX/STTNC ACCESS OF VOL,Jevrt Nn.vflacquaa 72 STRIP : NW! 6v " DF UNSPECIFIED SIZE GSLNEN IN FA T fH VBA 2389 PC 1$0 f U L/C i v04.rile PAGE JdJ 6 N/f DOTr)CFLLD iql -�- '' ,ror..AY PACE JYa � CNOSS NATClf� i PARCEL 3 9 .......ARZA s 39,576 S.F. i8 GJLYdNT JN tAVOF D£ OR 0,91 ACRES W q N/£ eVHJECT AARCEL R � I t o, y Brtepralenr A+v.Aoee 1NfN0Y PAOPANR.LLC n Hrr epmo¢fo+u LLC , l A A • �F {I IEr.... ! ' F' \:,�• � REN90Ne LDNIi rl , - lo.Y q� e a a� e✓. / acwG Vn(�ml \ :ten /I 'TI I I. 'A lerd Bui al,y Srrlanr e.Pleurrtl valbl Runa Saulh \ c__ - O rn \-,`� Bln ro.CT lelr a0.IaTO'nBa Lw.eA 6n1 our a. Are I a •e�i x � .. •aa l B�.r..I.na pn.N,rr B9eae Lrmana n< a�_ � � n 8� b inir:n r u'"maeer ci weal I Br wr.Y Din m WI. ^E ror elrr Ho(IwNto el W / - a. Pbe"n Pn Pont Mr We trhn FlNh bvvlrnN, v aEn Hellkrlto t W ';\ •fJ ma +.� C. on. eh nonlemra aeuN xlMeor conneaueul It-f6_zaat na m0a9 aS�r d a ! ' �• �' Edol-aIB'BY IAAury k Aasee eln- ESar tI P: V a '911e Plan Pngntl ler lYl Conetrxtbn Cn Brulh Blnasur ] Relvr e.Mrrpp R Aewe4zev \.� � •yN r T 'Repent e(I—,N.A+N>Cnagl Rme a14 Pan ana IP¢'le' e. 1 cew....uan elan B-IB-e¢'er wreY Bwln..rly A•.ealew., -- '—^ On __.__—.......r N "� a 'EEIeIIW CM4Yam pl.n PnNrN Nr F6 Gnl p£.asa loon Carvupivuz SaU „.vT-� dp rvwn eeal.n,l mow rweror,e.narou.ue•.a-la.w er trr R.nuY LLe .._� Chapel Road ° V N mnel..enl a<.nP.Inr.L.e a. r• Ra:vaaa•� "�—• --� .—.__._.. �''c � ��n` DETAIL Ar V K MT TABLE ..... {;:� I. �n.nr�Iw er�nle Blen I.la rno.Ln..wua Prwenr Ynn � O 6 el N n<t I rl.a In a 9prolsl ltaotl Naesra zenr�fe ' e+ n�,al eMnn<i pe<:I nn oaoaa mnr erl.,u.r n.a pl.merr u : ae,iaaB. _ a oa�mm�l ... rn N G p uev ro ea en NA D N D A � NO , _ LJJS m A a. l um>nrombe eemPNluieal Mlelw uin hlre�o�m roon�u N 0 iN E A wu.l warn lne u<.Lw,ul a...e,a[in.lr em:�N N$ �g �M Or ea b rYa rwr z tei o Boundory Survey -� ' ' Lei�I,°„we er ;e e��„',m w I„n iulu•�w•• ---.. y pn�aasr n.vr.rrroxeoce A.ro Barr nos p� GRAPHIC 5CAI,F, m .r.. .ne mep Y..e.rn e.r.N m waeraa„a.wLh a.rwa YD_aooY-!ln,,,eB-s swsr.Nn.ur[wRec[.s.cw NDrrov. a-OA-,e € e. ¢w4a Yullalnp vev-cpnfornua u cal Lack ndv:ermmle, wawUon:r!Cenneetleul 81a�Fn. _ BBb•2o ar tNr hlil prier le currrnl nNlaurhr. yamN 'gnlmuu 9blvder4(m nea Y H In Yr Elala e Crnwee e.l' um aarrtroee�lrw a ! HaryEaEnienhrrinla b N<rlwniel Ckze h-E k a TopeerapYlr JvrreY eonlvrMwP b Cknr Txr ,'sw Ipnen.re I la Mrror¢axumenr rw eepin tn<ew m =nryv vv ^mar nr nkl<.vypn no..en n a 201e-00] M1a areilM4a prehrrfomt ruuNerpreJelrs t �_�� 3 of 10 2 From a review of available traffic data, Route 5 in the vicinity of Chapel Road carries about 22,000 vehicles per day, and Chapel Road in the vicinity of Route 5 carries about 3,400 vehicles per day. Both roads operate quite well during peak hours and through-out the day. Each of the trucks delivering raw material will generate one inbound and one outbound trip. Therefore, the 90 trucks per day delivering raw material will generate 180 trips per day, distributed throughout the day. As stated above, it is estimated that eventually there will be 60-90 additional trucks per day, again distributed throughout the day,to remove the finished product from the site. Therefore, there will be about 60-90 additional inbound and 60-90 additional outbound trips daily serving this facility(i.e., a total of 180 additional trips per day), for a total of 360 truck trips per day on Route 5, with half of that on Chapel Road as well since this road will only cant'outbound traffic.When compared to existing traffic volumes on Route 5 (i.e., 22,000 per day), such represents only a 1.6 percent increase in daily traffic; and when compared to existing traffic volumes on Chapel Road (i.e., 3,400 per day), such represents a 5.3 percent increase in daily traffic. These minor increases in total traffic on each of these two streets will have an insignificant impact on the existing, satisfactory levels of service for these two streets. Finally, a review of available sight lines to and from both site drive intersections(i.e., Route 5 and Chapel Road), and a review of the available roadway geometrics of these two site drives, indicated that the available roadway system can safely and efficiently accommodate the projected truck traffic. In conclusion, we find that the proposed stone processing facility would have a negligible impact on the existing traffic operations of the roadway network in the vicinity of Route 5 (John Fitch Boulevard) and Chapel Road. Sincerely yours, Bubaris Traffic Associates ,,Olik i f H'ff,l.,, o�CON/V. �y No.9203 _ James G. Bubaris, P.E. Conn_ Reg. No. 9203 �''� Ss�oNAILti��\�'\�� Principal �f``�JJ,�aIII III% "''�� F RUSSO SURVEYORS ENGINEERS t � l September 28, 2018 Jeff Doolittle - Town of South Windsor 1340 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Response to Comments Connecticut Soils, 420 John Fitch Blvd App. #18-48P Dear Jeff, I am in receipt of your comments dated August 20, 2018 regarding the proposed Site Plan for Connecticut Soil Realty Inc. A discussion of each of your comments follows: 1. How will the material be moved from the stockpile area to the processing and storage area? What equipment will be used and what route will they use? Material will be loaded into an off-road dump truck with a wheel loader for transport from the raw material stockpile area to the processing and storage area. The dump truck will transport the material utilizing the access roads within the lease area and will not leave the site. 2. How will material be loaded when it is sold and what route will be used for material to leave the site. A wheel loader will be used to load finish product onto trucks. These trucks will then proceed over the scale, exit via the driveway onto Chapel Road, and turn right back toward Route 5. Finish product will also be loaded onto rail cars for transport off-site. 3. The plans state both the existing well and septic will be abandoned upon extension of the rail siding. Where will a new well and septic system be located. The proposed locations should be shown on the plans. There are currently two wells and two septic systems located at the site. There is one well and septic in the vicinity of the office building which serves this building, and another well and septic north of the large warehouse building which serve that building. Upon extension of the rail, the well and septic serving the northern warehouse building will be abandoned and the plumbing capped and abandoned. There is no plan replace the well and septic for this warehouse building at this time. The well and septic serving the office building will not be disturbed. 4. I suggest the TF of both AD1 and CB3 be lowered slightly to 65.5 to provide a little more freeboard between the high water level and the top of the ground around infiltration basin 1 and 2. The plans have been revised to reflect lowering the TF of AD 1 from 65.8 to 65.3, and the TF of CB 1 from 65.8 to 65.2 to provide additional freeboard as 1 �1-c,r',ar:"l PCB East Wino so-, (fh,C)8. wirrUSSO.CaTi T 850).5210%�14 MA, 373�.11?u CEP"NG =>I�INE�,'ICUT u iVtA��ACHI! :El �_� recommended. As shown in the attached HydroCAD data sheets, these changes have no impact to the post development peak discharge for the design storms. 5. What will prevent the rock in the material stockpile from falling into the infiltration basin 1 and 2? A more substantial barrier such as concrete blocks or barriers should be placed along the sides of these infiltration basins to keep material out. The current plan shows installation of a silt fence backed with haybales as a barrier between the stockpile and Basin #2. The applicant feels that this is a suitable barrier which will allow for water to continue to sheet flow through to the basin. The plan has been revised to show a similar row of silt fence backed with haybales between the stockpile and Basin #1. However, should you insist, the haybales can be replaced with concrete mafia blocks. The mafia blocks along the edge of Basin #2 would need to be space at 6"to allow water to flow between them. 6. What is the expected side slope of the material? It is expected that the slope of the material will end up at its natural angle of repose. For crushed stone, this is about 35-40 degrees. 7. I suggest the pavement detail be modified to show two 2" lifts of Class 1 pavement because of the heavy trucks and equipment running on the paved drive and areas. The pavement detail has been revised to reflect this recommendation. 8. How will the site be restored after all the rock material has been sold and removed from the site? Upon discontinuation of the proposed use, it is anticipated that the site will be put to some other type of approved industrial use, which may or may not require a change to the cover type in the area of the former rock stockpile. The appropriate restoration of the area will be determined at that time. However, the stormwater treatment system and treatment train are anticipated to be maintained and functional even after the stockpile has been removed. I hope that these revisions address all of the comments satisfactorily. If there are any questions, or you require further information, please call our office at (860) 623-0569. Sincer y, Timothy A` oon, P.E. J.R. Russo & Associates,LLC Attachments Cc: Michele Lipe Connecticut Soil Realty, LLC Atty. Peter Alter Page 2 of 2 P1 (new Po n ) CB flMH4 6 ' �1 .. / DMH4 Sub 6 c6 CB3 V--- ill--- CB3 NF 4 { 4 \,..._......_;' Surface#2 Sub 4 Sub 2 Subsurface #1 DM WJ WEIR DMH3 Sub 3 Sub 1 CB1 CDS1 Surface#1 5 P2 o-- Sub 5 NF 3 (new Pond) Subsurface#2 tiSubcat', Reach` Otl LlIIk; Routing Diagram for 420 John Fitch POST 2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 Prepared by b Microsoft, / 02 86 ©2016 Hydro AD Software Solutions LLC Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type ///24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/28/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 3551 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 1: Sub 1 Runoff Area=1.535 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.97" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=0.848 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.97" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=2.72 cfs 0.210 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=88,842 sf 56.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.08" Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=5.11 cfs 0.354 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=173,418 sf 16.90% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.47" Flow Length=250' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=7.9 min CN=81 Runoff=6.36 cfs 0.487 of Subcatchment 5: Sub 5 Runoff Area=1.849 ac 39.70% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.44" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=61 Runoff=0.48 cfs 0.068 of Subcatchment 6: Sub 6 Runoff Area=69,748 sf 10.56% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.03" Tc=10.0 min CN=44 Runoff=0.01 cfs 0.004 of Pond CB1: CBI Peak Elev=63.25' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=90.0' S=0.0050 T Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond CB3: CB3 Peak Elev=60.41' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=70.0' S=0.0050 T Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond CDS1: CDS1 Peak Elev=62.75' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=8.0' S=0.0050'/' Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond DMH2: DMH2 W/WEIR Peak Elev=61.95' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=200.0' S=0.0050'/' Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond DMH3: DMH3 Peak Elev=61.00' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=108.0' S=0.0050 7' Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond DMH4: DMH4 Peak Elev=55.95' Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=74.0' S=0.1216 7' Outflow=4.92 cfs 0.380 of Pond DP1: (new Pond) Inflow=4.92 cfs 0.384 of Primary=4.92 cfs 0.384 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Pond INF 1: Subsurface #1 Peak Elev=62.84' Storage=2,503 cf Inflow=2.72 cfs 0.210 of Discarded=0.48 cfs 0.300 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.48 cfs 0.300 of Pond INF 2: Surface#1 Peak Elev=64.66' Storage=4,340 cf Inflow=5.11 cfs 0.354 of Discarded=1.07 cfs 0.584 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.07 cfs 0.584 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type/1/ 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.20" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/28/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Pond INF 3: Subsurface#2 Peak Elev=62.24' Storage=441 cf Inflow=0.48 cfs 0.068 of Discarded=0.20 cfs 0.096 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.20 cfs 0.096 of Pond INF 4: Surface#2 Peak Elev=63.99' Storage=6,628 cf Inflow=6.36 cfs 0.487 of Discarded=124 cfs 0.626 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.24 cfs 0.626 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type ///24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/28/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 3551 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 1: Sub 1 Runoff Area=1.535 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>4.46" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=0.848 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>4.46" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=4.02 cfs 0.315 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=88,842 sf 56.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.49" Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=8.39 cfs 0.592 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=173,418 sf 16.90% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.72" Flow Length=250' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=7.9 min CN=81 Runoff=11.87 cfs 0.903 of Subcatchment 5: Sub 5 Runoff Area=1.849 ac 39.70% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.19" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=61 Runoff=1.83 cfs 0.184 of Subcatchment 6: Sub 6 Runoff Area=69,748 sf 10.56% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.31" Tc=10.0 min CN=44 Runoff=0.17 cfs 0.042 of Pond CB1: CB1 Peak EIev=63.80' Inflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=90.0' S=0.0050'/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond CB3: CB3 Peak Elev=60.69' Inflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=70.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond CDS1: CDS1 Peak EIev=63.17' Inflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=8.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond DMH2: DMH2 W/WEIR Peak EIev=62.25' Inflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=200.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond DMH3: DMH3 Peak EIev=61.31' Inflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=108.0' S=0.0050'/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond DMH4: DMH4 Peak EIev=56.19' Inflow=728 cfs 0.571 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=74.0' S=0.1216 '/' Outflow=7.28 cfs 0.571 of Pond DP1: (new Pond) Inflow=7.33 cfs 0.613 of Primary=7.33 cfs 0.613 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Pond INF 1: Subsurface #1 Peak EIev=63.78' Storage=4,264 cf Inflow=4.02 cfs 0.315 of Discarded=0.60 cfs 0.399 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.60 cfs 0.399 of Pond INF 2: Surface#1 Peak EIev=65.10' Storage=8,395 cf Inflow=8.39 cfs 0.592 of Discarded=1.44 cfs 0.788 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.44 cfs 0.788 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.70" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/28/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Pond INF 3: Subsurface#2 Peak Elev=64.87' Storage=2,335 cf Inflow=1.83 cfs 0.184 of Discarded=0.43 cfs 0.194 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.43 cfs 0.194 of Pond INF 4: Surface#2 Peak Elev=64.76' Storage=14,411 cf Inflow=11.87 cfs 0.903 of Discarded=1.85 cfs 0.996 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.85 cfs 0.996 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/28/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 3551 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 1: Sub 1 Runoff Area=1.535 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>5.26" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=8.53 cfs 0.673 of Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=0.848 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>5.26" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=4.71 cfs 0.372 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=88,842 sf 56.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.25" Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=10.14 cfs 0.723 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=173,418 sf 16.90% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.43" Flow Length=250' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=7.9 min CN=81 Runoff=14.92 cfs 1.138 of Subcatchment 5: Sub 5 Runoff Area=1.849 ac 39.70% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.68" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=61 Runoff=2.72 cfs 0.259 of Subcatchment 6: Sub 6 Runoff Area=69,748 sf 10.56% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.56" Tc=10.0 min CN=44 Runoff=0.42 cfs 0.074 of Pond CB1: CB1 Peak Elev=64.37' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.673 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=90.0' S=0.0050'/' Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.673 of Pond C133: CB3 Peak EIev=60.83' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=70.0' S=0.0050'r Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of Pond CDS1: CDS1 Peak EIev=63.45' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.673 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=8.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.673 of Pond DMH2: DMH2 W/WEIR Peak EIev=62.40' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=200.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of Pond DMH3: DMH3 Peak EIev=61.47' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=108.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of Pond DMH4: DMH4 Peak EIev=56.31' Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=74.0' S=0.1216 '/' Outflow=8.53 cfs 0.691 of Pond DPI: (new Pond) Inflow=8.91 cfs 0.766 of Primary=8.91 cfs 0.766 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Pond INF 1: Subsurface #1 Peak EIev=64.07' Storage=4,707 cf Inflow=4.71 cfs 0.372 of Discarded=0.63 cfs 0.438 of Primary=0.93 cfs 0.018 of Outflow=1.57 cfs 0.456 of Pond INF 2: Surface#1 Peak EIev=65.31' Storage=10,721 cf Inflow=10.14 cfs 0.723 of Discarded=1.62 cfs 0.900 of Primary=0.03 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=1.66 cfs 0.901 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type 111 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/28/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC paw Pond INF 3: Subsurface#2 Peak Elev=66.49' Storage=3,170 cf Inflow=2.72 cfs 0.259 of Discarded=0.94 cfs 0.268 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=0.94 cfs 0.268 of Pond INF 4: Surface#2 Peak Elev=65.14' Storage=19,081 cf Inflow=14.92 cfs 1.138 of Discarded=2.17 cfs 1.216 of Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 of Outflow=2.17 cfs 1.216 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type ///24-hr 100-year Rainfall=6.90" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/28/2018 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 3551 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Subcatchment 1: Sub 1 Runoff Area=1.535 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>6.66" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=10.73 cfs 0.852 of Subcatchment 2: Sub 2 Runoff Area=0.848 ac 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>6.66" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=5.93 cfs 0.471 of Subcatchment 3: Sub 3 Runoff Area=88,842 sf 56.74% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.61" Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=13.17 cfs 0.954 of Subcatchment 4: Sub 4 Runoff Area=173,418 sf 16.90% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.71" Flow Length=250' Slope=0.0100 '/' Tc=7.9 min CN=81 Runoff=20.32 cfs 1.563 of Subcatchment 5: Sub 5 Runoff Area=1.849 ac 39.70% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.63" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0670 '/' Tc=12.7 min CN=61 Runoff=4.45 cfs 0.405 of Subcatchment 6: Sub 6 Runoff Area=69,748 sf 10.56% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.11" Tc=10.0 min CN=44 Runoff=1.27 cfs 0.148 of Pond CB1: CB1 Peak Elev=65.35' Inflow=10.73 cfs 0.852 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=90.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=10.73 cfs 0.852 of Pond CB3: CB3 Peak Elev=61.32' Inflow=12.95 cfs 1.177 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=70.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=12.95 cfs 1.177 of Pond CDS1: CDS1 Peak EIev=64.06' Inflow=10.73 cfs 0.940 of 18.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=8.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=10.73 cfs 0.940 of Pond DMH2: DMH2 W/WEIR Peak EIev=62.92' Inflow=12.95 cfs 1.003 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=200.0' S=0.0050 '/' Outflow=12.95 cfs 1.003 of Pond DMH3: DMH3 Peak EIev=61.97' Inflow=12.95 cfs 1.003 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=108.0' S=0.0050 '/' Oufflow=12.95 cfs 1.003 of Pond DMH4: DMH4 Peak EIev=56.73' Inflow=12.95 cfs 1.177 of 24.0" Round Culvert n=0.012 L=74.0' S=0.1216 '/' Outflow=12.95 cfs 1.177 of Pond DP1: (new Pond) Inflow=14.15 cfs 1.325 of Primary=14.15 cfs 1.325 of Pond DP2: (new Pond) Inflow=0.24 cfs 0.004 of Primary=0.24 cfs 0.004 of Pond INF 1: Subsurface #1 Peak EIev=64.31' Storage=5,002 cf Inflow=5.93 cfs 0.471 of Discarded=0.66 cfs 0.485 of Primary=3.46 cfs 0.063 of Outflow=4.12 cfs 0.548 of Pond INF 2: Surface#1 Peak EIev=65.50' Storage=13,001 cf Inflow=13.17 cfs 0.954 of Discarded=1.79 cfs 1.018 of Primary=2.40 cfs 0.088 of Outflow=4.19 cfs 1.106 of Post Development 420 John Fitch POST Type ///24-hr 900-year Rainfall=6.90" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/28/2018 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 02386 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Pond INF 3: Subsurface#2 Peak Elev=66.95' Storage=5,280 cf Inflow=4.45 cfs 0.405 of Discarded=1.36 cfs 0.408 of Primary=0.24 cfs 0.004 of Outflow=1.60 cfs 0.412 of Pond INF 4: Surface#2 Peak Elev=65.50' Storage=24,011 cf Inflow=20.32 cfs 1.563 of Discarded=2.49 cfs 1.458 of Primary=4.36 cfs 0.174 of Outflow=6.85 cfs 1.631 of 4 4" BIT. CONCRETE CLASS I PLACE IN TWO EQUAL LIFTS /-6" PROCESSED STONE BASE 44 .d 6" BANK RUN GRAVEL NOTE: PAVEMENT SUBGRADE SHALL BE EVALUATED FOR STABILITY. WHERE SUBGRADE IS WET OR CANNOT BE PROOF ROLLED WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT RUTTING OR MOVEMENT, ADDITIONAL STABILIZATION MEASURES MAY INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF CRUSHED STONE ATOP A GEOTEXTILE AS DIRECTED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ON-S/ TE PA VEMEN T DE TA IL NOT TO SCALE PROP.SHRUB PL INO SURRWNOMO N/F s LOAN!SEED DISTURBED AT TH a SLOPE 530 SP OF RIPRAP W S'O.C.;3'-A'B&B SURRgMgNO RIPRAP W NEW FNCLAHD WEIIANO WEILAEA (A)))WXTERBERRY HOLLY(11Fjt KRTCILLATA) / DISTIRBANOE (A PUSYWILLOW(SAU%DRCWOR) Dennis Botticeilo et al E. SEED MI%BY NEW[NCLAND WETANO PLANTS.INC.OR ((. BE BB WILL(SAU%BFBBIANA)APPROVED EWAL I ,ai LOAM!SEED D5 RSED SLOPE W/NEW ENDLND n }'EROSIM CO IVLAXW RESTOSATW MIX BY NEN EW—D •s NATBAIE WEIUN PLANTS.MC.OR APPROVED EWAL I COVER W/MR MEMO OR EWIIR=TEMPORARY �� CHECK DAM .r. rr EROSION EONiR01,BLANKET „e. FLARED END IN . RIPRAP APRON uur P. f1-47 J N'e E%TF(O RAILROAD SIMNC rtrtexos(m) RETAINING WALL E%IST.SEPTIC TO BE FIRM. (OEM IN BY O1NER5) (OESIOM BY OTHERS) ABANDONED UPON IAEEUNE,TYP. n A xnr Arisr'I a F"1ENSIW Q RAIL x.f ROAD SAINO DNHA OP T'.6J.00 - B.t6.JJx E .rrw PRW.ELEVATED PROP.TRMNE M. EXIST.W L TO BE .e FL•SB97(M)) _. C ABANDONED UPON fL�SS.Op(WT) VEYOR SYSTEM E%TENSION 0<RAIL ,,." ee .IX^wDs ROAD SDINC -"'•' 70 34'HOPC ...- b �rtR^pe EXTEND By OYmp SIDING nern w rrrie (DEaoN eY oTHEas) _t PROP.DWD sTORAGF 0811 TFtts5a6 ,;;;•, R�39 32 GENERA OR " .: '. IMIL1MTg1 BASM/[ . PROP.EWIPNENT STdtAOE UNE SOTION!p DES MMiRATW BA91N MAYOR W/CRUSNEEQQ TONS .U/N/E BOTTOM!9 /2 r 63,0... Ake'OE3 ..: .. r` SUBSIMPACE INFILIIIAnON S STEM R1 OB-24'mmPE RETAINIXO WALL HOPPER ((70-S1peM/ECN SC-Tb LXAMBfRS) i1 S.O Sx 9R1"RAQ BACK M 1 :(DESAGN BY BpT.EIEV.�62p '.4.......'" NA— 9 pE/ I3'RIDE GTAV£L OMERS) rf ° ''' I STONE ELEV.-61.5 RAMAL - uNNTAMED TN T.: ' b.I STACKER OPERA ON ACCESS DRIVE 'I' eo.e 2W-24'NDPE f CB12(TYPE CL) S O.SB DMNJ 1 PROP COLD TF-65.9 INSTALL SRT SACK TF-61'10 :` r 6 M GE 1.62.55 IN CB AFTER Fl.B9.66 �z tO,_IS'XDPE STA—TTON,TYP. LRWT OF PA. MATERIAL STOCKPRE AREA ' 6 MEIgR AO nri.66.50 S�0 SfF MATERIAL STOCKPRE ' 16p'k ae V C/IA 1er e C 16'„ORE An N..T AO' AREA i / �2H0� / / Dennis BOl iY (N3)R-62 ro SO(IN) A _ �561(T7REATMENT UNIT). ,'.// / / i i, i ✓, . /, f/ i //i / / g FL.62: (IS TO ROL1g1 ROW) O Ni. rt // W LEASE U. FL.6t�95 5 DMM2 W HEIR)) IL D,,E LE CY.:060 9q-1B'NOPL NER ELEv�6J 90. $.0.5x _ .... ... w HEADER' SILT PENCE BACK W/ 03 R�61 J6(IB- 70'-13 HOPE - - -- OF TALL FILTER FABRIC!E ._ S�O.Sx ` N^YBAIES TO BC 9911ii77LiRAlIM BASM SR1 FENCE BAtlt N// OF TOPSOIL ON EAST MORE ,.: GL�6066{2i7 Obi':. MAINTAM iHRW Wi LRTE BpTTp1!91 MAYBAIES M BE IM1LiBETTER BASM r��II OF S1pCKPRE!SEED W/ iF-12.3 OP[RATON W ORU9AL STdI WINTARIED•MROUGgIIi UNE BRuSN!TOES `, e. MORONT RESISTENT GRABS ...' R.62.3 //,, OPERATde W/DOT, STONE 6A0 `: '. DOT,REV..6A.0 .'' Sf6p MIX Celt(TYPE CL) r.� TF.65.60 R 1 B5 n o PAVED DMKM e ee. 4 r PROPRO.15CALf E rf�O•NN Sf q` O VC 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE® SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-co� TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED#70160910000098611087 September 28, 2018 Connecticut Soil Realty LLC 1462 Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 RE: Appl.#18-48P—Connecticut Soil Realty—420 John Fitch Blvd Dear Applicant: On September 19, 2018, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved Appl. 18-48P, Connecticut Soil Realty, 420 John Fitch Blvd-IWA/CC application for the construction of a rock processing facility, parking, and associated utilities on a portion of land east of John Fitch Blvd and north of Chapel Rd. Industrial (1)zone,with the following conditions: 1. The final approved copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon must be submitted to the Planning Department. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning & Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this requirement. 2. The applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use. 3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on September 19, 2023. It is the landowner(s)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration. 4. A bond of$15,000 for erosion and sediment control measures; a bond of$25,000 for establishment of stormwater system; a bond of$5,000 for the establishment of pla ntings. 5. Erosion control blanket or matting is to be placed on the slope over the outlet pipe after back filling and grading and seeding of this area. 6. All woody and construction materials present on northern slope leading to the wetland must be removed. 7. Understory buffer plantings along eastern border to be approved by town staff, which will include conifers and/or evergreen shrubs with wildlife value. 8. The monitoring of material composition and storm water quality must be made by an independent firm on a quarterly basis with reports submitted to the South Windsor Planning Department. 9. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 10. A contact person shall be identified on the plans. Very truly yours, INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION -Barbara Kelly, Chairperson cc: Director of Planning Chief Building Official Town Engineer Tim Coon, JR Russo, 1 Shoham Rd, EW, CT 06088 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL RUSSODATE: 10-2-18 JOB NO. 2018-007 SURVEYORS•ENGINERS - Shoham Rd East Wirdsce C. 05088 ATTN. Michele Lipe CT: (860)623-0569 RE: MA: (413) 785-1158 Connecticut Soil TO Planning &Zoning Commission 420 John Fitch Boulevard 1540 Sullivan Ave. South Windsor, CT 06074 WE ARE SENDING YOU ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover Via delivery the following items: ❑ Cover Letter ® Paper Prints ❑ Mylars ❑ Specifications ❑ Report ® Other COPIES DATE SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION 4 9/2018 Site Plans 1 Affidavit for Posting Signs THESE ARE TRANSMITTED (as checked below): ® For approval ❑ For your use ❑ For review and comment ❑ As requested ❑ For signature ❑ For your records ❑ Returned after loan to us ❑ For bids due REMARKS: cc: Connecticut Soil SENT BY: Timothy Coon Page 1 of 1 emorandum To: South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission From: South Windsor Inland Wetland/Conservation Commission Date: 10/2/2018 Re: Appl. 18-48P, Connecticut Soil Realty, 420 John Fitch Blvd On September 19, 2018, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved Appl. 18-48P, Connecticut Soil Realty, 420 John Fitch Blvd - IWA/CC application for the construction of a rock processing facility, parking and associated utilities on a portion of land east of John Fitch Blvd and north of Cha I Rd, Industrial (1) zone, with conditions. One of the approval conditions is that oring of material composition and storm water quality must be made by an i ent firm on a quarterly basis with reports submitted to the South Win ning Department. Th indsor Conservation Commission in its advisory capacity made a mo ommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning De that quarterly monitoring be done on site for material composition, to i at the material brought onsite is consistent with the material pro to be generated by the excavation of the stormwater storage tunnel; wait and air quality, by an independent firm with reports submitted to the South Windsor Planning Department. 1 Lipe, Michele From: Doolittle,Jeffrey Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 4:34 PM To: Lipe, Michele Cc: Zarambo, Lauren L. Subject: RE: CT Soil Approval Letter Michele, My outstanding comments for the above application are as follows: 1. There needs to be large concrete (mafia) blocks or gabion baskets filled with rock lined up between both sides of the rock stockpile and infiltration basins 1 and 2 to keep rocks from rolling into the basins. These can be spaces a slight distance apart (6")to allow water to drain between them if necessary The final plans need to be revised to show this also. 2. The final plans need to include a note about a restoration plan for this site consisting of, at a minimum,grading the site at a slight slope to drain to the north or to infiltration basins 1 and 2 and seeding the bare earth on site with a mine restoration seed mix. The site shall be restored after the rock stockpile has been removed and provided no other use has been approved for this site. Thanks Jeffrey Doolittle, P.E. Town Engineer 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor Ct 06095 860-644-2511 ext 245 Jeffrey.doolittle@southwindsor.org From: Lipe, Michele Sent:Wednesday, October 3,2018 3:11 PM To: Doolittle,Jeffrey<Jeffrey.Doolittle @southwindsor.org> Cc:Zarambo, Lauren L.<Lauren.Zarambo@southwindsor.org> Subject: FW: CT Soil Approval Letter Can you write up your engineering comments from last night for Tim Coons to respond to? From:Tim Coon<tcoon@irrusso.com> Sent: Wednesday,October 3, 2018 3:10 PM To:Zarambo, Lauren L. <Lauren.Zarambo@southwindsor.org>; Lipe, Michele<Michele.Lipe@southwindsor.org>; 'mitchelljflynn@hotmail.com'<mitchelliflynn@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: CT Soil Approval Letter Lauren, Can you please forward me a copy of the Engineering comments dated 10/2/18. 1 never received final written comments from Jeff. Tim From: Zarambo, Lauren L. [mai Ito:Lauren.Za ram boCabsouthwindsor.orq] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 2:26 PM i To: Lipe, Michele; Tim Coon; 'mitchelljflynn@hotmail.com' Subject: CT Soil Approval Letter Please find attached PZC approval letter for Connecticut Soil per your request Thank you, Lauren Zarambo Planning Department Secretary Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT o6074 86o.644.2511 ext 253 From: Lipe, Michele Sent:Wednesday,October 3, 2018 2:21 PM To:Zarambo, Lauren L. <Lauren.Zarambo@southwindsor.org> Subject: FW: CT Soil From:Tim Coon<tcoon@irrusso.com> Sent:Wednesday,October 3, 201811:54 AM To: Lipe, Michele<Michele.Lipe@southwindsor.org> Cc: Mitchell J. Flynn<mitchelliflynn@hotmail.com> Subject: CT Soil Michele, As soon as you have completed the Planning and Zoning Approval Letter,would you be so kind as to email me a copy? Thanks. Timothy A. Coon, P.E. Principal Engineer RUB' sv$tWF-1f0as . Nrt%14Rs J.R. RUSSO & ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. Box 938, 1 Shoham Road East Windsor, CT 06088 CT 860.623.0569 MA 413.785.1158 tcoon(o)_irrusso.com I www.6rrusso.com 2 STAFF REPORT CONTACT INFORMATION Michele R. Lipe, AICP Director of Planning Michele.lipe@southwindsor.org APPLICATION NUMBER APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER Appl 18-48P,CT Soils Site Plan CT Soil Realty LLC — owner Dennis Botticello Trust - owner PUBLIC HEARING DATE PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION Tuesday, October 2, 2018 420 John Fitch Boulevard; R014 John Fitch Boulevard and L022C Cha el Road BRIEF SUMMARY OF REQUEST Request approval for a stone product manufacturing facility for whole sale of a variety of stone products on a wholesale basis.The applicant's narrative explains the source of the material and the CT DEEP guidelines that have to be met for re-use of the rock. A description See Map of the on-site storing process is also described. An area on the western portion of the site is shown to be the area where a screener and cone crusher will be used on site to prepare the rock for wholesale. It is the applicant's intent to sale the product wholesale, with plans of using the rail spur that currently services the site. All traffic will enter form Route 5 and exit via a new 26 foot paved roadway that will exit onto Chapel Road. Proposed signage would require the trucks to exit left on to Chapel Road towards Route 5. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday with some Saturday hours from 7:00 AM—5:00 PM. The applicant has proposed agreed to engage an independent consultant to periodically test the air quality, if the PCZ determines it is appropriate. MAP SOURCE EXISTING EXISTING LAND USE SURROUNDING ZONING& SITE IMPROVEMENTS SIZE OF ZONING LAND USE PROPERTY Two existing Property is surrounded Construct a 26 foot wide paved buildings on site; roadway for manufacturing and previously used the Industrial zoning to processing of stone. Piles are 7 aC Industrial P y as a the west north south P g storage lot proposed to be 40 feet in height. and Multi-family The eastern edge of the stone will zoning to the east. be covered with soil and established as a berm. STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVE APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS/MODIFICATIONS DENY COMPATIBILITY with the COMPREHENSIVE PROPERTY HISTORY/APPROVALS PLAN/ZONING ORDINANCE There are regulated wetlands on site. IWA/CC approved the application The proposed use was determined on 9/19/18 with the recommendation of: by the Commission to be a 1. $15,000 for erosion and sediment control measures; a bond of$25,000 for permitted use in the Industrial establishment of stormwater system; a bond of$5,000 for the establishment zone on 2/27/18. The plan of plantings. appears to meet all the bulk 2. Erosion control blanket or matting is to be placed on the slope over the outlet requirements of the Industrial pipe after back filling and grading and seeding of this area. zone. The applicant has cleaned 3. All woody and construction materials present on northern slope leading to up a significant amount to the wetland must be removed. miscellaneous equipment and 4. Understory buffer plantings along eastern border to be approved by town debris from the site; area of new staff,preferably conifers and/or evergreen shrubs with wildlife value. equipment storage (to the west) 5. The monitoring of material composition and storm water quality must be made by an independent firm on a quarterly basis with reports submitted to still requires clean up the South Windsor Planning Department. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS: At this time,the staff has issued the following comments to the applicant: • The storage piles indicate they may be as high as 40 feet. Section 2.11 a requires all outdoor storage be screened from public ways. Can you verify with a cross—section that this is being accomplished. • A cross-section addressing the buffer requirement should be provided as well(the buffer to the east is mentioned in the narrative) • We are still waiting for the traffic statement. In particular,the amount of potential traffic generated as result of the wholesale use has not been addressed in the narrative. • The western most area that is shown as the screening and sorting area is apparently the area where some of the items"cleaned up"from 420 John Fitch Boulevard have ended up. Staff will be recommending that area be cleaned up as a part of this approval Standard Site Plan Approval Conditions; Engineering comments ATTACHMENTS SUBMITTED PLANS/ PUBLIC HEARING PETITION/ LEGAL NOTICE STANDARD (CIRCLE) NARRATIVE APPLICATION FORM APPROVAL ONDITIONS Appl #18-48P, CT Soils 10/2/18 Planning Department Report 1. Request for site plan approval for the storing, processing and manufacturing of earth materials, on property located at 420 John Fitch Boulevard, R014 Pleasant Valley Road and L022C Chapel Road, Industrial zone 2. Manufacturing and processing of product is a permitted use in the Industrial zone. The PZC made that determination about this specific operation in February 2018. 3. The applicant is proposing to lease an 11 acre parcel out of the larger Botticelli Trust property, in addition to 420 John Fitch Boulevard, and will create an to Chapel Road. The applicant's narrative explains the request for a stone product manufacturing facility for whole sale of a variety of stone products on a wholesale basis. The applicant's narrative explains the source of the material and the CT DEEP guidelines that have to be met for re- use of the rock. 4. The proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday with some Saturday hours from 7:00 AM— 12:00 PM. No Sundays. 5. A description of the on-site storing process is also described. It is the applicant's intent to sale the product wholesale, with plans of using the rail spur that currently services the site. All traffic will enter from Route 5 and exit via a new 26 foot paved roadway that will exit onto Chapel Road. Proposed signage would require the trucks to exit left on to Chapel Road towards Route 5. Staff would recommend that this roadway be a minimum of ten feet from the property line so that some of the existing vegetation can be preserved along the southerly property line. 6. The applicant is proposing to use the existing building in site for cold storage and equipment repairs. An area on the western portion of the site is shown to be the area where a screener and cone crusher will be used on site to prepare the rock for wholesale. Trucks will travel via gravel access road around the perimeter of the piles to the western portion of the site for loading of material. That area currently has a large amount of equipment and product stored on it; we have suggested to the applicant that area must be cleaned up as a part of this approval. 7. The applicant intends on having four employees onsite. Eleven spaces have provided adjacent to the existing office area. A traffic statement has been provided. The traffic evaluated included approximately 90 trips to and from the site initially and eventually an additional 90 trips to and from the facility for sale of the product. The rail spur will be extended further east on site for removal of processed rock. The traffic statement evaluated the site lines and the impact on existing traffic volumes and concluded this use would have minimal impact on the current traffic volumes. 8. The rock storage area shows rock stored as high as 40 feet. I have requested the applicant address the outdoor storage requirements to demonstrate that is outdoor storage pile will not be visible from Chapel Road and/or John Fitch Boulevard in accordance with our regulations for outdoor storage of products. The applicant has provided a screening i alternative; however I think the site will be better served with a vegetative screening rather than fencing which would remove the existing vegetation on site. I would recommend that interplanting of evergreen occur along the southerly property line. 9. The larger property also abut up to the MF-A residential zone and is subject to the buffer requirements. The closest activity to the Condos property line is approximately 360 feet. Cross sections should be provided to demonstrate compliance with the buffer requirements. 10.Measures are being taken by the applicant to minimize dust on the site. The applicant has proposed agreed to engage an independent consultant to periodically test the air quality and water quality. The operation will be subject to the Town's noise ordinance. 11.There are regulated wetlands on site. IWA/CC approved the application on 9/19/18 with the recommendation of: • $15,000 for erosion and sediment control measures; a bond of $25,000 for establishment of stormwater system; a bond of $5,000 for the establishment of plantings. • Erosion control blanket or matting is to be placed on the slope over the outlet pipe after back filling and grading and seeding of this area. • All woody and construction materials present on northern slope leading to the wetland must be removed. • Understory buffer plantings along eastern border to be approved by town staff, preferably conifers and/or evergreen shrubs with wildlife value. 12.The Fire Marshal's office has reviewed the plans and does not have any concerns. 13.The office on site is serviced by an existing well and an existing septic system. There is a second septic system that will be removed and will not be replaced. The Health Department has issued an approval for the change of use pending PZC approval. 14.If this application is approved, the planning has a few recommendations: • A note be added to the plans stating that the remaining land is not a building lot and any further use of the property would require additional approval form this Commission; • This approval is for virgin roc as represented by the applicant, any other storing of rock would require further approval. • A restoration plan be added to the plans to include the stabilization of the site with a mine restoration seed mix 2 n0-/Cs-cw� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CT 06074 ©R•co�' TELEPHONE(860)644-2511 September 27,2018 Connecticut Soil Realty, LLC 1462 Boston Post Rd. Westbrook,CT 06498 B-100 APPLICATION Street address:420 John Fitch Boulevard Town:South Windsor,CT 06074 Dear Mr.Coon, On September 26,2018,this department received an application proposing a change in use on your property. Based on the information provided and paperwork in our files this request has been approved. Approval is being granted under Section 19-13-B100a of the CT Public Health Code. This approval is given with the understanding that you will provide proper care and maintenance of the existing system(the septic tank is to be pumped every 3 years). THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE TO SEEK PROPER AUTHORIZATION FROM ALL TOWN AGENCIES PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office at(86r '-6173. Sincerely, 4&�J-k D n Heather Oatis,REHS Environmental Health Officer cc:South Windsor Building Official \ v South Windsor Director of Planning #- _� fi AFFIDAVIT POSTING OF PUBLIC HEARING SIGN I, R t=n2Y��s of applicant/agent for L1.._C, with an application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission, do hereby certify that in accordance with Article 8.2.6 of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations,, the necessary sign(s) have been posted at �ZD `5�1.�v� �' Cc V\ Z\J (Q the site in question as required. This affidavit is signed and will be delivered to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the public hearing. �/Mx�"j WITNES SIGNATURE 9-7. i DATE Subscribed and sworn to, before me, this --day ofi �11i � 4i' by IAVI(3 ? No a Public My Commission Expires- SOWN SFq o T-G� 01ye 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE ® SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f�dsoR-CO TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED#70160910000098611087 September 28, 2018 Connecticut Soil Realty LLC 1462 Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 RE: Appl. #18-48P—Connecticut Soil Realty—420 John Fitch Blvd Dear Applicant: On September 19, 2018, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation`Commission approved Appl. 18-48P, Connecticut Soil Realty, 420 John Fitch Blvd-IWA/CC application for the construction of a rock processing facility, parking, and associated utilities on a portion of land east of John Fitch Blvd and north of Chapel Rd. Industrial (1)zone, with the following conditions: 1. The final approved copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon must be submitted to the Planning Department. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning & Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this requirement. 2. The applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use. 3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on September 19, 2023. It is the Ian downer(s)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration. 4. A bond of$15,000 for erosion and sediment control measures; a bond of$25,000 for establishment of stormwater system; a bond of$5,000 for the establishment of plantings. 5. Erosion control blanket or matting is to be placed on the slope over the outlet pipe after back filling and grading and seeding of this area. 6. All woody and construction materials present on northern slope leading to the wetland must be removed. 7. Understory buffer plantings along eastern border to be approved by town staff, which will include conifers and/or evergreen shrubs with wildlife value. 8. The monitoring of material composition and storm water quality must be made by an independent firm on a quarterly basis with reports submitted to the South Windsor Planning Department. 9. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 10. A contact person shall be identified on the plans. Very truly yours, INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION Barbara Kelly, Chairperson cc: Director of Planning Chief Building Official Town Engineer Tim Coon, JR Russo, 1 Shoham Rd, EW, CT 06088 GALE F. HOFFNAGLE, C.C.M., Q.E.P. Curriculum Vitae EDUCATION • M.B.A., Golden Gate University, 1972 • M.S., Meteorology, New York University, 1968 • B.S., Meteorology, New York University, 1967 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION/CERTIFICATIONS • Certified Consulting Meteorologist, American Meteorological Society, 1975, #152 • Qualified Environmental Professional, Institute of Professional Environmental Practice, 1996, #07960163 OVERVIEW OF EXPERIENCE 1982-Present TRC Environmental Corporation 21 Griffin Road North Windsor, CT 06095 1982-1984 Manager, Energy and Environment Division 1984-1986 Manager, Air Quality Division 1986-1995 Vice President and Technical Director 1995-Present Senior Vice President and Technical Director/Air Quality Consulting Practice Leader 1976-1982 Environmental Research and Technology 1976-1980 Principal Meteorologist - Lexington, MA 1980-1982 Manager, Air Quality Division - Houston, TX Technical responses to the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program and assisting clients in obtaining permits under the program 1972-1976 Intera Environmental Consultants Houston, TX Senior Meteorologist Responsible for the development and application of air quality diffusion models for the solution of dispersion programs primarily in complex terrain. Also performed meteorological data acquisition studies primarily in mountainous terrain 1968-1972 U.S. Air Force, Environmental Health Laboratory McClellan AFB, Sacramento, CA 1968-1969 Second Lt-Laboratory Meteorologist 1969-1970 First Lt 1970-1972 Captain Earned Air Force Commendation Medal for services including air quality dispersion modeling, tracer studies, emission testing and ambient air quality sampling May 15, 2018 1 Gale F. Hoffnagle, CCM, QEP Summers of 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967 Student employee of the New York Urban Air Pollution Dynamics Program; Provided pilot balloon observations, meteorological data collection and analysis and the first SO2 emissions inventory for New York City Masters of Science Degree program was sponsored by a Grant from the National Air Pollution Control Administration (later the air component of the U.S. EPA). This program consisted of 13 courses in air pollution control and analysis. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS • Air &Waste Management Association: President 1988-1989 First Vice President 1987-1988 Board Member 1979-1982, 1985-1990 Section Council Chair 1975-1978 Southwest Section Chair 1974-1976 Connecticut Chapter Chair 1991-1993 Committee on Meteorology 1969-Present Fellow Member 1993 Honorary Member 2004 Charles W. Gruber Award 2006 Lyman A. Ripperton Award 2014 Annual Meeting General Chairman 2018 • American Meteorological Society, Chair, Board on Industrial Meteorology 1978- 1981, Board for Certified Consulting Meteorologists 2015-2019, Fellow 2013, Henry T Harrison Award 2014 • International Society of Exposure Science • American Petroleum Institute, Chair, Air Program of the Committee on Refinery Environmental Control 1986-1999 • Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, Vice-Chair, Air Subcommittee of the Environmental Quality Council - 1988-1995 • American Institute of Chemical Engineers • National Council of Industrial Meteorologists President, 2011-2012 • Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering Chair, Board on Environment 1995 - 2004 Council Member 2000 - Present Secretary 2004 - 2008 Vice President/President Elect 2008 — 2010 2 Gale F. Hoffnagle, CCM, QEP President 2010-2012 PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Hoffnagle, G.F., (2013) "Methods for Single Source Ozone and PM2.5 Analysis", A&WMA Specialty Conference: Guideline on Air Quality Models: The Path Forward, March 19-21, 1013, Raleigh, NC. Hoffnagle, G.F., Catizone, P.A., and Reed, J.F., (2008) "Comparison of CALMET/CALPUFF Model Results to Existing ISC2 and CTDMPLUS Model Results in a Valley Location", Paper No. 323, A&WMA 1015t Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon, June Hoffnagle, G.F., Susca, M., and Ritter, G.L. (2004), "Indoor Air Quality Measurements during Completion of the RCRA 725 Human Exposures Analysis", Paper No. 552, A&WMA Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, Indiana, June Hoffnagle, G.F. (2004) "What is the Definition of complex Winds", Paper 375, A&WMA Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, Indiana, June Hoffnagle, G.F., (2003), "The Winds of Change Are Blowing", Air & Waste Management Association's Magazine for Environmental Managers, January Hoffnagle, G.F. and Zapert, J.R. (2001), "Short-range Applications of CALPUFF", A&WMA Specialty Conference, Guideline on Air Quality Models: A New Beginning, Newport, Rhode Island, April Hoffnagle, G.F. and Zell, S.E. (2000), "Offsite Consequence Model vs. Real World Release Data", Paper No. 372, A&WMA Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, June Hoffnagle, G.F., Catizone, P.A. and Zell, S.E. (2000), "Modeling of Advanced Mitigation Techniques", Paper No. 367, A&WMA Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah Hoffnagle, G.F. and Zell, S.E. (1998), "Risk Management Plan Modeling for Ammonia Retailing", AICHE Symposium: Ammonia Plant Safety, Charleston, South Carolina Hoffnagle, G.F. and Cooper, J.A. (1998), "Soot Deposition Study: Logan Airport", A&WMA Annual Meeting Paper 98-RA9101, San Diego, California, June Catizone, P.A., Hoffnagle, G.F., Szabo, D., Murray, D.R., Coble, T.D. and Marcus, R. (1996), "CTDMPLUS/ISC2 Model Application at a Major Smelting Facility -Analysis and Results," Paper No. 96-WA63.05, AWMA 89th Annual Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, July 23-28 3 Gale F. Hoffnagle, CCM, QEP Murray, D.R., Catizone, P.A. and Hoffnagle, G.F. (1994), "Evaluation of Remtech PA-2 Phased Array Sodar Performance in Complex Terrain Using In-site Turbulence Instruments" 8th Joint Conference on the Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology, Nashville, Tennessee Catizone, P.A., Hoffnagle, G.F., Murray, D.R. and Mikkelson, R. (1993), "Air Quality Modeling and Its Role in the Risk Assessment at Valdez, Alaska," Paper A507, A&WMA Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, June Hoffnagle, G.F. (1993), "Complex Terrain Modeling: An Update," TAPPI Environmental Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, May EXPERT TESTIMONY AND DEPOSITIONS IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS 1. Beck et al. vs. Koppers, Inc. et al U.S. District Court for Grenada, Mississippi Civil Action No. 3:03CV60-P-D Deposition, July 6, 2005 Deposition, August 25, 2009 2. Michelle Marshall, et al. vs. Air Liquide-Big Three, Inc, et al. Civil District Court for the Parish of New Orleans, Division: J 13 Civil Action No. 2005-8706 Trial Testimony, September 19, 2007 Trial Testimony, September 7-8, 2010 3. BP Amoco Chemical Corporation v. Flint Hills Resources, LLC Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 05C5661 Deposition, December 22-23, 2008 Testimony, October 27, 2009 4. Christopher Mann, et al v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Northern district of Ohio, Eastern Division Case No. 01:07-CV-3512 Deposition June 23, 2009 5. USA v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company Federal District Court for South Carolina, Aiken Division, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-01707-M BS Deposition, August 7 and 18, 2009 6. Dale Morris and Mary Morris v. CF Industries, Inc. State of Indiana, County of Posey, Posey Superior/Circuit Court 4 Gale F. Hoffnagle, CCM, QEP Cause No. 65-001-0711-CC321 Deposition, December 15, 2009 7. Kieta Alexander et al. v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al. Civil District Court, Parish of New Orleans, State of Louisiana No. 02-14666 Hearing Testimony: February 22, 2010 Trial testimony: January 27, 2016 8. Wanda Washington, et al. v Lockheed Martin Corporation et al. Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Manatee County, Florida Civil Action no. 2007-CA 4765 Hearing Testimony: May 14, 2010 9. Fall-Line alliance , et al v Georgia DNR and Power4Georgians Georgia Office of Administrative Hearings Docket No. OSAH-BNR-AQ-1031707-98-Walker Hearing Testimony: September 22, 2010 10. Wanda Basel, et al v. Weyerhaeuser Company US District Court for Western Arkansas Civil Action No. 07-4037 Trial Testimony: September 28, 2010 11. Matthew W. Heilig et al. v. Flour Corporation Missouri 22nd Judicial Court Cause No. 22052-09866 Deposition: March 31, 2011 12.Katie Lowery et al v. Honeywell International Inc. et al. Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama Cause # 01-CV-2005-001749.00 Deposition: May 24, 2012 13.Charles Burnia et al. v Flour Corporation Missouri 22nd Judicial Circuit Court Cause no. 052-09605 Deposition: May 31, 2013 Deposition: July 19, 2013 14.U. S. v Albemarle Corporation US District Court of South Carolina, Orangeburg Division Civil No. 5:11-cv-00991-JMC Deposition: January 21, 2014 5 Gale F. Hoffnagle, CCM, QEP 15.Big River Steel Permit No. 2305-AOP-RO Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Docket No. 13-006-P Deposition: February 14, 2014 Hearing Testimony: February 21, 2014 16.Shanley, et al. v. Chalmette Refining, LLC Eastern District of Louisiana Civil Action 12-3045 Deposition: August 1, 2014 17. Megan White vs. Flour Corporation et al. Missouri 22"d Judicial Circuit Court Cause no. 052-09366 Deposition: August 13, 2014 18.Tonga Nolan, et al. vs Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. US District Court for Middle of Louisiana Case No. 3:13-cv-00439 Deposition: December 16, 2014 Class Hearing Testimony: February 5, 2015 6 r vy� �' µ �' ��l3� ��� � t �6 ra a��rgy..y a hd' � ���� d�� rib.� w �, ,� �' � t �•w..x;� tAiP`� � � � ,. ...,., $r , � t , ,� p„ � ,< \�l � rA �. .t., s r B t i��r��. [ �, , r N,„ �_�,P�: .� w. ��'�!;� • • � � � I � � ■ � • • � Who am I L T R C Results you can rely on • Senior Vice President and Technical Director of TRC Environmental Corporation of Windsor • Environmental Consultant for 50 years • Certified Consulting Meteorologist and Qualified Environmental Professional • Past President of the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering • Resume available z Environmental Issues Addressed T R C Results you can rely on • Material to Be Processed • Odor ■Ambient Air/ Dust • Noise/Vibration ■ Impact at Residences •storm Water Monitoring (background and in operation) 3 C�2TRC Material to be ProcessedResults you can rely an • Large stone pieces (sample) from underground of the South Meadows -7a�; • Primarily Portland Brownstone with some Basalt - ■ Tunnel Muck is a term of art used to describe the material taken from a tunnel bored through the underground, in this case solid rock. • Several peer reviewed articles propose tunnel muck processing for use in road beds and fill. • The MDC stone will be tested bi-weekly to insure that it is non-hazardous (clean) and acceptable for transport and use by Connecticut Soil. The testing is overseen by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each load is manifested. The stone will be dewatered (a process that will remov many of the fines that might create dust) before being sent to Connecticut Soil. 4 PA n n r�,)TRC OdorResults you can rely on • No odor from the rock (sample) • The fact that it is clean material should mean that no organic odors will be present in the stored rock. 5 r�,)TRC Ambient Air/Dust R..aks you can rely on • There will be limited sources of minor dust. • Trucks will deposit wet rock on a grate with a misted conveyor belt to the stock pile which is formed by an unloader arm. The amount of dust is minimal because of the wetness of the rock and the manner of moving it to the stockpile. • Removing rock from the pile will involve picking it up and loading a truck to take it to the processing area. Because the pile is internally wet, very little dust will get into the air. Care in loading the truck is essential to keeping down dust. • The processing area will have a screener and crusher (both with misting equipment) which may produce some dust depending on the wetness of the rock. Trucks coming in and out of the facility will travel at 5 mph and are required by law to be covered. 6 �� Noise and Vibration TRCResults you can rely on • Other than truck noise at 5 miles per hour, there is only two sources of noise. A screener and a crusher. • The crusher manufacturer reports that sound levels are less than 80 decibels at 1 meter from the equipment. • Calculated sound at Chapel Hill Condos (1900" away), 25 decibels. • Town Ordinance for industrial sources at residential areas is: 61 decibels during the day (7 AM to 10 PM) and 45 decibels at night • Actual could be less because of barriers. • The screener uses vibration but will attenuate quickly • TRC Decibel Comparisons C�Results you can rely on Example Home &Yard Appliances Impact and Regulations dBA healthy hearing threshold a pin dropping rustling leaves whisper 25 Calculated babbling brook computer light traffic refrigerator South Windsor nighttime conversational speech air conditioner South Windsor daytime v shower dishwasher a ? i toilet flushing vacuum cleaner 8 80 alarm clock varhaFe disnosal rkt)..,,TRC Exposure at Chapel Hill CondosResuHs you can rely on ■ Hours of Operation reduce potential exposure — 7 AM — 5 PM Weekdays — 7 AM — 1 PM Saturdays only as necessary — None expected - Sundays — Daytime hours have higher background noise — More air dispersion during these hours 9 p f� rusher 7. ;-Nearest Stockpile ,t j C rook& rL2 TRC Wind RoseResults you can MY on ;NORTH"..."....-.- 6% I • 3.2% of the time 45% 3% ',WEST EAST; WIND SPEED pMs) - > 11 10 � e.eo-11.10 - 5.T0-8.80 SO()TN 3.60-510 Q 2.10-3.60 Q 0.60 2.10 Calms'.1-00:b DATA PERIOD. COMPANY NAME.Start Deb:11111P0i3-00:00 TRC Environmental End DO*:1213112017.23:59 MODELER P. t T RC CALM WINO6 TOTALAL COUNT COUNT � 1.00% 43762 hrs. AVG.WIND SPEED. PROJECT NO (�Summary TRCResults you can My on • Minimal to non-existent impact at Condos due to - Dust - Noise - Vibration - Odor • Chance of impact reduced by; - Winds toward Condos only 3.2% of the time - Daytime operating hours - Distances too great for noise, vibration or dust to be transported to Condos - Barriers to transport include eastern berm, buildings and trees 12 CM TRC Conclusion � Results you can rely on • In my professional opinion, the impact on adjoining residential properties will be negligible and will certainly be substantially less than most other industrial activity that could be conducted onsite. The distance from the processsing and stockpiling activities to the residential properties to the east of the site and the proactive buffering to be installed on the site offer substantial protection from any measurable impacts. 13 r(�-,)TRC ROSURS you can rely on Questions? Thank Gale F Hoffnagle, CCM, QEP P: 860-298-6247 1 E: ghoffnagle@tresolutions.com www.trcsolutions.com WIND ROSE PLOT: DISPLAY: KBDL 2013-2017 Wind Speed WEAN 14740 Direction(blowing from) ---------------- ------ NORTH 7.5% 6% 4.5% 3% 1.5% 'WEST EAST WIND SPEED (rrds) - >=11.10 - 8.80-11.10 - 5.70-8.80 - 3.60-5.70 Q 2.10-3.60 0 0.50-2.10 Calms:1.00% COMMENTS: DATA PERIOD: COMPANY NAME Start Date:11112013-00:00 TRC Environmental End Date:12f3U2017-23:59 MODELER: P.Wright CALM WINDS: TOTAL COUNT: T RC 1.00% 43762 hra. AVG.WIND SPEED: PROJECT NO.: 3.72 m!s WRPLOT View-Lakes Environmental Software Residential Abstract Re: Connecticut Soil Realty LLC Planning&Zoning Application 18-48P Prepared on behalf of: Neighboring Site 13/9 of the Proposed Plan Michael Moriarty 415 Chapel Road South Windsor, CT 06074 October 1, 2018 This abstract is being provided today on behalf of Michael Moriarty,415 Chapel Road,South Windsor, CT and interested parties inclusive of several commercial, industrial and residential land owners in the immediate vicinity of the planning and zoning application for 420 John Fitch Boulevard and the proposals within the site plan and narratives. Executive Summary: There are several immediate concerns regarding the proposed application with certain matters generating relatively small to moderate concerns while others provide the opportunity for more significant and material issues to arise.A wide variety of concerns have been detailed herein for the Commission to consider and categorized into the following three(3)cohorts: 1) Concerns related to the Proposed Site Plan 2) Concerns related to the Business Entity&Affiliates 3) Concerns related to the Ongoing Monitoring&Maintenance of the Site The ask is that the commission takes the nature of this information seriously and declines the application based upon the evidence proposed herein.You will find this position defensible in court as the appropriate case law has been referenced throughout the abstract.One additional alternative is proposed should the commission not feel the evidence is overwhelming and is centered around the relocation of the exit driveway from Chapel Rd to John Fitch Blvd in an effort to strike a balance with the needs of the community. Concerns related to the Proposed Site Plan: Concerns related to the proposed site plan are small to moderate. Procedurally,the public has not had enough time to review the traffic report and sight lighting plan which the applicants initially marked as not applicable on the checklist but should have been included. While traffic reports are critical,traffic reports generally focus on volume rather than type of vehicle and the contents of such. In example,tri-axle vehicles delivering hardscaping materials generally produce indirect pollution and debris to the area.The narrative submitted by the applicant simply dismisses such item as a non-issue which should be revisited by the commission. Properties on Chapel Rd between John Fitch Blvd and Ellington road are Industrial,Commercial and Residential.Without an appropriate site lighting plan the proper due diligence cannot be performed to ensure adequate safety measures exist on and around the site.Of additional significance is that this particular industrial area experiences a proportionally higher crime rate than the rest of the Town of South Windsor with machinery and materials often being stolen, business owners have indicated they no longer report such crimes due to low recovery rates and prioritization with local authorities. Adequate guard shacks and lighting would represent an appropriate deterrent to potential thieves and should be considered by the commission. Concerns related to the Business Entity&Affiliates The two individuals involved in conversations are Mr. Mitchell Flynn and Mr.John Ronindone while Mr. Dennis Botticello is listed as the land owner for a portion of the property. Note that while a full background was not conducted on these individuals,a simple scan of publicly available information yielded sufficient cause for concern. Each of the three individuals will be addressed individually for your consideration. Mr. Dennis Botticello principal of Botticello Inc and affiliates such as Sanitary Services and Recycled Fibers Inc in Manchester, CT and the Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility in East Windsor,CT are associated with disposal and storage facilities.There are also numerous trucking firms operating in the greater Hartford,CT area affiliated with these companies.These companies and sites have been the subject of numerous investigations of the Connecticut Attorney General,the Department of Environmental Protection and the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority for multiple serious violations.These violations are grossly negligent in nature inclusive of the failure to install covering systems, implement stormwater pollution mitigation plans,serious environmental contamination and an estimated 400 tons of trash dumped illegally to protect profit margins.There are numerous violations and fines levied on these businesses due to those issues previously identified with only a small amount actually collected on the voluminous sanctions and mandated orders to close being ignored.The State of Connecticut indicated as part of their investigation illegal dumping still occurred even in light of cease and desist orders issued to one or more of the affiliated companies polluting nearby parks and waters. Public commentary by municipality officials notes these businesses have an inability to be insured and face ongoing additional sanctions as a result of such. Example articles can be found within Exhibit A. Mr.John Rondinone, owner of Ronindone's Auto&Truck LLC has indicated he is the partner of Mitchell Flynn, President of both Connecticut Soil LLC and Connecticut Soil Realty LLC and while this party is unclear on the official relationship due to Mr. Rondinone not being listed with the Connecticut Secretary of State this abstract will assume they are partners.The corporate structuring of Connecticut Soil LLC and Connecticut Soil Realty LLC is unusual for an entity of such size and suggests under-capitalization,a tactic recognized by finance law that may expose an individual and approving authority to personal liability.This corporate structure will allow the owners to shift assets and absolve debts and violations without repayment should future obligations arise including matters related to compliance, environmental hazards and many of those items previously shared above.A review of Connecticut Superior Court Records indicate Mr. Rondinone is familiar with default of debt as evidenced through docket no: HHDCV106011930S whereby an order against Mr. Rondinone was upheld to repay Chase Bank USA North America with the judgment rendering Mr.Rondinone to make weekly payments to the Plaintiff for approximately 12 years due to the defendant's current fiscal position. The commission should perform the requisite due diligence to ensure these companies maintain sufficient capital reserves to operate in the requested industry and remediate any unplanned matters. Mr. Mitchell Flynn, President of both Connecticut Soil LLC and Connecticut Soil Realty LLC started both companies in late 2017 with no known operations or revenues to date.According to Mr. Flynn's online biography copied in Exhibit C, he is also the current President of Connecticut Truck and Equipment Sales a company that was in business for 8 months and then dissolved in 2015 according to the Secretary of State records. Prior to that, Mr. Flynn indicates being affiliated with Jarvis Creek and Anchor Capital Sales,small companies operating within the trucking industry. It should be noted that Jarvis Creek and Anchor Capital Sales share a confidential affiliation with each other as both parties are named defendants in docket no: NNH-CV11-6020074-5 with damages awarded to a third-party plaintiff. Furthermore,Anchor Capital Services was investigated by the US Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice for the defrauding of several financial institutions of approximately$2 million dollars.When the company became under-capitalized,fictitious customers were established along with fraudulent lease agreements which broke federal law and was subsequently prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice.Jail time and monetary restitution awards were ordered by the District Attorney's office with further information being available in Exhibit D. Both Connecticut Soil Realty LLC and Connecticut Soil LLC still maintain the same address as Anchor Capital Services a property which yields several actions of default,judgments and other legal actions as found within docket no: MMX-CV- 12-6007936-5 of the Connecticut Superior Court. If the matters herein are not severe enough for the commission to consider,the connection of Connecticut Soil to these prior businesses should be adequately explored and weighed upon by the commission prior to final approval being received. On a separate but equally important note;the town council of South Windsor,community members and other elected and appointed officials have tried to uphold the values of diversity and culture within the town.A basic media scan of Mr. Flynn's social media pages evidence some very public racial and discriminatory comments which may cause concern with those who value such cultural diversity. Examples such as the sharing of an article titled "Florida School Apologizes After Students Stomp on Jesus"with the caption written by Mr.Flynn of"Good thing it wasn't Allah or there would be a bunch of dead students and cars blowing up and embasseys stormed. LOL"or another article entitled "Pakistani Protester Dies From Breathing Smoke of Burning US Flags"with the written caption authored by Mr. Flynn of"HaHaHaHaHa I knew that coating those flags with DDT and Formaldehyde before donating them to the Pakistani Aid foundation would eventually pay dividends:smiley face:". No further commentary is necessary on the contents of the page and its contents.With the immediate neighbors of the 420 John Fitch Boulevard and Chapel Rd property representing a high concentration of minorities and children;there may be concern that bias decision making may occur when the company is faced with a decision that requires monies to be spent to maintain environmental compliance for these residents. The commission should be cognizant of the several red flags associated with the applicants including but not limited to prior regulatory actions, illegal dumping, numerous legal actions, short lived corporations, federal and state level investigations and the potential biasness against minority groups. Concerns related to the Ongoing Monitoring and Maintenance of the Site: As previously noted,there are several indications that the applicant and land owner do not hold sufficient funding to adequately meet the needs of several compliance regulations the company must abide by and offers/promises made within the application narrative. It is further concerning that the company is structured to walk-away from such obligations without much recourse available to the town and impacted residents.The commission is encouraged to weigh these facts heavily and consider whether or not the due diligence has been appropriately performed, escrow services retained and if this application will yield a South Windsor domiciled business that strikes an appropriate balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs as stated within the South Windsor zoning regulations. It is note-worthy that the Town of South Windsor has been minimally deficient in the Chapel Rd vicinity due to the restricted bandwidth of several town services. In example,the abandoned property located near the corner of Chapel Rd and Ellington several hundred feet away from the proposed site is host to several illegal activities inclusive of drug dealing and prostitution.Taxes have defaulted for several years on the property but the town has not held public auction or condemnation due to competing priorities and turnover of the tax collector.The local blight officer has several open cases whereby properties are not being monitored after the notification of violations, subsequent fees have also not been assessed to encourage compliance from the landowners. Although the town's responsibility is minimal in this regard, it exacerbates that several issues and projects are being prioritized ahead of the residents of Chapel Rd who reside between John Fitch Blvd and Ellington Rd.All of these items are driving values down in the neighborhood and creating a negative association with Chapel Rd and incidentally the Pleasant Valley region.The commission need also consider that there is extremely high concentration of kids in the properties listed within the site plan, many who bike and walk on the sidewalks in front of the proposed exit driveway and again there are no indicators that safety standards will be adhered to potentially exposing the applicant, land owner,the town and potentially the commission itself to litigation in the face of an unfortunate incident or accident. Concluding Remarks The abstract herein provides strong evidence that the application should not be approved overall as there is a high degree of liability and exposure this project creates with the town and local residents. There is minimal benefit to the community with the negative impact to the local residents causing great concern.Should the commission not be encouraged by the items outlined herein along with any testimony heard and allow the project to move forward;the exit drive detailed in the plans should ultimately be moved to John Fitch Boulevard.The movement of the exit driveway although likely more complicated is necessary and warranted as tri-axle trucks and residual materials will only encroach into the residential section of Chapel Rd, a section that has been previously ignored and victim to excessive littering and cause further problems for the property owners.There are no indicators that enforcement will exist to ensure trucks are exiting on Chapel Rd to the right back to John Fitch Blvd.A capital investment from the company would be required with potential alterations to the traffic patterns of John Fitch Boulevard but this alteration of plan would strike a balance with the community and once again not prioritize a project over the needs of the local community and adjacent residential properties. In closure, it is within the power of the commission to make an honest judgment regarding the application as supported in case law between the Town of Westportv City of Norwalk.So as long as the committee does not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the decision making,courts must allow"zoning authorities this discretion in determining the public need and the means of meeting it because the local authority lives close to the circumstances and conditions which create the problem and shape the solution". Exhibit A Select News Articles related to Mr.Dennis Botticello's Business Affairs Finding Blame For A Big Mess,Finger-pointing Over Manchester Trash Pile Hartford Courant As trucks began removing a rancid mountain of illegally dumped trash from a Manchester recycling center Friday afternoon,the finger-pointing began over why no state agency took action sooner against a company that had committed so many violations for so long. State environmental officials said Friday that the garbage-covered site in Manchester near the Hockanum River had operated illegally for at least four years, and that they had asked Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to take action nine months ago. Blumenthal finally moved Thursday,obtaining an injunction against any further dumping at the site of Recycled Fibers and ordering a cleanup completed by July 10.The state is also seeking fines of up to $25,000 for each day the site operated illegally,said Kimberly Massicotte,a lawyer who heads the attorney general's environment department. Blumenthal's office blamed the state Department of Environmental Protection for the inaction,saying officials there did not stress the urgency of the situation and failed to provide information Blumenthal requested to bolster his case against Sanitary Services Corp.,the huge Manchester trash-hauling company that operates.Recycled Fibers. Blumenthal,himself,could not be reached for comment Friday. Mired in financial trouble,Sanitary Services failed to collect trash and recyclable items in several municipalities Monday after its worker's compensation and vehicle insurance were cut off for lack of payment. Among the developments Friday: *Anthony and Dennis Botticello,principals of Botticello Inc.,delivered a$33,000 check to the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority Friday afternoon to cover the tipping fees for disposing of the estimated 400 tons of trash piled at the Recyled Fibers site.CRRA spokesman Brian Flaherty said Botticello Inc. planned to haul 100 tons of trash out Friday,another 100 tons Saturday, and finish the job Monday by taking out 200 tons.Some of the trash will be taken to the Town of Manchester landfill. David Nash,director of engineering and enforcement for the DEP's waste bureau,estimated that the site contains 8,000 cubic yards of trash.*Sanitary Services is operated by Michael A. Botticello Sr.,and Botticello Inc.is run by Anthony Botticello, Michael's father,and Dennis Botticello, his brother, according to the CRRA.While CRRA officials said Botticello Inc. "rescued"Sanitary Services Inc., Dennis Botticello is a vice president of both Sanitary Services and Recycled Fibers,according to documents filed with the Secretary of the State. Michael Botticello could not be reached for comment. *An angry Richard J.Sartor, Manchester's general manager, blamed the DEP for not taking action sooner,citing public health hazards posed by the tons of garbage left near the river and the town's newest park. Maggot- infested garbage,containers with stagnant water that breed mosquitoes and ideal breeding conditions for rats were among his biggest worries. "We're very concerned about the time frame and want it expedited,"Sartor said. *At least two of the 21 muncipalities that contract with Sanitary Service for curbside trash pickup switched haulers Friday, and others were attempting to line up replacements.*The DEP also dispatched inspectors to two of Sanitary's other known illegal dumping sites,one in Litchfield and another in Bozrah. DEP officials said Friday they had taken proper enforcement action against illegal dumping at the Recycled Fibers site,and went to Blumenthal in October after exhausting their tools to force compliance. "The department cannot go out with a chain and shut the gate,"said Stan Gormley, a DEP enviromental analyst. But Massicotte said the DEP never indicated an urgency over Recycled Fibers and an initial investigation by the attorney general's office showed that while illegal trash had been dumped there,the situation had remained unchanged for at least two years.She said the office had directed the DEP to take specific steps, but as late as this week the department had failed to follow through. "There was no indication in the referral that it was an emergency, "she said.Nash agreed that the situation was not as urgent in October as now, but disagreed that the DEP had not been properly providing information to Blumenthal's office. He said the DEP went to Blumenthal both because of the company's continuing violations and because it had started dumping construction debris at the site. Nash said the DEP has been haggling with Recycled Fibers for years over its permit to recycle bottles and newspapers and such. Dumping has never been legal at the site,but it was once a legal recycling operation.The DEP contends that Recycled Fibers was required to apply for a new permit when it acquired the company the previously operated at the site.The company contends that the original permit can be transferred. "You simply cannot come in when someone is long gone and have a permit transfer," Nash said. He said the company eventually applied for a permit, but none was granted,partly because the company was dumping trash there. Massicotte said the attorney general's office first learned about the scope of the dumping at the site Wednesday when Nash called. Her office then asked DEP to inspect immediately. "And literally,within hours,we went to court,"she said. The town of Manchester, acting on a complaint from a resident,was the first to move against Recycled Fibers.When Gormley went to inspect the site, he found the garbage there had more than doubled since he was there in early June. "The pile was growing," Nash said, "and yes,we didn't know it was growing."was a troubled company, even before its trucks failed to pick up garbage Monday in Newington,West Hartford,Winsted and several other communities. In early June,the hauler was turned away from the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority plant in Wallingford because it had not paid tipping fees,a spokesman there said.CRRA inspectors also caught the company trying to illegally dump trash collected from Meriden and Cheshire at the CRRA plant in Hartford. The CRRA never notified the DEP about its problems with Sanitary Services, nor is it required to, Nash said.Still,the CRRA should have been suspicious,said Nash,who suggested that the CRRA should at least have notified its member towns. Flaherty said the CRRA warned the Hartford plant to be on the lookout for illegal trash after Sanitary Services was turned away in Wallingford,and then fined the company$8,000. It is not unusual for companies to be turned away from CRRA trash-burning plants for a variety of reasons.They usually find other haulers to help them out or pay their bills,Flaherty said. Many of the company's rivals suggested Friday that it got itself into trouble by offering unrealistically low prices. Many municipalities ignored the hauler's long record of problems and eagerly accepted its significantly lower bids.The Town of West Hartford renewed its pact with Sanitary Services in 1997 despite concerns about the company's performance during its previous six-year contract. "We pondered long and hard,"Town Manager Barry Feldman said, "but the cost savings to the taxpayer was significant."Sanitary Services won West Hartford's sanitation contract by bidding$200,000 less than its closest rival. In Providence, R.I.,the hauler agreed to pickup trash for$300,000 less than a competing firm. In retrospect,some municipal leaders said they regret basing their decision primarily on price. "Certainly the town of Newington would not knowingly enter into a partnership with a vendor that is violating the law,"said Town Manager Keith Chapman. "We want our trash removed on time and disposed of legally." When we do this again, price will be factored in, but it won't be the main consideration."Some,like North Branford, used Sanitary Services for a few months and broke the contract because they were unhappy with performance. Now the town pays$25,000 more per year to a different hauler. "It was an issue of service,"Town Manager Frank Connolly said.The Town of Vernon will not being using Sanitary Services as of today. Its contract expired July 1,but Sanitary Services did not bid again.The contract was awarded to Tobacco Valley Sanitation of South Windsor,Town Administrator Laurence Shaffer said.—We were fortunate to be in a position where the contract expired right when there may be a need to make a transition," he said. "That falls under the category of it's better to be lucky than good." Recycling facility owners facing heavy fines Journal Inquirer Just days after being bailed out of a $250,000 jam by their father,the Botticello brothers-Michael, Robert, Richard,and Dennis-are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for environmental and permit violations associated with their troubled Manchester recycling facility. In addition,Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's office is cracking down on a Botticello waste facility at 84 Wapping Road East Windsor,claiming it hasn't lived up to the terms of a closure plan.The state is seeking injunctions to require that the East Windsor facility-called the Northern Capitol Region Disposal Facility,or NORCAP- and its assistant corporate treasurer, Dennis Botticello,comply with various state environmental regulations.Also being sought are penalties for past violations. In papers filed in Hartford Superior Court on June 28-the same day state and local officials swooped down on Recycled Fibers of Connecticut Inc., a troubled Botticello recycling facility at 260 Tolland Turnpike in Manchester-the state contends that NORCAP and Dennis Botticello failed to install a cover system over the landfill,failed to implement a storm-water pollution prevention plan, and caused construction-related erosion to flow into wetlands next to the site.The DEP issued a consent order in 1996 that required NORCAP and Botticello to implement a plan to close the landfill. In 1997,the DEP issued a closure plan that established deadlines to place cover over the landfill. According to state documents and town tax records,the facility is owned by Anthony L. Botticello and operated by Dennis Botticello.Anthony Botticello is the father of Michael, Robert, Richard,and Dennis and owner of Botticello Inc.,a trucking firm at 321 Olcott St. in Manchester.The future use of the landfill property has been the subject of another lawsuit,filed by NORCAP against East Windsor.The company recently filed its own lawsuit after the town's Planning and Zoning Commission rejected an application by the company to operate a wood-chipping facility near the landfill site.The company said the PZC has allowed similar uses at adjacent sites. PZC members rejected the application because neighbors expressed concern that such a facility would bring excessive noise and truck traffic to the area. Blumenthal said Wednesday that the Botticellos,who own and operate Recycled Fibers and Sanitary Services Corp., based at 321 Olcott St.in Manchester,face "hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps more" in state fines for violations at Recycled Fibers that stretch back"to the early 1990s."Speaking Wednesday morning at the Recycled Fibers, Blumenthal said he is warning the several Connecticut municipalities that have waste-hauling contracts with Sanitary Services to make"alternate arrangements"for trash pickup, in case a DEP fine and court decision have a "dire effect"on Sanitary Services'finances.The firm lost an estimated$2.2 million in business on June 30 when several of its municipal waste-hauling contracts ended.The firm is also facing thousands of dollars in municipal fines for its failure to collect trash on June 26,following its inability to secure needed insurance. Officials from West Hartford and West Haven said Wednesday that they have performance bonds in place to cover any possible cessation of service by Sanitary Services. Newington Town Manager Keith Chapman said today that as of Saturday,Sanitary Services had not renewed its performance bond as contractually required, but that the town does have a back-up hauler in place. "We're not going to have any interruption of service," Chapman said. Recycled Fibers was the scene of state and local cease-and-desist actions last week, after the appearance of 15,000 to 20,000 cubic yards of household garbage and bulky waste on the site.State and local officials believe Sanitary Services dumped the garbage in the hollow beside the Hockanum River after it was shut out of a Wallingford trash-to-energy plant in early June.Thanks to a massive cash infusion from Anthony Botticello, most of that trash and bulky waste had been burned or buried by Wednesday,at a cost of approximately$83,000.Anthony Botticello also helped post a $112,000 payment bond to ensure Sanitary Services pays it commercial contract tipping fees at the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority trash-to-energy plant on Murphy Road in Hartford. Despite its crackdown on NORCAP,the DEP continued to show its confusion over Recycled Fibers on Wednesday. DEP Deputy Commissioner Jane Stahl emphatically declared during the news conference that Recycled Fibers' recycling permit remains valid,and that the site can still accept recyclable paper, glass,plastic,and wood regardless of its recent solid-waste violations. "We believe there are compliance issues and ineffective authorizations with regards to this site,"Stahl said,declaring Recycled Fibers was "not generally shut down from the receipt of certain materials." But Blumenthal and Manchester Town Manager Richard J.Sartor,who late last week secured actions that have temporarily closed Recycled Fibers,questioned her assertions and asked a reporter to double-check her position.When she reiterated her previous statement,Sartor suddenly appeared at her side and prompted Stahl by shaking his head from side to side,indicating Recycled Fibers is not accepting deliveries of any kind."Oh, I'm being told no,"Stahl told a group of reporters.She and Sartor then agreed that Recycled Fibers was temporarily barred by state and local injunction from accepting waste of any kind,and that a final decision on the validity of Recycled Fibers' recycling permit-or its lack thereof-would be decided by the courts and,according to Stahl,"state administrative proceedings."The DEP has had Michael Botticello's application fora recycling permit in"technical review"since the fall of 1996. Despite assertions by the attorney general's office and a DEP analyst that Recycled Fibers has no valid permits at all,DEP officials continue to review the matter in preparation for a Monday court appearance. Exhibit B Social Media Profile of Mr. Mitchell Flynn Metchet[Flynn reuorrmaWs Mt article on NBC News. MWt4 Good thing 0 vrasn'1 Allan of there would be a bunch of dead students and cars blowing up and emDasseys sunned.LOL WOO sef W W Ms'Wnv`AFiLMc fxM:�:.Yasr rt^T-�N a Florida-salsod apr!agues afteratt�dents•stdMpon'Jest s' FWWa Gov.RM 5c vz�atk d nto a rOglotr�.rintusad tamm is.. #00 MUc e l Flynn likes an arfic$e on MS, . September ig, 2012 _ MSNHaHaHaHaHa I Imew that coating ttiose flags with DDT and Formaldehyde before donating. them to the Pakistani Ad foundation would eventually pay dMdends. PaIdstarii protester dies from rep. wig smoke o burning S s A protester in Lahore, Pale has died after inhaling The fps from the American Rags be boned in _ dWlab tstnail was part of a demonstration pretesting... MS- I 4 Exhibit C Linkedln Profile of Mr. Mitchll Flynn .i Mitchell Flynn 148 President-Cenneclicut Truck and Equipment Sates II E' af oeni Lue Angel h� ses w r Vsee[d eg's Ad Waft Experience President-Con ct t Truck and Equipment Sales Apd 2D13—Present•5 years 7 nwnft Branford CT a r a Sales Jamb Creek March 2011—Apil 2013.2 yew 2 months Cowwwood#uck wW acmp rent safes M , sales Al Anchor CapU May 2DO7—March 2011•3 years 11 months A ;�a ^� Canmereial finance wd Exhibit D Department of Justice News Release U.S.Attorney's Office January 14,2014 District of Connecticut (203)821-3700 Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,today announced that WILLIAM LECKEY,48,of Buffalo, New York,formerly of Madison,was sentenced yesterday by U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton in New Haven to 29 months of imprisonment,followed by three years of supervised release,for engaging in a fraud scheme that victimized financial institutions of more than$1.7 million. According to court documents and statements made in court,from approximately 2002 until 2012, LECKEY was the president and owner of Anchor Capital Services, Inc.(ACS),which provided financing to companies looking to purchase heavy equipment,such as tractor-trailer trucks,dump trucks, backhoes, and other similar types of equipment.ACS provided its customers with high interest rate leases and funded the transactions through lines of credit it had available with various financial institutions.ACS would draw down on the lines of credit it had with these financial institutions by pledging its lease agreements and the related equipment as collateral.After each deal was funded by the financial institutions,ACS'customer would make monthly payments to ACS on the lease,and ACS would use those funds to pay down the line of credit with the bank. LECKEY and others engaged in a long-running fraud scheme to obtain money from financial institutions to use as operating capital for ACS.As part of the scheme, LECKEY and others made false representations to the financial institutions that ACS had entered into lease transactions with customers for specified pieces of heavy equipment when,in fact,they knew that no such lease transaction had been conducted or the transaction never transpired after the lease had been signed.As a result of these false statements,the financial institutions funded these nonexistent transactions in amounts well in excess of$100,000 on a number of occasions. On one occasion in October 2010, LECKEY created a bogus customer to serve as the purported lessee of the equipment,and proceeded to defraud the financial institution into releasing$150,000 to ACS.As a result of this scheme,ACS received more than$1.7 million from financial institutions on its letters of credit.Judge Arterton ordered LECKEY to pay restitution in the amount of$1,709,640 to two victim financial institutions.On August 1, 2013, LECKEY pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. This ongoing investigation is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division.The case is being prosecuted by Senior Litigation Counsel Richard J.Schechter and Assistant U.S.Attorney Paul A. Murphy. 9 q O•NN St4 C o _0� O-P S_a� ?d&uaot � . s �1 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED MAIL 7016 0910 0000 98610387 October 3, 2018 Connecticut Soil Realty LLC Mitchell Flynn 1462 Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 Dear Mr. Flynn: Re: Appl. 18-48P, Connecticut Soil Site Plan Approval,420 John Fitch Boulevard,R014 Pleasant Valley Road and L022C Chapel Road We are pleased to advise you that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted on October 2, 2018 to approve with modifications the above referenced application for a Site Plan of Development. This approval is for Connecticut Soil Realty LLC for a site plan for the storing, processing and manufacturing of earth materials, on property located at 420 John Fitch Boulevard, R014 Pleasant Valley Road and L022C Chapel Road, I zone, as shown on plans prepared by J. R. Russo & Associates, LLC, Job # 2018-007 dated September 4, 2018 as revised. This approval is subject to the following modifications: 1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff. 2. No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office. 3. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including bonds in the amount of$15,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control measures, $25,000 to ensure establishment of storm water system and$5,000 for the establishment of wetland plantings. 4. A landscape bond in the amount of$10,000 is required and must be submitted prior to the start of the work. 5. All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy. 6. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 9.1.3 of the Zoning Regulations. 7. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor. 8. The building street number must be included on the final plan. 9. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas. 10. All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected. 11. An independent consultant shall perform quarterly testing of the air and water quality and submit quarterly reports to the Planning Department. 12. Engineering comments dated 10/2/18 must be incorporated into the final plans. 13. If the source of the rock changes, information regarding other products brought to the site must be submitted to the Planning Department and may be subject to further approvals by this Commission. 14. The access road shall be a minimum of ten feet from the property line. 15. The processing area shown in the westerly portion of the lease area shall be cleaned and all items removed prior to January 1, 2019. If the area is not cleaned, enforcement procedures will be initiated. 16. A restoration plan for the site shall be submitted and the site restored with strip mine restoration grass seed mix when the rock processing operations are completed. 17. Screening along the southern boundary shall be achieved with a vegetative treatment. 18. In the event that dirt is tracked onto Chapel Road, the applicant shall be responsible for cleaning of the street. 19. The hours of operation are Monday—Friday 7 a.m.—5 p.m. and Saturday 8 a.m. — 1 p.m. 20. The exit on to Chapel Road shall be designed to force right hand turns out of the one-way driveway. 21. Multiple frequency, lower decibel rear directed alarms (`white noise alarms') shall be required for all equipment on site under the applicant's control 22.No rock crushing without misting equipment available and operational. Black and white transparent mylars of Sheets #3, 5, 6 and 7 with the above modifications, together with three print copies of the entire set of plans with live signatures and raised seals (including landscaping plans) must be submitted to this Commission to be stamped and signed. The letters of approval of this Commission as well as the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission must be reproduced on the mylars. After the mylars have been signed by the Commission,they will be returned to you for filing in the Office of the Town Clerk. After filing these plans, a copy of the receipt must be submitted to the Planning Department. Sincerely, Bart Pacekonis, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission BP/llz cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official Assessor Superintendent of Pollution Control Fire Marshal J.R. Russo &Associates, LLC JOURNAL INQUIRER/SATURDAY-SUNDAY OCTOBER 6-7,2018 37 771 s 1P ME a. of Ownership,Management,and circulation PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE 'ublications Except R uester Publications) TOWN OF SOMERS SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION ZONING COMMISSION 5 3 3 t;- 8 ! OcN0er 7.2018 + At its October 2, 2018 Special Meeting, the Planning and 3296.49 At its regular meeting on Monday, October 1, 2018 the Zoning Commission voted to take the following actions: .._.t..._.. t e oa„cala,a Somers Zoning Commission took the following action: < ...� 1. Approved with modifications Appl.18-48P,Connecticut 1) Approved Special Use permit/Home Occupation applica- Soil Realty LLC for site plan approval for the storing, aa4so670 ' tion#18-003:Cory Twiss d/b/a CT Sealcoat,11 Bradfield processing and manufacturing of earth materials,on Drive,Somers,to operate a sealcoating business. property located at 420 John Fitch Boulevard, R014 a,art&s r,cc o3o4s o6,o Pleasant Valley Road and L022C Chapel Road, Dated at Somers,Connecticut this V day of October 2018 Industrial zone 1 razna esm,cr o904sos10 Bart Pacekonis,Chairman Zoning Commission Journal Inquirer twnene ,craeonsoslo _ Jill Conklin,Chairman October 6,2018 Journal Inquirer ww,ua�.ea.�a.rmA„m<r PUBLIC NOTICE q .. Tom- a�_- -......._._._._ October 6,2018 �a-cer,care�,.0 e.a'o.soatoM,ae,m,erosoasos+o LEGAL NOTICE INVITATION TO BID _��oev,�, omaP.o._eo stena_a„n,aoeasos_o SOUTH WINDSOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS -! -- The Enfield Planning&Zoning Commission will hold Public LANDSCAPING SERVICES } - - Hearings on Thursday October 18,2018,at 7:00 p.m.,in the -`' ---- Town Hall Council Chambers,820 Enfield Street,Enfield,CT, Specifications for Bid No. 1819-003, SWPS Landscaping concerning the following applications: Services may be obtained on the South Windsor Public a) PH# 2879 - 91 Simon Road - Open Space Schools website, http://www.southwindsorschools.org under _.............. ---.......... -- ___, _ Subdivision and Special Permit Application for the "Departments,""Business Services,""RFPs and Bids". 36-lot Scantic Villages Residential Subdivision; Villages LLC., owner/applicant; Map 069/Lot 0296; Sealed bids will be received at the Office of the Director of _ Residential 44(R-44)Zone. Facility Operations,Rm.200 until 11:00 a.m.on November 2, Dated this 6th day of October 2018. Charles Duren, 2018.Bids will be publicly opened and read aloud soon after. Chairman. Information is available at the Enfield Planning Office,Enfield Town Hall. The South Windsor Board of Education reserves the right ....1 seta-b.22,2018 to waive any informalities in Bids;to reject any or all bids;or to Journal Inquirer accept the one that in their judgement will be for the best 21.402! October 6,2018 interest of the South Windsor Board of Education. October 16,2018 20 20 PatrickT.Hankard 19 19 LEGAL NOTICE Director of Facility Operations z,3es za3sa TOWN OF TOLLAND,CT Journal Inquirer y INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION October 5,2018 ® ` z3393 At its September 20, 2018 meeting, the Town of Tolland October 6,2018 __...__.____......_ 21406._._._..-, P 9, Inland Wetland Commission approved: PUBLIC NOTICE 1. IWC App.#18-15,104 OM Post Road-The excavation NOTICE OF SPECIAL TOWN MEETING r o 1556 and grading of land in the upland review area which will TOWN OF ELLINGTON cc 64s 6ss have minimal impact on-the wetlands. Applicant: PAC - ® 23050 ! 2494e Group LLC. Monday,October 15,2018 _ ® 1084 1001 2. IWC App.#18-16,24 Grant Hill Road-The construction A Special Town Meeting of the electors and citizens 24134 25949 of a garage where the disturbance would be in the qualified to vote in Town Meetings of the Town of Ellington, ® existing envelope between the paved driveway and Connecticut,will be held at the Ellington Town Hail,55 Main house. Applicant:Jamie Summers. Street in Ellington, Connecticut, on Monday, October 15, x.cwi. racw,.raw* 2018,at 7:00 p.m.to discuss and vote upon the following:. --- ®! Journal Inquirer -�'--- 57 October 6,2018 TO ENDORSE THE TOWN OF ELLINGTON ®' 214ee 23460 PUBLIC NOTICE ENTERING INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH ''z3n3 25005 TOWN OF VERNON NORTHERN CONNECTICUT LAND TRUST INC. 0 193 _ 93 (NCLT)FOR THE PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE The Vernon Planning&Zoning Commission(PZC)will hold CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF THE the following public hearing at a regular meeting at 7:30 PM BELLANTE,PROPERTY, A 37-ACRE PARCEL OF "^ 0"�a^�° ❑P � on Thursday,October 18,2018,in Council Chambers,Third LAND LOCATED AT 14 SANDY BEACH ROAD IN _..... Floor of the Town Hall,14 Park Place,Rockville/Vernon: ELLINGTON TO BE USED BY THE PUBLIC FOR ogrzsnols PASSIVE RECREATION IN THE AMOUNT OF Application [PZ-2018-09] of Eugene Osei for a Special $80,000;($36,000 SHALL BE FUNDED THROUGH A Permit for a place of worship at 500 Talcottville Road CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND (Assessor ID:Map 09,Block 015T,Lot/Parcel 0021C) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATE GRANT; $14,000 CONTRIBUTED FROM A FORMER NCLT Application[PZ-2018-10]of Ticket Network for a Special DIRECTOR;AND THE TOWN OF ELLINGTON WILL Permit for Adaptive Re-Use at 97 Main Street(Assessor's CONTRIBUTE $30,000), AS RECOMMENDED BY fD:Map 01,Block 158A,Parcel 13) THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN AND THE BOARD OF FINANCE.THE TOWNS FUNDING WILL COME These PZC applications are available for inspection by the FROM THE OPEN SPACE FUND ACCOUNT. r, public in the office of the Planning Department,55 West Main Street,Rockville,CT. Dated at Ellington,Connecticut,this 3"day of October,2018. Charles Bardes,Chairman Planning&Zoning Commission(PZC) BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN Journal Inquirer October 6,2018 /s/Lori L.Spielman First Selectman SOWN Sf, C o OPsou� ?d • C, 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 r�Osox•co� TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511 October 9,2018 Connecticut Soil Realty LLC Mitchell Flynn 1462 Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 Dear Mr. Flynn: Re: Preconstruction Meeting for Appl. 18-48P, Connecticut Soil,420 John Fitch Boulevard IN ATTENDANCE Name Company E-MAIL Phone number Michele R. Lipe SW Planning michele.li easouthwindsor.or 644-2511 x252 Jeffrey Folger SW Planning 'effre .fol eraa southwindsor.or 644-2511 x229 Jeffrey Doolittle SW Engineering 'effre .doolittle southwindsor.or 644-2511 x245 Bernie Drabek SW Engineering bemard.drabek southwindsor.or 644-2511 x241 David Mauldin SW Fire Marshal david.mauldinna southwindsor.or 282-0669 x2 Mitch Flynn Connecticut Soil mitchell'fl nnahotmail.com 860-208-3181 John Rondinone Connecticut Soil hartfordtrucksctna sbc lobal aem he:17` 860-205-9833 Wesley Hills Hills Paving& w.hillsllc(a_�,outlook.com 860-593-5124 Construction Co. The following is a brief summary of points discussed during the meeting: Erosion and Sedimentation Control 1. All erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be in place prior to earth moving operations in each area and maintained/cleaned out during construction. Call Jeffrey Folger, Senior Environmental Planner for inspection when measures are in place, prior to commencement of site work or if any problems/concerns arise during construction at 860-644-2511 Ext. 229. 2. All topsoil stockpile areas to be protected(ringed with haybales or equal). 3. During construction a crushed stone tracking pad may need to be installed and maintained to minimize tracking of dirt/gravel on to Chapel Road and John Fitch Boulevard. Calcium chloride or water is to be used for dust control as required. 4. Install and stabilize the detention basin and swale on site first. Public Works 1. Three complete sets of approved/revised plans to be provided to Town prior to start of construction. They will be stamped by the Planning Department along with plans developer needs. Only approved plans are to be used on the job site. 2. The Engineering Department is to be notified forty-eight (48) hours prior to the start of major construction work in Chapel Road and John Fitch Boulevard with inspections and testing per Developers Checklist for the following: a. Placement of bituminous concrete,two (2) inch layers maximum 3. A street cut permit is needed for the new driveway on Chapel Road. 4. An as built plan will be required for the improvements to the site. A separate as built plan will be required. 5. As built plans are to include horizontal and vertical location of all underdrains, footing drains, and sanitary sewers and house service laterals located as per revised as-built checklist. 6. Any problems and/or questions regarding construction of this project will be directed to Mitch Flynn in the field at cell phone 860-208-3181 or John Rondinone at 860-205-9833. 7. All filling to be done in accordance with Department of Transportation specifications. To be compacted in maximum lifts and tested as necessary. 8. Job meetings will be held as needed, and can be called by the developer or Town. 9. Seventy-two (72)hours' notice needed for a certificate of occupancy inspection. An Engineering C.O. inspection fee of$60 and a Zoning Compliance C.O. inspection fee of$25 are due at that time. 10. Any proposed changes are to be presented to the Engineering or Planning Department prior to implementation on change order form in quadruplicate with 4 copies of the drawing. Town will attempt to turn around within 24 hours. 11.Normal hours of operation: 7:00 a.m. —5:00 p.m. Monday—Friday and 8 a.m.— 1 p.m. Saturday, no work on Sunday. 12. DOT permit needed for all work within state road. Copy must be given to the Engineering Department. 13.No paving after October 15 or before April 15 without written approval from Director of Public Works. 14. Any unfinished site work will be bonded prior to Engineering and Planning Department sign-offs for a Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Department 1. Landscaping is to be installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. If there are changes required, contact the Planning Department. Additional landscaping installed on one part of a site will not preclude planting all of the remaining items shown on the landscaping plan. 2. All bonds required; mylar to go on file prior to issuance of building permit. 3. Sign permits are required for all temporary and permanent signs. Utilities 1. Contact utilities for coordination of utilities connection. Fire Marshal(Commercial Facilities) 1) Documents—Complete set of stamped plans with the following: a. Plan review paid b. Code information sheet c. Exiting plans with travel distances d. Wall types e. Door schedule f. Mechanical,Electrical,reflected ceiling g. Fire alarm h. Basic sprinkler layout ** PLAN REVIEW COULD TAKE 30 DAYS FOR APPROVALS ** 2) Inspections: a. Above ceiling b. Penetrations and separations c. Sprinkler system A. Hydraulic calculations and cut sheets B. Underground flush and hydrostatic test C. System hydrostatic test D. Main drain test/inspectors test E. Outside bell F. NFPA 13 paperwork d. Fire Alarm e. Emergency lighting test f. Final Inspection ** PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING** 1. Consulting inspection will be welcomed 2. Multiple inspections can be done on the same day 3. Stocking/addition of fixtures to occupancy will only be allowed if the life safety systems are on line. Police Services 1. Emergency phone numbers for the duration of the construction must be provided to Police Services on a company letterhead. If the developer occupies or owns the building after construction emergency numbers must be provided to Police Services. 2. All buildings located on property that abuts a public highway must be numbered and visible from the street. All numbering shall comply with Town Ordinance 6-800 through 6-802. 3. Barns, garages, and outbuildings,which are located on the same premises as a numbered structure, are excluded. 4. Erect temporary sign on the site during construction identifying the project. 5. If an alarm is to be installed contact Police Services. Building Department 1. Plan review with Building Official/Fire Marshal required prior to application for building permit. Coordinate with Chief Building Official Very truly yours, Michele R. Lipe,AICP Director of Planning MRL/llz cc: Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer Bernie Drabek,Engineering Inspector Michael Gantick, Public Works Christopher Dougan, Chief Building Official Tony Manfre, Superintendent of Pollution Control Walter Summers,Fire Marshal Utilities PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET (please print clearly) e" Ni 4, X� .,....__.' .. +. ,�,' .,t� ....._... ?,.. ... ...... ..„5t... 1. < ..z: .k .r.. .._✓,..... ,. ,v<.=,.. .:Y .� xt+�. :y'f' t � €„+�k�< ,''.b £z-.':'Wi �`,i€'�' _ ..T r>t ,.< >•�•�+'"' -n ,>,,: i��' ✓......�F .{h'.+.,.._< a.: �—.,� r... �i�� 4 ( �f iss. i L3: �i-_' • �uoy � �Lbw � .� �' CONNECTICUT SOIL 420 John Fitch Boulevard South Windsor, CT 06074 860-785-8129 www.connecticutsoil.com To the South Windsor Fire Marshall and Chief of Police, We were advised by the planning department of the Town of South Windsor to provide contact information regarding the property at 420 John Fitch Boulevard, South Windsor, CT. Below is the contact information for both John Rondinone and Mitchell Flynn, owner and operator of Connecticut Soil, LLC, as well as a code for the gate. The gate is located on the John Fitch Boulevard side of the property. The code for the entry gate on the John Fitch Boulevard side of property: 2012# Name: John Rondinone Position: Owner/President Phone: 860-205-9833 Address: 420 John Fitch Boulevard South Windsor, CT 060 Email: hartfordtrucksct@sbcglo al. Name: Mitchell Flynn Position: Owner/Operator Phone: 860-208-3181 Address: 420 John Fitch Boulevard South Windsor, CT 06074 Email: mitchelljflynn@hotmail.com If there is any other information you may need, please feel free to contact John or Mitchell, via the information above. The company email address is connecticutsoil@gmail.com for your record as well. Thank you. Sincerely, Caroline Rondinone Director of Accounts/Management Connecticut Soil, LLC (Cell)860-874-6006 (Office)860-785-8129 connecticutsoil@gmail.com CONNECTICUT MW SOIL 420 John Fitch Boulevard South Windsor,CT 06074 860-785-8129 www.connecticutsoil.com To the South Windsor Fire Marshall and Chief of Police, We were advised by the planning department of theTown of South Windsor to provide contact information regarding the property at 420 John Fitch Boulevard,South Windsor,CT. Below is the contact information for both John Rondinone and Mitchell Flynn,owner and operator of Connecticut Soil,LLC,as well as a code for the gate. The gate is located on the John Fitch Boulevard side of the property. The code for the entry gate on the John Fitch Boulevard side of property.2012# Name:John Rondinone Position:Owner/President Phone:860-205-9833 Address 420 John Fitch Boulevard South Windsor,CT06074 Email:hartfordtrucksct@sbcglobal.net Name:Mitchell Flynn Position:Owner/Operator Phone:860-208-3181 Address 420 John Fitch Boulevard South Windsor,CT06074 Email•rritchelljflynn@hotmailcom If there is any other information you may need,please feel free to contact John or Mitchell,via the information above. The company email address is connecticutsoil@gmail.com for your record as well.Thank you. Sincerely, Caroline Rondinone Director of Accounts/Management Connecticut Soil,LLC (Cell)860-874-6006 (Office)860-785-8129 connecticutsoii@gn-aii.com BOND TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 18,2018 APPLICANT NAME Connecticut Soil Realty LLC ADDRESS 1462 Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS LOT 420 John Fitch Boulevard PROJECT Connecticut Soil P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER 18-48P AMOUNT & TYPE OF BONDS $15,000 (E&S) ; $25,000 (Stormwater) ; $5,000 (Wetland Plantings) ; $10,000 (Landscape) to total $55,000 CHECK NUMBER 9150686 DEPARTMENT PLANNING SUBMITTED BY Lauren Zarambo 10-18-18 NAME DATE PROCESSED BY FINANCE NAME DATE SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER Q- / 6 8 MUNIS APPLICATION 201801625 WAPlanning Admin\PZC\Bonds\2018 Bonds\18-48P CT Soil BondTrans.doc gown. of-South gvin.d5'01 101041 018 d 1540 Sullivan Avenue 672 South Windsor, CT 06074 7016 0910 0000 9861 0387 s 0,IIEE 1-16 1 5 Connecticut Soil Realty LLC 100,618 Mr. Mitchell Flynn 1462 Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 RETURN TD SENDER ' UNCL-AIMED FORWARD UNC EC; 0607 42 73 499 *9 44-096 1-04-45 061374>27.14 i H hill ifliiiillIM11b11bd11b11j]11b1pii'ilb!IIIliji11111 C 1M vv i � tD$N SE4 _ G U a 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 S ..00 � TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 December 27, 2018 Mr. Mitchell Flynn Connecticut Soil Realty LLC 1462 Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 Re: 420 and R014 John Fitch Boulevard, South Windsor, CT Dear Mr. Flynn: In going by your property at 420 and R014 John Fitch Boulevard, it has been noted that a large amount of junk vehicles and debris has accumulated on the site. The material found there effectively renders the site both a vehicle junkyard and a general junkyard, both of which are not allowed in this area. Please remember that The Planning & Zoning Commission, in approving your site plan on October 2, 2018, required that "the processing area shown in the westerly portion of the lease area shall be cleaned and all items removed prior to January 1 , 2019. If the area is not cleaned, enforcement procedures will be initiated". This clean-up of the property must be complete prior to the start of operations on the site. Contact me at (860) 644-2511, extension 251 if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation with this request. Sincerely, Pamela A. Oliva, CZEO Zoning Enforcement Officer cc: Director of Planning Mr. Dennis Botticello SOWN SE4 a � U� 01/eSoa� V&U&ot s w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 soR co�� TELEPHONE (860) 644 2511 NOTICE OF VIOLATION February 22, 2019 CERTIFIED/FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Mitchell Flynn Connecticut Soil Realty LLC 1462 Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 Location: 420 and R014 John Fitch Boulevard, South Windsor Dear Mr. Flynn: I sent you a letter on December 27, 2018 regarding your property at 420 and R014 John Fitch Boulevard. Specifically, the letter addressed the large amount of junk vehicles and debris on the site. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a site plan for your property on October 2, 2018. Condition 15 of the approval letter stated that "the processing area shown in the westerly portion of the lease area shall be cleaned and all items removed prior to January 1, 2019. If the area is not cleaned, enforcement procedures will be initiated". The continued presence of these vehicles and debris as of today is a violation of that approval condition. CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED: Remove the vehicles and debris in compliance with the approved site plan by April 1, 2019 to avoid additional enforcement action. Your immediate cooperation in this matter is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact me at (860) 644-251 1 , ext. 251 . Sincerely, Pamela A. Oliva, CHO Zoning Enforcement Officer cc: Director of Planning Mr. Dennis Botticello �O'N N SE,C I " ?d Mao V 710-u� o/ s,Cl tSM 2 i G '� s � 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 r�OSU&•Co TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511 To Whom It May Concern: The application approval for Connecticut Soil Reality LLC is based solely on the excavated material originating from the MDC Storage Tunnel project. No other material from any other site may be brought in to be processed without further approvals from the South Windsor Planning and Zoning I Commission. Regards, Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner,Town of South Windsor i s I I { 1 I s i { I i I I I E l .`OWN SC4 C� . . 710v� �s� ?v& O C U s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 �OsoR.cO� TELEPHONE (860) 644 2511 April 12, 2019 Connecticut Soil Realty LLC Mitchell Flynn 1462 Boston Post Road Westbrook, CT 06498 Re: Condition of the Connecticut Soils work site at 420 John Fitch Blvd. Mr. Flynn. Per our conversation in the morning of 4-12-2019, unacceptable amounts of sediment is being tracked onto Chapel Road, a town road. Additionally,unacceptable amounts of dust from the active processing site is becoming airborne and negatively impacting the residential development to the east. Both of these items must stop immediately. As we discussed, a water truck must be brought on site immediately and kept on site to address sediment and dust generation. Water must be applied to the interior access road every hour during delivery times, and to the general work area as needed to keep fine particulates from becoming air borne. You must sweep Chapel Road, the interior access road, and exit drive at least once per day when truck deliveries are active. Additionally, you must immediately install a tire washing station at the head of the exit driveway to wash off the wheels of exiting vehicles. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in issuance of a Stop Work order. You are reminded that all work on the site is limited to the hours of 7AM to 5PM Monday through Friday and 8Am to 1PM on Saturday. Regards, Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner, Town of South Windsor Cc: Dir of Planning, Dir of Public Works, Town Engineer, Zoning Enforcement Officer