TOWN OF EAST GRANBY INCORPORATED 1858 PLANNING and ENGINEERING PO BOX 1858 9 CENTER ST EAST GRANBY, CONNECTICUT 06026 1-860-653-3444 FAX 1-860-653-4017 PLANNING & ZONING REVIEW REPORT Date: Re: PZC 14-08 Special Exception Application for Quarry Expansion Distribution: Galasso Materials, LLC 60 South Main St PO Box 1776 East Granby, CT 06026 Planning & Zoning Commission Robert Hiltbrand, Town Engineer Tom Grimaldi, Assistant Town Engineer Ken Beliveau, Fire Marshall David Askew, Town Wetland Consultant Michael A. Zizka, Murtha Cullina LLP, City Place 1, 185 Asylum Street, Hartford, CT 06103 Colin McAvoy, Galasso Materials, 60 South Main St, East Granby, CT, 06026 Craig Timpson, Galasso Materials, 60 South Main St, East Granby, CT, 06026 Michael S. Klein, Environmental Planning Services, 89 Belknap Rd, West Hartford, CT, 06117 Cory Garro, P.E., Close Jensen & Miller, 1137 Silas Deane Hwy, Wethersfield, CT, 06096 Leggette, Brashears, & Graham Inc, 6 Executive Dr, Suite 109, Farmington, CT, 06032 Michael W. Klemens, PHD., PO Box 432, Falls Village, CT, 06031 1. DATA REVIEWED 1.1. Application dated 7/14/14 1.2. Drawings by Close Jensen & Miller revision date 5/16/14: Sheet 1: Cover Sheet Sheet 2-6: Overall Plan of Development Sheet 7: Neighborhood Map Sheet 8: Proposed 5 Year Excavation Plan Sheet 9: Cross Sections Sheet 10: Sediment Basin/Water Quality Basin Sheet 11: Sedimentation Traps and Bypass Channel Sheet 12: Bypass Channel Profiles Sheet 13: Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan Sheet 14: Construction Details Sheet 15: Mitigation Plan Sheet 16: Sedimentation Trap Planting Plan Sheet 17: Overall Restoration Plan Sheet 18: Master Reuse Plan
Pg 2 Sheet 19-20: Potential Development Concepts Sheet 21-22: Restoration Plan 1.3 Wetland Delineation, Functional Evaluation and Impact Assessment by Michael S. Klein dated November 5, 2013, as well as comments dated December 17, 2013. 1.4 Galasso Quarry Expansion ERT report dated January 2013 1.5 Herpetological Survey Results for 2012 and 2013 by Michael W. Klemens dated August 20, 2013, as well as comments dated January 30,2014, and Floral Species List dated December 2, 2013. 1.6 Sedimintation Control Basin Design/Analysis by Close, Jensen and Miller dated October 2013 1.7 Summary of Hydrologic Impact Assessment by Leggette, Brashears & Graham dated November 1, 2013 1.8 Draft Performance Lien Agreement 2. HISTORY 2.1. Roncari the original owners of the quarry, began mining the property in the 1950 s prior to the adoption of zoning regulations. Mining began in the northern end of the site and as excavation was completed the area was used for the construction of various industrial facilities to process traprock, production of ready mix cement and concrete, and various maintenance and related production support facilities. 2.2. Over time several adjacent properties were added to the ownership that totals approximately 890 acres. Quarry operations currently encompass 181.9 acres. The applicant zone change to expand the quarry (Phase III) 74.7 acres south of its current location was approved by PZC in July of 2011. 2.3. In 1991 Roncari came into the commission to expand the quarry south for Phase II to a bottom elevation of 230 feet. Shortly after Galasso purchased the property. In 2005 Galasso approached the commission to approve the bottom elevation to 210 feet. At this time the first reclamation plan was received by the commission showing Phase II area of the quarry to be filled with 3ft to 4ft worth of soil and a planting plan to replant trees on landscaped berms. Even though their approval calls for the applicant to restore 10 acres at a time as they reach the approved 210 elevation no reclamation has take place as of this date. 2.4. Quarry operations and current elevation depth of 210 are above the water table by approximately 10 to 30 ft.
Pg 3 2.5. Galasso submitted their Zone Change Master Concept plan to the Connnecticut Environmental Review Team for review. The review team is made up of several experts in the field such as ecologists, engineers, botanist, geologist, herpetologist, etc. The ERT Team reviewed the site in June of 2012 and the study was finalized in January 2013. 3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3.1. Currently the applicant is proposing to clear 22.9 acres of land south of the existing quarry excavation area. Their proposed quarry excavation area (Phase III) will be 17.6 acres. In the new proposed phase excavation limits will be kept to elevation 250ft. Proposed excavation areas are on the eastern slope of Hatchet Hill and will not include the ridge or western slopes. 3.2. Total area of wetlands to be disturbed are 8,505 sq ft and 662 linear feet of intermittent watercourses. Wetland #3, Wetland #2, Intermittent Watercourse 1-6, and Intermittent Watercourse 7-16 are being proposed to be excavated. The applicant has proposed on-site wetland mitigation to compensate for the loss of wetland and watercourse from the proposed activity. 3.3. Wetland #1 is the higher value wetland supported by surface and groundwater runoff from the eastern slope of Hatchet Hill. Wetland #1 is the headwaters for Creamery Brook and contains several vernal pools. Generally speaking the further south Wetland #1 goes the higher the functional value and the more vernal pools there are. Vernal Pools occur within 500 feet of the proposed quarry area. 3.4. Besides the significant activity of excavating Wetland #3, Wetland #2, and associated Intermittent Watercourses the applicant is proposing quarry excavation up to elevation 250 ft and the construction of a sedimentation control basin with in the upland review area. The sediment control basin will capture surface runoff of the cleared land while excavation is occurring. The design of the basin will be to slow down peak runoff and filter sediment before eventual drainage into Wetland #1. 4. PLANNERS MAPS & EXHIBITS 1. Overall Aerial Map: Shows Galasso properties in red, current quarried parcels in pink, and proposed quarry parcels in blue, Metacomet trail in yellow. 1A. Galasso Property Map: Shows Galasso properties in red, current quarried parcels in pink, and proposed quarry parcels in blue, Metacomet trail in yellow. 2. Close Up Aerial Map: Showing the barren state of the quarry excavation areas. 2A. Town Bedrock Map: Showing areas in Town that have basalt. 2B. Galasso Bedrock Map: Shows areas of Galasso properties that have basalt. 3. Plan of Conservation and Development 1976: Overall goal was to come up with appropriate regulations to regulate quarry development.
Pg 4 4. Plan of Conservation and Development 1994: With regulation now in place, focus switched to not allowing quarry expansion without the development of a reclamation plan, which includes protecting the natural and cultural resources (Metacomet Trail, Ridge, Wetlands and Watercourses). 5. Plan of Conservation and Development of 2004: Continues to support not allowing quarry expansion without the development of a reclamation plan, which includes protecting the natural and cultural resources (Metacomet Trail, Ridge, Wetlands and Watercourses). 9. Connecticut Forest and Park Association Trail Conservation License Agreement: Protects the Metacoment trail, but can be extinguished by the property owner, within 60 days in writing. 10. Forest Fragmentation Map: Property being proposed for quarry expansion is identified as Core Forest area of 250-500 acres of contiguous forest. 11. USGS Topography Map: Shows contours of site. 12. Town Elevation Contour Map: Showing the overall prominence of the mountain range through the middle of East Granby. 13. Blow Up of Elevation Contour Map: Shows existing quarry area and its effect on the contiguous mountain range. As well as the propose quarry expansion. 14. Farmington River Watershed Association Biodiversity Plan: Identifying proposed quarry expansion to be located in area with focal species of concern. 15. DEP Natural Biodiversity Database Map: Identifying proposed quarry expansion in an area of concern for endangered species. 16. Open Space Plan from 2004 POCD: Identifying Metacomet Trail, Marsh Pond, and Land across Hatchet Hill as desirable Open Space. 17. Future Land Use Plan from 2004 POCD: Identifying Metacomet Trail, Marsh pond, adjacent wetland and watercourses, ridge, and land across Hatchet Hill as being important cultural and natural resources. The proposed quarry expansion area is favored by the POCD to be used in the future for Agriculture or Low Density Residential. 18. State Plan of Conservation and Development 2005: Identifying proposed quarry expansion area as Conservation Area. 19. CRCOG Conservation Area Map 2009: Identifying proposed quarry expansion area as Priority Conservation Area and the Metacomet Trail as a Municipal Focus Area. 20. CRCOG Land Use Policy Map 2009: Identify proposed quarry expansion area as Priority Conservation Area and Metacoment Trail as a Municipal Focus Area. 21. Proposed Restoration Plan from Special Exception for 2005 for Phase II: Plan calls for restoration within 6 months of completed excavation to elevation 210 in a contiguous area of 10 acres. 22. Approval Letter for Special Exception for 2005 for Phase II: Condition #5 from commission calls for adding the note requiring restoration to take place as previously aforementioned in #21. 5. GENERAL PLAN COMMENTS & QUESTIONS 5.1. Ridgeline and Metacomet Trail should be displayed on all sheets including north of the proposed excavation pit adjacent to existing excavation areas as these 22 plans will replace the previously
Pg 5 submitted sets as the record drawings. Also new work such as spreading of overburden is being proposed in the northern pit area and it should be ensured that this new activity is a sufficient distance from the ridgeline and the Metacomet Trail. 5.2. Previous approvals for Phase II show proposed elevations of 207 for existing sediment basin. The newly submitted drawings show elevations of the existing sediment basin at elevation 214. Is this why water does not flow to the sediment basin? When will this drainage pattern be established? 5.3. On sheet six can we outline and label areas with standing water? 5.4. Recently we have received noise complaints regarding jake brakes and other beeper safety devices on vehicles on site during 3 rd shift even though sheet 8 calls for hours of operation between 6AM to 5PM. We have also received smell complaints of asphalt coming from the process plant. What are we doing to help minimize these issues? 5.5. Sheets 21-22 shall be renamed Overburden Analysis rather than Restoration Plan. When will this work occur and when can we expect the results? 6. RESTORATION 6.1. Restoration needs to be better defined or possibly clarified. Currently Sheets 17-22 all propose some sort of restoration. As mentioned in comment 5.5 renaming the Restoration Plan will better clarify the intent. Sheet 18 should be renamed Overall Restoration Plan. Sheet 17 should be renamed Restoration Planting Plan and should take into account the entire site. The Overall Restoration Plan shall include demolition of the process plant and environmental assessment to ensure site can be successfully restored. Sheet 19-20 shall be taken out of record set as we are not at a point where we can ensure such potential concepts cannot be developed without finishing the hydrology and overburden analysis. 6.2. A note shall be added to Overall Restoration Plan that the applicant will have Overburden and Hydrology Analysis completed by the end of the five year permit. Prior to continuing to mine any further applicant should be able to tell the commission based off of the overburden and hydrology analysis whether they can go deeper than 210 feet in Phase I & II and deeper than 250 feet in Phase III. Once the Overburden Analysis is complete the Applicant and Town Staff can reevaluate sheet 18 Overall Restoration Plan to ensure the applicant can realistically attain restoration goals. Any changes needed can be approved by PZC when the applicant comes in for future Special Exception approvals for expansion. These commitments shall be document on the plans. 7. BONDING/SECURITY
Pg 6 7.1. In lieu of bonding applicant is proposing a Lien Agreement as security or collateral for uncompleted restoration or improvements. Bonding typically reserves a particular dollar amount to complete uncompleted improvements, while a lien would leverage an asset as collateral. The asset in this case would be other property Galasso owns (approximately 300 acres to the south across the street on Hatchet Hill). The value of the asset being held as a proposed lien can be valued through an appraisal. 7.2. The issue becomes if the proposed security is ever needed to be called upon to finish uncompleted restoration or improvements and if you need access to money to do so a bond is a more liquid asset that can be accessed quickly. A lien presents issues such as if the Town receives ownership of 300 acres of land the only way for them to cash in on it is to sell the property. 7.3. For the above mentioned reasons Town Staff (Town Planner, Town Engineer, and Town Attorney) is in favor of bonding rather than the proposed lien. Bonding costs shall cover the following activities: a. Demolition of Plant b. Overall Site Restoration c. Overburden Analysis d. Wetland Mitigation e. Hydrology Analysis f. Environmental Assessment g. Sediment Trap Restoration 8.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1. Staff recommends continuing the public hearing to the next PZC meeting. This will allow time for the applicant to address issues raised in Section 5-7 of this report. 8.2. Town Engineer will submit written comments to commission prior to Tuesday PZC meeting. Most engineering issues have been worked through during the wetland application. I suspect most comments will be concerning overburden analysis, restoration, etc. Gary M. Haynes Director of Community Development