area.
George Andrews stated that the catch basins discharge directly into Allyn's Pond. The
applicant agreed that they would install a hydrodynamic separator in the system in the
lay-down area with the oversight of a Licensed Engineering Practitioner (LEP) in addition to
providing Spill Kits in the area.
J. Hodge asked about the ways noise could be reduced within the industrial building - such
as insulation or keeping the door closed in the area proposed for heavy equipment repair.
Chairman Capon open the floor to public comment.
Eric Treaster, 10 Huntington Way, was impressed with the information in which the
applicant has provided for staff and residents. Mr. Treaster expressed concern about volatile
organic compounds, paint chips, and odors from painting. He asked whether painting would
be conducted inside or outside, and how the neighbors be protected from odors.
Dave Harned, 13 River Dr, spoke on behalf of the CALU group. He was not in support of the
application. Mr. Harned read his prepared remarks. He was most concerned about potential
nuisances caused by noise and dust. He believed the applicant has given a lot of info that is
not relevant to making a determination as to whether the application meets the zoning
regulations and should not used as a reason to approve the application.
He asked whether the operation was required to meet state noise regulations, or not? Or
whether fugitive dust or fumes are allowed to leave the property. Mr. Harned believed that
the applicant did not provide enough tangible evidence related to what kind of activity would
be conducted or stored on site, and what the impact would be. He asked the Commission to
examine the testimony provided by the applicant as he feels that there is not a lot about noise
and dust. He also stated that some of the testimony is erroneous. He, on behalf of CALU,
believed that the application should be denied until the applicant satisfies concerns related to
noise and dust as they have the burden of proof to do so. He asked if the Commission were to
approve the application, to consider the following conditions.
1. A later starting time, 6:30 AM is too early.
2. Additional vegetation to further reinforce the 100 ft landscape buffer.
3. Request a wall or greater buffer to help with noise.
4. Ongoing monitoring paid for by the applicant, bond paid for by applicant to know the
regulations are being complied with (noise and dust monitoring).
5. Request more evidence to determine if the site is too noisy/dusty, the applicants current
information is not sufficient.
Atty. Russell Stewart, 9 Billings Lake, North Stonington (Representing Amy Harned),
believed that the published notice for the meeting, previously published, was insufficient
given the subsequent proposal to add an additional building in a different area.
Atty. Stewart expressed concern about the proposed buffer and explained why it is not
reasonable, as the applicants assert - given the particular industrial use proposed so close to a
residential neighborhood. He stated that it is the applicant's burden of proof to show that a
100' buffer is reasonable versus the existing 300' buffer that was apparently deemed
reasonable for all this time. He explained that the Commission should not be receiving
information about what the potential uses will be at this point, and that it should be a red flag
that Commission members still have to ask what is going on in the lay down area. Atty.
Stewart urged the Commission to deny the application given the lack of information
