The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About22SITE8 LWRD Comments 110222From:Quispe, Eimy To:Harry Heller; Colleen Bezanson Cc:John Reece; Mark Augur; James Dillman; David McKay; Liz Burdick; Hart, Marybeth Subject:RE: Gateway Montville Terminal Date:Wednesday, November 2, 2022 4:09:17 PM Attachments:image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Heller, Thank you for your email regarding the subject property. While we understand your concerns, it remains our position that the proposed changes and new Phase III activities currently pending before the Town of Montville Planning and Zoning Commission do not meet the exemptions outlined under section 15.3.2 of the Town of Montville Zoning Regulations and therefore require a Coastal Site Plan Review. The proposed Phase III activities were not shown on previous site plans reviewed as part of Phase I and Phase II, and the extent of these new activities are not comparable to building a fence, sign, or pedestrian sidewalk as detailed in the regulations: 15.3.2 “c. Construction of new or modification of existing on-premises fences, walls, pedestrian walks and terraces, underground utility connections, essential electric, gas, telephone, water and sewer service lines, signs and such other minor structures as will not substantially alter the natural character of coastal resources or restrict access along the public beach.” It is not our intention to elevate form over substance in this matter. Rather, our objective is to maintain the integrity of the coastal management program. The exemptions contained in the Montville zoning regulations reflect the language contained in CGS Section 22a-109 (b), and it is our duty to provide consistent interpretation of this statutory language in support of municipal coastal management implementation. We acknowledge that the CAM application for Phase I and Phase II of the project indicated that the application was for the use of the property as a water-dependent shipping and receiving port and terminal, and the new Phase III of the project proposes construction of a 24’ wide circulation driveway for delivery of materials for temporary storage on-site to support the previously noted general use of the site. However, the new phase proposes changes and new uses of the property that were not shown on site plans as part of Phase I or II of the project and must therefore be reviewed for zoning compliance and coastal management consistency in accordance with CGS Sections 22a-105 and 22a-109. Further, the consistency determination for the water-dependent aspect of the facilities previously noted in the earlier application does not exempt subsequent proposals from CSPR to determine consistency with the Connecticut Coastal Management Act, even if they are proposed in support of said use. Coastal Site Plan reviews are not limited to considering water-dependent uses; they also evaluate consistency with all applicable coastal policies and standards in the CCMA and address potential adverse impacts of the proposed activity on both coastal resources and future water- dependent development activities (including concerns regarding water quality, FEMA compliance, and stormwater management). Accordingly, please be aware that it is evident that a CSPR is required as the changes and new phase don’t appear to meet the referenced exemptions, and not conducting a CSPR where one is required may risk the project as a potential public nuisance under CGS 22a-108. Finally, although a CSPR application to the Town for the activities proposed is required, a mandatory referral of the application from the Town to our office is not required for these activities per CGS Section 22a- 104(e) and 22a-109(d). Best regards, Eimy Quispe Eimy Quispe Environmental Analyst 1Regulatory - EastLand and Water Resource DivisionBureau of Water Protection and Land ReuseConnecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127P: 860.424.4182|F: 860.424.4075|E: Eimy.Quispe@ct.gov https://portal.ct.gov/deep Conserving, improving and protecting our natural resources and environment; Ensuring a clean, affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy supply. From: Harry Heller <hheller@hellermccoy.com> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 8:30 PM To: Colleen Bezanson <CBezanson@montville-ct.org>; Quispe, Eimy <Eimy.Quispe@ct.gov> Cc: John Reece <john.reece@enstructure.com>; Mark Augur <maugur@gatewayt.com>; James Dillman <jdillman@gatewayt.com>; David McKay <dmckay@boundariesllc.net>; Liz Burdick <lburdick@montville-ct.org> Subject: Gateway Montville Terminal EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open anyattachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening Colleen and Eimy: I disagree with your interpretation of the application currently pending before the Montville Planning and Zoning Commission. Please review the CAM application which was filed with the Phase I and Phase II site plan application. The CAM application, and the CAM review of that application, clearly indicated that the application was for the use of the property as a shipping and receiving port and terminal. See the following: IIA. The project consists of the redevelopment of the AES Thames properties between Depot Road and Dock Road in Uncasville. The properties are intended to be used for intermodal shipping and transport of road salt and other construction materials. IIC(2) The project is water dependent. The proposal will use the existing pier for receiving road salt deliveries by barge and shipping construction materials delivered by rail out by barge, IIC(3) The project will use the existing pier on the property and encourage water dependent uses that will use the pier for shipping of bulk materials by barge. Attachment to Application - At this time new rail spurs are proposed to accommodate the transfer of bulk construction materials which may include aggregates, rebar, or lumber from rail to barge and from barge to rail. All proposed activities are within the limits of the former industrial facility. In fact, the CSP review conducted by DEEP acknowledges that the review is to evaluate a new water- dependent use, the intermodal shipping and transport of road salt and construction materials. The site plan which is currently pending before the Montville Planning and Zoning Commission is an operational plan. It actually proposes less fill within the 100 year flood zone and the coastal management area THAN IS ALREADY PERMITTED, NOT MORE. Section 15.3.2(c) of the Montville Zoning Regulations exempts "construction of new or modification of existing on premises fences, walls, pedestrian walks and terraces, underground utility connections, essential electric, gas, telephone, water and sewer service lines, signs and SUCH OTHER MINOR STRUCTURES AS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE NATURAL CHARACTER OF COASTAL RESOURCES OR RESTRICT ACCESS ALONG THE PUBLIC BEACH". The modification of the site plan to incorporate an access drive through a portion of the site to allow access to permitted stored materials which are either inbound or outbound at this intermodal facility is entirely consistent with the approved site plan and the prior CAM review for this site. Note that the new portion of the access drive interconnects with the existing paved access drive along the waterfront. The Phase III operational application falls within the exemption contained in Section 15.3.2(c). No previously unanticipated uses are proposed. The reduction in the amount of fill has been formulated by the project engineer to protect rather than jeopardize coastal resources based upon the geotechnical evaluation of the site. Nothing proposed will SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE NATURAL CHARACTER OF COASTAL RESOURCES. The currently pending proposal before the Montville Planning and Zoning Commission is entirely consistent (from the perspective of the management and protection of coastal resources) with what was reviewed in conjunction with the Phase I and Phase II application and which is commented on by the DEEP response letter dated June 23, 2022. To determine otherwise is nothing more than the exaltation of form over substance. Harry Heller, Heller & McCoy 736 Norwich-New London Turnpike Uncasville, CT 06382 Telephone: (860) 848-1248 Facsimile: (860) 848-4003