Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 4/27/2023
EAST LONGMEADOW — The main topic at the April 18 East Longmeadow Planning Board meeting was a request by Charles Arment Jr. and William Arment to construct a commercial recycling facility on a property at the end of Deer Park Drive. Residents in neighboring Enfield attended the meeting to express opposition.
Attorney Joshua Levine, representing the Arments, told the Planning Board that the property sits at the end of a cul-de-sac abutting undeveloped town-owned land. The site will be used as a transfer station for construction materials. This is an as-right usage in the industrial garden park district, Levine said.
“Reusable items, like wood and metal, certain types of concrete, other man-made materials,” would be “sent to the appropriate destination for reuse and recycling,” Levine said. Material that cannot be reused or recycled items would be sent to a landfill. Levine assured that no hazardous materials would be accepted at the site.
There would be a staffed gate house on site to direct trucks delivering material, which would then be weighed to determine a price for the customers. The vehicles would then be brought inside the facility, where material would be sorted and loaded onto train cars. The cars would be sent to and from the facility on an existing set of tracks that run through Enfield. The facility would be the end of the rail line.
Levine said the project was “designed from the outset to minimize disruption” to the area around it.
“It’s about as far from any residential development as you can get,” he said. While sorting would be done 24 hours a day, truck deliveries would only be accepted between the hours of 6 a.m. and 3 p.m.
John Furman is the Springfield office manager for Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. and the engineer of record for the project. He explained that the building would be set back 300 feet from the street and all lighting would be LED and face toward the site, minimizing disruption to any other properties. He said stormwater that now runs into Jawbuck Brook Reservoir would be guided away from the reservoir and into catch basins and an infiltration system on the site.
A traffic impact and access study conducted by traffic engineer Michael Santos examined the intersections of Shaker Road with Deer Park Drive and Pease and Denslow roads, as well as the intersection of Denslow Road. with Benton Drive. He said traffic from a potential warehouse at 330 Chestnut St. was included in the data.
The facility can process a maximum of 2,000 tons per day. According to the study, this could produce up to 60 truck trips, with an average of seven trips in the morning and evening peak hours. Santos stated in his presentation, “The project will have minimal impact on traffic operations at the study intersections.” Levine added that there will be three shifts of seven employees, which would add non-truck traffic.
Planning Board member Russell Denver noted Santos’s documentation showed existing traffic on Deer Park Drive of between five and 60 vehicles and asked him to clarify if the facility would create 60 additional trips. Santos then confirmed that the 60 trips would be in addition to existing traffic.
Denver also took issue with Santos’ description of Deer Park Drive businesses as “industrial in nature.” He said there is an office building, a fence company and childcare facility on the street. Santos acknowledged, “It’s more of a mixed use.”
Denver also questioned why the intersection of Chestnut Street and Shaker Road was not studied and said the potential warehouse would impact traffic flow for this project. Santos reiterated that projected traffic from the warehouse project is already factored into the study. Levine offered to add another intersection to the traffic data if the Planning Board so desired. He also noted that the drivers will be local and know not to travel through the rotary at Center Square, and instead turn onto Denslow Road.
Levine noted that while most of the customers for the facility will be 10-wheel trucks, some may be personal vehicles.
“If that’s the case, you should be renaming it to ‘Commercial and Residential Recycling,’ rather than just ‘Commercial Recycling,’” Denver quipped.
Planning Board member Peter Punderson addressed Arment Jr. and said Arment Trucking had “very considerate truck drivers,” but noted the items in his 300-year-old Pease Road home shake when trucks pass. Punderson asked for a traffic study that included the proposed recycling facility, the warehouse at 330 Chestnut St. and any residential traffic. He also asked if Pease Road would be used frequently. Arment Jr. said it was “undesirable” to drive trucks on Pease Road.
Punderson complimented the project as “well thought out.” Denver nodded in agreement and praised the use of rail to minimize the impact of truck traffic.
However, some members of the public took issue with the use of rail as it runs through Enfield. A resident of Crescent Beach Drive in Enfield said that the project “breaks laws” around wetlands protection and erosion controls.
Furman said the project has an environmental consultant and repeated that the project would improve the runoff situation by treating it through stormwater infrastructure. He pointed out that the wetlands abut the 150-foot setback owned by Verizon, which is slated to remain grassy, and not the land on which the project would be built. He also pushed back on the person’s assertion that the project would remove trees. Punderson noted that the site has been cleared of trees for at least 15 years.
Levine said the environmental consultant had told him that the project did not need to go before the Conservation Commission because it was not within the setbacks required under law. Nonetheless, Director of Planning and Community Development Bailey Mitchell asked for a letter attesting to that.
Connecticut state Rep. Carol Hall (R-Enfield), who represents Enfield and East Windsor, said the Connecticut Department of Transportation does not know about the recycling facility and said Connecticut is hoping to turn the old rail lines into a rail trail that connects East Windsor to the Redstone Rail Trail. She admitted that she was not sure if it was the same rail system but said the now defunct freight line running through Enfield will not be reopened.
In putting together the project, Arment Jr. said his nephew had met with an official from the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s Office of Rails. Arment Jr. quoted him as saying, “Rail is coming to Enfield. When it does, it’s coming to the Massachusetts line.” He said the company has worked on the rail piece of the project for more than a year and it was not chosen lightly. Punderson asked Arment Jr. to provide a letter from the transportation official that supports the use of the rail line.
Enfield City Councilor Michael Ludwick addressed the Planning Board as a resident of Enfield. “We sort of get squeezed” by freight travel, whether by truck or rail, he said of the town. He noted that there are old bridges in Enfield and East Windsor that may not be able to handle the weight of heavy rail usage.
Another resident expressed concern about the risk of train derailments and an unspecified recycling center fire that allegedly recently took place in Ohio. Reminder Publishing found no report of such a fire in Ohio, however, there was an April 11 fire at a recycling facility in Richmond, Indiana, on the Ohio border. She questioned whether it would fall to Enfield’s fire departments to handle any potential fire or accidents. Denver told her that the fire departments in Enfield and East Longmeadow have a mutual aid agreement, with each town helping the other when a fire occurs.
The public hearing was continued to the May 16 Planning Board meeting so more information can be gathered, and the plans can be updated as requested by the town.