Developers seek truck stop, warehouse near Batterson Park; hearing kept open after technical presentations and public outcry

The Farmington Inland Wetlands Commission on June 3 kept open the public hearing on a proposed truck‑stop, refueling facility and warehouse on an 86‑acre parcel abutting Batterson Park after several hours of technical presentations and more than a dozen public commenters urging the panel to reject the plan.

Taylor Capel, a licensed professional engineer with Soleie Engineering representing the applicant, said the development has been reduced from its initial scope and that the team is concentrating disturbance in a small portion of the parcel. “We reduced the overall development to a warehouse of 18,000 square feet,” Capel said, and described revisions he said would move the project farther from wetlands and route canopy roof drains to recharge features intended to help a downstream vernal pool.

The applicant’s consultants emphasized a conservation strategy they say is substantial: the applicant is proposing to place about 75 of the parcel’s roughly 86 acres in a conservation easement intended to protect forest and wetland areas while concentrating development in a small footprint. Jackson Smith, a land use ecologist with William Kenny Associates, summarized the ecological analysis and mitigation approach and said the team “maintain[s] our conclusion that the project will not adversely impact on‑site vernal pools.”

Intervenor Stephanie Roman, who owns property adjacent to the site, challenged the hydrologic and ecological assumptions. Roman said the applicant’s mapping underestimates localized groundwater contributions that feed a slope wetland and that the proposed work could cut shallow groundwater flows. “This reduction will result in adverse physical impact to this slope and wetland and in essence just dewater it,” she said, summarizing her expert‑backed analysis.

A central technical point of contention was stormwater treatment. The applicant replaced earlier separators with prefabricated cartridge filtration units (marketed as “jellyfish” filters) and cited Washington State Ecology testing and Connecticut stormwater guidance that allows use of certified proprietary BMPs. The applicant described maintenance plans — an initial six‑month assessment followed by annual maintenance — and said yearly proof of maintenance would be provided to the town. Opponents and intervenors questioned whether the units reliably treat dissolved pollutants associated with heavy‑use fueling areas and stressed the risk from spills and long‑term contamination.

Public comment was strongly opposed. Residents and elected officials from New Britain and Farmington said the site’s proximity to Batterson Park — and the state’s recent investments in the park — made the parcel especially sensitive. “How can Connecticut justify spending $10 million to restore Batterson Park while approving a major diesel trucking facility directly upstream of it?” one speaker asked in public comment.

Commissioners agreed to keep the hearing open and set a deadline of June 10 for any additional information the applicant or intervenor wants to submit. The commission said it intends to consider closing the hearing on June 17 but left that decision contingent on receipt of the requested materials and staff review.

Next steps: the applicant and intervenor must file outstanding materials by June 10 so staff and commissioners can review them ahead of the June 17 meeting, when the commission may vote to close the hearing or request additional information.

Provenance: Topic introduction at public hearing reopening (SEG 902). Topic last referenced in meeting close and hearing continuation (SEG 4102).