lication for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and
Public Need for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a
proposed 115-kV/13.8-kV electric substation and associated
facilities located at 3-7 Wildflower Lane, Trumbull, Connecticut.

}

}

}

}
Connecticut

Siting

Council

February 13, 2007

Findings of Fact

Introduction

1.
The United Illuminating Company (UI), in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut
General Statutes (CGS) § 16-50g et seq., and § 16-50j-1 et seq. of the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA), applied to the Connecticut Siting Council (Council)
on June 30, 2006 for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new substation to
be located on UIs 4.85-acre property located at 3-7 Wildflower Lane, Trumbull,
Connecticut. (UI 1, Vol. I, pp.1-2, 11)

2.
The purposes of the proposed facility are to provide increased distribution system
capacity and to improve other aspects of electric system reliability in response to
increasing load growth in the Town of Trumbull and surrounding communities. (UI 1,
Vo1. I, pp. 2, 17)

3.
The parties in this proceeding are the applicant, the Wildflower Coalition Petitioners
(WCP), and the Town of Trumbull (Town). The intervenors in this proceeding are The
Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P) and Mark Waggner. (Transcript 1 -
10/24/06 at 3:05 p.m. [Tr. 1], pp. 5-6)

4.
Pursuant to General Statutes § 16-50m, the Council, after giving due notice thereof, held
a public hearing on October 24, 2006, beginning at 3:00 p.m. and continuing at 7:00 p.m.
The hearing was noticed for the Trumbull Town Hall, the Court Room, 2
nd
Floor, 5866
Main Street, Trumbull. However, the location was changed to the Madison Middle
School, 4630 Madison Avenue, Trumbull prior to the hearing. (Councils Revised
Hearing Notice dated October 12, 2006 (original notice dated September 22, 2006); Tr. 1,
p. 3; Transcript 2 10/24/06 at 7:10 p.m. [Tr. 2], p. 3)

5.
The Council and its staff made an inspection of the proposed substation site on October
24, 2006, beginning at 1:00 p.m. The Council and its staff also inspected the Quail Trail
site (Site 6) and the Quarry Road site (Site 11). (Councils Revised Hearing Notice dated
October 12, 2006; Tr. 1, p. 4)

6.
The Council held continued public hearings at Ten Franklin Square, New Britain on
October 26, 2006 and December 5, 2006, beginning at 10:20 a.m. and 10:30 a.m.,
respectively. (Transcript 3 10/26/06 [Tr. 3], p. 1; Transcript 4 12/05/06 [Tr. 4], p. 3;
Tr. 2, p. 77)

7.
UI utilized a bucket truck to simulate the height of proposed structure NB31A at Site 1
during the field review. (Tr. 3, p. 151)
Docket No. 317
Findings of Fact
Page 2

8.
Pursuant to CGS § 16-50l (b), public notice of the application was published in The
Connecticut Post, The Trumbull Times, The Bridgeport News, and The Stratford Star on
June 22, and 29, 2006. (UI 1, Vol. II, Exh. H)

9.
Pursuant to CGS § 16-50l (b), notice of the application was provided to all abutting
property owners by certified mail. UI and its attorney sent redundant letters dated June
21 and June 22, 2006. Return receipts were received from six out of the seven addresses.
Return receipts were not received from Chet and Julie Jawor. (UI 1, Vol. II, Exh. H; UI
4, response 1)

10.
Pursuant to CGS § 16-50l (b), UI provided notice to all federal, state and local officials
and agencies listed therein. (UI 1, Vol. II, Exh. H)

11.
UI erected a four-foot by six-foot sign on its property on Wildflower Lane, close to
Huntington Turnpike, which provided a brief description of the proposal and notice of the
Councils October 24, 2006 hearing. The sign also indicated that a copy of the
application and additional information is available at the Councils website or by calling
the Councils office. An identical sign was placed on Nichols Avenue near the current
access road to the proposed site. The sign on Wildflower Lane was installed on October
10, 2006 and the sign on Nichols Avenue was installed on October 12, 2006. (UI 7)

12.
UI also installed four signs at the Site 6 property (owned by the Town of Trumbull) on
October 12, 2006. These signs also included a brief description of the proposal and notice
of the Councils October 24, 2006 hearing. The sign indicated that a copy of the
application and additional information is available at the Councils website or by calling
the Councils office. The sign also noted that Site 6 was proposed as an alternative
location for the substation by the WCP and the Town. (UI 7)

13.
On or about June 30, 2006, UI sent copies of its application to the Connecticut Energy
Advisory Board (CEAB). (UI 1, Vol. II, Exh. H).

14.
On July 14, 2006, the CEAB issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking alternatives to
the proposed substation, pursuant to CGS § 16a-7c. (Council Admin. Notice, Item 33)

15.
Proposals for alternatives to the proposed substation were to be submitted to the CEAB
no later than September 12, 2006. None were received. (Council Admin. Notice, Item
33)

16.
On October 26, 2006, the CEAB issued its final report indicating that the proposed
substation conforms to the most relevant of the Preferential Criteria for this project,
which is enhanced reliability. Thus, the CEAB views the proposed project favorably.
(Council Admin. Notice, Item 33)

State Agency Comment

17.
Pursuant to CGS § 16-50l, on September 22, 2006 and December 6, 2006, the following
State agencies were solicited by the Council to submit written comments regarding the
proposed facility: Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Department of Public
Health (DPH), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Department of Public Utility
Control (DPUC), Office of Policy and Management (OPM), Department of Economic Docket No. 317
Findings of Fact
Page 3

and Community Development (DECD), and the Department of Transportation (DOT).
(Record)

18.
The Council received responses from the DOTs Bureau of Engineering and Highway
Operations on October 13, 2006, and from the DEP on October 20, 2006.

19.
In its comments, DOT does not object to the proposed site. DOT states that if the
proposed project involves any work to be performed in the state highway right of way, an
encroachment permit is required. (DOT Comments dated October 13, 2006)

20.
DEP states the primary site has no wetlands or watercourses. Site 1 is also level, largely
cleared and already used for utility purposes. Most of the substation footprint has
herbaceous or small shrub cover with principle species being milkweed, goldenrod,
inkberry, scrub-oak, tree-of-heaven, sumac, pin cherry, poison ivy, and autumn olive.
(DEP Comments dated October 20, 2006)

21.
DEP visited the following streets adjacent to Site 1: Stella Drive, Wildflower Lane,
Huntington Turnpike and Nichols Avenue to assess the potential for visual impacts to
those areas. The two closest homes on Stella Drive are those at 45 and 52 Stella Drive, at
the northern end of that street. DEP notes that those homes would benefit from ample
deciduous screening. The homes at 40 and 46 Stella Drive are higher in elevation and
may see more of the taller elements of the substation, such as the tap structures, through
or above the upper portions of the intervening woods. (DEP Comments dated October
20, 2006)

22.
DEP noted that the home at 6 Wildflower Lane would experience a significant loss of
existing forest cover across the street. Proper landscape plantings could obscure much of
the view of the substation, but the existing view would be significantly altered. DEP
recommends that existing trees be preserved on this side of the substation. (DEP
Comments dated October 20, 2006)

23.
DEP states that the home at 1500 Huntington Turnpike would have a view of some
elements of the substation. The homes at 1514 and 1526 Huntington Turnpike may
experience seasonal views of the taller elements of the substation. The home at 1536
Huntington Turnpike would probably not see the substation. Homes north of this point
and west of Huntington Turnpike would not see the substation. (DEP Comments dated
October 20, 2006)

24. DEP notes that several homes along the south side of Nichols Avenue may have some
view of the proposed substation, but the home at 2911 would be the only home
significantly impacted. (DEP Comments dated October 20, 2006)

25.
DEP notes that at least three homes on Quail Trail and two homes on Leffert Road would
have views of Site 6A. (DEP Comments dated October 20, 2006)

26.
DEP believes that Site 6B has the most screening from residential views of all the
alternate sites within the search area. (DEP Comments dated October 20, 2006)
Docket No. 3