Town of East Windsor, CT - 10/25/2005 Minutes

10/25/2005 Minutes

TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR

Planning and Zoning Commission

Public Hearing #1468 - October 25, 2005

***** Draft Document – Subject to Commission Approval *****

The Meeting was called to order at 7:33 P. M. by Chairman Guiliano in the Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:

A quorum was established as five Regular Members (Filipone, Gowdy, Guiliano, Rodrigue and Saunders) and two Alternate Members (Ouellette and Tyler) were present. Alternate Member Kehoe was absent. Chairman Guiliano noted Alternate Commissioner Tyler will sit in on any new hearings/applications this evening. Also present was Town Planner Whitten.

ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None.

RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:

1. Application of South Prospect Hill Road, LLC for a Special Use Permit/Modification to General Development Plan – from approved hotel use to use by two restaurants, located at 43 Prospect Hill Road. [HIFZ Zone; Map 11, Block 14, Lot 14].

LEGAL NOTICE:

The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, October 13, 2005, and Thursday, October 20, 2005, was read by Secretary Saunders:

1 Application of Felica McIntosh for a Special Use Permit to allow an in-law apartment at 123 Tromley Road, owned by Homes by Guarino. [A-1 Zone; Map 29, Block 19, Lot 52-2].

2. Application of Kathleen A. Boucher for a renewal of previously approved Special Use Permit and to add 5 more dogs to existing doggie day care business located at 62 Harrington Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 17, Block 30, Lot 17].

3. Application of Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc., for Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit (in accordance with Sec. 8A of the Zoning Regulations) to allow a 41-unit condominium housing development in a Special Development District, located at 329 and 343 Scantic Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 39, Block 34, Lots 51, 62, & 62B].

4. Application of M & L Development Corp. for a text amendment to Section 8A.10.6.2 of the Zoning Regulations involving Open Space Requirements for Special Development Districts.

5. Application of M & L Development Corporation for a Special Use Permit to allow 18-unit condominium project located at 94 South Main Street (the Settlement at Mason’s Brook), owned by M & L Development Corporation and John L. and Daniel F. Burnham. [SDD Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lots 46, 47, & 48].

CONTINUED HEARINGS: KF Realty LLC - Special Use Permit for Planned Residential Development (Farnham Estates) for 8 lots, including Special Use Permit for 2 rear lots, located at 247 Rye Street, owned by Randy A. and Linda L. Moore. [R-3 & A-2 Zones; Map 35, Block 49, Lot 22] (Withdrawal of application):

Town Planner Whitten referenced letter of withdrawal from the Applicant. She noted the Public Hearing had been opened; she suggested closing the Public Hearing and accepting the letter of withdrawal.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of KF Realty LLC for a Special Use Permit for Planned Residential Development (Farnham Estates) for 8 lots, including Special Use Permit for 2 rear lots, located at 247 Rye Street, owned by Randy A. and Linda L. Moore. [R-3 & A-2 Zones; Map 35, Block 49, Lot 22].

Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous

MOTION: To ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL of the Application of KF Realty LLC for a Special Use Permit for Planned Residential Development (Farnham Estates) for 8 lots, including Special Use Permit for 2 rear lots, located at 247 Rye Street, owned by Randy A. and Linda L. Moore. [R-3 & A-2 Zones; Map 35, Block 49, Lot 22] per letter to Laurie P. Whitten, CZEO, ACIP, Director of Planning & Development, Town of East Windsor, dated 10/13/2005.

Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous

CONTINUED HEARING: Jason Roy - Special Use Permit for Dealer/Repairer License at 80-82 South Main Street, owned by VMC Realty Inc., c/o Vito Cortese [TZ5 Zone; Map 38, Block 5, Lot 44] (Deadline to close hearing 11/15/05):

Town Planner Whitten reported she believes the Applicant is withdrawing the Application but she has not yet received a letter of withdrawal. She suggested keeping the Public Hearing open.

MOTION: To TABLE until the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on November 15, 2005 the Application of Jason Roy for a Special Use Permit for

Dealer/Repairer License at 80-82 South Main Street, owned by VMC Realty Inc., c/o Vito Cortese [TZ5 Zone; Map 38, Block 5, Lot 44] .

Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous

NEW HEARINGS: Felicia McIntosh - Special Use Permit to allow an in-law apartment at 123 Tromley Road, owned by Homes by Guarino. [A-1 Zone; Map 29, Block 19, Lot 52-2] (Deadline to close hearing 11/29/05):

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Bob Alaimo, representing Paul Guarino, of Homes by Guarino. Mr. Guarino was also present.

Mr. Alaimo reported this proposal is for an in-law apartment. There will be no additional exterior doors; the mother-in-law will be living in the lower level of this raised ranch. There will also be a second door from the garage.

Chairman Guiliano noted that every 2 years they must return to the Commission. Town Planner Whitten concurred, noting they must re-apply for a Special Use Permit each time. Mr. Alaimo questioned if people come back for the re-applications? Town Planner Whitten indicated she couldn’t say, but the requirement is in the Regulations. Mr. Alaimo recalled that Chamberlain Farms has a couple of in-law apartment situations. Town Planner Whitten reiterated that it’s specific in the Regulations and the Conditions of Approval.

Chairman Guiliano questioned that they would be able to enter through the back door, the garage door, or the front door? Mr. Alaimo replied affirmatively, noting there are egress windows in the back.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned the 560 square feet. Town Planner Whitten indicated they had scaled it off based on the plan. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the recreation room was part of the in-law apartment? Town Planner Whitten replied negatively. Commissioner Gowdy indicated that was the difference. Chairman Guiliano questioned that it was separate, although there is a door going into the recreation room. Mr. Alaimo suggested they had done this a number of times; they share a common area for the washer and dryer, etc.

Chairman Guiliano queried the audience for comments; no one requested to speak.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Felicia McIntosh for a Special Use Permit to allow an in-law apartment at 123 Tromley Road, owned by Homes by Guarino. [A-1 Zone; Map 29, Block 19, Lot 52-2].

Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous

MOTION TO APPROVE the Special Use Permit application of Felicia McIntosh for the alteration of a portion of a house to a temporary In-law apartment at 123 Tromley Road, on property owned by Homes by Guarino, as shown on Assessor's Map 29, Block 19, Lot 52-2 and zoned A-1. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans as approved by the Commission and the following conditions:

REFERENCED PLANS

Site Development Plan prepared for Homes By Guarino, Map 29, Blk 19, Lot 52-2, #123 Tromley Road, East Windsor, CT, scale 1”=40’, dated July 20, 2005, Zone A-1, Sheet 1/1, prepared by Sanderson & Washburn, P.O.Box 55, 15 Main Street, Tariffville, CT 06081 860/658-2307, 860/651-7157 fax.

Floor Plan and Elevation Drawing, Sheets 1-11, Tromley Rd, East Windsor, prepared for Homes by Guarino, P.O. Box 330, Broad Brook, CT 06016A-1, prepared by D.J.P. Home Design Services, LLc, 860/285-8033, dated June 29, 2005

CONDITIONS

Conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of any permits

1. North Central District Health Department shall review and approve the plans for the existing septic system design and well location to insure adequate capacity for the additional occupancy.

Conditions that must be met prior to certificates of compliance

2. All public health, safety and building code compliance components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy. When all public health, safety and building code compliance components have been completed, the Zoning Official may issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance.

3. The applicant will need to sign an affidavit of occupancy for a temporary accessory in-law apartment stating that the tenant will be a family member. Said affidavit should be filed upon the land records with the special use permit.

General Conditions

3. This approval and related zoning permit shall expire on (2 years from approval date) . If the applicant wishes to extend the approval for additional periods of time, a letter must be submitted, at least 30 days in advance of the expiration date. The request for renewal must be accompanied by a NEW "Affidavit of Occupancy for a Temporary Accessory In-Law Apartment" duly signed and notarized. As per zoning regulation §5.3.2(1), the renewal of such permit

requires a new public hearing.

4. Failure to re-apply for renewal upon the expiration of the approval and permit shall result in the revocation of all approvals and permits.

5. Upon expiration or termination of the Special Use, the applicant shall cause the accessory apartment to be removed and the space it occupied shall be converted to additional living space for the one family dwelling unit of which this motion is the subject. Conversion to a single-family dwelling unit shall comply with §5.3.2(14).

6. This Special Use Permit shall expire upon the death or relocation of all occupants of either unit or upon transfer of title to the property.

7. No additional Mailbox is allowed.

8. No additional entrances shall be allowed on any wall plane facing any street.

9. Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any work.

10. A Building Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any work.

11. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plan. Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.

12. By acceptance of this approval and conditions, the applicant, owner and/or their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.

13. The applicant hereby acknowledges concurrence with the provision of §5.3 of the East Windsor zoning regulations in total and in doing so recognizes the authority of the Zoning Enforcement Officer to order removal and conversion of the accessory apartment as allowed by §5.3.

Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous

NEW HEARING: Kathleen A. Boucher - Renewal of previously approved Special Use Permit and to add 5 more dogs to existing doggie day care business located at 62 Harrington Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 17, Block 30, Lot 17] (Deadline to close hearing 11/29/05):

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Fahey, and Kathleen Boucher, the Applicant.

Attorney Fahey suggested he knows the Commission is intimately familiar with the business, the original Approval and the subsequent Hearings. He would ask that the Commission incorporate all the material from the previous Hearings for this Application. Attorney Fahey suggested Ms. Boucher has substantially completed the Conditions of Approval from the previous Hearings. There are no staff complaints that they are aware of, and they are running the operation. They are asking for what they were asking for in November of 2004, that the dogs be increased from 15 to 20, not including her own dogs, and that the Conditions of Approval be included.

Commissioner Filipone questioned what was meant by substantially completed? Ms. Boucher suggested that a few small angled pieces of fence are not completed in back, and they have not completed the barn. The insulation is in the barn but not in place. Commissioner Filipone questioned that Town Planner Whitten was comfortable with that? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively.

Commissioner Rodrigue questioned what about the commercial vehicle parked in a Residential Zone? Town Planner Whitten suggested you are allowed a certain sized commercial vehicle in a Residential Zone, and this meets the requirements.

Commissioner Gowdy noted the Applicant is asking for the addition of dog training. Ms. Boucher suggested she just wanted to have it all down if people came in at 7 P. M. for dog training. Commissioner Gowdy questioned that she was asking for a waiver of the existing conditions regarding hours of operation? Ms. Boucher replied she guessed so. Commissioner Gowdy suggested that’s what it amounts to. Ms. Boucher suggested customers couldn’t come during doggie day care for one on one training. Attorney Fahey suggested there is some question that this is part of the Application as the business is located in an agricultural zone. Commissioner Gowdy suggested the approval is under a Special Use Permit and this isn’t part of the business now. Commissioner Filipone questioned if the training was, or was not, part of the present Application? Ms. Boucher suggested she can do it at people’s houses. Commissioner Gowdy indicated that personally he didn’t want to see the hours of operation change. Attorney Fahey suggested they have no problem with that.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned how many dogs does Ms. Boucher own? Ms. Boucher indicated 4. Commissioner Gowdy noted she was asking for 5. Chairman Guiliano suggested she can have as many as she wants; she’s asking for 5 more for the business. Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission could restrict the number of dogs on the property. Chairman Guiliano suggested only those involved in the business. Commissioner Gowdy requested clarification that Ms. Boucher wanted to have a total number of dogs on the premises at 20 for the day care, and to have 5 personal dogs, for a total of 25 dogs? Ms. Boucher replied affirmatively, noting she only had 4 personal dogs now. Chairman Guiliano suggested if it’s personal dogs it shouldn’t be in the Application. Town Planner Whitten suggested the past practice was that the Commission was trying to restrict the number of personal dogs on the property. Commissioner Gowdy suggested the problems have been with noise for the neighbors so

to keep everyone happy the Commission tried to keep the number to 15 for business and feels she is asking for 25. Attorney Fahey didn’t feel the Commission tried to limit the personal dogs, but it was a condition of approval and was why he made the statement that they would accept the existing conditions. Town Planner Whitten suggested it was a question of clarification.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if staff had any complaints? Town Planner Whitten indicated she had not received any formal written complaints. There were some inquiries from the neighbors regarding the hours of operation; when Ms. Boucher came in for renewal of the Application Town Planner Whitten talked with Officer Patsky and he has had no complaints since the prior Application.

Chairman Guiliano opened discussion to the audience:

John Bergeron, 68 Harrington Road: READ FOR THE RECORD a copy of a written statement he submitted as part of the file. He cited that additional fencing was to be put up on the east side of the property to match the fence on the west side and she did plant pine trees the same as those existing on the west side to block the sound; a koi pond was to be installed as well. Mr. Bergeron referenced conditions dated 1/2005 which called for a 6’ high solid stockade fence to be installed around the perimeter of the dog containment area, and additional landscaping was to be installed as well. He noted that the stockade fence was installed only this week, as was the soundproofing in the barn, so there has been no time to assess the affect of these items. He suggested the conditions were not met by the 8/2005 renewal date, and, at the previous Hearing, Commissioner Ouellette questioned if the Applicant understood that the number of dogs was not to be increased until the conditions were met.

Mr. Bergeron also referenced Conditions #5 – hours of operation were to be 7 to 6 P. M. with dogs kept inside before 7 A. M.; the request was denied to take in one dog at 6 A. M. Mr. Bergeron indicated he noticed a pattern that someone left before 6 each morning, and then he noticed that Brian met the client at Revay’s to pick up that dog. Mr. Bergeron suggested he advised Nancy Rudek that the client was not meeting the conditions of approval; he felt Ms. Rudek talked to the Applicant but the situation continues. Mr. Bergeron quoted from the Minutes of 1/2005; Commissioner Gowdy cited she could be shut down. Town Planner Whitten agreed the conditions must be met before the 8/2005 renewal. Mr. Bergeron felt that Ms. Boucher has disregarded the conditions of the permit; he respectfully asked that the renewal not be allowed.

Kathy Yost, 63 Harrington Road: cited she has some concerns with some of the conditions, she referenced Condition #2 regarding this operation was a day care, not a kennel; she felt that day care means that. Regarding the term accessory use, she spoke with Town Planner Whitten regarding what that meant with regard to this permit; she didn’t feel it was clear it was being carried out as it should be. She suggested it might be something like a client coming back late from a trip. Ms. Yost showed Town Planner Whitten the day care price list for “sleep overs” and was told by Town Planner Whitten it was an accessory use. Dogs are being dropped off and picked up on Saturday and

Sunday. Ms. Yost felt the training is currently happening and it’s a different permit. If Ms. Boucher was told by the Commission to put in various things under the conditions before the next Hearing and she didn’t, Ms. Yost felt she couldn’t trust Ms Boucher. How do they know how many dogs are there? Has there been a formal inspection? Ms. Yost didn’t understand why it took so long to do the conditions – she had 9 months; she can’t imagine adding to it.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned Ms. Yost, as a neighbor, if her concern was about the noise, or the conditions? Ms. Yost indicated she works in the day; she purchased the home in June, and in August this came into place and she found out about it. She didn’t feel it’s being monitored, or if the conditions are being met. Commissioner Gowdy cited he understood, and appreciated her concerns; he felt the primary concern raised at the last meeting was noise. Ms. Yost indicated that she always said barking wasn’t her issue. Commissioner Gowdy suggested he felt the conditions were to be put in place to stop the barking.

Commissioner Gowdy also questioned Mr. Bergeron if the conditions not being in place affected the noise level? Mr. Bergeron felt they have made an effort to keep the noise level down but if this is occurring 40’off the property line…… if you purchased a property and this business were next door, would that affect you? No landscaping was done, the fence only went up last week; he can’t tell if that will affect the noise. Mr. Bergeron felt they did talk about the noise pretty well last time; he wanted to talk about what’s on the table today. He suggested he was surprised that Town Planner Whitten didn’t say no landscaping was done around the perimeter. Town Planner Whitten indicated there are twigs of bushes every 6’ on center; they will grow rapidly.

Chairman Guiliano requested a copy of the price sheet.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned Town Planner Whitten if, to her knowledge, had the conditions of approval been met? Town Planner Whitten indicated that as far as she can tell all the conditions have been met. She suggested she couldn’t verify the hours of operation but there is screening and fencing around the dog containment area. There are pines around the east side and bushes every 6’ around the back area. They also took a 5’ chain link fence that existed and attached a 6’ fence to that so there is double fencing. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the condition was to put 5’ high trees every 4’? Town Planner Whitten suggested there was a reference to 4’ evergreens but she understands this type of bush should go further in quantity. Ms. Boucher suggested its Rose of Sharon and she was told by the landscaper that it would spread.

Chairman Guiliano questioned Ms. Boucher why it’s taken her so long to comply with the Commission’s requests? Ms. Boucher indicated it’s expensive; she paid $8,000 for the chain link fence and then she was told she needed to put in a stockade fence. Attorney Fahey suggested Ms. Boucher started as soon as the Commission asked for these items. Ms. Boucher noted the fence between her property and Mr. Bergeron’s was put up in May.

Chairman Guiliano questioned the status of the “sleep overs”? Ms. Boucher indicated she has stopped doing that some time ago; she only does it rarely. She suggested the price sheet referenced isn’t the current price sheet. Attorney Fahey indicated they would take that as an additional condition. Ms. Boucher questioned if the sleep overs wouldn’t be an accessory use? Chairman Guiliano indicated that if she has hours of operation as a condition of approval then the overnight stays aren’t the same. Commissioner Filipone suggested he thought it was only if it was for something like inclement weather. Attorney Fahey suggested that isn’t what their business is. He suggested that you have two people here; one wouldn’t have purchased her home if she knew it was there. This is an agricultural zone and it’s allowed. They are trying to work within the regulations. This is a great business; they have testimony from clients.

Commissioner Gowdy noted that as a homeowner Ms. Boucher can have as many dogs as she wants. Attorney Fahey indicated he grew up with Ms. Boucher. There are residential homeowners who don’t take care of their dogs as they work during the day; this service allows for the dogs to be together and socialize.

Commissioner Gowdy indicated he has concerns about what Mr. Bergeron said and what’s he’s heard about the requirements not being met. Attorney Fahey questioned what wasn’t being met? Commissioner Gowdy suggested the hours of operation. Attorney Fahey questioned what do they see, someone picking up a dog at 6:00 A.M.? Ms. Boucher suggested the dog goes out for 2 minutes. Commissioner Gowdy suggested that it’s there before 7:00 A. M.; he felt that there seems to be a lack of sincere willingness. Attorney Fahey felt that was unfair; how can you say she hasn’t made an effort? You have one neighbor who didn’t read the zoning code and another who would never be satisfied. Attorney Fahey felt there has been substantial compliance. Commissioner Gowdy felt perhaps he should have said it appears to be a lack of sincere willingness. Attorney Fahey questioned if he considered there was non-compliance from reading the planners report? Commissioner Gowdy replied affirmatively, maybe not blatantly but he felt it was obvious by her own testimony. Attorney Fahey questioned if he was referring to the sleep overs? Ms. Boucher suggested it’s a family friend; she didn’t think it would be an issue and it’s the same family friend that they pick up her dog. Commissioner Filipone questioned if the family friend was paying Ms. Boucher? Ms. Boucher replied affirmatively. Commissioner Filipone then felt it was a business.

Bill Loos, Melrose Road: questioned if this person owns 3 acres of land? Town Planner Whitten indicated she owned 4 acres. Mr. Loos felt she could put in horses and cows. Chairman Guiliano felt there was a difference between a business and your own land. Mr. Loos suggested he was just saying if people are moving into town from the city and want city regulations in a country situation; someone moving into an A-1 Zone should be able to have animals.

Steve Testa, 72 Harrington Road: suggested this whole thing has been about noise. They have a business and have a right to make a living. Brian and Ms. Boucher have been doing a good job keeping them quiet; he thanked them for that. As a homeowner if

it gets out of control – and it was or he wouldn’t have been at these meetings at 8:30 at night – is there some recourse for him?

Also, with the combination of her dogs and the clients dogs it’s impossible to distinguish which are personal and which are business related. He felt it’s an issue of trust. Commissioner Gowdy noted she is asking for a total of 25 dogs on the property; 20 clients dogs and 5 of hers. Mr. Testa noted as someone stated, she could have 100 dogs for personal use. He questioned if we were saying 25 dogs max? Chairman Guiliano suggested 20 can be business related; up to 5 can be personal. Commissioner Gowdy noted that if she weren’t in business and the dogs were licensed in town she could have 100.

Commissioner Gowdy felt there was nothing in the packet to indicate that the last conditions of the January 2005 meeting – the 4’ screening of shrubbery and the 6’ high solid stockade fence which Town Planner Whitten had said has been installed, no more than 2 part-time employees (which they don’t have), landscaping around the perimeter (which Town Planner Whitten said was in) - were being met. Town Planner Whitten suggested those items were referred to on the Site Plan. Commissioner Gowdy indicated he did see the soundproofing has been installed in the barn. With regard to the hours of operation – 7:00 A. M. to 6:00 P. M., other than the one dog it appears that has been met.

Commissioner Filipone questioned what fencing is in? Town Planner Whitten referenced the location on the plan sheet, noting it follows the property line on the sides and then follows the slope, and on the back the new shrubs are 6’ on center on the outside, the side that faces the abutters.

Chairman Guiliano requested if Commissioner Gowdy, since he’s the only retired person on the Commission, and the one with the questions, could Commissioner Gowdy go to the property and take a look and let the Commission know what he sees? Commissioner Filipone concurred, noting he would like a final inspection. Commissioner Gowdy suggested that it appears the last conditions have been met, although perhaps not to the satisfaction of the neighbors. He would be happy to take a look but he felt his questions had been answered.

Chairman Guiliano referenced the hours of operation. Ms. Boucher suggested those were for the pet sitting business, but there are times when she and Brian leave the property. Attorney Fahey suggested just because they are leaving at 6:00 in the morning she doesn’t want you to think they are bringing dogs in at 6:00 personally. Commissioner Gowdy felt comfortable making a decision tonight but he would go down to the property if the Commission prefers. Attorney Fahey suggested they would like a decision tonight.

Town Planner Whitten indicated that when she did an inspection there were 18 dogs there – although it’s hard to count them – maybe one was in the house. They barked and said hello and then stopped; they didn’t bark until I went into the doggie area. She didn’t

even hear birds when she arrived.

Chairman Guiliano queried the Commission if they would like Commissioner Gowdy to take a look at the operation/property? Commissioner Tyler indicated he trusted Town Planner Whitten, but it would be good for Commissioner Gowdy to go out. Commissioner Gowdy queried if the Commission wanted to table a decision until he observed the situation? Chairman Guiliano replied affirmatively, he would like to table this decision until November 15_th. The Commission will keep the Public Hearing open. He suggested that Commissioner Gowdy had a lot of questions; a personal observation would satisfy all the Commissioners. Commissioner Filipone indicated he would like to go with Commissioner Gowdy. Town Planner Whitten questioned if she needed to reinspect the property? Chairman Guiliano replied negatively, noting he’s comfortable with her comments. Commissioners Rodrigue and Tyler were comfortable with her remarks/observations also. Ms. Boucher requested that they call first as it’s a pet sitting business and she is not always home.

MOTION: To TABLE the Public Hearing on the Application of Kathleen A. Boucher for Renewal of previously approved Special Use Permit and to add 5 more dogs to existing doggie day care business located at 62 Harrington Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 17, Block 30, Lot 17] until the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on November 15, 2005 at 7:30 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Saunders moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

Filipone moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous

The Commission RECESSED at 8:45 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:50 P. M.

NEW HEARING: Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc. - Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit (in accordance with Sec. 8A of the Zoning Regulations) to allow a 41-unit condominium housing development in a Special Development District, located at 329 and 343 Scantic Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 39, Block 34, Lots 61,62 & 62B] (Deadline to close hearing 11/29/05):

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Saunders stepped down from service on the Board; Commissioner Tyler served in his place. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Attoinette Webster and Attorney Capossela representing the Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc.; Jay Ussery and Dana Steel of J. R. Russo & Associates, and Chris Hill, architect for the project. Also present was Bishop Ralph Saunders.

Attorney Webster submitted a color rendering of Victory Outreach Estates, a 41 unit

housing development at 329 and 333 Scantic Road which is proposed for this 12 acre parcel. She noted that the Application also refers to a larger piece of property which houses the church; they have included that parcel because there will be a lot line adjustment made with regard to this development.

With regard to the Site Plan, Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc. was before the Commission in November 2004 and March 2005 for an Active Adult Housing Development on the site. They talked about various layouts and changed the plans as a result of the discussions. They submitted Wetlands Applications to both South and East Windsor, and received approval from South Windsor in June and East Windsor in July, 2005. Then this Commission was considering lifting our eliminating the cap for Active Adult Housing developments; Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc. withdrew their Application for Active Adult Housing and are now submitting this Application for 41 units (condominiums) vs. 44 units for Active Adult Housing.

Mr. Steel, of J. R. Russo & Associates, gave his credentials. He referenced a location map noting the streets and zones with regard to this parcel. He noted the property is surrounded by A-1 Zones; he further noted the East Windsor Town line runs through the property although the development is mostly located in East Windsor. After meeting with South Windsor they decided to locate all the units in East Windsor to avoid complications with emergency response, etc. They will be combining 3 separate parcels to develop 12 total acres of property. The parcel is bounded to the east by the Scantic River in South Windsor and Scantic Road on the west side. There are an additional 27 acres in South Windsor.

Referencing the Key Map Mr. Steel demonstrated an abutting property within 1200’ is located in an R-1 Zone. He noted there is a subdivision to the south – Oakwood Drive – but it doesn’t abut this property. Mr. Steel noted the boundary lines for each of the 3 parcels associated with this development; Parcel A is the existing institutional use for the Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc. and Parcel B, which is a combination of an existing residential home with frontage on Scantic Road and the reconfiguration of Parcel A, (which will contain the proposed development). Mr. Steel noted less than an acre of this parcel is located in South Windsor; no development is proposed in South Windsor.

Mr. Steel noted the overall Site Topography Map is a snapshot of the property as a whole in relation to the existing property. The development is in the west part of the property but is set back from the road. The topography is fairly steep with 10% to 15% slopes; the top of the hill is not too far from the existing institutional use. The property has steep slopes coming down to Schanck Road, which is a private road used for access to existing residences on the southside of the road, and the auto facility located in South Windsor. The grade of the site is workable but it’s steep; Schanck Road is flat. They will be improving Schanck Road when they design the grading. The roadway design meets the Regulation requirements.

The drainage will be collected towards the east down the farm road to a pond, which

overflows to the north and discharges into the flood plains of the Scantic River in East Windsor.

Mr. Steel indicated that the demolition plan shows a picture of what’s there now; at the bottom of the plan is Schanck Road. Some existing vegetation and trees will be removed; some spruce trees will remain on the site.

Commissioner Gowdy noted that on Sheet 4 of the plans Mr. Steel is showing a series of 4 ponds; he questioned what the crooked “s” is between them? Mr. Steel suggested that represents a drainage swale to provide water quality treatment for the flow; he noted it was designed in conjunction with the South Windsor wetlands staff.

Mr. Steel noted the site presently contains an access drive which is paved and connects to the church’s facility at the top of the hill. That will be removed and replaced with the new access driveway. Commissioner Filipone noted it’s a private road but now the Applicant will be bringing driveways across this road; he questioned if it will remain a private road? Mr. Steel indicated it’s owned by the Applicant and will be maintained by the homeowners association of the development. He suggested it will be improved with storm drainage.

Mr. Steel indicated that Sheet 6 and 7 is the Layout Plan at a 40’ scale; this shows where the units will be located. There is 15’ separation between the units and 30’ between the cluster of 6 units and the separation distance between the recreation area and roadway. They are proposing a 24’ wide roadway as the access driveway to the site and a loop road to the development and will incorporate Schanck Road. The idea is to direct traffic away from Schanck Road but to provide access for the current residents.

Mr. Steel suggested they are providing sidewalks within the development. Street lighting is being proposed.

With regard to the density, Mr. Steel indicated the Regulations allow for 4 units per acre, but you must exclude the slopes. There are 12.04 total acres on this parcel; 11.89 acres are developable. The maximum density is 48 units; they are proposing construction of 41 units. They are proposing 7+/- acres for Open Space; .03 percent of the parcel is required to be dedicated to recreational open space. There has been some discussion as to what is appropriate for the recreational space; they are considering creating a “tot lot” for children and also a gazebo. Everything is self-contained to discourage pedestrian traffic to Scantic Road. Residents of this development will also have access to the remainder of the land of the Victory Outreach Ministries.

Commissioner Tyler questioned the crossroad to the “tot lot”. Mr. Steel indicated that this configuration worked best for the layout. Commissioner Tyler suggested switching the gazebo location; Mr. Steel noted they have proposed a fence around the “tot lot” and sidewalks accessing it, and there is a street light nearby. Attorney Webster felt they could use the gazebo as the “tot lot” as well. Mr. Steel considered they are similar in

area; the “tot lot” is 9,000+/- square feet while the gazebo is 8,000 +/- square feet.

Commissioner Filipone referenced the proposed right turn in the street vs. going straight; he felt he didn’t see people making a right hand turn. Mr. Steel suggested they are not prohibited but he felt people will use the turn as a design element. Commissioner Filipone questioned if Schanck Road will be paved out to Scantic Road? Mr. Steel indicated it will be reconstructed and paved; the existing road will be removed and replaced with a new roadway.

Mr. Steel suggested it is the intent for mail deliveries and garbage pick up to be curbside pick up.

Mr. Steel referenced Sheets 8 to 10, noting they reflect the utilities available on the Site Plan. The site will be serviced by public water and sewer; a pump station will be provided. The plans also show proposed erosion and sedimentation controls.

Mr. Steel indicated that Sheet 10 is the Plan Profile, which shows the details of the water quality swale. Attorney Webster suggested the South Windsor Wetlands Commission has reviewed these revised plans for the 41 units; she noted they had reviewed and approved plans for 44 units but the East Windsor Wetlands Commission reapproved 41 units. Commissioner Filipone questioned if the file contained some documentation from South Windsor? Attorney Webster replied affirmatively. Mr. Steel continued, noting that the Plan Profile also shows the roadway, and shows that it meets Regulation requirements for slope grading, etc. They are proposing 4” bituminous Cape Cod curbs

Mr. Steel noted that Sheet 15 is the Landscape Plan. The Regulations require a 25’ landscape buffer around the property. Street trees are proposed in front of the units, with individual plantings around each unit. He indicated that the erosion notes and details deal with the construction narrative and construction details.

Mr. Steel noted that Town Engineer Norton has submitted a memo reflecting comments regarding 5 items; they are in agreement with his recommendations and will comply with his suggestions. They will also install a catch basin at Scantic Road, and will increase the construction entrance pad to 100’.

With regard to parking requirements, Mr. Steel noted that each unit has a 2 car garage and the driveway will accommodate 2 cars as will, so each unit can accommodate 4 cars and meets the Regulations.

Mr. Steel suggested they are proposing street lighting at the intersections and spaced throughout the development. They are proposing Colonial style lanterns. Commissioner Filipone questioned that they are proposing a 15’ height for the poles? Mr. Steel replied affirmatively, noting if that is acceptable. Chairman Guiliano questioned if they could make the poles any lower; Commissioner Filipone noted the Commission usually requests 12’ poles. Mr. Steel suggested they will be happy to do 12’

poles, if that’s the Commission’s preference.

Attorney Webster submitted a letter from the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) noting there is sufficient capacity in Scantic Road for the sewer discharge.

Chris Hill, of Blue Moon Design, submitted sketches of the 4 styles of units. He noted they are proposing 4 plans for single family structures, which include: Style 1: first floor: 2 bedrooms downstairs, including a master bedroom and bath, mud room, laundry room, kitchen, and dining room, second floor: a single bedroom and bathroom; Style 2: a 2 bedroom unit, first floor: master bedroom (with walk-in closet) and bath, mud room, laundry, kitchen and dining, second floor: additional bedroom and bath and the opportunity for attic storage because of the roof structure, 2 car garage; Style 3: first floor: single bedroom, with layout similar to Style 2, no second floor; Style 4: a 3 bedroom unit, first floor: master bedroom, second bedroom, with remainder of layout similar to Style 1, second floor: additional bedroom. Only up to 20% of the units will be 2 bedroom units; there will be an option for the purchasers to add a sunroom, deck, or screened in porch (with the exception of units #3 and #5 which will have only the walk out patio).

Mr. Hill suggested the units will be vinyl sided with pale colors of beiges, and cream; shutters will be green or cranberry. Attorney Webster noted all units are single family; there will be no duplex units.

Commissioner Filipone questioned if the units are built on slabs of do they have basements? Mr. Hill suggested they will have basements, with some being walk out basements because of the slope of the land. Mr. Steel noted the units on the top part of the loop – units 4 to 26 - will have full walkout basements because of the grades.

Commissioner Filipone questioned if any of the units will be handicapped accessible? Attorney Webster suggested that’s a requirement of the SDD. Chairman Guiliano suggested the question is would they be modified if someone comes in seeking a handicapped accessible unit? Mr. Hill suggested there is enough flexibility at the entrances, etc. to alter the floor plan for ADA; the bathrooms would be the most restrictive place although it could be done with the master bedroom suite.

Attorney Webster suggested they have received a letter from the WPCA indicating the location is within the sewer service area. Mr. Steel reiterated that he had mentioned the review by Town Engineer Norton, noting they are wiling to comply with his requests for items 1 through 5.

Mr. Steel noted they went to South Windsor for the wetlands permit in June, but subsequently revised the plans for the SDD Development and decreased the number of units. He submitted a letter from Jeff Folger from South Windsor, noting they didn’t need to revise the permit. East Windsor Wetlands Agent Rudek concurred approval by the East Windsor Wetlands Commission as well.

Town Planner Whitten noted she reviewed the plans and has submitted a positive memo with regard to this proposal. They have met the SDD requirements for Open Space and have met the intent of the Plan of Development (POD). She has noted for the Commission’s review Special Permit Criteria, items a through h. Town Planner Whitten noted the emergency access road meets requirements at 24’ wide; the plans have been submitted to the Fire Marshall for his review but she has not yet received any recommendations for changes. Commissioner Filipone questioned if Town Planner Whitten expected to hear anything from the Fire Marshall; Town Planner Whitten noted she rarely receives written comments. Commissioner Tyler noted the location is on the public water and sewer lines. Mr. Steel noted he submitted plans to Fire Marshal Clynch today; Fire Marshal Clynch proposed a fire hydrant location, which they will comply with. He suggested if there is a concern on the Commission’s part with regard to enforcement that could be added as a condition of approval.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned the sight lines at this location? Mr. Steel indicated he didn’t prepare a Sight Line Plan but noted that Scantic Road is straight and flat in this area; he didn’t see any issues with the sight line.

Commissioner Gowdy queried Commission Ouellette on his opinion on the curb cuts? Commissioner Ouellette indicated he had no comments.

Commissioner Filipone questioned if the utilities, and gas, were in the ground? Reverend Saunders replied affirmatively to the utilities, negatively for the gas. Commissioner Filipone questioned if the furnaces would be oil or hot water? Reverend Saunders suggested oil.

Town Planner Whitten noted the Commission had suggested 3 additional conditions of approval: #34: Light posts be reduced to 12’; #35: Conditions to meet Town Engineer Norton’s memo of 10/25/2005; and #36: to meet requirements of the fire hydrant location as requested by the Fire Marshal.

Commissioner Filipone questioned that nothing is needed for the files regarding the part of the road that goes through South Windsor? Mr. Steel noted the Applicant met with staff from South Windsor, who suggested that by moving all the units out of South Windsor it simplified the project. They then needed to go to Wetlands because the drainage was going through South Windsor. He felt the roadway was really a utility issue rather than a unit issue, which would have required a Special Permit Application.

Chairman Guiliano questioned who would maintain the fire hydrant regarding flushing, etc.? Commissioner Tyler suggested that would be done by the water company; the fire department or the people around them plow the snow but the water company really owns the hydrants.

Chairman Guiliano opened discussion to the audience:

Rand Stanley, 87 Rye Street: is this an inclusive, or exclusive condo community, are children restricted? Town Planner Whitten suggested it’s a condominium community; anyone can move in. Chairman Guiliano noted they have 3 bedroom units and a playscape; he felt there will be children associated with this development. Mr. Stanley then suggested clarification that it would be inclusive? Chairman Guiliano replied affirmatively, it’s not exclusive.

Commissioner Filipone questioned the condominium documents? Attorney Webster suggested they would be the standard condominium documentation.

Commissioner Filipone questioned the lower area into South Windsor? Mr. Steel suggested there is a band of wetlands and a pond, and the dark line indicates the flood zone, and there is a substantial portion of upland.

Chairman Guiliano felt it seemed to be a congested development, but it meets the Regulations. Attorney Webster suggested the church has a grander scheme for this site; they are trying to develop a campus atmosphere, but the condos on the 12 acres and the remaining land of the church would have ballfields so the church members and maybe the public will have sports events and they would provide access via the roadway. They are trying to accomplish this use now and “this” use in the future to go along with it.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if the school bus would go inside the loop road? Mr. Steel didn’t feel the school bus would go inside as it’s a private road, but in terms of geometry they have the area for a turning radius. Commissioner Ouellette questioned if there would be a need for sidewalks on the north side for the kids to walk to a place where the bus would pick them up? Commissioner Gowdy felt it’s the Board of Education policy that every child will be picked up in front of their home. Commissioner Ouellette felt that was incorrect, it depended on the age of the student. Commissioner Gowdy suggested it’s a State Statue, they encourage having a common meeting place but every child has a place where they will be picked up. Cathy Bilodeau, of 333 Scantic Road, speaking from the audience, suggested the school bus goes into Oakwood Estates and turns around on a daily basis and then comes back to pick up her children. Commissioner Ouellette noted his concern was the sidewalk; he couldn’t car less if the school bus goes through there but he has a concern for sidewalks for the kids. Commissioner Rodrigue suggested most condos in South Windsor have a walkway and shed for the kids to wait for a bus. Commissioner Gowdy suggested the Town of East Windsor, it’s State law, the Board of Education will pick up each and every child at their driveway. Attorney Webster noted they presented a similar use in Vernon; approval included a condition that there would be a Board of Education review and the applicant would put in sidewalks if it was felt necessary. She felt something like that could be done with this Application. She noted the Applicant is willing to install them but if the Commission would prefer to leave it up to the Board of Education review…….

Bishop Saunders, 331 Scantic Road: suggested Oakwood Estates is in the same situation, they have a cul-de-sac with a loop road. He questioned what was done with

other condominiums? Chairman Guiliano suggested this proposal includes a private road. Cathy Bilodeau felt it depended on the child’s age, when they lived at Greenwoods they came to the door and later they picked them up outside. Reverend Saunders noted if they find they need to put in the sidewalks they will do that; the kids need to be safe. If the bus doesn’t come in they should put in sidewalks.

Bob Lyke, 80 Rye Street: regarding the issue of affordable housing in town, what is the projected cost of the various units? Reverend Saunders indicated they had just received the completed plans and haven’t had a chance to determine the cost of the buildings.

Bill Loos, Melrose Road: questioned the tax status, he questioned that the church property is not taxable now? Reverend Saunders replied it’s not taxable now. Mr. Loos questioned if it will be taxable when they put in the condominiums? Reverend Saunders replied affirmatively. Attorney Capossela suggested this parcel will be taxed the same as any other parcel

Attorney Capossela reiterated he heard someone suggest flipping the location of the gazebo and the “tot lot”; he questioned Mr. Steel if it could be done? He suggested if that’s what the Commission wants then it should be a condition of approval, or left up to staff approval. Town Planner Whitten suggested she would add a condition #38 – consider feasibility of swapping the “tot lot” and gazebo, location to be reviewed and approved by staff.

Chairman Guiliano queried the audience for additional comments; no one requested to speak.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc. - Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit (in accordance with Sec. 8A of the Zoning Regulations) to allow a 41-unit condominium housing development in a Special Development District, located at 329 and 343 Scantic Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 39, Block 34, Lots 61,62 & 62B] .

Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Filipone/Gowdy/Guiliano/Rodrigue/Tyler)

MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc. for Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit (in accordance with Sec. 8a of the Zoning Regulations) to allow a 41-unit condominium housing development in a Special Development District, located at 329 and 343 Scantic Road [A-1 Zone; Map 39, Block 34, Lots 61, 62, and 62B]

This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:

The Commission should state reasons for their vote for the record.

Referenced Plans:

1/19 - “Cover Sheet/Location Map – Victory Estates – 41-Unit Condominium Housing Development – Special Development District, Scantic Road, East Windsor, CT, prepared for Victory Outreach Ministries, Inc. 329 Scantic Road, East Windsor CT 06088 ,860/627-5907 prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Rd, East Windsor, CT 06088, 860/623-0569 Fax 860/623-2485, dated 9/29/05

Including Sheets dated 4/14/05, last revised 4/27/05; 7/5/05:

· 2/19 Key Map, scale 1” = 400’

· 3/19 Boundary Plan

· 4/19 Overall Site Topographic Plan

· 5/19 Demolition Plan

· 6&7/19 Layout Plan

· 8-10/19 Site Plan

· 11-14/19 Plan & Profile

· 15/19 Landscape Plan

· 16/19 Erosion & Sedimentation Plan

· 17-19/19 Detail Sheet

Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:

1. The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final mylar copies for signing by the Commission.

2. Two sets of mylar plans shall be submitted to the Commission for signature. All plans shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans. (One paper set of the Floor Plans and Elevation shall be submitted for signature.)

3. The final plans shall contain the street numbers (unit numbers) assigned by the East Windsor Assessor’s Office.

4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall be filed in the land records prior to the signing of the final mylars.

Conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:

5. The applicant and/or developer shall schedule and attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town Planner and Town staff prior to the issuance of any permits or the start of construction.

6. Final architectural elevations and floor plans shall be approved by the Town

Planner and/or Commission.

7. One copy of the final site plan shall be filed on the land records.

8. A Zoning Permit for site work must be applied for and approved prior to the start of construction. Three sets of the final approved plans shall be submitted at this time.

9. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan for the entire development shall be submitted at the time of application for the site improvement Zoning Permit. The plan shall include the engineers estimated costs for E&S controls. The Town Engineer will review the plan and cost estimates and will set the E&S bond amount.

10. A cash (escrow) or passbook bond shall be submitted for sedimentation and erosion control maintenance and site restoration during the construction of the project. (Side bond must be in place before any permits will be issued). Any funds that may be withdrawn by the Town for such maintenance or restoration shall be replaced within five (5) days or this permit shall be rendered null and void.

11. A bond, suitable to the Town, shall be submitted for all site improvements (road & drainage). The applicant's engineer shall submit an estimated cost of the site improvements to the Town Engineer and the final amount of the bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer. (Said bond shall be in place before any permits are issued.)

12. A landscape bond, suitable to the town, shall be submitted for all street trees, landscaping and wetlands plantings. The applicant’s landscape specialist shall prepare an estimated cost to the Town Planner and the final amount shall be determined by staff. Said bond shall be in place prior to any permits being issued.

13. A Zoning Permit is required for each building.

14. Foundation as-built surveys for each building shall be submitted and approved before framing and/or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Builder should be aware that minimum separating distances (15’minimum) are from fully built units, inclusive of walls. .

15. All buildings/units must be identified by meeting the East Windsor House Numbering Ordinance requirements.

16. Additional requirements and procedures may be implemented by the Town Planner.

Conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy:

17. Final approval and connection fees must be paid for WPCA connections on individual units prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

18. Site improvements must be completed up-to and around the individual unit at the time of CO.

19. Final grading, seeding, landscaping shall be in place or the E&S bond will not be released or reduced.

20. Additional bonding may be required by the Planning Department.

21. All legal documents related to age/occupancy restrictions and the Common Interest Ownership Community shall be approved by the Town Attorney and filed on the land records.

22. All inspection fees must be paid.

Conditions which that be met prior to the issuance of any certificates of compliance:

23. Iron pins must be in place at all lot corners and angle points.

24. A paper copy of the final as-built showing all structures, pins, roads, walks, driveways, drainage systems, and final floor elevations as well as grades shall be submitted and approved by the Planner.

25. A final as-built mylar of the entire project shall be submitted and signed by the Commission.

26. All public health and safety components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy. In cases where all public health and safety components have been completed, the Zoning Official may issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance provided a suitable bond is retained for any remaining site work.

27. All landscaping elements included in the approved landscaping plan shall be maintained in a manner sufficient to ensure its continuing performance and survival of all plantings.

General Conditions:

28. This special permit/site plan approval shall expire five years from date of approval. Failure to complete all required improvements within that time shall invalidate the approval. The developer may request an extension of time to complete the improvements from the Commission, in accordance the Connecticut General Statutes. The Commission shall require proper bonding be in place prior to the

approval of any such extension.

29. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.

30. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading is subject to the approval of the town engineer.

31. Additional erosion controls are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.

32. All improvements and development must be performed in accordance with the East Windsor Zoning Regulations and applicable Town policies.

33. By acceptance of this approval and conditions, the applicant, owner and/or their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.

(Additional conditions):

34. Reduce light posts from 15’ to 12’ high.

35. Meet conditions of Town Engineer’s memo dated 10/25/2005.

36. Meet requirements for Fire Hydrant locations per Fire Marshal.

37. Place sidewalk on north access road if school bus does not enter community private road.

38. Consider feasibility of swapping “tot lot” and “gazebo” locations to be reviewed and approved by staff.

Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous ( Filipone/Gowdy/Guiliano/Rodrigue/Tyler)

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous

The Commission RECESSED at 10:12 P. M. and RECONVENED at 10:22 P. M.

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Saunders returned to service on the Board.

MOTION: To EXTEND THE MEETING until 11 o’clock.

Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous

NEW HEARING: M&L Development Corp. - Special Use Permit to allow 18-unit condominium project located at 94 South Main Street (the Settlement at Mason’s Brook), owned by M&L Development Corporation and John L. and Daniel F. Burnham [SDD Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lots 46, 47 & 48] (Deadline to close hearing 11/29/05); AND, NEW HEARING: M&L Development Corp - Text Amendment to Section 8A.10.6.2 of the Zoning Regulations involving Open Space Requirements for Special Development Districts. (Deadline to close hearing 11/29/05):

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney T. Mark Barbieri, and Dana Steel and Jay Ussery of J. R. Russo & Associates.

Attorney Barbieri noted they are making 2 requests with regard to this Application, one is a text amendment which they feel may be necessary to meet your requirements involving recreational area open space. Attorney Barbieri felt Section 8.A.10.6.2 talked about bigger developments. The requirement is for 10,000 square feet, which they have, but he felt maybe the request for the text amendment would not be necessary after their presentation is heard. Chairman Guiliano noted the Commission is looking at Regulation review shortly but asked Attorney Barbieri to proceed with his presentation.

Attorney Barbieri suggested M & L Development Corp (LeFervbe and Merriman) have been doing a lot of this in Windsor Locks, and doing it successfully, and doing it well. This proposal is for a Special Use Permit for 18 units of condominiums on property located north of Mason’s Brook and north of Winton Road; the parcel goes back 5 acres. Attorney Barbieri noted there are 2 parcels but they will be using only one parcel primarily. Attorney Barbieri noted they have received approval from the WPCA, the Wetlands Commission (as they are not disturbing any wetlands), and have received a letter from Town Engineer Norton noting his comments have been satisfied. Town Planner Whitten noted she has received a positive referral from the Capital Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) on the Text Amendment, and have received approval from the North Central Health District (NCHD) as well.

Attorney Barbieri suggested the Fire Marshal has requested the addition of 2 fire hydrants. Mr. Steel noted he spoke with (Fire Marshal) Tom Clynch, who is requesting the installation of a fire hydrant at the entrance and at the end of the cul-de-sac; they are already proposing a fire hydrant in the middle of the project. Mr. Steel noted that gas, sewer, and electricity already serve the site.

Mr. Steel described the site as being on the west side of Route 5 south of the East Windsor High School. He noted the parcel is zoned R-3 and is surrounded by the TZ-5 Zone. He suggested there is significant natural buffer from the property to the south;

Mason’s Brook is located to the south as well. Mr. Steel noted they will be combining Parcels A and B. There is an existing house and garage on the other parcel; they will be taking some land from that lot to provide a larger opening in the front.

Mr. Steel suggested the Demolition Plan shows the existing conditions; the existing house and attached garage will be removed.

Mr. Steel indicated that the Landscape Plan reflects a 24’ wide 400’ cul-de-sac, with landscaped island in the center. Chairman Guiliano queried how a truck would turn around on this cul-de-sac? Mr. Steel suggested the turn around would end at the cul-de-sac; they couldn’t go down the common driveway serving the additional units.

Mr. Steel suggested that the dark green area on the plan shows the steep, vegetated slopes; they are not proposing any activity on the slopes. He noted that one of the conditions of the Wetlands Permit was that a walking trail that was being proposed around the perimeter of the site be moved back away from the slopes, and that additional plantings be installed.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned why they aren’t proposing a cul-de-sac rather than the shared driveway? Mr. Steel noted that maximum length in the SDD is 400’. Commissioner Gowdy suggested that while the Applicant is trying to follow the Regulations, which is good, the Commission has waived cul-de-sac lengths before. Mr. Ussery suggested the regulation is not a Zoning Regulation; they actually laid out the design that way first. Commissioner Ouellette questioned how someone would get a moving truck in there? Commissioner Tyler questioned how would they get a fire truck back there? Mr. Steel suggested the 24’ roadway is wide enough for 2-way traffic. Mr. Ussery suggested that when they did LTP Realty they had a similar situation; (Fire Marshal) Tom Clynch looked at it and had no problem. He felt you won’t go in there everyday, and when you do, you’ll back out. They also felt there would be no problem with mail and trash delivery.

Chairman Guiliano questioned how the first layout worked? Mr. Ussery suggested it worked better, but didn’t meet the regulations. Attorney Barbieri suggested that at this piece of property this is an appropriate use; it fits better with what’s there. Chairman Guiliano indicated he wasn’t saying that it didn’t fit. Commissioner Gowdy felt they would have to amend the regulations to change anything; Town Planner Whitten concurred. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if it wasn’t in the Commission’s power to waive the cul-de-sac length in the SDD? Town Planner Whitten replied negatively, noting there is not a circumstance that would allow waiving from these requirements. Chairman Guiliano felt it would be a better development with the cul-de-sac at the end rather than the way it’s proposed. Attorney Barbieri suggested that in a common-interest community people who purchase here realize they have more limited rights than in other communities; there is a different mindset in that type of development.

Mr. Steel noted they were proposing a walking trail around the property, and a gazebo

area; the open space could provide a small picnic area and the remaining land has been proposed as an observatory area with benches and bird feeders. Commissioner Filipone questioned if they would have additional plantings in that area, as they would be looking down at the bank? Mr. Steel suggested there will be some gaps between the trees; the idea was to have birdfeeders along the walkway.

Mr. Steel referenced the site lighting being proposed. Commissioner Filipone questioned that the poles would be 12’? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively.

Mr. Steel suggested they are complying with the density requirements, as the regulations allow for 19.6 units and they are proposing 18.

Mr. Steel noted they are proposing 4.2 acres of recreational (open space) area, while 3.1 acres are required. Either 3%, or a minimum of 10,000 square feet are required; they are proposing 24,000 square feet within the 3 parcels. Mr. Steel suggested the largest part is the observatory.

Mr. Steel suggested Parcel B meets the Zoning Requirements for the Site Plan; the parcel will be served by public sewer and water, and a subsurface drainage system with the overflow going to the State system in Route 5. On the Plan Profile the roadway design is flat; there are no drastic grades. The sight line will be adequate in both directions. Mr. Steel referenced the Landscaping Plan, noting they are providing a 24’ planting screen as a buffer; they are providing white pines and additional plantings along the walking trail and individual unit plantings. They are also providing a perennial garden around the cul-de-sac and the gazebo.

Mr. Steel noted the Fire Marshal wanted 2 additional fire hydrants, and they will comply with that request. He suggested they would agree with a condition as was noted in the last application.

Mr. Steel noted they have received approval from the Inland/Wetlands Commission; Town Engineer Norton is satisfied with the plans.

Mr. Ussery noted that with regard to the architecturals, they more than meet the minimum square requirements for the 2 and 3 bedroom units. All have 2 car garages and a full basement. The units are Colonial style, with vinyl siding. Town Planner Whitten questioned that they have won’t exceed the 20% maximum for 3 bedroom units? Mr. Ussery replied negatively, noting they could have a bonus room over the garage. Attorney Barbieri suggested they have built this type of development in Windsor Locks along Old Colony Road.

Attorney Barbieri noted they have a letter from James Karat, who is an adjacent property owner; he has no objection to the Zone Change.

Chairman Guiliano queried the audience for comments; no one requested to speak.

Chairman Guiliano noted his only comment is in regards to the cul-de-sac, but the Commission can’t do anything about it.

William Loos, Melrose Road: speaking from the audience, noted as a fireman and chief, if you had a house on fire you could get down there.

Attorney Barbieri noted that the parking meets all regulations. Mr. Steel noted the units have 2 car garages and space for 2 cars in the driveway. Commissioner Filipone noted he doesn’t like the parking in the driveway but it’s in the regulations. He questioned that there were no curbs, and no lighting? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively.

Chairman Guiliano questioned if the project would include sidewalks? Mr. Steel replied negatively; no sidewalks are proposed. The walking trail is in lieu of the sidewalks. Attorney Barbieri suggested they could put the lighting back on the driveways if the Commission preferred. Chairman Guiliano felt the people living back there would want the lighting. Attorney Barbieri suggested leaving it up to staff.

Town Planner Whitten questioned what would the Applicant like to do with the Text Amendment? Attorney Barbieri suggested, if the Board doesn’t see a problem, they did it because they wouldn’t get a second chance, and the example was for a pool and tennis courts with was pretty intense for this development, but a lot has happened since submitting this Application. He recalled the proposal for the tot lot, noting that condominiums don’t often produce a lot of kids; he cited MeadowView as an example. Chairman Guiliano queried if the Applicant wanted to withdraw the Application for the Text Amendment? Attorney Barbieri felt they would withdraw that Application.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of M&L Development Corp. for a Special Use Permit to allow 18-unit condominium project located at 94 South Main Street (the Settlement at Mason’s Brook), owned by M&L Development Corporation and John L. and Daniel F. Burnham [SDD Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lots 46, 47 & 48].

Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous

MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of M&L Development Corp. and owners John & Daniel Burnham for Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit (in accordance with Sec 8a of the Zoning Regulations) to allow a 18-unit condominium housing development in a Special Development District, located at 94 South Main Street, [SDD Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lots 46, 47 & 48]

This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:

The Commission should state reasons for their vote for the record.

Referenced Plans:

1/12- Cover Sheet/Location Map – The Settlement at Mason’s Brook – Condominium Project, south Main Street, East Windsor, CT, prepared for M&L Development Corp., 560 Halfway House Road, Windsor Locks, CT 06096, 860/623-2389, prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Rd, East Windsor, CT 06088, 860/623-0569 Fax 860/623-2485, dated 9/29/05

Including Sheets dated 4/14/05, last revised 4/27/05; 7/5/05:

· 2/12 Key Map, scale 1” = 400’

· 3/12 Boundary Survey

· 4/12 Existing Conditions/Demolition Plan

· 5/12 Layout Plan

· 6/12 Site Plan

· 7/12 Plan & Profile

· 8/12 Landscape Plan

· 9/12 Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan

· 10/12 Erosion and Sediment Notes

· 11&12/12 Detail Sheet

Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:

1. The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final mylar copies for signing by the Commission.

3. The final plans shall contain the street numbers (unit numbers) assigned by the East Windsor Assessor’s Office.

Conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:

5. The applicant and/or developer shall schedule and attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town Planner and Town staff prior to the issuance of any permits or the start of construction.

6. Final architectural elevations and floor plans shall be approved by the Town Planner and/or Commission.