Town of East Windsor, CT - 04/26/2005 Minutes

04/26/2005 Minutes

TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR

PLANNING AND ZONING

Public Hearing #1452 - Regular Meeting April 26, 2005

TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR

Planning and Zoning Commission

Public Hearing #1452

April 26, 2005

Draft Document - Subject to Commission Approval

The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P. M. by Vice Chairman Filipone in the Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:

A quorum was established as three Regular Members (Filipone, Gowdy, and Rodrigue) and two Alternate Members (Kehoe and Ouellette) were present. Regular Members Guiliano and Saunders and Alternate Member Tyler were absent. Vice Chairman Filipone noted the Commission has a new Alternate member, he welcomed Commissioner Kehoe to the Board. Also present was Town Planner Whitten.

ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None.

RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:

1. Application of Letourneau Builders for a Special Use Permit for a 54-unit Active Adult Housing development (Norton Fields) located on the west side of Rye Street. [R-2 Zone; Map 31, Block 40, Lot 17].

2. 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-1 Zones; Map 35, Block 49, Lot 22].

3. Application of Paul Guarino for a 4-lot resubdivision and Special Use Permit for one rear lot, located at 127 Tromley Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 29, Block 19, Lot 52].

LEGAL NOTICE: None.

CONTINUED HEARINGS: DMD Realty Family Limited Partnership - 35-lot subdivision and Special Use Permit for 2 rear lots, located at the corner of Rye Street, Apothecaries Hall Road and Dempsey Road (Kingshire Subdivision). [R-3 Zone; Map 35, Block 49, Lot 2]. (Deadline to close hearing 4/26/05):

Vice Chairman Filipone read the Hearing description. He also clarified that the Commission did not close the Hearing at the previous meeting; Town Planner Whitten concurred.

Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney T. Mark Barbieri, and Jim Erhoe, Professional Engineer. Attorney Barbieri noted the Commission was waiting for comments from Town Engineer Norton; he also noted that the Board had asked if the Applicant had received all the letters of approval needed for the subdivision. Attorney Barbieri noted receipt of the following letters: letter dated 5/27/2004 from the North Central Health District (NCHD), letter dated 6/7/2004 from Connecticut Water, and letter dated 7/2004 from Northeast Utilities. Attorney Barbieri noted they have added plunge pool details to the plans as suggested in memo dated 4/18/2005 from Town Engineer Norton. The Applicant submitted additional copies of the subject correspondence to the Commission’s file.

Vice Chairman Filipone suggested they had wanted to wait for input from Commissioner Guiliano, who also walked the site. He felt Commissioner Guiliano had two concerns, one was the signage for the gun club. Commissioner Rodrigue indicated they had worked on signage that was down and had been damaged, but they still had some work to do on the back. Vice Chairman Filipone suggested that if staff feels that another sign should be put up after development he requested Town Planner Whitten add that as a condition. Town Planner Whitten cited she has added that already as Condition #27; Attorney Barbieri replied they have no problem with that request.

Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if Commissioner Guiliano had raised any concerns about the fence around the detention basin? Town Planner Whitten felt he had no strong feelings; she had advised him that discussion had culminated in a decision to not install fencing and he was ok with that. She indicated he didn’t feel they should put the onus on the gun club. Commissioner Gowdy suggested he didn’t feel it’s a safety issue; they are not making anything new, the swale has been there for some time. Vice Chairman Filipone indicated he didn’t disagree. Commissioner Rodrigue felt to put something completely around the detention basin would be difficult; he didn’t know what you would be keeping in, or out. Commissioner Gowdy cited his concern was for the shooting, but it’s physically impossible to shoot at the back yards of those houses. The swale isn’t man-made; he didn’t see a need for a fence.

Vice Chairman Filipone questioned what would be the average lot size? Mr. Erhoe replied the zone is R-3; the minimum lot size is 30,000 square feet. Vice Chairman Filipone felt it was a lot of houses for the proposed area; Commissioner Gowdy cited the proposal met the regulation requirements. Mr. Erhoe gave the following examples of lot sizes: 1.8 acres, .99

acres, .83 acres, .90 acres., .70 acres, .99 acres, .86 acres; Attorney Barbieri noted these additional lots: 1.39 acres, 1.52 acres, 1.03 acres.

Vice Chairman Filipone suggested the Commission would leave the height of the street lights to Town Planner Whitten to work out with the developer. Mr. Erhoe indicated the regulations say that lighting is required in a subdivision but the height can be decided in the field; they will keep the illumination down. Commissioner Ouellette suggested a 15’ pole height; Vice Chairman Filipone suggested 12’ would be better. He requested they work it out with Town Planner Whitten.

Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if they would be installing street trees? Mr. Erhoe replied affirmatively, noting they would also be providing front yard borders. Attorney Barbieri noted there was one place under the power lines they couldn’t plant trees because of the power line easement.

Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if the phasing was adequate with regard to the cul-de-sacs? Mr. Erhoe replied affirmatively, noting they would be showing the temporary cull-de-sacs/deadheads on the plans.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned the sight lines at Abraham George Lane? Attorney Barbieri suggested they were good at that point; the project road is going in in front of the farm road. Mr. Erhoe reported the sight lines are reasonable and are shown on the plans. Commissioner Ouellette questioned how far it would be to the railroad tracks? Attorney Barbieri felt it was 800’ to 900’, certainly more than 500’. Commissioner Ouellette questioned how about the driveway closest to Rye Street? Mr. Erhoe suggested it’s up high.

Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if they would be installing hydrants? Mr. Erhoe suggested they were shown on the plans. Vice Chairman Filipone requested that the Fire Marshal review the location of the hydrants.

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

MOTION TO CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of DMD Realty Family Limited Partnership for a 35-lot subdivision and Special Use Permit for 2 rear lots, located at the corner of Rye Street, Apothecaries Hall Road and Dempsey Road (Kingshire Subdivision). [R-3 Zone; Map 35, Block 49, Lot 2].

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

MOTION TO APPROVE waivers of Section 6.3 to eliminate sidewalks as no other sidewalks exist in the area; and Appendix 1 - to eliminate granite curbing as it does not match existing curbing.

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

MOTION TO APPROVE the fee in lieu of open space at 10% the fair market value as presented in appraisal.

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

Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if the conditions regarding the right-to-farm and the gun club had been added to the approval motion; Town Planner Whitten indicated that they had.

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of owner DMD Realty Family Limited Partnership for a 35 lot Subdivision and Special Use Permit for two rear lots at property described as Assessor’s Map No. 35, Block No. 49, Lot No. 2. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the conditions) and the following conditions of approval:

Referenced Plans:

“Kingshire, Rye Street, Dempsey Road & Apothecaries Hall Road, East Windsor, Connecticut, Assessors Map No 35, Block 49, Lot 2, Dated December 1, 2003, last revised Jan 17, 2005,prepared for Owner/Applicant DMD Realty Family Limited Partnership, 341 Rye St., Broad Brook, CT 06016, prepared by Sanderson & Washburn, P.O. Box 55, 11 Main St, Tariffville, CT 06081, 860/6598-2307 with the following sheets:

Sheet 1/21 Cover Sheet/Key Map, scale 1” = 200’

Sheet 2/21 Subdivision Layout & Project Index, scale 1” = 100’

Sheet 3/21 Subdivision Plan, Lots 3,4, 28-31, scale 1” = 40’

Sheet 4/21 Subdivision Plan, Lots 13-19, 23,25,26, scale 1” = 40’

Sheet 6/21 Subdivision Plan, Lots 20-22, 24, scale 1” = 40’

Sheet 7/21 Subdivision Plan, Lots 32-38, scale 1” = 40’

Sheet 8/21 Site Development Plan, lots 4,5, 28-31

Sheet 9/21 Site Development Plan, Lots 6-12, 27, scale 1”=40’

Sheet 10/21 Site Development Plan, Lots 13-19, 23, 25,26, scale 1” = 40’

Sheet 11/21 Site Development Plan, Lots 20-22, 24, scale 1” = 40’

Sheet 12/21 Site Development Plan, Lots 32-38, scale 1” = 40’

Sheet 13/21 Deep Test & Percolation Test Data

Sheet 14/21 Plan & Profile Abraham George Lane – North

Sheet 15/21 Plan & Profile Abraham George Lane – South

Sheet 16/21 Plan & Profile – Napoleon Drive

Sheet 17/21 Plan & Profile – Dempsey Road

Sheet 18/21 Plan & Profile – King’s Court

Sheet 19/21 Erosion & Sediment Notes

Sheet 20/21 Erosion & Sediment Details

Sheet 21/21 Construction Details

Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:

1. The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans reflecting any changes to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final mylars.

2. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.

3. If condition #3 is not met, then if a $1,657.15 fee per lot, payable to the Town Treasurer, is not paid prior to the filing of the final mylars, the mylars shall contain a clearly visible notation for each applicable lot stating, “Any sale or transfer of this property within five (5) years of the original (re)subdivision approval to a person not exempt under section 7.10 of East Windsor’s Subdivision Regulations shall result in the liability of payment ($1,657.15) to the Town of East Windsor for the total fee as defined in Section 7.6 of East Windsor’s Subdivision Regulations”.

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

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

5. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. One set of signed fixed line mylars, Cover Sheet, Sheet 1-7 shall be filed with the Town Clerk by the applicant no later

than 90 days after the 15 day appeal period from date of publication of decision has elapsed or this approval shall be considered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission. One full set of mylars, shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.

6. Detailed sedimentation and erosion control plans shall be submitted with the site plan for each parcel at time of application for a zoning permit.

7. A cash (escrow) or passbook bond shall be submitted for erosion and sedimentation (E & S) control maintenance and site restoration during each construction phase of the project. Any funds that may be withdrawn by the Town for such maintenance or restoration shall be replaced within 5 days or this permit shall be rendered null and void. The applicant’s engineer shall prepare an estimated cost of the E & S controls for review by the Town Engineer. The final amount of said bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer.

8. Deeds for conservation easements and drainage easement must be approved by the Town and filed on the land records prior to any permits being issued. It is best if these are filed with the mylars.

9. All conservation easement medallions shall be installed along the actual conservation boundary. Said markers shall be installed every 50 feet on 4” x 4” pressure treated posts, set in concrete. (medallions available in planning office)

10. Any or all buildings, barns etc. must be removed prior to obtaining a zoning permit.

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

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

12. Final Health District approval of the drinking water supply must be demonstrated.

13. The driveway must have a 15’ paved apron or if weather does not permit, a bond for such submitted.

14. Final grading and seeding shall be in place , or if weather does not permit, a bond for the unfinished work be submitted.

15. All required landscaping shall be in place, or if weather does not permit, a bond for the required plantings shall be submitted.

16. Final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, driveways, final floor elevations, and grading must be submitted.

17. 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 Officer may issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance provided a suitable bond is retained for any remaining site work.

General Conditions:

18. This subdivision approval shall expire [five years form the date of approval]. Failure to complete all required improvements within that time shall invalidate the subdivision. The developer may request an extension of time at least one month in advance of the expiration date to complete the subdivision improvements from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Such extension shall not exceed the time limits as provided for in the Connecticut General Statutes, Section 8-26 as may be amended from time to time. The Commission shall require proper bonding be in place prior to approval of any such extension.

19. All deeds for public land and easements shall be submitted at the time the applicant makes application for street acceptance. All deeds shall first be submitted in draft form and approved by the Town Attorney. Final bond release for public improvements shall not be approved until all public improvements are complete, accepted by the Town, and all deeds and maps have been filed on the Land Records.

20. Three copies of a final as-built map, for all public improvements, shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department, along with an application for street acceptance. Once approved by the Town Planner and Town Engineer, and provided that all other requirements are met, the application will be scheduled for acceptance by the Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting. Two mylar copies of the final as-built mapping are required after acceptance. One copy filed in the Planning Department and the other on the Land Records

21. A Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to any the commencement of any site work.

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

23. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading of the subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.

24. Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by Town Staff if field conditions necessitate.

25. 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.

26. Should the property transfer ownership before all work is completed, or before a certificate of completeness is issued, the new owner must place new bonds in their name, at which time the original bond may be released.

27. The applicant shall work together with the abutting Gun Club to make sure that the property line is adequately posted making it clear to residents that they abut a gun club.

28. Language stating that local farming practices pre-exist and the presence of a gun club pre-exists this subdivision shall be placed on the final plans and on the deeds of each lot.

29. Lighting height to be determined in the field with staff.

30. Fire hydrant locations shall be reviewed with the Fire Marshal.

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

See additional items of discussion, next page.

OLD BUSINESS: Zuvic Associates - Site Plan Approval to install access road and contractor’s storage yard for the stockpiling of gravel and soil for property located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Mitchell Property Group & Scott Mitchell. [M-1 Zone; Map 41, Block 65, Lot 32]. (Deadline for decision 6/16/05):

Vice Chairman Filipone read the description of this item of business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Wayne Gerlt, and Tomek Grajewski, Project Engineer.

Attorney Gerlt noted this proposal is a permitted use in an M-1 Zone; it’s a request for a contractor’s storage yard under Section 9.1.1 as they will be stockpiling clean fill, and natural, materials, including gravel, sand, and top soil. They are proposing one shed to store the equipment, which will be an earth loader. They are also proposing to store large metal storage containers. There will be no employees on site; access will be provided through an existing roadway which accesses the NORCAP landfill. Attorney Gerlt noted he understands that NORCAP riles up the neighbors but they have nothing to do with that operation.

Attorney Gerlt noted a similar access situation which occurred for Rye Street Business Park, LLC. They owned two landlocked parcels which they wanted to combine; the only access was a right-of-way through a residential area. The Commission ruled in favor of that access, and that decision was upheld in court on appeal. Attorney Gerlt submitted documentation of the findings to the Commission; he noted that the access was over a 50’ right-of-way owned by a third party and the access ran through a residential area. He suggested this proposal is for use of a landlocked parcel created in the 1800s; access is via NORCAP. Attorney Gerlt felt that even if the commission wanted to look at the right-of-way as a non-conforming use he didn’t feel that it was; it’s a right-of-way The use is the same but is less intensive than the current operation; it’s not as objectionable as the landfill. Attorney Gerlt requested approval of this proposal.

Vice Chairman Filipone noted staff comments indicate receipt of a letter from NORCAP for use of the access road but the letter sets no timeframe. Town Planner Whitten suggested this Application is not for a Special Use Permit; the property could be used as proposed until they stop. Attorney Geralt indicated they could be told in August that they can’t use the property in August. Vice Chairman Filipone noted the Applicants had said, with regard to hours of operation, that when the fill is needed they would be using the property. Attorney Geralt suggested he would be surprised if there would be more than 3 trucks; Mr. Grajewski felt he was unable to say what the truck activity would be. Vice Chairman Filipone advised the Applicants that the Commission had set limits on other operations. Attorney Geralt then suggested perhaps 25 trucks. Commissioner Gowdy noted if they did 10 trips it would be 20 round trips; that would be one truck every 30 minutes. He further noted that if it were 15 trips it would be 30 round trips, or one truck going through the road every 20 minutes. Commissioner Gowdy suggested that area of town has had its share of traffic.

Vice Chairman Filipone noted that the Applicant had difficulty gaining access via the railroad; he questioned the status of that situation? Attorney Gerlt noted the access is owned by the railroad and controlled by DOT; the problem is the pipeline. Commissioner Gowdy indicated there seems to be enough room; it’s not like they would be going over the pipeline. Attorney Gerlt noted the problem is gaining the access; the State doesn’t want them to use it. There are all kinds of conditions. Mr. Grajewski indicated that when they applied to the Department of Rails in Pennsylvania there is a jet fuel pipeline about 1600’ in length between Wapping Road and the south end of this property; their design was denied. The pipeline is 25 years old; they made them identify every marker on the pipeline and then wanted them to identify the depth. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the Commission has any of that information? Mr. Grajewski indicated they had met with Town Planner Whitten and presented the information during discussions.

Attorney Gerlt noted they tried to build their own road but needed a variance; they were turned down by the Zoning Board of Appeals. They have tried to establish their right to cross the railroad. NORCAP gave them permission so they have come in with this Application. Town Planner Whitten concurred that they have had discussions, but there is no paper trail. Mr. Grajewski suggested the drawings were submitted to the Town. Town Planner Whitten noted she was not employed by the Town a year ago. Mr. Grajewski suggested he can present the drawings to the Town.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if, in a month, you will have a decision? Attorney Gerlt suggested that in a month they should have the title decision, and if they have to go to court they will. Commissioner Gowdy questioned that if they were granted that would they pursue it? Attorney Gerlt replied affirmatively, as the NORCAP access could be stopped in August. Commissioner Gowdy noted the DEP is closing that facility in August. Town Planner Whitten noted that the Botticello operation expires in August. Commissioner Gowdy questioned that if there were any traffic on that piece would then it expire? Attorney Gerlt noted that the Botticello operation was for excavation of fill, and that expires, he questioned if they could restrict them from going there? Attorney Gerlt noted that the DEP was using that access to monitor the wells.

Commissioner Gowdy suggested they could store hazardous waste in the dumpsters. Attorney Gelrt noted this is a company with many permits and doing considerable business; they wouldn’t throw that away to store hazardous waste. Commissioner Gowdy suggested that asbestos and hazardous waste is ok if it’s contained. Attorney Gerlt replied affirmatively, but not on this property; once it’s contained it must be removed. Mr. Grajewski suggested the site is open for inspection. Attorney Gerlt reported his client would pay for inspectors every

week; they have nothing to hide. Mr. Grajewski suggested the containers could be used for asbestos but if that material is hazardous it’s stored with a liner and the liner is disposed of with the material. Commissioner Gowdy suggested his concern is that even though it’s adequately stored it can’t stay there. Mr. Grajewski noted the permit is for empty containers.

Commissioner Gowdy returned discussion to the number of trucks; he noted that area has been beat to death with trucks. He noted they had said 2 to 3 trucks per day, he would like to propose the number of trucks allowable per day. Attorney Gerlt questioned what would be the maximum? Commissioner Gowdy suggested 10 trucks per day. Mr. Grajewski suggested this type of operation is unpredictable; could they go on a weekly basis? Commissioner Gowdy suggested you could be going every 5 minutes and that isn’t fair to the residents. He didn’t see 20 as a reasonable number; 10 trucks per day would be 20 round trips, which works out to once every 30 minutes, even on Saturday; that might be excessive if we lived there. 15 trips would be 30 round trips, or once every 20 minutes. Commissioner Gowdy suggested he felt 10 is a reasonable number, but personally he would like to see 5.

Commissioner Rodrigue questioned where the outlet pipe was going; he noted it seems to be a splash going out into an open pit. He noted the slopes change considerably. Mr. Grajewski noted they have revised the plans to make 3 points of discharge. Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if there would be any containment? Mr. Grajewski suggested 95% of the run off is sheet flow from the woods. Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if there was any riprap on the discharge? Mr. Grajewski replied affirmatively, noting that it’s a natural flow that’s already there.

Attorney Gerlt suggested his client is concerned that 10 might be too few; he suggested they would like to 15 trucks per day but would take off Saturday completely. Commissioner Gowdy considered the 5 day operation; he then asked what type of trucks? Attorney Gerlt suggested roll offs, or trailers. Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if the trailers would be covered, or standard roll offs, and if they have a liner would it be lead? Mr. Grajewski replied affirmatively. Comissioner Rodrigue felt getting rid of the Saturday operation made a big difference, then the rest of the Application doesn’t look so bad; during the week people are gone and kids are in school. Commissioner Gowdy noted not in the Summer.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned how the Town polices this? Vice Chairman Filipone noted that’s an on-going problem. Attorney Gerlt suggested they would have a log book, and you could have an inspector there everyday if you want. Commissioner Ouellette suggested no more than 15 trucks; Commissioner Rodrigue felt 15 is a reasonable cap to run a business, and then eliminate Saturday.

Town Planner Whitten questioned if there had always been a right-of-way over NORCAP? Attorney Gerlt suggested that when the pit was started by Dunne Brothers they accessed through this piece; Mr. Grajewski felt that anything significant was done through the railroad. Town Planner Whitten noted she walked the site and couldn’t tell were the road would have been. Commissioner Rodrigue suggested there was an existing road that went around the back of the site which was used for the excavation, and was blocked off because it was abandoned. Mr. Grajewski showed the access on an aerial map. Attorney Gerlt noted they were turned down on the road across from Mulnite’s back entrance. Town Planner Whitten indicated she was surprised about the concern for the pipeline, as it’s well demarcated; it would have been an easier access. She also noted the site is a mess; there are junk propane tanks scattered around; the site needs to be cleaned up before a zoning permit could be issued.

Town Planner Whitten noted this Application is not a Public Hearing, but there has been a lot of correspondence submitted; another letter was received tonight from Geza Danyi. Mr. Grajewski submitted a copy of the letter to the DOT dated 2/2004, and also a copy of the drawings. Town Planner Whitten noted that another item that came through the Board of Selectmen was that information on this has been given to State Representative Ted Graziani and he has forwarded this to the DEP. Attorney Gerlt felt if the DEP has a problem they would tell Botticello. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if they checked with Botticello to see if he had that approval? Attorney Gerlt noted they spoke with his attorney; it was their concern the first time. Commissioner Gowdy suggested he would like to see confirmation on that; there is much concern on the part of the townspeople. Attorney Gerlt suggested the Commission has the right to ask for what they want and they have a responsibility to the townspeople but they are asking for a permitted use. Town Planner Whitten also noted receipt of another letter from Corrine Shemerluk, which was handed out to the Commission tonight in the packets.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if this Application were approved could any of the Commissioners or town staff go down there and inspect the property legally; he felt someone went to inspect the Botticello operation and was thrown out. Vice Chairman Filipone cited conditions usually allow staff on the property, and the Commission isn’t staff. Attorney Gerlt suggested they would agree to put that in the conditions. Town Planner Whitten noted that sometimes with excavation operations they want advisement prior to inspections for safety reasons.

Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if the front entrance would be gated? Attorney Gerlt suggested there is a gate there now and he understands it must be maintained. Town Planner Whitten noted there was a gate there but it wasn’t locked.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned that there was no electrical services at the site? Attorney Gerlt noted there will not be any buildings, no running water, no septic tanks, no electricity.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if Mr. Graziani gave any idea how long his research would take? Town Planner Whitten suggested a week or two. Commissioner Gowdy suggested if that information could be obtained from Botticello the Commission wouldn’t have to wait for Mr. Graziani. He indicated he didn’t want to take any action tonight; he would like that information in writing that they can use this property. Commissioner Rodrigue concurred.

MOTION: To TABLE the Application of Zuvic Associates for Site Plan Approval to install access road and contractor’s storage yard for the stockpiling of gravel and soil for property located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Mitchell Property Group & Scott Mitchell. [M-1 Zone; Map 41, Block 65, Lot 32] to the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 10, 2005 at 7:30 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

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

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

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

The Commission RECESSED at 8:45 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:54 P. M.

DISCUSSION/Informal Discussion: Hirschfeld - Proposed multi-family complex on South Water Street:

Vice Chairman Filipone read the description of this item of business. Appearing to discuss this issue was Attorney Robert DeCrescenzo, Jeff and Don Hirschfield, and David Ziaks, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc.

Attorney DeCrescenzo noted they had come in previously with a conceptual plan for 9 structures on a 16 acre site; they have reconfigured the plan and have met with staff. They are close to submitted an application; further feedback from the Commission would be helpful.

DISCUSSION/Informal Discussion: Hirschfeld - Proposed multi-family complex on South Water Street (continued):

Vice Chairman Filipone questioned that the units are rentals? Attorney DeCrescenzo replied affirmatively. Vice Chairman Filipone suggested they refresh everyone as the Board now has new members.

Don Hirschfield introduced himself, noting he is a principal in Hirshfield Properties, who would be developing this site. He noted he has had a relationship with East Windsor going back 40 years; he originally built Railroad Salvage, and in 1965 built Rivergate Apartments which contained 120 units on South Water Street on 10 acres of land. Although he has sold his interest in Rivergate it has been a good situation for the town in a tax positive way, and provided needed housing. In the past 6 months Rivergate has had its third owner who wants to upgrade the property. Mr. Hirschfield indicated he has owned this parcel for 30 years but has held off developing it until he found the right proposal for the town.

David Ziaks, of H. A. Hesketh and Associates, noted they have superimposed the present concept on a recent aerial map of the site; the 16 acre site is outlined in yellow. Mr. Ziaks described the site, noting to the south is Wolcott Place, on the west side the property goes to the shore of the Connecticut River, to the north is farm land, across the street on South Water Street is a large farm field; off the map is the intersection of South Water Street and Route 5. They are looking at a single access point in the middle of the property; it would be a boulevard entrance nicely landscaped which feeds into a traffic circle. They would have a management building in the center with a pool, to the west would be a multi-purpose recreational building. The main driveway feeds off to the right and left; they are proposing a 9 building layout around a parking area. They are providing green space in the cul-de-sacs which would be heavily landscaped. All the buildings would be of similar architecture; two of the buildings would be linear with South Water Street. The escarpment runs parallel to the river and they are looking to set that aside as open space. Because of the height - three stories - it allows them to lay out the buildings with a lot of open space between them. Attorney DeCrescenzo noted they would have a gate on either side of the linear buildings so it would be like a gated community. Mr. Ziaks suggested they are looking at 192 units in the 9 buildings; 124 would have 2 bedrooms with 1 parking space for each bedroom.

Vice Chairman Filipone questioned how they would handle trailers, motor homes, boats, etc.? Don Hirschfield suggested they would send them across the street to the storage facility.

Attorney DeCresenzo suggested the number of units allows a higher level of amenities and the luxuries translates into higher rents. He felt this development will have very few school age children, and will give $200,000 tax revenue to the town. He suggested the community feeling is what their targeted clients expect. It’s an excellent location, and because of the proximity to Springfield and Hartford, which are two large employment centers; the complex will be almost invisible to the community.

DISCUSSION/Informal Discussion: Hirschfeld - Proposed multi-family complex on South Water Street (continued):

Commissioner Gowdy questioned what number of units would be one bedroom units? Jeff Hirschfield suggested there would be 68 one bedroom units, 100 two bedroom/two bath units, and 24 two bedroom/1 bath units. He noted they own what they build; they can charge higher rents because of the higher income levels of the tenants; the lower turnover eliminates the negative aspects of a rental community; people treat them as their own home. The one bedroom units have 550 square feet and will rent for $700; the two bedroom units have 1200 square feet and will rent for $1,800. Typically, 5 to 8% of the families will have children. This complex will generate $200,000 per year based on the current assessment and mil rate.

Attorney DeCrescenzo noted they have been working with a consulting engineer to match the zoning requirements to the site. They feel they will be close to 25% impervious surface. They plan to submit this proposal under Section 20 - the Planned Residential Development Regulations (PRD) as they feel it all fits together. If they used the site as a conventional subdivision it would destroy the natural features; by using the PRD they can cluster the buildings and pull them away from the river and then establish the river as a recreational corridor. They can then put together a building plan that will attract and keep the type of tenant that will be good for the management company and the town. Attorney DeCrescenzo noted he understands this discussion this evening is a preliminary discussion, but he is looking for the Commission’s input.

Vice Chairman Filipone noted a unit in the lower right hand corner of the plan sketch is close to an existing house. Jeff Hirschfield suggested it has been designed that way for circulation and parking. Mr. Ziaks suggested the idea was to have oversized cul-de-sacs with landscaping in the middle. Vice Chairman Filipone guessed the distance was about 40’. Mr. Ziaks suggested it was 40’ to 50’ but noted these is a heavy pine buffer between the developments. Don Hirschfield also noted that all these buildings meet side area and rear yard set backs but they do have room between the buildings to do heavy landscaping.

Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if the all the units will be handicapped accessible? Jeff Hirschfield replied affirmatively.

Town Planner Whitten noted they have had many discussions, which were very productive. She is trying to come to grips with this project coming in under the PRD rather than the SDD (Special Development District). With the PRD Regulations it appears to be set up for a single family home layout with regard to the buildable lot area and frontage, etc. She noted that the PRD Regulations don’t specifically say it’s for single family homes but it’s certainly implied. It’s a section that allows the Commission to waive various requirements. Town Planner Whitten questioned if this an appropriate method of doing this project? Attorney deCrescenzo suggested they understand it’s their burden to prove the application meets the requirements and criteria. Town Planner Whitten noted the SDD does give flexibility to put this together.

DISCUSSION/Informal Discussion: Hirschfeld - Proposed multi-family complex on South Water Street (continued):

Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested that with regard to the number of units, the clustering, and the unit density, the minutes cite a real attempt on the part of the Commission to preserve unique sites and they feel the need to take advantage of that. It’s clear the PRD was for subdivisions. He noted they could subdivide the site to take advantage of the PRD Regulations, and then this wouldn’t be an issue. He felt it was clear that Section 20 isn’t limited to single family development but this discussion is the reason they have come in.

Don Hirschfield noted that if you go north on South Water Street you get into the flood plain; if you go south all the way to Windsor you have flood plain. This is one of very few sites remaining along the river which is high above the 100 year flood plain and is why it’s unique.

Commissioner Gowdy suggested he had a problem with putting more apartments in East Windsor. If you have two bedroom apartments there is the possibility the tenants will have a child; you will cost the town money for schools. Don Hirschfield felt that was not true for Rivergate, and this project is 5 notches above that complex. He suggested you might have toddlers but they move on before they start school; these are more for seniors/empty nesters who might use the second bedroom for a guest room. People also want home offices. Jeff Hirschfield suggested that many children would put a demand on their staff. Commissioner Gowdy suggested they are discussing the economy of today. What happens 10 or 15 years from now when the economy flops and people can’t afford an $1800 apartment? You will have to rent the units cheaper. Don Hirschfield indicated that the average median home price is $338,000; that translates into $2800 per month for taxes/insurance/mortgage payment. This is 60% of that. He felt there will be less of a chance to have anywhere near .2% children per apartment, although that may occur on weekends as there as so many single parent families. Don Hirschfield noted these apartments appeal to young professionals. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they also appeal to the empty nesters who have sold their big home; the complex isn’t designed for raising children.

Commissioner Gowdy continued to cite his concern. He noted that several years ago Ledger Starr built 15 rental complexes which are now turning into condominiums. Jeff Hirschfield suggested if 50% of the units were empty they would probably still own the complexes. They wouldn’t want to compromise the leases of the long term tenants to fill the remaining 50%. Don Hirschfield suggested the worse case for them in 40 years has been a 20% vacancy, and they were able to weather that storm. Mr. Ziaks noted that in the last 5 or 6 years they have been working on many aged 55 and over AAH developments; they find there has been a large escalation in this type of housing. Developers are starting to look at higher end apartments for people 55 or over and the kids are gone; these people have sold their house for $350,000 and would rather buy a nice quality apartment. Don Hirschfield showed the Commission the

DISCUSSION/Informal Discussion: Hirschfeld - Proposed multi-family complex on South Water Street (continued):

layout for unit F - a 2 bedroom unit; he suggested this is the most popular unit and is often shared by two adults. He suggested two bedroom doesn’t necessarily mean children.

Vice Chairman Filipone felt the it’s a good concept, although the number of units is initially staggering. Commissioner Rodrigue felt the plan was visually pleasing.

Jeff Hirschfield requested feedback on submitting this proposal under a PRD. Vice Chairman Filipone suggested he didn’t feel he would have a problem with that method of presentation. Commissioner Gowdy felt the intent of the Commission when writing the regulations was to deal with residential subdivisions. Jeff Hirschfield suggested one of the reasons for presenting under the PRD was the uniqueness of the site - both the water and the view. He suggested density was an issue, but it was not as important as the site features. He felt the Commission could approve this under the PRD Regulations because of the uniqueness of the site. Attorney DeCrescenzo read an excerpt from the PRD Regulations referencing the uniqueness of a site. He indicated they didn’t want to come with an amendment and cause consequences for another site, and they don’t want to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). He felt the proposal fits the PRD Regulations.

Town Planner Whitten indicated she could argue this proposal either way; overall it appears everyone likes the plan. She advised the Commission they will be seeking some waivers. She suggested it’s a nice plan and can be presented under the PRD Regulations, but she sought input from the Commission. Vice Chairman Filipone suggested he rather see this than a subdivision. Commissioners Rodrigue and Gowdy felt it could be presented under the PRD.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned how they handle garbage? Jeff Hirschfield suggested dumpsters are situated at a central location.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned emergency access. Jeff Hirschfield suggested the engineer decided it wasn’t necessary but they have the ability to build it into the plan. He noted they had another plan with access, but on review of the regulations they found it wasn’t required. Mr. Ziaks noted they will have the boulevard, but he will review it with emergency staff. Don Hirschfield suggested all these apartments will be sprinklered; probably 90% of the apartments are not. He indicated that makes a big difference with regard to emergency access.

DISCUSSION/Discussion: Marti Zhigailo - Melrose Place, Pease Road - Field changes to drainage:

Town Planner Whitten reported that the Applicant is requesting a field change to the drainage. LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Gowdy stepped down from service on the Board.

DISCUSSION/Discussion: Marti Zhigailo - Melrose Place, Pease Road - Field changes to drainage (continued):

Town Planner Whitten reported that Pease Road is presently gravel but she understands that the Town intends to pave it eventually. The Applicant had planned to do swales along Pease Road but now would like to put in a formal drainage system. Town Planner Whitten noted paving Pease Road was on the radar screen last year but the Town ran out of money. She also noted Barbara Smiegel has cited a concern; she doesn’t feel we have the right to pave Pease Road, but in the information provided with the Application the concern was for paving up to the barn. Ms. Smiegel, speaking from the audience, suggested that wasn’t totally her issue. Town Planner Whitten felt she had said it wasn’t in the nomination for the National Register. Ms. Smiegel suggested they are talking about the historical character of the roadway, not the right to pave. To maintain the historical site, the Town doesn’t have that many gravel roadways. Town Planner Whitten suggested the developer is trying to use the road. This maybe an issue with historic preservation but she didn’t see that in the regulations. The Applicant is only trying to provide catch basins. Ms. Smiegel suggested you will have more run off from pavement. Town Planner Whitten indicated the road is going to be paved, whether they have catch basins or the swales. Ms. Smiegel questioned if the riprap basin will retain all that water? Town Planner Whitten suggested if it needs to go back to wetlands it will. Ms. Smiegel indicated she would like to see the plan, and have her wetlands biologist review the plan.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned what was the advantage to the town for a formal drainage system vs. the swale? Commissioner Rodrigue suggested a private person is paying for it rather than the Town. Town Planner Whitten indicated that with the catch basins it will be graded more evenly than having a dip in the front yard for the swale. Vice Chairman Filipone questioned why the Applicant is changing her mind? Town Planner Whitten indicated that her engineer found it would cost the same.

The Commission felt this discussion should be referred to Town Engineer Norton as it’s a road issue.

Ms. Smiegel questioned if the paving will go beyond the gravel near the barn? Town Planner Whitten indicated she had talked to Town Engineer Norton; they will pare it down to the existing gravel; they will not pave beyond the gravel.

The Commission requested this issue be referred to Town Engineer Norton.

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

BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Correspondence:

Vice Chairman Filipone noted receipt of memo from First Selectwoman Roberts dated 3/2005 requesting a member of the PZC be part of the Committee to review Town Buildings. Town Planner Whitten felt Commissioner Saunders had volunteered.

BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Staff Reports:

* Town Planner Whitten noted that when the Commission approves the next application for Active Adult Housing (AAH) it would go over the cap on the number of units allowable in town. She indicated she was not sure which application gets the units; should it be date of approval? Commissioner Rodrigue felt the Commission set the cap to see how the units would do. Vice Chairman Filipone felt the number was arbitrary. Town Planner Whitten noted the current number of allowable units is 260; she then reviewed the completed or pending applications and the numbers involved in each - Coleman Farms - 50; Hillside - 37; Newberry Village - 92; Meadow Farms - 44 coming in, Norton Fields -57. She noted without Norton Farms there are 29 units left. The the applications mentioned have been submitted.

Town Planner Whitten questioned how future applications should be handled; she questioned if an application could be refused until all the units have been allocated. The cap was originally 200 units, and was subsequently increased to 260. To change the number of allowable units would require a Public Hearing, and referral to CRCOG, etc.

Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if this should be run by the Town Attorney; Commissioner Gowdy felt the decision should come from the Commission. Bishop Saunders, speaking from the audience, suggested if the church needs to initiate a request for an increase in the allowable units they will. Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if the church could request a variance through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a number change? Town Planner Whitten questioned what the hardship would be? Commissioner Rodrigue suggested they could plead they are being locked out of development. Town Planner Whitten suggested she didn’t feel going through the ZBA would be the way to change the number. Vice Chairman Filipone felt Chairman Guiliano would like to see the number stay at 260 for another year to see how the units sell. Bishop Saunders noted the church has already done a lot to clean up that area; they would like to do something for the town to bring that area up.

The Commission suggested they would like to initiate the text amendment. Town Planner Whitten questioned if that would include keeping a cap on the number of units in the regulations, or remove the cap completely? Commissioner Gowdy felt if sales were market driven then there should be no cap. Town Planner Whitten noted she has discussed this issue with the planner in Suffield; they suggested if people think there

BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Staff Reports (continued):

are to many they will stop buying them, and the developers will stop building them. Vice Chairman Filipone suggested Town Planner Whitten research regulations for surrounding towns to see how they handle a cap on the number of units.

* Town Planner Whitten advised the Commission that the Sewer Avoidance Area (SAA) was not put into the Comprehensive Plan of Development (CPOD); the map was not included; there is only a one line mention of the area. She questioned what the policy was for the SAA; did it come from this Commission or the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA)?

Commissioner Gowdy suggested years ago when the sewer expansion was promoted there was concern for development of the Rye Street area; initially there was much opposition to the sewer expansion. Town Planner Whitten noted the SAA is everything east of the Scantic River. Vice Chairman Filipone noted the town has always had the SAA. There is a SAA plan; that should be added back into to the CPOD. The Commission requested further discussion of this issue be added to the next work session.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 22, 2005:

MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Regular Meeting dated March 22, 2005/Public Hearing #1450 as written.

Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Rodrigue/Ouellette

Abstained: Filipone

Opposed: No one.

SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS:

* Carter Subdivision

* Town of East Windsor, 911 Antennae - Cell tower

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 10:29 P. M.

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