TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
Planning and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing #1466
November 15, 2005
*** Draft Document subject to Commission approval ***
The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P. M. by Vice Chairman Filipone in the Cafeteria of the East Windsor High School, 76 South Main Street, Warehouse Point Section, East Windsor, CT.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as three Regular Members (Filipone, Gowdy [arrived at 7:08 P. M.], and Rodrigue) and three Alternate Members (Kehoe, Ouellette and Tyler) were present. Regular Members Guiliano and Saunders were absent. Vice Chairman Filipone noted Alternate Commissioner Ouellette and 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 East Windsor, Inn, Inc. for Modification of Approved Site Plan, to remove concrete stairs along northerly property line, at 141 Prospect Hill Road (Comfort Inn). [B-2 Zone; Map 3, Block 4, Lot 27].
2. Application of Onofrio Associates, LLC for a 1-lot Subdivision located at 124 Newberry Road. [M-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 19, Lot 15A].
LEGAL NOTICE:
The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, November, 3, 2005, and Thursday, November 10, 2005, was read by Commissioner Ouellette:
1. Application of Fortunato Construction Group for re-approval of Special Permit and Site Plan Approval of 16 condominium units in 2 buildings at Scantic Glen, Old Ellington Road. [SDD Zone; Map 30, Block 32, Lot 8].
LEGAL NOTICE (continued):
2. Application of Chapman Properties, LLC for a text amendment to the zoning regulations, Section 8A.10.2.2, involving unit mix percentages.
3. Application of Chapman Properties, LLC for a Special Use Permit to allow a 220-unit apartment complex -- known as Mansions on the Scantic -- a Special Development district, located on the east side of North Road, at the intersection of Yosky Road, owned by Sumner Chapman. [A-1/A-2 Zones; Map 9, Block 36, Lot 46].
CONTINUED HEARINGS: Jason Roy - Special Use Permit for Dealer/Repairer License at 80-82 South Main Street, owned by VMC Realty, Inc. c/o Vito Cortese . [TZ-5 Zone; Map 2, Block 5, Lot 44] (Deadline to close hearing 11/15/05):
Town Planner Whitten noted she had received a verbal advisement that the Applicant wanted to withdraw this Application, but she has received nothing in writing. The Applicant has not asked for an extension, therefore, the Commission was waiting for the statutory timeframe for this item of business to expire.
MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Jason Roy - Special Use Permit for Dealer/Repairer License at 80-82 South Main Street, owned by VMC Realty, Inc. c/o Vito Cortese . [TZ-5 Zone; Map 2, Block 5, Lot 44].
Kehoe moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION: To DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Application of Jason Roy - Special Use Permit for Dealer/Repairer License at 80-82 South Main Street, owned by VMC Realty, Inc. c/o Vito Cortese . [TZ-5 Zone; Map 2, Block 5, Lot 44].
Rodrigue moved/Kehoe seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
CONTINUED HEARINGS: 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}:
Vice Chairman Filipone read the description of this item of business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Fahey, and the Applicant, Kathleen Boucher.
CONTINUED HEARINGS: 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}:
Attorney Fahey indicated they had nothing further to add to their presentation.
Commissioner Gowdy advised the Commission he did stop down to inspect the property. The insulation was 75% complete, however, there was a problem because the roof rafters run parallel to the ridge, which makes it difficult to install the insulation without getting moisture in between. Commissioner Gowdy suggested they leave 2’ in the peak open to avoid the roof from rotting. All the fencing, except for one 8’ section which was on the property, has been installed; the trees were there. He completed his inspection after; there were no dogs on the property. Commissioner Gowdy reiterated the problem with the ceiling joists, noting this was a Butler Building; they will not get circulation if they don’t leave the peak open. Commissioner Gowdy then said the
installation of the insulation was 85 - 90% complete.
Commissioner Gowdy indicated he is satisfied. He had suggested to Ms. Boucher that maybe he could stop back in a month to reinspect the property. Some sections of the 8’ fence was leaning into the existing fence, and was attached by wire, but it seems to be ok.
Vice Chairman Filipone queried Town Planner Whitten if she had any comments? Town Planner Whitten indicated she had no additional comments, other than what’s been said to date. Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if she had received any complaints regarding the Applicant? Town Planner Whitten replied none officially.
Vice Chairman Filipone opened discussion to the audience:
Bill Loos, Melrose Road: indicated he was in favor of the proposal, 5 more dogs won’t hurt anyone; she could have pigs. People that move in from the city need to understand.
Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if Ms. Boucher still wanted to be allowed to train dogs on the site? Ms. Boucher replied - no. Town Planner Whitten noted she has included Condition 7 in the proposed approval motion which addresses dog training; does the Commission wish to keep that condition of scratch it from the motion? The Commission preferred to delete Condition 7. Commissioner Gowdy read Condition 6, which specifies the maximum number of dogs associated with the business can be 20, with an allowance for a maximum number of dogs on the premises at any given time of 25, including business and personal dogs.
MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of 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].
Kehoe moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Kathleen A. Boucher for a special permit to expand an existing a dog daycare facility from 15 dogs to 20 dogs (Section 7.1.12 Kennels) at 62 Harrington Road, East Windsor, Connecticut. Property owned by Kathleen Boucher, 62 Harrington Road, presently zoned A-1 as shown on Assessors’ Map 17, Block 30 Lots 17. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the following conditions (as may be modified by the Commission):
Conditions of Approval
A. Conditions that must be met
1. The applicant shall be required to obtain a Kennel License from the State of Connecticut.
2. This approval is the operation of a dog day care facility, not the operation of a dog kennel. Limited boarding of dogs is permitted as an accessory use.
3. There shall be no more than one full time and 2 part time employees.
4. A solid 6 foot high stockade fence and landscaping shall be maintained/installed around the perimeter of the dog containment area, along the property line between the Bergerons (#68) and Bouchers (#62).
5. Sound proofing shall be placed in the barn that houses dogs during inclement weather.
6. The maximum number of dogs allowed as part of the business is (20) with a maximum number of dogs on site at any given time of (25) (inclusive of personal or business related dogs)
7. Occasional one on one dog training may be permitted as an accessory to the business.
8. 7 The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
9. 8 A copy of the final approved motion shall be filed, by the applicant, on the land records.
10. 9 Hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 5 days per week; all dogs to be kept indoors until 8:00 a.m.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ouellette referenced Condition 10 (revised to Condition 9) regarding hours of operation, he recalled discussion from the previous meeting and questioned if the Commissioners were comfortable with the hours of operation as printed in this condition? Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the hours as listed were different than those discussed? Commissioner Ouellette wasn’t sure, he was seeking clarification. Town Planner Whitten felt the hours specified were the same as on the previous Application; she recalled discussion involved the Applicant picking up a client’s dog at 6:00 A. M. Commissioner Tyler had no problem with someone coming in to pick up a dog before 7:00. Vice Chairman Filipone felt the
Commission had discussed a starting hour of 7:00 A. M. Commissioner Gowdy read Condition 10 (revised to Condition 9) again; no objection was noted.
Gowdy moved/Tyler seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Filipone/Kehoe/Ouellette
Opposed: Rodrigue
Abstained: No one
NEW HEARINGS: Fortunato Construction Group - Re-approval of Special Permit and Site Plan Approval of 16 condominium units in 3 buildings at Scantic Glen, Old Ellington Road. [SDD Zone; Map 20, Block 32, Lot 8] (Deadline to close hearing 12/20/05}:
Vice Chairman Filipone READ FOR THE RECORD Town Planner Whitten’s memo noting this Application has not yet received Wetlands Approval; she suggested tabling the Public Hearing until the Commission’s December 13, 2005 meeting.
MOTION: To TABLE the Public Hearing on the Application of Fortunato Construction Group - Re-approval of Special Permit and Site Plan Approval of 16 condominium units in 3 buildings at Scantic Glen, Old Ellington Road. [SDD Zone; Map 20, Block 32, Lot 8] until the regularly scheduled meeting on December 13, 2005 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting
Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Kehoe moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW HEARINGS: Chapman Properties, LLC - Text amendment to the zoning regulations, Section 8A.10.2.2, involving unit mix percentages. (Deadline to close hearing 12/20/05); AND, NEW HEARINGS: Chapman Properties, LLC - Special Use Permit to allow a 220-unit apartment complex -- known as Mansions on the Scantic -- a Special Development District, located on the east side of North Road, at the intersection of Yosky Road, owned by Sumner Chapman. [A-1/A-2 Zones; Map 9, Block 36, Lot 46] (Deadline to close hearing 12/20/05):
Vice Chairman Filipone read the Hearing descriptions, noting the Commission would hear presentations on both Applications concurrently. Appearing to discuss the Applications were Jay Ussery and Tim Kuhns, of J. R. Russo & Associates, representatives from the Chapman family, and Attorney Joseph Capossela.
Vice Chairman Filipone noted Alternate Members Ouellette and Tyler will be sitting on these Hearings.
Vice Chairman Filipone noted receipt of the following correspondence:
1) Memo to Town Planner Whitten from Kevin Leslie of the East Windsor Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA), which included an excerpt from their Commission Minutes of September 29th, and noting the WPCA supports the
North Road sewer project.
2) Memo to Town Planner Whitten from Town Engineer Norton dated November 15, 2005 noting he has reviewed the revised plans and traffic report from F. A. Hesketh. His comments of August 2005 have been addressed and he has no exception to the plans as revised.
Vice Chairman Filipone also noted receipt of memo dated October 20, 2005 from the Capital Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) noting that staff has reviewed this referral and finds no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns.
Attorney Capossela noted they are presenting Applications for a text amendment and Special Use Permit for a 220 apartment complex. With regard to the text amendment, which deals with Section 8.A.10.2.2, they have one objection; the Zoning Regulations allow 30% of the unit mix to be one bedroom. Their experience, as determined by Humphries and Partners, is the number of one bedroom apartments to be 40%. They are asking for that revision to Section 8.A.10.2.2
Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if the Applicant is proposing any three bedroom apartments in this complex? Attorney Capossela replied negatively. Vice Chairman Filipone suggested that he felt the Board, and maybe some people in town, are opposed to apartments because multiple bedroom units bring kids and kids bring schools. He suggested it would be his feeling to eliminate the three bedroom units completely and let the mix be as it is, one and two bedrooms. Attorney Capossela felt that today’s apartments don’t bring families; people are selling their homes and don’t want to plow snow or cut grass any longer and opt for apartments. He suggested an upscale apartment complex usually doesn’t brings kids. He reiterated that their proposal is for 40% one bedroom and two
bedroom would be the remainder. Commissioner Gowdy indicated he agreed; he would like to see no three bedroom apartments in the Zoning Regulations. Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if the 40/60% ratio is what it is now? Attorney Caposella felt it was.
Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the Commission intended to make the amendment now? Vice Chairman Filipone suggested the Commission wait to hear input from Chairman Guiliano on his return. He suggested he had thought not to make the revision during the moratorium, but this might be to the benefit of the Town. Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission could make the revision now, and then add that revision to the Regulation changes currently going on.
With regard to the Special Use Permit/Site Plan Approval Application, Attorney Caposella indicated his client and he had been working on this development for 3+ years; he gave a history of the project chronology. In September 2003 they received approval for a text amendment to allow apartments on any parcel over 50 acres with frontage on Route 140, which allowed this site to fit into the regulations. Attorney Capossela noted that action was not unusual; when a client finds a site that fits and the regulations don’t they try to tweak the regulations to fit. He noted that some people think that tweaking the regulations isn’t appropriate, but he suggested sometimes changes occur and the regulations aren’t changed to match the situations. There were two Public Hearings on that text amendment,
November and December 2003, with approval being granted in December, 2003. In January, 2004 they had a preliminary meeting with this Commission to discuss the type of complex they are proposing; they invited the Commission to view the Mansions on the Hockanum in Vernon which was also built by the Chapmans. The proposal is for a big house design, which looks like one large house but has several apartments with multiple entrances and each unit has it’s own private entrance & garage. The big house design is typically two to three stories; they are proposing two story buildings for this site. Attorney Capossela noted they have had numerous meetings with staff, including previous Town Planner Poland and current Town Planner Whitten and the Wetlands staff. The Applicant applied for Wetlands approval, made modifications to the plans as requested, and received Wetlands approval in April, 2005. The Applicant needed approval from the
Water Pollution Control Authority for the sewers, they now have an agreement with the WPCA to provide sewers. The Applicant is now down to this Application for a Special Use Permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Attorney Capossela turned the presentation over to Tim Kuhns, of J. R. Russo & Associates.
Mr. Kuhns noted the parcel contains 106 acres, which are located to the east of North Road/Route 140 intersection of Yosky Road, and is north of the intersection of Rice Road. The parcel is surrounded by residences to the north and undeveloped land to the east, and Kement Construction to the south. There are additional residential properties, Bethany Baptist Church, and Revay’s on the other side of Route 140. The zone is split between A-1 and A-2; the majority of the existing site is wooded, with an open field across from Revay’s. There are extensive wetlands and flood plain on the eastern portion of the property, and significant terrace escarpment slopes leading to the Scantic River.
Mr. Kuhns reported there are 55 acres of developable land. Based on the density requirements they are allowed 220 units, which is what they are proposing - 22 buildings with 10 units in each building. They are proposing 2300 linear feet of private roadway, plus a 590 foot of emergency access road for a secondary ingress/egress. The emergency access road will be gated. They are proposing two phases, Phase I will include units 1 - 11 which will be located to the west of one wetlands crossing on 1300 feet of road. Phase I includes the clubhouse, outdoor pool/water feature, and a maintenance building. Phase II will include the remainder of the roadway and the additional units within buildings 12 - 22, and basketball and tennis courts. Mr. Kuhns noted the previously Building 8 had
been located at the end of the cul-de-sac, and the maintenance building had been located nearby. Attorney Capossela concurred that the one building and the maintenance building had been located further to the east in Phase II, but because of the proximity of the wetlands and the terrace escarpment the Wetlands Commission requested that they be relocated, they have now been relocated within
Phase I.
Mr. Kuhns noted that the recreational features, which include the poolhouse, basketball and tennis courts, etc., comprise 1.7 acres. The regulations require .03 times the total acreage, which would require recreational space of 3.18 acres. They are requesting a waiver for the regulation requirement. Attorney Capossela explained that the regulations requirement is based on a percentage of the entire site, however, the area of disturbance is much less. They have a very large piece of land, a large chunk of which - the east side - is not being utilized. Mr. Kuhns concurred that 46.2 acres has been set aside as a Conservation Easement. Attorney Capossela indicated they had discussed making a walking trail along this area but they didn’t feel that was a place they wanted to send in a bobcat. They have now discussed working with the group associated with the Scantic River to determine what could be developed. Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if it would be for the general
public or this complex? Mr. Kuhns suggested the thought was that some point in time the group might want to have a trail along the Scantic River. Attorney Capossela read an excerpt from material referencing a potential trail by the American Heritage River Association, noting that the Wetlands Commission thought it would be a good idea for others to decide what should be done in this area. Mr. Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates, noted that during discussion with the Wetlands Commission they talked about the Scantic River linear park, which has been talked about for years. There is some land to the north owned by the State, there is also some land in the area owned by the Town, and there is another piece in Enfield for which they are involved with another developer, the discussion was that there might be a good reason for this connectivity. Town Planner Whitten felt the big issue was the slopes which should not be disturbed.
Mr. Kuhns noted they are providing sufficient parking for the development, and are providing an extensive landscaping - with some supplemental plantings in the existing 25’ buffer/treed area to the north. The parcel will be serviced by sewer and gas; water will be brought in from the Winkler and Wells Road intersection through Rice Road. The sewer will be a gravity sewer coming into a pump station opposite Building #4. There will be a force main connecting to a future extension in North Road.
Mr. Kuhns indicated there will be an on-site drainage system. Before going forward with the design they had many discussions with Town Engineer Norton; they agreed that due to the site location and the depth of the water shed it wouldn’t be good to have a detention basin. They are providing a treatment system and are taking additional measures to protect the terrace escarpment slopes. Run off from roof leaders and other run off will be collected into one of three discharge locations: 1) run off from Phase I will be collected at a culvert at the first crossing of the interior road, roof leaders will discharge into a infiltration unit at each building; 2) a culvert at the second crossing will pick up run off from roof leaders and overflow; and 3) run off from the remainder of the buildings will go into
an infiltration system. The proposed system will provide 80% total solids removal.
Mr. Kuhns indicated that site lighting will be located on the entrances of the buildings; they are proposing pole mounted lights at the clubhouse - the height of the poles is proposed to be 20’. Mr. Kuhns noted that Town Planner Whitten suggested going with shorter poles; he noted that if they go with the 20’ poles they can get away with two lamps that will cover the whole parking lot, while if they go with the shorter poles they will need three poles and maybe some building mounted lights. Mr. Kuhns suggested the developer would prefer the two 20’ poles but will go with whatever the Commission prefers. He noted they are proposing other site lighting on the unoccupied part of the road, at the maintenance building, and near the tennis and basketball courts.
Mr. Kuhns reported they are proposing one central dumpster location for all the buildings. With regard to mail pick-up they are proposing a bank of boxes in front of each building.
Mr. Kuhns indicated they have provided a traffic study, which includes a recommendation to provide a left turn lane southbound on Route 140. That would require some widening of Route 140.
Mr. Kuhns noted that the Open Space requirement under the SDD Zone is considered livability space, which includes lawns, landscaped areas, terraces, patios, etc. Under this proposal the Open Space requirement is more than ample.
Mr. Kuhns reiterated that they are seeking a waivers of the landscape buffer as the parcel currently contains trees on the east and south side They noted that the site has a natural buffer and buffers are usually provided if the site is an open field. Mr. Kuhns noted they will be leaving a 25’ strip to the north of the emergency access, to the east is 22 acres of existing vegetation, and to the south is the 46+ acre the Conservation Easement. They are proposing a landscaping plan along the west boundary but not a full buffer because trees already exist at this location.
Vice Chairman Filipone questioned that the recreational building and parking lot would be visible from Route 140? Mr. Kuhns and Attorney Capossela replied affirmatively. Mr. Kuhns noted additionally that Town Planner Whitten had made a comment regarding sight lines, they are moving an existing maple tree back to not interfere with the sight line. Town Planner Whitten concurred that this would be a field adjustment. Attorney Capossela noted that Scott Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh Associates which prepared the traffic study, hopes to appear later but is currently attending another meeting. He referenced a sketch of what the buildings look like in Vernon; the buildings are the big house concept and will contain 10 units, all with private garages and entrances. Attorney Capossela
suggested this concept is being well received in Vernon, and also throughout the country. He indicated that the upscale apartment complex generally generates 3 school ages kids per 100 units. The clients are generally people who are selling their house and want to go into apartments. Vice Chairman Filipone referenced the sketch and questioned if it shows a third floor or if the dormer is a design feature? Mr. Kuhns suggested the dormer is an aesthetic feature; the buildings proposed are 2 stories. Attorney Capossela noted Vice Chairman Filipone had mentioned comments about the Mansions on the Hockanum in Vernon. Vice Chairman Filipone suggested he thought there was a lot of paved area around the buildings, and he had noted the temperature was 12 degrees higher in the complex than along Route 83, which he attributed to there being so much pavement. Also, the electrical boxes were in the front of the
buildings.
Vice Chairman Filipone questioned what was being done for parking for visitors, and what the rules would be for storage of recreational vehicles and trailers? Mr. Kuhns reported that parking requirements are two spaces/apartment unit at each building, they are proposing 22 parking spaces at each building, including garages - one parking space within the building and one parking space outside, plus scattered visitor parking at each of the five lots. The parking requirements for the 220 units is 440 spaces, 523 parking spaces are being provided, which included 24 at the clubhouse and 3 at the maintenance building. Attorney Capossela suggested they don’t anticipate anyone bringing in recreational vehicles. Vice Chairman Filipone questioned if someone came in with one? Attorney
Capossela suggested they would tell them no.
Vice Chairman Filipone opened discussion to the audience:
Bill Loos, Melrose Road: cited a section of the zoning regulations which required 4 dwelling units/acre of developable land, he felt this proposal, with 10 units per acre, is way far more than the regulations allow. He felt the Commission shouldn’t allow more than the 4 units/acre, the property is mostly wetlands. He reported they originally proposed 24 buildings at the Wetlands hearing, where they want to put in the walking path they would need a mountain goat, it’s flood plain and flood plain isn’t developable area. At 220 units if each of the 10 families had 2 cars that would be 440 cars
coming out into North Road in the morning. He reported he visited (Mansions at the) Hockanum, there were kids playing ball in the driveway. He saw the meter boxes, he didn’t see any recreational area, the kids played in the driveway, cars were parking all over the place, people put boats in the garages and the cars were outside. That complex is on Route 83, which is on a bus rout; on Route 140 there is no bus, people will need their cars for everything. He suggested North Road to Rice Road is congested and has more accidents in town, he’s been in the fire department 40+ years, 12 as chief, he’s gone to many accidents. You will have all the cars going out to work, there is no work nearby. The farmer nearby puts insecticides on his property, the city people will be complaining. He feels the A-1 is spot zoning. There was always farming in this area, the Hambachs. With regard to the walking trail, it shouldn’t go
there, people go hunting and fishing over there.
Mr. Loos suggested the installation of the sewer will cost $1.7+ million; the town will be giving back $800/unit in hookup fees and will be paying the developer $1+ million on his $1.7+ project. He didn’t feel we need the sewers for housing, we need the sewers for commercial but there are very few properties that can be developed on Route 140. If we want to put in the sewers let the town do it, there are grants. It would cost the town $1 million and we’ll probably get back $500,000; we should have the sewers for industry.
If the buildings are 3 story Broad Brook Fire Department doesn’t have ladder trucks; they have problems with Mill Pond. Mill Pond rents for $900 - $1200, the Hockanum is $895 and up. We had the same thing with Mill Pond, they had to do it over and now we have HUD and kids up our bazoo and a cop on site, we’ll need $800,000 to $1,000,000 for a ladder truck. There is one in the Warehouse Point district but by the time it gets here the place would be burned down. This is not the place to put 220 units when your regulations have 4 units/acre.
Gil Lowell, Reservoir Road: cited 10 units per building, how will it be maintained, will it be condos and a condo association handle it? Will they pay for garbage. Where will the curb cuts be on Route 140? Where will people exit on to Route 140, he feels 90% of the people will be going to Route 140 one way or the other. The cost in taxes will kill the school system, we’re at the top now and if we had more kids will be building new schools. We can deal with one or two houses at a time put can’t consider 220. Can the back acreage be developed on? Vice Chairman Filipone replied
negatively, noting it’s wetlands. Mr. Lowell questioned how it will be run, like a condo?
Gil Hayes, Rye Street: have they shown you a Plan B if the town doesn’t accept the proposal for the North Road sewers? Vice Chairman Filipone replied negatively. Mr. Hayes questioned how the Commission will approve it? Vice Chairman Filipone reported by the plan presented before the Commission. Mr. Howell suggested Vernon doesn’t have 10 garages, how do you maintain the big house look with 10 garages?
Marie DeSousa: the water line will come down Winkler Road, etc., who will pay for that? Will any properties be affected, or any easements needed? What affect will this have on Rice Road, she already has problems/concerns with water. What affect will it have on the culvert on Rice Road? She’s concerned where the water line will run. She also has a concern with the waiver for the landscaping on Route 140; she questioned that in conjunction with Rice Road. She doesn’t want people distracted by people in the pool in their bathing suits. She cited that many cars going onto
Route 140; has the State been notified? Vice Chairman Filipone suggested they won’t be able to do this unless the State approves.
Ms. DeSousa questioned how it will affect the Revays? Will there be a light? She is also concerned with traffic in the morning, the sun blinds people going up the hill.
With regard to the waiver or the recreation, is it .03% together, or in two separate areas? It wouldn’t matter to them if it’s 305 or 40% one bedroom apartments, she didn’t feel it’s in the best interest of the town, it’s the architecture’s recommendation and it’s in their favor.
Tom Sinisgallo, Mahoney Road: regarding the traffic study and Yosky Road, there is a big flow of traffic there now and there are many accidents, as Bill Loos indicated. Also, are the chimneys going to be masonry or gas? Sumner Chapman, speaking from the audience, indicated they would be gas. Mr. Sinisgallo noted he didn’t see anything about sidewalks, it would be nice to have them for the residents. He is sure the State knows there are many problems on the road.
Tina LaPorta, 5 Broad Brook Road: Bill is right, there are a lot of accidents; it’s horrible. She agrees with Bill, you’ll get more bang for the buck with light industry.
Bob Yosky, Yosky Road: regarding the emergency exit proposed on the plan which would dump onto the corner, 12 to 13 cars going past his house in the morning is nothing, an ambulance of fire truck won’t have room, there is traffic both ways, an emergency vehicle, how will he do it?
Tom Sinisgallo, Mahoney Road: believes the developer knows his business and wouldn’t want people moving in saying they don’t want noise, the neighbor is liked and is a good taxpayer. There is also a flower business across the street. People moving in from the city, in East Hartford there were many farms in Prestige Park and they built homes and people complained there was a funny smell, it was a pig farm; people will complain.
Marie DeSousa: noticed they received support from the WPCA, what did they think the town will gain? Vice Chairman Filipone noted the Commission just received that documentation tonight. Ms. DeSousa requested a copy of the memo.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 8:37 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:48 P. M.
Vice Chairman Filipone requested the following information for the next meeting: 1) has the Fire Marshal looked at this, and has he any comments; 2) copies of Police Department logs and a history of the intersection over the past year; and 3) the Board of Finance will be meeting tomorrow night to review the numbers with regard to the sewer, and how it will benefit the town, he would like copies of that input from that Commission. Town Planner Whitten noted his requests.
Vice Chairman Filipone also noted the members of the Commission need copies of the traffic study prepared by Scott Hesketh, author of the report submitted by F. A. Hesketh and Associates. Mr. Hesketh had arrived from another meeting in West Hartford, and began a summary of the traffic study. Mr. Hesketh noted based on manual and automatic traffic counts the average daily traffic on Route 140 is 12,000/day, with 1100 during the peak morning hours of 7:00 to 8:00 A.M. and 1100+ during the peak evening hours of 5:00 to 6:00 P. M. Traffic was counted at the intersections of Route 140 & Rice Road, Route 140 and Route 190, and at Yosky and Melrose Road. They did not read traffic at Route 140 and Mullen Road. Mr. Hesketh cited specifics of how the daily trips for a 220 unit
development were arrived at; those methods are stated in the traffic report on file in the Planning Office. He reported that a 220 unit development could be expected to generate 2148 trips daily, with 163 trips in the A. M. hours and 218 trips in the P. M. Trips was defined as vehicles entering or exiting the area. It’s anticipated that 1075 new vehicles will be in the area , with 60% of the traffic going to the west, 10% to the east, 20% to Route 191 south, and 10% on to other local roads. Mr. Hesketh indicated that with regard to levels of service, the signalized intersections of Route 140 and Route 191 and Route 140 and Mullen Road currently operate on a level of service B, and will continue to do so, with little impact from this development. The unsignalized intersections of Route 140 and Rice Road, Route 140 and Yosky Road, and Route 140 and Melrose Road, and Melrose and Simon Road, going left they operate with some operational delay
and currently operate at a level of service of D or E; with development some will operate at a level of service F.
With regard to the site roadway, Mr. Hesketh reported they are recommending widening the road on Route 140 going westbound to allow vehicles to slow down. They anticipate that this area will operate on a level of service E in the A.M. and D in the P. M. hours, which is a level of service one would expect on Route 140.
With regard to sight lines Mr. Hesketh reported there is a distance of 800 feet to the west and 610 feet to the east. These sight distances meet the CONNDOT requirements for the speed limit on Route 140.
With regard to accident history, they took numbers for the period 1999 - 2001, the most recent information provided by CONNDOT. There were 4 accidents at the intersection of Melrose Road and Route 140, and 9 accidents at the intersection of Yosky Road and Route 140. Both locations are substandard designs which come in at an extreme angle with one road operating for eastbound traffic and one operating for westbound traffic. The development is not adding significant traffic onto those side streets, so they are not proposing any site improvements.
With regard to the emergency access to and from the development
out to Yosky Road, it’s for emergency access only for a fire in a building to the back of the development which might not be accessible at the main site entrance. That access wouldn’t be used frequently; there is not a significant volume anticipated, and if it was an emergency there would be police on hand to direct traffic.
Mr. Hesketh reported they will be submitting the traffic report and the roadway frontage plans to the State because they are proposing in excess of 200 parking spaces on the site and the frontage is on a major highway.
Vice Chairman Filipone noted the concerns voiced about safety, he requested Mr. Hesketh reference pages 6 and 7 of the traffic study. Mr. Hesketh read comments from those pages FOR THE RECORD.
Vice Chairman Filipone sought comments from the audience again:
Margaret Abbe, Rice Road: citing the comment about the 70 second delay, noted her daughter must go to Asnuntuck College and leaves before 5 and cited it’s not a 70 second delay, there is traffic from Enfield going to Route 5. She also has a multi-handicapped child getting on a bus and has many outrageous drivers now who don’t like to wait for a child in a wheelchair to get on the bus, how many more must they deal with? Will there be a bus going through here or will the kids have to get on the bus on Route 140? She also questioned one dumpster for 220
units. She also noted that with regard to drainage when the church was built on North Road she had a recreation room and bedroom in the basement and it now floods. Where will the water go?
Bill Loos: regarding the text amendment, he doesn’t feel the Commission should approve it, you should wait for the end of the moratorium. You shouldn’t change for just this guy, change for the whole town. Also, he felt the issue of the three bedroom apartments should be put in at the same time; you shouldn’t change for this guy.
Marie DeSousa: referenced the letter/memo from the WPCA, there is no support for their recommendation.
Attorney Capossela requested to reply to the citizens’s comments. With regard to the comment concerning developable area and 4 units/acre, Mr. Kuhns cited there are 55 developable acres after taking out the slopes as allowed by the regulations. Fifty-five acres times 4 equals 220 units.
Attorney Capossela noted that Town Engineer Norton made comments when the Application went through the Wetlands Commission, changes were made at that time and he is now satisfied with the plans.
Attorney Capossela noted that someone said this was the wrong plan for apartments, it should be light industrial. Your SDD Zone allows for multi family apartments; it’s allowed anywhere in town. It’s like a floating zone so it’s appropriate if they meet the criteria.
With regard to the comment if this will be condos or apartments, Attorney Capossela suggested the Chapmans do apartments; they maintain their own units. It’s not condos with 220 individual owners. The property owner is the owner and he has staff to plow the snow and cut the grass, etc. The Chapman family is involved with 2200+ units in this area, and others in Texas. They know what they are doing and they do it well. There are standards for the people moving in, and they are high; it’s not low end apartments. If these apartments become low then you homes will become low end as well.
With regard to the Conservation Easement on the rear land, there are 46+ acres they will not be doing anything with. Someone said you can’t do a walking trail; if they can’t they won’t. Vice Chairman Filipone questioned that the Wetlands Commission asked for a walking trail? Attorney Capossela indicated they didn’t come in trying to do a walking trail; they came in for apartments and feel this is the right plan. Sometimes amenities are required, and preservation of the river corridor is the right thing to do here, but if you don’t want people traipsing through the terrace escarpment then they won’t do it. They identified an agency to consider options and they are looking for suggestions.
With regard to a Plan B for the sewers, their sewers are going to a pump station next to Building 4, their low point. they originally went to the WPCA and said they wanted to go to Broad Brook because it was the shortest place, and they believe they have approval for that. The WPCA didn’t if the pipes were adequate and said wouldn’t it be nice if you went down Route 140. The Applicant will pump the sewage to the left to Route 5, or the right to Broad Brook, and they feel it’s appropriate to give the town the capacity to the commercial area.
With regard to the water line, that’s a Connecticut Water Company decision. Attorney Capossela presumes it will be in the street; no one wants easements or condemnation.
Regarding sidewalks, they are not providing them as they feel they are not required; they are unnecessary.
Commissioner Gowdy questioned what they anticipate the number of school age children to be generated by this development? Attorney Capossela indicated their experience in Vernon and Ellington is 3 school aged children/100 units. He believes there is a correlation between the price of the rent and the number of children. These units, sized between 900 square feet and 1247 square feet, are anticipated to rent for $900 to $1700/month.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned the height of the tallest building. After discussion on the definition of height, it was approximated to be 30’. Commissioner Ouellette was fine with that answer.
Vice Chairman Filipone noted the Commission wouldn’t be closing the Hearing this evening. Another resident requested to speak.
Bob Yosky: cited they have a deer run in the area, a herd of maybe 25 or 30 deer go through Hambach’s and Revay’s. What will we do to help them detour someplace else?
MOTION: To TABLE the Public Hearings on the Applications of Chapman Properties, LLC - Text amendment to the zoning regulations, Section 8A.10.2.2, involving unit mix percentages; AND, NEW HEARINGS: Chapman Properties, LLC - Special Use Permit to allow a 220-unit apartment complex -- known as Mansions on the Scantic -- a Special
Development District, located on the east side of North Road, at the intersection of Yosky Road, owned by Sumner Chapman. [A-1/A-2 Zones; Map 9, Block 36, Lot 46] until the regularly scheduled meeting on November 22, 2005 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Town Planner Whitten advised the public the next Hearing will be back at the Town Hall, and the meeting will start at 7:00 P. M.
Town Planner Whitten also advised the public the Work Session will be held on November 28th at the High School; everyone will be able to design their own subdivision.
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Staff Reports:
Town Planner Whitten noted there are a number of small bonds coming up for release; she questioned if the Commission wants to see them all or if staff can approve their release. Discussion determined the average amount of the bond is $2,000; both the Inland/Wetlands Agent and the Town Engineer review the sites before the request for release comes to the PZC. Vice Chairman Filipone suggested Town Planner Whitten could review these small bond releases; Town Planner Whitten suggested she will report on them to the Commission.
Town Planner Whitten submitted the meeting schedule for 2006. It was noted the meeting time has been revised to 7:00 P. M.
MOTION: To APPROVE the 2006 Meeting schedule as presented, with the revision of the starting time to 7:00 P. M.
Rodrigue moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW BUSINESS/(1) Correspondence: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS:
1) Myer’s subdivision.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this meeting at 9:30 P. M.
Rodrigue moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
| 
