TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing #1471
January 10, 2006
***** Draft Document – Subject to Commission Approval *****
Chairman Guiliano called the Meeting to order at 7:10 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as four Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Ouellette, and Saunders) and two Alternate Members (Kehoe and Tyler) were present. Chairman Guiliano noted Alternate Tyler would sit in on Hearings/Items of Business he had previously participated in; Alternate Kehoe would sit in on new Hearings/Items of Business. Chairman Guiliano also congratulated Commissioner Ouellette to his move from Alternate to Regular Member. Also present was Town Planner Whitten.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None.
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:
The following receipt of applications was acknowledged by Chairman Guiliano and read into the record:
1. Application of Elzear Rodrigue for Modification of Approved Site Plan – to include outside temporary storage of recreation vehicles, trailers, autos and boats at 22 Wagner Lane. [M-1 & B-1 Zones; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3].
2. Application of Ron Fortune of Consulting and Design, LLC for Modification of Approved Site Plan for existing carwash to allow alteration of vacuum islands with canopies, and signage, at 30 South Main Street, owned by Helmar Wolf and Arturo Guerra. [B-2 Zone; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 7, 8, & 9].
3. Application of 137 Prospect Hill, LLC & 137A Prospect Hill, LLC for Modification of Approved Site Plan – to add bank with drive-thru at 137 Prospect Hill Road. [B-2 Zone; Map 2, Block 4, Lots 28 & 28A].
LEGAL NOTICE:
The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, December 29, 2005, and Thursday, January 5, 2006, was read by Secretary Saunders:
1. Application of Phoenix Farm Company, LLC for Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit to allow a Planned Residential Development of 192 units of residential apartments in nine buildings, known as River Place. Property is located on the east side of South Water Street, approximately 410 feet from So. Main St. [R-3 Zone; Map 13, Block 5, Lot 35].
2. Application of White Pine, LLC for SDD, Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit for 12 single-family condominiums at 22 Wagner Lane, owned by TJL Investment Trust, LLC (Phase I, Wagner Terrace). [M-1 & B-1 Zone; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3].
CONTINUED HEARINGS: South Prospect Hill Road, LLC – Special Use Permit/Modification to General Development Plan – from approved hotel use to use by two restaurants, located at 43 Prospect Hill Road. [HIFZ Zone; Map 11, Block 14, Lot 14]. (Deadline to close hearing extended to 1/10/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Fahey, representing the Applicant, South Prospect Hill Road, LLC; and Tim Coons, of J. R. Russo & Associates. Also present in the audience were Eric Spungen and Rob Oris, principals in South Prospect Hill Road, LLC.
Chairman Guiliano noted Commissioner Saunders had not been present for the previous meeting; he requested Attorney Fahey give Commissioner Saunders an overview of the Application as presented to date. Attorney Fahey indicated that at the last meeting we went through significant changes which have been made to the Site Plan based on input from the Commission discussed at the first meeting. Attorney Fahey suggested Mr. Coons will point out those changes on the plan. He also noted that they have changed the rear use from a restaurant to retail, which will generate much less traffic. He indicated that the restaurant to the front will be Long John Silver/Taco Bell; the have slightly changed the location of Taco Bell to allow for 3 lanes – 2 left hand turn and one right hand turn to allow for
better stacking and a better flow of traffic to the left. Attorney Fahey noted Scott Hesketh went out and did a gap study of the traffic; he will summarize that and give the Commission additional information on the new right turning lane. Coming out of the bank of the facility there will be an additional right turning lane southbound onto Prospect Hill.
Chairman Guiliano questioned if the State has approved the right turn lane yet? Attorney Fahey suggested they have input from the State, which Mr. Hesketh can summarize and clarify. Mr. Scott Hesketh indicated that based on the concerns of the commission with regard to traffic flow and traffic volumes they have changed the (use of the) rear building from a restaurant to retail to reduce traffic volumes. The roadway has been widened and will be spread to about a 3 lane section, 2 lanes exiting and a single lane entering the site. A left turn, and a right turn exiting in order to increase capacity. Also, based on the concerns of the Commission that the levels of service calculated weren’t sufficient their office did a gap study at the driveway and measured the time of each vehicle passing
the driveway during the busiest hour on Route 5, they then can measure the number of vehicles anticipated to use those gaps. During the peak P. M. hour they anticipate an effective total of 271 vehicles could exit this driveway and make a left hand turn; they had projected 96 left turn movements during the peak P. M. hour. There are almost three times as many gaps available for left turning vehicles than the number of vehicles that we anticipate. The Institute of Transportation Engineers suggest that if you have twice as many gaps as the number of vehicles then that should be more than sufficient
Mr. Hesketh suggested that to relieve the perceived congestion at the site they have agreed to a right turn only driveway to service the drive-through for the vehicles for the bank. They have spoken with CONNDOT and have presented this plan; CONNDOT has said in concept form they would not object to a right hand turn at that location. They understand that a lot of the right hand movements would be heavy; a lot of the traffic would be going that way to gain access to the ramps; they might want to look in more detail to the geometry and the width of the driveway, and how it’s signed, but in concept they would agree to approve that driveway once we make a formal submission.
Chairman Guiliano questioned what was the approximate distance between the right hand turn coming out of the 3 lanes and the right hand turn for the bank? Mr. Hesketh suggested 160+/- feet. Commissioner Gowdy questioned what time of the day the study was conducted? Mr. Hesketh suggested they studied the P. M. peak hour, which is the highest traffic on Route 5, and would also be the fewest gaps on the roadway.
Attorney Fahey suggested the only reason the bank isn’t included in this presentation is that they have just gotten permission to foreclose on the tax liens, and it will take 3 to 4 months for the acquisition of the property to occur. They will return at that time for a Site Plan modification. Attorney Fahey then read a list of permitted uses under the FIHZ, noting that the site has already been developed with a Wendy’s restaurant; Taco Bell and Long John Silver are also permitted uses. He indicated that the hotel originally approved for the site lost its financing, and the Town has approved 2 other hotels already nearby - one is adjacent to this site, and one further up on Prospect Hill; for this reason the Applicant was not able to get another hotel as a tenant. They
have secured Taco Bell/Long John Silver, and the bank, and are now looking at retail in the back. as a result the traffic counts have changed. Attorney Fahey suggested the Commission is fortunate to have a member who is familiar with the traffic analysis, and based on the comments in the Minutes he felt we have done all we can with the project at the site location. He suggested they feel they fit the criteria set out by the planner; they feel this is the best traffic plan for the site; he felt property values will increase; other people who own businesses in the area support this proposal.
Attorney Fahey indicated he referred to the Minutes of the Commission’s meetings when they adopted the HIFZ; he submitted copies of PZC Minutes dated 6/10/2003 and 11/12/2002 FOR THE RECORD.
Attorney Fahey suggested they feel what they are offering is consistent with what was anticipated and what they felt the Commission intended for the HIFZ, and to encourage business development in areas in accordance with the Plan of Development (POD).
Attorney Fahey then requested Mr. Coons to review the sign proposals. Mr. Coons indicated that the original approval included one high-rise sign for Wendy’s, which was to hold 2 placards on one pipe – one for Wendy’s and one for the hotel. The new site will have 4 uses so they are proposing a second high-rise sign the same height and area as the existing one – so each business can have their own visibility from the highway. They are also proposing the same height and area for the pylon signs as is currently used by Wendy’s; they are proposing building signs as well.
Attorney Fahey recalled that Town Planner Whitten presented testimony at the last meeting that you might think at 65’ you could see the sign well, but coming from northbound you can’t see it. The same testimony was made at the original approval. Mr. Coons recalled that during the original approval he went up in a crane to see the visibility from I-91, and based on the tree lines, a 65’ pole with 2 signs was the optimum for this area. If you went lower with regard to pole height, and placed 4 signs on a single support base the visibility would be limited from the highway.
Attorney Fahey suggested that the Planner suggested they do this study, which they agreed to, so this represents staff input.
Rob Oris, principal in South Prospect Hill Road, LLC, suggested one of the concerns voiced when they were here last time was that the Commission didn’t want too many fast food restaurants, especially in this area which they consider a gateway to town. He suggested they have changed from the restaurant to retail and coming north from Prospect Hill Road you will see the bank. He cited the abandoned truck terminal as the previous user of the site, and suggested that wasn’t good for a gateway. He proposed this is a much better gateway now.
Chairman Guiliano opened discussion to the audience; no one requested to speak.
Chairman Guiliano suggested his only comment was that when the Commission originally changed the zone for you to put a hotel there that was more of a specific reason why we did it. But I understand that you’ve put a lot of effort to try to put a hotel there and now it seems you have to go in a different direction.
Commissioner Gowdy suggested he had concerns for traffic when this Application was first proposed but do to the revamping of the plan his concerns have been met.
Chairman Guiliano questioned that the small signs in front, you will be lining up the signs one after the other; what else could you do to not have 3 signs one after the other? Eric Spungen, principal in South Prospect Hill Road, LLC, suggested the tenants that have bought into the project wand the signs on the road; a single pylon sign wouldn’t do it. Wendy’s has been done tastefully; it’s an appropriate identification sign; in the same competitive spirit the other tenants want the same type of signs. Town Planner Whitten suggested that all signage and elevations will be reviewed at the time of the Site Plan approval; the Commission can review them again at that time. Attorney Fahey concurred.
Chairman Guiliano queried the audience again for comments:
Kyle Pelton, South Water Street: why didn’t you check out the height of the sign before you built it? Chairman Guiliano indicated the sign under discussion isn’t built yet. Mr. Pelton noted the Wendy’s sign is there. Chairman Guiliano reported that before Wendy’s was built they used a crane to determine the height of the proposed sign; the other signs will be the same height. Mr. Pelton suggested it seems if one sign is there you could stack them up; he travels in Massachusetts and they do that there.
Joe Perotti: what time is the peak hour of the day? Chairman Guiliano believed it was in the afternoon. Mr. Hesketh suggested they did numerous counts, and measured the counts on Route 5 for 7 days, and the turning movements at the site driveway for mornings, afternoons, and Saturday. They did the gap study during the 90 minutes between 4:30 P. M. and 6:00 P. M. which covers the hour on Route 5 with the highest traffic and fewest gaps. They did the gap study on 12/5/2005 which was after Thanksgiving and the peak season; Walmart and the supermarket have peak volumes during that time.
Bill Griffin, 271 South Water Street: what is a gap study? Mr. Hesketh suggested they have a complicated stop watch and they measure the time between successive vehicles; a gap of 6 to 9 seconds allows 1 vehicle to pass, a gap of 10 to 13 seconds allows 2 vehicles to pass, a gap of 14 to 19 seconds allows 3 or 4 vehicles to pass. You add up all the gaps during that time, multiply it by the number of vehicles you anticipate to use that gap and determine the number of vehicles that could exit that driveway. Since there’s not a vehicle in the driveway every second you need more gaps available than the number of vehicles you anticipate. The ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) suggest if you have twice as many gaps as the vehicles wanting to use the gaps it seems
you have enough capacity to accommodate the anticipated traffic. We had anticipated 96 left turns during the peak hour and measured 271 available gaps; that’s nearly three times the number so anyone wanting to make a left turn out of the driveway should be able to do so.
Kurt Johnson, Riverview Drive: questioned that the property under discussion was Town property? Attorney Fahey replied negatively, noting the triangle is not part of this submission; they will return for another Site Plan modification. The piece, which is less than 3/10ths of an acre, has 30 years of unpaid taxes. They approached the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to advise them they would be willing to pay those taxes to foreclose on those tax liens and take over the property. When the court is satisfied the present owner doesn’t want to pay the taxes the Applicant will own the property. They are proceeding with a foreclosure of the tax liens; in 3 to 4 months the land should be theirs and they will return to the Commission to modify the Site
Plan for the bank. The Town doesn’t own the land, only the tax liens. The parcel was a left over triangle when I-91 was constructed; the land on the southside was owned by the State and they left this strip. The owners couldn’t do anything with it because it didn’t fit into any of the Zoning Regulations.
Rob Oris, principal in South Prospect Hill Road, LLC: in addition to paying the back taxes they will be putting the property back on the tax rolls and it will become a productive piece of property again.
MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of South Prospect Hill Road, LLC – Special Use Permit/Modification to General Development Plan – from approved hotel use to use by two restaurants, located at 43 Prospect Hill Road. [HIFZ Zone; Map 11, Block 14, Lot 14].
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Saunders/Tyler)
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of South Prospect Hill Road, LLC for a special permit related to an amendment to a general development plan from hotel use to restaurant use on a 3.53-acre parcel of land know as 43 Prospect Hill Road, East Windsor, Connecticut. presently zoned HIFZ as shown on Assessors’ Map 11, Block 14, Lot 14. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans
Cover Sheet – “Key Map – Owner /Applicant South Prospect Hill Road, LLC, 43 Prospect Hill Road, East Windsor, CT Map 11, Blk 14, Lot 14, Zone HIFZ prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. Scale 1” = 100’. Dated 10-18-05, sheet 1 of 2
Sheet 2 of 2 “General Development Plan” Scale 1” = 40’.
Conditions of Approval
A. Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars
1. The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final 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. The final mylars shall contain the street numbers assigned by the East Windsor Assessor’s Departments and the Map, Block and Lot numbers assigned by the Assessor's Office.
4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall be filed in the land records prior to the signing of the final mylars.
B. General conditions of approval
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 mylars, shall be filed with the town clerk by the applicant, no later than 90 days from publication of decision or this approval shall be considered null and void unless an extension is granted by the Commission. One set, sheet 2 of 2 shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.
6. The approval of this special permit and General Development Plan shall not be interpreted as an approval for site development and/or construction. An approved site plan, by the Commission, shall be required before either site may be developed. The approved General Development Plan is a concept plan and shall not be binding on the Commission for a future site plan application.
7. 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.
DISCUSSION: Chairman Guiliano requested clarification that the applicant is proposing building signage, monument signs along the roadway, and one 65 foot tall, 200 sq. ft. Hi-rise sign to be visible from the interstate. Commissioner Gowdy concurred with the inclusion of that language in the approval motion.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Saunders/Tyler)
Chairman Guiliano advised Town Planner Whitten that he would like to be included in the sign review meetings.
CONTINUED 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 30, Block 32, Lot 8]: (Deadline to close extended to 1/10/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Mr. Fortunato. Mr. Fortunato reported the proposal is for 16 condominium units at Scantic Glen; this is actually a reapproval of the units which were originally approved in the 1980s but were not built. The units would be built on the southside of the complex off the entrance road off Norton Road. All utilities, etc. are in; the section to be developed has been graded. They are looking for approval of 3 separate buildings, 2 buildings with 6 units and 1 building with 4 units. Mr. Fortunato submitted plans, noting Inland/Wetlands approval was received last week. He noted they have addressed adequate parking, and will be maintaining a minimum 25’ distance
between building #18 and the ravine. The plans include floor plans for the buildings, and elevations; they are maintaining the footprints from the existing buildings which were built 18 years ago, although they have made minor adjustments to deal with newer handicapped requirements. These new units will look like the existing buildings.
Commissioner Gowdy noted he has reviewed the memo from Town Engineer Norton; everything seems to be ok.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned if the lights will be similar to those on the existing buildings? Mr. Fortunato suggested they may not be able to purchase the same lights but they will be similar. Commissioner Ouellette questioned if they would be the same concept? Mr. Fortunato replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Gowdy felt the Application seemed to be straight forward; he questioned that in the pre-construction meetings they would go over the issues of stockpiles, etc.? Mr. Fortunato replied affirmatively, noting they will install a double row of silt fence to protect the ravine. He understands there will be a preconstruction meeting to discuss those concerns and any others the Town may have. Commissioner Gowdy suggested he was satisfied.
Chairman Guiliano queried Town Planner Whitten what the Town received from the developer for Open space? Town Planner Whitten indicated it’s her understanding that down by the river the Town received some land. Mr. Fortunato suggested from the plans he has seen the original plan called for 34 more units by the river and a piece of Open Space, but they are not addressing those 34 units now. Town Planner Whitten noted there was an entire phase that was not completed but the infrastructure was put in, and with that, the Open Space parcel. Chairman Guiliano questioned how long that runs? Town Planner Whitten indicated that it’s expired; they wanted to bring in n Application before the moratorium was set but they decided to wait and they would be addressing the Open
Space issues again. Chairman Guiliano queried that the rest of that development is part of this? Town Planner Whitten replied negatively, noting it was not part of this application. Chairman Guiliano clarified that he was asking if the Open Space was part of this property, the rest of the development encompasses part of this? Town Planner replied affirmatively. Chairman Guiliano queried that this is a split off? Town Planner Whitten suggested this was an old approval and these 3 buildings were not built.
Chairman Guiliano queried the audience for comments:
Mary , 237 South Water Street: didn’t the Town buy some of that land from the Association? Chairman Guiliano felt the Association decided to turn down the offer; the Town was going to purchase the property but didn’t; the Association renege on it. We do have some Open Space that went with the original development but the Town was to purchase more land to go with it but the Association, through a year and a half of negotiations, didn’t go through with it. Town P lanner Whitten suggested the Town owned the Open Space for the whole development. Chairman Guiliano queried that the Statute of limitations has passed for the development, any new part of the development, even though it was approved in 1984? Town Planner Whitten
replied affirmatively. Chairman Guiliano suggested this is a new application. Town Planner Whitten noted there is no land to give; the owners are not part of the Applications. This is the developer who has purchased the right to develop the last buildings. Mr. Fortunato suggested they have negotiated the right to come back later for approval for the remaining 34 units. Chairman Guiliano suggested that may never happen. Mr. Fortunato replied that was correct, but because of the moratorium they decided to do these 16 units first. If anyone came back for the additional 34 units the Open Space would be part of that application. Town Planner Whitten noted that she understood but the Open Space that was designated with the understanding that these units would have been developed. Chairman Guiliano suggested that occurred in 1984. Town Planner Whitten concurred, but, she agreed Chairman Guiliano was
correct, the Special Use Permit has expired, and she guessed the Commission theoretically could require additional Open Space. Commissioner Gowdy questioned the consideration of Open Space, as they started the development within the 5 year period to develop this project. Chairman Guiliano suggested he would like a legal opinion on this issue. Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission could also waive any requirements for Open Space. Chairman Guiliano suggested the question for the Town Attorney is whether they come back or not we will still have to go through the legal question, unless the Commission preferred differently why not do it now instead of waiting? Commissioner Saunders felt he would rather wait for the legal opinion.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned if the deadline to close the Public Hearing was tonight? Town Planner Whitten concurred; the Commission would need an extension to continue this Application until the next meeting. Mr. Fortunato suggested he would be willing to give the Commission an extension; Town Planner Whitten requested a written submission of the extension request; Mr. Fortunato supplied same FOR THE RECORD.
MOTION: To EXTEND the Public Hearing for 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 30, Block 32, Lot 8] until the Commission’s next regularly scheduled Meeting on 1/24/2006 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Saunders moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Saunders/Tyler)
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Saunders/Tyler)
The Commission RECESSED at 8:05 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:14 P. M.
NEW HEARINGS: Phoenix Farm Company, LLC – Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit to allow a Planned Residential Development of 192 units of residential apartments in nine buildings, known as River Place. Property is located on the east side of South Water Street, approximately 410 feet from So. Main St. [R-3 Zone; Map 13, Block 5, Lot 35]: (Deadline to close hearing 2/14/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description; he noted Alternate Commissioner Kehoe will complete the Board by sitting in on this Hearing. Appearing to discuss this Application were: Attorney Robert DeCrescenzo, representing the Applicants; Jeffery and Donald Hirschfield, Applicants; Guy and Scott Hesketh of F. A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., Project Engineer and Traffic Engineer; and Vanita Dukes and Cordon Karrs, Architects for the project.
Mr. Jeffery Hirschfield introduced the project, noting they were the original developers 40 years ago of River Gate Apartments, now known as River Hollow. They also own 10 acres of commercially zoned land with frontage on Route 5; they have owned the property for 25 years and it has been farmed for them.
Guy Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh and Associations, Inc, took over the presentation, noting he has prepared the Site Plan. Mr. Hesketh gave a description of the location of the property, noting that the Connecticut River is to the west of this parcel; the parcel is situated between South Water Street and the Connecticut River. The parcel contains 14.8 acres which are in agricultural production; that agricultural use, which is relatively flat, makes up about 3/4th of the project area. The slopes of the site are towards the Connecticut River, dropping down 20’ to 30’. They are proposing development of 192 units of luxury homes in 9 residential buildings; the complex will also contain a club house and recreational amenities. With regard to parking spaces, they are
providing 357 paved parking spaces; sidewalks to the buildings and the recreational building will also be paved. Mr. Hesketh suggested the proposed use is similar to other uses in the area, citing Wolcott Landing, and 2 other multi-family developments – River’s Edge and River Hollow (formerly Rivergate).
Mr. Hesketh submitted revised plans for the project, noting that the Inland/Wetlands Commission requested several changes and Town Engineer Norton also requested several design changes. Mr. Hesketh reported the changes are not substantial but they do alter the plan. Because of the proximity of the buildings to the escarpment they have moved them away from the slopes and have reconfigured the parking area. This has also necessitated changes to the utilities plan. Mr. Hesketh reported they attended 3 meetings before the Inland/Wetlands Commission; approval was granted 12/7/2005. The Inland/Wetlands Commission also requested additional silt fence, etc.; those changes will be addressed in the final plans.
Mr. Hesketh reported the parcel is located within an R-3 Zone. They are requesting Site Plan approval and Special Use Permit approval and specific waivers under Section 20.
Mr. Hesketh reported the area and bulk requirements for the R-3 Zone is a minimum of 30,000 square feet of buildable/developable area. Our lot represents over 434,000 square feet of developable area, which includes the exception of 15% slopes and flood plains. The density factor for the R-3 Zone is 1 lot/acre; we are below that at .1 lot per acre. Minimum requirements for the R-3 Zone include 25’ front yard set back, we exceed that minimum requirement; 15’ side yard set back; 30’ rear yard; 125’ of frontage, we have a total of 558+/- feet; and 100’ of width, and we exceed that. The allowable maximum building coverage is 15%; they are proposing 12.1%. The allowable maximum impervious coverage is 25%, while they are proposing 39.8% based on the total
developable area. Mr. Hesketh indicated they will be asking for a waiver of impervious coverage requirement. He also noted the minimum requirement for Open Space is 15%; they will be dedicating 30.7% of the land for Open Space along the Connecticut River. Mr. Hesketh reported the maximum height of the buildings is 2 stories and 30’; they will be requesting a waiver for 3 story buildings at a height of 42’ to preserve the architectural integrity of the project.
With regard to required parking spaces, Mr. Hesketh indicated the requirement is for 2 parking spaces per residential unit; at 192 units proposed the parking requirements would be for 384 spaces; we are proposing 357 parking spaces. Mr. Hesketh suggested under Section 10.5.3 requires 2 spaces per dwelling unit, we are proposing 1.86 parking spaces per dwelling unit for a total of 357.
Mr. Hesketh suggested the complex will contain 36 single bedroom units, 140 two bedroom units, and 16 three bedroom units. The regulations require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. If there are two, three, four, and five bedroom units they would still require 2 spaces per unit. Based on their experience they have found that the two bedroom units typically are occupied by one resident with one vehicle. They’ve provided at least 2 parking spaces for the two and three bedroom units, so 156 units would be the total of the two and three bedroom units, times 2 equals 312 spaces and 1 space for the one bedroom units, so the total spaces that you would need 348 spaces and they are providing 357 units. There would also be 3 full time employees that will need parking spaces. The regulations allow for 37 compact spaces; they are providing 9’ x 12’ parking spaces, with the exception of the compact spaces.
Mr. Hesketh reported the tenants will not be allowed to have recreational vehicles, boats, etc.
Mr. Hesketh reported they meet the landscaping requirements with regard to screening, the number of species, etc. as specified under Section 13.5.2. The plans include a Landscaping detail of the species being provided.
With regard to stormwater management Mr. Hesketh reported that under the existing conditions the site has slopes that drain towards the Connecticut River; they will continue with that drainage pattern utilizing a subsurface system of catch basins and culverts. The parking lot run off will be directed to culverts and collected in separator structures; run off will go through underground storage/infiltration system to trap solids in the stormwater. The upper 13’ of the site is sand; below that is the remnants of Lake Hitchcock which covered Connecticut eons ago. Mr. Hesketh reported they will be removing the same amount of water as is removed in the pre-development run off. Roof run off will go through small galleys, as will the parking lot run off. Pre-development
run off under existing conditions removes 4.72 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the site under a 2 year storm event, under a 5 year storm event 5.95 cfs will be removed, under a 10 year storm event 6.98 cfs will be removed, under a 25 year storm event 8.12 cfs will be removed, under a 50 year storm event 9.05 cfs will be removed, and under a 100 year storm event over 10 cfs will be removed. Total post development peak discharge will be less than pre-development run off utilizing an infiltration system. Mr. Hesketh reported the Storm Water Report has been reviewed by Town Engineer Norton and has been accepted. He also noted they have recommended a Maintenance Program for storm water management; twice a year - after collection of sand in the Winter and after the leaves fall - the storm water system will be inspected.
With regard to the sedimentation and erosion control plan they are proposing silt fencing down gradient from the site. The North Central Soil Conservation District (NCSCD) has requested double silt fencing, which they have agreed to. Erosion control will include hay bales and fabric fence around the catch basins. Outlet structures will be level spreaders.
They are also proposing an anti-tracking pad at the site during construction.
Mr. Scott Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh and Associates, Inc., took the look to discuss the traffic reported dated 12/9/2005. Mr. Hesketh reported they did automated traffic counts on South Water Street for 3 days in the vicinity of the proposed site driveway and manual turning counts during the peak A. M. and P. M. periods at the intersection of South Water Street and Route 5 at the intersection of Pasco's they assumed the192 units proposed are single residential units, which are the most traffic intensive dwellings, so the apartments proposed should have less of a traffic than what they presented in their report. They predict that the 192 units will generate 144 trips during the A. M. peak hour and 193 trips during the P. M. peak hour, with 95% of the traffic going towards Route 5 - 70% to the south
and 25% to the north on Route 5. Mr. Hesketh indicated the capacity analysis was conducted at the site of the proposed site driveway and South Water Street and the intersection of Route 5 and South Water Street; the results are reflected under Table 4 of the report. All turning movements at the proposed driveway at South Water Street would operate at a Level of Service A during peak hours, at the intersection of Route 5 and South Water Street at a Level of Service B during peak hours at background traffic conditions, and a Level of Service C during combined traffic conditions. Average length of delay will be approximately 3 to 5 seconds per vehicle. The driveway is proposed to operate as a stop sign controlled intersection with a single lane approaching South Water Street; sight distances are in excess of those for 5 miles above the posted speed limit on South Water Street. Copies of the report have been submitted to the
State Traffic Commission as the development provides an excess of 100,000 square feet, and an excess of 200 parking spaces. Since there is no frontage on a State highway the State Traffic Commission had to make a determination if this development would have an impact on State highways. Mr. Hesketh noted they have received a letter dated 12/30/2005 indicating there will not be significant impact on State highway traffic and a certificate will not be required for this development. Since this development has no access to a State highway they will not be requesting an Encroachment Permit.
Mr. Guy Hesketh stepped forward to report that the site will be served by natural gas, water, electricity, telephone, cable, and a sewer main is located in the flood plain which is a main line the town put in a few years back. Mr. Hesketh reported they are proposing to connect all the units to the existing manhole, and are proposing a series of step-manholes to minimize the impact on that area. He also noted they are proposing fire hydrants and water to the site. With regard to sight lighting, they are submitting a plan tonight dated 1/10/2006 which addresses the area of the parking lots and the impact on the adjacent properties. They are proposing two types of fixtures for sight lighting, both are Colonial in style. Type “A” is a post-top fixture; Type “B” is a fixture to be used along the property lines which will give a low lighting pattern. Chairman Guiliano questioned what height will the poles be for both fixtures? Mr. Hesketh reported 15’ for all fixtures.
Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the intensity of the lighting is based on the 15’ height? Mr. Hesketh replied affirmatively, noting the lighting will be 175 watt fixtures.
Gordon Karr and Vanita Dukes, architects for the project, took over the floor. Mr. Karr reported their firm specializes in multi-family communities, with examples of their work behind located in Bloomfield, Manchester, and Middletown. Mr. Karr introduced Ms. Dukes, who indicated the architectural design will reflect the latest advances in innovative building technology, will provide a level of details, aesthetics, and finishes which match those in the existing area, and will set a precedent for those that follow this project. The exterior finishes will be stone and clapboard siding with dramatic roof lines with a combination of hips and gables which make a statement but don’t overwhelm the vernacular of the area. Ms. Dukes gave a description of the building
designs. She indicated there will be 9 buildings in total, 6 buildings will be 2 stories containing 20 units, and 3 buildings will be 3 stories containing 24 units. The total buildable area is 228,374 square feet. A typical unit plan consists of 8 units with centralized breezeways which serve 4 units and provide a secondary egress to the building. There will be 36 units containing 1 bedroom and 1 bath, 2 bedroom and 1 bath, and 2 bedroom and 2 baths. Ms. Dukes gave a description of the unit layouts; some will have 9’ vaulted ceilings and some will have lofts; most include master suites, stainless steel appliances in the kitchen, wood flooring, and a separate launder room with washer and dryer.
Chairman Guiliano questioned the square footage for the unit with 1 bedroom? Ms. Dukes reported it would contain 785 square feet, 880 square feet for the unit with the loft. Chairman Guiliano questioned the square footage for the unit with 2 bedrooms? Ms. Dukes suggested the 2 bedroom 1 bath unit would contain 921 square feet, while the 2 bedroom 2 bath units will contain 1124 and/or 1150 square feet depending on where they are located on the site. There will also be one unit containing 1160 square feet as it includes 2 master suites. Ms. Dukes indicated there will be 36 one bedroom units, 140 two bedroom units, and 16 three bedroom units.
Ms. Dukes indicated this will be a gated community; you will come into a recreational area and clubhouse with fitness center and internet access and space for the leasing management and support staff. The clubhouse will also have community rooms available for residents to use for functions they are not able to do in their own units.
Chairman Guiliano questioned if there would be any fireplaces in the units? Ms. Dukes indicated they had been considering if they would add fireplaces but they have not completed a marketing study on their added value.
Commissioner Tyler questioned which are the 3 story buildings? Ms. Dukes referenced those buildings on the plan.
Chairman Guiliano questioned what clientele are they marketing to? Mr. Jeffery Hirschfield suggested all the features are designed to attract a specific customer; these are features you wouldn’t find in a typical multi-family community. He indicated the monthly rental charges, and the annual income basis for same, are as follows: 1 bedroom: $1100 - $1500 per month, equates to a $45,000 annual income; 2 bedroom: $1500 - $2000 per month, equates to a $60,000 annual income; 3 bedroom: $2000 and up, which would equate to a $72,000 annual income. Mr. Hirschfield suggested these units will attract very few families with children; there is only a 5% demand for services for children, out of 192 units there would be 10 units which would be for families with children...
He suggested the 2 bedroom units are typically occupied by 2 professional people, the occupants of the 3 bedroom units typically use the rooms as 2 bedrooms and a den; out of those 16 units those would be the most likely to be for families with children.
Mr. Guy Hesketh again stepped into the presentation, to address the status of the permitting process. He indicated that they had appeared before the Inland/Wetlands Commission months ago and had received approval for the project on 12/7/2005. They are also submitting an application to the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) for a Channel Encroachment Permit because some of the area is adjacent to the Connecticut River. This is an area which could be a habitat for endangered species; they understand there are two species of sturgeon in the river and the area may be a hunting ground for the bald eagle. If there is a concern for that they will have to go to the ACOE (Army Corp of Engineers) for a permit. These actions will occur after receipt of local approvals.
With regard to the State Traffic Commission, Mr. Hesketh reported any development over 200,000 square feet of developable area and over 200 parking spaces you need to request review by the State Traffic Commission with regard to jurisdiction; they have received a letter that indicates the STC feels there is no impact on traffic on a State highway.
Attorney DeCrescenzo reported the applicant appeared before this Commission on 7/27/2004 and 4/2005 with a Concept Plan for development under the PRD under Article Section 20. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested the proposal meets the criteria for development under the PRD for the following reasons: 1) the PRD Regulation allows an applicant to adopt a specific planned use to a individual site; they feel their presentation shows that they can take advantage of this unique site near the Connecticut River with a high quality level housing that maximizes the potential of the site. They feel to rely on the underlying zone would result in under utilization of this site. 2) By its own terms Article 20 of the Zoning Regulations allows the flexibility for waivers where the site characteristics lend
itself to it. 3) The PRD is a tool to allow maximum flexibility for the Commission to tailor development to the site. And 4) the PRD is defined as an Open Space Conservation Regulation and by dedicating over 30% of the site adjacent as conservation land adjacent to the Connecticut River. The plan calls for all buildings to be east of the escarpment line and the open space will be deeded to the Town forever protecting the river shoreline.
With regard to compatibility to the POD, Attorney DeCrescenzo referenced page 3-3, noting that the recommendation is to increase Open Space set aside by 20%, and they are giving over 30%. The second is to encourage the conservation of land and they have taken advantage of the PRD regulation and are clustering the homes in areas of the site most appropriate for developable land and leaving the land adjacent to the escarpment from development pressure. And third, the POD calls for maintaining housing diversity, Attorney DeCrescenzo then quoted from the POD. He referenced the recommendation that the town should encourage multi-family housing of a unique character; Attorney DeCrescenzo noted an example of character of site is age restricted housing. Although their proposal is not age restricted
housing they think this is multi-family housing of a unique character. Because of the quality of the development - architectural detailing, finishes, layouts and size of individual units - this is a niche of the housing market that is not being met currently by anything in East Windsor. They think that the POD calls to encourage multi-family housing of a unique character. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested this type of housing is relatively new to the State, these types of amenities within the context of a multi-family apartment home meets the midstream within the community where people are moving up before they buy their first home or no longer want the responsibilities of a home but have the amenities they were used to in their home, the marble countertops, the wooden floors; Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated they felt the POD and the Zoning Regulations were trying to encourage this type of thing. Another thing the POD says is to encourage cluster
development, and they felt this is a unique example of cluster housing because they have organized development around a central axis orientated towards the street. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they felt they have done a good job of leaving the neighbors on both sides north and south undisturbed, and have done a good job capitalizing on the view of the river without doing damage to the site. He suggested they are proposing a unique form of multi-family homes, not only will the owner be proud of them but will be an asset to the community.
With regard to the waivers, Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested the regulations allow 25% maximum impervious coverage, while they are proposing 39.8% for which they will be seeking a waiver. Mr. Guy Hesketh suggested there is 643,000 square feet of site, with 434,600 square feet of developable area, deducting 15% slope and flood plain. They are proposing total impervious coverage which includes the buildings, sidewalks, parking, etc. which comes to 172,970 square feet of impervious coverage, or 39.8% - (172,970 square feet divided by 434,600 square feet equals 39.8%). If you were looking at it as impervious coverage of the site in totality - (172,970 square feet divided by 643,000 square feet) - it would be less than 27% - close to the required 25%.
With regard to the parking analysis, the regulations are specific only with regard to the number of parking spaces per dwelling unit. There is no provision under your Zoning Regulations under Section 10.5.3 to consider the number of bedroom units per dwelling. Your regulations see no difference between a single bedroom unit and a 3 or 4 bedroom unit. But the regulations do allow differences in elderly housing complexes which have small units very similar to our proposed 1 bedroom unit, that allow you to have 1 space per unit, so, we projected that in our analysis saying there are 36 one bedroom units (requiring 1 parking space), 156 multi-bedroom units (requiring 2 spaces); 348 spaces are needed but 357 are proposed which exceeds the requirements.
Attorney DeCrescenzo felt they are able to meet or exceed the programmatic requirements for the development, and especially on this site, but in every site in town, the tendency is to reduce the parking site by that which is legal for the programmatic requirements, because more parking is more impervious coverage, which is something we all try to avoid. With regard to level of impervious coverage, it’s the topography of this particular site that doesn’t allow them to take full advantage of the maximum amount of coverage.
Ms. Dukes suggested the average height of the buildings is 2 1/2 stories, which helps to balance out the 1 and 2 level units with the 3 story units - the average height is 40’ maximum. The 2 and 3 story “pop-up” balance out the length of the buildings and helps proportionately with the scale of the buildings. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested the additional height helps them incorporate the differing roof lines which is more aesthetically pleasing and fits more with the character of a New England town.
Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested that in granting the waivers the PRD Regulations cites a number of things you have to look at before granting a waiver. It should not have a significant adverse effect on the adjacent properties, or the public health and safety. We think that each of the waivers being requested there will be no significant adverse effect on neighboring property owners, or on the public health and safety because the waivers are tailored to this specific site. Nor should the waivers be in conflict with the Plan of Conservation and Development (POD) as it calls for an increase in conservation to accomplish this, and calls for and encourages unique multi-family housing. The third think is sound engineering practices shall be followed and approved by the Town Engineer; Attorney
DeCrescenzo noted their engineering has been approved by the Town Engineer ( and the Soil and Conservation District) and there is an elaborate and expensive system that will result in a reduction of run off from the site.
Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested the public may want to comment on the Application; he requested that the Public Hearing be continued so they could update the plans with the recent approvals from the Inland/Wetlands Commission.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
Chairman Guiliano advised those in attendance that when we return from break he will be taking input from the public tonight but will hold off taking questions from the Commission as there are several additional Items of Business to be heard.
The Commission RECESSED at 9:34 P. M. and RECONVENED at 9:45 P. M.
Chairman Guiliano opened discussion to the audience:
Henry Krenshaw, 5A Riverview Drive: questioned what the density of 1 lot per acre meant? Mr. Guy Hesketh reported if you take the reciprocal of the 14.8 acres, 0.67 lots per acre. The density of lots is 1 lot per acre; you take 1 divided by 14.8. Mr. Krenshaw suggested he is looking at the dedication of Open Space and is looking at the left hand of the picture and trying to understand, at the Wetlands Hearing they said they were going to go to the encroachment line and the Wetlands Commission said they should move that back; is that off limits to development, or can it be developed with difficulty. Town Planner Whitten suggested that based on State and Town Regulations it would be extremely difficult to develop anything on that slope, to the best of her knowledge.
Mr. Krenshaw then referenced the submission of this proposal under the PRD Regulation, he noted he has been to some of the workshops where the Commission is education the citizens. It looks like a good concept which would allow development to cluster buildings and give a density bonus to encourage more Open Space but he doesn’t see that happening here. It may look like it but in actuality no matter what you put there, a PRD, or SDD, or single family homes, or apartments, the applicant is not moving left from the encroachment line. He suggested the purpose of the PRD is a trade off for a big chunk of Open Space, he’s not sure the city is gaining anything.
Regarding the need to consider the number of buildings per acre and the number of apartments in a SDD would be limited to 4 apartments per acre. If you divide 192 by 14 acres it’s a little over 13 apartments per acre and this seems like a generous gift to the developer who is not giving up much. He can’t develop “there”. Mr. Krenshaw indicated he isn’t opposed to development there; it won’t be a cornfield forever.
Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street: indicated she would like to see the lighting plans; Chairman Guiliano replied the file was available in the Planning Department. Ms. Farmer suggested the attorney reads the PRD as an Open Space Conservation Regulation while se reads it as an Open Space Regulation/Subdivision Regulation; she questioned what the difference was; what’s a definition of a subdivision? Town Planner Whitten indicated that a subdivision is the subdividing of a parcel into more than 3 parcels. Ms. Farmer questioned if the PRD is an Open Space Conservation Regulation is it meant to be used on a parcel that was subdivided? Chairman Guiliano didn’t feel that it was. Ms. Farmer indicated that when she first heard of this proposal she had a
hard time understanding the concept, that it could fall under a PRD, and she read minutes from the Commission’s April 26th Meeting and got more confused. They talked about the uniqueness of the site; it’s perfectly flat and buildable under an R-3 Zone. She felt the reason the Commission created the PRD was they didn’t want to see cookie cutter developments. She also noted that Town Planner Whitten was also having a problem with the proposal under a PRD concept. Ms. Farmer also referenced Commission Minutes for the Meeting of 2/2002. She felt this came up because of the East Road development that got appealed, and the subdivision on Skinner Road would have been different. She cited George Grant came in and spoke of someone coming in a using ambiguous language and could do what they wanted to do. Ms. Farmer hoped the Commission would read the Minutes and get the intent back for the regulation.
Ms. Farmer suggested if she gets beyond the unique issue, she questioned having a view of the Connecticut River makes it unique? She has the same view; her house isn’t unique. Ms. Farmer suggested she looks at it as an R-3 Zone; nothing prevents them from building what an R-3 Zone allows. She also referenced the Applicant’s comments that granting the waivers wouldn’t have an affect on the neighbors. And the traffic study, what they said about the morning numbers; she can’t believe those numbers are correct. It’s a major cut through from Windsor Locks to East Windsor. Ms. Farmer indicated she lives on the curve and has a telephone pole in her yard that has been severed 3 or 4 times. Also, people travel at a high rate of speed,
not 25 miles per hour as is posted. They travel at 50 or 60 miles per hour; in the Winter she has people in her field all the time. Ms. Farmer submitted photos of vehicles that came into her yard recently; last year in the Winter she didn’t have power for 14 hours. The road can’t withstand more traffic because of the conditions of the road and the speed. Her children can’t ride their bikes on the street and it’s difficult to walk on the street. She felt that professional people will have to leave for work in the morning and Route 5 is difficult now. Since the addition of the car wash and the way the roads are laid out she has seen several accidents. This has health and safety issues. Cars will be going by her house in larger numbers. The people there use Wagner Lane to get into their project. It’s a problem regarding traffic. In not less than 1/2 square mile
there will be 400 apartment units; she sees a need for more fire and police services. They are beautiful but what will happen in 10 years; what’s the reality of getting these people to move in. You will have a car wash on the corner and Taco Bell up the street. Other towns have built beautiful luxury apartments 20 years ago and they have been leveled. The people utilizing the back portion, will they get hurt or dump their canoes over trying to get to the island? The fire department has no means to get these people. They speak of developing a recreational corridor, if these people get hurt you won’t be able to get to them. The property value of her house will go down; she won’t be able to sell her 180 year old farmhouse. No one will want to buy a house surrounded by apartment units which are transient in nature.
Ms. Farmer questioned that granting of the waivers, won’t that be in conflict with the POD? She referenced page 3-10 of the POD, noting that “15% of the Town’s housing is classified as ‘affordable’ by the State statutory definition, exceeding the statutory threshold for potential exemption from density limits for affordable housing. The diverse housing stock is helpful to meeting the community’s housing needs and its overall development goals. East Windsor should not need to plan for additional multi-family housing unless a significant housing need is identified to benefit the community, such as housing to meet the unique needs of an aging population .......” Ms. Farmer felt this proposal doesn’t meet any of those conditions; it’s not geared toward
the elderly. She didn’t feel that East Windsor has a massive amount of professional people who want to move out of where they are now. This project doesn’t serve East Windsor.
Ms. Farmer indicated she was impressed with the drainage plan presented tonight. She reported that she attended the Inland/Wetlands Meetings, they asked some serious questioned about conservation and the ACOE Permitting process. There is this 5000 square foot issue and depending on who measured decided if it fell to the ACOE or not. She felt the Inland/Wetlands Commission hope it did.
Ms. Farmer referenced the Minutes of 4/2005; she doesn’t understand how a regular subdivision would destroy the natural resources and this doesn’t. You are taking all the land and making it paved, etc. Regarding the Open Space, they couldn’t build on it; they are not giving it to East Windsor for Open Space, they are giving it to themselves for their tenants. Ms. Farmer suggested she didn’t feel it’s the intent of Open Space to be limited access to the Connecticut River for residents. We have Volunteer Park but they will take this land for their tenants but no one in East Windsor will have access to it. That area is undisturbed river bank, to allow 400 residents to have unlimited access will be detrimental. If East Windsor gets land like that we
need to be sure it’s handled as passive land.
With regard to the drainage, it looks like it will be ok, but she had an ice dam up to her land last year; she questions how that structure in that location will survive. In any flood she can lose any tree because it just gets sucked out by the river; what will happen if that structure isn’t there any longer?
Ms. Farmer indicated she could talk all night but she wants other people to have a chance to talk. She doesn’t want this here. This isn’t for a PRD; this isn’t what you intended; to stretch to the limit to get what they want.
(Applause from the audience).
Mike Cruzer, 241 South Water Street: wanted to reinforce all the Ms. Farmer said. He has been a resident at River Ridge for 10 years and has seen the traffic increase dramatically. The street is only 20’ wide; there are no sidewalks. He is a bike rider; it’s safer on Route 5 than on South Water Street. At River Ridge we have 32 units with 2 parking spaces, they are talking 9 buildings with 357 parking spaces including those for visitors; if you cut down on the number of parking spaces where will they park?
Steve DelCosta, 12C Riverview Drive: it’s difficult to make a left; you can make a right if you beat the traffic. He didn’t hear the gap study at the start, he would love to see one done on their road. Their timeframe seemed short; he leaves his house at quarter to 7, it seems it should be a 2 hour study for the traffic study. He doesn’t want this; his bedroom window will face the width of one building.
David Flanigan, 241 South Water Street: the last time he spoke he felt the town needed the moratorium. He thought there were some areas not being developed correctly. He doesn’t feel this area should be for apartment buildings. Also, the next item on the agenda seems to be something going along South Water Street but it’s not 192 apartments.
Regarding the traffic, we have ballfields down the street, there is no way he would walk to get to that ballfield. He used to jog but he no longer does because he was run off the road numerous times.
Also, this area has been an area of archeological digs and is an area of interest to the State Archeologist, and he questioned if anyone has spoken to him? They did digs at the high school; street is historical and this doesn’t go along with buildings from that time, or the scenic road.
Also, the Connecticut River is one of 14 designated rivers, he questioned if the proposal for the drainage structure is what East Windsor wants for its national heritage river.
The Inland/Wetlands Commission discussed the drainage structure, it was said it would last 20 to 30 years; no where in Connecticut has one of these structures been built.
Mr. Flanigan was also concerned about the parking; there are only 17 extra spaces, some for compact cars. Where will people park?
Mr. Flanigan suggested he had other issues he would like to discuss at another meeting.
MOTION: To EXTEND THIS MEETING UNTIL 11 O’CLOCK.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders/)
Bill Loos, Melrose Road, Broad Brook: these apartments are not those we normally have; he felt he would have a problem getting a fire truck to the back of the buildings to get people out of the apartments. They have to run to the apartment at the front of the building to get out of the back of the building. A 42’ high building requires an aerial truck; they will have problems with getting a truck across the landscaping. He has been a fireman in town for many years and chief for 12 years, he cited problems with access in Hartford with the buildings with access on the street. We will have a volunteer fire department becoming a paid department. Mr. Loos felt this place is a fire hazard. No one will be able to get back in there.
There is no place for parking for visitors. Go to Mill Pond, and try to get trucks through there, they have had to get cars out of the way to get trucks in to get to the buildings. It’s another apartment complex, you don’t have enough parking, you don’t have enough places to get a truck in. This is a disaster.
Jim Barton, 158 South Water Street: regarding the Special Use and the waivers, it seems this project doesn’t benefit East Windsor, but rather the developer. There seems to be some compelling reason to grant these special conditions and the waivers; he recommended that they not be granted.
Regarding the parking, it isn’t sufficient. Regarding the traffic, there is a straight away near the Little League fields and this is a pass-through from Windsor Locks; people go through fast. This will add to that. It’s narrow and has a 25 mile per hour speed limit which isn’t obeyed. He felt the traffic study didn’t ring true. They have Wendy’s and Taco Bell, anyone who tries to get onto route 5 at rush hour and tries to go into the other lane; there isn’t that many gaps. You’ll have to go to the right and come back. It looks like an effort to cram a lot of development into a small space to benefit the developer and not East Windsor, and they are giving Open Space that’s not developable.
Henry Krenshaw, 5A Riverview Drive: regarding the traffic issue, he thought there was another developer talking about putting apartments near Riverview Plaza and there was a discussion on traffic and they said it was bad there, and maybe another light would have to go there; they don’t have a light at Wolcott Landing. This whole area is going through a development phase, and we need to look at the whole picture.
Steve Farmer, 247 South Water Street: he put out a petition in front of his house on Saturday morning and he collected 50 signatures in opposition of the development. There are a lot of experts throwing a lot of figures and assumptions that don’t make sense. The 1 occupant units will have only one car, the 2 bedroom units will have only two cars, no children’s cars, no recreational vehicles. They said they were the developers of the apartments up the street and there are recreational vehicles parked there. This storm water system has never been installed before; where is another one with the same amount of drainage but has been installed and has worked? What about future tie-ins? What will they do with the 10 acres
across the street? The farm road that they talk about to access this system just went in the last couple of years, and probably without a permit. It’s to access an irrigation pump; it isn’t a farm road; it’s an illegal something; it isn’t a farm road. What will it cost the town to improve South Water Street in the future dumping all this traffic on this street?
They spoke of 5% children in occupancy, only 10 children will live in the apartments; it’s highly suspect. What can they do with the Open Space? He doesn’t know how long ago they sold the other apartments but there is garbage, also toilets, sitting out there and it faces his house. What track record does this owner have? Do they own the house across the street that’s rotting away? The town made them take one down and the other is sitting there. Mr. Farmer indicated he has busted his hump upgrading his house; he feels he has made a contribution to the town.
Deborah Krenshaw, Riverview Drive: submitted several signatures in opposition. She also disagrees with the interpretation of the Zoning Regulations.
Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street: in the other two apartments units, River Hollow Apartments has 120 units and 20 children, Wyndwood Apartments has 180 units, 56 one bedroom units and 124 two bedroom units, one third of all the units have children. The Board of Education (BOE) said one bus is required for all of Wynwood Apartments. Ms. Farmer assumes there are 65 children in those apartments. If you have apartments in East Windsor you have children and the price to education a child is $9,000. If you have 10 children that will eat up one half of the $200,000 that will be generated by this tax revenue.
David Flanigan, 241 South Water Street: submitted 56 signatures.
Mike Archer, 10 Riverview Drive: regarding the height of those buildings, some of these units will be 30’ above their units and will look down into their units. The buildings will be towering over their buildings. The drainage trickles down now and he doesn’t see how this will improve it. If this drainage system doesn’t work the water will come back towards them. He is adamantly opposed to anything that will tower over them. The traffic can’t be emphasized enough; it takes them over 60 seconds to make a right hand turn.
Chairman Guiliano cited additional items on the Agenda; he asked the audience to hold their questions to the next meeting. He indicated he would like to table this Hearing until February. Town Planner Whitten noted the maximum 65 day extension will expire on 2/14/2005; she suggested continuing this to the next meeting although the Agenda is already heavy. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated he didn’t want to go through all their extension days; 2/14/2005 is tight for them.
MOTION: To TABLE the Application of Phoenix Farm Company, LLC – Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit to allow a Planned Residential Development of 192 units of residential apartments in nine buildings, known as River Place. Property is located on the east side of South Water Street, approximately 410 feet from So. Main St. [R-3 Zone; Map 13, Block 5, Lot 35] until the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on January 24, 2006 at 7:00 P. M., in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders/)
Chairman Guiliano noted this will still be an open Public Hearing.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders
The Commission RECESSED at 10:55 P. M. and RECONVENED at 10:58 P. M.
NEW HEARINGS: White Pine, LLC – SDD, Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit for 12 single-family condominiums at 22 Wagner Lane, owned by TJL Investment Trust, LLC (Phase I, Wagner Terrace). [M-1 & B-1 Zone; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3]. (Deadline to close hearing 2/14/06); AND, NEW BUSINESS: White Pine, LLC – 1-lot subdivision located at 22 Wagner Lane, owned by TJL Investment Trust, LLC (subdividing warehouse portion from larger parcel). [M-1 & B-1 Zones; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3]. (Deadline for decision 1/10/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description, noting receipt of letter dated 1/9/2006 from Attorney T. Mark Barbieri requesting a 14 day extension to extend the Public Hearing deadline from 2/14/2006 to 2/28/2006 for the Applications submitted by White Pine, LLC. Town Planner Whitten noted the Public Hearing should be opened and then tabled to the next meeting. Chairman Guiliano noted the Public Hearing for the Application of White Pines, LLC for SDD, Site Plan Approval, and Special Use Permit, and the Application of White Pines, LLC for a 1-lot subdivision have been opened; he requested a motion to accept the continuance of both Applications and table both until the Commission’s next meeting.
MOTION: To TABLE the Applications of White Pine, LLC – SDD, Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit for 12 single-family condominiums at 22 Wagner Lane, owned by TJL Investment Trust, LLC (Phase I, Wagner Terrace). [M-1 & B-1 Zone; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3] ; AND, White Pine, LLC – 1-lot subdivision located at 22 Wagner Lane, owned by TJL Investment Trust, LLC (subdividing warehouse portion from larger parcel). [M-1 & B-1 Zones; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3] until the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on January 24, 2006 at 7:00 P. M., in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. AND, to ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FOR A 14 DAY EXTENSION FROM 2/14/2006 TO
2/28/2006 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON WHITE PINE, LLC for a SDD, Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit for 12 single-family condominiums at 22 Wagner Lane, owned by TJL Investment Trust, LLC (Phase I, Wagner Terrace). [M-1 & B-1 Zone; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3]. AND, to ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FOR A 14 DAY EXTENSION FROM 1/10/2006 TO 1/24/2006 TO MAKE A DECISION on White Pine, LLC – 1-lot subdivision located at 22 Wagner Lane, owned by TJL Investment Trust, LLC (subdividing warehouse portion from larger parcel). [M-1 & B-1 Zones; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3] .
DISCUSSION: Town Planner Whitten noted the request for extension has been made with regard to both Applications presently to be heard for White Pine, LLC.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders
MOTION: To EXTEND THIS MEETING UNTIL 11:30 P. M.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders/)
NEW BUSINESS: Stanley J. Kement, Jr., SJK Properties, LLC – 48-lot subdivision located on the north side of Depot Street (known as Quarry Meadows). [R-3 Zone; Map 27, Block 77, Lots 6 & 9] (Deadline for decision 1/10/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Tyler, representing the Applicant; Marek Kement, family spokesman and engineer; and Jim Sherman, an attorney from Somers who represents Mr. Kement with regard to the portion of the subdivision in Ellington.
Attorney Tyler introduced the various spokespersons for the Applicant. He submitted a letter from Attorney Sherman to Attorney Tyler regarding the subdivision application filed in Ellington.
Attorney Tyler advised the Commission the proposal is for a 48 lot subdivision; the Applicant is asking for 3 waivers. They have a letter from the Connecticut Water Company indicating that water service for domestic use and fire protection is available. Attorney Tyler READ THE LETTER FOR THE RECORD. He also noted that they had notified CRCOG (Capital Region Conference of Governments) and received a letter indicating there is no negative impact from this proposal.
Attorney Tyler submitted a letter dated 12/23/2005 from Kevin Leslie of the WPCA (Water Pollution Control Area) indicating that sufficient capacity exists in the sewer line on Depot Street for the proposed Quarry Meadows subdivision. He indicated they went to the WPCA to discuss the issue of the Sewer Avoidance Area (SAA) before filing this Application to see if there might be a denial of this Application based on the SAA. Attorney Tyler suggested they didn’t feel they were in the Sewer Avoidance Area because Broad Brook wasn’t in the Sewer Avoidance Area. They told that to the WPCA because they control the sewers; they went through their historical background and have given this letter that there is capacity available to service this subdivision.
Chairman Guiliano questioned if they were going by the language in the Plan of Development (POD), or the map of the SAA? Attorney Tyler questioned what map? Chairman Guiliano suggested the map that’s been on file in Town forever. Attorney Tyler suggested they are going by the POD. Chairman Guiliano suggested the POD is a guideline but there is a map on record in Town which shows the Sewer Avoidance Area. Attorney Tyler suggested he isn’t familiar with that. Town Planner Whitten suggested there’s a map that shows the Sewer Service Area and the Sewer Avoidance Area which was created in 1995 and was adopted into the previous POD but is referenced in the current POD by saying there is a Sewer Avoidance Area and Sewer Service Area but the map wasn’t included in the
current POD. Town Planner Whitten READ FOR THE RECORD the language reflected on page A-44 in the POD. Attorney Tyler felt they could only go by what’s there, and if the map isn’t in there it isn’t their fault.
Chairman Guiliano suggested the POD is a guideline but the Commission doesn’t have to go by it. Attorney Tyler indicated they don’t have a problem with that, he’s saying they are not in the Sewer Avoidance Area because it clearly says Broad Brook isn’t in the Sewer Avoidance Area. Chairman Guiliano felt the POD indicates there is a map, the Applicant should look into that. Attorney Tyler indicated they are not looking into what used to be the rules at some other time; if you’re telling him there was a map before he isn’t going back and looking up every rule that was applicable; he is only looking at what’s applicable today. Commissioner Gowdy provided Attorney Tyler with a copy of the map reflecting the Sewer Avoidance Area/Sewer Service Area. Attorney
Tyler questioned if that was a valid map today? Chairman Guiliano suggested no one has changed the Sewer Avoidance Area that he’s aware of. Commissioner Gowdy indicated that when this POD was made up the map was left out inadvertently. Attorney Tyler questioned that the map wasn’t part of the POD? Commissioner Gowdy felt it is. Attorney Tyler felt if you have a book of rules you go by and that’s not in there how do they know? How should he know what the framers intended?
Commissioner Saunders questioned why the WPCA doens’t have the map and deal with it on that level? Attorney Tyler indicated they have been to the WPCA; they don’t want public money spent where they don’t get any benefit back but they are not spending Town money; the Kement’s are spending their money and the Town will benefit from that. He suggested the POD also talks about a cost benefit analysis in terms of weighing different things, he READ FOR THE RECORD from page 4-14, citing “It may also occur that a development with fiscal and housing diversity benefits, such as an age restricted housing development, may be found suitable for a location abutting the current sewer service area, but within the sewer avoidance area. Conceivably, environmental issues and development
opportunities may warrant extension of service into the current avoidance area.”
Commissioner Gowdy indicated there seems to be some legal opinion that if the Commission allows sewers to be put in the Sewer Avoidance Area when it becomes time to ask for State money we can be denied, and as a Commissioner he has a major concern with that issue. Attorney Tyler questioned where that legal opinion was? Commissioner Gowdy felt Attorney Pinney gave the legal opinion; Town Planner Whitten felt it was discussed by the Town Attorney and the WPCA but nothing was put in writing. Marek Kement cited one of the projects recently approved was in the Sewer Avoidance Area according to the map. Town Planner Whitten clarified that a portion is within the Sewer Service Area which is where they will be connecting, and that property had frontage long the area that wasn’t in the Sewer
Avoidance Area.
Marek Kement then gave a description of the project, noting it’s located on the north side of Depot Street east of East Road and Depot Street. A portion of the project, 48 acres, falls in East Windsor; they are using a density factor of 48 lots. The lots will range from 30,000 to 90,000 square feet and will be served by sewer and public water. The project will include a 4200’ road and extension of Sullivan Farms Road connecting to Quarry Meadows Road, and a new 800’ cul-de-sac called Boulder Road. Mr. Kement suggested the house locations and driveways are schematic at this point. Chairman Guiliano queried that they couldn’t come up with a more interesting subdivision? Mr. Kement suggested the parcel is a narrow strip and they need to do this to
get to the cul-de-sac. Chairman Guiliano questioned how many lots fall with the Sewer Avoidance Area? Mr. Kement suggested they didn’t look at it from that route.
Commissioner Gowdy questioned that the drainage being directed into a detention basin in Ellington was not a problem? Attorney Tyler replied negatively, noting that approval has been received from the Inland/Wetlands Commissions of Ellington and East Windsor.
Mr. Kement suggested this property was a gravel operation for years and is located in an R-3 Zone; what other use would there be for it? To the north is Hemlock Court and hopefully they will be able to provide access into that at some time.
Commissioner Gowdy questioned where the Applicant was heading with the Sewer Avoidance Area? Attorney Tyler felt there may have been a map before but what the rules were makes no difference to them; under the current rules they investigated with the WPCA people in the Summer and feels its a situation where there is a benefit to the Town to have all this money coming into the WPCA.
Chairman Guiliano suggested if you had to put in septic systems here there would be less house and less children at a cost of $8,000 to $9,000. Attorney Tyler suggested they weren’t looking at that. With regard to the Town applying for public funds in the future, he didn’t know about that but if the Commission is concerned about that they should amend the rules. Commissioner Gowdy suggested it was the Applicant taking the POD as the rules. Attorney Tyler understood it to be an overall plan. Commissioner Gowdy questioned that the Sewer Avoidance Area hadn’t been discussed? Attorney Tyler indicated Town Planner Whitten and he discussed hat but there is no map; what you pulled out is not an official record any longer. Commissioner Gowdy felt because it’s
not in the POD doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist any longer. Town Planner Whitten felt it was a policy decision that needed to be addressed.
Chairman Guiliano suggested the appraisal for the land value seemed low, noting they had just reviewed this issue with the Town Assessor’s Office for another project. Commissioner Gowdy suggested they could get 3 appraisals.
Town Planner Whitten noted the Commission and Applicant are starting to run out of time to make a decision on this Application because it came in before the moratorium was initiated. She indicated she will talk to the Town Assessor regarding the appraisal value, but questioned that the map not being in the POD might mislead someone. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if she had talked to Attorney Tyler about the Sewer Avoidance Area? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively. Commissioner Gowdy requested clarification that they are aware of it? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively. Chairman Guiliano requested Town Planner Whitten to get a legal opinion. Commissioner Gowdy noted he was in attendance at the meeting with Town Planner Whitten and Attorney Pinney
gave a verbal opinion that we could jeopardize future money but it isn’t in writing, it was around the table. Attorney Tyler questioned if it wasn’t in writing how could the public know it isn’t speculation?
Town Planner Whitten noted the Applicant has 25 days for an extension. Chairman Guiliano requested Town Planner Whitten attempt to seek resolution on the sewer issue. Commissioner Tyler suggested that somewhere someone should be able to tell if the Commission will be messing up the Town. Town Planner Whitten suggested the WPCA has made a statement in writing that there position is that if there is sewer capacity they will say yes anywhere. Commissioner Tyler indicated he can also put on his Sewer Commissioner hat and if there is capacity they will approve sewer but this Commission has another issue to deal with. No one on either Commission can recall why it was put in other than for economic reasons. Town Planner Whitten noted she has already made that phone call to the
State and the people from OPM have said the Town is already non-conforming. Commissioner Tyler suggested the town needs to provide a digital map and give it to the State. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the Commission/Town has violated this in the past? Town Planner Whitten felt that Scantic Glen was beyond the Sewer Avoidance Area; Chairman Guiliano felt it wasn’t on this map.
MOTION: To EXTEND THIS MEETING UNTIL 12 O’CLOCK.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders/)
Town Planner Whitten requested the specific question she is to bring before the State? Commissioner Gowdy suggested questioning if we will in fact jeopardize future funding for the Town? Commissioner Tyler suggested advising them we have a piece of property in the Sewer Avoidance Area for which we would like to extend the sewer through the Sewer Service Area to the Sewer Avoidance Area; will that jeopardize future funding for the Town? Attorney Tyler requested advising them that the cost for it is being paid for by the private developer, not by public funding; they are not asking the Town to pay for this or asking for State or Federal reimbursement. Town Planner Whitten questioned if this is going to be a force main or gravity feed? Mr. Kement suggested a force main. Town Planner Whitten requested clarification that no one else can hook up to it? Mr. Kement replied they can, the development will be gravity but they will be pumping into a force main.
Attorney Tyler indicated they can give the Commission an extension to get to the next meeting.
MOTION: To TABLE the Application of Stanley J. Kement, Jr., SJK Properties, LLC – 48-lot subdivision located on the north side of Depot Street (known as Quarry Meadows). [R-3 Zone; Map 27, Block 77, Lots 6 & 9] until the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on January 24, 2006 at 7:00 P. M., in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders/)
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Election of Officers:
MOTION: To NOMINATE GARY GUILIANO AS CHAIRMAN.
Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders/Tyler)
MOTION: To NOMINATE FRANK GOWDY AS VICE CHAIRMAN.
Guiliano moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders/Tyler)
MOTION: To NOMINATE KEVIN SAUNDERS AS SECRETARY.
Guiliano moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Tyler)
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Review of Bylaws:
Chairman Guiliano suggested Town Planner Whitten change the inception time for the meetings to 7:00 P. M., and clarify the issue of the 3/4 and 2/3 votes of the Commission.
The Commission tabled review of the bylaws until the next meeting.
BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Correspondence: None.
BUSINESS MEETING/(4) Staff Reports: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 25, 2005; December 13, 2005; December 19, 2005:
MOTION: To APPROVE Special Meeting #1470 dated December 19, 2005, Public Hearing #1469 dated December 13, 2005, and Public Hearing #1468 dated October 25, 2005 as written.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Saunders/Tyler)
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 11:58 P. M.
Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Saunders/Tyler)
Respectfully submitted,
Peg Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Commission Recording Secretary
| 
