TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting #1472
January 17, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:33 P. M. by Chairman Guiliano in the Room 2, Scout Hall, Abbe Road, East Windsor, CT.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as three Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, and Ouellette) and one Alternate Member (Kehoe arrived at 6:50 P. M.) were present. Regular Members Rodrigue and Saunders and Alternate Member Tyler were absent. Also present were Town Planner Whitten, Wetlands Agent/Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek, and Glenn Chalder, AICP, of Planimetrics.
DISCUSSION: Possible Regulatory Strategies:
Mr. Chalder noted the material proposed in Booklet 2 is an update of the items discussed at the Commission’s previous meeting, as well as revisions to the Planned Residential Development (PRD) Regulation.
Town Planner Whitten opened discussion, noting that a previous proposal had been to delete the PRD from the R-2 Zone, which falls into the Sewer Service Area, some of which surrounds the village of Broad Brook. Mr. Chalder indicated that the POD had included language recommending the creation of Village Districts for areas such as Broad Brook and Warehouse Point. If there are areas which are appropriate the Commission might consider allowing people to apply for PRDs. Town Planner Whitten questioned if the Commission wanted to consider creating the Village Districts now, or keep the status quo? The Commission decided not to propose the Village Districts at this time, but to consider keeping the PRD in the R-2 Zone and when they consider the Village Districts to re-think the proposal.
Chairman Guiliano queried Mr. Chalder if he, hypothetically, considered the PRD Regulation one for single family homes? Mr. Chalder replied affirmatively. Chairman Guiliano indicated that was the intent of the Commission when the regulation was proposed/created, and he believed that is the current intent of the regulation, but he would like to see language regarding the PRD Regulation include wording specifying the single family home identification. Commissioner Gowdy agreed.
Mr. Chalder indicated he thought the PRD was to be a vehicle for single family subdivisions. Chairman Guiliano suggested that’s the way it was thought up, and the way it was to be
written. Town Planner Whitten suggested changing the identification from Open Space /Conservation Subdivision as it now appears under Purpose and Authority, Section 20.1, page
4 of Booklet 2, to Open Space/Single Family Subdivision. Chairman Guiliano reiterated the intent of the people who wrote the regulations was for the PRD to be a vehicle for single family subdivisions; Mr. Chalder indicated that the SDD would be the vehicle for multi-family developments.
Town Planner Whitten indicated under Section 5.1.1.7 of the Zoning Regulations is where the Active Adult Housing Regulations (AAH) are included, but they are not expressly discussed in the draft regulations. She noted under Section 8A.5.3 Elderly Occupancy, Page 10 of Booklet 2, elderly occupancy is referenced under the Special Development District (SDD), however, it was not part of the SDD before. She questioned if the Commission wanted to deal with the developments separately, or incorporate the AAH into the SDD? Town Planner Whitten recalled that one of the big issues before the moratorium was dealing with AAH applications and not getting the Open Space the Commission intended.
Mr. Chalder referenced Pages 9 - 11, Special Development Districts, of Booklet 2, noting they discuss density standards relative to the transfer of developments rights within SDDs; he suggested the Commission could do the same with elderly housing. Chairman Guiliano noted the AAH Regulation needs to be revised with regard to requirements for Open Space. Town Planner Whitten questioned that the Commission wanted to keep that specific regulation? Chairman Guiliano replied affirmatively, he liked the option of considering AAH specifically as he is concerned with creating an overabundance of this type of housing.
LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Kehoe arrived at 6:50 P. M.
Mr. Chalder referenced Page 21, Planned Residential Development, of Booklet and noted the R-2 Zone needs to be added back in under paragraph 2, identifying the PRD as “an Open Space/Conservation Single Family Subdivision that is allowed in the R-2, R-3, A-1, and A-2 residential/agricultural zones..........” Town Planner Whitten agreed.
Commissioner Ouellette referenced Section 5.8 - Traffic Analysis, Page 14 of Booklet 2, noting the language referencing a “Connecticut licensed traffic engineer” needs to be revised, as there is no license for traffic engineering specifically, it’s a discipline of civil engineering. Mr. Chalder suggesting changing the wording to a “Connecticut licensed Professional Engineer with expertise in traffic engineering.....”
Commissioner Ouellette noted the Commission has been debating the voting requirements for specific permits, it’s currently 2/3 for ........... and 3/4 for waivers; he questioned if that had been clarified? Mr. Chalder noted the sidebar on page 7, which indicates that some people are uncomfortable with waiving zoning requirements entirely. Commissioner Ouellette questioned that it was actually more than one person questioning the waiver process. Chairman Guiliano suggested he understood the process to be a requirement that 4 out of 5
people must vote in favor of a waiver; if two people felt strongly in opposition of a waiver then it didn’t pass. Mr. Chalder suggested it must be 4 out of 5 to relieve someone of an obligation that others must comply with; having the higher standard is the way to go. Discussion followed for some time on various fractional options. Chairman Guiliano noted a quorum for this Commission is 3 out of 5 members; Alternates are often called to sit in to complete the Boards membership. Mr. Chalder suggested revising the language to “3/4 of those members present and voting.”
Chairman Guiliano queried the audience for comments regarding Booklet 2; no one raised any comments.
DISCUSSION: Possible POCD Amendments:
Mr. Chalder suggested the POCD is an advisory guide for the Commission. He referenced pages 2 - 3, Natural Resources - Aquifer Protection Zones; he initiated discussion on to what extent the protection should be for East Windsor. Mr. Chalder noted the State has adopted new Aquifer Protection Regulations; sometime before 2008 a map will be generated for East Windsor, although the extent of the map isn’t known at this time. He referenced the map contained within Booklet 3, noting the area within the red line is an area within which pumping wells are located; this area is known as the “well head protection area”. The area within the blue line is a larger protection area where wells could be installed to get a good water supply. Mr. Chalder suggested communities are picking
what their strategies will be; some are going to a 2 tiered approach with strictest regulation within the red lines and another level of protection within the blue areas. He indicated that Stonington is one of the towns that have already adopted regulations; they are using the 2 phase approach with Phase I/Level A protection set by specific ordinance and Phase II/Level B protection set by Zoning Ordinances. He noted he has not yet been able to review our regulations in relation to the Aquifer Protection Areas.
Town Planner Whitten questioned if one of the requirements for deciding the level of protection is sewers? Mr. Chalder advised some of these require that areas be on sewer lines. Town Planner Whitten questioned if there is any question with regard to farming within the Aquifer Protection Areas? Mr. Stanley questioned if there is any idea how many homes in East Windsor have been affected by EDB; Wetlands Agent Rudek suggested North Central Health District (NCHD) would probably have that information. Town Planner Whitten noted water service is extremely limited in East Windsor; public water just barely serves Broad Brook; most of the blue areas on the Aquifer Protection Area Map don’t have water so maybe we need to consider preservation. Discussion followed regarding past history of
lawsuits with regard to the use of EDBs in farming operations within East Windsor, the effect of that activity on neighborhood water systems, the concern for contaminants from area landfills, and recent requirements for the installation of filtration systems within new homes.
Mr. Chalder suggested that the Level A mapping must be done to State requirements, and will be a smaller area than the green area depicted on the map on page 3. Level A mapping is generally less because the area is that of the well head pumps and is the area of greatest concern for a spill. He suggested that as mapping information becomes available East Windsor should look at adopting well head rules for the red lined area, and develop up-to-date regulations, providing a greater level of protection, for the properties outside the red area in the blue area. Chairman Guiliano requested acquisition of copies of the State regulations; Mr. Chalder indicated Stonington’s regulations are available as well.
Mr. Chalder then referenced pages 4 - 5, Development - Residential Development, of Booklet 3, noting this section deals with what the pattern for future residential development might be in East Windsor. He suggested this section could be a guide to refer to when people propose to rezone parcels; non-conformance with this plan could be a reason for denial of the application. Mr. Chalder suggested the Commission may want to consider changing some zones to a density base. Town Planner Whitten questioned how this would tie into the Planned Residential Development Regulations (PRD)? Mr. Chalder suggested the PRD is a pattern of development and would be consistent with this proposal. This would also come into play for Special Development Districts (SDDs) and multi-family areas.
Rand Stanley, speaking from the audience, questioned if the reference to “other” areas deals with industrial/commercial locations? Mr. Chalder suggested “other” relates to non-residential.
Mr. Chalder suggested pages 6 - 7, Guide Multi-Family Housing, of Booklet 3, was an effort to find areas appropriate for potential multi-family development as identified in the Plan of Development (POD) as Village District areas which are pedestrian friendly and for which the zoning is possible today. He noted the maps proposes areas of 1,000 and 2,000 foot buffers; the areas must be in existing or future Sewer Service Areas. The map was initiated by taking excerpts from the Future Land Use Map contained in the POD, and also considered possible inclusion of some of the villages. In conjunction with this map Mr. Chalder referenced 12 criteria (listed on page 6) identified as being necessary to comply with multi-family housing developments. The Commission noted the present level of multi-family housing in East
Windsor, and questioned the need for additional units? Discussion followed regarding possible ways of utilizing such a map and criteria, vs. retaining approval based on regulations only, and affect on Sewer Service Area vs. Sewer Avoidance Area on multi-family development locations.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/John seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 7:52 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:00 P. M.
Mr. Chalder then referenced pages 8 - 9, Infrastructure - Pedestrian Circulation, of Booklet 3, noting they have used the POD and the Subdivision Regulations to develop a map to use as a guide for pedestrian circulation. The map also includes concepts for trails. Chairman Guiliano cited uncertainty, noting he wasn’t sure if the Commission should consider sidewalks for areas within subdivisions. He indicated the question has come up under applications for Active Adult Housing (AAH). Discussion followed regarding consideration for pedestrian convenience vs. maintenance, repair and liability concerns, private ownership and aversion to public use, and location on interior subdivision roads vs. main feeder roads in relation to safety issues. Commissioner Ouellette
noted he lives in a subdivision which contains sidewalks; people use them daily. Many people live in subdivisions near Reservoir Park and walk to the park, without the benefit of sidewalks. Commissioner Gowdy noted sidewalks benefit the school district as students can be directed to a main road if sidewalks exist in a subdivision, eliminating the need for a bus to go through the subdivision. Town Planner Whitten suggested if the Commission were to promote the Village District concept then they would have to promote sidewalks in Broad Brook, Windsorville, and Warehouse Point; without that they would be asking for the Village District concept to fail. Chairman Guiliano couldn’t see installing sidewalks on main arteries.
Linda Kehoe, speaking from the audience, suggested she was hearing discussion of recreational vs. destination sidewalks. A sidewalk on Wells Road would be an example of a recreational sidewalk while one on Reservoir Avenue to access Reservoir Park might be an example of a destination sidewalk.
Robert Lyke, speaking from the audience, questioned sidewalks relative to walking trails. Mr. Chalder suggested the Commission could approach the use of sidewalks much in the same manner as the consideration for open space vs. fee-in-lieu of open space. If sidewalks were a requirement of subdivisions, and a developer chose not to install sidewalks, he could pay a fee-in-lieu of the installation charge; that money could go into an account to fund greenways or trails. The town would still be left with the questions regarding maintenance and repair. Commissioner Ouellette questioned who would oversee the expenditure of that money? Mr. Chalder and Town Planner Whitten felt establishment of the greenways or trails would come back to the Commission as a Section 8.24
referral; Chairman Guiliano noted the ultimate trail or greenway would be approved via a Town Meeting.
Mr. Chalder then referenced pages 10 - 11, Infrastructure - Sewage Disposal, of Booklet 3. He suggested from recent research the State approved the overall sewer management plan for East Windsor, and the town had to declare sewer and non-sewer areas; the map reflected on page 11 was created as a digital map (circa 1992) by then Town Planner Giner based on information provided by someone else. Town Planner Whitten indicated that it’s her understanding as a result of her discussions with the Office of Policy Management (OPM) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that the town must petition them to change the map, and our map is supposed to reflect the OPM map and it doesn’t. She indicated that the OPM map is considerably smaller than the town map with regard to
the Sewer Avoidance
Area. Commissioner Gowdy suggested from recent research he understands that every time the WPCA wants to do something with the sewer they must go to the DEP, but.... Commissioner Gowdy reiterated his concern as a Commissioner that if the Commission approves projects within the Sewer Avoidance Area there is the perceived potential to jeopardize future State funding. Chairman Guiliano cited concern for sewer capacity for the town in general in relation to approval of projects in what is now defined as the Sewer Avoidance Area. He suggested the Commission has used this map as a guideline as to where sewers should go; they have considered projects based on the information in this map. Chairman Guiliano felt the map may have originally been based on consumption/capacity of the sewer plant.
Town Planner Whitten indicated that she has met with the WPCA, some members of the PZC, staff, and attorneys for the Town and the WPCA; the consensus was that the WPCA does go through the DEP and the OPM, yet she has not heard back from the WPCA attorney as to how that stands. She will contact Attorney Cummings, attorney for the WPCA, again as to the status of his research. She suggested she also feels it’s a policy decision for the Commission as to whether it wants areas within the Sewer Avoidance Area developed more or not. Town Planner Whitten reiterated it’s the WPCA’s responsibility to go to the DEP when sewers get hooked up, and it’s up to the WPCA to decide if there is capacity or not; it’s the Commission’s responsibility/policy to decide if they agree with that.
Mr. Chalder indicated the Commission has been tied together with the WPCA and this plan; the problem seems to be a question of who administers that plan, and who enforces it? The decisions with regard to the map lie with the WPCA and the DEP; this Commission can’t stop the WPCA from approving hook-ups. He suggested the density factor/pattern doesn’t change with the addition of a sewer.
Mr. Chalder volunteered to make some phone calls and to do some research on the sewer issue. Mr. Chalder also recommended this map should be incorporated into the current POD.
George Buttenkoff, speaking from the audience, felt the plant was designed for capacity for the mushroom plant, which had significant capacity; that plant has since closed; he felt the plant is no longer pumping to capacity.
The Commission scheduled the next meeting for Monday, January 30th, at 6:30 P. M. The location of the meeting will be advertised when the site has been determined.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 8:57 P. M.
Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________________
Peg Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Recording Secretary
| 
