Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
January 24, 2006 Minutes
        TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Public Hearing #1473
January 24, 2006

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


The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P. M. by Vice Chairman Gowdy in the Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:

A quorum was established as 2 Regular (Gowdy and Ouellette) and 1 Alternate Member (Kehoe) were present.  Regular Members Guiliano, Rodrigue, and Saunders, and Alternate Member Tyler were absent.  The Commission presently has one vacancy.   Vice Chairman Gowdy noted all three members will be sitting in on Hearings/Items of Business this evening.  Also present was Town Planner Whitten.

ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:         None.

RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:        None.

LEGAL NOTICE:   None.

FORTUNATO/Scantic Glen:

Vice Chairman Gowdy read the Hearing Description.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Vincent Fortunato.   Mr. Fortunato reported that in the absence of the original data sheet with regard to the Open Space allocation, he was able to get a copy of that information today.  The question which had been raised was if the entire site was approved for development with the full Open Space requirement.  Mr. Fortunato suggested that typewritten data indicates that it was.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if the Open Space requirements were different at the time of development?   Town Planner Whitten indicated the SDD Regulations haven’t changed and this was approved in 1984.   She discussed this issue with the Town Attorney and the Commissioner’s packet includes information regarding that discussion.  She referenced (Town) Attorney Stephen Penny’s memo of 1/24/2006 which indicates tat based on all the data and files all the Open Space requirements were met with the beginning approval of the applications, and since the Open Space allocation under the SDD Regulations haven’t changed since that time the Commission can’t ask for more Open Space.  Town Planner Whitten indicated that Staff has no problems going through
with this Application; she believes that all requirements have been met.


Vice Chairman Gowdy queried the audience for comments:

Bill Loos, Melrose Road:  with regard to the foundations that were put in below..........   Town Planner Whitten indicated those foundations are not part of this Application.   Mr. Loos questioned if they could be developed later on?   Town Planner Whitten noted a new application similar to this one would have to be applied for.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Fortunato Construction Group:  Re-approval of Special Permit and Site Permit Approval of 16 condominium units in 3 buildings at Scantic Glen, Old Ellington Road.  [SDD Zone; Map 30, Block 32, Lot 8].   

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

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of  Fortunato Construction Group, and owner Scantic Glen Condominium Assoc, Inc. requesting a Special Permit and Site Plan Approval for the construction of 16 residential condominium units within three buildings  (#18, 20 and 22) and associated improvements at Scantic Glen Condominium complex located at the southwest corner of Old Ellington and Norton Roads [Map 30, Block 32, Lot 8, SDD Zone].

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

Referenced Plans:

*ZL-1   Location map – for Scantic Glen, Old Ellington Road, East Windsor, CT prepared for DeVito Brotheres Developers, by CR3, Inc. Landscape Architects, Simsbury CT;  Storch Engineers , Wethersfield, Ct; Arthur DeSalvo, Jr Architect, Norwalk, Ct; and Louis M. Krupnick, Architect, Avon CT dated 3/3/87, rev 9/8/87

·       ZL-6    Grading and Drainage, Phase II dated 3/3/87, rev 9/18/87, 1” = 40’

·       CP-1    Conservation Plan, dated 7/19/85, rev 2/8/87, 1”=40’

·       SU-1    dated 9/19/83, rev 2/18/85

·       Drawing #3      Utilities-Plan & Profile, dated 7/14/87, rev 9/25/87

·       ZL-11   Sedimentation & Erosion Control, Phase III dated 4/21/87, rev 9/7/87

·       ZL-14   Sedimentation & Erosion Notes and Details dated 6/2/87, rev. 9/11/87

·       ZL-16   Planting Phase III      General Notes and Details       


·       Boundary Map Scantic Glen Phase III Buildings 18, 20, & 22 prepared for Fortunato Construction Group, Eat Windsor CT prepared by Megson & Heagle, Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors, LLC, 81 Rankin Road, Glastonbury, COnn 06033 860/659-0587 dated 12/30/05, scale 1” = 200’

·       Storm Water Pollution Control Plan, scale 1” = 40’

·       Storm Water Pollution Control Plan Notes and Details, scale as shown

Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:

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

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

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

4.      Building 18 must be moved such that no part of the structure will be within 25 feet of the ravine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.     A detailed sediment and erosion control plan for the entire development shall be

submitted at the time of application for the site improvement Zoning Permit.  The plan shall include the engineers estimated costs for E&S controls.  The Town Engineer will review the plan and cost estimates and will set the E&S bond amount.

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

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

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

14.     A Zoning Permit is required for each building.

15.     Foundation as-built surveys for each building shall be submitted and approved before framing and/or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.   Builder should be aware that minimum separating distances (30’ between buildings (See sec 8A.10.5.2 are from fully built units, inclusive of walls.  

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

23.     All inspection fees must be paid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Conditions:

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

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

31.     Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the resubdivision is subject to the approval of the town engineer.

32.     Additional erosion controls are to be installed as directed by town staff if field

conditions necessitate.

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

34.     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.

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

PHOENIX FARMS/HEARING:

Vice Chairman Gowdy read the Hearing description.  Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Robert DeCrescenzo, representing the Applicant; Jeff Hirschfield, the Applicant; Guy Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates, Engineer for the project, and Vanita Dukes, architect.

Attorney DeCrescenzo reported they have made some changes and adjustments to the plans in response to staff comments and comments made by the Commission.  He introduced Mr. Hesketh to report on those changes.

Mr. Hesketh noted F. A. Hesketh & Associates prepared the plans for the original Application, and the revisions submitted at the last meeting; tonight he is submitting revisions to the Master Layout Plan revised to 1/24/2006 which incorporates comments during the last meeting.

Mr. Hesketh reported the main changes are as follows:  the original Application contained 9 residential buildings; they are eliminating one building along the eastern limits next to the residences on South Water Street.  The proposal will now contain 8 buildings; 2 “Type 100” buildings adjacent to South Water Street containing 20 units, 3 “Type 200” buildings containing 24 units, and 3 “Type 300”:buildings.  Mr. Hesketh suggested that rather than the 192 units they are proposing a reduction of 20 units, for a total of 172 residential units.  

Mr. Hesketh indicated that by doing the reduction of units the number of parking spaces required changes.  Under Section 10.5.3 they are required to provide 2 parking spaces/unit; at 172 units times 2 the required number of parking spaces is 344.   Mr. Hesketh suggested they continue to propose 357 parking spaces, which gives them a net difference of 13 additional spaces which could be used for employees and events being held in the clubhouse.  Mr. Hesketh further suggested that under Section 10.6.1 they are allowed to provide 30% of the parking spaces for compact vehicles.  With a total of 357 parking spaces proposed the 30% allocable to compact spaces would be 107 spaces; they


are proposing 99 compact spaces at a size of 8’ x 17’.   Those spaces would be proposed around the various islands.   

Mr. Hesketh indicated another concern voiced by the public was the proximity of the parking spaces to the buildings at Wolcott Landing.   To lessen that concern they are proposing to add more landscape buffer between the parking spaces and the adjacent buildings.

With regard to the impervious coverage calculations, the current regulations allow that 25% of the total land area of a project is impervious coverage.  Mr. Hesketh suggested they are proposing two areas of impervious coverage; the darker grey area depicted on the plan is bituminous blacktop, while the lighter grey area is a paver stone material known as “infiltra stone” which allows the infiltration of rain water.  This material is used in parking locations and is similar to pavement material used on walkways and patios.   They are designed to have spaces between them which are filled with pea stone; when the rain hits the stone it has the ability for the rain to infiltrate.  Mr. Hesketh reported he is submitting plans showing the areas (the lighter grey areas) being proposed for infiltra stone.

Mr. Hesketh indicated that at the last meeting he indicated an analysis of the total land area vs. the total developable area.  He reported that analysis was not correct.  He had presented an analysis that indicated that 39+% was the entire land area of the site, but there had been a miscommunication between himself and another staff member which led him to report that they had 27% impervious coverage vs. the 25% allowable under the regulations.   The overage of impervious coverage would have required that they request a waiver .  Mr. Hesketh indicated that by using the infiltra stone they can now meet the 25% impervious coverage allocation.

Mr. Hesketh reported they are not proposing any changes to the grading or utilities plans; the drainage analysis is still valid.  

Attorney DeCrescenzo reported that at the last Public Hearing there was a suggestion made that part of the site which is being dedicated as Open Space is undevelopable land.  He indicated they don’t consider that to be so – difficult, but not undevelopable – it would probably require a permit from the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and would not be a simple task, but it was not impossible.  They are considering it as part of the developable area, and are still proposing it as Open Space.  Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated they don’t accept the comment that they wouldn’t develop it anyway.   He also suggested that in East Windsor there is land to the south along the river that has been developed closer to the river than they propose.  

Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested that also the reduction of one building in the corner increased the amount of pervious coverage and reduces the density by 20 units.   They are no longer asking for a waiver of the parking requirements, and now actually exceed the

parking requirements.  They are no longer asking for a waiver on impervious coverage.   Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they are now asking for only 2 waivers: 1) the number of stories from 2 to 3, and 2) the overall height of the buildings.  He suggested these waivers will give a more handsome look to the buildings.    

Attorney DeCrescenzo noted he understood the Commission wants to leave the Hearing open and take more public comments.  He would like to note that three letters have been submitted in favor of this project; Town Planner Whitten noted receipt of the following:  

1) Snapshots, Unlimited; 2) John Silva, of Dunkin Donuts; and Doug Myers, President of Mercury Excello.   Town Planner Whitten also noted receipt of one letter of concern submitted by the Chairman of the Wetlands Commission.

Vice Chairman Gowdy opened discussion to the audience; he requested speakers limit their comments to 5 minutes:

Steve Farmer, 247 South Water Street:  submitted another 33 signatures in opposition to the 50 signatures he submitted earlier.  He suggested the issues isn’t what the buildings will look like but how do you take an R-3 Zone and turn it into a 192 apartment complex; you do that through the PRD, Section 20.  Mr. Farmer cited Attorney DeCrescenzo’s letter to Town Planner Whitten of 2/16/2006 supporting the submission under the PRD Regulation; he also submitted a copy of that same letter he has rewritten now containing his comments in bold type.  Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested that the submissions of these documents to the Commission will enable them to review the documents at the completion of this evening’s meeting.

Mr. Farmer also submitted a copy of Section 20 of the Zoning Regulations, - Planned Residential Development, with annotations of his comments as it relates to this project.  Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested the Commission is familiar with this regulations; he requested Mr. Farmer to summarize his comments.  Mr. Farmer read excerpts from the regulation, beginning with the Commission’s ability to waive requirements of the Zoning Regulations by a ¾ vote, providing that the following conditions are met; Mr. Farmer’s comments indicated that not one, but all the conditions must be met to grant a waiver.  Mr. Farmer continued to read the excerpts from the regulations, questioning how the developer has demonstrated various requirements, or proved certain conditions.  He also cited the 2004 Plan of Conservation and Development (POD) which indicated that East Windsor doesn’t need additional multi-family housiness.    Mr. Farmer questioned if the developer has demonstrated sound engineering practices in proving the riprap and level spreader will operate under water as he feels it will be in the Winter?  Mr. Farmer submitted various photos of views from the river’s edge indicating various conditions caused by rising water levels.  Mr. Farmer also questioned if the Town is getting a good chunk of land for the developer to get a couple of extra lots; he questioned the suitability of the Open Space being offered.  Mr. Farmer then referenced the minimum lot area and bulk requirements in relation to the density factor; he interprets the density factor to be 1 lot/acre.   Mr. Farmer then noted that the developer is now indicating he is under the 25%

allowable impervious coverage, noting he hasn’t looked up the definition of impervious coverage but questions if the infiltra stone is impervious; how does it work in frozen conditions; he assumes it works the same as asphalt.

(Applause from the audience)

Richard Morrison, 29 Laurel Circle: opposes the proposal, it’s over-developed, the area is crowded already, Route 5 is problematic during specific times of the day, South

Water Street is narrow, houses sit on the street and it can’t be widened.   This proposal will change the skyline and will look like New York City.   It will have an impact on the school system; it isn’t suitable for the Town of East Windsor.

(Applause from the audience)

Marian McGish, Wolcott Landing:  is opposed to it for the sake of safety; she works in Hartford and leaves at 7:30 or 8:00 in the morning, it takes her 3 or more minutes to find an opening on Route 4 to head south; she has given up on going north towards I-91; adding this traffic won’t help.   We have people who are already residents, why should they suffer because someone wants to build apartments; they have had 2 people who have lost their lives there already.  She felt that because there is already a light at South Water Street, and the distance of their driveway is not that far away, she doubts that another light would be allowed.  It will be a bigger burden to get out.

(Applause from the audience)

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if anyone had anything new to report that wasn’t mentioned at the last meeting?

…………………….., 11B Riverview Drive, Wolcott Landing:     understands they are making revisions to the plans, they question the capacity of the community room, will they park in their parking spaces?  Will they plow their snow into Wolcott Landing?  I’m opposed to the building of this project.

(Applause from the audience)

Kurt Johnson, Riverview Drive:  cited the female architect used the term precedent setting at the previous meeting; he agreed with her but not in the way she said it.   This will set a precedent in town for the height and other things.   Approval of this project will open up Pandora’s box

Nancy Haas, River Ridge Condominiums:  submitted excerpts of the Preliminary Open Space corridor, Plan, Possible POCD Amendments, Residential Densities Plan, and a Multi  Family Plan.   Ms. Haas cited Section 20, she understands the underlying zone applies, this is an R-3 Zone which is for single family homes but they want to do

apartments, she questioned why they have not requested a waiver to do the apartments, it should be under an amendment or a new application.

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if the Open Space Plan, etc. submitted is the present Open Space Plan?  Henry Crenshaw, speaking from the audience, suggested it is from the 2004 Plan of Development (POD).  Vice Chairman Gowdy disagreed, suggesting these documents are what the Commission discussed only last week at the consultant’s meeting.   Mr. Crenshaw indicated the first page (Preliminary Open Space Corridor Plan) is from the current POD, and the subsequent pages are from the training materials provided to the Commission by a consultant.  Vice Chairman Gowdy requested

clarification that only the first page - the Preliminary Open Space Corridor Plan - is from the current POD?  Ms. Haas agreed, but felt as a member of the public and a voter she wanted to be heard.  This property appears to be in the Open Space corridor; if the land is to be developed at all what better suits the area, single family homes or 192 apartment units?   Vice Chairman Gowdy respectfully suggested the Commission can’t consider what Ms. Haas is submitted as it’s not part of the current POD.   Ms. Haas felt the developer should go back to the R-3 Zone; they are trying to push this through under the PRD Regulation and they disagree with that.

(Applause from the audience)

Henry Crenshaw, Riverview Drive:  suggested if the PRD was for multi-family dwellings it should have been allowed in the R-1 Zone, and it wasn’t, the R-2 and R-3 Zones are for single family dwellings, Section 20 allows the PRD in the R-2 and R-3 Zones but doesn’t say it’s allowed in the R-1 Zone.   If the intent was to have them in the R-1 Zone why wasn’t it mentioned in the multi-family zone?  Mr. Crenshaw felt it wasn’t logical for the PRD Regulations to prohibit multi-family PRD in the multi-family zone, but allow them in the single family zone.  He. felt it makes sense to interpret that Section 20 is for single family homes, not multi-family.

Mr. Crenshaw felt it odd that Section 20 states it’s an Open Space/Conservation Subdivision Regulation.  He suggested Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated in his letter “that it seems odd that the Commission intended to trigger the flexibility that the PRD allows only where an applicant desired to subdivide the lot.”  Mr. Crenshaw disagreed with the comment/interpretation, suggesting that if you interpret Section 20 as covering only single family homes subdivision makes sense as the developer must subdivide to sell off the homes to individual buyers.  He felt that the subdivision requirement under Section 20 is only odd if you interpret the PRD to include apartments.  Mr. Crenshaw felt Phoenix’s interpretation of the regulation was the oddity; a more reasonable interpretation is that the PRD Regulation applies to single family homes and not apartments.  

Mr. Crenshaw suggested the chart in Section 20.6 is for single family homes, not apartments.    He referenced the meaning of the term “density factor”, which appears

under Table 18, and sets out requirements for the R-3 Zone.  Mr. Crenshaw suggested the footnote for density factor under Table 18 refers to subdivisions, and that it requires that the lots in the R-3 Zone are 1 acre in size.  Mr. Crenshaw reiterated that the R-3 Zone is a single family zone.  He suggested that when the term “density factor” was used in the PRD there was no indication that it should mean something else.  Mr. Crenshaw suggested that Phoenix has interpreted their density factor as being less than .1 acres per lot, thereby allowing them to meet the requirement of 1 acre per lot.   He felt that interpretation doesn’t make sense; if they used the proper application of the density factor it would show that the lot can be divided into 14+ lots, which he felt helpful when considering the number of single family homes the lot would support, but has no meaning
when applied to apartments.

Mr. Crenshaw suggested this is the wrong development for this piece of land, as it’s zoned R-3 and would generate about a dozen homes.  Even if apartments were allowed here they should be proposed under an SDD Zone, which is appropriate for an R-3 Zone, and would limit the number of apartments to 40+/-.

Mr. Crenshaw advised the Commission they have discussed this with an attorney who has asked for an opinion from the Town Attorney as to what gives the Commission the authority to grant the waivers.

(Applause from the audience).

Mary Staples, 240 South Water Street:  cited she believed Phoenix owned Rivergate and if you went to the Town Hall they had many violations, then it was sold to River Hollow who had to bring it up to code.   Do they have to worry about that if they develop this land?

(Applause from the audience)

Tammy Davis:  is speaking if favor of the development, the complex will help other business to grow, we need more taxes, the units aren’t family focused so there shouldn’t be that many children.

Earl Staples, 240 South Water Street:  is against the project for all the reasons listed at the last meeting.  He questioned if you’ve ever been on Route 5 when there is a problem on I-91?   It’s impossible to get out of South Water Street to go north or south.  

(Applause from the audience)

Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street:  noted in their plans it will be served by gas and she understands there are no gas lines on South Water Street, there is a line on Wagner Lane but it stops and she doesn’t see anything on the plans.  Ms. Farmer suggested they have not yet applied to the WPCA for sewer hook ups, she noted they have a problem on their property with an exposed sewer line and it’s important that the

WPCA gets their application, there may be a problem with the integrity of the line near that area.   

Ms. Farmer also noted on their plans there is a discrepancy as to the distance indicated for traffic counts (300’ to 400’) vs. the distance represented at the meeting (1300’); she questioned if one was a type of if the calculations were correct if they used an incorrect distance.   She also noted they used traffic counts for 2001, which are 5 years old; she felt there has been an increase in traffic on Route 5, Pasco’s Commons has added buildings, she questioned if they should have gotten a more recent number?  

With regard to vehicle trips,  they gave numbers of 140+/-, which were early morning and afternoon hours.   What they failed to say is that according to their calculations, this project, with 192 units, will generate 1895 additional trips per day.

Under their traffic calculations Ms. Farmer suggested they indicated that 70% of the trips turn right and head south and remainder would go to the highway, she noted this was based on the turning counts, but she noted the traffic there now are the people living on the street or the people cutting over to Windsor Locks.  She also noted they are promoting this development as being for professional people and this is a good location because it’s between Hartford and Springfield, but she can’t believe that people will turn south to get to Hartford when it’s closer to go north to I-91.   She also questioned that the letter from DOT was based on the distance on the highway being the extra 1000’ or the assumption that people would go south?   She suggested it made her question the traffic report.

(Applause from the audience)

Paul Scanlan, 241 South Water Street:  cited he has worked with the State Archeologist at the State of Connecticut, he noted there was a comment made at the last meeting that the land along the Connecticut River was archeologically sensitive and he believes that to be a fact.  Prior to installing Volunteer Park the town  authorized an archeological study and that was based on the belief that there were Indian artifacts along the Connecticut River.   Also, in 1979 at 247 South Water Street, the present home of the Farmers, a considerable number of artifacts were discovered with the belief there was an Indian encampment, he noted an Indian burial ground was discovered at Winton Park, and in back of the high school was a cache of Indian artifacts and there was a question if there had been an Indian village at the high school site.  Mr. Scanlan believed there should be an archeological study done at this site, the State Archeologists would be interested in doing it without any cost to the town or the developer.  

(Applause from the audience)

Jim Barton, South Water Street:  felt the project shouldn’t be approved, there are many similar uses in the area but maybe more of the same might not be better.  With regard to compatibility with the neighborhood the Commission should take into consideration

everything in the neighborhood, including the single family homes, some of which are historical.

(Applause from the audience)

Carol ……………., 503 Riverview Drive, Wolcott Landing:  agreed with the others speaking, this isn’t in keeping with the surrounding area.

(Applause from the audience)

David Flanigan, 241 South Water Street:  cited the dwellings on the street, some of which are nice single family homes, some of which are historic, and now you are placing this in the middle of the street.  What will happen to South Water Street; if it’s not maintained and it becomes the responsibility of the town.   Mr. Flanigan submitted signatures in opposition of the project.  Just because something was approved in this area years ago doesn’t mean it should be approved today.  He agrees the signatures from the business people would be in favor of the project, it would be an economic benefit to them, but not to the people living there.   This would require more police, school and other services.

(Applause from the audience)

Steve DelCosta, 12C River Drive:  cited a fire professional spoke at the last meeting of not being able to get a truck through those buildings, and now the developer is focusing on more parking spaces? It’s not safe.

(Applause from the audience)

Tony D., South Water Street:  questioned if anyone had been on South Water Street when the kids are playing baseball or soccer; we need to consider their safety.

(Applause from the audience)

Deborah Krenshaw, Riverview Drive:  doesn’t believe PRDs are for this application, they should be to provide more open space, if apartments are to be built in PRDs there should be more of an Open Space allocation than in SDDs.   Mr. Chapman came under an SDD and set aside 40% for Open Space and offered to put in a sewer line the town has been needing, they got 4 apartments/unit.   Phoenix Farms is coming under a PRD and are offering 30% Open Space, which is less than the Chapman’s offered.  Phoenix is not putting in a sewer line.   They want 17 apartments/buildable acre, which is nearly 5 times more than the Chapman’s got.  Why should they get a better deal than the Chapman’s.   If the Chapman’s called their development they could get 19 apartments/acre and would
have gotten over 1,000 apartments rather than the 200 the asked for.   Apartments don’t belong on this land, and even if they were allowed she doesn’t understand how they should go under a PRD when they are not giving up anything.                        

(Applause from the audience)

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

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

The Commission RECESSED at 8:15 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:23 P. M.

Vice Chairman Gowdy queried the audience for additional comments:

Bethany …………., 241 South Water Street:  just purchased her first home and feels her property value will decrease.

Mike Cruzer, 241 South Water Street:  felt with the number of cars being generated from this development, and if anyone who comes up to the stop light at South Water Street and Route 5 and knows the traffic conditions, cars blow through the stop lights, if you add 170 more cars you will have major accidents.

Wesley Hills, 2 Gardner Street:  wanted to clarify that with regard to the Chapman’s development we aren’t getting the sewer line, we’re paying for it.

Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested he will respond to most of the comments at the continuation of the Public Hearing but he did want to clarify that the Hirschfields have not owned the adjacent property, Rivergate – which has now become River Hollow – in 30 years; they sold it to their financial partner 30 years ago.   The violations cited by the public were not their violations.

Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated he wanted to be able to address what was on the Commission’s minds at the next Public Hearing, he queried the Commission for issues that concerned them.  Commissioner Kehoe suggested he would like to hear more about the infiltra stone, to get it to be in place you need 90% compaction and he would like to see how/what water infiltration does to them.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested he was ok with the information presented.  Town Planner Whitten suggested she had nothing at this moment, but would like time to review the significant material that was submitted at this Hearing.   Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested he has concerns, but he has so much information to digest.   He indicated he was part of the decision that maybe this should be pursued as a PRD but at that time there wasn’t much said because the project was speculation.   He has concerns that this project should be presented under a PRD vs. a SDD.  

Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated the Public Hearing would be continued, and they would be allowed to submit additional data.  Town Planner Whitten suggested that would be the last time they would be able to give testimony.   Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested he will try to give whatever information is necessary.   Vice Chairman Gowdy indicated that if there were other concerns the Planning staff would get back to them.

MOTION: To CONTINUE the Public Hearing on the Application of  Phoenix Farm Company, LLC - Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit to allow a Planned Residential Development of 192 units (revised to 172 units) of residential apartments in nine buildings (revised to eight 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 2/14/2006 at 7:00 P. M. at the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

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

MOTION: To TABLE DISCUSSION on the Application of  Phoenix Farm Company, LLC - Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit to allow a Planned Residential Development of 192 units (revised to 172 units) of residential apartments in nine buildings (revised to eight 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 2/14/2006 at 7:00 P. M. at the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

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

CONTINUED HEARING:  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, OLD BUSINESS:  White Pine, LLC - 2-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 extended to 1/24/06):

Town Planner Whitten noted the Commission has before them a request for a timeframe extension for all Applications dated 1/24/2006 for White Pines, LLC, - the SDD and Site Plan Application until 2/14/2006, and the Subdivision Application until 2/14/2006 as
well.   The reason for this request is the Applications are now before the Wetlands Commission and the State Statutes allow that if the Applications expire and they are still before the Wetlands Commission they can still have 35 more days based on the Wetlands action.  That would take the Applications through February or March.

MOTION: To ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR BOTH 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, OLD BUSINESS:  White Pine, LLC - 2-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 2/14/2006 at 7:00 P. M. at the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

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

OLD 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 extended to 1/24/06):

Vice Chairman Gowdy read the description of this Item of Business.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Tyler, representing the Applicant; and Marek Kement, engineer for the project.

Attorney Tyler indicated he has prepared a letter to request an extension of time for this Application in case there were might not be a sufficient number of Commissioner members in attendance to make a decision on this subdivision this evening.  He indicated that they are requesting waivers in relation to this subdivision, which requires a 3/4 vote and the attendance of 4 Commissioner members.   Attorney Tyler suggested that even if there were 3 unanimous votes it would be defective so he is requesting to have this item added to the Commission’s Special Meeting being held Monday, 1/30/2006 to discuss regulations revisions/POD amendments.    The Commission felt the request could be honored; Attorney Tyler submitted the extension letter.

Attorney Tyler suggested the major issues raised at the previous meeting centered around the Sewer Avoidance Area, and the Commission was awaiting a legal opinion from Town Attorney Penny and Attorney Cummings, legal counsel for the WPCA.  He noted the Commission has received a reply (via memo dated 1/24/2006 to Town Planner Whitten) from Town Attorney Penny, which cites the following findings:   Town Attorney  Penny  indicates  it is possible  that the Commission could approve a subdivision located within the Sewer Avoidance Area designated on the map drafted in 1998 by the then Town Planner and based on a 1992 map drawn by the WPCA.  Town Attorney Penny further noted in his memo that he wants the Commission to understand that he is not recommending this result, but is noting that it is possible for the Commission to reach this result. Attorney Tyler noted that Town Attorney Penny put much emphasis on the role of the WPCA in making the decision with regard to sewer capacity, and the Applicant must make a case before the PZC that it’s “more reasonably probable than not” that they will receive approval from the WPCA.   Attorney Tyler suggested they have provided this Commission with a letter from the WPCA which indicates there is sufficient capacity to provide sewer usage; he noted they are willing to make that a condition of this subdivision approval.  Attorney Tyler also noted the Commission didn’t want to put the Town in a position of subjecting it to liability for that decision should capacity not be available, and thus jeopardize future State funding. He referenced Town Attorney Penny’s response that the area is within a sewer avoidance area on the State’s Plan of

Conservation and Development; no update to that plan has been requested by East Windsor.  Town Attorney Penny suggests “the full implications of an approval in this circumstance are not clear, though they would appear to impact the Town’s future qualification for State sewer grant monies.  It is his understanding that the present and foreseeable availability of such funds.... is remote.”  Attorney Tyler indicated Town Attorney Penny is saying he considers it a remote possibility that such a decision would impact State funding.

Attorney Tyler felt the thing that was not in the Hearing that he feels is important is the private developer is paying for this sewer expansion; it’s not public funds.  

Attorney Tyler also noted that Town Attorney Penny had indicated other than the possibility of unfavorable soil conditions on the site to support septic systems the real issue presented to the Commission is a zoning matter, which Attorney Tyler suggested would be something like a zone change or a change to density.  He suggested they are not seeking to increase the density, or change the zone; they are just doing what is there already.   Attorney Tyler suggested they are please with this legal opinion.

Commissioner Kehoe questioned if they could do this subdivision with septic systems?  There are other septic systems in the neighborhood; could that be an option?   Attorney Tyler replied affirmatively, but they didn’t choose to do so.   They did discuss that with the WPCA, and could they handle it; he suggested the PZC doesn’t have a procedure to do a preliminary discussion.   Vice Chairman Gowdy corrected Attorney Tyler, noting the Commission did in fact hold preliminary discussions with potential applicants.  Attorney Tyler felt things were rushed because of the moratorium.

Vice Chairman Gowdy noted the Commission has had a chance for the Town Assessor to look at the property value.   Attorney Tyler noted Mr. Kement received a copy from Town Planner Whitten; they could talk to the Town Assessor if the Commission had concerns.  He suggested the appraisal is higher than what was on the Assessor’s card with regard to Fair Market Value; the Assessor’s numbers are higher than that.   He would like to speak with her regarding this issue.   

Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested the applicant was in a bind to even talk about the value of the property; that’s the position the Applicant has put the Commission in by postponing this Application for so long.   Discussion on this Application began at the previous meeting at 11:45 P. M. after a long meeting; now the Commission should be making a decision tonight based on information they haven’t had an opportunity to review.    Attorney Tyler felt the plans were filed some time ago; Vice Chairman Gowdy indicated the Commission saw the plans for the first time at the last meeting.   Attorney Tyler suggested he was not aware the Commission had not seen the plans prior to that.  

Attorney Tyler suggested the other issues to consider is the request for a waiver for the extension of cul-de-sac from 800’ to 1,000’.   Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if that applied because of the configuration of the cul-de-sac?   Mr. Kement suggested the length

of the cul-de-sac would be from the new intersection, which is greater than 800’; it’s 1020’ or 1060’.

Mr. Kement also wanted to reference a comment made at the previous meeting that the layout wasn’t appealing, or that he could have done better.  He noted there is an existing water line that runs through their project that services Hemlock Court; he had to put the layout as he did to accommodate that water line.  

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if the cul-de-sac for Quarry road is a permanent or temporary cul-de-sac?   Mr. Kement suggested it’s a permanent cul-de-sac but there is a question of Myers possibly connecting to it.  Attorney Tyler suggested it was designed for the pipe to be sufficient width to take sewerage from Hemlock Court.  Vice Chairman Gowdy requested clarification that Hemlock Court is on septic systems?   Mr. Kement replied affirmatively, for now.  

Attorney Tyler suggested they are also asking for waivers for sidewalks and granite curbs, which they feel are consistent with what the Commission has done on other projects.  Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested the Commission doesn’t often require sidewalks, and he doesn’t know of any other subdivisions with granite curbs, but he noted he is only speaking as one Commissioner.

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if the property owners coming down Depot Street will be able to tap into the sewer line?   Mr. Kement suggested the system will be gravity fed with a pump station; he believed there would have to be a developer’s agreement for use of the line.  There would be check valve manholes with potential tie-ins.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned if there was a driveway to the pump station; how will you service it?  Mr. Kement replied there will be a driveway.

Vice Chairman Gowdy noted the plans need to be updated with landscaping and lighting details.   Mr. Kement understood, noting they have put in street lights and there is no vegetation on the site now as it was previously a gravel pit.  The addition of trees will benefit the site.   Commissioner Kehoe questioned what type of trees will be planted?   Mr. Kement indicated that hasn’t been discussed at this point.  

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if there were any sight distance concerns for the new street where it intersects with Depot Street?   Mr. Kement suggested they are in excess of 270’ so they do have adequate sight lines.   He also noted that question was a comment raised by Town Engineer Norton.  Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if Town Engineer Norton had any comments with regard to this proposal?   Town Planner Whitten noted he raised some concerns but nothing that couldn’t be overcome by conditions of approval.  She noted his memo of 1/10/2006 cited 3 concerns; all could be made conditions of approval.  Town Planner Whitten also noted receipt of a positive memo for capacity from the Connecticut Water Company, and the availability of sewer capacity from the WPCA.   They have been before the Inland/Wetlands Commission, and have been issued a permit; they need to go to Ellington but that’s a different issue.  Attorney Tyler suggested

Attorney Sherman, who is representing the Applicant with regard the Town of Ellington, is present if the Commission has any questions.   Vice Chairman Gowdy indicated the Commission had no questions at this time.  

Attorney Tyler requested this Application be added to the Agenda for the Commission’s Special Meeting being held on 1/30/2006.

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 Special Meeting on 1/30/2006 at 6:30 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

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

NEW BUSINESS:  NNRC, LLC (James H. Nilsson, Jr.) - Site Plan Approval for construction of a two-story office building and parking improvements for property located at 45 Gardner Street & 100 Bridge Street.  [B-1 Zone; Map 1, Block 3, Lots 7, 8,, & 9].  (Deadline for decision 2/16/06):

Vice Chairman Gowdy read the description of this Item of Business.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates, representing NNRC, LLC, and the Nilsson family, and the Applicant, James Nilsson.

Mr. Ussery reported the proposal is for Site Plan Approval for an office building to be located in Geissler’s Plaza at Bridge Street.  He indicated that Sheet 3 shows an overall view of the plaza; the new 2 story office building will contain 3300 square feet of useable office space and will be located on Gardner Street.  Mr. Ussery noted the plaza predates many Zoning Regulations, however, they are proposing the following modifications:  1) the are reducing some impervious coverage by removing bituminous area at the rear of the plaza, 2) they will be restriping the front parking, and adding some islands and landscape vegetation.   

Even with the new office building there will be a slight reduction in the amount of impervious coverage.  Mr. Ussery noted the made an Application before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the amount of impervious coverage; 65% is allowed, they currently have 82.3%, with the proposed reductions they will have 82.1%; the ZBA has granted them a various on the amount of impervious coverage.   Mr. Ussery indicated they also requested a variance for the amount of maximum building coverage; 20% is allowed, the existing amount is 20.9%, with the proposed office building they will have 21.4%.  The ZBA granted them a variance for the 21.4%.

Mr. Ussery noted the parking calculations are based on the square footage of the existing retail space and the office building.  He indicated 264 spaces are required; with the restriping they will be providing 274 parking spaces.  

Mr. Ussery suggested the new building will be located in the area of the expansion of the bituminous parking area near the retaining wall.  The new building will be built at the level of the existing parking area; access would be through the plaza on the north west corner of the building, which would include handicapped access.  The existing single family home, which is access by a driveway off of Bridge Street, will remain; they are adding a turn around area to the driveway rather than requiring people to back out into Bridge Street.  The site is served by electricity, sewer, and water.  

Mr. Ussery indicated there is an existing storm pipe on Gardner Street which ties into the plaza; this will pick up the increase in run off.   Town Engineer Norton has reviewed the proposal and is satisfied with the design; he has no issues at this point.

Mr. Nilsson showed the Commission a rendering of the elevation of the new office building from several directions.  He suggested the exterior while be clapboard to tie into the single family home; the color will be similarly.  There will be landscaping along the new building, with trees along the back and shrubbery around the building.  

Mr. Nilsson also indicated that the ZBA requested that he remove the garage of the existing home; it’s a flat roof and he was debating what to do with it so he wasn’t opposed to eliminating it.  Mr. Ussery questioned if was a coverage issue?   Mr. Nilsson believed it was.  Town Planner Whitten questioned if the calculations for impervious coverage were based on removal of the garage?   Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively.  Town Planner Whitten questioned if the turn around for the single family home would be paved?   Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively.  Town Planner Whitten noted it was not required to be paved; it could be gravel.  Mr. Nilsson suggested it’s his intent to overlay the whole plaza and realign the entrance.  Town Planner Whitten noted the Applicant has worked well with Staff to reduce the impervious coverage and add landscaping, with the thought that this might be a Village District in time.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned that the existing lights were from the CL&P poles?   Mr. Ussery indicating they were not proposing to add any more lighting at this point.  

Commissioner Kehoe questioned if there was an existing sidewalk along Bridge Street?   Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively.  Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned how long the sidewalk would be in front of the office?   Mr. Ussery indicated 165+/- feet.   Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if they are proposing any lighting in that area?   Mr. Ussery indicated there was none there now.  Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested perhaps that would be an appropriate place for some illumination.   Mr. Ussery indicated they could add something.

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned what the sight lines were on Bridge Street?   Mr. Ussery suggested they were not proposing any changes to the entrance in and out, and they are improving it for the single family residence.  

Mr. Nilsson questioned if there had been a question about the air conditioning?   Mr.

Ussery suggested there was a comment about screening; there would be a condenser outside for the air conditioning but there would be landscaping around it.  

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if they would need a dumpster for the office building?   Mr. Nilsson suggested everything would be processed through the store.

Vice Chairman Gowdy asked if there would be any additional signage.   Mr. Nilsson replied negatively.

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of NNRC, LLC, c/o James H. Nilsson, requesting a Site Plan Approval for construction of an office building and parking lot improvements at 47 Gardner Street and 100 Bridge Street, B-1 Zone, Assessor Map 1, Blk 3, Lot 7,8, & 9.  This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)

        Referenced Plans:

·       Cover Sheet – “NNRC. LLC, 47 Gardner Street & 100 Bridge Street, East Windsor CT, property of NNRC, LLC, P.O. Box 887, East Windsor, CT prepared by  J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. (860) 623-0569, Fax (860) 623-2485  Scale as noted, Dated 08-05-05, rev 9/30/05

·       Set Includes:

·       Sheet 2 of  7, Boundary Survey

·       Sheet 3 of  7, Site Plan, 40 scaleLayout Plan, Scale 1” = 20’

·       Sheet 4 of  7, Site Plan, 20 scale

·       Sheet 5 of  7, Erosion and Sediment Notes

·       Sheet 6 of  7, Detail Sheet, scale as shown

·       Sheet 7 of  7, Detail Sheet, scale as shown

-Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:

1.      A paper copy of the final approved plans (revisions included) shall be submitted to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of final plans.

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



3.      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 plans.

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

4.      One set of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission.  Both sets shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.

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

6.      A preconstruction meeting between staff and developer and contractor is required prior to commencement of any construction.

7.      A zoning permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

8.      Final grading and seeding shall be in place or a bond for the unfinished work submitted.

9.      Final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, driveways and final floor elevations as well as spot grades shall be submitted.

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

General Conditions:

11.     In accordance with Section 13.5.4 of the Zoning Regulations, any approval of a site plan application shall commence the construction of buildings within one year from the date of approval and complete all improvements within five years of the date of approval, otherwise the approval shall become null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

12.     This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the filed plans.  Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts

may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.

13.     Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the site plan is subject to the approval of the town engineer.

14.     Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.

15.     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

16.     All landscaping shall be maintained.

(Additional Condition):

17.     That illumination be provided for th sidewalk adjacent to the new office building, details to be worked out by Staff.

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

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

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

The Commission RECESSED at 9:18 P. M. and RECONVENED at 9:24 P. M.

INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS:  David Monaco  - Preliminary discussion for condo development at Adam’s Den, Main Street, Broad Brook:

Vice Chairman Gowdy advised the audience that the informal discussion with Mr. Monaco will be tabled to the Commission’s 2/28/2006 Meeting.

INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS:  Botticello - Informational Discussion - Power Plant at NORCAP - CT. Siting Council Jurisdiction:

Vice Chairman Gowdy read the description of this Item of Business.  Appearing to discuss this issue were Attorney Andrew Glassman; Mark Zessin and Scott Atkins of Anchor Engineering.

Attorney Glassman reported the Applicant has an application pending before the Siting Council, the petition is for the development of a 3.2 megawatt renewal energy plant on the NORCAP property.  Attorney Glassman indicated the jurisdiction for this plant is with the Siting Council, but they are interested in input from the Town.

Vice Chairman Gowdy advised the public this is not a Public Hearing so the Commission will not take public comments.

Mr. Zessin reported the NORCAP landfill contains 45+/- acres located on both sides of the railroad tracks; they also own 150 acres near the landfill (80 acres to the west, 40 acres to the south, and 20 and 14 acres to the north).  He indicated that the existing methane is disposed of through an existing flare treatment system, which burns the gas and allows the heat to escape through a stack.  He suggested there are 2.4 million tons of decomposing materials which could be a renewable energy source; instead of sending the heat up the stack the would recover it to get power.  Mr. Zessin suggested the State is now offering financial incentives to the owners of landfills to generate electricity.   This is often done in industrial areas where there are users nearby.   For this project they will have 2 internal combustion, low emission Caterpillar engines and a post-combustion gas treatment system located within a 40’ x 80’ building.

Mr. Zessin suggested they did an acoustics evaluation, which determined that at the property line north to the Charbonneau property, or east the Maslak property, the levels are consistent with State levels.  The human ear wouldn’t be able to tell the sound level now, and won’t be able to hear the sound level from this project.

Mr. Atkins appeared to describe the post-combustion gas treatment system.

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if there was a maintenance program?   Mr. Atkins indicated the pollution control system will shut down for less than a day to change the filters, etc.

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned what would happen with the energy?   Mr. Zessin indicated the amount of energy generated from the 2 engines will be low; the best use would be to connect it back to the power pole on the site and send it to the grid at Wapping Road.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned, other than the environmental issues, what benefit is there for East Windsor?  Mr. Zessin suggested the equipment and building would be subject to property taxes.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned what was the likelihood of the Siting Council deciding in your favor?   Attorney Glassman suggested there was an unusual level of enthusiasm for this project by the utilities and the regulators, and it’s better for the municipality.  Town Planner Whitten concurred that the Siting Council seemed in favor of the proposal; the Applicant is here to get the Town’s blessing and to inform the Town.  

MOTION: That the East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission is in favor of this project for a power plant and supports it at the location of the NORCAP site.



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

BUSINESS MEETING/(1)  Review of Bylaws:

With the other items on the Commission’s Agenda Town Planner Whitten indicated she was not able to discuss the requested changes with the Town Attorney.

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)  Correspondence:

Town Planner Whitten noted receipt of letter dated 1/18/2006 from J. R. Russo & Associates requesting a 30 extension for the opening of the Public Hearing on the proposed Zone Change for the south side of Phelps Road.

MOTION: To ACCEPT the Applicant’s request to extend the opening of the Hearing date for the Application of SAS, Inc. for a Zone Change, South Side Phelps Road, to the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on 3/14/2006 at 7:00 P. M. at the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

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

BUSINESS MEETING/(3)  Staff Reports:

Town Planner Whitten gave to the Commission the handouts for the next moratorium meeting being held on January 30, 2006.  She noticed at the previous meeting there was some discussion of the transfer of development rights, which is discussed in these handouts.

Town Planner Whitten also advised the Commission she will be meeting with Don Poland shortly regarding the review of Zoning Regulations.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  January 10, 2006:

MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Public Hearing #1471 dated 1/10/2006 as written.

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

SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS:

        *       Plantation Pines Subdivision

        *       Onofrio

ADJOURNMENT:


MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 10:11 P. M.

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



Respectfully submitted,



__________________________________________

Peg Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Recording Secretary