Town of East Windsor, CT - January 30, 2006 Special Meeting Minutes

January 30, 2006 Special Meeting Minutes

TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR

Planning and Zoning Commission

Special Meeting #1474

January 30, 2006

***** Draft Document - Subject to Commission Approval *****

The meeting was called to order at 6:35 P. M. by Chairman Guiliano in the Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:

A quorum was established as five Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Ouellette, Rodrigue, and Saunders), and two Alternate Members (Kehoe arrived at 6:50 P. M. and Tyler) were present. Also present were Glenn Chalder, AICP, principal in Planimetrics, Town Planner Whitten, and Wetlands Agent/Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek. The Commission presently carries one vacancy.

WORKSHOP: Residential/Open Space Regulations:

Mr. Chalder opened discussion noting he has provided the following booklets for review this evening: Booklet 4 - Possible Zoning Regulation Strategies, Booklet 5 - Possible Subdivision Regulation Strategies, and Booklet 6 - Possible POCD Amendments. He noted that since the last meeting he has separated review of zoning and subdivision regulations into two booklets, incorporating comments, and their resulting revisions, into Booklets 4 and 5.

Under Booklet 4- Possible Zoning Regulation Strategies, the major change involved discussion of Section 5.1.17 - Age Restricted Elderly Housing. One proposal would be to eliminate the entire (current) Section 5.1.17 and replace it instead with a new Section 22, page 15- Age Restricted Housing District (ARHD) which requires an application to request a Zone Change for an ARHD anywhere in town. This gives the Commission the maximum discretion possible under Connecticut State law; if it were deemed appropriate in the area proposed the Commission would approve the Zone Change Application, and if it were not considered appropriate the Commission would vote against the proposal. If the Commission approved the Zone Change that would be followed by an application for a specific plan of development under a Special Use Permit, which would ensure that the Commission wouldn’t see one Site Plan under the Zone Change Application and another/different Site Plan under the Special Use Permit Application.

Under Booklet 5 - Possible Subdivision Regulation Strategies, Mr. Chalder noted he has made updates based on comments made at the previous meeting, but has made no major changes.

With regard to Booklet 6 - Possible POCD Amendments, Mr. Chalder indicated he is proposing the following strategies: 1) Clarify strategies for aquifer protection, 2) Identify a density Plan, 3) Development areas appropriate for Multi-Family Residential Development, and 4) Develop a Sidewalk/Trail Plan to develop infrastructure for pedestrian circulation. He referenced pages 4 and 5, noting they have suggested a new map to guide location for multi-family housing. Multi-family housing would not be approved if the project is proposed in the green area, which is identified as rural areas. Mr. Chalder suggested it’s essentially the same as the Sewer Avoidance Area Map, but separates the management of sewer capacity from use of the land. A multi-family development might be considered appropriate for an area if a developer came along and wanted sewers, the WPCA would consider giving the developer capacity and the Commission makes the decision if it’s a good land use, but the decision making process is not based on the sewer map.

Chairman Guiliano requested discussion turn to Booklet 5 - Page 7 - Open Space Requirements. He reiterated the Commission’s frustration in dealing with previous Aged 55 and Over developments in which the developer interpreted essentially green area - back and side yards, areas under decks, etc. to be applicable to the Open Space Requirements, which was not the Commission’s intent. Chairman Guiliano noted he does not yet see a clear explanation of Open Space to eliminate the reoccurrence of such interpretation.

Mr. Chalder suggested in Booklet 4, Page 11, Sections 8A.10.6.1 and 8A.10.6.2 which relates to multi-family districts, and page 18, Section 22.11, which relates to Age Restricted Districts, he has introduced new language to specify the coverage requirements for developments. This language indicates that “no more than 45% of the gross land area of the parcel may be covered by buildings, driveways, and parking areas” (impervious coverage), and that “at least 55% of the gross land area of the parcel must be devoted to lawns and other landscaped areas, walkways, terraces and sitting areas, outdoor recreation areas and patios.” He then noted that under Booklet 5, Open Space Requirements, Page 8, Section 7.4 Dedication Requirements, any land dedicated as open space must be deeded to the Town of East Windsor, a land trust, or a recognized conservation organization. The proposed regulation changes set the overall coverage limitations on a parcel and the Commission can set the Open Space Requirements (20% Multi-Family Development, 20% Conventional Subdivison, or 30% Planned Residential Development) or accept a Fee-In-Lieu of Open Space.

Chairman Guiliano requested clarification that the open space allocation must be continuous, not little pieces of lawns, side yards, etc.? Mr. Chalder replied affirmatively. Chairman Guiliano reiterated reference to Open Space must be very clear not in include the land under the porches, etc. Town Planner Whitten suggested Open Space doesn’t include livability space; Chairman Guiliano noted in the Aged Restricted Developments you don’t own the land between the buildings - developers came in and used that as Open Space because the definition was not clear. Mr. Chalder suggested the language could be changed to specify that “no more than 45% of the gross land of the parcel can be

impervious coverage”, and not specify types of impervious coverage. Chairman Guiliano questioned what the space between the buildings qualifies as; Mr. Chalder suggested it is non-impervious. Chairman Guiliano indicated that should not qualify as Open Space. Mr. Chalder suggested changing the language under Section 8.A.10.6.2 to the following options: 1) 20% of the land deeded to the Town, land trust, or recognized conservation organization, 2) fee-in-lieu of Open Space, or 3) modification or waiver of the requirement by the Commission.

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Kehoe arrived at 6:50 P. M.

Chairman Guiliano questioned Town Planner Whitten if she was happy with the proposed changes in definition; Town Planner Whitten suggested she is getting there but agrees there needs to be clarification that the lawns, etc. are not part of Open Space.

Rand Stanley, 87 Rye Street, speaking from the audience, questioned if there was a Statutory definition of Open Space? Town Planner Whitten indicated there is no such definition.

Chairman Guiliano noted when the Commission deals with an application the developer considers the space between the houses, etc. as Open Space. Mr. Chalder suggested it must be 20% of the parcel and a separate piece deeded to someone else. When the regulations spoke of livability space it allowed people to use the side yards, etc.; he suggested changing the language to 20% of the parcel deeded to a third party, or fee-in-lieu of Open Space, or Commission modification or waiver it changes that interpretation. Chairman Guiliano cited concern that with the 55 and Over developments it’s more of a condo form of ownership so the much of the property is common area and could be misinterpreted as being applicable to fill the Open Space Requirement. Town Planner Whitten felt the Commission wanted to see a blob of contiguous land; Mr. Chalder suggested the Commission consider adding a picture of the intended open space as an example.

Discussion continued, with Don Arcari and Bob Lyke, speaking from audience, offering definition language. Mr. Chalder suggested open space is one of the most misunderstood concepts in Connecticut; he noted that as a planner he would define open space as land publicly owned and available for public use, but residents define it as any land not developed.

Town Planner Whitten questioned if the Commission wants an allocation of just a blob of land, or would they consider a nice buffer, such as a 50’ landscape buffer along the property line or the street? Chairman Guiliano felt a buffer might be appropriate around a PRD or a multi-family development; Commissioner Tyler felt a buffer isn’t deeded to another party; Commissioner Rodrigue suggested it’s not used by others.

Discussion then turned to the question of value; Commissioner Tyler felt if open space was deeded to another entity then it would be taken off the tax rolls. Mr. Chandler cited

studies in New England which have indicated that open space adjacent to another property makes that adjacent property worth more. Commissioner Tyler felt the allocation of open space reduces the lot yield, thereby reducing the value. Mr. Chandler suggested the regulations are set up to define the allowable house sites and that’s what the developer is purchasing, and what they choose to give as open space, or a fee-in-lieu of open space, is up to them. He suggested the only specification in State law is that the fee-in-lieu must be 10% of the pre-development value of the land. Commissioner Tyler cited concern that the Commission’s requirement for a 20% open space allocation will reduce the value of the land being offered to the seller; Chairman Guiliano felt it would be the opposite. Mr. Chalder offered an example of total acreage, netting out unbuildable land, then applying the density factor to get a lot yield. He suggested that’s what the developer will be dealing with, the lot yield, and that will not be affected by the amount of open space offered.

Commissioner Tyler questioned if the Commission would be taking 20% of the land off the tax rolls? Mr. Chalder indicated that the Town, the land trust, or the recognized conservation organization are all tax exempt but the lots have more value because they are adjacent to open space. Carol Madore, East Windsor Tax Assessor, speaking from the audience, suggested what she has learned is when you locate property backing up to or beside open space or recreational land you create more valuable land because people know this land will still always be open space. Commissioner Tyler felt the developer purchasing the land wouldn’t want to pay for the land he would be giving up for open space. Chairman Guiliano suggested if the developer is purchasing land to build on, the open space isn’t the developer’s, it’s turned over to the town or a land trust, or a recognized conservation organization. He noted that what the Commission is proposing now is no different than it’s been doing; it’s just being proposed in a different way. Commissioner Tyler reiterated his concern for the person who’s held on to his land for several years with the expectation of selling someday; he doesn’t want to penalize them. Chairman Guiliano concurred, but noted the Commission is trying to set a development pattern for the town. Discussion followed regarding the statutory requirement of 10% of the pre-development value, the developer’s submission of the pre-development value of a parcel, the Commission’s ability to require additional appraisals to confirm that value, and the assistance of the Town Assessor in determining the fair market value of a parcel.

Town Planner Whitten returned to the question of a buffer fulfilling the Commission’s requirement for open space? She noted that with previous SDD and multi-family applications the Commission seems to want a large buffer and the development set back from the roadway, also, with the AAH the Commission seemed to want them set back and hidden. Mr. Chalder felt the Commission should set a specific distance for buffers under Age Restricted Housing Districts - Booklet 5, Page 19, and then consider changing to a flexible buffer regulation outside the parameters of this current consulting project. He suggested Avon has such regulations in place and could be used as an example.

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

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

The Commission RECESSED at 7:34 P. M. and RECONVENED at 7:44 P. M.

Bill Loos, Melrose, speaking from the audience, questioned if the buffer was open space for the public or only the people who live in the apartments? Mr. Chalder indicated the development buffer area is not open space and isn’t available to the public, but is available to the people living in the condos. The buffer is non-impervious surface but is not open space. Mr. Loos felt the developer was considering the buffer as part of the open space by saying the walking trail around the development was part of the open space. Mr. Chalder suggested private open space as a trail around a development is fine if that’s what the Commission wants because it gives access to the river corridor.

Noreen Farmer, South Water Street, speaking from the audience, questioned what if the developer runs utilities through the open space? Town Planner Whitten suggested then an easement is involved. Mr. Chalder suggested most open space is land preserved in perpetuity, installation of a sewer line wouldn’t violate that concept (while location of a highway would), and an easement would be used.

Bill Loos, Melrose, questioned if the developer needs to give access to the open space? Mr. Chalder suggested that in some situations even if the open space were not accessible but is along the back and could provide a greenway along the river it still could be favorable.

Bob Lyke, Rye Street, questioned if the 3% of the gross land area required for recreational space under multi-family developments is 3% of the 30% allocable to open space, or is it in addition to the open space? Commissioner Gowdy suggested it’s in excess of the open space requirement, not part of it; Mr. Chalder suggested it’s in addition to the open space allocation. Chairman Guiliano clarified that the 30% requirement for open space is under the PRD regulations, while the multi-family developments (including SDDs/condos) was 20%. Discussion continued regarding definitions of buildable vs. non-buildable land.

Chairman Guiliano suggested he would like to turn discussion to consideration of installation of sidewalks. He noted he has spoken with people who live in developments; their response as to the favorability of sidewalks was split down the middle. Commissioner Tyler felt they should be required in multi-family developments, or single family developments where there is the possibility of traffic reaching 15 - 20 mph; he felt possibly not for narrow streets. Commissioner Rodrigue felt sidewalks had their pluses, but maintenance and repair were disadvantages. Commissioner Ouellette agreed that people use the sidewalks in his development daily, both people living there and others. He suggested if the Commission was encouraging flexibility of road designs then we need to consider installation of sidewalks for safety reasons. Commissioner Gowdy concurred for the need for sidewalks for Village Districts and Active Adult Housing, but

felt they were detrimental if the Commission wanted to keep the rural character of the Town. Discussion followed regarding the need for an ordinance to govern maintenance

responsibility, timeframe for compliance, penalties for non-compliance, and enforcement of the ordinance.

John Matthews, Melrose, speaking from the audience, agreed with Commissioner Gowdy with regard to retaining the rural character, but he noted some development roads are narrow. He suggested leaving the roads wide enough for 2 cars to pass and still allow people to walk.

Rand Stanley, 87 Rye Street, suggested he couldn’t tell the Commission how many people he has talked to from Windsor and South Windsor who feel that East Windsor is like the town they grew up in. He questioned where East Windsor will be in 20 or 30 years with all the subdivisions being contiguous? Chairman Guiliano noted that’s not the way the Commission intends growth to occur; it’s why they don’t like cookie cutter subdivisions. Mr. Stanley suggested there was no way these people he spoke with thought their towns would be the way they are today; he suggested they feel some sense of loss. Chairman Guiliano questioned if Mr. Stanley was in favor or against sidewalks? Mr. Stanley replied he would rather not say.

Mr. Chalder suggested the Commission would be treating all developers/applicants the same if they consider or waive sidewalks, or accept a fee-in-lieu of sidewalks. Mr. Chalder felt as well that there would be a higher priority for sidewalks in Village Districts.

Carol Madore, noted that in Melrose, on Margaret Drive, the road was built to handle cars and still be wide enough for pedestrians to walk; the wider road is a benefit to help pedestrian traffic. She noted people from other areas also come to Margaret Drive to walk.

Bob Lyke, suggested he didn’t feel sidewalks will solve the problem of bussing children to school as sidewalks would never be put on Old Ellington Road, as an example. He noted the Commission’s proposal on page 7, Booklet 6, referencing a trail system.

Marek Kement, speaking from the audience, questioned how the sidewalks apply to a one lot subdivision? Town Planner Whitten suggested if it doesn’t seem applicable to require that sidewalks be put in then the developer would pay a fee-in-lieu. Mr. Kement questioned what the fee would be based on? Chairman Guiliano suggested it would be based on how much it would cost to put 150’ of sidewalk in, and then it would be a percentage of that cost. Commissioner Rodrigue noted he has 600’ of frontage on his home, he questioned that if he were to split off a lot he would be required to give money for 400’ of frontage which is now farmland? Mr. Chalder suggested that in 20 years the town might be providing sidewalks in that area and the fees would already be in place.

Warner Kunzli, speaking from the audience, agreed with Commissioner Gowdy, the wider roads are excellent, and maintain the rural character for the town. He felt the open

space should be concentrated in one place, rather than many separate parcels. With regard to the trails, who would enforce them? He suggested that if the Commission wants trails, or sidewalks, they should designate where you want them, rather than consider a fee-in-lieu of either.

Mr. Kunzli suggested the Commission needed to create a Master Plan of Development. He also felt the public should bear some of the cost of open space. Commissioner Gowdy cited earlier comments regarding people’s concern for the farmer loosing income from the sale of the land because of the reduction of the size of the parcel due to the open space allocation, he cited many people have had their property for 150 years and have had it taxed under PA 490 which is reduced tax revenue. Mr. Kunzli suggested he was talking about open space that someone had to maintain, with expenses such as insurance, etc. Chairman Guiliano suggested the rest of the property is then developed so it’s generating more money than it did as farm land. Mr. Kunzli felt everyone should pay for open space, one individual shouldn’t be penalized for the loss of that land. Chairman Guiliano and Commissioner Gowdy suggested the farmer isn’t loosing the money as he’s selling the parcel to the developer, who in turn resells the land at a higher value. Mr. Kunzli suggested the farmland isn’t worth a lot of money, and the money isn’t there for the developer because of the regulation requirements for open space, set backs, etc. Discussion continued regarding the need for regulations vs. haphazard building.

Bill Loos, Melrose, cited when the apartments were built on Depot Street sidewalks were built to the pond, but not on surrounding streets, such as Maple Avenue, etc., yet people walk on those streets everyday. He felt the decision regarding sidewalks depended on the traffic a road generated; roads where houses are already developed normally don’t need sidewalks while main roads where people go 40 - 50 mph might need them.

Commissioner Tyler suggested the town may change its mind on interior roads in the future, as they often become cut through streets for other areas. He suggested provisions for sidewalks could be included on plans/mylars but could be waived if the Commission chose not to require them at the time of development. If they were needed in the future then they could be put in. Town Planner Whitten noted that in the future the cost of installation would then be the town’s. Commissioner Tyler suggested a fee-in-lieu of sidewalks could be collected if waived.

Bob Lyke, Rye Street, suggested trails are a huge liability and maintenance issue, he cited an example of problems with a recent injury at the Windsor Locks Canal trail. He noted the Commission is proposing a lot of trails under the POCD which will become the responsibility of the town at some point. Mr. Chalder gave an example of the management of trails in Farmington, where people take care of particular sections of the trails. He suggested trails are a strange phenomena; they become sort of beloved to some people. Mr. Lyke suggested he was in favor of controlled trails which don’t allow

horseback riding, motor bikes, etc.

Discussion turned to continued review of the proposed material, and setting subsequent meetings. The following meetings have been scheduled:

· Monday, February 13, 2006 @ 6:30 P. M. PUBLIC HEARING – location to be determined.

· Monday, March 6, 2006 @ 6:30 P. M. – location to be determined.

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

Gowdy moved/Saunders 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 1/30/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Tyler, representing the Applicant, Stanley J. Kement, Jr., who was also present, and Marek Kement, engineer for the project.

Chairman Guiliano asked Attorney Tyler to describe the Application for the Commission.

Attorney Tyler reported the proposal is for a 48 lot subdivision located within an R-3 Zone off Depot Street; this parcel abuts a 15 acre parcel in Ellington, which is not part of this subdivision. The parcel in East Windsor contains 48.78 acres, and is served by public water and sewers. Attorney Tyler suggested public water exists in Depot Street and comes through this parcel; the property had been committed to provide water to the adjacent subdivision. There was some concern with a possible difference in the property value because of the moratorium. Attorney Tyler suggested they went to the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA), and have received assurances that they had capacity and were wiling to provide sewer connections here. He hoped everyone was happy with the legal opinion rendered by the Town’s counsel. Attorney Tyler reported CRCOG has sent their letter indicating there is no significant impact on neighboring communities; they received approval from the East Windsor Inland/Wetlands Commission. He also noted they have received a letter from the Connecticut Water Company that city water is available.

Attorney Tyler reported they are seeking three waivers: 1) sidewalks, as there are none in the immediate area; 2) relief from granite curbs; and 3) waiving the length of the cul-de-sac (Quarry Road) from 800’ to 1020’.

Chairman Guiliano questioned what were the plans for Quarry Road, the Applicant is

leaving a 50’ right-of-way? Marek Kement indicated it’s to be a permanent cul-de-sac but they are not sure of the intent of the developer to the north with regard to a possible

connection, but they are providing a right-of-way to tie into the public sewer. Attorney Tyler reported he had a discussion with Warner Kunzli earlier this evening; he would be pleased if the Commission would allow that right-of-way.

Commissioner Gowdy indicated he had a question regarding the 10% appraisal value. Attorney Tyler indicated that rather than providing Open Space the Applicant has elected to pay a fee-in-lieu; the appraisal they submitted reflects their opinion of the raw land value. East Windsor’s Assessor has suggested a higher value; they have spoken regarding the values and are not going to quibble with our Assessor’s numbers. Chairman Guiliano indicated a disagreement would have required the submission of another appraisal. Attorney Tyler suggested they have faith in our Assessor’s determination.

Chairman Guiliano noted the timing of submission of this Application didn’t provide the Commission with a lot of time to review this application, and it’s a substantial development. Attorney Tyler indicated the Applicant has no problem with the Commission’s position, and hopes the Commission has none with them.

Commissioner Tyler questioned where the pump station would be located? Marek Kement indicated it would be a force main running down Depot Street.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned the height of the light poles; Marek Kement indicated there was a detail on the plans; he noted they are not asking for a waiver on lighting as the development this will tie into in the back is dark and lighting is a good idea. Commissioner Rodrigue noted page 22 of the plans indicates the pole height is 15’.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned what they planned for landscaping? Marek Kement suggested the area is open now as it was a gravel operation for several years; they are proposing 2 trees/lot and there is vegetation around the border. They will leave the landscaping up to the individual homeowner.

Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if fire hydrants will be installed? Marek Kement noted they are spaced through the development as mandated - at the entrance at Depot Street, somewhere near Lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if they would be installing Cape Cod curbing? Marek Kement indicated it would be standard lip curbing.

Chairman Guiliano suggested he wished Mr. Kement could have come up with a better design. Marek Kement indicated that being on the Commission he has feelings for that but with the water line there weren’t any feasible alternatives, and they need to connect to Depot Street to make it work; it made sense to put the road straight through the property.

Commissioner Saunders questioned where the water line is located? Marek Kement indicated it comes down Depot Street and is already in and serves Hemlock Court. Town

Planner Whitten suggested it’s in the same configuration as the road. Marek Kement suggested it’s on the west side of Quarry Road.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned how many feet of sewer will be installed? Marek Kement suggested close to 1800’. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if they would be providing the possibility of the people along Depot Street to tie into the sewer? Marek Kement indicated there are check valves and man holes but he deferred to Attorney Tyler for comment; Attorney Tyler suggested they didn’t know as it’s the WPCA’s decision although they did offer it to the WPCA. Town Planner Whitten reported it’s her understanding that they work out whatever is realistic.

Commissioner Ouellette noted sight lines are shown on the plans for Quarry Road and Depot Street, but questioned what they were for Boulder Court and Sullivan Road? He indicated he had no problems with the plans but was concerned with homeowners planting vegetation in the future. Attorney Tyler suggested they could put restrictive covenants on those lots.

Chairman Guiliano questioned if there were any sidewalks on Hemlock Court? Warner Kunzli replied negatively.

Commissioner Tyler indicated he was curious why they elected to go with all the force mains rather than a gravity system, as the elevations seem reasonable. Marek Kement suggested everything flows from south to north. Commissioner Tyler questioned why on Depot Street you continue the force mains? Marek Kement suggested there are low points in the road which make it unfeasible; he suggested the people on Depot Street can tie in with the check valve connections.

Attorney Tyler returned discussion to the sight line issue. He suggested someone with traffic experience could make a suggestion; Commissioner Ouellette suggested perhaps Town Engineer Norton could make a recommendation. Commissioner Gowdy suggesting addition a Condition #27 indicating that if there are sight line issues they will be handled administratively. ZEO Rudek suggesting adding fences and gateposts to the concerns for vegetation and hedgerows. Attorney Tyler indicated that if the Town Engineer, Town Planner or Zoning Enforcement Officer come up with anything they will put it in a deed restriction.

Town Planner Whitten noted the fee-in-lieu now being offered rather than Open Space is $1200 rather than the $858+.

MOTION TO APPROVE waivers of

Section 6.3 to eliminate sidewalks as no other sidewalks exist in the area; and

Appendix 1 - to eliminate granite curbing as it does not match existing curbing.

Sec 6.1.7 to extend length of cul-de-sac from 800’ to 1020’.

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

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of S.J.K. Properties for a 48 lot Subdivision at property located on the north side of Depot Street, approximately 1700’ from East Road, a.k.a. Quarry Meadows [Assessor’s Map #27, Block 77, Lot #6 & 9] R-3 Zone. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the conditions) and the following conditions of approval:

Town Planner Whitten suggested the motion regarding the fee-in-lieu should precede the consideration of the approval motion . Chairman Guiliano noted the previous approval motion dies for lack of a second.

MOTION TO APPROVE the fee in lieu of open space at 10% the fair market value as presented in appraisal which equates to $1,200 per lot.

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

Referenced Plans:

“Quarry Meadows, off Depot Street, East Windsor Connecticut, Assessors Map 27, Block 77, Lots 6 & 9, Dated September 9, 2005, prepared for Applicant SJK Properties, LLC, 296 North Road, East Windsor, CT 06016, prepared by Sanderson & Washburn, P.O. Box 55, 11 Main St., Tariffville, CT 06081, 860/658-2307 with the following sheets:

Sheet 1/23 Cover Sheet/Key Map, scale 1” = 1000’

Sheet 2/23 Subdivision Plan, scale 1” = 100’

Sheet 3-7/23 Subdivision Plan, scale 1” = 40’

Sheet 8-13/23 Site Development Plan, scale 1” = 40’

Sheet 14-19/23 Plan & Profile Sheets

Sheet 19/23 Depot Street Force Main

Sheet 20/23 Erosion & Sediment Notes

Sheet 21/23 Erosion & Sediment Details

Sheet 23/23 Construction Details

Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:

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

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

3. If a $1,200 fee per lot, payable to the Town Treasurer, is not paid prior to the filing of the final mylars, the mylars shall contain a clearly visible notation for each applicable lot stating, “Any sale or transfer of this property within five (5) years of the original (re)subdivision approval to a person not exempt under section 7.10 of East Windsor’s Subdivision Regulations shall result in the liability of payment Accepted Appraised Value of 10%) to the Town of East Windsor for the total fee as defined in Section 7.6 of East Windsor’s Subdivision Regulations”.

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

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

5. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. One set of signed fixed line mylars, Cover Sheet, Sheet 1-7/23 shall be filed with the Town Clerk by the applicant no later than 90 days after the 15 day appeal period from date of publication of decision has elapsed or this approval shall be considered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission. One full set of mylars, shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.

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

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

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

these are filed with the mylars.

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

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

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Conditions:

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

19. All deeds for public land and easements shall be submitted at the time the

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. By acceptance of this approval and conditions, the applicant, owner and/or their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.

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

(Additional Condition):

27. That should the sight line issue exist for any reason in the opinion of the Town Engineer, Town Planner, or Zoning Enforcement Officer , the issue shall be handled administratively.

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

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 9: 25 P. M.

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

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________________

Peg Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Recording Secretary