Town of East Windsor, CT - February 14, 2006 Minutes

February 14, 2006 Minutes

TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Public Hearing #1476 - February 14, 2006

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 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 one Alternate Member (Kehoe) was present. Alternate Member Tyler was absent. The Commission carries one vacancy at present. Chairman Guiliano noted Alternate Commissioner Kehoe will sit in on any Hearings/Items of Business for which any of the Regular Members step down. Also present was Town Planner Whitten.

ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:

Town Planner Whitten noted the need to go into an Executive Session at the end of the meeting to discuss pending litigation.

RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:

1. Application of Two Fifty Main EW, LLC for Site Plan Approval ffor 4,630 square foot warehouse addition to industrial building, located at 250 Main Street, E. W. (Northeast Lamp Recycling, Inc.) [B-2 Zone; Map 11, Block 15, Lots 2 & 4].

2. Application of Benson Enterprises, Inc. for Modification of Approved Site Plan to add office above garage at 11-B Pasco Drive (Village at Pasco Common). [B-1 Zone; Map 28, Block 96, Lot 19].

3. Application of David Flynn & Robert Daddario for a Special Use Permit allow car sales (Northeast Vehicle Distributors) at 84 South Main Street, owned by Vito Cortese. [TZ5 Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lot 44].

LEGAL NOTICE: None.

CONTINUED HEARING: Phoenix Farm Company, LLC - Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit to allow a Planned Residential Development of 192 units of residential apartments in nine buildings, known as River Place. Property is located on the east side of South Water Street, approximately 410 feet from So. Main St., [R-3 Zone; Map 13, Block 5, Lot 35]. (Deadline to close hearing 2/14/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Robert DeCrescenzo, representing the Applicant; Guy Hesketh, Project Engineer, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates; Scott Hesketh, Traffic Engineer, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates; Benny LeDukes, representing the architects; and Jeff Hirschfield, Executive Vice President of Hirschfield Properties and a member of Phoenix Farm Properties, LLC the Applicant.

Attorney DeCrescenzo opened discussion by advising the Commission he would like to address the Planner’s 5 comments noted under her recent memo, and also address the 2 waivers they are currently requesting; he would also like to review the standards for a Special approval under Section 20 and talk about some of the other attributes of the project to the community, and then he would like to summarize the proposal.

Guy Hesketh stepped forward, noting he did the site plans and helped with the technical parts of the application. With regard to Town Planner Whitten’s comments from her memo of January 3rd and revised to February 2nd, the first comment - to clarify what style of building has been omitted - Mr. Hesketh indicated that under the original proposal was for 9 apartment buildings and the club house; they have revised that to 8 apartment buildings and eliminated one building. In the original proposal they had 3 type “1” buildings containing 24 units, 3 units per floor, 3 stories, for a total of 24 units; 3 type “2” buildings containing 20 units within 2 1/2 stories buildings; and 3 type “1*” buildings also containing 20 units within 2 1/2 story buildings. Referencing his site plan Mr. Hesketh suggested they have eliminated “this” building, reducing the total number of units proposed from 192 to 172. They have redesignated the types of buildings and are now proposing 3 type “100” buildings within the 2 1/2 story units with 3 units on the first floor, 3 units on the second floor, and 4 units on the center section; 3 type “200” buildings containing 24 units within 3 stories; and 2 type “300” buildings containing 20 units within the 2 1/2 story buildings. Mr. Hesketh indicated they went from 192 units in 9 buildings to 172 units in 8 buildings.

With regard to the parking needs for the employees and the club house, Mr. Hesketh suggested that when they reduced the number of units from 192 to 172 Section 10.5.3 requires that they provide 2 spaces/multi-family dwelling units; 172 units times 2 requires 344 units. Mr. Hesketh suggested they are providing 357 parking spaces and are therefore in excess of the parking requirements. The 13 additional spaces will be provided for the 3 full time employees of the complex; there will be 10 additional spaces available if all of the 344 (unit) parking spaces and 3 employee spaces are filled. The additional spaces would be available for activities in the club house.

Mr. Hesketh also reported that the regulations allow that 30% of the total allocation of parking can be 8’ x 17’ compact spaces; 30% of the total parking spaces is 107 spaces

allowable for compact spaces, Mr. Hesketh suggested they are proposing 99 compact parking spaces.

* Building description appears to be duplication but testimony is taken from tape.

Mr. Hesketh noted that they are proposing 36 one bedroom units, which really only need 1 parking space. From a practical standpoint they feel 1 space is adequate but they are meeting the requirement of 2 spaces per dwelling unit.

With regard to Town Planner Whitten’s request that he review the memos from Town Engineer Norton, the WPCA (Water Pollution Control Authority), the Water Company, and the Fire Marshal, Mr. Hesketh indicated that the original plans were revised 11/11/2005 as they made changes while going through the Wetlands Hearing. The changes included a reduction in the number of units, and they are proposing the pervious material - the InfiltraStone - to meet the impervious coverage requirements. Mr. Hesketh submitted two memos from Town Engineer Norton: 1) the first indicating he had reviewed the revised plans and is satisfied that the comments were adequately addressed; and, 2) under his memo of 2/8/2006 noting his review of the written documentation submitted to him by Mr. Hesketh regarding the InfiltraStone; he recommends that the PZC can consider the InfiltraStone as pervious, rather than impervious area.

With regard to the WPCA, Mr. Hesketh submitted memo dated 2/1/2006 to Town Planner Whitten from Kevin Leslie of the WPCA noting the developer has indicated they are proposing 172 units which will connect directly into the sewer main truck line behind the project; Mr. Leslie suggested that the main is 36” and has adequate capacity to serve this project, and technical review and subsequent approvals will be requested by the applicant at a later date.

With to the Connecticut Water Company and the Fire Marshal, Mr. Hesketh indicated he had submitted the 11/2005 and revised Master Plan to Fire Marshal Clynch, and has received back an e-mail indicating he has reviewed the plans and has spoken with the Connecticut Water Company and will provide them with valid water requirements that will take care of this and we should be all set.

With regard to Town Planner Whitten’s request requesting clarification of the use of open space and the conservation easement, Mr. Hesketh indicated that he felt there was some confusion at the last meeting. He noted the Chairman of the Wetlands Commission sent correspondence requesting clarification as she was under the impression that they might provide access to the river. Mr. Hesketh indicated the applicant is proposing to dedicate the area from the top of the escarpment to the river’s edge as open space; it should be noted that this area significantly exceeds the 15% minimum requirement under Section 20.5 of the regulations as they are proposing to offer a little over 30%, and this will be protected by a Conservation Easement; there is no river access proposed. The intend to meet the provisions of the Inland/Wetlands Commission, which include: 1) removal of the farm access road and revegetate the area after installation of the sewer, 2) install Conservation Easement markers on the top of the hill, 3) the top of the hill will be planted with native vegetation, 4) inspection of erosion control devices will be made by staff prior to construction, 5) double silt fence installed at the top of the hill as requested by the erosion control authority. Mr. Hesketh indicated the Applicant is suggesting that the PZC make the conditions of the Inland/Wetlands approval conditions of this approval as well; he submitted a copy of the Inland/Wetlands Commission approval FOR THE RECORD.

Mr. Hesketh indicated Town Planner Whitten’s final comment is the quantification that the open space offered is in the same ration of buildable to unbuildable land, or to clarify the environmental preservation aspect of the open space. He suggested under Section 20.5.a indicated that an application under a PRD shall require that a minimum of 15% of the parcel as open space, parks, playgrounds or for other public purposes provided the land is preserved, and in addition, is of similar ratio of buildable to unbuildable land or will preserve environmentally sensitive areas, such as river corridors, wildlife sanctuaries, or other natural features. Mr. Hesketh indicated there was much discussion during the Wetlands Hearing regarding what jurisdiction the DEP has for the activities towards the river, and what jurisdiction the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) may have over those activities. He noted they have contacted the ACOE, there is a policy that if you any activities in an area that may contain an endangered or threatened species you may fall under a Category II determination under the Programmatic General Permit. They submitted a request for a determination regarding their proposal relative to a Category II Permit vs. a Category I, which is a Programmatic General Permit for a non-reportable activity which would be under the trigger threshold of 5,000 square feet of disturbance. As part of that review they also contacted the DEP for a Natural Diversity Database Review. Mr. Hesketh indicated the DEP has maps of the various towns in the State that has shaded areas which indicate areas that may contain species that are either endangered or threatened on a State or Federal level. Mr. Hesketh suggested the entire Connecticut River corridor falls under that area; any activity proposed adjacent to the Connecticut River and/or within the Connecticut River flood plain would be identified on the Natural Diversity Database Maps. They have submitted the forms and are awaiting a response from the DEP.

With regard to the Natural Diversity Database Reviews Mr. Hesketh noted there are two species of concern with regard to this site, the short nosed sturgeon, and the bald eagle is endangered because of the loss of their habitat. They have received a recommendation dated 2/6/2006 from Julia Victoria, Wildlife Biologist, indicating that the bald eagle is endangered because of the loss of its habitat and Winter is the most critical time for this bird; Mr. Hesketh read an excerpt from Ms. Victoria’s letter outlining feeding requirements, etc. Ms. Victoria suggested that no work be done at the base of the escarpment between 12/31/2006 and 3/1/2006 and, if possible all old growth trees of 12” or more in diameter should be left standing by the waterside; he noted they will follow that recommendation. Mr. Hesketh submitted a copy of Ms. Victoria’s letter FOR THE RECORD. With regard to the short nosed sturgeon, they have received e-mail comments from Mark Johnson, Fisheries Biologists at DEP, that there is no adverse impact with regard to this site due to the proposed development; he will conduct a final review on when relevant State officials send him a copy of the application. Mr. Hesketh read an excerpt of Mr. Johnson’s letter FOR THE RECORD. He noted the that comment was made because part of their stream channel encroachment permit review submission of the documents discussed are part of that process and the DEP has the ability to do further review if they choose to do so.

Mr. Hesketh indicated the person who coordinates between the DEP and the ACOE is Sarah Yates; he suggested they were waiting for information from her as to whether they needed to pursue review by the ACOE. Mr. Hesketh suggested they have received a letter dated 1/20/2006 from Ms. Yates which includes comments regarding the discharge of flow into the wetlands will have minimum, individual, and cumulative impact and is considered activity that which would fall under a Category I - General Permit. Mr. Hesketh read an excerpt of Ms. Yates letter (which he indicated at this point was dated 1/30/2006) FOR THE RECORD, and suggested he has received an e-mail from Sarah Yates, indicating they are all set.

With regard to concerns voiced by the neighborhood that the area they are dealing with is environmentally sensitive and is part of the river corridor, and because of the activity of the bald eagle, it could be said the area was a wildlife sanctuary, Mr. Hesketh suggested they feel they have met all 3 requirements and are preserving an environmentally sensitive area.

Chairman Guiliano suggested he felt the area under discussion is not buildable space and they can’t go any further down the river than they are already so the town already has that land. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they feel the land adjacent tot he river is agricultural land, and activities could happen as of right with regard to the agricultural zone. He also suggested there is activity that could happen, it might be difficult, lengthy, and expensive to make it happen but they disagree there is no use for that land. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested clearly agricultural use of the land could be put there. He suggested they don’t characterize what they are offering as throw-away land but it’s an important part of their development plan; they feel the town would like others to emulate the goals outlined in the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). He noted there is no access to that area and they will give a Conservation Easement to the Town; they are giving up activity use as of right. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested this is no small area. He noted they have been in contact with Nick Bellantoni, the State Archeologist, who would like to be invited onto the land to do a survey of the land before excavation.

Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested Section 20.1 permits the Commission to waive any Zoning Regulation if certain criteria have been met. He noted they originally requested 4 waivers for parking, impervious coverage, height of buildings, and the number of stories. Attorney DeCrescenzo further noted they are now meeting the standard parking requirements due to the reduction of buildings/units, and have reduced the percentage of impervious surface by use of the pervious paving material. He indicated that Town Engineer Norton has reviewed the proposal and has agreed that the area under discussion would now be pervious coverage. The are now asking for the following waivers of Zoning Regulations with regard to these requirements: 1) that the height of any structure be no greater than 30’; they are proposing a maximum building height of 42’; and 2) that no structures be more than 2 stories; they are proposing 3 buildings containing 3 stories.

Attorney DeCrescenzo then reviewed the criteria in the regulations which relate to the waivers. Regarding the comment that sound engineering practices shall be followed and approved by the Town Engineer, Attorney DeCrescenzo clarified that the criteria under discussion is relative to the waiver requests, not the entire project, and in that respect are related to the height of the buildings and the number of stories, not the overall project proposal. He suggested that the plans have been reviewed by Town Engineer Norton and other agencies and they have received no negative comments; all have given their blessing that it meets all appropriate standards for the waiver requests. He further suggested that the height of the buildings as proposed has no engineering ramifications; from the point of view of the Zoning Regulations, and from an engineering perspective, there is no difference from a 2 story or 3 story or partial 3 story building. And all applicable State Building Codes will be met.

With regard to the criteria that the granting of the waivers will not be in conflict with the POCD, Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested that with respect to the waivers with regard to the height and the number of stories they do not feel will be in conflict with the POCD. They are not proposing a height of buildings, or any mass, that are outside the character of multi-family buildings that already exist in the area of South Water Street.

Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested that another criteria is that the granting of the waivers will not have a significant adverse effect on the adjacent properties or the public health and safety. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested that if the criteria for the waivers is focused on the height and number of stories many of the adjacent properties already have multi-family developments, and the height of these proposed buildings will not be out of character with what current exists in the general vicinity. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested the height of the buildings is important to the proposal because they have said that the architectural style of the proposed the buildings needs to fit with the Colonial style of East Windsor, and needs to be distinctive and of high quality. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they are proposing architectural types and elements commonly found in New England towns; they feel that includes the steeply pitched roofs, which do add significant height to the buildings, add to the character and compatibility of what they call the palette of New England architecture. They also feel the 3 story elements of the buildings add to the architectural style.

With regard to the criteria that the physical features of the property, or its location, cause difficulty in meeting the requirements of the zoning or subdivision regulations, Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested that the regulations limit the height and number of stories of the buildings. Without the waivers they think they are limiting the features, and without the waivers it would limit their ability to meet their design goals, and their program for first class homes they want to provide.

With regard to the criteria that the property for which the waiver is sought is uniquely affected by these regulations, Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they feel they are more uniquely affected by the more stringent requirements of the current regulations than the other buildings and developments built over the last 30 years. They feel relief from those requirements doesn’t no injustice to the zoning scheme; they can build a better building more in character with the town and more aesthetically pleasing.

Attorney DeCrescenzo then indicated he would like to review the standards of the Special Permit; (he indicated there were 7 standards to be reviewed, Section 20.2 of the PRD lists 8):

1) That the location and size of the proposed use and the nature and intensity of use in relation to the size of the lot will be in harmony with the orderly development of the area and compatible with other existing uses. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated that multi-family housing has built throughout South Water Street in the vicinity of the parcel, and could be called the predominant use. What they are proposing something consistent with the surrounding uses to the north and south, and are in harmony with what’s already there; they are not proposing something that would drastically change the character of the existing vicinity. Attorney DeCrescenzo submitted a vicinity map, which was taken from them demonstration board, FOR THE RECORD.

2) That the proposed plans have provided for the conservation of natural features, drainage basins, and the protection of the environment of the area, and sustained maintenance of the development. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they feel they have gone at length about their protection of the natural corridor along the river; they feel they are proposing protection of the Connecticut River corridor in a significant way. He cited Mr. Hesketh’s comments about the bald eagle and its natural habitat; they feel their offer of preserving the bald eagle habitat forever significantly meets these standards for conservation of natural features in the drainage basins. They are also preserving the topography of the land, they are not removing a great amount of material, nor bringing in great amounts of materials; it’s clear and flat and will stay clear and flat. Also, the open space is to be preserved with the Town under a Conservation Easement forever. Attorney DeCrescenzo compared his previous discussion with what could be done with the land; he suggested that as of right, they could “do” an agricultural use, which would be exempt from Inland/Wetlands Regulations. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested then offered suggestions of what could be done with the land from an agricultural standpoint, and asked the Commission to judge if those uses could have a greater negative environmental impact that the project they are proposing. He suggested they could raise livestock, or install hothouses, or farm the land intensely and build significant structures to pump water from the river for the farming operation, and they could do all of that as of right; they would not need Special Permits. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they are not proposing to do that, but are trying to draw a distinction between the as of right uses and their potential environmental impact what they are proposing, which is a storm water design that will be controlling the quantity of water as the run off will be diminished via surface storage and retention, and they are controlling the quality of the water through the devices within that system which separate the total suspended solids before they reach they river. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested none of that would be happening with an agricultural use. which produces significant run off of uncontrolled quality.

3) That the design elements of the proposed development are attractive and suitable in relation to the site characteristics and style of other buildings in the immediate area, and that the proposed use will not alter the essential characteristics of the area. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they are proposing 2 types of buildings, full 3 story and partial 3 stories; the lowest will be in front and the highest in the back so that the 3 story buildings will be furthest from the road. They are proposing a green buffer along the entire perimeter of the site; they have eliminated one building because of the proximity to the neighboring development. They feel they have been sympathetic in their site design and they feel they are proposing a superior architectural style with quality materials and attention to details. And, they feel they have done a good job of buffering their neighbors, and have been sensitive to being a good neighbor.

4) That the streets providing access to the proposed use are adequate in width, grade, alignment and visibility, and have adequate capacity for the additional traffic generated by the proposed use. Attorney DeCrescenzo introduced Scott Hesketh, author of the 9/9/2005 Traffic Impact Report, to review comments regarding traffic issues; he indicated that a copy of that report had been submitted to the Commission. Mr. Hesketh noted that at the previous meeting a resident commented that the traffic volumes on the traffic report are based on 2001 traffic volume counts (the ConnDOT traffic volumes), which are referenced under Table I; he noted those volumes are presented for information only. Mr. Hesketh indicated they prepared an analysis in the report based on traffic volume counts conducted by his office during September, 2005; they included both automated counts on South Water Street and manual turning movement counts on South Water Street at the intersection with Route 5. They then increased those counts by 6% to a design year of 2008; the analysis was based on the 2008 background traffic volumes.

Another comment made by a number of people were that the traffic volume counts on South Water Street were just wrong. Mr. Hesketh indicated he is batting 1000; he suggested he has been doing this work for 15 years and has yet to do a traffic volume count that has been done at the correct time or observed the correct volumes. Mr. Hesketh suggested they did 3 days of counts on South Water Street with an automated traffic volume counter and the counts for all 3 days were nearly identical. The traffic volume counts for the morning and afternoon peak hours were eerily similar to each other, and the automated counts were confirmed by manual turning movement counts conducted by members of his office at South Water Street and Route 5. Mr. Hesketh suggested that although they didn’t perform counts for 22 days at 4 different times of the year he feels that the traffic volume counts presented in the report represent typical traffics flow on South Water Street and were confirmed by automated and manual means.

Mr. Hesketh suggested a third comment concerned the distribution of traffic on South Water Street and Route 5. He indicated that their report was based on the observed distribution at South Water Street and Route 5. Mr. Hesketh suggested they had indicated that the traffic on South Water Street is oriented heavily to the south on Route 5; approximately 75% of the traffic on South Water Street goes to and from the south. Many people suggested if they were going to go to work they were going to go north on Route 5 to get to the highway. While he suggested that may be true the traffic volume counts they observed on South Water Street were about 260 peak hour volume and there are a number of residential dwelling units that would suggest they would generate about that volume of traffic on South Water Street at the intersection of Route 5. Although there were a number of people who suggested they would go north there are an awful lot of people going south on South Water Street. Mr. Hesketh suggested the analysis presented in the report was based on what they observed in the field. Mr. Hesketh indicated in order to answer that question their office conducted an alternate analysis; they assumed that 100% of the traffic from this development will make a right turn out of the driveway on South Water Street, go to the intersection of South Water Street and Route 5, and go north on Route 5. He indicated they reran the report and the level of services they get under alternate analysis is to the analysis they presented in their report. Mr. Hesketh submitted an alternate analysis FOR THE RECORD. He suggested their report indicates that the level of service at that intersection would be a level of service C with 23 seconds of delay per vehicle during the A. M. peak hour; under the alternative analysis the intersection would operation at a level of service C with a 29 second delay.

Mr. Hesketh indicated another comment was that people said they couldn’t get out of the driveway during the peak hours; he suggested he was concerned with that comment as their analysis shows that people can get out of the site driveway on South Water Street with good levels of service and little delay. After review of testimony and file documentation he found most of the testimony came from the residents of Wolcott Landing, which has a driveway on Route 5 near the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Route 5 and South Water Street. Mr. Hesketh suggested there is no doubt that Route 5 is very busy; there are 2 northbound lanes at that location, one of which is a dedicated left turn lane into South Water Street. He suggested he understands that it may be difficult to make a left hand turn out of Wolcott Landing but that will remain the same if this project gets approved or not.

With regard to the number of accidents on South Water Street, Mr. Hesketh indicated that Noreen Farmer described various accidents which occurred in the vicinity of her property. He suggested the type of accidents described would have been based on speed, not the volume of traffic; he suggested someone going off the road can be mitigated by enforcement. Mr. Hesketh suggested they feel their traffic will go in the other direction, however, if all of their traffic going out of their driveway has a short distance to pick up speed to get to light and should be slowing down; traffic returning to their project would also be slowing down to make a right into the project. Mr. Hesketh suggested that type of accident being impacted or be exacerbated by this project.

Mr. Hesketh suggested that the traffic report was based on 192 single family houses which was the highest traffic generator in the residential land use area. He suggested they like to do that as people say the units will act like single family units, they are not apartments which are 10 to 12% less traffic. Mr. Hesketh suggested they use the single family housing to remove that argument when they discuss apartments or condos. Mr. Hesketh suggested they are being somewhat more conservative with their analysis. He also noted the new plan is for 172 units rather than the original 192 units; the volume of traffic should be reduced somewhat due to the reduction in the number of units. Their analysis based on multiple right turns out and left turns in to the development as that’s what their analysis indicated, although testimony would suggest otherwise; he felt that analysis is a good one as that’s the way the traffic was going and also, returning left turns generally need more time and lead to a lower level of service. Mr. Hesketh suggested with the traffic going in the other direction and the lower volumes of traffic as confirmed by the analysis the level of service should be good.

Mr. Hesketh suggested it’s their opinion that the traffic report which was prepared utilizing current engineering standards and practices; to date they have received no comments from staff regarding the methodology or the conclusions contained in that report. The report has been submitted to the State Traffic Commission to determine if this project needs to receive certification from that agency; they have determined that this development will have no significant impact on a State highway and no certificate will be required. South Water Street provides 22’ of pavement, it properly designed to accommodate the volumes of traffic anticipated with the completion of this development, the site driveway is properly located with regard to adjacent intersections and driveways and acceptable sight distances, and will operate at an acceptable level of service.

Attorney DeCrescenzo returned to discussion of the standards for the Special Use Permit.

5) That the proposed use shall have easy accessibility for fire apparatus and police protection and is laid out and equipped to further the provision of emergency services. Attorney DeCresenzo suggested that the buildings will be fully sprinklered and built to the current version of the Connecticut Fire Safety Codes and the Connecticut Building Codes. He suggested that they will be the most modern buildings on South Water Street because it will be new construction, and it may be the only multi-family buildings on South Water Street with those characteristics. The project will have a high level of fire safety by meeting the current fire safety codes. Attorney DeCrescenzo also indicated that the project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and will meet all fire safety and building codes as mentioned. The design of the interior roads have been done with access for long fire trucks and emergency vehicles to be able to navigate around the parking areas.

6) That the water supply, the sewage disposal, and the storm water drainage shall conform with accepted engineering criteria and comply with all standards of the appropriate regulatory authority. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they feel they are proposing a storm management system that not only meets the minimum standards but greatly exceeds the regulations in that they are proposing best management practices for storm water management for quality and quantity and will be state-of-the-art with a number of underground facilities to control the flow and control the quality of the discharge. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they feel that’s important because of the location adjacent to the Connecticut River. He noted the project has been reviewed by the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA), Town Engineer Norton, and the North Central Health District (NCHD), and all have given preliminary approval of the design. They feel this standard of the Special Permit approval has been met and exceeded by this proposal.

7) That the proposed plans have provided for the conservation of natural features, drainage basins, the protection of the environment of the area, and sustained maintenance of the development. (Standard not addressed during discussion.)

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

The Commission RECESSED at 8:05 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8: 15 P. M.

8) That the proposed use will not have any detrimental effects upon the public health, safety, welfare, or property values, and that the proposed use will not conflict with the purposes of the Regulations. Jeff Hirschfield, Executive Vice President of Hirschfield Properties and a member of Phoenix Farm Properties, LLC took over discussion With regard to density Mr. Hirschfield referenced a map which reflected multi-family communities in the Greater Hartford area which are of similar type, quality and standard as they are proposing for East Windsor; he offered as examples the following projects and their respective density: their project 11 1/2 units/acre; Hockanum Crossing, Vernon 10 units/acre; Pavilions at Buckland Hills, Manchester 19.8 units/acre; Manchester 12.6 units/acre; Cigna, Bloomfield 16.4 units/acre; Wethersfield 13 units/acre; Middletown - 4 projects 13 units/acre, 11 units/acre, 12.7 units/acre and 20.2 units/acre. Mr. Hirschfield suggested they chose these projects as all were recently built and are comparable to their project, River Place. He suggested what they are proposing is at the lower end of the scale of what is available in Greater Hartford. A copy of the map referenced by Mr. Hirschfield was submitted FOR THE RECORD.

With regard to the South Water Street area, there are 2 condominium communities and one rental community; Mr. Hirschfield suggested their proposed rental use is consistent with the rental uses present in the immediate area. He noted there is Wolcott Landing with a 6 units/acre; River Ridge - 6 1/2 units/acre, and River Hollow - 12 units/acre. Mr. Hirschfield suggested both River Ridge and River Hollow are contained on significantly smaller sites than that proposed for River Place. He suggested that the Zoning Regulations provide for 12 units/acre under Section 8.A.5.1a - elderly housing which does specifically allow 12 units per acre. Mr. Hirschfield submitted a copy of Section 8.A.5.1a FOR THE RECORD. - there are at the low end of what appears throughout the region, but they are below the highest permitted density in the East Windsor Regulations and what’s already in the immediate area of their community.

With regard to the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), it sets out a number of strategies and goals for land use planning to achieve in town; Mr. Hirschfield highlighted 2 he believes are significantly advanced by the River Place project. Under the section of the Plan entitled Conserving Community Resources, the plan identifies these action steps: a) Establish an Open Space Corridor along the Connecticut River; b) Acquire at least a 20% Open Space dedication for new residential development (Mr. Hirschfield suggested their open space dedication exceeds that percentage significantly); and c) Protect Environmental quality. He suggested those are 3 specific areas of the POCD that are achieved further by the development of this community.

In the Guiding Development section of the POCD, Maintaining Housing Diversity Strategy calls for an action step that’s designed to encourage a significant housing need to benefit a housing need for the community. Mr. Hirschfield suggested they feel their project does that in providing high quality homes for empty nesters, young professionals, and seniors not being provided elsewhere in East Windsor.

Mr. Hirschfield wished to address economic benefits associated with this project which have not been previously discussed. He suggested there will be over 200 people living in this community which will be shopping in town and going to local shops, stores, and restaurants, etc. Mr. Hirschfield suggested there is a huge amount of economic benefit to the town which is above the $400,000 in real estate taxes generated by this project, without a significant demand on town services. Mr. Hirschfield suggested this is a $30 million development for which they are investing $6 million of their own money. He requested the Commission look at the project/application within the context of what’s good and what benefits the entire town. He suggested you have heard testimony from the neighbors but the benefits of this project go way beyond just the neighborhood. Mr. Hirschfield suggested they have been developing real estate like this for 45 years; in the towns they have developed in already have been pleased and continue to be pleased as to what’s been developed in their communities, and have significantly impacted their communities for the better. They have a long track record demonstrating they deliver on what they say; when they say they will build a first quality project they build a first quality project. Every time they have estimated a demand on town services, such as the number of school-aged children living in a project, they numbers have been as they estimated; they have put a lot of money into market research into who will be paying these higher than average rents. Mr. Hirschfield suggested they as a company provide a high level of operation and management; they are long term developers; they are not merchant developers; they take pride in their ownership and operation. They have seen that without exception, property values increase in surrounding areas; they increase after the project is completed and continue to increase after that.

Mr. Hirschfield indicated they first appeared before the Commission 2 years ago and discussed development under the PRD Regulation, and have spent time, money, effort and thought to develop a project they feel, if the Commission chooses to approve, they will be proud to have done so.

Attorney DeCrescenzo asked if the Commission had any questions before discussion was opened to the public. Commissioner Gowdy indicated that he had asked for more input as to why they chose to develop this project under the PRD vs. the SDD Regulations when the Town Planner was doubtful, as evidenced by the meeting minutes, that this project would fall under the PRD Regulations. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they proceeded under the PRD because they read PRD as a Special Permit Zoning Regulation, Section 20 of the Zoning Regulations, would allow (Attorney DeCrescenzo read the purpose of the PRD FOR THE RECORD) “allowed applicants to make proposals that encouraged variety and flexibility in residential land development, conservation open spaces, and scenic and natural resources, in imaginative site planning and architectural design”. He indicated this is a Special Permit process where the Commission allows, under amendment to Section 20, waiving any zoning regulation that furthers the purposes of the Special Permit and the proposal. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested this a Zoning Regulation which, by Special Permit, allows relief under some specific sections of the Zoning Regulations when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal has been imaginative in its site planning and architectural design. Attorney DeCrescenzo indicated they feel they have been imaginative in their site planning and architectural design and are presenting to the Commission a proposal that meets a need for housing not currently available in East Windsor.

Attorney DeCrescenzo then suggested the question becomes is this is allowable under the Special Permit process in the Regulations? He suggested he submitted a letter to Town Planner Whitten regarding what he believes Connecticut State law is in that regard. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested this Commission determines/interprets its regulations and what fits under the regulations, and you decide if a section of the Zoning Regulations applies to a given situation and the manner in which it applies and you informally agreed, and we realize it was informally, the PRD would be appropriate for this proposal. Connecticut courts traditionally don’t disturb decisions of local Zoning Commissions as long as its judgment has been reasonably exercised and fairly made after a full hearing. We can all agree this has been a full hearing, this is the 3rd night we’ve been here, we believe that all people have had an opportunity to state their opinion on this. The cases say that for a Special Permit to be granted under a regulation like the PRD you must find that the proposed use is expressly permitted under the Zoning Regulations. In 2003, after you passed the PRD Regulations in 2001 and amended them in 2002, the Commission passed a Elderly Housing Regulation which allowed up to 12 units/acre. Attorney DeCrescenzo felt this density is specifically allowed under the regulations, and they feel it’s appropriate for this site. Secondly, you must find that the standards in the regulations have been satisfied, and they have attempted in their presentations to show how the regulations have been satisfied. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they feel the record is complete on all issues that cover all standards of the regulations. Thirdly, all conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety, convenience, and property values can be established. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested the Commission’s staff has prepared a series of conditions towards that goal. He suggested the PRD Regulations contain those 7 standards and the SDD Regulation adopted in 1981 and this regulation was adopted after that, presumably with the SDD Regulation in place and in mind. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested that the placement of this regulation in the Zoning Regulations allowing for this type of unique type of housing to be proposed by Special Permit is completely consistent with the rest of the regulation. In 2003, they feel the density of up to 12 units for elderly housing, which they understand is for elderly housing but the point is that functionally, you may have gone to 12 units/acre for elderly housing but functionally there is no difference between this type of housing and elderly housing. All they are suggesting is that the regulations do allow up to 12 units/acre, and they are proposing less than that.

Commissioner Gowdy indicated he was part of writing the PRD and the Commission’s interpretation was for the PRD to be a non-conventional single family ownership; you talked about elderly housing, they own those homes. SDD Regulations state as its purpose to “regulate the development and construction of multi-family housing, including, but not limited, to apartments”. When you came in on an informal basis perhaps we misencouraged you to proceed under the PRD but he isn’t convinced that this is a single family owned house and he felt that was the interpretation of the intent of the PRD is to promote non-conventional single family homes. Chairman Guiliano suggested the reason the Commission wrote the PRD Regulation, and Chairman Guiliano noted he was one of the members who wrote that regulation, was for a Planned Residential Development of single family clustered housing to preserve more open space and to have more design in a development of single family homes. It was not the intent of the regulation to have it used as multi-family housing; multi-family was never discussed when they wrote the regulation. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested the regulation doesn’t say it’s limited to single family homes. Chairman Guiliano recalled that Attorney DeCrescenzo had just said it was up to the Commission’s interpretation of the regulation. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested that would be within the context of actual language of the regulation. Commissioner Gowdy noted that Town Planner Whitten, at the time of the informal discussion, had concerns about this being proposed under the PRD Regulation. Commissioner Gowdy feels the Commission has the SDD Regulation specifically for multi-family housing, not limited to apartments or condos; he knows that was the intent of the SDD. Commissioner Gowdy suggested he knows that he was involved in the writing of the PRD the intent was to be for single family residential development. Attorney DeCrescenzo felt they must rely on the language of the regulation; it doesn’t say it’s limited to single family homes. Where it says it’s a Zoning Regulation they are allowed to seek approval under the Special Permit procedures for this type of development.

Mr. Hirschfield suggested the PRD does provide for a certain type of multi-family housing, and it’s their interpretation that there is not any other parcel of land that could be developed for multi-family that could come in under the PRD because of the provision for open space and because it’s along the river and they are preserving the river corridor that it’s a wildlife sanctuary and there are environmental features. It’s not all three of those requirements, it’s any one of those of those 3 that meet the threshold; Mr. Hirscfield felt they meet all three. And above that to find a piece of land that’s on the river and meets those criteria and that’s surrounded on both sides by existing multi-family developments, all of which exceed the 4 units/acre that’s in the underlying zone, and one of which exceeds our own density. There will not be a flood of applications that will come in under PRD; Mr. Hirschfield suggested he didn’t feel there are any other applications that could come in for multi-family under PRD.

Commissioner Gowdy referenced the Meeting Minutes of 11/28/2000 and 2/13/2001 which explain the purpose and authority of the intention of the PRD.

Chairman Guiliano opened discussion to the audience:

Henry Crenshaw: Mr. Crenshaw indicated he had new traffic information which conflicted with that presented by Phoenix Farm and the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD); Mr. Crenshaw submitted a handout which summarized his comments. He noted that Phoenix Farm Company cited a pavement width of South Water Street at 22’. The traffic count for South Water Street is represented at 2,569 cars/day, and they predicted that 1,895 additional trips would occur as a result from their project. Mr. Crenshaw noted he has reduced the number of additional trips to 1,670 due to the reduction in the number of units proposed at the second hearing. Mr. Crenshaw suggested the new traffic count will be 4,239 if River Place is built.

Mr. Crenshaw then noted information taken from the POCD regarding road information. South Water Street would is considered a local road. Subsequent information sets out traffic volumes based on road classifications, and pavement widths based on classification.

Mr. Crenshaw suggested that River Place will generate 1,670 trips daily. He suggested that the project will be putting a major collector traffic volume onto what is considered a local road. He suggested to safely carry just the traffic from River Place South Water Street should be the width of a major collector road, 26’. At the current width of 22’ it’s 4’ too narrow. Mr. Crenshaw also suggested that at a current traffic volume of 2,569 cars South Water Street should be considered a major collector, rather than a local road. To safely carry the current traffic volume, 2,569 vehicles/day, South Water Street should be the width of a major collector - 26’ – rather than the 22’ current width. He suggested traffic needs to be reduced on South Water Street, not increased by 65% to 4,239 cars/day. At the current traffic count of 2,569 cars/day the traffic count is 2.5 times the maximum of 1,000 cars/day recommended under the POCD for a minor collector road, which should have a width of 24’ rather than the current 22’ of South Water Street. Mr. Crenshaw suggested traffic on South Water Street should be cut in half, and would still not be safe.

Mr. Crenshaw questioned why this information wasn’t brought up in Phoenix’s traffic report? He noted they just described evaluation criteria; Mr. Crenshaw suggested the Commission should be considering if there is adequate capacity to handle the new traffic loads, which is already 250% of what it should be based on the information in the POCD.

With regard to Phoenix’s comments about the distribution of traffic, Mr. Crenshaw suggested he wasn’t sure it mattered; the road is unsafe today. He suggested it’s unsafe and is too narrow. He felt the 172 apartments will aggravate the conditions more than what the parcel was zoned for – single family homes. If this is built people will take South Water Street going to various stores, etc. in Warehouse Point and Windsor Locks; that’s the reason the road is over traveled today. All of this traffic goes through Volunteer Park and past the Little League baseball fields. Mr. Crenshaw suggested they don’t need 4,239 cars/day on South Water Street.

Mr. Crenshaw also submitted information from DOT, and other sources. Mr. Crenshaw indicated the first page of this document was a chart taken from Phoenix’s traffic report which reflects a traffic count for South Water Street. Mr. Crenshaw noted the count was taken during Labor Day week. Subsequent pages of this material were: 1) an e-mail question sent to DOT by Mr. Crenshaw questioning if a traffic count should be taken during a holiday week, mistakenly described as Memorial Day; and 2) DOT’s response, which indicated that in the case of residential development DOT would not recommend counting traffic during a holiday week as travel patterns tend to differ from the norm and would not give an accurate depiction of the everyday peak hour commuter patterns. Mr. Crenshaw suggested Phoenix’s traffic count appears to deviate from DOT’s recommended practices. Mr. Crenshaw also noted the e-mail discusses traffic counts for major traffic generators, including those developments with 200 parking spaces on state highways. Mr. Crenshaw noted River Place isn’t located on a State highway and may not be considered a major traffic generator, but it does have in excess of 200 parking spaces and is only a short distance, 410’, from Route 5. For those reasons he can’t see any reason to deviate from DOT’s recommended practices.

Mr. Crenshaw noted he understood the traffic report was sent to DOT. He noted the information about the traffic count being done during Labor Day week was tucked away in an attachment to the report; he questioned if DOT had noticed it. Mr. Crenshaw indicated that he isn’t an engineer but has an engineering degree; if he were to write the report, and deviated from recommended practices, he would mention that up front; he suggested if it’s left in the attachments that might be the reason it’s not seen.

Mr. Crenshaw noted the next page of his submission is a copy of the 11/30/2005 letter from DOT indicating there is no impact to a State highway from this development, therefore there is no need for a certificate to be issued. Since South Water Street isn’t a State highway he checked with DOT as to how relevant this letter is. He cited an excerpt from the DOT website’s frequently asked questions, including not having a driveway on a state highway. The website indicates that for those projects not having a driveway on a state highway a determination of impact certificate must be made; the developer is asked to submit enough information to allow the evaluation of the impact on the nearest state highway intersection be made. Mr. Crenshaw noted the DOT letter to Phoenix Farm suggests there are no significant impact at the intersection of South Water Street and Route 5, and maybe no problem for the intersection of South Water Street and Route 140; he further noted both of those intersections are stop light controlled. He noted there is no mention the intersection of Riverview Drive and Route 5 for Wolcott Landing, which is not stop light controlled. He suggested the letter also does not make mention of impact on South Water Street.

Mr. Crenshaw suggested they don’t feel the letter addresses all the concerns related to this project; the neighbors hope the Commission takes that into consideration when making their decision.

(Applause from the audience).

David Flanigan, 241 South Water Street: suggested they took into consideration all the traffic going right but didn’t take into consideration the traffic going left towards the ballfields. He noted that on 1/26/2006 there was an accident in which a school bus was rear-ended. It’s a dangerous road.

Richard Morrison: attended the public hearings on the budget, which went through 4 referendums. He suggested they are speaking of a $400,000 tax increase related to this project but that will be offset by the $8,000/child cost for 50 children. He suggested there will be a budget deficit caused by something like this; it’s no benefit to the town.

Bob O’Connell, 201 South Water Street: noted he and his wife walk the street, kids ride bikes; he feels we should think about this a little more as to what can happen.

Peter Romano, 241 South Water Street: is against the project, something this size is the reason for the moratorium. We should stop and take a look at how the town will grow going forward.

Mike Urchin, Riverview Drive: is confused as to what they can build, they didn’t mention the 10 – 12 homes they could put there. They also mentioned they would put in

fire hydrants but they didn’t mention anything about the people in the structures. He is opposed.

Ann Duros, 241 South Water Street: is speaking in response to the comments from the business owners in support of this project, their perspective is for financial gains. With 172 apartments there people might want morning coffee, etc. She suggested the Commission has heard the concerns from the residents of South Water Street, and asked that the request to build the apartments be denied.

Deborah Crenshaw, Riverview Drive: questioned why the applicant didn’t need a waiver for apartment in an R-3 Zone, under Section 2.5.1 the maximum density is 1 residential building/lot but they propose 8 residential buildings on their land. At the 1/10/2006 meeting Phoenix indicated that it meets the PRD density factor. They meet the density factor by dividing their 14.7 acres into 1, which results in a density of less than 1 lot per acre. Under Phoenix’s interpretation any lot that is more than one acre will satisfy the density factor; no further thought is given to the number of apartments actually put on the lot. Could Phoenix put 2,000 units on a lot, or 10,000, because 1 divided by 14.7 acres will always be less than 1. Ms. Crenshaw questioned what controls the density in a PRD? She noted that under the SDD the town controls apartment density at 4/buildable acre, but there doesn’t seem to be any regulation under the PRD to control apartment density. She questioned that isn’t this another reason that the PRD was never meant to cover apartments?

Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street: suggested in the cover letter of the traffic report the entrance to the project is described as 1300’ from the intersection; she questioned what distance they provided to DOT, the 1300’ or the 400’? If the letter was based on the additional 900’ from the highway it could make a difference.

Ms. Farmer questioned where will people store things; there has been no mention of basements or attics. She noted in the April minutes they said they would use the storage facility across the street; is that the one on Wagner Lane, or are they providing a storage facility?

With regard to the sewer Ms. Farmer suggested they haven’t been to the WPCA for a permit yet; she’s not sure the sewer main can handle this capacity; she has concerns with regard to the integrity of the main. Ms. Farmer noted she has an exposed sewer pipe on her property; she doesn’t know what they have. Until that goes to the WPCA if this get approved someone needs to review the sewer line regarding its integrity. They will be hooking 172 apartments into the main trunk line; she questioned if it will cause a major accident? Ms. Farmer suggested she wants assurance from some board that the line has been reviewed.

Steve Farmer, 247 South Water Street: suggested the developer mentioned a letter was submitted from Town Engineer Norton regarding the InfiltraStone; he questioned if consideration was given to the long periods of freezing weather which could close up the cracks?

Also, the developer mentioned the farm road would be removed; what keeps 300 people off the river’s edge and the level spreader? Mr. Farmer indicated he has seen bald eagles along the river. He suggested there are plenty of 12” trees along the river which shouldn’t be taken down. Mr. Farmer suggested there is a sewer easement going through there and he doesn’t feel you can build on a sewer easement. He noted Commissioner Gowdy had asked the developer to explain how this falls under the PRD Regulations, Section 20, Mr. Farmer submitted FOR THE RECORD a list of comments made by residents regarding Section 20, and also a list of notes and concerns with regard to Inland/Wetlands issues.

Tom Pelton, 241 South Water Street: reported he has been down by the river and he doesn’t know the technical terms but it’s more of a swamp. Also, farmers are pretty crafty; he doesn’t understand how it could be farmed; he doesn’t understand how it can be developed.

Attorney DeCrescenzo wished to address comments made by the public. With regard to the traffic study, the basis for the analysis of the road widths as cited by the POCD……. Chairman Guiliano noted the POCD is a guideline; it’s not a Zoning Regulation, or a Subdivision Regulation; it’s a guideline for the Commission.

Scott Hesketh stepped forward to address the comments regarding the traffic study. He suggested the traffic counts were taken on 9/6, 9/7, 9/8, and 9/9 midday Tuesday through Friday. He cited his kids were in school the days following Labor Day, and he went to work on Tuesday. Chairman Guiliano questioned if in general do they do counts during holiday periods? Mr. Hesketh suggested he wouldn’t do a count on Christmas or Thanksgiving, and they didn’t count the Monday of Labor Day.

Wih regard to the comments about the major traffic generators, they are guidelines. The consideration is if they are on a major State highway, the State Traffic Commission said this wasn’t. With regard to the volume of traffic passing through the area of South Water Street and Route, their studies indicated there will be no significant impact on that traffic from this development. South Water Street is considered a local road.

A number of people spoke that South Water Street was congested, they couldn’t be speaking of during peak hour; there is sufficient capacity to handle the increased traffic from this development.

Regarding the 1300’ distance, there was a typo in the report; 800’ or 900’ is the distance. Tthe 1300’ distance isn’t significant, they are looking at volumes, 200 parking spaces or the floor area of commercial buildings. They have over 200 parking spaces but it

doesn’t abut a State highway, the State Traffic Commission has the right to determine if there is impact; they do not consider it to be so.

Mr. Hirscfield suggested the people who spoke of problems getting out on a non-signalized intersection, the timing of the signal will remain the same if more cars are coming out or not. That’s an independent problem not solved or exacerbated by their project.

Mr. Hirschfield also suggested storage will be provided within the units where the terraces are.

Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested the Conservation Easement is considered Open Space. The form of the Conservation Easement is what the town wanted; it’s their intention to provide Open Space but there will not be access to the river escarpment. That was a condition of the Wetlands Agency. Chairman Guiliano questioned what about the people living in the apartments; will they have access to the river? Attorney DeCrescenzo replied negatively, noting no sidewalks will go to the river; there is no way to get there. Mr. Hirschfield indicated there was significant discussion regarding prohibiting access to the river; it’s not to their benefit to have residents going down there. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they could add a condition to the approval; Wetlands looked at that issue carefully and came to the same conclusion.

Mr. Hirschfield suggested they can’t build on the sewer easement.

Regarding access for fire apparatus, Mr. Hirschfield suggested the Fire Marshal reviewed the plans and had no concerns. He had said the fire access was adequate. Attorney DeCrescenzo noted that the current Fire Safety Codes require a fire wall separation.

Henry Crenshaw: indicated he doesn’t agree that traffic from River Place will not impact the intersection. You need a break in southbound traffic when coming out to their intersection, and every opening is plugged by cars coming off South Water Street.

Ann Duros: indicated she travels to work Monday through Friday between 7:30 and 8:00 A. M.; she sees cars speeding down South Water Street; she takes exception that they can’t speed during heavy traffic. Mr. Hesketh suggested heavy volumes of cars and speeding is not compatible. If they are speeding it’s because there are not a lot of cars out there.

Mary Staples: cited other projects being built in the area, there will be others things being built along Route 5. Chairman Guiliano unfortunately the Commission doesn’t know what’s being built on surrounding properties so it’s hard to take into consideration what may be built in the future vs. what’s going to be built now. It could be one unit or 120; the Commission can’t predict ahead; they must go with what they present.

David Flanigan: he totally disagrees that this area could be developed, it would trigger ACOE and DEP review. Regarding the speeding, the speed limit is 25 miles per hour, then 30 miles per hour is speeding. He suggested there is some difference between a major highway and a local road and speeding. Chairman Guiliano noted the Commission understands the resident’s concerns but the Commission doesn’t have control over speeding; the concerns should be made to the Police Department. Mr. Flanigan suggested he was addressing Mr. Hesketh’s comments. Chairman Guiliano suggested how much traffic being put on the road is the Commission’s concern.

Noreen Farmer: suggested perhaps the Commission needs to review the intent of the PRD, she understands it’s for single family houses, she’s been to the workshops; the reality is the intent was not for this type of development, it was for single family houses. The essence of the regulation was for single family houses/subdivisions and R-3 Zone doesn’t allow for multi-family houses. They should have asked for a Zone Change; they are stretching the regulation; she felt the Commission understands that and hopes you can do what you can to deny the application.

Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they have tried to present as complete an application as possible and address the concerns of the Commission and the neighbors. They think it’s a project that meets a specific housing need and will benefit the entire town. It will be a significant taxpayer as well. They flat out dispute that there will be 50 kids entering the East Windsor schools; the owner has experience on this. Attorney DeCrescenzo suggested they hope they have presented the Commission with all the information, arguments, and background then need; they hope you approve it, and they can show in building it how good it fits the site and benefits the town.

MOTION: To CLOSE 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 (now revised to 172 units) of residential apartments in nine buildings (now revised to 8 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].

Saunders moved/Rodrigue seconded/

VOTE: In Favor Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

MOTION: To TABLE ACTION on the Application of Phoenix Farm Company, LLC - Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit to allow a Planned Residential Development of 192 units (now revised to 172 units) of residential apartments in nine buildings (now revised to 8 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 February 28, 2006 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad, Brook, CT.

Saunders moved/Gowdy seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

The Commission RECESSED at 9:32 P. M. and RECONVENED at 9:47 P. M.

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 - 35 days after Wetlands decision on 2/1/06) {3/8/06}; AND, 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):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney T. Mark Barbieri, representing the Applicant; Rejean Jacques; and John Heagle, of Megson & Heagle C.E. & L.S., LLC.

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Rodrigue stepped down from service on the Board; Commissioner Kehoe stepped in to replace him.

Attorney Barbieri described the parcel which is located at 22 Wagner Lane; he noted access to the parcel would be on South Water Street behind the Lomax facility and where the golf driving range is presently located. The subdivision Application separates out the storage area, which would continue to be owned by the present owner; a second lot would be created which would have the driving range. There would be no change in the zone. The driving range would be on a separate parcel.

Mr. Heagle indicated that the subdivision would create a 3+ acre parcel on Wagner Lane with the storage facility and 2 tobacco barns, the remaining piece would contain a 16.9 acre parcel with 3 barns and the driving range.

Attorney Barbieri noted they are proposing a fee-in-lieu of Open Space at $2,000.

Attorney Barbieri further noted they have been through the Wetlands Commission but have not yet received a permit for the condominium development of 12 units. They made a ruling of No Jurisdiction on the Subdivision Application.

Chairman Guiliano and Town Planner Whitten both concurred that the Subdivision Application was straightforward. Chairman Guiliano suggested the Commission consider voting on the Subdivision Application tonight to move some business off the Agenda, then continue the Application on the condominium development, which is a Public Hearing.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned that the Applicant was seeking waivers for the Subdivision? Attorney Barbieri replied affirmatively, noting there are 4 – sidewalks, fee-in-lieu-of Open Space, street lights, and Performance Bond.

MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING REQUEST FOR WAIVERS: The applicant requests the following waivers:

1. Section 2.8 – Performance Bonds – which will be required at time of Site Plan Review

2. Section 2.9 & 7.0 – Open Space – as open space in an Industrial Zone has limited use, and historically has not been required in the past

3. Section 2.11.3 & 6.3 – sidewalks – no sidewalks exist along Newberry Road

4. Section 2.11.2 & 6.5 – Street Lights – as no new streets are proposed, and street lights already exist.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)

MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of White Pine LLC, LLC for a 1-lot subdivision on a total parcel of 20.34 acres +/- , Proposed Lot A to be 16.9 acres, all zoned M-1, Proposed Lot B to be 3.4 acres, located at 22 Wagner Lane, presently zoned M-1 and B1 as shown on Assessors’ Map 13, Block 11, Lot 2 & 3. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

Sheet 1 Overall Boundary Map, Wagner Terrace Phase 1, prepared for White Pine, LLC, East Windsor CT, prepared by Megson & Heagle, Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, LLC, 81 Rankin Road, Glastonbury, CT 06033, 860/659-0587, dated 9/15/05, last revised 1/12/06, scale 1” = 80’.

Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:

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

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

3. The final mylars shall contain the street numbers assigned by the East Windsor Assessor’s Departments and the Map, Block and Lot numbers assigned by the Assessor's Office.

4. The applicant shall provide two street trees on the new lot and have them shown on the final plan.

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

6. The lots shall comply with the requirements of the North Central District Health Department requirements for on-site septic systems and wells.

7. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. One set of signed mylars, Sheets 2, of 3, shall be filed with the town clerk by the applicant, no later than 90 days after the 15-day appeal period from publication of decision has elapsed or this approval shall be considered null and void unless an extension is granted by the Commission. One set shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.

8. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan shall be submitted for each lot at the time of application for Zoning Permits.

9. 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 and the final amount of said bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer. (This bond covers public improvements, not individual lots.)

General Conditions:

10. This subdivision approval shall expire five years from date of approval. Failure to complete all required improvements within that time shall invalidate the subdivision. The developer may request an extension of time to complete the subdivision improvements from the Commission. Such extension shall not exceed the time limits as provided for in the Connecticut General Statutes, Section 8-26c, as amended. The Commission shall require proper bonding be in place prior to the approval of any such extension.

11. A Site Plan Approval and Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work.

12. 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.

13. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the resubdivision 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. 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(s) may be released.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)

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):

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Rodrigue stepped down from service on the Board; Commissioner Kehoe stepped in to replace him.

Attorney Barbieri indicated this Application is for Site Plan Approval, Special Use Permit, and Special Development District approval for Phase I of a single family detached residential unit development under common ownership form – a condominium

development. Phase I will contain 12 units. Attorney Barbieri indicated they have not yet received approval from the Inland/Wetlands Commission.

Attorney Barbieri indicated the plans have been reviewed by Town Engineer Norton; they have addressed his earlier comments and he now takes no exception with the plans. This proposed site will have some ingress and egress from Wagner Lane; if Phase II is developed there will also be access from South Water Street. Attorney Barbieri indicated that Open Space has been allocated for Phase I and Phase II via the fee-in-lieu option, which meets the regulation requirements.

Attorney Barbieri noted that in her memo of 2/2/2006 own Planner Whitten has cited 3 areas for which this proposal does not meet the intent of the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). They are as follows: 1) Future Land Use Plan (p 6.2) calls for this property to be developed as part of the Core Industrial Plan; 2) Business Corridor Zoning depicts this parcel as M-1 (p. 3-21); and 3) In the proposed Central Business Corridor (p. 3-23), which lies south of this parcel, this property is shown as single family – which staff believes is an error. Attorney Barbieri suggested there are many inconsistencies in all the maps. With regard to the Business Corridor Zoning (p. 3-21) Attorney Barbieri suggested the Business Corridor goes all the way to the river and includes what’s already there, which is residential, and, with regard to the Central Business Corridor (p. 3-23) this shows their lot as single family residential. With regard to the Future Land Use Plan (p 6.2) Attorney Barbieri suggested that a large part of that area is already developed as residential.

Attorney Barbieri suggested a second reason the POCD is faulty is that the property has been considered for M-1 development before, but the drainage has been a major issue, and the way to solve that is through the Farmer property to the north by draining to the river in a plunge pool design. Attorney Barbieri indicated Mrs. Farmer wouldn’t give an easement if this were developed as M-1 land, but she has signed an Agreement with her for an Easement – a condition of that agreement is if this isn’t approved the easement wouldn’t be given. Attorney Barbieri noted a copy of the Agreement for Drainage Easement has been provided FOR THE RECORD. Attorney Barbieri suggested he feels that’s the problem with the land all along this area, it would be difficult to develop as M-1 land. He suggested this project has less sensitivity because it doesn’t front on the river; they are not dealing with the same issues as the last application.

Attorney Barbieri suggested this property abuts, and is in proximity, to residential condominiums to the north and west – River Ridge, Riverview, Rivergate (River Hollow), and the mobile home park; he suggested this is the main character of the neighborhood. Attorney Barbieri suggested his past experience is that the industrial areas are no marketable as M-1 land. This proposal would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and have the same attributes and disadvantages. He suggested M-1 development would have more traffic than condominiums.

Attorney Barbieri indicated they are providing a 100’ buffer between the storage units by agreement with the Applicant/current owner. A Landscaping Plan has been submitted. Attorney Barbieri suggested they are not proposing sidewalks along Wagner Lane, as there are none there now; they are proposing sidewalks within the development.

Attorney Barbieri noted this site also falls within the Natural Wildlife Diversity Zone; an application has been submitted and an answer received. The site has been identified as a habitat for the bald eagle; they have recommended that no trees 12” in diameter are to be removed. Attorney Barbieri indicated he understands the bald eagles do next north along the Canal Bank and to the south but the ACOE does want them to protect them and they will do that. Attorney Barbieri submitted a copy of the letter FOR THE RECORD.

Attorney Barbieri also submitted a copy of a letter received from the Warehouse Point Fire Marshall; they will install fire hydrants. Attorney Barbieri submitted a copy of the letter FOR THE RECORD.

Attorney Barbieri noted the will submit an application to the ACOE after the Town permits have been received.

Mr. Heagle described the site as containing 16.9 acres with 50’ frontage on South Water Street, and the majority of the frontage on Wagner Lane. There are wetlands within the storage facility site; a detention basin has been created to deal with the run off. This project will have no impact on the run off for the storage facility. They are creating a 100’ buffer between the commercial and residential parcels, 50’ on the industrial and 50’ on their parcel. Phase I will contain 12 units; there will be a 400’ road going into the project and cul-de-sacs within the project. Hydrants will be installed at the street, and half way between the street and the cul-de-sacs, and at the cul-de-sacs. The parcel will be served by sewer, water, and gas. The WPCA has accepted the property to tie sewers in to the existing sewer. Phase I will contain 12 units. There will be 4 types of units; A, B, and D will contain 2 bedrooms, while units C (#10 and #12) will contain 3 bedrooms. There is 26,000 square feet of recreational space which fronts on Wagner Lane; that area will contain a gazebo, children’s play area, and a grassed area for baseball and soccer. The site is relatively flat. Drainage leaves the site to the north from Wagner Lane, but it’s too high to service this site. They have looked at other options, such as going to Route 5 or Wagner Lane or up South Water Street but there are 20- 25’ cuts in the roadway. They are acquiring an Easement from the Farmers to discharge into the level spreader adjacent to the sewer line, and will include the detention basin. There will be 18 cfs coming in, with the detention basin and outlet structure. The flow at the river will be 3/10 cfs. The storm drainage installed would be private and maintained by the association.

Mr. Heagle reported they are proposing sidewalks along the west side of the interior road.

Mr. Heagle reported there will be another 48 units proposed for Phase II; they are proposing a road to connect through to Wagner Lane near the open space/recreational area. Chairman Guiliano noted that the second phase would come in after this application is approved, and would come in under the new regulations. He also suggested the design is horrendous; it’s a straight road in and is a cookie cutter design; Phase II is even worse. The Town would also be giving up M-1 and B-1 property.

Attorney Barbieri suggested there is no B-1 land there. He spoke with Mr. Rodrigue; he made a Zone Change in 1997 when he came in for approval of the storage units. Chairman Guiliano suggested he is commenting on what is appearing on the prints. Town Planner Whitten suggested the B-1 land is only for the storage facility. Chairman Guiliano suggested he was against giving up M-1 land; Attorney Barbieri suggested they don’t have the drainage options to develop as M-1.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned how what this Applicant has is different than what everyone is discussing at River Place? Mr. Heagle indicated they have riprap and a level spreader adjacent to and on top of the sewer line; it was a disturbed area because of the installation of the sewer line and the water treatment plant. There is a detention pond where minimal water will be discharged; the impact is minimal. Mr. Heagle suggested he didn’t know what the other proposal was.

Chairman Guiliano questioned the elevation where the water comes during a normal flood period, as it was a month ago? Mr. Heagle suggested he didn’t know the flood elevation but the elevation is 13 ½’ at the river’s edge and there is a 25’ elevation at the parcel. He would be surprised if the river floods that high in that area. Attorney Barbieri indicated that Mr. Heagle’s associate, who designed this system, will be at the next meeting for this Commission; he also appeared at the Inland/Wetlands Commission Hearings. Attorney Barbieri indicated there was a huge discussion at the Wetlands Meeting on this issue; they had questioned why the Farmers were in opposition of the other project but giving an easement on this one. Attorney Barbieri suggested the reasons were that the river floods at that end (of the other project), and there isn’t a problem with the sewer pipe at this end; there is erosion and flooding all the time at the other end. They also don’t like the 300’ retention wall; they wouldn’t let it be on their property. Attorney Barbieri suggested this design has been done before; it’s been done at Southern Auto Auction and the Meadowview Condominium Complex and has been around for 15+/- years. The Conservation Commission was concerned about maintenance; will it silt in? The engineer said it’s designed to self clean. Ms. Farmer said it didn’t flood at that end. The Conservation Commission asked if it did flood would it hold? The answer was yes because of the size of the riprap. Would it undermine the sewer pipe? No, because of the elevation. The Conservation Commission questioned the maintenance program; Attorney Barbieri suggested there is good control because you have the condominium association as the management association. He had suggested they submit quarterly reports to the Wetlands Agent and have quarterly inspections.

Commissioner Gowdy indicated he would like the engineer to give a presentation on that at the next meeting.

Chairman Guiliano noted the Commission must close the Hearing this evening; Town Planner Whitten suggested the Applicant can grant an extension; Attorney Barbieri agreed to an extension to the next meeting.

Mr. Heagle suggested all units would have 2 car garages and 2 outside parking spaces; the regulations require 2. Commissioner Gowdy questioned that the width of the interior road would be 24”? Chairman Guiliano questioned the width of Wagner Lane? Scott Hesketh and Mr. Heagle indicated Wagner Lane is 18’ in width.

MOTION: To EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11:30 P.M.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders

Chairman Guiliano questioned if there was a conceptual design of the buildings?

Attorney Barbieri suggested he didn’t know how much more creative they could get with a small area; it meets the minimum requirements of the regulations. The engineer will be attending the next meeting to go over the specifics of the design.

Mr. Regean Jacques, the builder, indicated there will be 4 designs. He has done the condominiums recently at Norton Road, and he has people coming in to ask him what’s available. People aged 50 to 60 need this ranch design; he suggested there is a big need in East Windsor.

Chairman Guiliano questioned if there was centralized trash? Mr. Heagle replied no, it will be pick up at the individual houses. Chairman Guiliano suggested some condominium complexes have centralized trash and mail boxes. Mr. Jacques suggested they will be like a house; they are a little smaller and offer the same atmosphere. It will be a private road but wide enough to pick up the trash. Attorney Barbieri suggested the town picks up trash for condominiums.

Scott Hesketh took over the discussion, indicating he was the author of the 1/13/2006 Traffic Report. He indicated they used the combined traffic volume for River Place, as if it were approved and operating, as a basis of this study as background traffic for this development. He noted there are 12 units in Phase I, but the report is based on the full 58 units; they feel the roadway has capacity for the full 58 units. They anticipate this project will generate 50 peak hour trips, 1 every 4 minutes, during the peak A. M. hour. The roadway network can handle that minimal amount of traffic without degradation. Wagner Lane operates under stop sign control; all movements are by right hand turning only, but they feel most traffic would orientate itself towards South Water Street to take advantage of the stop light at Route 5.

Mr. Hesketh indicated the 12 units will generate very little traffic. Chairman Guiliano questioned his opinion on the 18’ road width? Mr. Hesketh suggested 18’ isn’t significantly wide; he would prefer it were wider; perhaps it could be taken up with the Public Works Department. He suggested that 18’ is substandard under today’s traffic standards. Chairman Guiliano questioned Commissioner Ouellette if he agreed with that opinion? Commissioner Ouellette replied absolutely.

Town Planner Whitten questioned if they considered coming out on South Water Street? Mr. Hesketh suggested when the town has the full development there will be an exit on South Water Street. Attorney Barbieri questioned if there was any significant volume of traffic on Wagner Lane? Mr. Hesketh indicated they didn’t count on Wagner Lane; there will be 261 trips during the peak A. M. hours on South Water Street. They estimate that the number of trips on Wagner Lane will be 170+/-; the level of service at the proposed road and Wagner Lane would be a Level of Service A. Mr. Hesketh suggested it’s likely that there is a low level of volume on Wagner Lane; access for River Hollow and the storage facility on Wagner Lane. It’s their belief that it operates as a one way road but it isn’t officially a one way road.

Chairman Guiliano questioned if there could be a problem if there were more development than those 12 units on Wagner Lane? Mr. Hesketh suggested with access to South Water Street there would be less of a concern; if other properties were developed it would have to be reconsidered; 18’ isn’t a wide road but it is a town road.

Chairman Guiliano opened discussion to the audience:

Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street: suggested she is sure everyone is wondering why she is complaining about the other project and not this one, there is a big difference in topography between the north of her property and where the other apartments are going. She indicated she wouldn’t allow a 150’ wall; the original plan was to go as far down as the other project but it’s now significantly higher because of the sewer line. She understands the drainage to be minimal impact as there is not as much impervious coverage; she has been assured the drainage to her property will be minimal at best.

Regarding the flooding where this land is, it will get covered occasionally but not nearly as much as the south end of her property. Commissioner Gowdy requested clarification that she said the water came up to the pipe; Ms. Farmer suggested not normally. In October it came up to the sewer line and crested but at the other end it exceeded the sewer line. Ms. Farmer indicated that she wants the Commission to know, from their perspective, they have signed a Letter of Intent; when the normal approval has been received from the Inland/Wetlands Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Army Corp of Engineers they will sign the Drainage Easement. Ms. Farmer noted she has seen this plan but has not seen the traffic study. Attorney Barbieri indicated the Easement has been written and they have received a letter from the Farmer’s attorney; if they make it through all the hurdles they would add one paragraph to the Easement Agreement – Mr. Jacques must be identified as the owner.

Ms. Farmer also noted that she felt the people that were present earlier for the River Place Hearing didn’t realize this was a Public Hearing, and left because they were tired.

MOTION: To EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING on the Application 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] until the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on February 28, 2006 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Rodrigue returned to service on the Board.

CONTINUED HEARING: DMD Realty Family Partnership - to amend Special Use Permit (granted on 10/22/91) to allow a rear lot at 341 Rye Street. (Deadline to close hearing extended to 2/14/06).

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing with regard to this Application was Doug King, Jr.

Town Planner Whitten indicated that this Application had been for a 2-lot subdivision which expired in October, 1996. The lots exist; the subdivision has been filed, but under the Special Use Permit if the work is not done, nor any improvements made, the subdivision is invalidated. In order to make the title free and clear with regard to the rear lot the specific condition regarding invalidation needs to be eradicated and the approval needs to be refilled.

She also noted there is the issue of the Open Space allocation, this Application has been reviewed before. The Commission could require a $2,000 fee-in-lieu of Open Space if they chose. Mr. King has been in Mississippi helping with the flood damage due to the hurricanes. Town Planner Whitten indicated this is basically clearing up the title.

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of D.M.D. Realty Family Partnership and owner Douglas J. King, for an amendment to a previously approved Special Use Permit for 1 rear lot at 341 Rye , Assessors Map 40, Block 50, Lot 13 & 13A, A-1 Zone.

Referenced Plans:

“RE-Subdivision-Special Permit-Rear Lot, Property of Marilyn King, 341 Rye Street, East Windsor, Conn”, prepared by J.R. Russo & Assoc., 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088, 623-0569, dated 7/15/91, rev 10/16/91, with the following sheets:

Sheet 1 of 3 Key Map

Sheet 2 of 3 Subdivision Plan

Sheet 3 of 3 Topographic Plan

All as filed in East Windsor Land Records, recorded on October 1992, volume 29, pages 66, 67 & 68

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

1. This revised special permit shall be filed on the land records.

2. A $2,000 fee, payable to the Town Treasurer, shall be paid prior to issuance of a Zoning Permit

3. 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.

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

5. A cash (escrow) or passbook bond shall be submitted for erosion and sedimentation (E & S) control maintenance and site restoration during the 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.

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.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:

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

14. 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.

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

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

17. 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.

18. 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.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

NEW BUSINESS: Ron Fortune of Consulting and Design, LLC - Modification of Approved Site Plan for existing car wash to allow alteration of vacuum islands with canopies, and signage, at 30 South Main Street, owned by Helmar Wolf and Arturo Guerra. [B-2 Zone; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 7, 8, & 9] (Deadline for decision 3/16/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Ron Fortune.

Mr. Fortune reported he has appeared for a modification to the original plans, which showed a hooded light over the existing vacuuming island. They have installed lighting as recommended by the car wash company, but in reviewing the conditions for allowable signage they find the script on the island lighting may exceed the allowable signage.

Discussion continued on lighting, which includes wording, and allowable signage based on regulation requirements. Discussion also involved the glaring color of the vacuum units in relation to this facility’s proximity to Pasco’s Commons and Pasco’s Restaurant. Town Planner Whitten noted the building for the car wash was designed to fit the historic area in which it’s located, and the islands take away from that character.

Mr. Fortune indicated he would agree to removing the signs on the end of the canopies but would like to keep the ones on the bay sides. He would agree to paint the center part of the islands to reduce the glare of the red, and closing off the lighting boards as suggested, and would shut off the lights on the vacuums after 10 o’clock. Town Planner Whitten questioned that the car wash was a 24 hour facility? Mr. Fortune concurred, but noted they are willing to do that; he felt he would have a problem if he cut down the wattage.

Commissioner Saunders questioned that when they get their Certificate of Occupancy will the temporary sign come down? Discussion followed regarding the lack of a CO and approval of modifications if the original conditions haven’t been met. Town Planner Whitten noted that the lighting package and signage were not part of the original approval. Commissioner Saunders requested that the temporary sign be removed; he felt there is no need for it if regular signage is available. The Commission was split as to approving modifications without completion of original conditions vs. allowing the modifications rather than removing what’s been installed only to have something reinstalled.

MOTION: To TABLE the Application of Ron Fortune of Consulting and Design, LLC - Modification of Approved Site Plan for existing car wash to allow alteration of vacuum islands with canopies, and signage, at 30 South Main Street, owned by Helmar Wolf and Arturo Guerra. [B-2 Zone; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 7, 8, & 9] until the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on March 14, 2006 at 7:00 P. M. at the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

OTHER BUSINESS: Michael Chechette - Special Use Permit to allow 5 mechanical amusement devices (video games) at SportsAir recreation facility located at 226 Main Street, East Windsor. [M-1 Zone; Map 4, Block 12, Lot 30] - TO BE WITHDRAWN:

Town Planner Whitten noted this was a request to install 5 video games in the soccer bubble; video games are not allowed in that zone. She had asked for a letter of withdrawal but has received nothing.

MOTION: To DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Application of Michael Chechette - Special Use Permit to allow 5 mechanical amusement devices (video games) at SportsAir recreation facility located at 226 Main Street, East Windsor. [M-1 Zone; Map 4, Block 12, Lot 30] because video devices are not permitted in that zone.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES/September 27, 2005; January 24, 2006, and January 30, 2006 Special Meeting:

MOTION: To APPROVE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING/SPECIAL MEETING AS WRITTEN: Public Hearing #1462 dated September 27, 2005 and Special Meeting #1474 dated January 30, 2006; AND, to APPROVE Public Hearing #1473 dated January 24, 2006, and as amended, Public Hearing/Phoenix Farm Company, LLC, page 9, public comment from Marian McGish, line 3......... Route 4, should be Route 5.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS:

1) Chapman/Mansions on the Scantic

MOTION: To GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 11:24 P. M. TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION. Participating were Chairman Guiliano, and Commissioners Gowdy, Kehoe, Ouellette, Rodrigue, and Saunders, and Town Planner Whitten.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

MOTION: To COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 11:35 P. M. No vote was taken and no decisions were made.

Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION: To ADJOURN this meeting at 11:35 P. M.

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

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________________________

Peg Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Commission Recording Secretary