TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting #1475
February 13, 2006
***** Draft Document - Subject to Commission Approval *****
The meeting was called to order at 6:33 P. M. by Chairman Guiliano in the Cafeteria of the East Windsor High School, 76 South Main Street, Warehouse Point Section, East Windsor, CT.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as three Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, and Ouellette) and two Alternate Members (Kehoe [arrived at 6:50 P. M.] and Tyler) were present. Regular Members Rodrigue and Saunders were absent. The Commission carries one vacancy at present. Also present were Glenn Chalder, AICP, principal in Planimetrics; Town Planner Whitten; and Wetlands Agent/Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING/WORKSHOP: Review of Proposed Residential/Open Space Regulations:
Mr. Chalder opened discussion noting the purpose of the meeting this evening is to review the objectives of the Residential Development Strategies, which are: 1) Manage growth (amount/type/location); 2) Improve development patterns (single family/multi-family); 3) Enhance preservation of open space (quality/quantify), and 4) enhance infrastructure (vehicles/pedestrians/drainage. Mr. Chalder suggested the tools to accomplish that are: 1) Zoning Regulations; 2) Subdivision Regulations; and 3) The Plan of Conservation and Development.
With regard to the Zoning Regulations Mr. Chalder suggested the strategies are as follows: 1) managing Single Family development by limiting the density by considering the amount of developable land times a density factor which determines the maximum number of lots available. Single Family Developments (SFD) and Planned Residential Developments (PRD) would be allowed in zones R-2, R-3, A-1 and A-2; under the PRD the Commission has the ability to modify certain area and bulk requirements for any lot or lots when more than 30% of the parcel is permanently preserved as Open Space in one or more locations, and a substantial open space buffer along the undeveloped portions of existing roads is provided, where required by the Commission and is deeded to the Town or a recognized conservation organization
as permanently preserved Open Space.
2) managing Multi-Family Residential Development by changing the name of the Special Development District (SDD) to a Multi-Family District (MFD); it would occur by a Zone Change, would provide 20% Open Space, would be served by public water and sewer, and the parcel can not be located in an area designated as “rural” under the POCD.
3) addressing housing needs - Mr. Chalder indicated he is recommending deleting the current Active Adult Housing Regulations and creating instead a new section entitled Age-Restricted Housing District (ARHD) which would provide housing options designed to meet the housing needs of people 55 and older ranging from independent living to housing with additional support services.
With regard to Subdivision Regulations, Mr. Chalder suggested he is recommending that any subdivision of 5 lots or more would require the review by a landscape architect, and a PRD plan would be required to be submitted if the subdivision is not proposed as a Planned Residential Development. He is further recommending that subdivisions of 20 lots or more would require analysis of a traffic engineer, and the Commission can require an independent review. Mr. Chalder is also recommending that every development must provide Open Space by any of the following options: 20% of the land area, fee-in-lieu-of Open Space, or a combination of land and fee offering. The land dedicated as Open Space must be deeded to the Town, State, Land Trust, or a recognized conservation
organization.
Mr. Chalder also noted he is proposing improvements to the infrastructure, with regard to road width, pedestrian easements, sidewalks and pathways, and storm drainage requirements.
With regard to the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), Mr. Chalder noted the newest update was adopted in 2004. He is proposing amendments which would allow for the following: 1) aquifer protection - define level A areas in East Windsor and create new regulations in compliance with DEP standards and based on the DEP maps; 2) add a Residential Densities Plan - the Sewer Avoidance Area Map would no longer be relied on by the Commission, they would rely instead on the Residential Growth Guide Plan for future planning strategies, 3) define a “rural area” in which construction of Age-Restricted Housing Districts or Multi-Family Developments not be located, decisions with regard to sewer availability would then lie with the WPCA, and 4) recommend adding a Sidewalks/Trails Plan, all
developments would be required to provide sidewalks or trails or payment of a 50% fee-in-lieu which can be applied in other areas of town.
LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Kehoe arrived at 6:50 P. M.
George Buttenkoff, of 169 Wells Road: raised a question from the audience, noting that much depends on the decisions of the PZC; he questioned if the town would benefit more from an elected PZC vs. the current volunteer board? His preference is for elected positions; he noted he has made a recommendation to the current Charter Revision
Commission to promote an elected board as there are no recall provisions for an appointed position. Mr. Chalder indicated he didn’t agree with the elected positions over the volunteer board; he suggested that the PZC makes difficult decisions for the community for the long run. Often elected officials are more likely to make a short term decision to take the heat off. He suggested he feels the commissions that work the best are where people are appointed for 6 to 8 year terms. Having good procedures helps the entire community. Chairman Guiliano suggested he’s found that when a board is elected it’s more political; he noted he doesn’t even know the political affiliations of the current members. He’s noted that it’s visible in other boards
that it gets down to Democrats and Republicans; he felt the current PZC doesn’t work like that since this Commission has been put together.
Bob Lyke, Rye Street, also speaking from the audience, noted he made the same recommendation at the previous Charter Revision Commission, however he preceded his remarks with the comment that the PZC does a thankless job; he made the recommendation from the perspective of checks and balances.
Mr. Chalder suggested this discussion was far afield of the purpose of this Public Hearing. He indicated that the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities is a good research resource for this information; he encouraged residents to contact that group.
Bill Loos, Melrose Road: when he built his house 40 years ago he was required to have specific frontage, that amount has since been reduced; he felt the amount of frontage should be increased. That would eliminate the need to go to the appeals board for sheds, and would eliminate septic systems backing up. Mr. Chalder suggested frontage requirements haven’t changed. Mr. Loos suggested it should be 1 1/2 acres in an A-1 Zone. Mr. Chalder indicated the minimum lot size hasn’t been changed because they didn’t want to make existing lots non-conforming. Mr. Chalder suggested the example of 100 acres of land with a density factor of .5 which would generate 50 lots, none smaller than 1 acre but the average could be higher. The minimum lot
size is 1 acre, or 43,560 square feet. Mr. Loos felt the minimum lot size should be 1 1/2 acres. Chairman Guiliano recalled that the Commission had tried to raise the minimum lot size 4 to 5 years ago and there was an uproar from the public. Mr. Loos could not recall that proposal; it was noted that the attendance at that Public Hearing was approximately the same number as is present tonight - perhaps a dozen people.
Mr. Loos cited people are purchasing 1 acre lots and then having problems with septic systems. Zoning Enforcement Officer/Wetlands Agent Rudek suggested people know what they are buying. Mr. Chalder suggested engineered septic systems must be designed by a licensed professional; Commissioner Tyler noted that the North Central Health District (NCHD) requires an engineered system anywhere in East Windsor and it’s been that way for 5 to 10 years. Mr. Loos reiterated he felt the minimum lot size should be 60,000 square feet.
Mr. Loos also suggested that in special areas, multi-family developments shouldn’t be allowed in commercial areas. Mr. Chalder noted that presently multi-family developments can occur in any residential zone, anyone can apply for a Special Development District (SDD) to construct multi-family housing. He noted that under the new regulations a developer must apply for a Zone Change to SDD or ARHD, so future projects shouldn’t be in rural areas, although the current regulations don’t say they can’t be in industrial areas. Mr. Loos indicated he didn’t want a factory next to a multi-family development.
Town Planner Whitten noted that when an application was made for a SDD it was an automatic zone change; she questioned if that had been a time saving process? Chairman Guiliano suggested that had been a previous planners recommendation. Commissioner Tyler questioned if the Commission was concerned that someone would come in for a zone change and then not go forward with the proposal; he requested clarification that if the project didn’t go in it would go back to the original zone? Mr. Chalder suggested the applicant can come in for a zone change and get the Commission’s approval or rejection. the Commission could change that later if they wanted but the Site Plan would follow the Zone Change, and the applicant would know they have the zone change if the proposal was a good idea. He suggested he doesn’t want the Commission to be in the position where they’re shown a beautiful site plan for the zone change and then see something different for the site plan application.
Chairman Guiliano felt the current process was really more that the Commission didn’t want the applicant to make a zone change and then find a developer to purchase the property to build a multi-family development. Commissioner Tyler noted that once the zone is changed they can build anything they want and it’s difficult for the Commission to say no. The reason for an overlaying zone is that the zone doesn’t change; if the proposal doesn’t go through then the zone goes back to what it was originally. Town Planner Whitten noted that the Commission needs to consider this issue because under the present proposal it would actually be a zone change; Mr. Chalder noted he will review this issue also.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned what would happen if the multi-family development were eliminated entirely? Town Planner Whitten noted that current data indicates that East Windsor far exceeds the requirements for multi-family housing. Mr. Chalder suggested the Town of Rocky Hill did just that. Commissioners Ouellette and Gowdy suggested they would rather see multi-family developments eliminated completely at this point.
Chairman Guiliano noted the Board hasn’t returned discussion to whether it would prefer to continue the cap on Active Adult Housing; he noted he is still in favor of retaining the cap. We have many developments passed and several not acted on; let’s build and sell what we have and then see about removing the cap. Town Planner Whitten noted there is one Active Adult Housing development, Newberry Village, which hasn’t broken ground yet; it’s also the case with a couple of others. There are presently 33 units available which are not allocated to any specific project. Mr. Chalder suggested the applicants
have 5 years to build a project. The Commissioners decided they want to see what happens with the current proposals and see how they affect the town.
Commissioner Tyler questioned what’s the benefit to the Town to allow the current density for multi-family housing; why not use the same density as for singe family development? He indicated he didn’t have a problem with multi-family development but questioned the present approach. Commissioners Gowdy and Ouellette felt there is no benefit to the town from multi-family development; past experience has not been good. Commissioner Ouellette suggested that if the Town needs to address diversity again then either this Board, or another, can address the issue then.
Bob Lyke, Rye Street: questioned what could go in the green area on the Growth Map that could not have with the Sewer Avoidance Area Map? Mr. Chalder suggested that when using this map the Commission will not consider multi-family developments in the green area, or unless the Commission considers the site is appropriate for some reason. They are trying to say if a site is not in a blue area, like a village, or the white area, it would not be appropriate in a green area. Mr. Lyke suggested someone could propose an Age-Restricted Housing Development in a rural area; Mr. Chalder questioned how he arrived at that comment? On review Mr. Lyke indicated he was reading the map wrong.
Walt Machesney, Meadowview on the River: felt the sewer commission had much to do with development and where the sewers go; he questioned what authority they have? Town Planner Whitten noted that discussion is currently going on with the WPCA. She noted the WPCA is meeting with the DEP, and then she is trying to schedule a joint meeting with the WPCA and the PZC to decide who does what. Mr. Chalder suggested the PZC will be drawing the line by utilizing the Growth Map to avoid problems with the Sewer Avoidance Area from a land use perspective. Town Planner Whitten suggested this approach might also promote a better development; they could minimize the lot size because they don’t need septic systems and then could provide more Open Space. Mr. Chalder
returned to his example of the 100 acres with the .5 density generating 50 lots; he noted a developer wouldn’t get more lots but they could get smaller lots and get more Open Space. Town Planner Whitten noted it might be easier to develop if the soils weren’t good, but the developer still wouldn’t get a higher density.
Mike Cheppetelli, 42 Skinner Road: is concerned what will happen in 20 years if the whole town is built out and you have all of this open space, and have a different commission; he questioned if the remains of the parcel would be deeded? Mr. Chalder replied affirmatively, noting the developer wins because there is the predictability of the lot yield and the community wins because the land goes from agricultural to development with open space which is preserved with walkways, etc. Mr. Cheppetelli cited concern that houses could be built closer together, and the developer could still have land that could be developed later. Mr. Chalder gave the same example of 100 acres with the density factor of .5 yielding 50 lots, 11 acres would go for roads, 20 acres would go for open
space, then 20 acres would be left over; what could happen? Those 20 acres could
be put into open space which gives more flexibility in the lots and they could be over-sized lots, or the owner could sell 49 lots and keep 21 acres for a homestead for themselves, preferably with conservation easements. Although the owner had 21 acres it could only hold one lot; if the homeowners could get people in town to override that then the person might be able to get that changed but he would need the community support.
Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek questioned if the smaller lot sizes would cause more situations to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) in the long run? Chairman Guiliano suggested you would still be within the regulations with regard to lot size.
Bill Loos, Melrose Road: felt Zone Changes need to be revised.
Mike Cheppettelli, Skinner Road: felt Zone Changes are far too easy; if every Zone Change had to go before a public vote you wouldn’t have 5 to 7 people who may have a personal interest making the decision. Mr. Chalder noted Connecticut makes that responsibility one of the charges of the PZC.
Al Grant: questioned what other towns do with small pieces of open space which aren’t good for agriculture? Mr. Chalder suggested Land Trusts get involved; he suggested we may want to start one for East Windsor. Mr. Grant noted a 4 Town Land Trust currently exists but is getting stretched pretty thin. Mr. Chalder suggested the more open space that gets preserved the more people will get involved. Mr. Grant noted insurance liability is a concern for a Land Trust. Mr. Chalder suggested insurance is needed but the Town might be able to provide assistance.
Bob Lyke, Rye Street: regarding elected vs. appointed, when you have appointed officials it can be made up of land owners and developers, although it could also be for elected officials. Mr. Chalders suggested this was really a discussion to be taken up with the people who make the appointments.
Mr. Lyke noted the POCD is referred to as a guide, how does that change? Mr. Chalder indicated that Connecticut law states that the POCD is an advisory document; he cited examples of its use with regard to recommendations vs. offerings by the developer. He suggested the value of the plan is the wisdom within it; it’s not a strict set of regulations as to what must be done because the world changes and the guide must be adapted. It can be visionary.
John Mathews, Melrose: he has looked at the South Windsor document, it’s different in that they are more specific when they have a regulation, the ambiguity of the language in our regulations makes it difficult for the PZC to make their interpretation the intent vs. the developer’s interpretation. He would suggest submitting the South Windsor document. Mr. Chalder questioned if he was referring to the POCD or the regulations? Mr. Mathews suggested it was the regulations.
Mr. Chalder indicated his one issue/recommendation would be to take the East Windsor Regulations and give them a complete overhaul. He knows Town Planner Whitten is working on that with previous planner Donald Poland, and the goal is to make them more specific and clear.
Bill Loos, Melrose Road: feels one board doesn’t know what the other board is doing; these people need to get together to go over these things. Each board is independent and they need to work together. Mr. Chalder noted that a number of towns do meetings with commission chairs. Town Planner Whitten noted that other boards always get referrals, such as Wetlands to PZC; that’s part of the process for the decisions. Zoning Enforcement Officer/Wetlands Agent Rudek noted everyone is meeting on their own time, and refer things on to each other.
Bob Lyke, Rye Street: agreed, he felt everyone was doing great, especially the PZC. They approved a big development on Depot Street located in a Sewer Avoidance Area and no one said anything about it. He noted there were opinions from the Town Attorney, the Attorney for the WPCA, and the developer’s attorney; he felt all the opinions were different. He questioned what the PZC can do with the new regulations and the POCD?
Commissioner Gowdy suggested the Commission had one opinion, from the Town Attorney; they did not have an opinion from the developer’s attorney. The Town Attorney told the Commission they couldn’t do anything. Commissioner Gowdy cited his concern was that the Commission is jeopardizing future funding and the Town Attorney said no. The sewer needs to have more input to run efficiently and the Town Attorney said it isn’t jeopardizing future funding. Mr. Lyke questioned that the Town Attorney was the PZC’s attorney? Commissioner Gowdy replied affirmatively.
Hearing no request for further discussion on the Agenda item, Chairman Guiliano called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this meeting at 7:50 P. M.
Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________________________
Peg Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Commission Recording Secretary
| 
