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

March 14, 2006 Minutes

TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR

Planning and Zoning Commission

Public Hearing #1479

March 14, 2006

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

The Meeting was called to order at 7:04 P. M. by Chairman Guiliano in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:

A quorum was established as five Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Ouellette, Rodrigue, and Saunders), and three Alternate Members (Kehoe, Matthews, and Tyler [arrived at 7:08]) were present. Chairman Guiliano welcomed Alternate Member Matthews to service on the Board. Also present were Town Planner Whitten, and Ex-Officio Member Selectman Filipone.

ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None.

RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:

Chairman Guiliano acknowledged receipt of the following Application:

1. Application of William E. Syme, Crop Production Services for Site Plan Approval for two-phase project for storage and warehouse space – refurbishing one building and constructing one building; demolishing two buildings and constructing a new shop and pole building, located at 15 Chamberlain Road. [M-1 Zone; Map 36, Block 58, Lot 12].

LEGAL NOTICE:

The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, March 2, 2006, and Thursday, March 9, 2006, was read by Secretary Saunders:

1. Application of Southern Auto Sales, Inc. for a Zone Change from A-1 to B-2 for property located on the south side of Phelps Road. [Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12].

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: David Flynn & Robert Daddario – Special Use Permit/Location Approval to allow car sales (Northeast Vehicle Distributors) at 84 South Main Street, owned by Vito Cortese. [TZ-5 Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lot 44]. (Deadline to close hearing 4/4/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to present the Application was David Flynn; Robert Daddario was present in the audience.

Town Planner Whitten noted the Commission had wanted to review the Minutes for the original Application in 2003, and also wanted to drive by the site.

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Tyler arrived at 7:08 P. M.

Commissioner noted he understands there are 5 parking spaces in the gravel, another 2 near the building, and 4 more in back; he indicated he didn’t see any lay out like that on the plans. Town Planner Whitten suggested the parking revisions are part of this proposal. Commissioner Rodrigue indicated he thought the proposal was for parking spaces for just this business, not the entire parcel. Commissioner Gowdy cited concern over the parking proposal, he suggested he would be much happier if they didn’t have the 8 parking spaces in front with gravel or grass. Mr. Flynn noted there are 11 spaces planned. Town Planner Whitten suggested they are proposing 6 spaces on gravel. Commissioner Gowdy suggested if they did away with the 6 gravel parking spaces and moved the vehicles closer to the building they wouldn’t have to worry about the fluids leaking and people stealing the vehicles. Mr. Flynn felt they were just gravel spaces. Town Planner Whitten suggested there are 5 existing parking spaces which are paved; they are proposing to add another 6 gravel parking spaces. Commissioner Gowdy suggested he would prefer if they did away with the 6 gravel parking spaces.

Commissioner Saunders felt they were allowed to have other parking for the residents.

Commissioner Gowdy felt the high end sales would be tempting to others. Mr. Flynn suggested North Bay Imports is across the street. Commissioner Gowdy suggested those vehicles are behind a fence; this would be tempting for other to steal; Mr. Flynn felt it was their risk. Commissioner Gowdy concurred that it was.

Commissioner Saunders suggested the existing sign is closer to the pavement than is reflected on the plans. Town Planner Whitten noted the plans submitted are supposed to be “as-builts”.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned where the parking spaces for the tenants were? Mr. Flynn pointed them out on the sketch. Town Planner Whitten suggested they are in front of the building.

Chairman Guiliano questioned if the Commissioners were worried about having a high end car dealership in front of the high school why would you consider allowing car sales in front of the high school at all? If the Commission approves this as sales of high end vehicles next week they could be low end or used cars. Commissioner Rodrigue and Mr. Flynn felt this location wasn’t in front of the high school Chairman Guiliano noted that when the Commission rezoned this property neither of those people were around; this was meant to be a TZ-5 Zone for doctor’s, or lawyer’s or a small office but not a car

dealership. This area was not zoned for a car dealership anywhere near the high school. Commissioner Gowdy suggested that’s since been changed. Chairman Guiliano indicated it’s a Special Use Permit Application. Commissioner Gowdy noted he’s spent 36 years in a classroom in the high school and the concern when this parcel was approved was the noise from the small engine repair, but on this application the Commission has been told it’s substantially internet business and the hunters for the cars will come from the internet. Chairman Guiliano felt that if they don’t sell on the internet there will be signs out front. Commissioner Gowdy concurred but felt there would be little disruption to the high school. He was also concerned that he chaired the previous meeting which allowed the building to go in without the parking; all three members in attendance missed that issue. Town Planner Whitten suggested that’s understandable.

Commissioner Saunders requested clarification from the Applicant that he was willing to forego parking in front of the parcel? Mr. Flynn suggested if the Commission would grant this Application they would get rid of the front 5 spaces on the gravel, although they would like as much parking as possible. Commissioner Saunders questioned that Mr. Flynn was making that decision on his own free will? Mr. Flynn replied affirmatively.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned what Commissioner Ouellette felt about this Application? Commissioner Ouellette suggested he didn’t know. He drove by the site many times; it isn’t really visible from the high school. He is concerned about the retail sales more on Route 5 but the Commission does allow that in a TZ-5 Zone. This is a large building; someone could be asking for a more intense use. Commissioner Gowdy suggested the Commission didn’t make the decision to build the building and then have it empty; the owner did that. The Commission made it clear what the business was when he came in. But he agreed; if it’s the lesser of two evils, and it could be permitted.

Chairman Guiliano opened discussion to the audience:

Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street: questioned how much traffic would be generated by this business? She noted there are many students going by that location. Chairman Guiliano indicated that the Applicant has said it will be minimal because he does his business on the internet. Ms. Farmer noted she understood the concern was the proximity to the high school and the noise, but she wondered if anyone had checked how many kids go by there on a daily basis? How many kids walk by there; she has noticed kids walking down Route 5 to the south. Commissioner Gowdy noted there are no sidewalks there, and there used to be an exit for the high school there at one time which was a real problem. There is a town policy to bus everyone who wants to be bussed. Ms. Farmer indicated she knows there are kids that don’t use the bus because they don’t want to; she doesn’t know how many kids pass by there. This area does have substantial traffic early in the morning and during school closing time.

Bill Loos, Melrose Road: suggested this person used to own a business on North Road; he felt he didn’t make much noise at that location. He felt that when the owner moved

down to this location it was to be for the same use and nothing else. When he saw that building going up he thought he must really be expanding. The building on North Road was like a shack, and he had lawn mowers out front and probably had little traffic. He felt the use should stay in that business – the small engine repair. Commissioner Gowdy concurred but noted that unfortunately he put in the 8,000 square foot building. Mr. Loos questioned if the business going in this location will generate more taxes that will benefit the town? Town Planner Whitten believed it would. Commissioner Gowdy felt the business the Applicant is asking for can go in that location, and other businesses more intrusive and not as conducive to that site as what is being proposed could go in there.

Chairman Guiliano queried the audience and Commissioners for additional comments; no one requested to speak.

Town Planner Whitten noted the State Statutes have changed; the location approval was previously done by the Zoning Board of Appeals but now has been transferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A motion for the approval of the location of this dealership at this location is included in the Commission’s packet. Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if they have further modifications for space that can be done later? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of David Flynn & Robert Daddario – Special Use Permit/Location Approval to allow car sales (Northeast Vehicle Distributors) at 84 South Main Street, owned by Vito Cortese. [TZ-5 Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lot 44].

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

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

MOTION TO APPROVE the location of 84 South Main Street, to be referenced as 84-D South Main Street in the future for a Dealer/Repairer License.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Rodrigue/Saunders)

Opposed: Guiliano/Ouellette

Abstained: No one

MOTION TO APPROVE, the application of David Flynn and Robert Daddario

requesting a Special Use Permit & Location Approval to conduct an indoor and

outdoor used car sales business at 84-D South Main Street, owned by VMC Realty,

Inc, c/o Vito Cortese zoned TZ-5 (Map 28, Block 5, Lot 44), This approval is

granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by

the Conditions) and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

Existing Conditions Map for Vito Cortese, 80-82 South Main Street, East Windsor, CT , scale 1” = 20’, dated September 22, 2005, last revised 12/20/05, prepared by Kratzert, Jones & Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 337, 1755 Meriden-Waterbury Road, Milldale, CT 06467-0337

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

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

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

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

3. Two final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. One shall be filed on the Town Land Records, and one filed with the Planning and Zoning Department

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

4. 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:

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

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

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

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

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

10. 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

11. Cars may not at anytime be parked in landscaped or non-paved areas, unless approved as such on the site plan.

12. All required landscaping shall be adequately maintained.

13. The 6 gravel parking spaces proposed in the front shall be eliminated; no display parking shall be permitted on the grassed area.

14. 5 paved parking spaces in the front shall be used for display spaces.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Rodrigue/Saunders)

Opposed: Guiliano/Ouellette

Abstained: No one

NEW HEARING: Southern Auto Sales, Inc. – Zone Change from A-1 to B-2 for property located on the south side of Phelps Road. [Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12], (Deadline to close hearing 4/18/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney T. Mark Barbieri, representing the Applicant, Southern Auto Sales, Inc.; and Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates.

Attorney Barbieri suggested this Site Plan was before the Commission before for a Zone Change; the property is located on the south side of Phelps Road and is the first open field beyond the military establishment. This parcel was part of the Titus Farm across the street; this parcel abuts on the west and south side with the present Southern Auto Sales (SAS) facility and inventory holding area. The west side of the parcel is wooded; the parcel also contains a Conservation Easement. Attorney Barbieri noted they originally came in in 1985 or 1986 and came back in 1990; the then owner of the property was concerned with SAS gaining access to Phelps Road. Many of the neighbors have come in since then to voice their concerns also. SAS agreed to place a Conservation Easement along that border, except for the area on the east end which allowed them to gain access to the parcel. There are wetlands on the property; they swapped property on Abbe Road with the Town for property on Stoughton Road, which is not shown on the current Town maps. Attorney Barbieri suggested they did that to satisfy the owners there would be no business access to the parcel in that area. Many years later that owner sold the property

to a developer who wanted to put condos in; SAS purchased the property from the developer for a premium price for that protection. They have expanded as much as their original plans indicated; they have done that with the exception of this parcel for which there are large areas not developed. This is the last piece and is contiguous with other pieces for SAS. This parcel is presently zoned Z-1 but is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as residential. They have not proposed to use anything on Phelps Road and are still committed to that, but thought it better to take the 150’ area left on the map in front of you, to take the Conservation Easement from the back and put it in the front. That change would be marked/noted on the final Zone Change Map. Attorney Barbieri suggested he wanted to discuss this proposal with the Commission before he drafted the easement. This proposal would be in keeping with the Commission’s regulations with regard to scenic roads, which the neighbors think Phelps Road is. If SAS hadn’t purchase this parcel there would be condos there, which would be very different than the neighborhood that’s there. If you look at the whole overall plan the Conservation Easement did do some of the things the Board and the Town wanted and would keep no business on Phelps Road.

With regard to the change in the Conservation Easement Attorney Barbieri suggested the conditions the Applicant would like included are as follows: 1) that SAS be allowed access but only for the purpose of constructing the inventory holding area (that was done before); 2) there would be an access way for emergency vehicles for Phelps Road for public health and safety; this area is far from the main building (this same emergency access was allowed in Scantic Glen at the bottom of the hill, and at Meadowview with a breakaway gate); and 3) the Conservation Easement would extinguish if the area developed in the future with heavy residential or business, then the Conservation Easement would terminate.

Attorney Barbieri suggested they are leaving the A-1 Zone along Phelps Road for the final map; they would put that on the Zone Change Map so there would be no doubt of its use, and they could include the details of the Conservation Easement.

Mr. Ussery referenced a colored map to give a description of the property being discussed. The total parcel contains 39.3 acres; 33+ acres are being proposed for the zone change to B-2. An area 150’ in depth along the full frontage isn’t part of the zone change but would still be A-1 and would be part of the Conservation Easement. The property is currently in an agricultural use; a significant portion of the parcel is wooded or contains wetlands. The parcel currently contains 3 existing barns and a pond. The wetlands were delineated when Southern Auto Sales (SAS) first purchased the property.

Mr. Ussery noted that the barn on the front of the parcel is within the area which would not be part of the Zone Change; it would be part of the Conservation Easement. They are proposing an 8’ landscape berm of trees and shrubbery which would prohibit seeing what’s going on within the rest of the property.

Mr. Ussery suggested the existing of utilities are a consideration for a Zone Change; for

that reason they are noting that all utilities are internal to the main site. Utilities are not needed for this proposal; storm drainage installed would outlet back to the main property. Mr. Ussery used his plot plan to show the area of the existing Conservation Easement, the proposed Conservation Easement, the inventory holding area, and access into the property. Attorney Barbieri suggested if the Conservation Easement were moved up front it would become part of the Zone Change Map.

Chairman Guiliano questioned what the language requested for condition 2 would be? Attorney Barbieri indicated they are requesting that there be emergency access, such as was done on Scantic Glen where it crosses the property which was transferred to the Town. Attorney Barbieri reiterated that condition 1 is that they be able to use the area for the construction of the inventory holding area, and condition 3 is that it terminates when the character of the neighborhood changes.

Chairman Guiliano suggested the Commission had turned this application down once already. Attorney Barbieri suggested they withdrew the application and the Commission approved the area below. Chairman Guiliano felt the application was withdrawn because of opposition to this proposal. Attorney Barbieri suggested the other area was more important at that time, and they felt that would be more successful at that time; he doesn’t understand why this isn’t palatable.

Chairman Guiliano opened discussion to the audience:

Sonia Morell, 93 Phelps Road: once you change the A-1 Zone it’s gone forever and the people of East Windsor have stated more than once they enjoy the rural atmosphere of East Windsor and this would eliminate 39+ acres of rural atmosphere.

Gary Clark, 82 Phelps Road: understood that the business of Southern Auto would be confined to Route 5. They have already taken 2 parcels and destroyed them; those 2 fields are gone and are parking lots now. When is enough enough? He took a ride behind the Army Reserve building and when looking north to south it looks like a tornado went through there; it’s a large, black parking lot and is empty. How much does he need? And he wants more. Once the fields are gone they are gone forever. No one on Phelps Road wants this. Why should the values of their homes go down? He is disgusted when he goes by there. He doesn’t care if the berm is 20’ high.

Ed Filipone, Ex-Officio Commission Member: questioned that the Applicant said the berm would be in the Easement area? Chairman Guiliano replied affirmatively. Ex-Officio Commissioner Filipone questioned if the berm is in the Easement area with the 150’ set back and if it gets developed for residential use would they move it back to create the buffer? Mr. Ussery suggested there wouldn’t be any development within the 150’ Easement as long as this use would be on this property; there would be no houses; it would be a landscape area and screen the use. Should the uses change along the road, or SAS use change then that piece could change. Ex-Officio Commissioner Filipone questioned what would happen to the berm if residential uses go on the Easement and the

Easement goes away? Attorney Barbieri suggested whether or not the Conservation Easement is there wouldn’t change this use; someone with another use would have to comply with uses for that use. Chairman Guiliano felt Ex-Officio Commissioner Filipone was asking if you have a Conservation Easement with this Application and the land gets sold and a different Applicant comes in is the buffer zone still there? Attorney Barbieri replied affirmatively, noting it isn’t changing the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Gowdy questioned that in essence that area could never be used to be built on? Attorney Barbieri suggested anyone can come back with anything at any time but the issue is, do you have control and he feels the Commission does. Chairman Guiliano suggested that when looking at the map it appears that below this parcel heading south there is another 17+ acre A-1 parcel, and another 9.4+/- acre parcel; it seems we are adding more for Phelps road and there could be a Conservation Easement in the back. Attorney Barbieri questioned why that would necessarily be bad; everyone is complaining about kids in schools now. He suggested it appeared the Board felt we don’t have enough industrial land but you do have SAS, and when they’re done the site work is already done. He indicated he lived in an area and doesn’t want to see a factory behind him but the Commission is here to make decisions for the Town on the whole. The issue isn’t too little woodland but too little taxes. Your purpose isn’t necessarily to keep it all rural area or not but it’s one of balance. You don’t see this as a tremendous resource. Why not make all of Route 5 auto dealerships? If SAS isn’t there there are other conglomerates. Through 2020 autos are the best form of individual transportation in the world. The Commission must decide that the rural atmosphere is better that business use. Rural atmosphere is only one factor. They are here because this use is a successful industry in town, and as it grows it produces more for the town. You must decide if that is better than tobacco fields are better.

Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street: questioned if this were to be zoned business or the inventory holding area, what is the less beneficial to the Town? Attorney Barbieri reported he will bring that information to the next meeting.

Sonia Morell, 93 Phelps Road: what would it be for a factory or an office building?

Ralph Winn, 121 Phelps Road: indicated he could respond to those questions as he is a real estate agent. It would be $0.50 or $1/square foot for paved area vs. $100/square foot for an office building; it would be 200 times the value for an office building than a parking lot.

Also, regarding the Conservation Easement, he was under the impression they are making a concession of the development now but are getting into the Conservation Easement today, but it can be moved; where will it stop?

Bob Lyke, Rye Street: is a businessman and he is in favor of having this type of business being in the right place and adding to the tax base. He has been told by the First Selectman that we have one of the highest taxes coming in for the State. He has bee involved in farmland preservation and when you run out of land zoned for

business.......Larry Tribble’s reputation precedes itself but you must consider preserving agricultural areas.

Joe LeMay, Wells Road: how much more black top do they need for their business? On the north side of Phelps Road the lot is used only for one day a week. Use what you have and then go somewhere else; you have enough holding areas already. Chairman Guiliano suggested the Commission can’t say what they need for holding areas; he knows they move cars around for the business.

Steve Farmer, 247 South Water Street: with regard to their need for more parking, he is a member of St. Philip’s and they rented space for parking and it was nice income for the church and they have stopped that and found somewhere else for that . There is space available for additional use in the area but not they are not necessarily using that. He is probably opposed to this. Chairman Guiliano reiterated the Commission doesn’t know the needs for parking for SAS and can’t comment on that.

Chairman Guiliano requested the Commissioners take a ride and look at the area being discussed.

Mr. Ussery noted there were some questions that were raised that they will address at the next meeting.

MOTION: To TABLE the Application of Southern Auto Sales, Inc. – Zone Change from A-1 to B-2 for property located on the south side of Phelps Road. [Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12] until the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on March 28, 2006 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Saunders moved/Rodrigue 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 8:16 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:30 P. M.

OLD BUSINESS: 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]. (Hearing closed 2/14/06; deadline for decision 4/20/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business.

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Rodrigue stepped down from service; Alternate Commissioner Kehoe replaced him on the Board.

Chairman Guiliano called for comments from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Ouellette indicated he had 5 issues to discuss. With regard to the PRD vs. SDD my view of the PRD is it was intended for single family homes, not apartments; that’s what I interpreteted. If this was no the case I believe there would be language in the regulation to control the density. The PRD is a Subdivision Regulation; I didn’t see where 2 lots were proposed here. I guess the Applicant could subdivide the property. I think the Applicant could have proceeded with a SDD on the site but couldn’t achieve the density he was hoping for there.

Regarding the emergency access, Commissioner Ouellette indicated there were concerns about how a ladder truck could reach the people in the rear units. We have a memo from the Fire Marshal; it talks about water flow but doesn’t mention anything about emergency vehicle access. There was some testimony that the building would be sprinklered, and built to the most appropriate codes. We heard that the interior roads were designed for emergency vehicles, but I still haven’t heard a reasonable explanation how to get, to provide emergency access to the upper units of a 3 story building.

Traffic – Commissioner Ouellette also questioned the traffic distribution on South Water Street and Route 5. I believe that the distribution should be more oriented to Route 5 to the north because of the nearby I-91 interchange. The engineer did submit an alternate analysis showing that the overall levels of service will work but what they didn’t tell you is there is something else in the analysis called a queue analysis. A queue analysis is nothing more than a way to measure vehicle back ups. Under the revised analysis he submitted showing more left turns oriented to the north the back up in the morning peak hour, which is the critical peak hour, did back up about 220’ on Route 5 – 220’ back, that’s about half way to the building access. Under the other, his original submittal, the back up was really only about 100’, so that question, in my vied they certainly question whether or not there is a capacity issue. I believe there is.

And, also, Commissioner Ouellette indicated we talked about capacity. The alternate analysis and the original analysis, the overall maybe ok, but you have to look at each individual approach. There is a substantial degradation of capacity on South Water Street during that one peak hour.

With regard to a question about the Open Space, Commissioner Ouellette wondered if it’s any value to the Town? It seemed to him it’s not useable to anybody.

Commissioner Ouellette indicated the last issue he had regarded the height of the buildings. An argument was presented by the Applicant that the additional height is necessary to achieve architectural style proposed so it would be distinctive with the highest walls. I just don’t see how the architecture can be both distinctive and also fit

into the character of the area.

Commissioner Kehoe also had an issue with the PRD vs. the SDD; he didn’t feel it

should be here under a PRD. It should be a SDD. He also had reservations on the drainage system, and the impact along the Connecticut River.

Commissioner Saunders indicated he would have to agree with the question of the PRD vs. the SDD. When we originally set that up we, it was not intended for high density; it was only for single family. He suggested he would have to agree with Commissioner Ouellette on the issue of a fire in the back of the building; he had concerns with that.

With regard to traffic issues, Commissioner Saunders indicated Commissioner Ouellette was the traffic man.

Commissioner Saunders indicated he would have to disagree on the architecture; I think they did do a good job on the architecture of the buildings, and, looking at the area there is quite a few multi-family units that are already in that area. And, if there was an area in town that this would fit in Commissioner Saunders believed that this would fit in this area. However, because of the PRD vs. the SDD he can’t go along with this project.

Commission Gowdy indicated he had all the same issues as his fellow Commissioners, but the PRD has been his issue ever since they started. The Open Space, as others have mentioned, I just don’t see that there offering of Open Space is offering us anything.

Commissioner Gowdy indicated there is no doubt in his mind, and he was part of writing the regulation, that the PRD was for single family residential. Unfortunately, we might have led you to believe that the PRD was the way to go, but hopefully along the way, at least I tried to imply that perhaps that wasn’t the right way to go.

Chairman Guiliano suggested he agreed with Commission Ouellette on the traffic; he didn’t see how 172 units wouldn’t change the traffic in the area – that it wouldn’t have any impact.

Chairman Guiliano indicated that the Applicant always brought up diversity and housing as it says in the POD but his concern is how is putting more apartments on this site making the housing in this area diverse? There is already plenty of apartments and condos in the area; what we need on this site for diversity are single family houses as it’s zoned. As for fitting into the area Chairman Guiliano thought that blocking out more of the river-view with 3 story apartments does not fit in. Also, the density for this site is far too high; we would never in the past have allowed such a high density on such a small piece of land. The Applicant will say that his interpretation of the PRD would allow apartments; I know that when we wrote the regulations for the PRD that the apartments were never part of the regulations. I know this has been true because I was in on writing them – the PRD Regulations.

Chairman Guiliano indicated when the Applicant came in for your application for a pre-plan review I know that there were some members of the Board that thought your project might be a good idea. The Town Planner tried to tell you that you should not come in

under the PRD but you decided to go ahead. When you come in for a pre-plan review there are no guarantees that the project will go forward; you proceeded at your own risk.

Hearing no further requests for comments Chairman Guiliano called for a motion on the waivers and the project.

MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVERS of

1. Section 18 – Maximum Height in stories from 2 stories max. to 3 stories

2. Section 18 – Maximum Height in Feet – from 30 feet max. to 42’+/-

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: No one

Opposed: Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)

Abstained: No one

MOTION TO APPROVE the Site Plan Review and Special Permit Application of Phoenix Farm Company, LLC for a ~~192~~ 172 unit residential apartments Planned Residential Development (PRD) located at a 14.78 acre parcel on the south side of South Water Street, known as Assessors Map 13, Block 5, lot 35, a.k.a. River Place - R3 Zone. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the conditions) and the following conditions.

Referenced Plans:

Title Sheet River Place, Phoenix Farm Company, LLC, South Water Street, East Windsor, CT Inland Wetlands, Special Permit and Site Plan Permit Applications, September 2, 2005, Revised Oct. 28, 2005, and November 11, 2005, prepared by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., 6 Creamery Brook Road, East Granby, CT 06026, phone 860/653-8000, fax 860/844-8600, email HYPERLINK "mailto:mail@fahesketh.com"

mail@fahesketh.com, including the following:

MA-1 Master Layout Plan – revised 1/24/06

LA-1 Layout Plan

LS-1 & 2 Landscape Plan

GR-1 Grading, Sediment & Erosion Control Plan

UT-1 Utility Plan

PP-1/2 Utility Plan and Profiles

SD-1 thru 5 Site Details

NT-1 Notes

PS Property Survey

A-1 Building Elevation

A-2 thru 4 Building Floor Plans

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. One set of mylars shall be submitted to the Commission for signature. All plans shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans. (One paper set of the structural plans shall be submitted for signature.)

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

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

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

5. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan for the entire development shall be submitted at the time of application for the site improvement Zoning Permit. The plan shall include the engineers estimated costs for E&S controls. The Town Engineer will review the plan and cost estimates and will set the E&S bond amount.

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

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

7. Site improvements must be completed or bonding in place.

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

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

10. All state inspection fees must be paid.

11. No work shall be performed at the base of the escarpment between December 31 and March 1 of any given year.

12. All old growth trees 12” in diameter or greater should remain by the waterside if at all possible.

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

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

14. A paper copy of the final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, roads, walks, driveways, drainage systems, and final floor elevations as well as spot

grades shall be submitted and approved by the Town Planner.

15. A final “As-Built” mylar shall be submitted and signed by the Commission.

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

General Conditions:

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

18. 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.

19. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading is subject to the approval of the town engineer.

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

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

22. 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.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: No one

Opposed: Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)

Abstained: No one

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

OLD BUSINESS: Ron Fortune of Consulting and Design, LLC – Modification of Approved Site Plan for existing carwash 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, of Consulting and Design, LLC.

Mr. Fortune reported the signs were taken down and the lettering on the canopies were covered on the canopies; the vacuum islands will be painted from red to tan; the red ends of the vacuum canopies will be made the same color as the blue on the sides of the canopy. They will be changing the red uprights to tan.

Chairman Guiliano questioned if the work would be completed when the weather permits? Mr. Fortune replied affirmatively, but noted scheduling to get it done is somewhat of a problem. He also noted the temporary sign has been taken down.

Chairman Guiliano noted he drove by the property at 11 o’clock and the lights were off; he questioned if they were on timers? Mr. Fortune replied affirmatively.

Chairman Guiliano questioned if there had been any complaints from across the street? Town Planner Whitten replied negatively, but noted some complaints had been made by people living on South Water Street that the area was awfully bright. Commissioner Ouellette felt the work is an improvement; he’s satisfied. Commissioners Tyler and Rodrigue concurred. Mr. Fortune reported it is down lighting presently but the light comes through the stars in the canopy.

Commissioner Gowdy felt they could cut down on the brightness; the purpose of the lights is for the people vacuuming their cars and if the lights were turned down it would cut down on the light. Mr. Fortune reported the light that’s there is down light except for the stars which is needed for the vacuuming. Chairman Guiliano clarified that he would be painting the ends of the signs blue and the only thing different would be the stars and the things coming from the stars? Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the lights were shining down? Mr. Fortune replied affirmatively to both questions; he noted it’s recessed lighting within the structure so it has to be down lit. Town Planner Whitten noted that with the exception of what shines through the stars it used to shine through the whole canopy. Discussion followed; Commissioner Gowdy cited his concern was this building lit up like a 3 star candle across from an historic building. He felt the amount of light could be cut down. It was noted that Pasco’s has a fair amount of light itself, and other businesses down the road in the area have significant lighting as well. The lighting from the canopies is also a safety issue for late night users; the Applicant has made changes as requested and will continue to make more, the changes already made are an improvement. Commissioner Saunders questioned what the other car wash businesses had for lighting? Town Planner Whitten indicated Tracy’s had similar lighting; Don’s just has a light on the building. Commissioner Gowdy felt the vacuums were put in more for advertisement. Mr. Fortune noted the original approval had vacuum islands with low light; the car wash company suggested this type of lighting which is how the change was made. Commissioner Gowdy felt the Applicant had changed the Site Plan; Commissioner Rodrigue felt the vacuum islands were a detail of the Site Plan; Commissioner Kehoe suggested he would have not used those colors near a village atmosphere. Chairman Giuliano noted the Commission doesn’t approve colors; he noted the building design isn’t so bad. Town Planner Whitten questioned if the Applicant would make the canopy tan, which would be more in line with the building? Mr.

Fortune indicated they would like some contrast at the location. Commissioner Gowdy questioned the need for the stars? Town Planner Whitten noted the stars are part of the sign package, which is within the limit allowed. She noted the changes and the continued revisions are an absolute improvement over what was put in originally.

Discussion continued for a time with regard to lighting options.

MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of Ron Fortune of Consulting and Design, LLC requesting a modification of approved site plan for an 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]. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)

Referenced Plans:

- “B&D Petroleum Sales, Inc., Vacuum Detail for 30 South Main Street, East Windsor, CT , prepared by Consulting & Design , 33 Park Plaza, Lee, MA dated 12/1/05 sheet TS-7

- Sheet L-2,Family of Signs, dated 11/10/05, rev. 12/28/05

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

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

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

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

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

4. All signage, quantified, shall be placed on the final as built plans.

General Conditions:

5. In accordance with Section 13.5.4 of the Zoning Regulations, any approval of a site plan application shall commence the construction of buildings within

one year from the date of approval and complete all improvements within five years of the date of approval, otherwise the approval shall become null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

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

8. 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.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

VOTE: In Favor: Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders

Opposed: Gowdy

Abstained: No one

NEW BUSINESS: Elzear Rodrigue – Modification of Approved Site Plan – to include outside temporary storage of recreation vehicles, trailers, autos and boats at 22 Wagner Lane. {M-1 & B-1 Zones, Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3]. (Deadline for decision 3/16/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Elzear Rodrigue.

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Rodrigue stepped down; commissioner Kehoe replaced him on the Board.

Mr. Rodrigue indicated that on the original site Plan he didn’t show recreational parking, only permanent parking. He noted that this is a self storage facility, and under the M-1 Regulations he is allowed to have parking in a specific area but he didn’t show it on the Site Plan. They have parked there from day one. Town Planner Whitten has suggested he amend the Site Plan. Commissioner Gowdy suggested now the amendment will make the parking legal; Mr. Rodrigue felt he always was legal. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if there were any complaints about the facility? Town Planner Whitten suggested there must have been a complaint to start the violation notice from Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek. She suggested this amendment is just a formality.

Commissioner Kehoe questioned if the facility is fenced in? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively, noting the facility is very secure.

MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of Elzear Rodrigue for a site plan

amendment to allow outside storage of recreational vehicles, autos, boats etc. at property located at 22 Wagner Lane . [M-1 Zone , Map 13, Block 11, Lot 2 & 3]

This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)

Referenced Plans:

- Sheet 1 of 1 – Site Plan – Property of Elzear A. Rodrigue, 22 Wagner Lane, East Windsor, CT Map 13, Blk. 11 Lot 2 & 3, Zone M1 & B1, prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. (860) 623-0569, Fax (860) 623-2485 Scale 1” = 40’, Dated 12/9/05

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

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

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

3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners,

and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall be filed in the land records prior to the signing of the final plans.

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

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

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

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

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

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

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

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

General Conditions:

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

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

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

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

14. 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

15. All landscaping shall be maintained.

Saunders moved/Kehoe seconded/

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

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

NEW BUSINESS: Two Fifty Main EW, LLC – Site Plan Approval for 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]. (Deadline for decision 4/20/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates, and the Applicant, Greg

Grayson.

Mr. Ussery reported this proposal is for Site Plan approval for an addition to an existing building located at 250 Main Street, East Windsor. Page 3 of the plans shows a 4,630 square foot addition being added to the northeast end of the building; there will also be 2 new loading areas on the west side of the building. Drainage is being added to existing storm drainage system. There will be no change in the number of employees as a result of the new additional space; based on the number of employees they are required to have 16 parking spaces while they are providing 17. There will be no new paving for the parking spaces. Within a B-2 Zone 30% Building Coverage is allowed; with the addition they will have 13.2%. Allowable Impervious Coverage is 65%; with the addition they will have 31.8%.

Access for vehicles is provided around the building currently via an 18’ paved driveway.

Mr. Ussery indicated there will also be a slight change in the configuration of the property line. Mr. Grayson also owns 248 Main Street; they needed to reconfigure the lot line to provide the required side yard set back.

Mr. Ussery noted this proposal has been through Inland/Wetlands and has received approval. The plans have been reviewed by the Town Engineer and the North Central Health District (NCHD), with both granting approval. The WPCA has also approved the project; Mr. Ussery noted the property is presently on a septic system and sewer is available but the property is not presently tied in.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the reconfiguration of the property line created a new lot? Mr. Ussery replied negatively, noting it was only a lot line reconfiguration.

Chairman Guiliano questioned if the Applicant would be adding any new lighting? Mr. Ussery replied negatively.

Town Planner Whitten noted the site is very tight for large tractor trailers; she questioned if that would be alleviated by the removal of the storage trailers? Mr. Grayson replied affirmatively. Town Planner Whitten noted the building addition is going where the dumpster is presently located; Mr. Grayson suggested they don’t anticipate any need for a dumpster as this one is used for temporary in and out material. If there is a need they would locate the dumpster on the south side of the property. He indicated they will be able to move the storage of some of that metal inside. They have a compactor and a 9 yard container for trash. Town Planner Whitten questioned if a truck would be able to get to a dumpster? Mr. Grayson replied affirmatively.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned that there would be no more emissions? Mr. Grayson replied there would be no noxious transmissions. The operation is the same as what’s going on now; the addition is mainly for electronics. Used electronics are being stored next door on a rental property; they are palletized monitors. Town Planner

Whitten questioned that the Applicant then would be able to get rid of the containers? She noted she couldn’t get around the building on her inspection and she has a small car; she noted with the dumpster on the south side and the trailers on the north side it’s a fire issue. Commissioner Gowdy concurred that fire and/or emergency access is necessary. Mr. Ussery suggested they can’t get a fire truck in there and never could; it’s been like that since the building has been there. Commissioner Gowdy felt that if the Applicant was doing something different to the building it should be brought up to code. Town Planner Whitten suggested that the fire department should at least be able to get up to the building and that wasn’t possible when she was there. Mr. Grayson concurred that there was no way a fire truck would be able to get around the building but a vehicle could. He noted there is activity and people there all day long, 20 hours a day.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned that no new parking spaces were being added? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively. Chairman Guiliano questioned where the employees working in the rental building park now? Mr. Grayson indicated they don’t park next door; they work in the main building but move the palletized monitors next door for storage. Commissioner Ouellette questioned if they were providing handicapped access? Mr. Ussery suggested that’s located in front of the building.

Commissioner Matthews questioned if the Fire Marshal has made any response to this proposal? Mr. Ussery felt that typically he gets a copy of the plans; Town Planner Whitten concurred that copies of all applications and plans are passed on to the Fire Marshal. Commissioner Matthews questioned if the Fire Marshal should be responding? Town Planner Whitten suggested they feel if they don’t get a response he has no problems with the proposal. Mr. Greyson suggested it’s a typical warehouse building 16’ in height; they could get up to the building and then bring a hose in. The building isn’t sprinklered. Discussion followed regarding the lack of response from the Fire Marshal; Town Planner Whitten suggested she can’t make the Fire Marshal respond.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned what hardship would occur if the 18’ passage could be made wider? Mr. Ussery suggested the existing and proposed corner on the northeast side of the building is tight, and they would be filling in on the slopes to widen the area and it would require more retaining wall. Commissioner Ouellette suggested it’s a balance of the natural resources vs. emergency access; Mr. Ussery concurred, noting there is access to that corner but they would not be able to make full access around the building. Commissioner Tyler felt there would be no problem; they wouldn’t be putting a truck on the northeast corner as there is no access to the building at that spot. They would be access on the southeast corner. Commissioner Saunders suggested the type of materials going into the building would lessen the concern. Commissioner Tyler felt this isn’t the type of use that requires sprinklering. Mr. Greyson suggested there are no combustibles there.

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Two Fifty Main EW LLC, for a site plan modification to construct a 4,630 sq. ft. warehouse addition at 250 Main Street, on property zoned B-2, as shown on Assessor’s Map 11, Block 15, Lot 2 & 4. This approval

is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)

Referenced Plans:

- Sheet 1 of 4– Cover Sheet - “Building Addition Northeast Lamp Recycling Inc., 250 Main Street, East Windsor, CT, prepared for Two Fifty Main EW LLC, 250 Main Street, East Windsor, CT 06088 860/292-1992 by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. (860) 623-0569, Fax (860) 623-2485 Scale 1” = 400’, dated 1/23/06

- Set Includes:

- Sheet 2 of 4, Reconfiguration Plan, scale 1” = 40’

- Sheet 3 of 4, Site Plan/Building Addition, scale 1” = 20’

- Sheet 4 of 4, Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Notes and Details.

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

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

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

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

4. The boundary line adjustment must be filed on the land records. A copy of the filed document shall be submitted tot eh Planning Department.

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

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

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

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

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

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

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

General Conditions:

10. In accordance with Section 13.5.4 of the Zoning Regulations, any approval of a site plan application shall commence the construction of buildings within one year from the date of approval and complete all improvements within five

years of the date of approval, otherwise the approval shall become null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

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

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

15. All landscaping shall be maintained.

Gowdy moved/Saunders 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 9:37 P. M., and RECONVENED at 9:47 P. M.

BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Final review of draft regulations (booklets 10, 11, & 12) from Moratorium Workshop. Set Public Hearing.

Town Planner Whitten advised the Commission that at the last meeting they completed final changes to the proposed Zoning/Subdivision/Plan of Conservation and Development Strategies. Mr. Chalder has completed the final changes based on everyone’s final comments; those changes are contained in Booklet 10. If the Commission is ok with the changes we could go to a Public Hearing, with prior 35 day notification to CRCOG. She questioned if the Commission is ok with the multi-family housing changes as proposed; she referenced page 5 and 12 of Booklet 10 - and the Residential Growth Guide Plan. Multi-family housing is now proposed for only the pink areas shown in the village districts of Broad Brook and Warehouse Point; multi-family housing is now to be known as Multi-Family Development Districts (MFDD) rather than a Special Development District (SDD).

Chairman Guiliano noted he has thought about the proposed changes and isn’t comfortable with having multi-family developments in just these 2 areas. He indicated he didn’t know if we have the areas in these designations to do something with multi-family housing, and he didn’t know if he wants to see apartments and condos in Broad Brook and Warehouse Point. He felt there may be other areas in town where multi-family could be done. Chairman Guiliano suggested his main concern with multi-family developments were apartments.

Town Planner Whitten indicated she was trying to find a way to develop language to promote single family condo units rather than apartments.

Commissioner Rodrigue suggested that when looking at the existing SDD areas where multi-family developments have happened he felt there were opportunities in other areas besides the villages, areas such as the Route 5 corridor and side roads, maybe Route 140 and Route 191. Commissioner Gowdy liked the proposal as presented, but felt the Commission isn’t completely in favor of apartments. He agreed apartments don’t bring anything to the community, other than the taxes on the buildings; they often create more problems than they solve. He felt the village areas as proposed, with the requirement of a zone change, is great. Commissioner Rodrigue felt that part of the balance was to work out from the hubs, and there are areas in the corridors that fit. Commissioner Tyler felt the Commission had a good handle on apartments and condos because they need sewer and water, and there is a huge area where that will never happen. He didn’t feel it’s in the best interest of the town to confine development to the two areas. If you tell a

developer that’s the only place it can happen that’s where it will happen; the best way for the developer to maximize use of the land is multi-family housing. If the Commission keeps consideration to areas providing sewer and water and include the Special Use Permit process and look at a proposal hard that will work. He cited the Commission did that earlier tonight.

The Commission considered eliminating apartments from the multi-family development. Commissioner Tyler felt that condos provide a way for young people to get into the home market; Chairman Guiliano felt they also were an option for older people who don’t want to go into the Over 55 developments. Commissioner Ouellette reiterated that the town already has 40% multi-family housing. Town Planner Whitten offered the option of taking the definition of apartments out of the Special Development Districts (SDD) and allow the other uses as amended; it’s basically what’s being done with the Age Restricted Housing Developments (ARHD) - allowing them in village districts and non-rural areas. Commissioner Tyler noted the need to keep them in areas providing sewer and water; then he would be in favor of keeping apartments separate. Town Planner Whitten noted apartments can be eliminated completely; there are other towns that have done that. Commissioner Gowdy felt condos, either attached or detached, could go in the pink areas. Chairman Guiliano and Commissioner Saunders felt that might be problematic.

Commissioner Matthews felt the Commission needed to balance the large number of apartments. Town Planner Whitten suggested that multi-family housing typically doesn’t have a lot of students, while she could almost at least one, if not two, kids in each single family home. Commissioner Matthews suggested Wynwood Apartments (Warehouse Point) has 200 units and 35 students; he suggested that should be compared to the figures given for the proposal for 220 apartments on North Road which would generate 10 students. Mill Pond (Broad Brook) has 365 units, 418 children, or which 305 are students. Commissioner Gowdy felt Wynwood might have more students as testimony was recently given that an entire bus picked up students from Wynwood. Commissioner Matthews reported he received his numbers from Superintendent Galluci’s department.

Elizabeth Burns, 2 Bridge Street: speaking from the audience, indicated that from birth to age 18 Mill Pond has 410 children; it’s also the largest complex and the only one with 3 bedrooms, which is the reason it attracts families with more than one child per unit. Wynwood and River Hollow only have 2 bedroom units.

Ms. Burns suggested the Commission include an effective date with this proposal.

Commissioner Tyler questioned the total tax revenue for Mill Pond? Commissioner Matthews suggested it was between $225,000 and $250,000. Commissioner Tyler suggested it costs the town $8,000 to educate each child; Commissioner Matthews suggested the State picks up 32% of that cost; Commissioner Gowdy suggested it cost more to educate the Mill Pond children as the highest percentage of special needs students, which cost another $1,000 to educate, reside there.

Bill Loos, Melrose Road: suggested he liked the plan; it’s excellent for what’s there now. In 10 years the town may change. Now we have the problem of too many apartments in town; this is a good start. A lot of people in town, like the people who were here for another proposal tonight, oppose apartments. Town Planner Whitten questioned if Mr. Loos felt people oppose condos? Mr. Loos felt people were not, but felt they didn’t want condos close together. Commissioner Rodrigue suggested that many of the people here tonight speaking negative against the apartments were from areas where people are already living in apartments or condos. Mr. Loos suggested that with regard to kids in apartments, from experience in fighting fires in town and other towns for mutual aid, people can get 4 to 5 kids in a one bedroom apartment; they stack them up. He indicated he could verify that that occurs in Mill Pond.

Town Planner Whitten recalled that the Commission is now creating the Age-Restricted Housing Development (ARHD) which includes Active Adult Housing (AAH), Assisted Living (AS), and Managed Residential Care (MRC); those will occur in the pink and white areas. There are only 33 units left in AAH, the rest are truly for elderly beyond age 55.

Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street: indicated she has a problem with apartments, and it was what the people earlier tonight had a problem with - the density. Trying to put a large number of units on a small parcel isn’t good for East Windsor; she feels the density issue is more important than where you put them. Condos may be more beneficial but they don’t share the costs of roads, etc.; she doesn’t feel it should be free range and that you should be able to put 172 detached condos on a 10 acre parcel . If the Commission could get rid of apartments she would support it. They serve no purpose to East Windsor; it’s the developer who collects the rents. Ms. Farmer suggested she didn’t have a problem with the village district; she felt it will be a fight for the Commission allowing them in the white areas. Chairman Guiliano suggested he’s more worried about what they build on, and the area moving out from those designated areas; they are going into the rural areas. They belong where there are sewers. Chairman Guiliano suggested he doesn’t like the confines of the 2 small areas for condos; he doesn’t really want apartments.

Commissioner Saunders suggested striking apartments from Section 8.A.5.2 and 3 - delete apartment communities. Town Planner Whitten suggested elderly apartment complexes are different than general apartments. Elderly apartments is something East Windsor is lacking; they also have less traffic and no kids. Town Planner Whitten suggested striking apartments from SDD/MFDD, and they should not be in AAH. Commissioner Tyler questioned why the density for elderly units was 6 units/acre? Town Planner Whitten indicated they can actually go up to 12 units/acre; they are typically smaller units - essentially a one bedroom box. Commissioner Tyler suggested it would be a way to cut down on the density and take the pressure off the developer.

Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street: felt the elderly wouldn’t be able to afford larger units, and they need small units. She indicated she didn’t have a problem with 12 units/acre for assisted living or elderly housing. If you drop below that it gets more expensive to build and the people who need them can’t afford them.

Town Planner Whitten suggested multi-family housing is now 4 dwelling units/acre; everything is density based now. Commissioner Tyler questioned that even with the elderly it would be 4 units/acre? Town Planner Whitten replied negatively, noting the elderly developments could be 12 units/acre; the purpose is to have a small community densely populated where people can get assistance.

MOTION: To EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11 O’CLOCK.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/

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

Commissioner Gowdy had a problem with Section 8.A.5.3 referring to elderly occupancy as apartment communities or residential condos; he suggested he didn’t see them as part of the elderly housing. Town Planner Whitten suggested this wording comes out of the current regulations. Commissioner Gowdy questioned the definition for elderly.

Betsy Burns, speaking from the audience: it’s 62 or 65 and was based on where the funding originally came from. Park Hill (Broad Brook) was State of Federally funding so they used the State definition of elderly; Spring Village (Warehouse Point) was funded under Farmers Home/Masonic and anyone of any age who is disabled can apply to Park Hill and Spring Village. She suggested she was offering this information so the Commission wouldn’t be misled that everyone in the complexes was 62 or 65. Commissioner Gowdy indicated he has seen regulations in other towns specific to age 62.

Commissioner Matthews suggested if a developer comes along and the project is funded by the Connecticut Housing Authority they must allow people with disabilities, etc. occupy. He suggested that Mill Pond was refunded in 1999 by the Connecticut Housing Authority, which requires that you accept 25% Section 8 occupancy and the town has nothing to say about it. He questioned what control the Commission has over that issue?

Betsy Burns, speaking from the audience: suggested that in all honesty there is no funding out there. When a developer is coming in he’s coming in because he wants to make a buck. The State no longer wants to subsidize rentals. The State hasn’t freed up money in years in terms of a Park Hill situation, or a congregate living situation, like Mark Twain Housing in Enfield. Chairman Guiliano suggested developers are doing projects like Duncaster, which cost $200,000 a unit but when you die the money goes back to them.

Noreen Farmer, 247 South Water Street: questioned how elderly is defined? Town

Planner Whitten suggested Section 8.A.2.1(l) references Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 128, 8.113. Commissioner Matthews questioned that definition was used regardless of the funding? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively. After further discussion Town Planner Whitten suggested she will now delete apartments from Multi-Family Development Districts (MFDD) and allow in village districts (the pink areas) and non-rural areas (the white areas).

Town Planner Whitten agreed the Commission needed to look at this issue in more detail but needed to get past this and move on. She suggested she would work with Mr. Calder on these revisions aside from another workshop and then proposed these changes for review by the Commission at the next meeting. She would then schedule the Public Hearing for May 8th.

Commissioner Ouellette requested Mr. Chalder add critical street names - such as Route 140, Route 5, Main Street - to the maps as they are difficult to read without them.

Town Planner Whitten suggested the only other proposed change was made by Town Engineer Norton. He is suggesting that under the Sidewalk and Trail Plan/Regulations the Fee-In-Lieu of installation of sidewalks be increased to 50%, and that sidewalks be a 5” concrete slab or 8” for those that go across a driveway. Commissioner Tyler felt they were over-engineered; Chairman Guiliano felt the Commission should follow the recommendation of the Town Engineer. Commissioner Ouellette suggested he can provide the State requirements, which is 4”.

Knowing that the Recording Secretary had asked if she could comment as a resident Town Planner Whitten asked Ms. Hoffman if she had any comments?

Peg Hoffman, 28 Church Street: advised the Board she was going to ask them top put a cap on the percentage of multi-family housing. She noted that if you walked down Main Street in Broad Brook you could see 4 sites that could be developed for multi-family. Although she understood that they’ve put a density factor on multi-family developments she suggested since the POD notes there is 40% multi-family housing and also says that’s enough she was going to ask the Commission to consider putting a cap on the percentage as you did on the Active Adult Housing, which is 260 units. She indicated she didn’t have time to check on the number of apartments presently in town but Mr. Matthews had previously mentioned some good numbers, specifically Mill Pond in Broad Brook, which is 3 to 4 times larger than the Broad Brook Apartments on Main Street. Ms. Hoffman indicated that you rarely hear of incidents at the Broad Brook Apartments, and she understood that Mill Pond has its social issues, which is another issue. Town Planner Whitten suggested that Mill Pond is not the norm. Ms. Hoffman suggested she understood that but at a previous meeting Commissioner Saunders had said we need to test drive the proposal for apartments only in the village districts – Broad Brook and Warehouse Point; Mill Pond has been test driven for 30 years and it’s gone no place but down. She felt it wasn’t fair to ask segment A of a community to have their health and safety and environment degraded for segment B. Why would she go along with the

proposal of putting more multi-family in her part of town; it’s not going to be any of the areas that any of the Commissioners live in with the exception of Commissioner Ouellette. Ms. Hoffman indicated she’s worked for this Commission for 20 years and has heard the presentations for the multi-family and condo developments and they are all wonderful and a trend that’s coming for the current time. Mill Pond didn’t do that; it was proposed by a local boy and he got his permit and it was sold the next day. It wasn’t too bad when it first came in but it isn’t anything today like it when it was proposed. It’s huge; it’s absolutely huge; I guess Ms. Burns said it was the largest complex in town. Broad Brook has done it’s share.

Commissioner Matthews questioned the process for approval of the proposed changes. Town Planner Whitten indicated the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations changes are approved by the Commission; the Plan of Conservation and Development chang4es must be approved by the Board of Selectmen. Commissioner Matthews questioned that there was no town meeting on these changes? Town Planner Whitten reiterated there is no town meeting; Chairman Guiliano clarified there is no town vote on the changes but there is a Public Hearing held by the Commission at which the public can comment on the proposed changes.

The Recording Secretary requested to make one further comment on the proposal for allowing more apartments in the village district of Broad Brook.

Peg Hoffman, 28 Church Street: When you are considering Broad Brook there are sites on Main Street that can be developed. Just walk from Route 140 to the school. I guess I just don’t want you to base this whole issue that it’s ok to put them in Broad Brook because there’s not many places that can be developed. That’s just Main Street; we won’t talk about Depot Street, or Church Street. There are 4 sites at least on Main Street. Town Planner Whitten agreed; there are spots, but in the pink area there aren’t as many as the white. Ms Hoffman concurred, but noted Broad Brook is a small pink area, smaller than Warehouse Point. I don’t know what the numbers are in Warehouse Point, but I’m just saying don’t think it’s not going to happen, because it will.

BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Correspondence:

* Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning quarterly newsletter.

* Note from Carol Harding regarding the Commission’s professionalism during a recent hearing.

BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Staff Reports:

* Town Planner Whitten she had advised the Commission that the WPCA would attend the March 28th PZC Meeting, but, the WPCA will be meeting with a representative from the DEP on Wednesday, March 29th instead. They have asked that the PZC members attend that meeting being held at 7:00 P. M.

* Town Planner Whitten noted she has received requests from Meadowview Farms (AAH - Broad Brook) and Bishop Saunders (Victory Outreach, condos - Scantic) to change the architect styles of the projects as approved. Commissioners Saunders, speaking for Victory Outreach, indicated the project first started out as an AAH development but now that it’s been changed to condos they wanted to take away from all the units looking the same. Town Planner Whitten indicated the request is the same for both applications; does the Commission want to see the new architectural designs or can staff approve the changes. The Commission concurred that Staff can handle the review and approval.

* Town Planner Whitten questioned if Dunkin Donuts can have tables outside at the new location on North Road? Chairman Guiliano questioned if they have room? Town Planner Whitten indicated barely. The Commission agreed to the addition of outside tables.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 13, February 14, and February 28, 2006:

MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Special Meeting #1475 dated February 13, 2006 and Public Hearing #1477 dated February 28, 2006 as written.

Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/

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

MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Public Hearing #1476 dated February 14, 2006 as written.

Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/

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

Opposed: No one

Abstained: Saunders

SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS: None.

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 11:00 P. M.

Tyler moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: Unanimous

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________________________

Peg Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Commission Recording Secretary