TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing #1484
May 23, 2006
The Meeting was called to order at 7:02 P. M. in the Meeting Room of the East Windsor Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. by Chairman Guiliano.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as four Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Ouellette, and Saunders), and two Alternate Members (Kehoe, and Matthews) were present. Regular Member Rodrigue and Alternate Member Tyler were absent. Chairman Guiliano noted Alternate Commissioner Kehoe would sit in on Items of Business for the Board this evening. Also present was Town Planner Whitten.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:
Town Planner Whitten READ FOR THE RECORD letter dated May 23, 2006 from Attorney T. Mark Barbieri requesting a 90 day extension for filing the Subdivision approval for White Pines, LLC. She noted the 90 day extension would carry the timeframe through September 2, 2006.
MOTION: To EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FILING MYLARS TO SEPTEMBER 2, 2006 for White Pine, LLC for the Subdivision Approval.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:
1. Application of APD Engineering, LLC for Administrative Site Plan Approval for proposed 8,150+/- square foot canopy over existing fenced garden center area and minor re-configuration of existing garden center at Wal-Mart, 69 Prospect Hill Road, owned by S. R. Weiner & Associates, Inc., [B-1 Zone; Map 5, Block 14, Lot 7B].
2. Application of Thomas K. Daniels for a 2-lot resubdivision for property located at 11 and 19 Rolocut Road, owned by Marjorie Taylor and Anne Daniels. [A-1 Zone; Map 8, Block 27, Lots S4, S5, & S6].
OLD BUSINESS: Proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, Plan of Conservation and Development and proposed Zoning Map. (As proposed and referenced in Booklet 10, Zoning Strategies, as amended; Booklet 11, Subdivision Strategies; Booklet 12, POCD Amendments, dated March 7, 2006; and Proposed Zoning Map.) (Hearing closed 5/8/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business. Town Planner Whitten noted the Commission’s recommendations with regard to Regulation changes and Plan of Conservation and Development revisions had been referred to the Board of Selectmen, who suggested the following minor adjustments:
· Under the Zoning Regulations and the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) that the percentage for the fee-in-lieu of sidewalks be increased from 40% to 50% or 60%.
· Under the Zoning Regulations and the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) that a cost indicator, such as dollars per square foot or dollars per linear foot, be considered also with regard to fee-in-lieu for sidewalks.
· That the Commission considers eliminating further construction of apartment complexes along Route 140. Town Planner Whitten noted she advised the BOS that the Commission had deleted construction of apartments from the Multi-Family Housing District entirely throughout town.
Town Planner Whitten noted the remainder of the comments/recommendations were taken during the Public Hearings.
Commission discussion included:
· Fee-in-lieu of sidewalks – Chairman Guiliano suggested increasing the percentage to 50%. His concern is if the percentage is too high developers may find it will be cheaper to put in sidewalks rather than offer the fee-in-lieu; the Commission may then end up with sidewalks in undesirable locations. Commissioner Ouellette felt the Commission had the ability to change a developer’s proposal. Commissioner Matthews felt the Commission could revise the percentage valuation down easier than increasing it. Commissioner Saunders favored raising the percentage value to 50%; Commissioner Ouellette indicated he is ok with 50%.
Commissioner Saunders noted the Commission can also take into consideration the cost indicator. Commissioner Gowdy preferred the percentage value to be 60%. After clarification of the preference of the BOS Commissioner Kehoe favored 50%. Chairman Guiliano countered with a percentage valuation of 55%; the Commission concurred.
· Owner-occupied usages - Town Planner Whitten noted she understood the purpose of this wording was to try to amplify not having any more apartments but she cited concern with how to deal with this situation. No further discussion.
· Road width – Commissioner Matthews continued discussion from earlier meetings regarding his discomfort with reducing the minimum width from 28’ as carried in the present regulations to 22’. Chairman Guiliano noted the recommended reduction to 22’ is not on major thoroughfares; it’s a proposal for cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Matthews suggested in visiting current subdivisions with lesser road widths of 24’ or 30’ it’s noticeably different; you feel pinched if there is a car on the road. Town Planner Whitten suggested part of the intent is to slow traffic down; it also reduces the amount of
pavement which lessens run off and increases water quality, and is more aesthetic thereby preserving the rural character. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the Fire Marshal had any comments on the proposal? Town Planner Whitten replied negatively; he had no comments. It was noted all plans are referred to the Fire Marshal for review. The Commission also relies on the comments/recommendations of Commissioner Tyler who is a member of a local fire department; Commissioner Tyler had no problem with this proposal during discussions at previous Hearings. Chairman Guiliano suggested the final determination is at the Commission’s discretion; if it’s defined in the regulations it may avoid persistent requests for waivers. Discussion continued; it was clarified that the width of minor collectors is being reduced to 26’ from 28’ and the width of cul-de-sacs within subdivisions is being reduced to 22’. Chairman
Guiliano suggested he would rather leave the proposed revisions as they stand; Commissioners Ouellette, Saunders, and Gowdy concurred.
· Density increase which may be allowed for affordable housing – Commissioner Saunders questioned if that requirement would be at the Commission’s discretion to accept or reject? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively, noting that language is taken from the State Regulations. The suggestion to delete this language is not being recommended.
Hearing no further questions raised the Chairman called for motions of approval.
MOTION TO APPROVE the proposed text amendments to the Plan of Conservation and Development as shown in Booklet 12, Possible POCD Amendments, dated March 7,. 2006, as modified:
· Booklet 12, Page 6, Section 5: Change “forty percent (40%)” to “fifty-five percent (55%), and add a cost indicator (such as $/SF or $/LF) to be adjusted annually”
REASONS: Chairman Guiliano noted the change in percentage seemed to be most in line with what the majority of the Commission and the Board of Selectmen wanted.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
MOTION TO APPROVE the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Regulations as shown in Booklet 10, Possible Zoning Strategies, dated March 7, 2006, and as amended per pages 8, 9 12. & 14 dated 3/16/06, (as modified):
· Page 20, Section 10.8.5: Change “forty percent (40%)” to “fifty-five percent (55%), and add a cost indicator (such as $/SF or $/LF) to be adjusted annually”
· Page 5, Section 20.5.c: Change “reserved” to “reserves”.
· Page 7, Section 20.7: Change “be approved by the Commission” to “require approval of the Commission.”
· Page 12, Section 8A.10.11: Add the following as a new section: “Traffic Analysis:
1. For any development containing twenty (20) or more units, a traffic impact analysis shall be prepared by a Connecticut licensed professional engineer with expertise in traffic engineering and submitted with the application indicating:
a) the existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site,
b) the expected traffic generation from the development,
c) the effect of the expected traffic upon the level of service of the streets and intersections providing access to the development and other critical intersections affected by the development.
2. If the Commission is not satisfied with the quality of the analysis prepared by the applicant’s traffic engineer, it may hire another traffic engineer to prepare such analysis and charge the applicant for the cost of such services.
· Page 16, Section 11.6.2: Change “Section xxxx” to “Section 2.7.3”.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
MOTION TO APPROVE the proposed text amendments to the Subdivision regulations as shown in Booklet 11, Possible Subdivision Strategies, dated March 7, 2006, (as amended):
· Page 8, Section 7.4.8: Change “reserved” to “reserves”
· Page 8, Section 7.5.1: Change “an appraiser” to “a licensed appraiser” in two locations
· Page 10, Section 11.1: In the third paragraph, change “waive any the requirement” to “waive any requirement”.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
MOTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT the proposed Zoning Map with changes reflecting the new Multi Family Development Districts (MFDD) and Age Restricted Development Districts (ARDD) along with corrections to anomalies in zoning map printed March 14, 2006, prepared by Planimetrics in conjunction with NE Geo systems, (as modified):
· Addition of Map 13, Block 11, Lot 2A, 16.9 acres for White Pine, LLC. To the MFDD
DISCUSSION: Town Planner Whitten noted the proposed amendments shall become effective June 17th, 2006, one day after the end of the Residential Moratorium at midnight June 16th.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
MOTION TO END THE NINE (9) MONTH MORATORIUM ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, RESIDENTIAL RE-SUBDIVISION, AND MULTI-FAMILY APPLICATIONS. THE MORATORIUM IS TO END OFFICIALLY AT MIDNIGHT JUNE 16, 2006.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
The Commission RECESSED at 7:50 P. M. and RECONVENED at 7:57 P.M.
OLD BUSINESS: Southern Auto Sales, Inc. – (1) Intervener Petition (Evidentiary Hearing); (2) Zone Change from A-1 to B-2 for property located on the south side of Phelps Road. [Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12]. (Hearing closed 3/28/2006; deadline for decision 6/1/06):
(1) Intervener Petition (Evidentiary Hearing):
Chairman Guiliano read the descriptions for this Item of Business. With regard to the Evidentiary Hearing he then referenced Town Planner Whitten’s memo revised to May 17, 2006, noting paragraph 5 as follows: “Based on further discussions with the Town Attorney, and review of CGS requirements, it is staff’s recommendation that the evidentiary hearing not be held, as it does not comply with procedural due process requirements of CGS8-3c and 8-7d.”
Town Planner Whitten noted that CGS8-3c deals with special permit exceptions, hearing filing requirements, etc., while CG8-7d refers to time limits to hold public hearings, etc. She further noted that she and Town Attorney Penney discussed this issue at length; the recommendation was it was best to follow procedural due process rather than the Intervenor’s filing. Town Planner Whitten noted it does suggest that you must meet any other filing procedures.
Chairman Guiliano suggested this is the Commission’s decision; his personal recommendation would be to take the Town Attorney’s recommendation. Commissioners Ouellette, Saunders, Gowdy, and Kehoe agreed to take the advice of the Town Attorney.
MOTION to acknowledge the intervener petition, as filed on April 10, 2006, but not
to hold the evidentiary hearing as set to open on May 9, 2006, and tabled to May 23,
2006, as such a hearing would be contrary to procedural due process as set forth in Connecticut General Statutes 8-3c and 8-7d. Based on this decision, findings under
2a-19 would be inappropriate.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
REASON: Chairman Guiliano noted if the proposal for the Zone Change does pass the filer would have other opportunities to file his petition.
(2) Zone Change from A-1 to B-2 for property located on the south side of Phelps Road. [Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12]:
The Commission then considered taking action on the proposed Zone Change. It was noted that it will require 4 out of 5 votes for the Zone Change to pass.
MOTION TO APPROVE the petition for a zoning map amendment requested by the applicant, Southern Auto Sales, Inc. for a Zone Change from A-1 to B2 for property located on the south side of Phelps Road [Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12].for a zone change The proposed zone change area of 33.5 acres +/- is currently zoned A1, is proposed to be rezoned to B2 which would commence 150 feet south of Phelps Road. This approval effectively changes the zoning designation to B2 for all of the subject parcel except the front 5.85 acres. This approval
shall become effective on the date the mylar is filed on the land records, provided it occurs after the legal notice of action appears in the paper.
Map(s) Reference: Zone Change Map A1 Zone to B2 Zone, prepared for Southern Auto Sales, Inc, Phelps Road – Rte. 191, East Windsor CT, prepared by J.R. Russo and Assoc., 1 Shoham Rd, East Windsor, CT 06088, 860/623-0569, Fax 860/623-2485, scale: 1"=200', dated 11-2-05, Sheet 1 of 1.
Conditions:
1. This approval does not constitute approval of a site development plan or permit for any construction or use on the subject parcel.
2. Two mylar copies of the approved zone change map must be delivered to the Planning & Zoning Department to be signed by the Chairman and one member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, one shall be returned to the applicant for recording on the Town of East Windsor Land Records. One shall be placed on file in the Planning Office.
3. A copy of this motion shall be recorded on the Town of East Windsor Land Records.
4. The effective date of this rezone shall be the date the mylar is filed on the land records.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Saunders
Opposed: Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette
Abstained: No one
REASON: Chairman Guiliano felt the area should stay an A-1 Zone and complies
with the recommendations of the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Commissioner Gowdy concurred with Chairman Guiliano. Commissioner Ouellette suggested he didn’t see how the parcel rezoned as B-2 would be in harmony with the surrounding A-1 Zones; he is not in favor of seeing the B-2 Zone go further down Phelps Road. He also heard the concerns of the residents and didn’t feel the rezone was in the best interest of the Town. Commissioner Kehoe agreed with his fellow Commissioners.
NEW BUSINESS: KGS Realty, Inc. – Site Plan Approval for 15,000 square foot addition to existing industrial building and construction of a new 27,404 square foot industrial building at 24 Newberry Road. [M-1 Zone; Map 14, Block 18, Lot 6]. (Deadline for decision 6/15/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the description for this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates.
Mr. Ussery noted this proposal is a Site Plan Application for 24 Newberry Road. He has made revisions to the plans to address the following concerns raised by the Commission at the previous meeting:
· Parking – Mr. Ussery noted the number of parking spaces proposed for the new building under the original plans was 28; they had proposed a detention basin to be located in front of the building. Although there is no tenant currently proposed it would have to be a warehouse with small office use. Mr. Ussery indicated they have made the detention basin a subsurface structure, and are adding landscaping along the front of the new building. They have increased the number of parking spaces to 47. Revised drainage calculations have been provided to the Town Engineer.
Chairman Guiliano read Town Engineer Norton’s comments, which had been received by the Planning Office late this afternoon, to Mr. Ussery. Town Engineer Norton had suggested his comments were minor revisions which could be addressed via conditions. On review of the memo Mr. Ussery concurred, noting that the changes will be made.
· Turning Movements for tractor trailers from driveway/Use of Building - Mr. Ussery noted, as he did last month, that the turning movements to the east are impeded by a large 30” diameter oak tree. They reviewed the plans and have decided to remove that tree, and have increased the turning radius. At this location Newberry Road is 24’ or 26’ wide, although it’s wider (30’ to 32’) at the newer section. Although removal of the tree has helped the situation tractor trailers will encroach into the opposite travel lane when using the driveway.
Town Planner Whitten questioned if they would be replacing the oak tree being removed? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively, noting it wouldn’t be the same diameter as that being removed. Commissioner Kehoe questioned if the tree is located on public or private property? Mr. Ussery indicated it’s in the Town right-of-way. Commissioner Kehoe suggested the Applicant owes the town some trees, more than the one being taken down. Mr. Ussery indicated they could plant a new tree at this location and give the Town others for other locations. Commissioner Kehoe suggested they could be donated to the Public Works Department so they could be placed where needed. Commissioner Matthews felt installation should be part of the replacement
process.
Commissioner Ouellette suggested the radius proposed isn’t going to make that much difference. He considered that the Applicant could leave it alone and the trucks would continue to encroach on the center line; what does the 30’ radius get you? Mr. Ussery suggested it helps but doesn’t correct the situation. Commissioner Ouellette questioned how much truck traffic goes towards the east? His other concern was the sight distance; that tree takes up part of the sight triangle. He suggested there are curves further to the west, although the area is posted for 35 miles per hour people fly through there at least 45 miles per hour. Commissioner Ouellette questioned if they should bother changing the 30’ radius; what will
we get out of it; he’s telling us it will still be restricted. Changing the radius won’t help the sight line.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned the location of the 5 new trees on the plans. Chairman Guiliano suggested he thought the Commission had requested that they be moved back further from the road. Mr. Ussery suggested they could go back 10’. Commissioner Ouellette felt most of the truck traffic is probably oriented towards the west; Commissioner Matthews suggested then the 30’ radius on the east side would serve little purpose. Mr. Ussery indicated that was the area of concern raised at the last meeting; the area to the east, not the west. He made revisions based on those comments.
Commissioner Saunders questioned if the truck traffic would increase with this Application? Mr. Ussery thought not as they don’t have a tenant for the new building as yet. Commissioner Ouellette reiterated Chairman Guiliano’s comment from the previous meeting that the use for the new building could change to a more intense use. Chairman Guiliano agreed that the majority of the traffic will be going west; is there anything that could be done with the 15’ radius? Could it be cut at the street? Commissioner Ouellette questioned if they could make it a compound radius? Mr. Ussery suggested cutting the road at the street would give the location a very wide road at the gutter line, which isn’t the best situation; even if we do that a full
sized tractor trailer will still encroach over the center line, but this may help.
Chairman Guiliano questioned if Commissioner Ouellette was still concerned with the radius on the east side? Commissioner Ouellette reiterated that the east side had been his concern at the earlier meeting as he was unsure what the radius was or could be. Since it’s only the 30’ he questions how valuable that is; maybe it would be better to get as much space as possible on the west side. Chairman Guiliano requested Mr. Ussery save the 30” oak tree and work out revisions for the west side.
Commissioner Ouellette noted the Commission’s prior concern with the parking in front of the building. Chairman Guiliano recalled the comment was that the parking was better than looking at the detention basin, and the Commission was concerned with the little amount of parking. Mr. Ussery agreed, noting the current revision is a nice improvement.
Discussion turned to use of the building. Chairman Guiliano questioned if there was a change of use from the proposed warehouse with small office would that come before the Commission? He reiterated that an office use for 100 people in cubicles wouldn’t work with this parking. Town Planner Whitten suggested if the approval specified a warehouse rather than office use then the change would come back before the Board. Mr. Ussery still felt the use would be restricted to a warehouse with small office space. Commissioner Gowdy preferred to do away with the parking in front completely. Chairman Guiliano felt if the use needed a small office then that parking needed to be available. Mr. Ussery suggested that in other towns where he makes presentations
they require that the plans show space for deferred/reserved parking; the tenant tells the owner what they need, Town staff has the ability to review those needs vs. the plans and could tell an owner this tenant required use of the reserved parking. Town Planner Whitten concurred that had been done with a number of towns she has worked in; the area stays green until the parking is needed. Town Planner Whitten questioned if the Commission would do the entire front parking, as that was in addition to the other parking proposed? Chairman Guiliano replied affirmatively. Town Planner Whitten reiterated they would be installing the subsurface detention basin. Mr. Ussery indicated they would have to build some part of it. Town Planner Whitten felt Town Engineer Norton should review the drainage calculations again. Chairman Guiliano felt this parking arrangement should be included as a condition of approval and should be handled
administratively by Staff.
· Landscaping Screening – Mr. Ussery noted they have added landscape materials near the Pearo property.
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Application of KGS Realty, Inc. requesting a site plan approval for construction 15,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing building, and construction of a new 27,404 sq. ft. building and associated site improvements located at 24 Newberry Road. M-1 Zone, Map 14, Block 18 Lot 6. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)
Referenced Plans:
Cover Sheet – Sheet 1 of 6 –KGS Realty, Inc. Addition & New Industrial Building, 24 Newberry Road, East Windsor, CT, Property of KGS Realty, Inc., 17 Thompson Road, East Windsor, CT 06088 prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. (860) 623-0569, Fax (860) 623-2485 Scale as noted, Dated 03-31-06
Set Includes:
2/6 - Existing Conditions/Demolition Plan
3/6 -Site Plan
4/6 -Erosion and Sediment Notes
5&6/6 - Detail Sheets
-Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. A paper copy of the final approved plans (revisions included) shall be submitted to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of final plans.
2. All final plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall be filed in the land records prior to the signing of the final plans.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:
4. One set of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. 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.
(Additional Conditions):
16. The trees on the west side of the road to be pushed back away from the road.
17. Save the 30” oak and keep the east side entrance as it is with a 15’ radius as shown on the plans.
18. Defer front parking and subsurface detention basin shown on plans as reserve for future use, and the Town Engineer should review again the drainage calculations.
19. Increase the turning radius on the west side into the reserve area, perhaps a 30’ or 40’ radius.
20. All additional changes to be done administratively.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
NEW BUSINESS: Sonia Guzie – 2-lot subdivision for property located at 47 East Road (new lot to be 41 East Road). [R-3 Zone; Map 10, Block 77, Lot 24]. (Deadline for decision 6/15/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the description of the Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Marek Kement, of Sanderson and Washburn, representing the Applicants, James and Sonia Guzie who were present in the audience.
Mr. Kement indicated this proposal is for a 2-lot subdivision which will cause a 1-lot split from the property currently existing at this location – 47 East Road. This parcel is directly across from Brookwood Court; its northerly boundary is the Broad Brook stream. The parcel is located in an R-3 Zone, which requires a minimum 30,000 square foot lot. The total parcel contains 12.8 acres; the existing house lot will be considered Lot 1 and will contain 1.15 acres; the remaining land, 11.65 acres, will be considered Lot 2. Access to the second lot will be the existing (now shared) driveway. Approval from the North Central Health District (NCHD) for a septic system has been received via letter dated February 16, 2006; Inland/Wetlands approval was received March 1, 2006.
Mr. Kement indicated they are proposing to offer a flat fee of $2,000 in lieu of an Open Space allocation, to be paid prior to the first sale or transfer of the lot.
Mr. Kement noted they will be seeking the following waivers: sidewalks, as there are no other sidewalks in the area; street lights as there are none in the area now; and street trees, as the parcel already contains an existing driveway, there is heavy vegetation along East Road, and they are not making any changes to the existing streetscape. Commissioner Gowdy noted the developer of Hemlock Court will be cutting back the hill during construction of the second phase of that development. Mr. Kement noted this parcel has a steep embankment along East Road as it comes down the hill; it would be difficult to add another driveway at this location. He suggested the only reason for the Subdivision Application is you can’t have 2 primary residences on one lot. Commissioner Gowdy
questioned if the driveway could be located further up the hill? Mr. Kement replied negatively, noting there is a gradient of well over 15% which would prohibit entrance into a driveway, and there is already an existing driveway. Chairman Guiliano noted shared driveways are not the Commission’s preference.
A Commissioner questioned what the shed reflected on the plan was used for? Mr. Kement felt the previous owner had horses; also, the area may have been mined at one time.
Chairman Guiliano questioned if the driveway has a paved apron? Mr. Kement replied negatively, suggesting it could be made a condition.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned the proposed grade for Lot 41? Mr. Kement suggested it slopes off at 4:8. Commissioner Ouellette questioned if a fire truck could make it up that slope? Chairman Guiliano questioned the width of the driveway? Mr. Kement replied 12’.
Commissioner Matthews questioned if the property line goes down to the brook? Mr. Kement replied affirmatively. Commissioner Matthews felt a strip along the brook would be a nice candidate for Open Space. It was noted that when Brookside Court was constructed the developer donated space along the brook for use by the Broad Brook Angling Club. Mr. Kement suggested that when this Application appeared before the Inland/Wetlands Commission they wanted a Conservation Easement along the property. The resolution was to place a restriction on use of the area and add notification on plans that there are wetlands there; he noted the plans reflect a dark dashed line which indicates the area seeking protection. Mr. Kement indicated they are offering a fee-in-lieu of Open
Space as the owners want to live at the property and want to be on the brook; if it were given as Open Space everyone in town could use their back yard. They purchased the property for privacy, which was the reason they went with the restriction/protection rather than Conservation Easement. He cited there is really no access to any of this land as Open Space as the center of the brook is the property line. Also, use of any of the land as Open Space devalues the Applicant’s land. Commissioner Saunders suggested with the demarcation line as it is it is in essence like Open Space; he sees no problem with accepting the fee-in-lieu of Open Space.
Sonia Guzie came forward from the audience; she questioned discussion of public use of the land they’ve purchased. She advised the Commission the reason they purchased the land was the proximity of the brook and the privacy of the parcel. Chairman Guiliano felt the Applicant’s comments as to the reason for purchasing the land made the wetlands restriction and fee-in-lieu of Open Space more reasonable. Chairman Guiliano queried Commissioner Matthews if he was satisfied with the proposal as presented; Commissioner Matthews replied affirmatively. Commissioners Kehoe, Ouellette, Saunders, and Gowdy concurred with the proposal as presented by the Applicant.
Commissioner Kehoe questioned if Town Engineer Norton reviewed the location of the well? Mr. Kement indicated that’s the choice of the NCHD. Town Engineer Norton feels it should be located to the west on the other side of the driveway, 75’ from the septic area. Town Planner Whitten noted the Application file contains the NCHD approval; she agreed jurisdiction of the well is the purview of the Health Department.
MOTION: To APPROVE A $2,000 FEE-IN-LIEU OF OPEN SPACE for the Application of Sonia Guzie for a 2-lot subdivision for property located at 47 East Road (new lot to be 41 East Road). [R-3 Zone; Map 10, Block 77, Lot 24].
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
REQUEST FOR WAIVERS: The applicant requests the following waivers:
1. Section 6.3 (sidewalks) No sidewalks to be provided, as none exist in proximity of the subject parcel.
2. Section 6.5 (street lights) no street lights in area
3. Section 2.7 (street trees) no change to existing landscape as proposed on the Site Plan and significant vegetation already exists at the site.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of owner Sonia Guzie for a 2-lot subdivision on a total parcel of 12.8 acres located at property known as 47 East Road, zoned R-3 as shown on Assessors’ Map 10, Block 77, Lot 24. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
Sheet 1/3 - “Subdivision Plan prepared for James & Sonia Guzie, 47 East Road, East Windsor Connecticut, Map 10, Blk 77, Lot 24; scale 1”= 50’ dated December 16, 2005, rev. March 15, 20065/04, last revised 12/20/04, prepared by Messier & Assoc., Inc., Surveyors – Engineers, Manchester Ct 860/646-6013, Putnam Ct 860/928-Sheet 1 of 3, dated 6-21-04 \
Sheet 2/3 – Site Plan
Sheet 3/3 – Detail Sheet
Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:
4. 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.
5. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.
6. The final mylars shall contain the street numbers assigned by the East Windsor Assessor’s Departments and the Map, Block and Lot numbers assigned by the Assessor's Office. All buildings must be identified by meeting the East Windsor House Numbering Ordinance requirements.
7. If the $2,000 fee per lot, payable to the Town Treasurer, is not paid prior to the filing of the final mylars, the mylars shall contain a clearly visible notation for each applicable lot stating, “Any sale or transfer of this property within five (5) years of the original (re)subdivision approval to a person not exempt under section 7.10 of East Windsor’s Subdivision Regulations shall result in the liability of payment ($2000) to the Town of Eat Windsor for the total fee as defined in Section 7.6 of East Windsor’s Subdivision Regulations”.
8. The applicant shall provide two street trees on each lot and have them shown on the final plan.
9. 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:
10. The lot shall comply with the requirements of the North Central District Health Department requirements for on-site septic systems and wells.
11. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. One set of signed mylars, Sheets 1 of 4, shall be filed with the town clerk by the applicant, no later than 90 days after the 15-day appeal period from publication of decision has elapsed or this approval shall be considered null and void unless an extension is granted by the Commission. One set, sheets 1-4 of 4 shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.
12. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan shall be submitted for each lot at the time of application for Zoning Permits.
13. A cash (escrow) or passbook bond shall be submitted for sedimentation and erosion control maintenance and site restoration during the construction of the project. Any funds that may be withdrawn by the Town for such maintenance or restoration shall be replaced within five (5) days or this permit shall be rendered null and void. The applicant's engineer shall submit an estimated cost of the E & S controls to the Town Engineer and the final amount of said bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer. (This bond covers public improvements, not individual lots.)
14. Any conservation easements shall be located and marked in the field prior to any issuance of permits.
Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:
15. Iron pins must be in place at all lot corners and angle points.
16. Final Health District approval of the drinking water supply and the installation of the septic system must be demonstrated.
17. The driveway must have a 15' paved apron or a bond for such submitted.
18. Final grading and seeding shall be in place or a bond for the unfinished work submitted.
19. Final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, driveways and final floor elevations as well as spot grades and required landscaping shall be submitted.
20. All required landscaping shall be in place, or if weather does not permit, a bond for the required plantings shall be submitted
21. 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:
22. This subdivision approval shall expire five years from date of approval. Failure to complete all required improvements within that time shall invalidate the subdivision. The developer may request an extension of time to complete the subdivision improvements from the Commission. Such extension shall not exceed the time limits as provided for in the Connecticut General Statutes, Section 8-26c, as amended. The Commission shall require proper bonding be in place prior to the approval of any such extension.
23. A Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work.
24. 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.
25. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the resubdivision is subject to the approval of the town engineer.
26. Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.
27. 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.
28. Should the property transfer ownership before all work is completed, or before a certificate of completeness is issued, the new owner must place new bonds in their name, at which time the original bond(s) may be released.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
NEW BUSINESS: Lawrence Tribble, Jr. - Modification of Approved Site Plan for Cornerhouse Restaurant, 75 South Main Street – to add an area for outside dining. [TZ-5 Zone; Map 28, Block 28, Lot 1] (Deadline for decision 7/13/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates, and Rick Nadeau, of Southern Auto Sales, representing the Applicant.
Mr. Ussery noted they are seeking Site Plan Modification, as the plan before the Commission is a little different than the one they approved. They were originally not proposing any changes to paving and had intended to patch as needed, but as they went along Mr. Tribble felt the entire area should be repaved. That is shown on this plan, as well as an area proposed for outside dining on the south side of the building. They will either be installing a deck with fence around it, or a patio with a wall with wrought iron railing; either space will allow installation of tables with umbrellas for people to take food outside. There are fairly large trees nearby to provide shade; they will be adding larger Bradford Pear Trees as well. There will be 3 islands with split rail fences and shrubs for
additional landscaping.
They are also installing a new sign as well. Commissioner Ouellette questioned if the sign could be moved inside at all; it’s presently located partly within the State property. Mr. Ussery indicated a smaller sign will be installed on the existing pole. Commissioner Gowdy queried Commissioner Ouellette what his concern was? Commissioner Ouellette suggested the approval of the sign was outside this Commission’s purview if it’s located on State property.
The Commission discussed the beneficial improvement to the property. Chairman Guiliano noted it was nice to have this property located across from the high school looking as good as it does now. It was noted no additional seating is being provided; renovations caused a reconfiguration to the kitchen and seating.
Motion to approve the modifications as noted for the application of Lawrence Tribble, Jr. for Site Plan Amendment for a 240 sq. ft. building addition and associated improvements at 75 South Main Street, East Windsor, Connecticut, zoned TZ-5 as shown on Assessors’ Map 28, Block 20, Lot 1. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions) and all conditions as stated in the original approval of October 11, 2005.
Referenced Plan:
Sheet 1/1: Site Plan, Cornerhouse Family Restaurant, 75 South Main Street, East Windsor, Connecticut, Map 28, Blk 20, Lot 1&2, TZ5 Zone as prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, scale: 1”=20', dated 8/26/05, last revised 5/8/06
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Saunders
Opposed: No one
Abstained: Ouellette
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
The Commission RECESSED at 9:20 P. M. and RECONVENED at 9:27 P. M.
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Informal Discussion: David J. Palmberg – regarding Savona property, Prospect Hill Road:
Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this preliminary query was David Palmberg, of William Palmberg & Son, LLC.
Chairman Guiliano noted this is an informal discussion; the Commission is not held to comments/suggestions made during this discussion. Mr. Palmberg agreed, noting they were looking for options for development of this site.
Mr. Palmberg noted the site is located north of Sophia’s Restaurant; the parcel used to contain a house which has been demolished; some paved parking remains in front while the remainder is lawn. The parcel presently contains an existing curb cut on Route 5. Mr. Palmberg noted the family is considering development with a possible 2 story building to be used for retail on the first floor and a professional office on the second. The parcel is located within a B-1 Zone, which allows overlay of the Highway Interchange Floating Zone (HIFZ) and allows the Commission flexibility with regard to site conditions. After reviewing the regulations Mr. Palmberg questioned that this type of property was the type the Commission had in mind when they envisioned use of the HIFZ. He noted Town Planner
Whitten had suggested combining this parcel with the Sophia’s parcel (same ownership) but this parcel is restricted by a 4’ high retaining wall between it and the Sophia’s Restaurant parcel. The restaurant parcel couldn’t reduce their traffic pattern. Mr. Palmberg suggested combination of the parcels wouldn’t allow shared parking within a campus setting as the HIFZ allows because of the difference in elevation of the parcels. He noted there is a small pocket of wetlands to the east of the site behind the trailer park and the new Dunkin Donuts location but that shouldn’t affect this parcel.
Mr. Palmberg suggested that because of the shape and size of this parcel and the restriction of the retaining wall if they moved forward with development under the B-1 Zone some possible waivers/variances that might be needed could include: side yard set backs, coverage, parking, and buffers. With regard to set backs Mr. Palmberg suggested he spoke with Fire Marshal Simpkins; he wants to see at least 24’ on the north side of the building. The immediate abutter to the north is a plaza including the Poolman Company; there is pavement up to the property line to the north. There would be problems meeting buffer requirements; Mr. Palmberg suggested maybe they could make it up somewhere else.
Mr. Palmberg reiterated he didn’t believe this type of parcel is what the Commission envisioned for the overlay zone (HIFZ).
Commissioner Gowdy questioned the location of the existing curb cut; Commissioner Ouellette suggested that until the grade difference was mentioned this would have been a perfect candidate for combining curb cuts. Commissioner Ouellette questioned if it would be practical to get rid of the retaining wall and regrade the site? Mr. Palmberg suggested that to support the parking they would have to go 12’ into the property. Chairman Guiliano felt the owner was trying to fit a lot of stuff onto a small property. He also was concerned with taking one little parcel and changing it so the developer can build a bigger building. Commissioner Gowdy felt the parking constraints would determine the size of the building; he questioned if a one story 3,000 square foot building as shown on the
concept plan would be financially feasible? Town Planner Whitten questioned if the owner would consider retail on the first floor with residential above, as that would require less parking? She read an excerpt from Section 8.1.6 of the Regulations. Mr. Palmberg questioned how appealing that would be for that location? Commissioner Matthews suggested they are violating the 20’ side yard; he suggested maybe they could violate it more to reorientate the building to get better access to the rear, or they could take it to the extreme and go right up to the retaining wall. Town Planner Whitten suggested under the HIFZ the Commission could consider a zero lot line development, although she noted the intent of the HIFZ isn’t for small sites. Chairman Guiliano concurred. Town Planner Whitten reiterated combining the lots; Mr. Palmberg wasn’t sure what that would accomplish. Town Planner Whitten noted it
would be more applicable to the intent of the HIFZ because the parcel would then be larger. Chairman Guiliano reiterated he was concerned with changing the zone of just that small parcel. There are options for development of that parcel under the B-1 Zone. He suggested he didn’t feel the parcel fit the criteria for changing the zone for that one little piece of property; Commissioner Ouellette concurred. Commissioner Gowdy felt it could be used for something as presently zoned. Chairman Guiliano felt they couldn’t really combine the parcels because of the change in elevation unless they changed the whole property and started over. Commissioner Gowdy questioned that they shouldn’t pursue this proposal? Commissioner Ouellette felt not as presented. Commissioner Saunders felt there were things that could be done within the present zone; perhaps a different shaped building. Chairman Guiliano indicated the
Commission would more than happy to look at something that fits, and this doesn’t mean the owner can’t come to request a zone change. Mr. Palmberg noted they were looking for direction and have received information to work on.
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Discussion on grant applications and request for letters of support: a) Agricultural Viability Grant:
Town Planner Whitten reported the Town has agreed to work with other towns to study regulations for farming businesses – perhaps to change regulations to allow farm stands to operate retail uses along with crop sales. Presently if you grow strawberries you can only sell them, not jam you’ve made from the strawberries. At present the only involvement from East Windsor is a match of in-kind services of staff time.
The Commission expressed support for this venture; Chairman Guiliano signed a letter of support.
MOTION: TO ACCEPT THE LETTER DATED MAY 23, 2006 WRITTEN BY CHAIRMAN GUILIANO INDICATING THAT THE EAST WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY VOTED AT its MAY 23, 2006 REGULAR MEETING TO SUPPORT A REGIONAL GRANT APPLICATION UNDER THE 2006 AGRICULTURE VIABILITY GRANTS PROGRAM TO PARTICIPATE IN DRAFTING FARMLAND PRESERVATION REGULATIONS.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Discussion on grant applications and request for letters of support: b) Tschumi Property:
Town Planner Whitten noted the Town is interested in purchasing the Tschumi property at 320 Rye Street; the Town is applying for a grant for funding.
The Commission expressed support for this venture; Chairman Guiliano signed a letter of support.
MOTION: TO ACCEPT THE LETTER DATED MAY 23, 2006 WRITTEN BY CHAIRMAN GUILIANO INDICATING THAT THE EAST WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY VOTED AT its MAY 23, 2006 REGULAR MEETING TO SUPPORT A GRANT APPLICATION UNDER THE 2006 OPEN SPACE AND WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION GRANTS PROGRAM FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE TSCHUMMI PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 RYE STREET, EAST WINDSOR, CT.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Correspondence:
Chairman Guiliano noted receipt of the following:
Connecticut Municipalities Seminar
Editorial authored by Cliff Winn which appeared in the Hartford Courant on Thursday, May 18th regarding the Southern Auto Sales Zone Change Application.
BUSINESS MEETING/(4) Staff Reports: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 8, 2006 (Special Meeting) & May 9, 2006 (Regular Meeting):
MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1483 dated May 9, 2006 as amended to reflect the presence of Alternate Commissioner Tyler at this meeting.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Special Meeting #1482 dated May 8,
2006 as amended to reflect the complete name of the consultant, Glenn Chalder, AICP, Planimetrics under attendance at this meeting.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 10:00 P. M.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Kehoe/Ouellette/Saunders)
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________________________
Peg Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Commission Recording Secretary
| 
