TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing #1489
August 8, 2006
***** Draft Document - Subject to Commission Approval *****
The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Vice Chairman Gowdy in the Meeting Room, Scout Hall, 28 Abbe Road, East Windsor, CT.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as four Regular Members (Gowdy, Ouellette, Rodrigue, and Saunders) and two Alternate Members (Kehoe and Matthews) were present. Regular Member Guiliano and Alternate Member Tyler were absent. Vice Chairman Gowdy noted Alternate Commissioner Kehoe would be voting on decisions this evening. Also present was Ex-Officio Member Selectman Filipone, and Town Planner Whitten.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:
Town Planner Whitten noted another item for Informal Discussion - Dean Rasmussen, Accessory Apartment.
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: None.
PERFORMANCE BONDS – ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS: Atty. Allan W. Koerner – Request for extension of Special Use Permit for Excavation of property located on Wapping Road, owned by Anna Maslak and NORCAP, Inc.:
Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Koerner, representing the Applicant, and Scott Atkins, of Anchor Engineering.
Attorney Koerner noted this hearing (Application) was continued to permit an extension of the Wetlands Permit. A two-year extension was granted at the last Inland/Wetlands Meeting.
Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested pending items are: 1) clarification of the lot/block/map number, which he felt was done at the previous meeting. 2) the Town Engineer should be informed by the Applicant regarding the proposed changes in elevation and report any concerns; Attorney Koerner reported the Town Engineer was notified. 3) clarify that all final grades are at least 5 feet above the highest groundwater elevation. Groundwater monitoring logs should be submitted. Attorney Koerner suggested they did establish that they did raise the lowest elevation 1’ from 122’ to 123’. Town Planner Whitten noted that is Condition #5 of the proposed approval motion. Commissioner Matthews questioned if that allows for 6’ from the highest groundwater?
Attorney Koerner suggested 122’ would be 6’; when they add topsoil back it will be closer to 7’.
Vice Chairman Gowdy queried that they are looking for a 2 year extension? Attorney Koerner replied affirmatively. Commissioner Ouellette suggested it would make sense to grant the extension consistent with the Inland/Wetlands Permit. Town Planner Whitten clarified that the Inland/Wetlands Permit can be 5 years. Attorney Koerner suggested they had asked for 2 years because he knew that was what the Commission granted here. Commissioner Ouellette suggested either duration is ok. Commissioner Kehoe felt the Commission has done 2 years before; we should standardize. Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested the nature of the business is economy driven; if the Commission grants a 1 year extension they could be back in that year and we’ll have to go through all this again. he is in favor of a 2 year extension. Commissioner Rodrigue concurred.
MOTION TO APPROVE the Two Year extension from April 30, 2005 to April 30 , 2007, for a Special Permit for Excavation on property owned by NORCAP and known as Assessors Map 24, Block 65, Lot 26 & 27, application of Dennis Botticello. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be modified, and the following conditions”:
1. Final plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate design professionals responsible for preparation of the plans
2. All conditions of the November 13, 1990 approval shall remain in effect(filed in Land Records as Vol. 162, Page 206-209
3. A copy of the final approved motion shall be filed by the applicant, on the land records prior to the Commission signing the final plans.
4. Extension shall expire April 30, 2007.
5. Excavation to a final maximum depth of 122 is permitted, thus finished grade will be 122.5 inclusive of 6” of topsoil.
Ouellette moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Review of the approval motion found the expiration and extension dates were incorrect, the Commission passed the following revised motion.
MOTION TO AMEND THE APPROVAL for the Two Year extension from April 30, 2005 April 30, 2006 to April 30 , 2007 April 30, 2008, for a Special Permit for Excavation on property owned by NORCAP and known as Assessors Map 24, Block 65, Lot 26 & 27, application of Dennis Botticello. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be modified, and the following conditions”:
1. Final plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate design professionals responsible for preparation of the plans
2. All conditions of the November 13, 1990 approval shall remain in effect(filed in Land Records as Vol. 162, Page 206-209
3. A copy of the final approved motion shall be filed by the applicant, on the land records prior to the Commission signing the final plans
4. Extension shall expire April 30, 2007 April 30, 2008.
5. Excavation to a final maximum depth of 122 is permitted, thus finished grade will be 122.5 inclusive of 6” of topsoil.
Ouellette moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW BUSINESS: John Silva – Site Plan Approval for construction of a 2,148 sq. ft. building, with drive-thru, and parking at 216 South Main Street, owned by Balch Bridge Street Corp. [B-2 Zone; Map 33, Block 5, Lot 84]:
Appearing to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery representing John Silva and Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Ussery described the site at 216 South Main Street as being opposite the intersection of Abbe Road; the site is owned by Balch Bridge Street Corp. The parcel totals 9.6 acres; the Dunkin Donut facility is to be located on the northeast corner on 1.28 acres. To the north of this location is M. T. SureShine; to the south is Baggett’s Farm stand and greenhouses.
This proposal is for a Site Plan which shows a driveway coming out directly opposite of Abbe Road, which is signalized. The building will be an exact copy of the Dunkin Donut facility on North Road; the same size, the same building materials. The building layout is slightly different as there is a longer entrance drive because the building is further back from the road due to a 50’ set back for the road line. The drive-thru will have a stacking queue for 14 cars. Mr. Ussery reported DOT did a traffic study for the North Road location; their recommendation was for a stacking queue for 14 cars. They were unable to make that for the North Road location. They are proposing a one-way traffic flow and angled parking. The regulations require 42 parking
spaces; this proposal provides 47. Mr. Ussery suggested they had proposed 3 more in the back of the building but there was a concern at the Inland/Wetlands Meeting that they were too close to the wetlands boundary; those additional parking spaces have been removed and will be left as deferred parking spaces to be built if necessary.
The building will function the same as the North Road location. They will be tying into sewer, city gas and water; CL&P and telephone lines will be underground. An oil/water separator will be installed on the southside of the building for kitchen grease. The landscaping will be similar to the North Road location; there will be screening around the dumpster in back. The sidewalks will be extended out, providing room for 3 outside tables. Storm drainage will include a catch basin and pipes which collect the water in the driveway, and from the roof leaders and downspouts and outlets out back above the wetlands. They are not providing a detention basin because the location is near the Connecticut River. Town Engineer Norton is in agreement that the detention
basin isn’t needed.
Mr. Ussery reported David Speer did the traffic study but was not able to attend this
evening’s meeting. Town Planner Whitten noted Commission Ouellette was sent a traffic study for review; they were not sent to the other Commissioners. Mr. Ussery indicated that whatever the DOT requirements are they will comply. The 85 percentile speed is 50 to 55 miles per hour. Requirements call for 610’ of sightline for turning movements and they have over 800’. Mr. Ussery noted that with regard to entering and exiting the site for the peak A. M. hour 400 trips was used in the calculations for the level of service, which is shown as Level of Service A or B, which is better than on North Road. There is less than or more than a 10 second delay regarding the turning movement. Mr. Ussery noted the traffic study assumes no bypass or right turn lane but
if the light is red and a car is at the center of the road the width of the paved area is just over 20’. There would be room for the car to get by and make a right turn into the store. Mr. Ussery also noted the traffic study assumes no right turn out of the site on a red light, but they are providing a lane for a right turn so you could go right on Route 5. Mr. Ussery also noted this light is signalized with 5 other lights on Route 5. He suggested everything functions at a Level A or Level B, which is a good level. Mr. Ussery suggested it doesn’t appear there will be any issues with the intersection. DOT may require widening of Route 5; that will be done if necessary.
Commissioner Ouellette suggested he thought the study was accurate, and well presented. But he questioned if the radius for trucks making right turns out of the site would work for delivery trucks? Mr. Ussery noted that if they were turning right out of the driveway they would have to come into the inbound lane. Commissioner Ouellette questioned how they would cross the middle line on a red light? Mr. Ussery suggested they would have to wait for no traffic. Jim Balch, speaking from the audience, suggested widening the entrance to Mr. Ussery. Mr. Ussery reported it’s proposed at a 30’ radius; they could increase that to 40’ or 50’. Commissioner Ouellette questioned if there would be many delivery trucks heading to the south;
do they service many facilities? Mr. Ussery suggested the bakery for this area is on Sullivan Avenue; he didn’t think the donuts come in trailer trucks. The donuts come every morning, paper goods probably come by trailer truck maybe every week or two weeks.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned what was the likelihood of the rest of the parcel being developed? Mr. Ussery indicated he didn’t know the lease situation with Baggott’s Farms. Commissioner Ouellette suggested the study didn’t tell you how many cars are expected to back up; the light cycles every 90 seconds, he felt the parcel could probably handle 3 to 4 cars internally. No queuing study was provided in the traffic study. Mr. Ussery indicated it’s 75’ from the stop bar to the last car; he felt there would be 4 cars tacked up. Commissioner Ouellette questioned how far will that queue back up internally if cars are turning right? Mr. Ussery suggested the A.M. hours would be the peak time people would be visiting this store; he felt the majority
of the cars would be heading towards South Windsor. This exit would be a convenient right turn in and right turn out.
Commissioner Ouellette suggested the traffic engineer’s numbers did suggest that. Mr. Ussery indicated when reviewing other traffic studies people want to be on
the inbound lane because that’s the convenient one. Commissioner Ouellette suggested his comments are based on the numbers the traffic engineer submitted, 75 in and 75 out; how much will it back up internally. He reiterated it’s not in the study. Mr. Ussery suggested that compared to the levels of service on the North Road store, which were a level D or F for a left turn out, he suggested he didn’t recall the number but the queuing number was a considerable time turning out to make a left hand turn. Commissioner Ouellette suggested it would be interesting to compare that number. Commissioner Ouellette suggested that if it’s a problem the question is how to mitigate it? It won’t congest the road but it might internally; he suggested maybe they could
put the building back further. Mr. Ussery indicated the Wetlands Commission wouldn’t go for that. Commissioner Ouellette suggested he sees a possible internal conflict but it’s not a public safety issue.
Commissioner Saunders questioned if there was a problem internally would they change the number on the lights? Commissioner Ouellette suggested it’s a possibility, but the number is the same as 5 other lights; it’s not probable. He indicated it’s warranted and it meets the limits for having a traffic signal at that location; the light has been there for 30 years.
Commissioner Matthews suggested he liked the idea of placing the building further back; he can see issues with queuing, even at this location. He questioned how, looking down the road, they address egress from an adjacent property onto this property? Mr. Ussery indicated there are two curb cuts on the Baggott’s parcel; they would have to address that issue if other development were proposed. Perhaps they would make a lane internally parallel to Route 5. Mr. Matthews felt it would be desirable to put the building even further back. He noted he understands the comments made by Mr. Ussery regarding Wetlands’ concerns that it not be put back further, but maybe the Commission’s need to work together. Mr. Ussery indicated the 150’ regulated area comes to the back
of the building, which is where they have jurisdiction. He felt they thought they were asking for too much when proposing the 3 additional parking spaces. For the owner the front of the building is 130’ back from the edge of the road. For someone driving along Route 5 you are cutting off the visibility of the building until you get close to it. How much stacking do you need? They’ve located the building to get 14 queuing spaces and to get the required parking spaces, and to get the building as close to the front as possible for visibility. Commissioner Matthews suggested they will have a sign. Town Planner Whitten suggested the sign must be 10’ back from the property line. Mr. Ussery indicated the highway line is 30’ back and the sign must be another 10’ back from that; it would be 40’ back. Commissioner Matthews suggested they have 800’ of sightline. Mr. Ussery suggested that at the stop bar there will be other buildings in the way. He suggested the signage will
be the same as North Road; Town Planner Whitten suggested the signage is pretty minimal.
Town Planner Whitten requested that Mr. Steel of J. R. Russo look at the lighting plan. Mr. Ussery agreed there is some spillage of light onto the SureShine property. They will work with the lighting company to add a baffle to the lighting.
Mr. Ussery indicated the building will be a Colonial design. There are mechanicals on the roof, which will be hidden by a white fence.
Town Planner Whitten reviewed 3 additional conditions she would like to add to the proposed approval motion, including a request from the Wetlands Commission to add information from their permit approval.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned the irrigation shown on the landscaping plans? Town Planner Whitten suggested that would be the responsibility of the owner, and has been included under Condition #15.
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of John Silva, and owner Balch Bridge Street Corp., for Site Plan Approval of a one story, 2,148 sq. ft. retail building with a drive through and associated parking and site improvements at 216 South Main Street, on property zoned B-2, as shown on Assessor’s Map 33, Block 5, Lots 84. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)
Referenced Plans:
Cover Sheet – “Dunkin Donuts, 216 South Main Street, East Windsor CT , Prepared for John Silva, P.O. Box 1028, East Windsor, CT 06088, 860/796-1561, Prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. (860) 623-0569, Fax (860) 623-2485 Scale as noted, Dated 06-06-06, Rev 07-06-06
Set Includes:
Sheet 2 of 8, Lease Area Plan
Sheet 3 of 8, Layout Plan, Scale 1” = 20’
Sheet 4 of 8, Grading and Utility Plan, 1” = 20’
Sheet 5 of 8, Landscape & Lighting Plan, 1” = 20’
Sheet 6 of 8, Erosion and Sediment Notes
Sheet 7 of 8, Detail Sheet, scale as shown
Sheet 8 of 8, Detail Sheet, scale as shown
Elevation and Floor Plan Drawings for Dunkin Donuts, 216 South Main Street, East Windsor, prepared by James D. Smith Architects, P.O. Box 583, W Barnstable, MA 02668, phone 508/362-8733, fax 508/362-8744, last revised 7/21/05, sheet A10 and EIFS Elevations.
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. Both sets shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.
5. 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. 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. Consider increasing turning radii perhaps to 40’ or 50’ radii to accommodate delivery trucks turning to the right (southbound).
17. Include the following conditions #1 through #3 of Inland/Wetlands Permit #1385, as follows:
1) To be noted on plan: Property owner shall be responsible for maintenance of storm water treatment unit (Stormcepter Model 450 or equal) in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. At a minimum, owner shall inspect the unit once in April and once in October. Unit shall be cleaned a minimum of once per year and more frequently if necessary. Inspection and cleaning reports shall be submitted to the Town of East Windsor Planning Department annually.
2) Installation of Erosion and Sedimentation controls to be completed prior to the issuance of a Zoning Permit.
3) The three parking spaces at the rear of the property to be eliminated if remaining parking space requirements are met to the satisfaction of the Planning & Zoning Commission.
18. Baffles, or other measures, shall be added to lighting fixtures to prevent light wash onto adjacent property.
Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Informal Discussion - 8 Bridge Street:
Appearing to present this discussion was John Vigneri, who is interested in developing 8 Bridge Street which has been fallow for 4 or 5 years. He would like to bring in a retail/wholesale auto dealership, with not much in the way of service. He needs a place to clean up cars to get them ready to move them off site; some would go to other facilities but most would go to Southern Auto Auction on Wednesday. Mr. Vigneri suggested he doesn’t want to do auto services; most of that work would be subcontracted out to other technicians not on site. He noted this location has been zoned B-1 and is grandfathered for automotive. Mr. Vigneri understood the Commission has an issue with this site, and felt what he is proposing would be more conforming than the grandfathered
automotive use. He has spoken with Town Planner Whitten regarding the issues; he would like to upgrade the facility to make it better than the eyesore that it presently is. He felt the location probably isn’t in the wetlands so he sees no wetlands issues associated with this proposal.
Town Planner Whitten recalled for the Commission that this location, previously Larry’s
Garage, was informally discussed a couple of meetings ago. The use could continue as a non-conforming auto repairs. Mr. Vigneri would like to abandon that use; this would be less non-conforming. She spoke with Betsy Burns, East Windsor’s Human Services Director, who lives nearby. She has no problem with the proposed use, nor does she feel anyone in the neighborhood would. They would all like to see the location upgraded.
Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if any traffic problems were anticipated because of the location? What would be the daily volume in and out be? Mr. Vigneri suggested “foot traffic” would be minimal. They would be prepping cars to move to Southern Auto Auction. He noted they also have access to North Water Street, so they could exit the back of the property from North Water Street. He feels traffic would be minimal
Mr. Vigneri indicated he would also like to do retail sales on site. The dynamic of used car sales are changing; the internet is such a powerful tool. They are not looking for foot traffic based on display outside of the building. They would use the internet and make appointments to view the autos; they don’t need to have cars in front of the building.
Town Planner Whitten suggested Mr. Vigneri is looking for feedback from the Commission regarding their concerns. She has had numerous inquiries to expand on the current non-conforming use; this use would be less non-conforming.
Commissioner Rodrigue questioned how the Town would enforce an owner not doing services? Town Planner Whitten suggested Mr. Vigneri would put on the Land Records a notation that he would be abandoning that use. Commissioner Rodrigue questioned that he would be abandoning services for profit? Mr. Vigneri indicated they don’t want to do on-site auto work; that work would go to other subcontractors. They would like to do oil changes to get cars ready. Commissioner Rodrigue questioned that there would be no sign out front advertising oil changes? Mr. Vigneri suggested this location is 5 minutes from his home and the proximity to Southern Auto Auction is fantastic. He has no intention of doing auto repairs/services. Town Planner Whitten
reiterated that he would put the abandonment of the automotive work on the Land Records. Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if he could do sales? Town Planner Whitten suggested that non-conforming use has been abandoned.
Commissioner Kehoe questioned if Mr. Vigneri had spoken with anyone else in the neighborhood? Mr. Vigneri replied not yet. He noted they pride themselves on customer service, and want to be a part of the community. Commissioner Matthews suggested that going a little west of this property there are several homes and other properties all the way to the restaurant that have been fixed up; he felt we have a core of a New England community and he felt that to many people, in the long term, that Larry’s Garage would go away. Mr. Vigneri suggested he is aware of the concerns; he would like to make the site more eye-appealing. Commissioner Matthews noted that a lot of work has been done at that intersection; we have the seeds of a nice area. You are proposing to have autos up front. Mr. Vigneri suggested that isn’t critical to the well being of their business; it’s already blacktopped but he understands the issues. He’s sensitive to the environment; he isn’t going into that
location to turn it into a junkyard.
Commissioner Saunders questioned how long that building has been there? Mr. Vigneri guessed since the 1940s. Commissioner Matthews suggested he would like to see an architectural rending; Town Planner Whitten noted Mr. Vigneri would come in with a Site Plan. The Commission felt Mr. Vigneri’s proposal was worth pursuing.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 8:05 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:12 P. M.
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Informal Discussion - 96 Newberry Road:
Mr. Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates, reported he is representing East Windsor Limited Partnership with regard to use of the mushroom factory. Mr. Ussery gave a description of the location of the site, noting the parcel contains 86 acres, one building, and 2 paved drive accesses to Newberry Road and Craftsman Road. His firm has been asked to look at this parcel with regarding to subdivision; although the parcel is impacted by wetlands there is considerable developable land. They were asked to look at large and small lot layouts. The parcel could provide hundreds of thousands of square footage of buildings and associated parking.
With regard to subdivision there is no Town roadway frontage, other than a 50’ strip on Newberry Road and a 50’ strip on Craftsman Road. If they extended the driveway as the
Town right-of-way the building wouldn’t meet the set back requirements. We would need to create a Town roadway.
Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if there would be any problems with parking? Mr. Ussery indicated that would depend on the use; it probably would be large warehouses with offices, which generally don’t require a lot of employee parking.
Mr. Ussery noted they would come in with a conceptual layout of building layouts, and a storm water management layout. Sewer, water, gas, and CL&P are available to the site. They need to put a plan together to create the industrial frontage; there could be a tremendous amount of traffic.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned that the two cul-de-sacs would be connected? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively. Commissioner Ouellette suggested there is terrible geometry to that proposal. Mr. Ussery concurred, noting there is a 90 degree intersection.
Speaking from the audience Bill Loos (Melrose Road) asked if the road were put in would it help the Noble property? Mr. Ussery suggested it would provide frontage for that property. Mr. Loos felt it would put more taxes on that property.
Commissioners Rodrigue, Ouellette, Matthews, and Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested Mr. Ussery pursue the proposal. Town Planner Whitten suggested that everyone in-house liked the idea of that as a Town road.
BUSINESS MEETING/(5) Informal Discussion - Dean Rasmussen, Accessory Apartment:
Town Planner Whitten submitted this proposal to the Commission, describing the two floor layout of an apartment over the garage. She suggested she doesn’t see any separation of space.
Commissioner Rodrigue questioned that access would be through the garage; that they would use the same facilities? Town Planner Whitten suggested they would come in through the garage and house, but would have their own kitchen. She indicated she sees this as being the same as the previous proposal on Kreyssig Road; the parents will be in and out of State depending on the season and the kids will live there all the time.
Town Planner Whitten questioned if the Commission would consider this an in-law apartment, or integrated with the house? Commissioner Saunders questioned the requirements? Town Planner Whitten suggested it’s usually closed off from the rest of the house. Commissioner Matthews suggested the concern is that it be two unrelated families; you need to have that relationship. Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if that could be written as a condition of approval? Town Planner Whitten suggested if it’s an in-law apartment it’s only a Building Permit.
The Commission felt it’s a Building Department issue.
BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Correspondence: None.
BUSINESS MEETING/(4) Staff Reports:
Commissioner Saunders requested that the ice cream business on the corner of Newberry and Thompson Road needs to get dumpsters.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 27, 2006 & July 11, 2006:
MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1487 dated June 27, 2006 with amendments to page 9 and 10 to reflect the name of the presenter as Mike Weisman, and to APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1489 dated July 11, 2006 as written.
Ouellette moved/Kehoe seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 8:30 P. M.
Saunders moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, Planning and Zoning Commission
| 
