TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing #1493
October 24, 2006
***** Draft Document – Subject to Commission Approval *****
The Meeting was called to order in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT., at 7:04 P. M. by Vice Chairman Gowdy.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as four Regular Members (Gowdy, Ouellette, Rodrigue, and Saunders) and one Alternate Member (Matthews) were present. Regular Member Guiliano and Alternate Members Kehoe and Tyler were absent. Vice Chairman Gowdy noted Alternate Commissioner Matthews would sit in on Items of Business this evening. Also present was Town Planner Whitten.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None.
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:
Vice Chairman Gowdy noted receipt of the following Application:
1. Application of Apothecaries Hall Enterprises, LLC for a Special Use Permit to allow the continued excavation and removal of earth products, screening and crushing of products, and the grinding of stumps on property located on the south side of Apothecaries Hall Road. [M-1, R-3 & A-1 Zones; Map 36, Block 65, Lots 1 & 7]:
PERFORMANCE BONDS – ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS: Dorian R. Famiglietti – Request for 1-year extension of Special Permit/Site Plan Approval for Mansions at Canyon Ridge (formerly Mansions by the Scantic):
Vice Chairman Gowdy read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to represent the Applicant was Attorney Greg Weaver, and Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates.
Attorney Weaver noted Attorney Famiglietti was listed on the agenda; he indicated she was not able to attend this evening so he was appearing in her place. Attorney Weaver advised the Commission the reason they are here is to seek a one year extension; he gave the Commission the following timeline to give everyone an idea of how they got here. The Application for Special Permit and Site Plan was approved at the end of November, 2005 – less than a year ago for a 220 unit apartment complex. It took many months to decide the sewer issue – should they go to Warehouse Point or Broad Brook; there was a referendum on that issue; it was voted down, they then went to the WPCA (Water Pollution Control Authority) who finally approved their application to go to Broad Brook on June 28, 2006.
From that point to now they have been in the process of finalizing the plans for the sewer, and, as a result, they are here seeking a one year extension under Sections of the Regulations 2.7.10 and 8.A.13.2. Sections 2.7.10 says that a Building Permit must be issued within one year, unless the PZC grants an extension; Section 8.A.13.2 says that work under a Special Permit must commence within a year of the date of approval, and must be finished in five years. Connecticut General Statutes 8.3.i allows for extensions of that as well. Attorney Weaver noted generally these are administrative matters; he offered to answer questions posed by the Commission.
Vice Chairman Gowdy noted the name has changed; he questioned if the owner was the same? Attorney Weaver replied affirmatively; noting it’s simply a name change.
Vice Chairman Gowdy queried the Commission for questions. Commissioner Ouellette noted there were many conditions of approval, some of which must be met before the signing of the mylars, some of which must be met before the issuance of any permits; he questioned Town Planner Whitten if the applicant has posted any bonds to satisfy any of these conditions prior to the issuance of any permits, which obviously they don’t have. Town Planner Whitten indicated they don’t have to post a bond until they start construction. Commissioner Ouellette questioned if all the mylars were signed; Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively, noting they have been filed. Commissioner Ouellette questioned Town Planner Whitten if it were customary for applicants to submit plans for Building Permits, for
consideration, to get that process started as the Building Official can’t issue any permits until all these items have been resolved. Town Planner Whitten suggested sometimes it happens so they can give the Building Official a heads-up because it’s going to take some time for review, sometimes it doesn’t. Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested it was not a requirement; Town Planner Whitten concurred – it’s not a requirement.
Commissioner Ouellette suggested that they did know that it’s a requirement that the permit be received within one year of approval of the Special Permit. Town Planner Whitten noted unless they seek an extension; it’s extremely common that applicants seek the extension. This Commission sees these all the time; it’s a standard administrative thing. Commissioner Ouellette questioned why that was a condition; if it’s common for applicants to seek extensions why is that a condition of approval within one year? Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission has never changed it. Commissioner Ouellette questioned that the Commission could opt to change that condition at any time in the future? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively. Commissioner
Ouellette questioned that the one year was an arbitrary number? Town Planner Whitten replied that she felt that it was, but would research the issue under the Connecticut General Statutes. She noted that in recent years a lot of applicants have sought an extension because they were still seeking funding, or the weather didn’t permit them starting construction in the proper time based on when they made their first application; it’s not unusual in the slightest.
Commissioner Ouellette indicated he felt it appears they were dragging their feet on the project; they need their STC Permit. Attorney Weaver requested to speak, he suggested they weren’t dragging their feet when you consider the sewer issue took up the majority of the year having to get that resolved. He noted they couldn’t move forward until the sewer issue was resolved. That’s finally been resolved; it then takes some time to create plans for the sewer. Attorney Weaver felt a one year extension was appropriate to allow the builder to build in the appropriate time, not the dead of Winter.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned what about some of the other approvals, like the State Traffic Commission (STC) approval, which have nothing to do with the plans regarding the sewer line. Commissioner Ouellette suggested those plans were not submitted to the State Traffic Commission until August of this year. FOR THE RECORD, Jay Ussery, J. R. Russo & Associates, requested to speak. He noted the application is pending at the STC.
Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned Commissioner Ouellette what his concern was? Commissioner Ouellette suggested it’s a condition of approval that they get the permits in one year, he suggested he was curious to find out what the delays are. Commissioner Saunders felt it takes time, especially with the sewers. Commissioner Ouellette suggested that wasn’t the only permit. Town Planner Whitten noted that’s the only permit they are seeking an extension for. Commissioner Saunders felt they have done their due diligence in the process; he felt they were well within their rights to ask for an extension. Commissioner Ouellette concurred. Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested why should they jump through all the hoops without getting the sewer approval first?
Commissioner Matthews suggested if you do all those things in a series, noting that this will be stretched out for some time, you need to initiate each of those. He reiterated Commissioner Ouellette’s comment that they had started in August for approval with the State. Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested as Chairman he sees the Commission’s concern as considering this approval due to circumstances beyond their control.
Commissioner Rodrigue felt the issue was that the use of a Building Permit must be issued within the first year; he felt it didn’t address the other approvals. The whole thing is an extension, but the issue is a Building Permit can’t be placed in hand within a year. Commissioner Ouellette suggested they can’t get a Building Permit unless they have the STC Permit under the law. Town Planner Whitten suggested she wasn’t sure what the problem was. Commissioner Rodrigue felt there was no problem; this is cut and dried; the Commission has done this many times on other projects. Commissioner Ouellette indicated he was asking Town Planner Whitten about the process; he noted he never suggested there was a problem. He just wanted to understand the process. Commissioner Saunders felt the delay in time is normal.
Mr. Ussery suggested if you look at the timeline – the sewer issue went through many, many months of review, then they finally gained WPCA approval at the end of June, they then submitted plans to STC in August after a number of weeks of plan design and application preparation by his firm – the application is at the STC, it’s still pending; they haven’t head any feedback from the STC yet.
Mr. Ussery indicated it’s not something they would have submitted had they gotten a no from WPCA because it costs a considerable amount of money to put that plan and application together to be submitted to STC. That’s the reason for waiting; everything comes in a chronological order. Once that comes back from STC they will proceed to apply for Building Permits, they will have pre-construction meetings, they will post bonds. Anticipated date for start of construction now is the Spring of 2007. Mr. Ussery suggested they don’t want to start construction in the middle of winter.
Mr. Ussery suggested another issue the Commission isn’t aware of is that they need to bring city water to this project. They are currently working with Connecticut Water Company to design a 7500 linear foot water main extension to this site. That must be designed and approved by the Water Company before they can start construction. Mr. Ussery suggested there are a number of things that go into the design process for this type of project that the Commission may, or may not, be aware of; all of these things take time. A year to put all of this together for a project of this size is not a lot of time. Mr. Ussery indicated that’s why we’re here asking for an extension.
Commissioner Matthews suggested that Attorney Weaver had referenced Connecticut General Statute 8 dash 3 i which allows for an extension of time, he noted he looked at the Statutes – 8-3-i, and it says notice to water company re: projects within an aquifer protection area or watershed; he questioned if that sounded like it tied into an extension of time? Attorney Weaver suggested he might have misquoted the Statute; on review he suggested it’s 8-3 parenthesis around the “I”. Town Planner Whitten noted it’s “little i”; Attorney Weaver concurred. Commissioner Ouellette offered Commissioner Matthews a copy of the Connecticut General Statutes for reference.
Commissioner Matthews continued, in November 2005 this project was approved; what the Board had in front of them was this apartment complex for 220 units – fully expecting that what would go along with that would be a gravity-feed sewer from this project going west on North Road to Shoham Road to tie into the sewer. The prospect of having that would have allowed that land on North Road to be opened up for commercial and industrial development. Commissioner Matthews felt if he were a commissioner at that time he would have said I have this piece of the project, which has marginal benefits to the town of East Windsor, and I have this piece, which is the sewer, which has great benefits to the town. In total I see this as a benefit for the town of East Windsor and therefore I might have
approved it at that time. Commissioner Matthews continued, what’s transpired in a year, I know there is no obligation in that condition. Town Planner Whitten referenced Condition #17 of the original approval motion; she READ SAME FOR THE RECORD: “final approval and connection fees must be paid to the WPCA on individual units prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy should the Developer’s Agreement not be ratified”. Town Planner Whitten noted the Commission understood it was going to go one way or the other. Commissioner Matthews indicated he believed the Commission was blindsided by the referendum – 800 votes. Town Planner Whitten indicated she didn’t see how this was relevant to the extension request. Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested Commissioner Matthews comments were not pertinent to this item. Commissioner Matthews replied negatively, noting he is asking
himself, his point is this: that’s what we have last November. We’re a year later and this is a different project in the sense that there is no benefit of this sewer running west on North Road. Commissioner Rodrigue suggested there never was a guarantee for that. Commissioner Matthews agreed there was not, but the probability was good, and the prospect – from his perspective today, when he looks for apartments for the town of East Windsor. The town of East Windsor has 39% of its dwellings as non-owner occupied, 39%. Compare that to Somers – 15%, Suffield….. Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested Commissioner Matthews stay with the issue at hand; his job as a Commissioner is to decide on this application. The project has been approved. Vice Chairman Gowdy requested Commissioner Matthews speak to the issue. Commissioner Matthews suggested the issue is
today, looking for an extension, this is a different project that he would not extend because it is not a benefit to the taxpayers to the town of East Windsor. Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested that as a voting member tonight Commissioner Matthews had that right.
Commissioner Matthews continued to speak of his opinion that the project today is different than the one approved. Vice Chairman Gowdy indicated that issue has already been decided; Commissioner Saunders concurred. Commissioner Rodrigue suggested the Commission’s decision is based on if they were the one’s that caused the one year delay, and it’s not; they did their due diligence. Vice Chairman Gowdy concurred. Commissioner Rodrigue suggested that’s the part we’re talking about, how it came from November to now, asking for a one year extension; they’ve done their work, they’re coming back to say we can not due to….. Commissioner Rodrigue suggest that’s it; that’s where we stop. Attorney
Weaver suggested this is such an administrative matter in other towns; it’s almost unheard of that an engineer and an attorney be here tonight trying to justify why a one year extension is worthy. It’s a standard building/zoning matter procedure; if you can’t get it done in a year you seek an extension request. And it goes through the Board, and that’s why we’re here. It’s not to analyze…….. Town Planner Whitten noted the Agenda item is: do they get the extension or not. The project was approved; the Commission approved it; and they approved it with full knowledge that there was a good chance that the sewer could go either way. They had full knowledge of that when they approved it. The Application is what it is; the question is, can they get the extension and continue on and build it?
Vice Chairman Gowdy queried the Commissioners for additional comments; no one requested to speak. Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if the Commission was ready to make a motion?
MOTION: To APPROVE the request for a one year extension for the Special Permit/Site Plan Approval for Mansions at Canyon Ridge (formerly Mansions by the Scantic).
Saunders approved/Ouellette seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders
Opposed: Matthews
Abstained: No one
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Saunders approved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 7:25 P. M. and RECONVENED at 7:33 P. M.
OLD BUSINESS: Rockville Bank – Site Plan Approval for construction of 4,500 square foot bank with drive-thru at 39 Prospect Hill Road, owned by south Prospect Hill Road, LLC. [Map 11, Block 14, Lots 14 & 15]. (Deadline for decision 11/30/06):
Vice Chairman Gowdy read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Fahey, representing the Applicant; Tim Coon of J. R. Russo & Associates; also present in the audience was Eric Spungen and Rob Orifice.
Attorney Fahey noted that previously the Commission changed the zone, and modified the Master Plan. He noted there were some issues pending regarding the Site Plan.
Mr. Coon suggested there were two outstanding issues: 1) the direction of the exit lane to the north of the bank came into the other exit lane which runs up to the main entrance. That had a radius to it, and a question as to that intersection being too confusing and having to look over your shoulder. There was a suggestion that they make that intersection perpendicular to the northbound exit only lane, and put in appropriate signage. They have revised the Site Plan; he referenced Sheet 5 of 10 for a blow-up of the intersection design, and signage. 2) the exit only lane onto to Route 5; there was a request to make that narrow and have cut it down to 15’. Mr. Coon noted there was also a request to provide for a bypass so if traffic was backed up through the exit only
people that wanted to go to the main entrance could get by. He noted they have widened that area to 18’ to allow people to get by to alleviate any on-site congestion.
Mr. Coon noted they received a memo from Town Engineer Norton, who has now had an opportunity to review the revised plans. Town Engineer Norton now notes all his concerns stated in his memo have been addressed.
Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested everything the Commission had asked for was given to them. He queried the Commission for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Rockville Bank and owner South Prospect Hill Road, LLC, requesting a Site Plan Review for a 4,500 sq. ft. retail space (Rockville Bank and Office Building)) and associated site improvements to be located at 39 Prospect Hill Road, HIFZ Zone, Assessor Map 11, Blk 14, Lot 14 & 15. 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 10 - Location Map – prepared for Rockville Bank, 1165 Ellington Road, South Windsor, CT 06074, 860/291-3619 prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088.Dated 9/22/06 ; REVISED through 10/16/06
Including sheets:
Sheet 2/10 Zone Change
Sheet 3/10 Key Map
Sheet 4/10 General Development Plan
Sheet 5/10 Layout Plan
Sheet 6/10 Grading and Utility Plan
Sheet 7/10 Landscape Plan
Sheet 8/10 Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Notes
Sheet 9/10 Detail Sheet
Sheet 10/10 Detail Sheet
Sheet A-1 Floor Plan and 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.
Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Informal discussion regarding proposed transfer station:
Vice Chairman Gowdy read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to initiate this discussion was Attorney Barbieri, representing F&G Realty; and George Roberts, Director of Operations for the Volume Reduction Facility here in East Windsor, and at other locations.
Attorney Barbieri noted F&G Realty currently runs the volume reduction facility on Shoham Road; that operation has been there 10 to 12 years and the permit has been renewed several times. When they opened the facility it was completely new technology; the operation has been successful. When the original regulations were written they were written conservatively. Attorney Barbieri suggested another function of a volume reduction facility is a transfer station. He noted it’s important that Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) not be mixed with bulky waste so they wouldn’t contaminate recyclables. The transfer station would take MSW, compact it, and then truck it offsite to an incinerator to be processed. Attorney Barbieri noted they would like to take a small part
of the Volume Reduction Facility and make it into a transfer station.
Attorney Barbieri suggested he has drafted an amendment to the current Section 9A.5 – Minimum Standards for Volume Reduction Facilities – and have made a revision to the definition of a Volume Reduction Facility under Section 4.1.71; he suggested that perhaps the Commission could consider inclusion of this amendment in the Public Hearing for its own Regulations revisions which will occur within the next couple of months. Attorney Barbieri noted he understood that this is an activity the Commission wouldn’t want at many locations so he has proposed his amendment to allow them only at the Volume Reduction Facilities. Attorney Barbieri suggested he has worked with a consultant for Reid and Reige on the proposed amendment.
Mr. Roberts indicated there are town that they service (Somers and Stafford) that have no place to go with their waste. They would like to take a small part of the Volume Reduction Facility and turn it into the transfer station. The pink area shown on the sketch would be the maximum area used for dumping of MSW; they would have four doors to bring in and remove the waste. Mr. Roberts indicated they already have a misting system in the building so there would be no dust in the building.
Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned that MSW was actually garbage? Mr. Roberts concurred. He indicated the MSW would be dumped on the floor, compacted, put in trailers and hauled out. Mr. Roberts indicated they currently have a grinder in the building, but that contract is ending in a couple of months and would then open that area up for the pit.
Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned how big would the transfer station be? Mr. Roberts suggested they didn’t lay it out but he estimated that the maximum would be 80’ to 90’ in length and 20’ to 30’ in depth.
Attorney Barbieri noted another big consideration for the Commission was how long material/waste would stay on site. He noted some dry material can be held up to 3 days but he has proposed 24 hours for this material. Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned how many tons/day would they anticipate processing? Attorney Barbieri suggested the standard is 200 tons/day, but that might have been amended in subsequent renewals. He felt the limits had been set to control the number of trucks coming in and out of the facility; the State also has tonnage requirements. It could be a percentage of the materials being brought in. Attorney Barbieri suggested they don’t want to change the traffic patterns. Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned how much a truck holds? Mr.
Roberts indicated it would actually be a reduction of trucks coming in with MSW. The average weight of a roll-off bulky waste container is 3 ½ tons, while the MSW trucks would be 12 – 13 tons. Two trucks at 12 – 13 tons would be equal to 7 trucks at 3 ½ tons. Commissioner Matthews questioned that the total vehicles per day would be less? Mr. Roberts indicated the truck bodies would be bigger but the trucks would be the same gross vehicle weight. Commissioner Saunders questioned if they would be hauling in state or out of state? Mr. Roberts suggested it would probably go out of state as the best market is out of state.
Town Planner Whitten questioned that they have another facility in Suffield? Mr. Robert replied affirmatively, noting that what doesn’t come here would be sent to Suffield where they have rail access.
Commissioner Matthews questioned the level of noise. Mr. Roberts suggested it would be the same as it is at present; the payloader is running now. Discussion indicated that conditions (purchase of adjacent property from trucking companies, movement of the container operation to the front of North Road) which caused noise complaints have changed; Town Planner Whitten noted no known complaints on the company. Town Planner Whitten also noted she did visit the site; she was shocked how clean the Volume Reduction Facility was. The floor where the materials were was very clean; there was hardly any odor, and the mister system eliminated dust.
Commissioner Matthews questioned if they operated 24 hours per day? Mr. Roberts noted the Commission set hours of operation; they start at 6:00 A.M. but don’t start the machinery until 7:00 A. M. Saturdays they will dump materials and operate the payloader to bring the material into the building. They do not work Sundays.
Vice Chairman Gowdy felt the regulation amendment would be worth pursuing. Commissioner Matthews suggested his biggest concern would be the potential for odor. Mr. Roberts suggested they would run a separate line to cover this (transfer station) area; it has an odor control as it mists.
Vice Chairman Gowdy polled the Commissioners for the thoughts on this proposal; Commissioners Saunders, Rodrigue, and Gowdy were ok with it; Commissioner Matthews continued to be nervous about the odor potential. Attorney Barbieri suggested they could operate the transfer station on a probationary basis, as they did with the Volume Reduction Facility. Discussion determined the building is several hundred feet from the various property lines; Town Planner Whitten didn’t feel odor would be a huge issue. Attorney Barbieri suggested anyone who would like to visit the Volume Reduction Facility is welcome; Commissioner Matthews indicated he would like to view the facility.
Attorney Barbieri indicated that he conferred with Town Planner Whitten, who also felt the amendment could be handled under the same Public Hearing as the regulation revisions being proposed by the Commission. Town Planner Whitten suggested the Public Hearing is anticipated to be held the end of December or January, 2007. Attorney Barbieri suggested that fits their schedule; he may also bring in the renewal for the Volume Reduction Facility at the same time, although it would be a bit early.
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) 2007 Meeting Schedule:
Town Planner Whitten noted she has proposed the second and fourth Tuesday monthly, with the exception of the first Tuesday only in August and December. She noted she is also proposing the first meeting for January, 2008, as when the office is working on applications for the end of November and December they are already working 30 to 60 days ahead. The Commission would be approving the first meeting in January, 2008 also.
MOTION: To ACCEPT the Planning and Zoning Commission 2007 Meeting Schedule as proposed.
Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Annual Report:
Town Planner Whitten submitted a portion of the proposed annual report to the Commission for reference. She noted Chairman Guiliano is also working on another piece of the annual report as well.
BUSINESS MEETING/(4) Review of Draft Zoning Regulations Article 1-7:
The Commission and Town Planner Whitten reviewed Sections 1 – 7 of the revised Zoning Regulations for substantive changes. The following changes were requested:
Page 8 and Page 29 – change SDD to MFFD and ARDD where appropriate.
Page 21, Section 3.10, subsection #8 – Projections into required yards: keep 4’ distance for projection, remove decks, add stairs and hatchways.
Page 21, Section 3.20 – Modifications to Regulations: new section which gives the Commission the right to modify any regulation by a ¾ vote as long as conditions 1 – 4 are met.
Page 23 – Section 3.40 – Uses permitted in any zone, bullet 6: need to define recreational uses better.
Page 27 – Section 4.30 – Permitted accessory buildings & structures: consider including regulations for housing for farm hands, possibly limit number of occupants to control noise, possibly set greater set back distances, make a Special Use Permit process.
Page 30 - Section 4.60 – Accessory Apartments, subsection 1. Requirements and Conditions for Accessory Apartments, bullet g: “The accessory apartment should not exceed 35% of the total of the above ground floor area of the primary dwelling unit, and shall not exceed 900 square feet.” – keep percentage and not to exceed the 900 square feet.
Page 31 – Section 4.70 – Rear lots, subsection 2. Minimum Standards, bullet d: leave subsection in, add “unless public water is available” at end of sentence.
Page 31 – Section 4.70 – Rear lots, subsection 2. Minimum Standards, bullet k: left as is.
Page 35 – Section 5.20 - Permitted Uses in business and industrial districts: 1) eliminate M-2 Zone, none presently exist; 2) consider dog daycare, grooming, hotel in A1 (agricultural) B (business) and M (manufacturing) zones but not next to restaurants, Special Use Permit required, should not be permitted in residential zones; 3) within chart of Permitted Uses in Business & Industrial Districts, under Retail & Service Uses, add “P” to HIFZ; 4) .
Page 37 – Section 5.30 – Permitted Accessory Uses, subsection 4. Outdoor Merchandise Display, bullet e – Drive-thrus: allow in B1, B2, and HIFZ zones under Special Use Permit process, keep definition as listed but delete the final wording “…….and that idling vehicles will not affect air quality in the area.”
Page 37 – Section 5.30 – Permitted Accessory Uses, subsection 3. Outdoor Storage, bullet c – Christmas Tree Sales/Pumpkin Sales: Christmas tree sales to remain as written, pumpkin sales to be removed.
Page 37 – Section 5.30 – Permitted Accessory Uses, subsection 3. Outdoor Storage, bullet d – Temporary Out-door Sales (Fireworks, Novelty Items): remains as written.
Page 42 – Section 5.50 – Consolidated Parcels: (new section) – can develop over property lines to combine impervious coverage, side yards, etc. – include as proposed.
Page 44 – Section 6.00 – Landscape Regulations, subsection 3. Landscaped Buffer Requirement: to be developed in the future.
Page 45 – Section 6.10 – Off Street Parking Regulations, subsection 2. Number of Parking Spaces: discussion of how numbers are calculated; Town Planner Whitten to research industry standards.
Page 46 – Section 6.10 – Off Street Parking Regulations, subsection 3 – Parking Lot Design, bullet a: Town Planner Whitten advised the Commission the language “……unless waived by the Commission” has been added; also discussion of the deletion of regulation specifics for compact parking spaces from current regulations to revision proposal, Town Planner Whitten to discuss with consultant.
Page 47 – 48, Section 6.10 – Off Street Parking Regulations, subsection 7 – Residential Driveway Requirements, bullet c: language of final sentence to read: “…..Each rear lot should have its own driveway.”
Page 49, Section 6.20 – Sign Regulations, subsection 4. Business and Industrial Districts, bullet d: Town Planner Whitten to discuss further with consultant.
Page 51, Section 6.20 – Sign Regulations, subsection 12. Prohibited Signs, bullet “3”: delete; bullet “6”: remove “corner” from language.
Page 53, Section 6.40 – Refuse Storage, subsection 2 – Requirements, bullet b: verbiage regarding lighting not carried over from current regulations, Town Planner Whitten to research; bullet “f”: include as proposed.
Page 53 – Section 6.50 – Access Management, subsection 1. Purpose: new section, Town Planner to review Commissioner Ouellette’s suggestions.
Page 55 – Section 6.60 – Sidewalks and Trails, subsection 5. Fee-In-Lieu-Of Installation: research/reconcile “…forty percent (55%) of the estimated cost…..”
Town Planner Whitten noted she will bring the remainder of the Regulation revisions to the next meeting for review.
BUSINESS MEETING/(5) Correspondence:
Town Planner Whitten reported on the following correspondence issues:
1) Southern Auto tour has been rescheduled to November 22nd at 11 A.M.
2) Receipt of various correspondence and internal memos regarding the Connecticut River Assembly, its role as a consultant to towns with riverfront communities, consideration of the need for this organization’s services relative to other available consulting services, and the impact of the towns decision on the future of this organization. Town Planner Whitten noted receipt of memo from Linda Kehoe, Chairman of the Inland/Wetlands Commission indicating they utilize other consultation
services as well as State and Federal agencies and further noting their satisfaction with those resources. Town Planner Whitten felt the Connecticut River Assembly was another layer of oversight above those available to this Commission; review by the Connecticut River Assembly seemed redundant. The Commission concurred.
BUSINESS MEETING/(6) Staff Reports:
See comments above under Correspondence.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Received but not available for review.
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS, MOTIONS: None noted.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 9:55 P. M.
Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission
| 
