TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing #1498
January 23, 2007
***** 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 Chairman Ouellette.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as five Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Menard [arrived slightly after 7:04 p.m.], Ouellette, and Saunders) and three Alternate Members (Farmer, Matthews and Tyler) were present. The full Board was present. Chairman Ouellette noted Alternate Member Farmer would sit in on all Items of Business this evening. Also present was Town Planner Whitten. Planning Consultant, Donald Poland, joined the Commission at approximately 7:55 p.m.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:
Chairman Ouellette acknowledged receipt of the following Applications:
1. Application of Southern Auto Sales, Inc. for Site Plan Approval for construction of a 4,300 square foot addition to existing auction building at 161 South Main Street. [B-2 & A-1 Zones; Map 34, Block 21, Lot 66].
2. Application of Joseph and Linda Roberts for a Special Use Permit to allow an accessory apartment at 140 Main Street. [A-2 & B-2 Zones; Map 33, Block 5, Lot 63A].
3. Application of Steve Dearborn for Modification of Approved Site Plan to allow additional parking on side and rear of building at 115 Main Street, Broad Brook. [B-2 Zone; Map 22, Block 45, Lot 25].
4. Application of Steve Dearborn for Site Plan Approval for additional non- paved parking area for equipment for contractors storage yard at 68 Newberry Road, owned by Newberry Road Enterprises. [M-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 19, Lot 6}.
PERFORMANCE BONDS – ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS: J. R. Russo & Associates – Request for release of erosion control bond for BT Properties LLC, 130 Newberry Road.
Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business, and noted receipt of the following:
1) letter dated 12/21/2006 to Nancy Rudek, Zoning Enforcement Officer, from James Ussery of J. R. Russo requesting release of Sedimentation and Erosion Control Bond in the amount of $7,380 for BT Properties, LLC of Newberry Road.
2) memo dated 1/8/2006 (should be 2007) from Town Engineer Norton recommending release of the bond as requested.
Town Planner Whitten confirmed Town Engineer Norton’s recommendation to release the full amount of the bond as everything has been stabilized.
MOTION: To RELEASE the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Bond in the amount of $7,380 for BT Properties, LLC.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Town Planner Whitten questioned if the Commission would consider going out of order in the Meeting Agenda to take discussion of the Fine Ordinance first, as the Planning Consultant, Donald Poland, has another commitment tonight and will arrive shortly.
MOTION: To GO OUT OF ORDER on the Business Meeting and start with the Fine Ordinance, then continue with Zoning Regulations, Correspondence, and Staff Reports.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Fine Ordinance:
Appearing to discuss this proposal was Selectman Filipone. He questioned that the Minutes of a previous meeting at which he discussed this proposal sounded like the Commission approved this proposal already, and a letter was to be written by Town Planner Whitten. Chairman Ouellette clarified that the Minutes did give the impression of approval but they have been amended to reflect the Commission support, to be followed by a letter when official approval is granted.
Selectman Filipone advised the Commission that since his last appearance he has reviewed the proposed Ordinance and was not comfortable; to assist in understanding the process Town Planner Whitten has created a flowchart indicating the steps to be taken with regard to a violation. Selectman Filipone indicated the intent of the Ordinance is to get violators to comply with the regulations with regard to sings, junkyards, safety issues, etc. Up to this the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) could only issue a Violation Notice and Cease and Desist Order; if the violator didn’t comply the process stopped there. This proposal gives the Town an avenue to go to court if necessary.
Selectman Filipone also noted that it had been originally interpeted that the judgment of treble damages against a ZEO had been relieved. He has now found that the treble damages has not been relieved; the ZEO must be very careful with their actions. That was one reason the flow chart was created. Selectman Filipone noted there are a couple of levels to go through before court action is initiated; the violator has an opportunity to appeal to an Appeals Officer who will be appointed by the Board of Selectmen (BOS). They are given the opportunity to appeal every time a letter goes out; the letter will be clear as to what the violation is and the procedures to follow regarding compliance. The violator will be given the flow chart and a paper packet of the procedures.
Selectman Filipone noted the Commission is going through a lot of trouble revising the regulations; he would like to see them enforced.
Selectman Filipone indicated he would still need a letter of support from this Commission to refer on to the BOS.
Commissioner Guiliano questioned would it take this long to work through a sign violation; he would hope the ZEO could go out there and verbally discuss the situation, then follow up with written correspondence. Selectman Filipone felt such an issue could be resolved within 30 days or less. Commissioner Gowdy felt that with the flow chart and written procedures to follow it would improve the process.
Chairman Ouellette questioned what mechanism would the BOS use to handle these situations; would there be hearings, etc.? Selectman Filipone indicated the BOS would appoint a Hearing Official, the violator would submit their appeal to that person. The ZEO would present the Town’s information; the violator would present there information as well.
Chairman Ouellette questioned how the Ordinance would be implemented? Selectman Filipone indicated the BOS would approve the Ordinance; then there would be a Town Meeting for the public to approve it.
Commissioner Saunders questioned if there is a cap on the fine? Selectman Filipone indicated the fine, which is set by State Statute, can be up to $150/day and continues running until compliance is reached. He believed the BOS may have the ability to set a lesser fine. The Commission discussed the possibility of lesser fines for homeowners or lesser offenses; the consensus was that the fine should be consistent to all violators.
The Commission questioned guidelines within the Appeals Official will work; they hope they would be specific and allow little deviation. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if more than one Appeals Official could be appointed; could it be a 3 person Board? Selectman Filipone felt that it could. Town Planner Whitten advised the Commission the timeframe within which the violation is notified/processed, the actions of the Hearing Examiner/Appeals Official, etc. are all set by State Statutes; there is no ability to deviate from those procedures. She noted the Town would try to work with violators but when the Notice of Violation is issued the State timeframe starts. Town Planner Whitten also noted the violator has the right to appeal the Notice of Violation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
(ZBA) prior to the issue being referred to the Appeals Official. The Hearing/Appeals Official is someone who is appointed by the BOS; they can not be on a Land Use Board and must be totally set aside from any Land Use Boards or issues. The Hearing/Appeals Official has some leeway to work with people but this ordinance is not a money maker and does get people to comply. Town Planner Whitten gave as an example of the process the case of “the dollhouse” in Stonington, which is really a shed built on property for which the owner is over the limit for impervious area, building coverage, and set backs. The owner is in violation and has been since day one; the fines to date total $54,000.
Discussion returned to the appointment of the Hearing/Appeals Official. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if there was the ability to appoint 3 people in case of conflict of interest? Town Planner Whitten referenced State Statue 7-1.5.2c which she READ FOR THE RECORD………the Board of Selectmen can appoint one or more officials but must be someone other than a police officer, etc. Town Planner Whitten also felt the Hearing/Appeals Official would be a paid position.
Commissioner Farmer questioned what happens if someone is cutting trees and filling wetlands; by the time the Town goes through this process ……… how is that issue addressed? Town Planner Whitten referenced the flow chart, citing the ZEO could issue an immediate Cease and Desist Order and if the person didn’t stop that activity then the police could be called in. Commissioner Farmer questioned if the person is arrested? It only takes a day to damage wetlands, and then the person could go in for a Zone Change. Selectman Filipone suggested the Town could make them restore the wetlands; Town Planner Whitten concurred that the restoration could be a requirement to replace what was destroyed with as much “in-kind” material as possible. She noted the Town has the right to issue civil penalties and fines in such cases; she requested that language be added to the ordinance. Town Planner Whitten noted the Commission could also deny an application for a Zone Change because of
zoning violations.
Commissioner Tyler questioned if this action goes to a Public Hearing? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively, noting it is an ordinance and must go to a public hearing.
The Commission considered the benefits of the proposed ordinance.
MOTION: To ENDORSE THE FINE ORDINANCE as presented by Selectman Filipone and to recommend its adoption by the Board of Selectmen.
Gowdy moved/Menard seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Zoning Regulations:
Town Planner Whitten noted she and Planning Consultant Poland have reviewed the regulations section by section and made changes where necessary/appropriate. The purpose of the present review is for content, format, etc. It was noted that the section containing “Definitions” had been reviewed. Town Planner Whitten recalled that definitions with regard to farms will be kept as they currently appear as the Town is working on viability-friendly agriculture regulations, which will include definitions.
Planning Consultant Poland had arrived at the Meeting; the Commission took a five minute break to prepare for the presentation.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 7:45 p.m. and RECONVENED at 7:55 p.m.
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Zoning Regulations:
Town Planner Whitten introduced Don Poland, who has been hired as a Planning Consultant to assist her with revision of the Zoning Regulations. Town Planner Whitten and Mr. Poland gave the Commission a summary of the revision process.
The following changes were discussed:
Commissioner Gowdy: Table of Contents, page 4 lists hotels and motels, yet neither was listed in the Definition Section.
Commissioner Matthews suggested revising the outline format. Rather than listing Section 1.30, subsection 3, use a format of Section 1.3.3.
Section 1.20, Zoning Regulations, second sentence, change configuration of wording.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 1.30, Establishment of Districts, page 8, Subsection 1, Division into Districts, subsection Commercial, Industrial & Other: delete the M-2 Zone.
Town Planner Whitten: Section 2.30 - Definitions, page 11, delete definition of Alcoholic Beverage.
Commissioner Tyler: Section 2.30 – Definitions, page 12, Barn, change wording to: An agricultural building used primarily for agricultural use.
Commissioner Gowdy: Section 2.30 – Definitions, page 13, Family – the number of unrelated parties – 3 or 5 – will be researched/reviewed via the State Statutes.
Commissioner Matthews: Section 2.30 – Definitions, page 13, Farm – was hoping for 2 rather than the 3 acre requirement. Town Planner Whitten noted her earlier comment about the development of Farm Regulations via the Viability Grant.
Commissioner Matthews: Section 2.30 – Definitions, page 13, Flood Plain – questioned need for date of Flood Insurance Study; date to be removed.
General discussion: Section 2.30 – Definitions, page 14, Hotel – need for definition of hotel vs. motel (which is not currently defined). Mr. Poland to review.
General discussion: Section 2.30 – Definitions, page 15, Lot, Corner – discussion of where the specification “135 degrees” came from. Speaking from the audience, Jay Ussery of J. R. Russo & Associates, suggested the number of degrees may be unnecessary; no matter what the degree is a corner always has an intersection and a stop sign. Commissioner Gowdy questioned how that would be addressed by a lot at the apex of a long street? Mr. Poland to review.
Mr. Ussery: Section 2.30 – Definitions, page 16, Professional Engineer: definition isn’t correct as written, professional must be licensed.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 2.30 - Definitions, page 17, Restricted Landing Area: Bureau of Aeronautics should be Bureau of Aviation and Ports.
Town Planner Whitten: Section 2.30 – Definitions, page 19, Volume reduction Facility: Commission concurred with the definition wording regarding municipal solid waste; disagreement occurred regarding the number of tons allowed for processing.
Chairman Ouellette/Commissioner Matthews: Section 3.10 – General Provisions, page 20, subsection 2. Corner Visibility: Discussion occurred regarding fence height at intersections; it was noted 3.5’ is the industry standard, while 2.5’ is common to local regulations; Town Planner Whitten indicated 2.5’ allows for changes in elevations as well. Commissioner Matthews cited an existing example of a 3’ fence which is theoretically higher due to grade changes at the intersection. Mr. Poland/Town Planner Whitten to review.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 3.20 – Modifications to Regulations, page 21: felt the language ……. “by a three-quarters ¾ vote of all Commission members” should be changed to “……….……. “by a three-quarters ¾ vote of all sitting Commission members”. Discussion followed regarding as to how the waiver process would occur, noting that the intent is to provide better site design through flexibility. The consensus of the Commission was to leave the wording as presented.
Commissioner Gowdy: Section 3.10 – General Provisions, page 21, subsection 8, Projections into Required Yards: Town Planner Whitten clarified decks and bay windows were deleted, stairways and hatchways were added.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 3.40 – Uses Permitted in Any Zone, page 23, subsection 7, Farms: Discussion of current farm use allowed in Agricultural Zones A-1 and A-2, yet others exist in industrial and residential zones. Town Planner Whitten felt that East Windsor, being a farm friendly community, would prefer the allowance of farms in any zone, as long as they met the requirements.
Commissioner Matthews: Section 4.10 – Bulk & Area Requirements – Residential Districts, page 25, subsection entitled Density Factor – Regulation: redundancy of language cited.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 4.20 – Permitted Uses in Residential & Agricultural Districts, page 26, Use Table: Abbreviations (SP = Special Permit, SUP = Special Use Permit) need to be consistent with those in Definitions Section. Town Planner Whitten prefers to use SUP for Special Use Permit so as to not to confuse with SP – Site Plan.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 4.20 – Permitted Uses in Residential & Agricultural Districts, page 26, Use Table: Boarding houses is listed under Section 6.10 – Off-Street Parking Regulations, page, 44, subsection 2, Number of Parking Spaces - but not listed in the Use Table. Mr. Poland to review.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 4.20 – Permitted Uses in Residential & Agricultural Districts, page 26, Use Table: Questioned to what the footnote applied; it was noted it applies to the used for Kennels, Veterinary Hospitals and Animal Shelters.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 4.30 – Permitted Accessory Buildings & Structures, page 27: It was noted the language shown on the draft in red had been deleted but has been returned to the regulations for further discussion.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 4.40 – Permitted Accessory Uses, page 27, subsection 2: questioned if “street line” in the last sentence is the correct terminology? Town Planner Whitten to change to “property line”.
Town Planner Whitten: Section 4.55 – Temporary Permits, page 29: suggested as a staff member it would be advantageous to have permits for carnivals, etc. She noted the Fire Department comes in for a Liquor Permit but no one is looking at traffic concerns, or if something else is being held nearby at the same time. Discussion followed.
Section 4.60 – Accessory Apartments, page 30, subsection “e”: Language of last sentence changed to: “It shall be designed and constructed within the main structure.”
Commissioner Tyler: Section Section 4.40 – Permitted Accessory Uses, page 28, subsection 9: Language changed to: “The Zoning Official shall issue a permit for a farm stand for the retail sale of farm produce,……..”
Section 4.70 – Rear Lots, page 31, Section 5, Minimum Standards, subsection d: Discussion of distance; wording left as presented.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 5.20 – Permitted uses in Business & Industrial Districts, page 34, Retail & Service Uses Table, Restaurants: questioned why restaurants are not allowed in an M-1 Zone. Mr. Poland felt the intent was to retain industrial land for industrial development rather than restaurants.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 5.20 – Permitted uses in Business & Industrial Districts, page 34, Retail & Service Uses Table, Automotive Uses – Auto Body Repair Shop: Chairman Ouellette questioned why they are not allowed in a TZ-5 Zone as he felt the Commission had just dealt with such an application? Town Planner Whitten suggested the recently approved application was for light auto body repair; Mr. Poland advised that detailing, tinting, etc. aren’t regulated by the DMV, while repair shops are licensed. He had felt there was a desire not to have the spread of auto body repairs.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 5.20 – Permitted uses in Business & Industrial Districts, page 34, Other Uses – Commercial and Trade Schools: noted Baran Institute is located on Newberry Road which is an M-1 Zone, but the use is not listed in this table. Town Planner Whitten noted a text change was recently approved a text amendment which allows for commercial and trade schools that are not not-for-profit; if it’s for profit then it’s permitted.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 5.20 – Permitted uses in Business & Industrial Districts, page 34, Other Uses, Alcohol Sales: noted Alcoholic Sales are shown as a permitted use in an M-1 Zone, which is a change. Discussion followed; it was noted approval is required under a Special Use Permit.
Town Planner Whitten: Section 5.20 – Permitted uses in Business & Industrial Districts, page 34, Other Uses, Dog/Pet Daycare/Training/Hotel/Kennel/Boarding: noted there are no good model regulations for these uses. Discussion followed regarding current situations vs. allowing in industrial/commercial areas but not adjacent to restaurants.
Commissioner Gowdy: Section 5.20 – Permitted uses in Business & Industrial Districts, page 34, Other Uses, Drive Thru: questioned what type of drive-through this applied to? Town Planner Whitten suggested it was for banks by Special Use Permit due to traffic concerns.
Mr. Poland noted they will be creation a new Section 5 for Residential Uses.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Guiliano seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 9:17 P.M. and RECONVENED at 9:25 P. M.
Commissioner Matthews: Section 5.30 – Permitted Accessory Uses, page 36, subsection c, Industrial Zone Requirements, bullet 3: questioned the 25’ maximum height for storage of outside materials; Mr. Poland to review.
Commissioner Matthews: Section 5.30 – Permitted Accessory Uses, page 36, subsection b, Location Requirements, bullet 4: cited an example of a property currently stacking material on the fence of an abutting property; he questioned if there is any regulation to limit same?
Chairman Ouellette: Section 5.30 – Permitted Accessory Uses, page 37, subsection 4, Outdoor Merchandise Display, subsection c, Christmas Tree Sales, bullet 2: suggestion to change the language to: “adequate parking and crowd control traffic control is provided, and”
Commissioner Menard suggested using a standard outline format rather bullets for easier reference.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 5.30 – Permitted Accessory Uses, page 37, subsection 4, Outdoor Merchandise Display, subsection e, Drive Thru: suggested changing the language to “……provided that the applicant can adequately demonstrate to the Commission’s satisfaction that there will not be any substantial no effect on traffic conditions…….”
Chairman Ouellette: Section 5.40 – Highway Interchange Floating Zone, page 38, Subsection 7, Permitted Uses, subsection b: suggested to change the wording to “Business offices, professional offices, and financial institutions, and banks.”
Commissioner Matthews: Section 5.40 – Highway Interchange Floating Zone, page 38, Subsection 7, Permitted Uses, subsection c: Discussion followed regarding the specification of the minimum of 90 room hotels; note was made of various applications and the size stated. Mr. Poland/Town Planner Whitten to remove number completely.
Commissioner Matthews: Section 5.40 – Highway Interchange Floating Zone, page 39, Subsection 10, Site Appearance Requirements, subsection b: Discussion followed regarding building height; Commissioner Matthews questioned if it had been cleared through the fire department? Mr. Poland felt the specifications had come through on an application for an existing hotel, which had been approved by the fire official. Commissioner Matthews indicated he was trying to prevent the need for another truck.
Commissioner Matthews: Section 5.40 – Highway Interchange Floating Zone, page 40, Subsection 13, Application Procedures & Requirements, subsection c: Commissioner Matthews questioned definition of “GDP”? Town Planner Whitten indicated it is the General Development Plan submitted with the Highway Interchange Floating Zone. Mr. Poland gave an example of its use. Discussion continued regarding sites developed under the HIFZ via use of a GDP.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 6.00 – Landscape Regulations, page 43, subsection 4 – Landscaped Buffer Requirement: suggested changing the wording to: “A 100 foot buffer is recommended required between commercial/industrial uses and residential uses. A 50 foot buffer is recommended required between multi-family and single family residential uses.”
Chairman Ouellette: Section 6.10 – Off-Street Parking Regulations, page 44, Subsection 2, Number of Parking Spaces, Type of Use Table, Residential Uses: questioned the use of the term “elderly dwellings” as Chairman Ouellette felt it wasn’t used any longer; he questioned if it should be replaced with Active Adult Housing (AAH)? If so, there are different parking requirements as listed on page 62. Mr. Poland noted there are different parking requirements for AAH, which appear to conflict with the parking requirements for this section which refers to existing facilities such as Park Hill and Spring Village. Chairman Ouellette felt the parking requirements are not all inclusive; there are other permitted uses not listed in the table. Mr. Poland to
review.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 6.10 – Off-Street Parking Regulations, page 45, Subsection 3, Parking Lot Design, subsection d: Discussion occurred regarding the aisle width, 24’ vs. 26’, and parking space width. The consensus of the Commission was to retain the 24’ width for now but revisit in the future.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 6.10 – Off-Street Parking Regulations, page 46, Subsection 7, Residential Driveway Requirements, subsection c: Chairman Ouellette felt there were conflicts between the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Regulations. Discussion of waiver vote again. Town Planner Whitten will clarify that all waivers must be by super-majority (4 out of 5) votes. Mr. Poland suggested waivers could also be covered under one section entitled “Waivers”.
Commissioner Ouellette: Section 6.20 – Sign Regulations, page 49 Subsection 6, Wall Signs, bullet 3: questioned that “No part of such sign shall project in front of the street line?” Mr. Poland cited a sign such as that for Maine Fish; it’s not really in the street line.
Commissioner Matthews: Section 6.20 – Sign Regulations, page 50, Subsection 7, Window Signs: questioned that “……provided they do not exceed 25 percent of the area of said window.” ……. is an aggregate amount? It was noted the intent was to not cover the full window; it can be 3 signs or one sign but can not exceed 25% of the total window area. Wording to be reviewed.
Section 6.20 – Sign Regulations, page 51, Subsection 11, Exemptions, subsection g: If vehicle is associated with a business it must be parked on the business site in a parking space approved for the business; the intent is to avoid the business/commercial truck with advertising parked off site being used as a sign.
Section 6.20 – Sign Regulations, page 51, Subsection 11, Exemptions, subsection i: Town Planner Whitten noted this section limits the period for grand opening signage. Discussion occurred regarding extension of time period vs. as written; the consensus of the Commission is for the section to remain as presented.
Section 6.20 – Sign Regulations, page 53, Subsection 13, Sign Permits: Discussion regarding political signage.
Chairman Ouellette: Section 6.20 – Outdoor Illumination, page 53, Subsection 2, Requirements, subsection g: change wording to: “All non-essential lighting for security purposes should shall be turned off after hours.”
Section 6.20 – Outdoor Illumination, page 53, Subsection 2, Requirements, subsection d: Discussion of pole height for outdoor lighting; the consensus of the Commission is to change the wording to: “…….Commission encourages 15 12 – 15 foot light poles.”
Chairman Ouellette: Section 6.60 – Sidewalks and Trails, page 55, bullet 5, Fee-In-Lieu-Of Installation: Discussion that the fee-in-lieu-of installation of sidewalks was reduced to 40% from 55%. The consensus of the Commission was to retain the 40% as presented. Discussion also occurred regarding who makes the annual adjustment of the cost indicator. It was suggested to change the wording to: “…….A cost indicator such as $/s.f. or $/l.f of sidewalk shall be adjusted annually by Town staff.”
Section 8.00 – Age Restricted Housing District (ARHD), page 63, Subsection Outdoor Illumination, subsection 2: changing wording to: “Unless modified by the Commission, light poles shall not be more than 16 15 feet in height.”
MOTION: To EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11 O’CLOCK.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission decided to begin at Section 8.20 – Multi-Family Development District (MFDD) at the next review.
BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Correspondence:
Commissioner Saunders noted he would like to attend the CBA Education & Training Session for Planning and Zoning on March 17, 2007.
BUSINESS MEETING/(4) Staff Reports: None.
APPROVAL OF MINTUES – January 9, 2007:
MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1497 dated January 9, 2007 as written.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Farmer
Opposed: None
Abstained: Menard
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS, MOTIONS:
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 10:32 p.m.
Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commissio
| 
