TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing #1507
May 22, 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 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Ouellette.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as three Regular Members (Guiliano, Menard, and Ouellette) and two Alternate Members (Farmer and Matthews) were present. Regular Members Gowdy and Saunders and Alternate Member Tyler were absent. Chairman 0ullette noted all Regular and Alternate Members present would sit in on all Items of Business this evening. Also present was Town Planner Whitten.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:
Chairman Ouellette noted receipt of the following Applications:
1) Application of Arvind Persaud for Site Plan Approval to allow truck sales, service, leasing and rentals at 272 South Main Street, owned by Irving S. and Penny Borookow, and approval of proposed 3-bay garage. [B-2 Zone, Map 38, Block 5, Lot 96].
LEGAL NOTICE:
Commissioner Guiliano read the following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Friday, May 11, 2007, and Friday, May 18, 2007:
1) Application of Sean Patrick’s Irish Tavern for a Special Use Permit to allow the serving of alcohol on outdoor dining patio at 4 Prospect Hill Road, owned by James Balis. [B-2 Zone; Map 14, Block 18, Lot 18].
MOTION: To GO OUT OF ORDER to take the Application of Andrew Shefrin, Warehouse Point Fire Dept. first.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW BUSINESS: Andrew Shefrin, Warehouse Point Fire Dept. – Temporary liquor permit for annual Fireman’s Carnival, to allow beer garden on July 27 and 28, 2007 from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at 89 Bridge Street. [B-1 Zone; Map 1, Block 12, Lot 2] (Deadline for decision 7/12/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this request was Andrew Shefrin, Vice President, Warehouse Point Fire Department.
Mr. Shefrin advised the Commission he is appearing to request the Temporary Liquor Permit for the Warehouse Point Fire Department beer garden being held at the annual Carnival, Friday, July 27th, and Saturday, July 28th; hours of operation will be 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. each night. Mr. Shefrin noted the hours of operation are the same as the previous year; Town Planner Whitten indicated she was not aware of any problems during the previous year’s carnival. Mr. Shefrin indicated four off duty police officers are hired to assist people crossing the road for the carnival; James Nilsson, President of Geissler’s Supermarket, allows the fire department to park trucks across the street during the event.
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Andrew Shefrin (Warehouse Point Fire District) for a special permit to allow a temporary liquor permit for a beer garden at 89 Bridge Street, East Windsor, Connecticut to be operated from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. on July 27 & 28, 2007. Property owned by the Warehouse Point Fire District, presently zoned B-1 as shown on Assessors’ Map 01, Block 12 Lot 02. This approval is in accordance with Sections 2.7 of the Zoning Regulations.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
CONTINUED HEARING: Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. – Special Use Permit for excavation in four phases for property located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc., [M-1 & A-2 Zones; Map 36, Block 49, Lot 17C] (Deadline to close hearing extended to 6/5/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Alan Koerner, representing the applicant, Herb Holden Trucking; Mark Zessin, Professional Engineer, and Scott Atkins, Licensed Environmental Specialist for CT., both of Anchor Engineering; Jay Ussery, Professional Engineer, of J. R. Russo & Associates; Herb Holden, owner of Herb Holden Trucking, and John Cohen, Project Manager, of Herb Holden Trucking; and Dennis Botticello, property owner. Also present representing Mary Nilsson were Attorney Joel Janenda, and James Dziuba, LEP/Senior Consultant, GeoInsight.
Attorney Koerner opened discussion noting correspondence generated by Julie Thomas, ConnDOT to Town Planner Whitten. The correspondence references: 1) ConnDOT’s requirement that NORCAP enter into a lease agreement regarding use of access roads to the railroad grade crossing, 2) as discussed by the Applicant with NORCAP the crossing must be relocated to a safer location. Attorney Koerner submitted a copy of a deed going back to 1885 which establishes the grade crossing for cattle and farming. He acknowledged that ConnDOT is requiring movement of the grade crossing closer to the farm crossing but suggested this is not a zoning problem. Attorney Koerner suggested they have a legal grade crossing which has been in existence for many years; they were aware of this access issue when filing
the Application and are working with ConnDOT to seek resolution.
Mr. Ussery then referenced comments made under Town Engineer Norton’s most recent memo dated 5/8/2007. With regard to the recommended 300’ anti-tracking pad to the pit’s entrance, Mr. Ussery suggested there has been a misunderstanding concerning the entrance/access point. The revised plans show an entrance coming in off Wapping Road past the scale house with 600’ of pavement; the will install a 300’ anti-tracking pad beyond the scale house. Mr. Ussery reiterated they have no intention to use Plantation Road as an access site.
Town Engineer Norton noted plans show an access gravel road over land owned by Mary Nilsson although only the use of an access road off of Wapping Road is discussed in the traffic study. He questioned the status of an easement for this access gravel road through the Nilsson property, and recommended a notation reflecting that status be shown on the plans. Mr. Ussery noted they have a deeded access for agricultural use only through the Nilsson property, although they have no intention of utilizing that easement. If access via Plantation Road were their intent access would be provided through the Markowski property. Mr. Ussery reiterated they have no intention of accessing the site via Plantation Road.
Mr. Ussery then referenced Town Engineer Norton’s suggestion that the excavation occur in 2 phases rather than the 4 phases currently shown on the plans. He suggested the Applicant has no problem with either suggestion; bonding will be filed based on the decision made.
Chairman Ouellette opened discussion to the audience:
Attorney Joel Janenda, requested to speak, noting he is representing Mary Nilsson. Attorney Janenda introduced James Dziuba, Licensed Environmental Specialist, of GeoInsight, to give a report on environmental issues associated with the proposed excavation. Mr. Dziuba gave the Commission his credentials and experience. Mr. Dziuba gave a lengthy, complex report, a summarization of which follows:
* To assess the impact of the proposed excavation on groundwater of adjacent properties Mr. Dziuba referred to a map and documents filed with the DEP by Anchor Engineering for NORCAP as part of a requirement to report the results of quarterly monitoring of wells on the (then closed) NORCAP landfill. The map shows a “Zone of Influence” (“ZOI”) which comprises an area of land that the landfill is capable of impacting via leachates draining away from the site. Mr. Dziuba suggested the “ZOI” comprises approximately 50% of the parcel proposed for excavation; he READ FOR THE RECORD notation #3 from the document submitted. Mr. Dziuba indicated he
didn’t dispute the area shown on the map but he is raising the issue of the stability of the “ZOI” and if the physical limits of same can be changed by the proposed excavation, and if it is changed what it’s affect would be on the Nilsson property. He suggested he felt there will be substantial changes toexisting grades/topography/vegetation/slopes/surface run off, all of which are components of how the “ZOI” contains itself. Mr. Dziuba suggested there appears to be no analysis on how changes to the natural system could affect on the “ZOI” - if there could be a degradation of groundwater quality or a possible loss of potable
water supply.
* Mr. Dzuiba also noted that DEP also requires owners of landfills to own the land affecting that “Zone of Influence” (“ZOI”), which was the reason for the purchase of the Nilsson property. He questioned that if the “ZOI” is changed then the adjacent parcels become subject to DEP concern; adjacent owners could lose the ability to develop their property.
Chairman Ouellette questioned how removal of gravel above the groundwater affects the groundwater? Mr. Dziuba suggested it affects the ability to infiltrate into the groundwater; he READ FOR THE RECORD notation #2 regarding water levels. Chairman Ouellette hypothesized that someone proposing a large foundation or someone paving a large area, which would change the impervious coverage, could have an impact and change those conditions. He questioned if excavation could have a significant impact? Mr Dziuba felt it could have, but he hadn’t had much time to analyze or evaluate those issues.
Commissioner Matthews noted the DEP map shows elevations of the water table; he questioned if that reflected a maximum height or a snapshot? Mr. Dziuba suggested it would reflect a snapshot in time - in the timeframe of the quarterly report. He suggested the configuration of the water table could change the “ZOI” and is as important as the water table being 25’ down. The information reflected was taken from monitoring the wells installed for the “ZOI” monitoring required by DEP; it’s probably as good information as you can get. Commissioner Matthews questioned if
information was available at DEP regarding water quality, and is there a concern that the leachate is contaminating the water and/or Ketch Brook? Discussion continued; Mr. Dziuba suggested the leachate information looks to be pretty average - it’s no worse than any other he has looked at.
Town Planner Whitten questioned if Mr. Dziuba was saying the excavation would affect the plume? Mr. Dziuba suggested the excavation references the area of the land with existing topography/surfaces/vegetation - the existing conditions of the property today. As soon as you start changing the topography, or excavate down, or stripping the vegetation, you are fundamentally altering those conditions; he felt there would be some change in the underlying groundwater condition. Town Planner Whitten questioned if the change would necessarily be negative? Discussion continued regarding infiltration rates, possible expansion of the plume, and possible effect on aquifer. Attorney Janenda felt the impact on adjacent properties, including Mrs. Nilsson’s property, required further consideration.
Attorney Janenda then referenced the issue of the DOT access. He noted the Commission has amended its regulations to allow a waiver of Section 12.10.8 regarding the requirement that pit accesses be 1 mile distant from each other. If that is not waived the current access for NORCAP is within 1 mile of another pit on Apothecaries Hall Road. Attorney Janenda noted the Applicant’s position is the 1 mile radius requirement should be waived; if not, the Applicant would need to use an access on Plantation Road. Attorney Janenda suggested their position is that the Applicant does not have legal access to Plantation Road. He noted the Applicant cited access via 2 rights-of-way, one being from Nilsson to Botticello which Attorney Janenda felt was done because the Nilsson property probably became
part of the “Zone of Influence” and the land was sold because they probably were concerned the land was contaminated. The Nilssons gave Botticello a right-of-way to connect to the Ellsworth right-of-way, and restricted that use to agriculture. Attorney Janenda also noted to use that right-of-way for gravel hauling is not permitted. Referencing an area on the plan Attorney Janenda further noted the Markowski easement is 150’ frontage which abuts the Markowski property but doesn’t connect to a right-of-way. Attorney Janenda cited specific references to deed pages and volumes, and submitted copies for the Application file.
Attorney Janenda cited another issue discussed with the Commission is that the slopes to the north and east are terrace escarpment slopes which have the ability to suddenly collapse. He felt with the use of heavy equipment the slopes will collapse; he cited evidence of collapse already. Attorney Janenda suggested the Nilssons have past experience with this issue and are concerned that the aggravation of the slopes is a potential safety issue to Mrs. Nilsson’s property and Ketch Brook.
Attorney Janenda also noted that the proposal is a major project encompassing 46+/- acres of excavation taking as many as 10 years to complete. While the Applicant has expressed that no one is nearby the site Attorney Janenda noted Mrs. Nilsson lives on the other side of the site; there will be noise, dust, erosion. Mrs. Nilsson has been here for 75 years and is concerned that her legacy to the family and the Town is that she allowed that land to be turned into a major hole, and maybe some day turned into a dump. Attorney Janenda suggested the Nilssons feel this project would be an unacceptable scar in East Windsor’s landscape, and would be no benefit to the Town or surrounding properties; the only benefit would be to Mr. Botticello. Attorney Janenda suggested Mrs. Nilsson is asking the
Commission to consider denying this proposal because there is no legal access, and it is a project with no benefit to the Town of East Windsor. The Nilssons object to the project because of the size and scope of the project; it’s so huge.
Mrs. Mary Nilsson: noted she has lived in Broad Brook/East Windsor all her life. She doesn’t want to leave a blight on the Town of East Windsor. She cited (Mr.) Ellsworth planted all kinds of trees on Rye Street; when the Nilssons purchased the land in the late 70s they put in the white fence and her husband also planted trees, and they thought of giving land to the Town of East Windsor. Then the town had the dump, which was polluted, and they didn’t want to do DEP clean up and (Mr.) Botticello said he needed to lease the land for 30 years for a right-of-way; that was the reason for selling to Mr. Botticello. There is run off from the dump, which is being monitored. It isn’t the gravel as much as the run off from the dump. In 10 years
time they will have a massive hole with Maslak on one side and Charbonneau on the other. It will be known as the East Windsor dump.
Greg Shumerluck: is against the proposal because of the truck traffic from Charbonneau and Holden; the trucks speed - the kids can’t play; the must keep the windows closed.
John Thompson, 259 Rye Street: noted the property borders Ketch Brook, he questioned groundwater contamination and leachate run off from the dump affecting the brook. Mr. Thompson noted a previous study which indicated the temperature of Ketch Brook was elevated and is showing signs of further deterioration. He felt this proposal will further deteriorate the quality of the brook, which flows into the Scantic River and eventually into the Connecticut River; he suggested the environmental impact of this project will be tremendous. Mr. Thompson felt the “Zone of Influence” will be extended into wetlands. He cited the existence of terrace escarpment slopes which are unstable and are a safety issue as they could fall without warning.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Guiliano moved/Matthews seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 8:13 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:23.
Attorney Koerner noted they will be asking for a further extension of the Public Hearing as Anchor Engineering will need time to prepare computations regarding the “Zone of Influence”.
Attorney Koerner agreed that Attorney Janenda is correct, the Nilsson right-of-way is restricted to agricultural use. He noted Mr. Botticello has discussed access up the side of the Markowski property to allow access to the Markowski right-of-way. They have no intention of going through the Nilsson property.
Attorney Koerner also noted the extension will allow them to review/work out the access issue with the DOT.
Attorney Koerner then introduced Scott Atkins, of Anchor Engineering, to discuss some of the issues raised by Mr. Dziuba. Mr. Atkins noted he is a licensed Environmental Specialist for Connecticut and gave his credentials and experience. Mr. Atkins noted NORCAP was permitted in 1975 and gave a short history of the landfill. He noted one condition of closing the landfill was monitoring of groundwater quality through wells within the landfill; Anchor Engineering submits quarterly reports reflecting the water quality and elevation of those wells. They have met with DEP to develop a hydrogeological investigation of the direction of the groundwater flow to determine the “Zone of Influence”. Mr. Atkins reported there are 30 wells within the site; 13 or 14 are
monitored each quarter under a continuing review to DEP. Mr. Atkins suggested the plumes characterize the wells within the “ZOI”, and none have been impacted; compliance wells are on the sides of the “ZOI”. He indicated they don’t want to see any impact of leachate; if any is detected they would advise DEP of the problem via their reports. Mr. Atkins reported they also test for elevation monitoring; everything is working and performing as expected.
Mr. Atkins noted the Russo plan presents groundwater elevations which are proposing gravel excavation 10’ to 11’ above the groundwater table. They have reviewed Russo’s information in relation to Anchor’s information for the quarterly reports and have found same to match well.
With regard to Mr. Dziuba’s question - would the excavation change the groundwater flow - Mr. Atkins noted they have not done the calculations yet but he noted the “ZOI” was made wide towards the west to avoid problems with the compliance wells. The “ZOI” is 800’ to 1000’ to the property line. The Nilsson and Maslak properties were purchased so NORCAP could control the plume. Mr. Atkins noted every landfill must test their wells; this landfill has better monitoring testing than most other landfills. Following Mr. Dziuba’s question further - by changing the surface features - the topography - would that change the “ZOI”? Mr. Atkins noted that the excavations done on both sides of the railroad tracks and the landfill have
taken the elevations down to within 5’ of the groundwater and nothing has changed with the groundwater. The work in the Maslak pit hasn’t affected their “ZOI”; they have filled the landfill and capped it with membrane, which did affect the amount of water getting in - before the landfill was filled it acted like a sponge, since it’s been capped it has acted as they expected. Mr. Atkins suggested the changes being proposed are not significant; the amount of time for the groundwater to permeate may change but he doesn’t expect the plume will suddenly head off to the west more.
Town Planner Whitten suggested she understands control of the area of the “ZOI” to mean ownership of that property; what else does it entail? Mr. Atkins suggested it also involves control of issues such as pumping water or digging wells. In 1990 Mr. Botticello purchased 200+/- acres to control pumping, etc. Town Planner Whitten questioned that control also addresses use of the water within the plume? Mr. Atkins replied affirmatively, noting if the “ZOI” were expanding they could install pumps to bring the water back; they would test that water and acquire permits to discharge that water back into that area - the area near the landfill to stay near the corridor approved for discharge. Commissioner Guiliano questioned who would pay for the pump
situation? Mr. Atkins replied it didn’t know, either the owner or the applicant. Commissioner Guiliano questioned what would happen if either were bankrupt? Mr. Atkins suggested they have 32 years of testing at this site; the “ZOI” hasn’t changed much. Commissioner Guiliano felt they hadn’t excavated an area next to the landfill. Mr. Atkins suggested they had excavated 40 acres additional for the landfill since the original permit.
Mr. Ussery addressed the comments regarding the terrace escarpment slopes. He concurred such slopes are generally associated with watercourses. He described the slopes as being steep grades containing sand and silt over clay; he indicated there could be slippage in many cases between the sand and clay layers. Mr. Ussery reported the volume of sand and silt at the Holden proposal is zero; it’s gravel. He indicated Mr. Thompson had referenced another application on Rye Street which had been denied; he reported that isn’t the site being discussed here. He reiterated they understand there is one situation of substantial erosion; they have talked to the Commission in previous meetings about that situation, and have shown the area to one of the Commissioners who
visited the site. The area is one where people run ATVs over the slopes and cause the erosion. Mr. Ussery reiterated it’s their opinion that they don’t have serious issues of slopes slipping or erosion, or impacting Ketch Brook. He noted this Application was reviewed by the Inland/Wetlands Commission during 3 meetings and they approved the Application.
Attorney Koerner advised the Commission he would like to request another extension to give Anchor Engineering time to prepare calculations rather than respond to theoretical issues in Mr. Dziuba’s letter. Town Planner Whitten concurred the Applicant has the ability to request a 30 day extension.
James Thompson, 259 Rye Street, requested to speak again. He submitted a blownup photoboard of erosion which existed in 2005 on 60 degree slopes; he felt the same situation would occur along the terrace escarpment slopes at the subject property and the contamination will go into Ketch Brook. He noted he saw evidence of someone trying to fill in the slope; Mr. Ussery noted they were also aware of that issue.
Attorney Janenda requested Mr. Thompson to leave the photoboard FOR THE RECORD, with the intent to swap same for a smaller photo later.
Attorney Koerner submitted the request for a 30 day extension.
MOTION: To GRANT A 30 DAY EXTENSION THROUGH JULY 5, 2007 for the Public Hearing for the Application of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. for a Special Use Permit for excavation in four phases for property ` located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc., [M-1 & A-2 Zones; Map 36, Block 49, Lot 17C] , and TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE COMMISSION’S NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON JUNE 12, 2007 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
OLD BUSINESS: ZP Group, LLC – Modification of the approved Griffin Hill Subdivision to allow the driveways for 5 and 7 Matthew Lane to be combined to form a common driveway. [A-1 Zone; Map 42, Block 64, Lots 16-6 and 16-7] (Deadline for decision 6/26/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Ryan McEvoy, of Milone and McBroom.
Mr. McEvoy gave a history of this Application, which is the modification of a subdivision approved in 2004; he submitted revised plans for the Commission’s review. The common driveway has been revised to begin as two separate 12’ wide drives with a 6’ green space between, the drives will narrow into a 24’ connected access over the culvert, and then go back into two separate 12’ wide drives with green space between. The 24’ wide green area will allow passage of vehicles.
Chairman Ouellette noted Town Engineer Norton had reviewed the revision and has no objection to same. Town Planner Whitten noted she had no comments regarding the revision, noting the design was prepared in response to discussions during previous meetings.
Commissioners discussed this revision vs. the original proposal for a shared driveway - some were comfortable with the shared driveway, others sought this revision. Commissioner Guiliano questioned the reason for the shared driveway proposal; Chairman Ouellette suggested the Commission had heard economics. Commissioner Guiliano questioned that the Inland/Wetlands Commission had approved the original proposal? Mr. McEvoy replied affirmatively. Commissioner Guiliano questioned why they have returned with this proposal? Mr. McEvoy suggested there is less impervious surface, and less impact on wetlands, and it also involves economics. Chairman Ouellette felt the location of the two lots under discussion were unique to this subdivision. Mr. McEvoy noted some of the other lots had
access off Rockville Road. Town Planner Whitten noted these two lots with wetlands in the front yards act like rear lots; because of the wetlands location they were restricted to the location of the lots. Discussion continued regarding the potential for problems maintaining the central green space and the responsibility for same, possible potential for approval setting precedence for future subdivison applications, and regulation requirements regarding separation.
Commissioner Matthews requested the radius be increased to 5’ and pull the island back 2’. Discussion continued.
MOTION: To APPROVE the Application of ZP Group, LLC for a Modification of Griffin Hill Subdivision to combine the driveways for lots 6 and 7, and establish appropriate easements, known as Assessor’s Map #42, Block 64, Lot #16-6 & 16-7. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the conditions, and the following conditions of approval:
Referenced Plans:
Easement Map – Griffin Hill Subdivision, Rockville Rd., East Windsor, CT prepared by Milone and McBroom, 99 Realty Drive, Cheshire, CT., 06410, 203/271-1773, fax 203/272-9733 sheet 1 of 1 dated 4/23/07, and last revised to 5/15/2007.
Revised culvert Crossing – Lots 6 and 7, Griffin Hill Subdivision, sheet 2 scale 1” = 20’
Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final plans.
2. All mylars 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 motion shall be filed in the land records prior to the signing of the final mylars.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:
4. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. One set of signed fixed line mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk by the applicant no later than 90 days after the 15 day appeal period from date of publication of decision has elapsed or this approval shall be considered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission. One set of mylars shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.
5. Detailed sedimentation and erosion control plans shall be submitted with the site plan for each parcel at time of application for a zoning permit.
6. Deeds for conservation easements and drainage easement must be approved by the Town and filed on the land records prior to any permits being issued. It is best if these are filed with the mylars.
7. All conservation easement medallions shall be installed along the actual conservation boundary. Said markers shall be installed every 50 feet on 4” x 4” pressure treated posts, set in concrete. (medallions available in planning office).
8. Any or all buildings, collapsed barns, etc. must be removed prior to obtaining a zoning permit.
Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:
General Conditions:
9. A Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work.
10. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans which results in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.
11. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading of the subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.
12. Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by Town Staff if field conditions necessitate.
13. 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.
14. Should the property transfer ownership before all work is completed, or before a certificate of completeness is issued, the new owner must place new bonds in their name, at which time the original bond may be released.
(Additional condition):
15. Outside radii should be 5’ and island closest to road should be pulled back 2’ from road.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Guiliano indicated this Application has already been approved via the regulations, and the applicant is now changing the plans and the driveway configurations. Commissioner Guiliano wouldn’t suggest the Commission doing this on future projects, as he feels the Commission is opening itself up for controversy. The Commission is trying to close the loopholes and revise the regulations.
Matthews moved/Farmer seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Matthews
Opposed: Ouellette;Guiliano/Farmer/Menard
Abstained: None
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Menard moved/Matthews seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 9:24 P. M. and RECONVENED at 9:30 P. M.
NEW HEARING: Sean Patrick’s Irish Tavern – Special Use Permit to allow the serving of alcohol on outdoor dining patio at 4 Prospect Hill Road, owned by James Balis. [B-2 Zone; Map 14, Block 18, Lot 18] (Deadline to close hearing 6/26/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Stolarz, and Tim Fitzgerald, Permittee/owner.
Chairman Ouellette noted this location received approval for a Special Use Permit in 2004, which included the service of liquor. Town Planner Whitten concurred, but noted the serving of liquor was for a 6 month period and was never initiated as they never completed the patio. Attorney Stolarz suggested the previous owner had a trial period and had issues, this owner is going for a family atmosphere for the establishment and they don’t see the occurrence of the issues experienced in the past. Attorney Stolarz suggested this use was approved in the past; they are just resubmitting that same request. Town Planner Whitten concurred, noting there had been problems with the previous owners regarding noise, and partying, and police issues. Chief DeMarco has been advised of this
proposal; he agreed the problems were with the previous owners; he has no problem with this proposal.
Discussion continued regarding the Application request. Town Planner Whitten clarified that the Liquor License was approved in 2004, but it was a 6 month approval which expired. These are new owners. If someone had come in and gotten and extension the Liquor License would be current and it would be only a transfer of the Liquor License. Town Planner Whitten indicated they could come back and change the patio to a full size area but then they would have to change the Liquor License. This proposal is for a fully enclosed patio with a fence. Attorney Stolarz noted they are reducing the size of the patio and have reduced the bar; they are looking for a family atmosphere.
Discussion followed regarding a trial period for the Liquor Permit. Commissioner Matthews felt it was a sports bar. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified that it’s an Irish bar with a family atmosphere; half of the area will be for family dining and they will be able to accommodate private parties of up to 15 people. There will be an Irish pub on the other side with 5 tvs; the patio will be adjacent to the family side. Town Planner Whitten noted they are not proposing any outside music; there used to be 16 tvs and pool tables at the
previous establishment. This is a completely different style of restaurant. Commissioner Farmer also favored a one year permit.
Chairman Ouellette queried the audience for comments; no one requested to speak.
MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Sean Patrick’s Irish Tavern for a Special Use Permit to allow the serving of alcohol on outdoor dining patio at 4 Prospect Hill Road, owned by James Balis. [B-2 Zone; Map 14, Block 18, Lot 18] .
Menard moved/Matthews seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Sean Patrick’s Irish Tavern requesting a special use permit to expand the liquor permit into an outside patio area at property located at 4 Prospect hill Road, Zoned B-2, Assessors Map 14, Block 18, Lot 18
Said permit is subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
Conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:
1. North Central Health District and the East Windsor Water Pollution Control Authority shall review and approve the plans.
2. The Fire Marshall shall review and approve the plans. The total occupancy for the restaurant and patio shall be established by the Fire Marshall
Conditions that must be met prior to certificates of compliance:
3. A zoning and Building Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any work.
4. All public Health, safety and building code compliance components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy
General Conditions:
5. Total patio seating shall not exceed 24 seats.
6. No live entertainment or public address system shall be used outside. The door(s) leading out to the patio shall remain closed at all times.
7. Applicant to install bollards along the fence uprights on the south side of the patio
8. No exotic dancing or adult entertainment shall be allowed on the premises.
9. Applicant shall be responsible to maintain adequate security on the premises at their own expense.
10. All fire lanes shall be posted as such and no parking shall be permitted in those designated areas.
11. The permit and premises shall be operated in conformance with all applicable State and Local Laws.
12. 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.
13. This permit shall not become effective until a copy is filed on the land records for the subject property.
14. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plan. Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval. The Full Liquor License is permitted as accessory and incidental to the restaurant use.
15. The condition of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns
16. A copy of the final approved motion shall be filed, by the applicant on the land records.
(Additional Condition):
17. This permit is for a period to run from one year from the date of filing of the Special Use Permit on the Land Records.
DISCUSSION: Chairman Ouellette questioned where the solid white vinyl fence referenced in the text is shown on the plans? Town Planner Whitten noted it was approved some time ago under a previous site plan application; if there is a concern the fence will be left out it can be added as an additional condition of approval. Chairman Ouellette was fine with the previous approval; no further conditions were included in this motion.
Menard moved/Matthews seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW BUSINESS: Gaeton Letourneau – 10-lot subdivision (Norton Crossing Subdivision) located on the west side of Rye Street. [R-2 Zone; Map 31, Block 40, Lot 17-B] (Deadline for decision 6/28/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Sands Aeschliman, of Aeschliman Land Surveying, and Gaeton Letourneau, the Applicant.
Mr. Aeschliman described the proposal as a 10-lot single family subdivision on 16+/- acres on Norton Road and west of Rye Street. He noted zoning formula calculations could allow a 21-lot subdivision; they are proposing the 10 lots based on suitability for septic systems. Two lots will have frontage and access on Rye Street, one lot will be off Norton Road; the remaining lots will have access off a 1,100’ interior road. There is the potential for one more lot in the future subject to septic system approval. Mr. Aeschliman noted that drainage will flow to a detention pond in the corner of the property; there will be no increase in peak flow off the site.
Mr. Aeschliman reported they did look at this parcel for a PRD (Planned Residential Development) but because of the restrictions on the septic systems a PRD layout wouldn’t work. They did come in previously with a proposal for an AAH (Active Adult Housing) Development with public water and sewer but were denied. Chairman Ouellette questioned if they looked at a cluster subdivision? Mr. Aeschliman suggested such a configuration wouldn’t work because of the high water level. There are over 100 test holes on the property; NCHD has given approval for only 10 septic systems.
Mr. Aeschliman indicated they are looking for a Fee-In-Lieu of Open Space, and are asking for the following waivers: 1 and 2) for sidewalks and curbing as there are none on the adjacent streets; 3) use of plastic pipe rather than concrete with concurrence of the Town Engineer; and 4) submission of a landscape design plan as they are preserving existing vegetation. Mr. Aeschliman noted the site line distances exceed 50 mph in all directions; a traffic study was done for the AAH presentation. He also noted they have not yet shown street lights on the plans as they are still negotiating with Northeast Utilities (NU); street lights currently exist on Rye Street close to the intersection of the proposed interior road, and there is also one on Norton Road. Mr. Aeschliman and Mr. Letourneau reported
NU won’t actually start work on a subdivision until it’s received approval on the local level. Discussion followed regarding the number of proposed lights, and the height.
Mr. Aeschliman noted the Application has been approved by the Inland/Wetlands Commission on May 2nd; they are asking for a Conservation Easement on Lots #2, 3, 4, and 5.
Discussion followed regarding contouring on the parcel frontage. Mr. Aeschliman noted the contouring will be short of the corner of the layout and will be totally on the Applicant’s property. Chairman Ouellette questioned the advantage, other than circulation? Mr. Aeschliman suggested it’s a safety issue. He felt most planners would rather have road connections rather than cul-de-sacs. The parcel would yield the same number of lots. Commissioner Guiliano questioned that the interior road would be an opportunity for a cut through; Town Planner Whitten felt it wouldn’t as people would be making their directional choices at the intersection of Rye Street, Omelia Road, and Norton Road. Chairman Ouellette questioned the location of the industrial
driveway on Rye Street in relation to the proposed street. Mr. Aeschliman referenced same on the plans, noting it is some distance away.
Chairman Ouellette questioned the advantage of plastic pipe vs concrete, other than economic reasons? Mr. Aeschliman reported the plastic would last as long as the concrete but the plastic is easier to take care of; there is less chance of clogging. Mr. Aeschliman then gave a description of the filling procedure for each type of pipe. He noted they have been approved on other subdivisions; Mr. Letourneau cited Kingshire (further up Rye Street) as an example of a recent approval. Town Planner Whitten noted plastic pipes are longer and have less joints but it’s critical they be installed properly. She had no problem with the waiver request as long as proper installation occurs.
Lengthy discussion followed regarding revisions to the detention basin. Commissioner Matthews questioned the ability to install a fence surrounding the basin, and requested a change in slope from 3:1 to 5:1. He questioned ownership of the basin; Town Planner Whitten noted it would be the Town of East Windsor, as the town owns all detention basins. She noted the Applicant has proposed a Conservation Easement, and is offering more than older subdivisions. Additional concerns raised were: direction of run off (onto abutting property, as it does today); visibility of basin from road (it will be a depression but will possibly be visible); the concern for a fence surrounding the basin (the homeowner would not be able to construct a fence in the Conservation Easement.)
MOTION: To EXTEND THIS MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P.M.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Commissioner Farmer returned discussion to revision of the slope from 3:1 to 5:1. Mr. Aeschliman noted the revision would encumber and encroach on the wetlands. He reiterated the conditions of the proposed basin.
Commissioner Farmer then requested sidewalks be installed within the subdivision. Mr. Aeschliman reitereated there are none on the other streets in the area. Lengthy discussion continued regarding previous discussions concerning sidewalks vs. road width vs. fee-in-lieu of sidewalks which could to be applied to other areas more needy of sidewalks, impact of increased impervious coverage from installation of sidewalks or increased road width on wetlands and drainage. Discussion continued.
MOTION TO APPROVE waivers of the following subdivision regulation sections:
Section 6.3- to eliminate sidewalks as no other sidewalks exist in the area; and require a fee in lieu of sidewalks equaling 40% of the estimated cost of installation, to be accepted by Town engineer Norton
Section 6.5 - to eliminate curbing along Rye Street and Norton Road, as there is no other curbing along these existing streets
Appendix 2, #9 – Plastic Pipe in lieu of Concrete pipe, with the approval of Town Engineer Norton
Section 5.7 – to not require a Landscape Architect as all existing vegetation will be preserved.
Menard moved/Guiliano seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE a fee in lieu of open space in the sum of $2,000.00 per lot. Should additional parcels be divided out in the future, said fee will apply to each new parcel.
Menard moved/Guiliano seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Gaeton Letourneau for a 10 lot subdivision at property located between Norton and Rye Streets, a.k.a. Map 31, Block 40, Lot 17, in the R-2 Zone . This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the conditions) and the following conditions of approval:
Referenced Plans:
“Norton Crossing Subdivision”, Cover sheet - prepared for Letourneau Builders, East Windsor, Connecticut.,prepared by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC 1379 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108, 860/528-4881, dated 3/8/07, last revised 4/30/07
Sheet 2/7 Subdivision Plan
Sheet 3/7 Topographic Plan
Sheet 4/7 Plan & Profile
Sheet 5/7 Area Map
Sheet 6/7 Soils Data
Sheet 7/7 General Notes and Detail
Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final mylars.
2. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.
3. A $2,000 fee per lot, payable to the Town Treasurer, is not paid prior to the filing of the final mylars, the mylars shall contain a clearly visible notation for each applicable lot stating, “Any sale or transfer of this property within five (5) years of the original (re)subdivision approval to a person not exempt under section 7.10 of East Windsor’s Subdivision Regulations shall result in the liability of payment ($2,000) to the Town of East Windsor for the total fee as defined in Section 7.6 of East Windsor’s Subdivision Regulations”.
4. Landscaping details shall be shown on the plans.
5. Light post location shall be shown on the plans
6. The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this motion shall be filed in the land records prior to the signing of the final mylars.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:
7. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. One set of signed fixed line mylars, shall be filed with the Town Clerk by the applicant no later than 90 days after the 15 day appeal period from date of publication of decision has elapsed or this approval shall be considered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission. One full set of mylars, shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.
8. Detailed sedimentation and erosion control plans shall be submitted with the site plan for each parcel at time of application for a zoning permit.
9. A cash (escrow) or passbook bond shall be submitted for erosion and sedimentation (E & S) control maintenance and site restoration during the construction phase of the project. Any funds that may be withdrawn by the Town for such maintenance or restoration shall be replaced within 5 days or this permit shall be rendered null and void. The applicant’s engineer shall prepare an estimated cost of the E & S controls for review by the Town Engineer. The final amount of said bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer.
10. Deeds for conservation easements and drainage easement must be approved by the Town and filed on the land records prior to any permits being issued. It is best if these are filed with the mylars.
11. All conservation easement medallions shall be installed along the actual conservation boundary. Said markers shall be installed every 50 feet on 4” x 4” pressure treated posts, set in concrete. (medallions available in planning office)
12. Any or all buildings, collapsed barns etc. must be removed prior to obtaining a zoning permit.
Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:
13. Iron pins must be in place at all lot corners and angle points.
14. Final Health District approval of the drinking water supply must be demonstrated.
15. The driveway must have a 15’ paved apron or if weather does not permit, a bond for such submitted.
16. Final grading and seeding shall be in place, or if weather does not permit, a bond for the unfinished work be submitted.
17. All required landscaping shall be in place, or if weather does not permit, a bond for the required plantings shall be submitted.
18. Final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, driveways, final floor elevations, and grading must be submitted.
19. All public health and safety components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy. In cases where all public health and safety components have been completed, the Zoning Officer may issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance provided a suitable bond is retained for any remaining site work.
General Conditions:
20. This subdivision approval shall expire (five years form the date of approval). Failure to complete all required improvements within that time shall invalidate the subdivision. The developer may request an extension of time at least one month in advance of the expiration date to complete the subdivision improvements from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Such extension shall not exceed the time limits as provided for in the Connecticut General Statutes, Section 8-26 as may be amended from time to time. The Commission shall require proper bonding be in place prior to approval of any such extension.
21. A Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to any the commencement of any site work.
22. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans which results in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.
23. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading of the subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.
24. Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by Town Staff if field conditions necessitate.
25. 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.
26. Should the property transfer ownership before all work is completed, or before a certificate of completeness is issued, the new owner must place new bonds in their name, at which time the original bond may be released.
Menard moved/Guiliano seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Guiliano/Ouellette/Menard/Farmer
Opposed: Matthews
Abstained: No one
MOTION: To EXTEND THIS MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M.
Guiliano moved/Farmer seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Informal Discussion - Scantic Glen Condominiums:
Appearing to discuss this Item of Business was Eric Schaeffer, of Advanced Property Management, property manager for Scantic Glen Condominiums.
Mr. Schaeffer gave a history of the Scantic Glen Condominium project, noting that 220 units were approved in 1984, at which time the developer was Devito Brothers. They proposed all construction under Phase I, and had 7 years to complete the project. Out of 220 units approved 110 were built; most of the underground utilities were installed for 220 units but improvements, i.e. parking, were not put in for some of the buildings. Mr. Schaeffer referenced a plan, noting everything reflected in blue was built by Devito Brothers. Building 30 was partially built; the foundation was put in and some of the framing was done but then the building was abandoned. Subsequently another 6 units (for a total of 116 out of the approved 220) were approved for construction. Another 16 units have been
approved and are currently under construction.
Mr. Schaeffer indicated they would now like to complete the project, but under the current regulations the approval has lapsed. He would need to return to this Commission for approval for 34 units. When Devito Brothers came in the requirement was to give land adjacent to the Scantic River to the Town. They also have an area within the 100 year flood plain for which they were negotiating with the Town; the Town approved the deal but the Scantic Glen Condominium Association didn’t so the deal fell through. There is a gate at the location of this land, which is currently being farmed. Sanitary sewer goes into that parcel. The intent is to stay with the architectural design of the 220 units approved but they have abandoned the parking lot within the flood plain.
Town Planner Whitten clarified that the problem is under the new regulations this area doesn’t fall in the growth plan; it’s considered a rural area. The new regulations now have different densities. This application isn’t grandfathered because the approval has expired. Any type of multi-family development couldn’t go in this area because it isn’t a Multi-Family Development District. Discussion continued; the Commission was not able to reach a consensus regarding resolution of this situation.
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Correspondence: None.
BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Staff Reports: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES/April 24, 2007:
MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1505 dated April 24, 2007 as presented.
Guiliano moved/Farmer seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS; MOTIONS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 11:15 P. M.
Menard moved/Guiliano seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission
| 
