TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing #1510
July 10, 2007
***** Draft Document - Subject to Commission Approval *****
The Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Ouellette in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. 06016
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as 5 Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Menard, Ouellette, and Saunders) and two Alternate Members (Farmer and Matthews) were present. Alternate Member Tyler was absent. Chairman Ouellette noted all five Regular Members will be voting on Applications evening, except in cases noted during the Meeting. Also present was Town Planner Whitten.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None.
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:
Chairman Ouellette acknowledged receipt of the following Applications:
1) Application of Coleman Farms, East Windsor, LLC for Modification of Approved Site Plan to modify the location of the approved walking path in the Coleman Farms active adult project located on the north side of Tromley Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 29, Block 19, Lots 67 & 87].
2) Application of George Akkouris for an Amendment to previously approved Special Use Permit to allow the serving of alcohol on proposed 500 square feet deck at Golden Irene Restaurant, 18 Mullen Road, owned by Vasilios Akkouris. [B-1 Zone; Map 8, Block 25, Lot 2].
LEGAL NOTICE:
The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, June 28, 2007, and Thursday, July 5, 2007, was read by Chairman Ouellette:
1) Application of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC for property located at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9 - 13 Shoham Road, LLC. [M-1 Zone; Map 5, Block 17, Lots 56 & 57] for the following:
a) Renewal of Special Use Permit for the operation of a volume reduction facility.
b) Special Use Permit for the operation of a transfer station.
CONTINUED HEARING: East Windsor Limited Partnership - 6-lot industrial resubdivision located at 96 Newberry Road. [M-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 19, Lot 12] (Deadline to close hearing 7/17/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates.
Mr. Ussery submitted revised plans for the Commission’s review. He summarized that the Application is for a resubdivision of property on Newberry Road into 6 commercial lots, 5 of which are new, one contains the existing building previously occupied by the mushroom factory. The property is serviced by utilities, sewer, gas, electricity, etc.
Mr. Ussery noted the following additions reflected in the revised plans: 1) guard rail added at the curve requested by Town Engineer Norton; 2) signage regarding speed limitations. Mr. Ussery noted Dana Steel of his office had contacted Mr. Cody, an adjacent land owner, regarding purchase of a small portion of land for an easement. Mr. Cody had indicated he was not interested in entering into an agreement regarding an easement but might be interested in selling a few acres; Mr. Ussery indicated their client was not interested in purchasing the additional land. Therefore, there has been no change to the location or configuration of the proposed intersection/curve on Craftsman Road.
Lengthy discussion followed regarding the sharpness of the proposed curve - essentially a 90 degree angle. Commissioner Guiliano questioned the affect of adding stop signs; Commissioner Menard suggested dead-ending the roads; Chairman Ouellette indicated cul-de-sacs are not good with regard to emergency services. Commissioner Saunders suggested speed islands - larger than speed bumps; Chairman Ouellette suggested Commissioner Saunders was referring to speed tables. Chairman Ouellette noted he is in agreement with the proposed subdivision but stop signs, speed tables, etc. - all are gimmicks. This configuration will be a liability for the Town. He indicated he had a hard time accepting this concept. Tractor trailers will have a hard time negotiating through this configuration;
there is the potential for losing the trailers, especially on the curve. Commissioner Saunders reiterated he favored the speed tables. Commissioner Farmer questioned if a street light at the corner might be advantageous? Commissioner Guiliano concurred with Chairman Ouellette; the plan needs design revisions. Mr. Ussery suggested they have little options; there are wetlands issues; perhaps they could consider cul-de-sacs or remove the curve and create 90 degree perpendicular stops. Discussion continued regarding various suggestions.
Chairman Ouellette noted he had mentioned last time that was a proposed driveway north of one of the buildings which has a difficult sight line, particularly if there were
vegetation in that location or a vehicle were parked there. Mr. Ussery suggested the stop signs would be the solution. Chairman Ouellette reiterated he felt this was an inferior design. Town Planner Whitten questioned what were negative issues for stop signs? Chairman Ouellette suggested the intent is to control traffic coming from the intersection roads where you don’t have visibility and you don’t have control; people speed up between stop signs to make up for lost time. Commissioner Saunders questioned how Chairman Ouellette could say it wouldn’t work? Chairman Ouellette suggested this is a design flaw. Discussion continued further regarding liability, public safety, and varying opinions.
Chairman Ouellette opened discussion to the audience.
Ronald Cody, Newberry Road: reported he spoke with the owner of the project but they weren’t able to reach agreement regarding the price. He questioned Mr. Ussery regarding the proposed drainage changes; Mr. Ussery noted there is no formal drainage system in the road near Mr. Cody’s property at present, with the proposed system there will no longer be any run off into Mr. Cody’s property. Mr. Ussery referenced his plan and noted the direction of flow presently and post- construction. Mr. Ussery felt the proposed drainage system will improve Mr.
Cody’s situation. Mr. Cody disagreed; he indicated the water dissipates over his property now; he felt the proposed changes will increase the amount of water flowing onto his property.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if Mr. Cody had had an opportunity to review the plans; he noted Town Engineer Norton was in agreement with Mr. Ussery’s calculations. Mr. Cody indicated he just became aware of this proposal. Discussion followed regarding public awareness of applications. Town Planner Whitten noted the General Statues say a town doesn’t have to require an applicant to advise abutters of subdivision proposals; under the current regulations advisement is made via published advertisements in local newspapers. Town Planner Whitten suggested continuing the Hearing, which would give the Applicant time to look at a new road design and give Mr. Cody time to review the project
plans.
Steve Dearborn, 144 East Road, Broad Brook: cited he farms up there, he felt the water coming down to his property could flood the bottom of his property which doesn’t flood now. He questioned running the water into the storm that’s in Craftsman Road and letting it go into the wood where there is nothing.
Mr. Ussery suggested there is an elevation change in the area under discussion which prevents them from moving the water there. Also, the area they are talking about is clay; little of the water goes into the soil; most of it runs off. They are proposing to move the water into the road. Mr. Ussery suggested they are not really changing the amount of water; the road and the black top are already there; they are taking the sheet flow where it already goes.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if Mr. Dearborn abuts any of the property under discussion? Mr. Dearborn replied negatively.
Commissioner Matthews then offered suggestions on road design. Chairman Ouellette requested Town Planner Whitten invite the Police Chief and Town Engineer Norton to any subsequent meetings on this project to discuss stop signs and other techniques for traffic control. Commissioner Farmer also requested that illumination of the intersection be discussed.
Commissioner Farmer questioned the addition of a retention basin? Mr. Ussery indicated they are not adding any water; this is an existing condition which is not being changed. There is no increase in flow. Town Planner Whitten questioned that with future development they are proposing on-site detention basins? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if there would be less water? Mr. Ussery suggested that once the development takes place there might be a reduction in the peak flow.
Discussion followed regarding scheduling of the continued Hearing.
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Public Hearing on the Application of East Windsor Limited Partnership - 6-lot industrial resubdivision located at 96 Newberry Road. [M-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 19, Lot 12] for 35 days to the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on August 14, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Saunders)
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Guiliano moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 7:43 p.m. and RECONVENED at 7:50 p.m.
NEW HEARING: Shoham Road Transfer, LLC - 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, LLC [M-1 Zone; Map 5, Block 17, Lots 56 & 57] for the following: (a) Renewal of Special Use Permit for the operation of a volume reduction facility; and (b) Special Use Permit for the operation of a transfer station. (Deadline to close hearings 8/24/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing descriptions. Appearing to discuss the Applications was Attorney Barbieri representing the Applicant; Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates; Jonathan Merrior and George Roberts of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC. Town Planner Whitten recommended that the Commission consider taking care of
the extension request this evening, and then take a site walk on the subject of the Special Use Permit. She noted these Applications are separate Public Hearings and require separate actions.
Attorney Barbieri noted the previous extension request for the folumn reduction facility at Somers Sanitation was in 2002; there have been no changes in what is being done except that it has gotten better. The current permit expires 7/21/2007.
With regard to the Special Use Permit to operate a Volume Reduction Facility at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, the things that have changed since the last renewal are: 1) a traffic light has been installed at Shoham Road and Route 140; 2) Shoham Road is now a dead-end road, Somers Sanitation has acquired most of the land around that area and have shortened and dead-ended it about where the Volume Reduction Facility is located; 3) they are upgrading their equipment with electrical equipment which is much quieter; 4) will be improving the intersection at Shoham Road and Route 140; 5) there are more places to send this material to now; 6) no complaints on this facility.
Mr. Ussery indicated that nothing has changed on the site since the last permit renewal. He concurred they are upgrading with much quieter equipment. Mr. Ussery noted the offices of J. R. Russo are located on the same street; they have not seen and changes in traffic from the operation of this facility. He suggested the traffic light is an improvement.
Chairman Ouellette questioned why a 5 year renewal period was chosen? Attorney Barbieri indicated the time period is at the discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Menard noted she was on the Commission previously when this Application originally came through; there were concerns for noise from the residents of Prospect Hill so they were originally given a 2 year period. Those complaints are no longer raised; she suggested giving the 5 year extension as requested.
Chairman Ouellette noted he has been in the area at the end of the day and noticed the doors facing Shoham Road are open and trash can be seen on the floor; he questioned if they should be opened or closed? Mr. Roberts indicated it’s the end of the day and is common practice to leave the doors open. Attorney Barbieri suggested part of the operation is a mist system which handles odors.
Town Planner Whitten noted she had no comments regarding this Application.
Chairman Ouellette queried the audience for comments; no on requested to speak.
MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC - 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, LLC [M-1 Zone; Map 5, Block 17, Lots 56 & 57] for Renewal of Special Use Permit for the operation of a volume reduction facility.
Menard moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Saunders)
Commissioner Guiliano referenced Condition #26 regarding submission of monthly reports. Town Planner Whitten noted nothing was occurring that would have appeared in the reports so submission was ceased. Chairman Ouellette suggested perhaps submission of reports would be more applicable to the next Application.
MOTION TO APPROVE, the Application of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC for renewal of of Special Use Permit for the operation of a volume reduction facility located at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, M-1 Zone. (Map 5, Block 17, Lots 56 & 57) ). This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions) and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
- Special Permit Volume Reduction facility prepared for Shoham Road Transfer, LLC, 11 Shoham Road, East Windsor CT Map 3, Blk 17,Lot S6 & S7 Zone M1, prepared by JR Russo & Assoc. 1 Shoham Rd, east Windsor CT 06088 860/623-0569, 860/623-2485 fax dated 6/6/07
- Sheet 2/2 – Flow Diagram
-Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans (revisions included) to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final mylar.
2. Final plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate design professionals 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.
4. A copy of the final approved motion shall be filed by the applicant on the land records prior to the Commission signing of the final plans.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:
5. Two final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. One shall be filed on the Town Land Records, and one filed with the Planning and Zoning Department
General Conditions:
6. 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
7. 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.
8. The existing approval filed on the land records (Volume 204, Page 942-947) shall remain in effect.
9. Continued operation of this volume reduction facility beyond July 21, 2012 shall require a new public hearing and special permit approval by the commission.
Gowdy moved/Guiliano seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Saunders)
Regarding the Application for the Special Use Permit for the Transfer Station Town Planner Whitten recommended the Commission make a site walk of the property to get a perspective of the proposal.
Commissioner Matthews questioned the type of materials being processed, the timing of the processing, did the Applicant expect to come back for an expansion of the facility? Attorney Barbieri cited regulation requirements regarding odor, restrictions on amount of materials being handled, etc. Mr. Roberts noted this facility handles commercial materials only, not household garbage, thereby lessening the possibility for odor. He also described methods for odor control presently used.
Discussion turned to the timing/scheduling of the site walk. The Commission decided to hold the site walk at 6:00 p.m. at the facility at 9 & 11 Shoham Road on Tuesday, July 24th, prior to the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting. The regular meeting will be delayed to 7:30 p.m. to allow sufficient time for the site walk. Publication of both meetings will occur on the Town website, and in the Office of the Town Clerk.
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Application of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC - 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, LLC [M-1 Zone; Map 5, Block 17, Lots 56 & 57] for Special Use Permit for the operation of a transfer station until July 24, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at 9 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Saunders)
NEW HEARING: Southern Auto Sales, Inc. - Zone Change from A-1 to B-2 for property located at 205 South Main Street, owned by LLC Partnership. [Map 34, Block 22, Lots 4 & 6] (Deadline to close hearing 8/24/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Barbieri, representing the Applicant; Jay Ussery of J. R. Russo & Associates; and Rick Nadeau, second in command at Southern Auto Sales.
Attorney Barbieri reported this Application is for the extension of a B-2 Zone behind property at 205 South Main Street. Looking into the previous Railroad Salvage site this property would be to the right; it’s also known as the King property for which approval was received for a mall some years ago. The 205 South Main Street property is a inventory holding area which serves the rest of the Southern Auto Sales properties; behind this property is the Tribble family farm which is a horse farm run by Mr. Tribble’s daughter. Her home is also located behind this property, as well as is more agricultural land. Attorney Barbieri indicated they are asking to extend the inventory holding area slightly into what is now an A-1 Zone which has not been used for farming for more
than 50 years. The subject property is 100+/- feet from what is now the Stoughton Ridge Condominiums. Attorney Barbieri suggested the plan meets all zoning criteria, although it is not in compliance with the 2004 Plan of Conservation and Development which shows the subject area as residential. He also noted the Commission has received a letter from Sonia Morell of Phelps Road which sites the need to keep East Windsor rural and would not permit this proposal. Property adjacent to the subject parcel is 60+/- acres of horse farm; Scout Hall is across the road from the horse farm. Attorney Barbieri suggested this Applicant has provided 30+/- acres with a Conservation Easement across from the Flaherty Field Trials which he felt was a contribution to the rural atmosphere of the Town.
Mr.Ussery referenced the location of the subject parcel on his sketch, and pointed out various surrounding properties and their associated zones, which ranged from A-1 to B-2 to MFDD (Stoughton Ridge) to M-1 (the Fire House). He noted the regulations require a 50’ buffer between a B-2 Zone and residential development; the Applicant is setting aside a 100’ heavily area to satisfy that buffer requirement.
Chairman Ouellette questioned the need for additional inventory holding area? Mr. Ussery noted the Applicant came before the Commission a number of months ago to present a long term plan for Southern Auto Sales with regard to planned changes and expansion - one was the zone change on Phelps Road. Mr. Ussery suggested they are still working that goal; in August they will start adding a 2 lane addition to the Southern Auto Sales site which will allow more queuing space for 300 - 400 additional cars, the need to expand the office area and to relocate the recon area which will require moving to the Railroad Salvage building; they could also relocate the Power Sports operation. Mr. Ussery suggested the Commission will see SAS return for numerous site plan modifications. This lot expansion
will help the situation in the meantime.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if the Zone Change were granted what’s the likelihood of vertical expansion on that site? What could be done on that parcel other than parking cars? Mr. Ussery replied any use allowed in a B-2 Zone. Although it’s not their intent if the property got sold tomorrow someone probably could build a 2 story building. Commissioner Menard questioned if they could park cars in the A-1 Zone? Attorney Barbieri replied negatively. Commissioner Guiliano felt they could continue going further back more and more with future zone changes. Mr. Ussery indicated the same question came up in his office but most of that area is presently used for the horse farm owned by Mr. Tribble’s daughter and wife so it isn’t available.
Attorney Barbieri cited a study on the future of the auction industry, the value of the property to that industry, and how this use fits into the Town’s plan. Commissioner Gowdy noted there is the assumption that they are building the whole town around Southern Auto. Attorney Barbieri cited this use is only 1% of the total commercial zones; it isn’t as big as everyone thinks.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Guiliano moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 8:47 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:58 p.m.
Commissioner Matthews again raised the issue of the density of buffers on Southern Auto Sales properties. He objected to the ability to see vehicles through plantings. Mr. Ussery noted much of the area to the east is already heavily wooded with deciduous trees; they would need to cut those down to allow evergreens to grow. Chairman Ouellette clarified that Commissioner Matthews had no objection to the project as long as the property buffer can be obtained? Mr. Matthews replied affirmatively, noting he is looking for buffering of the entire contiguous perimeter.
Commissioner Farmer questioned why they wouldn’t extend the zone back on the property? Attorney Barbieri indicated then it would be closer to the horse farm. Commissioner Farmer questioned that they were moving closer to the condominiums so they would not impact the horse trailers? Mr. Ussery noted that the further back they go the would affect more condominium owners as there are more units adjacent to that area, and they would be clearing woods that are currently there. Attorney Barbieri they are requesting the Zone Change on the area of less impact.
Chairman Ouellette opened discussion to the audience:
Kathleen DeMartino, 18 Eileen Drive, Stoughton Ridge: noted she doesn’t presently see vehicles but would under this proposal; she is concerned about noise from alarms constantly going off; she can’t leave her windows open at night; she felt the value of her condominium will go down.
Ed York, 15 Kevin Drive: wants a sound barrier installed, there is tremendous background noise there now at Southern Auto Sales’ main plant where they come in at night and drop off cars, radios are blaring. Mr. Ussery noted the extensive number of trees SAS has already planted in areas they felt would be effective; he noted they will review the area and plant more if possible. He noted they used to hear from the condominium association but have not for a couple of years; they will attempt to contact them to work with them regarding more buffering. Mr. Nadeau noted he will address
this noise issue with security.
Kevin Carson, 5 Kevin Drive: is the President of the condominium association but is present representing himself because he hasn’t received the authority to act on behalf of the association, he agrees Southern Auto Sales has planted many trees but they have spread out. Mr. Carson agreed it’s a tough area to work on as there is an embankment involved but they are willing to work with the Applicant.
The Commission decided to continue the Hearing to give the Applicant time to meet with the condominium association and owners.
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Public Hearing on the Application of Southern Auto Sales, Inc. for a Zone Change from A-1 to B-2 for property located at 205 South Main Street, owned by LLC Partnership. [Map 34, Block 22, Lots 4 & 6] to the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on August 14, 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 (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Saunders)
OLD BUSINESS: Arvind Persuad - 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] (Deadline for decision 7/26/07):
Chairman Ouellette noted receipt of letter from Raymond Nelson, engineer for the project, requesting a continuation until the next meeting.
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Application of Arvind Persuad 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] until the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on July 24, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Saunders)
OLD BUSINESS: 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 Zone; Map 36, Block 49, Lot 17C]. (Hearing closed 6/26/07; deadline for decision 8/30/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description; he noted the following Commission Members would be voting on this Application: Gowdy, Guiliano, Matthews, Menard, and Ouellette.
Chairman Ouellette opened discussion by read his prepared notes. Following is a summarization of his comments. He reported he was disappointed that the water quality issues were not fully disclosed to the Commission until the questions were raised by an opponent to the project. Regarding the water quality issues Chairman Ouellette agreed that, based on the information presented, that the proposed excavation of Phases I and II should not have any impact on groundwater quality, since they are outside the Zone of Influence and the plume. He indicated he was not so sure about the excavation in Phases III and IV. Chairman Ouellette felt that if the excavation is permitted in Phases III and IV - on the east side of the site - and it’s determined that the leachate plume is extending
westward - which they all say that it won’t do - he cited in his opinion he had doubts on that. Chairman Ouellette indicated he didn’t want to rely on some unproved measures such as barriers, slurry wall sheet piles, or pumps to redirect the groundwater back to the north and to the east.
Chairman Ouellette then turned his discussion to the issue of access, noting this was a tough consideration for him. He concurred that the existing haul road was a logical choice for access because the infrastructure is better. But, he noted that in his opinion it hadn’t’t been demonstrated that approval is imminent from the numerous parties regarding the alternate access. Chairman Ouellette noted he wasn’t on the Commission in 1996 when the 1 mile radius requirement was approved. He assumed it was intended to reduce the burden on residents in certain sections of town, and if that’s the case it should not be taken lightly.
Chairman Ouellette concluded that he could be persuaded to vote in favor of the Application if it were scaled down to Phases I and II, and only if the renewal of the permit were requested every 12 or 18 months, or some short duration. The purpose of that would be to acquire well monitoring data to be submitted yearly, or whatever the annual renewal time is up, just to make sure that what they say is happening is really happening.
Commissioner Guiliano began his comments. He noted he agreed with many of Chairman Ouellette’s comments, and hadn’t thought about doing Phase I and Phase II; he didn’t think the Commission should be designing the Applicant’s application.
As far as the entrance Commissioner Guiliano indicated he was on the Commission when the decision was made regarding the 1 mile radius rule, and that was the reason why, it was to save truck traffic, to have a concentration of truck traffic in. with houses for certain areas. Commissioner Guiliano suggested he didn’t like the Applicant’s presentation of the difference routes that they could take; they never seemed to have the right paperwork from the various - first one on Plantation, and then the Mitchell one. He thought it just wasn’t presented properly. Commissioner Guiliano indicated he was not in favor of them going within the one mile radius at all. They have to come up with something different.
Commissioner Guiliano stated his opinion was that he was against the whole project. He countered that he might consider Phase I, Phase II because it is out of the plume area.
Chairman Ouellette requested to address one of Commissioner Guiliano’s comments; Commissioner Guiliano concurred. Chairman Ouellette questioned if Commissioner Guiliano could recognize that if an alternate access were designed properly and received the necessary approvals and is outside the 1 mile radius, the amount of, very likely the trucks are going to continue to take the same routes as they would if they had this other, existing haul road. Chairman Ouellette suggested he felt that very likely the truck traffic would seek to those same points because he thought the infrastructure is better once they get to the existing exit where it comes out of Wapping Road today. Chairman Ouellette reiterated that he didn’t think the amount of traffic was going to be any different another 4000 feet up
the road. He questioned if Commissioner Guiliano felt differently; that they’re going to take it and therefore there will be less of an impact?
Commissioner Guiliano reiterated he felt there would be less impact on the Wapping Road area, noting there were two houses recently built in the vicinity of the existing access; they are pounded constantly. Chairman Ouellette questioned that if an alternate access were constructed somewhere on Plantation Road that the trucks would go down Plantation Road seeking access to Rye Street to reach points to the north and the south. Commissioner Gowdy felt that when J. R. Russo came before the Commission for preliminary discussion the Commission had felt if they used the present road to the old dump there would be less traffic. Chairman Ouellette felt the direction of travel had a lot to do with the demand for the produce; where is the alternate demand coming from? He felt it was
difficult to determine as it changes with the market.
Commissioner Gowdy indicated this was a very difficult decision to make; he noted he had read all the Minutes, and been to all the meetings except for one. Commissioner Gowdy reported he found a lot of conflicting experts; he guessed it amounted to which expert he wanted to have the most trust in, whichever one he trusted the most, or the one he felt more comfortable with. Commissioner Gowdy indicated he was not convinced that there would be a problem with it as proposed.
With regard to the entranceway, Commissioner Gowdy suggested he would like to see it go through where the dump was.
Commissioner Gowdy also noted he was a little disappointed with some of the comments, if I recall correctly, made by the Applicants attorney saying “Well, I thought you knew that. I thought you knew that.” H felt that was a little presumptuous on the attorney’s part; he was disappointed in that. Commissioner Gowdy suggested he was not implying that he was trying to pull anything over our eyes but sometimes he got that opinion.
Commissioner Gowdy reiterated he didn’t see any concern for the health, safety, for the town or community as proposed. He concluded it would be difficult for him to vote against this Application.
Commissioner Menard she found this whole thing with the access - which one is the alternate, which one is within the mile, which is out - she indicated she still wasn’t sure exactly where they finally decided they have an access. Or do they even have an access? Do they absolutely have that; she thought to allow anything that we don’t know that there is an access to - you get the access first and you get the permit afterward.
Commissioner Menard also cited concern for water quality; she suggested that environmental things don’t get erased with an eraser, and once we find that there is a water quality problem it’s too late, it’s already there. I think that their undecided question is better than to say that we think it’s going to be ok. I’m less than comfortable voting in favor of this.
Commissioner Menard reiterated she had issues with the access piece of it and the impact of the Zone of Influence.
Commissioner Matthews opened his comments noting he really didn’t think there was any viable alternative than the current access through the scale. He believed they could do great harm to put a road in along the railroad; based on his site walk he felt it appeared to be wetlands - very fragile, very narrow - and to put a practical roadway there it would need to be 20’ wide because it’s over 1000’ and vehicles coming out would be meeting vehicles coming in. Commissioner Matthews reiterated he was particularly concerned about the wetlands impact; he believed the application probably would need to go back to them. He suggested if the Commission were going to allow gravel extraction I believed the only viable path is through the Wapping Road exit where the scale is.
Commissioner Matthews suggested he wasn’t opposed to removing gravel here, noting he had a page an a half of additional comments to offer. Commissioner Matthews submitted ca copy of his comments for the Application file; following is a summarization of those comments.
Commissioner Matthews cited the Applicant’s attorney’s contention that their presentation had met regulation requirements, yet Commissioner Matthews felt the Commission the Special Use Permit use of the application gave the Commission latitude to require additional considerations, including the health, safety, and welfare of the
community - the well-being of people, how they feel that their property value is going to be affected, etc. He cited the size and depth and the proximity of the project to future residential and industrial development and felt it would have a current and future adverse impact on the well-being of neighbors and the land values of neighborhood and adjacent properties. Commissioner Matthews went on to cite specifics with regard to depth, location, and aesthetics. With regards to aesthetics only he cited he would not object to some removal from gravel from this parcel as long as the final aesthetics are reasonably consistent with the surrounding landscape. Commissioner Matthews felt a reasonable depth relative to the western property would be 7 yards below the current elevation, and an
average slope of 5:1 would be appropriate. Commissioner Matthews then estimated that this would result in removal of approximately 1 million cubic yards and take 5 years to complete.
Again, with regard to welfare and safety, Commissioner Matthews cited anticipated traffic of very large vehicles running through various residential streets - and proposed for another 10 years duration of this project - as a significant issue which he perceived have an adverse impact on property values for many years to come.
Regarding welfare and health, Commissioner Matthews suggested the large attendance at this hearing and the numerous concerns expressed about pollution of groundwater in the adjacent Ketch Brook is an indication of the anxiety the community has about this project. Neighboring property values for properties along Ketch Brook are in, in this Commissioner’s opinion, negatively impacted. The data from sampling wells do show a level of pollution most probably arising from the adjacent closed landfill to the east. There is particular concern that the removal of up to 50’ depth of gravel would significantly reduce the storage capacity of the soil and result in a surge of water during heavy rainfalls that would carry this water and the existing plume of pollution into the groundwater and into
the Ketch Brook. These are expected to be transient events which would be reasonably expected to occur are very difficult to record and document.
With regard to health, Commissioner Matthews suggested a minimum separation of excavation floor to water table of 8’ per the regulation is at risk if heavy rainfall, with a reduced storage capacity, raises the historic maximum water table height. He suggested the current separation at one of the sedimentation basins is shown on the latest revised plan of 8’ or possibly 7’
With regard to welfare and safety Commissioner Matthews cited evidence presented which shows this soil to be very susceptible to erosion. Commissioner Matthews went on to compare current slope topography to proposed slope topography after completion of the project, and the possible effect of further erosion to Ketch Brook and wetlands.
Commissioner Farmer requested to offer his opinions. He felt cited Zoning Regulation 12.1.1., an excerpt of which he READ FOR THE RECORD; he felt too much excavation too close to Ketch Brook’s drainage basins and wetlands are a problem with this
proposed excavation. There is the potential for the adjacent terrace escarpment slopes to be destabilized as a result of this excavation.
Discussion followed regarding how the separation distance of excavation to groundwater had been set; Commissioner Farmer indicated he was unable to find a specific distance reflected in the current regulations. As a result, he felt if this Special Use Permit were approved as is proposed he was concerned that it would set a precedent for future applicants that the minimum depth to groundwater of 8’ is a right; he didn’t feel we have to go down 8’.
Discussion continued regarding varying opinions vs. assumptions vs. perceived conditions.
Commissioner Gowdy felt the amount of increase in truck traffic was questionable; he cited regulations which set traffic for the operation to 60/day and noted that one pit would be closed out before this new pit would be initiated. Commissioner Matthews suggested his comments were based on the public comments, and the perception that such traffic would end when the gravel pits run out. He suggested with this application the public has the prospect of that same traffic for several more years.
Discussion then turned to expert testimony, and the disparity of same - particularly with regard to the affect of excavation on the Zone of Influence. Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission always looked to presentations made by various experts pertinent to specific applications; he couldn’t see why this proposal couldn’t work, especially with regard to Phases I and II as suggested by Chairman Ouellette. Chairman Ouellette concurred, especially with regard to the areas outside the Zone of Influence. He noted the phase lines for Phases I and II have been revised and moved further to the west, which all the experts have agreed it outside the Zone of Influence. Commissioner Guiliano was opposed to redesigning the Application, unless the Applicant had asked for that provision in the
Public Hearing. He cited by modifying the Application the Commission was making a business decision for the Applicant. Commissioner Menard questioned the Commission’s ability to modify the Application, noting the Applicant might not want the modification set forth by the Commission. Town Planner Whitten concurred the Commission has that right.
Discussion continued for some time; possible modifications would include reduction to excavation of Phases I and II with well monitoring and reporting. Ultimately the Commission decided to vote on the Application as presented. Chairman Ouellette clarified that the vote on the waiver would occur first; should that vote fail he felt the Commission should continue to vote on the Application as presented. Town Planner Whitten concurred, noting her recommendation would be for the Commission vote on both aspects of the Application.
MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER for driveway location within 1 mile radius from the entrance to the existing Charbonneau excavation operation on Apothecaries Hall Road.
Approval is for use of existing access to NORCAP facility along Wapping Road, instead of proposed access through Mitchell property and Railroad ROW to Plantation Road.
Gowdy moved/Guiliano seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy/Matthews/Menard
Opposed: Guiliano/Ouellette
Abstained: No one
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. and owner Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc. (NORCAP) for a Special Use Permit to allow excavation and removal of earth products, screening and crushing of products, on property located to the rear of Wapping Road. M-1 & A-2 Zones. [Map 36, Block 49, Lot#17C This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
Cover Sheet - Proposed Gravel Removal Operation Wapping Road, East Windsor, CT, Applicant Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. 59 Broad Brook Road, Broad Brook, CT 06016, 860/623-8855; Owner Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc. 321 Olcott St., Manchester, CT 06040 prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 860/623-0569, fax 860/623-2485, dated2/21/07.Last revised 6/25/07
Sheet 2 of 5 Area Map, last rev 2/21/07 scale 1” = 500’, rev. 6/25/07
Sheet 3 of 5 Grading plan, rev. through 2/21/07, rev. 6/25/07
Sheet 4 of 5 Grading Plan, rev. through 2/21/07 rev. 5/02/07
Sheet 5 of 5 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Notes rev. 5/21/07
Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. The name and phone number of an individual for 24 hour emergency contact for erosion control problems must be noted on the plans. Any changes in the individual responsible for emergency contact must be reported immediately to the Planning and Zoning Department.
2. The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall be filed in the land records prior to the signing of the final mylars.
Conditions that must be met prior to issuance of permits:
3. A performance bond, with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney shall be
provided by the applicant prior to the signing of the mylars.
4. One set of final plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the commission. The signed plans shall be filed in the Planning & Zoning Office by the applicant prior to issuance of any permits.
5. In order to ensure the site is graded in accordance with the approved plan, vertical and horizontal control points shall be setup around the entire perimeter of the parcel. Such control points shall be located as per approved plans.
6. In addition, the applicant shall be required to provide the Zoning Enforcement Officer with as-built drawings six months after the issuance of the permit to demonstrate compliance with the approved grading plan, Any deviation from the approved plan shall be a violation and cause for revocation of the permit
7. No phase may begin until the previous phase has been substantially completed except for the phase containing the reclamation plan as indicated on the referenced plans.
8. Prior to the start of any new phase, the applicant shall submit evidence of conformance to the approved plans for the previous phases including a certified as-built survey showing finished grades.
9. Re-approval must be requested annually, at such time an as-built will be required.
General Conditions:
10. A zoning permit shall be obtained prior to the start of any work or new phase. No zoning permit shall be issued until a cash or passbook bond for site restoration, erosion and sedimentation control has been submitted. Such bond shall be good for the life of the permit/project. Any funds that may be withdrawn by the Town for such maintenance shall be replaced within 5 days or this permit shall be rendered null and void.
11. Operation of the gravel pit may include:
· screening of excavated material pursuant to provisions of Section 9 and 9A.5.
· crushing of rock and gravel mined on-site only with portable crushing apparatus and pursuant to provisions of Section 9 and 9A.5.
12. Excavation shall not ever exceed the approved finished grade elevations. Subsoil must remain native.
13. The final grading shall conform to the proposed final grading as indicated on the
referenced plans; but in no case shall any final slope be steeper than a rise to run ratio of 1:3, also known as a 33% slope.
14. In the event that the operation ceases before all phases are completed, the remaining land shall be graded to leave no slope exceeding 33%.
15. As each area or phase is graded to final contours, the ground shall be back covered with topsoil or loam to render it usable for growing agricultural products. All areas will require a minimum of 6 inches of topsoil in accordance with the regulations.
16. No trees, brush or stumps shall be buried on site.
17. The driveway to the pit shall be maintained in a hard surfaced, paved condition from Wapping Road inward for a minimum distance of two hundred feet. The driveway shall be cleaned regularly to minimize the dust nuisance created by exiting traffic.
18. An oversized 300 foot gravel anti-tracking pad leading to the driveway shall be installed and maintained to further minimize dust nuisance.
19. The gate across the driveway into the pit shall be maintained in good condition and kept closed and locked during all times when the pit is not in operation. “Private Property – No Trespassing” sign shall be maintained at the entrance to the pit facing outward toward Wapping Road.
20. The total number of loaded, or partially loaded, outgoing trucks from the pit shall not exceed an average of sixty (60) trucks per day or a maximum of three-hundred (300) trucks in any one week period, counting Monday through Friday.
21. The pit shall not be opened or operated before 7:30 a.m. and shall not be opened or operated later than 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, Monday through Friday.
22. The pit shall not be open or operated on weekends.
23. Measures to minimize the dust nuisance from the site shall be provided by the applicant for review and approval of Town staff. Additional measures are to be undertaken if required by staff if field conditions necessitate.
24. The “Best Management Practices” outlined by the Hartford County Natural Resource Conservation Service shall be adhered to.
25. The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of their Inland Wetlands Permit.
26. The vegetation (trees) to be removed shall be accomplished in one step and the topsoil shall be stripped off and stockpiled immediately or a temporary vegetative
cover implemented. Stockpiled soil shall remain on site for future reclamation of site.
27. Finished grades may not be closer than 8’ to the water table, and must adhere to approved plans.
28. There shall be no on-site maintenance of equipment unless it is a clear emergency. Town staff shall be notified if such emergency exists.
29. There shall be no bulky waste or debris disposal allowed on the site. The operator of the pit shall provide adequate security measures to prevent unauthorized waste disposal. Any unauthorized disposal shall be cleaned up and disposed of off site by the operator of the pit.
30. The project shall be carried out in phases as shown on the plans.
31. All trucks and equipment shall be parked off-street.
32. Upon completion of the excavation, the land shall be cleared of all debris and a minimum of six (6) inches of topsoil shall be spread over any disturbed areas.
33. Additional drainage and erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.
34. Any modifications to the proposed drainage for the site plan is subject to the approval of the town engineer.
35. This project shall be executed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans and conditions. Minor modifications to the approved plans which result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.
36. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner 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.
37. This approval shall expire one year plus 30 days (to allow for signing and filing of mylars) from the date of approval, or upon completion of the project, whichever occurs first.
Discussion: Commissioner Gowdy requested clarification that no matter how the Commission votes the Application for approval of the gravel excavation would be denied; Chairman Ouellette concurred. Commissioner Gowdy questioned what would happen if the Application were approved, yet the waiver for access had been denied? It was noted the Applicant would have to provide proof of alternate access.
Gowdy moved/Guiliano seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Gowdy
Opposed: Guiliano/Matthews/Menard/Ouellette
Abstained: No one
Reasons for Decision: Commissioner Guiliano referenced his comments made earlier. Chairman Ouellette reported he couldn’t approve the Application as presented working Phases 3 and 4, although he would support Phases 1 and 2 with special conditions regarding groundwater monitoring, and things of that nature. Commissioner Menard cited concerns for the quality of water in the area. Commissioner Matthews referenced his comments made earlier, which he indicated he would submit in writing. Commissioner Gowdy felt the Applicant met the requirements of the regulations; he suggested he wanted to believe the testimony from the experts, contrary to some of those contradictions. Commissioner Gowdy continued that he didn’t see any danger of an increase of
traffic or safety, although he noted there may have been an increase in the perception in the increase of traffic and anxiety.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Guiliano seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 10:08 p.m. and RECONVENED at 10:15 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS: Cello Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless - Site Plan Approval to allow the installation of 12 antennas on existing water tank, and equipment shelter on the ground, at 104 Prospect Hill Road, owned by Connecticut Water Company. [R-3 Zone; Map 5, Block 17, Lot 38] (Deadline for decision 8/30/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney George Watson, and Rachel Mayo, Land Use Analyst, of Robinson & Cole, and Alenandro Restrepo, Radio Frequency Engineer for Cello.
Attorney Watson described the property, which is owned by the Connecticut Water Company, as being located at 104 Prospect Hill Road near Interstate I-91. The property presently contains an existing water tank; the proposal is to install 12 antennae 98’ up on the water tank to provide communications capacity for Cellco/Verizon. The antennae under consideration are in addition to similar antennae already installed by Cingular and Nextel. An equipment shed will also be constructed; a 1,000 gallon propane tank - which is protected by ballards - will be installed next to the shed to fuel the generator contained within the shed. Commissioner Gowdy cited concern for rupture of the propane tank; Town Planner Whitten noted the plans have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and no comments have
been received relative to this installation. Chairman Ouellette questioned the noise level from the generator; he suggested perhaps a muffler
could be considered. Ms. Mayo indicated mufflers generally aren’t required but they would install one if necessary once the facility is operational and the noise level can be judged.
Commissioner Guiliano questioned if there were already two shed at the water tower? Attorney Watson replied affirmatively, noting they housed equipment for Cingular and Nextel. Town Planner Whitten also noted there is also a shed containing equipment for the Town’s 911 system. Commissioner Guiliano questioned the need to coordinate installation with the other providers? Mr. Restrepo noted you often see multiple antennas/providers on a structure or tower; they must maintain some distance from each other to avoid overlapping of assigned frequencies and disruption of co-locator’s services. Attorney Watson noted this proposal doesn’t need to be reviewed by the Citing Council as they are using an existing site; Town Planner Whitten concurred that if it’s an issue of
co-location it’s within the Town’s jurisdiction while construction of new towers is determined by the Citing Council.
MOTION: To EXTEND the Meeting until 11 o’clock.
Guiliano moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Discussion continued regarding maintenance of the antennas and facility.
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Cellco Partnership d.b.a Verizon Wireless, and owner Connecticut Water Co., requesting a site plan approval for wireless communications antennas to be located on existing water tank, and associated equipment sheds and improvements, located at 104 Prospect Hill Road, East Windsor, CT. [Assessors Map 5, block 17, Lot 38] R-3 zone . This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the conditions) and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
- T-1-Title Sheet with location map – Cellco Partnership d.b.a. Verizon Wireless, wireless communications facility East Windsor 2, Project: 2000017679, project type: PCSCA, location code: 119678,104 Prospect Hill Road East Windsor CT 06088 prepared by Dewberry – Goodkind, Inc., 59 Elm Street Ste 101 New Haven, CT 06510, 203/776-2277 , 203/776-2288 fax dated 1/26/07, rev 6/14/07
- Z-1: Location Plan
- Z-2 : Site Plan
- Z-Partial Site Plan and elevation
- Z-4 Construction Details
- Z-5 Shelter Plan and Elevations
- Z-6 Antenna Mounting Details
- Conditions that 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. One set of mylars shall be submitted to the Commission for signature. All plans shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans. (One paper set of the structural plans shall be submitted for signature.)
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 mylars.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:
4. A Zoning Permit for site work must be applied for and approved prior to the start of construction. Two sets of the final approved plans shall be submitted at this time.
5. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan for the entire development shall be submitted at the time of application for the site improvement Zoning Permit. The plan shall include the engineers estimated costs for E&S controls. The Town Engineer will review the plan and cost estimates and will set the E&S bond amount.
6. Additional requirements and procedures may be implemented by the Town Planner.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy:
7. Site improvements must be completed or bonding in place.
8. Final grading, seeding, landscaping shall be in place or the E&S bond will not be released or reduced.
9. Additional bonding may be required by the Planning Department.
10. All state inspection fees must be paid.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any certificates of compliance:
11. A paper copy of the final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, roads,
walks, driveways, drainage systems, and final floor elevations as well as spot grades shall be submitted and approved by the Town Planner.
12. A final as-built mylar shall be submitted and signed by the Commission.
13. 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 Official may issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance provided a suitable bond is retained for any remaining site work.
General Conditions:
14. This site plan approval shall expire five years from date of approval. Failure to complete all required improvements within that time shall invalidate the approval. The developer may request an extension of time to complete the improvements from the Commission, in accordance the Connecticut General Statutes. The Commission shall require proper bonding be in place prior to the approval of any such extension.
15. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.
16. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the resubdivision is subject to the approval of the town engineer.
17. Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.
18. All improvements and development must be performed in accordance with the East Windsor Zoning Regulations and applicable Town policies.
19. 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.
Menard moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Menard/Ouellette/Saunders)
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Informal Discussion - M & L Mason’s Brook:
Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to initiate discussion was Attorney Barbieri, representing the Applicant; Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo
& Associates; and Daryl LaFevbre, owner.
Attorney Barbieri summarized that Mason’s Brook is an 18 unit free-standing planned community of single family dwellings, 5 of which have already been sold. Under current regulations 3 of the 18 units can be 3-bedroom units; all of those have been sold. They are finding that people want 3-bedroom rather than 2-bedroom units as they want that “bonus” room. Attorney Barbieri suggested they have come to the Commission to see how they would feel regarding a text amendment under the new regulations to allow a higher percentage of 3-bedroom units in similar developments. He suggested there are not a lot of places in town that would support such developments. Mr. LeFebrev concurred, noting they are limited in their marketing attempts by the lower percentage of 3-bedroom
units. They are looking for a percentage of maybe 40 or 50% on this project.
Commissioner Guiliano queried how many other proposed projects would fall under this category? He noted a change for this development would then apply to all such developments. Town Planner Whitten suggested the previously approved Victory Estates project would be similar, as they are detached condominiums. Commissioner Gowdy indicated he didn’t favor 3-bedroom units because of the potential added tax burden and possible school issues. Commissioner Menard felt that if 20% was considered a reasonable number when writing the regulations that number should be retained across the board. Mr. LeFebrev indicated he thought perhaps it could be cut off if there were maybe over 50 units planned; they would like to go with 40% to 50% with the Board’s permission. Discussion
continued regarding project density throughout the town. Chairman Ouellette indicated he was not in favor of changing the regulations; the consensus of the Board was against the change as well.
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Sewer Service Area Map Draft, Review and Comment:
Town Planner Whitten noted a review was made of the plans favored by the OPM, the existing sewer areas, zoning designations, and areas having issues with current septic systems which are over capacity; the plan before the Commission is the result. If the plan of the OPM is not followed then the Town would not be eligible for grants for sewer construction. The WPCA is seeking comments from this Commission.
Chairman Ouellette offered the following suggestions: 1) the name of the plan be changed to Sewer Service Plan rather than Sewer Avoidance Area; 2) further review should be made of the area of Skinner Road - the south end of Skinner Road is shown as not being sewered but is served by sewers, the east end has sewers. He also questioned why the area of North Water Street was not in the Sewer Service Area? Town Planner Whitten suggested most of that land is zoned A-2 and is in the flood plain of areas of steep slopes; the likelihood of that land being developed is minimal. Chairman Ouellette noted the east end of Route 140 is in the Sewer Service Area yet one piece of property specifically excluded; he questioned the reason? Town Planner Whitten suggested the black line is
where the sewer is currently located; if a property didn’t have direct access to the sewer then it was left out.
Commissioner Farmer questioned why an area at the rear of South Water Street was in the Sewer Avoidance Area? Town Planner Whitten suggested that land was zoned A-2 as well.
Commissioner Matthews noted different designations in different locations on Wells Road. Town Planner Whitten suggested the grey area is the area of failing septic systems.
The consensus of the Commission was this was a pretty good plan.
BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Correspondence: None.
BUSINESS MEETING/(4) Staff Reports: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES/June 26, 2007: Approval postponed.
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS, MOTIONS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 11:12 p.m.
Gowdy moved/Guiliano seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________________________________________
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission
| 
