TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing #1554
September 8, 2009
The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. by Chairman Ouellette.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as five Regular Members (Devanney, Farmer, Gowdy, Ouellette and Thurz), and two Alternate Members ( Mulkern and O’Brien) were present. Alternate Member Matthews was absent. All Regular Members would sit in on all Items of Business this evening. Also present was Town Planner Whitten.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:
Town Planner Whitten noted there are two (2) Applications pending for Shoham Road. One of the Applications, Shoham Road Transfer, LLC - Renewal of Special Use Permit for operation of a volume reduction facility at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, LLC. [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lots S6 & S7], has appeared on the Agenda for this evening as a Continued Public Hearing. The second Application, Shoham Road Transfer, LLC for a Special Use Permit to allow the operation of a transfer station in conjunction with an existing volume reduction facility located at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, M-1 Zone. (Map 5, Block 17, Lots S6 & S7) should have appeared on the Agenda as well. The intent to hear and decide the Applications on the same date was to make
the permit expiration dates consistent. With the second Application not appearing on the Agenda notice of intended discussion was not published.
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: None.
PERFORMANCE BONDS - ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS; ROAD ACCEPTANCE: NRT Realty - Request from Atty T. Mark Barbieri for one-year extension of Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for the development of a retail facility and garden center located on the south side of Bridge Street. (Expires on 10/14/09):
Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to represent the Applicant was Attorney T. Mark Barbieri, and Jay Ussery, professional engineer, of J. R. Russo & Associates. Attorney Barbieri reported that since the Applicant received approval for his permit the economy has gone into a recession. The project is not dead; they are still negotiating with multiple potential tenants. The original tenant has pulled back their expansion plans, but still may be considering a smaller project. They are also talking to other potential tenants as well. Attorney Barbieri reported they are well on their way to getting a State Traffic Control Permit. However, the Applicant won’t be able to meet the term to begin
construction.
Town Planner Whitten had no additional comments to add to the discussion.
MOTION: To GRANT A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION to NRT Realty for a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for the development of a retail facility and garden center located on the south side of Bridge Street; expiration of permit extended to 10/14/2010.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
PERFORMANCE BONDS - ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS; ROAD ACCEPTANCE: Bank of Western Massachusetts - Request from Timothy A. Coon, P. E., for one-year extension of Site Plan Approval for the construction of a bank with a drive-through, and associated improvements at 49 Prospect Hill Road. (Previous extension expires on 10/10/09):
Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business. Town Planner Whitten noted this Applicant has received two (2) extensions in the past; they are requesting another extension to keep their options open. Chairman Ouellette questioned if there was a maximum number of extensions an applicant could request; Town Planner Whitten thought there was no cap on the number of extensions allowable.
MOTION: To GRANT A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION to Bank of Western Massachusetts of Site Plan Approval for the construction of a bank with a drive-through, and associated improvements at 49 Prospect Hill Road; expiration of permit extended to 10/10/2010.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
OTHER BUSINESS: Boundless Playground (Parks & Recreation) - 8-24 Referral/Site Plan Approval for property located at 25 School Street (Town Hall Annex):
Chairman Ouellette read the description for this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application/Referral was Melissa Green, Director of Parks and Recreation. Ms. Green reported she is seeking permission/approval to move along with construction of this proposed Boundless Playground. The Town initially received a $25,000 grant from the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving for construction of this playground, which is proposed for the Town Hall Annex located on School Street. Ms. Green reported the Town has met the required match for the grant; she plans to start construction on Phase I shortly. Referring to a sketch, Ms. Green noted Phase I is a configuration of equipment for the lower portion of the playground. That equipment recently arrived and will be
installed at the location shortly. Phase II, for which fund raising is beginning, will contain more upper level elements of equipment.
Ms. Green reported a Boundless Playground allows any child, or person, to go to the highest point of the playground, no matter what the level of their disability. It also allows 100% interaction with other children. She noted there is nothing like this playground in East Windsor at present; construction of this Boundless Playground will make East Windsor a better community.
Chairman Ouellette questioned why this site was chosen? Ms. Green reported this playground was originally intended for Pierce Park (located in the Windsorville section) but the site wasn’t big enough. After reviewing available park facilities it was noted that the Annex was a bit bare. She reported she proposed a basketball court for this location a couple of years ago, but the neighborhood wasn’t receptive. This site is particularly appropriate as it’s close to Osborn Park on South Water Street, which is highly utilized.
Commissioner Gowdy questioned the hours of operation? Ms. Green reported they would be regular park hours - the same as other facilities. Commissioner Devanney questioned if a fence would be installed to separate the playground from the emergency vehicles located at the Police Department? Ms. Green reported they would be installing parking rails as similar to those installed at other park locations. This playground will be accessed via a 50’ sidewalk, which will be wheelchair accessible.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if this was also the location of the temporary skating rink? Ms. Green replied she had considered that originally but actually install the skating rink at Osborn Park because of the availability of bathrooms.
Commissioner Thurz suggested this is a good project. Commissioner Devanney suggested it’s a nice addition to the Warehouse Point area.
MOTION TO APPROVE the Site Plan for the Boundless Playground to be placed on the park area of 25 School Street.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO RECOMMEND to the Board of Selectmen to approve the Boundless Playground to be located at the Town Hall Annex located at 25 School Street.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
CONTINUED HEARING: Shoham Road Transfer, LLC - Renewal of Special Use Permit for the operation of a volume reduction facility at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, LLC. [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lots S6 & S7] (Deadline to close hearing 9/15/09):
Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description. He reported he was not present for the first Application meeting, but he has visited the site and has read the Minutes of the Meeting. He felt he was appropriately familiar to participate in discussion and to continue to Chair the Meeting.
Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney T. Mark Barbieri, representing the Applicant. He noted Frank Antonacci, one of the owners of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC, is present, as is Jonathan Murray, Director of Operations for Shoham Road Transfer, LLC. Also in attendance is Jay Ussery, professional engineer, of J. R. Russo & Associates.
Attorney Barbieri reported there are two Applications pending, each permit currently has a separate expiration date. They are now moving forward on both Applications with the intent that both expiration dates will coincide.
Attorney Barbieri reported they have been operating the Volume Reduction Facility (VRF) since 1992, and have come in four to five times for permit renewals. In the beginning the Commission wanted a one year permit because this was a new application/operation. Subsequently the Commission has give two 5 year permits, and one year permits on the Transfer Station. Attorney Barbieri reported it’s extremely important to get longer periods of time for the permits, even if the approvals include conditions. Staff attorneys have reported it’s difficult negotiating/executing contracts if the contractors have any doubt that the permits will continue.
Attorney Barbieri recalled that during the previous Meeting a neighbor made a complaint regarding a problem with noise. To assess the problem them have hired HMB Acoustics. HMB has made visits to the site and feels it’s not a problem to fix the deficiencies if the Board feels remedies are necessary. Attorney Barbieri indicated Mr. Ussery will report on HMB’s findings in his report.
Jonathan Murray, Director of Operations for Shoham Road Transfer, LLC, reported they have been at this location nearly 19 years. Mr. Murray reported he talked to two Commissioners who came to inspect the operation and the investigate the complaint made by Mrs. Dzikot (NOTE: It should be noted that Mrs. Dzikot was incorrectly identified in previous Meeting Minutes as Mrs. Pico. Any reference to Mrs. Pico in transcription should be considered to be Mrs. Dzikot). They found an odor between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., as well as some dust, and noise. Mr. Murray reported he also reviewed Mrs. Dzikot’s weekly reports (Zoning/Wetlands Complaint Form) to try to determine what the issues were. There seems to be noise emanating from the site. Mr. Murray reported
not much has changed in 19 years but they take neighbors complaints seriously. They have hired HMB, an acoustic sound engineer, who has recommended they install some type of noise barrier to act has a baffle. HMB is reviewing options and will make a recommendation shortly. Mr. Murray referenced the site plan to show the Commissioners the proposed location of the barrier, which would cover approximately 60’ in length. Mr. Ussery agreed that the closer they can install the barrier to the eminating source the better it would be; this location is closer to the activity and out of the way of the equipment. Mr. Murray identified the second location for installation of a barrier to be from the red barn 100+/- feet along the property line. Mr. Ussery suggested some of the existing 12’ high double-stacked chain link fence may stay in place, but they are considering installing something additional to lessen the noise - perhaps a
“curtain”. Mr. Ussery indicated that HMB agreed the problem was fixable; they will be putting a report together for the Commission’s review. Mr. Ussery pointed out that HMB is a
consultant, rather than someone who is a manufacturer’s representative; he felt there recommendations would be more objective. Commissioner Devanney questioned the height of the barrier? Mr. Ussery felt the current 12’ height was sufficient.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if another engineer would give a second, perhaps conflicting, opinion. Mr. Ussery reported there are not a lot of sound engineers to choose from. This firm was very responsive to the Applicant’s requests.
Mr. Ussery advised the Commission the Applicant will take the consultants recommendations and will install whatever he recommends. The estimated cost of the barrier is $60,000. Commissioner Devanney questioned the time frame for installation of the barrier? Mr. Ussery reported the consultant said he would be back to the Applicant within a few weeks. Depending on the availability of the material recommended for the barrier installation might occur within a month or 6 weeks. Mr. Ussery suggested if the consultant recommends removal of the existing wall resolution may take a bit longer. Mr. Ussery felt whatever they need to do will be completed by December 31st.
Mr. Murray submitted a multi-page handout to the Commissioners containing various reasons to support the 5 year permit. He reviewed the various reasons, and noted that the Town had initially given shorter permits because of concerns for odor and traffic and to give them a chance to see how the facility operates. Mr. Murray noted that the shorter permit length gives them difficulty when negotiating contracts, as contractors are concerned that the facility will be allowed to continue to operate.
Chairman Ouellette questioned the business relationship between Shoham Road Transfer, LLC, and USA Hauling. Frank Antonacci reported USA Hauling is the trucking company, while Shoham Road Transfer, LLC is the volume reduction facility. USA Hauling operates across the street from this facility, in the location previously occupied by Tri-State Diesel. Attorney Barbieri clarified that they are both under the same ownership of Frank Antonacci and his brother. Frank Antonacci reported they have been here for 25 years; the red barn was a building previously owned by Dick Weller. The trucks used to be located in the red barn but have now been moved to the Tri-State Diesel location. The business has had a hotline in operation for about 10 years; they try to address complaints as quickly as
possible.
Commissioner O’Brien questioned if the sound engineer gave them any statistics as to how much noise the barrier would cut down? Mr. Ussery indicated they were not given any information off the cuff but that would be in the report being submitted. There are criteria for industrial and residential noise, and the engineer indicated they could meet that criteria. Frank Antonacci reported that 19 years ago when they came in noise was an issue; that was the reason for the installation of the double chain link fence. They would not be able to acquire the DEP Permit if there were any problems. Commissioner O’Brien suggested that’s where he was going with his question; if the double fence has been in for 10 years this additional barrier should help. Commissioners Devanney
and Thurz indicated they did hear some noise when they visited Mrs. Dzikot’s property. What has been proposed this evening seems like it will make the property
owner’s lifestyle better. Commissioner Gowdy suggested a status report be submitted for each season - Spring, Summer, and Fall - to see if the loss of leaves on the trees makes any difference.
Town Planner Whitten also noted that lack of compliance will come into play; if the Town isn’t getting complaints then they will also know the remedy is working.
Town Planner Whitten questioned what the “yellow” line identified on the plans? Mr. Ussery suggested it was the “permit” line. The red barn isn’t on the permitted property and wouldn’t be included in this permit. Mr. Ussery suggested that the building (the red barn) actually blocks some of the sound. Town Planner Whitten indicated that one of the problems that came up is that all the noise doesn’t come from the volume reduction facility; some of it is just truck traffic. It’s difficult to separate the noise from USA Hauling truck traffic from this volume reduction facility noise. Commissioner Devanney suggested some of the noise is the banging of the dumps to get the debris out of the trucks. Attorney Barbieri suggested
some noise is exempt from the decibel regulations; Mr. Ussery noted an example would be the back-up alarms. Town Planner Whitten felt what was being proposed will be fine.
Chairman Ouellette queried if the red barn is part of the solution for the noise what’s to prevent the Applicant from tearing down the red barn? Frank Antonacci reported they use it; it’s necessary. Mr. Murray suggested it’s part of the operation. Attorney Barbieri suggested it’s possible they could tear the barn down but then they would have to replace it with a barrier. Town Planner Whitten indicated such action would require a Site Plan Modification.
Chairman Ouellette queried the audience for comments.
Dorothy Dzikot, 87 Prospect Hill Road: reported she lives behind the facility; she’s willing to give the sound barrier a try. Mr. Murray gave Mrs. Dzikot the hotline phone number.
Chairman Ouellette noted he is supportive of the sound barrier but questioned how to approach action on this Application procedurally, as the recommendations for the specifics of the sound barrier have not yet been received. Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission must take the Applicant on their face value of committing to the installation of the barrier. Attorney Barbieri indicated the Applicant will do what is recommended by the acoustical engineer, and will agree to Staff approval. He indicated they are committed to doing this project. Mr. Ussery suggested that even if the engineer comes back and tells them they meet State standards they will still install the barrier; they want to be good neighbors. Commissioner Farmer indicated he would like the barrier to meet State standards. Frank Antonacci reiterated they wouldn’t be able to get their DEP Permit if there were problems. Commissioner Devanney questioned if it was a question of decibel levels? It was just noise when
she was at the neighbor’s property, and there were only two instances of noise the whole time she and Commissioner Thurz were at the property.
Town Planner Whitten suggested it could be made a condition of approval that the Applicant can work with Staff and the engineer. A deadline of 12/31/2009 could be set for compliance. She suggested quarterly reports for the first year; that could be modified to annual reports if no further complaints were received within the year.
Town Planner Whitten recommended the Commission not take action tonight because one of the items hasn’t appeared on the Agenda. The Commission could close the Public Hearing if they choose, but she would like to rework the conditions of approval to make sure the timeframe is the same for both Applications. If the Commission chose to keep the Hearing open then they would need an extension from the Applicant. Attorney Barbieri felt they would extend the extension if necessary. Frank Antonacci questioned if the Commission would consider closing the volume reduction facility tonight and continue the transfer station? Chairman Ouellette called for a break to give the Applicant an opportunity to discuss options with Attorney Barbieri and Mr. Ussery.
MOTION: TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Farmer seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 8:08 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:11 p.m.
Town Planner Whitten recommended that the Public Hearing on the volume reduction facility - as listed on the Meeting Agenda - be closed tonight. Because the transfer station wasn’t posted on the Meeting Agenda - but was continued to this Meeting - she would ask the Applicant to give an extension of the Application until the Commission’s next meeting. This would allow the public the opportunity to make comments on the Application which was inadvertently not listed.
MOTION: To CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING on the Application of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC - Renewal of Special Use Permit for the operation of a volume reduction facility at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, LLC. [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lots S6 & S7].
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Application of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC - Special Use Permit for the operation of a transfer station at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, LLC. [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lots S6 & S7]; Hearing continued to the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on September 22, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. 06016.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
OLD BUSINESS: DSE Properties, LLC. - 5-lot subdivision of property located at 16 Windsorville Road. [R-1 Zone; Map 25, Block 47, Lot 17] (Deadline for decision 9/17/09):
Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to present this Application was Rachael Dearborn, of Landmark Surveys; present in the audience were owners Scott Mangold, Ed Mangold, and David Mangold.
Mrs. Dearborn submitted revised plans to the Commission. She noted that the Commissioners had expressed the following concerns at the last meeting:
1) The previous plans showed 2 and 3 family dwellings on this proposed subdivision plan; those structures have now been removed from the plan.
2) There was also a concern with Windsorville Road; the Plan of Development shows Windsorville Road as a minor collector road, so the existing 60’ right-of-way could be reduced to a 50’ right-of-way. Should that occur the acreage is increased to 3, which allows a reconfiguration of the lots,
3) Sidewalks installed along Windsorville Road vs. Old Ellington Road. The Plan of Development shows sidewalks along Old Ellington Road; the Applicant now agrees with the Commission that sidewalks would be appropriate in this location. They would rather propose a 40% fee-in-lieu (FILO) of sidewalks on Windsorville Road; that FILO could be used to extend the proposed sidewalks along Old Ellington Road from the railroad, which abuts the end of the subject parcel, across Town property to connect with sidewalks in front of the school and connect back to the center of Broad Brook. The cost of sidewalks on Windsorville Road would be $25/linear foot, which would total $14,570+/- along the subject Windsorville Road frontage. To comply with the required 40% FILO the
Applicant is proposing $5,770 towards the continuation of sidewalks along the Town property across from the school.
4) The Applicant has added a telephone pole with street light along Old Ellington Road near the intersection with Helena Drive.
Mrs. Dearborn suggested the Applicant is also asking for a waiver that the landscaping plan be submitted, as they are on the verge of 5 lots. They have identified large tees and some hemlocks that will remain within the subdivision.
Commissioner Farmer questioned if the Applicant would actually install the sidewalks on the Town property, or were they just proposing the funds? Mrs. Dearborn suggested Town Engineer Norton has indicated he prefers receipt of the money, with installation to occur by a contractor of the Town’s choosing. Commissioner Mulkern noted he spoke extensively at the previous Meeting regarding the need for sidewalks along Windsorville Road, but he now thinks that the FILO is a great compromise, as it gives the Town the ability to continue sidewalks to the school. Commissioner Farmer cited concern that that portion of the sidewalks will never be put in. He questioned if the Commission will make that a recommendation to the Town? The Commission briefly discussed how that installation
would occur.
Chairman Ouellette questioned how the Commission felt regarding the landscape waiver? He noted the Applicant is on the cusp of the required acreage; he questioned that the regulation was meant for small subdivisions? Commissioner O’Brien questioned what exactly the Commission was being asked to waive? Mrs. Dearborn suggested the Commission would waive the fact that the landscape plan would be signed by a landscape architect. Scott Mangold indicated he felt it was in their best interest to provide vegetation along the railroad. He reported they are asking for a waiver of the professional signature; their first cousin is a professional horticulturist who put much time into review of the plan.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if the property line would move with the revision on the right-of-way? Town Planner Whitten replied negatively. Mrs. Dearborn suggested this is a deeded 50’ right-of-way; if the Town didn’t have its requirement they would have had 50’. The Town had the requirement to take the additional 10’ if the property was developed. They have spoken with Town Engineer Norton regarding that actuality of the road ever being widened to 60’. Town Planner Whitten indicated that while the Plan of Development says the right-of-way should be 60’ in reality most properties have been deeded with a 50’ right-of-way, including Chamberlain Farms. The church property also has been developed at 50’ so you
would have to go into the church property by 10’.
Chairman Ouellette noted that on the northwest corner of Old Ellington Road and Windsorville Road the corner radius is difficult for a small delivery truck and school bus to negotiate the turn today. Scott Mangold questioned the need for the change; Ed Mangold felt it could occur if it didn’t affect the lot size. Mrs. Dearborn suggested the maximum impervious coverage is 25%; with the single family dwellings the amount of impervious coverage would be 18% while with the multi-family dwellings the impervious coverage was at 24 - 25%. Scott Mangold questioned if the Town didn’t widen the rest of the road why would they change the corner? Chairman Ouellette noted delivery trucks must cross the center line to make the turn. In response to a question of giving the area to
the Town vs. a taking Town Planner Whitten suggested the Town could take the necessary land, although she felt that not that much land would be necessary. Commissioner O’Brien noted giving up that area gives the Town the flexibility to make a change in the radi later. Chairman Ouellette noted the Town is giving up a 10’ of right-of-way along the full length of the parcel along Windsorville Road, for perhaps a 20 - 25% radius. Town Planner Whitten noted this option would require the input of Town Engineer Norton; she suggested the addition of a condition that Staff and the Applicant work together on a road design. After reviewing the plans Mrs. Dearborn didn’t feel giving the Town that area would decrease the lot area; she noted they might have to reduce the parking area for the multi-family dwelling. Chairman Ouellette felt the Commission should make the recommendation to the Town, otherwise the Town might have to
purchase the land from the owner of Lot 5 later. He reiterated it is difficult to make the turn onto Old Ellington Road from Windsorville Road.
Commissioner Devanney requested clarification that there would be one street light along Old Ellington Road? Mrs. Dearborn replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Thurz questioned that the drainage is the same? Mrs. Dearborn replied affirmatively, noting she needs to add a note to the plans.
MOTION: TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Devanney seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 8:45 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:54 p.m.
Mrs. Dearborn reported that during the break she and Town Planner Whitten had reviewed the plans and felt that to accomplish the 25’ radius it appeared that it would be 5’ of land on both sides of the triangle. If in discussion with Town Engineer Norton he would agree to 5’, and not more than 10’, they would be agreeable. Chairman Ouellette indicated he would be comfortable with that.
MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER FOR:
1) Sidewalks along Windsorville Road: Applicant proposes a 40% Fee-In-Lieu of sidewalks along this (Windsorville Road) roadway per Section 6.3.5 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER FOR:
2) Requirement for Landscape Architect to prepare a landscape plan: Applicant has proposed additional and adequate landscaping above minimum requirements per Section 5.7 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER FOR:
3) 60’ Right-of-Way along Windsorville Road as recommended in the Plan of Development, Section 4-13: Most developments along Windsorville Road have held a 50’ Right-of-Way.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE Fee-In-Lieu of Open Space of $2,000 per lot per Section 7.5 of the Subdivision Regulations. Note to be added to plans for each lot except the house lot #2; note should state the following: “Any sale or transfer of this property within five (5) years of the original subdivision approval to a person not exempt under Section 7.6 of East Windsor’s Subdivision Regulations shall result in the liability of payment ($2,000.00) to the Town of East Windsor for the total fee as defined in Section 7.5 of the East Windsor Subdivision Regulations.”
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of DSE Properties, LLC. requesting a 5 lot single family subdivision on property known as 16 Windsorville Road, Map 25, Block 47, Lot 17 in the R-1 Zone. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the conditions) and the following conditions) and the following conditions of approval:
Referenced Plans:
1/3 - Cover Sheet: Property Survey prepared for DSE Properties, LLC., 16 Windsorville Road, East Windsor, CT., prepared by Landmark Surveys, LLC., 62 Lower Butcher Road, Ellington, CT. 860/875-8204, and Jonathan A. Zahner, PE, 50 Park Street, Vernon, CT. 860/324-2499, scale 1” = 40’, dated 4/15/09
2/3 Subdivision Plan
3/3 Detail Sheet
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. If 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 7.6 of the 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 7.5 of East Windsor’s Subdivision Regulations.”
4. Landscaping details shall be shown on the plans.
5. Light post location and detail shall be shown on the plans - if required.
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, site restoration, and roadway construction 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 bonds 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. Any or all buildings, pools, etc. must be removed prior to obtaining a Zoning Permit.
Conditions which must be met prior to Certificates of Compliance:
12. Iron pins must be in place at all lot corners and angle points.
13. Final Health District approval of the drinking water supply must be demonstrated.
14 Any driveway must have a 15’ paved apron or if weather does not permit, a bond for such submitted.
15. Final grading and seeding shall be in place, or if weather does not permit, a bond for the unfinished work be submitted.
16. All required landscaping shall be in place, or if weather does not permit, a bond for the required plantings shall be submitted.
17. Final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, driveways, final floor elevations, and grading must be submitted.
18. 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:
19. This subdivision approval shall expire (five years from 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.
20. A Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to any the commencement of any site work.
21. 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.
22. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading of the subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.
23. Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by Town Staff if field conditions necessitate.
24. 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.
25. 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:
26. Applicant shall dedicate up to ten (10) feet along Old Ellington Road and Windsorville Road, and area to be determined by Town Engineer and Staff.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Temporary Sign Regulations - Discussion:
Town Planner Whitten noted that a meeting was held with businessowners and staff - with Commissioner Devanney attending as a representative of the PZC - to discuss the pending revised sign regulations. She submitted to the Commission a copy of the draft Sign Regulations, with notations on the bottom of comments made by business owners during the meeting. Comments included: 1) business owners felt no fee should be charged for these temporary permits; 2) that it would be difficult/cumbersome to work out the permit timing with other tenants and plaza owners; 3) more signs during the holiday season; and 4) allowance of signs 6 times a year rather than the current proposal of 4 times a year.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if the land owner needed to consent to the display of the signage; if the applicant is a tenant does the land owner need to sign the permit application as well, thus requiring two signatures? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively.
Town Planner Whitten clarified that signs must not exceed 3’ in height. If a sign were displayed on top of a table the maximum height from the ground for this display would be 3’, not a 3’ sign on top of a 3’ table. Whether a sign is an a-frame or a free standing supported by “stakes” the maximum height is 3’ from the ground level.
Commissioner Devanney reported that much of the discussion revolved around the fee, which includes a mandatory State fee. The business owners felt it was appropriate to pay for the first one and the subsequent permits would be “paperwork only” rather than a fee. Chairman Ouellette suggested the fee is to cover the administrative fee and the costs associated with staff completing paperwork, monitoring signage, and possibly issuing violation notices. Town Planner Whitten felt the intent would be to recover at least some of the cost of implementation. Chairman Ouellette questioned that she was saying that administration will be a cost to the Town? Town Planner Whitten concurred that the administration and the monitoring of the signage would be a cost to the Town;
she estimated that approximately 70% of staff time is spent on signs. Commissioner Gowdy felt that the fees for all signs should be paid up front; if a violation occurs the permittee would then not be allowed to display subsequent signs and would be out the cost of the remaining number of annual permits. Town Planner Whitten noted that South Windsor doesn’t charge for sign permits, but they also have a Zoning Enforcement Officer that does nothing but monitor sign regulations.
Town Planner Whitten indicated she wasn’t in favor of sign permits 6 times a year. Commissioner Devanney clarified that the business owners want the availability of permits 6 times a year, plus additional signage during the holidays. Commissioner O’Brien concurred with Commissioner Gowdy regarding payment up front and no refund for violations.
The Commission rediscussed the fees. Commissioner Mulkern suggested a higher fee for the initial permit with a sliding scale for subsequent permits. Town Planner Whitten noted the fee structure needs to be administratively efficient. She suggested administration of these permits will take more time than the office has staff to support it.
Chairman Ouellette suggested that the businessowners deserve an opportunity to advertise but not at the expense of cluttering the landscape. He reintroduced the consideration of pylon signs for plazas. He also cited use of “directional signs” coming off the highway ramps to direct people to various businesses along Route 5. He referenced condition #12, which cites the signs must be 20’ from the paved roadway or 10’ from the property line. Along Route 5 the right-of-way is very wide; 10’ onto the business property is going to be so far off the road a sign would do nothing to advertise the business. Town Planner Whitten accessed a parcel along Route 5 on the Smartboard, then indicated the location of sign if the permittee followed the regulations;
effectively the sign would be closer to the parking lot pavement than the road. It was felt the business owners aren’t aware where the signs can be located.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if it would be beneficial for the Commission to hold a public meeting to invite the business owners and other interested parties? As a Commissioner member he would like the opportunity to speak with the businessowners; the previous meeting with the businessowners was held during the day. Other Commissioners indicated they would like such an opportunity as well. Town Planner Whitten concurred that a public meeting would be advantageous. A workshop specific to the sign regulations will be scheduled for 6:30 p.m. for an hour prior to the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on September 22, 2009.
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Correspondence: Nothing
BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Staff Reports:
Town Planner Whitten noted the Commission received in their packet a copy of a Cease & Desist Order issued to Steve Dearborn; in addition he has received a Cease & Desist Order from the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) which may be contradictory to the Town’s Cease & Desist. Mrs. Dearborn (who was present in the audience and is Mr. Dearborn’s surveyor) reported they may be expanding the farm pond, which would require a Wetlands Permit, and that may be in conflict with the ACOE. Mrs. Dearborn reported there has been progress made regarding resolution, but Town Planner Whitten asked Mrs. Dearborn to hold off submitting an application to this Commission until they find out if the ACOE will allow their proposal. The concern is that the ACOE may have jurisdiction over the
zoning and wetlands issues, so everyone must meet to discuss options. Town Planner Whitten reported she didn’t want the Commission to think Mr. Dearborn had not done anything. Mrs. Dearborn reported some of this has to do with a complaint from a neighbor and they wanted to address everything on the plan appropriately.
Discussion followed regarding the procedures for Mr. Dearborn’s response to the Town’s Cease & Desist Order. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if Mr. Dearborn is in violation of the original Site Plan Application, and the ACOE comes in and changes things, does Mr. Dearborn need to reapply as a totally new application to the Town? Town Planner Whitten indicated she didn’t honestly know at this point. Many of the issues of concern to the ACOE are actually wetlands issues, but everything ties together. The creation of the farm pond may be increasing the drainage. Mr. Dearborn has tried to make another application to the Town but the application that was to be submitted might be changed by the ACOE requirements. Mr. Dearborn must come in for a modification, one
way or the other. Town Planner Whitten suggested that this time the application should come through as a Special Use Permit under a Public Hearing. Commissioner Gowdy felt if the applicant violated conditions of the original application then he should be required to file a new application, not a modification. Town Planner Whitten disagreed, but indicated she would require a Public Hearing this time.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES/August 11, 2009:
MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1553 Regular Meeting dated August 11, 2009 as written.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS/MOTIONS: Nothing presented
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 10:07 p.m.
Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________________________________________
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission
| 
