MEMBERS PRESENT: Walter Mealy, Louise Evans, Marshall Montana, Kevin McCann, Patricia Porter, and Tim Wentzell
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Doug Manion, Patrick Kennedy
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Mealy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Public Participation:
Karen Isherwood, professional engineer with Design Professionals, Inc., requested a change in the driveway configuration for the Cloutier resubdivision/interior lot (appl. # 01-07P), in order to preserve existing trees. She had a letter from an abutting property owner indicating that he has no objection to the reconfiguration. A motion to approve the change order was made by Kennedy, seconded by Evans. The vote was unanimous, and the motion passed.
New Business:
Mealy asked Evans for a report on a two-day Future Search Conference titled, "Working Together for Community Revitalization in our Connecticut River Valley." She noted that there were about 40 participants. The goal of the workshop was to examine the Connecticut River Valley, develop a shared vision of the group's preferred future/direction for the Valley, and develop themes and strategies for moving toward the vision. Evans came back with two goals to work on, one of which is the Town Plan of Conservation and Development update.
Mealy read a letter from Town Attorney Barry Guliano requesting a 90-day extension of time to begin construction of the telecommunications tower at the police station. Wentzell made a motion to approve the extension, seconded by Kennedy. The vote was unanimous, and the motion passed.
Town Plan of Conservation and Development
Mealy turned the meeting over to consultants Val Ferro and Pat Heslin, TPA Inc., for Town Plan discussion. Ferro noted that they need feedback from Commissioners about the contents of the notebooks that are circulating. The notebooks contain information about different styles of development to discourage sprawl and encourage land preservation.
Ferro then began a discussion about vegetation preservation and landscaping standards. She noted that Manchester has a requirement that each tree cut down on a site must be replaced by an equal caliper amount. Wentzell suggested that maybe we should use an incentive approach, so that people don't clearcut in advance of submitting an application for development. Banach noted that the existing site plan regulations have provisions requiring preservation of trees and natural features; however, applicants frequently come in and indicate to the Commission that the site features cannot be preserved. Ferro suggested that with sensitive design, the site features could indeed be preserved.
Banach told the Commission about a traffic-calming seminar she had recently attended, where it became clear that vegetation (particularly street trees) plays a critical role in slowing down traffic. She suggested that we could reclaim the area between the curb and sidewalk in new subdivisions, and use it for street trees rather than dedicating it to utilities. The types of trees must be carefully selected for non-interference with pavement and sidewalks. Wentzell noted that a wider snow shelf area may be needed to accommodate the trees. This might be accomplished by either a widening of the right-of-way or a narrowing of pavement from 26 feet to 24 feet, especially where there are sidewalks for pedestrians and bicyclists. McCann gave an example of effective landscaping reclaiming a Main Street. The street was narrowed,
and the reclaimed area was used for landscaping, pavers and street furniture. The end result was a revitalized Main Street, with satisfied pedestrians and merchants. Ferro indicated that the Town Plan will include recommendations for landscape preservation and enhancement, and that the Commission will need to discuss in detail how it wants to implement the recommendations.
The discussion turned to architectural features. Porter talked about "snout houses," houses with garages that jut forward and are the main architectural feature of the house. Evans brought up the issue of driveways that are located right on the edge of a lot and the impact of this on the neighboring property. The issue of lot width vs. house width (narrow lots, wide houses) was raised, and it was noted that this contributes greatly to the "snout house" syndrome. Mealy noted that the Commission had a very positive recent experience with the use of a General Plan prior to filing of a finished Site Plan of Development, with good interaction between the applicant and the Commission. He wondered whether this tool should be utilized more frequently.
"Cookie cutter" subdivisions were discussed. The Commission would like applicants to be more sensitive to the land. Ferro indicated that some communities do receive sensitive designs by requiring a site constraints map prepared by a landscape architect as the first step in an application. McCann noted that as the Commission addresses these issues, Commissioners need to consider the size of the property so that small owners are not unduly burdened but larger lot owners are required to provide good, sensitive site designs.
Ferro pointed out that commercial development does not influence South Windsor's appearance nearly as much as residential development does, as the Town is predominantly residential. Wentzell suggested that our own open space subdivision regulations encourage cookie-cutter mentality because of the way we eliminate the unusable land from the density formula. The Commission has not been able to develop an effective approach to open space subdivisions as yet. The open space needs to be visible, not tucked away at the back of the site where it gets used as additional lot area by the abutting lot owners. The open space itself is not necessarily an integral feature of the site planning, but rather is generally just set aside and planned around. McCann noted that the Commission tends to think like engineers when designing
regulations (our uniform lot requirements, e.g. specific lot width, depth and setbacks), and that also contributes to cookie-cutter subdivisions.
It was suggested that the Commission ought to ask themselves the question, what is overall effect the Commission wants to accomplish? Perhaps the design process should be more flexible, i.e., an applicant can build X number of houses on a site, now prepare a sensitive design that preserves open space and natural features, rather than specifying exact lot size, width, etc. Ferro noted that Lexington, Mass, has a "what you see is what you get" regulation that is flexible during the design process, but once the design is finalized, it must be built exactly that way. The design process starts with a site constraints map, prepared by a landscape architect, before any actual design occurs for the site.
The Commission took a break at 8:45 and resumed at 9:00 p.m. Ferro distributed a draft of the first Plan section for review and feedback. Commissioners were requested to return comments to staff at their November 13 meeting. The next POCD meeting will be November 20.
Motion to adjourn was made by McCann, seconded by Evans. The vote was unanimous and the motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marcia Banach
Director of Planning
| 
