MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin McCann, Marshall Montana, Louise Evans, Patrick Kennedy, Sue Larsen, Tim Wentzell, Suzanne Choate
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Gary Bazzano
Roger Cottle
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
Chairman McCann opened the public hearing in the Madden Room at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Evans read the legal notice as published in the Journal Inquire.
Appl 02-76P, Horseshoe Lane Associates, LLC, request for Special Exception to 4.1.12 and Site Plan of Development for a 17 unit Senior Residence Development to be known as “Summerwood”, on property located southerly of Sharon Drive, northwesterly of Hilton Drive, A-20 zone
Chairman McCann stated this application has been before this Commission previously and was denied without prejudice, and requests the tonight’s presentation highlight the changes from the prior application.
DeMallie introduced the team representing the applicant and indicated to the Commission they would not all be presenting but would be available for questions. He requested that all the testimony from the previous public hearing be incorporated into the record by reference.
DeMallie indicated the following changes within this application:
The IWA/CC approved the previous application (02-48P)
The plan now incorporates 17 single family units with 4 different styles, two ranch styles and two cape styles. There are no multi-family units.
Units 2, 3, 11, 12, and 17 will be designed to accommodate side-load garages.
The scale of the buildings is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
All units have full basements with two car garages and optional sunrooms (sunroom square footage will be included in total square footage).
There is a small wet-bottom; water quality detention basin required by the Inland/Wetlands Commission which will ensure capacity in the downstream pipe.
Summerwood would apply larvicide for mosquito control twice a year to the detention basin. Town Staff has indicated this to be an effective program.
Traffic has decreased with the decrease in units.
This is now a single-family development in a single-family neighborhood. The land is suitable for this use.
There are existing full utilities, water, gas, public sewers.
Perimeter trees are to remain on the site and the landscape design will supplement the trees.
No sidewalks are being proposed on Day Drive.
The applicant would surround the perimeter of the shallow-water detention basin with a low fence at the request of the Commission.
Storm water drainage system is designed to reduce the existing overflow to the abutters.
This Senior Residential Development is a net revenue generator and will not impact the town.
In addition to the 35 foot buffer, on the westerly side of the property line there is an industrial zone which required a 75 foot buffer.
Sargeant Field of the South Windsor Police Department indicated there have not been any noise complaints from the adjacent industrial site.
The Plan of Conservation and Development encourages a range of housing to meet to needs of the community.
Each unit will meet the Building Code guidelines for handicapped accessibility.
Roulier Associates is the proposed builder for the project. They have built projects of this type in the past.
DeMallie presented to the Commission an architectural elevation of the designs and noted the units will have of an earth tone color scheme. Some of the units will have the potential for sunrooms to the rear of the units.
Bruce Hillson, Traffic Engineering Solutions, indicated a revised traffic impact study was submitted dated November 2002. The update revises tables 1 and 2 indicating the number of trips generated by this senior housing. The current numbers are slightly lower than the original projections, and the new intersection will operate at service level A during a.m./p.m. peak hours.
Lipe read the Planning Report:
1. Request for Special Exception and site plan approval to construct a 17-unit Senior Residence Development on property located north of Hilton Dr, south of Sharon Dr. The resubdivision, creating the 6-acre lot in the A-20 zone, was approved by this Commission on 12/10/02. The application includes construction of a new Town street within an existing Town right-of-way, from which the 6-acre lot will attain its required frontage of 200 feet for the Senior Residence Development.
2. There are no sidewalks shown on the new road.
3. The new lot is surrounded by single-family homes on three sides, Industrial-zoned land to the west. There are two existing houses on either side of the new street that will become corner lots. One of the two houses was constructed as if it was on a corner lot, the other was not.
4. The applicant is requesting SRD approval for 17 units, all of which are single family units. The units would vary in size according to the newly-adopted formula, with 6 units under 1400 sq ft, 6 units about 2000 sq ft, and the remaining units between 1400 and 1800 sq ft.
5. The Special Exception criteria for review of a SRD include:
a. traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood;
b. there will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area;
c. surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
d. impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, street, drainage system, sidewalks, and other elements of the infrastructure;
e. the land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse environmental impacts are created;
f. the SRD proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town Plan of Development;
g. the SRD proposal will help meet senior housing needs of South Windsor;
h. the location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents, or is within reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close proximity to or contains permanent open space land;
i. the SRD facility has been designed to meet the needs of handicapped residents or visitors; and
j. the architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and low profile.
6. The proposed density is 2.77 units per net buildable acre; maximum 3 units per net buildable acre are allowed when projects are soley single family. Proposed impervious coverage is 25.3%; 60% allowed. Required parking is 1.5 spaces per unit, or 26 spaces; the applicant has provided 74 spaces, or 4.3 spaces per unit.
7. There are no regulated wetlands on this site. IWA/CC approved this application on October 2 with two bonds, one in the amount of $10,000 to ensure Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures, one for $20,000 to ensure establishment of the basin. Also, mosquito controls in the form of a larvicide must be applied to the detention basin. In accordance with accepted recommendations and proof of application be sent to the Environmental Planner or Director of Public Health.
8. If this application is approved, it will bring the total SRD units approved up to 155. The maximum number of units that the Commission may approve is currently capped at 250.
9. Public water and sewer are available to the site. WPCA approval is required for the sewer extension.
10. The site is wooded, with predominantly deciduous trees. The applicant is showing a combined yard and buffer of 35 feet. Since the existing vegetation is predominantly deciduous, evergreen interplanting is necessary to provide adequate screening. The buffer planting plan has been eliminated from the original 20 unit proposal. The applicant has not provided the buffer cross sections as required. Staff would recommend that the original landscape plan be followed as it provided for a fairly solid buffer planting at the inner edge of the cleared area, leaving the majority of the existing trees in the buffer area undisturbed.
11. The applicant submitted a traffic study which indicates that there will be little impact to the existing roadway network. There are no site line issues on either side of the new street.
12. The Architecture and Design Review Board reviewed the plans on January 16, 2003. They were satisfied with the plans as presented
13. A hold harmless agreement and permission to enter form will need to be provided to the Town to allow the refuse & recycling vehicles to enter the site.
14. If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests one additional approval conditions:
The density allowed in the zoning data table must be corrected to reflect 3 units per buildable acreage (4 units are allowed when multi-family is proposed)
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer, commented that the applicant would need approval from the Water Pollution Authority Control.
The following spoke in favor of the application. Following is a summary of their comments:
Louise Calabrese
Mark Lillis
Joan Cummings
Vincent Prestileo
Ron Lerz
Arturo Guerra
Jim Milkie
There is a need for this type of housing in South Windsor.
This type of project would allow lifelong South Windsor residencts the opportunity to downsize and still meet their needs and stay in Town.
Economic impact: the development would have a net revenue impact for the town without creating a burden to the community.
Need to increase this type of housing in South Windsor in order to not lose seniors to neighboring towns.
Senior developments are an asset and good neighbors to abutting residential areas.
Marjorie Anthony spoke on behalf of the Economic Development Commission in strong support of this application. This Senior Residence Development would bring revenue into the town without any burden and this development fits well into the residential area.
Marge Anthony read a letter into the record for Cliff Slicer, who could not be present, in favor of this application. Slicer is a member of the Economic Development Commission.
The following spoke in opposition of the application:
Bob Sauer, Hilton Drive:
Concerns with the traffic of 34 cars entering and existing the residential area with children in the neighborhood.
Major concerns with the larvicide treatment traveling to the Podunk River. Will the neighborhood be notified when treatment will occur?
Seniors on a budget cannot afford to heat and air condition units with cathedral ceilings.
Concerns with use of common driveways and their maintenance in inclement weather.
The design of the units does not fit in with the criteria of the abutting neighborhood.
Concerned with the value of the units in relation to the value of the homes in the adjacent neighborhood.
Feels the units should be handicapped accessible when purchased.
Landscaping around the buildings could be dangerous and could allow a unit to be broken into.
Commissioners on the board are voted in by the majority, and they would like the concerns of their neighborhood to be heard.
There will be a strain on the existing utilities in the area by adding these additional 17 units.
Sauer submitted to the Commission Public Health Code Citations indicating stagnant water being a breeding place for mosquitoes within a residential district (Exhibit A).
Information regarding studies showing older drivers are more likely to have accidents than younger drivers (Exhibits B-F).
The town should buy this parcel and keep it as open space
Savva Savvides, Hilton Drive, has children and is concerned with the additional traffic that will be in the area and the detention basin with stagnant water. Feels these units are condos and should be located elsewhere in town.
Evelyn Merrill, Hilton Drive feels this is the wrong place for a Senior Residence Development and the development will be too close to the residential neighborhood in this area. There is no community building proposed. The area should be left an A-20 zone and no special exception should be granted.
Patricia Godin, Hilton Drive, referenced a letter sent on December 22, 2002, to Planning and Zoning Commission members to their homes. She read it into the record, stating a petition was submitted against this cluster development requesting the special exception be denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
William Donland, Hilton Drive, comments included the detention basin being too close to residences and the potential health issues associated with stagnant water. There will be safety concerns with the additional traffic this development would create.
Roger Merrrill has lived in this area for 40 years and feels the neighborhood opposition should be taken into consideration, there is not an abutter that feels this is acceptable in the neighborhood. There is a definite water problem in this area, the water flows over Hilton Drive. There is no location on the plans where the dumpsters will be placed. There is a concern for the existing habitat the proposed site.
Thomas Brown, Hilton Drive, commented that he has water in his basement year round. The mosquitoes in this neighborhood are unbearable at dusk and adding a detention basin would only increase the problem. The roadways are in need of repairs and adding additional traffic is a concern. The drainage being proposed is not going to help the residences in this area, it will only increase the water problem for the abutters.
Nick Convertino, Sharon Drive, mentioned that those who spoke in favor do not live in the neighborhood and he feels there are too many units and the height of the buildings is not in character with the neighborhood. Convertino inquired regarding the sidewalks in the area. Chairman McCann indicated there will be interior sidewalks but there will be no sidewalk on Day Drive.
Mike Chaves, Sharon Drive, opposes this development of for the following reasons:
The density of the units is not in character with the neighborhood.
Traffic concerns; with two cars per unit there will be an increase of 34 cars.
Studies have shown elderly drivers are more at risk for accidents and there is a safety concern for the neighborhood children playing in the streets or riding bikes.
There are risks associated with the detention basin.
The area has poorly draining soil and water is a major concern.
Request that sidewalks be continued onto Day Drive.
Liz Pendleton, Hilton Drive, indicated she is in opposition to this development; not the development of senior housing. There are 25 children abutting this development and traffic is a major concern as well as the danger of the detention basin. The groundwater will be poisoned with the use of a larvicide. This is an A-20 zone and there should be no special exception granted for this use. The units are too large for the surrounding neighborhood. The wild animals are plentiful in this area and should be protected. The voices of the neighborhood should be heard.
Mike Chaves submitted a letter to the Commission to be read into the record. This letter was sent to area homeowners giving them an option to express their opinion to approve or deny the Summerwood project (copies in Planning Department 02-76P, Summerwood file). Seventy-five letters were return and 53 of those letters were in favor of denying the application, 22 in favor of approving the application.
The Commission had the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Cottle asked the estimated depth of the water that will be in the detention basin and will the bottom be planted? Galen Semprebon, Design Professionals, Inc., indicated 6 to 18 inches of permanent water, and the bottom of the basin will be planted in full compliance with South Windsor regulations.
Commissioner Cottle inquired when the larvicide would be applied and stated the residents have concerns with the effects of this process. Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer, stated that this is what has been used in the catch basins in town. The larvicide only affects the mosquito larva. A memo from Robert Deptula, Town Sanitarian, regarding the larvicide was referred to and it was indicated that the memo was in the previous application file.
Commissioner Bazzano inquired about the statement made by Bob Sauer regarding the Public Health Code Citations Regulations and the implications of locating a detention basin within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. Semprebon stated he was not sure if these regulations are followed in South Windsor and would check on the status.
Commissioner Bazzano commented on the plan where it showed specific style home on certain lots and asked if a purchaser could choose a lot and style home? DeMallie stated styles will vary and if there are any changes to the plan, it will go through the change order process in the Planning Department. It was asked if you could avoid the same units being constructed? Cindy Truesdell, Roulier Builders stated they haven’t been able to dedicate the styles in the past.
Commissioner Choate inquired about the ratio of the different style units in a development? Cindy Trusedell, Roulier Builders, responded the demand on styles is 50/50 ratio.
Commissioner Choate commented that the previous landscaping plan had more evergreens. Rosemary Aldridge, Insite Landscaping, responded they were reduced because this plan is for single family units in a single-family area. The previous plan had larger buildings that would require more screening.
Commissioner Kennedy inquired it there is a problem to keep the same landscaping plan as previously proposed in the prior application. Aldridge responded the benefits with this plan are that more existing trees are being saved. Additional landscaping could be planted in some areas. Evergreens can be planted but they may not thrive because they will be shaded out.
Commissioner Kennedy asked why not have sidewalks on Day Drive? It was stated so the property owners do not have to maintain the sidewalks. It was asked if fencing would surround the detention basin? Semprebon indicated it would be the Commission’s decision.
Commissioner Wentzell inquired why a wet bottom basin? Semprebon responded this type of basin would improve the water quality and it meets DEP guidelines.
Commissioner Wentzell asked if the basin would ever be dry? Semprebon responded there would be a moist bottom. It was asked if fish could help with the mosquitoes. Semprebon responded no.
Commissioner Wentzell asked what the depth of the detention would be? Semprebon responded 100-year storm 5½ feet; in the short term 2½ feet.
Commissioner Larsen questioned the history of the property. DeMallie indicated this parcel is from a much larger piece of property and it is an A-20 zone.
Commissioner Larsen indicated she has concerns regarding the larvicide and would like to inquire to the Town Sanitarian for more information.
Commissioner Evans commented on the slope of the detention basin not being steep but the pools of water could be and inquired if the detention the basin would have a positive effect on the neighborhood? It was indicated it should have a net positive effect.
Commissioner Montana commented the wet detention basin would create a problem. Semprebon responded there are other wet detention basins operating in town and this basin will be treated twice a year.
Commissioner Montana questioned the elevation of the site in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. Semprebon indicated the elevation at worst case is 8 to 10 feet, but mostly 3 to 4 feet.
Commission Montana commented that it is easier to clear a site for construction but if possible would like to see more exiting vegetation be saved between the units. Semprebon indicated a swale is being created to help with the water flow on the site and grading will not allow for vegetation to be saved between the units, but the application could try to save what they could and would plant new landscaping that would take time to grow.
Commissioner Montana commented that the architecture of the rear of the building is minimal and the applicant may want to review.
Chairman McCann questioned the architectural plans for the side-loaded garages and asked if the design is for the cottage style only as shown on the plans. DeMallie indicated the side-loaded garages could be designed for all the units. It is the lots that cannot be randomly chosen.
Chairman McCann questioned that the architectural plans before the Commission were not the plans that the applicant was presenting. DeMallie stated the side-loaded garage plans that were being presented were only for the cottage style and the applicant would have the architectural designs for all four styles for the next public hearing.
Chairman McCann addressed the landscaping on the site, inquiring how much of a buffer will remain around the site. He commented there are some very mature trees that are worth saving; and how far away from a mature tree do you have to be when construction beings? It seems on the plans in certain areas there is not much room in the rear of the building for landscaping, especially when a sunroom will be proposed.
Semprebon responded there would be minor grading in the rear of the building to allow for some form of buffer. Aldridge indicated when dealing with mature trees that have an extensive root system, it is difficult to save
them during construction. Where a sunroom is being proposed the landscaping and vegetation will have to be replaced.
Harold Cummings, attorney for the applicant, stated the applicant would build and maintain the sidewalks proposed on Day Drive. The applicant would be willing to create a legal document that would require the association to maintain the sidewalk in perpetuity.
Cummings also stated that prior to the removal of vegetation on each unit during construction, review and approval by town staff could be done, and the applicant would replace any vegetation disturbed within the 35-foot buffer.
Chairman McCann asked why a wet bottom detention basin is being use din the area? Semprebon responded for water quality reasons, to improve the water before it hits the watercourse. This method is included in the town Public Improvement Specifications to treat water runoff. Fresh rainfall will flush out the basin. There is a proposed larvicide program. Semprebon indicated he would recommend a wet bottom basin in this area.
Doolittle read into the record a memo from Robert Deptula, Town Sanitation, regarding the proposed larvicide treatment to be use in the basin.
Commissioner Evans read a letter into the record submitted by Mike Chaves.
Commissioner Choate asked if it would be possible to have trees flagged on the site by town staff before construction? DeMallie indicated he would meet with town staff.
Commissioner Cottle asked for clarification of the sidewalk and Cummings indicated the developer would maintain the sidewalk, including the snow removal and mowing, etc.
Commissioner Cottle commented he lives in an area with a detention basin and initially had concerns but indicated the basin has attracted wildlife to the area.
Motion to continue the public hearing for Application 02-76P, Summerwood, to January 28, 2003, was made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
ITEM: Meeting Extension
Motion to hold the regular meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. was made by Commissioner Montana, seconded by Commissioner Evans. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Preliminary Discussion
Dominic Ortiz, of Dominic’s of NY food stand, presented to the Commission his proposal to have outdoor vending within the Gateway Zone at Lowe’s. Ortiz indicated he was previously located on the South Windsor side of the Lowe’s site and received a violation and moved his vending operation to the Manchester side of the site. Ortiz submitted to the Commission pictures of his vending food stand, the area where he is located, and the area where he was previous located indicating the flow of customer traffic exiting the building flow toward
the South Windsor side of the site. His income has had a substantial decrease since moving to the Manchester side of the site.
The Commission referenced the regulations indicating this type of activity is not a permitted activity in the Gateway Zone and the suggested he contact Loew’s to possibly establish a vendor food court within the garden center.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. was made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelli Holmes
Recording Secretary
| 
