MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin McCann, Marshall Montana, Louise Evans, Patrick Kennedy, Sue Larsen, Tim Wentzell, Suzanne Choate
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Gary Bazzano
Roger Cottle
Bart Pacekonis
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
Chairman McCann opened the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. There was no public participation.
Appl 03-03P, Stage Door Hair Design, request for renewal of a 5-year major home occupation for a
beauty salon at 84 Ronda Drive, A-20 zone
Commissioner Bazzano was appointed to sit for Commissioner Larsen on this application.
Motion to approve with modifications was made by Commissioner Evans,
Operation of the salon is restricted to the present owner.
The permit will expire on February 11, 2008, and will have to be renewed at that time.
Hours of operation are limited to five days per week, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. except for Thursday when the hours are extended to 7:00 p.m.
Refuse from the business cannot be disposed of with residential refuse. Adequate arrangements must be made for business refuse disposal.
Retail sales of hair products are restricted to incidental sales to hair care customers.
If a sign is desired, it must meet size requirements as stated in the South Windsor Zoning Regulations.
seconded by Commissioner Wentzell. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
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
Commissioner Choate inquired if there were any revisions to the plans and commented the wet basin is a more appropriate basin for storm water.
Commissioner Montana has concerns regarding the landscaping and has visited the site and commented it is a very narrow site. She would like to see the surrounding buffer be creative and not a row of evergreens planted in a straight line around the perimeter of the site.
Commissioner Wentzell has the same landscape concerns and would like to incorporate the landscaping into the approval conditions.
Lipe indicated they could strategically locate the buffer landscaping once the units are in place to provide areas that could be left with existing vegetation.
Commissioner Evans would like to see more of a variety of low landscaping on the site.
The Commission engaged in a discussion regarding the landscaping and the different types of trees to be included within the buffer.
Commissioner Evans commented that with a wet basin it should improve conditions for the abutting neighbors.
Chairman McCann stated there are a few areas that need to be addressed regarding the application:
The sidewalk that the applicant agreed to construct and maintain as part of an approval condition.
Whether the detention basin should be a wet basin and whether or not it should be fenced.
Commissioner Wentzell suggested constructing sidewalks on the west side only.
Commissioner Choate commented that the 3 to 1 slope it is not necessary to fence in the detention basin.
Doolittle indicated this slope is typical for a wet bottom basin.
There was a discussion between the difference of a moist bottom basin and a wet bottom basin. There will be more of a natural habitat and diverse plant beds with a wet bottom basin. The amount of the water in the basin will be determined by the groundwater.
It was mentioned there would be four side-loaded garages.
Chairman McCann reviewed the special exception criteria for the site as listed in Section 4.1.12 of the zoning regulations..
Commissioner Evans stated the criteria could be interpreted by each Commissioner differently. It needs to be decided if the application fits on the proposed property.
Commissioner Wentzell stated he didn’t feel it is a great fit, most other SRD’s have been on collector streets and they haven’t been surrounded by existing residential houses.
Chairman McCann indicated any development on this parcel would have an impact to the abutters and they have presented their concerns regarding drainage, landscaping, and wildlife. There are no significant traffic concerns with an SRD. The applicant’s engineers have addressed the drainage of the site and should help with the runoff in the neighborhood.
Motion to approve Appl 02-76P with modifications was made by Commissioner Choate,
Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $20,000 to ensure establishment of the detention basin and a bond in the amount of $10,000 to ensure erosion and sediment control measures. (This is the same $10,000 as is included in the Resubdivision approval, not a separate bond amount.)
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.10 of the Zoning Regulations.
A landscape bond in the amount of $20,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
WPCA approval is required. 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.
The street number(s) must be included on the final plan.
Sidewalks are to be located on the westerly side of Day Drive and to be maintained in perpetuity by the developer.
Allowed density should be corrected in the zoning data table.
Buffer planting plan is to be redesigned, with a variety of evergreen plantings and trees and should be located in groupings to break up views (not creating a wall of evergreens) and subject to staff approval. The amount of landscaping is to be equivalent to what is shown on the approved landscaping plan and should be designed with substantially the same size and quantities as shown.
Developer to flag the trees to be removed in the field prior to issuance of individual building permits (subject to staff approval).
Evergreens to be planted on west side adjacent to the Industrial Zone.
Construction fence to be located at the 35 foot buffer line throughout the duration of the project.
seconded by Commissioner Kennedy.
A discussion ensued regarding the buffer and a friendly amendment was accepted to include approval condition 13 in the approval condition.
Chairman McCann Commissioner Larsen has concerns with the larvicide being applied to the detention basin. Doolittle indicated it is an approval condition of the IWA/CC to incorporate a larvicide program for this application.
The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 03-02P, Dee Zee Ice Company, request for site plan approval for a 6,200 sq ft industrial building, located at the westerly end of Sandra Drive, I zone
Christopher Eseppi, PDS Engineering & Construction, Inc., presented to the commission the proposal for the construction of a 6,200 square foot industrial facility located in the Charbonneau Industrial subdivision, on the westerly side of Route 5.
It is proposed to be constructed in two phases, the first phase is 4,200 sf and the second phase is an addition 1,600 sf. The use of the building will be for the manufacturing of ice on a wholesale basis.
Eseppi reviewed the landscaping proposal. Because of the proximity of this site to the residential area to the west, there is a buffer requirement that must be met. Lipe indicated the buffer requirement for this project is increased because at the time of the original approval by the PZC, the Commission conditioned the approval requiring a 75 foot buffer area with an additional 25 foot rear yard area. No structures are allowed to be placed in the rear yard – only parking areas and drives. This requirement was placed to protect the residential neighbors to the west.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 5-foot high berm to the rear of the building and will plant the berm with evergreens 8-10 feet in height. Eseppi presented two cross-sections showing the views of the building from the property line at 5-years and again at maturity.
Eseppi explained the layout of the site. In the front of the building there will be two loading docks as well as an overhead door for vehicles to drive into and exit out the rear. The only lighting proposed is 5 wall pak lights that will be full cut-off, downward shielded.
The architectural elevations were presented. The building color is proposed to be slate blue and the front of the building, in the office area, will be constructed of split-face block.
The IWA/CC has approved the applicant on January 22, 2003. There will be a catch basin on the site and the water will flow through a baysaver water system for water quality and discharge into the storm water system. The applicant has been before the ADRC and they were satisfied with the proposal as presented.
Lipe read the Planning Report:
Request for site plan approval for the construction of 5,850 sf facility in two phases, on property located at the northwesterly end of Sandra Drive, I zone. Approximately 650 sf will be office, with the remainder of the building devoted to the manufacturing of ice.
Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 65%. Proposed building height is 21 feet; 40 feet allowed. Lot size is 40,000+; minimum lot size allowed is 20,000. Frontage is 100; minimum allowed is 100. Front yard setback is 72 feet, 35 feet allowed.
Parking requirements for the proposed uses is 11 paces; 11spaces have been provided.
There is normally a 50-foot buffer between industrial and residential properties; however, when this subdivision was approved, the buffer width was increased to 75 feet. The site is presently wooded, and the applicant proposes to construct a berm approximately x feet high and plant a variety of evergreen trees along the top of the berm. The applicant has provided cross-sections showing views at 5 years and again at maturity.
There will be a loading dock on the front of the building se back on the northerly end. Because this area abuts up to a residential area to the west, a loading dock in the front of the building would be least disruptive to the area.
There is no outdoor storage proposed with this application. Applicant should be aware that unscreened outdoor storage is not allowed, and all outdoor storage requires PZC approval.
Architecture and Design Review Committee reviewed the plans on 2/6/03 and were satisfied with the design as presented.
The applicant is proposing 5 wall paks on the building. They are proposed to be full cut-off lights and will not shed light beyond the property limits.
The applicant has not proposed any signage at this time, however he would be allowed a building sign as well as a 24 sf freestanding sign.
There are no regulated wetlands on the site nor 100 year floodplain. IWA/CC has reviewed the plan for erosion and sedimentation measures and granted approval on 1/15/03 with the recommendation of a $3,000 bond and no other unusual approval conditions.
Public water and sewer are available. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required. A detail of the oil/water separator. The applicant needs to meter amount of water used to make ice or water not discharged to sanitary sewer.
There is a dumpster located along the loading area which is screened.
If this application is approved, there are no other planning modifications to request.
Doolittle read the Engineering Report:
On Sheet C-103, the Retaining Wall Section, show a dimension for the thickness of this wall.
Add two more SC-310 “Stormtech” chambers for a total of 11 and include a small overflow pipe to the nearest Catch Basin. This overflow pipe should be set as high as possible and can have a minimal slope. This will accommodate the higher volume of runoff I calculated.
An application must be submitted to the WPCA for their review and approval.
Commissioner Choate inquired the maximum turning radius in the rear of the building. Eseppi indicated the size of a pick up truck. The rear of the building will not be for trailer loading. Were there fire department comments? No
Commissioner Wentzell asked if chillers are proposed on the roof and the noise level from the compressor? Eseppi responded the chiller compressors are inside the building on concrete pads and the noise level from the units at 30 feet if 61 decibels during the day and 51 decibels at night.
Commissioner Wentzell questioned the garage door inquiring if it could be painted another color other than white. Eseppi responded the garage doors usually are white or brown and the rear door will be screen.
Commissioner Evans asked the hours of operation and has major concerns regarding the noise of the compressors. Eseppi stated the compressor would run intermittently and would have to follow up with the Commission regarding the hours of operation.
Commissioner Montana inquired if it would be feasible to relocate the compressor on the front side of the building.
Eseppi responded that would be possible.
Commissioner Evans read a letter into the record from residences of Old Parish Drive (Exhibit A).
Commissioner Bazzano inquired about the trucks to be use for the business and where they would be loading. Eseppi responded the small truck would be loaded inside the building and would drive out the rear garage door. The loading dock o the fron of the building will also be used for loading ice onto larger trucks.
The Commission expressed a concern with the rear garage door and indicated if the business were to move, the site would be subject to the existing approval conditions in place on the site.
There was a discussion of a drive on the rear drive and if a garage door at the rear of the building would be allowable in the regulations.
The following is the public participation regarding the application:
Stanley Grivers, 32 Old Parish Road, stated his biggest concern is the noise that will be generated from the site. Grivers stated there are noise ordinances for the town and would like to see the rear door eliminated and have the loading be done on the loading docks in the front of the building. There are concerns with the rear lighting adjacent to the residential zone. Grivers would like the landscaping berm to be bonded to guarantee there will be screening. Grivers would like the concerns of the neighbors to be taken into consideration so the residential zone can live next to the industrial zone.
Lipe reviewed the landscaping zoning regulation regarding the berm in the rear of the property and the required maintenance of such.
Earl Moores, 40 Old Parish Road, and indicated he would be most impacted by this industrial business. The majority of his concerns have been addressed by the Commission and Mr. Grivers. Moores has visited an icehouse and the compressors are quite loud. The noise from the site would leave through the rear door.
Chairman McCann commented moving the equipment to the front of the building will greatly reduce the noise on the site.
The Commission indicated there is additional information and concerns that need to be address and suggested before the Commission renders a decision the applicant may consider continuing the hearing to February 18, 2003.
Appl 02-74P, Battiston’s Cleaner, request for site plan modification for a 5,100 sq ft addition for property located 760 Sullivan Ave, GC zone
Benny Zanio was present and presented his proposal to the Commission to construct an addition for additional storage space at Battiston’s Cleaners. The applicant indicated he was available for questions.
Lipe read the Planning Report:
Application for a site plan amendment for approximately 5,100 sq ft addition on the existing facility located at 760 Sullivan Ave, GC zone. (The existing building is 8,643 sq ft.) This new addition is to provide a cold storage facility. The applicant is not proposing to make any other site changes. There is no additional parking proposed. Should additional parking be needed, there appears to be a large area behind the building that could be used for additional parking.
Site size is 63,748sq ft. Impervious coverage is 44%; 65% allowed. The ZBA approved a front yard variance in January 2003 for this addition, a tiny portion of which is over the setback line on Troy Road. The applicant had received a variance previously to allow an extension of the existing building into the setback on Troy Road, and the latest variance allows for the continuation of the building.
There are no regulated wetlands on the property and no disturbance of 20,000 sq ft, so IWA/CC approval is not required.
Public water and sewer are available and already service the site. WPCA approval is not required.
The architectural style for the building will be similar to the existing building, concrete block (we do have pictures). It appears from the elevation drawing that the addition will have a flat roof. The applicant has indicated that the two overhead doors are for air circulation, not loading. There is no pavement at the overhead doors.
The Architecture and Design Review Committee reviewed these plans on January 6 and offered the following comments: a landscaping plan should be submitted, particularly for the Troy Road side, to dress up the site; specific plantings, as well as the size at planting, should be identified.
If this application is approved, the planning department has the following additional modifications to request:
the ZBA letter should be reproduced on the plans
parking formula must be shown on the plans
Troy Road setback should reflect a front yard setback
Doolittle read the Engineering Report:
The finished floor elevation of the proposed addition needs to be included on the plan.
Show the proposed grading around the proposed addition.
This plan needs to include treatment/handling of the roof runoff from the proposed addition. This needs to be more than roof leaders discharging to the ground surface. Options include subsurface infiltration, a rain garden at the surface or connecting to the existing stormwater system in the road. Any stormwater treatment must be designed and sized for the stormwater flows expected.
Show a construction entrance pad, soil stockpile area, and perimeter erosion controls for the proposed addition.
Commissioner Wentzell inquired the material to be used on the exterior of the building and the reason for the overhead door. Zanio indicated the building surface would match the current building on the site. The overhead door is used for ventilation when working with clothing from fire restorations.
Commissioner Pacekonis inquired if there are fans in the building. Zanio indicated there are no fans proposed on the plans at this point.
Motion to approve with modifications was made by Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commission Montana.
Commissioner Wentzell commented there is no landscaping plan and the application is incomplete. There are concerns with the side doors with no sidewalks and the engineering comments that need to be address.
The Commission was in agreement that there are outstanding issues remaining that need to be address before closing the public hearing and the Commission rendering a decision.
The concerns of the Commission included:
A landscaping plan for the proposed addition needs to be on the plans
The overhead door facing Troy Road should be relocated
The ventilation in the proposed addition should be addressed
Grading needs to be shown of the plans
Remainder of the engineering comments should be incorporated
There was a discussion of the Commission regarding the above concerns and it was determined the plans are incomplete and the Commission would not render a decision. Application #02-74P was continued to February 18, 2003, to allow the applicant to address the outstanding issues as identified by the Commission.
Commission Kennedy withdrew the motion to approve.
ITEM: Meeting Extension
Motion to continue the regular meeting beyond 10 p.m. was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Chairman McCann. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Subdivision Bonds
Appl 00-32P, Evergreen Estates
Motion to reduce the subdivision bond for Appl 00-32P, Evergreen Estates, from $178,000 to $101,900
was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 94-08P, Ahearn Subdivision
Motion to reduce the subdivision bond for Appl 94-08P, Ahearn Subdivision, from $15,000 to $2,500
was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Inland/Wetlands Agency/Conservation Committee Bonds
Appl 87-67P, JMJ Garage - Chapel
Motion to release the IWA/CC bond for Appl 87-67P, JMJ Garage in the amount of $5,000.00 was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 99-52P, Deming Hill Est. Sec VI
Motion to reduce the IWA/CC bond for Appl 99-52P, Deming Hill Est. Sec VI in the amount of 5,000 for Plantings and $20, 000 for Erosion & Sedimentation was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn 10:05 p.m. was made by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy
The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelli Holmes
Recording Secretary
| 
