MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin McCann, Marshall Montana, Louise Evans, Tim Wentzell, Suzanne Choate, Sue Larsen, and Patrick Kennedy
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Gary Bazzano
Bart Pacekonis
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineering
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM 7:00 p.m.
Chairman McCann opened the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Appl 02-58P, Parksite Plunkett Webster, approval condition modification
Peter DeMallie gave an overview of the previous approval and requested an approval condition modification due to the owner 425 Sullivan Avenue, LLC not allowing the access drive to be built by Parksite Plunkett Webster at this time in the location required by the State Traffic Commission. DeMallie indicated he met with town staff to discuss this modification requesting a temporary curb cut onto Sullivan Avenue. The immediate dilemma is that Parksite Plunkett Webster has a building on order and a contractor hired. David Goldblum, owner of the property, was present and indicated to the Commission that he does not want to build this roadway until his company is able to find tenants for the existing building. There are current parking violations on the site plan that are be discussed and
addressed.
Chairman McCann stated it seems as if the Commission approves a temporary curb cut on to Sullivan Avenue there is a possibility the accessway may never be constructed. Goldblum indicated that is not their intention to not comply with access management, but they want to fill the existing building first.
Joe Kroft, Parksite Plunkett Webster, addressed the Commission with the issues that are facing PPW. PPW is willing to invest in a curb cut but does not want to have to also invest in an access road in the next few years due to the initial high cost of the direct curb cut. Parksite has been in South Windsor for 30 years and would like to remain.
There was a discussion of the Commission indicating their concerns with the parking spaces, access management, and the concern of approving a curb cut onto Sullivan Avenue. The original approval condition #11 was discussed to be deleted and substituted with a new condition.
Motion to approve an approval condition modification for Application 02-58P, Parksite Plunkett Webster: the original condition #11 is deleted and the following condition is substituted, was made by Commissioner Kennedy
The applicant is granted a temporary curb cut onto Sullivan Avenue. At such time as reasonable access is available from the abutting property to the west (N/F Gerber, Goldblum), but no later than 10 years from date of this approval, Parksite Plunkett Webster must connect its driveway into the
driveway to the west, exiting at the main drive across from Kennedy Road. Upon connection into the new
driveway, the temporary curb cut to Sullivan Avenue on Parksite Plunkett Webster frontage must be removed. The connection must be completed within 6 months of completion of the accessway to the west. Also, in accordance with the provisions of Section IIIA.2.e.3, the applicant shall record on the land records an agreement that remaining access rights along Sullivan Avenue will be dedicated to the Town and that the temporary curb cut will be closed after the joint-use driveway is constructed.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was as follows: 5:2, Montana, Evans, Choate, Kennedy, McCann, aye; Wentzell and Larsen, nay.
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairman McCann opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Commissioner Evans read the legal notice as published in the Journal Inquirer.
Appl 03-20P, All Phase Electric, request for a two year temporary and conditional permit to keep storage trailers on site on property located at 15 Commerce Way, I zone
Kelly Boyd, General Manager, was present to present the proposal for a temporary and conditional permit for 3 storage trailers on their site located at 15 Commerce Way due to the increased volume of their business. The temporary and conditional permit will allow the applicant time to pursue the possible relocation of the facility or the possibility of interior changes to the existing building.
Banach reviewed the Planning Report:
Request for a two-year temporary and conditional permit for three storage units to house equipment associated with the business and outdoor storage at 15 Commerce Way, I zone. The containers and outdoor storage currently exist on site; this application is a result of a zoning violation citation for unscreened outdoor storage.
The storage containers and materials are shown in the picture provided. They are located within in the parking area in the rear of the building. These units are visible from Sullivan Ave as well as Commerce Way.
There is other material being stored outside on site. Outdoor storage is permitted under Section 3.15 provided that it is not visible from public ways, and subject to Planning and Zoning Commission approval. The applicant is proposing to add shrubbery along Sullivan Avenue. No information has been provided about types of shrubs, size at planting, spacing. There is no provision for screening from Commerce Way. We suggest that a stockade fence or other decorative board fencing may be more effective at accomplishing the desired screening from Sullivan Avenue; and the view from Commerce Way should also be addressed.
For the record, I note that several other businesses on Commerce Way have also been cited for outdoor storage zoning violations (at least five others). These other violations are at various stages of the enforcement process.
The wording of the T & C permit regulation is that, “Temporary and conditional permits may be granted by the Commission for a use which is not specified elsewhere in these regulations for a period not to
exceed two years. Such approval may be given after a Public Hearing if, in the judgment of the Commission, the public convenience and welfare will be substantially served, and the appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured, and traffic and other hazards will not result from such use.”
If this application is approved, the planning department requests no additional modifications other than already discussed.
Doolittle had no Engineering comments.
Public participation in favor of the application:
Walter Mealy spoke in favor of the application and ask that the Commission to favorably consider the application due to the lost frontage when Sullivan Avenue was widened. All Phase Electric is a good member of the community and should have the opportunity to work with town staff regarding the screening from Sullivan Avenue.
The concerns of the Commission included proper screening of the site from Sullivan Avenue with the possibility of a fence and it was determined there would be three trailers on the site.
The public hearing closed.
Appl 03-23P, Hudson Baylor Corporation, request for Special Exception to 6.1.3.7 and site plan of development to operate a recycling facility on property located at 300 Rye Street, I zone
Peter DeMallie was present representing the applicant requesting a special exception to operate a redemption recycling facility. DeMallie gave an overview and history of the site and how this operation would conform to the site. It was indicated the building and site would be cleaned up and the debris removed. The applicant would like to recycle plastic, glass, and aluminum cans that will be crushed and removed from the site.
DeMallie commented that the site line to the east of the site does not meet today’s standards and the applicant will relocate the driveway on the site. No other improvements will be made at this time. The applicant is planning to purchase the building and will then propose some site plan modifications.
Bruce Hillson, Traffic Solutions, reviewed the traffic report and described the traffic use of the facility (page 3 of the traffic report). . The first group of trucks is known as drop and hook, which are trailer trucks that will drop off empty trailers at various facilities. There will be a second type known as route trucks that will pick up the recyclable materials at various facilities and will return to the site between the hours of 2 pm and 7 pm. The third type of truck are outside haulers that will enter the site empty and leave the site with the processed materials.
There are two shifts of factory workers 6 am – 3pm and second shift from 3 pm – midnight.
Hillson reviewed the peak hours of trips of the site (tables on page 4 of the traffic report) between 5:30 am – 6:30 am and in the afternoon between 2:30 pm and 3:30 pm. The traffic analysis build out is to 2007.
He noted that the Town’s Access Management Plan for Sullivan Avenue recommended the configuration of Rye Street and Sullivan Avenue intersection with the addition of a traffic signal in that location.
Banach reviewed the Planning Report:
Request for Special Exception and site plan approval to operate a bottle recycling facility in an existing building on property located 300 Rye Street, I zone. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the site with this application. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 65%, 28.6% provided. Lot size is 28.6 acres; ½ acre required. This site has frontage on both Rye Street and Troy Road. The site access exists on Rye Street. The existing building was originally constructed for Monsanto Corp plastics manufacturing. About the mid-1980’s, Handee & Harmon began operating a precious metals reclamation facility which closed in 1990. The 170,000 square foot building has been vacant for about 3 years.
Solid waste, recycling and transfer station facilities are permitted as Special Exception uses in the industrial zone. Special Exception criteria for approval include:
The goals and objectives of the Plan of Development are met;
Adverse traffic impacts are not created;
Negative impacts on property values are not created;
The land is physically suited for the proposed use;
Adverse environmental impacts are not created;
There is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs;
Present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage system, and other improvements have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use
Historic factors are adequately protected;.
The overall physical appearance of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission’s goals for the and neighborhood/corridor.
The existing site has a major amount of processing equipment, mostly inside the facility but some outside, that will be sold by Hudson Baylor. There is some material outside the facility, including wooden pallets and recyclable steel, that will be cleaned up. The applicant has indicated that all recycling operations will take place within the building.
Public water and town sewers currently serve the site. There is no process wastewater that will be discharged into sanitary sewers.
The general parking requirement for this facility is 195 spaces based on the size of the areas in the building (14,600 sf office and 161,000 sf warehouse). There are currently 235 parking spaces on site. Much of the parking lot is in disrepair and, depending on the future intensity of Hudson Baylor’s operation, may need renovation at some time.
The site is accessed by a single drive on Rye Street. The Town Engineer and I observed frequent large truck activity on Rye Street during our site visit shortly after 9 a.m. this morning.
The applicant’s traffic engineer has concluded that the traffic operations at the intersection of Rye Street and Sullivan Ave. will operate essentially at the same Level of Service in 2007 with or without this development, and is not recommending any traffic improvements at this time. We noted from our site visit that the sight line to the right exiting the site is very poor, which can create a hazardous condition
for vehicles exiting left from the site. Staff recommend an approval condition requiring the sight line to be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy if the application is approved. The sight line improvement will require relocation of the driveway entrance to the west. The applicant has sufficient property and frontage to accomplish this requirement.
The applicant’s engineer has indicated that there is no anticipation of exterior noise as all of the operations will be occurring on the interior of the building. Any future activities on site (such as additions of loading docks and and/or addition of a rail spur) would require modifications to the site plan and approval by this commission.
The site is subject to a buffer requirement along the Troy Road frontage. There is a thickly wooded area between the building and Troy Road that offers no view of the site.
The applicant is not disturbing any new area at this time; therefore IWA/CC approval is not required.
The applicant should be aware that any outside dumpsters must be placed on concrete pads and screened. In the even that the applicant requires any future outdoor storage, approval for outdoor storage is required from the PZC; any such request must include adequate screening for the outdoor storage.
If this application is approved, the staff requests no modifications other than already noted.
Doolittle agrees the site driveway should be moved and questioned what is the distance that is going to be required based on the 85th percentile speed?
Public participation:
Paul Rowley, 80 McGrath Road, had the following concerns and asked that the commission follow up with these issues:
The types of emissions that will be generated from the site
Troy Road being used by the truck traffic
How many trucks will be used at this facility and the noise factor
How many trailers will be on the site
Kathy Kelly inquired about how much noise these trailer trucks will generate and how much will be gained by moving the driveway.
The Commission has the following questions/concerns:
Commissioner Bazzano inquired about the history of other companies that have occupied the site? Banach responded there is not much information available on the site. It was asked if DEP approval is required and if the applicant has another facility of this type. George Marvinsmith of Hudson Baylor indicated the applicant is in the process of determining what permits may be needed at the state level and the applicant would be relocating their facility in East Hartford to South Windsor.
Commissioner Larsen questioned the noise that will be emitted from the site. George Marvinsmith stated the operation will be on the far side of the building away from any residential area and will be screened by the building, thus the decibel levels should be minimal.]
Commissioner Larsen stated Troy Road is residential area and a major access to Sullivan Avenue and inquired as to the size of the trucks. Smith indicated as large as a tractor trailer.
Commissioner Montana asked for clarification regarding the smokestacks on the site and it was responded that there are no smokestack emissions as the smokestacks would not be used.
Commissioner Evans commented there were problems in the past with employees using the bus line on the off peak hours that did not run parallel with the bus schedules. DeMallie responded there has been discussion of a shuttle bus. A daily count of the amount of traffic on Rye Street was requested. Hillson responded he did not have those counts. Commissioner Evans asked what distance would be gained by moving the driveway. Hillson stated the proper analysis would have to be conducted to determine this information.
Chairman McCann suggested the removal of some of the vegetation to improve the sight line. The applicant indicated they would be amicable to removal of vegetation on their property. How many tractors will be parked on the site overnight? Smith indicated 30 routes, 4 route trucks, and 50 to 60 trailers on the site. How will the site be screen from Rye Street? DeMallie responded there is a thick tree screen along Rye Street.
Chairman McCann inquired if Banach was aware of the 50-60 trailers to be located on the site and is there a concern. Banach indicated she was unaware of the number of trailers and the outdoor storage would need the approval of the Commission. The specifics of the outdoor storage and screening should be reviewed by the Commission to be sure they are adequate.
Chairman McCann indicated he has concerns with the activities on the site between the hours of 4 am – 6 am. Smith indicated all of the trucks would not be leaving at the same time.
There was concern about material being left on the site causing an odor or mosquito problem. The applicant indicated any storage of recyclables would not occur for more than a 24-hour period if that.
The Public Hearing closed.
Appl 03-21P, The Casle Corporation (Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network), request for site plan of development approval for a 40,000 sq ft medical office building located on the west side of Buckland Road, south side of Deming Street, GD zone
Alan Lamson, Principal with FLB Architecture and Planning, introduced the team presenting the proposal for The Casle Corporation (Eastern Connecticut Healthcare Network) known as ECHN.
Chairman McCann interrupted Mr. Lamson to have Commissioner Evans read into the record a letter from Updike, Kelly and Spellacy regarding a petition to intervene. Chairman McCann indicated there would be a copy of the verified petition in the Planning Department of the South Windsor Town Hall. It was determined that the petition would not be acted upon at this time and if there are any objections by the applicant, they should address those issues before closing their presentation at the public hearing. The Commission would take those comments into consideration before making their decision.
John Mallin, Cummings & Lockwood, noted for the record the verified petition to intervene and inquired to the Chair to allow the applicant to make their presentation due to the hour.
Alan Lamson gave an overview of the site:
Located at the southwest corner of Deming Street and Buckland Road
Proposed two story medical office building containing approximately 40,000 square feet
Proposing 202 parking spaces
Proposed access from Deming Street
Lamson indicated the application is consistent with the General Plan of Development for the overall parcel. Lamson reviewed the requirements of the site in the conformance with the zoning regulations.
Jay Giles, P.E., Fuss & O’Neill, presented to the Commission an overview of the site indicating the site is 4.26 acres in size and slopes from east to west. The proposed building will be 39,820 square foot, two story building with approximately 25,000 on the upper floor that has the side door elevation on Buckland Road and the lower portion on the western side that is approximately 15,000 sq ft. Thus the building will appear to be two stories the west and single story on the eastern side. It is being proposed to construct the site in two phases, but the exterior of the building will be constructed in one phase. The first floor of the interior of the building will be constructed first for medical offices and the lower floor will be competed in a second phase. All of the parking spaces will
not be needed in the initial phase and the applicant is asking the Commission to approve the parking in two phases. The entire build out of the parking will be shown on the plans.
The utilities to the building will consist of domestic water service coming in off of Deming Street with fire protection and extension to the sprinkler system. For sanitary sewer service the applicant is proposing to extend the line 860 feet in DemingStreet and bring it the site with a lateral to the building.
The impervious coverage of the site is 2.6 acres and the impervious coverage of the entire site (Evergreen Walk) is 4 ½% of the overall site. The storm system will be a collection system with rain gardens, catch basins with 4ft sumps, and grass swales (temporary detention basin). The entire system will remove more than the required 80% removal of the total suspended solids on the site.
The lighting on parking lot will consist of 250-watt metal halide fixtures on 25’ poles that will be shoe box full cut-off fixtures as shown on the plans.
Steve Mitchell, F. A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., submitted a traffic report dated April 11, 2003, that is available in the Planning Department. Mitchell reviewed the tables with the Commission indicating the site will generate a small portion of the traffic as shown in the general plan and will have overall service levels A & B.
Chairman McCann addressed Lamson inquiring if the applicant team would be available should the public hearing not close and continue to June 10, 2003. Lamson responded yes.
Steve Selger, LADA Architectures, reviewed the landscaping plan showing the total parcel. The plan for the Expo Design Center was reviewed and similar plantings have been incorporated into the landscaping plan for
this site. The master plan provides screening and landscaping along Deming Street and Buckland Road. The shrubs, understory, and perennials will have a stacked appearance for total viewing. Selger indicated he would not be present at the June 10, 2003, meeting and introduced Steve Spencer who would be available for questions if the public hearing were to be continued to June 10, 2003.
John Mannas, architect with Casle Corporation, reviewed the architectural plans indicating the building takes advantage of the slope across the site. The building is designed with the parking circling the building for ease of access to the building. The building will be brick, clay colored with pre-cast architectural features (primarily white). The roofs will be of a green metal color with a white widow system. The roofs will be mansards to screen the mechanical units on the rooftop. The ADRC received the architecture of the building favorably. The lighting on the building will be soffit lighting at the entrances to the building and as the tenant spaces are developed emergency lighting will be established as the build out for the tenants is completed. The signage for the site will be on
Deming Road face of the building where the main-entrance to the buildingis located, and also on Buckland Road.
Lamson reviewed the overall presentation and indicated the ADRC approved the application favorably with three requested revisions: to include a sidewalk along the Deming Street frontage, planting in the median, and provide lighting along the entry drive coming in off of Deming Street. The engineering comments of the Town Engineer and of ADRC will be incorporated in the application.
Chairman McCann inquired if Attorney John Mallin was ready to address the petition to intervene.
Attorney John Mallin, Cummings & Lockwood, stated he would like to reserve the right to review the petition due to receiving it the same day as the public hearing. McCann indicated the petition is similar to another application and indicated he would appreciate some comment.
Mallin noted the applicant has the same objections that were raised before to a similar petition and the verified petition attempts to expand the jurisdiction of the Planning & Zoning Commission. There was very little information presented at the time regarding the environmental issues as stated in the petition. There was no attempt at the time to have Mr. Miller who signed the verified petition to be present. Mallin inquired if Mr. Miller would be present and would like to opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Miller regarding the petition. Mr. Miller is the representative of Pavilions at Buckland Hills who has made this verification and the purpose of the verification is to affirm to the Commission that all of the items are true and to be proven. The applicant feels they should have the
opportunity to cross-examine at a hearing of the Commission prior to the acceptance of the petition.
Mallin and McCann engaged in a discussion regarding the need to determine the verification of the petition to the Commission.
Chairman McCann directed a question to the Town Attorney, Barry Guliano, who was present at the public hearing, inquiring if the petition verification issue could be addressed at a hearing of the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Attorney Guliano indicated the issues raised are the same as in prior a petition, that intervention is a matter of right but one of the requirements is there should be a properly verified complaint. Guliano indicated if the
petition to intervene is not properly done or accurate, the Commission could reject the petition. The Commission could ask for the witness to be produced who has signed the verification. At that time you would have the opportunity to address the petitioner in the public hearing forum to verify the accuracy and the basis of where the information came from in the petition to intervene. . Guliano indicated he was not aware of the Commission having the authority to compel the petitioner to come forward.
Chairman McCann indicated the questions asked of the Commission in the public hearing would only address the accuracy of the petition to intervene.
Attorney King responded stating the zoning regulations Section 5.8.6.d.2, a and c; 5.8.6, e.1, 2 and 4, and Section 7 is not beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning & Zoning Commission. King addressed the issues of the petition to intervene stating the petitioner is not required to be present and the verification of evidence is discovered during the course of the hearing. Mr. Miller’s verification states he reviewed the General Plan of Development and the site plan of The Casle Corporation and relies on the information from consultants and experts.
Chairman McCann and Attorney King engaged a discussion of the difference of a petition to intervene and a verified petition to intervene.
Chairman McCann and Attorney Guliano discussed a verified petition and the importance of the verification.
Chairman McCann asked Attorney Guliano what harm would it be to accept the petition and grant intervenor status and allow the petitioner to present the evidence to the impairment to the environment? Attorney Guliano commented when the petition to intervene is granted, evidence must be produced regarding the claims that are made in the allegations, and at past hearings there was little evidence produced.
Chairman McCann stated the hearing would be continued until June 10, 2003. Chairman McCann indicated there would be one other meeting before June 10, and the Commission would have an opportunity to accept, reject, or require the petitioner to be present to answer questions in respect to the verification of the complaint. Chairman McCann asked that Attorney Guliano give the Commission a recommendation. If either applicant or petitioner would like to submit written materials regarding the verification the Commission would take those into consideration.
Attorney Mallin stated Attorney King quoted from the petition that the petitioner consulted with the various consultants that were present at the hearing. Mallin inquired if the Commission would inquire if the petitioner did in fact speak with the consultants present at the hearing.
Chairman McCann asked Attorney King to identify the consultants hired on behalf of the Pavilions Hills:
Dennis Lowry, ENSR, International - Wetland Ecologist
Jay Ahmad and Cory Garro – Close, Jensen, and Miller, P.C.
Chairman McCann asked Dennis Lowry if he was familiar with the verified petition to intervene and asked
if he had conversations with Scott Miller regarding the allegations in the petition to intervene. Lowry responded yes.
Chairman McCann reviewed the verified petition to intervene, items number 3 a-k inquiring if Lowry discussed with Scott Miller those items mentioned.
Lowry indicated the only items not discussed with Scott Miller were items h, i, j.
Dennis Lowry indicated he had contact with Mr. Miller via emails regarding his reviews of the application materials and findings regarding environmental issues seen within those application materials relative to the site and the proposed activities.
Commissioner Wentzell asked for clarification of the forms of contact Dennis Lowry had with Scott Miller and if Lowry saved any of the emails.
Attorney King indicated there had been dialog with Scott Miller via a conference call within the last few weeks, also through correspondence and emails. Dennis Lowry stated that to be true and also stated he does not save his emails.
Chairman McCann inquired who was present when the conference call took place. Lowry indicated Jay Ahmad, Attorney King, Attorney Connors, and general counsel.
Chairman McCann asked Lowry if he would be presenting evidence regarding the environmental impact on this application if the petition to intervene is granted? Lowry responded yes.
Chairman McCann asked Jay Ahmad if he was familiar with the verified petition to intervene and asked
if he had conversations with Scott Miller regarding the allegations in the petition to intervene. Ahmad responded yes.
Chairman McCann reviewed the verified petition to intervene, items number 3 h-k inquiring if Ahmad discussed with Scott Miller those items mentioned.
Ahmad indicated he discussed traffic congestion and traffic impacts and the traffic report submitted by F.A. Hesketh, (item h) but did not discuss the degradation of local air quality.
Ahmad stated he did not discuss item #i and j.
Ahmad stated he did discuss item k related to traffic.
Chairman McCann asked Cory Garro if he was familiar with the verified petition to intervene and asked
if he had conversations with Scott Miller regarding the allegations in the petition to intervene.
Garro responded yes.
Chairman McCann reviewed the verified petition to intervene item number 3 h-k inquiring if Garro discussed with Scott Miller those items mentioned.
Garro responded he did not discuss those items with Scott Miller.
Commissioner Wentzell asked what Garro discussed with Miller if not anything on the verified petition.
Garro responded technical issues regarding the plans, the number of spaces required, right of way lines, cutting of the parcel and other related technical issues.
Attorney King stated he discussed all of the items with Scott Miller. King indicated they (King and Miller) believe that all of the items on the verified petition would be proven with the information to be presented to the Commission. Attorney King indicated this application is part of a larger proposed development that has been referred to in the public hearing this evening.
Chairman McCann and Attorney King engaged in a discussion regarding the verified petition and whether the information to be submitted to the Commission would be substantial evidence. Chairman McCann inquired as to why there are items on the verified petition that have not been verified. Attorney King responded this application is a not stand alone application, it is part of a larger development, Evergreen Walk.
Chairman McCann stated a petition was submitted in respect to a specific application and the Commission would expect to hear evidence supporting those allegations contained in that petition.
Attorney King stated he did not agree with the Chair and does not want to waste the Commission’s time. If this issue was going to be addressed again, King indicated one of the following would happen. The intervenor would present evidence regarding the verified petition to the Commission and if the evidence were not sufficient in regard to this application, the Commission would reject the allegations.
Attorney Mallin made reference to the verified petition, indicating Scott Miller swore under oath to the items contained in the petition. He swore at that time that each item was true and now there is a question whether or not these items have been verified. The concept of a verified petition to the courts is to allow the use of perjury as a deterrent to a false statement. Mallin stated he feels Scott Miller should present himself to determine if this verified pleading has been properly presented to the Commission.
Chairman McCann indicated a decision regarding the petition to intervene would not be reached at this time and the item would be taken up at the next regular scheduled meeting. Prior to that meeting the Commission would like a report from the Town Attorney and from counsel for the petitioner, and the applicant.
Attorney King inquired if counsel would be exchanging their submissions prior to the next scheduled meeting.
Attorney Guliano stated he represents the Town and feels that his legal opinion to the Commission should not have to be made available in order for the intervenor to present their position.
Chairman McCann agreed with the Town Attorney and indicated the submissions should be submitted the day prior to the next scheduled meeting.
Motion to continue the public hearing to June 10, 2003 was made by Commissioner Montana, seconded by Commissioner Larsen. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Continuation of Regular Meeting beyond 10:00 p.m.
Motion to continue the Regular Meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. was made by Commissioner Choate, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 02-59P, Expo Design Center – review of final plans (continued from 4/22/03)
Chairman McCann stated he received a letter from the intervenor, Updike, Kelly, and Spellacy
Chairman McCann continued the regular meeting indicating the review of the final plans for Appl 02-59P, Expo Design Center, is to determine if the submission complies with an approval condition that has already been granted for this application. Chairman McCann indicated he received a letter from the intervenor and stated this is not a new or pending application and the intervenor had the opportunity to examine the plans that have been on file in the Planning Department for a few weeks.
Banach stated there is a single approval condition that the applicant was asked to come back for Commission review. There are two stone wall sections, one at the south end of the site and one at the north end of the site, that must be incorporated into the plans. The northerly wall will extend from the Evergreen Walk entrance south to the approximately the northeast corner of the building. The Expo sign may be incorporated in the southerly stone wall. The sign is not to exceed 8’ ft in height. The free standing sign shown of the current plan 65’ ft from the intersection of Buckland and Evergreen access drive is to be eliminated from the plans.
There was a discussion of the Commission to clarify the location of the sign. Chairman McCann stated if the Commission feels the sign is not in compliance within the approval, the Commission should give the applicant some direction.
A discussion ensued with the Commission to convey to the applicant what the Commission is looking for regarding the sign being incorporated into the stone wall. The Commission felt the sign as presented has the appearance of a free-standing sign at the end of a stone wall and suggested the applicant come back with a revised sign incorporating the sign fully into the stone wall.
ITEM: Adjournment
Motion to adjourn at 11:30 p.m. was made by Commissioner Choate, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelli Holmes
Recording Secretary
| 
