MEMBERS PRESENT: Timothy Wentzell, Kevin McCann, Sue Larsen, Patrick Kennedy, Suzanne Choate, Bart Pacekonis, and Cliff Slicer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Gary Bazzano
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 p.m.
Commissioner McCann, Vice Chair opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioner Larsen read the legal notice as published in the Journal Inquirer.
Appl 03-81P, Ace Cutter Grinding, request for renewal of a five-year major home occupation for a tool sharpening business operated from the garage at 488 Strong Road, RR zone
Sue Thompson presented the five-year renewal for a major home occupation to the Commission indicating the only change to the application was the hours of operation increasing ten hours per week.
Banach read the Planning Report:
This is a request for the second renewal of a home occupation that was granted five years ago. The request is for a 5 year permit to operate a tool sharpening business out of the garage, known as Ace Cutter Grinding, LLC at 488 Strong Road, RR zone. The original approval was granted for one year in 1997, then renewed for five years in 1998, with expiration in November 2003.
The applicant has a tool-sharpening machine in the garage. The garage is two bay garage, approximately 992 sq ft, and the business is operated out of an area within the garage. The scope of the occupation has not changed (other than the work hours have increased from 20 to 30 hours a week). There are no customers coming to their home, rather the work is brought in. The applicant has also stated that there will not be any noise audible off-site. The reason that this is considered a major home occupation is because they are requesting use of an accessory structure to run this business.
The reasons for requiring PZC approval are to ensure that:
the home occupation is clearly secondary to the use of the building for dwelling purposes
the home occupation is compatible with other permitted residential uses in the residential district
the residential character of the dwelling and the neighborhood are preserved, and;
all residents have freedom from excessive noise, excessive traffic, nuisances, fire hazards offensive odors and pollutants, and other possible effects of commercial uses being conducted in residential areas.
Performance criteria that must be met include:
Maximum of 25% of the floor area can be used for the occupation;
occupation cannot be visible from outside the dwelling unit;
dwelling must contain the character of a single family dwelling;
no entrance or exit may be added solely for the occupation;
no more than one non-resident employee allowed;
the occupation can not create a volume of passenger or commercial traffic that is inconsistent with the normal level of traffic on the street;
all parking needs must be met on-site; and
the Commission may require screening of additional parking from the street and from adjacent residential properties.
Previous concerns of the Commission involved the amount of noise which would be generated. We have not received any complaints relating to this business in the six years it has been operating.
If this application is approved, the applicant would have to return to this Commission for renewal upon expiration of the 5-year permit period.
There were no Engineering comments and no public participation on this application. The issue of parking was raised and Banach indicated there is ample parking on the site.
The public hearing closed.
Appl 03-88P, K.O.R.E. Fitness & Training, request for a special exception to Article 6.1.3.9 for a fitness facility for property located at 259 Sullivan Ave., I zone
Barbara Lavey and Annie Singer presented the special exception application to the Commission proposing a small fitness facility and personal training center a 259 Sullivan Avenue.
Banach read the Planning Report:
The applicant is requesting special exception approval to Section 6.1.3.9 of the Industrial zoning regulations for indoor fitness & training facility, approximately 2,500 sf, for property located at 259 Sullivan Ave, I zone. Section 6.1.3.9 allows indoor recreational activities in the industrial zone.
The applicant has provided a narrative defining the scope of activity that will occur at this location. The intent is to provide a “boutique style” facility providing personalized training programs for members. The applicant is proposing to have small group classes (6 to 15 people) offering a wide range of fitness programs. The classes will primarily be scheduled from 6-9 AM and 6-9 PM. There will also be personal training services available to clients. They anticipate needing parking for 6 to 15 cars. The existing site has a large gravel area to the north in the vicinity of the unbuilt building that should accommodate parking needs with no difficulty.
The special exception criteria in the industrial zone includes:
the goals and the objectives of the Town 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 systems, and other improvements have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
historic factors are adequately protected;
the overall appearance of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission’s goal for the neighborhood/corridor.
The Commission’s regulation states that the indoor recreational activities must be contained inside buildings which may be readily converted to traditional industrial uses; and that the exterior of the building must remain industrial in appearance. The maximum hours of operation are from 10:00 a.m. to midnight, unless otherwise permitted by this Commission.
The Special Exception regulations allow the Commission to impose additional approval conditions in order to ensure that all criteria are satisfied.
The facility is currently an industrial building and there are no exterior changes proposed with this use.
If approved, the Planning Dept. has no requested modifications.
There were no Engineering comments and no public participation on this application. The issue of parking was raised and Banach indicated there is ample parking on the site.
The public hearing closed.
Appl 03-83P, Berry Patch II, Metro Realty Group and South Windsor Housing Authority request for special exception to Article 4.1.11 and 7.1.2.4 and site plan approval for an additional 94 units and a waiver to allow up to 196 units for properties located on the easterly side of Buckland Road, southerly side of Oakland Road, and northerly of Deming Street, AA-30 zone, Buckland Gateway Development zone, and Floodplain zone
Attorney Lou Wise, representing the Metro Realty Group presented to the Commission the Berry Patch II proposal for a special exception and site plan approval for an additional 94 units to the Berry Patch I development. Wise reviewed how this application meets the special exception criteria. Wise stated the applicant feels strongly that this development would be an opportunity to the town and indicated if the application is denied by the Commission the applicant would not appeal under the Affordable Housing Statute 8-30 G.
Attorney Tim Hollister, indicated the application is following the same procedure as the Berry Patch I application. Hollister review the affordably plan between Metro Realty Group and the State of Connecticut (Exhibit A which can be found in the file).
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals, Inc., gave an overview of the 94 units indicating the units would be developed on two separate parcels of land. The Katten property (14 acres) 54 units and the Calvery Church property (5.2 acres) would have 40 units. The facility would be interconnected with the Village at Buckland Court. The access to the site would be from Oakland Road and Felt Road. The will be emergency access only from Buckland Road.
The applicant is proposing the following:
Construct five additional buildings 3 - 18 units buildings and 2 – 20 units buildings
Berry Patch II roadways will interconnect to the Berry Patch I development
Facility at the Village at Buckland Court will be available to Berry Patch residences
Minimal views of the development from Glenview Terrace
There is a 7.2 acre (Katten property) conservation easement to the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust
IWA application is currently pending
The applicant has met with the ARDC and are address the sidewalk concerns of the site and are working with town staff
DeMallie reviewed the special exception criteria and the parking requirements of the site. There will be a residence manager on site to service the site and the Watson Farm development. There are various services to the Berry Patch development within the immediate vicinity. The community house will be reconfigured to allow for the use of Berry Patch I and Berry Patch II.
DeMallie commented the development would bring revenue to the town with minimal impact.
DeMallie indicated the applicant met with the residences and has encouraged the neighborhood to meet to discuss any concerns related to Berry Patch II.
Karen Isherwood, Design Professionals, Inc., presented the engineering aspect of the project. A non-buildable, non-access easement is proposed for the Calvary Church property as well as a conservation easement on the Katten property. Ms. Isherwood explained the stormwater systems that are being proposed for each area. All public utilities will serve the site and will be extended from the Berry Patch I site.
Ted DeSanto’s, Traffic Engineer with Fuss & O’Neill review the traffic study for the project indicating this development is a low generator and has the best possible levels of service to the site.
Ray Jefferson, LA Architects, presented the landscaping plan. The goal of his landscaping plan was to provide screening particularly for the Grandview Terrace residents from the proposal. There is an existing specific plantings were chosen to break up the views and mass of the building. He provided cross sections of view from Grandview Terrace looking into the site.
There was a five-minute recess.
Sean Hagearty, Real Estate Appraiser presented to the Commission and analysis of the market value and the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods and found there will be no significant impacts of this development on the surrounding neighborhoods. (Exhibit B and C)
Christine Nassau, Metro Realty Group, reviewed the data from the Watson Farm development and the Berry Patch marketing efforts of the past six weeks indicating the applicants for this housing do come from need in the surrounding areas.
George Daniels, South Windsor Housing Authority, supported the project and the 62-year and older is a good group for the neighbors and the neighborhood.
Jeff Sager, President, Metro Realty Group, submitted two letters into the record in favor of the application (Exhibit D and Exhibit E). Sager indicated the proximity of town center and the medical services associated with the Village of Buckland Court and the proposed ECHN Medical Center is an asset to this development. Sager indicated the residences of Berry Patch would be able to utilize the Village of Buckland Court facilities.
Banach reviewed the Planning Report:
1. Request for Special Exception to Article 4.1.11 and Site Plan of Development approval to construct 102 units of senior housing on the south side of Oakland Road, west of Felt Rd, AA-30 zone. A regulation amendment was recently adopted by the Commission that allows a maximum of 350 units of this type of elderly housing. The Commission also adopted a waiver provision to increase the number of units up to 200 units within a single project after finding that:
¨ traffic impacts will not be detrimental to surrounding areas,
¨ the site is appropriate for a larger development, and
¨ the development will not create adverse impacts on surrounding property values.
2. There is currently a townwide total of 244 units of senior housing under Section 4.1.11, including the Town’s own 70 units. With the construction of Berry Patch II, there would be a total of 338 units. Thus if this project is approved, it will essentially use up the remaining capacity for this type of housing.
3. Berry Patch II will provide South Windsor with 75 additional affordable units on the State’s “10%” list. We recently took credit for 57 units at Watson Farms. While South Windsor has not been able to attain the magic 10% of housing stock as affordable units required by State statutes to be exempt from affordable housing appeals suits (we would need about 900 affordable units to meet that goal), we are gaining credits toward a 3-year moratorium from affordable housing appeals suits.
4. This application is a joint application between the Metro Realty Group and the South Windsor Housing Authority, as required in the recently-amended Section 4.1.11. The purpose of this regulation is to provide housing particularly suited to the needs of the elderly citizens. Housing must be located in reasonable proximity to such shopping and services as are required by elderly persons, and the development is to be designed to provide a pleasant environment for habitation. There is a small retail plaza within walking distance of the subject site. Also, the use must be in conformity with the general framework and intent of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development.
5. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 40%. Phase I has impervious coverage of 27.7%; Phase II has 23.7%. Proposed building height is 24 feet; 30 feet allowed. Phase II lot size is 19.4 acres, minimum lot size allowed is 2 acres. Minimum required frontage is 200 feet, with 517 feet provided on Buckland Road. Maximum allowed density is 10 units per net buildable acre; under that formula, 99 units would be allowed in Phase II, with 94 units proposed. With the addition of Phase II, the total project density would be 9.15 units per buildable acre.
6. Special Exception criteria include:
¨ Traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood;
¨ There will be minimal adverse impacts on existing uses in the area;
¨ Surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
¨ Impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage systems, sidewalks and other infrastructure;
¨ The land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse environmental impacts are created; and
¨ Due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
7. The Town Plan depicts this area as Residential and Traditional Town Center. The Residential category that includes medium-high density residential. The Town Plan notes, for example, that medium-high density residential developments might be limited to those areas having direct access to state routes or where they serve to buffer less dense residential developments from commercial development. This subject property has direct access to State Route 30. One of the new sections is within a commercial zone; and the project abuts commercially zoned property to the north and east.
In addition, the Housing Element includes goals that are relevant to this application, including:
¨ Develop housing to meet the needs of the entire community, including but not limited to: small families, large families, the elderly, single adult households, various income levels, and
¨ Develop a full range of housing styles, types, sizes, densities, affordability, and forms of ownership in order to meet the housing needs of the community.
The Plan also states that the Commission notes a general lack of understanding on the part of the public concerning exactly what affordable housing programs are or should be; and to that end the Commission should explore avenues of communication so that increased understanding of the concept occurs.
The Traditional Town Center category is depicted as an area characterized by a mix of uses including residential, commercial and institutional/governmental. The Town Plan notes that the most appropriate uses in this area are a continuation of the existing pattern of mixed uses, without domination of any one type of use.
8. The development is subject to restrictive covenants to both the Housing Authority and the CT Housing Finance Authority. The covenants to the Housing Authority govern appearance and maintenance, and are required to apply as long as the property is zoned residential. The covenants to the CHFA govern the property for 70 years.
9. The new sections will be served by road access strictly from the existing section. The entrance on Felt Road has access to a fully signalized intersection with extremely low traffic volume from that leg of the intersection. The main drive on Oakland Road is right-turn in, right-turn out only. An emergency interconnection would be provided between the new section and The Village at Buckland Court assisted living facility.
10. The traffic report includes new, timely trip generation data from Watson Farm. The data indicates that Watson Farm is actually generating more vehicle activity during a.m. and p.m. peak hours than is recognized by the traffic engineers’ Trip Generation Manual. However, the trip generation rate is still low enough that the new sections would not cause operational difficulties.
11. Pedestrian access via bituminous sidewalks has been provided throughout the site. Now that the site has Buckland Road frontage, staff recommend that the sidewalk be continued down to Buckland Road and over to the new signal at Terry Office Park.
12. Minimum parking required is 1 space per 4 units, or 24 spaces; the Commission can increase the required parking to one space per unit. The applicant is providing 134 spaces for 94 units. The trip generation rate from Watson Farm may be suggesting that the vehicle usage is higher than anticipated by the 1 parking space per four units formula.
13. Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed this application on November 20 and December 4. The Committee was generally satisfied with the proposal but is also looking for the walkway down to Buckland Road and across Plum Gulley Brook to the traffic light.
14. A 50-foot buffer is required along the perimeter of the development. The Commission may allow a reduction to a 25’ buffer if site conditions support such (for example, the site is contiguous to open space, permanent buffers and/or mature vegetation), and large trees are saved or planted within the buffer. The applicant is proposing that the buffer be reduced to 25 feet.
15. The site contains regulated wetlands. This application is pending with IWA/CC. The applicant is doing some grading within the floodplain area near Buckland Road. Staff suggest that the area be restored after construction with an attractive landscaping plan that includes seasonal interest wildflowers and shrubs.
16. Public water and sewer are provided. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
17. We requested information from the Police Department regarding whether the Dept. receives more service calls at senior developments than at other condominium developments or single family neighborhoods. The Police Department has forwarded some raw statistics for the time period May 2001 through June 2003. For senior developments, SWPD notes that “the number of police responses do not appear to be disproportionate when compared to responses to other areas in town. While we may get more medical assist type calls in a senior housing area, we get fewer youth problems and other types of complaints.”
18. The applicant has submitted an affordability plan that indicates that the applicant will administer the Plan for the duration of the affordability restrictions (a minimum of 40 years) unless transferred with notice to the Commission. The Plan also includes an affirmative fair housing marketing plan governing the rental of units; a calculation of the maximum rents under today’s median income for the area; a commitment that 79% of the units will be affordable; and a sample Declaration and Agreement of Restrictive Covenants, the terms of which will be amended to reflect CHFA mortgage obligations for this development.
19. If this application is approved, in addition to items already noted, the Planning Dept requests that the no building and access easement on the southernmost portion of the property be clarified so that pedestrian access is not accidentally prohibited.
Doolittle review the Engineering Report:
Show a curtain drain around the uphill (south) side of the driveway on Sheet 4A.
Please name the roads in these new sections.
Label the contour in the rear access drive to the Village at Buckland Court.
Label the dumpster pads on sheet 4B
The sanitary sewer lateral from building 6 does not go to the proposed sanitary sewer.
Show the stream channel on the Katten Property
Check the grades of the driveways around the units. These grades should be kept as low as possible, especially on the curves. The 10% grade from Sta 30+50 to Sta 33 is too steep for the curves and main access drive to these units. Also it looks like it is greater than 10% on sheet 4B plan view. Show the grading of the intersection by Sta 32+23 and Sta 44+40 where two 10% slopes meet. How will this work.
Check the grades by the parking spaces as they should not have a cross slope greater than 5% because it is difficult to keep them clear of ice and the slope makes it difficult to get into and out of vehicles. Also, the handicap spaces can not have a grade greater than 2% in any direction. The grades look too steep in the parking spaces in the areas of Sta 1+50, 3+50, 7+75, 11+50, 33+00, 35+50, 40+75, 43+50, 51+00, and 54+75.
The grade change at Sta 9+25 and 9+75 are too close together. Suggest this be eliminated and the driveway grade be changed to a constant slope from Sta 9+00 to Sta 11+00.
Is the construction sequence on Sheet 10 representative of the planned construction sequence for this development? This is different from the way Berry Patch is being constructed.
Add a note on detail sheet 11 by the Reinforced Retaining Wall Section – Prior to construction of the retaining wall, a plan approved and stamped by a Professional Engineer licensed in Connecticut shall be submitted to the Town Engineering Department.
The pavement cross section detail shows a constant 2% cross slope (superelevated). This does not agree with the CB TF elevations that are the same on different sides of the pavement. The pavement should have a crowned cross section because of the steep slopes.
Show a detail for the median in the driveway from about Sta 30+50 to Sta 31+90
What is the TF elevation for the outlet structure from the detention basin?
The detention basin needs to have an emergency overflow spillway.
Show the roof leaders from the buildings on sheet 4A and the center of building 6 on sheet 4B.
The pipes from YD1 to CB 1 and CB 2 to CB 3 need to be changed to Class V RCP as the slope is 10% or greater. Any other pipes with slopes of 10% or greater need to be Class V RCP.
I have reviewed the drainage report that was submitted and I have many questions. My biggest concern is with the rationale of using detention from one property to account for an increase in runoff from another separate property and how this was calculated. It must be shown that there are no deleterious downstream effects from this development. This includes no increase in the peak flow downstream, the ability of the existing culverts at Buckland Road, Deming Street, and Clark Street to handle the flow, and no increase in erosion or sediment transport downstream due to this development. I think the Katten property has potentially highly erodable soils in and around the stream channel. There is presently significant amounts of sediment deposited in the
culvert under Buckland Road and further downstream. The drainage report and designs need to be revised to show that there is no deleterious downstream impacts from this development.
I also have questions about details in the drainage report including the developed and impervious area used, how CN and Tc were figured, why the 10 yr flow calculated for the drainage pipe design is 19-23% greater than the peak runoff calculated using the TR-55 method, where all the roofs drain, and others.
The drainage report needs to include a gutter flow analysis for the placement of the catch basins and a headwater analysis for the system.
Infiltration needs to be considered for the roof runoff from these buildings.
Soils information needs to be included for these sites.
A 4 foot fence needs to be installed along the top of all retaining or stone walls with a drop over 4 feet.
The sidewalks should be moved away from the driveways and parking areas to provide at least a 4 foot snow shelf along the driveways and a 2-3 foot shelf for car bumpers by the parking areas.
The sidewalks need to be designed so the grades are less than 8% (ADA requirement).
Continuous stone walls between buildings 8 & 6 and 9 & 10 on the south side would help alleviate some of the grading problems with the sidewalks.
Show HC ramps and crosswalks where the sidewalk from the Berry Patch I connect to the units on the Calvary Church property.
There also need to be sidewalks connecting Berry Patch I to the units on the Katten property and ramps and crosswalks between units 7 and 6/8.
Where are the topsoil piles to be located? I could not find these on the plans.
Is all of Berry Patch II to have BCLC? I could not find this labeled on the plans.
These sites are extremely tight which make them difficult to construct and may compromise circulation for vehicles and pedestrians.
The manholes along the cross country sewer line need to have watertight covers and frames with gaskets and locking screws. Include this detail in the plans.
WPCA approval is needed for this project.
Public participation in opposition to the application:
Bob Fogel, 36 Grandview Terrace, expressed his concerns that the development is high-density rentals abutting new single family homes and the impact on property values.
Public participation in favor of the application:
William Kauflan, Jr., 5 Watson Farms along with three others from Watson Farms comments how satisfied they are with the living at Watson Farms. The development is a community and feel that this housing is an asset to the community and is in favor of Berry Patch II development.
Attorney William Broneill who represents the Calvery Church in South Windsor, indicated the applicants have been highly principled and true to their word. The Church will also be an abutter to this development and this is an excellent use of this property.
Lincoln Streeter, not against or in favor of the project but affordable housing is in need. Lincoln indicated there is a great deal of concerns with the increased activity at the Community Center in South Windsor. The community building proposed to be developed within the Berry Patch development would need to be large enough to allow the seniors at the Berry Patch adequate facilities.
Carolyn Mirek, 48 Sele Drive, not opposed to the development and questions the town’s plan for the development of this type of housing and has concerns with the amount of senior housing that will be developed and the impact on town programs.
Commissioner Larsen read a letter into the record from Victoria Margiott, 32 Sele Drive, regarding concerns associated with this development.
Ed O’Connor, 35 Grandview Terrace, concerns with the impact values of the neighborhood with the development of Berry Patch II.
Chairman Wentzell addressed the Commission asking if they would like to address their concerns this evening or at the continued public hearing?
Commissioner Bazzano asked for the number of South Windsor residences living at Watson Farms? Chris Nassau, Metro Realty Group, indicated that 88% of the residences at Watson Farms has some previous connection to South Windsor or resided in South Windsor.
Commissioner Larsen inquired why a senior residence development between residential and commercial property? DeMallie indicated this is a good transitional use for this property.
Commissioner McCann inquired if the applicant would address his concerns at the continued public hearing. McCann’s concerns were as follows:
Address the Community Building to accommodate both Berry Patch I and Berry Patch II
Potential impact to the town demographics with the increase of senior housing
The Katten property expansion of the development and its appropriateness within this development
Inconsistencies in the plans on 3b sheet 11 and L6 that should be addressed and the sidewalk connectivity on the site
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants should be reviewed and the language adjusted to reflect this development
Commissioner Choate commented the sidewalk connectivity is important within this development and would like to see that address at the continued hearing. Has concerns with the flood elevation being changed by the filling within the flood plain
Commissioner Pacekonis asked how much existing vegetation will remain on the site after construction. The buildings seem very large and an adequate buffer should be maintained. Safety concerns with any access to Buckland Road from the site.
Chairman Wentzell agreed with the issues the Commission raised and would like the applicant to address those issues at the continued public hearing. Wentzell inquired if Banach would prepare a response to the waivers of the buffer, and the expansion the applicant is asking for.
Chairman Wentzell indicated the hearing would continue to January 13, 2005.
REGULAR MEETING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Wentzell opened the regular meeting.
Motion to continue the regular meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. was made by Commissioner Choate.
Seconded by Commissioner Pacekonis. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
There was no public participation for items not on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
Appl 03-81P, Ace Cutter Grinding, request for renewal of a five-year major home occupation for a tool sharpening business operated from the garage at 488 Strong Road, RR zone
Motion to approve with modifications was made by Commissioner Pacekonis.
This approval is subject to the following conditions:
The business must be operated by the homeowner.
The permit will expire on December 8, 2003, and will have to be renewed at that time.
Refuse from the business cannot be disposed of with residential refuse. Adequate arrangements must be made for business refuse disposal.
Any new building, or alteration/additions to existing buildings, requires a building permit prior to start of construction.
The applicant has agreed that there will be no signage on the property.
Seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 03-88P, K.O.R.E. Fitness & Training, request for a special exception to Article 6.1.3.9 for a fitness facility for property located at 259 Sullivan Ave., I zone
Motion to approve with modifications was made by Commissioner Kennedy.
Grant a waiver to open the facility at 6:00 a.m.
Seconded by Commissioner Choate. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Berry Patch Declaration of Restrictive Convenants
There was a discussion of the Commission. Banach indicated the Town Attorney has reviewed and signed off on.
Motion to approve but to amend paragraph 2 to read at the end for it’s other developments. Seconded by Commissioner Larsen
Chairman McCann suggested the paragraph 4 should add an additional sentence. Nothing in the agreement shall preclude the enforcement of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants by other interested parties.
Commissioner Kennedy accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment.
The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings
Appl 03-52P, Rye Springs Subdivision
Motion to approve the setting of the site bond in the amount $39,915.00 for Appl. 03-52P, Rye Springs Subdivision for subdivision improvements was made by Commissioner McCann. Seconded by Commissioner Larsen. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
APPLICATIONS TO BE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED:
Appl 03-89P, Cooney In-Law Apartment, request for a 5-year in-law apartment for property located at 176 Hilton Drive, A-20 zone
Appl 03-90P, Vietnam Veterans Outreach Center, request for site plan approval under Sec. 6.1.2.7 for property located at 240 Chapel Road, I zone
Appl 03-91P, Robert & Kimberly Selig, request for approval for 3-horses on property located at 112 Pheasant Way, AA-30 zone
Appl 03-92P, Podunk Farm Parking Lot, request for site plan reapproval for a parking lot with 75 spaces to service the Mill on the River on property located at 989 Ellington Road, A-20 zone
Appl 03-93P, Corinne’s Studio, request for a five-year major home occupation for a hair salon from property located at 518 Graham Road, A-20 zone
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to adjourn at 11:30 p.m. was made by Commissioner Kennedy. Seconded by Commissioner McCann. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Kelli Koehler
Recording Secretary
| 
