MEMBERS PRESENT: Timothy Wentzell, Kevin McCann, Patrick Kennedy, Sue Larsen, and Clifford Slicer
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Michael Sullivan sat for Pacekonis
Gary Bazzano sat for Larsen during deliberation of application 04-52P, Church of the Living God
Marc Finer sat for the vacant seat
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Wentzell called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Larsen read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer.
1. Appl 04-80P, Mitchell Property Group, request for site plan approval for the operation of Environmental Services, Inc. facility, including a new truck-to-truck transfer facility, for property located at 90 Brookfield Street, GC zone
Attorney Wayne Gerlt, representing the applicant submitted the following documents for the record. (Exhibit A)
Photographs of signs posted for this hearing.
Approval letter – dated October 14, 1999.
Approval letter – dated August 29, 2001
Approval letter – October 23, 2003
Notice of Tentative Determination from DEP – June 19, 2003
Summary of requirements of permit
Quit Claim Deed
Gerlt had the following comments to his presentation:
The site is within a GC zone but activity of the transfer station is an industrial activity.
A variance was received for this activity and allows the applicant to appear before PZC with a site plan.
The applicant noted that the school buses are moving to a new location on Ident Road.
A DEP permit has been received for the operation of a transfer station (sealed containers).
None of the waste is treated in the Connecticut; it is transferred to out of state facilities.
Culvert that contains the Podunk River will remain in place as recommended.
The last site plan was approved in 1981 by PZC; buildings have been erected, parking areas have been expanded/modified, and additions put on the property without site plan approval. Site plans, prepared by Fuss & O’Neill, were submitted to the Building Department but never to PZC.
The present site plan addresses all areas of the existing site.
Junk materials, e.g., rusted equipment must be removed per IWA/CC.
Once approval is gained from PZC the first step is to meet the conditions of the IWA/CC approval.
Waste coming into the site cannot contain K-listed waste: explosives, poison gas, radioactive materials, or waste in DOT Class 7.
Use of the site is not being changed. Permission is being requested for the ability to transfer the barrels from one truck to another.
The applicant must have an independent auditor to audit the operations and record keeping.
DEP makes unannounced compliance visits and audits and annually does a thorough review of the operation.
No odors will be created at the site nor will there be any noise impact. Plus there will be no outside storage on the site.
No changes to the existing sign. Off street parking and loading is adequate.
Tomek Grajewski, P.E. and representing the applicant had the following comments to his presentation:
The site serves as a base of operations for Environmental Services and supports a municipal bus maintenance facility for Laidlaw.
Tool sheds house above ground storage tanks.
Site is wooded along the easterly and northerly portions of the site.
Podunk River enters the property from the north and is channeled via triple 22’ long, 24” RCP’s and outlets in a low area approximately 70’ south of the northerly property line.
Flow continues via a 46” corrugated metal pipe for 330’ and then flows in an open channel for 750’ prior to exiting the property.
Total site contains 18.4 acres, a portion of which is located within the 100-year flood plain, which follows the river and is located mostly in the easterly portion of the site.
The truck-to-truck transfer facility will be located on the more remote section of the site, i.e. furthest away from the entrance and abutted by the golf course and open space.
Current proposal consists of 3 parking/transfer bay roofed structures and 1 office.
Permit from DEP was received in June 2003.
Movement of the trucks will occur on compacted gravel per DEP.
The existing 18” line that drains to the Podunk River will be removed and replaced with another line that will carry the flow to a bio-retention area.
A soil analysis was performed along with stormwater sampling, which was done from June of 2001 to August 2003.
Grajewski responded to concerns from Diane Sedar, 47 Troy Road, and Whitney Supply Company, 30 Brookfield Street. (Exhibit B)
The transfer of sealed containers will take place only in a building. There is no electricity in the transfer station buildings.
Performance standards will be met according to zoning regulations.
The applicant is providing buffer areas along the Podunk River to improve the aesthetics and overall quality of the stormwater.
All side yards, rear yards, and buffer zones meet the criteria.
Hydraulic analysis is based on the existing condition.
Joe Wren, Engineer and representing the applicant had the following comments to his presentation:
Topography is flat, and stormwater discharges from the site into the Podunk River.
It is proposed to reconfigure the drainage system so that stormwater will go into a 4,000-gallon oil separator and also a bio retention area.
80% total suspended solids removal will be achieved.
Improvements will include: elimination of materials stockpiles, constructing a bio-retention area, installing an oil grit separator and CB’s with sumps, and removing old and abandoned equipment from the site.
David Spear, Traffic Engineer and representing the applicant had the following comments to his presentation:
The application results in an overall net decrease in traffic on the site.
Study involved traffic operations, count data, manual turning movement counts, projection of background volumes, estimation of site generated traffic, distribution of site generated traffic, projection of combined volumes and capacity analysis.
Sight distances are adequate and meet Conn DOT guidelines.
Existing levels of service will remain unchanged by the proposed use.
Background volumes in the immediate site vicinity are low.
Site drive volumes will be reduced by the relocation of Laidlaw Transit.
The proposal can be accommodated without significant impact on area traffic operations.
Bruce Devanney, applicant, had the following comments:
Waste will not be stored in the building; it will remain on the trucks.
Waste on the trucks is regulated under Federal/DOT regulations.
Much of the waste comes from the spills along Interstate highways.
Waste is kept on site 72 hours to 10 days (awaiting the results of lab tests).
Trucks are kept in storage only, with no water, electrical components.
Waste that is weather responsive and hazardous waste are not on the premises.
Other waste that is on site is generally daily waste generated by companies.
Trucks are parked in the concrete bays that have a 24” pitch to the rear so that leaks in truck contents will flow to the back of the truck and thus will be seen.
Maximum capacity of storage on the truck 4, 440 gallons, 5,200 gallons per trailer – parking area.
Trucks are parked out of the weather in bays 1-10 in the buildings either side of the loading dock (no storage at the dock - only used for a transfer station.
All trucks and the buildings have secondary containment for spills. If there is a spill in the bay it is contained in a 5200 gallon holding area.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
Request for site plan approval for the operation of the Environmental Services, Inc., business at 90 Brookfield Street, GC zone. The request includes approval for a new truck-to-truck transfer facility.
There is a fairly lengthy history that brings us to this application. In 1981, Mitchell Trucking received site plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I have not been able to locate any other site plan approvals for 90 Brookfield Street. About 1999, a request for staff zoning approval for construction of a truck-to-truck transfer facility was submitted. Zoning approval was not granted because there were no site approvals from this Commission. At that time, staff raised the issue of how the Environmental Services business was even operating from that site without any PZC approvals. The use itself is not a permitted use in the GC zone.
An application was then submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a use variance for the truck-to-truck transfer facility. ZBA granted a variance in October1999 to allow the truck-to-truck transfer facility. In 2001, an application for a truck-to-truck transfer facility was submitted to PZC. The application was withdrawn before it was heard, with the question of why Environmental Services was operating without PZC approval still unanswered to our satisfaction. Since then, Town Attorney Barry Guliano issued a legal opinion that indicated that ZBA’s variance covers the entire Environmental Services business. Attorney Guliano also noted that one of the ZBA’s approval conditions required PZC site plan approval, and that requirement applies to the entire Environmental
Services site, not just to the truck-to-truck transfer facility. Thus the application is before you for approval of the entire site. Staff used the 1981 approved site plan as the baseline for our review of tonight’s application.
The existing site is quite a mix of Environmental Services trucks and roll-offs interspersed with large numbers of Tobacco Valley Sanitation dumpsters, old junk truck and trailer bodies, junk cars, a lot of other apparently junk items, and old construction materials. It appears that the dumpsters that previously resided at the Tobacco Valley site on Ident Road now reside at this site. These items are intermingled and all seem to share the majority of the site west of the Podunk River. On the east side of the river are stockpiles of earth materials, with a smaller quantity of metal stuff.
The use as Environmental Services is subject to DEP permits and oversight. I have spoken with Carmen Holzman at DEP’s Waste Management Unit about the operation and permit requirements. She confirmed that the wastes stored on-site are wastes that are borderline between non-hazardous and hazardous, and thus do not present an immediate danger while properly stored on site. She indicated that if Environmental Services encounters really hazardous materials at a site, they cannot be stored at the 90 Brookfield St site. I asked Ms. Holzman about DEP’s procedures to insure compliance, and she indicated that there is generally an annual, unannounced inspection. The company is also required with its latest permit to provide an annual compliance audit prepared by a qualified third
party. Ms. Holzman has provided both a summary sheet of the items covered by the DEP permit and a copy of the third-party audit requirements.
Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 65%, 29% provided; however, that does not appear to account for existing gravel areas. There are buildings that were constructed for which we cannot locate building permits, including areas of the existing offices and an entire garage building. The 1981 approved site plan showed 16 parking spaces apparently associated with Mitchell Trucking, and 26 bus parking spaces. Since that time, substantial parking areas were constructed without site plan approval.
The traffic report provides information regarding peak hour traffic in and out of the site and notes that 15-20 trucks are used daily for Environmental Services. The report indicates that sight distances are adequate for 30 mph; we need to know if sight distances are adequate for the 85th percentile speed. Also, is there any accident history in this vicinity?
According to the site plan, the site has about 9800 sq ft of office space and 22,500 sq feet of garage space, resulting in a parking requirement of 134 spaces. The plan indicates that 134 spaces have been provided. The plan itself shows that additional large areas of the site are surfaced for vehicle use. The bus parking area will soon become vacant; what use will occur within the vacated area?
There is a 50’ buffer requirement between GC and residential zones. This property is surrounded on most sides by residentially zoned land. There are existing mature evergreen trees, mainly along front portions of the site. The lower branches on many of the mature evergreens have been trimmed, reducing their effectiveness as a buffer. There are also some gaps in buffer coverage, including behind the existing older wooden open building that is completely within the 50’ buffer on the north side of the site, with about 20’ between the building and the property line. Thus the whole buffer needs to be updated, in some places probably with understory evergreen plantings, and in other areas with actual buffer trees.
There are regulated wetlands on the site. IWA/CC heard the application for the truck-to-truck transfer facility in fall 2003. Their concerns included the unauthorized installation of several hundred feet of 46” culvert in the Podunk River. IWA/CC did approve the transfer facility in October 2003, with numerous approval conditions including:
Provision of a stormwater management plan
Inspections of pavement for presence of automotive fluids
Annual inspections of culvert condition
Biannual catch basin inspections, cleaning as needed
Copies of DEP biannual stormwater permit inspections
Removal of metal materials
Soil remediation plan prepared by a professional engineer
Statement of jurisdiction regarding the unauthorized culvert from the Army Corps of Engineers.
IWA/CC required bonds in the amounts of $10,000 for erosion & sediment control; $15,000 for installation of stormwater structures; and $50,000 for installation and establishment of the wetland mitigation areas. A bond is also required for repair or replacement of the culvert pipe, the bond amount to be established by the Town Engineer and Environmental Planner when the specifics of the culvert are more fully established. IWA/CC is requiring the mitigation to be completed prior to construction of the truck-to-truck transfer facility.
If this project is approved, Planning Dept requests, in addition to items already mentioned, that the site plan include some of the important items from the E&S plan, such as stockpile removal & consolidation, and buffer areas being established along the Podunk River.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
Items on the plan from Map Reference 3 should be deleted because this plan does not appear to have been approved by PZC. This includes “Approved Pavement Limits”, etc.
Clearly show the limits of pavement, gravel, stone and other compacted surfaces that are used for storage and travel on this site. All these are considered impervious and it is not clear that these areas are included in the calculation of impervious area. This needs to be checked and revised as necessary.
The Drainage Report shows a decrease in impervious area (roofs, pavement, concrete, stone and gravel) and a decrease stormwater runoff from pre-development conditions to post development conditions. However, pre-development conditions should be those of the PZC approved plan (map reference 1) and there appears to be an increase in impervious areas from this plan. Check this and revise the drainage report accordingly. Any increase in stormwater runoff needs to be detained on this site.
The existing 46” CMP that carries the Podunk River through a portion of the site is not shown on the PZC approved plan or any other maps I have found in the Town Hall. There need to be calculations showing that the hydraulic capacity of this pipe is sufficient for the 100-year storm according to the Public Improvement Specifications. If not, the pipe needs to be replaced or added to. The latest FEMA Flood Insurance Study for South Windsor lists the Podunk River at Sullivan Avenue (closest location to this site) having a drainage area of 2.8 square miles and a 100 year flow of 440 cfs. If this pipe is to remain it needs to be inspected to be sure it is in good condition and does not have any problems that might affect upstream properties.
The existing 12” drainage line labeled to be plugged needs to be plugged at both ends.
The proposed administrative office for the transfer facility should be moved away from the existing pipe because it will be difficult to build without impacting this pipe. Also, if this pipe needs to be replaced with a larger or new pipe this will be difficult to do without impacting the building.
Show the surface treatment of the travel path from the existing pavement to the proposed transfer facility gate. Label the surface treatment to the east of the proposed compacted gravel surface within the proposed transfer facility? What will be the surface outside the proposed transfer facility, especially to the south, east and north, on the east side of the river?
Show more details for the outlet end of the proposed 15” RCP on the south side of the site. This should include an invert elevation and details for a riprap Energy Dissipater at the outlet. This riprap needs to be shaped so the stormwater turns southwest and does not cause erosion in the bioretention area.
The scour protection from the proposed leak-off needs to be sized (suggest modified riprap).
How was the 4-inch outlet from the bioretention area sized? Include calculations.
Provide calculations for the size of the 4000 gal oil grit separator and the inlet and outlet pipe sizes. The proposed 4-inch inlet and outlet pipes seem to be small. I think these should be at least 6-inch diameter.
We need to verify the change in impervious coverage from the 1981 plan to the present plan. The 1981 plan is vague in trying to determine what the change in impervious coverage is and the change in storm water flow corresponding to that.
The second main concern is the large pipe that pipes the Podunk River through about 300’ of this site. I will note for the record that that pipe does not show up on current Town topography, which is listed, as pre-1986. There are two small pipes that show up, what is referred to as the existing farm bridge on the north side of the site and one small culvert at the south end of where the existing culvert is.
According to the Public Improvement Specifications this culvert needs to be designed to handle the 100-year storm flow based on the drainage area upstream of this area. The Engineer for the applicant is working on the calculations to show that along with inspection of the pipe to assure the condition of it – since its been in the ground for some time and it is not known what condition the pipe is in. Once that’s resolved then it will be known what to do with that pipe if anything. A bond amount will be set corresponding to that.
Clarification on the plan should reflect – 1. There’s several gravel and topsoil stockpiles located on the eastern side of the river – will they be removed or be consolidated? It is not clear. 2. There’s many trucks/buses, construction vehicles on the site, there’s a small construction company that shares the site; truck wash facilities were not observed. All these activities create dirty vehicles – are any of the vehicles washed on site? If so, where?
Are there any fuel tank provided in the site plans for Ident Road where the buses moving or whether the buses will have to return to this site to have to fuel up daily?
No one from the public spoke in favor of or against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
Clarification of transfer facility. Spill containment barrels are prohibited from being transferred between smaller trucks. There are 6 smaller trucks on site that respond daily. The applicant has NU under contract for all of Connecticut and Western Massachusetts. Transfers are made from smaller trucks to larger trucks. Permit includes storage of rolloffs.
Clarification of jet ports. The truck boxes are located in those ports and the ports are assigned to certain hazard classes.
Clarification of site plans and receipt of DEP site plan. The applicant has a DEP approved plan and it has to be finalized by May 2005 based on changes that Town requires.
Banach noted that Staff needs to see the DEP approved site plan even if it’s not 100% accurate. The Engineer for the applicant can redline it. Staff need clarification as to how many rolloffs are associated with the business, how many empty, how many full, and location. Staff observed rolloffs throughout the site. Staff does not, at this time, have a good understanding of how everything works together. Banach spoke with DEP and was given 4 categories of waste that the applicant is handling, e.g., 30-day rolloffs, 10-day rolloffs, universal containers.
30-day rolloffs are for non-special waste only and there are no more than 10 rolloffs
Clarification of construction company on site.
Clarification of buses. Buses will be relocated to Ident Road. ‘
Ownership of the sealed containers and accessibility. Containers are DOT approved waste shipping containers (55 gallons, 17” drums) – purchased new from various companies. In the last ten years of operation there hasn’t been one leak on the road or at the facility.
Technical issues have been discussed, any other issues? No. Commission is allowed to walk the site.
Clarification of traffic. Banach noted the applicant could acquire the requested data from the local police.
There are no proposed changes to the existing driveway. The site is located on a road that could be devoid of accidents. Because of the location of the site a speed counter was not put down, traffic speeds were manually observed.
Clarification of transfer operation, roll off storage. Roll offs are to be kept on paved surfaces according to the State. Roll offs are liquid storage units. Inspection is performed daily.
Number of tractor-trailers. The site is capable of storing 10.
Turning radius. Buildings are located to allow an appropriate turning radius for large trucks.
Stormwater runoff from transfer area. DOT required a gravel surface; flow will infiltrate into the ground, plus constructing a buffer in that area to prevent direct discharge. If there were a leak, the gravel with the spill would be easy to recover.
Lighting within the building. Plan calls for exterior light posts that will shine into the building.
Clarification of liquid waste. Liquid waste is not involved with the transfer operation.
Rinsing operation of trucks. Rinsing takes place within the building in the bay. Employees suit up with air tanks before entering the trucks for cleaning; some are done at car wash facilities in Springfield.
Packaging of sludge material. It is put in 55-gallon drums and the applicant or the owner of the load becomes the generator of the waste. This is allowed under the Hazardous Waste Transporters Permit, which has been acquired for 10-12 years. PCB’s are regulated down to less than 2 parts per billion.
Determination of K class waste. K-listed waste is developed by a process; distilling bottoms from high pressure/chemical reaction. The applicant has never been requested by the State or by a client to transfer K-listed waste.
Highway clean ups. Everything has to move under a manifest. Facilities that receive this waste have a profile, knowledge or testing, i.e. there’s no thing as used fuel, it is either burned or it’s fuel; liquid state is virgin material. This can be field tested and moved into the facility. Motor oil is used oil – requirements are for a facility to perform TCLP – metal analysis (72 hours to leach it in the lab).
Clarification of trucks being used. Small trucks and 4 tractor-trailers are operated on site presently and include 3 straight truck boxes.
Kennedy made a motion to continue the public hearing to February 8, 2005. Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Wentzell called for a five-minute break.
2. Appl 04-82P, South Windsor Child Development Center, request for Special Exception to Se4ction 5.6.3 and site plan of development to convert the existing house into offices at property located at 1343 Sullivan Avenue, RR zone
Peter DeMallie, of Design Professionals and representing the applicant, had the following comments to his presentation:
Existing Center contains approximately 6,488 sf, 90 students, a full time staff of 11 people and 14 people part time.
1343 Sullivan Avenue is the subject of this application; it is desired to adapt this dwelling for offices (2,634 sf/2 floors).
First floor will contain law offices and second floor will contain a tenant space.
There are no wetlands on the site and there will be less than ½ acre of disturbance (1.9-acre site).
Existing drive will be utilized.
Existing building is nonconforming to the front yard setback, 19.4 ft from Sullivan Avenue, 50’ is required.
The two buildings will be maintained as a condominium; no division of the parcel.
Hours of operation will be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Majority of the traffic is generated for the Center, small increase for the office use.
Minimal adverse impacts on residential use in the area.
No impacts to utilities or streets.
Land is physically suited for the proposal.
Becky Meyer, Engineer and representing the applicant, had the following comments to her presentation:
The impetus for the site plan is to meet the parking requirements resulting from the change in the use of the existing house.
The proposal will meet the parking requirements of the Regulations.
Parking surfaces will require 2100 sf of pavement and cutting of the existing island to create an additional space.
A handicap van accessible space will be provided.
Resetting of the CB at the southern portion of the parking will occur, patching existing pavement around it.
200 sf of pavement by the porch of the office building will be removed; then reseeded and a 5’ sidewalk will be installed to the new entry stairs.
Renovations of the existing building and garage are proposed to meet the code and meet handicap accessibility requirements.
The garage will be extended 4’ and will have a new entry canopy, stairs, railings, gabled roof and columns at the entry porch.
Shingles and siding will be replaced in colonial yellow/white trim vinyl siding.
Site is connected to public water and sewer.
Existing drainage is via sheet flow to a system of CB’s on the site, which discharge to a riprap spillway in the northwest corner.
Additional pavement is graded to 1% minimum slope to encourage the drainage.
No additional storm drainage pipes are proposed.
Existing guardrail will be moved accordingly.
E & S measures will be placed appropriately, i.e. silt fences, anti-tracking pad construction entrance, and haybales.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
Request for a Special Exception to section 5.6.3, Office Conversion Overlay, and site plan approval for the conversion of an existing home to professional offices at 1333 Sullivan Ave, RR zone.
The Office Conversion Overlay regulation was enacted for the purpose of allowing conversions of existing structures in the underlying residential zones to professional offices and to facilitate the preservation of historic structures, where deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission, taking into consideration such factors as proximity to commercial uses or zones, traffic volumes, amount of commercial traffic, and the suitability of the land for office conversion.
Such uses will be allowed only when the Commission has determined that:
traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood;
there will be minimal adverse effects on existing residential 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.
The specific criteria for office conversions include:
The building shall have been constructed prior to 1920.
The lot has an area of not less than 30,000 square feet.
The lot has frontage of not less than 150 feet.
An adequate line of sight entering and exiting the site is provided based on Connecticut Department of Transportation standards.
Side and rear yards shall contain landscaped buffers of ten feet in width. The buffer provisions of Sections 10.4 through 10.4.8 of these Regulations shall not apply.
Any addition to the structure shall not be greater than 100% of the floor area of the existing first floor.
Uses shall be restricted to professional offices; generally types of offices that operate during “typical” office hours Monday through Friday. Examples of professional offices include lawyers, architects, doctors/dentists, accountants, and engineers. Examples of offices not considered professional offices for the purposes of this regulation include real estate, insurance, and other offices that typically include hours of operation during evenings and weekends.
Parking shall be in conformance with the requirements of Section 13, Off-Street Parking.
Maximum impervious coverage shall be 40%.
Wherever existing structures on the lot have historic or architecturally redeeming features, efforts shall be made to preserve and/or enhance those features; and
Signage must conform to the requirements of Section 17, Signs.
There is an existing daycare already on the site, and the access for the offices will share the same entrance drive. The only site changes include the addition of 10 parking spaces and a small building addition to accommodate a new entrance near the back of the building.
Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 40%; 23.8% shown. The house was constructed in 1876. Existing building height is 2 stories; 2 ½ stories allowed. Existing lot size is 1.9 ac; minimum lot size allowed is 30,000 sf. Frontage is 272 feet; minimum allowed is 150 feet. Front yard setback is currently nonconforming at 19.4 feet.
The parking requirement for the two uses on site is38 parking spaces; 38 spaces are shown.
There is a requirement for a 10-foot landscape buffer strip along the property boundary. This site has a significant amount of existing mature perimeter vegetation. There is one area, along the southerly property boundary in the area of the new parking, where no vegetation exists. Staff recommends that the existing row of arborvitae be extended to fill in the gap.
There are currently two freestanding signs on the property. A sign variance was granted in 1997 to allow the second freestanding sign, 6 sq ft in size, at the entrance to the property. The applicant is proposing a third free-standing sign, in front of the building to be converted, that is not permitted under zoning.
There are no regulated wetlands and the applicant is disturbing less than 20,000 sf; therefore no IWA/CC approval was required.
The existing house is serviced by public water and sewer. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
There is no new dumpster shown; the applicant has indicated that they will be using the existing dumpster on site.
If this application is approved, the planning department requests the following modifications: remove the proposed sign shown on the site plan; and add a landscaped buffer strip along the southerly property line.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
The additional 10 spaces should be shaded as shown on plan.
A saw cut line will be shown where the new pavement will be installed.
There’s a spot elevation in the southwest corner that has to be checked.
Half of the parking area drains to the north and half drains to the south; high point of the drainage should be shown.
It is suggested that the applicant look at re-paving the entire driveway because the existing pavement has many cracked areas. It’s beginning to rut and fall apart. If they do not re-pave it within five years it will probably completely fall apart.
No one from the public spoke in favor of or against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
Clarification of parking spaces. Main site circulation period is 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. The attorney’s clients will not interfere with the circulation times.
Clarification of addresses. 1333 is the primary building of the Center and 1343 is the office building.
Concerns with neighbors. Conversations were held with the neighbors and plans were shown. There were no concerns expressed.
McCann joined the meeting and informed the Commission that he would listen to the tapes.
Number of people to and from the office building. Approximately 4-6 people come by each day. Clients that might conflict with the Center would be 1 or 2.
DeMallie requested the number of arborvitae required to extend the buffer. Banach replied 8-10.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m.
Application 04-85P, Poag & McEwen Lifestyle Centers request for a zoning amendment to Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone, Section 5.8.4, 5.8.5, and 5.8.6.C.2, to allow grocery stores of less than 22,000 sf under certain conditions
Alan Lamson, representing the applicant, had the following comments:
Highland Park is interested in locating within Evergreen Walk across from the existing Old Navy store.
The existing regulations allow commercial, institutional, cultural, and municipal uses.
Retail use, office, personal service, hotels, and restaurants have been approved in Evergreen Walk.
Subsection 5.8.5 provides that grocery stores are a prohibitive use – specialty stores, i.e. health foods & cheeses – under 10,000 sf in area, are not considered to be grocery stores.
Highland Park is considered a high value, locally owned and operated neighborhood special service grocery store.
Highland Park has been in existence since 1886 and the Devanney family has owned the business for more than 50 years.
Highland Park provides ready-to-eat meals; meats cut only to order; and does not allow outside services within their facility, e.g., dry cleaning and banks; they have in house full bakeries, and their customers do not carry their groceries to the car—employees pack the groceries, use carts then return the carts to the inside of the store.
It is being requested to allow grocery stores less than 22,000 sf in size in the Gateway zone. This eliminates the major chain stores but allows specialty stores, e.g., Highland Park.
3,000’ spacing between grocery stores will eliminate the possibility of multiple stores of this size unless and until such time as the Commission is comfortable with what has been built to date.
Specialty stores would still be allowed regardless of the above change, e.g., cheese shop of less than 10,000 sf would be a permitted use.
Provision provided within the amendment is that employees return all grocery carts to the store interior.
Banach provided the following Planning report.
Request for amendment to Section 5.8 of the zoning regulations to allow specialty grocery stores in the Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone under certain conditions. The current regulations prohibit grocery stores but do allow specialty food stores less than 10,000 sq ft. The proposed amendment would allow grocery stores under 22,000 sq ft provided that any grocery store is located at least 3,000 feet from any other grocery store. Grocery stores larger than 22,000 sq feet would still be prohibited. Any new store is subject to the rigorous design standards contained in the Gateway Zone.
The 3000-foot separating distance will allow the Commission to evaluate whether the amendment is successfully producing the type of small market that is compatible with the Gateway Zone before numerous similar applications could be filed. If the Commission is pleased with initial results, the separating distance could be reduced if the Commission so desires. Likewise, if initial results do not meet the Commission’s expectations, the door is closed to additional markets.
A small grocery store could create shopping cart management issues if not carefully managed. The applicant has addressed that issue with a provision that the shopping cart management plan must require employees to return shopping carts to the store immediately after use by the customer.
The Town Plan of Conservation and Development offers no guidance for this amendment.
There should be no unusual infrastructure impacts from adoption of the proposed amendment.
A zoning amendment request is the appropriate time to consider traffic impacts that could result from the proposed amendment. In this instance, the Gateway Zone is well served by a newly-improved Buckland Road, so new traffic should not result in unacceptable impacts.
The Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed this amendment as required and has forwarded the following report: “The Staff of the Regional Planning Commission of the Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed this referral and finds no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns”.
If this amendment is approved, the Commission must find that it is in conformance with the Town Plan and must set an effective date.
There was no one from the public who spoke for or against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
Shopping carts are a large concern. Customers are not permitted to take their carriages out. They are escorted by an employee and the carriages are returned by the employee.
Concern with chain grocery stores becoming smaller and then being able to come into an area such as Evergreen Walk.
Largest store of Highland Park. 19,335 sf.
Regulations allow for a Special Use? It would be a permitted use; site plan approval only is required.
It is not desired to have seating for consumption of ready to eat meals within the store. There is no space for a sit down area in Highland Park markets.
Questioning whether or not a grocery store is needed in Evergreen Walk. There is no pre-packaged meat—service meat counter only; bakery in house, #1 deli in the country; featured in Bakery magazines, nothing is pre-sliced, all cut to order; chef quality entrees are prepared in house; plenty of baggers are on hand and they in turn deliver the groceries to the car and return the cart to inside the store. Also there is beer for sale.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 10:26 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING - MADDEN ROOM
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
No one was present for public participation.
McCann made a motion to extend the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
Appl 04-84P, Gawlik Major Home Occupation renewal – request for a 5-year renewal to operate a framing business at 2650 Ellington Road, RR zone
McCann made a motion to approve application 04-84P, Gawlik Major Home Occupation renewal with the following conditions:
The business must be operated by the homeowner.
Hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. –5:00 p.m. on Saturday, and 5:00-9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Customers must visit by appointment only.
Only one non-resident employee can be hired.
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 permit will expire on December 14, 2009, and will have to be renewed at that time.
Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 04-52P, Church of the Living God, request for a special exception to 4.1.8.b and site plan modification for a 43,632 sf addition for property located at 199 Deming Street, Manchester, RR zone
Banach provided the following Planning update for the Commission.
It is not known at this time whether or not the State Traffic Commission will approve the traffic light at the intersection of Deming Street and the driveway of the church building. At the moment, DOT indicating that it will not approve a traffic light.
The applicant will be submitting their application to the State Traffic Commission and will be looking for a letter of support from South Windsor and Manchester. Both will provide a letter of support.
PZC should act under the assumption that there will be no traffic light.
Doolittle had the following Engineering update for the Commission.
Commission to consider a condition under on this application, i.e. that the applicant evaluates the traffic situation within three to five years of obtaining an approval. They may not need a traffic light once the building is completed and Church services have begun. They may have more reasons for the State to reconsider when and if they choose to reapply again to the State Traffic Commission.
Banach noted that the State Traffic Commission is not acknowledging that there will be a Dunkin Donuts across the street; they are looking at the Church as a stand-alone entity. They are not acknowledging the assisted living facility that may be sharing the driveway with Dunkin Donuts. Technically, the light is outside the jurisdiction of PZC because the light is located in Manchester and is on a State road. However, DOT and STC are typically interested in the Town’s opinions.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
The use of a police officer if a traffic light is not installed.
Condition that light be synchronized with the other lights on Deming Street.
Exit onto Avery Street is not possible because of very bad sight line issue with the Walgreen’s driveway just south of the Church property.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 04-52P, Church of the Living God with the following conditions:
Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
2. No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
3. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $15,000.
4. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
5. Footing drains are required if the building has a basement.
6. A landscape bond in the amount of $5000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
7. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
8. This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
9. No building permits will be issued until State Traffic Commission approval has been issued (per CGS §14-311).
10. The building street number must be included on the final plan.
11. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
12. The Town Engineer’s review comments dated November 15, 2004, must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
13. If a traffic signal is not approved by the State Traffic Commission at this time, a request for installation of a traffic signal must be resubmitted no later than five years after the Certificate of Occupancy is granted. A surety amount will be established for the cost of installing a traffic signal and must be submitted to the Town of South Windsor prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The surety must be of a type acceptable to the Commission (see the enclosed Surety Policy). If the traffic light is approved by CT DOT now or within the five-year time period, the signal must be installed within six months of CT COT approval. If the traffic light is not approved by CT DOT within the five-year time period, the surety will be released.
14.A police officer must be provided to direct traffic while Church services are exiting.
McCann seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ADJOURNMENT:
McCann made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted
_________________________________ ______________________________
Phyllis M. Mann, Recording Secretary Date Approved
| 
