MEMBERS PRESENT: Timothy Wentzell, Kevin McCann, Patrick Kennedy, Sue Larsen, Bart Pacekonis, and Gary Bazzano
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Michael Sullivan sat for Kennedy during discussion/deliberations of application 04-74P, Corner Meadow LLC and for Pacekonis during discussion/deliberations of application 04-72P, Brightman Circle Subdivision
Marc Finer sat for Clifford Slicer
STAFF PRESENT: Michele R. Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Wentzell called the meeting to order at 8:08 p.m.
Larsen read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer.
Appl 04-87P, Christine Cassettari, request for a 5-year renewal for a major home business, “Chrissy’s Hair Studio” on property located at 1483 Ellington Road, RR zone
Lipe noted that the applicant had to leave the meeting. The following is the Planning report:
This is an application for a renewal of a 5-year major home occupation permit to operate a hair salon at 1483 Ellington Road, RR zone. This is the applicant’s second renewal.
In approving the original application, the PZC required several site improvements that have been accomplished and also placed several conditions of the original approval including:
Operation of this salon is restricted to the present owner;
Retail sales of hair products are restricted to incidental sales to hair customers
Hours of operation are limited to Tuesday – Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.; Saturday, 9:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.; Sunday and Monday closed
Since that time the applicant has indicated that she operates less hours that the current approval. Her current hours are Tuesdays and Thursdays 11 am – 7:30 pm and every other Saturday from 8 –12.
Public sewer and water serve the existing house.
The parking requirement is being met within the existing driveway.
The applicant has a sign on the property.
If this application were approved, the applicant would also be required to return to this Commission for renewal upon expiration of the 5-year permit period.
No one from the public spoke in favor of or against this application.
There were no questions from the Commissioners.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
2. Appl 05-01P, Susan A. Taylor, request for a 5-year in law apartment for property located at 66 Sharon Drive, A-20 zone
Taylor stated that her daughter would occupy the main home and she would occupy the in law apartment.
Lipe provided the following Planning report:
Request for a permit for an in-law apartment at 66 Sharon Drive, A-20 zone.
The PZC in-law apartment regulation has specific criteria for the unit; and provides for a 5-year permit period. These criteria include:
¨ The in-law apartment cannot be larger than 900 sq ft or 40% of the gfa (whichever is smaller)
¨ the entire structure must maintain the appearance of a single family dwelling;
¨ off street parking for three vehicles must be accommodated;
¨ adequate water and sewage disposal must be provided; and
¨ the owner of the dwelling units must occupy either the in-law apartment or the main dwelling unit
4. The applicant has provided a plot plan of the property – shown on page 3 of the architectural plans - as well as a floor plan of the in-law apartment as well as its conversion back into single family living space. The apartment is proposed to constructed behind the existing home (raise ranch) and will include a two car garage on the lower level and living space above it. The driveway will be extended around the side of the house to access the new two-car garage.
5. This in-law apartment is proposed to be 895 square feet (which represents less than 40% of the total grass floor area once a new family room is added with this addition. This existing house is 1338 + 315 sf family room addition) This calculation appears in the upper right hand front corner of the plans. It appears that all other zoning requirements have been met.
6. If this application is approved, the Commission may grant approval for up to five years. The applicant will be asked via letter to reaffirm ownership of the property every two years. At the end of the permit period, if the family situation has not changed, the applicant may request renewal by staff.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
The driveway that runs along the northern property boundary (right side of the house) does allow 2 cars to get into the proposed garage, it is tight but it does work.
The driveway configuration was checked with a template.
No one from the public spoke against or in favor of this application.
The applicant agreed with the fact that this is an in law apartment and must be used by a member of the family.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.
Appl 05-04P, Spada In Law Apartment – request for a 5-year in law apartment for property located at 118 Windshire Drive, AA-30 zone
Spada stated that the in law apartment would be occupied by his inlaws. They understand that it is to be used only by family and will not be rented out. The addition will encompass a 3-car garage and the existing 2-car garage will be converted into offices.
Lipe provided the following Planning report.
1. The PZC in-law apartment regulation has specific criteria for the unit; and provides for a 5-year permit period. These criteria include:
¨ The in-law apartment cannot be larger than 900 sq ft or 40% of the gfa (whichever is smaller)
¨ the entire structure must maintain the appearance of a single family dwelling;
¨ off street parking for three vehicles must be accommodated;
¨ adequate water and sewage disposal must be provided; and
¨ the owner of the dwelling units must occupy either the in-law apartment or the main dwelling unit
¨ Due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
2. The applicant has provided a plot plan of the property as well as a floor plan and elevations of the in-law apartment. The apartment is proposed to construct an addition, including a three-car addition. The existing garages are proposed to be converted into additional home office space bringing the total square footage of the house to approximately 2,800 sf. This in-law apartment is proposed to be 990, square feet, (which represents about 35% of the total grass floor area.) They are requesting a 90-sf waiver.
3. The Commission may waive one or more of the provisions above (except the requirement that an owner live in the apartment or house) after determining:
¨ There will be minimum adverse impact on existing uses in the area;
¨ Surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
¨ And due consideration of historic factors has been demonstrated.
4. It appears that all other zoning requirements have been met.
If this application is approved, the Commission may grant approval for up to five years. The applicant will be asked via letter to reaffirm ownership of the property every two years. At the end of the permit period, if the family situation has not changed, the applicant may request renewal by staff.
There were no Engineering comments.
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.
Reason for the 990 sq. ft. e.g. wheelchairs/hardship. In Laws current living standards are much above the 990-sq. ft. of living. Getting to this square footage was difficult. The in law apartment will not be seen from the street – just the 3 car garage. The applicant does not believe that there will be an adverse impact in this neighborhood. There are several homes larger than this one with the addition.
Clarification of the offices. One office has a permit for a minor home business and the other will be used as a personal office by the owner.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING - MADDEN ROOM
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
No one was present for public participation.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
1. Appl 04-87P, Christine Cassettari, request for a 5-year renewal for a major home business, “Chrissy’s Hair Studio” on property located at 1483 Ellington Road, RR zone
Larsen made a motion to approve application 04-87P, Christine Cassettari with the following conditions:
1. The business must be operated by the homeowner.
2. The permit will expire on January 25, 2006, and will have to be renewed at that time.
3. Only one non-resident employee can be hired.
4. Hours of operation currently are Tuesdays and Thursdays 11 am – 7:30 pm and every other
Saturday from 8 am–12 pm.
5. Refuse from the business cannot be disposed of with residential refuse. Adequate
arrangements must be made for business refuse disposal.
6. Any new building, or alteration/additions to existing buildings, requires a building permit
prior to start of construction.
Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 05-01P, Susan A. Taylor, request for a 5-year in law apartment for property located at 66 Sharon Drive, A-20 zone
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 05-01P, Susan A. Taylor with the following conditions:
This approval is for an in-law apartment for a family member/relative only. When the in-law apartment is no longer occupied by a relative of the family, the apartment cannot be treated as a second dwelling unit. Instead, the kitchen must be removed and the living area must be converted into other living space for the main dwelling.
This permit will expire in five years, on January 25, 2006, and will have to be renewed at that time if the use is to be continued. Owner(s) of the property must reside in the apartment or the main dwelling unit. Reaffirmation of occupancy by owner will be required every two years. This will be done via a letter from the Planning Department requesting the reaffirmation of occupancy.
Any new building, or alterations/additions to existing buildings, require a building permit prior to start of construction.
The building footprint must not exceed 10% of the lot area, in accordance with Section 10.2 of the zoning regulations.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 05-04P, Spada In Law Apartment – request for a 5-year in law apartment for property located at 118 Windshire Drive, AA-30 zone
McCann made a motion to approve application 05-04P, Spada In Law Apartment with the following conditions:
This approval is for an in-law apartment for a family member/relative only. When the in-law apartment is no longer occupied by a relative of the family, the apartment cannot be treated as a second dwelling unit. Instead, the kitchen must be removed and the living area must be converted into other living space for the main dwelling.
This permit will expire in five years, on January 25, 2006, and will have to be renewed at that time if the use is to be continued. Owner(s) of the property must reside in the apartment or the main dwelling unit. Reaffirmation of occupancy by owner will be required every two years. This will be done via a letter from the Planning Department requesting the reaffirmation of occupancy.
Any new building, or alterations/additions to existing buildings, require a building permit prior to start of construction.
The building footprint must not exceed 10% of the lot area, in accordance with Section 10.2 of the zoning regulations.
A waiver has been granted to allow the apartment to be 990 square feet.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
4. Appl 04-74P, Corner Meadow LLC, request for special exception to Article 4.1.12 and 4.3.11 and site plan of development for approval of an 18 unit senior residence development, to be known as "River Walk” on 11.91 acres located on the northwesterly corner of Sullivan Avenue and Pierce Road, RR zone
Kennedy disqualified himself from discussing or acting on application 04-84P, Corner Meadow LLC.
Lipe reviewed this application.
1. Buffering, sidewalks, additional screenings, and traffic were concerns of the Commission at the last meeting for this application.
Wentzell read into the record a memo (regarding sidewalks) from Jeff Doolittle dated January 19, 2005 to Marcia Banach. (Exhibit A)
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
PZC can request off site improvements. The perquisite finding for PZC to require off site improvements is not met. It is reasonable for the applicant to request sidewalks on one side of the loop because he is extending the sidewalk to the Duck Pond. It is suggested to support the sidewalks as proposed on the plans. There is no agreement from the Town to accept sidewalks that are built off site plus a burden would be placed on the Town to maintain the sidewalks. Sidewalks placed on both sides of the street can be an overkill in this development.
Applicant proposed sidewalks to the Duck Pond.
Trade offs have been made in other applications, e.g. subdivision. Sidewalks should have a destination.
Permission has never been asked of the Town whether or not sidewalks are required, it is done as a matter of fact, e.g. subdivisions with open space areas.
Lipe noted that sidewalks were built on Town land at the Summerwood Senior Residence Development and the developer (ultimatelt the association) was responsible for maintaining the sidewalks on the town Right of way.
Doolittle noted that if the Town was asked for permission for sidewalks, PZC should expect mixed reviews on the subject. The Town inherits property from PZC that is built by the developer. Currently the Town maintains the sidewalks at the Duck Pond.
Pacekonis made a motion to approve application 04-74P, Corner Meadow, LLC with the following modifications:
1. 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 $10,000 for creation of the stormwater structures and wetlands creation (to be held for three years); and a bond in the amount of $15,000 to ensure compliance with erosion and sediment control measures. Erosion and sediment control bonds must be posted prior to commencing any site work.
4. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.10 of the Zoning Regulations.
5. A landscape bond in the amount of $10,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
6. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
7. WPCA approval is required. A hold harmless agreement and permission to enter form will need to be provided to the Town to allow the refuse & recycling vehicles to enter the site.
8. The street number(s) must be included on the final plan.
9. Traffic signal modifications included in the memo dated December 27, 2004, from Jim Bubaris, P.E., Traffic Engineer, must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction, prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy.
10. Town Engineer’s review comments dated November 29, 2004 must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
11. The existing operation conditions of the traffic light at the intersection of Pierce Road and Sullivan Avenue need to be analyzed. If the analysis indicates that operational improvements are needed to optimize the signal operation, the Town will submit a request to DOT to make the operational improvements. The study will be conducted by the Town’s on-call traffic engineer, with cost of the study to be shared 50/50 by the Town and the applicant, with an upper limit of $2,000 on the study and $1,000 cost sharing from the applicant. The Town will initiate the study upon receipt of the applicant’s share of the funding. The applicant’s share of funding must be submitted prior to filing of final mylars in the Town Clerk’s office.
Sidewalks are required on the inner loop of the private drive and to be extended along Pierce Road up to the intersection of Pierce Road and Sullivan Avenue, and then down the other side of Pierce Road to the driveway for the parking area for the duck pond.
Condominium documents, outlining the condition under which residents are required to be 55 years and older, are required to be submitted for review and approval.
Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Kennedy returned to the meeting.
Appl 04-72P, Brightman Circle Subdivision, request for a 10 lot convention subdivision on 10.5+ acres of property located on the southerly side of Miller Road and easterly side of Nevers Road
Pacekonis disqualified himself because he did not attend the public hearing.
Lipe reviewed concerns, e.g. traffic on Miller Road and winter conditions; line of sight; Staff recommended that curbing be put on Miller Road along the frontage of the proposal.
Doolittle noted that the traffic report did not address road conditions. The proposal meets the site line requirements and the required distance from the intersection of Miller Road. Icing condition here is not the same as is on Deming Street. There is an occurrence of snow staying on Miller Road longer than other roads because of the hill and the shade. The curbing issue can be resolved by constructing the water main as shown within the roadway - when they repair the road they can install curbing. If they put the sidewalks down Miller Road as suggested by the Commission, then there needs to be curbing there for the sidewalk. An alternative to the sidewalk on Miller is to have a connection between lots 7 & 8 where the drainage easement goes that runs from Brightman Circle to Nevers Road. The
applicant inquired about the sidewalk ordinance. The ordinance in regard to sidewalk maintenance (snow and ice removal); Section 86-91 of the Town Ordinance talks about snow removal within 24 hours after its has fallen and reads, “this section shall not apply to any sidewalk that abuts the rear lot line of property unless said sidewalk is contiguous to a sidewalk on the side and/or front of property.” If a sidewalk were put on Miller Road that corner lot would be responsible to maintain and remove the snow from their entire sidewalk, including Nevers Road (contiguous).
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
Access from Brightman Circle to Nevers Road for sidewalks would occur between lots 7 & 8 and would be a wrap around situation.
Applicant should be cognizant of existing screening.
There will be a subdivision bond for 5 years and if within that time Nevers Road is reconfigured then the sidewalks can be built.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 04-72P, Brightman Circle Subdivision with the following modifications:
This approval is for 10 lots, numbered 1-10
Concrete sidewalks, built to Town specifications, shall be installed on the east side of Nevers Road and the west side of Brightman Circle.
Drainage and construction for this subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.
All lots shall be serviced by the Town of South Windsor sanitary sewer system and are subject to the approval of the Water Pollution Control Authority.
Water shall be supplied to this subdivision by public water.
Street lighting shall be installed on streets, at intersections, and on cul-de-sacs in accordance with the policy established by the Chief of Police. Street lighting is to be coordinated with the Chief of Police (copy enclosed).
Street names and locations of fire hydrants are subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal of the Town of South Windsor. Street names and supporting posts shall be installed by the developer in conformance with the standards of the Town of South Windsor, at no expense to the Town.
A liability insurance policy shall be submitted to this Commission naming the Town of South Windsor as an insured, with a combined single limit for bodily injury and/or property damage in the amount of $1,000,000.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount $10,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control measures, and a bond in the amount of $10,000 to ensure the establishment of the detention basin and plantings.
Trees within the Street Trees Easement and any other trees on land that is currently or will in the future become Town-owned land are to be planted in accordance with the enclosed Tree Planting Specifications.
Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
All easement for conservation purposes, drainage or utilities, that may be required in Connecticut with the approval of this subdivision, must be submitted on standard Town easement form where appropriate, to this Commission prior to filing the mylars and issuance of building permits. All deeds for open space, public improvements, and roadways must be submitted prior to request for Town acceptance; all deeds must be in accordance with the policy for accepting deeds and must be approved by the Engineering Department and Town Attorney.
Footing drains are required for each house. Prior to the building of any structure on a lot, a topographic map, drawn to a scale of 1” = 40’, shall be submitted for each lot in the subdivision, showing proposed contours, elevations and the location of the footing drains. No building permits will be issued until the proposed contours; floor elevations and location of footing drains have been approved by the Town Engineer.
If, for any reason, finished grading and other individual lot site work is not completed, the Town Engineer shall determine the amount of a cash bond to ensure final grading and site work. This cash bond must be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Quantity estimates must be submitted to the Town Engineer (on the enclosed form) for the purpose of determining subdivision bonding. All bonds shall conform to the enclosed bond policy and shall be posted prior to filing the final plans in the Town Clerk’s office. If the developer chooses to submit a letter of credit for one year term said letter of credit must be renewed on a yearly basis until completion of the development. If a new letter of credit has not been received within 30 days before the expiration date then the Commission may, at its option, call the letter they are holding.
In accordance with Section 5.C.1.c of the Subdivision Regulations, a fee in lieu of open space is required. The fee will be ten percent of the fair market value of the property prior to subdivision approval. This fee is payable on a per-lot basis, at the time of initial conveyance of each lot. The applicant must provide, with the Commission’s agreement, an appraiser to determine the fair market value.
A drainage assessment fee in the amount of $500.00 shall be submitted to the Commission.
The Town Engineer’s review comments dated 1/3/2005 must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
No building permits will be issued until all modifications have been complied with, and the final plans have been filed in the Town Clerk’s office.
Sidewalks shall be installed along Nevers Road along the development.
Larsen seconded the motion.
Wentzell made a amendment to the original motion by adding that in lieu of sidewalks on both sides within the development, that the sidewalk will be placed on Miller Road and a sidewalk on Nevers Road on the frontage would be bonded to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction for a five year period in anticipation of roadway being done on Nevers Road and if that is not accomplished within five years the sidewalks shall be built at that time.
Larsen seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with their concerns centering on the imposition on homeowners for wrap around sidewalk, there are no sidewalks on Miller Road, and developer should decide what side of the street he desires to put the sidewalk.
The amendment and the second were withdrawn.
The original motion was called. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
6
.Preliminary discussion with Thom Dembkoski from Pickle Works Deli & Grill regarding property in the industrial zone. (Exhibit B)
Site being considered was originally Mal Tool Company on the corner of Sullivan Ave and Schwier Road and has 3-4 acres behind the building with a baseball diamond. Exterior of the property will be improved by using stucco on the outside and a colored roof. He is seeking input from PZC as to whether or not the catering/banquet use was adequate for the site. Access will be from Sullivan Avenue and egress will be at Schweir Road resulting in one less curb cut on Sullivan Avenue. One room will be approximately 20’ x 40’ and the other room will be approximately 30’ x 60’. Maximum capacity will be 85 people for the large room and 15-20 people for the small room. There will be room for expansion in the future.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members and their concerns were traffic, landscaping, access management on Sullivan Avenue, screening, dumpster area, and provision for backgrounds for wedding photos.
7. Preliminary discussion with Peter DeMallie from Design Professionals regarding a SRD on Burnham Street. (Exhibit C)
DeMallie, representing Todd Kriney, owner of the property involved, had the following comments to his presentation:
Site contains approximately 5 acres and sits on the East Hartford Town line.
Extension of cap of SRD’s is required for this proposal.
Presented two plans: One for a 3-lot subdivision and the other for a 9-unit SRD development.
SRD would be single family; detached unit with a 1-car garage and maximum size would be 1400’. This would be located on a short cul-de-sac street.
Wetlands are located on the westerly portion of the site.
Public sewer is available; other utilities will have to be extended.
Goal is to provide affordable SRD’s – reasonably priced.
Access will be from Burnham Street.
After a lengthy discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to not increase the cap of SRD’s at this time. Results of what has been accomplished with projects currently approved should be reviewed first. The future could result in SRD’s not being secure, pressure brought by the owners to remove the restrictions and allow them to be sold as ordinary condominium units. This would effectively increase the density of the development. Homeowners would also use ZBA to get their desired intention by using hardships. It is desirable to see the results from second generation of ownership. The SRD regulation was created to satisfy the anticipated needs of senior residents in the Town at different economic levels.
Wentzell noted that the Regulations in general need reviewing because what PZC envisioned was not what has been constructed. Issues with buffering and setbacks have arisen thus it would be advisable to see what the long term marketability would be plus SRD’s being changed is not wanted – market driven.
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.
8. Preliminary discussion with Jeff Elston regarding Internet car sales in the industrial zone. (Exhibit D)
Elston is proposing to operate an Internet car dealership in Unit #15, of 1265 John Fitch Boulevard. High-end vehicles, e.g. Audi, Porsche, BMW, etc. year 2000 plus will be sold through e-bay. There will be no retail and no open lot. No bodywork will occur, take cars in, list them, and detail them. There will no more than 8 cars sold per month. Space to be rented will be 2400 sq. ft., 550 sq. ft office, and garage space to store all the cars indoors. Site contains security alarms.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
Traffic. There will be little traffic coming in to the site; approximately 4-5 customers per week.
Questioning growth of the business. Leasing for 12 months, if growth occurs, then he will have to move.
Outside storage. It is no problem not to have outdoor storage.
Lipe noted that there is a requirement of sprinklers and also if there is detailing done on site, washing of vehicles cannot be done outside in the parking area. If this were done then a floor drain would have to be within the building.
There is a water reclamation system, all runoff is caught. Elston met with the Fire Marshall and he approved the proposal. Inventory is acquired from car auctions and listed on line.
Clarification of car carriers. Elston personally drives the cars in and out of the building. The only trailer involved will be a closed one-car trailer to transport the car to its destination.
The Commission gave permission to Elston to submit a site plan.
9. Appl 04-47P, MASSCONN Site – change order for the layout of the approved building and parking areas
Chris Christensen, Alford Associates and representing the applicant had the following comments to his presentation:
The southerly portion of the site had unsuitable material placed over a 56” pipe that contained the flow of a brook and directed it across the street.
The material that was put in to fill the valley is unsuitable for the construction of the proposed building.
Options were reviewed and it was decided that an alternate location for the proposed building be made.
Facilities will remain the same.
The building has been relocated to the front; truck traffic will be entering through Commerce Way.
The original site plan will be adhered to.
A flowering landscaping buffer will be added next to the loading docks.
Trees proposed to plant on the berm are Norway Spruce, landscaping around the building will be adjusted accordingly.
Dumpsters will remain in the same area and will be screened.
Picnic area will be moved down slightly.
Buffer area of the wetlands will be maintained and the applicant is aware that IWA/CC has to sign off on the proposed changes.
All pavement is outside the wetlands.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
Size of the proposed building. The size of the building and exterior treatment will remain the same. Interior changes will be made. In the original plan the parking lot was going to be placed over the fill. Stresses are not the same with parking lots as with buildings.
It is desired to see proposed elevations.
Setbacks are a concern.
A site plan modification is required.
Absence of an understory proposed in the landscaping plan.
Height of proposed berm. That berm will shield the parked cars.
Consensus of the Commission was for the applicant to return with a revised site plan and approval. Screening of the loading areas must be shown and details for the other side of the building must be presented. The side of the building presented to the populace must be evaluated along with architectural renderings presented.
MINUTES:
The minutes of January 4, 2005 and January 11, 2005 were accepted by consensus of the Commission.
APPLICATIONS TO BE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED:
Appl #05-08P, Bates In Law Apartment, request for a 5-year in law apartment for property located at 118 Quail Run, A-30 zone.
Appl #05-09P, Joyce Clark, request for a 5-year renewal for a major home occupation “JC & Company Family Beauty Salon” on property located at 15 Apple Tree Line, A-20 zone
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
| 
