MEMBERS PRESENT: Timothy Wentzell, Kevin McCann, Sue Larsen, Bart Pacekonis, Patrick Kennedy, Cliff Slicer, and Gary Bazzano
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Michael Sullivan sat for Pacekonis during deliberations on Appl 04-82P, South Windsor Child Development and for Pacekonis after he left the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Marc Finer sat for Larsen until she arrived at the meeting at
10:08 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Wentzell called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
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 (continued from January 11, 2005)
Attorney Wayne C. Gerlt, representing the applicant, listed the items that have been addressed with Staff:
¨ Traffic report. Storage of rolloffs and parking location.
¨ Buffers have been shown, revised the plan as appropriate.
¨ Roofs will be placed over the parking areas and the transfer structure.
¨ Plans do show the removal of stockpile items. A buffer will be replaced in a gap that is located on one side of the property behind a resident’ house and also an area behind the old barn.
Bruce Devanney, representing the applicant, had the following comments in his presentation:
¨ Buses being removed from the site and area open space.
¨ 5 tankers and allowance of 5 parking spaces in rear of the building.
¨ Smaller trucks are kept on site for emergency pickups and are kept in dedicated bays inside the main building at night, plugged into chargers to be ready to go.
¨ Removal of the buses also entails the removal of 60-70 employee vehicles. This space will be used for employee parking by VSI.
¨ Rolling stock, e.g. pickups, vans, small vehicles, small trailers will be located across from the area of employee parking on the backside of the Jersey barriers.
¨ Rolling stock, e.g. payloaders and excavators will be placed in a new location (Area 4), outside the buffer.
¨ Analytical requirements take in excess of 72 hours once they are received by the lab. Roll offs cannot be left on the side of the highway resulting in an area (marked with signs) being dedicated on these plans for State regulated waste only, not for federally regulated waste (mainly petroleum products requiring analytical prior to disposal. The applicant is allowed to have up to 10 rolloffs.
¨ A permit issued by the State allows up to 72 hours to keep the waste on the truck in the yard. The applicant will not take the 10-day permit and extend it to 13 by storing outside the facility. The applicant has to inform the State of the vehicles that are taken in at night, e.g. spill van with 2 drums of oil/speedy dry in the rear. The State requires the placement of approximately 5 vehicles in a specified area located on the plans.
¨ There will be only ESI rolloffs on the site and they will be kept in a gravel parking lot shown on the plans.
¨ The TVS equipment will be leaving the site.
¨ 2 buildings on the site will contain 5 storage bays with containment sumps and concrete that will contain spillage on an impermeable surface (referred to as the ‘Jet Port’ on the plans.
¨ There is a 2’ grade from the entry point into the building to the rear point, if any liquid leaves the drums the liquid would be contained on an impermeable surface.
¨ The 3 closed structures are of metal frame and are to keep the weather from exposing to the pad and accumulating any liquids in those storage bays. The front of the building will have a raised sloped elevation to obstruct ground water from being pushed up and over into the storage area.
¨ The 2 buildings, transfer area, is 4 bays where 2 trucks can pull in next to each other, a dock is available to allow transfer of drums from one truck to the other. Trailers cannot be stored in these buildings. After transfer trucks are put into storage with the same impervious coating on the concrete.
¨ Manifests will track all drums.
¨ Everything will be done by hand and no container will be over 55 gallons.
¨ There will be no K-listed waste, 6.1’s (poisoned gases) as listed on the prohibition list on the DEP permit.
David Spear, Traffic Engineer and representing the applicant had the following comments to his presentation: (Exhibit A)
¨ Accident data has been submitted from DOT.
¨ Accident data was submitted from the Town of South Windsor.
¨ A counter was put out on Brookfield Street adjacent to the site drive and recorded and statistically calculating the 85% speed, 40 mph in each direction.
¨ Sight distance in each direction is 590’ looking left and 420’ looking right.
¨ The DOT guidelines were also referred to; minor commercial driveways are recommended but not required, if this was a State road.
Lipe stated that the applicant provided the information Staff had requested from the previous hearing.
Doolittle had the following Engineering comments:
Clearly show the limits of pavement, gravel, stone and other compacted surfaces that are used for storage and travel on this site. The gravel storage area at the southern end of the site needs to be clearly shown and labeled. All these are considered impervious and it is these areas need to be included in the calculation of impervious area. The drainage report shows impervious coverage of more than 40%.
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. Provide an analysis of the existing 46” CMP that shows the water surface elevations for the 10, 25, 50, and 100 year storms, upstream and downstream from this site, do not vary if this pipe is present or not. This analysis should ignore any “farm bridges” upstream or downstream. Alternatively, this pipe needs to be modified and sized to pass the 100 year storm (per the Public Improvement Specifications). If the pipe needs to be replaced or added to this should be shown on the plan. 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. Information from the FEMA study can be used for this analysis. 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.
Include the location of storage areas for various trucks an d containers, and parking areas from the Schematic Layout Plan on the Site Plan that will be filed as an approved plan for this site application.
Label the existing 12” drainage line, to be plugged at both ends.
Revise the details for the outlet end of the proposed 15” RCP on the south side of the site. Change the 1” stone to modified rip rap or 6 inch stone.
Include a cutoff/frost wall under the flared culvert end. This should be 1 foot thick by 3.5 feet deep and be constructed of concrete or compacted process aggregate.
I suggest the deck of the transfer dock be sloped toward the transfer bay so any spills will be more easily contained and some of the proposed collection trench can be eliminated.
The Podunk River is down gradient of the proposed transfer station and much of the existing storage yard. Any spills of oil, gasoline, fuel, or other wastes may seep toward the river. Should there be a berm or some other means of protecting the river?
I will talk to the Environmental Planner about the disposition of the existing farm bridge on site and will contact the applicant’s engineer about this.
Town staff has spoken with two officials from the Conn DEP (Colette Ready and Carmen Holtzman) about this facility and they have told us that no insides of waste vehicles are to be rinsed out on this site. This does not agree with what the applicant told us at the last meeting. Please explain how these practices will be changed as necessary to comply with the regulations and permits.
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.
¨ Rinsing of vehicles. Exterior cleaning of vehicles is prohibited to the permit on the site of large vehicles – those are cleaned off site at a facility in Massachusetts. The Spill & Transporter permit requests the method of decontaminating a vehicle (inside of tank trunks). They can be cleaned at the receiving facility. Attachment 1 states, “All tank and bulk vehicles are cleaned and decontaminated at various recover facilities wherever possible. If a vehicle cannot be cleaned at the receiving facility it will be brought back to the ESIR, 90 Brookfield Street, South Windsor for cleaning. All cleaning will be done inside the facility. A poly
berm is constructed on the floor and the vehicle will be placed inside the berm prior to cleaning to catch any when it comes off the truck. All liquids and solids will be placed into DOT approved containers for disposal. The waste will be labeled and manifested for the responsible generator and sent to the approved facility.” Cleaning is done by hand; employees suit up, are supplied air and enter the tank at the top of the truck. All waste is put into containers, brought outside and placed in drums on top of a poly plastic sheet that is bermed up.
¨ Clarification of permits. There’s not a specific permit from the DEP for doing spills. A licensed transporter in the State of Connecticut is allowed to do spills. The hazardous waste transporter permit issued by the DEP and as part of that permit there’s an attachment (I) which will be provided to the Commission.
¨ Removal of rolloffs belonging to Tobacco Valley. They will be removed before any site work is commenced on the site.
¨ Clarification of cleanup of spills. Any waste coming into the transfer facility needs to be approved and accepted at the receiving facility its manifested to prior to coming to this facility. It cannot enter this facility unless there is a final destination.
¨ Total of trucks stored over night. With state regulated waste it could be up to 10 rolloffs, and they are allowed to be placed on the ground. It’s basically oily debris. The applicant has 23 permitted waste vehicles, e.g. back trucks, box trucks, rat trucks, and dump trucks. It is requested that PZC allow up to 30 – 40 permitted vehicles on the site.
¨ Rinsing of vehicles. Doolittle replied there could be a slight discrepancy between the DEP Regulations and the permit that was issued. Doolittle will review the attachment.
¨ Clarification of culvert. Doolittle replied that the culvert issue is not resolved at this point. The applicant has requested a determination from the Army Corps of Engineers and has had no reply as yet. This has been discussed with the applicant’s engineers. Doolittle is seeking more information to satisfy the requirements of the Town.
Joe Rend, Engineer and representing the applicant replied to concerns regarding the culvert.
¨ The existing 46” culvert and the corrugated metal pipe and installed in 1988.
¨ The pipe should have a life of 35-40 years; pipe has 15-20 years left.
¨ Hydraulics in the area is determined by the State Bridge which is downstream of the existing site.
¨ The 12’ span bridge is located at Sullivan Avenue and was rehabilitated by DOT in 1986. The same abutments were maintained and replaced the top portion of the bridge.
¨ Research at the DOT revealed that hydraulics was not improved.
¨ F.E.M.A study is the best information and the most accurate. The Study shows the backwater produced by the culvert floods and inundates the culvert on the subject property. Increasing the width or adding additional culverts would not allow any more flow through because it is a flooding situation that’s produced by a downstream situation.
¨ Regarding the berm that the Town Engineer discussed regarding the spillage from running off sheet flow directly into the river; the parts of the site that has vehicular access is contained and is graded to catch basins or curb which are graded to leak off areas. This flow goes into a bio retention area.
Discussion continued:
¨ Clarifying flooding. The backflow doesn’t flood the site; the site is higher than the invert of the culvert (8’).
¨ Clarification of a metal culvert. Doolittle replies yes. The question is the size of the culvert and an analysis is needed. Information needs to be had as to whether or not the pipe is deteriorating.
Gerlt stated that the Town Engineer and Environmental Planner shall establish a bond amount for the repair/replacement of the culvert pipe. This was a condition of IWA/CC. A letter has been sent to Army Corps of Engineers requesting their input. He submitted the plan of 1981 that was approved by PZC and it shows, in the upper part of that plan, the footbridge crossing the river and the structure near where the transfer stations are proposed for, which was a sand/salt storage bituminous base area.
¨ A condition of approval would include that construction would not commence until the Army Corps of Engineers act on the culvert.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING/MADDEN ROOM
Public Participation
No one was present for public participation.
New Business
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
1, Request for five-year renewal for Appl 00-07P, Pleasant Meadow ’s Senior Residence Development (Exhibit B)
Attorney Dorian Famiglietti, representing the applicant, presented a history to the site, introduced Charles Bourget, the Contractor for the project, and the following are comments to her presentation:
Remaining to do is lighting, landscaping, and detention basins. A bond is in place to cover those items.
Final building is under construction. 6 units remaining. The units will be redesigned for 55 and over clientele. They are proposed to be single family, 1 floor living.
The project has taken longer than originally predicted resulting in the hiring of a new developer.
The lender desires a 3-year extension. However the project is proposed to be finished within a year.
Cost of the units will be approximately $300,000 or more.
Financing is required for outstanding punch list items, finish the common improvements, and to pay back taxes.
Lipe provided the following Planning report:
Request for renewal of site plan approval to extend the construction completion date beyond the 5-year original approval, for Pleasant Meadow SRD, Pleasant Valley Road, RR zone. This project was originally approved on March 28, 2000, for 20 units, which have since decreased to 18 units. Twelve units have been completed; the remaining six units have building permits to begin construction.
2. This development has been problematic and frustrating from the beginning of construction. There have been many instances where buildings and site components were not constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Builders and site managers changed constantly, thus hampering staff’s ability to obtain corrective actions when necessary. This project has also taken far longer to complete than a 20-unit project should take, without bona fide efforts to complete the project in any sort of timely manner.
Many of the original unit purchasers found themselves in a position where they had sold their existing houses based on a promised delivery date for a unit in Pleasant Meadow, only to find that their units were unable to be occupied due to code or site plan issues. Thus we found ourselves in the difficult position of prohibiting the new owners from moving in and leaving them with no place to live until issues could be properly resolved; or letting them occupy the units knowing that there were many unresolved site and building issues. As a result, there are occupants in the first two buildings who have been living for several years in an unfinished development, with unfinished infrastructure and a messy site. For example, several years ago a foundation hole was dug for the remaining
six-unit building, and the excavated soil was placed in a very large stockpile. The hole and stockpile continued to sit there despite our best efforts to obtain some relief for the current occupants. Occupants have expressed frustration over the last several years at having to live with these conditions. Our hands were basically tied until the expiration of the 5-year site plan approval.
3. As a result of all of these facts, staff was at the point where we were going to pursue calling of the bond and having the site improvements completed as we approached the expiration date of March 28, 2005. The new builder and new site financing arrived just in time to forestall our bond calling. The remaining building with its six units is finally under active construction. We all want to see this project completed, and as rapidly as possible. Thus, staff requests that the Commission extend the site plan approval for a minimal period, preferably one year, so that there is strong motivation to get this project completed. If at the end of the one-year extension, the applicant needs a further extension and construction has been occurring expeditiously
and in good faith, the Commission can entertain another request for a further extension.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
“The Town is currently holding a bond in the amount of $80,990. for unfinished site work. This includes the reconstruction/repair of the retaining wall, final paving course, topsoil seed, landscaping and miscellaneous items. We also have bonds for erosion and sedimentation control, landscaping and establishment of the detention basin. These bonds do not cover unfinished buildings”.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 00-05P, Pleasant Meadow ’s Senior Residence with conditions. There was no second.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns:
Three years is appropriate.
Number of units sold in the new area? No, because they haven’t built yet; there are no final contracts and they haven’t been declared yet. The foundation walls will be erected next week. People will take a reservation on the units when they are ready for sale.
Original price was $175,000; now $300,000 or more, clarify. The units have been redesigned and are market driven.
One of the reasons for SRD’s is to create affordability.
Units are designed as they are being built for the buyers.
Bonds will not change.
ADRC requirements. The applicant will use the same stonework and fit the existing design work.
Style of buildings. Lipe replied that the project went from an 8 L-shaped down to a 6 L-shaped with a redesign by the architect and they are all connected.
Lipe explained the bonding procedures for South Windsor.
Clarification of completeness. Complete is when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Wentzell noted that the development has been in lingo for a some time, the occupants have been awaiting punch lists to be accomplished, sale ability of the units is questioned at the price being requested, shells are being raised in hopes of sales, and all this is telling PZC that they should have specific steps along the way for completion or the neighborhood will be right back where it is presently. There are no guarantees.
Clarification of handicap units. The plans do not reflect handicap units for wheelchairs. There will be handicap units available.
The development has had a bad track record for the last five years. Responsibility is to the residents not to the bank.
2 years is enough to finish the development. If the lender does not agree then it may be in the best interest of the Community to pull the bond and finish the job.
Pacekonis made a motion to approve application 00-05P, Pleasant Meadow’s Senior Residence for two (2) years with the following modifications:
A preconstruction meeting must be held with Town Staff to review site issues and clarify construction schedules.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
The building street number must be included on the final plan.
Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
All site improvements must be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in the final building.
Slicer seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 05-11P, MASSCONN Distributors, LLC, request for site plan approval for a 28,242 sf manufacturing facility for property located at 12 Commerce Way, I zone
Chris Christensen, Alford Associates and representing the applicant demonstrated the differences in the placement of the building. Proposed placement of the building on the original plan was over unstable soil. Proposed building was moved from the center of the site to the southwest corner of the site.
Kristopher Ventura, Architect and representing the applicant, stated the design of the building has not changed, but there will be some internal changes. It will face the main drive as originally proposed. The doors that use to face the Fire Department now face the rear of the property and the dumpsters and loading docks face Commerce Way. Additional landscaping will be accomplished. Break up of the façade will be accomplished by using painted rectangles as originally proposed.
Lipe noted placement of evergreens along the easterly portion of the site and the raising of the berm along Commerce Way. She questioned why there would not be any fencing as originally proposed to which Ventura replied that landscaping screening was preferred. Lipe requested a revised lighting plan.
Doolittle noted 2 things that are outstanding, e.g. revised drainage calculations need to be submitted and an easement to the outlet to allow for maintenance purposes. The easement will contain a gravel road with topsoil over it; providing a stable subbase.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
Screening of dumpsters. Final girth of the screening will be approximately 25’, planted 15’ apart.
Pacekonis made a motion to approve application 05-11P, MASSCONN Distributors, LLC with the following modifications:
A preconstruction meeting must be held with Town Staff to review site issues and clarify construction schedules.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
The building street number must be included on the final plan.
Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
All site improvements must be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in the final building.
Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
3. Review of Quiznos’ Sign at the Shops at Evergreen Walk
After discussion the Commission came to a decision that the sign for Quiznos’ was in conformance.
4. Appl 04-82P, South Windsor Child Development Center, request for special exception to Section 5.6.3 and site plan of development to convert the existing house into offices at property located at 1333 Sullivan Avenue, RR zone
Lipe noted comments from the public hearing centered on a small gap of arborvitae be filled in.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 04-82P, South Windsor Child Development Center with the following modifications:
Concerns from the Commission centered on the future widening of Sullivan Avenue
Slicer seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
5. Appl 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 square feet under certain conditions
A lengthy discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns:
Postpone acting on this application because there are signage issues.
Avoidance of variances for size of signs is desired.
Wentzell noted grocery stores desire their signs, their size. If there is an open window there could be variances for signs and PZC would not be willing to approve the change. Evergreen Walk is a tone and texture development. Grocery stores should be scrutinized carefully.
Specialty stores are allowed, not grocery stores.
Signs are a separate issue.
EXTENSION OF TIME
Pacekonis made a motion to extend the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. McCann seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Larsen joined the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
Pacekonis left the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
Kennedy made a motion, with the elimination of the 3000’ separating distance requirement, to approve application 04-85P, Poag & McEwen Lifestyle Centers with certain conditions and with modifications. McCann seconded the motion.
Discussion continued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns:
Limit one grocery store in the development.
Shopping carts in the parking lot – adopt into regulation that a shopping cart management plan be submitted.
Commission should take this amendment slowly and watch the results.
Lipe reminded the Commission that any building in this development would come before the Commission for approval of the façade – pad is in place.
Larsen made an amendment to change the separating distance requirement to 1500’. Wentzell seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was 4-3 with Larsen, Slicer, Bazzano, and Wentzell voting for the motion. McCann, Kennedy, and Sullivan voted against the motion.
The original motion as amended was called. The motion carried and the vote was 6-1 with Larsen, McCann, Kennedy, Slicer, Bazzano, and Wentzell voting for the motion. Sullivan voted against the motion.
Appl 04-72P, Brightman Subdivision – request for two (2) consecutive 90-day extensions from the original filing date for recording mylars in the office of the Town Clerk
McCann made a motion to approve application 04-72P, Brightman Subdivision with the following modifications:
This approval is for 10 lots, numbered 1-10.
Concrete sidewalks, built to Town specifications, shall be installed on [one][both] side [s] of all new streets.
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 of $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 easements for conservation purposes, drainage or utilities, that may be required in connection 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.
Septic system and/or private well final design(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Environmental Health Officer prior to filing of mylars and issuance of building permits.
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 a 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, the Commission may, at its option, call the Letter it is 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 this Commission.
The Town Engineer’s review comments dated 1/3/05 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.
Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
BONDS: Calling/Reductions/Settings
Subdivision Bonds
Application 02-76P, Summerwood Subdivision, reduced to a maintenance level of $15,140.
McCann made a motion to reduce the above subdivision bond to a maintenance level which will expire on February 8, 2006. Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Application 00-32P, Evergreen Estates, reduced from $101,900. To $50,700.
McCann made a motion to reduce the above subdivision bond to a maintenance level which will expire on February 8, 2006. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES:
The minutes of January 25, 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
Appl 05-10P, Thomas Stecko, request for a 5-year in law apartment for property located at 40 Mara Trail , AA-30 zone
Appl 05-11P, MASSCONN Distributors LLC request for a site plan approval for a 30,055 sf manufacturing facility for property located at 12 Commerce Way, I zone
ADJOURNMENT:
Kennedy made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. McCann seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted
Phyllis M. Mann, Recording Secretary
| 
