MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Timothy Wentzell, Kevin McCann, Sue Larsen, Bart Pacekonis, Cliff Slicer and Patrick Kennedy
ALTERNATES PRESENT Michael Sullivan sat for Tim McCann during Application 04-69P, DBB Management, LLC
Marc Finer
Louise Evans sat for Gary Bazanno
STAFF PRESENT: Michele R. Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Wentzell opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Larsen read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday March 10, 2005 and Thursday, March 17, 2005.
Kennedy made a motion to adjust the agenda by hearing Item #3, first. Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
1. Appl 05-12P, Brodeur Major Home Occupation, request for a 5-year major home occupation to operate a hair salon on property located at 1075 Pleasant Valley Road, RR zone
Linda Brodeur stated she has been a licensed hairdresser in Connecticut for 30 years. Her intent is to put a one station salon in her home for family, friends, and few customers. She will work alone and will schedule customers one at a time by appointment only. She does not think that additional parking will be required. There are two entrances into the area proposed for the one station salon. The sign that is posted for the salon will meet the requirements of the Town.
Lipe provided the following Planning report:
Request for a 5 year major home occupation permit to operate a hair salon five days a week, Monday through Friday), 9 am to 4 pm and Wednesday 9 am to 8 pm, for property located at 1075 Pleasant Valley Road, RR zone.
The applicant is proposing to convert an area in the breezeway into the salon. There is a sketch of the floor area of the home occupation as well as a picture of the front of the existing house. There are no changes proposed for the exterior of the house.
The reasons for requiring PZC approval are to ensure that:
the home occupation is clearly secondary to the use of the building for dwelling purposes,
the home occupation is compatible with other permitted residential uses in the residential district,
the residential character of the dwelling and the neighborhood are preserved, and
all residents have freedom from excessive noise, excessive traffic, nuisances, fire hazards offensive odors and pollutants, and other possible effects of commercial uses being conducted in residential areas.
Performance criteria that must be met include:
Maximum of 25% of the floor area can be used for the occupation;
occupation cannot be visible from outside the dwelling unit;
dwelling must maintain the character of a single family dwelling;
no entrance or exit may be added solely for the occupation;
no more than one non-resident employee allowed;
the occupation can not create a volume of passenger or commercial traffic that is inconsistent with the normal level of traffic on the street;
all parking needs must be met on-site; and
the Commission may require screening of additional parking from the street and from adjacent residential properties.
The existing house is served by public sewer and water.
This application appears to meet the physical criteria for the home occupation.
The parking requirement is being met by space in the existing driveway. The applicant has indicated that she will only have one client at a time. We have some concern that no off site parking take place. The Commission may want to require a reserve area be shown for parking in the event that it is needed.
The applicant is allowed a two square foot sign, and a sketch of a proposed sign has been submitted.
If this application is approved, the applicant will complete a home occupation form, which contains acknowledgment that the applicant will abide by criteria contained in the zoning regulations. The applicant would also be required to return to this Commission for renewal upon expiration of the 5-year permit period.
Also, the Commission might consider adding as approval conditions limitations on number of days and hours of operation, or number of customers per day, in order to ensure that the intent of the home occupation regulations is adhered to.
There are no engineering comments on this plan.
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 Italics.
· Location of home and entrance to salon. The driveway and the garage are on Clark Street. The entrance is on Pleasant Valley Road.
· Clarification of entrances. Two doorways, two exits and entrances.
· Location of salon. The salon will be located in the existing breezeway.
· Short driveway; project coming up with re-alignment. Doolittle replied that the driveway would not be shortened that much (existing 21’ to the right-of-way) right of way has been adjusted to the roadway.
· Absence of list of chemicals used in the salon. Doolittle replied that he hasn’t heard about anything in regards to a home occupation or otherwise. WPCA does not see applications such as this; however they are reviewed by Staff...
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
2. Appl 05-02P, Emerald Green, request for a 3 lot resubdivision of 15 acres for property located on the easterly side of Ellington Road and northerly of Quarry Brook Drive, RR and A-20 zone
Attorney Atherton Ryan, representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
o Proposal consists of approximately 14 acres of land.
o It includes a proposed roadway to become a public road (Church Way).
o The length of the road will be less than 600’.
o Two large single family lots are located to the right as you enter Church Way; the third lot is a 12 acre lot which will be the subject of the second hearing (Teaberry Estates).
o A detention is planned to accept and control the on site drainage.
o Drainage will be piped along Church Way out to Route 30, across Route 30 and through a private easement to the Podunk River.
Karen Isherwood, Engineer and representing the applicant had the following comments in her presentation:
o Site contains overgrown agricultural fields and is surrounded by deciduous woods.
o Existing drainage flows in two directions, northwesterly overland to the Unity Church site and into the Lakewood pipe system. It also flows northeasterly overland to property owned by the Town of South Windsor.
o Plans reflect 3 single family house lots that meet all criteria.
o Lots will be served by a public road to be known as ‘Church Street’; 600’ in length, 26’ width.
o Public utilities will be provided for all lots. Water from Ellington Road and sewer which will be extended from the last manhole approximately 300’ south of the intersection of Church Street.
o A 4’ wide sidewalk will be provided along the perimeter of the roadway.
o Drainage improvements proposed are to provide and mitigate against the runoff associated with impervious coverage.
o Applicant has met with the developers of Podunk Ridge to secure an easement for drainage from this site.
o E & S Measures proposed will be appropriate, e.g. anti track apron at the entrance, silt fencing, and hay bales.
o Applicant will respond to the comments of the Town Engineer and comments from Town Staff.
o Water will be provided to residents westerly of the Church property.
o A profile of Ellington Road will be provided for the extension of the sanitary sewer.
Richard Boston, Landscape Architect and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
o Street trees will be provided to meet the Regulations, e.g. purple beech, oak, and sugar maples.
o There are existing trees that will be maintained, e.g. oaks, ash, and hickory. Several trees are 24” in diameter.
o Firs, spruces, and shrubs are proposed between the site and Unity Church.
o The basin will be seeded with tall fescue on the side slopes and with a wet mix that will be active in a wet bottom.
Lipe provided the following Planning report:
Request for approval of a subdivision to create 3 lots with a new public street from Ellington Road, RR zone. The site size is 15 acres.
Minimum lot size required in an RR zone subdivision is 40,000 sf. The minimum lot size proposed is about 43,600 square feet. Minimum required frontage is 175 feet; minimum proposed is 189 feet. Lot 3 is about 12 acres in size; an application for a Senior Residence Development on this lot is also the subject of tonight’s public hearing.
The proposed road is a 600 foot cul-de-sac from Ellington Road.
The plan shows a driveway interconnection to Unity Church. There will be no new driveway curb cuts for houses onto Ellington Road. The existing driveway at 887 Ellington Road will be relocated onto the new subdivision street. Sidewalks are shown on both sides of the new street.
There is no open space requirement for this subdivision because there are only three lots.
There is a small amount of regulated wetlands on the property. An application was approved by IWA/CC on Oct 20, with a $5,000 bond for erosion & sediment control, and a bond for $5,000 for establishment of the stormwater basin. However, since the original IWA/CC approval, a new stormwater system has been designed, and an application for a modification is pending with IWA/CC.
The site will be serviced by public water and sewer. WPCA approval is required.
Street trees are shown on both sides of the new street except for property of the existing houses. We have suggested that the street trees along the detention basin be distributed more evenly. Karl Reichle, Superintendent of Parks and Grounds, has reviewed the proposed street trees and has noted that the Town’s street tree specs need to be utilized and so reflected on the plans.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept has no additional approval conditions other than those items already noted.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report.
The proposed drainage discharge and easement on the west side of Ellington Road is not satisfactory to the Town for several reasons. There is a fence across the easement in two places that blocks access to the drainage structures and outlet. The standard Town drainage easement prohibits fences and other structures from being placed in the easement area. The easement area is too steep to allow maintenance vehicles to access to the drainage structures and outlet from the street. The outlet location will likely cause erosion of the bank and will be subject to siltation and clogging because the discharge is directed upstream and is on the outside corner of a sharp bend in the Podunk River. The drainage outfall is proposed down a steep slope consisting of highly
erodable soils as is evident by ground water breaking out at the toe of the slope and several eroded gulleys in the area. The applicant needs to look for a better location for this drainage line and discharge. We suggest an existing eroded gulley to the south of the proposed location. This could be filled and graded to repair the erosion and allow for access for maintenance as part of the pipe installation.
There need to be underdrains and outlets designed and built along side of the proposed stormwater discharge line to handle the groundwater and prevent erosion along the drainage line. Construction details need to be included for the outlet rip rap plunge pool/level spreader.
The proposed drainage manholes in Ellington Road should be moved to the curb line and changed to catch basins to catch stormwater runoff in the road. There is a long flat area in Ellington Road in this location that often has many large puddles.
Slopes of the sewer were questioned and the applicant will submit documentation relative to that. Details of the sewer need to be clarified and changed.
Water and sewer will be provided to the property at 909 Ellington Road.
WPCA approval and permit from the State is required for the driveway.
Wentzell requested public input.
Tim Friend, 887 Ellington Road, spoke in favor of this application.
Paul Otterway, President of Lakewood Association, spoke in favor of this application.
Rachelle Clark, 909 Ellington Road, spoke in opposition to this application. Her concerns centered on wells in the area.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· IWA/CC approval not received at this time. IWA/CC is keeping their public hearing open to clarify issues with drainage and Teaberry Estates is being kept open to receive input regarding the easement from Town Council.
· Application is premature – several unresolved issues, e.g. issues regarding slopes, absent of action by IWA/CC, and wells in the area.
· Clarification of the road. There is a 50’ strip that will be deeded to the Town.
· Maintenance of the sidewalks. JMJ to the north and Friends to the south.
· Clarification of sewer pipe. Increasing the pipe diameter has been done on other sites at a lesser slope which is an acceptable alternative; putting it outside the pavement area. This will be discussed with the Town Engineer.
· Replying to the drainage design, there were concerns relative to the stability of the slopes, not the amount of flow that was discharging out to the Podunk – similar to the flow coming down from Podunk Ridge. Flows are not exceeded.
· Replying to the well situation, the developers are working with the Clarks in resolving the connection of the water and the sewer to their property - Clarks are responsible for testing. Agreement will be completed before approval is received.
· Clarification of landscaping. Additional plant materials are being proposed along the property line for the Emerald Green resubdivision. Additional supplemental plantings will be part of the Teaberry Estates application.
· Clarification of the well situation. The applicant will assure hookup to water and sewer.
Evans made a motion to extend the public hearing of application 05-02P, Emerald Green to receive information from the Town Engineer, the applicant on the water situation, agreement for the easement to drain, and result from IWA/CC to April 12. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
3. Appl 05-03P, Teaberry Estates – Special Exception to Article 4.1.12 and Site plan of Development to create a 25 unit Senior Residence Development on property located on the easterly of Ellington Road and northerly of Quarry Brook Drive, RR zone
Attorney Atherton Ryan, representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
§ Site of this application will be Lot 3 of the Emerald Green Subdivision.
§ It is proposed to construct 25 single-family, detached buildings, 1 community building, and the road to serve the housing will be a private road maintained by the community.
§ Drainage calculations, traffic impact, landscaping, architecture, and physical construction will be addressed with this presentation.
Karen Isherwood, Engineer and representative of the applicant had the following comments in her presentation:
§ Road being proposed will be approximately 1200 linear feet, 24’ wide (Lavender Lane).
§ Site contains 12.1 acres.
§ Existing drainage is off center to the west.
§ Buffers and yard requirements have been met.
§ Net build able acreage will be 11.8 acres, 2.3 units per build able acre.
§ Coverage will be at 22.1%.
§ Parking requirements will be adequate – 80 spaces; additional 1 space for each unit and 5 additional spaces outside the community building.
§ Public utilities will be extended from Church Street.
§ The applicant is seeking a drainage easement to the Town property to the east.
§ The detention basin has been pulled out of the upland review area, smaller in size and providing micro pools for the water quality that is necessary for the development plus a 12” pipe. When the easement is acquired this will allow the applicant to secure drainage to the toe of the slope.
Jim Bubaris, Traffic Engineer and representative for the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
§ Studies covered the intersection to Podunk Ridge which is approximately 180’ to the south and projected upward for full development of Podunk Ridge.
§ Traffic recorders were installed on Route 30 by the site drive over a period of 5 ½ days along with the measuring of speed.
§ Senior residents tend to generate low traffic volumes than traditional residences of this type however the report is generated from a traditional condominium unit.
§ Estimation of the traffic, distribution was accounted for on the site drive, and an operation analysis was done to find the impact; Podunk Ridge was taken into account also resulting in levels of service remaining good.
§ Levels of service C exiting the drives and levels of service A for entrances.
§ Sight lines to the south are approximately 700’ and over 500’ to the north.
§ Road is posted for 40 MPH however the 85th percentile speeds in both directions is 45 mph.
§ Accident experience in this area is non existent.
§ There will be no adverse impact with the construction of the proposal.
§ Applicant will have to receive a permit from the CDOT for an encroachment permit for site drive
Richard Lawrence, Architect and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
§ Outside appearance of the buildings will be of a Colonial nature to be compatible with the area, low profile and single story units.
§ 4 different unit designs will be featured, (A, B, C, D); units have 2 bedrooms, full basement with walkout.
§ (A) unit will contain 1396 sf (8); (B) unit will contain 1560 sf; (C) unit will contain 1592 sf (10); (D) units will contain just under 2000 sf (7).
§ The Community Building contains 1055 sf.
§ Options will include reversing the buildings, restoration rounds (scalloped siding materials) which will be featured over the garages; screened in porches.
§ Vinyl siding will feature 4 different muted colors.
§ Exterior trim (garage doors and louvers) will be of a white color.
§ Roof shingles will consist of an architectural blend (weathered wood).
§ The front of the units will feature shutters in a choice of four colors.
§ All units will feature their own form of identity.
§ Materials were selected for durability and low maintenance.
§ All units have a master bathroom that is sized for a person with disabilities.
§ All units can be made handicap adaptable, through a ramping effect in the garage or the exterior.
§ All units will feature a paver brick terrace in the rear, and paver bricks in the front entrance.
§ Mechanical equipment will be screened by the dwelling unit or compatible white fencing.
Richard Boston, Landscape Architect and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
§ The proposal meets or exceeds the 25’ landscape buffer between the site and adjacent property.
§ Trees along the easterly property line include maples and sumac. It is desired to remove the bittersweet and brush that is located there.
§ Trees along the southerly property line will include pine trees, spruce, and evergreens (rhododendron).
§ It is intended to place an interplanted landscape buffer and to keep as much of the existing material as possible.
§ To the north (adjacent to Unity Church) there exist mature woods, oaks, maples, ash, and hickories.
§ No trees will be cut down within 25’- 35’ of the property line.
§ For winter screening it is proposed to add firs and spruces.
§ Between lot #2 and #3, there will be a 25’ evergreen screening, e.g. firs, pines, spruces, evergreen shrubs, and ornamental trees.
§ Street trees proposed will be sweet gum, oaks, and ash.
§ There is an open field to the east and that will remain as it is presently.
§ The detention basin will feature herbaceous plantings in the bottom to allow for nutrient and metal uptakes; and additional 20% organics to allow for the herbaceous plantings.
§ The sign is proposed to be 10’ back of the property line. The size is 22.5 sf, featuring routing (teaberries). The red brick for the foundation of the sign will reflect the color of the pavers used at each unit.
§ Lighting will be full cut off fixtures, black, 14’ high, and 150 watt high pressure sodium lighting complimentary to the lighting placed on the road for Emerald Green Subdivision.
§ There will be 2 locations where house shields will be, most cases will have coverage of average maintained foot candle of 0.6 foot candles.
§ Lawns will be proposed in and around the units.
§ Each unit will feature foundation plantings, e.g. evergreens, ornamental shrubs, perennials, annuals, and room for each unit owner to add their own touch.
Ryan stated that the applicant recognizes that a decision is required from IWA/CC. Also there is a need for an easement on the northwest corner onto Town property and applications have been made to Town Council.
Lipe provided the following Planning report:
1. Request for Special Exception and site plan approval to construct a 25-unit Senior Residence Development on 12 acres located on a new lot on the new Town road proposed with the Emerald Green subdivision, south of Unity Church and north of Quarry Brook Drive, RR zone.
2. The subject property is an island of RR zoning, along with Unity Church’s property, within an area zoned A-20. There are single family homes on the south and west sides, Town-owned open space on the east side, and Unity Church property plus a little portion of Lakewood DRZ to the north.
3. All proposed units are single-family units. The units would vary in size according to the new formula. The formula requires 30% of the units to be less than 1400 sq ft, not more than 30% of the units to be between 1800 and 2000 sq ft; and the remainder can be between 1400 and 1800 sq ft. The applicant is proposing 8 units at 1399 sq ft, 10 units at 1600 sq ft, and 7 units at 1,999 sq ft.
4. The Special Exception criteria for review of a SRD include:
a. traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood;
b. there will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area;
c. surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
d. impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, street, drainage system, sidewalks, and other elements of the infrastructure;
e. the land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse environmental impacts are created;
f. the SRD proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town Plan of Development;
g. the SRD proposal will help meet senior housing needs of South Windsor;
h. the location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents, or is within reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close proximity to or contains permanent open space land;
i. the SRD facility has been designed to meet the needs of handicapped residents or visitors; and
j. the architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and low profile.
5. The proposed density is 2.13 units per net buildable acre; maximum 3 units per net buildable acre are allowed. Proposed impervious is 22%; 60% allowed. Required parking is 1.5 spaces per unit, or 38 spaces; the applicant has provided 80 spaces, or 3.2 spaces per unit. All units have 2-car garages.
6. There is a sidewalk shown on both sides of the new street.
7. There are regulated wetlands on this site. This application is pending with IWA/CC.
8. If this application is approved, it will bring the total SRD units approved up to 246. The maximum number of units that the Commission may approve is currently capped at 250.
9. A community building is required since the developer is proposing 25 units; one has been provided near the entrance to the development.
10. Public water and sewer are available to the site. WPCA approval is required.
11. The site is predominantly open, with perimeter deciduous trees. The applicant is showing a 25 foot buffer along all property boundaries. The buffer area currently consists of existing deciduous trees. The applicant is proposing supplementing the deciduous trees with evergreen trees and understory shrubs. We note that all of the supplemental trees along the south boundary are outside of the actual buffer and thus are not subject to any restrictions on future removal. The buffer area itself does not appear to meet the buffer requirements of Section 10.4 because it is primarily deciduous.
12. The proposed storm drainage outlet onto Town-owned open space requires an easement from the Town. The Town Council has set a public hearing for April 4, and then will act on the request at an as-yet unspecified date following the public hearing.
13. The applicant submitted a traffic study that indicates that there will be little impact to the existing roadway network. There were neither sight line issues nor accident issues identified in the traffic report.
14. The Architecture and Design Review Board reviewed the plans on January 20. ADRC’s concerns included:
Appearance of garages protruding out in front of the houses. ADRC suggested elimination of some of the units to provide for side loaded garages to create a better design for the project;
Adequacy of the buffer along the southerly property line;
Sign design must be submitted including colors and lighting.
Additional base colors should be offered (not just one color as suggested)
ADRC reviewed project modifications on February 17. The applicant provided approximately 10 side loaded garages by introducing shared driveways. Front-facing garages were also modified to have two doors (and single doors on the side loaded garages) Adequacy of the buffer was addressed by supplementing the landscape plan with a variety of evergreens as well as understory plantings. A sign design was submitted – the sign will be 22 ½ sf, placed on a brick wall and lit from the ground. The sign itself will be a cream color with dark green lettering and the brick to be used for its base will match the brick to be used in the patio area and on the chimney. Finally, additional base colors will be offered for units. ADRC was pleased with the modifications.
15. 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.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests that the public hearing remain open until the applicant secures the appropriate easement from the Town Council.
Doolittle provided the following Engineering report:
1. The driveways shall be at least 20’ long between the sidewalk and the garage. The driveway at Unit 10 appears to be 19-20’. It suggested that a note be put on the plans that all driveways must be at least 20’ long from the sidewalk to the garage.
2. There is no foundation drain for unit 13 and 14 or the community building.
3. Several units are very close to the sidewalk in the streets, Units 1, 2, and 25, to the west of the site and they are the first units as you come up from the proposed street are 6’ to 7’ from the sidewalk. There are other units that are 12’ to 15’ from the sidewalk.
4. A swale and trench drain is needed between the sidewalk around the proposed cul-de-sac – Church Way which is west of this development. To catch runoff from this site there’s a steep slope from this site down to Church Way and a steep drive about of about 8% connecting the two.
5. Plans shows grading for drainage swales for drainage swales very close to the back of the buildings as we’ve seen in other applications. It may be difficult to work and maintain. It is requested for the applicant to install a perforated pipe and a stone trench to be installed behind the buildings to ensure positive drainage away from the back of the buildings – helps the water to drain into the collection system, even if the landscaping were to obstruct the drainage on the surface.
6. The proposed grade up the driveway from the cul-de-sac, known as Church Way, is 8% and it is suggested that this be lowered to 6% to match the maximum slope at Church Way.
7. There’s an angular change in grade going into the cul-de-sac and it is suggested to be revised to a vertical curve. There’s seven driveways proposed on the cul-de-sac as shown. It does not comply with the Public Improvement Specs that limit the number of driveways on a cul-de-sac – 3 – to allow room to push snow, to allow for utilities. It is suggested that this be revised accordingly.
8. The gravel access drive to the detention basin needs to be revised to the outlet structure.
9. The discharge from the detention basin as the Engineer has mentioned needs to be moved to the toe of the slope and include a level spreader there. Details are required.
10. It appears that an easement is needed from the downstream property owner to construct and maintain the drainage channel and or pipe on their property as well as the Town property.
11. Storm drainage pipes and structures need to be labeled under ‘Profile’.
12. Landscape plan still show many places as again has been seen on SRD’s where there’s conflict between street trees, lights, water, sewer, and foundation drains. This needs to be checked and revised accordingly.
13. I will contact the drainage engineer with comments on the revised drainage report.
14. The catch basins should have galvanized drains and grate.
15. With respect to the drainage easement onto Town property, we’ve asked that the easement be extended past the end of the pipe to the end of the constructed drainage way and on to adjacent property as necessary. The pipes should be extended to the bottom of the slope.
16. The Teaberry Estates SRD homeowners association should establish a fund for future maintenance of this pipe and drainage way.
Wentzell requested input from the public.
Tim Friend, 887 Ellington Road, spoke in favor of this application.
Paul Otterway, President of the Lakewood Association, spoke in favor of this application.
Rachelle Clark, 909 Ellington Road, spoke in opposition to this application. Her concerns centered on achievement of an agreement between the Clarks and JMJ regarding water connection.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Clarification of Unit 9 – garages facing towards the street. Diversity was the goal of the design. Access will be from the sidewalk because it is closest – depends upon the entrance to the unit. (Variety and positioning is the goal).
· Clarification of decks/patios. Decks and/or patios are an option or they can become a sunroom with an additional patio, none of the units will encroach upon the buffer.
· Location of the large trees. All the large trees are on the perimeter of the site.
· Need of a traffic light – 2 SRD’s in proximity to each other. It not known at this time when the Level of Service C coming out of the two driveways will become a Level of Service D or E.
· Request of Declaration and restrictions for the next meeting.
· Clarification of trim. The trim will be of a white aluminum clad wood.
· Clarification of parking at the Community Building. What is proposed is sufficient.
· Crosswalks placed on the street. No opposition to laying a crosswalk.
· Number of handicap units in the complex. 3 or 10% have to be designed for handicap to meet State Regulations. Others will have the capability to be adapted.
· Clarification of hooking water up to the Clark Residence. Teaberry Estates cannot be approved unless Emerald Green is approved. The applicant does not object to hooking up the water.
· Number of people within the Community Center. Approximately 59.
· Clarification of street names. Lipe replied that one will be a public road and one is a private road.
· Restrictions on units. Declaration not prepared as yet. This will be a common interest community and as part of that the requirements will be set forth. It has not been specified yet as to whether the age limit will be 55 or 62. The declaration will require at least one of the residents of each unit meet the age requirement.
· Clarification of sunrooms being added onto the units – this shall not increase the square footage of any unit above the maximum allowed for the classification of the unit that gets approved. Sunroom option is a 3 season room which does not affect the square footage – screened in, porch type scenario that’s unheated. This is not counted against the square footage that’s allowed.
Lipe replied that this Commission determined that 3-season room does not count towards the square footage. This has been done in Senior Developments as well as Design Residence developments which also have a square footage restriction. Lipe said she would research this topic.
· It is not desired to add sun rooms because of the footage involved. It is not desired to have ZBA grant variances for the changing of a 3 season room into a 4 season room. This would increase the size of units beyond limitations in the Regulations. If a sun room is added onto a unit the total square footage (including the sun room shall be within the limits of the classifications of units that are allowed within the Regulations.
· Applicant shall provide maintenance and snow removal of the sidewalk going out to Ellington Road. SRD Regulations allow Commission to require off site improvements for access. Lot #3 will be maintained by the Association.
· A liability and an obligation shall not be put upon the landowners to the north and south of that road – it’s an unfair burden.
· Facilities and open space available within reasonable proximity to this development. The Community Building, a walking trail off site, and the Town open space. It is agreeable for the applicant to provide a stone dust path to the open space.
· Review of the Special Exception criteria needs to be revisited.
· No reference to the Town Plan of Development – affordable housing. This will be addressed and brought forward at the next hearing.
· Clarification of poplar and sumac in the buffer – not part of a professional designed buffer. There is one area that contains large sumac and poplar trees. Majority of the plant material is ash, oak, and maples. It is proposed to integrate and interplant by adding spruce and fir trees.
· More detail of the buffer is requested.
· An outline of the requirement for this development is requested.
· Area contains restaurant, Lakewood, SRD, and a Church building and none of it is linked by sidewalks.
· Area is close to being developed but neighbors cannot walk because there are no sidewalks connecting the possibilities, i.e. visiting the pond, SRD’s visiting each other, walking down to the restaurant, and possibly the parking at the restaurant could be improved.
Kennedy made a motion to continue the public hearing for application 05-03P, Teaberry Estates to April 26th. Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
There was no public participation.
Appl 05-12P, Brodeur Major Home Occupation, request for a 5-year major home occupation to operate a hair salon on property located at 1075 Pleasant Valley Road, RR zone.
Discussion centered on concerns regarding the driveway, sufficient turnaround, and to provide off street parking.
Kennedy made a motion to approve application 05-12P, Brodeur Major Home Occupation with the following conditions:
Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 99-60P, Saving Bank of Rockville, Letter of Credit Renewal
McCann and Finer recused themselves from this application.
Lipe stated that when PZC approved the bank building, in lieu of sidewalks going along Ellington Road a bond was posted for $25,000. Idea was to connect sidewalks with Town Center, this has never occurred. The site plan is at the five-year period and the bank does not want to renew the bond. Lipe will contact Suzanne Choate to gain the status of the conceptual plan.
3. Appl 04-69P, DBB Management, LLC – request for two (2) consecutive 90-day extensions from the original filing date for recording mylars in the office of the Town Clerk. (Exhibit A)
Kennedy made a motion to grant two (2) consecutive 90-day extensions for the above referenced application. McCann seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
4. Appl 04-72P, RSK-KELLCO, Inc. – request for the construction of two (2) model homes at Brightman Circle (Exhibit B)
Lipe noted that it’s been some time since a model home was granted in a subdivision. PZC did grant model homes during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Also a building permit is not allowed until the bonds are posted. The model home scenario allows a builder to receive building permits without posting the large subdivision bond. CO’s are not granted prior to posting the bond. If this is granted there is standard criteria applied.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· No C.O.’s shall be granted for the model homes.
· Model homes have been allowed according to the size of the subdivision.
Kennedy made a motion to allow the two (2) model homes subject to Staff standard criteria for the above reference application. McCann seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ITEM: Adjournment
Kennedy made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted,
Phyllis M. Mann
Recording Secretary
| 
