MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Timothy Wentzell, Patrick Kennedy, Sue Larsen, Gary Bazzano; Kevin McCann arrived at the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Louise Evans sat for Clifford Slicer
Dan Jeski sat for Bart Pacekonis
STAFF PRESENT: Michele R. Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Larsen read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on September 1 and 8, 2005. McCann was not present for the public hearings.
1. Appl 05-49P, Snowbusters Major Home Occupation – request for a 5 year major home occupation for a snowplowing/lawncare business for property located at 365 Diane Drive, A-30 zone (Exhibit A)
Ed Devanney had the following comments in his presentation:
§ Business has been run out of the home for the past 12 years.
§ There have been no complaints except for the truck parked in the driveway with a sign on it.
§ Equipment leaves at 7:30 a.m. and does not return until 3:30/4:30 p.m.
§ There is no storage of material on the property – only a truck and snowplow in the rear yard – not seen from the road.
Lipe provided the following Planning Report to the Commission.
1. This is an application for a 5-year major home occupation to operate a lawn care and snowplowing business from property located at 365 Diane Drive, A-20 zone. This request occurred as a result of a zoning complaint and subsequent enforcement activity by us.
2. The applicant has submitted a narrative defining the scope of the business, which indicates that there is one trailer for equipment and that they leave the site daily at 8 am and return around 3:30 pm.
3. The equipment used in the business consists of a dump truck, trailer, bobcat, snowplow and miscellaneous lawn care items. We are providing pictures to the Commission – one taken last winter when the business was first brought to the town’s attention; and a recent photo showing the equipment currently being stored on site behind an existing shed. It appears that the applicant must cross over his lawn area to access this spot.
4. The applicant has indicated that the trailer and other equipment will be stored to the rear of the house and is proposed to be screened by a stockade fence. Staff is looking to define how big of an area will be enclosed? And secondly, will the applicant be accessing this area during the winter across the lawn?
5. 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.
6. Performance criteria that must be met include:
¨ Maximum of 25% of the floor area can be used for the occupation;
¨ occupation cannot be visible from outside the dwelling unit;
¨ dwelling must contain the character of a single family dwelling;
¨ no entrance or exit may be added solely for the occupation;
¨ no more than one non-resident employee allowed;
¨ the occupation cannot 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.
7. The applicant has indicated that there are no other employees involved in the business. We do note that generally landscaping/lawn care operations as home occupations have resulted in neighborhood complaints and opposition when the landscaping businesses start growing, adding more equipment, storage and employees. It should also be noted that no outdoor storage of material is allowed.
8. The regulations allow for a two square foot sign; however no signage is proposed at this time.
9. Fred Shaw, Sup’t of Pollution Control, has reviewed the proposal. He had indicated that the owner must provide for business generated waste/ recyclable collection and disposal separate from residential collection.
10. 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 upon expiration of the 5-year permit period. Staff requests that the Commission include an approval condition that the permit is specific to the existing situation, with the single trailer. Any proposal for modifications, including additional equipment storage at this location, should return to the Commission for approval.
Wentzell requested public input.
Vito DePinto, 330 Diane Drive, spoke in opposition to this application. His concerns centered on storage of equipment and firewood; gasoline, truck noise, unsightly mess of the property, impact on surrounding property values, hosing of equipment to clean it with residue going into the soil, weekends repairing of vehicles occurring on the property and trucks being left on the street – hazard for neighborhood young children. DePinto submitted a petition signed by 90% of the residents on Diane Drive.
Donald Daley, 55 Diane Drive, spoke in opposition to this application. His concerns centered on trucks being parked in the street and street sweeping occurring/hazard for children, activities being carried on is annoying for the neighborhood, and residential areas should not be used for commercial activities.
Andy Knight, 180 Diane Drive, spoke in opposition to this application. His concerns centered on the impact on property values, and referred to Section 4.8 of the Zoning Regulations and 4.8.3, Performance Criteria of Major Home Occupations.
Peter Bortolan, 355 Diane Drive, spoke in opposition to this application. His concerns centered on Major Home Occupations being inappropriate for Diane Drive.
Ruth Bortolan, 355 Diane Drive, spoke in opposition to this application. Her concerns centered on zoning enforcement in South Windsor.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Trailers and performance criteria. Most home occupations approved have a garage for storage purposes.
· Covenant restrictions. Trailers and clothes lines are prohibited.
· Clarification of pictures. Photos taken in March and in September by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
· Storage of equipment on the property. 1 trailer, bobcat does not stay in driveway, and a camper.
· Debris in rear yard. Debris is from yard and includes stacked wood; recycling materials.
· Sand truck on the property. Used for plowing and sanding in commercial and residential areas
· Extra plow left in front of house, truck tires, and bags in the rear of the property. Bags are sand bags.
· Hours of operation. Winter operation is a 24 hour business; trucks have warning beepers on them for back up purposes.
· Clarification of sons involved in business. There are 2 sons, 1 has the business, owns some of the equipment on the property and lives at 365 Diane Drive, the other son is crippled and cannot work – thus the reason for the firewood being stored on the property which is for him and his home in Coventry.
· Storage of salt on the property. No there is no storage of salt on the property.
· Clarification of firewood. Firewood is donated to churches for raffles and is for the son in Coventry, very few retail sales, firewood is not from premises.
· Equipment on property. 3 motor vehicles, trailer, and flatbed, applicant is willing to fence in equipment with an 8’ stockade fence.
· Scope and magnitude of activity is not fitting for a residential area, storage of these vehicles is desired in a commercial area and the applicant is advised to do so.
· Clarification of what is kept in shed. Household items.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Appl 05-49P, Hunt Accessory Apartment – request for special exception for an accessory apartment at 1090 Avery Street, RR zone (Exhibit B)
Paul J. Hunt had the following comments in his presentation:
o Inlaw apartment has been in existence for some time, former owner rented the inlaw apartment.
o Present owner uses it as an in law apartment and has permission to do so.
Lipe provided the following Planning report.
Request for Special Exception for an accessory apartment at 1090 Avery Street, RR zone. The applicant is proposing to convert an existing in-law apartment into an accessory apartment. It is our understanding that the existing in-law apartment is already being rented as an accessory apartment, brought to our attention by our assessor’s office. There is an active in-law apartment approval at this address that expires in Sept. 2007, which requires that the apartment space be converted back to living quarters for the main dwelling unit when the in-law apartment is no longer being used for relatives.
An accessory apartment differs from an in-law apartment in that an accessory apartment is not restricted to relatives and does not have to be converted back into living space for the main unit when the in-law apartment occupant no longer lives there. As with all special exceptions, the apartment approval runs with the property in perpetuity.
The PZC accessory apartment regulation has specific criteria for the unit, including:
The apartment cannot be larger than 700 sq ft or 40% of the gross floor area (whichever is smaller).
The main unit was constructed prior to September 1, 1990.
the entire structure must maintain the appearance of a single family dwelling;
off street parking for three vehicles must be accommodated;
Not more than 10% of the existing single family units within 1000 feet of the proposed accessory apartment contain accessory apartments or in-law apartments;
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
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 impacts on existing uses in the area;
Surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
Due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
The original house was built in 1970 and is approximately 2,746 sq ft. The apartment is approximately 873 square feet, or 32% of the combined gross floor area. The applicant is requesting a waiver for the size of the unit.
The applicant has submitted a plot plan showing the existing house, a floor plan for the apartment and photographs. There are no exterior changes proposed for the house.
The house is served by public sewer and public water. The applicant will have to contact the building department to see if any further permits are necessary for this conversion.
There is no PZC-approved in-law or accessory apartments within 1000 feet of this subject property.
The owner of a house with an accessory apartment must reaffirm biennially to the Commission that one of the dwelling units is occupied by an owner of the property.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept would request an approval condition that the applicant continue to work with the building department to finalize any building changes required by code.
No one from the public spoke in favor for or against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in Italics.
· Changing situation and size of accessory apartment.
· Entrances. There is an entrance on the side of the house, extra room that is being added on will account for another egress.
· It is not desired to establish a duplex house.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
1. Appl 05-42P, Birch Mountain Earthworks – request for special exception to Section 6.1.3.2 and site plan of development for the construction of a 5,000 sf building for the operation of a landscaping business on property located at 11, 23, and 55 Kimberly Drive, I zone
Lipe provided a summary of this application for the Commission.
Kennedy made a motion to approve the above referenced application 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.
4. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
5. Footing drains are required if the building has a basement.
6. A landscape bond in the amount of $5,000. is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
7. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
8. This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
9. If a State Traffic Commission certificate is required, no building permit will be issued until the certificate has been issued ( per CGS #14-311).
10. The building street number must be included on the final plan.
11. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
12. Zoning data table should reflect the zoning for the property as a combined lot.
13. Equipment to be offered for rent and/or sale in the approved display area is limited to two pieces with a maximum of 10,000 pounds each.
Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 05-47P, Goldblatt Horse Arena – request for site plan approval for the construction of an indoor riding arena and the keeping of horses for personal use on property located to the rear of 1116 Main Street, A-40 zone
Attorney David Parke, representing the applicant, had the following comments in his presentation:
§ Site contains approximately 4 ½ acres.
§ The facility is for personal use by Mrs. Goldblatt and family and contains approximately 12,000 sf.
§ Site was purchased from Mrs. Russell Levack, Goldblatt resides across the street where he keeps his horses and the arena is an extension of that use.
§ Horses are trained in dressage inside the arena.
Rusty Levack had the following comments:
§ Levack’s sister owns the barn, in 1990’s the barn was deteriorating; it was rebuilt resulting in the barn being moved slightly and now encroaches on the property at 1116 Main Street.
§ Barn has been used for horses.
§ 40’ off property line for keeping of horses. This site is grand fathered, not a new property line.
Lipe provided the following Planning report.
Request for approval under Section 4.1.9 to construct a 12,000 + sf riding arena on 4.48 acres to the rear of 1116 Main Street, located on the easterly side of Main Street, southerly of Governor’s Highway, A-40 zone.
This rear parcel was created through a land division under section 8-3 of the state statutes which allows land division for agricultural purposes. The applicant is not proposing a building lot with this split. We have advised the applicant that once the land is conveyed, it will no longer meet the criteria for an interior lot in the future.
The applicant has provided a plan that shows the proposed indoor arena, and an access and utility easement over an existing unpaved driveway that currently exists on site.
General criteria for keeping horses for personal use include due consideration to the conservation of property values; the general character of the neighborhood, and the general welfare of the Town. In addition, there are specific criteria that apply, however the Commission can waive these requirements when the site does not lend itself to strict conformance.
The criteria include:
A minimum of two acres is required for the first horse and an additional acre for each additional horse. It is our understanding that the horses are not being stabled on this property, but will be brought here to use the riding arena. If horses are stabled on-site, under current regulations the applicant would be allowed three horses on this property.
Housing/stabling of horses is restricted to the rear yard of the premises. The accessory buildings used to shelter or feed the horses must be located at least 125 feet from the street, 40 feet from any side or rear property line, and 100 feet from any dwelling located on an adjacent property. The riding arena is proposed 43’ from the northerly property line and approximately 435 feet from the front dwelling. The riding ring will be approximately 590 feet from the road.
A fenced area of at least one acre for each horse must be provided. In lieu of fencing, a riding ring may be substituted.
Manure shall not be allowed to accumulate to cause any health hazard, and shall be subject to inspection by the Health Officer. Fly control measures shall be required; and
There shall be no outside storage of feed or bedding material.
If this application is approved, the Planning Department requests an approval condition requiring the A-2, T-2 certification be added to the layout plan so only one sheet needs to be filed in the office of the town clerk.
Wentzell requested input from the public.
Kathleen A. Young spoke in favor of this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· The front piece of the property is not being conveyed in ownership, just the rear piece of property.
· A cross easement is being granted to allow access to the rear.
· Fence. There is no fence; horses will not be outside – just inside the riding arena.
· Stabling of horses. Stabling of horses will occur across the street.
· Building construction. Factory built metal framed.
Evans made a motion to approve Appl. 05-47P, Goldblatt Horse Arena with the following conditions:
1. Housing/stabling of horses is restricted to the rear yard of the premises. Use of trailers for stabling horses is not permitted. The accessory buildings used to shelter or feed the horses must be located at least 125 feet from the street, 40 feet from any side or rear property line, and 100 feet from any dwelling located on the adjacent property. Outside feed troughs must also meet these setback requirements.
2. Manure shall not be allowed to accumulate to cause any health hazard, and shall be subject to inspection by the Health Officer. Fly control measures are required.
3. There shall be no outside storage of feed or bedding materials
4. The A-2, T-2 certification must be added to the layout plan and that sheet must be filed in the office of the Town Clerk.
Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
3. Preliminary discussion with Scott Kelley, 389 Slater Street, South Windsor regarding property on Pleasant Valley Road
Kelley had the following comments in his presentation:
o Site is at 428-450 Pleasant Valley Road
o Site involves two parcels, one with an existing brick house (4 acres) and the other with an existing brick house and a tobacco shed (4.7 acres); houses were built in the fifties.
o Request is for a zone change from Industrial to A-20.
o Site has commercial to the west, industrial to the north, and residential to the east and south.
o Property behind the residences to the south is wetlands and non-buildable.
o Proposal is to subdivide into 6 lots with a parcel in the rear; objective is to retain the two existing brick houses and to build 4 houses.
o There is a natural watercourse that prevails on the northerly border and easterly border then flows down to the Podunk River.
o Proposal is to keep the character of the neighborhood that surrounds it except for the industrial property to the north – the rear parcel will be a transition between the industrial and residential area.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in Italics.
· Why is site unsuitable for industrial use? The residential area to the east and south do not desire industrial use of that property – neighbors were polled and their preference is residential homes.
· More appropriate for residential use and a logical location for residential.
· Important for preservation of the brick houses.
· Residences on the south side are locked in by the flood plain.
· Pending procedure. Two applications will be filed, one for each parcel, the line exists before 1990 in order to meet the rear lot provision, property is 450’ deep, the parcel could be conveyed to one of the lots.
· 2 rear lots can be done on a piece of property.
· Existing residential area will not like industrial use next to them.
· It is desired to review the existing map and uses before making a determination; in the meantime an application for a zone change would be accepted.
4. Appl 05-03P, Teaberry Estates Senior Residence Development – request for building permits for 2 model homes and the clubhouse (Exhibit C)
Kennedy made a motion for permits for 2 model homes; clubhouse not included. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
5. Appl 05-02P, Emerald Green Subdivision – request for a building permit for 1 model home (Exhibit C)
Kennedy made a motion to deny the above referenced request. Larsen seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
BONDS
IWA/CC Bonds
Appl #04-06P, Quarry Brook Village, E & S: Present amount is $5,000; reduction is $5,000; remaining balance is -0-
Appl #04-06P, Quarry Book Village, wetland planting: Present amount is $5,000; reduction is $5,000; remaining balance is -0-
Appl #03-13P, Lynnwood Estates: Present amount is $2,500; reduction is $2,500; remaining balance is -0-
Appl #03-13P, Lynnwood Estates (Lot #1): Present amount is $1,000, reduction is $1,000; remaining balance is -0-
Appl #03-13P, Lynnwood Estates (Lot #2): Present amount is $1,000, reduction is $1,000, remaining balance is -0-
Kennedy made a motion to approve the reductions of the above referenced bonds. Evans seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES
The minutes of June 14, 2005, July 26, 2005, August 16, 2005, and August 23, 2005 were accepted by consensus of the Commission.
APPLICATIONS TO BE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED
1. Appl 05-56P, Dawn Swartzlander – request for special exception to 5.2.2.16.3 and site plan of development to operate an animal grooming salon, to be known as “Pupperdoos, LLC Grooming Salon”, on property located at 601B Sullivan Avenue, GC zone
2. Appl 05-57P, Nation Zoning Amendment – request for an amendment to Section 6.1.3.9 to modify the regulations related to indoor recreational uses in the Industrial Zone.
3. Appl 05-58P, Kement Horses – request for approval of horses on property located at R002 Main Street, RR and FP zone.
ADJOURNMENT:
Kennedy made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
________________________________ respectfully submitted
Date Approved
Phyllis M. Mann
Recording Secretary.
| 
