MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Timothy Wentzell, Sue Larsen, Bart Pacekonis, Patrick Kennedy, Clifford Slicer, Gary Bazzano, and Kevin McCann arrived at the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Louise Evans sat for McCann until he arrived at the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Dan Jeski sat for Bazanno during discussion and deliberations regarding application 05-51P, Juknis Interior Lot
Michael Sullivan
STAFF PRESENT: Michele R. Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairman Wentzell called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Larsen read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday September 29 and Thursday, October 6, 2005. Appl 05-46P, Executive Court has been postponed until November 1, 2005.
Wentzell welcomed Boy Scouts in the audience who were interested in learning about the PZC process.
1. Appl 05-53P, Rebecca Fusco & Daniel Galovich, request for special exception to 7.1.2.4.a.5 and site plan of development for the construction of a barn and creation of an outdoor arena in the 100 year floodplain on property located at 215 Main Street, A-40 and FP zone
Galen Semprebon, Engineer, Design Professionals, and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
o Proposal is to construct a stable within the floodplain (Special Exception to Section 7.1.4.8.5).
o Waivers are requested for Section 4.1.10.d (stable to be closer than 100’ from a neighboring dwelling) and waiver for an A2 survey (allow presentation of compilation survey).
o Approval was received for the keeping of 4 horses using the existing barn on the southerly end of the property.
o There is an existing house, garage, shed, and barn on the property.
o Distance of the existing barn from house makes it prohibitive for the applicant to keep horses thus requesting to build the barn closer to the house where the utilities are more readily available.
o Site consists 4.9 ± acres.
o Property is cleared in front portion then drops off substantially down to wetlands then into a wet wooded area.
o The house, proposed stable (to rear of existing garage) and riding arena are out of the floodplain.
o Applicant received approval from IWA/CC through an administrative approval.
o A proposed access drive on the southerly end of the property is shown.
o Fencing is proposed on appropriate areas of the property.
Lipe provided the following Planning report:
Request for Special Exception to 7.1.2.4. A.5 to allow horse stabling/trail in the 100 year floodplain for personal use and approval under Section 4.1.9 for an outdoor arena as well as for a horse barn on 3.84 acres, located on the westerly side of Main Street, southerly of Chapel Road, A-40 and FP zone.
The applicant received approval from this Commission about a year ago to have horses on the property. At that time the applicant was reutilizing an existing barn on the property. This request involves the construction of a new barn as well as an outdoor riding arena in the 100 year floodplain.
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. She was granted a waiver previously for four horses.
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 new barn proposed is about 26 feet from the property line (does not meet the 40’ setback requirement) and 60 from the closest off site residence (does meet the 100 feet from any dwelling requirement) and is approximately 130 feet from the road (does not meet the required 150 feet)– therefore the applicant is requesting a waiver to these requirements.
A fenced area has been shown as well as an outdoor riding arena 66’ X 198’.
There are regulated wetlands on the property. The applicant received IWA/CC approval on 6/17/05 with no unusual approval conditions. Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner has requested that the applicant work with the Soil Conservation District to develop an agricultural waste program.
The applicant’s plan shows also indicates a second drive on the southern end of the property.
If this application is approved, the Planning Department request the hearing be held open to October 25 because the sign was only posted for 8 days – not the required 10 days.
Doolittle stated that assurance is required regarding the flood cut area provided – that it is at least equal to the graded and fill area that is shown on the plan. Also, it should be noted that a street cut permit will be required for the construction of the new driveway.
No one from the public spoke in favor of or against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in Italics.
· Clarification of location of the stable. Purpose was to elevate barn out of the floodplain.
· Clarification of gravel drive. Access is required for delivery purposes to the existing barn that will be used for storage.
· Additional road cut. The road cut meets the requirements.
· Clarification of flooding. It’s a rare occurrence, yet assurance is needed to have access to the horses in case of flooding.
· Flooding has been seen in this area within the last ten years.
· Elevation of house and stable. Finished house is at elevation 35.73 (basement at 28) stable will be at 30 ½.
· Storage of horse trailers. Existing barn will be used for hay storage and the horse trailer.
· Elevation of existing barn. It’s a 32 contour and out of the floodplain.
Wentzell noted that this public hearing would be kept open until October 25th.
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
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals, and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
ü Owner of the property will work with applicant to produce this multi-faceted/multiple uses known as ‘Adventure Quest’.
ü Proposal is for 100 Bidwell Road, JES Shepard Park, west side of Route 5, south of Governor’s Highway.
ü The proposed amendment was read into the record. (Exhibit A)
ü The site contains approximately 60,000 sf building with 20,000 sf having a warehouse type of setup.
ü Proposal is to modify the facility for Adventure Quest (indoor recreation) which centers on youth and family entertainment and associated ancillary uses associated with that.
ü There is nothing in the Hartford market at this time for this type of activity making this a true destination for indoor recreational uses which is multi faceted, e.g. corporate groups, seniors, youth, and families.
ü Need for this type of facility is growing, not only for the team building concept, but the need for indoor recreational uses – not enough adequate facilities for youth sports in CT.
ü Entrances will face Route 5 and Bidwell Road (cul de sac area).
ü A 21,000 sf indoor recreational facility – high ceilings – accommodating 4 basketball courts (these will promote tournaments that could be an economic generator for this region).
ü The remaining large expansive space will be utilitized by providing duck pin bowling, laser tag facility, bumper cars, party rooms, play maze for younger children, food & beverage areas, kitchen and dining area (snacks sandwiches, etc.), electronic games, billiards, shuffleboards; separate adult area, meeting space (conference rooms for group corporate meetings) etc.
ü There are columns within the space which will not work for basketball resulting in the columns being removed and netting will separate the activity areas for the various participants.
ü It is suggested that auctions and other entertainment can be held within the facility.
ü It is not proposed to accommodate volley ball at this time because it would involve lifting the roof to allow for required height and it is cost prohibitive at this time.
ü Bathrooms, wiring, lighting and other components are already in place yet the applicant is looking at approximately one million to redo the facility for what is proposed.
ü There are no outdoor activities associated with the amendment.
Dorothy Lewis, consultant for the applicant and employed by Fun Station Association, had the following comments in her presentation:
ü Submitted a handout to the Commission titled “How This Facility Can Benefit the Community”. (Exhibit B) Exhibit is self explanatory.
ü Current facility in Danbury has been successful for 15 years.
ü One of the more successful programs is working with the schools because the educational component has been brought into the business – this is not an arcade per se.
ü Offered programs include class trips, PTA meetings with babysitting ($3.00), home school children, latch key programs, scouts, community clubs, summer camps, homework rooms with computers.
ü Awards have been won by the Fun Station Association for their after-prom party and project graduation.
ü Senior citizens are offered bowling, classes in wellness, tax consulting, dance classes, computers, and exercise programs.
ü Success of the business relies on community based programs.
Mike Alves, CT Wave Orginzation, had the following comments in his presentation:
ü CT Wave is involved with primarily girls’ basketball teams.
ü Programs are family funded; this facility would reduce gym space charges.
ü 90 teams are brought in from the east coast area for tournaments.
ü S. W. EDC was positive about the potential income potential for the town.
DeMallie submitted letters of support. (Exhibit C)
McCann arrived at the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Lipe provided the following Planning report.
Request for amendment to Section 6.1.3.9 of the zoning regulations. Section 6.1.3.9 is the section that currently allows, by Special Exception, indoor recreational activities inside buildings that may be readily converted to traditional industrial uses, with the exterior of the building remaining industrial in appearance. The current regulation allows electric rides but not arcade games, theaters, bowling alleys, billiards or pool. The proposed amendment would modify that to a more general provision allowing indoor recreational activities.
The amendment also proposes that some uses be allowed as accessory uses only, including entertainment including music and dancing; consumption of food and beverages; game rooms; and auctions. The reason for allowing these specific uses as accessory uses only is to ensure that the entertainment center does not become solely a venue for activities that could cause concerns.
The Town Plan of Conservation and Development includes a recommendation for revitalization and redevelopment of Route 5. The Plan does not suggest types of businesses for the revitalization effort.
When a use is permitted in a zone, the courts have ruled that a Commission has already determined that the infrastructure in that zone is adequate for that use. Similarly, when you enact a regulation amendment, it is presumed that the infrastructure in the zone is suitable or you would not have adopted the amendment. A Special Exception gives an extra layer of protection because, by definition, it is a use that is just not suitable for every possible location within a zone. The Special Exception criteria are the guidelines for the circumstances under which the use is acceptable, and our Special Exception criteria include infrastructure capacity factors. Having said that, if an application meets the Special Exception criteria, it needs to be approved. Thus, this zoning amendment
application is the time to examine the potential impacts of the proposed amendment. The Commission has the ability to modify a proposed zoning amendment, which means the Commission can add Special Exception criteria if you choose.
The potential traffic impacts also need to be examined. This amendment applies solely to the Industrial zone areas, which are concentrated along Route 5 and the upper end of Sullivan Avenue. Generally, both Rt 5 and Sullivan Avenue are capable of handling large volumes of traffic. The biggest area of concern may be the intermingling of passenger car and truck traffic. We note that this intermingling occurs already with uses such as Whirlyball and the fitness facilities that are operating in industrial zones.
The Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed the amendment as required and reports that they find no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns.
The Director of Recreation has provided a memorandum of support for this application, which will be read into the record by the Commission secretary.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept has no requested modifications.
No one from the public spoke in favor of or against this application.
Larsen read into the record a letter from EDC, dated October 10, 2005 (Exhibit D) and a memo from the Director of Recreation, dated October 4, 2005 (Exhibit E).
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.
· Agrees with proposal because of the basketball courts and the economic development that it will bring.
· Refers to Section 6.1.3.9 and Section 5.2.2 (electrical and mechanical rides). Regulations include these types of rides.
· Use of alcohol. An ancillary use and will be promoted as a lounge with TV’s, billiards, etc. (only open to adults and separated from the children’s area).
· Opportunity for a qualified use and probability of using other obsolete buildings that have been standing vacant for some time. Many buildings are available (sat vacant for years), cannot be used for modern warehousing type of operation because of the low ceilings.
· Complete definition of recreation is required.
· Accessory activities required for profit. Yes; electronic games would be an important component, amusement rides and billiards, and a bowling alley.
· State: Liquor Control Board would be the involved with any liquor permit that was issued.
· Parking. Parking would be 1 space for 250 sf.
· Tournaments are an economic boom for the Town.
· Restaurant facilities being proposed will not be sufficient for influx of people.
· There is not sufficient gym space in South Windsor.
· Serving alcohol in these facilities would not be detrimental to the people of South Windsor.
· Concerns of staff. Traffic studies should be required at the time of any application.
· Other facilities in Connecticut are mixed in with industrial uses included recreation departments – cars and trucks mixed well.
· No downside to the Regulations is seen by this request for an amendment.
Wentzell reminded the Commission that the purpose for this evening is to review a change in the Regulations that applies to many parts of Town not just to the piece of property the applicant owns. Deliberations should center on the “what ifs” and whether or not the Regulations should be tighter to preclude certain things or limit certain things.
Wentzell closed the public hearing at 9.15 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIION:
Susan Aitner, 79 Deepwood Drive, requested a definition of ‘shall’ in the Zoning Regulations; check lists and their inclusion in the Regulations, demonstration by the applicant, and mandatory evaluation of something that PZC does not have.
Comments were as follows:
· Report from Town Staff involves a review for each application and whether or not it complies with the Zoning Regulations.
· There are many checklists, depends upon what is being proposed and what checklist is utilized.
· Mandatory evaluation if handled during the hearing itself with the examination of the application is terms of presentation of the plans and evidence presented to PZC – during the hearing process; a certain amount of discretion is given for experience and knowledge of the Town; PZC is allowed to make a discretion in determining the overall facts and presentation as a whole.
1. Appl 05-51P, Juknis Interior Lot – request for special exception to Section 4.6.1 of the Zoning Regulations and resubdivision to create one new building lot on property located at 477 Foster Street, AA-30 zone
Bazzano did not act on Appl 05-51P, because he was not present at the public hearing.
Kennedy made a motion to approve Appl 05-51P, Juknis Interior Lot with the following modifications:
Drainage and construction for this lot is subject to approval of the Town Engineer.
The lot shall be services by the Town of South Windsor sanitary sewer system and are subject to the approval of the Water Pollution Control Authority prior to filing of mylars and issuance of building permits.
Water shall be supplied to this lot by public water.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
Footing drains are required for the house. Prior to the building of any structure on a lot, a topographic map, drawn to a scale of 1” = 40’, shall be submitted, showing proposed contours, elevations and the location of the footing drains. No building permit will be issued until the proposed contours, floor elevations and locations of footing drains have been approved by the Town Engineer.
If, for any reason, finished grading and other 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.
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.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 4.13.10 of the zoning regulations.
The approved locations of the house, garage and driveway are an integral part of this special exception in order to preserve existing trees. If modifications are proposed subsequent to this approval, neither the driveway nor the structures will be allowed to encroach any closer to the north property boundary.
If driveway site drainage bypasses the catch basin in the road, the applicant will need to resolve the problem to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
In the event the Fire Marshall determines existing turn around is unnecessary, a change order relocating the house further south should be submitted and handled administratively by the town staff.
Slicer seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 05-58P, Kement Horses – request for approval of horses on property located at R002 Main Street, RR and FP zone
Nina Kement had the following comments in her presentation:
v Proposal is to construct a barn containing 4 horse stalls which meets the criteria under Section 4.1.9.
v Barn is 125’ from the street line, 40’ from property lines, and 100’ from dwelling located on adjacent properties.
v Paddock #1 will contain approximately 2.15 acres and paddock #2 will contain approximately 2.18 acres.
v Horses are standard bred (harness horse racing) and kept on the property until they are in racing form.
v A flex fence is being proposed along the Coltese property line.
Lipe provided the following Planning Report.
1. Request for approval under Section 4.1.9 to keep up to four horses on 11+ acres located on the easterly side of Main Street, just northerly of the East Hartford town line, A-40 and FP zone. The applicant’s intention is construct a single family house (on what is a lot of record) as well as a four horse barn stable.
2. 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.
3. The criteria include:
A minimum of two acres is required for the first horse and an additional acre for each additional horse.
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 applicant has shown a barn in conformance with these requirements.
A fenced area of at least one acre for each horse must be provided. In lieu of fencing, a riding ring may be substituted. The applicant has two large areas proposed as paddocks that will be fenced.
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.
4. The applicant has provided a plan, which shows the area fenced and the location of the proposed barn. A cut sheet of the fence and barn has been submitted.
5. Jeff Folger, Conservation officer, has indicated that the applicant should work with the Natural Resource Conservation Service to develop an agricultural waste program.
If this application is approved, the Planning Department has no modifications requested.
There was not an engineering report.
Wentzell requested input from the public.
Kevin Burnham spoke in favor the application.
John Cortese spoke on this application. His concern is the proximity of the horses to his property line; the inquisitiveness of his young family; and if there is an electrical fence, it should be at least 20’ off the property line.
Kement responded that she has no plans to have an electric fence.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Clarification of the use of an electrical fence. If the Commission so desires an electrical fence could be installed.
· Location and height of fence.
· Clarification of barns.
McCann made a motion to approve application 05-58P, Kement Horses with the following conditions.
1. The property must be fenced, in whole or in part, to contain the horses within the property.
2. All parking needs must be met on site.
3. Housing/stabling of horses is restricted to rear yard of the premises. Use of trailers for stabling horses is not permitted. The accessory building 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. Outside feed troughs must also meet these setback requirements.
4. 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.
5. There shall be no outside storage of feed or bedding material.
6. The applicant should work with the Natural Resource Conservation Service to develop an agricultural waste program.
7. The applicant must work with Town staff as to the location, type and height of the fence (considering the concerns of the adjacent neighbor), with a minimum offset of 3’ from the property line.
Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
BONDS
Appl 02-76P, Summerwood SRD, Horseshoe Lane Associations request for a reduction of bonds for improvements to the Summerwood SRD off Sharon Drive. Amount of bond is $53,530.00; recommended reduction $24,580.00; leaving a balance of $28,950.00
Kennedy made a motion to approve the above reduction for Appl 02-76P, Summerwood SRD. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
APPLICATIONS TO BE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED
1. Appl 05-61P, DBB Management, LLC Zoning Amendment – request for an amendment to add Section 5.2.4.5 to the Zoning Regulations to allow display/storage of new seasonal equipment in the General Commercial Zone providing it meets specific criteria.
2. Appl 05-62P, DST Output Technologies Phase III – request for a site plan modification for a 43,316 +/- sf addition on property located at 125 Ellington Road (easterly side of Ellington Road, northerly side of Burnham Street), I-291 CD zone
3. Appl 05-63P, DBB Management, LLC – request for site plan approval for property located at 59 & 67 McGuire Road, GC zone
OTHER BUSINESS:
A request from CVS for an outdoor storage bin for the holiday season to be removed January 15, 2006.
After discussion it was the consensus of the Commission that this was not desired.
ADJOURNMENT:
Agenda was completed and meeting ended at 10:00 p.m.
________________________________ respectfully submitted
Date Approved
Phyllis M. Mann
Recording Secretary.
| 
