MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Bart Pacekonis, Michael Sullivan, Louise Evans, and Gary Bazzano
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Dan Jeski sat for the vacant seat after the Annual Meeting.
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM 7:15 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER:
Banach called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
1. Annual Meeting
a. Election of officers.
Evans made a motion to nominate Kennedy as temporary Chairperson. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Susan Aitner, 19 Deepwood Drive had questions revolving around the Bylaws and its referral to the Ordinance. She suggested that the Commission review her proposal and consider updating the Bylaws.
MINUTES:
The minutes of September 27, 2005, October 11, 2005, and October 25, 2005 were accepted by consensus of the commission.
Pacekonis made a motion to recess the meeting and proceed to the Council Chambers. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Evans read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, November 3, 2005 and Thursday, November 10, 2005.
1. Appl 05-52P, Charter Oak Education, Inc. – request for special exception to 4.1.8b and site plan of development for reuse of the building for a small private school, on property located at 414 King Street
Trevor Forbes, Director and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
o Provided background of the school which includes 6th through 11th grade, and association with Sterling Education from Michigan.
o Students are from a close knit community with conservative Christian beliefs providing a class room environment and certified teachers – religion will not be taught in the school.
o 8 students are involved and hours are 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, schedule mirrors public schools.
o No extra curricular or evening activities.
o Abutting property owners have been contacted and they have no complaints.
Banach provided to the Commission the following Planning report:
Request for a special exception to article 4.1.8.b to operate a small school at 414 King Street, RR zone. This existing house was previously approved as a day care in 1994. A new applicant is now is seeking approval for a small private school.
The applicant has provided a narrative that indicates that the current enrollment for the 05-06 school years is 8 students, grades 6 thru 11 with 1 paid teacher as well as parent volunteers. The applicant has indicated that they hope to grow to have a second teacher on staff and have a projected enrollment of 8 to 10 students over the next few years.
The general criteria include for special exception uses in the RR zone include:
traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the area
minimal adverse effects on the existing uses in the area
surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted
the land is physically suited to the proposed use, and
due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
We would note for the Commission that if a special exception is granted for the school use, it does not allow other commercial uses on this site. Any future owners would be restricted to either residential use or school use strictly in conformance with the PZC approval for the site.
There are two existing curb cuts for this property – one on Burnham Street and one on King Street. The King Street entrance is the primary entrance that will be used. There are currently 8 parking spaces on site and there are no changes proposed to the existing parking area. The applicant has indicated that traffic to and from the site will be approximately a maximum of four cars with the parking lot having an average of four cars parked in it on a daily basis.
There are no regulated wetlands on the site; and conservation plan approval is not required.
The site would be served by a septic system and public water. Town Sanitarian Bob Deptula has reviewed the site and determined the septic system to be adequate for school use.
Bill Lanning, the town’s fire marshal, has indicated that if this application is approved, the facility will have to be inspected to be sure that it complies with the fire code as an educational facility. The Building Department has indicated that they will be looking at code requirements for small educational facilities, and encourages the applicant to touch base with the Building Department as soon as possible to begin the review process.
The Supt. of Pollution Control has indicated that solid waste and recycling services must be provided by the school; Town residential trash pickup and recycling are not available to non-residential uses.
Current impervious coverage is 24%; 50% allowed.
If this application is approved, the Planning Department has no requested modifications.
There was no Engineering report.
No one from the public spoke in favor of or against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Where children are from. Manchester.
· Structural changes. There will be no structural changes.
· Prediction for future enrollment. Projections 5-10 years; it is not anticipated more than 10-15 students – building would be adequate for that number of students.
· Accreditation? Students at this school received their diploma in the 11th grade – not the 12th.
· Traffic/parking. Original daycare handled up to 40 children. There are 8 available parking spaces and 4 will be utilized regularly.
Kennedy closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
2. Appl 05-59P, Woodwright Homes, LLC – request for a zone change of 8.74 acres from Industrial to A-20 Residential for property located at 428 and 450 Pleasant Valley Road (northerly side of Pleasant Valley road, westerly of Hilton Drive)
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals, Inc. and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
ü Site is open with 2 existing houses and a barn.
ü Site is surrounded by residential housing from Jeffrey Drive up to Ellington Road; north and west of the site is Industrial.
ü The property is inappropriate for industrial use.
ü The applicant visited the neighbors resulting in their surprise that the property was zoned industrial and support him with his efforts in changing the zone to A-20.
ü It is intended to retain the 2 existing houses and add 4-5 single family residential homes.
ü Property of the north is Industrial (accessed from South Satellite Road) vacant and has a ravine, brook, and wetlands; property to the west is Industrial; property to the east is residential.
ü He read into the record a letter from J. E. Shepard to the applicant, dated November 15, 2005. The letter supports the applicant and requests that the zoning exclude a 50’ strip along the westerly property line, beginning at the end of the access road to the Shepard property. (Exhibit A)
ü Questioning whether or not PZC would require a 50’ on the Industrial side plus a 50’ buffer on the residential side.
Banach provided the following Planning report:
1. Request for zone change from RR to A-20 for property located 228 and 250 Pleasant Valley Road. The total area of the request is 8.74 ac. The minimum lot size in the existing zone is 40,000 sq ft; the minimum lot size in the requested zone is 20,000 sq ft.
2. The Town Plan is inconclusive regarding whether this site is designated for residential or economic development. The site is surrounded by Industrial zone to the north, south and west, and A-20 zone to the east.
3. Section 16 includes criteria for zone change:
How the zone change compares with the Comprehensive Plan of Development;
How the land shall be secured from flooding and other dangers;
How the land upstream and downstream in the same watershed shall be secured from flooding and other dangers;
How the land shall be served by water, sewerage, transportation, and other public utilities; and
How the proposed zone change will affect any wetlands in the area.
4. The possible uses in this zoning category include single family homes, places of worship, essential community services, and housing for the elderly.
5. A zone change is the appropriate time to discuss impacts. Staff notes that it is typical for residents who abut commercial or industrial zones to object when permitted uses are proposed in the commercial or industrial zone. Thus it is likely that if the Commission rezones the subject property, the new residents will in the future object to new industrial uses. On the other hand, the traffic impact of several residential lots is likely to be much less than the traffic impact of industrial uses.
6. There is a buffer requirement on both the industrial and the residential side of a zone boundary. Thus, if this land is rezoned, all new lots along the industrial border will be required to have a 50-foot buffer in addition to the required yard setbacks. Also, the 4 acre industrial property located just west of Woodwright Homes’ property will then become subject to a 50-foot buffer along the new zone boundary—a requirement that the industrial property does not have unless this application for zone change is approved.
7. The wetlands map does not show any regulated wetlands on this site but there is an active drainage channel through this property that may be classified as a regulated watercourse. The Town Engineer has indicated that the drainage channel needs to be maintained and incorporated into any proposed site plans so it continues to function to drain surrounding properties in this area.
8. Public water and sewer are available.
9. It is possible that one or both of these existing properties is entitled to a free split before a subdivision approval is required; research would be required for documentation if the applicant chooses to pursue this route. Otherwise, subdivision plan approval would be required prior to construction of houses on this site.
If this zone change is approved, the Commission must state on the record that you have found the zone change to be consistent with the plan of conservation and development.
Kennedy requested public input.
Leonard Pelletier, 31 Hilton Drive, spoke in favor of the application; the parcel of land in question has not experienced any flooding in 47 years.
Paul E. Pepper, 5 Hilton Drive, spoke in favor of the application.
Barbara Picard, 71 Hilton Drive, spoke in favor of the application, yet had concerns with flooding in her rear yard.
Susan Aitner, 19 Deepwood Drive, had questions concerning the wetlands and the access way.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Drainage swale effect on zone change. There is an existing brook in the northerly portion of the property and it will receive stormwater drainage – it serves a large watershed; there are wetlands associated with the watercourse; any development proposal will assure that houses are safe from flooding through an engineering exercise that will be accomplished; it is likely that the proposed development will feature a storm water detention basin; proposal will connect to existing utilities; transportation will include passenger cars and delivery commercial vehicles; and zone change does not affect wetlands.
· Future construction. It is intended to construct 6-7 house lots (less than 1 per acre) plus retain the existing 2 houses.
· Clarification of buffers and willingness on the part of the applicant to provide the buffer on his property for the industrial land. Yes. This is typical of where an access has been left (50’ in width) to the property in the rear (Shady Brook on Strong Road is an example).
· Possibility of zone change on industrial property. There was no discussion regarding this.
· Buffers being discretionary. PZC will review these regulations – they are not clear; not to deny access for property owners.
· Purposes of buffering. The purpose of buffering is not to buffer industrial use from residential use but to buffer residential use from industrial use; proposal will require buffering along the access road to protect the residential area from heavy trucks, etc.
· If a buffer is required from where the Industrial line starts (even over the access way) would it be preferred to keep the Industrial zoning along the entire strip on the westerly side of the property? If it is concluded that a buffer is required adjacent to the access point then it would be requested to withhold from the zone change (the 50’ strip along the westerly side of the property).
· Requesting a map showing the proposed zone change completely. Map being exhibited for this meeting was submitted as an exhibit. Applicant also submitted the ‘Shady Brook’ plan on Strong Road.
Kennedy closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
3. Appl 05-61P, DBB Management, LLC Zoning Amendment – request for an amendment to add section 5.2.4.5 to allow limited display/storage of new seasonal equipment in the general commercial zone providing it meets specific criteria. (Exhibit B)
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals, Inc. and representing the applicant had the following comments in his presentation:
§ The equipment would be installed at the facility on vehicles.
§ Reviewed criteria for this amendment.
§ The amendment allows the product (seasonally) to be shown to traffic.
§ PZC will control where and when on property.
§ It should be noted that the amendment reads ‘may’ not ‘shall’.
Banach provided the following Planning report and submitted a photo of what could be:
Request for amendment to Section 5.2.4.5 of the zoning regulations to allow limited outdoor display/storage of equipment in the General Commercial zone. The current regulations under Section 3.14 prohibit commercial outdoor storage or display if the storage/display is visible from any public street. The amendment would modify just the GC zone to allow unscreened outdoor storage under certain conditions.
The amendment as written is extremely specific and would allow unscreened outdoor storage only at a facility that installs seasonal equipment on motor vehicles; thus it is very much a “special interest” amendment. Commissioners need to ask the question of what particular benefit this amendment has for South Windsor, since it only affects a type of facility that can already be aesthetically challenged even without the availability of unscreened outdoor storage.
The Town Plan of Conservation and Development recognizes that there are areas of Route 5 and Sullivan Avenue that are in need of a facelift. The Town Plan includes as major action element #2 the revitalization/redevelopment of Route 5 and Sullivan Avenue. Among the action items are aesthetic improvements, including a corridor aesthetics improvement plan. The Town Plan calls for an existing conditions analysis of the public right-of-way and a master plan of improvements prepared by a professional consultant with experience in aesthetic improvements linked to economic benefits.
The only two streets in Town that have GC-zoned-areas are Route 5 and Sullivan Avenue—the two areas recommended for aesthetic improvements in the Town Plan. The proposed amendment has the potential to affect the appearance of not only the applicant’s property, but any other GC-zoned property that installs seasonal equipment on cars and trucks.
Approval of this applicant would establish a precedent for additional requests for specific types of outdoor storage. If the Commission feels that unscreened outdoor storage is a good idea, Planning Dept suggests that a more general amendment would be appropriate.
The Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed this request as required and finds no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns.
If the Commission approves this application, you must state on the record that the amendment is consistent with your Plan of Conservation and Development.
There was no engineering report.
No one from the public spoke in favor of or against this application.
Susan Aitner, 19 Deepwood Drive requested clarification of sight lines and example of mulch being stored at Petersen’s Hardware on Sullivan Avenue; also this amendment would be an advantage for businesses in Town.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in Italics.
· Ability of amendment to affect GC zone. PZC would have the opportunity to review an application for area of display/storage of seasonally equipment under strict guidelines.
· Definition of season – difficult to enforce; should be specifically enumerated.
· Amendment would suit Route 5 – not Sullivan Avenue.
· Regulations were written to provide visual aspects in all zones.
· Categories of equipment and numbers are not continually monitored by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
· There are problems with the amendment as written.
· Amendment advancing policies of Town Plan of Conservation & Development. Consistent with aesthetics, protect property values, financial impact, and there would be no ability to grant displays.
· Justification for amendment. Anybody driving by would see where this type of equipment is for sale.
· Restriction of new equipment to be installed on motor vehicles within subject premises regulated by the State of Connecticut.
· Outdoor storage question is subject to review and discussion.
· Limited display is allowed in the Industrial zone.
· Reference to Section 6.1.5.2.
Kennedy closed the public hearing at 9:20 p.m.
Meeting was closed at 9:30 p.m.
________________________________ respectfully submitted
Date Approved
Phyllis M. Mann
Recording Secretary.
| 
