MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Clifford Slicer, Gary Bazzano, Bart Pacekonis, Michael Sullivan, Louise Evans and Suzanne Choate
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Jeski and David Sorenson
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:30p.m.
Bazzano read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, February 2 and Thursday, February 9,2006.
1. Appl 06..04P, Generation2 Inc. - request for Special Exception to Article 5.1.2.9.3 of the Zoning Regulations to allow a personal trainer facility, "Lean Physique LLC", Units 203 & 204, at 225 Oakland Road, RC zone.
Peter DeMallie of Design Professionals presented the application and had the following comments:
Lean Physique has purchased and occupied Units 203 & 204, 2,400 sq. ft. Parking is low turnover and is less than the typical office use. Twelve parking spaces are allocated, less than 12 are used. Service is by appointment only. Intensity is similar to general office use, sometimes less.
DeMallie reviewed criteria of zoning regulations as they pertain to this application commenting on each; general welfare of the community will be positive; no adverse effects on public utilities and no adverse environmental impacts will be created. Outdoor signage, other than the monument sign, will not be allowed by condominium association.
Lipe gave the following Planning report:
1. The applicant is requesting special exception approval to Section 5.1.2.9.3 of the Restricted commercial zoning regulations for a personal trainer facility known as "Lean Physique", approximately 2,800 sf, located at 225 Oakland Road Units 203 & 204, RC zone.
2. Section 5.1.2.9.3 states, Any other use, building or service as determined by the Commission to be similar to the uses permitted in 5.1.2.1 to 5.1.2.5 inclusive, as to the type of goods sold or manufactured, or services rendered, in the number of persons or cars to be attracted to the premises, or in effect on adjacent areas." This use is similar to a professional office and personal service shop (both which are permitted uses).
3. The Special Exception Use criteria includes:
a. traffic or other hazards will not be created;
b. general property values will be conserved;
c. the general welfare of the community will be served;
d. there will be no adverse effects on existing uses in the area;
e. there will be no adverse impacts on the capacity of present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage systems, sidewalks, and other infrastructure;
f. no adverse environmental impacts will be created.
The Commission may impose additional conditions in accordance with these regulations in order to ensure that all criteria enumerated above and/or within a particular use category are satisfied.
4. If approved, the Planning Dept. has no requested modifications.
Doolittle did not have engineering comments.
There were no comments from the public.
Commissioners comments:
Applying for a special exception is appropriate at this time.
Public hearing closed at 7:40 p.m.
2. Appl 05-67P, Redland Brick, Inc. KF Plant - request for renewal of an earth removal permit, Phases 1-4, on property located at 1440 John Fitch Boulevard, I & RR zones.
Barry Miller presented the application and his comments were as follows:
Redland Brick needs to mine clay to manufacture brick and have been at this location many years, hoping to be here many more. No additional area is being requested. We have 5 year applications at our other locations and request consideration of making this a 5 year plan during regulation changes.
Lipe gave the following planning report:
1. Request for an earth removal permit under Section 14 to extract clay on Redland Brick property, RR zone.The applicant received an earth removal permit in February of 2000, 2002, 2004 and that permit was valid until February 24, 2006.
2. Section 14 allows the Commission to approve removal of earth materials, including clay, after a Public Hearing, in conformance to certain criteria, including:
· . At the conclusion of the operation or any substantial portion thereof, the whole area where removal takes place must be covered with not less than 4 inches of topsoil and seeded;
· . Final grades cannot exceed 2: 1 slopes;
· . Except in the Industrial zone, no stone crusher or other machinery not required for actual removal of material is allowed; and
· . A restoration bond is required.
General approval criteria that the Commission can consider include the effect of the removal on surrounding property and the future usefulness of the premises when the operation is completed.
The plans reflect that there will be 4 inches of topsoil and seeding over all excavated areas when completed. If the excavated area retains water and takes on pond characteristics, as has happened in previous pits, then pond conditions will be maintained and seeding will be done to the edges of the pond. The plans also reflect finished grades of 2.5 to 1 on all outside edges of the excavation area.
3. The permit may be granted for a period not exceeding two years, but there is an extension provision allowing the Commission to grant extensions with or without a public hearing.
4. The site is accessed from Route 5.
5. There are regulated wetlands on the site. The IWA/CC approved the permit extension and the wetlands permit expires on November 1, 2010.
If this application is approved, Planning Dept. has no requested approval modifications.
Doolittle did not have engineering comments.
Public comments were as follows:
Robert Benson, West Road, South Windsor:
Since 1950 eight square miles of natural habitat has been dug up by Redland Brick and EH Sand and Gravel.
They take four acres at a time, eliminating top soil and trees without a plan to replace them. Originally it was swamp land. The pond on Strong Road is now a lake. The habitat is being destroyed. Restrictions should be placed on how the land is used and restored.
Commissioners had the following questions and comments (responses will be in italics):
Is the applicant not fulfilling their obligations with the restoration of disturbed areas? We are not asking for additional acreage at this time, we are only going deeper. We need to have a certain amount of acreage open to mine the land and can only mine it when it is dry. There are wetlands on our property and they are flagged by experts and we maintain setbacks from those. There is no mining in wetlands at this time.
How much land has been cleared, at what point is it to be restored and have any obligations been superseded or bypassed where disturbed land should have been restored at this point? Land has not been restored, because we are using it all. Work will continue until clay is gone, close the plant, then fulfill our obligations to restore the land.
How much land has been disturbed? Phase 1-4, two-four acres are in each phase. Eight to fifteen acres total.
Is bonding in place for restoration, and is it sufficient? Erosion bonds are in place, but not a huge reclamation in place.
There is an estimated 50 years of mining to be done. There is a requirement that reclamation occurs on the site. It would be very difficult to put a number on the reclamation bond at this time.
Is digging taking place in Phases 1-4 at this time? Yes, it is all one dig. Phase 5 is owned by someone else. There is 10 feet of sand over the clay. EH Sand & Gravel had ownership for the sand. Arrangements were made to acquire the property when the clay could be mined. Approval would have to be acquired before mining could take place for clay on Phases 6 and 7.
The operation has been going on longer than Redland Brick has been owner. The pond occurred many years ago before Redland Brick. It is necessary to keep excavating by Redland Brick and EH Sand & Gravel separate.
Wetlands approval is in place for Redland Brick until 2010.
Since Redland Brick has been involved in the operation, have they only worked on Phases 1-4? There is area outside Phases 1-4. This work was prior to requirements regarding earth removal permits. This area includes 15-20 acres and is still being mined. The land doesn't dry much before May, so mining isn't easy and not much clay comes from this area.
Does the permit have any parameters? There is no plan for reclamation. Clay is still being pulled out of the area, so requirements for reclamation have not been determined. The forty foot hole may be a pond when we are done and planting could only go up to the waters edge.
The concern is when the mining operation is done and after grass is planted around the parameter of the hole, Redland Brick is done with reclamation. What is in the regulations for reclamation is typical across the country and at other Redland Brick locations. Top soil must be put down, establish vegetation and be approved by the regulatory authority.
There is a concern that a more concrete plan is not established. Approval conditions can be placed on the permit looking for a restoration plan to be submitted. Bonds can be established to protect the town.
Regulations are going to be discussed and reviewed in the near future and the earth removal permits could be discussed at that time concerning the 2 year renewal time frame.
The Planning Department has not received complaints against Redland Brick. Has anything happened in the last two years that would give staff concern regarding reclamation that it had two years ago? No.
Could a per acre cost for reclamation be provided to the Town of South Windsor on one of the Redland Brick properties that would come close to matching the South Windsor property? Reclamation is taking place now on a quarry in Maryland that has 20 acres out of 31 +, reclaimed. Bond in Maryland is $1,250 per acre. Maryland is not a clay plant. It would be favorable to work with the township for reclamation.
Public hearing closed at 8:20 p.m.
3. Appl 05-68P, Adventure Quest - request for Special Exception to Section 6.1.3.9 of the Zoning Regulations and Site Plan of Development for the renovation of an industrial building to create indoor recreational facility on property located at 100 Bidwell Road, I zone (continued from 1-10-06).
Peter DeMallie of Design Professionals presented the application along with Richard Boston and Don DiFiore. Their comments were as follows:
Minor changes to the plans were discussed and a narrative statement addendum was handed out (Exhibit A). Closure of the median on Rt. 5 and Bidwell Road, as well as accidents, were researched. Approximately twenty-three accidents were reported during a three-year period and they were not related to the median. Closing the median would cause problems for tractor trailer trucks.
Trailers will be used for some outdoor storage due to lack of storage space inside the building.
Concerns regarding safety and congregating in the parking lot have been addressed and suggestions have been considered from the police department. Digital recordings will be kept of the parking areas. Noise in the parking area will also be addressed and handled.
On no occasion will alcohol be served after midnight. Hours for the restaurant will be open 11:00a.m. to 11:00m on weekdays. Holidays, Friday and Saturday nights and special event hours will extend to 1:00a.m.
Hours for the major facility (the "fun" room) will be 1:30a.m.-11:00p.m. or earlier. The muli-purpose room hours will be 7:00a.m.-12:00a.m.
Adventure Quest will offer 24 hour lock down events to High Schools.
Noise tests were done outside the building with noise corning from inside and met town ordinances.
Concerns regarding busses were addressed. There are State regulations concerning idling of busses that will be followed.
Afternoon peak hour on Route 5 is 4:30p.m-5:30p.m. Data varies depending on traffic problems.
Restrooms for the restaurant are separate from the main facility. The restaurant is planned as a family style restaurant to be similar to those in the Buckland Mall area.
Concerns regarding the buffer were addressed. Plans are to extend the eight foot fence adjacent to the property line to the end of the abutter's property. Concerns regarding the wetlands and migration of animals were addressed.
Curbed island is to be installed to differentiate between the existing parking for the restaurant and the loading area. Markings would be clear on the pavement as to what is loading, exit and parking.
Additional lighting to be installed (mentioned on police report) and will meet lighting regulations.
Public comments in favor of application were as follows:
Cate Evans, Executive Director of the S.W. Chamber of Commerce had the following comments:
Supporting the business community in turn helps the well being and prosperity of the residential community. The chamber supports the development of additional recreational facilities for youth and residents. Support is given to the development of venues which could be used to accommodate future Indoor business.
Dick Kelly of Rosemary Lane had the following comments:
Concerned that South Windsor does not have a large facility that will hold large numbers of people. This year the High School students are going out of town for a graduation event. Support is given to the applicant, Doug I Nation.
Carol Heffler of 81 Colony Road had the following comments:
Applicant took the time to meet with residents of Colony Road and ease some fears. Although support is given for this application, an approval condition stating that there will never be access from Colony Road to this facility is needed. Traffic arriving in large numbers at one time and leaving jointly as late as 12 midnight as well as the noise levels are a concern.
Craig Stevenson, Economic Development Consultant for the Town of South Windsor, had the following comments:
Application has been presented to the Economic Development Commission and it is felt that it meets with the goals and objectives the town has for that area. The building has been vacant for two years and the use considered with this application will add to the quality of the surrounding businesses. Existing business rely on the current flow of the intersection (Route 5 and Bidwell Road) and any change may have an impact on the businesses.
Public comments against this application were as follows:
Helena Vargas of 26 Colony Road had the following comments:
Fencing to stop at the double oak trees will not be enough. Without closure of the parking lot, there will still be access into the residential neighborhood. Buffer plan is not sufficient.
Denise Cusson of 50 Colony Road had the following comments:
The change of zoning for this application raises concerns regarding future applications for this area. The quality of life is changing for the worse. The buffer is important to maintaining some quality of the neighborhood.
Nick Vargas of 26 Colony Road had the following comments:
Proposed fence is not sufficient. About 120 feet of abutter's property will be open with current buffer plan. Security and noise are the main concern. The idea of using a golf cart for patrol should be put into the plan. Property values should be measured and addressed. A trial period of 6 months to a year should take place to be sure obligations of applicant are met.
Susan Aitner of 19 Depot Drive presented exhibit B into the record to compare Adventure Quest with Fun Station in Danbury, CT. Exhibit C was read into the record by Aitner with enclosures.
Joe Wilcox of 80 Colony Road had the following comments:
Concerned that quality of life will be negatively affected on the weekends which is when the majority of the events will take place. When the zoning change was brought in front of PZC, were abutters to the zone supposed to be invited? When meeting with Doug Nation it was promised that noise would be addressed if it ever becomes an issue once Adventure Quest is approved. More trees for the buffer will be very important to our quality of life. Pollution from the main street tends to linger now, idling busses in the parking lot will only add to the problem. Property values will decrease if buffer is not done well.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners as follows (responses will, be in italics):
Good intentions stated by the applicant to the abutters should be listed, included with the application and enforceable.
Legality of this application should be researched and considered before rendering a vote.
Which of the police departments recommendations are agreeable. Recommendations regarding the fence have not been decided upon; Lighting will be following police recommendations; Wall paks will not be added up high as police recommend; agree to recommendations regarding doors and windows; Video surveillance will be monitored by people at a front desk; Trimming lower portion of trees close to 'building will be done; Alarmed exit doors will be installed; Bathroom doors will not follow recommendations; Alarm system will be throughout facility.
After 6 month to a year, is it agreeable that town staff come back to check noise levels? Yes.
Has consideration been made to what age children can be without a chaperone? Programs have been considered such as wrist bands for children in groups. This has not been completely figured out but loitering will not be tolerated.
Why does it seem that abutters are not in agreement? Doug Nation met with neighbors and walked the property. Looking towards the wet area where the fence would stop, it does not seem possible that someone would cross there. There isn't a problem to extend the fence further, but it may not be solid enough ground to put the fence being that it would have to be close to the asphalt. .
Would the Vargas' and the applicant be willing to run the fence along the Vargas property lines all the way to Colony Road? The applicant and the Vargas's would be willing. Mr. Vargas wants both sides of the fence to be eight feet. It was told to Mr. Vargas that a fence could not be put on his property because of wetlands. Mr. Vargas felt he was given wrong information.
Mr. Boston stated it is not known if Mr. Vargas has wetlands and if there is wetlands, the fence would have to go on top of the berm. If there are not wetlands, it is agreed to put the fence as Mr. Vargas wants stated above.
Negative impact on property values is still a concern. The applicant hasn't responded to this concern as well as concerns regarding traffic. Applicant will take measure to assure the neighborhoods security. Alternatives for this space are potentially a more negative impact than this application. This application is far superior to an industrial use. This property has been shown for a call center which could-run 7 days per week, 24 hours per day.
Public hearing needs to be kept open to address information presented to the commission by the public. The applicant was asked to break down accessory uses. Zoning regulation 6.1.3.9 was read. It is a concern that the noise study was not done at night when it should be quiet.
Public hearing for Appl 05-68P, Adventure Quest was kept open.
Kennedy adjourned the public hearing at 11:00p.m.
REGULAR MEETING - MADDEN ROOM
Chainnan Kennedy called meeting to order at 11:05 p.m.
Pacekonis made a motion to extend meeting past 10:00 p.m., Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
1. Appl 05-63P, DBB Management, LLC - request for site plan approval for property located at 59 & 67 McGuire Road, GC zone (action by 2/19/06).
Karen Isherwood of Design Professionals presented the application and her comments were as follows:
Revised plans now show outdoor display and screened outdoor storage for spring and summer. With the ability to have an outdoor display area, stacking truck beds won't be necessary. Twenty-four evergreen trees of the same species to be a minimum of four feet are shown on the revised plans.
Lipe gave the following planning report:
1. The plan has been revised to include screening of much of the outdoor storage area. The types of screening trees are unspecified and listed as 4 feet at planting. Staff recommend an approval condition that the applicant provide a typical landscaping plan that identifies the types of evergreens, height at planting (minimum 5 feet), height at maturity, and condition at planting. The trees should be nursery stock. February 14, 2006.
2. The applicant is requesting a merchandise display area of 1900 square feet between the building and Route 5. The note on the plan indicates that the display will vary seasonally, with truck beds, flatbeds, storage bins, tool cabinets in the spring and summer; and snowplows and sanding equipment in the fall and winter.The snow plows are to be stacked three high, to a height of 7.5 feet. The note indicates that up to 6 of each item will be displayed.
3. The plan also notes that part of the outdoor storage will be screened by the display items themselves. From the applicant's description of how the outdoor displays vary over the seasons, there may be times when the display merchandise does not actually screen the outdoor storage behind it.
Jeff Doolittle had the following engineering comments:
Contact needs to be made with the state to indirectly connect with their drainage system to inquire about a permit. Modifications need to be made to the drainage report. When removing grass area to add gravel, top soil needs to be completely removed and dirt driveways need to be replaced with at least 6 inches of gravel.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners as follows (Responses are in italics):
Are you in agreement with the gravel plan? Yes.
What are the evergreens going to be? Hemlock would be a choice if easily maintainable and if disease is not a danger. A bond will assure that they will be replaced if disease attacks within two years.
Is there an issue to having a display area in the side area? There is not a regulation to prevent this.
There are concerns about stacking plow blades 6 feet high. They will be against a concrete wall.
Bazzano made a motion to approve with the following modifications Appl 05-63P, DBB Management.
1. No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
2. A landscape bond in the amount of $2,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
3. All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy.
4. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
5. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
6. All tree standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected.
7. The Town Engineer's review comments dated 1/10/2006 must be addressed to the Town Engineer's satisfaction.
8. All outdoor storage must be contained within areas designated for storage on the site plan, and all outdoor storage must be screened as required by the zoning regulations.
9. A merchandise display area totaling 1900 square feet is approved in the location shown on the site plan. The Commission-approved merchandise area need not be screened.
10. The landscaping plan for the screening trees must be completed, with trees identified by type, minimum 5 feet at planting. If arborvitaes are used, they must be no farther apart than 5 feet on center. The final landscaping plan must be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
11. All customers and other vehicle parking must be accommodated on site. Areas designated as parking spaces must actually be available to be used as vehicle parking spaces.
12. All dumpsters on-site must be shown on the site plan and screened.""
Slicer seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Preliminary discussion with Jay Ussery, P.E., J.R. Russo & Associates, re: interior lot interpretation
Lipe presented the issue.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners as follows: (Responses are in italics)
The lot frontage requirement for this existing parcel is in question. Due to lots being stacked on the Chapel Road side, access on the proposed site plan would be from Main Street and that would be considered frontage. Another plan would show access being from Chapel Road. Interpretation is to be requested of the phrase in the regulation, "generally parallel to..."
Discussion ensued with the commission as follows: (Responses are in italic)
Regulations do not allow lots to be stacked, and if frontage is determined based on parcel being parallel to Chapel Road, lots would be stacked.
Does it matter which way the house faces? It really doesn't matter.
Consensus is the interpretation of the regulation is lot frontage requirement has to be from where the driveway IS.
3. Seth Walter - re: determination of Home Occupation type
Discussion ensued among the commissioners as follows: (Responses are in italics)
Currently there is a minor home occupation in the basement. The addition being put onto the house is quite large. It does meet the percentage of 25%. Under section G, a minor home occupation isn't a consideration. Access will be from inside the house. There will be a new garage door. The applicant would like to increase business.
The Commission determined the applicant should apply for a major home occupation.
4. Jeff Sawyer, Generation2 - re: determination of allowable use in restricted commercial zone
Peter DeMallie opened the discussion with the following comments:
This is not a traditional medical use but a counseling service. Individuals will be meeting for 50 minutes intervals. Parking is the concern when determining allowable use.
Regulations may want to differentiate between medical and non-medical counseling. Non-medical counseling could fall under professional office use.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners as follows:
Determining factors need to be numbers coming in and out rather than what they do in the unit. An accountant or an attorney's flow seems to be similar to this counseling service.
Consensus of the commission was that this use be allowed as a professional office use.
5. Appl 06-04P, Generation2 Inc. - request for Special Exception to Article 5.1.2.9.3 of the Zoning Regulations to allow a personal trainer facility, "Lean Physique LLC", Units 203 & 204, at 225 Oakland Road, RC zone.( act by 4/20/06)
Sorenson sat for Paceconis
Evans made a motion to approve Appl 06-04P, Generation2, Inc. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
6. Appl 05-67P, Redland Brick, Inc. KF Plant - request for renewal of an earth removal permit, Phases 1-4, on property located at 1440 John Fitch Boulevard, I & RR zones.(act by 4120/06)
Discussion ensued among the commissioners as follows:
Redland Brick and EH Sand & Gravel are two separate items. Redland Brick has not caused problems since they have had ownership. EH Sand & Gravel was the only issue brought forward by the public. Carrying a bond for 50 years would be excessive. A general obligation of reclamation is in place. There is a detail on the plan that includes top soil and seed.
If a bond is established at a later time, there are concerns that the applicant will discontinue mining the land and move before a restoration plan is submitted. An approval condition stating that in the next 5 years a restoration plan be submitted seems reasonable.
Choate made a motion to approve with modification the above Appl 05-67P, Redland Brick, Inc:
1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
2. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission.
3. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
4. Applicant must present a general plan of reclamation of the mined property at the time of the next renewal.
This permit is valid for a period of two years. The permit expiration date is February 28, 2008. The permit must be renewed prior to expiration if removal operations are to continue.
Evans seconded the motion.
Pacekonis commented that he has been educated enough to vote on this application.
The motion carried, the vote was unanimous.
7. Appl 05-72P, Fraize Interior Lot Subdivision - requests two consecutive 90-day extensions from the original filing date for recording mylars.
Evans made a motion to approve Appl 05-72P, Fraize Interior Lot - request for two consecutive 90-day extensions. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried, the vote was unanimous.
BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings
Choate made a motion to approve a reduction for the bond Appl 04-06P, Joseph Lane Estates. Amount of bond is $ 20,000; recommended reduction $ 20,000; leaving a balance of $ 0.
Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Choate made a motion to approve a reduction for the bond Appl 02-21P, Vintage Hills Subdivision: Amount of bond is $ 25,000; recommended reduction $ 25,000; leaving a balance of $ 0. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried, the vote was unanimous
OTHER BUSINESS:
New hotel proposed in Manchester next to JoAnn Fabrics. Hampton Inn & Suites has proposed a building across the street from J.C. Penney Warehouse. Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for April, 2006.
MINUTES: 1-10-2006 minutes were accepted by consensus of the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Bazzano made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:05a.m. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted:
Barbara M. Messino
Recording Secretary
| 
