MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Clifford Slicer, Gary Bazzano, Michael Sullivan, Bart Pacekonis, Louise Evans.
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Dan Jeski (sitting for Suzanne Choate) David Sorenson, Chris Lariviere
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
Chairman Kennedy called meeting to order at 7:15p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
1. Appl 06-08P, AMK Welding, request site plan of development for 13,600 sq ft building addition on 4+/- acres at 283 Sullivan Avenue, I zone (continued from 3/28/06)
Karen Isherwood, Project Engineer of Design Professionals presented modifications to the application.
IWA/CC has approved this application and changes have been made to the architectural design of the 13,600 sq. ft. building as requested by the commission.
Peter Bauer of Pelletier Builders presented the new design:
Trees have been incorporated into the plans to break up the long facade. A block design has also been incorporated in the plans for a more pleasing look to the building. The side entrance will now mirror the front entrance (columns are added).
Marcia Banach, Director of Planning has the following comments:
IWA/CC has granted approval on April 5, 2006 with two bonds: A $3,000 bond for erosion and sediment control and another $5,000 bond for wetlands creation.
There were no additional engineering comments.
Slicer made a motion to approve with modifications Appl 06-08P AMK Welding, site plan of development.
Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $3,000 for erosion & sediment control, and a bond in the amount of $5,000 for wetlands mitigation.
A landscape bond in the amount of $2,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
The building street number must be included on the final plan.
Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings
Evans made a motion to approve a bond recommendation from The Engineering Department for Appl 04-74P, Riverwalk Senior Residence Development. Amount of the bond is $443,200. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Evans made a motion to reduce the bond for Appl 04-74P, Riverwalk Senior Residence Development. The amount of the bond is $443,200 with a recommended reduction of $347,240 leaving a balance of $95,960. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES:
CORRESPONDENCE/REPORT:
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Bazzano read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, March 30, 2006 and Thursday, April 6, 2006.
1. Zoning Regulations Update—PZC-sponsored comprehensive rewrite/update of the entire zoning regulations. This is a substantial revision. All sections of the existing regulations are affected, and there are many modifications to existing provisions within the regulations.
Public participation:
Robert Dickinson, 19 Birch Road: Would like sidewalks to be a stronger consideration when new applications are reviewed. Concerns are for handicapped, elderly and joggers. Recent developments have not included plans for sidewalks.
Barry Miller, Owner of Redland Brick, 1440 John Fitch Boulevard: Requested 17.15.4 to be revised so that mining operations can apply for a 5 year mining permit rather than a 2 year. The mining operation in South Windsor is a good example of a long term project whose only change in two years is mining has gone deeper into the ground.
Barbara Kelly, Vice Chairman of IWA/CC, 27 Pine Knob Circle: Exhibit A was read into the record concerning section 10.2 of the regulations as it refers to the percentage of impervious coverage allowed.
Michael Feldmeier, Owner of Watson House, 1876 Main Street: Expressed support for Section 3.1.1 to be added to make a Bed and Breakfast application permanent rather than a 2-year temporary & conditional permit.
Pat Conrad, 864 Strong Road: Regulations on the web site are outdated and not the same as the new draft.
Bill Keohane, Chairman of SWCC signage subcommittee, 39 Windshire Drive: Exhibit B regarding signage regulations was read into the record.
Karen Bachell, 206 Pleasant Valley Road: Comments submitted to Marcia Banach previously, will be read into the record.
Kristen Hay, 450 Abbe Road: Proposed change in the regulation regarding goats and sheep being grouped with horses is a concern. A horse weighs about 2,000 lbs. and requires a great deal of space. Goats weigh about 50-100 lbs. and do not require as much space. Neighbors have not complained. South Windsor has prided itself on offering many opportunities to youth. A 4-H youth needs to have a project animal. The proposed regulation will deny youth from being able to participate in 4-H. South Windsor puts much money and time into sports. Maybe a good use of land would be to build public farm buildings for the 4-H animals where children can care for them. South Windsor sends high school students to the Rockville vocational agricultural program. A requirement for
graduation is to have a project animal. The animal needs to be cared for on a daily basis and housed by the student. 4-H is a great avenue to keep children busy.
John Henderson, 1668 Main Street: There is not a good correlation between the regulations for horses and applying them to smaller farm animals such as sheep and goats.
Kevin Woolam, 1185 Main Street: The proposed regulations regarding animals are a concern. Generally, animal units are considered as total lbs. per animal, and manure management is considered. Small farm animals do not need to be grouped in with large farm animals, and should not be. The proposed regulations stated that they would help maintain the rural character of the former farming community. There are still somewhere between 600 and 1000 acres in this town being farmed and paying taxes.
Livestock trailers are a concern with respect to the camper/trailer restriction in Section 7.18. Are we grandfathered? How was the maximum length of 27 feet determined as the length to be restricted. Mr. Woolam offered his assistance with zoning regulations regarding farm animals.
Judith Peck, 1862 Main Street: Concerns are with proposed regulation regarding farm animals being grouped together. Two goats do not need three acres. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. The animals do not need to graze on the land. Goats and sheep tend to spend much time in their shelter.
Kathy Young, 1136 Main Street: Small family farms would be hurt by the proposed regulations grouping horses and other farm animals.
Peter DeMallie, Design Professionals and former town planner: Much credit goes to the commission and town staff in undertaking this project. There are very few errors in the draft that need to be addressed. It’s not ready for adoption, but its close.
Small cottages on oversized lots should be considered. This may enable young people to get back into the community and assist elderly to reside with family.
In response to Barbara Kelly’s concerns regarding impervious coverage, it is true that urbanization causes pollution. The difference between this community, its development over the years and today is that we now have water quality control regulations. South Windsor is almost 98% developed. The idea of substantially reducing the yield from a particular building lot by not allowing the full lot to be used in the impervious coverage calculation is a real problem. Almost every building lot that is going to be built upon has already been created. Industrial parks would be dramatically affected by a reduction in impervious coverage.
Houses of worship should not be screened from the street. Buffers should not be required. Historically they were not hidden. Landscaping requirements are in place and provide the community with a pleasing view. Impervious coverage for houses of worship should be higher.
The gateway development zone does not allow residents at this time. Allowing residential uses would create the feeling of a community within a community. High quality multi family housing development should be considered. It would reinforce the commercial business.
Setbacks in the industrial zone should be increased to 50 feet (especially where speed limits are higher).
Existing parcels would have to be considered.
Project and unit caps on senior housing, section 7.16.5, should be considered for increase at a future date. The senior population is steadily growing.
Karen Bachell, 206 Pleasant Valley Road: Read her comments into the record. (Exhibit C)
Craig Stevenson, Economic Developer for TOSW: Concerned that the I-290 zone does not permit outside storage. Outside screening may be an alternative to this issue. Being more flexible may prevent long term vacancies.
Parking requirements can be challenging where redevelopment is taking place. Revisiting parking requirements will also prevent too much asphalt from being built with new development projects. Studies have been done that show trends in the northeast of requiring more parking than is actually needed.
The special development district and mixed-use has been considered for revising. A visit by the commission to a mixed-use development project would be beneficial to planning for the future. West Hartford Center shows the benefits of mixed use while Manchester Parkade shows the results of residential being absent. Mixed use is being used across the country with much success. South Windsor has the demographics to support mixed use development.
Barbara Kelly, 27 Pine Knob Circle: As a town we don’t owe someone who has 10 acres of swamp land the same economic return as someone who invested in 10 acres of prime real estate. With only a small percentage of land left, building more densely on small parcels needs to be avoided to prevent impact on the wetlands.
Bill Keohane, 39 Windshire Drive: Industrial and residential zones should have different regulations concerning impervious coverage. Economic development is very important to the town.
Bazzano read the following correspondences from the public into the record: Exhibits D-K
Discussion ensued among the commissioners: (Responses will be in italics)
Evans commented on the public being concerned about proposed regulations regarding farm animals. The commission needs guidance. Evans discussed the existing regulations and what they are meant to protect. Karen Bachell responded by discussing maintenance of properties with animals. Support would be given to a minimum of 1 acre for livestock. An additional acre per animal is not necessary.
Kristen Hay responded to Evans with support to an acre being more than enough land to support 8 goats. A case by case basis may also be an alternative to denying someone to have animals based on a blanket regulation.
Pat Conrad responded to comments regarding the animal regulations by stating that residents that have the animals should be grandfathered in. Evans noted that residents would be grandfathered, they just wouldn’t be able to keep increasing the numbers. There should be a special exception for educational farm projects.
Bazzano read Patricia Conrad’s email into the record (Exhibit L).
Bazzano asked Kristen Hay how much of her acre is taken up by the animals. The pen is a 20x25-3 sided shelter with a pen around it. Bazzano’s follow up question: Is there a regulation stating how close animals can be to the property line. Banach confirmed that the current regulations control how close the shelters that house the animals can be to the property line but does not put restrictions on the animals themselves.
Banach expressed concerns regarding maintenance of the smaller parcels of land with animals on it. How should enforcement be handled if the animal becomes offensive to the neighborhood?
Pacekonis commented on how to handle protocol for addressing the comments from public regarding the new proposed regulations. Kennedy confirmed that there is not a deadline for completing and approving the new regulations. The public hearing will be left open and a subcommittee will be re-established to review the public input.
Pacekonis expressed his support for a five year permit for mining operations.
Sullivan expressed appreciation to the public and all who have participated in creating the draft for the proposed regulations. Is it true that enforcement is only initiated as a reaction to a complaint? Proposed regulation section 9.3 for enforcement and penalty doesn’t’ seem to have the provision that enforcement is contingent upon reacting to a complaint being filed. Banach: It has been an unofficial policy that enforcement is by complaint. With the Town attorney’s office it is an official policy. If complaints get to the point of legal action, we will need a written and signed complaint for the court action.
Lariviere made the suggestion that a complaint remain anonymous except with town staff until possible court action where the person can decide to come forward. A citation process may eliminate court action and deter people from making the violation to begin with. Banach: Once a complaint is made, staff tries to keep the name anonymous for as long as possible, but it is public record. A zoning officer can not go onto private property without probable cause. Probable cause is a signed complaint, not an anonymous phone call, especially when the violation is not visible from the street. Staff are also not drawn into neighbor “wars” as frequently when a signed complaint is required. The commission may want to have a full discussion with the new town attorney’s office
regarding zoning enforcement. Our zoning enforcement officer is part time.
Slicer: The University of Connecticut has a course of study on animal husbandry. This could be an avenue for determining animal regulations.
Kennedy: The enforcement issue was brought in front of the commission approximately 5 or 6 years ago and it was determined by the Commissionthat enforcement would be complaint based. Proposed regulations regarding animals will be closely looked at. It’s possible that a 2 year temporary and conditional permit may be effective in keeping properties with animals clean.
Kevin Woolam suggests using the Department of Agriculture in Hartford or The Connecticut Farm Bureau as a source for determining guidelines for the regulations. The websites for some start up communities down south have guidelines and regulations for animals online.
Kennedy appointed a subcommittee: Commissioners Choate, Slicer and Bazzano will serve. The subcommittee will be meeting and discussing the input from the public regarding the proposed draft and may suggest modifications to address the input.
Pacekonis made a motion to keep the public hearing open. Jeski seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ADJOURNMENT:
Pacekonis made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Jeski seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted:
Barbara M. Messino, Recording Secretary
| 
