MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Gary Bazzano, Michael Sullivan, Bart Pacekonis, Louise Evans, Suzanne Choate.
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Dan Jeski (sitting for Clifford Slicer) David Sorenson (sitting for Choate)
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning, Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairman Kennedy called meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Bazzano read the legal as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, April 13, 2006 and Thursday, April 20, 2006.
1. Appl 05-77P, J.E. Shepard Company– request for a 2 year temporary and conditional permit to allow a two-family house on property located at 2019 John Fitch Boulevard, I zone (cont. from 3/28/06)
Kip Shepard presented an update: The building department has some requirements that will be followed up on.
Lipe had the following comments:
There are four items from the building department to be addressed. Planning requests approval conditions that the applicant continue working with the building official to meet the building code.
There were no engineering comments. There were no comments from the public. There were no comments from the commission.
Public Hearing closed at 7:35 p.m.
Choate arrived to the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
2. Appl. 06-01P, Evergreen Walk Office South – Site Development Plan application (Section 5.8.7.1) to construct a medical office building, parking, storm water structures, and associated improvements on 5+/- acres located approximately 270 feet westerly of Buckland Road, and approximately 310 feet southerly of Deming Street, Gateway Development zone (cont. from 3/28/06)
Alan Lamson, President of FLB Architecture presented the application update:
IWA/CC has approved the application for a wetlands permit. The Fire Marshall requested another hydrant on this site near the LA Fitness site. This request will be met. Engineering comments have been reviewed and two items are in need of discussion: The applicant feels the construction of a sidewalk along Buckland Road from LA Fitness to ECHN should be the town’s responsibility since it is town property.
Evergreen Way was put in as a temporary road with its final location not being confirmed. Flexibility is needed with this road to make relocation possible if needed. Research has been done since the month of March to help in deciding the boulevards most effective location. If the boulevard is built as parcels are located and developed, it will be more efficient.
Lipe gave an updated planning report:
The IWA/CC approved this application on April 5 with approval conditions requiring a monitoring plan to be drafted in order to monitor the rain gardens for 5 years; a bond in the amount of $20,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sedimentation control measures; and a bond in the amount of $50,000 to ensure establishment of the stormwater structures.
Doolittle gave an updated engineering report:
1. This plan includes connecting Evergreen Way with Tamarack Drive. If Evergreen Way is to be the main connector road from ECHN to the Shops at Evergreen Walk, even temporarily, it needs to be improved with final paving, line striping and signs by LA Fitness. What is the time frame to build the middle of Tamarack Drive to connect the north and south ends of this property in the future?
2. Add Street name signs where Tamarack Ave and Evergreen Way meet and where Evergreen Way and Cedar Ave meet. Also add directional signs from each end of Tamarack Ave to the other since they are not connected yet. Directional signs need to be provided so drivers can get to the Office Building South and ECHN from Cedar Ave and Evergreen Way
3. Sidewalks should be included in this project along Buckland Road to connect those in front of LA Fitness with those in front of ECHN. This building will be essentially along Buckland Road because of its height and visibility and because there are no plans for another building between this one and Buckland Road at this time.
There were no comments from the public. Discussion ensued among the commissioners: (Responses will be in italics)
Sullivan commented that a request from the last meeting concerning traffic and how it will interact with the traffic from the existing Evergreen Walk traffic has not been addressed by the applicant. Steve Mitchell,Traffic Engineer for the applicant: The manhole covers will be lowered. The road is capable of carrying a large amount of traffic if the need arises. Total traffic generated by the office portions of the site during peak hour generations is 100 or fewer vehicles. Retail sections generate between 1500 and 2000 per hour. The applicant is required to build the main boulevard within 5 years of LA Fitness approval..
Sullivan: Is there a safety issue in leaving a temporary road? How much of the traffic generations actually use the temporary boulevard? The numbers are very fractional. Traffic is projected as 4 or 5 additional cars per hour with this application. There are no safety issues with the road as it stands.
Sullivan asked Doolittle if he felt the answers regarding the temporary road were acceptable. Doolittle: Based on plans for the road, the answers are acceptable.
Choate asked why there is a problem with putting in the sidewalks when they were in the original plans. Alan Lamson: The applicant feels they don’t have the right. The property is owned by the town and the piece of property is in litigation. The applicant does not have a problem in putting in the sidewalks or signs.
Bazzano: The traffic light at LA Fitness is tripped by almost every car that exits. Is this going to happen when vehicles exit this application onto Buckland Road? The light at LA Fitness could be checked. Low volume traffic will make lights work sporadically. As traffic increases, lights will become more efficient to traffic.
There was a discussion on how lights work, what trips them, and for how long.
Evans commented on not being at the March 28, 2006 meeting but did listen to the tapes and is familiar with the project.
Doolittle: The town’s standard is to have a gravel access drive for maintenance. If the applicant is not going to build a gravel access drive then a better plan on how the outlet will be accessed for maintenance should be provided. There is no objection to providing a plan. A bobcat or other construction equipment could get to the outlet. The outlet could be maintained without the gravel access drive. Choate expressed concern regarding the berm and the maintenance plan.
Doolittle had comments regarding the maintenance of the berm: The detention basin and slopes are to be kept mowed and free of brush and trees. Storm water facilities are to be inspected after heavy rain. The idea is to have access with a truck in order to maintain the berm. Mowing should be done once a month. The maintenance plan will be updated to include mowing.
Kennedy: If putting in sidewalks across town property was contingent upon the town certifying that it can be done without prejudice in the interest of the town, would the applicant be agreeable to putting in the sidewalk. Yes.
The public hearing closed at 8:10p.m.
3. Appl 06-10P, Cummings Zoning Amendment – request for a zoning amendment to modify Section 5.6.4 to add other locations for the application of the office conversion overlay zone
DeMallie of Design Professionals and Attorney Cummings presented the application:
The applicant would like to add streets within residential zones to Section 5.6.4 if they have historic buildings that have history of office or commercial use within them without causing an adverse effect on the neighborhood. This would allow a property to come in front of the commission as a special exception under this proposed zoning amendment.
Peter DeMallie reviewed the requirements of regulation 5.6. Hal Cummings discussed benefits to adopting the zoning amendment.
Lipe gave a planning report:
Request for zoning amendment to Section 5.6.4 to add other locations in which the Office Conversion Overlay zones can be considered when: a) it meets the criteria outlined in Section 5.6 through 5.6.3 and b) has a history of office or other commercial uses in the subject space, whether short or long term, and such use has not had an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Staff’s primary concern with this amendment is that it may allow for an illegal use that has existed for a while to become legal. Also, we are concerned with the provision which would allow for “other commercial uses” to be permitted when this overlay zone specifically only allows professional offices.
It may be appropriate for certain office uses that have existed through a temporary and conditional permit, to get a permanent approval through this amendment.
The zoning amendment request was referred to CRCOG as required. CRCOG responded that: “they have reviewed this referral and find no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns.
If this zoning amendment is approved, the Commission must state on the record that they have found the amendment to be consistent with the plan of development.
There were no engineering comments. There were public comments in favor of the application:
Walter Kebalo, 188 Wheeler Road: The application presented would allow more people to work from home. Less gas and less cars on the road is beneficial to our environment.
Andy Kebalo, 47 Deming Street: The traditional office is changing due to the internet and modern technology. As long as the neighborhood isn’t negatively affected the zoning amendment should be approved.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners:
Sorenson directed a question to Lipe: The application tends to give the commission flexibility when approving home occupations. Would this zoning amendment cause us to be vulnerable? Special exception criteria will allow approval to be on a case by case basis.
Evans: The reason for the office overlay zone lay in two areas: 1) Residents on well traveled roads wanting a home office. 2) The part of Ellington Road between five corners (historically named) and Governors Highway to avoid requests for zone changes. Many families still lived on Ellington Road and changing it to a commercial road based solely because it is a state highway seemed unfair. Restrictions were on the type of offices allowed. If this zoning amendment was approved as worded here, the Kebalo property would not meet these restrictions. Section B also poses concerns where it states, “has a history of office or other commercial use.” How far back does this mean? Keeping the residential appearance is the goal of this current regulation.
Bazzano wanted clarification from Lipe on the issue of applications coming in under this proposed regulation with home occupations that have been working illegally. As more people want to do home occupations, the zoning violations are also growing. The wording of this application is very broad and there are concerns on how people are going to apply this.
Choate: Part A of the proposed amendment looks clear. Part B does need to be reworded.
DeMallie: Commercial uses are not being asked for, only offices. The historic structures in town are limited. Commercial wording can be changed.
Revised wording of section B will be, “has a history of office use in the subject space and such use has not had an adverse effect on the neighborhood.”
Sullivan: How many buildings will this regulation amendment possibly effect? Lipe: Primarily a bulk of the buildings will be on Main Street. Non comforming buildings can not be expanded or modified.
Kennedy: Under 5.6.3G the uses are restricted to general professional offices. Kebalo’s have an electrical contracting business which may not fall under general office use. Peter DeMallie confirmed that office hours will fall under regulations and this space will be used as offices. Kennedy: Are there contractors with office space under the regulation in question? Lipe: The other two businesses that have taken advantage of the office overlay regulation are a dentist and a lawyer. Attorney Cummings: 5.6.3G is primarily focused on the hours of operation. Employees in the office are management, contractors are reporting to job sites.
Evans: A consideration with the change the regulation is that special exceptions go with the property. Mixing in other uses makes the transition of professional offices more difficult when the land is sold. The proposed amendment needs to be comprehensively modified.
Kennedy: Do we have anything in the proposed regulations that will effect this zoning amendment? Lipe: The year may have been changed to 1950 from 1920 regarding what constitutes the maximum year a house was built to be considered historic. Also, a professional office would mean that the type of vehicles generated would not consist of maintenance trucks, plows and contractor vehicles.
Public Hearing closed at 8:55p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
1. Wentworth Park, Oakland Road – use request from S. Vallone
Sharon Valone discussed office space at Wentworth Park and the intentions for its use: Vallone owns and operates a chiropractic business in Tolland and Hartford. The office space in South Windsor would be for occupational and speech therapy, as well as consultations for special needs children. Traffic in and out will not be as a typical medical office.
Lipe requested clarification on the educational classes that would be offered. Periodically there may be three or four pre-school children together to do a social interaction opportunity. Over four weeks, 6 sessions may be scheduled. A lecture may be scheduled on a Saturday, open to the public to learn more about a certain subject (example: ADHD).
Discussion ensued among the commissioners: (Responses will be in italics)
Kennedy mentioned the similarity of this use of office space to a previous discussion that categorized psychotherapy and psychiatry as non medical. If the use changed to a medical practice, the parking requirements would have to be met.
2. Appl 06-18P, Teaberry Estates SRD–Site plan modification addressing the “buffer area” and community center on property located on the easterly of Ellington Road and northerly of Quarry Brook Drive, RR zone
Peter DeMallie and Dick Boston of Design Professionals presented the application:
There have been two meetings at the office of Design Professionals where the abutters attended to discuss their concerns regarding the buffer and the community building being addressed with this application.
The lighting and the patio on the community building were areas of concern that were addressed. The type of plantings to be planted at the buffer and their size were also discussed.
Richard Boston discussed the change in the plans for the community building. Three hundred and twenty-nine sq. feet will be added. The configuration has also changed. The back patio will be eliminated. There will be no lights on the patio and the possibility of a six foot privacy fence. Setbacks and architectural detail is the same.
The landscape buffer will have a two or three foot high berm. Drainage plans for the buffer and the berm are addressed in the plans and will be provided. There will be sixty-nine, ten to twelve foot high trees, blue or white spruce. The remaining buffer would be five and six foot evergreens to the east and shrubs. Discussion with neighbors led to an increase in plantings at the corner of the community building for screening. Planting would take place this fall. The applicant would also like to know if evasive species can be removed which, was the original plan.
Lipe gave a planning report:
1. Request for site plan modification restore the buffer that was removed, and to modify the approved community building, at Teaberry Estates SRD. As you are aware, the existing buffer trees along the southern property boundary were entirely removed last fall without approval from the Commission. A change order for a new buffer was previously submitted by the applicant and denied by this Commission due to inadequacy of the proposed plan in comparison to the mature trees that had existed in the buffer.
2. The current proposal includes a berm that is approximately 3 feet in height, with blue and white spruces planted on top of the berm. It was my understanding that the spruce trees would be 12-14’ at planting, but the current proposal shows 10-12’ trees on the chart on sheet L2. However, cross-sections B and C on sheet L3 still show the 12-14’ high spruces that were originally discussed. Staff recommend that the applicant plant the 12-14’ spruces rather than reducing the height.
3. A site visit by staff revealed that the berm is already under construction prior to approval by the Commission. As we seem to be having a difficult time securing the applicant’s conformance to requirements and staff instructions to cease unapproved construction, staff are recommending some approval conditions that we wouldn’t normally require:
· The site engineer and landscape architect, as appropriate, must oversee construction of the berm as well as selection of the actual buffer trees at the nursery and installation on site.
· A five-year landscape bond of $ 50,000 is recommended, to take effect upon planting of the buffer trees. If trees fail to thrive subsequent to the expiration of the nursery guarantee, the developer must replace the failing trees. Town staff will make final decisions as needed regarding which trees must be replaced. Selection of and installation of any replacement trees must be overseen by a licensed landscape architect.
The amount of the buffer bond was recommended by Karl Reichle, South Windsor Tree Warden.
4. The proposed community building modification includes an increase in size from 1055 square feet to 1384 square feet. The patio has been relocated from the back of the community building to the west side and front of the building. The modified building is located no closer to the southern neighbors than the previously-approved building. There is more architectural detail on the new building.
5. If this application is approved, the Planning Department requests those approval conditions already noted.
Doolittle gave an engineering report:
1. Change the proposed berm to be 2-3 feet high at most. A berm greater than 3 feet high will not fit well in the 25 foot buffer without impacting property outside the buffer (ie: not on this project), and/or having side slopes steeper than 3H:1V which is not desirable.
2. I understand the proposed swale on the south side of the berm and this property is to be graded to drain to the few yard drains behind units 16-24. The landscape plan needs to clearly show the swale with elevations and notes to reflect this grading. The swale needs to be constructed so it drains and does not adversely impact the drainage off the existing house lots to the south.
3. The berm and swale need to be shown on the Topographic Plan. Construction of the berm and swale need to be coordinated between the Engineer and Developer so what is designed and approved gets accurately built in the field.
4. Landscape Buffer Elevations B and C (which show the proposed berm) do not show the units as close to the berm or property line as they are planned. The units closest to Elevation B, units 18 and 19, are 61 feet and 54 feet respectively from the property line (36 feet and 29 feet respectively from the proposed berm). Unit 24, which is closest to Elevation C, is 40 feet from the property line and 15 feet from the proposed berm. These Elevations should be revised so the distance from the units to the property line and proposed berm is as shown on the plans.
The public had comments
Mike Scholinger, 89 Quarry Brook Drive: The trees that are left are going to shade new plantings. Who is going to take care of the plantings if they don’t live? A one year warranty is not enough, a five year is more reasonable. Once the warranty has expired, how will the home owners association take care of the new trees?
Compensation for the loss of our buffer should also be considered. The size of the trees and the berm should be determined exactly.
Bruce Miller, 119 Quarry Brook Drive: Recommendations by planning staff are good. The bond should be increased. The time frame of the plantings should be done before the fall. The original buffer that was destroyed protected us from dirt and dust as well as being visually pleasing. The town over seeing additional clearing is necessary based on events that have taken place.
Michael Strout, 79 Quarry Brook Drive: The moving of the patio was a very nice thing to do. The bond is very important and one year is not enough for a warranty. The plantings should go in as soon as possible. The buffer being gone has made the construction much more of an adverse effect on our neighborhood.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners: (Responses will be in italics)
Bazzano questioned Mr. Boston on the amount of trees that had been cut down in the buffer zone. There were about 63 trees that were 6 inches and larger. Stumps were grubbed out, but all cutting has stopped. Trees that were planted now would be at risk during construction. For warranty purposes, planting would be better in the fall.
Bazzano: Who would ultimately be responsible for the plantings? Lipe: The association would be involved in the inspection and would need to give permission to Mr. Jacques to enter the property to maintain the buffer. It may be decided that the association buys into the bond and Mr. Jacques is no longer responsible. It’s based on timing.
Lipe clarified for Mr. Boston that the $50,000 proposed bond is strictly for the new plantings in the buffer zone. The original landscaping bond is separate.
Sullivan directed questions to Mr. Boston regarding the new trees and their chances for survival. The large oaks will assist in keeping the ground moist for new trees. The new trees will need 6 months to one year to root. There will be more than enough sunlight. What will be the size of the trees? Mr. Jacques: The larger trees may blow over. Ten foot trees are better to plant but they are not available until November.
Mike Scholinger: Ten or twelve foot trees is not acceptable. Fourteen foot trees are needed with a three foot birm. This will equal the shielding be had with the previous buffer that has been cut down.
Evans: November planting seems very late for feeder roots to grab hold before winter. August, September or October at the latest is the time for plantings.
Bazzano: Forteen foot trees are much more acceptable. If they fall down due to late plantings and roots not taking, they will have to be replaced.
Sullivan: How will we approach allowing the applicant to continue cutting evasive species in the buffer zone. Lipe: The applicant can flag what they want to cut and the town can inspect and approve.
Pacekonis: Can buffer maintenance be put into the community by laws? Lipe: If the buffer is not maintained, it can be a zoning enforcement issue. Kennedy: The town does not have the authority to enforce the by laws of a common interest community.
Discussion continued and was the consensus of the commission that planting should be done in early September.
Choate made a motion to extend the meeting past 10:00p.m. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Mr. Jacques stated that trees would not be available in September, it is too hot to dig them up. Kennedy: The plantings can be planned for September unless the tree warden gives an extension. With the history of this property and the cutting of the buffer, the town wants assurance from an expert on when the trees can be dug and planted.
Michael Strout: Research I have done has shown that these trees would need full sun to grow. A tree warden would give more insight on this. Lipe: The tree warden has been on sight and has been consulted.
Pacekonis made a motion to approve with the following modifications Appl 06-18P, Teaberry Estates SRD, site plan modifications for buffer and community center:
All original approval conditions for Application #05-03P remain in full force and effect, with the following additions.
No additional building permits will be issued until the final mylars for this modified approval have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
The site engineer and landscape architect, as appropriate, must oversee construction of the berm as well as selection of the actual buffer trees at the nursery and installation on site.
An additional landscape bond of $ 50,000 is required prior to filing of mylar, to remain in effect for five full years after planting of the buffer trees. If trees fail to thrive during the five-year bond period, the failing trees must be replaced. Town staff will make final decisions as needed regarding which trees must be replaced. Selection of and installation of any replacement trees during the five-year bond period must be overseen by a licensed landscape architect. The landscaping bond must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy.
Engineering comments dated 4/24/06 must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
Buffer plantings must be started by September 30, 2006 unless certified by the town’s tree warden.
The white and blue spruce will be a minimum of 12 to 14 feet high and the berm will be 3 feet high.
Jeski seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
3. Appl. 06-01P, Evergreen Walk Office South – Site Development Plan application (Section 5.8.7.1) to construct a medical office building, parking, storm water structures, and associated improvements on 5+/- acres located approximately 270 feet westerly of Buckland Road, and approximately 310 feet southerly of Deming Street, Gateway Development zone
Discussion ensued among the commissioners.
Choate: Opened discussion regarding the sidewalk on Buckland. Doolittle clarified where the gaps would be as sites are built upon.
Evans: When would the manhole covers be lowered? Doolittle: It can be done before construction starts or before a certificate of occupancy is issued.
Sullivan: At what point does it become appropriate to start looking at the revised plans for the construction of the final boulevard? Kennedy: On the general plan of development there is approval for a boulevard. If they start to deviate from the plan, this would be an appropriate time to question intentions. Evan: Coordination with IWA/CC would be beneficial.
Bazzano made a motion to approve with the following modifications Appl 06-01P, Evergreen Walk Office South, site plan of development.
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 $20,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sedimentation control measures and a bond in the amount of $50,000 to ensure establishment of the stormwater structures.
4. A landscape bond in the amount of $20,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
5. All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy.
6. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
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. The building street number must be included on the final plan.
10. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
11. All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected.
12. The Town Engineer’s review comments dated April 25, 2006, must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction, excluding #3 and the extension and the detention access drive.
13. The Fire Marshal’s review comments dated April 13, 2006, must be addressed to the Fire Marshal’s satisfaction.
14. The light fixture detail must specify full-cutoff fixtures.
15. Add a street light at the sharp corner on Evergreen Way extension between LA Fitness and the new site.
16. The manhole frames and covers on the temporary drive between LA Fitness and the shops at Evergreen Walk must be lowered prior to the issuance of a C.O. for the office south building.
Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
4. Appl 05-77P, J.E. Shepard Company– request for a 2 year temporary and conditional permit to allow a two-family house on property located at 2019 John Fitch Boulevard, I zone
Sorenson sat in for Choate.
Evans made a motion to approve with the following modifications Appl. 05-77P, J.E. Shepard Company 2 year temporary and conditional permit.
The two-year temporary and conditional permit for this apartment will expire on April 25, 2008.
Applicant must continue to work with the Building Official and take out the necessary building permits to meet the building code for this residential use.
Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Choate returned to meeting.
BONDS:
MINUTES:
CORRESPONDENCE/REPORT:
ADJOURNMENT:
Choate made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:27 p.m. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted:
Barbara M. Messino, Recording Secretary
| 
