MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Gary Bazzano, Suzanne Choate, Louise Evans, Bart Pacekonis, and Michael Sullivan
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Jeski sitting for Cliff Slicer
David Sorenson
STAFF PRESENT: Michele R. Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Bazzano read the legal notice into the record as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, November 30, 2006 and Thursday, December 7, 2006.
1. Appl 06-52P, Botteron In-Law Apartment – request for 5-year in-law apartment for property located at 234 Abbe Road, RR Zone.
Mr. Victor Botteron presented the application referenced above: Family member would be more comfortable living among family rather than living alone.
Lipe gave a planning report:
1. Request for a permit for an in-law apartment at 234 Abbe Road, A-20 zone. The applicant is proposing an addition off the back of the house to accommodate the in-law apartment.
2. The PZC in-law apartment regulation has specific criteria for the unit; and provides for a 5-year permit period. These criteria include:
· The in-law apartment cannot be larger than 900 sq ft or 40% of the gfa (whichever is smaller)
· the entire structure must maintain the appearance of a single family dwelling;
· off street parking for three vehicles must be accommodated;
· adequate water and sewage disposal must be provided; and
· the owner of the dwelling units must occupy either the in-law apartment or the main dwelling unit
3. The Commission may waive one or more of the provisions above (except the requirement that an owner live in the apartment or house) after determining:
· There will be minimum adverse impact on existing uses in the area;
· Surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
· Due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
4. The in-law apartment is approximately 600 square feet. The existing house is approximately 1,440 sq ft, for a total square footage of 2,040 sf. The applicant has submitted a plot plan showing the proposed addition, and a floor plan and a sketch of the elevation for the addition. He has also provided a floor plan showing the removal of the kitchenette.
If this application is approved, the Commission may grant approval for up to five years. The applicant will be asked via letter to reaffirm ownership of the property every two years. At the end of the permit period, if the family situation has not changed, the applicant may request renewal by staff.
There were no comments from the public.
Commissioner Pacekonis recused himself, Sorenson sitting in.
The public hearing closed at 7:35 p.m.
2. Appl 06-56P, Buttimer In-.Law Apartment – request for 5-year in-law apartment for property located at 271 Hilton Drive Road, A-20 Zone.
Ms. Diane Buttimer presented the application referenced above: The in law apartment will be for my mother.
Lipe gave a planning report:
1. Request for a permit for an in-law apartment at 271 Hilton Drive, A-20 zone. The applicant is proposing an addition to accommodate the in-law apartment. They have provided both a survey showing the addition and architectural drawings showing the layout and elevations of the house.
2. The PZC in-law apartment regulation has specific criteria for the unit; and provides for a 5-year permit period. These criteria include:
· The in-law apartment cannot be larger than 900 sq ft or 40% of the gfa (whichever is smaller)
· the entire structure must maintain the appearance of a single family dwelling;
· off street parking for three vehicles must be accommodated;
· adequate water and sewage disposal must be provided; and
· the owner of the dwelling units must occupy either the in-law apartment or the main dwelling unit
3. The Commission may waive one or more of the provisions above (except the requirement that an owner live in the apartment or house) after determining:
· There will be minimum adverse impact on existing uses in the area;
· Surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
· Due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
4. The in-law apartment is approximately 599 square feet. The existing house with the addition will be approximately 2,024 sq ft. The applicant has submitted a plot plan showing the proposed additions, and a floor plan and elevations for the apartment.
If this application is approved, the Commission may grant approval for up to five years. The applicant will be asked via letter to reaffirm ownership of the property every two years. At the end of the permit period, if the family situation has not changed, the applicant may request renewal by staff.
There were no comments from the public.
Commissioners had the following questions/comments: Responses will be in italics.
Sullivan: Does the in law apartment include a porch? Yes. It is to allow access.
Choate: The two front doors and the elevations do maintain the appearance of a single family.
The public hearing closed at 7:40 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:44p.m.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Mr. Tim DeVaney, President of Highland Park Market came before the Commission to voice his concerns with the recent 8 to 1 vote against residential development being in the Gateway Development Zone.
Shopping Centers such as the Manchester Parkade, are kept dark and vacant sometimes by owners of grocery store chains to eliminate competition. A residential piece to Evergreen Walk would be welcome and was the plan from the beginning.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
1. Appl 06-59P, Ful-Line Auto Site Plan – request for site plan approval for display of cars for sale for property located at 1546 John Fitch Boulevard, I Zone.
Becky Myers, Project Engineering of Design Professionals presented the application referenced above. The general location of the site is on the eastern side of Route 5. The site is currently serviced by public sewer. Parking plans were reviewed as well as the façade of the building. Closing off the northern curb cut is proposed. Lighting and town comments were reviewed.
Peter DeMallie reviewed the history of the site. Its uses has been commercial even though it has been in an industrial zone. Atlantic Plywood leases the back of the site for parking and storage of vehicles. Letters of support were submitted. The site plan will have landscaping improvements, closure of the northern curb cut to facilitate access management and aesthetic improvements to the building. There is some criminal activity at this site; 2 vehicles have been stolen and broken into. There will be a fence across the front which will help with this problem.
Lipe gave a planning report:
Request for site plan approval for outdoor display of vehicles for property located at 1546 John Fitch Boulevard, I zone. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 65%: 58.2% proposed. Lot size is 1.3 ac.; minimum lot size allowed is 20,000 sf. Front yard setback is 35 feet, the current building is non-conforming at 28.8 ft.
The applicant received three variances from the ZBA on 10/5/06 for: 1) to section 13.7.4 to allow parking of display vehicles within 10’ of the property line; 2) to section 13.4.a to allow parking without a five foot perimeter screening and no interior landscaping; and 3) to section 3.10.5 to modify prior approvals in order to conform to the submitted plan.
Conditions placed on the approval include:
a) The variances for parking spaces 1-20, inclusive, as shown on the plan, are contingent upon continued lease of the area from the State of Connecticut.
b) The variances are further conditioned upon the closing of the northerly curb-cut, access to Route 5, as shown on the plans.
c) The variances are further conditioned on the requirement that there be no future sale of gasoline on the premises.
The applicant is proposing to close the northern curb cut. This is subject to DOT approval.
The outdoor storage of vehicles is shown behind the building.
The parking requirements based on the uses is 20 spaces; 20 spaces proposed.
There are several improvements proposed to the building. They plan to add siding to the building and an awning on the southwesterly corner of the building. New lighting is also shown on that façade. This light must be a full cut-off fixture in accordance with the regulations.
There are existing signs, both temporary and building sign on the site. The applicant should work with the ZEO to ensure that the signs are all permitted.
There are no regulated wetlands on the property, therefore no wetlands approval was required.
There are two dumpsters shown to be placed on a concrete pad and screened. They must be relocated behind the building line.
South Windsor Police Department and Fire Marshal have reviewed the proposal and have no comments on the plan.
If this application is approved, the planning department has no additional modification to request.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners:
Evans: Are the parking spaces going to be marked? DPI: No, they will not be striped. How will employee parking be designated? DPI: We could do signage up against the building. Did ZBA limit the number of cars? As per the plan, with the exception that in the back there is a general area where cars will be awaiting going into the body shop or to be picked up.
Choate: Staff mentioned the dumpster needs to be moved, is this a problem? DPI: No. ZBA gave a variance for interior landscaping which is disappointing because there is a lot of pavement. Can consideration be given that may break up the pavement somewhat. DPI: It is a very tight site. The landscaping alone will dress up the site.
Chaote: Is Atlantic Plywood subject to the same regulations of outdoor storage as a tenant? Dave Bombetto, Owner of property: They park vehicles in the back and park trailers at night.
Sullivan: Please explain the canopy in fenced area. It has been there since 1976 and previously used for propane screening. Everything else is gone except canopy. It will not be for storage.
Jeski: The plans need to be revised to show the structure Sullivan refers to.
Stephen Crazner of Middletown had the following comments: As a former resident I have used Ful-line Auto and still come from Middletown to remain a loyal customer.
Sullivan made a motion to approve with modifications Appl 06-59P, Ful-Line Auto Site Plan.
The following are modifications of approval:
No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
A landscape bond in the amount of $1,000 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.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
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.
All new lighting must be full cut-off lighting in accordance with the zoning regulations.
The ZBA approval letters should be reproduced on the plans.
The dumpsters should be relocated behind the building line.
Final plans should include canopy
Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 06-61P, Lots and More – request for approval for a site plan modification for outdoor display and storage of products for property located at 700 Sullivan Avenue, GC Zone.
Elaine Akar of Lots and More, LLC presented the application along with Daniel Shustock for outdoor storage and display. Staff informed the applicant that there may be some wetland issues that need to be addressed and no action will be taken tonight.
Lipe gave a planning report:
1. Request for site plan approval for outdoor storage and display at Lots & More, 770 Sullivan Avenue, GC zone. Outdoor storage is governed by the provisions of Section 3.15, Commercial and Industrial Storage: “Storage, display…of any material outside of a building is prohibited if such storage, display…is visible from any public way, street, or passage, but any such storage, display…shall be subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission to insure the character of the area is not destroyed.”
2. As you will recall, Lots & More appeared before you in July to request permission for a mobile food cart. At the time, the Commission indicated that the mobile food cart is a permitted use provided that the food cart is removed from the premises at the end of each day, and provided that no seating or tables were utilized. At that meeting, the Commission discussed the extensive outdoor storage present at Lots & More and indicated that a site plan would be required in order for the Commission to determine the extent of outdoor storage and display that is acceptable. We were disappointed to note that for the short time that the food cart was operational,
it did not leave the site at night, and tables were set up nearby. The food cart is also shown on this site plan.
3. The site plan shows 18 bins for mulch and stone, 3 of which are about 65 feet from Sullivan Avenue and 14 of which are farther back on the east side of the site. The mulch bins outline the eastern perimeter of the proposed outdoor storage area. Screening is proposed at the front of this storage area via a 40’ long, 2’ high berm with about 9 arborvitaes of unspecified size on top of the berm. There is also an enclosed double greenhouse shown just behind the berm. The screening for the three mulch bins at the front of the site consists of two arborvitae trees of unspecified size.
4. There is an 83’ long fence shown on the west side property boundary, with 10 feet of fencing perpendicular to the front of the 83’ fence. There is existing outdoor storage and display within this area, and it is not clear on the plan whether the applicant intends to continue using this area for outdoor storage. If yes, then the 10’ section of fence doesn’t appear to be very adequate screening.
5. There is fencing with a gate at the rear of the 83’ fence, and another fence with a gate from the northeast corner of the building to the rear property boundary. Within this gated area are trailers used as storage containers, and the applicant is requesting approval to continue to use the storage containers
6. There are no storage or display areas shown directly in front of the store or within the parking lot except for the three mulch bins. If the Commission approves this plan, the applicant needs to be very clear that the areas shown as outdoor storage and display on this site plan are the only areas that can contain outdoor items.
7. Staff are aware that there is an existing access easement from Lots & More property to Battiston’s Cleaners on the west. We want the applicant to verify that any fencing installed does not violate the existing easement.
8. Questions for the Commission include:
9. Is the amount of outdoor storage/display acceptable?
10. Are the mulch bins near Sullivan Avenue acceptable? and
11. Is the proposed screening adequate, both at the front mulch bins and for the storage on the sides of the building?
12. The proposed outdoor storage area to the east is expanding toward the Podunk River and wetlands. Jeff Folger, our Environmental Planner, will be reviewing the proposal to determine whether he needs any further information to determine whether there are any wetlands impacts and any type of wetlands permit.
If this application is approved, staff requests an approval modification that clearly states outdoor storage/display is limited to the areas shown on the site plan; and that proposed fencing does not violate the existing access easement.
Doolittle had engineering comments:
The service of outdoor bins is not specified; impervious coverage is a concern with drainage on site; wetlands need to be flagged; storm water management application should be addressed.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners: Responses in italics.
Sullivan: Was a timeframe discussed with the applicant upon their last appearance in front of the council? Lipe: Yes, 90 days. Staff met with them, but they did not meet the 90 days. Concerns are with the expansion of the outdoor storage at the site done independently of the regulations and now that plans have been done, IWA/CC, as well as other commissions, have been alerted to the potential effects on the environment.
Lipe: The area closest to the river is the area of concern. The area will be flagged for wetlands in the next couple of weeks.
Evans: Seems to be a large quantity of storage bins. There are a lot of different mulches, 17 bins will not be seen from the road. Plastic should last 4-5 years on the proposed greenhouses.
Chaote: Landscaping needs to be shown on plans and should screen outdoor storage.
Pacekonis wanted clarification on who owns lot west of the building: Battison’s Cleaners.
Choate: Is the food cart shown on the site plan an acceptable use? Yes, permitted in the GC zone.
Kennedy: The commission does not regulate mobile food carts. Is this being proposed as a structure? Yes. More detail is needed as to what it will look like.
Sullivan: East of the building, bins 4-18 the plans depict the vegetation to be adequate for screening. More screening is needed for bins 1-3. Green houses may provide screening for bins if maintained.
Jeski: Do the storage trailers need to be screened from residential? It would be most desirable but is a difficult process.
Evans: What is your main business? Our lawn and garden is very successful and we would like to expand that use.
Sullivan made a motion to table Appl. 06-61P, Lots and More. Jeski seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
3. Appl 06-49P, Cummings Amendment Option A, request for zoning amendment to Section 5.8.4 to allow grocery stores less than 22,000 square feet at least 1,000 feet from any other existing grocery store in the Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners:
Bazzano: Fifteen hundred feet allows one or two more parcels for a grocery store. If 1,000 feet were permitted there would be 4-5 grocery stores allowed. The current regulation is good as it stands.
Kennedy: The original idea when the 3,000 was proposed, the regulation would allow one grocery store which would deny other grocery stores approval. With the conditions of less than 22,000 sf, architectural design requirements and shopping cart management there would not be many grocery stores. Option B of the proposed amendment is preferable which would not have any requirements.
Sullivan: As the application is presented and raises the case of grocery stores needing more competition, I disagree. The applicant did not well represent the reasons for the proposed amendment when using “monopoly” as a reason and stating that the commission enacted an amendment that was not fair to business. The regulation is fine as it is.
Choate: Grocery stores are a permitted use. Limiting the distance is the issue. Lowering the distance would expand the cap. Either application is acceptable.
Pacekonis: Lowering distance to 1,000 would be acceptable but would still like to see some distance. Option A is more favorable.
Bazzano: Very concerned with Mr. Cummings discussion regarding controlling what is inside the store. We can only regulate what is outside.
Evans: Wanted clarification of grocery vs. specialty store. Lipe: Specialty stores are under 10,000 sf.
Pacekonis made a motion to approve Appl. 06-48P, Cummings Amendment Option A. Choate seconded the motion. The motion failed and the vote was as follows: 3 to 4 with Commissioners Pacekonis, Choate and Kennedy voting in favor of the motion and Commissioners Bazzano, Jeski, Sullivan and Evans voted against the motion.
Bazzano made a motion to deny Appl. 06-48P, Cummings Amendment Option A. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was as follows: 4 to 3 with Commissioners Bazzano, Jeski, Sullivan and Evans voting in favor of the motion and Commissioners Pacekonis, Choate and Kennedy voting against the motion.
4. Appl 06-50P, Cummings Amendment Option B, request for zoning amendment to Section 5.8.4 to allow grocery stores less than 22,000 square feet (with no separating distance) in the Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone.
Bazzano made a motion to deny Appl. 06-50P, Cummings Amendment Option B. Jeski seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was as follows: 4 to 3 with Commissioners Bazzano, Jeski, Sullivan and Evans voting in favor of the motion and Commissioner Pacekonis, Choate and Kennedy voting against the motion.
5. Appl 06-52P, Botteron In Law Apartment – request for 5-year in law apartment for property located at 234 Abbe Road, RR Zone.
Commissioner Sorenson sat for Commissioner Pacekonis on this application
Evans made a motion to approve with modifications appl 06-52P, Botteron In Law Apartment.
This approval is for an in-law apartment for a family member/relative only. When the in-law apartment is no longer occupied by a relative of the family, the apartment cannot be treated as a second dwelling unit. Instead, the kitchen must be removed and the living area must be converted into other living space for the main dwelling.
This permit will expire in five years, on 12/12/11, and will have to be renewed at that time if the use is to be continued. Owner(s) of the property must reside in the apartment or the main dwelling unit. Reaffirmation of occupancy by owner will be required every two years. This will be done via a letter from the Planning Department requesting the reaffirmation of occupancy.
Any new building, or alterations/additions to existing buildings, require a building permit prior to start of construction.
The building footprint must not exceed 10% of the lot area, in accordance with Section 10.2 of the zoning regulations.
Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
6. Appl 06-56P, Buttimer In Law Apartment – request for 5-year in law apartment for property located at 271 Hilton Drive Road, A-20 Zone.
Choate made a motion to approve with the following modifications appl 06-56P, Buttimer In Law Apartment:
1. This approval is for an in-law apartment for a family member/relative only. When the in-law apartment is no longer occupied by a relative of the family, the apartment cannot be treated as a second dwelling unit. Instead, the kitchen must be removed and the living area must be converted into other living space for the main dwelling.
2. This permit will expire in five years, on 12/12/11, and will have to be renewed at that time if the use is to be continued. Owner(s) of the property must reside in the apartment or the main dwelling unit. Reaffirmation of occupancy by owner will be required every two years. This will be done via a letter from the Planning Department requesting the reaffirmation of occupancy.
3. Any new building, or alterations/additions to existing buildings, require a building permit prior to start of construction.
4. The building footprint must not exceed 10% of the lot area, in accordance with Section 10.2 of the zoning regulations.
Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
7. Appl 06-31P, Copper Ridge Subdivision – acceptance of appraisal to establish fee in lieu of open space.
Lipe: The property was appraised at pre sub division value of $342,000. There are 11 lots, $3,109 per lot for fee removal valued at per subdivision.
Evans made a motion to accept appraisal for Appl 06-31P, Copper Ridge Subdivision to establish a fee of $3,109 in lieu of open space for each of the eleven lots. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
8. CT River Assembly – Kathy Hale represented CT River Assembly. CT River Assembly regional organization of towns. The intent of the organization is to protect the river. Input is given by the organization on large scale applications.
The assembly is reassessing themselves. Will either expand or be eliminated. Hale discussed the importance of recommendations made by the assembly and the ramifications of a negative assessment on an application.
Hale: Have you ever heard of the CT River Assembly? Sullivan: Yes, I have appeared in front of the assembly and experienced them at work. My impression was a positive one.
Discussion ensued among the commission regarding existing regulations. The concensus of the commission is that it should stay in existence. Also, it is important to get input from other towns and have relationships between agencies.
9. Preliminary discussion with Jim Poulin regarding interior lots, Strong Road
The location and ownership of the lots were presented. There would be two lots: 2 and 6+ acres. They would comply with all regulations, no modifications or variances requested.
There were no staff comments at this time and no buffer requirements.
Discussion ensued among the commissioners: Responses in italics.
Evans: The property currently does not have frontage on Strong Road as planned.
Lipe: Regulations allow one access to service driveway two lots.
Public water would be proposed with septic systems; remain unpaved; criteria by Fire Marshal regarding driveway length and dry hydrant discussed; utilities access through Strong Road; size of homes to be approximately 3500 square feet.
BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings
Bond Calling
Evans made a motion to initiate the calling of the Letter of Credit for Appl 01-24P, Strawberry Fields in the amount of $163,320 for the remaining site improvements. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Landscaping Bonds
Appl 03-28P, Shadybrook SRD – landscaping bond in the amount of $10,000 to be reduced by $10,000 leaving a balance of $0.
Appl 04-23P, Post Road Stages – landscaping bond in the amount of $5,000 to be reduced by $5,000 leaving a balance of $0.
Appl 05-07P, Vans Leisure Living – landscaping bond in the amount of $2,000 to be reduced by $2,000 leaving a balance of $0.
Appl 05-12P, MASSCONN – landscaping bonds in the amount of $3,000 to be reduced by $3,000 leaving a balance of $0.
Bazzano made a motion to reduce the above landscaping bonds. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
ADJOURNMENT:
Bazzano made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:59p.m. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted:
____________________________
Barbara Messino
Recording Secretary
| 
