Town of South Windsor, CT Agendas & Minutes Archive

PZC Mintues 6/26/2007

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Gary Bazzano, Louise Evans, Suzanne Choate, Bart Pacekonis, Cliff Slicer and Mike Sullivan

ALTERNATES PRESENT: None present

STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning

Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer

PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Bazzano read the legal notice into the record as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, June 14, 2007 and Thursday, June 21, 2007.

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. (continued from 6/12/07)

Marcia Banach presented the Zoning Regulations update as follows.

Revisions were made to the regulations based on input received at the previous public hearing. Mobile food vendors are permitted in commercial zones without a permit provided that all of the following criteria are met:

1. Written permission from the property owner; vendors shall not be located within public rights-of-way.

2. There must be adequate room for vehicles to pull off safely.

3. All facilities and equipment used by vendor must be portable. Connections to external utilities are not permitted.

4. Vendors must be removed from the site by 9:00 p.m.

5. Vendors must comply with health and safety regulations of the Town of CitySouth Windsor and the State of StateplaceCT.

6. Vendors shall keep the area of operation free of debris and shall clean the area thoroughly upon ceasing operations each day. At least one trash container must be provided for use by patrons.

Changes were made to Sections on horses’ ponies and home animal agriculture. Electric fences are in, barb wire fences are out. Three acres or three animal units or less would require a zoning permit; anything more than three acres would require to go before the commission for approval.

Public input was requested.

Merle Dinse, addressStreet535 Clark Street, requested a change on the regulations for interior lots. He proposed to either change the 1990 qualifying date to a newer date, or allow interior lots on land with frontage that has not changed since 1990.

Kip Shepard. addressStreet715 Main Street, had questions on whether or not people who already had animals would be grandfathered in. The elimination of barbed wire would create a large expense for the people who have barbed wire. Needed more clarification on the meaning of “commercial” and how it would affect current users.

Banach responded that anybody who has animals on their property legally would be grandfathered in. After receiving public input at the last public hearing, barbed wire was taken out of the regulations and the electric fences for horses was added to the regulations. Kennedy responded that anyone with a prior use would not have to rewire their fences, the new regulations would prevent anyone from putting up any new barbed wire fences.

Kip Shepard requested more clarification on how the new regulations would affect the people who have more than 2 or 3 horses on their property. Banach responded that people who already have horses are grandfathered in and she recommended that everyone who had any preexisting animal use on their property should write a letter specifying how many animals they have so that it can be filed at the Planning Department in their street file.

Keith Yagaloff of 65 Pleasant Valley, has concerns centered on grandfathering animals and how that would work. He also had concerns with not being approved for a sign in front of his building in the past and disagrees with the sign regulations and process.

Cary Prague, addressStreet60 Gorski Drive, has concerns centered on the current signage regulations and he doesn’t agree with the enforcement of signs for business owners. He wanted to know who is ultimately responsible for signage regulations and zoning enforcement for the Town of placeCitySouth Windsor.

Dick Kelly, addressStreet49 Rosmary Lane, had concerns with signage regulations/enforcement and how it affects businesses in PlaceTypeplaceTown PlaceNameCentre PlaceTypePlaza that are not visible from the road.

Bill Aman, addressStreet878 Strong Road, spoke in favor of this application.

Linda Levack Dalpe, addressStreet1090 Main Street, had concerns centered on the new animal regulations and how they will affect her family, the storage of shavings and manure; needs clarification on how the grandfathering of animals will affect her heirs.

David Raymond, addressStreet1837 Main Street, had concerns with grass-grazing animals and needs clarification on commercial use: are there exemptions for non-commercial uses. Banach responded that if you have 3 or less animal units you would not need a permit from Planning and Zoning, if you have more than three animal units or acres you will need to come before the Commission for approval. Regarding the grandfathering of animals, this means forever, if you’ve had a pre-existing legal animal use your children will be grandfathered in. If the property is sold that animal use would be grandfathered over to the new owner.

Kevin Woolan, addressStreet1185 Main Street, opposed the acreage requirements for animals; small animal units should have an appeals process, use of storage units on trailers for feed and bedding should be allowed.

A letter from Merle Dinse, 535 Clark Street, requesting for a change in the interior lot regulations from 1990, was read into the record (see exhibit A)

Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.

· The regulations were not intended to impose restrictive measures on residents

· Is there any other way to advertise the public hearing besides the newspaper in order to get the word out to more residents so that they don’t feel they are in violation of any new regulations? Banach: We advertise public hearings in the newspaper as well as on our website to get the information out to the residents. If you have an existing animal use it is recommended that you write a letter and send it to the Planning Department so that it can be put in your file. We do our best to advertise the hearings but there is a limit to how much we can get the word out to residents that don’t read the paper or have access to the web.

· How can we grandfather property that already has barbed wire for future subsequent owners that would be interested in purchasing the same property for animal use? Banach: Permits are not required for a fence, the only time the regulations would come into play would be if a new person comes before the commission for animal use. The regulations were not intended to disturb the residents on old addressStreetMain Street. The subcommittee was trying to solve the dilemma of the people who had large farm animals or small nuisance animals on a half acre lot in the middle of a subdivision. This will affect people who come in with new permits, not the current users.

· Regarding sign regulations- Who is responsible for the enforcement of the regulations? Banach: The responsibility for sign enforcement rests with the Planning Department based on the regulations that this commission has set. Staff advise that the Commission not ask staff to selectively enforce the regulations; if the regulation is bad then the Planning and Zoning commission should change the regulation.

· Regarding letter from Mr. Dinse and the preexisting subdivision regulations from 1990, is this a date that was proposed in these regulations or is it going to carry forward with these new regulations? Banach: this date is the cut off for the interior lot regulations that is going to carry forward; there were no changes to that regulation.

· What will be the outcome if we change that date? When the regulations were enacted the purpose of the date was to not create new “leftover” pieces of property. The idea was for people not to continue to subdivide the front pieces off from 1990 and forward and then come back after they subdivided the front pieces and try to get more lots out of the rear acreage. I will have to look over the letter that Mr. Dense submitted which I just received a copy of and see what kind of impact changing the requirement would have.

· In the past there were concerns that a free standing temporary sign left out over night could be a hazard. The Commission might be willing to consider sandwich signs for select periods of time, but they would have to be put away at night.

· We have met with the Chamber and we thought the sign regulations were all set. With interior businesses, what is the most effective way to handle the businesses that wish to put a sandwich board in front of their store? Dick Kelly prefers that the signs be put in front of each store on the sidewalk and then taken down each night, since this is helpful for business who are not visible from the main road.

· Concerns with having too many signs scattered throughout the property on the main road. There is no problem with a sandwich board being placed on the sidewalk in front of a business and then taken down at night. Can we word it to limit it to interior properties? Banach noted that it would be difficult to determine who would be able to have the signs and who could not have them. This might cause other business owners in other plazas to question why some are allowed to have sandwich signs in front and others are not. It would be more straightforward to allow such signs on a sidewalk adjacent to the business.

· Are there going to be any other public hearings for animals or any special exceptions? Will there be any flexibility with these regulations if someone wanted to have more than the allowable number of animals on one acre? Banach: The way the regulations are drafted now, it will require a zoning sign-off and the only time an applicant will come before the commission will be if they have more than three animal units. There are no waiver provision written in these regulations, the Commission should be the ones to decide whether there should be any waiver provisions in the regulations.

· For the business owners that have given their input tonight, it seems like most the grievances are referring to signage for interior business locations. Since you have a hardship the commission would not want to get away from giving you the opportunity to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals process.

· Any decision on signage that would apply only to the business that are located on interior areas would not be fair to other business. If any changes are going to be made that will affect business owners we should include everyone, not just the people in the interior areas. Another meeting with the Chamber of Commerce will be requested to get a better understanding of the needs of the business owners in the town.

· Can we advertise with channel 16 regarding public hearings. I can check with public works, who have responsibility for Channel 16.

The public hearing was closed at 9:25 p.m.

2. Appl 07-14P, McGrath Subdivision – request for approval of a 3-lot resubdivision on 7.3 acres located on northerly side of addressStreetWindsorville Road (addressStreet80 Windsorville Road), RR zone

Ben Wheeler, Design Professionals, presented the application as follows.

The owners are James B. McGrath and Katherine M. Kelly. The property is located in an RR zone. The site contains an existing house on the corner of addressStreetWindsorville Road and addressStreetGriffin Road. IWA/CC had concerns with one of the lots, so the site plan was revised to include three lots, one for the existing house and two new lots.

A drainage report was submitted. The site plan was approved by IWA/CC on June 20^th with a condition of approval for a 30-foot no-clearing zone adjacent to the wetlands site, and that wetlands markers must be placed at the boundaries of the wetlands on site. These conditions will be reflected on the final plan.

Engineering comments concerning the septic system were addressed, the septic system on lot two was moved as requested. The site has public water available across addressStreetWindsorville Rd, this will be added to the plans. The septic system requirements were discussed with the Town Sanitarian and he has approved the design for new lots two and three. A note will be added to the final plans to clarify the status of the septic system on the existing lot and to ensure that there is no confusion about Sanitarian approval.

The applicant is requesting a waiver of the street tree requirements, as the site is wooded.

Banach had a planning report as follows.

Request for approval of a resubdivision of 7.3 acres to create 2 new lots on property located on northerly side of addressStreetWindsorville Road (addressStreet80 Windsorville Road) and easterly of addressStreetGriffin Road, RR zone.

Minimum lot size required in an RR zone subdivision is 40,000 sf. These lots range in size from 1.46 ac to 3 acres. Minimum required frontage is 175 feet; minimum proposed is 263 feet. It appears that all other zoning requirements have been met.

Both new lots will have turnaround driveways that will come out onto addressStreetWindsorville Road.

There are a significant amount of regulated wetlands on the property. The application was approved by IWA/CC on June 20th with a conservation easement required on lot #2.

There is no open space requirement for this subdivision because there are only three lots, which does not meet the threshold requiring open space.

There are no sidewalks shown along addressStreetWindsorville Road. The closest sidewalks are in the subdivision to the south, on both sides of the road along June Drive terminating at the addressStreetWindsorville Road intersection.

The site will be serviced by public water and septic systems. The Environmental Health Officer has indicated that it is uncertain whether there is a leaching field for the existing house. Staff request an approval condition that the status of the existing system must be determined and corrective action taken if necessary prior to filing of mylars.

Street trees are not shown as the area exists with a large number of trees along the addressStreetWindsorville Road frontage.

If this application is approved, the Planning Dept has no requested modifications.

Doolittle had no engineering comments.

There was no public input.

Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.

· Regarding the street tree waiver, what assurance do we have that the lots won’t be clear cut and not have any trees planted there? The site plan currently has a clearing area, and it will be reviewed by the town staff prior to approval of the final plan.

· Need the proposed trees to remain on the site to be clarified on the site plan.

The public hearing closed at 9:45 p.m.

3. Appl 07-26P, Brady’s Place – request for Special Exception to Article 6.1.3.6 of the zoning regulations to allow overnight boarding of dogs on property located at addressStreet357 Pleasant Valley Road, I zone

Jessica Easter, Brady’s Place requested for a Special Exception for overnight boarding of dogs at her existing dog daycare.

Banach had a planning report.

1. Request for Special Exception approval to Section 6.1.3.6, Commercial Kennels, to allow overnight boarding of dogs in conjunction with her existing permit to operate a doggie day care at 357 Pleasant Valley Road, I zone.

2. The applicant proposes to board only dogs, approximately 20-30 dogs max. The dogs will be crated at night and the majority of the dogs will have already been under her care at the daycare facility. The applicant would also like to do dog grooming at this location.

3. The State licenses commercial kennels. Their requirements cover such items as floor covering materials, size of runs, water, lighting, ventilation, temperature, and sanitation. It is required that feces and other excreta be removed at least once a day and runs washed down with hot water and disinfectant cleaner. Excreta must be disposed of in a sanitary manner. With the previous application the Town Sanitarian review noted that if weekly dumpster pick-up is not sufficient to minimize potential odor and fly problems, additional pickups may be needed. That is an existing approval condition for the doggie daycare.

4. Commercial kennels are allowed as a special exception use in the industrial zone, with all facilities housed inside a building with limited outside fenced area for exercising and training. In determining the appropriateness of the use, the Commission considers the following criteria:

a. The goals and objectives of the Plan of Development are met;

b. Adverse traffic impacts are not created;

c. Negative impacts on property values are not created;

d. The land is physically suited for the proposed use;

e. Adverse environmental impacts are not created;

f. There is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs;

g. Present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage system, and other improvements have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use

h. Historic factors are adequately protected;.

i. The overall physical appearance of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission’s goals for the neighborhood/corridor.

5. The entire area surrounding the site is zoned industrial (see zoning map). To date we have had no concerns expressed to our office.

6. We do not have a specific parking requirement for this use. The applicant has indicated that there are at least six spaces available for this business.

7. If this application is approved, Planning Dept requests no additional approval modifications.

Doolittle had no comments.

There was no public input.

Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.

· Do you intend to get a kennel license? When I got the daycare the DEP issued a kennel license.

· How many dogs do you care for now at the daycare? 15-20 dogs, I will limit the overnight care to 15-20 dogs.

· Which building are you using? The middle building, nothing will change at night, the dogs will be crated at night.

· Does anyone stay with the dogs over night? No.

The public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m.

4. Appl 07-25P, placePlaceNameWebster PlaceNameCommons - request for special exception to 5.7 and site plan approval to construct 22,000+/- sq ft commercial space plus 10 residential units at 1678 & addressStreet1700 Ellington Road, RC zone.

Ben Wheeler of Design Professionals presented the application as follows.

The owner of the property is Connecticut Valley Properties (Robert Urso). The two lots are 2.91 acres in size with 298 ft of frontage on addressStreetEllington Road. The proposal contains 24,000 sq ft of commercial space retail/office space with 10 residential units located above the commercial space in the four buildings in the northern portion of site. The building on addressStreet1700 Ellington Road, will be razed and replaced with a new building

The driveway entrance to addressStreet1700 Ellington Road will be eliminated and the site will have only one entrance. 118 parking spaces are provided on the plan; the applicant is requesting a parking waiver from the requirement of 20 parking spaces for the residential units. Residents have access to the proposed sidewalk. There is a bus stop to the east and a traffic light for the PlaceTypeplaceTown PlaceNameCentre PlaceTypePlaza. The residents will have adequate access to any amenities they would need.

Refuse and recycling will be provided by Mr. Urso on site in two areas specified on site plan, one on upper left and another on the lower right for dumpster locations that will be screened.

The ADRC reviewed the site plan and had suggested that we provide more direct access for pedestrians to addressStreetEllington Road. We have made modifications to the plan. Handicap parking will be realigned to provide more access from the residential units, and and more direct access to the sidewalk along addressStreetEllington Road.

There will be no roof top units on these buildings, there will be surface mounted utilities, and these will be screened with fencing or plant material.

Karen Isherwood Engineer for Design Professionals had the following overview of the site.

The site is lightly wooded, and has a gentle slope taking some of the surface runoff from the southerly portion of the site and running northerly to the boundary lines into the wetlands.

The applicant will be constructing 6 new buildings. There are public utilities, public sewer, water and gas. All the paved areas will run off and enter into rain gardens that are located through the site. During winter conditions these areas will overflow into adjacent catch basins located next to each island.

Jim Bubaris, traffic engineer, gave a traffic report. He conducted traffic counts to determine what kind of traffic Rte 30 has in the vicinity of placePlaceTypeTown PlaceNameCentre PlaceTypePlaza. They will need an encroachment permit from DEP since addressStreetEllington Road is a addressStreetState Route in this area. The proposed retail space, office space, medical office space and 10 residential apartments will have no adverse impact on the traffic operations that already exist.

Richard Boston Landscape architect provided an overview of the landscaping on site. Interior and parking area will contain ten shade trees and red maples. Rain gardens will contain specialized top soil; the plantings will be able to handle inundations on a periodic basis and winter conditions. There will be different combinations of rain gardens on site. Landscape screening will include the wetland as well as some of the parking area where deciduous shrubs will be planted. Pedestrian benches will be put outside the residential units.

David Holmes, project Architect presented the proposed architectural design of buildings on site. The layout of the buildings on site will reflect a village style look. There is a one story brick building and an existing two story wood frame building which will be replaced with a new building. Four buildings will be two stories with retail or commercial on the ground floor and ten apartments on the second floor. Storage space for each unit will be in the attic with pull down stairs. The roofs will have asphalt shingles. Buildings are all connecting; each tenant will have a private entrance.

Banach had a planning report.

1. Request for special exception to Section 5.7, Mixed Uses in Commercial/Office zones, and site plan approval to construct 22,000 sq ft of commercial space plus 10 residential units on property located at 1678 and addressStreet1700 Ellington Road, RC zone.

2. The stated purpose of this regulation is to increase the supply of affordable rental dwelling units in placeSouth Windsor by allowing construction of dwelling units in commercial buildings in certain commercial/office zones as a Special Exception use. Permitted uses include: Multi- family dwelling units; and uses which are expressly accessory to multi-family dwelling units (as determined by the Commission), intended and designed for the maintenance or operation of the property and/or the use of its residents.

3. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 60%, 57% provided. Proposed building height is 45 feet; 45 feet maximum allowed. placeLot size is 2.9 acres; minimum lot size allowed is ¾ acre. Frontage is 298 feet; minimum allowed is 150 feet. ZBA granted a variance to allow a 25’ front yard setback for the new front building, 65 feet required. The applicant also received a variance for the existing structure, which was nonconforming to the 65’ setback (58’).

4. The Commission can approve a Special Exception for mixed residential/commercial use only if it finds that the following criteria are satisfactorily met.

a. There is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs;

b. The existing/proposed commercial/office uses are not incompatible with residential uses;

c. The internal traffic circulation pattern is designed to minimize safety hazards for residents, particularly with respect to access into and out of the building;

d. Site design adequately reflects that residents’ needs are accommodated as an integral part of the site design (e.g., recreation, parking, storage, access) such that the site functions as an integrated site;

e. The proposed mixed use furthers the purpose stated in Section 5.7.1;

f. Present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage system, and other improvements have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use;

g. There is no undue concentration of high-density residential development in any area/neighborhood.

5. The Commission shall grant all approvals subject to such conditions and safeguards as will carry out the expressed purpose of these regulations.

6. A traffic study was prepared for the proposal. The traffic study indicates that, as expected, exiting from the site will be difficult during some portions of the day, with left turns having the most difficulty. addressStreetEllington Road has a single lane eastbound in that vicinity, and the two westbound lanes begin in the vicinity of this project. The proposed driveway has been realigned across from the existing driveway to the credit union across the street. The rear parking lot has been designed to interconnect in the future to the east and west. The standard access management and cross-travel easement will be needed for that access area.

7. Pedestrian access has been provided throughout the site and a sidewalk is proposed along the site frontage. The internal pedestrian access is somewhat convoluted for a resident to walk from one of the apartments to the street.

8. The total parking requirement for the proposed uses is 134 spaces. The applicant is showing 118 spaces and requesting a waiver of 16 spaces. Section 5.7.4d requires two parking spaces per unit; but an applicant may request a waiver, which may be granted by the Commission after applicant has demonstrated that shared parking with commercial uses will be adequate.”

9. Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed the plans on May 17 and were generally satisfied with the proposal. ADRC has requested screening of HVAC units and reconfiguring the pedestrian access to be more straightforward. They also asked the applicant to return with the final color palette and noted that the coordinated signage plan must be adhered to.

10. Light poles are 14’ tall with full cutoff decorative fixtures.

11. Each residential unit is required to have 60 sq ft of storage space. Storage space is not addressed on the plans.

12. There are no detention basins; all drainage is handled through rain gardens and underground galleys.

13. The applicant also received a variance to create a 15’ buffer rather than the required 50’ buffer to the north. The property to the north is Town-owned open space.

14. There are regulated wetlands to the rear of the property. The applicant received IWA/CC approval on 4/18/07 with the following conditions: A maintenance report shall be submitted to Town staff annually verifying that maintenance and operation of the stormwater system has occurred and the system is operating according to specifications; a $15,000 bond to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control measures; and a $30,000 bond to ensure installation and establishment of the stormwater structure.

15. South Windsor Police Department has reviewed the plans and has expressed no concerns.

16. Fire Marshal review has reviewed these plans and has expressed no concerns.

17. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.

18. How does the applicant propose to handle refuse and recycling? The proposed mixed use is considered a commercial use and the owner must provide for trash collection

19. If this application is approved, the Planning Department requests that the applicant address the concerns noted.

Doolittle had an engineering report as follows.

1. In the Stormwater Management Plan; the “water” gardens should be changed to “rain” gardens.

2. The catch basins need to be inspected at least twice a year. The last catch basins on the drainage system in the parking lot, CB #1 and CB #5 are the most critical to be kept clean of sediment and debris. These need to be inspected monthly. Clean out all sediment from all catch basins before it reaches a depth of 2 feet in the 4 foot sumps (half the capacity). This is in the Maintenance and Operation notes on sheet 4.

3. The granular fill used on the site needs to be good gravel material in accordance with Conn DOT Form 816 Article M.02.06, Grading B. Recycled material shall not be used as fill on this site.

4. On the detail for the galleries include 6 inches of stone both above and below the galleries.

5. The Design Engineer needs to inspect the installation of the drainage galleries, certify to the Town they are installed according to the approved plans, and include their exact locations and invert elevations on the as-built plan before any Certificates of Occupancy are issued for this site. This is note 3 on sheet 4.

6. All stormwater runoff during construction shall go into a temporary sediment basin to be pumped out to a suitable discharge point until the site is stabilized and paved. The construction sequence for this site needs to insure the galleries are not exposed to silty stormwater during construction.

7. Provide at least 1% slope in the paved parking areas and driveways for drainage. Additional spot elevations need to be provided to show these slopes, especially on the east side of the site.

8. Why is the existing sanitary lateral being removed instead of being reused?

9. Provide back-up information for the size and slope of the proposed sanitary sewer lines on site. This needs to include expected sewer flows from each building. The sewer lines should have minimum cleansing velocities of 2.5 fps or be installed at a minimum slope of 2%. It appears the sewer lines into the site should be 8” diameter. Label all the sanitary sewer pipe sizes and slopes.

10. Only one sewer lateral is shown for each building but each building has several units. How will the units in each building be served by the sanitary sewers and will these units be under the control of separate owners or be owned by one entity with rented/leased spaces?

11. I did not see water service to building A or gas service to buildings A, C and D.

12. The sidewalks along the front of this property must be laid out and graded to connect to future sidewalks in front of abutting properties on both sides.

Public input was requested.

Keith Yagaloff, 65 Pleasant Valley spoke in favor of this application.

Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.

· What does the regulation specify for residential storage space—is it 60 sf? Banach: Yes In the past multi-family developments have put storage in the basement.

· Under the proposed regulations how would the parking requirements compare with what they have proposed? Under the proposed regulations they would have more parking than they need. The applicant is asking for a waiver of 16 parking spaces, if the regulations are adopted the size of the waiver could be decreased.

· Concerns with handicap spaces in the northeast corner of the site—anyone that parks there would have to walk a good distance. Are their any requirements as to how far the handicap spaces should be from an entrance? Doolittle noted that that falls under the building code. The language is that it should be as close as possible to the entrance.

· Proposed pads for the dumpster- they should extend underneath the tires where the most damage occurs.

· Rain gardens- How long will the rain gardens be holding the water before they are dry again? They would provide six hours to allow for infiltration, they are not meant to remain wet for any long periods of time.

· Concerns with the amount of parking that will be lost during winter time when it is covered by snow, and if the rain gardens will be used for snow storage and how these will function during spring and fall. The rain gardens will provide limited snow storage and during heavy snow fall the snow will have to be removed from site.

· Concerns with storage space in the attic, is it possible to do ground elevation storage in the back of building? There is a back up plan for storage on site behind the buildings. The storage room will be several feet lower; it would fall under part of the deck.

· Will the change affect the Wetland permit? We will be discussing this with Town staff.

· Did you take into consideration the doctor’s office that is across from site when you did your traffic study? The traffic study takes into account the existing traffic on Ellington Road, it does not specify where this traffic is coming from or going to.

· Concerns with the dumpster locations and what can be done with the dumpster location in the west if this site becomes interconnected through access management provisions. There would be 8 ft fences around the dumpster pads along with landscaping, minimal visibility from addressStreetEllington Road. The dumpster location on the northwest portion of site could be revised in the future.

The public hearing was closed at 11:05 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING – Madden Room

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Kennedy called the meeting to order.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

None.

NEW BUSINESS:

Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:

Extension of meeting

Choate made a motion to extend the meeting past 10:00 PM. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

Evans made a motion to adopt the Zoning Regulations Update, which is consistent with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development, effective upon publication. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and vote was unanimous.

2. Appl 07-14P, McGrath Subdivision – request for approval of a 3-lot resubdivision on 7.3 acres located on northerly side of addressStreetWindsorville Road (addressStreet80 Windsorville Road), RR zone

The commission discussed the application.

Choate made a motion to approve the above request with the following modifications.

1) This approval is for 3 lots, numbered 1-3.

2) Drainage and construction for this subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.

3) Water shall be supplied to this subdivision by public water.

4) This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission.

5) All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of placeCitySouth Windsor.

6) All easements for conservation purposes, drainage or utilities, that may be required in connection with the approval of this subdivision, must be submitted on standard Town easement form where appropriate, to this Commission prior to filing the mylars and issuance of building permits. All deeds for open space, public improvements and roadways must be submitted prior to request for Town acceptance; all deeds must be in accordance with the policy for accepting deeds and must be approved by the Engineering Department and Town Attorney.

7) Footing drains are required for each house. Prior to the building of any structure on a lot, a topographic map, drawn to a scale of 1" = 40', shall be submitted for each lot in the subdivision, showing proposed contours, elevations and the location of the footing drains. No building permits will be issued until the proposed contours, floor elevations and location of footing drains have been approved by the Town Engineer.

8) Septic system and/or private well final design(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Environmental Health Officer prior to filing of mylars and issuance of building permits. The status of the existing system must be determined and corrective action taken if necessary prior to filing of mylars.

9) If, for any reason, finished grading and other individual lot site work is not completed, the Town Engineer shall determine the amount of a cash bond to ensure final grading and site work. This cash bond must be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

10) Quantity estimates must be submitted to the Town Engineer (on the enclosed form) for the purpose of determining subdivision bonding. All bonds shall conform to the enclosed bond policy and shall be posted prior to filing the final plans in the Town Clerk’s office.

11) If the developer chooses to submit a Letter of Credit for a one year term, said Letter of Credit must be renewed on a yearly basis until completion of the development. If a new Letter of Credit has not been received within 30 days before the expiration date, the Commission may, at its option, call the Letter it is holding.

12) A drainage assessment fee in the amount of $100.00 shall be submitted to this Commission.

13) The Town Engineer’s review comments dated 6/20/07 must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.

14) No building permits will be issued until all modifications have been complied with, and the final plans have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.

addressStreet15) A Street trees waiver is hereby granted.

Bazzano seconded the motions. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

The commission discussed the application. Bazzano made a motion to approve the above request. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

The commission discussed the application. Bazzano made a motion to approve the above request with the following modifications.

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 $15,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control measures; and a bond in the amount of $30,000 to ensure installation and establishment of the stormwater structure.

4) A landscape bond in the amount of $10,000 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 placeCitySouth Windsor.

8) This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.

9) If a State Traffic Commission certificate is required, no building permits will be issued until the certificate has been issued (per CGS §14-311).

10) The building street number must be included on the final plan.

11) Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.

12) All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected.

13) The Town Engineer’s review comments dated June 19, 2007, must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.

14) Cross-travel and access management easements must be added to the parking lot.

15) The sidewalks must be configured so that residents have a direct route to addressStreetEllington Road.

16) HVAC units must be screened.

17) Applicant must return to the Architecture & Design Review Committee for approval of the final color palette.

18) Ground-level storage space for residential units must be shown on the plans.

Evans seconded the motion. Pacekonis, Kennedy, Choate, Bazzano, Evans and Sullivan voted in favor. Slicer was opposed. The motion carried 6-1.

5. Preliminary discussion with Alan Lamson of FLB Architecture regarding update to the general plan of development for Evergreen Walk

Alan Lamson, FLB Architecture, gave an overview of the revised general plan of development. Changes were made to the general plan of development as required by the D.E.P., Army Corp, and Inland Wetlands officer. The applicant has decreased office use and increased retail use on site. Lamson discussed a proposed hiking trail and bicycle path for site.

Banach inquired about the State Traffic Commission permit. The applicant indicated that he has already filed for the permit.

Doolittle had no comment at this time; he will need more details on proposal.

Commission members had concerns with the increase in retail and the density of the development. The connection from the residential area to the shops needs to be stronger. There were questions on what type of retail will be on site and parking for patrons. Lamson addressed the comments and concerns.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Commissioners discussed the possibility of televising future Public Hearings. Sentiment was divided, with some Commissioners desiring televised meetings in order to get more information out to the public and other Commissioners expressing concern that televised meetings might provide a stage for people to express themselves to a wide audience. Commissioners agreed that they would be willing to try televising a public hearing or two.

BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings

Sullivan made a motion to reduce the landscaping bond for Appl 02-21P, Vintage Hills, from $8,950 to $7,950. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

Sullivan made a motion to release the $ 5,000 Inland Wetland Bond for Appl 04-62P, placePlaceNameWentworth PlaceTypePark. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

Sullivan made a motion to release the $ 5,000 Inland Wetland Bond for Appl 03-28P, Evergreen Walk Lifestyle. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

MINUTES:

ADJOURNMENT:

Pacekonis made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:25 p.m. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

Respectfully Submitted:

____________________________

D. Maria Acevedo

Recording Secretary