MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Michael Sullivan, Gary Bazzano Louise Evans, Bart Pacekonis, Cliff Slicer (left at 10:30 p.m.)
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Jeski sitting for Cliff Slicer, Dave Sorenson sitting for Suzanne Choate, and Viney Wilson
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, April 12, 2007 and Thursday, April 19, 2007.
1. Appl 07-13P, G & S Scrap Metal - request for special exception to article 6.1.3.7 to operate a scrap metal business from property located at addressStreet420 John Fitch Boulevard, I zone
Attorney Vincent Purnhagan, representing the applicant, had the following comments:
o Robert Smith is the current owner of G & S Scrap Metal located at addressStreet459 John Fitch Blvd.
o Mr. Smith has operated his business for the last 14 years, and is looking to expand his recycling processing business.
o He is interested in purchasing property located at addressStreet420 John Fitch Blvd, which is in the industrial Zone, from JD Carrie LLC.
o Recycling is a Special Exception use in the industrial zone.
o Mr. Smith intends to have the metals brought to site; they would be sorted and put into containers then taken from site for recycling.
o No storage of hazardous materials.
o No adverse traffic impact at the site
o His use of the property would improve the site, with clean up and a better appearance.
o Recycling is a benefit to the community.
Banach provided the following planning report:
1. The applicant is requesting special exception approval to Section 6.1.3.7 of the Industrial zoning regulations to operate a scrap metal recycling business from property located at addressStreet420 John Fitch Boulevard, I zone. Section 6.1.3.7 is the provision that allows for recycling facilities, including storage and maintenance of vehicles and refuse containers, but excluding dumping and/or disposal on-site of waste originating off-site. The facility is currently an industrial building used previously by Dunn Brothers. The applicant's intent is to use the site as is without any substantial changes other than clean-up of the site. G & S Scrap Metal has an existing operation at addressStreet459 John Fitch Blvd that has operated for many years with no complaints filed against them. The site is ideally located for
the scrap metal recycling as there is no visibility from any public road and the site is completely surrounded by other industrially-zoned property. The nearest residential property is about 1000 feet east of the subject site boundary.
2. The applicant has provided a narrative defining the scope of activity that will occur at this location. The general hours of operation are proposed to be 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday - with 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. as the outside limit of the hours.
3. The anticipated number of vehicles is between 25 and 35 vehicles daily - with a mix of passenger and pick up vehicles per day, evenly divided between individuals and businesses.
4. Access to the site is through an existing private drive that serves several businesses in the area. Minor improvements were recently made to remove potholes and improve the access drive.
5. As a result of a site visit, it was discovered that up to a couple feet of non-clean fill including construction debris, metal, wood, brick and other materials had been spread throughout the site and beyond the property boundaries. There are also a number of trucks, modular home halves, construction vehicles and miscellaneous debris on the site that need to be removed.
The owner (who is not the applicant) was informed that the property needs to be cleaned up before this application could be approved. The owner has been working on cleaning up the site and removing debris over the past two weeks. This clean-up should be completed within the next few weeks. While the clean-up appears to be diligently progressing, staff do recommend that the site clean-be completed before this application is approved. At the same time, the applicant is the one who is affected by the delay due to circumstances beyond his control. As a compromise, we suggest that if the Commission is inclined to act favorably on this application, you could put a motion to approve the application on the floor and then table the motion so that the applicant will have strong feedback on the Commission's reaction to his
application while the cleanup is continuing.
6. The Fire Marshal has visited the site and has requested that the existing fire hydrant in the area be tested to ensure that it is in working order or a new fire hydrant added.
7. The special exception criteria in the industrial zone include:
· The goals and the objectives of the Town Plan of Development are met;
· Adverse traffic impacts are not created;
· Negative impacts on property values are not created; . the land is physically suited for the proposed use;
· adverse environmental impacts are not created;
· There is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs;
· Present and proposed utilities, streets drainage systems, and other improvements have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
· Historic factors are adequately protected;
· The overall appearance of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission's goal for the neighborhood/corridor.
The Special Exception regulations allow the Commission to impose additional approval conditions in order to ensure that all criteria are satisfied.
8. The site is serviced by septic and well.
9. There are no regulated wetlands on site. IWA/CC approval is not required.
10. If any DEP permits are required for the recycling operation, the applicant must obtain the necessary permits.
If approved, the Planning Dept. has no requested modifications provided that the site clean-up is complete prior to Commission action.
Doolittle had no comments.
Public input was requested.
Attorney Katherine Hale, who represented the tenants at Chapel Hill Condominium, spoke against this application. Her concerns centered on the inaccurate outdated plans, rusty metal sitting on gravel, no control over water that flows from site, no specification of hours of operation on Saturday and Sunday, site clean up not complete. Pictures were submitted for the record.
Attorney Daniel E. Kleinman, who represented the Haller family, owner of the right of way that provides access to addressStreet420 John Fitch Blvd, spoke against this application. His concerns centered on the current conditions of the road and right of way, complaints from tenants, water draining from site, and increase in traffic.
John Warren, a resident of Chapel Hill Condominiums, spoke against this application. His concerns centered on type of vehicles coming into site, environmental impact, and community impact.
James Lacert, a resident of Chapel Hill Condominiums, spoke against this application. His concerns centered on the heavy vehicles on right of way, traffic concerns, hours of operation, will the community be compensated for scrap metal brought into site.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns.
Replies will be in italics.
· What maintenance expectations does the owner have for the various property owners that use the right of way? Will paving or improvements be made to site? The owner of the right of way expects that the right of way will be maintained and upgraded by the users.
· What will be the average number of containers on property at any given time? About four at a time
· Will most operations be performed within the building shown on site plan? No. This site will generally accept steel, which will be sorted into the containers in the middle of yard. Other incidental scrap metal will be inside.
· Moving your business, or operating on both sides of Route 5? Operating on both sides.
· What will be the size of containers used, and trailers, length of time to be filled by material? How often does a trailer leave the present site? Containers are about 40 feet long. Trailers haul away the sorted scrap metal three times a week at current facility. The steel recycling is a somewhat different type of operation.
· White goods such as washing machines? White goods and construction steel.
· Present site dealing with other metals? Other metals, smaller facility on the other side of John Fitch Blvd.
· Surface made of gravel at current facility? Gravel at the current facility.
· Under what conditions would hours extend later than the proposed hours? 7:00 a.m., to no later than 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Hours should not extend past that.
· No Saturdays mentioned on Narrative. What would make you go before 7 a.m. or past 4:30 p.m.? No reason to start any earlier or end any later than that.
· Relationship with owner of right of way to fix road. Propane Gas has been regrading the right of way, Mr. Smith will help to maintain also. A letter of support from Propane Gas was submitted with application.
Bazzano read into the record a letter dated 4/412007 from Propane Gas. (See exhibit A)
· Cleanup beyond site, who is responsible? Banach: Major cleanup is occurring now. The current owner of addressStreet420 John Fitch Blvd is responsible for the entire cleanup.
· Any permits needed to operate site? No permits except water run off permit from DEP; environmental assessment done came out fine.
· How does the operation work? Scrap metal is brought to facility in various types of trucks. The metal is weighed, unloaded, sorted and shipped to mills. No piles of materials will be stored on site.
· Accepting personal or commercial materials? Both. No trailers on site? No trailers on site, just for drop off and pick up.
· If the applicant wants to handle demolition materials in future, will change order be needed? Banach responded that the applicant would have to come before the Commission members for a Special Exception application.
· Issues with site plan, outdated plan, uses of buildings on site. The plan has been reviewed and has a current seal by the original preparer. First building on left side is an office. Other buildings will be used to process copper, brass and aluminum.
· What does processing involve? Different types of metal have to be separated and put into the appropriate containers. Doolittle: The original map is fairly old but accurate. Buildings on map are currently on site and most of the ones on north corner of site are currently used by Propane Gas. Site was resurveyed in March of 2007.
· Input on concerns from Fire Marshal. Banach- Fire Marshal had concerns with hydrant, condition of road, upkeep of road.
· Unsafe conditions, vehicles carrying steel traveling south down Route 5 into facility. Are there any plans to upgrade to make it safe for vehicles? There is a median cut for a turn into property. This road is currently used by Propane Gas.
· Condition of road, no gravel showing in pictures? Most of property is gravel, clean up is exposing the gravel.
· Any long term plans for future expansion? No
· Where will the weight scale be on site, not shown on site plan? How many people working on site? Is there a safe area for public parking? Five or more people employed. Parking will be next to the first building, there will be signs to lead the public to parking area.
· Need to satisfy criteria before a special exception is approved, lack of detail for proposal and activities on site. Someone from the DEP will inspect site for compliance with stormwater runoff requirements. Doolittle: Fairly flat surface, few puddles on site when inspected on a rainy day, water dissipates into ground.
· Access driveway and who is responsible for maintaining it? What conditions should be placed, and how does it balance out with the use of the road by other traffic? Attorney Kleinman: Should be widened. Overburdening of easement due to frequency of traffic. The owner of the road is responsible for upkeep of road, but all users should be responsible or Town should take over the road. Conditions should be placed to help maintain the road.
· Traffic reports or information on site. No traffic impact study submitted by applicant.
· What type of containers will be outside versus inside, and what size will they be? Forty yard or fifty yard containers will be outside. Boxes for other metal will go inside of building.
· DEP permit pulled before facility begins operaration? Yes
· Time frame on application- Banach responded that the commission is not in any time frame danger for action. The applicant’s current operation is clean. Don't wish to place burden on applicant. Debris was already on site prior to application.
· Attorney Kleinman: Burden should not fall on owner of road. Should not become a civil matter, commission can encourage the applicant to reach an agreement regarding upkeep of road.
· Overburdening of an easement is not within the commission's jurisdiction. Concept of overburdening an easement is a real-estate matter not a zoning matter.
· Attorney Hale: Concerns about water run off. Not much gravel on site. Traffic leaving site making a left across two lanes should be investigated.
Staff recommendations were not to act on application tonight so that the clean-up can continue.
Sullivan made a motion to continue the public hearing of Appl 07-13P, G & S Scrap Metal.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous. .
2. Appl 07-12P, Evergreen Walk, LLC - request for zoning amendment to Section 5.8 to add multifamily residential use as a Special Exception use under certain conditions in the Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone.
Alan Lamson of FLB Architecture had the following overview:
· Max. proposed number of residential units in GD Zone: 200
· Max. proposed number of residential units per phase: 110
· Min. ratio of commercial to residential floor area 1:2
· All units must be located above commercial space
· Max. number of 2-bedroom units: 50%
· Special exception for residential use can be tied to general plan of development or final site plan
(See power point presentation attached (exhibit 1).)
Steve Mitchell, P.E., transportation engineer with F.A. Hesketh, submitted a traffic impact letter (see exhibit 2).
The proposed amendment to the regulations to allow multi-family residential development in the Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone will not cause a substantial increase in peak hour traffic or daily traffic over the uses already allowed in the zone. As this traffic disperses throughout the site, the roadway system will accommodate this additional traffic with little or no impact.
Alan Lamson- read an e-mailed letter from the South Windsor Board of Education concerning the impact on the school system: This building will not have a significant impact on the schools with regards to enrollment. (See exhibit 3)
Banach provided the following planning report:
1. Request for amendment to Section 5.8 of the zoning regulations to allow limited multifamily residential use by Special Exception in the Buckland Gateway zone. The current regulations do not allow residential use; however, institutional uses such as Assisted Living Facilities are allowed within the Gateway zone.
2. The Future Land Use section of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development includes a statement that, "Mixed uses, designed to replicate a more traditional way of life, may be appropriate in some areas such as the Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone." The proposed amendment is thus consistent with the Town Plan. The introduction of high-density housing into the Evergreen Walk development complex, if done properly, will be the missing element that injects constant vitality into the development. A well-integrated housing component can add a number of valuable traits, including:
· the ability to walk to work, shopping, dining and recreation;
· "eyes on the street," neighbors watching out for the area at all times, including after business hours;
· another type of housing choice that does not currently exist in placeSouth Windsor and will appeal to corporations that have a choice of prime sites to construct their offices.
3. The key to a successful housing component in a mixed-use area is the complete integration of the housing itself into the rest of the development, with very strong pedestrian interconnections throughout the site. It would not be particularly desirable to have scattered multi-family developments that are not part of a mixed-use community spread out over the Gateway Zone.
4. Mixed-use by its very definition includes several different uses as has been established at Evergreen Walk. The proposed zoning amendment addresses this requirement early in the text (section 5.8.1).
5. The proposed amendment is constructed after the style of some of our more successful zoning elements. For example, there are site design objectives and standards, and building design objectives and standards, following the style of the Gateway Zone retail building objectives and standards. This style of regulation has resulted in the very attractive construction that has occurred to date in the Gateway Zone. The proposed amendment requires a Special Exception approval, in combination with either a General Plan or a final Site Plan. If the applicant chooses to submit a General Plan first, then a site plan will need to be submitted and approved prior to
construction.
6. One of the ramifications of a zoning amendment that must be examined is the infrastructure impacts of the amendment. For residential development vs. commercial development, two of the main questions are the impact on taxes as well as the number of school children and impact on . schools. The applicant has provided information regarding both of these questions.
7. Unfortunately, we don't have any residential developments with which to analyze the numbers of school children as we have no apartment complexes except for seniors. It would not be a legitimate analysis to compare our existing condominium complexes with rental apartment complexes because we don't know what the owner vs. renter status variable does to the number of school children per unit equation.
8. Having said that, a recent edition of CT Town & City, a newsletter published bimonthly by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, of which placeSouth Windsor is a member, included an article regarding the numbers of school children in multi-family housing. The Southeastern CT Council of Governments conducted a study which found that municipalities that permit the greatest housing density have the lowest percentage of children. Their survey found that 67 % of CityNorwich homes, 80 % of CityNew London homes, and 63 % of placeCityGroton homes do not have any school-age children. In contrast, 49 % of CitySalem's homes have children, and 48% of
placeColchester homes have children. I have provided a copy of that article to Commissioners.
9. Traffic impacts should also be considered when a zoning amendment is proposed. The 243-acre Evergreen Walk property has a State Traffic Certificate that currently allows about 375,000 square feet of retail development, 75,000 square feet of indoor recreation, 130,000 square feet of hotel space, and 650,000 square feet of office development. Addition of a residential component would need STC review and approval and would use up some of the capacity that is currently assigned to one of the other land use categories (except retail, which will be close to full-build when Phase III is completed).
10. Commissioners may recall that when the original Evergreen Walk General Plan was approved, there were several unallocated areas on the west side of the site that were labeled "future development." These unallocated areas, no matter what land use is proposed for them, will all need future approval from both the PZC and the State Traffic Commission. The good news is that the long-awaited, comprehensive Buckland Hills Area Transportation Study is underway by the State Dept of Transportation. South Windsor and placeCityManchester staff are an integral part of this study, and elected Town officials and other stakeholders will also playa large part in the study
process.
11. The Commission should also consider precedence when examining a zoning amendment. If this amendment is adopted as proposed, there could be a maximum of 200 residential units within the approximately 400 acres that comprise the Gateway zone. With the proposed 110 units maximum per development, that equals a maximum of two separate residential developments.
12. Staff note that, if the Commission does adopt this amendment and is then satisfied with the results after one or two projects are constructed, the cap could be raised similar to the raising of the SRD cap after the first successful SRD projects.
13. The Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed the proposed amendment as required.
14. CRCOG provided the following report: --READ--
If this amendment is approved, the Planning Department has no recommended approval modifications as staff comments have already been incorporated into the amendment.
Doolittle had no engineering comments for this application.
Public input was requested.
Dennis McConville- senior vice president of ECHN, spoke in favor of this application. Will increase vitality of the Gateway Zone; create a mixed used community, greater housing options for physicians.
Peter Demallie, addressStreet425 Sullivan Avenue, spoke in favor of this application.
Timothy Devanney, addressStreet70 Porter Street, CityManchester & owner of Highland Park Market in Evergreen Walk, spoke in favor of this application.
Matt Galligan, Town Manager, spoke in favor of this application. The impact on the Town was planned from the beginning during general plan of development. CERC did a full impact analysis that indicated this would be a very successful project. Businesses are interested in the residential component to keep them vibrant.
Cate Evans, placeSouth Windsor Chamber of Commerce, 22 Morgan Farms spoke in favor of this application. Inquiries for rental units come into the office from business people looking for rental options. Nothing is offered at the moment in the Town of placeCitySouth Windsor.
No one from the public spoke against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns.
Replies will be in Italics.
· Concerns with open space, recreation area not in proposal. Getting away from land based standards, no opposition to putting that standard back in.
· Multifamily residential units wording should be, “not more that 50% of residential units at any phase.” Intent was that on any plan before commission, not more that 50% could be two bedrooms. That wording can be clarified.
· What areas would be counted toward the 1:2 commercial:residential ratio? Garages, management office, lobbies, recreational uses? Would include management offices, lobbies and recreational uses but garages were not included in square footages.
· Concerns of integration of residential into the zone, don’t agree with Final Site Plan option, would rather have general plan process. This option was included for the smaller land owner in the Gateway Zone, for whom the cost to do a general plan versus a final site plan would be about the same, saves them doing it twice. The amendment can be revised to require a General Plan.
· If the developer shows one type of building material on the final site plan, then wants to change it after approval? Final parameters are set as part of the special exception. If the developer wants to change anything then they would have to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission again to do it.
· Concerns with the design, building materials used, concrete sidewalks, recommend limiting amount of cement fiber siding used. You cannot tell the difference between cement fiber siding and wood siding, thick material, does not crack, holds paint better, insects can't attack it.
· Restrictions on materials used on the interior finishes, use better materials, should be low maintenance. Residential look of buildings. Residents demand residential-style buildings. Gateway Zone regulations still apply, so the buildings will be the same high-quality that the Gateway Zone mandates.
The applicant indicated they would like an opportunity to continue the hearing to address Commission concerns. Pacekonis made a motion to continue the public hearing of Appl-07-12P, Evergreen Walk LLC. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
REGULAR MEETING - Madden Room
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Kennedy called the meeting to order at 10:30 p.m.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
None.
NEW BUSINESS:
Evans made a motion to extend the meeting past 10:00 PM. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Bazzano made a motion to place Appl 05-45P, Strawberry Fields club house on the agenda to discuss proposed changes to the building materials. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion -carried and the vote was unanimous.
Appl 05-45P. Strawberry Fields Clubhouse
Architect Sudha Nagardeolekar made a presentation regarding proposed changes to the materials to be used for the clubhouse siding. The proposed modification is to use vinyl board and batten instead of the approved cedar ship lap siding.
Banach reviewed the history of this site as follows:
In August 2005, the Commission approved the demolition of the existing barn, which was to be converted into a clubhouse, due to severe structural issues. The barn was to be replaced with a new clubhouse that resembles the style of the old barn. Original proposed materials were to be all wood, authentic old bam details, not vinyl. Banach noted that the Town Council had approved the construction of Strawberry Fields’ entrance drive on Town land in order to preserve the barn. A condition of that approval was that the barn would not be demolished without the Council’s approval. Council approval was not obtained prior to demolition.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members. Replies will be in italics:
· One resident is questioning the council about demolition of the barn without council's approval.
· Concerns with proposed siding. Residents are concerned about cost, maintenance issues.
· Barn should resemble what was originally taken down.
Bazzano made a motion to deny the above request. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Zoning Regulations Subcommittee report
Banach reviewed the status of the zoning regulations update.
Commissioners discussed items that the subcommittee was unable to resolve. It was a consensus to bring the Zoning Regulations to a final public hearing.
Appl 07-09P, placePlaceNameKilkenny PlaceTypeHeights Subdivision-request to build two model homes
Evans made a motion to approve the above request. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
OTHER BUSINESS:
None
BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings
Evans made a motion to release the IWA/CC bond for Appl 05-34P Evergreen Run in the amount of $15,000. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES:
The minutes of 2/27/07 were accepted by consensus.
ADJOURNMENT:
Evans made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted:
___________________________
Dawinda M. Acevedo
Recording Secretary
| 
