MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Gary Bazzano, Louise Evans, Bart Pacekonis, Cliff Slicer, Mike Sullivan, Suzanne Choate.
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Jeski, Dave Sorenson, 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, May 10, 2007 and Thursday, May 17, 2007.
1. Appl 07-12P, Evergreen Walk, LLC - request for zoning amendment to Section 5.8 to add multi-family residential use as a Special Exception use under certain conditions in the Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone.
Alan Lamson, of FLB Architecture representing the applicant had the following overview: The proposed amendment was updated to reflect the Commission’s recommendations. 750 sq ft of open space per unit was put back in. (See exhibit 1.)
There were no Planning Department comments and no Engineering Department comments.
Public input was requested.
Phillip Fanning, addressStreet62 Jacques Lane, spoke in favor of this application.
Bill McGurk, CEO of Rockville Bank, spoke in favor of this application. His comments centered on greater housing options for professionals, and added vitality to the Gateway Zone.
Jeff Sawyer, developer of placePlaceNameWentworth PlaceTypePark, spoke in favor of this application. Letters were submitted for the record.
Audrey Wasik, addressStreet29 Carmen Road, spoke in favor of this application. She gave examples of other sites across the country that have mixed use communities.
Greg Kochanski, 15 placeCityGrandview Terrace, spoke in favor of this application. His comments centered on the need for temporary housing for people who are in transition and for young professionals.
Debby Denfeld, addressStreet643 Strong Road, spoke in favor of this application. Her comments centered on the benefit to the community, and residential options.
Cile Decker, addressStreet91 Berle Road, spoke in favor of this application. Her comments centered on a need for a residential component, vitality of the zone, benefit to the community.
Phil Forsley, addressStreet120 Mountain Road, spoke in favor of this application.
Doug Anderson, addressStreet760 Main Street, spoke in favor of this application.
Letters were read into the record (exhibit 3)
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in italics.
· Concerns with density and size of buildings
· Is there anything in the language that limits any one applicant from coming in with more than 50% at any phase? There is nothing in the proposal that prevents that, except the action of this Commission.
· Recreational uses: Under this proposed amendment, can the Commission require you to build a bike path. At the general plan of development application stage, that could be done.
· Satisfied with the Commission being able to have final approval on the building materials.
· Is the applicant willing to consider changing the language to read “an application could not exceed 100 units”, instead of “a phase could not exceed 100 units”? Anyone could do that but an applicant can come in with an application for an approval of 50 units and then acquire another parcel and come back with yet another application, until it adds up to over 100 units, it is very difficult to regulate how that would work. I don’t have a solution to that.
· Concerns with public transportation for school children on a private road. How would they be transported to school? Tamarack would be used by public transportation for people. I am not familiar with the Board of Educations policy regarding school bus transportation. Banach noted that whether the road is private is not the question. The question would be whether the road is adequate for school buses to get in and out. School buses go into many private condominiums where there is a turn-around wide enough for the bus to turn.
· The roads in Evergreen Walk have met all the Town standards, there should be no problem getting vehicles through.
The public hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m.
2. Appl 07-15P, K. F. Properties LLC, request for renewal of a two-year temporary and conditional permit for the Kebalo Electric Company office located at addressStreet175 Wheeler Rd, A-20 zone
Walter Kebalo, Kebalo Electric Co., presented an overview of the application. The property has been owned by the Kebalo family since 1961, (A historic two story residence built in 1890’s.) The lower level of the large outbuilding was used as a horse barn, upper level as a dance hall in the past. The building is currently being used by three office workers, as well as Kebalo family members.
The site has been used as an office without impact on surrounding abutting property owners. Adequate parking exists; there will be no need for any on street parking. Does not require exterior signage at this location; will not require evening or weekend hours. The business provides services to the Wheeler Estates Senior Residence Development. The structures are historic and well preserved, with a residential exterior. The office was inspected by Fire Marshal and meets all building code standards. This use is low impact to the neighborhood, provides emergency services to Wheeler Estates senior residents when called upon. It also allows staff to walk to work from home.
A Letter of support was submitted for the record (exhibit 4)
Banach provided the following planning report:
Request for a two year temporary and conditional permit for an electrical contracting business at addressStreet176 Wheeler Road, A-20 zone. Kebalo Electric has been operating the business from this location since about 1987. The Commission originally approved a temporary and conditional permit on 10/31/00, and the most recent approval in 2003 expired on 9/16/04. In that 2003 approval, the Commission did encourage the applicant to explore other options for location of the business, including commercially zoned property.
In 2005, the applicant applied to the ZBA for a variance that would clear the way for this property to be considered under the office conversion overlay zone, but that was denied by the ZBA. In 2006, Atty. Hal Cummings applied to the PZC for a text amendment to that same regulation which would allow office uses at this location; again, the application was denied. The applicant is now requesting a two year T&C renewal for the office.
The PZC granted approval in 1969 for the owner to have a machine shop in the former horse barn, with no other employees. Today the machine shop is being used for storage space for Kebalo Electric Company and other equipment related to their property maintenance business. There is an office, approximately 1,200 sf, in the house from which the electric business is conducted. KF Properties LLC, utilizes the office as well for property management.
The applicant has submitted a history of the property, description of the activities on site associated with the operation of Kebalo Electric, floor plans and pictures of the property. The parking lot was expanded to accommodate six cars when the subdivision was constructed.
The applicant’s narrative indicates that there are three part-time office workers and that there are no evening or weekend hours. Vegetation has been planted on the northern lot line providing for screening for the potential owner of lot 2.
The wording of the T & C permit regulation is that, “Temporary and conditional permits may be granted by the Commission for a use which is not specified elsewhere in these regulations for a period not to exceed two years. Such approval may be given after a Public Hearing if, in the judgment of the Commission, the public convenience and welfare will be substantially served, and the appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured, and traffic and other hazards will not result from such use.” Electrical contractor establishments are a specifically permitted use in the industrial zone as are general offices. It is also probable that an electrical contracting business would qualify under the similar uses provision of the General
Commercial zone.
If this application is approved, the planning department recommends that since this has turned into a long term office, the Commission consider limiting the number of employees (currently there are three part-time workers) as well as require the applicant to arrange for private refuse collection.
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.
· Have you made any efforts to relocate? No
· Do you plan to relocate in the future? Considering it in the next twelve months.
· Concerns with limiting the number of employees on site. Less than three employees on site. All other employees are out on job sites and do not come to the office.
· What was the purpose of the previous amendment application? Banach responded that it was an amendment to the office conversion overlay zone. The current zone allows it only on several principal streets; the text amendment request was to allow it to happen elsewhere. The application was denied by the Commission on the basis that it would open the town to potential commercial office overlays, not the intent of the original regulation. The previous denial letter was read into the record.
· This Temporary and Conditional permit has been before us repeatedly; it is a temporary permit not to be permanent; applicant should find an alternative solution.
· What’s taken so long to come back to this Commission? The application was submitted in March, it is not an important application before the Commission, the opportunity presented itself since we are also submitting another application, and we decided to submit them together.
· It’s a 6,000 sq ft building, what other uses does the Commission suggest for the building?
· Commission would like to see a renewal permit every two years. Applicant will make an effort to renew on time.
· Concerns with off street parking, and number of employees - should be controlled by the Commission.
· The last T&C permit on this site was granted for one year to stress the need for the business to relocate.
Andy Kebalo commented on the size and history of building and requested input from the Commission as to what they should do with the building if their current use is not approved.
The public hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m.
3. Appl 07-22P, Quarry Brook Village Phase II – request for special exception to article 4.1.12 and site plan of development for a 4-unit Senior Residence Development, on property located at 972 Pleasant Valley Road, RR zone
Walter Kebalo, presented an overview of the above mentioned application. The property is located at addressStreet972 Pleasant Valley Road. It has two garages that are in poor condition. The applicant plans to remove the existing buildings and build four senior residence condominiums. The property will then be combined with placePlaceNameQuarry PlaceTypeBrook PlaceNameVillage, totaling 10 SRD condos on 4.7 acres. Existing residents of placePlaceNameQuarry PlaceTypeBrook PlaceNameVillage approve of the expansion. The new units will be one level ranches, handicap accessible. Parking will be two spaces per units. Landscaping will include treatment around the front of the parking and in front of condos facing the street. The applicant has made an agreement with abutting owners to share a proposed buffer, including a 4 ft berm,
6 ft. white fence, and a row of trees shown on plan. A sign will be installed that reads “Quarry Brook Village 960-978 Pleasant Valley Road.” Utilities are on site and there is minimal impact on wetlands.
Galen Semprebon, P.E., from Design Professionals gave the following engineering report. The applicant will be expanding the existing detention basin. They would like to extend the vegetative buffer on the eastern side of the original Quarry Brook
Banach provided a planning report.
1. Request for Special Exception and site plan approval to construct an additional 4-units as a part of the existing 6 unit Senior Residence Development. The combined acreage of the two sites is 4.7 acres, located on addressStreetPleasant Valley Road, across from placePlaceNamePleasant PlaceTypeValley condominiums, RR zone. This lot has 268 feet of frontage and is about 750 feet deep. The building is set back 50 feet.
2. The property on both sides of the lot is zoned RR; the property across the street is multi-family.
3. All proposed units will be ranch style and are attached in one building. All units are approximately 1,444 sq feet or less in size, thus are consistent with the original intent of the SRD regulation to provide smaller, more affordable SRD units. All of the units in phase 1 were under 1,400 sf.
4. The Special Exception criteria for review of a SRD include:
a. traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood;
b. there will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area;
c. surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
d. impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, street, drainage system, sidewalks, and other elements of the infrastructure;
e. the land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse environmental impacts are created;
f. the SRD proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town Plan of Development;
g. the SRD proposal will help meet senior housing needs of placeSouth Windsor;
h. the location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents, or is within reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close proximity to or contains permanent open space land;
i. the SRD facility has been designed to meet the needs of handicapped residents or visitors; and
j. the architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and low profile.
5. The proposed density is 4.3 units per net buildable acre; maximum 5 units per net buildable acre are allowed. Proposed impervious coverage is 10.2%; 60% allowed. Required parking is 1.5 spaces per unit, or 15 spaces; the applicant has provided 21 spaces, or 2.1 spaces per unit. The applicant is proposing a small 4-car parking area in the front of the property that will be landscaped.
6. If this application is approved, it will bring the total SRD units approved up to 250 units and the number of units the Commission may approve is currently capped at 250. Thus, with approval of this application, the SRD component of the regulations would be fully built.
7. There are no sidewalks shown on the property frontage. There are no sidewalks on addressStreetPleasant Valley Road in this area.
8. There are regulated wetlands on the site. IWA/CC approved this application on May 16, 2007, with two bonds, one in the amount of $2,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sedimentation control measures, and one in the amount of $1,000 to ensure establishment of the detention basin.
9. Public water and sewer are available to the site. WPCA approval is required.
10. The applicant is requesting a reduction to a 25-foot combined side yard and buffer. The criteria for a reduction include: site conditions support such (e.g., site is contiguous to open space, permanent buffers and/or mature vegetation), and large trees are saved or planted within the buffer (6” minimum caliper on deciduous trees, 15 feet minimum height on coniferous trees, spaced no more than every 30 feet, or at a somewhat greater distance if more appropriate given the species). The applicant is proposing a four foot high berm (that will extend partially onto the abutting property) with a white fence in the area of the houses. This area will be
supplemented with a row of arborvitaes and a variety of shrubs. Additionally, the buffer will be planted with white pines and Norway spruce along the property line. The specifications for plant height and caliper on the landscaping plan do not appear to meet the height and caliper requirements for the combined buffer/side yard, so if this application is approved, the buffer will need to be revised to meet the required standards.
11. The Architecture and Design Review Board reviewed the plans on 5/3/07. They were pleased with the architecture and landscaping plans as presented.
12. The applicant has indicated that refuse and recycling will be handled via all ten units bringing their trash and recyclables to the curb. Refuse collection vehicles will not be able to enter and turn around in this development. The applicant is adding a small piece of sidewalk along the placePlaceNamePleasant PlaceTypeValley frontage to accommodate placement of the trash receptacles. With the original approval for the six units, the Commission limited the approval to two large garbage cans and 3 recycling bins. The Commission may want to again limit the number with this approval- allowing three -four large garbage cans and 5 recycling bins.
The Planning Dept. has no requested modifications on this application.
Doolittle provided an engineering report.
1. The exterior light and the edge of pavement for the driveway and parking areas should be labeled.
2. Spot elevations should be shown for the edge of the pavement at the corner of the proposed parking spaces
3. The swale on the east side of the building should be labeled and spot elevations shown midway between contours.
4. Sheet 8 shows a basement, which will require a foundation drain that should be shown on the topographic plan along with the basement floor elevations.
5. Roof drains should be shown on the plan.
6. The existing drainage structure and pipes should be described on the plan with elevations.
7. Before and after development drainage calculations should be provided.
8. A manhole should be shown on the plan at the junction of the proposed sewer lateral with the existing sewer lateral to the property. The cleanout near the middle of the proposed lateral should be labeled. The locations of the large maple trees near the lateral should be shown on the plan and the lateral should be located to minimize disturbance to the trees.
There was no public input.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in italics.
· Concerns with anticipated traffic. Traffic study was submitted for the record; very low traffic will be generated. (see exhibit2)
· Any anticipated problems with emergency response services on site? Doolittle: no knowledge of emergency services having any trouble on site. The proposed four units would be off the common driveway, and to the north side of the site. They would not hamper the development of the site; it would provide more pavement for a larger vehicle to turn around.
· Any problems with staff comments on height of trees on the buffer? No. The intent was to put a 4 ft berm along the property line, and a 6 ft fence, the building would be shielded from view. We are willing to work with staff to meet the requirements.
· Any problems with the trash receptacles? A platform for the garbage pick up will be put in. This platform is like a sidewalk and can be plowed. There was a problem in the past after a snow storm; the platform will prevent that from happening again.
· Are there enough receptacles for the trash? Yes, there are ten trash bins, one for each resident. Banach noted that in the past the Commission approved only two large trash containers for the entire site before the town-owned trashcan program was implemented, which later provided a large trash container for each unit. Kebalo said that under the new trash pickup program, no limitations were imposed by the Public Works Dept. on owners regarding the number of bins. Currently they use one bin till it fills up, and then they go to the next bin. At the most there will be three or four bins outside at a time.
· Can the sidewalk be connected at some point? It is a concrete pad, not a sidewalk. Doolittle noted that it will not be used by the public as a sidewalk, does not connect at any point, there are no other sidewalks on addressStreetPleasant Valley Road. A paved platform for this use should not be a problem as long as it is maintained by the owners. The only concern would be that it should be wide enough and close enough to the road so that it can be plowed without any damage to surrounding landscaping.
· Anti tracking pad, will that be used for construction purposes and then removed after? Yes, it will only be used during construction.
· Should there be anything in writing regarding the agreement between the abutting owners for the use of the berm? Banach: The easement is in place.
· Could the Commission place a condition to limit the number of trash receptacles to six instead of ten? Yes.
The public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m.
4. PZC-initiated zone change from Designed Commercial to Buckland Road Gateway Development zone on 55.75 acres of property located at 22 Wheeler Road (46.25 acres), R002 Smith Street (6.8 acres), and R007 Smith Street (2.7 acres), owned by Downeast Associates Limited Partnership.
Banach presented the Zoning Change as follows.
1. PZC-initiated zone change from Designed Commercial to Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone for approximately 55.75 acres of property located at 22 Wheeler Road, (46.25 acres), R002 Smith Street (6.8 acres), and R007 Smith Street (2.7 acres), owned by Downeast Associates Limited Partnership.
2. The property owner, Downeast Associates, filed an application for approval of a General Plan of Development on Tuesday, May 22 (today), which will now require the Commission to consider several possible scenarios:
a The Commission does not rezone the property to Gateway Zone, and the pending General Plan application plus any future applications proceed under the current DC zone regulations; or,
b The Commission proceeds to adopt the zone change, but processes and acts upon the General Plan application under the existing Designed Commercial zone.
· Under this scenario, if the General Plan application is approved, the property owner has the ability to develop that portion of the property under the existing DC regulations and that portion becomes a legal nonconforming development within the Gateway zone. Future development of the remaining property that is not the subject of the pending General Plan application would fall within the parameters of the Buckland Gateway zone.
· If the General Plan application is denied, the property then is subject to development under the Gateway Zone requirements unless the applicant successfully appeals a denial of this Commission.
3. There is a lengthy history of development and zone change applications for this property. In 1980, the Designed Commercial floating zone was added to the Zoning Regulations, for the express purpose of development of an enclosed mall. The DC zone required a two-step approval process: first, approval of a combination zone change/general plan approval, followed by site plan approval. The zone includes a procedure whereby PZC can remove the DC designation if development of an approved plan does not occur within a specified time; a public hearing is required in order to do so.
a The DC floating zone was set onto the ground when the zone change/general plan application the Winchester Mall was approved in 1985. Construction was delayed due to litigation brought by a neighborhood association against the PZC approval. While the litigation was pending, an enclosed mall received approval from the Town of CityplaceManchester and was subsequently constructed as the Buckland Hills Mall. The Winchester Mall was never constructed, even though the outcome of the litigation was favorable to the Town.
b In 1988, with the DC zoning designation still on the property, Downeast Associates applied for General Plan approval for Plaza at Buckland Hills, a strip shopping center that occupied the entire 80-acre site and also was mostly in South Windsor, partly in CityplaceManchester. The Planning and Zoning Commission rejected the strip mall design, and Downeast Associates appealed the denial. In the meantime, Downeast Associates proceeded with a strip commercial center located solely in CityplaceManchester, which exists on the site today. The back wall of the strip center parallels and is very close to the Town line. The litigation was settled in 1993 with
approval by the PZC of a General Plan that included a combination of uses including office, retail, and flex-tech. That settlement agreement included a time frame for construction within the settlement arrangement, and the time frame has since expired, leaving the property once again with a DC designation but no approved General Plan.
c In July 1997, Downeast Associates applied for a zone change to Buckland Gateway Zone. The minutes of the 1997 public hearing reflect that Downeast Associates requested the zone change in order to increase the flexibility of uses to assist in attracting tenants, and to increase the size of the previously-approved movie theater. Residents expressed many of the concerns normally voiced when residential property is rezoned to commercial (even though this property was already zoned commercial), such as noise, traffic, wildlife, negative impact on property values. Commissioners’ concerns included:
· The status of the still-active stipulated court settlement;
· Difficulty working with the specific requirements of the Gateway Zone because of the location of the site;
· Types of businesses being solicited for the site;
· Berms would not be effective for 4-story site;
· History of flooding toward addressStreetSmith Street residences; and
· Applicant could apply for a larger theater under the Gateway zone.
d In August 2003, another zone change application to rezone the property to the Gateway zone was submitted. The application was withdrawn in September after the public hearing. The withdrawal letter did not include a reason for the withdrawal.
e In November 2003, the PZC amended the Gateway Zone regulations to better address properties that do not front directly on Buckland Road, as the original Gateway Zone had several references to orientation to Buckland Road that were difficult to apply to the Downeast Associates property. No further PZC action has been initiated by either the property owner or the Planning and Zoning Commission until the zone change proposal that is the subject of this public hearing.
f In 2003, the Commission itself began working on a comprehensive update to the zoning regulations following adoption of a new Town Plan of Conservation and Development. In July 2003, a subcommittee of the Planning and Zoning Commission began documenting and addressing issues and concerns that needed to be addressed during the zoning regulations update. One of the concerns was the elimination of unused zones, including the Design Commercial zone. A matrix prepared by staff in July 2003 and used continuously throughout the zoning regulations update process indicates that the subcommittee’s recommended disposition of this issue was to rezone the Simon
DeBartolo property (which is the subject of tonight’s hearing) to Buckland Gateway zone and then eliminate the DC zone. The zoning regulations update is just about complete; the final public hearing is scheduled during June of this year, and the Commission is following through on the subcommittee recommendation with this public hearing to consider rezoning the Simon DeBartolo property from DC to Gateway zone.
4. The Designed Commercial zone was created specifically in order to allow an enclosed regional mall on the subject site, and the DC standards are not very sensitive to design or to the surrounding neighborhood. The Gateway Zone was created in 1995, with the purpose of creating an attractive entrance to placeSouth Windsor. The Gateway Zone standards in turn reflect that goal and are very design- and performance-sensitive. The uses allowed in the Gateway zone are more flexible than those allowed in the Designed Commercial zone, but the appearance and performance standards are much more demanding in the Gateway zone. The Designed Commercial zone allows offices,
retail sales, business and personal services, and day care centers, and no other uses. The Gateway zone allows commercial, institutional and municipal uses that meet all of the appearance and performance standards of the Gateway zone. Examples of uses allowed in DC zone but not Gateway zone include grocery stores over 22,000 sq ft, stand-alone convenience stores, gun shops, and tattoo parlors. Some examples of uses that are permitted in the Gateway Zone but not in the Designed Commercial zone include private schools and colleges, museums, a Town library or other Town building, performing arts center, restaurants and health clubs. Uses not permitted in either zone include gas stations, adult-oriented businesses, and stand-alone fast food restaurants.
5. The differences in the standards are numerous and are summarized in the handout table submitted herewith for the record. The Gateway Zone includes some standards that are important to neighboring residences and that are not included in the Designed Commercial zone, such as:
a Building height maximum in the Gateway zone is 6 stories, but only if the building is located at least 200 feet from any street and from any residential zone boundary, and only if the Commission determines that the site is suitable for a taller building and that the character of the Gateway zone is enhanced rather than diminished by the taller building. The topography of the site has to be such that the taller building blends in with its surroundings rather than standing out from the surroundings and the taller building does not unduly disrupt the character of a residentially zoned neighborhood. There is no limitation to building height maximum, and no
standards or criteria as to when a taller building should be allowed, in the Designed Commercial zone. It can be permitted by a 2/3 vote of the Commission.
b The Design Commercial zone allows up to 90% impervious coverage; Gateway zone allows only 60% impervious coverage. The 10% open space in the DC zone can be located in buffers, so the remainder of the site could be virtually covered with buildings and pavement.
c The Gateway zone has building setback requirements from property lines, the Design Commercial zone has no setback requirements, thus allowing buildings right up to the edge of the property where there is no buffer requirement.
d The Gateway zone severely restricts trash pickup and truck delivery times. Trash pickup cannot occur before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m. unless the applicant proves that sound barriers reduce noise emissions to 45 dB at the property line (45 dB is the nighttime noise standard; this is lower than the official DEP noise standards). Truck deliveries are prohibited between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., no exceptions. The Designed Commercial zone has no restrictions, thus allowing trash pickup and truck deliveries at any hour since trucks are exempt by State law from noise ordinances.
e There is no outdoor storage allowed in the Gateway zone; outdoor storage is allowed in the Designed Commercial zone.
f There are no building appearance standards in the Designed Commercial zone; there are strict standards in the Gateway Zone, especially for retail buildings. We do note that Section 9 of the zoning regulations, Architectural & Design Review, does have guidelines for architectural and site design, but the Gateway zone has actual standards that are mandatory.
g Both zones require 10% of parking lot area to be landscaped, but the Designed Commercial zone has provisions for a waiver of half of the landscaping, down to 5% of the parking lot area.
6. The buffer requirement in the DC zone is 100 feet along addressStreetSmith Street, with no yard setbacks, for a total building setback of 100 feet from addressStreetSmith Street. The buffer requirement in the Gateway zone is 75 feet along addressStreetSmith Street, with a 25 foot yard setback, for a total building setback of 100 feet from addressStreetSmith Street. Thus there is no gain nor loss in setbacks along residential zones with a zone change to Gateway Zone.
7. There is a substantial berm that was created during construction of the existing shopping center as part of the stipulated court settlement between the Commission and Downeast Associates. Planning Department strongly recommends that the berm remain in place so that it buffers both addressStreetWheeler Road and addressStreetSmith Street residential neighborhoods from the most intensive commercial development.
8. The main entrance into the site is the existing driveway at the J.C. Penney Warehouse signalized intersection on addressStreetPleasant Valley Road that leads past JoAnn Fabrics. Whether this zone change is approved or not, commercial driveways should not be allowed onto addressStreetSmith Street, which is an older residential street for the majority of its length.
9. The Town Plan of Conservation and Development includes this property in an area generally depicted as an Economic Development area. The site is surrounded by multifamily residential zone to the west; single family residential and Buckland Gateway Zone to the north and east, and commercial development to the south in the Town of CityplaceManchester.
10. A zone change application is the opportunity to review infrastructure to determine whether the existing infrastructure can support the proposed zone. In this case, both the Designed Commercial and the Gateway Development Zone are major commercial zones that include many of the most intensive commercial uses as permitted uses. Therefore, we would expect that the traffic impacts under the Gateway zone would not exceed those from the Designed Commercial zone. Development plans under both zones require approval from the State Traffic Commission whenever either 200 cumulative parking spaces or 100,000 cumulative square feet of building area are proposed. Whether the
zone is changed or not, a State Traffic Commission permit will be required for any development. Section 16 includes criteria for zone change:
11. Public water and sewer are available to this site.
12. The Town wetlands map does not indicate any regulated wetlands on this site. Field reviews for regulated wetlands will need to be conducted at the time of development. A report submitted with the Evergreen Walk applications indicates that this subject site is a site where endangered birds nest.
13. The zone change request was referred to CRCOG as required. CRCOG responded that they found no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns, and that adjacent land in CityplaceManchester is under commercial use.
14. Site plan of development would be required prior to any construction on or use of this site.
Banach noted that the Planning Department provided written notification as well as a copy of the map of the zone change, to all property owners within 500 feet in all directions. Notification of the proposed zone change was sent to the property owner a month and a half prior to the hearing.
Doolittle had no comments.
Attorney Chris Smith, representing Kevin Simms from Downeast Associates Limited Partnership, opposed the proposed zone change on behalf of his client. He noted that on two occasions Downeast has attempted to change the zone from DC to Gateway. On both occasions they were opposed by residents( see exhibit D). Recently Downeast has been negotiating with an undisclosed retailer; final terms and conditions have not been resolved between the two parties. Earlier today an application was submitted for a General Plan of Development under section 5.4.5. of the DC Zone regulations in order to retain the retailer’s ability to locate in the DC zone. The application was submitted much earlier than anticipated due to the Commission-proposed zone change. The proposed retail development does not satisfy all of the
provisions of the Gateway Zone District. The retailer which wishes to remain anonymous will not proceed with the proposed development if the Commission changes the zone from DC to GD. The property would then remain vacant once again and potential loss of tax revenue to the town could occur. The reason for submitting the application was to retain the retailer; the applicant is willing to work with the Commission and staff to achieve as many of the Gateway Zone standards as possible. Downeast respectfully requests the Commission not to proceed with the zone change at this time.
A packet was submitted for the record which contained a copy of the application that was filed, a copy of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development, as well as a letter of opposition to the Zone Change (see exhibit B).
The primary problem that the applicant has with the GD Zone is the grocery use. The proposed retailer would have a large portion of the floor space that would be grocery use. The GD Zone requires the grocery use not to exceed 22,000 s.f.; due to this regulation, the applicant would lose the proposed retailer. If the Commission approves the zone change, the General Plan of Development that was submitted would then be nonconforming. This would pose constraints on the proposed retailer by not allowing them to move their grocery section around within the same building.
Atty. Smith reviewed pages 28-33 of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development, he also reviewed a Development Site Analysis done by Realty Concepts Inc.(see pg.20, exhibit B)
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns. Replies will be in italics.
§ Does Town Manager Matthew Galligan have any knowledge of the above mentioned retailer. Galligan responded that he has worked with Kevin Simms of Downeast Associates in the past; he stated that the fiscal impact numbers that were given sound accurate when calculated by square footage. A connection between Evergreen and this site needs to be considered. Under the Gateway Zone there is good potential, but Galligan supports businesses and would not want to hamper any individual business. Galligan suggested that Mr. Simms should contact him instead of submitting an application at the last moment. He believes that there is a viable
project.
· Has this DC zone ever been used? Banach responded that it has never been used.
· One of the reasons for the zone change was the lack of use of the current zone and to implement more stringent policies.
· The fact that the owner might lose a prospective retailer is not a factor that sways the Commission.
· If the zone change was approved, would phase one be the only phase that would fall under the DC Zone? Banach replied that all phases shown on an approved General Plan of Development would be able to be developed under the Design Commercial Zone.
· Under the Gateway regulations the applicant is mandated to follow the higher standards. The Commission has an option of denying the initial plan of development if they choose, under the DC Zone. The Commission has leverage because they could change the zone to Gateway if the Commission can’t come to an agreement with the applicant on the site and building design details.
· Can we deny it based in architectural design under DC Zone? Banach noted that in the past our Town Attorneys have cautioned the Commission to be very careful when denying anything solely on the basis of architecture.
· Under the Gateway zone, the Commission would have more restrictions on architecture. Banach responded that under the Gateway Zone applicants are mandated to follow certain architectural standards.
· Under the DC Zone, for impervious coverage, if the Commission asked the applicant to modify it to 60 % instead of 90% would the applicant agree to that? The owner of the property as well as the retailer is willing to work with the Commission with regards to open space but cannot meet the 60% requirement.
· How is 90 % impervious coverage consistent with the environmental aspect of the plan, should it be 60 % to make it compatible with the environmental aspect. There is a phase three for future development; the applicant is willing to work with the Commission to provide open space in future phases of development. Galligan noted that this major user should be compatible in appearance with the ambience of the town.
· What about the impact to the residents of addressStreetSmith Street. It is currently a residential area.
· If a general plan becomes a nonconforming general plan, space inside a building could not be moved? Is this correct? Banach noted that historically when dealing with non-conforming uses we have not been as strict as that; small site changes are not a concern.
· There is nothing that binds the user to provide us with a nice design in the DC Zone. Galligan noted that this is correct, but staff should discuss the options with the applicant and hopefully come to an understanding. If an acceptable design cannot be attained under the DC zone, then there is still an option of changing the zone to Gateway. Banach indicated that staff is willing to work with the applicant under the current zone toward a good site and building design.
Craig Stevenson, Town Economic Developer, spoke in support of the application (see exhibit C).
The Public hearing was closed at 10:40 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
Pacekonis made a motion to extend the meeting past 10:00 PM. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Bazzano made a motion to suspend the rules and add agenda items, Choate seconded. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
1. Appl 07-15P, K. F. Properties LLC, request for renewal of a two-year temporary and conditional permit for the Kebalo Electric Company office located at addressStreet175 Wheeler Rd, A-20 zone
Discussion ensued among the Commission members.
· Temporary permit is the only solution for the moment.
· It’s a historic building, Temporary and Conditional permit should be granted
· Number of employees in the building should be limited to family members plus three others.
Evans made a motion to approve the above request with the following conditions:
The permit will expire on 5/22/09, and will have to be renewed at that time.
Refuse from the business cannot be disposed of with residential refuse. Adequate arrangements must be made for business refuse disposal.
The number of non-family member employees is limited to three (full- or part-time). There is no limit on the number of family employees.
Commercial vehicle parking on the street is prohibited.
Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl 07-22P, Quarry Brook Village Phase II – request for special exception to article 4.1.12 and site plan of development for a 4-unit Senior Residence Development, on property located at 972 Pleasant Valley Road, RR zone
Pacekonis made a motion to approve the above request with the following conditions:
Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including a bond in the amount of $2,000 erosion & sediment control bond and a $1,000 detention basin bond must be posted prior to commencing any site work.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.10 of the Zoning Regulations.
A landscape bond in the amount of $5,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of placeCitySouth Windsor.
WPCA approval is required.
The street number(s) must be included on the final plan.
The number of garbage cans and recycling containers is limited to 6 each.
The engineering comments dated 5/4/07 must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
The buffer design must meet the criteria set out in Section 4.1.12.g for the combined buffer and side yard.
Slicer seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
3. 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
Banach gave an update. She noted that the site is almost completely cleaned up; the owner is now taking his equipment off the site. The modular homes are at the edge of site ready to be removed off site. It turns out that there is a concrete pad in the middle of the site that can be used in the recycling operation. Staff are now comfortable if the Commission wants to take action on this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns.
§ Initial concerns with materials being dumped on to direct soil, since there is a concrete pad on site this is no longer a problem.
§ Recommending that a condition of approval be placed that requires a manager to inspect every load prior to unloading of materials on site.
§ Applicant is not creating a traffic condition; he is only adding to it. The impact should be minimal.
Bazzano made a motion to approve the above request with the following conditions:
1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
2. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of placeCitySouth Windsor.
3. All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected.
4. This Special Exception approval is for recycling of scrap metal only. No other materials shall be brought to the site for storage or recycling.
5. If any DEP permits are required for the recycling operation, the applicant must obtain the necessary permits.
6. The existing fire hydrant on the access drive must be tested to ensure that it is in working order or a new fire hydrant added.
7. All deliveries must be inspected by G & S management staff prior to unloading, to ensure that inappropriate substances/materials are not unloaded.
8. A pad is required for unloading of materials.
9. Hours of operation are Monday-Friday 7:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Hours of operation on Saturday are 7:00 a.m.-12:00 noon. These hours of operation are subject to adjustment if noise emanating from the site results in nuisance complaints from neighboring residents.
Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
4. PZC-initiated zone change from Designed Commercial to Buckland Road Gateway one on 55.75 acres of property located at 22 Wheeler Road (46.25 acres), R002 Smith Street (6.8 acres), and R007 Smith Street (2.7 acres), owned by Downeast Associates Limited Partnership.
Bazzano made a motion to table the above mentioned item since an application was submitted. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
5. Appl 07-12P, Evergreen Walk, LLC - request for zoning amendment to Section 5.8 to add multi-family residential use as a Special Exception use under certain conditions in the Buckland Road Gateway Development Zone
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.
· Concerns with the cap of 200 units that could be changed in the future and is not binding on this Commission. It was noted that any sitting Commission can change any zoning regulation at any time.
· Concerns with the upkeep of the units.
· Initial concerns with the generating of school children.
· The new proposal is more mixed use and should generate very few children.
· Concerns with one applicant being able to construct all of the units to the cap.
· Concerns with the density and size of units.
· No limit on the size of the apartments.
· Concerns with open space and how the developer will utilize it.
Evans made a motion to adopt the above mentioned amendment, which is consistent with the Town Plan Conservation and Development that seeks to provide all types of housing to meet the needs of all types of people. The amendment is effective upon publication.
Choate seconded the motion. Pacekonis, Slicer, Kennedy, Choate, Bazzano, and Evans voted in favor. Sullivan was opposed. The motion carried 6-1.
6. Appl. 07-19P, ECHN 2 at Evergreen Walk – Site Development Plan application (Section 5.8.7.1) to construct two medical office buildings, approximately 29,400 sf each. and associated improvements on 4.6+/- acres located approximately 270 feet westerly of addressStreetBuckland Road, and approximately 310 feet southerly of addressStreetDeming Street, Gateway Development zone
Frank Hubeny, Senior Planner, presented the following overview.
o Two buildings, each will be two stories high
o Parking spaces – requesting a deferment of 44 spaces to uses as landscaping instead
o The buildings are mirror images of each other
o Extend addressStreetTamarack Avenue up to the south east corner of the site and build a detention basin
Alan Lamson, FLB Architecture, had the following overview.
o We have stopped extending addressStreetTamarack Avenue at this location, as it is uncertain which buildings will end up where for the moment.
o Currently in discussion with two hotels that are interested in the area to the west of LA Fitness. LA Fitness is looking to expand their facility and will need more space.
o Any connection to utilities that are put in will have to be changed later on with expansion.
o Requesting for driveway and sidewalk connections not to be put in at this time.
Michelle Carlson, P.E. with Fuss & O’Neill, described the site as follows:
ü Level area, flat table, and short retaining wall at rear of property.
ü Drainage will collect on site via catch basins, it will discharge through a small concentrator unit and then to the detention basin.
ü Any future development will also use the detention basin for drainage.
ü Water, sewer, gas, and electric will be extended from the existing utilities that are already on site.
Steve Mitchell presented a traffic report. Traffic using intersection has low volume, foresees no future problems for any roadway systems.
Philip Doyle, FLB Architecture, reviewed the site plan.
John Manners, went over the design of the building. Planning comments have been addressed. The building will have the same look that the first building has. Buildings are visible from all four sides, designed to allow for people to be able to enter building with ease.
Banach had the following Planning recommendations.
Request for site plan approval to construct 2, 2-story office buildings just south of the ECHN office building, south of addressStreetDeming Street and west of addressStreetBuckland Road, Gateway zone. The Commission previously approved a single 60,000 sq ft 3-story medical office building on this site (4-25-06). The current request is for two 29,400 sq ft buildings built in two phases.
Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 60%. In the Gateway zone, the entire project is treated as one lot for development purposes, so the cumulative impervious coverage on the entire 232-acre site will be 21.4% including all development to date plus this application. Proposed building height is 30 feet; 60 feet allowed. placeLot size is 4.7 acres; minimum lot size allowed is 3 acres. Since the entire Evergreen Walk site is a consolidated lot, individual yard setbacks do not apply except around the perimeter of the site; the subject site is surrounded on all sides by other Evergreen Walk property so has no individual setbacks.
This site will be accessed solely from Evergreen Walk’s internal road network, with a southern extension of addressStreetTamarack Avenue. The previously-approved single building included an interconnection via addressStreetEvergreen Way with LA Fitness to the southeast. The applicant has indicated that due to uncertainty over locations of future uses, they would prefer not to make the interconnection at this time.
State Traffic Commission approval has been granted for the entire development as shown on the General Plan, including 650,000 square feet of office buildings.
The General Plan shows office buildings occupying the entire area bounded by Tamarack Avenue, Deming Street, Buckland Road and Cedar Avenue, so this office building conforms with the master plan in that respect. Over time, as the actual buildings are designed and located, the concept locations shown on the master plan are being replaced with the realities of individual client requirements. The parking configuration is different from the General Plan but conforms with the desired Gateway Zone parking objective of distributing the parking around the building rather than having the all of the parking located between Buckland Road and the building.
Sidewalks are shown to be extended along the south side of Tamarack Avenue and along the northern side of the new site driveway, ending at a crosswalk leading to the main entrance of the Phase I building. In Phase II, the sidewalk becomes a central sidewalk between the two buildings. We note that the sidewalk needs to be reviewed to ensure that it does not cross through the handicap spaces as currently indicated on the plan, but rather gets rerouted as also shown on the plan.
The parking requirement for medical office buildings is 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area or 4 spaces per treatment room plus one space per employee, whichever is larger. At this time the plan reflects 5 spaces per 1000 square feet, for a total requirement of 294 spaces. The plan shows 250 spaces and 44 reserve parking spaces for a total of 294 spaces.
Lighting pole height is 24 feet. Luminaires are full cutoff fixtures of the same type used for LA Fitness rather than the shorter, decorative light poles used for ECHN 1 in order to try to minimize what the residents perceive as light spill. There is no visible rooftop mechanical equipment. Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed this plan on April 19 and was satisfied with the design.
The parking lot landscaping requirement for the Gateway zone is 10% to 12% for this site. Proposed landscaping meets these requirements.
A free-standing sign is proposed at the site entrance on addressStreetTamarack Drive. The applicant has indicated that the sign will coordinate with the existing ECHN sign at ECHN 1.
There are regulated wetlands on site. IWA/CC approved the application on May 16 with a bond in the amount of $50,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control measures during construction and a $50,000 bond for stormwater control.
Public water is available in addressStreetTamarack Avenue. Sewer will be extended along addressStreetEvergreen Way. Water Pollution Control Authority approval is required.
There are dumpsters on the northeast and southeast corners of the parking lot, on a concrete pad with screening. The dumpster screening is the same cedar as exists throughout Evergreen Walk.
There was no notification to other towns required as this application is not within 500 feet of a town boundary.
If this site plan is approved, the Planning Dept. requests no additional modifications other than as already noted.
Doolittle had the following Engineering comments.
1. No road connection between addressStreetTamarack Ave by this site and addressStreetEvergreen Way behind L.A. Fitness is shown on the plans. This road connection was part of the previously approved plans for Office Park South. There should be a road connection for traffic circulation, even if temporary. What is the current plan and time frame to permanently connect the roads that have been built at the north, central and southern end of the Evergreen Walk property? At the least there needs to be a temporary gravel connection for pedestrians and emergency vehicles shown on these plans.
2. The previously approved plans for Office Park South showed the extension of addressStreetTamarack Avenue as a boulevard with a landscaped median. Why is this landscaped median on addressStreetTamarack Ave not on these plans?
3. There should be a second access from the parking lot(s) for this development to addressStreetTamarack Ave.
4. There are several small drainage pipes (6”, 8” and 10”) shown on the plans. The minimum size drainage pipe needs to be 12”. This is the case for ECHN and other sites in the area.
5. Provide spot elevations for the bottom of the small basin to the east of the site.
6. Label the sizes and slopes of the drainage pipes from SMH2 to the Vortechs unit and from this unit to the flared outlet to the detention basin.
7. Label the pipes for the roof leaders as such.
8. Provide calculations for the sizing of the roof discharge pipe, rip rap energy dissipator at the outlet and level spreader showing these are sized for the flows from both roofs.
9. There appears to be a conflict between the drainage pipes that cross at the west end of the rain garden in the parking lot.
10. Show the north and east pipes into CB 17 on the Phase 1 plans.
11. The invert elevation for CB 14 does not appear to be correct.
12. Can the grade on addressStreetTamarack Avenue from ECHN to this site be reduced? It is shown at more than 7%.
13. Provide calculations for the 30” culvert for the drainage channel under addressStreetTamarack Avenue. The 5% slope of this culvert is high. This will increase the stormwater velocity to the west and possibly cause more erosion of this channel. Reduce the slope of this pipe as much as possible and add a rip-rap energy dissipater on the downstream end of the pipe.
14. There are details for coconut log and gabion stream bank stabilization in the plans. The drainage channel downstream of addressStreetTamarack Ave is a good place to use these. Where else will they be used in this area?
15. There appears to be a wall along the west side of addressStreetTamarack Avenue to the south of the drainage channel crossing. This needs to be labeled and elevations and details shown if it is a wall.
16. Move the gravel access road closer to the Vortechs unit and the inlet to the detention basin. How will the outlet be accessed for inspection and maintenance?
17. Label the bold line on the west side of the site that is limiting construction.
18. Provide back up calculations for the Vortechs Model 9000 including the designed flow to be treated.
19. Should the Vortech bypass be a 30” or 36” pipe?
20. The size of the rip rap at the detention basin inlet is not specified. The pipe flow calculations have a velocity of greater than 11 fps at this location. This would require standard rip rap. I suggest the pipe slope be reduced to lower the outlet velocity to less than 10 fps and reduce the size of the rip rap to intermediate.
21. I have many questions about the Stormwater Management Report. Elaborate on Section 7.0 Future Development – what future development was planned for the detention basin? Consider making CB-5 a double type CB to reduce the gutter inundation. The Report states the drainage system was designed for a 25 year storm but the intensity flows in the pipe report are between those used by the Town for the 10 year and 25 year storm. Clarify the design storm used. Check the drainage area maps in Appendix B; they do not appear to include all the undeveloped area to the east of the detention basin that will drain there. The Report has
different inlet flows to the placePlaceNameDetention PlaceTypeBasin in the pipe report and Appendix B. Is this detention basin sized to handle the roof runoff from these two buildings? What are the expected water elevations in the detention basin for the different storms for this development and future development? It is not clear how the detention basin outlet flows and water surface elevations were calculated. Appendix B, D and E have different outlet flow and water surface elevation values. What is the expected detention time for the design storm in the detention basin and the duration of the discharge from the detention basin? This basin needs to be designed to hold the stormwater long enough to provide stormwater treatment, reduce the outlet flow and offset the peak discharge so there is no adverse effects such as erosion or flooding on downstream channels or properties. Provide more back-up information to explain the detention basin
calculations and design.
22. A good portion of the proposed detention basin is to be constructed in fill. Details for the construction of this basin need to be included in the plans. Does this proposed basin need a DEP Dam Safety, Repair and Alteration permit?
23. What is the effect of discharging all the roof runoff into the field via a level spreader?
24. The plans show a grass swale detail. Where is this located on the site?
25. Add a perforated underdrain to the rain garden detail at the bottom of the rain garden. This is so they drain if the underlying soils are saturated or otherwise do not allow for infiltration of the stormwater. The rain gardens at L.A. Fitness hold water for extended periods of time.
26. Check for conflicts between the utilities (esp storm drainage and water) and the landscaping and lighting. These need to be corrected.
27. Provide design calculations for the sanitary sewer pump station and pressure main. The long sanitary force main should have clean-outs or access ports at bends and regular intervals for maintenance access. Show these on the plan.
28. Provide at least 2% slopes on the sanitary sewer laterals from both buildings.
29. Check the leader for the note “Conect 1.5” SDR 9 HDPE to 1 length of 6” PVC. It appears to point to the wrong place.
30. What is the reason for the 64’ 8” PVC sanitary stub to the north east and why is this only at 0.5% slope?
31. The detail for the Roof Drain Pick-up needs to include a metal frame and cap if this is in pavement or a concrete sidewalk.
32. This project must be submitted to the WPCA for review and approval.
Discussion ensued among the Commission members with the following comments and concerns: Replies will be in italics.
§ Does the applicant have any problems with the Engineering comments? No, we have the calculations for Engineering that we will add to the final plan.
§ More clarification for the alignment of the road. That alignment is required because of the wetlands area that requires us to make this turn. This road is intended to put electrical straight through but depending on what happens with LA Fitness it may eventually curve.
§ Concerns with previous site plan having a sidewalk connection and this one doesn’t. Within a year we will be under construction with this and our plan is that within a month we will be submitting a revised general plan. We are waiting to see what happens with the residential amendment.
§ Is there a walking path along the wetlands in the general plan of development? There will be on this one; there was none on the previous plan.
§ Is there a time frame on when that has to be completed? We will work on developing it. The result will be about 4800 ft of walking trail.
Bazzano made a motion to approve the above request with the following conditions.
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 $50,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sedimentation control measures and a bond in the amount of $50,000 to ensure establishment of the stormwater structures.
4. A landscape bond in the amount of $20,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
5. All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy.
6. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
7. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of 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. The building street number must be included on the final plan.
10. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
11. All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected.
12. The Town Engineer’s review comments dated May 2, 2007, must be addressed to the Town Engineer’s satisfaction.
13. The water system must be designed as required by the Fire Marshal.
14. The sidewalk from addressStreetTamarack Avenue into the site must be adjusted for Phase II to eliminate any encroachment into parking spaces.
15. A roadway interconnection between addressStreetTamarack Boulevard and addressStreetEvergreen Way must be finalized no later than September 2009.
Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
OTHER BUSINESS:
None
BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings
Evans made a motion to set the subdivision bond for Appl 07-09P, placePlaceNameKilkenney PlaceTypeHeights at $1,181,000. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Evans made a motion to set the subdivision bond for Appl 07-10P, Poulin Subdivision at $5,970. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous
Sullivan made a motion to release the $1,000 landscaping bond for Appl 05-23P, Avery St. Christian Reformed Church. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the $3,000 landscaping bond for Appl 05-66P, Imperial Oil. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the $5,000 landscaping bond for Appl 02-37P Charbonneau Lot 6/7. Choate seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES:
ADJOURNMENT:
Choate made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 p.m. Bazzano seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted:
____________________________
D. Maria Acevedo
Recording Secretary
|